besides nowwhere in my reference material does utter mean anything other than to "voice" a belief.


http://www.grokitbetter.com/ss/verb-974097.html

You must be wearing your rose (green?) coloured glasses again Mantra (Do you ever take them off to get a real look at the world?)

Please point out where DT has been 'provocative'

So far Dooley has referred to DT as an ape, a drunk and attacked his intelligence when DT refuted his unsubstantiated claims.

So who is provocative?

You obviously have no comprehension of what 'polite' means

mantra wrote on Mar 18^th, 2008 at 7:13pm:



Perhaps as you use the word 'idiot' to describe me you are not aware that saying 'get a wooley one up ya' is somewhat less than polite. 

But you already admitted you have different standards to me.  So perhaps you also speak politely to people in that way.

mantra wrote on Mar 18^th, 2008 at 7:49pm:



Its very rude mantra..[ quite a graphic sexual description]..woolley bull?

PS

I forgot to say silly old  fart!  That's rude too. 

Perhaps read the post again Dooley- I never referred to you personally as LW.

But thanks for the display of LW tendencies in the above diatribe- dribble coupled to an insult- it was an exceptional impersonation of the insidious LW persona that we have all come to know.

Well done..

Or to make them feel better you call them COBBER!

from crikey:

Opes fiasco must end the ASX regulatory monopoly

Stephen Mayne writes:

With John Howard’s great mate Maurice Newman as chairman, the ASX was always confident it could get whatever it wanted out of Canberra. Maurice even landed the plum chairmanship of the ABC.

Alas, the change of government ushered in a big debate about the obvious conflict of interest that comes from having a for-profit monopoly doubling up as a regulator – something which should never have been tolerated in the first place back in 1998.

The ASX will “die in a ditch” to retain those regulatory powers but the Opes Prime fiasco will almost certainly put paid to its ambitions. It is now simply a question of how far Labor goes.

ANZ is also facing its greatest brand crisis since the infamous $600 million loss that was declared in 1992. Never before has a banking workout triggered such far-reaching ramifications for equity investors. And never before has Australia seen such a fire sale with $2 billion worth of assets owned by 1,200 Australians disappearing in a matter of days.

Goldman Sachs-JB Were has been handling the fire-sale in a very private manner. There were no public advertisements of all that was available like a normal liquidator’s auction.

Such was the secrecy and haste, ANZ failed to even lodge substantial shareholder notices when it suddenly controlled more than 5% of dozens of small companies. In yet another folly, this was because the regulators apparently gave them a waiver.

The demise of Opes is simultaneously changing board, CEO, shareholder and takeover dynamics in dozens of companies whilst also imposing a shock credit squeeze on shareholders in hundreds of companies because no other broker or banker will lend against such risky companies.

I’m with Commsec but they won’t lend against more than half of the 650 companies in the portfolio. Why on earth not? Think about it for a moment. Do banks ban lending against the worst or smallest houses in the street?

Commsec, and Opes for that matter, would not lose a single dollar if it operated under this very simple rule: we’ll lend up to 50% against every single listed company but no single stock can be more than 20% of the portfolio.

The Opes problem was not lending against rubbish stocks, it was refusing to margin call troubled clients such as Chris Murphy, who Michael West has revealed today had loans of $168 million supporting investments of just $180 million last July – before the credit crunch hit.

---

Tanner finds $600m hole

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23558210-5013871,00.html

A $600 MILLION hole has been blown in the upcoming budget by the failure of the Howard government to allow for its Northern Territory intervention to continue beyond June 30.

It is one of several major government programs that never received a proper budget allocation and which are making the challenge of the Rudd Government's razor gang more difficult.

Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner said no allowance was made for the Northern Territory intervention in the forward estimates of budget spending.

"It is a good example of something that was pulled together in a giant hurry," he said. "It is one of several examples of programs that were obviously going beyond one year, but which were not budgeted for beyond the first year."

The Howard government provided just under $600million to cover the cost of the intervention in 2007-08, but nothing for 2008-09.

---

Coalition rejects intervention 'hole'

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23571465-5006790,00.html

THE coalition has rejected claims by Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner that it failed to provide for funding for the intervention in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory to continue beyond this year.

Opposition finance spokesman Peter Dutton said the cost of the intervention was not in the forward estimates, but it was included in the budget's reserve for contingencies.

Figures provided by Mr Tanner's office show that while the cost of the intervention was budgeted at $556 million in 2007-08, only $310 million was provided in 2008-09 as a contingency and only $200million in 2009-10.

"There are significant elements of the intervention that weren't funded in the period beyond the current financial year." Mr Tanner said. "It is correct that specific appropriation had not been made for the bulk of the intervention."

Mr Tanner said Centrelink's call centres were another example of the Coalition's failure to adequately finance programs. The call centres were established with the mission to maintain service levels, reduce customer complaints and meet unmet demand. However, they were given only ad hoc funding one year at a time.

---

Nelson challenged on Howard's Obama jibe

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?board=politicians;action=modify;message=884;thread=1169517549

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has challenged Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson to distance himself from comments by John Howard about Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

The former prime minister said last year that al-Qaeda would pray for a victory by Senator Obama, who has now been endorsed as the Democrat nominee by rival Hillary Clinton.