Where that our money goes...

In time for the move overseas? How's that going?...

 

OK, let's tentatively call it the second half of November - I've got
other things to do in the first half (like laps of the Oxley

JL

 

As per previous email, '06 is the plan for the move*, and yeah I can
hardly go overseas and leave a half finished project mouldering. I need
it to be running and registered so I can then either sell it (not
preferred) or find a good home to babysit it (preferred).

JL
(*exit is currently planned for somewhere between mid and end 06
depending on whether I get accepted into this Law masters - with
exemptions I can finish one of them by end 06, the other I can do
subjects in the UK and Germany towards it. If I don't get in then it's
off at the end of Project circa Aug 06)

 

OK, last year I thought you said you needed twelve months to clear the
decks...

 

Nope, that was this year when I emailed you Original plan was April
06 - that was to give me 4-5 months to tidy things up after I finish
this MBA in November. It's never been any sooner than that as I'm doing
the MBA in the minimum possible time.

The extra 4 months pushing out to August 06 is because the project I'm
on got extended (customer request, not a slippage on my part) and it
would be pretty crap for the customer to only do 75% of the project and
it doesn't look good on the resume. I've ummed and ahhed about going in
April anyway for the last 6 months, but realistically I'm better off not
doing so career wise.

As per above, it's worth slipping an extra 10weeks to mid-late Nov06 if
I get an extra piece of paper out of it. If they don't accept me then I
go in August.

JL

 

--^^^^^^^^

was that a booth joke?

;-)

big

 

Erm - remember our mate Nick Griener (sp?)....and his "3x3" fuel levy?
Still there eh? So much for the 3 year bit.

James
ZZR250->ZX9R

 

Actuallly, it was October 18th, last year.

The twelve months claim was in a post to the group just prior to your
e-mail. No timeframe was mentioned in the e-mail.

Still, one, two years, what's the diff?...

We'll allow for it being a "non-core" promise and reset the timer, eh?

: )

 

Your google is broken mate, I just checked - try Nov 24 (ie we're both
wrong by a little bit

http://tinyurl.com/b4p9d

Hmmm, yeah so I did, oh well, I can only assume that was a "12 months
plus or minus rounding error of 50%", type of 12 months

I very initially did intend to bugger off the minute I finished, but
reason and/or reality impinged (like who the hell is hiring coming into
Xmas, it's bloody cold in blighty in winter so why not wait until it's
only miserably cold instead of effing freezing etc).

Indeedy. I'm delivering somewhere between 6 and 12months later than

Nope, it'd be a non core promise if I pulled out,currently it's just
running late (hey I'm an IT Program Manager - research shows 80% of
projects aren't delivered on time or to spec

<grin>

JL

 

Your e-mail arrived in my inbox on October 18 2004 and it's still there,
dated same.

I'll accept November 24 2004 as the source of the "12 months" timeframe
referred to in the newsgroup.

"I'm delivering somewhere between 6 and 12months later than originally
spec. <shrug> I've seen worse project outcomes !"

"research shows 80% of projects aren't delivered on time or to spec "

Given that you knew that the timeframe was 80% likely to blow out and
the dimissal of same with a shrug, mightn't this indicate that you are a
lying rodent?...Or do you demand higher standards of others than you set
for youself?

: )

It's one year since John Howard's re-election. Happy Anniversary.

 

At the time the comment was made, no I didn't know anything of the sort
because at that time I hadn't started this project, in fact my
expectation at that time was that I was joining a company that were
going to put me on a sets of around 3 month projects, and hence around
about a year from the comment, I was leaving. You can try and make a big
fuss of a couple of months all you like but the exact date wasn't
exactly an important parameter, the leaving would be the important
parameter, no ?

No. Not at all. This isn't like saying "we're going to war because Iraq
have WMD (knowing full well all your sources are saying they don't), or
"there's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy" or "we were told
children were thrown overboard".

Those are lies.

I'm not the PM and hence I'm hardly accountable to you or anyone else.
Having said that I'm maximising my utility, that's what rational people
do, I don't have to explain that to you. If I was the PM and making
decisions that affected your life, then of course I'd make myself
accountable to explain what had changed and why. Something our darling
PM never of course does.

....Or do you demand higher standards of others than you set

Firstly, yes of course I demand a higher level of accuracy from our
Prime Minister when he's answering questions regarding the state of the
nation and what he's doing, do you seriously suggest he should only be
held accountable to the same level of accuracy as people chatting over a
beer in a pub ?

Secondly, the fact you have trouble distinguishing between outright
lying (for example saying I plan to move o/s if I had no intention of
doing so) and an underestimate of timing pretty much highlights why you
can't understand why his lies piss me off.

Woohoo, I'm sure you're pleased, hope you don't lose too many of your
labour rights with the new legislation, and the full sale of Telstra
should give you LOTS of benefits given you live outside the metro area,
can't wait to see what else he has in store, I love the creeping fascism
of the increases in time in locking people up without any right to a
lawyer or charges being laid, we're almost up to apartheid South Africa
now. Yup, expectations have been met. Bet all those timber workers in
Tassie are getting a bit green around the gills around about now.

