Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5
Send Topic Print
Does this reflect badly on Islam? (Read 10566 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48200
At my desk.
Does this reflect badly on Islam?
Sep 17th, 2016 at 12:11pm
 
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 13th, 2016 at 2:50pm:
The actual facts of the case have been widely reported - that the 1998 and 2010 legislation was passed



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 13th, 2016 at 2:50pm:
And yet, all the relevant facts have been reported.



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 13th, 2016 at 9:29pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 13th, 2016 at 6:53pm:
No relevant legislation was passed in these years. This is as good a demonstration as any of the failure of the media to report on this, and you are one of the more informed people.


No its not, its only a good demonstration of me comprehending poorly. The facts non-the-less were reported. 

freediver wrote on Sep 13th, 2016 at 6:53pm:
The August 31 vote in the senate was not reported at all by most outlets.


Probably because the decision was made on August 12 and the August 31 vote was a mere rubber stamp.

But if you actually looked at the reporting on the August 12 decision, it was widely reported and widely analysed - including much criticism.

eg...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/12/senate-terms-derryn-hinch...

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/coalition-and-labor-team-u...

http://theconversation.com/major-parties-to-allocate-long-and-short-senate-terms...



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14th, 2016 at 8:59am:
I now have a pretty good understanding of what happened - but no thanks to you and your demands for us to be outraged without giving us a proper explanation why. As it turns out the media did cover the decision, just not on the date you mistakenly thought it was made. Yes you could argue there was not much confected outrage being spoon fed to us over it, but all the relevant facts were reported.

Where did you find out about it by the way? The media perhaps?



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14th, 2016 at 2:15pm:
Sure, you made the claim that "no major outlet reported on the Senate decision" - because you thought it was made on August 31, when in fact it was made on August 12.



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14th, 2016 at 2:15pm:
Yesterday I read 3 separate ABC articles written in the wake of the election mentioning the resolutions as well as Antony Green's blog article that argued the recount method was fairer - along with links to both.



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14th, 2016 at 2:15pm:
Worth noting too is that the ABC provided the relevant facts to let us make up our own minds which method is fairer - as opposed to you just telling us which one is fairer without giving us any information about why its fairer. And here you are lecturing about how terrible the media is for leaving out "basic facts"  Grin



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14th, 2016 at 8:30pm:
Since the August 12 deal made the August 31 vote a mere rubber stamp formality, reporting again on what we've already been told is redundant.



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14th, 2016 at 8:30pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 14th, 2016 at 6:21pm:
I provided links to the relevant information.

Where? There's nothing on the home page article except links to two threads that rehash the same article. I don't see any external links to Green's blog or anything else. All you say is 'the deal is unfair - you can trust me on that - so please be outraged like me and contact your local MP.'



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14th, 2016 at 8:30pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 14th, 2016 at 6:21pm:
So why did you cite an article that failed to mention the resolution? Can you link to one that does?

I can't really be bothered. Suffice to say it was easy to find, and included: explanation that the two resolutions were made along with an APH link giving further explanation about them, as well as a link to Antony Green's article arguing that the recount method is fairer. Funnily enough thats far more than you have done - no links, no explanation about why you are so hysterical about the order elected method, just a "trust me its bad - so go and hound your MPs"
meh, what the hell, here you go...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-05/election-2016-new-senate-terms-explained/7...


Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 17th, 2016 at 12:17pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48200
At my desk.
Re: Does this reflect badly on Islam?
Reply #1 - Sep 17th, 2016 at 12:11pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 15th, 2016 at 3:12pm:
Not only did you not provide any links to "more detailed explanations", you didn't even provide anything resembling a "brief explanation" of your own.



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 15th, 2016 at 3:12pm:
Is it really that difficult to understand this simple point? The deal was made on August 12. Thats worth reporting on, and it was (granted, they don't seem to have reported this together with the fact that it went against previous resolutions). It meant that the vote to make this formal on August 31 became a fait accompli. Reporting on the August 31 vote would be reporting on what we've already "been told" - ie that the senate had decided to use the order elect method. Or to put it another way, we already knew in advance what the result of the August 31 vote would be - it therefore makes more sense to report on the decision to make the August 31 vote a fait accompli, rather than the vote itself.



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 15th, 2016 at 3:12pm:
You previously thought that there were no mentions of them anywhere since the Antony Green blog - which was written in April.



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 15th, 2016 at 3:12pm:
The point is, as I keep saying, all the relevant facts were mentioned at some point by the media: the two resolutions, the August 12 agreement (along with critical analysis) - as well as, most critically, actual explanations about what the two methods for senate-term determination are. These are the only relevant facts - the August 31 vote was not relevant as I have already explained. The Australian public had all the information they needed to understand that a) the senate went against their own resolutions and b) that the method chosen was a cynical piece of collusion by the major parties to (in the words of one article) 'feather their own senate nests". You can no longer pretend that these relevant facts were not reported, the best you can do now is whinge about the media not spoonfeeding us confected outrage (and treat us all like mugs in the process by telling us to be outraged without giving us even the most basic information), as opposed to treating us like adults who can make our own minds up with all the relevant facts as reported.



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 15th, 2016 at 7:27pm:
A big part of this issue FD is the way you yourself are trying to report (spin?) this story. And the further we delve into it, the more it unravels. First we have the outrage over the non-reporting of the August 31 vote - misleadingly inferring that the actual decision itself went by with no scrutiny. Then we find out that in fact the decision itself was made on August 12 - which was widely reported. You didn't bother to point out that the August 31 vote was a rubber stamp on a deal that was already made - which would have shown that particular non-reporting in a completely different light. Second we have your assumption that no media outlet mentioned the two resolutions since Antony Green's blog article about them in April - while it took me about 5 seconds to find 3 separate ABC articles not just mentioning them, but providing an APH link giving more details on them. And finally there's your arrogant dismissal of the public's intelligence by spoonfeeding us confected outrage about the allegedly "unfair" method of senate term allocation, without giving us any idea about why it was unfair - other than your say-so. As if that wasn't bad enough - you then assure us that you provided information as well as links explaining the two methods - when you didn't..



polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 15th, 2016 at 7:27pm:
FD the rationale you attempted to use to justify this episode as "inappropriate" reporting has been so thoroughly dismantled that we really have to revisit what we mean by appropriate. Your central thesis that the media was negligent in reporting "basic facts" has been proven to be patently false: all the relevant facts were reported at some point or other, and the only argument you have left is that they weren't reported at the right time. You think they should have contextualised the relevant facts and wrapped them all up in one neat little package that could be spoonfed to us. Lets call it an 'outrage package'. And yes, there's something to be said of that - it was a little surprising that the resolutions weren't mentioned in the same reports as the labor-liberal deal. But that is nowhere near all the crap you were crying about - the alleged lack of criticism (there was criticism), the non-reporting of the cynical labor-liberal deal (it was covered) or the claim that the resolutions hadn't been reported on since April (it was).

The long and the short of it is, the Australian public had all the information they needed to understand that this was a cynical deal by the majors to consolidate their hold on the senate, and that it went against two resolutions that the senate made. Thats really whats important here, and so in answer to your question - essentially yes it was "appropriately" reported on.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 17th, 2016 at 12:25pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48200
At my desk.
Re: Does this reflect badly on Islam?
Reply #2 - Sep 17th, 2016 at 12:12pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 16th, 2016 at 12:14pm:
FD what "blatant lies" have I resorted to?

Would you call insisting you provided information, including links, about the two resolutions on your home page article a lie? Or would you like to go on the record that it was an honest mistake on your part? Either way the information you insisted was there is not.

I just thought its prudent to mention this while you are throwing the accusation of lying at me.




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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 17th, 2016 at 12:33pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48200
At my desk.
Re: Does this reflect badly on Islam?
Reply #3 - Sep 17th, 2016 at 12:13pm
 
In one click from the home page of this site you can get to three different threads I started on this issue.

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

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1473556559

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1473556615

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1471261637

One of them has, as it's first entry, a link to the first thread I started on July 18 with a summary of Antony Green's blog.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1468844101

This thread also has links to one of Bam's threads and one of Crook's threads on this issue.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1470398426

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1471123966

I and several other members have been posting media articles in several of these threads as some of the information was made public.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 17th, 2016 at 12:42pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 93049
Gender: male
Re: Does this reflect badly on Islam?
Reply #4 - Sep 17th, 2016 at 3:22pm
 
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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48200
At my desk.
Re: Does this reflect badly on Islam?
Reply #5 - Sep 18th, 2016 at 9:20pm
 
Oh look, a Muslim redefining the term "broken promise" - the same Muslim who used a broken treaty to justify the slaughter by his prophet of hundreds of innocent Jews. Apparently two bipartisan senate resolutions really mean we will change our mind if it suits us, and change the rules of our democracy after the people have cast their votes. After all, who would expect the rules that govern a double dissolution election to stay consistent over a whole 6 years?

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 18th, 2016 at 7:53pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 17th, 2016 at 12:48pm:
Gandalf how far would you take this strange theory of yours that it is "adequate" for the media to report the relevant facts "at some point or other"?

If the media catches politicians breaking important promises (such as one that affects the outcome of elections when the promises took the form of repeated bipartisan senate resolutions), is it adequate for them to not ask the politicians any questions at all about these broken promises?


I think calling it a 'broken promise' is a stretch. The last resolution was made in 2010 and since then the senate has changed twice. How beholden is the current, new senate to this resolution? Its debatable in my book. And your histrionics like calling it "thieving" and such doesn't exactly bring much balance back to the story - especially when you don't even provide the most basic facts, and instead condescendingly expect everyone to join in on your outrage purely on your say-so.

Quote:
Is it adequate for them to merely publish the justifications offered by the politicians concerned? Is it adequate for them to not include in their articles any information at all about the existence of those promises? Is it adequate for them to leave the reporting of such "contextualisations" to other journalists, to other media outlets, and to other times?

Why do you describe the reporting of relevant facts in the article in which they are relevant "spoonfeeding" and "confected outrage"? Is this not the job of journalists (leaving out for the moment the "hard questions" they ought to ask)?


The most relevant point from the story is that they two major parties colluded in a grubby deal to "feather their own senate nests". That was widely reported, and the message came across loud and clear. The information you are demanding won't make this deal seem any more grubbier, and is essentially superfluous.

Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
garbonzo
Junior Member
**
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 61
Gender: male
Re: Does this reflect badly on Islam?
Reply #6 - Sep 18th, 2016 at 9:50pm
 
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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 93049
Gender: male
Re: Does this reflect badly on Islam?
Reply #7 - Sep 19th, 2016 at 9:06am
 
It just hasn't been the same since Abu left.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Does this reflect badly on Islam?
Reply #8 - Sep 19th, 2016 at 1:58pm
 
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 17th, 2016 at 12:12pm:
Contrary to Gandalf's repeated assertions, I provided information about the two resolutions on the home page of this website.


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

freediver wrote on Sep 17th, 2016 at 12:13pm:
In one click from the home page of this site you can get to three different threads I started on this issue. http://www.ozpolitic.com/index.htmlhttp://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1473556559http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1473556615http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1471261637One of them has, as it's first entry, a link to the first thread I started on July 18 with a summary of Antony Green's blog.


Grin Grin

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

freediver wrote on Sep 14th, 2016 at 9:31pm:
You should start with the home page of this website. There is a link in the OP.


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 14th, 2016 at 9:31pm:
I provided a brief explanation with links to more detailed explanations.


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 18th, 2016 at 9:20pm:
Oh look, a Muslim [being dishonest/deceptive]


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

Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 41993
Gender: male
Re: Does this reflect badly on Islam?
Reply #9 - Sep 19th, 2016 at 7:22pm
 
Islam is bad for Western societies. Is it 95% bad or 100%?
The one who says 100% - is he telling 5% porkies?

Probably. That 5% is Karnal's and Gandalf's definition of porkies about Islam.

"9/11 had some Muslim victims - therefore it is a porky to say that 9/11 was all about  the West."

That kind of nonsense.






Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Unforgiven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male
Re: Does this reflect badly on Islam?
Reply #10 - Sep 19th, 2016 at 7:27pm
 
Freediver is a hate propagator and instigator. He turns every thread he enters into a hate rant.
Back to top
 

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 93049
Gender: male
Re: Does this reflect badly on Islam?
Reply #11 - Sep 19th, 2016 at 8:22pm
 
Frank wrote on Sep 19th, 2016 at 7:22pm:
Islam is bad for Western societies. Is it 95% bad or 100%?
The one who says 100% - is he telling 5% porkies?

Probably. That 5% is Karnal's and Gandalf's definition of porkies about Islam.

"9/11 had some Muslim victims - therefore it is a porky to say that 9/11 was all about  the West."

That kind of nonsense.








You're new here, Frank. Do you support the use of porkies in FD's campaign against the Muselman?

A simple yes or no will suffice.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 93049
Gender: male
Re: Does this reflect badly on Islam?
Reply #12 - Sep 19th, 2016 at 8:24pm
 
Unforgiven wrote on Sep 19th, 2016 at 7:27pm:
Freediver is a hate propagator and instigator. He turns every thread he enters into a hate rant.


Now now, FD is really acting out of love.

Freeeeeedom. Inclusion. Decent white people everywhere.

Sometimes a question is just a question.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48200
At my desk.
Re: Does this reflect badly on Islam?
Reply #13 - Sep 20th, 2016 at 7:08am
 
Gandalf started by insisting the media had in fact reported on the two resolutions. As evidence of this, he posted links to several articles that did not mention the two resolutions. For a while he was conceding that, 'oddly,' the media left this fact out, but it does not matter because the media mentioned it a few months earlier and it would be spoonfeeding to put the relevant facts in the same article. Then he moved on to saying  they were not real promises from Labor and Liberal, and the public would reach the same conclusion that it was a feathered deal even if the only facts reported were that Labor and Liberal stuck with convention, because they also quoted the losers saying it was unfair.

Now he has come full circle and is back to insisting the media did report on the two resolutions. Apparently I missed this the first time round, so he is having another go. What will he think of next? It wasn't a real promise? The media mustn't spoonfeed facts to us?

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 19th, 2016 at 1:12pm:
Every article I read on the deal quoted Derryn Hunch and/or a Green complaining how unfair it was - and yes, there was even mention of the fact that the "fairer" method had been agreed to before. Again, you seem to have missed this, along with just about everything else that was relevant to this story.


Is this how you go about convincing your fellow Muslims that Islam is really a religion of peace Gandalf?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Does this reflect badly on Islam?
Reply #14 - Sep 20th, 2016 at 12:06pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 20th, 2016 at 7:08am:
Gandalf started by insisting the media had in fact reported on the two resolutions. As evidence of this, he posted links to several articles that did not mention the two resolutions.


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

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 13th, 2016 at 9:29pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 13th, 2016 at 6:53pm:
The August 31 vote in the senate was not reported at all by most outlets.


Probably because the decision was made on August 12 and the August 31 vote was a mere rubber stamp.

But if you actually looked at the reporting on the August 12 decision, it was widely reported and widely analysed - including much criticism.

eg...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/12/senate-terms-derryn-hinch...

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/coalition-and-labor-team-u...

http://theconversation.com/major-parties-to-allocate-long-and-short-senate-terms...


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?
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5
Send Topic Print