Religion Religions and rudeness.

Apr 24, 2013
81,024
153,170
Arden Street Hill
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
I did but they rejected mine ;) they accepted your definition of vacuum so that everyone can learn what a vacuum truly means.

I'm not delusional enough to believe I can correct a 190 year old institution of the English language, much less consciously interact with a lump of quartz.

Of all the ridiculous drivel you have spouted on this board, this episode genuinely takes the cake. You were so busy playing the pompous twat that you completely shot your own foot clean off. Take a bow.
 
Apr 24, 2013
81,024
153,170
Arden Street Hill
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
I never asked anyone to believe me, i said not to trust me didn't i?

I didn't need your advice champ. A couple of your posts was all it took.

Try to find some type of productive vocation in life. This is, frankly, just sad.
 
Apr 24, 2013
81,024
153,170
Arden Street Hill
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
Wasn't an advice, just pointed out your ridiculous attempt at science. :)

take it like a man.

Best you deal with getting a grasp the English language first, before you waffle on about science.:thumbsu:
 

Reynolds Number

Cancelled
Apr 29, 2016
3,744
4,817
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Stoke City, Dortmund, San José, As
Great thread to discuss this.

My Canadian boss regularly hangs out at a music bar in my city on Wednesday nights.

Last night a few Mormon missionaries jumped on stage while a band was performing to yell s**t like 'drinking is evil, smoking is evil' a few times. A bunch of westerners watching the band walked out of the bar and bar management had to boot them out.

As the Taiwanese needed any more justification for their racist views towards white man.
 
Of course they do. A claim is being made about a creator. Science makes no such claim.



He says no such thing.



He says no such thing.



Dawkins makes absolutely no scientific explanation of aliens. This is just plain dishonesty or at best misinterpretation from you.



Dawkin's has no answer. Aliens or anything else. He's said that clearly.
Sanity.
 

Craven Morehead

I really don't care what you think.
Jan 2, 2019
4,103
5,411
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Sep 30, 2008
14,335
17,806
Western Victoria
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Chelsea
But, but, but the church is deeply remorseful over its inaction and willing to do whatever it takes to remedy the survivors.
What a pack of absolute campaigners.
Yes and fortunately a Justice of the Supreme Court has called the bad dogs and the vermin that defend them out for their callous and unethical behaviour
 
Jan 13, 2007
14,553
17,676
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
BruceFromBalnarring https://www.standard.net.au/story/6...ail&utm_term=0_8fc75d76a0-375fcd6b4f-66122521 talk me thru this - what is the potential penalty for the turds running this case - defending the indefensible

The article isn't clear on what (I imagine) the Defence document said. You can "admit" an allegation, "not admit" an allegation, or "deny" an allegation. Most Defendant solicitors in my experience will "not admit" those aspects of a Statement of Claim that point to their culpability. That is the right of any Respondent to a civil suit. Now if they've "denied" it, that's a different matter. And they're dumb. But if they've simply "not admitted" it, that's pretty standard practice.
 
Sep 30, 2008
14,335
17,806
Western Victoria
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Chelsea
The article isn't clear on what (I imagine) the Defence document said. You can "admit" an allegation, "not admit" an allegation, or "deny" an allegation. Most Defendant solicitors in my experience will "not admit" those aspects of a Statement of Claim that point to their culpability. That is the right of any Respondent to a civil suit. Now if they've "denied" it, that's a different matter. And they're dumb. But if they've simply "not admitted" it, that's pretty standard practice.
The stupid campaigners have denied it McDonald J has asked them to show cause why they should not be dealt with under a breach of the civil administration procedures - whatever that is - these campaigners are arrogant beyond belief
 
Jan 13, 2007
14,553
17,676
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
The stupid campaigners have denied it McDonald J has asked them to show cause why they should not be dealt with under a breach of the civil administration procedures - whatever that is - these campaigners are arrogant beyond belief

It surprises me that they would deny. Not admit is a reasonable tactic (and forgive my blunt language, I don't intend to be insensitive, I'm just trying to reconcile the "why") in circumstances where the records are inconclusive and the main players are dead, but a denial is to say in a positive sense something wasn't known, as opposed to saying "you prove that it was known". They'd want to be able to provide evidence, which would be a strange thing after the Royal Commission.

We're talking about Mortlake, not Edenhope, right?
 
Sep 30, 2008
14,335
17,806
Western Victoria
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Chelsea
It surprises me that they would deny. Not admit is a reasonable tactic (and forgive my blunt language, I don't intend to be insensitive, I'm just trying to reconcile the "why") in circumstances where the records are inconclusive and the main players are dead, but a denial is to say in a positive sense something wasn't known, as opposed to saying "you prove that it was known". They'd want to be able to provide evidence, which would be a strange thing after the Royal Commission.

We're talking about Mortlake, not Edenhope, right?
Yes - Mortlake - what penalty do they face as the Judge was mega pissed basically said they did not act in good faith
 
Jan 13, 2007
14,553
17,676
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Yes - Mortlake - what penalty do they face as the Judge was mega pissed basically said they did not act in good faith

I honestly don't know what the penalty is. There's a range from warnings to fines to disbarment.

But there's a fair bit comes into it. Notwithstanding police reports and Royal Commission findings, Mulkearns sworn evidence right up until he died was that he wasn't aware of the extent of Ridsdale's offending until some 5 years after the police found he was. So perhaps they're relying on that.

Also the nature of the civil suit itself might come into play. Civil suits are about obtaining compensation and damages. They're not supposed to be about retribution. Now your description on this forum has largely been about retribution (and I don't blame you for that). If the lawyers involved have adopted a similar type stance then I can see why the Defence lawyers might have dug the trench in the way they appear to have. They're preparing for war rather than negotiation and settlement. But again, I'm not privy to the actual documents or the facts of the case so I'm just speculating.

Now before I say the next bit I want to be clear that MY BELIEF is that Mulkearns knew more about Ridsdale's offending earlier than he says he did. That said.....

The Judge needs to be a bit cautious here. Just because a Royal Commission makes a finding, does not mean that finding is a fact that can't be denied in a court proceeding. There are different evidentiary standards at Royal Commissions. If he's about to beat up on the Defence based on what he's read in the press or the Royal Commission summaries he's leaving himself wide open for appeal. If, however, he's basing his position on documents in front of him, or evidence from previous cases, then that's a different matter.
 
Back