And the boats keep coming

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Care to show how I was inaccurate with links, quotes, etc?

I have stated and have been consistent in my opinions on this, I believe. If you think I was saying something else.... meh; the onus is on you.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

I have stated and have been consistent in my opinions on this, I believe. If you think I was saying something else.... meh; the onus is on you.

If you believe I misrepresented you, which you clearly think, the onus is on you to prove it.

And will you please elaborate on the policy backflip? Nobody can discuss anything if you are going to be that vague.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Wildy

If you believe I misrepresented you, which you clearly think, the onus is on you to prove it.

You have it back to front; the onus of proof is on you to show where I said what you are claiming (placed in quotation marks I might add).
Where is that quote?
When did I say it?

Originally Posted by Wildy

And will you please elaborate on the policy backflip? Nobody can discuss anything if you are going to be that vague.

What don't you understand?

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

You have it back to front; the onus of proof is on you to show where I said what you are claiming (placed in quotation marks I might add).
Where is that quote?
When did I say it?

Nope. Try again, remember, links context etc.

Quote:

What don't you understand?

I see I missed where you linked to it earlier. Sorry. Basically, I agree with Thomson. The government are trying to court stupid people.

Now Alfie, we know what you think of the government, but what do you think about excising the mainland from the migration zone?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Nope. Try again, remember, links context etc.

lol.
What you are doing is putting words in my mouth and asking me to prove I never said them. That wont be happening and I would suggest you adjust your expectations. You are claiming you know what my standpoint is - and used quotes - you can prove it or retract it.

Originally Posted by Wildy

I see I missed where you linked to it earlier. Sorry. Basically, I agree with Thomson. The government are trying to court stupid people.

And he like me is saying the government are hypocrites. We agree on one part of what he says at least.

Originally Posted by Wildy

Now Alfie, we know what you think of the government, but what do you think about excising the mainland from the migration zone?

I think it a backflip and abject hypocrisy.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

lol.
What you are doing is putting words in my mouth and asking me to prove I never said them. That wont be happening and I would suggest you adjust your expectations. You are claiming you know what my standpoint is - and used quotes - you can prove it or retract it.

I do not believe I put words in your mouth. What I'm trying to get you to prove is your claim that I misrepresented you.

Quote:

I think it a backflip and abject hypocrisy.

That's an opinion of the government and not of the policy in question. Come on Alfie, it's a simple question. Do you agree with the removal of mainland Australia from the migration zone?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Wildy

I do not believe I put words in your mouth. What I'm trying to get you to prove is your claim that I misrepresented you.

Sure you did. When you use "quotation marks" you are saying I said them, that they are my words verbatim. Putting words in my mouth and are asking me to prove otherwise is exactly what you have done.

I have corrected them to be accurate to what I believe.

Please withdraw your allegation or prove them.

Originally Posted by Wildy

That's an opinion of the government and not of the policy in question. Come on Alfie, it's a simple question. Do you agree with the removal of mainland Australia from the migration zone?

If it helps to save people drowning at sea I am all for it.
What do you think?

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Sure you did. When you use "quotation marks" you are saying I said them, that they are my words verbatim. Putting words in my mouth and are asking me to prove otherwise is exactly what you have done.

Which isn't what I did at all.

Quote:

I have corrected them to be accurate to what I believe.

Please withdraw your allegation or prove them.

I believe I asked you first.

Quote:

If it helps to save people drowning at sea I am all for it.

See now that wasn't so hard was it?

But is it really stopping them though?

Quote:

What do you think?

It was idiotic when it was suggested by the Coalition all those years ago, and it's idiotic now that Labor has done it. And unless the government is going to make Nauru even worse than the worst refugee camps in the world, I don't see how it's going to be a disincentive.

[Hallo Alfie]

This what you said:

Originally Posted by Wildy

IIRC his point is that boat people are queue-jumpers who wrongfully take the place of "more deserving" people and so they deserve to be punished for their actions.

Mind you this only applies to boats for him, since people who arrive by plane and do basically the exact same thing are a-ok.

You remember incorrectly. If you believe otherwise you can prove it. I have corrected you to show what I think, then and now.

Originally Posted by Wildy

I believe I asked you first.

And if you did you are asking me to prove what? That I never said something you accuse me of? Seriously?

Originally Posted by Wildy

It was idiotic when it was suggested by the Coalition all those years ago, and it's idiotic now that Labor has done it. And unless the government is going to make Nauru even worse than the worst refugee camps in the world, I don't see how it's going to be a disincentive.

And Labor were dead against it before too. All of which seems to me to confirm my original point, that Gillard and Labor on this policy are abject hypocrites. No?

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

And Labor were dead against it before too. All of which seems to me to confirm my original point, that Gillard and Labor on this policy are abject hypocrites. No?

Only Labor? The Liberal stance is patently appealing to the base human emotions, as they learned from their focus groups. "Stop the Boats" isn't a synonym for "Save the lives", it really means "Stop these people coming here, we don't like them. They look strange."

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Only Labor? The Liberal stance is patently appealing to the base human emotions, as they learned from their focus groups. "Stop the Boats" isn't a synonym for "Save the lives", it really means "Stop these people coming here, we don't like them. They look strange."

I find that very hard to believe. Do you have proof or is it just a feeling you have?

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

You remember incorrectly. If you believe otherwise you can prove it. I have corrected you to show what I think, then and now.

And if you did you are asking me to prove what? That I never said something you accuse me of? Seriously?

I'm asking you to show how I was wrong and misrepresented you. Because there's nothing on me to respond to except your cries of "you're wrong". I guess the biggest problem is that you seem to be of the opinion that I was quoting you, even though I wasn't.

Quote:

And Labor were dead against it before too. All of which seems to me to confirm my original point, that Gillard and Labor on this policy are abject hypocrites. No?

It's rather strange to see you bitch about Labor not doing enough to stop the boats, and then see you bitch about them being hypocrites when they do pretty much what you wanted them to have done since Rudd came to power.

I guess we get to see the one advantage of sending them to Nauru. We can sweep hunger strikes and that under the rug. Out of sight, out of mind huh?

[Hallo Alfie]

This is what you thought you emembered.

Originally Posted by Wildy

IIRC his point is that boat people are queue-jumpers who wrongfully take the place of "more deserving" people and so they deserve to be punished for their actions.

Mind you this only applies to boats for him, since people who arrive by plane and do basically the exact same thing are a-ok.

You remember incorrectly.
If you believe otherwise it will be your job to prove it.

Originally Posted by Wildy

I'm asking you to show how I was wrong and misrepresented you.

^^^

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

You remember incorrectly.
If you believe otherwise it will be your job to prove it.

Alfie, you have to show that I'm wrong. All you're doing is basically saying "you're wrong because I say you're wrong" without actually showing me that I'm wrong. You have to show me how I'm wrong before I can actually do anything.



But perhaps this quibble is the reason that you've decided to ignore my comment about the hunger strike that's already on Nauru. You don't want to reveal that I'm actually right in what I said.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Alfie, you have to show that I'm wrong. All you're doing is basically saying "you're wrong because I say you're wrong" without actually showing me that I'm wrong. You have to show me how I'm wrong before I can actually do anything.

Wrong matey, it's your claim not mine - you get to prove what you said I believe. It shouldn't be too hard - there must be plenty of my words there that show what you IIRCed.

I have made my correction on your gross inaccuracies.

Prove it or withdraw it.

Originally Posted by Wildy

But perhaps this quibble is the reason that you've decided to ignore my comment about the hunger strike that's already on Nauru. You don't want to reveal that I'm actually right in what I said.

I will move on when you retract the lies you made up about me.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Wrong matey, it's your claim not mine - you get to prove what you said I believe. It shouldn't be too hard - there must be plenty of my words there that show what you IIRCed.

So more "you're wrong because I say you're wrong". Yawn. You are claiming I misrepresented you. The burden is on you to show that I misrepresented you, not on me to show that I didn't.

Quote:

I have made my correction on your gross inaccuracies.

What you claim to be my "gross inaccuracies".

Quote:

Prove it or withdraw it.

Since there is no evidence that I have lied or misrepresented you I don't see why I should.

Quote:

I will move on when you retract the lies you made up about me.

Yep, you're scared to respond because the chances are that you'll show I am right.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Yep, you're scared to respond because the chances are that you'll show I am right.

Nope. I know you are wrong and I am on very firm ground here, which is why I am asking for you to prove or retract. I also know that because you cannot prove them, you are endeavouring to dodge the issue by trying to place the onus on me (which is the reverse of how things work around here).

So... if you have evidence to prove that I believe those things you say, please present them.

[Wildy]

Got nothing huh?

[Hallo Alfie]

I've got heaps. Here's a comparison.

I know that you think "it's good that babies drown at sea" for a principle.

Scare quotes used.
And you get to prove that I am wrong.

[philkensebben]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Sure you did. When you use "quotation marks" you are saying I said them, that they are my words verbatim.

Ok lets settle this idiocy. They are NOT your words verbatim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

First line.' ...or that it is not necessarily the way the quoting person would express its concept'

That was really simple.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by philkensebben

Ok lets settle this idiocy. They are NOT your words verbatim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

First line.' ...or that it is not necessarily the way the quoting person would express its concept'

That was really simple.

Fair enough. The point remains that what was suggested is untrue. It is not my job to show it otherwise and it should be proven or withdrawn.

[philkensebben]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Fair enough. The point remains that what was suggested is untrue. It is not my job to show it otherwise and it should be proven or withdrawn.

Ok I'll give it a go. Exactly what though?

That boat people are queue jumpers and take the place of deserving people? That?

[philkensebben]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

J
- other worthy people lose their place. It also discriminates against those waiting their turn in the proverbial queues by allowing them to be processed here unhindered and taking limited places.

Thanks, I'm here all week.

[Hallo Alfie]

How does that in any way correlate with:

"that boat people are queue-jumpers who wrongfully take the place of "more deserving" people and so they deserve to be punished for their actions."

Or contradict my correction which read:


IIRC his point is that boat people are queue-jumpers who wrongfully take the place of "more deserving" equally or just as deserving people and so they deserve to be punished for their actions deterrents are required.

Mind you this only applies to boats for him, since people who arrive by plane and do basically the exact same thing are a-ok tend not to drown at sea.

[Sideroxylon]

Maybe we need one of those electronic queue systems where you get a ticket with a number on it?

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by philkensebben

<alfie quote>

Thanks, I'm here all week.

What? You're expecting us to draw a conclusion based on what has been said? What a strange new concept you're presenting here.

[philkensebben]

I believe Wildy simple meant those that come by boat are being punished by not being allowed to stay.

Its really not that big a deal is it?

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Nope. I know you are wrong and I am on very firm ground here, which is why I am asking for you to prove or retract. .

You really have no shame do you? I'm still waiting for retractions on three of your lies

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by philkensebben

I believe Wildy simple meant those that come by boat are being punished by not being allowed to stay.

Its really not that big a deal is it?

It's not really a big deal, no.
However, I would hope to be accurately represented when others try and outline my position on an issue.
He has effectively placed words in my mouth that are unsupportable, untrue and grossly unfair.

He can either prove them or retract them; that's how it works around here.

Oh! <SNIP> . His party and Labor are responsible for about 1000 deaths at sea so far. Any discussion on this issue by a Green voter is extremely nauseating and I doubt my palate could stomach it (so to speak).

Thanks

Edited by Locknar:

SNIPed, breach of rule 0.

[Locknar]

Folks...you know the drill by now; please stop the bickering (ie. keep your posts civil/polite, on topic, and address the argument vs attack the arguer).

Posted By:Locknar

[Hallo Alfie]

Quote:

THE United Nations High Commissioner for refugees has sharply criticised the government's decision to refuse to allow refugees on its new bridging visas to work, saying it breaches their rights under the international convention.

I can see what they are trying to do which - to my eye - is apply something else apart from actual TPVs. But this seems worse and could make even more problems for both local communities and the refugees themselves.

[Hallo Alfie]

Problem solved.
Gillard has done a deal whereby our Kiwi cousins will take a whopping 150 refugees each year off our hands.
Now she just has to make the same deal with another 30 or 40 other countries and she will have it covered.

In the meantime the boats will keep coming and people will continue to die.

[Hallo Alfie]

Quote:

Australian Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young attacked the agreement, saying: ''This isn't a regional solution; this is a Band-Aid cover-up for Julia Gillard for what a failure Manus Island and Nauru have been.

''It is not going to save lives; in fact, it is going to put more lives at risk.

I couldn't agree more.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/pol...209-2e57g.html