Underbelly (wink-wink),

Not much happening on the threads this morning so I thought I would take the time to reply a little more fulsomely to your post to me on page 14.

Now even though you whipped into the phone box for a quick change of username, it's obvious to me who you are.(a wave to Kerryane) You display a singular style (as do we all) and unless you can manage to find a way to mask it, all the alternative names in the world ain't gonna render it a successful ruse.

I see you pulled the same stunt on Belly's "Greens Popular?" thread - and it appears you've even chosen this sock puppet's name as a foil to his. No wonder you're always surmising that some posters are in fact other posters under another name - it's your own standard operating procedure.

Poirot,

Actually I am sickened. Underbelly most certainly is NOT Kerry!. Belly's low act and running to GY with his lies is typical of alp mentality.
I got banned over a silly joke I was having with Yabby a month ago.
Somebody was saying it was suggested WA had legal prostitution houses established. With tongue in cheek knowing full well Yabby would take it as a joke I said"" quote- Oh Good Yabby & his friends can get into a cleaner industry:) Now it was honestly just a joke. The things that has been said about me on that other thread & you Poirot just like Anti & belly rushing in to get a person banned who has done nothing shows your utter lack of class imop.
So if I got banned for having a joke with Yabby the question must be asked why you anti have been allowed to defame a person that is not even on this forum. You named the founder of two organizations AND you named that person as well. I got banned on the basis Yabby was not here to defend himself. Huh what a joke.
Either way imop it wasn't Yabby who got me banned over the WA industry joke. We may not see eye to eye but i dont think hes quite that childish or low- but I sure reckon i know who is.

Sorry Lexi go back to your thread and BTW yes what about the aboriginals- good point.

Dear Yabby,

My apologies for not getting back to you sooner - however
I'd used up all of my posts. Now back to Bono - he pays
millions and millions of dollars in tax. I'm not going to
go into his reasons for taking the publishing rights
of his music to the Netherlands - that's not the issue here.
However what is "clear and simple" is that Bono has been
pushing world leaders towards sustainability. He has
undertaken in addressing one of the most pressing sustainability
problems - the plight of the one-third of humanity living
in poverty.

Poverty demands of people that the only thing that counts is
the next meal. Local environments are denuded. Fish, birds,
anything that moves is the target for the next feed:
forests are stripped for their fuel, reef's for their limestone.

Poverty demands, that families are large, as not every child
born is going to sustain his or her life for long. Each child is
a pair of hands to put to work drawing water from distant wells,
weeding miniscule vegetable plots and, if adulthood is
reached, to be sent to the city to find work where the bulk of a
subsistence wage can be sent home.

If very lucky, this son or daughter will find work in a distant
foreign land (where he or she will not necessarily be welcomed) and
larger sums of money will be repatriated.

We can applaud Bono, but even he with all the celebrity appeal that
goes with having only one name cannot change the world by himself.
We, you and I, need to take up the challenge. As Tor Hundloe tells us
in his book, "Poverty is only one of the inter-related environmental
sustainability problems we face in the 21st century."

Bono has broken the ground, our world leaders hopefully will start
taking notice of the vast army of experts who are willing and able
to guide us through the coming difficult years. As Hundloe tells us,
a better world is possible. It will take effort. It will be difficult.
But it will be worth it.

Dear Kerryanne,

You ask about the Aborigines?
It's not a good point at all.
Go back and re-read the post of
that particular poster - and then
put your hand on your heart and
tell me why I should respond to him at all.
I'd be happy to discuss the topic with you
at any time, perhaps you could start
your own thread on the topicn if the
subject is of interest to you,however, when
someone uses insults "clearly and simply,"
and doesn't feel that there's anything wrong
with their style of posting when pulled up on it -
there's nothing more to be said. It's "clear
and simple," and we all get it.

Kerryanne,

As you've probably read on the other thread, I apologised - and that simply rests on your denial, not on a change of opinion of my part.

If my assertion is wrong then I'm the one with egg on my face - and in that case, you've got nothing to worry about.

*Poverty demands, that families are large, as not every child
born is going to sustain his or her life for long.*

Lexi, that is in fact a myth. For when organisations like
Marie Stopes offer their services in the third world,
women rush to use them. Millions of women in the third
world too, die from knitting needle etc abortions.
These women don't do these things because they want
larger families.

Fact is that if you and hubby lived in the third world
on a dollar or two a day, you would still have sex.
If you could not afford family planning, you too would
have a large family, but just keep popping them out.

My continuing point is that third world women should
be given a choice, just as Western women have. For
the West to fund it, would do far more to avert long
term hunger and famines, then our bandaid solutions of
rushing out food when the rains fail. Avert the
problem before it arises, not when its all too late.

Bono is still clearly dodging lots of tax btw.