NSW/SYD: banning colours

Damien wrote:

> So an Australian person, working for an Australian company, located in
> Australia, must always use Australian spellings - even if they happen to
> be writing for an exclusively American audience???

<gasp> Americans can read?


regards,
CrazyCam
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

In article <fms8bc$1fl$1@aioe.org>, Damien <al.qaeda.TakeThisOut@asio.gov.au>
wrote:

> Iain Chalmers wrote:
> > In article
> > <2e5d21f6-6662-447e-9417-6ae638edcab4.TakeThisOut@s27g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > JL <jlittler.TakeThisOut@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> Oh puhleese - you're getting stupider by the post.
> >
> > Heh, and you know what they say about arguing with idiots on the
> > internet? They'll drag you down the their level of stupidity, then beat
> > you with their superior experience...
> >
> >
> >
> > big
> >
>
> And that would probably explain why I shouldn't have ever talked to JL
> et al in the first place, and why they continue to insistently claim to
> have beaten me - it's all that experience they must have!

Yes, thats right Damien...

big (See John? Never engage to start with, it's often better that way...)

--
"Everything you love, everything meaningful with depth and history,
all passionate authentic experiences will be appropriated, mishandled,
watered down, cheapened, repackaged, marketed and sold to the people
you hate." Mr Jalopy quoting Hooptyrides (on jalopyjunktown.com)
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> atec77 wrote:
>> Boxer wrote:
>>> "Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers DeleteThis @bekkers.com.au> wrote
>
>>>> I would expect an Australian to use Australian spelling and an
>>>> American to use US spellings, even in discourse with each other. I
>>>> doubt that an American would be offended by an aussie using the
>>>> word colour or vice versa with color. But for an Aussie to use the
>>>> word color is just wrong to me. Even 'Labor' makes me cringe.
>
>>> I agree Labor has made me cringe for ages.
>
>> Nothing cultural about labor
>
> That's two.
>
> Theo
>
>
Agreed


no point laboring the subject.
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

"CrazyCam" <crazycam.RemoveThis@upturnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4791a9c2$0$17825$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Damien wrote:
>
>> So an Australian person, working for an Australian company, located in
>> Australia, must always use Australian spellings - even if they happen to
>> be writing for an exclusively American audience???
>
> <gasp> Americans can read?
>
>
> regards,
> CrazyCam

That's why they make so many movies

they can only look at the pictures
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

On Jan 18, 4:51 pm, G-S <ge....RemoveThis@castbus.com.au> wrote:
> JL wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 1:12 pm, G-S <ge....RemoveThis@castbus.com.au> wrote:
> >> JL wrote:
> >>> On Jan 18, 8:59 am, G-S <ge....RemoveThis@castbus.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> Simone wrote:
> >>>>> As for banning "certain colours"  if it looks like a duck & quacks like a
> >>>>> duck...then expect to get shot at!
> >>>>> Sim.
> >>>> That's the justification used for discrimination against minorities down
> >>>> through the ages... are you sure you want to go down that path?
> >>> No it's not; the justification for discrimination against minorities
> >>> down the ages is "they're different to us, so they should be treated
> >>> 'differently' " (read less well/ less fairly).
> >> A difference which makes no difference is no difference JL.
>
> > Sorry mate, you're missing an important distinction. The keyword in
> > the sentence is "justification". The justification for discrimination
> > is difference. The difference can be real or imaginary, that's
> > irrelevant. That's the *justification*.
>
> So if someone *looks* like a 1%er but isn't they'll be *discriminated*
> against... I still don't see how that is *justification* for that
> discrimination (not trying to be thick here).

Same confusion as before. That's not the action of justification, it's
the action of discrimination (inaccurately applied), it's the bit in
the paragraph below, not the bit in the paragraph above.

> > It's the *acting on discrimination* Sim's referring to. Two different
> > things. You object to *both* the act of justification and the act of
> > discrimination (IIANM). However the sentence above is not correct to
> > say the discriminatory act is the same as the act of justification of
> > being bigoted.
>
> No... I'm just objecting against the outcome of the discrimination, if
> the discrimination isn't against the law (and as far as I can see it
> doesn't breach disrimination laws) then all I care about is that the
> collateral damage.

Indeed, I understand that. I'm skeptical that on the info available
that there will be any wider impact than a bunch of OMCGs won't be
able to get into a few pubs in Parramatta that are trying to go "up
market", you think there will be. OK. I think it more matters whether
this is going to be widely applied or it's just a couple of pubs.

> >>> You're confusing that with "well if you don't want to be discriminated
> >>> against,and you're not part of the minority, don't look like the
> >>> minority"
> >> See above.

Indeed This is the bit you are referring to - "collateral damage"
against those who look like a duck but turn out to just be a
goose.

JL
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

On Jan 18, 4:58 pm, G-S <ge....RemoveThis@castbus.com.au> wrote:
> JL wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 1:23 pm, G-S <ge....RemoveThis@castbus.com.au> wrote:
> >>> It must be almost time for an Ausmoto dinner, and Parramatta is the
> >>> geographic centre of Sydney, how about dinner at the Royal Oak guys ?
> >> If I was in Sydney I'd pike now... given I'm not I'll just think
> >> insulting comments about the choice of venue.
>
> > I'd have thought you and Damien would be aching to test your thesis
> > about how non OMCG'ers are going to get banned.
>
> > JL
> > (it's why I suggested it)

> [2] The only 2 HD's I have ready access to these days are a sportster
> and an electro-glide ultra classic; neither of which are likely to be
> usable to test the hypothesis.

Errm if bouncers are too stupid to tell the difference between
Bandidos colours and a Ulysses logo why do you think they can tell the
difference between an electra-glide and any other HD ? Logical
inconsistency there mate.

JL
(besides I know at least one 1%er who has a full dress hogly (dunno
the exact model) in his stable )
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

On Jan 21, 10:32 am, Moike <bmwmo....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> JL wrote:
> > Nev.. wrote:
>
> >> See, and it's stuff like that which just highlights how poor your
> >> judgement really is.  Probably worse than what you give bouncers the
> >> credit for.  And to think they let people like you educate children.
>
> > Damn ! So there's not only consistency about the way coppers on ausmoto
> > spell, there's consistency about the way teachers on ausmoto (fail) to
> > argue.
>
> No there isn't!

Yebbut, you're not a real teacher - you're just moonlighting aren't
you ?

JL
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:27:48 +1100, Iain Chalmers
<bigiain.DeleteThis@mightymedia.com.au> wrote:


>(As GB says, first they came for the 1%-ers, but I wsn't a 1%-er. Then
>they came for the football fans, but I wasn't a football fan...)

The only problem with that saying is that in this case it's being a
tad mis-applied.

There is no Gestapo dragging 1%ers off to the cattle trains.

To equate that with a publican wanting to raise the tone of his pub by
getting the dogshit out, is to engage in hysterical comparisons.

But hey, if it gets you and GB through your Politkalkorrektnessnacht,
then so be it, little...


Onya bike !!!

Gerry
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

diogenes wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:27:48 +1100, Iain Chalmers
> <bigiain DeleteThis @mightymedia.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>> (As GB says, first they came for the 1%-ers, but I wsn't a 1%-er. Then
>> they came for the football fans, but I wasn't a football fan...)
>
> The only problem with that saying is that in this case it's being a
> tad mis-applied.
>
> There is no Gestapo dragging 1%ers off to the cattle trains.
>

No it's the normal police, not the secret police that will be called to
drag people off for insufficient reason (I admit that's a difference as
they way the people dragged off will be treated will not be draconian).

And yes that makes it a 'lesser evil'... but it doesn't make it a good idea.


G-S
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

Damien wrote:

> The fact that clubs have been identified for exclusion is irrelevant.
> What matters is whether the guys on the door are actually capable of
> getting it right on the front-line. The problem is that anyone who knows
> the sort of person that is usually employed as a bouncer also knows that
> they're not exactly the sharpest knives in the draw even at their best.
>
> That's a problem.
>
> You don't work as a bouncer, do you?

See, and it's stuff like that which just highlights how poor your
judgement really is. Probably worse than what you give bouncers the
credit for. And to think they let people like you educate children.

Nev..
'07 XB12X
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

Nev.. wrote:

> See, and it's stuff like that which just highlights how poor your
> judgement really is. Probably worse than what you give bouncers the
> credit for. And to think they let people like you educate children.
>
> Nev..
> '07 XB12X

Sounds like the words of someone who can't pass a WWC check to me...
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

Iain Chalmers wrote:
> In article
> <2e5d21f6-6662-447e-9417-6ae638edcab4.DeleteThis@s27g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> JL <jlittler.DeleteThis@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> Oh puhleese - you're getting stupider by the post.
>
> Heh, and you know what they say about arguing with idiots on the
> internet? They'll drag you down the their level of stupidity, then beat
> you with their superior experience...
>
>

<sigh> I know, I bwelatedly realised and stopped bothering 2 days ago

JL
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

Damien wrote:
> Iain Chalmers wrote:
>> In article
>> <2e5d21f6-6662-447e-9417-6ae638edcab4 RemoveThis @s27g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>> JL <jlittler RemoveThis @my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> Oh puhleese - you're getting stupider by the post.
>>
>> Heh, and you know what they say about arguing with idiots on the
>> internet? They'll drag you down the their level of stupidity, then
>> beat you with their superior experience...
>>
>>
>>
>> big
>>
>
> And that would probably explain why I shouldn't have ever talked to JL
> et al in the first place, and why they continue to insistently claim to
> have beaten me - it's all that experience they must have!

Point to where I've claimed to have beaten you dickhead. I just stopped
responding to you.

JL
(yeah yeah I know but sometimes enough incitement and etc)
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours