Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 15
th, 2024 at 10:48am:
we’ve
already attempted the good-faith discussion with you**coughs** .... who's this......
WE
.... white girl? **coughs**
Security breach..... now that is one fine gotchaself moment, eh, Igor? They always make those mistakes.... It's true, I should only speak for myself. However, I’ve witnessed you subject others to the same tactics you use on me, making it entirely accurate to state that we have attempted to engage with you on various topics.
But it’s far from easy.
You frequently avoid substantive discussion, particularly when confronted with the glaring inconsistencies between your claims and the very news items you post.
Often, what you present as evidence doesn't even remotely support the arguments you're making, especially with your countless "lawfare" posts. For example, a journalist reminiscing about a family trip to the Red Centre has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of lawfare, yet you included it in one of your lawfare threads.
The tantrum you threw when this was pointed out would put a toddler to shame. And I wager that even now, you’d stubbornly insist it’s somehow lawfare.
It's hard to engage with you in good faith (a term I’m happy to revise if you find it too "abusive" once you provide me with a substitute) when you begin from a foundation of complete denial of reality, coupled with an inability to admit when you're wrong. Instead, you're perpetually on the offensive, provoking, attacking, all while playing the victim of supposed abusive posters.
Perhaps you could outline what engaging with you in good faith would even look like (as I said, I’ll gladly edit the term if it’s too much for you). If you're intent on twisting everything to cast yourself as the victim, then provide me with some clear parameters on what you expect from an exchange, so we might actually have a genuine discussion on the topics you raise.
Your reactions, particularly when anything positive or supportive is mentioned in relation to Indigenous Australians, suggest you take it as a personal affront, as if someone had stolen food from the mouth of your first-born.
It doesn't seem to matter what the context is; your starting point is always that they are unworthy of even basic human decency and sometimes even existence.
But I can't, apparently, even make that observation, accurate as it may be, without triggering a meltdown.
So tell me: if I were to attempt a genuine discussion with you the next time you post yet another "not lawfare" lawfare post, what does that look like to you?
How can we bridge the gap between a genuine exchange and whatever it is you expect from others in these discussions?
Quote:Hey, turkey who never really reads what people post! I've mentioned I used to monitor media and wahless etc ... and a few other things.... I know how to pick those things... 'read' the hand that writes on the airwaves.... and I think they're going to attack Midway Island.....
If you choose not to take things seriously and instead resort to shallow, sarcastic jokes, that's entirely your prerogative. Just don’t act offended when others respond in kind.
Forum
Pages: 
