"0tterbot" wrote in message
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message

again, just because most of them
don't rely
on rainfall to make a living does not make the awareness any less
acute.
(snip)

Well they know is a very, very limited sense.

well, "know" is a word with various meanings. (and then there's the
biblical
sense! but let's not go there.) it really only sounds like you are
cross
with them because they experience the effects of drought too but
don't
suffer.

How do they experience the effects of drought? You continue to claim
that city dwellers "experience the effects of drought" and have an
"acute" awareness of the drought. How?

And that sense is that
they are now talking of the need to get MORE water for Sydney.
And
taking it from further and further way, like the Shoalhaven River.
The bloody Shoalhaven for God's sake!

are you mistaking the iemma govt's machinations for what literally
everyone
in sydney wants?

So can you produce any cites that indicate that Sydny siders don't
want to take water from the Shoalhaven?

And frankly I'm equally amazed at your inability to take on board
refe
rences given to enable you to do some research and that may
challenge
your generalisations (you can even access then online so don't
even
have to inconvenience yourself by going outside) .

let's not be snarky.

Now you add "snarky" to "combative". Pot, kettle, black comes to mind
for some strange reason.

why am i not allowed to speak generally, but you're allowed not only
to
generalise wildly but also think your generalisations count for
more?

I've posted generalisations and you've posted generalisations. I
haven't said you can't post them but I have to admit that the stream
of consciousness posts don't work for me. I'd like you to stick to
some facts or at least post in some structured way so I don't have to
hunt so hard to figure out where you're headed in all that verbage.

Really? I particulalry enjoyed the one about:
"city peeps are generally better-educated and have a much broader
view
of the
world, their world is just bigger than ours is"

Such a generalisation really surprised me.

clearly. you're having a great deal of trouble getting over it, i
see.

No, just irritated at your general tone. And the fact that you don't
even recognise when your own words are used right back at you.

city
people are, proportionately, better educated (this partly includes
people
who left rural areas _in order to receive_ more education not
available in
their area). not least because educational facilities tend to be
concentrated in cities, where many small country towns don't even
have a
high school, never mind a tafe or a uni or any private adult ed. for
example, amongst others:
http://ofw.facs.gov.au/publications/wia/chapter6.html
While retention rates for secondary school students, particularly
girls, are
increasing, these numbers differ when examined geographically. That
is,
students in remote and regional areas are more likely than those in
cities
to face problems of access and limited choice as they aim to
complete their
education. Residents of regional and remote Australia have
consistently had
lower rates of attendance in the non-compulsory years 11 and 12 of
school
and at non-school education institutions than city residents.
5
Evidence from Haberkorn et. al. indicated that in 1996, average
school
attendance rates of 16 year olds in non-capital city Australia were
below
those for capital city Australia (76 per cent and 83 per cent
respectively).
Attendance rates had remained stable over time, increasing only 0.6
per cent
across Australia between 1991 and 1996. However, in non-capital city
areas,
there was a decline of 0.6 per cent in this period.6

According to Collins et al., in 1996 rural girls were only five per
cent
less likely to complete school than urban girls, but the chances of
rural
boys completing school were 11 per cent less than for urban boys.
Girls and
boys in remote areas were both noticeably more unlikely to complete
school
than their urban counterparts: 19 per cent and 16 per cent
respectively'.7

Haberkorn et. al. found a negative relationship between the
proportion of 16
year olds in school and the degree of remoteness. However, some care
needs
to be taken in interpreting this as people aged 16 who grew up in
remote
areas may have left home to continue their education.8

Ah some fact at last! Not consistently logical throughout but better
than the usual stream of consciousness stuff.

I know I get to the Opera
House more often than my city rels do now that the ballet dancer
has
ended her career (and they only went to see her anyway, not a
range of
things) and I am always amazed at how busy my city friend and rels
are
but how little they actually use the benefits of the city. The
routine of daily living for them is much more restrictive on their
lifestyle than it is for the country people I know. They go to
more
restaurants and movies but not to do anything useful in a cultural
or
educative sense - just much more social. Lots of talk but no
meat.

And when it comes to education, my (country born and bred and
working)
Mechanic has 2 degrees and he's not the only country person I know
who
has such surprising qualifications behind his rough exterior. I
also
get a particular kick out of the very traditonal sheep farmer I
know
who looks like a total hay seed and lives in the deep deep country
but
who has a PhD (thesis was on sheep).


what has this to do with anything?

Nothing, but then that is the whole point. Your posts contain exactly
the same irrelevances.

how often your rellies go to the opera,
or how many hicks you know with phds, is really not relevent to
anything i
said. if you cannot see the obviousness of a statement entailing 1:
a
literal truth (that city peeps are more likely to be better
educated -
they're also healthier & slimmer - do you want to argue about that
too?) and
2: that the outside world is a great deal closer to, and interacted
with, a
person who lives in a very big, international city which contains
every
imaginable type of person from literally everywhere on earth, living
cheek
by jowl in every imaginable economic and family situation, then i
really
can't help you. if i want to fly to beirut or london or marrakesch
tomorrow,
i think i have to go to SYDNEY first, don't you? that's the
literality of
it. the figurative element is what is gained by meeting & working
with &
living amongst more people, with different experiences, and having
further
access to more of those people and experiences should one wish. i
moved to
the city from the country at 17 & believe you me, it was a real
eye-opener.
i make my claims from experience & in good faith, but even so, it's
hardly
worth arguing about.

And I make my claims based on my experience and in good faith too.

i'm NOT saying "the city is better" or "country people are all dumb"
or
anything LIKE that. i'm making some observations which you've
decided to get
completely off-side about, for absolutely NO reason i can fathom.
what's the
problem??!

I'm off side but you aren't. I have a problem but you don't. I see a
problem with that even if you don't.