Moderators please stop the nasty wasty man from saying things to me, I will continue to smear ICV in my gutless gormless way but don’t dare say anything about me, otherwise I will get so upset I will start lactating.

By the way, the supposedly “moderate” Islamic Council of Victoria’s website recommends IslamOnline.net – which advocates the murder of apostates. Just thought, Jeff Sparrows and Misha Schubert might be interested.

Let me just separate out the elements of this statement, deconstruct it if you will. First; you highlight that IslamOnline is one of the sites linked to by the ICV. This is innocuous in itself, as IslamOnline is a site of thousands and thousands of pages, with a number of contributors, each with their own personal views. Second and the crucial part, de-contextualisation; you provide a page detailing the origin of the ruling on Apostates, de-contextualise it and call caption it as ‘advocating murder‘, something that just didn’t happen where this article is concerned.

Where this little piece of Andrew Bolt-esque sophistry comes together is paring the former, which by itself is harmless, with the latter, which then paints the ICV being in support of said murder of apostates. Viola, you have yourself a guilt by association smear.

But, when it comes to our favourite Pastor and communicator with God (supposedly), we see you up in arms, refutations and aspersions (such as that in the quoted text) galore.

The fascinating thing is that it doesn’t end there with you, PRODOS. You go above and beyond a measly refutation, producing this admirable commitment to truth, justice and honour right here on Austrolabe:

But I think it’s wrong and unjust to accuse people of things they’re not guilty of. Doing so is bigotry.

Yes, criticise Danny Nalliah. But be Just, and stick to the facts.

So, where is your proof that the Islamic Council of Victoria ‘advocates the murder of apostates’. Did you not just accuse the ICV unfairly and without proof; bigotry in your words? Is this not the exact opposite of what you, in your own words, advocate, contained in the quote above?

It seems that, PRODOS, not only are you a flagrant and unapologetic hypocrite, but a bigot, indicted by your own words and standards. Or, you have one standard for Pastor Danny, and another for the ICV. Either way, the hypocrisy charge still sticks.

Also, this nonsense about ‘insulting’ your family. Do you consider your family a physical location, PRODOS? Or do you lack an understanding of what the word ‘where’ connotes? I sympathise with those that have trouble with the English language, as it was my second language, and was particularly challenging to learn. However, one would have to be rather obtuse to confuse ‘where’ and ‘who’.

Austrolabe, Baybers, Amir and others, I would ask that you counsel me on whether my previous comments were out of line. If they were, I humbly apologise for bringing this blog into disrepute.

There is a particular word one uses in reference to PRODOS’s conduct; hypocrisy.

Show me where I’m not practicing what I preach.

I wonder, is hypocrisy a virtue where you grew up?

You seem to be attacking my family.

Since Austrolabe seems to be a moderated blog, I draw your comment to the attention of the moderator and ask the moderator to clarify this blog’s policy on that sort of thing.

the last 3/4 of your post is best described as bullshit, but hey its got your name on it, not mine.

I invite you to prove – rather than just dogmatically assert – that what I’m saying is “bullshit”.

I state my positions, I share my thoughts – including my doubts – without hiding behind a nickname as you’re doing – and I provide my reasons and my sources.

That means that ANYONE who is interested in doing so can try to rebutt my views by showing that either my facts are wrong or my arguments aren’t logical.

That’s the whole point of discussion and debate.

For the rest of us on planet earth, the choices are

I marvel at the scope and depth of your knowledge of the views of everyone on the planet!

You surpass even the most enthusiastic Evangelicals I’ve met!

1. liar
2. delusional
3. someone whispering to him through the cracks in his dunny ceiling when when is on the bog.
4. Satan was speaking to him.

There are a several other possibilities which you’ve left out.

Your list doesn’t come seem to be a genuine attempt to try and fathom causes. You’ve already made up your mind.

Question: Do you believe in Satan?

You can keep us this defence of him, but invariably you will also be tarnished by his views and stupidity.

Danny has some views I agree with and some I don’t agree with.

My defence of him has been primarily focused on his great work on standing up for his right to free speech by opposing the Racial & Religious Tolerance Act of Victoria and the now discredited case made against him by the Islamic Council of Victoria.

Secondly, I’ve defended him – and will continue to defend him – against errors and slurs.

Since you appear to be his apologist, perhaps you could give me 500 words on why it was OK to speak to the league of rights (on 2 occasions that we know of).

Who told him to go there ? Humphrey B Bear?

Listen to this:
http://prodos.thinkertothinker.com/?p=393

I’m only aware of one occasion where Danny Nalliah has addressed the League of Rights.

Please provide a source for your claim that he’s addressed them on two occasions. I’d like to get the facts.

Regardless of the number of times, he has stated that he would be glad to accept their invitation again.

Not because he agrees with their views, but because he sees his role as an Evangelical Christian Pastor as taking his message to anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Furthermore, his approach is based on a 2000 year Christian tradition, supported by reports in the New Testament of the work of Jesus.

See here:
http://prodos.thinkertothinker.com/?p=391

The whole tone of your posts are sanctimonious and self righteous,

Of course I lack both your incredible knowledge and insights, and your carefully reasoned arguments, such as:

“someone whispering to him through the cracks in his dunny ceiling when when is on the bog.”

Very nice!

but I note on your web-site, you are not above smearing ICV with someone else’s words.

Provide an example of what you mean exactly.

If its ok to do that to ICV then why should we not staple the league of rights views to Nalliah’s chest? or those of Daniel Scott?

You seem to be saying that:

1. I am smearing the Islamic Council of Victoria
2. That therefore makes it okay for you to smear Nalliah and Scott.

It’s just as well you don’t use your real name on these posts “Skipper”.

My position is:

1. It’s NOT okay to smear ICV.
2. It’s NOT okay to smear Nalliah and Scott.

It IS okay to criticise all of the above IF you can back up your criticisms with facts and logic.

For the rest of us on planet earth, the choices are

1. liar
2. delusional
3. someone whispering to him through the cracks in his dunny ceiling when when is on the bog.
4. Satan was speaking to him.

You can keep us this defence of him, but invariably you will also be tarnished by his views and stupidity.

Since you appear to be his apologist, perhaps you could give me 500 words on why it was OK to speak to the league of rights (on 2 occasions that we know of).

Who told him to go there ? Humphrey B Bear?

The whole tone of your posts are sanctimonious and self righteous, but I note on your web-site, you are not above smearing ICV with someone else’s words.

If its ok to do that to ICV then why should we not staple the league of rights views to Nalliah’s chest? or those of Daniel Scott?