I have always thought it a tragedy that Noddy books were taken off library shelves because they contained the word,"golliwog". And likewise "Biggles", who defeated many a vile Hun and their Hunnish plots of world domination. Both were great reads. Killed by PC.RIP.

Boazy: "Pretty much all that I rant about, can be reduced to this one single issue."

Vanilla: "..the greatest danger is intellectual reductionism."

Just about says it all, really.

Boazy: "if my remarks about Foxy are 'demonstrably' wrong.. by all means 'demonstrate' so"

Go to her comment history and look at all the comments *not* directed at you. Each one refutes your statement. Foxy sometimes refuses to direct comments to you because you insult her. To the rest of us, you are patronising without intellectual justification. To Foxy, you often cross over into hostility. If we page Dr Freud, we'll find you are jealous of Foxy. Your posts come across as arrogant and paranoid, and it's hard for you to *connect* with anyone. Whereas Foxy is everyone's favourite Christian - humble, but also intelligent, empathatic and wise. It annoys you when we praise her. So you lash out at her.

Divorce Doctor: The way Vietnam vets were treated in this country (and others) sucks from whoa to go. I'm sorry you had to go through the trauma of war only to find yourself spurned in Australia. It was wrong and unfair in a million ways.

However, you seem to be labelling all herd-thinking as PC. I don't think that definition stands. McCarthyism in the US was a beautiful example of herd-thinking, but didn't lead to affirmative action. Hitler's "banality of evil" effect was certainly evil, but not in the sense that it was trying to give special protection to minorities. I'm going with the Oxford dictionary http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/politicalcorrectness?view=uk or Wikipedia definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correct

If you want to suggest another, go for it. But if you just want to talk about herd thinking, maybe that's another conversation.

Also, not every Vietnamese-Australian is a drug dealer. Check this lot out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_Australian#Notable_Vietnamese_Australians

CJ. Well, yeah, exactly.

These forums sh&*% me off because conversation doesn't happen naturally. I don't have time to wade through all the posts and copy and paste and quote and respond to each comment in turn - hence nothing gets debated properly.
Anyone know of a decent chat room where these things can be debated?

"Jane, as for the amount of material advocating Holocaust denialism, I bet you’ve a bucketful. I myself could find many links that suggest man never worked on the moon, Princess Diana was murdered by MI6, and 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush Administration. Remember, it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out."

Actually - the term 'holocaust denial' IS extreme. The people who want to explore the holocaust (like David Irving - who has written many respected history texts some of you possibly studied at uni) are not seeking to deny it. They are exploring what happened and have uncovered huge discrepancies and are simply asking questions. What seems to be coming out of it is that the holocaust (like many other holocausts at other times) did happen but the numbers killed and the causes of death and camp conditions have been seriously misrepresented.

As for the jewish consipracy thing - it's not all jews, or only jews, but it's a jewish SUPREMACIST mentality and belief system. Look at the jewish supremacist (zionist) control of mass media and hollywood.

Vanilla: "If we page Dr Freud, we'll find you are jealous of Foxy."

Freud was a jew.

Dear Vanilla and CJ,

Thank you again from the bottom of my heart.

I find it extremely difficult arguing with certain people, given their contempt for the tools of honest debate. People who bend
biblical "evidence" until it conforms to their idealogical leanings and agenda. They're not credible as Christians - as they don't practice - "Do unto others..." - and use double standards, for example - one for Christians - another for Muslims.

Most thinking people don't want to legitimize their arguments as worth considering or give them an audience that they don't deserve.

The word "bigot" is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally acceptable.

BD is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, and religions differing from his own.

I've tried reasoning with him in the past - but it is an exercise in futility - and totally pointless. Because I now refuse to enter into a debate with him - it seems to upset him. Well, it would upset me even more - if I was to humour him.

Again, Thank You for your kind words.