>Let me give you some advice. Your biggest problem Bill, is your use of
>hyperbole and aggressively reading into what people post on here, especially
>when it challenges your preconceptions. This pisses people off. (But maybe
>that's what it's all about for you.) For example, calling me "dishonest" in
>relation to my reading of a document which, like all legal documents, is
>subject to interpretation,
It isn't subject to the interpretation you put on it though. Your interpretation is simply wrong. Now there are only two possible explanations for that, either you are a completely illiterate moron, or you are a liar. I chose to interpret it in the more charitable way.
I don't set out to piss people off, I just call a spade a spade. Its a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Your advice, that I should call it something else, would let you off the hook and seems somewhat self-serving.
> or saying "I suspect your opinion is based on
>deliberate, willful, ignorance" in relation to the Stolen Generations.
>
>God (or whatever) help us, if we have to rely on the UN's definition of
>anything, considering its record of inaction on indisputable cases of
>genocide, such as those in Rwanda and East Timor.
>
>And in relation to the other matter, all I can say is, not every terrible
>thing done to large groups of people is necessarily racist.
I didn't say it was. so this remark is irrelevant. The UNs record of inaction seems like a red herring, I can't see how that changes the clear meaning of the definition of genocide. Stop trying to wriggle out of it and admit you were wrong.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas