Muslim Australians found to suffer the most

[BigP]

I continue to rack my brains in an attempt to understand why anyone on this forum actually
communicates with this fkn imbecile....

Billy, next time you update your Avatar could you show us a little more titty

[billy the kid]

I continue to rack my brains in an attempt to understand why anyone on this forum actually
communicates with this fkn imbecile....

Billy, next time you update your Avatar could you show us a little more titty

Someone might get offended......

[BigP]

I continue to rack my brains in an attempt to understand why anyone on this forum actually
communicates with this fkn imbecile....

Billy, next time you update your Avatar could you show us a little more titty

Someone might get offended......

Like Bob or Israel folau ? lol

[Nicole]

Muslim Australians found to suffer the 'most disturbing' experiences in public among all faiths - hardly surprising really, considering the venom directed towards them on a daily basis...

Hardly surprising that the author, Sowainih Hanifih, is a victimised third world Muslim:

Another Adelaide woman said her son was on the bus when two men hopped on and said "let's slay them all" as they drove passed the local mosque.

Lol. ABC didn’t even edit it properly, let alone consider the dubious source.

[brian ross]

Your 'tiny minority' equals 15-20% of muslims. That equates to around 400 million worldwide. I wouldn't call 400 million barking mad potential terrorists a 'tiny' minority' by any stretch of the imagination.

World wide is not Australia wide, Black Orchid. I live with and work with Muslim Australians every day of the week and I do not fear them. You, OTOH, appear to run 'round, crossing the street rather than actually come face to face with one. You are the one who fears Muslims in total, Black Orchid, not me nor any other sane person.

Brian I have known more muslims on a personal level than you would have met in a lifetime. I have talked about my muslim friends but according to you I don't know any and your story keeps changing as well. First you worked with a muslim way back when and apparently now you live and work with them daily. I call BS.

Call it what you like. I have served with, studied with, worked with countless Muslims over the decades. I have Muslim neighbours. You live secluded it appears on the North Shore of Sydney Harbour and you fear any contact it seems with any Muslim living anywhere.

So, if you want to call me names call me stupid.

OK, Stupid. Satisfied now?

I don't think you're stupid. I think you're foolish and you allow your prejudices to rule your life. Prejudices which make you believe ordinary, everyday, peaceful, law-abiding Muslims represent some sort of danger to you. You are an Islamophobe, Black Orchid. Simples really.

[The4thEstate]

How horrible to be called terrorists when you belong to a religion that leads the world in terrorism, especially against people of other faiths). It's like Ku Klux Klan members complaining about being called racists.

However, there is a clear difference between the KKK and Muslims, 4E but hey, who'd expect you to understand that?

And hey, who'd expect a guy who can't differentiate between "your" and "you're" to understand what an analogy is?

I never directly compared Muslims to KKK members; I said Muslims who complain about being called terrorists are LIKE KKK members who complain about being called racists. Because it's up to them to change the factual elements that cause their own bad P.R.

If you sign up to the KKK, you show that you believe in it's views on Racism, white supremacy, etc. If you become a Muslim, you then need to become a radicalised Muslim and then you need to join an Islamist group.

Again, it was an analogy. Pull yourself out of that rabbit hole, Brian!

The overwhelming number of Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding people who are more than likely to be the victims of Terrorists, than be Terrorists themselves.

Ah, but it's not such a binary issue as whether or not a Muslim in Western society PARTICIPATES in terrorism. More relevant is how many Muslims embrace attitudes like these:

1. "Only a third of British Muslims would inform the police if they thought that someone they knew is involved with terrorism."
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/euro ... -1.5430023

2. "One in four (27%) British Muslims say they have some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris."
https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/bbc- ... slim-poll/

3. "According to Pew in 2011, about 13 percent of American Muslims said they believe that violence in the name of Islam is justifiable."

Gee, how comforting that only about 450,000 American Muslims champion violence in the name of their religion! Why would any Western nation think twice before admitting Islamic immigrants?

Gee, it's almost like there are two separate groups within Islam - the Terrorists and their victims.

Only because you can't count any higher than 2. You're neglecting to include the Muslim terrorist sympathizers who don't undertake the actual business of infidel slaying -- but support it, either silently or actively, just the same.

Not that an Islamophobe would bother to tell the difference, hey?

Not that a dhimmi wannabe would bother to include terrorist sympathizers, hey?

Google "Global Terrorism Index" (I know you won't bother) and you'll discover that the four most active terrorist groups in recent years have been ISIS (ISIL), Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and the Taliban. Gee, if only we could figure out what they all have in common!

They may have been the most active but they are also a tiny minority compared to the majority of their victims who are also Muslims who don't like the Islamist view on politics and violence.

A "tiny minority" of Islamic terrorists are quite sufficient to commit mass murder in Western nations. How many Islamic hijackers did it take to massacre 3,000 people in the Twin Towers? How many Islamic bombers did it take to murder 300 Sri Lankan Christians on Easter Sunday? How many Islamic truck drivers did it take to crush 89 people in Nice ... and 12 people in Berlin?

For a Western to encounter a Terrorist, they'd have to be extremely unlikely.

And Black Orchid would say: The word you want is "unlucky."

You are more likely to be struck by lightning than encounter a Terrorist.

Gee, that's so true: It's almost laughable that any Christchurch Muslim would be so paranoid as to fear getting shot in a mosque. I mean, how many times in the course of New Zealand history has THAT ever happened ... like, ONCE?

I'd suggest that if Muslims don't like Australia, they can always take their misogynistic death cult back where it came from. How exactly has any modern Western nation been improved by the religion of beards, burqas, bombings and beheadings?

Which Muslims?

Any Muslims who don't like Australia. Which of the multisyllabic words in my sentence did you not understand?

The Terrorists or the peaceful, law-abiding, moderate, well assimilated Muslims who contribute on a daily basis to Australia's economic and social life?

"Contribute on a daily basis to Australia's economic and social life"? Your own government's 2016 census data reveals that "working-age Muslims, compared to people claiming other religious affiliations, had the lowest workforce participation rate at 57 per cent, followed by Buddhists (70 per cent)." https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/ ... ce/9800656

But wait a minute -- the numbers are skewed because so many Muslim women don't work, right? Well ... wrong: "The figures show that the participation rate for Muslim women — at 42 per cent — was the lowest among both sexes ... For men, the picture was similar: Muslim men had the lowest participation rate at 70 per cent."

So it appears that, among all religious groups in Australia, Muslims contribute LEAST to Australia's economic life.

It appears you are an Islamophobe, 4E. Piss off back to your Xenophobic, Islamophobic world.

Gosh, you're right, Brian -- I should be more like you in my attitudes toward Islam. From now on, I'm going to join you in supporting suicide bombings for infidels, genital mutilation for all young females, burqas for all adult women, and death for all homosexuals.

Because what's good enough for Allah is good enough for me!

We can do this, Brian! We can conquer Islamophobia together, you and I! Come on, say it with me now:

"Give me an S ... give me an H ... give me an A ... give me an R ... give me an I ... give me an A! What's that spell?" "Sharia!" "What's that spell? "Sharia!" What's that spell? "SHARIAAAAAAA!"

[IQS.RLOW]

Bri Bri is so woke he makes meth junkies jealous.

[brian ross]

How horrible to be called terrorists when you belong to a religion that leads the world in terrorism, especially against people of other faiths). It's like Ku Klux Klan members complaining about being called racists.

However, there is a clear difference between the KKK and Muslims, 4E but hey, who'd expect you to understand that?

And hey, who'd expect a guy who can't differentiate between "your" and "you're" to understand what an analogy is?

Ooooh, a spelling flame! Ouch, I am just so burnt, 4E. Really, I am.

I never directly compared Muslims to KKK members; I said Muslims who complain about being called terrorists are LIKE KKK members who complain about being called racists. Because it's up to them to change the factual elements that cause their own bad P.R.

Why? They aren't producing the bad PR, the Islamists are. The problem is people like you fail to differentiate between the moderates and the extremists in your Islamophobia. You lump all Muslims together.

If you sign up to the KKK, you show that you believe in it's views on Racism, white supremacy, etc. If you become a Muslim, you then need to become a radicalised Muslim and then you need to join an Islamist group.

Again, it was an analogy. Pull yourself out of that rabbit hole, Brian!

Why? Afraid of where you've lead me? Your the one who walked into it, I am merely following your lead. You don't like it that I have pointed out the clear differences between being a member of the KKK and being a Muslim?

The overwhelming number of Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding people who are more than likely to be the victims of Terrorists, than be Terrorists themselves.

Ah, but it's not such a binary issue as whether or not a Muslim in Western society PARTICIPATES in terrorism. More relevant is how many Muslims embrace attitudes like these:

1. "Only a third of British Muslims would inform the police if they thought that someone they knew is involved with terrorism."
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/euro ... -1.5430023

2. "One in four (27%) British Muslims say they have some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris."
https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/bbc- ... slim-poll/

3. "According to Pew in 2011, about 13 percent of American Muslims said they believe that violence in the name of Islam is justifiable."

Gee, how comforting that only about 450,000 American Muslims champion violence in the name of their religion! Why would any Western nation think twice before admitting Islamic immigrants?

[/quote]

American Muslims are your problem, 4E. I note all your references are several years old. They provide a fine snapshot of Muslim attitudes when they were taken, they do not indicate what Muslims attitudes are now, today. Like all population, attitudes ebb and flow. You should be particularly aware of that, with the election of el Presidente' Trump to the White House being refuted by the majority of the American voters two years later in the mid-term elections...

Gee, it's almost like there are two separate groups within Islam - the Terrorists and their victims.

Only because you can't count any higher than 2. You're neglecting to include the Muslim terrorist sympathizers who don't undertake the actual business of infidel slaying -- but support it, either silently or actively, just the same.

Oh, I can count many times higher than just 2 and I don't even have to take my shoes off to do it, either, 4E. However, as we are boiling the argument basically down to the two major groups, guess what? We talk about the two major groups. You want to talk about the dozen or so different sects/denominations/schools within Islamic belief? You want to about dozens and dozens of different Islamist Terrorist Groups around the world? Or do you, like most Islamophobes just want to lump them all together?

Not that an Islamophobe would bother to tell the difference, hey?

Not that a dhimmi wannabe would bother to include terrorist sympathizers, hey?

Generally they would just be lumped under the term "Terrorists", 4E. It satisfies me, what about you?

Google "Global Terrorism Index" (I know you won't bother) and you'll discover that the four most active terrorist groups in recent years have been ISIS (ISIL), Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and the Taliban. Gee, if only we could figure out what they all have in common!

They may have been the most active but they are also a tiny minority compared to the majority of their victims who are also Muslims who don't like the Islamist view on politics and violence.

A "tiny minority" of Islamic terrorists are quite sufficient to commit mass murder in Western nations. How many Islamic hijackers did it take to massacre 3,000 people in the Twin Towers? How many Islamic bombers did it take to murder 300 Sri Lankan Christians on Easter Sunday? How many Islamic truck drivers did it take to crush 89 people in Nice ... and 12 people in Berlin?

A "tiny minority" are allowed to commit mass murder in Western nations because Western nations by and large allow them to, 4E. You'll note that downunder, we have had a tiny handful of Terrorist attacks and all on an individual basis. Can you guess why? Was it because the moderate Muslims are willing to inform on their Terrorist brethren or was it because our authorities are careful or a combination of both?

For a Western to encounter a Terrorist, they'd have to be extremely unlikely.

And Black Orchid would say: The word you want is "unlucky."

I know what I mean and I am sure you understand what I have typed, 4E. Black Orchid is also right but in a different context. How likely are you to encounter a Islamist Terrorist? Unlikely. QED.

You are more likely to be struck by lightning than encounter a Terrorist.

Gee, that's so true: It's almost laughable that any Christchurch Muslim would be so paranoid as to fear getting shot in a mosque. I mean, how many times in the course of New Zealand history has THAT ever happened ... like, ONCE?

New Zealand, like Australia, is a safe place. The Islamophobe (just like you, hey?) who struck in New Zealand came from Australia. He took advantage of the relatively lax gun laws in New Zealand and he struck an unsuspective, peaceful, moderate Islamic community in Christchurch and murdered two score or more of innocent worshippers. New Zealand had only suffered a single Terrorist incident before that event. Bet you cannot even name it or the perpetrators, hey, 4E?

I'd suggest that if Muslims don't like Australia, they can always take their misogynistic death cult back where it came from. How exactly has any modern Western nation been improved by the religion of beards, burqas, bombings and beheadings?

Which Muslims?

Any Muslims who don't like Australia. Which of the multisyllabic words in my sentence did you not understand?

You didn't make that statement, 4E. You said, "if Muslims", without any qualification. Therefore you meant all Muslims, now didn't you? Tsk, tsk. You used a collective noun, rather than a singular or a qualified one. Such poor English but hey, you're a Journalist, aren't you, by trade so it's understandable. Tell me, do you work for the enemy of the American people, the "fake news" or do you work for Brietbart? From your comments below, I'd say the latter.

The Terrorists or the peaceful, law-abiding, moderate, well assimilated Muslims who contribute on a daily basis to Australia's economic and social life?

"Contribute on a daily basis to Australia's economic and social life"? Your own government's 2016 census data reveals that "working-age Muslims, compared to people claiming other religious affiliations, had the lowest workforce participation rate at 57 per cent, followed by Buddhists (70 per cent)." https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/ ... ce/9800656

But wait a minute -- the numbers are skewed because so many Muslim women don't work, right? Well ... wrong: "The figures show that the participation rate for Muslim women — at 42 per cent — was the lowest among both sexes ... For men, the picture was similar: Muslim men had the lowest participation rate at 70 per cent."

So it appears that, among all religious groups in Australia, Muslims contribute LEAST to Australia's economic life.

Ah, but you're limiting your comments to only half of what I said, 4E, now aren't you? Tsk, tsk, you really do work for the "fake news", now don't you?

Yes, 57% of Muslims aren't working. Compared to the general Australian non-Muslim population, it is still a drop in the ocean, 4E.

It appears you are an Islamophobe, 4E. Piss off back to your Xenophobic, Islamophobic world.

Gosh, you're right, Brian -- I should be more like you in my attitudes toward Islam. From now on, I'm going to join you in supporting suicide bombings for infidels, genital mutilation for all young females, burqas for all adult women, and death for all homosexuals.

Ah, you have evidence that I have ever expressed such opinions, 4E? If you do, please post them here, now.

Otherwise, I will expect a retraction from you. You appear to believe that making unsubstantiated claims about your opponent is fair game. I wonder why? Is that how Journalists in the US work, Mmmm?

Because what's good enough for Allah is good enough for me!

We can do this, Brian! We can conquer Islamophobia together, you and I! Come on, say it with me now:

"Give me an S ... give me an H ... give me an A ... give me an R ... give me an I ... give me an A! What's that spell?" "Sharia!" "What's that spell? "Sharia!" What's that spell? "SHARIAAAAAAA!"

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Looks like you're well away with the fairies.

[IQS.RLOW]

You appear to believe that making unsubstantiated claims about your opponent is fair game. I wonder why?

[The4thEstate]

And hey, who'd expect a guy who can't differentiate between "your" and "you're" to understand what an analogy is?

Ooooh, a spelling flame! Ouch, I am just so burnt, 4E. Really, I am.

Burn you? Gracious sakes, why would I want to do that?

Really, I'm just trying to be helpful, like you are when you take it upon yourself to tell Black Orchid that she picked the wrong word. Because we're all here for each other, right?

I never directly compared Muslims to KKK members; I said Muslims who complain about being called terrorists are LIKE KKK members who complain about being called racists. Because it's up to them to change the factual elements that cause their own bad P.R.

Why? They aren't producing the bad PR, the Islamists are. The problem is people like you fail to differentiate between the moderates and the extremists in your Islamophobia. You lump all Muslims together.

Oh, I forgot: Since you invented the Islamist Detector, it's a simple matter to discern which Muslims are susceptible to Sudden Jihad Syndrome and which ones aren't.

Think of all the lives that would have been saved if only your invention had come along before 9/11! Or, for that matter, Easter Sunday 2019.

Ah, but it's not such a binary issue as whether or not a Muslim in Western society PARTICIPATES in terrorism. More relevant is how many Muslims embrace attitudes like these:

1. "Only a third of British Muslims would inform the police if they thought that someone they knew is involved with terrorism."
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/euro ... -1.5430023

2. "One in four (27%) British Muslims say they have some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris."
https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/bbc- ... slim-poll/

3. "According to Pew in 2011, about 13 percent of American Muslims said they believe that violence in the name of Islam is justifiable."

American Muslims are your problem, 4E. I note all your references are several years old. They provide a fine snapshot of Muslim attitudes when they were taken, they do not indicate what Muslims attitudes are now, today. Like all population, attitudes ebb and flow. You should be particularly aware of that, with the election of el Presidente' Trump to the White House being refuted by the majority of the American voters two years later in the mid-term elections...

The first two are from 2015 and 2016. If you've got more recent poll data that shows a marked difference in Muslim attitudes about terrorism, by all means present the links and show me the error of my ways.

Oh, I can count many times higher than just 2 and I don't even have to take my shoes off to do it, either, 4E.

Congratulations, that's progress!

However, as we are boiling the argument basically down to the two major groups, guess what? We talk about the two major groups. You want to talk about the dozen or so different sects/denominations/schools within Islamic belief? You want to about dozens and dozens of different Islamist Terrorist Groups around the world? Or do you, like most Islamophobes just want to lump them all together?

I want to talk about the Muslims who condone violence and wouldn't lift a finger to stop it even if they knew about the plot beforehand. Apparently, as the polls indicate, that's a larger number than you'd care to admit.

If you think I exaggerate the threat caused by practitioners of the Religion of Peace, let's consider other refugee groups. How many times have you heard about U.S. terrorism caused by the descendants of immigrant Vietnamese boat people in California, or Cubans in Miami, or Hmongs in Wisconsin? Ever wonder why immigrants from nearly every other ethnic group manage to assimilate into Western society without feeling an irrepressible need to slaughter innocent men, women and children of other faiths in the name of their god?

Not that an Islamophobe would bother to tell the difference, hey?

Not that a dhimmi wannabe would bother to include terrorist sympathizers, hey?

Generally they would just be lumped under the term "Terrorists", 4E. It satisfies me, what about you?

Nope, terrorists carry out the slaughter; sympathizers quietly support it while claiming they had no idea it was going to happen.

They may have been the most active but they are also a tiny minority compared to the majority of their victims who are also Muslims who don't like the Islamist view on politics and violence.

A "tiny minority" of Islamic terrorists are quite sufficient to commit mass slaughter in Western nations. How many Islamic hijackers did it take to massacre 3,000 people in the Twin Towers? How many Islamic bombers did it take to murder 300 Sri Lankan Christians on Easter Sunday? How many Islamic truck drivers did it take to crush 89 men, women and children in Nice ... and 12 more in Berlin?

A "tiny minority" are allowed to commit mass murder in Western nations because Western nations by and large allow them to, 4E. You'll note that downunder, we have had a tiny handful of Terrorist attacks and all on an individual basis. Can you guess why? Was it because the moderate Muslims are willing to inform on their Terrorist brethren or was it because our authorities are careful or a combination of both?

The obvious reason that Australia has less Islamic terrorism than, say, France is that Muslims represent 2.6 percent of all Australians and 8.8 percent of all French. If and when the Muslim population of Australia reaches 8.8 percent, we'll take another look at the frequency of terrorism.

After all, when was the last time you heard about terrorism in Hungary and Poland, who had the stones to tell the EU what it could do with its hordes of imported Islamic refugees? As the Polish expression goes, "Not my circus, not my monkeys."

Next ...

You are more likely to be struck by lightning than encounter a Terrorist.

Gee, that's so true: It's almost laughable that any Christchurch Muslim would be so paranoid as to fear getting shot in a mosque. I mean, how many times in the course of New Zealand history has THAT ever happened ... like, ONCE?

New Zealand, like Australia, is a safe place. The Islamophobe (just like you, hey?) who struck in New Zealand came from Australia.

You just said New Zealand and Australia were safe places. That's an interesting definition of "safe."

He took advantage of the relatively lax gun laws in New Zealand and he struck an unsuspective, peaceful, moderate Islamic community in Christchurch and murdered two score or more of innocent worshippers. New Zealand had only suffered a single Terrorist incident before that event. Bet you cannot even name it or the perpetrators, hey, 4E?

