Foxy,

I agree.

I must say...I have heard many times refugees being referred to as "illegals" by members of the Liberal Party...each time I heard it, I always sat up and took notice because that termination was inappropriate - especially coming from members of parliament.

Severin, you really need to read what is written properly before shooting your mouth off. You accused me of being pedantic when I pointed out that "immigration" is used on its own twice as frequently as with "illegal". I didn't deliberately leave anything out. The term "aliens" was only used once.

The point which eludes you is that both sides are talking past each other. One sees the issue in terms of refugees, the other in terms of immigration. The significance of the use of "illegal" in that sense is that anyone who tries to migrate without proper permissions is illegal. If you approach it from the position of immigration it's not villification at all, just a statement of fact.

Another point that seems to elude you is that explaining to you what someone, or a group of someones, thinks is not the same thing as agreeing with them. I can separate my ego from the subject. I don't try to put words into their mouths.

I actually prefer the term "asylum seeker". It's the half way position and I think the most neutral.

Why you seem determined to villify me at the same time as holding yourself out as a model of tolerance is beyond my understanding.

I had reached my post limit so had a '9 hour' wait. During that time I felt that perhaps it was unnecessary to take my comments further, even though I wanted to respond to you Forrest.

Given that this topic now has added posts...., I feel compelled to make further comment. Funny that..

"What a shame to see so much energy and passion put in to missing GrahamY's point in his article."

This is a very unfortunate remark. It unilaterally concludes that one is unable to grasp the tenet of a post/article.

A finding quite astonishing coming from a poster with a track record of attention to detail! Yet Forrest;-you have failed to understand WHY 'energy and passion' were necessary.

I need to make it very clear that I was not disagreeing with the message in it's totality-I WAS critical of terminology within that message and what it showed.

I remain critical- even more so now, given the latest post.....s!

Perhaps it might be better to finish.......at this time at least, by expressing my strong concern at the glaringly apparent situation here;-that an article writer must not be subject to any negative criticism if that article writer owns the site.

What else is there to conclude?

This is a discussion forum! Views expressed are supportive or critical. It is the nature of the forum beast.

But not if you own the site.Then you can use that ownership to attack...vilify!!....criticise? posters who have disagreed with you/your article!

So? discuss/support/disagree all you like-with one exception; where you can do the first two, but not the last.

It is absurd and very sad.

@ Ginx and Severin (in afferbeck lauder),

Responding in chronological order to queries with respect to my opening statement that "What a shame to see so much energy and passion put in to missing GrahamY's point in his article.", first to Severin, who says:

"If I understand your previous post correctly,
you are saying that there is no point to Graham's
article. I posit this because of your links to two of
your own authored posts on completely different topics."

No, I am not saying there is no point to Graham's article. The point of his article is that he is reporting the result of a survey of responses as to what constitute 'top of mind' issues among intending voters. His focus has been upon the (to OLO users) seemingly unexpected terminological preference for the use of 'immigrants' among a sub-set of intending voters that might have been expected to prefer the term 'illegals'. This sub-set he reports as comprising only 10% of respondents. He then gives his interpretation as to what this perhaps unexpected preference for terminology may mean for voting intention.

The only alternative title that I can see that he could have given his article, based on this 'What the people want' report, would have been 'Immigration will be an election issue'. We all know that there is a bi-partisan consensus NOT to debate immigration, probably none better than Graham with his acknowledged Liberal Party affiliations. If he had titled it 'Illegals ...', or 'Boat people ...', or even his own preference, 'Asylum seekers ...' (terminologies NOT favoured amongst the responses) he would doubtless have been accused of beating up or side-tracking the issue.

The links to posts of my own to two articles dealing with the income quarantining issue are there not so much for self-promotion (as healthy as you may see that being), but to suggest at least one issue that perhaps should be a 'top of mind' one for the other 90% of respondents of whose concerns we are left uninformed.

Sorry, Ginx, out of words this post.

TBC

More deliberate, premeditated lies from the Loony, Left, CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0bqQetlgJ4

Graham Young's article & comments were written with finely, nuanced, precision language so as to be scrupulously fair, reasonable, moderate, middle of the road, stuff, but the PC, Lunatic Fringe Marcusians, have as their First Commandment or Golden Rule.

1, Ruthless, Relentless, Criticism.

PhD & Doctorate historians have written well researched books, articles, documentaries on the subject of the PC, Thought Police, who at the "Frankfurt School" invented "Multi/Cultural & Economic Terrorism".

Former Communists have admitted publicly to using this Perversion to destroy Modern Western Capitalist Democracy.

http://www.reich4.de/Begriffe/sittlichkeit/?lang=en

Since the "Iron Curtain & Berlin Wall" fell all of the secret police archives have been available & studied, including instructions from Moscow KGB to Communist Party members in Australia & everywhere else.

All the necessary evidence is available to support a prima facie case of treason, against All CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialists, who form the far left factions within the Red/green/getup/labour Communist Coalition, who have infiltrated Politics, Bureaucrookracy, Academia, Judiciary & Journalism.

If the incoming TA Conservative Coalition government does not act swiftly to remove these "Alleged" criminals From positions of Power & Influence, they too will be "One Term Wonders".

Many of these scum are wealthy, seizing all their assets with "proceeds of crime" legislation would do wonders for the budget black holes they have created.

Dear Forrest

Someone who wrote in their article on the importance of words? First GY tried sleight of hand:

>> Yes, the Liberal respondents often used the word "immigration" and "illegal" together, but that is what they see it as. <<

It is defamation. Well, would be if refugees has some political clout.

Then went on to say

>> I don't think I've every heard John Howard use the term "illegal alien" - that's US terminology <<

Suggesting I search for usage of "illegal alien" by J Howard. To what end? We (Australian public) are aware of his consistence use of the word "illegal" in front of "immigrant". It is nothing short of deliberate slander. GY's defence of deliberate skewing of language is contemptible. And its effect on myself and other readers, was to lose any point he was trying to make.

Omitting the most common adjective uttered by neo-conservatives (I don't include all the Libs, having fond memories of Petro Georgiou) and then vilifying those who deign to point out this glaring omission?

On Tony Abbott's own website he refers to boat people as "illegal immigrants". Indicating how entrenched this language has become.

Ginx and I are entitled to an apology for being lectured and personally vilified by the editor of OLO.