Appropriately, Kevin Rudd is under intense scrutiny while his government navigates the global financial crisis. But mixed in with the objective analysis and critique from journalists and bloggers is a great deal of find-an-excuse-to-condemn-at-all-costs sledging from rusted-on Liberal Party spruikers, e.g. the entire staff of The Australian.

So, what would our political circus look like today if the Libs had scraped in at the last election? I'd guess:

1. John Howard would, of course, still be PM.

2. Peter Costello would be on the back benches, replaced as Treasurer by...who? Tony Abbott, probably.

3. The management of the GFC would be identical, except Howard would be dumping money directly into the best-lobbied businesses and trying to parlay it into permanent subsidies: business-class welfare.

4. Do you remember that a bunch of blokes were charged with terrorism offences last year? If Howard were in the Lodge now, we'd be reminded every hour, and it would be a mandatory reference for any minister when answering questions.

5. Janet Albrechtsen and Andrew Bolt would seem slightly less irrelevant.

Your take?

What if the Libs had won?

1) There would not have been any apology to our First Australians.

2) The Kyoto protocol would not have been signed.

3) The massive industrial relations changes would continue.
Workforce conditions would deteriorate.

4) Women and children would still be locked up behind barbed wire.

5) Australian citizens would continue to be locked up or deported.

6) Exploitation of the armed forces for political purposes would continue.

7) The old and the poor and the disabled would be worse off.

8) The Immigration Department would continue to reject the
egalitarian values that greeted refugees in the 1950s.

9) Anti-terrorism legislation would be strengthened.

10) Our taxes would increase.

11) In-house fighting amongst the party-elite would continue.

12) Blaming the Labor Party for their inability to solve problems
would continue.

13)The auto industry would collapse.

14) The rich would get tax benefits.

15) Australia would be out of step with the current American
Government.

16) Australia would become a meaner, more diminished nation.

It took the Australian Electorate 10 years to finally wake up.
It has been suggested in the past to limit the Prime Minster's
Term in Office. That may be something worth thinking about...

In additional to Foxy's ideas,
1. the health system would have huge problems,
2 the education system would have huge problems,
3.the wellfair system would colapse,
4. The privitasion would be on the TOP, probably the beaches, the roads and even the air would pass to private bussiness hands.
4 the military expenses would go very high,
5 Howard's government would share its power with white supremasists and extrem nationalist,
6 Australia would expele from Human Rights Commission of UN,
7 The International reputation of Australia would be under the zero
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Hmm. It's easy to say that things would just continue as they were, but I'm more interested in specifics: exactly what would a Howard government do in this situation that the Rudd government isn't?

Well we would not have had the debacle regarding

underwriting bank deposits which caused the run on the super funds.

we would not have seen the efforts of taxpayers in building a budget surplus squandered on $10 billion orgy of vote buying, which made no impact on GDP or job security.

We would not have seen house prices rise because of the increased payment of grants for first time buyers, wooing people into mortgages they might not be able to afford when they lose their jobs in 2009.

We would not have been sold down the river by signing Kyoto

Claims to the collapse of the auto industry are exaggerated, Fords in USA said they did not need bailing out... the GM problem is due to a stupid union agreement GM signed up for along with poor management and US Chrysler has been a cot case for the past decade, that is why they removed themselves from manufacture in Australia a couple of decades ago.

Regarding the rich getting tax cuts.. they were promised by Krudd when he sucked up to get elected.

Of course, being a lying socialist he might rescind them, like Keatings "tax cuts are LAW" disgrace

and the point to note with tax... the innovators and investors who become the wealthier, are the ones whose energies and risk management actually lay the golden tax eggs and employ people in jobs and keep the economy cycling...

The health system has huge problems, despite more Krudd broken promises... "the buck stops with me" - well it certainly has... stopped... with Krudd... nothing happens regrdless of the faux-compassion and fake promises

Welfare systems cannot collapse.. that is plain silly

Howard share power with white supremicists and extreme natioalists?...

pure delusion

Expel UNHCR - total garbage...

"The International reputation of Australia would be under the zero"

Prove it

Provide some of the details which would Justify the last three of your stupid and ridiculous claims....

because as far as a sensible response to Sancho's reasonable question, you have posted derisory and fraudulent bunkum.

"....because as far as a sensible response to Sancho's reasonable question, you have posted derisory and fraudulent bunkum."

TB; I agree. YOU have indeed. Same old same old, eh?

Sancho, if the Libs had won power, we’d have almost exactly the same style of governance. That’s it in a nutshell. The Libs and Labs are two peas in a pod, practicing just the same sort of doctrine, totally hooked into massive continuous never-ending growth, propping up a dinosauroid economic system, beholden to big-business, completely non-sustainability-oriented, eeeetcetera.

I am pleased that the Libs were not elected given the current financial crisis. At least Rudd looks like he is willing to review our current obsessions with growth economics but Howard would still be defending and supporting the system from the banks of the river as he watches the head disappear under the water.

'Face-saving' politics is dangerous. Costello knows this too well after his leak to the media about the leadership agreement with Howard - and Howard's subsequent decision not to honour it to save face. Deny, deny to the end.

It is not weak for leaders to admit mistakes nor is it wrong to take a second look at the dogma inherent in many decisions.

Without this, we remain stuck within the quagmire and mythology of an inefficient, inequitable and rotting system.

Like Col I don't agree with everything Rudd has done but at least there is a glimmer of hope.

I have a friend who says if your aunty had balls she'd be your uncle...

Foxy,

There would also be a greater donations to orangutans in Indonesia. Be fair.

4) Women and children would still be locked up behind barbed wire.
So KRudd is still happy to lock up men? Or they don't count in your eyes?

6) Exploitation of the armed forces for political purposes would continue.
All armed forces have and always will be used for political purposes.

7) The old and the poor and the disabled would be worse off.
I'm thinking you mean 'old and poor' not 'old and the poor'. The non-poor old did bloody well from Howard.

ASymeonakis,

I think the Health and Education systems DO have huge problems. Overwhelmingly because of State Labor Governments though.

PS: I'm not sure yet whether the Rudd government is any better than Howard. I will have a summit and asign a Committe to decide for me, and get back to you in six months to a year. Then I'll create a RuddWatch web site to keep him in line.

If the Libs had won;

1) Nuclear power stations across the country would be in the first phase of development. Creating thousands of jobs and saving us from the economic crisis.

2) Aboriginals would be treated equally, and not patronised.

Ha. Treated equally? Poor white people are allowed porn and booze. You don't see the military coming down to housing estates like Macquarie Fields.

The welfare entitlements would been reduced- GFC would used as an excuse. The Howard scapegoating of people with disabilities and the unemployed would have escalated. Given the reduction in job vacancies unemployed and low waged single were as deserving of the government Christmas bonus as those who received it.
Regardless of who was in power reduced exports prices because of reduced international (particularly China)demand would lead to reduced national income.
Bank deposits needed to be govt backed regardless of party in power to stop loss of confidence but the flow on to super wasn't handled brilliantly.
Govt next stimulus should be direct infrastructure and services spending. Debt for projects with long term benefit make economic sense in a recession.

Okay, what ARE the answers to all the problems? Has Rudd solved any of them? I don't think so. The apology to indigenous Australians has not helped improve their standard of living. Kyoto has not solved climate change. We still lock people up and we are still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. The economy is a mess and getting worse as business heads off-shore to avoid employing anyone here.
Interest rates? Maybe -but only if you are in the position to actually borrow money - most of us cannot afford that.

Dear Col,

You have just proven examinator's case... where he asked
on another thread - that civility be maintained
by us all in posting.

You seemed to feel at that time, that on a public Forum you could
say what you liked. My question is - why would you
want to deliberately use words that offend people? You can
surely make a point without resorting to those kind of
tactics?

You refer to our Prime Minister as:

1) Krudd.
2) Lying socialist.

Why use these 'outmoded' insults?

You ask another poster to 'justify the last three of your stupid
and ridiculous claims.'
And then tell him that 'You have posted
derisory and fraudalent bunkum..'

The poster you insulted did not insult you, or make any claims about the quality and accuracy of your opinions.

Yet you insist in using offensive language in presenting your point of view.

