Dr John Dee

except the 97% figure has been around a lot longer than this paper's findings. Whether it's accurate or not is another matter, but that's not down to misrepresenting Cook et al.

You do understand the difference between 97% of all scientists and 97% of all papers, right? You do understand the difference between not expressing an opinion and not having an opinion? Whether an opinion on a particular cause (like AGW) is an outcome of a study would need to take into account the parameters of that study. The paper by Cook et al isn't that fine grained (one that was would take forever and probably wouldn't add much understanding anyway). I can't see the Guardian article. Maybe it says something else but I doubt it would allow the kind of equation you're making between scientists and scientific papers. Edit typo

Agreed, DC. People like to use Chinese emission levels as an excuse for doing nothing, but at least the Chinese put the brakes on population growth with the one child policy. Gawd knows what their CO2 levels would be like now without that.

Something in the turn this thread has taken alongside your thumbnail suggested that maybe Vyvyan kicking his own head along the rail lines is an archetypal image of the current condition of the Melbourne supporter. (1:48 onwards)

But Robbo has already told us that there are questions of political interference that have never been answered (and which obviously mean the whole case should be thrown out). St James the Pure would never stoop to that sort of level, especially since there wouldn't be much publicity involved.

Not as dim as someone who doesn't know the function of a question mark, obviously. 'It's just not that clear' ... an ambiguity you've turned into interminable declarations about what's in Hird's contract, what will happen and so forth. And as for 'expressing a view' ... over and over and over and over. Nor did I 'present it' by the way. I presume you mean represent; but I was in fact pointing out to Crompton that your 'view' escapes representation given that it's based entirely on ignorance. Oh, and well done in evading the substantive point, as you do whenever anybody mentions anything inconvenient to your thesis about Hirdian exceptionalism.

Yep, appointed by that Yale and Harvard graduate George W Bush. Maybe you need to rethink your last line.

umm, it's not me trying to do so (I protest quickly)

Crompton, there's no point in trying to summarise or do anything else with Qwerty's position, like make sense of it. He isn't interested in anything other than establishing a branch of the James Hird fanclub on Demonland and picking fights with people about a contract that he, like the rest of us, knows nothing about. And one of the possible conditions in that contract that he knows nothing about might well have to do with protections for the EFC if investigations ongoing at the time led to adverse findings against players in Hird's charge, the club or Hird himself. Qwerty seems to think Little is an idiot. He may be all sorts of things but I wouldn't be putting any money on that.

As with wit, you wouldn't know irony if you tripped over it.

The point of the reference has obviously gone right over your head which, given your monomania is hardly surprising (as is your feeble effort at wit). I'll just leave you not knowing what it is that you don't know whether you know or not. Amongst the known knowns is, of course, that you haven't got a bloody clue what's in Hird's contract.

Can you find some other drum to beat? You're becoming more than extremely tedious. Answer to the question: it doesn't; but it will sure apply to activities in 2012 that the EFC weren't aware of (currently screening in a Tribunal hearing near you). Maybe you should go read some of the wit and wisdom of Donald Rumsfeld.

"Mind you,"Robinson says, "the Federal Court wasn’t required in both instances to pass judgment on the political interference and the conduct of some individuals." And the High Court would be? How many imaginary straws can the Hird barrackers find to clutch at?

I didn't say it did. If Hird had won his appeal, his hope was that ASADA would have had to start again and he and the players would then have been able to refuse to provide evidence.

But this presumably will now have every opportunity to emerge as a result of the ASADA evidence being presented in full (and is what Hird was obviously trying to prevent)

I still can't work out how 'my life in communism' Hardie manages to see himself as a fellow traveller of the likes of Little and Hird and the QCs and the corporates and so on. Maybe communism is sort of different now.

Maybe not, but it's a reasonably available supposition given some of the reports during this whole farrago on what the legal advice has been given.Oh, and when Essendon announced they weren't proceeding with an appeal they did so claiming that they had strong advice that they would win.

What, you think James proceeded with the appeal out of the goodness of his heart and not self-interest? I know he's been posturing from time to time about doing it all for the players but I didn't think there were too many people who actually believed that. The connection with any potential sacking might not be direct, but losing the appeal makes him especially vulnerable. Hird was hoping to derail the use of evidence already collected because if the players go down he goes down, at the very least because of his carelessness about what was going on across the road from Windy Hill. Of course, since all the indications are that he was more than careless, whatever part he played is more likely now to come out and I'd assume will provide entirely adequate grounds for dumping him. I suppose he'll go to court again if he's got any money left for that sort of thing, and I suppose his lawyers will tell him he's a shoo-in for a great big victory, just like they did in his 'case' against ASADA.

Yeah, sure. LOL. The thing about get-out clauses is they need to be phrased ambiguously enough to be read either way. Yours wasn't.

Happy to add my thanks as well, Bruiser. Your reports have gone above and beyond the call of duty. Much appreciated.

+1

This is what Galbally seems to be assuming. A fair bit might turn on it in relation to penalties, but I doubt that it's going to be enough to make the Lynch case the sort of precedent he's suggesting might influence the guilt/innocence question.

Who are they? Which doctor?

Another bloody drought, then Crawf? You need to remember, especially with forecasts, that Old Dee is Hanrahan's great nephew.

I'd pretty much agree, Hardtack. I can recall Paul Gallen's name, mainly because he was (is?) the captain and made a lot of noise about being innocent. He also manages to get himself into hot water over other things quite regularly. But the cracks have been plastered over fairly quickly, I suspect because of the fact that ASADA negotiated an outcome with the players. As a result the players only looked (and from my reading of the local press, were generally treated as being) 'a little bit guilty'.