From: hippo on
G-S wrote:
> Nev.. wrote:
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:06:44 +1100, G-S wrote:
> >>
> >>> Andrew wrote:
> >>>> If you buy one, it is because you want those two things, or you want
> >>>> people to think you want those two things. Either way, you're a hoon.
> >>>> Even if you never do a wheelie on your litre-class sports bike, and you
> >>>> always stick to speed limits, you're still a hoon.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I have to disagree with that.
> >>>
> >>> If a person never speeds, never wheelies, never breaks the law and rides
> >>> a litre-class sports bike they are NOT a hoon.
> >>>
> >>> They no doubt want people to think they are a hoon (or the 2nd coming of
> >>> M Doohan) but that doesn't make them one.
> >>>
> >>> At best they are FAIL at hoon...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> G-S
> >>
> >> Would you settle for 'wannabe' hoon? Nobody buys a sports bike for its
> >> touring capability, or its baggage handling, or its ground clearance.
> >> The fact that the rider doesn't behave like a hoon doesn't alter the
> >> motivation for the purchase.
> >
> > Most of my motivation for buying highpowered sports bikes has been being
> > comfort and laziness. Whats going to happen is you're going to have to
> > define sports bike and hoon to within a very narrow definition and the
> > real world will trip you over with diversity. So lets start by defining
> > 'sportsbike'.
> >
> > Nev..
> > '08 DL1000K8
> People can be hoons without having 'sports bikes' just as people might
> not be hoons that have them.
> You I'd suggest are a mild hoon :)
> G-S

Let's face it, you can be a hoon on a CT110. It's just a bit harder to

Posted at
From: Nev.. on
On Feb 7, 9:24 pm, G-S <ge...(a)> wrote:
> Nev.. wrote:
> > G-S wrote:
> >> Nev.. wrote:
> >>> I can't understand how people could be asked to number boxes
> >>> from 1 to n in their order of preference, and yet not understand that
> >>> they were numbering boxes from 1 to n in their order of preference.
> >> Really?
> >>  From what I remember of the 'how to vote' instruction cards handed
> >> out at the election booths they clearly said to vote for the senate
> >> using a single number in a box above the line.
> >> That doesn't sound much like 1 to n to me...
> > Well you need to make up your mind, because first you were complaining
> > that the system of voting was broken and now apparently you're saying
> > it's broken because the candidates are keeping a secret from the public
> > on how voting works.  You do know what how to vote cards are, don't you?
> The voting 'system' includes the rules and regulations governing
> election materials and what, when and how election materials consist of.
> So the how to vote cards are part of that system.

LOL I hope you're coming to Tarago this year because I want to see
just how much further you can draw that bow on the archery range :)

From: Marts on
G-S wrote...

> The only times I've been in hospital in more than 20 years I've been in
> private hospital.

So, when you were in private hospital, not one cent of the attending doctors'
bills were paid for on Medicare and the private insurer made up the rest, plus
the gap payment that you'd have to make out of your own pocket?

(the hospital stay itself would've been fully covered by the private health
insurance, presuming that you have top cover).

Or, if you go to the optometrist (if you or your family have to wear glasses),
that you paid cash for the consultation? Most optometrists bulk bill on
Medicare, but slug you heaps on the hardware...

From: theo on
On Feb 6, 5:48 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)> wrote:
> G-S wrote:

> > So I'd like to see a government with proportional voting and without
> > preferences, because preferences distort the result so that the largest
> > proportion of voters chosen representative doesn't get elected.
> Not true at all.  I think you don't know how preferential voting works.
>   The preferences give you a second chance, and a third chance, and a
> fourth chance.  If your preferred candidate didn't get enough votes to
> win the seat outright, why wouldn't you want your second choice getting
> your vote, and if they can't win, why wouldn't you want your third
> choice to get your vote?  The least voted against candidate wins.

That is part of the problem. You get the person you least object to,
rather than the person you want.

> In
> all cases the person you least want to get your vote cannot get your
> vote, and your vote will always count against that person, and so on up
> the ballot paper.  Your representative is directly reportable to you,
> and at the end of their term, you can vote them out of office if you
> feel they haven't been performing.

You think your elected reprsentative is somehow answerable to you?
Check to see if s/he even lives in your electorate and ask to see how
many people voted to get him on the ticket.

> The problem with a lower house full of proportionally voted
> representatives, is that you have no single politician who can be held
> directly responsible for you, and at the next election, how can you hold
> anyone accountable for their individual performance and act on that?

Indivdual performance in Parliament? In Australia? They don't get to
individualy vote if they want to hav etheir name on the ticket next


From: theo on
On Feb 6, 7:32 pm, G-S <ge...(a)> wrote:

> You're describing how the system used to work before the numbers above
> the line system was introduced.
> I actually vote below the line and so does a very small percentage of
> voters and our votes work exactly as you describe.
> The vast majority of voters vote above the line and have no idea where
> there preferences are being directed by the party they chose as number 1.

I have never voted above the line.