The Question of Trust

[Jimmy_041]

Playing the man again r&b.......

[redandblack]

Again?

I happily reply to you 99.9% of the time, Jimmy, but your last response was so poor it would have been a waste of time replying.

As for playing the man, I suppose I could trawl back and find several generic comments from you to me, but that's also not worth it.

Squawk's post was a reasonable argument, so I chose to respond to that instead.

[redandblack]

I didn't see your previous comment before, Jimmy, so all I can add is that we're all partisan on here to varying degrees and I've never claimed to be any different, as far as I know.

[Jimmy_041]

Again?

I happily reply to you 99.9% of the time, Jimmy, but your last response was so poor it would have been a waste of time replying.

As for playing the man, I suppose I could trawl back and find several generic comments from you to me, but that's also not worth it.

Squawk's post was a reasonable argument, so I chose to respond to that instead.

I asked: "barely mentioned what?" If it was poor, it was because I could not understand your posting - my apologies

But then you played the man with CC and it starts a pattern that, I think, you actually dislike people disagreeing with you

[redandblack]

I wasn't referring to that part of your answer, Jimmy - it was the Rann part.

As for the CC thing, you're a sensitive lot. You're happy to throw out labels to anyone who disagrees, but you're quick to take offence the other way.

I'm more than happy to keep the debates civil, but that works both ways.

[interested observer]

Play on gents !!!

[Jimmy_041]

I wasn't referring to that part of your answer, Jimmy - it was the Rann part.

As for the CC thing, you're a sensitive lot. You're happy to throw out labels to anyone who disagrees, but you're quick to take offence the other way.

I'm more than happy to keep the debates civil, but that works both ways.

Sorry - I cant see anyone being anything but civil or labels being thrown out (other than the topics of discussion [who are fair game anyway])

I even put "Sorry" before my question for clarification so you wouldn't get your back up

[Cambridge Clarrie]

I wasn't referring to that part of your answer, Jimmy - it was the Rann part.

As for the CC thing, you're a sensitive lot. You're happy to throw out labels to anyone who disagrees, but you're quick to take offence the other way.

I'm more than happy to keep the debates civil, but that works both ways.

I'll never post on here again after that tirade...

Certainly no offence taken my end R&B. I enjoy having a good laugh at what you post.

You're obviously very blinkered in the way you interpret a situation (Unlike, Jimmy, Southee and myself who compose eloquent and well balanced posts)

All good fun...

[Jimmy_041]

[redandblack]

I wasn't referring to that part of your answer, Jimmy - it was the Rann part.

As for the CC thing, you're a sensitive lot. You're happy to throw out labels to anyone who disagrees, but you're quick to take offence the other way.

I'm more than happy to keep the debates civil, but that works both ways.

I'll never post on here again after that tirade...

Certainly no offence taken my end R&B. I enjoy having a good laugh at what you post.

You're obviously very blinkered in the way you interpret a situation (Unlike, Jimmy, Southee and myself who compose eloquent and well balanced posts)

All good fun...

That's one of your better eloquent posts, CC

Yes, I've been a bit under the pump today, hence my usual 'eloquence' has been pared down to basics.

My apologies, Jimmy, I owe you a glass or two of red, (or blue, if that's more suitable)

[Squawk]

As for the Advertiser, I think your points are correct, but probably prove my point. The fact that we remember the few times they've supported Labor in their history is instructive.

R&B - pro-left writings in the Advertiser may be perceived as being few in number, but an editorial piece backing Labor for re-election at the 2006 election would happily be taken by the incumbent govt at that time!

[redandblack]

As would the pro-Liberal editorials of (approximately) 1900, 1903, 1906......1924, 1927, 1930.....1947, 1950, 1953, 1956.....1969, 1972, 1975...1981, 1984, 1987...1995, 1998,...2009, 2010...

