RS> And you cant even say demand that a wheelchaired person
RS> must be allowed to play football for Aust either. You have
RS> the silliest ideas on what the law provides on that stuff.
RS> Just like you do on almost every other detail of the law.

AWL> But he can demand to be allow to train as a Coach,

Sometimes. If that person was a bed ridden vegetable who had say
a mains powered life support system keeping him alive, and he
demanded that he must be allowed to coach that side on the local
oval, you could quite validly tell him to go and fuck himself.

AWL> and his disability must be taken into account

You wildly overstate what the law says on that. For example
if a group of droid housewives chose to meet on a particular
beach to allow the ankle biters to work on their skin cancers,
no droid housewife in a wheel chair would stand a chance
declaiming that they couldnt meet on a beach coz she couldnt
get there in her chair. Thats stuff shit for her basically.

AWL> (adding Ramps to get into locker rooms etc).
AWL> The only excuse for not doing so is "excessive hardship"
AWL> and the act is interpreted with emphasis on excessive.

Pity that thats what rules out the vast bulk of your silly
claims about what a disabled person can force and blows your
nutty claims about the law totally out of the water.

AND says sweet fuck all about YOUR utterly bogus claims on what Fido
must do to suit you. You clearly can use Fido to email, whatever you
may or may not have disability wise. So you are utterly fucked when
trying to declaim on what Fido must do for you under the DAA.

You dont have a leg to stand on on a single thing you howl about
as far as Fido is concerned. In fact its hard to think of a system
which has more options as readily chooseable as Fido for a disabled.

--- PQWK202