Fox,

If you have 'access to premium seats' at the footy you should take up the offer some time and go to see what AFL is all about. Why rely on the word of someone who unprofessionally makes crazy faces after interviewing politicians?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr1R2o_yzXo

You might also direct some of your feverish Googling towards researching the valued contributions the AFL is continuing to make to the future of indigenous youth throughout Australia.

Big silence on that. Why?

You could then send some copied text and photos to educate 'crazy face' Trioli who doesn't seem to know much either about the good the AFL has done for indigenous. -Or of the wealthy, privileged lives of the elite players such as Adam Goodes. Although the well-paid 'celebrity' talking heads on the ABC probably do rub shoulders with the cosseted elite football knobs, champus flutes in hand, at their knees-ups (not a place for the 'also rans').

Maybe compare and contrast Goodes' income, lifestyle and glittering prizes with that of the 'lesser' mortals in AFL who are not treated as living deities and whose life after football is not so well assured and almost without any effort.

Unfortunately those starry, celebrity lifestyles with all of the adoring media and limelight cannot go on forever. AFL is a young man's game.

The real unfairness in AFL is the funneling of the $$ towards pay and benefits for elite players, while leaving the many who make the game what it is, to take any crumbs that might fall their way.

Not something you or Trioli (spell-check had Frivolity which was uncomfortably close) might be concerned about though.

Foxy, what are the insults? Is it pointing out lies?
I feel insulted every time you post a lie in your replies. It is an insult to my intelligence, but I do not whine about it.
From the first of your links: James Boyce says
“Windschuttle's faith in the comprehensiveness of the official documents and newspaper reports describing violence against Aborigines”
In what is he supposed to have faith? Stories made up by Lyndal Ryan, or Reynolds?
He adverted to the primary sources which you said Windschuttle had neglected, and then you give this link to a criticism of him by Boyce, for referring to primary sources.
John Dawson in Washout comments on Boyce’s asserting Windschuttle’s failings, in his criticism:
“Anticipation of the disclosure of examples of this litany of scholastic crimes mounts, then gets lost in the next wave of denunciations, then mounts again. The problem is that when a reader tries to put his finger on exactly what “gross oversights and mistakes” the denunciations denote, their identity proves to be mysteriously elusive. Sometimes opposite accusations cancel each other out.”
Washout is an assessment of the twenty essayists that Robert Manne assembled in Whitewash. It is also a sharp counter to the arguments they floated in their essays.
In essence, in Fabrication, Keith Windschuttle debunked two embarrassing academic positions. First, he proved that there had been no systematic slaughter of Aboriginal people by the white settlers in Tasmania, and that the claims of “genocide” were a concoction. Second, he showed that leading historians, in particular Henry Reynolds and Lyndall Ryan, had fabricated evidence regarding the extent of the Aboriginal deaths and the circumstances of the unfolding white–Aboriginal conflict between the 1820s and 1840s in Van Diemen’s Land.
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2010/11/keeping-track-of-the-fabrications/

Dear Leo,

We shall have to agree to disagree on the subject
of Keith Windschuttle. You have your opinion.
I have mine. Lets leave it at that. There are other
opinions apart from our own on both sides. Where the
"lies" are is a matter of perception and judgement.

Bob Gould wrote on excellent article on Windschuttle
years ago. As did Gerard Henderson.

Both seem to agree that self-published -
"Keith Windschuttle is narrowly forensic. Serious history
matters should proceed on the balance of probabilities with the
maximum of evidence being presented - including documents,
written and oral history and eye-witness accounts. Historical
inquiry ought not to be like a court of law, in which a
simple onus of proof prevails, for one good reason: that by
the time history is being written the eyewitnesses are all
dead and can't be cross-examined.

Penelope Edmonds and Samuel Furphy (Eds) published -
"Rethinking Colonial Histories: New and Alternative Approaches."
Its a 231 page monograph and displays a wide variety of
approaches to the task of writing colonial history,
showcasing the strength of this field of
study in the History Dept, of the
University of Melbourne. It's worth getting hold of
and having a read.

Back to topic -

The news is great concerning Adam Goodes - the following website
explains:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/adam-goodes-returns-to-all-action-for-sydney-swans-against-geelong/story-fni5fan7-1227475328893

Foxy, let me get this straight, I've understood this for a long time but the casual reader might not.
Your position:
"The progressive historical narrative falls apart when forensically examined, therefore we ought not rely on science but rather on storytelling and "balance of probability".
Or put even more simply:
"The version of history to which I subscribe is based on story telling which cannot be contradicted by scientific analysis."

Or to put it another way "capital R" Reaction is based on advocacy, Progressivism is purely criticism and as we advise young Reactionaries and Racists these are two completely different things. There are no progressive arguments only progressive critique so it's pointless even engaging a progressive in conversation, they're speaking a different language.
This explains why a progressive seems so shameless even when promoting an obvious fiction or an outright falsehood.

Understood, Foxy. You have no facts to support your opinions, but like a typical lefty, will stand by them, as did Lyndall Ryan when the non-existence of her sources, in her history of Tasmania, was exposed.
We need regular reminders that the black armband presentation of Australian history is based on lefty lies with no basis in fact. I suppose you will have a baseless disagreement with that, too?
Anyway, the thread has served a purpose.

Dear Jay,

As far as Keith Windschuttle is concerned - I have nothing
further to add on the subject. I think it's been covered
quite well.
As far as the techniques involved in the writing of colonial
histories - you may want to try to get a
hold of the references cited earlier or other references
available in book-shops like Readings in Melbourne, or
the State Library of Victoria in the City. It may help clarify
things for you.

This discussion for me has truly run its course.