"....Go "back up the coast" and do what ever bogan things you do up there."

Lol!....ttbn - one of the more irksome blow-ins of our current OLO family.

The only time I interact with bogans is when I meet the likes of you on forums like this.

Poirot,

My 'bogan' remark was uncalled for, and I apologise for it. However, you still haven't come up with a single reason why Australia should be a republic. I suppose "tiresome blow ins" like me, who question opinions you have apparently been espousing ad infinitum for who-knows-how-long, must very irritating to you. Most Australians do not live their lives online, and, in a small pond, you tend to think that your utterings reign supreme. In the real world, arguments and opinions have to be backed up with logic and facts. While I enjoy OLO, I spend most of my time in the real world, listening to and reading people who actually know what they are talking and writing about. I believe in freedom of speech, and everyones right to express opinions. But, if opinions don't stand up to testing, they are not worth having. If you are not prepared to have your opinions tested, you are wasting your time here.

ttbn,

Firstly, thanks for the apology.

".... However, you still haven't come up with a single reason why Australia should be a republic...."

I have put my views across and given an example of one model. It's my opinion that Australia, as a self-governing nation with the Queen presiding as a mere formality, should consider the option of parliament appointing the GG in his ceremonial role as head of state.

That other people disagree is perfectly in order. I suppose in years gone by when we stopped importing our Governors General from Britain, people were opposed to that as well...in an "if it ain't broke, then why fix it" manner.

I'll point out that on this thread it was you who chose to be combative in my direction.

You say:

" Most Australians do not live their lives online, and, in a small pond, you tend to think that your utterings reign supreme.....While I enjoy OLO, I spend most of my time in the real world, listening to and reading people who actually know what they are talking and writing about...."

Precisely - and yet when I'm away for a while (in the real world), you decided to have a little snide prod:

"Poirot,

Unable to come up with a logical reason for Australia becoming a republic?

I thought not."

And to top it off, you believe that because you disagree with me that I'm somehow against having my opinions tested.

Get this....I couldn't give a toss if you think Australia should reject a republic - that's your prerogative.

But don't come the high and mighty telling me I'm "wasting my time here". Who are you to strut around here rancorously flinging out your brief run-by comments - and then chastising other posters for having an opinion?

You don't want a republic - fine...and er...so what?

Now I'm off (to the real world) to do some historical research and digitise some really old photos.

Have a nice day : )

I think OLO is more like the real world, or at least more like the world as it is supposed to be, involving honesty that can be verified.

In the world outside OLO there are all types of newspaper radio and tv stories involving spin and lies, that can not be publicly challenged or verified.

Here on OLO it's possible to reply and question and reveal truth and reality of comments made.

mhaze, "At a philosophic level, I support a republic.
At a practical level, I'd want us to be spectacularly careful about playing around with a system of government that has provided us with one the most stable democracies the world has ever seen"

Well said.

There are also the substantial direct and indirect costs concerned. All have to be paid for and suck money, expertise and attention away from the fundamentals that government was put there to provide. Essentials such as transport, hospitals and other infrastructure that are already jostling for resources.

It is not lost on the long-suffering public that it is the aged, the ill and other vulnerable groups who will be doing without services to suit the cultural elitists' self-loathing and Anglophobia, and their pastime of dabbling in social change (and refusing to be accountable for the unforeseen negative consequences).

"At a practical level, I'd want us to be spectacularly careful about playing around with a system of government that has provided us with one the most stable democracies the world has ever seen"

Does this mean we change nothing in relation to Australia and government and its governance?

"Essentials such as transport, hospitals and other infrastructure that are already jostling for resources."

Yes, and this is under our current form of government and governance. Movement re government could be seen as positive in that context.

With a "no change" approach in Australia and other countries, by what some would argue to be (now) very heavy over governance, a fresh approach (for refreshment) should (at least) be assessed now to see any potential (or non potential) benefits, in regards to change.

It's not something to be frightened of, like eating a snail for example.