Mil-ob is clearly clutching at straws:

* More personal abuse,
* A quote deliberately taken out of context,
* Unfounded accusations of anti-Chinese racism,
* A belated 'discovery' that my vote in the recent state elections was not high.

Of course, just as Christopher, Bugsy and Agronomist have failed to respond to my challenge to show why my reasons for standing as a candidate were unsound, I won't be holding my breath waiting for mil-ob to do so either.

---

Mil-ob ranted, "dag avoids entirely Prince Philip's long record of repeat racist insults, preferring instead to stick up for the 'poor, oppressed' doddering git."

Funny that I can't find my own words in here. I certainly don't remember describing Prince Philip as 'poor' and 'oppressed'.

And if Prince Philip is guilty of having made racist insults, let's see the evidence and let's discuss what bearing any of that has on the validity of his views on population.

---

Do tell, mil-ob: where have I misrepresented you?

And please try to show me this time with my own words and not the contents of your own lurid imagination.

I'd normally advise some kind of therapy to someone so afflicted, but it's clear that James Sinnamon is beyond help. It's a syndrome of uber-sophistry apparent in most of his despatches to many others in this forum too; he's pretending to be magistrate in some kind of pedant's courtroom.

You can hardly be unaware that this ploy has already been tried on me many times before, can you, mil-ob?

Just at the point, where it seems to me that I have won the argument I find myself diagnosed as mentally unbalanced.

To be fair, there seems a slightly original variation on that ploy on this occasion.

Instead of being told to 'get help', I learn that I am 'beyond help'.

Now, how about proving to others, that this is not just an attempt to extricate yourself from the seemingly impossible logical bind that you have got yourself into by responding substantively to the points I have made in my previous posts?

Yes, just ignore them James - they've got nothing on you. Yes, you've won an obvious, resounding victory James. Congratulations!

Say hi to the goldfish for me too while you're celebrating that rare, lofty superiority of your logical clarity and mastery of evidence from public discourse and scientific investigation.

[...shivers...]

I didn't think mil-ob would respond to my arguments.

Is anyone surprised?

---

In the second sentence of the third paragraph in my previous post, the words 'to be' are missing. My apologies. It should have read:

"To be fair, there seems to be a slightly original variation on that ploy on this occasion."

I'm no fan of those in england and look forward to a new flag in Oz devoid of that thing in the corner.

However, I do respect the fact that young Harry Winza, son of Charlie Winza, did come out and say, see here this my mate in the chair with no legs. He lost em to red chinese munitions.

And the red chinese say, human rights is not to be connected to trade.
And some ugly australians say, human rights are not to be connected to trade and australia doesn't need to have a bill of rights, or a new constitution with same enshrined within.

Those who are supportive of the rights of the beijing war criminals and human rights abusers should attend a human rights conference and see first hand and hear first hand of what goes on in red china. Then, imagine themselves in a role reversed position. Just absolutely clueless some people in australia. They care for nothing other than themselves and their own if they can profit at the expense of others then all the merrier.