Australian trio arrested in Bolivia accused of trying to board flight to Brazil with explosives

[lostboy]

lostboy states

Quote< "Look out, the dictionary police are here! Perhaps you might enlighten we mere plebs exactly what authority you have to declare any definition of any word valid or invalid? You got a post grad in etymology? You speak classical Greek, Latin and Old English so you know the root definitions of most of the words in the English language? Of course you don't. Your instructions to others to learn definitions are a clumsy attempt to hide the fact that you have absolutely no substance to your argument. Samran provided a quite insightful rationale for the impact of discrimination based on race. What was your response? Superciliousness. "That is not worthy of a response". Rubbish. You just don't have the chops to take him on or provide a rationale for your nonsense claims about others and their 'misunderstanding' of certain words.

You demand explanations of others and when they are provided, you run for the hills.

Inclusivity, respect for diversity, politeness. These are what the bitter, grumpy old, white, straight men of this forum hate. They moan about PC and how Donald Trump is going to fix everything. And get the West back to normal i.e. protecting the privileged.

You mention the White Australia Policy. You demand to know why this is relevant. Well, I could point to the fact that one of the students that Ezra attacked had a Chinese sounding name, which he rubbished as being not Australian enough. But since you represent the pedantic, pompous stuffed shirt brigade, let me point out that part of the White Australia policy was a dictation test. "A person had to be able to write down something read to them in a European language by a government official" https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy

This law was used until 1958 which brushes up against my era.

The designer of this racist, chauvinist, xenophobic test didn't happen to be any relation of yours did he?

Maybe you can answer samran and show some integrity instead of being a blow hard.

The dictionary police, how original. No attempt to validate or invalidate any definition, they're out there in black and white but if you don't agree, that's your perogative but it only highlights your lack of knowledge in your persistence to score points with casting a racist overtone over what ezzra wrote. And I've noticed that you're a practicing pseudo-intellectual. Congratulations. As for my education, you have no idea, so why are you being so presumptuous in you assumptions?

Whilst you on with words another one comes to mind about you and some others, it's acyrologia, quite apt seeing you persist in jibing with others. Don't worry, I understand that you are quite the sesquipedalianist, but don't worry I am capable of understanding and I am not phased by your use of big words. You must feel so self-righteous by displaying to all you lingusitic skills. Might impress others but not me.

So let's look at what you call Samran's quite insightful rationale for the impact of discrimination based on race.">End quote

Samran quote<"dunno, you are the expert. Think you should change your newly minted TV name from 'tagalong' to 'stalker'. Suits you better>"End quote

Samran quote<"Don't necessarily disagree. Just imagine if these boys had been muslim?

Poor old Ezza and his mates would have fair dinkum creamed their daks.

Now there is some good aussie slang for Ezza to shove up his clacker....">End quote

Samran quote<"

Keep cracking away there fifty-four.

You'll get there one day....">End quote

Samran quote <"You need to improve a bit on the spelling side of your racist diatribe. People might think you are stupid or something..." >End quote

Samran quote<" Perhaps I got a huge amount of 'likes' for one simple reason, they, like me, know it when they see it.

You might want to throw a dictionary and thesaurus at me. Fine, if that is all you have got, you don't really understand the issue, and never will. Trying to put it down to a 'tongue in cheek' line just really shows you have no clue.

Comments like his come from the most nasty of sources - from those who seek to divide and put one group of people over 'there' with snarky comments alluding to the fact 'well they aren't really Australian'.

As if he gets to judge.

It is all about the motives of exclusion, and yes, when you start doing that, you do think you are better than others.

These people get my contempt and I'll serve it back with the ridicule they deserve. >" End quote

If you think any of those posts are, as you describe, an insightful rationale for the impact of discrimination based on race, then it is you who has no understanding and are proferring inane comments. And yes, I said that the rest of his post was not worthy of comment, and still isn't, neither are his other posts. Don't have the chops, run for the hills, have no substance to my argument as I only suggest they should learn the meanings of words before they use them. Come on, if he answered what I asked then it could be debated further but like many others, they offer no basis for their remarks and fail to answer anything which, according you, he did. Please show me where?

I'll ask you a question, yes ask, not demand and let's see if you can answer.

Samran's quote<"Yep.. Australians Julian Giovanni Vicenzo Musumeci, 24, Justin Maurice Kwong Wei Sun.. true blue Aussies names,

fair dinkum, bonzer mate, bloody oath, bob yer uncle, crack a tinni , have a go at my shilla Aussies blocks...">End quote

So my question to you is, as I put to samran, how is this a racist diatribe? He mentioned two names and then said, True blue Aussie names." Well aren't they? How many different nationalities do we have in Australia, over 200, Chinese and italian amongst them, don't you think Aussies of these nationalities bear those types of names?. So how is it that he and others have seen a racist diatribe or rant in this statement. They and if you are of he same ilk, are truly amazing in deducing such from just four words.

Oh, by the way, I never demanded, I asked or suggested, a big difference but it is apparent that you too suffer from the same problem, you cannot differentiate between the true meaning of a word and what you want it to be. Sorry, doesn't work like that. Your explanation for including the following paragraph would be interesting, considering the initial post was relating to racist diatribes and rants. " inclusivity, respect for diversity, politeness. These are what the bitter, grumpy old, white, straight men of this forum hate. They moan about PC and how Donald Trump is going to fix everything. And get the West back to normal i.e. protecting the privileged."

So you now what to highlight your history skills in relation to Australian politics and the "White Australia Policy" It's history dates back to around 1850, when the Chinese first came to the gold fields but was not brought into law until 1901 and if you don't know the correct title was "The Immigration Restriction Act" and it went on to inlude the populace of several nation islands around Australia. Yes, it contained a passage of dictation designed by some bureaucrat to slow down the entry of certain nationalities. Most aspects were recinded, as you say, in 1958 but it was not until the late 1970's that all aspects were removed from the statutes. I won't answer the latter part of your question as it is to contempuous to warrant one but you do go for a play on words, don't you?

As for showing integrity by answering samran, if he asked anything of substance then I would but until then, anything that i wrote in relation to his posts would only be an exercise in futility. And as for yourself, I haven't taken my response to the stage of denigrating you personally, so I do not see the need for you to start crossing the line.

And once more I will reiterate that is the Mods thought ezzra's post was racist, bigotted, or defammatory in any way, wouldn't you have expected them to delete it, which they haven't, so it says a lot for your and the other's argument.

Clearly touched a nerve.

I would normally wait before attempting to respond to such a long post but it seems that proving your point in the face of overwhelming opposition is important to you. Since I am currently on mission to one of those nasty countries where Saturday and Sunday are working days. i guess I have to put aside my day work since you may not be able to wait until my weekend starts on Thursday afternoon.

I will push back on 3 fronts.

You make assumptions about my word usage. I do not use words lightly. Each of the words i used in my post, I have used in conversation in the past year. I did not bother to look up the words that you threw out because I knew that it would be highly unlikely that I would use these words and you were just having a go. I have always made my living from words. They are important to me. I am also reminded of one of my favourite plays that I studied in first year classics. While I tended to enjoy the comedies by Euripides, I found a lot of meat in Sophocles who said in Antigone that:

“Wisdom is the supreme part of happiness; and reverence towards the Gods must be inviolate. Great words of prideful men are ever punished with great blows, and, in old age, teach the chastened to be wise.”

So big words shall be punished. I remember my Classics lecturer remonstrating me on that and I have always strived to use words for precision and not to show off. You may read my previous postings to see that my word usage is consistent. You may toss back more silly words if you like but that game does not interest me. Neither does a pissing contest on historical facts. That level of historical analysis is limited to high school students. I am far more interested in causality and interpretation than showing of factual knowledge. Who needs that now with Wikipedia and direct access to primary sources. So I will let that game pass also. I do note however that you do not present any context for your elaboration of the Immigration Restriction Act and is relationship to racist policies and racism.

​On the second front, I note that you deliberately misrepresent samran's postings. You are no doubt aware that I was referencing his point on inclusivity, yet you choose to repeat posts of a more antagonistic nature to divert away from my argument on that issue. Was this to avoid addressing the core point of respect for diversity, because I can't see very much in your extensive post on the actual issue that was raised.

I am not samran's proxy as you seem to be for Ezra and you continue to maintain that his posting was not racist. You justify that position by the fact that the post wasn't deleted by those God like wannabes who control this forum. Not with any actual point of argument. Making fun of an Australian with a Chinese or Italian sounding name as being not a 'proper' Australian name is an observation rooted in race and so antagonistic that it qualifies as racism. The context assumes that the poster believes a certain racial type qualifies to be an Australian and not these particular lads.

There clearly has not been very much to say about the stupidity of these guys carrying explosives or material with explosive residue into an airport. The descent of this thread into the discussion on racism was caused by an ignorant, stupid, unthinking attempt at humour that bordered on sarcasm, which as you would know, is the lowest form humour. You may continue to show off your undoubtedly expansive knowledge of irrelevancies but until you provide some rationale to argue against what I and others have stated in terms of these comments being racist and fitting the definition of racist, then I will maintain my view of you as I have described in previous posts and need not repeat.

[Linky]

SAMRAN....What, pray tell was racist about the very funny reply EZZRA submitted? Apart from you having a go at EZZRA, why don't you get back into your spaceship and go back to where you came from? Is that RACIST?

No, not as long as your advice doesn't reference space aliens. That's when it gets seriously RACIST.

In an attempt to get this thread somewhere resembling on-topic:

"El Deber later reported a backpack alleged to belong to Musumeci contained "a dynamite canister, a detonator and a bag of pink granules yet to be identified" which police said could be used as a homemade explosive device." - The Sydney Morning Herald article - Nov 20 2015

They just came from a mining city. Could it be that these were just stupid souvenirs?

More than likely true. But if they were muslims the usual crew would be frothing at the mouth.

[sirineou]

The Bolivians don't understand Australian sportsman

The boys were simply going to Brazil to do some fishing. What's the problem?