Noddy wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 4:15 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 13/10/2023 1:42 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Well, no one else put their hand up in support of these ideas, but a
>>> few others thought they were whacko. Make of that what you will.
>>
>> **Just you and Dazza.
>
> Even if that was the case, that's 100% greater number than the people
> who think it's sane.
>
> You're *way* behind in the polls....
>
>>> And once more, I will ask you to explain how?
>>
>> **Because we are presently living under the conditions of no. We have
>> never experienced the conditions of yes.
>
> Well, not only does that defy anything that could be considered
> "logic", it doesn't explain a single thing. To be perfectly honest if
> that's the best argument you can make to justify a "Yes" vote then you
> are wasting your time.
>
>>> While you're at it, perhaps you could take a moment to explain the
>>> logic behind voting for something that you don't understand and have
>>> absolutely no idea whether it will do anything or not?
>>
>> **Where did I say that I did not understand it? Take your time
>> explaining.
>>
>> BTW: Did you read your booklet?
>
> I did indeed. It told us nothing whatsoever.
>
>> I did. Which is precisely how I arrived at my decision to vote yes.
>>
>> Now, YOU tell me: Why should we vote no?
>>>
>>> I'll wait here.....
>>
>> **Asked and answered.
>
> Lol :) Yeah, right.
>
> Over to you: Why should we vote no?
>
> I'll make this real simple.
>
> If you're being asked to give your approval for *anything*, you should
> at least have an understanding of (a) what it is you're being asked to
> approve, and (b) what will be achieved in doing so. Without knowing
> either of these two key elements, it is impossible for you to make an
> informed choice and giving approval for anything you don't fully
> understand is a *very* dumb idea.
>
> As far as the "Voice" is concerned, that is *precisely* what you would
> be doing.
>
> The Government's approach to this has been wrong from the start as
> they've insisted on doing little other than asking for permission to
> make it up as they go along, and that is a recipe for disaster. We've
> been told next to nothing. We have no idea where this will take us or
> how anyone will benefit from it, if at all. We have no idea how much
> it will cost, we have no idea how the opposing sides of the indigenous
> communities will come together to see this as a workable solution, and
> we have no idea why a constitutional change is necessary when
> everything the "Yes" camp claims to want to achieve can be done so
> *right now* without needing to change a single thing.

exactly

>
> Given all these details that we *don't* know it is *impossible* to
> make an informed choice on the matter, which by any logical extension
> the only sensible path to take would be to *reject* the idea.
>
>>> What I find to be bordering on comical about some of the arguments
>>> like these that are used to highlight the need for a "voice" is the
>>> fact that they are *not* new. They have existed for years, and many
>>> government programs and departments have been set up to deal with
>>> them. Some of them even run by the people who are at the leading
>>> edge of the Voice calls now, who seem to be telling us that while
>>> they may have been unsuccessful in dealing with these issues in the
>>> past we should believe them when they say they can fix the problem now.
>>
>> **Obviously you failed to read your booklet. Shame on you for being
>> so uninformed.
>
> ROTFL :)
>
> Being called "uninformed" by someone who thinks we should vote "Yes"
> simply because we've never tried it before is the funniest thing I've
> heard in some time :)
>
>>> I'm also left somewhat amused by the fact that if these issues are
>>> known, why they're not being fixed *now* rather than wait for the
>>> public to vote "Yes", as if to suggest that if the No vote gets up
>>> then they won't ever be :)
>>
>> **They have not been addressed yet.
>
> And that fact alone should give you zero confidence in all of this
> being anything *other* than tokenism in it's finest form.
>

--
Have a nice day!..

Noddy wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 4:11 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 13/10/2023 12:13 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>>> How is that at all relevant to the referendum?
>>
>> **Those creatures (I refuse to call those disgusting creatures:
>> humans) are rarely correct about any damned thing.
>>
>> I will remind you, YET AGAIN, that I provided several reasons why we
>> should all vote yes. The filthy creatures I cited, above, are just
>> one of those reasons.
>
> You're running away at the mouth here Trevor. You provided *2*
> reasons, and both of them were absolutely ridiculous.
>
>>> They are just 5 people with less influence on the subject than you
>>> think, voting yes because 5 well known people that you dislike are
>>> allegedly voting no is insane.
>>
>> **I don't "dislike" them. They are hideous, disgusting excuses for
>> humans, who revel in controversy and never have anything of worth to
>> contribute to society. If you can cite one damned useful thing that
>> any one of them has done, then present your evidence.
>
> I've got no time for any of them, but Abbott stopped the boats.
>
> That was a good thing :)
>>>>
>>>> You are psychotic. Seek help now.
>>>>
>>> LOL, pot kettle:-)
>>
>> **Like Noddy, you continue to ignore the main thrust of my argument.
>> Congratulations. A 'no' vote will do NOTHING to improve the lot of
>> Aboriginals. Absolutely diddly-squat. A 'yes' vote may improve their
>> conditions and any sane person would consider that a good thing.
>
> And it may not, either. You have *zero* evidence that it will do a
> single bloody thing, and in fact can't even cite a single reason where
> you *think* it might help. Yet because the "famous 5" are opposed to
> it you're going to support the idea come what may.
>
> Your argument has no thrust, other than to highlight how much of a
> loony leftie you are :)
>

any ideas, or remedies for aboriginal problems, that the Voice could
suggest can be suggested now by the various abo organizations without
having to pay salaries to those who would form 'the Voice'. there's been
no suggestion that a Voice will amalgamate or dispense with any existing
bodies responsible for aboriginal welfare or representing them.

--
Have a nice day!..

On 13/10/2023 6:30 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Noddy wrote:

>> Your argument has no thrust, other than to highlight how much of a
>> loony leftie you are :)
>>
>
> any ideas, or remedies for aboriginal problems, that the Voice could
> suggest can be suggested now by the various abo organizations without
> having to pay salaries to those who would form 'the Voice'. there's been
> no suggestion that a Voice will amalgamate or dispense with any existing
> bodies responsible for aboriginal welfare or representing them.

And I think this is an important point to bear in mind. Who is going to
be best served by the establishment of this "Voice".

Look at the honourable Linda Burney, for example.

Apart from being a member of parliament, the incumbant Minister for
Indigenous Australians and one of the most vocal campaigners for the Yes
camp, this is a woman who's been involved with Aboriginal affairs and
organisations for the last 25+ years. And in that time she has managed
to achieve virtually fuck *nothing* other than simply existing. She has
been the recipient for many awards and honorary doctorates, yet despite
her presence the plight of the average aboriginal remains unchanged.

Yet for the past few months we've had to put up with her all over the
media telling us that she knows what's best for Indigenous Australians,
and we should trust her and her team to "do what's right" and get it
sorted.

Despite her never having managed to do that at any time previously.

I'd happily bet the farm that Burney's significant interest in this is
self serving. She no doubt sees herself as a prime candidate to secure a
long standing (and very well paying) role in what would undoubtedly be a
complex "Voice" structure where a hell of a lot of money would be sucked
up by the administration while the problems of the average Aboriginal
continue to remain unchanged.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 13/10/2023 3:14 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 13/10/2023 4:25 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 13/10/2023 12:13 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>> On 13/10/2023 11:45 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/10/2023 5:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/10/2023 5:10 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/10/2023 4:03 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> no they can't. if it's in the Constitution then another
>>>>>>>>>>> referendum would have to be held to change the Constitution.
>>>>>>>>>>> (unless I'm mistaken)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **Precisely!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you see no problem with this? :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **None whatsoever. If the yes vote wins and the system ends up
>>>>>>>> like the disaster that Jones, Abbott, Dutton, Palmer and Hanson
>>>>>>>> claim it will, then the electorate will be only too happy to
>>>>>>>> reverse the decision.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If, however, Jones, Abbott, Dutton, Palmer and Hanson are wrong
>>>>>>>> (and they usually are), then the electorate will vote yes in a
>>>>>>>> future referendum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You live in the most bizarre bubble known to man :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Really? You think that Jones, Abbott, Dutton, Palmer and Hanson
>>>>>> are decent, reasonable, rational humans?
>>>>>
>>>>> How is that at all relevant to the referendum?
>>>>
>>>> **Those creatures (I refuse to call those disgusting creatures:
>>>> humans) are rarely correct about any damned thing.
>>>
>>> you're being ridiculous,
>>
>> **No, I'm not. Tell you what: YOU tell me what useful societal
>> functions Alan Jones, Clive Palmer and Pauline Hanson have done. I
>> accept that Dutton was a copper and may have done some useful things
>> in the past (or not). Abbott is just a dumb shit-for-brains. He did
>> manage to get the Lieberals back into power, so some people may regard
>> that as useful. So, I leave Dutton and Abbott out of the list for the
>> present time.
>>
>
> whatever they've done or not, they aren't 'disgusting creatures'

At least one is a genuinely disgusting creature.

Regardless, that no reason to vote yes.

>
>>>
>>>  but if you want to talk about disgusting creatures, take a look at
>>> what's happening in the middle east at present
>>
>> **Let's not forget Ukraine. The magnitude of the war atrocities in
>> Ukraine are WAY more than in Israel (and Gaza). Let us NEVER forget
>> Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the HUNDREDS of thousands of dead. I
>> am deeply troubled by both situations.
>>
>> That does not excuse Hanson, Jones and Palmer.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will remind you, YET AGAIN, that I provided several reasons why we
>>>> should all vote yes. The filthy creatures I cited, above, are just
>>>> one of those reasons.
>>>>
>>>>> They are just 5 people with less influence on the subject than you
>>>>> think, voting yes because 5 well known people that you dislike are
>>>>> allegedly voting no is insane.
>>>>
>>>> **I don't "dislike" them. They are hideous, disgusting excuses for
>>>> humans, who revel in controversy and never have anything of worth to
>>>> contribute to society. If you can cite one damned useful thing that
>>>> any one of them has done, then present your evidence.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are psychotic. Seek help now.
>>>>>>
>>>>> LOL, pot kettle:-)
>>>>
>>>> **Like Noddy, you continue to ignore the main thrust of my argument.
>>>> Congratulations. A 'no' vote will do NOTHING to improve the lot of
>>>> Aboriginals. Absolutely diddly-squat. A 'yes' vote may improve their
>>>> conditions and any sane person would consider that a good thing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 13/10/2023 1:15 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 1:42 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 13/10/2023 11:43 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 10/10/2023 5:23 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>> **I provided TWO reasons.
>>>>
>>>> Neither of which made sense to anyone other than you.
>>>
>>> **You mean it made no sense to YOU.
>>
>> Well, no one else put their hand up in support of these ideas, but a
>> few others thought they were whacko. Make of that what you will.
>
> **Just you and Dazza.
>
>>
>>> I will say once more: A 'no' vote will ensure that NOTHING will
>>> change for Aboriginals. A 'yes' vote may just assist them.
>>
>> And once more, I will ask you to explain how?
>
> **Because we are presently living under the conditions of no. We have
> never experienced the conditions of yes.
>
>>
>> While you're at it, perhaps you could take a moment to explain the
>> logic behind voting for something that you don't understand and have
>> absolutely no idea whether it will do anything or not?
>
> **Where did I say that I did not understand it? Take your time explaining.
>
> BTW: Did you read your booklet?
>
> I did. Which is precisely how I arrived at my decision to vote yes.
>
> Now, YOU tell me: Why should we vote no?
>
>
>

Because they gave no good reason to vote yes.

When you're voting on a change to the constitution there should
absolutely be a clear aim and outcome.

But instead we get some wishy-washy claims that it will do something,
but nobody seems to know what.

I personally place a much higher value on our constitution to go and
change it for some wishy-washy ideas with no indication of expected
outcomes.

Noddy wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 4:43 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 13/10/2023 4:25 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
>>
>>   but if you want to talk about disgusting
>>> creatures, take a look at what's happening in the middle east at present
>>
>> **Let's not forget Ukraine. The magnitude of the war atrocities in
>> Ukraine are WAY more than in Israel (and Gaza). Let us NEVER forget
>> Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the HUNDREDS of thousands of dead. I
>> am deeply troubled by both situations.
>>
>> That does not excuse Hanson, Jones and Palmer.
>
> Hanson, Jones, Palmer, et al, are completely *irrelevant* to any of
> this. They're just people with opinions the same as anyone else, and why
> the *fuck* you should think that their views are justifiable grounds for
> holding an opposing view is *madness*.
>
> If they publicly stated that their favourite food was also yours, would
> you suddenly stop eating it yourself just to spite them?
>
> You get more irrational by the minute....

The "irrational" here would be your inept analogy Fraudster. Unlike
political &
business decisions, the choice of 'favourite food' has zero effect on
the lives of others.

It's glaringly obvious why you abuse anyone who disagrees with you.
That's because you have the same ability to argue as a colander does to
hold water.

alvey

Noddy wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 11:45 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>
> I don't particularly like them, but that doesn't mean their every
> utterance is wrong and quite frankly to support any idea on the basis of
> it being contrary to their collective view is an infantile nonsense.

Another type of infantile nonsense is continually telling
self-aggrandising lies. You know. Like you do.

hth
>> You are psychotic. Seek help now.
>
> If anyone needs help around here buddy, it ain't me :)

Oooooooh yes it is!

alvey

Noddy wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 4:15 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 13/10/2023 1:42 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Well, no one else put their hand up in support of these ideas, but a
>>> few others thought they were whacko. Make of that what you will.
>>
>> **Just you and Dazza.
>
> Even if that was the case, that's 100% greater number than the people
> who think it's sane.
>
> You're *way* behind in the polls....

Oooh! Doing 'polls' now are we?

Rightio!

Q. How many people believe that Fraudster owned a business called
"Noddy's Automotive" in the Slough Industrial Estate from (approx)
1993-2003?

alvey

On 14/10/2023 8:37 am, Tesla wrote:

> The "irrational" here

Shut up Alvey. No one's interested in your infantile repetitive bullshit.

--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 14/10/2023 6:30 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 14/10/2023 8:37 am, Tesla wrote:
>
>> The "irrational" here
>
> Shut up Alvey. No one's interested in your infantile repetitive bullshit.
>

You really don't like hearing the facts do you, clown.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 14/10/2023 6:05 am, alvey wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 13/10/2023 4:15 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 13/10/2023 1:42 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, no one else put their hand up in support of these ideas, but a
>>>> few others thought they were whacko. Make of that what you will.
>>>
>>> **Just you and Dazza.
>>
>> Even if that was the case, that's 100% greater number than the people
>> who think it's sane.
>>
>> You're *way* behind in the polls....
>
> Oooh! Doing 'polls' now are we?
>
> Rightio!
>
> Q. How many people believe that Fraudster owned a business called
> "Noddy's Automotive" in the Slough Industrial Estate from (approx)
> 1993-2003?
>

Based on all the available evidence, it's a No from me.

I really wish he would be so infantile to post a photo of NA of Altona
and his trade qualifications.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

Noddy wrote:
> On 13/10/2023 6:30 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Your argument has no thrust, other than to highlight how much of a
>>> loony leftie you are :)
>>>
>>
>> any ideas, or remedies for aboriginal problems, that the Voice could
>> suggest can be suggested now by the various abo organizations without
>> having to pay salaries to those who would form 'the Voice'. there's
>> been no suggestion that a Voice will amalgamate or dispense with any
>> existing bodies responsible for aboriginal welfare or representing them.
>
> And I think this is an important point to bear in mind. Who is going
> to be best served by the establishment of this "Voice".
>
> Look at the honourable Linda Burney, for example.
>
> Apart from being a member of parliament, the incumbant Minister for
> Indigenous Australians and one of the most vocal campaigners for the
> Yes camp, this is a woman who's been involved with Aboriginal affairs
> and organisations for the last 25+ years. And in that time she has
> managed to achieve virtually fuck *nothing* other than simply
> existing. She has been the recipient for many awards and honorary
> doctorates, yet despite her presence the plight of the average
> aboriginal remains unchanged.
>
> Yet for the past few months we've had to put up with her all over the
> media telling us that she knows what's best for Indigenous
> Australians, and we should trust her and her team to "do what's right"
> and get it sorted.
>
> Despite her never having managed to do that at any time previously.
>
> I'd happily bet the farm that Burney's significant interest in this is
> self serving. She no doubt sees herself as a prime candidate to secure
> a long standing (and very well paying) role in what would undoubtedly
> be a complex "Voice" structure where a hell of a lot of money would be
> sucked up by the administration while the problems of the average
> Aboriginal continue to remain unchanged.
>
>
>

I agree, and Jacinta Price would be far and away a much better minister
for Aboriginal affairs. (and apologies for the lack of independent thought)

--
Have a nice day!..

On 15/10/2023 10:36 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Noddy wrote:

>> I'd happily bet the farm that Burney's significant interest in this is
>> self serving. She no doubt sees herself as a prime candidate to secure
>> a long standing (and very well paying) role in what would undoubtedly
>> be a complex "Voice" structure where a hell of a lot of money would be
>> sucked up by the administration while the problems of the average
>> Aboriginal continue to remain unchanged.

> I agree, and Jacinta Price would be far and away a much better minister
> for Aboriginal affairs. (and apologies for the lack of independent thought)

No need to apologise. You can do it when you try. You're just too lazy
to bother most times.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 10/10/2023 10:30 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 10/10/2023 7:34 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> Follow up:
>>
>> Not my phone being flakey, but the app on my PC that connects to it.
>> Here's the pic here:
>>
>>> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEPEJDF
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Not the sort of car I'd like to own but I do love the styling and
> appreciate the workmanship that's been put into.
> A very nice car.

One of my all time fav's, and on my list of cars to own before I die.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.