Re: Talking Politics

[ZeroGame]

FFS, I swear you just disagree with me for the sake of it, or just never want to admit that I'm right.

Conroy is 100% going ahead with the filter, they just put it on the back burner during the election because they knew how unpopular it is. They've never actually said they are not going ahead with it, just that they want to review what is blocked. When you listen to Conroy interviewed about the NBN & filter he is 100% going ahead with both of them, the only way the filter gets scrapped is if it is blocked by the Libs and either the Greens or the independants. Both the Greens and Libs have said they are against the filter, that article I linked to from only a few weeks ago says this. I'd like to know how that article doesn't prove I was right, it is all about how the Greens & Libs are in favour of optional filtering, not mandatory.

I only said I was 99% sure because I couldn't be bothered looking it up and when you questioned me I did one quick Google search and verified my comment with a source.

 

[Giardiasis]

Pedantic touching on partisan.

 

[Rosy]

FFS, I swear you just disagree with me for the sake of it, or just never want to admit that I'm right.

I'd ignore that except people might get the opinion I go out of my way to disagree with you. Let's see about out last few discussions. Not a lot for me to "admit" you were "right" about.

I questioned your claim Foley played in the VFL final. You were wrong.

I disagreed with your suggestion that people pay to reinstate lapsed membership status. Fair enough for me to see it differently considering there were mixed opinions about it. Some saw it your way and others didn't. Nothing personal there.

You said the AFL don't test for legal prescription drugs and I questioned that. I think you were wrong...Justin Charles would probably agree with me.

The others you chose to involve yourself in discussions I was having with others.

You quoted a comment I'd made to someone else in regard to Caro's article that was being discussed and asked me a couple of questions. You alluded to accusations of Ben taking drugs again. That wasn't claimed in the article.

You asked if I was aware that a sentence was for manslaughter when I'd already mentioned that it was in my post. I assume it was me you were referring to when you mentioned shouldn't be shocked in regard to the sentence, despite it being a fraction of the maximum sentence for manslaughter. Not a matter of right or wrong. I feel perfectly justified at being disappointed with the sentence for such a gruesome crime and am surprised you decided to judge how another should feel about it.

I posted some info from an e-mail from Caro. Yet again you quoted me saying it's no wonder I stick up for her so much. When asked what you mean, and I still don't see the correlation, you didn't explain.

On this thread I was only interested in claims that Conroy was going ahead with the filter because I don't think the article posted in regard to that included any real evidence to support it. I found it strange he'd comment publicly that before the new ministry was settled. I know of another Govt department that was on hold until everything was formalised. Yet again you chose to quote me when I hadn't been discussing it with you. I'm still none the wiser in relation to the article I was wondering about.

In response to your comment above if you decide to quote someone you should be prepared for them to reply without any expectation of agreeance. If you post untruths you should be willing to be questioned.

Looking back you have chosen to quote me quite often. I have no issues with that at all. I find it very interesting that you do quote and/or question my comments so often then swear I disagree with you just for the sake of it though.

 

[ZeroGame]

Firstly this needing it's own thread is ridiculous
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on the other things, but you're being rediculously pedantic in the polictics thread

You made the following comment

When did Independent MP Rob Oakeshott, the Opposition and the Greens have all come out against the policy? Pre or post election?

I then replied that the Libs and Greens were against it, then when you questioned my response I linked to this article
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/optional-internet-filters-unite-coalition-greens-20100816-126yi.html
which shows that both are against the filter.

For some reason this isn't good enough, despite you asking when the Libs or Greens had come out against the policy either before or after the election. This article is from only a few weeks ago so is still recent and absolutely valid.

 

[Rosy]

Firstly this needing it's own thread is ridiculous

Ridiculous? Do you think this should have remained on the original thread where it wasn't relevant and people probably wouldn't want to read it?

It didn't need it's own thread really. However there are a few reasons it was split from the original thread.

Your suggestions I disagree for the sake of it and just never want to admit your right weren't relevant to the topic. I'm sure most reading the topic wouldn't be interested.

There were a few options.

I could ignore your comments but I didn't want people to read them and think you were being persecuted. As I've shown they were way off the mark.

I could have removed your comments about me, as has been suggested I do when people make things personal, but I don't like to censor the forum that way.

I could have responded on the thread but I wanted to address your personal claims about me rather than the actual topic of the thread.

As you can see by my examples above you have been wrong and you do tend to single me, ( and other posters ), out and quote to disagree or have a crack at them.

I split this so I could address your accusations but keep it seperate from the politics discussion. It seems like you're just looking for things to have a sook about judging by your comments about it being a separate thread.

I have no interest discussing the politics with you. You didn't answer my actual questions in your replies. I have no issues with that because I wasn't specifically asking you, and it was your choice to quote me and respond.

My suggestion is if you want to make personal accusations, rather than discuss the actual topic, maybe you should do it by PM rather than on the forum in future. That way public explanations wouldn't be required and the posts wouldn't need to be edited or split from threads.

 

[ZeroGame]

Hang on a minute, I do not for one second think I am wrong in those items you have quoted me on above, I just have no intention of going over them again in a debate with you. Most are purely a matter of opinion.

Including the Foley thing is a bit rich also, I was only repeating something I'd read from another forum. When I went and tryed to find the post again I was unable to find them in the Coburg threads so said as much. I couldn't be bothered spending time reading any other threads over something to trivial so I admitted posting it was wrong and I backtracked because I couldn't find my source. Using that as an example in the context here is a little over the top when I have admitted as such at the time.

As for the testing of legal prescription drugs, I pointed out quite clearly that there are two drug policies. The illicit drugs policy and the WADA performance enhancing drug testing. The topic of discussion was Ben Cousins and a what caused his hospital visits. When the topic came to Ben taking prescription sleeping tablets and someone asked if they tested for presciption meds I said no they don't test for legal prescription drugs.
Now I understand that steroids can be legal prescription medication, however they are tested for under the WADA performance enhancing drug policy for testing on match day and are not tested for by the group that would have been involved in testing Ben Cousins for illicit substances. I 1000% stand by that comment. To clarify even further, most performance enhancing substances are not legal prescription drugs as those ones are too easy to detect. There are plenty of laboratories developing new substances that are undetectable and slowly as technology comes better, even things like HGH require a biopsy to test for.
Linking Justin Charles' use of steroids is also incorrect as he used a steroid called boldenone which is for vetinary use, not humans, therefore isn't legal prescription drug either.