The Forum > Article Comments > Double dating the US and the PRC > Comments
Double dating the US and the PRC : Comments
By Philip Coggan, published 25/11/2013Not to put too fine a point on it, our prime strategic partner would expect us to sink the shipping of our prime trading partner. It should be an interesting moment.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
-
- All
Posted by James O'Neill, Saturday, 30 November 2013 3:32:48 PM
| |
Hi James
It is true what you say. The joys of prodding the rogue knuckle-draggers who baboonize OLO frequently distracts and detracts. Several things have held me back from putting in serious work on OLO articles including: 7-8 OLO articles per day (a la throw it on the big pile)...the fate of articles mainly being drawing 70% of comments from extremists or ad hominen wolves...writing on my own website for the benefit of a serious security-intelligence crowd...and knowing it might be quite destructive to write about some subjects (of expertise) like Aus-Indonesia at the moment. So basically until some of the above conditions wain I'm spending most of my sideline time writing on my own website - Australia by the Indian Ocean at http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/ Cheers Pete Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 30 November 2013 4:06:21 PM
| |
It may be news to the arrogant and dismissive David G that the "village idiot" who is our present PM has three uni degrees, one of them from Oxford, where he was a Rhodes scholar, possibly a higher level of intellectual achievement even than that of the brilliant David G.
Tonyo Posted by tonyo, Tuesday, 3 December 2013 8:31:31 PM
|
If you examine Individual's posts over the past year (and several others like him) a pattern is readily discernible. The first comment usually addresses the topic under discussion. From then on it is a series of ad hominen comments, often completely off topic. It is a pattern too well established to be just by chance. We know from the modus operandi of Operation Mockingbird that certain avenues are followed. Raise a red herring here, attack the critic as a "conspiracy theorist" there; suggest they live in academic ivory towers; have an irrational hatred of the US etc etc. I am sure you recognise it.
The author of the article nominally under discussion actually raised some important points. Nothing in the reported comments of Bishop/Morrison/Abbott on foreign policy issues in the days since would lead one to think that the author has somehow got the wrong idea.
Australia's place in the Asia-Pacific region, our trading patterns on which our prosperity depends, our ill-starred choices in foreign policy (remember 'all the way with LBJ'?) and publicly siding with Israel on UN votes are all topics worthy of serious discussion. Can I respectfully suggest that what you have to say is valuable and I enjoy reading your substantive comments. Don't be sucked into tit for tat trivia. Life is too short and the issues too important.