Rod Speed
in [Computers]
|
Prev: Go wii
Next: Email response management software
From: Ned Latham on 3 Jan 2010 20:25 annily wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > annily wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- > > > > "Democracy" has a very clear and precise definition: it means > > > > "the people rule"; it does *not* mean "the people get to choose > > > > which gang of crooks and liars *rule them* for the next term of > > > > office". > > > > > > > > This country is not a democracy: "the people rule" means, essentially, > > > > that every citizen is a partner in the governance of the nation, but > > > > we the people have virtually no say on any issue whatever. For example, we > > > > had no say in it when the government gave themselves the power to use > > > > the Army against us, and we had no say in it when the government gave > > > > themselves the power to make us disappear. > > > > > > > > This country is not a democracy: we the people have virtually no say > > > > in what the law is, what treaties bind us, or even in the running of > > > > our daily lives. This country is an elective oligarchy and a tyranny. > > > > > > Your definition of "democracy" is too narrow. Here is the full entry > > > from the Macquarie Dictionary, Third Edition: > > > > Two things: > > > > 1. Dictionaries describe popular use of words. They do not prescribe > > them definitively. > > > > And this is not about "definitions" arrived at by accepting misuses > > of words. This is about what democracy really is. > > > > (In case you're interested, democracy was invented, and "democracy" > > was coined, 2,620 years ago, in Athens.) > > What the Ancient Greeks called democracy is irrelevant. Wrong. They who invented it are the ones who get to define it. > If you want to > win an argument legitimately, you have to use what is understood by the > word now, You can eat your weaselling words. I am using the accepted meaning in terms of politcial science, which is appropriate given that the subject is political; there is no good reason to replace that firm definition with a local misunderstanding of the term. I repeat: this is not about "definitions" arrived at by accepting misuses of words. > otherwise people won't know what you are talking about. Your own source gave my definition. See 3. > You can win any argument with your own understanding of words. You will not win this one by accusing me falsely. I told you to look up the terms "elective oligarchy" and "tyranny". As to "democracy", you should look that up too, in a prescriptive source. > > 2. The Macquarie is heavily influenced by political correctness. > > > > You have chosen a flawed authority. > > LOL. We are in an group intended for Australians, talking about the > policical system in Australia, and you don't recognise the commonly- > accepted authority on Australian English. Wrong. I recognise it for what it is: a flawed authority. > > > democracy > > > /duh'mokruhsee/ > > > > Wrong. It is de'mokruhsee. > > Not in Australia. Wrong. *I* am Australian. > The first vowel is a schwa. As in Uh-limpik, uh-lection, uh-legal, and other cretinous mispronunciations pushed at us from the idiot box? Forget it: I'm an Australian, not an idiot. > > > noun > > > (plural democracies) > > > 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme > > > power is vested in the people and exercised by them > > > > Your carping and flawed definition are the irrelevancies here. > > > > This country is not a democracy: it is an elective oligarchy, and > > if you google that term (which is absent from the Macquarie), you > > will find a description that matches the political system here. > > You don't seem to realise that it is both a democracy and an "elective > oligarchy". The terms are not mutually exclusive, except by your > out-of-date and no-longer-widely-used meaning of "democracy". Wrong. "Oligarchy" means "the rule of the few": it can in no way be associated with democracy. Try to understand this: elections do not democracy make. > > Similarly. you will find that "tyranny" matches the reality here. > > Rubbish. If you really think Australia is a tyranny, move to a country > that really is. Rubbish yourself. If you think that Australia is *not* a tyranny, answer the question you surrepttiously snipped: What is democratic about the power of the Attorney-General to order the spooks to make anyone he chooses disappear? Ned Latham
From: SG1 on 3 Jan 2010 20:30 "Ned Latham" <ned(a)woden.valhalla.oz> wrote in message news:slrnhk2gs2.joa.champ(a)woden.valhalla.oz... > annily wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >> > annily wrote: >> > > Ned Latham wrote: > > ----snip---- > >> > > > "Democracy" has a very clear and precise definition: it means >> > > > "the people rule"; it does *not* mean "the people get to choose >> > > > which gang of crooks and liars *rule them* for the next term of >> > > > office". >> > > > >> > > > This country is not a democracy: "the people rule" means, >> > > > essentially, >> > > > that every citizen is a partner in the governance of the nation, >> > > > but >> > > > we the people have virtually no say on any issue whatever. For >> > > > example, we >> > > > had no say in it when the government gave themselves the power to >> > > > use >> > > > the Army against us, and we had no say in it when the government >> > > > gave >> > > > themselves the power to make us disappear. >> > > > >> > > > This country is not a democracy: we the people have virtually no >> > > > say >> > > > in what the law is, what treaties bind us, or even in the running >> > > > of >> > > > our daily lives. This country is an elective oligarchy and a >> > > > tyranny. >> > > >> > > Your definition of "democracy" is too narrow. Here is the full entry >> > > from the Macquarie Dictionary, Third Edition: >> > >> > Two things: >> > >> > 1. Dictionaries describe popular use of words. They do not prescribe >> > them definitively. >> > >> > And this is not about "definitions" arrived at by accepting misuses >> > of words. This is about what democracy really is. >> > >> > (In case you're interested, democracy was invented, and "democracy" >> > was coined, 2,620 years ago, in Athens.) >> >> What the Ancient Greeks called democracy is irrelevant. > > Wrong. They who invented it are the ones who get to define it. > >> If you want to >> win an argument legitimately, you have to use what is understood by the >> word now, > > You can eat your weaselling words. I am using the accepted meaning in > terms of politcial science, which is appropriate given that the subject > is political; there is no good reason to replace that firm definition > with a local misunderstanding of the term. > > I repeat: this is not about "definitions" arrived at by accepting misuses > of words. > >> otherwise people won't know what you are talking about. > > Your own source gave my definition. See 3. > >> You can win any argument with your own understanding of words. > > You will not win this one by accusing me falsely. I told you to look up > the terms "elective oligarchy" and "tyranny". As to "democracy", you > should look that up too, in a prescriptive source. > >> > 2. The Macquarie is heavily influenced by political correctness. >> > >> > You have chosen a flawed authority. >> >> LOL. We are in an group intended for Australians, talking about the >> policical system in Australia, and you don't recognise the commonly- >> accepted authority on Australian English. > > Wrong. I recognise it for what it is: a flawed authority. > >> > > democracy >> > > /duh'mokruhsee/ >> > >> > Wrong. It is de'mokruhsee. >> >> Not in Australia. > > Wrong. *I* am Australian. > >> The first vowel is a schwa. > > As in Uh-limpik, uh-lection, uh-legal, and other cretinous > mispronunciations > pushed at us from the idiot box? > > Forget it: I'm an Australian, not an idiot. > >> > > noun >> > > (plural democracies) >> > > 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the >> > > supreme >> > > power is vested in the people and exercised by them >> > >> > Your carping and flawed definition are the irrelevancies here. >> > >> > This country is not a democracy: it is an elective oligarchy, and >> > if you google that term (which is absent from the Macquarie), you >> > will find a description that matches the political system here. >> >> You don't seem to realise that it is both a democracy and an "elective >> oligarchy". The terms are not mutually exclusive, except by your >> out-of-date and no-longer-widely-used meaning of "democracy". > > Wrong. "Oligarchy" means "the rule of the few": it can in no way be > associated with democracy. Try to understand this: elections do not > democracy make. > >> > Similarly. you will find that "tyranny" matches the reality here. >> >> Rubbish. If you really think Australia is a tyranny, move to a country >> that really is. > > Rubbish yourself. If you think that Australia is *not* a tyranny, answer > the question you surrepttiously snipped: > > What is democratic about the power of the Attorney-General > to order the spooks to make anyone he chooses disappear? > > Ned Latham Why is Rod still here???? Just thought I might readdress the original Q.
From: Ned Latham on 3 Jan 2010 20:58 SG1 wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- Please - *anyone* who thinks that Australia is a democracy - feel free to answer: > > What is democratic about the power of the Attorney-General > > to order the spooks to make anyone he chooses disappear? > > Why is Rod still here???? Just thought I might readdress the original Q. He's pretty good at dealing with Winblows problems. Not sure he qualifies for Australian HoS, but. Ned
From: Ned Latham on 3 Jan 2010 20:56 SG1 wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- Please - *anyone* who thinks that Australia is a democracy - feel free to answer: > > What is democratic about the power of the Attorney-General > > to order the spooks to make anyone he chooses disappear? > > Why is Rod still here???? Just thought I might readdress the original Q. He's pretty good at dealing with Winblows problems. Not sure he qualifies for Australian HoS, but. Ned
From: z1 on 4 Jan 2010 00:55
Ned Latham wrote: > SG1 wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: > > ----snip---- > > Please - *anyone* who thinks that Australia is a democracy - feel free > to answer: > >>> What is democratic about the power of the Attorney-General >>> to order the spooks to make anyone he chooses disappear? >> Why is Rod still here???? Just thought I might readdress the original Q. > > He's pretty good at dealing with Winblows problems. Not sure he qualifies > for Australian HoS, but. > > Ned Rod is OK and he might make a good AU Prez. The Office often makes The Man. At least he tries to be helpful here in his own perfectly fine eccentric way. So why shoot The Messenger ? Happy New Year Rod. :) |