SM here is you post which I called you on

"in one of the councils in Sydney, a home owner requested to remove a tree bough from a road side tree that stretched over his driveway, the council reviewed it and refused. The bough fell and damaged a car, and the owner successfully sued the council. The council's attitude has notably changed as a result. The same should be applied to bush near residential dwellings.

Personally I would like to see the green councillors that pushed this moronic policy publicly flogged."

Does that not say the Green councilors at a Sydney Council where a tree bough damaged a car push a moronic policy that resulted in the cars damage, that's how it reads.. And you want them publicly flogged for that.

Now you say: "As for my comment on the action taken on the broken bough, I never claimed there were greens involved," So why do you want them publicly flogged, is it to feed your general dislike of The Greens.

Paul,

"Now you say: "As for my comment on the action taken on the broken bough, I never claimed there were greens involved," So why do you want them publicly flogged, is it to feed your general dislike of The Greens."

Hahahaha!

Looks like the Spin Master spun himself into a knot with that one.

Lol!

Paul,

I apologise. I did not sufficiently review what I wrote. The comment about public flogging referred to the first paragraph not the second, and conveyed a meaning that I did not intend.

As the regulations that punish people for taking sensible action to protect themselves, I personally oppose capital or corporal punishment, and the flogging would have to be metaphorical.

I can but dream.

"I don't know if I can get that low."

You have done it before, and no doubt will do it again.

Yes, dear SM,

...but only when I have to respond to you.

(although you gain a few brownie points for the decency of your last post to Paul:)

I'll play nice if you do.

It's rather confusing reading some posts and one has to constantly adjust as the terminology is wrong.

"Back burn" is a fire deliberately lit in the path of a CURRENT bush fire to deprive it of fuel.

"Hazard reduction burn" is a deliberately lit fire to reduce the fuel available to a FUTURE bush fire.

The two terms are not interchangeable.