OT GW

[terryc]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

* Garbage collection.
* Sewerage.
* Electricity.

All of which and much more has been paid for by taxation.
Dang, I get bills for those.

Are you just not reading the fine print?

 

[terryc]

who where wrote:

2. They (Verve in the case of W.A.) have estimated a minimum 8%
increase based on the *startup* tax rate. (And note that the tax will
increase yearly after its introduction.)

3. The S.A. government recently provided a figure of ~$2000 as the
average household annual electricity bill. (Mine here in Perth is
somewhat higher).

Was that all Carbon Tax, or did it include any infrastructure costs?

 

[terryc]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Their "guesses" (as you quaintly put it) are based on very extensive
research. Their "guesses" are now put at around 95% certainty.

I would be a lot happier if that wasn't almost all they had been looking
for in a lot of research in he last few decades.

Makes them as credible as looking for secret writing in the bible, war
and peace, etc, etc, etc

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/5/2011 1:07 PM, terryc wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

So, tell me? Who're you going to place YOUR health care opinions with?
Alan Jones or an 'expert' (aka: Your family GP)?

Well, frankly, as far as some experts go, listening to Alan Jones can
not be any worse. Many "medicial specialists" are just crowd followers
and faddist, even within their own field.

You have to educate yourself and decide what is working and what isn't.

**I've been using the same GP for more than 25 years. He has saved my
life a couple of times and has never steered me wrong in the area of
medical issues.

Like I said: I'll trust my GP. You can trust your local grocer if you
think that makes sense.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

kreed wrote:

I don't know about that, this Labor dictatorship would without a
Naah mate, we voted for it. Tony is just ranting because he wasn't

capable of making it happen. How many days has he had now to win a
no-confidence motion?

 

[terryc]

kreed wrote:

People didn't want a carbon tax, this was known, and was told loud
and clear to this government.

It was? IT WAS RIGGED. I didn't get asked.

 

[terryc]

Noddy wrote:

All an independent can ever hope to do is hope to hold the balance of
power as it's the only chance they ever have of getting what they want.
If they don't then they're on a completely irrelevant junket for as long
as they hold their seat.

Naah, whomever is wise and in government still sees value in giving to
independents. better to have the electors vote for the indepedent, tan
the opposition.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/5/2011 1:19 PM, kreed wrote:

On Dec 5, 9:06 am, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 12/5/2011 8:49 AM, Jeßus wrote:



On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 06:56:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 12/4/2011 11:56 PM, Noddy wrote:
On 4/12/2011 4:57 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What "scam" would that be?

The Global Warming one.

**Again: Citing Alan Jones as some kind of credible scientific source is
hardly appropriate. When the guys at CSIRO, NASA, The Australian Academy
of Science, the US National Academy of Science, the UK Met, The
Australian BoM, The French Academy of Science, the German Academy of
Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Royal
Danish Acadeny of Sciences and Letters, The Finnish Academy of Sciences
and Letters, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Society of Scotland, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, et al.
When all these guys (and a many more SCIENTIFIC organisations) tell us
that AGW is a "scam", then and only then, will I sit up and take notice.

I'll say again: Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, George Pell and yourself, have
zero credibility as climatologists.

The one were most of the "credible" scientists in England who have been
associated with it for a number of years are now largely in hiding after
it was recently revealed that their modelling was wrong (and they knew
it) and that their principal objective was to scare the shit out of the
public to ensure continued funding.

**Really? Of are you just accepting some out of context words, from
people who have a financial gain in perpetuating the digging up of
fossil fuels?

Don't forget your peer-reviewed science. Failure to present it will
result in you being called a laughing stock

Feel free to call me a laughing stock Trev. When you have people like
Bob Brown on your side I piss my pants all day long

**Make no mistake: Bob Brown is a politician. Bob Brown is NOT a
climatologist. I don't listen to Bob Brown. I listen to the scientists.
You listen to shock jocks. Wanna bet on who is right?

**Thanks to Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Bolt, et al, they already are.
Sadly, they're no better nor worse than any government that preceeded
them.

If Abbott lives up to his promise of abolishing the Carbon Tax when he
takes office at the next election he'll be better than most.

**Abbott has promised to eliminate a tax that will cost the average
punter less than $0.30/week. His tax will extract taxpayer funds and
give it to large companies in the hope that they will spend it wisely.
Abbott's tax will increase the size of the public service by many
thousands. Taxes will rise to accomodate his increased spending.

You tell me why you think that Abbott's completely discredited scheme
makes any sense at all. Are you an economist too? All the economists
have stated that Abbott's scheme will be costly and doomed to failure,
whereas the government's scheme will be relatively modestly priced and
will work.

Not that this will change you mind on any of this, but something worth
viewing nonetheless:
http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episode/the-trouble-with-experts.html

Torrent:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6862823/CBC_Doc_Zone_The_Trouble_With...
http://www.demonoid.me/files/details/2777785/005760348140/

**I haven't watched the video, but I did read the posted article. OK, so
you tell me:

* Do I ignore my mechanic, when he tells me that my car engine needs an
oil change? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
* Do I ignore my doctor, when he tells me that I should have a Sunspot
excised from my face? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
* Do I ignore Microsoft, when they tell me I need another 2GB RAm to run
Windows 7, 64bit correctly? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
* Do I listen to the climatologists, when they tell us that there is too
much CO2 in the atmosphere? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?

It's one thing to weigh up the opinions of people. It's quite another to
be presented with a very large amount of highly compelling data.

So, tell me? Who're you going to place YOUR health care opinions with?
Alan Jones or an 'expert' (aka: Your family GP)?

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

If the ABC bought and paid for news and current affairs programs say
there is man made global warming, because its being told by a bimbo
news announcer with no qualifications, that means I should ignore it
too ! Thanks for clarifying that Twever.

**Like I said: Ignore the opinions. Listen to the science. Learn the
difference, BEFORE you enter discussions with adults.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

kreed wrote:

This scam was a huge hit to humanity itself and just about everything
it had achieved.

Blink!. It hasn't cost me anything atm and I did get some nice, but
basic paid work out of it.

 

[kreed]

On Dec 5, 10:12 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 12/5/2011 11:03 AM, kreed wrote:



On Dec 5, 5:56 am, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 12/4/2011 11:56 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 4/12/2011 4:57 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What "scam" would that be?

The Global Warming one.

**Again: Citing Alan Jones as some kind of credible scientific source is
hardly appropriate. When the guys at CSIRO, NASA, The Australian Academy
of Science, the US National Academy of Science, the UK Met, The
Australian BoM, The French Academy of Science, the German Academy of
Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Royal
Danish Acadeny of Sciences and Letters, The Finnish Academy of Sciences
and Letters, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Society of Scotland, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, et al.
When all these guys (and a many more SCIENTIFIC organisations) tell us
that AGW is a "scam", then and only then, will I sit up and take notice.

I'll say again: Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, George Pell and yourself, have
zero credibility as climatologists.

The one were most of the "credible" scientists in England who have been
associated with it for a number of years are now largely in hiding after
it was recently revealed that their modelling was wrong (and they knew
it) and that their principal objective was to scare the shit out of the
public to ensure continued funding.

**Really? Of are you just accepting some out of context words, from
people who have a financial gain in perpetuating the digging up of
fossil fuels?

Don't forget your peer-reviewed science. Failure to present it will
result in you being called a laughing stock

Feel free to call me a laughing stock Trev. When you have people like
Bob Brown on your side I piss my pants all day long

**Make no mistake: Bob Brown is a politician. Bob Brown is NOT a
climatologist. I don't listen to Bob Brown. I listen to the scientists..
You listen to shock jocks. Wanna bet on who is right?

**Thanks to Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Bolt, et al, they already are.
Sadly, they're no better nor worse than any government that preceeded
them.

If Abbott lives up to his promise of abolishing the Carbon Tax when he
takes office at the next election he'll be better than most.

**Abbott has promised to eliminate a tax that will cost the average
punter less than $0.30/week. His tax will extract taxpayer funds and
give it to large companies in the hope that they will spend it wisely.
Abbott's tax will increase the size of the public service by many
thousands. Taxes will rise to accomodate his increased spending.

You tell me why you think that Abbott's completely discredited scheme
makes any sense at all. Are you an economist too? All the economists
have stated that Abbott's scheme will be costly and doomed to failure,
whereas the government's scheme will be relatively modestly priced and
will work. In fact, the government's scheme will likely have less than
25% of the impact on the economy that GST did. Did the GST destroy the
Australian economy? Why would you imagine that a scheme which has a far
smaller effect than the GST will cause the Australian economy any
serious effects?

We have no solid idea yet about the real effect of the GST as the
effects of it were masked by the housing boom
and the associated upturn in just about every business, as a flow on
effect from it.

**Bollocks. The results were felt almost instantly. And they were measured.



Now that that is over we shall see.  The basics are is that it is a
tax, and therefore state theft of private property without consent,
and that governments are only good at turning things to shit means
inherently overall it has to have a BAD effect.

**Then, perhaps, it is time for you to move to the Ivory Coast. No
taxation there. Enjoy your life. Me? I'll tough it out here in
Australia, where I can enjoy things like:

* Free medical care.

* Security.

Corrupt law enforcement and legal system that represents the state's
interests, does nothing to protect and in fact blatantly violates
my human rights or common law rigthts, involved in dealing drugs,
frequent bashings of innocent people
bribery, illegal falsified search warrants to critics of gov or police
(gold coast), pretty much no oversight or punishment
Selective justice and charges laid/not laid based on class, race etc ?
What planet do you live on ?

* A long, healthy life.

Mostly thanks to the benefits of electricity, and the invention of the
internal combustion engine allowing us affordable and fast transport,
plentiful and cheap (despite the coles/woolies duopoly trying to stop
this) easy moving around of food, fast access to medical care, and
relieving us from back breaking and costly manual labour and injury.

Take these things away, like the warmists and greens want to - and
watch over time longevity plummet.

* Freedom from being shot to death.

Rubbish
Removal of freedom to defend yourself from death or bodily harm by
preventing law abiding citizens from defending themselves, or owning
firearms
while criminals run around with them, leaving your protection (racket)
up to the authorities who will only "protect" you based on criteria
mentioned above, and will burn you if you are middle class and attempt
the slightest thing to protect yourself, your property or your
family.. You may be legally right, but you will probably lose your
home and savings trying to prove this, and everything if you fail.
It is a total joke and a greater threat than "criminals" going up
against an armed public.

* Freedom from being kidnapped.

Unless its by those in uniform.

* Garbage collection.

Could live without it, as it would be cheaper for me to take it to the
dump myself, rather than pay the mandatory garbage collection fee,
which I cannot opt out of

* Sewerage.

* Electricity.

Not relevant to taxation. Privatised and rapidly becoming
unaffordable to many

* Reasonable roads.

I'm glad you didnt say good roads

These could be paid for by fuel tax/excise and registration I'm happy
to pay my share of road costs as a road user, but most of the above
does not get spent on roads if you are outside the capital or major
areas, you are made to pay (often more due to distances you have to
travel) more but get less.
(fuel excise is probably a better option as it accurately represents
road usage.)

All of which and much more has been paid for by taxation.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

Bernd Felsche wrote:

* Oil is running out. If we have not already hit 'peak oil', then we're
not far from it.

The availability of oil has nothing to do with climate change.
Nor does anthroprogenic CO2.

Isn't that a logical fallacy?
We extract a massive amount of the carbon sunk into the earth over a
million(?) years and release it back into the atmosphere in just over
100 years. You do have to wonder if we haven't had some effect.

 

[kreed]

On Dec 5, 10:45 am, Noddy <m...@home.com> wrote:

On 5/12/2011 10:27 AM, kreed wrote:

IIRC from school history class, the one thing that made Nazi Era
scientific progress so incredibly rapid
was that scientists who showed promise in their theories/abilities
were allowed to do their research
and experiments on ANYTHING or anyone they wanted to without limits or
ethics being regarded, and with
virtually unlimited funding to go with it.

In a nutshell, yeah, and it created problems years later.

Thalidomide is a great example of that. It was used commonly in the
1950's as a drug to prevent the effects of morning sickness in pregnant
women until a startling number of birth defects were linked to it and it
was withdrawn. Yet the effects of Thalidomide were known prior to this
thanks to the Nazi's using the drug on human guinea pigs as part of
their horrendous "medical research" experiments during WWII.

The problem came about when deciding what to do with the results of the
Nazi experiments once the war was over.

The Germans, in their methodical way, kept very detailed records of
their research and it was clear to anyone who bothered to read it what
those results were. Yet the question became an ethical one, in that do
you profit from that research and use the information to your advantage
or do you write it off as a horrific part of history and respect the
victims by not making that information available?

The powers that be at the time chose the latter, with the result being
that a generation of post war people were left ignorant of the problems
resulting in thousands of victims that could have otherwise been avoided.

Of course, if they didn't show results, they probably got a train trip
to a camp.......

Probably, although I think near the end of the war when a state of
anarchic mayhem existed in Germany you only had to fart into the wrong
wind to be executed.

There was certainly a period where enough people who knew they were
doing the wrong thing had the opportunity to get out relatively safely
but chose not to.

Like Von Braun for example.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

If you take a look at the modern USA, it seems going down the same
path

Apart from trying to spy on and monitor everyone and anyone possible,
you recently got this "super congress" that is modelled on the Nazi
"enabling act" of the 30's and a couple of days ago this absolutely
chilling law
just passed by their congress that anyone SUSPECTED of being a
terrorist can be grabbed without warrant,
evidence or any due process and detained indefinitely,
probably in something like gitmo, or these overseas torture centres.

