If only Bill Leak was still with us.

He would have drawn a cartoon of a naked bearded bloke storming into a women's change room, with an unnamed national sports team, declaring:

"I'm a woman ! And what's more, I'm a lesbian !"

To which one of the women replies: "None of us are."

The heading could be: "Bloke in Paradise".

Intersectionality hasn't reached Peak Stupid yet. But it's getting close

I watched an interview with a “ person” as few days ago, discussing the issues facing people who believed they were not the sex their body said they were.
This person commented that although some wanted their male parts removed, others felt just as female even whilst retaining their tackle.
I don’t know about any other women but I’ve certainly never wanted a penis, could think of nothing less feminine then a penis and decided that peak stupid has already hit us.

I voted yes
But not if it is compulsory
And just maybe the rants from the no voters now have some substance
See we had a warning some would want far more than the right to wed
SOME want children as young as seven to have the right to sex change surgery
Better me thinks to desex some parents

others felt just as female even whilst retaining their tackle.
Big nana,
Well, a little cut & they can be perfectly happy with themselves !

Dear Loudmouth,

What on earth has got your knickers in a knot this time? I can't make head nor tail of your post. All I know is you are having a whinge about something but for the life of me I can't work it out.

How about you tell the rest of us and let's see if we can make things a little better for you.

Hi SR,

I suppose I have an old-fashioned notion that male and female have different DNA, XY and XX, so different hormone-production systems, which can't be changed easily, if at all.

I was suggesting that a lot of us blokes, in our fantasies, would love to have access to women's change-rooms at will, but that most of us have enough respect for women that we really would not want to breach their privacy.

I suppose genuine transsexuals do exist but even they should have that respect and understanding for women who have female DNA and look like women, and would not wish to be intruded upon. If that's a problem for them, they don't have the right to satisfy their issues by intruding on women's rights: they should have the decency to find their own solutions without embarrassing or disadvantaging women. If that makes me a feminist, that's fine with me.

Similarly, I don't believe that so-called transsexuals should be able to join in female sports as athletes - as spectators, yes, since female sport is as exciting (and much more beautiful) as male sport.

You may not believe that women deserve that respect and privacy and exclusivity, but that's your right.

Joe

Hey Loudmouth,

'Intersectionality hasn't reached Peak Stupid yet. But it's getting close'

- Probably the most notable thing I heard today -
I'm interested in this 'Peak Stupid' concept.
How do we know when we've reached the top of the bell curve?

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/mdma-treatment-for-alcoholism-reduces-relapse-study-suggests/ar-AAG1Y8A

Hi AC,

The sheer brilliance and beauty of stupidity is that it may never reach Peak. Lots of fun for all ahead. Better than Australia's Home Videos, of blokes getting kicked in the nuts - so funny !

That study: wow, eleven people tested ? Only one relapse after a couple of months ? Well, there you go: make MDMA a prescription drug NOW !

Joe

As I see it the problem has always been, that someone actually listens to these freaks and by doing so is giving them the impression that their belief is a valid one, and by doing so allowing the freak to think he is justified in his belief.
What is wrong with this picture is that if the freak was told to shut up, go away, grow up, and don't be stupid, not necessarily in that order, he just might have been given a reality check and made him re-assess his stupid claim.
You see the fault is only half attributed to the freak.
The other half, is attributed to the public who don't have the guts to put these people in their place by instantly dismissing them with a flick of the hand and turning away and walking off.
Instead these gutless wonders facilitate these people and this in turn gives them the impetus to believe they are right and so carry on and become class A nuisances.
I mean really? C'mon, get a life, or at least grow up.

Joe,

Some ignorant people try to paint transgender people
as some sort of "freaks". They really are not.
It is a way for people that identify with their true
gender to live as themselves. Decades ago we had the
famous Carlotta of Les Girls in Sydney. More recently
we have Lieutenant Colonel Cate McGregor.

There's more about her on the link below:

http://npc.org.au/speakers/catherine-mcgregor/

Gender dysporia is real.

A mother of a five year old boy wrote on the web:

"Do we really want to live in a society that has
people suffering from anxiety attacks, self-harm or
suicide based on what we tell them is right?

How would any of us feel if we were told our five year
old child was cutting his penis off with a pair of
scissors and might kill himself in the future by a
doctor?

Are we that selfish that we'd rather have our child
dead than in a dress?

Grow up indeed!

cont'd ...

Joe,

Here's more on Carlotta:

http://www.carlotta.com.au

Foxy,

you sad and sorry deluded and mis-guided excuse of a person.
What an absolutely abhorant and vial thing to ask.
You show your true colours by coming up with these absolutely awful examples.
If you have to resort to this type of commentary to get recognition for your comments, I suggest you cease and desist.
As for your vial question, if someone is that sick, then I guess they are capable of doing anything, and by the way, they do.
If you are suggesting we encourage and facilitate such a person, five years old or not, they have the right to do what they want, who the hell are you to try to virtue shame us into approving something we clearly do not approve of.
So now as bent and twisted as your mind set has been thus far, you are now going to blackmail us into facilitating someone who is clearly mentally and emotionally disturbed, and no end of facilitating them is going to guarantee that they will not end up harming or topping themselves at any time down the line.
You have now hit a new low if you can't see the huge error of your little act of unprecedented stupidity.
"Climbing Mount Stupid", it appears the title is all yours.

ALTRAV,

You continue to exhibit an
irrational, inflexible attitudes toward not only
myself but entire categories of people. You continue
to display a distinctive set of traits, including
conformity, intolerance and insecurity, that seem typical
of many prejudiced people.

Reading your posts one gets the distinct impression that
you're highly disturbed
by any ambiguity in sexual or religious matters, and
you see the world in very rigid and stereotyped terms.

I suspect that you are a product of a family
environment in which your parents were cold, aloof,
disciplinarian, and themselves - bigoted.

I therefore can't really blame you for what you are.

You can't help being psychologically more prone to
prejudiced thinking - there's plenty like you on this
forum. However it makes it very difficult to inter-act
with people like you. Hence you don't get many responses
except for a few-like-minded people who tend to bother
with you. Most ignore you.

I shall continue to try to do that - although it becomes
difficult where you cross the line and feel that you've
"won" the argument.

Get it into your head - that for
you to win any argument or to be able to challenge anyone
in their views - people have to respect your opinion.
And that is very difficult to do when you continue to
exhibit your current mind-set and personality traits.

If you don't like what people think about you - you can always
improve.

cont'd ...

Transgender exists across countries and continents
and has appeared throughout human history.

Here is another link that gives a list of
famous transgender celebrities:

http://www.imdb.com/list/ls072599514/

Was Joan of Arc - transgender?

Foxy,

just because you are obsessed or possibly fascinated with the freaks and minorities of nature, does not mean the majority of society is or really gives a sh!t about them.
You must first come to terms with the fact that the majority of society has far greater, "real" problems to deal with, and only those like yourself, who have had the fortune of now living a life where you don't have to struggle or try to make ends meet, to just stay alive in todays demanding "rip-off" world, that can afford the 'luxury' of wasting time and energy on all these 'lost' causes you keep backing or promoting.
In your last response to me I noted, no real response or rebut to my submission, just a very long winded rant attacking me personally.
I keep telling everyone, as I recently heard someone say, I'm made of Teflon.
As you yourself pointed out, for me to be offended, I would need to believe the offender was credible and factual in their criticisms.
But most importantly, you are off topic, so unless you have a comment or reference to my being stupid, I think I'm only being led off the main track or 'down the garden path' by even responding to you.
But, as I have said previously, I will not allow mis-information to go un-challenged.
So in sticking to topic, by assuming the role of psychiatrist and expert in the field of family and social issues, you have and continue to demonstrate a very dangerous stereotypical self imposed, unfounded, know-it-all syndrome.
I am dis-appointed that in the time I have been interacting with you, I have been unable to convince you of the error of your ways.
Your continual promotion of all things irrelevant only add to your displaying signs of getting that award for "Climbing Mount Stupid".
But by all means don't listen to me and keep pushing these lost causes and one day, probably sooner than you think, you reach the summit of "Mount Stupid", and then you can be truly proud of having achieved something

ALTRAV,

You are in no position to speak on behalf of the
majority of society or any one else. You can only
speak on your own behalf.

I am not off topic - I am right on topic - and
I am fully entitled to challenge your mis-infomration
on the issue of transgender.

I fully agree - you do have a teflon brain
in that nothing sticks. But then that is your problem.

However as I stated earlier - if you don't like my
opinion of you - you can always improve.
And as for personal attacks?
You need to lead by example - before you get any
credibility in that area.

Foxy,

still you're wrong.
Unlike you I mix with ALL people, and have a much better and detailed knowledge of people and their opinions, than yourself.
By your own admission you have been a "bookworm" most of your life and your beliefs and attitudes demonstrate your lack of knowledge about the psyche of todays people.
You presume far too much, and view the world in terms of what it should be like or what YOU think it should be like.
And like a stubborn mule you refuse to believe that it's nothing like you say it is.
And worst of all you just refute whatever YOU decide, even though you produce NO evidence to challenge me or my comments.
You just keep speaking over the top of me/people as if you are the only one who knows what they're talking about.
And in nearly every case you're way off.
Try to answer the questions or respond to the comments for a change, and see if you can conjure up a thought or two of your own, without cutting and pasting, referencing or just plagiarizing for a change.
It is you who needs all the help and cred you can get.
And so as to clarify and put you straight on other issues, I am aware of what snowflakes and neuters call people with strong convictions and opinions, unlike themselves.
Again you don't listen, words like: racist, homophobic, you know, all the ones you lot throw around in a sick, futile and stupid attempt at virtue shaming someone.
You lot don't get it, to us they are just words and they might give you guys a raise, but they mean nothing to us, so keep it up, we like seeing just how many stupid people there really are, and just how stupid they are.

ALTRAV,

I have been an avid reader all of my life.
Yes that's true. I still am. But I am
not a "book-worm" by any stretch of the imagination.
A "book-worm" implies someone who's out of
touch with reality.

I have not only traveled widely and
worked and lived in many countries,but I
have had an extensive education both in
institutions of learning and hands-on experiences.
I've waitressed in restaurants as a student.
I've been a hostess in restaurants, I've worked
for the Brazilian Consulate at the Royal Easter
Show in Sydney,I've modeled,
I've worked in Special, Public,
Parliamentary, State and
University Libraries. I've run children's Story-time
Sessions and School visits. I've been an educator,
storyteller, writer, administrator, and much, much
more.

So all I can see to you is - Cheers, to the King of
Fools, from the Queen of Cools!

You have no idea what you're talking about or who you're
dealing with!

The broccoli says - I look like a small tree.
The mushroom says - I look like an umbrella.
The walnut says - I look like a brain.
And the banana says - Can we please change the
subject?

It's all a matter of perception.

Foxy,

so it appears once more you attempt to take the floor, and try to say you are not as stupid as you demonstrate.
Do you know the difference between intelligence and intellectual?
The general consensus is that one is intelligent if one achieves a high scholastic level or grades.
The truth is, it has nothing to do with brains or whether one is more or less stupid, it merely comes down to memory.
Now there is a fact/truth many people don't want to hear.
So you having done all these things you say, does not anoint you with the right to say you are qualified to comment, judge or give opinions on what the world or people should or should not do.
You browbeating and preaching falls moot, when considering the size of the population, the mindset, gullibility, naivety and general foibles of the people you are trying to affect.
You still have not given me anything to hang my hat on in the way of useful, viable information that helps us understand your reasoning.
You're making yourself look even worse by taking these cheap shots.
As I said, it doesn't bother me, but obviously, it bothers you.

ALTRAV,

Once again you totally misinterpret my attempt
at giving you just a small smattering of some
of my vast background information in response to
your calling me a "book worm". I was not attempting
to "take the floor." Merely set the record straight
for you.

Now in regards to intelligence and
a high scholastic level or grades
being a measure of someone's intelligence?

The skills required
to get an A grade in a university course on anatomy or
educational philosophy, are not the same as the skills
needed to deal with a medical emergency, or an unruly
junior high school class.

Most people pick up the necessary skills on the job not
in the classroom and the characteristics that make for
a successful career (such as initiative, leadership,
drive, negotiating ability, willingness to take risks and
persuasiveness) are not even taught in schools.

A higher credential or qualification
means higher earnings simply because of
the value job markets place on it.

Intelligence is often defined as the
general mental ability to learn and apply knowledge,
as well as the ability to reason and have abstract thought.

It also entails the ability to evaluate and judge, the
ability to comprehend complex ideas, and the capacity for
original and productive thought, the ability to learn
quickly, and learn from experience, and even the ability
to comprehend relationships.

I'm not in the habit of brow-beating or preaching. I do
however react to things I consider to be false, and
to misinformation being spread.

In any case, this is not some sort of competition as
to who's right or wrong. I've had my say on transgender.

You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to disagree with it.

Foxy,

a final word?
In your last post the last thing you said was;

"Your entitled to your opinion, as I am to disagree with it".

It turns out that is not quite true.
If it is simply an "opinion", meaning it is a subjective comment, then your statement might hold sway, because it is only an opinion and not a fact.
In my case I present objective submissions which are based on facts/truths.
These are subject to scrutinee as is the norm, but once scrutinised,and because it is derived from facts/truth, the submission is naturally found to be correct, and so you are NOT entitled to disagree with it.
Now I can finally see how your mind works.
You automatically refute any contrary submission to yours, without reason or question, then you proceed to overwrite your previous comment as if there had not been an objection to it.
That comes very close to what is called a denialist.
Whatever you are, you are too inflexible to converse with as you refuse to consider there are other ways of looking at things, not just your way.

ALTRAV,

What you have presented on transgender has merely
been subjective statements not objective reality.
Therefore all you've done is presented an opinion
to which I am entitled to disagree, and I have.

A fact is a statement that can be verified and proven
to be true. Opinion is an expression of judgement or
belief about something. Facts rely on research and
evidence - while opinions are based simply on assumptions.

All you've ever done since you've been posting on this
forum has been to present opinions based on your beliefs and
assumptions. You've never presented evidence to back up
your opinions. And your say so - does not count as evidence.

Foxy,

you generalise still.
If I do nothing but present subjective and unproven or untrue comments, it should be easy for you to give me just one example.
You have accused me of a very serious and uncharacteristic act I do not condone or practice, therefore I need to know where I have erred so I have the opportunity to put things right if so required.
Failing that, you might want to review your last posting and realise all that you accuse me of is in fact yourself that are GUILTY of.
I await your response as to YOUR choice of which comment I have erred.

ALTRAV,

You should go back and re-read your own posts and my responses
from page 2 onwards in this discussion. Not that it will
do any good because you as I stated earlier - see the world
through very rigid and stereotyped terms - and proclaim it
to be the "Truth." You refer to people as freaks, queers,
selfish maggots, and topics about our Indigenous people
as rubbish, and the list goes on.

Everything looks yellow to a jaundiced eye. As the saying goes.

However, as I told you earlier - you are entitled to your opinion.
Because it is merely an expression of judgement or belief.

I have no further interest in continuing this (or for that
matter any other) conversation with you. I have better things
to do with my time. Talk to your kindred spirits on this
forum. I'm sure you'll find a few around who will agree
with your version of the "Truth."

I'm not one of them.

Yeah, whatev.

What do intelligent readers think of changing personal pronouns to non-gender-biased ones like zhe or ze ? Is that yet another base-camp up Mt Stupid ?

Would the demand for an Indigenous 'Voice', without specifying what is meant, qualify as a step on the route up Mt Stupid ? Or the notion of treaties with all Indigenous 'nations', again without specifying what might be in such treaties ? Or the notion of Indigenous 'nations', meaning clans or 'mobs' ?

Maybe Stupid isn't a mountain, more like a limitless swamp ?

Joe

Joe,

Properly understood, the Uluru Statement simply offers
a way to recognise and empower the First Nations of
Australia to take responsibility for their affairs, while
upholding the Constitution, respecting Crown sovereignty
and unifying the country.

The details are to be worked out.

It's not a question of "climbing Mt Stupid," its a
question of resolving the unfinished business after
more than two centuries, and finding a rightful
place for Australia's original people.

Other nations have done it - but apparently it seems
to hard for some in this country - who apparently can't come
down from "Mount Stupid," and will never be able to.

They should simply be ignored and left to continue to
argue. The rest of the country will do what needs to
be done. As they did with same sex marriage.

cont'd ...

Joe,

Concealment makes a country a swamp.

Confession is how you drain it.

Foxy,

We haven't quite got to the base of Mount Stupid yet :)

People in communities already have responsibility for their own affairs (which they rapidly 'delegate' to whitefellas) - it's called ' self-determination'. They've had it for nearly fifty years now. So a 'Voice' is hardly likely to make any difference. Perhaps you can tell me how ?

I'm interested in the notion of local voices, regional voices, State/Territory voices, and eventually national voices - in the articulation of demands at one level, then at the next, and so on. In other words, lot of discussion at each level, starting at the local level, to clarify just what it is that different people want, and how to reconcile those conflicting demands.

Equality ? Already got it. Opportunity ? It's there if people want to grab it. So what then ?

Nations ? Then go ahead and identify them, delineate and differentiate them, sort out any boundary disputes, and work out what that all might mean in practical terms.

Treaties ? Then start putting down on paper, amid a multitude of arguments, what the hell people think should be in a treaty, or many treaties. A single treaty ? Many regional and local treaties ? Go for it: start putting the hard yards in to work out what the hell people can agree on - i.e. asking for what they don't already have, which is ..... ?

Sometimes I suspect that there is a sort of Never-Ending Ladder of Demands, none of which has been clearly thought out, but each of which, one by one, is going to be put forward to governments, more out of spite than need.

Meanwhile, huge problems will remain unattended out in remote and rural communities - at least, while they exist. Looking at the community featured in yesterday's Australian, Kintore or Walungguru, where the 'Voice' means nothing, its population nearly halved between the 2001 and 2016 Censuses. That's probably happening all over the North, the emptying of communities, while the urban elite fart around with a never-ending invention of symbolisms.

Joe

Loudmouth,

once more you rise to the occasion, and in so doing putting the 'deplorables' back in their box.
I wonder just how high Mount Stupid really is.
One thing I have heard speak of was the idea that now that the un-natural YES debacle has been approved, the notion of such people also seeking their own independence and self rule because only they know what it's like to be them, and they feel they are being disadvantaged and prejudiced against by having to live by the laws of straight people.
How many people predicted just how long this garbage would take before it began to smell.
Joe, what makes it so sick is that there are the sympathisers who by facilitating these idiots, are saying, 'it's OK, you're entitled to make stupid and outrageously unsociable and uncontionable demands.
These facilitators are dangerous, as they promote dis-unity in the community.
Instead of convincing these freaks to abide by the laws which apply to all citizens, equally, NO they encourage them to push for in-equality, as some kind of birth right, and to hell with the rest of us.

ALTRAV,

They are not seeking independence or self-rule.
Once again, know your facts before commenting.

They ask only to be heard in decisions made about
them. A practical reform. Not a veto, but a voice.
At present our Constitution confers upon Parliament a
special power to racially discriminate. Racially
discriminatory laws are permitted under the
Constitution.

The High Court has confirmed this.

In any case your comments really prove that your
opinions are not based on facts.

Joe,

Just letting you know that I won't be commenting
for a while because I'm going into hospital
tomorrow for surgery at 12 Noon. I'll be out
of commission for a while.

Take care.

Foxy, you of all people should know about comments NOT based on facts.
As Loudmouth has said a million times and you persist in ignoring his well researched and very knowledgeable comments and facts, that THEY already have more than THEY should and yet THEY still demand more.
You see Foxy, it is not the blacks who are pushing this massive heist, but the white trash, so gutless as to hide behind and use up the blacks into getting their hands on the monies and other benefits on offer.
Then along come the likes of you and bolster these con-men by pushing for the black fella, but you have no idea, the black fella gets none or very little of these benefits.
So it is people like you who have it all wrong, but because of your "well meaning" you are actually harming, by trying to help give the thieves more control over the blacks finances and therefore, well being.
Why don't you insist on the thieves being jailed and replaced by honest overseers, they are the problem, not more rights or money.
I'm sorry to say that self determination has also had flaws.
Good job Foxy, keep it up, I'm sure the black community already see through it, even though you don't.
Can't see them thanking you any time soon.

ALTRAV,

Joe's research has been predominantly to do with
the papers of the Protectors in South Australia
who were white men in charge of Aborigines. And
as Professor Robert Foster who specialises in
Aboriginal History at the University of Adelaide
has stated about Joe's work - he described is as
"simplistic" and although not untrue (from the
protector's point of view) it all depends on how
you "spin it."

Many people have argued with Joe over the many years
on this forum. You admire his work. Fair enough.
And I'm sure that he's done a great job. From the
white man's point of view.

The entire problem is that white Australians have always been
the prominent law-makers in our parliament, and they don't
enact laws that racially discriminate against themselves.
This may explain the rhetoric over practical measures
to ensure equality in practice.

White people's ancestors have never been denied equality on the
basis of "race" under Australian law, so their empathy for
discrimination against Indigenous Australians is lacking.

The Uluru Statement takes on board objections to a racial
non-discrimination clause, and calls instead for a First
Nation voice in laws and policies made about them as a
way of preventing repetition of past discriminatory policies.

Their proposal has a long history - they have argued for
decades for fairer representation in their affairs - A voice
in the Constitution would guarantee them a say, without
transferring power to the High Court, or undermining
parliamentary supremacy. It present a way of
improving Indigenous policy through early Indigenous
engagement, rather than subsequent litigation.

As I stated earlier I'm not really inclined to continue
this conversation. We're at opposite poles in our
thinking and I don't want to continue to explain things
to you.

So I shall walk away now - and wish you both well in
your dignified and respectful dialogues with those who
agree with your points of view. Keep on slavishly
congratulating those who have the wisdom to see things
your way.

OK, to the rest of the forum, I make this comment.
Seeing as one of the most unreasonable people on this medium will be unable to answer or comment, I take this opportunity to comment without the risk of stubborn and uncompromising rebuts.
I reject her continual promotion of an unrealistic and unpopular agenda.
If we are to accept these ridiculous contentions and submissions allowing the blacks anything that is not allowed to the rest of the people we will be discriminating against ourselves.
I don't care what you call it, if these demands are even partly met, it will set a dangerous precedent.
For example, we will have the Muslims suddenly apply for the same considerations as the blacks, as they feel aggrieved and discriminated against.
Then the flood gates will open, and every other race or creed saying they too have special needs and we, the white man do not understand their special needs so they have to self rule, and also have their voice in parliament, explaining and promoting their special needs.
If you think I'm exaggerating, just give in to these airheads like some here promoting these stupid demands, and wait and see.

Foxy,

Why do you assume that all Indigenous people will agree with each other ? Nobody else does. Can't you see that there is - and ought to be - a multitude of voices, in every community, town and city, across every region and State. I don't think that even the elites agree amongst themselves.

And of course, in a way, that's how it ought to be - the task should be to co-ordinate all of those conflicting opinions, facilitate their civil discussion, at local, regional, State and federal levels, over the next few years (since it will take that long to get all of this properly organised, even in ideal circumstances).

I don't think some pissy one-week road-trip by Linda Birney taught her anything. Of course, the elite want to push the myth that there is only one Indigenous Voice (i.e. theirs) when anybody in the business knows that that is a complete lie.

But keep pushing it, if you think it will tick the box of 'virtuous things to do'.

Joe

Loudmouth how very true problem is that may weaken the whole
Saw tree sit in near by as road works planned [long finished] went along to see and hear their case
Always interested and had mates in the local traditional owners
Turned out the sitters did not come from area or tribe, night time raid by locals blood spilled
No gains and trees came down
We will see a bill put before us and that vote will be important, if it fails it will be disastrous
Unity please

I had an argument with someone recently (what's new ?) about the herding of Aboriginal people onto Missions. I asked, "By who ?" [of course, it should have been 'by whom']. "By the missionaries," was the reply, sort of self-evident. I retorted very cleverly, "But missionaries were often on their own, trying to set up class-rooms, cottages, the store, their own house, etc., and in any case, there were no fences around Missions." In fact, quite often, people were expelled from missions on grounds of misconduct, attempted child abuse and adultery.

"Well, by the Protector then", came the easy response. This being South Australia, and since I'd typed up nearly seventy years' of the Protector's Letters here (available on my web-site: www.firstsources.info ), about nine thousand in all, I pointed out that the Protector was the only employee of the grandly-named Aborigines' Department. Sometimes there were part-paid people, often called Sub-Protectors, but usually he was it:

His main job was to supply up to seventy ration depots, usually on Missions, pastoral stations (and paid for entirely by the pastoral lessees), or under local coppers.

As well, he had to oversee the medical attention (free) in many regions for which doctors were paid annual stipends.

Plus, he had to organise free 15-ft boats and guns for many Aboriginal people who could no longer work. Plus oversee the issue of free travel passes on railways and ships. Plus meet people coming in to hospital, and organise their accommodation.

Probably the most valuable items issued at the depots were the fishing gear - lines, hooks and netting twine. This must have revolutionised Aboriginal fishing, from spears and rafts, to sitting on the bank in a blanket, just tossing a line in and chatting while they waited for a nibble - and of course, we forget that, in the early days, the rivers and seas were teeming with fish.

My acquaintance was not convinced. Clearly, he would rather have not had any evidence of the conditions of life for Aboriginal people in the early years of settlement. We haven't spoken since.

Joe

Loudmouth,
Rather than slowing down, this gravy train is gathering speed !

hello