honez

I think "stupid" and "bigoted" are excellent terms for people who hijack the term "traditional family values" and use it to describe behaviour that is intrinically mysogenistic, racist and xenophobic. Traditional family values do not promote hate, intolerence and subjegation. I maybe incorrect, but doesn't this go against the grain for Christian values too?

You appear to have totally missed the point of my earlier posts. Australia voted to retain its status quo over one republican model. This was the only unpalatable choice offered by the PM. And not by much either. Australia in no way stated (or was offered) the choice of becoming a republic over a constitutional monarchy. If we were given that one choice, the result would have been a resounding yes in favour of standing on our own minus the foreign monarchy. You seem to think the issue has ben settled once and for all because of the rigged referendum. Thankfully I doubt that this is case.

So. Are you sure you still want an elected Head of State? Absolutely. Elected by us, not one appointed by HRH as her proxy. If we stuff it up and put some pillock in the position, at least it'll be our mistake. What kind of head of State are you after? Would it be like a US President - or would it just be like an elected Governer General? Or doesn't it matter - as long as they are of Australian birth? My personal preference would be for a GG type rather than President, but that's not the most important thing. I think that as a nation, we should get to decide whether we should have one foisted on us, or have one of our own choosing. If we choose the latter, it is then that we should get to decide what kind of model would suit best and agree an orderly hand over from one to the other. That would be the most civilised way about it, rather than the last debacle, which was akin to being asked whether you've stopped beating your wife.

So. Are you sure you still want an elected Head of State? Absolutely. Elected by us, not one appointed by HRH as her proxy. If we stuff it up and put some pillock in the position, at least it'll be our mistake.

Clearly we disagree on the reason why it failed. If no-one except a few fanatical tossers saw the need for change, then why was a (rigged) referendum required in the first place? We also disagree on who the tossers are here. And I'd agree with your last sentence if you changed the word Australian to English.

The real reason the referendum failed to get the required votes was due to the (monarchist) PM. He wrote the preamble to define the contect of the referendum and set the question itself. He was very sly in his wording, phrasing it so that the choice the people were given was pretty much "Do you want this particular model of a republic? Y/N" The model that was offered was one of a number that were being touted as potentials, but, in my opinion, not the best or most popular option. The PM did what he did best, and weaseled his way out of a bad situation by pitting his opponents against themselves, instead of addressing the fundamental issue. Playing politics for their own gain is arguably something the Howard government excels at, which almost always isn't in the public's interests. Had Howard asked A. Do you want a republic Y/N? B. Do you want this particular model Y/N? Australia would have been rid of QEII a long time ago. Come the revolution brother...

I believe wine drinking is quite prevalent within the bible and there was an awful lot of begatting going on, suggesting that sex and alcohol weren't/aren't considered sins.

No, but feel free to have a go at the poms.

Oh do shut up Star Crossed. If you're going to attempt to drag the list down to your level, don't hide behind anonymity.

I thought it was Spanish for Jones. I must be loco. I somehow got the same idea. Can't think how that could have happened; I must be loco as well.(We have something in common, G5000 - let's get married! ) Were you both pronouncing the z as a "th" because that's how I've been saying it too. I think I got the pronunciation about right but I always though of it as an odd/foreign (Spanish for some unknown reason) way of saying Jones! Notapotato used to address Honez as Hones on occasion. I think that's where I got the idea from. Ai Carumba, you lot may be onto something.

People who pronounce Honez as though it's something to do with Honey. It's not. It's Ho (as in Santa) Nezz (as in Mr Nesbit).

Eh? Our guest was posting from IoM, so I thought the said regular would be you.

A fascinating semi-autobiographical whimsy, no doubt Mr Godot. I much enjoyed it.

Jesus Christ, no. Being Pastafarian, I support equal opportunity religion-bashing. I wasn't aware they were. What percentage are we talking about here? Probably less than the Christians on the list, but we've never been accused (okay, rarely) of being anti-Christian. Obviously not if you thought it was anti-Semetic. I'd have a word with Handrejka about it and she'll sort you out.

And I suppose all women should be chained to the sink, barefoot and pregnant. What a quaint view of life you have. Hardly. They should know their rightful place in society that's all and that's NOT being leaders! Why not? They could hardly do any worse than the ones we've got asleep at the wheel at the moment. You'd not be part of the Julia-Gillard-for-PM support team then, X II?

You surely are a man of wisdom and vision, RA. I wonder if HRH Mrs Windsor will bestow an Order of Australia on Mr Ponting in the New Year's honours list.

Wow, very impressive Captain. Thanks.

Cheers one and all. Still suffering from the after effects of birthdayeve celebrations. So much so, I fear I shall have to go and have a bit of a lie down.

Never having had the pleasure and knowing little about this amazing construction, tell me, it doesn't leak does it? Only a little bit, when you sneeze

It should make for an interesting day on a bowler's wicket...

But, I notice, you didn't knock back enhancing your performance to satisfy your woman completely....

... Implying that you believe that the Christian Bible is not fiction and therefore literal fact. Uhm, which version of the Bible would that be? Or are all the different ones equally as factual as each other? King James Version of course. I believe all more modern versions are corrupted, especially the New International (Per)Version. So, the version put together hundreds and hundreds of years after the original two-volume tome, translated from Hebrew and whatever else, into Latin, into English is really the literal word of God. The earlier ones were fiction (as opposed to fact) which somehow transmogrified into the one-and-only true word of God as he originally intended. Yeah, right.

... Implying that you believe that the Christian Bible is not fiction and therefore literal fact. Uhm, which version of the Bible would that be? Or are all the different ones equally as factual as each other?

Happy Birthday Boudicca!

[rant] According to you, because I am not German, I should not think ill of Hitler and his final solution. Because I am not Russian, I should not trouble myself with Stalin's methods. Because I am not American, I should not be concerned about Bush's Guantanamo Bay detainment camp. Because I am not Chilean, I should not express my ideas about Pinochet. Because I am not you, I will make my own mind up about what concerns me and whether I am allowed to discuss it or not. And when I am instructed that something doesn't concern me, it does. [/rant]