I am going to give you a detailed response MM But have you not learned how to properly use HTML so that your post is at least comprehensible? For instance using blockquote prompts for your quotes ?
I'm going to send you the code for your post because frankly it is a really badly presented post as it stands.
MM
You have not made ANY attributions for any of the instances that you quote me and that is frankly very bad form indeed. If you are quoting my comments the time signature for each comment is a hyper link to that comment. or at the very least you should be citing the post that heads the thread.
Finally you should read this PDF file( http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/com...port/
report.pdf )which I myself am currently working through because it shows that during the period that Mann's dossier covers the removal of poor white children was just as common as the removal of poor indigenous children and I would argue that it demonstrates that there was generally a desire to round up children seen to be neglected, no matter what race they come from. Frankly what your argument lacks is a consideration of how children of the poor in general were seen and without that context your position is somewhat lacking in substance especially as you want to suggest some sort of exceptionalism in the way that indigenous children were treated.
Cheers
Iain Hall
PS HTML code sent to your Email
Great use of the ad hominem Iain, you can't argue the points I raise so you accuse me of not knowing correct HTML and not linking directly to quotes.
The fact is I have always prefered to use Italics while posting, especially on the run as with this one. And I did give a link to the whole string as I'd prefer people to read the whole thing in order to understand how this came about, big deal.
BTW, I've naturally come across the argument you raise above (white children and all) and you may attempt to use this if you like, in fact please do. 
You still argue that these kids were neglected even though pages and pages written from people in the period state the very opposite! Furthermore, I have it stated plain as fact that removals targetted "half-caste" children for eugenic reasons, or due to thoughts on race superiority. You still don't get it do you?
Reading Hall pontificating to others on comprehensibility is like hearing klansmen lecture others on race relations.
The whole narrative of denial re: the Stolen Generations is part of a broader attempt to whitewash Australia's long history of racism, which began with Aborigines, and moved onto the Irish, Chinese, etc., and is now largely directed as Africans and Middle Easterners. The Conservatives still approach every topic with the same idiotic domino theory - if they 'win' one culture battle, they might win the war.
It's too true Hap. Watch Iain sympathise and lament (as everyone should) the tragic tales within the "White Stolen Generation" report, forgetting all the while the attacks and suspicion he and his mentor threw at "Bringing Them Home" and the victims of the SG.
For a detailed response to your post MM go here
Cheers
Hap
are any of your friends Scotch drinkers?
Be afraid, very afraid...
Hey everyone, go have a look at Hall's "detailed response".
It's amazing how gutless Iain and the rightist group think fellow travellers are.
Attacking Indigenous people and their culture at every turn and then refusing to debate any of the points that we raise for fear of looking like racists.
Iain, everyone can see what you and your friends are, refusing to debate for nebulous reasons, squirming and dodging your way around MM's evidence, and then pretending to care about aboriginal children after all the shit you have written about the toxic nature of indigenous culture - this just makes your sick views even clearer.
So clear in fact, that some of your fringe friends can now see your blog and AWH for what they truly are. They are the holes of bigoted, racist, homophobic, extremists with a violent bent, who pretend to be reasonable and moderate and fool no one.
While you dodge and weave, you sink deeper into your racist cess-pool Iain.
Well done MM, you showed up the weakness in Bolt (and his disciple Iain) and their inability to argue on a topic that threatens to reveal their underlying views on the supremacy of their (imagined) white society.
Cheers Craigy.
I'll add that it's remarkable how much they seem to care about these kids considering how little they gave a shit about refugee children who were raised behind razor wire and suffered untold degrees of mental abuse as a result.
Craigy you really are tiresome you know and so terribly wrong headed on this issue.
It's amazing how gutless Iain and the rightist group think fellow travelers are.
How so Craigy? If I or those who agree with my position on matters indigenous were truly “gutless” as you claim then we would sit quietly and only talk in private amongst our selves. I do not hide my light under a bushel and in fact I have written half a dozen posts on this topic in the last week all of which are in fact supporting the right of indigenous people to receive the same protection from the law as any other Australian. I would have thought that you as a professional do-gooder for indigenous people would be even more outraged than I am about the sentencing practices of the likes of Sarah Bradley. Or are you only interested in supporting indigenous people if they are rapists or Kiddie fiddlers?
Attacking Indigenous people and their culture at every turn and then refusing to debate any of the points that we raise for fear of looking like racists.
No culture is entirely benign or entirely virtuous and the indigenous culture is no different I see nothing wrong with either celebrating it’s virtues, like it’s appreciation of the natural world, while questioning the aspects of that cultures contemporary manifestations that are very bad for its people. That my friend is not racism it is telling it like it is. Patronizing leftists like you who willfully ignore the activities of the pedophiles and their fellow travelers like Sarah Bradley are the real racists.
Iain, everyone can see what you and your friends are, refusing to debate for nebulous reasons, squirming and dodging […]- this just makes your sick views even clearer.
I am entirely genuine in my concern for the children who are being abused and I am by no stretch of the imagination “dodging and squirming “ I make my position about Manne’s dossier quite clear at my own blog it is, at this point in time simply of very limited relevance to the issues here and now. In fact the clear evocation of the “stolen Generation” by the likes of Stephanie Fielder & Marie Fletcher as reasons for retuning children to circumstances where they will be abused further clearly supports my contention that the very idea of the “stolen generation” is in fact very pernicious indeed. Frankly the veracity of MM’s evidence does not matter at all in the light of that.
cont..
So clear in fact, that some of your fringe friends can now see your blog and AWH for what they truly are.
My blog is honest, my writing is heart felt and my views expressed there in are actually rather moderate, I hold all people are equal in their humanity and deserving of equal treatment from the law, only idiotic Uber-leftists like you fail to appreciate that.
While you dodge and weave, you sink deeper into your racist cess-pool Iain.
Nah Craigy I have been consistent and straight down the line on this issue and I would back my moral credentials over yours any day of the week.
Well done MM, you showed up the weakness….
Sadly for you Craigy the only people who are backing MM’s line here are you and Hap and both of you have too much of an axe to grind with me personally to fairly consider the details of the argument.
MM
"re refugee children" Stop living in the past the present is where it is at mate
'In fact the clear evocation of the “stolen Generation” by the likes of Stephanie Fielder & Marie Fletcher as reasons for retuning children to circumstances where they will be abused further clearly supports my contention that the very idea of the “stolen generation” is in fact very pernicious indeed.'
So even though the evidence proves the SG Craigy, DENY IT! Or some other idiot will give it as an excuse to leave abused children in harms way.
're refugee children" Stop living in the past the present is where it is at mate'
Highlighting hypocrisy is always fun though iain.
So even though the evidence proves the SG Craigy, DENY IT! Or some other idiot will give it as an excuse to leave abused children in harms way.
MM
As you and your ilk are the authors of the "stolen generation" meme then it it to you and other leftists that approbation is due when the ideas that you have propagated have negative results. How you can argue about the veracity of the SG claims and then try to distance yourself from the results of your ideology beggars belief.
Highlighting hypocrisy is always fun though lain.
Which is why I keep hammering you over your attempts to distract from the present by citing your beliefs about the past.
'As you and your ilk are the authors of the "stolen generation" meme then it it to you and other leftists that approbation is due when the ideas that you have propagated have negative results. How you can argue about the veracity of the SG claims and then try to distance yourself from the results of your ideology beggars belief.'
Do we occupy the same planet Iain? Me and my ilk aren't the "authors" as it's members have been talking about the history for decades! Peter Read documented the practise in the early 80's after conducting interviews. You seriously don't know shit about this topic do you, it's just another facet of the culture war to you.
And what a sack of illogical rubbish your above comment is. Me and my ilk have talked the truth through fact finding, evidence and rational fucking argument, you and yours, on the other hand, have resorted to using abused children as a moral weapon to muddy a debate you're losing. You wouldn't do such a thing were the historical facts on your side but considering that they're not, the desperation's brought out your absolute worse.
