Cracker Night.
Guy Fawkes Night
Halloween
I’m sure there’s other names too.
I live in Darwin, and as far as I’m aware it’s the last place in Australia that allows it to happen. ( poss’ Canberra still?).
It’s happening here now, the place sounds like a war zone on drugs, weird screams and whistles, bangs and bursts, it drives the fruitbats batty!
We technically only get the one day to buy and bang them, but as you can imagine, they start going off as soon as they’re available, and slowly fade away over the next few weeks.
I grew up down south in a time when it was an annual event everywhere. We loved it, only the odd one didn’t. Then the PC brigade, in its incipient form, got frothy over the occasional injury, and slowly got it banned. I hated the loss then, and still do.
The rate of injury was miniscule, pushbikes and roller-skates were more dangerous, yet they killed the fun anyway, (insert abusive words here)!
It used to be a fantastic family and social event, bonfires, fizzy drinks, ice-cream, and masses of things exploding and launching for the stars. Our hearts went with them, and our minds too, it was inspirational!
Kids today have really missed out, IMO, and for no good reason.
My brother and I learnt to make black powder at an early age, and with the help of our chemistry sets, made and launched our own. It was Science, and Art, and good fun!
We never hurt ourselves, or anyone else, and we didn’t start any fires, (well, not with those experiments, lol). I was lucky enough to have a suitably placed relative during my years as a single parent, and my kids grew up with fireworks as a regular part of their b/day parties, and other events too. Sometimes just because it was a nice night, lol.
Wadda ya say, guys?
Bring it back!

I grew up in PNG, where cracker night was celebrated most of the year, although officially only on Guy Fawkes night. The Chinese merchants always had a good supply of materiel (double-bungers at 5c the pack of 20, stick rockets a couple of cents each and more sophisticated tailfin rockets 5-10c each, not to mention the REALLY good stuff) and most of the kids took full advantage. While there was much made of the potential for serious injury, I can't recall anything worse that the odd burn and perhaps a bit of split skin on the fingers if one got a bit too bold with the short fuse. Apparently there were some more serious injuries down here in Oz, which lead to their banning, allegedly. I suspect it was more to do with the clean-up and the occasional grass fire being started.

Either way, thanks for an opportunity to reminisce.

Yes,
we urgently need all state governments to reintroduce cracker night.
It is the one bond with their parents that all young children and teenagers will remember for the rest of their lives
Since the banning craker night, crime has skyrocketed,simply because their is no activity apart from drinking that is allowed by our Courts.
The lucky children of Canberra and the Northern Territory ,and the rest of the world have the chance to let of steam.
We need Cracker nights nationally.

Another good thread Max.

As a 1940 baby, with a family move to Townsville after the war, I had a lot of firsts in 47, & 48. First ice cream, first soft drink, first windup toy, & a lot of others.

One of the very best was my first bonfire/Guy Fawkes night in 48, when fireworks came back in the shops. There were not too many fireworks, or crackers, but it was fantastic. It was a bit of a pity that a spark got into the enamel plate, with the remaining fireworks after about half were gone, with a resultant chain reaction, but it was fun looking in the grass, for all those which were merely blown out, rather than let off. This was with a burning branch from the fire, as we still did not have torch batteries available yet. I found my first electric torch, in about 49, the most amazing thing. Push a button, & the light came on, WOW.

Our kids have lost, & missed a lot. When people refered to John Howard as a 50s man, I used to give thanks, to my luckt stars, that I was too. All the computers, trail bikes, slot cars etc, are a very poor substitute for the freedom, & opportunities we had.

I remember my brother telling us a story
of a bon-fire night where he and some
friends were playing with double-bungers,
and how they had persuaded the younger brother
of a mate of his to let them put a double-bunger
in this kid's ear. They were just about to light
it - when the kid's mum saw them and started to
scream - scaring the life out of them all.
She got to the young bloke just in time to whip
the double-bunger out of his ear. Imagine what
could have happened!

Yes, bring back the bon-fire nights - but watch
the young kids.

Classic, BROCK.

>>we urgently need all state governments to reintroduce cracker night.
It is the one bond with their parents that all young children and teenagers will remember for the rest of their lives<<

The *one* bond? That's pretty sad.

>>Since the banning craker night, crime has skyrocketed,simply because their is no activity apart from drinking that is allowed by our Courts.<<

If they do bring back cracker night, with the intention of getting the crime rate back to where it was, will we have to ban alcohol at them, just to make sure?

>>The lucky children of Canberra and the Northern Territory ,and the rest of the world have the chance to let of steam.<<

And, presumably those places will not have seen their crime "skyrocket", as we bunger-deprived States, thanks to being able to let off steam.

On second thoughts, was this a spoof? In which case, I was well sucked in, congratulations.

Or... could it be... you are *this* BROCK?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brocks_Fireworks

That would explain everything.

Max, cut it out. Like pool fencing the fact is kids do and did get hurt or die or have permanent injuries – you were just lucky enough to not meet any.

Anti you too? You of course know it was really a feminist plot to get rid of any phallic shaped object out of the market place.[smile]

Now pool fencing makes less sense to me... you can have a whole ocean across the road unfenced but must even have screens on your windows leading out to pools areas. Last property I had there was a creek running through which was fine but the pool was dangerous, drives me nuts.

But anyway my dad owned a shop and every year before Guy Fawkes a big wooden crate would arrive from China, magic. But hey he also had an unfenced pool and we all survived.

Kids got hurt probably because parents got stupider..? Seriously if I am not trusted to supervise small children around a pool or with fireworks then no one else is allowed to be either. Oh except rich people, they never have fences around their flash pools so maybe their kids never drown… they’re probably allowed to import their own fireworks too.

I read not long ago that in England somewhere smokers are not allowed to be foster parents, oh my god – if you can’t trust them to smoke outside then how do you trust others not to hit the kids?

People are assumed stupid until proven otherwise and it’s never been proven otherwise.

Brock you ever empty a whole lot of crackers and make a copper pipe bomb… goodbye principal’s mailbox! See you can’t trust teens of any generation with powder. These days they’d probably put it under the principal.

I rather enjoyed Guy Fawkes night as a young'un.

Put me down for one of those who thinks banning it was unreasonable.

People have all kinds of dangerous hobbies. I've been known to enjoy abseiling. That involves ropes, hooks and cliffs. Perhaps not the safest activity, but it's a great deal of fun and I'd be pretty annoyed if I was told I couldn't do it because stupid people weren't doing it properly.

There will always be idiots around. I can see the logic in banning some of the larger, more incendiary fireworks, but banning all of them and scrapping Guy Fawkes? That always struck me as pretty unreasonable.

>>Since the banning craker night, crime has skyrocketed,simply because their is no activity apart from drinking that is allowed by our Courts.<<

What a toss you are!

So what about the other 364 nights of the year. Are you suggesting they to will be 'crime free' just because of the re-introduction of 'cracker night'?

Boy I wish some of you would preview the dribble you put on this site before posting it.

As for cracker night, as a 60's baby I grew up with it and loved every moment of it.

Bring it on I say!

fine, so long as licencing laws
governing the use of fireworks
provide for remedy now available,
within women's and men's jurisdictions.

Ah the memories of childhood.

Everytime Cracker Night comes around there is much brouhaha in the papers and different advocacy groups come out of the woodwork - namely the fireworks sellers vs animal rights groups and others.

The emphasis is not on danger to humans per se. The two main bones of contention are the effect on animals and hooliganism. The spate of blown up letterboxes and other pranks in the weeks after. It is also a busy time for the RSPCA, dogs and cats going missing and some suffering 'nervous breakdowns' for the evening.

It is one of those things we find hard to let go but like the banning of animal circuses we can adapt.

Look Maximillion,

As a child I suffered from those things. It scared me, it startled me, it made me cry and avoid certain places, such as parties and the streets on certain days. Fortunately I did not hear those for quite some years now.

However, I do not support banning it: Today the PC brigade bans your thing - tomorrow they will ban mine, so I better be willing to die for your right to exercise your free-choice even if it causes me grief.

Obviously I don't want the state to support these practices either.

I truly hope that you and your jolly friends will exercise compassion over the ears and eyes of sensitive child and elderly victims and if you use your toys, make sure that everyone present, including neighbours and by-passers are happy about it. Please have mercy.

Think about this:

Before the PC brigade was out and about, people had many opportunities to develop in compassion and charity. Once they legally ban all foolish activities, people who are good by nature and have the potential to evolve their heart, turn into dumb law-abiding citizens and their hearts atrophy.

In 1953 there were 100 people gathered on my neighbouring property outside Menindee. They were there for the big bonfire and the crackers.

Stupidly, all the crackers were placed in one pile; and not far away enough from the bonfire. And yes, there was an accident.They exploded and,

TWO CHILDREN WERE KILLED.

Since that day, I've always paid closer attention to the aftermath of cracker night. INVARIABLY, within several days of cracker night the national and local press would report the injuries, some of them absolutely horrid. And yes, there were more deaths. Yet the tradition of cracker night continued. Eventually of course, the crackers were curtailed, and then finally cracker night became a thing of the past.

"IF" cracker night was a purely ADULT activity, I'd say we should have it. But it's NOT an adult activity - - - it's primarily for the children. And we need to protect children. Over the many years of the cracker night tradition there's always been adults who have made errors of judgment regarding their duties of supervision over children. The crackers were stopped because of the childrens' inability to police themselves (they are "children" after all) and because many of the adults supervising children were either remiss with their supervision or made bad judgment calls regarding the crackers.

The crackers were stopped to PROTECT THE CHILDREN from death and injury. And yes, even a tiny cracker, given certain circumstances and practices, can cause severe injury to a small child.

It seems maybe 'some' people here are quite happy to sacrifice some kids for the sake of having some fun on cracker night. "Bring it back" they complain. "It's just the 'PC brigade, reading from their Communist manifesto' who want it banned.

I repeat, for the dimwits who don't understand - - -

The crackers were stopped to PROTECT THE CHILDREN from death and injury. "IF" cracker night was exclusively an "adult" activity, then bring it back. When you're an "adult" you're old enough to make your own decisions and live with any consequences - - - CHILDREN ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH.

Children are only killed when adults are idiots, as in you're example.
Yes, others get injured, but usually only severely when adults are idiots.
The vast majority of kids survived cracker-night unscathed, all their lives, and going back who know's how long!
Following your logic, why haven't bicycles or roller skates/blades been banned? Skateboards? Kids suffer terrible injuries and even die on the sporting field, ban it. Swimming can lead to brain damage or death for the unlucky few, ban it.
All of the above cause far more injuries than crackers used to.
We need to remember that children are children, and let them be, let them enjoy the wonder and excitement, and the risks.
Would you wrap them in cotton-wool, stop all the risk?
Where do you stop?

“Would you wrap them in cotton-wool, stop all the risk?
Where do you stop?”

I would take kids to an organized function to watch the fireworks, I usually let three year olds and over hold sparklers. But no, not exploding things thanks and nothing that can cause serious permanent injury or death.

I would not let a kid put a fork in an electrical outlet, I wouldn’t let them touch the oven when it is on. Lots of stuff I protect them from. But I let them take their chances whizzing on scooters down the driveway and I let them climb trees and their first jump in the pool is watched with a grin on my face. Most parents allow stage and skill appropriate activities, fireworks just don’t fit in anywhere and since we do have rollerskates and bikes we don’t need crackers.

Problem was the stupid older kids would buy them, give them to their little brothers who would go hang with even younger friends and next minute someone does loose an eye.

Max you know deep down you do agree. Master just has a kind of intense and combative way of explaining things – he fits right in.[smile]

sock-puppet:"TWO CHILDREN WERE KILLED."

I've been googling and I can't find any reference to your claim. What were the names of the children? Who was charged? Which property did it happen on? Surely there must be some record of this event?

BTW, dear, you do tend to get a tad hysterical. Perhaps a touch higher dosage of your preferred "mood-stabiliser"?

Max:"The vast majority of kids survived cracker-night unscathed, all their lives, and going back who know's how long!"

I saw lots of happy kids and very few problems when I was a kid.We heard that terrible things happened, but they never happened in Lae between 68 and 79.

Perhaps we were just more used to taking sensible precautions as part of life.

Max asked, "where do you stop?".

Max, you stop at "cracker night". That's what the authorities have done. And a lot of injuries, and likely a few lives have been saved as a result. But I don't think you care.

Antiwomen asked,

1) "What were the names of the children?"

2) "Who was charged?"

3) "Which property did it happen on"

4) "Surely there must be some record of this event?"

Now, unlike Antiwomen's point blank refusal to address even one of the legitimate questions he was asked by me and CJ Morgan, and others, about his NRL/Channel 9 management conspiracy theory in that other topic, I will actually answer the 4 questions he asked:

1)I don't know their names. Someone would have probably mentioned their names to me when it happened nearly 60 years ago. I know they were not locals.

2) From memory, I can't recall anyone being charged with anything. It was the early 50s, and times were different then. You've 'automatically' thought "someone must have been charged with an offence" - - - - you are using a 2009 mentality to "assume" how things were in 1953.

3) I've already told you, it was on a property neighbouring one of several properties my family owned. Unlike in the cities or towns, a "neighbour's" house can easily be over 50 miles away. You didn't think about that, did you.

4) There probably is some record somewhere. So you googled: That doesn't mean anything. Remember it took place several years prior to television. Milk in Menindee/Broken Hill was delivered by HORSE AND CART STILL. I better not tell you what they used as a fire engine. Local events that took place in the remote outback in those days do NOT necessarily end up splashed all over google in this computer age - - - again you're using a 2009 mentality to look at an event that happened nearly 60 years ago. I would imaging there would be a hospital record somewhere.

BuT Antiwomen, we "know" your motivation for asking those questions is NOT sincere - - - continued

- - - - you only asked because you are attempting to clutch straws to 'catch me out' after you were soundly defeated in the NRL topic, regarding your ridiculous conspiracy that women use sexual assault perpetrated by NRL footballers in order to conspire to position women into "unassailable positions of power on NRL football boards". You quickly broadened the topic to indulge in your favourite pastime here - - - attempting to denigrate women who practice self determination or women who possess any power whatsoever over any men.

You're OF COURSE, not the least bit interested in any cracker night deaths or injuries to children.

Oh dear Socky: 2 children killed in a massive fireworks blast, no names, no one charged, on some mystery property that was "next door" in your last and is now "50 miles away" and no record anywhere. They must have been "abos", eh, little racist sock-puppet?

You really should think before you go posting porky pies, dear, they'll always catch up with you, you hysterical little obsessive.

Now off you toddle and practise self determination by beating your tiny little fist into your keyboard while you scream obscenities at antiseptic. You know you want to...

M, I suggest you check your facts, a simple google found this, the death rate from fireworks.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=australia,history+fireworks+deaths&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=JAs&sa=G&tbs=tl:1&tbo=1&ei=Jo5OSom7L4Ps6AOmtamIBA&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11

It’s very interesting, after a surge in the 1890’s they dropped away significantly, up until they were banned, at which point they surged again!
Sort of makes a mockery of the quoted reasons for banning them, doesn’t it?
Perhaps childhood experience and training actually saved lives?

I grew up with 'cracker night', and missed it when it was banned. Mind you, we used to do some dreadful things with 'tuppenny bungers', marbles and water pipes when I was a kid - it was sheer good fortune that neither I nor my mates weren't maimed by our bunger guns.

My kids have never known 'cracker night', so they don't miss it at all. None of them are criminals.

Antiwomen: "Look at me, look at me".

Just to add a few more FACTS (sic) to the story, instead of the sock-puppet's hysterical untruths, I followed Max's google search and came up with this:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a725288547

Which is an analysis of fireworks use in several countries and it came up with the following 2 FACTS(sic):

"Males and children <15 years of age accounted for most admissions"

"Fatal injuries were mostly to males aged 15-44 years"

So, while it appears socky's hysterical "PROTECT THE CHILDREN from death and injury" is actually correct on the injury side of things, hardly unexpectedly, she'll be pleased to note that it's mostly men who get killed when consumer fireworks are freely available, but she'll be disappointed to learn that only 22 of them were killed in a 5 year period in the US out of a population of 250,000,000+.

She can console herself that it was mostly boys who were injured.
It's the perfect gender-specific weapon in her fight against reality.

Pomeranian:"Antiwomen: "Look at me, look at me"."

And they said it wasn't possible to train a Pomeranian...

Let's look more closely at the link provided by Antiwomen: His comments are good example of how Antiwomen has no concern for the "overall" truth, and no concern for deaths and injuries due to cracker night.

The international study covers the period from 1991 to 1995 and here are some "other" FACTS it uncovered, facts that Antiwomen NEGLECTED TO SAY.

Regarding fireworks:

1)There were no deaths in Australia

2)Overall, Australia experienced the lowest hospital admission rates of all studied countries

3)Australian injuries were also less severe

4)Conclusion: Deaths from firework injuries are rare in Australia

5)The time frame studied was 1991 to 1995

These results clearly display that the elimination of cracker night and the non-availability of crackers for cracker night has helped protect all participants from death and/or injury.

Antiwomen is soooooooo stupid he can't even correctly interpret his own googled survey. Ha ha, it's sooo funny. But seriously, the whole point of his recent uvenile language and posts on this topic is to get his "revenge", because he was completely out debated on that other topic regarding his ridiculous conspiracy theory that the sexual molestation of women by NRL players is just part of a conspiracy to get women into "unassailable positions of power on NRL football boards".

As has been pointed out - - - Antiwomen can't stand the thought of women possessing self determination or having power over any man. I'm an old, virtually retired grazier from outback Australia; gee if even "I" can see through him, imagine how easy it must be for others to see through him.

Oh my Gawd, it's so hilarious!

Maxie in his last post, would like us to "think" he posted a link to a graph that shows "the death rate from fireworks".

Well what did I do? I clicked on his link, and sure enough something came up on my screen.

Yep, at the top of the link page there it was, Maxie's graph. The poor ol' bugger thought he'd try a "swiftie" on us.

Well folks, do you know what that graph "ACTUALLY SHOWS"?

That graph is NOT, I repeat NOT, a "death statistic" graph.

It's - - - wait for it,

A GRAPH THAT MERELY GRAPHS YEAR BY YEAR REFERENCED "GOOGLE ENTRIES" (FROM YEARS 1780 TO 2009)) WHEN YOU TYPE "australia, history, fireworks, deaths" IN THE GOOGLE SEARCH BOX.

It's NOT an actual graph that graphs actual deaths from crackers. It's NOT a statistical graph resulting from a study of firecracker deaths.

Maxie's amateur attempt at misrepresentation is just simply - - - -

HILLLLLLLLARIOUS ! ! ! !

Better luck next time Maxie ol' boy.

I’m trying to work out how to convince you boys who want your crackers back… for the kids of course aye.[smile]

They did get hurt, stats don’t matter. One hurt and 1000 unscathed still cannot be acceptable. One dead, blind, deaf or scarred opposed to many alive, unscarred, seeing and hearing who had a good night is not an argument for grown ups.

We do have bicycles and skate boards and trees to climb and pools to swim in, children aren’t wrapped in cotton wool and I wouldn’t’ want them to be but this one thing they don’t need – they have the other things and are happy, just don’t tell them what they are missing.

You’re so transparent, you wanna play and I’ll place a bet that not one of you in the “bring the banger back” crew actually has an 8 year old son.

That's it, I give up, the weird fornicator wins,there's no point talking to the fool.

Actually, there's some very strange epistemology going on here.

Maximillion - Master's quite correct about that link and graph: it doesn't show what you claim it does about deaths from fireworks. You really don't know much about statistics, do you?

Antiwomen - you sort of acknowledge that Master's claim was supported by the available data, but you can't resist trying to twist it into some kind of sorty in your perpetual gender war, can you?

BTW, does anybody else besides Antiwomen think that Master's a sock puppet? I've got quite a good nose for them, but everything that Master's posted here since he joined OLO recently has been both internally consistent and quite unlike anybody else's offerings in terms of structure and language.

Still, it wouldn't be the first time that Antiwomen's made a preposterous claim on OLO, for which he has been subsequently been inacapable of providing any evidence whatsoever, would it?

"epistemology"

CJ I do believe you have taught me more new words than anyone else in the last ten years and I find myself now scanning your posts to learn them.

But these three boys, is it just more fun to fight? No matter what messages I leave I am ignored by Anti, Max and Master completely as they squabble above and below anything I have said in any thread they now argue in.

Now my feelings arn't hurt, 19 years with toddlers has left me pretty unshakable and immune to human quirks.

But I am courios and slightly facinated at what I have witnessed and the way it built up and now I see it is to a point where I actually thought Master left quite a normal message in Max's new thread about adult children and it was attacked in a heartbeat. But Master did launch the first mocking reproach to Anti over in NRL and right behind Snacho.

I didn't think he was a sock puppet either. Something I have missed is why the pomeranian stuff CJ - where or why did that start?

Hi Piper - the "pomeranian" thing is a very lame and puerile effort by Antiwomen to insult me. I treat it in probably much the same way you would if one of your 4-year old foster kids called you something that he thought was really mean.

Sometimes it's best to let them get it out of their systems - sticks and stones and all that :)

P.S. my of use English is far from infallible - in my last post I wrote "sorty" instead of "sortie"....

Pomeranian:"the "pomeranian" thing is a very lame and puerile effort by Antiwomen to insult me"

Not at all, little fella. It's a humourously accurate characterisation of your rather silly style of posting a stupidly personal comment (such as "antiseptic's wife left him so he hates all women") rather than actually addressing a topic. Lots of others have noticed the same, which is why so few other than the antiseptic-obsessed will bother to have anything to do with you.

As I said, I'm happy to call it off any time you like, all you have to do is stop acting like a pomeranian.

Pomeranian:"I've got quite a good nose for them, but everything that Master's posted here since he joined OLO recently has been both internally consistent and quite unlike anybody else's offerings in terms of structure and language."

Oh really? Do enlighten us with an analysis, won't you, little fella? You know, proof and all that? I look forward to it...

sock-puppet:"That graph is NOT, I repeat NOT, a "death statistic" graph."

Congratulations, dear, you can read, well done. you. It is also conspicuously empty of any references to TWO CHILDREN being KILLED (sic) by fireworks in or around Menindee in 1953 or any other time. Let's face it dear, in your usual hysterical fashion you made up a little lie and got caught. Silly Socky...

Antiwomen's former wife was a great appreciator of his sense of humour - so much so that she alleged assault against him. His sense of humour is also on display in his "facetious" rants about women and rugby league.

Speaking of that topic and addressing it - we're still waiting for him to provide some backing for his silly claim that most, if not all, corporate high flyers in Australia are former high-level football players. Or was that supposed to be funny too?

The onus is normally upon the person who makes a claim to substantiate it - however, in Antiwomen's world he can make whatever silly assertion he likes and it's up to others to disprove it.

I think that he's keen on fireworks because they are the only way he could get a "bang" lately.

My ex-wife never alleged any assault by me against her or anyone else. That is a fabrication of CJMorgan (otherwise known as the Pomeranian). She did lodge an application for a DVO based on her claim to have felt "intimidated" during an argument, despite claiming no actual threat or threatening action. Her claim was made in the context of her seeking to gain an increased share of the care of our 2 children.

I do not "hate all women". I don't even hate my ex-wife. She was as much a victim of the system as I was. Her Legal Aid-funded lawyers gave her bad advice and she took it. She recently said that she was glad she hadn't "won", since the children would have been deprived of their father and that would not be in their interests.

I do dislike feminism as a doctrine. I have discussed the topic with literally hundreds of people and found that very frequently, those who profess feminism are either expressing a sense of personal entitlement or are cynically expressing the prevailing dominant doctrine to gain advantage in a system that rewards conformance and punishes dissent. Both of these groups will try to stifle any discussion that questions the basis of their claim to special treatment.

My ex-wife did not "smack me around". That is a fabrication of Sancho. Having experienced the egregiously biased treatment of men within the Court system, I developed an interest in false allegations. That lead me to investigate DV perpetrated by women and I found that it causes nearly a third of all DV hospitalisations.

I do believe that genuine gender-equality within the limits of biology was achieved within our society some time ago and that further feminist-inspired promotion of the interests of women ahead of those of men will only create disadvantage for men, to the detriment of all.

I do believe that the constant demands of feminist groups and individuals for public funds is damaging and that many of those groups are not doing anything worthwhile to justify their claims.

I welcome genuine contributions to the discussion.

Antiwomen wrote that he, " developed an interest in false allegations".

I agree.

He alleged a conspiracy theory that accused women of using sexual assaults perpetrated by NRL players, in order to gain "unassailable positions of power", his words, on NRL football boards.

He claimed that "all" company boards in Australia contain high flyers who played football at top level.

He claimed that Master posts here under 4 identities.

That's just the very start. If you read his past posts where he comments on women who practice self determination and women who believe in equal gender rights (in other words women who don't conform to 'his' mould) the reader will see plenty of "false allegations" from Antiwomen, 'almost' always against women.

Yes indeed, Antiwomen definitely has an obsession for "FALSE ALLEGATION", and an obsession for anyone who does not share his assumptions and opinions about women who do not conform to 'his' mould..

And we thank him for his confession: The confession he didn't realise he was making when he admitted that he "developed an interest in false allegations" against people.

My ex-wife never alleged any assault by me against her or anyone else. That is a fabrication of CJMorgan (otherwise known as the Pomeranian). She did lodge an application for a DVO based on her claim to have felt "intimidated" during an argument, despite claiming no actual threat or threatening action. Her claim was made in the context of her seeking to gain an increased share of the care of our 2 children.

I do not "hate all women". I don't even hate my ex-wife. She was as much a victim of the system as I was. Her Legal Aid-funded lawyers gave her bad advice and she took it. She recently said that she was glad she hadn't "won", since the children would have been deprived of their father and that would not be in their interests.

I do dislike feminism as a doctrine. I have discussed the topic with literally hundreds of people and found that very frequently, those who profess feminism are either expressing a sense of personal entitlement or are cynically expressing the prevailing dominant doctrine to gain advantage in a system that rewards conformance and punishes dissent. Both of these groups will try to stifle any discussion that questions the basis of their claim to special treatment.

My ex-wife did not "smack me around". That is a fabrication of Sancho. Having experienced the egregiously biased treatment of men within the Court system, I developed an interest in false allegations. That lead me to investigate DV perpetrated by women and I found that it causes nearly a third of all DV hospitalisations.

I do believe that genuine gender-equality within the limits of biology was achieved within our society some time ago and that further feminist-inspired promotion of the interests of women ahead of those of men will only create disadvantage for men, to the detriment of all.

I do believe that the constant demands of feminist groups and individuals for public funds is damaging and that many of those groups are not doing anything worthwhile to justify their claims.
I welcome genuine contributions to the discussion.

“Hi Piper - the "pomeranian" thing is a very lame and puerile effort by Antiwomen to insult me. I treat it in probably much the same way you would if one of your 4-year old foster kids called you something that he thought was really mean.”

Oh, that’s an awful one for me because I have a shocking time keeping a straight face when they do. They do it then this horrible realization hits them of what they have just done and they freeze in place with their little eyes getting wider and wider. You do have to talk to them about it on the spot because many fret that some punishment will come later due to some of their personal histories.

My biggest break-throughs with children are when they feel they can release some anger and direct it at someone physically bigger without fear even though a little shock does set in.

“Sometimes it's best to let them get it out of their systems - sticks and stones and all that :)”

Scuse me a sec CJ - Hey ANTI! It doesn’t read well dude and you should quit it now.

“P.S. my of use English is far from infallible - in my last post I wrote "sorty" instead of "sortie"....”

Like I’d have noticed.[smile]

It's interesting to note, that the obsessed Antiwomen virtually NEVER even attempts to back up his many allegations with proof and facts. That is, the allegations against women he's made many times in many past posts. I invite anyone to read them. He can't wipe his past posts, so it's all there for anyone to see.

He can't back up the allegations because he knows the allegations are "assumptions and opinions".

Antowomen's anti-woman vitriol is ALWAYS directed ONLY at women who believe in self determination and gender equality.

He's obsessed with that type of woman, just like he's obsessed with anyone who offers strong criticism of his dogmatic rhetoric.

He needs to go back to the USMC (United Socialist Men's Collective) to plan his next move.

Keep on obsessing Antiwomen.

I am ignored by Anti, Max and Master completely as they squabble above and below anything I have said in any thread they now argue in.

That's untrue PP, we have responded to each other before, kid's gifts ring any bells? I haven't wanted to include you among this crowd of clowns out of respect. I won't apologise, just ask you to think more before you post, as I will also.

“That's untrue PP, we have responded to each other before, kid's gifts ring any bells? I haven't wanted to include you among this crowd of clowns out of respect. I won't apologise, just ask you to think more before you post, as I will also.”

Yeah I know Max but recently most posts (not just mine) aren’t. But I do get with the restrictions you have to pick and choose what you can respond to. The site is not happy this morning and has dropped off the net a few times.

Think more before I post? The spelling alone consumes my time and now I have to consider content? Max you ask too much.

I must have been in a whingy mood when leaving that particular post to CJ. Does look like the online equivalent of pouting.

I am waiting for Col and Master to clash, now that will be a fun read.

PP:"Hey ANTI! It doesn’t read well dude and you should quit it now. "

Thanks for the critique, jewels, but the name fits so well, I think I'll keep it.

Sock-puppet:"I'm going to parrot everything antiseptic says and copy everything he does"

Yes dear, we know you're obsessed. Now, tell us again how TWO CHILDREN WERE KILLED(sic) in a fireworks explosion and no one was ever held accountable and how that was the norm in 1953.

And we all wait with bated breath for the usual "antiseptic dislikes feminism so he hates women" from the intellectually bereft.

I wish you'd stick to the subject blokes.I'll be short, no I DON'T LIKE FIREWORKS and neither does my dog!Nuff said.

Antiwomen wrote, "And we wait for the usual 'antiwomen dislikes feminism so he hates women'".

Master replies: No dude, you've got that wrong (again). You dislike women who - - - -

BELIEVE IN SELF DETERMINATION AND GENDER EQUALITY.

You like women who fit "YOUR" idea of what women should be like. You'd make a great Saudi Arabian.

Sock-puppet:"You dislike women who - - - -

BELIEVE IN SELF DETERMINATION AND GENDER EQUALITY."

Hysterical much, lovey?

As it happens, you're not merely hysterical, you're completely wrong.

Feminism as it is done today is not about either "SELF DETERMINATION"(sic) or "GENDER EQUALITY"(sic). It is about subsidies and the preferment of women, regardless of the merits of their claim.

If a few of the entitlement junkies such as yourself were actually interested in "SELF DETERMINATION"(sic) instead of handouts there would be more "GENDER EQUALITY" (sic) and fewer useless mouths sucking at the public teat.

In other words, socky, I'd like to see a great deal more "SELF DETERMINATION" (sic) and "GENDER EQUALITY"(sic).

Now off you trot and see if the latest grant cheque has arrived from the Office for Women, socky.

You could also tell us again how "TWO CHILDREN WERE KILLED"(sic) by a fireworks explosion either next door to your place or 50 miles away either near Menindee or near Broken Hill and no investigation took place and how this was common practise in 1953. You know you want to...

I invite anyone and everyone to peruse this entire thread, and others, and observe this simple fact:
The PC mob, master, cjm etc, do NOT discuss issues, they abuse and denigrate anyone who has a different, non-PC, point of view.
This means it’s virtually impossible to have an intelligent OBJECTIVE exchange of opinions.
I now invite all and sundry to observe the name of this site: Online OPINION.
Opinion, people, opinion, think what that means, and whether that is possible here.
Apparently not, not without being attacked and ridiculed, very mature behaviour, NOT.
Until or unless the mods here rein in these intellectual bullies, allow others to have their say in peace, this site will die. I’ve already noticed a marked reduction in posters and threads, and this will continue unabated.
No reasoning, no points of view exchanged, no attempt to engage and share, just endless sneering, abuse, denial of the right to express an opinion. They consistently and deliberately mis-interpret others words, picking on individual words and phrases, and claiming this is what was actually meant, avoiding the intent of the post.
I particularly dislike the way they tell everyone what they are, who they are, what they think, despite knowing nothing about them. They ignore anything to the contrary, howling down any attempt to actually discuss things. They answer no questions, offer no insights into the subject, just endlessly play “thought police”.
Typical bullies, no intelligent responses or abilities, just “right thinking” aggression, most unattractive, and counter-productive.
George Orwell would love them!
This site has become a waste of time.

