🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3191ec16.0@cheese.pcug.org.au>,
bpalmer@pcug.org.au (Bryan Palmer) wrote:

> On Wed, 08 May 1996 21:09:41 +1000, petemack@ozemail.com.au (Peter
> Mackay) wrote:
> 
> >> >What rubbish!  Neither individual admitted, neither on the great debate 2
> >> >when they were asked this specific question, nor in any other public forum,
> >> >that they were planning to retire if defeated.  There was intense media
> >> >speculation on the issue, but without public confiurmation from the
> >> >principals at the time, that was all it was.  Go shove your "full
> >> >knowledge" back up where you got it out of from.
> >> 
> >> While they may not have said it plainly, Most understood that they
> >> intended to retire if unsuccessful.  Politics is a subtle business.
> 
> >I'm sorry?  Paul Keating subtle?  He says one thing but means another, in
> >other words.
> 
> You probably wont understand this, but communication is more than the
> text of what is said.  Your idealism is quaint.

Glad he's not running the country then.  He'd promise us L.A.W. tax cuts,
but if you read between the lines, you'd see he really didn't mean it.

At least Lord Kim seems honest.  With him, what he says is what you get.

However, I heard Ray ask the question, and I didn't hear Keato answer that
he'd resign if he lost, nor did I see him crossing his fingers, smiling
knowingly, rubbing his nose or any of the other bits of body language you
might associate with a white lie.  In fact he looked completely serious. 
How far between the lines should I have been looking?

 ~ m
 u U     Cheers!
  \|
   |>    -Peter Mackay 
  / \    petemack@ozemail.com.au
 _\ /_