HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
Subject: Re: Choosing the Prime Minister and the Ministry
Reply-To: yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:29:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.212634.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.015204.25364@cs.su.oz.au>, yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga) writes:
>...
>> My understanding of the ruling is:
>> Temby said that their actions did not break any laws,
>
>Wrong, see below.
>
>> that they did not act in a way contrary to the current
>> accepted behaviour he also said that they themselves
>> did not believe that they were breaking laws,
>> he also said that no notional jury would
>> find against them. 
>On a charge under the NSW Criminal code of corruption.
>
>
>>                      Then in an unexplained leap of logic, found them
>> to have acted corruptly on the basis of partial conduct.

He was found to be wrong at law because Temby found in the report
that they did not believe they were acting wrongly, thus an absence of malice.
You need malice to be found to be acting corruptly. I laughed when
Temby, showing waht a bozo he is, during his interview after the SC verdict,
said, I realize that those that control him may believe that he has
not performed well, but there was no malice in it ... 

>He went on to say that though the conduct was not what 'the average person'
>would call corrupt, that it amounted to corrupt or partial behaviour *in the
>terms of the ICAC act*.

Partial maybe, but the use of the term corrupt was found by the SC to
be mistaken.

>
>The big worry is that the NSWSC seems to have cleared the way for ministers
>to favor who and how they like, short of clear breach of criminal law.

Last I knew, a minister is allowed to appoint anyone he/she chooses.
Gosh it is a worry that politicians are only allowed to conduct themselves
within the confines of the law, shit I am scared. Do you think this
applies to the rest of us? Gosh maybe it does.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Choosing the Prime Minister and the Ministry
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:26:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.015204.25364@cs.su.oz.au>, yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga) writes:
...
> My understanding of the ruling is:
> Temby said that their actions did not break any laws,

Wrong, see below.

> that they did not act in a way contrary to the current
> accepted behaviour he also said that they themselves
> did not believe that they were breaking laws,
> he also said that no notional jury would
> find against them. 
On a charge under the NSW Criminal code of corruption.


>                      Then in an unexplained leap of logic, found them
> to have acted corruptly on the basis of partial conduct.

He went on to say that though the conduct was not what 'the average person'
would call corrupt, that it amounted to corrupt or partial behaviour *in the
terms of the ICAC act*.

The big worry is that the NSWSC seems to have cleared the way for ministers
to favor who and how they like, short of clear breach of criminal law.

~Paul

Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: c9106225@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Matt McLeod)
Subject: Re: Work permits for Kiwis...
Organization: Dept of Management, Uni of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 08:01:09 GMT

In article <mVXmqB2w164w@Moneybin.equinox.gen.nz>, scrooge@Moneybin.equinox.gen.nz (Glenn Murphy) writes:
>> I am in favour of closer ties with NZ, so I think work permits for Kiwis
>> is not a very good idea (provided that Kiwis will not object to a merger 
>> of NZ and Australia and NZ becoming another state/territory of Aust).
>> :-)
> 
> I would actually be in favour of this as I think NZ is really too small to 
> remain self sufficient in the world as it is shaping up. Economies of scale 
> and all that...
> But of course Keating and his mob would have to get the economy right befor 
> e it could be looked on seriously...
> 
> Glenn.

The biggest problem (as I see it) is that NZers are *too* similar to
Australians.  That is, they won't want to give up their independance.  Of
coruse, we could split NZ into 7 states and try then... :-)

Matt


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Matt McLeod                                                                  |
| Programmer, Writer and General Computing Dogsbody                            |
| c9106225@brolga.newcastle.edu.au                                             |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                               Share and Enjoy!                               |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Choosing the Prime Minister and the Ministry
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:17:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.030753.21162@mel.dit.csiro.au>, ajw@squid.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Andrew Waugh) writes:
...
> The powers of the various players involved -- the Lower House, the
> Upper House, and the Governer (General) --  are ambiguous. In '75,
> for example, if Parliament had not been prorogued after Kerr had
> installed Fraser as Prime Minister, the ALP could have passed a
> motion of no confidence in Fraser on the floor of the house. Kerr
> would then have been forced to choose a new leader of the Lower House.
> Tactically, the ALP played November 75 very badly.
> 

True, but the fatal mistake was to allow the passage of Supply through
the Senate, so Kerr's cur could assure the GG of supply. The house was
porogued to PREVENT a motion of [no]confidence in the reps.

As to the legal power, it is 100% in the hands of the GG. No ifs buts
or parlimentry bullshit can force it otherwise. The *ONLY* restriction
on the power of the GG, is that [s]he MUST refer bills that affect the rights
of the queen to the queen. Kerr signed inti\o law a bill that had not even
been voted on, let alone passed. If the GG revoked PKs PMship, and apointed
Max gillies as a MP by special act he could then commision him PM. Game set
and match.

All the bellowing of her majesties cattle isn't worth flip, until it reaches
rebelion stage. Be they upright members or not.

Paul

Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: The big currency lie
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:50:58 GMT

In article <6312@otc.otca.oz>, brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:
> Am I the only person who absolutely *cringes* each time the 5 second news
> grab on TV relates the value of A$1 to US$?
> 

No, I gave up TV a year or so ago. I did realy cringe when testerday I saw that 
the Swiss Franc, once 4.87 to the dollar is now worth MORE that the AUD.

The bank ov course advised that SF would be a bad long term investment...

~Paul
From: jak@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr J Grimm)
Subject: Re: GST - Bloody Stupid
Organization: Monash University, Australia.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:42:21 GMT

From article <996200269@peg.pegasus.oz.au>, by cwarren@peg.pegasus.oz.au:
>            
>            Liberal GST, a generally stupid tax, is showing signs of
>             cracking up.  Charities, Unions, and now even capitalists
>             are fearful of its ramifications should it be
>             implemented.
   etc. etc. etc

Actually, I thought that this was a good monologue. I am currently in
Canada, and it appears that the Canadians are coping with the GST. I don't
know how they are handling the details. They have a sort of neat idea here,
where you can claim back the GST (and the PST) if you are taking the taxed
items out of the country within sixty days of purchase. You send all of
your original receipts with a claim form to a Canadian tax office and they
mail a cheque out to you. Their GST is actually 7% and Ontario charges a
Provincial Surcharge (?) Tax (PST) of 8%, bringing the total additional at
the cash register to 15%. I think that it is possible to claim the PST back
from the state tax office if you leave the state.

Does Hewson and his cronies plan anything like this ? GST seems like a
really good way of promoting employment for accountants at the expense of
every other person.
-- 
                               _--_|\
Jak Grimm                     /      \             jak@monu1.cc.monash.edu.cc
NorTel Australia              \_.--.*/             (Running on borrowed time)
                                    v 
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()
Subject: Re: CHRIST WAS JUST A MAN !!!!
Keywords: CHRIST
Organization: school of Mathematics UNSW
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 07:19:19 GMT


markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU () writes:

>The book presnts what is essentially mainstream New Testament scholarship.

>A few of the conclusions are
>5) The two epistles of Peter could not have been written by the apostle Peter
>and whoever wrote the letters to Timothy and Titus was not the person who
>wrote the letters to the Romans, Galatians and Corinthians (indisputably
>St Paul)
Ricko replies:

>>Did you see the interesting article in comp.religion.christian
>>about the discovery of fragments of (I?) Timothy from the first
>>century. According to the article, it turns mainstream
>>New Testament scholarship on its head.

>>I don't want to argue about the value of such speculative
>>scholarship, it is not my area at all. But its not substantial
>>enough to surplant following Christ according to sacred tradition.

I would be interested to see how the discovery could turn mainstream NT
scholarship on its head. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about
what NT scholarship actually does. Not all of it is hostile to traditional
christianity. Some of it is actually supportive. The real problem that 
NT scholarship has raised is the question " Just how much christian doctrine
is actually supported by the texts and the historical evidence"? I find
most interest in seeing just how close Jesus was to traditional Judaism.
Jewish NT scholars have been very forceful in emphasisng the jewishness of
Jesus.  I read the introduction to a book on Jesus and Judaism which pointed
out that all of Jesus teachings can be traced to , often in the exact words,
teachings by other prominent Jewish figures such as Hillel. (Hillel was
once asked to summarise the Torah while standing on one leg. He said" Do nothing to others which is hateful to you.......and if your neighbour has no shirt
then give him yours. That is the whole Torah,the rest is commentary. Go and
learn"). Whether it is  true that Jesus said nothing "original" is 
not really the point. The real significance of NT scholarship is to gain a
deeper understanding of the historical and social context of Jesus and 
view the text in that light. Now perhaps it is the case that sacred 
tradition is actually wrong about a few things. NT scholarship can help us
discover this. An example: Sacred tradition asserts that Mathew was the first
gospel written, hence its position in most bibles. Yet the great majority of
NT scholars have accepted for a century that, at least in the form we have
them, Mark's gospel must have been written first. A fact which has profound 
implications for questions of authorship and authenticity.

Mark C. Who is still sceptical.
 


-ricko


Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Subject: Re: CHRIST WAS JUST A MAN !!!!
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 10:46:15 GMT

markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU () writes:

>And every christian should recognise " Love thy neighbour as thyself
>as being from Leviticus 19:18.

>A Jewish friend of mine tells me that there has been quite a bit of rabbinical
>speculation on why Hillel's famous quotation is in the negative.  Apparently 
>there is some kind of agrrement on why he spoke in the negative in this 
>instant. I'll find out if anybody is interested. My original point remains
>that Judaism was and is as much a religion about positive love rather than
>just following laws as is christianity.

Good one. Its hard to stereotype the Judaism of the B.V. Mary, St Joseph,
St John the Baptist, St Anna the prophetess, St Elizabeth, the shepherds,
St Tom Cobbley and all the faithful mentioned in the early parts of the
Gospels as just one of following laws. 

In fact, there must have been many who were awaiting the consolation of
Israel, and who were near the Kingdom, awaiting the fullness of time. 

-ricko
From: horne@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Craig A. Horne)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Born again religion.
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:29:18 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia


I would like to find out about what the "born again" Christians believe,
specifically the charismatic Pentecostal stream.
Do the different gatherings/fellowships all form one church, or do they remain
separate, with each believing their own interpretation?
The reason I ask is because if I find out about charismatic Pentecostals,
will I then know everything about ALL of them?
Could someone recommend a book that contains a listing of the things
they believe, and the rules/laws they live their lives by (important),
or alternatively post the listing to this newsgroup?

Thanks in advance.

Craig.
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Subject: Re: Transubstantiation
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:13:50 GMT

PAUL NG (ripng@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote:
> 	I'm not so sure I understand the current controversy about 
> Aristotelian principles, to me it seems to be quite sensible to believe 
> that a thing can be on the surface one thing and have behind it, so to 
> speak, quite another thing - I can immediately think of the prima facie 
> case and the substantive case, or the dichotomy between form and substance, 

A friend mentioned to me yesterday that he read in the Catholic Canon Law
(does that sound right?) that anyone who doesn't believe that the bread and
wine _actually_ change physically is cursed (or some equivalent word).  That
doesn't seem to fit in with this dual property stuff.  It seems to be talking
about changing altogether.  His wife is a teacher who did her training in
a Catholic teacher's college and she has some info I'll get hold of which may
be interesting.

regards,
    Callum
-- 
Callum Gibson                           callum@bain3.bain.oz.au
Eyeball Temporary Analyst/Programmer    BH : +61 2 258 1620
Fixed Income Division                   Fax: +61 2 258 1128
Bain & CO, Sydney, Australia.           AH : :-)
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Subject: Re: Transubstantiation, Catholic ritual, Creation/Evolution, etc.
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 08:46:54 GMT

jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie) writes:

>Look at the words of institution in Luke 22:19, "This is my body given
>for you; do this in remembrance of me."  Which is the clear part?  Do
>you want to say that the bread was his body, or that he intended it as
>a symbol to help in remembering him?  I would say the latter, whereas
>the Catholic position is the former.  

I think the Catholic position is that both are true. But a sacrament is
a special kind of symbol: it imparts grace to the faithful. So it is his
body, AND it is done in rememberance of him. Why do we have to make a choice?

So the Mass is commemoration meal as well as a participation in Jesus' 
once-for-all sacrifice on Calvary, unbloody under the guise of bread and wine.

-ricko

P.S. (for John) Hi! Hope you're well.
 Wycliff, incidentally, argued against transsubstantiation 
because he thought a thing could only have the accidents proper to 
its substance, but then, you wonder what the difference between substance 
and accidents in that school of thought could be. It was his teaching of 
that kind of unorthodoxy that caused him to be deemed suspect. 

Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Subject: Re: Scepticism: a mandatory reply
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 10:11:46 GMT

gar@cltr.uq.oz.au (Greg Restall) writes:

>markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU () writes:

>*Scepticism is a powerful aid in sorting sense from nonsense. (I can almost
>*feel a response from Greg coming).

>Hmmm..  Scepticism is a powerful aid to that end.  I agree
>entirely.  Of course, you ought to be sceptical about 
>scepticism too.  It's a useful tool for certain ends, but
>it's not a sensible end in itself.

And there is a difference between adopting speculative doubt and
real doubt as a method, don't you think?

-ricko
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Subject: Re: CHRIST WAS JUST A MAN !!!!
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:07:02 GMT

markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU wrote:
> is actually supported by the texts and the historical evidence"? I find
> most interest in seeing just how close Jesus was to traditional Judaism.
> Jewish NT scholars have been very forceful in emphasisng the jewishness of
> Jesus.  I read the introduction to a book on Jesus and Judaism which pointed

Does this really surprise you?  Jesus was a Jew, and he said himself that
he came to fulfill the Law.  He obeyed God's (jewish) Law perfectly.  That
was the only way his sacrificial death could have any meaning.  Also, if
you consider that he was God, it would be pretty strange if he didn't
follow his own laws.

> out that all of Jesus teachings can be traced to , often in the exact words,
> teachings by other prominent Jewish figures such as Hillel. (Hillel was
> once asked to summarise the Torah while standing on one leg. He said" Do nothing to others which is hateful to you.......and if your neighbour has no shirt
> then give him yours. That is the whole Torah,the rest is commentary. Go and

Something interesting we found in our Sermon on the Mount bible studies was
that (as you mention above) the Torah says basically "Don't do anything to
others that you wouldn't like" - it's a negative statement.  However, when
Jesus summarises God's law he says, "Do to others as you'd have them do to you"
which is a positive, active statement.  Jesus was for positive active love,
not negative rule following.

regards,
    Callum
-- 
Callum Gibson                           callum@bain3.bain.oz.au
Eyeball Temporary Analyst/Programmer    BH : +61 2 258 1620
Fixed Income Division                   Fax: +61 2 258 1128
Bain & CO, Sydney, Australia.           AH : :-)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: chrisa@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (C. G. Albone)
Subject: The Complete Gospels
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 08:52:43 GMT

Hello all,
	In the process of doing research for one of my courses,
I found a reference to a book "The Complete Gospels", which is a
collection of christian (and gnostic, I would imagine) non-canonical
texts. Has anyone got any information as to where it could be 
obtained in Australia.

thanx
chris.
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: chrisa@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (C. G. Albone)
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 10:21:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.022156.17595@bain3.bain.oz.au> callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson) writes:
>C. G. Albone (chrisa@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU) wrote:
>> The only possible reference in Genisis that i can find that says what you
>> think you remember is Gen 2:5, but this will do you no good. It is
>> specifically in the context of the second creation narrative. Specifically,
>> it is before (preexistant (uncreated?????)) earth was given any features.
>
>It doesn't seem like that when I read it.  It is just describing how it
>was before the plants and man were created - nothing about the earth itself
>(unless you mean plants by "features").
I have now checked 3 different translations.. It is specifically in the context
of a second creation narrative, and while the little headings in the various
translations are additions by the translators, all of the translations flag the
2:4ff as the second creation account. By features I did mean plants as much as
anything else.
>
>> >That is why in Heb 11, it is said that Noah set about to build a ship
>> >out of believing God.  It certainly takes faith then because floods
>> >to him, were unheard of.
>> Gen 2:6 goes on to say "but streams came up from the earth and watered
>> the whole surface of the ground..." so, if what you were saying is
>> correct, it should have taken no faith at all for Noah to build a boat,
>> indeed it would have been out of necessity.
>
>Mine says a "mist" came up and watered all the earth.  Noah was hardly likely
>to build a boat because of a fog or dew.
Well, again resorting to 3 different translations i found that "stream" or
"streams" was used. Of course we are going to beat our heads against this unless
someone cares to tell us what the "original" hebrew says. 
>
>> various other creation myths from Babylon and the like? And as Noah has been 
>> brought into the discussion, the lots of parallels between the biblical
>> flood narrative and the _older_ Canaanite & Assyrian flood myths? IMHO, these
>> raise interesting questions as to how one should approach Genisis (and indeed
>> the whole of the Old Testament). 
>
>How do we know that the Canaanite and Assyrians are older?  Do you mean written
>down versions are older or what?
Not only are they written down earlier, but they came into being before we can 
find any record of there being a people Israel.
>
---
Chris.


Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:21:56 GMT

C. G. Albone (chrisa@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU) wrote:
> >Genesis that prior to the flood, the earth's atmosphere was different
> >and rain was something unheard of.  It could be that rainbows are non-
> >existent prior to the flood because of this different scheme of things.
> The only possible reference in Genisis that i can find that says what you
> think you remember is Gen 2:5, but this will do you no good. It is
> specifically in the context of the second creation narrative. Specifically,
> it is before (preexistant (uncreated?????)) earth was given any features.

It doesn't seem like that when I read it.  It is just describing how it
was before the plants and man were created - nothing about the earth itself
(unless you mean plants by "features").

> >That is why in Heb 11, it is said that Noah set about to build a ship
> >out of believing God.  It certainly takes faith then because floods
> >to him, were unheard of.
> Gen 2:6 goes on to say "but streams came up from the earth and watered
> the whole surface of the ground..." so, if what you were saying is
> correct, it should have taken no faith at all for Noah to build a boat,
> indeed it would have been out of necessity.

Mine says a "mist" came up and watered all the earth.  Noah was hardly likely
to build a boat because of a fog or dew.

> various other creation myths from Babylon and the like? And as Noah has been 
> brought into the discussion, the lots of parallels between the biblical
> flood narrative and the _older_ Canaanite & Assyrian flood myths? IMHO, these
> raise interesting questions as to how one should approach Genisis (and indeed
> the whole of the Old Testament). 

How do we know that the Canaanite and Assyrians are older?  Do you mean written
down versions are older or what?

regards,
    Callum

-- 
Callum Gibson                           callum@bain3.bain.oz.au
Eyeball Temporary Analyst/Programmer    BH : +61 2 258 1620
Fixed Income Division                   Fax: +61 2 258 1128
Bain & CO, Sydney, Australia.           AH : :-)
Newsgroups: aus.religion