RFD: aus.culture.true-blue
Lance Baker
unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of an
Australian unmoderated Usenet newsgroup aus.culture.true-blue. This is not a
Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural
details are below.
Newsgroup line:
aus.culture.true-blue True-Blue Australian Culture Group.
RATIONALE: aus.culture.true-blue
The newsgroup aus.culture.true-blue is intended to provide a
forum for the discussion of all issues regarding the major culture
practiced within Australia.
At present, there is no other newsgroup which caters specifically for this
unique culture.
CHARTER: aus.culture.true-blue
An unmoderated newsgroup which would provide a forum for the
discussion of the unique True-Blue culture that Australia
is world renown.
Possible discussions are, but not limited to:
- culture, history, dialects;
- society, traditions, customs, folklore;
- impact of multiculturalism, related politics;
- food, cookery;
- communities abroad, problems, needs;
- other topics normally discussed in the soc.culture newsgroups;
This group will be unmoderated.
Binary postings, chain letters and unrelated commercial advertisements
are prohibited.
END CHARTER.
PROPOSER: Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au>
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
proposal is posted to aus.net.news), after which a Call For
Votes (CFV) may be posted by the aus.* administration team (See
http://aus.news-admin.org/ for further information). Please do not
attempt to vote until this happens.
All discussion of this proposal should be posted to aus.net.news.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined at http://aus.news-admin.org/Faq/aus_faq. Please
refer to that document if you have any questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
[ Newsgroup and mailing list distribution of the RFD goes here. ]
Proponent: Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au>
Bruce Lloyd
<la...@norcom.net.au> wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
Immediately before reading this message I read one which included the
following line:
"[apologies if you already read this on soc.culture.australian, but
I'd guess few people read that any more.]"
So I wonder if there is a need for another such group.
regards
Bruce
Illawarra Cyber Cyclists - http://www.ozemail.com.au/~bcl
Lance Baker
news:38537f98...@news.ozemail.com.au...
> On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:40:02 +0800, "Lance Baker"
> <la...@norcom.net.au> wrote:
>
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
> Immediately before reading this message I read one which included the
> following line:
> "[apologies if you already read this on soc.culture.australian, but
> I'd guess few people read that any more.]"
> So I wonder if there is a need for another such group.
Ah, but soc.culture.australian is located in the "big 8" hierarchies and
therefore can considered an international representation of Australia -
portraying a multiculture.
The local "aus.culture" hierarchy is provided for the uniqueness of each
culture that makes up the multiculture.
If you look at the other "aus.culture" groups, you will see examples that
have already been accepted:
aus.culture.china
aus.culture.gothic
aus.culture.hellenic
aus.culture.lesbigay
aus.culture.naturist
aus.culture.ultimo
However, I cannot see where unique "True Blue Australian" cultural
discussions would be appropriate in any of these existing newsgroups,
therefore I proposed a new newsgroup within this local sub-hierachy.
Thanks,
Lance.
Petrice Dixon
ours ,that there is one culture that is being blanketed even to the extent of
extinction.That is OUR CULTURE the easy going happy go lucky TRUE BLUE
AUSSIE.Yes we have got a culture and its a bloody beudy mate.but it is being
smothered by do gooders looking after the interests of other cultures when ours
is the one they all came here for.Not to mention the gay culture, were do they
get off prancing up and down the street,on there so called maddi gra member
ship drive.
Lance Baker wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
>
Ray
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
Personaly I think this newsgroup is one of the least intelgent
suggestions of a newsgroup I heard.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Lance Baker
> >have already been accepted:
>
> >aus.culture.china
> >aus.culture.gothic
> >aus.culture.hellenic
> >aus.culture.lesbigay
> >aus.culture.naturist
> >aus.culture.ultimo
>
> others were all grandfathered from before the voting system.
How many proposals to the aus.culture hierarchy have failed since then?
Lance Baker
news:slrn854lvf....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:40:02 +0800, Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au>
wrote:
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
>
> Personaly I think this newsgroup is one of the least intelgent
> suggestions of a newsgroup I heard.
Perhaps you could share with us the reason behind such an opinion.
After all, it is a request for "discussion".
David Bromage
: On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:40:02 +0800, Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au> wrote:
: > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
: > unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
: Personaly I think this newsgroup is one of the least intelgent
: suggestions of a newsgroup I heard.
Surely alt.god.grubor has that distinction. :)
Cheers
David
Nick Andrew
>If you look at the other "aus.culture" groups, you will see examples that
>have already been accepted:
>aus.culture.china
>aus.culture.gothic
>aus.culture.hellenic
>aus.culture.lesbigay
>aus.culture.naturist
>aus.culture.ultimo
aus.culture.naturist is the only one which was subjected to a vote; the
others were all grandfathered from before the voting system.
Nick.
--
Zeta Internet SP4 Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9231-9400
G.P.O. Box 3400, Sydney NSW 1043 http://www.zeta.org.au/
Chris Baird
> Personaly I think this newsgroup is one of the least intelgent
> suggestions of a newsgroup I heard.
Haven't you heard..? Mutliculturalism is all about having one
national image that was created for us by advertising companies...
--
Chris,,
Lance Baker
>
> Lance Baker wrote:
>
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
> >
> yee ha its about time someone considered that in this multinational
> country of
> ours ,that there is one culture that is being blanketed even to the
> extent of
> extinction.That is OUR CULTURE the easy going happy go lucky TRUE BLUE
> AUSSIE.Yes we have got a culture and its a bloody beudy mate.but it is
> being
> smothered by do gooders looking after the interests of other cultures
> when ours
> is the one they all came here for.
I have a feeling a lot of people share your views.
Particularly the people that live the true-blue culture.
Ray
Chris Baird wrote:
I think the United Nations may have a big say in the image and design
that is created for us by the advertising companies .This is supposed to
be fucken heaven compared to any were else in the world .Not a source
for the rest of the world to bleed dry through foreign owner ship and
investment Dick Smith has the begining of a great movement if enough
people can realize. Ray
Lance Baker
>> Personaly I think this newsgroup is one of the least intelgent
>> suggestions of a newsgroup I heard.
> Haven't you heard..? Mutliculturalism is all about having one
> national image that was created for us by advertising companies...
Multiculturalism embraces all cultures and portrays them as one.
This local "aus.culture" sub-hierarchy provides a good location to cater for
each individual culture that makes up the common multiculture, do you agree?
The distinct True Blue Australian culture is one that cannot be denied, and
is a major ingredient that forms this multiculture, but it is definitely not
the only ingredient.
As you can see so far, the only arguments against its creation are "hollow"
arguments - perhaps they are suppressing their true reason for opposition
(whatever that could be?).
Lance
(I love that spelling of the word "intelligent")
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
>news:slrn854lvf....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
>> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>
>> Personaly I think this newsgroup is one of the least intelgent
>> suggestions of a newsgroup I heard.
>
>After all, it is a request for "discussion".
Ok, there is no everdence for prior discussion of this topic, the
topic seems to be poorly defined. From its charter it seems to
duplicate soc.culture.australian and most of aus.*
Webmaster
voo...@nsw.bigpond.net.au says...
> I believe that Australia being such a multicultural society that it is
> better to have aus.culture.<insert cultural group here> so that those
> who live in Australia have a connection between Australia and their
> own roots.
You need the term "true blue" defining for you...?
Your argument (except for where you refer to true blue girls as "surfy
bimbos") was going fine, until your contradicted yourself with this last
paragraph. "it is better to have aus.culture.<insert cultural group
here>" is exactly what is being proposed. If other cultural subsets want
to propose their own group let them.
Don't you consider the "true blue" subset to be a part of our
multicultural society any longer?
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>Multiculturalism embraces all cultures and portrays them as one.
>This local "aus.culture" sub-hierarchy provides a good location to cater for
>each individual culture that makes up the common multiculture, do you
>agree?
Cultures and subcultures and socal groupings of that nature.
>The distinct True Blue Australian culture is one that cannot be denied, and
>is a major ingredient that forms this multiculture, but it is definitely not
>the only ingredient.
I don't feel that the charter defines this "True Blue" culture.
>(I love that spelling of the word "intelligent")
Read the sig.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<dbro...@fang.omni.com.au> wrote:
>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) (dfor...@zeta.org.au) wrote:
>: On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:40:02 +0800, Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au> wrote:
>: > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>: > unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
>
>: Personaly I think this newsgroup is one of the least intelgent
>: suggestions of a newsgroup I heard.
>
I said "one of".
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>> aus.culture.naturist is the only one which was subjected to a vote; the
>> others were all grandfathered from before the voting system.
>
>How many proposals to the aus.culture hierarchy have failed since then?
None.
Webmaster
says...
> (I love that spelling of the word "intelligent")
*sigh*
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<webm...@editgroup.aunz.com> wrote:
>In article <d6s55ssil9as7903s...@4ax.com>,
>voo...@nsw.bigpond.net.au says...
>
>> I believe that Australia being such a multicultural society that it is
>> better to have aus.culture.<insert cultural group here> so that those
>> who live in Australia have a connection between Australia and their
>> own roots.
>
>You need the term "true blue" defining for you...?
That would help.
Lance Baker
> On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:38:55 +0800, Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au>
wrote:
> >David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in
message
> >news:slrn854lvf....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> >wrote:
> >> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> >> > unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
> >>
> >> Personaly I think this newsgroup is one of the least intelgent
> >> suggestions of a newsgroup I heard.
> >
> >After all, it is a request for "discussion".
>
> Ok, there is no everdence for prior discussion of this topic, the
> topic seems to be poorly defined. From its charter it seems to
> duplicate soc.culture.australian and most of aus.*
I'll answer those points individually:
> Ok, there is no everdence for prior discussion of this topic
There is no criteria for producing such evidence in the AUS_FAQ.
Perhaps, if you hold this significant, you should see about getting it
included for future newsgroup proposals.
> the topic seems to be poorly defined.
The submission of a "Request For Discussion" is, in itself, designed for the
sole purpose of such fine tuning of the proposal. Wouldn't you agree?
> From its charter it seems to duplicate soc.culture.australian and most of
aus.*
Let me put it another way.
If this proposal was, for example, "aus.culture.aboriginal", would you have
the same opinion?
Remember, aborigines are "Australian".
To me, such a proposal would be perfectly valid.
Why? Because it is one unique culture that makes up the Australian
multiculture and therefore would fit perfectly within the local
"aus.culture" hierarchy.
With that in mind, the unique True Blue Australian culture also is an
ingredient (and only an ingredient) that makes up the Australian
multiculture and therefore would fit perfectly within the local
"aus.culture" hierarchy.
Your arguments appear to be hollow, without substance - but perhaps that may
be only my perception.
What is your real opposition to the newsgroup creation, besides "not another
newsgroup to the list"?
Lance Baker
> *sigh*
Well, he asked for it ;-)
Webmaster
dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:36:21 +1000, Webmaster
> <webm...@editgroup.aunz.com> wrote:
> >In article <d6s55ssil9as7903s...@4ax.com>,
> >voo...@nsw.bigpond.net.au says...
> >
> >> I believe that Australia being such a multicultural society that it is
> >> better to have aus.culture.<insert cultural group here> so that those
> >> who live in Australia have a connection between Australia and their
> >> own roots.
> >
> >You need the term "true blue" defining for you...?
>
> That would help.
What a sad shame.
Webmaster
voo...@nsw.bigpond.net.au says...
> So yeah, I still would like to know what "true blue" is. :)
What a sad shame.
Lance Baker
news:d6s55ssil9as7903s...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 08:10:47 +0800, in aus.net.news "Lance Baker"
> <la...@norcom.net.au> wrote:
>
> >Multiculturalism embraces all cultures and portrays them as one.
> >This local "aus.culture" sub-hierarchy provides a good location to cater
for
> >each individual culture that makes up the common multiculture, do you
agree?
and
> >is a major ingredient that forms this multiculture, but it is definitely
not
> >the only ingredient.
>
> true-blue. Define true-blue. Does it look like something from The
> Castle. Is it thongs and a blue singlet and a pair of stubbies on all
> the blokes?
> and all the sheilas are surfy bimbos like Puberty Blues.
> There are newsgroups for Australia Rules Football. Australian Travel,
> Australian Aboriginal Culture, soc.culture.australia and
> soc.culture.australian. There is a genealogy newsgroup and then there
> are all the aus.* newsgroups which cover many different aspect of
> Australian from motor sports to rock climbing to naturism to boating.
If you cannot see a unique distiction between True Blue Australian culture
and the portrayed Australian Multiculture - I can understand that my
proposal would look a little strange - but, please, dont deny the right of
people who "live" the difference.
Lance.
Lance Baker
> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 08:10:47 +0800, Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au>
wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Multiculturalism embraces all cultures and portrays them as one.
> >This local "aus.culture" sub-hierarchy provides a good location to cater
for
> >each individual culture that makes up the common multiculture, do you
> >agree?
>
>
and
> >is a major ingredient that forms this multiculture, but it is definitely
not
> >the only ingredient.
>
When a topic is as extensive as a culture is - the usual practice is to
generalise it.
The other option is to include every facet of the subject to give a fair
description.
I am not going to provided you with every facet of the subject, it would be
huge task and a waste of bandwidth. I'm also not going to provide you with a
few snippets that "alone" will not portray the True Blue culture correctly.
Therefore, I generalised - the only logical approach.
> >(I love that spelling of the word "intelligent")
>
> Read the sig.
You did imply a lack of intelligence of the proponent - therefore you
induced that reprise.
Webmaster
voo...@nsw.bigpond.net.au says...
I am sure there isn't a dictionary definition of it, if that's what you
are looking for. But since you know you are "not" true blue, then you
shouldn't need me to tell you what it stands for.
Webmaster
voo...@nsw.bigpond.net.au says...
> Again define what that difference is?
You already know it presumably, since you claim not to be true blue.
> What I am trying to do is be Devil's advocate here BYW so please don't
> take this personally. I just don't see how "true-blue" can be
> defined.
Sure you can. It's something you claim not to be.
Webmaster
voo...@nsw.bigpond.net.au says...
> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 14:03:44 +1000, in aus.net.news
> webm...@editgroup.aunz.com (Webmaster) wrote:
>
> >I am sure there isn't a dictionary definition of it, if that's what you
> >are looking for. But since you know you are "not" true blue, then you
> >shouldn't need me to tell you what it stands for.
>
> blue (though my lips have turned that way when cold) :)
Now you are just being silly. You carry on not being true blue, and I'll
carry on being true blue. I know what it stands for. You do not. You get
that.
> If you have another definition for it (even a non-dictionary one would
> do) I would love to hear it.
You mean you would like to carry on this silly line of conversation.
You're on your own.
Lance Baker
> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 14:37:00 +1000, in aus.net.news
> webm...@editgroup.aunz.com (Webmaster) wrote:
> >You mean you would like to carry on this silly line of conversation.
> >You're on your own.
>
> No actually I have asked for a definition of true blue. The purpose
> of an RFD is to discuss a proposal for a new newsgroup. The proposed
> newsgroup is aus.culture.true-blue. I would like a definition of what
> that is.
>
> Rather than questioning what I think true blue is or isn't perhaps we
> should both concentrate on the RFD itself which you haven't even made
> a comment about other either for or against.
>
> I would like to hear the proponent's explanation of what true blue is.
> I don't think that's a big ask considering a newsgroup may be called
> it.
When dealing withy an extensive topic like "culture" - the usual practice is
to
generalise it.
The other option is to include every facet of the subject to give a fair
description.
I am not going to provided you with every facet of the subject, it would be
a
huge task and a waste of bandwidth. I'm also not going to provide you with a
few snippets that "alone" will not portray the True Blue culture correctly.
Therefore, I generalised - the only logical approach.
I am not qualified as a cultural teacher, nor do I have the desire to waste
my time, your time and the bandwidth - solely to teach you about the diverse
subject of True Blue Australian culture to the extent that you would fully
understand it and be deemed capable of unbiased participation in this
discussion.
Your persistance with this line of argument will remain fruitless, the
simple reason being - nobody could be bothered wasting their time with the
huge task of explaining the culture.
I'm sorry if that sounded a bit harsh - but it is a fact - there is no
conspiracy.
One could argue, why are you participating in a discussion you know nothing
about?
Why haven't you researched the subject yourself before entering into such a
discussion?
If you are still upset with me posting a pointer to this RFD in the
aus.culture.naturist newsgroup (the one you strongly opposed), I will
apologise again, I am very, very sorry.
> True Blue could also take on a different meaning in the porn
> groups as well which would leave this group open to all kinds of
> inappropriate spamming.
Now there's a true argument - I'll do a dejanews search and get back to you
on that one.
Thanks,
Lance.
Webmaster
voo...@nsw.bigpond.net.au says...
> No actually I have asked for a definition of true blue. The purpose
> of an RFD is to discuss a proposal for a new newsgroup. The proposed
> newsgroup is aus.culture.true-blue. I would like a definition of what
> that is.
Yet interestingly you claim to not be it.
> Rather than questioning what I think true blue is or isn't
Or me.
> perhaps we should both concentrate on the RFD itself which you haven't even made
> a comment about other either for or against.
I am not decided. It has deep roots to some people. It can be a way of
life, much like naturism, which has many definitions according to
different people. If enough people can support a newsgroup for it that's
all well and good.
> I would like to hear the proponent's explanation of what true blue is.
> I don't think that's a big ask considering a newsgroup may be called
> it. True Blue could also take on a different meaning in the porn
> groups as well which would leave this group open to all kinds of
> inappropriate spamming.
The very same, unfortunately, can be said for naturism, and is frowned
upon by society in many circles. (I can give you Yvonne Chapman's email
address if you lie. She'd be happy to discuss the "disgrace" that she
labels our local naturism parkland, and the apparent problems it causes
with juvenille sex offenders and other related social outcasts).
I'm all for open discussion, and personal opinion. But yours started
with:
"what is true blue" - First you claimed "there is no such thing as true
blue", then you admit not being true blue but are not sure of what it
means.
"The Castle" - A good movie, with a true blue flavour
"thongs" - Casual footwear with a true blue history
"a blue singlet" - Casual clothing with a true blue history
"a pair of stubbies on all the blokes?" - Casual clothing on 'a true blue
term for men'
"sheilas are surfy bimbos" - Something that troubles you from your
childhood
I don't see that you are trying to discuss anything. More like trying to
play down a part of our history, and yours, as irrelevant now in our
state of multiculturalism.
Discuss away or hide away. But don't pretend it doesn't exist, and can't
hold a very strong meaning for a lot of people.
Gary
Chris Baird
> This local "aus.culture" sub-hierarchy provides a good location to cater for
> each individual culture that makes up the common multiculture, do you agree?
Personally, MC for me has been the absence of casually noticing ethic
divisions, because none appear unusual as I'm involved with them every
day...
And this newsgroup is to give special attention to a particular (and
mostly manufactured/bogus) ethnic division. Feh.
> The distinct True Blue Australian culture is one that cannot be denied, and
> is a major ingredient that forms this multiculture, but it is definitely not
> the only ingredient.
"major"? You shouldn't think just because a particular image you see
on television and is abused by many politicians who seek majority
approval, that was manufactured to be acceptable with as many clients
as possible, actually exists indigenously.
> As you can see so far, the only arguments against its creation are "hollow"
> arguments
Well, there's also been mention so far of:
There _are_ existing newsgroups for this discussion;
soc.culture.australian, aus.*, numerous sports and arts.
There's no evidence of prior discussion or need from mailing
lists, newsgroups, or other forums. (From the traffic here, only
about 7 people have participated..)
Anyway, who doesn't forsee the group just becoming another crosspost-
trap for flames?
> perhaps they are suppressing their true reason for opposition
> (whatever that could be?).
Because we're leftist book-reading democrat-voting vegan atheist
pooftas! Who've avowed that Real Men who drink Beer, have Broad
accents, and wear Akubra hats are our sworn enemy!
> Don't you consider the "true blue" subset to be a part of our
> multicultural society any longer?
It was? Outside of the really-not-serious books of "John O'Grady",
MoJo Advertising, and the lifestyle fashion victims of Tamworth and
Charleville?
> but, please, dont deny the right of people who "live" the
> difference.
There's no right for an aus.* newsgroup to propagate memes, particular
newsgroups that don't contribute in any real way to the discussions.
--
Chris,,
Ian Staples
I would have thought Asian actually. ;-)
[The first pair of thongs I owned were brought back to boarding
school for me by a friend living in PNG (then probably TP&NG) in
1956. The kids from PNG had them when they came back after one lot
of holidays and we decided they were a "Good Thing" so everyone
who could afford ten and sixpence (IIRC) arranged with a mate from
PNG to bring a pair back after the next holidays. I suspect they
had been brought to PNG originally by the large Chinese population
running businesses there.]
Cheers, Ian S.
Webmaster
<4246475F4AE6D211808D...@aricrmntnews.dpi.qld.gov.au>,
ia...@refer.to.sig.au says...
Well there ya go. They do have a place in Aussie history though, so
perhaps our Asian counterparts own the birthrights. :-)
Webmaster
voo...@nsw.bigpond.net.au says...
> >Yet interestingly you claim to not be it.
>
> I claim to be Australian nothing more nothing less.
I can see that, but I was simply playing on your words "I am Australian,
not true-blue" because you kept asking me a definition of true blue.
There is no text book definition that I know of. An individual could
write for days on what it means to them, and still someone will not be
sold on the idea.
But at the end of the day, I have no opinion to date on the creation of
this or any other newsgroup. I do however consider myself to be "true
blue", however it is defined. :)
Chris Baird
> ... you kept asking me a definition of true blue. There is no text
> book definition that I know of.
Try any sociology text that examines australian society.
(There was an "Open Learning" programme shown ~2 weeks ago that did
the big debate on MC and national image too.)
> An individual could write for days on what it means to them, and
> still someone will not be sold on the idea.
Exactly. Dogma.
--
Chris,,
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<webm...@editgroup.aunz.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn8560et....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
>dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
>> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:36:21 +1000, Webmaster
>> <webm...@editgroup.aunz.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >You need the term "true blue" defining for you...?
>>
>> That would help.
>
>What a sad shame.
If you can't define what the term your using means, then how are you
going to have a meanifull discussion about it. Let alone a newsgroup?
I'm afread that this newsgroup is being suggested to make a RL
policial point rather then to create a workable discussion group.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
[...]
>> Ok, there is no everdence for prior discussion of this topic
>
>There is no criteria for producing such evidence in the AUS_FAQ.
>Perhaps, if you hold this significant, you should see about getting it
>included for future newsgroup proposals.
Will do. It was meantioned in the Daft policy stament but should be
murged into the main text.
>> the topic seems to be poorly defined.
>
>The submission of a "Request For Discussion" is, in itself, designed for the
>sole purpose of such fine tuning of the proposal. Wouldn't you agree?
Yes, I would be glad to see a refinement.
>> From its charter it seems to duplicate soc.culture.australian and most of
>aus.*
>
>Let me put it another way.
>If this proposal was, for example, "aus.culture.aboriginal", would you have
>the same opinion?
No, because it would differentiate itself from soc.culture.australian
and aus.*, I haven't seen any such differentiation in your proposal.
[...]
>What is your real opposition to the newsgroup creation, besides "not another
>newsgroup to the list"?
All newsgroups have to justgify there existence. I don't feel that
yours has presented a creadable demonstration of this.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>Because we're leftist book-reading democrat-voting vegan atheist
>pooftas! Who've avowed that Real Men who drink Beer, have Broad
>accents, and wear Akubra hats are our sworn enemy!
As Nick will confirm I actuly where an Akubra hat.
Nick Andrew
>As Nick will confirm I actuly where an Akubra hat.
Confirmed. And a platypus lives on his phone.
Nick.
--
Zeta Internet SP4 Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9231-9400
G.P.O. Box 3400, Sydney NSW 1043 http://www.zeta.org.au/
Neville Duguid
> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 08:10:47 +0800, in aus.net.news "Lance Baker"
> <la...@norcom.net.au> wrote:
>
> >Multiculturalism embraces all cultures and portrays them as one.
> >This local "aus.culture" sub-hierarchy provides a good location to cater for
> >each individual culture that makes up the common multiculture, do you agree?
> >The distinct True Blue Australian culture is one that cannot be denied, and
> >is a major ingredient that forms this multiculture, but it is definitely not
> >the only ingredient.
>
> The thing is that as Australia is multi-cultural then how can you have
> true-blue. Define true-blue. Does it look like something from The
> Castle. Is it thongs and a blue singlet and a pair of stubbies on all
> the blokes?
>
> and all the sheilas are surfy bimbos like Puberty Blues.
>
> There are newsgroups for Australia Rules Football. Australian Travel,
> Australian Aboriginal Culture, soc.culture.australia and
> soc.culture.australian. There is a genealogy newsgroup and then there
> are all the aus.* newsgroups which cover many different aspect of
> Australian from motor sports to rock climbing to naturism to boating.
>
> Are there any mailing lists that could indicate how many people would
> use the newsgroup? What sort of traffic do you expect to in the
> group. Is the newsgroup being created on an "if you build it they
> will come" basis or do you feel there is a genuine need for this sort
> of newsgroup? What facts indicate that aus.culture.true-blue is a
> better newsgroups than soc.culture.australia or Australian. What does
> true-blue mean to the rest of the world?
>
> I believe that Australia being such a multicultural society that it is
> better to have aus.culture.<insert cultural group here> so that those
> who live in Australia have a connection between Australia and their
> own roots.
What about people who are third, fourth, fifth generation Australian? If
you want to discuss "al dente", you go looking for an .italian. group.
What if you want to find out why New South Welshmen call "lobsters"
"yabbies", and are not content being told "it is no longer relevant in
the modern world, but hey, be sure to check out
culture.medieval.tapestry before you log off?"
I am tired of being told my community, my ancestors and myself only
exist in my mind, and that we weren't even here until some postwar
refugees came ashore and "discovered" us.
Cheers
--
Neville Duguid * PC Political Science: "The insane should have *
nevi...@netspace.net.au * the same rights as everyone else. Anyone *
Spare me, spam me not. * who disagrees with them should not." *
Neville Duguid
> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 14:03:44 +1000, in aus.net.news
> webm...@editgroup.aunz.com (Webmaster) wrote:
>
> >I am sure there isn't a dictionary definition of it, if that's what you
> >are looking for. But since you know you are "not" true blue, then you
> >shouldn't need me to tell you what it stands for.
>
> I look at my skin and see that it's not blue therefore I am not true
> blue (though my lips have turned that way when cold) :)
>
> If you have another definition for it (even a non-dictionary one would
> do) I would love to hear it.
Well I am a "true blue" so therefore must know at least intuitively what
it means. I am definitely not a yobbo, a hoon or a surfie. I'm not sure
if I'm an "occer", and hope a majority of 'true blues' would consider me
one of the 'blokes'.
So, here's my explanation, subject of course to the approval of a my
fellow 'true-blues'.
'True blue' is an Australian colloquailism, similar to 'ridgi-didge' or
'the real McKoy' - Aussie for 'the real thing'. However the latter two
terms are generic for any 'genuine article'. A 'true blue' OTOH usually
means a 'true blue Aussie', a genuine Aussie, born and raised an Aussie,
whose attitudes and culture have not been diluted by too much exposure
to alternative cultures and conflicting ways of life.
Its English equivalent might possibly be 'to the manor born', although
I'm not sufficiently sure of that last term to be certain.
The 1981 Macquarie Dictionary takes 'true-blue' to mean "unchanging;
unwavering; staunch; true, staunchly conservative." It also traces that
expression's origin back to a similar one in 17th Century England and
Scotland where the Covenanters wore blue to distinguish themselves from
the royal red.
That IMO is an archaic use of the term as far as Australia is concerned,
and may not even be the correct etymology for Australia. If the
dictionary meaning survives in England or Scotland, it would probably
mean something quite different to what 'true-blue' means in Australia
today. True blue Aussies see irreverance and informality rather than
unchanging conservatism as their most distinguishing social trait.
I think the Aussie significance of 'blue' would be more like 'blue
blood' = 'royal blood', i.e., the 'genuine' article as opposed to a
'fake' or 'imitation'. OTOH, perhaps that is what the English and
Scottish 'blues' were also claiming. That's about the time the German
Hanoverians ascended the throne of England. I'm hazy about my facts
here, but I seem to recall a lot of talk in the press when Princess
Diana died that she was "more royal than the Royal Family" based on her
own separate ancestry. Perhaps it all ties together somewhere deep
within our tribal ancestry and collective subconscious as a people.
As for whether a "foreign born" can be a 'true blue' Aussie, I'm not
sure. I think anyone who came here young enough, who grew up in an
"Aussie" neighbourhood, accepting his neighbours' speech, mannerisms and
attitudes unquestioningly as his own, would qualify as a 'true blue'. (I
doubt that an Englishman would get any precedence over other foreigners
in that respect. To True Blue Aussies, an Englishman is a "pommy" in
the same way a true-blue Aussie is, well, a "true blue"). It is not
necessary to be a true blue to be accepted as an Australian BTW, "true
blue" predates Australia in the political sense.
Although 'multiculturalism' attempts to emulate the traditional way in
which Australian culture has absorbed and assimmilated the best of its
constituent cultures over time, people who grow up being force-fed
'Multiculturalism' as a formal creed IMO are unlikely to be accepted as
'true blue' by the real true blues.
It is not a rules-based concept, however. You know within your bones
what you are, and either you're a true blue or you're something else.
(It's sub-national tribal stuff. Changing your passport doesn't change
the place you feel homesick about, or the people among whom you feel
most at home. 'True blueness' comes from below that level of awareness).
In the end it is the shared understanding of all true blues that
determine whether or not they claim you as one of their own.
I can understand how some modern Australians of alternative culture
might resent or feel threatened by the concept of 'true blue' surviving.
But it should be viewwed in the same light as (eg) Why are Poles
'poles'? Why are Swedes 'swedes'? Why were French either 'frank' or
'gaul'? Why do Hollanders and Germans both claim to be 'dutch=deutsch'?
'True blue' is merely the Aussie way of expressing the same concept of
being united "under the skin" in their own unique way with their
ancestors, their countrymen, and their tribal homeland.
"Anti-racist" trolls note. 'True-blue' is culturally not racially
transmitted. Many 'true-blues' have Aboriginal in their ancestry, and
full-blood Aborigines qualify provided they don't feel stronger ties to
their own separate ancestral traditions, or don't disown the 'true-blue'
part of their nature for political or ideological reasons. There is
nothing, apart from being shielded by the alternative cultures
encouraged under Multiculturalism, that prevents immigrants, or at least
their children, becoming true-blue Aussies a generation or more after
their families' arrival.
Cheers
--
Neville Duguid * "To see what is in front of one's nose *
nevi...@netspace.net.au * needs a constant struggle." *
Spare me, spam me not * - George Orwell. *
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
[...]
>> I don't feel that the charter defines this "True Blue" culture.
>
>When a topic is as extensive as a culture is - the usual practice is to
>generalise it.
How about you take a compairtive posture. You state what the
newsgroup is relation to the other newsgroups.
>The other option is to include every facet of the subject to give a fair
>description.
The descriptive aspects of this proposals are "the major culture
practiced within Australia" now by definition soc.culture.australian
should satisfy this requirement, as well as aus.general.
>I am not going to provided you with every facet of the subject,
No thats not what a RFD is for, you have to just explain what the
newsgroup is for.
>> >(I love that spelling of the word "intelligent")
>>
>> Read the sig.
>
>You did imply a lack of intelligence of the proponent - therefore you
>induced that reprise.
I didn't, I said that the prosoal lacked intelligence, I didn't say
anything about the proponent. Even the most intelligent people can
have stupid ideas.
Lance Baker
> >> That would help.
> >What a sad shame.
> If you can't define what the term your using means, then how are you
> going to have a meanifull discussion about it. Let alone a newsgroup?
>
> I'm afread that this newsgroup is being suggested to make a RL
> policial point rather then to create a workable discussion group.
Ah! So your real reason for opposition has at last come out - you think this
is a conspiracy.
Sorry to disappoint you - it is not.
Lisa
Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au> wrote in message
news:94483640...@cube.norcom.net.au...
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
>
> Australian unmoderated Usenet newsgroup aus.culture.true-blue. This is not
a
> Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural
> details are below.
>
> Newsgroup line:
> aus.culture.true-blue True-Blue Australian Culture Group.
>
> RATIONALE: aus.culture.true-blue
>
> The newsgroup aus.culture.true-blue is intended to provide a
> forum for the discussion of all issues regarding the major culture
> practiced within Australia.
> At present, there is no other newsgroup which caters specifically for this
> unique culture.
>
> CHARTER: aus.culture.true-blue
>
> An unmoderated newsgroup which would provide a forum for the
> discussion of the unique True-Blue culture that Australia
> is world renown.
>
> Possible discussions are, but not limited to:
>
> - culture, history, dialects;
> - society, traditions, customs, folklore;
> - impact of multiculturalism, related politics;
> - food, cookery;
> - communities abroad, problems, needs;
> - other topics normally discussed in the soc.culture newsgroups;
>
> This group will be unmoderated.
> Binary postings, chain letters and unrelated commercial advertisements
> are prohibited.
>
> END CHARTER.
>
> PROPOSER: Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au>
>
> PROCEDURE:
>
> This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
> of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
> should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
> for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
> proposal is posted to aus.net.news), after which a Call For
> Votes (CFV) may be posted by the aus.* administration team (See
> http://aus.news-admin.org/ for further information). Please do not
> attempt to vote until this happens.
>
> All discussion of this proposal should be posted to aus.net.news.
>
> This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
> guidelines outlined at http://aus.news-admin.org/Faq/aus_faq. Please
> refer to that document if you have any questions about the process.
