Hell hath no fury. Or nice work if you can get it.

johnboy 16 May 2011 32

peter ashton

BellaK has sent in this one from outside the Wanniassa Superbarn.

Sour grapes can have a terrible lingering taste.

(Got an image of Canberra you want to share with the world? Email it to images@the-riotact.com )


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
32 Responses to Hell hath no fury. Or nice work if you can get it.
Filter
Order
Lazy I Lazy I 12:27 pm 18 May 11

21 year old.. 9 years his junior? High five!

I heard a rumour that Peter Ashton left his ex because of her question mark phobia.

KB1971 KB1971 11:26 am 18 May 11

chewy14 said :

KB1971 said :

People are funny with age gaps. My wife and I have been together for 14 years, I was 25 & she was 17 when we got together. I had a pretty good group of friends, some of whom were also neighbours that knew us both well (she was the girl next door) who dropped me around the same time.

No one has really said anything but the way it all happened was too coincidental.

The thing is, for all of their judgement, we have made a great life together, have 3 kids & are very happy. People can be odd sometimes.

By any chance, did you used to play AFL for St Kilda?

Nope, why?

alaninoz alaninoz 8:38 pm 17 May 11

Skidbladnir said :

Wait a second, you’re agreed that gays deserve the same rights as people who spawn without a piece of paper, further, that they should be able to adopt? If you’re already saying de factos, civil unions, and marriages are equivalent in all ways except name, then you’d support the sharing of that name. Less is hypocrisy.

Also, subsidies for married & de-facto people is mostly to encourage staying together and further building wealth, but also to incentivise having a _clean paper record of union_…
Dissolution of de-facto and unmarried childed couples penalises individuals through the costs and hasle of seperation of assets, and puts an undeserved portion of it back in the hands of lawyers. 🙁

I didn’t say that they are all equivalent, but nor did I say that they aren’t. My point is about those whose living arrangements shouldn’t be subsidised by the state, and those whose possibly should. The absence or presence of children being the determining factor.

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 6:30 pm 17 May 11

alaninoz said :

Give them the benefits if they%u2019ve got kids, If not, not. The fact that you%u2019re married/de facto/civil partnership/whatever is no reason for the taxpayers to subsidise you. Supporting future citizens might be.

Wait a second, you’re agreed that gays deserve the same rights as people who spawn without a piece of paper, further, that they should be able to adopt? If you’re already saying de factos, civil unions, and marriages are equivalent in all ways except name, then you’d support the sharing of that name. Less is hypocrisy.

Also, subsidies for married & de-facto people is mostly to encourage staying together and further building wealth, but also to incentivise having a _clean paper record of union_…
Dissolution of de-facto and unmarried childed couples penalises individuals through the costs and hasle of seperation of assets, and puts an undeserved portion of it back in the hands of lawyers. 🙁

alaninoz alaninoz 5:24 pm 17 May 11

georgesgenitals said :

alaninoz said :

Break the nexus between benefits and marriage and put it where it belongs.

Haven’t we already done that? De facto and gay partnerships get the same legal rights as marriage anyway, I think.

Maybe so, but misses the point. Give them the benefits if they’ve got kids, If not, not. The fact that you’re married/de facto/civil partnership/whatever is no reason for the taxpayers to subsidise you. Supporting future citizens might be.

georgesgenitals georgesgenitals 10:47 am 17 May 11

alaninoz said :

Break the nexus between benefits and marriage and put it where it belongs.

Haven’t we already done that? De facto and gay partnerships get the same legal rights as marriage anyway, I think.

chewy14 chewy14 10:19 am 17 May 11

KB1971 said :

People are funny with age gaps. My wife and I have been together for 14 years, I was 25 & she was 17 when we got together. I had a pretty good group of friends, some of whom were also neighbours that knew us both well (she was the girl next door) who dropped me around the same time.

No one has really said anything but the way it all happened was too coincidental.

The thing is, for all of their judgement, we have made a great life together, have 3 kids & are very happy. People can be odd sometimes.

By any chance, did you used to play AFL for St Kilda?

KB1971 KB1971 9:24 am 17 May 11

People are funny with age gaps. My wife and I have been together for 14 years, I was 25 & she was 17 when we got together. I had a pretty good group of friends, some of whom were also neighbours that knew us both well (she was the girl next door) who dropped me around the same time.

No one has really said anything but the way it all happened was too coincidental.

The thing is, for all of their judgement, we have made a great life together, have 3 kids & are very happy. People can be odd sometimes.

cleo cleo 1:46 am 17 May 11

I see nothing wrong with the age difference, it would be different if she was a teenager, and he was 30.
I always preferred older men then myself, when I was younger, (not too old), but these days I seem to attract younger men, it’s great.

johnboy johnboy 10:25 pm 16 May 11

Mr Gillespie said :

A bit of an age difference there. Typical cradle-snatching 30-year-old guy.

Yep, we’re buggers like that, better lift your game and compete mr g.

Mr Gillespie Mr Gillespie 10:19 pm 16 May 11

A bit of an age difference there. Typical cradle-snatching 30-year-old guy.

Jono Jono 10:16 pm 16 May 11

Captain RAAF said :

1. It’s wrong,
2. See point 1.

Well, it’s hard not to be overwhelmed by the logic and well thought out ideas behind that comment. Still, it’s the most convincing argument against gay marriage that I’ve seen.

alaninoz alaninoz 7:03 pm 16 May 11

R. Slicker said :

Oh yes, and could someone again take us through all those reasons why gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed?

Don’t care if gays get married or not. What I object to is the state benefits, for anyone, that go along with marriage. The only legitimate interest the state should have in the living arrangements of its citizens is the welfare of its future citizens – that is, children. Anything else is prurience. Break the nexus between benefits and marriage and put it where it belongs.

Deref Deref 6:48 pm 16 May 11

Captain RAAF said :

R. Slicker said :

Oh yes, and could someone again take us through all those reasons why gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed?

1. It’s wrong,
2. See point 1.

I think we should ban heterosexual marriage.

Captain RAAF Captain RAAF 5:27 pm 16 May 11

R. Slicker said :

Oh yes, and could someone again take us through all those reasons why gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed?

1. It’s wrong,
2. See point 1.

R. Slicker R. Slicker 4:57 pm 16 May 11

Oh yes, and could someone again take us through all those reasons why gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed?

Thumper Thumper 3:46 pm 16 May 11

I think Pete might wanna change the locks just to be safe

But just to be really safe he should fake his own death and move to Nova Scotia.

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 3:43 pm 16 May 11

Doens’t Peter know the rule for acceptable younger partners is half your age plus seven?
Assuming they are both exactly 30/21 years old, they needed to wait another two years before their nine-year gap was acceptable.
This chart should help.

(Also, male marriage-delay vs female early-engagement creates a complementary Nash equilibrium. There’s an entire field of study into this effect. Basically, you can break society’s rules and suffer consequences, or play in accord with them, and you get the benefits without even trying.)

The Frots The Frots 3:13 pm 16 May 11

EvanJames said :

Disapproval of partners having big age gaps is a very old thing indeed. In European mediaeval times, when an old man took a very young wife, the locals would express their disapproval in a Charivari, a rowdy parade burlesquing things they didn’t like or wished to pour scorn on. They’d act out the thing they were featuring, with people dressed up in exaggerated costumes acting (in exaggerated fashion) the activity.

It was for things like spouses whose ages were too far apart, spouses indulging in excessive violence on the other spouse (and in those days it was often the woman beating up the man too much), excessive nagging, a tradesperson or merchant overcharging, excessive brutality to apprentices, cheating on spouses, impiety (working on the Sabbath etc) and the list goes on.

I guess the aggrieved party who posted that notice would love to organise a charivari!

Sounds like one of the Public Service Agencies that I am far too familiar with……………………

astrojax astrojax 2:22 pm 16 May 11

pity the young lass, too – baggage like that, can’t see it lasting. get out now, wee lassy…

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site