Not just you, ttbn.

<<Are you 'ughing' me? The practice and courtsey around here is to address the poster you are responding to.

You were just the straw that broke the camel's back. If I respond to someone specifically, then I address them directly. Had you been around a bit longer, you’d have perhaps known that. So spare me your moralistic pontificating.

<<As to your claim about knowing a "bit"...>>

Actually, I know a lot since I’ve studied both topics in some depth and am somewhat qualified in the areas. But since I had already mentioned that recently in another thread, I tried to downplay it this time so as to not look like I’m always trying to talk myself up.

So take your ad hominem attacks and conservative grump tone elsewhere... son.

'How about showing us the depth of your intellect for a change...or is it beyond the bounds of credulity for some of us to surmise that it's there somewhere?'

you Poirot are uncapable of recognising any depth of intellect. You have proven it many times over. You would do well with the sisterhood and her dogmas on the front bench of the Labour party.

Fascinating.

So far, comments have been running about four to one, four little cracked fruities and hurt feelings to every one on-topic.

Do people say 'crack a fruity' any more ? What a bunch of sooks, is what I meant.

Back to topic, please.

[On how to start a fire-storm of cracked fruities: Lesson 1. ...... ]

Joe

Good on you AJ Philips if you are satisfied that branding as a moral pontificator anyone who questions your great interest in yourself and ideas. You probably need to reinforce your superiority all the time.

No skin off my nose. Must say I was chuffed to be the 'straw' that made you reveal your weakness, though. :)

Shadow Minister, "I find the whole debate about the rare parenting problems in gay couples to be trivial"

I agree, however the broader topic is also trivial.

This thread topic and others are being raised repetitively by gay activists and supporters to keep claimed gay issues and gay activism topical.

That is the problem with activists - they become addicted to the buzz they get from forcing decision-makers, authority and 'society' to back down and bend over. Any news is good news. In that the ABC would have to be one of the worst offenders. It is a very rare Q&A where the array of 'Progressive' topical values narratives, and gays is a good example, isn't given prominence.

Of course spinning about claimed superior values is easier than addressing the serious and complex issues facing Australia.

Mark Latham is right,

<Former Labor leader Mark Latham slams Labor over gay marriage

FORMER Labor leader Mark Latham has slammed his party’s “obsession” with gay marriage saying it should focus on the nation’s “Struggle Streets” instead.

He told 3AW radio Bill Shorten’s private members bill to push for changes to the marriage act to allow same-sex couples to tie the knot, to be introduced into parliament on Monday, was nothing more than a symbolic gesture.

He said the biggest social issue facing Austalia was unemployment, drug use and homelessness in suburbs such as Mt Druitt which was the focus of the SBS documentary, Struggle Street.

“If you are interested in equality and social justice in Australia then what was the really big event in the month of May,” he said. “We had the Struggle Street documentary which revealed that in the nation’s public housing estate, most notably in Mt Druit people live in conditions that you wouldn’t wish upon your dogs. Absolute chaos, despair and hopelessness in their lives.

“And surely, you would have expected a serious national response from the party of social justice?

“We didn’t hear anything.

“They’re obsessed, instead, by gay marriage.”>

Easy sensationalist headlines, that is why.

ttbn,

That's some pretty blatant misinterpretation there.

<<Good on you AJ Philips if you are satisfied that branding as a moral pontificator anyone who questions your great interest in yourself and ideas.>>

Nothing I said suggested that that was the case. My comment regarding "moralistic pontification" was specifically in regards to your lecturing on the need to address people directly (when the most cursory glance at my posting history would have suggested that there was no need for such advice: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=49348&show=history).

Nor, for that matter, did I indicate any great interest in myself or my "ideas", or demonstrate a need to "reinforce [my] superiority". In fact my efforts to not make a big deal of my qualifications on this occasion should have suggested this.

<<Must say I was chuffed to be the 'straw' that made you reveal your weakness, though.>>

No, you weren't. Unless you view a lack of tolerance for stupidity a significant weakness, or believe your own crap about some need on my behalf alleged to distract from your own display of ignorance.