Nor am I interested, because that has nothing to do with my point -- i.e., Muslim fears of being gunned down following a single anti-Muslim terrorist incident in New Zealand. Here, look at how positively awful it is for Muslims around the world! This from Florida:
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/ ... rylink=cpy

"She added that although there is enthusiasm for the Ramadan celebrations, some families are debating whether to go to their mosques to pray and break the daily fast because of security fears. 'It’s not panic, but it’s worrisome,' she noted. 'People feel that if it happened in New Zealand, it can happen here.'”

I would think you'd take it upon yourself to tell them how ridiculous their concerns are, given the minuscule incidence of mass shootings in mosques. Gee, they'd have a better chance of getting struck by lightning, right?

I'd suggest that if Muslims don't like Australia, they can always take their misogynistic death cult back where it came from. How exactly has any modern Western nation been improved by the religion of beards, burqas, bombings and beheadings?

Which Muslims?

Any Muslims who don't like Australia. Which of the multisyllabic words in my sentence did you not understand?

You didn't make that statement, 4E. You said, "if Muslims", without any qualification. Therefore you meant all Muslims, now didn't you? Tsk, tsk. You used a collective noun, rather than a singular or a qualified one. Such poor English but hey, you're a Journalist, aren't you, by trade so it's understandable. Tell me, do you work for the enemy of the American people, the "fake news" or do you work for Brietbart? From your comments below, I'd say the latter.

All Muslims who don't like Australia, yes. No further qualifications are needed in that sentence, wannabe editor.

It's no different from me writing, "If kids feel rebellious toward their parents, they should stop and count their blessings" and you moronically arguing that I was talking about every kid in the world.

The Terrorists or the peaceful, law-abiding, moderate, well assimilated Muslims who contribute on a daily basis to Australia's economic and social life?

"Contribute on a daily basis to Australia's economic and social life"? Your own government's 2016 census data reveals that "working-age Muslims, compared to people claiming other religious affiliations, had the lowest workforce participation rate at 57 per cent, followed by Buddhists (70 per cent)." https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/ ... ce/9800656

But wait a minute -- the numbers are skewed because so many Muslim women don't work, right? Well ... wrong: "The figures show that the participation rate for Muslim women — at 42 per cent — was the lowest among both sexes ... For men, the picture was similar: Muslim men had the lowest participation rate at 70 per cent."

So it appears that, among all religious groups in Australia, Muslims contribute LEAST to Australia's economic life.

Ah, but you're limiting your comments to only half of what I said, 4E, now aren't you? Tsk, tsk, you really do work for the "fake news", now don't you?

Darn, I must have missed the forum rule that requires me to comment on everything you post, no matter how mundane. Perhaps you could quote it for me.

Yes, 57% of Muslims aren't working. Compared to the general Australian non-Muslim population, it is still a drop in the ocean, 4E.

Except that I wasn't comparing Muslims to the "general Australian non-Muslim population." I was comparing them to other ethnic religious groups, which underscores the fact that they're the most likely to be out of work.

Goodness, what ideal candidates for immigration! Everyone knows that Australians make far more money than they know what to do with, so what a perfect way to dispose of all those government handouts that otherwise would have never been spent.

It appears you are an Islamophobe, 4E. Piss off back to your Xenophobic, Islamophobic world.

Gosh, you're right, Brian -- I should be more like you in my attitudes toward Islam. From now on, I'm going to join you in supporting suicide bombings for infidels, genital mutilation for all young females, burqas for all adult women, and death for all homosexuals.

Ah, you have evidence that I have ever expressed such opinions, 4E? If you do, please post them here, now.

Well, you're the resident defender of Islam. So one would surmise that you embrace the entire package and aren't into cafeteria Islam.

So if you don't endorse some or all of these common Islamic practices, then by all means state for the record which of these you reject.

Otherwise, I will expect a retraction from you. You appear to believe that making unsubstantiated claims about your opponent is fair game. I wonder why? Is that how Journalists in the US work, Mmmm?

Says the dude who screams, "Islamophobe" at the drop of a hijab.

But it seems that in this case I really bruised your tender feelings. Gosh, how horrible I feel!

Tell you what -- my secretary handles administrative journalistic matters. And her name is Helen Waite. So if you want a retraction from me, you're welcome to go to Helen Waite.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Looks like you're well away with the fairies.

Which ones besides you?