I thought Chrys Stevenson should have been adequately humbled the last time she attacked Jim Wallace. It was proven she had major inaccuracies in her piece on the ABC Religion website. She is lucky she wasn't charged with libel and defamation.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/09/23/3324270.htm

There was one, single error which I happily retracted and apologised for unreservedly - which is a lot more than Jim has done for the nonsense he's spruiked over the years! Jim claimed many inaccuracies in my piece for ABC's Religion and Ethics but, as you will see from my comment on his 'right of reply' piece, every thing said in my article is linked to the evidence. I stand by my article.

Yes, there are far too many shamelessly linking a particular ideological or extremely odious wheelbarrow to the, never ever repayable, blood sacrifices of Anzac. (Australia and New Zealand army corps.)
Of particular merit and valour, those that occurred in our name, along the Kakoda trail.
If I remember my history, the very first Anzac, were to a man, volunteers?
As for Bressington?
I'm quite partial to a good conspiracy theory; not that hers are in any way cogent or credible; just ridiculous and risible?
In any good conspiracy, there is a genuinely competent leader heading up the action, who knows exactly what he/she want to achieve, and exactly what needs to be done, and by who, to achieve it?
Which is a great deal more than one can claim for virtually any Australian parliament, or the absolute plethora of self serving, squabbling sand pit politicians, who populate them?
Rhrosty.

Perhaps the best way to settle truthfulness surrounding Jim's controversial tweet is to allow him to offer his version alongside the reality.

As he tells a national T.V. audience, he'd only been on Twitter "seriously" for one week. Except he actually began using Twitter 14 months earlier on Feb. 3rd, 2010:

Note the 3:45 mark wherein we find this claim and a screenshot of his introductory tweet upon which the date is clear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7E2Ouyg8co

As for those "twitter activists" waiting to pounce...

Ann Bressington is right about Agenda 21.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sES6_OXPwOU

Some people suffer cognitive dissonance and find it impossible to connect the dots,but that should not justify their ignorant abuse of truth seekers.

I appreciate - and certainly agree with - the thesis of this article: that the commemoration of Anzac Day should not be usurped to push another barrow altogether. It was well-put and certainly something that bothers me quite a bit. How many times to we hear claims that the Anzacs fought for this or that? How often do we have veterans corroborating these claims?

Ultimately, at least in the case of the First World War, they were fighting an imperial cause. They fought because they were a part of the British Empire and the powers that sat at the top of that Empire said we were at war. They were fighting for ideals: at no point did the landing at Gallipoli or the struggling for inches of ground in the fields of Belgium and France safeguard our future. They did, however, indicate that we were willing to fight for what we believed in, and we were willing to lay down our lives for those who believed what we did. Individual men (and boys) may have fought for even greater ideals; officially, our reason for going to war was probably somewhat dimmer.

Later wars were possibly more justified: certainly, after we declared war on Japan in response to their aggression against our American friends, it became necessary for our boys to fight to defend our own shores. And, once again, they rose to the challenge. They probably didn't have gay marriage on their minds. They probably didn't have vaccination on their minds. They did, however, demonstrate a desire to save Australia from what was perceived as a threat to our way of life. And that is commendable.

My only concern in the article - and a source of a little disquiet - is the way in which, towards the end, it almost commits the crime of which it accuses Bressington: using the Anzacs as a political tool to push a particular agenda. Not quite, but on a lazy reading it could almost seem that way.