[Ian Iveson]

Australian aviation is most conspicuous by its relative
abscence.
Despite being a seemingly ideal place for aircraft owners
and pilots
the percentage of Australians who fly is substantially
lower than in
the US, and their aircraft industry is nearly nonexistent.

Obviously you haven't bothered to glance at a map of
Australia, dunce.

There's hardly anywhere worth flying to. There's barely
enough demand to keep a civil airline aloft.

According to a TV ad I saw, Australians have corks dangling
from their hats, live in wooden shacks on parched scrubland,
and have old beaten-up Cessnas which they fly from their
dusty airstrips to go to the shop for beer.

So there may be lots of airstrips, but without the kind of
facilities or attractions you're used to...just parched
wilderness and a drunken redneck with a shotgun.

Ian

[Patrick Turner]

Read the lunacy of Ian Iveson below......


Ian Iveson wrote:

Australian aviation is most conspicuous by its relative
abscence.
Despite being a seemingly ideal place for aircraft owners
and pilots
the percentage of Australians who fly is substantially
lower than in
the US, and their aircraft industry is nearly nonexistent.

Obviously you haven't bothered to glance at a map of
Australia, dunce.

There's hardly anywhere worth flying to. There's barely
enough demand to keep a civil airline aloft.

According to a TV ad I saw, Australians have corks dangling
from their hats, live in wooden shacks on parched scrubland,
and have old beaten-up Cessnas which they fly from their
dusty airstrips to go to the shop for beer.

So there may be lots of airstrips, but without the kind of
facilities or attractions you're used to...just parched
wilderness and a drunken redneck with a shotgun.

Ian

[Ian Iveson]

Patrick Turner wrote:

Read the lunacy of Ian Iveson below......

Ian Iveson wrote:

Australian aviation is most conspicuous by its relative
abscence.
Despite being a seemingly ideal place for aircraft
owners
and pilots
the percentage of Australians who fly is substantially
lower than in
the US, and their aircraft industry is nearly
nonexistent.

Obviously you haven't bothered to glance at a map of
Australia, dunce.

There's hardly anywhere worth flying to. There's barely
enough demand to keep a civil airline aloft.

According to a TV ad I saw, Australians have corks
dangling
from their hats, live in wooden shacks on parched
scrubland,
and have old beaten-up Cessnas which they fly from their
dusty airstrips to go to the shop for beer.

So there may be lots of airstrips, but without the kind
of
facilities or attractions you're used to...just parched
wilderness and a drunken redneck with a shotgun.

One of us isn't very good at irony. Maybe both. Maybe
Australians should take more care about how they portray
themselves in their lager ads.

You say that aeroplane ownership is too expensive for
Australians, but that doesn't answer the question, does it?
For it to cost too much, its value must be less than its
price. You cannot therefore avoid the question of value.
Further, the fact that most people are too poor to own a
plane is just as true in the US as it is in Oz.

So, why is the value of aircraft ownership comparitively low
in Australia?

I looked at a map and the answer became obvious. You may
think that's lunacy, but to me it seems like common sense.
Perhaps you might get your atlas out and compare the two
countries.

Ian

[Patrick Turner]

Below, Ian Iveson babbles incoherently to himself.......

Ian Iveson wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

Read the lunacy of Ian Iveson below......

Ian Iveson wrote:

Australian aviation is most conspicuous by its relative
abscence.
Despite being a seemingly ideal place for aircraft
owners
and pilots
the percentage of Australians who fly is substantially
lower than in
the US, and their aircraft industry is nearly
nonexistent.

Obviously you haven't bothered to glance at a map of
Australia, dunce.

There's hardly anywhere worth flying to. There's barely
enough demand to keep a civil airline aloft.

According to a TV ad I saw, Australians have corks
dangling
from their hats, live in wooden shacks on parched
scrubland,
and have old beaten-up Cessnas which they fly from their
dusty airstrips to go to the shop for beer.

So there may be lots of airstrips, but without the kind
of
facilities or attractions you're used to...just parched
wilderness and a drunken redneck with a shotgun.

One of us isn't very good at irony. Maybe both. Maybe
Australians should take more care about how they portray
themselves in their lager ads.

You say that aeroplane ownership is too expensive for
Australians, but that doesn't answer the question, does it?
For it to cost too much, its value must be less than its
price. You cannot therefore avoid the question of value.
Further, the fact that most people are too poor to own a
plane is just as true in the US as it is in Oz.

So, why is the value of aircraft ownership comparitively low
in Australia?

I looked at a map and the answer became obvious. You may
think that's lunacy, but to me it seems like common sense.
Perhaps you might get your atlas out and compare the two
countries.

Ian

[Patrick Turner]

wrote:


You say that aeroplane ownership is too expensive for
Australians, but that doesn't answer the question, does it?
For it to cost too much, its value must be less than its
price. You cannot therefore avoid the question of value.
Further, the fact that most people are too poor to own a
plane is just as true in the US as it is in Oz.

So, why is the value of aircraft ownership comparitively low
in Australia?

I looked at a map and the answer became obvious. You may
think that's lunacy, but to me it seems like common sense.
Perhaps you might get your atlas out and compare the two
countries.

There may be something to that. Australia ia a huge continent but a
small nation, really an archipelago of populated islands in a ring
about a vast 'sea': of dry-all too dry-land. But also, the hardass
Scots-Irish and puritan impulses we had in this country-conquer the
land, use it, be independent and proud and manly not in the sense of
boozing and brawling and ****ing but in the Roman farmer-statesman-
soldier sense, never were much in play in Australia. Quite the
opposite: "the tall poppy gets cut down" has long been the basic
ethic. Successful businessmen are not admired.

I'm a nationalist and so I believe to each his own, but it is a basic
attitude I find unattractive to say the least.

The German nationalists were called Nazis. I can understand your self
loathing.

But otherwise you have things about right about Oz. Its about the same
population as Carlifornia but spread out over the size of the US.

Oz will never ever be another USA.

And I doubt we'll ever need to have a civil war over things we disagree
about.

Patrick Turner.