Lexi,

The facts I post or link to support my case. The difference is that you very very seldom post anything other than your own opinion, and certainly almost nothing from anyone independent.

If there are facts to support your posts, then either you can't find them or they don't exist.

SM,

That's just silly.

Lexi posts many times referencing from sources that support her stance. It's one of her habits.

What you appear to be saying is that you, like all of us, post links which confirm your bias. Nothing new in that, or in the fact you don't choose to reference from downright bozos (coz that would be stupid)...but don't try and make out your style is superior to anyone else of intelligence who opposes your view.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I don't have a problem with the English language.
But you have a problem - that of comprehension.

And as far as important issues are concerned -
as you know it is a strange paradox that, while
we live in a torrent of information, there is
such a limited range of available views.

Media ownership in Australia is notoriously narrow.
Mainstream media offers precious little diversity,
and such diversity as there is runs along predictable
lines.

Those of us who are torn between the desert of
mainstream and the jungle of the internet need a place
where rational but diverse views can be found on matters
of importance. For me "New Matilda," is such a place.
It would be difficult to agree with every view expressed-
in the columns of "New Matilda," but it would be equally
difficult to disagree with them all. And it would be
impossible to criticise any of them as irrational or
foolish. But of course, to you it's not only both of
these things - it's even worse - it's a "Leftie"
publication. Whereas, Andrew Bolt's column in the
"Herald Sun," if full of "facts." Right!

cont'd ...

BTW - I always do my research prior to
posting on any topic. It's an occupational
habit and part of my training. Just because
you say something Sir, does not make it true.

Dearest Lexi,

You

".... fully agree that a healthy, vital society is not
one in which we all agree."

But your next point:

"However it is one in which
those who disagree can do so with honour and respect
for other people's opinions - without stooping to
personal insults - such as "Comrade Conroy," or
"Juliar." Without personal commitment to the
atributes of fair play and integrity, this country is
in grave danger as malice and intolerance stalk our
society."

is much more debatable - we don't have to honour and respect anybody else's opinions - it would be sweet and cosy if we all did, but that's hardly likely, or required, or even desirable, in a democratic society.

And who defines what is "fair play" and "integrity" ? The umpires of Finkelstein's Star Chamber ? Les Francs Juges ?

And finally, malice and intolerance are not nice, to be sure, but they are allowable aspects of a free and diverse society, one in which people can abuse each other and do so with some viciousness. None of that should be illegal in an open, free, diverse, disputaceous society. After all, for thousands of years, it's been differences of opinion, often passionately stated, which has moved us on from the Stone Age.

If you want to call me a miserable old f@rt, a dried-up dog's tyrd, I won't like it but I'll defend your right to say so to the death. As Voltaire is supposed to have actually said.

Love,

Joe

Voltaire also said:

"Prejudices are what fools use for reason."