Why

Oh come on Foxy. How many lefties have used the term 'The Rodent', or 'Little Johnny' when talking about Howard. They'r the mild ones too. Or how about the dubya jokes. I cant stand Gerard Henderson, but he had a point when he used to blag on about the 'Howard Haters'.

This is exactly Merideth's point on the other topic you reference. Notice you missed ASymeonakis equating Howard with White Supremicists, and heap it on Col for using K.Rudd.

I'll bet if CJ made a quip at loony assertions like that by BOAZ, rather than Col about ASymeonakis you'd think it was funny and rightly putting them in their place.

Personally I think it is good that Mr Rudd was elected. We had 11 years of good competent Government which everyone took for granted. Now we have an incompetent Government who is into symbols rather than substance (typical of socialism). Hopefully the Australian people who aren't old enough to suffer an incompetent Labour Government will learn quickly. Those who are going to be unemployed due to the ridiculous ETS tax and irresponsible spending will be the first to learn.

What if the Libs had won the last election?

One thing I know for sure we would have a Prime Minister who called voting for the current USA President would be like voting for Al Qaida.

Says it all really.

Dear Houellebecq,

Bravo, you've made your point.

I'll now go and do a bit of soul-searching.
And genuinely try to do better all round.

However, I do want you to understand one thing.

As I've tried to say on another thread - I firmly
believe that there is an etiquette for communicating
online. An informal "set of rules" for behaviour in
computer based conversation. If we all comply to codes
of conduct that make the "play" easier and more enjoyable for
everyone - I'm sure it would be more pleasant all round.
Examinator was referring to all of us - yet it was interesting
to note that only a few really balked at the idea and took
offense.

Perhaps it is a generational thing. I was taught that good manners
mattered. Politeness rules.

Examinator was only advocating minor changes in our behaviour.
He felt that if we all tried we could attract people to the
Forum, not turn them away, or have people leave due to
personal attacks.

Ah well, at least he tried - for which some of us are grateful.

Might I suggest that “Ettiquette” includes a one month ban for hypocrisy?

On that basis we would see a lot of folk who go into type to object to

my values and
the achievements of those I admire (eg Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin)
and my right to free expression
as well as my “posting style”

here one day, banned for a month,
here a day, banned for a month
here a day, banned for a month . . .

I do thank Houellebecq for his astute observation of the facts

Foxy
“Bravo, you've made your point.

I'll now go and do a bit of soul-searching.
And genuinely try to do better all round.”

Should we include “sarcasm” among the sin which qualify for the banning ?

“Examinator was only advocating minor changes in our behaviour.
He felt that if we all tried we could attract people to the
Forum, not turn them away, or have people leave due to
personal attacks.”

Imho Examinator is very adept at bullying by waving the rule book and talking down to people.

“Ah well, at least he tried - for which some of us are grateful.”

He is entitled to try

Just as I am entitled to disagree with him and you and trust me

I will agree and disagree as I see fit and will not be silenced by the threats of being beaten with a bunch of rules.

I have seen it happen in other chatrooms, where moderators let the power go to their head and start directing the conversation through selective censorship of those they disagree with.,

I note Ludwig and I disagree as often as we agree, yet Ludwig never tries to talk down to me (Examinator, Q&A etc) nor does he try sarcasm (Fractelle) and I follow Ludwig’s lead, when either agreeing or disagreeing with Ludwig.

Same too Arjay. Pelican. Celevia and a host of others…..

TRUTHNOW78 I would see some possible merit in your observations. Oh your other thread (An Aboriginal Nation state ) stirred up a hornets nest, maybe you intended that

Dear Col,

I wrote the post with all sincerity -intending no offense
to anyone.

I do intend to try to improve.

Why don't you try to do the same?

My post was not meant as an attack - so kindly don't
turn it into one.

No one is trying to change you with any book of "rules"
the codes I was referring to in my post were ones of online
behaviour dealing with good manners and decency, applicable to
everyone.

Surely that's not a big ask?

Dear Foxy

You brought that debate onto this thread, not me

I find it discomforting, your claim to the best of intentions yet

haste to cast dispersions upon my valid right of reply.

As for “I do intend to try to improve.

Why don't you try to do the same?”

I have never made any suggestion to you or anyone regarding their need to “improve”.

You “trying to improve” is something entirely of your own volition and entirely your decision

Personally, I am quite happy with who and how I am…

your unilateral decision to “try to improve” in no way entitles you to suggest or request I do similar.

I recall some words of wisdom on a biscuit tin my dear old mum had

“Be to her virtues very kind
Be to her faults a little blind”

No one appreciates to be told to “improve” , especially when the source lacks the authority, either physical or moral, to insist.

I suggest you reflect on what you were so quick to suggest to me….

“Remember individuals are reading your posts and it is people at the
other end of the technology to whom you're speaking, not the PC
screen.”

Surely that is not a big ask?

Ooops..

I need correcting..

I brought the topic to this thread.. my apologies Foxy... I am wrong in that context to who brought the rule debate to this thread..

my apologies for that error... '

the rest of my post stands as is.

Congrats Col Rouge fraudulent bunkum? you did that very well.
Time and again you tell us of your clients and how you charge what you wish, but if you think thats why our super funds lost so much?
are you just a little bit concerned how totally wrong that statement was?
If the Libs won?
the world financial crisis would still exist, concerns would be slanted to the rich, the unemployed would suffer even more.
The warn out proven not to work tax breaks would be our front line defense not reasoned moves.
Australians are not fools we have a new long term government and no need to follow America and put limits on time served, the ballot box is that limit.

Col,

'Might I suggest that “Ettiquette” includes a one month ban for hypocrisy?'
A fine suggestion. Though I think that would make it pretty quiet around here.

Foxy,

'Examinator was referring to all of us'
Either I'm cynical or you're naive. Possibly both.

'yet it was interesting
to note that only a few really balked at the idea and took
offense.'

Perhaps the offense wasn't with the making of the rules, more those who put themselves up as the kangaroo court. Anyway, I'm not offended with the rules, and Col has stated he accepts the existing Moderator's rules and enforcement.

'Perhaps it is a generational thing. I was taught that good manners
mattered. Politeness rules.'

Not everything was better in the good 'ol days. Manners can be useful, but they can also be a hindrance to communication and 'spice'. It's a matter of degree and personal taste. It's also a matter of selective enforcement which you agree I have exposed.

yes Fractelle, your post does say it all- except that is not what Howard said at all. The lack of a democratic voice in the nations where Al Qaida lurk is a problem. Nobody gets to vote.

My take?

Rudd would still be sitting with his back to the govt.-only he'd be banished to the corner, forced to listen to the leader of the opp. Julia Gillard; chewing away whilst waxing lyrical on his manifesto for the future.

Paul Keating, so deservedly re-instated as the author of our bounty over the last 18 months would be sent back to the siberia of irrelevance.

Wayne Swann would still be (in vain) searching for his reflection in the mirror.

The CFMEU would be rallying the faithful to protest foreigners entering Strayia and stealing our jobs (but not in a racist way).

NSW would still be broke and VIC and SA busted.

The NT Intervention would be continuing.

Treasury would be offering the same advice.

palimpsest

Howards exact words were: “If I was running Al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle round March 2008 and pray as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats”.

In addition, IR laws would even more entrenched and biased towards employers.

No apology to original inhabitants of Australia.

While Rudd has yet to make in-roads on sustainable economics and population control, he remains vastly superior in his understanding of environmental problems, for example; latest offer to assist Australian households to install insulation - not enough but way more than Howard would ever do.

With regard to USA driven recession, Howard is unlikely to have done anything different to Rudd, given his track record for bailing out businesses eg National Textiles - owned by his brother. In fact, I suggest he would've been committing more of our tax dollars to big business, baby bonuses, first.

However, all this banter is entirely moot. Howard is history. Rudd and Obama are the future. Deal.

<< yes Fractelle, your post does say it all- except that is not what Howard said at all. The lack of a democratic voice in the nations where Al Qaida lurk is a problem. Nobody gets to vote.>>

Actually, palimpsest, it's precisely what he said: "I think that [troop withdrawals] will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory."

"If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."

No mention of democracy or voting, and Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the invasion created a power vacuum. Saddam Hussein violently repressed Al Qaeda in his country, just as he repressed every other group that threatened his dictatorship. That's why Bin Laden was fond of calling Hussein a "socialist infidel".

It's beyond me how you could interpret Howard's comment to mean anything other than "a vote for Obama = a vote for Bin Laden." His message was very clear.

I'm derailing my own thread here, but that post was just too ridiculous to pass without challenge.

Well Gentlemen, I can see that as far as me trying to communicate
anything to you is a waste of my time.

Because, I will never agree that making comments like the following
comes under the heading of "spice." To me these comments come
under the heading of " offensive inappropriate material."

For example:

"I wouldn't cross the street to piss on you if you were on fire..."
(or words to that effect) that Col made to one poster.

And then he quoted a very vile, crass poem (regarding sexual relations)
to an 88 year old widower from WA, on an article thread, which absolutely made me cringe.
It was a 'Yuck" moment -and totally repulsive . And my reactions
from then on whenever I'd see Col's name on any post -I'd think
"Nay, won't read it," too gross! The man - never adds anything positive to a discussion, because he persists in stooping to
put-downs - tired old quotes, and insults, and tries to pass all this
as an an acceptable "style" of posting on discussion forums.

It's not. And sorry, in my book, never should be.

But, from now on, I'll simply scroll past whenever I'll see the
name. He can keep his "style." I can choose to ignore it.

Sancho and Fractelle, my objection was to Fractelle's claim that H said that a vote for Obama would be 'like voting for Al Qaida". I agree that he should never have said what he said.

My inference from his statement is that an Obama victory would encourage Al Qaida, not as you assert that it would be a direct support for them. That's all.

Fraactelle, agree entirely this is all moot, but Sancho's original Q was fairly open, and didn't ask for just a one sided answer. Maybe there's room for a little fun in such a hypothetical thread?

See Foxy, that is rightfully a matter of your individual taste. daggett thinks it's distasteful when CJ casts aspersions on people's mental health, Col thinks it's in bad taste to denigrate Margeret Thatcher or say John Howard supports white supremacists. A lot of people think any critisism of their religion or personal beliefs is bad taste, as does BOAZ. In fact it is 'manners' not to talk about politics or religion at the dinner table or sex in mixed company. Dinner parties with manners therefore have no spice at all.

I just think it's bad taste to apply one standard to some and another standard to others. I believe either you can make comments of a personal nature or you cant. Anything else is subjective and full of bias.

Dear Houellebecq,

I don't agree with your take on this.

We're all subjective - that's a given.
But we don't all stoop consistently to personal attacks
and insults in our discussion postings on this Forum.

Discussions here are meant to take place between several participants,
and you can't have one with people who stoop to personal attacks on anyone that disagrees with their point of view.

As examinator clearly stated - it wasn't the points of view
that people found objectionable, it was the way
in which the points of view were being presented i.e. people
stooping to personal insults.
He asked everyone to re-examine their posting methods.

Which most of us saw as a fair and rational request.
Obviously some disagreed - and called him the "Great- Examinator-
Inquisitor ... et cetera." He even got "mooned" for daring
to suggest civility in postings.

Anyway, I can see that we are not going to agree on this
issue.

So, there's no need for any further discussion.

Cheers,

I think Foxy has got it right.
From the first post I looked at yesterday.
And in every one following sarcasm and rudeness is on display.
Give it a miss ok?
you will never impress us as much as you impress your self.

Foxy “I can choose to ignore it.”

That is and always has been your personal right

Just as what I choose to post is my personal right,

I further recall you have a hissing fit on the Sarah Palin thread

Spat the dummy and ran off.

Houellebecq “Col thinks it's in bad taste to denigrate Margeret Thatcher or say John Howard supports white supremacists.”

The difference,

I do not demand people change their views or invoke rules to have them deleted or banned..

I debate with them and counter their opinions, as I do with many folk here
Until someone attacks me instead of the points I make, then I will assume a mirror posture to their attack.

Eg ASymeonakis post, at the beginning of this thread, you will note I attack the points he makes. I did not attack him or this right to make them.

I see what Belly was saying, differences in the style of ASymeonakis post compared to most previous ones,

It is possible to have one logon supporting multiple individuals, although I cannot see the benefit.

Belly “how you charge what you wish, but if you think thats why our super funds lost so much”

What I earn is irrelevant to superfunds…

with more superfund money chasing a fixed amount of real investments, it is reasonable to speculate, they attract sub-standard investment products onto the market

The world runs on credit
Credit relies upon people having confidence in the future that investments will produce income and be secure.

What Krudd & Co has pursued are policies of magnifying the financial insecurities, which destroys confidence in the future

EXAMPLE guaranteeing the banks, causing a run on superfunds.

Regarding your line “are you just a little bit concerned how totally wrong that statement was?”

Argue your point, describe how my statement was “totally wrong” instead of just spraying unsubstantiated jingos

Btw… you comment on my disclosure of my work.. I notice you are never slow in regaling us with how you make your living.

how “alike” we are in that respect…

ain’t that just dandy…

Col,

A few corrections need to be made:

1) You said, "What I choose to post is my personal right."
Yes, but not to the point of using offensive language
and personal attacks. Good manners apply on a public
Forum.

2) "I do not demand people change their views or evoke
rules to have them deleted or banned."
Neither does anyone else on this Forum to the best
of my knowledge.
No one is asking you to change your views. Or demanding to have
you deleted or banned. All that is being asked is that
personal attacks and offense language not be used when posting.

3) You accuse me of spitting the dummy and running off
on the Sarah Palin thread.
My recollection differs from yours.
I actually ended up apologising to you.
You did not reciprocate with any apology
to me.
My exact words to you were:

"I do apologise Col ... I was wrong to be so arrogant.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I admit
that it is the wide variety of opinions that attracted
me to this Forum in the first place.
So I should practice what I believe in."

Have a nice day,

Foxy,

'But we don't all stoop *consistently* to personal attacks'

Perhaps consistency is the issue then? If so then I still think it could be subjective, as the individual occurences that make up the consistency are subjective. Anyway, I would say others (aka the self appointed Kangaroo Court) are very in-consistent, or selective, when dishing out the admonishment for such behaviour.

'Which most of us saw as a fair and rational request.'
Maybe those who were identifying themselves as the 'good kids' by naming a few of the 'bad kids' did. Perhaps that's ok. If 'most' of the posters identify Col and BOAZ as the bad kids, and are squeeky clean themsleves there is no hypocracy.

But I have a problem with the claims of squeeky clean, and also the idea of attempting to marginalise some posters for not fitting into the 'norm' (hence creating a gated society), while proporting to be attempting to *broaden* the appeal of OLO.

What you're really doing there is broadening the appeal for the 'right' kind of posters, as determined by the majority bias. You're not punishing individual instances of poor behaviour independently and objectively. Maybe that's what a moderator is for...

Anyway I just don't think you can quantify all this, and it boils down to, again, we're the good kids now let's make some roles to exclude the naughty kids.

Houellebecq,

There's no point in continuing this discussion
any further.

Cheers,

Foxy concerning your “Recollection” versus my "recollection"

Your apology came after the following piece of sarcasm on the
“Americas First Female President now?” thread, initiated by Belly

“Dear Col,

I have to admit when I've been rightly
chastised.

I bow to your superior intellect and arguments Sir.

You are not the neanderthal that I thought
you to be.

On the contrary. You are a man of wit and character.

You're absolutely correct in pointing out
that this entire misunderstanding was my fault.

I have learned my lesson.

From now on I will not dare to enter into
any further discussions with someone of your
calibre.”

And that was after you penned

“Your beloved Thatcher summed it up:

"Ego, is God's gift to little men.”"

Which I corrected you on, because you were wrong.

That was a quote ascribed not to MArgaret Thatcher but to the US Democrat President Harry Truman.

Please do not claim credit for your past apologies, which was due and accepted by me.

As in “Foxy apology accepted.”

But you were at least right when you wrote

"superior intellect and arguments." and "You are a man of wit and character"

As to "All that is being asked is that
personal attacks and offense language not be used when posting."

I live within the rules laid down by the host, not the rules of some inconsequential authoritarian usurper.

I would note further, a post by dickie which I referred to, has been deleted by our host, presumably for its offensive nature, yet I see no admonishment by you or your "gang" of dickie

Like Houellebecq said to you in a previous post on this thread

"I just think it's bad taste to apply one standard to some and another standard to others..... Anything else is subjective and full of bias."

Re “Houellebecq,

There's no point in continuing this discussion
any further.

Cheers,”

blatant attempt at control by denial......

Houellebecq I suggest you take as a “Win”

when one's adversary flees the field of battle, tail between legs.

Stick to your guns Foxy.
See how many of us copy your short sentence post style?
You have a fan club
To use an old union saying.
Coming from an old unionist
I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
Each of us, you too Col have a right to our opinions.

Col,

A few more corrections:

You stated:

1) "Please do not claim credit for your past apology
...which was due and accepted by me."
I wasn't claiming credit I was merely adding information
that you had left out in your previous post. You had
accused me of spitting the dummy and running off. You
neglected to say that I had apologised to you prior to
leaving the thread. As for anything being 'due' to you?
Not everyone agreed with my apology. As one poster
stated:

"You did not owe Col an apology. You were manipulated by
a bully."

In other words Col, you gave as good as you got on that
thread.

2) I wasn't aware that this was a "field of battle" when I
told Houellebecq that there was no point in any further
discussion, and I certainly wasn't leaving with my "tail
between my legs."

However, you're the expert on that end of our anatomy. As this
quote of yours from another thread illustrates:

"Oh Allah,
No one know what is in my heart,
No one knows what is in my mind,
But all can see what is sticking up behind."

Consider yourself MOONED.

Cheers,

Foxy “As one poster stated: "You did not owe Col an apology. You were manipulated by a bully."”
Ah well if you rely on the opinion of fractelle, you will be in serious pooh pretty quick

Imho fractelles has the cognitive skills of a newt and her opinion is not worth a brass razzoo

But she is entitled to express it …
Just as I am entitled to laugh at it

“In other words Col, you gave as good as you got on that thread.”

And rest assured, I will always endeavour to give similar value now and in the future.

re "Oh Allah......."

Trying to quote me back at me will never have the same dramatic impact of an "original"

but they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery….

so cheers Foxy

Col,

Some more corrections:

1) You said, "Fractelle has the cognitive skills
of a newt and her opinion is not worth a
brass razoo."

Not true. Fractelle is highly regarded on this
discussion Forum. It's your congitive skills
and opinion that are in question.

2)"Trying to quote me back to me will never have
the same dramatic impact of an "original."

From your reaction, it seems to have worked rather well,
I'd say.

3) "I will always endeavour to give similar value
now and in the future."

I know, you continue to rise to the same low level.
Sad really. If you don't have anything nice to say,
say it often.

4) "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."
I agree, so stop it!

Cheers,

Belly “I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
Each of us, you too Col have a right to our opinions.”

Too right we all do, Belly and one way of ensuring I remain on my feet is by keeping the record straight when people try to play fast and loose with it, hence, why I went to the trouble of quoting Foxy verbatim on her “hissing fit”.

And I offer you my back list of posts to rummage and you will find I have never, ever, ever suggested otherwise.
Uunlike quite a few around here who clamber to change the rules and stifle the voice of those they wish to silence because they who express dissent from some nebulous standard of “polite conversation”.

And btw your quote is ascribed to Emiliano Zapata, who is also accredited with the saying

“There are no laws other than the law of the gun”

Which is similar to Lenin’s famous saying in respect of the democratic process

“One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”

Seems to me they were cut from the same bolt of cloth, excepting for the manner of their departure, for whilst Lenin died of a stoke Zapata, was gunned down by some of his fellow “revolutionaries”.

and that was the best thing both of them did for democracy,

to die.

As Foxy said “let the country decide.”

And I live in the hope that when it does, it will quiet the whine from of those who find themselves in the “minority”

but if the last referendum is any guide, we will still hear the republicans impersonating the noise of the jet engines of an aircraft, just after it lands.

I suppose it's overly optimistic to hope that this thread either dies or actually returns to the title topic...