Censorship: historically, now, implications for the internet, etc.

[*CountessA*]

In the beginning, La Grande Topic-Poster (that's I) created the topic and posted the thread. And La Grande Topic-Poster said, "Let there be definitions."

Censorship deriving from its historical meaning:

CENSOR
noun
      ¹ an official who examines books, films, news, etc. that are about to be published and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security

Psychoanalysis an aspect of the superego which is said to prevent certain ideas and memories from emerging into consciousness [from a mistranslation of German Zensur 'censorship', coined by Freud]

      ² (in ancient Rome) either of two magistrates who held censuses and supervised public morals

verb [with object]
      ¹ examine (a book, film, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it

Derivatives
censorial (adjective)
censorship (noun)

Origin:
mid 16th century (in  censor (sense 2 of the noun) ): from Latin, from censere 'assess'

[*smee*]

Censible snipe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc6w4SzIUN0

[*CountessA*]

Thus censorship is the suppression of things considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security... or according to Wikipedia (which I never use when I can get hold of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but let's go with it for now):

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

We thus have controlling bodies making decisions about communication/information available to the general body of people.

Is censorship ever a justifiable thing?

That is a BIG question... and I invite all of you to submit your thoughts about this.

Please try to separate the different types of censorship from each other as you write, and I ask you to include any historical references only if you can reference primary sources.

[callostemma]

And we all had the idea that censorship was something new

[tellomon]

Blah..................

[*CountessA*]

There's a very, very frequently quoted statement from the French National Assembly in 1789: “The free communication of thought and opinion is one of the most precious rights of man; every citizen may therefore speak, write and print freely.”

How true is this? I hold to it that a statement of this sort has a fine and flavourful rhetoric in intention, but may or even MUST fall in practice. To what extent it does varies from person to person, from government to government, from religion to religion, from political stance to political stance.

If every citizen can speak freely, is there any implicit expectation that each citizen will not cross a certain unstated line? Or is this statement doing away with all lines and boundaries?

[*CountessA*]

I will state here my position on internet filtering on the basis mooted by Labor:

I am against it.

(Note that this doesn't mean that I believe everyone should have access to all communication disseminated on the internet. It is my stance on the TYPE of internet filtering, the TECHNOLOGY on which it's based, the POWER and PRECEDENT it sets for our government to have this authority, the DISCREPANCY between the stated target and the actual target, and more.)

[Poddy]

Looks like I am forced into sheding my image of being economical with words for this one.

I will have to arrange my thoughts on the matter so that I don't blow away my image altogether.

Right at the moment I lack the  time to dedicate to that task, but later on I will find the time because it is a subject close to my heart.

How is that for setting the scene ?

[*smee*]

just think carefully before you type Poddy cos I will be censoring it

[shyer]

I do not think this is a current issue any longer in Australia, The greens and independants in both reps and senate will not support this.

I see the big issue as the NBN at some where between 50 at 100 billion dollars averaged out over the 10 million Australian odd taxpayers that is $5,000 to 10,000 PER taxpayer. Plus initial conection $ and monthly cost. Is it needed?

Still 1/3 rd of australian internet users are happy with dial up speed / cost compared to the cost of satellite. Some 1/3 of australians do not want or can not afford a home internet connection.

I read that the average internet speed is 2 Mb per second today. Looking at new wireless technology is this fiber to fiber a 10 year wonder?

My telephone cable installed in 1950 as a party line with a manual exchange where a 1950 call to my state capital cost some 2 hours work for a singe 10 minute call. Is now two lines with VOIP over 1 mb/ sec internet speed and my total monthly cost is 2 hours work for 24  / 7 internet access 50 Gb included and 100s of hours of telephone calls per month worldwide. With an always available incoming line.

Will I pay double for something I do not want or need? Not today and would need to see why tomorrow.

[mandurahmum]

“The free communication of thought and opinion is one of the most precious rights of man; every citizen may therefore speak, write and print freely.”

We have not had this right for a while now.  Remember the uproar over the danish cartoonist portrayal of Mohammad.   There are also a lot of words that we cannot use (not that we wanted to) in speech or print.

Even on this site - I am not allowed to use certain words - but that is the same for most discussion forums.

[mandurahmum]

Still 1/3 rd of australian internet users are happy with dial up speed / cost compared to the cost of satellite. Some 1/3 of australians do not want or can not afford a home internet connection.

Do you have a source for this information?

[shyer]

one set of figures

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8146.0

[*Ubbie Max*]

Countess. While everyones talking about censorship, How about censoring Retro's thread "Hydroponic Set Up re Retro's System For Home Gardener"! It's all about growing tomatoes & Silver Beet & other obnoxious matter.

It must be censored before it's too late & people start eating that vile stuff or, even worse, start growing it.

[*CountessA*]

Exactly, Mandurahmum; there is no such thing as ABSOLUTE freedom of expression because our freedom to express ourselves is not in isolation. It runs parallel with our freedom not to be abused or insulted (to a level), our freedom not to be subjected to unreasonable assault upon our ability to live peacefully and with certain ethical rights, and so on.

So I consider it a given that some form of censorship has always and will always exist.

Does everyone here agree with me?

Do we agree, too, that perhaps the best example of a very necessary "censorship" is seen in parents bringing up their children? It is actually illegal to expose children to pornography, to neglect them so that they have exposure to influences judged undesirable, to allow them to smoke or drink under a certain age, to allow them to drive under a certain age... We don't allow children to play with fire, to experiment with knives, to explore the joys of tossing electrical toasters into bathwater, etc.

[*CountessA*]

Ubbie, if it gets to the point that the hydroponics thread starts encouraging Brussels sprout stuff, there will be vegetable keelhauling to the right and left and all over the place.

[*Ubbie Max*]

I'll be ready Countess, rope in hand. You can count on me!

[mandurahmum]

Exactly, Mandurahmum; there is no such thing as ABSOLUTE freedom of expression because our freedom to express ourselves is not in isolation. It runs parallel with our freedom not to be abused or insulted (to a level), our freedom not to be subjected to unreasonable assault upon our ability to live peacefully and with certain ethical rights, and so on.

So I consider it a given that some form of censorship has always and will always exist.

Does everyone here agree with me?

Do we agree, too, that perhaps the best example of a very necessary "censorship" is seen in parents bringing up their children? It is actually illegal to expose children to pornography, to neglect them so that they have exposure to influences judged undesirable, to allow them to smoke or drink under a certain age, to allow them to drive under a certain age... We don't allow children to play with fire, to experiment with knives, to explore the joys of tossing electrical toasters into bathwater, etc.

I totally agree with you.

I can understand the fed government wanting to censor the internet - because of the bad people in the world.  Unfortunately they do spoil things for the rest of us good people. 

[*CountessA*]

I agree with the intention of protecting the vulnerable.

I do not, however, agree that the government has the right to filter MY search results or the search results of the average Australian citizen. I don't go on a ravaging hunt for pornographic sites or bomb-making sites - not my thing. But the very fact of everyone's search results being filtered gives me the gravest apprehension.

It's very hard to take authority and power AWAY from a government once it's given. What will any future government do with the rights that are being taken now? That's one of my concerns.

Secondly - the issue of pornography online. I'm not sure how many are aware of this, but peer-to-peer communication will not be affected. And I'm sorry to say that is how paedophiles connect rather than through websites; that is how grooming of teens and children for sex occurs, rather than through websites. The overwhelming majority of this sort of behaviour occurs through p2p communication. This means that one major concern of people who are in favour of filtering the internet is drastically misrepresented as being addressed by the filter - but it's not.

Thirdly - bomb-making, terrorism, etc. It's pretty much ditto. How do terrorists communicate with each other? I can tell you that they do NOT go a website called www.ohgollygeelookattheterrorismactsicancommit.com. They meet up through... yes... p2p.

Fourthly, let's say that some of these groups DO meet in forums. Any such forums are monitored by police or task force members whose job it is to infiltrate so as to expose - a stark contrast to "cover it up" by filtering it which, to my mind, only makes us pretend in a way that it doesn't even exist. Or perhaps not so much that as ... somehow shoving away any problem and leaving it for someone else to address.

Fifthly, will we ban sealed sections of sexy magazines? Will we ban sexy magazines? Will we ban those unbelievably tatty-looking weeklies with inflatable women draping themselves in swimsuits or nothing all over the cover?

Will Lady Chatterley's Lover once again be a forbidden book? (It's not that I think LCL is such a great work anyway... but let's admit you wouldn't want your 12-year-old to read it.)

Or will we simply leave it to parents to monitor their child's reading?

What about children's games? Do we allow the government to ban all computer games with blood and gore and guns and saucy wenches with impossible busts and posturing guys reeking with muscular machismo that's been added to by a thousand pairs of socks?

Or do we say - PARENTS, what are you allowing your children to play? Do we give the government the right to parent, or do we say we as adults must monitor ourselves, but that the children are parents' responsibility to parent?

Do we allow the government to teach us our religion? Will there be a state religion imposed upon penalty of fines or beheadings or fire or stoning or cold monolithic cutting off of all help?

You see, this is why I think this filter is a bad idea. We must be responsible for our own decisions. If sadistic violent pornography is to be filtered online, this will not stop a person determined to get his (or more rarely her) fix of it. They will simply look for it where it is available - in discreet parties, in x-rated literature and DVDs, in brothels catering to it. And it will NOT be stopped online... it just won't be. The filter cannot do that TECHNOLOGICALLY.

I see the filter as a bad idea ethically and a stupid idea technologically.

I also see the filter as a very misleading and harmful blanket under which parents can hide their faces in the mistaken impression that their child must be safe online because of this filter.

Ha.

And again, ha.

Not blooming likely.

The problem is not the internet: the problem is that corruption comes from the human heart. If we don't deal with it on a personal level as adults, and in a guardian role if we are parents or responsible for the innocent and/or vulnerable, we fool ourselves if we think any filter in the world will protect us.

[Poddy]

Tessa I will now stop busting my brain in trying to condense my thoughts on internet censorship you have very aptly described almost all of what my attitude is towards the bloody filter.
All I can add is that there is NO WAY the bloody filter will do anything else except waste a heap of moolah in the testing stages only to find that it can NEVER deliver what it says it can. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. 

[wyzeguy60]

Countessa for PM - pleeeeeaaaaaaaassssssseeeeeeeeee

 

[lacey]

Why?

[Roo]

Why?

Because she's cute?

Ok...now my thoughts.....

I believe that knowledge is power.

How can any of us gain knowledge if parts of what makes this world are hidden to us?

Our views would become one sided and lacking.

Lil Roo knows more about computers than I ever will....but I still have the right to check on who she is speaking with online. She has freedom to write what she wants....because I trust her judgement on fundamental good taste and I do make allowances for the language that young people use these days.
She has been warned that if she ever accepts someone on Facebook that isn't a classmate or relative....she will just have to learn to live without it until she gets a job, buys her own computer and moves out.  Or when she is 40....whichever comes first..lol

I'm not a huge fan of bad language.....but I much prefer honest bad language to sly inuendos that are well crafted to bypass filters that are already set up on many sites.

You only have to look at Ebay's joke of a system where someone can post some pretty disturbing information....but it isn't even acted on if the poster uses a smiley face at the end of it.

[*Brum6y*]

Apologies for this partial re-post, but it is particularly appropriate here...

On the subject of the 'Filter'... there are two major issues that I have a lot of trouble with - and there has been NO input from the advocates of the filter that have come close to addressing these issues, which are:

 1. The filter won't fulfil the goal promised.  While the technology has its issues, even assuming they can be adequately addressed, there are still a myriad of avenues NOT even mentioned in the filter that can be used to get to the same information.  It's like putting a deadlock, a retinal scanner and video security on the front door, but leaving all your windows open, the patio door unlocked and the key sitting in the lock of the back door.

In a nutshell, if anybody wants to find all that stuff you talk about (references to suicide, bombmaking, etc.), THEY WILL.  Just the same as you cannot make your car theft proof - if a thief wants it, it's gone!  (All you can do is make it less attractive so they go find an easier target.)


But my biggest fear by several orders of magnitude is twofold:

 2(a) The false sense of security. With the idea of a protective filter being 'sold' to the populace, all those who know no better or just want to be lazy about it, will abdicate ALL responsibility for the safekeeping of their children. They will think 'Oh, the Filter will protect them' and many will ignore any warning signs in the blind faith that the proponents of the Filter have 'sold' them.  You wouldn't buy a used car that your mechanic neighbour said wouldn't last a week, just because the salesman said 'trust me' ... would you?

 2(b) Not educating your children. This is so dangerous, I cannot begin to give it appropriate emphasis.  The real world is out there and your kids are going to have to face it one day - completely on their own, with all the rights, responsibilities, risks and rewards that come with it.  There are seedy, sinister, sadistic and simply dangerous elements out in the world that your kids WILL be exposed to and possibly have to deal with. Ignoring these realities because it's just too hard is a sure fire way to make their lives more difficult.  They aren't going to recognise the warning signs - and if the unfortunate were to occur and they find themselves in the middle of something nasty, they're not going to be able to cope.

Now, if your immediate reaction is to indignantly decry me for advocating the widespread exposure of our kids to the ugliness of the world and abandon any morals or protection that is our duty to provide them - then you are exposing your fear of having to do that job yourself.

Now if you think that isn't an easy job, then you are right, but who best to guide your kids?  The government?  The school system?  The church?  While each of these institutions have their value and place, NONE are in the ideal position to give personal instruction ... but who is?  Answer: Parents (and grandparents).  Whether you realise it or not, as a parent you ARE teaching your kids - every day.  Example is one thing they will learn from - and if your words are contrary to your actions, they will learn hypocrisy as well.

In my opinion, perhaps the most important part of a child's education is 'how to think for themselves'.  Telling your child what to think is only appropriate until they are old enough to start working things out for themselves - welcome the infamous 'teenage years'.  This is where they will rebel against being told what to think, what to do and what not to do - because their brain is working some things out for itself.  I just hope they have been given some good guidelines on travelling this ground - because it can be pretty rough.

Your child will absorb information from a variety of sources, many of which you won't have any control over and there are going to be some things that you won't have ever come across, so giving them the skills to think on their feet will see them cope with scenarios you may never have dreamed of.


So, if you want to take the easy way out and take the government supplied cotton wool option (that you paid for), then you are giving away yet another responsibility and doing your kids a greater disservice.  Not to mention that the cotton wool solution being presented by the government is akin to only covering the left arm, mouth, nose and right eyebrow.  If it ever meets the cold hard light of day, there are going to be a lot of exposed bits.

[wyzeguy60]

Why?

Because she is intelligent, articulate and has a very good understanding of the bigger picture when presenting arguments.
 

[Poddy]

Why the filter wont deliver what it claims it will.

Put on your devious hat and find one or 2 ways to get around it.

I put mine on found a few and I am not even very devious or clever, dont ask me what those were, that would be lazy on your part.

Just spend 10 minutes and think about it

[Poddy]

Here is just one example of beating the filter here

SH|T

[lacey]

Here is just one example of beating the filter here

SH|T

hmm.

[Poddy]

[wyzeguy60]

here are a list of words that would probably draw attention - laughable.

peacock
canteen
breast
cockpit
burger
assimilate
foolhardy
Mike Hunt - lol

 

[Poddy]

Here is another thought.

Imagine you are a person who delights in creating viruses.

Wouldn't the penultimate virus be one that would infect the filter database to make ALL sites unavailable.
Not possible you say? Why not? Any virus is not a virus until it is found to be one. on the first occasion no anti virus would pick it up.

[Poddy]

A viable alternative to the ISP filter.

Create a database of all known offensive sites and keep it updated.
Write software that would use that database on a LOCAL PC level
Make the software available free to any one who wants it and make the database downloadable so it would be always updated.
1 It would 'protect' the people who thought they needed protection
2 It would be a MUCH cheaper system than the ISP filter
3 Users who do not need it would not be inconveniences

See how simple it could be?

But hey that would mean that people had control at a local level and the powers that be didn't have control
 

[lacey]

well maybe you should write to her majesty J.Gillard and tell her all this.

if the filter doesn't pick it up (all that up there),  is it suppose to stop you going into that site or not.

[Poddy]

Lacey, the webpage filter is only as good as the last database update.
The cost of webpage registration is $9
Once a webpage is on the database you just move its contents to another page that is not on the database.

The concept of the filter is so full of holes that it makes Swiss cheese look like solid concrete.

By the way images can't be filtered unless you have image recognition software. An image can contain many Mbs of pixels and the software would have to sift through it all and all its combinations the permutations are astronomical. There could be an image database but it would have to contain EVERY image known to man if it was to do a comparison.
The reasons of why the filter cant work, as I have outlined, are just a few simple examples there are thousands of more reason why it can never work.

[Poddy]

Now couple all thes facts with one more fact and you will see the problem.

Fact.
Governments NEVER admit that they have screwed up so they will persue it until everyone jacks up or it goes broke trying, after all it is not their money, its yours and mine, so what the hell.

[Centuries]

It is necessary to educate both adults and minors in the safe use of the internet.

Education and communication. Lack of knowledge is dangerous.

[Poddy]

yes Nana

Just like teaching people to drive, swim, ride a bike, cross a road and the list goes on

[Centuries]

Yes, poddy Whether it is those things, or internet awareness, it is the same...just moved into the "now" and technology which is becoming more and more sophisticated. And the young, in many cases, having more computer/ technology "smarts" than their parents 

I have always been against heavy handed censorship which takes away an individual's need to develop their own knowledge and which creates a disinclination in people to use their own powers of reasoning.To me that is dangerous.

[Poddy]

Ahhh!!!!

Now we are getting to the crux of it

Could it be that governments, big business, powerful self interest groups and the like DON'T want people to think for themselves.
The want people to be like sheep, follow the ones in front of them, even over a cliff.
Uninformed/unaware/uneducated people are much easier to control than aware, informed and educated people who have the ability of original thought and a questioning nature.

Ever tried herding cats??

[Centuries]

Ahhh!!!!

Now we are getting to the crux of it

Could it be that governments, big business, powerful self interest groups and the like DON'T want people to think for themselves.
The want people to be like sheep, follow the ones in front of them, even over a cliff.
Uninformed/unaware/uneducated people are much easier to control than aware, informed and educated people who have the ability of original thought and a questioning nature.

Ever tried herding cats??

I am not against having rules and standards to abide by and live up to, and am, in many ways, quite conservative, (I blame my upbringing for that part of me )   but I refuse to be a "sheep"   



Speaking of cats...Yes! I tried to herd one cat today. Result  -  cat one-  myself  -nil-- Until I picked said cat up and removed her from the footpath.   

[Liisa-Sx]

Regarding the internet filter I have said it all before in great detail with facts to back it up:

Here: http://www.ozroundtable.com/index.php?topic=2041.0
 
& In this thread here : http://www.ozroundtable.com/index.php?topic=2564.0

It is very very wrong, it is very very dangerous, AND it is a MASSIVE waste of taxpayers money and it will NOT filter, I repeat NOT filter out what they say it will, take the time to read the information in the previous threads please if you would like the facts..

[*smee*]

but I refuse to be a "sheep"

Nanna thats good thinking especially if you are in the company of Kiwi's you must refuse to be a sheep

[*r3830*]

I had a quick look at this thread the other night - but didn't really have the time to respond to it. I've since thought about it some more.

In very recent times there has been a HUGE outcry in the US about a minister who has threatened to burn the Koran. He describes that book as a book of terror - and holds the believers in it responsible for the attack on the twin towers. The US has always had a strength of belief in their 'freedom of speech and expression', to the point that not even the President would step into the argument and direct the matter to be stopped. We all saw the outrage overseas and heard the concern from people that this most simple action in the US could (and in all probability would) cause an increase in the angst of the people and thus, the threat to the soldiers - or indeed, any US citizen. Incidentally, the Koran is NOT a book of terror, and the true believers practice peace - not war. There are in fact many similarities to the bible.

Some years ago, the argument surrounded flag burning. This, under the US Constitution is not an offence. (First Amendment) It's accepted as a freedom of expression.... and those famous words.... "I'll defend the right of another to do so." Freedom was seen as so important. Also this quote... "I believe Americans gave their lives in the many wars to make certain that all Americans have a right to express themselves — even those who harbour hateful thoughts."


Then - a contradiction to the above comments.

I posted a link a short while ago regarding Obama's wish for an internet 'kill key' that would isolate the US from the rest of the world. It was sold on the basis of preventing terrorist intel distribution across the net. The news frightened the international community, given the business ties that exist across the net. A somewhat different argument to preventing child pornography from getting to PC users. There is a huge change occurring over there at the moment in the name of National Security. Rights and freedoms are rapidly eroding and the populous angers.

Here - it's about child pornography. The introduction of the filter will not do anything whatsoever in addressing this issue - and there is enough information around to indicate that the government is well aware of this. Then why would they seek to pursue this avenue for nil gain? Or - what is the motive for such a change? Could it possibly be along the same line as the US direction - an attempt to stifle communication between countries, and people? Are they sooo determined to avoid a further disaster - as the Copenhagen Conference was.... due to the speed of communication and information between people? It's an interesting situation when you think about it.... a government won't invest $3 Million to keep a country hospital open, which benefits people .... and yet will invest >$50 Million into something that WILL NOT WORK..... to the detriment of the people.

I smell fish in the state of Canberra on this one!!

On terrorism.... the new excuse for draconian change.... I once heard it said that when we are forced to introduce such changes to our lifestyle that restrict our freedom and stifle our options - then the terrorist has done his job.... and well.

[lacey]

Ahhh!!!!

Now we are getting to the crux of it

Could it be that governments, big business, powerful self interest groups and the like DON'T want people to think for themselves.
The want people to be like sheep, follow the ones in front of them, even over a cliff.
Uninformed/unaware/uneducated people are much easier to control than aware, informed and educated people who have the ability of original thought and a questioning nature.

Ever tried herding cats??

Of course they do.  Just like one President saying Australia threw the first punch and then everyone over there would believe it and start firing on us.  That's how they start wars.  And of course they will go through with it.  All Govt are run by stupid ppl who want power and refuse to believe more than half of what they are told.   It doesn't matter what govt, they are all as bad as each other.

I don't want or need a filter.  I don't want or need NBN but others do and they believe it will work because they Govt said so. 

It doesn't matter what govt, they are all as bad as each other.

BUT!

I resent ppl saying they feel sorry for me or I'm stupid because I used the freedom I am entitled to use, to vote for the Govt I see as doing the best for me and my family.  Every time I say anything, it gets picked to pieces but you all are always right either.
If all those ppl wanted to get batts in their houses why the hell didn't they do the same as if they were purchasing it themselves and ring a reputable company?   

And Poddy please stop assuming JG knows all about the NBN and the filter.  As much as I love you for all your help, ppl can't know if they haven't been told and if they have been told, they also have others in the other ear telling them that of course it will work.  It's the same with me, I wouldn't have know it wouldn't work if you hadn't of told us here but now I know otherwise.


As I has sat and read these threads that a few has seen fit to make other members here look bad, I'm almost sorry I joined this forum.

I am Australian and I resent the fact that a hell of a lot of this country is getting sold off to overseas companies who take product and profit away from us.  Take Dairy Farmers for example, they pay the farmer 11c per litre and charge $5 a 2 litre bottle of milk.  How unfair is that and all because they told the farmers, they now can't sell enough milk so therefore the price to them (farmer) has to go down but the price to us still goes up.   

I'm off topic a bit here but yes, all Govt are the same. 

And I don't give a sh!t whats you all think, I see things my way the same as the rest of you but I resent being called an idiot!  if jobs go because of this new mining tax, it won't be any different than what Abbott was about to do and that was axe 12,000 jobs. 

Now I'm gonna go mow my lawn to let off some steam b4 I set the house on fire.

Grrr!!!

[wyzeguy60]

and who is calling you an idiot Lacey,

If it is me I'll leave instead because I don't think any of my posts have been personally directed at any one individual.
All my responses are based on fact and learned knowledge through studying politics at university and through reading and looking at both sides of arguments.
Anything Ged Kearney says from the ACTU would not be considered seriously by me as I consider it scaremongering by unions who have too much power IMO.

 

[golden]

As I has sat and read these threads that a few has seen fit to make other members here look bad, I'm almost sorry I joined this forum.

And I don't give a sh!t whats you all think, I see things my way the same as the rest of you but I resent being called an idiot!  

Now I'm gonna go mow my lawn to let off some steam b4 I set the house on fire.

Grrr!!!

Lacey,  you are now the new proud owner!!     til someone else comes along, then it's your job to give it to them or someone "more deserving" I've owned it for tooo long. haha.

Can you point me to the posts where you were called an idiot.

I don't want or need a filter.  I don't want or need NBN but others do and they believe it will work because they Govt said so.  

It doesn't matter what govt, they are all as bad as each other.


And Poddy please stop assuming JG knows all about the NBN and the filter.  As much as I love you for all your help, ppl can't know if they haven't been told and if they have been told, they also have others in the other ear telling them that of course it will work.  It's the same with me, I wouldn't have know it wouldn't work if you hadn't of told us here but now I know otherwise.

I have never met Poddy.  I only know him from the forum posts.  He has explained numerous times though that debates are good and facts count toward any discussion.  The above quote shows that he has persuaded you through logical argument to change your view on the NBN.  I can only agree with him.  If you present facts and can give reasons for your point of view it goes alot further than a hit and run post, often copied and pasted.

Lacey you are part of this eclectic mix that makes up the OZRT, people have become friends with you.  You may very well be number one thread starter on the 2010 OZRT postcard.    I've found myself sometimes you can read too much into a post.  Maybe with fresh eyes it reads different.  I thought I've read most posts and I dont see the nastiness/mean spirit that some of you are talking about.  I also have had some very thoughtful/caring PMs sent to me by people I have never met.  People who have taken the time to understand and have have a look with fresh eyes.  They are people that one day I might meet up with and have respect for the time and effort they put into this forum.

Only some thoughts and my opinion only.



[attachment deleted by admin]

[lacey]

No Dave didn't call me an idiot, did you Dave?  you said you felt sorry for anyone who voted labor.  I didn't feel that to be fair.  I know your angry, lol I can tell but I felt you were really starting to take things out on anyone here who voted Labor and I had to do what is right by my family.

I will forgive you.

no one called me anything directly but indirectly they did. 

The person who called labor voters idiots did so in another thread.  Also not directly at me personally but it also points to anyone who voted Labor. 

[lacey]

One thing I have noticed here is that it's mostly the men who are digging constantly at JG.  hmm that tells me that you don't want a woman as Prime Minister and you know why I don't want Abbott, because he's a snake that cut out or was going to cut out funding for women with breast cancer. 

Now maybe none of you guys know anyone who had breast cancer but I did.  My mum.  And as everything seems to be blamed on genetics these days, I reckon I have an 85% chance of getting it too.  And of course it's very rare for a guy to get breast cancer so I suppose if it was cut out, would you really care?

Now like Poddy said ALL Govt that come in  cannot and will not admit they've been wrong and will therefore just continue on there merry way and Abbott is no different.  It's very hard to get a job at 58, and if Abbott gets in, I guess that would put us back on the dole, so no, I'm not sorry I voted for him.

I'm just sorry to see you guys aiming all this crap at JG and not the whole Labor party.  When did it change?

[*Brum6y*]

I hadn't noticed any particular increase in attacks on Julia - the head of any party is usually the focus of criticism. I would be curious to find out whether there has been an increase - or is it that people are noticing it more.

I, for one, find the argument of 'giving a woman a go' at the Prime Ministership because maybe she can do a better job, is absolutely asanine and as sexist as you can get. Julia has no more right to the role because she is a woman any more than Kevin Rudd did because he is a man.

In the same breath, let me say that Julia has no less a right to the role because of gender.  (Unfortunately, there are some who cannot handle that ... I was talking to someone who's ex had been a staunch Labor supporter all his life - but was 'forced to vote liberal' because "you couldn't have a woman as PM". What a dinosaur (IMO))


But, back to the question... I am concerned that there may be an increased awareness of the type of wrangling that goes on, because it is now being levelled at 'a lady' and it is just not the sort of thing you do... whereas it's just a bit of knockabout, rough and tumble for 'the boys'.

If that be the case, do we have to redefine the rules of engagement for a woman as PM?

If so, how are we to have balanced political 'fights' when the rules are different unless the opponents are of the same gender?

[callostemma]

You can come and do my lawn Lacey
I seem to have mislaid my mower