Copenhagen. A Failure?

The Climate Conference in Copenhagen appears to have been a failure in the eyes of many. Indeed it was, with this important disclaimer. For those who expected too much; or for those who willed it to fail: Copenhagen was a failure.

Firstly, to those who willed Copenhagen to fail. Any & all possible outcomes would have been picked over and degraded by this mob. That is a given. Dialogue/debate is next to worthless in this arena. Logic barely exists. An emotional outlook has been fabricated and rigidly adhered to. Oh, of course there is back-pocket logic. The only reason we have to care about these fools is due to their stultifying influence. For activists, the path is clear. Conversation with this mob is a waste of time. It can be crudely boiled down to a generational divide. Activists must simply wait until a large quantity of objectors curl up & die. Other paths could well be futile. I am reminded of the republican debate in Australia. Trench politics. The absolute opposite to the ideal of democratic practice (also one of it's major constants).

To those who expected too much. Diplomacy is a slow, pondering beast. Try getting 190 people in a room for a discussion on the same topic. Within, numerous environmental bigots will do their utomost to keep proceedings at a stillpoint. International diplomacy is no better. The minimal (and yes, non-binding) agreements set are all that could possibly be expected. Posturing and influence are far greater components than the actual content of speech. Politics is human. Again, another point that logic is secondary.

The greatest question to be asked (and answered) at any meeting of this kind is : 'What's in it for me?' A clear and obvious demonstration of the negative effects of climate change is sorely needed. In a nutshell, this impetus does not presently exist. International leaders, mindful of their own constituency, have little choice but to push the 'What's in it for me?' line to it's extreme. At the present stage of scientific uptake (minimal), it would be naive to expect anything better. It is a low-grade game of Simon Says. For one to act without the appearance of similar action by others is largely fruitless. I do not agree with this one bit from a personal level. However, at a different level it is a no-brainer.

Which brings me to the major point. Climate change action is the responsibility of the individual. To expect government (elected democratically, for this example's sake) to take collective action is a misnomer. The 'debate' in the US & Australia is truly woeful. A bunch of organisations with vested interests have a massive influence. Governments may try to make the right noisess. It barely matters in the crunch. Every single scheme I have seen proffered in the political environment is terrible. Permits to allow the large polluters to continue polluting etc. So flawed that I didn't care whether they were voted in or not.

There is a tougher part for people who have decided on individual action. How does one communicate one's deeds? This is crucial. A middle line must be taken. One must be wary of 'preaching'. This will quickly go nowhere. The movement needs to be led by action, not rhetoric. Rhetoric must play it's part. It has to be a substantially smaller part than many would like. Lead by action. Talk is cheap. Deniers are scum who cannot be converted by talk. They require a parental approach, without the requisite finger-wagging. An almost impossible line to take, I agree. I lose my patience very quickly on these matters. A religious figure, of sorts, is needed. Hey, I'm unaware of a religious figure who didn't continually shoot his mouth off. So, I am calling for a non-human to lead a very human problem. It could be safe to say that will never happen. All we can control is the individual level.

Self interest clearly trumps all other interests. Following this, I expect no meaningful action from government (en masse) until the situation is dire & obvious. Until that point, individual action is the key. The best hope I can offer is that a new stream of politicians may emerge from this movement. It will be at a very late stage in the 'debate'.

Ah, Piffle. I give up. Copenhagen was a failure.

The Problem with the Climate Change Debate

The Problem with the Climate Change Debate

Facts are the clearest problem in the Climate Change debate. Theories are almost impossible to prove without directly observable events. The point at which this direct observation occurs could be well into the future. However, I wish to largely ignore the (Earth-based) facts in this article. I would like to talk about the fatalistic mind-frame that accompanies such debate.

Fatalistic thinking is a massive bugbear for Climate Change activists. It matters not whether the fatalism is correct. In the eyes of deniers, the mind-frame itself is problematic. This area sorely needs addressing. The same thinking was prevalent with the Millenium Bug, in the year 2000. The Millenium Bug turned out to be a massive public scare with little or no basis. This is important. A precedent has been followed. A bunch of people spoke up, essentially proclaiming the end of the (digital) world. For people who are not involved heavily with computers - it was a bunch of crazy tech people speaking far out of their station. Their prophecies could be safely ignored.

The same is true with the Climate Change debate. The tendency to exaggerate (in whatever fashion) disastrous events is a well-established norm. The invariable winners are the people who ignored such fatalistic claims. The calculated end of civilisation by the Mayans, in 2012, is an oft-spoken of event. No-one (I know) would believe such an ancient prophecy directly. However, couple that with other things, such as Climate Change, and one can easily merge the two. One could easily ascribe to the Mayans a 'green' brain that was able to see the effects of Climate Change. This process is the problem that I am talking about.

In the eyes of deniers, a fatalistic mind-frame is a problem in of itself. It smacks of depression and self-loathing. A person who is so unhappy with their own life, that they begin to ascribe their viewpoint to the wider world. Whether or not any of this is true is irrelevant. The overtones are clear. To a great degree, many deniers may feel like they are debating with children. Children who invoke the bogey monster from the closet. The Climate Change activists must address this issue. It is critical. It may take years to get this public relations point right.

I have 2 points I wish to directly address to sceptics. The first is the nature of the word sceptic. To be a sceptic is a completely natural turn of events, as highlighted above. Historically, sceptics have contributed much more than authority, one may safely surmise. The definition of the word sceptic (amongst others) is ' Philosopher who questions the possibility of knowledge.' A very powerful position. However, related to the Climate Change debate, it is clear that most knowledge talked about can never be proven. Or never be proven in sufficient time. Proof is an incredibly dicey area. One may continually reject proof for reasons other than the data. Wittled down, scepticism at it's extreme is also nihilistic. In the same fashion that Climate Change activists are (to the extreme). A perfectly acceptable line of scepticism (and not a new one) is to deny that anything could ever be known. In a philosophical sense, it is impossible to 'prove' this viewpoint incorrect. It is correct simply because one has taken the position. It must be noted that one can never move from such a position, if one's aim is to be 'right', once it is taken.

As a sceptic, having taken the position, it is one's duty to examine evidence. The sceptic must at all times keep an open mind. To do otherwise would be selective scepticism, ie everyday 'logic'. Taking of a position purely for personal reasons. A sceptic must not take this option, to continue to call themselves a sceptic. Clearly, most who label themselves so are not sceptics. They are merely deniers. Deniers are impossible to debate, on any topic. The pre-formed view is that which one is left with. This is not a Sceptic.

I urge all sceptics to examine the atmosphere of Venus. Venus has no possible man-made interference in relation to it's atmosphere. I believe this sidesteps another of the great problems with this debate - Fault, or lack of it. In discussing Venus, the debate will have much greater clarity. Please examine the current data on the atmosphere of Venus and make your own conclusion.

Thankyou for taking the time to read this article.

P.S. In speaking of deniers/sceptics/activists/(believers), I entirely acknowledge that no 1 person is 100% either way. The sceptic (in everyone) can, and should be appealed to directly to further this debate.

--------
In conclusion. 1 month after writing the article. The whole debate is far more stuffed than I imagined. This post has convinced no-one. At no stage did the discussion move on to Venus. Most just read the first few lines and teed off. They had no idea what the article was about.

Copenhagen. A Failure?

Sex & Anxiety : Keeping up with the Jones's

We have been very lucky (?) this year. A veritable cavalcade of stories has whirled around us. In quick succession. The private lives of the rich & famous are the particular area of public interest. Clearly, not enough information nor details may sate the public desire. Firstly, a few standard comments on gossip.

Gossip is an odd area of human interaction. It provides a means of social connection between people who may not have anything else to talk about. It offers a degree of character-building. One may elevate one's social rank by having multiple stories of gossip at one's disposal. The rarer, or dirtier, the better. Also, the greater degree of elevation at hand. Gossip is an integral part of the social nature of humans.

In saying this, it is clear that gossip is quite incompatible with many other social urges. For example, the desire to be accepted. One person's gossip may bring a social grouping to crash down. Usually at an individual's expense. The group may safely ostracise the individual. Irrespective of the factual worth of the gossip.

The most interesting gossip is that which cannot be proved. Enter the area of sexual dalliance. Again going back to sociological reasoning : Gossip about sex is the most frequent, perhaps most important, area of gossip. Confining the argument to one group (who freely interact with one another), it has clear methodology. To know that person A is involved with person B is invaluable information in this light. One may see favours being given where otherwise they would not be apparent. Within this group setting, one may undermine these machinations to one's favour. Extremely valuable.

The problem in the 'wider world' relates exactly to this idea. Celebrities fill the role of 'leaders'. We all know of them. With a brief idea of their basic outward motivations. In general, it will be a sports player or actor. People we watch in their professional life. Our social groups are so wide & diverse that the sweet carrot becomes even greater. The greatest dirge of human conversation is having to listen to people talk about people we neither know nor care about. As a method of compensation for this dirge, easily identifiable celebrities are the 'space-fillers'. We can talk about them, and other people will most likely have some degree of care. Simply by knowing who we are talking about. This point cannot be understated.

However, the

TO BE COMPLETED

2009 - Official Year of the Sex Scandal

So, I bought the newspaper for the first time in months. I haven't been following online. Page 3 - 'Barmaid talks of sex in car with Premier.' Ah, it's refreshing to know things haven't changed. Newspapers still rely on the lowest common denominator approach. I can only gather it continues to work.

"In her paid interview, Ms Chantelois says she had sex in Mr Rann's office and would collect him from Adelaide casino .. and drive to the nearby ..  golf club. 'He was calling the shots and I was his puppet' she said. 'I would just follow his instructions and there were secret meetings."

Well, I am very shocked already. How dare a man in power ever use that power for sex? It must be an abuse of power. Remember - 'He was calling the shots'. The victimhood of the woman is now established.

"[We would go] just on the side of the road at the golf course. And I'm ashamed to say intimacy was involved."

Oh, that's a relief. I thought this was a sex scandal. It appears they parked by the side of the road and talked with 'intimacy'. In any case, the woman is not to blame.

"Ms Chantelois told Seven that Mr Rann should say sorry to those hurt by the affair, including her estranged husband, family, his wife and 'probably the public as well.'"

Absolutely Mr Rann should apologise to the estranged husband of the woman. I mean, he bears absolute  responsibility. It is the sheer radiating power from his penis that blinded the woman. If that were absent, Ms Chantelois would stay perfectly faithful to her marriage vows, for multiple lifetimes, if not eternity.

At least there is one refreshing constant. Newspapers are Garbage

How to Have Sex Without Being Locked Up (Lessons from Hofstra)

Lessons in Sexual Dalliance #1 - Always Carry & Use a Recording Device.

Daily life may be a quagmire of opportunities. It is one's duty to resist these mosquitoes of desire & press on. The next time you are offended by/offered a sexual opportunity - do make sure to record it. The recording will offer clear spiritual release in that you, at some point in the proceedings, uttered the magical word NO. That it was in response to the question "Should I stop?" is of mere consequence. The sheer magic of the word works even in retrospect. One need never have said it in fact.


There are a few important things to say about the Hofstra 5 case. The first point has been made. The Hofstra 5 looked headed straight for jail. For a probable maximum of 25 years. The video evidence that one of the men took was of crucial importance. Without it's existence, it is doubtful whether the woman would have ever recanted her story. Certainly, without the pressure it would have inevitably beared, her reason for doing so would be greatly diminished.

As with the Matthew Johns case , the reasons for the girl creating the tale of hype she did were twofold:
a) to address personal shame & guilt felt after the event. ie an immature girl's reaction
b) to address issues of reputation - the opinion of others. In this case, it appears the reaction of her boyfriend was a key motivator.

It can never be known when it will be felt. It may be the next day, maybe later. These petty emotions are sufficient to create a scandalous reaction that will motivate the hordes of brain-dead into action. By their own will & motive force, these hordes have the power to publicly convict. One must hold onto recorded evidence of the act for a period of 30+ years.

Lessons in Sexual Dalliance #2 - Always speak in the second person. NEVER use the word 'I'.

The important point is that first person information is not trusted by the public. The court of public opinion is the most puerile of all courts. The purveyors lack intellect, and respond only in an emotional manner. The Hofstra case immediately evaded the (clearly false) supposition of "Innocent until proven Guilty." The mere and obvious fact that all such testimony begins in the first person is irrelevant. The moment the policeman reported the 18 year old woman's claims in the second person - IT BECAME FACT. Please read the initial comments to the story. The men had immediately been tried. The key had already been thrown into the dark waters of the Hudson River. Farewell, and enjoy your 25 years in jail.

The comments made by the men (19-21 years old) were wrong not for the content of the message. The first person nature - the word I - has raised sufficient doubt in the minds of the lowly court of the public. "I know how to treat women." - That comment will end up spraypainted on his grave. The feeble minds are unable to grasp at a first person comment. They need to be spoon-fed. "The situation reached a point where the carriage of respect may have been somewhat shaky." That is a much better comment. The information content is much lower (perhaps very close to zero - that is what is needed - legal junk speak) than the first person version. Even if the speaker believes to his utmost that the issue of respect for women is not part of the equation - he must pander to the fools who invoke it at every opportunity. The men will never live down the comments they have made in the first person. They are effectively now branded (upon their forehead) by a vicious, malevolent mob.

Lessons in Sexual Dalliance #3 - NEVER Smile for the Camera


The above photo can be read in two ways. a) a bunch of thugs who have gotten away with a moral crime. b) a bunch of guys relieved that they had stared down a ridiculous jail term and been able to walk away & laugh at the stupidity of the situation. ALWAYS UNDERESTIMATE the value of public judgement. a) is the easiest & requires the least mental aptitude. a) is therefore superior - en masse.

Lessons in Sexual Dalliance #4 - Always Brag to Your Mates

This point has no direct relation to the above case. It is an expansion of the first two points. The first version of an event is the most powerful. Telling as many friends about any & all sexual encounters is the only way to harness this. Your version will be imprinted, and when a friend hears an alternate version - they will be inclined towards the first version (similar to Lesson #1). This is true of the public at large. However, the impracticalities of applying Lesson #4 to the public are twofold. Firstly, they will have no personal connection. Therefore, likelihood of belief in bragging story as pure fact is severely lessened. Secondly, there are far too many.

Friends will retell the story in the second person. The second key point is that body language & distance will clearly reveal 'truth' to simple listeners (as per police detective - also, I would say, why lawyers are worth so much). Having a personal involvement in the telling of a story immediately implies criminality to said simpletons. This is clearly ridiculous, and reinforces Lesson #2.

Someone else, preferably of 'sound moral character' (all this statement means is that they have not been caught or that few would care anyway) re-telling a story is pivotal.

Lesson #5 - Being on the Run is of Benefit.


The 5th chap has pretty much escaped visual media attention. He was also the one who had the video footage. These two points have combined to give him the brightest future of the five. Take footage and run. This has been demonstrated to be the most superior approach. Futher suggesting what a bunch of fools the court of public opinion is.


Lesson #0 - The Rules of Gentlemanly Conduct Have Been Thrown Out. To protect oneself, one must act as a complete dingbat during & after any sexual encounter.

2009 - Official Year of the Sex Scandal

How to Have Sex Without Being Locked Up



Yet Another Sex Scandal. This Time the Navy

This is Not Consent (Woman Beds 200)

Most Explosive Piece of News Rubbish

Sex Scandal - NRL - Matthew Johns

Group Sex

Group Sex

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Sex - more issues

It turns out I do have something to say in response to Insight, SBS 5/8/09. I will conveniently skip the first half hour of the program. Jenny Brockie did an excellent job hosting the show. However, a panel (or group) chat show can only be as good as it's panel.

Unwanted sex. This was the issue that occupied the second half of the show. I was laughing quite often during this segment. To clear up, we are talking about sex under regular coercion. It was agreed on the show that alcohol had a factor in reducing consent. (Amazing insight, hey?) The male gender studies representative actually said that if a guy was drunk, he should sleep it off & try for sex in the morning. Hell, I'd probably still be a virgin if I followed that advice. It was a very distant comment. The kind of advice you'd hear from your parents - they mean well, but just don't get it.

The program entered the boring blame game. Who is to blame for unwanted sex? Yawn. A poor approach that will never answer any substantial questions. Not interested in that angle. I will say this. It is the most common outcome to entirely blame the 'victim'. However, the 2nd most common outcome is to entirely blame the 'offender'. Clearly, something is missing.

The most entertaining part of the show was listening to the stories of unwanted sex. It was an amazing trigger point. Jenny could have asked any female in the audience & got a similar answer. It was an Oprah moment. Stories came out in a confessional manner. 'I didn't want to seem like a prude. I didn't say no, but I didn't say yes.' 'The next day he acted all normal. He had no idea anything was wrong.' Jenny- 'So when did you tell him?' 'Never'. Spare me. I would have had more compassion if she was talking about the time she removed a splinter from her finger.

The topic of 'If one doesn't say no, does that mean yes?' was raised. My short answer to this question is YES. Sex is not a verbal contract. The less one has to say, the better. This really sounds like a US Christian University. I've soiled myself laughing at propaganda material that has been released in the past. 'Is it OK for me to touch your hair? Your leg? May I kiss you? Can I fondle your breast?' A common thread runs through here. If I followed these rules, I would also be a virgin. Cannot be even remotely good advice if that is the case.

Back to unwanted sex. I put it to you that every female over the age of 20 has 'indulged' in this activity. (yes, yes, discount virgins etc ye technical objectors.) Some stats were pulled out. Can't remember exactly, but something like 25%-50% of year 12 girls have had unwanted sex. Mostly, we would be talking about a 'relationship' ie boyfriend & girlfriend. I have no problem with the stats. Sounds about right. I have a big problem with the interpretation. Feminists are the poorest interpreters of statistics in the world. Everything is pumped towards a desired objective.

To a feminist, the unwanted sex issue leads straight to a patriarchal society etc blah blah. I have a very interesting article in the pipeline re: Patriarchy vs Matriarchy. Stay tuned. If you are a blind feminist, rest assured that you will not like the article. No more of this to be said directly in this article. Needless to say, I have no empathy for this angle. It is bogus.

Unwanted sex is a day-to-day part of life. Join a nunnery if you would like to get away from it. Bettina Arndt has offered some excellent points on this topic. Naturally, she was crucified for doing so. An entirely familiar pattern has been followed time & time again. Plain, vanilla common sense replaced with some wacky, dire ideology. At least it gives me something to write about.

Frank Sinatra Throws "Two-Bit Hooker" Insult

Historically, this incident is often looked at as a sure sign of Australia's backward nature. It is often talked about as something that could never happen again. And pigs might fly.

History never repeats. I tell myself before I go to sleep

This is from a press release for the ABC TV series 'The Way We Were' in 2002:

"The media had a big part to play in many of Sinatra's tours, and much is made of his "bums and hookers" jibe in 1974.

Sinatra's insult came after a series of mishaps no doubt deeply wounding to his ego. At Tullamarine no one met his plane, he was driven into town in the wrong car, and at Festival Hall the singer had to push his way through the media throng to bash on the stage door before he was allowed inside.

It is hard to imagine today the outrage that followed Sinatra's so called attack on the press. Film from the time details what became a national incident with a union blackban on Sinatra's plane, and phone calls from then prime minister Gough Whitlam."
----

This is from a press release for the film 'The night we called it a day' in 2003:
----

"He may have been rude, sexist and stuck in his ways on his bumpy tour of Australia in 1974 but, film-maker Paul Goldman tells Tom Ryan, that doesn't mean Frank Sinatra was all to blame.

Paul Goldman's new film is about a pig-headed man who refuses to say sorry. The time is 1974, the man is Frank Sinatra (played by old easy rider himself, Dennis Hopper), and he's made himself a tad unpopular on his tour of Australia with a throwaway remark that's likened a pushy female journalist (Portia De Rossi) to a hooker. The newspapers are all over the story, the unions have turned bolshie and he's stuck in his hotel suite with his entourage , including wife-to-be Barbara Marx (Melanie Griffith), but with no room service and no way out.

But he (Paul Goldman) is also struck by the irony that he was being offered such a story after the controversy surrounding his previous film, 'Australian Rules'. An adaptation of 'Deadly, Unna?' - the novel by his friend Phillip Gwyne about football and racism in a small Australian township - it created a storm of protest that left him emotionally bruised.

"I'd just spent three months saying sorry myself," Goldman explains. "Australian Rules was a very traumatic experience for me and a lot of other people associated with it. Quite a few of us were scarred by that film. I spent so much time in front of the press and at Q&As being attacked by the indigenous community and by the white community for making that film that I felt I was being hounded.

"One minute I was being accused of being racist; the next minute I was being accused of being assimilationist. I found myself genuinely wanting to say sorry but I was also wanting to say, 'I'm sorry you misunderstood me'. So there was also some resonance for me personally in what was happening. I thought to myself, 'I know how Frank feels'."

Yet another Sex Scandal. This time the Navy.

Sex Scandal - modern dictionary definition - a sex scandal is an incident involving anyone who is not yourself. One need only have some vague knowledge of the people involved. Any acts undertaken may be happily classed as a sex scandal. ie if your parents do it one lonely night - it is a sex scandal.


Read Navy Sex Scandal news article

Well, seems like regulation lad's behaviour here. The dumbos offended by this have perhaps a little bit of eye-opening to do. To use the vernacular, they need to be educated.

men can only be highly civilised while other men, inevitably less civilised, are there to guard and feed them George Orwell

Issues - seperate boats for men & women? Possible, but I think the greater problem would then be getting enough naive chicks to sign up for the navy. Most would not want to be sailing on a 'dyke boat'. So, in lieu of recruitment, the most obvious ways of avoiding a 'scandal' are to be ignored. Being in the presence of these 'sexist brutes' is actually a selling point for recruitment.

Instead, we must pretend that such behaviour is abnormal. The usual dial-a-quote:

I don't believe these men should be able to serve at sea anymore because they're not reliable, they can't be trusted, they don't respect women and these are not the kind of men that we need defending us.

Just piss off Women's Forum. I actively hate your banal spokespeople. As usual, judgement on sexual behaviour followed by a dive into the soft & squishy realm of their dire sensibilities.

Wait for the PM to weigh in. Predictable fool.

What the hell, I may as well espouse some of my sexist views. The life of a female sailor/soldier etc is worth more than the life of a male sailor/soldier etc. This is not a complaint, it is a belief of mine. I am open to discussion on this point, however I accept it as fact.

Witness the Jessica Lynch scenario from some years ago. A female soldier was captured, and it was the most urgent business to rescue her. She was held far above other captive soldiers, from the same capture or not. There are some clear & obvious differences between male/female captives. I needn't bother going into the reasons. I am saying I agree that she should be held higher. (there are some facinating revelations out of this event - much of which has only been vaguely glimpsed. In a few years we will hear more)

However, acceptance of this argument leads down some other paths as well. It reminds me of 'Saving Private Ryan'. The movie exposed brilliantly the folly of rescue operations during war. Several lives were sacrificed in the name of one. The family was on the verge of losing all of their sons from the war. It was therefore deemed an important mission. It was Spielberg. The point was overstated in the movie, perhaps sappily so. However, it was still a good point.

Another side issue is women in the front line of war. Something I disagree with. Hypothetically, if the 'dyke boat' existed, it would be strictly back line. eg communications from 100's of kilometres back. Brings to mind another great war movie 'Glory' about a black American garrison in the civil war. They became victims of their own tokenism. The commander (white, forward thinking) volunteered them for the most frontal division in an attack. They were massacred in the name of 'Glory', their own & that of others. (fantastic movie, even better than SPR)

Which leads to the presence of women in the armed forces whatsoever.
-------------------------

Kruddster couldn't resist. However, he shows amazing restraint by his standards.

"These alleged behaviours are disturbing but it's important to get to the facts of it all," he said.

"We'll await the investigations by the chief of Navy to establish all those facts."



THE Royal Australian Navy is paying for women sailors to have breast enlargements for purely cosmetic reasons, at a cost to taxpayers of $10,000 an operation.

Defence officials claim the surgery is justified because some servicewomen need bigger breasts to address "psychological issues".

"Just as there are in civilian life, there are some females who feel their breasts are too small and if their breasts were bigger, they might be more of a 'normal' woman," Mr James said.

"If they were lacking in self-confidence, this might provide the measure of self-confidence that would help them tackle their wider job. "

Would fake breasts be worth more or less in the ledger? ............ less
-----------------------------------

How many of these women actually slept with the bounty hunters?

None, I’d bet. In which case, why all this fuss?

Or is the answer “plenty”? And then we must ask: why haven’t those women been sent home, too?

Doesn’t this just confirm what rugby league star Matthew Johns found after the ABC outed him as a beast for having had group sex with a willing fan - that a woman’s yes no longer means yes?

In the Andrew Bolt blog, the main comment by nay-sayers is such:

The sailors were not kicked off for having sex. They were kicked off for betting on it. The issue is not sex.

What if the bet was to make someone pick their nose? A detailed ledger on this activity would not result in suspension. So, sex is a major part of the 'crime'.

It wouldn't matter whether or not sex was undertaken. It is about the crude act of betting on it.

Yes, some may regard this as juvenile behaviour. It doesn't change the fact that a moral argument is being used, yet bloody again, to justify termination of employment etc. I cannot respect that line of argument.

Please don't tell me that if there was proof of sex that extra punishment would not be delivered. We are forced to dance the dull dance - it was the male sailors who coerced & tricked the female sailors into it (choose your own desired level of consent here - already we've heard that 19 year olds are minors, where does it stop?). Grow up. (acceptance of the dance also leads to the false conclusion that females only offer sex for a relationship - and end up getting cheated out of the relationship after. Grow up immediately!!)
--------

What happens to women in the military should convince us & them that equality is no substitute for liberation. Armies are crazy places, where masculinity contorts itself into conscientious inhumanity ... Unofficially, senior officers have enjoyed the right to subject their male inferiors to ritual sexual abuse and humiliation. The recruits had the choice of enduring the traditional unofficial ordeals in silence or get out ... Soldiers are not supposed to treat each other in atavistic and cruel ways, any more than they are supposed to rape enemy womenfolk, but they do.

In 1997 a Pentagon panel recommended that men & women should be trained separately, live apart & serve in different units. How often, when and where women-only units would see active service is anybody's guess Germaine Greer

Equality - I spoke their word - as if a wedding vow - Ah, but I was so much older then - I'm younger than that now Bob Dylan
-------

Poll result:

Should the Navy have mixed gender upon it's sailing vessels?

Yes - 4, No - 0

Thankyou for voting.

2009 - Official Year of the Sex Scandal

How to Have Sex Without Being Locked Up

This is Not Consent (Woman Beds 200)

Most Explosive Piece of News Rubbish

Sex Scandal - NRL - Matthew Johns

Newspapers need a Quick Death

Newspapers have been downsizing for months. In response to falling sales, whole departments have been pared back. Seemingly to the bare minimum. For the last month or so, the end results of this strategy have been clearly revealed. Gutter journalism. The rise & rise of the utter moron.
I would rather get my news from someone who is being paid and is therefore presumably accountable. My attitude appears to be almost irrelevant. On the whole, what I have seen from (traditional) paid journalism is irredeemably amateurish. I no longer care for it.

Death to the newspapers. The sooner the better. 2015-2020 is the estimate I agree with as to the date of death. Boycott, boycott & may the date be brought forward.

Many people, including myself, read the newspaper online. I will never pay a cent to do so. There are enough ads online that this should pay for itself. Bloggers earn their money from traffic etc. The new model will seamlessly replace the old model. There is ample room for professional journalism in this new model.

Newspapers can easily survive as a digital hub. Articles, photos etc can be accessed & backlinked. This is their present online purpose. Don't buy the broadsheet, read it online. They will be forced to give us individually tailored front page news. A massive win if you ask me. The garbage we do not consider as news can lie in My Back Pages
.

Previously, I was concerned about the end of traditional media. Now I await the death knell.
---------------

To protect from financial collapse, a hilarious proposal has been considered. Newspapers are non-profit organisations. This would also mean that newspapers would be unable to run political advertising (including editorials). Just gets funnier.
----------

Good 'ole Rupert is planning to charge online user's of his newspaper. "News Corp is going to make online customers pay to access its websites some time before the end of financial year 2010."

What a dufus. Talk about an old crony out of touch with reality. The moment that happens, any links of theirs I use will be deleted. This would be representative of bloggers worldwide.

Protecting photos is stupid. My desire is to link photos, not upload them. When I find a site that does not allow me access to its photos (for free, obviously) I download the photo then upload it manually. I figure the lack of access is the dumbest move possible on the internet. It defeats the purpose. Secondly, all obvious ownership is lost the moment a photo is not properly linked (as described). The photo owner has shot themselves in the foot. Can't protect one from their own stupidity. My primary desire is not to rob people of their work - becomes meaningless very quickly. None of the photos on this site are, or ever will be 'mine'.

Read a bit of the article (I got very bored) & the talk turns to 'value-added content'. Whatever, numbskulls. Stop treating us as fools. In my puny internet experience, these blogs I write are next to useless. A way more profitable model is to display a single page of bikini pics. 5 or so. Doing so is far more sensible in the pursuit of profit. I have learnt this in a manner of weeks. One need not be a blogger to understand this most basic internet reality.

Turn the above paragraph around to News Corp's experience. They are fully aware that quality journalism (not trying to insinuate that my content is quality, but I obviously believe it anyway) doesn't sell. They would be fully aware that consumers would not pay for regular news online. So, they will try to 'tailor' it. I have no problem with this approach, it is a positive for the consumer. However, I wager that most of this tailoring will be surface. Let's say, for example's sake, that I am a paid consumer of News' websites. Knowing my age, sex & country would be sufficent. Front page article would have to be a bikini pic or something similar. How else would they target my demographic. Paris Hilton's latest sex video? They would have to do something pretty bloody special to keep me (no choice but to resort to garbage journalism). It just won't work. I don't pay for 'added' content as it stands. As much as I like internet porn, not a cent has ever, or will ever leave my wallet for it. News, well that's much lesser content - payment would never enter the equation. Treat us like idiots and watch your 'fabulous' newspaper drown quickly. I have never gone near anything requiring payment on the internet. To do so would mean one has poor searching skills. It can always be found for free elsewhere.

Still on the article, it went into TAB vs Betfair. A legitimate issue from a business sense. Betfair pays less taxes, and is therefore more competitive than TABs. The problem here is state law, as alluded to. However, from a punter's view, all the arguments outlined are crap. All a punter should care about is the payoff on their bet. TAB typically pinches 7.5%, Betfair 4%. Both of these figures are way too high. It is a product of what business would call the 'competition of choice'. All bogus. Much better for the punter would be if one of these entities bought out all the others. A lower house % could be offered. (Ideally, a 50% bet should be $1.99. Yes, I can dream.)
As an example pushing News Corp's selling of online media, it was very poor. Using the same argument I have just used, it would be better if News Corp was swallowed by a larger company. What idiots the spokesmen are.

Rupert, retire now. Or die now. You are a greedy pig. Yes, one may argue this is not necessarily to line his own pockets. It is to protect his dwindling News Corp empire. Let your son, Lachlan, take over immediately. I have no idea, but I would place another wager that he would abandon his father's foolish plans immediately. Rupert is doing a massive disservice to his son, perhaps unknowingly. The only possible exception is the Wall Street Journal, as the article says. I consider this different, as it is business news. I think people would be willing to pay bucketloads for it. (You are welcome to pick apart the obvious contradictions in this stance on 'business news' - what is it? how is it different? etc, but it still seems like plain vanilla to me after thinking about it. Paying other people in the hope money will be mysteriously made from this transaction is a long established con/reality.)

By all means, set up the News Corp portal to be individually tailored. This results in better targeted ads etc - more revenue. The mere fact that they have not done so already (for free) shows how far behind the ball they really are. Literally, a bunch of amateurs in the new world of the internet. Goodbye & good riddance old fuddie duddies. The Australian (News Corp's national paper) is by far the worst online portal of all the major newspapers in Melbourne.

Never, ever pay to get sensationalist crap delivered though your web browser. The idea is disgusting in almost every point.
--------

Paragons of Virtue they are. The mighty fine chaps from News Corp. James & Rupert. Stellar Champions of the free market. Just imagine for one moment, they conjure. You - yes, you - through sheer determination & talent could deign to enter the media jungle. Strike it Rich if the cards are played right.

Most interestingly, the debate was never framed in this manner. That would have been my spin. The backward cowboys from News Corp failed to see beyond their own interests.

Father & Son (as a minor correction, he is equally as keen) called for the dismantling of State Media to allow them to compete. More Fox News Anyone?

Furthermore, the buffoons will attempt to stop anyone using their material online. They claim to seek to remove their newspapers from public search engines. If this is not a dying man babbling, please inform me what it is.

The greatest problem with the course that News Corp has charted is this:
As they inevitably crash & burn, News Corp will devote some of it's diving assets toward dismantling State media. (This will be done at the expense of it's own survival.)

Goodbye News Corp. Your majority owners have declared your death years in advance. In the poorest act of public business management in 2009. The history books will have an absolute field day with this story.

ALSO READ:

Facebook is Fallen

Sore Reality of the Blogosphere

Further reading:

Ted Turner predicts the death of newspapers. In 1981! Kind of undermines my stance.

A blog piece with much greater research.

This is not consent (Woman beds 200)

Consent - modern dictionary definition - consent is explaining to your grandmother why you ate the fruitcake. The fruitcake never said yes, but it didn't say no. Looked so delicious that the urge was irresistible. An invariably complex issue for gran. To her, the fruitcake must present itself upon the table . Tea must be set. Grace perhaps to be uttered. Only then may a delicate deflowering occur. Verbal excess should accompany.

Sex. The word sells. The morality of a woman sleeping with 200 AFL players over 10 years is not interesting for mine. News piece is no big deal. It began as a standard reporting of facts. Until this is added to the equation -

...further proof players had not shown enough respect towards women.

"It highlights again that even with apparent consent there is a need for more integrity towards women"


WTF? I don't want to hear from some member of the Women's Forum chime in with their silly comments. How is anything she says on this relevant? Clearly, if we were talking about a bloke rooting 200, the issue would still be about respect to women. Humourous that the Player's Association is footing the bill for the counselling.

I can't believe we are playing the same game about consent we have been playing since the re-opening of this crap - Four Corners on NRL. I am just going to bloody re-quote myself. I have covered this particular issue in depth already.

Now, either my decoder is way off-kilter, or perhaps my comments on (this) morality being a series of flimsy excuses has some merit.... I am hearing a woman (presumably a feminist) say - that in certain circumstances - a woman is a second class citizen whose word has no meaning. Please correct me.

Having slept on it, it is clear to me that the Women's Forum fool is still pushing a wheelbarrow against Matthew Johns. She'd probably love to see him jailed & castrated. Her comments have nothing to do with the story presented. If this is the near future (ie more predictable quotes from Johns-haters totally out of context) - those who have argued that the Christchurch event was an opportunity to move forward are idiots.

We are stuck in this mire.

Just remember - consent is not consent. Use that information to make yourself a better person.


Been doing a bit more digging into this. An article with much greater information. The 'girl' (as she is constantly referred to) is not moralising - I would say that indicates a second incredulous use of the term 'girl'. The Matthew Johns incident is directly raised. She claims to have indulged in many similar activities, freely.

Another crappy quote has been appended from another turgid member of the femo-nazis. Of course it is implied that the 'girl' could not have properly consented to these situations. The bloody issue wasn't about group sex to begin with. The black hole of recent numbskull politics cannot be ignored by these parasites. Women with free will & the ability to act upon it are out of their realm. Their logic is so monstered & bashed into shape that it suits no woman.

2009 - Official Year of the Sex Scandal

 

How to Have Sex Without Being Locked Up

 
Yet Another Sex Scandal. This Time the Navy

Most Explosive Piece of News Rubbish

Sex Scandal - NRL - Matthew Johns

Kyle Sandilands is a Known Idiot. And?

Kyle Sandilands is an arrogant, stupid boofhead. This is hardly breaking news. These are also the most desirable qualities on commercial FM radio. It is a medium that appeals to listeners of the same calibre. The listeners to such shows deserve the crap they get. It has been created with them in mind.

To my meagre knowledge, the lie detector episode that created the recent scandal was a regular segment. Starting from that fact alone, it is ridiculous that he & his co-host, Jackie O (whatever the hell her real name is?) have had their crappy show cancelled (or 'in recess' if you prefer newspeak). It is one of the highest rating morning radio shows in Sydney. A reasonable assumption would be that the listeners have lapped up the segment in the past. Of course, in making these points, I have conveniently ignored groupthink.

So, yeah, I've heard the segment multiple times now. Who to blame? Kyle? Mother? Jackie? Radio management? The blame appears to have been apportioned in that order. Kyle's follow up to the girl's revelation was extremely poor: "So, is that the only experience you've had?" I genuinely believe he is stupid. I reckon he actually had no idea what else to say. All he could muster was his pre-determined line of interrogation.

The mother definitely appeared to know of the events her daughter was talking about. 2 tickets to a Pink concert was the payoff. The mother essentially sold her daughter for a bargain price. Maybe back stage passes were thrown into the deal.


Jackie is a pathetic wallflower in general. She has no personality & is a Paula Abdul clone in the American Idol mould. At least she is attractive. Plaudits (quite seriously) to whoever teamed the two of them up. Alone, they would be as bland as stale bread. Together, they are (by ratings) massive.

Anyway, I didn't want to bother entering into any great detail on this. It is a convenient opportunity for me to highlight a few key points that I have been making over several pieces. Removing a person from their job is a very poor response to controversy. It constantly disappoints me. That is the key point of interest for me.


Kyle Sandilands is a shock jock. His job is to offend some people in order to make a larger bunch of people laugh. (Many call this system the greatest form of politics.) As far as I can tell, he does his job very well on a seemingly regular basis. Jackie O's job is to go along with Kyle & perhaps feign a note of caution or resistance. (Sounds like the recipe for a teenage soap.) Neither of the two have failed their job description. The relevant advertisers must withdraw their backing, temporarily. A childish game must be played with the public at large. The offence is noted, and has been responded to. All the while, the bean counters know their product is ready to burst when it hits the sheves again. Ho hum.

--------
I will happily don 2 of the 3 mantles I have crowned upon Kyle in the first paragraph. (KingKyle is his self-formed management company. Also the record label for his wife.) I am a mere arrogant boofhead.

Most Explosive Piece of News Rubbish This Year

The little news story that rocked an entire nation. The greatest display of overt puritanism since the impeachment of Bill Clinton. The point that marked the height (& therefore decline) of Wowser Power. The saga that exposed the cretins whose strength had been growing steadily.

READ PT 1

16th

I am yet to see a decent, logical argument from a moralist yet. Anywhere. My two cents says I have destroyed their arguments already, point by point, above. I'll make up some more.

'An expose such as this is a good thing because it moves the debate about women in NRL forward.' Wrong. 'Clare' has suffered innumerable personal attacks since this story aired. There is way too much target space with this girl. She is not a credible witness, and her allegations would not even be considered in a court of law. We are left with a crying girl being evidence of wrongdoing. Christ, girls learn when they are 5 or 6 that crying can solve all of their logical problems. It is an outward attempt to remove logic from the equation and replace it with sappy emotion. ie 'Emotionally I feel I have been wronged, so therefore I have been wronged.' Give me a break. Genuine victims will be torn to shreds in the aftermath of this tawdry media affair. If you can argue that is progressing the debate, I am the Pope.

'It is in the public's interest to know the frugal details of what a player does in his spare time.' Utter rubbish, this one. Anyone who agrees with this tripe is actually a totalitarian. They have a prescription for the world that is digusting. They hide behind their crappy morals as an excuse to force their will upon others. They obviously are not interested in the brand of cereal the player buys. They just want to selectively use information to promote their base agenda.

'Most of the money paid to a major sports player comes from advertising etc. An advertiser effectively represents the majority. Therefore minor indiscretions should be brought to light, as the player is receivng his pay packet, effectively, from the public.' The same message as above, with a little more spin. Every major sponsor has withdrawn from the Cronulla Sharks. The club is potentially facing financial ruin. ('Oh, good, it is deserved' chirp the brainless moralists) If the above statement with all it's deficiency is accepted, the reverse must also be true - "Now that Cronulla sharks are not being paid the majority of their funds by advertising, we are no longer interested in their private affairs." Complete illogical crap. Nothing else. 'Oh, but most of the revenue comes from the TV rights package. Therefore the argument is still valid'. I'll just follow up - if rugby league was not shown on TV, would we no longer care? Of course not, people would still go to games etc and talk about 'issues'. This is just an excuse by small minded people to give them validity for their idle gossip.

'A rugby league player is in the media spotlight. If he is uncomfortable with this spotlight, he should find another job.' This is a statement demonstrating the height of neo-liberal decadence. Firstly, a presumption of choice exists at every turn for these morons. How does Ms 'Clare' fall under this presumption? Oh, she didn't choose you say, ok then. Inconsistencies abound. Once again, totalitarians under a thin disguise. Secondly, every job has its downside, so how do these fools believe one should pick a job? 'On the lesser of two evils' they might say. It can easily be demonstrated that this is bogus. I have previously used the example of doctors working in the emergency department. Six months plus ago, it was big news that doctors were being attacked by freaked out people on ice in emergency. Should a doctor not perform emergencies because he/she is afraid of having a knife held to their neck? An utterly ridiculous question designed to highlight the idiocy of the above statement. Needless to say, there is not one person on the planet who enjoys having their life threatened. (I await a daft response to that one). Following the garbage neo-liberal logic, not one person on the planet should be a doctor in emergency. Or any of other countless jobs one could bother dredging up. If the neo-liberalists wish to confine the argument to media attention, not one job with media attention is worthwhile under this childish scheme.

"The girl was clearly traumatised. That in itself is evidence of wrongdoing." This is just the Tracy Grimshaw argument re-spouted. Done & dusted.

"The issue is not about consent, it is about duty of care." Anyone who says this with any intended meaning is a puritanical idiot. They are saying that their personal judgement is what matters between consenting adults. This line can easily be extended to target anyone who engages in acts one may find unsavoury.

"Group sex, or more accurately, gang-bangs are a shameful abuse of power by many men over one woman." Sure, nothing to disagree with in the general sense. Exception, when the girl wants it - the statement may still be true, but it is now meaningless. Same thing can be said about bondage etc. The 'victim' is willingly putting themselves there. In effect, they enjoy the 'abuse'. Personally, I would substitute the word 'use' for 'abuse'. (ie 'Clare' would not gang-bang them if they weren't semi-famous). Also, I choose to ignore the word 'shameful'.

"The homo-erotic nature of the players is revealed when they partake in activities such as this." Ok, so not an argument at all. Yet another attempt to attack behaviour seen as immoral. To the morons who give this line stake - have you ever watched pornos? Are you more excited by the sight of a woman having 'sex' with herself? Pornos without men are boring. (See, I'm secretly gay). I really can't be bothered with this one, it's stupid. I add that this line comes from people who supposedly defend minorities. Wow, attacking one unliked group by likening them to another attacked group. Stroke of genius.

"Matthew Johns has apologised. Therefore he has admitted that what he did was wrong." Ok, I'll assume that upholders of this line have only dealt with infantile dilemmas. He has been told he is wrong over & over, most vociferously. As highlighted above, apology is a weak area. He never apologised to 'Clare' until the ACA interview. Previously, he apologised only to his family. My opinion is that David Gyngell, head of Channel 9, basically told him to apologise to keep his job. This he did. To the dullards who believe this shows 'wrongdoing' - I repeat - you are equipped only to deal with issues of children to age 8. Even then, you would be pathetic educators. An 8 year old can easily learn the apology complex that wiffy moralists have.

I question whether anyone who is on the opposite side of the debate actually has any brains. Their's has been the most emotional, reactive, logic-ridden display I have seen for some time. That other, more level-headed media figures have been too scared to voice their moderate opinions is a major worry. Whenever moderates speak, a PC computer is chiming away in their head, forcing statements of little meaning to arise. So boring. If this is called education, the taxpayers have wasted a severe amount of money for negative gain. The educated female 'elite' have the most to answer for in this debate. Pru Goward - venomous drivel, she was so angry and so illogical, it was scary. She has been a Sex Discrimination advisor to the Federal Government in the past. Tracy Grimshaw - as above. Rebecca Wilson - an instant believer in victim mentality. A gullible fool. Sarah Ferguson - mass peddler of one-sided rubbish.

My conclusion is that 'media feminists' have little connection with the real lives of women. They use their positions to grandstand on issues they falsely believe are relevant. The majority should turn in their feminist cards. In a perfect world, I would replace them with more level-headed (& therefore better educated in life - not some crappy gender studies university degree) women whose comments can actually contribute to a debate.

Goodbye & good riddance to typical feminist comment. It will not be listened to for many months to come.

16th

Reading the newspaper. Further (unproven) allegations have come out.

The father & brother (of Christchurch girl) had no knowledge of the 'assault' until it was aired on 4 Corners on Monday night.

The Christchurch girl changed her story 5 days later because her boyfriend of the time found out.

'Clare' had a contract with the Racecourse Hotel that specifically forbade sexual conduct with hotel guests. (just a point of interest, I don't care that she ignored it - I would too)

17th

The media appear to have completely given up on this issue. As they should. There is nothing to run. Finally. Blown out of proportion and now the balloon has popped. Party's over.

Expect to see Matthew Johns back on TV in .... 3 weeks.

22nd

Issue still pretty much dead in Melbourne. Have been reading a bit of Sydney papers. Issue still paddling along, though much less intense. The articles, for mine, are all bogus PC frontpieces, male or female. The comments are the only point of interest.

There are still issues that the Sydney journos seem to not want to touch. The public appear to be saying it enough, but usually brought down with a 'that's disgusting' comment.

One issue is young girls throwing themselves at famous people - in this case NRL players. Talk to any male who is in a situation of some (minor, whatever) fame. It is almost impossible for these guys to have any respect for a woman who throws herself at his sexual whim. By extension, almost all sex under this circumstance lacks respect from the very beginning. The assumption many make is that she must be 'young, naive' to not understand the situation. I would put it to you that it matters not. It is irrelevant whether or not the girl is aware of this. If she chooses to proceed, the consequences are extremely obvious - guilt, disgust, regret.

It is about time we stopped pretending about absolute equality between the sexes. Needless to say, a one male & many female incident would garner no public outcry. This is an admission by pathetic defenders that this is so. It is a brainless approach. All defenders have to say now is that group sex (of this nature) is disgusting. So what? It does not change the fact that this is a regular occurence, with many 'Clares' being created each day. Solution - educate the players? What a joke. Education in this sense only leads to more believable lies (eg saying "I am sorry for the shame I have caused you" while thinking "you are a dumb slut") Educate the groupies? - an even bigger joke.

Feminists need to accept that not all women live by their garbage moral code. Wake up & smell the roses. The actions of 'Clare' are a natural response to her social position. Many young girls in the same situation would do just as she did. Would they whinge 7 years later? Most likely, but it changes nothing. Harshly put, she is in search of a star sperm packet. (To deny this, and claim we are not animals - get off your high moral chair for once). She got it. 'Clare' is now married to a rugby union player. Once again, she is just following her natural instincts. Comparing the baseness of instincts is a stupid activity (eg is she better/worse than Johns?).

Humans are just a bunch of animals who can talk. Most of this talk is manipulative, serving our own agendas. To pretend that we are higher than animals is a major furphy, that feminists (for one) have been perpetuating for many years.

From all available evidence, 'Clare' was not drunk. She went to the hotel room immediately after work. She was the players' waitress in the dining hall earlier in the day. It is reasonable to assume that the scenario was planned then and there. Legally, it was premeditated by both sides. An easy explanation for Tom, Dick & Harry to be in the room. Her story about players breaking in through the bathroom window appear to be nothing but lies. Another camera crew went to the exact hotel room. An adult of any size would not fit through. It casts enormous doubt on the 'innocent, naive' girl and her telling of events.

I finally watched the atrocious ACA interview. All boring & predictable. Tracy Grimshaw doing her best to ask daft questions in a seemingly intelligent manner (hint : doesn't work that way). Overdone looks of concern & horror. She should apply for a spot on Play School. Anyway, the one point that interested me was this - 'Clare' allegedly called up people to have sex with her. One guy she did actually say no to !!! However, she then (allegedly) pointed at Johns and asked him to have seconds. The simpletons out there who saw this issue as brutal male assault are as gullible as the idiot media.

Caught a few minutes of 4 Corners the other night. Reporter: Sally Sara. My verdict: sensationalist junk. Hmmm, me sees a pattern. Anything, in future, I happen to watch on this self-serving 'best of investigative journalism' TV show will be treated with utmost suspicion.

Over & out.

2009 - Official Year of the Sex Scandal

How to Have Sex Without Being Locked Up


Yet Another Sex Scandal. This Time the Navy

This is Not Consent (Woman Beds 200)

Sex Scandal - NRL - Matthew Johns

 Group Sex

Sex Scandal - NRL - Matthew Johns

Alrighty. We have a piping hot issue delivered right from the furnace. This kind of stuff gets me rubbing my hands with glee. An extremely high profile ex-NRL player had group sex 7 years ago. Shock! Horror! Tune in, roll up for the fun. Can't wait to see the insults fly. I'll be recording it & watching the actual footy.

Having not seen the program I'll offer some pre-emptive blows. This is clearly a 'BBQ stopper' issue. Everyone & their dog has an opinion. I am extremely glad this is an ABC production. It is painfully obvious where the debate (if any) would lead on a commercial station.

It is still, however, difficult to believe debate will be presented. I am led to believe we may see a leading groupie speak (in favour of her 'profession', ie not whingeing). This could easily destroy the wowsers ' argument. I am certainly hoping so.

The media spin-offs I have read are a joke. As to be expected, female NRL journalists are jumping on the demon bandwagon. The major comment in response is mine also - this was a consensual act. The NZ police made a few routine enquiries and dropped the issue. A whole seven years ago. A familiar chorus of 'sack him, sack him' starts in earnest. Again though, to be expected.

My two cents says that the girl/woman is an absolute idiot. Her fraternising with the players comes from a major insecurity. Try this question out. If I have no respect for the woman in question, how can the guys she is debasing herself to have a higher level of respect than I? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

She will be appearing with visual and/or voice obscurity. A word that aptly describes her.

Oh yeah, bring it on.

P.S. I find that alot of people have a very interesting double standard. Firstly, the idea that one is free to indulge in any number of consensual acts in the bedroom. Secondly, jumping on public disclosure of said activity (often making up flimsy excuses on the spot). Endlessly fascinating.

13th

"Even though no charges were ever laid, [the woman's] experience should rightly redefine the notion of consent and whether a star-struck 19-year-old could even be deemed capable of consenting to the scenario she ultimately endured," Tracy Grimshaw

Okay, this is one crazy statement. This is saying two significant things a) consent can be altered retrospectively b) a 'star-struck 19 year old' is not capable of making such decisions anyway.

To attempt a favourable translation of Tracy's words into law ->

a) a person may be charged with rape at any time after the event, if a party decides that consent wasn't given. A party may decide at any time and without any evidence that consent was not given. -> Jesus Christ, it's time to stop all and any sex ppl!

b) 19 year olds should be treated as minors? Is that what she is saying? That is the closest (non-offensive) translation of b) that I can give. -> Well, considering that 19 year olds can vote, this one won't even get off the carpet.

".. when you actually hear from a person who was 19 at the time and who was backed up by a police officer in terms of her innocence, in terms of her lack of worldliness, she was someone who was subjected to something that was just beyond horrific." Rebecca Wilson

NEVILLE JENKINS, DETECTIVE SGT CHRISTCHURCH POLICE: "Um she was a nice girl. She was young, um naïve, not worldly, just a growing up teenager. But even for 19 she was quite young I felt."

I heard that as the police officer admitting defeat. He stressed the last sentence greatly. For the police officer to issue a reverse statement eg "Oh, she knew what she was doing, she's old enough" would be a terrible slur on her character. I felt he was doing his best to not say so, but at the same time confirming the consensual nature of the act.

Aftermath -> Matthew Johns has been stood down from his coaching & media jobs. The jackals are out. Rebecca Wilson was even discussing whether or not he should be paid during his 'time off'. All this morality crap goes far beyond common sense.

13th

I still can't get over the amount of times an apology has been demanded. It was repeatedly pointed out on 4 Corners that no one talked to her (at any time it seemed) - "Did they talk to you when ...?" (again and again). The subsequent media hacks have been demanding an apology at every opportunity. It seems bizarre to me. I am constantly receiving the message that the conduct was OK, so long as an apology/normal social talk was offered. Surely this is not what the moral side of the debate wish to convey. This is an area that will always be dubious for the moral side.

CLARE: "They never spoke to me, they spoke just to themselves, amongst themselves, laughing and thinking it was really funny."

The constant emphasis on the verbal aspect is plain weird. It is more degrading to be subjected to this treatment than a leisurely chat, I agree. Needless to say, not all verbal communication is positive. An intelligent predator can do more damage by their talk than by its absence (Silence of the Lambs anyone? "It puts the lotion on its skin"). This point has been completely missed. Also, believable fake communication is a skill many people are equipped with. To me, focusing on the verbal aspect is incredibly childish and a stupid diversion.

A Newcastle U20 player was openly derided, and signalled as a prehistoric dinosaur for this comment during an imposed education class.

"It's not during the act, it's the way you treat them after it. Most of them could have been avoided, if they had put them in a cab and said thanks or that sort of thing not just kicked her out and called her a dirty whatever. It's how you treat them afterwards that can cover a lot of that stuff up."

The way the moral side are conducting the debate in the media, they should agree with this player. A fatal flaw in the argument. Again, I cannot see how this can be rectified. If anyone can, I would be most grateful. Obviously I am extremely doubtful.

13th

I've gotta get this in:

"Four Corners doesn't say that what took place in room 21 of the Racecourse hotel was sexual assault.
But a woman involved in degrading group sex can still be traumatised whether she consents or not."

This is murky stuff indeed. Hell, I totally agree. I've never seen a porno involving (this kind of) group sex that I ever believed she was enjoying it. And she is getting paid to pretend. Go figure. Does that reduce my enjoyment? Absolutely not.

Now, either my decoder is way off-kilter, or perhaps my comments on (this) morality being a series of flimsy excuses has some merit. The word degrading may be argued upon. Is it specific? etc. I say it would be a false argument. To play the initial game about consent only to rip it away at the last moment is ludicrous. I am hearing a woman (presumably a feminist) say - that in certain circumstances - a woman is a second class citizen whose word has no meaning. Please correct me.

13th

Taken out of context, this one is brilliant:

DAVID GALLOP, CEO NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE: "We're in the business of attracting people to our game and the younger we can get them the better."

14th

This is one big excerpt:

Mr Johns's wife Trish joined her husband during the interview and described her shock when first told of the incident seven years ago.

"It was completely out of character for Matt. I was horrified and disgusted and just shocked that he would even be involved in such a thing," she said.

"Knowing all the information that I do, his greatest crime is actually being unfaithful to me as his wife."

Mrs Johns described the current media attention about the incident as a living hell.

"I feel that it is only for me to judge him on that," she said.

"Whether that is someone in football ... a businessman or someone working for Channel Nine, anyone committing adultery to their wife, that is between a man and his wife."

15th

I watched the NRL Footy Show last night. The first half hour or so was occupied spinning mainly tripe PC garbage to the viewing audience. They talked to a SMH reporter. He said he had been in contact with a senior player who admits that group sex is a regular reality. The senior player claimed that in no other job in the world could the private lives of players be so rigidly controlled. He said that the NRL would be unable to pass the rules/laws it wanted to on the matter. He challenged the reporter to accompany him to the pub. In the first 15 minutes, multiple offers of group sex (and others of sex) were thrown in the player's direction. The reporter was astonished. The panel spent their time saying that the player should be named & shamed. The club CEO's spent their time saying that this guy would never play at their club. All predictable, grandstanding rubbish replies to me.

On the news last night, a 'friend' or more accurately, ex-friend of the Christchurch girl made an interesting statement. She appeared without censorship, and her name was clearly displayed. She said that the girl was initially bragging about having sex with mulitiple Cronulla players. Her comment (I will have to dig it up) was along the lines of 'I can't believe that a woman can change her story like that. You can't go & do something, say it is fun & then later claim assault.' Defenders of the girl may say this is typical character-bashing that goes on in assault cases. I say wait for more of it to come out.

Pru Goward was also on the news last night. She was demanding that all players/staff involved should come forward & identify themsleves. She went further & claimed that criminal charges were on the line. Well, the criminal charges are complete bull, it was just her talking in outrage. As stated above, police dropped the matter after enquiries seven years ago. What Pru should have said is that the moral court is now having it's say. That is beyond doubt, and she would love to be the judge/executioner. I expect more verbal diorrhea to flow from her mouth in the coming days. No player will ever step forward into this messy moral morass. They would have to be complete idiots to do so (many hold that opinion already)

15th

Well, well. The publican of the Racecourse Hotel in Christchurch has just appeared on the late news. The boss of the Christchurch girl, 'Clare'. He confirmed the bragging story. He said she was bragging that she had the whole team in the hotel room. Furthermore, she had bragged about sleeping with 2 league players the night before. It is safe to say that these two players were also from the Cronulla Sharks. In all likelihood, they were present the next night.

Game, Set & Match.

How could this girl, 'Clare', be so moronic as to expect these details would not see the light of day? I am unable to express myself other than to say she was a dumb slut who got the treatment she deserved. I detest the manipulation of a 'young, innocent girl' in tears to the camera, jerking the heart strings of the media attack dogs. She was already far from innocent. Good riddance. May you melt away from the public eye permanently. I wish you the shitty life that you have already delivered yourself.

I also question why Sarah Ferguson, the 4 Corners reporter & narrator, did not bother chasing this up. She did not ask Matthew Johns any substantial questions either. She refused to appear on the NRL Footy Show last night when she was invited. Based on the information I have, Sarah Ferguson is a tabloid reporter after 'shock & awe'. A singular focus with the masquerade of balance. It certainly worked and credit to her for that. This sub-standard journalism has no place on the ABC. Get rid of her.

I've had enough of the crappy debate we have been witnessing in the media. It has sickened me and I feel like I have been living in the land of the lowest common denominator. Perhaps, as usual, public opinion has not been represented by the reactive dross we have in the media. A bunch of dullards carping on does not necessarily show the general perspective.

This feels like the Ben Cousins affair over again. The elements are very similar. Overwhelming initial criticism, resulting in a forced sacking. When Ben finally played again, some 16 months later, the public were behind him. Their voices had been drowned out for that entire time.

Stuff you, the gullible media personalities who jumped on this and the pitifully small minded ideas thus peddled.

PART 2 of the Greatest Saga of Rubbish To Hit Australia This Year

2009 - Official Year of the Sex Scandal

How to Have Sex Without Being Locked Up


Yet Another Sex Scandal. This Time the Navy

This is Not Consent (Woman Beds 200)

Group Sex