All Activity

Me too.

Never said she was the answer, problem is the encumbent isn't either. You are the one that started calling people childish names. Grow UP!

No. There is always more to do, and Learn. Nev

Pathetic. IF you see her as the answer you have a Problem. Prime minister? Just think about it for a moment. SHE would make us the Laughing stock of the entire world in no time flat.. The People she aligns with, you would NOT want to Know. It;s also" HER show", Remember and Ashby plays a Major Part in it. Operating within the Law will be one of Her biggest difficulties but SHE will Play the "They are out to get ME Card" for ALL it's worth. Nev

she didn't ask to leave, just said if you don't like it go back. Stale tart, talking about the greens member are you?

The forum algorithm has just promoted me to Grand Master for some reason. That means the only way forward now is downhill.

USA has the Best Politicians Money can BUY. They then turn into Dictators you can't get rid of. .Nev

Party too. Everything should be taxpayer funded when it comes to elections. An amount of money would be allocated for each candidate for advertising, staff, equipment etc. Let's face it, the vast majority of Australians do not donate to political parties. The ones that do are usually after something in return. Take out the money and you lessen the influence, meaning decisions are more likely to be made in the interests of all people.

Who has the right to tell any one to leave, who is Lawfully here.? She's only doing it to $#!t stir and get Publicity. Playing gullible people for MUGS while she Lives the grand Life, She's a "Would be IF she could be, Stale Tart who hates scrutiny and Hard Questions" She's the very LAST thing this Country Needs. Nev

Just as well I can lift heavy things, or use to be able to.😁

whether?

OME, give Jerry his keyboard back.

Or like the ABC. I see that ABCs interview with Albo about the billionaire he had lunch with didn't include any commentry weather they didn't believe what he was saying from the interviewer.

I heard of a trick that a university lecturer played to test if his students were regurgitating AI stuff. The basis of the trick was beautiful in its simplicity. When we produce a document with a word processor, we normally accept that the colour of the text will be black on a white background, as you see here. However, if the text colour is selected as white, then the text is not visible, despite the text being present on the page. There is a word within these brackets ( word ). You could see it if the font colour was not white. Wht the lecturer did was to include a word it his document bu hid it by changing the font colour. An AI helper does not take into account font colour, so the word was included in his students' responses if they simply copied and pasted what AI had produced.

If you are invited into someones home and start to mouth of about the traditional parts of their lifestyle and mouth of about a person who didn't actually have anything to do with the stuff that upsets them, I am sure that you are within your rights to tell them to leave. Pretty sure if we were in Pakistan and started to act like that it wouldn't go down to well. My definition of racism would be that the person was told to go back there just because of their heritage.

Strewth! Chinglish has ben replaced by AI garble.

Should that apply to the Party or the candidate? Politcal Parties do not have many members compared to the whole population, so membership fees cannot fund the advertising needed to conduct a campaign. Sad truth, but a truth nonetheless. Should there be a cap on the amount a donor can give? Probably the best solution. Does promotion via the various media types count as a donation? Getting into freedom of speech there. Because the bookies pay tax as well. You won't kill off gambling.

I found this book description on line. Is it AI or just garbled translation? I think AI would do better. The book itself is in English. This book is written as a practical field manual to effective. Each geolOgist has to develop his/her be used by geologists engaged in mineral explo­ own techniques and will ultimately be judged on ration. It is also hoped that it will serve as a text results, not the process by which these results and reference for students in Applied Geology were reached. In mineral exploration, the only courses of universities and colleges. The book 'right' way of doing anything is the way that aims to outline some of the practical skills that locates ore in the quickest and most cost-effective turn the graduate geologist into an explo­ manner. It is preferable, however, for an individ­ rationist:. It is intended as a practical 'how to' ual to develop his/her own method of operation book, rather than as a text on geological or ore after having tried, and become aware of, those deposit theory. procedures which experience has shown to work An explorationist is a professional who search­ well and which are generally accepted in indus­ try as good exploration practice. es for ore bodies in a scientific and structured way. Although an awkward and artificial term, The chapters of the book approximately fol­ this is the only available word to describe the low the steps which a typical exploration pro­ totality of the skills which are needed to locate gramme would go through. In Chapter 1, the and define economic mineralization.

SBS should be sued for their show "Go back to where you came from" ... they could have named it something else entirely. They inflamed the national debate, inciting and provoking racism for their own ends - stirring the pot, and knew they'd get away with it. Both the ABC and SBS need to be defunded until they come to their senses, then a stronger watchdog to keep them in check.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/trump-was-given-a-special-title-by-americans/ss-AA27nA7r?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=6a7088b620e041ceaec54f3ab457d2d5&ei=34#image=6

It will be interesting to see what becomes of a high court challenge. The judge in this case said it functioned as a test case for the claims of both parties. Marty, you judge Hanson's intent on her past history and you have every reason to, but a court can't take any previous statements on other past matters into account; they must only judge on the matter at hand. If an appeal to the high court happens, they'll have to judge on whether her words I quoted in a previous post constitute racism. The words alone don't in my opinion. Pakistan is a geographic area and a soverign state, so on words alone she's telling someone to go back there. It's her intent in using those words that the courts decide on. On words alone it's no different than if you came up here and I told you to piss off back to Tasmania. You know yourself how many times Tasmanians have said they wish mainlanders would piss off back to the mainland. That's not racist, and it could be argued not necessarily Stateist, just a desire to be left alone. But on words alone, it's no different to what Hanson said.

You can get down in the weeds about whether the words by themselves are inherently racist. But everything needs context, and I'm inclined to agree with the judge. In this context I would argue they were racist.

Sorry to requote Marty but she didn't tweet that. This is the text in question: “Your attitude appalls and disgusts me. When you immigrated to Australia you took every advantage of this country. You took citizenship, bought multiple homes, and a job in a parliament. It’s clear you’re not happy, so pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan - PH.” Probably where you've got that from is that Justice Angus Stewart found Hanson’s comment that Faruqi should “piss off back to Pakistan” was a “variant of the slogan ‘go back to from where you came from’” which he said was an a “racist trope” and a “strong form of racism”. So she didn't say it but the Judge had the opinion that it meant the same as another saying they considered racist.

No I'm not saying that Marty. Read my post more carefully. What I'm saying is that the words alone don't refer to race, only former nationality. Get over the Hanson thing for a minute and think about the words alone, no matter who utters them. She told the person to piss off back to the country she migrated from, no mention of the person's race or religion. Forget about Hanson and look at the example of a white Australian telling a white Kiwi to piss off back to NZ. Would those words alone constitute racism of one white person toward another? I'd consider a case like that to be nationalistic based and not race based. If Hanson had told a white South African to piss off back to South Africa, is that racist? Would she be having a go at the person's race or nationality? The point I'm making is, that the words she used are not racist but nationalistic. That's looking solely at the wording and not taking perceived intent into account. The court obviously made the decision that they thought she had racist intent in what she said. The words alone (regardless of who spoke them) don't convey that. That's what a high court challenge will have to sort out.

How many Asian people do you know personally, GON?