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.

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.

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 !