[blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Herman De Wael:

>>>...the lawbook says we should rule MI if the
>>>explanation does not conform to the CC...

Richard Hills:

>>My lawbook lacks that clause.

Herman De Wael:

>Footnote to law 75, perhaps?
>
>Permit me to shorten a sentence that everyone
>on this list has read 1000 times already to
>one with the same meaning.

Richard Hills:

If the CC is incorrectly completed, but the
explanation is correct, and the opponents use
the explanation to guide them (ignoring or not
reading the CC), where is the MI?

Even if Herman was intending a non-literal
fuzzy paraphrase of the Law 75 footnote, then
I still find his complete original statement
perplexing:

"...the lawbook says we should rule MI if the
explanation does not conform to the CC, the
lawbook is silent about the reverse."

If the entire sentence above is read literally,
then the first clause is false but the second
clause is true.  If the entire sentence above
is read as a non-literal fuzzy paraphrase of
the Law 75 footnote, then the first clause is
true but the second clause is false.

Herman De Wael:

>Besides, were we not on the same side of this
>argument?

J.R.R. Tolkien, The Two Towers:

"I have not troubled about the Great Wars" said
Treebeard, "they mostly concern Elves and Men.
That is the business of Wizards: Wizards are
always troubled about the future. I do not like
worrying about the future. I am not altogether
on anybody's _side_, because nobody is
altogether on my _side_, if you understand me."

Herman De Wael:

>Do you really have to react to every little
>message I post and try to find reason to
>discredit me?
>
>That way ahead lies madness.

Richard Hills:

A false premise implies any conclusion.  On
some occasions Herman and I are on the same
"side", standing shoulder to shoulder disputing
the theories of Eric Landau or Sven Pran, so on
those occasions I am not discrediting his
theories.

On the other hand, if Herman publishes a
zillion posts on blml advocating the logically
fallacious De Wael School, it seems to me to be
a tad inconsistent that he objects to me
publishing half-a-zillion posts discrediting
the De Wael School and apparently suggesting
that I should restrict myself to a mere
quarter-a-zillion posts.

Plus, whatever differences I have with the
weirdly twisted logic of the De Wael School, I
have repeatedly stated that I admire Herman's
motives.  If my attack on Herman's logic could
be misinterpreted as an "ad hominem" attack on
Herman himself, I unconditionally withdraw and
apologise for any such carelessness in wording.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
02 6223 9052

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm