pontificator you really were a counsellor. How does that make you feel? Let's pursue that.

I'll leave the first 5 questions under the heading; Pontificator needs to get some comprehension skills.

Bootylicious is all I can say. One day you'll understand.

'Do you really believe that ''fessing up' justifies your rolling in you prejudices? '
I really believe I don't need to justify anything. Especially to you.

'We all have prejudices but why luxuriate in them?'
I luxuriate in all aspects of life and human frailty is one of my interests. Prejudice, Anger, fear, aggression, hate are just as interesting, valid and worthwhile as any other aspect.

'What does it prove/gain?'
That's the difference between us. You're always looking to prove or gain something. Whether it be popularity, the high moral ground, intellectual superiority or pompous self richeousness.

I just luxuriate in the journey.

'What IS the D&M topic here, given you're so bored with OLO?'

If you cant tell what my motives are or what my messages are that's not for me to tell you. You should take out of me what you want to.

As Paul Dempsey once said...

'Whatever you want! Whatever appeals to you, whatever it is you haven't got.'

You sound like a teenager wanting to know what the song words mean.

H
Thanks for that, I think.

Perhaps I've miss estimated your abilities for substance rather than process.(prof Greenfields)

I simply fail to understand how the antics of a state minister under pressure does anything but make her look silly. Obfuscation and diversionary attacks on trivial issues are stock and trade of those without sound answers.

The SMH is hardly the bastion of intellectual analysis certainly not this piece. News papers are notorious for 'sexing up' a 'hook' to get people in.

I noted that you seem to take the bait. I wondered why you bother...that assumed depth of thought.

I was curious about your inflammatory comment about ascents then your unnecessary insensitivity when challenged. Wondering if there was some point to this stance again assuming you'd thought the issue through before your responding.

As for proving something are you saying you write without purpose?
I just look for meaning reasoning ...isn't that the point of discussing/Communication as opposed to raving, understanding the point of life?

I would have thought that my ego isn't determined by OLO but what I do in the real world.

Given your comment about being bored on OLO I thought the issue MUST have some deeper meaning I missed.
When in doubt I ask.

PS None of my previous post made claims or personal attacks merely asked then where possible gave an explanatory example.

Interesting how being in the process colours the perceptions of what was said. (the good prof strikes again)

The more we select people for positions on the basis of their sex rather than competence the more we will end up with the inept Labour women we have in power. Quotas, EEO and other sexist programs have led to a dumbing down of the Public service and Parliament. Thankfully in the real world companies largely choose on the basis of competency.

I think all in all you just cant understand when I'm playing and when I'm serious. Some counsellor. Most people seem to have those comprehension skills. Certainly nobody else on OLO has any trouble.

I haven't taken any bait. I merely mused whether the author deliberately put in that perfectly timed one-liner when it struck me funny. Then it lead me on to the sexist card and how it could be used or abused. Bronwyn seemed to get it and gave a pretty comprehensive response.

You seem obsessed with pointing out every time that every piece of journalism is there for sensation and generating outrage, or think that you're the only one in the world that appreciates this.

As Paul Dempsey said..

'You're not the first to think that everything has been thought before.'

And before you say someone else said it first... haha don't you get it.

Sometimes I wonder what you are in the 'process' of doing when you write all this pontificating drivel. Maybe you should swap hands every now and then, or maybe that would interrupt your 'ascent'.

You're being a perfect straight man for me though, I do thank you.

You remind me of that Kevin Kline character in A Fish Called Wanda.

Australia very sexist. The trouble is if you are a woman, or even a different race for that matter you need to drop those differences to fit into white corporate culture. So yes it is open to you but not to your differences. Lose your foreign accent (unless it is cute), lose your womanly emotions or your cultural views. Very conformist society that by it's very nature exludes people for their differences.

The problem when woman air their grievance they do not do it in a male way or as they say, a corporate way. This is because they are woman and about time this difference is embraced rather than condemned.

The Missus

I am shattered that you find Australia 'very sexist', would you care to list the nations that are ahead of it?

What if an anti-discrimination commissioner ever declared:
"Liberals and feminists have been the big success story in the control and direction of modern culture, education, and the dissemination of ideas and moral views, as well as recipients of the elite status and high income accruing to such success and power. Clearly, they will have their position changed because they will be competing in a different way with the people they have been marginalising, namely white men." and demanded the passage of a law requiring positive discrimination against liberals and feminists?

That would be shocking, discriminatory and totalitarian you might say? Yet Victoria's Equal Opportunity Commission CEO Dr Helen Szoke has got away with declaring that 'white' males had "been the big success story in business and goods and services".

She went on to say, "Clearly, they will have their position changed because they will be competing in a different way with these people who have been traditionally marginalised,"

While listing the many countries that are ahead of Australia in the anti-sexism stakes you might take the time to define what you mean by sexism.

Returning to Kristina Keneally, it is to her disgrace that she flashed the 'sexism' card to cover her exposed behind and it is ridiculous to try to rationalise her abuse of her parliamentary accountability. She refuses to be accountable and that is a serious matter.