Col

“I now expect you to justify your scurrilous assertion that the accountancy profession is riddled with thieves and tax cheats.”

Down off your high horse, Col. I’m not accusing you or any other individual accountant of being a thief. My comment was a loose turn of phrase and not meant to be taken literally. The accountancy profession is nonetheless built around the principle of tax minimisation, and as discussed earlier this involves both avoidance and evasion. You can quibble over the differences between the two as long as you like, the end result is the same. The tax take is less and the ability of government to redistribute wealth and create a fairer society is weakened.

"Examinator and Anansis both breached what is supposed to be one of the cardinal rules of debating 'Play the Ball, not the man'"

They were both playing the ball and playing it well and have nothing to apologise for. Yes, they paraphrased you, and yes, they used their prior knowledge of your posting history as much as they did the words on the page, but they didn't unduly misrepresent you or make personal slurs. They were well within the confines of reasonable hardball debate and considering what you've dished up to others over the years your sanctimonious protestations are laughable really.

I would imagine that most people reading Pelican's first post would have sympathy with the fact that she was underpaid and their comments, like david f's, would reflect that. But no, not you. Straight away you jump in and superciliously point out to Pelican how mistaken she was to ever believe her labour was worth more than the lowly rate at which she'd been paid. The implication was she was lucky to have a job and that no matter how badly she was treated she should never have considered getting back at her employer the way she did. Her suffering was acceptable, but not his. It was classic pro employer and screw the worker. It wasn’t explicit, but the drift was there and none of us missed it.

Col (cont)

“Bronwyn, how is it possible for someone to be as hypocritical as you? I speculate, if you wear makeup, it must cost lots and take a long time to apply….painting and powdering both faces every day.”

Ah, Col, I must remember that next time hubby’s tapping his feet, ready to go and I’m still at the mirror. I’ll tell him it’s the two faces. :)

Pelican

"Is there any situation where stealing is justified?"

Having just watched 'Slumdog Millionaire', I would suggest that an orphan child living in the slums of India has absolutely no choice but to steal. Fabulous movie too BTW. Thoroughly recommend it.

Davidf Davidf I do appreciate your well expressed sensitivity to a point I was making. And your subsequent repulses to some scurrilous comments

And I do have a (strictly rhetorical) question from your post and in what you observed

Re “prejudices are considered unacceptable. Aborigines, Jews, Muslims and other ethnic minorities are considered out of bounds for derision.

However, Americans, accountants and lawyers are other categories which can be derided freely.”

How acceptable or unacceptable is it to denigrate the professional efforts of a

Jewish Accountant,
Aboriginal Lawyer or
American Muslim ?

Doubtless, those better skilled than you or I, in the judgment of others, will be quick to find the answer,

For myself, from the question I raise, it is immediately clear that

anyone who considers themselves sufficiently skilled at “judging” has, by default, got the answer wrong.

Anansi “you focussed on the employer maybe being justified in paying low wages,”

That might be your misinterpetation of what I wrote, I cannot account for your language skills.

That aside, it does now justify your cheap shot.

And the point with the entire thread was the topic was not the amount Pelican was paid but

Pelicans action of stealing..

But you make your cheap shots… lets face it … they give you more presence here than if you try with just the strength of your personality.

“You have no idea of my personal ethics or politcal beliefs.”

Nor do I give a rats.

“To the point that you appear dogmatic. You countenance no deviation, modification or examination of the truth as revealed by Margaret Tatcher.”

Golly gosh.. to hear you, one might be mistaken for thinking this was an “opinion forum”

Bronwyn.. your capacity to caste aside responsibility for your judgmental postings is awe inspiring

But I have spent more than enough words on you and your hypocrisy.

To use more would be to

cast pearls before swine…

and dickie could have provided the images until it was deleted by our host,

the real authority, who does make and enforce the rules of the forum.

"There once was a poster named Col,
His own virtues he'd love to extol.
With his razor sharp flair,
Forum posters beware,
'Cause polite conversation,
This poster won't wear!"

You gotta love this guy!

Two can play at that game

There was a little gang who, alone
Believed authority was theirs to own
But even the lovely Foxy
Adopted rules so poxy
Other posters found reason to moan

as you said.....

You gotta love this guy!

Care to go another round?

Col

"But I have spent more than enough words on you and your hypocrisy."

Yes, you have, Col, and every time you lecture me or anyone else about double standards, your own hypocrisy shines through ever more clearly.

"To use more would be to cast pearls before swine…"

Just as well I don't pounce on literal interpretations in the way you do when it suits you to have a go, or I too would be puffing myself up with self-righteous indignation at being called a pig. Fortuantely, I have a little more sense than that.

As for the pearls, well Col, we all know you value your own words highly, but pearls of wisdom? I don't think so. More like stones if you ask me. They might make a slight ripple when they hit the water, but they soon sink without a trace.

Foxy

"You gotta love this guy!"

As always, Foxy, you're far too kind! :)