When someone votes the thread is not reserected, as in pushed to the top of the page. It is only reserected if a post is made to the thread.Originally Posted by straddie
Heya Jockey,
I hadn't voted when this stalled on the 9th but did so to see what the vote was, when the numbers where 64 votes - 21 for - 43 against. When the thread was resurected 2 days later there were 84 votes - 23 for - 61 against.
Interesting the late numbers I thought
Ausfish - hopefully we would have a say in it because it (like the NSW one) would be administered by rec fishers who were voted for by rec fishers. I take your point about the different question though. I am still a bit surprised at the different results.
Dasher governments should never be trusted. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Heya Steve,
I'll clarify what I was saying, the last post on the 9th was made by Fitzy around the time I voted, the next post almost 2 days later was made by Jockey between which time another 20votes had been registered at a ratio of 2 for and 18 against without any comment being made.
I'm not suggesting any impropriety. In my mind it gives the impression that a voting block appears to have been displayed eg an email is sent to a number of members of a group stating a certain thread is in progress and if they have an opinion they should vote accordingly. Nothing wrong with that.
AHHHAAAH!!!
JFK & the second (third, fourth, fifth, etc) sniper. ??? ??? We need to get ASIO 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) onto this straight away afore it gets right out of hand. To the Batmobile!!!
ROLL TIDE, ROLL.................
Regards,
Peter
Geez Jockey,Quoting from the great Irish emancipator Phillpot Curran,deffinately lifted the class of this debate!!
Gee Wiz Jock ,wouldn't it be great to now have a $10M RFL DEBT ,and as John Olsen said(in Jaybees' post) "hundreds of MILLIONS" RFL DEBT.
Q to Gazza: Do I trust the guv't ???
A. to not spend 'their'monies , YEP I DO!!
Gazza
Hey Gazza ??? $10M RFL debt, shouldn't that be $20M RFL debtthat the NSW treasury "kindly" loaned the ACoRF, along with all the loan repayment issues.
At the time of this "advance" there was apparently some concern by the committe members about the ability to repay especially if the RFL fee is withdrawn at some point.
Really it's an absurd situation that a committe of recreational fishing persons have to lumber the implications of a $20M debt. Trust the gov ??? are you serious
Cheers, Kerry.
Oops forgot about 'that' $20M debt ,in NSW ,TOOOOOOOOOO the RFL #'t-r-u-s-t
That 'DEBT' that at say 5% equals $1,000,000.00 per year interest (reducing)to borrow their own monies!!! ,to VOLUNTARY O-N-L-Y payees of the pension ...oops RFL fund #
Now that's a 'system' that 'I' would really want to blot out ,wouldn't you!! ?? #
Regards
Gazza
What's this about $100s of millions RFL debt?
Gazza would you support an RFL if you thought the money would be spent appropriately and we would get our money's worth?
Did anyone vote differently in the two polls? Did anyone vote in this poll but no the first because they aren't from QLD? Did anyone get a PM or email or other communication asking them to vote? Did anyone join this forum so they could vote?
Just what is it you don't get?Did anyone vote differently in the two polls? Did anyone vote in this poll but no the first because they aren't from QLD? Did anyone get a PM or email or other communication asking them to vote? Did anyone join this forum so they could vote?
No it's not 100's of millions (well not yet anyway) but is certainly $10 of millions of NSW RFL debt, so go do some research as obviously you are knowing less and less about more and more every day.What's this about $100s of millions RFL debt?
As for getting value, go beat a dead horse, the end result will be probably much the same.
Cheers, Kerry.
Kerry I'm just trying to figure out why the results changed between the two polls. I'm not saying that anyone has done anything improper, but it would be good to know what happened.
Doesn't the fact that I questioned the comment about $100s of millions indicate that I have done a bit of research?
The fact that you are turning to personal abuse must mean that I am getting at something you want to keep hidden. Or is it something else?
The fact that you are turning to personal abuse must mean that I am getting at something you want to keep hidden. Or is it something else?
And the fact that you've tried this load of hidden agenda BS before and come off second best before leaves you rather exposed so why try and pull this type of crap on again, move onto something that YOU can provide some substance.
As for the voting results, well that's what people are allowed to do, have opinions. So get over it.
Cheers, Kerry.
Kerry it draws the whole voting thing into question when you have pretty much the same issue being voted on within a few months but get completely different results and not one person says they voted differently.
"And the fact that you've tried this load of hidden agenda BS before and come off second best before leaves you rather exposed so why try and pull this type of crap on again, move onto something that YOU can provide some substance.
"
I have no idea what you are talking about there. Just another slanging attempt? This is getting pretty poor Kerry. Do you know how to have a civil discussion?
Jockey
Looks like you didn't read my post from a few days ago. Here is a copy of it again for you.
---------------------Copy follows -----------------------------------
Jockey
I think you have missed the point on these issues.
Your poll on Jan 19th asks a different question so I can not see how you can say people have changed their mind. Two different questions, two different responses.
Your initial question was "Would you support an RFL for QLD to buy out pros etc"
So when people answered the poll they agreed only to the poll question. It would appear that most rec fishos want pros bought out as your question specificly asked if they wanted a RFL to do so.
This current poll just asks the question of do you want an RFL. Obviously the answer would be NO. But we already have one, well at least those that own a boat do, as they are already paying a PPV Levy which SHOULD be going back into our recreation.
I am not sure why the "for boaties only" option is there, as said above they are already paying for one.
If we can not find out where the PPV is being spent or even have a say in it, how do you expect us to be able to have any confidence in the allocation and spending of an RFL.
-------------------Copy Ends------------------------------
Why would you vote for a boaties only RFL, were you not aware that we already pay a PPV Levy on top of boat rego ?
I do remember your post. I understand that the two questions were different, but I don't think they are different enough for people to vote differently. Perhaps there are a heap of southerners voting in this one but not the first. Perhaps you got 40 new members over this issue, which would be great for your site. Or perhaps some people are voting twice, which would be bad. I'm surprised your not more interested in this. It has certainly caught my attention. I hope you don't mind me trying to get a feel for what caused the dramatic change in results.
On a different (I hope) topic, I'd like to draw your attention to the personal nature of Kerry's recent posts here and in 'barra boys take jonny to court.' I usually find this forum a pleasure to use and I know you like to keep that sort of thing under wraps
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
