NSW/SYD: banning colours

bet you a packet of trumps cards, your not

 

PostmanPat wrote:

There were a couple of devices on that ad, that i'll love to get a go at
driving/riding.

BTW, it starts out with the thingy that was before the Z50.....

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Of course not, Bogan's need lovin too!

Boxer

 

G-S wrote:

...and, if they are a 1%er, they will be discriminated against, but
<shrug> that's OK.

That's OK 'cos everyone knows they're bastards.

It's OK 'cos they are really guilty of something, just the cops can't
actually prove it.

That's OK, 'cos they are really nasty folk, they pull the wings off 747s
just for fun.

Crap.

In my limited interactions with members of the various "outlaw" groups,
I can only say that they have always behaved perfectly civilly to me.

Now, if there was a way of keeping the folk I don't like out of the pubs
and hotels, I could be persuaded to go for discrimination, but picking
out advertising executives and politicians is almost certainly too hard
for the bouncers.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Well, for starters I know when, where and how to use an apostrophe. You
clearly do not.

 

Ditto in my experience also.

The ones you can prove have done something wrong certainly deserve to
have the book thrown at them. But the rest deserve the same rights and
protections and liberties as the rest of us, until such time as it can
actually be PROVEN that they have in fact - and in their own right -
done such crimes as would warrant such a response.

 

Thank christ for that
last thing that I would want is to have an arguement with myself

Then again, maybe I would

no I wouldn't, I might lose

 

It's scary that I'm agreeing with you on something, but yes, I suspect
the key knowledge gap isn't going to be who *isn't* someone on the
banned list, I suspect it's going to be who SHOULD be refused and
isn't going to be.

JL

Christ John don't start agreeing with me, others will start talking

 

Right, quick aside here, sorry..... tl? dr?? My net-illiteracy is showing, I
know.... same thing when Gerry says that thing that he often says, what is
it?- g,d,r ???

Please???? some kind soul....heeelp! I am in need of enlightenment in order
to enjoy the total usenet experience <snigger>

betty

 

Your comment is yet another example of a sadly widespread lack of
knowledge of the history of our own language and culture. Not that it
generally suits popular stereotypes to admit such things. After all, if
people didn't have what they thought was a good excuse to beat up on the
yanks, what would they do with their time then?

 

I don't think such technicalities really bother him all that much, from
the many similar comments he has made. He must really miss the "good old
days".

 

At that time I had a bloke in a pub pick me for a blue. It was the
publican...

 

Glad that someone else sees the elephant in the room...

 

They can start with anyone wearing a suit and failing the 'language test'. I
propose the language test as being "Gidday mate, how're ya doin?" If the
response exceeds 10 words, the respondent is likely to be one of the target
group. If the words 'opposition', 'labor', or 'liberal' are included, shoot
the politician.

Theo

 

Damien, it is patently unfair to pick on a copper's grammatical skills in
this ng.

Theo
What the hell are 'trumps cards'?

 

Put me down on that side of this fence. If I find myself in a pub with
people I find offensive (eg. Cam's politicians) I have the choice to leave
or stay. Not the right to have them ejected.

Theo

 

I had Betty's reaction. tl;dr? What the **** was that? GB speak?

Theo

 

Yes, I noticed some very large grey areas.

My version of the Mickleberg saga.
Some gold goes missing. The Mickleberg brothers look to fit the part. Two
coppers take one of the brothers to Belmont police station for a chat. This
is a large metro police station which is somehow empty at this time, except
for the OIC, who appears to have been deaf, and who later enters politics
and becomes Minister of Police. Two coppers 'question' the brother, after
removing his clothes. Bother confesses. Brothers are convicted on police
verbal evidence and signed confession, and spend some years in gaol. The
signed confession was purported to be a blank piece of paper at the time of
the signing. Writing experts later agree to this in court. Much later one of
the two coppers confesses to the circumstances of the 'questioning', the
'confession' and the 'evidence' given in court, then commits suicide. (The
police decided it was suicide?) The other of the two coppers retires to a
small pub in a town called nowhere, far from anywhere. A few passing 1%ers
stop in for a drink, say a few words to the barmaid who is ex-coppers
daughter. Ex-copper is offended, tells them to leave. They leave and camp
outside town. Whilst sitting around their campfire one of them is fatally
shot. Wasn't me, said the ex-copper in a town with a population of less than
20 people. Police dept fails to lay any charges against anyone. Ex-copper
goes to the horse races in Perth. Short time later a bomb explodes under his
car. No-one has been able to figure out who did it. Local coppers and the
shortly-to-be-ex-minister-of-police have a celebration party. This week WA
gov't gives the remaining two brothers $1.5M. Police union compains that the
terms does not prevent the brothers from taking further legal action against
individual policemen involved.

OK, I made up bit about the party, but yes, a whole room full of elephants
in blue. If you made this shit up into a movie people would say it's too
far-fetched.

We have great deal of respect for, and trust in, our coppers here in the
West. The recent news out of Vic suggests the same blue crew is running the
place there.

Theo

 

You've totally fugged up the attributions there mate. Must have been that
vomiting into the wind. And apart from that we've already mentioned the Blue
Gang several times.

Watch that wind!

Theo

 

With all due respect, Johno...but here's a big WHOOOOSH, just for you.

The particular time period was relevant on in terms of framing when the
events occurred, and otherwise don't really matter too much to the point
at hand.

That point being that the much decried "Americanisms" were in fact
originated by the ENGLISH themselves. We only see them as American today
because the English decided to instead abandon their own reforms and
adopt "Frenchisms" instead.

The other point of considerable importance is that anyone who declares
in absolute terms that someone is wrong to use "color" instead of
"colour" (or vice versa) is simply demonstrating ignorance of the
processes and history of language evolution. They certainly are by no
means correct themselves, despite the bigotry on which they base their
assertions.