Foxy,

You really are a piece of work. You say it's too early to judge Shorten, but you are quite happy to give Abbott a serve, even though both have been in respective roles for about the same time. As I said, you certainly are subjective: but, after your above response to me I am not sure that you understand the meaning of that word. Subjective means one sided; objective means open minded and open to argument. I am objective (perhap not always, being human, but I try). You are subjective in all your posts. There is only one way for you - your way and, in this case, Billy's way. I, on the other hand, rubbished both Shorten and Abbott.

Dear ttbn,

Criticising the Prime Minister's actions, his gaffes,
his bungles - does not equate with "rubbishing" him.
As a voter and tax payer, I am entitled to do precisely
that.

As for Mr Shorten ? He's not the one in government.
And so far he has done an extraordinary job as
opposition leader to get Labor into and keep Labor
in the competitive position that they have been in for
almost the whole term of the Abbott government.

As I told you earlier - Bill Shorten has little incentive
to change his tactic of lying low and letting the
government muck things up. The opposition is ahead in the
polls. And this will continue as long as Mr Abbott keeps
shooting himself in the foot.

Foxy,

You are the one that was talking about body gas in another thread, so you don't have a leg to stand on.

P.S. Flatulent also =
inflated or pretentious in speech or writing.
"his flatulent oratory"

Secondly if you knew anything about evidence you would know that a signature on a contract is hard evidence, where as your opinion of what is implied is not.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Not so fast.

You Sir, were the one who brought up the topic of
flatulence calling Michael Gordon's excellent
article as "flatulence postering."

I merely responded to it.

If you now claim that I'm the one without a
leg to stand on then - in that case - you have
no standing whatsoever.

As for "evidence?"

In most courts evidence by witnesses is fully acceptable.
And in the PM's case there have been quite a few.
A judicial inquiry is definitely necessary. No government
should be above the law. Certainly not this one - with
its penchance for twisting the facts to their own political
gain.

No point in arguing with Foxy, folks. She thinks she alone has the answers. (I don't know why I said 'she'. I don't have the slightest idea of Foxy's gender). But, irrespective of gender, Foxy is the most pig-headed person I have ever come across. He or she would never be wrong, is my guess. I don't know how long she/he has been pounding those oddly formatted ideas out, but I'm assuming I would not the first to give up.

Dear ttbn,

Firstly, let me set the record straight.
I certainly don't have all the answers
and my views are not set in concrete.
But, why should they change if I haven't
been convinced of the strength of your
arguments. Evidence and facts have to
be provided to substantiate your claims.

Still, I can understand your wish to give up.
You know your self better than any of us.
And I realise that the art of
reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill that
is not easily acquired. You will undoubtedly
improve given enough time on this forum -
dealing with all sorts of posters.

To quote an old age -

"By perseverance the snail reached the ark."
(Charles Spurgeon).

BTW: I am a female.