Pericles,

"So you can stop trying to change history, yet again, and reflect on the character that you have now placed on display on this Forum.

It is not a particularly attractive persona, I'm afraid."

Ain't that the truth.

One is startled by the revelation on this thread.

Life is full of surprises!

Yeah yeah, yada yada yada Pericles.

You wrote:

<< You can count me in, Ludwig. I most certainly am >> …. genuinely interested in this subect.

So does that mean that you are genuinely interested in discussing it with me? Or have you closed your mind?

Oh dear Poirot, you are a classic. You’re still haunting this thread, but you won’t be drawn into actually debating anything meaningful!! Strordinary that is!

Your nil response to Adrian’s comments, which sit right at the core of this whole issue, is very telling indeed.

I’ll take your non-response as agreement with me.

Who needs friends when they’ve got enemies like you eh!

Haaaaahahahaaa! ( :>)

Your talent for self-deception is seemingly boundless, Ludwig.

>>Yeah yeah, yada yada yada Pericles. You wrote: <You can count me in, Ludwig. I most certainly am> …. genuinely interested in this subect. So does that mean that you are genuinely interested in discussing it with me? Or have you closed your mind?<<

I tried to point out in that very post, that the subject that genuinely interested me was precisely the same one that started the thread:

Which was:

>>It seems that the worst of [Rolf Harris' crimes] was a bit of groping, which really amounts to somewhat risqué activity, and nothing worse than that.<

And that the victims were actually to blame:

>>So how did he take her pants down and put his head right in her crotch if she wasn’t willing to let him do it? It does not compute.<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6462#196322

You didn't take the hint then, and you are not taking the hint now. Talk about a "closed mind".

Lol!...Pericles,

I here some hootin' and a hollering' amidst the swagger in the background of that there thread.

I'm having the same trouble as you.

Having sent the first two thirds of this thread "debating" the issue with the person who started the thread. He decided at that juncture that abusing those who didn't agree with his reasoning was the way to go.

And now he wonders why we won't engage his further abuse!

I've said all I've got to say on the subject of Rolf's conviction.

I note, however, that the person who started the thread and has a faux principle of "sticking to topic" - seems to have spent the last few pages "off topic" and heaping derision on anyone who didn't agree with him, while parading around attempting to fashion a self-styled halo.

Wow Poirot, if that isn’t a direct snub of Graham’s rules, nothing is!

You write:

<< I've said all I've got to say on the subject of Rolf's conviction. >>

And yet here you are still posting on this thread…. with no intention of addressing the topic!!

Methinks you have just foregone your right to criticise any other poster on this forum about anything, without being a total hypocrite.

Not only have you no intention of adhering to forum rule no 1, but it seems that your very presence on this thread is now 100% geared at infringing forum rule no 2!

Absolutely incredible!!

.

Pericles, I’m still not getting it. Do you want to debate this subject or not?

You’ve been hankering to engage me ever since you came back on this thread on 26 July. Well, now’s ya chance. Just give me an undertaking that you’ll keep on-topic and away from playing the man, and bobs ya runcle… we’ll be away on another rip-roarin rib-ticklin riveting robust wrangle, of the sort that you and I have had many of over the years on this forum.

I am hankering to address the points that you raise in your last post. So just give me that undertaking, and off we’ll go.