No it isn't. It's all subjective. Do you know what that means?
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 7 - Pride Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
WA/Daylight Saving: To Join The 21st Century Or To Not, Part II
- Thread starter YOTC
- Start date
- Tagged users None
No it isn't. It's all subjective. Do you know what that means?
You tell me then. Why do I need an extra hour of light and heat each night?
Just highlighting your question dodging.
Thanks all for the fun. Goodnight. Congrats on your win.
And Ted.... dont enjoy this too much... at your age, too much excitement and all that....
You do realise it's nothing to do with "old people"?
As the pro-DLS crowd have been saying for the last three years: "it's only an hour, get over it". Time to take their own advice.
Typical of the pro-DLS people. They've never come up with a real reason for it, just abuse.
The sooks are out in force. Suck it up princesses. I'll enjoy the dark for another 10 years
That's the funny thing, because of the meridian our time is based on, it's not really that dark during summer.
The poor dears, how will the high end of town cope now that their stock brokers will be three hours behind during summer?
- Banned
- #731
Well, I am finished with the thread but.....
You seriously want to enter into a battle of wits??
C'mon thats not fair ... on you.
I made my comments on the basis of a review of the electorate by electorate numbers. I then extrapolated based on the demographics of those electorates. While this involves some level of generalising, it is at a level that would be considered normal by political parties, advertisers and others who need to focus messages based on those things (i.e. demographics). I mean if "Kelmscott" votes a certain way we can make a judgement, quite scientifically, on what the average "working class" person "decided".
If that trend is followed in other electorates with similar demographics, we can really start to make some pretty solid calls.
I had a factual basis for my comments accordingly. I then simply attached some more colourful descriptors of the "working class" - these i.e. poor, backward, stupid may indeed be unfair. Although I suggest, and could likely support with stats if pushed, that there are more backward, poor, stupid people in say, Kelmscott than say, Cottesloe.
Perhaps ring Anthony Green at the ABC and see how subjective my views are.
Cheers.
- Banned
- #732
I actually answered your questions
On the second part, the bit you miss is that, really, if you had any idea, you would understand that when given a bit of power, even just a wee tiny little bit, one should exercise it with a view of the bigger picture, the things that matter. While it might be true that YOU personally gain nothing from an extra hour of daylight in the evenings for a few months, it may be possible that the State gains some advantage for its business', for its health and for various other bigger picture issues that have been floated (such as sending a message that we wont send messages about us being a backwater).
You may well have considered such views and either (a) decided they you didnt give a shit and were voting on purely selfish grounds (which would prove my point) or (b) decided that these views have no merit and are in fact wrong and we (the collective we) will be worse off (you would of course be at odds with the government, the CCI and the unions). This would be an interesting but nonetheless considered view.
I actually suspect that such level of analysis was beyond most of the No voters but perhaps I am wrong? .... Although a quick analysis of these pages seems to suggest (a) was prevalent ... i.e. "I dont like it and who gives a **** about anything else" - bogan political decisions at their best.
Asked and answered.
Clearly you're not because you keep replying VVV
You seriously want to enter into a battle of wits??
C'mon thats not fair ... on you.
You've still not come up with an objective reason for introducing daylight savings. The people have seen through the bullshit presented by the likes of you.
It's over. Retire gracefully.
If you don't like it, just leave the state. It's pretty easy, just pack your bags.
It'd be like living in Darwin and complaining about the humidity every day. If that lifestyle doesn't suit, just leave.
- Banned
- #735
Because you keep bullshitting, so I need to correct the record.
*giggling* - yep thats it.
By the way, what was that OBJECTIVE reason for NOT introducing it?
When you move on gracefully, so will I.
If you could read, you would be aware I am only here about 30% of my time. Thats hardly the point.
Logic and argument aren't your strong points are they?
I suspect you are firmly in the demographic I referred to earlier. Which is fine. The heartland.
By the way, I did note you ran away a 100 km an hour from an argument on "subjective". Smart move. Hide that simpleness as long as you can!
You're still going. Like screaming after a derby loss how great the Eags are.
You lost. Deal with it or leave the state.
You lost. Deal with it or leave the state.
As expected, and much to my delight, the NO side has won.
And I don't want to hear anymore noise from DLS advocates in the mass media or politicians talking about more trials and how much we apparently need DLS, for at least another twenty years.
That's it. The issue is dealt with. Finito. The umpire has spoken.
And I don't want to hear anymore noise from DLS advocates in the mass media or politicians talking about more trials and how much we apparently need DLS, for at least another twenty years.
That's it. The issue is dealt with. Finito. The umpire has spoken.
Eastern Rangers
2015 Worsfold Medalist - Rowen Powell
Well their certainly does not seem to be the support. But given time their will be another referendum, 20 years is probably correct. I voted Yes, but im totally apathetic to the cause. I need Extended trading hours in the evenings during the week and Sunday trading, this would have a far bigger impact than DLS.
DLS hardly changed my lifestyle radically and any claims to suggest it does for better or worse is totally comical. Only reason i voted for it because i like the extra hour transfered into the evening, i wake at 5:30 in the morning and get to work at 7:00am, i dont have the luxury of having a lazy job where i can hit the gym in the morning or go for a cycle i do those in the evening. But like i said i dont need DLS to do that it just gave me more flexibility.
DLS hardly changed my lifestyle radically and any claims to suggest it does for better or worse is totally comical. Only reason i voted for it because i like the extra hour transfered into the evening, i wake at 5:30 in the morning and get to work at 7:00am, i dont have the luxury of having a lazy job where i can hit the gym in the morning or go for a cycle i do those in the evening. But like i said i dont need DLS to do that it just gave me more flexibility.
- Sep 16, 2006
- 36,234
- 36,178
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I ended up writing down nothing on my slip.
cbf whether we have it or not...
cbf whether we have it or not...
Do you think if the "yes" vote had won, people would today be talking about having another vote in 20 years time?
Predictable result - No will always win in WA, irrespective of the question.
I'm not really disappointed that DLS won't be back (to me it wasn't that big a deal anyway), the sad thing about it all is that it shows that nothing has really changed. We're still predominantly made up of people resistant to change that look for reasons to oppose pretty much anything.
I'm not really disappointed that DLS won't be back (to me it wasn't that big a deal anyway), the sad thing about it all is that it shows that nothing has really changed. We're still predominantly made up of people resistant to change that look for reasons to oppose pretty much anything.
Not necessarily. It has to be something people want, but here's the rub: if it is something that politicians know people want, they'd introduce it anyway to influence their popularity. Imagine something like the stimulus package going to referendum.
If they know it's something people are probably not keen on, hey presto: referendum. Of course it's highly likely to be no.
There has been exceptions to the rule however. I think the secession question was a resounding yes.
To be honest, ironically it's the yes people who come off as negative. "oh no, it's Wait Awhile again" etc.
It's not about being resistant to change. If people perceive that a change will have a negative impact on their lives, why would they press on with it? Building the freeway had a positive impact for the majority of us, but if your house was due to be demolished to make way for it, you'd be pretty "resistant to change".
If it's change for the better: bring it on.
YOTC
Brownlow Medallist
Way to win "YES"
Funny stuff.
Saw this elsewhere:
This is the sort of mentality we've been dealing with. Do people honestly think that it was voted no for reasons such as that?
Damn interferin' eastern staters. That'll learn em!
Now when can we reintroduce prohibition?
The way I see it is that about 10-20% of the population have legitmate gripes, and about the same are genuinely positive about it.
It's the way that the remaining 60-80% vote that demonstrates the attitude of the community. IMO, a lot more WA'ians go into an issue negatively and need to be convinced, or go out of their way to find reasons why their resistance to anything different is justified.
It's the same on pretty much every issue - polls on the new stadium are generally negative because most people won't ever use it. Mandurah rail line was the same for the same reasons. No matter what you do in Barrack square you can bet your ass most people will be against it. The shopping hours referendum was a deadset classic example. Maybe 10% of people had real reasons why it would be detrimental, the remaining 50% of the population that voted no were just sheep looking for reasons why they should vote no. Conveniently, IGA gave it to them. 'More hours means less shops'. Laughable, but people bought it. Not that it mattered what the reason was.
People that don't care vote no. It's the way it works in WA. DLS is no different.
The lesson for any government is that if you want an excuse to not make a decision, put it to referendum. It will always fail.
That's probably a fair call. There's also a lot of cynicism in the way it was introduced and who did it.
I really believe the yes campaigners fervently pushing it down our throats with expensive adverts had the opposite effect of what they were trying to achieve. The alarm bells start to ring in the heads of cynics when what they're pushing has no relevance to many people's lives.
Had they just said at the end of the trial "well there it is, what do you think" and let the polls decide, I think the vote would have been closer even if it still didnt get across the line.
It has to be the end of it now. Four referendums. Next time it will be introduced by act of parliament and the government of the day will pay the penalty.
Similar threads
