From: G-S on
JL wrote:
> But unlike
> our terrorist laws these don't give general powers to deal with a
> particular issue. They give particular powers to deal with a
> particular issue, which is how laws should be drafted.

I'll remember that when the government makes this compulsory across the
state (or the nation)...


From: CrazyCam on
PostmanPat wrote:


> "To dream,
> The impossible dream..."
> I _thought_ I recognised you from that Honda ad,Cam...

There were a couple of devices on that ad, that i'll love to get a go at

BTW, it starts out with the thingy that was before the Z50.....

From: Boxer on

"G-S" <geoff(a)> wrote in message
> Boxer wrote:
>> Hoverer I
>> may speculate that one would get a similarly hostile reception adorned as
>> a Bogan with questionable personal hygiene in a ratty EH Holden Ute.
> You might well speculate that... however is it justified to refuse service
> to that bogan in the EH Holden ute if they have paid in advance and
> haven't done anything wrong simply based upon perception?
> G-S

Of course not, Bogan's need lovin too!


From: Damien on
corks wrote:

> bet you a packet of trumps cards, your not :-P

Well, for starters I know when, where and how to use an apostrophe. You
clearly do not. :-)

From: Damien on
CrazyCam wrote:

> In my limited interactions with members of the various "outlaw" groups,
> I can only say that they have always behaved perfectly civilly to me.

Ditto in my experience also.

The ones you can prove have done something wrong certainly deserve to
have the book thrown at them. But the rest deserve the same rights and
protections and liberties as the rest of us, until such time as it can
actually be PROVEN that they have in fact - and in their own right -
done such crimes as would warrant such a response.