Dick Smith
I entered this debate as a public forum and anything I say will be public on here accordingly.
If you have information to share, don't make me privy by fone call - share here.
I take exception to your very rude uncalled for comment about agendas. You shoot at Peuce for "defaming" you, then you do exactly that to me:
James, I will answer all of your questions on Monday, in the meantime I dare you to phone me this weekend for even more important information. If you don't it could mean that you have a more complex agenda than what appears here.
Just why posters have to keep their names hidden when discussing an important technical issue is extraordinary.
Please practice what you preach. I am proud of my name James Michael, has been mine for many years. But, if you expect me to exchange matters with you here, kindly do unto others as you demand for yourself otherwise I will ignore you - as you have ignored my recent questions until prodded by Peuce. And his comments about you are in no way defamatory - a 'tricky' customer could be noted as a shrewd and canny operator. I await your proof of that.
Now, turning to radars, I said to you recently (awaiting Monday answer) I don't care how or why the cheque arrives. I find an apparent nett benefit in this for me, I don't intend to tell Airservices how to run their business and lose the benefit.
Surely no-one is naive enough to believe that the Airservices claim of the radar replacement would not be soundly examined by DOTARS, Defence, the Minister, Senate Hearings, etc. I intend to leave those experts to debate that matter rather than being guided by anecdote and conspiracy theory.