Kelvin Davis on the Christmas Island Detainees

44 comments on “Kelvin Davis on the Christmas Island Detainees ”

• Comments are now closed

1. RedLogix 1

   25 October 2015 at 10:55 am

   The core of the problem is the complete lack of effective democratic representation for the 600,000 odd New Zealanders who – by right of the decades old CER agreement – live and work in Australia.

   This is more than the population of the state of Tasmania.

   When the CER agreement was signed in 1966 the free movement of people between the two countries was an assumed given. People had been moving between the two for decades – and for this reason the CER document while it briefly refers to the matter, remains largely silent on the details.

   Since then the two nations have effectively merged on many levels. The totally free movement of capital has seen NZ essentially become a branch office of Australia. We share entire rafts of important technical and commercial standards across most industries. We share media organisations, banks, insurance and a wide segment of retail. NZ is Australia’s the third largest investment destination, the sixth largest trading partner and has an economy somewhere in size between NSW and VIC.

   Huge numbers of Australian and NZ families are inter-married, both countries are major visitor and tourism destinations for each other. Whether they like to say it out loud or not – NZ is important to Australia on many levels.

   I’m not arguing we are the same. No more than any sane Australian would argue that NT is the same as TAS. While members of a Federation, the states retain their identities and are fiercely loyal to them.

   My argument is simple – it is time NZ activated the long standing provision in the Federation which allows NZ to become a member state. It was a missed opportunity 114 years ago – a decision made on the most appallingly narrow grounds at the time. Now would be a good opportunity to recognise reality and correct the mistake.

   While this is a long stretch from the treatment of these people Kelvin is advocating for – the issue arises because of this failure to progress the original CER agreement since 1966 to it’s logical conclusion.
   • Bill 1.1

     25 October 2015 at 11:16 am

     If NZ became a state, who would control macro economic policy?

     Isn’t it a recipe for NZ being forever locked into the position of economic backwater….a bit like southern European countries are to northern European countries? Put another way, would it be any different to the stupid SNP suggestion that an independent Scotland would share the pound with interest rates etc being set in England?

     Surely the sensible direction of travel is in the complete opposite direction with political and financial autonomy being vested in ever smaller and more accountable arrangements?

     On immigration, the simple solution is freedom of movement of people. Whereas it’s a nonsense to suggest that, all things being equal, money and financial flows will find a natural state of balance, it’s not a nonsense with regards people…all things being equal.
     • Madeleine 1.1.1

       25 October 2015 at 11:19 am

       yes equal, yes different. What’s the problem?
     • RedLogix 1.1.2

       25 October 2015 at 11:37 am

       Bill,

       NZ is already an economic appendage of Australia. Just one without even the rudiments of political clout in Canberra. Where is the advantage in that?

       If you want to argue for travelling in the opposite direction, then at what point do you stop? Arguing for ever finer and granular autonomy is easy – let’s start by separating out the North and South Island into separate states, or 20 or so tiny iwi states. Why stop there, when we could have 60 or so Local Body based autonomous states? What is the argument against giving every suburb, street or household ‘autonomy’?

       The ultimate destination of this logic is of course the abandonment of society and the acceptance of libertarian ideals. Of course you think I’m stuffing a strawman here – but if as a matter of principle you want to argue ipso facto that smaller units of political autonomy are always better than larger ones – you have to be able to answer the question – how small?

       By contrast when you head in the direction of wider horizons of political integration, you fairly quickly come to only one logical conclusion – a single global federation of governments.

       Federation with Australia being just a step in that process.
       • Bill 1.1.2.1

         25 October 2015 at 12:08 pm

         What is the argument against giving every suburb, street or household ‘autonomy’?

         No compelling argument comes to mind. In fact, some decisions are mine to be made by me alone. Only those decisions that may or will affect others require the ‘body politic’ to be increased accordingly and temporarily…temporary federations if you like. The inevitable interaction between shifting, temporary, political entities and the relationships (always building, developing or dissolving and reiterating etc) that bind the people who constitute and re-constitute those entities is what gives rise to society. So you’re right, it’s a libertarian ideal; not the idiot (misnamed because it’s actually onerously dictatorial) market embedded libertarianism of ‘the right’ though.

         But to answer your question directly. How small? Sometimes one. How large? Potentially the entire population of the world if a decision would affect that many – the building of nuclear power stations or looking to develop a global vehicle industry running on fossil fuels might be such decisions.

         How would such things be structured or run? Well, apart from always being contingent – ie, temporary – as they say about the skinning of cats, so it is for the numbers of ways we can arrange ourselves to make decisions in ways that safeguard such notions as liberty etc.
         • RedLogix 1.1.2.1.1

           25 October 2015 at 12:23 pm

           Well that is the point – political decisions and accountability should reside at the scale and level where they are most relevant.

           At the risk of stating the obvious – this is how society is already structured. You have a personal autonomy, despite being a member of a family, a community, a local govt resident and a citizen of a state. Each layer reflects wider concerns and communities of interest – without necessarily erasing, or diminishing those under them.

           Of course part of the ever fluid argument of politics is the art of maintaining a balance between the local and the global. I get that.

           On another thread we are discussing the balance between the state power of Wellington and the city power of Auckland; on this thread the balance between the state power of Australia and their diminished colony of New Zealand.

           Arguing for New Zealand to become part of the Australian Federation does indeed call for an opening up of the Great Australasian Book of Cat Skinning – but one thing it does not imply is any necessary dismantling of our existing layers of autonomy.

           The NZ Parliament would of course have to give up that part of it’s sovereignty that relates to the wider Federal interests – as do all the other States. Indeed there is the good argument that the unicameral NZ government has wield too much power for too long, and that having an effective Upper House imposed upon it from Canberra would be a welcome improvement.
           • Bill 1.1.2.1.1.1

             25 October 2015 at 1:23 pm

             You have a personal autonomy, despite being a member of a family, a community, a local govt resident and a citizen of a state. Each layer reflects wider concerns and communities of interest – without necessarily erasing, or diminishing those under them.

             We part company at that point. Local government absolutely diminishes or robs the agency or the autonomy of the people within the communities and societies it governs over. Some might call it the dictatorship of bureaucracy. And bearing down on that layer, there’s the regional layer, and then the national layer squats over and above that one. I won’t mention the jackboot of ISDS that’s about to plant its heel atop the whole shebang.

             Anyway. A neighbour wants to build a two story house. It’ll block the sun or view and what-not of neighbouring buildings. Do they have to consult with the people who’ll be affected? No. All they have to do, perhaps aside from working some loop-holes, is abide by the ‘one size fits all’ bureaucratic rules and regulations that are in place.

             The NZ Transport Agency decides (reasonably) that a bus stop is too close to traffic lights. It consults with no-one and moves the bus-stop 200m up the road where there is no shelter and passengers have to wait in the elements. Some years later (this is a true story) after committees have been formed, petitions signed and objections submitted, the bus stop is finally shifted 50m back towards where it came from. It’s far enough away from the lights and passengers have an awning to stand beneath.

             The point is that a huge amount of time and energy was wasted combating the idiot action of a remote bureaucracy. The affected community – passengers, bus drivers and car drivers – could have acknowledged, agreed to and carried out an intelligent solution in five minutes of an afternoon.

             And if people with the relevant skills and knowledge required to negotiate a somewhat torturous bureaucratic process hadn’t been around or hadn’t had the time or energy…. See,that’s often the case, so local, regional and national bureaucracies (not to mention usually larger private business interests) routinely trample roughshod over genuine local concerns. That couldn’t happen in a functioning democracy…one that promotes the genuine empowerment of a citizenry.
             • RedLogix …

               25 October 2015 at 2:24 pm

               That is just the nature of a complex society – the politics reflects this.

               Your bus stop story is a perfectly fine example of this. You are arguing that the design and location of bus stops should be a local matter; which makes fine sense as long as the bus users are purely local.

               But the moment you involve non-locals and non-local bus operators – there is a requirement for standardisation or some level of nationally imposed consistency.

               Will the global operator always get it right? Of course not. Logically they should not be involved in executive decision making at a local level, because the people on the ground have the most information and skin in the game. But the national/global player may well have a role to set general bus stop standards, then negotiate and audit consistent outcomes that everyone can live with.

               I’ve no problem with the time and energy taken to achieve this. That is just the price you pay for getting it right. While everyone likes to shit on ‘tortuous bureaucratic process’, the alternatives are all worse.
               • Bill …

                 25 October 2015 at 4:39 pm

                 Not sure you’re addressing the point. As I’m reading your comment, it would seem you’re suggesting that companies make the decisions.

                 The point I was making in that ‘small fry’ example was that it ought to be the bus drivers, their passengers and any other affected road users who make such decisions.

                 And if locals ‘up there’ don’t want seats in their bus-stops, while those ‘down yonder’ do, then each to their own. I can’t see that standardisation has anything to offer. All that matters is that drivers know where their stops are and that passengers know where the stops are and that passengers wait for buses in conditions they find acceptable. Actually, I’d argue against standardisation on the grounds that it doesn’t work out very well. The open fronted bus stops we have down this way, work in some locations and are hopelessly compromised by prevailing winds in others.

                 Also, the example was purely local – ie, a local bus stop used by locals. Inter-city stops and the like tend to be in entirely different locations.

                 Totally lost on the negotiate and audit consistent outcomes that everyone can live with. Why introduce a top down bureaucracy policing a code that everyone must adhere to? If people aren’t getting what they want and have the power and wherewithal to change what they have, then they’ll wind up with what they want. They (we) don’t need any permanent, centralised and powerful bureaucracy to organise us. We can do it just fine ourselves.
                 • weka …

                   25 October 2015 at 4:58 pm

                   Where standardisation is important is things like safety and disability access. I assume some of that’s already in place nationally (rules on how close to a blind corner you can put a bus stop, access for disability etc). What the standardisation means is that there are basic requirements for all bus services, but that doesn’t stop local governance designing local bus systems that are appropriate to their locale.

                   One concern of devolving everything is that not every local governance would have the expertise to know what is safe or needed for access etc. You could then have a neighbourhood design their service that doesn’t work very well for people in wheelchairs because they don’t have anyone living there that needs that service (or anyone on the committee aware of the need), but then the following year they do, or there are people wanting to visit that neighbourhood that need accessability but can’t because it wasn’t designed properly.

                   None of that requires the kind of heirarchy that Red is talking about. Nor even the kind of heirarchy we have now. It does require some kind of beyond the neighbourhood, immediate concerns input though.
                   • Bill …

                     25 October 2015 at 5:33 pm

                     ,i>or anyone on the committee aware of the need

                     What ‘committee’? If there was a lack of disabled access because no-one had been bothered to take it into account (something I’d be quite surprised at) and a disabled person ‘dropped’ into the community, then things would be changed/altered accordingly.

                     Flipping to the other side of he coin, at present all buses around here require disabled access. That means all buses are 40 or 45 seaters…on all runs and regardless of patronage or presence of disabled people.

                     No bus can carry bikes…because. Okay, I’m being facetious. The stated reason is that the bus must be equipped with a front end bike rack and the bike must be large enough to be secured on said bike rack. (Kids bikes are too small). None of the buses on this semi-rural route have bike racks. Apparently they make the bus to long on some of the tighter corners…which is odd, because I full well remember different style bike racks on buses that doing this route years back.

                     Anyway. Couple of points. A bit of retro-fitting could see the exiting racks carry children’s bikes. Not allowed to do that though. Bikes could be fixed to wheelchair points on the bus. Not allowed to do that though. There are other workable options too. But…’not allowed to do that though’.

                     And mini buses could easily be retrofitted to take wheelchairs….remove one seat and fix requisite floor studs/anchor points. Guessing ‘not allowed to do that though’ would be the final end point of any such suggestion.

                     And so it goes on – common sense, intelligence and ingenuity breaking against dull, immovable bureaucracy (and page 42, paragraph 7, subsection 3a ii….)
                   • weka …

                     25 October 2015 at 5:48 pm

                     What ‘committee’?

                     Committee is just a synonym for group. Or are you suggesting that communities organise without using groups. How would that work?

                     If there was a lack of disabled access because no-one had been bothered to take it into account (something I’d be quite surprised at) and a disabled person ‘dropped’ into the community, then things would be changed/altered accordingly.

                     You left out the bit where someone from outside the neighbourhood wants to visit but can’t. Existing need being ignored.

                     Why would things change once a disabled person arrived on the scene? We’re quite capable of ignoring all sorts of needs.

                     Besides, it’s an incredibly inefficient way to design systems that have complex infrastructure. What say they just finished a ten year plan and had bought buses that aren’t suitable? Now they have to replace them?

                     I don’t really understand the rest of your example because those are all design issues that could be ignored/fucked up by neighbourhoods as easily as by councils. Or solved by each.
                   • Bill …

                     25 October 2015 at 6:51 pm

                     All I’m saying in essence Weka is that communities can deal with needs and respond to them a lot better (various measures of ‘better’) than an impersonal bureaucracy.

                     If an unforeseen problem crops up, they are more likely able to respond more quickly, efficiently and intelligently than any paper dredged and rule bound bureaucracy can.

                     You’ll have to explain to me how locally vested power is an incredibly inefficient way to design systems that have complex infrastructure. Complexity arises quite naturally from simple initial conditions all of the time with no imposition of any ‘big hand’ guiding, crafting or planning.

                     Some musicians have played with it by taking three or four basic elements and then letting them run and loop to ‘self create’ surprisingly complex pieces of music. Living examples of simple initial conditions giving rise to functioning complex systems are all around us. Just look in your garden, at almost any level of focus, from a single leaf to the vast complex interplay of any eco-system…No ‘big hand’. For want of a better expression or explanation, it just ‘happens’.

                     Quick edit. Attempts to impose order or mandate it from the outside or above tends to create chaos. Just saying.
                 • RedLogix …

                   25 October 2015 at 4:59 pm

                   Well we were using Bus Stops as a model. You are free to argue Bus Stops can be organised pretty much according to whatever local whim wins the day. (Or not as weka suggests.)

                   But I can think of plenty of other examples where you definitely want standardisation. For instance – what side of the road we are going to drive on.

                   Or how are we going to solve fossil carbon induced climate change?
                   • Bill …

                     25 October 2015 at 5:39 pm

                     The road thing is interesting. I believe the convention of left hand driving kind of just emerged…organically if you will…and was legislated for in a retrospective fashion. I could be wrong about that. But it’s certainly imaginable, no? And there is no rule or regulation that says vehicles coming down a hill will give way to vehicles going up a hill. Yet people tend to adopt the convention.

                     Carbon induced climate change? Had we had democracy in the first place, then given the knowledge we had, the car industry would never have gotten off the ground. And the cure is simple enough – stop burning fossil fuels. It only gets convoluted and mired when vested interests seek to protect the power they enjoy that comes from the fossil fuel dependent market economy….another thing that would never have got off the ground in a democratic environment.
               • weka …

                 25 October 2015 at 4:49 pm

                 “But the national/global player may well have a role to set general bus stop standards, then negotiate and audit consistent outcomes that everyone can live with.”

                 But isn’t that the situation already? That NZTA and local councils already have protocols around rule setting and they just don’t do it very well. In the situation that Bill describes, there is no reason that there couldn’t be local consultation expcept there the overarching organisations are getting to big, powerful and unweildy. To me it looks like the bigger and more powerful the governance the less capable it is of responding to the local and the less willing. Over arching governance should serlve the local not dictate to it.

                 As for the smallest unit, there is no reason why you can’t have nested governance rather than devolved to the individual vs global. So create structures that give neighbourhoods processes and power to make decisions within their own rohe that are also in the context of the wider nation’s ideals. The NZTA could have standards around bus stops, but it should also have a local organisation that is part of the neighbourhood governance and can tailor solution to that particular local. There is no way that NZTA nationally could understand what was needed in Bill’s neighbourhood.

                 From a sustainability design perspective, solutions always need to be local and contextual, nested within larger concerns but not dominated by them.

                 I have no problem with iwi having more power of governance for their people. In fact I suspect we all could learn a lot from tradition Māori ways of organising and governing esp at the hapū level and concepts of kaitiakitanga and resource management.
                 • RedLogix …

                   25 October 2015 at 5:03 pm

                   I think you’ve just re-stated exactly what I was saying.

                   In other words – there is no real objection to NZ becoming part of the Australian Federation if we work to retain the decision-making powers that are important to us.
                   • weka …

                     25 October 2015 at 5:08 pm

                     No, I’m saying the opposite. The bigger you go the less able the more powerful structures are to serve the less powerful. Nesting and heirarchy aren’t the same thing at all.

                     You appear to be arguing that NZ could gain power by being under the Australian Federal system. I think it would disempower the least powerful and consolidate power with the most powerful (and that’s not even getting to the cross cultural issues, or Te Tiriti). The Australian government already is bad at devolving power. Why do you think that it would get better at that in NZ’s favour?
                   • RedLogix …

                     25 October 2015 at 5:11 pm

                     I really am at a loss to explain why it is you so completely and regularly mis-read, mis- represent and screw up every fucking thing I say.

                     I’m withdrawing from this thread in complete and utter defeat before it degenerates into a brawl.
           • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2.1.1.2

             25 October 2015 at 2:04 pm

             and that having an effective Upper House imposed upon it from Canberra would be a welcome improvement.

             /facepalm

             There’s no such thing as an “effective Upper House”.

             Although I agree that NZ’s parliament has too much power a dual house system isn’t the answer. We just have to look to Australia, the US and the UK to see that.

             No, the correct answer seems to be a written constitution that can be used to hold the government to account to the people, to ensure that the government is actually doing what the people want and not what the corporations want. Something that we don’t have at the moment.
             • RedLogix …

               25 October 2015 at 2:27 pm

               I’d suggest even the most passing familiarity with Australian Federal politics shows their bi-cameral system has saved them time and again from precipitate and extreme policies … or at the very least slowed things down to the point where some compromise was achieved.

               It isn’t perfect, but it is a step away from the absolutism of our system.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 25 October 2015 at 2:38 pm

                 From what I’ve seen it’s far less than perfect which is why I tend to oppose it. Far better, IMO, to look for a better system even if that means inventing an entirely new one.

                 Yes, our system is in some ways worse but all you’re calling for is a limit to decision making which NZ doesn’t have. A constitution would provide that limit especially if it allowed the people to have a say on policies.
                 • Grindlebottom …

                   25 October 2015 at 8:04 pm

                   The hardest part be getting any constitution which limits the government’s power drafted, put through the system, and into effect. Argument over what constituted appropriate powers and limits for government would be fractious and it’s hard to see in our current political environment how one could avoid the governing bloc dominating the process, labouring mightily and delivering a mouse.

                   I couldn’t see either the previous Labour dominated administration, or the current National dominated one, nor any future possible government at the moment even seriously contemplating such an idea, though I personally like it. Arguments for a Constitution always seem to result in the government response that we already have one in the form of the exisiting legal conventions, the BoRA, & the ToW, and to ultimately be dismissed.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     25 October 2015 at 8:56 pm

                     It would be difficult no doubt but it could be done. It needs a serious bottom up push.
                   • Grindlebottom …

                     25 October 2015 at 9:17 pm

                     Yup. And I personally favour it. But what do you reckon the chances are at present? I would say zero.

                     Not sure what needs to happen to create enough support for the idea, but it would have to appeal as a solution to younger voters/members of our society to ever get off the ground. I don’t think such issues even get on their radar.
     • Huginn 1.1.3

       25 October 2015 at 1:56 pm

       ‘Isn’t it a recipe for NZ being forever locked into the position of economic backwater…?’

       As things stand now, New Zealand is a small state up against a federation of states.

       If we were to join, New Zealand would be a state among states. That’s a big shift in the balance of power.
       • Bill 1.1.3.1

         25 October 2015 at 2:00 pm

         As it stands, NZ is an independent nation state that decides its own foreign policy, taxation regime, macro economic policy settings etc, etc.

         As a federated part of Australia…not so much.
       • Madeleine 1.1.3.2

         25 October 2015 at 2:03 pm

         Total power between two, is ideal- total control, yet beauty of movement.
       • Aaron 1.1.3.3

         25 October 2015 at 5:36 pm

         “a small state up against a federation of states”

         Yes in EITHER case we’re a small state up against a federation of states.

         I guess if you think the EU worked for Greece you might think NZ joining Australia a good idea.
2. Gas Kranken 2

   25 October 2015 at 5:20 pm

   I must say I had my reservations about Kelvin, given the way he and and various others shat on Hone but given his sterling work on uncovering and highlighting the Serco debacle here in Aotearoa and now the Australian authorities treatment of kiwis in their detention centres, all is forgiven Kelvin. You da man. Keep up the good work please mate.
   • Lanthanide 2.1

     25 October 2015 at 5:41 pm

     Since he’s such an effective MP, it’s pretty astounding and shameful that he was given such a low and therefore un-winnable list position, isn’t it?
     • BM 2.1.1

       25 October 2015 at 5:44 pm

       Wrong type of genitals.
       • weka 2.1.1.1

         25 October 2015 at 5:53 pm

         According to your argument if he was a woman he’d be further down list (more men than women up to Davis’ position).
     • mickysavage 2.1.2

       25 October 2015 at 6:57 pm

       Obviously the party wanted a better result. Kelvin would have been second next list MP elected if he did not win his seat.
     • Anne 2.1.3

       25 October 2015 at 7:03 pm

       He’s on the front bench Lanthanide and it wasn’t an unwinnable list position. You’re getting muddled with his 2011 position which saw him knocked out of parliament.
       You can be assured the council and caucus were left in no doubt what the membership thought about that little fiasco.
       • David H 2.1.3.1

         27 October 2015 at 8:23 am

         The bit that makes me not trust him was the way he won his seat. The deals with the Nats and NZ First, to get rid of Hone. The fact that a Labour politician did a deal with the Nats, well you lose my vote right then and there.
3. Lloyd 3

   25 October 2015 at 11:25 pm

   Couple of Points

   1. As I understand it the proportion of New Zealanders liable for expulsion from Australia is predominantly Maori/Polynesian often because of racially biased policing and judicial decisions, and therefore represents racism on the part of Australia. Why hasn’t donkey attacked that part of the Australian policy? Note that even more Pacific Islanders are being biffed out of Australia at the same time as the New Zealanders. = MORE RACISM. The White Australia Policy continues. Remember also that the tougher immigration laws introduced by Australia, upon which these deportations are the result, were designed to keep Polynesians out of Australia. Isn’t that racism?

   2. If New Zealand joins Australia will we demand that the Australian government signs the Treaty of Waitangi first? How about demanding the Australian government signs an equivalent treaty with all the first Australians? What would happen to the landholdings of the wealthiest Australians if under a Waitangi Tribunal they had to give back even a small portion of their land that was stolen from the first Australians? Who would be the owners of BHP for example? Would the whites be evicted/ Could New Zealand handle the refugees? Would we let them sail in boats to New Zealand?
4. john 4

   27 October 2015 at 5:00 pm

   So… some on here seem to be promoting, becoming a state of Australia.
   Were you incidentally, opposed to TPP because large companies could sue us for any stupid laws that impacted them that we may have made.
   Imagine, how our sovereignty would be impacted with a federal (Australian dominated) govt. overseeing everything.
5. john 5

   27 October 2015 at 5:03 pm

   As I understand it.
   The detainees were given an option.
   1. Return to NZ and pursue your case from there.
   2. be held in detention awaiting your case to be heard.

   So, if you are in a detention centre………it was YOUR choice to be there.

   and you had to be a reasonable serious criminal for this to apply.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1

     27 October 2015 at 5:10 pm

     Yes, because reasonably serious criminals don’t have human rights. That’s how it works, eh.

     The right wing declaration of human rights has two articles:

     1. Human rights are subjective. I deserve them.

     2. Everything that happens to everyone else is their personal responsibility.
     • john 5.1.1

       27 October 2015 at 5:46 pm

       1. Human rights include the right of Aussies not to put up with foreign criminals.
       We have the same rights!!! They are just putting out the garbage, just happens that some of the garbage, to our embarrassment, is ours.
       2. Everyone, whether you like it or not, whether you think it is “fair” or not…IS and always will be responsible for their own actions.
       Action and consequence is an unwavering and indisputable rule of physics and society. No matter where you live.
       The consequences of YOUR actions are not always written in the laws of the land but sure as eggs there will be consequences.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1

         27 October 2015 at 6:06 pm

         Reckons Physics is Sociology. Employs hate speech. Lies about personal responsibility.

         What a peach.
         • john 5.1.1.1.1

           28 October 2015 at 11:34 am

           So…no argument then….just ridiculous accusations and failure to accept the truth.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.1.1

             28 October 2015 at 11:44 am

             Calling people garbage is hate speech.

             Pretending that right wing personal responsibility exists and is backed by the laws of Physics is pathetic.

             You’re the one making the false claims: you’re the one who has to back them up with evidence.

             Asserting your beliefs a third time won’t validate them, it’ll just demonstrate that you’re incapable.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS