I take Tim's point and unfortunately he is probably right. However, I'd like to think that someone's democratic and freedom of expression right to contact an elected Member would not be diminished for the reason mentionned. This is a multicultural society, and there are many people who come from a country and background where their first language is not English. (I am one) To have their views discarded for the reason that their command of the English language is less than perfect is disappointing, even worrying. Cheers Daniel. On 15/05/14 12:26, Tim Connors wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2014, Peter Ross wrote:

...

Dear Terry,

the last Federal budget is cutting support for education and health to Victoria by est. ca. 20 billion dollars.

Please axe the East West Link.

The Link was never the best next transport project for Melbourne, is poorly planned and is destroying park land that is there as long as the Colac Botanical Garden next to your home.

It is a dude, the business plan so weak that you not even dare to publish it, and not even in sync with your own proposals before the last election.

Could you do us a favour and proofread before sending stuff off to ministers. If they can't understand you, they will just bin your opinion.

Hi, On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:

Let's face facts, we have a racist government.

Perhaps..but I am a little undecided as to whether or not that statement has merit....Could you please post here Christine Milne's and the Green Parties stance/policy on the the Jewish Community in Australia and contrast that with the policy that the party has on the Israeli State?

Rgds BW

Hi, On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Paul Dwerryhouse <paul@dwerryhouse.com.au>wrote:

On 15/05/14 20:40, Brent Wallis wrote:

...

Perhaps..but I am a little undecided as to whether or not that statement has merit....Could you please post here Christine Milne's and the Green Parties stance/policy on the the Jewish Community in Australia and contrast that with the policy that the party has on the Israeli State?

Just a hint: if you're trying to make a point, surely the onus is on you to, you know, make it?

That easy. For me...every human is worthy and valid beyond measure... but (through personal xperience living in 3rd world cultures) I have come to understand that in every grouping of humans on this earth, there exists a small group of extremist assholes that like to think they represent the majority....but miss the complexity of culture clash...and they tend to confuse that ..they tend to simplify opinion...they confuse cultural difference and give it a label.....true racism(in fact any 'ism) is born of ignorance and fear...and fear can be manufactured by an opposing (fear of not being part of the group) argument. Clear? BW

Hi, On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Paul Dwerryhouse <paul@dwerryhouse.com.au>wrote:

Please do not CC me mail that goes to the list.

Need some help on how to config your MUA to handle it?

On 15/05/14 21:26, Brent Wallis wrote:

...

For me...every human is worthy and valid beyond measure... but (through personal xperience living in 3rd world cultures) I have come to understand that in every grouping of humans on this earth, there exists a small group of extremist assholes that like to think they represent the majority....but miss the complexity of culture clash...and they tend to confuse that ..they tend to simplify opinion...they confuse cultural difference and give it a label.....true racism(in fact any 'ism) is born of ignorance and fear...and fear can be manufactured by an opposing (fear of not being part of the group) argument.

...and I fail to see how any of that relates to either your previous statement, or the discussion at hand.

. ? Not really surprised this end. ;-) Lets wait and see what RC has to post.

BW

On 15/05/14 21:42, Brent Wallis wrote:

Oh and I notice you left out the most important bit from the thread which sort of destroys the context for others reading:

None of what you said relates to that. I am still waiting for you to actually make your point, Brent. Please, in one sentence, tell me what you are trying to say.

On 15/05/14 22:23, Brent Wallis wrote:

RC's statement "Let's face it we have a racist government" does not represent the reality of any side of government,national identity and culture, it is an extremist and populist viewpoint worthy of 1984 style newspeak, one that is held by very few of any culture that lives here, born of ignorance, fear and spin doctors who hope it gets repeated enough and becomes "reality" ; the horrid fact is that it solicits the very idea that is supposes to admonish.

So where exactly does your request to post the Greens' policies fit into all of this? -- Paul Dwerryhouse | PGP Key ID: 0x6B91B584 http://weblog.leapster.org/

On 15/05/14 22:37, Brent Wallis wrote:

Well lets wait for RC to respond. The Lime internal debate has been extremist in terms of the Palestinian/Israel issue. ...as has it been in every side of spin doctor wanky Poltix.

I'm really not interested in Russell's response to a non sequitur, I'm just trying to figure out what your request regarding the Greens was for. I still don't know.

On 16/05/2014 12:09 AM, Russell Coker wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2014 22:37:02 Brent Wallis wrote:

...

Well lets wait for RC to respond.

Brent, a lot of your writing is like some form of abstract art. One could try and look for some pattern in it as a matter of artistic interpretation, but it's too incoherent to have any provable meaning.

Make a clear point without hypocrisy and then we can have a discussion.

I could be wrong, but I think his point is obvious. RC says that we have racist gov't ... BW suggests that with RC's love of Greens that he should consider how racist the Greens are....BW also suggests that Greens are racist ... it's pretty simple really; pot, kettle, black??? A.

Hey there.... On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2014 22:37:02 Brent Wallis wrote:

...

Well lets wait for RC to respond.

Brent, a lot of your writing is like some form of abstract art. One could try and look for some pattern in it as a matter of artistic interpretation, but it's too incoherent to have any provable meaning.

Make a clear point without hypocrisy and then we can have a discussion.

Apologies if abstraction scares you....allow me to answer your challenge and make a clear, unambiguous statement: Green Party Poltix are no different to the Geoff Shaw school of extremist, "who cares if we are not in the majority ...we are in a position to block and will take every opportunity to do so" idealism that serves no lasting purpose other than to divide the electorate and get their face on a screen. ...and the worst bit is that it works against the very things they are trying to achieve. The Carbon tax was dropped because of the way it was shoved down every bodies neck...so now we are back to square one. If the Fake Green wankers did it right in the first place we would NOT be in this situation....and now they are "angry" and now they will continue their rants n tanties and it will be years too late when we finally get that one very important bit back on track....and meanwhile, the world burns. Hypocrisy? The worst type is that which is not seen by the hypocrites themselves. BW BW

Good to see you acknowledge your extremism, Russell. On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2014 20:20:47 Brent Wallis wrote:

...

In the end, despite the spin doctor and name calling tripe that others may push about me it is my hope that you understand that my diatribes are meant to make one very important argument...

Extremist comment solicits extremist response....and nothing can ever truly be solved by such.

You are saying that "name calling" and "extremist comment" is wrong.

On Sat, 17 May 2014 12:54:45 Brent Wallis wrote:

...

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au wrote:

...

On Thu, 15 May 2014 22:37:02 Brent Wallis wrote:

...

Well lets wait for RC to respond.

Brent, a lot of your writing is like some form of abstract art. One could try and look for some pattern in it as a matter of artistic interpretation, but it's too incoherent to have any provable meaning.

Make a clear point without hypocrisy and then we can have a discussion.

Apologies if abstraction scares you....allow me to answer your challenge and make a clear, unambiguous statement:

Green Party Poltix are no different to the Geoff Shaw school of extremist, "who cares if we are not in the majority ...we are in a position to block and will take every opportunity to do so" idealism that serves no lasting purpose other than to divide the electorate and get their face on a screen.

Extremist.

...

...and the worst bit is that it works against the very things they are trying to achieve. The Carbon tax was dropped because of the way it was shoved down every bodies neck...so now we are back to square one. If the Fake Green wankers did it right in the first place we would NOT be in this

Name calling and extremist.

...

situation....and now they are "angry" and now they will continue their rants n tanties and it will be years too late when we finally get that one very important bit back on track....and meanwhile, the world burns.

Name calling and extremist again.

...

Hypocrisy? The worst type is that which is not seen by the hypocrites themselves.

That applies to you too.

-- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk

On 18 May 2014 11:59, Arjen Lentz <arjen@lentz.com.au> wrote:

I recommend this thread stops. You know, before it goes all nasty with personal attacks and name calling...

Hello <insert inappropriate name here>, <insert personal attack here>. We can't do that. This is luv-talk! <insert another personal attack here>. <insert meaningless disclaimer or apology that I didn't intend to offend anybody here> -- Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 04:09:40PM +1000, Bianca Gibson wrote:

I'm fed up with all the name calling and personal attacks. I'm unsubscribing.

i'm finally happy with the level of name calling and personal attacks - just right! - so i'm subscribing. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>

On Sun, 18 May 2014 20:01:05 Brian May wrote:

On 18 May 2014 16:09, Bianca Gibson <bianca.rachel.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I'm fed up with all the name calling and personal attacks. I'm unsubscribing.

I think this thread is over now.

What is considered to be "name calling"? I've been accused of that recently because of my habit of stating things plainly. If someone makes a statement that is racist or misogynistic then I call it what it is. That doesn't really match most definitions of the term "name calling". It's more about people who believe that freedom of speech means freedom from disagreement. I don't think that some degree of "name calling" (by the normal definition of the term) is necessarily a problem. I generally don't swear much but I don't have any great objection to the occasional use of terms such as "wanker" and "fuck". I do object to the hypocrisy of people making an issue of "name calling" and abuse who do it themselves though.

Otherwise I might unsubscribe too. I lost interest in this discussion some time ago.

The initial point was made, it was a good point, Tim Conners had a positive response (that unfortunately probably will be ignored), then the conversation, at quick glance only, seems to have gone stupid.

I think that the problem here is that discussions aren't just about the stated topic. In recent times we've had people use the Linux Australia and Free Software Melbourne lists to persue their political aims from this list. If each topic was to be just debated as it's own issue then the list would be very different. Regarding your plans to unsubscribe, like any other mailing list if the discussion doesn't interest you then unsubscribing is the correct thing to do. If you think that there is scope for another mailing list with different content then propose it on luv-meta, the list server can run thousands of lists and there's no great difficulty in splitting this list into several lists if there is the demand for it. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 09:55:09AM +1000, Brian May wrote:

In another thread, the subject line, Christopher Pyne was compared with a human male body part.

amusingly, Christopher Pyne called Bill Shorten a cunt in Parliament on May 15. he later tried to bullshit that he said "grub" but it was clearly "cunt". Stilgherrian has a decent summary and recording here: http://stilgherrian.com/conversations/christopher-pyne-c-word/

Yes. Exactly. If my message was read as a threat of some sort, that was purely unintentional.

i read it as a joke. same for bianca's reply to you. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #162: bugs in the RAID

Whilst I haven't received any direct complaints on recent threads on LUV talk, and therefore haven't taken any direct action, I do request that all participants try to engage in some semblance of civil discourse. Participation in LUV mailing lists is a privilege, not a right, and it can be revoked. Creating an unfriendly environment for others is contrary to the objectives of the organisation. If a poster writes something that you find offensive or wrong, by all means seek to correct that idea. But leave personal criticism out of the discussion. Thank you. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

Just to be clear, /my/ view of these two terms in the context of how they were used are as follows: [acting as a ] Dick: - simply having absolutely no idea what one is talking about and doing so in a wreckless and provocative manner, in this case, trying to /try/ to score political points, but with a complete lack of care or thought and also a complete disregard for the facts. Being a dick, means you are utterly clueless and, in this case, completely out of touch with reality, but without the understanding that you are. [being a] Cunt: - I think, much like when a woman claims to be a bitch and be "proud" of it, this is similar. That is, you can do something and you are a "cunt" for doing it, you can avoid doing same and be more civil, /fair/ minded and respectful by refraining. Being a cunt is being unnecessarily hurtful or abusive, just for the sake of it. The fact that these terms also relate to body parts is totally irrelevant. Kind Regards A.

On 19/05/2014 4:53 PM, Russell Coker wrote:

It's actually very relevant. If you use "cunt" and "bitch" as terms of abuse then you are creating an environment where women aren't welcome. However the word "dick" doesn't have a great affect because it refers to members of the more powerful group and it's not so much associated with the threat of violence.

I accept this is true for some, but most likely the majority of those in AU will, at times, use much more colorful language -- which I object to. The use of Aussie colloquialisms, should be acceptable for an AU list of the type "luv-talk" ... where almost anything goes. There are other problems with political correctness that are also way over blown. Men risk, every single day, just looking at woman at all; if the woman detects a /sexual/ threat, then it can instantly become a legal issue -- yet it is all in the woman's perception of the /look/ and it can [and usually is] be completely innocent from the man. This really is PC gone crazy, people are people -- males have their traits as do females and it is completely normal for them to see things differently, but we need to understand each other. Times have changed, what was once 100% accepted, and EXPECTED is now frowned upon unnecessarily -- effectively stopping people from being people. A.

On 19/05/2014 6:09 PM, Russell Coker wrote:

On Mon, 19 May 2014 17:05:11 Andrew McGlashan wrote:

...

There are other problems with political correctness that are also way over blown. Men risk, every single day, just looking at woman at all; if the woman detects a /sexual/ threat, then it can instantly become a legal issue -- yet it is all in the woman's perception of the /look/ and it can [and usually is] be completely innocent from the man.

Yet another conspiracy theory.

Absolutely NOT, have you ever worked in a government department at any time? If so, you really should be fully aware of the possible issues relating to "sexual harassment" and how it works.

...

This really is PC gone crazy, people are people -- males have their traits as do females and it is completely normal for them to see things differently, but we need to understand each other. Times have changed, what was once 100% accepted, and EXPECTED is now frowned upon unnecessarily -- effectively stopping people from being people.

Not true at all.

Let's agree to disagree as we often have to do, and I disagree with you strongly on both of these points. A.

Whenever these "discussions" become nasty and/or extreme we almost invariably find Russell Coker at one end. Just an observation.

On 19/05/2014 7:33 PM, Russell Coker wrote:

...

Absolutely NOT, have you ever worked in a government department at any time? If so, you really should be fully aware of the possible issues relating to "sexual harassment" and how it works.

Yes, just refrain from harassing people and there's generally no problem.

In cases of sexual harassment accusations the incidence of real issues being ignored vastly exceeds false complaints.

No, then you clearly misunderstand the facts. The problem with how sexual harassment, in Federal public service at least, is termed is that it doesn't require /actual/ sexual harassment, all it takes is for the female to /feel/ sexually harassed, that's all, it's the female's perception that counts regardless of the male's intentions or actions .... and that is ridiculous to say the least. I did grow up in a household of 4 sisters, a brother and mother. My father died before I was 6 years old and unfortunately some of what I remember of him was horrific against my mother -- so I do sympathize with woman's issues, but I will not overstate them. My wife also grew up in a predominantly female household (no brothers) ... so we both have a pretty good understanding of woman's issues based on personal experiences and interactions in our families, social and work lives. btw please feel free to create a luv-snag list if you like, I won't be joining that, ever. Cheers A.

On 20 May 2014 19:09, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:

No, then you clearly misunderstand the facts.

The problem with how sexual harassment, in Federal public service at least, is termed is that it doesn't require /actual/ sexual harassment, all it takes is for the female to /feel/ sexually harassed, that's all, it's the female's perception that counts regardless of the male's intentions or actions .... and that is ridiculous to say the least.

<... anecdotal justification of thinly veiled misogyny removed for brevity ...> Please check your own facts, what you've said above is merely opinion based upon flawed logic. Since you've incorrectly paraphrased the definition of unlawful harassment for your own straw man argument. "Under federal and state legislation, unlawful harassment occurs when someone is made to feel intimidated, insulted or humiliated because of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin; sex; disability; sexual preference; or some other characteristic specified under antidiscrimination or human rights legislation . It can also happen if someone is working in a ‘hostile’ – or intimidating – environment." [1] Despite what you may believe, and despite your ridicule; the claimed intent of the perpetrator's actions does not define the reasonableness of their conduct, the prime consideration must be the effect of their conduct on the recipient. [1] – https://www.humanrights.gov.au/what-workplace-discrimination-and-harassment

On 18/05/2014 4:09 PM, Bianca Gibson wrote:

I'm fed up with all the name calling and personal attacks. I'm unsubscribing.

Just wondering if you are being serious or not. Cheers A.

On 15/05/2014 8:16 PM, Russell Coker wrote:

True. But I expect that most letters to MPs don't get read by the MP in question. It's probably mostly a count of people who object to a policy and care enough to write.

They obviously don't give a rats what the people think, they don't even car to get their own party agreeable on issues of significance. The best way is direct contact, probably snail mail over in person -- at least snail mail can have more weight if enough people are able to make their views known. Online petitions usually amount to absolutely nothing unless the numbers are far too high to ignore. A.