I would hope that one day we have an educated intelligent Aboriginal Prime Minister.
One that is not Party driven. I reckon it would be good.

Hi Ned, welcome to OLO from me anyway.. I see you have been posting only since October.. keep up the good work.

I'd like to know on what grounds you think I feel I'm a bit above the Aboriginal people.. anything from my posts ? Please elaborate.
You could refer to my article/posts on "Towards a harmonious Australia" for a wider view of my thought processes.

I have no desire to see Aboriginal people 'left in dire circumstances'... but I feel the way out is assimilation/intermarraige now. You could interpret that as 'we whites heading toward black' or.. the other way around.

Aboriginal people have much to teach us, and closer kin ties might be a good way to incorporate that knowledge to the broader community.

The only objection to widespread intermarraige I can envisage is a racist one :) suggesting that either we or they are superior and thus should not be 'brought down/ brought up' by intermarraige. I disagree entirely with that. We are all equal.

Leigh,

What a strange thing to say..of course Abl people want their people represented in parliament.All people want to see their own represented, how would you feel, assuming that your white, that if all parliament were made up of abl politicians, black ones so there was no mistake, now mind.

How would that make you feel?you would feel not represented i could guarantee., but then youve never had to live in the shoes of a severely disadvataged and under represented group, who is up there incidentally with the most disadvataged groups of indigenous people in the world.

Please get a bit of perspective .

Leigh - I actually agree with you on this one - apparently Ozgirl doesnt. Please not the fullstop after her PF

Ozzie apologise please.

PF,

Apparently this person has several alias's, and the editors are on to him/her, or maybe it's a monkey.

Pretty low to virtually hijack your nom de plume with the addition of a full stop. Security needs tidying up.

Leigh and PF,

Since, effectively, the matter of (mis)representation (in the Parliament) is the implicit topic of this thread, I feel justified in making a post commending you both for your sharp-eyed observation of an attempt to hijack the posting reputation of an established user of this forum. I have only been posting for a short time myself, but I am aware of some techniques and apparent loopholes that can be exploited to derail what could become productive or revelatory debate, debate that might not be seen as 'politically correct'. I hope this hijacking can be brought to a full stop. Literally.

Just yesterday I marked a post for deletion. My reason was that the name of the poster was 'perikles'. In my short time in the forum I had become aware of another user with quite a posting history with the nom de plume of 'Pericles'. perikles with a 'k' (and no capital letter) has a posting history of but three posts as at this date.

Without going into whether or not I agreed with the opinions expressed in any of the three posts of 'perikles' with a 'k', what is important is that as a newer user this person should not be able introduce confusion (given the rather widespread propensity for misspelling and typos)to the forum, pole upon the standing of the real Pericles, or, alternatively, enable opinions that in truth the real Pericles does not hold to be attributed to him. You wouldn't be allowed to get away with it on a ballot paper. Why here?

The capability is needed to be able to advise a new user (who after all chooses their own nom de plume immediately prior to their first post) that a confusion may be created by a particular choice. Perhaps the forum administrators could look at the Ubuntu Linux forum (www.ubuntuforums.org) for ideas in respect to the engineering of this. It has the capability for one user to send a private message to another, in what amounts to a chat room setting private to the forum users.