Guest wanderer Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Glenn, "That newspaper article has already been posted, about the beginning of the week." NO. It is dated 31st Oct 09 (today) I'm not going to go back and update my earlier post because of a response as you have done - that's playing what we call silly buggers if you haven't heard the term. It would seem the Age is it? is playing silly buggers plageurising for a near identical article has been posted near the beginning of the week. Same comments that led to time will tell, I might even bother to find initial article and then send them both to Media Watch on ABC for they love that plageurising stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wanderer Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Move the car forward a tad please James. 0E boy! :policeman: back on topic pls Perhaps what we should be constructing to get into the Ministers/DIAC ears other than someones shiny tip of a stilletto heeled is: What can the department do or is something planned re the new culture of ENS/RSMS. The Jamie Smith Wanderer Enterprise could suggest that a special office of facilitation be set up with a nice contract for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Move the car forward a tad please James. What can the department do or is something planned re the new culture of ENS/RSMS. The Jamie Smith Wanderer Enterprise could suggest that a special office of facilitation be set up with a nice contract for us. :biglaugh::notworthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Should be put together some protest marches and visit DIAC offices. I'm serious. :realmad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Justin JIANG Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Should be put together some protest marches and visit DIAC offices. I'm serious. :realmad: Hi Jamie, I couldn't agree more. I live in Adelaide now. No many affected applicants would joint the protest marches as i think. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glenn Pereira Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Perhaps what we should be constructing to get into the Ministers/DIAC ears other than someones shiny tip of a stilletto heeled is: What can the department do or is something planned re the new culture of ENS/RSMS. I agree with you. The existing post has triggered "anger". Your suggestion should be started on another post. "Suggestions to the Department to clear the backlog of applicants " I anticipate a new queue will commence for applications lodged from the date of the new policy say 1st Jan 2010. It happened 1st July 2009 & 1st Sept 2007. Regards Glenn Pereira Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Wanderer Your message to Glenn (below) is downright rude. Glenn is a very busy and immensely experienced Registered Migration Agent. His own peer-group in the migration advice industry hang on Glenn's every word. Partly this is because Glenn was on a Committee that provided direct advice to the last Government about the "900 hours" issue - which is a source of many of the scams which are now clogging up the enitre GSM caseload. Glenn is also active in the on-the-ground international education industry because he is the CEO of a college called the Culinary Institute of Australia, which has a very high reputation. He knows FAR more about what is going on inside DIAC than you or I can hope to know. Remember and respect that fact, please. These are amongst the reasons why Glenn has made submissions to the Inquiry (or whatever it is) on the ESOS Amendment Bill and to the Inquiry concerning the Welfare of International Students. If you spent more time reading and researching and less time yapping, you would realise that your rudeness to Glenn is right out of order. Do it again and I will ban you from these boards for a fortnight, so make up your mind. Either stop being rude or be silenced. The choice rests with you. Gill PS - "Plagiarising" is spelt as I have spelt it. Invest in a dictionary, I suggest. Glenn, I'm not going to go back and update my earlier post because of a response as you have done - that's playing what we call silly buggers if you haven't heard the term. It would seem the Age is it? is playing silly buggers plageurising for a near identical article has been posted near the beginning of the week. Same comments that led to time will tell, I might even bother to find initial article and then send them both to Media Watch on ABC for they love that plageurising stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 0E boy! :policeman: back on topic pls Glenn start another topic on scams, they are not the only reason for GSM changes. This thread is about what would you say, not why it came about. Jamie The moderating team will moderate this thread, thank you, not you. Your own diversions into trying to dictate what others should say and where they should say it are as irrelevant to the thread as the posts you are complaining about. If you like I can close this thread and you can start another? In your new thread you can set your "ground rules" out in the first post. If enough people choose to abide by your wishes, you will have something that the journos might find easier to deal with than this thread. Would you like to proceed as I suggest? It is inevitable that people are confused, bewildered and angry about the way that the Australian Government has seen fit to muck them about, contradicting itself about what its own bluddy rules are from one week to the next. It makes the Minister look like an indecisive, ill-informed idiot. Everybody else in the relevant "world" realised that the Minister's bold announcement on 17th December 2008 did not stand a cat's chance in hell of achieving the Minister's desired goals. It was obvious that applicants for sc 175 visas would flock to take advantage of the lengthy sc 176 and sc 475 Lists published by the various States & Territories. Anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together could and did work out that a Painter & Decorator whom the Minister was trying to peg down a few notches in the pecking order by keeping him on the MODL but not on the first or second CSLs would soon defeat the Minister's wishes and peg himself straight back to the top of the pecking order via obtaining State Sponsorship. Jackal on here is a Painter & Decorator who is also a personal friend of mine. He was 30 so he applied for an sc 175 visa in July/August 2008, which was the right visa for him to choose at that time. I e-mailed Jackal bright and early on 18th December 2008 and told him, "You have your heart set on Perth. Apply for WA State Sponsorship for the sc 176 visa TODAY. Don't argue with me. Just do it." Alan Collett was advising people to do exactly this and it was obvious that Alan was 100% right. Because Jackal got in early, his sc 176 visa was granted before the 23 September brouhaha erupted. He is now in Perth. 10 permanent jobs for qualified Painters & Decorators were advertised in the West Australian soon after he reached Perth. He applied for all 10. He was invited to 4 interviews and was offered all 4 jobs. He has joined the company which he liked the best out of the 4. I had a long chat with Jackal on the phone a fortnight ago. Loads of other Painters & Decorators would kill to be in his shoes. He provided valuable insight into what sort of P&D companies would be likely to be willing to consider offering jobs & sponsored visas and which ones would not entertain the idea. My next task will be to contact the Chair of the Association of Master Painters of WA, to see whether I can coax him into encouraging his member companies to consider sponsoring Painters & Decorators. Jackal says that there may not be a shortage of Painters & Decorators in Perth Metro right now but that there is no shortage of work for them either. Office Managers have done the same via SA as Jackal did via WA, as George Lombard mentioned on here only the other day. All this was 100% foreseeable so why was it not foreseen by Andrew Metcalfe? Surely it was his job to advise the Minister that the first Plan A was doomed to fail and to steer the Minister firmly away from embarking on it? Mr Metcalfe undoubtedly made a complete dog's breakfast of managing the immediate demand effectively. However the buck for his mismanagement of the situation stops with the Minister. The Minister has to carry the can for both of them because the Minister signed the relevant Directions himself. The very least that the Minister can now do is make a public apology to the applicants who have been so wickedly mucked about by the Minister's own incompetent mismanagment of the situation. Who he blames internally is his own problem, which is of no concern to the applicants. This Minister has been noisy enough about promoting his various hare-brained schemes ever since 17th December 2008. As recently as 31st August 2009 he trumpeted about how brilliantly his idea of leaving the States to select the candidates was supposedly working. Just 3 weeks later he performed a complete U-turn but he has been remarkably silent ever since 31st August - which is cowardly. Instead the lot of them let the situation drift out of control, watched whilst the applicants defeated the Minister's wishes and now they are belatedly trying to slam the door after having misled the applicants in the most inept, unprofessional fashion imaginable. Having mucked thousands of applicants around in this totally inexcusable fashion, these indecisive, dithering, self-contradictory Aussie Government honchos have not even had the decency to offer refunds to those who have lost patience with them and their nonsense and now simply want out of the whole misguided enterprise. They are doing Australia's international image immense harm. I have no sympathy for them as far as the visa scams are concerned. They chose to run a totally sloppy system which was ripe for abuse. Why are they complaining that they have been abused when they are busily abusing the applicants for their wretched visas? It is no use trying to blame the debacle on the previous Govt. Rudd & Co volunteered for the job of managing the mess. They have not managed it. They have tinkered with it and made it much worse than it needed to be. Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Problems such as this arise because politicians have to be seen to be doing something. And ultimately, with due respect to the good Senator and his colleagues, I believe few of them would make it in the real world of business/industry that the rest of us inhabit, where outcomes such as those we are seeing in the skilled program would lead to departures from the Board. Ah, the quality of pollies and their unelected civil servants ... don't we all love them ...! :spinny: Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wanderer Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Gill, re Wanderer - warning Wanderer Your message to Glenn (below) is downright rude. I believe you have missed the point and I'll explain as follows: . Poster A posts [Glenn #669] . Poster B replys [me #672] . Poster A responds [Glenn 673/1] . Poster B replys [me #674] . Poster A posts/edits [back on #673 @ 673/2] . I reponded @ 676 Now I have a view that a forum will work best where people post in a manner that gives best chance of creating clarity of communication. Doubling back to add significantly to ones prior posting defeats that somewhat, again my belief. It certainly takes communication out of a sequential pattern and that can only fog up the forum. I've used an Aussie term of playing silly buggers to describe that. I'm always open to your view Gill and what terminology you would like to describe it by. I've constructed the full sequence for you #669Here is the on-shore scam exposed. I argued that DIAC was forced to make the 23rd Sept announcements because of the on-shore and off-shore scams Crime link to student scam Regards Glenn Pereira ………………………………. #672 Glenno, Quote: Here is the on-shore scam exposed. I argued that DIAC was forced to make the 23rd Sept announcements because of the on-shore and off-shore scams That newspaper article has already been posted, about the beginning of the week. I've said previously that it will take time and a lot of resources to investigate such cases but the fraudsters do need to be rooted out of the system. Your argument on the DIAC 23/9 announcements because of scams is a bit farfetched seeing as DIAC have had an ongoing review process since the GFC descended last year, first changes effective January this year. DIACs policy has always been that visas can be withdrawn if based on false information and in fact a read of where you sign off on an application form says enough, just like your taxation declaration. All power to the investigators. Glenn, your posting of the legislation, sections 276 and 280 was so valuable! ………………………………................... #673 Part 2. "That newspaper article has already been posted, about the beginning of the week." NO. It is dated 31st Oct 09 (today) #673 Part1 "Your argument on the DIAC 23/9 announcements because of scams is a bit farfetched" "TIME WILL TELL" "Glenn, your posting of the legislation, sections 276 and 280 was so valuable! " I anticipate some posts will be deleted or edited. REGARDS GLENN PEREIRA ………………………………. #674 My response to 673/1 And times of 11.22 and 11.33 for 673 [edit] Quote: "TIME WILL TELL" Certainly will for the review in relation to papers issued in August and September should see the next step soon enough and as is expected. And we may well see many more reports of investigations going for some time yet. The matters are hardly related other than both involving immigration in a general sense. ………………………………............ #676 My response to 673/2 Glenn, Quote: "That newspaper article has already been posted, about the beginning of the week." NO. It is dated 31st Oct 09 (today) I'm not going to go back and update my earlier post because of a response as you have done - that's playing what we call silly buggers if you haven't heard the term. It would seem the Age is it? is playing silly buggers plageurising for a near identical article has been posted near the beginning of the week. Same comments that led to time will tell, I might even bother to find initial article and then send them both to Media Watch on ABC for they love that plageurising stuff. To your further commentary what is going on inside DIAC than you or I can hope to know. Remember and respect that fact, please. These are amongst the reasons why Glenn has made submissions to the Inquiry (or whatever it is) on the ESOS Amendment Bill and to the Inquiry concerning the Welfare of International Students. If you spent more time reading and researching and less time yapping, you would realise that your rudeness to Glenn is right out of order. Do it again and I will ban you from these boards for a fortnight, so make up your mind. Either stop being rude or be silenced. The choice rests with you. Gill PS - "Plagiarising" is spelt as I have spelt it. Invest in a dictionary, I suggest. I consider that quite rude and it has been noticed by others that your personal attitude to myself appears unwarranted. It is unbecoming of a moderator to focus personally on a poster or posters merely because he/she does not agree with ones views. Personally, I believe respect is to be earnt by what one does, not to be conferred by where or on what one may have sat, the world too full of pompousness and ceremony which leads to some of the problems we as a greater society have. I'd expect you to review what I have put forward in the way of the structured sequence of communication and I would like your comment. I believe an apology is owing from yourself. Thankyou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Lombard Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 The Department failed to adequately report on or adjust the policy settings to promote those with "critical" skills supposedly required to be given visa priority in the national interest. The Department now acknowledges that since 17 December 2008 the major occupations in the migration program, because of unregulated state sponsorship, were "marketing specialist" and "office manager". If the CSL occupations were desperately needed, then managing a program dominated by those occupations is tantamount to sabotage of the national interest. It's a good thing Ken Henry listens to his mum ("How Henry's mother saved the economy" - Analysis) , perhaps Andrew Metcalfe needs to phone home more often. Cheers, George Lombard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wanderer Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Sort of called getting your feet on the ground with real people George and not being carried away with dizziness because your head is in the clouds! I wonder whether he thought he ought to tell mum what to do before Kevin did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Wanderer I don't give a damn what you thnk. I run this section of the forum, not you, as I have told you before. Run your own forum in whatever way you prefer but do NOT try to tell me how to run Poms in Oz. The vast majority of the members on here like the Poms in Oz formula. If you don't like it, you have feet and you are very welcome to vote with them. However I will not tolerate your rudeness to Glenn Pereira overnight and that is all there is to it. If you are rude to Glenn again, you will be silenced for a fortnight. No amount of bickering will change that. I suggest that you occupy yourself with apologising to Glenn as publicly as you have seen fit to insult him. Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 The Department failed to adequately report on or adjust the policy settings to ensure that those with "critical" skills supposedly required to be given visa priority in the national interest. The Department now acknowledges that since 17 December 2008 the major occupations in the migration program, because of unregulated state sponsorship, were "marketing specialist" and "office manager". If the CSL occupations were desperately needed, then managing a program dominated by those occupations is tantamount to sabotage of the national interest. It's a good thing Ken Henry listens to his mum ("How Henry's mother saved the economy" - Analysis) , perhaps Andrew Metcalfe needs to phone home more often. Cheers, George Lombard Hi George You have pinpointed the exact issue which I find the most difficult to understand. I accept that DIAC does not do any follow-up analysis of how many Bricklayers continue to lay bricks after they have been granted GSM visas and have moved to Australia. Arguably doing that sort of follow-up is not the job of the Government's visa processing Department. However I have the impression that DIAC actually had no reliable stats for how many applications were in hand for each occupation on the SOL, how many had been received and granted in earlier years and all the other sets of figures which enable Governments to predict with reasonable accuracy how many Bricklayers had applied or were/are likely to apply during 2008/9 and 2009/10? If my hunch is right, presumably DIAC would have warned the Minister that leaving it to the States to select the fittest of the candidates would be nothing more than a total shot in the dark? Initially everyone seems to have thought that the demand for visas for CSL occupations was quite small. Now - belatedly - it seems to have been realised that there is enough demand for visas for CSL occupations to use up the entire quota of GSM visas for the whole of the current year and the split in demand seems to be about 50/50 between onshore and offshore visas according to Mark Webster, according to the figures which Jamie obtained at the recent MIA conference etc. How did they manage to get the "occupations predictions" so badly wrong? Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Lombard Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Hi George You have pinpointed the exact issue which I find the most difficult to understand. I accept that DIAC does not do any follow-up analysis of how many Bricklayers continue to lay bricks after they have been granted GSM visas and have moved to Australia. Arguably doing that sort of follow-up is not the job of the Government's visa processing Department. Why not? Why give them a hand on an economic lever if they don't know what it does? However I have the impression that DIAC actually had no reliable stats for how many applications were in hand for each occupation on the SOL, how many had been received and granted in earlier years and all the other sets of figures which enable Governments to predict with reasonable accuracy how many Bricklayers had applied or were/are likely to apply during 2008/9 and 2009/10? They have that data - inconceivable that it wasn't considered in a time of national emergency - thank god there wasn't a war going on. If my hunch is right, presumably DIAC would have warned the Minister that leaving it to the States to select the fittest of the candidates would be nothing more than a total shot in the dark? No I think most people expected the states to make decisions within their narrow economic interest but the subclass 475 program is very clearly nothing to do with desired skills - more about addressing regional population policy - and so should have been suspended on 17 December. It has been effectively suspended now. A lot of the 176 nominations are also suspect economically - one of Wanderer's posts makes the point that the states compete with each other and I think in this case they were all scrabbling for as much of the pie as they could get. But DIAC knew very well what occupations were being lodged and what state sponsorships were being received. Initially everyone seems to have thought that the demand for visas for CSL occupations was quite small. Now - belatedly - it seems to have been realised that there is enough demand for visas for CSL occupations to use up the entire quota of GSM visas for the whole of the current year and the split in demand seems to be about 50/50 between onshore and offshore visas according to Mark Webster, according to the figures which Jamie obtained at the recent MIA conference etc. Who obtained those figures? The problem with onshore CSLers is that very few of them apart from the nurses are able to make a substantial professional contribution from day one, if you want to justify it on economic grounds then it's your competent and experienced offshore applicants who you need. How did they manage to get the "occupations predictions" so badly wrong? Hard to say. Policy making on the run, factions within the Department, sovereignty, who knows? What did Peter Meares say? Cheers, George Lombard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wanderer Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Gill, Wanderer I don't give a damn what you thnk. I run this section of the forum, not you, as I have told you before. Run your own forum in whatever way you prefer but do NOT try to tell me how to run Poms in Oz. The vast majority of the members on here like the Poms in Oz formula. If you don't like it, you have feet and you are very welcome to vote with them. However I will not tolerate your rudeness to Glenn Pereira overnight and that is all there is to it. If you are rude to Glenn again, you will be silenced for a fortnight. No amount of bickering will change that. I suggest that you occupy yourself with apologising to Glenn as publicly as you have seen fit to insult him. Gill Well that's all very fine Gill but just for the record: 1. I have made no reference to me or anyone running any section of PIO, my current comments quite clearly just a view of what constitutes logically sequential communication. 2. Cannot recall your previous reference to that but I could have mised it, not that it matters so much. 3. I do not consider I have told you how to run PIO and wouldn't but that does not stop me having a view on some matters such as clarity of communication. 4. I can agree with you that PIO members do not have a problem with the PIO formula and nor do I and I have not posted anything to the contrary. 5. I diagree with your claim of me being rude to Glenn just as I disagreed with your claim of my racism. 6. Seeing as I believe there has been no rudeness on my part, I also do not see that I have anything to apologise for but re point below I always attempt to maintain an open mind. 7. I also do not believe that I post with an approach of being rude to anyone that I can actually recall, but again I do remain open on that. However, please feel free to take a breath and answer me as to What is it specifically you claim that I was rude about? Looking at matters from a different perspective, I'm sure you're familiar with the forum posting rules, one of them being Members have the right to refuse to give out any and all personal details. You may recall on how you publicly commented on an ISP trace to locate me and airing of that on the forum. There have also been other comments about my identity by yourself Gill, Glenn Pereira and others. Should you not lead with an apology on a clear breaking of the right to privacy. Thanks in anticipation, W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest33730 Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Gill, Well that's all very fine Gill but just for the record: 1. I have made no reference to me or anyone running any section of PIO, my current comments quite clearly just a view of what constitutes logically sequential communication. 2. Cannot recall your previous reference to that but I could have mised it, not that it matters so much. 3. I do not consider I have told you how to run PIO and wouldn't but that does not stop me having a view on some matters such as clarity of communication. 4. I can agree with you that PIO members do not have a problem with the PIO formula and nor do I and I have not posted anything to the contrary. 5. I diagree with your claim of me being rude to Glenn just as I disagreed with your claim of my racism. 