yeah AJ sure put there by antifa supporters. Wasn't you was it? Lying is not difficult for 'yes' campaigners.

Oh... Hi runner.

Sorry, I had this lengthy and considered response typed up for Philip S, thinking it was him who had posted that last comment of yours. Then I saw it was you.

*Delete*

AJ Philips So as not to disappoint you, here now it is me as well.

yeah AJ sure put there by antifa supporters. Wasn't you was it? Lying is not difficult for 'yes' campaigners.

This would not be the first time people have defaced their own property to put the blame on an opposing side.

Philips S,

So, you don't deserve a considered response either? Thanks for warning me. Anyone who could copy a response from runner and post it as their own has completely destroyed their credibility. I'm sorry you weren't aware of that.

Two can play that that game. I could simply claim that all the alleged radical 'Yes' voters are just 'No' voters pretending to be 'Yes' voters.

Were the 'Yes' campaign responsible for the other Neo-Nazi 'No' leaflet drop?

It's pretty easy to see which side has had to resort the the most lies, too, when the 'No' campaign has not only had to rely entirely on red herrings (they've barely even mentioned marriage), but has even lied about those, too.

Tell me, though, why are you so vigilantly reporting on what the more radical elements of the 'Yes' campaign are doing? What do you think it will prove? So far, all it demonstrates is that you don't have a rational argument against same-sex marriage. Would I be right in assuming that?

AJ Philips, To quote you "you don't deserve a considered response"

I achieved what I intended to achieve which got you to come back with a considered response which upon reflection does not appear to be very considered or thought out.

Sorry, Philip S, but that was nothing like what I had typed up before.

I note with interest, however, that you did not explain what the purpose of your vigilant reporting of the 'Yes' radicals was all about. My explanation is that it was a substitute for the sheer lack of an argument against same-sex marriage, and you haven't challenged that in any way.

Interesting.