First, I agree with Fyodor that cs’ first comment seems to have had the unintended effect of provoking all this. It’s not a stoush in the fine tradition but a pointless exchange of insults - and not something I’d like to see here.

No doubt Chris was conscious of the fact that comments made by EP on these matters do tend to have a certain sameness about them. However, I don’t think that comments should be deleted unless they breach the comments policy and the reasons why should really be explained to the person posting the comment.

The second is that the comment by N. Bechtel is meaningless abuse. Such comments have no place on this blog and for that reason this thread, as I signalled before, ends here.

1) Not at all. He’s always predictable, and usually wrong.

2) Of course.

3) Why does the rain fall from up above?

Now, answer me this: does it hurt to be EP’s sock-puppet? I’ve heard he’s an easy lover. He’ll take your heart but you won’t feel it. He’s like no other. Before you know it you’ll be on your knees. Better forget it - you’ll regret it.

That is what this thread needs some fun.
One needs to dress up a womens department!

Sorry getting too hard for me.

If men don’t need a special department, then neither do women.

Claiming that politicians can’t address women’s needs because they’re men is sexist. It’s the policies and attitudes of the representatives that matters, not their gender.

Next thing he will be criticising Mark Latham for his language!

On the original point of the discussion, I don’t see why we need a Women’s Department. Whether at municipal, state or federal level they seem to be completely ineffectual at doing whatever it is they’re meant to be doing.

Good one, Amanda. Love a good structure chart.

I heard Nori on the radio yesterday saying that it was purely a bureaucratic thing, given the dept had been absorbed into Premiers but the head of the Office was still a woman, Elizabeth Coombes. Look, a diagram. I’m not really up on the nuances of the upper echelons of the public service, is this not a reasonable dodge? Just a structure thing on paper? Or not?

I suspect those occasions will become increasingly rare.

Can we leave the opportunity for folks to comment on the topic, and I’ll have the rest of yews out the back?

Yes, I do, and I sing it on other threads that deal with other topics.

But this thread is about the NSW Government’s Women’s Department, and consequently my reply was specifically addressed to that topic.

You seem to be suggesting that it’s okay for me to post here, as long as I remain on-topic, but that I shouldn’t address the topic of the thread.

Heh heh………nope..

I hope