"The End Of The World Is Just The Beginning" by Peter Zeihan.
It's a hard read, a really hard read, but it explains much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can afford
it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can afford
it?
On 12/02/2026 9:27 am, Xeno wrote:
"The End Of The World Is Just The Beginning" by Peter Zeihan.
It's a hard read, a really hard read, but it explains much.
What's the matter - too many words, and not enough pictures?
On 12/02/2026 9:27 am, Xeno wrote:
"The End Of The World Is Just The Beginning" by Peter Zeihan.
It's a hard read, a really hard read, but it explains much.
What's the matter - too many words, and not enough pictures?
On 12/02/2026 6:30 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 12/02/2026 9:27 am, Xeno wrote:
"The End Of The World Is Just The Beginning" by Peter Zeihan.
It's a hard read, a really hard read, but it explains much.
What's the matter - too many words, and not enough pictures?
Do you have to ruin every thread and subthread with your pathetic
impotent attacks?
On 11/02/2026 8:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
Swallowing Sky "News" biased bullshit wholesale without so much as a factcheck... good god you are naive and stupid.
They sure know know how to reach their target audience of old senile
biased irrelevant boomers.
On 12/02/2026 6:30 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 12/02/2026 9:27 am, Xeno wrote:
"The End Of The World Is Just The Beginning" by Peter Zeihan.
It's a hard read, a really hard read, but it explains much.
What's the matter - too many words, and not enough pictures?
Do you have to ruin every thread and subthread with your pathetic
impotent attacks?
On 12/02/2026 11:20 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 11/02/2026 8:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
Swallowing Sky "News" biased bullshit wholesale without so much as a
factcheck... good god you are naive and stupid.
They sure know know how to reach their target audience of old senile
biased irrelevant boomers.
Editorial from the group's resident Commodore driving munt.
On 11/02/2026 10:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bcPersonally, I wouldn't trust anything from Sky News, it's our version of
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
Fox News. You just have to look at their presenters, they make Pauline Hanson look like a leftie.
On 12/02/2026 11:20 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 11/02/2026 8:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
Swallowing Sky "News" biased bullshit wholesale without so much as a
factcheck... good god you are naive and stupid.
They sure know know how to reach their target audience of old senile
biased irrelevant boomers.
Editorial from the group's resident Commodore driving munt.
On 13/2/2026 12:22 am, Noddy wrote:
On 12/02/2026 11:20 pm, Clocky wrote:Also typical of someone attacking the messenger because the message
On 11/02/2026 8:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
Swallowing Sky "News" biased bullshit wholesale without so much as a
factcheck... good god you are naive and stupid.
They sure know know how to reach their target audience of old senile
biased irrelevant boomers.
Editorial from the group's resident Commodore driving munt.
doesn't fit with their beliefs, even if you only believe half of the
"facts" presented in the video it still is worth watching.
On 13/02/2026 8:06 am, Daryl wrote:
He's a fucking imbecile who has no grasp on reality.
On 13/02/2026 8:06 am, Daryl wrote:
On 13/2/2026 12:22 am, Noddy wrote:
On 12/02/2026 11:20 pm, Clocky wrote:Also typical of someone attacking the messenger because the message
On 11/02/2026 8:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on >>>>> Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored. >>>>> Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
Swallowing Sky "News" biased bullshit wholesale without so much as a
factcheck... good god you are naive and stupid.
They sure know know how to reach their target audience of old senile
biased irrelevant boomers.
Editorial from the group's resident Commodore driving munt.
doesn't fit with their beliefs, even if you only believe half of the
"facts" presented in the video it still is worth watching.
Yep. It's like the time her screamed "bullshit" about a story that
appeared in the Herald-Sun motoring section about a Commodore owner who claimed that he'd been told by Holden that oil consumption of something
like 6 litres per 1000km was okayu.
I can't remember what the exact figure was now, but it was excessive and
I'd quoted the article word for word in my post. Yet this moron insisted
I made it up despite you reading the exact same article yourself.
He's a fucking imbecile who has no grasp on reality.
On 12/2/2026 9:36 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 11/02/2026 10:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bcPersonally, I wouldn't trust anything from Sky News, it's our version
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
of Fox News. You just have to look at their presenters, they make
Pauline Hanson look like a leftie.
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually watch
their videos but even if you only believe half of it its still pretty damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms more or
less what I already thought.
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
On 12/2/2026 9:36 pm, keithr0 wrote:Netzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get to it
On 11/02/2026 10:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bcPersonally, I wouldn't trust anything from Sky News, it's our version
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
of Fox News. You just have to look at their presenters, they make
Pauline Hanson look like a leftie.
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually watch
their videos but even if you only believe half of it its still pretty
damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms more or
less what I already thought.
the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether you want
your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your name for doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for them to endure.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the right direction.
On 13/2/2026 12:22 am, Noddy wrote:
On 12/02/2026 11:20 pm, Clocky wrote:Also typical of someone attacking the messenger because the message
On 11/02/2026 8:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
Swallowing Sky "News" biased bullshit wholesale without so much as a
factcheck... good god you are naive and stupid.
They sure know know how to reach their target audience of old senile
biased irrelevant boomers.
Editorial from the group's resident Commodore driving munt.
doesn't fit with their beliefs, even if you only believe half of the
"facts" presented in the video it still is worth watching.
On 13/2/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
On 12/2/2026 9:36 pm, keithr0 wrote:Netzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get to
On 11/02/2026 10:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bcPersonally, I wouldn't trust anything from Sky News, it's our
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its
on Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be
ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
version of Fox News. You just have to look at their presenters, they
make Pauline Hanson look like a leftie.
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually watch
their videos but even if you only believe half of it its still pretty
damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms more
or less what I already thought.
it the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether you
want your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your name for
doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for them to endure.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the right
direction.
China needed to make massive changes since they are the biggest
polluters on the planet followed by the USA and India, by comparison our emissions are one drop in a very big bucket.
My son and his partner recently spent a couple of weeks in India, they
were invited to wedding, they were in Ahmedabad which is a city of
approx 9 million people, the 7th most populated city in India, they said that the air quality was pretty bad and getting worse, by comparison the worse place in Australia has pristine air.
You only have to look at the summer sky now and compare it to 40 years
ago to know that we have made huge improvements in air quality, in the
80's if you looked towards Melb CBD on a warm sunny day you would see a thick brown haze but now all you see it clear blue sky so big advances
have already been made.
I'm all for continuing to make improvements but it needs to be done in a
way that doesn't bankrupt everyone, I believe that over time emissions
will get lower and lower which is a good thing but it needs to be done
in a controlled financially responsible way instead of the panicked way
the current Govt is going about it.
I'm all for continuing to make improvements but it needs to be done in a
way that doesn't bankrupt everyone, I believe that over time emissions
will get lower and lower which is a good thing but it needs to be done
in a controlled financially responsible way instead of the panicked way
the current Govt is going about it.
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually watchNetzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get to it
their videos but even if you only believe half of it its still pretty
damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms more or
less what I already thought.
the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether you want
your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your name for doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for them to endure.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the right direction.
On 13/02/2026 12:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 13/2/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:Why should it bankrupt everyone?
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
On 12/2/2026 9:36 pm, keithr0 wrote:Netzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get to
On 11/02/2026 10:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bcPersonally, I wouldn't trust anything from Sky News, it's our
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its >>>>>> on Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be
ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can >>>>>> afford it?
version of Fox News. You just have to look at their presenters,
they make Pauline Hanson look like a leftie.
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually watch
their videos but even if you only believe half of it its still
pretty damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms more
or less what I already thought.
it the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether you
want your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your name for
doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for them to
endure.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the right
direction.
China needed to make massive changes since they are the biggest
polluters on the planet followed by the USA and India, by comparison
our emissions are one drop in a very big bucket.
My son and his partner recently spent a couple of weeks in India, they
were invited to wedding, they were in Ahmedabad which is a city of
approx 9 million people, the 7th most populated city in India, they
said that the air quality was pretty bad and getting worse, by
comparison the worse place in Australia has pristine air.
You only have to look at the summer sky now and compare it to 40 years
ago to know that we have made huge improvements in air quality, in the
80's if you looked towards Melb CBD on a warm sunny day you would see
a thick brown haze but now all you see it clear blue sky so big
advances have already been made.
I'm all for continuing to make improvements but it needs to be done in
a way that doesn't bankrupt everyone, I believe that over time
emissions will get lower and lower which is a good thing but it needs
to be done in a controlled financially responsible way instead of the
panicked way the current Govt is going about it.
On 13/02/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually watchNetzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get to
their videos but even if you only believe half of it its still pretty
damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms more
or less what I already thought.
it the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether you
want your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your name for
doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for them to endure.
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make a
difference to the planet.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the right
direction.
Like what?
On 13/02/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually watchNetzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get to
their videos but even if you only believe half of it its still pretty
damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms more
or less what I already thought.
it the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether you
want your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your name for
doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for them to endure.
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make a
difference to the planet.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the right
direction.
Like what?
On 13/02/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually watchNetzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get to
their videos but even if you only believe half of it its still pretty
damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms more
or less what I already thought.
it the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether you
want your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your name for
doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for them to endure.
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make a
difference to the planet.
Noddy wrote:
On 13/02/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually watchNetzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get to
their videos but even if you only believe half of it its still
pretty damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms more
or less what I already thought.
it the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether you
want your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your name for
doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for them to
endure.
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make a
difference to the planet.
Puting you in the ground would improve it no end.
On 13/02/2026 7:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 13/02/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually watchNetzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get to
their videos but even if you only believe half of it its still
pretty damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms more
or less what I already thought.
it the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether you
want your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your name for
doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for them to
endure.
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make a
difference to the planet.
That's the usual excuse, but can you expect others to do what you aren't willing to do yourself?
On 13/02/2026 7:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make a
difference to the planet.
That's the usual excuse, but can you expect others to do what you aren't willing to do yourself?
On 13/02/2026 9:00 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 13/2/2026 8:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
Lots of electric cars?
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the right
direction.
Like what?
Last year my youngest spent a week in Shenzhen China, not a IC vehicle
anywhere.
Whilst that may improve air quality and reduce CO2 emissions I'm not
sure that overall its doing much for the environment, the materials
needed to make EV's has to come from somewhere as does the electricity
to charge batteries, renewable have zero chance of charging all those
cars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China
Looks like they are going away from coal and using more nuclear and
renewables but about 50% of their power still comes from coal so if
they are doing something they still have a hell of a long way to go to
be anywhere near our approx 1.2% of the worlds CO2 emissions.
Yep. They're still burning coal as fast as we can sell it to them.
On 13/02/2026 9:29 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make a
difference to the planet.
That's the usual excuse, but can you expect others to do what you
aren't willing to do yourself?
It's not an excuse. It's the reality. We, as a country, contribute just
over 1% to the world's total emissions output. We are an insignificant player, and other countries take absolutely no notice of anything we do.
We have no influential power in this game whatsoever, and I expect other countries look at us and laugh at how much we are spending for an output reduction that is so small it would be next to impossible to quantify.
We are not the problem. Nor are we the solution.
On 13/2/2026 8:06 am, Daryl wrote:
On 13/2/2026 12:22 am, Noddy wrote:If *half of all the facts* in the video *don't stack up*, can you trust
On 12/02/2026 11:20 pm, Clocky wrote:Also typical of someone attacking the messenger because the message
On 11/02/2026 8:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its
on Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be
ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
Swallowing Sky "News" biased bullshit wholesale without so much as a
factcheck... good god you are naive and stupid.
They sure know know how to reach their target audience of old senile
biased irrelevant boomers.
Editorial from the group's resident Commodore driving munt.
doesn't fit with their beliefs, even if you only believe half of the
"facts" presented in the video it still is worth watching.
the message that the video is trying to send?
If 100% of the facts don't stack up, don't trust the message and, in
this case, the messenger. Remember, if a *fact* doesn't stack up, it is actually a lie and *not a fact*.
It's long past time you mugs learnt to apply critical thinking to
everything you read in newspapers or watch on TV.
On 13/02/2026 12:36 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 13/2/2026 8:06 am, Daryl wrote:
On 13/2/2026 12:22 am, Noddy wrote:If *half of all the facts* in the video *don't stack up*, can you
On 12/02/2026 11:20 pm, Clocky wrote:Also typical of someone attacking the messenger because the message
On 11/02/2026 8:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its >>>>>> on Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be
ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can >>>>>> afford it?
Swallowing Sky "News" biased bullshit wholesale without so much as
a factcheck... good god you are naive and stupid.
They sure know know how to reach their target audience of old
senile biased irrelevant boomers.
Editorial from the group's resident Commodore driving munt.
doesn't fit with their beliefs, even if you only believe half of the
"facts" presented in the video it still is worth watching.
trust the message that the video is trying to send?
If 100% of the facts don't stack up, don't trust the message and, in
this case, the messenger. Remember, if a *fact* doesn't stack up, it
is actually a lie and *not a fact*.
It's long past time you mugs learnt to apply critical thinking to
everything you read in newspapers or watch on TV.
Daryl thinks Sky "News" Australia is a legitimate news source, not far
right propaganda. He'll probably be preaching the virtues of One Nation next...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can afford
it?
On 13/2/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
On 12/2/2026 9:36 pm, keithr0 wrote:Netzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get to
On 11/02/2026 10:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bcPersonally, I wouldn't trust anything from Sky News, it's our
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its
on Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be
ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
version of Fox News. You just have to look at their presenters, they
make Pauline Hanson look like a leftie.
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually watch
their videos but even if you only believe half of it its still pretty
damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms more
or less what I already thought.
it the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether you
want your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your name for
doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for them to endure.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the right
direction.
China needed to make massive changes since they are the biggest
polluters on the planet followed by the USA and India, by comparison our emissions are one drop in a very big bucket.
My son and his partner recently spent a couple of weeks in India, they
were invited to wedding, they were in Ahmedabad which is a city of
approx 9 million people, the 7th most populated city in India, they said that the air quality was pretty bad and getting worse, by comparison the worse place in Australia has pristine air.
You only have to look at the summer sky now and compare it to 40 years
ago to know that we have made huge improvements in air quality, in the
80's if you looked towards Melb CBD on a warm sunny day you would see a thick brown haze but now all you see it clear blue sky so big advances
have already been made.
I'm all for continuing to make improvements but it needs to be done in a
way that doesn't bankrupt everyone, I believe that over time emissions
will get lower and lower which is a good thing but it needs to be done
in a controlled financially responsible way instead of the panicked way
the current Govt is going about it.
On 13/2/2026 4:46 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 12:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 13/2/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:Why should it bankrupt everyone?
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
On 12/2/2026 9:36 pm, keithr0 wrote:Netzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get to
On 11/02/2026 10:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bcPersonally, I wouldn't trust anything from Sky News, it's our
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its >>>>>>> on Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be >>>>>>> ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can >>>>>>> afford it?
version of Fox News. You just have to look at their presenters,
they make Pauline Hanson look like a leftie.
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually watch >>>>> their videos but even if you only believe half of it its still
pretty damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms more >>>>> or less what I already thought.
it the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether you
want your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your name
for doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for them
to endure.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the right
direction.
China needed to make massive changes since they are the biggest
polluters on the planet followed by the USA and India, by comparison
our emissions are one drop in a very big bucket.
My son and his partner recently spent a couple of weeks in India,
they were invited to wedding, they were in Ahmedabad which is a city
of approx 9 million people, the 7th most populated city in India,
they said that the air quality was pretty bad and getting worse, by
comparison the worse place in Australia has pristine air.
You only have to look at the summer sky now and compare it to 40
years ago to know that we have made huge improvements in air quality,
in the 80's if you looked towards Melb CBD on a warm sunny day you
would see a thick brown haze but now all you see it clear blue sky so
big advances have already been made.
I'm all for continuing to make improvements but it needs to be done
in a way that doesn't bankrupt everyone, I believe that over time
emissions will get lower and lower which is a good thing but it needs
to be done in a controlled financially responsible way instead of the
panicked way the current Govt is going about it.
It shouldn't and the rich won't be bothered too much but the cost of
living is off the scale, power prices keep going up and most of that is
due to the Govt's measures to obtain net zero.
Its also contributing a lot to other cost of living increases because
the price of power affects everything.
6 yrs ago I started to get the aged pension, for a full year I kept
track of every cent we spent and we lived and paid all our bills etc
just with our pension income, 6 yrs later we need an extra $10k PA from
our saving or super just to make ends meet and we are lucky in that we
own our home and have no debt, pensioners who don't own their homes and don't have any saving or super are screwed.
On 13/2/2026 9:29 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 13/02/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually watch >>>>> their videos but even if you only believe half of it its stillNetzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get to
pretty damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms more >>>>> or less what I already thought.
it the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether you
want your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your name
for doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for them
to endure.
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make a
difference to the planet.
That's the usual excuse, but can you expect others to do what you
aren't willing to do yourself?
If we achieved net zero tomorrow how would that help the world, it may
help locally but the world?
We ARE already doing lots such as the largest amount of roof top solar
per capita on the entire planet and getting rid of coal power (at great expense).
Our current contribution to the worlds CO2 emissions is approx 1.02% so
do you really think that reducing that to zero would make much difference?
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
Maybe and its a very big maybe achieving net zero may inspire other countries to try and do the same?
I'm not and have never said that we should do nothing but IMHO we should proceed slowly in a considered manner based on sound scientific and
economic advice instead of political agendas.
On 13/02/2026 9:29 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make a
difference to the planet.
That's the usual excuse, but can you expect others to do what you
aren't willing to do yourself?
It's not an excuse. It's the reality. We, as a country, contribute just
over 1% to the world's total emissions output. We are an insignificant player, and other countries take absolutely no notice of anything we do.
We have no influential power in this game whatsoever,
countries look at us and laugh at how much we are spending for an output reduction that is so small it would be next to impossible to quantify.
We are not the problem. Nor are we the solution.
On 11/02/2026 11:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
**I won't bother thanks. Just refer me to a credible PEER-REVIEWED scientific report that can prove anything that has been stated by Sky.
The facts are VERY, VERY simple:
* The planet is warming more rapidly than at any time in the past
million years.
* EVERY SINGLE HUMAN on this planet will need to make adjustments in
their daily lives in order to prevent the looming catastrophe.
* Most climate scientists are of the opinion that when atmospheric CO2 concentration reaches APPROXIMATELY 500ppm, then we will witness a kind
of runaway effect (aka: tipping point), where nothing we do can prevent average temperatures rising as much as 10 degrees C above present day levels. At that time, sea level rise of as much as 70 Metres will be possible.
Sky is for morons. Science is not.
On 15/02/2026 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 11/02/2026 11:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
**I won't bother thanks. Just refer me to a credible PEER-REVIEWED
scientific report that can prove anything that has been stated by Sky.
The facts are VERY, VERY simple:
* The planet is warming more rapidly than at any time in the past
million years.
* EVERY SINGLE HUMAN on this planet will need to make adjustments in
their daily lives in order to prevent the looming catastrophe.
* Most climate scientists are of the opinion that when atmospheric CO2
concentration reaches APPROXIMATELY 500ppm, then we will witness a
kind of runaway effect (aka: tipping point), where nothing we do can
prevent average temperatures rising as much as 10 degrees C above
present day levels. At that time, sea level rise of as much as 70
Metres will be possible.
Sky is for morons. Science is not.
Jeez. Who didn't see this coming? :)
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have much time. We are presently sitting at around 425ppm of atmospheric CO2. Most climate scientists (as opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao) believe when CO2 levels reach 500ppm, then nothing we can do will stop uncontrolled warming. Do you
really want to take a chance? Do you really think that the Murdoch
Moronsrao know more about the climate than climate scientists?
On 13/02/2026 8:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
It shouldn't and the rich won't be bothered too much but the cost of
living is off the scale, power prices keep going up and most of that
is due to the Govt's measures to obtain net zero.
**Power prices are going up because various state governments sold off electricity assets to private corporations. Those corporations have to
pay shareholders and multi-million Dollar paypackets to CEOs. If you
want to blame someone, then blame your state government that sold off
those assets.
Its also contributing a lot to other cost of living increases because
the price of power affects everything.
**Sure. I had to raise my prices by 2% over the past couple of years to
pay the extra cost of power.
6 yrs ago I started to get the aged pension, for a full year I kept
track of every cent we spent and we lived and paid all our bills etc
just with our pension income, 6 yrs later we need an extra $10k PA
from our saving or super just to make ends meet and we are lucky in
that we own our home and have no debt, pensioners who don't own their
homes and don't have any saving or super are screwed.
**You're lucky. I don't qualify for the pension. I hate you.
On 13/02/2026 10:02 pm, Daryl wrote:
If we achieved net zero tomorrow how would that help the world, it may
help locally but the world?
**Yep. It sets the example that Australia is willing to do it's bit.
We ARE already doing lots such as the largest amount of roof top solar
per capita on the entire planet and getting rid of coal power (at
great expense).
**Fucking BULLSHIT! PRIVATE power companies are dumping coal fired power stations, because they are reaching the end of their useful life. AND generating power via renewables is cheaper and getting cheaper fast.
Our current contribution to the worlds CO2 emissions is approx 1.02%
so do you really think that reducing that to zero would make much
difference?
**I could dump my engine oil in the Georges River (which runs past my
home). It wouldn't make any difference. 7 Litres of oil into what? A
couple of billion Litres of water. I guess, based on your metric, I
should do that. Thoughts?
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
Maybe and its a very big maybe achieving net zero may inspire other
countries to try and do the same?
I'm not and have never said that we should do nothing but IMHO we
should proceed slowly in a considered manner based on sound scientific
and economic advice instead of political agendas.
**IF you accept what climate scientists tell us, then you would realise
that we don't have much time to avoid catastrophe.
On 15/02/2026 9:55 am, Noddy wrote:
Jeez. Who didn't see this coming? :)**I realise that science, common sense, logic and rational thought are
well beyond your remit.
You want to discuss this stuff?
Stick to the science and I will beat you to death with it every single
time.
On 11/02/2026 11:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
**I won't bother thanks. Just refer me to a credible PEER-REVIEWED scientific report that can prove anything that has been stated by Sky.
The facts are VERY, VERY simple:
* The planet is warming more rapidly than at any time in the past
million years.
* EVERY SINGLE HUMAN on this planet will need to make adjustments in
their daily lives in order to prevent the looming catastrophe.
* Most climate scientists are of the opinion that when atmospheric CO2 concentration reaches APPROXIMATELY 500ppm, then we will witness a kind
of runaway effect (aka: tipping point), where nothing we do can prevent average temperatures rising as much as 10 degrees C above present day levels. At that time, sea level rise of as much as 70 Metres will be possible.
Sky is for morons. Science is not.
On 13/02/2026 1:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 13/2/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
On 12/2/2026 9:36 pm, keithr0 wrote:Netzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get to
On 11/02/2026 10:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bcPersonally, I wouldn't trust anything from Sky News, it's our
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its >>>>>> on Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be
ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can >>>>>> afford it?
version of Fox News. You just have to look at their presenters,
they make Pauline Hanson look like a leftie.
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually watch
their videos but even if you only believe half of it its still
pretty damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms more
or less what I already thought.
it the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether you
want your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your name for
doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for them to
endure.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the right
direction.
China needed to make massive changes since they are the biggest
polluters on the planet followed by the USA and India, by comparison
our emissions are one drop in a very big bucket.
My son and his partner recently spent a couple of weeks in India, they
were invited to wedding, they were in Ahmedabad which is a city of
approx 9 million people, the 7th most populated city in India, they
said that the air quality was pretty bad and getting worse, by
comparison the worse place in Australia has pristine air.
You only have to look at the summer sky now and compare it to 40 years
ago to know that we have made huge improvements in air quality, in the
80's if you looked towards Melb CBD on a warm sunny day you would see
a thick brown haze but now all you see it clear blue sky so big
advances have already been made.
I'm all for continuing to make improvements but it needs to be done in
a way that doesn't bankrupt everyone, I believe that over time
emissions will get lower and lower which is a good thing but it needs
to be done in a controlled financially responsible way instead of the
panicked way the current Govt is going about it.
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have much time. We are presently sitting at around 425ppm of atmospheric CO2. Most climate scientists (as opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao) believe when CO2 levels reach 500ppm, then nothing we can do will stop uncontrolled warming. Do you
really want to take a chance? Do you really think that the Murdoch
Moronsrao know more about the climate than climate scientists?
On 14/02/2026 12:18 am, Noddy wrote:
On 13/02/2026 9:29 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make a
difference to the planet.
That's the usual excuse, but can you expect others to do what you
aren't willing to do yourself?
It's not an excuse. It's the reality. We, as a country, contribute
just over 1% to the world's total emissions output. We are an
insignificant player, and other countries take absolutely no notice of
anything we do.
**Utter bullshit.
* Our PBS system is admired and duplicated by other nations.
* Our world first 'carbon tax' was lauded and duplicated by other nations.
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII, Korea
or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep getting involved
in wars that we make no difference in.
We have no influential power in this game whatsoever,
**Incorrect. We emit more CO2 than more than half the nations on this planet.
countries look at us and laugh at how much we are spending for an
output reduction that is so small it would be next to impossible to
quantify.
**OR, perhaps, they look to Australia and praise our efforts.
We are not the problem. Nor are we the solution.
**We live on the same rock as Americans, Chinese and Indians. We are
part of the problem. Therefore, we are part of the solution.
On 15/02/2026 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 11/02/2026 11:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
**I won't bother thanks. Just refer me to a credible PEER-REVIEWED
scientific report that can prove anything that has been stated by Sky.
The facts are VERY, VERY simple:
* The planet is warming more rapidly than at any time in the past
million years.
* EVERY SINGLE HUMAN on this planet will need to make adjustments in
their daily lives in order to prevent the looming catastrophe.
* Most climate scientists are of the opinion that when atmospheric CO2
concentration reaches APPROXIMATELY 500ppm, then we will witness a
kind of runaway effect (aka: tipping point), where nothing we do can
prevent average temperatures rising as much as 10 degrees C above
present day levels. At that time, sea level rise of as much as 70
Metres will be possible.
Sky is for morons. Science is not.
Jeez. Who didn't see this coming? :)
On 15/02/2026 9:55 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:**I realise that science, common sense, logic and rational thought are
On 11/02/2026 11:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
**I won't bother thanks. Just refer me to a credible PEER-REVIEWED
scientific report that can prove anything that has been stated by Sky.
The facts are VERY, VERY simple:
* The planet is warming more rapidly than at any time in the past
million years.
* EVERY SINGLE HUMAN on this planet will need to make adjustments in
their daily lives in order to prevent the looming catastrophe.
* Most climate scientists are of the opinion that when atmospheric
CO2 concentration reaches APPROXIMATELY 500ppm, then we will witness
a kind of runaway effect (aka: tipping point), where nothing we do
can prevent average temperatures rising as much as 10 degrees C above
present day levels. At that time, sea level rise of as much as 70
Metres will be possible.
Sky is for morons. Science is not.
Jeez. Who didn't see this coming? :)
well beyond your remit.
You want to discuss this stuff?
Stick to the science and I will beat you to death with it every single
time.
Xeno wrote:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On 14/2/2026 12:18 am, Noddy wrote:
On 13/02/2026 9:29 pm, keithr0 wrote:We are *part* of the problem, we need to be part of the solution.
On 13/02/2026 7:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make a
difference to the planet.
That's the usual excuse, but can you expect others to do what you
aren't willing to do yourself?
It's not an excuse. It's the reality. We, as a country, contribute
just over 1% to the world's total emissions output. We are an
insignificant player, and other countries take absolutely no notice
of anything we do. We have no influential power in this game
whatsoever, and I expect other countries look at us and laugh at how
much we are spending for an output reduction that is so small it
would be next to impossible to quantify.
We are not the problem. Nor are we the solution.
Fraudster is the fart of the problem. Loud, foul and impossible to argue with...
On 15/02/2026 6:58 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 8:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
It shouldn't and the rich won't be bothered too much but the cost of
living is off the scale, power prices keep going up and most of that
is due to the Govt's measures to obtain net zero.
**Power prices are going up because various state governments sold off
electricity assets to private corporations. Those corporations have to
pay shareholders and multi-million Dollar paypackets to CEOs. If you
want to blame someone, then blame your state government that sold off
those assets.
That happened a *very* long time ago Trevor,
suggest that if the state still had control over electricity generation
and distribution today we'd be paying any less.
On the contrary, the Australian Energy Regulator is a statutory
government authority, and they continue to approve cost increases every single year despite energy retailers making record profits.
Its also contributing a lot to other cost of living increases because
the price of power affects everything.
**Sure. I had to raise my prices by 2% over the past couple of years
to pay the extra cost of power.
The wholesale price for Electricity is A$100 per megawatt. How much do
you pay for yours?
6 yrs ago I started to get the aged pension, for a full year I kept
track of every cent we spent and we lived and paid all our bills etc
just with our pension income, 6 yrs later we need an extra $10k PA
from our saving or super just to make ends meet and we are lucky in
that we own our home and have no debt, pensioners who don't own their
homes and don't have any saving or super are screwed.
**You're lucky. I don't qualify for the pension. I hate you.
Me either, but I don't hate anyone for it. I hate the system that allows some people to have it when they can clearly support themselves by other means.
On 15/2/2026 6:55 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 1:34 pm, Daryl wrote:LOL again, entirely predicable and ignoring of the FACT that Australia contributes 1.02% of world CO2 emissions,
On 13/2/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
On 12/2/2026 9:36 pm, keithr0 wrote:Netzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get to
On 11/02/2026 10:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bcPersonally, I wouldn't trust anything from Sky News, it's our
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its >>>>>>> on Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be >>>>>>> ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can >>>>>>> afford it?
version of Fox News. You just have to look at their presenters,
they make Pauline Hanson look like a leftie.
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually watch >>>>> their videos but even if you only believe half of it its still
pretty damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms more >>>>> or less what I already thought.
it the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether you
want your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your name
for doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for them
to endure.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the right
direction.
China needed to make massive changes since they are the biggest
polluters on the planet followed by the USA and India, by comparison
our emissions are one drop in a very big bucket.
My son and his partner recently spent a couple of weeks in India,
they were invited to wedding, they were in Ahmedabad which is a city
of approx 9 million people, the 7th most populated city in India,
they said that the air quality was pretty bad and getting worse, by
comparison the worse place in Australia has pristine air.
You only have to look at the summer sky now and compare it to 40
years ago to know that we have made huge improvements in air quality,
in the 80's if you looked towards Melb CBD on a warm sunny day you
would see a thick brown haze but now all you see it clear blue sky so
big advances have already been made.
I'm all for continuing to make improvements but it needs to be done
in a way that doesn't bankrupt everyone, I believe that over time
emissions will get lower and lower which is a good thing but it needs
to be done in a controlled financially responsible way instead of the
panicked way the current Govt is going about it.
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as opposed to
Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have much time. We are
presently sitting at around 425ppm of atmospheric CO2. Most climate
scientists (as opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao) believe when CO2 levels
reach 500ppm, then nothing we can do will stop uncontrolled warming.
Do you really want to take a chance? Do you really think that the
Murdoch Moronsrao know more about the climate than climate scientists?
achieving net zero will do 4 fifths of fuck all to anything and in the meantime the rate of increase in our cost of living is off the scale.
On 15/02/2026 6:55 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as opposed to
Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have much time. We are
presently sitting at around 425ppm of atmospheric CO2. Most climate
scientists (as opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao) believe when CO2 levels
reach 500ppm, then nothing we can do will stop uncontrolled warming.
Do you really want to take a chance? Do you really think that the
Murdoch Moronsrao know more about the climate than climate scientists?
Whether that's true or not Trev is completely beside the point.
point is that we here in *this* can not do anything to change it.
All we *can* do is make tokenistic changes that will be/are insanely expensive and achieve absolutely fuck nothing in terms of benefiting the planet in any way.
It's that simple whether you like it or not.
On 15/2/2026 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Stick to the science and I will beat you to death with it every single
time.
Seems to depend of whose science, also the video was mostly about the
cost of net zero and like it or not the cost is astronomical.
On 15/2/2026 9:55 am, Noddy wrote:
Jeez. Who didn't see this coming? :)I even predicted his comments in the original post, ignores the message because he doesn't like the messenger.
The video was mostly about the costs of net zero and whether or not we
can afford it.
On 15/02/2026 10:21 am, Noddy wrote:
**Power prices are going up because various state governments sold
off electricity assets to private corporations. Those corporations
have to pay shareholders and multi-million Dollar paypackets to CEOs.
If you want to blame someone, then blame your state government that
sold off those assets.
That happened a *very* long time ago Trevor,
**And those private corporations STILL own those assets. As long as
private corporations (many owned by foreign entities) still own them, we will continue to be gouged.
Are you unaware of how an oligopoly operates?
Do you seriously imagine that private companies look after the consumer, rather than shareholders?
I have some bad news for you.
-aand there is nothing to
suggest that if the state still had control over electricity
generation and distribution today we'd be paying any less.
**There is abundant PROOF that you are wrong. Power prices went up when private companies gained control of electricity assets.
On the contrary, the Australian Energy Regulator is a statutory
government authority, and they continue to approve cost increases
every single year despite energy retailers making record profits.
**Sure. Again: Private companies are there to make money for
shareholders, CEOs and foreign entities. They don't give a shit about consumers.
It's how private oligopolies operate.
**Sure. I had to raise my prices by 2% over the past couple of years
to pay the extra cost of power.
The wholesale price for Electricity is A$100 per megawatt. How much do
you pay for yours?
**Fucked if I know and I can't be bothered looking.
BTW: Your price claim is nonsensical (ie: meaningless). I suggest you look again and
state what that price is with more precision.
IOW: MWhr
**You're lucky. I don't qualify for the pension. I hate you.
Me either, but I don't hate anyone for it. I hate the system that
allows some people to have it when they can clearly support themselves
by other means.
**EVERY taxpayer should receive the pension. I ploughed every spare
Dollar into my super (I still am), just so I could receive a little more than a regular pension. Still, I don't every have to cross the doorway
of Centrelink. That makes me happy.
On 15/02/2026 10:12 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:55 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as opposed
to Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have much time. We
are presently sitting at around 425ppm of atmospheric CO2. Most
climate scientists (as opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao) believe when CO2
levels reach 500ppm, then nothing we can do will stop uncontrolled
warming. Do you really want to take a chance? Do you really think
that the Murdoch Moronsrao know more about the climate than climate
scientists?
Whether that's true or not Trev is completely beside the point.
**BZZZZZZTTTT!
Hang on a sec. ALL the planet's climate scientists are presenting the
same facts: The planet is warming and humans are responsible.
So, you can cease the equivocation. WE are warming the planet with our
CO2 emissions. WE need to stop.
-aThe point is that we here in *this* can not do anything to change it.
**Wrong. WE can reduce our CO2 emissions.
All we *can* do is make tokenistic changes that will be/are insanely
expensive and achieve absolutely fuck nothing in terms of benefiting
the planet in any way.
**"Expensive"?
OK, prove it. In your proof, I suggest you refer to this report,
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/electricity- transition/gencost
published by a bunch of people who know their stuff. As opposed to the Murdoch Moronsrao.
https://creinsurance.com.au/blog/the-9-trillion-solution-to-our-1-problem-australias-net-zero-cost/
It's that simple whether you like it or not.
**What is simple is that you've made some mighty big claims, but
presented zero evidence to back those claims.
On 15/02/2026 9:06 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2026 12:18 am, Noddy wrote:
On 13/02/2026 9:29 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make a
difference to the planet.
That's the usual excuse, but can you expect others to do what you
aren't willing to do yourself?
It's not an excuse. It's the reality. We, as a country, contribute
just over 1% to the world's total emissions output. We are an
insignificant player, and other countries take absolutely no notice
of anything we do.
**Utter bullshit.
* Our PBS system is admired and duplicated by other nations.
* Our world first 'carbon tax' was lauded and duplicated by other
nations.
Oh, great. Fantastic. So tell me exactly. How has the environmental
crisis been remedied by either of those?
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII, Korea
or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep getting
involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts, but
unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we made were
tangible.
We have no influential power in this game whatsoever,
**Incorrect. We emit more CO2 than more than half the nations on this
planet.
Which is completely irrelevant. Our total output is just over 1%.
--countries look at us and laugh at how much we are spending for an
output reduction that is so small it would be next to impossible to
quantify.
**OR, perhaps, they look to Australia and praise our efforts.
That's nice, but how does it help?
We are not the problem. Nor are we the solution.
**We live on the same rock as Americans, Chinese and Indians. We are
part of the problem. Therefore, we are part of the solution.
Again you seem to be completely incapable of grasping the fact that when your annual output is less than the combined output of the world's three biggest polluters in a single *day*, there is absolutely nothing we can
do here that is going to change a thing.
Other countries sitting back and clapping their hands saying "Awww,
ain't those Aussies an innovative bunch. Stupid, but innovative" is *not going to do it.
On 15/02/2026 6:58 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 8:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
It shouldn't and the rich won't be bothered too much but the cost of
living is off the scale, power prices keep going up and most of that
is due to the Govt's measures to obtain net zero.
**Power prices are going up because various state governments sold off
electricity assets to private corporations. Those corporations have to
pay shareholders and multi-million Dollar paypackets to CEOs. If you
want to blame someone, then blame your state government that sold off
those assets.
That happened a *very* long time ago Trevor, and there is nothing to
suggest that if the state still had control over electricity generation
and distribution today we'd be paying any less.
On the contrary, the Australian Energy Regulator is a statutory
government authority, and they continue to approve cost increases every single year despite energy retailers making record profits.
Its also contributing a lot to other cost of living increases because
the price of power affects everything.
**Sure. I had to raise my prices by 2% over the past couple of years
to pay the extra cost of power.
The wholesale price for Electricity is A$100 per megawatt. How much do
you pay for yours?
6 yrs ago I started to get the aged pension, for a full year I kept
track of every cent we spent and we lived and paid all our bills etc
just with our pension income, 6 yrs later we need an extra $10k PA
from our saving or super just to make ends meet and we are lucky in
that we own our home and have no debt, pensioners who don't own their
homes and don't have any saving or super are screwed.
**You're lucky. I don't qualify for the pension. I hate you.
Me either, but I don't hate anyone for it. I hate the system that allows some people to have it when they can clearly support themselves by other means.
On 15/02/2026 10:35 am, Daryl wrote:
On 15/2/2026 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Stick to the science and I will beat you to death with it every
single time.
Seems to depend of whose science, also the video was mostly about the
cost of net zero and like it or not the cost is astronomical.
Indeed. The video makes no bones about the science or it's predictions.
It just focuses on the cost of reaching the objective, and the effects,--
if any, that will achieve.
This is Trevor's biggest failing. Recognising that the cost is
staggering, while the result is appallingly small.
On 15/02/2026 11:35 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:12 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:55 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as opposed
to Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have much time. We >>>> are presently sitting at around 425ppm of atmospheric CO2. Most
climate scientists (as opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao) believe when CO2 >>>> levels reach 500ppm, then nothing we can do will stop uncontrolled
warming. Do you really want to take a chance? Do you really think
that the Murdoch Moronsrao know more about the climate than climate
scientists?
Whether that's true or not Trev is completely beside the point.
**BZZZZZZTTTT!
Hang on a sec. ALL the planet's climate scientists are presenting the
same facts: The planet is warming and humans are responsible.
So, you can cease the equivocation. WE are warming the planet with our
CO2 emissions. WE need to stop.
*Again*, you're rambling on about shit that no one else is talking
about. We are *not* talking about the warming planet. We are talking
about the insane costs associated with achieving net zero.
Try to keep up.
On 15/02/2026 6:58 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 8:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
It shouldn't and the rich won't be bothered too much but the cost of
living is off the scale, power prices keep going up and most of that
is due to the Govt's measures to obtain net zero.
**Power prices are going up because various state governments sold off
electricity assets to private corporations. Those corporations have to
pay shareholders and multi-million Dollar paypackets to CEOs. If you
want to blame someone, then blame your state government that sold off
those assets.
That happened a *very* long time ago Trevor, and there is nothing to
suggest that if the state still had control over electricity generation
and distribution today we'd be paying any less.
On the contrary, the Australian Energy Regulator is a statutory
government authority, and they continue to approve cost increases every single year despite energy retailers making record profits.
Its also contributing a lot to other cost of living increases because
the price of power affects everything.
**Sure. I had to raise my prices by 2% over the past couple of years
to pay the extra cost of power.
The wholesale price for Electricity is A$100 per megawatt. How much do
you pay for yours?
6 yrs ago I started to get the aged pension, for a full year I kept
track of every cent we spent and we lived and paid all our bills etc
just with our pension income, 6 yrs later we need an extra $10k PA
from our saving or super just to make ends meet and we are lucky in
that we own our home and have no debt, pensioners who don't own their
homes and don't have any saving or super are screwed.
**You're lucky. I don't qualify for the pension. I hate you.
Me either, but I don't hate anyone for it. I hate the system that allows some people to have it when they can clearly support themselves by other means.
On 15/02/2026 10:21 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:58 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 8:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
It shouldn't and the rich won't be bothered too much but the cost of
living is off the scale, power prices keep going up and most of that
is due to the Govt's measures to obtain net zero.
**Power prices are going up because various state governments sold
off electricity assets to private corporations. Those corporations
have to pay shareholders and multi-million Dollar paypackets to CEOs.
If you want to blame someone, then blame your state government that
sold off those assets.
That happened a *very* long time ago Trevor,
**And those private corporations STILL own those assets. As long as
private corporations (many owned by foreign entities) still own them, we will continue to be gouged.
Are you unaware of how an oligopoly operates?
Do you seriously imagine that private companies look after the consumer, rather than shareholders?
I have some bad news for you.
-aand there is nothing to
suggest that if the state still had control over electricity
generation and distribution today we'd be paying any less.
**There is abundant PROOF that you are wrong. Power prices went up when private companies gained control of electricity assets.
On the contrary, the Australian Energy Regulator is a statutory
government authority, and they continue to approve cost increases
every single year despite energy retailers making record profits.
**Sure. Again: Private companies are there to make money for
shareholders, CEOs and foreign entities. They don't give a shit about consumers.
It's how private oligopolies operate.
Its also contributing a lot to other cost of living increases
because the price of power affects everything.
**Sure. I had to raise my prices by 2% over the past couple of years
to pay the extra cost of power.
The wholesale price for Electricity is A$100 per megawatt. How much do
you pay for yours?
**Fucked if I know and I can't be bothered looking. BTW: Your price
claim is nonsensical (ie: meaningless). I suggest you look again and
state what that price is with more precision.
IOW: MWhr
6 yrs ago I started to get the aged pension, for a full year I kept
track of every cent we spent and we lived and paid all our bills etc
just with our pension income, 6 yrs later we need an extra $10k PA
from our saving or super just to make ends meet and we are lucky in
that we own our home and have no debt, pensioners who don't own
their homes and don't have any saving or super are screwed.
**You're lucky. I don't qualify for the pension. I hate you.
Me either, but I don't hate anyone for it. I hate the system that
allows some people to have it when they can clearly support themselves
by other means.
**EVERY taxpayer should receive the pension. I ploughed every spare
Dollar into my super (I still am), just so I could receive a little more than a regular pension. Still, I don't every have to cross the doorway
of Centrelink. That makes me happy.
On 15/02/2026 11:27 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:21 am, Noddy wrote:
**Power prices are going up because various state governments sold
off electricity assets to private corporations. Those corporations
have to pay shareholders and multi-million Dollar paypackets to
CEOs. If you want to blame someone, then blame your state government
that sold off those assets.
That happened a *very* long time ago Trevor,
**And those private corporations STILL own those assets. As long as
private corporations (many owned by foreign entities) still own them,
we will continue to be gouged.
Are you unaware of how an oligopoly operates?
Do you seriously imagine that private companies look after the
consumer, rather than shareholders?
I have some bad news for you.
And I have some for *you* if you think State ownership would be even a *poofteenth* different today.
-a-aand there is nothing to
suggest that if the state still had control over electricity
generation and distribution today we'd be paying any less.
**There is abundant PROOF that you are wrong. Power prices went up
when private companies gained control of electricity assets.
Please supply some of this abundant proof. I'm more than happy to stand corrected.
On the contrary, the Australian Energy Regulator is a statutory
government authority, and they continue to approve cost increases
every single year despite energy retailers making record profits.
**Sure. Again: Private companies are there to make money for
shareholders, CEOs and foreign entities. They don't give a shit about
consumers.
It's how private oligopolies operate.
Yeah, you've said that already and completely ignored the fact that it
is the *government* who approves the continual price rises. Tell me
again why you believe that prices would be lower if the government was
still running the show.
**Sure. I had to raise my prices by 2% over the past couple of years
to pay the extra cost of power.
The wholesale price for Electricity is A$100 per megawatt. How much
do you pay for yours?
**Fucked if I know and I can't be bothered looking.
It's not hard to work out Trev. What do you pay per kW?
BTW: Your price claim is nonsensical (ie: meaningless). I suggest you
look again and state what that price is with more precision.
IOW: MWhr
Lol :)
**You're lucky. I don't qualify for the pension. I hate you.
Me either, but I don't hate anyone for it. I hate the system that
allows some people to have it when they can clearly support
themselves by other means.
**EVERY taxpayer should receive the pension. I ploughed every spare
Dollar into my super (I still am), just so I could receive a little
more than a regular pension. Still, I don't every have to cross the
doorway of Centrelink. That makes me happy.
If you honestly believe that every tax payer should receive the pension
then you are *far* more bat shit crazy than I give you credit for, and believe me I think you're pretty out there.
For the first time I truly believe that despite your claims you have absolutely no fucking idea about economics whatsoever.
On 15/02/2026 7:03 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 10:02 pm, Daryl wrote:
If we achieved net zero tomorrow how would that help the world, it
may help locally but the world?
**Yep. It sets the example that Australia is willing to do it's bit.
Again, how would that help the world?
We ARE already doing lots such as the largest amount of roof top
solar per capita on the entire planet and getting rid of coal power
(at great expense).
**Fucking BULLSHIT! PRIVATE power companies are dumping coal fired
power stations, because they are reaching the end of their useful
life. AND generating power via renewables is cheaper and getting
cheaper fast.
If that's the case then why are companies pulling out of major
renewables projects, citing them as being unworkable?
Our current contribution to the worlds CO2 emissions is approx 1.02%
so do you really think that reducing that to zero would make much
difference?
**I could dump my engine oil in the Georges River (which runs past my
home). It wouldn't make any difference. 7 Litres of oil into what? A
couple of billion Litres of water. I guess, based on your metric, I
should do that. Thoughts?
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
Maybe and its a very big maybe achieving net zero may inspire other
countries to try and do the same?
I'm not and have never said that we should do nothing but IMHO we
should proceed slowly in a considered manner based on sound
scientific and economic advice instead of political agendas.
**IF you accept what climate scientists tell us, then you would
realise that we don't have much time to avoid catastrophe.
If you accept basic math and logic, then you would accept that a 1%
change to the current situation is no change at all, and that's a hell
of a lot of nothing for the projected 1.9 trillion buck* investment it
would take to achieve that.
*1.9 trillion dollars is the lowest cost estimate. The figure has been
cited by some to be as high as 9 trillion. The true cost is likely to
never be known, but most likely lies somewhere between the two.
Just for some perspective, the current Australian national debt is close
to 900 billion. I cannot begin to imagine the lunacy of spending over *double* that amount at the minimum on a scheme that will do absolutely
fuck nothing to change the world in any way.
Can you?
On 15/02/2026 9:06 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2026 12:18 am, Noddy wrote:
On 13/02/2026 9:29 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make a
difference to the planet.
That's the usual excuse, but can you expect others to do what you
aren't willing to do yourself?
It's not an excuse. It's the reality. We, as a country, contribute
just over 1% to the world's total emissions output. We are an
insignificant player, and other countries take absolutely no notice
of anything we do.
**Utter bullshit.
* Our PBS system is admired and duplicated by other nations.
* Our world first 'carbon tax' was lauded and duplicated by other
nations.
Oh, great. Fantastic. So tell me exactly. How has the environmental
crisis been remedied by either of those?
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII, Korea
or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep getting
involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts, but
unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we made were
tangible.
We have no influential power in this game whatsoever,
**Incorrect. We emit more CO2 than more than half the nations on this
planet.
Which is completely irrelevant. Our total output is just over 1%.
countries look at us and laugh at how much we are spending for an
output reduction that is so small it would be next to impossible to
quantify.
**OR, perhaps, they look to Australia and praise our efforts.
That's nice, but how does it help?
We are not the problem. Nor are we the solution.
**We live on the same rock as Americans, Chinese and Indians. We are
part of the problem. Therefore, we are part of the solution.
Again you seem to be completely incapable of grasping the fact that when your annual output is less than the combined output of the world's three biggest polluters in a single *day*, there is absolutely nothing we can
do here that is going to change a thing.
Other countries sitting back and clapping their hands saying "Awww,
ain't those Aussies an innovative bunch. Stupid, but innovative" is *not going to do it.
On 15/2/2026 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 9:55 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:**I realise that science, common sense, logic and rational thought are
On 11/02/2026 11:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its
on Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be
ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
**I won't bother thanks. Just refer me to a credible PEER-REVIEWED
scientific report that can prove anything that has been stated by Sky. >>>>
The facts are VERY, VERY simple:
* The planet is warming more rapidly than at any time in the past
million years.
* EVERY SINGLE HUMAN on this planet will need to make adjustments in
their daily lives in order to prevent the looming catastrophe.
* Most climate scientists are of the opinion that when atmospheric
CO2 concentration reaches APPROXIMATELY 500ppm, then we will witness
a kind of runaway effect (aka: tipping point), where nothing we do
can prevent average temperatures rising as much as 10 degrees C
above present day levels. At that time, sea level rise of as much as
70 Metres will be possible.
Sky is for morons. Science is not.
Jeez. Who didn't see this coming? :)
well beyond your remit.
You want to discuss this stuff?
Stick to the science and I will beat you to death with it every single
time.
Seems to depend of whose science, also the video was mostly about the
cost of net zero and like it or not the cost is astronomical.
On 15/2/2026 9:55 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:I even predicted his comments in the original post, ignores the message because he doesn't like the messenger.
On 11/02/2026 11:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
**I won't bother thanks. Just refer me to a credible PEER-REVIEWED
scientific report that can prove anything that has been stated by Sky.
The facts are VERY, VERY simple:
* The planet is warming more rapidly than at any time in the past
million years.
* EVERY SINGLE HUMAN on this planet will need to make adjustments in
their daily lives in order to prevent the looming catastrophe.
* Most climate scientists are of the opinion that when atmospheric
CO2 concentration reaches APPROXIMATELY 500ppm, then we will witness
a kind of runaway effect (aka: tipping point), where nothing we do
can prevent average temperatures rising as much as 10 degrees C above
present day levels. At that time, sea level rise of as much as 70
Metres will be possible.
Sky is for morons. Science is not.
Jeez. Who didn't see this coming? :)
The video was mostly about the costs of net zero and whether or not we
can afford it.
On 15/2/2026 11:27 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:21 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:58 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 8:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
It shouldn't and the rich won't be bothered too much but the cost
of living is off the scale, power prices keep going up and most of
that is due to the Govt's measures to obtain net zero.
**Power prices are going up because various state governments sold
off electricity assets to private corporations. Those corporations
have to pay shareholders and multi-million Dollar paypackets to
CEOs. If you want to blame someone, then blame your state government
that sold off those assets.
That happened a *very* long time ago Trevor,
**And those private corporations STILL own those assets. As long as
private corporations (many owned by foreign entities) still own them,
we will continue to be gouged.
Are you unaware of how an oligopoly operates?
Do you seriously imagine that private companies look after the
consumer, rather than shareholders?
I have some bad news for you.
-a-aand there is nothing to
suggest that if the state still had control over electricity
generation and distribution today we'd be paying any less.
**There is abundant PROOF that you are wrong. Power prices went up
when private companies gained control of electricity assets.
On the contrary, the Australian Energy Regulator is a statutory
government authority, and they continue to approve cost increases
every single year despite energy retailers making record profits.
**Sure. Again: Private companies are there to make money for
shareholders, CEOs and foreign entities. They don't give a shit about
consumers.
It's how private oligopolies operate.
Its also contributing a lot to other cost of living increases
because the price of power affects everything.
**Sure. I had to raise my prices by 2% over the past couple of years
to pay the extra cost of power.
The wholesale price for Electricity is A$100 per megawatt. How much
do you pay for yours?
**Fucked if I know and I can't be bothered looking. BTW: Your price
claim is nonsensical (ie: meaningless). I suggest you look again and
state what that price is with more precision.
IOW: MWhr
6 yrs ago I started to get the aged pension, for a full year I kept >>>>> track of every cent we spent and we lived and paid all our bills
etc just with our pension income, 6 yrs later we need an extra $10k >>>>> PA from our saving or super just to make ends meet and we are lucky >>>>> in that we own our home and have no debt, pensioners who don't own
their homes and don't have any saving or super are screwed.
**You're lucky. I don't qualify for the pension. I hate you.
Me either, but I don't hate anyone for it. I hate the system that
allows some people to have it when they can clearly support
themselves by other means.
**EVERY taxpayer should receive the pension. I ploughed every spare
Dollar into my super (I still am), just so I could receive a little
more than a regular pension. Still, I don't every have to cross the
doorway of Centrelink. That makes me happy.
If we didn't have a very corrupt Labor Govt in Vic I wouldn't get much pension if any, they more or less stole $450k straight out of my pocket
so we ended up on a full aged pension which was never our intention, no
one could have predicted the lengths the corrupt bastards would go to
fill the pockets of theirs and their union cronies.
On 15/2/2026 11:27 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:21 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:58 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 8:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
It shouldn't and the rich won't be bothered too much but the cost
of living is off the scale, power prices keep going up and most of
that is due to the Govt's measures to obtain net zero.
**Power prices are going up because various state governments sold
off electricity assets to private corporations. Those corporations
have to pay shareholders and multi-million Dollar paypackets to
CEOs. If you want to blame someone, then blame your state government
that sold off those assets.
That happened a *very* long time ago Trevor,
**And those private corporations STILL own those assets. As long as
private corporations (many owned by foreign entities) still own them,
we will continue to be gouged.
Are you unaware of how an oligopoly operates?
Do you seriously imagine that private companies look after the
consumer, rather than shareholders?
I have some bad news for you.
-a-aand there is nothing to
suggest that if the state still had control over electricity
generation and distribution today we'd be paying any less.
**There is abundant PROOF that you are wrong. Power prices went up
when private companies gained control of electricity assets.
On the contrary, the Australian Energy Regulator is a statutory
government authority, and they continue to approve cost increases
every single year despite energy retailers making record profits.
**Sure. Again: Private companies are there to make money for
shareholders, CEOs and foreign entities. They don't give a shit about
consumers.
It's how private oligopolies operate.
Its also contributing a lot to other cost of living increases
because the price of power affects everything.
**Sure. I had to raise my prices by 2% over the past couple of years
to pay the extra cost of power.
The wholesale price for Electricity is A$100 per megawatt. How much
do you pay for yours?
**Fucked if I know and I can't be bothered looking. BTW: Your price
claim is nonsensical (ie: meaningless). I suggest you look again and
state what that price is with more precision.
IOW: MWhr
6 yrs ago I started to get the aged pension, for a full year I kept >>>>> track of every cent we spent and we lived and paid all our bills
etc just with our pension income, 6 yrs later we need an extra $10k >>>>> PA from our saving or super just to make ends meet and we are lucky >>>>> in that we own our home and have no debt, pensioners who don't own
their homes and don't have any saving or super are screwed.
**You're lucky. I don't qualify for the pension. I hate you.
Me either, but I don't hate anyone for it. I hate the system that
allows some people to have it when they can clearly support
themselves by other means.
**EVERY taxpayer should receive the pension. I ploughed every spare
Dollar into my super (I still am), just so I could receive a little
more than a regular pension. Still, I don't every have to cross the
doorway of Centrelink. That makes me happy.
If we didn't have a very corrupt Labor Govt in Vic I wouldn't get much pension if any, they more or less stole $450k straight out of my pocket
so we ended up on a full aged pension which was never our intention, no
one could have predicted the lengths the corrupt bastards would go to
fill the pockets of theirs and their union cronies.
On 14-Feb-26 6:56 PM, alvey wrote:
Xeno wrote:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On 14/2/2026 12:18 am, Noddy wrote:
On 13/02/2026 9:29 pm, keithr0 wrote:We are *part* of the problem, we need to be part of the solution.
On 13/02/2026 7:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make a
difference to the planet.
That's the usual excuse, but can you expect others to do what you
aren't willing to do yourself?
It's not an excuse. It's the reality. We, as a country, contribute
just over 1% to the world's total emissions output. We are an
insignificant player, and other countries take absolutely no notice
of anything we do. We have no influential power in this game
whatsoever, and I expect other countries look at us and laugh at how
much we are spending for an output reduction that is so small it
would be next to impossible to quantify.
We are not the problem. Nor are we the solution.
Fraudster is the fart of the problem. Loud, foul and impossible to
argue with...
-aThat comment says more about *you* than him!.. ;)
On 15/2/2026 10:21 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:58 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:Plenty of pensioners are asset rich but cash poor, off hand I don't know exactly how much a couple are allowed to own and still qualify for a
On 13/02/2026 8:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
It shouldn't and the rich won't be bothered too much but the cost of
living is off the scale, power prices keep going up and most of that
is due to the Govt's measures to obtain net zero.
**Power prices are going up because various state governments sold
off electricity assets to private corporations. Those corporations
have to pay shareholders and multi-million Dollar paypackets to CEOs.
If you want to blame someone, then blame your state government that
sold off those assets.
That happened a *very* long time ago Trevor, and there is nothing to
suggest that if the state still had control over electricity
generation and distribution today we'd be paying any less.
On the contrary, the Australian Energy Regulator is a statutory
government authority, and they continue to approve cost increases
every single year despite energy retailers making record profits.
Its also contributing a lot to other cost of living increases
because the price of power affects everything.
**Sure. I had to raise my prices by 2% over the past couple of years
to pay the extra cost of power.
The wholesale price for Electricity is A$100 per megawatt. How much do
you pay for yours?
6 yrs ago I started to get the aged pension, for a full year I kept
track of every cent we spent and we lived and paid all our bills etc
just with our pension income, 6 yrs later we need an extra $10k PA
from our saving or super just to make ends meet and we are lucky in
that we own our home and have no debt, pensioners who don't own
their homes and don't have any saving or super are screwed.
**You're lucky. I don't qualify for the pension. I hate you.
Me either, but I don't hate anyone for it. I hate the system that
allows some people to have it when they can clearly support themselves
by other means.
full pension but its something like own a home (principle place of residence) of any value plus something like $480k in other assets, after that the pension amount drops off steeply.
On 15/02/2026 11:35 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:12 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:55 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as opposed
to Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have much time. We >>>> are presently sitting at around 425ppm of atmospheric CO2. Most
climate scientists (as opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao) believe when CO2 >>>> levels reach 500ppm, then nothing we can do will stop uncontrolled
warming. Do you really want to take a chance? Do you really think
that the Murdoch Moronsrao know more about the climate than climate
scientists?
Whether that's true or not Trev is completely beside the point.
**BZZZZZZTTTT!
Hang on a sec. ALL the planet's climate scientists are presenting the
same facts: The planet is warming and humans are responsible.
So, you can cease the equivocation. WE are warming the planet with our
CO2 emissions. WE need to stop.
*Again*, you're rambling on about shit that no one else is talking
about. We are *not* talking about the warming planet. We are talking
about the insane costs associated with achieving net zero.
Try to keep up.
-aThe point is that we here in *this* can not do anything to change it.
**Wrong. WE can reduce our CO2 emissions.
Trevor, I have asked you this question a number of times before, and on every single occasion I have received nothing but word soup from you in reply which I find rather odd coming from someone who repeatedly
requests that people replying to him be "specific" with their responses.
But being an optimist I will ask again anyway :)
Answer this: Given that we reduced our emissions when the carbon tax was introduced, and according to you that reduction was "significant", what
was the exact beneficial effect on the planet?
I'm asking for a specific response here Trevor, not some bullshit "we reduced our missions" throw away line. You're always harping on about
the science and love to quote exact numbers, so fill us all in. Exactly
how much of a reversal to the current numbers did our emissions
reduction actually achieve?
All we *can* do is make tokenistic changes that will be/are insanely
expensive and achieve absolutely fuck nothing in terms of benefiting
the planet in any way.
**"Expensive"?
By all estimates, very. In the trillions of dollars.
OK, prove it. In your proof, I suggest you refer to this report,
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/electricity-
transition/gencost
published by a bunch of people who know their stuff. As opposed to the
Murdoch Moronsrao.
Bzzt. Nice waffling post, but it gives no indication of the amount of capital investment required to reach net zero, or even close to it.
On the other end of the spectrum is this:
https://creinsurance.com.au/blog/the-9-trillion-solution-to-our-1-
problem-australias-net-zero-cost/
Now, you can argue about source credibility all you like, but no matter *what* figures you want to believe the cost is going to be eye watering, with the next result being insignificant beyond belief.
It's that simple whether you like it or not.
**What is simple is that you've made some mighty big claims, but
presented zero evidence to back those claims.
The evidence here is about as basic as it can get Trevor, and I'm
genuinely surprised that a man as intelligent as you obviously are
doesn't get it.
Put very simply, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. The cost to go net
zero will be horrendous, the effect on the planet will be absolutely
fuck nothing, and all we'll be left with will be a debt that will not be paid off in the lives of the next 20 generations when that money could
be *far* better spent on things like health services, education and
medical research.
It really is that simple. That you don't get it defies belief.
On 15/02/2026 10:21 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:58 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 8:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:35 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:12 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:55 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as opposed
to Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have much time. We >>>> are presently sitting at around 425ppm of atmospheric CO2. Most
climate scientists (as opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao) believe when CO2 >>>> levels reach 500ppm, then nothing we can do will stop uncontrolled
warming. Do you really want to take a chance? Do you really think
that the Murdoch Moronsrao know more about the climate than climate
scientists?
Whether that's true or not Trev is completely beside the point.
**BZZZZZZTTTT!
Hang on a sec. ALL the planet's climate scientists are presenting the
same facts: The planet is warming and humans are responsible.
So, you can cease the equivocation. WE are warming the planet with our
CO2 emissions. WE need to stop.
*Again*, you're rambling on about shit that no one else is talking
about. We are *not* talking about the warming planet. We are talking
about the insane costs associated with achieving net zero.
Try to keep up.
-aThe point is that we here in *this* can not do anything to change it.
**Wrong. WE can reduce our CO2 emissions.
Trevor, I have asked you this question a number of times before, and on every single occasion I have received nothing but word soup from you in reply which I find rather odd coming from someone who repeatedly
requests that people replying to him be "specific" with their responses.
But being an optimist I will ask again anyway :)
Answer this: Given that we reduced our emissions when the carbon tax was introduced, and according to you that reduction was "significant", what
was the exact beneficial effect on the planet?
I'm asking for a specific response here Trevor, not some bullshit "we reduced our missions" throw away line. You're always harping on about
the science and love to quote exact numbers, so fill us all in. Exactly
how much of a reversal to the current numbers did our emissions
reduction actually achieve?
All we *can* do is make tokenistic changes that will be/are insanely
expensive and achieve absolutely fuck nothing in terms of benefiting
the planet in any way.
**"Expensive"?
By all estimates, very. In the trillions of dollars.
OK, prove it. In your proof, I suggest you refer to this report,
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/electricity-
transition/gencost
published by a bunch of people who know their stuff. As opposed to the
Murdoch Moronsrao.
Bzzt. Nice waffling post, but it gives no indication of the amount of capital investment required to reach net zero, or even close to it.
On the other end of the spectrum is this:
https://creinsurance.com.au/blog/the-9-trillion-solution-to-our-1-
problem-australias-net-zero-cost/
Now, you can argue about source credibility all you like, but no matter *what* figures you want to believe the cost is going to be eye watering, with the next result being insignificant beyond belief.
It's that simple whether you like it or not.
**What is simple is that you've made some mighty big claims, but
presented zero evidence to back those claims.
The evidence here is about as basic as it can get Trevor, and I'm
genuinely surprised that a man as intelligent as you obviously are
doesn't get it.
Put very simply, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
zero will be horrendous,
fuck nothing,
paid off in the lives of the next 20 generations when that money could
be *far* better spent on things like health services, education and
medical research.
It really is that simple. That you don't get it defies belief.
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:21 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:58 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 8:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
Why do you bother Trevor? Surely you know by now that no amount of indisputable facts will never, ever get this pair of parrots to change
their pov. The only thing that they're good for would be as case studies
for inclusion in a submission to a review of media ownership in Australia.
On 15/2/2026 11:27 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:21 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:58 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 8:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
It shouldn't and the rich won't be bothered too much but the cost
of living is off the scale, power prices keep going up and most of
that is due to the Govt's measures to obtain net zero.
**Power prices are going up because various state governments sold
off electricity assets to private corporations. Those corporations
have to pay shareholders and multi-million Dollar paypackets to
CEOs. If you want to blame someone, then blame your state government
that sold off those assets.
That happened a *very* long time ago Trevor,
**And those private corporations STILL own those assets. As long as
private corporations (many owned by foreign entities) still own them,
we will continue to be gouged.
Are you unaware of how an oligopoly operates?
Do you seriously imagine that private companies look after the
consumer, rather than shareholders?
I have some bad news for you.
-a-aand there is nothing to
suggest that if the state still had control over electricity
generation and distribution today we'd be paying any less.
**There is abundant PROOF that you are wrong. Power prices went up
when private companies gained control of electricity assets.
On the contrary, the Australian Energy Regulator is a statutory
government authority, and they continue to approve cost increases
every single year despite energy retailers making record profits.
**Sure. Again: Private companies are there to make money for
shareholders, CEOs and foreign entities. They don't give a shit about
consumers.
It's how private oligopolies operate.
Its also contributing a lot to other cost of living increases
because the price of power affects everything.
**Sure. I had to raise my prices by 2% over the past couple of years
to pay the extra cost of power.
The wholesale price for Electricity is A$100 per megawatt. How much
do you pay for yours?
**Fucked if I know and I can't be bothered looking. BTW: Your price
claim is nonsensical (ie: meaningless). I suggest you look again and
state what that price is with more precision.
IOW: MWhr
6 yrs ago I started to get the aged pension, for a full year I kept >>>>> track of every cent we spent and we lived and paid all our bills
etc just with our pension income, 6 yrs later we need an extra $10k >>>>> PA from our saving or super just to make ends meet and we are lucky >>>>> in that we own our home and have no debt, pensioners who don't own
their homes and don't have any saving or super are screwed.
**You're lucky. I don't qualify for the pension. I hate you.
Me either, but I don't hate anyone for it. I hate the system that
allows some people to have it when they can clearly support
themselves by other means.
**EVERY taxpayer should receive the pension. I ploughed every spare
Dollar into my super (I still am), just so I could receive a little
more than a regular pension. Still, I don't every have to cross the
doorway of Centrelink. That makes me happy.
If we didn't have a very corrupt Labor Govt in Vic I wouldn't get much pension if any, they more or less stole $450k straight out of my pocket
so we ended up on a full aged pension which was never our intention, no
one could have predicted the lengths the corrupt bastards would go to
fill the pockets of theirs and their union cronies.
On 15/2/2026 12:28 pm, Noddy wrote:
If you honestly believe that every tax payer should receive theAFAIK the theory is that if the Govt paid ever adult a "living wage"
pension then you are *far* more bat shit crazy than I give you credit
for, and believe me I think you're pretty out there.
For the first time I truly believe that despite your claims you have
absolutely no fucking idea about economics whatsoever.
then they would spend it which would end up being a positive benefit to
the economy.
I think that a few countries have tried it but none currently do it.
On 15/02/2026 10:35 am, Daryl wrote:
Seems to depend of whose science, also the video was mostly about the
cost of net zero and like it or not the cost is astronomical.
**Here's the thing: The cost of inaction is much, MUCH higher. In fact,
most climate scientists tell us that if we allow atmospheric CO2 concentrations to reach approximately 500ppm, then the cost of
mitigation will exceed the GDP of the entire planet. Several-fold.
On 15/02/2026 10:01 am, Daryl wrote:Couple of things... Deryl has a wildly contradictory attitude to
On 15/2/2026 11:27 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:21 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:58 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 8:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
It shouldn't and the rich won't be bothered too much but the cost >>>>>> of living is off the scale, power prices keep going up and most of >>>>>> that is due to the Govt's measures to obtain net zero.
**Power prices are going up because various state governments sold
off electricity assets to private corporations. Those corporations
have to pay shareholders and multi-million Dollar paypackets to
CEOs. If you want to blame someone, then blame your state
government that sold off those assets.
That happened a *very* long time ago Trevor,
**And those private corporations STILL own those assets. As long as
private corporations (many owned by foreign entities) still own them,
we will continue to be gouged.
Are you unaware of how an oligopoly operates?
Do you seriously imagine that private companies look after the
consumer, rather than shareholders?
I have some bad news for you.
-a-aand there is nothing to
suggest that if the state still had control over electricity
generation and distribution today we'd be paying any less.
**There is abundant PROOF that you are wrong. Power prices went up
when private companies gained control of electricity assets.
On the contrary, the Australian Energy Regulator is a statutory
government authority, and they continue to approve cost increases
every single year despite energy retailers making record profits.
**Sure. Again: Private companies are there to make money for
shareholders, CEOs and foreign entities. They don't give a shit about
consumers.
It's how private oligopolies operate.
Its also contributing a lot to other cost of living increases
because the price of power affects everything.
**Sure. I had to raise my prices by 2% over the past couple of
years to pay the extra cost of power.
The wholesale price for Electricity is A$100 per megawatt. How much
do you pay for yours?
**Fucked if I know and I can't be bothered looking. BTW: Your price
claim is nonsensical (ie: meaningless). I suggest you look again and
state what that price is with more precision.
IOW: MWhr
6 yrs ago I started to get the aged pension, for a full year I
kept track of every cent we spent and we lived and paid all our
bills etc just with our pension income, 6 yrs later we need an
extra $10k PA from our saving or super just to make ends meet and >>>>>> we are lucky in that we own our home and have no debt, pensioners >>>>>> who don't own their homes and don't have any saving or super are
screwed.
**You're lucky. I don't qualify for the pension. I hate you.
Me either, but I don't hate anyone for it. I hate the system that
allows some people to have it when they can clearly support
themselves by other means.
**EVERY taxpayer should receive the pension. I ploughed every spare
Dollar into my super (I still am), just so I could receive a little
more than a regular pension. Still, I don't every have to cross the
doorway of Centrelink. That makes me happy.
If we didn't have a very corrupt Labor Govt in Vic I wouldn't get much
pension if any, they more or less stole $450k straight out of my
pocket so we ended up on a full aged pension which was never our
intention, no one could have predicted the lengths the corrupt
bastards would go to fill the pockets of theirs and their union cronies.
LOL, no the issue is with you putting all your eggs in one basket and everyone in the cleaning industry, except you, knew that was a bad idea
as the private cleaning companies were doing such a shit-awful job of cleaning and screwing their employees. Getting rid of you lot was on the cards for years so what does dopey Daryl do? Oh yeah, let's hinge our retirement plans on a single contract that Ray Charles could have seen
going back to the education department years before you retired.
On 15/02/2026 6:57 pm, alvey wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:21 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:58 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 8:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
Why do you bother Trevor? Surely you know by now that no amount of
indisputable facts will never, ever get this pair of parrots to change
their pov. The only thing that they're good for would be as case
studies for inclusion in a submission to a review of media ownership
in Australia.
**I really want to know what the cops said when Dazza told them the government stole his $450k.
On 15/2/2026 6:55 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 1:34 pm, Daryl wrote:LOL again, entirely predicable and ignoring of the FACT that Australia contributes 1.02% of world CO2 emissions, no matter what we do even achieving net zero will do 4 fifths of fuck all to anything and in the meantime the rate of increase in our cost of living is off the scale.
On 13/2/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
On 12/2/2026 9:36 pm, keithr0 wrote:Netzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get to
On 11/02/2026 10:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bcPersonally, I wouldn't trust anything from Sky News, it's our
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its >>>>>>> on Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be >>>>>>> ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can >>>>>>> afford it?
version of Fox News. You just have to look at their presenters,
they make Pauline Hanson look like a leftie.
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually watch >>>>> their videos but even if you only believe half of it its still
pretty damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms more >>>>> or less what I already thought.
it the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether you
want your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your name
for doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for them
to endure.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the right
direction.
China needed to make massive changes since they are the biggest
polluters on the planet followed by the USA and India, by comparison
our emissions are one drop in a very big bucket.
My son and his partner recently spent a couple of weeks in India,
they were invited to wedding, they were in Ahmedabad which is a city
of approx 9 million people, the 7th most populated city in India,
they said that the air quality was pretty bad and getting worse, by
comparison the worse place in Australia has pristine air.
You only have to look at the summer sky now and compare it to 40
years ago to know that we have made huge improvements in air quality,
in the 80's if you looked towards Melb CBD on a warm sunny day you
would see a thick brown haze but now all you see it clear blue sky so
big advances have already been made.
I'm all for continuing to make improvements but it needs to be done
in a way that doesn't bankrupt everyone, I believe that over time
emissions will get lower and lower which is a good thing but it needs
to be done in a controlled financially responsible way instead of the
panicked way the current Govt is going about it.
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as opposed to
Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have much time. We are
presently sitting at around 425ppm of atmospheric CO2. Most climate
scientists (as opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao) believe when CO2 levels
reach 500ppm, then nothing we can do will stop uncontrolled warming.
Do you really want to take a chance? Do you really think that the
Murdoch Moronsrao know more about the climate than climate scientists?
On 15/02/2026 7:41 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:01 am, Daryl wrote:
If we didn't have a very corrupt Labor Govt in Vic I wouldn't get
much pension if any, they more or less stole $450k straight out of my
pocket so we ended up on a full aged pension which was never our
intention, no one could have predicted the lengths the corrupt
bastards would go to fill the pockets of theirs and their union cronies. >>>
LOL, no the issue is with you putting all your eggs in one basket and
everyone in the cleaning industry, except you, knew that was a bad
idea as the private cleaning companies were doing such a shit-awful
job of cleaning and screwing their employees. Getting rid of you lot
was on the cards for years so what does dopey Daryl do? Oh yeah, let's
hinge our retirement plans on a single contract that Ray Charles could
have seen going back to the education department years before you
retired.
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.
What happened to Daryl happened to a bunch of other people. The
government entered into a contractual agreements with a number of
service providers who all committed themselves to those agreements by leasing equipment and employing workers to meet their obligations, only
for the government to suddenly and without warning cancel all contracts
and hand the entire lot over to companies run by union buddies who put
in back handed tenders in brown envelopes.
It was corruption writ large like everything else the Labor party has
fucked over in this state, and if it happened to *you* we'd hear you screaming about it from fucking Mars. Fortunately for you you have
neither the brains or the balls to commit yourself to running your own business, which is why at 53 you're working as a bottom feeding
accessory fitter.
What a fucking loser you are :)
On 15/02/2026 12:28 pm, Noddy wrote:
*Again*, you're rambling on about shit that no one else is talking
about. We are *not* talking about the warming planet. We are talking
about the insane costs associated with achieving net zero.
**Different sides of the same coin. Achieving net zero is dealing with
the problem of excessive CO2 emissions.
Trevor, I have asked you this question a number of times before, and
on every single occasion I have received nothing but word soup from
you in reply which I find rather odd coming from someone who
repeatedly requests that people replying to him be "specific" with
their responses. But being an optimist I will ask again anyway :)
Answer this: Given that we reduced our emissions when the carbon tax
was introduced, and according to you that reduction was "significant",
what was the exact beneficial effect on the planet?
**Asked and answered.
Australia reduced it's CO2 emissions by around 7%
and that figure was headed down even further.
Most critically, other nations witnessed the significant success of our carbon tax and
introduced their own forms of carbon tax. IOW: Australia DID influence
the rest of the world.
I'm asking for a specific response here Trevor, not some bullshit "we
reduced our missions" throw away line. You're always harping on about
the science and love to quote exact numbers, so fill us all in.
Exactly how much of a reversal to the current numbers did our
emissions reduction actually achieve?
**Asked and answered. When the environmental vandals in the Lieberal
Party removed the carbon tax, our emissions shot up.
**"Expensive"?
By all estimates, very. In the trillions of dollars.
**Not even close. By ONE, seriously dodgy, estimate. Try harder. Here's
a vastly more credible source (thanks Keith):
https://www.netzeroaustralia.net.au/the-cost-of-australia-reaching-net- zero-emissions-a-statement-by-the-steering-committee-of-the-net-zero- australia-project/
"Using the total costs of achieving net zero by 2050 (the NZ 2050
Scenario) relative to the total costs of continuing to maintain the
energy system without targeting any decarbonisation (the REF Scenario), slide 41 of this Report finds that rCythe cost of Australia reaching net zerorCO is approximately $300 billion, with all annualised energy costs falling as a fraction of the projected GDP and discounting reducing all these costs further."
https://creinsurance.com.au/blog/the-9-trillion-solution-to-our-1-
problem-australias-net-zero-cost/
**CRE are INSURANCE BROKERS, not climate scientists. I suspect they are linked to some right wing, climate denier mob. I have no proof of this,
but their web site reads that way.
The evidence here is about as basic as it can get Trevor, and I'm
genuinely surprised that a man as intelligent as you obviously are
doesn't get it.
**Here's the thing:
* I get that there is a problem now.
* I get that the problem is getting bigger each day we delay.
* I get that at some point in the next few years (likely less than 30)
that the problem will out of control for humans to deal with.
Let me ask you:
* Do you think that there is a problem with excessive CO2 emissions?
Put very simply, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
**Only if you are happy to see the end of our civilisation.
-aand all we'll be left with will be a debt that will not be
paid off in the lives of the next 20 generations when that money could
be *far* better spent on things like health services, education and
medical research.
**Only if you happen to be using seriously dodgy figures.
It really is that simple. That you don't get it defies belief.
**It seems that I need to smash you over the head with some science, common-sense, logic and reason. Here's a hint:
Read some CREDIBLE sources.
On 15/02/2026 10:21 am, Noddy wrote:
**Yep. It sets the example that Australia is willing to do it's bit.
Again, how would that help the world?
**Because it will reduce the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere.
Pay attention.
**Fucking BULLSHIT! PRIVATE power companies are dumping coal fired
power stations, because they are reaching the end of their useful
life. AND generating power via renewables is cheaper and getting
cheaper fast.
If that's the case then why are companies pulling out of major
renewables projects, citing them as being unworkable?
**You need to provide some proof of that claim. Cite THREE examples.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-09/bhp-scraps-renewable-projects-says-emissions-reductions-on-track/105735266
https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/investors-in-qld-renewables-rattled-by-government-policy-shift-to-gas-20260130-p5ny8z
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/bp-ditch-renewables-goals-return-focus-fossil-fuels-2025-02-24/
https://energiesmedia.com/rwe-suspends-offshore-wind-project-in-australia/
https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/production/why-the-uk-s-leading-renewable-energy-supplier-quietly-axed-its-green-hydrogen-business/2-1-1839491
*1.9 trillion dollars is the lowest cost estimate. The figure has been
cited by some to be as high as 9 trillion. The true cost is likely to
never be known, but most likely lies somewhere between the two.
**OK, assuming you are correct (and I don't), then you tell me what the
cost of inaction will be.
Just for some perspective, the current Australian national debt is
close to 900 billion. I cannot begin to imagine the lunacy of spending
over *double* that amount at the minimum on a scheme that will do
absolutely fuck nothing to change the world in any way.
Can you?
**I can tell you this: EVERY climate scientist on the planet has issued clear and unequivocal warnings about the costs of inaction on reducing
CO2 emissions. Those costs will be many, many times the TOTAL GDP of the entire planet. IOW: We will be unable to deal with the problem, should
we allow atmospheric CO2 concentration to reach 500ppm.
On 15/02/2026 4:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:51 am, Daryl wrote:
Plenty of pensioners are asset rich but cash poor, off hand I don't
know exactly how much a couple are allowed to own and still qualify
for a full pension but its something like own a home (principle place
of residence) of any value plus something like $480k in other assets,
after that the pension amount drops off steeply.
The
Australian Age Pension assets test, updated 20 September 2025,
determines eligibility based on the value of assets (excluding the
family home).
Maximum assets:-
Full Pension (Homeowner): Single $321.5K; Couple $421.4K.
Full Pension (Non-Homeowner): Single $579.5K; Couple $739.5K.
Part Pension Cut-off (Homeowner): Single $714.5K; Couple $1074K.
Part Pension Cut-off (Non-Homeowner): Single $972.5; Couple $1332K.
I think it's fairly generous myself :)
On 15/02/2026 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII,
Korea or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep getting
involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
**And yet, that is absolutely factual. Our efforts in those wars
amounted to almost bugger-all.
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts, but
unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we made were
tangible.
**Bullshit. They were insignificant, but we did it anyway.
Which is completely irrelevant. Our total output is just over 1%.
**So you keep saying. Our output per capita is very close to the top. We
can afford to cut emissions dramatically.
**We live on the same rock as Americans, Chinese and Indians. We are
part of the problem. Therefore, we are part of the solution.
Again you seem to be completely incapable of grasping the fact that
when your annual output is less than the combined output of the
world's three biggest polluters in a single *day*, there is absolutely
nothing we can do here that is going to change a thing.
**According to your metric, we should not bother intervening in
conflicts around the world.
Other countries sitting back and clapping their hands saying "Awww,
ain't those Aussies an innovative bunch. Stupid, but innovative" is
*not going to do it.
**Here's the thing: Not too many years ago, Australia emitted more CO2
than China. It could be argued that we were a significant cause of the present problem. Therefore, we need to act to solve that problem.
Or should I just dump my engine oil into the Georges River?
On 15/02/2026 2:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII,
Korea or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep
getting involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
**And yet, that is absolutely factual. Our efforts in those wars
amounted to almost bugger-all.
Not at all, and you clearly are talking about things you know nothing
about.
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts, but
unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we made were
tangible.
**Bullshit. They were insignificant, but we did it anyway.
You are apparently blissfully unaware that Australian forces were the
first to stop the Germans and the Japanese in World War 2 :)
Which is completely irrelevant. Our total output is just over 1%.
**So you keep saying. Our output per capita is very close to the top.
We can afford to cut emissions dramatically.
Per capita figures are a complete nonsense. The planet only ever sees
the cumulative total.
**We live on the same rock as Americans, Chinese and Indians. We are
part of the problem. Therefore, we are part of the solution.
Again you seem to be completely incapable of grasping the fact that
when your annual output is less than the combined output of the
world's three biggest polluters in a single *day*, there is
absolutely nothing we can do here that is going to change a thing.
**According to your metric, we should not bother intervening in
conflicts around the world.
I don't believe that we should, as 99 times out of 100 it is nothing to
do with us.
Other countries sitting back and clapping their hands saying "Awww,
ain't those Aussies an innovative bunch. Stupid, but innovative" is
*not going to do it.
**Here's the thing: Not too many years ago, Australia emitted more CO2
than China. It could be argued that we were a significant cause of the
present problem. Therefore, we need to act to solve that problem.
"Not too many years ago" was how long ago exactly? Before WW2?
--Or should I just dump my engine oil into the Georges River?
Do what you want. It makes no difference to me.
On 15/02/2026 7:41 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:01 am, Daryl wrote:
If we didn't have a very corrupt Labor Govt in Vic I wouldn't get
much pension if any, they more or less stole $450k straight out of my
pocket so we ended up on a full aged pension which was never our
intention, no one could have predicted the lengths the corrupt
bastards would go to fill the pockets of theirs and their union cronies. >>>
LOL, no the issue is with you putting all your eggs in one basket and
everyone in the cleaning industry, except you, knew that was a bad
idea as the private cleaning companies were doing such a shit-awful
job of cleaning and screwing their employees. Getting rid of you lot
was on the cards for years so what does dopey Daryl do? Oh yeah, let's
hinge our retirement plans on a single contract that Ray Charles could
have seen going back to the education department years before you
retired.
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.
What happened to Daryl happened to a bunch of other people. The
government entered into a contractual agreements with a number of
service providers who all committed themselves to those agreements by leasing equipment and employing workers to meet their obligations, only
for the government to suddenly and without warning cancel all contracts
and hand the entire lot over to companies run by union buddies who put
in back handed tenders in brown envelopes.
It was corruption writ large like everything else the Labor party has
fucked over in this state, and if it happened to *you* we'd hear you screaming about it from fucking Mars. Fortunately for you you have
neither the brains or the balls to commit yourself to running your own business, which is why at 53 you're working as a bottom feeding
accessory fitter.
What a fucking loser you are :)
The
Australian Age Pension assets test, updated 20 September 2025,
determines eligibility based on the value of assets (excluding the
family home).
Maximum assets:-
Full Pension (Homeowner): Single $321.5K; Couple $421.4K.
Full Pension (Non-Homeowner): Single $579.5K; Couple $739.5K.
Part Pension Cut-off (Homeowner): Single $714.5K; Couple $1074K.
Part Pension Cut-off (Non-Homeowner): Single $972.5; Couple $1332K.
I think it's fairly generous myself :)
Depends where you stand, a lot of people on the full pension will have little or no assets, and $30.6K pa for a single, or $46.2K pa for a
couple aren't going to give much of a high life. Especially if they
don't fully own a house.
On 15/02/2026 9:19 pm, keithr0 wrote:
The
Australian Age Pension assets test, updated 20 September 2025,
determines eligibility based on the value of assets (excluding the
family home).
Maximum assets:-
Full Pension (Homeowner): Single $321.5K; Couple $421.4K.
Full Pension (Non-Homeowner): Single $579.5K; Couple $739.5K.
Part Pension Cut-off (Homeowner): Single $714.5K; Couple $1074K.
Part Pension Cut-off (Non-Homeowner): Single $972.5; Couple $1332K.
I think it's fairly generous myself :)
Depends where you stand, a lot of people on the full pension will have
little or no assets, and $30.6K pa for a single, or $46.2K pa for a
couple aren't going to give much of a high life. Especially if they
don't fully own a house.
Maybe so, but if you hit retirement age and are still paying off a
mortgage you've done something wrong.
The problem with the age pension is that far too many people see it as a "right", when it isn't at all. You're supposed to work so you can fu8nd
your own retirement, and the pension is an assistance for those who
haven't managed to do that. Yet people think that because they've paid
taxes all their lives they're entitled to it, and that mentality is
going a long way to fucking this country up.
Principally because we can't afford it.
Years ago when the average Joe hit retirement age they would go on the pension, live for maybe five years and then shuffle off. These days we
have people retiring at 67, going on a pension and then spending 20
years living on the public purse in retirement while our welfare bill
gets more out of control by the day.
We just can't afford it and there needs to be major change.
Personally I would like to see the family home means tested, as I can't
see why if you own a home that would fetch a million bucks on the market that you shouldn't sell it and downsize so you can pay for your own retirement yourself rather than have every working Joe pay for it for you.
Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 2:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII,
Korea or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep
getting involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
**And yet, that is absolutely factual. Our efforts in those wars
amounted to almost bugger-all.
Not at all, and you clearly are talking about things you know nothing
about.
Fraudster just loves telling people that. It's another insecurity flag.
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts, but
unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we made were
tangible.
**Bullshit. They were insignificant, but we did it anyway.
You are apparently blissfully unaware that Australian forces were the
first to stop the Germans and the Japanese in World War 2 :)
And speaking of irony... Here's an ironic Fun Fact!
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This represented
1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
On 15/02/2026 7:41 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:01 am, Daryl wrote:
If we didn't have a very corrupt Labor Govt in Vic I wouldn't get
much pension if any, they more or less stole $450k straight out of my
pocket so we ended up on a full aged pension which was never our
intention, no one could have predicted the lengths the corrupt
bastards would go to fill the pockets of theirs and their union cronies. >>>
LOL, no the issue is with you putting all your eggs in one basket and
everyone in the cleaning industry, except you, knew that was a bad
idea as the private cleaning companies were doing such a shit-awful
job of cleaning and screwing their employees. Getting rid of you lot
was on the cards for years so what does dopey Daryl do? Oh yeah, let's
hinge our retirement plans on a single contract that Ray Charles could
have seen going back to the education department years before you
retired.
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.
What happened to Daryl happened to a bunch of other people. The
government entered into a contractual agreements with a number of
service providers who all committed themselves to those agreements by leasing equipment and employing workers to meet their obligations, only
for the government to suddenly and without warning cancel all contracts
and hand the entire lot over to companies run by union buddies who put
in back handed tenders in brown envelopes.
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This represented
1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This represented
1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed kiddie pervert.
On 16/02/2026 8:28 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 8:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 7:41 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:01 am, Daryl wrote:
If we didn't have a very corrupt Labor Govt in Vic I wouldn't get
much pension if any, they more or less stole $450k straight out of
my pocket so we ended up on a full aged pension which was never our >>>>> intention, no one could have predicted the lengths the corrupt
bastards would go to fill the pockets of theirs and their union
cronies.
LOL, no the issue is with you putting all your eggs in one basket
and everyone in the cleaning industry, except you, knew that was a
bad idea as the private cleaning companies were doing such a shit-
awful job of cleaning and screwing their employees. Getting rid of
you lot was on the cards for years so what does dopey Daryl do? Oh
yeah, let's hinge our retirement plans on a single contract that Ray
Charles could have seen going back to the education department years
before you retired.
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.
What happened to Daryl happened to a bunch of other people. The
government entered into a contractual agreements with a number of
service providers who all committed themselves to those agreements by
leasing equipment and employing workers to meet their obligations,
only for the government to suddenly and without warning cancel all
contracts and hand the entire lot over to companies run by union
buddies who put in back handed tenders in brown envelopes.
**Now you're bullshitting.
You struggle with English sometimes, huh? :)
Dazza EXPLICITLY stated, with zero equivocation that the government
STOLE $450k from him. He has, so far, declined to reveal what the
police told him when he reported that theft.
Jesus :)
They terminated a fixed price contract for no reason, long before it was
due to end. The amount quoted was what he *would* have been paid if the contract had run it's full term.
I can just imagine the squealing involved if that happened to you :)
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This represented
1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed kiddie pervert.
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This
represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed kiddie pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to WWII was insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the same contribution
to the planet's CO2 output.
On 16/02/2026 8:28 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 8:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 7:41 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:01 am, Daryl wrote:
If we didn't have a very corrupt Labor Govt in Vic I wouldn't get
much pension if any, they more or less stole $450k straight out of
my pocket so we ended up on a full aged pension which was never our >>>>> intention, no one could have predicted the lengths the corrupt
bastards would go to fill the pockets of theirs and their union
cronies.
LOL, no the issue is with you putting all your eggs in one basket
and everyone in the cleaning industry, except you, knew that was a
bad idea as the private cleaning companies were doing such a shit-
awful job of cleaning and screwing their employees. Getting rid of
you lot was on the cards for years so what does dopey Daryl do? Oh
yeah, let's hinge our retirement plans on a single contract that Ray
Charles could have seen going back to the education department years
before you retired.
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.
What happened to Daryl happened to a bunch of other people. The
government entered into a contractual agreements with a number of
service providers who all committed themselves to those agreements by
leasing equipment and employing workers to meet their obligations,
only for the government to suddenly and without warning cancel all
contracts and hand the entire lot over to companies run by union
buddies who put in back handed tenders in brown envelopes.
**Now you're bullshitting.
You struggle with English sometimes, huh? :)
Dazza EXPLICITLY stated, with zero equivocation that the government
STOLE $450k from him. He has, so far, declined to reveal what the
police told him when he reported that theft.
Jesus :)
They terminated a fixed price contract for no reason, long before it was
due to end. The amount quoted was what he *would* have been paid if the contract had run it's full term.
I can just imagine the squealing involved if that happened to you :)
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This represented
1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed kiddie pervert.
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This
represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed kiddie pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to WWII was insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the same contribution
to the planet's CO2 output.
On 16/02/2026 9:27 am, Noddy wrote:
Dazza EXPLICITLY stated, with zero equivocation that the government
STOLE $450k from him. He has, so far, declined to reveal what the
police told him when he reported that theft.
Jesus :)
They terminated a fixed price contract for no reason, long before it
was due to end. The amount quoted was what he *would* have been paid
if the contract had run it's full term.
**You are a liar.
Dazza stated, no equivocation, that the government STOLE $450k from him.
Or did Dazza lie when he made that statement?
I can just imagine the squealing involved if that happened to you :)
**If ANYONE stole $450k from me, I would report it to the police.
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This
represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed kiddie pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to WWII was insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the same contribution
to the planet's CO2 output.
He does have a long history of disproving his own points with proof he provides.
Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 5:12 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:28 am, Noddy wrote:
So, you can cease the equivocation. WE are warming the planet with
our CO2 emissions. WE need to stop.
*Again*, you're rambling on about shit that no one else is talking
about. We are *not* talking about the warming planet. We are talking
about the insane costs associated with achieving net zero.
Try to keep up.
What insane costs are these?
I would have thought it was obvious.
lol! The biter bit!
Imagine an argument between these two. Questions asked: 47. Questions answered: nil. There may be a TV series in this. 'The Avoidance Games'.
On 15/02/2026 9:19 pm, keithr0 wrote:
The
Australian Age Pension assets test, updated 20 September 2025,
determines eligibility based on the value of assets (excluding the
family home).
Maximum assets:-
Full Pension (Homeowner): Single $321.5K; Couple $421.4K.
Full Pension (Non-Homeowner): Single $579.5K; Couple $739.5K.
Part Pension Cut-off (Homeowner): Single $714.5K; Couple $1074K.
Part Pension Cut-off (Non-Homeowner): Single $972.5; Couple $1332K.
I think it's fairly generous myself :)
Depends where you stand, a lot of people on the full pension will have
little or no assets, and $30.6K pa for a single, or $46.2K pa for a
couple aren't going to give much of a high life. Especially if they
don't fully own a house.
Maybe so, but if you hit retirement age and are still paying off a
mortgage you've done something wrong.
The problem with the age pension is that far too many people see it as a "right", when it isn't at all. You're supposed to work so you can fu8nd
your own retirement, and the pension is an assistance for those who
haven't managed to do that. Yet people think that because they've paid
taxes all their lives they're entitled to it, and that mentality is
going a long way to fucking this country up.
Principally because we can't afford it.
Years ago when the average Joe hit retirement age they would go on the pension, live for maybe five years and then shuffle off. These days we
have people retiring at 67, going on a pension and then spending 20
years living on the public purse in retirement while our welfare bill
gets more out of control by the day.
We just can't afford it and there needs to be major change.
Personally I would like to see the family home means tested, as I can't
see why if you own a home that would fetch a million bucks on the market that you shouldn't sell it and downsize so you can pay for your own retirement yourself rather than have every working Joe pay for it for you.
On 13/2/2026 4:46 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 12:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 13/2/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:Why should it bankrupt everyone?
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
On 12/2/2026 9:36 pm, keithr0 wrote:Netzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get to
On 11/02/2026 10:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bcPersonally, I wouldn't trust anything from Sky News, it's our
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its >>>>>>> on Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be >>>>>>> ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can >>>>>>> afford it?
version of Fox News. You just have to look at their presenters,
they make Pauline Hanson look like a leftie.
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually watch >>>>> their videos but even if you only believe half of it its still
pretty damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms more >>>>> or less what I already thought.
it the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether you
want your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your name
for doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for them
to endure.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the right
direction.
China needed to make massive changes since they are the biggest
polluters on the planet followed by the USA and India, by comparison
our emissions are one drop in a very big bucket.
My son and his partner recently spent a couple of weeks in India,
they were invited to wedding, they were in Ahmedabad which is a city
of approx 9 million people, the 7th most populated city in India,
they said that the air quality was pretty bad and getting worse, by
comparison the worse place in Australia has pristine air.
You only have to look at the summer sky now and compare it to 40
years ago to know that we have made huge improvements in air quality,
in the 80's if you looked towards Melb CBD on a warm sunny day you
would see a thick brown haze but now all you see it clear blue sky so
big advances have already been made.
I'm all for continuing to make improvements but it needs to be done
in a way that doesn't bankrupt everyone, I believe that over time
emissions will get lower and lower which is a good thing but it needs
to be done in a controlled financially responsible way instead of the
panicked way the current Govt is going about it.
It shouldn't and the rich won't be bothered too much but the cost of
living is off the scale, power prices keep going up and most of that is
due to the Govt's measures to obtain net zero.
Its also contributing a lot to other cost of living increases because
the price of power affects everything.
6 yrs ago I started to get the aged pension, for a full year I kept
track of every cent we spent and we lived and paid all our bills etc
just with our pension income, 6 yrs later we need an extra $10k PA from
our saving or super just to make ends meet and we are lucky in that we
own our home and have no debt, pensioners who don't own their homes and don't have any saving or super are screwed.
On 16/02/2026 2:45 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:27 am, Noddy wrote:
Dazza EXPLICITLY stated, with zero equivocation that the government
STOLE $450k from him. He has, so far, declined to reveal what the
police told him when he reported that theft.
Jesus :)
They terminated a fixed price contract for no reason, long before it
was due to end. The amount quoted was what he *would* have been paid
if the contract had run it's full term.
**You are a liar.
Dazza stated, no equivocation, that the government STOLE $450k from him.
Or did Dazza lie when he made that statement?
I can just imagine the squealing involved if that happened to you :)
**If ANYONE stole $450k from me, I would report it to the police.
Do you go out of your way to be this obtuse Trevor, or are you just naturally stupid?
On 16/02/2026 8:48 am, alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 5:12 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:28 am, Noddy wrote:
So, you can cease the equivocation. WE are warming the planet with >>>>>> our CO2 emissions. WE need to stop.
*Again*, you're rambling on about shit that no one else is talking
about. We are *not* talking about the warming planet. We are
talking about the insane costs associated with achieving net zero.
Try to keep up.
What insane costs are these?
I would have thought it was obvious.
lol! The biter bit!
Imagine an argument between these two. Questions asked: 47. Questions
answered: nil. There may be a TV series in this. 'The Avoidance Games'.
Burbles the guy who hasn't answered a question in living memory.
I suspect Trevor, having been a *successful businessman* for decades,
would know not to put all his eggs in one basket.
On 13/02/2026 7:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
It shouldn't and the rich won't be bothered too much but the cost of
living is off the scale, power prices keep going up and most of that
is due to the Govt's measures to obtain net zero.
I've seen no evidence of that, most of the money going into renewables
seems to come from the private sector.
On 16/02/2026 5:27 pm, Xeno wrote:
I suspect Trevor, having been a *successful businessman* for decades,
would know not to put all his eggs in one basket.
Well, you did, and look where that got you, shit-fer-brains, a pissy
little unit on a corner block in a rural retirement village, "up on the ridge" hahaha...
"Made more money on my 'part time' business than I did on my full time
job. If my importer/supplier hadn't gone to the wall, I might still be
doing it"-a-a 16/07/16 All those eggs, eh Tomas? :-D
You pox-ridden useless heap of shit. And now you're on a part-pension
after all that magnificent planning? You're fucking pathetic, you gold plated hypocrite.>
On 15/02/2026 10:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
Personally I would like to see the family home means tested, as I
can't see why if you own a home that would fetch a million bucks on
the market that you shouldn't sell it and downsize so you can pay for
your own retirement yourself rather than have every working Joe pay
for it for you.
The US an the UK (ans possibly others) have a far simpler system. In the
US, you pay a percentage of your wage up to an annual maximum as Social security tax, in the UK, it's called National Insurance, in both cases,
you are entitled to a pension after a certain age no questions asked.
Our superannuation system is supposed to be similar, except it is
privately run, and you end up with a slab of money rather than a
pension. Some will make it last, some will squander it, I can't see the pension system disappearing in my life time.
On 16/02/2026 2:46 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This
represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed kiddie
pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to WWII was
insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the same
contribution to the planet's CO2 output.
You *had* no point Trev,
as your analogy was completely wrong to begin with.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed conflict
of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above their weight in every theatre they were deployed to.
How you can relate that to our specific
environmental contribution I'm fucked if I know.
I suspect you're in the same boat :)
On 16/02/2026 8:03 pm, lindsay wrote:
On 16/02/2026 5:27 pm, Xeno wrote:
I suspect Trevor, having been a *successful businessman* for decades,
would know not to put all his eggs in one basket.
Well, you did, and look where that got you, shit-fer-brains, a pissy
little unit on a corner block in a rural retirement village, "up on
the ridge" hahaha...
"Made more money on my 'part time' business than I did on my full time
job. If my importer/supplier hadn't gone to the wall, I might still be
doing it"-a-a 16/07/16 All those eggs, eh Tomas? :-D
You pox-ridden useless heap of shit. And now you're on a part-pension
after all that magnificent planning? You're fucking pathetic, you gold
plated hypocrite.>
Selling hard drives out of the boot of his car wasn't the cash cow he
made it out to be :)
Selling hard drives out of the boot of his car wasn't the cash cow he
made it out to be :)
On 16/02/2026 6:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
People like Trevor insist that while prices in SA are high now, they
will eventually drop as the implementation costs are recouped.
Such is the fantasy world people like Trevor live in.....
On 15/02/2026 1:01 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 15/2/2026 11:27 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:21 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:58 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 8:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
It shouldn't and the rich won't be bothered too much but the cost >>>>>> of living is off the scale, power prices keep going up and most of >>>>>> that is due to the Govt's measures to obtain net zero.
**Power prices are going up because various state governments sold
off electricity assets to private corporations. Those corporations
have to pay shareholders and multi-million Dollar paypackets to
CEOs. If you want to blame someone, then blame your state
government that sold off those assets.
That happened a *very* long time ago Trevor,
**And those private corporations STILL own those assets. As long as
private corporations (many owned by foreign entities) still own them,
we will continue to be gouged.
Are you unaware of how an oligopoly operates?
Do you seriously imagine that private companies look after the
consumer, rather than shareholders?
I have some bad news for you.
-a-aand there is nothing to
suggest that if the state still had control over electricity
generation and distribution today we'd be paying any less.
**There is abundant PROOF that you are wrong. Power prices went up
when private companies gained control of electricity assets.
On the contrary, the Australian Energy Regulator is a statutory
government authority, and they continue to approve cost increases
every single year despite energy retailers making record profits.
**Sure. Again: Private companies are there to make money for
shareholders, CEOs and foreign entities. They don't give a shit about
consumers.
It's how private oligopolies operate.
Its also contributing a lot to other cost of living increases
because the price of power affects everything.
**Sure. I had to raise my prices by 2% over the past couple of
years to pay the extra cost of power.
The wholesale price for Electricity is A$100 per megawatt. How much
do you pay for yours?
**Fucked if I know and I can't be bothered looking. BTW: Your price
claim is nonsensical (ie: meaningless). I suggest you look again and
state what that price is with more precision.
IOW: MWhr
6 yrs ago I started to get the aged pension, for a full year I
kept track of every cent we spent and we lived and paid all our
bills etc just with our pension income, 6 yrs later we need an
extra $10k PA from our saving or super just to make ends meet and >>>>>> we are lucky in that we own our home and have no debt, pensioners >>>>>> who don't own their homes and don't have any saving or super are
screwed.
**You're lucky. I don't qualify for the pension. I hate you.
Me either, but I don't hate anyone for it. I hate the system that
allows some people to have it when they can clearly support
themselves by other means.
**EVERY taxpayer should receive the pension. I ploughed every spare
Dollar into my super (I still am), just so I could receive a little
more than a regular pension. Still, I don't every have to cross the
doorway of Centrelink. That makes me happy.
If we didn't have a very corrupt Labor Govt in Vic I wouldn't get much
pension if any, they more or less stole $450k straight out of my
pocket so we ended up on a full aged pension which was never our
intention, no one could have predicted the lengths the corrupt
bastards would go to fill the pockets of theirs and their union cronies.
**"Stole $450k"?
What did the police say when you reported the theft?
On 15/02/2026 4:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:51 am, Daryl wrote:
Plenty of pensioners are asset rich but cash poor, off hand I don't
know exactly how much a couple are allowed to own and still qualify
for a full pension but its something like own a home (principle place
of residence) of any value plus something like $480k in other assets,
after that the pension amount drops off steeply.
The
Australian Age Pension assets test, updated 20 September 2025,
determines eligibility based on the value of assets (excluding the
family home).
Maximum assets:-
Full Pension (Homeowner): Single $321.5K; Couple $421.4K.
Full Pension (Non-Homeowner): Single $579.5K; Couple $739.5K.
Part Pension Cut-off (Homeowner): Single $714.5K; Couple $1074K.
Part Pension Cut-off (Non-Homeowner): Single $972.5; Couple $1332K.
I think it's fairly generous myself :)
On 15/02/2026 9:19 pm, keithr0 wrote:
The
Australian Age Pension assets test, updated 20 September 2025,
determines eligibility based on the value of assets (excluding the
family home).
Maximum assets:-
Full Pension (Homeowner): Single $321.5K; Couple $421.4K.
Full Pension (Non-Homeowner): Single $579.5K; Couple $739.5K.
Part Pension Cut-off (Homeowner): Single $714.5K; Couple $1074K.
Part Pension Cut-off (Non-Homeowner): Single $972.5; Couple $1332K.
I think it's fairly generous myself :)
Depends where you stand, a lot of people on the full pension will have
little or no assets, and $30.6K pa for a single, or $46.2K pa for a
couple aren't going to give much of a high life. Especially if they
don't fully own a house.
Maybe so, but if you hit retirement age and are still paying off a
mortgage you've done something wrong.
The problem with the age pension is that far too many people see it as a "right", when it isn't at all. You're supposed to work so you can fu8nd
your own retirement, and the pension is an assistance for those who
haven't managed to do that. Yet people think that because they've paid
taxes all their lives they're entitled to it, and that mentality is
going a long way to fucking this country up.
Principally because we can't afford it.
Years ago when the average Joe hit retirement age they would go on the pension, live for maybe five years and then shuffle off. These days we
have people retiring at 67, going on a pension and then spending 20
years living on the public purse in retirement while our welfare bill
gets more out of control by the day.
We just can't afford it and there needs to be major change.
Personally I would like to see the family home means tested, as I can't
see why if you own a home that would fetch a million bucks on the market that you shouldn't sell it and downsize so you can pay for your own retirement yourself rather than have every working Joe pay for it for you.
On 15/2/2026 3:28 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 1:01 pm, Daryl wrote:Do you always find it necessary to be such a smart arse?
On 15/2/2026 11:27 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:21 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:58 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 8:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
It shouldn't and the rich won't be bothered too much but the cost >>>>>>> of living is off the scale, power prices keep going up and most >>>>>>> of that is due to the Govt's measures to obtain net zero.
**Power prices are going up because various state governments sold >>>>>> off electricity assets to private corporations. Those corporations >>>>>> have to pay shareholders and multi-million Dollar paypackets to
CEOs. If you want to blame someone, then blame your state
government that sold off those assets.
That happened a *very* long time ago Trevor,
**And those private corporations STILL own those assets. As long as
private corporations (many owned by foreign entities) still own
them, we will continue to be gouged.
Are you unaware of how an oligopoly operates?
Do you seriously imagine that private companies look after the
consumer, rather than shareholders?
I have some bad news for you.
-a-aand there is nothing to
suggest that if the state still had control over electricity
generation and distribution today we'd be paying any less.
**There is abundant PROOF that you are wrong. Power prices went up
when private companies gained control of electricity assets.
On the contrary, the Australian Energy Regulator is a statutory
government authority, and they continue to approve cost increases
every single year despite energy retailers making record profits.
**Sure. Again: Private companies are there to make money for
shareholders, CEOs and foreign entities. They don't give a shit
about consumers.
It's how private oligopolies operate.
Its also contributing a lot to other cost of living increases
because the price of power affects everything.
**Sure. I had to raise my prices by 2% over the past couple of
years to pay the extra cost of power.
The wholesale price for Electricity is A$100 per megawatt. How much >>>>> do you pay for yours?
**Fucked if I know and I can't be bothered looking. BTW: Your price
claim is nonsensical (ie: meaningless). I suggest you look again and
state what that price is with more precision.
IOW: MWhr
6 yrs ago I started to get the aged pension, for a full year I
kept track of every cent we spent and we lived and paid all our >>>>>>> bills etc just with our pension income, 6 yrs later we need an
extra $10k PA from our saving or super just to make ends meet and >>>>>>> we are lucky in that we own our home and have no debt, pensioners >>>>>>> who don't own their homes and don't have any saving or super are >>>>>>> screwed.
**You're lucky. I don't qualify for the pension. I hate you.
Me either, but I don't hate anyone for it. I hate the system that
allows some people to have it when they can clearly support
themselves by other means.
**EVERY taxpayer should receive the pension. I ploughed every spare
Dollar into my super (I still am), just so I could receive a little
more than a regular pension. Still, I don't every have to cross the
doorway of Centrelink. That makes me happy.
If we didn't have a very corrupt Labor Govt in Vic I wouldn't get
much pension if any, they more or less stole $450k straight out of my
pocket so we ended up on a full aged pension which was never our
intention, no one could have predicted the lengths the corrupt
bastards would go to fill the pockets of theirs and their union cronies.
**"Stole $450k"?
What did the police say when you reported the theft?
On 15/02/2026 11:28 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:35 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:12 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:55 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as opposed >>>>> to Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have much time. >>>>> We are presently sitting at around 425ppm of atmospheric CO2. Most
climate scientists (as opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao) believe when CO2 >>>>> levels reach 500ppm, then nothing we can do will stop uncontrolled
warming. Do you really want to take a chance? Do you really think
that the Murdoch Moronsrao know more about the climate than climate >>>>> scientists?
Whether that's true or not Trev is completely beside the point.
**BZZZZZZTTTT!
Hang on a sec. ALL the planet's climate scientists are presenting the
same facts: The planet is warming and humans are responsible.
So, you can cease the equivocation. WE are warming the planet with
our CO2 emissions. WE need to stop.
*Again*, you're rambling on about shit that no one else is talking
about. We are *not* talking about the warming planet. We are talking
about the insane costs associated with achieving net zero.
Try to keep up.
What insane costs are these?
-aThe point is that we here in *this* can not do anything to change it. >>>**Wrong. WE can reduce our CO2 emissions.
Trevor, I have asked you this question a number of times before, and
on every single occasion I have received nothing but word soup from
you in reply which I find rather odd coming from someone who
repeatedly requests that people replying to him be "specific" with
their responses. But being an optimist I will ask again anyway :)
Answer this: Given that we reduced our emissions when the carbon tax
was introduced, and according to you that reduction was "significant",
what was the exact beneficial effect on the planet?
I'm asking for a specific response here Trevor, not some bullshit "we
reduced our missions" throw away line. You're always harping on about
the science and love to quote exact numbers, so fill us all in.
Exactly how much of a reversal to the current numbers did our
emissions reduction actually achieve?
All we *can* do is make tokenistic changes that will be/are insanely
expensive and achieve absolutely fuck nothing in terms of benefiting
the planet in any way.
**"Expensive"?
By all estimates, very. In the trillions of dollars.
Who's estimates are those?
OK, prove it. In your proof, I suggest you refer to this report,
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/electricity-
transition/gencost
published by a bunch of people who know their stuff. As opposed to
the Murdoch Moronsrao.
Bzzt. Nice waffling post, but it gives no indication of the amount of
capital investment required to reach net zero, or even close to it.
On the other end of the spectrum is this:
https://creinsurance.com.au/blog/the-9-trillion-solution-to-our-1-
problem-australias-net-zero-cost/
These are the people quoted in the above link, their current assessment
is quite different to the one in that link.
https://www.netzeroaustralia.net.au/the-cost-of-australia-reaching-net- zero-emissions-a-statement-by-the-steering-committee-of-the-net-zero- australia-project/
Note the following from this link
"Different individuals and groups have been misrepresenting key cost estimates from the NZAu Australia Project as rCythe cost of Australia reaching net zerorCO. These misrepresented costs have typically ranged
from $1.5 trillion to $9 trillion. The Steering Committee of the NZAu Project team is releasing this Statement to again clarify our findings
on this matter."
On 15/02/2026 12:28 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:35 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:12 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:55 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as opposed >>>>> to Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have much time. >>>>> We are presently sitting at around 425ppm of atmospheric CO2. Most
climate scientists (as opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao) believe when CO2 >>>>> levels reach 500ppm, then nothing we can do will stop uncontrolled
warming. Do you really want to take a chance? Do you really think
that the Murdoch Moronsrao know more about the climate than climate >>>>> scientists?
Whether that's true or not Trev is completely beside the point.
**BZZZZZZTTTT!
Hang on a sec. ALL the planet's climate scientists are presenting the
same facts: The planet is warming and humans are responsible.
So, you can cease the equivocation. WE are warming the planet with
our CO2 emissions. WE need to stop.
*Again*, you're rambling on about shit that no one else is talking
about. We are *not* talking about the warming planet. We are talking
about the insane costs associated with achieving net zero.
**Different sides of the same coin. Achieving net zero is dealing with
the problem of excessive CO2 emissions.
Try to keep up.
-aThe point is that we here in *this* can not do anything to change it. >>>**Wrong. WE can reduce our CO2 emissions.
Trevor, I have asked you this question a number of times before, and
on every single occasion I have received nothing but word soup from
you in reply which I find rather odd coming from someone who
repeatedly requests that people replying to him be "specific" with
their responses. But being an optimist I will ask again anyway :)
Answer this: Given that we reduced our emissions when the carbon tax
was introduced, and according to you that reduction was "significant",
what was the exact beneficial effect on the planet?
**Asked and answered. Australia reduced it's CO2 emissions by around 7%
and that figure was headed down even further. Most critically, other
nations witnessed the significant success of our carbon tax and
introduced their own forms of carbon tax. IOW: Australia DID influence
the rest of the world.
I'm asking for a specific response here Trevor, not some bullshit "we
reduced our missions" throw away line. You're always harping on about
the science and love to quote exact numbers, so fill us all in.
Exactly how much of a reversal to the current numbers did our
emissions reduction actually achieve?
**Asked and answered. When the environmental vandals in the Lieberal
Party removed the carbon tax, our emissions shot up.
All we *can* do is make tokenistic changes that will be/are insanely
expensive and achieve absolutely fuck nothing in terms of benefiting
the planet in any way.
**"Expensive"?
By all estimates, very. In the trillions of dollars.
**Not even close. By ONE, seriously dodgy, estimate. Try harder. Here's
a vastly more credible source (thanks Keith):
https://www.netzeroaustralia.net.au/the-cost-of-australia-reaching-net- zero-emissions-a-statement-by-the-steering-committee-of-the-net-zero- australia-project/
"Using the total costs of achieving net zero by 2050 (the NZ 2050
Scenario) relative to the total costs of continuing to maintain the
energy system without targeting any decarbonisation (the REF Scenario), slide 41 of this Report finds that rCythe cost of Australia reaching net zerorCO is approximately $300 billion, with all annualised energy costs falling as a fraction of the projected GDP and discounting reducing all these costs further."
OK, prove it. In your proof, I suggest you refer to this report,
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/electricity-
transition/gencost
published by a bunch of people who know their stuff. As opposed to
the Murdoch Moronsrao.
Bzzt. Nice waffling post, but it gives no indication of the amount of
capital investment required to reach net zero, or even close to it.
On the other end of the spectrum is this:
https://creinsurance.com.au/blog/the-9-trillion-solution-to-our-1-
problem-australias-net-zero-cost/
**CRE are INSURANCE BROKERS, not climate scientists. I suspect they are linked to some right wing, climate denier mob. I have no proof of this,
but their web site reads that way.
Now, you can argue about source credibility all you like, but no
matter *what* figures you want to believe the cost is going to be eye
watering, with the next result being insignificant beyond belief.
**There is zero doubt that the longer we wait to address the problem of
CO2 emissions, the more expensive it becomes to deal with it. At some
point in the not-too-distant future, it will become so expensive that it will take the GDP of the entire planet to deal with it. If nothing is
done, then the cost will be several multiples of planetary GDP. IOW: We
will be unable to deal with the problem.
It's that simple whether you like it or not.
**What is simple is that you've made some mighty big claims, but
presented zero evidence to back those claims.
The evidence here is about as basic as it can get Trevor, and I'm
genuinely surprised that a man as intelligent as you obviously are
doesn't get it.
**Here's the thing:
* I get that there is a problem now.
* I get that the problem is getting bigger each day we delay.
* I get that at some point in the next few years (likely less than 30)
that the problem will out of control for humans to deal with.
Let me ask you:
* Do you think that there is a problem with excessive CO2 emissions?
Put very simply, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
**Only if you are happy to see the end of our civilisation.
On 16/02/2026 2:46 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This
represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed kiddie
pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to WWII was
insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the same
contribution to the planet's CO2 output.
You *had* no point Trev, as your analogy was completely wrong to begin
with.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed conflict
of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above their weight in every theatre they were deployed to.
environmental contribution I'm fucked if I know.
I suspect you're in the same boat :)--
On 16/02/2026 6:35 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
Personally I would like to see the family home means tested, as I
can't see why if you own a home that would fetch a million bucks on
the market that you shouldn't sell it and downsize so you can pay for
your own retirement yourself rather than have every working Joe pay
for it for you.
The US an the UK (ans possibly others) have a far simpler system. In
the US, you pay a percentage of your wage up to an annual maximum as
Social security tax, in the UK, it's called National Insurance, in
both cases, you are entitled to a pension after a certain age no
questions asked.
Yeah, I've read some about the US system and would like to see it implemented here.
On 17/02/2026 8:53 am, Daryl wrote:
Do you always find it necessary to be such a smart arse?
**If you ever want to find any sympathy, then you need to describe what happened to you business accurately.
I accept your admission that you lied when you claimed that the
government stole $450k from you.
Here's the thing about being in business - It's risky.
Back in 1994, I got involved with a woman who employed seriously dodgy business practices. I did not know this before I lost $140,000.00 due to
her incompetence, lying, cheating and stealing ($321,000.00 in 2025 Dollars).
So, whose fault was it that lost what could have been a MUCH healthier superannuation? Not including lost business opportunities, because I had
no money to invest in my business.
100% my fault. As a businessman I SHOULD have done my due diligence. Had
I done so, I would have walked away from the project which she promised would make me millions of Dollars.
On 16/02/2026 9:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
Yeah, I've read some about the US system and would like to see it
implemented here.
**Why? Have you bothered to read about the US system?
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/16/heres-why-the-us-retirement-system-isnt- among-the-worlds-best.html
It's not brilliant.
In fact, the Aussie system is rated more highly:
https://www.mercer.com/en-us/insights/investments/market-outlook-and- trends/mercer-cfa-global-pension-index/#embed-accordion-60abaae430-item- ca6cb3a893
On 15/2/2026 11:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
Personally I would like to see the family home means tested, as IMy house isn't anything fancy but even its worth around $750-800k, a
can't see why if you own a home that would fetch a million bucks on
the market that you shouldn't sell it and downsize so you can pay for
your own retirement yourself rather than have every working Joe pay
for it for you.
million dollar house isn't necessarily a mansion, funny how we downsized
and ended up with a house worth more than our old house.
On 15/2/2026 5:12 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:28 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:35 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:12 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:55 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as
opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have
much time. We are presently sitting at around 425ppm of
atmospheric CO2. Most climate scientists (as opposed to Murdoch
Moronsrao) believe when CO2 levels reach 500ppm, then nothing we can >>>>>> do will stop uncontrolled warming. Do you really want to take a
chance? Do you really think that the Murdoch Moronsrao know more
about the climate than climate scientists?
Whether that's true or not Trev is completely beside the point.
**BZZZZZZTTTT!
Hang on a sec. ALL the planet's climate scientists are presenting
the same facts: The planet is warming and humans are responsible.
So, you can cease the equivocation. WE are warming the planet with
our CO2 emissions. WE need to stop.
*Again*, you're rambling on about shit that no one else is talking
about. We are *not* talking about the warming planet. We are talking
about the insane costs associated with achieving net zero.
Try to keep up.
What insane costs are these?
-aThe point is that we here in *this* can not do anything to change it. >>>>**Wrong. WE can reduce our CO2 emissions.
Trevor, I have asked you this question a number of times before, and
on every single occasion I have received nothing but word soup from
you in reply which I find rather odd coming from someone who
repeatedly requests that people replying to him be "specific" with
their responses. But being an optimist I will ask again anyway :)
Answer this: Given that we reduced our emissions when the carbon tax
was introduced, and according to you that reduction was
"significant", what was the exact beneficial effect on the planet?
I'm asking for a specific response here Trevor, not some bullshit "we
reduced our missions" throw away line. You're always harping on about
the science and love to quote exact numbers, so fill us all in.
Exactly how much of a reversal to the current numbers did our
emissions reduction actually achieve?
All we *can* do is make tokenistic changes that will be/are
insanely expensive and achieve absolutely fuck nothing in terms of
benefiting the planet in any way.
**"Expensive"?
By all estimates, very. In the trillions of dollars.
Who's estimates are those?
OK, prove it. In your proof, I suggest you refer to this report,
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/
electricity- transition/gencost
published by a bunch of people who know their stuff. As opposed to
the Murdoch Moronsrao.
Bzzt. Nice waffling post, but it gives no indication of the amount of
capital investment required to reach net zero, or even close to it.
On the other end of the spectrum is this:
https://creinsurance.com.au/blog/the-9-trillion-solution-to-our-1-
problem-australias-net-zero-cost/
These are the people quoted in the above link, their current
assessment is quite different to the one in that link.
https://www.netzeroaustralia.net.au/the-cost-of-australia-reaching-
net- zero-emissions-a-statement-by-the-steering-committee-of-the-net-
zero- australia-project/
Note the following from this link
"Different individuals and groups have been misrepresenting key cost
estimates from the NZAu Australia Project as rCythe cost of Australia
reaching net zerorCO. These misrepresented costs have typically ranged
from $1.5 trillion to $9 trillion. The Steering Committee of the NZAu
Project team is releasing this Statement to again clarify our findings
on this matter."
Who are we supposed to believe when every group has their own agenda and their "findings" seem to be based on their political leaning.
The Labor commo lefties want to send us back to the dark ages
loonie far right want us to become like a Trump lead US,
sensible middle ground somewhere but if it exists its invisible at the moment.
All I know is that the cost of living is going up at a rapid rate, of
course "net zero" isn't responsible for all of the rises but there is
very little doubt its a big part of it.
Yes and no, we don't have anywhere near the max allowed assets andThe
Australian Age Pension assets test, updated 20 September 2025,
determines eligibility based on the value of assets (excluding the
family home).
Maximum assets:-
Full Pension (Homeowner): Single $321.5K; Couple $421.4K.
Full Pension (Non-Homeowner): Single $579.5K; Couple $739.5K.
Part Pension Cut-off (Homeowner): Single $714.5K; Couple $1074K.
Part Pension Cut-off (Non-Homeowner): Single $972.5; Couple $1332K.
I think it's fairly generous myself :)
because we own our home and have no debt we are doing okay, the problem
I see is how do you answer the question how long will we live.
Without knowing the answer how do you know when you should spend your
money, should we buy a new car and go on an OS holiday and have not much left?
If we are only going to live for another 10yrs then we should spend it
all but what if we live to our mid 90's or one of us needs to go into
care then we will need some money and we will be screwed if its all gone.
It is a difficult question not easy to answer which is why a lot of pensioners have money in the bank or other assets and they aren't
spending it.
Call it fear of the unknown so they just sit on the money.
On 16/02/2026 6:04 pm, Noddy wrote:
You *had* no point Trev, as your analogy was completely wrong to begin
with.
**And yet, the percentage figures invite serious comparison.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed conflict
of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above their weight in
every theatre they were deployed to.
**Maybe. Maybe not.
The Japanese were, initially, disregarded by most
military experts, right up until their own armed forces faced them in combat. That includes Australia and the UK forces (in Singapore), the US forces over much of the Pacific. Here's the thing:
Four of my uncles served in WWII. One was flown all over the Pacific by
the US (he was attached to the US military), because he had a crucial
job of decoding Japanese radio transmissions. Very improtant job.
Another was a lookout on some of the islands above the top end. Another important job. I am under no illusion that they were important to the
war effort, but no more important than many hundreds of thousands of
others.
On 16/02/2026 6:04 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 2:46 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This
represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed kiddie
pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to WWII
was insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the same
contribution to the planet's CO2 output.
You *had* no point Trev, as your analogy was completely wrong to begin
with.
**And yet, the percentage figures invite serious comparison.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed conflict
of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above their weight in
every theatre they were deployed to.
**Maybe. Maybe not. The Japanese were, initially, disregarded by most military experts, right up until their own armed forces faced them in combat. That includes Australia and the UK forces (in Singapore), the US forces over much of the Pacific. Here's the thing:
Four of my uncles served in WWII. One was flown all over the Pacific by
the US (he was attached to the US military), because he had a crucial
job of decoding Japanese radio transmissions. Very improtant job.
Another was a lookout on some of the islands above the top end. Another important job. I am under no illusion that they were important to the
war effort, but no more important than many hundreds of thousands of
others.
-aHow you can relate that to our specific
environmental contribution I'm fucked if I know.
**Near enough to 1%, which you seem to regard as insignificant for the climate, not insignificant in war.
I suspect you're in the same boat :)
On 17/02/2026 9:37 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 6:04 pm, Noddy wrote:
You *had* no point Trev, as your analogy was completely wrong to
begin with.
**And yet, the percentage figures invite serious comparison.
They do no such thing at all.
You're away with the fairies.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed
conflict of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above their
weight in every theatre they were deployed to.
**Maybe. Maybe not.
There is no "maybe not". I suggest you do some research. This is *not* subjective material.
The Japanese were, initially, disregarded by most military experts,
right up until their own armed forces faced them in combat. That
includes Australia and the UK forces (in Singapore), the US forces
over much of the Pacific. Here's the thing:
Uh-huh.
Four of my uncles served in WWII. One was flown all over the Pacific
by the US (he was attached to the US military), because he had a
crucial job of decoding Japanese radio transmissions. Very improtant
job. Another was a lookout on some of the islands above the top end.
Another important job. I am under no illusion that they were important
to the war effort, but no more important than many hundreds of
thousands of others.
And what exactly does that have to do with anything being discussed here?
Here's some simple arithmetic for you Trevor. We were talking about Auustralia's part in global warming which is slightly greater than 1% of
the total...
which is absolutely fuck nothing, and in some bizarre way that
makes sense only to you you compare that to our military's role in 20th century conflicts.
If there's logic in that somewhere then I'm fucked if I can see it,
but then that seems to be the baseline story of every argument you ever make. They make sense *only* to you.
On 17/02/2026 9:20 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
100% my fault. As a businessman I SHOULD have done my due diligence.
Had I done so, I would have walked away from the project which she
promised would make me millions of Dollars.
Nice story,-a even though it's remarkably short on relevant detail :)
So, as a business expert, perhaps you could take the time to explain to everyone how if you enter into a fixed term contract with the government what "due diligence" you would need to carry out to avoid the
*government* unexpectedly backing out of the deal in breach of the terms
of the contract leaving you holding the baby?
Please. Have a crack at this. I would be delighted to hear your
explanation as I have absolutely no doubt it would be the funniest thing we've all read in ages :)
On 17/02/2026 9:43 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
Yeah, I've read some about the US system and would like to see it
implemented here.
**Why? Have you bothered to read about the US system?
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/16/heres-why-the-us-retirement-system-isnt-
among-the-worlds-best.html
It's not brilliant.
In fact, the Aussie system is rated more highly:
https://www.mercer.com/en-us/insights/investments/market-outlook-and-
trends/mercer-cfa-global-pension-index/#embed-accordion-60abaae430-item-
ca6cb3a893
The Aussie system is bullshit, and people like you are a perfect example
of why. Your sense of entitlement is sending us all broke.
On 16/02/2026 8:24 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 8:23 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 2:52 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:35 am, Daryl wrote:
Seems to depend of whose science, also the video was mostly about
the cost of net zero and like it or not the cost is astronomical.
**Here's the thing: The cost of inaction is much, MUCH higher. In
fact, most climate scientists tell us that if we allow atmospheric
CO2 concentrations to reach approximately 500ppm, then the cost of
mitigation will exceed the GDP of the entire planet. Several-fold.
Which means nothing will ever be done. Right?
**As long as Trump is POTUS, nothing will be done in the US. If enough
morons vote for Hanson in Australia, nothing will be done here. It
seems that China and most of Europe are acting in the right direction
though.
2 things. Firstly that red headed fuckwit fish & chip shop owner is
nothing to worry about, and secondly I'd take whatever information
coming out of China with a grain of salt the size of the iceberg that
killed the Titanic.
On 15/02/2026 8:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 7:41 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:01 am, Daryl wrote:
If we didn't have a very corrupt Labor Govt in Vic I wouldn't get
much pension if any, they more or less stole $450k straight out of
my pocket so we ended up on a full aged pension which was never our
intention, no one could have predicted the lengths the corrupt
bastards would go to fill the pockets of theirs and their union
cronies.
LOL, no the issue is with you putting all your eggs in one basket and
everyone in the cleaning industry, except you, knew that was a bad
idea as the private cleaning companies were doing such a shit-awful
job of cleaning and screwing their employees. Getting rid of you lot
was on the cards for years so what does dopey Daryl do? Oh yeah,
let's hinge our retirement plans on a single contract that Ray
Charles could have seen going back to the education department years
before you retired.
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.
What happened to Daryl happened to a bunch of other people. The
government entered into a contractual agreements with a number of
service providers who all committed themselves to those agreements by
leasing equipment and employing workers to meet their obligations,
only for the government to suddenly and without warning cancel all
contracts and hand the entire lot over to companies run by union
buddies who put in back handed tenders in brown envelopes.
**Now you're bullshitting.
Dazza EXPLICITLY stated, with zero equivocation that the government STOLE $450k from him. He has, so far,
declined to reveal what the police told him when he reported that theft.
On 15/02/2026 5:12 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:28 am, Noddy wrote:
So, you can cease the equivocation. WE are warming the planet with
our CO2 emissions. WE need to stop.
*Again*, you're rambling on about shit that no one else is talking
about. We are *not* talking about the warming planet. We are talking
about the insane costs associated with achieving net zero.
Try to keep up.
What insane costs are these?
I would have thought it was obvious.
AFAIK the theory is that if the Govt paid ever adult a "living wage"
then they would spend it which would end up being a positive benefit to
the economy.
I think that a few countries have tried it but none currently do it.
On 15/02/2026 2:52 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:35 am, Daryl wrote:
Seems to depend of whose science, also the video was mostly about the
cost of net zero and like it or not the cost is astronomical.
**Here's the thing: The cost of inaction is much, MUCH higher. In
fact, most climate scientists tell us that if we allow atmospheric CO2
concentrations to reach approximately 500ppm, then the cost of
mitigation will exceed the GDP of the entire planet. Several-fold.
Which means nothing will ever be done. Right?
On 15/02/2026 8:23 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 2:52 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:35 am, Daryl wrote:
Seems to depend of whose science, also the video was mostly about
the cost of net zero and like it or not the cost is astronomical.
**Here's the thing: The cost of inaction is much, MUCH higher. In
fact, most climate scientists tell us that if we allow atmospheric
CO2 concentrations to reach approximately 500ppm, then the cost of
mitigation will exceed the GDP of the entire planet. Several-fold.
Which means nothing will ever be done. Right?
**As long as Trump is POTUS, nothing will be done in the US. If enough morons vote for Hanson in Australia, nothing will be done here. It seems that China and most of Europe are acting in the right direction though.
I can just imagine the squealing involved if that happened to you :)
On 17/02/2026 9:20 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:53 am, Daryl wrote:
Do you always find it necessary to be such a smart arse?
**If you ever want to find any sympathy, then you need to describe
what happened to you business accurately.
I accept your admission that you lied when you claimed that the
government stole $450k from you.
*Jesus* you are a fucking idiot :)
Here's the thing about being in business - It's risky.
Yeah, sure it is. Why do you think contracts exist? Take your time.....
Back in 1994, I got involved with a woman who employed seriously dodgy
business practices. I did not know this before I lost $140,000.00 due
to her incompetence, lying, cheating and stealing ($321,000.00 in 2025
Dollars).
So, whose fault was it that lost what could have been a MUCH healthier
superannuation? Not including lost business opportunities, because I
had no money to invest in my business.
100% my fault. As a businessman I SHOULD have done my due diligence.
Had I done so, I would have walked away from the project which she
promised would make me millions of Dollars.
Nice story,-a even though it's remarkably short on relevant detail :)
So, as a business expert, perhaps you could take the time to explain to everyone how if you enter into a fixed term contract with the government what "due diligence" you would need to carry out to avoid the
*government* unexpectedly backing out of the deal in breach of the terms
of the contract leaving you holding the baby?
Please. Have a crack at this. I would be delighted to hear your
explanation as I have absolutely no doubt it would be the funniest thing we've all read in ages :)
On 17/02/2026 9:43 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
Yeah, I've read some about the US system and would like to see it
implemented here.
**Why? Have you bothered to read about the US system?
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/16/heres-why-the-us-retirement-system-
isnt- among-the-worlds-best.html
It's not brilliant.
In fact, the Aussie system is rated more highly:
https://www.mercer.com/en-us/insights/investments/market-outlook-and-
trends/mercer-cfa-global-pension-index/#embed-accordion-60abaae430-
item- ca6cb3a893
The Aussie system is bullshit, and people like you are a perfect example
of why. Your sense of entitlement is sending us all broke.
On 15/2/2026 7:06 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 12:28 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 11:35 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:12 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:55 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as
opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have
much time. We are presently sitting at around 425ppm of
atmospheric CO2. Most climate scientists (as opposed to Murdoch
Moronsrao) believe when CO2 levels reach 500ppm, then nothing we can >>>>>> do will stop uncontrolled warming. Do you really want to take a
chance? Do you really think that the Murdoch Moronsrao know more
about the climate than climate scientists?
Whether that's true or not Trev is completely beside the point.
**BZZZZZZTTTT!
Hang on a sec. ALL the planet's climate scientists are presenting
the same facts: The planet is warming and humans are responsible.
So, you can cease the equivocation. WE are warming the planet with
our CO2 emissions. WE need to stop.
*Again*, you're rambling on about shit that no one else is talking
about. We are *not* talking about the warming planet. We are talking
about the insane costs associated with achieving net zero.
**Different sides of the same coin. Achieving net zero is dealing with
the problem of excessive CO2 emissions.
Try to keep up.
-aThe point is that we here in *this* can not do anything to change it. >>>>**Wrong. WE can reduce our CO2 emissions.
Trevor, I have asked you this question a number of times before, and
on every single occasion I have received nothing but word soup from
you in reply which I find rather odd coming from someone who
repeatedly requests that people replying to him be "specific" with
their responses. But being an optimist I will ask again anyway :)
Answer this: Given that we reduced our emissions when the carbon tax
was introduced, and according to you that reduction was
"significant", what was the exact beneficial effect on the planet?
**Asked and answered. Australia reduced it's CO2 emissions by around
7% and that figure was headed down even further. Most critically,
other nations witnessed the significant success of our carbon tax and
introduced their own forms of carbon tax. IOW: Australia DID influence
the rest of the world.
I'm asking for a specific response here Trevor, not some bullshit "we
reduced our missions" throw away line. You're always harping on about
the science and love to quote exact numbers, so fill us all in.
Exactly how much of a reversal to the current numbers did our
emissions reduction actually achieve?
**Asked and answered. When the environmental vandals in the Lieberal
Party removed the carbon tax, our emissions shot up.
All we *can* do is make tokenistic changes that will be/are
insanely expensive and achieve absolutely fuck nothing in terms of
benefiting the planet in any way.
**"Expensive"?
By all estimates, very. In the trillions of dollars.
**Not even close. By ONE, seriously dodgy, estimate. Try harder.
Here's a vastly more credible source (thanks Keith):
https://www.netzeroaustralia.net.au/the-cost-of-australia-reaching-
net- zero-emissions-a-statement-by-the-steering-committee-of-the-net-
zero- australia-project/
"Using the total costs of achieving net zero by 2050 (the NZ 2050
Scenario) relative to the total costs of continuing to maintain the
energy system without targeting any decarbonisation (the REF
Scenario), slide 41 of this Report finds that rCythe cost of Australia
reaching net zerorCO is approximately $300 billion, with all annualised
energy costs falling as a fraction of the projected GDP and
discounting reducing all these costs further."
OK, prove it. In your proof, I suggest you refer to this report,
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/
electricity- transition/gencost
published by a bunch of people who know their stuff. As opposed to
the Murdoch Moronsrao.
Bzzt. Nice waffling post, but it gives no indication of the amount of
capital investment required to reach net zero, or even close to it.
On the other end of the spectrum is this:
https://creinsurance.com.au/blog/the-9-trillion-solution-to-our-1-
problem-australias-net-zero-cost/
**CRE are INSURANCE BROKERS, not climate scientists. I suspect they
are linked to some right wing, climate denier mob. I have no proof of
this, but their web site reads that way.
Now, you can argue about source credibility all you like, but no
matter *what* figures you want to believe the cost is going to be eye
watering, with the next result being insignificant beyond belief.
**There is zero doubt that the longer we wait to address the problem
of CO2 emissions, the more expensive it becomes to deal with it. At
some point in the not-too-distant future, it will become so expensive
that it will take the GDP of the entire planet to deal with it. If
nothing is done, then the cost will be several multiples of planetary
GDP. IOW: We will be unable to deal with the problem.
It's that simple whether you like it or not.
**What is simple is that you've made some mighty big claims, but
presented zero evidence to back those claims.
The evidence here is about as basic as it can get Trevor, and I'm
genuinely surprised that a man as intelligent as you obviously are
doesn't get it.
**Here's the thing:
* I get that there is a problem now.
* I get that the problem is getting bigger each day we delay.
* I get that at some point in the next few years (likely less than 30)
that the problem will out of control for humans to deal with.
Let me ask you:
* Do you think that there is a problem with excessive CO2 emissions?
Put very simply, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
**Only if you are happy to see the end of our civilisation.
If the costs are too high our civilization will end anyway, maybe you
would be happy running around naked living in humpy in the bush eating witchety grubs but that's not what the lifestyle that most people would
want but that's where we are heading if the extreme left gets its way.
On 17/02/2026 9:55 am, Noddy wrote:
Nice story,-a even though it's remarkably short on relevant detail :)
So, as a business expert, perhaps you could take the time to explain
to everyone how if you enter into a fixed term contract with the
government what "due diligence" you would need to carry out to avoid
the *government* unexpectedly backing out of the deal in breach of the
terms of the contract leaving you holding the baby?
Please. Have a crack at this. I would be delighted to hear your
explanation as I have absolutely no doubt it would be the funniest
thing we've all read in ages :)
**Do what I did: Contact the best (most expensive) contract lawyer in Sydney.
He gave me a 75% chance of winning the case and a 5% chance of getting
my money back. Best $500.00 I've ever spent. 30 minutes of the lawyer's time.
On 17/02/2026 9:56 am, Noddy wrote:
**Why? Have you bothered to read about the US system?
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/16/heres-why-the-us-retirement-system-
isnt- among-the-worlds-best.html
It's not brilliant.
In fact, the Aussie system is rated more highly:
https://www.mercer.com/en-us/insights/investments/market-outlook-and-
trends/mercer-cfa-global-pension-index/#embed-accordion-60abaae430-
item- ca6cb3a893
The Aussie system is bullshit, and people like you are a perfect
example of why. Your sense of entitlement is sending us all broke.
**Lemme see if I understand this:
I should trust the opinion of a non-expert over the carefully considered opinions of people who actually know their stuff. Is that about it?
On 17/02/2026 9:33 am, Daryl wrote:
If the costs are too high our civilization will end anyway, maybe you
would be happy running around naked living in humpy in the bush eating
witchety grubs but that's not what the lifestyle that most people
would want but that's where we are heading if the extreme left gets
its way.
**Except that, according to the people who know these things, the costs (right now) are not as nonsensically high as you claim.
On 17/02/2026 8:37 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Maybe. Maybe not. The Japanese were, initially, disregarded by most
military experts, right up until their own armed forces faced them in
combat. That includes Australia and the UK forces (in Singapore), the
US forces over much of the Pacific. Here's the thing:
Four of my uncles served in WWII. One was flown all over the Pacific
by the US (he was attached to the US military), because he had a
crucial job of decoding Japanese radio transmissions. Very improtant
job. Another was a lookout on some of the islands above the top end.
Another important job. I am under no illusion that they were important
to the war effort, but no more important than many hundreds of
thousands of others.
I hold the view, not popular among my ex-military friends, that the only ones that have fought for Australia were those who fought in the Pacific
in WWII. All the others were fighting for somebody else.
On 17/02/2026 9:02 am, Daryl wrote:
Yes and no, we don't have anywhere near the max allowed assets andThe
Australian Age Pension assets test, updated 20 September 2025,
determines eligibility based on the value of assets (excluding the
family home).
Maximum assets:-
Full Pension (Homeowner): Single $321.5K; Couple $421.4K.
Full Pension (Non-Homeowner): Single $579.5K; Couple $739.5K.
Part Pension Cut-off (Homeowner): Single $714.5K; Couple $1074K.
Part Pension Cut-off (Non-Homeowner): Single $972.5; Couple $1332K.
I think it's fairly generous myself :)
because we own our home and have no debt we are doing okay, the
problem I see is how do you answer the question how long will we live.
Without knowing the answer how do you know when you should spend your
money, should we buy a new car and go on an OS holiday and have not
much left?
If we are only going to live for another 10yrs then we should spend it
all but what if we live to our mid 90's or one of us needs to go into
care then we will need some money and we will be screwed if its all gone.
It is a difficult question not easy to answer which is why a lot of
pensioners have money in the bank or other assets and they aren't
spending it.
Call it fear of the unknown so they just sit on the money.
It's funny, as if you're unemployed and have money in the bank you have
to spend that money before the government will give you a single cent.
Yet if you're a retired home owner the government will happily give you
a full pension even if you have 300 grand in the bank :)
On 17/02/2026 9:10 am, Daryl wrote:
On 15/2/2026 11:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
Personally I would like to see the family home means tested, as IMy house isn't anything fancy but even its worth around $750-800k, a
can't see why if you own a home that would fetch a million bucks on
the market that you shouldn't sell it and downsize so you can pay for
your own retirement yourself rather than have every working Joe pay
for it for you.
million dollar house isn't necessarily a mansion, funny how we
downsized and ended up with a house worth more than our old house.
Here's a funny thing I find about people and pensions, and I'm not
pointing the finger at anyone. Just commenting on the situation as I see
it.
If you owe people money and you have assets, then eventually the system
will force you to sell those assets and pay your creditors. That's how
it is in most parts of the world, and most people see that as the normal
way things should be.
Yet if you go into retirement with assets yet don't have any money to support yourself, the expectation is that the government should support
you leaving your assets intact to do with as you please.
Sounds wrong to me :)
On 17/02/2026 8:53 am, Daryl wrote:
On 15/2/2026 3:28 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 1:01 pm, Daryl wrote:Do you always find it necessary to be such a smart arse?
On 15/2/2026 11:27 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:21 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:58 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 8:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
It shouldn't and the rich won't be bothered too much but the
cost of living is off the scale, power prices keep going up and >>>>>>>> most of that is due to the Govt's measures to obtain net zero.
**Power prices are going up because various state governments
sold off electricity assets to private corporations. Those
corporations have to pay shareholders and multi-million Dollar
paypackets to CEOs. If you want to blame someone, then blame your >>>>>>> state government that sold off those assets.
That happened a *very* long time ago Trevor,
**And those private corporations STILL own those assets. As long as >>>>> private corporations (many owned by foreign entities) still own
them, we will continue to be gouged.
Are you unaware of how an oligopoly operates?
Do you seriously imagine that private companies look after the
consumer, rather than shareholders?
I have some bad news for you.
-a-aand there is nothing to
suggest that if the state still had control over electricity
generation and distribution today we'd be paying any less.
**There is abundant PROOF that you are wrong. Power prices went up
when private companies gained control of electricity assets.
On the contrary, the Australian Energy Regulator is a statutory
government authority, and they continue to approve cost increases >>>>>> every single year despite energy retailers making record profits.
**Sure. Again: Private companies are there to make money for
shareholders, CEOs and foreign entities. They don't give a shit
about consumers.
It's how private oligopolies operate.
Its also contributing a lot to other cost of living increases >>>>>>>> because the price of power affects everything.
**Sure. I had to raise my prices by 2% over the past couple of
years to pay the extra cost of power.
The wholesale price for Electricity is A$100 per megawatt. How
much do you pay for yours?
**Fucked if I know and I can't be bothered looking. BTW: Your price >>>>> claim is nonsensical (ie: meaningless). I suggest you look again
and state what that price is with more precision.
IOW: MWhr
6 yrs ago I started to get the aged pension, for a full year I >>>>>>>> kept track of every cent we spent and we lived and paid all our >>>>>>>> bills etc just with our pension income, 6 yrs later we need an >>>>>>>> extra $10k PA from our saving or super just to make ends meet >>>>>>>> and we are lucky in that we own our home and have no debt,
pensioners who don't own their homes and don't have any saving >>>>>>>> or super are screwed.
**You're lucky. I don't qualify for the pension. I hate you.
Me either, but I don't hate anyone for it. I hate the system that >>>>>> allows some people to have it when they can clearly support
themselves by other means.
**EVERY taxpayer should receive the pension. I ploughed every spare >>>>> Dollar into my super (I still am), just so I could receive a little >>>>> more than a regular pension. Still, I don't every have to cross the >>>>> doorway of Centrelink. That makes me happy.
If we didn't have a very corrupt Labor Govt in Vic I wouldn't get
much pension if any, they more or less stole $450k straight out of
my pocket so we ended up on a full aged pension which was never our
intention, no one could have predicted the lengths the corrupt
bastards would go to fill the pockets of theirs and their union
cronies.
**"Stole $450k"?
What did the police say when you reported the theft?
**If you ever want to find any sympathy, then you need to describe what happened to you business accurately.
I accept your admission that you lied when you claimed that the
government stole $450k from you.
On 17/2/2026 9:20 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:53 am, Daryl wrote:
On 15/2/2026 3:28 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 1:01 pm, Daryl wrote:Do you always find it necessary to be such a smart arse?
On 15/2/2026 11:27 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:21 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:58 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 8:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
It shouldn't and the rich won't be bothered too much but the >>>>>>>>> cost of living is off the scale, power prices keep going up and >>>>>>>>> most of that is due to the Govt's measures to obtain net zero. >>>>>>>>**Power prices are going up because various state governments >>>>>>>> sold off electricity assets to private corporations. Those
corporations have to pay shareholders and multi-million Dollar >>>>>>>> paypackets to CEOs. If you want to blame someone, then blame
your state government that sold off those assets.
That happened a *very* long time ago Trevor,
**And those private corporations STILL own those assets. As long
as private corporations (many owned by foreign entities) still own >>>>>> them, we will continue to be gouged.
Are you unaware of how an oligopoly operates?
Do you seriously imagine that private companies look after the
consumer, rather than shareholders?
I have some bad news for you.
-a-aand there is nothing to
suggest that if the state still had control over electricity
generation and distribution today we'd be paying any less.
**There is abundant PROOF that you are wrong. Power prices went up >>>>>> when private companies gained control of electricity assets.
**Sure. Again: Private companies are there to make money for
On the contrary, the Australian Energy Regulator is a statutory >>>>>>> government authority, and they continue to approve cost increases >>>>>>> every single year despite energy retailers making record profits. >>>>>>
shareholders, CEOs and foreign entities. They don't give a shit
about consumers.
It's how private oligopolies operate.
Its also contributing a lot to other cost of living increases >>>>>>>>> because the price of power affects everything.
**Sure. I had to raise my prices by 2% over the past couple of >>>>>>>> years to pay the extra cost of power.
The wholesale price for Electricity is A$100 per megawatt. How
much do you pay for yours?
**Fucked if I know and I can't be bothered looking. BTW: Your
price claim is nonsensical (ie: meaningless). I suggest you look
again and state what that price is with more precision.
IOW: MWhr
6 yrs ago I started to get the aged pension, for a full year I >>>>>>>>> kept track of every cent we spent and we lived and paid all our >>>>>>>>> bills etc just with our pension income, 6 yrs later we need an >>>>>>>>> extra $10k PA from our saving or super just to make ends meet >>>>>>>>> and we are lucky in that we own our home and have no debt,
pensioners who don't own their homes and don't have any saving >>>>>>>>> or super are screwed.
**You're lucky. I don't qualify for the pension. I hate you.
Me either, but I don't hate anyone for it. I hate the system that >>>>>>> allows some people to have it when they can clearly support
themselves by other means.
**EVERY taxpayer should receive the pension. I ploughed every
spare Dollar into my super (I still am), just so I could receive a >>>>>> little more than a regular pension. Still, I don't every have to
cross the doorway of Centrelink. That makes me happy.
If we didn't have a very corrupt Labor Govt in Vic I wouldn't get
much pension if any, they more or less stole $450k straight out of
my pocket so we ended up on a full aged pension which was never our >>>>> intention, no one could have predicted the lengths the corrupt
bastards would go to fill the pockets of theirs and their union
cronies.
**"Stole $450k"?
What did the police say when you reported the theft?
**If you ever want to find any sympathy, then you need to describe
what happened to you business accurately.
Done that many many times.
I accept your admission that you lied when you claimed that the
government stole $450k from you.
Get fucked Trev, you must be a fucking hopeless business man if you are still working at your age or is that because you are such an arsehole
you have no family or friends, either way fuck off.
On 17/02/2026 9:20 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:53 am, Daryl wrote:
Do you always find it necessary to be such a smart arse?
**If you ever want to find any sympathy, then you need to describe
what happened to you business accurately.
I accept your admission that you lied when you claimed that the
government stole $450k from you.
*Jesus* you are a fucking idiot :)
Here's the thing about being in business - It's risky.
Yeah, sure it is. Why do you think contracts exist? Take your time.....
Back in 1994, I got involved with a woman who employed seriously dodgy
business practices. I did not know this before I lost $140,000.00 due
to her incompetence, lying, cheating and stealing ($321,000.00 in 2025
Dollars).
So, whose fault was it that lost what could have been a MUCH healthier
superannuation? Not including lost business opportunities, because I
had no money to invest in my business.
100% my fault. As a businessman I SHOULD have done my due diligence.
Had I done so, I would have walked away from the project which she
promised would make me millions of Dollars.
Nice story,-a even though it's remarkably short on relevant detail :)
So, as a business expert, perhaps you could take the time to explain to everyone how if you enter into a fixed term contract with the government what "due diligence" you would need to carry out to avoid the
*government* unexpectedly backing out of the deal in breach of the terms
of the contract leaving you holding the baby?
Please. Have a crack at this. I would be delighted to hear your
explanation as I have absolutely no doubt it would be the funniest thing we've all read in ages :)
On 17/02/2026 9:20 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:53 am, Daryl wrote:
Do you always find it necessary to be such a smart arse?
**If you ever want to find any sympathy, then you need to describe
what happened to you business accurately.
I accept your admission that you lied when you claimed that the
government stole $450k from you.
*Jesus* you are a fucking idiot :)
Here's the thing about being in business - It's risky.
Yeah, sure it is. Why do you think contracts exist? Take your time.....
Back in 1994, I got involved with a woman who employed seriously dodgy
business practices. I did not know this before I lost $140,000.00 due
to her incompetence, lying, cheating and stealing ($321,000.00 in 2025
Dollars).
So, whose fault was it that lost what could have been a MUCH healthier
superannuation? Not including lost business opportunities, because I
had no money to invest in my business.
100% my fault. As a businessman I SHOULD have done my due diligence.
Had I done so, I would have walked away from the project which she
promised would make me millions of Dollars.
Nice story,-a even though it's remarkably short on relevant detail :)
So, as a business expert, perhaps you could take the time to explain to everyone how if you enter into a fixed term contract with the government what "due diligence" you would need to carry out
On 17/02/2026 4:44 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2026 9:33 am, Daryl wrote:
If the costs are too high our civilization will end anyway, maybe you
would be happy running around naked living in humpy in the bush
eating witchety grubs but that's not what the lifestyle that most
people would want but that's where we are heading if the extreme left
gets its way.
**Except that, according to the people who know these things, the
costs (right now) are not as nonsensically high as you claim.
No one will ever know the true cost until it's done, but it's a safe bet that if Labor has anything to do with things they will *not* come in
either on time or on budget.
On 17/02/2026 9:56 am, Noddy wrote:
On 17/02/2026 9:43 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
Yeah, I've read some about the US system and would like to see it
implemented here.
**Why? Have you bothered to read about the US system?
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/16/heres-why-the-us-retirement-system-
isnt- among-the-worlds-best.html
It's not brilliant.
In fact, the Aussie system is rated more highly:
https://www.mercer.com/en-us/insights/investments/market-outlook-and-
trends/mercer-cfa-global-pension-index/#embed-accordion-60abaae430-
item- ca6cb3a893
The Aussie system is bullshit, and people like you are a perfect
example of why. Your sense of entitlement is sending us all broke.
**Lemme see if I understand this:
I should trust the opinion of a non-expert over the carefully considered opinions of people who actually know their stuff. Is that about it?
On 17/2/2026 9:55 am, Noddy wrote:
On 17/02/2026 9:20 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and sign
On 17/02/2026 8:53 am, Daryl wrote:
Do you always find it necessary to be such a smart arse?
**If you ever want to find any sympathy, then you need to describe
what happened to you business accurately.
I accept your admission that you lied when you claimed that the
government stole $450k from you.
*Jesus* you are a fucking idiot :)
Here's the thing about being in business - It's risky.
Yeah, sure it is. Why do you think contracts exist? Take your time.....
Back in 1994, I got involved with a woman who employed seriously
dodgy business practices. I did not know this before I lost
$140,000.00 due to her incompetence, lying, cheating and stealing
($321,000.00 in 2025 Dollars).
So, whose fault was it that lost what could have been a MUCH
healthier superannuation? Not including lost business opportunities,
because I had no money to invest in my business.
100% my fault. As a businessman I SHOULD have done my due diligence.
Had I done so, I would have walked away from the project which she
promised would make me millions of Dollars.
Nice story,-a even though it's remarkably short on relevant detail :)
So, as a business expert, perhaps you could take the time to explain
to everyone how if you enter into a fixed term contract with the
government what "due diligence" you would need to carry out to avoid
the *government* unexpectedly backing out of the deal in breach of the
terms of the contract leaving you holding the baby?
Please. Have a crack at this. I would be delighted to hear your
explanation as I have absolutely no doubt it would be the funniest
thing we've all read in ages :)
it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said that in
the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living, certainly
didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up 2 sons including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid off the house, had lots of
new cars etc etc so overall not too bad.
We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we were
affected as badly as many others especially the younger business owners
who had invested lots of money growing their business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice including consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal advice only to be
told that the Govt can do what the fuck they like and nothing can be
done about it.
On 17/02/2026 6:55 am, Noddy wrote:
On 17/02/2026 9:20 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:53 am, Daryl wrote:
Do you always find it necessary to be such a smart arse?
**If you ever want to find any sympathy, then you need to describe
what happened to you business accurately.
I accept your admission that you lied when you claimed that the
government stole $450k from you.
*Jesus* you are a fucking idiot :)
Here's the thing about being in business - It's risky.
Yeah, sure it is. Why do you think contracts exist? Take your time.....
Back in 1994, I got involved with a woman who employed seriously
dodgy business practices. I did not know this before I lost
$140,000.00 due to her incompetence, lying, cheating and stealing
($321,000.00 in 2025 Dollars).
So, whose fault was it that lost what could have been a MUCH
healthier superannuation? Not including lost business opportunities,
because I had no money to invest in my business.
100% my fault. As a businessman I SHOULD have done my due diligence.
Had I done so, I would have walked away from the project which she
promised would make me millions of Dollars.
Nice story,-a even though it's remarkably short on relevant detail :)
So, as a business expert, perhaps you could take the time to explain
to everyone how if you enter into a fixed term contract with the
government what "due diligence" you would need to carry out
Ever heard of a contract lawyer Mr. "businessman". No, and neither has
Daryl evidently.
You two really are the dumb and dumber show.
On 17/02/2026 9:33 am, Daryl wrote:
If the costs are too high our civilization will end anyway, maybe you
would be happy running around naked living in humpy in the bush eating
witchety grubs but that's not what the lifestyle that most people
would want but that's where we are heading if the extreme left gets
its way.
**Except that, according to the people who know these things, the costs (right now) are not as nonsensically high as you claim.
On 17/02/2026 6:10 pm, Noddy wrote:
**Except that, according to the people who know these things, the
costs (right now) are not as nonsensically high as you claim.
No one will ever know the true cost until it's done, but it's a safe
bet that if Labor has anything to do with things they will *not* come
in either on time or on budget.
**And you reckon the Lieberals are better?
Seriously?
Snowy 2.0 anyone?
Vietnam War?
Half a dozen carparks?
Etc.
On 17/02/2026 6:55 am, Noddy wrote:
Ever heard of aShoosh Junior. The adults are talking. Go fit another set of mudflaps.
On 17/2/2026 9:20 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
I accept your admission that you lied when you claimed that the
government stole $450k from you.
Get fucked Trev, you must be a fucking hopeless business man if you are still working at your age or is that because you are such an arsehole
you have no family or friends, either way fuck off.
On 17/2/2026 10:00 am, Noddy wrote:
If you owe people money and you have assets, then eventually theIf a pensioner sells their house they would then have to rent somewhere,
system will force you to sell those assets and pay your creditors.
That's how it is in most parts of the world, and most people see that
as the normal way things should be.
Yet if you go into retirement with assets yet don't have any money to
support yourself, the expectation is that the government should
support you leaving your assets intact to do with as you please.
Sounds wrong to me :)
if their only income is from the interest/earnings on the capital from
the sale of their house they will be spending more than their income so
they will have to spend the capital and very soon they could be poor
then get a full pension:-)
On 17/2/2026 10:07 am, Noddy wrote:
It's funny, as if you're unemployed and have money in the bank youProbably because in most cases the person who is getting an aged pension
have to spend that money before the government will give you a single
cent. Yet if you're a retired home owner the government will happily
give you a full pension even if you have 300 grand in the bank :)
has worked and paid taxes for 45-50 years and the unemployed person hasn't.
On 17/02/2026 4:40 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2026 9:55 am, Noddy wrote:
Nice story,-a even though it's remarkably short on relevant detail :)
So, as a business expert, perhaps you could take the time to explain
to everyone how if you enter into a fixed term contract with the
government what "due diligence" you would need to carry out to avoid
the *government* unexpectedly backing out of the deal in breach of
the terms of the contract leaving you holding the baby?
Please. Have a crack at this. I would be delighted to hear your
explanation as I have absolutely no doubt it would be the funniest
thing we've all read in ages :)
**Do what I did: Contact the best (most expensive) contract lawyer in
Sydney.
He gave me a 75% chance of winning the case and a 5% chance of getting
my money back. Best $500.00 I've ever spent. 30 minutes of the
lawyer's time.
Thanks Trev, but yet *again* you've added irrelevant editorial while completely avoiding answering my question.
You two really are the dumb and dumber show.
On 17/02/2026 6:19 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2026 6:10 pm, Noddy wrote:
**Except that, according to the people who know these things, the
costs (right now) are not as nonsensically high as you claim.
No one will ever know the true cost until it's done, but it's a safe
bet that if Labor has anything to do with things they will *not* come
in either on time or on budget.
**And you reckon the Lieberals are better?
History suggests that they are.
Seriously?
Yes indeed.
Snowy 2.0 anyone?
Vietnam War?
Half a dozen carparks?
Etc.
To the best of my knowledge the Liberals aren't in a corrupt partnership with unions, and if you want to see that happening take a look at what's going on in Victoria right now.
On 17/02/2026 6:22 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 17/2/2026 10:07 am, Noddy wrote:
It's funny, as if you're unemployed and have money in the bank youProbably because in most cases the person who is getting an aged
have to spend that money before the government will give you a single
cent. Yet if you're a retired home owner the government will happily
give you a full pension even if you have 300 grand in the bank :)
pension has worked and paid taxes for 45-50 years and the unemployed
person hasn't.
Not necessarily. You could have worked and paid taxes all your life but
find yourself out of a job 2 years before retirement age in which case
you wouldn't qualify for a pension and only get the dole after you'd
spent your available cash.
Paying taxes shouldn't be the qualifier for a pension.
On 17/2/2026 8:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
Latest news is saying that CFMEU corruption has cost the state around $15billion, I only read the headline so don't know what they were on
To the best of my knowledge the Liberals aren't in a corrupt
partnership with unions, and if you want to see that happening take a
look at what's going on in Victoria right now.
about but no doubt that the CFMEU and the Govt are in bed together and
both as corrupt as it gets.
On 17/2/2026 9:05 pm, Noddy wrote:
Not necessarily. You could have worked and paid taxes all your lifeAFAIK it isn't, people who haven't worked a day in their lives so paid
but find yourself out of a job 2 years before retirement age in which
case you wouldn't qualify for a pension and only get the dole after
you'd spent your available cash.
Paying taxes shouldn't be the qualifier for a pension.
no income tax still qualify.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice including consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal advice only to be
told that the Govt can do what the fuck they like and nothing can be
done about it.
On 17/02/2026 6:31 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 17/2/2026 9:20 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
I accept your admission that you lied when you claimed that the
government stole $450k from you.
Get fucked Trev, you must be a fucking hopeless business man if you
are still working at your age or is that because you are such an
arsehole you have no family or friends, either way fuck off.
He definitely lives in a bizarre world :)
On 17/02/2026 6:19 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2026 6:10 pm, Noddy wrote:
**Except that, according to the people who know these things, the
costs (right now) are not as nonsensically high as you claim.
No one will ever know the true cost until it's done, but it's a safe
bet that if Labor has anything to do with things they will *not* come
in either on time or on budget.
**And you reckon the Lieberals are better?
History suggests that they are.
Seriously?
Yes indeed.
Snowy 2.0 anyone?
Vietnam War?
Half a dozen carparks?
Etc.
To the best of my knowledge the Liberals aren't in a corrupt partnership with unions,
On 17/2/2026 8:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 17/02/2026 6:19 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:Latest news is saying that CFMEU corruption has cost the state around $15billion, I only read the headline so don't know what they were on
On 17/02/2026 6:10 pm, Noddy wrote:
**Except that, according to the people who know these things, the
costs (right now) are not as nonsensically high as you claim.
No one will ever know the true cost until it's done, but it's a safe
bet that if Labor has anything to do with things they will *not*
come in either on time or on budget.
**And you reckon the Lieberals are better?
History suggests that they are.
Seriously?
Yes indeed.
Snowy 2.0 anyone?
Vietnam War?
Half a dozen carparks?
Etc.
To the best of my knowledge the Liberals aren't in a corrupt
partnership with unions, and if you want to see that happening take a
look at what's going on in Victoria right now.
about but no doubt that the CFMEU and the Govt are in bed together and
both as corrupt as it gets.
On 17/02/2026 10:33 am, keithr0 wrote:
I hold the view, not popular among my ex-military friends, that the
only ones that have fought for Australia were those who fought in the
Pacific in WWII. All the others were fighting for somebody else.
I'm inclined to agree.
Daryl wrote:
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice including
consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal advice only to be
told that the Govt can do what the fuck they like and nothing can be
done about it.
That's incorrect. Unlike totalitarian countries such as North Korea,
Russia and the USA, our governments are not above the Law.
On 17/02/2026 10:04 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 17/2/2026 8:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
Latest news is saying that CFMEU corruption has cost the state around
To the best of my knowledge the Liberals aren't in a corrupt
partnership with unions, and if you want to see that happening take a
look at what's going on in Victoria right now.
$15billion, I only read the headline so don't know what they were on
about but no doubt that the CFMEU and the Govt are in bed together and
both as corrupt as it gets.
The Premier is frantically doing all she can to hose this down, but it's going to be big. There will be a royal commission and hopefully she will
be charged and convicted along with that cunt Andrews.
On 17/02/2026 4:40 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2026 9:55 am, Noddy wrote:
Nice story,-a even though it's remarkably short on relevant detail :)
So, as a business expert, perhaps you could take the time to explain
to everyone how if you enter into a fixed term contract with the
government what "due diligence" you would need to carry out to avoid
the *government* unexpectedly backing out of the deal in breach of
the terms of the contract leaving you holding the baby?
Please. Have a crack at this. I would be delighted to hear your
explanation as I have absolutely no doubt it would be the funniest
thing we've all read in ages :)
**Do what I did: Contact the best (most expensive) contract lawyer in
Sydney.
He gave me a 75% chance of winning the case and a 5% chance of getting
my money back. Best $500.00 I've ever spent. 30 minutes of the
lawyer's time.
Thanks Trev, but yet *again* you've added irrelevant editorial while completely avoiding answering my question.
That's twice now, so I'll take that to mean that you have no answer and instead just prefer to waffle.
On 17/2/2026 9:55 am, Noddy wrote:
On 17/02/2026 9:20 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and sign
On 17/02/2026 8:53 am, Daryl wrote:
Do you always find it necessary to be such a smart arse?
**If you ever want to find any sympathy, then you need to describe
what happened to you business accurately.
I accept your admission that you lied when you claimed that the
government stole $450k from you.
*Jesus* you are a fucking idiot :)
Here's the thing about being in business - It's risky.
Yeah, sure it is. Why do you think contracts exist? Take your time.....
Back in 1994, I got involved with a woman who employed seriously
dodgy business practices. I did not know this before I lost
$140,000.00 due to her incompetence, lying, cheating and stealing
($321,000.00 in 2025 Dollars).
So, whose fault was it that lost what could have been a MUCH
healthier superannuation? Not including lost business opportunities,
because I had no money to invest in my business.
100% my fault. As a businessman I SHOULD have done my due diligence.
Had I done so, I would have walked away from the project which she
promised would make me millions of Dollars.
Nice story,-a even though it's remarkably short on relevant detail :)
So, as a business expert, perhaps you could take the time to explain
to everyone how if you enter into a fixed term contract with the
government what "due diligence" you would need to carry out to avoid
the *government* unexpectedly backing out of the deal in breach of the
terms of the contract leaving you holding the baby?
Please. Have a crack at this. I would be delighted to hear your
explanation as I have absolutely no doubt it would be the funniest
thing we've all read in ages :)
it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said that in
the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living, certainly
didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up 2 sons including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid off the house, had lots of
new cars etc etc so overall not too bad.
We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we were
affected as badly as many others especially the younger business owners
who had invested lots of money growing their business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice including consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal advice only to be
told that the Govt can do what the fuck they like and nothing can be
done about it.
On 17/2/2026 8:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 17/02/2026 6:19 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:Latest news is saying that CFMEU corruption has cost the state around $15billion, I only read the headline so don't know what they were on
On 17/02/2026 6:10 pm, Noddy wrote:
**Except that, according to the people who know these things, the
costs (right now) are not as nonsensically high as you claim.
No one will ever know the true cost until it's done, but it's a safe
bet that if Labor has anything to do with things they will *not*
come in either on time or on budget.
**And you reckon the Lieberals are better?
History suggests that they are.
Seriously?
Yes indeed.
Snowy 2.0 anyone?
Vietnam War?
Half a dozen carparks?
Etc.
To the best of my knowledge the Liberals aren't in a corrupt
partnership with unions, and if you want to see that happening take a
look at what's going on in Victoria right now.
about but no doubt that the CFMEU and the Govt are in bed together and
both as corrupt as it gets.
Most people *grow* their businesses but not
Daryl since his aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few people who open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very large
proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family run.
On 18/02/2026 6:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few people
who open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very large
proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family run.
+1
Please, dont show Tomas Clasener up for the failure it is. I cant stop laughing at his pretend business knowledge. After all, his meteoric rise
to fame in the business world was selling dodgy second hand hard
drives... other than that, he sweated his arse off in a fucking hole in
the ground, and then became a wannabe "teacher". What the fuck he would
know about running any sort of business is beyond me....
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few people who
open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very large
proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family run.
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few people who open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very large
proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family run.
On 18/02/2026 6:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few people
who open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very large
proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family run.
+1
Please, dont show Tomas Clasener up for the failure it is. I cant stop laughing at his pretend business knowledge. After all, his meteoric rise
to fame in the business world was selling dodgy second hand hard
drives... other than that, he sweated his arse off in a fucking hole in
the ground, and then became a wannabe "teacher". What the fuck he would
know about running any sort of business is beyond me....
On 17/02/2026 3:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and sign
it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said that
in the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living, certainly
didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up 2 sons
including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid off the house,
had lots of new cars etc etc so overall not too bad.
We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we were
affected as badly as many others especially the younger business
owners who had invested lots of money growing their business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice including
consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal advice only to be
told that the Govt can do what the fuck they like and nothing can be
done about it.
That's absolute bullshit.
Given the writing was on the wall for *years*
there is no excuse for you not knowing that the contracts were likely
going to be pulled - because of the incompetence and abuses in the
industry you were part of.
It's your own fault you goose.
On 17/2/2026 10:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
AFAIK her husband used to be a CFMEU official so there is directLatest news is saying that CFMEU corruption has cost the state around
$15billion, I only read the headline so don't know what they were on
about but no doubt that the CFMEU and the Govt are in bed together
and both as corrupt as it gets.
The Premier is frantically doing all she can to hose this down, but
it's going to be big. There will be a royal commission and hopefully
she will be charged and convicted along with that cunt Andrews.
connection between the Premier and the union.
I think the article is referring to how much was/is being spent on the
"big build", some of it is justified but projects such as the Westgate tunnel have a dubious business case as does the "suburban rail loop".
I think that the Metro rail tunnel and the crossing removal are worth
the money but the rest is just spending money to keep their union mates
in very well paid jobs, for example a sparkie I know worked on the
Westgate and Metro rail tunnel projects, he was getting paid in excess
of $300,000 PA.
On 17/02/2026 7:04 pm, Daryl wrote:
Latest news is saying that CFMEU corruption has cost the state around
$15billion, I only read the headline so don't know what they were on
about but no doubt that the CFMEU and the Govt are in bed together and
both as corrupt as it gets.
You are so f'n thick. Based on a headline you saw on what? Murdoch
shitrag? Sky "News parody" Australia? and then didn't even bother to
read the rest before making a massive assumption.
On 18/2/2026 6:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few people who
Ok, let me rephrase that! Most successful businesses *grow* ...
From what I have read of Daryl's uttering, his business did grow but
only in the number of employees. He said he made a living, raised kids,
etc. His exact words are in this thread. In other words, he might just
as well have remained an employee in a decent job and built up a decent super balance - just like I did.
open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very large
proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family run.
Daryl's business wasn't a one man show. 20+ people IIRC.
A friend of mine, Paul Beams, had a very small labour hire company
called *Trade Hire* based at Burnie, Tas. when I first met him. I was working in a tin mine and he had 5 people hired by the mine - his total workforce at the time, I might add - with his wife doing the books and
the pays. He had even hired himself to the mine as a machinist and we
were working in the same building. I got to know Paul well and he had aspirations, big aspirations. He said to me he was going to be a
millionaire by the time he was 40. He lied, he had achieved that goal by
the time he was 36 when next we met upon my return from Indonesia. By
that time Trade Hire employed a *base* workforce of 20 people, most
employed at the Que River Mine in Tasmania, plus 10 to a dozen floaters.
I was one of his floaters for a time, worked at the same mine as
previously but for Trade Hire instead as a contractor. When the Que
River ore body expired, Paul and a bunch of his mates got together and bought a copper mine. When we last spoke he had retired back in 2015.
In business you can just cruise - or you can set goals. Paul was both a
goal setter and an achiever. Daryl, not so much.
On 18/02/2026 6:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few people
who open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very large
proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family run.
Not that the mental case you're replying to would have the slightest
idea about how to run a business :)
On 18/02/2026 3:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 17/02/2026 3:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and
sign it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said that
in the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living,
certainly didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up 2
sons including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid off the
house, had lots of new cars etc etc so overall not too bad.
We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we were
affected as badly as many others especially the younger business
owners who had invested lots of money growing their business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice including
consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal advice only to be
told that the Govt can do what the fuck they like and nothing can be
done about it.
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal experience
of entering into contractual agreements with the Victorian government?
Given the writing was on the wall for *years* there is no excuse for
you not knowing that the contracts were likely going to be pulled -
because of the incompetence and abuses in the industry you were part of.
You cannot be this stupid by accident.
The very purpose of having a contractual agreement between parties in
the first place is so *both* parties are bound by it.
It's your own fault you goose.
Your idiocy is beyond belief. No fucking wonder at 50+ years of age
you've never progressed past being a bottom feeder.
On 18/02/2026 7:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 18/2/2026 6:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:Ok, let me rephrase that! Most successful businesses *grow* ...
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few people who >>
Define "Successful". The idea is bullshit, you can have a successful one
man business, in fact a friend of mine did just that, made enough for a
good life, without working 24/7 and is now enjoying a happy retirement.
I'd define that as a success.
-aFrom what I have read of Daryl's uttering, his business did grow but
only in the number of employees. He said he made a living, raised
kids, etc. His exact words are in this thread. In other words, he
might just as well have remained an employee in a decent job and built
up a decent super balance - just like I did.
I've never had the slightest desire to work for myself, too many hassles.
open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very large
proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family run.
Daryl's business wasn't a one man show. 20+ people IIRC.
A friend of mine, Paul Beams, had a very small labour hire company
called *Trade Hire* based at Burnie, Tas. when I first met him. I was
working in a tin mine and he had 5 people hired by the mine - his
total workforce at the time, I might add - with his wife doing the
books and the pays. He had even hired himself to the mine as a
machinist and we were working in the same building. I got to know Paul
well and he had aspirations, big aspirations. He said to me he was
going to be a millionaire by the time he was 40. He lied, he had
achieved that goal by the time he was 36 when next we met upon my
return from Indonesia. By that time Trade Hire employed a *base*
workforce of 20 people, most employed at the Que River Mine in
Tasmania, plus 10 to a dozen floaters. I was one of his floaters for a
time, worked at the same mine as previously but for Trade Hire instead
as a contractor. When the Que River ore body expired, Paul and a bunch
of his mates got together and bought a copper mine. When we last spoke
he had retired back in 2015.
In business you can just cruise - or you can set goals. Paul was both
a goal setter and an achiever. Daryl, not so much.
For every success in business, there several failures, the most common
cause being over expansion. There was a guy at Orrorral Valley tracking
station who had an idea. In Canberra in those days, shops all closed--
midday Saturday, leaving him needing some hardware for a DIY job on a Sunday. So he mortgaged his house and bought a small hardware shop,
keeping it open all weekend by staffing it with his family. A great
success, you couldn't park on that block on Saturday afternoon or Sunday morning. Things looked so good that he bought a bigger shop and took on staff, still going well. Unfortunately this came to the notice of a
large local hardware chain who did the sums and realised that they could
do the same and make a profit. Once they opened all weekend, he couldn't compete on price, and custom dropped off to the point where he was
losing money and had to close losing just about anything. Had he stayed small with his original business, he would probably survived.
On 18/02/2026 7:16 pm, lindsay wrote:
*
This is a moron who drags out his old "tafe" overcoat to get a buck
discount off a set of wiper refills at his local auto parts store :)
On 18/02/2026 6:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few people
who open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very large
proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family run.
Not that the mental case you're replying to would have the slightest
idea about how to run a business :)
On 18/02/2026 3:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 17/02/2026 3:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and
sign it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said that
in the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living,
certainly didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up 2
sons including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid off the
house, had lots of new cars etc etc so overall not too bad.
We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we were
affected as badly as many others especially the younger business
owners who had invested lots of money growing their business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice including
consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal advice only to be
told that the Govt can do what the fuck they like and nothing can be
done about it.
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal experience
of entering into contractual agreements with the Victorian government?
Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 7:16 pm, lindsay wrote:
*
This is a moron who drags out his old "tafe" overcoat to get a buck
discount off a set of wiper refills at his local auto parts store :)
Like you did with the *real* Noddy's Auto Repair? You know. The one
whose registered *Place* of business was your parent home.
Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 3:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 17/02/2026 3:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and
sign it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said
that in the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living,
certainly didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up 2
sons including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid off the
house, had lots of new cars etc etc so overall not too bad.
We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we were
affected as badly as many others especially the younger business
owners who had invested lots of money growing their business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice including
consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal advice only to
be told that the Govt can do what the fuck they like and nothing can
be done about it.
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the Victorian
government?
Says the buffoon who was blissfully unaware of the existence of contract lawyers a couple of days ago.
On 18/02/2026 3:57 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 17/02/2026 7:04 pm, Daryl wrote:
Latest news is saying that CFMEU corruption has cost the state around
$15billion, I only read the headline so don't know what they were on
about but no doubt that the CFMEU and the Govt are in bed together
and both as corrupt as it gets.
You are so f'n thick. Based on a headline you saw on what? Murdoch
shitrag? Sky "News parody" Australia? and then didn't even bother to
read the rest before making a massive assumption.
Oh. So you're claiming that it's all bullshit, and the CFMEU are *not* guilty of massive corruption and crime running into the billions of
dollars of Victorian state money, are you?
And you have the audacity to bang on about ignorance....
On 18/02/2026 3:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 17/02/2026 3:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and
sign it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said that
in the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living,
certainly didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up 2
sons including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid off the
house, had lots of new cars etc etc so overall not too bad.
We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we were
affected as badly as many others especially the younger business
owners who had invested lots of money growing their business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice including
consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal advice only to be
told that the Govt can do what the fuck they like and nothing can be
done about it.
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal experience
of entering into contractual agreements with the Victorian government?
On 18/02/2026 7:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase that! Most successful businesses *grow* ...
Define "Successful". The idea is bullshit, you can have a successful one
man business, in fact a friend of mine did just that, made enough for a
good life, without working 24/7 and is now enjoying a happy retirement.
I'd define that as a success.
-aFrom what I have read of Daryl's uttering, his business did grow but
only in the number of employees. He said he made a living, raised
kids, etc. His exact words are in this thread. In other words, he
might just as well have remained an employee in a decent job and built
up a decent super balance - just like I did.
I've never had the slightest desire to work for myself, too many hassles.
On 18/02/2026 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the Victorian
government?
What is yours you spastic?
Clearly dopey Daryl's experience with
entering into a contractual agreement with the Victorian Government was
zero and evidently he was clueless about the state of the industry and
where it was headed - which is exactly why he should have used a
contract lawyer.
You pair are so incredibly dumb.
On 18/02/2026 10:08 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 7:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase that! Most successful businesses *grow* ...
Define "Successful". The idea is bullshit, you can have a successful
one man business, in fact a friend of mine did just that, made enough
for a good life, without working 24/7 and is now enjoying a happy
retirement. I'd define that as a success.
Indeed. There are many forms of "success". Success is not limited by the size of the business, and "growth" is no measure of success. Many
successful small businesses grow unto unsuccessful disasters.
-aFrom what I have read of Daryl's uttering, his business did grow but
only in the number of employees. He said he made a living, raised
kids, etc. His exact words are in this thread. In other words, he
might just as well have remained an employee in a decent job and
built up a decent super balance - just like I did.
I've never had the slightest desire to work for myself, too many hassles.
It can be rewarding, but it depends on the business. The biggest
drawback in my experience...
On 19/02/2026 7:00 am, Clocky wrote:
On 18/02/2026 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the Victorian
government?
What is yours you spastic?
Answering questions with questions, huh? That's okay. We can all take
that as a "I have none but it doesn't stop me from being an expert" response.
Clearly dopey Daryl's experience with entering into a contractual
agreement with the Victorian Government was zero and evidently he was
clueless about the state of the industry and where it was headed -
which is exactly why he should have used a contract lawyer.
Funny how virtually an entire industry was affected by this, but
according to you it was just him.
You pair are so incredibly dumb.
That you think you can speak on such matters with authority from a
position of zero experience highlights perfectly why you are a man in
his 50's working at the bottom end of your field.
You're an embarrassment to yourself, but you're massive ego prevents you from seeing it.
Noddy wrote:
On 12/02/2026 11:20 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 11/02/2026 8:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
Swallowing Sky "News" biased bullshit wholesale without so much as a
factcheck... good god you are naive and stupid.
They sure know know how to reach their target audience of old senile
biased irrelevant boomers.
Editorial from the group's resident Commodore driving munt.
Fraudster misuses yet *another* word. Tell everyone how good your
command of the language is again Buffo.
Jim Chalmers (I think) on Angus Taylor: He was born with a silver foot~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
in his mouth.
Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 10:08 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 7:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase that! Most successful businesses *grow* ...
Define "Successful". The idea is bullshit, you can have a successful
one man business, in fact a friend of mine did just that, made enough
for a good life, without working 24/7 and is now enjoying a happy
retirement. I'd define that as a success.
Indeed. There are many forms of "success". Success is not limited by
the size of the business, and "growth" is no measure of success. Many
successful small businesses grow unto unsuccessful disasters.
-aFrom what I have read of Daryl's uttering, his business did grow
but only in the number of employees. He said he made a living,
raised kids, etc. His exact words are in this thread. In other
words, he might just as well have remained an employee in a decent
job and built up a decent super balance - just like I did.
I've never had the slightest desire to work for myself, too many
hassles.
It can be rewarding, but it depends on the business. The biggest
drawback in my experience...
Best stop there Buffo.
On 17/2/2026 9:20 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:53 am, Daryl wrote:
On 15/2/2026 3:28 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 1:01 pm, Daryl wrote:Do you always find it necessary to be such a smart arse?
On 15/2/2026 11:27 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:21 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 6:58 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 8:49 pm, Daryl wrote:
It shouldn't and the rich won't be bothered too much but the >>>>>>>>> cost of living is off the scale, power prices keep going up and >>>>>>>>> most of that is due to the Govt's measures to obtain net zero. >>>>>>>>**Power prices are going up because various state governments >>>>>>>> sold off electricity assets to private corporations. Those
corporations have to pay shareholders and multi-million Dollar >>>>>>>> paypackets to CEOs. If you want to blame someone, then blame
your state government that sold off those assets.
That happened a *very* long time ago Trevor,
**And those private corporations STILL own those assets. As long
as private corporations (many owned by foreign entities) still own >>>>>> them, we will continue to be gouged.
Are you unaware of how an oligopoly operates?
Do you seriously imagine that private companies look after the
consumer, rather than shareholders?
I have some bad news for you.
-a-aand there is nothing to
suggest that if the state still had control over electricity
generation and distribution today we'd be paying any less.
**There is abundant PROOF that you are wrong. Power prices went up >>>>>> when private companies gained control of electricity assets.
**Sure. Again: Private companies are there to make money for
On the contrary, the Australian Energy Regulator is a statutory >>>>>>> government authority, and they continue to approve cost increases >>>>>>> every single year despite energy retailers making record profits. >>>>>>
shareholders, CEOs and foreign entities. They don't give a shit
about consumers.
It's how private oligopolies operate.
Its also contributing a lot to other cost of living increases >>>>>>>>> because the price of power affects everything.
**Sure. I had to raise my prices by 2% over the past couple of >>>>>>>> years to pay the extra cost of power.
The wholesale price for Electricity is A$100 per megawatt. How
much do you pay for yours?
**Fucked if I know and I can't be bothered looking. BTW: Your
price claim is nonsensical (ie: meaningless). I suggest you look
again and state what that price is with more precision.
IOW: MWhr
6 yrs ago I started to get the aged pension, for a full year I >>>>>>>>> kept track of every cent we spent and we lived and paid all our >>>>>>>>> bills etc just with our pension income, 6 yrs later we need an >>>>>>>>> extra $10k PA from our saving or super just to make ends meet >>>>>>>>> and we are lucky in that we own our home and have no debt,
pensioners who don't own their homes and don't have any saving >>>>>>>>> or super are screwed.
**You're lucky. I don't qualify for the pension. I hate you.
Me either, but I don't hate anyone for it. I hate the system that >>>>>>> allows some people to have it when they can clearly support
themselves by other means.
**EVERY taxpayer should receive the pension. I ploughed every
spare Dollar into my super (I still am), just so I could receive a >>>>>> little more than a regular pension. Still, I don't every have to
cross the doorway of Centrelink. That makes me happy.
If we didn't have a very corrupt Labor Govt in Vic I wouldn't get
much pension if any, they more or less stole $450k straight out of
my pocket so we ended up on a full aged pension which was never our >>>>> intention, no one could have predicted the lengths the corrupt
bastards would go to fill the pockets of theirs and their union
cronies.
**"Stole $450k"?
What did the police say when you reported the theft?
**If you ever want to find any sympathy, then you need to describe
what happened to you business accurately.
Done that many many times.
I accept your admission that you lied when you claimed that the
government stole $450k from you.
Get fucked Trev, you must be a fucking hopeless business man if you are still working at your age or is that because you are such an arsehole
you have no family or friends, either way fuck off.
On 19/02/2026 8:29 am, alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 10:08 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 7:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase that! Most successful businesses *grow* ...
Define "Successful". The idea is bullshit, you can have a successful
one man business, in fact a friend of mine did just that, made
enough for a good life, without working 24/7 and is now enjoying a
happy retirement. I'd define that as a success.
Indeed. There are many forms of "success". Success is not limited by
the size of the business, and "growth" is no measure of success. Many
successful small businesses grow unto unsuccessful disasters.
-aFrom what I have read of Daryl's uttering, his business did grow
but only in the number of employees. He said he made a living,
raised kids, etc. His exact words are in this thread. In other
words, he might just as well have remained an employee in a decent
job and built up a decent super balance - just like I did.
I've never had the slightest desire to work for myself, too many
hassles.
It can be rewarding, but it depends on the business. The biggest
drawback in my experience...
Best stop there Buffo.
Remember what happens to smartarses.
On 17/02/2026 6:31 pm, Daryl wrote:
**If you ever want to find any sympathy, then you need to describe
what happened to you business accurately.
Done that many many times.
**Then don't claim that the government "stole" you MONEY.
Get fucked Trev, you must be a fucking hopeless business man if you
are still working at your age or is that because you are such an
arsehole you have no family or friends, either way fuck off.
**I NEVER claimed to be a great businessman. In fact, I was/am not particularly good.
If I was any good, I'd be driving around in my forth
or fifth Ferrari (I've lost count), like my first apprentice does today.
He has one of those fancy car turntables in his basement garage in his waterfront home. Me? I've had my share of bad debts over the years.
Luckily, my business was widely diversified, with, at it's peak, some 15 business to business customers and many, many individuals. I don't
entirely blame myself my losses, but some could have been avoided. Bad employees? Yep. Had them too. The big one was in 1994. Almost finished
me off, but I managed to recover. Here's the thing:
I don't claim that my money was stolen.
Now, if your contract was badly written, or was written in such a way
that you would suffer by LOSING (not having money stolen), then YOU
should have fired your lawyer.
On 18/02/2026 10:08 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 7:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase that! Most successful businesses *grow* ...
Define "Successful". The idea is bullshit, you can have a successful one
man business, in fact a friend of mine did just that, made enough for a
good life, without working 24/7 and is now enjoying a happy retirement.
I'd define that as a success.
Indeed. There are many forms of "success". Success is not limited by the size of the business, and "growth" is no measure of success. Many
successful small businesses grow unto unsuccessful disasters.
-aFrom what I have read of Daryl's uttering, his business did grow but
only in the number of employees. He said he made a living, raised
kids, etc. His exact words are in this thread. In other words, he
might just as well have remained an employee in a decent job and built
up a decent super balance - just like I did.
I've never had the slightest desire to work for myself, too many hassles.
It can be rewarding, but it depends on the business. The biggest
drawback in my experience is that despite being the "boss" you're not
the master of your own time. Sometimes you have to go that little bit
extra and that can mean long days and short week-ends.
On 19/02/2026 11:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2026 6:31 pm, Daryl wrote:
**If you ever want to find any sympathy, then you need to describe
what happened to you business accurately.
Done that many many times.
**Then don't claim that the government "stole" you MONEY.
Who died and left you in charge, Trevor? He can claim whatever the fuck
he likes, and he doesn't need your permission. Personally if I signed a
half million dollar contract and went out and invested on equipment&
staff on the basis of that I would consider a sudden and unexpected pull
out to be theft of the highest order.
You need to get over yourself and stop being so ridiculously pedantic.
On 19/02/2026 11:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2026 6:31 pm, Daryl wrote:
**If you ever want to find any sympathy, then you need to describe
what happened to you business accurately.
Done that many many times.
**Then don't claim that the government "stole" you MONEY.
Who died and left you in charge, Trevor? He can claim whatever the fuck
he likes, and he doesn't need your permission. Personally if I signed a
half million dollar contract and went out and invested on equipment&
staff on the basis of that I would consider a sudden and unexpected pull
out to be theft of the highest order.
You need to get over yourself and stop being so ridiculously pedantic.
Get fucked Trev, you must be a fucking hopeless business man if you
are still working at your age or is that because you are such an
arsehole you have no family or friends, either way fuck off.
**I NEVER claimed to be a great businessman. In fact, I was/am not
particularly good.
I think that's becoming patently obvious.
If I was any good, I'd be driving around in my forth
or fifth Ferrari (I've lost count), like my first apprentice does today.
He has one of those fancy car turntables in his basement garage in his
waterfront home. Me? I've had my share of bad debts over the years.
Luckily, my business was widely diversified, with, at it's peak, some 15
business to business customers and many, many individuals. I don't
entirely blame myself my losses, but some could have been avoided. Bad
employees? Yep. Had them too. The big one was in 1994. Almost finished
me off, but I managed to recover. Here's the thing:
This should be good.
I don't claim that my money was stolen.
Apparently you have no fucking idea what a figure of speech is. Unbelievable.
<snip irrelevant bullshit>
Now, if your contract was badly written, or was written in such a way
that you would suffer by LOSING (not having money stolen), then YOU
should have fired your lawyer.
You have no idea really, do you?
The terms and conditions in *any* contract can become completely
irrelevant if the party who owes you the money isn't prepared to pay,
and *is* prepared to drag you through the court system as far as they possibly can.
Have you ever tried to sue a government department Trevor? I'm tipping
not, because if you had you would very quickly discover that the
government will think *nothing* of spending a million dollars to avoid paying 50 grand, let alone half a million. They know that when it comes
to taking them to court that you're the mouse fighting a gorilla, and
they will happily send you broke trying to fight for what is legally yours.
They do it *all* the time, and if you think having a properly worded contract will save you from having to endure all that then you are
totally off your scone.
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few people who open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very large
proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family run.
On 19/02/2026 11:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2026 6:31 pm, Daryl wrote:
**If you ever want to find any sympathy, then you need to describe
what happened to you business accurately.
Done that many many times.
**Then don't claim that the government "stole" you MONEY.
Who died and left you in charge, Trevor? He can claim whatever the fuck
he likes, and he doesn't need your permission.
half million dollar contract and went out and invested on equipment&
staff on the basis of that I would consider a sudden and unexpected pull
out to be theft of the highest order.
You need to get over yourself and stop being so ridiculously pedantic.
Get fucked Trev, you must be a fucking hopeless business man if you
are still working at your age or is that because you are such an
arsehole you have no family or friends, either way fuck off.
**I NEVER claimed to be a great businessman. In fact, I was/am not
particularly good.
I think that's becoming patently obvious.
If I was any good, I'd be driving around in my forth or fifth Ferrari
(I've lost count), like my first apprentice does today. He has one of
those fancy car turntables in his basement garage in his waterfront
home. Me? I've had my share of bad debts over the years. Luckily, my
business was widely diversified, with, at it's peak, some 15 business
to business customers and many, many individuals. I don't entirely
blame myself my losses, but some could have been avoided. Bad
employees? Yep. Had them too. The big one was in 1994. Almost finished
me off, but I managed to recover. Here's the thing:
This should be good.
I don't claim that my money was stolen.
Apparently you have no fucking idea what a figure of speech is. Unbelievable.
<snip irrelevant bullshit>
Now, if your contract was badly written, or was written in such a way
that you would suffer by LOSING (not having money stolen), then YOU
should have fired your lawyer.
You have no idea really, do you?
The terms and conditions in *any* contract can become completely
irrelevant if the party who owes you the money isn't prepared to pay,
and *is* prepared to drag you through the court system as far as they possibly can.
Have you ever tried to sue a government department Trevor?
not,
government will think *nothing* of spending a million dollars to avoid paying 50 grand, let alone half a million. They know that when it comes
to taking them to court that you're the mouse fighting a gorilla, and
they will happily send you broke trying to fight for what is legally yours.
They do it *all* the time, and if you think having a properly worded contract will save you from having to endure all that then you are
totally off your scone.
On 19/02/2026 7:00 am, Clocky wrote:
On 18/02/2026 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the Victorian
government?
What is yours you spastic?
Answering questions with questions, huh? That's okay. We can all take
that as a "I have none but it doesn't stop me from being an expert" response.
Clearly dopey Daryl's experience with entering into a contractual
agreement with the Victorian Government was zero and evidently he was
clueless about the state of the industry and where it was headed -
which is exactly why he should have used a contract lawyer.
Funny how virtually an entire industry was affected by this, but
according to you it was just him.
On 18/02/2026 1:46 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 17/2/2026 10:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
AFAIK her husband used to be a CFMEU official so there is directLatest news is saying that CFMEU corruption has cost the state
around $15billion, I only read the headline so don't know what they
were on about but no doubt that the CFMEU and the Govt are in bed
together and both as corrupt as it gets.
The Premier is frantically doing all she can to hose this down, but
it's going to be big. There will be a royal commission and hopefully
she will be charged and convicted along with that cunt Andrews.
connection between the Premier and the union.
There is with most senior Labor politicians. The Labor party is little
more than the political wing of the trade union movement.
I think the article is referring to how much was/is being spent on the
"big build", some of it is justified but projects such as the Westgate
tunnel have a dubious business case as does the "suburban rail loop".
I think that the Metro rail tunnel and the crossing removal are worth
the money but the rest is just spending money to keep their union
mates in very well paid jobs, for example a sparkie I know worked on
the Westgate and Metro rail tunnel projects, he was getting paid in
excess of $300,000 PA.
It's madness.
The Suburban Rail loop project has only just got underway, and trouble
has already started. It's bad enough that we're going to spend 35
billion on a rail line between Box Hill and Cheltenham that the Auditor General's office has said is not only completely unnecessary but will struggle to return 10 cents on the dollar, but they haven't even
*started* on the tunnelling yet and already the contractors are
demanding a 20% pay increase.
35 Billion is the projected cost which is fucking *insane* for something
we don't actually need, yet if it goes like every other Labor project it will be close to double that by the time it's finished.
The state's combined "big build" projects are so far running 40
*billion* dollars over budget. In the meantime, Ambulances have to ramp
15 deep at Sunshine Hospital at 6pm on a Tuesday night because the
health system is on it's knees.
The entire current State government should be taken out back of Spring street and summarily executed.
On 19/2/2026 8:43 am, Noddy wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:00 am, Clocky wrote:
On 18/02/2026 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the
Victorian government?
What is yours you spastic?
Answering questions with questions, huh? That's okay. We can all take
that as a "I have none but it doesn't stop me from being an expert"
response.
Clearly dopey Daryl's experience with entering into a contractual
agreement with the Victorian Government was zero and evidently he was
clueless about the state of the industry and where it was headed -
which is exactly why he should have used a contract lawyer.
Funny how virtually an entire industry was affected by this, but
according to you it was just him.
It affected 160 business's, some quite large others very small and most
in between, not one of them had heard even the slightest hint of what
the Govt was planning.
There was one contractor out of 160 found to have been under paying
their employees so hardly anything damning the entire industry, the Govt used this as an excuse to wipe out 159 contractors to hide the real
reason for the change which was to increase union membership.
Its well known that employees of big business are much more likely to be union members, more union members equals more union fees and bigger "donations" to the Labor Govt, also the Govt made the big contractors
that were awarded the contracts pay substantial annual fees.
After the change cleaners wages actually went down (hours cut) as did cleaning standards because big contractors have big overheads so less of
the contract income could be spent on actual cleaning and cleaners
wages, only people that were happy were the union leaders and the Labor Govt, cleaners and schools were screwed and are much worse off 7 years later.
On 18/2/2026 10:01 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 1:46 pm, Daryl wrote:Agree, hopefully they will be gone come November but the poor bastards
On 17/2/2026 10:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
AFAIK her husband used to be a CFMEU official so there is directLatest news is saying that CFMEU corruption has cost the state
around $15billion, I only read the headline so don't know what they >>>>> were on about but no doubt that the CFMEU and the Govt are in bed
together and both as corrupt as it gets.
The Premier is frantically doing all she can to hose this down, but
it's going to be big. There will be a royal commission and hopefully
she will be charged and convicted along with that cunt Andrews.
connection between the Premier and the union.
There is with most senior Labor politicians. The Labor party is little
more than the political wing of the trade union movement.
I think the article is referring to how much was/is being spent on
the "big build", some of it is justified but projects such as the
Westgate tunnel have a dubious business case as does the "suburban
rail loop".
I think that the Metro rail tunnel and the crossing removal are worth
the money but the rest is just spending money to keep their union
mates in very well paid jobs, for example a sparkie I know worked on
the Westgate and Metro rail tunnel projects, he was getting paid in
excess of $300,000 PA.
It's madness.
The Suburban Rail loop project has only just got underway, and trouble
has already started. It's bad enough that we're going to spend 35
billion on a rail line between Box Hill and Cheltenham that the
Auditor General's office has said is not only completely unnecessary
but will struggle to return 10 cents on the dollar, but they haven't
even *started* on the tunnelling yet and already the contractors are
demanding a 20% pay increase.
35 Billion is the projected cost which is fucking *insane* for
something we don't actually need, yet if it goes like every other
Labor project it will be close to double that by the time it's finished.
The state's combined "big build" projects are so far running 40
*billion* dollars over budget. In the meantime, Ambulances have to
ramp 15 deep at Sunshine Hospital at 6pm on a Tuesday night because
the health system is on it's knees.
The entire current State government should be taken out back of Spring
street and summarily executed.
who take over will be left with a hell of a mess to clean up.
On 19/02/2026 7:00 am, Clocky wrote:
On 18/02/2026 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the Victorian
government?
What is yours you spastic?
Answering questions with questions, huh? That's okay. We can all take
that as a "I have none but it doesn't stop me from being an expert" response.
Clearly dopey Daryl's experience with entering into a contractual
agreement with the Victorian Government was zero and evidently he was
clueless about the state of the industry and where it was headed -
which is exactly why he should have used a contract lawyer.
Funny how virtually an entire industry was affected by this, but
according to you it was just him.
You pair are so incredibly dumb.
That you think you can speak on such matters with authority from a
position of zero experience highlights perfectly why you are a man in
his 50's working at the bottom end of your field.
On 19/02/2026 11:49 am, Noddy wrote:
**Then don't claim that the government "stole" you MONEY.
Who died and left you in charge, Trevor? He can claim whatever the
fuck he likes, and he doesn't need your permission.
**Indeed and I can call him a liar when he claims his money was stolen.
It was not stolen.
-aPersonally if I signed a
half million dollar contract and went out and invested on equipment&
staff on the basis of that I would consider a sudden and unexpected
pull out to be theft of the highest order.
**Except it wasn't theft.
You need to get over yourself and stop being so ridiculously pedantic.
**Theft is theft. Poor business management is something else. I will
readily admit that I have been guilty of poor business management. It's
high time that Dazza acknowledged the same.
I don't claim that my money was stolen.
Apparently you have no fucking idea what a figure of speech is.
Unbelievable.
**I know precisely what the word: 'Stolen' means. Do you?
Have you ever tried to sue a government department Trevor?
**Nope, though I have dealt with several. One was NSW Prisons. I did a
bunch of jobs for them, for which they paid me promptly. They then asked
me to quote on a new job. I would have had to shell out a lot of money
prior to doing the job. I requested an up-front payment before I
started. They refused and went with a guy who under-quoted me. He lost
money on the job. Not unexpected. I am mostly careful with ANY client. including government departments.
-aI'm tipping
not,
**You'd lose that bet.
On 18/2/2026 6:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:He couldn't be more wrong if he tried, you are correct in that many
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few people
who open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very large
proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family run.
small business's are just a one man show, when we started in 1993 it was just my wife and I with one contract, when we finished in 2019 we had 36 employees (part timers equivalent hours to 12 full time) and 12
contracts and a turnover of about $1.3 million, if that isn't growth
then what is.
At one time my electrician son had about 35 full time employees, now its just him and another sparkie, his turnover is a lot less but profit is
far more so growing a business doesn't always amount to higher profits.
On 19/2/2026 8:43 am, Noddy wrote:
Funny how virtually an entire industry was affected by this, but
according to you it was just him.
It affected 160 business's, some quite large others very small and most
in between, not one of them had heard even the slightest hint of what
the Govt was planning.
There was one contractor out of 160 found to have been under paying
their employees so hardly anything damning the entire industry, the Govt used this as an excuse to wipe out 159 contractors to hide the real
reason for the change which was to increase union membership.
Its well known that employees of big business are much more likely to be union members, more union members equals more union fees and bigger "donations" to the Labor Govt, also the Govt made the big contractors
that were awarded the contracts pay substantial annual fees.
After the change cleaners wages actually went down (hours cut) as did cleaning standards because big contractors have big overheads so less of
the contract income could be spent on actual cleaning and cleaners
wages, only people that were happy were the union leaders and the Labor Govt, cleaners and schools were screwed and are much worse off 7 years later.
On 19/02/2026 5:43 am, Noddy wrote:
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the
Victorian government?
What is yours you spastic?
Answering questions with questions, huh? That's okay. We can all take
that as a "I have none but it doesn't stop me from being an expert"
response.
So confirmed that you have absolutely no idea and are clueless. Got it.
Clearly dopey Daryl's experience with entering into a contractual
agreement with the Victorian Government was zero and evidently he was
clueless about the state of the industry and where it was headed -
which is exactly why he should have used a contract lawyer.
Funny how virtually an entire industry was affected by this, but
according to you it was just him.
*He* was the one claiming the government *stole* his money but he didn't
do due diligence before signing the contract.
Given that he was completely clueless he should have had a contract
lawyer look at the contract you dumb cunt, that way he would have
avoided stupidly banking all his super on that contract.
Especially when the writing was already on the wall for those private contracts.
This "in his 50's working at the bottom end of your field" knew to spend $500 on a contract lawyer and I wasn't the one who lost $500k in super
you pair of dumb fucks.
On 18/2/2026 10:01 pm, Noddy wrote:
The state's combined "big build" projects are so far running 40Agree, hopefully they will be gone come November but the poor bastards
*billion* dollars over budget. In the meantime, Ambulances have to
ramp 15 deep at Sunshine Hospital at 6pm on a Tuesday night because
the health system is on it's knees.
The entire current State government should be taken out back of Spring
street and summarily executed.
who take over will be left with a hell of a mess to clean up.
On 19/02/2026 1:24 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/02/2026 11:49 am, Noddy wrote:
**Then don't claim that the government "stole" you MONEY.
Who died and left you in charge, Trevor? He can claim whatever the
fuck he likes, and he doesn't need your permission.
**Indeed and I can call him a liar when he claims his money was
stolen. It was not stolen.
You can claim whatever you like, but you *don't* get to tell him or
anyone else what to do :)
-a-aPersonally if I signed a
half million dollar contract and went out and invested on equipment&
staff on the basis of that I would consider a sudden and unexpected
pull out to be theft of the highest order.
**Except it wasn't theft.
You need to get over yourself and stop being so ridiculously pedantic.
**Theft is theft. Poor business management is something else. I will
readily admit that I have been guilty of poor business management.
It's high time that Dazza acknowledged the same.
You don't even know what the terms of his contract where or why the
contract was pulled, so how you can claim it was poor management on his
part is staggeringly profound :)
On 19/02/2026 1:24 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/02/2026 11:49 am, Noddy wrote:
**Then don't claim that the government "stole" you MONEY.
Who died and left you in charge, Trevor? He can claim whatever the
fuck he likes, and he doesn't need your permission.
**Indeed and I can call him a liar when he claims his money was
stolen. It was not stolen.
You can claim whatever you like, but you *don't* get to tell him or
anyone else what to do :)
-a-aPersonally if I signed a
half million dollar contract and went out and invested on equipment&
staff on the basis of that I would consider a sudden and unexpected
pull out to be theft of the highest order.
**Except it wasn't theft.
You need to get over yourself and stop being so ridiculously pedantic.
**Theft is theft. Poor business management is something else. I will
readily admit that I have been guilty of poor business management.
It's high time that Dazza acknowledged the same.
You don't even know what the terms of his contract where or why the
contract was pulled, so how you can claim it was poor management on his
part is staggeringly profound :)
The fact that this issue gained headline media attention right across
the country with the finger of blame pointed squarely at the government suggests that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't claim that my money was stolen.
Apparently you have no fucking idea what a figure of speech is.
Unbelievable.
**I know precisely what the word: 'Stolen' means. Do you?
I don't think there isn't a person here who doesn't know what the word
means in isolation. I *also* don't think there is a single person here
who knew exactly what Daryl meant when he used the term in his remarks.
*Apart* from you.
Have you ever tried to sue a government department Trevor?
**Nope, though I have dealt with several. One was NSW Prisons. I did a
bunch of jobs for them, for which they paid me promptly. They then
asked me to quote on a new job. I would have had to shell out a lot of
money prior to doing the job. I requested an up-front payment before I
started. They refused and went with a guy who under-quoted me. He lost
money on the job. Not unexpected. I am mostly careful with ANY client.
including government departments.
-a-aI'm tipping
not,
**You'd lose that bet.
You just admitted yourself in your paragraph above that you have never
tried to sue a government department, so I suspect it would indeed be
*you* who lost that bet.
Either you don't understand how this stuff works, or your comprehension level is remarkably poor. Either way, you have demonstrated a clear lack
of understanding here.
On 19/02/2026 1:06 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 18/2/2026 6:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:He couldn't be more wrong if he tried, you are correct in that many
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few people
who open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very large
proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family run.
small business's are just a one man show, when we started in 1993 it
was just my wife and I with one contract, when we finished in 2019 we
had 36 employees (part timers equivalent hours to 12 full time) and 12
contracts and a turnover of about $1.3 million, if that isn't growth
then what is.
At one time my electrician son had about 35 full time employees, now
its just him and another sparkie, his turnover is a lot less but
profit is far more so growing a business doesn't always amount to
higher profits.
Absolutely.
You have to take into account the mindset of the mental case who made
the comment. This is a fucktard who once claimed that I never took piano lessons as a kid, for if I had I would have gone on to be a professional musician.
The bloke is absolutely clueless.
On 19/02/2026 2:08 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 19/02/2026 5:43 am, Noddy wrote:
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the
Victorian government?
What is yours you spastic?
Answering questions with questions, huh? That's okay. We can all take
that as a "I have none but it doesn't stop me from being an expert"
response.
So confirmed that you have absolutely no idea and are clueless. Got it.
ROTFL :)
You have no fucking idea, you pea brained cunt. I've had government contracts before and have mentioned them a number of times. You, on the other hand, have zero experience.
Keep being an expert though :)
Clearly dopey Daryl's experience with entering into a contractual
agreement with the Victorian Government was zero and evidently he
was clueless about the state of the industry and where it was headed
- which is exactly why he should have used a contract lawyer.
Funny how virtually an entire industry was affected by this, but
according to you it was just him.
*He* was the one claiming the government *stole* his money but he
didn't do due diligence before signing the contract.
He said no such thing, and this is a fabrication on your part. What he
said was that the government "stole" his 450 grand, and that a lawyer advised him that he had buckley's chance of winning a case against them.
See if you can work out why....
Given that he was completely clueless he should have had a contract
lawyer look at the contract you dumb cunt, that way he would have
avoided stupidly banking all his super on that contract.
Jesus you're fucking clueless. If he had taken the contract to a lawyer, they would have pointed out the "Termination for Convenience" clause
that exists in *every* government contract. It's standard practice and
there isn't a contract issued by a local, state or federal government department in the country that *doesn't* include it whether it be a
contract for an individual employee, or with a multi national company carrying out a multi billion dollar capital works program.
Again, this is something you would know *if* you had any relevant experience.
Especially when the writing was already on the wall for those private
contracts.
Was it really? Cool. Please cite some links were the 160 odd companies
who had their contracts pulled could have avoided their losses by being
fore warned. Where would they have gone to find out that information?
Better yet, perhaps you could take a moment to explain how a nobody like
you who is 4 thousand kilometres away in Bumfuck Junction WA had *any*
idea what was happening in the school cleaning industry here in Victoria?
Please, amuse us. Spill your guts, Mr loud mouth expert....
This "in his 50's working at the bottom end of your field" knew to
spend $500 on a contract lawyer and I wasn't the one who lost $500k in
super you pair of dumb fucks.
ROTFL :)
Yeah, right. That's like when you threatened to call the local tyre
fitter here to "get the real story" about my tractor tyre, and shit your pants like a baby when I gave you the fucking number and told you who to
ask for.
You're nothing but a little yappy dog who barks at everyone from behind
the safety of your front fence....
On 19/02/2026 1:39 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 18/2/2026 10:01 pm, Noddy wrote:
The state's combined "big build" projects are so far running 40Agree, hopefully they will be gone come November but the poor bastards
*billion* dollars over budget. In the meantime, Ambulances have to
ramp 15 deep at Sunshine Hospital at 6pm on a Tuesday night because
the health system is on it's knees.
The entire current State government should be taken out back of
Spring street and summarily executed.
who take over will be left with a hell of a mess to clean up.
And it will be us who will have to bear the cost of that cleaning.
I'm not kidding. The Labor party should be banished from the Australian political scene. Not only are they absolutely fucking incompetent, but criminally so. We will most likely end up with a Royal Commission into
this CFMEU public money rorting bullshit, which will likely not release
any finding for a couple of years, and when it does every Politician directly implicated should face criminal charges.
I'll bet my left one that 15 billion is a conservative estimate. The
true figure is likely to be *way* worse. That money could have fixed our health system, education system, and given emergency services the staff
and equipment they desperately need.
The degree of culpability here is *massive*.....
On 19/2/2026 9:14 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 19/02/2026 1:24 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/02/2026 11:49 am, Noddy wrote:
**Then don't claim that the government "stole" you MONEY.
Who died and left you in charge, Trevor? He can claim whatever the
fuck he likes, and he doesn't need your permission.
**Indeed and I can call him a liar when he claims his money was
stolen. It was not stolen.
You can claim whatever you like, but you *don't* get to tell him or
anyone else what to do :)
-a-aPersonally if I signed a
half million dollar contract and went out and invested on equipment&
staff on the basis of that I would consider a sudden and unexpected
pull out to be theft of the highest order.
**Except it wasn't theft.
You need to get over yourself and stop being so ridiculously pedantic.
**Theft is theft. Poor business management is something else. I will
readily admit that I have been guilty of poor business management.
It's high time that Dazza acknowledged the same.
You don't even know what the terms of his contract where or why the
contract was pulled, so how you can claim it was poor management on
his part is staggeringly profound :)
Is being unable to read the mind of the state Premier and Education
Minister "poor management"?
They kept their cards very close to their chests and there was no hint
of the change, one of my fellow contractors is the son of the former education department manager of cleaning services and even he was caught
out despite still having many contacts in the education dept.
If he is suggesting that you "shouldn't have all your eggs in the one basket" the business was based solely on school cleaning and since the
vast majority of schools are run by the Govt there is very little option
but to have Govt contracts, even if only 50% of the business was with
the state govt we still would of had a significant loss of turnover.
If Trev or anyone else suddenly lost 50% of their business would he/they still continue?
Lots of variables to consider, some may survive but many wouldn't.
People who have never run a cleaning business couldn't understand why
school cleaning and other types of cleaning such as office cleaning is
very very different, not so much the cleaning but the people who are
willing to do the work, school cleaning usually starts when school
finishes whereas office cleaning usually takes place in the small hours
of the morning so those hours don't usually suit women with children who were the bulk of our employees, the employee base is a very different demographic.
Also schools are local to where people live so cleaners don't need to
travel far, office cleaners very often need to travel in the early hours
and not a lot of women want to do that on their own so its a very
different business model.
BTW no doubt Trev knows exactly what I meant by "stolen" but he just
loves being pedantic.
On 19/02/2026 1:24 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/02/2026 11:49 am, Noddy wrote:
**Then don't claim that the government "stole" you MONEY.
Who died and left you in charge, Trevor? He can claim whatever the
fuck he likes, and he doesn't need your permission.
**Indeed and I can call him a liar when he claims his money was
stolen. It was not stolen.
You can claim whatever you like, but you *don't* get to tell him or
anyone else what to do :)
keithr0 wrote:
On 19/02/2026 8:29 am, alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 10:08 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 7:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase that! Most successful businesses *grow* ...
Define "Successful". The idea is bullshit, you can have a
successful one man business, in fact a friend of mine did just
that, made enough for a good life, without working 24/7 and is now
enjoying a happy retirement. I'd define that as a success.
Indeed. There are many forms of "success". Success is not limited by
the size of the business, and "growth" is no measure of success.
Many successful small businesses grow unto unsuccessful disasters.
-aFrom what I have read of Daryl's uttering, his business did grow >>>>>> but only in the number of employees. He said he made a living,
raised kids, etc. His exact words are in this thread. In other
words, he might just as well have remained an employee in a decent >>>>>> job and built up a decent super balance - just like I did.
I've never had the slightest desire to work for myself, too many
hassles.
It can be rewarding, but it depends on the business. The biggest
drawback in my experience...
Best stop there Buffo.
Remember what happens to smartarses.
Why? Are you saying that I can't ridicule Fraudster because he has zero proven 'business' experience?
btw... Do you believe his claim about owning the fabled and fabulously successful 'business' in the Slough Industrial Estate? Y/N will do.
On 19/2/2026 9:14 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 19/02/2026 1:24 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Except it wasn't theft.
You need to get over yourself and stop being so ridiculously pedantic.
**Theft is theft. Poor business management is something else. I will
readily admit that I have been guilty of poor business management.
It's high time that Dazza acknowledged the same.
You don't even know what the terms of his contract where or why the
contract was pulled, so how you can claim it was poor management on
his part is staggeringly profound :)
Is being unable to read the mind of the state Premier and Education
Minister "poor management"?
They kept their cards very close to their chests and there was no hint
of the change, one of my fellow contractors is the son of the former education department manager of cleaning services and even he was caught
out despite still having many contacts in the education dept.
If he is suggesting that you "shouldn't have all your eggs in the one basket" the business was based solely on school cleaning and since the
vast majority of schools are run by the Govt there is very little option
but to have Govt contracts, even if only 50% of the business was with
the state govt we still would of had a significant loss of turnover.
If Trev or anyone else suddenly lost 50% of their business would he/they still continue?
Lots of variables to consider, some may survive but many wouldn't.
People who have never run a cleaning business couldn't understand why
school cleaning and other types of cleaning such as office cleaning is
very very different, not so much the cleaning but the people who are
willing to do the work, school cleaning usually starts when school
finishes whereas office cleaning usually takes place in the small hours
of the morning so those hours don't usually suit women with children who were the bulk of our employees, the employee base is a very different demographic.
Also schools are local to where people live so cleaners don't need to
travel far, office cleaners very often need to travel in the early hours
and not a lot of women want to do that on their own so its a very
different business model.
BTW no doubt Trev knows exactly what I meant by "stolen" but he just
loves being pedantic.
On 19/2/2026 9:47 pm, Noddy wrote:
I'll bet my left one that 15 billion is a conservative estimate. The
true figure is likely to be *way* worse. That money could have fixed
our health system, education system, and given emergency services the
staff and equipment they desperately need.
Some roads without potholes would be nice.
The degree of culpability here is *massive*.....Agree but I wouldn't be surprised if they get off Scott free.
On 19/02/2026 1:39 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 18/2/2026 10:01 pm, Noddy wrote:
The state's combined "big build" projects are so far running 40Agree, hopefully they will be gone come November but the poor bastards
*billion* dollars over budget. In the meantime, Ambulances have to
ramp 15 deep at Sunshine Hospital at 6pm on a Tuesday night because
the health system is on it's knees.
The entire current State government should be taken out back of
Spring street and summarily executed.
who take over will be left with a hell of a mess to clean up.
And it will be us who will have to bear the cost of that cleaning.
I'm not kidding. The Labor party should be banished from the Australian political scene. Not only are they absolutely fucking incompetent, but criminally so. We will most likely end up with a Royal Commission into
this CFMEU public money rorting bullshit, which will likely not release
any finding for a couple of years, and when it does every Politician directly implicated should face criminal charges.
I'll bet my left one that 15 billion is a conservative estimate. The
true figure is likely to be *way* worse. That money could have fixed our health system, education system, and given emergency services the staff
and equipment they desperately need.
The degree of culpability here is *massive*.....
On 19/02/2026 10:25 am, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 19/02/2026 8:29 am, alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 10:08 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 7:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase that! Most successful businesses *grow* ...
Define "Successful". The idea is bullshit, you can have a
successful one man business, in fact a friend of mine did just
that, made enough for a good life, without working 24/7 and is now >>>>>> enjoying a happy retirement. I'd define that as a success.
Indeed. There are many forms of "success". Success is not limited
by the size of the business, and "growth" is no measure of success. >>>>> Many successful small businesses grow unto unsuccessful disasters.
-aFrom what I have read of Daryl's uttering, his business did grow >>>>>>> but only in the number of employees. He said he made a living,I've never had the slightest desire to work for myself, too many
raised kids, etc. His exact words are in this thread. In other
words, he might just as well have remained an employee in a
decent job and built up a decent super balance - just like I did. >>>>>>
hassles.
It can be rewarding, but it depends on the business. The biggest
drawback in my experience...
Best stop there Buffo.
Remember what happens to smartarses.
Why? Are you saying that I can't ridicule Fraudster because he has
zero proven 'business' experience?
Snipping off the end of a sentence? You call that ridiculing, gawd
you're pathetic Aarfie.
-aOr are you threatening me with physical harm Richo?
Nope, just pointing out that you being a smartarse, may have upset
enough people over the years tp make up a reasonable lynching party.
btw... Do you believe his claim about owning the fabled and fabulously
successful 'business' in the Slough Industrial Estate? Y/N will do.
I have no opinion on the matter, unlike you and your opinionated coven.
On 19/02/2026 9:47 pm, Noddy wrote:
I'll bet my left one that 15 billion is a conservative estimate. The
true figure is likely to be *way* worse. That money could have fixed
our health system, education system, and given emergency services the
staff and equipment they desperately need.
The degree of culpability here is *massive*.....
here's the report. entertaining reading, and i've only been reading for
45 mins. https://www.cfmeuinquiry.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0005/897476/gw-13-watson-report-victoria-redacted.pdf
Andrews and Allen need to be held accountable.
On 19/02/2026 2:08 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 19/02/2026 5:43 am, Noddy wrote:
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the
Victorian government?
What is yours you spastic?
Answering questions with questions, huh? That's okay. We can all take
that as a "I have none but it doesn't stop me from being an expert"
response.
So confirmed that you have absolutely no idea and are clueless. Got it.
ROTFL :)
You have no fucking idea, you pea brained cunt. I've had government contracts before and have mentioned them a number of times.
Easy, he signed a contract that contained a rider that allowed the government to exit the contract *with no penalty*. When you do that you
have thrown away any chance of winning and that was the lawyer's advice.
On 19/02/2026 10:39 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 19/2/2026 9:47 pm, Noddy wrote:
I'll bet my left one that 15 billion is a conservative estimate. The
true figure is likely to be *way* worse. That money could have fixed
our health system, education system, and given emergency services the
staff and equipment they desperately need.
Some roads without potholes would be nice.
Lots of things would. I'd be happy with an emergency care system that *doesn't* let people die on their lounge room floor because they don't
have enough staff available to cater to the needs....
The degree of culpability here is *massive*.....Agree but I wouldn't be surprised if they get off Scott free.
And that's exactly what's wrong with this country. Zero political accountability.
For years the argument has been that politicians pay a price for their
sins at the polling booth, and while that may have washed in years gone
by it doesn't today. The financial mess we've been left to deal with by
this cunt of a government will not be paid off in the next 10
generations, and they are directly responsible for it. It's not an
accident. It's not an act of God. There wasn't some magical unforeseen circumstance that caused a massive cost blow out. It was corruption and mismanagement on a scale that this country has never seen before, and
it's about time those in charge were held accountable.
Simply voting them out of office is not enough. In other parts of the
world they'd be put up against a wall and fucking shot.
On 19/02/2026 1:24 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Either you don't understand how this stuff works, or your comprehension level is remarkably poor. Either way, you have demonstrated a clear lack
of understanding here.
On 19/02/2026 9:47 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 19/02/2026 1:39 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 18/2/2026 10:01 pm, Noddy wrote:
The state's combined "big build" projects are so far running 40Agree, hopefully they will be gone come November but the poor
*billion* dollars over budget. In the meantime, Ambulances have to
ramp 15 deep at Sunshine Hospital at 6pm on a Tuesday night because
the health system is on it's knees.
The entire current State government should be taken out back of
Spring street and summarily executed.
bastards who take over will be left with a hell of a mess to clean up.
And it will be us who will have to bear the cost of that cleaning.
I'm not kidding. The Labor party should be banished from the
Australian political scene. Not only are they absolutely fucking
incompetent, but criminally so. We will most likely end up with a
Royal Commission into this CFMEU public money rorting bullshit, which
will likely not release any finding for a couple of years, and when it
does every Politician directly implicated should face criminal charges.
I'll bet my left one that 15 billion is a conservative estimate. The
true figure is likely to be *way* worse. That money could have fixed
our health system, education system, and given emergency services the
staff and equipment they desperately need.
The degree of culpability here is *massive*.....
here's the report. entertaining reading, and i've only been reading for
45 mins. https://www.cfmeuinquiry.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0005/897476/gw-13-watson-report-victoria-redacted.pdf
Andrews and Allen need to be held accountable.
On 19/02/2026 10:23 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 19/2/2026 9:14 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 19/02/2026 1:24 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Except it wasn't theft.
**Theft is theft. Poor business management is something else. I will
You need to get over yourself and stop being so ridiculously pedantic. >>>>
readily admit that I have been guilty of poor business management.
It's high time that Dazza acknowledged the same.
You don't even know what the terms of his contract where or why the
contract was pulled, so how you can claim it was poor management on
his part is staggeringly profound :)
Is being unable to read the mind of the state Premier and Education
Minister "poor management"?
Apparently so. At least you can console yourself in the fact that you weren't the only one who didn't see this coming. None of the other 160
odd companies did either :)
They kept their cards very close to their chests and there was no hint
of the change, one of my fellow contractors is the son of the former
education department manager of cleaning services and even he was
caught out despite still having many contacts in the education dept.
Despite the claims of the delusional knobs around here, there was *no
one* who saw it coming. It was a snap decision made at Premier level and
no one knew anything about it until it filtered down to the relevant Minister and the order issued.
If he is suggesting that you "shouldn't have all your eggs in the one
basket" the business was based solely on school cleaning and since the
vast majority of schools are run by the Govt there is very little
option but to have Govt contracts, even if only 50% of the business
was with the state govt we still would of had a significant loss of
turnover.
If Trev or anyone else suddenly lost 50% of their business would he/
they still continue?
No idea. I have no understanding of the scope of his business. I imagine it's quite small.
Lots of variables to consider, some may survive but many wouldn't.
Indeed.
People who have never run a cleaning business couldn't understand why
school cleaning and other types of cleaning such as office cleaning is
very very different, not so much the cleaning but the people who are
willing to do the work, school cleaning usually starts when school
finishes whereas office cleaning usually takes place in the small
hours of the morning so those hours don't usually suit women with
children who were the bulk of our employees, the employee base is a
very different demographic.
Also schools are local to where people live so cleaners don't need to
travel far, office cleaners very often need to travel in the early
hours and not a lot of women want to do that on their own so its a
very different business model.
I'm sure it is, but that won't stop the morons around here who have
never run any kind of business themselves from being an expert about it :)
BTW no doubt Trev knows exactly what I meant by "stolen" but he just
loves being pedantic.
Trevor likes being lots of things, but sadly a regular resident of
planet Earth doesn't seem to be one of them.
On 19/02/2026 10:39 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 19/2/2026 9:47 pm, Noddy wrote:
I'll bet my left one that 15 billion is a conservative estimate. The
true figure is likely to be *way* worse. That money could have fixed
our health system, education system, and given emergency services the
staff and equipment they desperately need.
Some roads without potholes would be nice.
Lots of things would. I'd be happy with an emergency care system that *doesn't* let people die on their lounge room floor because they don't
have enough staff available to cater to the needs....
The degree of culpability here is *massive*.....Agree but I wouldn't be surprised if they get off Scott free.
And that's exactly what's wrong with this country. Zero political accountability.
For years the argument has been that politicians pay a price for their
sins at the polling booth, and while that may have washed in years gone
by it doesn't today. The financial mess we've been left to deal with by
this cunt of a government will not be paid off in the next 10
generations, and they are directly responsible for it. It's not an
accident. It's not an act of God. There wasn't some magical unforeseen circumstance that caused a massive cost blow out. It was corruption and mismanagement on a scale that this country has never seen before, and
it's about time those in charge were held accountable.
Simply voting them out of office is not enough. In other parts of the
world they'd be put up against a wall and fucking shot.
Noddy wrote:
On 19/02/2026 2:08 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 19/02/2026 5:43 am, Noddy wrote:
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the
Victorian government?
What is yours you spastic?
Answering questions with questions, huh? That's okay. We can all
take that as a "I have none but it doesn't stop me from being an
expert" response.
So confirmed that you have absolutely no idea and are clueless. Got it.
ROTFL :)
You have no fucking idea, you pea brained cunt. I've had government
contracts before and have mentioned them a number of times.
You having "mentioned" something "a number of times" does not constitute proof Fraudster. eg. Many times you declared that you owned a profitable workshop in the SIE. There is zero proof of this.--
So, do you have any credible proof of these "government contracts"? If 'yes', then lets see it.
snip usual bluster, bullshit & abuse.
On 19/02/2026 1:39 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 18/2/2026 10:01 pm, Noddy wrote:
The state's combined "big build" projects are so far running 40Agree, hopefully they will be gone come November but the poor bastards
*billion* dollars over budget. In the meantime, Ambulances have to
ramp 15 deep at Sunshine Hospital at 6pm on a Tuesday night because
the health system is on it's knees.
The entire current State government should be taken out back of
Spring street and summarily executed.
who take over will be left with a hell of a mess to clean up.
And it will be us who will have to bear the cost of that cleaning.
I'm not kidding. The Labor party should be banished from the Australian political scene. Not only are they absolutely fucking incompetent, but criminally so. We will most likely end up with a Royal Commission into
this CFMEU public money rorting bullshit, which will likely not release
any finding for a couple of years, and when it does every Politician directly implicated should face criminal charges.
I'll bet my left one that 15 billion is a conservative estimate. The
true figure is likely to be *way* worse. That money could have fixed our health system, education system, and given emergency services the staff
and equipment they desperately need.
The degree of culpability here is *massive*.....
On 20/2/2026 8:19 am, lindsay wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:47 pm, Noddy wrote:Absolutely they should.
On 19/02/2026 1:39 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 18/2/2026 10:01 pm, Noddy wrote:
The state's combined "big build" projects are so far running 40Agree, hopefully they will be gone come November but the poor
*billion* dollars over budget. In the meantime, Ambulances have to
ramp 15 deep at Sunshine Hospital at 6pm on a Tuesday night because >>>>> the health system is on it's knees.
The entire current State government should be taken out back of
Spring street and summarily executed.
bastards who take over will be left with a hell of a mess to clean up.
And it will be us who will have to bear the cost of that cleaning.
I'm not kidding. The Labor party should be banished from the
Australian political scene. Not only are they absolutely fucking
incompetent, but criminally so. We will most likely end up with a
Royal Commission into this CFMEU public money rorting bullshit, which
will likely not release any finding for a couple of years, and when
it does every Politician directly implicated should face criminal
charges.
I'll bet my left one that 15 billion is a conservative estimate. The
true figure is likely to be *way* worse. That money could have fixed
our health system, education system, and given emergency services the
staff and equipment they desperately need.
The degree of culpability here is *massive*.....
here's the report. entertaining reading, and i've only been reading
for 45 mins. https://www.cfmeuinquiry.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/
pdf_file/0005/897476/gw-13-watson-report-victoria-redacted.pdf
Andrews and Allen need to be held accountable.
The builder who built my new house is John Setka's cousin, he used to be
in the CFMEU inner circle but he quit because he couldn't stand the way
they behaved or the corruption.
Constructions,
would of sacked him if he could but he was untouchable because of his
union connections.
The CFMEU's predecessor the BLF was as bad if not worse,
peace on their building sites Les's boss used to pay them with brown
paper bags of cash every week from every building site.
The Govt got rid of the BLF only to end up with something as bad if not worse and no doubt that Andrews and Allen are part of it.
On 20/02/2026 9:10 am, Daryl wrote:
The Govt got rid of the BLF only to end up with something as bad if
not worse and no doubt that Andrews and Allen are part of it.
No doubt whatsoever... Andrews especially, but Allen is complicit. No accountability... "I'm not answering that" "I dont recall" "thats not mu purview"... The fat four-eyed cunt Andrews couldnt wait for his daily dribble whilst we were all locked up, and then just walked away with his $400k P/A pension. And as for Alien, she was in charge of Big Build. The disaster known as the Suburban Rail Loop is nothing but a black hole
where money just disappears. It' has been said that by the time the
whole thing is complete the first stage will be needing to be renewed.
it's just a way to keep the union in a job.
She was also the Minister for the Commonwealth Games. She fucked that up too, to the cost of au$600 million that was sent to Scotland. And what
did she get for that? A fucking promotion. To Premier of Victoria !!!
And do you see the crowd of head nodders behind her every nite on the
news? They are starting to thin out... :-)
Personally, I'd give 'em both Ebola. Then cure 'em so I could it to 'em again. (Trevor, before you start foaming at the mouth, I don't have any ebola.)
On 19/02/2026 2:08 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 19/02/2026 5:43 am, Noddy wrote:
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the
Victorian government?
What is yours you spastic?
Answering questions with questions, huh? That's okay. We can all take
that as a "I have none but it doesn't stop me from being an expert"
response.
So confirmed that you have absolutely no idea and are clueless. Got it.
ROTFL :)
You have no fucking idea, you pea brained cunt. I've had government contracts before
On 19/02/2026 6:41 pm, Noddy wrote:
So confirmed that you have absolutely no idea and are clueless. Got it.
ROTFL :)
You have no fucking idea, you pea brained cunt. I've had government
contracts before
Piling on the lies isn't going to save you, dumb fuck.
On 21/02/2026 5:55 am, Clocky wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:41 pm, Noddy wrote:
So confirmed that you have absolutely no idea and are clueless. Got it. >>>ROTFL :)
You have no fucking idea, you pea brained cunt. I've had government
contracts before
Piling on the lies isn't going to save you, dumb fuck.
Save me from what?
On 21/02/2026 5:55 am, Clocky wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:41 pm, Noddy wrote:
So confirmed that you have absolutely no idea and are clueless. Got it. >>>ROTFL :)
You have no fucking idea, you pea brained cunt. I've had government
contracts before
keithr0 wrote:
On 19/02/2026 10:25 am, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 19/02/2026 8:29 am, alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 10:08 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 7:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase that! Most successful businesses *grow* ... >>>>>>>Define "Successful". The idea is bullshit, you can have a
successful one man business, in fact a friend of mine did just
that, made enough for a good life, without working 24/7 and is
now enjoying a happy retirement. I'd define that as a success.
Indeed. There are many forms of "success". Success is not limited >>>>>> by the size of the business, and "growth" is no measure of
success. Many successful small businesses grow unto unsuccessful
disasters.
-aFrom what I have read of Daryl's uttering, his business did >>>>>>>> grow but only in the number of employees. He said he made aI've never had the slightest desire to work for myself, too many >>>>>>> hassles.
living, raised kids, etc. His exact words are in this thread. In >>>>>>>> other words, he might just as well have remained an employee in >>>>>>>> a decent job and built up a decent super balance - just like I did. >>>>>>>
It can be rewarding, but it depends on the business. The biggest
drawback in my experience...
Best stop there Buffo.
Remember what happens to smartarses.
Why? Are you saying that I can't ridicule Fraudster because he has
zero proven 'business' experience?
Snipping off the end of a sentence? You call that ridiculing, gawd
you're pathetic Aarfie.
-a-aOr are you threatening me with physical harm Richo?
Nope, just pointing out that you being a smartarse, may have upset
enough people over the years tp make up a reasonable lynching party.
btw... Do you believe his claim about owning the fabled and
fabulously successful 'business' in the Slough Industrial Estate? Y/N
will do.
I have no opinion on the matter, unlike you and your opinionated coven.
Keith 'The Homeopath' Richardson strikes again!
On 21/02/2026 5:55 am, Clocky wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:41 pm, Noddy wrote:
So confirmed that you have absolutely no idea and are clueless. Got it. >>>ROTFL :)
You have no fucking idea, you pea brained cunt. I've had government
contracts before
Piling on the lies isn't going to save you, dumb fuck.
Save me from what? I likes of *you*?
Shut the fuck up, and go stick your fingernail into another plastic
coated windscreen you clueless heap of shit.
On 21/2/2026 8:28 am, Noddy wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:55 am, Clocky wrote:Clueless? Who was the one here too clueless even to get signed onto any apprenticeship ever?
On 19/02/2026 6:41 pm, Noddy wrote:
So confirmed that you have absolutely no idea and are clueless. Got >>>>> it.
ROTFL :)
You have no fucking idea, you pea brained cunt. I've had government
contracts before
Piling on the lies isn't going to save you, dumb fuck.
Save me from what? I likes of *you*?
Shut the fuck up, and go stick your fingernail into another plastic
coated windscreen you clueless heap of shit.
keithr0 wrote:
On 19/02/2026 10:25 am, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 19/02/2026 8:29 am, alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 10:08 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 7:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase that! Most successful businesses *grow* ... >>>>>>>Define "Successful". The idea is bullshit, you can have a
successful one man business, in fact a friend of mine did just
that, made enough for a good life, without working 24/7 and is
now enjoying a happy retirement. I'd define that as a success.
Indeed. There are many forms of "success". Success is not limited >>>>>> by the size of the business, and "growth" is no measure of
success. Many successful small businesses grow unto unsuccessful
disasters.
-aFrom what I have read of Daryl's uttering, his business did >>>>>>>> grow but only in the number of employees. He said he made aI've never had the slightest desire to work for myself, too many >>>>>>> hassles.
living, raised kids, etc. His exact words are in this thread. In >>>>>>>> other words, he might just as well have remained an employee in >>>>>>>> a decent job and built up a decent super balance - just like I did. >>>>>>>
It can be rewarding, but it depends on the business. The biggest
drawback in my experience...
Best stop there Buffo.
Remember what happens to smartarses.
Why? Are you saying that I can't ridicule Fraudster because he has
zero proven 'business' experience?
Snipping off the end of a sentence? You call that ridiculing, gawd
you're pathetic Aarfie.
-a-aOr are you threatening me with physical harm Richo?
Nope, just pointing out that you being a smartarse, may have upset
enough people over the years tp make up a reasonable lynching party.
btw... Do you believe his claim about owning the fabled and
fabulously successful 'business' in the Slough Industrial Estate? Y/N
will do.
I have no opinion on the matter, unlike you and your opinionated coven.
Keith 'The Homeopath' Richardson strikes again!
On 20/02/2026 5:25 am, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 19/02/2026 10:25 am, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 19/02/2026 8:29 am, alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 10:08 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 7:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase that! Most successful businesses *grow* ... >>>>>>>>Define "Successful". The idea is bullshit, you can have a
successful one man business, in fact a friend of mine did just >>>>>>>> that, made enough for a good life, without working 24/7 and is >>>>>>>> now enjoying a happy retirement. I'd define that as a success.
Indeed. There are many forms of "success". Success is not limited >>>>>>> by the size of the business, and "growth" is no measure of
success. Many successful small businesses grow unto unsuccessful >>>>>>> disasters.
-aFrom what I have read of Daryl's uttering, his business did >>>>>>>>> grow but only in the number of employees. He said he made a >>>>>>>>> living, raised kids, etc. His exact words are in this thread. >>>>>>>>> In other words, he might just as well have remained an employee >>>>>>>>> in a decent job and built up a decent super balance - just like >>>>>>>>> I did.
I've never had the slightest desire to work for myself, too many >>>>>>>> hassles.
It can be rewarding, but it depends on the business. The biggest >>>>>>> drawback in my experience...
Best stop there Buffo.
Remember what happens to smartarses.
Why? Are you saying that I can't ridicule Fraudster because he has
zero proven 'business' experience?
Snipping off the end of a sentence? You call that ridiculing, gawd
you're pathetic Aarfie.
-a-aOr are you threatening me with physical harm Richo?
Nope, just pointing out that you being a smartarse, may have upset
enough people over the years tp make up a reasonable lynching party.
btw... Do you believe his claim about owning the fabled and
fabulously successful 'business' in the Slough Industrial Estate? Y/
N will do.
I have no opinion on the matter, unlike you and your opinionated coven.
Keith 'The Homeopath' Richardson strikes again!
lol
On 18/2/2026 9:38 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 6:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:Says the clown who invents a fully fictional business.
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few people
who open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very large
proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family run.
Not that the mental case you're replying to would have the slightest
idea about how to run a business :)
Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 6:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few people
who open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very large
proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family run.
Not that the mental case you're replying to would have the slightest
idea about how to run a business :)
Hahahahahahaha. What a buffoon you are.
On 18/2/2026 11:11 pm, alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:Indeed! I was in the office of a contract lawyer late last year. What I wanted to know was explicitly detailed plus the caveats, some of which I knew and, unsurprisingly, some of which I didn't.
On 18/02/2026 3:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 17/02/2026 3:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and
sign it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said
that in the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living,
certainly didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up 2 >>>>> sons including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid off
the house, had lots of new cars etc etc so overall not too bad.
We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we were >>>>> affected as badly as many others especially the younger business
owners who had invested lots of money growing their business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice
including consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal
advice only to be told that the Govt can do what the fuck they like >>>>> and nothing can be done about it.
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the Victorian
government?
Says the buffoon who was blissfully unaware of the existence of
contract lawyers a couple of days ago.
On 18/02/2026 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 3:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 17/02/2026 3:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and
sign it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said
that in the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living,
certainly didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up 2
sons including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid off the
house, had lots of new cars etc etc so overall not too bad.
We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we were
affected as badly as many others especially the younger business
owners who had invested lots of money growing their business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice including
consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal advice only to
be told that the Govt can do what the fuck they like and nothing can
be done about it.
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the Victorian
government?
What is yours you spastic? Clearly dopey Daryl's experience with
entering into a contractual agreement with the Victorian Government was
zero and evidently he was clueless about the state of the industry and
where it was headed - which is exactly why he should have used a
contract lawyer.
You pair are so incredibly dumb.
Xeno wrote:
On 21/2/2026 8:28 am, Noddy wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:55 am, Clocky wrote:Clueless? Who was the one here too clueless even to get signed onto
On 19/02/2026 6:41 pm, Noddy wrote:
So confirmed that you have absolutely no idea and are clueless.
Got it.
ROTFL :)
You have no fucking idea, you pea brained cunt. I've had government >>>>> contracts before
Piling on the lies isn't going to save you, dumb fuck.
Save me from what? I likes of *you*?
Shut the fuck up, and go stick your fingernail into another plastic
coated windscreen you clueless heap of shit.
any apprenticeship ever?
Speaking of apprenticeships... It was quite a few years ago that you
went on your voyage of non-discovery to the VSL, do you know if they've transferred any/all of the old cards to digital since?
On 18/02/2026 9:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 18/2/2026 9:38 pm, Noddy wrote:So, what business experience do you have other than flogging dodgey
On 18/02/2026 6:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:Says the clown who invents a fully fictional business.
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few people
who open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very large
proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family run.
Not that the mental case you're replying to would have the slightest
idea about how to run a business :)
second hand disk drives?
On 18/02/2026 10:47 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 18/2/2026 11:11 pm, alvey wrote:Of course you were, it's just a coincidence that it comes up just now.
Noddy wrote:Indeed! I was in the office of a contract lawyer late last year. What
On 18/02/2026 3:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 17/02/2026 3:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and >>>>>> sign it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said
that in the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living, >>>>>> certainly didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up >>>>>> 2 sons including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid off >>>>>> the house, had lots of new cars etc etc so overall not too bad.
We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we
were affected as badly as many others especially the younger
business owners who had invested lots of money growing their
business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice
including consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal
advice only to be told that the Govt can do what the fuck they
like and nothing can be done about it.
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the
Victorian government?
Says the buffoon who was blissfully unaware of the existence of
contract lawyers a couple of days ago.
I wanted to know was explicitly detailed plus the caveats, some of
which I knew and, unsurprisingly, some of which I didn't.
On 19/02/2026 6:00 am, Clocky wrote:
On 18/02/2026 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 3:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 17/02/2026 3:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and
sign it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said
that in the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living,
certainly didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up 2 >>>>> sons including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid off
the house, had lots of new cars etc etc so overall not too bad.
We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we were >>>>> affected as badly as many others especially the younger business
owners who had invested lots of money growing their business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice
including consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal
advice only to be told that the Govt can do what the fuck they like >>>>> and nothing can be done about it.
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the Victorian
government?
What is yours you spastic? Clearly dopey Daryl's experience with
entering into a contractual agreement with the Victorian Government
was zero and evidently he was clueless about the state of the industry
and where it was headed - which is exactly why he should have used a
contract lawyer.
Obviously-a you have no idea. The government puts out tenders, if you
want the job, you accept their conditions, simple as that, there is no negotiation.
You pair are so incredibly dumb.
You aren't in a position to call others dumb.
On 18/02/2026 10:02 pm, alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:Want to fill us in on what business experience you have?
On 18/02/2026 6:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few people
who open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very large
proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family run.
Not that the mental case you're replying to would have the slightest
idea about how to run a business :)
Hahahahahahaha. What a buffoon you are.
On 19/02/2026 6:00 am, Clocky wrote:
On 18/02/2026 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 3:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 17/02/2026 3:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and
sign it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said
that in the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living,
certainly didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up 2 >>>>> sons including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid off
the house, had lots of new cars etc etc so overall not too bad.
We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we were >>>>> affected as badly as many others especially the younger business
owners who had invested lots of money growing their business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice
including consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal
advice only to be told that the Govt can do what the fuck they like >>>>> and nothing can be done about it.
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the Victorian
government?
What is yours you spastic? Clearly dopey Daryl's experience with
entering into a contractual agreement with the Victorian Government
was zero and evidently he was clueless about the state of the industry
and where it was headed - which is exactly why he should have used a
contract lawyer.
Obviously-a you have no idea. The government puts out tenders, if you
want the job, you accept their conditions, simple as that, there is no negotiation.
You pair are so incredibly dumb.
You aren't in a position to call others dumb.
On 18/02/2026 10:47 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 18/2/2026 11:11 pm, alvey wrote:Of course you were, it's just a coincidence that it comes up just now.
Noddy wrote:Indeed! I was in the office of a contract lawyer late last year. What
On 18/02/2026 3:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 17/02/2026 3:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and >>>>>> sign it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said
that in the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living, >>>>>> certainly didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up >>>>>> 2 sons including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid off >>>>>> the house, had lots of new cars etc etc so overall not too bad.
We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we
were affected as badly as many others especially the younger
business owners who had invested lots of money growing their
business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice
including consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal
advice only to be told that the Govt can do what the fuck they
like and nothing can be done about it.
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the
Victorian government?
Says the buffoon who was blissfully unaware of the existence of
contract lawyers a couple of days ago.
I wanted to know was explicitly detailed plus the caveats, some of
which I knew and, unsurprisingly, some of which I didn't.
On 19/02/2026 6:00 am, Clocky wrote:
On 18/02/2026 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 3:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 17/02/2026 3:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and
sign it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said
that in the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living,
certainly didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up 2 >>>>> sons including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid off
the house, had lots of new cars etc etc so overall not too bad.
We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we were >>>>> affected as badly as many others especially the younger business
owners who had invested lots of money growing their business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice
including consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal
advice only to be told that the Govt can do what the fuck they like >>>>> and nothing can be done about it.
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the Victorian
government?
What is yours you spastic? Clearly dopey Daryl's experience with
entering into a contractual agreement with the Victorian Government
was zero and evidently he was clueless about the state of the industry
and where it was headed - which is exactly why he should have used a
contract lawyer.
Obviously-a you have no idea. The government puts out tenders, if you
want the job, you accept their conditions, simple as that, there is no negotiation.
You pair are so incredibly dumb.
You aren't in a position to call others dumb.
On 21/2/2026 11:26 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 10:47 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 18/2/2026 11:11 pm, alvey wrote:Of course you were, it's just a coincidence that it comes up just now.
Noddy wrote:Indeed! I was in the office of a contract lawyer late last year. What
On 18/02/2026 3:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 17/02/2026 3:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and >>>>>>> sign it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said >>>>>>> that in the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living, >>>>>>> certainly didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up >>>>>>> 2 sons including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid
off the house, had lots of new cars etc etc so overall not too bad. >>>>>>> We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we
were affected as badly as many others especially the younger
business owners who had invested lots of money growing their
business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice
including consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal
advice only to be told that the Govt can do what the fuck they
like and nothing can be done about it.
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the
Victorian government?
Says the buffoon who was blissfully unaware of the existence of
contract lawyers a couple of days ago.
I wanted to know was explicitly detailed plus the caveats, some of
which I knew and, unsurprisingly, some of which I didn't.
LOL, should I mention that my niece is a contract lawyer:-)
On 21/2/2026 11:31 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:00 am, Clocky wrote:
On 18/02/2026 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 3:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 17/02/2026 3:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and >>>>>> sign it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said
that in the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living, >>>>>> certainly didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up >>>>>> 2 sons including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid off >>>>>> the house, had lots of new cars etc etc so overall not too bad.
We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we
were affected as badly as many others especially the younger
business owners who had invested lots of money growing their
business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice
including consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal
advice only to be told that the Govt can do what the fuck they
like and nothing can be done about it.
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the
Victorian government?
What is yours you spastic? Clearly dopey Daryl's experience with
entering into a contractual agreement with the Victorian Government
was zero and evidently he was clueless about the state of the
industry and where it was headed - which is exactly why he should
have used a contract lawyer.
Obviously-a you have no idea. The government puts out tenders, if you
want the job, you accept their conditions, simple as that, there is no
negotiation.
Spot on, not even any negotiations on price, if you want the job you
accept their terms and price or find something else to do.
--
You pair are so incredibly dumb.
You aren't in a position to call others dumb.
Especially since he has zero idea about doing business with the Vic Govt.
On 21/2/2026 5:15 pm, Daryl wrote:
Whom you forgot to consult, obviously. Or she was too young at the time.Of course you were, it's just a coincidence that it comes up just now.
LOL, should I mention that my niece is a contract lawyer:-)
On 21/2/2026 5:18 pm, Daryl wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, that is precisely what you should have done since, according to your own words, you were only making a living running your
own business.
On 21/02/2026 8:44 am, Clocky wrote:
On 20/02/2026 5:25 am, alvey wrote:And Mr Misery joins in, all we need now is Mr Boring and we have a
keithr0 wrote:
On 19/02/2026 10:25 am, alvey wrote:Keith 'The Homeopath' Richardson strikes again!
keithr0 wrote:
On 19/02/2026 8:29 am, alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 10:08 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 7:24 pm, Xeno wrote:Indeed. There are many forms of "success". Success is not
Ok, let me rephrase that! Most successful businesses *grow* ... >>>>>>>>>Define "Successful". The idea is bullshit, you can have a
successful one man business, in fact a friend of mine did just >>>>>>>>> that, made enough for a good life, without working 24/7 and is >>>>>>>>> now enjoying a happy retirement. I'd define that as a success. >>>>>>>>
limited by the size of the business, and "growth" is no measure >>>>>>>> of success. Many successful small businesses grow unto
unsuccessful disasters.
-aFrom what I have read of Daryl's uttering, his business did >>>>>>>>>> grow but only in the number of employees. He said he made a >>>>>>>>>> living, raised kids, etc. His exact words are in this thread. >>>>>>>>>> In other words, he might just as well have remained an
employee in a decent job and built up a decent super balance - >>>>>>>>>> just like I did.
I've never had the slightest desire to work for myself, too >>>>>>>>> many hassles.
It can be rewarding, but it depends on the business. The biggest >>>>>>>> drawback in my experience...
Best stop there Buffo.
Remember what happens to smartarses.
Why? Are you saying that I can't ridicule Fraudster because he has
zero proven 'business' experience?
Snipping off the end of a sentence? You call that ridiculing, gawd
you're pathetic Aarfie.
-a-aOr are you threatening me with physical harm Richo?
Nope, just pointing out that you being a smartarse, may have upset
enough people over the years tp make up a reasonable lynching party.
btw... Do you believe his claim about owning the fabled and
fabulously successful 'business' in the Slough Industrial Estate?
Y/ N will do.
I have no opinion on the matter, unlike you and your opinionated coven. >>>
lol
complete set.
On 21/2/2026 11:31 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:00 am, Clocky wrote:
On 18/02/2026 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 3:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 17/02/2026 3:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and >>>>>> sign it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said
that in the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living, >>>>>> certainly didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up >>>>>> 2 sons including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid off >>>>>> the house, had lots of new cars etc etc so overall not too bad.
We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we
were affected as badly as many others especially the younger
business owners who had invested lots of money growing their
business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice
including consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal
advice only to be told that the Govt can do what the fuck they
like and nothing can be done about it.
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the
Victorian government?
What is yours you spastic? Clearly dopey Daryl's experience with
entering into a contractual agreement with the Victorian Government
was zero and evidently he was clueless about the state of the
industry and where it was headed - which is exactly why he should
have used a contract lawyer.
Obviously-a you have no idea. The government puts out tenders, if you
want the job, you accept their conditions, simple as that, there is no
negotiation.
Spot on, not even any negotiations on price, if you want the job you
accept their terms and price or find something else to do.
You pair are so incredibly dumb.
You aren't in a position to call others dumb.
Especially since he has zero idea about doing business with the Vic Govt.
On 21/2/2026 5:18 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 21/2/2026 11:31 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:00 am, Clocky wrote:
On 18/02/2026 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 3:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 17/02/2026 3:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and >>>>>>> sign it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said >>>>>>> that in the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living, >>>>>>> certainly didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up >>>>>>> 2 sons including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid
off the house, had lots of new cars etc etc so overall not too bad. >>>>>>> We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we
were affected as badly as many others especially the younger
business owners who had invested lots of money growing their
business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice
including consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal
advice only to be told that the Govt can do what the fuck they
like and nothing can be done about it.
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the
Victorian government?
What is yours you spastic? Clearly dopey Daryl's experience with
entering into a contractual agreement with the Victorian Government
was zero and evidently he was clueless about the state of the
industry and where it was headed - which is exactly why he should
have used a contract lawyer.
Obviously-a you have no idea. The government puts out tenders, if you
want the job, you accept their conditions, simple as that, there is
no negotiation.
Spot on, not even any negotiations on price, if you want the job you
accept their terms and price or find something else to do.
Maybe, just maybe, that is precisely what you should have done since, according to your own words, you were only making a living running your
own business.
You pair are so incredibly dumb.
You aren't in a position to call others dumb.
Especially since he has zero idea about doing business with the Vic Govt.
On 21/02/2026 2:18 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 21/2/2026 11:31 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:00 am, Clocky wrote:
On 18/02/2026 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 18/02/2026 3:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 17/02/2026 3:45 pm, Daryl wrote:
Thing is with a Govt contract you either agree to their terms and >>>>>>> sign it or don't get the job.
They have all the power, always have always will but having said >>>>>>> that in the 25 years we had Govt contracts we made a good living, >>>>>>> certainly didn't get rich but we didn't starve either, brought up >>>>>>> 2 sons including paying for a uni course for one of them, paid
off the house, had lots of new cars etc etc so overall not too bad. >>>>>>> We were lucky in that we were already planning to retire so we
were affected as badly as many others especially the younger
business owners who had invested lots of money growing their
business's.
A group of 10 business's got together and got legal advice
including consulting a QC, between us we spent $100k on legal
advice only to be told that the Govt can do what the fuck they
like and nothing can be done about it.
That's absolute bullshit.
Oh, really? How would you know? What exactly is your personal
experience of entering into contractual agreements with the
Victorian government?
What is yours you spastic? Clearly dopey Daryl's experience with
entering into a contractual agreement with the Victorian Government
was zero and evidently he was clueless about the state of the
industry and where it was headed - which is exactly why he should
have used a contract lawyer.
Obviously-a you have no idea. The government puts out tenders, if you
want the job, you accept their conditions, simple as that, there is
no negotiation.
Spot on, not even any negotiations on price, if you want the job you
accept their terms and price or find something else to do.
Yet knowing that you still thought it wise to hinge all your super on a contract. What do you think that says about your intelligence and
business acumen?
I'll tell you exactly... you're gullible and stupid, just as I said.
--
You pair are so incredibly dumb.
You aren't in a position to call others dumb.
Especially since he has zero idea about doing business with the Vic Govt.
Still more than you evidently, because you're the one minus $450k in
super, dumbarse.
On 21/02/2026 2:30 pm, Xeno wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, that is precisely what you should have done since,
according to your own words, you were only making a living running
your own business.
I like Daryl but fuck he is thick.
On 18/02/2026 9:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 18/2/2026 9:38 pm, Noddy wrote:So, what business experience do you have other than flogging dodgey
On 18/02/2026 6:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:Says the clown who invents a fully fictional business.
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few people
who open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very large
proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family run.
Not that the mental case you're replying to would have the slightest
idea about how to run a business :)
second hand disk drives?
On 18/02/2026 10:47 pm, Xeno wrote:
Of course you were, it's just a coincidence that it comes up just now.Says the buffoon who was blissfully unaware of the existence ofIndeed! I was in the office of a contract lawyer late last year. What
contract lawyers a couple of days ago.
I wanted to know was explicitly detailed plus the caveats, some of
which I knew and, unsurprisingly, some of which I didn't.
On 21/2/2026 11:26 am, keithr0 wrote:
Indeed! I was in the office of a contract lawyer late last year. WhatOf course you were, it's just a coincidence that it comes up just now.
I wanted to know was explicitly detailed plus the caveats, some of
which I knew and, unsurprisingly, some of which I didn't.
LOL, should I mention that my niece is a contract lawyer:-)
On 21/02/2026 5:29 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 21/2/2026 5:15 pm, Daryl wrote:
Whom you forgot to consult, obviously. Or she was too young at the time.Of course you were, it's just a coincidence that it comes up just now.
LOL, should I mention that my niece is a contract lawyer:-)
Hahaha like a shit-talking wannabe google sponge like you would know,
Tomas Clasener.
On 18/2/2026 6:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:He couldn't be more wrong if he tried, you are correct in that many
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few people
who open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very large
proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family run.
small business's are just a one man show, when we started in 1993 it was just my wife and I with one contract, when we finished in 2019 we had 36 employees (part timers equivalent hours to 12 full time) and 12
contracts and a turnover of about $1.3 million, if that isn't growth
then what is.
At one time my electrician son had about 35 full time employees, now its just him and another sparkie, his turnover is a lot less but profit is
far more so growing a business doesn't always amount to higher profits.
On 21/02/2026 11:21 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 9:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 18/2/2026 9:38 pm, Noddy wrote:So, what business experience do you have other than flogging dodgey
On 18/02/2026 6:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:Says the clown who invents a fully fictional business.
On 18/02/2026 12:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
Most people *grow* their businesses but not Daryl since his
aspirations remained at the level of *wage earner*.
No they don't, most small businesses stay just that. Very few
people who open a shop for instance develop it into a chain. A very >>>>> large proportion of small businesses are one man affairs, or family >>>>> run.
Not that the mental case you're replying to would have the slightest
idea about how to run a business :)
second hand disk drives?
Don't tell me you actually believe that story? :)
On 21/02/2026 11:26 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 18/02/2026 10:47 pm, Xeno wrote:
Of course you were, it's just a coincidence that it comes up just now.Says the buffoon who was blissfully unaware of the existence ofIndeed! I was in the office of a contract lawyer late last year. What
contract lawyers a couple of days ago.
I wanted to know was explicitly detailed plus the caveats, some of
which I knew and, unsurprisingly, some of which I didn't.
Like most of his "friends". They're all conveniently placed. Still, he
never does explain how any of them make *him* an expert on the subject.
Even if they *did* exist :)
On 21/02/2026 5:15 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 21/2/2026 11:26 am, keithr0 wrote:
Indeed! I was in the office of a contract lawyer late last year.Of course you were, it's just a coincidence that it comes up just now.
What I wanted to know was explicitly detailed plus the caveats, some
of which I knew and, unsurprisingly, some of which I didn't.
LOL, should I mention that my niece is a contract lawyer:-)
Get her to look over the mental case's imaginary ones :)
On 19/2/2026 9:14 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 19/02/2026 1:24 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/02/2026 11:49 am, Noddy wrote:
**Then don't claim that the government "stole" you MONEY.
Who died and left you in charge, Trevor? He can claim whatever the
fuck he likes, and he doesn't need your permission.
**Indeed and I can call him a liar when he claims his money was
stolen. It was not stolen.
You can claim whatever you like, but you *don't* get to tell him or
anyone else what to do :)
-a-aPersonally if I signed a
half million dollar contract and went out and invested on equipment&
staff on the basis of that I would consider a sudden and unexpected
pull out to be theft of the highest order.
**Except it wasn't theft.
You need to get over yourself and stop being so ridiculously pedantic.
**Theft is theft. Poor business management is something else. I will
readily admit that I have been guilty of poor business management.
It's high time that Dazza acknowledged the same.
You don't even know what the terms of his contract where or why the
contract was pulled, so how you can claim it was poor management on
his part is staggeringly profound :)
Is being unable to read the mind of the state Premier and Education
Minister "poor management"?
They kept their cards very close to their chests and there was no hint
of the change, one of my fellow contractors is the son of the former education department manager of cleaning services and even he was caught
out despite still having many contacts in the education dept.
If he is suggesting that you "shouldn't have all your eggs in the one basket" the business was based solely on school cleaning and since the
vast majority of schools are run by the Govt there is very little option
but to have Govt contracts, even if only 50% of the business was with
the state govt we still would of had a significant loss of turnover.
If Trev or anyone else suddenly lost 50% of their business would he/they still continue?
Lots of variables to consider, some may survive but many wouldn't.
People who have never run a cleaning business couldn't understand why
school cleaning and other types of cleaning such as office cleaning is
very very different, not so much the cleaning but the people who are
willing to do the work, school cleaning usually starts when school
finishes whereas office cleaning usually takes place in the small hours
of the morning so those hours don't usually suit women with children who were the bulk of our employees, the employee base is a very different demographic.
Also schools are local to where people live so cleaners don't need to
travel far, office cleaners very often need to travel in the early hours
and not a lot of women want to do that on their own so its a very
different business model.
BTW no doubt Trev knows exactly what I meant by "stolen" but he just
loves being pedantic.
On 19/2/2026 9:14 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 19/02/2026 1:24 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/02/2026 11:49 am, Noddy wrote:
**Then don't claim that the government "stole" you MONEY.
Who died and left you in charge, Trevor? He can claim whatever the
fuck he likes, and he doesn't need your permission.
**Indeed and I can call him a liar when he claims his money was
stolen. It was not stolen.
You can claim whatever you like, but you *don't* get to tell him or
anyone else what to do :)
-a-aPersonally if I signed a
half million dollar contract and went out and invested on equipment&
staff on the basis of that I would consider a sudden and unexpected
pull out to be theft of the highest order.
**Except it wasn't theft.
You need to get over yourself and stop being so ridiculously pedantic.
**Theft is theft. Poor business management is something else. I will
readily admit that I have been guilty of poor business management.
It's high time that Dazza acknowledged the same.
You don't even know what the terms of his contract where or why the
contract was pulled, so how you can claim it was poor management on
his part is staggeringly profound :)
The fact that this issue gained headline media attention right across
the country with the finger of blame pointed squarely at the
government suggests that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't claim that my money was stolen.
Apparently you have no fucking idea what a figure of speech is.
Unbelievable.
**I know precisely what the word: 'Stolen' means. Do you?
I don't think there isn't a person here who doesn't know what the word
means in isolation. I *also* don't think there is a single person here
who knew exactly what Daryl meant when he used the term in his remarks.
I agree with you. I doubt anyone here knew exactly what Daryl meant when
he used the term *stolen* but everyone here understands what the word
means, especially when the term refers to a numeric value stated in *Dollars*. Have a try at parsing this one Darren.
Government / stole / $450k / from / me. (Daryl)
I've even assisted you in applying relevant separators.
Use AI if you need to. You should find that, in any and every case, the
verb "stolen" indicates an *illegal act*.
So, did Daryl get the police
involved? No? Could it be that the government was operating within both
the law and the terms of the contract Daryl signed? That'd be my bet! If
so, no money was *stolen* and Daryl lied. You've corrupted him well Darren.
BTW Darren, your command of the English language still sucks. Try harder.
*Apart* from you.
Have you ever tried to sue a government department Trevor?
**Nope, though I have dealt with several. One was NSW Prisons. I did
a bunch of jobs for them, for which they paid me promptly. They then
asked me to quote on a new job. I would have had to shell out a lot
of money prior to doing the job. I requested an up-front payment
before I started. They refused and went with a guy who under-quoted
me. He lost money on the job. Not unexpected. I am mostly careful
with ANY client. including government departments.
-a-aI'm tipping
not,
**You'd lose that bet.
You just admitted yourself in your paragraph above that you have never
tried to sue a government department, so I suspect it would indeed be
*you* who lost that bet.
No, smart people don't allow themselves to get into a position where
they might feel the need to sue a government entity. Or an entity that
has a watertight contract.
Either you don't understand how this stuff works, or your
comprehension level is remarkably poor. Either way, you have
demonstrated a clear lack of understanding here.
Daryl signed the contract, he should have known what the possibilities
were *before* he signed.
On 19/02/2026 9:28 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 19/2/2026 9:14 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 19/02/2026 1:24 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/02/2026 11:49 am, Noddy wrote:
**Then don't claim that the government "stole" you MONEY.
Who died and left you in charge, Trevor? He can claim whatever the
fuck he likes, and he doesn't need your permission.
**Indeed and I can call him a liar when he claims his money was
stolen. It was not stolen.
You can claim whatever you like, but you *don't* get to tell him or
anyone else what to do :)
-a-aPersonally if I signed a
half million dollar contract and went out and invested on
equipment& staff on the basis of that I would consider a sudden and >>>>> unexpected pull out to be theft of the highest order.
**Except it wasn't theft.
**Theft is theft. Poor business management is something else. I will
You need to get over yourself and stop being so ridiculously pedantic. >>>>
readily admit that I have been guilty of poor business management.
It's high time that Dazza acknowledged the same.
You don't even know what the terms of his contract where or why the
contract was pulled, so how you can claim it was poor management on
his part is staggeringly profound :)
The fact that this issue gained headline media attention right across
the country with the finger of blame pointed squarely at the
government suggests that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't claim that my money was stolen.
Apparently you have no fucking idea what a figure of speech is.
Unbelievable.
**I know precisely what the word: 'Stolen' means. Do you?
I don't think there isn't a person here who doesn't know what the
word means in isolation. I *also* don't think there is a single
person here who knew exactly what Daryl meant when he used the term
in his remarks.
I agree with you. I doubt anyone here knew exactly what Daryl meant
when he used the term *stolen* but everyone here understands what the
word means, especially when the term refers to a numeric value stated
in *Dollars*. Have a try at parsing this one Darren.
Government / stole / $450k / from / me. (Daryl)
I've even assisted you in applying relevant separators.
Use AI if you need to. You should find that, in any and every case,
the verb "stolen" indicates an *illegal act*.
So, the kids of the "Stolen generation" were taken illegally, how come nobody has been charged with the offence?
So, did Daryl get the police involved? No? Could it be that the
government was operating within both the law and the terms of the
contract Daryl signed? That'd be my bet! If so, no money was *stolen*
and Daryl lied. You've corrupted him well Darren.
BTW Darren, your command of the English language still sucks. Try harder. >>>
*Apart* from you.
Have you ever tried to sue a government department Trevor?
**Nope, though I have dealt with several. One was NSW Prisons. I did
a bunch of jobs for them, for which they paid me promptly. They then
asked me to quote on a new job. I would have had to shell out a lot
of money prior to doing the job. I requested an up-front payment
before I started. They refused and went with a guy who under-quoted
me. He lost money on the job. Not unexpected. I am mostly careful
with ANY client. including government departments.
-a-aI'm tipping
not,
**You'd lose that bet.
You just admitted yourself in your paragraph above that you have
never tried to sue a government department, so I suspect it would
indeed be *you* who lost that bet.
No, smart people don't allow themselves to get into a position where
they might feel the need to sue a government entity. Or an entity that
has a watertight contract.
Either you don't understand how this stuff works, or your
comprehension level is remarkably poor. Either way, you have
demonstrated a clear lack of understanding here.
Daryl signed the contract, he should have known what the possibilities
were *before* he signed.
On 15/2/2026 6:55 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 1:34 pm, Daryl wrote:LOL again, entirely predicable and ignoring of the FACT that Australia contributes 1.02% of world CO2 emissions, no matter what we do even achieving net zero will do 4 fifths of fuck all to anything and in the meantime the rate of increase in our cost of living is off the scale.
On 13/2/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
On 12/2/2026 9:36 pm, keithr0 wrote:Netzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get to
On 11/02/2026 10:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bcPersonally, I wouldn't trust anything from Sky News, it's our
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its >>>>>>> on Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be >>>>>>> ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can >>>>>>> afford it?
version of Fox News. You just have to look at their presenters,
they make Pauline Hanson look like a leftie.
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually watch >>>>> their videos but even if you only believe half of it its still
pretty damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms more >>>>> or less what I already thought.
it the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether you
want your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your name
for doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for them
to endure.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the right
direction.
China needed to make massive changes since they are the biggest
polluters on the planet followed by the USA and India, by comparison
our emissions are one drop in a very big bucket.
My son and his partner recently spent a couple of weeks in India,
they were invited to wedding, they were in Ahmedabad which is a city
of approx 9 million people, the 7th most populated city in India,
they said that the air quality was pretty bad and getting worse, by
comparison the worse place in Australia has pristine air.
You only have to look at the summer sky now and compare it to 40
years ago to know that we have made huge improvements in air quality,
in the 80's if you looked towards Melb CBD on a warm sunny day you
would see a thick brown haze but now all you see it clear blue sky so
big advances have already been made.
I'm all for continuing to make improvements but it needs to be done
in a way that doesn't bankrupt everyone, I believe that over time
emissions will get lower and lower which is a good thing but it needs
to be done in a controlled financially responsible way instead of the
panicked way the current Govt is going about it.
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as opposed to
Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have much time. We are
presently sitting at around 425ppm of atmospheric CO2. Most climate
scientists (as opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao) believe when CO2 levels
reach 500ppm, then nothing we can do will stop uncontrolled warming.
Do you really want to take a chance? Do you really think that the
Murdoch Moronsrao know more about the climate than climate scientists?
On 15/02/2026 10:29 am, Daryl wrote:
On 15/2/2026 6:55 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 1:34 pm, Daryl wrote:LOL again, entirely predicable and ignoring of the FACT that Australia
On 13/2/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
On 12/2/2026 9:36 pm, keithr0 wrote:Netzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get
On 11/02/2026 10:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bcPersonally, I wouldn't trust anything from Sky News, it's our
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since >>>>>>>> its on Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't >>>>>>>> be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we >>>>>>>> can afford it?
version of Fox News. You just have to look at their presenters, >>>>>>> they make Pauline Hanson look like a leftie.
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually
watch their videos but even if you only believe half of it its
still pretty damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms
more or less what I already thought.
to it the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether
you want your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your
name for doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for
them to endure.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the right >>>>> direction.
China needed to make massive changes since they are the biggest
polluters on the planet followed by the USA and India, by comparison
our emissions are one drop in a very big bucket.
My son and his partner recently spent a couple of weeks in India,
they were invited to wedding, they were in Ahmedabad which is a city
of approx 9 million people, the 7th most populated city in India,
they said that the air quality was pretty bad and getting worse, by
comparison the worse place in Australia has pristine air.
You only have to look at the summer sky now and compare it to 40
years ago to know that we have made huge improvements in air
quality, in the 80's if you looked towards Melb CBD on a warm sunny
day you would see a thick brown haze but now all you see it clear
blue sky so big advances have already been made.
I'm all for continuing to make improvements but it needs to be done
in a way that doesn't bankrupt everyone, I believe that over time
emissions will get lower and lower which is a good thing but it
needs to be done in a controlled financially responsible way instead
of the panicked way the current Govt is going about it.
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as opposed
to Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have much time. We
are presently sitting at around 425ppm of atmospheric CO2. Most
climate scientists (as opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao) believe when CO2
levels reach 500ppm, then nothing we can do will stop uncontrolled
warming. Do you really want to take a chance? Do you really think
that the Murdoch Moronsrao know more about the climate than climate
scientists?
contributes 1.02% of world CO2 emissions, no matter what we do even
achieving net zero will do 4 fifths of fuck all to anything and in the
meantime the rate of increase in our cost of living is off the scale.
**How much, exactly, will it cost?
Why should every Chinese citizen act to lower their emissions, when the average Chinese citizen emits HALF the CO2 that the average Aussie does?
Why should every Indian act to lower their emissions, the average Indian emits 18th the amount of CO2 that the average Aussie does?
On 24/2/2026 7:04 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:29 am, Daryl wrote:That alone makes Australia's average 1% emissions claim look ridiculous.
On 15/2/2026 6:55 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 1:34 pm, Daryl wrote:LOL again, entirely predicable and ignoring of the FACT that
On 13/2/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
On 12/2/2026 9:36 pm, keithr0 wrote:Netzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get >>>>>> to it the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether >>>>>> you want your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your
On 11/02/2026 10:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bcPersonally, I wouldn't trust anything from Sky News, it's our >>>>>>>> version of Fox News. You just have to look at their presenters, >>>>>>>> they make Pauline Hanson look like a leftie.
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since >>>>>>>>> its on Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that
can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we >>>>>>>>> can afford it?
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually
watch their videos but even if you only believe half of it its
still pretty damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an
impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms
more or less what I already thought.
name for doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world for >>>>>> them to endure.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the
right direction.
China needed to make massive changes since they are the biggest
polluters on the planet followed by the USA and India, by
comparison our emissions are one drop in a very big bucket.
My son and his partner recently spent a couple of weeks in India,
they were invited to wedding, they were in Ahmedabad which is a
city of approx 9 million people, the 7th most populated city in
India, they said that the air quality was pretty bad and getting
worse, by comparison the worse place in Australia has pristine air.
You only have to look at the summer sky now and compare it to 40
years ago to know that we have made huge improvements in air
quality, in the 80's if you looked towards Melb CBD on a warm sunny >>>>> day you would see a thick brown haze but now all you see it clear
blue sky so big advances have already been made.
I'm all for continuing to make improvements but it needs to be done >>>>> in a way that doesn't bankrupt everyone, I believe that over time
emissions will get lower and lower which is a good thing but it
needs to be done in a controlled financially responsible way
instead of the panicked way the current Govt is going about it.
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as opposed
to Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have much time. We >>>> are presently sitting at around 425ppm of atmospheric CO2. Most
climate scientists (as opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao) believe when CO2 >>>> levels reach 500ppm, then nothing we can do will stop uncontrolled
warming. Do you really want to take a chance? Do you really think
that the Murdoch Moronsrao know more about the climate than climate
scientists?
Australia contributes 1.02% of world CO2 emissions, no matter what we
do even achieving net zero will do 4 fifths of fuck all to anything
and in the meantime the rate of increase in our cost of living is off
the scale.
**How much, exactly, will it cost?
Why should every Chinese citizen act to lower their emissions, when
the average Chinese citizen emits HALF the CO2 that the average Aussie
does?
Why should every Indian act to lower their emissions, the average
Indian emits 18th the amount of CO2 that the average Aussie does?
Per capita is a concept they don't understand, and that is truly sad.
Maybe they should have spent more time at school concentrating on the
topics at hand instead of gazing out the window.
On 24/02/2026 9:31 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 24/2/2026 7:04 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:29 am, Daryl wrote:That alone makes Australia's average 1% emissions claim look
On 15/2/2026 6:55 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 1:34 pm, Daryl wrote:LOL again, entirely predicable and ignoring of the FACT that
On 13/2/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
On 12/2/2026 9:36 pm, keithr0 wrote:Netzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we get >>>>>>> to it the better off the world will be. It all depends on whether >>>>>>> you want your great-grandchildren or their children cursing your >>>>>>> name for doing nothing and leaving them with a shithouse world
On 11/02/2026 10:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bcPersonally, I wouldn't trust anything from Sky News, it's our >>>>>>>>> version of Fox News. You just have to look at their presenters, >>>>>>>>> they make Pauline Hanson look like a leftie.
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since >>>>>>>>>> its on Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that >>>>>>>>>> can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we >>>>>>>>>> can afford it?
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually >>>>>>>> watch their videos but even if you only believe half of it its >>>>>>>> still pretty damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an >>>>>>>> impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms >>>>>>>> more or less what I already thought.
for them to endure.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the
right direction.
China needed to make massive changes since they are the biggest
polluters on the planet followed by the USA and India, by
comparison our emissions are one drop in a very big bucket.
My son and his partner recently spent a couple of weeks in India, >>>>>> they were invited to wedding, they were in Ahmedabad which is a
city of approx 9 million people, the 7th most populated city in
India, they said that the air quality was pretty bad and getting
worse, by comparison the worse place in Australia has pristine air. >>>>>> You only have to look at the summer sky now and compare it to 40
years ago to know that we have made huge improvements in air
quality, in the 80's if you looked towards Melb CBD on a warm
sunny day you would see a thick brown haze but now all you see it >>>>>> clear blue sky so big advances have already been made.
I'm all for continuing to make improvements but it needs to be
done in a way that doesn't bankrupt everyone, I believe that over >>>>>> time emissions will get lower and lower which is a good thing but >>>>>> it needs to be done in a controlled financially responsible way
instead of the panicked way the current Govt is going about it.
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as opposed >>>>> to Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have much time. >>>>> We are presently sitting at around 425ppm of atmospheric CO2. Most
climate scientists (as opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao) believe when CO2 >>>>> levels reach 500ppm, then nothing we can do will stop uncontrolled
warming. Do you really want to take a chance? Do you really think
that the Murdoch Moronsrao know more about the climate than climate >>>>> scientists?
Australia contributes 1.02% of world CO2 emissions, no matter what
we do even achieving net zero will do 4 fifths of fuck all to
anything and in the meantime the rate of increase in our cost of
living is off the scale.
**How much, exactly, will it cost?
Why should every Chinese citizen act to lower their emissions, when
the average Chinese citizen emits HALF the CO2 that the average
Aussie does?
Why should every Indian act to lower their emissions, the average
Indian emits 18th the amount of CO2 that the average Aussie does?
ridiculous. Per capita is a concept they don't understand, and that is
truly sad. Maybe they should have spent more time at school
concentrating on the topics at hand instead of gazing out the window.
Usually that problem is caused by crap teachers.
On 15/02/2026 10:29 am, Daryl wrote:
LOL again, entirely predicable and ignoring of the FACT that Australia
contributes 1.02% of world CO2 emissions, no matter what we do even
achieving net zero will do 4 fifths of fuck all to anything and in the
meantime the rate of increase in our cost of living is off the scale.
**How much, exactly, will it cost?
Why should every Chinese citizen act to lower their emissions, when the average Chinese citizen emits HALF the CO2 that the average Aussie does?
Why should every Indian act to lower their emissions, the average Indian emits 18th the amount of CO2 that the average Aussie does?
On 24/02/2026 7:04 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:29 am, Daryl wrote:
LOL again, entirely predicable and ignoring of the FACT that
Australia contributes 1.02% of world CO2 emissions, no matter what we
do even achieving net zero will do 4 fifths of fuck all to anything
and in the meantime the rate of increase in our cost of living is off
the scale.
**How much, exactly, will it cost?
Why should every Chinese citizen act to lower their emissions, when
the average Chinese citizen emits HALF the CO2 that the average Aussie
does?
Why should every Indian act to lower their emissions, the average
Indian emits 18th the amount of CO2 that the average Aussie does?
Nobody can hold a candle to you when it comes to making nonsensical arguments :)
On 24/02/2026 7:04 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:29 am, Daryl wrote:
LOL again, entirely predicable and ignoring of the FACT that
Australia contributes 1.02% of world CO2 emissions, no matter what we
do even achieving net zero will do 4 fifths of fuck all to anything
and in the meantime the rate of increase in our cost of living is off
the scale.
**How much, exactly, will it cost?
Why should every Chinese citizen act to lower their emissions, when
the average Chinese citizen emits HALF the CO2 that the average Aussie
does?
Why should every Indian act to lower their emissions, the average
Indian emits 18th the amount of CO2 that the average Aussie does?
Nobody can hold a candle to you when it comes to making nonsensical arguments :)
On 25/2/2026 12:04 am, Noddy wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:04 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:Very little doubt about that.
On 15/02/2026 10:29 am, Daryl wrote:
LOL again, entirely predicable and ignoring of the FACT that
Australia contributes 1.02% of world CO2 emissions, no matter what
we do even achieving net zero will do 4 fifths of fuck all to
anything and in the meantime the rate of increase in our cost of
living is off the scale.
**How much, exactly, will it cost?
Why should every Chinese citizen act to lower their emissions, when
the average Chinese citizen emits HALF the CO2 that the average
Aussie does?
Why should every Indian act to lower their emissions, the average
Indian emits 18th the amount of CO2 that the average Aussie does?
Nobody can hold a candle to you when it comes to making nonsensical
arguments :)
Its obvious that the only thing that matter is the total CO2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions Depending on where you look there is some variation of the figures, the above link shows that not only have China and India not decreased their emissions they have increased substantially whilst ours has gone up by a small amount (6%).
In the same time period our population has increased by almost 9 million
so an increase in emissions is to be expected since the population
increase is a staggering 47% since 2020. Our population in 2020 was
approx 19 million, in 2026 is not far off 28 million.
If we want to blame someone for the CO2 increase try blaming those
morons in Canberra who are allowing our population to increase at an unsustainable rate.
On 24/02/2026 7:04 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:29 am, Daryl wrote:
LOL again, entirely predicable and ignoring of the FACT that
Australia contributes 1.02% of world CO2 emissions, no matter what we
do even achieving net zero will do 4 fifths of fuck all to anything
and in the meantime the rate of increase in our cost of living is off
the scale.
**How much, exactly, will it cost?
Why should every Chinese citizen act to lower their emissions, when
the average Chinese citizen emits HALF the CO2 that the average Aussie
does?
Why should every Indian act to lower their emissions, the average
Indian emits 18th the amount of CO2 that the average Aussie does?
Nobody can hold a candle to you when it comes to making nonsensical arguments :)
On 25/2/2026 12:04 am, Noddy wrote:
Nobody can hold a candle to you when it comes to making nonsensicalVery little doubt about that.
arguments :)
Its obvious that the only thing that matter is the total CO2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions Depending on where you look there is some variation of the figures, the above link shows that not only have China and India not decreased their emissions they have increased substantially whilst ours has gone up by a small amount (6%).
In the same time period our population has increased by almost 9 million
so an increase in emissions is to be expected since the population
increase is a staggering 47% since 2020. Our population in 2020 was
approx 19 million, in 2026 is not far off 28 million.
If we want to blame someone for the CO2 increase try blaming those
morons in Canberra who are allowing our population to increase at an unsustainable rate.
On 24/02/2026 7:04 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:29 am, Daryl wrote:
LOL again, entirely predicable and ignoring of the FACT that
Australia contributes 1.02% of world CO2 emissions, no matter what we
do even achieving net zero will do 4 fifths of fuck all to anything
and in the meantime the rate of increase in our cost of living is off
the scale.
**How much, exactly, will it cost?
Why should every Chinese citizen act to lower their emissions, when
the average Chinese citizen emits HALF the CO2 that the average Aussie
does?
Why should every Indian act to lower their emissions, the average
Indian emits 18th the amount of CO2 that the average Aussie does?
Nobody can hold a candle to you when it comes to making nonsensical arguments :)
On 25/2/2026 12:04 am, Noddy wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:04 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:Very little doubt about that.
On 15/02/2026 10:29 am, Daryl wrote:
LOL again, entirely predicable and ignoring of the FACT that
Australia contributes 1.02% of world CO2 emissions, no matter what
we do even achieving net zero will do 4 fifths of fuck all to
anything and in the meantime the rate of increase in our cost of
living is off the scale.
**How much, exactly, will it cost?
Why should every Chinese citizen act to lower their emissions, when
the average Chinese citizen emits HALF the CO2 that the average
Aussie does?
Why should every Indian act to lower their emissions, the average
Indian emits 18th the amount of CO2 that the average Aussie does?
Nobody can hold a candle to you when it comes to making nonsensical
arguments :)
Its obvious that the only thing that matter is the total CO2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions Depending on where you look there is some variation of the figures, the above link shows that not only have China and India not decreased their emissions they have increased substantially whilst ours has gone up by a small amount (6%).
In the same time period our population has increased by almost 9 million
so an increase in emissions is to be expected since the population
increase is a staggering 47% since 2020. Our population in 2020 was
approx 19 million, in 2026 is not far off 28 million.
If we want to blame someone for the CO2 increase try blaming those
morons in Canberra who are allowing our population to increase at an unsustainable rate.
On 25/02/2026 8:55 am, Daryl wrote:
On 25/2/2026 12:04 am, Noddy wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:04 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:Very little doubt about that.
On 15/02/2026 10:29 am, Daryl wrote:
LOL again, entirely predicable and ignoring of the FACT that
Australia contributes 1.02% of world CO2 emissions, no matter what
we do even achieving net zero will do 4 fifths of fuck all to
anything and in the meantime the rate of increase in our cost of
living is off the scale.
**How much, exactly, will it cost?
Why should every Chinese citizen act to lower their emissions, when
the average Chinese citizen emits HALF the CO2 that the average
Aussie does?
Why should every Indian act to lower their emissions, the average
Indian emits 18th the amount of CO2 that the average Aussie does?
Nobody can hold a candle to you when it comes to making nonsensical
arguments :)
Its obvious that the only thing that matter is the total CO2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions >>
Depending on where you look there is some variation of the figures,
the above link shows that not only have China and India not decreased
their emissions they have increased substantially whilst ours has gone
up by a small amount (6%).
In the same time period our population has increased by almost 9
million so an increase in emissions is to be expected since the
population increase is a staggering 47% since 2020. Our population in
2020 was approx 19 million, in 2026 is not far off 28 million.
If we want to blame someone for the CO2 increase try blaming those
morons in Canberra who are allowing our population to increase at an
unsustainable rate.
**Your hero, John Howard, was responsible for that. He encouraged people
to have more kids and paid them to do so.
On 25/02/2026 8:55 am, Daryl wrote:
On 25/2/2026 12:04 am, Noddy wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:04 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:Very little doubt about that.
On 15/02/2026 10:29 am, Daryl wrote:
LOL again, entirely predicable and ignoring of the FACT that
Australia contributes 1.02% of world CO2 emissions, no matter what
we do even achieving net zero will do 4 fifths of fuck all to
anything and in the meantime the rate of increase in our cost of
living is off the scale.
**How much, exactly, will it cost?
Why should every Chinese citizen act to lower their emissions, when
the average Chinese citizen emits HALF the CO2 that the average
Aussie does?
Why should every Indian act to lower their emissions, the average
Indian emits 18th the amount of CO2 that the average Aussie does?
Nobody can hold a candle to you when it comes to making nonsensical
arguments :)
Its obvious that the only thing that matter is the total CO2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Depending on where you look there is some variation of the figures,
the above link shows that not only have China and India not decreased
their emissions they have increased substantially whilst ours has gone
up by a small amount (6%).
In the same time period our population has increased by almost 9
million so an increase in emissions is to be expected since the
population increase is a staggering 47% since 2020. Our population in
2020 was approx 19 million, in 2026 is not far off 28 million.
If we want to blame someone for the CO2 increase try blaming those
morons in Canberra who are allowing our population to increase at an
unsustainable rate.
**Your hero, John Howard, was responsible for that. He encouraged people
to have more kids and paid them to do so.
On 25/02/2026 8:55 am, Daryl wrote:
On 25/2/2026 12:04 am, Noddy wrote:
Nobody can hold a candle to you when it comes to making nonsensicalVery little doubt about that.
arguments :)
Its obvious that the only thing that matter is the total CO2.
Yep. The planet only sees the total, and doesn't give the slightest fuck about "per capita" figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Depending on where you look there is some variation of the figures,
the above link shows that not only have China and India not decreased
their emissions they have increased substantially whilst ours has gone
up by a small amount (6%).
Don't tell Trev. He'll bust a nut :)
In the same time period our population has increased by almost 9
million so an increase in emissions is to be expected since the
population increase is a staggering 47% since 2020. Our population in
2020 was approx 19 million, in 2026 is not far off 28 million.
If we want to blame someone for the CO2 increase try blaming those
morons in Canberra who are allowing our population to increase at an
unsustainable rate.
And you can blame the housing crisis on that too.
If you want to know why emissions are increasing you need to look no
further for an answer than crazy unsustainable population growth.
An approx 47% pop increase and only a 6% emissions increase suggests
that we are doing pretty well as far as emission reduction goes.
On 25/2/2026 4:08 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 25/02/2026 8:55 am, Daryl wrote:
On 25/2/2026 12:04 am, Noddy wrote:
Nobody can hold a candle to you when it comes to making nonsensicalVery little doubt about that.
arguments :)
Its obvious that the only thing that matter is the total CO2.
Yep. The planet only sees the total, and doesn't give the slightest
fuck about "per capita" figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Depending on where you look there is some variation of the figures,
the above link shows that not only have China and India not decreased
their emissions they have increased substantially whilst ours has
gone up by a small amount (6%).
Don't tell Trev. He'll bust a nut :)
In the same time period our population has increased by almost 9
million so an increase in emissions is to be expected since the
population increase is a staggering 47% since 2020. Our population in
2020 was approx 19 million, in 2026 is not far off 28 million.
If we want to blame someone for the CO2 increase try blaming those
morons in Canberra who are allowing our population to increase at an
unsustainable rate.
And you can blame the housing crisis on that too.
Very little doubt about that, increase demand without also increasing
supply by the same amount is guaranteed to increase prices and a supply problem, its economics 101 but for some reason the numpties in Canberra can't figure that out.
IMO we don't have a housing crisis, we have a too many people crisis.
Daryl wrote:
If you want to know why emissions are increasing you need to look no
further for an answer than crazy unsustainable population growth.
An approx 47% pop increase and only a 6% emissions increase suggests
that we are doing pretty well as far as emission reduction goes.
Have another go Deryl...
For instance, Deryl's popn figures differ significantly from ABS stats.
ABS 2020 = 25,620,615
ABS 2026 = 28,086,207
An increase of 9.62% which is just a tad different to Deryl's
"staggering 47%". Doubtless Deryl will be along shortly to apologise for
his cock-up...
Source: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population- clock-pyramid
On 25/02/2026 12:04 am, Noddy wrote:
Nobody can hold a candle to you when it comes to making nonsensical
arguments :)
**See if you can understand:
* We all live on the same planet. Australians, Chinese, Indians,
Americans and all the rest. CO2 emissions do not recognise nations'
borders.
* We are ALL responsible for the excessive CO2 emissions. Every
American, Chinese, Indian and Australian. Every single one of us.
* We (Westerners) have largely caused the problem that the planet faces today. That is: The US, Germany, France, Australia and all the other
places that developed industry many years ago. China is a very recent addition to the club. WE caused most of the problem. It is up to us to
show the way.
On 25/02/2026 8:55 am, Daryl wrote:
Very little doubt about that.
Its obvious that the only thing that matter is the total CO2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Depending on where you look there is some variation of the figures,
the above link shows that not only have China and India not decreased
their emissions they have increased substantially whilst ours has gone
up by a small amount (6%).
In the same time period our population has increased by almost 9
million so an increase in emissions is to be expected since the
population increase is a staggering 47% since 2020. Our population in
2020 was approx 19 million, in 2026 is not far off 28 million.
If we want to blame someone for the CO2 increase try blaming those
morons in Canberra who are allowing our population to increase at an
unsustainable rate.
**Your hero, John Howard, was responsible for that. He encouraged people
to have more kids and paid them to do so.
On 25/02/2026 6:30 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 25/02/2026 8:55 am, Daryl wrote:
Very little doubt about that.
Its obvious that the only thing that matter is the total CO2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Depending on where you look there is some variation of the figures,
the above link shows that not only have China and India not decreased
their emissions they have increased substantially whilst ours has
gone up by a small amount (6%).
In the same time period our population has increased by almost 9
million so an increase in emissions is to be expected since the
population increase is a staggering 47% since 2020. Our population in
2020 was approx 19 million, in 2026 is not far off 28 million.
If we want to blame someone for the CO2 increase try blaming those
morons in Canberra who are allowing our population to increase at an
unsustainable rate.
**Your hero, John Howard, was responsible for that. He encouraged
people to have more kids and paid them to do so.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Australia's massive spike in immigration which started after Howard left office.
Try to stick to the facts, Trev, and not let your Labor bent control you.
On 25/02/2026 6:30 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 25/02/2026 8:55 am, Daryl wrote:
Very little doubt about that.
Its obvious that the only thing that matter is the total CO2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Depending on where you look there is some variation of the figures,
the above link shows that not only have China and India not decreased
their emissions they have increased substantially whilst ours has
gone up by a small amount (6%).
In the same time period our population has increased by almost 9
million so an increase in emissions is to be expected since the
population increase is a staggering 47% since 2020. Our population in
2020 was approx 19 million, in 2026 is not far off 28 million.
If we want to blame someone for the CO2 increase try blaming those
morons in Canberra who are allowing our population to increase at an
unsustainable rate.
**Your hero, John Howard, was responsible for that. He encouraged
people to have more kids and paid them to do so.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Australia's massive spike in immigration which started after Howard left office.
Try to stick to the facts, Trev, and not let your Labor bent control you.
On 25/02/2026 6:29 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 25/02/2026 12:04 am, Noddy wrote:
Nobody can hold a candle to you when it comes to making nonsensical
arguments :)
**See if you can understand:
Let's play :)
* We all live on the same planet. Australians, Chinese, Indians,
Americans and all the rest. CO2 emissions do not recognise nations'
borders.
Yup. And in exactly the same way, they do not recognise per capita
output. Glad to see you finally accepting this.
* We are ALL responsible for the excessive CO2 emissions. Every
American, Chinese, Indian and Australian. Every single one of us.
Uh-huh.
* We (Westerners) have largely caused the problem that the planet
faces today. That is: The US, Germany, France, Australia and all the
other places that developed industry many years ago. China is a very
recent addition to the club. WE caused most of the problem. It is up
to us to show the way.
"We", as in this country, did *not* cause most of the problem, but
that's beside the point. What you fail to understand is proportionality.
You like to talk about tipping oil into rivers, so I'll paint a little picture for you that sums this debate up very simply.
Imagine that you like to service your own car, and that each time you do you're left with 5 litres of used engine oil that you have to dispose
of. You take your used oil along to a recycling station where you pay a considerable price to have that oil run through an elaborate filtration process where all the nasties are taken out and only clean water is left
to flow into the lovely river behind the recycling station.
There may be some small amount of contaminants that escape the
filtration process and end up in the river, but the amount is low. Less
than 1%. You tell yourself that no system is perfect and you go home
from the recycling station with a smile on your face and feeling good
about yourself knowing that it was expensive, but you've done the right thing and helped the environment.
In the mean time, across the bank from the recycling station is a
massive industrial complex that dumps 50 thousand litres of toxic waste
into the river every single day (c), 7 days a week, 52 weeks per year.
The effect of your environmental consciousness? Absolute fucking zero.
In this scenario, you and the recycling station are Australia. the toxic dumping industrial complex is Russia, China, India and the US, and as
long as they keep dumping their waste on such a massive scale, all
you're doing is wasting your money.
On 25/2/2026 11:41 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 25/02/2026 6:30 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:He stopped being prime minister in 2007 almost 20 years ago so his
On 25/02/2026 8:55 am, Daryl wrote:
Very little doubt about that.
Its obvious that the only thing that matter is the total CO2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Depending on where you look there is some variation of the figures,
the above link shows that not only have China and India not
decreased their emissions they have increased substantially whilst
ours has gone up by a small amount (6%).
In the same time period our population has increased by almost 9
million so an increase in emissions is to be expected since the
population increase is a staggering 47% since 2020. Our population
in 2020 was approx 19 million, in 2026 is not far off 28 million.
If we want to blame someone for the CO2 increase try blaming those
morons in Canberra who are allowing our population to increase at an
unsustainable rate.
**Your hero, John Howard, was responsible for that. He encouraged
people to have more kids and paid them to do so.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Australia's massive spike in
immigration which started after Howard left office.
Try to stick to the facts, Trev, and not let your Labor bent control you.
affect on the current migration intake is minimal if anything at all.
I can't remember what he did re population but if it was to encourage
Australians to have more children instead of increase OS immigration I
think that it was a great idea, a much more sustainable way to increase
the population.
Noddy wrote:
On 25/02/2026 6:29 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 25/02/2026 12:04 am, Noddy wrote:
Nobody can hold a candle to you when it comes to making nonsensical
arguments :)
**See if you can understand:
Let's play :)
* We all live on the same planet. Australians, Chinese, Indians,
Americans and all the rest. CO2 emissions do not recognise nations'
borders.
Yup. And in exactly the same way, they do not recognise per capita
output. Glad to see you finally accepting this.
* We are ALL responsible for the excessive CO2 emissions. Every
American, Chinese, Indian and Australian. Every single one of us.
Uh-huh.
* We (Westerners) have largely caused the problem that the planet
faces today. That is: The US, Germany, France, Australia and all the
other places that developed industry many years ago. China is a very
recent addition to the club. WE caused most of the problem. It is up
to us to show the way.
"We", as in this country, did *not* cause most of the problem, but
that's beside the point. What you fail to understand is proportionality.
You like to talk about tipping oil into rivers, so I'll paint a little
picture for you that sums this debate up very simply.
Imagine that you like to service your own car, and that each time you
do you're left with 5 litres of used engine oil that you have to
dispose of. You take your used oil along to a recycling station where
you pay a considerable price to have that oil run through an elaborate
filtration process where all the nasties are taken out and only clean
water is left to flow into the lovely river behind the recycling station.
There may be some small amount of contaminants that escape the
filtration process and end up in the river, but the amount is low.
Less than 1%. You tell yourself that no system is perfect and you go
home from the recycling station with a smile on your face and feeling
good about yourself knowing that it was expensive, but you've done the
right thing and helped the environment.
In the mean time, across the bank from the recycling station is a
massive industrial complex that dumps 50 thousand litres of toxic
waste into the river every single day (c), 7 days a week, 52 weeks per
year.
The effect of your environmental consciousness? Absolute fucking zero.
In this scenario, you and the recycling station are Australia. the
toxic dumping industrial complex is Russia, China, India and the US,
and as long as they keep dumping their waste on such a massive scale,
all you're doing is wasting your money.
Another tragically inept analogy from the resident Buffoon.
There's two aspects to the Global Warming problem which, entirely predictably, are beyond your shuttered comprehension.
1. *Experts* almost unanimously declare that we are killing most life on this planet.
2. The Moral Dimension: As a confirmed serial liar, sociopath,
hypocrite, bully and racist it is no surprise at all that you are
totally unable to recognise this. Above you sneer at Trevor for "feeling good" about Doing The Right Thing. What's wrong with that? It'd be
shedloads better than being you.
On 19/02/2026 9:23 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 19/2/2026 9:14 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 19/02/2026 1:24 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/02/2026 11:49 am, Noddy wrote:
**Then don't claim that the government "stole" you MONEY.
Who died and left you in charge, Trevor? He can claim whatever the
fuck he likes, and he doesn't need your permission.
**Indeed and I can call him a liar when he claims his money was
stolen. It was not stolen.
You can claim whatever you like, but you *don't* get to tell him or
anyone else what to do :)
-a-aPersonally if I signed a
half million dollar contract and went out and invested on
equipment& staff on the basis of that I would consider a sudden and >>>>> unexpected pull out to be theft of the highest order.
**Except it wasn't theft.
**Theft is theft. Poor business management is something else. I will
You need to get over yourself and stop being so ridiculously pedantic. >>>>
readily admit that I have been guilty of poor business management.
It's high time that Dazza acknowledged the same.
You don't even know what the terms of his contract where or why the
contract was pulled, so how you can claim it was poor management on
his part is staggeringly profound :)
Is being unable to read the mind of the state Premier and Education
Minister "poor management"?
They kept their cards very close to their chests and there was no hint
of the change, one of my fellow contractors is the son of the former
education department manager of cleaning services and even he was
caught out despite still having many contacts in the education dept.
If he is suggesting that you "shouldn't have all your eggs in the one
basket" the business was based solely on school cleaning and since the
vast majority of schools are run by the Govt there is very little
option but to have Govt contracts, even if only 50% of the business
was with the state govt we still would of had a significant loss of
turnover.
If Trev or anyone else suddenly lost 50% of their business would
he/they still continue?
Lots of variables to consider, some may survive but many wouldn't.
People who have never run a cleaning business couldn't understand why
school cleaning and other types of cleaning such as office cleaning is
very very different, not so much the cleaning but the people who are
willing to do the work, school cleaning usually starts when school
finishes whereas office cleaning usually takes place in the small
hours of the morning so those hours don't usually suit women with
children who were the bulk of our employees, the employee base is a
very different demographic.
On 19/02/2026 9:23 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 19/2/2026 9:14 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 19/02/2026 1:24 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/02/2026 11:49 am, Noddy wrote:
**Then don't claim that the government "stole" you MONEY.
Who died and left you in charge, Trevor? He can claim whatever the
fuck he likes, and he doesn't need your permission.
**Indeed and I can call him a liar when he claims his money was
stolen. It was not stolen.
You can claim whatever you like, but you *don't* get to tell him or
anyone else what to do :)
-a-aPersonally if I signed a
half million dollar contract and went out and invested on
equipment& staff on the basis of that I would consider a sudden and >>>>> unexpected pull out to be theft of the highest order.
**Except it wasn't theft.
**Theft is theft. Poor business management is something else. I will
You need to get over yourself and stop being so ridiculously pedantic. >>>>
readily admit that I have been guilty of poor business management.
It's high time that Dazza acknowledged the same.
You don't even know what the terms of his contract where or why the
contract was pulled, so how you can claim it was poor management on
his part is staggeringly profound :)
Is being unable to read the mind of the state Premier and Education
Minister "poor management"?
They kept their cards very close to their chests and there was no hint
of the change, one of my fellow contractors is the son of the former
education department manager of cleaning services and even he was
caught out despite still having many contacts in the education dept.
If he is suggesting that you "shouldn't have all your eggs in the one
basket" the business was based solely on school cleaning and since the
vast majority of schools are run by the Govt there is very little
option but to have Govt contracts, even if only 50% of the business
was with the state govt we still would of had a significant loss of
turnover.
If Trev or anyone else suddenly lost 50% of their business would
he/they still continue?
Lots of variables to consider, some may survive but many wouldn't.
People who have never run a cleaning business couldn't understand why
school cleaning and other types of cleaning such as office cleaning is
very very different, not so much the cleaning but the people who are
willing to do the work, school cleaning usually starts when school
finishes whereas office cleaning usually takes place in the small
hours of the morning so those hours don't usually suit women with
children who were the bulk of our employees, the employee base is a
very different demographic.
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in an
office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and make a
few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the government offices in that even the cleaners need security clearance and that narrows the available demographic.
Noddy wrote:
On 25/02/2026 6:29 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 25/02/2026 12:04 am, Noddy wrote:
Nobody can hold a candle to you when it comes to making nonsensical
arguments :)
**See if you can understand:
Let's play :)
* We all live on the same planet. Australians, Chinese, Indians,
Americans and all the rest. CO2 emissions do not recognise nations'
borders.
Yup. And in exactly the same way, they do not recognise per capita
output. Glad to see you finally accepting this.
* We are ALL responsible for the excessive CO2 emissions. Every
American, Chinese, Indian and Australian. Every single one of us.
Uh-huh.
* We (Westerners) have largely caused the problem that the planet
faces today. That is: The US, Germany, France, Australia and all the
other places that developed industry many years ago. China is a very
recent addition to the club. WE caused most of the problem. It is up
to us to show the way.
"We", as in this country, did *not* cause most of the problem, but
that's beside the point. What you fail to understand is proportionality.
You like to talk about tipping oil into rivers, so I'll paint a little
picture for you that sums this debate up very simply.
Imagine that you like to service your own car, and that each time you
do you're left with 5 litres of used engine oil that you have to
dispose of. You take your used oil along to a recycling station where
you pay a considerable price to have that oil run through an elaborate
filtration process where all the nasties are taken out and only clean
water is left to flow into the lovely river behind the recycling station.
There may be some small amount of contaminants that escape the
filtration process and end up in the river, but the amount is low.
Less than 1%. You tell yourself that no system is perfect and you go
home from the recycling station with a smile on your face and feeling
good about yourself knowing that it was expensive, but you've done the
right thing and helped the environment.
In the mean time, across the bank from the recycling station is a
massive industrial complex that dumps 50 thousand litres of toxic
waste into the river every single day (c), 7 days a week, 52 weeks per
year.
The effect of your environmental consciousness? Absolute fucking zero.
In this scenario, you and the recycling station are Australia. the
toxic dumping industrial complex is Russia, China, India and the US,
and as long as they keep dumping their waste on such a massive scale,
all you're doing is wasting your money.
Another tragically inept analogy from the resident Buffoon.
There's two aspects to the Global Warming problem which, entirely predictably, are beyond your shuttered comprehension.
1. *Experts* almost unanimously declare that we are killing most life on this planet.
2. The Moral Dimension: As a confirmed serial liar, sociopath,
hypocrite, bully and racist it is no surprise at all that you are
totally unable to recognise this. Above you sneer at Trevor for "feeling good" about Doing The Right Thing. What's wrong with that? It'd be
shedloads better than being you.
On 23/02/2026 12:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in an
office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and make a
few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the government offices
in that even the cleaners need security clearance and that narrows the
available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a requirement.
On 26/02/2026 5:50 am, alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:
On 25/02/2026 6:29 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 25/02/2026 12:04 am, Noddy wrote:
Nobody can hold a candle to you when it comes to making nonsensical >>>>> arguments :)
**See if you can understand:
Let's play :)
* We all live on the same planet. Australians, Chinese, Indians,
Americans and all the rest. CO2 emissions do not recognise nations'
borders.
Yup. And in exactly the same way, they do not recognise per capita
output. Glad to see you finally accepting this.
* We are ALL responsible for the excessive CO2 emissions. Every
American, Chinese, Indian and Australian. Every single one of us.
Uh-huh.
* We (Westerners) have largely caused the problem that the planet
faces today. That is: The US, Germany, France, Australia and all the
other places that developed industry many years ago. China is a very
recent addition to the club. WE caused most of the problem. It is up
to us to show the way.
"We", as in this country, did *not* cause most of the problem, but
that's beside the point. What you fail to understand is proportionality. >>>
You like to talk about tipping oil into rivers, so I'll paint a
little picture for you that sums this debate up very simply.
Imagine that you like to service your own car, and that each time you
do you're left with 5 litres of used engine oil that you have to
dispose of. You take your used oil along to a recycling station where
you pay a considerable price to have that oil run through an
elaborate filtration process where all the nasties are taken out and
only clean water is left to flow into the lovely river behind the
recycling station.
There may be some small amount of contaminants that escape the
filtration process and end up in the river, but the amount is low.
Less than 1%. You tell yourself that no system is perfect and you go
home from the recycling station with a smile on your face and feeling
good about yourself knowing that it was expensive, but you've done
the right thing and helped the environment.
In the mean time, across the bank from the recycling station is a
massive industrial complex that dumps 50 thousand litres of toxic
waste into the river every single day (c), 7 days a week, 52 weeks
per year.
The effect of your environmental consciousness? Absolute fucking zero.
In this scenario, you and the recycling station are Australia. the
toxic dumping industrial complex is Russia, China, India and the US,
and as long as they keep dumping their waste on such a massive scale,
all you're doing is wasting your money.
Another tragically inept analogy from the resident Buffoon.
There's two aspects to the Global Warming problem which, entirely
predictably, are beyond your shuttered comprehension.
1. *Experts* almost unanimously declare that we are killing most life
on this planet.
2. The Moral Dimension: As a confirmed serial liar, sociopath,
hypocrite, bully and racist it is no surprise at all that you are
totally unable to recognise this. Above you sneer at Trevor for
"feeling good" about Doing The Right Thing. What's wrong with that?
It'd be shedloads better than being you.
Come on now, the degenerate won't even put a seat belt on the child he's legally and morally responsible for - so if he's brushing off doing
anything that would benefit his own kid as just "feel good" for doing
the right thing what hope is there that he would consider it for the
greater good?
He can't see beyond his pathological narcissism.
On 26/02/2026 5:50 am, alvey wrote:
Come on now, the degenerate won't even put a seat belt on the child he's legally and morally responsible for
Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 5:50 am, alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:
On 25/02/2026 6:29 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 25/02/2026 12:04 am, Noddy wrote:
Nobody can hold a candle to you when it comes to making
nonsensical arguments :)
**See if you can understand:
Let's play :)
* We all live on the same planet. Australians, Chinese, Indians,
Americans and all the rest. CO2 emissions do not recognise nations' >>>>> borders.
Yup. And in exactly the same way, they do not recognise per capita
output. Glad to see you finally accepting this.
* We are ALL responsible for the excessive CO2 emissions. Every
American, Chinese, Indian and Australian. Every single one of us.
Uh-huh.
* We (Westerners) have largely caused the problem that the planet
faces today. That is: The US, Germany, France, Australia and all
the other places that developed industry many years ago. China is a >>>>> very recent addition to the club. WE caused most of the problem. It >>>>> is up to us to show the way.
"We", as in this country, did *not* cause most of the problem, but
that's beside the point. What you fail to understand is
proportionality.
You like to talk about tipping oil into rivers, so I'll paint a
little picture for you that sums this debate up very simply.
Imagine that you like to service your own car, and that each time
you do you're left with 5 litres of used engine oil that you have to
dispose of. You take your used oil along to a recycling station
where you pay a considerable price to have that oil run through an
elaborate filtration process where all the nasties are taken out and
only clean water is left to flow into the lovely river behind the
recycling station.
There may be some small amount of contaminants that escape the
filtration process and end up in the river, but the amount is low.
Less than 1%. You tell yourself that no system is perfect and you go
home from the recycling station with a smile on your face and
feeling good about yourself knowing that it was expensive, but
you've done the right thing and helped the environment.
In the mean time, across the bank from the recycling station is a
massive industrial complex that dumps 50 thousand litres of toxic
waste into the river every single day (c), 7 days a week, 52 weeks
per year.
The effect of your environmental consciousness? Absolute fucking zero. >>>>
In this scenario, you and the recycling station are Australia. the
toxic dumping industrial complex is Russia, China, India and the US,
and as long as they keep dumping their waste on such a massive
scale, all you're doing is wasting your money.
Another tragically inept analogy from the resident Buffoon.
There's two aspects to the Global Warming problem which, entirely
predictably, are beyond your shuttered comprehension.
1. *Experts* almost unanimously declare that we are killing most life
on this planet.
2. The Moral Dimension: As a confirmed serial liar, sociopath,
hypocrite, bully and racist it is no surprise at all that you are
totally unable to recognise this. Above you sneer at Trevor for
"feeling good" about Doing The Right Thing. What's wrong with that?
It'd be shedloads better than being you.
Come on now, the degenerate won't even put a seat belt on the child
he's legally and morally responsible for - so if he's brushing off
doing anything that would benefit his own kid as just "feel good" for
doing the right thing what hope is there that he would consider it for
the greater good?
He can't see beyond his pathological narcissism.
It's another indication of just how disassociated he is from reality. He can't see that he has absolutely nothing to be narcissistic about.
On 26/02/2026 7:28 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 5:50 am, alvey wrote:
Come on now, the degenerate won't even put a seat belt on the child
he's legally and morally responsible for
Bzzzt. Wrong.
On 26/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 7:28 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 5:50 am, alvey wrote:
Come on now, the degenerate won't even put a seat belt on the child
he's legally and morally responsible for
Bzzzt. Wrong.
You're legally wrong. Where fitted, seat belts must be worn and of
course any protection is better than no protection.
You failed as a father.
Period.
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
On 26/02/2026 7:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 23/02/2026 12:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in an
office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and make
a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the government
offices in that even the cleaners need security clearance and that
narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a
requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
On 23/02/2026 12:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:23 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 19/2/2026 9:14 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 19/02/2026 1:24 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/02/2026 11:49 am, Noddy wrote:
**Then don't claim that the government "stole" you MONEY.
Who died and left you in charge, Trevor? He can claim whatever the >>>>>> fuck he likes, and he doesn't need your permission.
**Indeed and I can call him a liar when he claims his money was
stolen. It was not stolen.
You can claim whatever you like, but you *don't* get to tell him or
anyone else what to do :)
-a-aPersonally if I signed a
half million dollar contract and went out and invested on
equipment& staff on the basis of that I would consider a sudden
and unexpected pull out to be theft of the highest order.
**Except it wasn't theft.
You need to get over yourself and stop being so ridiculously
pedantic.
**Theft is theft. Poor business management is something else. I
will readily admit that I have been guilty of poor business
management. It's high time that Dazza acknowledged the same.
You don't even know what the terms of his contract where or why the
contract was pulled, so how you can claim it was poor management on
his part is staggeringly profound :)
Is being unable to read the mind of the state Premier and Education
Minister "poor management"?
They kept their cards very close to their chests and there was no
hint of the change, one of my fellow contractors is the son of the
former education department manager of cleaning services and even he
was caught out despite still having many contacts in the education dept. >>> If he is suggesting that you "shouldn't have all your eggs in the one
basket" the business was based solely on school cleaning and since
the vast majority of schools are run by the Govt there is very little
option but to have Govt contracts, even if only 50% of the business
was with the state govt we still would of had a significant loss of
turnover.
If Trev or anyone else suddenly lost 50% of their business would he/
they still continue?
Lots of variables to consider, some may survive but many wouldn't.
People who have never run a cleaning business couldn't understand why
school cleaning and other types of cleaning such as office cleaning
is very very different, not so much the cleaning but the people who
are willing to do the work, school cleaning usually starts when
school finishes whereas office cleaning usually takes place in the
small hours of the morning so those hours don't usually suit women
with children who were the bulk of our employees, the employee base
is a very different demographic.
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in an
office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and make a
few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the government offices
in that even the cleaners need security clearance and that narrows the
available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a requirement.
On 23/02/2026 12:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:23 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 19/2/2026 9:14 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 19/02/2026 1:24 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/02/2026 11:49 am, Noddy wrote:
**Then don't claim that the government "stole" you MONEY.
Who died and left you in charge, Trevor? He can claim whatever the >>>>>> fuck he likes, and he doesn't need your permission.
**Indeed and I can call him a liar when he claims his money was
stolen. It was not stolen.
You can claim whatever you like, but you *don't* get to tell him or
anyone else what to do :)
-a-aPersonally if I signed a
half million dollar contract and went out and invested on
equipment& staff on the basis of that I would consider a sudden
and unexpected pull out to be theft of the highest order.
**Except it wasn't theft.
You need to get over yourself and stop being so ridiculously
pedantic.
**Theft is theft. Poor business management is something else. I
will readily admit that I have been guilty of poor business
management. It's high time that Dazza acknowledged the same.
You don't even know what the terms of his contract where or why the
contract was pulled, so how you can claim it was poor management on
his part is staggeringly profound :)
Is being unable to read the mind of the state Premier and Education
Minister "poor management"?
They kept their cards very close to their chests and there was no
hint of the change, one of my fellow contractors is the son of the
former education department manager of cleaning services and even he
was caught out despite still having many contacts in the education dept. >>> If he is suggesting that you "shouldn't have all your eggs in the one
basket" the business was based solely on school cleaning and since
the vast majority of schools are run by the Govt there is very little
option but to have Govt contracts, even if only 50% of the business
was with the state govt we still would of had a significant loss of
turnover.
If Trev or anyone else suddenly lost 50% of their business would he/
they still continue?
Lots of variables to consider, some may survive but many wouldn't.
People who have never run a cleaning business couldn't understand why
school cleaning and other types of cleaning such as office cleaning
is very very different, not so much the cleaning but the people who
are willing to do the work, school cleaning usually starts when
school finishes whereas office cleaning usually takes place in the
small hours of the morning so those hours don't usually suit women
with children who were the bulk of our employees, the employee base
is a very different demographic.
Many school cleaners start very early in the morning too, still not a
time suitable to a lot of people.
On 26/02/2026 6:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 23/02/2026 12:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:Interesting, I started work at WRE (Weapons Research Establishment) in
On 19/02/2026 9:23 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 19/2/2026 9:14 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 19/02/2026 1:24 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/02/2026 11:49 am, Noddy wrote:
**Then don't claim that the government "stole" you MONEY.
Who died and left you in charge, Trevor? He can claim whatever
the fuck he likes, and he doesn't need your permission.
**Indeed and I can call him a liar when he claims his money was
stolen. It was not stolen.
You can claim whatever you like, but you *don't* get to tell him or >>>>> anyone else what to do :)
-a-aPersonally if I signed a
half million dollar contract and went out and invested on
equipment& staff on the basis of that I would consider a sudden >>>>>>> and unexpected pull out to be theft of the highest order.
**Except it wasn't theft.
You need to get over yourself and stop being so ridiculously
pedantic.
**Theft is theft. Poor business management is something else. I
will readily admit that I have been guilty of poor business
management. It's high time that Dazza acknowledged the same.
You don't even know what the terms of his contract where or why the >>>>> contract was pulled, so how you can claim it was poor management on >>>>> his part is staggeringly profound :)
Is being unable to read the mind of the state Premier and Education
Minister "poor management"?
They kept their cards very close to their chests and there was no
hint of the change, one of my fellow contractors is the son of the
former education department manager of cleaning services and even he
was caught out despite still having many contacts in the education
dept.
If he is suggesting that you "shouldn't have all your eggs in the
one basket" the business was based solely on school cleaning and
since the vast majority of schools are run by the Govt there is very
little option but to have Govt contracts, even if only 50% of the
business was with the state govt we still would of had a significant
loss of turnover.
If Trev or anyone else suddenly lost 50% of their business would he/
they still continue?
Lots of variables to consider, some may survive but many wouldn't.
People who have never run a cleaning business couldn't understand
why school cleaning and other types of cleaning such as office
cleaning is very very different, not so much the cleaning but the
people who are willing to do the work, school cleaning usually
starts when school finishes whereas office cleaning usually takes
place in the small hours of the morning so those hours don't usually
suit women with children who were the bulk of our employees, the
employee base is a very different demographic.
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in an
office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and make
a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the government
offices in that even the cleaners need security clearance and that
narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a
requirement.
South Australia, a secure government site, in January 1965. I was
working on the design of part of a new missile system for the RAN. This obviously required a security clearance although I didn't become an Australian citizen until 1968.
I'd take odds that you've never had a security clearance, have ever
signed the Official Secrets Act, and know nothing about the subject.
On 26/02/2026 6:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
Interesting, I started work at WRE (Weapons Research Establishment) in
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in an
office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and make
a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the government
offices in that even the cleaners need security clearance and that
narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a
requirement.
South Australia, a secure government site, in January 1965. I was
working on the design of part of a new missile system for the RAN.
This obviously required a security clearance although I didn't become an Australian citizen until 1968.
I'd take odds that you've never had a security clearance, have ever
signed the Official Secrets Act, and know nothing about the subject.
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
From the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story about repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short order :)
keithr0 wrote:
On 26/02/2026 6:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
Interesting, I started work at WRE (Weapons Research Establishment) in
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in
an office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and
make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the government
offices in that even the cleaners need security clearance and that
narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a
requirement.
South Australia, a secure government site, in January 1965. I was
working on the design of part of a new missile system for the RAN.
Odd. I thought you said you didn't have a degree.
This obviously required a security clearance although I didn't become
an Australian citizen until 1968.
I'd take odds that you've never had a security clearance, have ever
signed the Official Secrets Act, and know nothing about the subject.
One of those three is correct. He's never signed "the OSA" as Oz has
never had one.
Oh and this, "In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in an office during the day going back in the evening to clean
it and make a few bucks extra.", is something I've never, ever heard
before.
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
From the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story about repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short order :)
keithr0 wrote:
On 26/02/2026 6:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
Interesting, I started work at WRE (Weapons Research Establishment) in
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in
an office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and
make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the government
offices in that even the cleaners need security clearance and that
narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a
requirement.
South Australia, a secure government site, in January 1965. I was
working on the design of part of a new missile system for the RAN.
Odd. I thought you said you didn't have a degree.
This obviously required a security clearance although I didn't become
an Australian citizen until 1968.
I'd take odds that you've never had a security clearance, have ever
signed the Official Secrets Act, and know nothing about the subject.
One of those three is correct. He's never signed "the OSA" as Oz has
never had one.
Oh and this, "In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in an office during the day going back in the evening to clean
it and make a few bucks extra.", is something I've never, ever heard
before.
On 26/02/2026 7:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 23/02/2026 12:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in an
office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and make
a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the government
offices in that even the cleaners need security clearance and that
narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a
requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
From the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story about repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short order :)
On 26/02/2026 9:01 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 7:28 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 5:50 am, alvey wrote:
Come on now, the degenerate won't even put a seat belt on the child
he's legally and morally responsible for
Bzzzt. Wrong.
You're legally wrong. Where fitted, seat belts must be worn and of
course any protection is better than no protection.
You wouldn't know if your own head was on fire. Fitting seatbelts to a vehicle that never had them originally is a mod that requires engineer approval.
keithr0 wrote:
On 26/02/2026 6:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
Interesting, I started work at WRE (Weapons Research Establishment) in
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in
an office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and
make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the government
offices in that even the cleaners need security clearance and that
narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a
requirement.
South Australia, a secure government site, in January 1965. I was
working on the design of part of a new missile system for the RAN.
Odd. I thought you said you didn't have a degree.
This obviously required a security clearance although I didn't become
an Australian citizen until 1968.
I'd take odds that you've never had a security clearance, have ever
signed the Official Secrets Act, and know nothing about the subject.
One of those three is correct. He's never signed "the OSA" as Oz has
never had one.
Oh and this, "In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in an office during the day going back in the evening to clean
it and make a few bucks extra.", is something I've never, ever heard
before.
On 27/02/2026 4:38 am, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 26/02/2026 6:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
Interesting, I started work at WRE (Weapons Research Establishment)
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in
an office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and
make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the
government offices in that even the cleaners need security
clearance and that narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a
requirement.
in South Australia, a secure government site, in January 1965. I was
working on the design of part of a new missile system for the RAN.
Odd. I thought you said you didn't have a degree.
Why do you think he's so defensive of the Merrimu madman?
They're both full of shit.
This obviously required a security clearance although I didn't become
an Australian citizen until 1968.
I'd take odds that you've never had a security clearance, have ever
signed the Official Secrets Act, and know nothing about the subject.
One of those three is correct. He's never signed "the OSA" as Oz has
never had one.
Oh and this, "In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant
working in an office during the day going back in the evening to clean
it and make a few bucks extra.", is something I've never, ever heard
before.
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 7:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 23/02/2026 12:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in
an office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and
make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the government
offices in that even the cleaners need security clearance and that
narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a
requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
On 26/2/2026 10:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:It is truly sad how you judge people by the cars they drive Darren.
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
-aFrom the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story about
repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short order :)
That's a sure sign of immaturity.
On 24/2/2026 11:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 24/02/2026 9:31 pm, Xeno wrote:Hmmm, a retort usually made by people who didn't achieve at school, and
On 24/2/2026 7:04 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:29 am, Daryl wrote:That alone makes Australia's average 1% emissions claim look
On 15/2/2026 6:55 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 1:34 pm, Daryl wrote:LOL again, entirely predicable and ignoring of the FACT that
On 13/2/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
On 12/2/2026 9:36 pm, keithr0 wrote:Netzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we >>>>>>>> get to it the better off the world will be. It all depends on >>>>>>>> whether you want your great-grandchildren or their children
On 11/02/2026 10:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bcPersonally, I wouldn't trust anything from Sky News, it's our >>>>>>>>>> version of Fox News. You just have to look at their
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since >>>>>>>>>>> its on Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that >>>>>>>>>>> can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we >>>>>>>>>>> can afford it?
presenters, they make Pauline Hanson look like a leftie.
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually >>>>>>>>> watch their videos but even if you only believe half of it its >>>>>>>>> still pretty damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an >>>>>>>>> impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms >>>>>>>>> more or less what I already thought.
cursing your name for doing nothing and leaving them with a
shithouse world for them to endure.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the >>>>>>>> right direction.
China needed to make massive changes since they are the biggest >>>>>>> polluters on the planet followed by the USA and India, by
comparison our emissions are one drop in a very big bucket.
My son and his partner recently spent a couple of weeks in India, >>>>>>> they were invited to wedding, they were in Ahmedabad which is a >>>>>>> city of approx 9 million people, the 7th most populated city in >>>>>>> India, they said that the air quality was pretty bad and getting >>>>>>> worse, by comparison the worse place in Australia has pristine air. >>>>>>> You only have to look at the summer sky now and compare it to 40 >>>>>>> years ago to know that we have made huge improvements in air
quality, in the 80's if you looked towards Melb CBD on a warm
sunny day you would see a thick brown haze but now all you see it >>>>>>> clear blue sky so big advances have already been made.
I'm all for continuing to make improvements but it needs to be
done in a way that doesn't bankrupt everyone, I believe that over >>>>>>> time emissions will get lower and lower which is a good thing but >>>>>>> it needs to be done in a controlled financially responsible way >>>>>>> instead of the panicked way the current Govt is going about it.
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as
opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have
much time. We are presently sitting at around 425ppm of
atmospheric CO2. Most climate scientists (as opposed to Murdoch
Moronsrao) believe when CO2 levels reach 500ppm, then nothing we can >>>>>> do will stop uncontrolled warming. Do you really want to take a
chance? Do you really think that the Murdoch Moronsrao know more
about the climate than climate scientists?
Australia contributes 1.02% of world CO2 emissions, no matter what
we do even achieving net zero will do 4 fifths of fuck all to
anything and in the meantime the rate of increase in our cost of
living is off the scale.
**How much, exactly, will it cost?
Why should every Chinese citizen act to lower their emissions, when
the average Chinese citizen emits HALF the CO2 that the average
Aussie does?
Why should every Indian act to lower their emissions, the average
Indian emits 18th the amount of CO2 that the average Aussie does?
ridiculous. Per capita is a concept they don't understand, and that
is truly sad. Maybe they should have spent more time at school
concentrating on the topics at hand instead of gazing out the window.
Usually that problem is caused by crap teachers.
it says more about you than the teachers you encountered in your life.
It's not crap teachers that are the problem, it tends to be because of systemic issues far beyond any individual teacher's control.
FWIW, the problems, as a teacher, that I encountered with student's
ability to learn began when the student was in *primary school*. The
basics of LLN foundation skills need to be properly formed *before* high school
and definitely before said student enters the workplace. Why do
you think employment, especially as an apprentice, had *minimum*
education entry levels? Simple, without the foundational LLN skills in place, the-a new worker is not guaranteed to be able to complete any relevant workplace training be that training actually in the workplace
or in a training institution.
Go watch some videos of this chap, a fellow Pom, to get a clue;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Robinson_(educationalist)
Luckily for the world at large, he was a much deeper thinker than you.
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a
requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
On 27/02/2026 2:05 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 7:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 23/02/2026 12:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in
an office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and
make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the
government offices in that even the cleaners need security
clearance and that narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a
requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
Prove it, you haven't done so well so far.
On 26/02/2026 7:39 pm, Noddy wrote:
You're legally wrong. Where fitted, seat belts must be worn and of
course any protection is better than no protection.
You wouldn't know if your own head was on fire. Fitting seatbelts to a
vehicle that never had them originally is a mod that requires engineer
approval.
That's got fuck all to do with anything, least of all you being an irresponsible parent.
Road Safety Road Rules 2017
Statutory rule in force
Statutory rule number 41/2017Version 020
On 26/02/2026 7:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
-aFrom the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story about
repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short order :)
You need to invent some new material.
Let me help you... something something loser something Toyota something. Something something something paid off 3rd house something something something.
On 24/02/2026 10:50 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 24/2/2026 11:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 24/02/2026 9:31 pm, Xeno wrote:Hmmm, a retort usually made by people who didn't achieve at school,
On 24/2/2026 7:04 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:29 am, Daryl wrote:That alone makes Australia's average 1% emissions claim look
On 15/2/2026 6:55 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 1:34 pm, Daryl wrote:LOL again, entirely predicable and ignoring of the FACT that
On 13/2/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
On 12/2/2026 9:36 pm, keithr0 wrote:Netzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we >>>>>>>>> get to it the better off the world will be. It all depends on >>>>>>>>> whether you want your great-grandchildren or their children >>>>>>>>> cursing your name for doing nothing and leaving them with a >>>>>>>>> shithouse world for them to endure.
On 11/02/2026 10:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bcPersonally, I wouldn't trust anything from Sky News, it's our >>>>>>>>>>> version of Fox News. You just have to look at their
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political >>>>>>>>>>>> since its on Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts >>>>>>>>>>>> that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not >>>>>>>>>>>> we can afford it?
presenters, they make Pauline Hanson look like a leftie.
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually >>>>>>>>>> watch their videos but even if you only believe half of it its >>>>>>>>>> still pretty damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an >>>>>>>>>> impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms >>>>>>>>>> more or less what I already thought.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the >>>>>>>>> right direction.
China needed to make massive changes since they are the biggest >>>>>>>> polluters on the planet followed by the USA and India, by
comparison our emissions are one drop in a very big bucket.
My son and his partner recently spent a couple of weeks in
India, they were invited to wedding, they were in Ahmedabad
which is a city of approx 9 million people, the 7th most
populated city in India, they said that the air quality was
pretty bad and getting worse, by comparison the worse place in >>>>>>>> Australia has pristine air.
You only have to look at the summer sky now and compare it to 40 >>>>>>>> years ago to know that we have made huge improvements in air
quality, in the 80's if you looked towards Melb CBD on a warm >>>>>>>> sunny day you would see a thick brown haze but now all you see >>>>>>>> it clear blue sky so big advances have already been made.
I'm all for continuing to make improvements but it needs to be >>>>>>>> done in a way that doesn't bankrupt everyone, I believe that
over time emissions will get lower and lower which is a good
thing but it needs to be done in a controlled financially
responsible way instead of the panicked way the current Govt is >>>>>>>> going about it.
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as
opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have >>>>>>> much time. We are presently sitting at around 425ppm of
atmospheric CO2. Most climate scientists (as opposed to Murdoch >>>>>>> Moronsrao) believe when CO2 levels reach 500ppm, then nothing we >>>>>>> can do will stop uncontrolled warming. Do you really want to take >>>>>>> a chance? Do you really think that the Murdoch Moronsrao know more >>>>>>> about the climate than climate scientists?
Australia contributes 1.02% of world CO2 emissions, no matter what >>>>>> we do even achieving net zero will do 4 fifths of fuck all to
anything and in the meantime the rate of increase in our cost of
living is off the scale.
**How much, exactly, will it cost?
Why should every Chinese citizen act to lower their emissions, when >>>>> the average Chinese citizen emits HALF the CO2 that the average
Aussie does?
Why should every Indian act to lower their emissions, the average
Indian emits 18th the amount of CO2 that the average Aussie does?
ridiculous. Per capita is a concept they don't understand, and that
is truly sad. Maybe they should have spent more time at school
concentrating on the topics at hand instead of gazing out the window.
Usually that problem is caused by crap teachers.
and it says more about you than the teachers you encountered in your
life.
Ha! A teacher deflecting the blame onto the victims. Of course there are crap teachers, just as there are good teachers, mediocre ones and just
the average ones. A good teacher presents a subject in an interesting
way to engage the students and simplifies difficult concepts. Given that
you seem to try and make everything sound as complex as possible, I'd
have to put you in the mediocre category at best.
We had a crap teacher at primary school who's method of teaching the multiplication tables was to call out a random kid and demand that they recite say the 10x table. If the kid failed, he or she had to stand in
front of the class and get a wack on the hand with a small cane. Maybe
the kids learned their tables, but it didn't exactly make them want to
go to school. Then there was the history teacher at secondary school, he would come into the class and spend 90% of the time writing stuff on the board which we had to write into our text books, there was no time to
learn anything. All the kids hated the history class
It's not crap teachers that are the problem, it tends to be because of
systemic issues far beyond any individual teacher's control.
Of course.
FWIW, the problems, as a teacher, that I encountered with student's
ability to learn began when the student was in *primary school*. The
basics of LLN foundation skills need to be properly formed *before*
high school
Every kid that I knew starting the equivalent of high school could speak English, read, write, and do basic arithmetic. The system when I went to school was different to that here, you did 2 years in kindergarten where
you learned to read, write and do basic arithmetic, 4 years at primary school where you expanded on those subjects and added the basics of
others like history and geography. At the age of 11 you sat an exam that determined your future education, if you passed, you went the grammar
school where the education was aimed at producing professionals, semi professionals, and entry to university. If you failed, you went to
secondary modern where you got a more practical education aimed at
turning out mechanics, fitters and turners, secretaries etc.
and definitely before said student enters the workplace. Why do you
think employment, especially as an apprentice, had *minimum* education
entry levels? Simple, without the foundational LLN skills in place,
the-a new worker is not guaranteed to be able to complete any relevant
workplace training be that training actually in the workplace or in a
training institution.
Go watch some videos of this chap, a fellow Pom, to get a clue;
You might be a boring old fart, with a one track mind, and an unearned
major superiority complex, but I have to say that you do excel at
something - sneering. OTOH that's not a talent held in high regard by
most people.
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a
requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever do is
back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that permits you to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well just come out and said you were talking shit. That would at least invite a modicum of respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in conversation....
On 27/02/2026 6:38 am, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 26/02/2026 6:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
Interesting, I started work at WRE (Weapons Research Establishment)
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in
an office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and
make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the
government offices in that even the cleaners need security
clearance and that narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a
requirement.
in South Australia, a secure government site, in January 1965. I was
working on the design of part of a new missile system for the RAN.
Odd. I thought you said you didn't have a degree.
I don't, what is odd about that?
On 24/02/2026 10:50 pm, Xeno wrote:
You might be a boring old fart, with a one track mind, and an unearned
major superiority complex, but I have to say that you do excel at
something - sneering. OTOH that's not a talent held in high regard by
most people.
keithr0 wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:50 pm, Xeno wrote:
You might be a boring old fart, with a one track mind, and an unearned
major superiority complex, but I have to say that you do excel at
something - sneering. OTOH that's not a talent held in high regard by
most people.
Jesuswept!!!
That's Fraudster level PKB Richo1
He'd better watch out or you'll be taking a couple of titles off him.
keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 6:38 am, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 26/02/2026 6:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
Interesting, I started work at WRE (Weapons Research Establishment)
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in >>>>>> an office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and >>>>>> make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the
government offices in that even the cleaners need security
clearance and that narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a >>>>> requirement.
in South Australia, a secure government site, in January 1965. I was
working on the design of part of a new missile system for the RAN.
Odd. I thought you said you didn't have a degree.
I don't, what is odd about that?
Well, as that project pre-dated all those programming languages which
you were so shit hot at (self-proclaimed), I assume that the majority of
the technical staff would have been in the 'hard' sciences ie Maths,
Physics & Engineering. So exactly what were you doing in "design"?
keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 2:05 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 7:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 23/02/2026 12:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in >>>>>> an office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and >>>>>> make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the
government offices in that even the cleaners need security
clearance and that narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a >>>>> requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
Prove it, you haven't done so well so far.
Hey Richo! Could you explain your processes on how you're asking Clocky
to 'prove' an opinion, but you've never asked Fraudster to prove
something he's claimed as fact.
On 27/02/2026 5:25 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:<yawn> just the usual information free smartarse crap.
On 24/02/2026 10:50 pm, Xeno wrote:
You might be a boring old fart, with a one track mind, and an
unearned major superiority complex, but I have to say that you do
excel at something - sneering. OTOH that's not a talent held in high
regard by most people.
Jesuswept!!!
That's Fraudster level PKB Richo1
He'd better watch out or you'll be taking a couple of titles off him.
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a
requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever do is
back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that permits you to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well just come out and said you were talking shit. That would at least invite a modicum of respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in conversation....
He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up?
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he has no idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people we employed over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least 70% of
our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
On 27/2/2026 5:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up?
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a >>>>> requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever do is
back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that permits you
to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well just come out and
said you were talking shit. That would at least invite a modicum of
respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in
conversation....
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he has no idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people we employed over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least 70% of
our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
In very recent years we have had a lot of migrants from India and of
course they look for work and often low paid jobs such as cleaning is
all they can get but that wouldn't have been the case in the Canberra example that Keith mentioned which is what we were discussing.
On 27/02/2026 4:49 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:The two things are somehow linked?
On 27/02/2026 2:05 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 7:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 23/02/2026 12:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working >>>>>>> in an office during the day going back in the evening to clean it >>>>>>> and make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the
government offices in that even the cleaners need security
clearance and that narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is >>>>>> a requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
Prove it, you haven't done so well so far.
Hey Richo! Could you explain your processes on how you're asking
Clocky to 'prove' an opinion, but you've never asked Fraudster to
prove something he's claimed as fact.
On 27/02/2026 6:12 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 27/2/2026 5:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up?
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is >>>>>> a requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever do
is back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that permits
you to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well just come out
and said you were talking shit. That would at least invite a modicum
of respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in
conversation....
Nothing out of the ordinary.
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he has no
idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people we employed
over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least 70% of
our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
Or maybe your reality is getting in the way of his bullshit.
In very recent years we have had a lot of migrants from India and of
course they look for work and often low paid jobs such as cleaning is
all they can get but that wouldn't have been the case in the Canberra
example that Keith mentioned which is what we were discussing.
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these dickheads.
It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation just so they can insert their own unique bullshit into it, and then criticise the
original posters for their reality not playing out like the shit
talker's fantasies suggest.
It happens here every single day.
On 27/02/2026 5:16 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 6:38 am, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 26/02/2026 6:14 pm, Clocky wrote:Odd. I thought you said you didn't have a degree.
Interesting, I started work at WRE (Weapons Research Establishment) >>>>> in South Australia, a secure government site, in January 1965. I
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working >>>>>>> in an office during the day going back in the evening to clean it >>>>>>> and make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the
government offices in that even the cleaners need security
clearance and that narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is >>>>>> a requirement.
was working on the design of part of a new missile system for the RAN. >>>>
I don't, what is odd about that?
Well, as that project pre-dated all those programming languages which
you were so shit hot at (self-proclaimed), I assume that the majority
of the technical staff would have been in the 'hard' sciences ie
Maths, Physics & Engineering. So exactly what were you doing in "design"?
That is what I was trained in in my apprenticeship - electronic design.
Too hard for you to understand?
On 27/02/2026 9:07 am, Xeno wrote:
On 26/2/2026 10:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:It is truly sad how you judge people by the cars they drive Darren.
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
-aFrom the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story about
repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short order :)
That's a sure sign of immaturity.
Well it does work for you -
Car: Poverty pack Corolla.
Character: Boring.
On 24/02/2026 10:50 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 24/2/2026 11:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 24/02/2026 9:31 pm, Xeno wrote:Hmmm, a retort usually made by people who didn't achieve at school,
On 24/2/2026 7:04 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:29 am, Daryl wrote:That alone makes Australia's average 1% emissions claim look
On 15/2/2026 6:55 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/02/2026 1:34 pm, Daryl wrote:LOL again, entirely predicable and ignoring of the FACT that
On 13/2/2026 1:03 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 am, Daryl wrote:
On 12/2/2026 9:36 pm, keithr0 wrote:Netzero is a target, even if it isn't achieved, the closer we >>>>>>>>> get to it the better off the world will be. It all depends on >>>>>>>>> whether you want your great-grandchildren or their children >>>>>>>>> cursing your name for doing nothing and leaving them with a >>>>>>>>> shithouse world for them to endure.
On 11/02/2026 10:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bcPersonally, I wouldn't trust anything from Sky News, it's our >>>>>>>>>>> version of Fox News. You just have to look at their
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political >>>>>>>>>>>> since its on Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts >>>>>>>>>>>> that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not >>>>>>>>>>>> we can afford it?
presenters, they make Pauline Hanson look like a leftie.
Not surprised that someone would say that and I don't usually >>>>>>>>>> watch their videos but even if you only believe half of it its >>>>>>>>>> still pretty damning of net zero.
I don't need to watch any video to believe that net zero is an >>>>>>>>>> impossibility, the video just provides some data that confirms >>>>>>>>>> more or less what I already thought.
Other countries, even china, are taking positive steps in the >>>>>>>>> right direction.
China needed to make massive changes since they are the biggest >>>>>>>> polluters on the planet followed by the USA and India, by
comparison our emissions are one drop in a very big bucket.
My son and his partner recently spent a couple of weeks in
India, they were invited to wedding, they were in Ahmedabad
which is a city of approx 9 million people, the 7th most
populated city in India, they said that the air quality was
pretty bad and getting worse, by comparison the worse place in >>>>>>>> Australia has pristine air.
You only have to look at the summer sky now and compare it to 40 >>>>>>>> years ago to know that we have made huge improvements in air
quality, in the 80's if you looked towards Melb CBD on a warm >>>>>>>> sunny day you would see a thick brown haze but now all you see >>>>>>>> it clear blue sky so big advances have already been made.
I'm all for continuing to make improvements but it needs to be >>>>>>>> done in a way that doesn't bankrupt everyone, I believe that
over time emissions will get lower and lower which is a good
thing but it needs to be done in a controlled financially
responsible way instead of the panicked way the current Govt is >>>>>>>> going about it.
**Here's the thing/s:
* If you accept what the majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (as
opposed to Murdoch Moronsrao tell you, then we simply don't have >>>>>>> much time. We are presently sitting at around 425ppm of
atmospheric CO2. Most climate scientists (as opposed to Murdoch >>>>>>> Moronsrao) believe when CO2 levels reach 500ppm, then nothing we >>>>>>> can do will stop uncontrolled warming. Do you really want to take >>>>>>> a chance? Do you really think that the Murdoch Moronsrao know more >>>>>>> about the climate than climate scientists?
Australia contributes 1.02% of world CO2 emissions, no matter what >>>>>> we do even achieving net zero will do 4 fifths of fuck all to
anything and in the meantime the rate of increase in our cost of
living is off the scale.
**How much, exactly, will it cost?
Why should every Chinese citizen act to lower their emissions, when >>>>> the average Chinese citizen emits HALF the CO2 that the average
Aussie does?
Why should every Indian act to lower their emissions, the average
Indian emits 18th the amount of CO2 that the average Aussie does?
ridiculous. Per capita is a concept they don't understand, and that
is truly sad. Maybe they should have spent more time at school
concentrating on the topics at hand instead of gazing out the window.
Usually that problem is caused by crap teachers.
and it says more about you than the teachers you encountered in your
life.
Ha! A teacher deflecting the blame onto the victims. Of course there are crap teachers, just as there are good teachers, mediocre ones and just
the average ones. A good teacher presents a subject in an interesting
way to engage the students and simplifies difficult concepts. Given that
you seem to try and make everything sound as complex as possible, I'd
have to put you in the mediocre category at best.
We had a crap teacher at primary school who's method of teaching the multiplication tables was to call out a random kid and demand that they recite say the 10x table. If the kid failed, he or she had to stand in
front of the class and get a wack on the hand with a small cane. Maybe
the kids learned their tables, but it didn't exactly make them want to
go to school. Then there was the history teacher at secondary school, he would come into the class and spend 90% of the time writing stuff on the board which we had to write into our text books, there was no time to
learn anything. All the kids hated the history class
It's not crap teachers that are the problem, it tends to be because of
systemic issues far beyond any individual teacher's control.
Of course.
FWIW, the problems, as a teacher, that I encountered with student's
ability to learn began when the student was in *primary school*. The
basics of LLN foundation skills need to be properly formed *before*
high school
Every kid that I knew starting the equivalent of high school could speak English, read, write, and do basic arithmetic. The system when I went to school was different to that here, you did 2 years in kindergarten where
you learned to read, write and do basic arithmetic, 4 years at primary
school where you expanded on those subjects and added the basics of
others like history and geography. At the age of 11 you sat an exam that determined your future education, if you passed, you went the grammar
school where the education was aimed at producing professionals, semi professionals, and entry to university. If you failed, you went to
secondary modern where you got a more practical education aimed at
turning out mechanics, fitters and turners, secretaries etc.
and definitely before said student enters the workplace. Why do you
think employment, especially as an apprentice, had *minimum* education
entry levels? Simple, without the foundational LLN skills in place,
the-a new worker is not guaranteed to be able to complete any relevant
workplace training be that training actually in the workplace or in a
training institution.
Go watch some videos of this chap, a fellow Pom, to get a clue;
You might be a boring old fart, with a one track mind, and an unearned
major superiority complex, but I have to say that you do excel at
something - sneering. OTOH that's not a talent held in high regard by
most people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Robinson_(educationalist)
Luckily for the world at large, he was a much deeper thinker than you.
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a
requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever do is
back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that permits you to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well just come out and said you were talking shit. That would at least invite a modicum of respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in conversation....
On 27/02/2026 3:20 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 7:39 pm, Noddy wrote:
You're legally wrong. Where fitted, seat belts must be worn and of
course any protection is better than no protection.
You wouldn't know if your own head was on fire. Fitting seatbelts to
a vehicle that never had them originally is a mod that requires
engineer approval.
That's got fuck all to do with anything, least of all you being an
irresponsible parent.
ROTFL :) You couldn't be any more clueless if you wanted to be, you
stupid clog wearing cunt.
Road Safety Road Rules 2017
Statutory rule in force
Statutory rule number 41/2017Version 020
What are you actually quoting there? Do you know? :)
Let me explain it to you in a dumbed down language that a mud flap
fitter would understand.
In Australia, seat belts were *not* compulsory in any vehicle build
before January 1st, 1969. Prior to this they could be fitted as optional accessories in *some* vehicles, but they were not universally standard
and there was no requirement for manufacturers to fit seat belts or even supply hard mounting points prior to this date.
Most vehicles made prior to this date were not sufficiently equipped
with a proper load bearing mounting point, and fitting seat belts to any vehicle built before 1969 means a load bearing point must be fabricated
and installed to a standard approved by a recognised automotive engineer
if factory installed points are not available. Failure to do so renders
a vehicle unroadworthy.
The short answer here, you clueless fuckstick, is that the previous
owner in NSW threw in a pair of lap belts that were just bolted to the
floor sheet metal with standard 3/8" bolts and panel washers, and as
they were *not* engineer approved I had to remove them for the vehicle
to pass a roadworthy inspection here in Victoria.
You can quote all the road rules you like, but engineering standard
takes precedence as the vehicle can't be *on* the fucking road unless it meets those first. The road rules *then* apply relative to the vehicle
build date, and in this case seat belts are not required.
Again, if you had any relevant experience with any of this, you would
know. But here I am educating you once again. Really, you just need to
shut the fuck up and stop making an idiot out of yourself.
You're welcome.
On 27/02/2026 6:12 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 27/2/2026 5:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up?
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is >>>>>> a requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever do
is back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that permits
you to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well just come out
and said you were talking shit. That would at least invite a modicum
of respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in
conversation....
Nothing out of the ordinary.
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he has no
idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people we employed
over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least 70% of
our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
Or maybe your reality is getting in the way of his bullshit.
In very recent years we have had a lot of migrants from India and of
course they look for work and often low paid jobs such as cleaning is
all they can get but that wouldn't have been the case in the Canberra
example that Keith mentioned which is what we were discussing.
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these dickheads.
It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation just so they can insert their own unique bullshit into it, and then criticise the
original posters for their reality not playing out like the shit
talker's fantasies suggest.
It happens here every single day.
keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 5:16 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 6:38 am, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 26/02/2026 6:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
Interesting, I started work at WRE (Weapons Research
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working >>>>>>>> in an office during the day going back in the evening to clean >>>>>>>> it and make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the >>>>>>>> government offices in that even the cleaners need security
clearance and that narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is >>>>>>> a requirement.
Establishment) in South Australia, a secure government site, in
January 1965. I was working on the design of part of a new missile >>>>>> system for the RAN.
Odd. I thought you said you didn't have a degree.
I don't, what is odd about that?
Well, as that project pre-dated all those programming languages which
you were so shit hot at (self-proclaimed), I assume that the majority
of the technical staff would have been in the 'hard' sciences ie
Maths, Physics & Engineering. So exactly what were you doing in
"design"?
That is what I was trained in in my apprenticeship - electronic
design. Too hard for you to understand?
"understand"? No. Believe, yes.
On 27/2/2026 9:17 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:I was always of the understanding that *design* was generally the
On 27/02/2026 5:16 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 6:38 am, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 26/02/2026 6:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
Interesting, I started work at WRE (Weapons Research
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working >>>>>>>>> in an office during the day going back in the evening to clean >>>>>>>>> it and make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of >>>>>>>>> the government offices in that even the cleaners need security >>>>>>>>> clearance and that narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which >>>>>>>> is a requirement.
Establishment) in South Australia, a secure government site, in >>>>>>> January 1965. I was working on the design of part of a new
missile system for the RAN.
Odd. I thought you said you didn't have a degree.
I don't, what is odd about that?
Well, as that project pre-dated all those programming languages
which you were so shit hot at (self-proclaimed), I assume that the
majority of the technical staff would have been in the 'hard'
sciences ie Maths, Physics & Engineering. So exactly what were you
doing in "design"?
That is what I was trained in in my apprenticeship - electronic
design. Too hard for you to understand?
"understand"? No. Believe, yes.
purview of universities. Any training at technical institutes tends to
be more involved with construction and manufacturing processes.-a Maybe
it was different in the 50s but definitely not from the 70s and 80s.
On 27/02/2026 2:05 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 7:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 23/02/2026 12:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in
an office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and
make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the
government offices in that even the cleaners need security
clearance and that narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a
requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
Prove it, you haven't done so well so far.
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a
requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever do is
back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that permits you to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well just come out and said you were talking shit. That would at least invite a modicum of respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in conversation....
Daryl wrote:
He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up?
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he has no
idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people we employed
over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least 70% of
our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
Maybe you're a racist?
On 27/02/2026 6:12 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 27/2/2026 5:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up?
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is >>>>>> a requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever do
is back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that permits
you to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well just come out
and said you were talking shit. That would at least invite a modicum
of respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in
conversation....
Nothing out of the ordinary.
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he has no
idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people we employed
over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least 70% of
our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
Or maybe your reality is getting in the way of his bullshit.
In very recent years we have had a lot of migrants from India and of
course they look for work and often low paid jobs such as cleaning is
all they can get but that wouldn't have been the case in the Canberra
example that Keith mentioned which is what we were discussing.
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these dickheads.
It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation just so they can insert their own unique bullshit
On 27/02/2026 9:23 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 27/2/2026 9:17 pm, alvey wrote:Shows how little you know about the subject.
keithr0 wrote:I was always of the understanding that *design* was generally the
On 27/02/2026 5:16 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 6:38 am, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 26/02/2026 6:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
Interesting, I started work at WRE (Weapons Research
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant
working in an office during the day going back in the evening >>>>>>>>>> to clean it and make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in >>>>>>>>>> many of the government offices in that even the cleaners need >>>>>>>>>> security clearance and that narrows the available demographic. >>>>>>>>>>
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which >>>>>>>>> is a requirement.
Establishment) in South Australia, a secure government site, in >>>>>>>> January 1965. I was working on the design of part of a new
missile system for the RAN.
Odd. I thought you said you didn't have a degree.
I don't, what is odd about that?
Well, as that project pre-dated all those programming languages
which you were so shit hot at (self-proclaimed), I assume that the
majority of the technical staff would have been in the 'hard'
sciences ie Maths, Physics & Engineering. So exactly what were you
doing in "design"?
That is what I was trained in in my apprenticeship - electronic
design. Too hard for you to understand?
"understand"? No. Believe, yes.
purview of universities. Any training at technical institutes tends to
be more involved with construction and manufacturing processes.-a Maybe
it was different in the 50s but definitely not from the 70s and 80s.
On 27/02/2026 2:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a >>>>> requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever do is
back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that permits you
to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well just come out and
said you were talking shit. That would at least invite a modicum of
respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in
conversation....
Instead of proving you're a dumb fuck, you could have just looked it up.
1. Mandatory Security and Personal Requirements
-a-a-a Australian Citizenship: In most cases, this is a mandatory requirement to obtain a security clearance.
-a-a-a Security Clearance/Vetting: Depending on the office (e.g., Departmental offices), you may need a Baseline Security Clearance or a Personnel Vetting Program Certificate. This involves a checkable
background, including employment, education, and residency.
-a-a-a Police Check: A current National Police Check is mandatory.
-a-a-a Working with Vulnerable People (WWVP) Card: Required for cleaning jobs in ACT public schools or sites involving children/vulnerable individuals.
-a-a-a 100-Point Identity Check: Required for vetting.
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, alvey wrote:
Daryl wrote:
He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up?
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he has no
idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people we employed
over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least 70% of
our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
Maybe you're a racist?
Daryl has 25 years in the Victorian cleaning system but knows as much
about ACT government department requirements as he does contract lawyers.
That's why he's $450k lighter in retirement, the dumb fuck.
Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 2:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is >>>>>> a requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever do
is back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that permits
you to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well just come out
and said you were talking shit. That would at least invite a modicum
of respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in
conversation....
Instead of proving you're a dumb fuck, you could have just looked it up.
1. Mandatory Security and Personal Requirements
-a-a-a-a Australian Citizenship: In most cases, this is a mandatory
requirement to obtain a security clearance.
-a-a-a-a Security Clearance/Vetting: Depending on the office (e.g.,
Departmental offices), you may need a Baseline Security Clearance or a
Personnel Vetting Program Certificate. This involves a checkable
background, including employment, education, and residency.
-a-a-a-a Police Check: A current National Police Check is mandatory.
-a-a-a-a Working with Vulnerable People (WWVP) Card: Required for cleaning >> jobs in ACT public schools or sites involving children/vulnerable
individuals.
-a-a-a-a 100-Point Identity Check: Required for vetting.
Yup. It's a never ending source of incredulity that these boofheads so
very rarely bother to fact check before they bray. And almost as bad is
that they never apologise or admit that they've stuffed up. Like Deryl
and his 40% popn increase. What a sad pair of Murdoch Muppets they are.
On 27/02/2026 3:20 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 7:39 pm, Noddy wrote:
You're legally wrong. Where fitted, seat belts must be worn and of
course any protection is better than no protection.
You wouldn't know if your own head was on fire. Fitting seatbelts to
a vehicle that never had them originally is a mod that requires
engineer approval.
That's got fuck all to do with anything, least of all you being an
irresponsible parent.
ROTFL :) You couldn't be any more clueless if you wanted to be, you
stupid clog wearing cunt.
Road Safety Road Rules 2017
Statutory rule in force
Statutory rule number 41/2017Version 020
What are you actually quoting there? Do you know? :)
Let me explain it to you in a dumbed down language that a mud flap
fitter would understand.
In Australia, seat belts were *not* compulsory in any vehicle build
before January 1st, 1969.
On 27/02/2026 9:07 am, Xeno wrote:
On 26/2/2026 10:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:It is truly sad how you judge people by the cars they drive Darren.
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
-aFrom the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story about
repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short order :)
That's a sure sign of immaturity.
Well it does work for you -
Car: Poverty pack Corolla.
Character: Boring.
On 27/2/2026 4:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 9:07 am, Xeno wrote:
On 26/2/2026 10:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:It is truly sad how you judge people by the cars they drive Darren.
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
-aFrom the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story about >>>> repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short order :)
That's a sure sign of immaturity.
Well it does work for you -
Car: Poverty pack Corolla.
Character: Boring.
You have that incorrect.
Character: Reliable - just like me.
On 27/02/2026 7:53 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 9:23 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 27/2/2026 9:17 pm, alvey wrote:Shows how little you know about the subject.
keithr0 wrote:I was always of the understanding that *design* was generally the
On 27/02/2026 5:16 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 6:38 am, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 26/02/2026 6:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
Interesting, I started work at WRE (Weapons Research
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant >>>>>>>>>>> working in an office during the day going back in the evening >>>>>>>>>>> to clean it and make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in >>>>>>>>>>> many of the government offices in that even the cleaners need >>>>>>>>>>> security clearance and that narrows the available demographic. >>>>>>>>>>>
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which >>>>>>>>>> is a requirement.
Establishment) in South Australia, a secure government site, in >>>>>>>>> January 1965. I was working on the design of part of a new
missile system for the RAN.
Odd. I thought you said you didn't have a degree.
I don't, what is odd about that?
Well, as that project pre-dated all those programming languages
which you were so shit hot at (self-proclaimed), I assume that the >>>>>> majority of the technical staff would have been in the 'hard'
sciences ie Maths, Physics & Engineering. So exactly what were you >>>>>> doing in "design"?
That is what I was trained in in my apprenticeship - electronic
design. Too hard for you to understand?
"understand"? No. Believe, yes.
purview of universities. Any training at technical institutes tends
to be more involved with construction and manufacturing processes.
Maybe it was different in the 50s but definitely not from the 70s and
80s.
It reveals how much you exaggerate more like. Not sure why you feel the
need to do that and belittle others but I guess your fragile ego
requires it.
Anyway, it's pretty obvious you're at the very minimum an embellisher if
not an outright bullshit artist, but much like that dumb fuck you enable.
On 27/02/2026 2:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a >>>>> requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever do is
back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that permits you
to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well just come out and
said you were talking shit. That would at least invite a modicum of
respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in
conversation....
Instead of proving you're a dumb fuck, you could have just looked it up.
1. Mandatory Security and Personal Requirements
-a-a-a Australian Citizenship: In most cases, this is a mandatory requirement to obtain a security clearance.
-a-a-a Security Clearance/Vetting: Depending on the office (e.g., Departmental offices), you may need a Baseline Security Clearance or a Personnel Vetting Program Certificate. This involves a checkable
background, including employment, education, and residency.
-a-a-a Police Check: A current National Police Check is mandatory.
-a-a-a Working with Vulnerable People (WWVP) Card: Required for cleaning jobs in ACT public schools or sites involving children/vulnerable individuals.
-a-a-a 100-Point Identity Check: Required for vetting.
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 27/02/2026 6:12 pm, Daryl wrote:, that cleaners would come in contct with classified material.
On 27/2/2026 5:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up?
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is >>>>>>> a requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever do
is back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that permits
you to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well just come out
and said you were talking shit. That would at least invite a modicum
of respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in
conversation....
Nothing out of the ordinary.
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he has no
idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people we employed
over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least 70% of
our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
Or maybe your reality is getting in the way of his bullshit.
In very recent years we have had a lot of migrants from India and of
course they look for work and often low paid jobs such as cleaning is
all they can get but that wouldn't have been the case in the Canberra
example that Keith mentioned which is what we were discussing.
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation just
so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to be Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary requirement
in almost all cases.
The only "bullshit" is from you three dumb fucks too ignorant to know
and too stupid to look it up for yourself.
On 27/02/2026 1:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 2:05 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 7:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 23/02/2026 12:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in >>>>>> an office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and >>>>>> make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the
government offices in that even the cleaners need security
clearance and that narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a >>>>> requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
Prove it, you haven't done so well so far.
Looks like I've done it again actually.
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, alvey wrote:
Daryl wrote:
He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up?
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he has no
idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people we employed
over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least 70% of
our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
Maybe you're a racist?
Daryl has 25 years in the Victorian cleaning system but knows as much
about ACT government department requirements as he does contract lawyers.
That's why he's $450k lighter in retirement, the dumb fuck.
On 27/02/2026 1:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 9:07 am, Xeno wrote:
On 26/2/2026 10:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:It is truly sad how you judge people by the cars they drive Darren.
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
-aFrom the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story about >>>> repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short order :)
That's a sure sign of immaturity.
Well it does work for you -
Car: Poverty pack Corolla.
Character: Boring.
Says he who drives a fucking whitegood himself...
On 28/02/2026 9:07 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 2:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is >>>>>> a requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever do
is back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that permits
you to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well just come out
and said you were talking shit. That would at least invite a modicum
of respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in
conversation....
Instead of proving you're a dumb fuck, you could have just looked it up.
1. Mandatory Security and Personal Requirements
-a-a-a-a Australian Citizenship: In most cases, this is a mandatory
requirement to obtain a security clearance.
-a-a-a-a Security Clearance/Vetting: Depending on the office (e.g.,
Departmental offices), you may need a Baseline Security Clearance or a
Personnel Vetting Program Certificate. This involves a checkable
background, including employment, education, and residency.
-a-a-a-a Police Check: A current National Police Check is mandatory.
-a-a-a-a Working with Vulnerable People (WWVP) Card: Required for cleaning >> jobs in ACT public schools or sites involving children/vulnerable
individuals.
-a-a-a-a 100-Point Identity Check: Required for vetting.
Maybe things have changed since, but I was working on a secure
government site on a classified government project 3 years before I
became-a citizen.
On 28/02/2026 9:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:You do realise, of course that there are different requirements for different levels of clearance. If you are working on classified
On 27/02/2026 6:12 pm, Daryl wrote:, that cleaners would come in contct with classified material.
On 27/2/2026 5:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up?
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which >>>>>>>> is a requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever do >>>>> is back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that
permits you to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well just
come out and said you were talking shit. That would at least invite >>>>> a modicum of respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in
conversation....
Nothing out of the ordinary.
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he has no
idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people we employed
over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least 70%
of our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
Or maybe your reality is getting in the way of his bullshit.
In very recent years we have had a lot of migrants from India and ofSeldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
course they look for work and often low paid jobs such as cleaning
is all they can get but that wouldn't have been the case in the
Canberra example that Keith mentioned which is what we were discussing. >>>
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation just
so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to be
Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary
requirement in almost all cases.
The only "bullshit" is from you three dumb fucks too ignorant to know
and too stupid to look it up for yourself.
material, you are required to lock it away when you are not using it, so
it is quite unlikely, unless somebody fucks up. You've obviously never
been in that environment.
On 27/02/2026 8:35 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 27/2/2026 4:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 9:07 am, Xeno wrote:
On 26/2/2026 10:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:It is truly sad how you judge people by the cars they drive Darren.
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
-aFrom the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story
about repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short
order :)
That's a sure sign of immaturity.
Well it does work for you -
Car: Poverty pack Corolla.
Character: Boring.
You have that incorrect.
Character: Reliable - just like me.
Of course you're reliable, reliably boring, and reliably arrogant.
You (claimed) you were working on a Anglo/Australian project where
British citizenship would be seen as equivalently favourable as
Australian.
On 27/02/2026 2:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
What are you actually quoting there? Do you know? :)
Of course. Relevant to Victoria, so you should read it given your
apparent ignorance of the law.
Road Safety Road Rules 2017
Statutory rule in force
Statutory rule number 41/2017Version 020
Let me explain it to you in a dumbed down language that a mud flap
fitter would understand.
In Australia, seat belts were *not* compulsory in any vehicle build
before January 1st, 1969.
Irrelevant, you unqualified bracket welder.
Road Safety Road Rules 2017
Statutory rule in force
Statutory rule number 41/2017Version 020
The law clearly states that *any* seat belt, where fitted, must be worn. Approved or not, whether the vehicle originally had them fitted or not.
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/vehicles/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/files/VSB5_b.pdf
Your ignorance of the law is irrelevant here you failed fuck of a father.
On 27/02/2026 1:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 9:07 am, Xeno wrote:
On 26/2/2026 10:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:It is truly sad how you judge people by the cars they drive Darren.
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
-aFrom the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story about >>>> repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short order :)
That's a sure sign of immaturity.
Well it does work for you -
Car: Poverty pack Corolla.
Character: Boring.
Says he who drives a fucking whitegood himself...
On 27/02/2026 1:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 2:05 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 7:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 23/02/2026 12:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working in >>>>>> an office during the day going back in the evening to clean it and >>>>>> make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the
government offices in that even the cleaners need security
clearance and that narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a >>>>> requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
Prove it, you haven't done so well so far.
Looks like I've done it again actually.
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, alvey wrote:
Daryl wrote:
He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up?
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he has no
idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people we employed
over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least 70% of
our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
Maybe you're a racist?
Daryl has 25 years in the Victorian cleaning system but knows as much
about ACT government department requirements as he does contract lawyers.
That's why he's $450k lighter in retirement, the dumb fuck.
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation just
so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to be Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary requirement
in almost all cases.
The only "bullshit" is from you three dumb fucks too ignorant to know
and too stupid to look it up for yourself.
On 27/02/2026 2:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is a >>>>> requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever do is
back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that permits you
to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well just come out and
said you were talking shit. That would at least invite a modicum of
respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in
conversation....
Instead of proving you're a dumb fuck, you could have just looked it up.
1. Mandatory Security and Personal Requirements
Of course alvey also sets a high bar for arrogance as demonstrated here.
On 28/02/2026 2:49 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 2:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
What are you actually quoting there? Do you know? :)
Of course. Relevant to Victoria, so you should read it given your
apparent ignorance of the law.
Road Safety Road Rules 2017
Statutory rule in force
Statutory rule number 41/2017Version 020
State the actual rule you're referring to :)
On 28/02/2026 10:10 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, alvey wrote:
Daryl wrote:
He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up?
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he has no
idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people we employed
over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least 70%
of our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
Maybe you're a racist?
Daryl has 25 years in the Victorian cleaning system but knows as much
about ACT government department requirements as he does contract lawyers.
That's why he's $450k lighter in retirement, the dumb fuck.
You never did get around to showing how it was that *you* knew that the "writing was on the wall" for the school cleaning industry,-a but the 160 odd companies who were directly connected with it never saw it coming.
Odd.
On 28/02/2026 7:10 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:Of course alvey also sets a high bar for arrogance as demonstrated here.
On 27/02/2026 8:35 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 27/2/2026 4:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 9:07 am, Xeno wrote:
On 26/2/2026 10:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:It is truly sad how you judge people by the cars they drive
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
-aFrom the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story >>>>>>> about repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short >>>>>>> order :)
Darren. That's a sure sign of immaturity.
Well it does work for you -
Car: Poverty pack Corolla.
Character: Boring.
You have that incorrect.
Character: Reliable - just like me.
Of course you're reliable, reliably boring, and reliably arrogant.
It's a tough call. Does Richo share DNA with the Fraudster? Or Dolly
the sheep?
Jaysus Richo! *You* are the unimaginative dullard, so stullifyingly
sterile of mind, that your usual choice of response is to bleat a
trite, and usually comically inappropriate cliche. You declaring
*anyone* boring and arrogant is like Trump declaring someone to be an
egomanical, compulsive liar.
On 28/02/2026 8:59 pm, keithr0 wrote:
Of course alvey also sets a high bar for arrogance as demonstrated here.
From the safety of behind his keyboard. If you caught him out in the
street he'd have such a panic attack that he'd wet himself.
On 28/02/2026 8:59 pm, keithr0 wrote:
Of course alvey also sets a high bar for arrogance as demonstrated here.
From the safety of behind his keyboard. If you caught him out in the
street he'd have such a panic attack that he'd wet himself.
On 28/02/2026 10:02 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 1:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 2:05 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 7:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 23/02/2026 12:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working >>>>>>> in an office during the day going back in the evening to clean it >>>>>>> and make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the
government offices in that even the cleaners need security
clearance and that narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is >>>>>> a requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
Prove it, you haven't done so well so far.
Looks like I've done it again actually.
The entire planet must have collectively blinked and missed it. All
anyone saw you do was make a cunt out of yourself....
On 28/02/2026 10:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation just
so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to be
Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary
requirement in almost all cases.
Feel free to cite some supporting evidence....
On 28/02/2026 10:10 am, Clocky wrote:.
You never did get around to showing how it was that *you* knew that the "writing was on the wall" for the school cleaning industry,-a but the 160 odd companies who were directly connected with it never saw it coming.
On 28/02/2026 10:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation just
so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to be
Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary
requirement in almost all cases.
Feel free to cite some supporting evidence....
The only "bullshit" is from you three dumb fucks too ignorant to know
and too stupid to look it up for yourself.
It's quite remarkable how a lowly mudflap fitter from Bumfuck Junction
in Western Australia would have *any* insight at all as to the goings on
in government buildings in the National Capital on the other side of the fucking country.
On 28/2/2026 8:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 28/02/2026 10:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation
just so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to be
Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary
requirement in almost all cases.
Feel free to cite some supporting evidence....
It may be true that Govt cleaners need to be citizens in 2026 but the question is how he "knows" that most cleaners aren't citizens?
On 28/02/2026 9:24 am, Clocky wrote:
Anyway, it's pretty obvious you're at the very minimum an embellisher
if not an outright bullshit artist, but much like that dumb fuck you
enable.
If it's that obvious, then you must have some proof, either show it or
STFU.
On 28/2/2026 8:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 28/02/2026 10:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation
just so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to be
Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary
requirement in almost all cases.
Feel free to cite some supporting evidence....
It may be true that Govt cleaners need to be citizens in 2026 but the question is how he "knows" that most cleaners aren't citizens?
Noddy wrote:
On 28/02/2026 8:59 pm, keithr0 wrote:
Of course alvey also sets a high bar for arrogance as demonstrated here.
-aFrom the safety of behind his keyboard. If you caught him out in the
street he'd have such a panic attack that he'd wet himself.
Well who wouldn't at the sudden & scary appearance of a short, fat sixty-three year old with a limp?
Christ Fraudster! You're such a hardman that you run away on the internet.
On 28/02/2026 1:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 1:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 9:07 am, Xeno wrote:
On 26/2/2026 10:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:It is truly sad how you judge people by the cars they drive Darren.
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
-aFrom the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story
about repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short
order :)
That's a sure sign of immaturity.
Well it does work for you -
Car: Poverty pack Corolla.
Character: Boring.
Says he who drives a fucking whitegood himself...
It's blue actually.
On 28/02/2026 2:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 1:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 9:07 am, Xeno wrote:
On 26/2/2026 10:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:It is truly sad how you judge people by the cars they drive Darren.
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
-aFrom the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story
about repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short
order :)
That's a sure sign of immaturity.
Well it does work for you -
Car: Poverty pack Corolla.
Character: Boring.
Says he who drives a fucking whitegood himself...
You drive a Commodore and a fucking rooted old Hilux. The irony here is staggering :)
Noddy wrote:
On 28/02/2026 10:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation
just so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to be
Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary
requirement in almost all cases.
Feel free to cite some supporting evidence....
The only "bullshit" is from you three dumb fucks too ignorant to know
and too stupid to look it up for yourself.
It's quite remarkable how a lowly mudflap fitter from Bumfuck Junction
in Western Australia would have *any* insight at all as to the goings
on in government buildings in the National Capital on the other side
of the fucking country.
So therefore all claims made by a career unemployed bludger living in Bumhole (Vic) can be totally discounted.
snip more galloping hypocrisy.--
On 1/03/2026 8:43 am, Daryl wrote:
On 28/2/2026 8:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 28/02/2026 10:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation
just so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to be
Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary
requirement in almost all cases.
Feel free to cite some supporting evidence....
It may be true that Govt cleaners need to be citizens in 2026 but the
question is how he "knows" that most cleaners aren't citizens?
He doesn't. As usual he's making it up as he goes. What was it he used
to call himself? The "voice of truth" and "reason"?
The bloke is fucking retarded.
You forgot sometimes diabetic too.
Go easy on the short though, he's much taller on some days apparently.
On 28/02/2026 7:14 pm, alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:
On 28/02/2026 8:59 pm, keithr0 wrote:
Of course alvey also sets a high bar for arrogance as demonstrated
here.
-aFrom the safety of behind his keyboard. If you caught him out in the
street he'd have such a panic attack that he'd wet himself.
Well who wouldn't at the sudden & scary appearance of a short, fat
sixty-three year old with a limp?
You forgot sometimes diabetic too.
Go easy on the short though, he's much taller on some days apparently.
Christ Fraudster! You're such a hardman that you run away on the
internet.
On 1/03/2026 11:11 am, Clocky wrote:
You forgot sometimes diabetic too.
Not sometimes. Was once, and now not. Cool huh? I did something about
it. You on the other hand, are destined to a life of being a clueless
cunt :)
Go easy on the short though, he's much taller on some days apparently.
Same heights every day. And yes, it's heights plural. See if you can
work out why.....
On 28/02/2026 5:52 pm, Noddy wrote:It is entirely relevant when you're voicing an opinion about others. You
You drive a Commodore and a fucking rooted old Hilux. The irony here
is staggering :)
What I drive is not relevant to the discussion,
On 26/2/2026 10:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:It is truly sad how you judge people by the cars they drive Darren.
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
-aFrom the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story about
repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short order :)
That's a sure sign of immaturity.
On 1/03/2026 11:11 am, Clocky wrote:
You forgot sometimes diabetic too.
Not sometimes. Was once, and now not. Cool huh? I did something about
it. You on the other hand, are destined to a life of being a clueless
cunt :)
Go easy on the short though, he's much taller on some days apparently.
Same heights every day.
And yes, it's heights plural. See if you can
work out why.....
On 14/02/2026 12:18 am, Noddy wrote:
On 13/02/2026 9:29 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make a
difference to the planet.
That's the usual excuse, but can you expect others to do what you
aren't willing to do yourself?
It's not an excuse. It's the reality. We, as a country, contribute
just over 1% to the world's total emissions output. We are an
insignificant player, and other countries take absolutely no notice
of anything we do.
**Utter bullshit.
* Our PBS system is admired and duplicated by other nations.
* Our world first 'carbon tax' was lauded and duplicated by other
nations.
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII, Korea
or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep getting
involved in wars that we make no difference in.
We have no influential power in this game whatsoever,
**Incorrect. We emit more CO2 than more than half the nations on this planet.
-aand I expect other
countries look at us and laugh at how much we are spending for an
output reduction that is so small it would be next to impossible to
quantify.
**OR, perhaps, they look to Australia and praise our efforts.
We are not the problem. Nor are we the solution.
**We live on the same rock as Americans, Chinese and Indians. We are
part of the problem. Therefore, we are part of the solution.
On 1/03/2026 11:30 am, Clocky wrote:
On 28/02/2026 5:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
It is entirely relevant when you're voicing an opinion about others. YouYou drive a Commodore and a fucking rooted old Hilux. The irony here
is staggering :)
What I drive is not relevant to the discussion,
do *not* lead by example, so why you think you're in some position to be judging anyone else is a mystery understood only by you.
Commodores are one of the greatest munt cars on the planet, and anyone
who thinks they are a vehicle worth owning is a fucking idiot.
On 15/2/2026 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 9:06 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:Try again;
On 14/02/2026 12:18 am, Noddy wrote:
On 13/02/2026 9:29 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make a
difference to the planet.
That's the usual excuse, but can you expect others to do what you
aren't willing to do yourself?
It's not an excuse. It's the reality. We, as a country, contribute
just over 1% to the world's total emissions output. We are an
insignificant player, and other countries take absolutely no notice
of anything we do.
**Utter bullshit.
* Our PBS system is admired and duplicated by other nations.
* Our world first 'carbon tax' was lauded and duplicated by other
nations.
Oh, great. Fantastic. So tell me exactly. How has the environmental
crisis been remedied by either of those?
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII,
Korea or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep
getting involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts, but
unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we made were
tangible.
We have no influential power in this game whatsoever,
**Incorrect. We emit more CO2 than more than half the nations on
this planet.
Which is completely irrelevant. Our total output is just over 1%.
AI Overview
Australia's total CO2 output, including embedded emissions from fossil
fuel exports, reached approximately 1.2 billion tonnes in 2023. When accounting for extraction, transport, and combustion of exported coal
and gas, Australia's global carbon footprint is roughly three to four
times higher than its domestic emissions. This makes Australia a major contributor to global emissions.
Key Data on Australia's Total Emissions Footprint:
Total CO2 (Domestic + Exported): In 2023, Australia's fossil fuel
exports (coal and gas) generated around 1.15 billion tonnes of EYE|EYae2, with an additional 46 million tonnes emitted domestically during
extraction and processing.
Total Greenhouse Gases (GHG): When including all greenhouse gases (not
just CEYae2), the total footprint rises to about 1.7 billion tonnes of EYE|EYae2
-equivalent in 2023.
Global Impact: Australia's exported emissions represent roughly 3.6%
to 4.5% of global fossil CO2 emissions.
Comparison: Exported emissions are roughly three times larger than AustraliarCOs own domestic emissions.
Projection: The total accumulated EYE|EYae2 emissions from Australian exports from 1961 to 2023 is 30 billion tonnes, with projections to
reach 45 billion tonnes by 2035.
Context on Fossil Fuel Exports:
Coal: Australia is a leading global exporter of coal, with exports
expected to remain high through 2035.
LNG: Australia is one of the world's top three exporters of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
Emission Source: Around 80% of the damage from Australia's fossil fuel industry is done overseas through the burning of exported fuel.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a --------------------
So,roughly 3.6% to 4.5% of global fossil CO2 emissions. That is
considerably more than you are claiming.
countries look at us and laugh at how much we are spending for an
output reduction that is so small it would be next to impossible to
quantify.
**OR, perhaps, they look to Australia and praise our efforts.
That's nice, but how does it help?
We are not the problem. Nor are we the solution.
**We live on the same rock as Americans, Chinese and Indians. We are
part of the problem. Therefore, we are part of the solution.
Again you seem to be completely incapable of grasping the fact that
when your annual output is less than the combined output of the
world's three biggest polluters in a single *day*, there is
absolutely nothing we can do here that is going to change a thing.
Other countries sitting back and clapping their hands saying "Awww,
ain't those Aussies an innovative bunch. Stupid, but innovative" is
*not going to do it.
On 28/02/2026 4:05 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 1:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 1:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 9:07 am, Xeno wrote:
On 26/2/2026 10:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:It is truly sad how you judge people by the cars they drive Darren. >>>>> That's a sure sign of immaturity.
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
-aFrom the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story
about repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short >>>>>> order :)
Well it does work for you -
Car: Poverty pack Corolla.
Character: Boring.
Says he who drives a fucking whitegood himself...
It's blue actually.
Thanks for proving Alvey's point.
On 15/02/2026 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 9:06 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2026 12:18 am, Noddy wrote:
On 13/02/2026 9:29 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make a
difference to the planet.
That's the usual excuse, but can you expect others to do what you
aren't willing to do yourself?
It's not an excuse. It's the reality. We, as a country, contribute
just over 1% to the world's total emissions output. We are an
insignificant player, and other countries take absolutely no notice
of anything we do.
**Utter bullshit.
* Our PBS system is admired and duplicated by other nations.
* Our world first 'carbon tax' was lauded and duplicated by other
nations.
Oh, great. Fantastic. So tell me exactly. How has the environmental
crisis been remedied by either of those?
**The 'carbon tax' reduced Australia's CO2 emissions by 7%. In the
first and only year of operation. It could have reduced our CO2
emissions by much, MUCH more, had the environmental vandals in the
Lieberal Party not interferred with it. The PBS comment merely
addressed another first by Australia that has been duplicated all over
the planet.
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII,
Korea or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep
getting involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
**And yet, that is absolutely factual. Our efforts in those wars
amounted to almost bugger-all.
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts, but
unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we made were
tangible.
Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 2:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII,
Korea or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep
getting involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
**And yet, that is absolutely factual. Our efforts in those wars
amounted to almost bugger-all.
Not at all, and you clearly are talking about things you know nothing
about.
Fraudster just loves telling people that. It's another insecurity flag.
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts, but
unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we made were
tangible.
**Bullshit. They were insignificant, but we did it anyway.
You are apparently blissfully unaware that Australian forces were the
first to stop the Germans and the Japanese in World War 2 :)
And speaking of irony... Here's an ironic Fun Fact!
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This represented
1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 2:46 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This
represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed kiddie
pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to WWII
was insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the same
contribution to the planet's CO2 output.
You *had* no point Trev,
Wrong.
as your analogy was completely wrong to begin with.
Wrong.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed
conflict of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above their
weight in every theatre they were deployed to.
Horribly wrong.
On 17/02/2026 8:37 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 6:04 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 2:46 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This
represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed kiddie
pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to WWII
was insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the same
contribution to the planet's CO2 output.
You *had* no point Trev, as your analogy was completely wrong to
begin with.
**And yet, the percentage figures invite serious comparison.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed
conflict of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above their
weight in every theatre they were deployed to.
**Maybe. Maybe not. The Japanese were, initially, disregarded by most
military experts, right up until their own armed forces faced them in
combat. That includes Australia and the UK forces (in Singapore), the
US forces over much of the Pacific. Here's the thing:
Four of my uncles served in WWII. One was flown all over the Pacific
by the US (he was attached to the US military), because he had a
crucial job of decoding Japanese radio transmissions. Very improtant
job. Another was a lookout on some of the islands above the top end.
Another important job. I am under no illusion that they were
important to the war effort, but no more important than many hundreds
of thousands of others.
I hold the view, not popular among my ex-military friends,
that the only ones that have fought for Australia were those who
fought in the Pacific in WWII. All the others were fighting for
somebody else.
On 17/02/2026 10:33 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:37 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Maybe. Maybe not. The Japanese were, initially, disregarded by
most military experts, right up until their own armed forces faced
them in combat. That includes Australia and the UK forces (in
Singapore), the US forces over much of the Pacific. Here's the thing:
Four of my uncles served in WWII. One was flown all over the Pacific
by the US (he was attached to the US military), because he had a
crucial job of decoding Japanese radio transmissions. Very improtant
job. Another was a lookout on some of the islands above the top end.
Another important job. I am under no illusion that they were
important to the war effort, but no more important than many
hundreds of thousands of others.
I hold the view, not popular among my ex-military friends, that the
only ones that have fought for Australia were those who fought in the
Pacific in WWII. All the others were fighting for somebody else.
I'm inclined to agree.
On 11/02/2026 8:44 am, Daryl wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxpieEQ7bc
Make of it what you will, Trev will claim its political since its on
Skynews but there are a lot of cold hard facts that can't be ignored.
Its not so much can we achieve net zero but whether or not we can
afford it?
Swallowing Sky "News" biased bullshit wholesale without so much as a factcheck... good god you are naive and stupid.
They sure know know how to reach their target audience of old senile
biased irrelevant boomers.
alvey wrote:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 2:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII,
Korea or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep
getting involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
**And yet, that is absolutely factual. Our efforts in those wars
amounted to almost bugger-all.
Not at all, and you clearly are talking about things you know nothing
about.
Fraudster just loves telling people that. It's another insecurity flag.
whether that's true or not, in this case he's correct
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts, but
unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we made were
tangible.
**Bullshit. They were insignificant, but we did it anyway.
You are apparently blissfully unaware that Australian forces were the
first to stop the Germans and the Japanese in World War 2 :)
And speaking of irony... Here's an ironic Fun Fact!
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This represented
1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
that's meaningless. you have to look at what they did, when and how
On 01-Mar-26 1:22 PM, Axel wrote:
alvey wrote:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 2:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII, >>>>>>> Korea or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep
getting involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
**And yet, that is absolutely factual. Our efforts in those wars
amounted to almost bugger-all.
Not at all, and you clearly are talking about things you know
nothing about.
Fraudster just loves telling people that. It's another insecurity flag.
whether that's true or not, in this case he's correct
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts,
but unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we made >>>>>> were tangible.
**Bullshit. They were insignificant, but we did it anyway.
You are apparently blissfully unaware that Australian forces were
the first to stop the Germans and the Japanese in World War 2 :)
And speaking of irony... Here's an ironic Fun Fact!
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This
represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
that's meaningless. you have to look at what they did, when and how
Yes, and including New Zealanders, a grouping collectively known as
the ANZACS!. First and second world war. Plus many other stoushes..
On 28/2/2026 6:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
Maybe things have changed since, but I was working on a secureYou (claimed) you were working on a Anglo/Australian project where
government site on a classified government project 3 years before I
became-a citizen.
British citizenship would be seen as equivalently favourable as
Australian. A lot of things didn't change until circa 1970 when the UK
went into the EU or, as it was known then, the Common Market. That
changed a lot of things here in Australia. But your initial sojourn
predated all that!
On 28/02/2026 4:05 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 1:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 1:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 9:07 am, Xeno wrote:
On 26/2/2026 10:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:It is truly sad how you judge people by the cars they drive Darren. >>>>> That's a sure sign of immaturity.
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
-aFrom the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story
about repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short >>>>>> order :)
Well it does work for you -
Car: Poverty pack Corolla.
Character: Boring.
Says he who drives a fucking whitegood himself...
It's blue actually.
Thanks for proving Alvey's point.
keithr0 wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:37 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 6:04 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 2:46 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This
represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed kiddie
pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to WWII
was insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the same
contribution to the planet's CO2 output.
You *had* no point Trev, as your analogy was completely wrong to
begin with.
**And yet, the percentage figures invite serious comparison.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed
conflict of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above their
weight in every theatre they were deployed to.
**Maybe. Maybe not. The Japanese were, initially, disregarded by most
military experts, right up until their own armed forces faced them in
combat. That includes Australia and the UK forces (in Singapore), the
US forces over much of the Pacific. Here's the thing:
Four of my uncles served in WWII. One was flown all over the Pacific
by the US (he was attached to the US military), because he had a
crucial job of decoding Japanese radio transmissions. Very improtant
job. Another was a lookout on some of the islands above the top end.
Another important job. I am under no illusion that they were
important to the war effort, but no more important than many hundreds
of thousands of others.
I hold the view, not popular among my ex-military friends,
with good reason (see below)
that the only ones that have fought for Australia were those who
fought in the Pacific in WWII. All the others were fighting for
somebody else.
all nations and personnel who fought against the Axis powers were
fighting for freedom from world domination by them
Daryl wrote:
On 28/2/2026 8:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 28/02/2026 10:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation
just so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to be
Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary
requirement in almost all cases.
Feel free to cite some supporting evidence....
It may be true that Govt cleaners need to be citizens in 2026 but the
question is how he "knows" that most cleaners aren't citizens?
See, there's the problem with; a) selective snipping, b) being semi- literate, and c) being thick.
In the above post, *nowhere* did Clock say that he "knows", *and* your sentence is completely unrelated to his sentence.
Still waiting for your retraction/admission that your 40% popn increase
was wildly wrong Deryl.
On 27/02/2026 4:49 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:The two things are somehow linked?
On 27/02/2026 2:05 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 7:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 23/02/2026 12:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working >>>>>>> in an office during the day going back in the evening to clean
it and make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the >>>>>>> government offices in that even the cleaners need security
clearance and that narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is >>>>>> a requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
Prove it, you haven't done so well so far.
Hey Richo! Could you explain your processes on how you're asking
Clocky to 'prove' an opinion, but you've never asked Fraudster to
prove something he's claimed as fact.
keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 9:24 am, Clocky wrote:
Anyway, it's pretty obvious you're at the very minimum an embellisher
if not an outright bullshit artist, but much like that dumb fuck you
enable.
If it's that obvious, then you must have some proof, either show it or
STFU.
Unfortunately Richo this little pond was long ago poisoned by a certain dickhead whose total failure to prove a single one of his Big Claims has made the traditional 'prove or retract' newsgroup demand obsolete.
On 28/02/2026 9:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:You do realise, of course that there are different requirements for different levels of clearance. If you are working on classified
On 27/02/2026 6:12 pm, Daryl wrote:, that cleaners would come in contct with classified material.
On 27/2/2026 5:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up?
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which >>>>>>>> is a requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever
do is back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that
permits you to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well just
come out and said you were talking shit. That would at least
invite a modicum of respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in
conversation....
Nothing out of the ordinary.
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he has no
idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people we employed
over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least 70%
of our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
Or maybe your reality is getting in the way of his bullshit.
In very recent years we have had a lot of migrants from India and
of course they look for work and often low paid jobs such as
cleaning is all they can get but that wouldn't have been the case
in the Canberra example that Keith mentioned which is what we were
discussing.
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation
just so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to be
Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary
requirement in almost all cases.
The only "bullshit" is from you three dumb fucks too ignorant to know
and too stupid to look it up for yourself.
material, you are required to lock it away when you are not using it,
so it is quite unlikely, unless somebody fucks up. You've obviously
never been in that environment.
On 28/02/2026 2:49 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 2:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
What are you actually quoting there? Do you know? :)
Of course. Relevant to Victoria, so you should read it given your
apparent ignorance of the law.
Road Safety Road Rules 2017
Statutory rule in force
Statutory rule number 41/2017Version 020
State the actual rule you're referring to :)
Let me explain it to you in a dumbed down language that a mud flap
fitter would understand.
In Australia, seat belts were *not* compulsory in any vehicle build
before January 1st, 1969.
Irrelevant, you unqualified bracket welder.
It is *not* irrelevant at all, and in fact is part of the roadworthy requirements for all vehicles.
Again, something you would know if you had any relevant experience.
Road Safety Road Rules 2017
Statutory rule in force
Statutory rule number 41/2017Version 020
The law clearly states that *any* seat belt, where fitted, must be
worn. Approved or not, whether the vehicle originally had them fitted
or not.
The rule does *not* say "approved or not", and you are deliberately
making a fraudulent claim in a piss poor attempt to try to mask the
fact that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
The *law* states that the fitting of seatbelts to a vehicle that never
had them originally is a modification that requires engineer approval,
and unapproved belt installations are an illegal modification on any
road going vehicle and must be removed or made compliant.
It's all here, if you'd care to take a look and educate yourself :)
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/vehicles/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/files/VSB5_b.pdf
Legally fitted seat belts must be worn. *Illegally* fitted seat belts
must either be be removed or made compliant. It's that simple whether
you like it or not dickhead.
Xeno wrote:
On 15/2/2026 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 9:06 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:Try again;
On 14/02/2026 12:18 am, Noddy wrote:
On 13/02/2026 9:29 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make a >>>>>>> difference to the planet.
That's the usual excuse, but can you expect others to do what you >>>>>> aren't willing to do yourself?
It's not an excuse. It's the reality. We, as a country, contribute
just over 1% to the world's total emissions output. We are an
insignificant player, and other countries take absolutely no notice >>>>> of anything we do.
**Utter bullshit.
* Our PBS system is admired and duplicated by other nations.
* Our world first 'carbon tax' was lauded and duplicated by other
nations.
Oh, great. Fantastic. So tell me exactly. How has the environmental
crisis been remedied by either of those?
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII,
Korea or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep
getting involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts, but
unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we made were
tangible.
We have no influential power in this game whatsoever,
**Incorrect. We emit more CO2 than more than half the nations on
this planet.
Which is completely irrelevant. Our total output is just over 1%.
AI Overview
Australia's total CO2 output, including embedded emissions from fossil
fuel exports, reached approximately 1.2 billion tonnes in 2023. When
accounting for extraction, transport, and combustion of exported coal
and gas, Australia's global carbon footprint is roughly three to four
times higher than its domestic emissions. This makes Australia a major
contributor to global emissions.
Key Data on Australia's Total Emissions Footprint:
Total CO2 (Domestic + Exported): In 2023, Australia's fossil fuel
exports (coal and gas) generated around 1.15 billion tonnes of EYE|EYae2, >> with an additional 46 million tonnes emitted domestically during
extraction and processing.
Total Greenhouse Gases (GHG): When including all greenhouse gases (not
just CEYae2), the total footprint rises to about 1.7 billion tonnes of EYE|EYae2
-equivalent in 2023.
Global Impact: Australia's exported emissions represent roughly 3.6%
to 4.5% of global fossil CO2 emissions.
Comparison: Exported emissions are roughly three times larger than
AustraliarCOs own domestic emissions.
Projection: The total accumulated EYE|EYae2 emissions from Australian
exports from 1961 to 2023 is 30 billion tonnes, with projections to
reach 45 billion tonnes by 2035.
Context on Fossil Fuel Exports:
Coal: Australia is a leading global exporter of coal, with exports
expected to remain high through 2035.
LNG: Australia is one of the world's top three exporters of Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG).
Emission Source: Around 80% of the damage from Australia's fossil fuel
industry is done overseas through the burning of exported fuel.
--------------------
so we should cease coal and gas exports because other countries use it
to pollute the planet? I think not. coal and gas can be burnt with next
to no emissions in modern plants, which is what we should be doing here,
I would suggest
On 01-Mar-26 1:22 PM, Axel wrote:
alvey wrote:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 2:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII, >>>>>>> Korea or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep
getting involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
**And yet, that is absolutely factual. Our efforts in those wars
amounted to almost bugger-all.
Not at all, and you clearly are talking about things you know
nothing about.
Fraudster just loves telling people that. It's another insecurity flag.
whether that's true or not, in this case he's correct
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts, but >>>>>> unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we made were >>>>>> tangible.
**Bullshit. They were insignificant, but we did it anyway.
You are apparently blissfully unaware that Australian forces were
the first to stop the Germans and the Japanese in World War 2 :)
And speaking of irony... Here's an ironic Fun Fact!
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This represented
1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
that's meaningless. you have to look at what they did, when and how
Yes, and including New Zealanders, a grouping collectively known as the ANZACS!. First and second world war. Plus many other stoushes..
On 28/02/2026 6:48 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 28/2/2026 6:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:
I "Claimed"? Sneering again, that seems to be your MO. You CLAIM to be aMaybe things have changed since, but I was working on a secureYou (claimed) you were working on a Anglo/Australian project where
government site on a classified government project 3 years before I
became-a citizen.
British citizenship would be seen as equivalently favourable as
Australian. A lot of things didn't change until circa 1970 when the UK
went into the EU or, as it was known then, the Common Market. That
changed a lot of things here in Australia. But your initial sojourn
predated all that!
licenced mechanic, you CLAIM to have worked in a tin mine, you CLAIM to
have maintained heavy earth-moving equipment, you CLAIM to have a
degree, none of this is substantiated but you expect it to be accepted.
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS to be
able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not substantiated but you accept that without question.
Of course alvey doesn't claim anything since he is a keyboard warrior, a spineless yellowbelly sniping from behind a wall of total anonymity. He
is also a hypocrite as well for calling other people cowards.
BTW, Ikara wasn't an Anglo-Australian project, it was totally
Australian, the British simply bought it along with the Kiwis,
Brazilians, Chileans etc.
On 1/3/2026 3:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 6:48 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 28/2/2026 6:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:I "Claimed"? Sneering again, that seems to be your MO. You CLAIM to be a
Maybe things have changed since, but I was working on a secureYou (claimed) you were working on a Anglo/Australian project where
government site on a classified government project 3 years before I
became-a citizen.
British citizenship would be seen as equivalently favourable as
Australian. A lot of things didn't change until circa 1970 when the
UK went into the EU or, as it was known then, the Common Market.
That changed a lot of things here in Australia. But your initial
sojourn predated all that!
You claimed, you haven't yet proven.
licenced mechanic, you CLAIM to have worked in a tin mine, you CLAIM
to have maintained heavy earth-moving equipment, you CLAIM to have a
degree, none of this is substantiated but you expect it to be accepted.
Yes, My trade registration number is 15239/68/4679C. I have references
for those mining roles, I have numbers for those degrees as well. Even
gave consent to sprintless to go look them up in the relevant academic records.
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS to
be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not substantiated
but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
Of course alvey doesn't claim anything since he is a keyboard
warrior, a spineless yellowbelly sniping from behind a wall of total
anonymity. He is also a hypocrite as well for calling other people
cowards.
BTW, Ikara wasn't an Anglo-Australian project, it was totally
Australian, the British simply bought it along with the Kiwis,
Brazilians, Chileans etc.
Majority shareholdings were Aus and UK governments IIRC
On 1/3/2026 12:53 pm, Axel wrote:
Xeno wrote:Your mind is on the wrong kind of *pollution*. You're thinking of the
On 15/2/2026 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 9:06 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:Try again;
On 14/02/2026 12:18 am, Noddy wrote:
On 13/02/2026 9:29 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make >>>>>>>> a difference to the planet.
That's the usual excuse, but can you expect others to do what
you aren't willing to do yourself?
It's not an excuse. It's the reality. We, as a country,
contribute just over 1% to the world's total emissions output. We >>>>>> are an insignificant player, and other countries take absolutely
no notice of anything we do.
**Utter bullshit.
* Our PBS system is admired and duplicated by other nations.
* Our world first 'carbon tax' was lauded and duplicated by other
nations.
Oh, great. Fantastic. So tell me exactly. How has the environmental
crisis been remedied by either of those?
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII,
Korea or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep
getting involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts, but
unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we made were
tangible.
We have no influential power in this game whatsoever,
**Incorrect. We emit more CO2 than more than half the nations on
this planet.
Which is completely irrelevant. Our total output is just over 1%.
AI Overview
Australia's total CO2 output, including embedded emissions from
fossil fuel exports, reached approximately 1.2 billion tonnes in
2023. When accounting for extraction, transport, and combustion of
exported coal and gas, Australia's global carbon footprint is
roughly three to four times higher than its domestic emissions. This
makes Australia a major contributor to global emissions.
Key Data on Australia's Total Emissions Footprint:
Total CO2 (Domestic + Exported): In 2023, Australia's fossil fuel
exports (coal and gas) generated around 1.15 billion tonnes of
EYE|EYae2, with an additional 46 million tonnes emitted domestically
during extraction and processing.
Total Greenhouse Gases (GHG): When including all greenhouse gases
(not just CEYae2), the total footprint rises to about 1.7 billion
tonnes of EYE|EYae2
-equivalent in 2023.
Global Impact: Australia's exported emissions represent roughly 3.6%
to 4.5% of global fossil CO2 emissions.
Comparison: Exported emissions are roughly three times larger than
AustraliarCOs own domestic emissions.
Projection: The total accumulated EYE|EYae2 emissions from Australian
exports from 1961 to 2023 is 30 billion tonnes, with projections to
reach 45 billion tonnes by 2035.
Context on Fossil Fuel Exports:
Coal: Australia is a leading global exporter of coal, with exports
expected to remain high through 2035.
LNG: Australia is one of the world's top three exporters of
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
Emission Source: Around 80% of the damage from Australia's fossil
fuel industry is done overseas through the burning of exported fuel.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a --------------------
so we should cease coal and gas exports because other countries use
it to pollute the planet? I think not. coal and gas can be burnt with
next to no emissions in modern plants, which is what we should be
doing here, I would suggest
usual toxic emissions, the ones that make the black smoke or are in
some way highly toxic. They are not the ones net zero is all about.
A bit of AI for you;
Perfect combustion, often referred to as stoichiometric combustion, is
the theoretical ideal chemical process where a fuel is burned with the exact, precise amount of oxygen needed to oxidize all carbon and
hydrogen atoms. When this occurs, all fuel is consumed, and the only,
or nearly only, products are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor
(H2O), resulting in maximum heat energy release.
Therein lies the problem. The more perfect you get your combustion,
the more CO2 you get. And it is CO2 that is the greenhouse gas of
concern.
Take the car as the perfect example of emission control. You end up
with a car that aims for perfect combustion in the combustion chamber,
and for that you get more power for every litre of fuel. But, because
we can't control *all* factors of combustion, we leave it up to the catalytic converter to *convert* those remaining toxic emissions. What
do they convert them to you might ask? The catalytic converter
converts them to CO2 and Water. End result, you get rid of the toxic pollutants by substitution but you end up with more CO2 and that other byproduct, water (H2O).
The problem, it's the CO2 that is the current harbinger of doom re
climate change. We need to look a sequestration. The current
sequestration process is carried out by forests. Great, huh? Grow more forests, problem solved, right? Except we are cutting forests down
like there's no tomorrow - and if that continues we might likely end
up with a planet too hot for human habitation.
What people really need to do is try to understand the scope of the
problem - and the cure - or at least a way to deal with it.
Understanding the concept of net zero would be a damn fine start.
-a-a net zero
-a-a a target of completely negating the amount of greenhouse
-a-a gases produced by human activity, to be achieved by reducing
-a-a emissions and implementing methods of absorbing carbon dioxide
-a-a from the atmosphere.
We are working on the first part but, thanks to the liberal party, we
fell down on the second part. Net zero is nothing more than a balance. Remove (read:sequstration) as much CO2 from the atmosphere to balance
that which you put in. It's what happened in nature before we humans
became technically aware. It's what we need to do now in order to
continue our civilisation. The carbon trading scheme put in place by
labor was the start - put a price on carbon - because there will be a
cost for the removal of the excess from the atmosphere. For that
matter, net zero isn't concerned with our past excesses, it's all
about keeping the CO2 level where it is at now - maintaining the
*current balance*, fraught though that may be.
alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 2:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII,
Korea or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep
getting involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
**And yet, that is absolutely factual. Our efforts in those wars
amounted to almost bugger-all.
Not at all, and you clearly are talking about things you know nothing
about.
Fraudster just loves telling people that. It's another insecurity flag.
whether that's true or not, in this case he's correct
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts, but
unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we made were
tangible.
**Bullshit. They were insignificant, but we did it anyway.
You are apparently blissfully unaware that Australian forces were the
first to stop the Germans and the Japanese in World War 2 :)
And speaking of irony... Here's an ironic Fun Fact!
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This represented
1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
that's meaningless. you have to look at what they did, when and how
On 1/03/2026 8:08 am, Brucie wrote:
Daryl wrote:
On 28/2/2026 8:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 28/02/2026 10:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation
just so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to be
Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary
requirement in almost all cases.
Feel free to cite some supporting evidence....
It may be true that Govt cleaners need to be citizens in 2026 but the
question is how he "knows" that most cleaners aren't citizens?
See, there's the problem with; a) selective snipping, b) being semi-
literate, and c) being thick.
In the above post, *nowhere* did Clock say that he "knows", *and* your
sentence is completely unrelated to his sentence.
Still waiting for your retraction/admission that your 40% popn
increase was wildly wrong Deryl.
Score
Arrogance - 10/10
jonz wrote:
On 01-Mar-26 1:22 PM, Axel wrote:
alvey wrote:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 2:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI,
WWII, Korea or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we >>>>>>>> keep getting involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
**And yet, that is absolutely factual. Our efforts in those wars
amounted to almost bugger-all.
Not at all, and you clearly are talking about things you know
nothing about.
Fraudster just loves telling people that. It's another insecurity
flag.
whether that's true or not, in this case he's correct
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts,
but unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we
made were tangible.
**Bullshit. They were insignificant, but we did it anyway.
You are apparently blissfully unaware that Australian forces were
the first to stop the Germans and the Japanese in World War 2 :)
And speaking of irony... Here's an ironic Fun Fact!
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This
represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
that's meaningless. you have to look at what they did, when and how
Yes, and including New Zealanders, a grouping collectively known as
the ANZACS!. First and second world war. Plus many other stoushes..
Yes indeed. NZ pilots even flew in the Battle of Britain, flying
Hurricanes and Spitfires
On 1/03/2026 10:12 am, Clocky wrote:
On 28/02/2026 4:05 pm, keithr0 wrote:Alvo does not and never has had a point, he is completely pointless.
On 28/02/2026 1:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 1:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 9:07 am, Xeno wrote:
On 26/2/2026 10:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:It is truly sad how you judge people by the cars they drive
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
-aFrom the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story >>>>>>> about repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short >>>>>>> order :)
Darren. That's a sure sign of immaturity.
Well it does work for you -
Car: Poverty pack Corolla.
Character: Boring.
Says he who drives a fucking whitegood himself...
It's blue actually.
Thanks for proving Alvey's point.
Xeno wrote:
On 1/3/2026 12:53 pm, Axel wrote:
Xeno wrote:Your mind is on the wrong kind of *pollution*. You're thinking of the
On 15/2/2026 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 9:06 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:Try again;
On 14/02/2026 12:18 am, Noddy wrote:
On 13/02/2026 9:29 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will make >>>>>>>>> a difference to the planet.
That's the usual excuse, but can you expect others to do what >>>>>>>> you aren't willing to do yourself?
It's not an excuse. It's the reality. We, as a country,
contribute just over 1% to the world's total emissions output. We >>>>>>> are an insignificant player, and other countries take absolutely >>>>>>> no notice of anything we do.
**Utter bullshit.
* Our PBS system is admired and duplicated by other nations.
* Our world first 'carbon tax' was lauded and duplicated by other >>>>>> nations.
Oh, great. Fantastic. So tell me exactly. How has the environmental >>>>> crisis been remedied by either of those?
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII,
Korea or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep
getting involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts, but
unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we made were
tangible.
We have no influential power in this game whatsoever,
**Incorrect. We emit more CO2 than more than half the nations on
this planet.
Which is completely irrelevant. Our total output is just over 1%.
AI Overview
Australia's total CO2 output, including embedded emissions from
fossil fuel exports, reached approximately 1.2 billion tonnes in
2023. When accounting for extraction, transport, and combustion of
exported coal and gas, Australia's global carbon footprint is
roughly three to four times higher than its domestic emissions. This
makes Australia a major contributor to global emissions.
Key Data on Australia's Total Emissions Footprint:
Total CO2 (Domestic + Exported): In 2023, Australia's fossil fuel
exports (coal and gas) generated around 1.15 billion tonnes of EYE|EYae2, >>>> with an additional 46 million tonnes emitted domestically during
extraction and processing.
Total Greenhouse Gases (GHG): When including all greenhouse gases
(not just CEYae2), the total footprint rises to about 1.7 billion
tonnes of EYE|EYae2
-equivalent in 2023.
Global Impact: Australia's exported emissions represent roughly 3.6%
to 4.5% of global fossil CO2 emissions.
Comparison: Exported emissions are roughly three times larger than
AustraliarCOs own domestic emissions.
Projection: The total accumulated EYE|EYae2 emissions from Australian >>>> exports from 1961 to 2023 is 30 billion tonnes, with projections to
reach 45 billion tonnes by 2035.
Context on Fossil Fuel Exports:
Coal: Australia is a leading global exporter of coal, with exports
expected to remain high through 2035.
LNG: Australia is one of the world's top three exporters of
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
Emission Source: Around 80% of the damage from Australia's fossil
fuel industry is done overseas through the burning of exported fuel.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a --------------------
so we should cease coal and gas exports because other countries use
it to pollute the planet? I think not. coal and gas can be burnt with
next to no emissions in modern plants, which is what we should be
doing here, I would suggest
usual toxic emissions, the ones that make the black smoke or are in
some way highly toxic. They are not the ones net zero is all about.
A bit of AI for you;
Perfect combustion, often referred to as stoichiometric combustion, is
the theoretical ideal chemical process where a fuel is burned with the
exact, precise amount of oxygen needed to oxidize all carbon and
hydrogen atoms. When this occurs, all fuel is consumed, and the only,
or nearly only, products are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor
(H2O), resulting in maximum heat energy release.
Therein lies the problem. The more perfect you get your combustion,
the more CO2 you get. And it is CO2 that is the greenhouse gas of
concern.
Take the car as the perfect example of emission control. You end up
with a car that aims for perfect combustion in the combustion chamber,
and for that you get more power for every litre of fuel. But, because
we can't control *all* factors of combustion, we leave it up to the
catalytic converter to *convert* those remaining toxic emissions. What
do they convert them to you might ask? The catalytic converter
converts them to CO2 and Water. End result, you get rid of the toxic
pollutants by substitution but you end up with more CO2 and that other
byproduct, water (H2O).
The problem, it's the CO2 that is the current harbinger of doom re
climate change. We need to look a sequestration. The current
sequestration process is carried out by forests. Great, huh? Grow more
forests, problem solved, right? Except we are cutting forests down
like there's no tomorrow - and if that continues we might likely end
up with a planet too hot for human habitation.
What people really need to do is try to understand the scope of the
problem - and the cure - or at least a way to deal with it.
Understanding the concept of net zero would be a damn fine start.
-a-a net zero
-a-a a target of completely negating the amount of greenhouse
-a-a gases produced by human activity, to be achieved by reducing
-a-a emissions and implementing methods of absorbing carbon dioxide
-a-a from the atmosphere.
We are working on the first part but, thanks to the liberal party, we
fell down on the second part. Net zero is nothing more than a balance.
Remove (read:sequstration) as much CO2 from the atmosphere to balance
that which you put in. It's what happened in nature before we humans
became technically aware. It's what we need to do now in order to
continue our civilisation. The carbon trading scheme put in place by
labor was the start - put a price on carbon - because there will be a
cost for the removal of the excess from the atmosphere. For that
matter, net zero isn't concerned with our past excesses, it's all
about keeping the CO2 level where it is at now - maintaining the
*current balance*, fraught though that may be.
deforestation has been happening for decades despite warnings against
it. the problem is countries only think of short term gain, and ignore
the long term consequences- if we clear this land we can plant crops,
and sell the timber
Axel wrote:
alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 2:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII, >>>>>>> Korea or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep
getting involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
**And yet, that is absolutely factual. Our efforts in those wars
amounted to almost bugger-all.
Not at all, and you clearly are talking about things you know
nothing about.
Fraudster just loves telling people that. It's another insecurity flag.
whether that's true or not, in this case he's correct
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts,
but unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we made >>>>>> were tangible.
**Bullshit. They were insignificant, but we did it anyway.
You are apparently blissfully unaware that Australian forces were
the first to stop the Germans and the Japanese in World War 2 :)
And speaking of irony... Here's an ironic Fun Fact!
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This
represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
that's meaningless. you have to look at what they did, when and how
Your pov suggests to me that you haven't.
For starters, could you expand on how the Diggers "punched above their weight" at Gallipoli?
On 1/03/2026 12:12 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 10:12 am, Clocky wrote:
On 28/02/2026 4:05 pm, keithr0 wrote:Alvo does not and never has had a point, he is completely pointless.
On 28/02/2026 1:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 1:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 9:07 am, Xeno wrote:
On 26/2/2026 10:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:It is truly sad how you judge people by the cars they drive
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
-aFrom the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story >>>>>>>> about repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in
short order :)
Darren. That's a sure sign of immaturity.
Well it does work for you -
Car: Poverty pack Corolla.
Character: Boring.
Says he who drives a fucking whitegood himself...
It's blue actually.
Thanks for proving Alvey's point.
He smokes you every single time
On 1/03/2026 11:30 am, Clocky wrote:
On 28/02/2026 5:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
It isYou drive a Commodore and a fucking rooted old Hilux. The irony here
is staggering :)
What I drive is not relevant to the discussion,
On 1/3/2026 5:33 pm, Axel wrote:
Xeno wrote:Bottom line, all action *against* net zero goal is because of greed in
On 1/3/2026 12:53 pm, Axel wrote:
Xeno wrote:Your mind is on the wrong kind of *pollution*. You're thinking of
On 15/2/2026 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:
On 15/02/2026 9:06 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:Try again;
On 14/02/2026 12:18 am, Noddy wrote:
On 13/02/2026 9:29 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 13/02/2026 7:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
There is nothing we can ever do in this country that will >>>>>>>>>> make a difference to the planet.
That's the usual excuse, but can you expect others to do what >>>>>>>>> you aren't willing to do yourself?
It's not an excuse. It's the reality. We, as a country,
contribute just over 1% to the world's total emissions output. >>>>>>>> We are an insignificant player, and other countries take
absolutely no notice of anything we do.
**Utter bullshit.
* Our PBS system is admired and duplicated by other nations.
* Our world first 'carbon tax' was lauded and duplicated by
other nations.
Oh, great. Fantastic. So tell me exactly. How has the
environmental crisis been remedied by either of those?
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII, >>>>>>> Korea or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep
getting involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts,
but unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we made >>>>>> were tangible.
We have no influential power in this game whatsoever,
**Incorrect. We emit more CO2 than more than half the nations on >>>>>>> this planet.
Which is completely irrelevant. Our total output is just over 1%.
AI Overview
Australia's total CO2 output, including embedded emissions from
fossil fuel exports, reached approximately 1.2 billion tonnes in
2023. When accounting for extraction, transport, and combustion of
exported coal and gas, Australia's global carbon footprint is
roughly three to four times higher than its domestic emissions.
This makes Australia a major contributor to global emissions.
Key Data on Australia's Total Emissions Footprint:
Total CO2 (Domestic + Exported): In 2023, Australia's fossil fuel
exports (coal and gas) generated around 1.15 billion tonnes of
EYE|EYae2, with an additional 46 million tonnes emitted domestically >>>>> during extraction and processing.
Total Greenhouse Gases (GHG): When including all greenhouse gases
(not just CEYae2), the total footprint rises to about 1.7 billion
tonnes of EYE|EYae2
-equivalent in 2023.
Global Impact: Australia's exported emissions represent roughly
3.6% to 4.5% of global fossil CO2 emissions.
Comparison: Exported emissions are roughly three times larger than
AustraliarCOs own domestic emissions.
Projection: The total accumulated EYE|EYae2 emissions from Australian >>>>> exports from 1961 to 2023 is 30 billion tonnes, with projections
to reach 45 billion tonnes by 2035.
Context on Fossil Fuel Exports:
Coal: Australia is a leading global exporter of coal, with exports
expected to remain high through 2035.
LNG: Australia is one of the world's top three exporters of
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
Emission Source: Around 80% of the damage from Australia's fossil
fuel industry is done overseas through the burning of exported fuel. >>>>>
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a --------------------
so we should cease coal and gas exports because other countries use
it to pollute the planet? I think not. coal and gas can be burnt
with next to no emissions in modern plants, which is what we should
be doing here, I would suggest
the usual toxic emissions, the ones that make the black smoke or are
in some way highly toxic. They are not the ones net zero is all about.
A bit of AI for you;
Perfect combustion, often referred to as stoichiometric combustion,
is the theoretical ideal chemical process where a fuel is burned
with the exact, precise amount of oxygen needed to oxidize all
carbon and hydrogen atoms. When this occurs, all fuel is consumed,
and the only, or nearly only, products are carbon dioxide (CO2) and
water vapor (H2O), resulting in maximum heat energy release.
Therein lies the problem. The more perfect you get your combustion,
the more CO2 you get. And it is CO2 that is the greenhouse gas of
concern.
Take the car as the perfect example of emission control. You end up
with a car that aims for perfect combustion in the combustion
chamber, and for that you get more power for every litre of fuel.
But, because we can't control *all* factors of combustion, we leave
it up to the catalytic converter to *convert* those remaining toxic
emissions. What do they convert them to you might ask? The catalytic
converter converts them to CO2 and Water. End result, you get rid of
the toxic pollutants by substitution but you end up with more CO2
and that other byproduct, water (H2O).
The problem, it's the CO2 that is the current harbinger of doom re
climate change. We need to look a sequestration. The current
sequestration process is carried out by forests. Great, huh? Grow
more forests, problem solved, right? Except we are cutting forests
down like there's no tomorrow - and if that continues we might
likely end up with a planet too hot for human habitation.
What people really need to do is try to understand the scope of the
problem - and the cure - or at least a way to deal with it.
Understanding the concept of net zero would be a damn fine start.
-a-a net zero
-a-a a target of completely negating the amount of greenhouse
-a-a gases produced by human activity, to be achieved by reducing
-a-a emissions and implementing methods of absorbing carbon dioxide
-a-a from the atmosphere.
We are working on the first part but, thanks to the liberal party,
we fell down on the second part. Net zero is nothing more than a
balance. Remove (read:sequstration) as much CO2 from the atmosphere
to balance that which you put in. It's what happened in nature
before we humans became technically aware. It's what we need to do
now in order to continue our civilisation. The carbon trading scheme
put in place by labor was the start - put a price on carbon -
because there will be a cost for the removal of the excess from the
atmosphere. For that matter, net zero isn't concerned with our past
excesses, it's all about keeping the CO2 level where it is at now -
maintaining the *current balance*, fraught though that may be.
deforestation has been happening for decades despite warnings against
it. the problem is countries only think of short term gain, and
ignore the long term consequences- if we clear this land we can plant
crops, and sell the timber
some form or other. Everyone anti net zero always reverts to that
familiar old saw, the $cost. What they don't seem to get, apart from
basic understanding of science, is that the cost of not achieving net
zero will be much much greater in both dollar terms and lives lost.
Had the world acted when the alarm was first *seriously* raised back
in 1983, the cost of achieving net zero would be miniscule to what it
will cost now. Every delay raises the cost.
On 1/03/2026 8:18 am, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 9:24 am, Clocky wrote:
Anyway, it's pretty obvious you're at the very minimum an
embellisher if not an outright bullshit artist, but much like that
dumb fuck you enable.
If it's that obvious, then you must have some proof, either show it
or STFU.
Unfortunately Richo this little pond was long ago poisoned by a
certain dickhead whose total failure to prove a single one of his Big
Claims has made the traditional 'prove or retract' newsgroup demand
obsolete.
So, in social conversation, you demand proof of anything anybody says?
Your social circle must have contracted like a black hole over the years.
On 1/03/2026 10:12 am, Clocky wrote:
On 28/02/2026 4:05 pm, keithr0 wrote:Alvo does not and never has had a point, he is completely pointless.
On 28/02/2026 1:53 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 1:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 9:07 am, Xeno wrote:
On 26/2/2026 10:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:59 pm, Clocky wrote:It is truly sad how you judge people by the cars they drive
Quite the paradox, the narcissist who is a total failure.
-aFrom the Commodore driving loser who had to invent some story >>>>>>> about repairing so many ECU's that he paid off his house in short >>>>>>> order :)
Darren. That's a sure sign of immaturity.
Well it does work for you -
Car: Poverty pack Corolla.
Character: Boring.
Says he who drives a fucking whitegood himself...
It's blue actually.
Thanks for proving Alvey's point.
keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 9:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:You do realise, of course that there are different requirements for
On 27/02/2026 6:12 pm, Daryl wrote:, that cleaners would come in contct with classified material.
On 27/2/2026 5:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up?
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which >>>>>>>>> is a requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever
do is back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that
permits you to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well just >>>>>> come out and said you were talking shit. That would at least
invite a modicum of respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in
conversation....
Nothing out of the ordinary.
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he has no >>>>> idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people we employed >>>>> over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least 70%
of our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
Or maybe your reality is getting in the way of his bullshit.
In very recent years we have had a lot of migrants from India and
of course they look for work and often low paid jobs such as
cleaning is all they can get but that wouldn't have been the case
in the Canberra example that Keith mentioned which is what we were
discussing.
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation
just so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to be
Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary
requirement in almost all cases.
The only "bullshit" is from you three dumb fucks too ignorant to know
and too stupid to look it up for yourself.
different levels of clearance. If you are working on classified
material, you are required to lock it away when you are not using it,
so it is quite unlikely, unless somebody fucks up. You've obviously
never been in that environment.
Google AI says..
Whether cleaners in Australian government offices are required to be citizens depends on whether they are employed directly by the public
service or via a private contractor, and the security level of the
building.
Key Requirements:
Australian Public Service (APS) Employees: Generally, you must be an Australian citizen to work for the Commonwealth of Australia public
service. While agency heads may waive this requirement in exceptional circumstances to employ non-citizens with appropriate work entitlements,
it is not common for cleaning roles.
Contractors: Many government departments use private cleaning
contractors. These staff may not need to be citizens, but they must have valid work rights (visa) and usually must pass security checks (e.g., National Police Check).
Security Clearances: If the office is high-security (requiring a
security clearance), the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency (AGSVA) generally requires individuals to be Australian citizens.
State/Territory Roles: In some state government sectors (like WA),
positions may be open to permanent residents or those with a valid visa
to live and work, not exclusively citizens.
In summary, for federal (Commonwealth) government offices, citizenship
is typically required for direct employees and strongly preferred/
required for secure areas. Private contractors may hire non-citizens
with valid working visas, subject to security checks.
keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 8:08 am, Brucie wrote:
Daryl wrote:
On 28/2/2026 8:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 28/02/2026 10:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation >>>>>>> just so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to be >>>>>> Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary
requirement in almost all cases.
Feel free to cite some supporting evidence....
It may be true that Govt cleaners need to be citizens in 2026 but
the question is how he "knows" that most cleaners aren't citizens?
See, there's the problem with; a) selective snipping, b) being semi-
literate, and c) being thick.
In the above post, *nowhere* did Clock say that he "knows", *and*
your sentence is completely unrelated to his sentence.
Still waiting for your retraction/admission that your 40% popn
increase was wildly wrong Deryl.
Score
Arrogance - 10/10
You're mistaking accuracy for "arrogance". Or are you saying that my observations are inaccurate?
On 1/3/2026 3:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 6:48 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 28/2/2026 6:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:I "Claimed"? Sneering again, that seems to be your MO. You CLAIM to be a
Maybe things have changed since, but I was working on a secureYou (claimed) you were working on a Anglo/Australian project where
government site on a classified government project 3 years before I
became-a citizen.
British citizenship would be seen as equivalently favourable as
Australian. A lot of things didn't change until circa 1970 when the
UK went into the EU or, as it was known then, the Common Market. That
changed a lot of things here in Australia. But your initial sojourn
predated all that!
You claimed, you haven't yet proven.
licenced mechanic, you CLAIM to have worked in a tin mine, you CLAIM
to have maintained heavy earth-moving equipment, you CLAIM to have a
degree, none of this is substantiated but you expect it to be accepted.
Yes, My trade registration number is 15239/68/4679C. I have references
for those mining roles, I have numbers for those degrees as well. Even
gave consent to sprintless to go look them up in the relevant academic records.
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS to be
able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not substantiated but
you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
Of course alvey doesn't claim anything since he is a keyboard warrior,
a spineless yellowbelly sniping from behind a wall of total anonymity.
He is also a hypocrite as well for calling other people cowards.
BTW, Ikara wasn't an Anglo-Australian project, it was totally
Australian, the British simply bought it along with the Kiwis,
Brazilians, Chileans etc.
Majority shareholdings were Aus and UK governments IIRC
Xeno wrote:
On 1/3/2026 3:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 6:48 pm, Xeno wrote:You claimed, you haven't yet proven.
On 28/2/2026 6:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:I "Claimed"? Sneering again, that seems to be your MO. You CLAIM to be a >>
Maybe things have changed since, but I was working on a secureYou (claimed) you were working on a Anglo/Australian project where
government site on a classified government project 3 years before I >>>>> became-a citizen.
British citizenship would be seen as equivalently favourable as
Australian. A lot of things didn't change until circa 1970 when the
UK went into the EU or, as it was known then, the Common Market.
That changed a lot of things here in Australia. But your initial
sojourn predated all that!
licenced mechanic, you CLAIM to have worked in a tin mine, you CLAIM
to have maintained heavy earth-moving equipment, you CLAIM to have a
degree, none of this is substantiated but you expect it to be accepted.
Yes, My trade registration number is 15239/68/4679C. I have references
for those mining roles, I have numbers for those degrees as well. Even
gave consent to sprintless to go look them up in the relevant academic
records.
some of us here have seen evidence and so can testify to the veracity of your claims
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS to
be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not substantiated
but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
Of course alvey doesn't claim anything since he is a keyboard
warrior, a spineless yellowbelly sniping from behind a wall of total
anonymity. He is also a hypocrite as well for calling other people
cowards.
BTW, Ikara wasn't an Anglo-Australian project, it was totally
Australian, the British simply bought it along with the Kiwis,
Brazilians, Chileans etc.
Majority shareholdings were Aus and UK governments IIRC
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 1/3/2026 3:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 6:48 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 28/2/2026 6:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:I "Claimed"? Sneering again, that seems to be your MO. You CLAIM to
Maybe things have changed since, but I was working on a secureYou (claimed) you were working on a Anglo/Australian project where
government site on a classified government project 3 years before
I became-a citizen.
British citizenship would be seen as equivalently favourable as
Australian. A lot of things didn't change until circa 1970 when the
UK went into the EU or, as it was known then, the Common Market.
That changed a lot of things here in Australia. But your initial
sojourn predated all that!
be a
You claimed, you haven't yet proven.
licenced mechanic, you CLAIM to have worked in a tin mine, you CLAIM
to have maintained heavy earth-moving equipment, you CLAIM to have a
degree, none of this is substantiated but you expect it to be accepted.
Yes, My trade registration number is 15239/68/4679C. I have
references for those mining roles, I have numbers for those degrees
as well. Even gave consent to sprintless to go look them up in the
relevant academic records.
That number could be anything, it proves nothing.
--Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS to
be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not substantiated
but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
What's the magic thing that gives him credibility over anybody else?
It can be shown that he posts lies.
Of course alvey doesn't claim anything since he is a keyboard
warrior, a spineless yellowbelly sniping from behind a wall of total
anonymity. He is also a hypocrite as well for calling other people
cowards.
BTW, Ikara wasn't an Anglo-Australian project, it was totally
Australian, the British simply bought it along with the Kiwis,
Brazilians, Chileans etc.
Majority shareholdings were Aus and UK governments IIRC
Proof?
keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 8:18 am, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 9:24 am, Clocky wrote:
Anyway, it's pretty obvious you're at the very minimum an
embellisher if not an outright bullshit artist, but much like that
dumb fuck you enable.
If it's that obvious, then you must have some proof, either show it
or STFU.
Unfortunately Richo this little pond was long ago poisoned by a
certain dickhead whose total failure to prove a single one of his Big
Claims has made the traditional 'prove or retract' newsgroup demand
obsolete.
So, in social conversation, you demand proof of anything anybody says?
Certainly not. I usually hire a team of PIs.
Your social circle must have contracted like a black hole over the years.
Your conclusion is based on a false premise.
Also, I've found that it's extremely rare for people to people to
bullshit to your face irl. In fact, there's only two that I can recall.
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 1/3/2026 3:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 6:48 pm, Xeno wrote:You claimed, you haven't yet proven.
On 28/2/2026 6:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:I "Claimed"? Sneering again, that seems to be your MO. You CLAIM to be a >>
Maybe things have changed since, but I was working on a secureYou (claimed) you were working on a Anglo/Australian project where
government site on a classified government project 3 years before I >>>>> became-a citizen.
British citizenship would be seen as equivalently favourable as
Australian. A lot of things didn't change until circa 1970 when the
UK went into the EU or, as it was known then, the Common Market.
That changed a lot of things here in Australia. But your initial
sojourn predated all that!
licenced mechanic, you CLAIM to have worked in a tin mine, you CLAIM
to have maintained heavy earth-moving equipment, you CLAIM to have a
degree, none of this is substantiated but you expect it to be accepted.
Yes, My trade registration number is 15239/68/4679C. I have references
for those mining roles, I have numbers for those degrees as well. Even
gave consent to sprintless to go look them up in the relevant academic
records.
That number could be anything, it proves nothing.
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS to
be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not substantiated
but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
What's the magic thing that gives him credibility over anybody else? It
can be shown that he posts lies.
Of course alvey doesn't claim anything since he is a keyboard
warrior, a spineless yellowbelly sniping from behind a wall of total
anonymity. He is also a hypocrite as well for calling other people
cowards.
BTW, Ikara wasn't an Anglo-Australian project, it was totally
Australian, the British simply bought it along with the Kiwis,
Brazilians, Chileans etc.
Majority shareholdings were Aus and UK governments IIRC
Proof?
keithr0 wrote:The number proves *everything*. Darren refuses to put up his claimed
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 1/3/2026 3:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 6:48 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 28/2/2026 6:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:I "Claimed"? Sneering again, that seems to be your MO. You CLAIM to
Maybe things have changed since, but I was working on a secureYou (claimed) you were working on a Anglo/Australian project where
government site on a classified government project 3 years before >>>>>> I became-a citizen.
British citizenship would be seen as equivalently favourable as
Australian. A lot of things didn't change until circa 1970 when the >>>>> UK went into the EU or, as it was known then, the Common Market.
That changed a lot of things here in Australia. But your initial
sojourn predated all that!
be a
You claimed, you haven't yet proven.
licenced mechanic, you CLAIM to have worked in a tin mine, you CLAIMYes, My trade registration number is 15239/68/4679C. I have
to have maintained heavy earth-moving equipment, you CLAIM to have a
degree, none of this is substantiated but you expect it to be accepted. >>>
references for those mining roles, I have numbers for those degrees
as well. Even gave consent to sprintless to go look them up in the
relevant academic records.
That number could be anything, it proves nothing.
it's unique and lookupable no doubt
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS to
be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not substantiated
but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
What's the magic thing that gives him credibility over anybody else?
It can be shown that he posts lies.
Of course alvey doesn't claim anything since he is a keyboard
warrior, a spineless yellowbelly sniping from behind a wall of total
anonymity. He is also a hypocrite as well for calling other people
cowards.
BTW, Ikara wasn't an Anglo-Australian project, it was totally
Australian, the British simply bought it along with the Kiwis,
Brazilians, Chileans etc.
Majority shareholdings were Aus and UK governments IIRC
Proof?
On 1/03/2026 9:19 am, Noddy wrote:
What I drive is not relevant to the discussion, I didn't post the below;
On 1/03/2026 12:35 pm, Axel wrote:
all nations and personnel who fought against the Axis powers were
fighting for freedom from world domination by them
The Boers, Germans, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis, and Afghans were to a threat to Australia, only the Japanese were. The guys fighting
in the Pacific in WWII were defending their country, all the rest were defending somewhere else.
On 1/03/2026 12:35 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:37 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 6:04 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 2:46 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This
represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed kiddie >>>>>>> pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to
WWII was insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the
same contribution to the planet's CO2 output.
You *had* no point Trev, as your analogy was completely wrong to
begin with.
**And yet, the percentage figures invite serious comparison.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed
conflict of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above their
weight in every theatre they were deployed to.
**Maybe. Maybe not. The Japanese were, initially, disregarded by
most military experts, right up until their own armed forces faced
them in combat. That includes Australia and the UK forces (in
Singapore), the US forces over much of the Pacific. Here's the thing:
Four of my uncles served in WWII. One was flown all over the
Pacific by the US (he was attached to the US military), because he
had a crucial job of decoding Japanese radio transmissions. Very
improtant job. Another was a lookout on some of the islands above
the top end. Another important job. I am under no illusion that
they were important to the war effort, but no more important than
many hundreds of thousands of others.
I hold the view, not popular among my ex-military friends,
with good reason (see below)
that the only ones that have fought for Australia were those who
fought in the Pacific in WWII. All the others were fighting for
somebody else.
all nations and personnel who fought against the Axis powers were
fighting for freedom from world domination by them
The Boers, Germans, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis, and
Afghans were to a threat to Australia, only the Japanese were. The
guys fighting in the Pacific in WWII were defending their country, all
the rest were defending somewhere else.
keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 1/3/2026 3:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 6:48 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 28/2/2026 6:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:I "Claimed"? Sneering again, that seems to be your MO. You CLAIM to
Maybe things have changed since, but I was working on a secureYou (claimed) you were working on a Anglo/Australian project where
government site on a classified government project 3 years before >>>>>> I became-a citizen.
British citizenship would be seen as equivalently favourable as
Australian. A lot of things didn't change until circa 1970 when the >>>>> UK went into the EU or, as it was known then, the Common Market.
That changed a lot of things here in Australia. But your initial
sojourn predated all that!
be a
You claimed, you haven't yet proven.
licenced mechanic, you CLAIM to have worked in a tin mine, you CLAIMYes, My trade registration number is 15239/68/4679C. I have
to have maintained heavy earth-moving equipment, you CLAIM to have a
degree, none of this is substantiated but you expect it to be accepted. >>>
references for those mining roles, I have numbers for those degrees
as well. Even gave consent to sprintless to go look them up in the
relevant academic records.
That number could be anything, it proves nothing.
it's unique and lookupable no doubt
On 1/03/2026 5:09 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:I'm saying that you're an arrogant arsehole
On 1/03/2026 8:08 am, Brucie wrote:
Daryl wrote:
On 28/2/2026 8:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 28/02/2026 10:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation >>>>>>>> just so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to >>>>>>> be Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary
requirement in almost all cases.
Feel free to cite some supporting evidence....
It may be true that Govt cleaners need to be citizens in 2026 but
the question is how he "knows" that most cleaners aren't citizens?
See, there's the problem with; a) selective snipping, b) being semi-
literate, and c) being thick.
In the above post, *nowhere* did Clock say that he "knows", *and*
your sentence is completely unrelated to his sentence.
Still waiting for your retraction/admission that your 40% popn
increase was wildly wrong Deryl.
Score
Arrogance - 10/10
You're mistaking accuracy for "arrogance". Or are you saying that my
observations are inaccurate?
Noddy wrote:
On 28/02/2026 2:49 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 2:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
What are you actually quoting there? Do you know? :)
Of course. Relevant to Victoria, so you should read it given your
apparent ignorance of the law.
Road Safety Road Rules 2017
Statutory rule in force
Statutory rule number 41/2017Version 020
State the actual rule you're referring to :)
Let me explain it to you in a dumbed down language that a mud flap
fitter would understand.
In Australia, seat belts were *not* compulsory in any vehicle build
before January 1st, 1969.
Irrelevant, you unqualified bracket welder.
It is *not* irrelevant at all, and in fact is part of the roadworthy
requirements for all vehicles.
Again, something you would know if you had any relevant experience.
Road Safety Road Rules 2017
Statutory rule in force
Statutory rule number 41/2017Version 020
The law clearly states that *any* seat belt, where fitted, must be
worn. Approved or not, whether the vehicle originally had them fitted
or not.
The rule does *not* say "approved or not", and you are deliberately
making a fraudulent claim in a piss poor attempt to try to mask the
fact that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
The *law* states that the fitting of seatbelts to a vehicle that never
had them originally is a modification that requires engineer approval,
and unapproved belt installations are an illegal modification on any
road going vehicle and must be removed or made compliant.
It's all here, if you'd care to take a look and educate yourself :)
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/
vehicles/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/files/VSB5_b.pdf
Legally fitted seat belts must be worn. *Illegally* fitted seat belts
must either be be removed or made compliant. It's that simple whether
you like it or not dickhead.
so you need to remove the seat belts in your truck or get them approved
keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 12:35 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:37 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 6:04 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 2:46 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This >>>>>>>>>> represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed kiddie >>>>>>>> pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to
WWII was insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the >>>>>>> same contribution to the planet's CO2 output.
You *had* no point Trev, as your analogy was completely wrong to
begin with.
**And yet, the percentage figures invite serious comparison.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed
conflict of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above their
weight in every theatre they were deployed to.
**Maybe. Maybe not. The Japanese were, initially, disregarded by
most military experts, right up until their own armed forces faced
them in combat. That includes Australia and the UK forces (in
Singapore), the US forces over much of the Pacific. Here's the thing: >>>>>
Four of my uncles served in WWII. One was flown all over the
Pacific by the US (he was attached to the US military), because he
had a crucial job of decoding Japanese radio transmissions. Very
improtant job. Another was a lookout on some of the islands above
the top end. Another important job. I am under no illusion that
they were important to the war effort, but no more important than
many hundreds of thousands of others.
I hold the view, not popular among my ex-military friends,
with good reason (see below)
that the only ones that have fought for Australia were those who
fought in the Pacific in WWII. All the others were fighting for
somebody else.
all nations and personnel who fought against the Axis powers were
fighting for freedom from world domination by them
The Boers, Germans, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis, and
Afghans were to a threat to Australia, only the Japanese were. The
guys fighting in the Pacific in WWII were defending their country, all
the rest were defending somewhere else.
if that were in English I might know what you said
alvey wrote:
Axel wrote:
alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:whether that's true or not, in this case he's correct
On 15/02/2026 2:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:31 am, Noddy wrote:
By your metric you could claim that nothing we did in WWI, WWII, >>>>>>>> Korea or Vietnam made any difference whatsoever. Yet, we keep >>>>>>>> getting involved in wars that we make no difference in.
You absolutely suck at analogies Trev :)
**And yet, that is absolutely factual. Our efforts in those wars
amounted to almost bugger-all.
Not at all, and you clearly are talking about things you know
nothing about.
Fraudster just loves telling people that. It's another insecurity flag. >>>
Figuratively we played a small role in all of those conflicts,
but unlike our role in the climate crisis the differences we made >>>>>>> were tangible.
**Bullshit. They were insignificant, but we did it anyway.
You are apparently blissfully unaware that Australian forces were
the first to stop the Germans and the Japanese in World War 2 :)
And speaking of irony... Here's an ironic Fun Fact!
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This
represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
that's meaningless. you have to look at what they did, when and how
Your pov suggests to me that you haven't.
For starters, could you expand on how the Diggers "punched above their
weight" at Gallipoli?
if you want information about Australia's participation in the World's
major conflicts, there's plenty available on the net
On 1/3/2026 7:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 5:09 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:I'm saying that you're an arrogant arsehole
On 1/03/2026 8:08 am, Brucie wrote:
Daryl wrote:
On 28/2/2026 8:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 28/02/2026 10:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these >>>>>>>>> dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack anyI can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to >>>>>>>> be Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary >>>>>>>> requirement in almost all cases.
conversation just so they can insert their own unique bullshit >>>>>>>>
Feel free to cite some supporting evidence....
It may be true that Govt cleaners need to be citizens in 2026 but >>>>>> the question is how he "knows" that most cleaners aren't citizens?
See, there's the problem with; a) selective snipping, b) being
semi- literate, and c) being thick.
In the above post, *nowhere* did Clock say that he "knows", *and*
your sentence is completely unrelated to his sentence.
Still waiting for your retraction/admission that your 40% popn
increase was wildly wrong Deryl.
Score
Arrogance - 10/10
You're mistaking accuracy for "arrogance". Or are you saying that my
observations are inaccurate?
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-clock-pyramid
He also failed at maths, in 2020 Australia's population was 19,136,268,
in 2026 its 28,086,207 which is an increase of approx 8.95 million which
is a 46.6% increase in 26 yrs which is pretty close the 47% I originally said.
Daryl wrote:
On 1/3/2026 7:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 5:09 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:I'm saying that you're an arrogant arsehole
On 1/03/2026 8:08 am, Brucie wrote:
Daryl wrote:
On 28/2/2026 8:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 28/02/2026 10:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these >>>>>>>>>> dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack anyI can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing >>>>>>>>> to be Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a
conversation just so they can insert their own unique bullshit >>>>>>>>>
primary requirement in almost all cases.
Feel free to cite some supporting evidence....
It may be true that Govt cleaners need to be citizens in 2026
but the question is how he "knows" that most cleaners aren't
citizens?
See, there's the problem with; a) selective snipping, b) being
semi- literate, and c) being thick.
In the above post, *nowhere* did Clock say that he "knows", *and* >>>>>> your sentence is completely unrelated to his sentence.
Still waiting for your retraction/admission that your 40% popn
increase was wildly wrong Deryl.
Score
Arrogance - 10/10
You're mistaking accuracy for "arrogance". Or are you saying that
my observations are inaccurate?
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-clock-pyramid
He also failed at maths, in 2020 Australia's population was
19,136,268, in 2026 its 28,086,207 which is an increase of approx
8.95 million which is a 46.6% increase in 26 yrs which is pretty
close the 47% I originally said.
That's odd. The link you provided above has the 2020 popn as 25.6m not
the 19.1m you say. Care to explain?
On 1/03/2026 2:33 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:Other than in high security situations such as ASIO and similar organisations virtually all cleaning services that I came across while working in Canberra for 16 years were provided by contractors. They
On 28/02/2026 9:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:You do realise, of course that there are different requirements for
On 27/02/2026 6:12 pm, Daryl wrote:, that cleaners would come in contct with classified material.
On 27/2/2026 5:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up?
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which >>>>>>>>>> is a requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever >>>>>>> do is back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that >>>>>>> permits you to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well just >>>>>>> come out and said you were talking shit. That would at least
invite a modicum of respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in
conversation....
Nothing out of the ordinary.
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he has
no idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people we
employed over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least 70% >>>>>> of our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
Or maybe your reality is getting in the way of his bullshit.
In very recent years we have had a lot of migrants from India and >>>>>> of course they look for work and often low paid jobs such as
cleaning is all they can get but that wouldn't have been the case >>>>>> in the Canberra example that Keith mentioned which is what we were >>>>>> discussing.
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation
just so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to be
Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary
requirement in almost all cases.
The only "bullshit" is from you three dumb fucks too ignorant to
know and too stupid to look it up for yourself.
different levels of clearance. If you are working on classified
material, you are required to lock it away when you are not using it,
so it is quite unlikely, unless somebody fucks up. You've obviously
never been in that environment.
Google AI says..
Whether cleaners in Australian government offices are required to be
citizens depends on whether they are employed directly by the public
service or via a private contractor, and the security level of the
building.
Key Requirements:
Australian Public Service (APS) Employees: Generally, you must be an
Australian citizen to work for the Commonwealth of Australia public
service. While agency heads may waive this requirement in exceptional
circumstances to employ non-citizens with appropriate work
entitlements, it is not common for cleaning roles.
Contractors: Many government departments use private cleaning
contractors. These staff may not need to be citizens, but they must
have valid work rights (visa) and usually must pass security checks
(e.g., National Police Check).
Security Clearances: If the office is high-security (requiring a
security clearance), the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency
(AGSVA) generally requires individuals to be Australian citizens.
State/Territory Roles: In some state government sectors (like WA),
positions may be open to permanent residents or those with a valid
visa to live and work, not exclusively citizens.
In summary, for federal (Commonwealth) government offices, citizenship
is typically required for direct employees and strongly preferred/
required for secure areas. Private contractors may hire non-citizens
with valid working visas, subject to security checks.
varied from one man setups to large companies. The highest security
place that I worked in was cleaned by a public servant making some extra cash in his spare time.
On 28/02/2026 10:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation just
so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to be
Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary
requirement in almost all cases.
Feel free to cite some supporting evidence....
The only "bullshit" is from you three dumb fucks too ignorant to know
and too stupid to look it up for yourself.
It's quite remarkable
On 1/03/2026 4:31 pm, Axel wrote:
Xeno wrote:
On 1/3/2026 3:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 6:48 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 28/2/2026 6:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:I "Claimed"? Sneering again, that seems to be your MO. You CLAIM to
Maybe things have changed since, but I was working on a secureYou (claimed) you were working on a Anglo/Australian project where
government site on a classified government project 3 years before >>>>>> I became-a citizen.
British citizenship would be seen as equivalently favourable as
Australian. A lot of things didn't change until circa 1970 when the >>>>> UK went into the EU or, as it was known then, the Common Market.
That changed a lot of things here in Australia. But your initial
sojourn predated all that!
be a
You claimed, you haven't yet proven.
licenced mechanic, you CLAIM to have worked in a tin mine, you CLAIMYes, My trade registration number is 15239/68/4679C. I have
to have maintained heavy earth-moving equipment, you CLAIM to have a
degree, none of this is substantiated but you expect it to be accepted. >>>
references for those mining roles, I have numbers for those degrees
as well. Even gave consent to sprintless to go look them up in the
relevant academic records.
some of us here have seen evidence and so can testify to the veracity
of your claims
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS to
be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not substantiated
but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
Of course alvey doesn't claim anything since he is a keyboard
warrior, a spineless yellowbelly sniping from behind a wall of total
anonymity. He is also a hypocrite as well for calling other people
cowards.
BTW, Ikara wasn't an Anglo-Australian project, it was totally
Australian, the British simply bought it along with the Kiwis,
Brazilians, Chileans etc.
Majority shareholdings were Aus and UK governments IIRC
Only the chosen few, who wouldn't question them anyway.
On 28/02/2026 2:49 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 2:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
What are you actually quoting there? Do you know? :)
Of course. Relevant to Victoria, so you should read it given your
apparent ignorance of the law.
Road Safety Road Rules 2017
Statutory rule in force
Statutory rule number 41/2017Version 020
State the actual rule you're referring to :)
Let me explain it to you in a dumbed down language that a mud flap
fitter would understand.
In Australia, seat belts were *not* compulsory in any vehicle build
before January 1st, 1969.
Irrelevant, you unqualified bracket welder.
It is *not* irrelevant at all, and in fact is part of the roadworthy requirements for all vehicles.
Again, something you would know if you had any relevant experience.
Road Safety Road Rules 2017
Statutory rule in force
Statutory rule number 41/2017Version 020
The law clearly states that *any* seat belt, where fitted, must be
worn. Approved or not, whether the vehicle originally had them fitted
or not.
The rule does *not* say "approved or not", and you are deliberately
making a fraudulent claim in a piss poor attempt to try to mask the fact that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
The *law* states that the fitting of seatbelts to a vehicle that never
had them originally is a modification that requires engineer approval,
and unapproved belt installations are an illegal modification on any
road going vehicle and must be removed or made compliant.
It's all here, if you'd care to take a look and educate yourself :)
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/vehicles/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/files/VSB5_b.pdf
Legally fitted seat belts must be worn. *Illegally* fitted seat belts
must either be be removed or made compliant.
On 28/2/2026 8:51 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 28/02/2026 2:49 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 2:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
What are you actually quoting there? Do you know? :)
Of course. Relevant to Victoria, so you should read it given your
apparent ignorance of the law.
Road Safety Road Rules 2017
Statutory rule in force
Statutory rule number 41/2017Version 020
State the actual rule you're referring to :)
It matters not one whit what the actual law states Darren. If the
seatbelt fitment wasn't legal, you make it legal and get it engineered *before* you ever let any of your family in it on the road. Ever seen
what happens when someone goes through a windscreen Darren? It ain't
pretty. Worse, have you seen what happens if the vehicle is fitted with
a laminated screen and the person doesn't quite make it through the
screen. Decapitation Darren, decapitation. Stupidity leads to
decapitations and you'd be an expert on that.
On 28/02/2026 5:51 pm, Noddy wrote:
Legally fitted seat belts must be worn. *Illegally* fitted seat belts
must either be be removed or made compliant.
Correct.
And it's irrelevant anyway, the truck had seat belts and regardless of compliance or approval they have to be worn where fitted.
That's the law, plain and simple.
On 1/03/2026 4:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
Other than in high security situations such as ASIO and similar
organisations virtually all cleaning services that I came across while
working in Canberra for 16 years were provided by contractors. They
varied from one man setups to large companies. The highest security
place that I worked in was cleaned by a public servant making some
extra cash in his spare time.
What part of
"Australian Public Service (APS) Employees: Generally, you must be an Australian citizen to work for the Commonwealth of Australia public
service. While agency heads may waive this requirement in exceptional circumstances to employ non-citizens with appropriate work
entitlements, it is not common for cleaning roles."
are you having trouble with understanding?
On 28/02/2026 5:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
Feel free to cite some supporting evidence....
The only "bullshit" is from you three dumb fucks too ignorant to know
and too stupid to look it up for yourself.
It's quite remarkable
Oh shut up you dumb fuck.
2 seconds on Google proves I'm right and you three dropkicks have no
idea what you're talking about.
On 1/03/2026 4:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
Only the chosen few, who wouldn't question them anyway.
There was nothing left to question. Everything he provided was detailed
and verifiable - and unbeknownst to him I found a historic website by
which everything could be cross-referenced to.
Unlike that dumb fuck you enable who has never proved any of his claims
and you never question, Xeno has backed up his claims.
alvey wrote:
Daryl wrote:
On 1/3/2026 7:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 5:09 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:I'm saying that you're an arrogant arsehole
On 1/03/2026 8:08 am, Brucie wrote:
Daryl wrote:
On 28/2/2026 8:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 28/02/2026 10:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these >>>>>>>>>>> dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack anyI can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing >>>>>>>>>> to be Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a >>>>>>>>>> primary requirement in almost all cases.
conversation just so they can insert their own unique bullshit >>>>>>>>>>
Feel free to cite some supporting evidence....
It may be true that Govt cleaners need to be citizens in 2026 >>>>>>>> but the question is how he "knows" that most cleaners aren't
citizens?
See, there's the problem with; a) selective snipping, b) being
semi- literate, and c) being thick.
In the above post, *nowhere* did Clock say that he "knows", *and* >>>>>>> your sentence is completely unrelated to his sentence.
Still waiting for your retraction/admission that your 40% popn
increase was wildly wrong Deryl.
Score
Arrogance - 10/10
You're mistaking accuracy for "arrogance". Or are you saying that
my observations are inaccurate?
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-clock-
pyramid
He also failed at maths, in 2020 Australia's population was
19,136,268, in 2026 its 28,086,207 which is an increase of approx
8.95 million which is a 46.6% increase in 26 yrs which is pretty
close the 47% I originally said.
That's odd. The link you provided above has the 2020 popn as 25.6m not
the 19.1m you say. Care to explain?
typo. 2020 should be 2000
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-clock- pyramid
He also failed at maths, in 2020 Australia's population was 19,136,268,
in 2026 its 28,086,207 which is an increase of approx 8.95 million which
is a 46.6% increase in 26 yrs which is pretty close the 47% I originally said.
On 1/3/2026 7:17 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 1/3/2026 3:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 6:48 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 28/2/2026 6:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:I "Claimed"? Sneering again, that seems to be your MO. You CLAIM to >>>>> be a
Maybe things have changed since, but I was working on a secureYou (claimed) you were working on a Anglo/Australian project where >>>>>> British citizenship would be seen as equivalently favourable as
government site on a classified government project 3 years before >>>>>>> I became-a citizen.
Australian. A lot of things didn't change until circa 1970 when
the UK went into the EU or, as it was known then, the Common
Market. That changed a lot of things here in Australia. But your
initial sojourn predated all that!
You claimed, you haven't yet proven.
licenced mechanic, you CLAIM to have worked in a tin mine, you
CLAIM to have maintained heavy earth-moving equipment, you CLAIM to >>>>> have a degree, none of this is substantiated but you expect it to
be accepted.
Yes, My trade registration number is 15239/68/4679C. I have
references for those mining roles, I have numbers for those degrees
as well. Even gave consent to sprintless to go look them up in the
relevant academic records.
That number could be anything, it proves nothing.
it's unique and lookupable no doubt
Maybe, AFAIK its from Tasmania in the early 1970's which is pre computer
so not going to all that easy to find, my trade records from the same
era in Vic aren't available online.
On 1/3/2026 3:52 pm, Axel wrote:
Noddy wrote:Correct, 1950's Ford F trucks weren't fitted with seat belts at the
On 28/02/2026 2:49 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 2:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
What are you actually quoting there? Do you know? :)
Of course. Relevant to Victoria, so you should read it given your
apparent ignorance of the law.
Road Safety Road Rules 2017
Statutory rule in force
Statutory rule number 41/2017Version 020
State the actual rule you're referring to :)
Let me explain it to you in a dumbed down language that a mud flap
fitter would understand.
In Australia, seat belts were *not* compulsory in any vehicle build >>>>> before January 1st, 1969.
Irrelevant, you unqualified bracket welder.
It is *not* irrelevant at all, and in fact is part of the roadworthy
requirements for all vehicles.
Again, something you would know if you had any relevant experience.
Road Safety Road Rules 2017
Statutory rule in force
Statutory rule number 41/2017Version 020
The law clearly states that *any* seat belt, where fitted, must be
worn. Approved or not, whether the vehicle originally had them
fitted or not.
The rule does *not* say "approved or not", and you are deliberately
making a fraudulent claim in a piss poor attempt to try to mask the
fact that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
The *law* states that the fitting of seatbelts to a vehicle that
never had them originally is a modification that requires engineer
approval, and unapproved belt installations are an illegal
modification on any road going vehicle and must be removed or made
compliant.
It's all here, if you'd care to take a look and educate yourself :)
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/
vehicles/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/files/VSB5_b.pdf
Legally fitted seat belts must be worn. *Illegally* fitted seat belts
must either be be removed or made compliant. It's that simple whether
you like it or not dickhead.
so you need to remove the seat belts in your truck or get them approved
factory and also didn't have seat belt mounting points so aftermarket
seat belts that weren't engineer approved have to be removed for the
vehicle to be roadworthy.
Interesting that mid 1960's Austin 1800's had front seat belts from new, they also had rear seat belt anchor points but no seat belts were fitted.
On 2/03/2026 3:07 am, Clocky wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
Other than in high security situations such as ASIO and similar
organisations virtually all cleaning services that I came across
while working in Canberra for 16 years were provided by contractors.
They varied from one man setups to large companies. The highest
security place that I worked in was cleaned by a public servant
making some extra cash in his spare time.
What part of
"Australian Public Service (APS) Employees: Generally, you must be an
Australian citizen to work for the Commonwealth of Australia public
service. While agency heads may waive this requirement in exceptional
circumstances to employ non-citizens with appropriate work
entitlements, it is not common for cleaning roles."
are you having trouble with understanding?
The part where (a) it's relevant to contract cleaning, and (b) where you would have any fucking idea about what goes on in government offices.
What exactly is your experience in the matter?
On 2/03/2026 3:28 am, Clocky wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
Only the chosen few, who wouldn't question them anyway.
There was nothing left to question. Everything he provided was
detailed and verifiable - and unbeknownst to him I found a historic
website by which everything could be cross-referenced to.
Unlike that dumb fuck you enable who has never proved any of his
claims and you never question, Xeno has backed up his claims.
Has he? The guy that *you* chose to "investigate" has proven everything
he ever said to you to be true, including that he and Krypsys are two different people? The very reason why you went off on your investigative journey in the first place and a claim that he still insists is true to
this very day?
Man, I was completely wrong about you. I thought you were just a regular idiot. It turns out you are *so* remarkably fucking stupid that a whole
new category of dumb needs to be invented for you :)
On 1/03/2026 6:21 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 1/03/2026 9:19 am, Noddy wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~
What I drive is not relevant to the discussion, I didn't post the below;
What you drive is relevant to any comment you make about what anyone
*else* drives.
So what is it, gutless? A VE or VF?
On 2/3/2026 12:30 am, Axel wrote:
alvey wrote:Correct.
Daryl wrote:
On 1/3/2026 7:10 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 5:09 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:I'm saying that you're an arrogant arsehole
On 1/03/2026 8:08 am, Brucie wrote:
Daryl wrote:
On 28/2/2026 8:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 28/02/2026 10:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these >>>>>>>>>>>> dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack anyI can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing >>>>>>>>>>> to be Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a >>>>>>>>>>> primary requirement in almost all cases.
conversation just so they can insert their own unique bullshit >>>>>>>>>>>
Feel free to cite some supporting evidence....
It may be true that Govt cleaners need to be citizens in 2026 >>>>>>>>> but the question is how he "knows" that most cleaners aren't >>>>>>>>> citizens?
See, there's the problem with; a) selective snipping, b) being >>>>>>>> semi- literate, and c) being thick.
In the above post, *nowhere* did Clock say that he "knows",
*and* your sentence is completely unrelated to his sentence.
Still waiting for your retraction/admission that your 40% popn >>>>>>>> increase was wildly wrong Deryl.
Score
Arrogance - 10/10
You're mistaking accuracy for "arrogance". Or are you saying that >>>>>> my observations are inaccurate?
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-clock- pyramid
He also failed at maths, in 2020 Australia's population was
19,136,268, in 2026 its 28,086,207 which is an increase of approx
8.95 million which is a 46.6% increase in 26 yrs which is pretty
close the 47% I originally said.
That's odd. The link you provided above has the 2020 popn as 25.6m
not the 19.1m you say. Care to explain?
typo. 2020 should be 2000
keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 12:35 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:37 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 6:04 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 2:46 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This >>>>>>>>>> represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed kiddie >>>>>>>> pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to
WWII was insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the >>>>>>> same contribution to the planet's CO2 output.
You *had* no point Trev, as your analogy was completely wrong to
begin with.
**And yet, the percentage figures invite serious comparison.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed
conflict of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above their
weight in every theatre they were deployed to.
**Maybe. Maybe not. The Japanese were, initially, disregarded by
most military experts, right up until their own armed forces faced
them in combat. That includes Australia and the UK forces (in
Singapore), the US forces over much of the Pacific. Here's the thing: >>>>>
Four of my uncles served in WWII. One was flown all over the
Pacific by the US (he was attached to the US military), because he
had a crucial job of decoding Japanese radio transmissions. Very
improtant job. Another was a lookout on some of the islands above
the top end. Another important job. I am under no illusion that
they were important to the war effort, but no more important than
many hundreds of thousands of others.
I hold the view, not popular among my ex-military friends,
with good reason (see below)
that the only ones that have fought for Australia were those who
fought in the Pacific in WWII. All the others were fighting for
somebody else.
all nations and personnel who fought against the Axis powers were
fighting for freedom from world domination by them
The Boers, Germans, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis, and
Afghans were to a threat to Australia, only the Japanese were. The
guys fighting in the Pacific in WWII were defending their country, all
the rest were defending somewhere else.
if that were in English I might know what you said
On 1/03/2026 3:19 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 12:35 pm, Axel wrote:
all nations and personnel who fought against the Axis powers were
fighting for freedom from world domination by them
The Boers, Germans, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis, and
Afghans were to a threat to Australia, only the Japanese were. The
guys fighting in the Pacific in WWII were defending their country, all
the rest were defending somewhere else.
The Germans were certainly a threat. Not as pressing a threat to this country as the Japanese were, but a threat nonetheless.
On 1/03/2026 4:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:31 pm, Axel wrote:
Xeno wrote:
On 1/3/2026 3:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 6:48 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 28/2/2026 6:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:I "Claimed"? Sneering again, that seems to be your MO. You CLAIM to >>>>> be a
Maybe things have changed since, but I was working on a secureYou (claimed) you were working on a Anglo/Australian project where >>>>>> British citizenship would be seen as equivalently favourable as
government site on a classified government project 3 years before >>>>>>> I became-a citizen.
Australian. A lot of things didn't change until circa 1970 when
the UK went into the EU or, as it was known then, the Common
Market. That changed a lot of things here in Australia. But your
initial sojourn predated all that!
You claimed, you haven't yet proven.
licenced mechanic, you CLAIM to have worked in a tin mine, you
CLAIM to have maintained heavy earth-moving equipment, you CLAIM to >>>>> have a degree, none of this is substantiated but you expect it to
be accepted.
Yes, My trade registration number is 15239/68/4679C. I have
references for those mining roles, I have numbers for those degrees
as well. Even gave consent to sprintless to go look them up in the
relevant academic records.
some of us here have seen evidence and so can testify to the veracity
of your claims
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS to >>>>> be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not substantiated
but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
Of course alvey doesn't claim anything since he is a keyboard
warrior, a spineless yellowbelly sniping from behind a wall of
total anonymity. He is also a hypocrite as well for calling other
people cowards.
BTW, Ikara wasn't an Anglo-Australian project, it was totally
Australian, the British simply bought it along with the Kiwis,
Brazilians, Chileans etc.
Majority shareholdings were Aus and UK governments IIRC
Only the chosen few, who wouldn't question them anyway.
There was nothing left to question. Everything he provided was detailed
and verifiable - and unbeknownst to him I found a historic website by
which everything could be cross-referenced to.
Unlike that dumb fuck you enable who has never proved any of his claims
and you never question, Xeno has backed up his claims.
Not all to you, the dumb fuck et al obviously but that is because you
lot have already proven that you can't be trusted. Ever.
On 1/3/2026 7:14 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 1/3/2026 3:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 6:48 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 28/2/2026 6:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:I "Claimed"? Sneering again, that seems to be your MO. You CLAIM to
Maybe things have changed since, but I was working on a secureYou (claimed) you were working on a Anglo/Australian project where
government site on a classified government project 3 years before >>>>>> I became-a citizen.
British citizenship would be seen as equivalently favourable as
Australian. A lot of things didn't change until circa 1970 when the >>>>> UK went into the EU or, as it was known then, the Common Market.
That changed a lot of things here in Australia. But your initial
sojourn predated all that!
be a
You claimed, you haven't yet proven.
licenced mechanic, you CLAIM to have worked in a tin mine, you CLAIMYes, My trade registration number is 15239/68/4679C. I have
to have maintained heavy earth-moving equipment, you CLAIM to have a
degree, none of this is substantiated but you expect it to be accepted. >>>
references for those mining roles, I have numbers for those degrees
as well. Even gave consent to sprintless to go look them up in the
relevant academic records.
That number could be anything, it proves nothing.
But *you* can look up that number on the Tasmanian trade register. It is *my* unique number just as Clocky's was his unique number. IIRC, people here, including Sprintless, Darren and others, did look up his bona fides.
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS to
be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not substantiated
but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
What's the magic thing that gives him credibility over anybody else?
It can be shown that he posts lies.
Of course alvey doesn't claim anything since he is a keyboard
warrior, a spineless yellowbelly sniping from behind a wall of total
anonymity. He is also a hypocrite as well for calling other people
cowards.
BTW, Ikara wasn't an Anglo-Australian project, it was totally
Australian, the British simply bought it along with the Kiwis,
Brazilians, Chileans etc.
Majority shareholdings were Aus and UK governments IIRC
Proof?
Do a Google search.
On 1/03/2026 10:06 pm, Daryl wrote:
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-clock-
pyramid
He also failed at maths, in 2020 Australia's population was
19,136,268, in 2026 its 28,086,207 which is an increase of approx 8.95
million which is a 46.6% increase in 26 yrs which is pretty close the
47% I originally said.
Opps.. your looking at figures from *2000* , (19,136,268) as opposed to *2020* which was 25,620,615.
Still, 500,000 a year for the last 6 years without the police,
ambo's ,teachers, hospitals... LOL, it's a month wait to see my doctor. (Which is fine by me, everytime i see him i end up on more pills :-D )
On 1/03/2026 4:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 2:33 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:Other than in high security situations such as ASIO and similar
On 28/02/2026 9:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:You do realise, of course that there are different requirements for
On 27/02/2026 6:12 pm, Daryl wrote:, that cleaners would come in contct with classified material.
On 27/2/2026 5:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up?
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens >>>>>>>>>>> which is a requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you ever >>>>>>>> do is back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit that >>>>>>>> permits you to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as well
just come out and said you were talking shit. That would at
least invite a modicum of respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in
conversation....
Nothing out of the ordinary.
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he has >>>>>>> no idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people we
employed over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least
70% of our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
Or maybe your reality is getting in the way of his bullshit.
In very recent years we have had a lot of migrants from India and >>>>>>> of course they look for work and often low paid jobs such as
cleaning is all they can get but that wouldn't have been the case >>>>>>> in the Canberra example that Keith mentioned which is what we
were discussing.
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation
just so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to be
Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary
requirement in almost all cases.
The only "bullshit" is from you three dumb fucks too ignorant to
know and too stupid to look it up for yourself.
different levels of clearance. If you are working on classified
material, you are required to lock it away when you are not using
it, so it is quite unlikely, unless somebody fucks up. You've
obviously never been in that environment.
Google AI says..
Whether cleaners in Australian government offices are required to be
citizens depends on whether they are employed directly by the public
service or via a private contractor, and the security level of the
building.
Key Requirements:
Australian Public Service (APS) Employees: Generally, you must be an
Australian citizen to work for the Commonwealth of Australia public
service. While agency heads may waive this requirement in exceptional
circumstances to employ non-citizens with appropriate work
entitlements, it is not common for cleaning roles.
Contractors: Many government departments use private cleaning
contractors. These staff may not need to be citizens, but they must
have valid work rights (visa) and usually must pass security checks
(e.g., National Police Check).
Security Clearances: If the office is high-security (requiring a
security clearance), the Australian Government Security Vetting
Agency (AGSVA) generally requires individuals to be Australian citizens. >>>
State/Territory Roles: In some state government sectors (like WA),
positions may be open to permanent residents or those with a valid
visa to live and work, not exclusively citizens.
In summary, for federal (Commonwealth) government offices,
citizenship is typically required for direct employees and strongly
preferred/ required for secure areas. Private contractors may hire
non-citizens with valid working visas, subject to security checks.
organisations virtually all cleaning services that I came across while
working in Canberra for 16 years were provided by contractors. They
varied from one man setups to large companies. The highest security
place that I worked in was cleaned by a public servant making some
extra cash in his spare time.
What part of
"Australian Public Service (APS) Employees: Generally, you must be an Australian citizen to work for the Commonwealth of Australia public
service. While agency heads may waive this requirement in exceptional circumstances to employ non-citizens with appropriate work
entitlements, it is not common for cleaning roles."
are you having trouble with understanding?
What happened in your day is not relevant to today, nor do you even know
if the cleaners were Australian citizens in any event you fool.
On 1/03/2026 7:47 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:Since you aren't able to work it out for yourself, in the text "were
On 1/03/2026 12:35 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:37 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 6:04 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 2:46 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This >>>>>>>>>>> represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed
kiddie pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to >>>>>>>> WWII was insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the >>>>>>>> same contribution to the planet's CO2 output.
You *had* no point Trev, as your analogy was completely wrong to >>>>>>> begin with.
**And yet, the percentage figures invite serious comparison.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed
conflict of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above their >>>>>>> weight in every theatre they were deployed to.
**Maybe. Maybe not. The Japanese were, initially, disregarded by
most military experts, right up until their own armed forces
faced them in combat. That includes Australia and the UK forces
(in Singapore), the US forces over much of the Pacific. Here's
the thing:
Four of my uncles served in WWII. One was flown all over the
Pacific by the US (he was attached to the US military), because
he had a crucial job of decoding Japanese radio transmissions.
Very improtant job. Another was a lookout on some of the islands
above the top end. Another important job. I am under no illusion
that they were important to the war effort, but no more important >>>>>> than many hundreds of thousands of others.
I hold the view, not popular among my ex-military friends,
with good reason (see below)
that the only ones that have fought for Australia were those who
fought in the Pacific in WWII. All the others were fighting for
somebody else.
all nations and personnel who fought against the Axis powers were
fighting for freedom from world domination by them
The Boers, Germans, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis, and
Afghans were to a threat to Australia, only the Japanese were. The
guys fighting in the Pacific in WWII were defending their country,
all the rest were defending somewhere else.
if that were in English I might know what you said
to a threat" delete "to" insert "not", is that too complicated for you?
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 1/3/2026 3:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 6:48 pm, Xeno wrote:You claimed, you haven't yet proven.
On 28/2/2026 6:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:I "Claimed"? Sneering again, that seems to be your MO. You CLAIM to be a >>
Maybe things have changed since, but I was working on a secureYou (claimed) you were working on a Anglo/Australian project where
government site on a classified government project 3 years before I >>>>> became-a citizen.
British citizenship would be seen as equivalently favourable as
Australian. A lot of things didn't change until circa 1970 when the
UK went into the EU or, as it was known then, the Common Market.
That changed a lot of things here in Australia. But your initial
sojourn predated all that!
licenced mechanic, you CLAIM to have worked in a tin mine, you CLAIM
to have maintained heavy earth-moving equipment, you CLAIM to have a
degree, none of this is substantiated but you expect it to be accepted.
Yes, My trade registration number is 15239/68/4679C. I have references
for those mining roles, I have numbers for those degrees as well. Even
gave consent to sprintless to go look them up in the relevant academic
records.
That number could be anything, it proves nothing.
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS to
be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not substantiated
but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
What's the magic thing that gives him credibility over anybody else? It
can be shown that he posts lies.
--Of course alvey doesn't claim anything since he is a keyboard
warrior, a spineless yellowbelly sniping from behind a wall of total
anonymity. He is also a hypocrite as well for calling other people
cowards.
BTW, Ikara wasn't an Anglo-Australian project, it was totally
Australian, the British simply bought it along with the Kiwis,
Brazilians, Chileans etc.
Majority shareholdings were Aus and UK governments IIRC
Proof?
On 1/03/2026 5:40 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 8:18 am, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 9:24 am, Clocky wrote:
Anyway, it's pretty obvious you're at the very minimum an
embellisher if not an outright bullshit artist, but much like that >>>>>> dumb fuck you enable.
If it's that obvious, then you must have some proof, either show it >>>>> or STFU.
Unfortunately Richo this little pond was long ago poisoned by a
certain dickhead whose total failure to prove a single one of his
Big Claims has made the traditional 'prove or retract' newsgroup
demand obsolete.
So, in social conversation, you demand proof of anything anybody says?
Certainly not. I usually hire a team of PIs.
The usual smartarseary - what a surprise.
Your social circle must have contracted like a black hole over the
years.
Your conclusion is based on a false premise.
Also, I've found that it's extremely rare for people to people to
bullshit to your face irl. In fact, there's only two that I can recall.
It often comes from keyboard warriors hiding-a behind walls of anonymity.
Correct, 1950's Ford F trucks weren't fitted with seat belts at the factory...
On 28/02/2026 5:51 pm, Noddy wrote:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On 28/02/2026 2:49 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 2:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
What are you actually quoting there? Do you know? :)
Of course. Relevant to Victoria, so you should read it given your
apparent ignorance of the law.
Road Safety Road Rules 2017
Statutory rule in force
Statutory rule number 41/2017Version 020
State the actual rule you're referring to :)
Let me explain it to you in a dumbed down language that a mud flap
fitter would understand.
In Australia, seat belts were *not* compulsory in any vehicle build
before January 1st, 1969.
Irrelevant, you unqualified bracket welder.
It is *not* irrelevant at all, and in fact is part of the roadworthy
requirements for all vehicles.
Again, something you would know if you had any relevant experience.
Road Safety Road Rules 2017
Statutory rule in force
Statutory rule number 41/2017Version 020
The law clearly states that *any* seat belt, where fitted, must be
worn. Approved or not, whether the vehicle originally had them fitted
or not.
The rule does *not* say "approved or not", and you are deliberately
making a fraudulent claim in a piss poor attempt to try to mask the
fact that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
The *law* states that the fitting of seatbelts to a vehicle that never
had them originally is a modification that requires engineer approval,
and unapproved belt installations are an illegal modification on any
road going vehicle and must be removed or made compliant.
It's all here, if you'd care to take a look and educate yourself :)
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/
vehicles/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/files/VSB5_b.pdf
Legally fitted seat belts must be worn. *Illegally* fitted seat belts
must either be be removed or made compliant.
Correct.
But if they are fitted, regardless of whether they were required or not
or if they compliant or not - THEY MUST BE WORN.
It doesn't absolve you from fitting seat belts where fitted which you
failed to do, you dumb fuck.67
On 1/03/2026 7:47 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:Since you aren't able to work it out for yourself, in the text "were to
On 1/03/2026 12:35 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:37 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 6:04 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 2:46 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This >>>>>>>>>>> represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed
kiddie pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to >>>>>>>> WWII was insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the >>>>>>>> same contribution to the planet's CO2 output.
You *had* no point Trev, as your analogy was completely wrong to >>>>>>> begin with.
**And yet, the percentage figures invite serious comparison.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed
conflict of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above their >>>>>>> weight in every theatre they were deployed to.
**Maybe. Maybe not. The Japanese were, initially, disregarded by
most military experts, right up until their own armed forces faced >>>>>> them in combat. That includes Australia and the UK forces (in
Singapore), the US forces over much of the Pacific. Here's the thing: >>>>>>
Four of my uncles served in WWII. One was flown all over the
Pacific by the US (he was attached to the US military), because he >>>>>> had a crucial job of decoding Japanese radio transmissions. Very
improtant job. Another was a lookout on some of the islands above >>>>>> the top end. Another important job. I am under no illusion that
they were important to the war effort, but no more important than >>>>>> many hundreds of thousands of others.
I hold the view, not popular among my ex-military friends,
with good reason (see below)
that the only ones that have fought for Australia were those who
fought in the Pacific in WWII. All the others were fighting for
somebody else.
all nations and personnel who fought against the Axis powers were
fighting for freedom from world domination by them
The Boers, Germans, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis, and
Afghans were to a threat to Australia, only the Japanese were. The
guys fighting in the Pacific in WWII were defending their country,
all the rest were defending somewhere else.
if that were in English I might know what you said
a threat" delete "to" insert "not", is that too complicated for you?
keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 7:47 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:Since you aren't able to work it out for yourself, in the text "were
On 1/03/2026 12:35 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:37 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 6:04 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 2:46 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This >>>>>>>>>>>> represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed >>>>>>>>>> kiddie pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to >>>>>>>>> WWII was insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the >>>>>>>>> same contribution to the planet's CO2 output.
You *had* no point Trev, as your analogy was completely wrong to >>>>>>>> begin with.
**And yet, the percentage figures invite serious comparison.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed >>>>>>>> conflict of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above their >>>>>>>> weight in every theatre they were deployed to.
**Maybe. Maybe not. The Japanese were, initially, disregarded by >>>>>>> most military experts, right up until their own armed forces
faced them in combat. That includes Australia and the UK forces >>>>>>> (in Singapore), the US forces over much of the Pacific. Here's
the thing:
Four of my uncles served in WWII. One was flown all over the
Pacific by the US (he was attached to the US military), because >>>>>>> he had a crucial job of decoding Japanese radio transmissions.
Very improtant job. Another was a lookout on some of the islands >>>>>>> above the top end. Another important job. I am under no illusion >>>>>>> that they were important to the war effort, but no more important >>>>>>> than many hundreds of thousands of others.
I hold the view, not popular among my ex-military friends,
with good reason (see below)
that the only ones that have fought for Australia were those who
fought in the Pacific in WWII. All the others were fighting for
somebody else.
all nations and personnel who fought against the Axis powers were
fighting for freedom from world domination by them
The Boers, Germans, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis, and
Afghans were to a threat to Australia, only the Japanese were. The
guys fighting in the Pacific in WWII were defending their country,
all the rest were defending somewhere else.
if that were in English I might know what you said
to a threat" delete "to" insert "not", is that too complicated for you?
pompous jackass
keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 5:40 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 8:18 am, alvey wrote:Certainly not. I usually hire a team of PIs.
keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 9:24 am, Clocky wrote:
Anyway, it's pretty obvious you're at the very minimum an
embellisher if not an outright bullshit artist, but much like
that dumb fuck you enable.
If it's that obvious, then you must have some proof, either show
it or STFU.
Unfortunately Richo this little pond was long ago poisoned by a
certain dickhead whose total failure to prove a single one of his
Big Claims has made the traditional 'prove or retract' newsgroup
demand obsolete.
So, in social conversation, you demand proof of anything anybody says? >>>
The usual smartarseary - what a surprise.
You're like a palace eunuch guarding the harem. You see it happening all
the time but can't manage it yourself.
Your social circle must have contracted like a black hole over the
years.
Your conclusion is based on a false premise.
Also, I've found that it's extremely rare for people to people to
bullshit to your face irl. In fact, there's only two that I can recall.
It often comes from keyboard warriors hiding-a behind walls of anonymity.
So "keithr0" is your real name. I thought it was a Star Wars character.
keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 7:47 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:Since you aren't able to work it out for yourself, in the text "were
On 1/03/2026 12:35 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:37 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 6:04 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 2:46 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This >>>>>>>>>>>> represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed >>>>>>>>>> kiddie pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to >>>>>>>>> WWII was insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the >>>>>>>>> same contribution to the planet's CO2 output.
You *had* no point Trev, as your analogy was completely wrong to >>>>>>>> begin with.
**And yet, the percentage figures invite serious comparison.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed >>>>>>>> conflict of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above their >>>>>>>> weight in every theatre they were deployed to.
**Maybe. Maybe not. The Japanese were, initially, disregarded by >>>>>>> most military experts, right up until their own armed forces
faced them in combat. That includes Australia and the UK forces >>>>>>> (in Singapore), the US forces over much of the Pacific. Here's
the thing:
Four of my uncles served in WWII. One was flown all over the
Pacific by the US (he was attached to the US military), because >>>>>>> he had a crucial job of decoding Japanese radio transmissions.
Very improtant job. Another was a lookout on some of the islands >>>>>>> above the top end. Another important job. I am under no illusion >>>>>>> that they were important to the war effort, but no more important >>>>>>> than many hundreds of thousands of others.
I hold the view, not popular among my ex-military friends,
with good reason (see below)
that the only ones that have fought for Australia were those who
fought in the Pacific in WWII. All the others were fighting for
somebody else.
all nations and personnel who fought against the Axis powers were
fighting for freedom from world domination by them
The Boers, Germans, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis, and
Afghans were to a threat to Australia, only the Japanese were. The
guys fighting in the Pacific in WWII were defending their country,
all the rest were defending somewhere else.
if that were in English I might know what you said
to a threat" delete "to" insert "not", is that too complicated for you?
pompous jackass
Still, 500,000 a year for the last 6 years without the police,At our local health centre has 5 doctors, one is Pakistani, one is
ambo's ,teachers, hospitals... LOL, it's a month wait to see my
doctor. (Which is fine by me, everytime i see him i end up on more
pills :-D )
Iranian, 2 are poms, the other may or may not be Australian. Without migrants, they'd be pretty shorthanded.
On 2/03/2026 10:37 am, keithr0 wrote:
Still, 500,000 a year for the last 6 years without the police,At our local health centre has 5 doctors, one is Pakistani, one is
ambo's ,teachers, hospitals... LOL, it's a month wait to see my
doctor. (Which is fine by me, everytime i see him i end up on more
pills :-D )
Iranian, 2 are poms, the other may or may not be Australian. Without
migrants, they'd be pretty shorthanded.
No doubt. Mine's Greek. Good bloke, too. Australia needs skilled
migrants. Always has, and probably always will.
Daryl wrote:
Correct, 1950's Ford F trucks weren't fitted with seat belts at the
factory...
They were originally, but rednecks complained that they interfered
with their shotties when they were trying to gun down bikies and
hippies, so Ford removed them.
hth--
On 1/03/2026 10:06 pm, Daryl wrote:
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-clock-
pyramid
He also failed at maths, in 2020 Australia's population was
19,136,268, in 2026 its 28,086,207 which is an increase of approx 8.95
million which is a 46.6% increase in 26 yrs which is pretty close the
47% I originally said.
Opps.. your looking at figures from *2000* , (19,136,268) as opposed to *2020* which was 25,620,615.
Still, 500,000 a year for the last 6 years without the police,
ambo's ,teachers, hospitals... LOL, it's a month wait to see my doctor. (Which is fine by me, everytime i see him i end up on more pills :-D )
On 2/03/2026 7:53 am, lindsay wrote:
On 1/03/2026 10:06 pm, Daryl wrote:At our local health centre has 5 doctors, one is Pakistani, one is
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-clock-
pyramid
He also failed at maths, in 2020 Australia's population was
19,136,268, in 2026 its 28,086,207 which is an increase of approx
8.95 million which is a 46.6% increase in 26 yrs which is pretty
close the 47% I originally said.
Opps.. your looking at figures from *2000* , (19,136,268) as opposed
to *2020* which was 25,620,615.
Still, 500,000 a year for the last 6 years without the police,
ambo's ,teachers, hospitals... LOL, it's a month wait to see my
doctor. (Which is fine by me, everytime i see him i end up on more
pills :-D )
Iranian, 2 are poms, the other may or may not be Australian. Without migrants, they'd be pretty shorthanded.
On 2/03/2026 10:37 am, keithr0 wrote:
Still, 500,000 a year for the last 6 years without the police,At our local health centre has 5 doctors, one is Pakistani, one is
ambo's ,teachers, hospitals... LOL, it's a month wait to see my
doctor. (Which is fine by me, everytime i see him i end up on more
pills :-D )
Iranian, 2 are poms, the other may or may not be Australian. Without
migrants, they'd be pretty shorthanded.
No doubt. Mine's Greek. Good bloke, too. Australia needs skilled
migrants. Always has, and probably always will.
On 1/03/2026 6:58 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 1/03/2026 3:19 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 12:35 pm, Axel wrote:
all nations and personnel who fought against the Axis powers were
fighting for freedom from world domination by them
The Boers, Germans, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis, and
Afghans were to a threat to Australia, only the Japanese were. The
guys fighting in the Pacific in WWII were defending their country,
all the rest were defending somewhere else.
The Germans were certainly a threat. Not as pressing a threat to this
country as the Japanese were, but a threat nonetheless.
How so? certainly they had a small naval presence in this area, sinking
the Sydney, but hardly a threat to the country.
lindsay wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:37 am, keithr0 wrote:
Still, 500,000 a year for the last 6 years without the police,At our local health centre has 5 doctors, one is Pakistani, one is
ambo's ,teachers, hospitals... LOL, it's a month wait to see my
doctor. (Which is fine by me, everytime i see him i end up on more
pills :-D )
Iranian, 2 are poms, the other may or may not be Australian. Without
migrants, they'd be pretty shorthanded.
No doubt. Mine's Greek. Good bloke, too. Australia needs skilled
migrants. Always has, and probably always will.
two nearby clinics here, one with four practitioners, the other with
eight. not one Aussie among them
On 2/3/2026 10:19 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 6:58 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 1/03/2026 3:19 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 12:35 pm, Axel wrote:
all nations and personnel who fought against the Axis powers were
fighting for freedom from world domination by them
The Boers, Germans, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis, and
Afghans were to a threat to Australia, only the Japanese were. The
guys fighting in the Pacific in WWII were defending their country,
all the rest were defending somewhere else.
The Germans were certainly a threat. Not as pressing a threat to this
country as the Japanese were, but a threat nonetheless.
How so? certainly they had a small naval presence in this area,
sinking the Sydney, but hardly a threat to the country.
I don't think they were ever a direct physical threat but certainly
indirect in that they threatened the UK which Australia was/is closely
tied to.
Its very likely that Australia would be a very different place if
Germany had won the war.
On 2/03/2026 11:48 am, Daryl wrote:
On 2/3/2026 10:19 am, keithr0 wrote:So would the entire world, but it's doubtful that they could have
On 1/03/2026 6:58 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 1/03/2026 3:19 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 12:35 pm, Axel wrote:
all nations and personnel who fought against the Axis powers were >>>>>> fighting for freedom from world domination by them
The Boers, Germans, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis, and
Afghans were to a threat to Australia, only the Japanese were. The
guys fighting in the Pacific in WWII were defending their country,
all the rest were defending somewhere else.
The Germans were certainly a threat. Not as pressing a threat to
this country as the Japanese were, but a threat nonetheless.
How so? certainly they had a small naval presence in this area,
sinking the Sydney, but hardly a threat to the country.
I don't think they were ever a direct physical threat but certainly
indirect in that they threatened the UK which Australia was/is closely
tied to.
Its very likely that Australia would be a very different place if
Germany had won the war.
invaded Australia.
On 1/03/2026 6:32 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 1/3/2026 7:14 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 1/3/2026 3:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 6:48 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 28/2/2026 6:56 pm, keithr0 wrote:I "Claimed"? Sneering again, that seems to be your MO. You CLAIM to >>>>> be a
Maybe things have changed since, but I was working on a secureYou (claimed) you were working on a Anglo/Australian project where >>>>>> British citizenship would be seen as equivalently favourable as
government site on a classified government project 3 years before >>>>>>> I became-a citizen.
Australian. A lot of things didn't change until circa 1970 when
the UK went into the EU or, as it was known then, the Common
Market. That changed a lot of things here in Australia. But your
initial sojourn predated all that!
You claimed, you haven't yet proven.
licenced mechanic, you CLAIM to have worked in a tin mine, you
CLAIM to have maintained heavy earth-moving equipment, you CLAIM to >>>>> have a degree, none of this is substantiated but you expect it to
be accepted.
Yes, My trade registration number is 15239/68/4679C. I have
references for those mining roles, I have numbers for those degrees
as well. Even gave consent to sprintless to go look them up in the
relevant academic records.
That number could be anything, it proves nothing.
But *you* can look up that number on the Tasmanian trade register. It
is *my* unique number just as Clocky's was his unique number. IIRC,
people here, including Sprintless, Darren and others, did look up his
bona fides.
That is what is known as an empty offer. One made in the expectation of
it never being taken up. Nobody is going to go to Hobart just to check
on whether the number you quoted is legit or not so you are safe.
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS to >>>>> be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not substantiated
but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
What's the magic thing that gives him credibility over anybody else?
It can be shown that he posts lies.
Of course alvey doesn't claim anything since he is a keyboard
warrior, a spineless yellowbelly sniping from behind a wall of
total anonymity. He is also a hypocrite as well for calling other
people cowards.
BTW, Ikara wasn't an Anglo-Australian project, it was totally
Australian, the British simply bought it along with the Kiwis,
Brazilians, Chileans etc.
Majority shareholdings were Aus and UK governments IIRC
Proof?
Do a Google search.
On 2/03/2026 7:53 am, lindsay wrote:
On 1/03/2026 10:06 pm, Daryl wrote:At our local health centre has 5 doctors, one is Pakistani, one is
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-clock-
pyramid
He also failed at maths, in 2020 Australia's population was
19,136,268, in 2026 its 28,086,207 which is an increase of approx
8.95 million which is a 46.6% increase in 26 yrs which is pretty
close the 47% I originally said.
Opps.. your looking at figures from *2000* , (19,136,268) as opposed
to *2020* which was 25,620,615.
Still, 500,000 a year for the last 6 years without the police,
ambo's ,teachers, hospitals... LOL, it's a month wait to see my
doctor. (Which is fine by me, everytime i see him i end up on more
pills :-D )
Iranian, 2 are poms, the other may or may not be Australian. Without migrants, they'd be pretty shorthanded.
On 2/3/2026 10:37 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 2/03/2026 7:53 am, lindsay wrote:
On 1/03/2026 10:06 pm, Daryl wrote:At our local health centre has 5 doctors, one is Pakistani, one is
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-
clock- pyramid
He also failed at maths, in 2020 Australia's population was
19,136,268, in 2026 its 28,086,207 which is an increase of approx
8.95 million which is a 46.6% increase in 26 yrs which is pretty
close the 47% I originally said.
Opps.. your looking at figures from *2000* , (19,136,268) as opposed
to *2020* which was 25,620,615.
Still, 500,000 a year for the last 6 years without the police,
ambo's ,teachers, hospitals... LOL, it's a month wait to see my
doctor. (Which is fine by me, everytime i see him i end up on more
pills :-D )
Iranian, 2 are poms, the other may or may not be Australian. Without
migrants, they'd be pretty shorthanded.
We need more services because we have a lot more people, if we didn't
have so many migrants we wouldn't need to have more migrants to service their needs.
Overall I think migration is a good thing but the current numbers are unsustainable.
On 2/3/2026 11:25 am, lindsay wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:37 am, keithr0 wrote:
Still, 500,000 a year for the last 6 years without the police,At our local health centre has 5 doctors, one is Pakistani, one is
ambo's ,teachers, hospitals... LOL, it's a month wait to see my
doctor. (Which is fine by me, everytime i see him i end up on more
pills :-D )
Iranian, 2 are poms, the other may or may not be Australian. Without
migrants, they'd be pretty shorthanded.
No doubt. Mine's Greek. Good bloke, too. Australia needs skilled
migrants. Always has, and probably always will.
Agree, just not so many until services and infrastructure has a chance
to catch up.
On 2/03/2026 3:37 am, Clocky wrote:
And it's irrelevant anyway, the truck had seat belts and regardless of
compliance or approval they have to be worn where fitted.
That's the law, plain and simple.
That is *not* the law, which is precisely why they had to be removed for
the vehicle to pass a roadworthy inspection. That you cannot understand
this beggars belief :)
On 2/3/2026 12:41 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 2/3/2026 11:25 am, lindsay wrote:Services and infrastructure can't catch up if the people aren't there to *build and man said infrastructure*!
On 2/03/2026 10:37 am, keithr0 wrote:
Still, 500,000 a year for the last 6 years without the police,At our local health centre has 5 doctors, one is Pakistani, one is
ambo's ,teachers, hospitals... LOL, it's a month wait to see my
doctor. (Which is fine by me, everytime i see him i end up on more
pills :-D )
Iranian, 2 are poms, the other may or may not be Australian. Without
migrants, they'd be pretty shorthanded.
No doubt. Mine's Greek. Good bloke, too. Australia needs skilled
migrants. Always has, and probably always will.
Agree, just not so many until services and infrastructure has a chance
to catch up.
On 2/3/2026 12:40 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 2/3/2026 10:37 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 2/03/2026 7:53 am, lindsay wrote:
On 1/03/2026 10:06 pm, Daryl wrote:At our local health centre has 5 doctors, one is Pakistani, one is
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-
clock- pyramid
He also failed at maths, in 2020 Australia's population was
19,136,268, in 2026 its 28,086,207 which is an increase of approx
8.95 million which is a 46.6% increase in 26 yrs which is pretty
close the 47% I originally said.
Opps.. your looking at figures from *2000* , (19,136,268) as
opposed to *2020* which was 25,620,615.
Still, 500,000 a year for the last 6 years without the police,
ambo's ,teachers, hospitals... LOL, it's a month wait to see my
doctor. (Which is fine by me, everytime i see him i end up on more
pills :-D )
Iranian, 2 are poms, the other may or may not be Australian. Without
migrants, they'd be pretty shorthanded.
We need more services because we have a lot more people, if we didn't
have so many migrants we wouldn't need to have more migrants to
service their needs.
You really cannot see beyond your nose, can you? Current demographics
in this country and many others indicate an *aging* population. Do you understand the ramifications of that?
Overall I think migration is a good thing but the current numbers areYep, larger numbers of the needed *skilled* people are what we want.
unsustainable.
Someone to do the work when we all age out.
And at 1.48 babies per woman, that is going to happen sooner than you
think. We are fortunate in that we are seen as a desirable country to migrate to.
On 2/3/2026 12:41 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 2/3/2026 11:25 am, lindsay wrote:Services and infrastructure can't catch up if the people aren't there
On 2/03/2026 10:37 am, keithr0 wrote:
Still, 500,000 a year for the last 6 years without the police,At our local health centre has 5 doctors, one is Pakistani, one is
ambo's ,teachers, hospitals... LOL, it's a month wait to see my
doctor. (Which is fine by me, everytime i see him i end up on more
pills :-D )
Iranian, 2 are poms, the other may or may not be Australian.
Without migrants, they'd be pretty shorthanded.
No doubt. Mine's Greek. Good bloke, too. Australia needs skilled
migrants. Always has, and probably always will.
Agree, just not so many until services and infrastructure has a
chance to catch up.
to *build and man said infrastructure*!
Xeno wrote:It has happened you know.
On 2/3/2026 12:41 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 2/3/2026 11:25 am, lindsay wrote:Services and infrastructure can't catch up if the people aren't there
On 2/03/2026 10:37 am, keithr0 wrote:
Still, 500,000 a year for the last 6 years without the police,At our local health centre has 5 doctors, one is Pakistani, one is
ambo's ,teachers, hospitals... LOL, it's a month wait to see my
doctor. (Which is fine by me, everytime i see him i end up on more >>>>>> pills :-D )
Iranian, 2 are poms, the other may or may not be Australian.
Without migrants, they'd be pretty shorthanded.
No doubt. Mine's Greek. Good bloke, too. Australia needs skilled
migrants. Always has, and probably always will.
Agree, just not so many until services and infrastructure has a
chance to catch up.
to *build and man said infrastructure*!
the correct method is to determine a desired population size, and build
the necessary infrastructure.. hospitals, schools, roads, houses, etc.,
The existing population is always capable of doing that. Except it never happens.
Xeno wrote:
On 2/3/2026 12:41 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 2/3/2026 11:25 am, lindsay wrote:Services and infrastructure can't catch up if the people aren't there
On 2/03/2026 10:37 am, keithr0 wrote:
Still, 500,000 a year for the last 6 years without the police,At our local health centre has 5 doctors, one is Pakistani, one is
ambo's ,teachers, hospitals... LOL, it's a month wait to see my
doctor. (Which is fine by me, everytime i see him i end up on more >>>>>> pills :-D )
Iranian, 2 are poms, the other may or may not be Australian.
Without migrants, they'd be pretty shorthanded.
No doubt. Mine's Greek. Good bloke, too. Australia needs skilled
migrants. Always has, and probably always will.
Agree, just not so many until services and infrastructure has a
chance to catch up.
to *build and man said infrastructure*!
the correct method is to determine a desired population size, and build
the necessary infrastructure.. hospitals, schools, roads, houses, etc.,
The existing population is always capable of doing that. Except it never happens. we're always playing catch up, but never succeeding.
On 2/03/2026 2:07 am, Clocky wrote:
What happened in your day is not relevant to today, nor do you even
know if the cleaners were Australian citizens in any event you fool.
Unlike you Mr Angry Man, I was actually there and saw with my own eyes.
Have you ever been in a federal government office, or ever even been to Canberra?
On 1/03/2026 10:06 pm, Daryl wrote:
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-clock-
pyramid
He also failed at maths, in 2020 Australia's population was
19,136,268, in 2026 its 28,086,207 which is an increase of approx 8.95
million which is a 46.6% increase in 26 yrs which is pretty close the
47% I originally said.
Opps.. your looking at figures from *2000* , (19,136,268) as opposed to *2020* which was 25,620,615.
Still, 500,000 a year for the last 6 years without the police,
ambo's ,teachers, hospitals... LOL, it's a month wait to see my doctor. (Which is fine by me, everytime i see him i end up on more pills :-D )
On 2/03/2026 2:28 am, Clocky wrote:
Unlike that dumb fuck you enable who has never proved any of his
claims and you never question, Xeno has backed up his claims.
As I said, only to the chosen few.
Hmm, you really have become an angry person, what's up? Things not going well for you in the real world?
Not all to you, the dumb fuck et al obviously but that is because you
lot have already proven that you can't be trusted. Ever.
Oh boy, you really should take that anger management course.
On 1/03/2026 6:32 pm, Xeno wrote:He remembers wrong, as usual. I've never looked up anyone's credentials.
But *you* can look up that number on the Tasmanian trade register. It
is *my* unique number just as Clocky's was his unique number. IIRC,
people here, including Sprintless, Darren and others, did look up his
bona fides.
That is what is known as an empty offer. One made in the expectation of
it never being taken up. Nobody is going to go to Hobart just to check
on whether the number you quoted is legit or not so you are safe.
On 01-Mar-26 7:14 PM, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS to
be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not substantiated
but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
What's the magic thing that gives him credibility over anybody else?
It can be shown that he posts lies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my case, its personal.. When asked to put up or shut up, (on the accusations) he simply *ran away*!!..
On 1/03/2026 6:58 pm, Noddy wrote:
The Germans were certainly a threat. Not as pressing a threat to this
country as the Japanese were, but a threat nonetheless.
How so? certainly they had a small naval presence in this area, sinking
the Sydney, but hardly a threat to the country.
On 2/3/2026 10:19 am, keithr0 wrote:
The Germans were certainly a threat. Not as pressing a threat to this
country as the Japanese were, but a threat nonetheless.
How so? certainly they had a small naval presence in this area,
sinking the Sydney, but hardly a threat to the country.
I don't think they were ever a direct physical threat but certainly
indirect in that they threatened the UK which Australia was/is closely
tied to.
Its very likely that Australia would be a very different place if
Germany had won the war.
On 2/03/2026 11:48 am, Daryl wrote:
I don't think they were ever a direct physical threat but certainlySo would the entire world, but it's doubtful that they could have
indirect in that they threatened the UK which Australia was/is closely
tied to.
Its very likely that Australia would be a very different place if
Germany had won the war.
invaded Australia.
Axel wrote:
Xeno wrote:It has happened you know.
On 2/3/2026 12:41 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 2/3/2026 11:25 am, lindsay wrote:Services and infrastructure can't catch up if the people aren't there
On 2/03/2026 10:37 am, keithr0 wrote:
Still, 500,000 a year for the last 6 years without the police,At our local health centre has 5 doctors, one is Pakistani, one is >>>>>> Iranian, 2 are poms, the other may or may not be Australian.
ambo's ,teachers, hospitals... LOL, it's a month wait to see my >>>>>>> doctor. (Which is fine by me, everytime i see him i end up on
more pills :-D )
Without migrants, they'd be pretty shorthanded.
No doubt. Mine's Greek. Good bloke, too. Australia needs skilled
migrants. Always has, and probably always will.
Agree, just not so many until services and infrastructure has a
chance to catch up.
to *build and man said infrastructure*!
the correct method is to determine a desired population size, and
build the necessary infrastructure.. hospitals, schools, roads,
houses, etc., The existing population is always capable of doing that.
Except it never happens.
Back In The Day they used to do it in Cantberra. Streets, signs,
brightly painted public kids playgrounds etc etc. and what was the
result? They were mercilesly mocked by 'our' national media.
On 2/03/2026 10:40 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 2/03/2026 2:07 am, Clocky wrote:
What happened in your day is not relevant to today, nor do you even
know if the cleaners were Australian citizens in any event you fool.
Unlike you Mr Angry Man, I was actually there and saw with my own
eyes. Have you ever been in a federal government office, or ever even
been to Canberra?
I'm tipping "No" on both counts, but that won't stop the deluded prick
from being a zero experience expert.
It's his stock in trade.
On 2/03/2026 10:31 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 6:32 pm, Xeno wrote:
He remembers wrong, as usual. I've never looked up anyone's credentials.But *you* can look up that number on the Tasmanian trade register. It
is *my* unique number just as Clocky's was his unique number. IIRC,
people here, including Sprintless, Darren and others, did look up his
bona fides.
That is what is known as an empty offer. One made in the expectation
of it never being taken up. Nobody is going to go to Hobart just to
check on whether the number you quoted is legit or not so you are safe.
I simply don't care enough to bother.
I *certainly* am not that self absorbed that I would go to the trouble
of visiting the public records office in another state *just* to try to
win an argument, only to make myself look like a total fuckwit in the process :)
On 2/03/2026 10:59 am, jonz wrote:
On 01-Mar-26 7:14 PM, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS to >>>>> be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not substantiated
but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
What's the magic thing that gives him credibility over anybody else?
It can be shown that he posts lies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my case, its personal.. When asked to put up or shut up, (on the
accusations) he simply *ran away*!!..
He always does. Fuck only knows how many times I've asked him to post
the photos he claims he has of the records at PROV showing my name being
a glaring omission, and despite his perpetual whinging about having them
no one has ever seen them.
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden in
26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical proportions :)
On 2/03/2026 10:19 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 6:58 pm, Noddy wrote:
The Germans were certainly a threat. Not as pressing a threat to this
country as the Japanese were, but a threat nonetheless.
How so? certainly they had a small naval presence in this area,
sinking the Sydney, but hardly a threat to the country.
As I said they weren't as pressing a threat to us as the Japanese, but
they were a threat just the same.
Had they taken over Europe including Russia and enslaved millions of
people their production capability would have gone through the roof.
Their weapons programs would have no doubt been accelerated, and they
could have passed on tech and weapons to the Japanese that we would have
had no hope in defeating.
Of course that's all hypothetical, but it's not as unrealistic as it
sounds. They could have easily extended their submarine fleet into the Pacific and cut us off from the rest of the world.
On 2/03/2026 10:31 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 6:32 pm, Xeno wrote:
But *you* can look up that number on the Tasmanian trade register. It
is *my* unique number just as Clocky's was his unique number. IIRC,
people here, including Sprintless, Darren and others, did look up his
bona fides.
That is what is known as an empty offer. One made in the expectation
of it never being taken up. Nobody is going to go to Hobart just to
check on whether the number you quoted is legit or not so you are safe.
He remembers wrong, as usual. I've never looked up anyone's credentials.
I *certainly* am not that self absorbed that I would go to the trouble
of visiting the public records office in another state *just* to try to
win an argument, only to make myself look like a total fuckwit in the process :)
Noddy wrote:
On 28/02/2026 10:02 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 1:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 27/02/2026 2:05 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 26/02/2026 7:14 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 23/02/2026 12:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
In Canberra, it is not unusual to find a public servant working >>>>>>>> in an office during the day going back in the evening to clean >>>>>>>> it and make a few bucks extra. There is a problem in many of the >>>>>>>> government offices in that even the cleaners need security
clearance and that narrows the available demographic.
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens which is >>>>>>> a requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
Prove it, you haven't done so well so far.
Looks like I've done it again actually.
The entire planet must have collectively blinked and missed it. All
anyone saw you do was make a cunt out of yourself....
Buffo, tired of being the unelected spokesman of aus.cars, ambitiously promotes himself to unelected spokesman for the planet.
On 2/03/2026 10:59 am, jonz wrote:
On 01-Mar-26 7:14 PM, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS to >>>>> be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not substantiated
but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
What's the magic thing that gives him credibility over anybody else?
It can be shown that he posts lies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my case, its personal.. When asked to put up or shut up, (on the
accusations) he simply *ran away*!!..
He always does.
On 28/02/2026 10:10 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, alvey wrote:
Daryl wrote:
He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up?
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he has no
idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people we employed
over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least 70%
of our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
Maybe you're a racist?
Daryl has 25 years in the Victorian cleaning system but knows as much
about ACT government department requirements as he does contract lawyers.
That's why he's $450k lighter in retirement, the dumb fuck.
You never did get around to showing how it was that *you* knew that the "writing was on the wall" for the school cleaning industry,-a but the 160 odd companies who were directly connected with it never saw it coming.
Odd.
On 2/03/2026 10:40 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 2/03/2026 2:07 am, Clocky wrote:
What happened in your day is not relevant to today, nor do you even
know if the cleaners were Australian citizens in any event you fool.
Unlike you Mr Angry Man, I was actually there and saw with my own
eyes. Have you ever been in a federal government office, or ever even
been to Canberra?
I'm tipping "No" on both counts, but that won't stop the deluded prick
from being a zero experience expert.
It's his stock in trade.
On 2/3/2026 8:38 am, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 3:07 am, Clocky wrote:I think you will find if a contract cleaner is contracted into a secure area, they will need some level of security clearance. Asanka was a contractor at the 2006 C/Wealth games and both he and his company needed
On 1/03/2026 4:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
Other than in high security situations such as ASIO and similar
organisations virtually all cleaning services that I came across
while working in Canberra for 16 years were provided by contractors.
They varied from one man setups to large companies. The highest
security place that I worked in was cleaned by a public servant
making some extra cash in his spare time.
What part of
"Australian Public Service (APS) Employees: Generally, you must be an
Australian citizen to work for the Commonwealth of Australia public
service. While agency heads may waive this requirement in exceptional
circumstances to employ non-citizens with appropriate work
entitlements, it is not common for cleaning roles."
are you having trouble with understanding?
The part where (a) it's relevant to contract cleaning, and (b) where
you would have any fucking idea about what goes on in government offices.
What exactly is your experience in the matter?
to secure all the appropriate *Federal* security clearances. And that
was just for a federally organised international sports competition.
We're nat talking missile development labs here.
On 2/03/2026 1:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 2/03/2026 11:48 am, Daryl wrote:
I don't think they were ever a direct physical threat but certainlySo would the entire world, but it's doubtful that they could have
indirect in that they threatened the UK which Australia was/is
closely tied to.
Its very likely that Australia would be a very different place if
Germany had won the war.
invaded Australia.
That depends.
They certainly would have had made a better go of it than the Japanese
would have. Look what they did in Africa?
Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:31 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 6:32 pm, Xeno wrote:
But *you* can look up that number on the Tasmanian trade register.
It is *my* unique number just as Clocky's was his unique number.
IIRC, people here, including Sprintless, Darren and others, did look
up his bona fides.
That is what is known as an empty offer. One made in the expectation
of it never being taken up. Nobody is going to go to Hobart just to
check on whether the number you quoted is legit or not so you are safe.
He remembers wrong, as usual. I've never looked up anyone's credentials.
Errr... He said "Nobody" not "Noddy" Fraudster. Not that there's any difference...
I *certainly* am not that self absorbed that I would go to the trouble
of visiting the public records office in another state *just* to try
to win an argument, only to make myself look like a total fuckwit in
the process :)
No need to do that is there Buffo. You've made a total buffoon of
yourself with your vast catalog of childish lies and abuse.
On 2/03/2026 2:07 am, Clocky wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 2:33 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:Other than in high security situations such as ASIO and similar
On 28/02/2026 9:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:You do realise, of course that there are different requirements for >>>>> different levels of clearance. If you are working on classified
On 27/02/2026 6:12 pm, Daryl wrote:, that cleaners would come in contct with classified material.
On 27/2/2026 5:35 pm, Noddy wrote:Nothing out of the ordinary.
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up? >>>>>>>
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens >>>>>>>>>>>> which is a requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you >>>>>>>>> ever do is back pedal and come up with some irrelevant bullshit >>>>>>>>> that permits you to avoid giving a direct answer. You may as >>>>>>>>> well just come out and said you were talking shit. That would >>>>>>>>> at least invite a modicum of respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in
conversation....
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he has >>>>>>>> no idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people we >>>>>>>> employed over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least >>>>>>>> 70% of our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
Or maybe your reality is getting in the way of his bullshit.
In very recent years we have had a lot of migrants from India >>>>>>>> and of course they look for work and often low paid jobs such as >>>>>>>> cleaning is all they can get but that wouldn't have been the
case in the Canberra example that Keith mentioned which is what >>>>>>>> we were discussing.
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation >>>>>>> just so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to be >>>>>> Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary
requirement in almost all cases.
The only "bullshit" is from you three dumb fucks too ignorant to
know and too stupid to look it up for yourself.
material, you are required to lock it away when you are not using
it, so it is quite unlikely, unless somebody fucks up. You've
obviously never been in that environment.
Google AI says..
Whether cleaners in Australian government offices are required to be
citizens depends on whether they are employed directly by the public
service or via a private contractor, and the security level of the
building.
Key Requirements:
Australian Public Service (APS) Employees: Generally, you must be an
Australian citizen to work for the Commonwealth of Australia public
service. While agency heads may waive this requirement in
exceptional circumstances to employ non-citizens with appropriate
work entitlements, it is not common for cleaning roles.
Contractors: Many government departments use private cleaning
contractors. These staff may not need to be citizens, but they must
have valid work rights (visa) and usually must pass security checks
(e.g., National Police Check).
Security Clearances: If the office is high-security (requiring a
security clearance), the Australian Government Security Vetting
Agency (AGSVA) generally requires individuals to be Australian
citizens.
State/Territory Roles: In some state government sectors (like WA),
positions may be open to permanent residents or those with a valid
visa to live and work, not exclusively citizens.
In summary, for federal (Commonwealth) government offices,
citizenship is typically required for direct employees and strongly
preferred/ required for secure areas. Private contractors may hire
non-citizens with valid working visas, subject to security checks.
organisations virtually all cleaning services that I came across
while working in Canberra for 16 years were provided by contractors.
They varied from one man setups to large companies. The highest
security place that I worked in was cleaned by a public servant
making some extra cash in his spare time.
What part of
"Australian Public Service (APS) Employees: Generally, you must be an
Australian citizen to work for the Commonwealth of Australia public
service. While agency heads may waive this requirement in exceptional
circumstances to employ non-citizens with appropriate work
entitlements, it is not common for cleaning roles."
are you having trouble with understanding?
What happened in your day is not relevant to today, nor do you even
know if the cleaners were Australian citizens in any event you fool.
Unlike you Mr Angry Man, I was actually there and saw with my own eyes.
Have you ever been in a federal government office, or ever even been to Canberra?
On 2/03/2026 10:40 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 2/03/2026 2:07 am, Clocky wrote:
What happened in your day is not relevant to today, nor do you even
know if the cleaners were Australian citizens in any event you fool.
Unlike you Mr Angry Man, I was actually there and saw with my own
eyes. Have you ever been in a federal government office, or ever even
been to Canberra?
I'm tipping "No" on both counts, but that won't stop the deluded prick
from being a zero experience expert.
On 28/02/2026 5:55 pm, Noddy wrote:
You never did get around to showing how it was that *you* knew that
the "writing was on the wall" for the school cleaning industry,-a but
the 160 odd companies who were directly connected with it never saw it
coming.
Odd.
Not at all.
*Everyone* in the Victoria knew how fucked up the private contractor
system was and that the Victorian government was reviewing it. There had been *plenty* of warning that changes were likely to happen given the
state of contract cleaning and how it was failing both cleaners and
schools. Dopey Daryl should have seen it coming a mile away being
involved in the industry, especially as other states had already had
enough of the private contracting companies creating such huge problems.
But no, dopey Daryl was not paying any attention for several years evidently. You wouldn't have a clue either way you dumb fuck so any
comment from you is irrelevant.
Dopey Daryl is $450k lighter in retirement to remind him everyday of his ignorance and stupidity however.
On 2/03/2026 3:39 pm, Noddy wrote:
Unlike you Mr Angry Man, I was actually there and saw with my own
eyes. Have you ever been in a federal government office, or ever even
been to Canberra?
I'm tipping "No" on both counts, but that won't stop the deluded prick
from being a zero experience expert.
Keith has zero current experience obviously and what he saw has
absolutely no relevance today. You've never had any experience.
You have both been shown that in most cases cleaners in Canberra
government offices need to be Australian citizens. Period.
There is no argument to be had here.
On 2/03/2026 10:59 am, jonz wrote:
On 01-Mar-26 7:14 PM, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS to >>>>> be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not substantiated
but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
What's the magic thing that gives him credibility over anybody else?
It can be shown that he posts lies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my case, its personal.. When asked to put up or shut up, (on the
accusations) he simply *ran away*!!..
He always does. Fuck only knows how many times I've asked him to post
the photos he claims he has of the records at PROV showing my name being
a glaring omission, and despite his perpetual whinging about having them
no one has ever seen them.
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden in
26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical proportions :)
On 1/03/2026 5:40 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 8:18 am, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 9:24 am, Clocky wrote:
Anyway, it's pretty obvious you're at the very minimum an
embellisher if not an outright bullshit artist, but much like that >>>>>> dumb fuck you enable.
If it's that obvious, then you must have some proof, either show it >>>>> or STFU.
Unfortunately Richo this little pond was long ago poisoned by a
certain dickhead whose total failure to prove a single one of his
Big Claims has made the traditional 'prove or retract' newsgroup
demand obsolete.
So, in social conversation, you demand proof of anything anybody says?
Certainly not. I usually hire a team of PIs.
The usual smartarseary - what a surprise.
Your social circle must have contracted like a black hole over the
years.
Your conclusion is based on a false premise.
Also, I've found that it's extremely rare for people to people to
bullshit to your face irl. In fact, there's only two that I can recall.
It often comes from keyboard warriors hiding-a behind walls of anonymity.
On 2/03/2026 3:37 am, Clocky wrote:
And it's irrelevant anyway, the truck had seat belts and regardless of
compliance or approval they have to be worn where fitted.
That's the law, plain and simple.
That is *not* the law,
On 1/03/2026 7:47 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:Since you aren't able to work it out for yourself, in the text "were to
On 1/03/2026 12:35 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:37 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 6:04 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 2:46 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This >>>>>>>>>>> represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed
kiddie pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to >>>>>>>> WWII was insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the >>>>>>>> same contribution to the planet's CO2 output.
You *had* no point Trev, as your analogy was completely wrong to >>>>>>> begin with.
**And yet, the percentage figures invite serious comparison.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed
conflict of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above their >>>>>>> weight in every theatre they were deployed to.
**Maybe. Maybe not. The Japanese were, initially, disregarded by
most military experts, right up until their own armed forces faced >>>>>> them in combat. That includes Australia and the UK forces (in
Singapore), the US forces over much of the Pacific. Here's the thing: >>>>>>
Four of my uncles served in WWII. One was flown all over the
Pacific by the US (he was attached to the US military), because he >>>>>> had a crucial job of decoding Japanese radio transmissions. Very
improtant job. Another was a lookout on some of the islands above >>>>>> the top end. Another important job. I am under no illusion that
they were important to the war effort, but no more important than >>>>>> many hundreds of thousands of others.
I hold the view, not popular among my ex-military friends,
with good reason (see below)
that the only ones that have fought for Australia were those who
fought in the Pacific in WWII. All the others were fighting for
somebody else.
all nations and personnel who fought against the Axis powers were
fighting for freedom from world domination by them
The Boers, Germans, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis, and
Afghans were to a threat to Australia, only the Japanese were. The
guys fighting in the Pacific in WWII were defending their country,
all the rest were defending somewhere else.
if that were in English I might know what you said
a threat" delete "to" insert "not", is that too complicated for you?
On 2/3/2026 6:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:19 am, keithr0 wrote:Uh, no they couldn't! Submarines need shore bases, Germany didn't have
On 1/03/2026 6:58 pm, Noddy wrote:
The Germans were certainly a threat. Not as pressing a threat to
this country as the Japanese were, but a threat nonetheless.
How so? certainly they had a small naval presence in this area,
sinking the Sydney, but hardly a threat to the country.
As I said they weren't as pressing a threat to us as the Japanese,
but they were a threat just the same.
Had they taken over Europe including Russia and enslaved millions of
people their production capability would have gone through the roof.
Their weapons programs would have no doubt been accelerated, and they
could have passed on tech and weapons to the Japanese that we would
have had no hope in defeating.
Of course that's all hypothetical, but it's not as unrealistic as it
sounds. They could have easily extended their submarine fleet into
the Pacific and cut us off from the rest of the world.
too many of those in the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions. Besides,
they needed most of their sub fleet on Atlantic convoy sinking duty in
an attempt to stop the US from supplying Europe.
On 2/03/2026 7:51 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 28/02/2026 5:55 pm, Noddy wrote:
You never did get around to showing how it was that *you* knew that
the "writing was on the wall" for the school cleaning industry,-a but
the 160 odd companies who were directly connected with it never saw
it coming.
Odd.
Not at all.
*Everyone* in the Victoria knew how fucked up the private contractor
system was and that the Victorian government was reviewing it. There
had been *plenty* of warning that changes were likely to happen given
the state of contract cleaning and how it was failing both cleaners
and schools. Dopey Daryl should have seen it coming a mile away being
involved in the industry, especially as other states had already had
enough of the private contracting companies creating such huge problems.
But no, dopey Daryl was not paying any attention for several years
evidently. You wouldn't have a clue either way you dumb fuck so any
comment from you is irrelevant.
I see. So, as I mentioned, not only was Daryl caught off guard, but so
where the other 160 odd companies who also never saw it coming. But you
did, even though you live 4 thousand km's away and have nothing
whatsoever to do with either the state government or the cleaning industry.
You'll excuse me if I call bullshit, won't you? :)
Dopey Daryl is $450k lighter in retirement to remind him everyday of
his ignorance and stupidity however.
You sure do talk real big for someone who's never employed a single
person in your life, and as a man in his 50's has managed to reach the dizzying heights of fitting snorkels and cb radio antennas for a living.
On 2/03/2026 3:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:59 am, jonz wrote:
On 01-Mar-26 7:14 PM, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS
to be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not
substantiated but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
What's the magic thing that gives him credibility over anybody else?
It can be shown that he posts lies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my case, its personal.. When asked to put up or shut up, (on the
accusations) he simply *ran away*!!..
He always does. Fuck only knows how many times I've asked him to post
the photos he claims he has of the records at PROV showing my name
being a glaring omission, and despite his perpetual whinging about
having them no one has ever seen them.
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden in
26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical proportions :)
lol. You've obviously never worked in a busy trade environment.
On 2/03/2026 5:35 am, Noddy wrote:
And it's irrelevant anyway, the truck had seat belts and regardless
of compliance or approval they have to be worn where fitted.
That's the law, plain and simple.
That is *not* the law,
It states it clearly. That is the law.
They were fitted and you failed as a father to put them on your kid when
you were legally required to do so.
End of story.
Xeno wrote:
On 2/3/2026 6:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:19 am, keithr0 wrote:Uh, no they couldn't! Submarines need shore bases, Germany didn't have
On 1/03/2026 6:58 pm, Noddy wrote:
The Germans were certainly a threat. Not as pressing a threat to
this country as the Japanese were, but a threat nonetheless.
How so? certainly they had a small naval presence in this area,
sinking the Sydney, but hardly a threat to the country.
As I said they weren't as pressing a threat to us as the Japanese,
but they were a threat just the same.
Had they taken over Europe including Russia and enslaved millions of
people their production capability would have gone through the roof.
Their weapons programs would have no doubt been accelerated, and they
could have passed on tech and weapons to the Japanese that we would
have had no hope in defeating.
Of course that's all hypothetical, but it's not as unrealistic as it
sounds. They could have easily extended their submarine fleet into
the Pacific and cut us off from the rest of the world.
too many of those in the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions. Besides,
they needed most of their sub fleet on Atlantic convoy sinking duty in
an attempt to stop the US from supplying Europe.
being in control of Europe, Russia, and inevitably Britain, and with
support from it's allies, in time Germany could do anything it wants
On 2/03/2026 3:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden in
26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical proportions :)
lol. You've obviously never worked in a busy trade environment.
On 2/03/2026 8:47 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 2/03/2026 5:35 am, Noddy wrote:
And it's irrelevant anyway, the truck had seat belts and regardless
of compliance or approval they have to be worn where fitted.
That's the law, plain and simple.
That is *not* the law,
It states it clearly. That is the law.
They were fitted and you failed as a father to put them on your kid
when you were legally required to do so.
What part of "they had to be removed to pass a roadworthy inspection"
did you not understand?
End of story.
You are thick. There is no other explanation.
On 2/03/2026 8:42 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 2/03/2026 3:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden
in 26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical proportions :) >>>
lol. You've obviously never worked in a busy trade environment.
Worked in a few. Not in my sleep like you though :)
On 2/03/2026 10:59 am, jonz wrote:
On 01-Mar-26 7:14 PM, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS to >>>>> be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not substantiated
but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
What's the magic thing that gives him credibility over anybody else?
It can be shown that he posts lies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my case, its personal.. When asked to put up or shut up, (on the
accusations) he simply *ran away*!!..
He always does. Fuck only knows how many times I've asked him to post
the photos he claims he has of the records at PROV showing my name being
a glaring omission, and despite his perpetual whinging about having them
no one has ever seen them.
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden in
26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical proportions :)
On 2/03/2026 8:42 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 2/03/2026 3:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden
in 26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical proportions :) >>>
lol. You've obviously never worked in a busy trade environment.
Worked in a few.
On 2/03/2026 7:51 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 28/02/2026 5:55 pm, Noddy wrote:
You never did get around to showing how it was that *you* knew that
the "writing was on the wall" for the school cleaning industry,-a but
the 160 odd companies who were directly connected with it never saw
it coming.
Odd.
Not at all.
*Everyone* in the Victoria knew how fucked up the private contractor
system was and that the Victorian government was reviewing it. There
had been *plenty* of warning that changes were likely to happen given
the state of contract cleaning and how it was failing both cleaners
and schools. Dopey Daryl should have seen it coming a mile away being
involved in the industry, especially as other states had already had
enough of the private contracting companies creating such huge problems.
But no, dopey Daryl was not paying any attention for several years
evidently. You wouldn't have a clue either way you dumb fuck so any
comment from you is irrelevant.
I see. So, as I mentioned, not only was Daryl caught off guard, but so
where the other 160 odd companies who also never saw it coming. But you
did, even though you live 4 thousand km's away and have nothing
whatsoever to do with either the state government or the cleaning industry.
You'll excuse me if I call bullshit, won't you? :)
On 2/3/2026 8:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 7:51 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 28/02/2026 5:55 pm, Noddy wrote:
You never did get around to showing how it was that *you* knew that
the "writing was on the wall" for the school cleaning industry,-a but >>>> the 160 odd companies who were directly connected with it never saw
it coming.
Odd.
Not at all.
*Everyone* in the Victoria knew how fucked up the private contractor
system was and that the Victorian government was reviewing it. There
had been *plenty* of warning that changes were likely to happen given
the state of contract cleaning and how it was failing both cleaners
and schools. Dopey Daryl should have seen it coming a mile away being
involved in the industry, especially as other states had already had
enough of the private contracting companies creating such huge problems. >>>
But no, dopey Daryl was not paying any attention for several years
evidently. You wouldn't have a clue either way you dumb fuck so any
comment from you is irrelevant.
I see. So, as I mentioned, not only was Daryl caught off guard, but so
where the other 160 odd companies who also never saw it coming. But
you did, even though you live 4 thousand km's away and have nothing
whatsoever to do with either the state government or the cleaning
industry.
You'll excuse me if I call bullshit, won't you? :)
Either that or he has a crystal ball or maybe he saw it all at a seance:-) Its worse than bullshit, its an outright lie and for some reason he's feeling the need to try and piss me off.
Its ancient history and I no longer give a shit about it and care even
less what he thinks, silly cunt has lost the plot which is rather sad.
On 2/3/2026 8:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
I see. So, as I mentioned, not only was Daryl caught off guard, but so
where the other 160 odd companies who also never saw it coming. But
you did, even though you live 4 thousand km's away and have nothing
whatsoever to do with either the state government or the cleaning
industry.
You'll excuse me if I call bullshit, won't you? :)
Either that or he has a crystal ball or maybe he saw it all at a seance:-) Its worse than bullshit, its an outright lie and for some reason he's feeling the need to try and piss me off.
Its ancient history and I no longer give a shit about it and care even
less what he thinks, silly cunt has lost the plot which is rather sad.
On 2/3/2026 6:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden in
26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical proportions :)
Does the 26 mins include removing the gearbox first then refitting it? Wouldn't be too difficult to remove and replace a clutch on a flywheel
in 26 mins once the gbox is already removed:-)
On 2/3/2026 10:00 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 8:47 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 2/03/2026 5:35 am, Noddy wrote:
And it's irrelevant anyway, the truck had seat belts and regardless >>>>> of compliance or approval they have to be worn where fitted.
That's the law, plain and simple.
That is *not* the law,
It states it clearly. That is the law.
They were fitted and you failed as a father to put them on your kid
when you were legally required to do so.
What part of "they had to be removed to pass a roadworthy inspection"
did you not understand?
What part of "you carried your kid around in a car with no seatbelts" do
you not understand.
The liar changed his story. As always, he defaults to lying.
On 2/3/2026 9:03 pm, Axel wrote:
Xeno wrote:Nope, think of what would be required in the way of occupation forces
On 2/3/2026 6:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:19 am, keithr0 wrote:Uh, no they couldn't! Submarines need shore bases, Germany didn't
On 1/03/2026 6:58 pm, Noddy wrote:
The Germans were certainly a threat. Not as pressing a threat to
this country as the Japanese were, but a threat nonetheless.
How so? certainly they had a small naval presence in this area,
sinking the Sydney, but hardly a threat to the country.
As I said they weren't as pressing a threat to us as the Japanese,
but they were a threat just the same.
Had they taken over Europe including Russia and enslaved millions
of people their production capability would have gone through the
roof. Their weapons programs would have no doubt been accelerated,
and they could have passed on tech and weapons to the Japanese that
we would have had no hope in defeating.
Of course that's all hypothetical, but it's not as unrealistic as
it sounds. They could have easily extended their submarine fleet
into the Pacific and cut us off from the rest of the world.
have too many of those in the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions.
Besides, they needed most of their sub fleet on Atlantic convoy
sinking duty in an attempt to stop the US from supplying Europe.
being in control of Europe, Russia, and inevitably Britain, and with
support from it's allies, in time Germany could do anything it wants
alone.
On 2/03/2026 10:22 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 2/3/2026 8:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
I see. So, as I mentioned, not only was Daryl caught off guard, but
so where the other 160 odd companies who also never saw it coming.
But you did, even though you live 4 thousand km's away and have
nothing whatsoever to do with either the state government or the
cleaning industry.
You'll excuse me if I call bullshit, won't you? :)
Either that or he has a crystal ball or maybe he saw it all at a
seance:-)
Its worse than bullshit, its an outright lie and for some reason he's
feeling the need to try and piss me off.
He tries to piss *everyone* off.
That's all his existence in this group
has degraded to. He's a professional misery guts.
Its ancient history and I no longer give a shit about it and care even
less what he thinks, silly cunt has lost the plot which is rather sad.
He's made his bed, and he can fuckingwell lay in it. No sympathy from
me.
No one forced him to become the contemptible cunt of a thing that he
has. It's all his own doing.
On 2/03/2026 8:21 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 2/03/2026 3:39 pm, Noddy wrote:
Unlike you Mr Angry Man, I was actually there and saw with my own
eyes. Have you ever been in a federal government office, or ever
even been to Canberra?
I'm tipping "No" on both counts, but that won't stop the deluded
prick from being a zero experience expert.
Keith has zero current experience obviously and what he saw has
absolutely no relevance today. You've never had any experience.
I make no claims about his experience, but whatever it is/was is 100%
more than yours :)
You have both been shown that in most cases cleaners in Canberra
government offices need to be Australian citizens. Period.
We've been shown no such thing, but that's irrelevant. What *no one* has been shown is how *you* are in any position to know.
There is no argument to be had here.
Especially by you, Mr Shit Talker.
On 2/03/2026 10:07 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 2/3/2026 6:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden
in 26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical proportions :) >>>
Does the 26 mins include removing the gearbox first then refitting it?
Wouldn't be too difficult to remove and replace a clutch on a flywheel
in 26 mins once the gbox is already removed:-)
The 26 minutes is pure delusion. I've done enough early Holden clutches
that I can do them in my sleep, and I can be pretty quick, but 26
minutes is shit talking in the extreme :)
Still, if he reckons it's true, then I'll happily pay for his airfare
and accommodation to come over here where I'll have a car, tools and equipment ready to go. I'll video the whole thing from start to finish
and post a link to it here, and if he can have the clutch changed drive in/drive out in the 26 minutes he claims he can do it in then I'll give
him a grand cash for his trouble which will be the most he'll ever earn
for half an hour's work. If he can't, then he pays for his airfares and hotel stay out of his own pocket.
What do you reckon will be the chances of Mr Windscreen taking me up on
it? :)
On 2/03/2026 10:07 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 2/3/2026 6:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden
in 26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical proportions :) >>>
Does the 26 mins include removing the gearbox first then refitting it?
Wouldn't be too difficult to remove and replace a clutch on a flywheel
in 26 mins once the gbox is already removed:-)
The 26 minutes is pure delusion. I've done enough early Holden clutches
that I can do them in my sleep, and I can be pretty quick, but 26
minutes is shit talking in the extreme :)
Still, if he reckons it's true, then I'll happily pay for his airfare
and accommodation to come over here where I'll have a car, tools and equipment ready to go. I'll video the whole thing from start to finish
and post a link to it here, and if he can have the clutch changed drive in/drive out in the 26 minutes he claims he can do it in then I'll give
him a grand cash for his trouble which will be the most he'll ever earn
for half an hour's work. If he can't, then he pays for his airfares and hotel stay out of his own pocket.
What do you reckon will be the chances of Mr Windscreen taking me up on
it? :)
Xeno wrote:
On 2/3/2026 9:03 pm, Axel wrote:
Xeno wrote:Nope, think of what would be required in the way of occupation forces
On 2/3/2026 6:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:19 am, keithr0 wrote:Uh, no they couldn't! Submarines need shore bases, Germany didn't
On 1/03/2026 6:58 pm, Noddy wrote:
The Germans were certainly a threat. Not as pressing a threat to >>>>>>> this country as the Japanese were, but a threat nonetheless.
How so? certainly they had a small naval presence in this area,
sinking the Sydney, but hardly a threat to the country.
As I said they weren't as pressing a threat to us as the Japanese,
but they were a threat just the same.
Had they taken over Europe including Russia and enslaved millions
of people their production capability would have gone through the
roof. Their weapons programs would have no doubt been accelerated,
and they could have passed on tech and weapons to the Japanese that >>>>> we would have had no hope in defeating.
Of course that's all hypothetical, but it's not as unrealistic as
it sounds. They could have easily extended their submarine fleet
into the Pacific and cut us off from the rest of the world.
have too many of those in the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions.
Besides, they needed most of their sub fleet on Atlantic convoy
sinking duty in an attempt to stop the US from supplying Europe.
being in control of Europe, Russia, and inevitably Britain, and with
support from it's allies, in time Germany could do anything it wants
alone.
but we're talking about a scenario where the Axis powers won WW2
On 2/03/2026 7:16 am, keithr0 wrote:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On 1/03/2026 7:47 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:Since you aren't able to work it out for yourself, in the text "were
On 1/03/2026 12:35 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:37 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 6:04 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 2:46 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This >>>>>>>>>>>> represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed >>>>>>>>>> kiddie pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to >>>>>>>>> WWII was insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the >>>>>>>>> same contribution to the planet's CO2 output.
You *had* no point Trev, as your analogy was completely wrong to >>>>>>>> begin with.
**And yet, the percentage figures invite serious comparison.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed >>>>>>>> conflict of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above their >>>>>>>> weight in every theatre they were deployed to.
**Maybe. Maybe not. The Japanese were, initially, disregarded by >>>>>>> most military experts, right up until their own armed forces
faced them in combat. That includes Australia and the UK forces >>>>>>> (in Singapore), the US forces over much of the Pacific. Here's
the thing:
Four of my uncles served in WWII. One was flown all over the
Pacific by the US (he was attached to the US military), because >>>>>>> he had a crucial job of decoding Japanese radio transmissions.
Very improtant job. Another was a lookout on some of the islands >>>>>>> above the top end. Another important job. I am under no illusion >>>>>>> that they were important to the war effort, but no more important >>>>>>> than many hundreds of thousands of others.
I hold the view, not popular among my ex-military friends,
with good reason (see below)
that the only ones that have fought for Australia were those who
fought in the Pacific in WWII. All the others were fighting for
somebody else.
all nations and personnel who fought against the Axis powers were
fighting for freedom from world domination by them
The Boers, Germans, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis, and
Afghans were to a threat to Australia, only the Japanese were. The
guys fighting in the Pacific in WWII were defending their country,
all the rest were defending somewhere else.
if that were in English I might know what you said
to a threat" delete "to" insert "not", is that too complicated for you?
You posted gibberish and you're taking it out on others... looks like
you're the one who needs better mental health treatment and anger
management .
Talk to your doctor/carer about your options.
On 2/03/2026 3:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:59 am, jonz wrote:
On 01-Mar-26 7:14 PM, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS
to be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not
substantiated but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
What's the magic thing that gives him credibility over anybody else?
It can be shown that he posts lies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my case, its personal.. When asked to put up or shut up, (on the
accusations) he simply *ran away*!!..
He always does. Fuck only knows how many times I've asked him to post
the photos he claims he has of the records at PROV showing my name
being a glaring omission, and despite his perpetual whinging about
having them no one has ever seen them.
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden in
26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical proportions :)
lol. You've obviously never worked in a busy trade environment.
On 2/3/2026 11:53 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:07 pm, Daryl wrote:LOL, not much.
On 2/3/2026 6:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden
in 26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical
proportions :)
Does the 26 mins include removing the gearbox first then refitting it?
Wouldn't be too difficult to remove and replace a clutch on a
flywheel in 26 mins once the gbox is already removed:-)
The 26 minutes is pure delusion. I've done enough early Holden
clutches that I can do them in my sleep, and I can be pretty quick,
but 26 minutes is shit talking in the extreme :)
Still, if he reckons it's true, then I'll happily pay for his airfare
and accommodation to come over here where I'll have a car, tools and
equipment ready to go. I'll video the whole thing from start to finish
and post a link to it here, and if he can have the clutch changed
drive in/drive out in the 26 minutes he claims he can do it in then
I'll give him a grand cash for his trouble which will be the most
he'll ever earn for half an hour's work. If he can't, then he pays for
his airfares and hotel stay out of his own pocket.
What do you reckon will be the chances of Mr Windscreen taking me up
on it? :)
Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:07 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 2/3/2026 6:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden
in 26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical
proportions :)
Does the 26 mins include removing the gearbox first then refitting it?
Wouldn't be too difficult to remove and replace a clutch on a
flywheel in 26 mins once the gbox is already removed:-)
The 26 minutes is pure delusion. I've done enough early Holden
clutches that I can do them in my sleep, and I can be pretty quick,
but 26 minutes is shit talking in the extreme :)
Still, if he reckons it's true, then I'll happily pay for his airfare
and accommodation to come over here where I'll have a car, tools and
equipment ready to go. I'll video the whole thing from start to finish
and post a link to it here, and if he can have the clutch changed
drive in/drive out in the 26 minutes he claims he can do it in then
I'll give him a grand cash for his trouble which will be the most
he'll ever earn for half an hour's work. If he can't, then he pays for
his airfares and hotel stay out of his own pocket.
What do you reckon will be the chances of Mr Windscreen taking me up
on it? :)
Identical to you providing proof of your Big Claims.
Seriously Buffo. Meet you for a lousy $1k? You need to multiply that by--
*at least* 100. Besides, how would you explain to the breadwinner the
$1k missing from the account? Besides #2: As part of the deal, Clock
could propose that he sees your (alleged) Grange & guitar collections.
On 2/03/2026 7:51 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 28/02/2026 5:55 pm, Noddy wrote:
You never did get around to showing how it was that *you* knew that
the "writing was on the wall" for the school cleaning industry,-a but
the 160 odd companies who were directly connected with it never saw
it coming.
Odd.
Not at all.
*Everyone* in the Victoria knew how fucked up the private contractor
system was and that the Victorian government was reviewing it. There
had been *plenty* of warning that changes were likely to happen given
the state of contract cleaning and how it was failing both cleaners
and schools. Dopey Daryl should have seen it coming a mile away being
involved in the industry, especially as other states had already had
enough of the private contracting companies creating such huge problems.
But no, dopey Daryl was not paying any attention for several years
evidently. You wouldn't have a clue either way you dumb fuck so any
comment from you is irrelevant.
I see. So, as I mentioned, not only was Daryl caught off guard, but so
where the other 160 odd companies who also never saw it coming.
did, even though you live 4 thousand km's away and have nothing
whatsoever to do with either the state government or the cleaning industry.
You'll excuse me if I call bullshit, won't you? :)
Dopey Daryl is $450k lighter in retirement to remind him everyday of
his ignorance and stupidity however.
You sure do talk real big for someone who's never employed a single
person in your life, and as a man in his 50's has managed to reach the dizzying heights of fitting snorkels and cb radio antennas for a living.
On 2/03/2026 8:42 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 2/03/2026 3:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden
in 26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical proportions :) >>>
lol. You've obviously never worked in a busy trade environment.
Worked in a few.
On 2/03/2026 10:07 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 2/3/2026 6:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden
in 26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical proportions :) >>>
Does the 26 mins include removing the gearbox first then refitting it?
Wouldn't be too difficult to remove and replace a clutch on a flywheel
in 26 mins once the gbox is already removed:-)
The 26 minutes is pure delusion. I've done enough early Holden clutches
that I can do them in my sleep, and I can be pretty quick, but 26
minutes is shit talking in the extreme :)
Still, if he reckons it's true,
and accommodation to come over here where I'll have a car, tools and equipment ready to go. I'll video the whole thing from start to finish
and post a link to it here, and if he can have the clutch changed drive in/drive out in the 26 minutes he claims he can do it in then I'll give
him a grand cash for his trouble which will be the most he'll ever earn
for half an hour's work. If he can't, then he pays for his airfares and hotel stay out of his own pocket.
What do you reckon will be the chances of Mr Windscreen taking me up on
it? :)
On 2/03/2026 5:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
I see. So, as I mentioned, not only was Daryl caught off guard, but so
where the other 160 odd companies who also never saw it coming.
You mentioning it doesn't make it a fact. You wouldn't have a clue
either way.
On 2/03/2026 7:01 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 8:42 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 2/03/2026 3:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden
in 26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical
proportions :)
lol. You've obviously never worked in a busy trade environment.
Worked in a few.
No you haven't and it shows.
On 2/03/2026 8:53 pm, Noddy wrote:
I used to change 1L Daihatsu Charade clutches in 25 minutes, push in -
drive out - and made a killing on bonuses doing so.
On 02-Mar-26 8:42 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 2/03/2026 3:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:59 am, jonz wrote:
On 01-Mar-26 7:14 PM, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS >>>>>>> to be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not
substantiated but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in
26 minutes or less.
What's the magic thing that gives him credibility over anybody
else? It can be shown that he posts lies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my case, its personal.. When asked to put up or shut up, (on the
accusations) he simply *ran away*!!..
He always does. Fuck only knows how many times I've asked him to
post the photos he claims he has of the records at PROV showing my
name being a glaring omission, and despite his perpetual whinging
about having them no one has ever seen them.
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden
in 26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical
proportions :)
lol. You've obviously never worked in a busy trade environment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-a Obvious windscreen man bullshit ignored!...
-a-a-a-a-a felix showed a pic. in here of a forties Vauxhall that he
claimed to have owned, and reckoned it had a *non synchro* gearbox.
They had synchro since the thirties.!. It was prolly just fucked!.
(Why wouldn`t it be)
So, change out a clutch in 26min???, don't reckon he`d know where the--
bloody thing resided even!.
Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea--Massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it!!!!. Gene Spafford
Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 7:51 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 28/02/2026 5:55 pm, Noddy wrote:
You never did get around to showing how it was that *you* knew that
the "writing was on the wall" for the school cleaning industry,-a but >>>> the 160 odd companies who were directly connected with it never saw
it coming.
Odd.
Not at all.
*Everyone* in the Victoria knew how fucked up the private contractor
system was and that the Victorian government was reviewing it. There
had been *plenty* of warning that changes were likely to happen given
the state of contract cleaning and how it was failing both cleaners
and schools. Dopey Daryl should have seen it coming a mile away being
involved in the industry, especially as other states had already had
enough of the private contracting companies creating such huge problems. >>>
But no, dopey Daryl was not paying any attention for several years
evidently. You wouldn't have a clue either way you dumb fuck so any
comment from you is irrelevant.
I see. So, as I mentioned, not only was Daryl caught off guard, but so
where the other 160 odd companies who also never saw it coming. But
you did, even though you live 4 thousand km's away and have nothing
whatsoever to do with either the state government or the cleaning
industry.
You'll excuse me if I call bullshit, won't you? :)
Dopey Daryl is $450k lighter in retirement to remind him everyday of
his ignorance and stupidity however.
You sure do talk real big for someone who's never employed a single
person in your life, and as a man in his 50's has managed to reach the
dizzying heights of fitting snorkels and cb radio antennas for a living.
That'd be really cutting if only you had any verified employment history
of your own Fraudster.
On 2/03/2026 5:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 7:51 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 28/02/2026 5:55 pm, Noddy wrote:
You never did get around to showing how it was that *you* knew that
the "writing was on the wall" for the school cleaning industry,-a but >>>> the 160 odd companies who were directly connected with it never saw
it coming.
Odd.
Not at all.
*Everyone* in the Victoria knew how fucked up the private contractor
system was and that the Victorian government was reviewing it. There
had been *plenty* of warning that changes were likely to happen given
the state of contract cleaning and how it was failing both cleaners
and schools. Dopey Daryl should have seen it coming a mile away being
involved in the industry, especially as other states had already had
enough of the private contracting companies creating such huge problems. >>>
But no, dopey Daryl was not paying any attention for several years
evidently. You wouldn't have a clue either way you dumb fuck so any
comment from you is irrelevant.
I see. So, as I mentioned, not only was Daryl caught off guard, but so
where the other 160 odd companies who also never saw it coming.
You mentioning it doesn't make it a fact. You wouldn't have a clue
either way.
In 2017 there were reforms after private contracting companies were
ripping off cleaners and providing pisspoor service. The writing was on
the wall then.
But you
did, even though you live 4 thousand km's away and have nothing
whatsoever to do with either the state government or the cleaning
industry.
You don't have a clue on that either.
You'll excuse me if I call bullshit, won't you? :)
I means nothing coming from a habitual liar like you, I can assure you.
Dopey Daryl is $450k lighter in retirement to remind him everyday of
his ignorance and stupidity however.
You sure do talk real big for someone who's never employed a single
person in your life, and as a man in his 50's has managed to reach the
dizzying heights of fitting snorkels and cb radio antennas for a living.
This from a bloke who has never worked in the automotive industry or obtained any trade qualification defending Daryl the dunny cleaner who flushed $450k down the toilet...
On 2/3/2026 6:39 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:40 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 2/03/2026 2:07 am, Clocky wrote:
What happened in your day is not relevant to today, nor do you even
know if the cleaners were Australian citizens in any event you fool.
Unlike you Mr Angry Man, I was actually there and saw with my own
eyes. Have you ever been in a federal government office, or ever even
been to Canberra?
I'm tipping "No" on both counts, but that won't stop the deluded prick
from being a zero experience expert.
How about your zero experience in any trade apprenticeship?
You've tried to cover that lack by lying, it hasn't worked!
Your stock in trade is lying.
It's his stock in trade.
Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:40 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 2/03/2026 2:07 am, Clocky wrote:
What happened in your day is not relevant to today, nor do you even
know if the cleaners were Australian citizens in any event you fool.
Unlike you Mr Angry Man, I was actually there and saw with my own
eyes. Have you ever been in a federal government office, or ever even
been to Canberra?
I'm tipping "No" on both counts, but that won't stop the deluded prick
from being a zero experience expert.
It's his stock in trade.
Speaking of... Tell us again what your "trade" experience is Fraudster.
On 2/03/2026 7:40 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 2/03/2026 2:07 am, Clocky wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:09 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 2:33 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:Other than in high security situations such as ASIO and similar
On 28/02/2026 9:15 am, Clocky wrote:
On 27/02/2026 4:48 pm, Noddy wrote:You do realise, of course that there are different requirements
On 27/02/2026 6:12 pm, Daryl wrote:, that cleaners would come in contct with classified material.
On 27/2/2026 5:35 pm, Noddy wrote:Nothing out of the ordinary.
On 27/02/2026 3:05 pm, Clocky wrote:He couldn't answer the question so he had to make something up? >>>>>>>>
On 26/02/2026 4:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Mostly because many cleaners are not Australian citizens >>>>>>>>>>>>> which is a requirement.
How would you know this exactly?
I'm not an ignorant dumb fuck like you I suppose.
As usual, whenever you're asked a genuine question, all you >>>>>>>>>> ever do is back pedal and come up with some irrelevant
bullshit that permits you to avoid giving a direct answer. You >>>>>>>>>> may as well just come out and said you were talking shit. That >>>>>>>>>> would at least invite a modicum of respect.
Is it any fucking wonder that no bothers to engage you in >>>>>>>>>> conversation....
My 25yrs experience in the cleaning industry suggest that he >>>>>>>>> has no idea what he's talking about, of the hundreds of people >>>>>>>>> we employed over the years very few were recent migrants.
If I had to put a number on it my guess would be that at least >>>>>>>>> 70% of our employees were Australian citizens.
Maybe something weird is going on in WA?
Or maybe your reality is getting in the way of his bullshit.
In very recent years we have had a lot of migrants from India >>>>>>>>> and of course they look for work and often low paid jobs such >>>>>>>>> as cleaning is all they can get but that wouldn't have been the >>>>>>>>> case in the Canberra example that Keith mentioned which is what >>>>>>>>> we were discussing.
Seldom, if ever, is what's being discussed relevant to these
dickheads. It's their standard practice. Hijack any conversation >>>>>>>> just so they can insert their own unique bullshit
I can assure you that ACT government office cleaners needing to >>>>>>> be Australian citizens is not "bullshit" but in fact a primary
requirement in almost all cases.
The only "bullshit" is from you three dumb fucks too ignorant to >>>>>>> know and too stupid to look it up for yourself.
for different levels of clearance. If you are working on
classified material, you are required to lock it away when you are >>>>>> not using it, so it is quite unlikely, unless somebody fucks up.
You've obviously never been in that environment.
Google AI says..
Whether cleaners in Australian government offices are required to
be citizens depends on whether they are employed directly by the
public service or via a private contractor, and the security level
of the building.
Key Requirements:
Australian Public Service (APS) Employees: Generally, you must be
an Australian citizen to work for the Commonwealth of Australia
public service. While agency heads may waive this requirement in
exceptional circumstances to employ non-citizens with appropriate
work entitlements, it is not common for cleaning roles.
Contractors: Many government departments use private cleaning
contractors. These staff may not need to be citizens, but they must >>>>> have valid work rights (visa) and usually must pass security checks >>>>> (e.g., National Police Check).
Security Clearances: If the office is high-security (requiring a
security clearance), the Australian Government Security Vetting
Agency (AGSVA) generally requires individuals to be Australian
citizens.
State/Territory Roles: In some state government sectors (like WA),
positions may be open to permanent residents or those with a valid
visa to live and work, not exclusively citizens.
In summary, for federal (Commonwealth) government offices,
citizenship is typically required for direct employees and strongly >>>>> preferred/ required for secure areas. Private contractors may hire
non-citizens with valid working visas, subject to security checks.
organisations virtually all cleaning services that I came across
while working in Canberra for 16 years were provided by contractors.
They varied from one man setups to large companies. The highest
security place that I worked in was cleaned by a public servant
making some extra cash in his spare time.
What part of
"Australian Public Service (APS) Employees: Generally, you must be an
Australian citizen to work for the Commonwealth of Australia public
service. While agency heads may waive this requirement in exceptional
circumstances to employ non-citizens with appropriate work
entitlements, it is not common for cleaning roles."
are you having trouble with understanding?
What happened in your day is not relevant to today, nor do you even
know if the cleaners were Australian citizens in any event you fool.
Unlike you Mr Angry Man, I was actually there and saw with my own
eyes. Have you ever been in a federal government office, or ever even
been to Canberra?
You were there in a very different time and that time isn't relevant
today. Get over yourself you silly old prick, you're time has faded into irrelevance.
If you want to know the current state of affairs, spend more time
looking it up instead of looking like a fool arguing for something that
no longer exists.
Axel wrote:
Xeno wrote:It has happened you know.
On 2/3/2026 12:41 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 2/3/2026 11:25 am, lindsay wrote:Services and infrastructure can't catch up if the people aren't there
On 2/03/2026 10:37 am, keithr0 wrote:
Still, 500,000 a year for the last 6 years without the police,At our local health centre has 5 doctors, one is Pakistani, one is >>>>>> Iranian, 2 are poms, the other may or may not be Australian.
ambo's ,teachers, hospitals... LOL, it's a month wait to see my >>>>>>> doctor. (Which is fine by me, everytime i see him i end up on
more pills :-D )
Without migrants, they'd be pretty shorthanded.
No doubt. Mine's Greek. Good bloke, too. Australia needs skilled
migrants. Always has, and probably always will.
Agree, just not so many until services and infrastructure has a
chance to catch up.
to *build and man said infrastructure*!
the correct method is to determine a desired population size, and
build the necessary infrastructure.. hospitals, schools, roads,
houses, etc., The existing population is always capable of doing that.
Except it never happens.
Back In The Day they used to do it in Cantberra. Streets, signs,
brightly painted public kids playgrounds etc etc. and what was the
result? They were mercilesly mocked by 'our' national media.
On 2/3/2026 6:46 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:31 am, keithr0 wrote:Nah Darren, that process made YOU look like a delusional dick!
On 1/03/2026 6:32 pm, Xeno wrote:He remembers wrong, as usual. I've never looked up anyone's
But *you* can look up that number on the Tasmanian trade register.
It is *my* unique number just as Clocky's was his unique number.
IIRC, people here, including Sprintless, Darren and others, did look
up his bona fides.
That is what is known as an empty offer. One made in the expectation
of it never being taken up. Nobody is going to go to Hobart just to
check on whether the number you quoted is legit or not so you are safe.
credentials. I simply don't care enough to bother.
I *certainly* am not that self absorbed that I would go to the trouble
of visiting the public records office in another state *just* to try
to win an argument, only to make myself look like a total fuckwit in
the process :)
Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:31 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 6:32 pm, Xeno wrote:
But *you* can look up that number on the Tasmanian trade register.
It is *my* unique number just as Clocky's was his unique number.
IIRC, people here, including Sprintless, Darren and others, did look
up his bona fides.
That is what is known as an empty offer. One made in the expectation
of it never being taken up. Nobody is going to go to Hobart just to
check on whether the number you quoted is legit or not so you are safe.
He remembers wrong, as usual. I've never looked up anyone's credentials.
Errr... He said "Nobody" not "Noddy" Fraudster. Not that there's any difference...
I *certainly* am not that self absorbed that I would go to the trouble
of visiting the public records office in another state *just* to try
to win an argument, only to make myself look like a total fuckwit in
the process :)
No need to do that is there Buffo. You've made a total buffoon of
yourself with your vast catalog of childish lies and abuse.
On 3/03/2026 3:32 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 2/03/2026 8:53 pm, Noddy wrote:
I used to change 1L Daihatsu Charade clutches in 25 minutes, push in -
drive out - and made a killing on bonuses doing so.
Save your bullshit for people who believe you, which since Felix left is nobody around here.....
On 2/3/2026 6:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:59 am, jonz wrote:
On 01-Mar-26 7:14 PM, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS
to be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not
substantiated but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26
minutes or less.
What's the magic thing that gives him credibility over anybody else?
It can be shown that he posts lies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my case, its personal.. When asked to put up or shut up, (on the
accusations) he simply *ran away*!!..
He always does. Fuck only knows how many times I've asked him to post
the photos he claims he has of the records at PROV showing my name
being a glaring omission, and despite his perpetual whinging about
having them no one has ever seen them.
Wrong Darren, IIRC, even Fred saw them.
It's easy on some of the 70s series Holden. Works best when working in a
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden in
26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical proportions :)
pit rather than under a hoist, saves time getting the vehicle to working height. Also helps if all the needed tools are at the ready, as happens
in a dealership where you might be doing a number of them in a row.
Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:07 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 2/3/2026 6:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden
in 26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical
proportions :)
Does the 26 mins include removing the gearbox first then refitting it?
Wouldn't be too difficult to remove and replace a clutch on a
flywheel in 26 mins once the gbox is already removed:-)
The 26 minutes is pure delusion. I've done enough early Holden
clutches that I can do them in my sleep, and I can be pretty quick,
but 26 minutes is shit talking in the extreme :)
Still, if he reckons it's true, then I'll happily pay for his airfare
and accommodation to come over here where I'll have a car, tools and
equipment ready to go. I'll video the whole thing from start to finish
and post a link to it here, and if he can have the clutch changed
drive in/drive out in the 26 minutes he claims he can do it in then
I'll give him a grand cash for his trouble which will be the most
he'll ever earn for half an hour's work. If he can't, then he pays for
his airfares and hotel stay out of his own pocket.
What do you reckon will be the chances of Mr Windscreen taking me up
on it? :)
Identical to you providing proof of your Big Claims.
Seriously Buffo. Meet you for a lousy $1k? You need to multiply that by
*at least* 100. Besides, how would you explain to the breadwinner the
$1k missing from the account? Besides #2: As part of the deal, Clock
could propose that he sees your (alleged) Grange & guitar collections.
On 2/03/2026 8:53 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:07 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 2/3/2026 6:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden
in 26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical
proportions :)
Does the 26 mins include removing the gearbox first then refitting it?
Wouldn't be too difficult to remove and replace a clutch on a
flywheel in 26 mins once the gbox is already removed:-)
The 26 minutes is pure delusion. I've done enough early Holden
clutches that I can do them in my sleep, and I can be pretty quick,
but 26 minutes is shit talking in the extreme :)
Still, if he reckons it's true,
I never claimed to have changed clutches on old Holdens in 26 minutes.
Keith pulled that out of his arse.
I used to change 1L Daihatsu Charade clutches in 25 minutes, push in -
drive out - and made a killing on bonuses doing so.
By the time you have done a dozen or so that isn't particularly
difficult for a tradesman to do, but since you have never worked in a
busy trade environment and have only ever fucked around in your shed
trying to make Imperial spanners fit metric bolts you wouldn't know
anything about that.
-athen I'll happily pay for his airfare
and accommodation to come over here where I'll have a car, tools and
equipment ready to go. I'll video the whole thing from start to finish
and post a link to it here, and if he can have the clutch changed
drive in/drive out in the 26 minutes he claims he can do it in then
I'll give him a grand cash for his trouble which will be the most
he'll ever earn for half an hour's work. If he can't, then he pays for
his airfares and hotel stay out of his own pocket.
What do you reckon will be the chances of Mr Windscreen taking me up
on it? :)
None since I never claimed it for "old Holdens" and I haven't done a 1L Charade clutch in decades Mr. "All Imperial".
On 1/03/2026 4:18 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 5:40 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 8:18 am, alvey wrote:Certainly not. I usually hire a team of PIs.
keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 9:24 am, Clocky wrote:
Anyway, it's pretty obvious you're at the very minimum an
embellisher if not an outright bullshit artist, but much like
that dumb fuck you enable.
If it's that obvious, then you must have some proof, either show
it or STFU.
Unfortunately Richo this little pond was long ago poisoned by a
certain dickhead whose total failure to prove a single one of his
Big Claims has made the traditional 'prove or retract' newsgroup
demand obsolete.
So, in social conversation, you demand proof of anything anybody says? >>>
The usual smartarseary - what a surprise.
Your social circle must have contracted like a black hole over the
years.
Your conclusion is based on a false premise.
Also, I've found that it's extremely rare for people to people to
bullshit to your face irl. In fact, there's only two that I can recall.
It often comes from keyboard warriors hiding-a behind walls of anonymity.
Is that right "keithr0"...
On 2/03/2026 1:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 2/03/2026 11:48 am, Daryl wrote:
I don't think they were ever a direct physical threat but certainlySo would the entire world, but it's doubtful that they could have
indirect in that they threatened the UK which Australia was/is
closely tied to.
Its very likely that Australia would be a very different place if
Germany had won the war.
invaded Australia.
That depends.
They certainly would have had made a better go of it than the Japanese
would have. Look what they did in Africa?
On 2/3/2026 6:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 1:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 2/03/2026 11:48 am, Daryl wrote:
I don't think they were ever a direct physical threat but certainlySo would the entire world, but it's doubtful that they could have
indirect in that they threatened the UK which Australia was/is
closely tied to.
Its very likely that Australia would be a very different place if
Germany had won the war.
invaded Australia.
That depends.
They certainly would have had made a better go of it than the Japanese
would have. Look what they did in Africa?
What did they do in Africa Darren? My history books seem all to say the Germans *lost* in Africa. Why did they lose Darren? You don't seem to
know. It was logistics, Darren, logistics pure and simple. You leave yourself with extended supply lines, you leave yourself vulnerable.
A bit AI for you
Logistics played a critical, and arguably deciding, role in the defeat
of both Germany and Japan in World War II. While both nations achieved early, rapid victories, their logistical systems were insufficient for
long, drawn-out, high-intensity wars against industrial giants like the United States and the Soviet Union.
Germany: The Land-Based Logistical Struggle
Horses vs. Machines: Despite the image of a highly mechanized Blitzkrieg army, the German Wehrmacht relied heavily on horses (over 80% of their logistical chain) and rail for supply.
Fuel and Resource Shortages: Germany lacked sufficient oil to support a long-term mechanized war. By late 1944, fuel shortages were so severe
that the Luftwaffe could only operate on 10% of their required aviation gasoline.
Supply Line Overextension: In the Soviet Union, the vast distances and different railway gauges broke down German logistics. Supplies could not reach the front lines, leading to critical shortages of ammunition and
food, as seen at Stalingrad.
Inefficient Production: Germany produced high-quality, complex equipment (like Tiger tanks) that were difficult to repair and maintain in the
field, whereas the Allied powers focused on mass-producing more
reliable, easily serviceable equipment.
Japan: The Maritime Logistics Failure
Submarine Warfare: U.S. submarines effectively destroyed Japan's
merchant fleet, sinking roughly 55-60% of it. This cut off the flow of essential resources (oil, raw materials) from occupied territories to
the Japanese home islands.
Geography and Infrastructure: Japan was fighting across vast oceans and remote, low-infrastructure areas in the Pacific and Southeast Asia,
making the transportation of supplies nearly impossible as the war progressed.
Ignoring Logistics: The Imperial Japanese military historically
undervalued logistics, viewing it as unglamorous. This resulted in poor planning, such as the inability to properly supply soldiers on island
bases, leading to widespread starvation.
Fuel Crisis: The lack of fuel, caused by the US embargo and the
destruction of their merchant fleet, severely restricted Japanese naval
and air operations.
Comparison with Allied Logistics
Allied Superiority: The United States demonstrated superior logistical prowess, which included the ability to project power across two oceans, support large armies in multiple theaters, and even maintain, for example"ice cream barges" to boost troop morale, in stark contrast to Japanese troops starving in the jungle.
Industrial Output: The Allies, particularly the U.S., were able to
produce vastly more trucks, ships, and aircraft than the Axis powers
could, ensuring they never ran out of supplies.
"War of Supply": The Allies mastered the "war of supply" where
logistical efficiency, from landing craft to refueling, proved more
decisive than individual tactical victories.
In summary, while tactical mistakes and strategic decisions (like
invading the USSR or attacking the USA) contributed to the Axis
downfall, their inability to maintain effective supply linesrCoor "logistics"rComade their ultimate defeat inevitable.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a -------------------------
A couple of interesting points not many people realise.
Firstly, the USSR relies heavily on rail infrastructure to shift shit around. But that became an issue for Hitler when he invaded the USSR.
https://mediarail.wordpress.com/europe-and-its-russian-gauge-tracks/
Yes, they use a different rail gauge. Whether it was planned as a
strategic factor I cannot say but not being able to use the Russian rail network easily when the Germans invaded was no doubt a significant
factor in their failure to take over the USSR
Secondly, the Germans build precision engineered machinery, tight
tolerances being the order of the day along with a need for lots of TLC
in the maintenance departments. That became a huge issue for field maintenance during wartime. The Yanks, on the other hand, manufactured machinery that was simple, easily field serviceable, and eminently disposable. The Jeep and the Sherman tank were the epitome of these concepts.
On 2/03/2026 6:15 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 2/3/2026 6:49 pm, Noddy wrote:What an interesting life that would be.
On 2/03/2026 10:59 am, jonz wrote:
On 01-Mar-26 7:14 PM, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS >>>>>>> to be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not
substantiated but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26 >>>>>> minutes or less.
What's the magic thing that gives him credibility over anybody
else? It can be shown that he posts lies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my case, its personal.. When asked to put up or shut up, (on the
accusations) he simply *ran away*!!..
He always does. Fuck only knows how many times I've asked him to post
the photos he claims he has of the records at PROV showing my name
being a glaring omission, and despite his perpetual whinging about
having them no one has ever seen them.
Wrong Darren, IIRC, even Fred saw them.
It's easy on some of the 70s series Holden. Works best when working in
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden
in 26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical proportions :) >>>
a pit rather than under a hoist, saves time getting the vehicle to
working height. Also helps if all the needed tools are at the ready,
as happens in a dealership where you might be doing a number of them
in a row.
On 2/03/2026 7:05 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 2/3/2026 6:59 pm, Noddy wrote:Isn't "AI" good for filling out long rambling posts at zero effort.
On 2/03/2026 1:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 2/03/2026 11:48 am, Daryl wrote:
I don't think they were ever a direct physical threat but certainly >>>>> indirect in that they threatened the UK which Australia was/isSo would the entire world, but it's doubtful that they could have
closely tied to.
Its very likely that Australia would be a very different place if
Germany had won the war.
invaded Australia.
That depends.
They certainly would have had made a better go of it than the
Japanese would have. Look what they did in Africa?
What did they do in Africa Darren? My history books seem all to say
the Germans *lost* in Africa. Why did they lose Darren? You don't seem
to know. It was logistics, Darren, logistics pure and simple. You
leave yourself with extended supply lines, you leave yourself vulnerable.
A bit AI for you
Logistics played a critical, and arguably deciding, role in the defeat
of both Germany and Japan in World War II. While both nations achieved
early, rapid victories, their logistical systems were insufficient for
long, drawn-out, high-intensity wars against industrial giants like
the United States and the Soviet Union.
Germany: The Land-Based Logistical Struggle
Horses vs. Machines: Despite the image of a highly mechanized
Blitzkrieg army, the German Wehrmacht relied heavily on horses (over
80% of their logistical chain) and rail for supply.
Fuel and Resource Shortages: Germany lacked sufficient oil to support
a long-term mechanized war. By late 1944, fuel shortages were so
severe that the Luftwaffe could only operate on 10% of their required
aviation gasoline.
Supply Line Overextension: In the Soviet Union, the vast distances and
different railway gauges broke down German logistics. Supplies could
not reach the front lines, leading to critical shortages of ammunition
and food, as seen at Stalingrad.
Inefficient Production: Germany produced high-quality, complex
equipment (like Tiger tanks) that were difficult to repair and
maintain in the field, whereas the Allied powers focused on mass-
producing more reliable, easily serviceable equipment.
Japan: The Maritime Logistics Failure
Submarine Warfare: U.S. submarines effectively destroyed Japan's
merchant fleet, sinking roughly 55-60% of it. This cut off the flow of
essential resources (oil, raw materials) from occupied territories to
the Japanese home islands.
Geography and Infrastructure: Japan was fighting across vast oceans
and remote, low-infrastructure areas in the Pacific and Southeast
Asia, making the transportation of supplies nearly impossible as the
war progressed.
Ignoring Logistics: The Imperial Japanese military historically
undervalued logistics, viewing it as unglamorous. This resulted in
poor planning, such as the inability to properly supply soldiers on
island bases, leading to widespread starvation.
Fuel Crisis: The lack of fuel, caused by the US embargo and the
destruction of their merchant fleet, severely restricted Japanese
naval and air operations.
Comparison with Allied Logistics
Allied Superiority: The United States demonstrated superior logistical
prowess, which included the ability to project power across two
oceans, support large armies in multiple theaters, and even maintain,
for example"ice cream barges" to boost troop morale, in stark contrast
to Japanese troops starving in the jungle.
Industrial Output: The Allies, particularly the U.S., were able to
produce vastly more trucks, ships, and aircraft than the Axis powers
could, ensuring they never ran out of supplies.
"War of Supply": The Allies mastered the "war of supply" where
logistical efficiency, from landing craft to refueling, proved more
decisive than individual tactical victories.
In summary, while tactical mistakes and strategic decisions (like
invading the USSR or attacking the USA) contributed to the Axis
downfall, their inability to maintain effective supply linesrCoor
"logistics"rComade their ultimate defeat inevitable.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a -------------------------
A couple of interesting points not many people realise.
Firstly, the USSR relies heavily on rail infrastructure to shift shit
around. But that became an issue for Hitler when he invaded the USSR.
https://mediarail.wordpress.com/europe-and-its-russian-gauge-tracks/
Yes, they use a different rail gauge. Whether it was planned as a
strategic factor I cannot say but not being able to use the Russian
rail network easily when the Germans invaded was no doubt a
significant factor in their failure to take over the USSR
Secondly, the Germans build precision engineered machinery, tight
tolerances being the order of the day along with a need for lots of
TLC in the maintenance departments. That became a huge issue for field
maintenance during wartime. The Yanks, on the other hand, manufactured
machinery that was simple, easily field serviceable, and eminently
disposable. The Jeep and the Sherman tank were the epitome of these
concepts.
On 2/03/2026 5:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
So would the entire world, but it's doubtful that they could have
invaded Australia.
That depends.
They certainly would have had made a better go of it than the Japanese
would have. Look what they did in Africa?
There would have been one little problem - logistics.
On 2/03/2026 6:15 pm, Xeno wrote:
It's easy on some of the 70s series Holden. Works best when working inWhat an interesting life that would be.
a pit rather than under a hoist, saves time getting the vehicle to
working height. Also helps if all the needed tools are at the ready,
as happens in a dealership where you might be doing a number of them
in a row.
On 2/03/2026 7:16 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 7:47 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:Since you aren't able to work it out for yourself, in the text "were
On 1/03/2026 12:35 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:37 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 6:04 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 2:46 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This >>>>>>>>>>>> represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed >>>>>>>>>> kiddie pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to >>>>>>>>> WWII was insignificant and, with considerably irony, around the >>>>>>>>> same contribution to the planet's CO2 output.
You *had* no point Trev, as your analogy was completely wrong to >>>>>>>> begin with.
**And yet, the percentage figures invite serious comparison.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed >>>>>>>> conflict of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above their >>>>>>>> weight in every theatre they were deployed to.
**Maybe. Maybe not. The Japanese were, initially, disregarded by >>>>>>> most military experts, right up until their own armed forces
faced them in combat. That includes Australia and the UK forces >>>>>>> (in Singapore), the US forces over much of the Pacific. Here's
the thing:
Four of my uncles served in WWII. One was flown all over the
Pacific by the US (he was attached to the US military), because >>>>>>> he had a crucial job of decoding Japanese radio transmissions.
Very improtant job. Another was a lookout on some of the islands >>>>>>> above the top end. Another important job. I am under no illusion >>>>>>> that they were important to the war effort, but no more important >>>>>>> than many hundreds of thousands of others.
I hold the view, not popular among my ex-military friends,
with good reason (see below)
that the only ones that have fought for Australia were those who
fought in the Pacific in WWII. All the others were fighting for
somebody else.
all nations and personnel who fought against the Axis powers were
fighting for freedom from world domination by them
The Boers, Germans, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis, and
Afghans were to a threat to Australia, only the Japanese were. The
guys fighting in the Pacific in WWII were defending their country,
all the rest were defending somewhere else.
if that were in English I might know what you said
to a threat" delete "to" insert "not", is that too complicated for you?
You posted gibberish and you're taking it out on others... looks like
you're the one who needs better mental health treatment and anger
management .
Talk to your doctor/carer about your options.
On 02-Mar-26 8:59 PM, Clocky wrote:
On 2/03/2026 7:16 am, keithr0 wrote:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On 1/03/2026 7:47 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:Since you aren't able to work it out for yourself, in the text "were
On 1/03/2026 12:35 pm, Axel wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 17/02/2026 8:37 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 6:04 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 2:46 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2026 9:29 am, Noddy wrote:
On 16/02/2026 8:13 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:05 pm, alvey wrote:
In WW2 the Australian Forces involved totalled 770k. This >>>>>>>>>>>>> represented 1.1% of the total Allied personnel.
Well done Buffo!
**Boom boom.
Interesting that you'll take the side of a self confessed >>>>>>>>>>> kiddie pervert.
**He merely made my point for me. Australia's contribution to >>>>>>>>>> WWII was insignificant and, with considerably irony, around >>>>>>>>>> the same contribution to the planet's CO2 output.
You *had* no point Trev, as your analogy was completely wrong >>>>>>>>> to begin with.
**And yet, the percentage figures invite serious comparison.
Australian forces made up a very small portion in every armed >>>>>>>>> conflict of the 20th century, but they punched *way* above
their weight in every theatre they were deployed to.
**Maybe. Maybe not. The Japanese were, initially, disregarded by >>>>>>>> most military experts, right up until their own armed forces
faced them in combat. That includes Australia and the UK forces >>>>>>>> (in Singapore), the US forces over much of the Pacific. Here's >>>>>>>> the thing:
Four of my uncles served in WWII. One was flown all over the
Pacific by the US (he was attached to the US military), because >>>>>>>> he had a crucial job of decoding Japanese radio transmissions. >>>>>>>> Very improtant job. Another was a lookout on some of the islands >>>>>>>> above the top end. Another important job. I am under no illusion >>>>>>>> that they were important to the war effort, but no more
important than many hundreds of thousands of others.
I hold the view, not popular among my ex-military friends,
with good reason (see below)
that the only ones that have fought for Australia were those who >>>>>>> fought in the Pacific in WWII. All the others were fighting for >>>>>>> somebody else.
all nations and personnel who fought against the Axis powers were >>>>>> fighting for freedom from world domination by them
The Boers, Germans, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis, and
Afghans were to a threat to Australia, only the Japanese were. The
guys fighting in the Pacific in WWII were defending their country,
all the rest were defending somewhere else.
if that were in English I might know what you said
to a threat" delete "to" insert "not", is that too complicated for you?
You posted gibberish and you're taking it out on others... looks like
you're the one who needs better mental health treatment and anger
management .
Talk to your doctor/carer about your options.
Just another *No You*, same shit different day!. <SHRUG>
On 2/03/2026 8:27 pm, alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:That would be a reasonable remark if you had some sort of verified employment history.
On 2/03/2026 7:51 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 28/02/2026 5:55 pm, Noddy wrote:
You never did get around to showing how it was that *you* knew that >>>>> the "writing was on the wall" for the school cleaning industry,
but the 160 odd companies who were directly connected with it never >>>>> saw it coming.
Odd.
Not at all.
*Everyone* in the Victoria knew how fucked up the private contractor
system was and that the Victorian government was reviewing it. There
had been *plenty* of warning that changes were likely to happen
given the state of contract cleaning and how it was failing both
cleaners and schools. Dopey Daryl should have seen it coming a mile
away being involved in the industry, especially as other states had
already had enough of the private contracting companies creating
such huge problems.
But no, dopey Daryl was not paying any attention for several years
evidently. You wouldn't have a clue either way you dumb fuck so any
comment from you is irrelevant.
I see. So, as I mentioned, not only was Daryl caught off guard, but
so where the other 160 odd companies who also never saw it coming.
But you did, even though you live 4 thousand km's away and have
nothing whatsoever to do with either the state government or the
cleaning industry.
You'll excuse me if I call bullshit, won't you? :)
Dopey Daryl is $450k lighter in retirement to remind him everyday of
his ignorance and stupidity however.
You sure do talk real big for someone who's never employed a single
person in your life, and as a man in his 50's has managed to reach
the dizzying heights of fitting snorkels and cb radio antennas for a
living.
That'd be really cutting if only you had any verified employment
history of your own Fraudster.
On 3/03/2026 6:59 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 2/03/2026 5:59 pm, Noddy wrote:
So would the entire world, but it's doubtful that they could have
invaded Australia.
That depends.
They certainly would have had made a better go of it than the
Japanese would have. Look what they did in Africa?
There would have been one little problem - logistics.
Yeah, assuming they were bringing everything from Germany. Would have
been a different story if they'd conquered Russia, or teamed up with the Japanese.
On 3/03/2026 6:47 pm, keithr0 wrote:
On 2/03/2026 6:15 pm, Xeno wrote:
It's easy on some of the 70s series Holden. Works best when workingWhat an interesting life that would be.
in a pit rather than under a hoist, saves time getting the vehicle to
working height. Also helps if all the needed tools are at the ready,
as happens in a dealership where you might be doing a number of them
in a row.
And a complete bullshit one. Short of there being a factory recall,
which I can't remember ever having existed on early Holdens, the
likelihood of any dealer doing a number of early Holden clutches "in a
row" like an assembly line is about as remote as this mental midget ever offering up any proof to support any of the claims he's ever made about me.
On 2/03/2026 6:40 pm, alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:31 am, keithr0 wrote:Errr... He said "Nobody" not "Noddy" Fraudster. Not that there's any
On 1/03/2026 6:32 pm, Xeno wrote:
But *you* can look up that number on the Tasmanian trade register.
It is *my* unique number just as Clocky's was his unique number.
IIRC, people here, including Sprintless, Darren and others, did
look up his bona fides.
That is what is known as an empty offer. One made in the expectation
of it never being taken up. Nobody is going to go to Hobart just to
check on whether the number you quoted is legit or not so you are safe.
He remembers wrong, as usual. I've never looked up anyone's credentials. >>
difference...
I *certainly* am not that self absorbed that I would go to the
trouble of visiting the public records office in another state *just*
to try to win an argument, only to make myself look like a total
fuckwit in the process :)
No need to do that is there Buffo. You've made a total buffoon of
yourself with your vast catalog of childish lies and abuse.
Usual non reply space filler
On 3/03/2026 3:32 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 2/03/2026 8:53 pm, Noddy wrote:
I used to change 1L Daihatsu Charade clutches in 25 minutes, push in -
drive out - and made a killing on bonuses doing so.
Save your bullshit for people who believe you, which since Felix left is nobody around here.....
On 3/03/2026 3:04 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 2/03/2026 7:01 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 8:42 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 2/03/2026 3:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden >>>>> in 26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical
proportions :)
lol. You've obviously never worked in a busy trade environment.
Worked in a few.
No you haven't and it shows.
Not interested in this infantile back & forth bullshit with a munt who
can't even tell the difference between plastic and glass....
On 2/03/2026 6:15 pm, Xeno wrote:
On 2/3/2026 6:49 pm, Noddy wrote:What an interesting life that would be.
On 2/03/2026 10:59 am, jonz wrote:
On 01-Mar-26 7:14 PM, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
Clocky CLAIMS to have made big money fixing ECUs, he also CLAIMS >>>>>>> to be able to change a clutch in 26 minute or less, not
substantiated but you accept that without question.
Probably because he has credibility. Besides, under the right
circumstances, I have changed clutches on Holdens of the 70s in 26 >>>>>> minutes or less.
What's the magic thing that gives him credibility over anybody
else? It can be shown that he posts lies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my case, its personal.. When asked to put up or shut up, (on the
accusations) he simply *ran away*!!..
He always does. Fuck only knows how many times I've asked him to post
the photos he claims he has of the records at PROV showing my name
being a glaring omission, and despite his perpetual whinging about
having them no one has ever seen them.
Wrong Darren, IIRC, even Fred saw them.
It's easy on some of the 70s series Holden. Works best when working in
Oh, and anyone who claims they can change a clutch on an old Holden
in 26 minutes or less is a delusional fuckwit of biblical proportions :) >>>
a pit rather than under a hoist, saves time getting the vehicle to
working height. Also helps if all the needed tools are at the ready,
as happens in a dealership where you might be doing a number of them
in a row.
On 2/03/2026 7:45 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 1/03/2026 4:18 pm, keithr0 wrote:You know full well who I am,
On 1/03/2026 5:40 pm, alvey wrote:
keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 8:18 am, alvey wrote:Certainly not. I usually hire a team of PIs.
keithr0 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 9:24 am, Clocky wrote:
Anyway, it's pretty obvious you're at the very minimum an
embellisher if not an outright bullshit artist, but much like >>>>>>>> that dumb fuck you enable.
If it's that obvious, then you must have some proof, either show >>>>>>> it or STFU.
Unfortunately Richo this little pond was long ago poisoned by a
certain dickhead whose total failure to prove a single one of his >>>>>> Big Claims has made the traditional 'prove or retract' newsgroup
demand obsolete.
So, in social conversation, you demand proof of anything anybody says? >>>>
The usual smartarseary - what a surprise.
It often comes from keyboard warriors hiding-a behind walls of anonymity. >>Your social circle must have contracted like a black hole over the
years.
Your conclusion is based on a false premise.
Also, I've found that it's extremely rare for people to people to
bullshit to your face irl. In fact, there's only two that I can recall. >>>
Is that right "keithr0"...
On 3/3/2026 6:47 pm, keithr0 wrote:
What an interesting life that would be.
It might also explain why dealerships have a reputation for poor workmanship, "bonuses" for doing jobs quickly takes precedent over doing
the job properly, just slap it together ASAP, the boss charges the
customer "book" time and if the job is done well under "book" time they
all make some extra money and the customer foots the bill.
A lot of that shit is mostly the fault of greedy management and the mechanics are sort of forced to play the game whether they like it or not.
I remember when I worked at Ford talking a dealer mechanic who bragged
about being able to do a job (change a heater fan motor on an XC Falcon)
in a quarter of the book time, the fool bragged to the wrong people
because the book time was then significantly reduced.
On 3/3/2026 4:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
On 3/03/2026 3:32 pm, Clocky wrote:I would believe him if he said he changed the rubber on the clutch pedal
On 2/03/2026 8:53 pm, Noddy wrote:
I used to change 1L Daihatsu Charade clutches in 25 minutes, push in
- drive out - and made a killing on bonuses doing so.
Save your bullshit for people who believe you, which since Felix left
is nobody around here.....
in 25mins:-)
My son still has his 1995 Daihatsu Mira with a 1.0lt Charade engine that
I fitted so I have worked on those cars, they aren't difficult to work
on and access can be good (a Charade is bigger than a Mira so even more space) but 25 mins to do the clutch is utter fantasy, if he said 2.5 hrs
I might have believed him but even then everything would have go perfectly.
keithr0 wrote:
On 2/03/2026 8:27 pm, alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:That would be a reasonable remark if you had some sort of verified
On 2/03/2026 7:51 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 28/02/2026 5:55 pm, Noddy wrote:
You never did get around to showing how it was that *you* knew
that the "writing was on the wall" for the school cleaning
industry, but the 160 odd companies who were directly connected
with it never saw it coming.
Odd.
Not at all.
*Everyone* in the Victoria knew how fucked up the private
contractor system was and that the Victorian government was
reviewing it. There had been *plenty* of warning that changes were
likely to happen given the state of contract cleaning and how it
was failing both cleaners and schools. Dopey Daryl should have seen >>>>> it coming a mile away being involved in the industry, especially as >>>>> other states had already had enough of the private contracting
companies creating such huge problems.
But no, dopey Daryl was not paying any attention for several years
evidently. You wouldn't have a clue either way you dumb fuck so any >>>>> comment from you is irrelevant.
I see. So, as I mentioned, not only was Daryl caught off guard, but
so where the other 160 odd companies who also never saw it coming.
But you did, even though you live 4 thousand km's away and have
nothing whatsoever to do with either the state government or the
cleaning industry.
You'll excuse me if I call bullshit, won't you? :)
Dopey Daryl is $450k lighter in retirement to remind him everyday
of his ignorance and stupidity however.
You sure do talk real big for someone who's never employed a single
person in your life, and as a man in his 50's has managed to reach
the dizzying heights of fitting snorkels and cb radio antennas for a
living.
That'd be really cutting if only you had any verified employment
history of your own Fraudster.
employment history.
Why isn't it reasonable Ritcho? Are you declaring that Fraudster *does*
have verified employment history?
keithr0 wrote:
On 2/03/2026 6:40 pm, alvey wrote:
Noddy wrote:
On 2/03/2026 10:31 am, keithr0 wrote:
On 1/03/2026 6:32 pm, Xeno wrote:
But *you* can look up that number on the Tasmanian trade register. >>>>>> It is *my* unique number just as Clocky's was his unique number.
IIRC, people here, including Sprintless, Darren and others, did
look up his bona fides.
That is what is known as an empty offer. One made in the
expectation of it never being taken up. Nobody is going to go to
Hobart just to check on whether the number you quoted is legit or
not so you are safe.
He remembers wrong, as usual. I've never looked up anyone's
credentials.
Errr... He said "Nobody" not "Noddy" Fraudster. Not that there's any
difference...
I *certainly* am not that self absorbed that I would go to the
trouble of visiting the public records office in another state
*just* to try to win an argument, only to make myself look like a
total fuckwit in the process :)
No need to do that is there Buffo. You've made a total buffoon of
yourself with your vast catalog of childish lies and abuse.
Usual non reply space filler
Hmmm. Bit of a contradiction here Richo. You belittle everyone else's intelligence yet the best your dazzling intellect can come up with is
this repeated chanting of a whimpering inanity.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 16:37:38 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (21,017K bytes) |
| Messages: | 193,384 |
