NSW/SYD: banning colours
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: New mid-week ambiguious jokes and if you don't like them, fuckoff
Next: No helmet legal for Unicycle rider?
From: JL on 20 Jan 2008 06:41 Iain Chalmers wrote: > In article <fms8bc$1fl$1(a)aioe.org>, Damien <al.qaeda(a)asio.gov.au> > wrote: > >> Iain Chalmers wrote: >>> In article >>> <2e5d21f6-6662-447e-9417-6ae638edcab4(a)s27g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, >>> JL <jlittler(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >>>> Oh puhleese - you're getting stupider by the post. >>> Heh, and you know what they say about arguing with idiots on the >>> internet? They'll drag you down the their level of stupidity, then beat >>> you with their superior experience... >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> big >>> >> And that would probably explain why I shouldn't have ever talked to JL >> et al in the first place, and why they continue to insistently claim to >> have beaten me - it's all that experience they must have! :-) > > Yes, thats right Damien... > > big (See John? Never engage to start with, it's often better that way...) > You are right Big, you are so very right ! <sigh> JL ( I just don't know that I have the willpower to avoid quixotic attempts)
From: JL on 20 Jan 2008 06:44 Nev.. wrote: > See, and it's stuff like that which just highlights how poor your > judgement really is. Probably worse than what you give bouncers the > credit for. And to think they let people like you educate children. Damn ! So there's not only consistency about the way coppers on ausmoto spell, there's consistency about the way teachers on ausmoto (fail) to argue. JL (there's gotta be a PhD thesis in this !!)
From: Theo Bekkers on 20 Jan 2008 07:14 Damien wrote: > Theo Bekkers wrote: > >> I would expect an Australian to use Australian spelling and an >> American to use US spellings, even in discourse with each other. I >> doubt that an American would be offended by an aussie using the word >> colour or vice versa with color. But for an Aussie to use the word >> color is just wrong to me. Even 'Labor' makes me cringe. > > So if the Australian in question was a journalist writing for an > American newspaper, but based out of their home/office here, then > you'd still expect them to use Australian spellings? We're in gambit mode now, are we? If an Australian journalist was writing an article for Le Monde, I would expect said journalist to write in French. Does that answer your question. Tell me, are you a school-teacher? Or just naturally a fuckwit? >> I think you're wrong about that cultural bigotry part. People resist > I think I'm spot-on. Not one single person has opposed "American" > spellings by providing specific and non-cultural evidence of the > superiority of "Australian" spellings. Not even once. In every single > instance, their demands have been exclusively on the grounds that > Australian spellings should be used because we're Australian and > American spellings should be rejected because they're American. That > says it's all about culture, nothing else, and anyone who makes their > demands on that basis alone is a bigot. I don't believe I said at any time that Aus spelling was superior in any way. I said we should continue to spell the way we spell in Aus, and leave the yanks to their version. And resist any attempts to adopt their version. And I'm even happy for the French to continue to parlez Francais. How is that bigoted? >> language change, no matter where they live, and that is not bigotry >> or a bad thing. The Americans are horrified what 'hoodspeak' is >> doing to their language. Word like 'mon' and 'ho' are terrible use >> of language. You want to know what an undefended language sounds >> like? Watch Jerry Springer some time. > And now you're talking about something completely different > altogether. The various "street" variants of language are > corruptions, they are not officially recognised as being correct and > accceptable in formal contexts due to their informal nature. Was it > intentional that you neglected to also refer to similar Australian > corruptions, such as strine etc? No, should I have mentioned strine? When were you last as horrified by Aus spoken on TV as what we hear in the Springer show? Theo
From: JL on 20 Jan 2008 17:06 On Jan 18, 4:51 pm, G-S <ge...(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: > JL wrote: > > On Jan 18, 1:12 pm, G-S <ge...(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: > >> JL wrote: > >>> On Jan 18, 8:59 am, G-S <ge...(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: > >>>> Simone wrote: > >>>>> As for banning "certain colours" if it looks like a duck & quacks like a > >>>>> duck...then expect to get shot at! > >>>>> Sim. > >>>> That's the justification used for discrimination against minorities down > >>>> through the ages... are you sure you want to go down that path? > >>> No it's not; the justification for discrimination against minorities > >>> down the ages is "they're different to us, so they should be treated > >>> 'differently' " (read less well/ less fairly). > >> A difference which makes no difference is no difference JL. > > > Sorry mate, you're missing an important distinction. The keyword in > > the sentence is "justification". The justification for discrimination > > is difference. The difference can be real or imaginary, that's > > irrelevant. That's the *justification*. > > So if someone *looks* like a 1%er but isn't they'll be *discriminated* > against... I still don't see how that is *justification* for that > discrimination (not trying to be thick here). Same confusion as before. That's not the action of justification, it's the action of discrimination (inaccurately applied), it's the bit in the paragraph below, not the bit in the paragraph above. > > It's the *acting on discrimination* Sim's referring to. Two different > > things. You object to *both* the act of justification and the act of > > discrimination (IIANM). However the sentence above is not correct to > > say the discriminatory act is the same as the act of justification of > > being bigoted. > > No... I'm just objecting against the outcome of the discrimination, if > the discrimination isn't against the law (and as far as I can see it > doesn't breach disrimination laws) then all I care about is that the > collateral damage. Indeed, I understand that. I'm skeptical that on the info available that there will be any wider impact than a bunch of OMCGs won't be able to get into a few pubs in Parramatta that are trying to go "up market", you think there will be. OK. I think it more matters whether this is going to be widely applied or it's just a couple of pubs. > >>> You're confusing that with "well if you don't want to be discriminated > >>> against,and you're not part of the minority, don't look like the > >>> minority" > >> See above. Indeed :-) This is the bit you are referring to - "collateral damage" against those who look like a duck but turn out to just be a goose. :-) JL
From: JL on 20 Jan 2008 17:15
On Jan 18, 4:58 pm, G-S <ge...(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: > JL wrote: > > On Jan 18, 1:23 pm, G-S <ge...(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: > >>> It must be almost time for an Ausmoto dinner, and Parramatta is the > >>> geographic centre of Sydney, how about dinner at the Royal Oak guys ? > >> If I was in Sydney I'd pike now... given I'm not I'll just think > >> insulting comments about the choice of venue. > > > I'd have thought you and Damien would be aching to test your thesis > > about how non OMCG'ers are going to get banned. > > > JL > > (it's why I suggested it) > [2] The only 2 HD's I have ready access to these days are a sportster > and an electro-glide ultra classic; neither of which are likely to be > usable to test the hypothesis. Errm if bouncers are too stupid to tell the difference between Bandidos colours and a Ulysses logo why do you think they can tell the difference between an electra-glide and any other HD ? Logical inconsistency there mate. JL (besides I know at least one 1%er who has a full dress hogly (dunno the exact model) in his stable ) |