Samuel Johnson, an Englishman said “patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel “
He warned that if the only argument was patriotism (national pride) , beware there is chicanery afoot. I would suggest take pride in what you do not pride in what others have done. I can assure you they weren't thinking of you, more likely themselves.

My post albeit with tongue firmly planted in my cheek and laced with mischievous tones was historically factual. At no time did I attack the individual other than to draw an obvious comparison between the zeal of past and present missionaries.

I notice with wry amusement that not one fact I offered has been refuted…
The chicanery here was list of irrelevancies and personal abuse.
Amongst which a list of Aussie PMs with the assertion that Thatchers 15 years as Brit PM proves something.

If longevity is the measure how long was Stalin at the head of USSR? Does that mean We should emulate his policies? One could say that her reign was proof that the English voter puts more stock on their pathetic anachronistic colonial memories and/or pride than Billions of pounds and how many lives it cost(s).

The notion that Argentina had ambitions above its station… “Falklands today England tomorrow” is absurdity its self.

To constantly cite this shameful events’ architect who objectively had a rather tenuous grip on common sense and whose views are not relevant to either today or Australia(ns). I see no essential difference in this and David’s carping.

As for British historic concern for Aus I tendered Winny. A Brit might argue that is proper given they were British PMs and I would concur. But the Quantum leap that we (Australians) should be proud of it and/or therefore take advice from British PMs is frankly cultural arrogance and stupidity from the suggestee.
PS This is Australia not UK.

NB In a previous post on this topic I said both sides of politics have lost the plot and thus far I see no reason to alter that opinion.

Examinator, in terms of argument rebuttal, one would think that my assertions in relation to IMF policy recommendations would be a foremost consideration in relation to this discussion. I even went as far as to use caps, something which I am loathe to do. Frankly, I thought I'd put forward pretty unassailable facts which deserve further scrutiny.

Apparently not. Chicanery appears to be the order of the day. However, given that 'losing the plot' was part of the title, perhaps it was inevitable.

Allow me to do the honours:

Thread time of death: 1:05:36 AM.

However, I'm reliably informed that brain function ceased considerably earlier.

Gday Foxy , I have met her, she is beautiful on the inside and out.
She is first rate, while due to my age I play 3rd reserves, never play our side your class if you want to look like a star.
PALE much of our differences is because you do not understand my words.
PLASTIC gloves?
They are what they must be, single use throw aways, surely your interest in meat manufacturing told you that?
reusing gloves is no better than dirty hands.
I said I backed out , of truly saying PALE how disjointed and uninformed your post was.
no way I am getting back into verbal tennis with your group, but please re read others posts, then your own, before launching at them.
Col Rouge while not much interested in your words, can you justify the spite, anger, plain rudeness you so often display?

PALE&IF,

With Foxy's indulgence, as this is now a fairly long thread that has begun to meander a little, and as she herself has expressed concern in respect of OLO users caught up in the Victoria bushfire event, I will give you my views on the question you posed in this post: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2509#56664 , to wit:

"We’re wondering if OLO should start a collection thread for any fellow OLO users. If it turns out none of our OLO posters were affected (which we all hope, not) were effected, it could be sent to Red Cross. Perhaps GY would do it. What are your thoughts pls."

It is a nice thought, but I suspect seriously impractical. If you accept the explanation given by OLO as to the encryption key protection of the claimed true identity of any registered OLO user made at time of registration on the site (which I do), you must realize GrahamY may be quite literally unable to determine the real identity of any user for purposes of forwarding any support to, or on behalf of, individuals affected by the fires, even if OLO was able to handle the administrative load involved.

It is probably best to simply donate to the accredited bushfire appeal if you wish to help.

Bear in mind that many OLO users do not post in their real names for good reason. Fractelle's is a case in point. If you are familiar with some of her posts you would realize her reasons are claimedly related to past experience as a victim of violence, and to fears as to future stalking should details, beyond those she has revealed herself, as to where she lives become known.

As to the matter of multiple OLO accounts being held by one user (sockpuppetry), I fear you have drawn the wrong inference from my use of the term 'duelling ground' if you thought I was making an oblique reference to 'dual identities'. This: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2063#42889 , and later posts, explains.

TRTL,
Yes there is merit in what you say however the link to the topic posed is as tenuous the Baroness is both ideologically and contextually to current circumstances.
The speculation charge is valid but peripheral to the question.
My over arching point was that politician of any persuasion are all too often more concerned about trivialities like ideological party market differentiations and political longevity than real issues.

Howard’s success is relative and I would posit more a case of his lowest common denominator appear and rat cunning that anything else.

The IMF is hardly an objective organization which may or may not be the best for the majority of everyone affected by their prognostications. Theirs is an ‘authority” base on a number of tendentious principles.
• That might is right
• That economics is a science as opposed to highly interpretive skill.
• That capitalist economic theory the way *it is* practiced is the best way to go.
• That they aren’t caught up in global *Economics ideological fads de jure* some of which have proven to be horribly flawed.
• That it is representative of the world. This is widely disputed given it excludes a number of important players.
• That they aren’t influenced by dominating 1st world interests/values.
One could argue that their current strategy is ’deja vu all over again’.

The current system is broken and Ad hoc jury rigging or returning to past ideologies is clearly floundering hoping for a solution. As a humanist (not socialist) I question if propping up the Status Quo is something we should be striving for.

In the context of the topic as writ I question if either side has fully grasps the plot, or has the guts to challenge/reign in power structures and therefore really knows what to do next.

Dear examinator,

The point that I was trying to make was that under the
current world economic situation where the opinion of economic
experts like the International Monetary Fund, stated that
Governments have to bail out their own economic crisis and do it swiftly to restrain a slide into economic chaos.

This is what the Australian Government is currently doing with no help from the Opposition. It at least gives people some hope
and encourages business to make an effort.

Or we can all go to Church and pray for a miracle. :)