Electoral fraud gets bipartisan support from Senators

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/electoral-fraud-bipartisan-support-senators.html

Our Senators can no longer be trusted to fulfil a simple but important duty entrusted to them under Australia's constitution. From 2019 until 2022 both the Labor Party and the Coalition will get an extra seat in the federal Senate. This will affect the balance of power and will affect the ability to pass legislation. They got these extra seats by reneging on repeated promises made to the Australian public to respect the constitution and allocate 3 and 6 year senate terms according to a method agreed to before the election results are announced. This is not the first time this has happened.

This electoral fraud is enabled by public apathy and a shocking failure of the mainstream media to report basic facts. Prior to the announcement of the 2016 election results, The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald and the ABC all reported on bipartisan senate resolutions, passed with Labor and Coalition support in 1998 and 2010, to use a new, fairer method to allocate 3 and 6 year terms. Unfortunately, when the electoral dice were rolled, they came up in favour of the old method, which the major parties used to give 6 year terms to Deborah O'Neill (Labor, NSW) and Scott Ryan (Liberal, VIC), at the expense of Lee Rhiannon (Greens) and Derryn Hinch. When they announced that they would break their promise and give themselves the extra senators from 2019, The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald, and all their associated publications went silent on the bipartisan resolutions of 1998 and 2010, reporting instead the careful spin offered up by the major parties. There was no indication that they even asked the major parties about their broken promise. The ABC briefly mentioned the bipartisan senate resolutions in a single article published after the announcement.

This is, at best, lazy and incompetent journalism. At worst, our most respected journalists are actively conspiring with the major parties to help them escape public awareness of, and criticism for undermining the constitution by voting to change the election outcome. The 'victim' senators did not exactly help the matter either. Hinch concocted his own alternative scheme to give an unfair share of 6 year terms to independent and minor parties. Rhiannon complained about the outcome, but if the media reports are anything to go by did not mention the broken promises or provide any substantive basis for her complaint.

A fortnight ago I emailed all 76 sitting senators about this issue. This is what I sent:

Subject: allocation of long and short term senate seats

Dear Senator,

If you were to be re-elected in a double dissolution election, which method would you support for allocating 3 and 6 year terms to elected senators?

A) The order-elected method

B) The recount method

C) Some other method you prefer (if so, please elaborate…)

D) You will decide on the day based on which option hands your fellow party members extra 6 year terms

Also, would you support a constitutional change to close this loophole, for example requiring senate candidates for a double dissolution election to declare on their application paperwork which method they will use (and to keep their word)?

Do you think this is an important issue?

So far, two senators have responded: Dean Smith (Liberal, WA) and Claire Moore (Labor, QLD). Smith said it was an interesting question, but not one has put his mind to - despite it being his first order of business to vote on this issue after his election to the Senate in 2016. He said he would trust the decision to the wisdom and authority of the senate, apparently oblivious to the fact that he is that very authority. Likewise Claire Moore said she did not have an opinion and would need more information. This is about as close as a politician will get to admitting they are going with option D.

This is an unacceptable abuse of the Australian constitution. Our senators are so confident of public apathy that they have forgotten the carefully crafted spin of 2016 and now respond with careless disinterest, meaningless gibberish, or give us the 'grin and nod' routine. Unfortunately, they are getting away with it. This will only stop if you take action, by:
[list bull-blackball]

Letting people know about the problem.

Contacting Senators to let them know you expect them to put an end to this ongoing constitutional crisis.

Punishing the major parties in the Senate in 2019, to reduce their incentive to commit further fraud.

Writing to the journalists involved and letting them know you are dissatisfied with their incompetence in failing to hold the major parties publicly accountable for breaking their promises and voting to change the election outcome.

Journalists who 'covered' the 2016 senate election controversy include Fergus Hunter from The Sydney Morning Herald, Jared Owens from The Australian and Nick Harmsen from the ABC.

did you just copy this straight from a similar thread you started during the last election campaign (or was it the one before that?)?

I apologise for interrupting your petty squabbling, again.

It is a new article with new content.

The Labor party and the Coalition announced their scheme to commit electoral fraud about a month after the last federal election. Their fraud will not take effect until July this year. Both labor and the coalition will have an extra, stolen Senate seat from then until June 2022. This will affect the balance of power and the ability to pass legislation, and will undermine the constitutional role of the Senate.

This is the first and probably only real opportunity the Australian public have to make themselves heard on the matter.

Do you think it is an important issue?

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2019 at 6:58pm:

Do you think it is an important issue?

no

John Smith wrote on Apr 5^th, 2019 at 7:39pm:

did you just copy this straight from a similar thread you started during the last election campaign (or was it the one before that?)?

Does it matter it is a disgraceful corrupt abuse that needs to be fixed.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2019 at 7:36pm:

A fortnight ago I emailed all 76 sitting senators about this issue.

It can take up to two months to get replies from sitting politicians. Perhaps you should have emailed them two months ago or more

You won't get many more replies now before the election, most are likely to wait till after to reply, they'll have their two seats and they'll just reply saying: "Sorry, it's all done and there's nothing we can do about it now"

There's one hope though, parliament is not sitting at the moment so possibly they'll reply before the election, maybe

Dnarever wrote on Apr 8^th, 2019 at 7:38pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 5th, 2019 at 7:39pm: did you just copy this straight from a similar thread you started during the last election campaign (or was it the one before that?)? Does it matter it is a disgraceful corrupt abuse that needs to be fixed.

It matters enough that I asked. ;)

John Smith wrote on Apr 8^th, 2019 at 7:18pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 8th, 2019 at 6:58pm: Do you think it is an important issue? no

So whether I copied this from another thread does matter, but major parties undermining the constitution and stealing senate seats does not matter?

Is it just because you support one of the parties that committed electoral fraud?

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 7:09am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 8th, 2019 at 7:18pm: freediver wrote on Apr 8th, 2019 at 6:58pm: Do you think it is an important issue? no So whether I copied this from another thread does matter, but major parties undermining the constitution and stealing senate seats does not matter? Is it just because you support one of the parties that committed electoral fraud?

what part of the constitution deals with this specifically?

well when the bickering stops.....

can you explain what WE THE VOTERS are meant to do about this???....we neither make the rules nor can we change them....

does whinging do us any good?...

not that I know of..
so yes you have brought this up in the past fd.....

you seem happy enough with preference voting   and thats how most of the wannabees get in in the first place...


so why is this important?... will it stop corruption... ::) ::) ::) ::).. will it stops behind closed door deals?.... ::)...or will it give another piece of deadwood a well paid job????

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 5:07pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 11th, 2019 at 7:09am: John Smith wrote on Apr 8th, 2019 at 7:18pm: freediver wrote on Apr 8th, 2019 at 6:58pm: Do you think it is an important issue? no So whether I copied this from another thread does matter, but major parties undermining the constitution and stealing senate seats does not matter? Is it just because you support one of the parties that committed electoral fraud? what part of the constitution deals with this specifically?

It probably starts with this ... and note 6 might have something to say as well

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 9 Method of election of senators [see Note 6]

                   The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators, but so that the method shall be uniform for all the States. Subject to any such law, the Parliament of each State may make laws prescribing the method of choosing the senators for that State.

Times and places [ see Note 6]

                   The Parliament of a State may make laws for determining the times and places of elections of senators for the State.

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 6:47pm:

It probably starts with this ... and note 6 might have something to say as well COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 9 Method of election of senators [see Note 6]                    The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators, but so that the method shall be uniform for all the States. Subject to any such law, the Parliament of each State may make laws prescribing the method of choosing the senators for that State. Times and places [ see Note 6]                    The Parliament of a State may make laws for determining the times and places of elections of senators for the State.

You're looking at the wrong section of the Constitution. The pertinent section is this one which I quote in part:


Quote:

13. Rotation of senators As soon as may be after the Senate first meets, and after each first meeting of the Senate following a dissolution thereof, the Senate shall divide the senators chosen for each State into two classes, as nearly equal in number as practicable; and the places of the senators of the first class shall become vacant at the expiration of three years, and the places of those of the second class at the expiration of six years, from the beginning of their term of service; and afterwards the places of senators shall become vacant at the expiration of six years from the beginning of their term of service. Two more paragraphs omitted

The highlighted text is important. The Senate has the constitutional right to choose how to divide its senators into classes after a double dissolution. The Constitution does not specify any particular method.

While it may appear that Hinch (Vic) and the Greens (NSW) are disadvantaged here, whether this achieves the major parties' goals or backfires will only be seen in hindsight.

In Victoria, it is likely that Hinch will be returned at the expense of the Coalition. It depends on whether Hinch outpolls the third Coalition senator, which is likely.

In NSW, it remains to be seen whether the third ALP candidate outpolls the Greens and that isn't clear. It is also possible that neither or both will be returned but I consider that less likely.

The real story will unfold in three years. Will the Coalition and Labor return all three Senators in the respective states? It's possible that they won't.

The effect will be as FD claims - Labor and Liberal will both have an extra Senator for the next three years due to the Senate's disregard for the recount method.

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 6:47pm:

The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators,

yeah, so the parliament makes laws prescribing the method of choosing senators .... isn't that exactly what they've done?

Fd's problem is that he doesn't think parliament should choose. ::)

It all seems like a pretty sloppy arrangement to me.

If the major parties can give themselves extra Senate seats, can minor parties do the same?

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 8:55pm:

It all seems like a pretty sloppy arrangement to me. If the major parties can give themselves extra Senate seats, can minor parties do the same?

Yes, but they have to control the Senate. The fraud gives extra seats to whatever coalition can get the majority of senate seats and give themselves yet more senate seats. I actually thought it was strange for Labor and the Coalition to team up on this.

In the previous double dissolution election, Labor and the Democrats joined forces to give themselves one extra senate seat each.


Quote:

can you explain what WE THE VOTERS are meant to do about this???....we neither make the rules nor can we change them....

From the article:

[list bull-blackball]

Letting people know about the problem.

Contacting Senators to let them know you expect them to put an end to this ongoing constitutional crisis.

Punishing the major parties in the Senate in 2019, to reduce their incentive to commit further fraud.

Writing to the journalists involved and letting them know you are dissatisfied with their incompetence in failing to hold the major parties publicly accountable for breaking their promises and voting to change the election outcome.



Quote:

does whinging do us any good?... not that I know of..

That's how democracy works cods.


Quote:

so why is this important?

It changes the outcome of the election.


John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 7:33pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 11th, 2019 at 6:47pm: The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators, yeah, so the parliament makes laws prescribing the method of choosing senators .... isn't that exactly what they've done? Fd's problem is that he doesn't think parliament should choose. ::)

No on both counts. The constitution actually prohibits parliament from making laws prescribing the method of choosing senators.

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 6:56pm:

No on both counts. The constitution actually prohibits parliament from making laws prescribing the method of choosing senators.

I must be reading it wrong


Quote:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 9 Method of election of senators [see Note 6]                    The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators, but so that the method shall be uniform for all the States. Subject to any such law, the Parliament of each State may make laws prescribing the method of choosing the senators for that State.

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 7:33pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 11th, 2019 at 6:47pm: The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators, yeah, so the parliament makes laws prescribing the method of choosing senators .... isn't that exactly what they've done?

Choosing Senators is not the same thing as dividing them into classes with long and short terms. The former is governed by Section 9 of the Constitution, the latter by Section 13.

Bam wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 8:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 11th, 2019 at 7:33pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 11th, 2019 at 6:47pm: The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators, yeah, so the parliament makes laws prescribing the method of choosing senators .... isn't that exactly what they've done? Choosing Senators is not the same thing as dividing them into classes with long and short terms. The former is governed by Section 9 of the Constitution, the latter by Section 13.

ok .... Thanks.

this is what wiki says about section 13


Quote:

The Constitution does not provide a process for the allocation of terms and it is left to the Senate to decide itself.[4] Thus if one party had a majority in the Senate, in theory the Senate could decide that members of that Party receive six-year terms, with the result that following the next half Senate election, the party would retain a significant majority, grossly distorting the intentions of the voters. The Senate is constrained from acting in this way by concerns about the potential political controversy, rather than any provision in the Constitution to prevent such an outcome.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_13_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia


either way, FD is wrong

About what?

What am I wrong about John?

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 7:33pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 11th, 2019 at 6:47pm: The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators, yeah, so the parliament makes laws prescribing the method of choosing senators .... isn't that exactly what they've done? Fd's problem is that he doesn't think parliament should choose. ::)

No the point is that they should not choose retrospectively. They should not be allowed to work out which method advantages them the most before deciding.

Potentially and election could be won or lost by one side having retrospective control of how the result will be determined.

John Smith wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 8:14pm:

Bam wrote on Apr 12th, 2019 at 8:01pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 11th, 2019 at 7:33pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 11th, 2019 at 6:47pm: The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators, yeah, so the parliament makes laws prescribing the method of choosing senators .... isn't that exactly what they've done? Choosing Senators is not the same thing as dividing them into classes with long and short terms. The former is governed by Section 9 of the Constitution, the latter by Section 13. ok .... Thanks. this is what wiki says about section 13 Quote: The Constitution does not provide a process for the allocation of terms and it is left to the Senate to decide itself.[4] Thus if one party had a majority in the Senate, in theory the Senate could decide that members of that Party receive six-year terms, with the result that following the next half Senate election, the party would retain a significant majority, grossly distorting the intentions of the voters. The Senate is constrained from acting in this way by concerns about the potential political controversy, rather than any provision in the Constitution to prevent such an outcome.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_13_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia either way, FD is wrong

I do not see how explaining the process in more detail shows FD to be wrong. In fact it seems to support his view.


Quote:

Thus if one party had a majority in the Senate, in theory the Senate could decide that members of that Party receive six-year terms

Labor and the Liberals combined in the last election to give more their members 6 year terms thus stacking the next senate in their favour, this isn't a could happen it is what happened.

Don't be shy John. Now's your big chance to prove me wrong.

FD you just claimed that The constitution prohibits parliament from making laws prescribing the method of choosing senators - and John just quoted part of the constitution that literally says the opposite - pretty much word for word.

Or am I missing something?

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2019 at 1:34pm:

Don't be shy John. Now's your big chance to prove me wrong.

He is banned FD.  That is pretty pathetic having a go at him knowing  (as you should as the Owner of this Forum,) he was banned by Setanta for doing what you have been doing as a matter of routine choice, defying the Rule for quite some time.

This invites the question of whether you have any idea what your GMods are doing.  That you seemingly have no idea is not comforting to mere Members or those GMods.

Maybe you need to sort that out.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 18^th, 2019 at 5:48pm:

FD you just claimed that The constitution prohibits parliament from making laws prescribing the method of choosing senators - and John just quoted part of the constitution that literally says the opposite - pretty much word for word. Or am I missing something?

It prohibits parliament from making laws regarding the allocation of short and long term senate seats. I assumed given both the context and John's use of the word "choose" that this is what he was referring to. John is more than welcome to clarify what he thinks I was wrong about.

FD claimed:


Quote:

The constitution actually prohibits parliament from making laws prescribing the method of choosing senators.

constitution says:


Quote:

The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators

a more clear and definitive refutation of FD's claim would be difficult to find.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 19^th, 2019 at 12:02pm:

FD claimed: Quote: The constitution actually prohibits parliament from making laws prescribing the method of choosing senators. constitution says: [quote]The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators

a more clear and definitive refutation of FD's claim would be difficult to find.[/quote]

*Ouch*

Aussie wrote on Apr 19^th, 2019 at 12:04pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 19th, 2019 at 12:02pm: FD claimed: Quote: The constitution actually prohibits parliament from making laws prescribing the method of choosing senators. constitution says: [quote]The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators a more clear and definitive refutation of FD's claim would be difficult to find.

*Ouch*
[/quote]

It doesn't sound good, but I take FD's point that John was probably talking about the method of deciding who is short and long term.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 19^th, 2019 at 12:02pm:

FD claimed: Quote: The constitution actually prohibits parliament from making laws prescribing the method of choosing senators. constitution says: [quote]The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators

a more clear and definitive refutation of FD's claim would be difficult to find.[/quote]

See my previous response Gandalf. Was there anything unclear in it?

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 7:33pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 11th, 2019 at 6:47pm: The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators, yeah, so the parliament makes laws prescribing the method of choosing senators .... isn't that exactly what they've done? Fd's problem is that he doesn't think parliament should choose. ::)

Here you go Gandalf, do you think John actually intended to refer to the election here, rather than the allocation of 6 year senate terms?

Or are you, as a Muslim, compelled to find any way possible to be a cheerleader for the undermining of our democracy, no matter how absurd?

Aussie wrote on Apr 18^th, 2019 at 7:21pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 18th, 2019 at 1:34pm: Don't be shy John. Now's your big chance to prove me wrong. He is banned FD.  That is pretty pathetic having a go at him knowing  (as you should as the Owner of this Forum,) he was banned by Setanta for doing what you have been doing as a matter of routine choice, defying the Rule for quite some time. This invites the question of whether you have any idea what your GMods are doing.  That you seemingly have no idea is not comforting to mere Members or those GMods. Maybe you need to sort that out.

Apparently he is back now, so you can stop fretting.

freediver wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2019 at 1:26pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 18th, 2019 at 7:21pm: freediver wrote on Apr 18th, 2019 at 1:34pm: Don't be shy John. Now's your big chance to prove me wrong. He is banned FD.  That is pretty pathetic having a go at him knowing  (as you should as the Owner of this Forum,) he was banned by Setanta for doing what you have been doing as a matter of routine choice, defying the Rule for quite some time. This invites the question of whether you have any idea what your GMods are doing.  That you seemingly have no idea is not comforting to mere Members or those GMods. Maybe you need to sort that out. Apparently he is back now, so you can stop fretting.

i hope you've started house training your dogs FD. They keep pissing all over the furniture.

Were you lying John?

See Aussie? It makes no difference. He is still performing his regularly scheduled wunaway trick.

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2019 at 8:43am:

Were you lying John?

no, your dogs really were pissing on your furniture.

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2019 at 6:22pm:

See Aussie? It makes no difference. He is still performing his regularly scheduled wunaway trick.

you can try that bullshit when YOU answer questions ... until then I suggest you cry about it

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2019 at 6:22pm:

See Aussie? It makes no difference. He is still performing his regularly scheduled wunaway trick.

Take it to Relationships, FD.  There I'll will be happy to use the crayons, join the dots for you.  I'll even type hard on the keys, even lick some envelopes and even hold your hand so you understand the basic issue, assuming you give a stuff which I doubt.

John Smith wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 8:14pm:

either way, FD is wrong

What am I wrong about John?

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2019 at 7:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 12th, 2019 at 8:14pm: either way, FD is wrong What am I wrong about John?

when will you do something about the crappy moderation FD?

John Smith wrote on Apr 26^th, 2019 at 7:31pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2019 at 7:15pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 12th, 2019 at 8:14pm: either way, FD is wrong What am I wrong about John? when will you do something about the crappy moderation FD?

When will you stop avoiding the question?

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2019 at 8:53pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 26th, 2019 at 7:31pm: freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2019 at 7:15pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 12th, 2019 at 8:14pm: either way, FD is wrong What am I wrong about John? when will you do something about the crappy moderation FD? When will you stop avoiding the question?

right after you.

I reject the premise of your question.

What was I wrong about John?

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2019 at 11:31am:

I reject the premise of your question. What was I wrong about John?

rejecting the premise of my question, for one. The moderation on here is clearly crappy.

Are you now claiming to have predicted the future John?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2019 at 12:45pm:

Are you now claiming to have predicted the future John?

I make no predictions, only observations.

So I as wrong because I rejected the premise of your question a week after you said I was wrong about something else?

Would it just be simpler, and more honest, to retract the claim?

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2019 at 6:47pm:

So I as wrong because I rejected the premise of your question a week after you said I was wrong about something else?

no, you were wrong because you rejected the premise of my question

Wouldn't it have been simpler, and far more honest,  just to retract your statement?

I see you have been obfuscating so long you have forgotten what you were dodging.


John Smith wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 8:14pm:

either way, FD is wrong

What were you talking about here John?

John Smith wrote on May 5^th, 2019 at 5:50pm:

freediver wrote on May 5th, 2019 at 1:18pm: John Smith wrote on May 2nd, 2019 at 5:07pm: freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2019 at 12:43pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 27th, 2019 at 10:06am: freediver wrote on Apr 27th, 2019 at 10:01am: We are seven pages in, and you are still ducking and weaving on the question I asked you in the OP. you must be his sensei! I just ask him easy questions and watch him wriggle. give him a few more months and he'll wriggle better than you On the subject of wriggling, what was I wrong about John? on the subject of wriggling? No idea, I haven't seen that discussion.

Yes you have John.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2019 at 9:24pm:

John Smith wrote on May 5th, 2019 at 5:50pm: freediver wrote on May 5th, 2019 at 1:18pm: John Smith wrote on May 2nd, 2019 at 5:07pm: freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2019 at 12:43pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 27th, 2019 at 10:06am: freediver wrote on Apr 27th, 2019 at 10:01am: We are seven pages in, and you are still ducking and weaving on the question I asked you in the OP. you must be his sensei! I just ask him easy questions and watch him wriggle. give him a few more months and he'll wriggle better than you On the subject of wriggling, what was I wrong about John? on the subject of wriggling? No idea, I haven't seen that discussion. Yes you have John.

if you say so ... now when are you going to do something about your dodgy mods? I know you prefer your head up your arse pretending nothing is wrong, but sooner or later you'll need to fix it. Just fix it now

This is the discussion John. You are getting very forgetful these days.

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2019 at 6:51pm:

This is the discussion John. You are getting very forgetful these days.

now you're just looking desperate.

Perhaps you can distract everyone from the issue of crappy mods by starting another muslim bashing thread?

This thread is about electoral fraud in the Senate John. Next time you forget, just check the thread title.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2019 at 8:25am:

This thread is about electoral fraud in the Senate John. Next time you forget, just check the thread title.

When you start answering questions in the threads dedicated to the behaviour of your mods, I'll certainly consider that. Until then, you'll just have to accept that threads can evolve from topic to topic FD.

John Smith wrote on May 12^th, 2019 at 9:23am:

freediver wrote on May 12th, 2019 at 8:25am: This thread is about electoral fraud in the Senate John. Next time you forget, just check the thread title. When you start answering questions in the threads dedicated to the behaviour of your mods, I'll certainly consider that. Until then, you'll just have to accept that threads can evolve from topic to topic FD.

Sounds like a convenient way to tell lies and deny any responsibility for them.

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2019 at 7:07pm:

John Smith wrote on May 12th, 2019 at 9:23am: freediver wrote on May 12th, 2019 at 8:25am: This thread is about electoral fraud in the Senate John. Next time you forget, just check the thread title. When you start answering questions in the threads dedicated to the behaviour of your mods, I'll certainly consider that. Until then, you'll just have to accept that threads can evolve from topic to topic FD. Sounds like a convenient way to tell lies and deny any responsibility for them.

you think? I thought it sounded more like a convenient way to tell you that you're a gutless wonder when it comes to discussing your mods.

John Smith wrote on May 13^th, 2019 at 7:11pm:

freediver wrote on May 13th, 2019 at 7:07pm: John Smith wrote on May 12th, 2019 at 9:23am: freediver wrote on May 12th, 2019 at 8:25am: This thread is about electoral fraud in the Senate John. Next time you forget, just check the thread title. When you start answering questions in the threads dedicated to the behaviour of your mods, I'll certainly consider that. Until then, you'll just have to accept that threads can evolve from topic to topic FD. Sounds like a convenient way to tell lies and deny any responsibility for them. you think? I thought it sounded more like a convenient way to tell you that you're a gutless wonder when it comes to discussing your mods.

Because I don't let you derail every thread with the topic?

freediver wrote on May 16^th, 2019 at 6:07pm:

John Smith wrote on May 13th, 2019 at 7:11pm: freediver wrote on May 13th, 2019 at 7:07pm: John Smith wrote on May 12th, 2019 at 9:23am: freediver wrote on May 12th, 2019 at 8:25am: This thread is about electoral fraud in the Senate John. Next time you forget, just check the thread title. When you start answering questions in the threads dedicated to the behaviour of your mods, I'll certainly consider that. Until then, you'll just have to accept that threads can evolve from topic to topic FD. Sounds like a convenient way to tell lies and deny any responsibility for them. you think? I thought it sounded more like a convenient way to tell you that you're a gutless wonder when it comes to discussing your mods. Because I don't let you derail every thread with the topic?

well I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but so far you are failing at that job ............. NOT  :D :D :D :D

if you responded in the appropriate threads in feedback instead of shoving your head up your arse it wouldn't need to travel to other threads now would it.

The other mods have responded adequately.

You just got caught out of your depth, so you are changing the subject.

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2019 at 8:51pm:

The other mods have responded adequately. You just got caught out of your depth, so you are changing the subject.

Well FD...you say that the 'other mods have responded adequately.'  There are many things that allegation opens up but I will not go there.

I'll stick to basic facts.

You have ONLY one GMod at the moment and even he (Vic) is becomming a rare attendee.

1.  Gandalf is here but has no interest in modding.
2.  AA made a recent flying visit and has no interest in modding.
3.  Perceptions-Now is here and has absolutely no interest in modding.
4.  Mozzoak is rarely here and when he is he has absolutely no interest in modding.
5.  Setanta is no longer even logging in as he ususally does and he too has given up modding.
6.  That leaves Vic.

If you can't see an issue there (it started with Muso) then nothing I can say will make any difference. 

Why do you support senate fraud Aussie?

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2019 at 8:51pm:

The other mods have responded adequately. You just got caught out of your depth, so you are changing the subject.

The mods? Why are you trying to make it sound like anyone other than set dealt with anything? Even you publicly disagreed with what he said, now you're pretending it was adequate?
Tell me, do you perchance think that adequate and incompetent mean the same things?

John Smith wrote on May 18^th, 2019 at 9:12am:

freediver wrote on May 17th, 2019 at 8:51pm: The other mods have responded adequately. You just got caught out of your depth, so you are changing the subject. The mods? Why are you trying to make it sound like anyone other than set dealt with anything? Even you publicly disagreed with what he said, now you're pretending it was adequate? Tell me, do you perchance think that adequate and incompetent mean the same things?

The mods don't have to agree with me on everything. They are supposed to be able to think for themselves, otherwise I would have to babysit them as well as the rest of you.

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2019 at 3:25pm:

John Smith wrote on May 18th, 2019 at 9:12am: freediver wrote on May 17th, 2019 at 8:51pm: The other mods have responded adequately. You just got caught out of your depth, so you are changing the subject. The mods? Why are you trying to make it sound like anyone other than set dealt with anything? Even you publicly disagreed with what he said, now you're pretending it was adequate? Tell me, do you perchance think that adequate and incompetent mean the same things? The mods don't have to agree with me on everything. They are supposed to be able to think for themselves, otherwise I would have to babysit them as well as the rest of you.

not even on what the rules are FD? Even you don't believe that tripe.

John Smith wrote on May 18^th, 2019 at 3:27pm:

freediver wrote on May 18th, 2019 at 3:25pm: John Smith wrote on May 18th, 2019 at 9:12am: freediver wrote on May 17th, 2019 at 8:51pm: The other mods have responded adequately. You just got caught out of your depth, so you are changing the subject. The mods? Why are you trying to make it sound like anyone other than set dealt with anything? Even you publicly disagreed with what he said, now you're pretending it was adequate? Tell me, do you perchance think that adequate and incompetent mean the same things? The mods don't have to agree with me on everything. They are supposed to be able to think for themselves, otherwise I would have to babysit them as well as the rest of you. not even on what the rules are FD? Even you don't believe that tripe.

Good point. The disagreement was a figment of your imagination.

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2019 at 5:38pm:

John Smith wrote on May 18th, 2019 at 3:27pm: freediver wrote on May 18th, 2019 at 3:25pm: John Smith wrote on May 18th, 2019 at 9:12am: freediver wrote on May 17th, 2019 at 8:51pm: The other mods have responded adequately. You just got caught out of your depth, so you are changing the subject. The mods? Why are you trying to make it sound like anyone other than set dealt with anything? Even you publicly disagreed with what he said, now you're pretending it was adequate? Tell me, do you perchance think that adequate and incompetent mean the same things? The mods don't have to agree with me on everything. They are supposed to be able to think for themselves, otherwise I would have to babysit them as well as the rest of you. not even on what the rules are FD? Even you don't believe that tripe. Good point. The disagreement was a figment of your imagination.

Yes it must be.  That's why Setanta has tossed Teddy.  Must have been a figment of his imagination.

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2019 at 5:38pm:

John Smith wrote on May 18th, 2019 at 3:27pm: freediver wrote on May 18th, 2019 at 3:25pm: John Smith wrote on May 18th, 2019 at 9:12am: freediver wrote on May 17th, 2019 at 8:51pm: The other mods have responded adequately. You just got caught out of your depth, so you are changing the subject. The mods? Why are you trying to make it sound like anyone other than set dealt with anything? Even you publicly disagreed with what he said, now you're pretending it was adequate? Tell me, do you perchance think that adequate and incompetent mean the same things? The mods don't have to agree with me on everything. They are supposed to be able to think for themselves, otherwise I would have to babysit them as well as the rest of you. not even on what the rules are FD? Even you don't believe that tripe. Good point. The disagreement was a figment of your imagination.

I know it wasn't a figment of Set's imagination .. he's still pissed at you for making him look the fool. ;D ;D


Tell me, why did you remove longweekend as your mod? another figment of imagination perhaps?  :D :D :D