Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's a very strong argument against the many people who claimed that Bradford's Bill would never effect serious child abusers - clearly it would, because they would KNOW that the violent attacks that they are inflicting are not allowed by law.
Excuse me? Personally, I'm a damn sight more outraged that a another wife-beating shit bag got discharged without conviction by another Court Jester who says 'a criminal conviction would far outweigh the crime". You'd think some folks would get it through their thick head that settling domestics with their fists are not allowed BY LAW, but that would require the assumption that we're talking about rational human beings.
-
Everyone loses their rag or says stupid stuff sometimes, the true test is whether you can step back and say sorry when you have gone over the line of acceptability.
Fair point, as far as it goes, but I don't really think Parliament is the gold standard on that score - personally, I value a considered and sincere apology over one that's delivered to avoid a (metaphorical) slap around the ears. It's not as if vacuous insincerity is in short supply and as my late Gran used to say, "an apology is all very nice, but it's better not to need to in the first place". :)
-
Charade - golly, the best Hitchcock flick Hitchcock never made. I have it on DVD as a 'bonus feature' to Jonathan Demme's excremental re-make The Truth About Charlie. Talk about hubris gone mad... and it's one of the mysteries of the age how someone as beautiful and talented as Thandie Newton ends up in so much shit. Norbert is about what you'd expect from Eddie Murphy. (I so do not want to know what he gets out of dragging up as grotesque fat, flatulent nymphomaniacs.) What's her excuse?
-
Granted: Jordan does sometimes bring it on himself. But in the thread someone linked to earlier, his provocative wording was of the order of "I'm off to the South Island for a holiday, see you."
Um, yes... FFS, I'll extract the urine from the guy when he's being a bit of a tit and he's entirely capable of repaying the discourtesy. (And I think that's one of the positive things about the blogisphere - there's always someone smarter or just saner that you out there who will write you a reality check when you need it, if you've got the wit to pay attention.) But the one thing you can't say about Jordan is that he's a dishonest partisan, as far as politics goes.
It's as if they forget the Other Side is actually a human being. Aren't there statistics somewhere about the increasing level of dehumanisation of the enemy found in soldiers, from Boer, to WWI, to WWII, to Korea, to Vietnam?
Span, at first sight I thought the analogy was a tad melodramatic but the more I think about it, the less sure I am that you're not onto something. During the 2004 American elections, I had a serious WTF? moment when I read a story in (I think) the Washington Post about partisanship that had gotten so toxic people had broken relationships, engagements, stopped talking to family members and even spouses. While I take my politics seriously, I can't get my head around the kind of mindset that has to put every human interaction through an ideological filter like that. I don't want to, to be honest.
-
I'm sure you didn't mean to say that, but as neologisms go ...
Oy and very... Mrs. Malaprop and Rev. Spooner have been visiting. I think this would be a good time to go and proof the script for tomorrow, and keep the hobby hose to myself.
-
I'm grateful we don't see the kind of mass trolling that Jordan gets.
OTOH, and with the standard disclaimer (I know Jordan, think he's an awfully nice chap and despite our obvious political differences you can't say he's hiding his partisan light under a bushel), I don't really have an excess of sympathy for bloggers or commentators who are either bear-baiting (which I must admit can be a most guilty pleasure) or remarkably tone deaf, and get a response.
Perhaps I'm just getting old, but I don't rise to the bait quite as often as I used to. :) If nothing else, a permanent state of incandescent rage is really hard on the nerves, while a slow simmer of bemused irritation keeps everything ticking over.
-
Riddley:
In the end, it doesn't matter whether you're a blogger or an MSM hack: Your only currency is credibility. Trust. And, sorry, I just have to question who's playing who - and to what end - when we've got another blind story that, it turns out, doesn't add up.
-
another problem with RL identification of contributors is the reduction of information. where would journalists be if they had to reveal every source?
Just let me saddle up my hobby hose... :) I think a better question would be 'where would journalists be if they let themselves be used as a conduit - or should that be a sewer? - for anonymous scumbaggery? My tentative answer: The Herald on Sunday or the Sunday Star-Times?
While I take your point, and would never claim there's no justification for every giving a source anonymity you can't ignore the other side of the equation. Attribution (which, historically speaking is fairly recent) allows READERS to run a credibility test, however crude, over the person doing the talking. Back in the day, I had to learn the hard way how easy it is to get co-opted into a source's (very hidden) agenda when you're being handed a story that's too good to check. Thankfully, my virgin butt was saved by a pretty sharp editor who who gave me a history lesson, and told me the story wouldn't run without independent and on the record corroboration. I didn't get it because when I did what I should have done in the first place the story didn't stack up.
-
O'Reilly lost me with the first one. It's ridiculous to think that the "owner" or moderator of a site is responsible for the comments on it.
At the risk of sounding snarky, I bet Howell Raines and Piers Morgan were saying the same thing until they were fired. Since DPF has been brought up, I've said both publicly and privately that he puts up with more crap from nutsacks and flame-trolls (both of the loony left and rabid right) than I would. That's his call, but he's got to accept the consequences.
In the end, all any blogger or bulletin board has to trade on is their credibility and their ability to attract eyeballs. You want to run an on-line psych ward, so be it. But what you can't do and retain any credibility in my book is say it's got nothing to do with you. I'll call bullshit on anyone who trots out that weasel argument, on-line or dead tree media.
Speaking for myself, I can make a fool of myself without any outside assistance. :)
-
5. We do not allow anonymous comments.
We require commenters to supply a valid email address before they can post, though we allow commenters to identify themselves with an alias, rather than their real name.
Meh... As I said on another thread, if I start blogging again I'm going to try an experiment: All comments will be moderated, and I'll require all commentators to identify themselves on exactly the same basis as the letters column to a newspaper. You provide your full name, a verifiable street address and phone number (strictly not for publication), and I'll withhold your name only if you give me a very, very good reason to do so.
Might be interesting to see how that works out...
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 … 1235 Older→ First