The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Rudd 2020 talkfest gimmick > Comments

Rudd 2020 talkfest gimmick : Comments

By Mirko Bagaric, published 7/3/2008

Rudd is wrong if he thinks 1,000 of his hand-picked, supposedly smart, mates can understand and connect with another’s misery from afar.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
There is not enough "talkfests", and this is an opportunity for anyone to nominate themselves or whom they may consider can contribute constructively.

We have had near twelve years of stagnation in the country, with no right of contribution from the populace, to the needs for the future of Australia.

The opportunity has been presented, now go and contribute.

To those who say it was a committee that designed the horse and it came out as a camel.

Guess what? A camel can survive a lot longer in our climate than a horse!
Posted by Kipp, Friday, 7 March 2008 5:46:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Beats the way the Bonsai would have done it.
Posted by enkew, Saturday, 8 March 2008 7:08:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is one of FIFTY new committees. Its also an attempt to recruit some potential opponents.

Clearly,he has no clue what to do.

For a guy who got voted in on fresh ideas he doesn't seem to have many of his own.
Posted by Atman, Saturday, 8 March 2008 8:43:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Telstra's mindless single-eyed greed beats anything we can utter about the inflated profits made by the 'credit fever' assaying distortions or expansions assiduous to the interest creditability coffered by the over reach of Banks.

If we say ‘communication between people’ is salubrious to business networking because while we have people communicating we have an apt climate for the creation of more business making between those ‘doing’ the communicating, then is it possible to infer that the performance of Telstra is insalubrious to the underlying drive for more business, especially for the cost it has on households and small business.

Pointed is the underlying stillborn indices of the micro-economy when we consider the disconective_ness(s) present over distance. Broadband and all the talk of G-technologies is over-spun, discernible against the basic need for communication servicing.

The cost of STD calls especially STD packaging contracts to rural and remote regions (Cape York) plus the wound of paying an inflated extra cost, outside these (so called Telstra) packages for 1300 + 1800 numbers.

It is a no win insult afflicted onto government, business and citizens when you consider the reason and equitable value meant by the transference, to alleviate the burden of certain costs… for good reason, to counter-act the flawed tele-communication system, where the aim was to help problem solve vulnerable areas through better communication.

Australians need to STAND UP to TELSTA.

How can we ever have faith in private/public partnerships if those partnerships are abused in the way Telstra abuses the game of scabbard. Household are under immense pressure, business needs some breath and we must communicate to problem solve.

I say deal with Telstra and we begin to kick-start a climate change economy.

Historically this equation is symbolic to the battle through time we have had over what to do with the counterfeit side of paper-money, only, like the invention and transaction of credit-data basing…. the value story of communicatrion, for all it’s economic beneifits, needs up-dating…

Food for thought!

http://www.miacat.com/
.
Posted by miacat, Sunday, 9 March 2008 2:20:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mirko's origninal and many of the subsequent contributions highlight an ongoing issue in debates about public participation and community engagement: who should be involved? We can use any one of a variety of criteria in deciding who should be allowed or encouraged to join in our debates or participatory exercises. These include: those who know something about the topic or issue; those sufficiently motivated to offer their services; those with certain demographic characteristics; those selected at random from the poulation at large. None of these is inherently better than the other, their merit depends on what you hope to achieve from the exercise. So, if you want to know what a representative sample of the public thinks then select randomly; if you are more interested in the views of experts then think about their credentials; if you want your friends then pick them but don't expect a lot of legitimacy to attach to the outcome.
Most participatory exercises, especially those sponsored by the state, fail to satisfy either their sponsors or their participants becasue these and other ground rules are not considered properly in advance.
Posted by PaulyB, Monday, 10 March 2008 10:51:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Random selection" can also fail. Look at any meeting. How many people speak up? How many people feel unable to do so? How many people hog the floor with their point of view - the "correct" point of view?
It is always the articulate minority which wins in the end. That's the way governments want it - an articulate minority prepared to express support for them. Suggest that you should empower others to speak up for themselves and the alarm bells start to ring. So much easier if people are provided with limited amounts of information and told what to think in the process.
This is one reason why the talkfest will fail. Not all who attend will participate. (The amount of time on offer allows everyone about ten minutes anyway - and that is without interruptions from others and no set agenda.) Those who do attend and have opposing points of view or ideas that might work but are against government policy will find themselves ostracised.
Posted by Communicat, Monday, 10 March 2008 3:17:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy