In case the point was not clearly made in my previous post

http://soapbox.unimelb.edu.au/media/Transcripts/Speech_Victory/2001_VictorySpeech_LP_T.pdf

"And I want tonight, having received in a very humbling way the support of the Australian people once again."

I find it rather intriging that in an article decrying the use of language to mislead the opening is misleading. When I read the article I recalled hearing John Howard speak in similar terms to those used by Julia Gillard, a few minutes on Google and I had two clear examples located (both for very similar circumstances to the Gillard example).

Is the author trying to mislead the reader by his choice of examples?

R0bert

just imagine, chris, that oz had a 'citizen initiative referendum' function:

you wouldn't need to be emperor of the world. instead, you'd be a citizen of the democratic republic of australia. first thing we'll do is establish an initiative no.1: "resolved, that the lawyers be rounded up and sequestered on a desert island." that would pass with 90%.

then, initiative no.2: any politician found to have lied to be tied to a pole and delivered to the lawyers island, for food, fish bait or, whatever. easy 99%.

what a wonderful world it would be, if we had cir.

Perhaps, David you could sort out the differences between these words from ex-PM Howard:

'sorry' and 'apologise'.

'core' and 'non-core'.

'children were thrown overboard' and 'We were told that and that is why I made the claim.’

"I can't recall' and 'I wasn't briefed on that'.

'never ever' a GST and 'this year we will' introduce a GST.

'I'll remain the leader of the party for as long as my party wants me to' and his refusal to accept Cabinet's wish that he stand down.

'On the night of the 1998 election I publicly committed myself to endeavouring to achieve Reconciliation by the year 2001' and (in 2007) 'if re-elected, I will put to the Australian people within 18 months a referendum to formally recognise Indigenous Australians in our Constitution.'

A quartet this time - the reason for Australia invading Iraq:
* 'Saddam Hussein has maintained his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and he is on the brink of nuclear capability' and
* 'our alliance with the US is vital to the security of Australia' and
* "we entered Iraq to spread democracy' and
* Australia needs 'energy security'.

Words weave a tangled web of deceit - or should that be plain lies?

Time the writer read 'The Bullsh.t. Dictionary' - sorry I have wrapped it already to give to my brother-in-law - he's a 'public servant'.

One of my pet hates is the misuse of 'convenience', as it usually means that something extremely inconvenient is being foisted upon us. At the Easter Show in Sydney they once displayed a sign at the bottom of a flight of stairs announcing "For your convenience the Suttor Stand is full" - I think they were trying to save me the inconvenience of climbing the stairs unnecessarily, but it was information they were disseminating, not convenience.

'Assistance' is misused too - our local library had a sign explaining that they cannot provide change for large denomination bank notes as they don't hold much money - fine so far - then ruined it by concluding with "Thank you for your assistance." The librarian didn't seem to understand when I pointed out that no-one was assisting anyone, and that it was a really silly thing to have on the sign.

When the 'Two Fat Ladies' of cooking fame went to America apparently they had a really hard time getting anyone to say 'fat'. America is, of course, the home of the dishonest euphemism - people going to the bathroom with no bath, garbage collectors called sanitation engineers, anyone who teaches at a university called a professor, and on and on and on.

I have just remembered a very current term that annoys me to bits - 'Road map' - what a silly term for a plan of action. A map is an inert object that shows you where things are. 'Road map for Peace in the Middle East' is just meaningless drivel.