Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
Apoligies if theres any miss-understanding max1. I'm on record in this thread as saying ATC are understaffed and overworked.
Please also note, I'm nothing special, just an aircraft owner and pilot with some concerns
Please also note, I'm nothing special, just an aircraft owner and pilot with some concerns
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
YOU started this thread, it is about a CHANGE, it is a discussion about whether we move to ADS-B surveillance. ATCs who have worked with it and others who have researched it , have come on here and stated with facts and evidence why we should embrace this change and the safety and cost benefits it would bring, and you come up with the line,
"Ferris, the resistance to change is so entrenched that it's basically impossible to change anything-even the most minor procedure that would improve efficiency."
You further state
"James, the problem I have is that all of my successful decisions in life have come after asking advice and debating the issues with real people. I am just no good at making decisions after debating anonymous people on a website."
Well Dick, I don't care if its the piano player from the whorehouse,I keep an open mind and if the logic of their position is reasonably presented I am amenable to changing my point of view.
Like this afternoon, you showed that someone implied that Broome and Ayers Rock would get the same service as Sydney, if one wanted to be a close- minded idealogue then, one may have tried to argue with you that this is an incontrevertible truth and defend this argument. They may have deferred to trying to belittle and slander you, and call your motivations into account.
What someone with an open mind would do, is look at the statement, take it on its merits and then give it the weight it deserves.
I think that this CHANGE to ADS-B surveillance 'deal' is good for the passengers (payers) on airlines, good for GA, good for ATC and good for Australia. I would not like to see it get knocked on the head because you are not comfortable and not-up-to-speed with it.
I am no huge fan of ASA, look at my other postings, but we are all (especially GA) on a winner here.
YOU started this thread, it is about a CHANGE, it is a discussion about whether we move to ADS-B surveillance. ATCs who have worked with it and others who have researched it , have come on here and stated with facts and evidence why we should embrace this change and the safety and cost benefits it would bring, and you come up with the line,
"Ferris, the resistance to change is so entrenched that it's basically impossible to change anything-even the most minor procedure that would improve efficiency."
You further state
"James, the problem I have is that all of my successful decisions in life have come after asking advice and debating the issues with real people. I am just no good at making decisions after debating anonymous people on a website."
Well Dick, I don't care if its the piano player from the whorehouse,I keep an open mind and if the logic of their position is reasonably presented I am amenable to changing my point of view.
Like this afternoon, you showed that someone implied that Broome and Ayers Rock would get the same service as Sydney, if one wanted to be a close- minded idealogue then, one may have tried to argue with you that this is an incontrevertible truth and defend this argument. They may have deferred to trying to belittle and slander you, and call your motivations into account.
What someone with an open mind would do, is look at the statement, take it on its merits and then give it the weight it deserves.
I think that this CHANGE to ADS-B surveillance 'deal' is good for the passengers (payers) on airlines, good for GA, good for ATC and good for Australia. I would not like to see it get knocked on the head because you are not comfortable and not-up-to-speed with it.
I am no huge fan of ASA, look at my other postings, but we are all (especially GA) on a winner here.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Dick - re TCAS
It is my understanding that the reason TCAS does not command a turn is because it azimuth information is too inaccurate - distance accuracy is excellent, whilst the relative altitude accuracy is dependant on the accuracy of the altitude encoders.
I have never flown an aircraft fitted with TCAS, however I have spoken with other pilots that have been in a following aircraft that the display has shown me swapping from side to side in front of them, even though I maintained the same relative position.
It is for this reason that I believe that TCAS is a 'last resort' collision avoidance device and not for providing traffic information.
Some TCAS units (Honeywell) already use a hybrid system where ADS-B ES data is used to more accurately display interrogated aircraft and to extend the range that aircraft are detected. I do not know whether it is used for RA logic yet, however I have no doubt it will be in the future.
I am guessing that Annex 6 suggests that in the future it is likely that ADS-B will be used by TCAS to allow a turn to be commanded as well. James Michael am I close?
It is my understanding that the reason TCAS does not command a turn is because it azimuth information is too inaccurate - distance accuracy is excellent, whilst the relative altitude accuracy is dependant on the accuracy of the altitude encoders.
I have never flown an aircraft fitted with TCAS, however I have spoken with other pilots that have been in a following aircraft that the display has shown me swapping from side to side in front of them, even though I maintained the same relative position.
It is for this reason that I believe that TCAS is a 'last resort' collision avoidance device and not for providing traffic information.
Some TCAS units (Honeywell) already use a hybrid system where ADS-B ES data is used to more accurately display interrogated aircraft and to extend the range that aircraft are detected. I do not know whether it is used for RA logic yet, however I have no doubt it will be in the future.
I am guessing that Annex 6 suggests that in the future it is likely that ADS-B will be used by TCAS to allow a turn to be commanded as well. James Michael am I close?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Binghi
I am never certain if your replies to me are country humour or country member I shall take your last as the former.
Dick Smith
Let me suggest that either of your options is not the sum of the parts, but both together is more valuable. As earlier stated - examine what is said, not he who speaks. And, if you are not going to build in the facts from such debates, you are spending a lot of your valuable time here at a loss when you should be making money - why?
If I can wax a little futuristic, at the risk of perhaps offending my colleague Bing, and first declaring (again) no pecuniary interest in the outcome.
Dick, the visionary does not head for the cellar to view the heirlooms of the past - he is found more at the attic window staring into space and the future. Lately you seem to be more bound by the past.
Australia may as well start learning Chinese for when the holes in the ground run out - unless we leverage our knowledge base - because that's about all else we have left to sell. Therefore it is desirable we be a world leader in technology development and sale - if the Government does not further stuff the CSIRO, TRL, DSTO, and a few other alphabet groups.
If we could marry a little of Binghi, Bob Murphie, and T28D - what is emerging is the UAV, perhaps even one day for ag work. We should be at the forefront of development. Even if we are not, the UAV will emerge with exponential growth as a platform for existing tasks performed by aircraft and new tasks not yet considered. Twenty five years ago the mobile telephone handset did not exist - yesterday the apple iphone launched in Australia with capability unheard of - nay, unthought of - back then.
There is already a group using small 'UAV' to provide aerial farm photos for estate agents - buyers nowadays expect to research purchase from home via internet and the aerial shots are marketing tools at a fraction of the cost of using GA aircraft. The possibilities are endless - the morning traffic rush reports on radio as another (Bing, we don't have a rush in the seat of power - no-one rushes early to work
)
For UAV to operate safely with other aircraft - we need ADS-B. If Binghi can have a TCAS for $10,000 today, one believes he will have an ADS-B TCAS for the same figure within three years of Australia going ADS-B. There have already been several serious aircraft/UAV incidents in the war zone. Not enemy Binger UAV - rather, the UAV equivalent of 'friendly fire' in busy military airport environments.
Fanciful? Perhaps. Have a look at the Microair site (I think there is some limitation on us putting links up on this forum?) and you will find - "The T2000UAV-S is a special version of the T2000 Transponder, designed for operation in unmanned aircraft." One Australian manufacturer already believes in the market, and the same manufacturer is ready to roll re ADS-B.
Dick, an old saying - "ride the change wave or be dumped" - you have an opportunity to turn your undoubted talents to taking Australia forward. The ADS-B debate on this thread may not have realised your desires, but the wise general knows when to revise the plan. A weekend of quiet reflection on your part could revitalise your enthusiasm and energies.
(Steps down off long-winded bureaucratic soapbox).
I am never certain if your replies to me are country humour or country member
I shall take your last as the former.Dick Smith
James, the problem I have is that all of my successful decisions in life have come after asking advice and debating the issues with real people. I am just no good at making decisions after debating anonymous people on a website.
If I can wax a little futuristic, at the risk of perhaps offending my colleague Bing, and first declaring (again) no pecuniary interest in the outcome.
Dick, the visionary does not head for the cellar to view the heirlooms of the past - he is found more at the attic window staring into space and the future. Lately you seem to be more bound by the past.
Australia may as well start learning Chinese for when the holes in the ground run out - unless we leverage our knowledge base - because that's about all else we have left to sell. Therefore it is desirable we be a world leader in technology development and sale - if the Government does not further stuff the CSIRO, TRL, DSTO, and a few other alphabet groups.
If we could marry a little of Binghi, Bob Murphie, and T28D - what is emerging is the UAV, perhaps even one day for ag work. We should be at the forefront of development. Even if we are not, the UAV will emerge with exponential growth as a platform for existing tasks performed by aircraft and new tasks not yet considered. Twenty five years ago the mobile telephone handset did not exist - yesterday the apple iphone launched in Australia with capability unheard of - nay, unthought of - back then.
There is already a group using small 'UAV' to provide aerial farm photos for estate agents - buyers nowadays expect to research purchase from home via internet and the aerial shots are marketing tools at a fraction of the cost of using GA aircraft. The possibilities are endless - the morning traffic rush reports on radio as another (Bing, we don't have a rush in the seat of power - no-one rushes early to work
)For UAV to operate safely with other aircraft - we need ADS-B. If Binghi can have a TCAS for $10,000 today, one believes he will have an ADS-B TCAS for the same figure within three years of Australia going ADS-B. There have already been several serious aircraft/UAV incidents in the war zone. Not enemy Binger UAV - rather, the UAV equivalent of 'friendly fire' in busy military airport environments.
Fanciful? Perhaps. Have a look at the Microair site (I think there is some limitation on us putting links up on this forum?) and you will find - "The T2000UAV-S is a special version of the T2000 Transponder, designed for operation in unmanned aircraft." One Australian manufacturer already believes in the market, and the same manufacturer is ready to roll re ADS-B.
Dick, an old saying - "ride the change wave or be dumped" - you have an opportunity to turn your undoubted talents to taking Australia forward. The ADS-B debate on this thread may not have realised your desires, but the wise general knows when to revise the plan. A weekend of quiet reflection on your part could revitalise your enthusiasm and energies.
(Steps down off long-winded bureaucratic soapbox).
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Werbil
I feel you are close, in that you intuitively go beyond the today paperwork to the likely end state.
ADS-B IN and TCAS. Computer based systems. Input data altered by software to provide information. The capability exists - it is usually the TSO and the need for extensive testing (and rightfully so where safety is concerned) that delays the final equipment. And, even then, the equipment will be in accelerated change state due to technology push.
ICAO Annex 6 - the part we need to consider - relates to airspace and access. The 2003 revision is worthy of our consideration for what it MIGHT likely do to GA and airspace sharing - if we don't do it better first.
Think through the note to 6.13.2 (Recommendations):
The intent is also for aircraft not equipped with pressure-altitude reporting transponders to be operated so as not to share airspace used by aircraft equipped with airborne collision avoidance systems.
Might be better to work out a technological way to share than find ourselves with exclusionary airspace. Initially, only demands Mode C transponders. What is likely when the world moves into ADS-B mode?
The Australian opportunity for FREE ADS-B fitment shifts later this year to 2028. If it is not pursued, one suggests ADS-B will be ICAO mandated a long time before 2028 - at OUR cost.
So, returning to your question, Annex 6 itself does not suggest your concept - but the logical flow on of ADS-B adoption and the EXTRA information provided to TCAS by ADS-B data - suggests the very end state you describe. But, the long road does not begin until the first step forward is taken.
I feel you are close, in that you intuitively go beyond the today paperwork to the likely end state.
ADS-B IN and TCAS. Computer based systems. Input data altered by software to provide information. The capability exists - it is usually the TSO and the need for extensive testing (and rightfully so where safety is concerned) that delays the final equipment. And, even then, the equipment will be in accelerated change state due to technology push.
ICAO Annex 6 - the part we need to consider - relates to airspace and access. The 2003 revision is worthy of our consideration for what it MIGHT likely do to GA and airspace sharing - if we don't do it better first.
Think through the note to 6.13.2 (Recommendations):
The intent is also for aircraft not equipped with pressure-altitude reporting transponders to be operated so as not to share airspace used by aircraft equipped with airborne collision avoidance systems.
Might be better to work out a technological way to share than find ourselves with exclusionary airspace. Initially, only demands Mode C transponders. What is likely when the world moves into ADS-B mode?
The Australian opportunity for FREE ADS-B fitment shifts later this year to 2028. If it is not pursued, one suggests ADS-B will be ICAO mandated a long time before 2028 - at OUR cost.
So, returning to your question, Annex 6 itself does not suggest your concept - but the logical flow on of ADS-B adoption and the EXTRA information provided to TCAS by ADS-B data - suggests the very end state you describe. But, the long road does not begin until the first step forward is taken.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 34 South
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks so much Dick.
Well Dick, thanks so much for involving all of us in your wonderful little game.
So nice of you to use the earnest endeavours of many genuine hearted people to your own political and personal agenda.
I hope that everyone else who reads your posts realise their little part they play in your game.
You may stop and reflect one day as to why the professionals in this industry think as they do of you.
So nice of you to use the earnest endeavours of many genuine hearted people to your own political and personal agenda.
I hope that everyone else who reads your posts realise their little part they play in your game.
You may stop and reflect one day as to why the professionals in this industry think as they do of you.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob Murphie
A very good point.
Bit like the bus lanes and taxi / hire car lanes on the freeways perhaps - it seems that the commercial operators get priority. Perhaps that will somehow change in airspace sharing (in our lifetime?)
Do you feel those GA aviators and owners, ADS-B IN equipped, should be allowed to share airspace with UAV or excluded from it?
A very good point.
Bit like the bus lanes and taxi / hire car lanes on the freeways perhaps - it seems that the commercial operators get priority. Perhaps that will somehow change in airspace sharing (in our lifetime?)
Do you feel those GA aviators and owners, ADS-B IN equipped, should be allowed to share airspace with UAV or excluded from it?
Thread Starter
James, I will say it again-I do support ADSB - I am just not keen on the rush to make an early decision- because of the risks involved.
I also believe that a large amount of valuable safety money will be misallocated if the $100 m low level subsidy goes ahead.
You claim that if we do not make a decision this year that we will then have to wait 20 years,until 2028. I don't believe this is so even though I will accept that you believe what you have been told.
If Airservices enters into a contract to refurbish the existing SSR's we will be able to make a ADSB decision any time in the next 10 years.
Even if you and a number of other anonymous posters are correct on the urgency issue I believe you will lose. This is because there is not one person out their in the public arena communicating your points and debunking mine.
Don't you understand this? For all anyone knows you and your supporters could be con-men with criminal histories who have hidden agendas. Now I don't believe this however I have no evidence that I am correct.
I do know however that their are people in influential positions in Government who are mighty suspicious that not one executive from Airservices or CASA gives any public support for the low level $100m subsidy proposal. If the proposal is so good why isn't there at least one executive the public "face" of the proposal and out there selling the benefits?
I believe the answer is obvious- anyone really in the know accepts that there is no real safety issue being addressed,that the cost/benefit study is flawed and as it is most likely the subsidy will not go ahead they don't want to be personally identified with the failure.
What is your explanation for the fact that Airservices management show no public support in any way for a subsidy proposal that you want so much to go ahead?
I also believe that a large amount of valuable safety money will be misallocated if the $100 m low level subsidy goes ahead.
You claim that if we do not make a decision this year that we will then have to wait 20 years,until 2028. I don't believe this is so even though I will accept that you believe what you have been told.
If Airservices enters into a contract to refurbish the existing SSR's we will be able to make a ADSB decision any time in the next 10 years.
Even if you and a number of other anonymous posters are correct on the urgency issue I believe you will lose. This is because there is not one person out their in the public arena communicating your points and debunking mine.
Don't you understand this? For all anyone knows you and your supporters could be con-men with criminal histories who have hidden agendas. Now I don't believe this however I have no evidence that I am correct.
I do know however that their are people in influential positions in Government who are mighty suspicious that not one executive from Airservices or CASA gives any public support for the low level $100m subsidy proposal. If the proposal is so good why isn't there at least one executive the public "face" of the proposal and out there selling the benefits?
I believe the answer is obvious- anyone really in the know accepts that there is no real safety issue being addressed,that the cost/benefit study is flawed and as it is most likely the subsidy will not go ahead they don't want to be personally identified with the failure.
What is your explanation for the fact that Airservices management show no public support in any way for a subsidy proposal that you want so much to go ahead?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
I am disappointed to note your post.
I do not claim we need to wait 20 years for a decision; I believe we will have to wait 20 years for a subsidy once the radar money is spent. Makes logical sense to me.
Dick, the current proposal is to return to the JCP, commence with phase 1, discuss the problems submitted re phase 2. Both in terms of the subsidy and the communication of the points - note the signatories to the JCP - surely you do not suggest they are
In terms of that last, you sail again close to offending me.
I suspect you may find your other quote becomes a boomerang to haunt you
But, I don't have a crystal ball so I accept that your opinion is your belief.
Why no public support - I don't believe Airservices Australia would be game to speak for the other parties as it was a JOINT CP. One is always wary when Defence is involved - they might slip a "Binghi Bunger" UAV into the Airservices building if offended
I am extremely disappointed to find you still looking for the holes in the cheese rather than the substance. On your reasoning, NASA would never have put a man on the moon.
I am disappointed to note your post.
I do not claim we need to wait 20 years for a decision; I believe we will have to wait 20 years for a subsidy once the radar money is spent. Makes logical sense to me.
there is not one person out their in the public arena communicating your points and debunking mine.
con-men with criminal histories who have hidden agendas
I suspect you may find your other quote becomes a boomerang to haunt you
anyone really in the know accepts that there is no real safety issue being addressed,that the cost/benefit study is flawed and as it is most likely the subsidy will not go ahead they don't want to be personally identified with the failure
Why no public support - I don't believe Airservices Australia would be game to speak for the other parties as it was a JOINT CP. One is always wary when Defence is involved - they might slip a "Binghi Bunger" UAV into the Airservices building if offended
I am extremely disappointed to find you still looking for the holes in the cheese rather than the substance. On your reasoning, NASA would never have put a man on the moon.
Thread Starter
James, the signatories to the JCP are known people- they are not hiding their identity as you do.
Do you deny that dishonest people could post on this site with the sole intention to mislead?
Now we know that you are not one of these because you have told us so! But what if someone lied?
And by the way, I formed and am Patron of The Australian Skeptics - Thats why I critically examine every claim.
Do you deny that dishonest people could post on this site with the sole intention to mislead?
Now we know that you are not one of these because you have told us so! But what if someone lied?
And by the way, I formed and am Patron of The Australian Skeptics - Thats why I critically examine every claim.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
james michael;
Where I live there are no freeways, tunnels, bus lanes, only patched up bitumin roads and my particular road is gravel. I'm lucky, some are dirt and impassable in the wet. (which we have not had the luxury of for some time).
For me to see a Specialist I have to drive a minimum 3 hours each way on roads that claim lives each year, but I pay the same if not more for fuel as you do. There is no public transport that require bus lanes.
I still pay the same tax on the family income as as those who benefit from City comforts and I am getting sick to death of people ramming more "stuff" down my throat that I don't need, will probably never use and has no benefit to me.
Why don't you buy a database and do a mail out. Sorry I forgot, this is not a commercial thing is it. Perhaps the people who will benefit most from your arguements should offer you a job or a promotion or something.
Where I live there are no freeways, tunnels, bus lanes, only patched up bitumin roads and my particular road is gravel. I'm lucky, some are dirt and impassable in the wet. (which we have not had the luxury of for some time).
For me to see a Specialist I have to drive a minimum 3 hours each way on roads that claim lives each year, but I pay the same if not more for fuel as you do. There is no public transport that require bus lanes.
I still pay the same tax on the family income as as those who benefit from City comforts and I am getting sick to death of people ramming more "stuff" down my throat that I don't need, will probably never use and has no benefit to me.
Why don't you buy a database and do a mail out. Sorry I forgot, this is not a commercial thing is it. Perhaps the people who will benefit most from your arguements should offer you a job or a promotion or something.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob Murphie
I admit to some difficulty to date absorbing the thrust of your posts but this latest sets new standards.
Let me make two genuine offers that may assist:
1. If you can point me to the person/s who forced you to establish your domicile where you are, I shall beat them to death with my keyboard, thus preventing me from offending you by posting hereon.
2. Since 1. is unlikely as you undoubtedly elected to live there, my next offer is simple - I will continue the debate on here and take no action against you should you elect your right not to read it.
The debate is about ADS-B, you seem to have taken it personally.
Dick Smith
That explains a lot. I deduced that your life was shattered by being told too soon as a child that Santa Claus did not exist.
I lived with the new found knowledge. Probably because I'd already got the presents. And, by moving through life believing in people and probability, I found many more gifts and bonuses (Binghi, I guarantee you no bribes as a good bureaucrat lives by a code of conduct).
Now I find a new bonus and (bit of farm stuff here for Bing) you, Dick Smith, wish to abort the gift horse before it is allowed to leave the womb.
Dick, I'm starting to realise why CM, KK, and others feel about you as they do. You have again cast innuendo on my honesty, again prodded me for my anon right that I told you would remain unchanged, and you may therefore take our proposed aviation sojourn and place it where I believe your ideas are germinating.
It is not difficult to see why you are denied knowledge by the powers that be. Blessed are you for running around in your self created circles, for that may make you a big wheel But, ferris wheels and carnival roundabouts don't actually go anywhere except round in circles - and that's your problem with ADS-B.
I admit to some difficulty to date absorbing the thrust of your posts but this latest sets new standards.
Let me make two genuine offers that may assist:
1. If you can point me to the person/s who forced you to establish your domicile where you are, I shall beat them to death with my keyboard, thus preventing me from offending you by posting hereon.
2. Since 1. is unlikely as you undoubtedly elected to live there, my next offer is simple - I will continue the debate on here and take no action against you should you elect your right not to read it.
The debate is about ADS-B, you seem to have taken it personally.
Dick Smith
That explains a lot. I deduced that your life was shattered by being told too soon as a child that Santa Claus did not exist.
I lived with the new found knowledge. Probably because I'd already got the presents. And, by moving through life believing in people and probability, I found many more gifts and bonuses (Binghi, I guarantee you no bribes as a good bureaucrat lives by a code of conduct).
Now I find a new bonus and (bit of farm stuff here for Bing) you, Dick Smith, wish to abort the gift horse before it is allowed to leave the womb.
Dick, I'm starting to realise why CM, KK, and others feel about you as they do. You have again cast innuendo on my honesty, again prodded me for my anon right that I told you would remain unchanged, and you may therefore take our proposed aviation sojourn and place it where I believe your ideas are germinating.
It is not difficult to see why you are denied knowledge by the powers that be. Blessed are you for running around in your self created circles, for that may make you a big wheel
But, ferris wheels and carnival roundabouts don't actually go anywhere except round in circles - and that's your problem with ADS-B.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
????? Squared
Bushy
No pay, no sling, no vested pecuniary interest.
I'm interested in the survival of GA and ensuring it is not pushed aside by PTO. Like the proposed little QF airspace grab I heard about at AS (near you from memory?) to allow QF to make more money by economy descents.
GA is under pressure as fuel prices and greenhouse emissions become topical and airlines put forward cases that confuse safety with economy.
There are enough obstacles out there without Dick making up ones in his mind.
I hope yours was a genuine question and not a dig. Do you get paid for posting or are you here with genuine interest?
No pay, no sling, no vested pecuniary interest.
I'm interested in the survival of GA and ensuring it is not pushed aside by PTO. Like the proposed little QF airspace grab I heard about at AS (near you from memory?) to allow QF to make more money by economy descents.
GA is under pressure as fuel prices and greenhouse emissions become topical and airlines put forward cases that confuse safety with economy.
There are enough obstacles out there without Dick making up ones in his mind.
I hope yours was a genuine question and not a dig. Do you get paid for posting or are you here with genuine interest?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
james michael;
My reasons for my domicile are to provide people starved of brain food for the nourishment to continue to garner support for their own agenda.
You seem to be a selfish recipient.
You probably believe you will be rewarded for your efforts.
I believe you to be a silly little man whom I sincerely hope will fail.
Time and probably Qantas will tell.
But as you are prone to do, have the last say.
My reasons for my domicile are to provide people starved of brain food for the nourishment to continue to garner support for their own agenda.
You seem to be a selfish recipient.
You probably believe you will be rewarded for your efforts.
I believe you to be a silly little man whom I sincerely hope will fail.
Time and probably Qantas will tell.
But as you are prone to do, have the last say.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoops, sorry Ferris, didn't realise I had impugned your good name, at least I did not get 'around' to suggesting you should be retyred or deflated
Bob Murphie
I find myself at a complete loss with your last post. I do not have any yearning to be a recipient of your gratuities; use them to fix your road or to travel as needed as you indicate.
Nor am I 'prone' as you suggest; that comes after I open and imbibe the bottle of red. Your post is a complete mystery to me and I again offer you the second option of my earlier response.
There must be something I am missing about the sceptics club on here
Bob Murphie
I find myself at a complete loss with your last post. I do not have any yearning to be a recipient of your gratuities; use them to fix your road or to travel as needed as you indicate.
Nor am I 'prone' as you suggest; that comes after I open and imbibe the bottle of red. Your post is a complete mystery to me and I again offer you the second option of my earlier response.
There must be something I am missing about the sceptics club on here