Aussie wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 8:46pm:



the whole creative-writing concept utterly eludes you, dont it? the reason I dont believe you were ever a lawyer is that whenever there is an opportunity to demonstrate some of those skills you make a fool of yourself.  Even a lamo lawyer could construct a reasonable justification and case for almost any position and yet, your attempt was so weak, so pitifully pathetic that I was surprised at just how poor it was. 'I dont care' was the 3 word slogan you could have used instead.  A real lawyer would have made a much better attempt.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 8:55pm:


I never signed up for a test on 'creative writing.'  I took your challenge to produce an opinion piece on a subject I was opposed to, as set by you.  I produced the piece.  "Lawyers" are not professional creative writers.  We write or orate or address based on facts or precedent, not imagination.

Have you agreed to write an opinion piece supporting the proposition ~ 'The Virgin Birth of Jesus never happened?'

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 10:35am:


No, Longy, in our game, we have to pretend we give a krap. I've got paedophilia. Aussie has slavery. The Holocaust is still up for grabs. You're out of the running.

You're free to sneer from the sidelines.

Gay Incest.

I support it completely.  Why not?  I guess Gay Incest involves sexual activity between brothers, or a father and son, male cousins, and similarly between sisters, a mother and daughter and female cousins.  Throw in aunts and uncles with nieces and nephews, and there you have a very unproductive melting pot, but presumably heights of passion.  (There’s  that word ~ passion, and I’ll come back to it.)

Exactly what is the problem with any of that, assuming it occurs (as the Law will require) with adult consent, and lack of power balance or any sense of compulsion.  If there is appropriate consent in the sense the Law and everyone would expect, why not?

Historically, I am sure there will be plenty of examples but I can’t be bothered looking.  It is irrelevant to my point.  Why ought we concern ourselves with the intercourse of whatever kind between two people if and when there is absolutely no negative to it?  If two brother blokes want to play tennis, and they get their jollies doing it, why should I or you care?  It’s none of our bloody business, is it.  Two brother blokes wrestle in the Olympic Games….get all very close and personal, and one gets an erection.  Embarrassing for him but, so what?  And……who cares if the combatants are brothers?  No me.  Why, you?

Way back at the dawn of prude, incest was frowned upon.  It was a genetic thing, or concern.  Not so much a social taboo, but explained on the basis that defects in the dna would be spread and thus the herd would be weakened.  I don’t even subscribe to that theory, because, at the end of the day, Mr Darwin’s theory of evolution blows it out of the water…..the fittest survive, so that’s the end of that wimpy whinge. 

So if two of the same sex get at it and there is zero chance of reproduction, who cares, and if so, why.  Buggered if I can think of any logical reason.  Precious pups like the ‘flake melielongtime of the righteous (???) indignation’ will drag out biblical propaganda and tell us that those who get their rocks off with their immediate family are doooooooomed to hell and damnation for eternity.  Oh well, there are always voodoo snake oil salesman on just about any topic.

What sort of test is applicable here.  Is it a NIMBY?  Is it the Pub Test?  Is it the recently developed ‘sniff test?’ Is it biological?  Nah, it cannot be that as is bleedingly obvious.  What are we left with?  Well, why ought it bother you if two brothers were living next door, and you knew they were screwing the crap out of each other? Seriously! 

Why is that any skin off your nose, any more than it worries you not that Mr and Mrs Deepthroat are doing the same at the other ‘next door?’

The ‘Pub Test.’  Yeas, I can imagine all those tradies, and bar flies swilling their schooners  to skin full level, and convincing each other ~ (before they left for home to beat the sheet out of their spouses and probably their kids) fist pumping their breasts and saying, “bloody poofter brothers, let’s get ‘em.  Hang ‘em high,” ~ that this is a real threat to their bar-room heroics.

As for the sniff failure.   Yeas, I can see it, but I reject it as bigotry.

At the end of the day, we are left with two people, brothers, sisters etc, who for reasons I cannot explain, are passionate about exploring sexual pleasure with each other.  Let them have their way I say. 

Why not!

Aussie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 6:25pm:




Actually I posted that story a couple of months ago, and the two brothers involved were utterly revolted by what they had done, so for all your wankery you forgot the most important aspect of the story even the participants were revolted and knew it was wrong.


But your statements looks much like the justifications given by active child rapists for their predilections as well, sometimes wrong is just wrong.

John Smith wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 4:27pm:


Posted the entire OP, not a lot about this being an exercise in prose, maybe should have been in the first sentence rather than as an ring covering exercise on the second age.

What do you think?

I'm doing the topic I posted about slavery.  I am not a 'fake lawyer,' and every time you post that, yet another false assertion makes me laugh at you, and your insecurity.