Wow, that Agmates forum is something to behold isn’t it! It’s is just so totally different to OLO (:>0

You should get into it CJ (or are you into it under a different name!?!). Much more head-banging opportunities to be had there than on OLO!!

I’m wondering why my use or non-use of a spewdonym is of any consequence to you. I’ll continue to write under Ludwig on OLO to maintain the flow. I write under my own name on Agmates because pseudonyms are not allowed there. Simple.

I’ve never been afraid of being ‘outed’. I expected it would happen quite quickly on OLO, especially as I started off on OLO as I have on Agmates, with quite few hot-headed people bearing down on me!!

Please continue to respect my wishes that my name not be revealed on OLO, as you have done to date. Thanks

Hi Ludwig - no, you'd have to pay me for me to participate in that snake pit! Talk about redneck central, but useful in a way to see the depth of anti-environmental sentiment in much of the rural community.

I was just curious about your double standard, in light of comments here about pseudonyms and the fact that you got all precious about your anonymity in the context of discussing your hardline attitudes towards asylum seekers. Or is it that you're prepared to "own" your opinions about AGW, but not those about asylum seekers? I've noticed that you rarely post about AGW here under your pseudonym.

Woulfe, I do not practice at the present time. I've got enough on my plate with full-time study, blogging and, most importantly, two small kids! I was on maternity leave from a firm job when I first started blogging, and my early posts charted my decision to quit.

If I did practice, I think it might be more useful to be "out" because then I would have exposure to potential clients. Of course I'd have to seek permission from my employer.

In the end, in any case, ultimately it shouldn't matter what my personal opinion about the law is. I have a duty to represent my client to the best of my ability regardless of what I think of a particular law. But I can see that it might be of interest to a client.

<< no, you'd have to pay me for me to participate in that snake pit! Talk about redneck central… >>

It certainly is that!

But you like a good stoush CJ. Go awwwn get into it!!

<<.but useful in a way to see the depth of anti-environmental sentiment in much of the rural community. >>

Yes, it is an eye-opener. An articulate old greenie like you could have a real impact in there! Afterall, a lot of them are apparently not very bright. It is easy to pull their simplistic arguments apart and show up their contradictions. Given that you’ve got a thick skin like me, I reckon you’d have a ball…and probably have more of a useful input into influencing peoples’ opinions than we do on OLO. Besides, I could do a bit of support over there, old mate! ( :>)

<< I was just curious about your double standard, in light of comments here about pseudonyms... >>

I don’t know why you feel the need to further analyse it after the straightforward explanation in my last post.

One further comment on that as it pertains to the subject of this thread: The Agmates code of conduct compels people to write under their real name. So I had the choice of doing that or not participating in that forum. Or I had a third choice of writing under a false name and making out that it was my real name, thus breaking a basic rule which no doubt some posters there do as it is dead easy for anyone to do that.

As appealing as the third option was, it was not a goer for me as a principled law-abiding citizen.

So um, why do you write under a half pseudonym / half real name?? I mean, if you are going to write under your real name, why would you do it in an impersonal manner by using your initials instead of you full first name?

Do you feel as though you need a modicum of anonymity because of your unrealistic no-detention no-border-security no-balance open-the-floodgates approach to asylum seekers?

Ludwig: << So um, why do you write under a half pseudonym / half real name?? >>

I'm known to my friends and members of the community in which I live as either "Morgan" or "CJ", so there's nothing pseudonymous about it. It's also the name under which I conduct my business. As you know, my first name's Christopher - but the only people who've called me that in the last decade or so are my exes and daggett, bless him.

<< ...your unrealistic no-detention no-border-security no-balance open-the-floodgates approach to asylum seekers >>

Thanks for exaggerating and thus misrepresenting my position on asylum seekers. However, I'll continue to respect your desire to be called "Ludwig" at OLO.

>>If I had my “druthers”, I’d educate everyone about basic law, and what it can and can’t do.<<

Legal Eagle,

Here's a claim I've heard a lot in the past. If a decision is taken by a government agency, say, that seriously disadvantages an individual, he/she can use the Common Law to seek redress. A good example would be the fellow that went on a hunger strike in a tree for 40-odd days (reportedly).

What's you view on this? Is it true or false that the Common Law will provide a remedy? Or true in theory but next to impossible to enact in practice? Or the Government will only do something about it when something good about the person affected is right on the verge of turning bad as a result?