I think you're proving my point, singling out the odd one out

[Jimmy_041]

Kevin Foley accuses Liberals, Isobel Redmond over Chantelois issue

Greg Kelton, State Editor
From: AdelaideNow February 09, 2010 9:25AM

Foley plays the woman

TREASURER Kevin Foley has accused the Liberals and leader Isobel Redmond of "exploiting" the Michelle Chantelois issue in a bid to win the election.

He called on the media to investigate links between the woman who has alleged she had an affair with Premier Mike Rann and the Liberal Party.

When asked if he had any evidence of any links, Mr Foley told 891 ABC Radio this morning that he had none. (1)

"We are not out there doing what the Liberals are doing which is working hand in hand with other people to put nonsense up like the Chantelois factor," he said.

"I wish people would look at the links between the Chantelois issue and the Liberal Party in this state but, no, that's a bit too difficult."

Mr Foley said the Liberal Party was exploiting the issue for all it was worth.

"But that's a sideshow. (2) It's quite obvious to the passive observer that there's a lot of politics being played here and the Liberal Party is exploiting the issue," he said.

He said it was about time the media put Ms Redmond under the same scrutiny. (3)

He denied the Premier was ducking and weaving to avoid the media and described Ms Redmond as "a great big risk with no experience in Government". (4)


The question of trust has become a central issue in the state election campaign following an Advertiser poll last week which showed 51 per cent of voters said Ms Redmond was more trustworthy than Mr Rann, who got only 34 per cent support.

The Government has gone on the front foot over the past three days in a bid to try to turn the attack back on Ms Redmond and the Opposition - demanding that the Liberals be put under more scrutiny by the media.

(1) No evidence - Maybe Chantelois has a case for defamation now?

(2) If its a sideshow - why did you raise it and spend half the interview talking about it?

(3) WTF? Has Isobel been up to no good as well?

(4) Neither did any of you 8 years ago.

[Jimmy_041]

I wasn't referring to that part of your answer, Jimmy - it was the Rann part.

As for the CC thing, you're a sensitive lot. You're happy to throw out labels to anyone who disagrees, but you're quick to take offence the other way.

I'm more than happy to keep the debates civil, but that works both ways.

I'll never post on here again after that tirade...

Certainly no offence taken my end R&B. I enjoy having a good laugh at what you post.

You're obviously very blinkered in the way you interpret a situation (Unlike, Jimmy, Southee and myself who compose eloquent and well balanced posts)

All good fun...

That's one of your better eloquent posts, CC

Yes, I've been a bit under the pump today, hence my usual 'eloquence' has been pared down to basics.

My apologies, Jimmy, I owe you a glass or two of red, (or blue, if that's more suitable)

Dont be nice to me r&b - it takes the fun out of it

[Psyber]

(1) No evidence - Maybe Chantelois has a case for defamation now?
(2) If its a sideshow - why did you raise it and spend half the interview talking about it?
(3) WTF? Has Isobel been up to no good as well?
(4) Neither did any of you 8 years ago.

I swear I barely touched her at the Christmas barbecue when we were talking, and I've never been into her office..

[Jimmy_041]

Foley would want to watch out although the legislation has now changed

This used to be applicable under the SA Wrongs Act 1936 up until the early 2000's

WRONGS ACT 1936

PART 1
DEFAMATION
* * * * * * * * * *
Words imputing want of chastity to a woman

5. Words spoken and published of any woman imputing to her a want of chastity, shall be and
shall be deemed to be slander, and an action shall be sustainable for such words in the same
manner and to the same extent as for words charging an indictable offence.

[Dog_ger]

TRUST......?

Ever gone through a devorse...?

All those that have said "no".

Don't comment....

[southee]

TRUST......?

Ever gone through a devorse...?

All those that have said "no".

Don't comment....

Devorse??? I will not make comment on that.......

[redandblack]

I think it's a pre-dinner taster

[Jimmy_041]

I'd understand it if it was posted at 1.50am not pm