Thanks for the link, Foxy, it seems to be saying some of the same things as I have been trying to express. Unfortunately, though it is to some extent still pushing a partisan approach which I really don't think is very useful. It doesn't matter what the Abbott Government is doing now, what matters is how we, as a highly integrated global community should be approaching the long-term planning that is required to properly address a common problem.

In other words, look for common ground, not differences. Assuming good faith is essential to do that.

Of course, there are some who have nothing useful or relevant to contribute and being able to filter those out is also important.

Dear Craig,

Yes, I fully agree by all means let's get the
discussion happening - and ignore the pugnacity
to deter it.

Foxy,

A couple of small points you appear to have missed:

1) No where am i holding up any Murdoch publication and proclaimed it to be the way, the truth, and the light --as you repeatedly do for New Matilda, and

2) There is more diversity (to use an in PC buzz-word) of opinion between the staff writers, in any of the the Murdoch publications you named than you will ever find in New Matilda.

Dear SPQR,

To quote the old adage - "Don't pee on my leg and
tell me its raining."

You may not hold up any placards for the Murdoch media
but you certainly keep leaping to their defence -
as your last post clearly shows - while at the same
time you continue to demean "New Matilda."

This is where we differ. I believe that a robust
media is fundamental to a healthy democracy and "New
Matilda," remains fiercely independent and robust
with no affiliation to any political party, lobby
group or any other media organisation. "New
Matilda," is reader-funded. Their articles are
clear-sighted, intelligent and sane assessments of issues.
Theirs is the only coverage that is critical of the
current political narrative of fear.

With shrinking media diversity in this country and huge
changes underway - there are fewer and fewer media
outlets publishing independent minded journalism.

"New Matilda" contributors are a very eclectic and talented bunch
made up of experienced journalists, current and former
politicians, satirists, lawyers,
economists, academics, critical and creative thinkers,
people like Julian Burnside QC, cartoonist
Fiona Katauskas, to name just two.

I guess each to their own. If you prefer living in the
Twilight Zone, where fear and loathing trumps calm
debate and reason, then by all means stick with negating
"New Matilda." I personally prefer calm debate and
reason to fear and loathing.

Dear Poirot,

The technique for removing the dermatological layer from a feline is fortunately not confined to the singular.

Dear Constance,

Yes we all understand the rather base response of attacking when one is cornered but it hardly adds to the sum of knowledge does it.

Here's the rub. I'm sure not everything you have posted is rubbish, in fact there is probably some quite substantive perspectives in amongst it all. However if you do not acknowledge nor apologise for posting hoaxes as fact then everything you have presented must be viewed with suspicion, it is all tainted.

What it forces the reader to do is to background each point you make and that quickly becomes tedious, exhausting and ultimately deemed not worth the effort.

So what choice does a person in your position have? Does one try and bluff it out, hurl slings and arrows so as to take the focus off one's transgressions or do they fess up and set things right? I suppose it depends on the ethics of the person, whether they hold truth to be a virtue or an inconvenience.

The other less pleasant possibility is that somebody might be so irrationally hate filled that they see little wrong, indeed they deem it their duty, to be posting erroneous claims in forums such as this.

So where do you fit in my dear Constance?

As to Leonard Coen I had asked you if you understood the lyrics to Future yet did not see a reply. Perhaps I should have been more specific. What do you make of this line;

Give me back the Berlin wall 
give me Stalin and St Paul

Why is Leonard equating the totalitarianism of Stalin to the authoritarianism of Paul's version of Christianity?

You don't understand irony, do you?