Aditional thoughts

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:57:43 +0100, "maxi"
wrote in :

>K16: one more glass of wine?

As the King James version of the Bible advises,
in 1 Timothy 5:23

"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's
sake and thine often infirmities."

Or, in Latin,

23 noli adhuc aquam bibere sed vino modico utere propter
stomachum tuum et frequentes tuas infirmitates

http://vul.scripturetext.com/1_timothy/5.htm

Or in Dutch,
Drink niet langer water alleen, maar gebruik een weinig wijn, om
uw maag en uw menigvuldige zwakheden.

http://svg.scripturetext.com/1_timothy/5.htm

Not that I think you require a translation, but just as
reminder to Yanks that languages other than English are spoken
in the world. [Not that they, or Australians for that
matter, speak "proper" English. ]

As it happened, I wrote the post before I entered the
subject line, and inadvertently left out the extra "d".

I won't bother to correct it, of course. Such small lapses
don't bother me that much. Like most of mankind, I'm
not perfect, and don't pretend to be.

Perhaps one of the more obsessive/compulsive members of this
group will change it if and when they reply to the post? Perhaps
my subconscious led me to this unintentional experiment? Perhaps
my interpretation of the word "little" in 1 Timothy 5:23 is a bit
too liberal? ... But then again, I have other " infirmities" in
addition to age. Not as many as some of my critics, of course,
at least I'm not overly obsessive/compulsive! Those who are
might want to check the accuracy of my quote. If so, perhaps
they will check the first two verses in 1 Timothy 5?

To save them the trouble, though:

"1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the
younger men as brethren; 2 The elder women as mothers; the
younger as sisters, with all purity."

After all, they may not have a Bible handy....

Thanks for your reply, Maxi, nice to know that there is
at least someone who reads my posts!

>
>love to read yr epistels..
>
>ready to leave to oz. for the 7th time next week.

Nice to hear that you like Australia, Maxi! Have
you considered migrating here? Has Belgium managed
to form a government yet? It says a lot for the residents there
that they can manage to get along without one!

Could Americans or even Australians cope? The Civil War would
seem to indicate otherwise.

Somalia has had a few rough years. Those who don't follow
world news can always consult Wikipedia to try to catch up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Somalia
>
>Keep posting

I intend to, although perhaps not as frequently in the next 3 or
four weeks.

Still little or no posting activity from the USA, though. Perhaps
they are recovering from Thanksgiving? Or have
taken Friday off for a 4 day holiday?

When I left the U.S. if a holiday such as Christmas Day fell
on a Sunday, people still had to go to work on Monday.

I was pleasantly surprised by the Australian practice. Not
only is the 26th of December a national holiday [Boxing Day]
but if any holiday fell on a Sunday, they got the next day off
in lieu of the "double holiday".

The "normal working week" was from Monday to Friday. Say 9 AM to
4 or 5 PM. Even if working on the minimum legal wage, if they
chose to work outside these hours, they got more per hour
for working outside of "normal working hours". If they chose to
work on a Saturday, they got 1.5 times their normal hourly rate.
On a Sunday, twice their hourly rate, or a "double time" loading.
On a public holiday, "triple time" or 3 times their normal hourly
rate.

Management staff were paid a salary, not an hourly rate,
and they were expected to be willing to work outside of
"normal" hours.

Of course, supermarkets and most other shops only were
open 9 to 5, and closed on weekends. So an unmarried worker
might have to shop during morning "tea break" (15 minutes),
lunch (one hour) or afternoon "tea break" (15 minutes).

A few years later, Thursday evening shopping was introduced when
the shops stayed open until 7 or 8 PM.

In the US at the time one had to work for a given employer for a
year before even being allowed an annual holiday of two weeks.

At that time, the annual paid holiday here was 4 to 6 weeks.

Perhaps not that unusual in other countries, but in Australia
someone going on as 4 to 6 weeks holiday got a "leave loading".

15%, from memory. So if a worker at the time was making,
say, the equivalent of US$ 4 an hour, the time he spent on
holiday was calculated at an hourly rate [for the standard
working week] wasn't 35 hours at $4 an hour, but $4.60 an hour.

So if he was going on a six week paid holiday, he would get
$4.60 * 35 * 6. To save readers reaching for their calculators,
he was normally working for $4 an hour for a 35 hour week, which
was $140 a week. Workers were normally paid fortnightly
[every two weeks] so his he would be paid this amount less
federal tax. [No state tax, no social security tax] Before tax,
therefore, $280 a fortnight. In cash.

Holiday pay, though, as stated above, this would be
$4.60 * 35 * 6 gross, before tax, $966. [or the equivalent
of $161 a week, or $322 a fortnight, before tax]

I don't remember the details of the federal tax payable at the
time. Still a goodly amount in those days, paid in advance, in
cash of course, before he left for his holiday.

Thus, he was paid more for his holiday time than his normal
working rate.

Why? Well many workers, especially tradesmen, normally worked
some overtime. So the 15% holiday loading compensated him for
the lost opportunities for overtime when on holiday.

So if any readers wonder why Australia was then known as
a paradise for workers, now you should know.

Today, though, things are rather different. There are
"workplace agreements" which have changed these conditions.

However, they do have some benefits. Stores and other businesses
can afford to stay open longer. The workers get a higher wage or
salary to compensate for lost benefits.

On the other hand, some employers draw up rather tough
agreements, and this is an issue in today's Federal election.

With luck, the results will be pretty predictable by tomorrow
[Sunday] However, some seats will be closely contested, so we
might not have a final result for a week or more.

Someone will probably criticize my post for providing too much
[or too little] information.

