Kelvin Watt writes: Re. Thursday’s article about Eden-Monaro (item 11) and Friday’s response from Peter Phelps (comments). Phelps’s response to the article is laughable and his attack on me was so ridiculous that I initially thought it might have actually been submitted by some unknown prepubescent Young Lib having a bit of a gee-up! The copy of the Eden-Monaro Liberal Party campaign team minutes describing me as “the hardest working Labor candidate in NSW” and recognising my high media profile, coupled with various independent political blogs that talked up my media profile and “furious campaigning”, would seem to contradict his claims. Perhaps if he spent more time reading the local Eden-Monaro newspapers and listening to the radio, rather than running his own failed campaign for the NSW Upper House, he might have a better idea about what’s running in local media. Even State Liberal Member for Bega was moved to stand up in the NSW Parliament last August and say that Kel Watt was running all around the countryside. And gosh Peter, recent Liberal Party polling seemed very interested in gaining people’s perceptions of me. How gutless and scared Phelps must be to have a crack at me personally and politically. Phelps’s insecurities and inadequacies he put on display for all Crikey readers gave us a good giggle. What a small, petty, fearful little man. What are the odds he drives a convertible car to compensate for his (political) impotence. Doesn’t he have something better to do than respond to the musings of former government staffers from the 1970s? Isn’t there a Ministerial Office to run and some sort of rorts, er, I mean entitlements, to finalise? So Peter Phelps, thanks for the compliment. Thanks for the confidence boost – all you’ve done is convince me that my 2004 campaign really did rattle you and Mr Nairn, and that you’re terrified I’m going to go that one bit better in a few months. But still, I have to admire Phelps’s commitment to Liberal Party campaign strategy – tell a lie, then repeat it, and hope that eventually people begin to believe it. If I was really “missing in action”, why would he bother to write, let alone drop my name? What a goose.

Drew Warne-Smith, journalist, The Weekend Australian Magazine, writes: Re. Honey Hogan in the Hobart honey-pot (16 February, item 18). Nothing more than a (somewhat) unfortunate and (highly) amusing coincidence, I’m afraid to say. I hadn’t seen the fetching piccie of the late premier’s would-be wife when I penned the piece, and apparently our picture editor only realised after we’d gone to print. It’s a bugger really, because I’d rather claim a crass joke…

Peter Lloyd, the ABC South Asia correspondent, writes: Someone with the same name as me wrote in to comment on Maxine McKew and politics on Friday. This could create untold grief with management. Can it be mentioned that the author shares my name – but is not me!

Timothy Cleary writes: For goodness sake, what is the point of publishing garbage like Christian Kerr’s stupid piece about hybrid cars being silent killers? Do you want people to think you are running a serious news and public affairs ezine? If so, then don’t waste our time with stupid non-stories like that. The internet is awash with such garbage, and one of the major jobs of a serious news organisation is to separate the genuinely newsworthy or important from the silly and irrelevant. And as Christian Kerr seems to be unable to submit anything remotely serious on environmental issues, please tell him to stick to politics. It is getting tiresome.

Sandra Kanck writes: Re. “Hybrid cars – the silent killer” (16 February, item 5). Having been a Prius driver for more than two years (and getting 4.1L/100km on the current tankful of petrol, thank you!), I am very much aware of potential problems if pedestrians do not hear my car approaching. When I drive in shared zones, or in any situation where a pedestrian might place themselves at risk because they are not aware of the presence of the car, I slow down, open the windows and increase the radio volume. Most Prius drivers are already environmentally conscious and we tend to be people who also walk, cycle or use public transport, so we start out with sympathy for pedestrians and cyclists.

Sharon Hutchings writes: Re. “Hybrid cars – the silent killer”, when I can finally afford a hybrid (or electric) car I promise to drive it smug-free, on the road to a smog-free environment. I will also install an external speaker so that I can share my Midnight Oil collection, on continuous play, to forewarn pedestrians. Come to think of it, I should pop one of those on my bicycle too. PS. Has Christian’s gig at the next Comedy Festival sold out yet?

Ted O’Brien writes: It would have been 25 years ago in the carpark at the Children’s Hospital at Camperdown (Sydney) I declared Honda cars a menace for pedestrians. I couldn’t hear them coming. Since then some Toyotas and others have matched the Hondas, while I have become deafer. Now hybrids are taking silence to a new level. My brother in law has a motor repair business in Mudgee. A couple of years ago he told me that he did a welding repair on a Stanley Steamer that was part of a rally of steam cars in town that weekend. He told me that when it drove off there was not a sound. So silence is not completely new.

David Hand writes: Re. “T3 pumps $5 billion from taxpayers to investors in three months” (16 February, item 1). Stephen Mayne and Glenn Dyer indulge in the time honoured habit so beloved of media pundits in giving sage advice about a company after the event, not before. Accusing the government of making errors over the timing and size of T3 is a bit like giving betting tips on a horse race after it has been run. In my view, the single biggest attraction of T3 was the exit of the federal government as the majority shareholder. Once sold, the ability of the government to damage Telstra for populist political reasons virtually disappeared. On that basis, the rise in Telstra’s fortunes was caused by T3 itself rather than any external factor and couldn’t be built into the pre-float price. The massive oversubscription to T3 in the face of tepid media and finance industry recommendations indicates that this was a view taken by a lot of people. One of the more tiresome features of financial commentary in general, including this one, is the façade of knowledge and wisdom that pretends to know everything when they are caught out just like everyone else. If you’re any good at it gents, tell us whether to sell or buy Telstra now.

Andrea Kincade writes: Re. “Midnight Oil: the policy documents” (16 February, item 8).

Housing

The time has come
To say fair’s fair
To pay the rent
To pay our share

These lyrics aren’t about housing, they’re about Aboriginal land rights and white Australia acknowledging this through some sort of compensation.

Mike Burke writes: Re. Peter Garrett. One of the things that separates the mainstream political parties from the alternative groups like the Democrats, the Greens and their right wing equivalents is the uncomfortable fact that they are at least occasionally at risk of being confronted with the prospect of having to live in the real world. Thus, with an election in the offing that might well bring them to power or keep them there, Labor and Liberal politicians must espouse policies that have some semblance of recognising the simple fact that politics is the art of the possible. Fringe groups, like fringe theatre, can continue to amuse themselves and their idiot constituency without fear of ever having to implement their nonsense. Rather than poking fun at Peter Garrett for his fast footwork on the US Alliance, we should be congratulating him for having finally grown up. Better late than never. Now, if there were only some way to bring Bob Brown kicking and screaming to adulthood and into the mainstream. Unfortunately, miracles ain’t what they used to be.

Lauren Ellis writes: As someone who works in the field of business migration, I have been following your writers’ not-quite-right stories about 457 visas with interest and amusement. I particularly like the popularity of the term “section 457”, accidentally started by someone with an unfulfilled childhood dream of writing for Prisoner or the ATO I think. The s-word you are looking for is subclass 457.

Narelle Douglas writes: How do both Age editor-in-chief Andrew Jaspan (in print), and Age communications director Nigel Henham (in Crikey – 16 February, comments), can justify the vogue use of “to grow”. Both wrote of the paper “growing its readership”. What, do they plant readers and water them? Why can’t they simply increase readership?

David Hurley, Executive Producer, Nine Network News & Current Affairs, writes: Re. Glenn Dyer. I don’t make contact these days because your tortured and celebrated bias renders exchanges with you a pointless pursuit. Nor do I always read your stuff. Don’t need to – I see the Seven press releases and Francis emails from other sources. But this one demands your attention, and correction. You’ve either unwittingly or deliberately misrepresented Garry Linnell and me in last Thursday’s analysis, and Nine in Tuesday’s ramblings. That’s not new, but these are bad mistakes and common decency demands you set it right. So see if you can extract your head from the Seven sphincter long enough to re-read what YOU wrote… first on Tuesday and then on Thursday. And then remedy. You wrote “And we didn’t get to hear about the battle to get Jodi Power’s interview. TT mentioned several times it was a paid interview, but what we weren’t told was that the Nine’s 60 Minutes had attempted to buy off Power late last week offering around $200,000 for an exclusive interview to run on its season opener on Sunday night” (12 February, item 16). Wrong in every detail. The big lie by Seven – its stock standard trick of making a claim that can neither be proved nor disproved, and hoping someone might fall for it. YOU did… there’s a surprise… and as usual just rushed straight to print and represented it as fact. Just despicable. No other journalist did that… funny that. And the few who ran it had the decency to represent it for what is was, a “claim” by Seven. Apart from the fact we’ve categorically denied it… the lie doesn’t survive even the most basic test of logic. As for 60 Minutes allegedly bidding ridiculous amounts of money last week for an interview already conducted by TT in late November, I don’t think so, Glenn. The barest journalistic check might have persuaded even you of that – but best not to call or ask, for fear of an answer that doesn’t suit. It’s much cleaner that way, Glenn. And you call yourself a journalist, and dare preach to others. You should be deeply ashamed. So, then we get this sh-te below, two days later. Here you dishonestly assert that Linnell and I are “outraged” about “what TT has done” – referring to the story itself and the chequebook journalism involved, and give us one of your turgid lectures (15 February, item 21): “So it’s hardly convincing when Nine and its executives, Gary Linnell and his offsider, David Hurley (who was running ACA during the Bali trials and made sure the program stayed close to the family) try to sounded outraged at what Today Tonight has done. They have done it in the past and will do it again. No one has any credibility when you get into the swamp of chequebook journalism.” Again, demonstrably untrue. Our concern was levelled at one thing only – this false claim by Seven of the bogus Nine “offer” to Power. So you – deliberately I suspect – confuse the subject of our clear public statements, namely, those wholly false Seven claims (as in: “yes we did but that’s OK because Nine offered more”) , and wrongly relate them to chequebook journalism and other issues. Fair dinkum Glenn… even by your impossibly low standards, this is wretched stuff. If you have any decency left in you… despite your lifelong get-square mission versus Nine following your departure all those years ago – you’ll set this right. I don’t think you have either the guts or the decency to do so. Prove me wrong.

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name – we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.