I'm leaving this spam up to name and shame the firm that it points to: some mob named CSQ Town Planning. What kind of outfit markets this way?

Well there's plenty about who I am and what I've been up to on this site, and my views on Victorian planning have been spelt out and justified at some length here and elsewhere.

Who are you? As someone who won't put their name to their comments I'm not sure you can really be on your high horse. Put a name to them or I'll just keep moderating them into oblivion as the troll you are.

The other major omission, IMO, is of anyone from outside the Victorian system. I realise that there are significant logistical issues with an extended Advisory Committee process involving someone from outside the State, but I think it would help for these reviews to include at least one outside perspective. I think the Victorian planning profession has an unfortunate tendency to groupthink: some kind of outside perspective would help to reduce this problem.

Good call - I've added a note in the post.

Yes. Fortunately in Australia the whole creationism thing hasn't gotten as far as the US, so here I think you could still use evolution as an example of the scientific argument where the person on the street understands that there isn't actually an argument. I think in the US - or, perhaps, certain parts of the US - the two debates are more closely equivalent.

Well I think I acknowledge in my review that Hathaway's film is not a trailbreaking western by any means, and it's demonstrably wrong to say that the Coens had not seen the original. They've talked about it in interviews.

As to comparing it to the novel: that would potentially be an interesting exercise, but it would tell you things about the process of adaptation from one medium to another, not changes to film style over time, which was more my interest here.

(directed at Emily's comment, not those directly above BTW)

(sound of a thousand facepalms)

God I wish I'd never mentioned Sarah Palin in this post.

My point is simply that politicians should be careful about saying things that potentially spur on crazies and that this is true whether or not there is ever any demonstrable link between any particular statement and any particular known crazy act.

To me that is a fairly common sense statement. People should take some responsibility for their rhetoric.

I'm no expert on Manson but there are lots of disanalogies between the two statements: art works are different to political debate and tweeting; and as far as I know Manson never made specific calls advocating violence (even hyperbolically) against any person. If he did, I would be inclined to make a similar comment.