Everyone is having cracks at Rudd for using notes.
"He cheated!" "He couldn't do it without notes!" "Abbott wins because Rudd used notes!"

I would understand it if it was a competition for the President of the Debating Team, but it isn't. It's two potential leaders of the country debating who is better for the job by comparing policies and discussing facts.

I'm not excusing Kevin for 'cheating'. If they agreed not to use notes, they shouldn't have used notes... What I'm saying is why the hell would you agree to not use notes?

Without notes it becomes a competition for the person that has either the better memory or who is best at manipulating discussion without adding any real content. ie vague waffling without substance.

Ideally, you'd have all the important information written down in front of you; who said what, when and where they said it, what the statistics involved are, numbers of this and that, the proportion of x, y and z etc.

That way rather than 'who can waffle the best?' it becomes 'who genuinely has better policies based on statistics, evidence and facts'.

Or is everyone not quite sick to death of empty sales pitches and useless governments just yet?

It's probably about ratings, Wigley. Notes make people turn the channel.

Besides, a candidate for PM should have his arguments down pat by now. If Gillard was on the stand, she certainly would - as would Turnbull.

Rudd's a details man. Abbott's a big picture man. Rudd needs notes much more than Abbott,

I'd like to see the situation reversed. If Abbott had notes and Rudd talked off the cuff - that's the debate I'd like to see.

maybe because

HE SIGNED NOT TO USE NOTES THATS WHY

Why agree to a rule and then break it ?

It is a debate BTW Debates are exactly about credibility, Rudd bitched for the debate then decided not to play by the rules they agreed to ..... you could try to explain that instead of trying to justify Rudd's lack of credibility in what he was debating.

It makes no sense to me as by no measure did Rudd win the debate or even land a blow even with his cheat sheets.

In sport its common practice to cheat or bend the rules but they do it covertly and with an objective and often a desired outcome.

Karnal wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 11:56am:

It's probably about ratings, Wigley. Notes make people turn the channel. Besides, a candidate for PM should have his arguments down pat by now. If Gillard was on the stand, she certainly would - as would Turnbull. Rudd's a details man. Abbott's a big picture man. Rudd needs notes much more than Abbott, I'd like to see the situation reversed. If Abbott had notes and Rudd talked off the cuff - that's the debate I'd like to see.

Whenever I go to any presentations I tend to get turned off people continuously referring to their notes, I even get the odd presenter reading out a script which suggests me they really don't agree or understand what they are saying.

If you truly believe something or are intimate with a subject matter you can speak without notes.

Rudd just bunches a bunch of lies together and is heavily scripted, telling the truth has a nice natural flow, when you start lying you need to keep thinking up new lies to fill in the gaps that lies create....... it like running on a treadmill with no controls.

Wigley0 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 11:47am:

I'm not excusing Kevin for 'cheating'. If they agreed not to use notes, they shouldn't have used notes... What I'm saying is why the hell would you agree to not use notes?

Just to reiterate.
I'm not justifying what Rudd did.
I'm questioning why he would agree to not use notes to begin with...

(Although, as I type this I'm listening to Rudd's press conference and he just said he was not advised that he wasn't allowed notes... So I'm not sure what to make of that)

Wigley0 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

Wigley0 wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 11:47am: I'm not excusing Kevin for 'cheating'. If they agreed not to use notes, they shouldn't have used notes... What I'm saying is why the hell would you agree to not use notes? Just to reiterate. I'm not justifying what Rudd did. I'm questioning why he would agree to not use notes to begin with... (Although, as I type this I'm listening to Rudd's press conference and he just said he was not advised that he wasn't allowed notes... So I'm not sure what to make of that)

You clearly know nothing about public speaking to make such statements.

Professional speakers might have bullet points at best written on cards, really good ones have absolutely nothing.

Rudd is more like a news reader he needs heavily scripted lies in these situations but even that failed.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 12:13pm:

Wigley0 wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:09pm: Wigley0 wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 11:47am: I'm not excusing Kevin for 'cheating'. If they agreed not to use notes, they shouldn't have used notes... What I'm saying is why the hell would you agree to not use notes? Just to reiterate. I'm not justifying what Rudd did. I'm questioning why he would agree to not use notes to begin with... (Although, as I type this I'm listening to Rudd's press conference and he just said he was not advised that he wasn't allowed notes... So I'm not sure what to make of that) You clearly know nothing about public speaking to make such statements. Professional speakers might have bullet points at best written on cards, really good ones have absolutely nothing. Rudd is more like a news reader he needs heavily scripted lies in these situations but even that failed.

We're not electing a professional public speaker. We're electing someone to lead a party to make policy decisions that should be based on evidence. I'd like to see a debate where each person justifies why their policies are better for Australia by using evidence, not by speaking better.

Wigley0 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 11:47am:

Everyone is having cracks at Rudd for using notes. "He cheated!"

They certainly are!
Why?

Because cheat is exactly what he did.

He knew what the rules were, then deliberately broke them to possibly gain an advantage and then win.

In golf, the sport of integrity and self-regulation, he would've had to disquality himself or live forever in shame.

Wigley0 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 12:17pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:13pm: Wigley0 wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:09pm: Wigley0 wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 11:47am: I'm not excusing Kevin for 'cheating'. If they agreed not to use notes, they shouldn't have used notes... What I'm saying is why the hell would you agree to not use notes? Just to reiterate. I'm not justifying what Rudd did. I'm questioning why he would agree to not use notes to begin with... (Although, as I type this I'm listening to Rudd's press conference and he just said he was not advised that he wasn't allowed notes... So I'm not sure what to make of that) You clearly know nothing about public speaking to make such statements. Professional speakers might have bullet points at best written on cards, really good ones have absolutely nothing. Rudd is more like a news reader he needs heavily scripted lies in these situations but even that failed. We're not electing a professional public speaker. We're electing someone to lead a party to make policy decisions that should be based on evidence. I'd like to see a debate where each person justifies why their policies are better for Australia by using evidence, not by speaking better.

So not only do you not know anything about public speaking you don't know what a debate is.

I will give you some help, a debate is not like a parliamentary session where they examine the fine details of a legislation, how the wording might need to be corrected or how the fine details are to be implemented or how a policy/legislation may have failed and why ...... what you seem to want is a televised parliamentary session which you can already watch.

Krudd is a CHEAT.

http://images.smh.com.au/2013/08/11/4653329/art-758324294-620x349.jpg

Neferti

I would allow them cue cards you know about 10cm by 15cm with bullet points....... Rudd is holding a lot of paper for an event that was about an hr or so long.

I have run 3 day work shops off bullet points on a single sheet of A4 paper.

Its all about knowing your subject matter, Costello was the best MP at this I can recall on this, it appears Rudd's mind is very dull or disorganised (or both) for him to need that many notes for a short session.

First, Wigley, welcome to the forum.

Second congrats for a very impressive first message.

As a union leader and, later, an advocate, I have done a lot of public speaking. I spoke largely off the cuff, but always had with me some cards detailing the main points in case I forgot anything.

It is the sensible way. Why there was an agreement not to use notes I have no idea.

Wigley0 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

Wigley0 wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 11:47am: I'm not excusing Kevin for 'cheating'. If they agreed not to use notes, they shouldn't have used notes... What I'm saying is why the hell would you agree to not use notes? Just to reiterate. I'm not justifying what Rudd did. I'm questioning why he would agree to not use notes to begin with... (Although, as I type this I'm listening to Rudd's press conference and he just said he was not advised that he wasn't allowed notes... So I'm not sure what to make of that)

its called 'blame shifting'  - a common Rudd action.  It's NEVER his fault.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 12:13pm:

Wigley0 wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:09pm: Wigley0 wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 11:47am: I'm not excusing Kevin for 'cheating'. If they agreed not to use notes, they shouldn't have used notes... What I'm saying is why the hell would you agree to not use notes? Just to reiterate. I'm not justifying what Rudd did. I'm questioning why he would agree to not use notes to begin with... (Although, as I type this I'm listening to Rudd's press conference and he just said he was not advised that he wasn't allowed notes... So I'm not sure what to make of that) You clearly know nothing about public speaking to make such statements. Professional speakers might have bullet points at best written on cards, really good ones have absolutely nothing. Rudd is more like a news reader he needs heavily scripted lies in these situations but even that failed.

I attend a LOT of professional speaking engagements pus hire a lot myself.  Almost all of them have notes. Most are in shorthand or bullet form and others will use powerpoints to prompt them.  Very few speak without any notes and frankly, few can.  It is easy to miss a salient point, easy to forget the detail of a topic etc. 

But this was a debate with questions for them to answer and like most debates, notes were nor permitted.  Rudd broke the rules.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 12:31pm:

Neferti I would allow them cue cards you know about 10cm by 15cm with pullet points....... Rudd is holding a lot of paper for an event that was about an hr or so long. I have run 3 day work shops off bullet points on a single sheet of A4 paper. Its all about knowing your subject matter, Costello was the best MP at this I can recall on this, it appears Rudd's mind is very dull or disorganised (or both) for him to need that many notes for a short session.

Fred,
Yes, but the Rules stated no NOTES and Tony Abbott adhered to the Rules.  Krudd did not and should have been pulled up by the Moderator.  He had notes and so cheated and gave himself an unfair advantage.

Not that Tony needed notes, he did an excellent job without even dot-points.

Krudd is losing it, I think. He will throw a wobbly any day now.  ;D

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/s720x720/1097982_465503976879993_901965808_n.jpg

What is Abbott using here?

That's it - his a cheat as well!

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/s720x720/1097982_465503976879993_901965808_n.jpg What is Abbott using here? That's it - his a cheat as well!

g'day icey... what happened to Dailywire?  I see it is gone?

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/s720x720/1097982_465503976879993_901965808_n.jpg What is Abbott using here? That's it - his a cheat as well!

its like an exam.  you are allowed to MAKE notes during it, but not allowed to bring them in with you.

longweekend58

Yes many speakers use notes ....... but the goods ones don't. You missed what I said, just because you speak publicly does not mean you are good at it ...... look at Gillard, she barks at people in a condescending manner.

The better speakers need very little, Rudd is claimed to be such a good speaker and Abbott they claim is not........ yet this debate showed Rudd has very little credibility.

FYI out of all the public events I have attended of many different styles ....... many of them are boring and very unprofessional, at a guess I think most people are uncomfortable at public speaking. This does not bother me much as these people often are not professional speakers but are highly credible people asked to have a say. A politician is a professional mouth piece and should have highly developed public speaking skills.

cods wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 11:58am:

maybe because HE SIGNED NOT TO USE NOTES THATS WHY

NO
He DIDN'T


This "dispute" is just about point scoring and "playing politics" - from right-wing advocates


Speech pointer notes are NEITHER "a document" or an "other prop" when delivering an address

( ... obviously Tony is confused by definition, as WELL)

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 11:56am: It's probably about ratings, Wigley. Notes make people turn the channel. Besides, a candidate for PM should have his arguments down pat by now. If Gillard was on the stand, she certainly would - as would Turnbull. Rudd's a details man. Abbott's a big picture man. Rudd needs notes much more than Abbott, I'd like to see the situation reversed. If Abbott had notes and Rudd talked off the cuff - that's the debate I'd like to see. Whenever I go to any presentations I tend to get turned off people continuously referring to their notes, I even get the odd presenter reading out a script which suggests me they really don't agree or understand what they are saying. If you truly believe something or are intimate with a subject matter you can speak without notes. Rudd just bunches a bunch of lies together and is heavily scripted, telling the truth has a nice natural flow, when you start lying you need to keep thinking up new lies to fill in the gaps that lies create....... it like running on a treadmill with no controls.

I remember a few years ago, doing my HSC, we did a speech for English. It was supposed to be 7 minutes. One kid got up there with an essay written completely by his older brother. He stood there talking for 19 minutes without looking up from his transcript even once. Whenever you give a presentation of any kind, you mustn't refer to palm cards, except sporadically. It shows that you don't have confidence in what you are saying, and that you aren't even fully aware of the topic/s.

In Rudd's case, however, it was even worse, because the rules stated that notes were not allowed in the room. So why didn't David Speers or anyone else stop him. If you ask me, Speers has questions to answer.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

longweekend58 Yes many speakers use notes ....... but the goods ones don't. You missed what I said, just because you speak publicly does not mean you are good at it ...... look at Gillard, she barks at people in a condescending manner. The better speakers need very little, Rudd is claimed to be such a good speaker and Abbott they claim is not........ yet this debate showed Rudd has very little credibility. FYI out of all the public events I have attended of many different styles ....... many of them are boring and very unprofessional, at a guess I think most people are uncomfortable at public speaking. This does not bother me much as these people often are not professional speakers but are highly credible people asked to have a say. A politician is a professional mouth piece and should have highly developed public speaking skills.

Fred,

Exactly.  I believe that John Howard did not use notes  Normally I avoid political speeches but watched this time as I really, truly want Tony Abbott to win and Krudd to be dispatched to the dustbin of Life!

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:47pm: https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/s720x720/1097982_465503976879993_901965808_n.jpg What is Abbott using here? That's it - his a cheat as well! its like an exam.  you are allowed to MAKE notes during it, but not allowed to bring them in with you.

RUBBISH !

( ... where did you pull THAT from)

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

longweekend58 Yes many speakers use notes ....... but the goods ones don't. You missed what I said, just because you speak publicly does not mean you are good at it ...... look at Gillard, she barks at people in a condescending manner. The better speakers need very little, Rudd is claimed to be such a good speaker and Abbott they claim is not........ yet this debate showed Rudd has very little credibility. FYI out of all the public events I have attended of many different styles ....... many of them are boring and very unprofessional, at a guess I think most people are uncomfortable at public speaking. This does not bother me much as these people often are not professional speakers but are highly credible people asked to have a say. A politician is a professional mouth piece and should have highly developed public speaking skills.

I disagree.  we want our pollies to be good LEADERS not good speakers.  We want good policy-makers, not after-dinner entertainment.  A pollie should be able to acquit himself well in public speaking but by no means should he ben expected to be brilliant or even particularly good. Whiltam was a brilliant speaker and a poxy PM.  Howard was an average public speaker but a great PM.  The correlation simply isn't there.

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:51pm: Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:47pm: https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/s720x720/1097982_465503976879993_901965808_n.jpg What is Abbott using here? That's it - his a cheat as well! its like an exam.  you are allowed to MAKE notes during it, but not allowed to bring them in with you. RUBBISH ! ( ... where did you pull THAT from)

[color=#ff0000]it was part of the AGREED RULES to the debate![/color]

matty wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:09pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 11:56am: It's probably about ratings, Wigley. Notes make people turn the channel. Besides, a candidate for PM should have his arguments down pat by now. If Gillard was on the stand, she certainly would - as would Turnbull. Rudd's a details man. Abbott's a big picture man. Rudd needs notes much more than Abbott, I'd like to see the situation reversed. If Abbott had notes and Rudd talked off the cuff - that's the debate I'd like to see. Whenever I go to any presentations I tend to get turned off people continuously referring to their notes, I even get the odd presenter reading out a script which suggests me they really don't agree or understand what they are saying. If you truly believe something or are intimate with a subject matter you can speak without notes. Rudd just bunches a bunch of lies together and is heavily scripted, telling the truth has a nice natural flow, when you start lying you need to keep thinking up new lies to fill in the gaps that lies create....... it like running on a treadmill with no controls. I remember a few years ago, doing my HSC, we did a speech for English. It was supposed to be 7 minutes. One kid got up there with an essay written completely by his older brother. He stood there talking for 19 minutes without looking up from his transcript even once. Whenever you give a presentation of any kind, you mustn't refer to palm cards, except sporadically. It shows that you don't have confidence in what you are saying, and that you aren't even fully aware of the topic/s.

How did you go in your speech, Matty? Did you get good marks?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 1:27pm:

... [color=#ff0000]it was part of the AGREED RULES to the debate![/color]

If so, when Rudd arrived at the lectern with notes in hand, why didn't anyone say something? Whoever was in charge must have thought it OK as, evidently, did Rudd.

Are you alleging a conspiracy to embarrass Rudd?

http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/s403x403/12981_10151829210632464_1870520082_n.jpg

The one thing that's missing from this shouting match: http://images.theage.com.au/file/2013/08/12/4653668/debaterules.pdf?rand=1376255466414.
12. The Leaders may have a pen and paper on the lecturn and no other documentation or props.

I can see how Rudd might have missed the second-last bit, but why didn't anyone else notice?

Peter Freedman wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

First, Wigley, welcome to the forum. Second congrats for a very impressive first message. As a union leader and, later, an advocate, I have done a lot of public speaking. I spoke largely off the cuff, but always had with me some cards detailing the main points in case I forgot anything. It is the sensible way. Why there was an agreement not to use notes I have no idea.

Since he commented before the debate that he had a lot of notes I would think it was obvious that he didn't know about the stupid rule. In any debate there are no rules you take what you want.

Besides Abbott also had some notes they were clearly visible on the lectern.

# wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 1:27pm: ... [color=#ff0000]it was part of the AGREED RULES to the debate![/color] If so, when Rudd arrived at the lectern with notes in hand, why didn't anyone say something? Whoever was in charge must have thought it OK as, evidently, did Rudd. Are you alleging a conspiracy to embarrass Rudd?

that's your excuse???  no one was there to stop him like a naughty schoolboy?

# wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 1:52pm:

The one thing that's missing from this shouting match: http://images.theage.com.au/file/2013/08/12/4653668/debaterules.pdf?rand=1376255466414. 12. The Leaders may have a pen and paper on the lecturn and no other documentation or props. I can see how Rudd might have missed the second-last bit, but why didn't anyone else notice?

They mistakenly believed that a PM campaigning on 'Trust Me' might be able to abide by the rules.

and now, THIS is the message from the debate: 'Rudd is a cheat'

Only Mr Abbott can STOP THE BOATS.

I think to counter the unfair advantage at the first debate, in the second debate Rudd should be allowed to use his notes again, but Abbott should be allowed to use a powerpoint presentation.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 1:54pm:

# wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 1:52pm: The one thing that's missing from this shouting match: http://images.theage.com.au/file/2013/08/12/4653668/debaterules.pdf?rand=1376255466414. 12. The Leaders may have a pen and paper on the lecturn and no other documentation or props. I can see how Rudd might have missed the second-last bit, but why didn't anyone else notice? They mistakenly believed that a PM campaigning on 'Trust Me' might be able to abide by the rules. and now, THIS is the message from the debate: 'Rudd is a cheat'

can anyone believe the excuses they come up with...

I think buzz made the wisest excuse..

it was the audiences fault..[go figure].. they should have booed or cheered which ever way is suitable for the PM...

how they knew he was cheating is something unexplained but I am sure the left would have a good one.....[explanation]...


we are going to be flat out remembering all these excuses when its the Libs turn... ;D ;D ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 1:23pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:51pm: longweekend58 Yes many speakers use notes ....... but the goods ones don't. You missed what I said, just because you speak publicly does not mean you are good at it ...... look at Gillard, she barks at people in a condescending manner. The better speakers need very little, Rudd is claimed to be such a good speaker and Abbott they claim is not........ yet this debate showed Rudd has very little credibility. FYI out of all the public events I have attended of many different styles ....... many of them are boring and very unprofessional, at a guess I think most people are uncomfortable at public speaking. This does not bother me much as these people often are not professional speakers but are highly credible people asked to have a say. A politician is a professional mouth piece and should have highly developed public speaking skills. I disagree.  we want our pollies to be good LEADERS not good speakers.  We want good policy-makers, not after-dinner entertainment.  A pollie should be able to acquit himself well in public speaking but by no means should he ben expected to be brilliant or even particularly good. Whiltam was a brilliant speaker and a poxy PM.  Howard was an average public speaker but a great PM.  The correlation simply isn't there.

gillard was a good speaker..and a poxy PM as well..LOL>>even her own side didnt like her. ::) ::) ::) ::)

cods wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 2:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 1:23pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:51pm: longweekend58 Yes many speakers use notes ....... but the goods ones don't. You missed what I said, just because you speak publicly does not mean you are good at it ...... look at Gillard, she barks at people in a condescending manner. The better speakers need very little, Rudd is claimed to be such a good speaker and Abbott they claim is not........ yet this debate showed Rudd has very little credibility. FYI out of all the public events I have attended of many different styles ....... many of them are boring and very unprofessional, at a guess I think most people are uncomfortable at public speaking. This does not bother me much as these people often are not professional speakers but are highly credible people asked to have a say. A politician is a professional mouth piece and should have highly developed public speaking skills. I disagree.  we want our pollies to be good LEADERS not good speakers.  We want good policy-makers, not after-dinner entertainment.  A pollie should be able to acquit himself well in public speaking but by no means should he ben expected to be brilliant or even particularly good. Whiltam was a brilliant speaker and a poxy PM.  Howard was an average public speaker but a great PM.  The correlation simply isn't there. gillard was a good speaker..and a poxy PM as well..LOL>>even her own side didnt like her. ::) ::) ::) ::)

I thought the general critism of Gillard was she was a terrible public speaker and sounded and came across like a bogan?

My general feeling of the board was the right thought she was a terrible public speaker and the left just didnt say anything.

I do believe we have come to an important moment in your life Cods, you have just given Gillard a compliment, one many would say is an undeserving one.  Hope you arent turning soft on us?

Verge wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 2:41pm:

cods wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 2:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 1:23pm: [quote author=rtehve link=1376272068/19#19 date=1376275880]longweekend58 Yes many speakers use notes ....... but the goods ones don't. You missed what I said, just because you speak publicly does not mean you are good at it ...... look at Gillard, she barks at people in a condescending manner. The better speakers need very little, Rudd is claimed to be such a good speaker and Abbott they claim is not........ yet this debate showed Rudd has very little credibility. FYI out of all the public events I have attended of many different styles ....... many of them are boring and very unprofessional, at a guess I think most people are uncomfortable at public speaking. This does not bother me much as these people often are not professional speakers but are highly credible people asked to have a say. A politician is a professional mouth piece and should have highly developed public speaking skills. I disagree.  we want our pollies to be good LEADERS not good speakers.  We want good policy-makers, not after-dinner entertainment.  A pollie should be able to acquit himself well in public speaking but by no means should he ben expected to be brilliant or even particularly good. Whiltam was a brilliant speaker and a poxy PM.  Howard was an average public speaker but a great PM.  The correlation simply isn't there. gillard was a good speaker..and a poxy PM as well..LOL>>even her own side didnt like her. ::) ::) ::) ::)

I thought the general critism of Gillard was she was a terrible public speaker and sounded and came across like a bogan?

My general feeling of the board was the right thought she was a terrible public speaker and the left just didnt say anything.

I do believe we have come to an important moment in your life Cods, you have just given Gillard a compliment, one many would say is an undeserving one.  Hope you arent turning soft on u


well there you go v erge we are on opposite sides thank god...

no she was good at talking look at the way she answered questions on the doorstep when she organised it.. [wilson]..not a blink not a breath did she take.. her voice was something else until you got used to it...but she could waffle on without a blush or a blink.. thats what I meant..of course most use those monitors now...so its hard to tell...

but when she was at her best she didnt draw breath look at her misogynist speech that is still talked about in the pubs..

btw I didnt say i liked what she said..LOL

I did say she was a poxy PM....and you agree well done.

I never said she was a good PM cods, I didnt even insinuate it.  How did you get that out of me saying the general conscenious was she was terrible speaker and Im suprised you complimented her on it.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 1:27pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 1:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:51pm: Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:47pm: https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/s720x720/1097982_465503976879993_901965808_n.jpg What is Abbott using here? That's it - his a cheat as well! its like an exam.  you are allowed to MAKE notes during it, but not allowed to bring them in with you. RUBBISH ! ( ... where did you pull THAT from) it was part of the AGREED RULES to the debate!

NO
It WASN'T

Speech pointer notes are neither a "document" nor "other props"
( ... at least, this was the tacit ruling on both Rudd's AND Abbott's  notes - by the adjudicator - from the beginning)


But BACK to my point - WHO declared debates between political leaders are run on "like an exam" RULES

cods wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 11:58am:

maybe because HE SIGNED NOT TO USE NOTES THATS WHY

Keep shouting like that, cods, and you'll have a heart attack.....

:)

If Rudd can't do it without notes as two times Prime Minister, then he should rack the cue.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:47pm: https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/s720x720/1097982_465503976879993_901965808_n.jpg What is Abbott using here? That's it - his a cheat as well! its like an exam.  you are allowed to MAKE notes during it, but not allowed to bring them in with you.

You obviously never did a business degree, I had plenty of exams where we were allowed to take in textbooks with us.  It was quite common.  The reality was if you relied on the text book getting you through and not the preparation and study you wouldnt pass it any way as the use of the texts was merely for fact checking (eg as stated in the accounts there is a clear breach of AASB XXXX in the notes to accounts as they have elected to prepare their accounts net basis when they have included some items as a Gross.  You had to know the relevant standard breach before you could look up the number.)

I guess the "notes contraversary" has prompted one thought bubble, that the pollies should only be allowed to refer to a 1 or 2 page sheet as prepared by someone like Treasury that has clear figures on things like debt, deficit, revenue, GDP, and a combination of the like.  It should also include certain costings on things and cross checking.

If either man uses a figure different to the ones produced has their speech cut short.

For example if Abbott made a claim that debt is larger than Treasury has confirmed what it is.  Mic cut off.  If Rudd claims there is a 70 Billion black hole and Treasury has confirmed its half that.  Cut off.

Make there be some punishment for speaking untruths.

Lobo wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 3:49pm:

cods wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 11:58am: maybe because HE SIGNED NOT TO USE NOTES THATS WHY Keep shouting like that, cods, and you'll have a heart attack..... :)

well seeing such a stupid question is enough to make a saint swear...but take a look at the excuses they are getting longer and longer and brighter and brighter.. :D :D :D :D :D :D

and the excuses are more bizarre...signing a document saying you would not take in notes is now not regarded as CHEATING..

v erge even claims its allowed.. my god I trust I never have brain surgery by someone who took all his text books into the finals.....

might as well get the old diploma on the web from America.. ;D

become a" brain surgeon in one week"..?? :(

become a PM with no INTEGRITY..?? >:(

cods wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 11:58am:

maybe because HE SIGNED NOT TO USE NOTES THATS WHY

bump
ie, rudd cheated.

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 3:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 1:27pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 1:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:51pm: Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:47pm: https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/s720x720/1097982_465503976879993_901965808_n.jpg What is Abbott using here? That's it - his a cheat as well! its like an exam.  you are allowed to MAKE notes during it, but not allowed to bring them in with you. RUBBISH ! ( ... where did you pull THAT from) it was part of the AGREED RULES to the debate! NO It WASN'T Speech pointer notes are neither a "document" nor "other props" ( ... at least, this was the tacit ruling on both Rudd's AND Abbott's  notes - by the adjudicator - from the beginning) But BACK to my point - WHO declared debates between political leaders are run on "like an exam" RULES

now we have ROGUE-RULES BUZZ!!!

apparently a written and agreed to rule not to bring notes doesn't mean that at all.

ROGUE-RULES BUZZZ!!!!

Verge wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 3:52pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:51pm: Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:47pm: https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/s720x720/1097982_465503976879993_901965808_n.jpg What is Abbott using here? That's it - his a cheat as well! its like an exam.  you are allowed to MAKE notes during it, but not allowed to bring them in with you. You obviously never did a business degree, I had plenty of exams where we were allowed to take in textbooks with us.  It was quite common.  The reality was if you relied on the text book getting you through and not the preparation and study you wouldnt pass it any way as the use of the texts was merely for fact checking (eg as stated in the accounts there is a clear breach of AASB XXXX in the notes to accounts as they have elected to prepare their accounts net basis when they have included some items as a Gross.  You had to know the relevant standard breach before you could look up the number.) I guess the "notes contraversary" has prompted one thought bubble, that the pollies should only be allowed to refer to a 1 or 2 page sheet as prepared by someone like Treasury that has clear figures on things like debt, deficit, revenue, GDP, and a combination of the like.  It should also include certain costings on things and cross checking. If either man uses a figure different to the ones produced has their speech cut short. For example if Abbott made a claim that debt is larger than Treasury has confirmed what it is.  Mic cut off.  If Rudd claims there is a 70 Billion black hole and Treasury has confirmed its half that.  Cut off. Make there be some punishment for speaking untruths.

Good idea.

Abbott wouldn't get to say a word.

Kat wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 7:26pm:

Verge wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 3:52pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:51pm: Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:47pm: https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/s720x720/1097982_465503976879993_901965808_n.jpg What is Abbott using here? That's it - his a cheat as well! its like an exam.  you are allowed to MAKE notes during it, but not allowed to bring them in with you. You obviously never did a business degree, I had plenty of exams where we were allowed to take in textbooks with us.  It was quite common.  The reality was if you relied on the text book getting you through and not the preparation and study you wouldnt pass it any way as the use of the texts was merely for fact checking (eg as stated in the accounts there is a clear breach of AASB XXXX in the notes to accounts as they have elected to prepare their accounts net basis when they have included some items as a Gross.  You had to know the relevant standard breach before you could look up the number.) I guess the "notes contraversary" has prompted one thought bubble, that the pollies should only be allowed to refer to a 1 or 2 page sheet as prepared by someone like Treasury that has clear figures on things like debt, deficit, revenue, GDP, and a combination of the like.  It should also include certain costings on things and cross checking. If either man uses a figure different to the ones produced has their speech cut short. For example if Abbott made a claim that debt is larger than Treasury has confirmed what it is.  Mic cut off.  If Rudd claims there is a 70 Billion black hole and Treasury has confirmed its half that.  Cut off. Make there be some punishment for speaking untruths. Good idea. Abbott wouldn't get to say a word.

the point has always been - exam metaphpr aside - that the rules said no notes and he took in notes.  he cheated.

the unbelievable thing is that there is even debate on the matter after Rudd himself admitted it.

Wigley0 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 11:47am:

Everyone is having cracks at Rudd for using notes. "He cheated!" "He couldn't do it without notes!" "Abbott wins because Rudd used notes!"

because Labor agreed not to!!!!

if you wanted to use notes - then don't put it in the agreement

longweekend58

So you think its ok for an MP to be bad at publicly explaining policy and issues ?

You must of thought Gillard was doing an OK job.

Sorry their job involves public speaking, if I get a job as a cycle courier then you also need to get really good at bike riding.

Its a skill they should learn, they all get coaching for such, not sure what the deal is with Rudd.

Verge

I use to dread open book exams as it gives them far greater scope to make the questions harder.

Philosophically I did not mind as in a work situation you often need to hit the books for tricky situations.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/08/12/07/14/rudd-cheated-in-leaders-debate-coalition

Quote:

The Nine Network reported that Tony Abbott used notes in his debate against Julia Gillard in the last federal election campaign - when the debate rules were the same as on Sunday.

The Nine TV report showed Abbott, trying to capitalise on Rudd's mistake. If he's done the same himself, what does that say about Abbott? That he's arrogant enough to think nobody will remember?

One other thing that occurs to me is that the Right shows up as far more anal-retentive than the Left. At the time of Abbott's mistake, evidently nobody on the Left cared to comment - or even noticed.

http://images.canberratimes.com.au/2013/08/09/4647794/TO-art353-tele-20130809130119840757-300x0.jpg

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 9:03pm:

longweekend58 So you think its ok for an MP to be bad at publicly explaining policy and issues ? You must of thought Gillard was doing an OK job. Sorry their job involves public speaking, if I get a job as a cycle courier then you also need to get really good at bike riding. Its a skill they should learn, they all get coaching for such, not sure what the deal is with Rudd.

there is a difference between being able to make your case in public and brilliant oratory.  you don't have to be an awesome orator  - just a competent speaker in public.  The vast majority of speakers use notes.  the few that don't are either wafflers or truly brilliant speakers.

# wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/08/12/07/14/rudd-cheated-in-leaders-debate-coalition Quote: The Nine Network reported that Tony Abbott used notes in his debate against Julia Gillard in the last federal election campaign - when the debate rules were the same as on Sunday. The Nine TV report showed Abbott, trying to capitalise on Rudd's mistake. If he's done the same himself, what does that say about Abbott? That he's arrogant enough to think nobody will remember? One other thing that occurs to me is that the Right shows up as far more anal-retentive than the Left. At the time of Abbott's mistake, evidently nobody on the Left cared to comment - or even noticed.

he didn't take notes in.  he used a pen an paper and MADE NOTES at the lectern

seriously, get a grip.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 9:06pm:

Verge I use to dread open book exams as it gives them far greater scope to make the questions harder. Philosophically I did not mind as in a work situation you often need to hit the books for tricky situations.

yes, open book exams hard.

I think this puts another smear on rudds character.
Cheating

Karnal wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 1:33pm:

matty wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:53pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 12:09pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 11:56am: It's probably about ratings, Wigley. Notes make people turn the channel. Besides, a candidate for PM should have his arguments down pat by now. If Gillard was on the stand, she certainly would - as would Turnbull. Rudd's a details man. Abbott's a big picture man. Rudd needs notes much more than Abbott, I'd like to see the situation reversed. If Abbott had notes and Rudd talked off the cuff - that's the debate I'd like to see. Whenever I go to any presentations I tend to get turned off people continuously referring to their notes, I even get the odd presenter reading out a script which suggests me they really don't agree or understand what they are saying. If you truly believe something or are intimate with a subject matter you can speak without notes. Rudd just bunches a bunch of lies together and is heavily scripted, telling the truth has a nice natural flow, when you start lying you need to keep thinking up new lies to fill in the gaps that lies create....... it like running on a treadmill with no controls. I remember a few years ago, doing my HSC, we did a speech for English. It was supposed to be 7 minutes. One kid got up there with an essay written completely by his older brother. He stood there talking for 19 minutes without looking up from his transcript even once. Whenever you give a presentation of any kind, you mustn't refer to palm cards, except sporadically. It shows that you don't have confidence in what you are saying, and that you aren't even fully aware of the topic/s. How did you go in your speech, Matty? Did you get good marks?

13/15.

Wigley0 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 11:47am:

Everyone is having cracks at Rudd for using notes. "He cheated!" "He couldn't do it without notes!" "Abbott wins because Rudd used notes!" I would understand it if it was a competition for the President of the Debating Team, but it isn't. It's two potential leaders of the country debating who is better for the job by comparing policies and discussing facts. I'm not excusing Kevin for 'cheating'. If they agreed not to use notes, they shouldn't have used notes... What I'm saying is why the hell would you agree to not use notes? Without notes it becomes a competition for the person that has either the better memory or who is best at manipulating discussion without adding any real content. ie vague waffling without substance. Ideally, you'd have all the important information written down in front of you; who said what, when and where they said it, what the statistics involved are, numbers of this and that, the proportion of x, y and z etc. That way rather than 'who can waffle the best?' it becomes 'who genuinely has better policies based on statistics, evidence and facts'. Or is everyone not quite sick to death of empty sales pitches and useless governments just yet?

Both sides signed off on the rules of the debate, including the "no notes" rule. Abbott adhered to that rule, Rudd didn't. Whatever your opinion on whether notes should be allowed or not, those were the rules agreed to. It's THAT simple. Rudd did cheat and I don't believe his lame excuse that no one told him he couldn't take notes to the lectern.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 11:30pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 9:06pm: Verge I use to dread open book exams as it gives them far greater scope to make the questions harder. Philosophically I did not mind as in a work situation you often need to hit the books for tricky situations. yes, open book exams hard. I think this puts another smear on rudds character. Cheating

Sprintcyclist

I didn't know that was possible.

I have had the guy pegged as a grub since he first appeared.

Armchair_Politician

Not sure what the issue is here, its a debate with rules to ensure its a test of the leaders abilities not their researchers or media managers / spin doctors ....... that is the whole point of a debate.

If its a press release sure use notes .... no idea why most press releases are usually 10-15 minutes unless someone like Oakshit is doing them. If they ask you a question about some specific detail you can answer I need to get back to you on that ...... so even for a press release you really don't need notes.

The thread started with the proposition that you really should use notes somehow trying to justify what Rudd did was kind of ok ....... by every measure it was a dumb thing to do like eating your own ear wax, it did not work and it showed another insight into his grubby character. In practice for a short presentation it makes you look very unprofessional, even for a long snore-presentation it will only add to the boredom by robotically referring to notes. 

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 11:17pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 9:03pm: longweekend58 So you think its ok for an MP to be bad at publicly explaining policy and issues ? You must of thought Gillard was doing an OK job. Sorry their job involves public speaking, if I get a job as a cycle courier then you also need to get really good at bike riding. Its a skill they should learn, they all get coaching for such, not sure what the deal is with Rudd. there is a difference between being able to make your case in public and brilliant oratory.  you don't have to be an awesome orator  - just a competent speaker in public.  The vast majority of speakers use notes.  the few that don't are either wafflers or truly brilliant speakers.

longweekend58

So now your back pedalling ?

To be an effective political leader you need far superior media skills Like a Howard or a Hawke or even Fraser ...... look at the duds ..... Beazley, Latham, Keating, Gillard, Downer, Crean...... they were all useless in front of the media.

Most public speakers I see just use cue-cards, some use notes but they are the boring ones. Most MP's don't use anything in front of the camera, but that its usually a 5-10 minute speech at most.

It's not so much whether you have notes or you don't have notes. It's whether you have anything worth saying.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 8:52am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 11:17pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 9:03pm: longweekend58 So you think its ok for an MP to be bad at publicly explaining policy and issues ? You must of thought Gillard was doing an OK job. Sorry their job involves public speaking, if I get a job as a cycle courier then you also need to get really good at bike riding. Its a skill they should learn, they all get coaching for such, not sure what the deal is with Rudd. there is a difference between being able to make your case in public and brilliant oratory.  you don't have to be an awesome orator  - just a competent speaker in public.  The vast majority of speakers use notes.  the few that don't are either wafflers or truly brilliant speakers. longweekend58 So now your back pedalling ? To be an effective political leader you need far superior media skills Like a Howard or a Hawke or even Fraser ...... look at the duds ..... Beazley, Latham, Keating, Gillard, Downer, Crean...... they were all useless in front of the media. Most public speakers I see just use cue-cards, some use notes but they are the boring ones. Most MP's don't use anything in front of the camera, but that its usually a 5-10 minute speech at most.

no, Im saying the exact same thing I've always been saying and that is that having notes as a speaker is not only common, it is a good idea.  Some people need them more than others but that does not detract from the quality of their speaking.  Having notes is essential if you are quoting a lot of facts or have 15 points to your presentation.  Some people with exceptional skills don't and wont use notes but they are a rarity.  I don't think pollies have to be great orators and most aren't.  They do however need to be adept at public speaking and most use notes.

I really don't see what you are banging on about.

PS Howard was a poor speaker and had very average media skills.  That didn't stop him from being a great PM or of making speeches.  But a Whitlam, Keating or Costello,, he wasn't.

Verge wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:31am:

It's not so much whether you have notes or you don't have notes. It's whether you have anything worth saying.

well said.  notes are immaterial and Ive heard some of the best.

Verge wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:31am:

It's not so much whether you have notes or you don't have notes. It's whether you have anything worth saying.

That is all that Abbott has to say....... I merely go further to say that his debate at best was benign even by the left wing twit bag measure cheating and winning is one thing ..... cheating and loosing is another. This suggest both lacking character and judgement which has been the one of the attacks the Libs have been using on the ALP.

As I said before I use to cheat all the time in Rugby but I would do it with purpose and with the assessment of my chances of getting away with it. But rugby is a game .... politics is real life so if you want to cheat you really need to make sure you can get away with it and the risk was worth it. If Rudd had really done a job on Abbott in the debate copping this flack over cheating might be worth it.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:40am:

Verge wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 9:31am: It's not so much whether you have notes or you don't have notes. It's whether you have anything worth saying. well said.  notes are immaterial and Ive heard some of the best.

What do you mean they are immaterial and you've heard some of the best?  I dont quite follow?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/take-note-cheating-claims-against-kevin-rudd-dont-stack-up/story-fnbcok0h-1226695869546

As most polls scored Sunday night's election debate as a win for Kevin Rudd, some commentators and Coalition MPs were quick to brand Rudd as a cheat for using "notes".

But the debate rules agreed to by the major parties do not prohibit the use of notes. In fact, they make no mention of "notes".

Rule 12 was clear: "The leaders may have a pen and paper on the lectern and no other documentation or props." Rudd was entitled to have paper notes, either written or typed.

This is the exact same rule that governed the 2010 debate when Julia Gillard squared off against Tony Abbott. And guess who used notes then? Abbott did. So if Rudd cheated in 2013, Abbott cheated in 2010.

I think you should have a becks and a good lie down!

http://images.thevine.com.au/resources/VAR/000/033/we-tried-not-to-make-fun-of-the-tony-abbott-suppository-of-wisdom-gaffe-honest-10-things_h.jpg

We now know where Tony gets his policies from! :)

Verge wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:56am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 9:40am: Verge wrote on Aug 13th, 2013 at 9:31am: It's not so much whether you have notes or you don't have notes. It's whether you have anything worth saying. well said.  notes are immaterial and Ive heard some of the best. What do you mean they are immaterial and you've heard some of the best?  I dont quite follow?

Ive heard good speakers, great speakers and lousy speakers.  the use or otherwise of notes seems to have no impact.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 10:24am:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/take-note-cheating-claims-against-kevin-rudd-dont-stack-up/story-fnbcok0h-1226695869546 As most polls scored Sunday night's election debate as a win for Kevin Rudd, some commentators and Coalition MPs were quick to brand Rudd as a cheat for using "notes". But the debate rules agreed to by the major parties do not prohibit the use of notes. In fact, they make no mention of "notes". Rule 12 was clear: "The leaders may have a pen and paper on the lectern and no other documentation or props." Rudd was entitled to have paper notes, either written or typed. This is the exact same rule that governed the 2010 debate when Julia Gillard squared off against Tony Abbott. And guess who used notes then? Abbott did. So if Rudd cheated in 2013, Abbott cheated in 2010. I think you should have a becks and a good lie down! http://images.thevine.com.au/resources/VAR/000/033/we-tried-not-to-make-fun-of-the-tony-abbott-suppository-of-wisdom-gaffe-honest-10-things_h.jpg We now know where Tony gets his policies from! :)

what exactly do you think 'no other documentation' means???  I can assure you that everyone with an even passing understanding of English would call speaking notes as 'documentation'.