User talk:Phanatical

Time to clear house!

FFP Pill and IUD

Panatacial, do you approve of the pill/iud would you be happy if your wife would use either? I say wife as a Christian who is not a hypocrite, you would be a virgin and not have pre marital sex--203.192.92.73 12:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

[ moved from user page - Alison ☺]

I wont comment on the contradicitons of your little boxes, but since you are member of FFP on the executive, you can supply with me with the names of all candidates and which are christian and which are atheist etc.

But I bet you wont because thats not somthing you will want to talk about.--Polygamistx4 14:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If I had that information, I wouldn't provide it. I don't like being judged on my religion (or lack of it), and nor do most other people. Phanatical 04:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL the partys not christian, but I dont know how many are christian. Hmm very convincing argument. You should be a lawyer, I know all the evidence proves he did it, but hes inoccent, very convincing

So whats the percentage of FFP candidates at this election, who are christian and also what percenatge are AOG?--Polygamist times 4 10:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Also you have not mentioned where the fFP are going to get the missing billions from cuttign petrol excise by 10c a litre! Is there even an answer on the web page? I bet there is not one.--Polygamist times 4 10:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, by claiming that mentioning candidates religious background is "propaganda", he reveals the dishonesty inherent in the "secular party" claim. It is a fact that many Greens members and candidates are Christians (admittedly I know of none who are from AoG), as well as members of other religions and no-one makes an issue of this. There is a strand of Christian theology which stresses the importance of protecting God's creation (as opposed to emphasising man's domination of it), and this is also not an issue as the Greens' political ideology is obviously secular. The reality is that FF considers being labeled as a Christian party a big electoral turnoff - and is prepared to be dishonest about its true ideology in pursuit of political power. The problem with that is that voters are generally pretty smart about such things. Chrismaltby 13:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Our agenda is family values - the same family values religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam and countless others promote, the same family values the Chinese, Polish, Spanish, Lebanese and countless others have built their societies upon. If you want a Christian agenda, take a look at the Christian Democrats. If you want an extremist agenda, look at your own party. But if you want a party that will speak for the interests of Australian families, put Family First.

Phanatical 08:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Family Values" eh? Who doesn't support families - FF doesn't support certain types of families apparently on the basis of what some tribal semitic tribes wrote on scrolls a few thousand years ago. Hardly scientific, and not necessarily applicable to life today. Claims to some sort of higher authority for the position must surely invalidate the secular claim. The nuclear family idealised by the "family values" crowd is a relatively modern invention - you can't claim it has some special place for all cultural backgrounds at all times without drifting close to bigotry and racism. Phanatical, your level of debate is pure sloganeering - Greens are "extremist", FF support "family values" etc. As I said elsewhere, I feel it's important here to be honest about ones political affiliations and I give you full credit for being so about your executive role with FF. But it would be wrong to assume that a political affiliation is a stereotype and that you can refute a logical argument with affiliation based ad-hominem. Chrismaltby 11:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. And what about the petrol excise cut? How will postponing the transition to a non-fossil fuel economy and risking the destruction of the Earth's climate help "families"? Chrismaltby 11:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Greens don't support families. Family First's single goal is to make Australia the best place in the world to raise a family, and our policies reflect that. Making it harder for economically disadvantaged families to buy groceries and to get pretty much anywhere is not family friendly. It's all well and good to talk about public transport and hybrid cars and all those sort of luxuries from electorates where the "poverty line" is an academic conceit, but for the families in my electorate those issues take a distant back seat to their inability to pay their electricity, water, phone, bank fees, groceries and petrol.

That is not to say we don't care about the environment. Family First are committed to making Australia the best place in the world to raise our children - and that includes making our air and water cleaner. In my childhood I spent a lot of time in the Children's Hospital suffering skin and respiratory conditions that were exacerbated by the pollutants in the air. That is why Family First NSW is committed to pushing for targets on emissions standards. Andrew Markwell has pushed for real action on climate change, including increased Government support and public awareness of a "carbon neutral" scheme. Research has shown that planting trees (natives, of course) can negate car emissions - for only $50 a year, a family could become carbon neutral. It's environmentally friendly and it raises awareness of the issues without forcing it down people's throats.

Finally, if you want to bring this back to values, making drugs easier to access and redefining the nature of "family" to completely invalidate the idea that a child deserves both a mother and a father are NOT family friendly policies. The Greens do not support families. The Greens destroy them. Phanatical 10:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Lots of angry rhetoric, not much argument. But here's a good one - "The Greens destroy [families]". I'm sure you can provide chapter and verse to back up this rash assertion. Perhaps you could compare and contrast with the family building efforts of Christian cults like the Exclusive Brethren. Chrismaltby 13:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

At least I am making an argument. That's because Family First is all about solutions for Australian families, and the Greens are full of anger and hyperbole. As for the Exclusive Brethren, I don't claim to be an expert about them. All I know is what I've read in the media, which hardly qualifies me to be an authority on the issue.Phanatical 14:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Latest stuff

I've no idea how deep all this latest stuff goes, but I hope you're keeping well. Note I am contactable by email (see my User page), if you wish to use that. Peter Ballard 06:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

FFP issues

I have heard some news recently of your position in the Family First Party. Do you have plans to continue with state politics for now, or are you going to move into a different career? 220.101.34.84 09:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Faluntorture.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Faluntorture.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery