Churchill's quote could be adapted: "...someone who can't change his mind and pretends to change the subject"?

Except the 'subject' has apparently been the 'someone' for many pages.

Many, many pages.

I wrote:

>> How about telling us (me and all the hundreds of enthralled readers who are following this thread) just what you think is wrong with my explanation of my moral position, sentence by sentence, if you would…. please.

I put it to you that you cannot genuinely say that anything in my explanation of my moral position is wrong or flawed or immoral or amoral or unprincipled or unethical. <<

And as predicted Pericles, you made no attempt whatsoever to do this.

The reason of course is obvious: you CAN’T, as there is NOTHING wrong with my moral compass!!

You won’t be drawn into having a detailed look at my morals. You wouldn’t dare because you can see very clearly that there is nothing wrong with them. And at this point I refer all of those hundreds (or thousands?) of readers of this riveting discussion back to the elucidation of my morals, principles or ethics or whatever you want to call them, all of which comprise one’s moral compass:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6462#196729
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6462#196730

As for Poirot, she’s dangerously close to achieving Jay’s village idiot status.

We get nothing but complete negativity geared at denigrating Ludwig, which comes completely unaccompanied by anything to do with the actual debate!

And this comes from someone who appears to not only not have a north-pointing moral compass, nor one that is pointing way off to the side, but appears to just not have one at all!!

No respect for OLO rules. No interest in actually debating the subject. No probs at all about showing her truly rank nature by just delivering post after post of pure sputum.

And to think that she was a good OLO mate for four years or more.

Wow.

And in response to Pericles again:

Your last post is of the same standard as Poirot’s recent posts. Completely off-topic. And a very clear indication that you are not willing to debate the very subject that you wanted to discuss.

The reason being – because you CAN’T!

You can now see that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with my moral compass, but that I do indeed have a very good point about the dodginess of your moral compass, as evident from the way you behaved when came back on this thread on 26 July, and in subsequent posts.

Cossomby, what on earth is your problem?

One moment you are debating this very important subject in a decent manner, and the next moment you completely spaz out!!

Well goodbye then. Just make sure you live up to your suggestion… and don’t engage me ever again on this forum.

So perhaps in conclusion, I will say…. again…

Harris was wrong to do what he did.

He’s copped a fair and reasonable penalty.

But he did NOT do anything more than a series of brief opportunistic touchings. And this is NOT something that he should be completely condemned for or have his career and reputation completely destroyed over.

Critically examining the court’s findings is the RIGHT thing to do if one feels that there is anything that needs to be questioned. And there certainly is in this case.

Debating this subject is the right thing to do as it is a very important topic. OLO is the right place to do it.

All those who have condemned me for simply expressing the views that I have and striving to debate them here are totally WRONG for doing that, and should be highly ashamed of themselves.

They need to take a good long hard look at where their moral compasses are pointing.

.

Do the crime, do the time. NOT ten or hundred times the time that the crime deserves!

Catch and deal with the really significant offenders. DON’T make scapegoats out of people who have just tipped into the realms of minor offending, while letting the big fish remain at large.

continued