Helen, I understand what you are saying regarding circulation, but I wonder how many readers actually use their minds when they go through the words?

As I mentioned before, their stock is trade is superstition (horoscopes and adverts for mystics), pseudo health science (diets) and celebrity gossip. Sort of a printed version of commercial television's current affairs shows in comparison the the ABC's Corners or commercial radio shock jocks when compared with Radio National's Background Briefing.

They will pay huge amounts for photos of celebrity weddings, and people pay to see these photos. It isn't as if these celbrities actually have any real effect on anyone's lives.

And this is the shame of the debate: that so many people do read this trash, and no-one calls them to account. I am aware of one story that one of these women's magazines did in defence of the only Australian convicted female serial killer, that was libellious towards her defence team. The SC who represented her sought legal advice and was told that a case for defamation could be made, but decided against going further as it was not worth the trouble.

I guess that many people read these magazines, but few care about what they read. They read, but don't give that figurative flying fig. They are the soap operas of the printed medis, soft core escapist porn.

Actually no, runner.

I don't want to silence all christian commentary.

Just the ignorant, stupid ones that yours so closely resembles.
The other thread clearly shows your understanding of your religion to be shallow, your understanding of science to be shallow, and your expectation to be heard so out of proportion to your shameful ignorance as to make you laughingstock.

The educated and thoughtful christians (I know many) don't regard your literalist fundy position as other than an undermining of the credibilty of christianity.

Rusty

Rusty

I am heartened by your endorsement

'I don't want to silence all christian commentary.
Just the ignorant, stupid ones that yours so closely resembles.
The other thread clearly shows your understanding of your religion to be shallow, your understanding of science to be shallow, and your expectation to be heard so out of proportion to your shameful ignorance as to make you laughingstock.'

I suspect what you dislike is the simple fact that the gospel message does not allow you to entertain your fantasy of evolution along with Christ's message of salvation only to those who turn from their sin. Your 'Christian' friends could well go along with your misguided and deceitful belief but it won't help them or you find forgiveness for your sin.

I have friends with phd's in science who actually feel the same way as I do so your intellectual snobbery really is just that. I actually think your version of science is shallow and ignorant. You are still yet to give a plausible account of origins and yet want to be taken seriously. Your pride has blinded you of reality. I sincerely hope you one day come to your senses.

Runner,

Wasn't an endorsement of *your* views.

I suspect that *you* dislike the simple fact that the well-established scientific basis of evolution just doesn't bolster the fantasy-parent figure you cling to.

Your threat of some bogeyman is hardly worth mentioning except to highlight the clear issues you battle.

My christian friends include qualified ministers, theology students and genuine science phD's. All three in some cases. None are worried about the sort of bogeymen you are burdened with. None feel the paranoia you so clearly do.

I don't think you could possibly be qualified to comment on my knowledge and ongoing role in science. If you were, I'd see you about.

You really expect an explanation of origins to be as easy as the fairy tales you should have left in the nursery? Poor runner. When you can follow, maybe the library will let you borrow the books.

I once suggested you get an education. I now see that would be a waste of already overloaded and underfunded teaching resources. catch up on your own time, if you can.

Rusty

Foxy,

Instead of regurgitating the rhetoric, try doing the maths:

Given:

-Australia contributes about 1.5% of the greenhouse emissions,

-the results of Copenhagen, (that what Australia does will have no impact on what the rest of the does),

-Power consumption in Aus is set to double by 2050, (power consumption to date has an almost 100% correlation with GDP)

What will be the effect on the economy of a 5% reduction by 2020 (50% by 2050)?

What will the net impact on the global emissions be?

I see a vast difference between what Penny Wong is peddling and reality.

Rusty

Once again you come up with hot air waving your puny fist thinking a little piece of paper makes you all know knowledgably. If your theology friends are like most liberal theologians (the only way to get run at most universities) I can understand you being so smug having had your ears tickled and conscience seared.