I'm guessing you fell short and produced more vague waffle about being compensated for loss of reputation 'instead' of lost income.

Aussie wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 9:35pm:


A lie? Never.

FD, you prove Aussie wrong once and for all. You tell him how you would never use porkies in your campaign against the Muselman.

You'll see, Aussie. FD will show you.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 10^th, 2016 at 6:20am:


FD doesn't read them. Instead, he asks you to post them again. When you've done that, he asks you what you said. When you say that, he questions the syntax. When you answer that, he questions the intention behind the syntax. When you answer that, he makes up your beliefs and puts them in their own thread. When you point out how dumb this is, FD tells you to prove him wrong. When you do that, he asks you to quote yourself.

When you do that, he asks you to post them again. When you've done that, he asks you what you said...

The process takes a few months, give or take. In the end, FD says he never read any of your posts to begin with.

Just think, FD does all this to avoid saying he got it wrong.

Aussie do you support 18c?

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 10:48am:


With 18D, yeas.

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 4:53pm:


Probably not.  However......What link is there to be discovered?

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 5:30pm:


Why do you answer a question with a question?  You answer mine.  It'll be a first.

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 5:30pm:


The court had ruled that the article was a form of racial vilification that failed to contain any of the exceptions contained in 18D.

As a result he was instructed by the court to remove the article.

His refusal to follow the courts direction made him guilty of:

Quote:


This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.