Still, the upshot of all this is that Australia is still a fine
place to live and work. Potential immigrants should know this,
but I won't bother to cross post. Have already suggested that
they follow this group as well as theirs, after all, a word to
the wise should be sufficient.

_verbum sapienti (sat est)_
'a word (is enough) to the wise' (abbr. verb. sap.).

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/difficultwords/data/d0...520.htm

or

http://tinyurl.com/2fgoln


Anyway, thanks again for the post. With a bit of luck,
we might see some today from Yanks in the U.S.A.

Cheers,
Kangaroo16

>
>
>R. belgium
>
>
>
>"kangaroo16" schreef in bericht
>
>> Hi, group!
>>
>> Returning to the net after a break. Still no additional posts
>> appearing here.
>>
>> As I think that this group is worthwhile, will contribute one for
>> the enjoyment [or censure...] of any readers worldwide.
>>
>> Friday here, Federal election here tomorrow. We. in Australia,
>> may know which party wins in a couple of days, or possibly a week
>> from now.
>>
>> That is the way the system works here. I don't propose to try to
>> try to explain it, although it is one of the "fairest" systems I
>> that I know of.
>>
>> Of course, as anyone who reads my posts will probably know, I
>> can be a bit "sardonic" about any or all "elections", here or in
>> the U.S., U.K. or anywhere else for that matter
>>
>> A matter of vocabulary...and out of kindness I wont mention any
>> names, of For the benefit of readers who might have not the word
>> in their vocabulary, [including a couple of possibilities who
>> spring to mind] I will, of course, give a definition.
>>
>> After all, every human has some learning potential.
>>
>> -----
>> Adjective
>>
>> * S: (adj) sardonic (disdainfully or ironically humorous;
>> scornful and mocking) "his rebellion is the bitter, sardonic
>> laughter of all great satirists"- Frank Schoenberner; "a wry
>> pleasure to be...reminded of all that one is missing"- Irwin
>> Edman
>> \
>>
>> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sardonic
>>
>> I, of course, am only being mildly sardonic in my relationships
>> with some posters on this group, who shall not be named, of
>> course.
>>
>> Actually, I am a fairly "polite kangaroo" unless some posters
>> want to accuse me of lying, directly or indirectly
>>
>> However, I think that I might cope with them in much way that our
>> pet cat copes with the odd flea.
>>
>> I don't threaten anyone else on groups, with an "express" or
>> "implied" threat.
>>
>> Perhaps this is due to my belief that I.S.P.severs keep a record
>> of all posts for seven years or so.
>>
>> Unlikely? ... You might as well ask me if someone from our part
>> of the world, say an Australian, might choose to live in, say a
>> place such as the southwest U.S., such as Texas.
>>
>> Still, a lot of things are possible. Do bears defecate in the
>> woods? Could a Pope be female?
>>
>> Life is full of similar surprises, after all!
>>
>> The universe includes lots of stars, perhaps lots of habitable
>> planets. It seems to have been around a long time.
>>
>> Given a possible infinity of worlds, and enough time, almost
>> anything is "possible".
>>
>> Including a large variety of possibly sentient beings, with a
>> large variety of possible "personalities".
>>
>> To go back the other way, even in a spiral arm of our particular
>> galaxy, remote from the galactic centre, there is a minor star,
>> that we call the "sun", with a number of "planets" orbiting
>> around it. Eight or nine, depending on whether one
>> considers "Pluto" as a planet.
>>
>> One of these, which we call "Earth" contains a truly astonishing
>> variety of life. Even the apparently dominant genus and species
>> known as "Homo sapiens".
>>
>> Over 6.5 billion of us. One would think that we could somehow
>> manage to get along with one another.
>>
>> Yet we obviously cannot, or there wouldn't be any wars.
>>
>> Can even a comparatively small subset of "humans" with Internet
>> access manage to "get along"?
>>
>> If the reader thinks so, have a look at "Usenet". Or even this
>> particular group.
>>
>> A very small sub,sub, sub, set. How many on
>> rec.travel.australia+nz?
>>
>> Perhaps a thousand or two humans even read it, as a generous
>> estimate.
>>
>> How many regularly post on it? 1,000 at best, perhaps.
>>
>> Can these1,000 humans possibly "get along" with one another?
>>
>> It doesn't seem so, does it?
>>
>> Not to mention any names, but most of these seem unable to even
>> tolerate, let alone understand, one another.
>>
>> If a group of 1,500 [at most] cannot manage to do so, is it any
>> wonder that humans have wars?
>>
>> For example, in the U.S. "Civil War" was there actually much
>> difference between the average American residing north or south
>> of the Mason-Dixon line?
>>
>> Face it, folks. If Americans could not get along with one
>> another, historically at least, how can we hope to get along
>> with the rest of the world?
>>
>> Anyone willing to comment on this post? ...Or is just too hard
>> for most of you?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kangaroo16
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
 >> Stay informed about: Aditional thoughts 

Funny that you know and read about this belgium joke...


almost 170 days since elections: no goverment yet. (we go for the guiness
record)...Blame it on the french part, and.. no, we don't want to join the
netherlands.


We go for freestate flanders, and the belgium frank has to come back, and
we want bruges as the capital not brussels and we want the next olimpic
games in antwerp!


Migrating? we do as the birds do, we stay 4 5 months and return:)



R





"kangaroo16" schreef in bericht

> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:57:43 +0100, "maxi"
> wrote in :
>
>>K16: one more glass of wine?
>
> As the King James version of the Bible advises,
> in 1 Timothy 5:23
>
> "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's
> sake and thine often infirmities."
>
> Or, in Latin,
>
> 23 noli adhuc aquam bibere sed vino modico utere propter
> stomachum tuum et frequentes tuas infirmitates
>
> http://vul.scripturetext.com/1_timothy/5.htm
>
> Or in Dutch,
> Drink niet langer water alleen, maar gebruik een weinig wijn, om
> uw maag en uw menigvuldige zwakheden.
>
> http://svg.scripturetext.com/1_timothy/5.htm
>
> Not that I think you require a translation, but just as
> reminder to Yanks that languages other than English are spoken
> in the world. [Not that they, or Australians for that
> matter, speak "proper" English. ]
>
> As it happened, I wrote the post before I entered the
> subject line, and inadvertently left out the extra "d".
>
> I won't bother to correct it, of course. Such small lapses
> don't bother me that much. Like most of mankind, I'm
> not perfect, and don't pretend to be.
>
> Perhaps one of the more obsessive/compulsive members of this
> group will change it if and when they reply to the post? Perhaps
> my subconscious led me to this unintentional experiment? Perhaps
> my interpretation of the word "little" in 1 Timothy 5:23 is a bit
> too liberal? ... But then again, I have other " infirmities" in
> addition to age. Not as many as some of my critics, of course,
> at least I'm not overly obsessive/compulsive! Those who are
> might want to check the accuracy of my quote. If so, perhaps
> they will check the first two verses in 1 Timothy 5?
>
> To save them the trouble, though:
>
> "1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the
> younger men as brethren; 2 The elder women as mothers; the
> younger as sisters, with all purity."
>
> After all, they may not have a Bible handy....
>
> Thanks for your reply, Maxi, nice to know that there is
> at least someone who reads my posts!
>
>>
>>love to read yr epistels..
>>
>>ready to leave to oz. for the 7th time next week.
>
> Nice to hear that you like Australia, Maxi! Have
> you considered migrating here? Has Belgium managed
> to form a government yet? It says a lot for the residents there
> that they can manage to get along without one!
>
> Could Americans or even Australians cope? The Civil War would
> seem to indicate otherwise.
>
> Somalia has had a few rough years. Those who don't follow
> world news can always consult Wikipedia to try to catch up.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Somalia
>>
>>Keep posting
>
> I intend to, although perhaps not as frequently in the next 3 or
> four weeks.
>
> Still little or no posting activity from the USA, though. Perhaps
> they are recovering from Thanksgiving? Or have
> taken Friday off for a 4 day holiday?
>
> When I left the U.S. if a holiday such as Christmas Day fell
> on a Sunday, people still had to go to work on Monday.
>
> I was pleasantly surprised by the Australian practice. Not
> only is the 26th of December a national holiday [Boxing Day]
> but if any holiday fell on a Sunday, they got the next day off
> in lieu of the "double holiday".
>
> The "normal working week" was from Monday to Friday. Say 9 AM to
> 4 or 5 PM. Even if working on the minimum legal wage, if they
> chose to work outside these hours, they got more per hour
> for working outside of "normal working hours". If they chose to
> work on a Saturday, they got 1.5 times their normal hourly rate.
> On a Sunday, twice their hourly rate, or a "double time" loading.
> On a public holiday, "triple time" or 3 times their normal hourly
> rate.
>
> Management staff were paid a salary, not an hourly rate,
> and they were expected to be willing to work outside of
> "normal" hours.
>
> Of course, supermarkets and most other shops only were
> open 9 to 5, and closed on weekends. So an unmarried worker
> might have to shop during morning "tea break" (15 minutes),
> lunch (one hour) or afternoon "tea break" (15 minutes).
>
> A few years later, Thursday evening shopping was introduced when
> the shops stayed open until 7 or 8 PM.
>
> In the US at the time one had to work for a given employer for a
> year before even being allowed an annual holiday of two weeks.
>
> At that time, the annual paid holiday here was 4 to 6 weeks.
>
> Perhaps not that unusual in other countries, but in Australia
> someone going on as 4 to 6 weeks holiday got a "leave loading".
>
> 15%, from memory. So if a worker at the time was making,
> say, the equivalent of US$ 4 an hour, the time he spent on
> holiday was calculated at an hourly rate [for the standard
> working week] wasn't 35 hours at $4 an hour, but $4.60 an hour.
>
> So if he was going on a six week paid holiday, he would get
> $4.60 * 35 * 6. To save readers reaching for their calculators,
> he was normally working for $4 an hour for a 35 hour week, which
> was $140 a week. Workers were normally paid fortnightly
> [every two weeks] so his he would be paid this amount less
> federal tax. [No state tax, no social security tax] Before tax,
> therefore, $280 a fortnight. In cash.
>
> Holiday pay, though, as stated above, this would be
> $4.60 * 35 * 6 gross, before tax, $966. [or the equivalent
> of $161 a week, or $322 a fortnight, before tax]
>
> I don't remember the details of the federal tax payable at the
> time. Still a goodly amount in those days, paid in advance, in
> cash of course, before he left for his holiday.
>
> Thus, he was paid more for his holiday time than his normal
> working rate.
>
> Why? Well many workers, especially tradesmen, normally worked
> some overtime. So the 15% holiday loading compensated him for
> the lost opportunities for overtime when on holiday.
>
> So if any readers wonder why Australia was then known as
> a paradise for workers, now you should know.
>
> Today, though, things are rather different. There are
> "workplace agreements" which have changed these conditions.
>
> However, they do have some benefits. Stores and other businesses
> can afford to stay open longer. The workers get a higher wage or
> salary to compensate for lost benefits.
>
> On the other hand, some employers draw up rather tough
> agreements, and this is an issue in today's Federal election.
>
> With luck, the results will be pretty predictable by tomorrow
> [Sunday] However, some seats will be closely contested, so we
> might not have a final result for a week or more.
>
> Someone will probably criticize my post for providing too much
> [or too little] information.
>
> Still, the upshot of all this is that Australia is still a fine
> place to live and work. Potential immigrants should know this,
> but I won't bother to cross post. Have already suggested that
> they follow this group as well as theirs, after all, a word to
> the wise should be sufficient.
>
> _verbum sapienti (sat est)_
> 'a word (is enough) to the wise' (abbr. verb. sap.).
>
> http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/difficultwords/data/d0...520.htm
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2fgoln
>
>
> Anyway, thanks again for the post. With a bit of luck,
> we might see some today from Yanks in the U.S.A.
>
> Cheers,
> Kangaroo16
>
>>
>>
>>R. belgium
>>
>>
>>
>>"kangaroo16" schreef in bericht
>>
>>> Hi, group!
>>>
>>> Returning to the net after a break. Still no additional posts
>>> appearing here.
>>>
>>> As I think that this group is worthwhile, will contribute one for
>>> the enjoyment [or censure...] of any readers worldwide.
>>>
>>> Friday here, Federal election here tomorrow. We. in Australia,
>>> may know which party wins in a couple of days, or possibly a week
>>> from now.
>>>
>>> That is the way the system works here. I don't propose to try to
>>> try to explain it, although it is one of the "fairest" systems I
>>> that I know of.
>>>
>>> Of course, as anyone who reads my posts will probably know, I
>>> can be a bit "sardonic" about any or all "elections", here or in
>>> the U.S., U.K. or anywhere else for that matter
>>>
>>> A matter of vocabulary...and out of kindness I wont mention any
>>> names, of For the benefit of readers who might have not the word
>>> in their vocabulary, [including a couple of possibilities who
>>> spring to mind] I will, of course, give a definition.
>>>
>>> After all, every human has some learning potential.
>>>
>>> -----
>>> Adjective
>>>
>>> * S: (adj) sardonic (disdainfully or ironically humorous;
>>> scornful and mocking) "his rebellion is the bitter, sardonic
>>> laughter of all great satirists"- Frank Schoenberner; "a wry
>>> pleasure to be...reminded of all that one is missing"- Irwin
>>> Edman
>>> \
>>>
>>> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sardonic
>>>
>>> I, of course, am only being mildly sardonic in my relationships
>>> with some posters on this group, who shall not be named, of
>>> course.
>>>
>>> Actually, I am a fairly "polite kangaroo" unless some posters
>>> want to accuse me of lying, directly or indirectly
>>>
>>> However, I think that I might cope with them in much way that our
>>> pet cat copes with the odd flea.
>>>
>>> I don't threaten anyone else on groups, with an "express" or
>>> "implied" threat.
>>>
>>> Perhaps this is due to my belief that I.S.P.severs keep a record
>>> of all posts for seven years or so.
>>>
>>> Unlikely? ... You might as well ask me if someone from our part
>>> of the world, say an Australian, might choose to live in, say a
>>> place such as the southwest U.S., such as Texas.
>>>
>>> Still, a lot of things are possible. Do bears defecate in the
>>> woods? Could a Pope be female?
>>>
>>> Life is full of similar surprises, after all!
>>>
>>> The universe includes lots of stars, perhaps lots of habitable
>>> planets. It seems to have been around a long time.
>>>
>>> Given a possible infinity of worlds, and enough time, almost
>>> anything is "possible".
>>>
>>> Including a large variety of possibly sentient beings, with a
>>> large variety of possible "personalities".
>>>
>>> To go back the other way, even in a spiral arm of our particular
>>> galaxy, remote from the galactic centre, there is a minor star,
>>> that we call the "sun", with a number of "planets" orbiting
>>> around it. Eight or nine, depending on whether one
>>> considers "Pluto" as a planet.
>>>
>>> One of these, which we call "Earth" contains a truly astonishing
>>> variety of life. Even the apparently dominant genus and species
>>> known as "Homo sapiens".
>>>
>>> Over 6.5 billion of us. One would think that we could somehow
>>> manage to get along with one another.
>>>
>>> Yet we obviously cannot, or there wouldn't be any wars.
>>>
>>> Can even a comparatively small subset of "humans" with Internet
>>> access manage to "get along"?
>>>
>>> If the reader thinks so, have a look at "Usenet". Or even this
>>> particular group.
>>>
>>> A very small sub,sub, sub, set. How many on
>>> rec.travel.australia+nz?
>>>
>>> Perhaps a thousand or two humans even read it, as a generous
>>> estimate.
>>>
>>> How many regularly post on it? 1,000 at best, perhaps.
>>>
>>> Can these1,000 humans possibly "get along" with one another?
>>>
>>> It doesn't seem so, does it?
>>>
>>> Not to mention any names, but most of these seem unable to even
>>> tolerate, let alone understand, one another.
>>>
>>> If a group of 1,500 [at most] cannot manage to do so, is it any
>>> wonder that humans have wars?
>>>
>>> For example, in the U.S. "Civil War" was there actually much
>>> difference between the average American residing north or south
>>> of the Mason-Dixon line?
>>>
>>> Face it, folks. If Americans could not get along with one
>>> another, historically at least, how can we hope to get along
>>> with the rest of the world?
>>>
>>> Anyone willing to comment on this post? ...Or is just too hard
>>> for most of you?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Kangaroo16
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 >> Stay informed about: Aditional thoughts 

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:16:26 +0100, "maxi"
wrote in :

>Funny that you know and read about this belgium joke...

Not really, as I do try to keep up with interesting news.
>
>
>almost 170 days since elections: no goverment yet. (we go for the guiness
>record)...

But the country is still holding together, is it not? Actually,
am a bit curious about the day to day impact on citizens.

Are pensions still being paid? Are government employees still
being paid? Is the medical system still funded?

-------------------
November 11th, 1975
The Age - November 12, 1975 The Dismissal of the Whitlam
Government on November 11, 1975 was the most dramatic political
event in the history of Australia's Federation.

Edward Gough Whitlam's Labor government had been elected on
December 2, 1972 and was the first Labor government in 23 years.
Australia's Prime Minister for 16 years was Robert Menzies, whose
Liberal Party governed in coalition with the Country Party. After
Menzies' retirement in 1966, the government went into a steady
decline until it was defeated by Whitlam.

The new government was elected in a climate of great hope and
optimism. It's demise a mere three years later at the hands of
the Senate and the Governor-General is a fascinating political
story that is still relevant to this day.

What Happened?
A brief overview of what happened on November 11, 1975 and why it
remains a significant event in Australian political history....
[more at]

http://whitlamdismissal.com/

>Blame it on the french part, and.. no, we don't want to join the
>netherlands.

From what I have heard, the French can be a bit difficult. On
the positive side, the French Revolution happened before the
American Revolution, and they did develop the metric system.

On the other hand, I personally find it a bit amusing that they
are concerned with the "purity" of the French language.

Consider "American English" which has a lot of words from other
languages, derived, or even copied, from German, Mexican, and so
on.

>
>We go for freestate flanders, and the belgium frank has to come back, and
>we want bruges as the capital not brussels and we want the next olimpic
>games in antwerp!

I, like many migrants, don't happen to have such Nationalistic
feelings, although plenty of "Yanks" do. Some don't seem to have
yet recovered from the U.S. Civil War.

The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a civil war between the
United States of America (the "Union") and the Southern slave
states of the newly-formed Confederate States of America under
Jefferson Davis. The Union included all of the free states and
the five slaveholding border states and was led by Abraham
Lincoln and the Republican Party. Republicans opposed the
expansion of slavery into territories owned by the United States,
and their victory in the presidential election of 1860 resulted
in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union
even before Lincoln took office.[1] The Union rejected secession,
regarding it as rebellion. . . [more at]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

One of the major issues was "state rights". Perhaps they should
migrate to Australia, where the states do jealously guard their
rights?

>Migrating? we do as the birds do, we stay 4 5 months and return:)

Interesting. I went back to the U.S. once, decades ago, but
didn't stay long. Only long enough to make enough money to get
back here, actually.

Too crowded, to high a population density. For instance,
consider visiting a "National Park". When I was a kid, anyone
could visit one, pitch camp anywhere, had a lot of "freedom of
action". Last I heard, a few years ago now, a visitor had to
stay in a "designated area", and had to "book" this about six
weeks in advance.

Probably necessary, considering the present population density
there. Perhaps over 70 people per square mile. Australia is
only slightly smaller than the continental U.S. and, at most, has
about 1.5 people per square mile. Even this is a bit misleading
as most of the population lives within 70 km or so from the coast
in the major cities.

Some years ago I was a bit surprised to find that some city areas
of England had more people per square mile than Hong Kong.

Haven't ever visited England, but have visited Hong Kong, so I
personally find this hard to even conceive of.

Still, no reason to disbelieve the statistics, though I couldn't
imagine living in England, or even managing to exist there.

Do I ever plan to revisit the USA? Not really. Too crowded when
I left. I would probably say the wrong thing to someone and be
murdered.

Compared to Australia, seems to be a pretty violent country,
actually.

It will be interesting to see how the U.S. Supreme Court
interprets the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a few
months time, and the possible reaction to same.

Personally, I would like to observe the reaction from a
comparatively safe distance.

Polls closed now in Eastern Australian States. Current results
so far, indicates a win for Labor. See:

Labor sweeps to victory.

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/

Still, it is a close race, and we may not know for sure for a
while yet, although in another eight hours or so I expect to know
a lot more than I do now, and might be able to make an educated
guess.

Actually, the way things are going at the moment, might know for
sure when I listen to the news tomorrow morning. 9:12 PM in
Sydney as write these words. If I decide to stay up late, I
might even know for sure tonight.

Just rechecked the above ABC link. At the moment,
56 Seats won by the Liberal/Country Party coalition,
62 Seats predicted .

Labor has 80 Seats won, 86 Seats predicted

76 seats required for victory
2 Seats won by other candidates
62.0 % counted | Updated Sat Nov 24 09:15PM

Still, as the old saying goes, "The Opera isn't over until the
fat lady sings."

