On 27/12/2023 8:35 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote on 27/12/2023 4:50 am:
>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>>>>> Rod can you remember if NSW has ever had a referendum for NSW's
>>>>>>> constitutional change?
>>
>>>>>> It isnt the method used to change the NSW constitution and it
>>>>>> hasnt been changed that way.
>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902
>>
>>>>> Well, sort of, Roddles ....
>>
>>>>  Not sort of, what I said is completely accurate.
>>
>>> Well, sort of, Roddles ....
>>
>>>>  Not sort of, what I said is completely accurate.
>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902
>>
>>>>  What was the point of repeating the link ?
>>
>>> Seems you didn't read it right the first time, Roddles!
>>
>> We'll see...
>>
>> And there is no point in repeating the link given that its my link,
>>
>>>>> Part of First Para .... "This act created the foundation of the
>>>>> Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Government of
>>>>> New South Wales. Most of the Constitution can be amended through
>>>>> ordinary Acts of Parliament, however *some sections can only be
>>>>> amended through a referendum of NSW voters* "
>>
>>>>> So some sections CAN be altered by Parliament,
>>
>>>>  Duh.
>>
>>> You seemed to think there was *NO* alteration, Roddles.
>>
>> Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, as always.
>>
>> I JUST said that any change doesnt have to be by REFERENDUM.
>>
>>>>> and some sections CAN be  *ONLY* be altered by Referendum.
>>
>>>>  You need to read the entire article and when you do you will find it
>>>> doesnt say that.
>>
>>> But the portion I did read *did state it* , Roddles!!
>>
>> But that bit isnt an accurate statement of how it gets changed.
>>
>>> Why should I  bother reading any more ....
>>
>> Because that bit isnt an accurate statement of how it gets changed.
>>
>>>>> At least according to your Constitution, Roddles!!
>>
>>>>  The constitution doesnt say that. Read it.
>>
>>> Yeap!! Read it, Roddles, and guess what?? It *DOES* state it!!
>>
>> Thats not the constitution, fuckwit.
>
> THAT's what we are referring to, Roddles!!
>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902
>>
>>> Part of First Para ....
>>> "This act created the foundation of the Executive, Legislative and
>>> Judicial branches of the Government of New South Wales. Most of the
>>> Constitution can be amended through ordinary Acts of Parliament, however
>>> *some sections can only be amended through a referendum of NSW voters* "
>>
>> In fact that is ONLY if the upper house is being abolished

Bullshit.

as the
>> full text says clearly enough for even an ignorant fool like you.
>
> Nope!! Can't find where I'm wrong,

You aren't wrong. Roddles is.

I think the silly old fart is trying to be cute and tricky.

His comment about "the full text" means, I suspect, that he's referring
to "the full text" of the actual NSW Constitution, not the Wikipedia
article you keep suggesting he read or reread.

In any event, Roddles is wrong.

Read Section 7a and 7B of the NSW Constitution.
7B (1) (a) specifically mentions which sections of the Constitution
cannot be amended without having been approved by electors ie, a
referenduim.

None of the Sections to be amended by referendums relate to abolishing
the Legislative Council therefore Roddles is wrong. There ARE sections
of the Constitution which can only be amended through referendums of
voters and they are mentioned in 7B (1) (a).

Roddles, perhaps YOU, Roddles, could
> point it out, Roddles ...... OR, hang on, isn't wikipedia User-editable,
> Roddles?? Prehaps you, Roddles, could alter it so it more fully, more
> correctly reflects your views, Roddles!!

Fran wrote on 28/12/23 7:06 pm:
> On 27/12/2023 8:35 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote on 27/12/2023 4:50 am:
>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote

<Snip>

>>>>>> At least according to your Constitution, Roddles!!
>>>
>>>>> The constitution doesnt say that. Read it.
>>>
>>>> Yeap!! Read it, Roddles, and guess what?? It *DOES* state it!!
>>>
>>> Thats not the constitution, fuckwit.
>>
>> THAT's what we are referring to, Roddles!!
>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902
>>>
>>>> Part of First Para .... "This act created the foundation of the
>>>> Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Government
>>>> of New South Wales. Most of the Constitution can be amended
>>>> through ordinary Acts of Parliament, however *some sections can
>>>> only be amended through a referendum of NSW voters* "
>>>
>>> In fact that is ONLY if the upper house is being abolished
>
> Bullshit.
>
>>> as the full text says clearly enough for even an ignorant fool
>>> like you.
>>
>> Nope!! Can't find where I'm wrong,
>
> You aren't wrong. Roddles is.

Thank you for your support, Fran.

> I think the silly old fart is trying to be cute and tricky.
>
> His comment about "the full text" means, I suspect, that he's
> referring to "the full text" of the actual NSW Constitution, not the
> Wikipedia article you keep suggesting he read or reread.

Yeap, my thought as well .... but not having a copy of the Constitution
handy .....

> In any event, Roddles is wrong.
>
> Read Section 7a and 7B of the NSW Constitution. 7B (1) (a)
> specifically mentions which sections of the Constitution cannot be
> amended without having been approved by electors ie, a referenduim.
>
> None of the Sections to be amended by referendums relate to
> abolishing the Legislative Council therefore Roddles is wrong. There
> ARE sections of the Constitution which can only be amended through
> referendums of voters and they are mentioned in 7B (1) (a).
>
>> Roddles, perhaps YOU, Roddles, could point it out, Roddles ......
>> OR, hang on, isn't wikipedia User-editable, Roddles?? Prehaps you,
>> Roddles, could alter it so it more fully, more correctly reflects
>> your views, Roddles!!
>
--
Daniel

Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
> Fran wrote

>> I think the silly old fart is trying to be cute and tricky.

>> His comment about "the full text" means, I suspect, that he's
>> referring to "the full text" of the actual NSW Constitution, notthe
>> Wikipedia article you keep suggesting he read or reread.

Correct.

> Yeap, my thought as well .... but not having a copy of the Constitution
> handy .....

The wikipedia article provides a link to that, fuckwit.

On 28/12/2023 8:52 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Fran wrote on 28/12/23 7:06 pm:
>> On 27/12/2023 8:35 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>> Rod Speed wrote on 27/12/2023 4:50 am:
>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>
> <Snip>
>
>>>>>>> At least according to your Constitution, Roddles!!
>>>>
>>>>>> The constitution doesnt say that. Read it.
>>>>
>>>>> Yeap!! Read it, Roddles, and guess what?? It *DOES* state it!!
>>>>
>>>> Thats not the constitution, fuckwit.
>>>
>>> THAT's what we are referring to, Roddles!!
>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902
>>>>
>>>>> Part of First Para .... "This act created the foundation of the
>>>>> Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Government
>>>>> of New South Wales. Most of the Constitution can be amended
>>>>> through ordinary Acts of Parliament, however *some sections can
>>>>> only be amended through a referendum of NSW voters* "
>>>>
>>>> In fact that is ONLY if the upper house is being abolished
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>>> as the full text says clearly enough for even an ignorant fool
>>>> like you.
>>>
>>> Nope!! Can't find where I'm wrong,
>>
>> You aren't wrong.  Roddles is.
>
> Thank you for your support, Fran.

Well my "support" is based on being able to read the full text clearly
enough so that even an ignorant fool can understand it. Sadly, Roddles
didn't understand it.

>> I think the silly old fart is trying to be cute and tricky.
>>
>> His comment about "the full text" means, I suspect, that he's
>> referring to "the full text" of the actual NSW Constitution, not the
>> Wikipedia article you keep suggesting he read or reread.
>
> Yeap, my thought as well .... but not having a copy of the Constitution
> handy .....

A quick google to find the full text and a quick read of the legislation
and it's very clear. As you said: "*some sections can only be amended
through a referendum of NSW voters*".

>> In any event, Roddles is wrong.
>>
>> Read Section 7a and 7B of the NSW Constitution. 7B (1) (a)
>> specifically mentions which sections of the Constitution cannot be
>> amended without having been approved by electors ie, a referenduim.
>>
>> None of the Sections to be amended by referendums relate to
>> abolishing the Legislative Council therefore Roddles is wrong.  There
>> ARE sections of the Constitution which can only be amended through
>> referendums of voters and they are mentioned in 7B (1) (a).
>>
>>> Roddles, perhaps YOU, Roddles, could point it out, Roddles ......
>>> OR, hang on, isn't wikipedia User-editable, Roddles?? Prehaps you,
>>> Roddles, could alter it so it more fully, more correctly reflects
>>> your views, Roddles!!
>>

On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 09:20:11 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote:

>On 28/12/2023 8:52 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> Fran wrote on 28/12/23 7:06 pm:
>>> On 27/12/2023 8:35 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>> Rod Speed wrote on 27/12/2023 4:50 am:
>>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>>>>>>> At least according to your Constitution, Roddles!!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The constitution doesnt say that. Read it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeap!! Read it, Roddles, and guess what?? It *DOES* state it!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thats not the constitution, fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>> THAT's what we are referring to, Roddles!!
>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902
>>>>>
>>>>>> Part of First Para .... "This act created the foundation of the
>>>>>> Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Government
>>>>>> of New South Wales. Most of the Constitution can be amended
>>>>>> through ordinary Acts of Parliament, however *some sections can
>>>>>> only be amended through a referendum of NSW voters* "
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact that is ONLY if the upper house is being abolished
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>>>> as the full text says clearly enough for even an ignorant fool
>>>>> like you.
>>>>
>>>> Nope!! Can't find where I'm wrong,
>>>
>>> You aren't wrong.  Roddles is.
>>
>> Thank you for your support, Fran.
>
>Well my "support" is based on being able to read the full text clearly
>enough so that even an ignorant fool can understand it. Sadly, Roddles
>didn't understand it.
>
Rod Speed is more correct than you, you are again just being snarky
not truthful as well as over-opinionated!
>
>>> I think the silly old fart is trying to be cute and tricky.
>>>
>>> His comment about "the full text" means, I suspect, that he's
>>> referring to "the full text" of the actual NSW Constitution, not the
>>> Wikipedia article you keep suggesting he read or reread.
>>
>> Yeap, my thought as well .... but not having a copy of the Constitution
>> handy .....
>
>A quick google to find the full text and a quick read of the legislation
>and it's very clear. As you said: "*some sections can only be amended
>through a referendum of NSW voters*".
>
>>> In any event, Roddles is wrong.
>>>
>>> Read Section 7a and 7B of the NSW Constitution. 7B (1) (a)
>>> specifically mentions which sections of the Constitution cannot be
>>> amended without having been approved by electors ie, a referenduim.
>>>
>>> None of the Sections to be amended by referendums relate to
>>> abolishing the Legislative Council therefore Roddles is wrong.  There
>>> ARE sections of the Constitution which can only be amended through
>>> referendums of voters and they are mentioned in 7B (1) (a).
>>>
>>>> Roddles, perhaps YOU, Roddles, could point it out, Roddles ......
>>>> OR, hang on, isn't wikipedia User-editable, Roddles?? Prehaps you,
>>>> Roddles, could alter it so it more fully, more correctly reflects
>>>> your views, Roddles!!
>>>
--
Petzl
We know the inane Dumb4 are lying,
they know they are lying,
they know we know they are lying,
we know they know we know they are lying,
but they are still lying.
"Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn"