🚀 go-pugleaf

Ian L. Renert wrote:
> EVERY STATEMENT REFERENCES EITHER A LEGAL PRECEDENT, OPINION, RESEARCH
> REPORT OR OTHER TYPE OF DOCUMENT ISSUED BY AUTHORITATIVE FIGURES IN 
> LAW, BANKING AND GOVERNMENT.  THERE IS NOTHING TO CHALLENGE - THAT IS,
> AFTER YOU READ THE RESEARCH.

That has to go down as the most naive statement of the century.  The 
legal precedent of "terra nullius", which had managed to last in 
Australia for more than 200 years, was struck down in 1992.  That is just 
an example.  Banking is the same - I know at least one commercial advisor 
with all the qualifications who openly claims the head of our banking 
network is "a Labor hack" and "communist".  Government, well let's say 
they don't exactly agree on anything either.  Dept of Mines and Dept for 
the Environment are quite frequently in conflict with each other - an 
extreme example sure, but it would be naive to suggest any of these is 
unchallengable!  As for research report - just look at Marty Rimm's 
"research" (it is referenced on a number of pages), not to mention the 
research that suggests that 90% of the population use illegal drugs on a 
regular basis and, similarly, that 95% of rave party attendees take 
ecstasy (based on a sample of 83) - these were studies coming out of 
universities with very prestigious track records.

Since I do not use any of the above areas (I have edited out the music 
area where I found this, along with some thirty-nine others) please 
e-mail me on ajowens@carmen.murdoch.edu.au if you have a comment.

Regds, Andrew