Cheers,
Kangaroo16














>
>
>
>R
>
>
>
>
>
>"kangaroo16" schreef in bericht
>
>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:57:43 +0100, "maxi"
>> wrote in :
>>
>>>K16: one more glass of wine?
>>
>> As the King James version of the Bible advises,
>> in 1 Timothy 5:23
>>
>> "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's
>> sake and thine often infirmities."
>>
>> Or, in Latin,
>>
>> 23 noli adhuc aquam bibere sed vino modico utere propter
>> stomachum tuum et frequentes tuas infirmitates
>>
>> http://vul.scripturetext.com/1_timothy/5.htm
>>
>> Or in Dutch,
>> Drink niet langer water alleen, maar gebruik een weinig wijn, om
>> uw maag en uw menigvuldige zwakheden.
>>
>> http://svg.scripturetext.com/1_timothy/5.htm
>>
>> Not that I think you require a translation, but just as
>> reminder to Yanks that languages other than English are spoken
>> in the world. [Not that they, or Australians for that
>> matter, speak "proper" English. ]
>>
>> As it happened, I wrote the post before I entered the
>> subject line, and inadvertently left out the extra "d".
>>
>> I won't bother to correct it, of course. Such small lapses
>> don't bother me that much. Like most of mankind, I'm
>> not perfect, and don't pretend to be.
>>
>> Perhaps one of the more obsessive/compulsive members of this
>> group will change it if and when they reply to the post? Perhaps
>> my subconscious led me to this unintentional experiment? Perhaps
>> my interpretation of the word "little" in 1 Timothy 5:23 is a bit
>> too liberal? ... But then again, I have other " infirmities" in
>> addition to age. Not as many as some of my critics, of course,
>> at least I'm not overly obsessive/compulsive! Those who are
>> might want to check the accuracy of my quote. If so, perhaps
>> they will check the first two verses in 1 Timothy 5?
>>
>> To save them the trouble, though:
>>
>> "1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the
>> younger men as brethren; 2 The elder women as mothers; the
>> younger as sisters, with all purity."
>>
>> After all, they may not have a Bible handy....
>>
>> Thanks for your reply, Maxi, nice to know that there is
>> at least someone who reads my posts!
>>
>>>
>>>love to read yr epistels..
>>>
>>>ready to leave to oz. for the 7th time next week.
>>
>> Nice to hear that you like Australia, Maxi! Have
>> you considered migrating here? Has Belgium managed
>> to form a government yet? It says a lot for the residents there
>> that they can manage to get along without one!
>>
>> Could Americans or even Australians cope? The Civil War would
>> seem to indicate otherwise.
>>
>> Somalia has had a few rough years. Those who don't follow
>> world news can always consult Wikipedia to try to catch up.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Somalia
>>>
>>>Keep posting
>>
>> I intend to, although perhaps not as frequently in the next 3 or
>> four weeks.
>>
>> Still little or no posting activity from the USA, though. Perhaps
>> they are recovering from Thanksgiving? Or have
>> taken Friday off for a 4 day holiday?
>>
>> When I left the U.S. if a holiday such as Christmas Day fell
>> on a Sunday, people still had to go to work on Monday.
>>
>> I was pleasantly surprised by the Australian practice. Not
>> only is the 26th of December a national holiday [Boxing Day]
>> but if any holiday fell on a Sunday, they got the next day off
>> in lieu of the "double holiday".
>>
>> The "normal working week" was from Monday to Friday. Say 9 AM to
>> 4 or 5 PM. Even if working on the minimum legal wage, if they
>> chose to work outside these hours, they got more per hour
>> for working outside of "normal working hours". If they chose to
>> work on a Saturday, they got 1.5 times their normal hourly rate.
>> On a Sunday, twice their hourly rate, or a "double time" loading.
>> On a public holiday, "triple time" or 3 times their normal hourly
>> rate.
>>
>> Management staff were paid a salary, not an hourly rate,
>> and they were expected to be willing to work outside of
>> "normal" hours.
>>
>> Of course, supermarkets and most other shops only were
>> open 9 to 5, and closed on weekends. So an unmarried worker
>> might have to shop during morning "tea break" (15 minutes),
>> lunch (one hour) or afternoon "tea break" (15 minutes).
>>
>> A few years later, Thursday evening shopping was introduced when
>> the shops stayed open until 7 or 8 PM.
>>
>> In the US at the time one had to work for a given employer for a
>> year before even being allowed an annual holiday of two weeks.
>>
>> At that time, the annual paid holiday here was 4 to 6 weeks.
>>
>> Perhaps not that unusual in other countries, but in Australia
>> someone going on as 4 to 6 weeks holiday got a "leave loading".
>>
>> 15%, from memory. So if a worker at the time was making,
>> say, the equivalent of US$ 4 an hour, the time he spent on
>> holiday was calculated at an hourly rate [for the standard
>> working week] wasn't 35 hours at $4 an hour, but $4.60 an hour.
>>
>> So if he was going on a six week paid holiday, he would get
>> $4.60 * 35 * 6. To save readers reaching for their calculators,
>> he was normally working for $4 an hour for a 35 hour week, which
>> was $140 a week. Workers were normally paid fortnightly
>> [every two weeks] so his he would be paid this amount less
>> federal tax. [No state tax, no social security tax] Before tax,
>> therefore, $280 a fortnight. In cash.
>>
>> Holiday pay, though, as stated above, this would be
>> $4.60 * 35 * 6 gross, before tax, $966. [or the equivalent
>> of $161 a week, or $322 a fortnight, before tax]
>>
>> I don't remember the details of the federal tax payable at the
>> time. Still a goodly amount in those days, paid in advance, in
>> cash of course, before he left for his holiday.
>>
>> Thus, he was paid more for his holiday time than his normal
>> working rate.
>>
>> Why? Well many workers, especially tradesmen, normally worked
>> some overtime. So the 15% holiday loading compensated him for
>> the lost opportunities for overtime when on holiday.
>>
>> So if any readers wonder why Australia was then known as
>> a paradise for workers, now you should know.
>>
>> Today, though, things are rather different. There are
>> "workplace agreements" which have changed these conditions.
>>
>> However, they do have some benefits. Stores and other businesses
>> can afford to stay open longer. The workers get a higher wage or
>> salary to compensate for lost benefits.
>>
>> On the other hand, some employers draw up rather tough
>> agreements, and this is an issue in today's Federal election.
>>
>> With luck, the results will be pretty predictable by tomorrow
>> [Sunday] However, some seats will be closely contested, so we
>> might not have a final result for a week or more.
>>
>> Someone will probably criticize my post for providing too much
>> [or too little] information.
>>
>> Still, the upshot of all this is that Australia is still a fine
>> place to live and work. Potential immigrants should know this,
>> but I won't bother to cross post. Have already suggested that
>> they follow this group as well as theirs, after all, a word to
>> the wise should be sufficient.
>>
>> _verbum sapienti (sat est)_
>> 'a word (is enough) to the wise' (abbr. verb. sap.).
>>
>> http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/difficultwords/data/d0...520.htm
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2fgoln
>>
>>
>> Anyway, thanks again for the post. With a bit of luck,
>> we might see some today from Yanks in the U.S.A.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kangaroo16
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>R. belgium
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"kangaroo16" schreef in bericht
>>>
>>>> Hi, group!
>>>>
>>>> Returning to the net after a break. Still no additional posts
>>>> appearing here.
>>>>
>>>> As I think that this group is worthwhile, will contribute one for
>>>> the enjoyment [or censure...] of any readers worldwide.
>>>>
>>>> Friday here, Federal election here tomorrow. We. in Australia,
>>>> may know which party wins in a couple of days, or possibly a week
>>>> from now.
>>>>
>>>> That is the way the system works here. I don't propose to try to
>>>> try to explain it, although it is one of the "fairest" systems I
>>>> that I know of.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, as anyone who reads my posts will probably know, I
>>>> can be a bit "sardonic" about any or all "elections", here or in
>>>> the U.S., U.K. or anywhere else for that matter
>>>>
>>>> A matter of vocabulary...and out of kindness I wont mention any
>>>> names, of For the benefit of readers who might have not the word
>>>> in their vocabulary, [including a couple of possibilities who
>>>> spring to mind] I will, of course, give a definition.
>>>>
>>>> After all, every human has some learning potential.
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>> Adjective
>>>>
>>>> * S: (adj) sardonic (disdainfully or ironically humorous;
>>>> scornful and mocking) "his rebellion is the bitter, sardonic
>>>> laughter of all great satirists"- Frank Schoenberner; "a wry
>>>> pleasure to be...reminded of all that one is missing"- Irwin
>>>> Edman
>>>> \
>>>>
>>>> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sardonic
>>>>
>>>> I, of course, am only being mildly sardonic in my relationships
>>>> with some posters on this group, who shall not be named, of
>>>> course.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I am a fairly "polite kangaroo" unless some posters
>>>> want to accuse me of lying, directly or indirectly
>>>>
>>>> However, I think that I might cope with them in much way that our
>>>> pet cat copes with the odd flea.
>>>>
>>>> I don't threaten anyone else on groups, with an "express" or
>>>> "implied" threat.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps this is due to my belief that I.S.P.severs keep a record
>>>> of all posts for seven years or so.
>>>>
>>>> Unlikely? ... You might as well ask me if someone from our part
>>>> of the world, say an Australian, might choose to live in, say a
>>>> place such as the southwest U.S., such as Texas.
>>>>
>>>> Still, a lot of things are possible. Do bears defecate in the
>>>> woods? Could a Pope be female?
>>>>
>>>> Life is full of similar surprises, after all!
>>>>
>>>> The universe includes lots of stars, perhaps lots of habitable
>>>> planets. It seems to have been around a long time.
>>>>
>>>> Given a possible infinity of worlds, and enough time, almost
>>>> anything is "possible".
>>>>
>>>> Including a large variety of possibly sentient beings, with a
>>>> large variety of possible "personalities".
>>>>
>>>> To go back the other way, even in a spiral arm of our particular
>>>> galaxy, remote from the galactic centre, there is a minor star,
>>>> that we call the "sun", with a number of "planets" orbiting
>>>> around it. Eight or nine, depending on whether one
>>>> considers "Pluto" as a planet.
>>>>
>>>> One of these, which we call "Earth" contains a truly astonishing
>>>> variety of life. Even the apparently dominant genus and species
>>>> known as "Homo sapiens".
>>>>
>>>> Over 6.5 billion of us. One would think that we could somehow
>>>> manage to get along with one another.
>>>>
>>>> Yet we obviously cannot, or there wouldn't be any wars.
>>>>
>>>> Can even a comparatively small subset of "humans" with Internet
>>>> access manage to "get along"?
>>>>
>>>> If the reader thinks so, have a look at "Usenet". Or even this
>>>> particular group.
>>>>
>>>> A very small sub,sub, sub, set. How many on
>>>> rec.travel.australia+nz?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps a thousand or two humans even read it, as a generous
>>>> estimate.
>>>>
>>>> How many regularly post on it? 1,000 at best, perhaps.
>>>>
>>>> Can these1,000 humans possibly "get along" with one another?
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't seem so, does it?
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention any names, but most of these seem unable to even
>>>> tolerate, let alone understand, one another.
>>>>
>>>> If a group of 1,500 [at most] cannot manage to do so, is it any
>>>> wonder that humans have wars?
>>>>
>>>> For example, in the U.S. "Civil War" was there actually much
>>>> difference between the average American residing north or south
>>>> of the Mason-Dixon line?
>>>>
>>>> Face it, folks. If Americans could not get along with one
>>>> another, historically at least, how can we hope to get along
>>>> with the rest of the world?
>>>>
>>>> Anyone willing to comment on this post? ...Or is just too hard
>>>> for most of you?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Kangaroo16
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
 >> Stay informed about: Aditional thoughts 

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:16:26 +0100, "maxi"
wrote:
<snip>
>
>almost 170 days since elections: no goverment yet. (we go for the guiness
>record)...Blame it on the french part, and.. no, we don't want to join the
>netherlands.
>

Not even one day since ours and we already have a result.
We'll have a new government as soon as the Labor leader,
Kevin Rudd can present himself to the Governor-General.
Presumably that will happen on Monday.

Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia
http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/
latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest
 >> Stay informed about: Aditional thoughts 

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:09:22 +1100, Alan S
wrote in :

>On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:16:26 +0100, "maxi"
>wrote:
><snip>
>>
>>almost 170 days since elections: no goverment yet. (we go for the guiness
>>record)...Blame it on the french part, and.. no, we don't want to join the
>>netherlands.
>>
>
>Not even one day since ours and we already have a result.
>We'll have a new government as soon as the Labor leader,
>Kevin Rudd can present himself to the Governor-General.
>Presumably that will happen on Monday.

So you stayed up to get the result as well, Alan!

I thought that it might be news tomorrow, or even later, as I
thought that it might have been a bit closer.

I was willing to stay up to midnight or so, and was a bit
surprised when John Howard conceded defeat on the 11 PM
news on the ABC with only around 76% of the vote in.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I don't anticipate any great
change in
travel or immigration policies. What are your feelings on this?

Cheers,
Kangaroo16




>
>Cheers, Alan, Australia
 >> Stay informed about: Aditional thoughts 

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:46:01 GMT, kangaroo16
wrote:

>wrote in :
>
>>On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:16:26 +0100, "maxi"
>>wrote:
>><snip>
>>>
>>>almost 170 days since elections: no goverment yet. (we go for the guiness
>>>record)...Blame it on the french part, and.. no, we don't want to join the
>>>netherlands.
>>>
>>
>>Not even one day since ours and we already have a result.
>>We'll have a new government as soon as the Labor leader,
>>Kevin Rudd can present himself to the Governor-General.
>>Presumably that will happen on Monday.
>
>So you stayed up to get the result as well, Alan!
>
>I thought that it might be news tomorrow, or even later, as I
>thought that it might have been a bit closer.
>
>I was willing to stay up to midnight or so, and was a bit
>surprised when John Howard conceded defeat on the 11 PM
>news on the ABC with only around 76% of the vote in.
>
>As I wrote in an earlier post, I don't anticipate any great
>change in
>travel or immigration policies. What are your feelings on this?
>
>Cheers,
>Kangaroo16

Thank you for the brevity.

He has won this election on a mainly "me-too" set of
policies in areas other than three key issues. Those are
withdrawal from Iraq, industrial relations and signing
Kyoto.

On almost all other matters Rudd has indicated little change
is intended. However, I suspect that he will be a bit less
tough on illegal immigrants and boat people.

I sincerely hope he keeps his promises on economic issues.
Past performance by Labor governments doesn't fill one with
confidence in that department. I note that the AU$ dropped
6c over the past two weeks. Possibly that was just
coincidental with the realisation that Labor was going to
win, but I doubt it.


Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia
http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/
latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest
 >> Stay informed about: Aditional thoughts 

kangaroo16 wrote:

> It will be interesting to see the results of the next
> U.S. election. I think that the Supreme Court decision
> on the 2nd amendment is going to be a major issue, though.

Please enlighten me as to which Supreme Court decision
you are referring.

In my rarely humble opinion, the gun problem in the US
is due to candy-ass judges not sentencing perps who use
guns to hard time in the slammer.

Gun ownership is available in Australia. But use one to
commit a crime and you get a "Go directly to Jail, Do Not
Pass GO, and Do Not Collect $200" card and there are no
"Get Out of Jail Free" cards.

The US Judiciary needs Judge Attitude Training from the
Aussies, the Brits, etc.

Dick
 >> Stay informed about: Aditional thoughts 

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 07:06:13 +0000 (UTC), rdadams.TakeThisOut@panix.com (Dick
Adams) wrote in :

>kangaroo16 wrote:
>
>> It will be interesting to see the results of the next
>> U.S. election. I think that the Supreme Court decision
>> on the 2nd amendment is going to be a major issue, though.
>
>Please enlighten me as to which Supreme Court decision
>you are referring.

The original ten amendments, called the "Bill of Rights", came
into force Dec. 15, 1791. Amendment II sounds simple enough:

Right to keep and bear arms.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed.

Unfortunately, the original document doesn't define "a
well-regulated militia."
If you do a Google News search on the string

US second amendment decision supreme court

and specify returns for the past month, will give you
~285 returns of recent news stories.

"The high court, which is expected to hear arguments in
the spring and to issue an opinion by July, hasn't ruled on the
issue in nearly 70 years, leaving plenty of uncertainty about its
decision."

From the Wall St. Journal:

>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119586772865602737.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

>In my rarely humble opinion, the gun problem in the US
>is due to candy-ass judges not sentencing perps who use
>guns to hard time in the slammer.

One of the big problems here is that the USA already leads the
world in prisoners, and prisons are very overcrowded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison

It also costs a lot of money to keep someone in prison
>
>Gun ownership is available in Australia. But use one to
>commit a crime and you get a "Go directly to Jail, Do Not
>Pass GO, and Do Not Collect $200" card and there are no
>"Get Out of Jail Free" cards.

It isn't all that difficult to get a shooters license for
long arms for hunting purposes. Pistols and revolvers have
been strictly controlled since around 1920 from memory.

For the average citizen, a "sporting shooters license" isn't
that hard to get. However "self defense" doesn't constitute
grounds for issuance of a shooters license. Carrying of
many other concealed or concealable weapons, including
knives, tasers, and even pepper spray highly regulated as well.

>The US Judiciary needs Judge Attitude Training from the
>Aussies, the Brits, etc.

Or perhaps tougher juries? Firearms ownership is much greater
in the US than here, so juries might be more sympathetic to
someone carrying a concealed weapon. An ordinary citizen
carrying a concealed handgun here might not get nearly as much
sympathy from an Australian jury.

Wikipedia has a pretty good writeup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

Cheers,
Kangaroo16

>
>Dick
 >> Stay informed about: Aditional thoughts