Dear phanto,

I am apologising because my second-last post ended with the suggestion that my intention was to leave our there.

<<Why are you apologising?>>

Clearly this turned out not to be the case. I am again sorry if any offence was taken. That was not my intention.

<<Either you have a reasonable gripe or you do not.>>

That is correct, yes. However, the reasonableness of my grievance was not what I had sought to establish there.

<<You said bye, bye but of course you did not mean bye,bye.>>

I’m afraid I did at the time. In retrospect, however, it was rather hasty of me. I will be more careful to consider my readiness to end communications in the future.

<<You went off to have another sulk in the corner and then came back with the ‘woe is me’ mantra.>>

I’m afraid I wasn’t sulking, sorry. I went to make breakfast and considered your claim that I had “exposed” myself. After realising why your claim was implausible, I proceeded to type a response to you explaining thus.

<<You are such a pathetic victim.>>

I did not feel victimised in any way, I trust you will be relieved to hear. Nor, to my knowledge, did I mean to present myself in a way such that it may be interpreted as conveying a perceived state of victimhood. This may be why any perceived sense of victimhood on my behalf came across to you as less-than-satisfactory. What I was in fact doing was explaining why my actions should not be a cause for concern amongst reasonably-minded individuals.

I apologise for any contribution I may have made towards the confusion there. I will endeavour to express my thoughts more precisely in the future.

"What I was in fact doing was explaining why my actions should not be a cause for concern amongst reasonably-minded individuals."

Wouldn't they be able to determine that for themselves or are you yet again trying to 'dumb-down' the members of this forum?

Dear phanto,

I fear there may be some confusion here as to whom my comment was directed.

<<Wouldn't they be able to determine [why your actions should not be a cause for concern amongst reasonably-minded individuals] for themselves …>>

If, by “they”, you mean “readers and forum contributors other than yourself” then, yes, I am confident that they should.

However, my comment was made for the benefit of your good self only, as there appeared to be some confusion on your part. This apparent confusion was made evident in the belief which you expressed, that I had exposed something undesirable about myself.

Again, I apologise if I had in any way contributed to the confusion there.

<<… or are you yet again trying to 'dumb-down' the members of this forum?>>

As I clarified earlier, my intent was not to assume a lack of intelligence on the part of any individuals who may be reading our discussion, but to instead allow for varying perceptions and worldviews; all of which may influence what is obvious, and what is not obvious, to the individual.

In no way is this intended to be a reflection on their intellectual capacities, but instead a means of ensuring clarity in the understanding that we all, as individuals, perceive things in different ways, irrespective of our intellectual capacities.

I would kindly ask that you refrain from employing incorrect assumptions which I have previously sought to clarify. If, at any point, I am unclear in my communication, then please don't hesitate to ask for clarification. I will be more than happy to oblige.

Thank you.

Yuyutsu:
“Now is our chance: by voting 'No' to the institutionalisation of same-sex marriages, we open the flood-gates for the popular rejection of "marriage as a 'social institution'" altogether, thus achieving marriage-equality in a healthier way.”

Everyone who votes in the postal vote has to ask themselves this question about the reasonableness of government involvement in marriage. You cannot avoid the implications of the choice that we have. Either you agree with government involvement or you do not. Voting YES is an agreement to further government involvement – to making a bad situation worse. You cannot vote YES and be opposed to government involvement since your actions would decry you opinions. It is not a question of ‘equality’. It is first and foremost a question of relevance. Is it relevant for the government to be endorsing marriages?

If you vote YES then you need to have a water-tight argument as to why governments should be involved in endorsing marriage. There is no way to avoid this question. The postal vote or even a plebiscite has put this question on the agenda for every Australian. Had the parliament decided then it would be out of our hands but now it is firmly front and centre for everyone and the question should be asked about government involvement.

Philips:

If you think you new found saccharine ‘persona’ changes anything then you are very naive.

Dear phanto,

That would depend on what one was attempting to change. However, change has not been my intention. I am not attempting to offset any past indiscretions. Allow me to clarify…

Yesterday, I presented a challenge for both you and I. I proposed that we attempt to remain as civil as possible in our discourse, so that it might be revealed who, if either of us, finds such discourse to be an untenable means of communicating their position.

The logic behind this is that if our positions are defensible, then the individual(s) for whom this is the case should be able to continue polite discussion without a need for personal attacks or attempts to characterise the motives of the other as, shall we say, unsavoury. In a past discussion of mine, for example, I requested that another individual (who is most unpleasant) be polite before I responded to his challenge:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18168#323507.

Unfortunately, this individual could not exceed one courteous post. The reason for this, I can only presume, is the fact that this individual’s arguments rely entirely on abuse; possibly to conceal a lack of supporting evidence for his arguments, or perhaps to discourage the individuals with whom this individual converses to leave the discussion before any problems with his position are revealed through further discourse. But I digress.

It is with sincere regret that I report the fact that you did not even make it to one post.

I do try be fair at all times, however, and am therefore willing to accept that you were perhaps not yet making an effort to be as courteous as I am sure you can be. This is likely my fault, as I had spoken of the “next time” we engaged in robust discussion, and one could be forgiven for regarding our last few exchanges as a continuation of the preceding unpleasantries shared.

Therefore, I am happy to disregard your last few posts, if you so wish. Of course, I will not be offended if you decide that you would prefer not to partake in the activity which I have proposed.

Roll up! Roll up! Step this way and watch The Amazing Phanto try to dig himself out of a hole! A feat never before accomplished in human history! Can The Amazing Phanto manage it, or will he just end up digging himself deeper? Only tuppence to find out, just step this way ladies and gents.