Whistler,

you said you wouldn't discuss the issues with Pericles.

'While I acknowledge your right to an opinion, once again, where such opinion is clearly without substance, I decline discourse with you.'

Yet you carried on an intercourse with Pericles, although addressing me. That was purile.


Your statement was either dishonest, or we all could rightly conclude Pericles opinion is clearly not without substance.

Your actions undermine your arguments and fortify Pericles's now dominant position.

Bulldust always has the dominant position with male privilege, imajulianutter, haven’t you noticed?

Wm Trevor,

I don't think stupid people should be disenfranchised, or discouraged from putting forward their points of view. After all, few of us would want to muzzle Whistler, no matter how silly or backward his One True Idea may be. Free speech means nothing if it does not allow stupid or offensive opinions or remarks to be expressed, even Whistler's.

G'day Loudmouth… I'll have to finesse my writing style if I gave, even for a second, the impression I regarded or so classified whistler – because I don't. Nor did my reading of whistler's responses give me reason to think my comments were taken that way.

My lumping of the lumpen as 'stupid people' wouldn't include anyone capable of turning on a computer and typing an online opinion – even ones with which I disagree.

That's why I actually like Australia's system of compulsory voting – or to be more accurate Australia's system of compulsory attendance at a place of polling – as I regard it as the slight price every couple of years for giving every citizen the right to complain about politics. We've all 'had' to turn up, even if its to not bother casting a valid vote.

I still think my suggestion of a Coalition Of Women Party is a goer in pursuit of the One True Idea, but… I'm not convinced it's necessary.

Well, it was great to have you visit again, Philip. Do make sure you drop in again soon - as they say in Texas, "don't you be a stranger now, y'hear?"

But what was this parting shot?

>>Bulldust always has the dominant position with male privilege, imajulianutter, haven’t you noticed?<<

That's either a very brave and honest mea culpa, or an accurately placed shot at your own foot. I presume course that you mean all males, and haven't somehow excluded yourself from the charge - that would be rather presumptuous, and most unworthy of you.

But to make sure that you are not missed, I'll recommend to fellow-OLOers your web site, to ensure that your idea of "separate legislatures for men and women" can stay fresh in their minds.

http://2mf.net/

Perhaps it would be less stressful for you in future, just to remind us of its existence, instead of having to write all those angry posts.

See how I care for your wellbeing?

No need to thank me - I'm just that kind of guy.

Well Margaret Thatcher, from what I have seen of indigenous education over the last 10, years a woman could verywell become one of our future leaders. All political parties over the years have put into place educational programmes and development programmes to enhance the wellbeimg of our native land owners. Many control minning leases, red cake, coal, copper and iron ore just to name a few. Aboriginal and Torrens Straits Islanders have this country handed back to them on the classroom book covers throughout Australia. So the woman's not a problem as previous leading parties have won elections from the introduction of education ie, political science. The past is catching up with mainstream politics. Man or woman.