Scott, Are you a man or a mouse?

[Antisocial Loser Party]

"In a joint statement, the corporation's managing director, Mark Scott,
and its director of news, Kate Torney, say they 'regret if our reporting
led anyone to mistakenly assume that the ABC supported the asylum
seekers' claims'".
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/mark-scott-kate-torney-asylum-seeker-wording-more-precise/5238180

Everyone expected an apology and all they got is a wimp-out!

It is pretty basic to corroborate stories before printing them.


--
"Socialism or Communism; the first is suicide, the second murder. In the
end you have a dead body either way" - Ayn Rand

Gillard...
"I am not the signatory to the documents that incorporated this
association".
http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/attorney_thumb.png

Labor's ineptitude charted:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-16/boat-arrivals-by-year-graph/4694210

Flannery...
"we are plugged into Gaia aren't we?"

Labor's legacy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lePrBUHihKI

Pickering...
"You could put an ALP badge on a chimpanzee and the people of Canberra
would vote for it"

Labor's preference to Gillard...
"It is to do everything I *physically* can to stop Mr Abbott becoming
the next prime minister of Australia..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PguhkVG49To

Milne...
"PM must ROOT out sexism in ALP"
http://twitter.com/aus_politics/status/257272797829685249

"Mr Blewitt will be registered owner of the unit you are purchasing".
http://www.smh.com.au/national/pms-exboyfriend-had-major-role-in-buying-unit-in-name-of-union-crony-20121009-27bcp.html


Sir Isaac Newton...
"I can calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men"

Tanner...
"When I joined the Labor Party people joined Labor to change the world.
Now they join Labor to run the world".

Joyce...
"It was the prime minister herself who, of her own volition, decided to
go out and grab the wheelie bin and put it back in the kitchen"

Carbon Tax for Dummies:
"It's an emissions trading scheme with a fixed price"

Climate Change for Dummies:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

"Don't write crap. Can't be that hard. And when you have written
complete crap, then I think you should correct it" - Julia Gillard
http://tinyurl.com/Gillard4Sale

Labor's cup runneth over...
http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/gammasquadtoiletcup.jpg

#auspol #ausdebate

[Pelican]

"Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:blcvl0...@mid.individual.net...

> "In a joint statement, the corporation's managing director, Mark Scott,
> and its director of news, Kate Torney, say they 'regret if our reporting
> led anyone to mistakenly assume that the ABC supported the asylum seekers'
> claims'".
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/mark-scott-kate-torney-asylum-seeker-wording-more-precise/5238180
>
> Everyone expected an apology and all they got is a wimp-out!
>
> It is pretty basic to corroborate stories before printing them.

All a bit difficult to corroborate when the navy refuses comment and access
to the navy film of the event. That's the reason why stories involving the
government get run the way they do - the government behaves as if it has
something to cover up.

[Antisocial Loser Party]

Garbage. "The navy" refuses to comment because it is not policy or
practice to comment on operations - that would be totally ludicrous.

Garbage 2. The reason why the story was run in that way is because the
ABC is overburdened with Greens-supporters, who have a naturally
Marxist-Leninist tendency to undermine their own side in an almost
sociopath inhuman manner.

I would like to see the journo involved *personally* *meet* the sailors
involved and put that accusation to them *personally*. The journo took
the word of cheats as gospel and distrusted navy personnel. It doesn't
get much dumber.

[Pelican]

"Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message

news:bld40h...@mid.individual.net...

> On 5/02/2014 7:23 AM, Pelican wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:blcvl0...@mid.individual.net...
>>> "In a joint statement, the corporation's managing director, Mark
>>> Scott, and its director of news, Kate Torney, say they 'regret if our
>>> reporting led anyone to mistakenly assume that the ABC supported the
>>> asylum seekers' claims'".
>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/mark-scott-kate-torney-asylum-seeker-wording-more-precise/5238180
>>>
>>>
>>> Everyone expected an apology and all they got is a wimp-out!
>>>
>>> It is pretty basic to corroborate stories before printing them.
>>
>> All a bit difficult to corroborate when the navy refuses comment and
>> access to the navy film of the event. That's the reason why stories
>> involving the government get run the way they do - the government
>> behaves as if it has something to cover up.
>
> Garbage. "The navy" refuses to comment because it is not policy or
> practice to comment on operations - that would be totally ludicrous.

Bullshit. The allegation was that navy people engaged in torture. The navy
apparently had film that showed the contrary. The navy refused to release
the film, and still refuses. The film has SFA to do with operational
matters. It's now clear from the Indonesian investigation that the story
initially put about by the boat people was untrue. The navy didn't help
itself.

> Garbage 2. The reason why the story was run in that way is because the ABC
> is overburdened with Greens-supporters, who have a naturally
> Marxist-Leninist tendency to undermine their own side in an almost
> sociopath inhuman manner.

You will go blind.

> I would like to see the journo involved *personally* *meet* the sailors
> involved and put that accusation to them *personally*. The journo took the
> word of cheats as gospel and distrusted navy personnel. It doesn't get
> much dumber.

Yeah, but you're a fuckwit, so what you would like to see is something that
only a fuckwit would want.

The report was about a claim by boat people. The Indonesian investigation
showed the claim to be wrong. The navy didn't resolve the problem.

[Antisocial Loser Party]

On 5/02/2014 8:41 AM, Pelican wrote:
>
>
> "Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:bld40h...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 5/02/2014 7:23 AM, Pelican wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:blcvl0...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> "In a joint statement, the corporation's managing director, Mark
>>>> Scott, and its director of news, Kate Torney, say they 'regret if our
>>>> reporting led anyone to mistakenly assume that the ABC supported the
>>>> asylum seekers' claims'".
>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/mark-scott-kate-torney-asylum-seeker-wording-more-precise/5238180
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Everyone expected an apology and all they got is a wimp-out!
>>>>
>>>> It is pretty basic to corroborate stories before printing them.
>>>
>>> All a bit difficult to corroborate when the navy refuses comment and
>>> access to the navy film of the event. That's the reason why stories
>>> involving the government get run the way they do - the government
>>> behaves as if it has something to cover up.
>>
>> Garbage. "The navy" refuses to comment because it is not policy or
>> practice to comment on operations - that would be totally ludicrous.
>
> Bullshit. The allegation was that navy people engaged in torture. The
> navy apparently had film that showed the contrary. The navy refused to
> release the film, and still refuses.

Why should they?

What kind of *fucking* *moron* assumes in the first instance that Navy
personnel committed torture. Are you stupid?

The Navy doesn't need to defend *anything*. The accusers need to show
evidence.

> The film has SFA to do with
> operational matters. It's now clear from the Indonesian investigation
> that the story initially put about by the boat people was untrue.

It was *ALWAYS* clear that the story put out was UNTRUE. Our Navy people
simply *don't* do such things.

> The
> navy didn't help itself.

Next time back your own team, instead of believing halfwit fuckwits who
*always* white-ant Australia.

>
>> Garbage 2. The reason why the story was run in that way is because the
>> ABC is overburdened with Greens-supporters, who have a naturally
>> Marxist-Leninist tendency to undermine their own side in an almost
>> sociopath inhuman manner.
>
> You will go blind.
>
>> I would like to see the journo involved *personally* *meet* the
>> sailors involved and put that accusation to them *personally*. The
>> journo took the word of cheats as gospel and distrusted navy
>> personnel. It doesn't get much dumber.
>
> Yeah, but you're a fuckwit, so what you would like to see is something
> that only a fuckwit would want.

The meaning is clear, and that you resort to ad-hom instead of logic to
respond shows that you're the fuckwit.

As usual, your argument has died.

>
> The report was about a claim by boat people. The Indonesian
> investigation showed the claim to be wrong. The navy didn't resolve the
> problem.

The Navy didn't need to resolve or prove anything. You and your fuckit
Greens mates need to learn to back your own team.

Moreover if they respond to every stupid claim they'l spend more time in
press conferences instead of patrolling the borders.

Get a clue.

[Pelican]

"Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message

news:bld7t3...@mid.individual.net...

> On 5/02/2014 8:41 AM, Pelican wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:bld40h...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 5/02/2014 7:23 AM, Pelican wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:blcvl0...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> "In a joint statement, the corporation's managing director, Mark
>>>>> Scott, and its director of news, Kate Torney, say they 'regret if our
>>>>> reporting led anyone to mistakenly assume that the ABC supported the
>>>>> asylum seekers' claims'".
>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/mark-scott-kate-torney-asylum-seeker-wording-more-precise/5238180
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone expected an apology and all they got is a wimp-out!
>>>>>
>>>>> It is pretty basic to corroborate stories before printing them.
>>>>
>>>> All a bit difficult to corroborate when the navy refuses comment and
>>>> access to the navy film of the event. That's the reason why stories
>>>> involving the government get run the way they do - the government
>>>> behaves as if it has something to cover up.
>>>
>>> Garbage. "The navy" refuses to comment because it is not policy or
>>> practice to comment on operations - that would be totally ludicrous.
>>
>> Bullshit. The allegation was that navy people engaged in torture. The
>> navy apparently had film that showed the contrary. The navy refused to
>> release the film, and still refuses.
>
> Why should they?

Hmmm. Because they are accountable and responsible for what they do,
ultimately to the Australian people. There is absolutely no reason not to
release material that puts the record straight.

> What kind of *fucking* *moron* assumes in the first instance that Navy
> personnel committed torture.

No-one assumed anything of the kind. There was a report indicating such
claims. The appropriate response is to deny the claims and, since there is
a film of the events, to release the film to the public.

> Are you stupid?

Yet again, unwarranted projection on your part.

