[longweekend58]

Bam, on 18 April 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

I think you're too fond of the "Coalition" tag and getting all hung up about terminology. Stop nitpicking others' use of terminology and start thinking about the issues at hand.

MBs vs MB/s

it is all about terminology. So seriously, if you are going to nitpick on the above minor error is it not reasonable for me to expect people to refer to the opposition using the actual name ie Coalition rather than LNP or LN-PC or whatever? I dont think that is unreasonable at all. In fact, referring to them as the LNP is fundmentally wrong not just pendantic.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[longweekend58]

icey, on 18 April 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

Close the debate down perhaps and lock the thread?

The entire thread is supposed to be about the future of the Greens yet it appears almost nobody has the desire or capacity to debate that. We can argue about Gaza or Tony Abbott or even idiotic definitions and names for the Opposition party but no, we cant debate the future of the Greens...

I had high hopes that this site might actually have debates on topic at a higher level than I normally see... Alas, after a promising start it seems it is back to the basics of attacking tony abbott, israel and spelling.

under-whelmed.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

longweekend58, on 19 April 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

The entire thread is supposed to be about the future of the Greens yet it appears almost nobody has the desire or capacity to debate that.

I think the Greens have a long and healthy future in front of them.

But with BB soon to be out of parliament TA can relax about wearing his red speedos in the MPs cafeteria!

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Roderick]

scotto, on 19 April 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

I think the Greens have a long and healthy future in front of them.

But with BB soon to be out of parliament TA can relax about wearing his red speedos in the MPs cafeteria!

I think that they have a limited future because they will self-destruct from internal tensions, personal vanities and from the good sense of the Australian voters.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Frogman]

Roderick, on 19 April 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

I think that they have a limited future because they will self-destruct from internal tensions, personal vanities and from the good sense of the Australian voters.

As evidenced by their bitter deputy leadership spill. Oh wait, no, that was handled quickly, calmly and professionally.

Maybe you mean by the bitter rivalry between SHY and Milne where Sarah gave her full support to Milne.

Maybe you mean by... no, wait, im not too sure what you mean. Can you prove any of this bollocks, or are you just projecting?

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[longweekend58]

Roderick, on 19 April 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

I think that they have a limited future because they will self-destruct from internal tensions, personal vanities and from the good sense of the Australian voters.

BB hasnt even left yet and the pro-soviet Rhiannon is already complaining about 200 US troops in Darwin and how it is a threat to China.

The Greens are about to self-destruct. In 5-6 years they will look like the Democrats. I live not far from the Democrats former head office. it is now demolished and is nothing more than an empty block of land. It is an excellent metaphor for the Democrats themselves. Before long the Greens will go back to getting 2% of the vote as they used to and competing for 6th place along with Family First.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

Roderick, on 19 April 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

I think that they have a limited future because they will self-destruct from internal tensions, personal vanities and from the good sense of the Australian voters.

uh huh....

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

longweekend58, on 19 April 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

The Greens are about to self-destruct. In 5-6 years they will look like the Democrats.

At least they have avoided that harbinger of Democrats doom - voting with the LN-CP.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Frogman]

Scotto, you make me giggle sometimes.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

Frogman, on 19 April 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

Scotto, you make me giggle sometimes.

Mission accomplished!

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[longweekend58]

scotto, on 19 April 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

At least they have avoided that harbinger of Democrats doom - voting with the LN-CP.

who are they? try and at least identify your parties correctly.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

longweekend58, on 19 April 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

who are they? try and at least identify your parties correctly.

Oops... I meant LN-PC .. how careless! But seriously? - still with this? It's a bit discursive to be continually making these kinds of objections, isn't it? Not to mention that it doesn't contribute to the discussion at all.

If you genuinely don't know what I'm referring to, I'm certain there are at least a few people willing to fill you in.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Bam]

longweekend58, on 17 April 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Bam, on 16 April 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

I use LNP for the Liberal National Party (Queensland) and LNC for the Liberal-National coalition. I have suggested that others do the same to avoid confusing the two.

I consider the LNC to be a coalition of four parties: the Liberal party, the National party, the Liberal National Party and the Country Liberal Party. Though if we look closer, despite the name the National party are not really a national party, being an amalgam of state-based parties. Crook of the WA Nationals sits on the cross-benches, SA has historically had little National party support, and the Nationals don't even have a presence in the ACT IIRC. Perhaps there's not even a national Liberal party either, being made up of branches from the different states. Historically the ALP and Greens have also had this state-based structure.

You could just call it the Coalition or the Liberal/National Coalition like every political commentator and analyst in the country does. Why is this so difficult? Some people get pedantic beyond belief and then use the term LNP to apply to the coalition. Just call it the Coalition... That way you dont have to explain it every time. its called 'common use shorthand'.

You really need to see this. Let me trim away the excess words:

longweekend58, on 17 April 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Bam, on 16 April 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

Liberal-National coalition.

You could just call it ... the Liberal/National Coalition

Wait, what? Didn't I just DO that? Unless you are worrying about exact punctuation. Typing in "Liberal-National coalition" all the time is excess verbiage, so I abbreviate it as "LNC".

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Bam]

I have moved the posts on the Israel-Palestinian conflict into a new thread in the World section. I think I got all the relevant posts but if there's one that's escaped my attention let me know.

BAM.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[longweekend58]

scotto, on 19 April 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Oops... I meant LN-PC .. how careless! But seriously? - still with this? It's a bit discursive to be continually making these kinds of objections, isn't it? Not to mention that it doesn't contribute to the discussion at all.

If you genuinely don't know what I'm referring to, I'm certain there are at least a few people willing to fill you in.

Im spending my precious time trying to educate you. You started off calling them the LNP. It has been a struggle to get you to recognise their proper name.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[scotto]

longweekend58, on 21 April 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

Im spending my precious time trying to educate you. You started off calling them the LNP. It has been a struggle to get you to recognise their proper name.

Well.. you could start by being a bit less precious, perhaps? After all, no one else expressed any confusion and I think by context it was always clear.

I do notice however that by focusing on this you seem to avoid making any responses to more serious parts of the debate. Just a thought.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[icey]

scotto, on 21 April 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

After all, no one else expressed any confusion and I think by context it was always clear.

By context, my ESL remark a minute ago (elsewhere) lands quite niceably.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[longweekend58]

scotto, on 21 April 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

Well.. you could start by being a bit less precious, perhaps? After all, no one else expressed any confusion and I think by context it was always clear.

I do notice however that by focusing on this you seem to avoid making any responses to more serious parts of the debate. Just a thought.

I can make serious comment but only with serious people. And someone who cannot even get the name right for a political party is hardly the stuff of 'serious debater'.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Bam]

longweekend58, on 21 April 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

I can make serious comment but only with serious people. And someone who cannot even get the name right for a political party is hardly the stuff of 'serious debater'.

LW58, I think I'll rebut this using your own words from another thread:

longweekend58, on 11 April 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

Way to go for rather pointless pedantry. What's next? Grammar criticism and style objections?

"For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard" - Shakespeare, Hamlet Act III Scene 4.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Frogman]

http://www.abc.net.a...xt/s3478779.htm

Bob Brown on Q&A

Funnily enough, the very first question asked was "Why retire now?"

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.