6. Seeing as I believe there has been no rudeness on my part, I also do not see that I have anything to apologise for but re point below I always attempt to maintain an open mind. 7. I also do not believe that I post with an approach of being rude to anyone that I can actually recall, but again I do remain open on that. However, please feel free to take a breath and answer me as to What is it specifically you claim that I was rude about? Looking at matters from a different perspective, I'm sure you're familiar with the forum posting rules, one of them being Members have the right to refuse to give out any and all personal details. You may recall on how you publicly commented on an ISP trace to locate me and airing of that on the forum. There have also been other comments about my identity by yourself Gill, Glenn Pereira and others. Should you not lead with an apology on a clear breaking of the right to privacy. Thanks in anticipation, W. Can I just ask - why is all this being aired in public and not by PM?? I thought that was another of the forum rules "discusions about moderator or administrator actions are welcome in email or local private messages, but should not be placed in the public forums". I understand disagreement but we don't all need to share in it - In my opinion it's lowering the value of this site! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Can I just ask - why is all this being aired in public and not by PM?? I thought that was another of the forum rules "discusions about moderator or administrator actions are welcome in email or local private messages, but should not be placed in the public forums". I understand disagreement but we don't all need to share in it - In my opinion it's lowering the value of this site! ************************************************************** Warning Wanderer publicly about his rudeness to Glenn serves as a deterrent to others as well as to him. He is an exceptional member because he is so verbose ALL the time, not just some of the time. He is also the moderator of a different forum so he knows better than most what the moderators on other forums will and won't accept. Wanderer is trying to have the remainder of his debate with himself, not with me. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest33730 Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 **************************************************************Warning Wanderer publicly about his rudeness to Glenn serves as a deterrent to others as well as to him. He is an exceptional member because he is so verbose ALL the time, not just some of the time. He is also the moderator of a different forum so he knows better than most what the moderators on other forums will and won't accept. Wanderer is trying to have the remainder of his debate with himself, not with me. Cheers Gill Gill, To be honest I am amazed how patient you have been - I think your comments have been fantastic all the way through this thread. We all know your position as moderator and we respect that. I don't think it should be that moderators word is just taken as gospel but there is line & when people cross it by challenging EVERYTHING they say , sentence by sentence it detracts from the whole site - surely there is a line not to be crossed and the posts by Wanderer are so far over that it is taking away from the topic - to it's detriment!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazzarazza Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Jamie, Gill et al. You won't believe it. I posted some thoughts and suggestions on ABC's The National Interest feedback page after Friday's programme. I have just received an email from the presenter, Peter Mares, asking if they can be used on their site. Oh how I hope Chris Evans is on this weeks programme and not one of his side-kicks. You have done a wonderful job getting this issue into the public arena and I can't wait for this Friday. Keep up the magnificent work - you deserve a medal. Cheers, Kazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 :notworthy: Great news! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKlaut Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Jamie, Gill et al. You won't believe it. I posted some thoughts and suggestions on ABC's The National Interest feedback page after Friday's programme. I have just received an email from the presenter, Peter Mares, asking if they can be used on their site. Oh how I hope Chris Evans is on this weeks programme and not one of his side-kicks. You have done a wonderful job getting this issue into the public arena and I can't wait for this Friday. Keep up the magnificent work - you deserve a medal. Cheers, Kazza In fact they've posted lots of our posts. That's great! Let's wait for Friday with the hope that ABC likes the story and will continue attract public attention to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlino Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 This is great indication that we're getting noticed! McKlaut, care to post the link to those published posts so that we all can see for ourselves how the ABC is using the discussions going on here and whether they've been edited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Probably here: The National Interest - Have Your Say Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKlaut Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 This is great indication that we're getting noticed! McKlaut, care to post the link to those published posts so that we all can see for ourselves how the ABC is using the discussions going on here and whether they've been edited? Here The National Interest - Have Your Say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.