SR refers to my questioning of his unsupported and irrelevant assertion, as”temerity”, which is how he regards any questioning of his baseless statements. His delusional state makes communication with him difficult. He has referred me to a statement by a union official which makes no reference to Peter Ridd, so is irrelevant.
Typical of Reflux, and his inability to respond coherently.I wonder how he will act, now that he has made a fool of himself. He usually runs away and hides.

Yes, Foxy, it would be nice to see an appeal. The university deserves another trouncing, and attempting to overturn a competent Judge like Vasta is a good w ay to ensure that happens.

Dear Leo Lane,

You write;

“He has referred me to a statement by a union official which makes no reference to Peter Ridd, so is irrelevant.”

What? The statement I posted referred to “the judgement' and to “Professor Ridd”! This was from the head of the bloody union you dingbat.

You really are bonkers mate.

You really are an ignoramus, Reflux. You need to show that the clause in Ridd’s agreement is the clause drafted by the union.That should not be difficult for you, if only you had the abilty to think straight. What the head of the union said is irrelevant unless it deals with that specific issue. Anyway, you have reminded us of your ignorance, and your inability to conduct yourself as a reasonable human being. You have made a fool of yourself again.. Your offensive, ill-bred language certainly adds to this. Try again, Reflux, and give us anther laugh at a dimwit

Dear Leo Lane,

It appears that there's some question about Judge
Vasta's competency:

http://www.afr.com/business/legal/could-salvatore-vasta-be-australias-worst-judge-20190225-h1bp1k

There's a great deal more on the web.

I hope that JCU will appeal.

Dear Leo Lane,

Stop being a snow flake.

You call me 'delusional', a 'fool' and indicate I am a coward yet when I retort with a simple 'dingbat' it is my language that is deemed 'offensive' and 'ill-bred'? Yeh right.

I will remind you of your original statement which now seems like so much projection;

“He has referred me to a statement by a union official which makes no reference to Peter Ridd, so is irrelevant.
Typical of Reflux, and his inability to respond coherently. I wonder how he will act, now that he has made a fool of himself. “

Well given that there was a clear and specific reference to Ridd from the union official this was not a coherent response was it. It is relevant. And you have made an utter fool of yourself.

Now you are saying than unless I can prove the clause included in the EBA was explicitly placed there by the the union then my argument collapses.

This is of course bonkers. The university has its own, albeit weaker, academic freedom rules so why would it include a stronger set within the EBA of its own accord?

It is utterly delusional to assert without evidence that it was not the union which drafted the EBA?

Whacker old chap.

Dear Foxy,

You link was behind a paywall I'm afraid but I'm wondering if you could post any comments relevant to Ridd's case.