Discuss the Kelly Gang Unmasked

The Author and his landmark challenge to Kelly mythology
I have repeatedly written that my intention in this blog is not to change the minds of the die-hard Kelly sympathisers, but to provide corrections to the errors, and balance to the arguments made by such people about the Kelly story, so that interested and open-minded readers will be better informed. Hopefully then the people who venerate the horse thief turned Police-killer, Bank Robber and wannabe mass murderer will be reduced to a minimum and the age of the Kelly Icon consigned to history. Kelly himself, and the Kelly Outbreak  will of course never be forgotten, such was its startling impact on the Nation at such an early stage in its history,  but what will be remembered will be accurate history and not mythology.

The futility of trying to educate and change the minds of Kelly sympathizers is nowhere better illustrated than in their responses to the 2012 publication, ‘the kelly gang unmasked   by Ian MacFarlane. This book provides a massive body-blow to Kelly mythology and the Kelly sympathisers are justifiably afraid of it. Its publication  provoked an acrimonious discussion on the Ned Kelly Forum, – a place that declares itself to be ‘the home of the TRUE Kelly gang sympathisers’ – between a tiny minority of open minded Kelly sympathisers who wanted people to read it, and the majority who condemned it out of hand, who proudly announced they would never read it and who attacked anyone who may have defended it, or even its right to have a point of view. In the end various NKF members were expelled and the entire discussion excised from the Forum and further discussion about it banned! No one is allowed to  discuss me or this Blog on that site either!

Absurdly, one of the NKF members then set up a Facebook page devoted to ‘unmasking’ this book that he refused to read.  He was completely out of his depth and quite quickly gave up on his attempt to ‘unmask’ the book, and instead preoccupied himself with attacking me. He now insists that I am the author of that book – but earlier insisted I was the ex-wife of the author –  and therefore attacking me is the same thing as debunking the book. He also maintains that I write all the Comments on this blog, because according to him they all have the same grammar and  spelling mistakes! The wait for his promised explanation of Lonigans gunshot wounds  has now exceeded eight months. He also announced in June 2014 “I have been busy working on other projects, one of which will blow the whole Fitzpatrick Affair out of the water and prove that it was all concocted” Need-less to say nothing ever came of that claim either. 

Another  NKF  member, Lisa, wrote a “Review” of the Kelly gang unmasked for the Iron Outlaw  website, where it remains among other book reviews, such as the one describing J J Kenneallys book as ‘the first true account of what happened in Kelly country ’ (see my review of  The Inner History of the Kelly Gang HERE). In contrast to all the other published reviews that I have seen which give it high praise,  Lisa describes the  Kelly gang unmasked book as ignorant, extremely one-sided and  THE most biased/pro police book I have read yet.’ Theres an air of outrage and indignation thoughout the ‘review’ that Ian MacFarlane could DARE to suggest that Kelly mythology could be wrong! For example she writes “He even questions the fact that Ned and his mother were close?!?”  implying its an outrage to even ask the question about that relationship! But as readers of this Blog would  know, there are indeed good reasons to question that claim, and a reviewer ought to be able to consider the reasonableness of challenging it, and not simply overreact to a challenge to her cherished beliefs. This ‘review’ fails, like the ‘unmasking’ Facebook page fails because they are not attempts to critically evaluate the book but are hysterical over-reactions to the challenges the book contains, and both completely miss the point. 

The entire point  of the book is to challenge and analyse the narrative about the Kelly Gang that has been relentlessly advanced in book after book after book for decades, and to provide  and make the case for an alternative view. It was long overdue and is a groundbreaking publication because this kind of analysis had never been attempted before. 

The allegation that TKGU is ‘biased’ and ‘pro-Police’ is the one most frequently leveled at it.  Captain Jack is critical of the books ‘selective use of facts and its aversion to printing anything that may contradict its hypothesis  a criticism that could just as easily be leveled at the pro-Kelly works. However, in its defense I would say there was no need for it to rehash all the ‘pro-Kelly’ and ‘anti-police’ narratives – they’ve been told and retold in just about every Kelly publication for 130 years, and ought to be familiar to anyone with an interest in the story. Reduced to its simplest, the sympathisers Kelly story is about the bad Police and the good Kellys. Inevitably, to counter that succesfully, at its most simple MacFarlane’s book would have to show the Kelly’s weren’t so good, or the Police so bad.  And that’s exactly what he does.

Importantly though, MacFarlanes writing is heavily referenced, and almost nothing is asserted without original references to back it up. It is packed with factual information and  logical argument  to make its case.

The best review of this book is found on Sharon and Brians Blog at 11 Mile Creek .  It’s the best available because, unlike all of the others it was written by someone with a detailed knowledge of the Kelly stories, Brian Stevenson. He levels a number of criticisms at the book, for example MacFarlanes failure to mention Constable Halls brutal bashing and attempted shooting of Ned when he was 15, but his overall assessment of the book was very positive.   Everyone should read all three parts of his brilliant review.

Finally, it goes without saying that this book should be read by everyone who has an interest in the Kelly story. It really does show up the gaping holes in Kelly mythology, and its blatant distortions and misrepresentations.  And if you discern in it that the author developed a dislike of Ned Kelly, you’ll realize it was for very good reasons : Ned Kelly and his extended family were not admirable downtrodden and persecuted country folk – as portrayed in the mythology – they were a criminal rabble.
(Visited 69 times)

35 Replies to “Discuss the Kelly Gang Unmasked”

  1. Pepperoni says: Reply

    A qreat review. Dee. I love Ian's book because it shows Ned was a con-Artist and not the romantic fool shown last night on channel one.

  2. Anonymous says: Reply

    Another good one Dee. But no wonder the general public continue to believe the myths they are fed about the Kelly story. I saw a doc the other night called Ned's Head. I wasn't bad and I found the forensic work and research undertaken to ID the skull (not Ned's) and the3 skeletal remains (confirmed as Ned's) fascinating. But then up pops dear old Phillip Adams who describes Kelly as a 'naughty saint'. That's what you are up against.

  3. Thanks Spudee, Ive found that documentary on You Tube and as you say its really very good. It was made in 2011 , and clearly identifies the skull thought to be Neds as belonging to some other person reburied at Pentridge. Co-incidentally, the very next day after it was first shown on SBS TV, on September 4th 2011, Bradley Webb published an article claiming something altogether different in regard to the origin of that skull, which he asserts to this day camas from India.Bradley Webbs article is here I pointed this error out to him ages ago as a comment at the end of that article but he has deleted it! I think he is a far greater worry when it comes to educating the Public about Ned than Phillip Adams, given Webbs Iron Outlaw internet site. It so full of nonsense about Ned Kelly – such as the Review of The Kelly Gang Unmasked mentioned in this post – that almost nothing there can be relied on to be historically accurate.

    The documentary itself left me feeling rather sad for Ned. Being hanged and having your head sawn open and your neck dissected is an appalling brutal and inhuman way to treat any person, no matter how bad they might have been. Anyone who wants to watch the documentary can click on this link : Neds Head Even though the detail related to identifying the skull and Neds skeleton is better set out in the book “Ned Kelly Under the Microscope” the documentary captures some of the excitement of scientific detective work and discovery.

  4. How pathetic ! Sympathisers have an opportunity to speak their minds about the book and the author they condemn at every opportunity, the book that is the greatest ever attack on their cherished fantasies about Ned Kelly and do they leap to defend them and take the book head on? No, they instead prove they haven’t the courage to put their money where their mouths are, and cringe in the shadows waiting for the book to go away! I guess it shows that they realise the book has left them without a a leg to stand on…

  5. Anonymous says: Reply

    I really hope none of them do comment now, you are baiting people here! And if you think they are pathetic have good look in the mirror! your underlying intention here is to fight – that's unbelievable ( "come here and fight what I think" ) egging them on almost. I feel sorry for you, the only way for you to get a response from THE PEOPLE YOU CLAIM TOO HATE! is to literally call them out!?… All these sympathisers you constantly ask to go away! Constantly blame for ruining your blog… Yet here you are egging them on acting like your going to care what they think, where in reality you want to fight them. Your being the pathetic one here right now. And to be honest it's bullying tactics.

  6. Thanks for feeling sorry for me but I don’t actually need your sympathy. But I do have to correct you – I have NEVER claimed to HATE anyone, and I DONT hate anyone. Hating achieves nothing constructive or positive as your Icon and Hero more than adequately demonstrated with his hateful plans for murder and mayhem at Glenrowan. What I have is not hate for sympathisers but contempt for the way some of them behave – such as yourself – and for the ridiculous nonsense some of them believe and support. I am not ‘baiting’ or ‘bullying’ anyone but CHALLENGING them to put their money where their mouths are, to put up their reasons for disliking this book, to point out the mistakes and the deficiencies they claim the book contains – but predictably the only response is an attack on me! Maybe you’ve never heard of a ‘contest of ideas’ but thats what this is all about , and its nothing to do with personalities or identity, which is the pre-occupation of so many Kelly sympathisers. Why don’t you just write about the specifics of the Kelly Gang Unmasked that you disagree with? Or do you agree with me that the book has left you without a leg to stand on?

  7. Anonymous says: Reply

    I like your defiance, but its misplaced. your constant need to use bullying and attention seeking tactics to get people talking on your blog is sad. but its interesting the way you justify your comment, you use FACT statements to avoid points and i can only assume you do this because it makes you feel as though you are "winner" for lack of a better word.

    When you actually look at how you talk about the sympathisers, saying that you hate them is not a misquote, its evidence collecting based on statements i have seen you make about them in comments, you don't want them to comment on here any other time… why now? you must be grasping at straws to want their opinions all of a sudden and yes despite your claim YOU ARE BAITING PEOPLE!

    Once someone says something to you on here you just paint them with the same brush, in your mind I MUST BE a sympathiser! I MUST BE one of those people that see Ned Kelly as an Icon! I COULDN'T Possibly HAVE A POINT! Interesting though that use you use the word contempt: the feeling that a person is worthless or beneath consideration…very interesting. specially if your still going to claim your not baiting people to fight with them, i mean just read back over your response to me. dear god you can just assume anything about anyone on here apparently! lol would it be still unfair to suggest anything like, your paranoid (not a personal attack just evidence collecting based on your assumptions of me) But can i ask why you brought up personalities and identity? i don't get it lol whats your point here?

    your BAITING is made even more obvious by your statement: "Why don’t you just write about the specifics of the Kelly Gang Unmasked that you disagree with? Or do you agree with me that the book has left you without a leg to stand on?" BAITING!! and you have just assumed the !@# out of me AGAIN! i can only assume that your just mad that I'm not doing what you want! (talking about the book) that you also assume i have read! because in your mind I MUST BE a sympathiser!
    its sad.

    Again i Hope none of them cave in to your baiting and bullying! and your inability to be called out on your statements yourself! your reply to me makes your "fighting" intentions very obvious! you have not only assumed everything about me which is just derogatory, but confused debate with confrontation.

  8. Anonymous says: Reply

    So what do you disagree with, or have evidence to disprove, what is in MacFarlane's book? That is what this particular article of this blog is about. Debate! Dee has thrown down the challenge – tell us what you find wrong with this book instead of ranting on about hatred, bullying and baiting. I'm sure you must have something!

  9. Anonymous says: Reply

    The biggest problem here is not the book or the debate about the book. It's the fact that when someone has a problem with Dee's approach it's always ignored and it's only because not one you has a good counterpoint.

  10. Anonymous you are once again simply WRONG : I have NOT ignored the fact that someone has a problem with my approach! I have responded directly to it, rejecting the suggestion I am ‘baiting’ people and pointed out what I am doing is CHALLENGING the great mass of Kelly sympathisers who have been given an opportunity right here to voice their particular concerns about a book they have universally condemned. It might not be the response you wanted but I have not ignored your ‘problem’

    But while I am at it I would also ask you to read what a write a whole lot more carefully – now you’re saying i am using the word ‘contempt’ to refer to ‘the feeling that a person is worthless…’ Again you are wrong : I clearly stated that what I have contempt for is some of their BEHAVIOUR and for some of the things they believe. BIG DIFFERENCE!

    And just to make it clear:
    *your statement that I have blamed sympathisers for ruining my Blog is WRONG – my Blog isn’t ruined but going from strength to strength
    *your statements that I have constantly asked sympathisers to go away, that I don’t want them to comment here are WRONG – I am constantly inviting them to participate and to comment, but they rarely do, or if they do they fill their comments with unpublishable vulgarities and personal attacks on named people
    *I have NEVER said I hate sympathisers, you ARE misquoting me and I am certain you will not be able to point to any statement of mine that backs up another WRONG statement of yours
    * If I have wrongly assumed you to be a sympathiser , I apologise, but if you write Posts attacking me I can hardly be blamed for assuming youre one because you’re doing exactly what they do. If it walks like a duck…etc etc

    So who wants to comment on the kelly gang unmasked? Anybody? Or are you just going to ‘like’ newspaper articles about Ned Kellys made of bread tins and uncritically swallow nonsense from the “Neducator’ about John Monash, and about the ridiculous book from Eugenie Navarre?

  11. Anonymous says: Reply

    you can call it CHALLENGE all you like Dee, its not, its BAITING!! and i hope they are smart enough not to get sucked in by your challenging *cough* baiting…

    why in the world would they even bother commenting on here when all they get is attacked by you in other blogs… as far as i can see the NKF, the vault, OI and other individuals are your favorite targets. and if they have done nothing but condemn the book why do you think they want to talk about it, especially with you? lol..the purpose of this seems to have a flaw.

    As far as using contempt, if you don't understand a word remove it! or at least find one that correctly states what your trying to say… when you realize, you will see I'm not the one who got it wrong.

    You have said before these people are responsible for ruining your other blogs and constantly try to do the same here SO.. if that's what they do and all you get from them is "comments with unpublishable vulgarities and personal attacks on named people" then that just proves you are wanting to fight with them over your little gospel – sorry i mean book lol so you have confused debate with confrontation.

    when i say this to you: "saying that you hate them is not a misquote, its evidence collecting based on statements i have seen you make about them in comments" in other words no you have never said you HATE them but its not an unfair statement to suggest it, since you go as far as to constantly call them pathetic, and show them nothing but contempt (there's that word again lol) is this not bullying? i actually state its NOT A MISQUOTE! its evidence collecting!!!! BIG DIFFERENCE!!

    i think your biggest problem is you think every time someone calls you out its a personal attack! and you defend it as such, the only problem you have here is again your trying to use facts to avoid points like: "I am certain you will not be able to point to any statement of mine that backs up another WRONG statement of yours" – and because you want solid evidence to prove i am wrong what you fail to see is you have simply misunderstood me.

    And while you may not have ignored me, you have proved you want to fight with these people that give you nothing but vulgarities and personal attacks – self inflicted attention seeking, baiting… also this statement: "So who wants to comment on the kelly gang unmasked? Anybody? Or are you just going to ‘like’ newspaper articles about Ned Kellys made of bread tins and uncritically swallow nonsense from the “Neducator’ about John Monash, and about the ridiculous book from Eugenie Navarre?"

    how many people have you attempted to belittle here Dee? BULLY! AND BAITING this is not challenging people at all! this is ridiculing people! you contradict yourself here enough times for the both of us! its sad really…

  12. Out of curiosity I looked at a couple of definitions : firstly, you have deliberately misquoted the definition of Contempt that Google supplies, because otherwise you would have had to concede that my use of the word is correct : The definition supplied that you misquoted by leaving out the crucial words ‘or a thing’ is as follows
    'the feeling that a person or a thing is worthless or beneath consideration’ Behaviours and beliefs are ‘a thing’.

    Secondly, central to the definition of baiting is the idea that use is made of something the subject being baited is attracted to, as a lure to draw the intended quarry into a trap. Thus an attractive morsel may conceal a hook or be poisoned….So your use of the word in the context of my blog is again wrong – Sympathisers are NOT attracted to the idea of the kelly gang unmasked, I was not attempting to lure them into any kind of trap, rather, my intention was, and always has been to engage them in a contest of ideas, to test the validity of their claims regarding Kelly mythology, and in this instance the Kelly Gang unmasked. This accords neatly with most definitions of ‘challenge’.

    But I am sure kelly sympathisers will be delighted that you have provided them with a smokescreen to cringe behind, to cover their inability to respond coherently to the challenges the kelly gang unmasked presented to them – such a contrast to the image of their hero striding out of the mist to confront the Police head on!

  13. So what is it about the book that you disagree with, or what MacFarlane has written that is wrong or inaccurate?

  14. My god this is pathetic! You strive so much to point out where i am wrong by misquoting.. you are simply glossing over actual statements where you could point out if i am wrong about you! (that would actually stick to the point!) instead you ignore them completely! because you attempt in every which way to avoid actually defending what you say when you are being a bully and ridiculing people!

    for example: "So who wants to comment on the kelly gang unmasked? Anybody? Or are you just going to ‘like’ newspaper articles about Ned Kellys made of bread tins and uncritically swallow nonsense from the “Neducator’ about John Monash, and about the ridiculous book from Eugenie Navarre?"

    how many people have you attempted to belittle here Dee? BULLY! AND BAITING this is not challenging people at all! this is ridiculing people! you contradict yourself here enough times for the both of us! its sad really… "

    defend this DEE!, how you have belittled, bullied and ridiculed and contradict yourself…your egging on your need to fight with people here! Interesting how you gloss over any bit that proves i have a point, it shows your inability to defend yourself when you get called out! instead you simply ignore it and point out my flaws (but i don't need to defend my intentions, this isn't my Blog!)…do you get now where your getting it wrong?… you only respond to the bits you have the ability to answer!(avoiding points with facts) where by failing to respond or defend things like the quote above you have actually proved i am right about what your doing here. looking for a fight.

    Lure: there is a possibility of a healthy debate.
    Hook: you will never let people have it.

    you instead wait, call it a personal attack – even when it isn't, and/ or throw in something about personalities and identity? which by the way you still haven't explained to me!

    its unbelievable that you say i am providing sympathisers with a smokescreen, since your so handy with google definitions:

    a cloud of smoke created to conceal military operations. very interesting…

    a ruse designed to disguise someone's real intentions or activities. this one would be another one of your pure paranoid assumptions!

    Infact if anyone has a smokescreen here Dee its YOU! your now attempting to hide behind assumptions, misquotes, and ignore the point!

    i would have a hard time defending, baiting and bullying people too especially if my true intentions were to fight with them. also you can't defend why you ask people that give you unpublishable vulgarities and personal attacks to come here! can you see how silly that seems?!

    either defend the point, or say you can't/unable – I really do hate rambling! lol

  15. I completely reject your claim that I ‘will never let people have it’ meaning healthy debate, and that I cant defend ‘why (I) ask people that give (me) unpublishable vulgarities and personal attacks to come here” For one thing, there HAVE been healthy debates ( e.g. The Kelly Vault Controversy ) and secondly, every comment submitted that is free of vulgarities and personal abuse has been published. Every single one. But anyone who is only capable of posting personal abuse and bad language can definitely stay away; such individuals have nothing useful to say and are not welcome, but everyone else is. I have never attacked any individual, but I have called out many of their wrong statements, bad behaviours and broken promises.

    Finally I think you need to accept that I HAVE answered your point, which was the claim that I am baiting people. My answer was to reject that allegation, and I explained why. If you think I am going to give you a different answer if you pretend to yourself that I haven’t already provided you with an answer and ask me the same thing again and again – well you’re wrong.

    Now, does anyone want to discuss the Kelly Gang Unmasked?

  16. P.S. I would be very interested to hear Glen Standings opinion on McFarlanes book. And Kel Gill too… Who knows.. They may become the voice of reason.

  17. DEE!!!! Stop!!.

    Don't tar us all with the same brush. I know your little Spuddee here seems to be the leader of your fan club but I think Fitzy had a point. Your 15th March email seemed to be good humoured and conversational. But then, on 17th March, without provocation (unless you deleted stuff) you suddenly turned. Your first line of 17th March post did seem very "baity" to me.

    And "Spuddee?" And Dee. I like McFarlanes book. It has a worthy space on my Kelly shelf. He has done a very good job and an overdue book detailing the other side of the debate. I reference it frequently. In fact, I would like to hear more from McFarlane.

    And can you please stop sucking the joy out of life? This is not a life or death scenario. Smile. Its an interesting story no matter what. I don't want you to have an annuerism.

  18. Anonymous says: Reply

    See, glossing over points!! You have clearly been called out and now have nothing to say for yourself (or your statements) your Bullying and your baiting for unwanted attention because that's all your little blog can manage!
    You assume people can't debate with you about your little gospel (book) they couldn't possibly NOT WANT TOO!

    Your statements are laced with hidden intentions ( just look at the way you respond to people in the blog comments you mention) it's obvious and it's just wrong!
    Let's hope you find another way to attract support that doesn't involve setting people up, fighting, bullying, and ignoring people's points when your asked why you make certain statements! Not explaining your own statements doesn't me wrong Dee! But it does seem to make you look like a bully with no back up! You have proved you bait people and attack them in the mentioned blog. You sound like a bully there as well! In fact that's exactly what your doing to people who are Anonymous!

  19. I’m sorry whoever you are but I cant make sense out of what you’re writing:

    * ‘baiting for unwanted attention’ ??
    * 'bullying and baiting is “all my little blog can manage’.
    * 'statements are laced with hidden intentions’
    * 'setting people up, fighting, bullying and ignoring peoples points…’
    * ’you look like a bully with no back up’

    Frankly I am at a loss to know how I could write a Blog challenging the Kelly myths that could not be mischaracterised as baiting by someone determined to be offended. And I am certainly not going to be harassed into writing inoffensive blandness to satisfy the demands of such people. So ‘Jane', or whoever you are, call my writing whatever you like – I try to make it challenging, provocative, controversial, interesting, informative, readable, stimulating and appropriate, respectful of individuals but not afraid to call out error, hyperbole, misrepresentation, irrationality, illogic and ignorance wherever I think I have seen it. And I am always ready to be 'called out’.

    So I ask one last time, is anyone interested in discussing the Kelly Gang Unmasked book? If not theres plenty more stuff I want to discuss.

  20. Thanks Mark! We certainly could do with more voices in these discussions. Its a pity that so many read what I write but so few comment.

  21. Anonymous says: Reply

    What the! Seriously now I'm a or a person called Jane???or a Jane, what the hell are you talking about here? not a sympathiser??. Make up your mind DEE!! How many brushes have you got exactly… I'm not determined to be offended if that what your suggesting, I'm simply trying get you to explain your approach to getting comments, your bullying! But now just intentionally avoiding statements where I make a point and instead ramble!!! I'm also not the only person to suggest you have baited people in these comments, honestly I don't get it, you can call people out, but we can't call you out it seems!

  22. Anonymous says: Reply

    See what I mean!! It's like you only "hear what you want to hear" so to speak it's unbelievable! Lol

  23. Um, let me see….No, I don’t see what you mean. Ive taken Marks submission as a comment, and I thanked him for it. I am sure if he had an issue with my response he would let us know.
    But while I am at it, heres the definition of Pathetic I had in mind when I used that word to describe sympathisers responses to my Post about the book so many of them love to hate “miserably inadequate'

  24. Anonymous says: Reply

    miserably inadequate.
    "he's a pathetic excuse for a man"

    You don't see what you do, do you? You think this is ok? You can just say what ever you like apparently! And it doesn't matter if someone has a problem with it cause you just ignore it and start talking about something else! The first thing this person says to you is that your comment was "baity" AM I STILL WRONG? But you ignore it because it makes you wrong! Funny that your baiting and bullying tactics are very clear to others As well, but you have nothing to say other then it's simply not true, where infact it's very clear and you continue to do it here!

  25. OF COURSE I can say whatever I like! This is MY Blog! And can you please STOP saying I have ignored your complaint, because I addressed it long ago. Your problem is you disagree with my answer, which is something else. And frankly, its ridiculous to suggest I am bullying people when they visit this Blog of their own free will and choose, in their own good time and whenever and wherever they want, to read whatever I have written. It would perhaps be a different thing if I went to THEIR Blogs and did the same thing. But if you think you’re being bullied and want it to stop, don’t keep coming back for more.

    And once again, I have to correct you : I described as ‘pathetic’ – meaning ’miserably inadequate’ – the sympathisers RESPONSE to my Post.

    So enlighten us all, have you read the kelly gang unmasked?

  26. Anonymous says: Reply

    Your answers are now predictable! And more and more obvious where you avoid points… How can you correct me on a definition YOU HAVE USED! I simply copied your google search so you could understand you were still being a bully STILL calling them pathetic! NOW YOU HAVE CHANGED YOUR MIND ON WHAT IT MEANS gee Dee pick a path and stick to it!!! YOU BULLY people constantly just look at the Beechworth one you mentioned! It's sarcasm, bullying, baiting and belittling! People all through those comments!

    I think the reason why you got so nasty about the fact no one has commented about the book, is that you have mentioned a few time through your blog you were "holding off" so to speak (my own words). now you have done it and it's died in the arse, your mad just cause no one cares! (At least that's how it looks doesn't it) so instead you try to bait them to speak, lure them in with your nasty tactics. and even when people that seem to follow your blog say something to you about your baity comment you still can't see it! Are you just a bully??? and is this blog just a hate campaign?? Cause it sure does seem like one

  27. Actually you ADDED to the definition, changing it to something else, and thats why I had to correct you. My use of the word referred to their RESPONSE not to any individual as you continue to erroneously insist. But yes, I called the sympathiser response to this Post ‘miserably inadequate’ ( the meaning of ‘pathetic’ ) and you call that nasty? A hate campaign? Bullying?

    Maybe you’ve never seen a real hate campaign or read what a REAL BULLY would write, so heres an example for you:

    ‘Any person aiding or harbouring or assisting the Police in any way WHATEVER or employing any person whom they know to be a detective or cad or those who would be so depraved as to take blood money will be outlawed and be declared unfit to be allowed human burial, their property either consumed or confiscated and them theirs and ALL belonging to them EXTERMINATED OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH.’

    Now THATS a Hate campaign! And no koala stamps for recognising who wrote THAT nasty tirade! ( And I cant help noticing that he planned to deny to his opponents the thing he later asked from them for himself – a decent human burial )

  28. Anonymous says: Reply

    Well, see what I mean! Seems I'm right if you can't explain yourself once again! You have accused me AGAIN of being someone else! And now can't justify your assumption! Or explain it! Just like why you brought up the personalities and identity thing before…

  29. If you had been following this Blog closely enough you would remember someone using the pseudonym ‘Jane' challenged me in much the same way as you are, so thats why I wrote “Jane, or whoever you are’. Mark seemed to think you might be Fitzy but I don’t really care who you are or what your name is except one has to guess which ‘anonymous’ is making each post. Fitzy thinks I write ALL these comments, so really according to him I have just been having a fine old pretend dialogue with myself it would seem! What fun!

  30. Anonymous says: Reply

    Interesting..dialogue? You wouldn't happen to be an writer would you?

  31. Anonymous says: Reply

    Yes I have read that, seems you gave that person a good serving of your sarcasm and bullying attitude as well Dee… Honestly why? Because that person called you too? It's just you being nasty because you can't explain yourself… Wait for it though… Your about say BUT I HAVE! But you haven't! you said you call it challenging ITS NOT and even when someone else points it's out to your still going to use that excuse to justify your bully tactics! How Is it ALREADY EXPLAINED? It's not! you just have nothing to say for yourself…. Talk about being caught out on true colours!

  32. ok. Lets talk about The Kelly Gang unmasked.

    I would have liked to have seen more detailed source notes I must admit. But what is there does seem to check out. A lot of Ian's points about the Police are good and echo my own evolved thinking through the years. And one point that has always bugged me and that Ian projects magnificently is that Ned, despite his protests to the contrary, really didn't give a shit about his Ma's predicament. He was happier larking around rather than help on the selection. This has always sat uneasily with me. McFarlane and Morrissey both articulate my views on this aspect. But. y'know, these blokes were also young and impressionable and should've been allowed their moments to let off steam. But not at the expense of their Mum, other neighbours who were affected etc.. Ellen and the younger girls needed their brothers on deck. But Ned, Jim and Dan had more exciting shit to do.

    Physically, the book is bound and packaged well. I like the front cover artwork. It's lurid and does it's job effectively. I put it up there with McQuiltons The Kelly Outbreak.

    McFarlanes discussion on George King was something that needed to be said too. Again, after reading that Kelly thrashed King and sent him on his way, way back in Kenneallys work when I was a kid, I was forever wondering about Mr. George King. It all pretty much remained unsaid until The Kelly Gang Unmasked by McFarlane arrived.

    And that's part of the reason why I like this book. It gave me something new to think about and an angle to approach the Kelly Story I had only taken baby steps in. (albeit on my own slow evolution as I got older and more questioning..) Perhaps McFarlanes book is the Kelly book others feared to write? Too left of centre.. Too confronting… But I'm glad he did.

    MP. SA.

  33. Thanks Mark. But what took you so long? Ian Jones could have written this book if he hadn't been hypnotised by his own sentimental attraction to Ned the romantic hero. Maybe in the course of his researches he developed a sense of indebtedness to the local identities who befriended him and he couldn't bring himself to do anything other than devise an explanation that gave them what they wanted. In so many places he was brilliant I struggle to make sense of how at others he went so far off into the wacky fringes.

  34. Thanks Mark. But what took you so long? Ian Jones could have written this book if he hadn't been hypnotised by his own sentimental attraction to Ned the romantic hero. Maybe in the course of his researches he developed a sense of indebtedness to the local identities who befriended him and he couldn't bring himself to do anything other than devise an explanation that gave them what they wanted. In so many places he was brilliant I struggle to make sense of how at others he went so far off into the wacky fringes.

  35. Yes., I have time for McFarlanes book. I like it in a lot of ways. But that doesn't stop me liking Ian Jones or John McQuilton or Charles Osborne, Keith McMenomy, Brian Carroll, Keith Dunstan, Alex Castles, Justin Corfield, etc.. I must be (GASP) a reasonable bloke, happy to examine all view points..

Leave a Reply