FREE TAPATALK APP

Hallo Alfie · 11th February 2013, 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Charming, blaming the rape victim.

That is not what I did and you know it.

Please respond to the other questions, or do I need to bring some white feathers for you?

Oh! and a reminder:

ACQUITTED!

psionl0 · 11th February 2013, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Young boys never lie?

Charming, blaming the rape victim.

Wow! What a non-sequitur!

Hallo Alfie · 11th February 2013, 03:16 AM

This thread could not be more ridiculous.

The man was acquitted in a court of law. If others wish to challenge the decision of the bench they are free to do so with additional evidence - even the complainants. One can only assume that anonymous posters have no such evidence, and yet they seem to think they are in a position to second guess the legal proceedings, evidence and judgements of those best placed to make such decisions.

Labor and their supporters are truly sad and desperate if this is among their best efforts to deflect from their own failures.

Pathetic really.

a_unique_person · 11th February 2013, 03:39 AM

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

That is not what I did and you know it.

You called them liars.

psionl0 · 11th February 2013, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Young boys never lie?

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

You called them liars.

Are you even reading the same thread that we are?

a_unique_person · 11th February 2013, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Absolutely. Children lie frequently especially about sex. I was once accused of stalking a teenage girl simply because I was looking for a house number. If the owner hadn't confirmed that this was my first visit ever I don't know what the police would have done.

A teacher I know was accused of "peeping" in a boy's toilet. If I and other teachers hadn't witnessed that he never even entered the toilet and if the boy concerned wasn't known to be a compulsive and malicious liar, he would probably have been charged and jailed.

These are not isolated incidents. False accusations are a major occupational hazard for anybody who is in charge of children.

Yours and AUP's "accused = guilty" mentality is Spanish Inquisition stuff that has no place in a democratic society.

That's right. What if that teacher had in fact been lurking around those toilets in their underwear, and admitted it. You might then give more credence to those accusations.

Hallo Alfie · 11th February 2013, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Hardly, they aren't members of the Labor party. In contrast, the Catholic Church protected many, aided and abbetted by Tony Abbott.

Proof of this outrageous claim please.

psionl0 · 11th February 2013, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

That's right. What if that teacher had in fact been lurking around those toilets in their underwear, and admitted it. You might then give more credence to those accusations.

Is that the best you've got? "Suppose the facts had been different therefore guilty"?

a_unique_person · 11th February 2013, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Is that the best you've got? "Suppose the facts had been different therefore guilty"?

Hallo Alfie · 11th February 2013, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

In contrast, the Catholic Church protected many, aided and abbetted by Tony Abbott.

Please explain and/or support this extraordinary claim about Tony Abbott.

lionking · 12th February 2013, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Please explain and/or support this extraordinary claim about Tony Abbott.

Already explained. Character reference for a Catholic priest piece of scum.

Hallo Alfie · 12th February 2013, 12:29 AM

Piffle! Nothing has been explained, nor does your explanation wash.
The claim is that Abbott has aided and abetted the protection of paedophiles.

Evidence please

Hallo Alfie · 12th February 2013, 12:35 AM

Meanwhile one of the real paedophiles of politics (alleged) is in the news again.
Truly one of Labor's best and brightest.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-1...-court/4514694

lionking · 12th February 2013, 12:42 AM

A state MP??

Not convicted??

Laughable.

You know, evidence etc.

lionking · 12th February 2013, 12:44 AM

I bet I could find some very dodgy Liberal local government councellors in Dingo Spit Shire.....

Hallo Alfie · 12th February 2013, 12:52 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

A state MP??

Labor party MP.

Originally Posted by lionking

Not convicted??

Alleged (as stated)

Originally Posted by lionking

You know, evidence etc.

Evidence of what? That he is an alleged paedophile?

Now to the OP:

ACQUITTED!!

lionking · 12th February 2013, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Now to the OP:

ACQUITTED!!

No, the OP is about Abbott's head first and enthusiastic support of a Catholic piece of scum.

Hallo Alfie · 12th February 2013, 01:48 AM

This is truly hilarious. I cannot believe that intelligent people could think the way some here are claiming.
Abbott wrote a reference for an acquitted man. The judge also called him a decent man (owtte).

Hang 'em all high and hang 'em now.

a_unique_person · 12th February 2013, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Meanwhile one of the real paedophiles of politics (alleged) is in the news again.
Truly one of Labor's best and brightest.

Suspended from that party, sitting as an independent. How many character references do you think he's got from them?

Hallo Alfie · 12th February 2013, 02:57 AM

He could be given 100s from them and I couldn't care less - as long as he is ACQUITTED.

psionl0 · 12th February 2013, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

A state MP Catholic priest??

Not convicted??

Laughable.

You know, evidence etc.

ftfy.

a_unique_person · 12th February 2013, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

He could be given 100s from them and I couldn't care less - as long as he is ACQUITTED.

The priest was acquitted, apparently because the appeal judge thought he seemed like a nice person. Some of the worst pedophiles seemed like the nicest people. They should have believed the children he sexually assaulted, the Catholic Church did.

psionl0 · 12th February 2013, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The priest was acquitted, apparently because the appeal judge thought he seemed like a nice person. Some of the worst pedophiles seemed like the nicest people. They should have believed the children he sexually assaulted, the Catholic Church did.

You're just making this up.

a_unique_person · 12th February 2013, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Meanwhile one of the real paedophiles of politics (alleged) is in the news again.
Truly one of Labor's best and brightest.

Make up your mind. He hasn't been found guilty, so why refer to him as a 'real paedophile'?

From what I can see, he is guilty. Good riddance to him.

Hallo Alfie · 12th February 2013, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The priest was acquitted, apparently because the appeal judge thought he seemed like a nice person.

Unsupportable nonsense. The judge would have applied and considered the points of law in his judgement. To suggest otherwise impugns not only the judge but Australia's legal system as a whole, and brings this to the level of a consipracy.

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Some of the worst pedophiles seemed like the nicest people. They should have believed the children he sexually assaulted, the Catholic Church did.

Also unsupportable. You have not shown that this priests' laicism had anything to do with the charges laid nor any other charges of sexual misconduct.

Your entire case is a CT.

Could the mods please move this thread to the CT forum. Thanks.

alex04 · 12th February 2013, 07:35 PM

It amuses me that a certain few can't quite grasp the fact that this thread is lampooning fanatics who seem zealously concerned with the integrity of politicians - but only ones of a certain political persuasion. Where in such cases they'll latch on to anything that resembles the mere appearance of impropriety.

Props to those that took the bait. I enjoyed the chuckle.

Hallo Alfie · 12th February 2013, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by alex04

It amuses me that a certain few can't quite grasp the fact that this thread is lampooning fanatics who seem zealously concerned with the integrity of politicians - but only ones of a certain political persuasion. Where in such cases they'll latch on to anything that resembles the mere appearance of impropriety.

Props to those that took the bait. I enjoyed the chuckle.

Sadly they are quite serous.
Doubts were raised about the seriousness early on, they have stuck to their guns.

One should not need to further point out that the main protagonists in all this have continued over some years to express their hatred towards their targets. To suggest they are simply lampooning would fly in the face of years of active bile and spit.

It is a nice try at providing them an out, but I'm not buying it.

lionking · 12th February 2013, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

Sadly they are quite serous.
Doubts were raised about the seriousness early on, they have stuck to their guns.

One should not need to further point out that the main protagonists in all this have continued over some years to express their hatred towards their targets. To suggest they are simply lampooning would fly in the face of years of active bile and spit

It is a nice try at providing them an out, but I'm not buying it.

I invite people to have a look at the "Julia Gillard is a liar" thread to see some very good examples of the hilighted.

Hallo Alfie · 12th February 2013, 09:24 PM

And no refutation that this is a thread to lampoon.
Cheers.

I would like to respond to the off topic nature of LK's post however.

It has been suggested that this thread is about a pay back (so to speak) for the wrongs said of the left and/or Gillard. It was only the hatred towards conservative/coalition types that initiated same. It is funny that when the hatred was being cast about by the left all was ok, when the shoe was on the other foot the screams of "no fair" became deafening.
Ironic, no?

I also hasten to point out that in the thread in question, Gillard's lies are documented and/or from the horses mouth (so to speak), this thread and the assertions within same are far from that. People are more than welcome to defend her lies and misdemeanors or debate same there, but I notice no one has the stomach for it anymore. It is hard to defend a no contest assertion, I guess.

But I applaud Lionking's invitation for all to read the thread and get involved - her failures should be identified and acknowledged by as many as possible.
Thanks again.

11th February 2013, 03:39 AM	#84
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,466	Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie That is not what I did and you know it. You called them liars.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

11th February 2013, 12:42 PM	#86
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,466	Originally Posted by psionl0 Absolutely. Children lie frequently especially about sex. I was once accused of stalking a teenage girl simply because I was looking for a house number. If the owner hadn't confirmed that this was my first visit ever I don't know what the police would have done. A teacher I know was accused of "peeping" in a boy's toilet. If I and other teachers hadn't witnessed that he never even entered the toilet and if the boy concerned wasn't known to be a compulsive and malicious liar, he would probably have been charged and jailed. These are not isolated incidents. False accusations are a major occupational hazard for anybody who is in charge of children. Yours and AUP's "accused = guilty" mentality is Spanish Inquisition stuff that has no place in a democratic society. That's right. What if that teacher had in fact been lurking around those toilets in their underwear, and admitted it. You might then give more credence to those accusations.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

11th February 2013, 05:17 PM	#88
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,896	Originally Posted by a_unique_person That's right. What if that teacher had in fact been lurking around those toilets in their underwear, and admitted it. You might then give more credence to those accusations. Is that the best you've got? "Suppose the facts had been different therefore guilty"?
	Last edited by psionl0; 11th February 2013 at 05:19 PM.

11th February 2013, 11:43 PM	#89
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,466	Originally Posted by psionl0 Is that the best you've got? "Suppose the facts had been different therefore guilty"?
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

12th February 2013, 12:04 AM	#91
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,985	Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie Please explain and/or support this extraordinary claim about Tony Abbott. Already explained. Character reference for a Catholic priest piece of scum.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

11th February 2013, 02:07 AM	#81
Hallo Alfie Suspended Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,113	Originally Posted by a_unique_person Charming, blaming the rape victim. That is not what I did and you know it. Please respond to the other questions, or do I need to bring some white feathers for you? Oh! and a reminder: ACQUITTED!

11th February 2013, 02:28 AM	#82
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,896	Originally Posted by a_unique_person Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie Young boys never lie? Charming, blaming the rape victim. Wow! What a non-sequitur!

11th February 2013, 03:16 AM	#83
Hallo Alfie Suspended Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,113	This thread could not be more ridiculous. The man was acquitted in a court of law. If others wish to challenge the decision of the bench they are free to do so with additional evidence - even the complainants. One can only assume that anonymous posters have no such evidence, and yet they seem to think they are in a position to second guess the legal proceedings, evidence and judgements of those best placed to make such decisions. Labor and their supporters are truly sad and desperate if this is among their best efforts to deflect from their own failures. Pathetic really.

11th February 2013, 03:48 AM	#85
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,896	Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie Young boys never lie? Originally Posted by a_unique_person You called them liars. Are you even reading the same thread that we are?

11th February 2013, 01:50 PM	#87
Hallo Alfie Suspended Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,113	Originally Posted by a_unique_person Hardly, they aren't members of the Labor party. In contrast, the Catholic Church protected many, aided and abbetted by Tony Abbott. Proof of this outrageous claim please.

11th February 2013, 11:47 PM	#90
Hallo Alfie Suspended Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,113	Originally Posted by a_unique_person In contrast, the Catholic Church protected many, aided and abbetted by Tony Abbott. Please explain and/or support this extraordinary claim about Tony Abbott.

12th February 2013, 12:29 AM	#92
Hallo Alfie Suspended Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,113	Piffle! Nothing has been explained, nor does your explanation wash. The claim is that Abbott has aided and abetted the protection of paedophiles. Evidence please

12th February 2013, 12:35 AM	#93
Hallo Alfie Suspended Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,113	Meanwhile one of the real paedophiles of politics (alleged) is in the news again. Truly one of Labor's best and brightest. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-1...-court/4514694
	Last edited by Hallo Alfie; 12th February 2013 at 12:37 AM.

12th February 2013, 12:42 AM	#94
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,985	A state MP?? Not convicted?? Laughable. You know, evidence etc.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

12th February 2013, 12:44 AM	#95
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,985	I bet I could find some very dodgy Liberal local government councellors in Dingo Spit Shire.....
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

12th February 2013, 12:52 AM	#96
Hallo Alfie Suspended Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,113	Originally Posted by lionking A state MP?? Labor party MP. Originally Posted by lionking Not convicted?? Alleged (as stated) Originally Posted by lionking You know, evidence etc. Evidence of what? That he is an alleged paedophile? Now to the OP: ACQUITTED!!

12th February 2013, 12:56 AM	#97
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,985	Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie Now to the OP: ACQUITTED!! No, the OP is about Abbott's head first and enthusiastic support of a Catholic piece of scum.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

12th February 2013, 01:48 AM	#98
Hallo Alfie Suspended Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,113	This is truly hilarious. I cannot believe that intelligent people could think the way some here are claiming. Abbott wrote a reference for an acquitted man. The judge also called him a decent man (owtte). Hang 'em all high and hang 'em now.
	Last edited by Hallo Alfie; 12th February 2013 at 01:51 AM.

12th February 2013, 02:46 AM	#99
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,466	Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie Meanwhile one of the real paedophiles of politics (alleged) is in the news again. Truly one of Labor's best and brightest. Suspended from that party, sitting as an independent. How many character references do you think he's got from them?
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

12th February 2013, 02:57 AM	#100
Hallo Alfie Suspended Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,113	He could be given 100s from them and I couldn't care less - as long as he is ACQUITTED.

12th February 2013, 03:50 AM	#101
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,896	Originally Posted by lionking A state MP Catholic priest?? Not convicted?? Laughable. You know, evidence etc. ftfy.

12th February 2013, 04:00 AM	#102
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,466	Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie He could be given 100s from them and I couldn't care less - as long as he is ACQUITTED. The priest was acquitted, apparently because the appeal judge thought he seemed like a nice person. Some of the worst pedophiles seemed like the nicest people. They should have believed the children he sexually assaulted, the Catholic Church did.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

12th February 2013, 04:06 AM	#103
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,896	Originally Posted by a_unique_person The priest was acquitted, apparently because the appeal judge thought he seemed like a nice person. Some of the worst pedophiles seemed like the nicest people. They should have believed the children he sexually assaulted, the Catholic Church did. You're just making this up.

12th February 2013, 04:07 AM	#104
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,466	Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie Meanwhile one of the real paedophiles of politics (alleged) is in the news again. Truly one of Labor's best and brightest. Make up your mind. He hasn't been found guilty, so why refer to him as a 'real paedophile'? From what I can see, he is guilty. Good riddance to him.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

12th February 2013, 01:37 PM	#105
Hallo Alfie Suspended Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,113	Originally Posted by a_unique_person The priest was acquitted, apparently because the appeal judge thought he seemed like a nice person. Unsupportable nonsense. The judge would have applied and considered the points of law in his judgement. To suggest otherwise impugns not only the judge but Australia's legal system as a whole, and brings this to the level of a consipracy. Originally Posted by a_unique_person Some of the worst pedophiles seemed like the nicest people. They should have believed the children he sexually assaulted, the Catholic Church did. Also unsupportable. You have not shown that this priests' laicism had anything to do with the charges laid nor any other charges of sexual misconduct. Your entire case is a CT. Could the mods please move this thread to the CT forum. Thanks.

12th February 2013, 07:35 PM	#106
alex04 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: QLD, Australia Posts: 292	It amuses me that a certain few can't quite grasp the fact that this thread is lampooning fanatics who seem zealously concerned with the integrity of politicians - but only ones of a certain political persuasion. Where in such cases they'll latch on to anything that resembles the mere appearance of impropriety. Props to those that took the bait. I enjoyed the chuckle.

12th February 2013, 08:51 PM	#107
Hallo Alfie Suspended Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,113	Originally Posted by alex04 It amuses me that a certain few can't quite grasp the fact that this thread is lampooning fanatics who seem zealously concerned with the integrity of politicians - but only ones of a certain political persuasion. Where in such cases they'll latch on to anything that resembles the mere appearance of impropriety. Props to those that took the bait. I enjoyed the chuckle. Sadly they are quite serous. Doubts were raised about the seriousness early on, they have stuck to their guns. One should not need to further point out that the main protagonists in all this have continued over some years to express their hatred towards their targets. To suggest they are simply lampooning would fly in the face of years of active bile and spit. It is a nice try at providing them an out, but I'm not buying it.

12th February 2013, 09:05 PM	#108
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,985	Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie Sadly they are quite serous. Doubts were raised about the seriousness early on, they have stuck to their guns. One should not need to further point out that the main protagonists in all this have continued over some years to express their hatred towards their targets. To suggest they are simply lampooning would fly in the face of years of active bile and spit It is a nice try at providing them an out, but I'm not buying it. I invite people to have a look at the "Julia Gillard is a liar" thread to see some very good examples of the hilighted.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

12th February 2013, 09:24 PM	#109
Hallo Alfie Suspended Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,113	And no refutation that this is a thread to lampoon. Cheers. I would like to respond to the off topic nature of LK's post however. It has been suggested that this thread is about a pay back (so to speak) for the wrongs said of the left and/or Gillard. It was only the hatred towards conservative/coalition types that initiated same. It is funny that when the hatred was being cast about by the left all was ok, when the shoe was on the other foot the screams of "no fair" became deafening. Ironic, no? I also hasten to point out that in the thread in question, Gillard's lies are documented and/or from the horses mouth (so to speak), this thread and the assertions within same are far from that. People are more than welcome to defend her lies and misdemeanors or debate same there, but I notice no one has the stomach for it anymore. It is hard to defend a no contest assertion, I guess. But I applaud Lionking's invitation for all to read the thread and get involved - her failures should be identified and acknowledged by as many as possible. Thanks again.
	Last edited by Hallo Alfie; 12th February 2013 at 09:32 PM.