In news:nemoMon011408104228@news.netspace.net.au,
Ronald Huttner typed:
> In article
> Snapper wrote:
>> Ronald Huttner wrote...
>>> rule aus.legal. (P.S. Before retiring in 2003 I practised law for
>>> 36 years - in private practice, government, and as a University Law
>>> Lecturer. I can certainly "hold my own" in a rational debate on the
>>> law, in the event that someone in this newsgroup ever wants to
>>> engage in one rather than simply hurl puerile insults).
>
>> And this begs the question - why the photon are you hanging around
>> here?Certainly it cannot be intellectually stimulating.
>
>>
> That is an intelligent and good question, Snapper. I'll try to answer
> it as best I can. Although I am now retired from the actual practice
> of the law, I have certainly not lost my interest in it. I still read
> the journals and browse AustLII daily, reading recent decisions in the
> various fields in which I used to practice. I get a limited amount of
> enjoyment reading the outpourings of the many "bush lawyers" in
> aus.legal, struggling to rationally discuss what are frequently
> complex legal issues. The vehemence of their views is generally
> inversely proportional to how much they actually know about the topic
> and how deeply they have, (if ever), actually studied or researched
> it. Every now and then a topic comes up in aus.legal which is of
> interest to me and is one to which I feel I can make a useful
> contribution. I then do so. Regrettably, as I've said before, very few
> in this forum have the capacity for rational and intellectually
> stimulating debate on complex legal issues, and most just get their
> "kicks" out of flaming or insulting those whose views differ from
> their own. But aus.legal is only ONE of the legal forums in which I
> participate. For many years I have been a very active participant in
> the Law-Lib Discussion List. That is a List frequented by
> Law-Librarians (in private practice, government and academia) as well
> as other Legal Researchers, Legal Information Specialists and Lawyers
> with a particular interest in legal research. It is an excellent List,
> populated by some exceptionally well-informed and knowledgeable
> people. People are courteous and helpful and it is a most stimulating
> and useful legal research resource. I used to lecture in Advanced
> Computerised Legal Research at the University of Melbourne, so legal
> research is my specialty. I also contribute quite often to another
> Discussion List known as "Int-Law", which is essentially for people
> researching foreign or international law. That List, too, has some
> outstanding and extremely knowledgeable legal researchers on it, and
> is a wonderful resource and intellectually stimulating. No - aus.legal
> is largely a joke. And not a very good joke at that. Intellectual
> stimulation is certainly in rather short supply there. And then there
> are the ratbags that post nothing even remotely law-related - just
> regular anti-semitic filth, racism, bigotry, islamophobia, homophobia
> etc etc etc. But, when one is retired and doesn't want one's brain to
> prematurely rot, ANY stimulation becomes better than none !! I hope
> that I have answered your question satisfactorily, Snapper.
The truth, Ron Ron, is that you are desperate for someone, anyone, to accept
that you have the knowledge and skill to put a legal argument coherently.
This is plainly evidenced by your repeated claims at legal qualifications
and experience in the law.
This, however, is Usenet. The only thing that counts here (if anything
counts) is the quality of the argument. Claimed qualifications, knowledge
and skill mean nothing.
|