Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Anita Quigley's penchant for grubby English

Dear oh dear, Anita. This is the second time I've had to pursue you to correct your English. You know, as a journalist, English should be your forte. You are a bit like a bad plumber who does not know how to put a pipe together properly.
I quote: Now a controversial author herself, it is a toss up between who is the more hated – him or her – by the Islamic world.
Who is the more hated - he or she - by the Islamic world.

In ordinary English, when you ask a question, you ask: Who is she, not who is her?
Similarly, when one speaks of persons in the objective, one does not speak of them as subjective but as objective.
For instance: She was waiting for Bill and I. This is the new way of speaking [and writing]. If you removed Bill from the sentence, would you say: She was waiting for I?
Pay attention to our language, Anita. You are just a little too cute with the grammar.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Howard's arrogant Nelson wrestles with military

Full message view
Story Comment Published
From: (
This message may be dangerous. Learn more
Wednesday, 23 May 2007 6:46:29 AM
engaexperience@ (
Your comment has been published:

What would a medical practitioner know about military machines? What utter arrogance! Nelson continues the miserable and hapless tradition of Liberal Ministers by pretending he's more knowledgeable than career military personnel.

Please note the Editor may have slightly edited your comment to be suitable for publishing.

Monday, May 21, 2007

Tabulam has lots of water

engaexperience @ gmail. com
22-May-2007 06:22
Your comment has been published:

Suddenly the little villages along rivers are to be the more valued real estate. Places such as Tabulam in north NSW that draws its water from the Clarence River will become treasured for their water.

To view your comment online go to:,,21767341-5001024,00.html

David Oldfield and 'Cat's Bum' lips

help. news @ news. com. au
22-May-2007 06:22
Your comment has been published:
I laugh when I imagine David Oldfield kissing a cat's bum. After all, wasn't David supposed to be puckering up with Pauline Hanson? I don't think much of Oldfield's choices, do you?
To view your comment online go to:,,21769227-5006002,00.html

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Watching John Howard grow up

Watching John Howard this morning reminded me how dehumanising is the work of such a man. This sentence can be taken in two ways; Howard dehumanises others as he tends to the needs of his constituents, or, Howard himself is increasingly dehumanised as he divides and spoils his constituency.

The spirit of power and the machinations of retaining power possess the man. By constantly reminding us that he primarily serves his party Howard is perceived as divisive. He puts his party ahead of others who are not of his party, and by extension, who remain irrelevant to his purview other than to facilitate his hold on power.

Howard lies. This disconnectedness that helps Howard deliver his savagely dishonest lies betrays the inherent disloyalty our Prime Minister has for Australia’s populations. He feels no qualms about lying constantly to us. As long as it serves the interests of the Coaltion Howard feels justified in lying to the Australian public.

Such a man had a beginning. It was long ago, in the days when sandwiches and pies were served at tuckshops. His Mum and Dad were sort of decent people who somehow gave birth to John. It wasn’t their fault. They didn’t know how he’d turn out. They went ahead and brought him up as well as they could. Sent little Johnny to Sunday School and taught him that size didn’t matter.

Unfortunately for John, size did matter.

John Howard learned at an early age to stand his ground and look the victim. His nascent bushy eyebrows gave his squinty blue eyes a hurt that withered the bully. It is the next best thing to tears. A bully keeps taunting the victim until submission empowers the bully. Howard’s look of hurt was surrogate submission that beguiled others into deleting their attack on him. You didn’t want to be caught inflicting pain upon the cowardly eyes of the vanquished. Besides, Howard was a runt, a nobody of consequence, to be ignored.

Howard relied upon his size.

Surrender to the inevitable thrashing was not an option Howard would ever take. John saw no sense in braving it out in face of inevitable defeat. So he developed that look that got him out of the firing line, so to speak. It was a look that told people he was a wimp, a callow coward and would never become a threat to others. It instructed others to hold him in contempt. Howard relied upon his size to belie the cunning and malevolent image of himself that was growing with each passing moment.

When little John Howard committed his first major sin he relied upon his runty appearance to get him out of trouble. He simply squinted miserably, whined in that dreadful fashion of his, and denied everything. It was to be a method by which he served the Australian people for more than thirty unfortunate years.
The sin happened while John Howard was a young student at a Sydney school. He was not a noble looking human being. Quite the contrary; he was, in the normal view of things, ugly. His voice was ugly and his temper was ugly. None liked little John Howard. Many had been at the end of a whipping because he had informed on them. He enjoyed telling his teachers of the misbehaviour of his classmates.

John Howard doing crime against Australians?

John Howard has authorised the spending of a massive $1.7bn of our money on advertising what his Liberal/Coalition government has spent our money on. Now I might be stupid but spending money to tell us how they are spending money is quirky. After the $2.9bn Defence stuffup; after Amanda's $70000 Chinese lessons [they said she was not a great student] so that she could go to Rome; after the AWB's illegal use of our money as gifts to Saddam; after $300m wasted on Manus Island and Nauru; after $650m wasted on Woomera and Baxter detention centres; and the dirty money list goes on and on and on ... our John wants to waste more money telling us why Work Choices is anathema as nomenclature; and they sent that hapless bloke to gaol for swiping a few bucks from Centrelink! What about Howard? Isn't what he is doing a crime against us, the ordinary Australians?

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

DT and Sissy Tackles in Rugby League

help. news @ news. com. au

06:15 (19 minutes ago)

engaexperience @ gmail. com

17-May-2007 06:15

Your comment has been published:

What a sissy rule, this lifting in a tackle! Lyon would have been applauded by the likes of Provan, Kearney, Wells, Holman, Gasnier et al., in the old days of true Rugby League.Peter Diversey, of Gundagai, and of Norths, was famous for his tackles ... the opponent was lifted a full four or five feet and dumped unceremoniously, to the full cheer of a suitably impressed footy crowd. The dust would rise, the tackled player would get up, play the ball, and on with the game.Today? Hrmmmmf! Hankies and tears!!!!To view your comment online go to:,,21745438-5001023,00.html

Sunday, May 13, 2007

DT and Howard's Ethics and Morality

help. news @ news. com. au
hide details 06:33 (1½ hours ago)

to engaexperience @ gmail. com

14-May-2007 06:33

Story Comment Published

Your comment has been published:
There is some misconception by political commentators that the economy is the main determinant of voters' intentions this Federal Election. The Telegraph poll confirms that matters of ethics and morality have a large part to play in the formation of voters' intentions. Howard's deceitful politics and the contemptuous manner of big spending to secure yet another Coalition victory have not been well received by the electorate and all the money waved under the noses of voters should be spent on more deserving projects, rather than on Coalition aspirations.