You are incorrigible, Ludwig. Your denial of reality would make Joseph Goebbels blush.

>>Never have I given any indication anywhere that I think it was just a bit of groping<<

May I remind you of your opening post, in which you said:

>>It seems that the worst of it was a bit of groping<<

In most people's universe, one of these must be incorrect.

Not in yours, apparently.

Bizarre.

Pericles,

Bizarre is right!

Ludwig claims:

"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"

And all we have to do is go back to his first post.

"It seems that the worst of it was a bit of groping, which really amounts to somewhat risqué activity, and nothing worse than that."

And....

"It really could be, and I would strongly suggest should be, interpreted as nothing more than playful behaviour, if at times a little worrying for some young women."

........

Now for the other part.

Ludwig accuses Poirot of "barrages of abuse" - of being "heated and polarised and just plain nasty"...however, when I ask him to produce evidence of my so-called abuse...he doesn't (because it doesn't exist)

Then.....after several pages of pushing mud pies in my face and dumping detritus on my head, he invites me to sit down and have a cup of tea and a cordial conversation....and gets all huffy when I decline his offer.

Bizarre!

Police now investigating CLIFF RICHARDS!

Ludwig: Pericles beat me to it, but I was also going to remind you of your very first post where you wrote 'It seems that the worst of it was a bit of groping'.

So, no, I can neither retract my post or take your name out of it.

However, my apologies to everyone else - I definitely didn't want to inflame things. I am just trying to understand why some men are in denial about the seriousness of such behaviour and why there has been such a long history of cover-ups

Hello all. Hope you had as great a weekend as I did.

Now, let’s see what’s been happening on the Rolfie thread…

Oh NO! Ludwig’s been accused of contradicting himself!! ( :>0

I said in response to you 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> >>

I should have made it patently clear that never since the judge released his sentencing remarks on 4 July, two days after I started this thread, have I said that it was just a bit of groping, etc (as far as I can recall).

I have long since moved on from the sentiments presented in the opening post and have made it clear my position is based on the information presented in the sentencing remarks, which fully elucidate the nature and penalties for each charge.

The opening post stated my views based on gut feelings at the time. None of us really knew the detail of the whole affair, nor anything more than generalities, before the judge released his comments.

I also outlined my position, yet again, in a post on 11 August: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6462#194396

I accept that you may not have been following this thread closely enough to appreciate this, Cossomby. But Poirot has. So it is completely disingenuous of her to jump on me in regards to comments in my opening post.

So let’s go back to the basics of this whole issue. Is Mise crystalised the situation beautifully when he answered my questions:

Q. How could anyone have explored the things that I have explored here without you and most others in the debate thinking really poorly of me?

A. Absolutely impossible.

Q. Or would you have preferred that all the things I have raised remained unspoken… and the very narrow perspective of this whole issue upheld?

A. No and no.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6462#194430

Is Mise didn’t make any attempt to explain this apparent glaring conflict: that the issue should definitely be open to scrutiny, but anyone who does it exposes themselves to very poor treatment from some. He didn’t attempt to explain this because it is obviously simply unexplainable in logical terms.

Those who lambast me so strongly on this thread do indeed uphold the most glaring and basic of contradictions in logic.

It is obviously perfectly fair and reasonable and proper to question things and to raise all the issues that I have raised that have come out of my reading of the judge’s sentencing remarks.

But there is no way that I, nor anyone else, could have done this without being thought of very poorly by some.

Some people just jump straight into absolutely condemnatory positions at the very mention of the suggestion of the possibility that something related to pedophilia or child molestation might not be as bad as it has been purported to be in a court of law.

continued