CJ Morgan wrote "(you are) apparently miffed that I've exposed your sock puppetry."

Please forgive me for not having been more forthcoming in acknowledgement of both your mind-reading abilities and your brilliant detective work.

It must have taken a rare stroke of inspired genius to have followed the link, to be found at the bottom of any of my posts, in order to discover that daggett was, in fact, James Sinnamon, and then to have followed the links on my home page back to OLO to find that daggett had, in fact, written the odd OLO article himself.

That daggett had neglected to explicitly mention these facts in every one of his posts was clear proof of his intent to hide behind anonymity in order to make unfair and cowardly attacks against another OLO author.

Then our cunning sleuth observed that a post by another OLO user 'cacofonix' was made on daggett's behalf. Whatever the rules of OLO formally allowed, this was a clear breach of their intent, and, moreover, a sure indication that something far more sinister was afoot.

Sure enough, a search through cacofonix's posts revealed that cacofonix had spoken in defence of daggett (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6261#91028) on one other occasion when daggett was pronounced guilty of a crime similar to the crime of which he has now been found guilty on this forum. That crime was that he had anonymously commented upon one of his own articles.

When daggett protested that, on the post following cacofonix's post, OLO editor Susan Prior had shown that the accusation against daggett was factually wrong, Inspector CJ Morgan demonstrated an admirable single-minded determination not to let such an inconvenient fact sway him from his conviction that daggett was a serial OLO fraudster and that cacofonix, and later, olduvai, too, were fictitious creations created to conceal daggett's crimes from OLO users.

This deductive brilliance would surely make the solving of the Azaria Chamberlain murder case by the Northern Territory Police pale into insignificance by comparison.

Please, don't be any further distracted by daggett's disingenuous pleas to focus on the substance of the discussion.

James Sinnamon protesteth too much again, methinks. Whether he's posting as 'daggett', 'cacofonix', or 'Olduvai' (and who knows how many others), he is indeed a master sock puppeteer. Come on James, we all know you're telling porkies here.

If I was you I'd quit before the site moderators wake up to you - but I'm not an IT whiz like you, so I wouldn't have multiple IP addresses like you apparently do.

Interesting that you avoid responding to my 'on topic' points, yet again. But that's the object, isn't it?

"The best way to ensure that hostile cultures do not take root in this county, Wizofaust, is to not import people whose cultures these cultures belong to"

So where is your magical "hostile-culture-detector"? Or is your criteria simply the amount of melanin in somebody's skin?

Millions (if not billions) of migrants worldwide over the last few centuries have shown the ability to adapt fully to the predominate culture they move into. Maybe a few thousand have not, and of those, the majority are recent migrants that will likely adapt soon enough, and only a tiny amount actively engage in activities that threaten social cohesion for any significant period of time. Could we do more to reduce the threat of hostile sub-cultures forming in Australia? Absolutely. But I'm quite sure that, say, Andrews' famed "Australian Values" test will not help at all - prospective migrants almost invariably come here with the best of intentions and full commitment to the start a new life, respecting the laws and mores of their adopted nation... but unfortunately some find themselves sufficiently ill-equipped or disadvantaged that they may resort to criminal behaviour, or are drawn to groups that represent their own background but don't accept that Australian laws and principles take precedence over their own.

BTW, you might be interested in this article that makes a reasonably objective attempt to narrow down possible race-IQ-violence links in the U.S.: http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=3408&cid=1&sid=104

And daggett, according to whom has high immigration been widely unpopular for many decades? Who defines "high" and "widely"? If a survey simply asks "Do you think Australia's immigration level is too high?" then a lot of people, like myself, may well answer "yes" even though they are not hugely concerned that current levels are likely to be sustained until Australia is destroyed, socially and environmentally.

According to digget, “High immigration has been justified on the grounds that we needed skilled clever immigrants to maintain our technological edge”.

Perhaps, non-Anglos, the luckiest among them used to taxi/delivery services and as interpreters, are automatically out of a group representing “clever immigrants”-the UK-linked-biologically with a right of abode.

CJ Morgan wrote, "If I was you I'd quit before the site moderators wake up to you ..."

I think, for your part you will have to make up your mind whether you are genuinely aggrieved at my allegedly unfair alleged use of sock puppetry:

"... since unlike you I don't have a host of sock puppets to post for me in contravention of the intent of the forum rules, I haven't been able to respond until now." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96606)

... or whether you see my supposed guilt of having transgressed OLO rules as a convenient means with which to blackmail into silence another contributor, whose views you feel threatened by, now that your usual resort to personal abuse has failed.

If you feel genuinely aggrieved, then I suggest you make a complaint to the OLO administrators and present whatever evidence you have.

Otherwise, stop wasting my time.

Wizofaus,

Your last post seems to contradict an earlier one where you say that only a "noisy minority" are concerned about the negative effects of mass migration. You now seem to think that we would be in serious trouble if current rates of growth went on (from ABS figures two new babies and one net migrant for every death), but that somehow our wise and benevolent politicians are going to be willing to buck the development lobby / corporate elite and cut mass migration and pronatalist incentives before we wipe out too many more species or restrict the masses to one shower and change of clothes a week. Forgive me if I don't share your optimism. If there are permanent water restrictions in all our major cities now except for Hobart, it is hard to see how more people are going to make the situation better.

The Pew Research Center in the US conducted a global attitudes survey in 47 countries:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=258

Among other questions they asked people if they thought their governments should "further restrict and control immigration". A majority of people in 44 out of the 47 said yes, sometimes by an overwhelming proportion. Some percentages are: United States 75%, Venezuela and Turkey 77%, Ivory Coast (about as far from white racism as you can get) 94%, Indonesia and Italy 89%, Sweden 53%. There were only 3 exceptions: Japan (barely) where there is already extremely low immigration, South Korea and the Palestinian territories. Hardly anyone seems to relish being swamped by foreigners. Unfortunately Australia was not included, but forgive me if I doubt your "noisy minority" claim.