David Jennings ...

Report me you smug fool!

The people who would judge would do so fairly and without the closed mind you exhibit. They'd also be dealing with you and all your mates as well.

I doubt any of you would welcome the exposure ... and I'd make sure it was pretty comprehensive and extensive.

It would start with ... this display of your tolerance

'Keith's comment is actually very indicative of the intellectual poverty of the racists. Kaith doesn't want to answer for racist white Australians - fair enough. But then he suggests that Nazeem should share his views on women etc. Why? So that Nazeem can reflect the "Muslim" viewpoint? Keith also suggests that Indians and Muslims don't enrich Australian society. Really?? A lot of them hold down good jobs, pay their taxes and obey the law. Thats fine by me. Keith also fails to mention the number of Indians who apologised to Andrew Symonds when he was in India. You have to tell the whole truth in a debate.'

followed by

CJ's classic tolerance...

' Keith's comment is the typically disingenuous racist dross we've come to expect from him. He doesn't want to answer for racist 'white' Australians because he's one of them.'

And boy you'll both have some talking to do to explain away your attitude to CJ and CJ's previous posts remarks which mirrored my position.

So go ahead ... make my day.

ps ask 'suck it up' if she'd particularly like to be included? Do it off-line of course.

I think that they are entitled to take issue with some of the things you've said here. Particularly that you said some things that could be regarded as pretty offensive and then later you suggested that you were baiting people.

Lucy,

You are dead right ... and I'd welcome them to take issue with my opinions.

But

they don't ... they merely are critical of me personally in their comments.

In the past I've often given CJ the opportunity to correct his habit of making personal attacks ... whenever we've differed. Now I don't bother. It's standard for him in any thread he enters. Sadly it is a very poor example for impressionable youngsters.

Please do take note that I have only ever responded to invective with invective.

I've tried the reasonable approach, as I did with David Jennings on this occassion, but it makes absolutely no difference. Nor does presenting logical and supported evidence in any sort of dispute with these types. They just keep on their original tack, no matter how much evidence or argument is presented. Often they'll lie or change the meanings of words and statements to support their debunked criticisms.

I taunt, not bait, them with their failings. You are right though. I shouldn't taunt them ... but it is really funny ... from where I sit ... so for both of us and as it is a poor example to others ... I'll stop.

I do however, as you will come to see, reward respect with respect ... just as I fling personal abuse in reaction to flung personal abuse. I'm consistant ... but often I do offer compliments without provocation. I guess I'm usually just reactionary and as much as I want to bite my tongue, I simply cannot ignore much of the stupidity, that passes for intelligence, that I encounter in my life nowadays.

I've stood up against the stupidity of dogma all my life and at 57 I don't think I'm going to stop ... unless I happen to find some sort of rustic uncomplicated pit stop in todays insane race towards sameness and security.

Both are impossible aims.

Solo ocean nights and the canals of France hold increasing allure.

beuna suerte mujer joven

Keith

Bon voyage!

Why thank you Severin. That was noble.

And since it is normal for those who are remaining behind to wish well upon those of us going I can only wish you could join me in my truely noble endeavour.

I sincerely hope that you can in the future overcome any impediments that may prevent you from doing as I.

buenas noches

Goodbye Edward Smith