otb,

I've just re-read my previous post to you.
Please allow me to apologise.

I should not have said what I did.

It was simply a reaction on my part.
It was wrong of me to say what I did.

Mia Culpa.

You are entitled to express your opinion.

And just because I don't know any Fabians,
Progressives, or Socialists, does not
mean that you don't. Most of my colleagues
are like myself - our views change depending on
the issues and policies involved. We can be
very conservative
on some subjects.

I firmly believe that a citizen's loyalty should
lie with this country, that we should all
abide by the laws. My family's ethos has always been
to be responsible for ourselves and to co-exist
peacefully with others.

You have nothing to apologize for Foxy.
Some contributors to this forum can try the patience of a saint!
Ignore them...

Dear Suse,

I'm sure that I must frustrate many contributors
to this forum as well.

I'm coming to realise that discussions will be halted
unless we at least try to keep the lines of
communication open. I got of to a bad start with otb.
He surprises me at times with his rational posts.
I'm learning that this can happen. This being a New Year
I'd like to start afresh with him. At least I can
try.

Yes Foxy, I too thought about starting afresh with the more charming contributors to this forum this new year, but then I thought...no!
Good luck though Foxy, and I will try to be nicer :)

Dear Suse,

Of course it takes two to tango as they say.

It may end up being just a case of "One hand
clapping!"

Have a look at otb's recent comment where I
gave a link from Wikipedia on child marriages.
And I cited from Wikipedia that there are
many states in the USA that have child marriages
and elsewhere.
All otb got out of the link was that I did not cite
that child-marriages were
mainly practised by "migrants."
"What the ..." (all over the world)

He got a totally different take on the subject.

It's going to be hard dealing with him, that I can see.
But I'm determined to give it a go.

Dearest Foxy,

Child marriages should be illegal, no matter where: hick US, Muslim countries, Papua-New Guinea, or Oodnagalarby. On principle, it should be opposed, regardless of who is committing it. Don't you agree ?

Domestic violence should be opposed, whether it occurs in Mosman or Cottesloe, or in remote Aboriginal settlements, or in Oodnagalarby, or is perpetrated by Mormons or Muslims, or by left-handers more than right-handers (although as a left-hander, I can't imagine that happening). On principle, it should be opposed, regardless of who is committing it. Don't you agree ?

How come, so often, even when we are discussing religion or terrorism (or a ghastly amalgam of the two), it boils down that we are arguing about women's rights ? Surely women should have equal rights with men in a civilized, open society ? So we should be opposing any ideology which advocates uncivilized, closed-society, practices ? On principle - to hell with hurting anybody's feelings ?

And where are the women defending Muslim women in these discussions ? I await the strident voice of Eva Cox et al. on these issues.

Still waiting.

[No offence is intended against the people of Oodnagalarby in the remarks above.]

Love,

Joe