You're right, Hasbeen, what the world needs is a good war to bring out the best in people...intestines, livers, spleens...

Steele, he's not a caricature, he's an old fella who's desperate to have someone pay attention to him. He lived his life by a set of rules that don't work any more and he's struggling to cope with the idea that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

It's a crying shame that in our social structure there isn't a more useful role for him than screaming imprecations into the void, hoping that some other miserable old bugger will scream back.

Craig,

I applaud your desire to better yourself, however, flaunting your undergraduate reading to diagnose someone else unfavourably based on a few lines in a blog is school yard level antics, and demonstrates that your level of maturity is no better than his. It is not surprising when he thinks you are being a bit of a dick.

That Everard's contributions consist entirely of a series of polemics devoid of any new information or insight makes him a great favourite of such left whinge blogs such as the New Matilda and Independent Aus where journalism goes to die.

Hello Shadow Minister,
I've put up with a great deal of abuse from ttbn and his fellow travellers over the time I've posted on OLO.

In responding, I'm not "flaunting" anything except my opinion, based on some knowledge - mostly not gained from my formal studies. If you don't like that, you're entirely free to hold that opinion, but please don't try to justify it with ttbn's hurt feelings. If he didn't act like a "dick" as you say, then I'd be polite to him, as I am to others who conduct themselves in a civilised manner.

Perhaps you might try to encourage him and his cronies not to act like overgrown children, rather than taking issue with my response? The quality of discussion on this site is abysmal, largely due to their presence.

I don't have any special opinion on Everald's article. Is there anything in particular you think is definitively wrong with it?

Dear Shadow Minister,

What an interesting post.

If you want to see flaunting at its best look no further than Hasbeen, continuing as he always does, to 'flaunt' the fact that he was a navy pilot time, and time, and time again. Yet not a peep from your good self.

Craig gives a rather innocuous reference and you accusing him of “school yard level antics”.

This was Craig's apparently 'offensive' post;

“It's amusing that some people are really scathing of the article, to the point of abuse, yet advocate the same solution that the author does. Seriously folks, what happened to civilised conversation?”

The cantankerous little lap poodle immediately goes to work with “holier-than-thou”, “smart aleck taunts”, “sneers at those opinions “ none of which were warranted.

Craig answered was far less belligerent;

“Thank you for the excellent example of Kohlberg's Stage 2 of pre-conventional morality, ttbn.”

Sure it might have been a touch cheeky but again hardly deserving of the attacks that came after.

Yet it is Craig you are so keen to go after?

While i'm not sure I agree with the contention in the article that the Liberal Party “has been assassinated by right wing zealots” the fact that you are defending nutjobs like Hasbeen and ttbn is a fine example of how the rightwing have been hijacked into feeling they have to support such nasties. Why in the hell do you lot do it? We have most certainly had our differences of opinion but even on your worst day you have never been anywhere near as toxic as these two on their best days.

Time to cut them loose mate.

SR,

There are a number of writers on OLO that I don't comment on them primarily because I don't read them, and largely I have avoided this thread because of the vitriol and personal attacks.

My criticism of Craig might well seem unfair, but for Craig to call for civilized discussion then essentially pin his protagonist as retarded is hardly going to calm the debate.

Craig,

Wrt the article Everard confuses his opinion with the facts leading him post BS like "Bush was a poorly educated man" which I would hardly reserve for an alumni of Harvard and Yale.

Shadow Minister, I suggest you take the trouble to read Kohlberg before you insultingly characterise my comments.

He made the point that few people develop beyond stage 4 and that people move between behaviours defined by earlier stages of development throughout their lives.

Stage 2 is defined by behaviour characterised by "what's in it for me", which I believe is a fair characterisation of the poster in question's behaviour across many threads.

I have no idea of what his intellect is like, I haven't seen it displayed yet.

WRT your concerns with the article, would you be more comfortable if he had characterised him as a man easily manipulated by the Macchiavellians who surrounded him?

Whatever Bush was, he was no intellectual power house and a notable outlier in a job that has generally not thrown up fools, although the current election may level that playing field a little in his favour.