To the General Secretary,

Why do you so bemoan the impact of newspapers? The Age still has a very large readership. Have you ever read the opinion pages in The Age?

What about Al Jazeera Australia (SBS News) and Pravda Australia (ABC News.) It should be obvious that SBS does not share the assumptions of its government funders. Every time it refers to the War on Terror, it calls it the "So Called War on Terror." And The Age always puts The War on Terror in quotation marks, basically implying the same thing.

Work with what you've got. Nobody's going to take notice of just another University Socialist newsletter.

Dozer,

Read and listen:
“Nobody's going to take notice of just another University Socialist newsletter.”

If you rephrase that as a true - false statement, it is plainly false. Somebody will take notice, however fleetingly.

Or alter the context:
Say nobody’s going to start a bushfire by throwing a burning newspaper out the window. Again, false, but the perception of risk has changed, at least for me.

I think the laws are different, as well. Selling socialist news (Green Left) is legal because few seriously worry that the ideas therein will cause the body politic to “catch fire”. But I do not think the police would be sanguine about you throwing a lit copy out your car window, however unlikely it is to cause a fire.

We are protected from harsh censorship here, but that’s not the point. You can laud the freedom of expression in The Australian and The Age, and so on, but I see repeated examples of gross assumptions in these mainstream media. The mass impact of these assumptions, sensible or foolish, is not effectively countered by my freedom to say my thing in the letters columns.

For example, this morning, I was waiting in an office, with a copy of The Bulletin, 21 November, reading an article by Paul Toohey about how nuclear power is something Australians are going to have to get used to, as it is an important element of greenhouse gas abatement and a cure for global warming (my words, summarising).

No alternative hypothesis was given so much as a passing, derogatory remark (though “rope-headed ferals” got a mention), despite the robust arguments against developing more nuclear electricity generating capacity as a measure against global warming. I would say it was a uranium sales piece, pandering to bias and reinforcing bias.

A month has passed since then. The following week did not have any letters on that issue, but - hey, maybe this week’s?

Are many Bulletin readers going to take notice of just another letter in the letters column, about unacceptable risks of nuclear electricity? Maybe it would depend on the author.

Mr Man “Everything is a communist plot:”

Not really, that you choose to portray what I say in such a narrow way is up to you.

What I like is, under a capitalist system, you get to express your view and I get to express mine.

Under the communist system I am denied any right to voice any opinion and so are you, unless it happens to comply with the edicts of the central committee.

That is where communism got those who had to endure it, into a situation where no one was allowed to disagree.

I hope you continue to express your disagreement with me, it means the system I support has not been usurped by the communist swill.

RE “Quite frankly I'd rather be dead . . . “

Well the contribution you are making, would suggest you might be better off that way, so option 1, go to top if high building and jump, it is quite economic and saves you the cost of 3 meters of rope (option 2).

Col,

We're way off topic here so I'll finish my involvement in this thread by saying this...

Your last reply proves what others here have said about your idea of Socialism/Capitalism and Left/Right being so obscured.

Socialism and Capitalism are more economic ideologies. You seem to be mistakenly under the impression that Socialism is exclusively akin to dictatorships and capitalism exclusively is akin to democracies.

There wasn't much freedom under Pinochet and he ran a capitalist dictatorship.

I also noticed that your reply was cleverly written to imply that I don't believe in freedom of speech.

For the record, I'm not a Socialist, I am more a capitalist. But I believe that you need a balance between the two. Because unlike you, I believe that poor people, especially those who are poor due to no fault of their own, deserve basic services like health, education and shelter. You on the other hand, couldn't give a hoot how much poor people suffer.

In my last two posts, I was testing to see if you supported the idea of giving basic support the needy; I was trying to provoke you to see if you would say something like: "Well, of course I don't want to see poor people suffer and die." But unfortunately, you can't even bring yourself to say that. Instead, you try to paint me as a fascist and then suggest that I kill myself.

Your sheer cold-heartedness and lack of remorse for anyone suggests that you are possibly, in some way or another, clinically psychotic.

Thank you. You've proven to me something about yourself that I had always suspected.

Mr Man, I thought you were a bit of a joke, then I found your web site,

http://www.mrmen.com/site/flash/

what a funny fellow, you and Miss Naughty and Mr Jelly, “funny” in terms which a four year old or younger would appreciate.

Now quickly, “and then suggest that I kill myself.”

I was offering free advise and counsel to the person who previously wrote

“Quite frankly I'd rather be dead”

As for “Your sheer cold-heartedness and lack of remorse for anyone suggests that you are possibly, in some way or another, clinically psychotic”

“Cold-heartedness” and “lack of remorse”.

My partner would laugh at “cold heartedness” but she would also observe, one should only be remorseful when one is in the wrong.

It is simple, my “lack of remorse” is a consequence of being right.

But what I found fascinating was your diagnosis to me as being “clinically psychotic”

Psychosis is "a mental condition that causes people to lose touch with reality”

Clinical is "Based on the objective and analytical observation and treatment of a patient.”

But “Clinically Psychotic” or “clinical psychosis” is not a recognized medical term, disorder or condition.

I am not sure what vocational training you have, wiping tables maybe, whatever, but I do know one thing about you, to suggest I am “clinically psychotic” clearly establishes that you have no credentials in psychiatry or psychology.

Now, you might find that a little cold hearted and lacking in remorse, on my part and I guess you will just have to weather it but one thing it is not and one thing I am not is “Clinically Psychotic”.

Maybe we should have your logon changed, there is a "Mr Nonsense" on your website, that seems to describe you posts accurately.

Regarding “Thank you. You've proven to me something about yourself that I had always suspected.”

All that proves is that you are talking through your backside.