Roylion

From Philsworld

Roylion is a troll who attacked me on both Big Footy and the SA Footy Forum.

I first collided with him over the Australian Constitution and the White Australia Policy on Big Footy. His behaviour wasn't a part of my general spat on Big Footy but his ignorance was (and I use this word negatively) breath taking.

The root of the problem was this remark from me;

“No one challenged it at the time, but every single thing that the government did for the Aborigines until 1967 was unconstitutional. Had the government been really serious about integration, the constitution would have been amended a lot sooner. The relationship between treatment of Aborigines and the White Australian policy stems from that. The refusal to amend the constitution for so long.”

~ Timelord on Big Footy Forum on October 13, 2004

This was in reply to Roylion's claim that the White Australia Policy was not used to explain or justify a systemic attack on the Aborigines in the 1950's. He added Acts of Parliament that were introduced before 1967 - hence my remark.

“Which part of the Australian constitution before 1967 was breached as a result of the government's policy on Aboriginals?”

~ Roylion on Big Footy Forum on October 13, 2004

This was a deliberate trick question to avoid my point. He was mixing up the Constitution with the White Australia Policy. I didn't pick this up at the time, and I followed the Constitution side of it.

“The part that said that the Aboriginals were not reckoned part of the population (ie they didn't exist)”

~ Timelord on Big Footy Forum on October 13, 2004

That attracted a completely dumb response from Roylion.

“How can something be unconstitutional when it's not in the constitution? Can you please tell me how "every single thing that the government did for the Aborigines until 1967 was unconstitutional"? What part of the pre-1967 constitution was breached by the various Aboriginal Acts that were enacted by state and federal governments?”

~ Roylion on Big Footy Forum on October 13, 2004

He totally ignored my previous note! Typical troll! So I pressed the point.

“You need a pre 1967 copy of constitution, then you'll see it clear as glass. The Aborigines were not reckoned part of the population and were therefore not entitled to special treatment. The 1967 referendum removed that reference and therefore that restriction.”

~ Timelord on Big Footy Forum on October 13, 2004

That should have explained it - but oh no....

“Nevertheless they were living in Australia's territory. So which clause of the constitution was violated? Did the Privy Council or the High Court deem the Acts unconstitutional? If so, on what grounds and which clause was the culprit?”

~ Roylion on Big Footy Forum on October 13, 2004

Yet again - he wasn't listening to a word I was saying! In reply I referred again to the Constitution (still being more patient than I probably should have been) and I wasn't helped by the fact that I couldn't find my copy of it at the time. But even with that....

“So before 1967, how was the various Acts already mentioned unconstitutional, as you suggested?”

~ Roylion on Big Footy Forum on October 13, 2004

Still he wouldn't listen! And I'd had enough and I departed the thread in question. But when he posted and stated that I'd effectively backed down I fired off a PM to him, and then shut my PM's off. His response was to put a reply on the thread, and I'll pick up some stupid quotes;

“It’s clear that his statement that “The Aborigines were not reckoned part of the population and were therefore not entitled to special treatment” was incorrect. Special laws were needed for the Aboriginals (made by the states) as evidenced by the relevant State Electoral Acts and other Aboriginal legislation, as well to reference to Aboriginals in the relevant Electoral Acts such as the Commonwealth Franchise Act of 1902. If timelord is correct, the 1962, Commonwealth Electoral Act which gave all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders the right to vote in federal elections also must have been unconstitutional, as it was five years before the 1967 referendum.”

~ Roylion on Big Footy Forum on October 14, 2004

Every Act that in any way gave the Aborigines special treatment was unconstitutional prior to 1967. As far as Roylion was concerned, because it wasn't challenged it was fine - so I was wrong. I was not wrong. If someone had challenged it, the High COurt WOULD have ruled it unconstitutional.

The other issue with the White Australia Policy was that Roylion was sticking to the line that it was strictly an immigration policy and had nothing to do with the Aborigines. Whilst the thrust of the policy was intended for immigration only, that's not how it was used. The Stolen Generation is a great example of the application of the White Australia Policy - trying to break up the Aboriginal culture by putting children into the white system and breaking up families in the process. But Roylion didn't understand that did he? Noooooo!

My final post ever on Big Footy pretty much covered that in detail and I won't repeat it here, and he didn't reply.

I thought that was the end of him, but we clashed again on the SA Footy Forum - this time over the Fitzroy FC debacle. I posted on a thread talking about how Fitzroy was "murdered" in 1996 and explained my point of view regarding the Lions bringing it on themselves and that they should have shifted to the VFA when they had the chance. They shouldn't blame the AFL.

A few other people commented, before Roylion came in and called my comments "unsupported". And when I explained, he basically didn't believe me - and then when I advised that I would go and seek proof he back flipped! It was then that I recognised him as a troll and deleted all my posts on that thread except for the first one. And his response to be called a troll later on?

“Perhaps you should look up the definition of a 'troll'. Clearly you don't know what that means either. I wasn't spouting provactive statements to engender a response from you. Nor was I posting inflammatory, messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize.”

~ Roylion on SA Footy Forum on October 8, 2006

“I'm not "after you".”

~ Roylion on SA Footy Forum on October 8, 2006

He was doing everything he said he wasn't doing. But when someone suggested on another thread that I agreed with him about something, I said that I didn't know whether I did or didn't and I didn't care either - because I didn't read posts by trolls. And off he went again.

“As I have said previously, I haven't spouted provactive statements to engender a response. Nor have I posted inflammatory, messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize.”

~ Roylion on SA Footy Forum on November 30, 2006

That caused me to take the risk and tell him he was doing everything he said he wasn't doing, and kept it short and to the point. He went overboard trying to prove I was wrong, and in fact he proved me right by repeating his behaviour. Someone else thought the Fitzroy thread battle was on again, but I finally got the last word in with this;

“No, GWW - it goes no further. He just doesn't get it. Every time he posts he antagonises me. That's his intention. He just won't admit it - that's all. He's seeking my attention and he's not going to get it. I had a feeling I was wasting my time. But then that's a troll all over. Not worth the effort. Especially when they deliberately get definitions wrong to avoid the obvious. Anyway - we move on..... (PS - and if Roylion responds to this with more of the same he'll prove my point)”

~ Timelord on SA Footy Forum on December 3, 2006

And guess what? He didn't reply. Probably thought he'd proved me wrong, but it was a deliberate stunt to shut him up. And it worked.

Well, for awhile at least. When I told someone else that Fitzroy bankrupted themselves, he came back again.

“Unfortunately he won't be able to support his claim that Fitzroy bankrupted themselves. Moreover when I refute his points, he'll just delete his posts, call me a troll and depart....with the occasional future gibe about Fitzroy. And so the cycle will continue.”

~ Roylion on SA Footy Forum on May 6, 2007

There aren't any posts to delete now. Anyway, I said my piece and that's the end of it. And the cycle will continue because what I said about him being a troll is true. Funny how he ONLY shows up when I "jibe" Fitzroy. And when I simply noted that the troll was back;

“If you truly think your comments about Fitzroy are correct then let's debate the facts here.”