tip off

Open thread June 27-July 1

I’m back. A huge thank you to Jeremy for holding the fort while I was in Western Australia.

As an exercise in expanding your mind I can recommend listening to the talkback on ABC Perth, if you ever suspected that the populations on each coast of our nation didn’t really understand each other this will remove any doubt.

Also, please share your EOFY nightmares with us this week, misery loves company.

  • 1
    Eric Sykes
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    Bob Carter….what a d@ckhead!!!


  • 2
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 11:12 am | Permalink


    Damn, got in before me. One of the wort articles I’ve read in The Age in a while — and not only because I disagree fully with the content.

    The first two thirds is basically nothing but ad hominen attack on various individuals and institutions. The “Facts” are not fit to be published, especially with the word “Fact” plastered in front of each point when the *absolute* best you could say for each on is that they are highly disputed theories (although “long debunked bullshit” would be my preferred expression).

    The sheer bloody minded adherence to chestnuts such as “no warming in the last 10 years” despite having them answered over and over via article, blog, and most importantly peer review and yet still trying to convince readers it’s a “fact” goes to the very heart of why he’s a denier not a skeptic.

    (/rant … sorry this was such a poor article — it made The Age look like a News Corp. publication).

  • 3
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    The Spooner cartoon that accompanied that article requires so much stupidity to appreciate it’s embarrassing.

  • 4
    Eric Sykes
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    This one is equally disgusting and the comment thread is a beauty….(puke).


  • 5
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    The Bolt Report Ten 132,000
    The Bolt Report Encore Ten 163,000

    Down we go. It must be dispiriting that even “Lord” Monckton can’t stop the rot. The title “Gina’s Toyboy” is looking more and more appropriate.
    Meanwhile, Deltoid’s Tim Lambert finds more evidence that Bolt is not only an encouragement to extremism, but also that he has possibly doctored the time on his blog post about Anna-Maria Arabia to defuse allegations he inspired the threats made against her. I now have an even stronger feeling that he reads this blog….

  • 6
    savvas jwnhs
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 12:10 pm | Permalink



    I will repeat what i said in an earlier thread abotu that show.

    The idiots at SBS should have had a cross section of people, not just ‘White Racists’. If they included NESB migrant’s (or children of NESB’s) or Aborigines, then the sort of backlash from Pernberthy and co would have been neutered.

  • 7
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

    I note that The Age has not enabled comment on that nonsensical article and its accompanying stupid cartoon by Spooner.

  • 8
    Lee Harvey Oddworld
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Well, The Age has the best cartoonist (Leunig) so they may as well have the worst (Spooner).

  • 9
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    Does Bob Carter really believe or know what he is writing about?

    So the cost-benefit equation is this: ”Your family pays more than $2000 a year in extra tax in return for a possible cooling of the globe by two one-thousandths of a degree.”

    this is just misleading shit!

  • 10
    Lee Harvey Oddworld
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    Meanwhile, as Ted Lapkin pours vitriol on those bleeding heart, tyrant-loving Lefties (Foucault, Steffens, Chomsky, et al), one of his political heroes, the helmet-haired neocon nutjob John Bolton, drums up support for bombing Iran while simultaneously shaking hands with terrorists (the “good” terrorists, don’t you know):


  • 11
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    Unfortunately I cannot locate this online, although someone with greater internet search skills than me, such as an eight year old, may be able to.

    You are the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald’s ‘The Guide’, a weekly supplement on television and radio programs for the week and have decided to have a column reviewing The Bile Report. Who do you assign this to? Michael Idato, the telvision critic? No. Doug Whats-his-name, another popular and experienced popular culture/film/television reviewer? No. Any other the other multiple writers from the tv and radio stable? No.

    I know, Gerard Henderson! He will write an objective review of the show based on its merits and drawing on his experience in the world of television, won’t he?!

    The mutual back-scratching society of the right in the media really makes me vomit.

  • 12
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Yesterday’s “Sunday Mail” front page:

    Hackers For Hire – Revealed: CYBER CRIMS RAID PRIVATE EMAILS

    So when convicted crims employed by Murdoch do it it’s so OK that it doesn’t rate a mention, but if mysterious (probably non-existent) ‘Indian’ people do it, it’s SHOCK, OUTRAGE, FURY!!

  • 13
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    Exposing fraud – more white man’s exploitation of native peoples?

    Some extracts from Belgian filmmaker Jean Pierre Dutilleux’s apparent first contact with a PNG tribal people known as the Toulambis have recently been posted on Youtube. It is claimed to date from 1976.

    The extracts can be seen here –



    The films are moving and poetic and appear to be authentic. More information about Dutilleux’s films can be found on his web site.


    The film was first aired on French TV in the mid 1990’s. Perhaps because it has not been widely-shown to English-speaking audiences before, it has aroused keen interest and many favourable and naive comments in the last week or so weeks since it’s Youtube posting.

    However this controversial film has been the subject of much scholarly debate in the Francophone world, and even threats of legal action. It was severely critcised by French Anthoropologist and PNG specialist Pierre Lemonnier in his academic paper “a La chasse à l’authentique” (In pursuit of the real thing) published by TERRAIN, the European Enthnological Review in 1999, available on line.

    In his paper Lemonnier points out that the ‘Toulambis’ of the film are really the Ankave-Anga people from near Menyamya. The records indicate that these people were visited by at least six Australian Government patrols between 1929 and 1972:

    – 1929: Middleton ; – 1950: Chester, – 1951: Matthieson; – 1965: O’Brien; – 1967: Police patrols; – 1972: Meikle up the New Year Creek, where it passes Sinde. In fact Meikle found them talking basic Tok Pisin learned at Menyamya.

    Historical sources reveal that the so-called Toulambis had steel tools and western implements more than forty years before their sensational encounter with Dutilleux, and were regular visitors to the administrative center of Menyamya the early 70’s – which had an Aid post, shops, schools and churches for many years and was only a few days walk for them. This familiarity with the outside world is confirmed by ethnography, and in particular one ‘Toulambi’ man spent two months in prison in Menyamya in the early ’70’s. Admittedly some remote groups may not have had regularly contact with the Australian administration before the 1960’s, but they certainly did by the time Dutilleux encountered them.

    When Lemonnier viewed the film for the first time he exclaimed: “I’m outraged!” Lemonnier described the Dutilleux production as “untruthful, racist, revolting”. Apparently Lemonnier recognized immediately the place where the fake “first encounter” had been filmed. The stream is known as New Year Creek, and the members of the “unknown tribe” probably walked for about a day, from their settlement, to reach the appointed well-lit meeting-place… which had been conveniently cleared for the filming, with a few logs thrown into the creek so that the natives could emerge confidently from the jungle (most unusual behavior) and move naively towards the camera crew. Lemonnier adds: “At that spot, they were about a four-day walk from an administrative center with a school teacher, an airstrip, radio, nurse and Seventh-Day Adventist preachers. Nearby, the navigable river Vailala enables the Papuans to reach the coast, where they exchange bark capes for tools.”

    Lemonnier faced a court case for slander in 1997 for his criticism, but the historical records support his case. The case was not so much about what he’s said, but the manner in which he’d said it – rather too forthright.

    So how was the film made? Simple – the locals were paid for their performance and rehearsed in how to act the part. In fact they were enterprising enough to have done this for several other ‘first-contact’ filmmakers before and after Dutilleux.

  • 14
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    “…more white man’s exploitation of native peoples?”

    Judging by your last paragraph it sounds more like an example of native people exploiting white man, Angra — and good on them too :)

  • 15
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    The Age has joined the evil “hate media”.

    It is “distorting the climate debate” by publishing one sceptic’s view.


  • 16
    Eric Sykes
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    savvas jwnhs @ 6

    Unless of course the producers decided to especially target white people. Which is their business not yours, so use of the words “could have had” might be more appropriate than “should have had…”. And I strongly disagree that we must only do things so that a “backlash from Pernberthy and co would have been neutered…”. I mean there was a backlash from the KKK for giving black people votes…but so what?

  • 17
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    GavinM – yes, at least they were savvy enough to get something in return. But I bet the Western filmmaker made a lot more than they ever did. This is in a long tradition of ‘brave white man risks life and limb to encounter never-seen-before savages’ a la Piers Gibbon, ACA with their West Papuan cannibals escapade etc. etc.


  • 18
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    Tones9, The Age is distorting the debate by allowing Carter to publish his ridiculous and thoroughly debunked opinions as ‘science’, without according a right of reply. It remains to be seen whether they allow someone like David Karoly the chance to rebut Carter’s nonsense.

  • 19
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    True enough Angra, at least this one doesn’t seem to be as bad as the Gibbons “doco”, (for want of better word).

    But you’re right of course, the money and fame that the film maker would have gained no doubt makes whatever pay-off the tribespeople got look very insignificant.

    I guess it becomes a question of how should (genuine) documentaries be made in a way that would benefit both those being filmed and those doing the filming, the production companies will always be looking to make a profit of some sort, but the trick is to do it without unfairly exploiting the subjects of the film.

    Something of a dilemma.

  • 20
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    GavinM – on Gibbon, check this –


    He has form, as does Dutilleux. At least the latter has a better sense of filmmaking.

  • 21
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for that link Angra — vile stuff.

    It’s hard to believe that Gibbons still has any credibility left, even harder to believe that National Geographic — who I’ve always believed was a very credible organisation — would give him oxygen. I may well have to rethink my opinion of them.

  • 22
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    re: the links @13. The big giveaway

    The Papuan men emerging from the jungle all have nicely trimmed beards, Pretty amazing since the claim is they have had no knowledge of steel tools such as scissors or knives.

    Try cutting your beard with a stone axe.

  • 23
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    What is Gina’s, I mean Bolt’s, beef with Forrest?!


    I thought they were comrades-in-arms against this disgraceful government that wants to rob them of their inherited, I mean hard-earned, dollars?!

  • 24
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    Alan Jones to play Annie in ‘Roosevelt’ – the musical – says the SMH.

    Oops I’m dyslexic.

  • 25
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 5:47 pm | Permalink


    In the post The ABC is not reporting, but sliming

    AB’s having a gripe because AAP and the ABC (zOMG!) are calling monckton a “denier”. At least, the news radio midday bulletin put it that way, allegedly. Why not refer to an article? Well, it’s possibly because the ABC news site, in that article, is actually describing him as a sceptic:


    The update might just mean that they changed it after initial publication. At least they put timestamps up when they change something.

    But why just the ABC? And why does ONLY the ABC get a mention in that headline? Why not also rag on some of the other publishers who’re quoting the AAP story and otherwise calling monckton a denier?

    Is it just not enough have to say “AAP and everyone else are being unfair”, when one might get away with claiming that it’s “AAP and the ABC”?

    I look forward to the day when he’s using “the ABC reports” as a dog whistle in its own right.

  • 26
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, meant ‘King’s School boys’

  • 27
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    Carter’s article and ability to get such unsupported nonsense published reminds me of this description of climate change deniers (morphed and expanded from an original comment on deltoid):

    Climate deniers in a nutshell;

    1. “We don’t trust the climate data prepared by anyone, even those who are experts in the field, unless we think it shows that global warming isn’t happening.

    Then we trust it implicitly, even if it has been assessed by someone whose only climate qualifications are that they run an internet blog”.

    2. “We don’t trust climate scientists who are experts in their fields, unless we think they are saying global warming isn’t happening.

    Then we trust them implicitly, even if their work is being assessed by someone whose only climate qualifications are that they run an internet blog”.

  • 28
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    This is silly. AB’s citing this


    As evidence that “The debate isn’t just with sceptics – but with the climate itself, which just isn’t behaving as the warmists said it must”

    On the grounds that “there’s been nearly a decade of negative correlation since the post-1975 warming”

    I can see at least two other points in time where, cutting off the series, one could claim that there’s been no recent warming. And I’ll wager that there’ll be more in future. AB is betting on the long-established trend being finished. Trouble is, he’s not betting anything of his own. If (or when) the time-averages start to increase again (and my bet is that they will) he’ll just switch back to the “hey, it’s not so bad” angle. Until there’s another downward variation, whereupon he’ll declare that there’s been no recent warming. He could, theoretically, keep that up indefinitely. Every now and then there will be periods when the lines go down. When they do, he can jump on them. When they go up, he can focus on something else until they go down for a bit. All we’ve got is historical data. As long as that’s in the past (ipso facto) he can claim the rest is “modelling”.

    Skeptic? No. I don’t think he deserves that title. There’s a much better title that fits, but … you know, free speech.

    The problem with all of this is that when we’ve been around the block a few more times, and we’ve seen a couple more of these ups and downs, each one being used as evidence that there’s no overall trend, which there clearly is, AB, monckton, plimer and so on will be sitting pretty. They’ll have made their money. There are no consequences for peddling doubt and misinformation. If anyone tries to challenge them on it down the track, and assuming they bother to answer the phone, they can just claim that the scientists failed to make their case convincingly. Not their fault they weren’t convinced.

    When AB focuses on the impacts I think he’s almost got a point (although he usually way-oversells it). At most other times, he’s ridiculous.

  • 29
    Ray Hunt
    Posted June 27, 2011 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

    The Israeli government is using an internet propoganda tool to shout down other points view and allow a small noisy group of Zionist fruit-loops to create the perception of global consent:


    Consume media and online coverage of the Gaza Flotilla 2 and Palestine efforts to achieve statehood via the UN in the next couple of months and you will see Megaphone in action.

  • 30
    Adam Rope
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 2:16 am | Permalink

    Gerard Henderson does his usual defence of the indefensible today in the SMH.


    Yes, it is indefensible, but Gerard will still condone it by proxy by pointing out that ‘the other side’ say – in Gerard’s opinion – similarly equally nasty things.

    It really doesn’t matter that the quotes used in the examples are irrelevant to the current debate, or that they may well have been taken out of context. Since they have been stated by people on the other side of politics with whom Gerard disagrees, then that’s good enough for Gerard.

    Oh, and don’t get me started on his ridiculous basic mistake about “Monckton, a mathematician”.

  • 31
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 2:40 am | Permalink

    Adam – Monckton has a Bachelors degree in classics and a diploma in journalism.

    Maybe that’s good enough for him to count as a mathematician and climate change expert for Henderson, who probably doesn’t understand any better.

    BTW – what are Henderson’s qualifications?

  • 32
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 2:43 am | Permalink

    @31 – Oh yes – Arts and Law. So he’s well-qualified to speak on climate change then.

  • 33
    Adam Rope
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 4:18 am | Permalink

    Angra @ 31, waiting on the opening of comments on the SMH site, so I can post this version of the letter (wrt Peter Cook – “Well, I wrote a letter”) I’ve already sent in:-

    “In that article, on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, he wrote about “Monckton, a mathematician,”. No, Gerard, Monckton is not a mathematician, as he has no qualification in that discipline. In fact Monckton has no professional or academic qualification in any scientific discipline. Monckton does have an MA in Classics, and a Diploma in journalism studies, which is apparently sufficient for many media commentators to take as adequate qualifications to discuss science.”

    I wonder what Gerard will make of his fundamental mistake??

  • 34
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 5:37 am | Permalink

    Henderson is pissing in the wind on this one (not unusual). His complaint against Garnaut’s use of language (compared to Mad Liar Monckton)?

    Garnaut said that there was a tendency for economists “to tailor the analysis to what their client wants”. And he accused “parts of big business” of having taken the “role of spoiler” in the climate change debate.

    And the presenter at one of his interviews introduced her guest as “Australia’s leading economist” and suggested that unnamed economists who disagreed with Garnaut had “sold their souls” and become “handmaidens to climate science deniers”.

    Wow – such wicked naughty words! We must gag mid immediately! And ‘a presenter’ said this about him, so obviously he must be tarred with the same brush!

    Henderson is about as competent a journalist as Alan Jones is a a musical performer.

  • 35
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 5:51 am | Permalink

    This morning Bore comes clean on his Gina Rinehart love-in.

    “I have worked very hard and I have looked after my children and indeed my grandchildren too”

    Well done that billionaire! Working so hard for the kiddies.

  • 36
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    The Age runs a nice rebuttal of Carter’s article from yesterday.

  • 37
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    Bore starts a post with an extract from Dr Rosemary Suliman showing that few Arabic-language students are making their way into the high-performance selective high schools. He then points the finger of blame for this at ‘Arab culture’ which quickly morphs into an anti-Muslim rant.

    “Isn’t it perfectly reasonable, given the terrorism, gang rapes, shootings and hate-preachings of far too many Muslim spokesman that non-Muslims would be worried?”

    But wait a minute, Suliman’s article is about educational performance. And what about communities of Arabic background that are Marionite or Orthodox Christian, or Mizrahi Jews? And what about the Muslims from non-Arab backgrounds – such as Malaysia and Indonesia?

    I thought he used the separation of Islam from race to justify his previous anti-Muslim pieces. Now he seems to think it’s ok to blame Arabs and ‘Arabic culture’.

    Wouldn’t look good in court.

  • 38
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    Hi Angra @22

    I noticed that while I was watching them too — remarkably well groomed.

    Not a smudge of dirt to be seen on any of them either — that PNG jungle must be spotless ;)

  • 39
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    My EOFY – Misery: From 30th June 2011 is the last day at work. The company that I work for has lost its contract to an outsourcing company in India. After working 15 years in the industry, I will find my self unemployed. With the mortage, and young family things aren’t looking bright. Will survive July and maybe August, would certainly want to be working in Sept. I didn’t realise that the Sydney job market was this tough. Have applied for over 50 jobs nothing, I say nothing has come up. Started to wonder if the job ads are real or fabricated.

  • 40
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    Angra @35 It seems the bore is a bit sensitive over it as well. I submitted a post pointing that GH was not paying the bore for his opinion but paying him to tout her opinion. I seems to have been moderated out.

    Also in the interests of balance and open debate on climate change, I notice that he failed to blog on John Cook’s reply to Bob Carter’s piece in the Fairfax group. Although he is busy talking up his new BFF, Gina, today.

  • 41
    Fran Barlow
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

    Remember those puzzles you were given as a child in which you had to spot trivial differences between two line drawings? The skills acquired there should make this easy:

    Headline: The Australian 28 June 2011 Amid another polll (sic) blow, Julia Gillard admits her push for a carbon tax may get even tougher

    Body text:The Australian 28 June 2011

    Headline: The Australian 28 June 2011 Ms Gillard said today the polling was a result of her plan to put a price on carbon, and that while it was a tough reform “it may get even tougher, before it gets easier”. “I believe that once carbon pricing is in place people will see how the system works and the benefits of it,” the Prime Minister told ABC’s News 24. “We’re a long way from that (consensus on climate change), that’s why I think we are in a tough period now, and there may be some further tough periods ahead. “But ultimately I believe all Australians will recognise the need to price carbon and how the reform works.”

    Ok it was naughty of me to bold the differences, but can you spot them? Why are they different? Surely that’s a journalism fail, no?

    Another approach to this verbal was conducted by the Brisbane Times

    Prime Minister Julia Gillard has suggested her plummeting approval rating with voters may not have bottomed out as she battles to convince the electorate about the benefits of a carbon tax.


    Despite the poll slump Ms Gillard says she is determined to push on with her government’s agenda, including a carbon tax.

    Yet it continues:

    Ms Gillard insists that once carbon pricing is in place, people will see how the system
    works and its benefits.

    ooops … lets fix that and get back on message:

    Mr Swan said the government was “losing some paint” during the carbon tax debate partly because it was up against an ocean of negativity and vested interests “all having a go”.

    There’s no sense letting people get away with using their own terms.

    Canberra Times 28 June 2011: Gillard to push ahead on carbon tax

    Body text: Ms Gillard told ABC television this morning that Australians would quickly see the benefits of a price on carbon once a system was put in place.

    AM on #theirABC this morning —

    Alexandra Kirk:The Government’s holding its nerve. Treasurer Wayne Swan blames a spirited carbon tax debate and so called vested interests. {note that she quotes the latter accurately but verbals him on the former. This is why there is a persistent belief that the government itself uses the term, which is the monibus defence used by the ABC against complaints FB}

    Alexandra Kirk: Ms Gillard’s voter satisfaction rating has hit a new low of 28 per cent. It’s fallen 22 points since announcing her carbon tax.


    Alexandra Kirk: Is it the reform that is the carbon tax that is the problem or the
    Government’s and Julia Gillard’s ability or inability to sell it?


    Wayne Swan: The most important thing to do is the right thing by the country in the long term and Julia Gillard and the Government are absolutely focused on that when it comes to putting a price on carbon

    Alexandra Kirk: If you could tease it out though, how much do you think is due to the carbon tax and how much is due to the Government’s ability to sell it?

    Wayne Swan: {…} But what I do know is, putting in place a price on carbon pollution is something that is required in this country.

    Truly a dialog of the deaf. The Murdochracy has so captured media space that even when the actual words are right before people, they can’t hear them. It does lend an amusing and ironic twist to Kirk’s question about the government’s salesmanship! She has used the term carbon tax four times in two minutes. This was a superior rate of verballing to Fran Kelly on Breakfast with Swan yesterday when she used carbon tax on ten occasions in about seven minutes, but Kelly managed to also verbal Brown and Ferguson who weren’t present, and used a clever device — using the term and then diverting conversation to another matter before Swan could even respond. So effective was this LNP/Murdoch/polluter propaganda Blitzkrieg that Swan went perilously close to uttering the word himself, before biting his tongue and saying “carbon charge”.

    Amusing sidebar: Chris Pyne accidentally said carbon price yesterday but quickly corrected himself to get back on message.

    The ABC pretends it’s all non-partisan, but the data say otherwise.

  • 42
    Fran Barlow
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    oops … {which is the mo {om}nibus defence used by the ABC against complaints FB}

  • 43
    savvas jwnhs
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    For sure this time he is just being controversial……


    “With the council likewise describe Aborigines as “invaders”? “

  • 44
    savvas jwnhs
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    Following on from my comment, is he simply trying to up the ante in light of his current court battle for ‘free speech’?

  • 45
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    The ABC pretends it’s all non-partisan, but the data say otherwise.

    I’m convinced the ABC is trying to wreck itself, last week I settled down to watch QI only to be told that it had been delayed and moved to ABC2 just so the ABC could REPEAT Angry Boys, except they didn’t call it a repeat, they called it an encore presentation. It’s no longer my ABC they can shove it, I just watch SBS more and download anything else I fancy.

    Usually I’d give a toss but I get most my info from the web these days. I guess it’s just more of my tax dollars wasted by the govt of the day.

  • 46
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    Wow, the HUNs leading technology guru has found that there is a Super wi-fi which can work at up to 16Mbps, no less!

    Next he’ll discover token-ring networking.

  • 47
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    Next he’ll discover token-ring networking.

    :D :D :D

  • 48
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    A new take on State of Origin rivalry.

    Cockroaches and Cane Toads are people too!



  • 49
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    revolutionary @ 19 – I can’t find it online either, but I read it today while taking a break from my day-to-day indoctrination at the Leftist Institute (aka university).

    Gerard Henderson is certainly a thinker – he’s proposing that a better use of Ten’s resources would be giving AB 45 minutes, and cutting back the leftist Paul Buongiorno’s “Meet the Press” back to 15 minutes.

  • 50
    Posted June 28, 2011 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    Heh, don’t knock the token ring.We spent many a Computer Studies class playing “Rise of the Triad” on that network structure. :D