> The Navy doesn't need to defend *anything*. The accusers need to show
> evidence.

They have the "evidence" of what they say happened, with the burns on their
hands. The navy has film. The navy should release the film. How hard is
that to understand?

>> The film has SFA to do with
>> operational matters. It's now clear from the Indonesian investigation
>> that the story initially put about by the boat people was untrue.
>
> It was *ALWAYS* clear that the story put out was UNTRUE. Our Navy people
> simply *don't* do such things.

Our military do all sorts of things. When allegations are made against
them, there is no automatic presumption that the allegations are false. If
there is physical evidence demonstrating the falsehood (eg a film), the
appropriate response is to release the film.

>> The
>> navy didn't help itself.
>
> Next time back your own team, instead of believing halfwit fuckwits who
> *always* white-ant Australia.

I prefer to think for myself. You can do as you please.

>>> Garbage 2. The reason why the story was run in that way is because the
>>> ABC is overburdened with Greens-supporters, who have a naturally
>>> Marxist-Leninist tendency to undermine their own side in an almost
>>> sociopath inhuman manner.
>>
>> You will go blind.
>>
>>> I would like to see the journo involved *personally* *meet* the
>>> sailors involved and put that accusation to them *personally*. The
>>> journo took the word of cheats as gospel and distrusted navy
>>> personnel. It doesn't get much dumber.
>>
>> Yeah, but you're a fuckwit, so what you would like to see is something
>> that only a fuckwit would want.
>
> The meaning is clear, and that you resort to ad-hom instead of logic to
> respond shows that you're the fuckwit.

PKB. You choose to whine when you get your nose rubbed in shit, but you
freely abuse anyone who takes a different view to you.

> As usual, your argument has died.

You can run, but you can't hide.

>> The report was about a claim by boat people. The Indonesian
>> investigation showed the claim to be wrong. The navy didn't resolve the
>> problem.
>
> The Navy didn't need to resolve or prove anything. You and your fuckit
> Greens mates need to learn to back your own team.

See above.

> Moreover if they respond to every stupid claim they'l spend more time in
> press conferences instead of patrolling the borders.

It doesn't need a press conference to release a film.

> Get a clue.

Priest, follow thy own sermon.

[Antisocial Loser Party]

Accountable to the defence chief who is accountable to the minister. In
this instance it is critical that the whole operation be kept low-key.
You'd have to be blind, deaf, dumb or leftist not to get that.

>
>> What kind of *fucking* *moron* assumes in the first instance that Navy
>> personnel committed torture.
>
> No-one assumed anything of the kind. There was a report indicating such
> claims. The appropriate response is to deny the claims and, since there
> is a film of the events, to release the film to the public.

See above - they have *no* particular responsibility to release
anything, and in that context without any evidence you hacve no right to
assume that anything untoward took place.

This is *our* Navy and I trust them. Why don't you?

What are you some fuckwit Greenie lawyer twitting on your smartphone in
Newtown? Get a clue.

>
>> Are you stupid?
>
> Yet again, unwarranted projection on your part.
>
>> The Navy doesn't need to defend *anything*. The accusers need to show
>> evidence.
>
> They have the "evidence" of what they say happened, with the burns on
> their hands. The navy has film. The navy should release the film. How
> hard is that to understand?
>
>>> The film has SFA to do with
>>> operational matters. It's now clear from the Indonesian investigation
>>> that the story initially put about by the boat people was untrue.
>>
>> It was *ALWAYS* clear that the story put out was UNTRUE. Our Navy
>> people simply *don't* do such things.
>
> Our military do all sorts of things. When allegations are made against
> them, there is no automatic presumption that the allegations are false.

YES THERE IS. If you want an untrustworthy military , go live in North
Korea or produce *evidence*, otherwise you have 2 choices:
1. Apologies
2. Shut up

> If there is physical evidence demonstrating the falsehood (eg a film),
> the appropriate response is to release the film.
>
>>> The
>>> navy didn't help itself.
>>
>> Next time back your own team, instead of believing halfwit fuckwits
>> who *always* white-ant Australia.
>
> I prefer to think for myself. You can do as you please.

So what *could* you be thinking in the absence of *any* evidence?

You're an idiot.

[Dechucka]

"Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message

news:bldduq...@mid.individual.net...

Who is accountable to us

[Gordon Levi]

Antisocial Loser Party <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

>On 5/02/2014 7:23 AM, Pelican wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:blcvl0...@mid.individual.net...
>>> "In a joint statement, the corporation's managing director, Mark
>>> Scott, and its director of news, Kate Torney, say they 'regret if our
>>> reporting led anyone to mistakenly assume that the ABC supported the
>>> asylum seekers' claims'".
>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/mark-scott-kate-torney-asylum-seeker-wording-more-precise/5238180
>>>
>>>
>>> Everyone expected an apology and all they got is a wimp-out!
>>>
>>> It is pretty basic to corroborate stories before printing them.
>>
>> All a bit difficult to corroborate when the navy refuses comment and
>> access to the navy film of the event. That's the reason why stories
>> involving the government get run the way they do - the government
>> behaves as if it has something to cover up.
>
>Garbage. "The navy" refuses to comment because it is not policy or
>practice to comment on operations - that would be totally ludicrous.

Real military operations have embedded journalists precisely because
the military understands their responsibility to keep us informed
_and_ to ensure that they have reasonable control over what is
reported. The pretend secrecy and the childish title, Operation
Sovereign Borders, should give you a clue that the source of the
entire "policy" is a public relations company.

>
>Garbage 2. The reason why the story was run in that way is because the
>ABC is overburdened with Greens-supporters, who have a naturally
>Marxist-Leninist tendency to undermine their own side in an almost
>sociopath inhuman manner.
>
>I would like to see the journo involved *personally* *meet* the sailors
>involved and put that accusation to them *personally*.

The journalists would have preferred that but they were not permitted.
It would interfere with Morrisson's PR agenda.

> The journo took
>the word of cheats as gospel and distrusted navy personnel. It doesn't
>get much dumber.

The journalists published the information they were given by the
police. If Morrisson wants to run a phoney public relations war he has
to wear it when some people smugglers use the same tactics.

[Antisocial Loser Party]

On 6/02/2014 11:52 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
> Antisocial Loser Party <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 5/02/2014 7:23 AM, Pelican wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:blcvl0...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> "In a joint statement, the corporation's managing director, Mark
>>>> Scott, and its director of news, Kate Torney, say they 'regret if our
>>>> reporting led anyone to mistakenly assume that the ABC supported the
>>>> asylum seekers' claims'".
>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/mark-scott-kate-torney-asylum-seeker-wording-more-precise/5238180
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Everyone expected an apology and all they got is a wimp-out!
>>>>
>>>> It is pretty basic to corroborate stories before printing them.
>>>
>>> All a bit difficult to corroborate when the navy refuses comment and
>>> access to the navy film of the event. That's the reason why stories
>>> involving the government get run the way they do - the government
>>> behaves as if it has something to cover up.
>>
>> Garbage. "The navy" refuses to comment because it is not policy or
>> practice to comment on operations - that would be totally ludicrous.
>
> Real military operations have embedded journalists precisely because
> the military understands their responsibility to keep us informed
> _and_ to ensure that they have reasonable control over what is
> reported. The pretend secrecy and the childish title, Operation
> Sovereign Borders, should give you a clue that the source of the
> entire "policy" is a public relations company.

Garbage. You're an idiot.

Do you *seriously* think that *all* military operations have journos
attached? Or is that just your slimy way of arguing?

The government announced up front that there would be secrecy. I have
explained in another post why this is. You blissfully chose to ignore it.

*No* there will not be a journo attached. *No* there will no longer be a
media circus. Get a clue.

>>
>> Garbage 2. The reason why the story was run in that way is because the
>> ABC is overburdened with Greens-supporters, who have a naturally
>> Marxist-Leninist tendency to undermine their own side in an almost
>> sociopath inhuman manner.
>>
>> I would like to see the journo involved *personally* *meet* the sailors
>> involved and put that accusation to them *personally*.
>
> The journalists would have preferred that but they were not permitted.
> It would interfere with Morrisson's PR agenda.

Provide evidence of that. You just pulled it from your bum.

>
>> The journo took
>> the word of cheats as gospel and distrusted navy personnel. It doesn't
>> get much dumber.
>
> The journalists published the information they were given by the
> police. If Morrisson wants to run a phoney public relations war he has
> to wear it when some people smugglers use the same tactics.
>

[Jeff Thomson]

On 5/02/2014 7:07 AM, Antisocial Loser Party wrote:
> "In a joint statement, the corporation's managing director, Mark Scott,
> and its director of news, Kate Torney, say they 'regret if our reporting
> led anyone to mistakenly assume that the ABC supported the asylum
> seekers' claims'".
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/mark-scott-kate-torney-asylum-seeker-wording-more-precise/5238180
>
>
> Everyone expected an apology and all they got is a wimp-out!
>
> It is pretty basic to corroborate stories before printing them.
>
>

An admission of what their real agenda was would go a lot further.

[Jeff Thomson]

On 5/02/2014 7:23 AM, Pelican wrote:
>
>

They don't want to feed intel to the people smugglers. Comprendi?

[Jeff Thomson]

I disagree. The admission by their ABC was that the story was doubtful
from the outset. So why run it? Real agenda - to try to make Abbott/LNP
look bad. But those of us with a brain saw through it immediately.

>
>

[Jeff Thomson]

Dechucka. He reckons there needs to be a "full investigation".

[Antisocial Loser Party]

Like kicking someone's pet to get at them.

[Dechucka]

"Jeff Thomson" <stop...@election.and.remove.invalid> wrote in message
news:lcvpfj$qmk$1...@dont-email.me...

Exactly when the it first came out.

Love the assumption that our navy personell can do no wrong, just look at
the recent history of bastardery on naval ship
>

[Craig Thomson]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 07:36:06 +1100, "Dechucka" <Dechu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Love the assumption that our navy personell can do no wrong, just look at
>the recent history of bastardery on naval ship

You miss out on a good reaming, Dead Fucka?

Is that why you are down on the navy? Jealousy perhaps?

[Pelican]

"Jeff Thomson" <stop...@election.and.remove.invalid> wrote in message

news:lcvoah$jsa$4...@dont-email.me...

You are not obliged to accept every evasive claim by government. It'd just
a bullshit argument, cooked up to allow the morons to avoid explaining what
they are doing.

[Dechucka]

"Craig Thomson" <cr...@brothelboy.com> wrote in message
news:s6v7f9dro4vreilgd...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 07:36:06 +1100, "Dechucka" <Dechu...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Love the assumption that our navy personell can do no wrong, just look at
>>the recent history of bastardery on naval ship
>
> You miss out on a good reaming, Dead Fucka?

I've missed out on any reaming

>
> Is that why you are down on the navy? Jealousy perhaps?

I have given you an example of why your "the navy can do no wrong" is BS

[Jeff Thomson]

Your ABC didn't even believe the story (but still ran it). "The Defence
Force, as a routine, looks at its operations from day to day. I am
confident that they have behaved responsibly and appropriately." -
Warren Truss. There's you investigation. Next. If you really believe the
story of a criminal entering Australia illegally, as opposed to just
screaming Abbott Abbott Abbott then you really do need to sit in that
drunk tank for a spell. Obviously you know where to find it.

[Jeff Thomson]

Only morons don't understand how classified operations work. Morons
"expect" to know the details - they have a "right". Imagine if
Hansen-Young got hold of classified material. She'd SMS it straight off
to the people smugglers to "help" the cause.

[Pelican]

"Jeff Thomson" <stop...@election.and.remove.invalid> wrote in message

news:ld1afc$1hm$1...@dont-email.me...

So, to clarify, just what do you imagine "classified" operations means?

I'll give you a hint. It's the level of restriction applied to access to
the relevant information by the bureaucracy. It's purely a bureaucratic
invention. In reality, it's just bullshit. There is obviously sensitive
information that governments want to keep secret. None of the information
involved about asylum seekers is sensitive, unless you are concerned about
the sensitivity of the Australian government to its fuckups. None of it
would be of the slightest assistance to people smugglers. They don't give a
fuck about anything except being paid by their customers. There customers
are, now, obviously fuckwits - who in their right mind would pay a lot of
money, leave Indonesia, and risk their lives on a trip that ends in PNG?

[Jeff Thomson]

I'll give you a hint. You have clearly never been involved in classified
operations, and you don't have a clue. As evidence from you (lack of)
understanding you posted above.

[Pelican]

"Jeff Thomson" <stop...@election.and.remove.invalid> wrote in message

news:ld1m79$knr$3...@dont-email.me...

Hmmm. You are wrong again. Not only wrong, but woefully ignorant about the
responsibility of a democratically elected government to inform the people
about what it is doing. This isn't about the secrecy of a Mickey Mouse
naval exercise. It's about the people being denied information by its
government. For myself, I don't give a damn about asylum seekers seeking to
come from Indonesia by boat, or people smugglers. I do care about a
government refusing to give ordinary information to the people.

[Jeff Thomson]

You are hardly in any position to determine what is classified and what
isn't. This is clearly evident from your obvious ignorance of classified
military operations. There is stuff from 30 years ago that would make
the hair curl of those "we have a right to know everything" types like
yourself. And it's a good thing too. There's enough storms in teacups
from you lot as it is. We will continue to keep you in the dark as to
their very existence.

[Pelican]

"Jeff Thomson" <stop...@election.and.remove.invalid> wrote in message

news:ld1q70$63f$1...@dont-email.me...

You must be one of them military types, or wunna-be military types. You
know SFA about security, and nothing about stuff that would make anyone's
hair curl.

[Jeff Thomson]

Worked in Defence for a couple of decades, with highest security
clearances. And you?

[Pelican]

"Jeff Thomson" <stop...@election.and.remove.invalid> wrote in message

news:ld1vd8$pp0$1...@dont-email.me...

Of course you did. No surprises there.

> And you?

If I told you, someone would have to kill you.

[Jeff Thomson]

So you're talking pure unsubstantiated shit. Confirmed. Next...

[Pelican]

"Jeff Thomson" <stop...@election.and.remove.invalid> wrote in message

news:ld20sp$v0r$4...@dont-email.me...

I merely treat you are the pig-ignorant fuckwit that you are. HTH

[Jeff Thomson]

So my assessment of you was correct. The expected ad hom retort was the
giveaway. next.

[Antisocial Loser Party]

You have no idea what the navy is doing (because its classified) yet you
claim that there's no reason for it to be classified.

You're an idiot.


And people couldn't give a stuff *how* it is stopped - as long as it
*is* stopped and done humanely.

[Antisocial Loser Party]

On 7/02/2014 5:59 PM, Pelican wrote:
>
>
> "Jeff Thomson" <stop...@election.and.remove.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ld1vd8$pp0$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 7/02/2014 5:03 PM, Pelican wrote:

...

>>> You must be one of them military types, or wunna-be military types. You
>>> know SFA about security, and nothing about stuff that would make
>>> anyone's hair curl.
>>
>> Worked in Defence for a couple of decades, with highest security
>> clearances.
>
> Of course you did. No surprises there.
>
>> And you?
>
> If I told you, someone would have to kill you.

I've heard that before. The bloke that said it spent the night in DB.

PS: DB isn't Deutsche Bank

[Pelican]

"Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message

news:blk0fn...@mid.individual.net...

Look at the ABC news, you stupid fuckwit. That will tell you what the navy
is doing. None of it needed to be classified ie kept secret from the
Australian public. You must be incorrigibly stupid.

> And people couldn't give a stuff *how* it is stopped - as long as it *is*
> stopped and done humanely.

It's been stopped for some time - the asylum seekers don't get here. They
haven't been getting here for some time. If they attempt it, they end up in
PNG. That's been on the ABC news for a while. It's not humane. No-one
ever said it was. Well, a stupid fuckwit like you might, but no-one gives a
fuck what a stupid fuckwit like you says, eh?

[Pelican]

"Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message

news:blk0kk...@mid.individual.net...

> On 7/02/2014 5:59 PM, Pelican wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Jeff Thomson" <stop...@election.and.remove.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ld1vd8$pp0$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 7/02/2014 5:03 PM, Pelican wrote:
> ...
>>>> You must be one of them military types, or wunna-be military types.
>>>> You
>>>> know SFA about security, and nothing about stuff that would make
>>>> anyone's hair curl.
>>>
>>> Worked in Defence for a couple of decades, with highest security
>>> clearances.
>>
>> Of course you did. No surprises there.
>>
>>> And you?
>>
>> If I told you, someone would have to kill you.
>
> I've heard that before. The bloke that said it spent the night in DB.
>
> PS: DB isn't Deutsche Bank

What does Dogger Bank have to do with it?

[Jeff Thomson]

On 7/02/2014 11:07 PM, Antisocial Loser Party wrote:
> On 7/02/2014 5:59 PM, Pelican wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Jeff Thomson" <stop...@election.and.remove.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ld1vd8$pp0$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 7/02/2014 5:03 PM, Pelican wrote:
> ...
>>>> You must be one of them military types, or wunna-be military types.
>>>> You
>>>> know SFA about security, and nothing about stuff that would make
>>>> anyone's hair curl.
>>>
>>> Worked in Defence for a couple of decades, with highest security
>>> clearances.
>>
>> Of course you did. No surprises there.
>>
>>> And you?
>>
>> If I told you, someone would have to kill you.
>
> I've heard that before. The bloke that said it spent the night in DB.
>
> PS: DB isn't Deutsche Bank

And it's what kiddies say after watching too many spy movies. Anybody
who has *actually* been involved in classified matters of significance
would know the appropriate response to a wannabe cretin wanting to stick
their nose in where it doesn't belong.

[Gordon Levi]

Antisocial Loser Party <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

>On 6/02/2014 11:52 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:

>> Antisocial Loser Party <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/02/2014 7:23 AM, Pelican wrote:
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> "Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message

>>>> news:blcvl0...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> "In a joint statement, the corporation's managing director, Mark
>>>>> Scott, and its director of news, Kate Torney, say they 'regret if our
>>>>> reporting led anyone to mistakenly assume that the ABC supported the
>>>>> asylum seekers' claims'".
>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-04/mark-scott-kate-torney-asylum-seeker-wording-more-precise/5238180
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone expected an apology and all they got is a wimp-out!
>>>>>
>>>>> It is pretty basic to corroborate stories before printing them.
>>>>
>>>> All a bit difficult to corroborate when the navy refuses comment and
>>>> access to the navy film of the event. That's the reason why stories
>>>> involving the government get run the way they do - the government
>>>> behaves as if it has something to cover up.
>>>

>>> Garbage. "The navy" refuses to comment because it is not policy or
>>> practice to comment on operations - that would be totally ludicrous.
>>

>> Real military operations have embedded journalists precisely because
>> the military understands their responsibility to keep us informed
>> _and_ to ensure that they have reasonable control over what is
>> reported. The pretend secrecy and the childish title, Operation
>> Sovereign Borders, should give you a clue that the source of the
>> entire "policy" is a public relations company.
>
>Garbage. You're an idiot.
>
>Do you *seriously* think that *all* military operations have journos
>attached? Or is that just your slimy way of arguing?