Bit rich considering there is an ever growing body of evidence that
the gov had quite a bit to do with causing 9/11 in the first place


Not to mention the molestations at the airports

Then in the USA we get these armed raids on people selling raw milk or
organic foods, (including Amish)
kids being prosecuted for having lemonade stands people arrested for
having a garden (vegetables, not illegal substances).
Google all this and be prepared for a shock,
if you aren't aware of it already




I think anyone who lives there, that can, should look seriously at a
plan to get out of there if the worst happens,
while they are still actually able to do so.

 

[kreed]

On Dec 5, 9:06 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 12/5/2011 8:49 AM, Jeßus wrote:



On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 06:56:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>  wrote:

On 12/4/2011 11:56 PM, Noddy wrote:
On 4/12/2011 4:57 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What "scam" would that be?

The Global Warming one.

**Again: Citing Alan Jones as some kind of credible scientific source is
hardly appropriate. When the guys at CSIRO, NASA, The Australian Academy
of Science, the US National Academy of Science, the UK Met, The
Australian BoM, The French Academy of Science, the German Academy of
Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Royal
Danish Acadeny of Sciences and Letters, The Finnish Academy of Sciences
and Letters, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Society of Scotland, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, et al.
When all these guys (and a many more SCIENTIFIC organisations) tell us
that AGW is a "scam", then and only then, will I sit up and take notice.

I'll say again: Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, George Pell and yourself, have
zero credibility as climatologists.

The one were most of the "credible" scientists in England who have been
associated with it for a number of years are now largely in hiding after
it was recently revealed that their modelling was wrong (and they knew
it) and that their principal objective was to scare the shit out of the
public to ensure continued funding.

**Really? Of are you just accepting some out of context words, from
people who have a financial gain in perpetuating the digging up of
fossil fuels?

Don't forget your peer-reviewed science. Failure to present it will
result in you being called a laughing stock

Feel free to call me a laughing stock Trev. When you have people like
Bob Brown on your side I piss my pants all day long

**Make no mistake: Bob Brown is a politician. Bob Brown is NOT a
climatologist. I don't listen to Bob Brown. I listen to the scientists..
You listen to shock jocks. Wanna bet on who is right?

**Thanks to Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Bolt, et al, they already are.
Sadly, they're no better nor worse than any government that preceeded
them.

If Abbott lives up to his promise of abolishing the Carbon Tax when he
takes office at the next election he'll be better than most.

**Abbott has promised to eliminate a tax that will cost the average
punter less than $0.30/week. His tax will extract taxpayer funds and
give it to large companies in the hope that they will spend it wisely.
Abbott's tax will increase the size of the public service by many
thousands. Taxes will rise to accomodate his increased spending.

You tell me why you think that Abbott's completely discredited scheme
makes any sense at all. Are you an economist too? All the economists
have stated that Abbott's scheme will be costly and doomed to failure,
whereas the government's scheme will be relatively modestly priced and
will work.

Not that this will change you mind on any of this, but something worth
viewing nonetheless:
http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episode/the-trouble-with-experts.html

Torrent:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6862823/CBC_Doc_Zone_The_Trouble_With...
http://www.demonoid.me/files/details/2777785/005760348140/

**I haven't watched the video, but I did read the posted article. OK, so
you tell me:

* Do I ignore my mechanic, when he tells me that my car engine needs an
oil change? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
* Do I ignore my doctor, when he tells me that I should have a Sunspot
excised from my face? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
* Do I ignore Microsoft, when they tell me I need another 2GB RAm to run
Windows 7, 64bit correctly? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
* Do I listen to the climatologists, when they tell us that there is too
much CO2 in the atmosphere? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?

It's one thing to weigh up the opinions of people. It's quite another to
be presented with a very large amount of highly compelling data.

So, tell me? Who're you going to place YOUR health care opinions with?
Alan Jones or an 'expert' (aka: Your family GP)?

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

If the ABC bought and paid for news and current affairs programs say
there is man made global warming, because its being told by a bimbo
news announcer with no qualifications, that means I should ignore it
too ! Thanks for clarifying that Twever.

 

[kreed]

On Dec 5, 8:39 am, John_H <john4...@inbox.com> wrote:

j...@nothome.com> wrote:
Post of 2012 Trev. Absolutely spot on in every respect mate.

Best arselick of the season as well!

LMAO

 

[Bernd Felsche]

terryc <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

Bernd Felsche wrote:

* Oil is running out. If we have not already hit 'peak oil',
then we're not far from it.

The availability of oil has nothing to do with climate change.
Nor does anthroprogenic CO2.

Isn't that a logical fallacy?

No. You should check what "logical fallacy" means.

We extract a massive amount of the carbon sunk into the earth over a
million(?) years and release it back into the atmosphere in just over
100 years. You do have to wonder if we haven't had some effect.

Most of the CO2 sequestred over the billions of years is in
carbonate rocks and sediments; not fossil fuels. That process of
sequestration continues today.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \ and postings | --HL Mencken

 

[Bernd Felsche]

terryc <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

Bernd Felsche wrote:

* Oil is running out. If we have not already hit 'peak oil', then we're
not far from it.

The availability of oil has nothing to do with climate change.
Nor does anthroprogenic CO2.

Isn't that a logical fallacy?
We extract a massive amount of the carbon sunk into the earth over a
million(?) years and release it back into the atmosphere in just over
100 years. You do have to wonder if we haven't had some effect.

The fallacy is, btw that you assume that CO2 is a primary driver of
climate. Data indicates that it hasn't been for a long time.

e.g.
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611002872>

A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude
aurora records and the global surface temperature

Nicola Scafetta

Abstract

Herein we show that the historical records of mid-latitude
auroras from 1700 to 1966 present oscillations with periods
of about 9, 10-11, 20-21, 30 and 60 years. The same
frequencies are found in proxy and instrumental global
surface temperature records since 1650 and 1850,
respectively, and in several planetary and solar records. We
argue that the aurora records reveal a physical link between
climate change and astronomical oscillations. Likely in
addition to a Soli-Lunar tidal effect, there exists a
planetary modulation of the heliosphere, of the cosmic ray
flux reaching the Earth and/or of the electric properties of
the ionosphere. The latter, in turn, has the potentiality of
modulating the global cloud cover that ultimately drives the
climate oscillations through albedo oscillations. In
particular, a quasi-60-year large cycle is quite evident
since 1650 in all climate and astronomical records herein
studied, which also include a historical record of meteorite
fall in China from 619 to 1943. These findings support the
thesis that climate oscillations have an astronomical
origin. We show that a harmonic constituent model based on
the major astronomical frequencies revealed in the aurora
records and deduced from the natural gravitational
oscillations of the solar system is able to forecast with a
reasonable accuracy the decadal and multidecadal temperature
oscillations from 1950 to 2010 using the temperature data
before 1950, and vice versa. The existence of a natural
60-year cyclical modulation of the global surface
temperature induced by astronomical mechanisms, by alone,
would imply that at least 60-70% of the warming observed
since 1970 has been naturally induced. Moreover, the climate
may stay approximately stable during the next decades
because the 60-year cycle has entered in its cooling phase.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \ and postings | --HL Mencken

 

[kreed]

On Dec 5, 12:10 pm, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:

kreed wrote:
We have no solid idea yet about the real effect of the GST as the
effects of it were masked by the housing boom
and the associated upturn in just about every business, as a flow on
effect from it.

Bullshit. for many items, there was absoltely no effect as GST just
replaced the impact of sales tax.


It wouldnt have happened unless it generated more tax

Now that that is over we shall see.  The basics are is that it is a
tax, and therefore state theft of private property without consent,

You voted, so you consented. Seriously, when did they ammend the
constitution so you had any say. This is australia mate, not the USofA.

I did not vote for it and did not consent.

 

[terryc]

kreed wrote:

Of course, if they didn't show results, they probably got a train trip
to a camp.......

Yep, it was often preceeded by no longer being flavour of the month,
then teir "jewish"* connection would be brough up and here is a free
train ride to new horizons.

*it was one area where jewish ancestry/connections mattered little.

 

[Noddy]

On 5/12/2011 12:45 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

BTW: The theory of human induced global warming is not a new idea. It
was first theorised well over 100 years ago. Over the last 100 years,
mounting evidence has eradicated oposition to the theory. Except by
people like Alan Jones, George Pell and Nick Minchin. Of course, those
guys are ignorant of science.

Um, excuse me....

The "evidence", such as it is, has led some to put forward a theory that
is in no way conclusive.


--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Noddy]

On 5/12/2011 12:42 PM, terryc wrote:

Umm, John howards Malaysia solution was to take those with money, make
them do a 6 months course and them give them permanent residency no
questions asked.

Even if that was *remotely* true, I'd much rather that than the
situation as it currently is.


--
Regards,
Noddy.