Vegetarian Discussion: Has Rupert McCallum Been Judged By Aunt Justice Lucy McCallum NSW?

Has Rupert McCallum Been Judged By Aunt Justice Lucy McCallum NSW?
Posts: 41

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)

Derek
2012-11-28 08:27:10 EST
Rupert McCallum PhD grew up surrounded by privilege. His supportive
family of full-time academics and Supreme Court judges gave him a life
of ease and great expectations. But he often tries to downplay his
privileged life, even while boasting about his father's success in
becoming Chair of the Academic Board at the University of Sydney, of
his Uncle William McCallum's success as a number theorist who works at
the University of Arizona, and of his aunt's advancement as the sixth
female Supreme Court judge of NSW. Recently, in one of his many
unguarded moments in Usenet, He bragged,

"My aunt only became a judge quite recently, she was still a barrister
when I was in high school. It doesn't really benefit me, anyway,
except in terms of being able to have interesting conversations with
her about the cases she is hearing."
Rupert McCallum 24 Nov 2012 http://tinyurl.com/cnsmbch

I promptly wrote to Rupert in a private email, advising him to remove
the post from Google archives before anyone responded to it, making it
a permanent statement to the effect that his Aunt Lucy frequently
flouts one of the most fundamental rules governing the behaviour of a
Supreme Court judge; not to discuss on-going cases to people outside
court. But no, instead of heeding my good advice Rupert saw fit to try
defending himself instead in Usenet by writing, "I mis-spoke … Why
should I remove the post?"

Will Justice Lucy McCallum find her psychotic nephew

"I'm someone who has a vulnerability to psychosis and needs to take a
medication in order to manage that."
Rupert 27 Aug 2008 http://tinyurl.com/6ok9f4

and

"Paranoid schizophrenia, Ball. Yep, that's my problem."
Rupert 3 Sept 2008 http://tinyurl.com/4lblv9

and

"When I became psychotic, it all started with false ideas about my
social relationships and work relationships, of the kind that anyone
might entertain from time to time, and gradually spiralled out of
control into ideas about being spied upon with hidden cameras, and
having messages broadcast to me through ads on buses, and so forth."
Rupert 31 July 2007 http://tinyurl.com/6cs7vq

and

"I didn't trust my psychiatrist during my episode because I thought
that everyone was spying on me through hidden video cameras and
sending elaborately coded communications to me through various media
and trying to punish me for all the bad things I'd done."
Rupert 27 Sept 2005 http://tinyurl.com/3jzhx8

not guilty of gross stupidity on the basis of his mental illness and
allow him to continue participating in Usenet, getting himself and
others into trouble? Well, she certainly has a soft spot for
psychotics like him who try to get themselves off the hook by claiming
to hear instructions given to them. Take the Mohamed Aliwijaya case,
for example.

The Mohamed Aliwijaya case.
A prisoner killed his cellmate in response to hallucinatory
instructions from aliens to sacrifice someone in order to go to
paradise, a judge has found.

Mohamed Aliwijaya was in jail on remand for stabbing a friend in an
unsuccessful attempt to obey the instructions, Justice Lucy McCallum
said in the NSW Supreme Court on Wednesday. She conducted a
judge-alone trial of Aliwijaya, 20, who was charged with murdering
Robson Pham in April 2010 in a two-man cell at the Metropolitan
Reception and Remand Centre in Sydney's Silverwater jail. She found
him not guilty on the grounds of mental illness, accepting evidence
from two psychiatrists that he suffers from a treatment-resistant
schizophrenic illness.

Both concluded he was suffering from a serious mental illness at the
time of the offence, with acute symptoms including persecutory beliefs
and auditory hallucinations. Aliwijaya told police he stomped on his
cellmate with his feet, tried to choke him, and kicked him a number of
times as he tried to crawl away. The cause of death was fatal pressure
to the neck.

Aliwijaya told psychiatrists that about two years before the killing,
he began hearing alien voices telling him he would be relieved from
pain and misery and go to paradise, if he killed someone. Initially,
he did not believe the voices but in March 2010, he took a train to
Broken Hill to go "UFO hunting".

"After five days circumnavigating Broken Hill on foot, a series of
perceptions (which I am satisfied were hallucinations) persuaded him
as to the existence of UFOs and the authenticity of the voices he was
hearing," the judge said.

"The accused initially attempted to follow the instructions of the
aliens' voices by stabbing a friend but the friend survived." After
being charged with wounding him with intent to inflict grievous bodily
harm, Aliwijaya was taken into custody on remand at Silverwater.

Justice McCallum ordered him to be detained as a forensic patient
until, or if, he is deemed not to be a danger to the community or
himself.
http://tinyurl.com/d4waovb

Note here that, "She found him not guilty on the grounds of mental
illness, accepting evidence from two psychiatrists that he suffers
from a treatment-resistant schizophrenic illness."

Justice Lucy McCallum has a soft spot for murderous sex offenders in
need of psychiatric help, too, and casually overrules prison bosses
who regard them as dangerous. In one case she ordered them to review a
particularly nasty convicted murderer's case, have his classification
as a sex offender reduced, and said that he should be considered for
parole.

The Jonathan Davison case.
JONATHAN Davison would rather be called a murderer than a rapist. The
self-confessed killer is so afraid of inmates finding out he is a
deviant, he has refused to do the sex offenders course in jail. He
abused and bashed Dearne Nonnenmacher, 18, in Orange on Christmas Day,
1990 after she rebuffed his sexual advances, then burned her body in a
44-gallon drum.

But Davison, now 40, is worried about being "stigmatised" as a sex
offender. He has even gone to the Supreme Court to stop his fellow
prisoners finding out. Davison's minimum sentence of 13 years and five
months expired in 2006 but he has been refused parole as he will not
complete a Custody Based Intensive Treatment (CUBIT) program.

He has been classified as a sex offender, with a jail psychologist
stating that he needs to complete the CUBIT course.

What he did to Ms Nonnenmacher is too gruesome to report, but Davison
has told the court he did not perceive it as sexual and spoke of "his
fear that there would be reprisals" ... if he became identified as a
sex offender by signing up for the course. Last October the Serious
Offenders Review Council recommended that, despite his not doing the
course, his minimum-security classification level be reduced so he
could prepare for release. Corrective Services commissioner Ron
Woodham refused and his file was marked "review again in six months".

Last week, Supreme Court Justice Lucy McCallum overruled the prisons
boss, ordered him to review Davison's appeal to have his
classification reduced and said he should be reconsidered for parole.

His maximum sentence of 20 years and five months ends in 2013. Ms
Nonnenmacher's family, who still live in Orange where they have been
dairy farmers for more than 120 years, were "shocked and horrified"
they had not been told about Davison's appeal. "We ask the authorities
to force him to do the appropriate courses to protect the community
that one day he will come back to live in," the family said through
Dearne's mother Jenny. Dearne and Davison worked together as trainee
chefs at the Robin Hood Hotel in Orange and she had gone to his home
to play Cluedo. Her remains were found two days later in bush near Mt
Canobolas, 20km away.
http://tinyurl.com/boyfmos

Note here that she rejected the prison psychologist's evidence who
stated that "he needs to complete the CUBIT course."

Why did she accept the advice of a psychiatrist and spare one killer
from jail time, only to then reject the advice of another psychiatrist
and spare another killer from jail time? Both cases were judged on the
basis of psychiatric evidence, and yet both were spared jail time
because she felt able to pick and choose which professional
psychologist's evidence to believe.

She's not a professional psychiatrist, and she didn't examine either
of the killers, so unless she was persuaded by yet another
"interesting conversation" with her psychotic nephew over these cases,
I'm not sure where her obvious leniency came from.

On a side note, another example of her excessive leniency is seen in
the Ian Perrett case.

THE NSW Government has paid $1 million to a businessman who fell down
three steps at the Darling Harbour Convention Centre.

