Careful Boaz, your irony-detector needs servicing. I suspect in your haste to provide a witty response to slumlord you quite overlooked the point he was making.

I don't think Phillip Adams (my apologies to him, I carelessly left off one of his 'l's last post) needs your pity. After all, whatever you think of his politics, he has been a successful journalist, a respected columnist and is generally viewed as a thoughtful and compassionate person. Whether you like him or not would, I suspect, be a matter of supreme indifference to him, although I would also entertain a suspicion that he would be quite interested in your views. Much as an entomologist might examine a particularly fine example of hemiptera reduviidae that just crawled out from under a stone.

>>I'm still waiting on your reply to my question about the Brooks<<

I can't remember your question on this topic, sorry.

Pericles, my question about the Brooks has now been posted in about 3 threads, trying to catch your attention. I was just surprised that you even knew about them at all, let alone some detail that one of them allowed the missionaries into Sarawak to work among indigenous people. Its not the kind of everyday chunk of history that people delve into. So ? may I know the background of your understanding of that matter ? general reading, photographic memory ?

I was not hinting that Philip Adams should be anything'ed by my comments. I simply say that he is becoming more warm and mellow from my observation.

ODDBALL Now to you ! err were u reading from some 'manual' to gather together all those EXTREMely dogmatic and ideological terms ?
Did it not strike you, as you wrote, that YOU were advocating a particular ideology as if all normal human beings with an ounce of intellect would 'naturally' applaud this as 'the way to go' ? It seems to me that the pot was calling the kettle black there, with you sniping at ideologues of different persuasions 'collectively imposing' their views while you are espousing one yourself.

It just reinforces my long held view that most socialist journalistic types believe the world starts and finishes at the door of the lygon street cafes where they gather to solve the challenges of the world :)

By the way, I don't know where u get 'despise' as the only attitude that collective ideologues have to have towards those who disagree with them. As a Christian, I'm comfortable with the fact that we have to struggle politically with our 'enemies' but for goodness sake, despise ? thats way over the top. U don't have to despise someone just because they don't share your views. But for the record, the most vitriolic hatred I see on these forums almost inevitably comes from those of a clearly left view of life. Not to say that we godbotherers never have our moments of 'oops' when it comes to dealing with those enemies.

"So? may I know the background of your understanding of that matter ? general reading, photographic memory?"

Boaz, this is so far off topic to be impolite, but just this once.

General knowledge.

Pericles,
off topic ? indeed, but I'm of the view that issues don't exist apart from real world people. I find it rather difficult to just discuss 'issues' when there is a thinking living person behind the type. Does it seem inappropriate ? If so, I'd love to have some back and forth about the Borneo situation by email which would not impact on the general forum readership. 'General knowledge' about the Brooks, seems just too easy, when it is a time and area and 'era' of little interest to most Australians. Please drop me a line.

jdrmot@bigpond.net.au

Nobody has answered my question, if it was rhetorical there wouldn't have been a question mark.

Penekiko

Nah, I see more like the love child of Liberace and Bernard King. Which explains a lot.
This is on topic because it is directly about David Flint and the subconscious reasons for his stance on the media.

;)