>
> DISTRIBUTION:
>
> [ Newsgroup and mailing list distribution of the RFD goes here. ]
>
> Proponent: Lance Baker <la...@norcom.ne
WOW !!!!!!! I would like to think that i could join into this discussion,
However , What i would like to say ,,I do not have enough knowledge to join
in.
Great reading what everybody else has to say though....
lis ;-)
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<nevi...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
[...]
>I am tired of being told my community, my ancestors and myself only
>exist in my mind,
Avoid nilists then.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>> I'm afread that this newsgroup is being suggested to make a RL
>> policial point rather then to create a workable discussion group.
>
>Ah! So your real reason for opposition has at last come out - you think this
>is a conspiracy.
No, I think your trying to prove the existence of "True Blue" by
creating a newsgroup dedicated to it.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<nevi...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
[...]
>Imagine that (eg) everytime someone queries the origin of the word
>'cappacino' on an Italian newsgroup, they had to endure a flame war from
>people insisting there is no such thing as an Italian, that Little Italy
>(NY) had just as much right to be called Italy as (Big) Italy, and that
>'cappacino' is a registered trademark of Pizza Corporation and if you
>don't retract they are going to sue etc, etc, etc - then maybe you'll
>get the picture.
Looks like normal usenet behavour to me. Usenet is just like that,
you try and have a strate converstation on any topic and strangness
will just brake out.
>I for one look forward to a cyber "safe house" for true blues. People
>who are not interested don't have to worry about it. Think of it as a
>nature reserve for shy nocternal endangered marsupials if that helps...
Perhaps a mailing list would be better for you then.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
[...]
>> How about you take a compairtive posture. You state what the
>> newsgroup is relation to the other newsgroups.
>
>The proposal is specifically for the "aus.culture" hierarchy, the reason
>being - it is "a" culture "within" Australia (not "the" culture of
>Australia).
>Knowing this, you ask for a comparitive posture.
Yes. How is this newsgroup going to be diffrent from the outher
newsgroups that alread exist.
>Let's look again at the "aus.culture" newsgroups that exist already:
>
>china, gothic, hellenic, lesbigay, naturist, ultimo
>
>You told me that only one of these was submitted for vote, I would like to
>see the extensive discussion that preceeded the creation of this group -
>where was the RFD posted so I can search with dejanews? Was it posted to
>"aus.general"?
Yes and aus.net.news.
[...]
>> No thats not what a RFD is for, you have to just explain what the
>> newsgroup is for.
>
>That's easy - the newsgroup is for "True Blue" Australians to gather and
>share their common culture.
Not realy usefull to me. What if someone said 'The newsgroup is for
"Marderighted" Australians to gather and share their common culture.
Zebee Johnstone
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
>Not realy usefull to me. What if someone said 'The newsgroup is for
>"Marderighted" Australians to gather and share their common culture.
Hmm.. if someone said "for all Chinese Australians" would it
be as hard for you?
When I think of "trueblue" I think of AUstralian working class, urban
and rural, and the values and customs that permeated Australia
from those people, which was especially obvious to overseas
visitors in the 40s and 50s.
I think of things like egalitarianism, mateship, a certain work ethic.
Beleif in individual worth rather than worth by money or descent
or profession or location. A special relationship with England,
very little awareness or interest in Asia or Europe or the cultures
of those countries. On the downside, a bit of contempt for thought
compared to action, a glorying of the physical over the intellectual,
"tall poppy syndrome", a certain entrenched mediocrity.
I read a book recently that was written just before the war by an English
writer who came to Oz and wrote of his experiences. He was very struck
by the consistent culture he found, and that culture was, I think, what
these people are calling "true blue". It takes most of a book to explain,
same as anyone who really wants to explain Chinese-Australian culture
properly is going to take more than a paragraph or so. The difference
is that with Chinese-Australian you can say "it's what the yellow
skinned ones do, you know, Chinese New Year and Yum Cha and so on" and
wander off with an aus.net.news job well done. It's easy to see that
an "outsider" has a different culture, it's harder when it's something
that permeates your own life so you are a fish as doesn't see the water.
But the water is part Chardonnay these days :) The culture has changed,
and the Australian culture is n ot what it was.
The "true blue" culture is Australian - the outsiders who saw it
in full flower knew that and described it. It has changed,
the country isn't as homogenous as it was, and the "dominant"culture
now isn't the same as it was inthe 40s although it's pretty similar.
I can see that those who identify with that culture would feel the way
that say Chinese Australians might. THey have a culture that isn't what
it was, it's changed by contact with others, and they want to rediscover
what they had and maybe renew it.
Which I think is just as legit as any other ethnic group wanting to
do the same thing. And because they want to talk about a specific
thing that was the "general" Australian culture but isn't any more,
then it is just as much a subset of aus.culture as anything else
there, and isn't about soc.culture.australian because it *isn't*
the Australian culture any more, but the ancestor of it.
Zebee
Neville Duguid
> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 14:13:20 +0800, in aus.net.news "Lance Baker"
> <la...@norcom.net.au> wrote:
>
> >If you are still upset with me posting a pointer to this RFD in the
> >aus.culture.naturist newsgroup (the one you strongly opposed), I will
> >apologise again, I am very, very sorry.
>
> No it's honestly nothing to do the spamming of the culture newsgroups
> to support your RFD - you apologised there and that's as far as it
> goes as far as I am concerned.
>
> As I said before the subject of true blue could be so broad or so
> narrow depending on how it is interpreted by the individual. How
> would aus.culture.true-blue be different from soc.culture.australia/n
>
> or indeed aus.culture.australian
>
Because, rightly or wrongly, Australia has been officially redefined as
a "Multicultural society". If you accept that definition, then
'australian.culture' could be about any or all cultures in Australia, or
even about how they relate to each other under 'Multiculturalism'.
"true blue" OTOH is one of many specific cultures. Whether or not it
still is (or ever was) the "dominant culture" I honestly don't know. A
dedicated discussion group could be a way of finding that out.
I have seen quite a few people in this thread assert simply that they
are "true blue" without attempting or even knowing how to define it. It
is our simple untroubled belief that we are "true blue" that unites true
blues. I think the newsgroup will be a great success.
Attempts to discuss our "true blue" culture's internal issues in wider
groups like aus.general or aus.politics invariably result in flame wars
with people who have no idea what we are trying to talk about among
ourselves.
Imagine that (eg) everytime someone queries the origin of the word
'cappacino' on an Italian newsgroup, they had to endure a flame war from
people insisting there is no such thing as an Italian, that Little Italy
(NY) had just as much right to be called Italy as (Big) Italy, and that
'cappacino' is a registered trademark of Pizza Corporation and if you
don't retract they are going to sue etc, etc, etc - then maybe you'll
get the picture.
I for one look forward to a cyber "safe house" for true blues. People
who are not interested don't have to worry about it. Think of it as a
nature reserve for shy nocternal endangered marsupials if that helps...
Cheers
Lance Baker
news:slrn85777m....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:04:11 +0800, Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au>
wrote:
> >David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in
message
> >news:slrn855v80....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> >> I don't feel that the charter defines this "True Blue" culture.
> >
> >When a topic is as extensive as a culture is - the usual practice is to
> >generalise it.
>
> How about you take a compairtive posture. You state what the
> newsgroup is relation to the other newsgroups.
The proposal is specifically for the "aus.culture" hierarchy, the reason
being - it is "a" culture "within" Australia (not "the" culture of
Australia).
Knowing this, you ask for a comparitive posture.
Let's look again at the "aus.culture" newsgroups that exist already:
china, gothic, hellenic, lesbigay, naturist, ultimo
You told me that only one of these was submitted for vote, I would like to
see the extensive discussion that preceeded the creation of this group -
where was the RFD posted so I can search with dejanews? Was it posted to
"aus.general"?
I only wish to see for myself the criteria and process for a successful
"aus.culture" group.
When I see this information - I will give you a comparitive response.
> >The other option is to include every facet of the subject to give a fair
> >description.
>
> The descriptive aspects of this proposals are "the major culture
> practiced within Australia" now by definition soc.culture.australian
> should satisfy this requirement, as well as aus.general.
I'll give you an example of the logic you are using:
Australia is made up of many states but WA is largest so Australia is WA.
It does not make sense and nor does your argument.
> >I am not going to provided you with every facet of the subject,
>
> No thats not what a RFD is for, you have to just explain what the
> newsgroup is for.
That's easy - the newsgroup is for "True Blue" Australians to gather and
share their common culture.
Webmaster
dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 21:58:32 +0800, Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> I'm afread that this newsgroup is being suggested to make a RL
> >> policial point rather then to create a workable discussion group.
> >
> >Ah! So your real reason for opposition has at last come out - you think this
> >is a conspiracy.
>
> No, I think your trying to prove the existence of "True Blue" by
> creating a newsgroup dedicated to it.
*sigh* You have got to be joking. What a complete waste of time the
notion of discussing a newsgroup has become with this pack of clowns.
Webmaster
dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
> >'cappacino' on an Italian newsgroup, they had to endure a flame war from
> >people insisting there is no such thing as an Italian, that Little Italy
> >(NY) had just as much right to be called Italy as (Big) Italy, and that
> >'cappacino' is a registered trademark of Pizza Corporation and if you
> >don't retract they are going to sue etc, etc, etc - then maybe you'll
> >get the picture.
>
Which says alot for those that regularly hang around in this type of
forum. Wouldn't hurt for some to see the sunlight occassionally.
Webmaster
says...
> I'll give you an example of the logic you are using:
> Australia is made up of many states but WA is largest so Australia is WA.
> It does not make sense and nor does your argument.
Lance, all the best with it buddy. If it comes up, I will subscribe. But
in all honesty, the fact that you have to explain what "true blue" means
to some of these clowns is a sad state of affairs. The fact that they
think aus.general is a suitable forum for your proposed line of
discussion is even sadder.
brian_r...@my-deja.com
b...@removethis.ozemail.com.au (Bruce Lloyd) wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:40:02 +0800, "Lance Baker"
> <la...@norcom.net.au> wrote:
>
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
>
> following line:
>
> "[apologies if you already read this on soc.culture.australian, but
> I'd guess few people read that any more.]"
>
> So I wonder if there is a need for another such group.
Of course there isn't. Problem is poor little Lance feels that he's
been left out, now that Australian Culture *_IS_* multicultural.
If anything, all he's trying to do is ghettoise Australian, white,
Anglo-Saxon/Celtic culture even further, rather than by allowing it to
embrace multiculturalism fully.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
brian_r...@my-deja.com
dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:52:07 GMT, David Bromage
> <dbro...@fang.omni.com.au> wrote:
> >David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) (dfor...@zeta.org.au) wrote:
> >: On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:40:02 +0800, Lance Baker
<la...@norcom.net.au> wrote:
> >: > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> >: > unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
> >
> >: suggestions of a newsgroup I heard.
> >
> >Surely alt.god.grubor has that distinction. :)
>
> I said "one of".
I vote for alt.chef.bork.bork.bork.bork. It has the unique distinction
of having required massive and unprecidented co-operation in the USENet
community to kill it.
Mike
Bruce Lloyd wrote in message <38537f98...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:40:02 +0800, "Lance Baker"
><la...@norcom.net.au> wrote:
>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
>
>
>following line:
>
>"[apologies if you already read this on soc.culture.australian, but
>I'd guess few people read that any more.]"
>
>So I wonder if there is a need for another such group.
>
I agree that there should be a NG such as the proposed one
because it becomes increasingly impossible to even discuss
Australian culture anywhere simply because anything uniquely
Australian, anything which appears to be in the slightest
interfering with the politically correct concept of multiculturalism
(such as even mentioning that Australia by itself has a culture)
is met with total hostility and killfiles.
There are no discussions about Australian culture possible
because because the topic is immediately changed by
certain politically correct people to racism and PHON,
so some reason. Apparently anyone who recognizes
that there is a unique Australian culture is a racist and
a founding member of the One Nation Party (and nobody
has explained this phenomenon to me yet).
Mike
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:38:55 +0800, Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au>
wrote:>>news:slrn854lvf....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:40:02 +0800, Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au>
>>wrote:
>>> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>> > unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
>>>
>>> suggestions of a newsgroup I heard.
>>
>>After all, it is a request for "discussion".
>
>Ok, there is no everdence for prior discussion of this topic, the
>topic seems to be poorly defined. From its charter it seems to
>duplicate soc.culture.australian and most of aus.*
Wrong, there is a lot of evidence for prior discussions about this
topic particularly on aus.politics.
However, since acknowledging that Australia has her own unique
culture when society is to be re-tuned by the "New World Order"
into a multicultural society the "true blue Aussie culture" is taboo
and politically incorrect, its existance is to be denied.
You will find that ay attempts by anyone in the other newsgroups
to talk about any "Aussie" culture will be met with abuse
and a subject change into racism and national socialism.
Mike
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote in message ...
>
>>
>>Let me put it another way.
>>If this proposal was, for example, "aus.culture.aboriginal", would you
have
>>the same opinion?
>
>No, because it would differentiate itself from soc.culture.australian
>and aus.*, I haven't seen any such differentiation in your proposal.
I sincerely disagree with that. soc.culture.australian is nothing
but an international promotion platform for Australian multiculturalism.
>
>[...]
>
>>What is your real opposition to the newsgroup creation, besides "not
another
>>newsgroup to the list"?
>
>All newsgroups have to justgify there existence. I don't feel that
>yours has presented a creadable demonstration of this.
Obviously you have never looked at the only othernewsgroup
where discussion about Australian culture often occur
and where any attempts to discuss Australian culture are
equaled with racism. How about you check aus.politics?
Mike
Lance Baker wrote in message <94483640...@cube.norcom.net.au>...
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
>
>
Outstanding suggestion. It is about time that we get a group
like that.
I bet you, Lance, that the politically correct new world order lobby
will do everything in it's power to prevent this proposal because it is
for them a criminal offence worse than murder to even acknowledge
that there is or was such a thing as a unique Australian culture.
I hope that everyone who is sick of allowing the politically correct
to squash any discussion about this subject will back this proposal,
may be we get this way real "free speech" on the NGs.
Mike
Ray wrote in message <38527BD5...@norcom.net.au>...
>
>
>Chris Baird wrote:
>
>> >> aus.culture.true-blue
>>
>> > Personaly I think this newsgroup is one of the least intelgent
>> > suggestions of a newsgroup I heard.
>>
>> national image that was created for us by advertising companies...
>>
>> --
>> Chris,,
>
>I think the United Nations may have a big say in the image and design
>that is created for us by the advertising companies .This is supposed to
>be fucken heaven compared to any were else in the world .Not a source
>for the rest of the world to bleed dry through foreign owner ship and
>investment Dick Smith has the begining of a great movement if enough
>people can realize. Ray
>
It is a social experiment to see if different cultures can actually
co-exists under one Government or if things would go the same
way as the other multicultural countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Kosovo and some African states....
It's all a trial for the ultimate UN aim - one world, one nation, one
Government
crap.
Mike
Voodoolady wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 08:10:47 +0800, in aus.net.news "Lance Baker"
><la...@norcom.net.au> wrote:
>
>>Multiculturalism embraces all cultures and portrays them as one.
>>This local "aus.culture" sub-hierarchy provides a good location to cater
for
>>each individual culture that makes up the common multiculture, do you
agree?
>>The distinct True Blue Australian culture is one that cannot be denied,
and
>>is a major ingredient that forms this multiculture, but it is definitely
not
>>the only ingredient.
>
>The thing is that as Australia is multi-cultural then how can you have
>true-blue. Define true-blue. Does it look like something from The
>Castle. Is it thongs and a blue singlet and a pair of stubbies on all
>the blokes?
Here is a big issue. Australia is SUPPOSED to be multicultural and
Sydney and Melbourne are but the rest of Australia is not.
There are millions of people who do not want to see Australia
to become multicultural but this is not noticed hence the big
surprises in elections and referenda.
>
>and all the sheilas are surfy bimbos like Puberty Blues.
If you have problems with this then stay in Sydney or Melbourne
and don't leave the city limits!
>
>There are newsgroups for Australia Rules Football. Australian Travel,
>Australian Aboriginal Culture, soc.culture.australia and
>soc.culture.australian. There is a genealogy newsgroup and then there
>are all the aus.* newsgroups which cover many different aspect of
>Australian from motor sports to rock climbing to naturism to boating.
All specialised activities conducted in Australia but nothing about
the unique Australian culture with the exception of soc.culture.australian
with is an advertising forum for Australian multiculturalim.
>
>Are there any mailing lists that could indicate how many people would
>use the newsgroup? What sort of traffic do you expect to in the
>group. Is the newsgroup being created on an "if you build it they
>will come" basis or do you feel there is a genuine need for this sort
>of newsgroup? What facts indicate that aus.culture.true-blue is a
>better newsgroups than soc.culture.australia or Australian. What does
>true-blue mean to the rest of the world?
May be you are trying hard to prevent such newsgroup from happening
in order to try gag those who do not agree with multiculturalism?
>
>I believe that Australia being such a multicultural society that it is
>better to have aus.culture.<insert cultural group here> so that those
>who live in Australia have a connection between Australia and their
>own roots.
So we have Chinese Australians, German Australians and English as
well as Irish Australians where the fellow whose ancester was a convics
is now called an Irish or English Australian putting him/her in the
same basket with a Pom who arrived here yeasterday?
I know enough immigrants who see it as an insult to refer to them
as "Vietnamese Australian" or "Danish Australian" or "Greek Australian".
They feel as Australians and they are loyal to Australia only and, like
me, of the opinion that those who are not loyal to Australia
exclusively should not be called Australians and go and live
where their loyalty lies.
I am an immigrant myself. I am now an Australian citizen, I like the
Australian culture and if you call me anything but Australian
(without any heritage pre-emble I take that as a mortal insult
and so does my Vietnamese friend!
Australia is not yet just a piece of real estate on the globe used
as the world's "public park" or some kind of the world's
"public housing estate" where everyone can move to if there is
a flat vacant. Over my dead body!
You sound like someone who lives in Sydney or Melbourne.
Mind you, those two cities are not Australia.
Australia is an independent and sovereign nation with her own
culture and the rest of the world can get stuffed!
>
>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>mailto:voo...@nsw.bigpond.net.au
>homepage:http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/set/6676
>Newsgroups: aus.culture.naturist, uk.rec.naturist
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
Mike
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 13:28:32 +1000, Webmaster
><webm...@editgroup.aunz.com> wrote:
>>In article <slrn8560et....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
>>dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
>>> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:36:21 +1000, Webmaster
>>> <webm...@editgroup.aunz.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> >You need the term "true blue" defining for you...?
>>>
>>> That would help.
>>
>>What a sad shame.
>
>If you can't define what the term your using means, then how are you
>going to have a meanifull discussion about it. Let alone a newsgroup?
>
>policial point rather then to create a workable discussion group.
OR, may be it would be a workeable discussion group in which
items are discussed and/or opinions are propagated you
consider as unacceptable and incorrect and which you would
like to prevent. May be your resistance is a a political point
as to preventing the propagation of "politically incorrect" views?
Mike
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote in message ...
wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> I'm afread that this newsgroup is being suggested to make a RL
>>> policial point rather then to create a workable discussion group.
>>
this
>>is a conspiracy.
>
>No, I think your trying to prove the existence of "True Blue" by
>creating a newsgroup dedicated to it.
Aha! It actually IS your attempt to assure that no discussion
about any Australian culture arises because you want to make
sure that everyone believes there is no such thing......
Your move IS a politically motivated move.
Mike
was or is a unique Australian culture.
Either the Voodoolady is too young to know about any culture
other than multiculturalism or has never been outside Sydney
or Melbourne (the mini world enclaves on Australian soil) or
she belongs to the politically correct who wants to re-engineer
Australian society into a mini-world under one Government
or the lady comes from another culture (like me) but is that
arrogant that she wants Australia to accept or even adopt
her culture and make total space for her (unlike me).
Voodoolady wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:36:21 +1000, in aus.net.news
>webm...@editgroup.aunz.com (Webmaster) wrote:
>
>>Your argument (except for where you refer to true blue girls as "surfy
>>bimbos") was going fine, until your contradicted yourself with this last
>>paragraph. "it is better to have aus.culture.<insert cultural group
>>here>" is exactly what is being proposed. If other cultural subsets want
>>to propose their own group let them.
>>
>>Don't you consider the "true blue" subset to be a part of our
>>multicultural society any longer?
>
>There is no such thing a true blue. In Australian we have Asian
>cultures, Italian cultures, greek, islamic etc etc. So yes I would
>like True Blue defined - what makes someone more true blue than the
>next person? That is what I meant by having a sub-culture which is
>still part of Australian Society yet the roots of that culture are
>elsewhere.
>
>Puberty Blues came to mind because growing up on Maroubra Beach as one
>of those surfing bimbos types I can tell you it was a lot like that
>back then.
>
>So yeah, I still would like to know what "true blue" is. :)
Mike
Voodoolady wrote in message ...
>webm...@editgroup.aunz.com (Webmaster) wrote:
>
>>> So yeah, I still would like to know what "true blue" is. :)
>>
>
>Why
>
>Is it something so intangible that you can't describe it? What makes
>us true blue? Simple question for you as you appear to know the
>answer, you just haven't answered the question yet.
>
>I am Australian, not true-blue. I sat up and watched Australia win
>the America's Cup and Keiran Perkins bringing home the gold. I cried
>when Molly died in Country Practice. I jumped for joy when Australia
>won the Olympics. I was standing on George Street for the tickertape
>parade when the Wallabies, Aussie Cricket team etc came home after
>winning their respective championships.
>
>I promote Australia for it's beauty, it's beaches, people and
>lifestyle. I promote Australian industry and working for a fully
>Australian owned company and bank with a fully Australian bank. I buy
>Australian products wherever I can.
>
>I am a proud Australian - though I don't know if I am true blue
>because no one has told me what true-blue actually is.
>
>Oh and I was born in England for the record. But I still call
>Australia home. :)
So why don't you look into a mirror to find out what "true blue"
is? That you were born in England is your problem. You are
an Australian citizen (I hope). You are loyal to Australia
(hopefully to the pont that you would even go to war against
England if necessary) and that loyalty makes you a true blue
Aussie!
Mike
Voodoolady wrote in message ...
>webm...@editgroup.aunz.com (Webmaster) wrote:
>
>>I am sure there isn't a dictionary definition of it, if that's what you
>>are looking for. But since you know you are "not" true blue, then you
>>shouldn't need me to tell you what it stands for.
>
>I look at my skin and see that it's not blue therefore I am not true
>blue (though my lips have turned that way when cold) :)
>
>If you have another definition for it (even a non-dictionary one would
>do) I would love to hear it.
Australians don't speak English socially but speak Australian! Some
words have a different meaning.
There is an Australian Dictionary in which all the typical Australian
words have been collected and explained.
May be it is worthwhile to have a look into it because it helps
to understand some people when you go on a trip into the
outback.
>
Mike
Voodoolady wrote in message <9n965ssh35cab7l4a...@4ax.com>...
>On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 14:37:00 +1000, in aus.net.news
>webm...@editgroup.aunz.com (Webmaster) wrote:
>
>>
>>You mean you would like to carry on this silly line of conversation.
>>You're on your own.
>
>No actually I have asked for a definition of true blue. The purpose
>of an RFD is to discuss a proposal for a new newsgroup. The proposed
>newsgroup is aus.culture.true-blue. I would like a definition of what
>that is.
>
>Rather than questioning what I think true blue is or isn't perhaps we
>should both concentrate on the RFD itself which you haven't even made
>a comment about other either for or against.
>
>I would like to hear the proponent's explanation of what true blue is.
>I don't think that's a big ask considering a newsgroup may be called
>it. True Blue could also take on a different meaning in the porn
>groups as well which would leave this group open to all kinds of
>inappropriate spamming.
And worse things could happen than porn and spamming - it could
actually happen that on that newsgroup some people get
involved in a discussion which counters things lke multiculturalism
and promotes nationalism.
You'd better fight hard so that these racist Nazi nationalists don't
get a voice or, god forbit, their own newsgroup! (cynicism ends)
Gee, aus.culture,true blue attracts porn or spam, INDEED......
You gotta do better to push your political agenda, lady!
Mike
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 00:53:55 +0800, Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au>
wrote:>>news:slrn85777m....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
>
>[...]
>
>>> How about you take a compairtive posture. You state what the
>>> newsgroup is relation to the other newsgroups.
>>
>>The proposal is specifically for the "aus.culture" hierarchy, the reason
>>being - it is "a" culture "within" Australia (not "the" culture of
>>Australia).
>
>>Knowing this, you ask for a comparitive posture.
>
>newsgroups that alread exist.
>
>>
>>china, gothic, hellenic, lesbigay, naturist, ultimo
>>
>>You told me that only one of these was submitted for vote, I would like to
>>see the extensive discussion that preceeded the creation of this group -
>>where was the RFD posted so I can search with dejanews? Was it posted to
>>"aus.general"?
>
>
>[...]
>
>>> No thats not what a RFD is for, you have to just explain what the
>>> newsgroup is for.
>>
>>That's easy - the newsgroup is for "True Blue" Australians to gather and
>>share their common culture.
>
But, may be, it is useful for me. Can I only have the things which are
useful for you as well?
Mike
Chris Baird wrote in message ...
> > Multiculturalism embraces all cultures and portrays them as one.
> > This local "aus.culture" sub-hierarchy provides a good location to cater
for
> > each individual culture that makes up the common multiculture, do you
agree?
>
>divisions, because none appear unusual as I'm involved with them every
>day...
>
>And this newsgroup is to give special attention to a particular (and
>mostly manufactured/bogus) ethnic division. Feh.
>
> > The distinct True Blue Australian culture is one that cannot be denied,
and
> > is a major ingredient that forms this multiculture, but it is definitely
not
> > the only ingredient.
>
>on television and is abused by many politicians who seek majority
>approval, that was manufactured to be acceptable with as many clients
>as possible, actually exists indigenously.
>
> > As you can see so far, the only arguments against its creation are
"hollow"
> > arguments
>
>Well, there's also been mention so far of:
>
> There _are_ existing newsgroups for this discussion;
> soc.culture.australian, aus.*, numerous sports and arts.
>
> There's no evidence of prior discussion or need from mailing
> lists, newsgroups, or other forums. (From the traffic here, only
> about 7 people have participated..)
>
>Anyway, who doesn't forsee the group just becoming another crosspost-
>trap for flames?
>
> > perhaps they are suppressing their true reason for opposition
> > (whatever that could be?).
>
>Because we're leftist book-reading democrat-voting vegan atheist
>pooftas! Who've avowed that Real Men who drink Beer, have Broad
>accents, and wear Akubra hats are our sworn enemy!
>
> > Don't you consider the "true blue" subset to be a part of our
> > multicultural society any longer?
>
>MoJo Advertising, and the lifestyle fashion victims of Tamworth and
>Charleville?
>
> > but, please, dont deny the right of people who "live" the
> > difference.
>
>There's no right for an aus.* newsgroup to propagate memes, particular
>newsgroups that don't contribute in any real way to the discussions.
There is no right for people to talk about any subject unless it is
approved by the politicaly correct multicultural brain elite.
(sarcasm off)
Mike
Lance Baker wrote in message <94483640...@cube.norcom.net.au>...
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of an
>Australian unmoderated Usenet newsgroup aus.culture.true-blue. This is not
a
>Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural
>details are below.
>
>Newsgroup line:
>aus.culture.true-blue True-Blue Australian Culture Group.
>
>RATIONALE: aus.culture.true-blue
>
>The newsgroup aus.culture.true-blue is intended to provide a
>forum for the discussion of all issues regarding the major culture
>practiced within Australia.
>At present, there is no other newsgroup which caters specifically for this
>unique culture.
>
>CHARTER: aus.culture.true-blue
>
>An unmoderated newsgroup which would provide a forum for the
>discussion of the unique True-Blue culture that Australia
>is world renown.
I suggest that such discussion group would be well supported and
important. When you look at the listing below:
>
>Possible discussions are, but not limited to:
>
> - culture, history, dialects;
> - society, traditions, customs, folklore;
> - impact of multiculturalism, related politics;
> - food, cookery;
> - communities abroad, problems, needs;
> - other topics normally discussed in the soc.culture newsgroups;
>
that there are cultural items such as history, traditions, dialect
customs and folklore which have many book written about them
which are selling well overseas. There is even a dictionary
about the unique Australian language copies of which I have
seen overseas.
One must not forget either than in many provincial cities and almost
in all rural towns and on the land this "ocker Aussie cuture" is
well alife and will stay alife for a long time because people are
proud of it and won't be told by the "city pooftas" what to do and what to
say.
In consequence it is important to be able to discuss the impact
of multiculturalism on Australian society.
I suggest that the NG would attract as much traffic as aus.politics
and show as much controversy as aus.politics.
It would be a shame not to have such NG. All other countries are
proud of their traditions, why not Australia?
Lance Baker
news:831fbs$5r0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <38537f98...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
> b...@removethis.ozemail.com.au (Bruce Lloyd) wrote:
> > <la...@norcom.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > > unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
> >
> > following line:
> >
> > "[apologies if you already read this on soc.culture.australian, but
> > I'd guess few people read that any more.]"
> >
> > So I wonder if there is a need for another such group.
>
> been left out, now that Australian Culture *_IS_* multicultural.
>
> If anything, all he's trying to do is ghettoise Australian, white,
> Anglo-Saxon/Celtic culture even further, rather than by allowing it to
> embrace multiculturalism fully.
This is a perfect example of what happens in the other "Australian" groups
when any discussion of "True Blue" Australian culture is mentioned.
Its alright Brian, there is no conspiracy, don't worry.
Scott Steel
Platypus)) wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 13:28:32 +1000, Webmaster
><webm...@editgroup.aunz.com> wrote:
>>In article <slrn8560et....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
>>dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
>>> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:36:21 +1000, Webmaster
>>> <webm...@editgroup.aunz.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> >You need the term "true blue" defining for you...?
>>>
>>> That would help.
>>
>>What a sad shame.
>
>If you can't define what the term your using means, then how are you
>going to have a meanifull discussion about it. Let alone a newsgroup?
Define consciousness?
Define art?
Define humanism?
These three topics have been at the center of human discourse for thousands
of years, yet *still* there is no consensus.We all aknowledge that they
exist, yet find it difficult to define them in a way which will be agreed
upon by all concerned.
In the same way, Australia has had historic cultural themes running through
it that continue to this day, whether they be beliefs, attitudes, behavioural
conventions or language.One cant define these things with any form of
overwhelming consensus, but we can all witness their manifestations and
aknowledge their existence.
Be it from the simple, widely aknowledged things like egalitarianism and
mateship, through to the more complex manifestations like
anit-authoritarianism and community solidarity, through to more subtle
varieties of cultural expression like behavioural conventions and social
outlooks ( such as avoiding egocentrism and giving everyone a "fair go")
>I'm afread that this newsgroup is being suggested to make a RL
>policial point rather then to create a workable discussion group.
And so what if it was?
If there are enough willing contributors who all know what the group is
about, (even if they cant define it precisely), who cares?
I have to ask, why do you seem to oppose the creation of this group?
Scott Steel.
Scott Steel
> > Multiculturalism embraces all cultures and portrays them as one.
> > This local "aus.culture" sub-hierarchy provides a good location to cater for
> > each individual culture that makes up the common multiculture, do you agree?
>
>Personally, MC for me has been the absence of casually noticing ethic
>divisions, because none appear unusual as I'm involved with them every
>day...
>
>And this newsgroup is to give special attention to a particular (and
>mostly manufactured/bogus) ethnic division. Feh.
What ethnic division?
Why bring ethicity into a subject where it doesnt exist?
Australia has a rich cultural history where many of its historical cultural
facets have, and are continuing to, evolve in different ways within different
groups.As metropolitan areas (particularly in the southern States) are
becomming more cosmopolitian, rural and regional Australia as well as
suburban Brisbane is manifesting a more conservative evolution of our
historical cultural facets. The term "true-blue" appears to fit this
regional/rural/suburban Brisbane evolution like a glove.
So please, leave ethnicity out of something where it is irrelevent and lets
not reduce discussion on culture down to base notions of race.
> > The distinct True Blue Australian culture is one that cannot be denied, and
> > is a major ingredient that forms this multiculture, but it is definitely not
> > the only ingredient.
>
>"major"? You shouldn't think just because a particular image you see
>on television and is abused by many politicians who seek majority
>approval, that was manufactured to be acceptable with as many clients
>as possible, actually exists indigenously.
Ever get out much?
I mean, beyond the suburban threshold?
Ever lived in a small community? Ever noticed the differences in the patterns
of behaviour and convention between the nations cities and its regional and
rural areas?
These differences werent created by PR spivs of dickhead politicians, they
werent manufactured - they exist and have a long history.
> > As you can see so far, the only arguments against its creation are "hollow"
> > arguments
>
>Well, there's also been mention so far of:
>
> There _are_ existing newsgroups for this discussion;
> soc.culture.australian, aus.*, numerous sports and arts.
soc.culture.australian is full of first and second year social science droids
and flame wars from overseas.Any discourse on Australian cultural history and
its non-metropolitan evolution quickly descends into a farce where one side
accuses the other of racism and the other side accuses the first of political
correctness and intelligent discussion never gets off the ground.Its a joke
and it has been for years.
If we are truley a mature multicultural nation, then how about we stop giving
the fact lipservice and back it with our actions.We enjoy cultural pluralism
as a nation, so why shouldn't we be able to enjoy our cultures and
sub-cultures of choice in an environment dedicated to the discussion of the
beliefs of our choosing?
Lets stop being hypocritical about our multiculturalism and actually start to
be proud of the benefits it brings for a change.One of the fundamental things
it brings is the freedom of cultural expression.If there are the numbers to
support the aus.culture.true-blue group then who is anyone to deny the would
be subscribers their right to cultural freedom and expression in a forum
dedicated to their beliefs?
> There's no evidence of prior discussion or need from mailing
> lists, newsgroups, or other forums. (From the traffic here, only
> about 7 people have participated..)
aus.politics for starters.Stuff that should be in a group like
aus.culture.true-blue has been a right pain in the arse for all concerned for
a long time in aus.politcs.
>Anyway, who doesn't forsee the group just becoming another crosspost-
>trap for flames?
The contributors to the group are not forced to crosspost.Undoubtedly cross
posts will come in from other groups but that ignores the entire potential
for purely aus.culture.true-blue domestic traffic.
> > perhaps they are suppressing their true reason for opposition
> > (whatever that could be?).
>
>Because we're leftist book-reading democrat-voting vegan atheist
>pooftas!
Well, we all have our problems.
>Who've avowed that Real Men who drink Beer, have Broad
>accents, and wear Akubra hats are our sworn enemy!
>
> > Don't you consider the "true blue" subset to be a part of our
> > multicultural society any longer?
>
>It was? Outside of the really-not-serious books of "John O'Grady",
>MoJo Advertising, and the lifestyle fashion victims of Tamworth and
>Charleville?
>
> > but, please, dont deny the right of people who "live" the
> > difference.
>
>There's no right for an aus.* newsgroup to propagate memes,
Like aus.culture. (china, gothic, hellenic, lesbiangay, naturist, ultimo),
aus.environment.conservation and aus.religion.christian
The question has to be asked, why not?
Dissalowing a group on culture because it has the capacity to propogate memes
is akin to disallowing any political discussion on the net for the same
reason.
Werent you attempting to propogate a meme by your remark,
"It was? Outside of the really-not-serious books of "John O'Grady",
MoJo Advertising, and the lifestyle fashion victims of Tamworth and
Charleville?"
Which brings the question, why should your hypocrisy be relevent to a
discussion where your own contribution is invalidated by your own morality on
memes?
>particular
>newsgroups that don't contribute in any real way to the discussions.
Who are you to judge the nature of contribution and its inherent value?
Maybe you cant see the value of discussing a particular culture that exists
within this country, but what right do you have to deny others their right to
cultural freedom and expression?
Scott Steel
Scott Steel
Platypus)) wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 02:32:31 +1000, Neville Duguid
><nevi...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Imagine that (eg) everytime someone queries the origin of the word
>>'cappacino' on an Italian newsgroup, they had to endure a flame war from
>>people insisting there is no such thing as an Italian, that Little Italy
>>(NY) had just as much right to be called Italy as (Big) Italy, and that
>>'cappacino' is a registered trademark of Pizza Corporation and if you
>>don't retract they are going to sue etc, etc, etc - then maybe you'll
>>get the picture.
>
>Looks like normal usenet behavour to me. Usenet is just like that,
>you try and have a strate converstation on any topic and strangness
>will just brake out.
Indeed, yet Usenet also exists as more than one group to accomodate
individual subject matters.You seem to believe that it is alright to force
all Australia cultural discourse and discussion, regardless of its major (and
sometimes unreconciliable) differences, into the one group, yet Im sure you
would be the first to complain if all the aus.* groups were abolished and
replaced with one aus.generic type group.
The only difference between the two events would seem to be that difference
between topics is acceptable only when it becomes important to you.
You may not perceive the need to differentiate discourse on Australian
culture as practiced in soc.culture.australian and that as would be practiced
on aus.culture.true-blue, but why should your ignorance stand in the way of
others whom see the need?
By that, I dont mean "ignorance" in an emotionally derogatory way, but as a
mere description.
>>I for one look forward to a cyber "safe house" for true blues. People
>>who are not interested don't have to worry about it. Think of it as a
>>nature reserve for shy nocternal endangered marsupials if that helps...
>
>Perhaps a mailing list would be better for you then.
Why not a news group.
Roughly a quarter of aus.politics is filled with stuff that would probably be
better for all concerned if it were posted in aus.culture.true-blue.
aus.general AND soc.culture.australian has its share of stuff that would be
better at home in aus.culture.true-blue.
It also opens an avenue up for discussion on topics where non previously
existed.If there were no aus.politcs group, would all posts to aus.politics
be posted in aus.general or would only some of them be posted due to the fact
that aus.general doesnt appear to be politics oriented?
Having a newsgroup dedicated to a particular topic acts to encourage
participation in debate on that topic if there are the numbers of people to
support it in the first place.Considering we are talking about the social
discourse relevant to 60-70% of rural Australians as well as a significant
number of people living in metropolitan areas whom are still interested in
discussing not necesarrily the culture around them, but a culture they still
see themselves a part of, I for one think that the number of people that this
group would be relevant to is somehow significant enough to support the
aus.culture.true-blue newsgroup.
brian_r...@my-deja.com
What? People start to question your rationale for foisting on us
another specialised newsgroup which is not required?
> Its alright Brian, there is no conspiracy, don't worry.
Que? Conspiracy? Sorry, don't know what you're talking about.
There is though, rather a foolish belief IMO that there is something
called "true blue Australian culture". I'd be very surprised if you
could even define it, Lance, let alone find anyone other than yourself
who practices it, in exactly the same manner you do.
Today, the majority of Australians have embraced the ideas and concepts
of multiculturalism and accepted that they are part of a dynamic,
cosmopolitan and hetergeneous culture which can no longer be defined by
the concepts of "meat pies, kangaroos and Holden cars", Lance. People
have moved on from those concepts and today are more likely to define
themselves as "pizza, fried rice, curried kangaroo and Daewoo cars".
This doesn't mean that the best elements of what you call "true blue
Australian culture" should be forgotten, nor will they. However, what
it does mean is that they will now be placed in context and accepted on
their merits rather than because its decreed that this *_IS_* how
Australians *_MUST_* act to be accorded that nationality.
Lance, all you're doing is repeating the same mistakes that the Academe
Franciase does WRT to French language and culture. I'd recommend you
aquaint yourself with their's and Jean Marie le Pen's ideals on the
subject. You'll most probably find some soulmates, even if you can't
speak their language. ;-)
Webmaster
says...
> In article <38537f98...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
> b...@removethis.ozemail.com.au (Bruce Lloyd) wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:40:02 +0800, "Lance Baker"
> > <la...@norcom.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > > unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
> >
> > Immediately before reading this message I read one which included the
> > following line:
> >
> > "[apologies if you already read this on soc.culture.australian, but
> > I'd guess few people read that any more.]"
> >
> > So I wonder if there is a need for another such group.
>
> Of course there isn't. Problem is poor little Lance feels that he's
> been left out, now that Australian Culture *_IS_* multicultural.
>
> If anything, all he's trying to do is ghettoise Australian, white,
> Anglo-Saxon/Celtic culture even further, rather than by allowing it to
> embrace multiculturalism fully.
Melodramatic crap. We might have to, or even want to, embrace
multiculturalism, but we don't have to do it at the expense of our sense
of belonging.
Webmaster
says...
> mateship
Which is a part of life lost on so many poor souls who simply exist to
discuss whether newsgroups should or shouldn't be created. To the point
where they need a term like "true blue" defining for them. How sad. :)
Webmaster
says...
> a trip into the outback.
Some wouldn't dare go that far away from an internet connection. :)
Webmaster
says...
> But, may be, it is useful for me. Can I only have the things which are
> useful for you as well?
I've got an idea...how about aus.net.news become the home of true blue
aussie discussion, and those who want to dispute it exists, or worse,
don't even acknowledge that they know what it means, could shoot through
to a new newsgroup called aus.culture.true-blue and cast their narrow
minded thoughts over what newsgroups can and can't be raised from there.
Clive Newall
> Roughly a quarter of aus.politics is filled with stuff that would probably be
> better for all concerned if it were posted in aus.culture.true-blue.
>
> aus.general AND soc.culture.australian has its share of stuff that would be
> better at home in aus.culture.true-blue.
>
> It also opens an avenue up for discussion on topics where non previously
> existed.If there were no aus.politcs group, would all posts to aus.politics
> be posted in aus.general or would only some of them be posted due to the fact
> that aus.general doesnt appear to be politics oriented?
The former. Traffic would appear lower, since you wouldn't count the
non-politics stuff as "on topic", but the on topic stuff would
probably be enough to justify a splinter group call "aus.politics".
Oh wow. Hey, that's _exactly_ how most groups in aus.* have been created.
That and growing from a mailing list.
Why should the group under discussion be any different?
>
> Having a newsgroup dedicated to a particular topic acts to encourage
> participation in debate on that topic if there are the numbers of people to
> support it in the first place.Considering we are talking about the social
> discourse relevant to 60-70% of rural Australians as well as a significant
> number of people living in metropolitan areas whom are still interested in
> discussing not necesarrily the culture around them, but a culture they still
> see themselves a part of, I for one think that the number of people that this
> group would be relevant to is somehow significant enough to support the
> aus.culture.true-blue newsgroup.
This, however, sounds too much like "build it and they will come".
Which does not work on usenet.
Stick to claiming some large percentage of traffic from aus.politics,
it makes more sense.
But don't expect a new group to be any less a flame-fest than than the
existing variants. The bait is the topic, not the location.
--
Clive Newall <c...@itga.com.au> / ITG Australia Ltd, Melbourne Australia
"I think Casper is the ghost of Richie Rich. I wonder how Richie died?"
"Perhaps he realized how hollow the pursuit of money is and took his own life"
--Bart and Lisa Simpson
Webmaster
lis...@wantree.com.au says...
> WOW !!!!!!! I would like to think that i could join into this discussion,
There's no reason why you can't. :)
> However , What i would like to say ,,I do not have enough knowledge to join
> in.
If it was blatantly incorrect or (sadly) an expression of your own views
that differ from those of the politically correct you would be stoned at
the cross.
> Great reading what everybody else has to say though....
Feel free to join in and say whatever you feel. That's one of the
beauties of our culture...we are not gagged by the narrow minded.
> lis ;-)
Webmaster
says...
> There is though, rather a foolish belief IMO that there is something
> called "true blue Australian culture".
You are, quite simply, an idiot.
> I'd be very surprised if you
> could even define it, Lance, let alone find anyone other than yourself
> who practices it, in exactly the same manner you do.
I'd be very surprised if you lived outside a local of Sydney or
Melbourne. So...stay there.
> Today, the majority of Australians
Speak for yourself.
> have embraced the ideas and concepts
> of multiculturalism and accepted that they are part of a dynamic,
> cosmopolitan and hetergeneous culture which can no longer be defined by
> the concepts of "meat pies, kangaroos and Holden cars", Lance.
No...the "minority" that you refer to have embraced foods and drinks that
they usually can't pronounce, eaten in restaurants that the pretend to be
able to afford, dressed in clothes that they are told are "in". The real
world still enjoys a pie, and the kids in that real world still enjoy
seeing a kangaroo, and probably from the window of a real car.
> People have moved on from those concepts and today are more likely to
> define themselves as "pizza, fried rice, curried kangaroo and Daewoo cars".
I never thought I'd ever meet anyone quite as stupid as Rod Speed. You
are rapidly making me doubt that.
> This doesn't mean that the best elements of what you call "true blue
> Australian culture" should be forgotten, nor will they. However, what
> it does mean is that they will now be placed in context and accepted on
> their merits rather than because its decreed that this *_IS_* how
> Australians *_MUST_* act to be accorded that nationality.
If you can't think for yourself that's your problem. If you live in a
subset of society that dictates how you must act that's your problem. And
if you personally believe that you have to live up to that dictation that
is your problem also. Which all has nothing to do with the topic in
question...we are discussing "true blue".
> Lance, all you're doing is repeating the same mistakes that the Academe
> Franciase does WRT to French language and culture. I'd recommend you
> aquaint yourself with their's and Jean Marie le Pen's ideals on the
> subject. You'll most probably find some soulmates, even if you can't
> speak their language. ;-)
What's wrong with someone acquainting themselves, and heaven forbid,
publically stating, their *own* ideals? You are a little make believe
person who probably wont be happy till every square mile of Aussie soil
has a cafe that sells $3.00 cups of coffee that you don't know how to
pronounce, so you and your little circle of friends can sit around and
ignore each other whilst you talk to your own answering machine on your
mobile phone. I'd love to see your circle of friends embark on a big trek
to the outback and try to influence the true blues in a good old country
pub with "Jean Marie le Pen's" bloody ideals.
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
SHOCK ME! You posted anonymously!
Sean
Tell the RSL their True-Blue culture is dead and they wasted their time
defending it.
Tell Alf and Ted Bullpit they are figment of a fictitous multiculture
destroying lie.
Thankyou boat people
Thankyou Asian Immigrants
Thankyou Coca Cola and Macdonalds
Up yours, aye cobber and FAIR SUCK OF THE SAUCE BOTTLE
You cant censor a culture from a public forum, its time for the moral police
to get out and catch some aussie sun.
Matt McLeod
that Sean did write:
>You cant censor a culture from a public forum, its time for the moral police
>to get out and catch some aussie sun.
This whole thing has gotten *way* off-track.
The question right now is whether or not a new newsgroup,
aus.culture.true-blue, should be created. Nothing more,
nothing less.
Personally, I've no problem with such a group -- regardless
of the merits of the culture in question. Some basic
definition of the term "true blue" is probably in order,
though -- not a full description, but possibly even
something as simple as "traditional Anglo-Australian
culture"?
(Yes, I am well aware that this not a complete or even
entirely accurate description, but you'd have exactly
the same problem if we were discussing the creation of
aus.culture.china or aus.culture.hellenic. It is at
least a start).
Obviously other issues like whether the group would
be likely to have much traffic of it's own or simply
become a trap for crossposted flamewars going on in
aus.politics also need resolving.
And *that*, more than anything else, is what is most
likely to kill off this proposal.
--
"Life. Loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it."
-- Marvin
Scott Steel
>Scott Steel <scott...@mailroom.com> writes:
>
>> Roughly a quarter of aus.politics is filled with stuff that would probably be
>> better for all concerned if it were posted in aus.culture.true-blue.
>>
>> aus.general AND soc.culture.australian has its share of stuff that would be
>> better at home in aus.culture.true-blue.
>>
>> It also opens an avenue up for discussion on topics where non previously
>> existed.If there were no aus.politcs group, would all posts to aus.politics
>> be posted in aus.general or would only some of them be posted due to the fact
>> that aus.general doesnt appear to be politics oriented?
>
>The former. Traffic would appear lower, since you wouldn't count the
>non-politics stuff as "on topic", but the on topic stuff would
>probably be enough to justify a splinter group call "aus.politics".
Ignoring our misunderstanding on the former, you've hit the nail on the head
with the latter.There is certainly enough stuff from aus.politics,
aus.general and soc.culture.australian specific enough in content to justify
a splinter group.
>Oh wow. Hey, that's _exactly_ how most groups in aus.* have been created.
>That and growing from a mailing list.
>Why should the group under discussion be any different?
It shouldnt.There is currently enough traffic to support the group.
>> Having a newsgroup dedicated to a particular topic acts to encourage
>> participation in debate on that topic if there are the numbers of people to
>> support it in the first place.Considering we are talking about the social
>> discourse relevant to 60-70% of rural Australians as well as a significant
>> number of people living in metropolitan areas whom are still interested in
>> discussing not necesarrily the culture around them, but a culture they still
>> see themselves a part of, I for one think that the number of people that this
>> group would be relevant to is somehow significant enough to support the
>> aus.culture.true-blue newsgroup.
>
>This, however, sounds too much like "build it and they will come".
>Which does not work on usenet.
Excepting of course that *they* are already *here* .
Scott Steel
Sean
> Ah, but soc.culture.australian is located in the "big 8" hierarchies and
> therefore can considered an international representation of Australia -
> portraying a multiculture.
> The local "aus.culture" hierarchy is provided for the uniqueness of each
> culture that makes up the multiculture.
> If you look at the other "aus.culture" groups, you will see examples that
> have already been accepted:
>
> aus.culture.china
> aus.culture.gothic
> aus.culture.hellenic
> aus.culture.lesbigay
> aus.culture.naturist
> aus.culture.ultimo
>
> However, I cannot see where unique "True Blue Australian" cultural
> discussions would be appropriate in any of these existing newsgroups,
> therefore I proposed a new newsgroup within this local sub-hierachy.
>
> Thanks,
> Lance.
>
>
Sean
>
> I bet you, Lance, that the politically correct new world order lobby
> will do everything in it's power to prevent this proposal because it is
> for them a criminal offence worse than murder to even acknowledge
> that there is or was such a thing as a unique Australian culture.
>
> I hope that everyone who is sick of allowing the politically correct
> to squash any discussion about this subject will back this proposal,
> may be we get this way real "free speech" on the NGs.
>
>
>
Sean
Hmmm you sound a bit racist there mate
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
news:slrn854lvf....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:40:02 +0800, Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au>
wrote:
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
>
> Personaly I think this newsgroup is one of the least intelgent
> suggestions of a newsgroup I heard.
>
> --
> Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
> http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Webmaster
sean_...@nospam.hotmail.com says...
> Ahhh I get it - its OK to be a freak but not patriotic
You consider all those covered by these newsgroups to be freaks?
snail
>>Ok, there is no everdence for prior discussion of this topic, the
>>topic seems to be poorly defined. From its charter it seems to
>>duplicate soc.culture.australian and most of aus.*
>Wrong, there is a lot of evidence for prior discussions about this
>topic particularly on aus.politics.
So how about quantifying this discussion ? Plus for this RFD to
be of value it should have been crossposted to groups where
discussion of this topic is likely to take place. If there is
such discussion in aus.politics (I have little desire to wade in :)
then the RFD should have been crossposted to aus.politics. It
shhould also have been crossposted to soc.culture.australia for
similar reasons.
--
snail | sn...@careless.net.au | http://www.careless.net.au/~snail/
I'm a man of my word. In the end, that's all there is. - Avon
Sean
He probly doesnt like Paul Hogan or Meat pies or Football or maybe he dont
have any MATES
Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au> wrote in message
news:94492634...@cube.norcom.net.au...
> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
> news:slrn854lvf....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> > On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:40:02 +0800, Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au>
> wrote:
> > > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > > unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
> >
> > Personaly I think this newsgroup is one of the least intelgent
> > suggestions of a newsgroup I heard.
>
> Perhaps you could share with us the reason behind such an opinion.
> After all, it is a request for "discussion".
>
>
>
Sean
And its the great tolerance and good nature of True Blue Aussies that make
this a heaven on earth.
Its a shame all the new arrivals and guest in this country are so
ungrateful.
Oz is an easy going culture - we get a bit sick of being pushed aside by
newbies.
> >
> >I think the United Nations may have a big say in the image and design
> >that is created for us by the advertising companies .This is supposed to
> >be fucken heaven compared to any were else in the world .Not a source
> >for the rest of the world to bleed dry through foreign owner ship and
> >investment Dick Smith has the begining of a great movement if enough
> >people can realize. Ray
> >
> It is a social experiment to see if different cultures can actually
> co-exists under one Government or if things would go the same
> way as the other multicultural countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina,
> Kosovo and some African states....
>
> It's all a trial for the ultimate UN aim - one world, one nation, one
> Government
> crap.
>
>
>
Sean
Voodoolady <voo...@nsw.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:d6s55ssil9as7903s...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 08:10:47 +0800, in aus.net.news "Lance Baker"
> <la...@norcom.net.au> wrote:
>
> >Multiculturalism embraces all cultures and portrays them as one.
> >This local "aus.culture" sub-hierarchy provides a good location to cater
for
> >each individual culture that makes up the common multiculture, do you
agree?
and
> >is a major ingredient that forms this multiculture, but it is definitely
not
> >the only ingredient.
>
> true-blue. Define true-blue. Does it look like something from The
> Castle. Is it thongs and a blue singlet and a pair of stubbies on all
> the blokes?
>
> and all the sheilas are surfy bimbos like Puberty Blues.
If someone here made observations about another culture in this way they
would be labeled as racist.
Just because Ockers dont have unique features like food, music, language,
clothing, skin colour, films that identify them as an independant culture
(oh shit you just identified some of these things you racist)
> I believe that Australia being such a multicultural society that it is
> better to have aus.culture.<insert cultural group here> so that those
> who live in Australia have a connection between Australia and their
> own roots.
Well said
Sean
Since when is a poorly defined culture any less of a culture
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
news:slrn855ugb....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:38:55 +0800, Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au>
wrote:
> >David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in
message
> >news:slrn854lvf....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:40:02 +0800, Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au>
> >wrote:
> >> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> >> > unmoderated group aus.culture.true-blue
> >>
> >> Personaly I think this newsgroup is one of the least intelgent
> >> suggestions of a newsgroup I heard.
> >
> >Perhaps you could share with us the reason behind such an opinion.
> >After all, it is a request for "discussion".
>
> Ok, there is no everdence for prior discussion of this topic, the
> topic seems to be poorly defined. From its charter it seems to
> duplicate soc.culture.australian and most of aus.*
>
Sean
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
news:slrn855v80....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 08:10:47 +0800, Lance Baker <la...@norcom.net.au>
wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Multiculturalism embraces all cultures and portrays them as one.
> >This local "aus.culture" sub-hierarchy provides a good location to cater
for
> >each individual culture that makes up the common multiculture, do you
> >agree?
>
> Cultures and subcultures and socal groupings of that nature.
>
> >The distinct True Blue Australian culture is one that cannot be denied,
and
> >is a major ingredient that forms this multiculture, but it is definitely
not
> >the only ingredient.
>
> I don't feel that the charter defines this "True Blue" culture.
>
> >(I love that spelling of the word "intelligent")
>
> Read the sig.
snail
> dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) wrote:
>> >Surely alt.god.grubor has that distinction. :)
>> I said "one of".
>I vote for alt.chef.bork.bork.bork.bork. It has the unique distinction
I'm fairly sure there was one less 'bork' :) In fact, according to
the aanvvv FAQ it was: alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork and was the
inspiration for aanvvv otherwise known as: alt.adjective.verb.noun.noun.noun,
an old favourite of mine. The FAQ can be found at:
<http://www.astro.su.se/~robert/Aanvvv/faq.html>
although that may be a little more information than you were expecting :)
snail
>In article <831pje$csk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, scott...@mailroom.com
>Which is a part of life lost on so many poor souls who simply exist to
>discuss whether newsgroups should or shouldn't be created. To the point
>where they need a term like "true blue" defining for them. How sad. :)
Personally I think 'true-blue' is a poor choice for a group name.
I certainly understand it and use the term myself, however I tend
to think it is only part of what defines Oz today. A better way
(although I'm not comfortable with this title either) would be
along the lines of aus.culture.australia or even aus.culture.oz :)
where discussion of 'true blue' is on topic.