We got rocks that other people want.

"Would you believe the Inspector General from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said it would violate the privacy of Americans for the IG office to tell us how many people in the United States had their privacy violated via the NSA warrantless wiretap powers which were granted under the FISA Amendment Act of 2008?"

Yes. Ask me another one.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/media-ownership-not-the-right-way-to-steer-debate-20120619-20m1s.html?skin=text-only

Scroll down to "A fool's paradise" to see an example of the fucking curmudgeons that this will drive out of the woodwork.

Wait a minute:

If A is the same species as B and B is the same species as C, then A is the same species as C.

is not the same as

If A can interbreed with B and B can interbreed with C, then A is the same species as C.

Because some of us at least think that he's entitled to a presumption of innocence.

Too bad I just did my mod points in. But you're completely right. I don't understand this urge to make things even more illegaler than they already are, except that it is done in such a way as to give it a far wider scope than necessary. Which is probably the point of the exercise, if I may be so cynical.

Notwithstanding what digitig said, it's necessary for parliamentarians to be able to speak freely. Imagine being able to muzzle legislators.

And if/when enough people finally get jack of it, up goes the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

These tools are virtually daring us to vote for "that other little man".

Go fuck Elizabeth yourself.

I don't. I watch it on catch-up and zap the ads. Or I buy the DVD/BluRay. Or I just read /. or play $SOME_GAME instead. I'm afraid that I'm not that good a product for the advertisers.

Looking at the choice currently facing the Australian voter, a three legged sheep would stand a "real chance" of election.

The only way I'd vote for a three-legged sheep is if the ballot contained only one of ALP or Coalition candidates on it. As soon as both go on the ballot, I must put one of them second-last in order to vote for the three-legged sheep, which is as good as voting for them. No thanks. Informal voting for me until they change the voting system.

All connected with Monster Ethernet Cable.

In my division there were 8 candidates at the last election. Regrettably, in order to register a vote I had to put a preference for each candidate, numbering all boxes 1 to 8 in order of my preference. Fortunately, the candidate that I numbered 8 got the majority of the cote on the primary count, which meant that I didn't vote for her.

In principle, however, if the count has to go out to 7th preferences, I may end up voting in candidate number 7.

If it wasn't instant run-off here, but regular run-off instead (which would be stupidly expensive), I could turn up to vote at the primary election and for as many run-offs as there were still candidates that I was interested in, and then either a) stop voting once I run out of candidates I like or b) cast informal votes if voting was still mandatory.

Alternatively, we could just do what we do in NSW state elections: optional preferential voting.

Maybe I'm just irritable

I'm afraid so. Most people just don't have a problem with it. But as I've said, I've got my own pet peeves, so I can sympathize.

Fair enough, mate, and thanks for your forbearance. It's still irritating, but I can do better than I did. Lesson learned.