I have a question about the Anti-NSCP websites

[Shai Gar]

I have a question regarding the website: http://highcourtchallenge.com/
It has a quote on the page that reads: This sum was to represent almost one third of Labor's entire education budget of $704m.

I looked online for clarification because the statement had no references. (I like proof, not assertions) I could not find any justifications for that number, but I did go to the Australian Education Union (http://www.aeufederal.org.au/) and I found the number that the Australian Federal Government is spending on government schools.

$7,610,000,000 is the actual number spent on government schools.
$32,966,000,000 is Labours entire education budget.

http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/2010/FBR2010.pdf
http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/overview/html/overview_37.htm

I asked on the facebook page of the High Court Challenge to the Constitutionality of the NSCP (http://www.facebook.com/pages/High-Court-Challenge-to-the-constitutional-legality-of-the-NSCP/167246823302144) and posted a discussion questioning this, and a link to the discussion on their wall.

The discussion was deleted, and the link removed. I created a blog post and was personally attacked on there. I asked on twitter for clarification and was then repeatedly insulted by @ChrysStevenson who kept asserting that she had provided proof, yet it was only a link to a News Media Story (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/two-parties-sure-one-plus-one-makes-three/story-e6frgd0x-1225907973915). Going to that link you can see the number $704, but then you can also see that it's only an opinion, and not backed by referenced evidence.

Then a friend who has donated towards the lawsuit asked a simple question to clarify that same question on their page and it was deleted.

What the HELL is going on here?

[Goldenmane]

Heh.

The usual shenanigans.

[Shai Gar]

I have a question regarding the website: http://highcourtchallenge.com/
It has a quote on the page that reads: This sum was to represent almost one third of Labor's entire education budget of $704m.

I looked online for clarification because the statement had no references. (I like proof, not assertions) I could not find any justifications for that number, but I did go to the Australian Education Union (http://www.aeufederal.org.au/) and I found the number that the Australian Federal Government is spending on government schools.

$7,610,000,000 is the actual number spent on government schools.
$32,966,000,000 is Labours entire education budget.

http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/2010/FBR2010.pdf
http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/overview/html/overview_37.htm

I asked on the facebook page of the High Court Challenge to the Constitutionality of the NSCP (http://www.facebook.com/pages/High-Court-Challenge-to-the-constitutional-legality-of-the-NSCP/167246823302144) and posted a discussion questioning this, and a link to the discussion on their wall.

The discussion was deleted, and the link removed. I created a blog post and was personally attacked on there. I asked on twitter for clarification and was then repeatedly insulted by @ChrysStevenson who kept asserting that she had provided proof, yet it was only a link to a News Media Story (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/two-parties-sure-one-plus-one-makes-three/story-e6frgd0x-1225907973915). Going to that link you can see the number $704, but then you can also see that it's only an opinion, and not backed by referenced evidence.

Then a friend who has donated towards the lawsuit asked a simple question to clarify that same question on their page and it was deleted.

Do you guys who are running these sites actually believe that our argument is so weak that you need to include any lies at all? The truth benefits us much better. The budget isn't even necessary to mention in this lawsuit. It's unconstitutional and blatantly so. So, why the lies?

And they are lies. Yesterday it was only a misunderstanding and misprint, but now that it's been unearthed and repeatedly shown to them without correction, it's a lie and a cover up.

[Shai Gar]

Lying is usual shenanigans?

[davo]

Your research looks accurate Shai Gar.

[Goldenmane]

Do you guys who are running these sites actually believe that our argument is so weak that you need to include any lies at all?

Two things:

1) You already posted about this in another fucking thread. Only need to do it once.

2) The above quoted bit is completely inappropriate, since the AFA (as far as I'm aware) and specifically the people running this board have sweet monkey-fuck to do with the High Court case - so I'd suggest getting your fucking ducks in a row before you start slinging around poorly targeted bullshit accusations.

[Shai Gar]

I am aware of that. I had it checked.

I'm quite curious, and my mate who gave them money is a little miffed that he's no longer even allowed to post on their facebook wall after questioning them.

[Shai Gar]

The other one.

[Shai Gar]

Two things:

1) You already posted about this in another fucking thread. Only need to do it once.

2) The above quoted bit is completely inappropriate, since the AFA (as far as I'm aware) and specifically the people running this board have sweet monkey-fuck to do with the High Court case - so I'd suggest getting your fucking ducks in a row before you start slinging around poorly targeted bullshit accusations.

Before insulting me, ask if I was referring to you. I specifically said "you guys who are running these sites". I did not say that the moderators or administrative staff were running them. You should take a few breathes, calm down and think about it.

The above quoted bit was not inappropriate because I could be reasonably certain that several of the culprits are here. This is because several members have made websites for that cause. It's not unreasonable to make the assumption that they do not also come here.

As for the only need to make it once, that was made apparent in a post previous to yours.

[Shai Gar]

Ah, thread merge. That was confusing for a moment.

[Goldenmane]

Lying is usual shenanigans?

Given certain... history.

[Goldenmane]

Before insulting me,

I didn't insult you, not even a little bit.


As for the only need to make it once, that was made apparent in a post previous to yours.

A post which was made after I began to respond, but before I hit "Submit Reply". Protes types faster than me.

[davo]

Nope the people that made those websites don't come here.

[Shai Gar]

Given certain... history.
Oh?

Shai Gar, this is like losing your car keys a hundred metres down the street but looking up on the corner "because the streetlights are brighter here".
Yeah, this reference makes no sense to me.

Those other forum admins and facebook-page-owners have the right to do whatever they did, and it's their business, not ours, especially when we only have your side of it.
They have the right to lie and take money for their lies?

As far as I can see, it's the only lie there. I simply want the inaccuracy corrected.

If I thought it was any official part of this forum I would have made a private complaint. As it is, I'm asking a question, and informing the public.

[Shai Gar]

I wonder what happened to my questions.

[Shai Gar]

I did after posting.

How was it not on topic to the school chaplaincy thread?

Especially considering there was a link in this thread for the website highcourtchallenge.com.au

[Melmac]

I asked them on their FB wall (http://www.facebook.com/pages/High-Court-Challenge-to-the-constitutional-legality-of-the-NSCP/167246823302144) where they got the $704 million dollar figure from as it doesn't sound like enough for an education budget. My post was not responded to, it was deleted and I was banned. They are trying to get chaplains out of schools, fair enough. But they are doing it using lies and to me the truth matters more than winning an argument. I regret giving them money for their court case.

So I think that a lot of people who would to donate to the campaign would post and/or lurk here. You may want to consider this information before you donate.

[davo]

I think you should consider that the reaction may not have anything to do with the campaign, but certain people involved and their reaction to you folk raising this issue.

So before you start as you seem to have on a mission in regard disparaging the whole effort based on some of the figures certain people in it have promoted, and doing it here on the AFA forum where it achieves nothing, I would try and talk to others that are not necessarily involved with the FB wall about the issue of incorrect information rather than take it out on the whole campaign based on those peoples reactions.

Have you made any attempt to contact admin@highcourtchallenge.com at all with the issue? Or is making a public spectacle over wording on one line taken from a major newspaper going to be your reasoning for promoting people do not donate to the campaign?

[Shai Gar]

I'm all for donating to this campaign. Secularism needs to be achieved. However the times I've mentioned it I've only been attacked personally for it. Everything about the inaccuracy has been denied.

I'm simply flabbergasted that their responses have only been to insult and delete everything involved.

I'll certainly try the email thing, but given the responses I've had thus far, I didn't think it worth it.

[davo]

I'll certainly try the email thing, but given the responses I've had thus far, I didn't think it worth it.

It's worth it, as said by the wise GM, the usual shenanigans, it's worth trying to speak to others than you have been that won't take criticism as a personal slight.

that is all ;)

[Shai Gar]

Done. Hopefully it's read in the way it's intended and not taken as a personal slight.

[Goldenmane]

Just to be as clear as possible:

If the tale as told re: lies, damned lies, and deletions is reflective of what is going on, then I can fully understand the reaction (incredulity) displayed by Shai et al. I, too, am fairly seriously opposed to the idea of using bullshit as a tool in something like this. If the figure is not able to be substantiated, then that is an issue that needs to be addressed - as far as I'm concerned, the entire fucking point is that integrity is lacking in the NSCP fiasco, and therefore integrity needs to not only, like justice, be done but also be seen to be done. So I have no issue or disagreement on that.

However: It has been gone about in entirely the wrong way, and that I do take issue with. For one thing, no apparent effort was made to ascertain whether those responsible for the High Court challenge actually come and post here - they don't, as far as I'm aware - and certainly it is the case that none of those responsible for the facebook page or other sites associated with it have any direct affiliation with the AFA Forums or the running of such. The wording of the original post was, to be blunt, shit. It addressed people who aren't here, and demonstrated an assumption that the AFA or at least the AFA Forums were, in fact, affiliated with the people being complained about. At no point in the OP was it made clear that such assumptions were not being made, and it is the reasonable conclusion to draw, in light of a complete lack of anything like, "If any of the people responsible for this shit post here, I'd like to ask a question".

Further to that, there's the accusation of me insulting someone when I clearly didn't, but I'll let that stand simply as a reinforcement of "displays of ignorance". This entire thread exists purely as a result of displays of ignorance and lack of attention to detail... and reliance upon assumption.

Short version: looks like a question or two need to be asked, but it helps if you ask it in the right place and in the right way. In this case, it was neither.

[Melmac]

@Melmac: Can you give substantial details of the allegations?

As I mentioned my wall post was deleted, but you can easily replicate what I did. Just post a similar question on their wall and see what response you get.

[Shai Gar]

Goldenmane, thank you for suggesting that I email Ron Williams.

I did that and I got back another, but on mildly, abusive response.


Subject: Inaccuracies on your website.

“This sum was to represent almost one third of Labor’s entire education budget of $704m”

This sentence is obviously wrong and doesn't stand up to even the mildest of scrutinies. Could you please delete it as it adds nothing to the campaign which is after all based on the unconstitutionality of a law rather than amount of money spent.

Since it was obviously bad maths, I went to the Australian Education Union (http://www.aeufederal.org.au/) and got their data. The PDF was provided in the original post, but will be provided here as well (http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/2010/FBR2010.pdf).

Their data was precisly the same as the Australian Government Budget 2010-11 (http://www.budget.gov.au/) website, and the entire governmental school budget for the single year is…

$7,610,000,000 (Seven Billion, Six hundred and ten MILLION DOLLARS. As an estimate.
704m is 0.92% of what the government schools get.


I tried bringing this to the attention of your facebook page, but it was summarily deleted and I was insulted repeatedly for having done so.
All I'm after is for the inaccuracy to be corrected so that when we win this, (yourself and all of us who donated), we can feel proud that we didn't need to lie like the christians seem to feel like they have to.

Cheers.

--
Richard Whereat
ENTP - +61.434992320

Hi Shai,

My my Shai, you have justly earned yourself an unsavoury reputation across cyberspace and beyond, haven’t you?

But I digress.

I have mildly modified the sentence in question lest any perceived ambiguity find its way to the National Enquirer. Fortunately, by the time they got hold of it, the headline would read: “QUEENSLAND FATHER OF SIX ABDUCTED BY ALIEN CHAPLAINS”.

Also, could you please supply the method by which you and Melmac [named changed by me to protect his anonymity online if he prefers that.] ‘donated’ to my trust account? Maybe you could also provide the dates and monetary amounts as well. You see Shai, I maintain a brutally accurate database of the generous citizens who have assisted me so that I might regularly keep them informed about the progress of my case. You will understand that I would be most disappointed had I missed someone. Just a little old deposit receipt Shai, so “we can feel proud that we didn't need to lie like the christians seem to feel like they have to”.

Bye Shai,

Ron Williams


This sum was to represent almost one third of Labor's 2010 pre-election four-year schools policy education pitch of $704m (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/two-parties-sure-one-plus-one-makes-three/story-e6frgd0x-1225907973915).

That's what it was changed to. If anyone had bothered to look at the piece, it's got nothing to do with what it's inferring.

Thank you again Goldenmane. After the original abuse I didn't see a reason to go to the top, and once I did I guess that was justified. But at least now I know it.

GM: Yes, it wasn't properly modified for this forum. I agree, I was lazy and didn't reword parts of it for a more neutral audience. My bad. However, Displays of Ignorance is a bit of a stretch, and also quite insulting since you didn't bother even finding out if such were the case. It was an assumption that was not properly thought through, not for lack of knowledge or critical thinking, but born out of the urgency of annoyance. Yes, that was my bad.

I posted the two emails here just to answer any unasked questions by those who've read it, since having gone to the top in this matter, I can't see how this topic bears any more conversation and can be ended.

[Goldenmane]

Interesting that line about you having "justly earned yourself an unsavoury reputation across cyberspace and beyond". I must be slipping, since I know of no such reputation.

Or perhaps... the usual shenanigans.

[Perspective]

Shai I've just read the entire thread.

I understand the issue you've raised and noted this concerns you. I won't say if I think they're valid or not because I haven't checked the accuracy for myself (I don't really care). However, you may want to consider your level (or lack there of) of interpersonal skills.

At the end of the day, the HCC is a worthy cause (in my opinion). It is appears to me that you haven't really considered the great deal of time, effort and money Ron has dedicated to this issue, which if he wins will benefit us all. I imagine that it must be fairly disheartening and frustrating to receive such letters as yours when you are working so hard.

[Shai Gar]

No, it's true. When I was a teenager (27 now) I trolled a forum. Later I gained a reputation for being brazen but accurate and nearly always honest on a few different MBTI forums. It got me love and hate from nearly all the members. My reputation is sort of all over the place.

But for that, he'd have had to google my email address and purposefully search that shit out. Because I didn't make a single reference to my youth in the emails.

[Shai Gar]

Shai I've hust read the entire thread.

I understand the issue you've raised and noted this is concerns you. I won't say if I think they're valid or not because I haven't checked the accuracy for myself (I don't really care). However, you may want to consider your level (or lack there of) of interpersonal skills.

At the end of the day, the HCC is a worthy cause (in my opinion). It is appears to me that you haven't really considered the great deal of time, effort and money Ron has dedicated to this issue, which if he wins will benefit us all. I imagine that it must be fairly disheartening and frustrating to receive such letters as yours when you are working so hard.

I agree that it's a worthy cause. It's working towards my strongest goal.
However all I wanted was for a single sentence to be deleted to reflect the truth. They've since amended it to make it slightly more honest, and that's all I care about.

Whereas Melmac cares about the integrity of the movement, not just the ends.