Dear phanto,

It is most unfortunate that you have declined my request for further information. I was looking forward to the challenge of critiquing any drawbacks you could present with regards to the State registration of marriages. But, alas, it was not to be.

One cannot help but wonder, however, what the motive behind your initial question to me was, if you were not prepared to inform me of what the drawbacks were so that I may compare them with the benefits of equality. It does seem rather odd, I am sure you will agree.

I do thank you for your time, nevertheless.

Philips:

“It is most unfortunate that you have declined my request for further information.”

You are lying again.

“I am sure you will agree.”

That’s another lie.

“I do thank you for your time, nevertheless.”

That’s another one.

Three lies in three paragraphs!

Dear phanto,

It is rather unfortunate that you appear to have resorted to accusing others of telling untruths. This was not the case, once upon a time.

A common theme which I have noticed, with regards to these accusations of alleged untruths being told, is that they are invariably explainable by a more innocent difference of perception. The first alleged incident of an untruth being uttered by myself in this discussion thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7926#245292) was a typical example of that which I speak.

I view your decline of my offer as unfortunate; you do not.

I was sure that you would view your initial question as rather odd after you revealed that you were not willing to discuss the drawbacks of government involvement in the registration of marriages anyway; I now see that you do not.

I was thankful for your time, despite the abrupt tone in which you rejected my request for further information; you do not believe that I was thankful.

This does not mean that either of us is engaging in the telling of untruths. Why, I could just as easily accuse your good self of the same, however, neither you nor I can see into the mind of the other. All we can do is take it on good faith that the other is being open and honest in their communications, and treat each other with respect accordingly.

While it is admirable for one to call to account those who would speak untruths, one must also take care not to adopt a scattergun approach to the identifying of alleged untruths, as this could be mistaken for desperation and histrionics; which would be most unfortunately in the event that you do indeed correctly identify untruths uttered, as they may fall on deaf ears which had stopped listening long ago.

Please take my criticisms in good faith, and be well.

I have just received my 'SS" vote paper in the mail.
There were three discarded vote letters in the waste by the mail boxes.
Nothing to stop me form filling them in and mailing them back the way I feel.
Stop!
There is a bar code on the envelope.
There are two bar codes on the voting form.
What is to say they don't know who I am.
Why the bar codes and why not tell us what they represent.

Philips:

And one must not abruptly change one's persona without other 'ones' smelling a rat.

Dear phanto,

All we can do is take each person as they come. If your positions in debate are tenable, then you will be able to respond in kind. For only those who do not have the truth and reason on their side will ultimately rely on aggression and abuse to communicate their beliefs.

This is the only rat to be sniffed out here.

Perhaps it is just me getting older, but I am rather enjoying this more calm and gentlemanly method of communicating. A surprising discovery which I have made is that I feel far more relaxed communicating in this manner. I was not expecting that.