Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Reserve murder for a crime that has been so labeled by the authorities in a warrant, a charge or a conviction.
George Tiller gets shot on Sunday - US local time.
The Guardian article dated the day after - Monday 1st June, 9.29AM London time - reads as follows:
Russell's blog post was posted at 10.49 AM NZ local time Tuesday (around 11.49PM Monday London time - 14 hours after the Guardian article was published).
So, when Russell posted, it was already in the news that the guy had been charged.
Which, according to your own NYT style guide, would make the use of the word 'murder' perfectly acceptable usage.
Now, this really is getting boring, and you don't actually seem to be making any sort of relevant point. so please drop it.
-
This may just about definitively prove that I'm not a woman, but is it me, or is Filament in fact the *least* sexy word in the English language?
Feel free to post your alternatives.
I'm quite curious to see what people suggest.
-
Best way to talk about it would be to call it a "killing"
Why?
Let's assume a suspect wasn't in custody and the police didn't know who they were looking for. They turned up at the church and there was a body there with multiple bullet holes in it, all obviously fired from some distance (i.e. he clearly didn't do it himself).
Just because we don't have a murderer immediately available to cuff and charge, does not mean that the act itself is not a murder and can be called such.
The cops aren't standing around going 'hmm whaddaya think, Bob?' 'ohh, I dunno Bill, better wait for the coroners report, but I'll put $10 on 'unlawful killing' 'ohh, really? I was thinking it was a haert attack'.
A murder has taken place. A murdurous act has been committed. Someone has committed murder.
I do realise that you're arguing in good faith, but this doesn't to me seem to be a particularly difficult point to grasp, and I don't really understand why you're on it like a dog on a bone. Why not let it go?
-
I get the impression that Mr Paiste is arguing in good faith, unlike Mr Dexter and Mr Jarvie.
It's just that no-one gives a stuff about the semantics he wants to resolve. Russell's analogy of angels on the head of a pin was pretty spot-on - regardless of the answer, no-one cares and it isn't important.
More damagingly, and regardless of good or bad faith, it does distract from a discussion of the more important issues.
So can we all agree that a finalised, fully accurate textbook definition of 'murder' and 'terrorism' is not what we want to talk about, and move on to something else?
-
I just threw myself on the first vagina I came across. Right as rain in two minutes flat.
Heterosexuality: you're doin' it wrong. It's meant to last twice that long.
Wow. You guys must really be into some Sting-and-Trudie Tantric-sex type stuff.
Right.....?
-
Why [doesn't Grant] bugger off and annoy some other blog?
Because he is a typical troll.
You don't think it actually matters to him that everyone thinks he's a dick, and stupid and logically inconsistent to boot, do you?
He gets off on people responding to what he posts. It doesn't actually matter a damn what the response is, the response itself validates his existence.
That is why 'please do not feed the troll' is the only tactic that actually works. As long as people keep reacting, he'll keep coming back for more validation.
Since universal non-response is, in practice, almost impossible to achieve (someone will always bite), my vote would be for banning. But that's up to Russell, who is far more of a tolerant and loving Mod than I would be.
-
There is no definition of it, that's my point.....I still don't like the word 'terrorism' because it really doesn't have an accepted definition.
No definitions?
If you're going to get all pedantic about a strict definition of 'murder', then you should probably be as picky about unequivocally stating that there are no definitions of 'terrorism'.
Sauce for the goose and all that.
Now, if you meant that there is no strict legal definition, or that it is a term that is, in a legal sense, difficult to define, then you might have a point, and the Wikipedia article acknowledges that.
However, as both definitions broadly state that terrorism is either: 'the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes', or that it is 'a policy or ideology of violence intended to intimidate or cause terror for the purpose of exerting pressure on decision making by state bodies', and this example clearly fits easily within either of those definitions, I don't really see what there is to argue about.
-
Double entry accounting?
Okay, I'm pretty sure accountants don't do that sort of thing.
Normal accountants don't do that sort of crap so they wouldn't know the other meaning?
-
PPPs are just an expensive way for the government to pretend its not borrowing.
No, sir. I'm agin 'em.
And just out of interest, I note that the tax legislation is being repealed 'under urgency'.
Is there any legislation passed under this government that hasn't been "under urgency'?
-