skippydiesel

The most reliable way to control a nation/population is to have a large complacent middle class - remind you anywhere in particular? The Americans have forgotten this fundamental "law" and are in danger of having a critical mass of the poor/downtrodden/disenfranchised with nothing left to loose by rebelling.

A curs on those Mexicans !

When will Old open its boarder to the rest of Au

I agree that 14.2 is what you should see from a new/good condition battery. I have the odd lawn mower battery that reads less ,something like 13 and still seems to do the job. I would not accept this in my aircraft where I am careful only to use a battery in top condition.

Short answer No ! I have had $20 Bunnings solar charger on my Holden (Suzuki) Drover "paddock basher" for about 4 years now. Sits on the top of the dash board and we always park her facing north. So far so good, starts every time. Battery is a bit bigger than a mower job and the Drover does get a bit of use from time to time but probably not enough to fully charge the battery after a start.

I guess my point, when used as you quote, that it is not a scientific term . Unfortunately in its common usage its meaning is so vague, it has become almost meaning less. As I have suggested erlier in our conversation, rather than quote ridiculous bureaucratic publications (mouth pieced of the Gov) try looking into genuine scientific publications particularly those interested in reproduction. The correct word, in your quote above, is "fecundity" or "reproductive" as in "gross fecundity/reproductive rate" (a horrible sounding phrase in both your quote & my adjustment) it just can not be fertility. It does not matter that I instinctively understand & make the adjustment, it is a gross misuse of the word fertility. Although I generally accept that language is flexible and evolving, sometimes the change is step to far, particularly when its usage "muddies" the meaning unnecessarily. If you accept that only living things/systems can be fertile, by logical progression, you accept a country (non living) can not be fertile or have a fertility rate. It can certainly have, when referring to its citizens, a reproductive/fecundity rate but not fertility. Going further - if you agree that fertility is a word that expresses the potential (future) of a living organism/system to reproduce - the same word can not readily be used to express a past reproductive action. No doubt I will dwell on this further and may come up with more argument but my Granddaughter is demanding my attention, so I will leave the matter there for the moment. Regards

I can’t quite let it go - it seems to me the word FERTILITY has all sorts of connotations, as such it has been hijacked by the marketer's, spin doctors, politicians & religions. The word conjures up images of plenty, youth, health, etc etc when in actual fact it just means potential to reproduce. By misusing this (& many other) words the population is "dumbed down" and played by those in power. Sorry Octave, but it is just not possible to have a FERTILITY RATE - doesn't make sense. A country cannot be fertile or infertile or anything between. Only a living thing or system eg soil can be fertile. Living things can be fertile, sub-fertile or infertile. At a stretch may be considered highly fertile. Nothing living or state, has a fertility rate. As I have said before male & female can be fertile, sub fertile or infertile. If they choose not or do not have the opportunity, to reproduce, this does not affect their fertility in any way. A country that has a low birth-rate does not have low fertility neither does its citizens, unless by some misfortune (eg mass sustained starvation, exposure to dangerous levels of toxic radiation or similar) I am sure a real wordsmith would have a fancy phrase for this sort of thing but for me it’s a troubling & unnecessary incorrect usage.

Patagonia & sheep - why does Australia sell off its greatest assets to the highest bidder. High quality breeding stock should never be allowed to leave the country (yeah! its too late ,I know) Welsh is just one of the Gaelic languages (Irish, Scottish, Cornish, Breton). My Irish father claimed a special affinity with north Welsh - at the end of WW2, as a newly minted civil engineer, he found work in the coal mines of the region. He told stores of the Welsh being very "difficult" with the English overlords (managers) but he, as a Gaelic speaking Irishman, had no such problem.

Have never tolerated badly behaved nags (pass on or get lead poisoning) but like all things there are +/-. Vulnerable bikers have to put up with incompetent /inconsiderate fellow road users - major major, risk factor!! Nothing much more bloody minded than having a car/truck try and occupy the space you are already in.

Gain can not be measured by remuneration alone - POWER is the ultimate goal and corrupter. For most people once you have sufficient money to live in reasonable comfort, it ceases to be a motivator in itself. Other factors like social standing, power to make important decisions take over. There will always be exceptions to any observation/rule, Turnbull is not one of them - his donations were to "buy" his way in/to the top.

The problem with politics & religion is not the hard working back bencher/local priest, who may just have a vocation for helping his fellow beings (I am still sceptical) but those that rise to or near the top. Almost always people who feel they are "called" and have a right to be there. Inherently corrupt, in that they will do almost anything to get that top job, hold it and materially benefit from it for as long as they can. These are the face of politics & religion,not the little person beavering away in the background.

Horse riding - as a (past) road bike rider that somehow survived, I can tell you that you will never experience the exhilaration/fear/danger at speed like that on a galloping horse AND it will cost you just as much if not more than any motorbike. Big plus - at more sedate speeds nature can be "taken in" while the nag follows the track and if with mates, conversation can flow. I highly recommend it to all you rev heads that put your license in jeopardy every time you go for a burn down the public highway.

Octave ! Octave ! I love a good debate. I accept (I think I mentioned this at the beginning of my rant) that the meaning of words can & often do changes over time, new words are invented, etc etc. eg "gay" meaning light of heart, fun, etc etc. If I choose to use it in its older meaning am I wrong ?? does it make you correct to use it in its new form ??. Back to Fertility & Fecundity - rather than google some bureaucratic report (s) try looking up a reproductive expert or two or even the Oxford Dictionary. I very very reluctantly accept that the common uses of the word Fertility have become the norm(s)however in doing so I must accept the lack of precision that this brings with it - not so happy with this.

So you believe that some obscure, virtually illiterate government bureaucrat, is a dramatically authority ? If you are agreeable lets call it quits on this debate, Pmccarthy has had enough.

Nope! wrong way around - Female mammals are born fertile. They cannot utilise this asset until sexual maturity. Should they have access to an adult male, that is also fertile, they may choose to reproduce - this is not fertility. The female, once producing an offspring, demonstrates fecundity. If the female chooses (human option) not to have offspring, or the male is infertile, or in domestic animals, the owner does not mate her, this does not make her infertile ie her fertility remains and is intact - she is not however fecund. If the male or female is infertile, they cannot (naturally) have offspring. Certainly, fertility can be low due to a wide range of factors but even a low fertility coupling can result in an offspring - the female is fecund. Her rate (over time) of fecundity (total offspring) may be low if her fertility is low or if the male is the problem, similarly reduced. Fertility is the potential to produce offspring in both males & females. Fecundity is the act of producing viable offspring - I would argue , in this context, a whole female characteristic. It may be argued that a female producing non-viable offspring is fertile but her fecundity is low or if no offspring survive, non-existent. I hope you will forgive my agricultural examples ; A domestic sow (female pig) can have 12+ piglets per farrowing (birth), 2 + times per year. If she does this, she is both fertile and highly fecund. A domestic guilt (female pig not mated) is more than likely fertile and capable of reproducing at a similar rate to the above animal. Due to circumstance - the farmer decided she doesnt measure up genetically, she goes to slaughter. Her fertility remains unchanged however she is barren/not fecund. A domestic cow will usually only produce one calf per year. She is as fertile as the pig but perhaps not so fecund (we dont usually compare fecundity across species for obvious reasons). If you do not differentiate between fertility & fecundity, how do you explain a pre & post menopausal human female - She was fertile, between 14-45, produced your 2.1 babies, so is clearly fecund. Now at 50 is infertile but demonstrably fecund??