<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.28.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 22:45 +1100, Paul Wayper wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/01/2011 09:48 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> Congratulations, your lawyer will soon become rather rich, I hope you're
> not in Queensland, because that will earn you more than many civil
> suites (probably an offence in other states as well), yes, regardless of
> qualifications of applicants, that's the most stupidest thing you could
> have ever said in public, so I hope for your sake you really do not have
> any input in employment of any staff.
Really, I'm impressed. This list has just demonstrated why it is that having
so many men involved in a discussion makes the whole thing stupid.
I mean, normally it takes a good four or five posts for someone to claim to be
some expert in law and tell everyone how it's done, but you've really just cut
straight to the point there. Who cares about equal opportunity laws, you've
just channelled the living spirit of the law itself and magically determined
something that suits you. And then you went on to make it a condemnation of
anyone who doesn't think the way you do. That's really quite impressive.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
*sigh* another ranting troll to killoff<BR>
<BR>
OK I say that perhaps because I can speak from legal POV.<BR>
I have seen innocent comments like that backfire and used against a previous employer, out there in <BR>
the " R E A L " world, it means a lot in a court when you make public comments like that, regardless of context.<BR>
<BR>
I wont even waste my time with the rest of your drivel, because your obviously clueless in these dealings.<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>