On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:30:53 +1000, Herodotus
wrote:



For a country with the population of Singapore Island, we have not
done badly.

cheers
Peter

Oh, by the way Bruce,

I simply cannot let the opportunity go by.

We were also the first country in the world to have real democracy in
that we were the first to have universal sufferage - men and women.

But then I suppose the term 'democracy' needs to be defined here.

Ours is mere electionaring and voting.

It does not include big business putting their man in and then
dictating foreign policy and thus reaping huge profits from their
initial investment from the war industries and oil.

You are right about NZer's migrating overseas. The 'brain drain' is
the reason why the New Zealand Government pushed for Australia to put
restrictions on NZ migration to Australia. Once we did not even need a
passport and could enjoy all the benefits of Australia such as instant
access to free Medicare, unemployment etc. Now we need a passport and
have to wait for the rest though the visa is still largely automatic.
One of the reasons why I took out Australian citizenship.

regards
Peter

Sorry, but my home town was holding "Town Meetings" in 1600-something.
A "Town Meeting" ,for the democratically challenged, is a meeting of
all the town's peoples where past and future problems are thrashed out
in public and a "Select Man" elected to run things for the next year.
Very close th the Viking "Thing".

Granted we had a king to take care of the larger problems but as far
as local affairs were concerned most of the New England states had a
primitive form of democracy (the kind where the people ARE listened
to) since the earliest days.

To the best of my knowledge Kiwi Land was unknown at that time, except
to the folks who stick their tongue out in greeting who didn't really
practice a modern form of democracy -- more a "Well, you lost, so into
the pot you go" sort of government :-)



Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA



"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:30:53 +1000, Herodotus
wrote:



For a country with the population of Singapore Island, we have not
done badly.

cheers
Peter

Oh, by the way Bruce,

I simply cannot let the opportunity go by.

We were also the first country in the world to have real democracy in
that we were the first to have universal sufferage - men and women.

But then I suppose the term 'democracy' needs to be defined here.

Ours is mere electionaring and voting.

It does not include big business putting their man in and then
dictating foreign policy and thus reaping huge profits from their
initial investment from the war industries and oil.

You are right about NZer's migrating overseas. The 'brain drain' is
the reason why the New Zealand Government pushed for Australia to put
restrictions on NZ migration to Australia. Once we did not even need a
passport and could enjoy all the benefits of Australia such as instant
access to free Medicare, unemployment etc. Now we need a passport and
have to wait for the rest though the visa is still largely automatic.
One of the reasons why I took out Australian citizenship.

regards
Peter

Sorry, but my home town was holding "Town Meetings" in 1600-something.
A "Town Meeting" ,for the democratically challenged, is a meeting of
all the town's peoples where past and future problems are thrashed out
in public and a "Select Man" elected to run things for the next year.
Very close th the Viking "Thing".

Granted we had a king to take care of the larger problems but as far
as local affairs were concerned most of the New England states had a
primitive form of democracy (the kind where the people ARE listened
to) since the earliest days.

To the best of my knowledge Kiwi Land was unknown at that time, except
to the folks who stick their tongue out in greeting who didn't really
practice a modern form of democracy -- more a "Well, you lost, so into
the pot you go" sort of government :-)



Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
snipped increasingly homosexual seeming language

But with a name like "Bruce" I guess I should have expected it. . .

I wish you and Herodotard would get a room. Your slobbering all over each
other is becoming quite disgusting. You sound just like a couple of in-love
lesbians!

Real sailors act like men, talk like men and walk like men. I can hear you
and Herodotard's skirts swishing for gawd's sake!


Wilbur Hubbard

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:19:53 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
snipped increasingly homosexual seeming language

But with a name like "Bruce" I guess I should have expected it. . .

I wish you and Herodotard would get a room. Your slobbering all over each
other is becoming quite disgusting. You sound just like a couple of in-love
lesbians!

Real sailors act like men, talk like men and walk like men. I can hear you
and Herodotard's skirts swishing for gawd's sake!


Wilbur Hubbard



Real sailors sail boats which disqualifies you.

As I once told you, "I'm half way round the world and you are sitting
in a Florida swamp", so who's the sailor. Peter is half way round the
world, and you are still sitting in the swamp, so who's the sailor.

You can talk all you want but until you actually do sail your comments
have about the same value as a dog baying at the moon.

But you were talking about "Real Sailors", right? How about you tell
us why a Real Sailor is afraid to use his real name or real address.
It sounds to me as though you are afraid of the whole world, Wilbur
Hubard, he of the tiny testicles......


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 08:24:39 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

I love this newsgroup!

Thanks Bruce and the many others who so effectively cut that pathetic
whiner down to size. But you should give him some credit.... for
making me feel quite normal.

cheers
Peter, who feels positively buoyant.

Bruce,
As I have blocked your non-friend Wilbur, you can inform him that he
is partially correct in his summation of me. At sea in hot climes, I
wear a full length sarong as it is cooler and keeps the sun off my
legs.

If he thinks that "real sailors" who wear sarongs are in any way
effeminate (sp?) let him think about the Malay Customs men on patrol
in the Malacca Straits and south China Sea (many who are ex Special
Services and Navy Seals) who wear only sarongs off watch while
protecting 36% of the world's shipping from pirates and who shoot and
get shot at.

47 merchant seamen were killed last year in this area.

Give us a kiss wilie (small "w" to go with the small willie)

Peter

Real sailors act like men, talk like men and walk like men. I can hear you
and Herodotard's skirts swishing for gawd's sake!


Wilbur Hubbard



Real sailors sail boats which disqualifies you.

As I once told you, "I'm half way round the world and you are sitting
in a Florida swamp", so who's the sailor. Peter is half way round the
world, and you are still sitting in the swamp, so who's the sailor.

You can talk all you want but until you actually do sail your comments
have about the same value as a dog baying at the moon.

But you were talking about "Real Sailors", right? How about you tell
us why a Real Sailor is afraid to use his real name or real address.
It sounds to me as though you are afraid of the whole world, Wilbur
Hubard, he of the tiny testicles......


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:54:24 +1000, Herodotus
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 08:24:39 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

I love this newsgroup!

Thanks Bruce and the many others who so effectively cut that pathetic
whiner down to size. But you should give him some credit.... for
making me feel quite normal.

cheers
Peter, who feels positively buoyant.

I'm supposed to be slathering on anti-fouling paint today, not
answering e-mail. However...

I decided to kill file Wilbur. I can usually, at least, carry on a
conversation with other boaters, but Willie is simply impossible. His
lack of "boating" is evident in every comment he makes and he is
probably an accident waiting to happen as he is so sure that his's is
the only possible answer that I'm sure that if he ever ventures
offshore with his yellow boat he will come to grief.

Anyway, I committed virtual murder and kill filed him so I shall hear
no more about him.

Cheers from the painter.




Bruce,
As I have blocked your non-friend Wilbur, you can inform him that he
is partially correct in his summation of me. At sea in hot climes, I
wear a full length sarong as it is cooler and keeps the sun off my
legs.

If he thinks that "real sailors" who wear sarongs are in any way
effeminate (sp?) let him think about the Malay Customs men on patrol
in the Malacca Straits and south China Sea (many who are ex Special
Services and Navy Seals) who wear only sarongs off watch while
protecting 36% of the world's shipping from pirates and who shoot and
get shot at.

47 merchant seamen were killed last year in this area.

Give us a kiss wilie (small "w" to go with the small willie)

Peter

Real sailors act like men, talk like men and walk like men. I can hear you
and Herodotard's skirts swishing for gawd's sake!


Wilbur Hubbard



Real sailors sail boats which disqualifies you.

As I once told you, "I'm half way round the world and you are sitting
in a Florida swamp", so who's the sailor. Peter is half way round the
world, and you are still sitting in the swamp, so who's the sailor.

You can talk all you want but until you actually do sail your comments
have about the same value as a dog baying at the moon.

But you were talking about "Real Sailors", right? How about you tell
us why a Real Sailor is afraid to use his real name or real address.
It sounds to me as though you are afraid of the whole world, Wilbur
Hubard, he of the tiny testicles......


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:29:31 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:



Sorry, but my home town was holding "Town Meetings" in 1600-something.
A "Town Meeting" ,for the democratically challenged, is a meeting of
all the town's peoples where past and future problems are thrashed out
in public and a "Select Man" elected to run things for the next year.
Very close th the Viking "Thing".

Granted we had a king to take care of the larger problems but as far
as local affairs were concerned most of the New England states had a
primitive form of democracy (the kind where the people ARE listened
to) since the earliest days.

To the best of my knowledge Kiwi Land was unknown at that time, except
to the folks who stick their tongue out in greeting who didn't really
practice a modern form of democracy -- more a "Well, you lost, so into
the pot you go" sort of government :-)



Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

Ah Bruce....,

What about the women though as well as the unpropertied such as
domestic servants and labourers, not to mention the slaves - and
Indians? At least there was the advantage that your non-friend Wilbur
could not vote. I don't think that a derelict with a derelict little
yellow sailboat would have qualified as a property owner.

It seems that this form of democracy was more akin to that in
classical Athens where in a population of 200,000, only about 20,000
'citizens' could actually vote. From my readings it appears that the
politicians and the democratic process were akin to those of today
with vested interests giving out crowd pleasers and with much rabble
rousing. Besides, many of them had to be forced to the agora to vote
anyway. Myself, I prefer the quiet sense of such as Solon. If only you
could get a presidential candidate with his integrity.

The Maori at the time may not have had the democracy of one man, one
vote but they did have the possibility of one of the best forms of
government - a benign dictatorship. Can we really say that we have
democracy in the true sense when our electors are not informed, ill
informed and much is kept from us by our politiocal masters?

As for the Maori eating their political opponents, one of my favourite
presidents, Bill Clinton, had his aid eating him, and quite tasty he
must have proved if accounts of the frequency of occurance are
correct.

Quid pro quo.

cheers
Peter

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:47:19 +1000, Herodotus
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:29:31 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:



Sorry, but my home town was holding "Town Meetings" in 1600-something.
A "Town Meeting" ,for the democratically challenged, is a meeting of
all the town's peoples where past and future problems are thrashed out
in public and a "Select Man" elected to run things for the next year.
Very close th the Viking "Thing".

Granted we had a king to take care of the larger problems but as far
as local affairs were concerned most of the New England states had a
primitive form of democracy (the kind where the people ARE listened
to) since the earliest days.

To the best of my knowledge Kiwi Land was unknown at that time, except
to the folks who stick their tongue out in greeting who didn't really
practice a modern form of democracy -- more a "Well, you lost, so into
the pot you go" sort of government :-)



Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

Ah Bruce....,

What about the women though as well as the unpropertied such as
domestic servants and labourers, not to mention the slaves - and
Indians? At least there was the advantage that your non-friend Wilbur
could not vote. I don't think that a derelict with a derelict little
yellow sailboat would have qualified as a property owner.

It seems that this form of democracy was more akin to that in
classical Athens where in a population of 200,000, only about 20,000
'citizens' could actually vote. From my readings it appears that the
politicians and the democratic process were akin to those of today
with vested interests giving out crowd pleasers and with much rabble
rousing. Besides, many of them had to be forced to the agora to vote
anyway. Myself, I prefer the quiet sense of such as Solon. If only you
could get a presidential candidate with his integrity.

The Maori at the time may not have had the democracy of one man, one
vote but they did have the possibility of one of the best forms of
government - a benign dictatorship. Can we really say that we have
democracy in the true sense when our electors are not informed, ill
informed and much is kept from us by our politiocal masters?

As for the Maori eating their political opponents, one of my favourite
presidents, Bill Clinton, had his aid eating him, and quite tasty he
must have proved if accounts of the frequency of occurance are
correct.

Quid pro quo.

cheers
Peter

Touche!


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)