I've already answered both of these questions. Why don't you answer the questions that you still need to answer?
And the boats keep coming
- Thread starter Hallo Alfie
- Start date
-
- Tags
- australia politics
I've already answered both of these questions. Why don't you answer the questions that you still need to answer?
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
I don't think so.
You tried to answer, then changed your mind on which was more humane. You then obfuscated by introducing semantics around the word priority. And what you claim are answers to "why" have been hollow dodges masked as rhetorical questions.
Last edited:
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,831
Can I ask what is inherently wrong with "changing one's mind"? Surely steadfastly holding to one's beliefs no matter what is a little suspect? I know our cousins seem to think it's a real character trait but surely us in the land of Oz are more mature than that? 
Skepticemea
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 2,771
Sorry, I thought my saying that you had changed your mind meant you must have!I always have liked immigration. Wow! Imagine not having paid attention for all this time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
I don't think so.
You tried to answer, then changed your mind on which was more humane. You then obfuscated by introducing semantics around the word priority. And what you claim are answers to "why" have been hollow dodges masked as rhetorical questions.
Wrong. Now hurry up and answer your questions.
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
Then you explain it to me - and show me with our quotes, why I am wrong. I'm guessing that you won't and can't.
Or you could show me how I'm wrong with our quotes instead, but like answering the questions that you still need to answer I'm guessing that you won't and can't.
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
I already did one - you have conveniently ignored that too. The ball is in your court mate - you can keep trying to slam it at me and I will just keep bunting it back. 
Of the two options we were discussing; Which one did you prefer as more humane and please explain why?
and if you refuse that again, perhaps you could respond to this by explaining why it is wrong:
You tried to answer, then changed your mind on which was more humane. You then obfuscated by introducing semantics around the word "priority". And what you claim are answers to "why" have been hollow dodges masked as rhetorical questions.
Your play.
Of the two options we were discussing; Which one did you prefer as more humane and please explain why?
and if you refuse that again, perhaps you could respond to this by explaining why it is wrong:
You tried to answer, then changed your mind on which was more humane. You then obfuscated by introducing semantics around the word "priority". And what you claim are answers to "why" have been hollow dodges masked as rhetorical questions.
Your play.
I already did one - you have conveniently ignored that too. The ball is in your court mate - you can keep trying to slam it at me and I will just keep bunting it back.
Nope. You were the one who claimed that I changed my mind so it is up to you to show how I did.
I've already answered this question, you have already accepted that I've answered it so you don't need to ask it again.
and if you refuse that again, perhaps you could respond to this by explaining why it is wrong:
You tried to answer, then changed your mind on which was more humane. You then obfuscated by introducing semantics around the word "priority". And what you claim are answers to "why" have been hollow dodges masked as rhetorical questions.
Your play.
And this is just more wrongness. But then these are your claims so the burden of proof is on you to show that they are correct, not the other way around.
Although using your rules about answering questions I don't have to answer a single question of yours until you answer the questions presented in post 23 of this thread because they pre-date your questions. You might even say that they have priority over your questions.
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
Already done. Please review thread.
So I repeat - I am seeking clarification given your mind change.
You still haven't said why.
Which has already been done and you are simply trying to dodge, ignore and muddy the pool.
Well having reviewed the thread there are many claims by you that I've changed my mind but very little evidence. There's also one post where you deliberately misinterpret what I said so you can claim that I've "changed my mind again". So your "evidence" is baseless claims and deliberate misrepresentations?
This "mind change" that apparently only you have noticed?
Yes I have:
That's the answer to your "why" right there in bold.
Nope.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
I've gone back and scraped out this thread and moved 70+ posts to AAH. Some were bickersnark. Some were actually pretty darn funny, but off topic. Some might have deserved a thread of their own, and if you want to sort through them and recommend a number of them for a RSPCA thread or sumpin'. But please stay on topic and please stop with the sniping at each other.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Tricky
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
Another tragedy. I have no words to express my sadness right now.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-18/asylum-seeker-boat-sinks-off-java/3736828
A wooden boat carrying more than 200 asylum seekers is reported to have sunk off Indonesia.
Indonesian media outlets say the boat was heading to Australia and sank about 30 kilometres off the East Java coast.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...lum-boat-sinking/story-e6frf7jx-1226224926055
A WOODEN ship suspected to be heading to Australia and carrying more than 200 migrants, many of them from the Middle East, has sunk off Indonesia's main island of Java, local media report.
Police blamed the accident on overloading, telling the official news agency Antara that the vessel appeared to have been carrying more than twice its capacity.
Those on board - apparently heading to Australia - were from Afghanistan, Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
The private television station Metro TV reported that 33 people had been found alive and that perhaps 215 others were still missing.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-18/asylum-seeker-boat-sinks-off-java/3736828
A wooden boat carrying more than 200 asylum seekers is reported to have sunk off Indonesia.
Indonesian media outlets say the boat was heading to Australia and sank about 30 kilometres off the East Java coast.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...lum-boat-sinking/story-e6frf7jx-1226224926055
A WOODEN ship suspected to be heading to Australia and carrying more than 200 migrants, many of them from the Middle East, has sunk off Indonesia's main island of Java, local media report.
Police blamed the accident on overloading, telling the official news agency Antara that the vessel appeared to have been carrying more than twice its capacity.
Those on board - apparently heading to Australia - were from Afghanistan, Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
The private television station Metro TV reported that 33 people had been found alive and that perhaps 215 others were still missing.
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
http://www.theage.com.au/world/huge-toll-as-overcrowded-asylum-ship-sinks-20111218-1p0g4.html
The Age finally makes a report:
Huge toll as overcrowded asylum ship sinks
A boat packed with around 250 Australia-bound asylum seekers sank off Indonesia's Java island yesterday, search and rescue officials said, with efforts to reach survivors hampered by bad weather and heavy seas.
A survivor from Afghanistan, 24-year-old Esmat Adine, gave rescuers an estimate for how many passengers were on the boat.
"He did not know exactly how many passengers there were, but he said that four buses with around 60 or more adult passengers each had turned up to the port where they set off," Adine said.
Adine said that he and others survived by clinging to parts of the broken vessel until they were picked up by local fishermen.
He said the boat had been heading towards Australia's Christmas Island.
The Age finally makes a report:
Huge toll as overcrowded asylum ship sinks
A boat packed with around 250 Australia-bound asylum seekers sank off Indonesia's Java island yesterday, search and rescue officials said, with efforts to reach survivors hampered by bad weather and heavy seas.
A survivor from Afghanistan, 24-year-old Esmat Adine, gave rescuers an estimate for how many passengers were on the boat.
"He did not know exactly how many passengers there were, but he said that four buses with around 60 or more adult passengers each had turned up to the port where they set off," Adine said.
Adine said that he and others survived by clinging to parts of the broken vessel until they were picked up by local fishermen.
He said the boat had been heading towards Australia's Christmas Island.
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-19/hopes-fade-for-asylum-seekers/3737376
180 dead or missing.
National Search and Rescue Agency spokesman Gagah Prakoso earlier said "it's very likely they have all drowned."
"It's impossible even for a good swimmer with a life vest to swim to shore safely in such extreme conditions. When boats sink like this, the bodies usually surface on the third day," he said.
How very humane our policies are.
These tragedies must stop.
180 dead or missing.
National Search and Rescue Agency spokesman Gagah Prakoso earlier said "it's very likely they have all drowned."
"It's impossible even for a good swimmer with a life vest to swim to shore safely in such extreme conditions. When boats sink like this, the bodies usually surface on the third day," he said.
How very humane our policies are.
These tragedies must stop.
Last edited:
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/asylum-seekers-left-for-dead/story-fn7x8me2-1226224983135
About 40 children were believed to have been among those aboard the boat, which could have netted people smugglers more than $1 million.
I want to know where Gillard, Brown, Hansen-Young etc are. Why are they silent on this?
Useless pack of %$#@!
About 40 children were believed to have been among those aboard the boat, which could have netted people smugglers more than $1 million.
I want to know where Gillard, Brown, Hansen-Young etc are. Why are they silent on this?
Useless pack of %$#@!
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,831
Economically disadvantaged people die in accident. More at 11.
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...r_greens_and_abc_must_share_boat_death_blame/
Mark Latham knows who is responsible
If now is not the time for the politics of boat people deaths, when will it be time for the Rudd-Gillard Labor-Green-Independent minority government and its ABC propagandists to address this lethal policy?
Former Labor Opposition leader Mark Latham told Sky News’ Australian Agenda program yesterday that the onshore processing championed by the Greens was a “moral outrage”.
He said there was nothing compassionate about encouraging people smuggling.
“The boats sinking and families dying is a direct consequence of the co-called compassionate people who support onshore processing,” he said.
“I just still find it an amazing disconnect between the way in which the Greens and the Labor Left talk about this issue and the way in which reality deals with it.
The Greens don’t care
“You can’t be compassionate and you can’t have a heart, you can’t have a good soul. if you encourage people to get on boats that sink,” Latham said. .
Mark Latham knows who is responsible
If now is not the time for the politics of boat people deaths, when will it be time for the Rudd-Gillard Labor-Green-Independent minority government and its ABC propagandists to address this lethal policy?
Former Labor Opposition leader Mark Latham told Sky News’ Australian Agenda program yesterday that the onshore processing championed by the Greens was a “moral outrage”.
He said there was nothing compassionate about encouraging people smuggling.
“The boats sinking and families dying is a direct consequence of the co-called compassionate people who support onshore processing,” he said.
“I just still find it an amazing disconnect between the way in which the Greens and the Labor Left talk about this issue and the way in which reality deals with it.
The Greens don’t care
“You can’t be compassionate and you can’t have a heart, you can’t have a good soul. if you encourage people to get on boats that sink,” Latham said. .