[mdavidford]

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

Topic

[Rich_cb]

I seem to remember providing
I seem to remember providing links which provided detailed objective analysis of the Australian policy and which concluded that the policies had indeed reduced drownings.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not trying to deliberately mislead people and have merely forgotten that crucial part of the discussion.

Here’s the link again to refresh your memory.

The pertinent quote:
“By stopping the boats from reaching Australia, the policy correlates with a drastic reduction in deaths by drowning en route to this country.”

The link:
https://theconversation.com/operation-sovereign-borders-offshore-detention-and-the-drownings-argument-45095

Hope that helps refresh your memory.

[hawkinspeter]

markieteeee wrote:

To be fair to Rich, he never claimed he was a fan of the Australian government’s policy of paying people traffickers to try to reduce the numbers of asylum seekers. He said he was a fan of it as he incorrectly claimed it prevented drownings. So even when you provide the multiple links where he has heralded the Australian model, he will still  be able to plausibly deny the exact wording of your sentence. 

That thread/discussion just carried on and on for long enough that no-one could physically read all of it – Rich_cb could have said anything at all on there. More seriously though, he strikes me as being compassionate (as well as argumentative at times) so it doesn’t ring true that he knowingly supports anything that leads to increasing deaths.

[markieteeee]

To be fair to Rich, he never

To be fair to Rich, he never claimed he was a fan of the Australian government’s policy of paying people traffickers to try to reduce the numbers of asylum seekers. He said he was a fan of it as he incorrectly claimed it prevented drownings. So even when you provide the multiple links where he has heralded the Australian model, he will still  be able to plausibly deny the exact wording of your sentence. 

[Rich_cb]

Your very problematic
Your very problematic personality traits have been on full display in this thread.

I’ve been on this site far longer than you Rendel.

You don’t police it.

[Rich_cb]

I never understand people who
I never understand people who lie on forums.

Link to the post where I stated I was a fan of paying people traffickers please?

I’ll wait.

[stomec]

hirsute wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Never heard of rwnj before. I agree that there is a level of bias and lack of even handedness but I think that is true of nearly all forums.

Right wing nut job

He is is a big fan of the Australian government’s policy of paying people traffickers to try to reduce the numbers of asylum seekers.

 

 

[Hirsute]

Never heard of rwnj before.
Never heard of rwnj before.

I agree that there is a level of bias and lack of even handedness but I think that is true of nearly all forums.

[Rendel Harris]

Oh dear.  So if a person

Oh dear.  So if a person decides someone is something and then calls them that, it’s not abuse? So if I decide that you are an ignorant (which you are) pompous (which you definitely are) and very rude (which you demonstrably are) person, it’s not abuse to call you those things? Cool. Now go away to one of the sites you allegedly pay for and stop stinking up this one.

[Rich_cb]

Personal abuse is abuse
Personal abuse is abuse directed at a personal characteristic.

Tory Scum is an example. Someone votes Conservative so they can be described as a Tory. Adding “scum” makes it personal abuse.

If you have been hypocritical, as you have, then calling you a hypocrite is an accurate description of your behaviour.

If you have been obsessive about a topic (trolling) then calling you obsessive is an accurate description of your behaviour.

If you behave like a obsessive hypocrite then being described as such is a consequence of your own actions.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with your personal characteristics.

[Rich_cb]

Yes, quite clearly it’s
Yes, quite clearly it’s helpful feedback.

It lets road.cc know that the new site design is causing problems on many android phones.

It also lets them know that said new design is very negatively impacting the user experience.

If I were a web designer these are things I would want to know.

[Rich_cb]

If there was no feedback when
If there was no feedback when design changes have clearly gone awry then how would road.cc know what worked and what was putting visitors off?

By giving my opinion on this, very poor, update I’m actually trying to help the site.

As I explained in my previous post, I pay for the site by viewing adverts. You choose to pay in a different way.

[Rendel Harris]

Rich_cb wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

You need to look up what personal abuse actually is Rendel. I’ve accused you of being “Obsessive”. That is not a personal insult. I’ve accused you of being a “hypocrite”. That is not personal abuse. I noticed that you accused yet another forum member of trolling today so I think the accusation above is entirely well founded.

Calling someone “an obsessive hypocrite” is not personal abuse? You want to start taking some water with it old son.

[Rich_cb]

You need to look up what
You need to look up what personal abuse actually is Rendel.

I’ve accused you of being “Obsessive”.

That is not a personal insult.

I’ve accused you of being a “hypocrite”.

That is not personal abuse.

I noticed that you accused yet another forum member of trolling today so I think the accusation above is entirely well founded.

[Rendel Harris]

Nigel Garrage wrote:

It is disappointing that personal abuse from paying subscribers seems to be tolerated, however, as has happened on this thread.

 Rich CB : “You’re an obsessive hypocrite.”

Seems personal abuse from non-paying visitors is quite well tolerated too, doesn’t it?

[Rendel Harris]

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Well said. I note that he says you have “a right cheek to complain about web design problems”, but a better way of describing it would be that you take the time to provide helpful, objective feedback to improve the site’s User Experience (UX). Something which should be valued rather than sneered at.

Your soulmate Rich’s (beginning to wonder if you’re actually the same person?) entire post read :

I’ll second that.

One of the worst pieces of website design I’ve seen in a while.

That comes under the heading of helpful objective feedback, does it?

 

[Author]

Replies