From: Nev.. on
Pietro wrote:
> "Nev.." <idiot(a)> wrote in message
> news:7tWdnbii84EvfvLWnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d(a)
>> theo wrote:
>>> On Feb 8, 3:24 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)> wrote:
>>>> theo wrote:
>>>>> That is part of the problem. You get the person you least object to,
>>>>> rather than the person you want.
>>>> It's not a problem at all. If the person you want has enough votes they
>>>> win. See. Amazing, but true. You get the person you want. If they
>>>> can't win, your second choice gets your vote, and so on. If your
>>>> preference, a proportional voting model was used, how do you get the
>>>> person you want?
>>> You can't vote for the person you want. You can only vote for the
>>> people on the ticket. A few (very few) people in the party decide
>>> which person gets on the ticket, so you may as well vote for the
>>> party. Your local person, who you voted in to look after you, will
>>> certainly vote whichever way the party says, otherwise they don't get
>>> preselection next time. If you think they can follow their own agenda,
>>> or their stated moral stance, just look at Garrett.
>> Everyone who you want to represent you or wants to represent you has the
>> opportunity to nominate themselves for election on your ballot paper
>> (subject to electoral rules). There's nothing stopping the party of your
>> choice from standing multiple candidates against each other in your
>> electorate to allow you to choose which one you prefer. If they choose
>> not to stand because the organisation they belong to tell them they can't,
>> then that's a problem you have with the rules of the political party of
>> your choice, its not a failing of the electoral system, and you should
>> stop pretending that it is.
>>> The problem with our current system, as I see it, is that it
>>> disempowers large portions of the population. As shown in the recent
>>> past, a new party can get 30% of the vote and fugg-all seats, so no
>>> representation. In a proportional system they would have got 30% of
>>> the seats. The other problem is that a very small change in voting can
>>> make a huge difference in representation. E.g. if 51% of each
>>> electorate votes for one party then the other party gets zero seats
>>> and the 49% who voted for the losers get no representation. A 2% swing
>>> in every electorate would see the reverse. It's silly but contrived to
>>> keep a possible third party from getting any kind of foothold.
>> 51% is a clear majority. That's democracy for ya. That independant
>> candidates have been elected to parliament in the past and present
>> disputes your assertion. In fact at the current time, the Commonwealth
>> government, and every single State and Territory lower house government
>> include politicans who were elected on Greens and/or Independant tickets.
>> So much for your alleged 2 party stranglehold.
>>> Even the Senate elections ar not proportionate after the primary votes
>>> are counted. Deals can be made for the losers preferences to help, as
>>> GS wrote, another party win a seat they would not otherwise have had.
>> Every voter has the opportunity to distribute preferences on their ballot
>> paper in precisely the way that they wish so any talk of preference deals
>> between parties or candidates causing voters to vote against their wishes
>> are rubbish. If people choose to follow the advice of their first
>> preference on how to distribute the remaining preferences, then that is
>> their decision. IF they are too stupid to understand or too lazy to learn
>> how the election process works I have precisely 0% sympathy for them.
>> It's not a secret, information on how elections work is readily available,
>> for free, particularly around election times.
> As an aside, it seems to me that many people still fail to grasp that if
> they vote for one of the top two candiadates (the ones who end up first and
> second), their preferences actually do nothing. So preference deals by the
> major parties are more about political advertising than about the actual
> voting mechanism.
> Only the preferences of the candidates who come last (i.e. the least
> popular) actually get used, and that sequentially only until one candidate
> get to 50% + 1 vote.

While that's mostly true in the lower house, in the upper house with
it's quota system, there is the possibility for left over votes which
initially went to one of the two major parties candidates flowing down
to smaller parties or independants if the major party does not field
enough candidates to utilize all of the votes cast in their favour, or
if one or more of their candidates fail to secure sufficient votes to
meet a quota.

'08 DL1000K8
From: Andrew on
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:02:11 +1100, CrazyCam wrote:

> Andrew wrote:
> <snip>
>> The Daytona 675 is a sports bike. The Street Triple is not.
> The Street Triple doesn't count as a sports bike because it is actually
> comfortable for a normal human to ride for more than 20 minutes at a
> time.
> regards,
> CrazyCam

Probably, and that would be an even simpler classification system, but it
would require that you ride every single contender for the title of
sports bike to see whether it is uncomfortable or not. Hmmm. Wait a

Did you ride a Daytona 675 before buying the Striple?


From: Andrew on
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:57:56 +1100, Nev.. wrote:

> Andrew wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:06:12 +1100, Nev.. wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> OK. Let's start with 'The Most Sporting Bike Class Defined By The
>>>> Manufacturer'. For example, Kawasaki make bikes they classify as
>>>> 'Sport' and 'Supersport'. We take the 'Supersport' category and we
>>>> get the ZX-6R Ninja, the ZX-10R Ninja and the ZX-14. OK, Suzuki next.
>>>> They have bikes they classify as 'Sport / Sport Touring' and
>>>> 'Supersport'. We take the 'Supersport' category and we get the
>>>> GSX-R600, the GSX-R750, the GSX- R1000 and the Hayabusa.
>>>> I'm happy with all of those (actually, I really would be). Want to
>>>> try Ducati? They have categories called 'SportClassic' and
>>>> 'Superbike'. And if you do the obvious and select 'Superbike', you
>>>> get the 848, 1098R, 1198 and 1198S.
>>>> I could go on but I think Nev.. is snoring. Anyone interested in
>>>> offering a contradictory example?
>>> hmm... you've ignored a few 1300+cc 150+HP 260+kph machines which
>>> people do buy for their touring capabilities.
>>> Nev..
>>> '08 DL1000K8
>> No I haven't. In Kawasaki's range I've *included* the ZX-14 and in
>> Suzuki's range I've *included* the Haybusa, even though I don't think
>> either of them are really sports bikes (more Grand Tourer with sporting
>> pretensions). Kawasaki don't count the GTR1400 as a supersports bike
>> and so neither do I. They don't count the Ninja 250R as a supersports
>> bike, even though it is deliberately styled to look like one, and so I
>> don't either.
> I never asked what they counted as sports bikes, I asked what you
> counted as sports bikes. You are the one who made a claim that anyone
> who buys a sportsbike is a hoon. I'm interested to know why you think
> ZX-14 and Hayabusa riders are not hoons.
> Nev..
> '08 DL1000K8'08

What I count as sports bikes is what the manufacturers call super sports
or hyper sports or something equally silly. I've already said that. I've
also already said that I *include* the ZX14 and the Hayabusa as sports
bikes (albeit reluctantly). By my definition anyone who rides any of
these bikes is a hoon.

On that basis someone who rides a ZX-12 (to pick an older model sports
bike completely at random) is a hoon and someone who rides a DL1000 may
not be.

I did not say, to forestall any other diversion into things people
thought I said when in fact I didn't, that the only motorcycle hoons are
those who ride sports bikes.


From: Nev.. on
G-S wrote:
> Nev.. wrote:
>> G-S wrote:
>>> Nev.. wrote:
>>>> G-S wrote:
>>>>> Nev.. wrote:
>>>>>> G-S wrote:
>>>>>>> Nev.. wrote:
>>>>>>>> G-S wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Marts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> G-S wrote...
>>>>>>>>>>> I have private health care and so do all my family, I haven't
>>>>>>>>>>> used the public health system in over 20 years.
>>>>>>>>>> You would have. For example, every time you pulled out your
>>>>>>>>>> Medicare card. Or if
>>>>>>>>>> you're admitted to the ED, which is paid for by Medicare.
>>>>>>>>> I haven't been to an emergency department in over 20 years.
>>>>>>>>> The only times I've been in hospital in more than 20 years I've
>>>>>>>>> been in private hospital.
>>>>>>>>>> And the PBS for prescription drugs.
>>>>>>>>> I actually am on regular prescriptions, plus aspirin.
>>>>>>>>> None of the prescriptions I am on are on the PBS (although
>>>>>>>>> there are less effective alternatives that are in the PBS list)
>>>>>>>>> and aspirin I buy over the counter.
>>>>>>>>> Try again...
>>>>>>>> LOL. Are you naive enough to think that when you attend a
>>>>>>>> private hospital, they don't claim 100% of your Medicare
>>>>>>>> entitlement on your behalf? LOL.
>>>>>>> I never said the private hospital hadn't benefited from public
>>>>>>> health, I said I had not.
>>>>>> And you can't see how the private hospital receiving money on your
>>>>>> behalf for services they provide to you, is to your benefit? Really?
>>>>> I would use the private hospital no matter what the cost of that
>>>>> hospital to me.
>>>>> The government subsidizing those private hospitals reduces the cost
>>>>> to me of course, which means I receive a benefit from the private
>>>>> hospital subsidies.
>>>>> But the benefit I receive is less than (substantially less than)
>>>>> the tax that I pay (and that applies to the total of benefits that
>>>>> I receive).
>>>>> So the NET benefit is negative.
>>>> Must be hard work shifting those goalposts around so much. !
>>>> Nev..
>>>> '08 DL1000K8
>>> Nope... I just hadn't defined them that closely before, but since you
>>> asked.
>>> Or are you trying to say that something that nets me a negative gain
>>> is a real benefit?
>>> Coz I don't see it...
>> If you earn $1000 and pay it off your mortgage, you can't say that you
>> received no benefit from the money you earned, just because you never
>> had it in your hand to spend on other things.
> I don't see what relevance that has, a mortgage payment is a positive
> gain (from a negative accounting position) but it's still a positive net
> gain.

Not if it doesn't cover the interest!

Your proposition, that you are in a net loss position and therefore not
a beneficiary because you get less in return for your taxes than you
pay, is ridiculous, because it would be true for most taxpayers that
they receive measurably less in return for their taxes than they pay,
even if they were to receive thousands of dollars in cash.

'08 DL1000K8
From: Lars Chance on
theo wrote:

> I have never voted above the line.
Me either; there's always someone who REALLY deserves that last place!