Ian Perrett, who runs wine industry recruiting firm Wine and Vine, was
at the Good Food and Wine Festival in July 2005 when he tumbled down
the small flight in the foyer of the government-owned complex. Then
aged 69, he broke two ribs, a femur and his hip. He had to have an
existing hip prosthesis replaced. He also claimed on-going stiffness
in his hip, depression, and the need to use a walking stick.

He sued the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority for damages, claiming
the state body was negligent because the stairs were covered in the
same tiles as the rest of the floor and hard to see. The former Boral
manager and rural affairs adviser to the federal government, now 73,
also claimed he was distracted from noticing the stairs because he was
unable to find the car park and was busy reading a small sign placed
away from the stairs.

Mr Perrett's payout includes $157,000 in non-economic losses with
Judge Lucy McCallum noting "his ability to participate in the
activities he then enjoyed, such as golf, swimming and gardening, has
been substantially impaired". He also received $418,600 for past and
future economic loss as well as $160,000 in other expenses associated
with the accident. On top of that, his company, which still operates
in Sydney's north shore, claimed another $223,000 in workers
compensation.
http://tinyurl.com/csa3h9e

Why didn't he just look where he was going, like the rest of us have
to? And that goes for Rupert, too!

Rupert
2012-11-28 09:56:02 EST
On Nov 28, 2:27 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rupert McCallum PhD grew up surrounded by privilege. His supportive
> family of full-time academics and Supreme Court judges gave him a life
> of ease and great expectations. But he often tries to downplay his
> privileged life, even while boasting about his father's success in
> becoming Chair of the Academic Board at the University of Sydney, of
> his Uncle William McCallum's success as a number theorist who works at
> the University of Arizona, and of his aunt's advancement as the sixth
> female Supreme Court judge of NSW. Recently, in one of his many
> unguarded moments in Usenet, He bragged,
>
> "My aunt only became a judge quite recently, she was still a barrister
> when I was in high school. It doesn't really benefit me, anyway,
> except in terms of being able to have interesting conversations with
> her about the cases she is hearing."
> Rupert McCallum 24 Nov 2012http://tinyurl.com/cnsmbch
>

You've got way too much time on your hands. I didn't "boast" about my
father's success or that of any of his siblings. Nor did I "brag" in
that quote. It was just an off-the-cuff remark. And the sentence was
not literally true. My aunt does not discuss cases with me that "she
is hearing", but cases which she has already decided. I made an error;
I uttered a "clumsy sentence" just as you uttered a "clumsy sentence"
when you said "When I think about your academic achievements... I'm
not impressed at all" which you later denied was what you really
wanted to say.

I discussed the posting with my aunt and she is not the least bit
concerned, presumably because she knows she did nothing wrong.

George Plimpton
2012-11-28 09:59:51 EST
On 11/28/2012 6:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2:27 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rupert McCallum PhD grew up surrounded by privilege. His supportive
>> family of full-time academics and Supreme Court judges gave him a life
>> of ease and great expectations. But he often tries to downplay his
>> privileged life, even while boasting about his father's success in
>> becoming Chair of the Academic Board at the University of Sydney, of
>> his Uncle William McCallum's success as a number theorist who works at
>> the University of Arizona, and of his aunt's advancement as the sixth
>> female Supreme Court judge of NSW. Recently, in one of his many
>> unguarded moments in Usenet, He bragged,
>>
>> "My aunt only became a judge quite recently, she was still a barrister
>> when I was in high school. It doesn't really benefit me, anyway,
>> except in terms of being able to have interesting conversations with
>> her about the cases she is hearing."
>> Rupert McCallum 24 Nov 2012http://tinyurl.com/cnsmbch
>>
>
> You've got way too much time on your hands. I didn't "boast" about my
> father's success or that of any of his siblings. Nor did I "brag" in
> that quote.

Yes, Derek misspoke. You *didn't* actually boast about any of it.
That's just the point: you take it for granted - you take it as the
natural order of things, which is why you fail to appreciate the very
high degree of privilege in which you grew up.



> It was just an off-the-cuff remark. And the sentence was
> not literally true. My aunt does not discuss cases with me that "she
> is hearing", but cases which she has already decided. I made an error;
> I uttered a "clumsy sentence" just as you uttered a "clumsy sentence"
> when you said "When I think about your academic achievements... I'm
> not impressed at all" which you later denied was what you really
> wanted to say.

He very clearly meant that he can't see how you could have failed.


> I discussed the posting with my aunt and she is not the least bit
> concerned, presumably because she knows she did nothing wrong.

You mean, nothing wrong other than having an in-built soft spot for
psychotic criminals?


Rupert
2012-11-28 10:06:40 EST
On Nov 28, 3:59 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 11/28/2012 6:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 2:27 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Rupert McCallum PhD grew up surrounded by privilege. His supportive
> >> family of full-time academics and Supreme Court judges gave him a life
> >> of ease and great expectations. But he often tries to downplay his
> >> privileged life, even while boasting about his father's success in
> >> becoming Chair of the Academic Board at the University of Sydney, of
> >> his Uncle William McCallum's success as a number theorist who works at
> >> the University of Arizona, and of his aunt's advancement as the sixth
> >> female Supreme Court judge of NSW. Recently, in one of his many
> >> unguarded moments in Usenet, He bragged,
>
> >> "My aunt only became a judge quite recently, she was still a barrister
> >> when I was in high school. It doesn't really benefit me, anyway,
> >> except in terms of being able to have interesting conversations with
> >> her about the cases she is hearing."
> >> Rupert McCallum 24 Nov 2012http://tinyurl.com/cnsmbch
>
> > You've got way too much time on your hands. I didn't "boast" about my
> > father's success or that of any of his siblings. Nor did I "brag" in
> > that quote.
>
> Yes, Derek misspoke.  You *didn't* actually boast about any of it.
> That's just the point:  you take it for granted - you take it as the
> natural order of things, which is why you fail to appreciate the very
> high degree of privilege in which you grew up.
>

Do you think that the fact that my father's siblings are high
achievers had some significant bearing on the amount of "ease" I
experienced during childhood and my prospects for success?

> > It was just an off-the-cuff remark. And the sentence was
> > not literally true. My aunt does not discuss cases with me that "she
> > is hearing", but cases which she has already decided. I made an error;
> > I uttered a "clumsy sentence" just as you uttered a "clumsy sentence"
> > when you said "When I think about your academic achievements... I'm
> > not impressed at all" which you later denied was what you really
> > wanted to say.
>
> He very clearly meant that he can't see how you could have failed.
>

And I am perfectly happy to take him at his word on that. He, too,
should take me at my word when I say that my aunt has never had any
inappropriate discussions with me. She told me that she hadn't, and
she would know.

> > I discussed the posting with my aunt and she is not the least bit
> > concerned, presumably because she knows she did nothing wrong.
>
> You mean, nothing wrong other than having an in-built soft spot for
> psychotic criminals?

I see no evidence that she has such a soft spot. If you want to read
her judgements and critique the reasoning in them, then go for it.

George Plimpton
2012-11-28 10:19:37 EST
On 11/28/2012 7:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Nov 28, 3:59 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 11/28/2012 6:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 28, 2:27 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Rupert McCallum PhD grew up surrounded by privilege. His supportive
>>>> family of full-time academics and Supreme Court judges gave him a life
>>>> of ease and great expectations. But he often tries to downplay his
>>>> privileged life, even while boasting about his father's success in
>>>> becoming Chair of the Academic Board at the University of Sydney, of
>>>> his Uncle William McCallum's success as a number theorist who works at
>>>> the University of Arizona, and of his aunt's advancement as the sixth
>>>> female Supreme Court judge of NSW. Recently, in one of his many
>>>> unguarded moments in Usenet, He bragged,
>>
>>>> "My aunt only became a judge quite recently, she was still a barrister
>>>> when I was in high school. It doesn't really benefit me, anyway,
>>>> except in terms of being able to have interesting conversations with
>>>> her about the cases she is hearing."
>>>> Rupert McCallum 24 Nov 2012http://tinyurl.com/cnsmbch
>>
>>> You've got way too much time on your hands. I didn't "boast" about my
>>> father's success or that of any of his siblings. Nor did I "brag" in
>>> that quote.
>>
>> Yes, Derek misspoke. You *didn't* actually boast about any of it.
>> That's just the point: you take it for granted - you take it as the
>> natural order of things, which is why you fail to appreciate the very
>> high degree of privilege in which you grew up.
>>
>
> Do you think that the fact that my father's siblings are high
> achievers had some significant bearing on the amount of "ease" I
> experienced during childhood and my prospects for success?
>
>>> It was just an off-the-cuff remark. And the sentence was
>>> not literally true. My aunt does not discuss cases with me that "she
>>> is hearing", but cases which she has already decided. I made an error;
>>> I uttered a "clumsy sentence" just as you uttered a "clumsy sentence"
>>> when you said "When I think about your academic achievements... I'm
>>> not impressed at all" which you later denied was what you really
>>> wanted to say.
>>
>> He very clearly meant that he can't see how you could have failed.
>>
>
> And I am perfectly happy to take him at his word on that. He, too,
> should take me at my word when I say that my aunt has never had any
> inappropriate discussions with me. She told me that she hadn't, and
> she would know.

She has an incentive to say she never had inappropriate discussions with
you about the cases she was hearing.


>>> I discussed the posting with my aunt and she is not the least bit
>>> concerned, presumably because she knows she did nothing wrong.
>>
>> You mean, nothing wrong other than having an in-built soft spot for
>> psychotic criminals?
>
> I see no evidence that she has such a soft spot.

Derek presented it. She takes a cafeteria approach to expert testimony
from psychiatrists: if it favors the psychotic criminal, she accepts
it; if it works against the psychotic criminal, she rejects it.


Rupert
2012-11-28 10:24:12 EST
On Nov 28, 4:19 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 11/28/2012 7:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 3:59 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 11/28/2012 6:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 28, 2:27 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert McCallum PhD grew up surrounded by privilege. His supportive
> >>>> family of full-time academics and Supreme Court judges gave him a life
> >>>> of ease and great expectations. But he often tries to downplay his
> >>>> privileged life, even while boasting about his father's success in
> >>>> becoming Chair of the Academic Board at the University of Sydney, of
> >>>> his Uncle William McCallum's success as a number theorist who works at
> >>>> the University of Arizona, and of his aunt's advancement as the sixth
> >>>> female Supreme Court judge of NSW. Recently, in one of his many
> >>>> unguarded moments in Usenet, He bragged,
>
> >>>> "My aunt only became a judge quite recently, she was still a barrister
> >>>> when I was in high school. It doesn't really benefit me, anyway,
> >>>> except in terms of being able to have interesting conversations with
> >>>> her about the cases she is hearing."
> >>>> Rupert McCallum 24 Nov 2012http://tinyurl.com/cnsmbch
>
> >>> You've got way too much time on your hands. I didn't "boast" about my
> >>> father's success or that of any of his siblings. Nor did I "brag" in
> >>> that quote.
>
> >> Yes, Derek misspoke.  You *didn't* actually boast about any of it.
> >> That's just the point:  you take it for granted - you take it as the
> >> natural order of things, which is why you fail to appreciate the very
> >> high degree of privilege in which you grew up.
>
> > Do you think that the fact that my father's siblings are high
> > achievers had some significant bearing on the amount of "ease" I
> > experienced during childhood and my prospects for success?
>
> >>> It was just an off-the-cuff remark. And the sentence was
> >>> not literally true. My aunt does not discuss cases with me that "she
> >>> is hearing", but cases which she has already decided. I made an error;
> >>> I uttered a "clumsy sentence" just as you uttered a "clumsy sentence"
> >>> when you said "When I think about your academic achievements... I'm
> >>> not impressed at all" which you later denied was what you really
> >>> wanted to say.
>
> >> He very clearly meant that he can't see how you could have failed.
>
> > And I am perfectly happy to take him at his word on that. He, too,
> > should take me at my word when I say that my aunt has never had any
> > inappropriate discussions with me. She told me that she hadn't, and
> > she would know.
>
> She has an incentive to say she never had inappropriate discussions with
> you about the cases she was hearing.
>

Yes, but she wouldn't lie to me about it in a private conversation
over the telephone. She would have an incentive to clarify what the
situation was so that I wouldn't make any more statements in public
that I shouldn't be making.

> >>> I discussed the posting with my aunt and she is not the least bit
> >>> concerned, presumably because she knows she did nothing wrong.
>
> >> You mean, nothing wrong other than having an in-built soft spot for
> >> psychotic criminals?
>
> > I see no evidence that she has such a soft spot.
>
> Derek presented it.  She takes a cafeteria approach to expert testimony
> from psychiatrists:  if it favors the psychotic criminal, she accepts
> it; if it works against the psychotic criminal, she rejects it.

You've read the judgements in question, have you?

George Plimpton
2012-11-28 10:42:37 EST
On 11/28/2012 7:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Nov 28, 4:19 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 11/28/2012 7:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 28, 3:59 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 11/28/2012 6:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 28, 2:27 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert McCallum PhD grew up surrounded by privilege. His supportive
>>>>>> family of full-time academics and Supreme Court judges gave him a life
>>>>>> of ease and great expectations. But he often tries to downplay his
>>>>>> privileged life, even while boasting about his father's success in
>>>>>> becoming Chair of the Academic Board at the University of Sydney, of
>>>>>> his Uncle William McCallum's success as a number theorist who works at
>>>>>> the University of Arizona, and of his aunt's advancement as the sixth
>>>>>> female Supreme Court judge of NSW. Recently, in one of his many
>>>>>> unguarded moments in Usenet, He bragged,
>>
>>>>>> "My aunt only became a judge quite recently, she was still a barrister
>>>>>> when I was in high school. It doesn't really benefit me, anyway,
>>>>>> except in terms of being able to have interesting conversations with
>>>>>> her about the cases she is hearing."
>>>>>> Rupert McCallum 24 Nov 2012http://tinyurl.com/cnsmbch
>>
>>>>> You've got way too much time on your hands. I didn't "boast" about my
>>>>> father's success or that of any of his siblings. Nor did I "brag" in
>>>>> that quote.
>>
>>>> Yes, Derek misspoke. You *didn't* actually boast about any of it.
>>>> That's just the point: you take it for granted - you take it as the
>>>> natural order of things, which is why you fail to appreciate the very
>>>> high degree of privilege in which you grew up.
>>
>>> Do you think that the fact that my father's siblings are high
>>> achievers had some significant bearing on the amount of "ease" I
>>> experienced during childhood and my prospects for success?
>>
>>>>> It was just an off-the-cuff remark. And the sentence was
>>>>> not literally true. My aunt does not discuss cases with me that "she
>>>>> is hearing", but cases which she has already decided. I made an error;
>>>>> I uttered a "clumsy sentence" just as you uttered a "clumsy sentence"
>>>>> when you said "When I think about your academic achievements... I'm
>>>>> not impressed at all" which you later denied was what you really
>>>>> wanted to say.
>>
>>>> He very clearly meant that he can't see how you could have failed.
>>
>>> And I am perfectly happy to take him at his word on that. He, too,
>>> should take me at my word when I say that my aunt has never had any
>>> inappropriate discussions with me. She told me that she hadn't, and
>>> she would know.
>>
>> She has an incentive to say she never had inappropriate discussions with
>> you about the cases she was hearing.
>>
>
> Yes, but she wouldn't lie to me about it in a private conversation
> over the telephone. She would have an incentive to clarify what the
> situation was so that I wouldn't make any more statements in public
> that I shouldn't be making.
>
>>>>> I discussed the posting with my aunt and she is not the least bit
>>>>> concerned, presumably because she knows she did nothing wrong.
>>
>>>> You mean, nothing wrong other than having an in-built soft spot for
>>>> psychotic criminals?
>>
>>> I see no evidence that she has such a soft spot.
>>
>> Derek presented it. She takes a cafeteria approach to expert testimony
>> from psychiatrists: if it favors the psychotic criminal, she accepts
>> it; if it works against the psychotic criminal, she rejects it.
>
> You've read the judgements in question, have you?

Who appointed your aunt to the bench, Woopert?


Rupert
2012-11-28 10:45:19 EST
On Nov 28, 4:42 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 11/28/2012 7:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 4:19 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 11/28/2012 7:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 28, 3:59 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 11/28/2012 6:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Nov 28, 2:27 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert McCallum PhD grew up surrounded by privilege. His supportive
> >>>>>> family of full-time academics and Supreme Court judges gave him a life
> >>>>>> of ease and great expectations. But he often tries to downplay his
> >>>>>> privileged life, even while boasting about his father's success in
> >>>>>> becoming Chair of the Academic Board at the University of Sydney, of
> >>>>>> his Uncle William McCallum's success as a number theorist who works at
> >>>>>> the University of Arizona, and of his aunt's advancement as the sixth
> >>>>>> female Supreme Court judge of NSW. Recently, in one of his many
> >>>>>> unguarded moments in Usenet, He bragged,
>
> >>>>>> "My aunt only became a judge quite recently, she was still a barrister
> >>>>>> when I was in high school. It doesn't really benefit me, anyway,
> >>>>>> except in terms of being able to have interesting conversations with
> >>>>>> her about the cases she is hearing."
> >>>>>> Rupert McCallum 24 Nov 2012http://tinyurl.com/cnsmbch
>
> >>>>> You've got way too much time on your hands. I didn't "boast" about my
> >>>>> father's success or that of any of his siblings. Nor did I "brag" in
> >>>>> that quote.
>
> >>>> Yes, Derek misspoke.  You *didn't* actually boast about any of it.
> >>>> That's just the point:  you take it for granted - you take it as the
> >>>> natural order of things, which is why you fail to appreciate the very
> >>>> high degree of privilege in which you grew up.
>
> >>> Do you think that the fact that my father's siblings are high
> >>> achievers had some significant bearing on the amount of "ease" I
> >>> experienced during childhood and my prospects for success?
>
> >>>>> It was just an off-the-cuff remark. And the sentence was
> >>>>> not literally true. My aunt does not discuss cases with me that "she
> >>>>> is hearing", but cases which she has already decided. I made an error;
> >>>>> I uttered a "clumsy sentence" just as you uttered a "clumsy sentence"
> >>>>> when you said "When I think about your academic achievements... I'm
> >>>>> not impressed at all" which you later denied was what you really
> >>>>> wanted to say.
>
> >>>> He very clearly meant that he can't see how you could have failed.
>
> >>> And I am perfectly happy to take him at his word on that. He, too,
> >>> should take me at my word when I say that my aunt has never had any
> >>> inappropriate discussions with me. She told me that she hadn't, and
> >>> she would know.
>
> >> She has an incentive to say she never had inappropriate discussions with
> >> you about the cases she was hearing.
>
> > Yes, but she wouldn't lie to me about it in a private conversation
> > over the telephone. She would have an incentive to clarify what the
> > situation was so that I wouldn't make any more statements in public
> > that I shouldn't be making.
>
> >>>>> I discussed the posting with my aunt and she is not the least bit
> >>>>> concerned, presumably because she knows she did nothing wrong.
>
> >>>> You mean, nothing wrong other than having an in-built soft spot for
> >>>> psychotic criminals?
>
> >>> I see no evidence that she has such a soft spot.
>
> >> Derek presented it.  She takes a cafeteria approach to expert testimony
> >> from psychiatrists:  if it favors the psychotic criminal, she accepts
> >> it; if it works against the psychotic criminal, she rejects it.
>
> > You've read the judgements in question, have you?
>
> Who appointed your aunt to the bench, Woopert?

I don't know. Do you know what the procedure is for choosing Supreme
Court judges in New South Wales? I expect you can find out.

Derek
2012-11-28 11:05:13 EST
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 06:56:02 -0800 (PST), Rupert
<*m@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Nov 28, 2:27 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Rupert McCallum PhD grew up surrounded by privilege. His supportive
>> family of full-time academics and Supreme Court judges gave him a life
>> of ease and great expectations. But he often tries to downplay his
>> privileged life, even while boasting about his father's success in
>> becoming Chair of the Academic Board at the University of Sydney, of
>> his Uncle William McCallum's success as a number theorist who works at
>> the University of Arizona, and of his aunt's advancement as the sixth
>> female Supreme Court judge of NSW. Recently, in one of his many
>> unguarded moments in Usenet, He bragged,
>>
>> "My aunt only became a judge quite recently, she was still a barrister
>> when I was in high school. It doesn't really benefit me, anyway,
>> except in terms of being able to have interesting conversations with
>> her about the cases she is hearing."
>> Rupert McCallum 24 Nov 2012 http://tinyurl.com/cnsmbch
>
>You've got way too much time on your hands. I didn't "boast" about my
>father's success or that of any of his siblings. Nor did I "brag" in
>that quote. It was just an off-the-cuff remark. And the sentence was
>not literally true. My aunt does not discuss cases with me that "she
>is hearing", but cases which she has already decided. I made an error;
>I uttered a "clumsy sentence" just as you uttered a "clumsy sentence"
>when you said "When I think about your academic achievements... I'm
>not impressed at all" which you later denied was what you really
>wanted to say.

No, your statement wasn't clumsy or equivocal. It contained the
possibility of only one meaning: that you "have interesting
conversations with her about the cases she is hearing."

>I discussed the posting with my aunt and she is not the least bit
>concerned, presumably because she knows she did nothing wrong.

It's in both your interests to deny the truth of your unequivocal
statement regarding your inappropriate but "interesting conversations
with her about the cases she is hearing."

Rupert
2012-11-28 11:13:56 EST
On Nov 28, 5:05 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 06:56:02 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 28, 2:27 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Rupert McCallum PhD grew up surrounded by privilege. His supportive
> >> family of full-time academics and Supreme Court judges gave him a life
> >> of ease and great expectations. But he often tries to downplay his
> >> privileged life, even while boasting about his father's success in
> >> becoming Chair of the Academic Board at the University of Sydney, of
> >> his Uncle William McCallum's success as a number theorist who works at
> >> the University of Arizona, and of his aunt's advancement as the sixth
> >> female Supreme Court judge of NSW. Recently, in one of his many
> >> unguarded moments in Usenet, He bragged,
>
> >> "My aunt only became a judge quite recently, she was still a barrister
> >> when I was in high school. It doesn't really benefit me, anyway,
> >> except in terms of being able to have interesting conversations with
> >> her about the cases she is hearing."
> >> Rupert McCallum 24 Nov 2012  http://tinyurl.com/cnsmbch
>
> >You've got way too much time on your hands. I didn't "boast" about my
> >father's success or that of any of his siblings. Nor did I "brag" in
> >that quote. It was just an off-the-cuff remark. And the sentence was
> >not literally true. My aunt does not discuss cases with me that "she
> >is hearing", but cases which she has already decided. I made an error;
> >I uttered a "clumsy sentence" just as you uttered a "clumsy sentence"
> >when you said "When I think about your academic achievements... I'm
> >not impressed at all" which you later denied was what you really
> >wanted to say.
>
> No, your statement wasn't clumsy or equivocal. It contained the
> possibility of only one meaning: that you "have interesting
> conversations with her about the cases she is hearing."
>

Yes, but this was false; she has not discussed cases with me at the
time she was hearing them. I made a mistake.

> >I discussed the posting with my aunt and she is not the least bit
> >concerned, presumably because she knows she did nothing wrong.
>
> It's in both your interests to deny the truth of your unequivocal
> statement regarding your inappropriate but "interesting conversations
> with her about the cases she is hearing."

That is as may be, but it would not be in my aunt's interests to lie
about it when discussing the matter with me on the phone, and I know
that she said to me on the phone that she has not had inappropriate
discussions with me, even if you don't. Furthermore she suggested to
me that I simply make another statement clarifying what the situation
was. She appears unconcerned about the issue, again presumably because
she knows she did nothing wrong.

Your insinuations are false and defamatory, and also without any
particularly good rational foundation; for all you know it could
easily be that I simply made a mistake.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron