I don't often see Gandalf post on issues unrelated to Islam, so it was a bit of an eye-opener when he came to the defense of the media in another thread, particularly given his insistence that he opposes the duopoly of the major parties. It seems that all the discussion about Islam has made him lazy with the truth. All that is necessary for Gandalf to 'validate' what he claims about Islam is to insist that it it what he believes. It is not quite so easy when there are facts to contend with.

Gandalf, do you think this reflects badly on Islam? Can you see how this might make it difficult for people to trust you to honestly represent your religion and your claims of being a reformer, or to honestly interpret media reports on Muslims?

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 13^th, 2016 at 2:50pm:



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 13^th, 2016 at 2:50pm:



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 13^th, 2016 at 9:29pm:



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 8:59am:



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 2:15pm:



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 2:15pm:



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 2:15pm:



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 8:30pm:



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 8:30pm:



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 8:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 16^th, 2016 at 12:14pm:




That was Gandalf's spin. The truth is rather different.

Contrary to Gandalf's repeated assertions, I provided information about the two resolutions on the home page of this website. Gandalf asserted that I did not provide him the information and that he obtained it from the media. His first post in the thread contained incorrect information (that relevant legislation was passed in 1998 and 2010), and he used his "knowledge" of these facts as evidence of adequate media coverage. He then insisted for a third time that the facts were widely reported and his mistake only reflected him "comprehending poorly". To back this up, he gave links to three newspaper articles to prove that the media did in fact report on the 1998 and 2010 resolutions. Not a single one of them mentioned the resolutions. It took Gandalf over a day to find an article in which the resolutions were mentioned. Ironically enough, it was from an article published before Labor and the Coalition decided to break the promises they made to the Australia public with those resolutions.

Gandalf is still yet to provide a single newspaper article on the August 31 vote. He is still yet to provide an article written after the August 12 announcement that also mentions the 1998 and 2010 resolutions, despite claiming to have read three of them on the abc site. He is still yet to provide a single example of a politician being asked any question at all about their broken promises that altered an election outcome. But he reassures us the coverage was adequate.

His latest excuses are alternatively that he "can't really be bothered," or to concede the media did fail to report these facts, but that to do so would be "spoonfeeding" facts to the public, when it is actually the media's job to make people go looking for facts whose existence they are unaware of. According to Gandalf, all we should expect from the media is that they mention the relevant facts "at some point or other", like a few months prior, in a separate article or a separate site owned by a different media company.

Gandalf stated that I thought the Antony Green blog did not mention the resolutions, shortly after I cited his blog as the source of my information on the resolutions.  Gandalf also invented the story that I mistakenly believed the "senate decision" was made on August 31, rather than August 12. The truth is that I had made it clear all along that there was an agreement reached on August 12 and a Senate vote on August 31 (though it did take me a long time to find an article reporting the August 31 date). Gandalf invented the story that I was unaware of the August 12 decision or confused about the dates. He then went on to imply that the media could have reported on either the August 12 decision or the August 31 senate vote, but for some reason not both. Gandalf claimed he had to "delve into" my story to discover that the major parties reach an agreement on August 12 rather than August 31, despite me referring him rpeeatedly to the site home page with an entry dated prior to August 31, and despite Gandalf acknowledging links to threads I started, one of which was dated before August 31 and obviously only referred to the earlier announcement.


Some extracts from the entries I put on the home page of this site, whose existence Gandalf repeatedly denied.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/index.html

Posted on September 11:

The two major parties have broken promises they made twice to the Australian public in order to secure these seats. These promises took the form of Senate resolutions on 22 June 2010 and 29 June 1998. Both resolutions passed with bipartisan support and stated that the Senate will use the new, fairer method to determine which senators get full (6 year) terms in the event of a double dissolution election.

This coup has been permitted by a mainstream media that is asleep at the wheel. No major outlet reported on the Senate decision of August 31. They did report on Labor and the Coalition reaching an agreement to do this several weeks earlier.

Gandalf quoted my reference to the August 31 "senate decision" in order to make the case that I was unaware the agreement was reached several weeks earlier, despite the fact that the very next sentence refers to the agreement being reached several weeks earlier.

Posted on the site home page on August 15 - a full 16 days prior to the date Gandalf insists I mistakenly believed the agreement was reached. The entry also contains links to a thread I started on the same day criticising the August 12 decision.

Now in 2016, both Labor and the coalition have reneged on their repeated promises to the Australian people. Why? Because it benefits them. Their own senators get more 6 year terms at the expense of other parties and independents.

FD, you still haven't answered. Do you believe in spin in your campaign against the Muselman and your defence of the freedoms of decent white people everywhere?

A simple yes or no will suffice, you know.

Doesn't matter what Muslims think.  The truth is their belief system is based on the Quran and Mohammed's actions.  Both are anthologies of murder and repression.  The world has gained nothing from their existence beyond murder and repression....sorry, forgot extensive torture.....and racism...and enslavement...plus many more unpleasant details western immigration officials are derelict in noticing and acting upon.  Yes, this curse will be ended.  Violent Muslims will ensure the west does what needs to be done.

You seem rather touchy about this topic FD. Why else would you go to such trouble to make this bizarre and completely non-sensical thread? Is it because I have exposed blatant porkies on your part? I mean this would have to be one of your most stupid and incoherent 'quote-bomb' threads.

freediver wrote on Sep 17^th, 2016 at 12:12pm:


And I'll assert it again. There is no information.

freediver wrote on Sep 17^th, 2016 at 12:13pm:




As opposed to what FD first claimed when I asked him where this mythical information was...

freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 9:31pm:


Now he explains there is some information linked in a link to a thread somwhere on the home page. Good luck in finding it. But we can take this as FD's way of conceding its not linked anywhere in the OP article like he claimed - and where it obviously should be.

FD also claimed:

freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2016 at 9:31pm:


If anyone can find anything remotely resembling a "brief" explanation of what the two methods are and how they differ, or even how one of them is "fairer" than the other in the OP article like he claimed - I'll eat my hat. FD should have no trouble quoting these parts from his article - yes?

Oh, and just to point out this BS coming from the same person who is now railing against dishonesty in debate.

And FD showing his true class:

freediver wrote on Sep 18^th, 2016 at 9:20pm:


And you know, just the breathtaking idiocy of somehow turning that discussion into a muslim-bashing discussion.

Freediver is a hate propagator and instigator. He turns every thread he enters into a hate rant.

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 19^th, 2016 at 7:27pm:


Now now, FD is really acting out of love.

Freeeeeedom. Inclusion. Decent white people everywhere.

Sometimes a question is just a question.

freediver wrote on Sep 20^th, 2016 at 7:08am:


You can start by being honest FD. Here is the post where I provide the links you refer to:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 13^th, 2016 at 9:29pm:


Read carefully... is this me posting links to prove the resolutions were reported? Or is it me posting links to prove that the August 12 decision was reported... hmmm?

(hint - highlighted bit)

I have literally lost count of the number of times you have blatantly misrepresented me in this discussion, but here is a pretty clear example wouldn't you agree? I think I've been pretty patient in the face of these bizarre and hysterical attacks - including personal attacks. But I think in this instance I don't think its too much for at least an acknowledgement that you unfairly misrepresented me. What do you say?