Cont'd...

""I’m sure that at least R0bert and Paul can see this perfectly clearly. Then if they want to uphold their condemnation of Harris after having considered everything that I have put forward, then so be it. I respect that.

But Poirot’s stance is just extraordinary."

"Go suck an egg Pericles (and hopefully choke on it) (:>)"

"Poirot, you’ve got the worst case of foot-in-mouth disease that I’ve ever seen. You strongly SUPPORT my case every time you put finger to keyboard, with your incredibly polarised statements."

"At least three people on this thread should take a good long hard look at themselves in relation to this.....I see an enormous amount of duplicity here."

"Thanks again Poirot for demonstrating your incredibly blinkered view…"

"Well that just says it all. You are not really blinkered at all. You’ve got the shutters down completely.....What an incredibly hopeless way of thinking. Or I should say; of NOT thinking!"

"You will recall that there were several people early in this thread who expressed similar views to me. They have rightly left, in light of low-lifers that would have hounded them if they’d hung around."

"Have a look at the character of people still in this discussion. There is one of good character, there is one of a very polarised nature and quite nasty character and there are a couple of dismal personal character, who don’t respect the OLO forum rules and who just flame to the hilt."

"One of these characters, with whom I have had numerous long debates involving many hundreds of posts over a period of several years on this forum, has shown himself to be of the lowest possible personal quality..."

Cont'd

Cont'd...

"....and the little band of nasty intolerants on this thread, are TOTALLY WRONG...."

"... I consider people like this, who are simply incapable of entertaining a debate without constant personal abuse and who go to the max to build straw-man cases against those with whom they disagree, to be nothing short of the absolute scum of society."

"Or was it the small bunch of total intolerants who couldn’t stomach these suggestions, without launching straight into tirades of personal abuse?"

"There must be at least 100 posts which actually add something meaningful to this discussion… …and about 400 from the little lowlife band of Ludwig bashers."

"But be careful saying things like that - you’ll have Polarised Poirot and her two rabid Ludwig-bashing lapdogs comin after you.

And they is REEEALLY VICIOUS!"

"..... and an intense blast of internet bullying from three respondents who have shown themselves to be of particularly poor character"

"Then as Poirot slipped from calm rationality at the start of this thread, into a more and more decrepit state of mind..."

(still attempting the divide and conquer tactic):

"Well R0bert, if you set aside all the polarised statements and the making out that I hold much stronger views than I really do, plus the absolute nastiness that Poirot has pumped out on this thread, then yes you’re probably right."

(Then when RObert reminds Ludwig he concurs with Poirot):

"Oh for goodness sake. I held off responding at all for a long time, while Poirot put out a lot of most unfortunate posts, one after the other. Then I eventually let it be known what I think of her. You are looking at this particular aspect of this long ‘discussion’ in a very unbalanced manner R0bert.

The enormous difference is in the way the you and Paul have conducted yourselves, compared to Poirot."

Cont'd

(After Ludwig's continuing rant regarding Poirot, he suggests we resume cordial arrangements! - which I refuse...his response...):

"I tried to uphold a good conversation with you early in this thread. Then when you became heated and polarised and just plain nasty, and it was clear that I couldn’t entertain a sensible dialogue with you, I stopped responding to you, and eventually told you what I thought of you and the two other little Ludwig-bashers....You are incredibly two-faced. And it is clearly impossible to have a sensible conversation with you."

"[To Cossomby] "Never have I given any indication anywhere that I think it was <just a bit of groping, to just having a bit of fun, with no sense of the rights of others>"

"That says it all really. Poirot was completely intolerant of me even daring to question anything regarding the judge’s sentencing remarks. All the shrillness and nastiness and he-said – she-said bunkum on this thread stems directly from that incredibly poor and just plain WRONG basic premise, from her and a couple of others."

"I’ve got to admit: you’ve become very hard to like, especially after resoundly rejecting my offer to set our differences aside and debate the issue in a cool, calm and non-personally-attacking manner."

"Well done. Those two posts were almost entirely directed at the debate and almost free of directly personally attacking offensive statements! ( :>)"

And who could forget Ludwig's crowning glory of "reasonable dialogue" with people who disagree with his reasoning...

"Once you gain a true perspective of my position from reading only my posts, you will then find that I haven’t dug myself into a hole at all, but rather, the little lowlife band of three have heaped a great mountain of their excrement upon me, which they have pulled out of their stinky little backsides, and which is completely independent of their brains (unless their brains are up their bums, which seems like a distinct possibility)."

Probably best to leave it there...hard to top that....from the man who accuses others of abuse, yet refuses to provide evidence of such behaviour.

Yea!! Page 100!!

<< SO; I stand by my post; >>

Well that says it all, doesn’t it Paul.

It says that no matter how clearly and repeatedly I state my position, you and a few others with incredibly warped thought processes will insist that my position is something quite different.

How incredibly hopeless!

You can’t possibly legitimately condemn me for holding the position that I have clearly stated, so you have to invent stuff to hold against me.

Congratulations on that.

I see that I am not the only one who is copping this sort of utter extremism…

The Dalwallinu Shire Council in WA has decided to re-hang some Harris artwork.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-29/rolf-harris-painting-re-hung-by-dalwallinu-shire/5706878

This decision was arrived at after an intensive process of review… and yet, of course, they have received condemnation from some quarters for forgiving Harris, which they absolutely have not done.

---

< An article in a local newspaper said the decision gave the impression the shire had forgiven Harris for his offences.

Dalwallinu Shire President Robert Nixon said he was disgusted by that accusation.

"I find that totally abhorrent because council did not indicate that at all," he said.

"What council did was make a decision to reinstate the painting after it had been down for several months based on community feedback.

"I think it's very wrong - it's inferring something that wasn't council's decision in the first place." >

---

There are clearly just some subjects that cannot be discussed or dealt with in a sensible manner without utter condemnation from completely irrational extremists.

This phenomenon appears to be so overwhelming that just about no one can do anything other than uphold the most extreme line against Harris without being hounded and accused of being a pedophile sympathiser and the like.

Ludwig,

You clearly refuse to digest the point I was attempting to make in my recent series of posts.

Displayed there, for all to see, Is Ludwig employing abuse to consistently condemn those who disagree with his reasoning. Post after post, impugning others for their character, calling them "low-life Ludwig bashers"

Post after post of you displaying your frustration that others didn't buy your reasoning by abusing them for their "conduct" and/or "character" on this thread.

The crowning hypocrisy was you consistently accusing others (and I'm talking of regular OLOers here - not blow-in trolls) of "personal abuse"...none of which was occurring - while "you" blistered away merrily abusing all and sundry in some kind of reverse logic.

My reason for not accepting your invititation to resume cordial interaction was in light of that hypocrisy. Nowhere here have I "personally abused" you. I have disagreed vehemently with your position regarding Harris's culpability is all.

You are the one on this thread who has been abusing others - all the while screaming "abuse" at the top of your voice.

And you're still at it, I see.

"It says that no matter how clearly and repeatedly I state my position, you and a few others with incredibly warped thought processes will insist that my position is something quite different.

How incredibly hopeless!"

Those of us who've disagreed with your reasoning have done so, based on your reasoning.

And we've put up with your constant abuse for a third of this long thread while doing so (Poirot in particular)