JL
(fully expecting you won't have bothered reading the above or trying to
understand)

 

JWH never said "we're going to war because Iraq have WMD"

The remainder are simply statements made in good faith at the time that
later turned out to be incorrect. Much like your statement that you'd be
outta here in twelve months.

*Not* lies.

The trigger for war against Saddam's regime was not the suspected
existence of WMD in Iraq, it was non-compliance with the terms of
UNSCR1441 which was passed unanimously by the UNSCR and which included
requirements such as an accurate, full, final and complete disclosure of
Iraq's WMD as required by UNSCR687, Iraq to end it's obstruction of the
immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by
UNSCOM and the IAEA, compliance with it's commitments pursuant to
UNSCR687 with regard to terrorism, UNSCR688 to end repression of its
civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian
organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq and it's
requirement to make reparations to Kuwait for Iraq's 1991 invasion.

All the countries represented in the UNSCR believed he had WMD, Hans
Blix believed he had WMD, Richard Butler believed he had WMD.

"Mustard gas is not marmalade. You are supposed to know what you did
with it." Hans Blix.

Therefore I'd consider it a reasonable assumption for John Winston
Howard to believe that Iraq had WMD, despite advice from *some* in our
intelligence services who didn't have full access to information that
our allies did.

At the time JWH made his statement on GST, the GST was about as popular
as a turd in a swimming pool and I doubt JWH ever thought it would be a
goer in his term of government. If you have proof that he thought
otherwise at the time, put it on the table.

"We were told children were thrown overboard" is another statement that
cannot be proved to be a lie.

He does every time we go to the polls. He's not there to explain himself
to every moonbat with a conspiracy theory to grind.

I'm sure your statement was made in good faith and later turned out to
be incorrect. I really don't believe you're a liar.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you're going to accuse our PM of
lying, you should have some proof.

Thanks for the concern. This is probably the biggest point of difference
between the government's views and mine at this time.

I shall defer to the guidance of my Union in fighting unfair changes to
the rights and conditions of Australian workers.

I knew that it would be a struggle when I cast my vote a year ago. I
still preferred to take my chances under John Winston Howard rather than
Mark Bloody Latham.

"I'm ready to lead, he's (JWH) ready to leave." Mark Latham, 2004.

I was originally against the government selling Telstra but the
organisation has shown itself to be such a train wreck that I can't see
the private sector fucking it up any more than what it is already.

All necessary I believe, given the nature of the enemy in the global war
against militant Islam.

Apartheid South Africa? Either you know little of life in a country
suffering *real* oppression or you're becoming a little hysterical...

Wrong again. : )

If you can find a better place on this earth than Oz, all power to you.
I don't reckon you will though.

Beer, mate?...

 

Are those the only options ? I came here for an argument 6 years ago and
never left !

JL

 

There's so much inaccuracy in the below it's going to take a while to
respond, given that I'm being held to a higher level of accuracy than
our beloved PM (ie the truth and verifiable facts)

JL

 

18 March 2003

TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER
THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP
ADDRESS TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA

E&OE…

I move:

That this House:

1. condemns Iraq’s refusal, over more than 12 years, to abide by 17
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council regarding the threat
it poses to international peace and security;

2. recognises: (a)that Iraq’s continued possession and pursuit of
weapons of mass destruction... etc etc

http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech78.html

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

He never said "We're going to war with Iraq because of WMD."

He recognised the possible existence and likely threat from Saddams's
WMD as one of many justifications for taking action against Saddam's regime.

His belief that Iraq had WMD was legitimate.

He never lied.

We went to Iraq because of UNSCR1441.

"Security Council resolution 678, adopted in 1990, authorised the use of
all necessary means not only to implement resolution 660, which demanded
Iraq withdraw from Kuwait, but also to implement all subsequent relevant
resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.
Resolution 687, which provided the cease-fire terms for Iraq in April
1991, affirmed resolution 678. Security Council resolution 1441 confirms
that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, a
point on which there is unanimous agreement, including by even the
Leader of the Opposition.

Iraq’s past and continuing breaches of the cease-fire obligations negate
the basis for the formal cease-fire. Iraq has by its conduct
demonstrated that it did not and does not accept the terms of the
cease-fire. Consequently, we have received legal advice that ‘the
cease-fire is not effective and the authorisation for the use of force
in Security Council resolution 678 is reactivated’. It follows, so I am
advised, that referring to the use of such force against Iraq as
‘unilateral’ is wrong. Any informed analysis of the Security Council
resolutions leads to this conclusion."

http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech78.html

 

He ignored the best available evidence and chose to believe other
evidence which provided a more favourable basis for the American
intentions.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

Define "best available". Even the French, the Germans, the Russians, the
Chinese and Kofi Annan believed Saddam had WMD.

Ooh, a conspiracy!...Prove he "chose to believe" something he knew not
to be true.

 

Well, obviously the best available source would have been Saddam Hussein
who ran the country, and he said he had none, second best sources would
have been Richard Butler and Hans Blix who had hundreds of weapons
inspectors looking for them, and they found none.

I never said it was a conspiracy. He wanted to join the US and invade
Iraq and murder the Iraqi people.
They used whatever sources of information they required to justify
that.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

No you didn't!

Gary (I AGREE WITH HIM!)