Hi David,
I was being cheeky on my comment, more tongue in cheek type. But I did
drop a line I was going to add in relation to their political/financial
masters which is the point you are making in your last line. I dropped
it because I thought it was more political than objective statement.
However, having said that, the "source of the paycheck needs to be
factored into the opinion of any expert". We know that the DSD has a
long track record of accurate consulting for goverment and other large
institutions.
However, in our particular context of discussion that involves issues on
profiting from public health care, the obvious question is "the DSD is
consulting to whom?", who engaged them?, what's the scope of brief?
I'm speaking from a pure perspective of the "propriety" of the process.
I'm not suggesting they are not kosher, but as the old saying goes,
"the wife of the beduin not only needs to be faithful, she also needs to
look faithful" (:-).
Mario
David Guest wrote:
Mario Ruiz wrote:
It must be right then, these guys have an impecable track record. For
example, they have advised the goverment on sensitive issues such as
WMD's in Irak. (sorry, could not resist..)
but they did say there weren't any.
I personally have a great deal of confidence in DSD. Like the NSA they
use a lot of open source software and they know what they're doing.
My main concern would be if they weren't allowed to say what they find.
(c.f. WMD.)
David
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
