John,

"First, yes, I did call out your quote-mining because you’ve been selectively quoting Megan Davis without acknowledging the clarifications she (and others) have made repeatedly. Whether you like it or not, relying on those quotes alone is a form of dishonesty, because it misrepresents the full picture."

Yet another lie from you. I did acknowledge that many people changed their stories, but pointed out that they did this only after cult leader Albo equated thinking the Uluru Statement longer than a page with believing fake moon landing and Q Anon conspiracies on the floor of parliament. What you tried to imply was that I was mis-quoting them, which is not the case. I made no secret of the fact that the stories changed to fall in line with Albo.

From my point of view the length of the statement was of no concern, but the ferocity of argument about the matter demonstrated to me the authoritarian mindset of cult leader Albo, and from that point his revoltingness was no longer hidden from me.

You always seem to be on the same page as cult leader Albo John. Why might that be?

ttbn,

It’s been clear to me for weeks now that you’re not interested in discussing anything with me, but it has never been my intent to elicit a response from you. In fact, it makes things a lot easier for both of us if you don’t respond.

You see, just as you enjoy using Online Opinion to voice your opinions, I enjoy using it to correct false claims.

As an example of this, just imagine some SJW claiming that Europe should sacrifice its many cultures, to atone for its colonial “sins” of the past, by taking in the entire Third World. Would you feel okay about just leaving that sit there unchallenged?

I wouldn’t.

What’s more is that I’ve been very selective in what I respond to from you because your personal attacks suggest that my responses are upsetting to you. Galak’s article, for example, was incredibly simplistic and historically naive, but I chose to leave that one alone.

--

Fester,

You’re trying hard to spin this into a conspiracy about people "falling in line" with Albanese, but it still doesn’t change the fact that you’ve been quoting Davis and others selectively to fit your narrative. You’re accusing me of lying, yet you’ve provided no evidence that I’ve misrepresented anything - aside from your interpretation of events.

Whether or not you believe people changed their stories under pressure from Albanese is irrelevant to the actual point: the Uluru Statement is one page, and the additional material is supplementary. If you want to argue that this somehow reflects a larger authoritarian agenda, that’s your perspective - but it’s not supported by facts.

As for your insinuation that I’m on the same page as Albanese, I align myself with reasoned argument and evidence. If that happens to overlap with Albanese’s stance, so be it. What I don’t align with is baseless accusations and conspiracy theories.

John

"You’re trying hard to spin this into a conspiracy about people "falling in line" with Albanese, but it still doesn’t change the fact that you’ve been quoting Davis and others selectively to fit your narrative."

Unlike all of those who are on the public record acknowledging the Uluru Statement as a lengthy document then changed their stories subsequent to cult leader Albo claiming it was a one page document in parliament, I have made no alteration to my own claims. Could you point me to where any of these entities claimed the Uluru Statement to be a single page before Albo's claim?

"As for your insinuation that I’m on the same page as Albanese, I align myself with reasoned argument and evidence."

One would be as dumb as two sheep not to recognise you as a Labor goon. You fell for the Uluru gambit, but cult members have to agree with their leaders, n'est-ce pas? That's your lot.

The Voice referendum seriously damaged Albo's reputation. Trying to push through this abominable legislation could see him tossed out. Talk about doubling down on stupidity.

https://www.facebook.com/story.php/?story_fbid=958936196053084&id=100058101368558&paipv=0&eav=AfZKmNo8HhG_8seonIHr5nSdv3hIroDv-fZ8AKn5tPOTyl1f8dZ7nsy6TRtsBzcJGmA&_rdr

Fester,

I don’t affiliate myself with any political party. I’ve consistently argued based on evidence and reason, regardless of where the chips fall politically. If the facts happen to align with a particular party’s position, that doesn’t make me part of some "cult." It just means I’m willing to accept evidence over conspiracy.

The article you linked to repeats the same one-eyed concerns we’ve seen from other commentators: fears about government overreach and platforms being held accountable for hosting content that could be labelled "misinformation."

But let’s not confuse this with fact.

As the article itself admits, platforms will be required to provide “reasonable determinations” about whether content is true or false. This is far from the unchecked censorship you’re claiming. Lehmann and others are extrapolating to the worst possible scenarios without addressing the real-world dangers of unchecked disinformation campaigns.

As for your challenge: “Could you point me to where any of these entities claimed the Uluru Statement to be a single page before Albo’s claim?”

The fact that the Uluru Statement is one page has always been clear to those who actually read the document, long before Albanese said anything in parliament. It wasn’t some revelation. In fact, it’s been accessible online since it was first released for anyone to view in 2017. Megan Davis has clarified this multiple times.

Your question only proves that people weren’t paying attention to the facts until the No campaign seized on it to muddy the waters.

Finally, your claim about the Uluru Statement being longer than one page is something we’ve been through repeatedly. The document itself is available for anyone to read - one page with supplementary context. What matters is the content, not the ongoing attempts to create a conspiracy around who said what when. That link again:

http://ulurustatemdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/UluruStatementfromtheHeartPLAINTEXT.pdf

Go on. I dare you to click it.

By the way, you still haven’t pointed me to any provisions that would give the government the powers to censor, nor have you pointed to anything sinister in the accompanying document.

Fester,

"Labor goon" really? What does that make you? A Noalition Numbskull, or something worse. You may not agree with John Daysh, his opinions, or his reasoning, but he does put forward a well weighted argument on forum topics. You could become another ttbn and post an volumes of that forum wonder chunder he's so fond of posting!

Hi Paul,

I'd just like us all to keep posting whatever we think, even you, no matter how silly we think one another's opinions. My concern is that the misinformation bill could drastically change things for us all.

We should all have the right to get on our soap boxes and scream! It's cathartic.