pelican,

I suggest you understand perfectly the point I made, which was that a real or implied taint against a person or his family, friends, connections or affiliation does not in itself dispel and nor is it a defence against any genuine complaint or allegation, for instance of corruption, s/he might make against another person.

Or would you say that a woman's past sexual history and alleged permissiveness is a defence against a rape offence? Hey, she wasn't as white as snow so what right does she have to complain? Hypocrisy! Dismiss the charge!

Hi Poirot,

Yeah, sorry about getting my threads mixed u, but I'm an old person and am entitled to a bit of mental confusion. I'm sure you can't say the same :)

Oh well, back to topic: if we are going to criticise politicians for corruption, etc., then it's reasonable to get some sense of proportionality. Some offenses are, after all, more heinous than others.

You may consider Brough's offense worse than Thomson's, or than Obeid and Mcdonald's, but with respect, I don't see it that way.

Now this sleaze Dowling has rocketed the Libs into and up the ranks of heinousness and perfidy, I'd be the first to agree with you, if you raised it.

So my ranking, from 1 (mild) to 5 (outrageous), would be:

Ashby/Brough
Dowling
Thomson
Gillard
Obeid-McDonald

How would you see it, Poirot, now that you are participating in this thread ?

Cheers :)

Joe

OTB
I certainly did not understand your point in it's entirety as you appeared to completely misunderstand mine. You have a very aggressive approach in the way you 'speak' to people so I will attempt to get my point across again. I generally mean exactly what I say. Take it or leave it as you will. Your choice.

"Or would you say that a woman's past sexual history and alleged permissiveness is a defence against a rape offence? Hey, she wasn't as white as snow so what right does she have to complain? Hypocrisy! Dismiss the charge!"

That is a completely apples and oranges analogy and basically you are saying that promiscuous behaviour means someone deserves to be raped. The woman in your scenario is innocent. You and I disagree completely on that viewpoint.

When I talk about 'pure as snow' I am referring to both party's failure to address claims of wrongdoing and the fact they should not be surprised if when pointing the finger that someone will point back if you have also been seen to be less than honest. I am afraid I fail to see the analogy with your rape scenario. The rape victim is an innocent in that scenario.

I have clearly said that both parties should endeavour to be honest and respond to the claims put to them.

Pelican,

Don't worry yourself too much...you, as usual, are a most reasonable poster.

otb, has a habit (and I recall he's targeted you before) of deliberately misconstruing a posters intent, then launching into all sorts of misrepresentations constructed o his own fallacious line.

I've had to confront him a few times on similar issues.

Not much you can do if someone is out to misrepresent the meaning in your posts.

I've noticed he tends to hang onto his line like a terrier on a trouser hem...so good luck with trying to reason with him.

Poirot
Yes I can't work out sometimes if those types of responses are intentionally misrepresenting or misreading. I can understand the latter but the former I just don't get at all. What is the point. Life is too short to carry around that sort of anger. It is not healthy.

Live and let live I suppose.

pelican,

It is interesting that your first choice is to attack me,

"very aggressive approach in the way you 'speak' to people".

That is what I am talking about. Go back to your post of 8 August 2013 9:29:54 AM, you are just playing politics, right?