Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Well, no, I can see why somebody would want to volunteer for the fire service or an ambulance (*not* money making corporates) or do an internship that could be seen however wishfully to lead to an actual job. But in airports without volunteers those positions are actually staffed by employees.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
And if you're a neurotic flyer, like me, a competent, friendly adult pointing you in the right direction is a sanity saver.
Yes but airports these days are massive money-making corporate entities. Surely they ought to EMPLOY competent and friendly adults.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Speaking as a frequent sporting event volunteer, people know what they're getting in return for volunteering, and it won't just be the t-shirt.
What I really don't get are volunteers who work in airports. They're a continuing source of bewilderment to me.
-
I confess I was unaware of the homophobic undertones of mincing (me a foreigner, etc.) but for what it's worth it's exactly the verb that the Herald has used.
-
Hard News: Because it's about time we…, in reply to Stephen McCurdy,
Well no, actually. I thought PA had a little more to it. Than, eg, plonking about coffee.
I'm going to choose to celebrate the fact that you found the Internet. Welcome, I think you will enjoy it.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to recordari,
And I apologise for any offence given.
As do I.
I was still wide awake, trying to locate a mosquito - do you know, the little buggers hide when you turn the light on!
Have you tried potted citronella?
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to recordari,
Hard to see a road back from Gio’s last post to me.
If there was a road back from yours, it wasn't clearly signposted.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Danielle,
I’m still biding my time on revisiting an evolutionary psychology discussion, about which I think Giovanni is at least partially full of shit
To the extent that I may be, I'm sure there's a perfectly cogent evolutionary explanation for it.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to recordari,
You know what? Let's agree to disagree.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Emma Hart,
just try to remember to be careful about both what we write, and how we read and react to what others have written? We don't want to end up with people simply avoiding discussions.
That's a little tricky, innit? Because if you're simply pursuing a line of rational argument whose conclusions may be challenging to the person you're speaking to, and then you just stop for fear the flouncing might commence... Wouldn't that be something of a disservice to the idea that we can in fact have robust discussions here, instead of just telling each other how clever we are all the time?
(For the record, Ian has left twice. The first time was in the context of a discussion on the 9/11 truth movement, which leads me to wonder: how far does our sensitivity need to extend?)
Although in saying that
we're less argumentative in real life
I'm pretty sure I'm more argumentative in real life. And to an extent that's simply cultural. Where I'm from agreeing to disagree with somebody is the clearest way to indicate you utterly despise them. I am trying to adjust my settings here but I might need a manual at some point.