To Sneaky Peter.

When I first began contibuting to this thread (how you must curse that day) my interpretation of the posts was that the entire web site was a mutual admiration society for chardonnay suckers.

Any trendy topic usually opened with the social regressives congratulating each others tolerance and humanity while openly implying that anyone who submitted heretical views which opposed the prevailing orthodoxy was a neanderthal knuckle dragger. Interestingly, opposing views did not begin until at least the first dozen or so posts. (except Leigh, who is always quick off the mark)

This indirectly reinforced my view that right wing people tend to be more reflective than trendy lefties. I admit that such an observation might be considered very subjective.

Interestingly, this phenomonon has now reversed. Patriotic Right wing people now seem to be on the attack and they are opening debate while the wretched Australia haters are waiting for a dozen posts or so before they barge in with their peculiar views.

Naturally, this could mean that patriotic people have much more intitiative than wet, wimpish trendoids. That could also be a subjective interpretation, but I am sure I am right.

To Scout

Of course I am aware of the irony in the statement and I put it in for a laugh. The gloss of human civilisation is a very thin veneer.

CEKNERD
You've stopped taking your medication AGAIN....

No redders I do not curse the day you kicked off with your posts on this or any other thread - you like me are just part of the mix.

i was less concerned with the balance, left versus right - aussie hater versus patriot - than the move away from the initial proposition put by the author, the development of weired tangential arguments and the propensity for the odd souls to inject some out of left feild notion into all and every debate because some thing has bugged them for the longest time.

I do not for a minute agree with your assumption that any one group is more reflective than another.

But I do not recolllect any one other than you or perhaps Col Rouge trumpeting that you guys had the "trendies on the run" - a base less claim. That in itself is a tell tale characteristic of a rather one dimensional veiw on things - Marcuse wrote a nice book on that subject a long time ago - the debate is the thing - victory is fleeting in these kinds of things - but the ideas never go away.

I do agree that there is a bit too much pissing in one anothers pocketes but that goes for both sides of the political divide.

Even the sneekmeister has been on the end of congratulations from time to time - but then again what else should I expect!

Yours in outrageous humility Sneeky.

Maelorin: If it is gems you seek follow the sneek; soon you will have enuff to open a jewellery store.

Yours in over whelming, on going and unabashed humility Sneekeepete;

How's things Redders?

I"n other words, what Bagaric was proposing is already a feature of the criminal justice system, so long as the use of torture is reasonable and proportionate." Well this really does not say much. I suspect that no Australian judge would consider any of the sorts of 'torture' described in these articles to be "reasonable and proportionate". Bagaric's views seem to be based on a fairly simplistic utilitarian analysis.

l suppose they could just stick to their telephone book interrogations and getting their crim mates to do their corrupt interrogation work.