Can you think of a military campaign in the last 20 years when there
were no embedded journalists? Clearly, there was not a journalist
present on every encounter with the "enemy" but in this trivial
operation that would have been easy to arrange.
>
>The government announced up front that there would be secrecy. I have
>explained in another post why this is. You blissfully chose to ignore it.
>
>*No* there will not be a journo attached. *No* there will no longer be a
>media circus. Get a clue.

I don't think our military would think you were supporting them by
referring to the reporting from Afghanistan or Iraq as a "media
circus".

>
>
>>>
>>> Garbage 2. The reason why the story was run in that way is because the
>>> ABC is overburdened with Greens-supporters, who have a naturally
>>> Marxist-Leninist tendency to undermine their own side in an almost
>>> sociopath inhuman manner.
>>>
>>> I would like to see the journo involved *personally* *meet* the sailors
>>> involved and put that accusation to them *personally*.
>>

>> The journalists would have preferred that but they were not permitted.
>> It would interfere with Morrisson's PR agenda.
>
>Provide evidence of that. You just pulled it from your bum.

>
>
>>
>>> The journo took
>>> the word of cheats as gospel and distrusted navy personnel. It doesn't
>>> get much dumber.
>>

>> The journalists published the information they were given by the
>> police. If Morrisson wants to run a phoney public relations war he has
>> to wear it when some people smugglers use the same tactics.
>>

[Antisocial Loser Party]

Make a list.

Don't leave any out - especially the top secret ones.

>>
>> The government announced up front that there would be secrecy. I have
>> explained in another post why this is. You blissfully chose to ignore it.
>>
>> *No* there will not be a journo attached. *No* there will no longer be a
>> media circus. Get a clue.
>
> I don't think our military would think you were supporting them by
> referring to the reporting from Afghanistan or Iraq as a "media
> circus".

Yawn.

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Garbage 2. The reason why the story was run in that way is because the
>>>> ABC is overburdened with Greens-supporters, who have a naturally
>>>> Marxist-Leninist tendency to undermine their own side in an almost
>>>> sociopath inhuman manner.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to see the journo involved *personally* *meet* the sailors
>>>> involved and put that accusation to them *personally*.
>>>
>>> The journalists would have preferred that but they were not permitted.
>>> It would interfere with Morrisson's PR agenda.
>>
>> Provide evidence of that. You just pulled it from your bum.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> The journo took
>>>> the word of cheats as gospel and distrusted navy personnel. It doesn't
>>>> get much dumber.
>>>
>>> The journalists published the information they were given by the
>>> police. If Morrisson wants to run a phoney public relations war he has
>>> to wear it when some people smugglers use the same tactics.
>>>

[Pelican]

"Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message

news:blnbg6...@mid.individual.net...

> On 9/02/2014 1:37 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>>
>> Can you think of a military campaign in the last 20 years when there
>> were no embedded journalists? Clearly, there was not a journalist
>> present on every encounter with the "enemy" but in this trivial
>> operation that would have been easy to arrange.
>
> Make a list.
>
> Don't leave any out - especially the top secret ones.

Especially Operation Sovereign Borders, where no-one says anything. Except
the bits that are all over the Indonesian media, and the Australian media
via mobile phone. And the refusal by the navy to even investigate the clear
allegation of abuse - it might be bullshit, but there is an unqualified
obligation on the navy to investigate it and publish a report.

On the other hand, you're a fucking idiot who doesn't understand such basic
requirements.

[Antisocial Loser Party]

On 9/02/2014 10:41 AM, Pelican wrote:
>
>
> "Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:blnbg6...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 9/02/2014 1:37 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you think of a military campaign in the last 20 years when there
>>> were no embedded journalists? Clearly, there was not a journalist
>>> present on every encounter with the "enemy" but in this trivial
>>> operation that would have been easy to arrange.
>>
>> Make a list.
>>
>> Don't leave any out - especially the top secret ones.
>
> Especially Operation Sovereign Borders, where no-one says anything.

You silly twot, Sovereign Borders isn't top secret - read the
instructions more carefully next time please.

> Except the bits that are all over the Indonesian media, and the
> Australian media via mobile phone. And the refusal by the navy to even
> investigate the clear allegation of abuse - it might be bullshit, but
> there is an unqualified obligation on the navy to investigate it and
> publish a report.

And who is declaring this obligation, you?
By what authority?

>
> On the other hand, you're a fucking idiot who doesn't understand such
> basic requirements.

Yes, I don't understand such 'basic requirements'.

By what authority? Hmmm?

[Pelican]

"Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message

news:blp1j6...@mid.individual.net...

