Is road.cc hungover on Belgian beer or something?

Don't blame me.

I didn't revive it.

I'm merely exposing the dishonesty/forgetfulness of other posters.

Why you'd want to post easily disprovable lies is another question.

Wise words from your mum!

To be honest I wasn't exactly delighted to see that discussion come back to life either.

An eye roll is entirely warranted.

Hahaha.  Nice try at re-opening the debate that even your defender can't be bothered to read.  I'll reply this once.

There was nothing misleading about my statement. Oddly your claim that it's misleading is followed by you agreeing with it. You reaffirm your support for the Austrailian policy, which includes paying people traffickers.  So you do indeed support this. And you say that you support it because you believe it saves lives.  This is exactly what I said.  

You've literally reworded my comment while simultaneously claiming it's misleading.

As we both know, the best that can be said about the Australian policy is that it has reduced reported deaths in Australian waters, which seems to be the hair you'd like to split.  But the same people are simply drowning elsewhere or, in many cases, being returned to countries where they meet an awful fate. It pushes deaths and suffering to other countries, which is also mentioned in your favoured article. I don't think that this is the best way for a civilised country to go; your point is that it reduces drowings off one particular coast so it's successful.  We disagree about this, so I won't be replying when you inevitably engage in your usual tactics. Maybe someone else will bite

By the way, you repeat the phrase 'refresh your memory' a couple of times in your comment and you also keep reposting the same link that doesn't really back up your claim. It's no big deal but I'm mentioning in case you weren't aware. 

Anyway, enjoy your Sunday.

You really seem to struggle with basic comprehension.

That link completely demolishes your original claim on this thread. I did not make an 'incorrect' claim. The claim I made is entirely supported by the evidence.

There is no evidence that all the drownings are occurring elsewhere as you claim. Your claim is analysed and dismissed in that very same link.

I was very careful on the previous thread to make it clear I did not endorse the paying of people traffickers yet you persist with that lie.

You continually try to claim my support for all aspects of the Australian policy when I have been explicitly clear that the safe returning of boats is the only aspect I support.

When you choose to post easily disprovable lies on an open forum all you do is diminish your own reputation on said forum.

Feel free to post any evidence to support your claim.

I'll wait.

markieteeee wrote:

Nice try at re-opening the debate that even your defender can't be bothered to read.

If you're referring to me as Rich_cb's defender, then I was acting more as a character witness (assuming that's even possible across t'interwebs). Don't go bringing my boredom threshold into this - I didn't even read all of your reply. Personally, I doubt very much that anyone on this site gets involved at all with people trafficking.

HP - it wasn't a dig at you, it was more that I was thinking that people are maybe tired of this being dragged up again and again. I happened to see your comment, which neatly evidenced this point, just as I saw his reply. So it was no way saying that you defend his views or have a low boredom threshold, it was this. 

markieteeee wrote:

HP - it wasn't a dig at you, it was more that I was thinking that people are maybe tired of this being dragged up again and again. I happened to see your comment, which neatly evidenced this point, just as I saw his reply. So it was no way saying that you defend his views or have a low boredom threshold, it was this. 

No worries - I didn't consider it to be a dig at me at all (and I do have a low boredom threshold unless it involves squirrels). I'll quite happily defend some of his views (and not so much others) - he often brings an interesting point of view to discussions.

I'm guessing it is the same thing I mentioned several weeks ago. The site has embedded a video into the pages halfway down that then auto plays. Because they do that, the browsers will then continue playing the preview as you continue scrolling. On desktops, it sits bottom right but on mobile devices.....

Blimey, I only wanted to mention an irritating and pointless feature of the website, not start a full on handbag fight.

FWIW I do not consider any of the above posters to be at all trollish, just different points of view, or at worst playing Devil's advocate to stimulate interesting counter argument.

Sounds pretty stressful - go get yourself a beer once things settle down

Isn't it okay, and indeed interesting, for discussions to develop and go in different directions? Or should t'internet be like a work meeting where nobody deviates from the agenda?

OK, but as a paid subscriber (be interesting to know how many others pay) to a website I care about I'm not going to stop challenging rightist trolls who stink up the joint. Everyone's free not to read their rubbish or indeed mine.

There are only a couple of trolls at the moment and one pbu.
Best the ignore unless they go anti semtic or equivalent.

pbu?

I looked it up the other day, it was used in reference to cyclistformerlyknownas, previously banned user...

Ah seen, thanks.

Previously Banned User

Maybe they rolled back to a previous version?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Maybe they rolled back to a previous version?

It must be that - my comment on baggy shorts seems to have gone, and not even our Nige could have found a political angle to that.

Steve K wrote:

It must be that - my comment on baggy shorts seems to have gone, and not even our Nige could have found a political angle to that.

Oh I wouldn't bet on that - highly political shorts can be. Possibly my favourite lines in all of Wodehouse are when Bertie Wooster attacks Roderick Spode, who has set up a group of fascists called the Blackshorts (because when he came to do so all the coloured shirts were taken):

“The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you have succeeded in inducing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone. You hear them shouting "Heil, Spode!" and you imagine it is the Voice of the People. That is where you make your bloomer. What the Voice of the People is saying is: "Look at that frightful ass Spode swanking about in footer bags! Did you ever in your puff see such a perfect perisher?”

Possibly my favourite lines in all of Wodehouse are when Bertie Wooster attacks Roderick Spode, who has set up a group a fascists called the Blackshorts

Unfortunately, these expressed sentiments didn't stop him disingenuously collaborating while in Nazi captivity

wtjs wrote:

Unfortunately, these expressed sentiments didn't stop him disingenuously collaborating while in Nazi captivity

Wodehouse was totally exonerated of any charge of collaboration. He foolishly agreed to make some broadcasts for his American fans with the CBS correspondent in Berlin, at a time when America and Germany were not at war - he was guilty of naivety and nothing else, as George Orwell (hardly the typical Wodehouse defender) said in his essay "In Defence of P.G.Wodehouse." He was not a collaborator - they don't generally get knighthoods.

Wodehouse was totally exonerated of any charge of collaboration

We'll have to disagree- one man's exoneration is another's 'finding excuses'. Living in luxury in Berlin while pretending to be a bewildered old buffer is no way to behave during a total war. Orwell died in the 40s, so doesn't count- information has improved since then. Very bent and dodgy people do get knighthoods- Fred Goodwin, for a start

You talk as if he volunteered to live in Berlin; he was arrested as an enemy alien when he was living in Le Touquet when the Germans invaded and spent a number of months in internment camps run by the SS, being shifted from one to another in cattle trucks. While he was in these internment camps, incidentally, he met a number of Canadian prisoners of war and took the names and addresses of their families, and wrote to his American publisher saying he owed them $5 and could they please send it to them. This was the first notification many families had that their sons were alive, and Wodehouse risked severe penalties if the Germans had realised what he was up to. Eventually he was moved to Berlin and freed when he turned 60, as was the case with any civilian internee. However, unlike with most civilian internees he was not allowed to return home and was forced to stay in Berlin, until he persuaded the authorities to allow him to move to Paris, where he was when the city was liberated. What exactly did you expect a 60 year old man transported to Berlin by the Gestapo to do, fight his way back to Blighty through the German army? 

The fact that he faced no charges in the aftermath of the war (there is an interesting piece by Malcolm Muggeridge, incidentally, about his experience as a young officer being sent to question Wodehouse in Paris), when people would quite rightly have been feeling vengeful against anyone who had been in any way a collaborator, speaks volumes.

Did you know, by the way, that the CIA, for many years after the war, used the recordings of the broadcasts Wodehouse made as exemplar material of how to subtly use what the enemy think is propaganda for them as a tool against them? The transcripts are available online, I suggest you read them and see what you think is treasonous in them.

I guess, though seems a bit drastic !