Personally I’m feeling extremely uncomfortable about the fact that he was killed (together with a bunch of people with him) rather than being captured.
I get the sentiment, but I'm not sure what that would achieve. There's no doubt about his crimes or culpability. And he was living in an armed, fortified compound a block away from the Pakistani military academy. It seems reasonable for the US to decide that capturing and holding him was simply too problematic.
They’re going to go after the low-hanging fruit, the people with enough understanding to successfully torrent things but not enough to be smart about it.
I don’t know how it’ll work, but I suspect they will go after people seeding new or unreleased albums/blockbuster movies.
@Ben re Falling Down: That's interesting, because my memory of the film is that it stands up for us unappreciated middle-aged white men, who are horribly discriminated against in modern society by members of various minority groups. Is that a valid interpretation, or have I totally misremembered the film?
He basically ignored me everytime I did so and referred only to the fact that "Falling Down" was pretty OK
It'd be kind of interesting to watch 'Falling Down' again to see how it's dated. I suspect - from my hazy ~20 year old memories of it - that it's incredibly racist.
the second is an online argument I had with a guy eleven years ago over the general crapness of the films of Joel Schumacher
God, I would love to argue that point, since all of my comments would consist of paraphrased quotes from Batman and Robin: 'Ice to read your reply', 'My supporting link; read it well for it is the chilling sound of your doom', etc.
And before you had time to illustrate how your blog post indiscretion differed from Danielle’s tweet indiscretion
Awkwardly unflouncing, just for you: I don't think it was indiscreet, just funny in a weird way that someone I don't think I've ever engaged with before tonight is crowing about 'fucking with me', which is why I assumed the twitter account was a dummy. If it's not then I honestly have no idea what she's talking about.
That comment by Caleb you linked to earlier is easy to justify on the grounds that it's completely hilarious. Like I said, if Danielle's tweets about me entertain her somehow, she should go wild. But I don't think it's unusual for me to find it all a bit odd.
So once again, it’s Not About You.
Reading through the rest of your twitter feed it does seem to be about me, at least more so than it should be for someone who plays such a minor role in your life. But knock yourself out, I guess. Ditto for this thread, which Emma insists is totally not about me, but is an expanded version of a comment she made a few days ago which is . . . about me. It all seems pretty childish. (That's me 'flouncing off' by the way'.)
This is weird. This link, emailed to me by another PAS regular is a to a twitter feed called dimsie, maintained by Danielle, who I know is a regular here but I don't think I've ever debated with on any subject, which has entries like:
Dear Danyl: you are incredibly easy to fuck with, just at the moment. Could you stop that, because I have no self-control?
I guess I am easy to fuck with, if you set up a twitter feed which is - I assume, but really who the fuck knows, named after my blog - and post oblique messages about me on it, and if by 'fuck with' you mean bemuse me by how much of your emotional energy you spend on me even though I'm a random stranger on the internet.
I think we all got played. If you wanted to distract AND get votes for Damien O'Conner then you couldn't have done that better.
This wasn't a cunning plan. O'Connor won't win his seat, and in the next electorate selection he'll be challenged by a union candidate and lose. His political career is over.
Thanks for that - but honestly, is that it? Makes it sound like gays are some sort of endangered species then... whereas in my experience, friends and family who just happen to be gay, also happen to be pretty tough nuts. Maybe that's because of past persecution and society, or even present - but surely merely mentioning a subset of society is hardly offensive
Maybe someone gay wants to speak to this, but generally members of disempowered groups struggle for political representation, so it's not terribly fair if - when they recieve it - members of more privileged groups throw temper tantrums and accuse them of malign conspiracies.
In any case, no, you haven't missed the "Damien O'Connor is a bigot" thread, because there wasn't one. So you're defending him against an argument nobody was making.
In your original post you refer to O'Connor as a homophobe and several other commentators have spoken to this, so your snappy little comment seems - to me - like yet another example of a PAS regular being pointlessly poisonous.