Dear o sung wu,

The exercise of finding how often Hasbeen had used those words took a little more than a minute. Once you expand a commenter's history you can use the shortcut of Control + F to search for any particular word on the page and it will give you a count within a second.

It was certainly pertinent to the point I was making, that Hasbeen's a prolific user of derogatory terms in his posts and that for him to be accusing someone else of such was a bit rich. I stand by it.

You asked;

"STEELE, imagine if you will; if it were HASBEEN who decided to replicate precisely what it was that you'd done"

For Hasbeen to finally go to any trouble constructing an argument would truly be a day for celebration and I would be the first to congratulate him.

You charged;

"You seem to have some sort of obsession or paranoia over HASBEEN?"

I certainly have lost patience a while ago with his constant sniping, though I'm equally certain I'm not paranoid about him. The question is do I have an obsession since much of what he wrote before I commented appeared pretty innocuous?

I was initially prompted to respond after this from him;

"Even greater pity is the fact that the marvellous country we grew up in & served, is winding down into something not worth much today."

Yet dropped it until he addressed me directly. You will note in my post I referenced that he had claimed "that anyone who is prepared to risk their life for this country is a fool thus labelling all our serving personnel as idiots."

I will admit finding that quite obnoxious at the time. Does the fact that I have reacted the way I did on this occasion, despite Hasbeen only making an oblique reference in this thread, obsessive? Perhaps.

I make no apologies for finding him pretty insufferable. However do I need to put less weight on past exchanges with him and take each thread on its merits? The answer is probably yes.

Dear o sung wu,

Now a question for you if I may.

I can not recall an instance when you have ever pulled Hasbeen up on his language or his attacks on fellow forum members.

In this thread before I addressed him I was called “small”, “a most unpleasant buffoon”, a 'self-satisfied fool' and deemed “far too impressed with your self to ever know which way is up”.

I replied with 'puffed up arrogance' and 'snowflake'.

I know these things are in the eye of the beholder but I feel I would be on safe ground contending on balance what Hasbeen directed at me exceeded what I returned his way.

Yet I alone was the subject of admonishment from you.

Why do you think that was?

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

In your last question you asked me to explain, why was it, that I only sought to admonish you Steele, in isolation, rather than including HASBEEN as well?

A fair and reasonable question to answer. I'm always in HASBEEN'S corner. How can I be otherwise? We're both ex servicemen, admittedly he was Navy I was Army, but among servicemen there's this imperishable bond, irrespective of the Service in which you're in. We both served under the Australian flag, he in Naval Aircraft, me running around the countryside in a buggered ol' Landrover or similar.

As far as I know Steele, you never served yourself (I apologise if I'm wrong) so it would be perhaps, difficult for you to understand, why I would have an intractable link with him, even when he, or alternatively myself, might well err in some of our arguments. A case of C. O. A.! if you can imagine.

Apropos language - well he's at fault, as are you. You want language, walk into any barracks of twenty four beds, with 24 young fit blokes about to go on leave - talk about 'lock up your daughters' the Army's in town. The language is so prolific and thick, you'd cut it with a pair of blunt scissors! It's what blokes do, all blokes. Here on the Forum Graham Y. rightly demands a certain level of propriety, thus we're forbidden from using the usual vernacular many men use out of the company of our ladies. Steele, you'd have no argument with that surely, I know you're a man of the world.

In conclusion, I don't for a moment think HASBEEN has stung you deeply, with any of his rejoinders. Similarly, I don't believe you have damaged him, with any of the retaliatory dialogue you've launched as well ? So let the Games continue.

It's amazing how unaustralian people born in this country can be. They don't appreciate who keeps them safe yet they have no qualms knocking the hand that feeds & protects them. I find that so-called New Australians are more patriotic than the majority of those born here.
A weird Mob alright.

If this is true Government figure are a joke.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5989465/Population-expert-Bob-Birrell-wants-mail-order-bride-crackdown-900-partner-visas-granted-weekly.html

More than 900 foreigners move to Australia on spousal visas EVERY WEEK - amid fears 'mail to order' Russian brides are leaving their partners as soon as they're let into the country

More than 900 foreigners who start a relationship with an Australian citizen overseas or online are granted spousal visas every week.

The figures equate to about 48,000 foreign wives - and occasionally husbands - being allowed to move to Australia each year after being granted a partner visa by the Department of Home Affairs under the family migration category.

The rules on spousal visas haven't changed since 1996, when the Howard government introduced a two-year waiting period before foreigners could be accepted.

One of the country's most respected population experts has called for tighter rules to ensure those granted the visas can speak English, integrate into the country and work.

Dr Bob Birrell, the head of the Australian Population Research Institute, said the existing rules were open to abuse.

'My main concern is just how weak our rules are on spouse migration,'

'A person can sponsor a spouse about age 18.

'They could have arrived yesterday and there's no evaluation at all on the financial capacity or the financial security of the spouse, or to provide for the spouse.

Dr Birrell, a former Monash University academic and immigration policy adviser, said the existing system also allowed the unemployed to bring a spouse over.

'They don't have to have a job, they could be on welfare. That is not taken account of,' he said.

'Nor is there any evaluation of the sponsored spouse capacity to integrate in Australia: does he or she have any English, have any skills?'

Lawrence Shave, a 74-year-old Pentecostal evangelical pastor from southern Perth who is twice divorced, five years ago found a Ukrainian woman to be his bride.

Unfortunately for him, Oksana left him for another man.

Last year, he advertised for a Russian bride aged between 20 and 44 via the SingleBridesAgency.com dating website, which specialises in eastern European women.

Hi o sung wu, & thank you for your defence of me.

I was unaware of Steelys attack as I haven't bothered to read his last few posts, following his first vile suggestion to Banjo.

Yes the navy messes were similar in their use of language. Tell me did you have a personal rule about such language. For us such language stopped at the gangway. I & most found it had to stop completely, you couldn't just tone it down.

Thus most navy used very clean language when ashore. We considered it a courtesy we could pay a lady, so we went into polite conversation mode when ashore. I must admit to some confusion as the general public & young ladies started using mess room language in general conversation. It really left me with nowhere to go.

That courtesy does appear to have lost favour. It must be difficult when the general level has become so crude. My son & his navy mates sho no sign of changing their language when ashore today.