Dear o sung wu,

An interesting but not unexpected post from you. You do have a rather reliable modus operandi when you get cornered, deflection.

It is easy to spot. You tried to paint me as some kind of “Monsieur ROBESPIERRE” “seeking answers” when I did not ask a single question of you. Nothing. Zip. Indeed I was answering a question you put to Poirot and enquired nothing at all of you.

In fact let's make this perfectly clear. I really didn't expect a post from you the first time. If you wish to respond to what I am posting then fine but please do not feel obligated in any way. Your initial question was civilly put and I felt a reply was in order.

Next you asked “I find it quite disappointing that you choose to call JAY of MELBOURNE a 'racist' ? How would you know, you don't know what's in his heart or mind ?”

I don't know exactly how the NSW police force assesses evidence but in my mind if a bloke continually makes racist comments and then proceeds to repeatedly acknowledge and describe himself a racist then who am I to argue.

“Yes I'm a racist and racism is the only rational approach to take on this issue”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6855#208622

Indeed what gives you the right to question his commitment to racism? That was of course rhetorical.

What is really interesting is how you were able to ignore this rather unpleasant fact, to be blind to the obvious. The only viable conclusion is that your thinking in many ways mirrors his and the thought you might also be a racist, to your credit, was uncomfortable enough to be suppressed.

I'm happy to leave it there. Neither of us have changed our positions nor was that expected, the only thing that might have been achieved is a little more understanding of why some posters tar you with the same brush.

A convenient MO of 'tactical deflection', whenever I'm cornered eh ?

STEELEREDUX...as it would now appear that you've suggested that I too am a raciest as well as one who seeks to 'deflect' any and all assertions alleged by you ? I remain committed to be at least civil while you attempt to disparage and defame me in the process ?

You really can't help yourself can you ? Your feeble attempts to assert some form of intellectual superiority over me and anyone else that dares have the temerity to disagree with what you say, is breathtakingly frightening.

I'll not raise the awful 'N' word with you, as it unrelentingly cuts your deeply, sending you into a spiral of animated allegations, accusations, and mythical assertions of how flawed am I, together with my arguments. Now that you've apparently 'outed' me as a raciest too ? I'm at a loss whether I should thank you for your amazing almost spiritual insight, or become angry for insulting me ?

You see STEELEREDUX, though I've not got your intellectual adroitness, nor your writing abilities, I do manage ? However I recognise precisely, what you are ? And pretentiousness alone is wholly inadequate to describe your personality, again it's that highly inflammatory 'N' word ?

I realise now that deep down, you're a nasty individual STEELEREDUX, always keen to exercise that intellectual superiority of yours over others. While attempting to coerce them into some form of involuntary submission, of a kind that can only satisfy your peculiar needs ? A case of; '...you disagree with me at your peril...' ? That is precisely why you were endeavouring to subjugate JAY of MELBOURNE and his commentary, through me ! Talk of alienating tactics ? Side with me, or perish, so sayeth STEELEREDUX ?

In conclusion, I guess it's only good manners to again, thank you for permitting me to address further topics of interest to you. Given your rapidly expanding 'Fan' base, I should count myself fortunate indeed, that I've been given unfettered access to your omnipotence presence, all hail STEELEREDUX !

Dear o sung wu,

That was Deflection with a capital D.

There are actually three parts to your MO. The first I have outlined, the second is this shtick you love to pull, the so called intellectual superiority/inferiority platter. You even trotted it out earlier in this thread. I only managed a Year 12 pass on my second try and that is my highest bit of paper. Bet you did it first go. So what? Do we really need a pissing contest to see who is the least educated? It was already tiresome a year ago.

Plus it's complete bulldust. You have shown yourself more than capable of putting together well crafted and deep posts on this forum and certainly have the “intellectual adroitness” and “writing abilities” to match anyone here when you choose to employ them. We do think differently but that difference isn't intellectual it is about values.

Your third MO is pretty obvious and is kind of quirky which is fine.

Please note I did not call you a racist instead I used the term “the thought you might also be a racist”.

You took umbrage at me referring to JOM as a racist. From your 'angle' all you saw was “a family man who's justly apprehensive of the sort of country Australia seems to have become ?“ This is despite the fact that virtually everyone else here including the man in question recognises him as a racist.

From there it's a reasonable assumption that you have a blind spot for racists, even one as blatant and overt as JOM. If this is indeed the case then it follows you may well have difficulty recognising the affliction in yourself if it is indeed present.

If you were to say 'Steeleredux I just buddy up to JOM to piss you off' that would be a perfectly acceptable explanation, yet you have made no such admission.

So if you want to dummy spit and stay on your high horse, wrapped in high dudgeon, spitting out high-minded insults please feel free. But it does come off as rather disingenuous.

Steele,
It's a tactic we like to call bullet biting, "Yup, I'm a Fascist", "Yup, there's a patriarchy and it's great", it's what we post after that which is the "dangerous part".
When are you bourgeois men going to take control of your women?
The media only show pictures of little Rohingya kids to guilt trip all the old aunties, why don't you calm them down by showing them that no, actually about 94% of boat people are men, the little kiddies are just planted on the boats so that foreign sailors will feel compelled to rescue them.
You can annoy O'Sung and try to shame him all you want but you won't address the very real issues I raise in my posts, will you?

Just a quick question:

Given that roughly 2/3 of these boat people are not refugees seeking asylum, but Bangladeshis looking for better paid work (and thus illegal immigrants not protected by the UNHCR charter) What is the problem with just shipping them straight back?

Secondly, given that during the Rudd/Gillard induced illegal boat crisis of 2008 to 2013, Indonesia did not lift a finger to stop the illegal boats saying that it was Australia's problem, who enjoys a quiet chuckle when Indonesia has the hide to say that Aus has a responsibility for the boats landing in Indonesia?

It is clear that bias against refugees is so ingrained, in the minds of a number of people on this thread, that totally fail to see the difference between saving someone in peril on the high seas, and what to do about the refuge problem.

In the first instance it is of no consequence as to who or what were the reasons people got on the boats, compassion and morals dictate that the should be rescued from their immediate peril. This is at last beginning to happen, but no thanks to a mean and cruel spirited Australian government. I have a mental picture of Abbott standing in front of a table of food with his hand out preventing a staving women and child from eating saying “Nope, Nope,Nope”. Perhaps Abbott could when he has a spare moment reacquaint himself with the parable of the good Samaritan.

The refuge problem is difficult due to the huge numbers involved and is really a whole separate topic, but never should be hijacked by those who would blame the victim.