[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Bryn Dolan
Time: 1:40:15 PM
Remote Name: 18.104.22.168
I agree that we can't write institutions off totally because they make mistakes or have elements within them that we may have differences with, but nobody here can really be accused of 'bad debating' when the problem is that the bodies being criticised fail to respond to that criticism. That someone doesn't include their name in a post used to bother me too, but I guess I came to accept that what's being said is more important than who's saying it - after all, that's half the problem - that all too often statements, policies, or opinions are accorded legitimacy based solely on the 'name' making them, rather than on whether they're morally or factually right . Personally, I feel that if I air an opinion on the forum which happens to be a criticism of, or query as to the policies of (insert name here), and that institution (or individual) doesn't respond, then it's not my fault that no public debate takes place on the matter. I tried, after all. It also doesn't automatically mean that my opinion is right of course, but at least I've raised a concern. I think it'd be great to hear back from someone in a position of responsibility within the institutions concerned, and to get their side of the story. It just hasn't happened. Yet. As an example, I have a particular 'issue', which is the recent-times insistence by some bodies that the word 'Anzac' should always - in every case without exception - be spelled completely in capitals. This is grammatically and historically incorrect, yet the Anzac Day Commemoration Committee of Queensland, the AWM's 'Wartime' magazine editor, and some sections of the RSL are pushing for this. It would be interesting to hear - on a public forum - why they believe they know better than all those who preceded them.
Leaders of Anzacs: Officers of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps died at Gallipoli Website: http://www.anzacs.org