"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. should they somehow be _made_ to suffer like we suffer?!

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? i'd hope not as i suspect they're even less popular in
sydney than elsewhere. in fact, now i'm back in nsw they represent me as
well, and i _still_ don't approve of them any more than anyone else does
(i'm just glad to be out of the sodding a.c.t.). many people come up with
many ideas concerning "what to do about" sydney. many of them are rubbish.
rarely are they backed by a critical mass of sydneysiders. like chookie
said, the presence of the dills does not mean everyone's a dill - otherwise
all the countryfolk are clearfellers, fertiliser polluters, and dickheads,
aren't they? the fact remains though that a city of 4 million people, and
the biggest in the country, is an important place which one would rather not
see turn completely to shit (and not least because the rest of us rely on
them in many, many ways for the time being).

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. which references was i unable to take on board? the
fact you referred me to two things, and i didn't reply specifically to
those, doesn't mean much. i have an extremely long reading list & i'll get
to it. much as i would love to magick books out of thin air, i can't do
that.

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?

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. 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

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? 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.

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??!
kylie

"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.

Farm1 wrote:


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?

Until we have to collect our water from the water truck, there is no way
city siders have any idea.

"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message
...

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?

obviously, it doesn't rain enough.

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

no, and i'm not looking, either. i'm making the (extremely obvious) point
that the carr/iemma govt is on the nose with everyone by this stage, and
therefore generally speak for nobody in particular - therefore any grand
plan they have for sydney (numerous), should not be assumed to be backed by
the constituents, a majority of the constituents, a minority of the
constituents, nor even necessarily any of the constituents. they're like the
federal liberal (sic) party - they're still there, and yet, seemingly, not a
living soul actually voted for them. how can it be? that's politics for you,
though - and always remember, just because a pollie thought something up
doesn't mean people "want" it or _don't "want" it. it only means a pollie
said it, nothing more.

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

did you leave something on the stove?

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.

my babble's "verbiage", actually. g

Ah some fact at last!

and i look forward to some from you, too!! it'll be like a byo barbeque,
only we didn't wait until we got drunk before there was a fistfight in the
car port.

Not consistently logical throughout but better
than the usual stream of consciousness stuff.

well gee - tell that to the authors.

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.

the problem with written communication that really peaks on usenet is that
it's too easy for people to misunderstand oneself or what one said (or one's
"tone"), and then there's the part where people will persistently read
things that aren't even there.

for example, until the other day i thought you were a cheerful young woman.
now i think that's most likely _completely_ wrong, but i can't very well
decide you're a persnickety old grumblebum, because that's most likely just
as wrong. live & let live.
kylie
p.s. you still haven't criticised my lack of capital letters, but it's been
fun anyway. are we finished yet?

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

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?

obviously, it doesn't rain enough.

:-)) I had to smile at that one. Sydney has been getting lovely lots
of rain. Not in the catchment of course but over many of the burbs.


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

did you leave something on the stove?

Snort!

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.

my babble's "verbiage", actually. g

Glad you recognise it as such.

Not consistently logical throughout but better
than the usual stream of consciousness stuff.

well gee - tell that to the authors.

It was in the selection of cites - they weren't consistent.

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.

the problem with written communication that really peaks on usenet
is that
it's too easy for people to misunderstand oneself or what one said
(or one's
"tone"), and then there's the part where people will persistently
read
things that aren't even there.

Yes it is easy to do so. I guess that's why you think I'm combative
or snarky.

for example, until the other day i thought you were a cheerful young
woman.
now i think that's most likely _completely_ wrong, but i can't very
well
decide you're a persnickety old grumblebum, because that's most
likely just
as wrong.

Both views can be right but it depends ont he ocassion. Like most
people.

p.s. you still haven't criticised my lack of capital letters, but
it's been
fun anyway.

Well it does make for difficult reading. It's called an "eye jag".
That means that writing in such an unaccepted style is hard for the
reader to read fluently.

I can understand why you do it but I can't type and I still make the
effort because I know how hard it is to read uncapitalised and
unpunctuated writing.

are we finished yet?

Don't tell me you are going to turn chicken on me!

"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message
...

obviously, it doesn't rain enough.

:-)) I had to smile at that one.

i did too, but i was worried you wouldn't :-)

Sydney has been getting lovely lots
of rain. Not in the catchment of course but over many of the burbs.

my neighbour 2 doors down (i.e. about 1.5km away ;-) rents a catchment
property. sydney catchment is actually huge. IT IS EATING AUSTRALIA!!! while
it's true that most of the rain happens on that side of the mountains, i can
tell you for a fact it's raining in the catchment RIGHT NOW.
/looks again
yes.

hunt so hard to figure out where you're headed in all that
verbage.

my babble's "verbiage", actually. g

Glad you recognise it as such.

that i do (i hope you don't think i didn't know that i babble). but mainly,
i'm just an excellent speller g

Not consistently logical throughout but better
than the usual stream of consciousness stuff.

well gee - tell that to the authors.

It was in the selection of cites - they weren't consistent.

so tell them that, then! tell them anything you want!

Yes it is easy to do so. I guess that's why you think I'm combative
or snarky.

ah. i don't think you are combative or snarky as a personality. i think you
are BEING (or have been) combative & snarky. different!!

decide you're a persnickety old grumblebum, because that's most
likely just
as wrong.

Both views can be right but it depends ont he ocassion. Like most
people.

what - sometimes you really are a cheerful young woman & other times you
really are a grumpy old man?!!
boggle
there's got to be more than _oestrogen_ in the water!!!!

Well it does make for difficult reading. It's called an "eye jag".
That means that writing in such an unaccepted style is hard for the
reader to read fluently.

mm, people say that. then later on they say they got used to it. i can't say
i'm bothered how they feel, really. it's their choice to read or not. :-)

I can understand why you do it

why do i do it?

but I can't type and I still make the
effort because I know how hard it is to read uncapitalised and
unpunctuated writing.

tch! i punctuate. you don't have to exaggerate.


are we finished yet?

Don't tell me you are going to turn chicken on me!

no. i'm bored! i'm not taking you seriously! it's ridiculous! it's over!

However, you'll be pleased to know that I can actually type just as fast
with capitals. There you are. Don't expect to see it again any time soon
though - it's just a pre-Christmas special.

salut!
kylie

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

obviously, it doesn't rain enough.

:-)) I had to smile at that one.

i did too, but i was worried you wouldn't :-)

I have the worst most warped sensed of humour you could ever find. It
has always caused me a LOT of troulbe because I can see humour in just
about any isaster or misfortune known to God or man.

Sydney has been getting lovely lots
of rain. Not in the catchment of course but over many of the
burbs.

my neighbour 2 doors down (i.e. about 1.5km away ;-) rents a
catchment
property. sydney catchment is actually huge. IT IS EATING
AUSTRALIA!!! while
it's true that most of the rain happens on that side of the
mountains, i can
tell you for a fact it's raining in the catchment RIGHT NOW.
/looks again
yes.

About bloody time. It's missed it soooooo many times.

hunt so hard to figure out where you're headed in all that
verbage.

my babble's "verbiage", actually. g

Glad you recognise it as such.

that i do (i hope you don't think i didn't know that i babble). but
mainly,
i'm just an excellent speller g

I used to be before I started using computers. Now I have to write a
word by longhand if I want to know if it's right. Sodding keyboards.

decide you're a persnickety old grumblebum, because that's most
likely just
as wrong.

Both views can be right but it depends ont he ocassion. Like most
people.

what - sometimes you really are a cheerful young woman & other times
you
really are a grumpy old man?!!

So only old men are grumblebums? How odd. But usenet is such an odd
beast. I've been mistaken for being an American, a black American, a
man, a woman and many other things besides. It's all in the eyes of
the beholder and depends so much on what one writes. But I can be
lots of thing too at different times in terms of personality (as can
anyone).

Well it does make for difficult reading. It's called an "eye
jag".
That means that writing in such an unaccepted style is hard for
the
reader to read fluently.

mm, people say that. then later on they say they got used to it.

I never have.

i can't say
i'm bothered how they feel, really.

Yes.

I can understand why you do it

why do i do it?

It's easy (or lazy depending on one's perspective).

but I can't type and I still make the
effort because I know how hard it is to read uncapitalised and
unpunctuated writing.

tch! i punctuate. you don't have to exaggerate.

Well you do use full stops, but beyond that............

are we finished yet?

Don't tell me you are going to turn chicken on me!

no. i'm bored! i'm not taking you seriously! it's ridiculous! it's
over!

Over? Then why reply???????

However, you'll be pleased to know that I can actually type just as
fast
with capitals. There you are. Don't expect to see it again any time
soon
though - it's just a pre-Christmas special.

Pity. So much easy to read.

salut!

Merry Xmas!

"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message
...
tell you for a fact it's raining in the catchment RIGHT NOW.
/looks again
yes.

About bloody time. It's missed it soooooo many times.

.... it's stopped now :-)

I used to be before I started using computers. Now I have to write a
word by longhand if I want to know if it's right. Sodding keyboards.

i need a phone in front of me to remember phone numbers (via muscle memory).
i always thought i'm prematurely senile though :-)

So only old men are grumblebums?

i wouldn't call a lady-person a grumblebum. but maybe that's just me.

How odd. But usenet is such an odd
beast. I've been mistaken for being an American, a black American,

black americans are still americans, no difference :-)

a
man, a woman and many other things besides.

hm. i might not capitalise, but i can parse. you can't be "mistaken" for
anything you actually are! (i'm leaning back towards speculating you are a
woman, though. not that it matters!!!)
medical nerd
it's true that there are not only two genders, and in fact there are a range
of (effective) genders in between, due to genetic factors.
/medical nerd

It's all in the eyes of
the beholder and depends so much on what one writes. But I can be
lots of thing too at different times in terms of personality (as can
anyone).

well, that's right, but equally people can misunderstand someone's tone or
intention. it's more difficult than one would think.

mm, people say that. then later on they say they got used to it.

I never have.

well i don't think we've known each other that long!
blush

why do i do it?

It's easy (or lazy depending on one's perspective).

no. like i said, i type just as fast with capitals. it's a habit, but i
won't go into where the habit sprang from. but it's not ease, nor laziness.

tch! i punctuate. you don't have to exaggerate.

Well you do use full stops, but beyond that............

are more full stops? g
not only do i use ?, but also " ' ; : - and, furthermore, !

it's
over!

Over? Then why reply???????

because, like you, now i'm just feeling the loooove! for example, my dh made
an absolutely spiffing roast dinner. and now i've told the world (or two or
three people anyway) i feel even better.
kylie

Farm1 wrote:

:-)) I had to smile at that one. Sydney has been getting lovely lots
of rain. Not in the catchment of course but over many of the burbs.

Not really. It has moisten the mulch/topsoil, but isn't really going deep.

"Terryc" wrote in message
Farm1 wrote:

:-)) I had to smile at that one. Sydney has been getting lovely
lots
of rain. Not in the catchment of course but over many of the
burbs.

Not really. It has moisten the mulch/topsoil, but isn't really going
deep.

Well that's not what the TV weather reports have reported. Lots of
decent falls for months while the country has had sod all.

Farm1 wrote:

Well that's not what the TV weather reports have reported. Lots of
decent falls for months while the country has had sod all.

Those along the coast get it. I'm about 25kms west of the coast and it
really has been nothing. I am using a post hole digger to dig a hole and
the soil is so dry it is like powder.

In article ,
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote:

:-)) I had to smile at that one. Sydney has been getting lovely
lots of rain. Not in the catchment of course but over many of the
burbs.

Not really. It has moisten the mulch/topsoil, but isn't really going
deep.

Well that's not what the TV weather reports have reported. Lots of
decent falls for months while the country has had sod all.

Hmph. It's true we had the wettest winter since 1999, according to the
Bureau, with 403mm. The problem is that even though June was cold, the temps
in July and Aug were above average (though the Aug rainfall was average).
Then September's rainfall was high, but we also had the hottest Sept ever...
followed by the hottest and driest Oct ever. And that hot September had the
August winds in it, too! The extra rain arrived at the right time for
establishing vegies, but of course it then evaporated.

IOW, it's the same here as everywhere else. The climate is hotter and
whackier. We do get more rain here, but it's less than we used to get between
El Ninos. We also don't get persistent rain much: it's much more showery and
intermittent than it used to be.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue