heater31 wrote:

Booney wrote:My next visit to a vegan-gluten-flavor free establishment is going to be superb. ( Along with it being my first )

When are we going?

Next safooty gathering i hope [emoji1]

Unfortunately the situation is only going to get worse, word we are hearing as we are as close to a year away from having to carry your police clearance on you if plan to take photos in any public facility.

which doesnt prove anything anyway. that bloke at the centre of the current commision in adelaide (McCool??)had passed a police check. and he was running one of the largest online child exploitation groups in the world while working for families SA.

RM wrote:The topic has become very boring move on as it's here to stay

but thats just it, it isnt here to stay. the clubs still have the option of changing the terms, or kicking them out altogether, however unlikely it may be.

if it bores you, feel free not to read and participate in these sort of threads

the only bullshit i have seen on this topic has been fro the "pro" reserves posters. so far everything the "anti" posters have said has proven to be accurate.

4000 crows fans to games - wrong. the crows are lucky to get that across two games, including opposition supporters

increased exposure - wrong. sanfl now pays a million dollars a year to televise the reserves sides... not sure how that helps the rest of the clubs

help the clubs survive - wrong. with only two clubs posting a profit last year. the 50k the crows pay is quickly dwarfed by the lack of people at the ground

adding the crows will get rid of the bye - wrong. we now have the farcical situation where in an "even" comp we have more bye's than ever

removes the "interference" of afl players in all sides - wrong. its now just condensed into two sides, having a much greater effect on results. ffs the crows had that many out at the start of last season they lost to North (how bad can you be?). not sure how that can be considered to be better than it being spread more evenly around the comp (not that i want a return to the old system either)

im sure there are many other points that can be added here. we even have "pro" posters that have begun seeing the light. BennyMacca above now admits that it has been a negative addition to the competition. too bad there were not more realising that back when it could still be prevented, we wouldnt now be stuck with this shit sandwich

they still could have stood strong. out the "persuasion" publicly and embarrass the afl clubs that were trying to strong arm them. i agree that there were back room discussions going on. the Norwood presidents abrupt about face highlights that, but if they had integrity, and put the sanfl first, they would have stood their ground. surely there is only so much "pressure" that could be applied.

its like 'negotiating" with a toddler. they kick, they scream, but giving in and giving them what they want only validates their tactics, and they know you will break again next time. stand your ground, ignore the tantrum, and eventually they fall asleep on the lounge room floor leaving you in peace

I'd say it was more the SANFL bigwigs and not so much the AFL clubs applying the blow torch.

Anyway, I better move on before someone notices I support one of the AFL clubs and my view is irrelevant. ;) :lol:

shit, thats right. **** off back to the afl boards you troll ;)

its a wierd word we live in. if a pet is suffering, you would get charged with animal cruelty if you didnt do the right thing and see the vet about them.

if its a human relative, its illegal to do the same

its a wierd word we live in. if a pet is suffering, you would get charged with animal cruelty if you didnt do the right thing and see the vet about them.

if its a human relative, its illegal to do the same

Not sure if I agree with others being able to decide when it's time, but if they are still lucid enough to say this is it, I am honestly all for it.
Yep. Not arguing that at all. I didnt mean for it to be a direct comparison in that regard

"a deal is a deal"

wait, how many times did the sanfl and Port Adelaide renegotiate their stadium deals??

It still comes down to 6 clubs voted yes, regardless of being hoodwinked or taken advantage of, they voted yes. If as you say the crows would have done anything to get in then again it's the fault of the 6 SANFL clubs for not getting more from them, shit they're semi professional organisations themselves but what you're saying amounts to them being as amateur as a high school SRC.
To be sure, it certainly has been amateur hour/year/years at Prospect. I won't resile from that. One thing that disappoints me is that North, a club making money hand over fist, felt the need to cower at the future of an SANFL without the Crows and Power pumping them up.

But to reiterate, the local clubs were, perhaps for want of a better word, vulnerable and the Crows peddled a solution. The Crows are powerful and wield massive influence. It can be easy to forget this given their considerable lack of on-field success for nearly two decades. It's naive to say that it was simply the clubs' decision to vote and that's that.

The point for me is this: if the Crows really gave a stuff about the SANFL, the organization from which it was founded from, and which it conveniently relies on when they have talk about history, it wouldn't have threatened its viability by inserting a practice squad into it for its own purposes. It already had a method by which second string players got a run . They just got greedy.
But it was a sh!t method according to both the SANFL clubs & the crows. Cant blame the crows for wanting a better method & to be on an even par as all the other AFL clubs.

but you can blame them for wanting to trash over 100 years of history to get that better method. they had other options, they could have pushed the afl for a reserves league. instead they chose the easier (read cheaper) option of taking advantage of the sanfl, and attempted to dress it up as doing the league a favour.....

*BUMP*

Oh ye who may recall what a solid nights sleep may be, any updates on the sprogs to give us?

How's the little tackers and tikes traveling?

Jnr Valleys is on the cusp of 20 months now, and is a little ripper. Aside from the dreaded teeth or a child care bug- is a great sleeper, and he is now a really energetic and inquisitive character.

He has a 20-25 word vocabulary (in before standard PAFC sledge) that seems to be growing by the day as he is a parrot for everything Mrs Valleys and myself are saying (have to bite the tongue!), and much like MBK- has caused the family canine to hide at the slightest sound of his approach :lol:

Watching him grow over the past 6 months has been incredible, but he is now beginning to crack tantrums when things don't go his way, bring on the terrible 2's :lol:

pfft. two is nothing. wait till they become a "Threenager"....

i think both of these clubs just arent used to playing in front of oppositon crowds. both normally play to a stadium filled with their own supporters. look at the whingeing from them both on the 1 game a year when they face a stadium packed with opposition supporters (when they dont host the showdown) how many times have i read of one group of supporters planning a "boycott' when it is the other clubs home game because of "feral" crowd behaviour?..... bit different when the shoe is on the other foot i guess :roll:

i have never had a problem with crowd behaviour at Norwood, and have been with my kids in the past. and if i can ever be bothered going to a game again, i woldnt have a problem taking the kids there again.

good on the norwood supporters for making them feel uncomfortable. maybe the message will eventually get out that they arent welcome

when my kids are a bit older im going to dig up all of doggers posts to show them why drugs are bad

Time for Fester to go public to tell the story publicly via the media if his story his true. The NFC will support him going by his admission of his reputation at the club. Norwood should instigate this because as it stands now Fester is wrong due to media personalities. Fester over to you so the truth is told.

FiveAA wouldn’t put me to air.
Stay tuned over the next week or so.

And ?????? Norwood need to stamp these people out . Maybe you can can do it in your new role ? What is the role ?
Stamp what people out? The dickheads from the power that started the whole thing? If so im all for it.

The perfect standard for the 2 local AFL reserves sides is the SANFL. As you can see with a full list they are strong sides (almost unbeatable ie ravens at present) and a real test for the SANFL sides. But with a few injuries they are average sides (ie Power at the moment).
Joining the Amo's would be a joke standard wise and it wouldn't be viable to join the VFL $$$ wise.
We just have to put up with it as I think it is here to stay unless there is a national reserves comp set up with all AFL reserves.

you make the mistake of thinking that the sanfl should care about the best place for the afl reserves sides. the sanfl should only be concerned with what is best for the sanfl, and ive got news for you, it isnt having afl reserves sides in the competition...

memberships are down, crowds are down, it now costs the sanfl 1 million dollars a year to televise the two reserves sides more than the traditional clubs, instead of the few hundred thousand it cost to do it on the abc (and as already noted, channel 7 are pulling out anyway so there will soon be no coverage at all) reportedly sponsorship of traditional clubs is down, we now have more bye's per team than ever before, and less games per season (when one of the "advantages" of bringing in the reserves was to eliminate the bye...) media interest is down, when i lower myself to look a the tizer, the sanfl dont even normally get a whole page, and dont start me on moving the grand final, the sanfl used to get a whole week to themselves leading up to it, now its lost in the circus that is the afl....

the only winners i can see out of the arrangement, is the afl clubs, and that shouldnt be the sanfl's problem. cutting their own throat to help out the big brother? why would you?

meanwhile, i also agree that returning to the previous arrangement shouldnt be considered. it was a crap system, although it was better than the current schemozzle, surely we can do better with mark 3.

election posters being upon power poles/light posts already..... isnt it about time these were banned? what a colossal waste of resources

And the worst thing about it all is Turnbull would know all this.

PS shove your 96Mb up your Arse :)

yep he does, after all he "virtually invented the internet" didnt he? i believe it was him that labelled the labor governments original nbn plan for fttn as "fraudband". seems he quickly forgot that lable when the libs took power and began dismantling it. all of a sudden fttn was the way the truth and the light :)

ill take some speed tests tonight when i get home Benny just for you :) just to prove im not bullshitting. mind you, i know the pain of slow net speeds. i suffered through nearly 9 years in this house with 1mbps on a good day, when it wasnt raining, and you held your tongue just right..... however, having now tasted the good life, ill never buy another house that doesnt have fibre to the premises. ill compromise on nearly everything else, as long as it isnt relying on ancient technology to connect to the modern world...

Booney wrote:With the vanilla flavor of most candidates you could argue "party politics" is already dead.

not sure i agree Booney, the shindig that went on the night Abbott got the arse surely shows they still know how to party......

Let's not pretend it's not been a factor either, big fella.

Absolutely, not denying that, I also can't see how kicking them out will be the savior either.

The "product" is diluted now, take away more of the "product" ( whether it be pure or otherwise ) and the people in charge can only ask for less from the consumer for the product.

i disagree. firstly, removing the reserves sides wont hurt the competition nearly as much as introducing them did. it wont be the sole reason for saviour, yes, but i see it as a massive step in the right direction.

i think removing them will actually condense what is left of the league, not dilute it. its already been shown that the reserves sides supporters are staying away in droves, so by getting rid of them, it will bring together what is left of the league

and asking for less from the consumer? when they will be providing more games (21 games, no byes as opposed to the farce we have now) against more relevant opposition is somehow less? not really the way i see it to be honest

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Q. wrote:It's not a matter for opinions though.

Ok Adolf

im sorry, but if you think it is ok to discriminate against people just for who they are, that puts you a hell of a lot closer to being hitler than Q man.

It's not a matter for opinions though.

Ok Adolf

im sorry, but if you think it is ok to discriminate against people just for who they are, that puts you a hell of a lot closer to being hitler than Q man.

I don't think its OK to discriminate actually and would vote Yes
But if no-one is allowed to have an opinion then there can't be a vote; can there!
Or are you saying only those who vote yes are entitled to have an opinion and therefore allowed to vote?

Hitler got rid of all opposition so he could do what he wanted
Initially by shutting them up and then by killing them
Only the Nazi's opinion mattered. That puts them much closer to you
Please dont tell me you agree on the wankers that claim they are victims because they are against gay marriage? Calling out someone on their bigoted views is not silencing them. It only shuts them up as they have no rational, reasonable counter argument.

Edit, and of course everyone is allowed an opinion. Just as they are allowed to be wrong. This isnt an opinion topic though. Its about doing whats right. Just like giving women and aboriginals the vote. Its putting things the way it should have been all along. Where is the opinion involved?

that and the sanfl acting as a guarantor for the club, and the sanfl giving the club money are two different things. acting as a guarantor only means they pay the money if the club eventually folds completely, which they havent, yet

Guarantee provides much more exposure and risk to the SANFL, at the time the debt was over $2m.

It just shows how close Sturt were to the brink that the SANFL had to offer a guarantee for their debt.

Yet my understanding is they haven't done this for any other club that has had its issues (North, Glenelg, West)

absolutely. im not disagreeing with you Dutchy, just pointing out where sadsimo might have his wires crossed.

and it is also my understanding that the sanfl havent done the same for any other club

well played by the shiners. somehow i lost both my games this weekend by tiny margins. finished top of the league in my work comp and lost my first final by 11..... frigging wombat pretenders, dropping the ball when it counts

anyone else get this vibe with the census ministers presser?

Because of the AFL reserves inclusion people have been lost to the SANFL, will they return? Perhaps, perhaps not, perhaps an 8 team "pure" competition will mean more people walk away, who can tell?


who can tell? well, i would suggest that the "anti's" have a proven track record in predicting what will happen with the changes in the league. posters like wedgie, uk fan, lph etc etc, they argued against the introduction of the reserves sides, and so far they have been proven correct on every count. crowds have fallen, memberships have fallen, media interest (apart from that focused on the reserves sides) has fallen, the crows $50k hasnt been the financial saviour of the clubs, the crows arent getting crowds of 4k (with or without opposition support), even the maggies crowds have plummeted.....

maybe, just maybe, the passionate and loyal sanfl supporters actually can see what is best for their own league and can see through the bullshit spin put forth by the afl clubs and those sucking up to them. maybe this time they will also be correct that the removal of the reserves sides will help the league.

either way, surely any good business would see that this change has hurt the leagues health, and attempt to make changes to correct the damage. the experiment failed. surely its time to either excise the problem, or make other changes to reverse the slide. sticking to a bad decision is much worse than making the bad decision in the first place. people need to admit they were wrong, and fix the issue sooner rather than later.

Corona Man wrote:Is 2.30pm on a Friday "too early" to crack a beer?

yes it is certainly a bit too early.....









for stupid questions that is. have one for me please

266 pages say no.....

just voted. its up to 70% think that the sanfl would be better without them. watch the poll be quickly swept under the carpet when the advertiser offices open this morning

Mr Beefy wrote:Tipper will be fascinated with these puns

im having a (base)ball reading them all









would you look at that, i think i managed to join in for once

Did your reply stay on the comments section Dogs72???

The SANFL wouldn't be happy if it did.

Yes both still there.

I didn't even get to some of it, the change in Tripodis vote, the availability of Seedsman (that wouldn't have happened for WWT or an SANFL club that had the week off), his dismissiveness and questioning of Roy speaking out, whose missed one finals series since 2003, and coached 7 premierships etc. etc.
Do you think they wont be happy because it's inaccurate? Should I expect a fine?

if they arent happy, it wont be because of any inacuracies (they were all in Roos bit). it will be because it is the truth.

Just posted the following on the SANFL's Facebook page, not that I expect it to remain there long or get a reply.

"Will not be attending any further games in this final series - or watching the telecast - as there will only be one SANFL side playing each week and one professional side that should not be in the league.
Supporters are walking away in droves, the attendance in the finals clearly shows that, volunteers are walking away as they cannot see the point in giving their time up when at the end of the season AFL sides simply change gear and blow their teams off the park.
And all the while this is happening Nero fiddles as Rome burns..."

sadly that will probably be taken as a positive by the sanfl spin doctors. "posts to our facebook wall are up".. "comments referring to the reserves sides are increasing"......... of course, they wont be reading the actual content of your post

Here come the haters, the point of Marriage is to procreate, I don't think you can do that if you don't have a man and a woman? Or have I been wrong all this time?

no it isnt. there are many many married couples that dont have kids, and have no intention of ever having kids. how were they allowed to get married then?

and yes you are wrong. i know gay couples that are already raising kids. i know single people raising kids. these arent new ideas.

and personally, i would have thought the hater would be the person advocating discrimination against a minority group......

Tipper can I have the view that it's not normal and a little disgusting? Why am I not allowed to think that?

then dont yourself get gay married. it isnt that hard to understand.

just because you dont want to marry someone of the same sex as yourself , you think no one should be able to marry someone of the same sex as yourself?

i tend to be attracted to blondes with big boobs, doesnt meant that i think no one should be able to marry a brunette. (stop them marrying redheads though, they are crazy ;) )

inside word wrote:
So they did it without the help of science? That's amazing!

and no hetero couples ever conceive with the help of science?

That's me telling to you believe in religion? You are entitled to believe whatever you like. 90% of my friends aren't religious and never have had a conversation about it unless they ask me, so Tipper, Ship off

no, i never said you told people to believe in your imaginary friend. but that is showing that you expect others to abide by your imaginary friends rules. you want to discriminate against a part of the population, forcing them to abide by your beliefs, because your god said so. if that isnt pushing your views i dont know what is.....

well. what a shit weekend to be a crows fan. for some reason that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

its ok though. the pro reserves posters will tell us that the afl isnt interested in destroying the traditional clubs. frankston and the traditional clubs kicked out of the neafl cant be used as examples of what might happen here as it isnt at all relevant. i mean, they are different leagues. the neafl is virtually brand new so just cant be counted, and the vfl is just completely different, or something....... anyway, we are all just whingers remember? :oops:

If he did indeed try to manipulate the citizens jury then he's more fool than we both imagine. From what I gather the information provided too them appeared to have been written by a pre-schooler.

from what i heard it was the other way around. there was a large block of jury members that were anti nuclear, and had no intention of changing their minds no matter what information was presented. supposedly they got hold of an invitation, and were passing it around amongst their group to ensure as many of them made it onto the jury as possible to sway the outcome (the invitations werent single use.....) they even bullied anyone that wasnt as rabidly anti nuclear as they were. made up their own stickers to go on name tags and everything. lol.

personally, i would have thought that anyone accepted onto the jury needed to have an open mind on the topic. i dont care if they had leanings one way or the other before the commencement, just that they were open to the possibility of changing their mind once presented with the information either way. if the info was crap, can it. if the info was good, accept it. instead it seems that a large number of people went in with the idea of voting it down no matter what they were shown. which i would have thought totally defeats the whole exercise to begin with

Booney wrote:It's more the idiots I have to deal with at work as opposed to the ones on here I choose to deal with.

aw shucks. i feel special

As expected Trump has signed the order to pull out of the TPP deal. Although really it probably wouldnt make it through congress anyway. Still he said he would do this and its done.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

well so far he has a better track record of following through on election promises than aussie polititians. at least that is a positive i suppose

Booney wrote:The direct correlation between the volume and aggressiveness of the music going into your ears and the resultant pressure your foot applies to the accelerator pedal.

need to change your username to Hooney??

to what extent do these types of studies take into account part time work? out of the 22 people that work within sight of my desk, there are 6 that only work part time, by their own choice. all of which are women (its actually nearly half of the 13 women in the group). men may also be able to choose to go part time, but from what i have experienced it is usually the women that do so, rather than their male partners. (i can only think of one guy i know that does part time to leave a day for looking after his kids, all the others i can think of are women, small sample size though)

now, do they count as earning less than men? even though they choose to work part time as part of their work life balance? they are on the same hourly rate as the men of the same level, yet their take home pay would be less due to doing less total hours.

and do they count as being "discriminated against" for promotions when the higher position may require a full time worker? so they are ruled out as they will not commit to the full time hours?

if the above isnt taken into account, then im not sure the stats on the gender pay gap can really be used to demonstrate anything.

*edited to correct my maths, there are 13 women that sit near me, not 12.....

I know you are probably saying this tongue in cheek, but you still are misunderstanding the point that even if you control for all of those factors, there is still a difference in wages.

but how though? is there a workplace that pays men and women differently?

if more women make a personal choice to work in a lower paying industry, how is that the fault of society?

i think the other day that child care, and welding were compared as an example as to a wage gap. both were supposedly a similar qualification (certificate 3??) but one is paid better than the other. i fail to see the issue. unless something or someone is preventing women from doing welding, or preventing men from doing child care, how is that an example of a wage gap? how can we compensate for people choosing lower paid employment?

even within the same industry it occurs.

but it occurs within the same industry with men too. different businesses will pay different amounts. not everyone just pays the award rates, some pay more. and as HH3 has pointed out, if there is a systemic issue with a business paying male staff members more than female, for the same job, that is already illegal, and if caught, they will be prosecuted.

you cant compare one business that pays well, to a different one up the road that just so happens to have more female employees and only pays award rates surely?

insert "dont call me shirley" joke here

This i agree with. Its not about making sure women dominated industries get paid the same as male dominated industries just because.

Ill use my profession as an example. A woman engineer with no kids is still on average getting paid less than a man engineer. And I have heard anecdotes about it being intimidating for women entering male dominated industries. Those are things that are being addressed in my workplace, and should continue to be.

but isnt that illegal? paying a female less just because she is female? the females should sue, and they should win.

i get that some workplaces/industries could be unwelcoming, but i see that as a whole other issue. it has nothing to do with ones pay packet. it still needs to be dealt with, as its also wrong, and i think that in many cases it has improved dramatically, but im sure there is still room for improvement.

Wedgie wrote:

tipper wrote:short week last week, short week this week, and the week off next week

i might even leave early this afternoon.......

Week off, week off, week off, week off, week off, week off, week off, week off, etc for me!

EAD

how did i know you would comment

I think you're all looking at the tree and ignoring the forest.

The newest generation of paying customers would've grown up with no connection the the SANFL, unless they had family involved or were playing. 18-25 year olds who now go to the AFL in their thousands were born in 1999-1992. A time where the Crows were up and about and Port were the rebellious alternative.

For the first time these people didn't grow up with the SANFL . They grew up with Tony Modra and Gavin Wanganeen.

It's simply progress. There is almost nothing anyone could've done or can do. Blaming this person or that person or this club or that organisation or this schedule or the fact there are AFL Reserves is simply covering up the cold hard truth of it all....

The SANFL is no longer relevant as a product for people to consume and has been eaten up in a competitive marketplace with time poor customers.

**** me you write some dribble. if anyone is ignoring facts it is yourself.

none of the "anti reserves" posters here have denied that the afl is bigger than the sanfl, nor have they ignored the problems with the "new" generation not growing up with the sanfl being as big as it was. ffs that is part of the problem. by allowing the introduction of the reserves teams, it has made the sanfl effectively afl lite. and there is now no point of difference to it. it was said before their introduction, and it has been proven after it, no one goes to watch the ressies. despite the claims of the afl clubs. and why have a different side in the sanfl when the reserves of their afl side is in it? this, more than anything else, is killing the league.

the sanfl could have remained relevant if they stood alone. make it affordable, and make it accessible. the 18 to 25 year olds could still have been interested in it, some of their mates could be playing sanfl. they could go watch when their afl side is interstate. its a hell of a lot more affordable and accessible than going to adelaide oval. there were options. my kids loved going to see the roosters. but not now. we havent been to a single game in years, and it is all due to the reserves sides.

and notice, none of what i have said is targeting Port? get your chip off your shoulder. those against the ressies dont just blame port. they blame both afl sides, the sanfl, and the leadership of 6 of the 8 sanfl clubs.

Straw and Men. Then you went and agreed with the rest of my post. Strange.

I would love for the AFL to have a reserves comp. I don't like them in the SANFL either. I don't particularity like Todd Marshall playing against blokes who are physically bigger than him and out to prove a point, for example - but at the moment it's the best solution of a bad bunch of options.

My argument was against the notion that Port have received bail outs to the tune of 16M dollars and that the SANFL's downfall is apparently all Port's fault. And that the Reserves is the core reason for the slide in attendance.

The AFL Reserves playing in the SANFL is not ideal and there are some that would be turned off by it but as I said, it's the tree in the forest, not the forest itself.

still have that massive chip on your shoulder i see. the only poster here claiming that it is all ports fault, is you. the rest of us are sharing the love around.....

your arguments are plainly wrong. if you wanted to argue against the notion of the bail outs, shouldnt you have done that years ago when it was actually happening? or were you just happy then to receive the money and are now just sitting there with your fingers in your ears shouting "i cant hear you" when it is way too late. the Power were sucking on the sanfls welfare teat for years.

the reserves are the sole reason for the fall in attendance. what else could be the cause that just so coincidentally started the same time that the reserves sides did? you are claiming that it is something else, with absolutely no evidence. just saying its not their fault, doesnt make it so.

I've said at least three times now that the AFL reserves has impacted crowd numbers. I am really not sure how much clearer I can be.

What I am saying is it really isn't the biggest issue affecting the SANFL. You're buried in minutiae and micro level stuff and ignoring the macro.

but you are still denying that the drop in crowds is a major impact. if the powers attendances dropped by a third over 1 season you lot would have the tarps back quick smart and you would be looking for handouts again. if that is micro level you must have a really weird scale you are using.

I would think so yeah

Even the 12Mb should "feel" faster when doing general browsing, because the ping times should be shorter. But yeah for sustained bandwidth requirements like netflix you will notice the difference between 12 and 25.
Ok cheers mate. :)

it can depend a little on what "type" of NBN connection you have too. some of the technologies are more prone to congestion than others in peak times. we have fibre to the home (which is no longer being rolled out) and our speed it pretty well stable no matter what time of the day or night, so the 12 might be ok. however, most places now are getting fibre to the node, which can be slightly less reliable in the speed stability, and also might not get as close to the "plan speed" that you pay for, depending on how far from the node you are (the last stretch is copper, which limits it somewhat)

as benny said, see if your chosen provider will let you upgrade later, if you try the lower speed and decide its not quite what you want.

The plebiscite isnt biding though is it?

I still believe regardless of thr result parliament still needs to vote on it.

Is that correct?

Correct Thanks mate, I thought that was the case. Seems like a No will be a No whereas a Yes will be a maybe but probably not.

yeah, sadly i get this feeling a bit too. if it is overwhelmingly yes, i think they will have to pass it. however, if it is closer but still yes, or there are a lot of non voters or something, they will try to worm out of it.

all of this money and trouble just so the liberal party can protect their donations from all of those conservative groups. passing legislation is only their frigging jobs ffs. as mentioned earlier, there was no plebiscite or referendum to send our own soldiers off to die in any of the wars we have been involved in, no public vote on the vast majority of other topics. claiming that as this is "such an emotive topic for so many australians" is just a cover to keep their donors happy. there are a great many emotive topics they already make decisions on every day.

its all so easy to just waste millions of dollars when it isnt theirs......