"Ad hominen, Poirot - can we get back to the issues ?"

Oh come now, Loudmouth. You're the one who raised the issue of Slipper and his misogyny. I was just highlighting your own penchant to play the mocking male to certain women on this forum - namely moi....

Here's a little peek at your style.

First you raise the flag wondering where Poirot is and why she hasn't paid you any attention:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14627&page=0#252546

Poirot replies "briefly".

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14627&page=0#252549

And then you pull your stunt:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14627&page=0#252550

Do you talk to other men like that on this forum?

Of course you don't.

That is reserved for women when you wish to provoke them.

And then you have the gall to bleat ad infinitem that we should get back to topic. Always the same tactic, to prod and provoke and then claim your target is the one going off topic.

Still, most of the guys on OLO are bigger than that - shame about you.

Ad hominem a fortiori, Poirot.

It's not always just about you, dear.

Now can we get back to the issues ?

Does Gillard exploit and distort the issue of misogyny or not ? Is she utilising Thompson as much as possible, or not ? Just for his slimy vote ?

Is she prepared to rely on a sleaze like Slipper, and to go into bat for him, regardless of his vile opinions about women, or not ? Just for his slimy vote ?

Cheers,

:)

Joe

Dear Poirot,

I don't know whether Joe (Loudmouth) is having a
go at me by flattering me,
or even if he's trying to provoke me.
However, it doesn't change my opinion on the issues.

The courts will decide regarding Mr Thomson's
innocence or guilt and the rest of us should
simply wait until they do before making any
assumptions or judgements.

I respect and admire your logic and reasoning
and I always have.
You're one poster on this forum whose posts I always
read.

Take care.

Lexi,

I presume that Loudmouth isn't necessarily out to provoke "you".

Although he's still a tad patronising, he's probably fairy genuine in your case.

However, I know he's out to provoke me with his patronising "sweetie" crap...he's used it plenty of times for that end. And the minute you call him out on his low tactics, he yelps "ad hominem!" and requests you get back to the subject at hand (which he usually has already skewed:)

I mean can you imagine him addressing any of the the fellas around her with an equivalent to "Come on, sweetie, you can do better ;)"?

And then he has the temerity to bring up Slipper's rhetoric as ammo in this thread.

(I suppose on the slime-o-meter there are different degrees of viscosity.... I find being provoked and patronised fairly slimy:)

Anyway, thanks for your kind words : )

Dear Poirot,

You're welcome.

Keep on posting!

Hi Lexi and Poirot,

I sincerely apologise for any offense, and if you thought my remarks were patronising - the point is that, here on OLO, probably for most of us, we develop a liking for many other contributors, as well as a dislike for some others, and as it happens, I tend to like pretty much all identifiably female congributors, and many of the identifiably male ones, as well as the ambiguous contributors too.

And of course, it shouldn't come as a surprise that, for all our differences, I like both of you. You contribute passionatley and sincerely, you give it hyour best shot, you get involved, and I'm sure many of us out here admire that in any contributor.

So what are the issues here ? Thompson was sooner or later going to be either arrested or 'invited' down to the station. Perhaps one has to be paranoid to believe that Gillard knew it was about to happen, so pulled on a Clayton's Election Campaign - still leaving open the opportunity to pull on an election at any time, if some 'unforeseen crisis' demanded it 'in the national interest'.

Maybe so, maybe no. Either way, she locks in all that parliamentary support that the labor Government needs, from independents and Bandt, and corrals a fractious back-bench. She probably rules out a direct challenge from Rudd.

But I do have a feeling that she only has to slip up once or twice more, in a big way, and she's gone. She reminds me of those Chinese acrobats on those one-wheel bikes who have to balance a dozen plates on their foreheads - it could so easily go horribly wrong.

Can't wait :)

Loudmouth