> On 9/02/2014 10:41 AM, Pelican wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:blnbg6...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 9/02/2014 1:37 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can you think of a military campaign in the last 20 years when there
>>>> were no embedded journalists? Clearly, there was not a journalist
>>>> present on every encounter with the "enemy" but in this trivial
>>>> operation that would have been easy to arrange.
>>>
>>> Make a list.
>>>
>>> Don't leave any out - especially the top secret ones.
>>
>> Especially Operation Sovereign Borders, where no-one says anything.
>
> You silly twot, Sovereign Borders isn't top secret - read the instructions
> more carefully next time please.

You stupid fuckwit.

>> Except the bits that are all over the Indonesian media, and the
>> Australian media via mobile phone. And the refusal by the navy to even
>> investigate the clear allegation of abuse - it might be bullshit, but
>> there is an unqualified obligation on the navy to investigate it and
>> publish a report.
>
> And who is declaring this obligation, you?

It's called democracy. Nothing for you to worry about.

> By what authority?

See above.

>> On the other hand, you're a fucking idiot who doesn't understand such
>> basic requirements.
>
> Yes, I don't understand such 'basic requirements'.

Obviously.

> By what authority? Hmmm?

See above, you stupid fuckwit.

[Antisocial Loser Party]

On 9/02/2014 10:47 PM, Pelican wrote:
>
>
> "Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:blp1j6...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 9/02/2014 10:41 AM, Pelican wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Antisocial Loser Party" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:blnbg6...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 9/02/2014 1:37 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you think of a military campaign in the last 20 years when there
>>>>> were no embedded journalists? Clearly, there was not a journalist
>>>>> present on every encounter with the "enemy" but in this trivial
>>>>> operation that would have been easy to arrange.
>>>>
>>>> Make a list.
>>>>
>>>> Don't leave any out - especially the top secret ones.
>>>
>>> Especially Operation Sovereign Borders, where no-one says anything.
>>
>> You silly twot, Sovereign Borders isn't top secret - read the
>> instructions more carefully next time please.
>
> You stupid fuckwit.

Izzat Operation Stupid fuckwit?

Must be one of your personal campaigns, or wuzzit Operation Probeject...?

>
>>> Except the bits that are all over the Indonesian media, and the
>>> Australian media via mobile phone. And the refusal by the navy to even
>>> investigate the clear allegation of abuse - it might be bullshit, but
>>> there is an unqualified obligation on the navy to investigate it and
>>> publish a report.
>>
>> And who is declaring this obligation, you?
>
> It's called democracy. Nothing for you to worry about.

Dee-mo-crasy - like the polls that say everyone's happy the boats have
stopped?

>
>> By what authority?
>
> See above.

Then I suggest you listen carefully to the minister and the PM, you twot!

>
>>> On the other hand, you're a fucking idiot who doesn't understand such
>>> basic requirements.
>>
>> Yes, I don't understand such 'basic requirements'.
>
> Obviously.
>
>> By what authority? Hmmm?
>

loses it...

> See above, you stupid fuckwit.

ROTFL!

[Gordon Levi]

Jeff Thomson <stop...@election.and.remove.invalid> wrote:


>Worked in Defence for a couple of decades, with highest security
>clearances.

Please tell me that's not true! I find it terrifying that someone that
admires Jeff Thomson so much that he takes his name is entrusted with
Australia's security.

> And you?

[Jeff Thomson]

It is true, but rest assured, the work we did was lauded as being of the
highest standards. And Thomo is still my favourite bowler of all time.
Who's yours?

[Antisocial Loser Party]

On 10/02/2014 1:48 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:

The first person that took Jeff Thomson's name was ...
"Craig Thomson used the name 'Jeff Thomson' to book a one-hour session
with an escort named Tracey while staying at a Sydney hotel in 2003"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-04/court-rejects-bid-to-delay-craig-thomson-case/5133574

Maybe they discussion National security eh?


Now this person purchased services from prostitutes, approving the
purchases himself and was given the "full support" of your favourite PM,
herself a suspect.

Had you forgotten that he was a member of the parliamentary economics
committee?

Mr Abbott said that it is "very hard for someone who can't answer
questions about his own credit card to credibly ask questions of the
governor of the Reserve Bank about the nation's credit card"
http://www.theage.com.au/national/call-to-sack-thomson-from-committee-20110821-1j4v0.html

Quite.

And what do you think about doing 'it' under the assumed identity of a
cricket hero?

"Ms Gillard said it had been public for some time that there was a Fair
Work Australia investigation under way into Mr Thomson"

Some time. Yes - the investigation went on & on & on & on....

Now where were we?

Oh yes - would you entrust national security to such a person?

Ms. Gillard did.




>
>> And you?

[Pelican]

"Gordon Levi" <gor...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:p85ff99ujnvtcudf7...@4ax.com...

Be fair! Someone has to be the shithouse cleaner.

[Jeff Thomson]

Wow, what a sore loser! HINT: When your arse has hits the canvas, it's
better for you to just stay laid out. LOL