[mdavidford]

Everything seems painfully slow this morning – is that just me, or is it like that for everyone?

Topic

[Hirsute]

Back to normal now.
Back to normal now.
Though they do have a lot of scripts linking to external sites.

Bugger, I didn’t realise I’d resurrected *this* thread.

[AlsoSomniloquism]

No problem at my end. Bit

No problem at my end. Bit slow but so are others tonight. 

[Hirsute]

Site is almost unusable again
Site is almost unusable again.
Another untested ‘upgrade’ ?

[hawkinspeter]

I just heard that you fired

I just heard that Road.cc fired the tech responsible for the site issues, but luckily he walked straight into a top job at Facebook

 

[hawkinspeter]

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.

[Rich_cb]

Wife words from your mum!
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.

[Hirsute]

https://youtu.be/t9beAp3TG2E

https://youtu.be/t9beAp3TG2E?t=825

 

[markieteeee]

HP – it wasn’t a dig at you,

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. 

[hawkinspeter]

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.

[Mungecrundle]

Blimey, I only wanted to
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.

[mdavidford]

I wasn’t blaming you. Or at

I wasn’t blaming you. Or at least, not just you (as my mum would have said, ‘I don’t care who started it – you all carried it on’). Yours just happened to be the last comment in the thread when I caught up to it.

I was just rolling my eyes in despair at the whole lot of it.

[Rich_cb]

You really seem to struggle
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]

Hahaha.  Nice try at re

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.

[Rich_cb]

Don’t blame me.
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.

[mdavidford]

Oh dear god. As I said, I’m

Oh dear god. As I said, I’m all for discussions evolving in new and interesting directions. But reviving fruitless ‘debates’ that had more than run their course long before the old thread finished is another matter.

[Author]

Replies