In news:fmeuvv$9l4$1@news.albasani.net,
Oksana Gutteridge typed:
> 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.
Surely you don't suggest that Ronny is a bit of an Onanist? How awful!
|