Ozzie,

Be sure I “went to school” and did graduate from school and the university with awards and distinctions further proven during my career and life.

What is my lack of qualification is being a non-Anglos in a hopeless spot called Australia.

CJ Morgan,

First you attempted personal abuse and allegations of dishonesty in order to discredit me.

My own responses (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96189) and cacofonix's responses (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96244) which have demonstrated much of what you have alleged against us to have been factually incorrect have never been acknowledged by you.

When smears, insults and personal abuse failed, you attempted blackmail in order to get me to stop me from contributing to this discussion:

"If I was you I'd quit before the site moderators wake up to you ..." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96724)

When I refused you complained to the moderators.

Having done so, my appeal to you to allow the moderators to deal with it and to cease your disruption of this forum was ignored:

CJ Morgan wrote: "James Sinnamon/dagget/various sock puppets: ...",

"... But that's the trouble, James. They weren't made on your behalf by others at all. They were made by you using various sock puppet identities - we both know that. ..." ()

No, you don't know that.

And just supposing, for argument's sake, it was true that I had set up a different account, and made use of it on the odd occasion.

So what?

Do I deserve for this unproven technical transgression of OLO rules to be the subject to never-ending vilification from you?

What do you believe is the essential difference between the transgression you have accused me of and the similar transgression that another contributor has openly admitted to having done on this forum?

In any case, does a technical transgression of OLO rules--as opposed to personal abuse, insults, blackmail, misrepresentation of your opponent's arguments, repetition of allegations without acknowledgement of the responses from the accused, etc--automatically make a contributor dishonest and without credibility?

I would suggest that only a narrow-minded pedant, or else a hypocrite, would insist this to be the case.

---

In response to your extremely belated 'answers' to my questions, let's first resolve the issue at hand.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

You have repeatedly and indignantly demanded that I answer your question, whilst ignoring the six prior questions I had previously asked of you (and a massive amount of other substantial content). When I pointed this out, you claimed to be unable to find them.

Furthermore, you held that your own inability to find those questions was further confirmation of your earlier smear against me :

"Perhaps the questions were asked by another sock puppet that I haven't yet identified, and you're a little confused as to which one asked what?"

I have shown that the questions were there after all and had been put by myself or openly on my behalf.

As you have not paid me the courtesy of withdrawing and apologising for your demonstrably false allegation against me, I won't waste any more of my time attempting to deal with your ostensible responses to those questions.

---

CJ Morgan wrote, "you do seem to have a couple of good ideas and a certain amount of misguided enthusiasm"

For my part, I think I will decline to reciprocate this obviously insincere attempt at flattery.

In my experience, sadly confirmed on this forum, there are plenty of members of the Greens who actively work against the stated goals of the Greens, in part, by smearing and otherwise disrupting others who do work for those goals.

=-=-=

redneck (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96923),

I don't subscribe to the Cold War view that the political movements we choose to label as 'communist' in South East Asia, or the association of Chinese communities with those movements (as opposed to, say, drug trafficking or female circumcision) were automatically bad things.

Let's not forget that the Malayan Communists, whom you condemn, also fought with the British against the Japanese in WW2. What you have posted appears to be the rationale of the Indonesian military dictatorship for what I regard as an unprovoked cold-blooded massacre of 500,000 Indonesian citizens. I would be interested to see your firm evidence for what you have written, but elsewhere, and not here. We are not going to resolve this issue here.

Whoops … just fallen into this thread and from a cursory reading … I can see most posters have either an identity crisis (or 2, or 3 …) or suffer from some kind of neurosis.

And here is me thinking the border that really should be protected only extends 13 km up and envelops the whole world … a common border, silly me.

"Thanks Kanga (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96853) for having shown up the disruptive and insincere behaviour of at least one forum participant." (Quote James Sinnamon)

Come now....; why not just thank your colleague personally?

As to your fixation with getting answers to your questions......,hummm; I'm STILL waiting for ONE answer to ONE question.

It doesn't matter James.

Why you trashed your own credibility is beyond me. The 'for Daggett/ on behalf of' thing was totally unnecessary for one of your capabilities.

You are your own worst enemy.

James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/Olduvai/et al: "What do you believe is the essential difference between the transgression you have accused me of and the similar transgression that another contributor has openly admitted to having done on this forum?"

Er, James - wizofaus/dnicholson has been quite open about it. You, on the other hand continue to tell pathetic porkies that nobody believes. As Ginx says, why you would want to trash your own credibility this way is beyond me.

"In any case, does a technical transgression of OLO rules...automatically make a contributor dishonest and without credibility?"

No, only when they persist in the pretence after having been caught out.

"... there are plenty of members of the Greens who actively work against the stated goals of the Greens, in part, by smearing and otherwise disrupting others who do work for those goals"

Yes, but they get weeded out eventually. There's also plenty of people who claim to be environmentalists, but who turn out to be racists, nutjobs or NIMBYs in disguise. Which kind are you?

"I won't waste any more of my time attempting to deal with your ostensible responses to those questions."

No worries, James - I wouldn't have believed you anyway.

This thread's just about run its course anyway. See you another time, under whatever identity you choose to post.