Hi John,

The hard right might accuse you of AI but there are those here suffering from NI. I never thought of you as a Robbie The Robot type, just someone contributing with a well presented argument. The hard right hate people like you showing them up the way you do.

Now this name-on-a-screen wants to “assure” us that it is not a bot.

Impossible, of course. Warm blooded human or robot, it is impossible to prove anything about yourself online. If true, the age of 45 claimed puts him in the brainwashed, dumbed-down generation.

John Daysh, real or imaginary, has been one of the more insistent blow-ins who show up every now and again. He/she/it is no better than the rest of them, though. And, I'm amazed that some posters have kept giving him, her or it oxygen. I'm glad our moderator has spoken out on the nonsense.

This poster, calling himself John Daysh, mentions writing “to a professional standard”, then a couple of sentences later writes “if you have for facts correct”. OK, even after editing, I make mistakes like that, but I'm not a “professional” like the pain-in-the-butt thinks he is.

If I had to describe Poster Daysh in one word, that word would be BORING. Apart from that, he is probably a harmless crank whom nobody listens to in real life.

Thanks, Paul1405.

ttbn,

I'm not a professional writer, either, but that typo was deliberate. Try running it through AI detection and you may see why...

I look forward to the day when you can be civil to even those with whom you disagree, rather than directing hate in your thinly-veiled attempts to control the course of discussion and your attempts to set the tone of new article discussions by getting the first word in with poorly thought-through comments.

While we are on cranks, weirdos and liars, have a look at https://www.joannenova.com.au/.

A group of university “geniuses” have ‘discovered’ what Joseph Geobbels knew in the early 20th Century: that repeating things often enough makes them true to the masses.

Of course, being university types and under the age of 50, they apply it to climate “denial”: not the repeated propaganda of governments, rogue scientists, carpetbaggers and motley Marxists and their lies.

Speaking of cranks, weirdos and liars indeed, ttbn!

Right, so this article on Joanne Nova's site is basically sayin' that if you keep hearin' the same rubbish over and over, you might start believin' it, yeah? She talks about sumpfin' called the "illusory troof effect," which basically means that just 'cause sumpfin' gets repeated loads, don’t mean it’s true, but it can start to feel true.

Now, the article’s kinda makin’ it sound like the media and scientists are in on some big con, just repeatin' stuff to fool everyone. But that’s a bit dodgy, innit? Scientists ain’t just repeatin' stuff for the sake of it – they got proper research and facts backin' 'em up. Just repeatin' sumpfin’ over and over don’t make it true, it just makes it sound like it is, and that’s where this article gets a bit twisty.

It also kinda suggests that since these climate denial claims are gettin’ more airtime, maybe they’re onto somethin'. But nah, just 'cause sumpfin’ gets repeated, that don’t make it legit, you get me? The article needs to be clearer about that, or it might make folks think there’s more troof to these dodgy claims than there actually is.

The article bangs on about the media havin' too much power, repeatin' climate change stuff like it’s the same as repeatin’ denial claims. But that’s not right, 'cause real scientists and proper news are tryin' to tell people the troof, not just blowin’ hot air.

In the end, the article’s takin' a real thing – how repeat stuff can seem true – and twistin’ it to make climate denial sound more credible than it is. It’s a bit iffy, and people should be lookin’ at proper science, not just goin’ by what they hear over and over, especially from dodgy sources.

I trust this speaks more to the level of education we’re dealing with here.

Innit?

I fully understand Graham's point that in an ideal world, Australia would put equal efforts into fostering and nurturing our entrepreneurs as we do our sportsmen (or are they sportspeople these days?).

Achieving this or that victory at the Olympics is hardly an achievement for the nation and really tells us nothing about the quality of the national environment or its people. Its the victory of a few naturally blessed, highly motivated and spectacularly well subsidised folk rather than a victory for the nation, most of whom 'participate' from their couch.

Spectacularly subsidised? Well getting exact numbers is rather difficult but it seems that various governments around Australia collectively spend somewhere north of $2 Billion per year on elite sport alone. Then there's the various corporate sponsorships and we are talking real money that might, one would have hoped, been spent in more fruitful ways.

In looking for these numbers I continually saw governments calling their spending on sport an "investment". (Everything the government throws money away on these days seems to be an investment according to them). But as an investment is as bad as it gets. $2 Billion per year and the return is $147.39 in gold, silver and bronze every four years. That's a Return on Investment that only government could achieve or maintain.

At least when Alcibiades spent lavishly to win first prize in the 416BC Olympics, it was his own money.

Then we have all the other ways money is lavished on these pursuits. We now have people doing a PhD in breakdancing FFS. If you wonder why our education expenses (or are they 'investments'?) are out of control, look no further than that.

The Olympics were supposed to be an arena for individuals to compete and for prowess to shine. Now its a form of proxy national warfare - a bit like city-states sending forth their most courageous warrior to do battle with the opposition's warrior rather than having open warfare. Achilles breakdancing anyone?