Most commented


Show oldest | newest first

    • workers united says:

      07:26am | 07/01/13

      Labor HAS to win the election 2013 to stop Abbott and the Liberals destroy all the good work done in defending the worker. Dont forget workchoices is being written right now !

    • stephen says:

      07:36am | 07/01/13

      So you’ve got a job ?
      That’s nice.
      The manufacturing industry has again reported a 10th consecutive monthly shrinkage, and neither Party has a response that will allay those who work in this sector.

      (It is the only thing Abbott of Gillard should be talking about.)

    • Queensland Observer says:

      07:57am | 07/01/13

      Workchoices is being written right now?
      Is it? Where? Says who? Where is your proof?

      Labor/Unions aren’t defending the worker. Labor/Unions haven’t defended the worker in a very long time.

      What Labor/Unions are defending are their lurks, perks and slushy bank accounts funding lifestyles that the average worker could only dream about.

      Take the red pill mate.

    • Anubis says:

      11:10am | 07/01/13

      Where is your proof that Workchoices is being rewritten? There is none as your comment is just the standard Labor “clutching at straws” smear.

    • Frank Hudson says:

      01:46pm | 07/01/13

      Work choices is being re-written? That’s the best news I have heard in a long time! Finally, we can get back to industrial relations that actually worked.

    • Doc says:

      07:39am | 07/01/13

      Thanks for the spurt of tea across the monitor…

      Wow.  Still enjoying the effects of some NYE beverages are we?

    • ramases says:

      07:43am | 07/01/13

      And that would be a bad thing because. Look at the state this country is in now with the Unions being allowed to run rough shod over the employers time and time again. Look at the wage increases of the last couple of years where there has not been one iota of increased productivity included in the agreements. Its time some sanity was returned to the workforce and employers allowed to dictate the terms and conditions of employment as they are the ones who pay the wages not the unions and without the employers there will be no jobs.

    • Joe says:

      07:56am | 07/01/13

      Without employees there will be no employers.

    • Queensland Observer says:

      08:00am | 07/01/13

      I wonder if the Tassie fire devastation would have been lessened if they had performed over the last few years, mid-winter controlled burns to reduce fuel load in areas that had the potential to threaten homesteads and townships.

    • Queensland Observer says:

      08:10am | 07/01/13

      Sorry, my comment on the fires should have been on the main comment thread and not in response to ramases.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      08:18am | 07/01/13

      Queensland Observer says:08:00am | 07/01/13

      “I wonder if the Tassie fire devastation would have been lessened if they had performed over the last few years, mid-winter controlled burns to reduce fuel load in areas that had the potential to threaten homesteads and townships.”


      But, don’t worry about your offensive attempt to turn a tragedy into a political point scoring exercise. I won’t bother explaining to you the perfect storm of weather conditions that led to the fires . . . because you aren’t actually interested.

    • Ben C says:

      08:56am | 07/01/13

      @ Joe

      Employees can’t survive without employers, but employers can most definitely survive without employees.

    • acotrel says:

      09:07am | 07/01/13

      Are you really saying that employers need employees ?  I thought they were simply exercising philanthropy.

    • Mouse says:

      09:17am | 07/01/13

      Joe, without employers, that $50 a week payrise the unions just got you doesn’t seem so important now, does it?  :o)

    • Joe says:

      09:23am | 07/01/13


      No, they can’t. You can’t have one without the other. I can’t believe anyone doesn’t understand that.

    • Michael says:

      09:53am | 07/01/13

      From a pedantic point of view if you have no employees you are not an employer. I guess if someone was really bored they might try to argue that employing themselves counted.

    • Ben C says:

      09:59am | 07/01/13

      @ Joe

      Sole traders - many do not have employees. I would know, because my father is one, and I deal with many in my own job. Look beyond your own sphere.

    • Joe says:

      09:59am | 07/01/13


      Sorry, but I’m an employer and my employees are well paid, thank you. And that’s just one of the reasons they’re happy to make money for me.

    • Ben C says:

      10:02am | 07/01/13

      @ Joe

      Unless you are taking the terms “employers” and “employees” literally, rather than pragmatically. Then again, what about the term “self-employed”?

    • Joe says:

      10:18am | 07/01/13


      You can’t be “self-employed” unless you’re an employee. I can’t believe anyone doesn’t understand that.

    • Ben C says:

      10:55am | 07/01/13

      @ Joe

      “You can’t be “self-employed” unless you’re an employee.”

      I understand what you are saying, but you are arguing from the point of semantics, whereas I’m looking at the pragmatic side of things.

      If you can’t understand that, or you choose not to understand that, that’s your prerogative.

    • Joe says:

      11:29am | 07/01/13


      No, I’m looking at the pragmatic side of things. You’re the one trying to create a false dichotomy.
      If you can’t understand that, or you choose not to understand that, that’s your prerogative.

    • James1 says:

      12:12pm | 07/01/13

      Grammatically speaking, the use of the suffix “er” denotes a specific relationship to the preceding verb.  Without that relationship, the construction is invalid.  Thus, given that the verb is “employ” and the suffix “er” denotes that the person is engaged in the act of employing, saying that one can be an employer without having an employee is the same as saying that one can employ someone without employing someone.  In the compound word “self-employed” the relationship still exists as the individual in question is both employee and employer.  Thus, grammatically, employers cannot exist with employees (and vice versa) due to the relationship to the verb “employ” denoted by the suffixes “er” and “ee” (one who employs and one who is employed respectively).

      You may call this semantics, but it is actually about the correct use of language, and thus is still important.

    • Ben C says:

      12:45pm | 07/01/13

      @ Joe

      I’ll put my hand up and say that I don’t understand your “pragmatic” perspective - I can’t read your mind, and you have yet to provide a level of explanation of your perspective beyond “because it is” (“You can’t have one without the other”, “You can’t be self-employed unless you’re an employee”. Reason being?).

      If you would care to provide reasoning, then maybe we could move beyond one-liners and actually debate the merits of our perspectives.

    • Joe says:

      01:41pm | 07/01/13


      If you are employed then you are an employee. You can’t have one without the other.

      Your perspective doesn’t have any merit. You’re just wrong, and incapable of understanding.

    • Ben C says:

      02:56pm | 07/01/13

      @ Joe

      If you want to go down that track, then do tell me:

      1. Why do self-employed people not have the protections of your standard employee, if they are employees?
      2. Why, for Workers Compensation policies, are self-employed persons not covered unless they are operating under a corporate structure, if they are employees?
      3. Why do self-employed not get compulsory superannuation contributions, if they are employees?

      Unless you can point out contrary information, then I am far from wrong.

    • Ben C says:

      03:27pm | 07/01/13

      @ Joe

      I seriously hope you’re not a lawyer.

      “You’re just wrong”

    • ramases says:

      07:52am | 07/01/13

      Was reading with interest the article about those young women, girls, who killed themselves yesterday in an horrific car crash and the outpouring of grief that has followed. Lets get it right. They stole the car involved, they were using the words of one of the people at the party drunk and they wanted to go for a joy ride.
        Now I don’t know about anybody else but I feel no sympathy for them as they knew what they were doing and its a blessing that they happened just to kill themselves and not run head long into an oncoming vehicle and killing the occupants of that as well.
        Call me old fashioned or whatever but people who do this sort of thing and then suffer the consequences don’t deserve sympathy from anybody just condemnation for being foolish and irresponsible.
        Another thing, if they were only 16 and 17 why were they drinking in the first place. Their friends need a reality check before they start paying tributes to these girls as they broke the law and paid the price but such is the mindset that people will forgive the true facts and paint these girls as victims. The only good thing to come out of this is that they managed to just kill themselves and not some innocent bystanders.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      08:22am | 07/01/13


      “Call me old fashioned or whatever . . . “

      I’ll go with “whatever”. The fact that you even felt inclined to vent your dirty spleen over the deaths of a couple of kids is pathetic really.

    • Colin says:

      09:21am | 07/01/13

      @ Ramarses

      “The only good thing to come out of this is that they managed to just kill themselves and not some innocent bystanders. ...”

      Now it finally comes to pass the proof as to why I called you a misogynist in the past; you really are a cruel, nasty, unfeeling piece of work, especially when it comes to women.. How would YOU feel if they were your children? Your comment was just plain horrible.

    • Ben C says:

      10:18am | 07/01/13

      @ Colin

      “Call me old fashioned or whatever but people who do this sort of thing and then suffer the consequences don’t deserve sympathy from anybody just condemnation for being foolish and irresponsible.”

      The above paragraph would indicate that ramases shows no gender bias when it comes to such incidents.

      At the same time, I can’t say that I disagree with what has been said. If it happened to my kids, it would be more a failure on my part as a parent than anything - I couldn’t blame anyone other than myself.

    • Colin says:

      11:22am | 07/01/13

      @Ben C

      Are you and ramarses seriously telling me that you are the un-caring, un-empathetic misanthropes that you make yourselves out to be..? You really can’t see that some young person has lost their lives from one stupid act, that they - somehow - “Deserve” it, and that we should have no condolences for their parents whatsoever..?

      My god, that really is a harsh, horrible, mean-spirited, callous, and - quite frankly - disturbingly barbaric attitude that you two have. Shame on both of you.

    • ramases says:

      11:39am | 07/01/13

      I am not as you most succinctly put it a misogynist, quite the opposite. Also I have not vented my spleen but stated facts. you know those things that people do use occasionally.
        Those kids as some put it were breaking the law, full stop, anything after that is meaningless unless of course you condone people breaking the law.
        As for my kids, they were bought up to respect the law, respect their parents and authority, something that was clearly lacking in this case.
      As for the other comments about my feelings, what would you know as you are only a poster on this blog as I am and not privy to my private life but as usual you assume the worst without a shred of evidence except for a post that points out the facts. I’m sorry if the facts upset you but hey, get out and get a life.
      Another point to ponder over, who ran the party and if it was adults why did they allow under-age girls to drink? Doesn’t this make those responsible for the party culpable in this tragedy. It all comes back to personal responsibility, something that is clearly lacking in this day and age where people expect others to take responsibility for their actions.

    • Colin says:

      12:16pm | 07/01/13

      @ ramarses

      “...I have not vented my spleen but stated facts. you know those things that people do use occasionally…”

      Eh? Quite the opposite, I think. You vented your spleen by saying,

      “...I feel no sympathy for them as they knew what they were doing and its a blessing that they happened just to kill themselves…”

      There were no ‘Facts’ quoted there, only mealy-mouthed, misanthropic, heartless bile.

      And - no matter how much you try to deflect what you have said with your, “You don’t know me” comments - the REAL facts are that you have said some very ugly and very cruel things that I (and I am sure, like-minded others) find extremely offensive.

    • OverIt says:

      12:18pm | 07/01/13

      16 and 17 year olds are notorious for making dumb decisions   This has always been the case and always will be and INCLUDES good kids who have been brought up to respect the law.  They just don’t think.  Most kids get away with their stupid decisions and grow up to become good, law-abiding citizens and most of us think that it is truly tragic that this is not the case here.

      Oh, and dollars to doughnuts your kids didn’t tell you everything they got up to at that age!

    • ramases says:

      02:45pm | 07/01/13

      No Colin what I posted was the truth as I saw it, if it upset your sensibilities then tough, but the truth will out. The facts came from their own friends who when interviewed by the media made those statements.
        I can see, of course this is an assumption, but your used to that , that you condone what they did as the antics of those that haven’t a clue and if they had killed others by their actions you wouldn’t have raised your voice to condemn them but just gone tut tut, the youth of today.
        To Over it, probably not but then again who knows, certainly not me or you but the general feeling between us was that everything was open and that in itself was a huge difference even then.

    • Ben C says:

      02:48pm | 07/01/13

      @ Colin

      I feel sympathy for the parents - no parent should be in a position to bury their own child. I would hazard a guess that the parents are blaming themselves for not being able to protect their daughters from their own negligence. I still believe the parents (both sets) should have taken a proactive approach in ensuring their daughters’ safety.

      Further, let’s look at it this way: had the driver killed someone else, yet they survived, would you be showing any sympathy to the girls? Or would you be calling for the driver to be locked up? Too often I’ve seen people condemn drunk drivers for killing others when they’ve survived, yet when it’s themselves they’ve killed there’s an outpouring of grief. Why do they deserve grief when they’ve died, yet they deserve condemnation when they’ve survived yet killed someone else? Isn’t that contradictory?

    • Michael says:

      05:44pm | 07/01/13

      Colon, it’s not nice to make fun of ramsarses’ user name. raspberry

    • TimB says:

      08:00am | 07/01/13

      During the weekend’s Open Thread, I posted an line of dribble spouted by James Hansen to prove a point. Tim chastised me for ‘not listening to the scientists’. Which led to me incredulously asking the question ‘Exactly who is it do you think I’m quoting?’

      The response I got was even more flabbergasting. According to Tim, I apparently quoted someone ‘who isn’t a climate scientist’.

      Tim, please click on the below link and educate yourself.

      Now come back and tell me A) that he’s not a climate scientist, and B) that I have no basis for ridiculing this man’s views, along with every other fool who agrees with him.

    • Colin says:

      08:16am | 07/01/13

      Even the Scientific Community has its share of loonies… wink

    • TimB says:

      08:24am | 07/01/13

      I know Colin, but this one is one of the most prominent people in the field. One of the main leaders of that entire side of the debate. Shouldn’t that be ringing alarm bells?

    • SimpleSimon says:

      08:32am | 07/01/13

      I’m going to say, in response to B, you have no basis for ridiculing this man’s views, along with every other fool who agrees with him. Challenge on the facts, don’t attack the man, it’s lazy. “Head alarmist” is ad hominem.

      I tend to agree with your statement that using individual weather events to justify your position, when you previously used the excuse that individual weather events can’t be used to justify a position, is hypocritical. However, just because a statement is inconsistent or hypocritical does not automatically make it false. Definitely affects credibility, though.

      I personally think that climate change is occurring, and I tend to think that humans are contributing to it to some extent, but I think the “alarmist” air time has diluted the discussion and deviated it from where it should be. It turns the debate from “what are we going to do to curb this?” to “see, it is/isn’t happening!!!”

      If you look at the views of scientists as to whether or not anthropogenic climate change exists, disregarding the rate to which they think it is occurring (ie, a simple binary yes/no), the overwhelming response seems to be “yes”. I think we need to get away from the alarmist debate and begin discussing medium-longer term strategy.

    • Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

      08:49am | 07/01/13

      @ TimB. James Hansen you named is clearly an outstanding scientist on global warming.

      But please step back and ask the relevant questions. Is global warming the No 1 global problem? Second question, can Australia as a small nation peoplewise do something to make a material impact on fighting global warming.

      Firstly I submit that global warming is about the No 4 global problem. The No 1 global problem is the continued increase in world population and the looming critical food crisis. Each FOUR months the increase is world population is greater than the TOTAL population of Australia.

      Add to this USA now uses 6.9 BILLION bushels of corn a year to turn to biofuel which is enough to feed 300m people. This has made people in central America hungry ,see today’s report at:

      Second question and answer. Does the carbon tax has a measurable impact on global warming. Answer is clearly NO. The naughty nations China and India are steaming ahead with new coal powered stations so that by 2035 the no of coal powered stations will INCREASE by 50% which makes the carbon tax in Australia totally irrelevant and yet harm the economy of Australia.

      Sadly the carbon tax harms Australia economically.

    • Colin says:

      09:02am | 07/01/13


      Oh, I agree, Tim; he is just one more of those with a rabid, over-the-top, sky-is-falling, hysterical attitude designed to frighten children and the weak-minded into submission…Rational, reasoned debate has never been the mainstay of any radical; particularly the environmentalcases of the so-called ‘Green’ movement…

    • Jaqui says:

      09:04am | 07/01/13

      @TimB: Oh they don’t like their own medicine do they.
      There is a website dedicated to discrediting climate scientists on irrelevant factors who don’t agree with the alarmist point of view. The hilarious part is that these moronic drones post links to this same site.
      Try mentioning the satellite data collected and offered in its entirety in the most transparent fashion of any climate scientist by Dr. Roy Spencer Ph. D. and see how they fly into a personal attack on his personal beliefs.

    • Tim says:

      09:08am | 07/01/13

      On A, I’ll put my hand up and say I was wrong but I’d honestly never heard of him. Mea Culpa.

      On B, I don’t think anyone should link individual weather events as directly caused by climate change and some people definitely do exagerrate to try and make their point. They shouldn’t.

      But if you read what he’s actually saying in that article you linked, it’s that they expect there to be an increase in extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change, and their research shows that this is what’s actually occuring.

      I personally think it’s a long bow to draw at present but the research has been peer reviewed and released so If you have a problem with that research, then say so. It’s open for critique.

      And you still can’t link that one person’s view to every climate scientist. The science is objective, you can’t say someone is a “Leader” of a particular field and apply that view to every scientist.

      There’s bucket loads of peer reviewed science out there by thousands of different scientists and it generally points in one direction. On what basis do you think it’s wrong?

    • iansand says:

      09:21am | 07/01/13

      Actually, TimB, you quoted from something by Hansen to make a point that he was using a single event to prove that climate change was happening.  The real problem was Professor Hansen wasn’t doing that at all.

      “In a new analysis of the past six decades of global temperatures, which will be published Monday, my colleagues and I have revealed a stunning increase in the frequency of extremely hot summers, with deeply troubling ramifications for not only our future but also for our present.”

      The events that he cites are examples of consistency with the trend that he has identified.—and-worse-than-we-thought/2012/08/03/6ae604c2-dd90-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html

      You may not make stuff up, but your comprehension skills are a little wanting.

    • Anubis says:

      11:16am | 07/01/13

      Bah Global Warming, it has happened before and will happen again. Here is the content of a newspaper article from the Washington Post

      The Washington Post
      The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

      Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

      * * * * * * * * *
      I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922,  as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 88 years ago.

      The only true wilderness is between the ears of a Green

    • TimB says:

      01:14pm | 07/01/13

      ‘Actually, TimB, you quoted from something by Hansen to make a point that he was using a single event to prove that climate change was happening.  The real problem was Professor Hansen wasn’t doing that at all.’

      Err, yes he was. Maybe you should have read the quote I posted instead of the one you just tried to divert with. Here it is again:

      ’ Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.’’

      He *specifically* states that ‘the caveat of no individual weather event can be linked to climate change no longer applies’. He specifically goes on to claim that Climate change IS the explanation for recent weather, and no other explanation applies.

      Citing weather as proof of climate change. Exactly what you were railing against yesterday. He might be citing trends too, but that’s irrelevant. It’s the silly weather tactic we’re talking about here.

      If the top scientists in the climate field want to be taken seriously, they need to sensationalist drop the doom and gloom garbage.

      @ Tim, most of the peer reviews seem to point at the models done by a handful of scientists (Hansen among them). And as has been repeatedly shown, the models don’t actually match what is happening in reality.

      Is there a human contribution in there somewhere?  Most likely. But not ONE of the scientists has been able to prove just how much of it is our fault vs how much of it is natural.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      02:05pm | 07/01/13

      @TimB- Poor logic. From the quote you have given me it is clear that the scientist postulates climate change as the only possible explanation for a trend of recent extreme weather events rather than climate change as the explanation for a single weather event. Both propositions in the quote are perfectly valid.

    • andye says:

      02:21pm | 07/01/13

      @TimB - A series of individual weather events when put together make a sequence from which a trend may be observed. He isn’t saying that a specific weather event is due to climate change - he is saying that there is no other explanation for the recent weather trends than the climate trend.

      Have you an alternate explanation? No. Of course not. You would rather play word games and try to undermine the personalities involved.

    • Knemon says:

      08:20am | 07/01/13

      Re Tassie, I feel for the people who have lost everything, terrible. I also can’t think of a greater group of people than the fire-fighters and volunteers, absolute champions.

      I’ve also heard that some car rental companies are charging for non return of hired vehicles even though it is physically impossible to return them due to roads being closed, they should be named and shamed.

    • PJ says:

      09:24am | 07/01/13

      Like a paragraph straight out of Lindsay Tanners book, that portrays a Gillard Government driven by polls, clueless and pointless, except in the determination to get Julia Gillard re-elected at whatever cost. We read in The Australian that the vacuous narcissistic Gillard government spent a record $35 million of our taxes on market research last year, trying to understand how it could manipulate Our thinking on the carbon tax, broadband, smoking and private health insurance.
      The Australian reported an excessive orgy of opinion polling, focus groups and customer surveys, which over 4 years added up to $126million dollars of our taxes.

      This startling information adds to the concern that was raised when we found out the Gillard Government had a 1600 strong army of Spin Doctors at a cost of $150 million per year of our taxes, to mould your thinking towards their way.

      $126 million + ($150 million x 4)=
      Scary waste of our tax dollars on the survival of a fractious political party, that surely we’ve all had enough of by now. How can a political party justify using taxes collected for Australia, to advance their political party aspirations? Is that Right in your book?

      Is using the resources of the Australian nation not an unfair advantage over an opposition party, which can only rely on donations to fund its message?

      Is it getting a little Orwellian around here?

      We’ll never know the truth of it under a Government they lead.

    • SimpleSimon says:

      10:16am | 07/01/13

      *facepalm* really? This again? Haven’t we gone over several times how this “$150m” figure is the sum of all of the communications sections of all of the Government departments, and how it’s an important role regardless of who is in power? And complaining about a Government researching the opinions and values of its constituents?! How totally Orwellian!!

    • Tim says:

      10:23am | 07/01/13

      Dear God Punch,
      How did Erick get banned when cut and paste PJ gets this stuff through daily?

      Oh and PJ,
      Funny that last week you were saying that you couldn’t post links to your cliams (lies)?

    • Meh says:

      10:52am | 07/01/13



    • Economist says:

      11:19am | 07/01/13

      I suggest you look at the charts again and the comparison with the Howard government particularly the advertising expenditure which is different to program and policy research. 

      A lot of the focus group and survey research is not market research or polling, it’s about understanding how policies should be implemented, it’s post implementation reviews (evaluations reports) it’s conducted by government agencies to improve policy and programs. Could part of the increase be explained it be the fact that government agencies have canned their own internal evaluation areas, public service cuts, and these reports are outsourced to the private sector? Think about it.

    • James1 says:

      01:07pm | 07/01/13

      “Could part of the increase be explained it be the fact that government agencies have canned their own internal evaluation areas, public service cuts, and these reports are outsourced to the private sector?”

      Partly, yes.  Add to that the sprawling nature of modern communications, and the massive increase in the methods used for communicating policy at every stage, including exposure drafts of legislation, public consultation and the like, and you have your answer.  The articles are the result of a lazy journalist reading a few departmental annual reports, finding out something he/she didn’t know before, assuming that everyone else was similarly poorly informed, and finding an editor willing to run with it. 

      I remember reading pretty much the same thing when journalists likewise discovered that the Howard government was spending money communicating its reforms to workplace relations. It certainly sheds no light on anything of substance.

    • TheRealDave says:

      01:32pm | 07/01/13

      Ahh a new year, back at work and the ever reliable PJ with the exact same tired old LNP crap!

      Love it smile

    • TheRealDave says:

      01:33pm | 07/01/13

      Ahh a new year, back at work and the ever reliable PJ with the exact same tired old LNP crap!

      Love it smile

    • Mouse says:

      02:48pm | 07/01/13

      Hey guys, let PJ alone! At least he/she doesn’t call people names and denigrate any other Punchers.  As ChrisL says, between PJ and a couple of others, the comments section is always filled! lol :o)

      ChrisL, they are now talking zombie banks! Bloody zombies are taking over the world!!!  :o/

    • Yuri says:

      03:10pm | 07/01/13

      @Chris L and TRD - if you think this is bad, check out the articles from the last week or so (particularly the weekend). There were some articles where the entire comments section consisted of alternating PJ copy-paste essays and ALP two-sentence AbbottAbbottAbbott rants. In my opinion, it would have been better for the Punch to shut down for a week than to post all that inanity.

    • Economist says:

      03:45pm | 07/01/13

      @Mouse. Personally the best comment PJ made today was on the Abbott piece after Actorel’s comment, he was responsive to the issue and addressed the assertion of the individual. So @PJ more of this please and less saying the same thing or cutting and pasting from your collection (folio) of stored Word documents that have no relationship to the issues being raised.

    • James1 says:

      04:16pm | 07/01/13

      This comic explains it far better than I can, Mouse.

    • Ben C says:

      11:00am | 07/01/13

      Is it just me, or has anyone else had problems getting onto the Punch’s homepage? When I click on the Punch banner at the top of the page, or manually type in the address, I get a page showing nothing but “Disallowed Key Characters”.

      Punch team, can you check this out?

    • vox says:

      11:51am | 07/01/13

      Ben, I’m far from being a computer whiz, (I write children’s books), but I found a way that works for me. After going internet mad, and having no success, I restored my settings to a date past, (say, Nov.30), and it worked! I figured that this message wasn’t a problem back then, so I’ll give it a go. Gave me a shock an’ all.
      I should explain to PJ and the gullible parrot, TimB, that the $32 mill that they somehow relate to, (no stats, just guff), is about $1.50 for each Aussie
      that this successful Goverments governs.
      Don’t talk garbage about “Swan promised this” or “Gillard promised that”, just look at our ratings from the internationals. Did Costello get Swan’s accolades from the world? Nup!
      Howard lied. Did you go all postal over that? He lied when he sent our kids to their deaths. What weapons of mass destruction? Abbott lied about the same issue. Did you go berserk about that/ which is of much more importance, and gravity than a bloody surplus/deficit strawman argument.
      When Super-Glue, (they call him that because his mouth has trouble answering a question and just clenches uncontrollably shut), tells us that anything he does manage to say will possibly be a lie unless one of his cronies gets it scripted, then we know what we have. A self-confessed liar!
      He only became Leader of the Ratbag Coalition by one vote. His own!
      What a hero!

    • SimpleSimon says:

      11:59am | 07/01/13

      It’s not just you, and Tory (I think) posted a brief thing about it a few days ago. Looks like a cookie thing, and clearing them is supposed to help, but my success with this method has been varied. IT guys are looking at it and they expect a resolution soon (unless that’s just my wishful thinking).. best guess is there is a buggy implementation of some back end PHP.

    • marley says:

      12:04pm | 07/01/13

      It’s been going on for a week - they even wrote a little plea for patience on the weekend.  The only thing that works is to remove ThePunch cookie from the browser - and that doesn’t work all the time.

    • Ben C says:

      03:02pm | 07/01/13

      @ vox

      Don’t have time to do a restore, since I’ve got a number of things going on this machine at once. Did consider it, but can’t afford the downtime.

      @ SimpleSimon and marley

      Haven’t been around for a couple of weeks, but I did clear my temporary Internet files and cookies, and it’s been intermittent. Will wait for the Punch team to work out what’s on their end.

    • Mouse says:

      03:03pm | 07/01/13

      BenC, I think that it has been a bug since 1st Jan.
      As with SS, I haven’t had much luck with deleting history and it seems to be very hit and miss. Sometimes I have problems getting into a particular post and not with others, that may change in a couple of hours, or not!  I find with posting comments the most annoying. Some times they go through, others I get the disallowed key page, so I now block and copy before submitting. 
      *sigh*  so much to do, so much to remember!  What’s a girl to do?? lol :o)

    • Janey says:

      02:53pm | 07/01/13

      I rather enjoyed waiting 30 minutes this morning to inform Telstra that it is illegal to invoice me:  “14 calls = $139”. Looks like another complaint to the telecommunications ombudsman and more compo from Telstra.  Keep it up losers, your crap service ends up paying me every time.

    • OverIt says:

      03:00pm | 07/01/13

      Why is it illegal to invoice you?

    • T says:

      02:58pm | 07/01/13

      I recently had a chat with my Father, who my Mother left when I was 3 years old, and moved us 7 hours away when I was 6.

      He told me after a bit of force (he would never and still doesn’t want to say anything bad about her to me), that the day our Mother took us away from him he lost a bit of himself that he would never get back. That he never got to be with us on special moments. That even after the death of his Brother, Mother and Father all within 5 years of each other had he ever been hurt so much. He has never recovered from it and had been depressed ever since. He couldn’t be there for us, even though he wanted to more than anything in the world because of what my Mother did to him. The result was his only children resenting and even hating him for not being in their lives. But what choice did he have? None, he had zero choice in the matter. My Mother could take us anywhere in Australia and even though they shared custody he could have no say in it. And nether could I, being a child.

      I think it’s about time we started looking after the men in our lives ladies, and I certainly pledged to both my Father and Boyfriend that I would invest more of my time with them to mend the broken relationship. I promised to my partner that I would never, ever hurt him the way my Mother did to my Father.

      I’m a young 24 year old woman and this year I have decided to make myself more aware of men’s issues and stand up for the gorgeous men in my life.

    • Phi says:

      02:59pm | 07/01/13

      WOW!!  The year is going fast.  7th of February already (according to the open thread date above).  Where did January go and did we win the one days?

    • Steve says:

      06:01pm | 07/01/13

      So Slipper, Gillards choice for the Speaker, has been summoned to appear before a court on serious criminal charges.

      The appalling judgement, at best, of this Prime Minister is again on full display.

      Her man is a running sore on this parliament. Her judgement is a joke. Her decisions are demonstrably poor.

      Not long to go now thank god.


Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more



Read all about it

Sign up to the free newsletter