HaHa kiddo, realestate.com.au is NO.1 property site, more popular than SMH domain. I dont blame you for this since you havent reached the stage of property investment.
Hah, now I know for sure you don't live in Sydney at all
You do know realestate.com.au is not number 1 property site. Well. anyone live in Sydney knows domain.com.au are more popular and because they are catering to more of the people account. And in fact, most realestate.com.au listing are direct quote from domain.
Only people will say Realestate.com.au is more popular is the one that look up alexa ranking on net traffic. However, look at it this way, if Alexa traffic counter is true, then there are 100 times more traffic from both realestate.com.au (Rank some 1400) and domain.com.au (Ranked some 4000) than yahoo.com.au (Ranked some 60,000). Which is, well, not true. While the global ranking may have been correct, the local ranking is not. And I am talking about Sydney sider, not someone look at it from overseas (More like you I am talking about)
Hence I can deduce you are not a local Sydney sider, you may be living or lived in Sydney, but not as "Local" as you claim you are.
I am not the one who doubted the whereabout of others. You said more than 3 times that I dont live in Sydney. Kiddo I came here 30 yrs ago, perhaps earlier than your parents.
Hot girls on manly beach(from the net)
HaHaHa I will not tell you guys my street number...........
Again, you can claim whatever you want, but fact remains, you local knowledge is not represent of that of a Sydney sider for 30 years, I first came here in 1982 as a baby, and I live in Sydney on and off ever since. But still between you and me, I know more about Sydney than you are, so, while you can say whatever you want, but it is highly suggestable that you are lying.
Oh, so you are talking gibberish now.
Innocent passage is not precondition on exiting international water, it apply on the condition of transiting territorial water. And the innocent in "innocent passage" refer to not causing harm to the coastal state.
oh my....
innocent passage is not a precondition on exiting international water, but a pre-condition on exiting EVERYKIND of water, the problem is, when you are talking about the Chinese Navy leaving US territorial water and enter Bering Strait into Russia, that touches the international waterway part.
While this is a different case when both Lassen and Curtis Wilbur enter the Chinese claimed 12nm of SCS territories. The US case is using the method of constant bearing and enter and leaving of the Claimed "Territorial" water, that is not an "Innocent" passage if the sole intent to passing thru the water is to demonstrate the power of US Navy (Which cannot be consider as a peaceful manner)
While you ask me why the Chinese passage is innocent, I specifically stated that the US monitored the Chinese warship and they simply move on and did not stop to do anything, hence that was a "innocent" passage. I believe I said this on post # 185
The Bering Strait is considered International Water by international law to begin with, it was not a US territorial water. Innocent passage will ALWAYS be granted to ship passing thru US territorial water into Bering Strait which transit thru between Russia and US.
What you are saying is not the direct result of a challenge, but a matter of international law. Innocent passage cannot be stop unless the ship in question does not simply pass thru the area, the US was monitoring the warship. And the Chinese warship did not do anything but simply passing thru the strait. Then what the hell the US is supposed to be protesting for?
But on Post 219, I specifically reply to you as you ask why the Chinese warship enter thru international waterway before entering US territorial water change anything, hence I specifically answered your post in term of referring solely on the Chinese incident
would have thought you would keep tab on your own question, obviously I am overestimating your ability....