Joe ... if it makes you feel comfortable :)

'imajulianutter's "superior intellect" (game)? Ok, roger that :)

imajulianutter:

Don't be overimpressed by Tony Abbott's Oxford credentials. An Oxford MA requires no examination or study beyond a BA. Any BA can become an MA on application seven years after joining the university as an undergraduate. Most do not bother, but the degree is popular among the clergy. It looks impressive on the parish sign—or the political biography.

Hi Bonmot,

Comfortable ? Not really.

I want to believe her, or at least be able to rest in the knowledge that there is a reliable pair of hands on the tiller. With such hair-splitting, who knows ? My confidence is shaken that our captain will not run us onto the rocks sooner or later.

I just wish it wasn't so, that just for once, she could get a clear victory over some issue or other without buggering it up.

Cheers,

Joe

No-one was hurt but the press gallery looked like morons.

I wish they would vote some time to remembering that illegal war based on non-existent WMD that has killed hundreds of thousands.

Hi Joe,

No, not quite right. But don’t feel too bad. It was misunderstood by most of the media and by Mr Abbott and Ms Bishop.

Joe, it would be good for you to read the front page of The Australian on Wednesday last week (linked in the article). Then the OLO article again. It should make sense then.

In a nutshell again: The background facts to the Wednesday story in The Australia are not in dispute. These include:

a) Julia Gillard is Prime Minister
b) Bob Carr is an ex-Premier of NSW
c) Kevin Rudd resigned as Foreign Minister
d) Gillard defeated Rudd in a leadership ballot
e) Mark Arbib resigned from the Senate creating a vacancy
f) It is the decision of the ALP in NSW to nominate a new Senator
g) The PM appoints the new Foreign Minister.
h) The NSW ALP sounded out Carr about becoming a Senator and Foreign Minister
i) Julia Gillard then spoke with Carr about the job.

Those are the background facts. None has been contested. They were all accepted by Tuesday of last week.

Now, move forward to Wednesday morning of last week and The Australian’s lead: ‘Mutiny kills PM's Bob Carr plan.’

This story acknowledged the truth of the above nine realities. But it then broke a fresh new story containing seven elements. These are itemised above (Alan Austin, Wednesday, 7 March, 12:43:54)

In response to this, the PM said: ‘The story that's on the front page of The Australian newspaper today is completely untrue.’

And she was perfectly correct. The seven essential new developments – the fresh information warranting a big front page – or news, as we used to understand the concept – were all false.

Seven out of seven erroneous. One hundred percent incorrect. Or, in the PM’s words, completely untrue.

But it is important to note that the nine or more background facts were not wrong. Gillard is the PM - they got that right. Gillard had spoken to Carr about the vacant post - correct again.

But all seven fresh revelations were false.

Cheers, AA

Does the word "dissembling" mean anything to you, Alan Austin?

>>And she was perfectly correct. The seven essential new developments – the fresh information warranting a big front page – or news, as we used to understand the concept – were all false.<<

Dissembling, in the sense of the "presentation of facts in a way that is literally true, but intentionally misleading".

That definition, by the way, appears in Wikipedia under the main heading "lie"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

I'm sure that you are aware of this usage. As is the Prime Minister.

It would appear to be a fair statement that you both consider dissembling to be a perfectly acceptable mode of communication in a political setting. Which explains much of the public's shrinking respect for politicians and political commentators alike.