Dear Leo Lane,

I am afraid you had not reported the situation accurately, my friend.

<<I continually told the truth, and pointed out his nonsense and lies …>>

However, there is always the possibility that I am mistaken. Therefore, I would welcome any examples of nonsense uttered by myself, or any untruths which had been told, to be brought to my attention, if you would be so kind as to do so.

<<… an unpleasant experience for Phillips., who untruthfully whines that any truthful description of his conduct is “abuse”.>>

Indeed, abuse is undoubtedly an unpleasant experience for any individual to endure, regardless of its accuracy. Therefore, it is always advisable that one bring untruths told to another’s attention with the utmost care to not offend. You may find that the tellers of untruths, with whom you engage, are more likely to consider your criticisms and correct their most unfortunate behaviour.

<<The arrangement was, as shown on that thread, that, if I asked politely, he would answer my questions. I politely asked for the answer to three simple questions.>>

Correct, and it appears I may have erred, too. You did post a second somewhat polite response. However, this is where communications ended. I can only presume that your good self found polite discourse too unbearable to continue.

<<So in his usual dishonest way, he breached his agreement to answer my questions. He answered not one of the questions he had promised to answer.>>

You will indeed find that I did, regardless of my preceding disclaimer:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18168#323525
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18168#323526

<<I informed him that he had earned the title of “grub”. And addressed him accordingly thereafter.>>

But the calling of names is such an unnecessary and unbecoming pursuit, would you not agree?

<<His one constant reliable feature is his dishonesty, and that was a prime example of it.>>

I am afraid that no dishonesty had been brought to our attention in that last example of yours. It is indeed unfortunate that you have interpreted my attempt to be as open and honest from the outset (that being my disclaimer) as dishonesty.

Phillips asserts that he has not lied, and asks that his attention be drawn to any lie, so that he can answer the assertion.
I have constantly drawn his attention to his lies and nonsense, and he has constantly made futile attempts to cover himself.
One example is the following post of mine:” Marriage is between a man and a woman, so a relationship between people of the same sex cannot be marriage, so people talking same sex marriage are talking ridiculous nonsense.
Phillips’ pathetic answer to this is the baseless and idiotic assertion of “inequality”
The parties to a marriage are a man and a woman, and they are currently treated equally under the law.
A man entering a relationship with a man is nothing to do with marriage, any more than a woman entering a relationship with a woman, so Phillips is talking baseless nonsense. He admits that he is only talking about possibilities.
In the remote possibility that the NO vote fails, he may have an opportunity to partake in the serious damaging of society.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19225&page=0#341996

Dear Leo Lan,

Indeed I do, and indeed I would be appreciative if you could do so, too.

<<Phillips asserts that he has not lied, and asks that his attention be drawn to any lie, so that he can answer the assertion.>>

Let us all see what it is that you have to reveal, my friend.

<<One example is the following post of mine:” Marriage is between a man and a woman, so a relationship between people of the same sex cannot be marriage, so people talking same sex marriage are talking ridiculous nonsense.>>

That is merely an assertion on your behalf, my friend. Unfortunately, you have not accompanied it with any supporting evidence. This is somewhat problematic for your argument.

<<Phillips’ pathetic answer to this is the baseless and idiotic assertion of “inequality”>>

I am afraid not, my friend. There is no need to even go to the extent of raising the notion of inequality here, as you have not yet adequately demonstrated that marriage cannot be between two members of the same sex.

<<The parties to a marriage are a man and a woman, and they are currently treated equally under the law.>>

That is correct, yes.

<<A man entering a relationship with a man is nothing to do with marriage, any more than a woman entering a relationship with a woman, so Phillips is talking baseless nonsense.>>

In Australia currently, yes. However, you have not yet explained why this cannot ever be the case.

<<He admits that he is only talking about possibilities.>>

Not so, my friend. Same-sex marriage is a reality in a few countries now.

<<In the remote possibility that the NO vote fails, he may have an opportunity to partake in the serious damaging of society.”>>

Unfortunately, you have not yet demonstrated that serious damage will occur if same sex marriage is allowed. I look forward to evidence of such, however.

Dear Leo Lane,

My sincerest apologies for the typo in your name in my last post. It was most careless of me. I will endeavour to take more careful in the future. Thank you for your understanding.

Huge "NO" skywriting over Sydney today.

Cue hysterical chants from purple haired "revolutionaries".

Shades of 'Occupy' where the co-ordinated, easily-found mobs of 'anti-No vote' demonstrators are concerned.