Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
That's all I got. -
__See now I agree, but my beloved's argument is that Google is a concrete noun.
So it'd be more like Xerox to Xerox-ing.__You're right. When you say you're 'googling' something, you're using it as a transitive verb.
Same goes for Xeroxing:
Xer·ox
A trademark used for a photocopying process or machine employing xerography. This trademark often occurs in print in lowercase as a verb and noun: "Letters you send should be xeroxed after you sign them" (Progressive Architecture).I’m also white, incredibly white. So white I like Antiques Roadshow.
Pretty fly for a white girl. Great hangover viewing, that show.
-
Exactly. In a perfect world, if someone repeated what a politician told them at a political conference, the politician would not lie to cover what they said. In reality, they would quite possibly try to say: the person misremembered, or misunderstood, and here's what I really meant. And we'd have to make up our own minds, based on the respective credibility of the two versions. But I don't see that the repeating of the comments in itself is immoral in any way.
-
__“a clear cut ethical problem”? You’ll be able to answer my question above then: Why is taping a conversation you’re involved in unethical? (And there's not much legal debate; it is, per se, perfectly legal..)__
[Craig:]... if I've got to explain why that's ethically problematic (as well as hellishly creepy), then you're never going to get it. Sorry.
Wow, great counter argument. I wish I’d thought of that rebuttal to my lecturer’s presentation of Anslem’s argument in PHIL101.
Steve: “but Lecturer, if you don’t understand why God doesn’t exist, then you’re never going to get it. Sorry.”
Lecturer: “But, but, but… oh, you got me.”if I stood for Parliament, and secret tapes of my sessions ended up in Duncan Garner's in-box? What the difference --
What Giovanni said.
Also, I thought it clear enough in context that my bland statement was a counterpoint to this bland statement: “taping is wrong without prior knowledge”. I was hoping to draw from that writer or any likeminded poster why they thought it obvious in and of itself that recording a conversation you are involved in was necessarily wrong. I’m talking about situations at least roughly comparable to the Lockwood Smith case. I’m not talking about breaching client/patient privilege, or the confidence of a friend, or bugging a politicians home, or wiretapping.And surely if I stand for public office, my history of mental illness (which I've been fairly candid about) is fair game…
Yep. Especially if you’ve been candid about it. I don’t know why someone would want to bring it up, though; it would most likely make them look like a jerk, and you would have nothing to hide about having been though therapy. (The sort of thing that might be fair game, for example, would be if you held policy views about mental illness issues that were hypocritical in light of your own experiences.)
… and any ethical/legal issues around a therapist leaking patient records would be trumped by the public interest?
No. Do you seriously not see the difference in the ethical and legal issues around your private files with a health professional, and the situation with Smith speaking with some random chap at a political conference? This wasn’t a private meeting of National’s inner circle, let alone a therapy session.
__but he's a politician talking politics, would it have been more acceptable if he wrote bills answers down on a napkin?__
Right in front of English? Well, yes.
What if he just remembered his comments, and repeated them later?
-
[Jeremy:] Sorry if I sounded overly combative...…
No worries. And I agree with much of what you’ve said. The labels ‘Liberal’ and ‘Conservative’ have become less meaningful, although in many contexts they can serve as useful shorthand.
-
__"Buckley was a Goldwater republican if we must label him, and nothing could be further from a neo-con on that side of that particular pale.__
Correct. (And here’s a good blog on Goldwater, while I’m at it.)"I believe you'll find goldwater was a goldwater republican , (although which goldwater are we talking about? His views changed in later life as far as i can see.)
To clarify, Jeremy, my confirmation was aimed mostly at the point that Goldwater was not representive of a neo-con. (I was taking the first part, that Buckley was a Goldwater-style Republican, as read. I know little about Buckley.) Having said that, I don't know that I'd call someone a neo-con when they've stated that neo-cons over-estimate the power of the US abroard.
As for Goldwater changing his views in later life, he wouldn't be the only person to do that. Here's what the blog I linked to had to say on one change:
After retiring from the Senate, Goldwater came to regret his past belief that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed in the military, realizing that such a position was a hypocritical contradiction of his conservative beliefs. He wrote an op-ed piece entitled The Gay Ban: Just Plain Un-American, wherein he used quite familiar conservative rhetoric: "Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays."
That's one of the biggest problems I have with conservatives: They tend to like talking about how the government should be kept out of people's lives, but often then contradict this stance on certain "moral" issues. I wish a few more conservatives would change their minds as Goldwater did.
-
On a more serious note, taping is wrong without prior knowledge.
Why?
And: would remembering what the other person said, and repeating it at a later date, be wrong?The term neoconservative is at least thirty years old and has shifted in meaning somewhat, but never so much as to encompass Buckley, no question about that - Buckley was a Goldwater republican if we must label him, and nothing could be further from a neo-con on that side of that particular pale.
Correct. (And here’s a good blog on Goldwater, while I’m at it.)
I think there's a clear cut ethical problem of covertly taping conversations without the knowledge or consent of the participants but whether that shades into a criminal offence is (granted) highly debatable.
“a clear cut ethical problem”? You’ll be able to answer my question above then: Why is taping a conversation you’re involved in unethical? (And there's not much legal debate; it is, per se, perfectly legal..)
And, finally, Sasha, I thought Gordon was being rather disingenuous with this: ...
Actually, that was one of Campbell’s best points:
“what the Bill English, Lockwood Smith and Nick Smith tapes have in common - is that National truly believes that its real intentions are politically toxic, and therefore, it is prepared to wait patiently and eventually use the machinery of government to make those intentions more palatable to the public.
This is deeply ironic - or hypocritical. Remember, many of National’s attacks on the Electoral Finance Act in general and on Labour president Mike Williams in particular were based on the evils of an incumbent government using the machinery of state to peddle its messages.”
He’s right to characterize National’s attacks like that. And while in itself Lockwood’s comment might not be that sinister, the overall theme of all three recordings is as Campbell says: that National are now preparing to work in a similar way.
-
it transpires that apparently Obama supporters prefer Starbucks! [snip] So I guess Russell will be disappointed.
Well a local cafe cannot possibly win a nationwide poll ...
America runs on Dunkin', dontcha know...
-
ya know, PA was the HoS blog of the week again. Not because of any political commentary, but because of Russell's comments about coffee. Congrats.
(from Che)...i think 'snobbery' is prefering something because you think it's better than other alternatives.
I'd say 'snobbery' is when a group of people have a clear idea of what they like of a particular thing, and think less of people who don't agree with their 'high quality' tastes (and possibly even of people who just don't care that much about the issue).
Anyway, I was reading a forum where some nerds were discussing US politics, and it transpires that apparently Obama supporters prefer Starbucks! This helps mark him out as an elitist (or so argued the wingnut nerd.) So I guess Russell will be disappointed.
-
Perhaps people realise perfectly well that truckies "paying their share" actually means the general populace paying more for everything via increased prices.
Pressure on prices wouldn’t be a reason not to address the problem of some road users purportedly not paying their fair share of the cost. Anyway, I haven’t heard many people arguing they are against the increase principally because of fears of the cost being passed on. What I hear is much more like the bungled syllogism Graeme suggested on their behalf.
At the end of the day, who pays? It isn't the truckies.
Then why are they protesting?