Ostraya, Ostraya, Ostraya, Ostraya, We Love You, Amen!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Speaking of Werribee, doesn't this promotional poster make you want to go to Mynt?!

9eae80d9.jpg
 
What I find funny is all the performing names with what towns they are from :laugh:

ORLY? I thought they were names of individual members and the hip-hop group names were the parentheticals. Shows what a non-Aussie knows.
 
Not a fan of Joe Hildebrand? (He just followed me on Twitter too, woop!!)

That article you posted above... is it basically saying that the ABC is pandering to conservatives with incorrect views on gay marriage, refugees, climate change, etc, because it was intimidated into thinking it was too left-leaning? Because if so, I'm not sure I like it too much. I'm left, but Q&A would get pretty boring pretty quickly if they had a panel of five lefties with "correct" views on such topics.
 
Not a fan of Joe Hildebrand? (He just followed me on Twitter too, woop!!)

I have genuinely no idea who he is. I was just going by the headline and the fact it was from the Daily Telegraph, both good reasons to set expectations low.

That article you posted above... is it basically saying that the ABC is pandering to conservatives with incorrect views on gay marriage, refugees, climate change, etc, because it was intimidated into thinking it was too left-leaning? Because if so, I'm not sure I like it too much. I'm left, but Q&A would get pretty boring pretty quickly if they had a panel of five lefties with "correct" views on such topics.

I don't think that's what it's saying at all. Really, it's just another piece on the problem with "balance" in journalism, but with a good Aussie example. The key phrases to me are that the media "could, and should, act as gatekeepers — ignoring charlatans and snake oil salesmen", but that "sometimes inaccurate and often ultra-conservative views [are given] more credence than they deserve". The ABC, demonised in the Howard years as so left wing, now routinely has far right crackpots like Clive Palmer on Q&A (on what planet does he have the intellectual capacity to justify a Q&A appearance anyway?!), but never even finds somebody - sane or crazy - from the far left. For instance, with so much discussion on the Occupy movement, where are the Occupiers? Balance now just seems to be appeasing our increasingly large lunatic right wing fringe by letting them spout off factually inaccurate and hateful rhetoric. It's not about deciding who has got the "correct" view, really; it's about accurately representing the debate rather than just loading it with nutters who, since they have media connections, can mouth off about "zomg left wing bias" if they aren't invited often enough to satisfy their ego.

That awful doco about "I Can Change Your Mind About Climate Change" is another case in point. A truly balanced doco would NOT have a 50/50 divide between whatever that chick's name was and Nick Minchin. No less than 97% of climate scientists accept anthropogenic climate change. An hour long show would give less than a minute to the nutters who reject climate change and focus upon the lively debate amongst the overwhelming majority of scientists who do accept it - what to do, how to manage it, specifics of how it was caused, what the data indicates for the future, etc.
 
Regarding the climate change thing, I'm going to a public talk/lecture tonight about the science behind anthropogenic climate change. Should be interesting.
 
Still can't afford a moustache trimmer.

Or a stylist of any description.

Seriously, if I saw her on the street, I'd just assume she was on her way to Centrelink. (She probably would be, actually, but to buy it and its vast stock of potential mining employees.)
 
Here's a bit of fun. An Australian logic problem.

There are 5 houses of 5 different colours. In each house lives a person from a different state in Australia. the 5 owners drink a certain type of beverage, support a certain football club, and have a phobia of one certain indigenous animal. No two owners support the same club, drink the same beverage, or have the same fear.
The question is: Who's afraid of the platypus?

Your clues:

1. The Brisbanite lives in the green house.
2. The Tasmanian supports St. Kilda.
3. The Melburnian drinks Carlton Draught.
4. The purple house is to the left of the red house.
5. The owner of the purple house drinks coffee.
6. The person who's afraid of redbacks supports Richmond.
7. The owner of the orange house is afraid of kangaroos.
8. The man living in the center house drinks water.
9. The Adelaidean lives in the first house.
10. The man who's afraid of koalas lives next to the Hawthorn supporter.
11. The man who's supporting Essendon lives next to the man who's afraid of kangaroos.
12. The owner who's afraid of kookaburras drinks tea.
13. The Western Australian supports Geelong.
14. The South Australian lives next to the blue house.
15. The man who's afraid of koalas has a neighbour that drinks wine.

Have fun.
It's been a week. Here's the solution (spoilered for those who are still figuring it out):

House 1 is an orange house occupied by a South Australian who barracks for the Hawthorn Hawks, drinks wine, and is afraid of kangaroos.

House 2 is a blue house occupied by a Victorian who barracks for the Essendon Bombers, drinks beer, and is afraid of koalas.

House 3 is a green house occupied by a Queenslander who barracks for the Richmond Tigers, drinks water, and is afraid of redbacks.

House 4 is a purple house occupied by a Western Australian who barracks for the Geelong Cats, drinks coffee, and is afraid of platypi.

House 5 is a red house occupied by a Taswegian who barracks for the St Kilda Saints, drinks tea, and is afraid of kookaburras.

So, how'd you do? :wink:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom