Tawasakm

I thought this looked like an interesting topic but 147 pages? Thats too much to catch up on...

Also the Liberal and Democrat Parties will form a coalition when hell freezes over. The Democrats are a spent force as it is. The Liberals form coalition with the National party.

Basically there are three key issues that were killing Kevin Rudd. 1) Climate change. He was a very strong proponent of the necessity of an emissions trading scheme. After failing to push it through parlianent he gave up. It is worth noting the former Liberal leader lost his position in large part over the fact he wanted to work with the government to create an emmisions trading scheme. He saw a failure to do so as resulting in a double dissolution election trigger which his party would lose badly. He was replaced by a leader who was unwilling to deal on ETS. Rudd subsequently backed down on it rather than force the double dissolution. 2) Asylum seekers. Many Australians are getting hysterical over illegal immigrants arriving by boat and think the government should be alot tougher on it. Personally I don't see what the fuss is about but it is a major issue. 3) He tried to push through a mining super profits tax. The resources sector has been making tonnes of money and the government wanted more for its revenue. However his approach was poorly though out, appeared to many to be dictatorial and also appeared to risk jobs and future investment. This may or may not be true but the mining sector can afford alot of ads. Strangely enough on this issue he didn't back down and seek a compromise. He lost everyones confidence by abandoning an issue people wanted him to fight for then fought for an issue people wanted him to compromise on. On a broader note his party regarded him as too dictatorial. He thought he could take on the factions and remove their influence. In the end when he appeared untenable the factions removed him with ease. Julia Gillard is now Australia's first Welsh born, red headed female prime minister. Theres a condensed reply for you August

It would be the shortest invasion in history

Enlighten me with the particulars of the Australian invasion of China

I hope not. I would be excluded from any viewing experience.

On top of which why wouldn't you be using multiple tabs instead of multiple windows?

I really doubt it. I can't watch 3d movies because I have a lazy eye. Most people achieve depth perception through retinal disparity (which means your brain takes the two images you are receiving from both eyes and performs calculations based on the differences). When I judge depth its through monocular (not binocular) depth perception. Which means that my brain is performing a bunch of calculations based on lighting differences, changes in size, angles etc etc based on input through one eye. Because the eyes don't line up properly the brain will discard what the non dominant eye is seeing. In my case my right eye is dominant (although I can conciously change my dominant eye) so if I am looking straight ahead my brain automatically deletes whatever my left eye is seeing that has crossover with my dominant eye's field of vision - I do get full peripheral vision however. Which is due to various exercises I had to do as a kid and to being forced to wear an eye patch to prevent me seeing out of my right eye at all for periods of time. All of which meant my brain learned to use my left eye and to edit out only the crossover part (apparently I would have gone blind in my left eye without this). I remember at uni we were once shown some little visual tricks (various stuff which appeared to be doing odd things if you had one eye shut) and I was the only one there who would see exactly the same thing regardless of whether I had both eyes open or one. The whole point of this being, of course, that any 3d movie experience is based on both eyes receiving input. No matter how much they improve their technique its just not going to work for folks with lazy eyes. Its a shame but c'est la vi.

Gateway = Acer = Look for something else~

Sorry you don't feel well. Have you tried neat scotch as a cure?

The PC version of Dragon Age hasn't been patched yet and is buggy as hell in places but is so addictive that it can't be given up regardless. Although I am getting sick of a particular quest I am doing in Orzammar. Too much fighting with too little story/npc interaction with this one. Plenty of death and mayhem mind you.

I'd love to see a MMORPG that is what I would consider to be a true RPG. I've heard some chatter about the upcoming Star Wars release but not enough yet. I will definitely have to try it when it comes out.

If you think those games provide an immsersive story telling experience you should definitely try Biowares lates offering - 'Dragon Age: Origins'. It may be a little slow at the start but is a rich story telling experience. In fact, based on the choices you make, you can experience a different story each time you play it.

I should start posting here again. If for no other reason than to be able to set my own 'title'. An important life goal.

Certain internt security package can be set to remember your passwords for you - such as Norton 360 ver 3.0 (which despite the fact I was pretty anti Norton I have switched back to due to the fact they finally picked up their game). It is my understanding that it is a pretty secure way to remember log in details for your non serious things (it doesn't even attempt to remember my bank log in) and would bypass any other issue which is affecting you. Although I name Norton as one example there are many other packages out there which will do the same thing.

American Woman so far as I can see you are using an appeal to authority rather than linking to actual studies to back up your argument. Furthermore I suspect you are generalising. Kids dealing with death amongst friends and families is not necessarily analogous to kids dealing with death of any kind. This is why I want to see the source of your reasoning rather than an organisation which you think reflects your opinion (although I doubt their conclusions draw in any way from research on how kids deal with death amongst livestock). I get the feeling however that you are going to continue to say this is your proof and makes what you say fact. Guess I'll just agree to disagree with you on this one.

This is what you fail to take on board and which I was trying to bring you to. Unless you provide sources and cites you have no back up either. There is absolutely zero difference between my assertion and yours except that you claim to have a basis in well researched sources. The fact that you claim these are easy to find and still fail to make any effort to source them to back up your assertion robs your point of validity. I am more than happy to check sources provided to back your argument but your unwillingness to provide from your apparently easily found well of excellent research more or less leads me to believe your argument is nothing more than opinion - as is mine. Your blanket excuse that everyone will simply ignore or dismiss it is hardly inspiring me to believe there is any weight behind your asserted evidence. At least I am honest enough to say that it is my opinion based on my personal experience.

American Woman, I would like to think I am pragmatic about this. I have had opporunity over my life to vist many farms and be exposed to the families living on them (never lived on one myself though). I have never observed even one child to be traumatised in any way, shape or form with the slaughter of livestock. They are often actively involved in the process. My Mum, as a child, used to help her dad pluck the chickens. She thought it was fun to pull the tendons on the legs and make the feet move. I would even go so far as to say that I percieve farm kids as being better balanced, more self reliant and less likely to be swayed by peer pressure. I can not see any harm in giving city kids some of that same exposure to reality. Piaget and others may have a point when they talk about reactions to human death - friends, family and probably even to beloved pets. There is a distinction between that and livestock. I realise you are going to refer to this as simply being my belief. Mind you I have seen little from you that is better than something that amounts to, "I am right because this is what the well educated experts say but despite my own deep research into the topic I will provide no evidence and merely assert this is the case." You may think my argument is weak since I am making it based on my own simple observation but you are doing absolutely nothing to provide any real contradiction. Perhaps you should knuckle down a little. Either that or accept that your argument as it stands is actually only as weak or strong as mine - your perceived reality without any real back up.

I'm astonished at people who seem to feel this is 'age inappropriate' or that it will 'traumatise' children. Its called reality people and reality hurts the most when you are completely out of touch with it and are forced to confront it. Much better to be in touch with it to start with. Kids growing up on farms aren't traumatised by the cycle of life and death amongst the animal population. If anything they are completely pragmatic about it - and far less likely to be upset over the realities of where our food comes from than city kids are who are 'protected' from it. Bottom line, in my opinion, is not only are kids able to cope with these practical realites but they are far better off as a result of exposure to it. If you are only ever prepared to feed kids alternate reality (all these cutesy cartoons that represents animals in a certain way for example) and not the reality of the world you are only setting them up to have a much harder time down the track adjusting to how things really are.

There may be some relevant points but chain mail is chain mail.

Perhaps I am going blind and missing something obvious but I only see two moderators listed - Charles Anthony and Greg. I don't see how 'most' of the moderators can be excellent while 'one or two' (which apparently covers the entire range of actual moderators) can be questionable...

Its nice to know that you read my posts and found enough merit in them to comment on them. I don't think anybody really refers to them much so I guess there is little point in singling out Argus. I think you single out the most important element in any kind of research or discussion - the continued use of 'why' is central to creating the best possible outcomes.

Well I guess there could be several reasons. First there is what I would consider to be the normal angle of the main stream media - sensationalism. I don't know that they actually report many things very well at all since they seem to be driven by using sound bites which can garner a reaction for them. This can set the tone of a debate- un ultimately useless debate. Secondly I guess some people are as rigidly PC as others are rigidly racist. Thirdly, and this is the one I consider most important, there is an objection based on context. This may sound a little silly to say but I will try to get my thoughts out. Going back to my example of the situation in Aboriginal communities. They did not arrive in this situation in a vacuum. They are historically underprivileged and those factors don't cease to affect the people simply because most of mainstream Australia's population are moving past the overtly racist attitudes of their forebears. Ignoring the fact that government records detail several plans to facilitate the departure of every Aboriginal from this life and that South African apartheid was based on Australian Government philosophies I will move on to something more specific. The stolen generation. There was a generation of Aborginal children which were forcefully removed from their parents. The idea was to raise them with white values and in a christian religion. While they couldn't be made white on the outside there was a view that they could be made white on the inside. Nowadays of course people would never countenance such a government intervention and there are policies to provide compensation etc for those who faced abuse (many did). The fact that this can no longer happen does not remove the affects of those past actions. If you travel into a remote Aborginal community now the scars remain. You don't have to try too hard to find people still alive who had relatives who were removed from their family and never seen again. You can find people who have returned to their land to try to rediscover their identity. The fact that so many people were forcefully moved around also interferes with land claims - since such claims require proof of continuous inhabitation for a long period of time many communities now have trouble providing such proof. Alot of these communities wish to maintain their link to the land and traditional living but modern agirculture has shifted the water tables and altered the natural ecosystem which makes that impossible. Attempts to make other economic use of the land is often hindered by lack of ownership (refer to the difficulty in proving continuous inhabitation). There can be a dearth of opportunities and a feeling of helplessness which has largely been caused by a long period of government policies and interventions. While the government and the people may no longer hold these views (you can see an example of the difference in the fact that in many problematic remote communities the white police are the ones making sure the children are getting meals and going to school while the parents are drunk or high - sixty years ago the police were more likely just to beat them) the situation that past views and policies has created is not so easily turned around. Aboriginal soldiers fought in world war two and returned to a nation where they still had not earned equal treatment or the rights of citizenship. As a people they have fought long and hard for their rights and after such a long struggle they are still miles behind alot of the mainstream population (which comes from a historically advantaged position). Its a hard situation. There is no doubt there are huge crime and substance abuse problems in these communities but it is off the mark to suggest that this is so because of the race of the inhabitants. Alot of the people who object to these debates on race tensions do so on the basis that the context of the situation will be dismissed. They believe that people will say, "well since these things that happened in the past are no longer happening then there must be some problem with the people themselves - just look at the stats they are doing this to themselves!". I don't think it helps that the main stream media promulgates such one dimensional and empty attitudes to race relations. Your point that violence between whites and blacks is not being reported accurately needs to be pursued. If race relations and attitudes are improving or changing then we need to stay current with it. If there is a problem with crime or violence in an underprivileged group then that needs to be pursued with an open mind - and with an accurate understanding of both past AND present conditions. It is a mistake to live too much in the past but it also a great error to disregard it and view only the present. Hopefully my view makes some sense to you.

Problems with the data gathering methodology also provides direction to future research. If anything it adds impetus to the need to pursue the figures.

I don't think my perspective on this is clearly understood. I will digress briefly. Some years ago when I was studying at the University of Western Australia I elected to take a couple of units in Aboriginal History out of interest. What was of particular interest in this course is that it wasn't history taught from a European perspective or from a european academic method but was, rather, taught from an Aboriginal perspective. We were taught some things about how Aboriginals viewed the world prior to European settlement, their history and various cultures (there were at least 250 distinct language groups for eg) and their perspective on events post 'first contact' and up to the present day. Alot of this was taught by Aboriginal scholars with various elders and others being guest speakers. This was important for providing something called context because they did go on to examine things from a non-Aboriginal perspective and contrasted the two. I was at the same time studying an anthropology unit which happened to focus on some of the same issues. The difference in perspective was interesting in so far as the anthropological studies inferred a level of victim status to Aboriginal people which they vigorously tried to remove. In any event the more relevant part to this forum is the study of crime statistics. There are plenty of statistics around that show a disproportionate rate of substance abuse and crime (including sexual assaults and rapes) etc in many Aboriginal communites. Similar to this discussion there are plenty who leap onto the 'assumption bandwagon' and try to use this to impy that there is something inherently wrong or weaker in Aboriginal people and culture compared to others. The response of many Aboriginal groups to such statistics was to pursue them. They didn't deny there was a problem but they pursued the 'why' angle. Making sure to use plenty of independant researchers they collated more data and pursued the information trail wherever it led. In the end they are able to produce a good deal of information that says that the crime problem is related to a number of other problems - or to put it another way crime is an effect and x y and z are major causes of this effect. I believe its fairly well known that many Aboriginal communities have third world living standards and other problems (I probably should not go too far into any of it lest I be accused of thread hijack) at a level which is as disproportionate as the crime rates. Further research was, of course, not limited only to Aboriginal communities. They were able to link to any number of studies in other countries and communities which demonstrated the same links toward certain systemic inbalances and crime rates. They also had plenty of case studies which demonstrated how statistics change over a short time when certain barriers are removed from communities. Throughout all of this they monitored any other research and conclusions that others were undertaking and made use of them as well (even if they were negative to their cause). Basically in the end they were able to use the crime statistics to assist them in purusing advocacy and human rights groups for support and in attempting to influence legislative processes. Never, at any point, did I hear anyone suggest that the crimes were not a problem or that they should be excused (I hear alot of racists take that angle when commenting on any Aboriginal studies into crime etc) but what they did instead was to acknowledge the problem and pursue its cause so that they could affect change for the better. Alot of the causes had nothing to do with Aboriginal people themselves while in other ways it was directly the responsibility of Aboriginals. As I keep saying they pursued it all and they had intelligent well backed up positions on how things need to be changed for the better. They did not always do well in arena of main stream debate since thats most often won in sound bites but their position with regards to approaching the government and other groups was enhanced by the attitude that it is better to take ownership of the statistics than it is to deny them. When AW suggests that many rapes go unreported that may be true but it is not that effective, I believe, in disarming racial angles. Someone like lictor can say, "I am operating from facts, you are operating from a suggestion which supports your preconceived notion". If you have a good body of research from a number of sources (many independent) which follows the statistics to their source then you are in a much better position disarm the radically racist element in any intelligent debate. Quite aside from that I believe it is important to openly debate the ongoing nature of racism and race relations and perceptions. There are some here (Argus and Kimmy) for example who are making a case that there is a contrast between the media created perception of violence and oppression from whites to blacks and the actual reality. They may be right. If it is the case that there is a perception of greater violence and victimisation than the reality warrants then it should be confronted and debated. A false perception of such things would only fuel increased tensions needlessly. I believe their point (perhaps without them even being aware) is being completely lost by overtly racist drivel from folks such as lictor. I believe that both Argus and Kimmy are highly intelligent people who are honest in pursuing their view point and I think the point they raise is a valid one. BushCheney2004 I said I would answer your earlier questions with regards to how I would pursue reasearch into the two examples of crime but i have managed to waste too much time in typing up my above digression. I can still answer it later if you wish me to but perhaps you understand where I am coming from now. Let me know.