Max, I'm betting you are just embarrassed because you posted a google site history word search and posted it as a 'death statistic'. I can understand why you don't like statistics if you think that's the way it's done.

As for the 'bullying' etc.... welcome to the internet. It only hurts (or matters) if it's true.

Maybe you could look up the causes of death statistics at the ABS? There's a nice breakdown by state and by individual category of death:

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3303.02007?OpenDocument

Fireworks has it's own category (W39). While it's a relatively rare cause of death (possibly because of the bans), you can see 5 people died from fireworks in QLD in 2000 and some others in at least one other state, and this is only between 1998-2007. People do die and get injured from fireworks, and they are preventable.

There are also some bushfire and property damage statistics that have fireworks as an attributable cause but I won't bother posting them, because I know how how you feel about statistics.

No Bugs, not at all.
I am human, I was in a hurry, I mis-read it, so what? Look at the page, it’s an easy mistake to make. I have no problems with admitting fallibility.
Not all sites are infested with bullies, I am on others where objective interchange is a regular feature, where people with different opinions discuss them without “playing the man”, it’s called rational, adult, civilised behaviour, and it’s sadly lacking here.
If anyone new starts this sort of disgusting personal attacks, they are suspended and warned, a second event is automatic banning, and it works well, over 200 regular contributors, and the discussions are varied and entertaining.
Compare that to this farce!
I’ve never denied the dangers of fireworks, merely the exaggerations around,(aka: Masters “dead children”, a tall tale if ever I heard one!), and the way those were used by the “fun police” to deny everyone a great night.
Your right though, stats are meaningless, unless they are simple lists of actual numbers, raw data, once they start “sampling”, and “extrapolating” etc, it get’s murky, and unreliable.

Maximillion

‘I invite anyone and everyone to peruse this entire thread, and others, and observe this simple fact:
The PC mob, master, cjm etc, do NOT discuss issues, they abuse and denigrate anyone who has a different, non-PC, point of view.’

In fact, I’ve been perusing this thread after a busy period away from OLO. Unfortunately, you shoot your own sanctimonious argument in the foot by choosing to leave off your list one of the most abusive posters that OLO has ever had to deal with (in my opinion, THE most).

And I have no doubt that you chose to leave the nameless poster off the list because he occupies a similar philosophical space to yours (i.e. sloppy libertarian nostalgia for a boys-own age of freedom and adventure that never existed).

In fact, you excelled yourself in the art of ‘abuse’ and ‘denigrating’ in a post to me about feminism on the RSL thread – in fact, I was too disgusted to even give you the dignity of a reply. At least, a couple of others (CJ and Fractelle if I recall) spoke up on behalf of my TRUE arguments, not the grotesque distortions you had made of them.

Master

For the record, my mother often told of a 4-year-old child she knew growing up in Cairns, who was killed during a cracker night celebration gone badly wrong – and this probably doesn’t show up on Google either.

Bugsy, I think the data has some glitches. For example, I went to

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/1A5E692C176131ECCA25757C0013614D/$File/3303.0_13%20causes%20of%20death%20by%20year%20of%20occurrence.xls

which is all causes of death by year of occurrence - an excel file.

For the year 2000, the data says that 1 "male" and 4 "females" died as a result of a firework discharge, but totals that to 2 "persons". In 2002 it says 4 "males" and no females adds up to 1 "person".

Now, I don't know about you, but that does make me a tad less willing to take it as authoritative.

I'd also suggest that what deaths may have occurred were due to malfunctioning in large commercial installations and involved explosive quantities far in excess of anything involved in consumer fireworks.

Having said all that, I am comfortable with explosives, even crackers, being kept under control. I do miss being able to set them off myself though...

SJF, I don't ever initiate attcks on anyone. Every single poster who I may have taken on has been first in. Let's not forget that you're the poster who told me that I was a bully because I asked questions.

You and a few others here actively try to stifle discussion about anything pertaining to feminism and the entitlement industries. You have gone so far as to tell people not to discuss things when the conversation started drifting in a direction you didn't like.

You did read the explanatory footnotes at the bottom didn't you Anti?

"(b) Data cells with small values have been randomly assigned to protect the confidentiality of individuals. As a result, some totals will not equal the sum of their components. It is important to note that cells with a zero value have not been affected by confidentialisation."

It may happen to be that they are commercial quantities, but that is an assumption. It would be good to dig up some historical data on how safe personal firework use was in terms of cause of death and injury before being heavily restricted.

And Max, I do not support the idea that "stats are meaningless", unless what you meant to say is "I [Max] think stats are meaningless."

I certainly think that statistics are abused and ignored by people who don't understand them or how they are collected (nor care to disabuse themselves of their inexperience, most of the time).

SJF, another abuser, playing the man, you’ll all note he doesn’t reply to any of my points, just attacks, symptomatic of the group, yet again, right down to defining, yet again, my “philosophical space”, as if, lol. And yet another mysterious unrecorded death, of course a child, for the sympathy effect. When will the lies end?
OH, and what list? I only mentioned a couple of the worst offenders, in case people reading it weren’t sure.
Yes, I have struck back, as I said above, I’m only human, when I’m attacked I defend myself. It is that very fact that called into question the “people” here, and I use that word reluctantly.
Nazi’s, Communists, Ultra-rightists, Ultra-leftists, Born-again Christians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Islamic Fundamentalists, they ALL have one thing in common, they have a rigid, unthinking Ideology, and will brook no discussion, no other opinions, no “free-thinkers”, no individualism. Sounds awfully familiar doesn’t it? Remind you of anyone here?
Buggy-one, I quote your own post: "(b) Data cells with small values have been randomly assigned to protect the confidentiality of individuals. As a result, some totals will not equal the sum of their components."
And that’s just step one, no intelligent person accepts statistics as anything more than a loose guide, and ALWAYS checks who, where, how, they were made, just so they can assign an error factor to them, now why do you suppose they do that?
Because they’re reliable? Hardly!
While there are one or two people here I would invite to the civilised side of forum discussions,(Pericles, Foxxy, a couple of others) there’s no way for me to inform them without informing the ferocious fools, so they have to wait for an invite, which I’m sure they’ll get, in time, the crucial factor is an ability to discuss dispassionately, objectively, so I’m absolutely sure the rabid “ists”here will never even hear about them, who’d want a pack of psychotic chihuahua’s tearing up decent conversations?

Max, your statement
"no intelligent person accepts statistics as anything more than a loose guide....."

is a variant on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Data is data, some is more reliable than others depending on collection methods. The ABS in this case used death certificate stated causes of death. I would have thought that this method of collecting cause of death data was reasonably reliable.

If it does not suit your argument or purpose you may rubbish the collection method, the reliablity of the data, or the authoritativeness of the source. This is often done. But if you have issues with the treatment of the data could you please present something that you would consider more reliable? I am very keen on reliable data. Do you have something that can show us what you base your stated position on personal-use fireworks on?

Bugsy, reliable data is the LAST thing either Maximillion or his "brother in arms" Antiwomen are interested in. Just look at the fire cracker statistics presented in ALL THEIR GLORY by Max: Presented as FACT! ! ! I immediately PROVED it was a GROSS misrepresentation by Max - - - - he offered NO apology to anyone, NO retraction, NOTHING. Only just within the past few posts, in an effort to look "reasonable", has he finally admitted he was WRONG; and what a LAME excuse he has offered for his willful misrepresentatiom. His behaviour speaks for itself.

Whenever the two buddies (the two terrible twins), Antiwomen and Maximillion, are out debated or feel attacked they OFTEN resort to personal attack, self righteous indignation, sarcasm and abuse. Usually within topics that display their often "shared" Politically Correct views ie. what THEY consider to be Politically Correct - - - "their" views and "only" their views. If "their" views are attacked they scream "foul play". Look at Antiwomen for example, he's easily the biggest whinger on this site. He's happy to dish the c r a p out, but when it's shoved back into his face tenfold what do we get? WHINGE, WHINGE and more WHINGE from Antiwomen. He can dish it out (he thinks), but HE CAN'T TAKE IT.

Yep the terrible "brothers in arms", Maximillion and Antiwomen.

Yet again, half of what I said, read the rest, or it’s the rolled up newspaper!
Quote, in full:
“And that’s just step one, no intelligent person accepts statistics as anything more than a loose guide, and ALWAYS checks who, where, how, they were made, just so they can assign an error factor to them, now why do you suppose they do that?
Because they’re reliable? Hardly!
The distinct lack of multiples of scarred people and deaths known to all speaks for itself. Don’t forget, most of us were there, Oz wide, and if there had been large numbers of “victims” it would have been well publicised, people tend to get a bit antsy with dead sproggs laying about!
The furore at the time over whether to ban or not also speaks volumes, if only you’d unlock your brain.
And that’s me finished with this discussion, it’s a waste of time speaking to people who are incapable of taking off their “righteous armour”,…….and alfoil helmets!

Max, I added the "....." to indicate the rest had been chopped, as I really don't think that quoting the whole thing makes much of a difference to the context in which the phrase "no intelligent person" was used. The partial quote was used to highlight the operative phrase. Do you really think I go around reading half sentences? For that matter, do you really think that all intelligent people check who, where, how, statistics were made, just so they can assign an error factor to them?

There are lots of emotive assumptions about dead/injured sproggs and how much they would have been publicised. The idea that you were "there", that is temporally coincidental to deaths and injuries that were apparently most often ascribed as "accidental" and how you don't remember much publicity about aforementioned injuries and deaths, does not evidence make. How much do you remember the publicity of deaths due to poor seat belt usage? Or deaths due to lack of helmets on motorcycles?

Ok, lets talk about real data, how about a report from the Northern Territory, where they are still legal, (ok, it's a bit old, 2002) that gives an indication of what injuries are usually sustained within a four-day window of "cracker night". Also listed are reports of grass fires and domestic animal (ie dog) deaths resulting from spooked pets and noise complaints.

http://www.health.nt.gov.au/library/scripts/objectifyMedia.aspx?file=pdf/11/96.pdf&siteID=1&str_title=Bulletin%20September%202002.pdf

Keep in mind though, that the Northern Territory in 2002 had only a little over 199,000 people living there, or approximately only 1% of the Australian population.

Oh yeah, I'm the one that needs the tinfoil hat.

I missed out entirely on "cracker nights". Fireworks being illegal in Qld, we had to make our own, which makes enjoying them a furtive rather than festive occasion. The lack of availability of small fireworks means that most kids have no idea of their destructive potential. Knowing the odd kid with a missing finger probably encouraged caution, a caution sadly lacking these days. Kids think crackers look like the ones in cartoons and want to build metal-jacketed rockets like in movies, unaware that they would be satisfied with the bang a few grains of black powder in a clay and paper housing can produce. Even if very restricted, I think kids need to see/hear/feel-in-gut how powerful small amounts of some chemicals are.
Of course, some kids just never were smart enough to know better.

Rustopher.