I'm getting sick of this constant bullshit attack Iain. It's not rational and it's highly insulting hence my often aggresive responses. The hypocrisy is blindingly clear, so give it up would you, no one's fooled.
'Which is why I keep hammering you over your attempts to distract from the present by citing your beliefs about the past.'
Who's attempting to distract!? This constant accusation is the product of you being clearly humiliated after I demonstrated that you've succumbed to groupthink. You called it a "myth" and were taken on for doing so. It's not my fault you weren't able to defend this position, it's not my fault you're subject to groupthink, these are YOUR FAULT.
Do we occupy the same planet Iain? Me and my ilk aren't the "authors" as it's members have been talking about the history for decades! Peter Read documented the practise in the early 80's after conducting interviews. You seriously don't know shit about this topic do you, it's just another facet of the culture war to you.
That children were taken is a historical fact that is is not disputed by me , however calling those removals "the stolen generation" and characterising that as something motivated by from entirely evil motives IS an idea (meme) that was created by the left.
And what a sack of illogical rubbish your above comment is. Me and my ilk have talked the truth through fact finding, evidence and rational fucking argument, you and yours, on the other hand, have resorted to using abused children as a moral weapon to muddy a debate you're losing. You wouldn't do such a thing were the historical facts on your side but considering that they're not, the desperation's brought out your absolute worse.
Felling guilty are you MM? I have not tried to muddy anything nor have I sought to use abused children at all but I have said repeatedly that those children and in particular their future is where the debate is really at and in the debate that matters, questions about who did what and why 100 years ago don't amount to much, but whining about old letters is all that you have isn't it? You have not offered more that a token acknowledgement of the children in all of your rants and that says heaps. So just for the sake of argument why don't you enunciate just how you would address the problems of abuse and violence in indigenous communities right now. I bet you have nothing.
I'm getting sick of this constant bullshit attack Iain. It's not rational and it's highly insulting hence my often aggresive responses. The hypocrisy is blindingly clear, so give it up would you, no one's fooled.
It is entirely rational to address the problems of today and to be prepared to put academic questions about the past onto the back burner while we face more pressing problems. To do otherwise (as YOU repeatedly have) says that what you are more interested in is the academic debate rather than finding real solutions to real problems.
Who's attempting to distract!? This constant accusation is the product of you being clearly humiliated after I demonstrated that you've succumbed to groupthink. You called it a "myth" and were taken on for doing so. It's not my fault you weren't able to defend this position, it's not my fault you're subject to groupthink, these are YOUR FAULT.
But "fault" is not the issue here , at least not for me, I write about indigenous issues because I care about my fellow Australians, I don't really give a rats arse about points of historical debate . The way that you keep harping on about the fact that I u
Bloody word limits!!!! 
But "fault" is not the issue here , at least not for me, I write about indigenous issues because I care about my fellow Australians, I don't really give a rats arse about points of historical debate . The way that you keep harping on about the fact that I used the word "myth" has a certain pathos about it that reminds me of the many debates that I have had with Christian friends about aspects of their faith, they too fought tooth and nail when ever I reminded them that aspects of their liturgy was subject to different interpretations and they too had trouble understanding how I could be unimpressed by their insistence that the existence of Jesus was a FACT. The reality is that I am no longer evangelical about my religious position and I am rather more willing to let my more religious friends take comfort in the warm glow of their faith. In the same spirit I am going to leave you now to bathe in the warm glow of your own religious faith here for you it seems that to question the tenets of that faith must be a capital offence. Funnily enough that is the same mindset that informs the Taliban so I hope it works for you .
Cheers
He's all over the shop, isn't he?
Still, it was nice of him to concede defeat in the matter of the Stolen Generation:
"It is entirely rational to address the problems of today and to be prepared to put academic questions about the past onto the back burner while we face more pressing problems."
Not so much rational as changing the subject when he's losing the argument. Iain Hall wouldn't be the first bombastic blowhard to resort to that.
"I write about indigenous issues because I care about my fellow Australians.." Oh puh-lease!
But no-one would say Iain's not a hard worker for the cause. And why not? An ideology like his must take some effort to defend.
'That children were taken is a historical fact that is is not disputed by me , however calling those removals "the stolen generation" and characterising that as something motivated by from entirely evil motives IS an idea (meme) that was created by the left.'
No, you are wrong again! Many personal stories (in the form of books) were written long before Peter Read coined the term. These detailed the policy first. Furthermore the "left" didn't characterise the practise as something motivated by "evil". Historians detailed the practise using the same methods historians use the world over and only in two cases (W.A & N.T) can the motives come under the genocide convention and even be remotely thought of as "evil". Cruel, thoughtless, misguided yes, but "evil" I'll reserve for Hitler's ilk.
'Felling guilty are you MM?'
OMG, you tosser.
'I have not tried to muddy anything nor have I sought to use abused children at all but I have said repeatedly that those children and in particular their future is where the debate is really at and in the debate that matters, questions about who did what and why 100 years ago don't amount to much, but whining about old letters is all that you have isn't it?'
Again I'll repeat this for the willfully stupid! You called it a "myth" and you were unable to back this accusation up, that's YOUR fault. Deal with it.
'So just for the sake of argument why don't you enunciate just how you would address the problems of abuse and violence in indigenous communities right now. I bet you have nothing.'
Ummm good one Iain. You know I'm completely supportive of the interventions, the post above this one says as much. I think such a large scale approach to be entirely appropriate, backed by stern punishments for crimes like child abuse. Savvy?
'It is entirely rational to address the problems of today and to be prepared to put academic questions about the past onto the back burner while we face more pressing problems. To do otherwise (as YOU repeatedly have) says that what you are more interested in is the academic debate rather than finding real solutions to real problems.'
But you and Bolt aren't putting them "on the back burner"! You're using the abuse as a tool to support your claim that the SG is a "myth"! Were you putting the historical debate on the back burner you and he would not be doing this.
'The way that you keep harping on about the fact that I used the word "myth" has a certain pathos about it that reminds me of the many debates that I have had with Christian friends about aspects of their faith, they too fought tooth and nail when ever I reminded them that aspects of their liturgy was subject to different interpretations and they too had trouble understanding how I could be unimpressed by their insistence that the existence of Jesus was a FACT.'
WTF!!! It's really simple Iain, you denied the SG by calling it a "myth", there's no other way to interpret the comment. You stole the accusation directly from Bolt and applied it on your blog to the SG. He uses it as he denies the SG, you without a doubt used it in the same manner. Stop trying to run from this fact.
Lad Litter
'Not so much rational as changing the subject when he's losing the argument. Iain Hall wouldn't be the first bombastic blowhard to resort to that.'
Precisely LL.
Lad Litter
He's all over the shop, isn't he?
No I'm very consistent in my argument
Not so much rational as changing the subject when he's losing the argument. Iain Hall wouldn't be the first bombastic blowhard to resort to that.
The person who has been trying to change the argument has Been MM mainly because he has NOTHING when it come to the problems for contemporary indigenous problems.
But no-one would say Iain's not a hard worker for the cause. And why not? An ideology like his must take some effort to defend.
And what ideology would that Be LL?
Alright, here we go.
1) Iain started with a thesis, that being that the Stolen Generations was a myth;
2) MM put up a case refuting that claim;
3) Iain criticized MM: for not understanding html; for not caring about white children who had also been removed from their parents; and for not having a solution to contemporary indigenous issues;
None of which adequately refuted MM's response - in fact they were pretty much off-topic.
4) Iain ludicrously tried to take the moral high ground by dismissing the Stolen Generation issue as an academic one while he was concerned chiefly with current indigenous issues because he cares about his fellow Australians. And then he likened MM to religious zealots and the Taliban.
Iain's ideology and methods are similar to those of Bolt; the Devines (pere et fille); Sheridan; Jones; Mitchell; Ackerman; Sheahan; Laws; Saluzinsky; and Zemanek (dec);
Apologies if I've left anyone out.
And with thanks to my English teachers, who forced me to analyze many obviously flawed pieces of writing like Iain's in order to help me do better at the clear thinking part of the HSC exams.
And Iain: don't impugn motives; and don't use ad hominems; if you can clean up that part of your act you might well gain more credibility and thus do a better job for all of your causes than those clowns mentioned above. Strive to NOT be lumped in with them.
'That children were taken is a historical fact that is not disputed by me...
No, you are wrong again! Many personal stories (in the form of books) were written long before Peter Read coined the term. These detailed the policy first. Furthermore the "left" didn't characterise the practise as something motivated by "evil". Historians detailed the practise using the same methods historians use the world over and only in two cases (W.A & N.T) can the motives come under the genocide convention and even be remotely thought of as "evil". Cruel, thoughtless, misguided yes, but "evil" I'll reserve for Hitler's ilk.
Why is it that I get the distinct impression that the phrase I have emboldened above actually undermines you argument? Because up until now you have been suggesting that the removal of children was an example of "evil white racism" and you have (metaphorically speaking) been throwing up your arms in the air and wailing at any suggestion that the removers of children may have acted from any sort of noble or even laudable motives at all. One more point on this part of your comment and that is to make note of the fact that the use of the” stolen generation" label was never necessary for the Meme to actually exist, in the same way that naming the continent was not necessary for Australia to exist.
'Felling guilty are you MM?'
OMG, you tosser.
I 'd say you are then.
Again I'll repeat this for the wilfully stupid! You called it a "myth" and you were unable to back this accusation up, that's YOUR fault. Deal with it.
You define what you mean by myth and I bet that your definition is different to mine.
... how you would address the problems of abuse and violence in indigenous communities right now. I bet you have nothing.'
Ummm good one Iain. You know I'm completely supportive of the interventions, the post above this one says as much. I think such a large scale approach to be entirely appropriate, backed by stern punishments for crimes like child abuse. Savvy?
Actually your pro Brough post above does have some merit however I can't help feeling that you have only written that after I have pricked your conscience by pointing out the paucity of your response to indigenous problems in the here and now.
But you and Bolt aren't putting them "on the back burner"! You're using the abuse as a tool to support your claim that the SG is a "myth"! Were you putting the historical debate on the back burner you and he would not be doing this.
Do a search in my blog MM and tell me how what I have written specifically about the "stolen Generation" is so bad. Does it so offend you that I don't accept every claim and assumption that you hold so dear? as you are
Cont.
WTF!!! It's really simple Iain, you denied the SG by calling it a "myth", there's no other way to interpret the comment. You stole the accusation directly from Bolt and applied it on your blog to the SG. He uses it as he denies the SG, you without a doubt used it in the same manner. Stop trying to run from this fact.
What is really simple MM is the fact that you can't see the wood for the trees Firstly you seem to be chiding me for the opinions of someone else ( namely Andrew Bolt) and secondly you are acting like a religious zealot who has been offended by an unbeliever enunciating the forbidden name of God. Now I suggest that before you write another word you consider everything else that I have written about indigenous issues and then tell me if I am the evil sinner that you have tried so hard to paint me as.
Damn I tried to cut my response into to pieces and I stil ran fowl of the Haloscan word limit
In comment above the last parra should have been.
Do a search in my blog MM and tell me how what I have written specifically about the "stolen Generation" is so bad. Does it so offend you that I don't accept every claim and assumption that you hold so dear? As you are reading that I invite you to consider the line that I have consistently taken and tell me what in particular is so evil about my position
on matters indigenous . Because frankly I think that I have an entirely moral stance here.
Lad Litter
1) Iain started with a thesis, that being that the Stolen Generations was a myth;
Well this opening gambit in your argument ignores the fact that MM's post is really an extension of a debate that began over at my own blog where his objections to the way that I have rhetorically categorised the "stolen generation" was used by him as a device to divert the debate from the actual topic of not one but a whole series of posts about the abuse of children and Judicial ineptitude.
2) MM put up a case refuting that claim;
sadly offering much the same stuff that he did over at mine.
3) Iain criticized MM…
Actually I criticised the presentation of his post which does not present at all well and in magnanimous gesture I sent him the HTML. You have grossly over simplified what has been a very long argument across more than one blog and half a dozen posts.
None of which adequately refuted MM's response - in fact they were pretty much off-topic.
Do I suspect that you are more than a little biased towards MM's position here? Because I do not think that you are a dispassionate observer here. As to what is on or off topic have to be considered in terms of the greater debate here and not just in terms of the small part of it that is actually at this blog.
4) Iain ludicrously tried to take the moral high ground….
Please explain why it is in any sense "ludicrous" to think that practical action for a pressing problem trumps any debate about a contentions issue from our historical past?
Iain's ideology and methods....
And with thanks to my English teachers, who forced me to analyze many obviously flawed pieces of writing….
Just a simple question have you actually gone back to my own blog and read what I say there on these issues? I invite you to come and point out the flaws in my writing. I love having lefties like you for breakfast.
And Iain: don't impugn motives; and don't use ad hominems; if you can clean up that part of your act you might well gain more credibility and thus do a better job for all of your causes than those clowns mentioned above. Strive to NOT be lumped in with them.
Lad Litter can I suggest that you stop trying to lecture me about how to debate on the Internet, I have long ago ceased trying to get lefties like you to like what I say. In fact I am far more generous to my interlocutors than most of the leftists that I encounter in the course of my blogging. Perhaps YOU should be striving to really know what you are talking about be fore YOU pontificate about some one like me .
What, you need me to be over at your blog before you can have me for breakfast? When I get there, I'll be having waffle by the sound of it.
You've just had 350-odd words on this thread to answer my comments, and you've neither poached, fried nor scrambled me.
It has nothing to do with whether I like what you say or not Iain. It's about the typical shock-jock type methods you use: obfuscation; diverting from the issue under debate; impugning motives.
And then likening MM to the Taliban because of the position he's adopted on the Stolen Generation issue. You're not exactly the Oxford Debating Society.
Just coffee and a cigarette for me please.
Iain, this is the last time I'll address your absolute rubbish arguments here, and it's the last time that you'll repeat them. Savvy?
'Why is it that I get the distinct impression that the phrase I have emboldened above actually undermines you argument? Because up until now you have been suggesting that the removal of children was an example of "evil white racism" and you have (metaphorically speaking) been throwing up your arms in the air and wailing at any suggestion that the removers of children may have acted from any sort of noble or even laudable motives at all.
You're a complete moron. Please link to where I said that the removal of children was an example of "evil white racism" (BTW, in putting this in quotation marks you're suggesting that I actually used those words. If you can't show me where I used them then you are here for all to see as a complete liar). I don't believe that they were ALL misguided, only some, I don't think they were ALL cruel, only some, and I don't believe they were all thoughtless, only some. Furthermore, the Holocaust is not a moral equivalent therefore I reserve "evil" for the perpetrators of such crimes. There's absolutely nothing contradictory about this.
If you bother to read their motives they were far from "laudable" as you niavely suggest. You've been shown to be a pathetic servant of groupthink and now you look stupid and desperate, again, this is YOUR fault.
'One more point on this part of your comment and that is to make note of the fact that the use of the” stolen generation" label was never necessary for the Meme to actually exist, in the same way that naming the continent was not necessary for Australia to exist.'
WTF???
'You define what you mean by myth and I bet that your definition is different to mine.'
Iain Hall SG debate escape clause number 502.
'Actually your pro Brough post above does have some merit however I can't help feeling that you have only written that after I have pricked your conscience by pointing out the paucity of your response to indigenous problems in the here and now.'
You're a fucking dreamer Hall, nowhere have you pointed out the so-called "paucity" of my response. You've been made to look like a dickhead and in response you've attempted to change the debate and your arguments to worm out of it.
Look in my back-log and you'll see my first posts were in support of the intervention.
'Do a search in my blog MM and tell me how what I have written specifically about the "stolen Generation" is so bad. Does it so offend you that I don't accept every claim and assumption that you hold so dear?'
No, as I said, it offends me as an independant thinker that someone can be so in the tralls of groupthink that they'll state something they've heard as fact without actually bothering to do any of their own research. You don't accept the SG claims because Bolt doesn't, it's that simple. I've categorically demonstrated this.
'What is really simple MM is the fact that you can't see the wood for the trees Firstly you seem to be chiding me for the opinions of someone else ( namely Andrew Bolt) and secondly you are acting like a religious zealot who has been offended by an unbeliever enunciating the forbidden name of God.'
Yes the opinions of someone else that you repeat as fact on your blog, ergo, groupthink. As for the religious stuff well that sounds awfully familiar as well.
Please Iain, think for yourself it's so much fun.
I know you're angry that I've exposed so easily what everyone has accused you of (or known rather) for years and for that I'm sorry, but if you weren't such a lapdog this wouldn't have to happen. Think about it. 
'Perhaps YOU should be striving to really know what you are talking about be fore YOU pontificate about some one like me.'
Just like Iain strives to really know what he is talking about in regards to the SG Lad Litter.
Hypocrite.
Iain Hall SG debate escape clause number 502.
Look closely this is the way that MM avoids having to define his terms, something that essential in any debate, especially about contentious issues.
I have pricked your conscience by pointing out the paucity of your response to indigenous problems in the here and now.'
You're a fucking dreamer Hall, nowhere have you pointed out the so-called "paucity" of my response. You've been made to look like a dickhead and in response you've attempted to change the debate and your arguments to worm out of it.
The phrase is "the pot calling the kettle black" now think back to the first response that you posted back at my blog what exactly was The topic then? Hmm I seem to recall that the stolen generation was not actually the topic at all but in a moment of weakness I let myself be distracted by your hijack and now we are here.
Look in my back-log and you'll see my first posts were in support of the intervention.
Really that must explain why you were so keen to change the topic at my blog then
You don't accept the SG claims because Bolt doesn't, it's that simple. I've categorically demonstrated this.
Your problem MM is that you have such a narrow mind that you can't comprehend that anyone can have an independent mind and not be a leftist now can you? I could just as easily suggest that you have no thoughts on the matter that aren't derived from say Philip Adams, David Marr or Robert Manne but I actually believe that your thoughts are your own despite the obvious inspirations from the aforementioned lefties. Kindly do the same for me and drop this childish ad hominem crap.
Please Iain, think for yourself it's so much fun.
The thing is MM that I do think for myself and like even you I have drawn inspiration from lots of different sources and the experiences of my own life. Your leftist blinkers are preventing you from comprehending that not all free thinkers have to follow the ideology that you hold so dear.
I know you're angry that I've exposed so easily what everyone has accused you of (or known rather) for years and for that I'm sorry, but if you weren't such a lapdog this wouldn't have to happen. Think about it.
MM I don't ever get angry about debates that I have in the Internet and I think that you are grossly mistaken about how you have done in this little discussion. My late mother used to say that the first person to raise their voice is the one who has lost the argument. No I suggest that every time that you have referred to me as "Hall” or written some other unnecessary derisive term you have exposed your own rather sad anger and degraded the veracity of your own argument.
'Look closely this is the way that MM avoids having to define his terms, something that essential in any debate, especially about contentious issues.'
Yeah that's right Iain, you deploy an obvious excape clause by arguing that you now define "myth" differently and I'M the one doing the avoiding!! You're pathetic, this debate has shown you for what you clearly are, a groupthink minion. You made a claim without even a basic knowledge of the subject, unable to sustain your position with evidence you resort to these sad tactics, grow up.
'The phrase is "the pot calling the kettle black" now think back to the first response that you posted back at my blog what exactly was The topic then? Hmm I seem to recall that the stolen generation was not actually the topic at all but in a moment of weakness I let myself be distracted by your hijack and now we are here.'
These aren't even comparable. I didn't turn the debate to the SG AFTER I started losing the debate on abused kids, I solely addressed your baseless claims against the SG and never delved into abused children. YOU however have tried to distract from the obvious failings in your attempts at addressing my attack against you by claiming moral superiority with cries of outrage over child abuse. This is clearly different.
The question still stands, why such concern for these children all of a sudden Iain? Why was there none from your ilk when addressing the obvious problems of locking kiddies behind razor wire for years and years?
'Really that must explain why you were so keen to change the topic at my blog then'
You're such a gutless wonder Hall. If you make a claim within a post, even if it's not the central point, you SHOULD be prepared to back it up. Your constant whinging about me "changing the topic" is mere testimony to the fact that you can't support your assertion. Grow up, live with it, move on, you've been completely busted, it's over!!!!!!
'Your problem MM is that you have such a narrow mind that you can't comprehend that anyone can have an independent mind and not be a leftist now can you?'
No, I believe Bolt has an independant mind, Hayek had one, Milton Friedman, shit even Bill O'Rielly!! But I've demonstrated, as have many others, that YOU don't. On this issue you've repeated ALL his claims and it's clear that you know nothing about it.
'I could just as easily suggest that you have no thoughts on the matter that aren't derived from say Philip Adams, David Marr or Robert Manne but I actually believe that your thoughts are your own despite the obvious inspirations from the aforementioned lefties. Kindly do the same for me and drop this childish ad hominem crap.'
Firstly, Adams and Marr aren't exactly SG experts and I've read bugger all about it from either of them. Secondly, I haven't used Manne's arguments at all. I've some of the primary evidence he has unearthed, some that Reynolds has also. What's important is that I read this BEFORE forming an opinion.
Now considering that Bolt started denying it way BEFORE the main documentary evidence came to light, and that YOU called it a "myth", in your love letter to him, BEFORE you "read" Manne's dossier (or clearly anything else written on it), I'd say you've both done it arse about wouldn't you?
'The thing is MM that I do think for myself and like even you I have drawn inspiration from lots of different sources and the experiences of my own life.'
What's important are the facts and you have provided NONE to support your claim.
'Your leftist blinkers are preventing you from comprehending that not all free thinkers have to follow the ideology that you hold so dear.'
Do they hand out "generic crap comments to throw at lefties" books at AWH or something? Why is it that you and your fuckwit mates always makes dumb comments like that above?
'My late mother used to say that the first person to raise their voice is the one who has lost the argument. No I suggest that every time that you have referred to me as "Hall” or written some other unnecessary derisive term you have exposed your own rather sad anger and degraded the veracity of your own argument.'
Or the first one to not show ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT THIER CLAIMS loses the argument? Personally, I'd go with the latter.
I find this paragraph from you to hold some cheek. The truth be told I find it repugnant and offensive for you to think that you can accuse ME of supporting child abuse and think that you won't cop abuse for it. I'm interested in history, especially Aboriginal history and I'll argue it with facts whenever I find someone twisting it with none. Doing so does NOT make me guilty of supporting child abuse. If you keep up with that disgusting line then expect to be abused because you'll deserve it.
http://iainhall.wordpress.com/20...of-the-leftist/
Thank you for attempting to help this sad person see the error of his ways..but alas I feel it is falling on deaf eyes.
Leave him to his stupidity while we appreciate your hard work and your desire for the truth.
Well done..and thanks again...we need more fellows like you and less of the other sort..Youknowwho.
You're welcome mate.
Commenting by HaloScan
