Geez, now this Ludwig fruitcake is threatening Paul1405 with defamation action. Mind you, this was after Ludwig called the people here 'low life'. Ludwig is too stupid to realise you can't sue an internet monicker who defames another internet monicker.

I only took part briefly in this thread, as did most people, owing to the utter arrogance and sheer stupidity of 'you know who'. In all my life, I have never seen such stick in the mud arrogance and such an ignorant lack of self awareness displayed by anyone like 'you know who' displays. It would be a joke, but 'you know who' is actually serious. He's mentally sick.

Sorry folks that I got personal, but that bloke is just arrogance personified.

AdrianD is apparently just another incarnation of Jay123. So I won’t be responding to this person… who was banned from the forum for offensive behaviour. Obvious we can’t believe a word he writes, as it is patently clear that his whole aim is to just condemn Ludwig as strongly as he possibly can… and he ain’t gunna be letting the truth get in the way of that.

Further to Paul…

You of all people on this thread would have known my real position and views. You’ve followed this discussion all the way through. I cultivated a good relationship with you, which appeared to be successful. We differed in our views but were able to debate them in a proper and sensible manner.

I had clarified my position here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6462#194396

And then you come out with defamatory stuff, asserting that my ‘attitude’ is something that it completely is not.

<< Ludwig's attitude is basically Rolf did not commit a crime, criminal or otherwise, its all a big mistake by society, Rolf was simply having a bit of playful fun with the kiddies as he was prone to do from time to time, and we should accept that. In fact its nothing to do with justice, all society wanted was to crucify a tall poppy Rolf, because of his fame and fortune. >>

I don’t know what’s with you Paul. But you’ve shot your credibility in the foot totally. I understand that you are a bit of a greenie, as I am, so you would be used to getting stupid and entirely false allegations made against you, as has been the lot of environmentalists since the day dot.

So then, apart from just wanting to be a good sensible and accurate debater, I would have thought that you’d be doubly sure that you didn’t level stupid allegations, let alone assertions, against anyone with whom you are debating.

But alas, logic doesn’t prevail…. and it seems that many people are highly contradictory and hypocritical at least some of the time.

continued

So… I have made my position perfectly clear, over and over again, as per the post for the link above. My questioning of various aspects of the judge’s sentencing remarks is perfectly fair and reasonable. Desiring a sensible discussion of these points is perfectly reasonable, and totally in line with the basic philosophy of OLO.

Being condemned and defamed left, right and centre, is of course totally against the very purpose of OLO, and I would suggest that those who do this should not be on this forum at all. They are corrupting the quality of this very good forum.

Those who do anything other than debate the points that I have tried to get debated here, in a neutral and non-personal manner, are corrupting this forum. Not only should they leave this thread, but they should leave OLO.

Ludwig, my position all along was that the judge and the legal system got it right. You more than once questioned the outcome. On several of the counts you questioned the guilty verdict, and on others you questioned the penalty imposed.

I post your opening << I (Ludwig) was very dismayed when I heard the news that Rolf Harris had been found guilty on all 12 charges and now faces a substantial jail term.

Sorry, but this just doesn’t add up.

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

Your position never deviated from that.

"found guilty on all 12 charges" SO; on some or all of the charges there should have been a not guilty verdict, I took that to be your opinion.
"substantial jail term but this just doesn’t add up" SO; you thought on some or all of the counts the penalty was too severe.
"the worst of it was a bit of groping/risque activity" SO; that implies that on the worst of the charges there was no crime at all involved, just grouping risque activity, that cannot be a crime.
SO; I stand by my post;
"Ludwig's attitude is basically Rolf did not commit a crime, criminal or otherwise, its all a big mistake by society, Rolf was simply having a bit of playful fun with the kiddies as he was prone to do from time to time." Given the above I think that is fair comment. Then you go on with << And then you come out with defamatory stuff, asserting that my (Ludwig) ‘attitude’ is something that it completely is not.>> I don't think so.

It may dawn upon you one day, Ludwig - not today, perhaps not tomorrow, but some day - that it is you who is out of step with the world, and not the other way around.

You can keep trying to persuade yourself that you are conducting a genuine and legitimate enquiry into the "things that [you] thought could be a little bit problematic and which warranted a closer look".

But anyone who has followed you through this thread knows for a certain and incontrovertible fact that what you really wanted to debate was "that the worst of [Harris' behaviour] was a bit of groping". A phrase, you may remember, from your very own opening post.

And that is the reality that you are going to have to live with, I'm afraid.

>>Those who do anything other than debate the points that I have tried to get debated here, in a neutral and non-personal manner, are corrupting this forum<<

We did actually manage quite a strong debate, for a while, on your views as to what constituted "a bit of groping". Even after you introduced your diversionary tactic of questioning the judge's sentencing technique, you still found yourself relapsing...

>>...the sorts of things that he has done are really just as common as dishwater, and are very meek in the greater scheme of things<<

You may wish to leave it there. You do not have a winning card in your hand, only a reputation for defending the indefensible and a display of ethical standards that should be, but so obviously isn't, a source of considerable shame .

>>Not only should they leave this thread, but they should leave OLO.<<

You said it, pal. Not me.

"Those who do anything other than debate the points that I have tried to get debated here, in a neutral and non-personal manner, are corrupting this forum. Not only should they leave this thread, but they should leave OLO."

Two thirds of the way through this thread after Ludwig has attempted ad nauseam to bring us round to his way of thinking, he posts this regarding "C' (the worst of Harris's offenses:)

"My supposition is that his physical contacts with this girl after that time were based on the understanding that she was amenable to it. If this is the case, then there is a very big mitigating factor involved here.

He was still in the wrong to do it, but it should basically have been seen as a very minor offence. And Count 9, which occurred when ‘C’ was19 should not be considered to be an offence at all."

I described Ludwig's "mitigations" as "nauseating, etc" - and from that time onwards Ludwig starts to get nasty.

"Sorry, but you’re way worse than I thought. Very very polarised and blinkered."

"...Oh sorry, not for Poirot. Only for those whose mind isn’t completely closed]"

"In light of Poirot’s outrageous assertions..."

And introduces tactic of gathering some opposition "on side" while painting Poirot as "blinkered and polarised".

"Poirot, there is such an enormous difference between you, R0bert and Paul. Even though there is strong disagreement, I can have a very good discussion with R0bert, and a pretty good discussion with Paul. And then there’s you, who seems incapable of keeping your cool and keeping the perspective when dealing with those with whom you disagree."

"Well if you folks can’t admit to yourselves that Poirot was getting way out of line by projecting things that I had said to the end of the spectrum and asserting that my views were much stronger than what I was very carefully explaining them to be, then you’re not be being honest with yourselves."

Cont'd...