If we want some balance and common sense in the argument, what about the West's sexualisation of girls? Having granddaughters, I find that objectionable. I took action when a major store started selling 'bras' for girls 6-10? How ridiculous, or make up etc.I'm not talking about playing dress ups, I mean for real. Giving pubescent girls medication to stop maturity, so they can compete in gymnastics longer. We tolerate violent/sexist/and frequently abusive messages in video and/or computer games. I think these practices would cause more harm for young people than having a woman wearing a burqa?
The use of the burqa as a security issue is baseless, when we don't raise any questions about young people, usually males,who wear hoodies while driving. I've had to take drastic action to avoid a collision, only to see the driver with a hoodie on - couldn't see? Or wearing it while riding a bike?
If women from a middle eastern background are wearing the burqa as a form of protest, then I say, good on them. How would we feel is a third of NSW was killed by a foreign country,who was only after our coal, or uranium, and used lies to get support to do it, and whipped up the rest of the world to racist views about Australia! That's what happened to Iraq & Afghanistan, and will perhaps happen again with Iran!
Incidently, prior to our invasion/occupation,those 3 countries were westernised-in fact, wearing the burqa was banned in at least 2 countries not too many yrs ago!
The West 'created' the fundamentalists - the US 'created' bin Laden; encouraged Saddam!

I love the notion that the wearing of the burqua represents the oppression of women by their husbands - who are (allegedly) forcing them to wear it and thereby removing their freedom of choice.

The solution?

Make the State pass laws to to force them NOT to wear it, also the removal of another freedom of choice.

Proxy:"Osama would be subject to revealing his identity if he was wearing a helmet whereas
he would be less likely to be subject to revealing his identity in a burqa."

Huh? The wearing of motorcycle helments is obligatory. If he took it off he'd be breaking the law.

Dear me, is this the best argument you have?

It is fascinating to observe the contortions evident here, as the attempts to justify the unjustifiable reach ever more hysterical heights.

I loved this one.

>>What's to stop Osama Bin Laden driving down the street in a burqa? If he was stopped by police would he be able to sue them for violating his religious beliefs?<<

The imagery contained in this is hilarious. Osama bin Laden on a motorbike, wearing a burka, being pulled over by the police.

"'Allo allo allo. Ridin' yer bike in a burka, eh? Off wiv it, I say"

"But officer, if you force me, a devout Muslim lady innocently riding her motorbike, to remove my most sacred disguise - er, head covering, I will be obliged to report you to the anti-discrimination people, forthwith"

"Oh. Right. In that case young lady, you can be on your way."

"Why thank you officer"

"No worries. By the way, that's a bitchin' hog..."

Thanks Proxy, you made my day.

Incidentally, Dan S de Merengue, it was never about spelling.

>>Language is wonderfully malleable, but our spelling must be precise. So Thanks Antiseptic, a second time, and others, for sharpening my spelling; the antilogarithm function, exponential, has no D.<<

Your error, still uncorrected, was to insist that the word itself not only exists, but is in common use.

>>I believe that exponential is a particular case of expodential, which is the more general term.<<

>>Expodential is an acceptable term with the mathematical function that is often associated with population growth modelling. It was the word that I was taught in school when learning about geometric series. That the word exponential is the current term in vogue these days when raising a base number to a power is possibly due to the Americanisation of English.<<

It is a wonderful test of character, is it not, to be able to admit an error, freely and generously accepting that on this occasion, you were wrong.

A test that you have failed.

And that you continue to fail, by still insisting that it was all just a "spelling error".

You claimed that you...

>>...wrote expediential, when I was thinking of the word expodential... I struck an e when I should have struck o and the autocorrect inserted the i<<

Given that "expediential" is not actually a real word, your insistence that it was inserted by a spellchecker is itself a blatant, barefaced untruth.

Yet still you practice self-deception.

No-one else is deceived, by the way.

You really need to ask yourself, "what does this say about me?"

I reckon it's time to let Dan off. People deal with social embarrassment differently. There is no need for a public crucifiction.