> > If your jaundiced views of non-Australians are shared by most > > Australians (as you claim) it then makes me sick that some many > > returning UK Olympic athletes are being so fulsome in their praise of > > Australia and in particular the way in which the Olympics were run. Of > > course some of the women vaulters won't but that was a small part of a > > big event.
> :-) Most Australians share my sense of humour and my hatred of cats
ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Bron - YOU have 2 cats. Do you hate them too ?
, i'm
> wondering how that ties in with the Olympic Games?
> > Personally, since top athletes are generally intelligent people, I > > suspect people as outraged by anything not Australian as you are > > actually *not* in the majority.
> :-) Most Australians share my sense of humour and my hatred of cats,
ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Bron - YOU have 2 cats. Do you hate them too ?
i'm
> wondering how that ties in with the Olympic Games?
> > I think it's time for you to grow up and accept that in every country > > across the world we have to live with what our forebears did. Genocide, > > racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, colonialism and so on. If we all adopt > > your attitudes WW3 will be just round the next corner.
> :-) It all made sense until the last bit. The issue is to LEARN from our > mistakes, which Bob is unable to do. It irritates the hell out of me when > there are losers in this world who say "oh well, what's done is done".
LEARN from your mistakes ? Ahem ! Time you started dealing with the real issue - i.e. man. But as Surfer says, we have to get along. You really do present such inconsistent arguments Bron, it's laughable. You lose credibility at every turn.
> > You should live and let live, and try to leave the world a better place > > than you found it without offending most of it's inhabitants. You > > probably offend some Australians as well as people in the rest of the > > world.
> I'm not that fussed if I offend humans, as long as I do my bit for the > environment. Humans are easy to offend because they're arrogant and > opinionated. Who cares? I want Australia to remain a nice place for it's > native animals and I aim to keep it that way. See the article on the > upcoming Canberra legislation, my local representative is voting YES :-)
Hmmmmmmm yes, you drive an expensive car do you not ? Probably gives shitty mpg too. Good on ya Bron for YET another inconsistent argument. And you think you're not arogant and opinionated ???????????????? I think you want Aus to BECOME a place where it is illegal for your neighbours cat to shit in your garden or scratch your car.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bron" <m...@where.am.i>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.cat,alt.animals.felines,aus.pets,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pe t s.cats.misc Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 4:15 AM Subject: Re: Terrible Web Site GONE
> > Cars are just lumps of metal, glass, rubber and plastic for getting from A > > to B.
> and cats are simply lumps of gooey stuff wrapped in a little fur coat, > what's your point?
So are your 2 cats. What's your point ?
> > If you don't want it damaged, don't drive it !
> and if you don't want your cat euthenased, don't let it outside. BTW I > bought my car to drive, not for cats to troll over.
> >What about stonechips ?
> It's got a carbra
What's one of those ? A massive perspex shield ?
> > Do you have AAA to shoot down any birds that come near too ?
AAA? Actually when a bird poops on my car (and I'm assuming that's what > you're referring to?) I simply wash it & polish it .. no lasting damage. > Can't polish out cat scratches.
> > I've had a car > > nigh on written off by a drunk driver. I was snug in bed. My car was > parked > > in the street overnight. Guess who ended up paying because the police > > couldn't catch the guy who did it due to overstrained resources ? It's > just > > a lump of metal, so who really cares ? I don't.
> Your insurance company? I got rearended by a young lad once, lots of damage > but him & his panelbeater dad took full responsiblity for the accident and > fixed my car up better than new .. so what's your point?
Yeah ! Right Bron........... Money really does grow on trees you know..................... sigh....................... I take it HUBBY sorts out all stuff financial in your house. There are such things as insurance excess, and no claims bonus. In this case, it was a close run thing between repair costs, and sum of excess, plus increased premiums over the next few years due to lost no claims bonus. But because plod (the police) couldn't get the drunk driver, I ended up paying. But who cares ?
> > I don't hate people who have different views. They are entitled to them. > > However, I am a realist. When I feel people are not realistic, I tell > them.
> Yes, we should all accept the superiority of cats and the imminent demise of > our native wildlife.
Errrrrrrrrm lets say our ultimate demise shall we ? Until man started fiddling with nature/changing the environment, this planet was doing fine by itself. Whilst I feel there needs to be more data collected on environmental issues, I remain convinced that we, the human race (yes ! I include myself, but my g/f thinks I'm an alien), will ultimately ruin this planet, and obviously our ecosystem. We must be careful to take the RIGHT actions.
> > Bron has 2 cats, or have you missed that ? The other issue is this : to be > a > > good neighbour, you have to be tolerant to a degree at least of your > > neighbours needs too. What about kids playing in the street ? What about > > people having parties, dogs barking, etc ? I agree with you on the subject > > of good neighbours - I am very lucky where I live. I hope it stays that > way.
> Actually, all that is true and simply goes to prove my point. Cat owners > who let their cats outside are not good neighbours. I despise barking dogs > & loud parties but there is legislation to cover both in Australia.
> > As a point of reference, way back in the 17th century over here, we had a > > massive plague, just before the great fire of London. The cats were > actually > > helping to keep the rats at bay, as is there predatory role, but they were > > our allies. The rats and their fleas were spreading the plague, not the > > cats.
> Now we don't need cats, we have doctors and medicine :-)
So why do we have them as pets ? As ornaments ? In which case, why do you have them ? I have them because they are loving, I love them too, and they are good fun.
> >And who did we end up persecuting, and why ? The cats, through > > ignorance and fear. So I ask people to just for once be absolutely certain > > of the facts before they embark on programs of eradication.
> The facts are well known & continued to be studied by those with an > interest.
Reading between the lines : you have no valid references to cite ?
how can something be 41% out ? Do you mean 59% made up ? In which case, please explain for the rest of us how you came up with this figure, which is, I suspect inaccurate to 10 significant figures (i.e. 100% bullshit) ?
Andy
"Bob Brenchley." <B...@Format.Publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
> >> Well you never bother to post anything based on facts so what do you > >> do with them?
> >Bob,
> >Might I suggest that you have posted NOTHING based on facts except some > >comment about aboriginal deaths in custody and your "fact" was about 41% out > >(ie, you made it up).
> >Bron
> You may like to refer to your Aboriginal Rights Movement.
> -- > Bob.
> Looking forward to the start of the new millennium on January 1st > 2001.
In article <39d8e...@iridium.webone.com.au>, Bron <m...@where.am.i> writes
>"Surfer!" <nevis-v...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >news:B8v1lVAMQG25EwOM@nevis-view.demon.co.uk... <snip> >> I think it's time for you to grow up and accept that in every country >> across the world we have to live with what our forebears did. Genocide, >> racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, colonialism and so on. If we all adopt >> your attitudes WW3 will be just round the next corner.
>:-) It all made sense until the last bit. The issue is to LEARN from our >mistakes, which Bob is unable to do. It irritates the hell out of me when >there are losers in this world who say "oh well, what's done is done".
it's not being a loser to accept that what's done is done. the past cannot be altered and being unpleasant to people from other countries because of what their parents, grandparents & so on did is totally pointless and counterproductive.
What on earth do you say to Germans and Japanese? The Japanese by our lights treated hundreds of thousands of allied POWs appallingly, and a great many died in their concentration and work camps. However Japanese are now one of the largest groups of tourists in Australia. The people visiting Australia (and the UK and US) are *not* the ones who killed, tortured and maimed. Ditto Germany and the Jews. Millions were killed in the concentration camps, but to carry on treating all Germans as if they personally herded Jews into the gas chambers would be to start the kind of blood feud which is still the curse of some parts of Europe.
>> You should live and let live, and try to leave the world a better place >> than you found it without offending most of it's inhabitants. You >> probably offend some Australians as well as people in the rest of the >> world.
>I'm not that fussed if I offend humans, as long as I do my bit for the >environment.
See below. Offending people makes it hard to 'do your bit for the environment' as they will simply stop listening to you.
> Humans are easy to offend because they're arrogant and >opinionated.
You have certainly shown yourself to be so.
> Who cares? I want Australia to remain a nice place for it's >native animals and I aim to keep it that way.
If you want to influence people offending them is not a very effective way of doing it. In fact it is usually counter-productive. It's also rather hopeful to suggest that Australia is a 'nice place' for it's native animals. The sheep walks are not. Neither are the built-up areas (of course some people will have gardens containing only native plants appropriate to the bit of Australia they live in), the banana plantations, the mines and so on. Not to mention Maralinga. But bashing poms (or people from any other country) bashing will not help you in your worthy cause. Do you find offending people at work helps you to be influential? I doubt it.
> See the article on the >upcoming Canberra legislation, my local representative is voting YES :-)
PS how would you have felt if the animal which scratched your car was not a cat, but a native Australian species? I'm sure a kangaroo (any kind) could do it a lot more damage than some scratches, and koalas are hardly nice cuddly toys.
> In article <39d79...@iridium.webone.com.au>, Bron <m...@where.am.i> writes
> If your jaundiced views of non-Australians are shared by most > Australians (as you claim) it then makes me sick that some many > returning UK Olympic athletes are being so fulsome in their praise of > Australia and in particular the way in which the Olympics were run. Of > course some of the women vaulters won't but that was a small part of a > big event.
:-) Most Australians share my sense of humour and my hatred of cats, i'm wondering how that ties in with the Olympic Games?
> Personally, since top athletes are generally intelligent people, I > suspect people as outraged by anything not Australian as you are > actually *not* in the majority.
:-) Most Australians share my sense of humour and my hatred of cats, i'm wondering how that ties in with the Olympic Games?
> I think it's time for you to grow up and accept that in every country > across the world we have to live with what our forebears did. Genocide, > racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, colonialism and so on. If we all adopt > your attitudes WW3 will be just round the next corner.
:-) It all made sense until the last bit. The issue is to LEARN from our mistakes, which Bob is unable to do. It irritates the hell out of me when there are losers in this world who say "oh well, what's done is done".
> You should live and let live, and try to leave the world a better place > than you found it without offending most of it's inhabitants. You > probably offend some Australians as well as people in the rest of the > world.
I'm not that fussed if I offend humans, as long as I do my bit for the environment. Humans are easy to offend because they're arrogant and opinionated. Who cares? I want Australia to remain a nice place for it's native animals and I aim to keep it that way. See the article on the upcoming Canberra legislation, my local representative is voting YES :-)
Blimy How did the cat thing go there?>Oilyimpics I thought this waz a catty kinda place. And being a catty kinda place i thought it may be a nice place??? Hmmm Dave K S111 v8 www.daves-landy.co.uk
"Debbie Faison" <dfai...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:26:58 +1000, "Bron" <m...@where.am.i> wrote:
> >Page 2 Canberra Times ... Sunday 1st October
> >and I quote:
> >"Canberra pet owners could be directed to keep their cats inside under new > >legislation to be debated this month. Three key elements in the proposed > >legislation include compulsory desexing of cats, with a few exemptions, > >mandatory identification, and ministerial power to declare a cat must be > >kept in it's owner's home."
Whilst licking their paws in alt.animals.cat on Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:29:17 +0100, "andy.laubscher" <andy.laubsc...@ntlworld.com> purred the following:
:)Dearest Bron, :) :)how can something be 41% out ? Do you mean 59% made up ? In which case, :)please explain for the rest of us how you came up with this figure, which :)is, I suspect inaccurate to 10 significant figures (i.e. 100% bullshit) ?
From what I remember, Bob stated that 60% of deaths in custody were Aboriginal. Bron quoted a recent study showing that the figure was 19%. That made Bob 41% "out".
Look, Bron and I don't agree on everything. I posted something earlier today that was against something Bron said. But when someone is right, they are right.
So I am sorry, but your suspicions were incorrect, in this case at least.
My cats are inside, not eating birds or shitting in gardens or scratching up cars, or f.cking under other peoples bedrooms windows... what's YOUR point?
> What's one of those ? A massive perspex shield ?
It's a little cover thingy that covers the front of the car. It's made out of heavy duty material of some sort and leaves the front of the car undamaged. You don't have them?
> Yeah ! Right Bron........... Money really does grow on trees you > know..................... sigh.......................
It doesn't?
> I take it HUBBY sorts > out all stuff financial in your house.
What a sexist thing to say. :-) You think he earns all the money too?
>There are such things as insurance > excess, and no claims bonus.
Hmmmm... if my car gets hit by someone else I don't have to pay an excess or lose my no claim bonus. Who the hell are you insured with?
> In this case, it was a close run thing between > repair costs, and sum of excess, plus increased premiums over the next few > years due to lost no claims bonus. But because plod (the police) couldn't > get the drunk driver, I ended up paying. But who cares ?
In that case, you do and you would be justified. I've never that unlucky (touch wood).
> Errrrrrrrrm lets say our ultimate demise shall we ? Until man started > fiddling with nature/changing the environment, this planet was doing fine by > itself. Whilst I feel there needs to be more data collected on environmental > issues, I remain convinced that we, the human race (yes ! I include myself, > but my g/f thinks I'm an alien), will ultimately ruin this planet, and > obviously our ecosystem. We must be careful to take the RIGHT actions.
I agree, I just disagree with the methods I guess.
> So why do we have them as pets ? As ornaments ? In which case, why do you > have them ? I have them because they are loving, I love them too, and they > are good fun.
I have them because my kids begged me to get them. Now I feed them, brush them, change their kitty litters, put them in and out of the cat run, pat them, talk to them .. whilst the kids do their own thing (generally involving a nintendo or playstation).
> Reading between the lines : you have no valid references to cite ?
Not without spending time on the net finding one (which I would), however I have better things to do tonight.
> how can something be 41% out ? Do you mean 59% made up ? In which case, > please explain for the rest of us how you came up with this figure, which > is, I suspect inaccurate to 10 significant figures (i.e. 100% bullshit) ?
I meant that he said 60%, the figure is actually 19% .. thus he added 41% to the true figure in order to make it sound impressive. You are right, his comment was 100% bullshit, however to give him credit ... in 1993/94 19% of deaths in custody were our indigineous friends.
> Whilst licking their paws in alt.animals.cat on Tue, 3 Oct 2000
> But I definately don't agree about UK bashing.
What!!! You would have us give up our national pasttime? Next thing you will be saying to leave the kiwis alone! Pah! :-)-
> Yes, I have a sense of > humour, but I think the personal attacks have gone a bit far. I don't > operate that way and, generally, people on this ng realise this I > think. In fact I love the UK and really want to visit someday :))
:-) Well, I do have to admit that there are parts that interest me. Wales, Scotland, Stonehenge ... but I think if you've photographed them once, thats all you really need to remind yourself ... plenty of other countries to go. I think i'd like to visit Canada, or perhaps Russia again ......
> ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Bron - YOU have 2 cats. Do you hate them too ?
Oooops ... retract & replace "cats" with "outside cats". My apologies.
> LEARN from your mistakes ? Ahem ! Time you started dealing with the real > issue - i.e. man. But as Surfer says, we have to get along. You really do > present such inconsistent arguments Bron, it's laughable. You lose > credibility at every turn.
Andy, there isn't much we can do about man except educate him. Cats and other vermin are a problem we can address in a more positive way. Hopefully when the irresponsible see how much better the ecosystem is doing without the vermin, they may think twice about their attitude. But it might be a moot point here if the legislation passes and cat owners are FORCED to leave their cats indoors.
> Hmmmmmmm yes, you drive an expensive car do you not ? Probably gives shitty > mpg too.
There's an assumption. It's quite good on petrol, being a teeny weeny 4 cylinder Toyota Celica ..
>Good on ya Bron for YET another inconsistent argument.
Actually not quite, you made an Assofyourself .. ooops, I mean an assumption. I purchased a small, economical but expensive car. Runs on unleaded, I keep it tuned for best performance to minimise petrol usage. If I lived in a country such as the UK I probably wouldn't own a car at all, however as I am unable to perform my work duties without being able to move around from site to site I am forced to have a car.
>I think you want > Aus to BECOME a place where it is illegal for your neighbours cat to shit in > your garden or scratch your car.
> >> Now if they are prepared to do the same with dogs, children, teenagers & > >> drunkards Canberra may suddenly look like quite a nice place to live.
> >I agree with the dogs, but as children, teenagers and drunkards aren't a > >problem in Canberra i'd say it is already the best place in the world to > >live.
> That (like cats) depends on your point of view. Personally I like > babies, but can't eat a whole one. And they are great for the barbie - > read 'on the barbie'. However I suppose it is possible to argue that > the problem with children (like dogs) is their parents (owners).
> > >> Now if they are prepared to do the same with dogs, children, teenagers > & > > >> drunkards Canberra may suddenly look like quite a nice place to live.
> > >I agree with the dogs, but as children, teenagers and drunkards aren't a > > >problem in Canberra i'd say it is already the best place in the world to > > >live.
> > That (like cats) depends on your point of view. Personally I like > > babies, but can't eat a whole one. And they are great for the barbie - > > read 'on the barbie'. However I suppose it is possible to argue that > > the problem with children (like dogs) is their parents (owners).
In article <39d93242.14857...@news.bigpond.com>, Vicki Cleaver <DOkittecat...@SPAMbigpond.com> writes
>Whilst licking their paws in alt.animals.cat on Mon, 2 Oct 2000 >23:29:17 +0100, "andy.laubscher" <andy.laubsc...@ntlworld.com> purred >the following:
>:)Dearest Bron, >:) >:)how can something be 41% out ? Do you mean 59% made up ? In which case, >:)please explain for the rest of us how you came up with this figure, which >:)is, I suspect inaccurate to 10 significant figures (i.e. 100% bullshit) ?
>From what I remember, Bob stated that 60% of deaths in custody were >Aboriginal. Bron quoted a recent study showing that the figure was >19%. That made Bob 41% "out".
What percentage of the population is 'Aboriginal' - whatever that is defined as being?
>Look, Bron and I don't agree on everything. I posted something >earlier today that was against something Bron said. But when someone >is right, they are right.
>So I am sorry, but your suspicions were incorrect, in this case at >least.
>"Vicki Cleaver" <DOkittecat...@SPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message >news:39d8f955.282514@news.bigpond.com... >> Whilst licking their paws in alt.animals.cat on Tue, 3 Oct 2000
>> But I definately don't agree about UK bashing.
>What!!! You would have us give up our national pasttime? Next thing you >will be saying to leave the kiwis alone! Pah! :-)-
>> Yes, I have a sense of >> humour, but I think the personal attacks have gone a bit far. I don't >> operate that way and, generally, people on this ng realise this I >> think. In fact I love the UK and really want to visit someday :))
>:-) Well, I do have to admit that there are parts that interest me. Wales, >Scotland, Stonehenge ... but I think if you've photographed them once, thats >all you really need to remind yourself ... plenty of other countries to go. >I think i'd like to visit Canada, or perhaps Russia again ......
Surely this is the US version of tourism. Been there, taken the photo, got the tee-shirt. You can't compare a single site (Stonehenge) with a country (Scotland). This is like saying that if I've seen the Sydney harbour bridge (or the Opera House or both) that I've seen Sydney - and I'm sure that's not true.
If you want to visit a country with fantastic scenery & people, go trekking in Nepal. They even like children!
>> ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Bron - YOU have 2 cats. Do you hate them too ?
>Oooops ... retract & replace "cats" with "outside cats". My apologies.
>> LEARN from your mistakes ? Ahem ! Time you started dealing with the real >> issue - i.e. man. But as Surfer says, we have to get along. You really do >> present such inconsistent arguments Bron, it's laughable. You lose >> credibility at every turn.
>Andy, there isn't much we can do about man except educate him. Cats and >other vermin are a problem we can address in a more positive way. Hopefully >when the irresponsible see how much better the ecosystem is doing without >the vermin, they may think twice about their attitude. But it might be a >moot point here if the legislation passes and cat owners are FORCED to leave >their cats indoors.
<snip>
IMHO the biggest threat to ecosystems all over the world is currently global warming, and the only species which has caused that is man. Not cats - man. It will probably cause considerable damage to the Great Barrier Reef as ocean levels rise, and also make more likely the kind of storm which decimated the Sydney-Hobart race recently, killing several competitors.
>> What percentage of the population is 'Aboriginal' - whatever that is >> defined as being?
>I'm not sure what "Aboriginal" is defined as because "Indigineous", another >word they like to use, means native to the country which includes little old >me. What they mean is people with "Aboriginal" blood (any amount) which >they say is 2%. It's actually much higher than that because people like my >hubby & kids who had an Aboriginal great grand mother do not count >themselves in the figures.
So 2% of the general population are defined as 'Aboriginal' but 19% of those who die in police custody are defined as 'Aboriginal'? Sounds a very unhealthy thing to be.
>>You can't compare a single site (Stonehenge) with a >> country (Scotland). This is like saying that if I've seen the Sydney >> harbour bridge (or the Opera House or both) that I've seen Sydney - and >> I'm sure that's not true.
>It's not? What else is there to see in Sydney other than 5 million people >all trying to use the road/rail system at the same time?
> In article <39d93242.14857...@news.bigpond.com>, Vicki Cleaver
> What percentage of the population is 'Aboriginal' - whatever that is > defined as being?
I'm not sure what "Aboriginal" is defined as because "Indigineous", another word they like to use, means native to the country which includes little old me. What they mean is people with "Aboriginal" blood (any amount) which they say is 2%. It's actually much higher than that because people like my hubby & kids who had an Aboriginal great grand mother do not count themselves in the figures.
> In article <39d98...@iridium.webone.com.au>, Bron <m...@where.am.i> writes
> Surely this is the US version of tourism. Been there, taken the photo, > got the tee-shirt.
It just didn't interest me that much. To crowded, to dirty, to smelly. There were individual sites that were interesting but even the USA has a wider range of landscapes, weathers, places of interest. By the way, the photograph comment wasn't a tourism comment, it's what my hubby does for a living, although his only lasting interest in Britain is Farnborough.
>You can't compare a single site (Stonehenge) with a > country (Scotland). This is like saying that if I've seen the Sydney > harbour bridge (or the Opera House or both) that I've seen Sydney - and > I'm sure that's not true.
It's not? What else is there to see in Sydney other than 5 million people all trying to use the road/rail system at the same time?
> If you want to visit a country with fantastic scenery & people, go > trekking in Nepal. They even like children!
> In article <39d8e...@iridium.webone.com.au>, Bron <m...@where.am.i> writes > it's not being a loser to accept that what's done is done. the past > cannot be altered and being unpleasant to people from other countries > because of what their parents, grandparents & so on did is totally > pointless and counterproductive.
But you are when you then move on to use it as an excuse to do nothing in the future.
> What on earth do you say to Germans and Japanese? The Japanese by our > lights treated hundreds of thousands of allied POWs appallingly, and a > great many died in their concentration and work camps. However Japanese > are now one of the largest groups of tourists in Australia.
Canberra is generally insulated from Tourists. Whilst the figures aren't as high or as obvious, do not kid yourself to think that the Aussies and Poms didn't commit atrocities during the war. Seems to me that the Poms were responsible for every death at Pearl Harbour by not forwarning the Americans of the impending attack.
> The people > visiting Australia (and the UK and US) are *not* the ones who killed, > tortured and maimed. Ditto Germany and the Jews. Millions were killed > in the concentration camps, but to carry on treating all Germans as if > they personally herded Jews into the gas chambers would be to start the > kind of blood feud which is still the curse of some parts of Europe.
And the Poms herded and murdered every single Tasmanian Aboriginal (bar Triginini) in their time.
> If you want to influence people offending them is not a very effective > way of doing it. In fact it is usually counter-productive. It's also > rather hopeful to suggest that Australia is a 'nice place' for it's > native animals.
Yes, it's a dream.
>The sheep walks are not.
Sheep are contained within paddocks, only a small part of Australia is farmland. You need to remember that unlike Britain, Australia is HUUUUGE, it's one of the biggest countries in the world, but has a very small population which means that the effects of pasturalisation is limited to the more popular areas such as the East Coast.
>Neither are the built-up > areas (of course some people will have gardens containing only native > plants appropriate to the bit of Australia they live in), the banana > plantations, the mines and so on.
Yes the mines are an issue. However the fine line between protecting the ecosystem and protecting the economy is a line that will always be fought over. I would prefer that the mines not be there, I would like to see an end to the mining of Uranium. However, how would people survive without them? Additionally, I do not believe there is a correlation between issues that aid the financial viability of man and the rampant destruction to the ecosystem currently being performed by cats, rabbits and foxes.
> Not to mention Maralinga.
Yes, Maralinga would be the most idiotic thing we every allowed the British to do. We were too busy sticking our noses up the backsides of people who had no interest in the "best interest" of Australia and who simply used our country for their own benefits. I cannot believe that we were so stupid as to allow that to happen. The next time Britain wants to drop a nuclear bomb, I suggest Britain.
> But > bashing poms (or people from any other country) bashing will not help > you in your worthy cause. Do you find offending people at work helps > you to be influential? I doubt it.
Influential? In what way? It simply amuses me. Particularly when i'm conversing with people who are inable to accept that being born here makes me an Australian rather than "ex whatever".
> PS how would you have felt if the animal which scratched your car was > not a cat, but a native Australian species? I'm sure a kangaroo (any > kind) could do it a lot more damage than some scratches, and koalas are > hardly nice cuddly toys.
Hmmm... Good question. As the kangaroo is native and does do massive damage to a car I would simply have to live with that as their right to leap about outweighs my right to drive. By the way, Kangaroo v car generally leaves the kangaroo as the winner :-) I've never seen a Koala road pizza although I understand that it does occur. By the way, the chances of a Kangaroo or a Koala sitting on the bonnet of my car in my driveway is 0%. The Kangaroos prefer to wait by the side of the highway until it is dusk and you can't see them, then they bound along and (in my case) slam into the side of your car, causing damage and the loss of a pair of underpants, only to then bound away into the bushes again ;-) I sometimes wonder whether it's a revenge attack :-)
> IMHO the biggest threat to ecosystems all over the world is currently > global warming, and the only species which has caused that is man. Not > cats - man. It will probably cause considerable damage to the Great > Barrier Reef as ocean levels rise, and also make more likely the kind of > storm which decimated the Sydney-Hobart race recently, killing several > competitors.
The storm killed no one in the yacht race, the idiocy of the captains who protected the weather information and those who didn't go to dock killed those men. What a tragedy.
But Australia is taking steps to address global warming, we are committed to that.
What you appear to be suggesting is that we should ignore the other issues because of the main ones. I say no to that, we need to address all issues we can. Global warming is a major issue but more so for countries with large populations pumping out large amounts of industrial waste (oh hang on, that's you again isn't it?).
'Twas a dark and stormy night on Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:23:59 +0100 as Surfer! <nevis-v...@nospam.demon.co.uk> took time out from the neverending quest to rid the world of grues and wrote:
> Surely this is the US version of tourism. Been there, taken the photo, > got the tee-shirt. You can't compare a single site (Stonehenge) with a
That is the Japanese holiday, not the US. The typical American tourist spends his time belittling the holiday venue and saying (loudly) how much better the US can do it.
> country (Scotland). This is like saying that if I've seen the Sydney > harbour bridge (or the Opera House or both) that I've seen Sydney - and > I'm sure that's not true.
> If you want to visit a country with fantastic scenery & people, go > trekking in Nepal. They even like children!
>> it's not being a loser to accept that what's done is done. the past >> cannot be altered and being unpleasant to people from other countries >> because of what their parents, grandparents & so on did is totally >> pointless and counterproductive.
>But you are when you then move on to use it as an excuse to do nothing in >the future.
You seem to use it as an excuse to be abusive to people who are not Australian. That is not moving on. Your entire post is simply ignoring the future and talking about the past.
>> What on earth do you say to Germans and Japanese? The Japanese by our >> lights treated hundreds of thousands of allied POWs appallingly, and a >> great many died in their concentration and work camps. However Japanese >> are now one of the largest groups of tourists in Australia.
>Canberra is generally insulated from Tourists. Whilst the figures aren't as >high or as obvious, do not kid yourself to think that the Aussies and Poms >didn't commit atrocities during the war. Seems to me that the Poms were >responsible for every death at Pearl Harbour by not forwarning the Americans >of the impending attack.
I certainly don't think atrocities were the sole preserve of Germans & Japanese (or Australians). I was looking for examples which involved nations other than the UK.
>> The people >> visiting Australia (and the UK and US) are *not* the ones who killed, >> tortured and maimed. Ditto Germany and the Jews. Millions were killed >> in the concentration camps, but to carry on treating all Germans as if >> they personally herded Jews into the gas chambers would be to start the >> kind of blood feud which is still the curse of some parts of Europe.
>And the Poms herded and murdered every single Tasmanian Aboriginal (bar >Triginini) in their time.
They also killed many Jews, but something like 1,000 years ago. Get back to the point. Many Australians were killed & tortured by the Japanese in WW2. Does that mean you are as unpleasant to them as you are to the British?
<snip>
>> But >> bashing poms (or people from any other country) bashing will not help >> you in your worthy cause. Do you find offending people at work helps >> you to be influential? I doubt it.
>Influential? In what way? It simply amuses me. Particularly when i'm >conversing with people who are inable to accept that being born here makes >me an Australian rather than "ex whatever".
That discussion is only happening because you persist in blaming Britain for everything in Australia's past you don't like. And in a quite rude manner.
Now what about global warming? That seems to have vanished off the bottom. What are you personally doing about it to protect your beloved Australia? After all, you have one of the natural wonders of the world (Barrier Reef) which is very vulnerable to it.
In article <s3vltskklttbh5qu45bhq4c77qshp1t...@4ax.com>, kingp...@ozemail.com.au writes
>'Twas a dark and stormy night on Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:23:59 +0100 as Surfer! ><nevis-v...@nospam.demon.co.uk> took time out from the neverending quest to rid >the world of grues and wrote:
>> Surely this is the US version of tourism. Been there, taken the photo, >> got the tee-shirt. You can't compare a single site (Stonehenge) with a
>That is the Japanese holiday, not the US. The typical American tourist spends >his time belittling the holiday venue and saying (loudly) how much better the US >can do it.
