Dear ttbn,

You asked me to point out to you any extreme comments
on this discussion. I've found quite a few.

"Scaly Repox" followed by "Steal" in reply to
SteeleRedux's civil post on page 13.

Followed by posts and comments like "sh(bleep) happens"
and the "instant diarrhoea quote, followed by
references to bigots and morons simultaneously.
Then came the totally unnecessary -"Dependable Dorg," reference
which was "improved" on with - "Dick-brain Dorg."

Why is it that people who profess to be for "free-speech"
are the ones who personally attack others and tarnish them with
the "left-wing" labels, and worse.

What sort of labels should we judge them by their
behaviour?

Silly, childish? Or equally rudely as -
mental midgets with IQ's of fence-posts perhaps?

Or something even less polite?

Nobody likes or supports illogical and abusive debaters.

To the sycophantic Bolt supporting fraternity,

Many of you claim to be evidence based people. Joe you argued long and hard on the 'Rabbit Proof Fence' thread that there was a lack of creditable evidence, and therefore you were unwilling to accept the verbal accounts of those involved, fair enough.
With this incident however you, like a number of others, readily accept at face value Bolts account of the incident. Is Bolt truthful, no one can say with certainty. Has Bolt anything to gain from this, the answer is yes. Has Bolt exploited the incident to his advantage since, again the answer is yes.

I hope the Victorian Police have not given Bolt, being a high profile type, any special consideration when investigating this matter. In the normal course of events, a junior officer takes a statement(s), gives Bolt an incident number, and unless there is some new development, the matter dies a natural death.

Look, it has become obvious that doog is a hopeless case.
There is no point in discussing anything with him.
He obviously needs glasses.

Regarding this word "progressives"
It seems to be a contradiction in terms.
I see some use regressives instead but that does not seem to be
suitable either, as some on the left are looking for a better world.
The lefties we are talking about seem to want to go toward a more
arbitrary regime where they know best and we should just accept it.
I can see why they are so sympathetic to Islam as it works on the same
rules, Allah knows best and don't you forget it.

Can we have a competition for a new name for the arrogant left.

Paul1405:

“With this incident however you, like a number of others, readily accept at face value Bolts account of the incident. Is Bolt truthful, no one can say with certainty. Has Bolt anything to gain from this, the answer is yes. Has Bolt exploited the incident to his advantage since, again the answer is yes.”

What has Bolt to gain exactly? Publicity for his views? He has a national TV show and everyone knows his views. He had these views before the incident and will have them afterwards. How does this incident change anything? What does it prove?

Either he set it up which does not make his views any more or less ‘right’ than they already are or he was attacked by an isolated group who did not agree with his views.

The only ones to gain were those who sought to physically injure him if indeed that was their intent.

Hi Paul,

Well, I've seen the video now. Bearing in mind that shoving something in someone's face is assault, in any Australian jurisdiction, and that if two blokes in hoodies stand and appear to be about to throw some punches, Bolt was certainly within his rights tov defend himself. Isn't that so ? What would you have one ?

He was not to know at the moment what it as was they shoved in his face. And when the third bloke comes up, he's not to know if he's one of the scum-bags' accomplices or not. Isn't that so ? What would you have done ?

Let's see how this plays out in the courts.

Sorry, your bias is showing :)

Joe

Joe,

How could you?

Paul is not biased, he is a Green!!