Yarra Ranges is Stuffed for Motorbikes
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: ROT IN HELL GREEK FUCKWIT....
Next: Garage Night new video: Suspension overhaul starts with Dremelon a lathe
From: Diogenes on 3 Feb 2010 18:09 On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:07:44 +1100, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >Diogenes wrote: >> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:01:32 +1100, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >> >>> Diogenes wrote: >>>>> Lowering the speed limit and altering the road marking laws to prohibit >>>>> overtaking simply enables the enforcement effort to trap people who are >>>>> riding in a sensible, and until recently, perfectly legal manner. >>>> So you're saying that it's all an evil, antisocial plan to trap the >>>> innocent whilst turning a blind eye to the guilty? You don't think >>>> that's a bit of a skewed view of reality? >> >>> I'm saying that the gumbiment see this lowering of speed limits as >>> having the bonus effect of raising the amount of revenue their mobile >>> tax gathering units (highway patrols) get from day dreaming car drivers >>> (and the occasional motorcyclist). >> >> Yes, it gives them more money with which to finance more active >> traffic patrolling. Good innit? It's called economics". JL can >> tell you all about it. ;-) >> > >If it was used for that I wouldn't have such a problem with it. > >If it was even used to fund general police services I wouldn't have a >problem with it. > >But the revenue from fines goes mostly into general revenue where it's >used for such diverse and useful things as excessive superannuation >funds for pollies and golden plane tickets for retired pollies and their >families and blowing their own horn in television adverts. So where are we going with this? Disband all government agencies and hire private contractors? More activism to get the government to redirect the revenue? Or just whinging in newsgroups because it's oh so tendy? Where? ================= Onya bike Gerry
From: Diogenes on 3 Feb 2010 18:16 On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:02:34 +1100, CrazyCam <CrazyCam(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >Diogenes wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 22:39:30 -0800 (PST), theo >> <theodoreb(a)bigpond.com.au> wrote: > ><snip> > >>> Wealth taxes don't work because >>> a) Wealthy people can afford to hire very good tax accountants >>> b) Wealthy people can afford to buy politicians. >> >> What a cynical defeatist you are. >As theo is right, however cynical or otherwise, perhaps pragmatist or >realist might be better words. So we'll just accept that as "reality" and just resign ourselves to the "fact" that it won't ever change? Ba-a-a Ba-a-a Ba-a-a... At least the sheep have learned the utter futility of endlessly whinging abou it if you've convinced yourself that you're powerless do anything about it... Of course, to do so, you'd have to have given up on democracy as a viable system. ================= Onya bike Gerry
From: Diogenes on 3 Feb 2010 18:17 On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:48:15 +1100, "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote: >Who exactly are the hoons you speak of? I think I've said enough already to give you a good enough idea about how I define hoons. ================= Onya bike Gerry
From: theo on 3 Feb 2010 18:33 On Feb 4, 7:16 am, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote: > So we'll just accept that as "reality" and just resign ourselves to > the "fact" that it won't ever change? No. There's no reason w shouldn't try for change. > Ba-a-a Ba-a-a Ba-a-a... At least the sheep have learned the utter > futility of endlessly whinging abou it if you've convinced yourself > that you're powerless do anything about it... Of course, to do so, > you'd have to have given up on democracy as a viable system. Our democracy is dangerously leaning towards the American model which is not a viable Democracy. Not even sure it is a democracy at all. Our health system is also falling apart due to the unwillingness of Gov'ts to fix it and pushing people to 'go private' and leave the inadequate National health system to those who are prepared to put up with it. And then penalise those people in the private sytem with unrealistic rebates. Last year I needed to have my gallbladder removed. My surgeon saw me in his office before and after the op, did the three hour op and saw me twice in the hospital. Total atendance time around 4.5 hours. For this he charged me $2100. The payment from the Private Medical fund and Medicare came to $765, leaving me $1300 to pay. It appears the scheduled fee for this service is about $900 or $200 per hour. We used to charge more than that per hour to have a techo check out a server. Getting the public to pay 1.4% of their taxable income towards the National health service is obviously unrealistic. Theo
From: Diogenes on 3 Feb 2010 18:37
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 02:49:10 -0800 (PST), theo <theodoreb(a)bigpond.com.au> wrote: >On Feb 3, 6:19�pm, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote: >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 01:07:05 -0800 (PST), theo >> >> <theodo...(a)bigpond.com.au> wrote: >> >> I'll make it easy for you , Theo: >> >> I �said: >> >> >> >> I think an _intelligent_ reader would have deduced that I was not not >> >> >> saying that you, personally, were a hoon. �Go back and do Engish >> >> >> Comprehension 101 _again_, will you, please, there's a good lad... >> >> You said: >> >> >> >Are you saying Geoff inferred? I thought you implied. >> >> I said: >> >> >> Geoff WAS inferring. �I was NOT implying he, personally, was a hoon, >> >> and you, GO AWAY !!! �;-) >> >> You said: >> >> >You just failed English Comprehension 101 Gerry. "I thought you >> >implied" translates to "I inferred". :-) >> >> Since it was YOU who said "I thought you implied", it was YOU who >> inferred. �And, ergo, it was YOU who failed English Comprehension 101. > >Duh! Failed again Gerry. "I thought you implied", was said by me and I >said it translates to "I inferred", I being me, not you. Your ego >betrays you. No, dear Theo, it is you who is as dense as a plank. See if you can follow it THIS time, eh? [1] You said (talking about ME) "I thought you implied." [2] I (that's ME) replied "I was NOT implying..." [3] You then introduced a red herring by saying "I thought you implied" translates to "I inferred". It's a red herring because you're talking about YOU, when up until that point we were talking about whether or not _ I _ was implying (something about Geoff.) We were not talking about whether YOU were inferring or implying, we were talking about ME implying (or not). You failed EC101 and now also Logic 101. Keep it up. ;-) ================= Onya bike Gerry |