The Forum > Article Comments > Thoughts on the plebiscite > Comments
Thoughts on the plebiscite : Comments
By Michael Thompson, published 24/8/2016Opposition to a plebiscite basically assumes that the public will vote against gay marriage, so a plebiscite shouldn't be held because the public have no rights in this matter.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Page 18
- 19
- 20
-
- All
Yes, I’m aware that you don’t like me. You remind me often enough. I don’t have much of a problem with you, though.
Thanks for explaining why you don’t like me:
<<At the very beginning I, and several other contributors herein were in the process of discussing some matter that touched upon the criminal law, and up popped A J PHILIPS and waded in without any thought to what others had contributed on the matter.>>
In what way was my wading in thoughtless or uncouth, as you have implied it was? You make it sound like I rudely barged in.
There are no exclusive discussions on OLO. Everyone is entitled to wade in on a public forum such as this whenever they wish, so long as they remain reasonably polite, and I was exceptionally polite in that instance.
Here was my comment: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6635&page=0#200254
Doesn’t exactly resemble the picture you painted now, does it? Your recollection of that fateful day is as inaccurate and defamatory as the re-enactment of Homer Simpson’s alleged sexual assault was:
http://youtu.be/m-vuVjiF8Jk?t=88
You become highly emotional when someone counters your opinion, which causes you to then interpret a situation very differently to how it’s actually playing out in reality.
<<Recklessly, I engaged with you in order to explore a more pragmatic approach to the issue...>>
Oh please. Don’t make out now as if you sincerely and naively tried to converse the big bad AJ who, unbeknownst to yourself, had more sinister plans in mind.
<<What happened next I forget…>>
See the above link. Now everyone can know.
<<…but ever since that first encounter, you've quoted this text, and that text and what some eminent Social Scientist had stated, and so on.>>
What is wrong with that? Can you point to an occasion in which my doing so was inadequate or inappropriate?
<<So when an unknown theoretician appears and starts lecturing a former Squad Sergeant on how to do his job…>>
At no point have I lectured you on how you should have done your job.
You too are simply engaging in character assassination here.