Loudmouth,
I wasn’t attempting to defend anyone. I was just hoping you might read some of your own words to yourself. Can’t you see the insults and ad hominem you’ve emitted? They’re weren’t subtle.

Thanks for the link to Dillon’s article.

Well, Dan, Rainier and I and our mutual slagging match go back some years, so I am used to his way of 'arguing', his shifting of the goal-posts whenever the ball gets too close. I'll stick by what I wrote:

"Dr Dillon has simply pointed out that racism certainly exists in Australia, in many forms, but none of those need drag Indigenous people down to the level of powerless victim: we don't have to buckle in the face of adversity. I fullly agree with him.

"In fact, the oppressor wins if people give in - isn't that so ? So the last thing we should ever contemplate doing is advising Indigenous people to give in, to policy or to history."

Rainier may try to shift the discussion, for example, to a demand that Dr Dillon put forward his solutions to all of the problems of Indigenous people - when that clearly was not the subject of Dr Dillon's article. And then, when this was pointed out, to shift to a personal attack, using the most despicable slurs which he (and, I'm sure, Aka) know very well are extremely hurtful - which is what Rainier meant them to be, of course.

In other words, an attempt to 'win' an argument by destroying one's adversary rather his or her argument. In my view, a person who does that, and does it as viciously as Rainier does, is either evil or an idiot.

And 'crazy' ? Read again how, in one post, Rainier praises Col Dillon, and then a few days later, attacks him for working as a policeman in Bjelke-Petersen's Queensland, with a rant against cops. Tell me that doesn't verge on 'crazy' ? Again, not to mention grossly insulting of a fine Indigenous exemplar, one of the few who had the courage to actually ruin their careers by confronting Bjelke-Petersen.

To repeat, Rainier seems to believe that he is some sort of victor when he is 'simply insulting other people and bombarding them with ad hominems, a sure sign that someone has lost their way in a discussion'.

Thank you,

Joe

Rainier, I am not afraid to name the activists as you suggest, you can see for yourself who they are if you pick up any Indigneous publication. Given their fragility (much like your own) I think you know the outcome if I were to name them - I don't have time to go to court.

Now the comments for my latest drum article has closed (where I notice Aka mader her usual senseless comments), but the ABC have placed the article on another site. I will give you the link and perhaps you and Aka go there and do what you do best. Now if you do decide to address my arguemnts as opposed to attacking me, just let me know first so as I can prepare for the shock.

http://www.abc.net.au/indigenous/stories/s3465847.htm

Rainier is now doing an 'Aka' when states "He is totally at odds with the knowledge and perspectives of the majority of scholars in the field of Indigenous studies, and knows it" which again suggsts to me that you and Aka are one and the same. Your logic of the 'majority must be right because they are the majority' is very weak but is the strongest argument you have. It is because of the view held by the vocal majority that keep Aboriginal people at the lowest rung on the social ladder. Why do you wish to keep them there Rainier/Aka? Significant change often comes from the minority. However, if you able to provide a good argument that supports what you and the majority beleive, then I am happy to hear it. You have had plenty of opportunity to do so but have not and preer to attack me. Mmmm, your reference to me as "Dr Coconut" tells a lot more about you than me. According to your philosophy I should not be hurt, upset, etc. and I guess a vicitm of - wait for it - "lateral violence" Sorry to dissapont you, but I am in fits of laughter. Thanks.

Rainier

I find it interesting that you called Anthony "Dr Coconut"?

The term is generally used to denigrate someone who appears 'black/brown' on the outside but who has the audacity to say something that is out of alignment with, and therefore contradicts, the precious 'party line' views of a small minority group seeking to retain their 'special separationist status' within a majority 'white' population - and is therefore considered to be 'white' on the inside, rather than 'black' on the inside!! "How dare Anthony suggest that special help should be given on the basis of need, rather than on the basis of race or preferred identity"!

In the same vein, I wonder what derogatory term you would use to describe someone who was 'white' on the outside' and 'black' on the inside - I certainly cannot think of one, can you?

I wonder what would have happened to Andrew Bolt if he had used the term 'coconut' - would it have been seen as a 'racial slur' - or a compliment?

Fortunately, it seems that Anthony is rather 'Teflon Coated' in his reaction to insults! Indicating by example that 'offence cannot be given, only taken' and when an offence is 'offered' and rejected it returns to the one who 'offered it'. As the Buddha said, when asked why he never took offence, "when someone offers you a gift, and you refuse to accept the gift - who has the gift" - perennial wisdom indeed.

Anthony, enough of the neurotics. I repeat - I am not Rainier. Your fixation on the idea that I, or Rainier use another pseudonym makes me wonder - what are the other names you use?

I do note that you fire up at any opinion that differs from yours and display a very negative and rather nasty style of retaliating. This saddens me as I hoped that, from reading some of your earlier work, you would learn more and become less judgmental and more inclusive and understanding.

I hope that you will one day succeed in achieving your sense of connectedness and contentment.