ttbn, OLO's resident keyboard warrior and thug.

a conservative bully boy.

Loudmouth,

Someone should take you by the ear and wash your mouth out with soap.

Please don't bring your pub-speak onto The Forum and may I suggest in future you leave your vulgarity at home where it belongs.

Hi Joe (Loudmouth),

You said:

"...although I hate ti say it about NYT -
more crap comes out of some butholes than others."

You may hate to say it - but it isn't true about
the NYT. The paper's motto is "All the News that's
Fit to Print." It doesn't cover crap.

On the contrary the paper has world wide influence
and readership and the paper has won 127 Pulitzer
prizes (not small feat). More than any other
newspaper.

But to go back to your comment of "more crap comes out
of some butt holes than others."

Yes Joe, but it's really nothing a little soap and
hot water can't take care of.

Good Luck.

Thanks, Foxy :)

Joe

Dear Shadow Minister,

Why the hell are you being so churlish about this? You are wrong but can't bear the thought.

I put "The only doubt of guilt came from the testimony of 4 witnesses who were essentially asked to remember what occurred on a specific day over two decades ago without the imprint on their memories of a perderist priest thrusting his genitalia in their faces."

You claimed it was “patently untrue”.

Let's break it down. Given the judges categorically stated “A's evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt." the it follows “The only doubt of guilt came from the testimony of 4 witnesses”.

Was the offence on a specific day over 2 decades ago? Yes.

Were the 4 witnesses asked whether there was any deviation from standard practice on that particular day? Yes.

Did they not have the 'disadvantage' of not having Pell's penis thrust in their faces? Yes.

So what is the issue with what I put?

The judges did not claim the other 4 witnesses evidence made the testimony of the victim improbable as you claim. There is a huge difference between probability and possibility. Their judgement said given the burden of proof was not met there was a "a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof". This in no way reflected on the victim's testimony because it could have been the most utterly believable testimony ever given in the history of Australia but while it remained uncorroborated and given the testimonies of the 4 opportunity witnesses, the judges would still have had to acquit.

So step up mate and tell me why you think differently. Don't just fire off a glib answer like you usually do.

so glad we believe all victims and especially all women. Obviously means Joe Biden is guilty of sexual harassment. Have not heard anything from Paul, Steelie or Foxy. Oh that's right hypocrisy comes with Trump Derangement Syndrome.