by mick » Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:54 am
by Ian » Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:26 am
mick wrote:She is reported as calling them bastards and saying the should be taxed. The story is here http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24001261-421,00.html
I rarely agree with this woman, but her opinion of this "religion" is spot on.
by Leaping Lindner » Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:03 am
by Psyber » Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:42 pm
Leaping Lindner wrote:Well said Jane. But I draw the line at calling Scientology a religon. It's more like a cult.
by The Big Shrek » Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:48 pm
by mick » Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:56 pm
The Big Shrek wrote:Don't worry about religous freedom boys!
How about those christians, formed by a poof 2000 yers ago and haven't done much but war mongering, revenue rising and kiddy fiddling since.
by The Big Shrek » Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:24 pm
by Psyber » Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:08 pm
The Big Shrek wrote:I'm not really stirring that much, I just believe that people should be able to make their own choices as long as it doesn't harm others.
If we deny Scientology as a religion, logically we can deny that status to Christianity, Islam etc. I believe tht Scientology is more full of s***t than the others, but that shouldn't affect the ability of others to worship in whichever way they see fit.
If "brainwashing" is involved then that shouldn't be permitted as it denies people their freedom of choice. However, there is a big grey area between "brainwashing" and the indoctrination you'd see any Sunday morning at a Christian church.
Oh dear! I can see the flames licking at my feet now!
by best on hill » Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:18 pm
mick wrote:The Big Shrek wrote:Don't worry about religous freedom boys!
How about those christians, formed by a poof 2000 yers ago and haven't done much but war mongering, revenue rising and kiddy fiddling since.
I've decided you are a stirrer ShrekkyScientology is a business not a religion, I personally have no time for any religion, they are all bullshit, but some are less virulent than others. By the way Shrekky you'll burn in hell for that last comment
by Sojourner » Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:39 pm
by Wedgie » Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:25 am
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by best on hill » Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:31 am
Wedgie wrote:Jane was at the footy today, I congratulated her on her stance.
by Psyber » Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:43 am
by best on hill » Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:31 pm
Psyber wrote:I like "inferstructure" - very clever - something the state government inferrs/pretends is there, unlike infrastructure that has to be real, and costs more.
You'll go far in the Labor Party, lad.
by Psyber » Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:22 pm
best on hill wrote:Psyber wrote:I like "inferstructure" - very clever - something the state government inferrs/pretends is there, unlike infrastructure that has to be real, and costs more.
You'll go far in the Labor Party, lad.
take it from me as a bloke that works in the export ore industry. we are miles behind states like WA who have set them self up to cope with high mass ore export SA is still only mickey mouse hopefully a deep sea high mass port is coming to SA!!!!
by best on hill » Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:02 pm
Psyber wrote:best on hill wrote:Psyber wrote:I like "inferstructure" - very clever - something the state government inferrs/pretends is there, unlike infrastructure that has to be real, and costs more.
You'll go far in the Labor Party, lad.
take it from me as a bloke that works in the export ore industry. we are miles behind states like WA who have set them self up to cope with high mass ore export SA is still only mickey mouse hopefully a deep sea high mass port is coming to SA!!!!
I agree WA have been the state most on the ball, and are cashing in on the boom. The problem is now that high fuel costs may even dampen the Chinese economy over the next few years and kill the mining boom. Investors are now looking at the mining boom more cautiously, so SA may have missed the chance, and big expenditure now may not be recuped until the next recovery cycle. That will make them cautious again.
Its a bit like all those people who put in grapes during the boom in that industry, which matured just in time for the next slump.
Infrastructure development should be undertaken, in a steady, progressive, and affordable manner, not ignored and then rushed into late.
by Psyber » Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:10 pm
best on hill wrote: ...at least we agree one one thing SA needs a deep sea port 5 years ago i hope we have not missed the "boat". a bit gutless that you put me on your ignore list psyber harden up at except the fact that left wing people exsits
by Mic » Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:29 pm
by stan » Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:24 pm
Mic wrote:Jane is just like scientologists, an idiot.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |