Senator Len Harris: The Australian Government - the foreign farmers' secret weapon
Scott Balson
Our citrus, pork, lamb, salmon and apple producers could well be
excused for asking and wondering just who is our
government working for?
In 1966 Australia had 290,000 farmers, and now there are only 100,000,
and they are going broke at the rate of 35 per week.
Of the farms that are left, 80% of them are deeply in debt, and they
employ 30% less people. The reason this is happening is simply because
we have the only government in the world that doesn't give a hoot
about our farmers.
Despite the systematic dismantling and destruction of our farmers and
primary producers over the years, and the anguish and outrage this has
caused to city and country folk alike, our government ignores our
protests, as if it were stone deaf.
In spite of the well-documented surveys which show that Australians
will gladly pay a little more to buy Australian goods, in order to
keep the jobs and the money in Australia, our government relishes the
next opportunity to sacrifice another industry so that it can prove
that we are the most "free trade" nation on the planet.
Last week, our government had a golden opportunity to give the
Americans a kick in the backside for restricting our lamb exports to
the U.S. Instead of taking this opportunity, the government chose yet
again the path of least resistance - they just gave up.
With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Source: http://www.onenation.com.au/press/210799.htm
Scott Balson
Bryan Palmer
>21st July 1999
>
>Our citrus, pork, lamb, salmon and apple producers could well be
>excused for asking and wondering just who is our
>government working for?
>
>In 1966 Australia had 290,000 farmers, and now there are only 100,000,
>and they are going broke at the rate of 35 per week.
>Of the farms that are left, 80% of them are deeply in debt, and they
>employ 30% less people. The reason this is happening is simply because
>we have the only government in the world that doesn't give a hoot
>about our farmers.
How many house maids and servants were there in 1900? How many today?
How many horse and cart drivers in 1900? How many today.
How many blacksmiths in 1900? How many today?
Why do you want to live in the past?
-----------------------------------------------------
bpa...@pcug.org.au
www.pcug.org.au/~bpalmer
Scott Balson
wrote:
>How many house maids and servants were there in 1900? How many today?
>
>How many horse and cart drivers in 1900? How many today.
>
>How many blacksmiths in 1900? How many today?
>
>Why do you want to live in the past?
Classic bicameral mentality on a key issue which accurately reflects
the un-level playing field that we now find ourselves in.
Scott Balson
Jamie Cameron
: 21st July 1999
: Our citrus, pork, lamb, salmon and apple producers could well be
: excused for asking and wondering just who is our
: government working for?
: In 1966 Australia had 290,000 farmers, and now there are only 100,000,
: and they are going broke at the rate of 35 per week.
: Of the farms that are left, 80% of them are deeply in debt, and they
: employ 30% less people. The reason this is happening is simply because
: we have the only government in the world that doesn't give a hoot
: about our farmers.
No, the reason is that modern technology has made farmers so much more
productive than in the 60s. 100,000 farmers today can produce much more
than 290,000 did in 1966..
: Despite the systematic dismantling and destruction of our farmers and
: primary producers over the years, and the anguish and outrage this has
: caused to city and country folk alike, our government ignores our
: protests, as if it were stone deaf.
: In spite of the well-documented surveys which show that Australians
: will gladly pay a little more to buy Australian goods, in order to
: keep the jobs and the money in Australia, our government relishes the
: next opportunity to sacrifice another industry so that it can prove
: that we are the most "free trade" nation on the planet.
If Australians really would pay a little more for locally made products,
why do we need tariffs and quotas to force us?
: Last week, our government had a golden opportunity to give the
: Americans a kick in the backside for restricting our lamb exports to
: the U.S. Instead of taking this opportunity, the government chose yet
: again the path of least resistance - they just gave up.
Even a total ban on US imports would make little difference, as 80% of
our food production is exported.
- Jamie
Bruce Cowan
Bryan Palmer wrote in message
<379998e0...@newshost.pcug.org.au>...
(snip)is simply because
>>we have the only government in the world that doesn't give a hoot
>>about our farmers.
>
>
>How many horse and cart drivers in 1900? How many today.
>
>How many blacksmiths in 1900? How many today?
>
>Why do you want to live in the past?
>
BC
Brian Ross
> On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:20:56 GMT, bpa...@pcug.org.au (Bryan Palmer)
> wrote:
>
>
> >How many house maids and servants were there in 1900? How many today?
> >
> >How many horse and cart drivers in 1900? How many today.
> >
> >How many blacksmiths in 1900? How many today?
> >
> >Why do you want to live in the past?
>
> Classic bicameral mentality on a key issue which accurately reflects
> the un-level playing field that we now find ourselves in.
unlevel? In what way, Leni? As even your Senator notes, farms
have become more efficient, therefore requiring less labour. As he notes
that the number of farmers have decreased, how does he then explain the
quantity of revenue generated by and the amount of exports from, the
agriculture sector have actually _increased_ since 100 years ago? *GASP*
could it because of the improved efficiencies?
You are you fellow PHONies sound like a bunch of luddites. Always
wanting to preserve in amber a world which is changing faster than you can
blink your eyes. As Bryan asks, why do you want to live in the past?
Perhaps you should become an Amish?
-Brian Ross-------http://jcsmr.anu.edu.au/~brian/bookshelf.html
"Second only, of course, to disinterested search for truth, no task
is more pleasing to scholars than exposing the negligence, ignorance
and stupidity of their fellows. To both these pleasures we now
address ourselves"______Pooh and the Philosophers - John Tyerman Williams
tjlim
themselves first. This government is no better.
In Asia some governments can be enticed to agree by other governments for a
personal fee directly into their Swiss account. Can anyone explain the
illogical decisions made?
Jamie Cameron wrote:
> Scott Balson (g...@gwb.com.au) wrote:
> : 21st July 1999
>
> : Our citrus, pork, lamb, salmon and apple producers could well be
> : excused for asking and wondering just who is our
> : government working for?
>
> : In 1966 Australia had 290,000 farmers, and now there are only 100,000,
> : and they are going broke at the rate of 35 per week.
> : Of the farms that are left, 80% of them are deeply in debt, and they
> : employ 30% less people. The reason this is happening is simply because
> : we have the only government in the world that doesn't give a hoot
> : about our farmers.
>
Brian Ross
>
> Bryan Palmer wrote in message
> <379998e0...@newshost.pcug.org.au>...
> (snip)is simply because
> >>we have the only government in the world that doesn't give a hoot
> >>about our farmers.
> >
> >How many house maids and servants were there in 1900? How many today?
> >
> >How many horse and cart drivers in 1900? How many today.
> >
> >How many blacksmiths in 1900? How many today?
> >
> >Why do you want to live in the past?
>
> None of the above produced food.
Since when did food production garantee you against obsolescence?
Tastes change, some foods which were once popular, no longer are,
therefore the farms/industries which produced those foods are no long in
existence.
Not much call nowadays for Badger noses or fresh Lark's tongues,
now is there?
David S. Maddison
: 21st July 1999
[..]
: In spite of the well-documented surveys which show that Australians
: will gladly pay a little more to buy Australian goods, in order to
: keep the jobs and the money in Australia, our government relishes the
: next opportunity to sacrifice another industry so that it can prove
: that we are the most "free trade" nation on the planet.
: Last week, our government had a golden opportunity to give the
: Americans a kick in the backside for restricting our lamb exports to
: the U.S. Instead of taking this opportunity, the government chose yet
: again the path of least resistance - they just gave up.
[..]
I don't see the logic here, Scott. Are you saying it is OK to protect
Australian markets, but it is NOT OK for the Americans to protect theirs?
In any case, I see no reason why agriculture should be protected any more
than anything else. If farmers can deliver the goods to the market at a
competitive price then they will be successful, if not then then they
should look for other opportunities. And farmers should never lose sight
of the idea that they should be considering a business cycle of some
years (as good farmers do), not just single years.
David Maddison
Stephen Souter
Brian Ross <br...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au> wrote:
> You are you fellow PHONies sound like a bunch of luddites. Always
> wanting to preserve in amber a world which is changing faster than you can
> blink your eyes. As Bryan asks, why do you want to live in the past?
Isn't this the age that worships at the feet of the gods of environmental
protection and conservation? The one that stopped a dam being built in
Tasmania (and is currently trying to stop a uranium mine in Kakadu)
because it wants "to preserve in amber a world which is changing faster
than you can blink your eyes"?
Isn't this the age that tries to preserve everything from old buildings to
old trees to old (Aboriginal) midden sites?
But all that aside, aren't you confusing your metaphors, Bryan? A
"luddite" is usually somebody who tries to *destroy* a thing, not preserve
it. In fact, One Nation supporters must be a little bemused that you are
lumping them in with environmentalists and other left-wingers--instead of
the right-wing sorts they are usually filed with! :)
--
Stephen Souter
s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au
http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/
Scott Balson
S. Maddison) wrote:
>I don't see the logic here, Scott. Are you saying it is OK to protect
>Australian markets, but it is NOT OK for the Americans to protect theirs?
>
>In any case, I see no reason why agriculture should be protected any more
>than anything else. If farmers can deliver the goods to the market at a
>competitive price then they will be successful, if not then then they
>should look for other opportunities. And farmers should never lose sight
>of the idea that they should be considering a business cycle of some
>years (as good farmers do), not just single years.
No David bicamerals don't see logic that stares them in the face.
ie The US impose trade tariffs on Australian lamb while we are not
allowed to protect our pork and salmon industries from multinationals
in Canada or our citrus industry from multinationals in Brazil etc...
If we tried we would be taken to the WTO and be punished.
Scott Balson
Brian Ross
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.05.99072...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au>,
> Brian Ross <br...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > You are you fellow PHONies sound like a bunch of luddites. Always
> > wanting to preserve in amber a world which is changing faster than you can
> > blink your eyes. As Bryan asks, why do you want to live in the past?
[snip]
> But all that aside, aren't you confusing your metaphors, Bryan? A
> "luddite" is usually somebody who tries to *destroy* a thing, not preserve
> it. In fact, One Nation supporters must be a little bemused that you are
> lumping them in with environmentalists and other left-wingers--instead of
> the right-wing sorts they are usually filed with! :)
Essentially the PHONies are luddites because, just as the
followers of Ned Ludd did back at the end of the 18th century they seek to
_prevent_ the creation of something new. In both cases it was related to
the improving the efficiencies of industries. From the site, "Who Were
The Original Luddites?":
"In the year 1812 Napoleon ruled Europe, English troops were at war in
North America and England was in turmoil. Industrial revolution was
drastically changing England's economic and social relationships. In the
regions of Nottingham, Lancashire and Leeds, these changes were met with
bitterness and distress by a group weavers and other individuals who have
come to be known as the Luddites.
For centuries weavers produced lace and stockings that were popular in
English and foreign markets. These products were hand made, often in the
weaver's home. Apprenticeships, family tradition and community values
ensured a high-quality product. Weavers did not work as employees of a
factory but as independent contractors.
The invention and implementation of stocking frames and the automation of
the power loom early in the 19th century threatened a weaver's way of
life. Due to the high cost of the new equipment, weavers were unable to
purchase their own looms and frames and were forced to work for a factory
under strict conditions. The weavers endured a drastic decrease in income
while the price of food and other neccessities continued to rise (thanks
to the Tory government). Even though production levels were high, quality
levels were low. The weavers were not impressed with this new technology
and saw the factory and its equipment as a form of oppression.
"Legend has it that around this time, a feeble minded lad by the name of
Ned Ludd broke two stocking frames at a factory in Nottingham. He meant no
harm, it was a single act of clumsiness. Henceforth, when an offending
factory owner found one of his expensive pieces of machinery broken, the
damage was attributed to 'Ned Ludd.'" (Anonymous)
The weavers formed an underground army and campaigned against the new
equipment."
[source: http://publish.uwo.ca/~nallen1/ludd.htm]
ps. BTW, I'm Brian, not Bryan Palmer.
Brian Ross
Whereas of course there is nothing stopping us from taking the US
to the WTO. Something our friends in the PHONies always overlook in their
bleating about how unfair free trade is.
Makes me wonder if the PHONies *_FEAR_* competition, rather like
they *_FEAR_* and attack anything they don't understand (or attempt to
understand).
Scott Balson
<br...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au> wrote:
> Whereas of course there is nothing stopping us from taking the US
>to the WTO. Something our friends in the PHONies always overlook in their
>bleating about how unfair free trade is.
> Makes me wonder if the PHONies *_FEAR_* competition, rather like
>they *_FEAR_* and attack anything they don't understand (or attempt to
>understand).
You know Ross you are a REAL arsehole... even others bicamerals must
be embarrassed by you.
Martin Khor on the WTO:
===================
*On COMPETITION POLICY, the E.U. and the U.S. are advocating a new
agreement that would look unfavorably on domestic laws or practices in
developing countries that favor local firms.
For example, if there are policies that give importing rights to local
firms (including government agencies and enterprises), or if there are
practices among local firms that give them superior marketing
channels, these are likely to be called into question.
The rich countries would argue that such policies or practices create
a barrier to foreign products or firms, which should be allowed to
compete on equal terms as locals.
Developing countries may argue that only if local agencies or firms
are given certain advantages, or if they have built up distribution
systems over the years, should they be allowed to keep these
advantages. Providing the giant international firms equal rights would
overwhelm the local enterprises which are small and medium-sized in
global terms. However, such arguements will not be accepted by the
rich countries, which will insist that their giant firms be provided a
'level playing field' to compete 'equally' with the smaller local
firms.
See: http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/multi/wto2.htm
and if you doubt Khor, do you also doubt Prime Minister John Howard's
word.
Extract from an on-air interview with Alan Jones earlier this month:
===================================================
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that’s what I said to president Clinton. I had a conversation
with him three weeks ago and I put that very proposition to him. I
said President, if you close down our lamb exports to the United
States you will send a terrible signal to the rest of the world.
You’ll be saying that we talk one thing we do another. Now he’s very
conscious of that. I’m still not overly optimistic about what the
Americans are going to do but we are still in there punching and we
haven’t heard yet, and I’m hopeful the Americans will at the last
moment see the wisdom of not interfering with a market that we
have worked very hard to win. I mean the reason why I argue for more
open markets Alan is that this is a lamb market we didn’t have a few
years ago and as an exporting nation we have to win market share
overseas if we are to expand. And if we get markets overseas than
obviously people have got to have some capacity to trade into this
country. Now there is no such thing as a level playing field as Tim
Fischer was fond of saying, and you have to constantly make pragmatic
judgements in the best interests of Australia and that’s what we try
to do on each issue.
Source: http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/onenation/press/ajones17.htm
Interesting that Howard was given just 20 minutes with Bill Clinton
while the new Israeli PM got 12 hours a few days later.
Scott Balson
Brian Ross
> On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:34:29 +1000, Brian Ross
> <br...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > Whereas of course there is nothing stopping us from taking the US
> >to the WTO. Something our friends in the PHONies always overlook in their
> >bleating about how unfair free trade is.
>
> > Makes me wonder if the PHONies *_FEAR_* competition, rather like
> >they *_FEAR_* and attack anything they don't understand (or attempt to
> >understand).
>
> You know Ross you are a REAL arsehole... even others bicamerals must
> be embarrassed by you.
Whats wrong, Leni? Afraid of competition?
When's the next loom breaking going to be?
You know, if "Leni Riefenstahl" wasn't such a apt nickname for
you, I'd change it to "Ned Ludd" I think.
Stephen Souter
Brian Ross <br...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au> wrote:
> ps. BTW, I'm Brian, not Bryan Palmer.
Oops! Mea culpa. A slip of the keyboard. :)
Stephen Souter
> On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Stephen Souter wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.LNX.4.05.99072...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au>,
This is starting to remind me of the old argument over whether a glass is
half-empty or half-full. :)
Is somebody who (say) destroys new machinery which will put him out of
work, or who tries to stop a freeway going through his suburb or the
demolition of an old building to make way for a modern office tower, or
who tries to stop a uranium mine going ahead, trying preserve a thing
("_prevent_ the creation of something new") or destroy a thing?
The point I was trying to make, though, is that Luddites did not merely
oppose the new technology. They chose to achieve their ends in *extremist*
fashion by deliberately setting out to *destroy* it. The wider sense you
are now seeking to apply would label ANYbody who opposes something new by
whatever means, be it by court action or peaceful protest, as a "luddite".
For instance, National Trust seeks to stop historic building being
demolished to make way for a new office tower they would be "Luddites". So
is anybody who (say) opposes an airport being built in his neighbourhood
by peaceful protest (as opposed to visiting the building site with a
sledgehammer and a stocking mask).
In fact, to come right down to it, by your definition anybody who votes
against John Howard's proposed preamble in the November referendum would
be a "Luddite" because they would be seeking to "_prevent_ the creation of
something new". :)
You could go further. You seemed to be maintaining earlier that merely
"wanting to preserve in amber a world which is changing faster than you
can blink your eyes" made someone a "Luddite".
By that yardstick, museum curators, librarians, zookeepers, and national
park rangers are "Luddites" because all of whom are in the business (in
one way or another) of trying to preserve some aspect of the past, be it
in the form of Egyptian mummies, rare books, endangered species, or bits
and pieces of the landscape.
Stan Rosenthal
:>21st July 1999
:>Our citrus, pork, lamb, salmon and apple producers could well be
:>excused for asking and wondering just who is our
:>government working for?
:>In 1966 Australia had 290,000 farmers, and now there are only 100,000,
And that means what? I'mm sure that there are far fewer independent
corner stores now than there were 30 years ago. Perhaps it is a
concentration of capital and efficiency?
What is gross farm income now compared with 1966, even allowing for
inflation?
:>and they are going broke at the rate of 35 per week.
That's not good for them. Nor for the rest of us.
:>Of the farms that are left, 80% of them are deeply in debt, and they
:>employ 30% less people. The reason this is happening is simply because
:>we have the only government in the world that doesn't give a hoot
:>about our farmers.
So all the other governments but ours care about our farmers - but
they have no influence?
:>Despite the systematic dismantling and destruction of our farmers and
:>primary producers over the years, and the anguish and outrage this has
:>caused to city and country folk alike, our government ignores our
:>protests, as if it were stone deaf.
Do you think that our government can successfully stand up to
international economic interests such as the transnational
corporations?
:>In spite of the well-documented surveys which show that Australians
:>will gladly pay a little more to buy Australian goods, in order to
:>keep the jobs and the money in Australia, our government relishes the
:>next opportunity to sacrifice another industry so that it can prove
:>that we are the most "free trade" nation on the planet.
That does seem stupid, doesn't it?
:>Last week, our government had a golden opportunity to give the
:>Americans a kick in the backside for restricting our lamb exports to
:>the U.S.
How should they have done that? Yes, Howard was over there. What
should he have done or said?
:>Instead of taking this opportunity, the government chose yet
:>again the path of least resistance - they just gave up.
Just more populist sloganeering.
:>With friends like these, who needs enemies?
:>Source: http://www.onenation.com.au/press/210799.htm
Who writes this crap?
BICAMERAL AND PROUD!
Stan Rosenthal
:>On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:20:56 GMT, bpa...@pcug.org.au (Bryan Palmer)
:>wrote:
:>>How many house maids and servants were there in 1900? How many today?
:>>How many horse and cart drivers in 1900? How many today.
:>>How many blacksmiths in 1900? How many today?
:>>Why do you want to live in the past?
:>Classic bicameral mentality on a key issue which accurately reflects
:>the un-level playing field that we now find ourselves in.
There is a valid argument to run about the role of the primary
producer and the validity of ensuring that we retain capacity in that
field of activity.
But you don't run any arguments, you just sloganeer.
BICAMERAL AND PROUD!
Stan Rosenthal
<SNIP>
:>Extract from an on-air interview with Alan Jones earlier this month:
:>===================================================
:>PRIME MINISTER:
:>Well that’s what I said to president Clinton. I had a conversation
:>with him three weeks ago and I put that very proposition to him. I
:>said President, if you close down our lamb exports to the United
:>States you will send a terrible signal to the rest of the world.
:>You’ll be saying that we talk one thing we do another. Now he’s very
:>conscious of that. I’m still not overly optimistic about what the
:>Americans are going to do but we are still in there punching and we
:>haven’t heard yet, and I’m hopeful the Americans will at the last
:>moment see the wisdom of not interfering with a market that we
:>have worked very hard to win.
This is the same John Howard who has been described by ON's Senator
harris in a press release as giving up on the issue? I'm now fan of
Rotten Johnny Howard, but they are fighting words from such a
mealy-mouth as him.
:>I mean the reason why I argue for more
:>open markets Alan is that this is a lamb market we didn’t have a few
:>years ago and as an exporting nation we have to win market share
:>overseas if we are to expand. And if we get markets overseas than
:>obviously people have got to have some capacity to trade into this
:>country. Now there is no such thing as a level playing field as Tim
:>Fischer was fond of saying, and you have to constantly make pragmatic
:>judgements in the best interests of Australia and that’s what we try
:>to do on each issue.
But this part, that you have published as a response to a critique of
your party's policy or view, is in fact a support for the process you
are critical of - open trade.
:>Source: http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/onenation/press/ajones17.htm
Source: My logical bicameral mind.
:>Interesting that Howard was given just 20 minutes with Bill Clinton
:>while the new Israeli PM got 12 hours a few days later.
Interesting why?
BICAMERAL AND PROUD!
to...@whyalla.net.au
g...@gwb.com.au (Scott Balson) wrote:
> 21st July 1999
>
> Our citrus, pork, lamb, salmon and apple producers could well be
> excused for asking and wondering just who is our
> government working for?
This "press release" is just a whinge. One Nation
need to do a LOT better than this if the party is
to be around to see the next election.
People were prepared to cut ON a bit of slack as the
party found its feet. But it is now time for ON to
grow up and stop being so, dare I say, bicarmeral.
The aus government, which Len Harris mindlessly accuses
of working for foreign farmers, set aside $20 million to
help the Australian lamb industry seek out new markets.
The lamb industry spokespeople are confident the
industry will survive the "slaughter".
Meanwhile, Len's suggestion is:
"In retaliation, we should immediately rescind all the
Double Taxation Agreements with America, which allow
American companies to take their profits out of Australia
while paying little or no tax."
"The taxes raised by rescinding the Double Taxation
Agreements should then be paid to our sheep producers
in compensation."
SOURCE: http://www.onenation.com.au/press/080799.htm
This is loony. Len is saying the Australian government
should impose tax on _innocent_ parties to compensate
Australian sheep farmers for American laws.
Who is Len Harris working for? The bloody americans?
And what about all the Australians who will be retrenched
when the US based companies relocate operations offshore?
Guess who'll be paying for the extra welfare.
Len, the grubby ON communist, certainly isn't
thinking of Australians or Australian families, if
indeed he thinks at all.
Len then goes on to say:
"The Australian government is more interested in
looking good at APEC and the WTO, than protecting
Australian jobs and Australian families, No wonder
Tim Fischer bailed out now."
Maybe we do suck up to APEC, but what does that
have to do with Tim Fischer's resignation?
Fischer resigned to be with his family. Family policy
is the only area where ON have any credibility left,
and Senator Harris mocks that to score a cheap
point in a pissing contest.
> With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Indeed
Cheers
Tony Hancock
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Bryan Palmer
>On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:20:56 GMT, bpa...@pcug.org.au (Bryan Palmer)
>wrote:
>
>
>>How many house maids and servants were there in 1900? How many today?
>>
>>How many horse and cart drivers in 1900? How many today.
>>
>>How many blacksmiths in 1900? How many today?
>>
>>Why do you want to live in the past?
>
>Classic bicameral mentality on a key issue which accurately reflects
>the un-level playing field that we now find ourselves in.
Ditto
-----------------------------------------------------
bpa...@pcug.org.au
www.pcug.org.au/~bpalmer
Bryan Palmer
wrote:
>
>Bryan Palmer wrote in message
><379998e0...@newshost.pcug.org.au>...
> (snip)is simply because
>>>we have the only government in the world that doesn't give a hoot
>>>about our farmers.
>>
>>How many house maids and servants were there in 1900? How many today?
>>
>>How many horse and cart drivers in 1900? How many today.
>>
>>How many blacksmiths in 1900? How many today?
>>
>>Why do you want to live in the past?
>>
>None of the above produced food.
So what?
-----------------------------------------------------
bpa...@pcug.org.au
www.pcug.org.au/~bpalmer
Daniel
Back to the norm - Scott screaming insults and Brian sticking the knife
in and twisting it.
Thing is of course that Brian is smiling at Scott's uncomprending face
while he rearranges Scott's bowels - not a pleasant sight as far as both
parties are concerned (so far as I have heard......).
Daniel
Peter Mackay
s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au (Stephen Souter) wrote:
> By that yardstick, museum curators, librarians, zookeepers, and national
> park rangers are "Luddites" because all of whom are in the business (in
> one way or another) of trying to preserve some aspect of the past, be it
> in the form of Egyptian mummies, rare books, endangered species, or bits
> and pieces of the landscape.
Brian's never had a problem with logic. When it suits his ideology, it
isn't important.
No, One Nation is not dedicated to preserving a world gone by. The only
people pushing this line are our blinkered critics. It's a common debating
trick -- both sides used it in the GST debate, I noticed, each saying their
opponent wanted to impose or retain an outdated system, the implication
being that they alone were moving ahead.
Progress is a nebulous concept, and when you get down to it, what you end
up with is merely change. Does constructing a bridge over a river
constitute progress or destruction? Depends which side of the Hindamrsh
debate you're on, I guess.
Personally, I favour a "mirror" arrangement with tariffs. If someone
imposes tough restrictions on our goods, we do the same to them. If they
have an open arrangement, we do the same. Of course, there are problems
with putting this into practise, but it is something that sends the right
messages. Why should we sit still and be screwed on trade?
On a practical note, there is never going to be a level playing field. The
big countries will exert leverage in other ways to protect and expand their
markets, and the smaller countries will compete on price. We're stuck in
the middle, without a real lot of muscle, and hamstrung (from a trade point
of view) with labour and safety laws that impose costs on production. How
can we possibly compete with third world countries manufacturing or
assembling things in sweatshops, paying wages a fraction of our minimum,
with little or no attention paid to worker comfort or safety?
~ m
u U Cheers!
\|
|> -Peter Mackay
/ \
_\ /_ Personal opinion only
pete...@dynamite.com.aus
Trudy Bray
Bryan Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 21:34:04 GMT, g...@gwb.com.au (Scott Balson) wrote:
>
> >21st July 1999
> >
> >Our citrus, pork, lamb, salmon and apple producers could well be
> >excused for asking and wondering just who is our
> >government working for?
> >
> >In 1966 Australia had 290,000 farmers, and now there are only 100,000,
> >and they are going broke at the rate of 35 per week.
> >Of the farms that are left, 80% of them are deeply in debt, and they
> >employ 30% less people. The reason this is happening is simply because
> >we have the only government in the world that doesn't give a hoot
> >about our farmers.
>
> How many house maids and servants were there in 1900? How many today?
>
> How many horse and cart drivers in 1900? How many today.
>
> How many blacksmiths in 1900? How many today?
>
> Why do you want to live in the past?
You forgot the lamp-lighters and the blokes who walked in front of cars with a
lantern to warn people there was a car coming. ;-)
Gee, nobody gave them job security....
Trudy
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tories: Rugged individualists who believe
they owe nothing to society while heading
the queue helping itself to the benefits.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tony Hancock
>On 23 Jul 1999 12:24:00 -1000, madd...@power.connexus.net.au (David
>S. Maddison) wrote:
>
>>I don't see the logic here, Scott. Are you saying it is OK to protect
>>Australian markets, but it is NOT OK for the Americans to protect theirs?
>>
>>In any case, I see no reason why agriculture should be protected any more
>>than anything else. If farmers can deliver the goods to the market at a
>>competitive price then they will be successful, if not then then they
>>should look for other opportunities. And farmers should never lose sight
>>of the idea that they should be considering a business cycle of some
>>years (as good farmers do), not just single years.
>
>No David bicamerals don't see logic that stares them in the face.
>
>ie The US impose trade tariffs on Australian lamb while we are not
>allowed to protect our pork and salmon industries from multinationals
>in Canada or our citrus industry from multinationals in Brazil etc...
>
>If we tried we would be taken to the WTO and be punished.
Possibly. But if the American government wants to force it's people to
pay more for lamb then that is the Merkin's problem, not ours.
IMO the aus government handled this "crisis" well. Globalisation means
lamb producers can export to the whole world. We don't *need* the US
market. Anyway, we should be marketting lamb to other places,
diversification of production and markets is good business practice
for the farming sector.
Keeping pet farmers on welfare is no different to keeping pet abos on
welfare. Any handouts should be to foster independance, not encourage
welfare dependence.
Cheers
Tony Hancock
Scott Balson
wrote:
>You forgot the lamp-lighters and the blokes who walked in front of cars with a
>lantern to warn people there was a car coming. ;-)
>Gee, nobody gave them job security....
>Trudy
Yes and the legions of journalists who will soon be retrenched as
their industry in rationalised because of the Internet...
No guessing who will be squealing the loudest...
And I, for one, couldn't give a rat's arse after the manner in which
they have relinquished their ethics for their weekly pay cheque.
Scott Balson
Brian Ross
You on the otherhand, never had any ethics to start with, did you
Leni?
Afterall, your "beatups" would be right up there, with the best
the tabloid journalists produce, now aren't they?
Just how many "Indonesian Brunians" was it again who were going to
suddenly start appearing in Australia? Oh, thats right, *_TWO_MILLION_*
wasn't it, Leni?
Looks like you'll have a great career in "journalism" if you keep
that sort of thing up.
Dave Garner
[...]
>You forgot the lamp-lighters and the blokes who walked in front of cars with a
>lantern to warn people there was a car coming. ;-)
>Gee, nobody gave them job security....
Their unions weren't strong enough. I can assure you
that there are positions at the Kooragang Island grain
loader for MSU waterside workers to stand where a lever
used to be (that controled a hopper dump) before it's
operation was automated about 25 years ago.
d.
Peter Mackay
to...@whyalla.net.au (Tony Hancock) wrote:
> IMO the aus government handled this "crisis" well.
<grin> But not in the opinion of the rural community. New National leader
John Anderson gave a press conference recently and as they emerged, the
journos looked at each other and shook their heads sadly. He just doesn't
have a clue.
The Nationals would do better to split from the Coalition. Their
credibility is declining amongst their traditional support base at an
unbelievable rate. The handling of the lamb issue merely underscores their
powerlessness.
Peter Mackay
bpa...@pcug.org.au (Bryan Palmer) wrote:
> How many blacksmiths in 1900? How many today?
>
> Why do you want to live in the past?
Hmmm. So you don't see the disappearance of farmers as a problem, Bryan?
What do you think we will sell overseas when the last one has gone?
Tony Hancock
Mackay) wrote:
>In article <379944a6...@news.whyalla.net.au>,
>to...@whyalla.net.au (Tony Hancock) wrote:
>
>> IMO the aus government handled this "crisis" well.
>
><grin> But not in the opinion of the rural community.
True. Some lamb producers may have to rethink the way they do business
before the new markets are established. But there is SFA Johnny could
have done in the short term. It's not as if the aussie lamb market is
under threat from American lamb imports. Propping up pig farmers with
tariffs won't help sheep farmers.
> New National leader
> John Anderson gave a press conference recently and as they emerged, the
> journos looked at each other and shook their heads sadly. He just doesn't
> have a clue.
>
> The Nationals would do better to split from the Coalition. Their
> credibility is declining amongst their traditional support base at an
> unbelievable rate.
Seems to be happening to all the parties. The voters seem to
distrust politicians more now than ever before.
> The handling of the lamb issue merely underscores their
> powerlessness.
What was the National's proposal to deal with the issue?
Cheers
Tony Hancock
Bruce Cowan
Trudy Bray wrote in message <37992BE0...@zip.com.au>...
>
>> Why do you want to live in the past?
>
>You forgot the lamp-lighters and the blokes who walked in front of
cars with a
>lantern to warn people there was a car coming. ;-)
>Gee, nobody gave them job security....
>Trudy
What a cynical dropkick you are.
As an apparent city dweller who rips open the Corn Flakes packet each
morning, puts sugar and milk on it & has the bacon & eggs & the orange
juice, (and no doubt enjoys the cheeky little chardonnay) you seem to
overlook that we are talking about people who produce basic food for
Australia and for export. Not lamp lighters or maids or academics or
drongoes like you who are takers from the economy.
If you think we can continue to wind down our rural sector (& us a
country with the capacity to efficiently produce almost anything) and
simply import our foodstuff from less efficient (& less healthy)
countries who heavily subsidise their growers and dump product, then
God help us.
No-one has ever given farmers 'job security' as you put it, and that's
not what they seek. Simply, a fair go without being forced to compete
with imports of lower quality and artificially priced.
Look what happened to our manufacturing industries - virtually gone.
When we don't produce food anymore we then presumably can rest on the
service industries and gambling to sustain our economy.
BC
Brian Ross
> In article <379998e0...@newshost.pcug.org.au>,
> bpa...@pcug.org.au (Bryan Palmer) wrote:
>
> > How many blacksmiths in 1900? How many today?
> >
> > Why do you want to live in the past?
>
> Hmmm. So you don't see the disappearance of farmers as a problem, Bryan?
> What do you think we will sell overseas when the last one has gone?
Oh, dear, what a leap of logic, Peter!
Why do you presume that _farmers_ are the only people who are in
the agricultural _industry_?
There are of course many other players who will remain and who
will continue to produce food, as long as they can turn a profit. Seems
to me that you're buying into the romantic myth that only farmers produce
food.
Brian Ross
>
> Trudy Bray wrote in message <37992BE0...@zip.com.au>...
> >
>
> >> Why do you want to live in the past?
> >
> >You forgot the lamp-lighters and the blokes who walked in front of
> cars with a
> >lantern to warn people there was a car coming. ;-)
> >Gee, nobody gave them job security....
> >Trudy
>
>
> What a cynical dropkick you are.
>
> As an apparent city dweller who rips open the Corn Flakes packet each
> morning, puts sugar and milk on it & has the bacon & eggs & the orange
> juice, (and no doubt enjoys the cheeky little chardonnay) you seem to
> overlook that we are talking about people who produce basic food for
> Australia and for export. Not lamp lighters or maids or academics or
> drongoes like you who are takers from the economy.
>
> If you think we can continue to wind down our rural sector (& us a
> country with the capacity to efficiently produce almost anything) and
> simply import our foodstuff from less efficient (& less healthy)
> countries who heavily subsidise their growers and dump product, then
> God help us.
>
> No-one has ever given farmers 'job security' as you put it, and that's
> not what they seek. Simply, a fair go without being forced to compete
> with imports of lower quality and artificially priced.
If the product is of "lower quality" don't you think the
_consumer_ will decide which they prefer?
You seem to think that farmers have a right to be assured of an
occupation and an income. Why?
> Look what happened to our manufacturing industries - virtually gone.
Funny, thats not that the ABS reports.
> When we don't produce food anymore we then presumably can rest on the
> service industries and gambling to sustain our economy.
Farmers are not the only players in the agricultural industry
producing food. We will continue to produce food as long as it remains
profitable to do so.
You know, I find it interesting this bleating about the need to
save our farmers. You don't think the American decision to raise import
barriers against our lamb could well have been because of a similar idea
for _their_ farmers?
Trudy Bray
Dave Garner wrote:
> Trudy Bray <ozbr...@zip.com.au> writes:
> [...]
> >You forgot the lamp-lighters and the blokes who walked in front of cars with a
> >lantern to warn people there was a car coming. ;-)
> >Gee, nobody gave them job security....
>
> Their unions weren't strong enough. I can assure you
> that there are positions at the Kooragang Island grain
> loader for MSU waterside workers to stand where a lever
> used to be (that controled a hopper dump) before it's
> operation was automated about 25 years ago.
>
> d.
You might have mentioned their equivalents in the boardrooms and managerial
offices....
Trudy
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Not every conservative is a bigot,
but every bigot is a conservative."
- Tommy Douglas
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Brian Ross
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.05.990723...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au>,
> Brian Ross <br...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Stephen Souter wrote:
> > > In article <Pine.LNX.4.05.99072...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au>,
> > > Brian Ross <br...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > > You are you fellow PHONies sound like a bunch of luddites. Always
> > > > wanting to preserve in amber a world which is changing faster than you can
> > > > blink your eyes. As Bryan asks, why do you want to live in the past?
> >
> > [snip]
> > > But all that aside, aren't you confusing your metaphors, Bryan? A
> > > "luddite" is usually somebody who tries to *destroy* a thing, not preserve
> > > it. In fact, One Nation supporters must be a little bemused that you are
> > > lumping them in with environmentalists and other left-wingers--instead of
> > > the right-wing sorts they are usually filed with! :)
> >
> > Essentially the PHONies are luddites because, just as the
> > followers of Ned Ludd did back at the end of the 18th century they seek to
> > _prevent_ the creation of something new. In both cases it was related to
> > the improving the efficiencies of industries. From the site, "Who Were
> > The Original Luddites?":
[snip]
> > [source: http://publish.uwo.ca/~nallen1/ludd.htm]
>
> This is starting to remind me of the old argument over whether a glass is
> half-empty or half-full. :)
I agree. Stephen, you raise some interesting points and I'll
attempt to address them...
> Is somebody who (say) destroys new machinery which will put him out of
> work, or who tries to stop a freeway going through his suburb or the
> demolition of an old building to make way for a modern office tower, or
> who tries to stop a uranium mine going ahead, trying preserve a thing
> ("_prevent_ the creation of something new") or destroy a thing?
>
> The point I was trying to make, though, is that Luddites did not merely
> oppose the new technology. They chose to achieve their ends in *extremist*
> fashion by deliberately setting out to *destroy* it. The wider sense you
> are now seeking to apply would label ANYbody who opposes something new by
> whatever means, be it by court action or peaceful protest, as a "luddite".
Not necessarily. I believe the term "Luddite" can perhaps be best
only applied in retrospect, as well after the event its possible to
clearly see whether their opposition was a good a bad thing. An excellent
case in point from modern history would be the Franklin Dam. At the time,
the opposition to the dam was based around, to a large extent, the
emotionalism of "letting the river run free" and not much in the way of
hard-headed economics. They were often labelled as "Luddites" by the
proponents of the dam. Today, we know the Hydro Authority was wrong in
its belief that it _needed_ to dam the Franklin in order to address the
percieved future shortfall in electricity in Tasmania. In fact, Tasmania
has an oversupply of electricity, even without the Franklin Dam.
While its sometimes possible to percieve, in prospect whether or
not opposition to a given development is "Luddite", its a lot harder to be
as absolutely sure as we are today about the original Luddite movement in
its opposition to industrialisation. The PHONies though, are much closer
to that movement than perhaps they realise, with their desire to not only
resist _technological_ development but more importantly, to try and half
_social_ developments IMO. They definitely seek to "preserve in amber a
society which is changing faster than a blink of an eye."
Opposition itself, to change, per se, is in itself not a bad
thing. The problem is gauging when that opposition has gone beyond being
useful, and will allow us to manage change and has instead, become an end
in itself. In the case of the PHONies, they aren't even suggesting we
should change or adapt to new events or movements, rather they simply sit
huddled around their open fires, with their shawls over their shoulders,
muttering to each other and lamenting the passing of the old,
hand-operated looms...
Anyway, if nothing else, it makes another good insult to hurl
at them. :-)
Oh, and BTW, quite often the Luddite protests were actually quite
peaceful and did not result in violence, in the slightest. Check out the
original source I provided to see what I mean.
Peter Mackay
Brian Ross <br...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au> wrote:
> There are of course many other players who will remain and who
> will continue to produce food, as long as they can turn a profit. Seems
> to me that you're buying into the romantic myth that only farmers produce
> food.
The contribution of accountants was inadvertently overlooked. Scuse.
Peter Mackay
lo...@my.sig (Geoff) wrote:
> I see the departure of unprofessional, lifestyle driven so-called
> 'farmers' as a good thing. Just like the departure of unprofessional
> participants in any industry. Perhaps you should ask the professional
> colleagues of the unprofessional?
Perhaps we could restrict voting to the professional classes, eh?
b_...@my-deja.com
to...@whyalla.net.au wrote:
> In article <37978dd5...@news.bit.net.au>,
> g...@gwb.com.au (Scott Balson) wrote:
> > 21st July 1999
> >
> > Our citrus, pork, lamb, salmon and apple producers could well be
> > excused for asking and wondering just who is our
> > government working for?
>
> This "press release" is just a whinge. One Nation
> need to do a LOT better than this if the party is
> to be around to see the next election.
>
I think there is a feeling that our governments (the current one and
the previous Labor one) are putting free-trade ideology ahead of the
interests of the locals. As the US has shown on lamb, when it comes
to the crunch most governments will look after the interests of
their own people if these are in conflict with their free-trade
policies.
Brian Ross
[snip]
> The Liberals are the party of Menzies. The ALP are the party of
> Curtin. The Nats are the party of McEwan.
>
> Old Notions are the party of Canute.
ROFL! You seem to be getting, like a good wine, better with age, Geoff.
I doubt the young animals will have much success this season, Akela ;-)
Brian Ross
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.05.990726...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au>,
> Brian Ross <br...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > There are of course many other players who will remain and who
> > will continue to produce food, as long as they can turn a profit. Seems
> > to me that you're buying into the romantic myth that only farmers produce
> > food.
>
> The contribution of accountants was inadvertently overlooked. Scuse.
Very funny, Peter. I was of course referring to agribusinesses,
not family farms. As Geoff noted, the loss to the agriculture industry
of the unprofessional, has not by and large, despite the One Nation
rhetoric to the contrary overly hurt our agricultural industries.
However, of course that flies in the face of the romantic myths that One
Nation and the Nationals ascribe to, now don't they?
Stan Rosenthal
wrote:
<SNIP>
:>As Geoff noted, the loss to the agriculture industry
:>of the unprofessional, has not by and large, despite the One Nation
:>rhetoric to the contrary overly hurt our agricultural industries.
:>However, of course that flies in the face of the romantic myths that One
:>Nation and the Nationals ascribe to, now don't they?
Of course, if you lose too many farmers, then you lose even more of
that part of the population that is regarded by ON as the only
Australians whose cultural expression is legitimate.
" This will lead to the bizarre situation of largely Asian cities on
our coasts that will be culturally and racially different from the
traditional Australian nature of the rest of the country."
The "rest of the country" will define acceptable Australian culture
and it is that part of the country not inhabited by city dwellers.
Brian Ross
> On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:13:39 +1000, Brian Ross <br...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au>
> wrote:
> >On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Geoff wrote:
[snip]
> >> The Liberals are the party of Menzies. The ALP are the party of
> >> Curtin. The Nats are the party of McEwan.
> >>
> >> Old Notions are the party of Canute.
> >
> >ROFL! You seem to be getting, like a good wine, better with age, Geoff.
>
> Thank you, sir - so much material, so little time...
Ah, the problem of the weight of age...
> >I doubt the young animals will have much success this season, Akela ;-)
>
> 8^) You speak truly, Rann, though we will continue to feast on Tabaqui
> and her followers...
Nay, Akela, I would not call _her_ Tabaqi, I would bequeath that
role to the one I call Leni. To _her_ I would give the role of leader of
the Bandar-log (as featured in the Disney version, not the original ;-).
But what of Baloo, Baghera, Kaa and Hathi? Who would be they?
Che Guava
Geoff <lo...@my.sig> wrote in article <37ad771a.42427338@news-server>...
> On Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:19:13 +1000, Brian Ross <br...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Geoff wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:13:39 +1000, Brian Ross <br...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Geoff wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >> >> The Liberals are the party of Menzies. The ALP are the party of
> >> >> Curtin. The Nats are the party of McEwan.
> >> >>
> >> >> Old Notions are the party of Canute.
> >> >
> >> >ROFL! You seem to be getting, like a good wine, better with age,
Geoff.
> >>
> >> Thank you, sir - so much material, so little time..
> >
> > Ah, the problem of the weight of age...
>
> 8^) Enough with the weight cracks, OK!
>
> >> >I doubt the young animals will have much success this season, Akela
;-)
> >>
> >> 8^) You speak truly, Rann, though we will continue to feast on Tabaqui
> >> and her followers...
> >
> > Nay, Akela, I would not call _her_ Tabaqi, I would bequeath that
> >role to the one I call Leni. To _her_ I would give the role of leader
of
> >the Bandar-log (as featured in the Disney version, not the original ;-).
>
> Suffering from a classical education, I never saw the Disney version,
> and it's been a long time since I read the tale. Just downloaded it
> from Gutenburg and will be reading it again. It's a lovely tale -
> thanks for reminding me.
>
> > But what of Baloo, Baghera, Kaa and Hathi? Who would be they?
>
> 8^)
> Kaa - Luchetti. Works on several levels.
> Dave G would do a good Baloo Junior.
> Wiley as Bagheera
>
> Hathi - I'll have to refresh my memory from the text.
>
> --
> Cheers,
Sheer Con.
> Geoff (geoffatiwsd.tcomd.tau)
>
> "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the
> guts to bite people themselves." -- August Strindberg
>
Brian Ross
> On Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:19:13 +1000, Brian Ross <br...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au>
> wrote:
> >On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Geoff wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:13:39 +1000, Brian Ross <br...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Geoff wrote:
[snip]
> >> >> The Liberals are the party of Menzies. The ALP are the party of
> >> >> Curtin. The Nats are the party of McEwan.
> >> >>
> >> >> Old Notions are the party of Canute.
> >> >
> >> >ROFL! You seem to be getting, like a good wine, better with age, Geoff.
> >>
> >> Thank you, sir - so much material, so little time...
> >
> > Ah, the problem of the weight of age...
>
> 8^) Enough with the weight cracks, OK!
Oh, well, perhaps those youngsters should start sharpening their
claws afterall...
> >> >I doubt the young animals will have much success this season, Akela ;-)
> >>
> >> 8^) You speak truly, Rann, though we will continue to feast on Tabaqui
> >> and her followers...
> >
> > Nay, Akela, I would not call _her_ Tabaqi, I would bequeath that
> >role to the one I call Leni. To _her_ I would give the role of leader of
> >the Bandar-log (as featured in the Disney version, not the original ;-).
>
> Suffering from a classical education, I never saw the Disney version,
> and it's been a long time since I read the tale. Just downloaded it
> from Gutenburg and will be reading it again. It's a lovely tale -
> thanks for reminding me.
Oh, you lucky man. The Bandar-log are the Grey Monkey People,
those that have no leader and who kidnap Mowgli. In the otherwise
mediocre 1967 Disney animated version (they released a new, live action
one in 1996, I believe which was no real improvement on it apart from
seeing John Cleese hamming it up for the cameras and obviously enjoying
himself), Walt decided to give the Monkeys a leader, King Louie who was a
rather a maniacal Orang-a-tang (why you'd find one of those in the jungles
of southern India is beyond me but this is Disney afterall). Seems
fitting to a mob who can't figure out which way is up, IMO.
> > But what of Baloo, Baghera, Kaa and Hathi? Who would be they?
>
> 8^)
> Kaa - Luchetti. Works on several levels.
Mmm, good choice.
> Dave G would do a good Baloo Junior.
> Wiley as Bagheera
Both good choices.
But who for Sher Khan?
> Hathi - I'll have to refresh my memory from the text.
I would have thought perhaps Souter - keeper of the law.
Che Guava
Geoff <lo...@my.sig> wrote in article <37b1d416.56111319@news-server>...
> On Mon, 9 Aug 1999 09:43:00 +1000, Brian Ross <br...@jcsmr.anu.edu.au>
> wrote:
<Snip> we will dib dib dib ;-)
> >
> >But who for Sher Khan?
I told you 4 days ago....
> Cheers,
Sheer Con.
> Geoff (geoffatiwsd.tcomd.tau)
I know it takes a long time to get from the screen to your few remaining
synapses..
Then you would have to understand it.. (I'm surprised you realized you
had been insulted, stylishly, this side of Christmas! ;-)
(Che, exits stage left, sets timer for 96 hours and waits for Guff to feel
the jab, (day 1) lumber into action, sulk, and finally compose his lame
riposte (days 2-4):
>
> Let's see - a bilious cripple who always goes after the easy prey yet
> still loses, who generally misses his target, who hangs out with
> sleazy company and who heads for the hills when confronted by a strong
> opponent... gotta be the Froot.
I withdraw my nomination.. you are just too slow and witless ... B^)
I suggest you go back to your corner corner and play with your toggle..
Che
------
What is Wearing's classic line? ..... "No Prizes for Second" B^D