IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: My personal views on the media storm...
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
veritas |
Rupe's Oz newspapers may be free fall soon.
You read it here first :
John Hartigan Murdoch's Oz boss has announced in a most sanctimonious mood that he will investigate whether 'hacking' had gone on in Oz.
It's highly unlikely as Murdoch owns about 70% of newspapers..no need to.
But there is a brewing (ever so small...like a lit match tossed into the bush that ends up as a firestorm  )..no need to bribe Oz coppers as they are only too willing to handover sensetive material in defiance of strict privacy laws. I can think of at least 2 cases that will start of small and build and build..
1. Is the case of the police handing over to the media up to 500 names of 'suspects' in a case in 2005..suspects who were never charged and only really became suspects by chance. They were innocent and the cops did their job properly and cleared them..but not before releasing all their names to the media.
More on that later.
2. In 2008 there were a series of high profile 'terrorist' raids in Melbourne with dozens of houses raided and scores of Middle east men arrested..most quietly released ..a handful charged.
The first edition of Murdoch's The Australian newspaper hit the streets at 3am reporting the raids mentioning suburbs and streets and so on. What a scoop !.
The raids actually happened at 5.30 am...over 2 hours after the newspaper reported details !  |
|
Blackit |
JK2006 wrote:
Intelligent points from both sides - just please avoid going personal; comment on the thoughts and opinions; not those making them. Who we don't know. One of the big problems of the Internet; we think we know people we've never met. So let's not fall in love with them - or hate them!
What intelligent points has he made exactly? Aside from the false accusations and the mocking self rightous tone? When has anyone here defended men decapitating their girlfriends or terminating toddlers. I'm not being rude, but if he was sharing the same cell as such people then he's been put away for something really nasty. He does not have the right to project the same traits on others here that he doesn't know a thing about for simply questioning paedohysteria. |
|
Blackit |
JK2006 wrote:
Intelligent points from both sides - just please avoid going personal; comment on the thoughts and opinions; not those making them. Who we don't know. One of the big problems of the Internet; we think we know people we've never met. So let's not fall in love with them - or hate them!
Well, to be fair, I think most people would interpret his words as implying a belief that I am a paedophile or a sex offender.
And he has, has he not, admitted that he is a convicted sex offender, and I assume, with his morally superior talk regarding cognitive distortions in other sex offenders, that he accepts his guilt.
And also, to be fair, it did appear that you had approved his post accusing me of having the same cognitive distortions as sex offenders, and not my response pointing out his cowardice and hypocricy. I had every right to be angry. |
|
Blackit |
Locked Out wrote:
Wow. You mean you managed to extrapolate all that from what I just wrote?
An interesting little outburst {or rather three little outbursts}... full of rage at what was, after all, a simple suggestion that the similarities in your arguments {which you compound with a further, ie the attempt to paint sex offenders as some kind of free-thinking rebels who have dared to challenge the system and who are simply the victims of an oppressive and somehow "feminist" legal agenda} with many of the expressed beliefs of several of those I conversed with during my own tenure at one of Her Majesty's Hotels were striking. It was clear from many talks I had with several of them {one of whom was especially proud of the ease with which he had decapitated his girlfriend, while another had - apparently without any regret whatsoever - terminated a toddler} that they were extremely resistant to the various "headbending" regimes in place, the same ones you blithely describe as "brainwashing". There really was no need for you to tell me that you have nothing in common with people like this, I'm happy to take your many denials at face value.
It's really not worth indulging in a point-by-point analysis of your postings, and I'm sure that were I to do so it would simply lead to more hysterics. So I'll confine the nub of my reply to this:
When you speak of "jailed under ridiculous feminist zanulabor laws" would you care to illustrate one or two of them? No need to go into the false accusations bit... just those laws which are "ridiculous", "feminist" or "zanulabour" and whose application is resulting in the unjust imprisoning of people. Which offenders would you free? Apart from the mentally ill, of course, in whose cause I am with you all the way.
I'm really glad that you're gracious enough to take on trust that I haven't decapitated my girlfriend, or terminated any toddlers. So why exactly where you comparing me with such people?
I'm not at all sure why you think I'm hysterical and ranting and you're not. Am I supposed to picture you sitting calmly accusing posters of being sex abusers like yourself on the basis that I'm outraged, like a lot of people, at the hacking into a murdered child's phone?
You accused me of having cognitive distortions and compared me to your sex offender cellmates (with an absurd tone of moral superiority) - simply because I argued that the News of the World's appalling behavioiur might be symptomatic of a wider unhealthy obsession with paedophilia in our society. I have to admit, I got rather angry JK appeared not to have approved my reply which pointed out your cowardice.
Is this supposed to be an analysis. Just a list of questions? Are you able to engage in any kind of intelligent debate?
"Jailed under ridiculous zanulabor laws" - raising the age of pornography to 18 when the age of consent is still 16, including with the definition even cartoon pictures of 'children' and defining possession of child pornography as merely clicking once on a porn tube video thumbnail. To give one example. Why on earth should I spend time debating with you when you've just said it's not worth YOUR time to do so?
These zanulabor laws are lobbyed for by child protection societies, above all the NSPCC, which is stuffed to the brim with hardcore radical feminists. They were then happilly taken up by feminists in the Labour party such as Harman and Jacqui Smith.
That's it. No more interacting with you or angel. You both need to learn that making appalling accusations against people, making a list of loaded questions, or giving assine one word replies, such as 'allegedly' (why don't you just fart next time?) isn't very intelligent or worth anybodys time. |
|
Innocent Accused |
Locked Out wrote:
A fair and generous post, IA. My apologies to Blackit, of whom it was not my intention to personally traduce, just his repetition of too many arguments I've already had with too many people. But it takes two, and I hold my hands up to being one of them. Beer, anyone?
Well said LO 
Your personal experience of these matters makes your posts so much more informative.So keep up the debate,and save your real anger for those who fail to keep a civil tongue when they disagree with an argument. |
|
|
|
|
