I was on board with Leeser on splitting the question. but all of that is long gone.
thanks for the rundown on Craven. he must be doing the tough job of answering to the commercial media audience. I've seen his name mentioned on here, so I figured he must be doing a fair job. for you to praise him, or at least recognise his balance, I suppose that may be true.
I've always felt rather cringey when people mention "motherhood" issues, just as I do when posters whinge about "do-gooders". mothers can be stupid or intelligent, carefully considered or manipulative and instinctual. I gather people whinge about "motherhood" stuff when they recognise the good sense but, like a child, want to break boundaries because its fun and mother spoils the fun.
mothers care for not just the child but the kid's environment and social milieu. they focus on safety. so does this make them "do-gooders"..... I'd much prefer people who care and do good than destructive idiots who don't give a damn about the harm they do. mothers and do-gooders want to stop the kids from tearing up the streets in Alice in stolen utes.
everyone is a soft target if they can't reply. look at Flannery. all it takes is some to see a potential victim and act. its a bit like bashing a guy in a wheel chair. no opportunity to fight back. and so much BS was thrown at silent Flannery, lies and spin. he was only opening the discussion with stupid, inaccurate modelling. and he did say that these modelling predictions were not reliable, but he did escalate the fear factor - and that jarred a lot of people into action at the time.
Flannery served a useful purpose despite what those who hate him say. why are people so obsessed with Flannery and Thunberg? What happened to the little German girl the anti-AGW mob trained up to beat Thunberg in any debate?
I'm fussy about my news sources. sure I could rule out the biases in the Aus, but I'd prefer scientifically valid information thanks.
