Hi there STEELEREDUX...

However, could I forget my debt to you - Actually, I thought it was more like ten thousand Dollars, or wait a minute, perhaps it was Lire, yup - Lire 10,000, I'm sure of it. Accordingly, I hope to receive your cheque in the mail.

Of course, I'd expect you to launch into full flight, whenever I deserve a 'serve.' Otherwise, it would defeat the need for me to remain on the Forum at all. G'night Steele.

Hey o sung wu, we may be getting to the stage that it is mush between our ears, but we can be thankful we aren't like some on the site, who have nothing but bile in the same place.

Hasbeen,
Not even a Proctologist can help them !

What SR and others don't grasp is that Peter Ridd was essentially a whistle blower.

That during the disciplinary enquiries and court case the university never disputed the veracity of Peter Ridd's claims means that they accepted that PR's criticisms were correct and were only punishing him because the truth embarrassed the university and the "scientists" that produced the dubious material that was widely reported by the media.

That these charlatans get media attention and recognition for scientifically fraudulent work apparently is of no concern for the left whingers except when they get caught. That this is happening on a grand scale at many universities is exactly why there is so much material for the sceptics. If those advocating for climate action had any grey matter between their ears they would be the ones weeding out these fraudsters before they did the climate sceptics work for them.

o sung,

While I appreciate you drawing attention to SR's vulgarity and his inability to grasp simple concepts, I usually just ignore his buffoonery as he does more damage to his credibility than mine.

Hopefully this court case has been instructive to those choosing to use extreme measures to censor the politically incorrect.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You opine;

“That during the disciplinary enquiries and court case the university never disputed the veracity of Peter Ridd's claims means that they accepted that PR's criticisms were correct and were only punishing him because the truth embarrassed the university”

What?

Why on earth would they bring up the veracity or otherwise of Ridd's claims when they had absolutley no bearing on the case? Ridd publicly accused and impugned another employee of the university who made a formal complaint as was his right. The university then sought to have Ridd act in a more collegiate manner and instead he doubled down. This was all about his behaviour not the content of his work.

You may think differently but this was not the position the judge who found in favour of Ridd.

Time to give it a rest but not before acknowledging and applauding the union who managed to enshrine those protections within the EBA.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Just a quick word of advice, directly accusing someone of being an anti-Semite just for being critical of the actions of the Israeli government is utterly vulgar and contemptible, and hardly compares to a bit of familiar Australian vernacular/aphorism tossed at you.

Credibility, a pretty hard thing to ever recover once gone.