Wot is a "blutter"?
I subscribe to this code of conduct:
1) Always try to act like a gentleman [or lady] in social situations.
I do find it slightly odd that good behaviour needs to be so formalised, in such a small community as this. I think of PAS as like a village; where the unspoken code of conduct is generally enough to maintain standards, which, here, are remarkably high. The obvious high calibre of the fine respondants helps in more ways than one. I get the feeling that the loonies are scared off by such concepts as "valid argument" and "verifiable research", for one. On the very odd occasion that I've seen someone here step over the previously-non-mandated line, a quick wake-up from a fellow commenter or two has always been enough to elicit a retraction, apology, and an 'under-a-lot-of-stress-lately' -type of explanation [which is cool - who among us has never said something immediately regretted?]. [possibly they've also received a "private" reprimand; I don't know].
Thatcher once famously said that there is no such thing as society, and in the intervening 20 years it seems even more the case, in some ways. Immediately pre-blog-era "social comment" often extended no further than shouting at the television, that famously non-interactive medium. I think some people are still getting used to the idea that the internet is not like that.
I appreciate being able to comment pseudonomysly. Due to my extremely important position, it means thet I'm able to say things that I couldn't under my offline identity. Nevertheless PAS bosses have the name and address of 3410's human master, should the need for correction arise. I'm proud to say that so far, it has not.
The rules posted today are all well and good, but aren't they all just an extrapolation of the one line code mentioned at top of this comment?
*No jokes about me "acting like a lady in social situations", please.
I bought that live Led Zeppelin DVD a couple of weeks back in one of the dodgy shops here...that first disc is incredible...Live at the Royal Albert Hall in 1970
True, dat. Though not in my top 5, I always suspected that their live legacy was somewhat sold short by SRTS. Nice to see that corrected. The '75 [?] show (Page: royal blue silk shirt; cream pleated pants - is that what they call "yacht rock"?) is pretty cool as well, in an ultimate decadence kind of way. His face actually appears to be melting!
I guess my point regarding singles is that in some eras (up-to-mid-'60s, late '70s, now..., pre-'48*) singles felt like the culturally dominant format, and in others (late'60s-thru-mid-'70s, late '80s, etc.) the LP/CD was the thing "mattered".
On second thoughts, you're quite correct, as usual. I'm sure I had a salient point to make, but it just didn't happen this time...
3410: Your argument lacks a vital ingredient: Muslim power over non-muslims.
and yours assumes male power over females.
To make my explanation of the 'all men are rapists' claim work, you really need to run with the idea that rape is not about sex, it's about power.
So, the 'all muslims are terrorists' claim works when you run with the idea that terrorism is not about violence, it's about power?
Why did people buy The Wall or all those horrendous Dire Straits albums...because of the songs they liked on the radio.
Not the best examples you could've given. I'll leave Dire Straights for now except to remember my late Grandpop's oft-repeated witticism: "You'd have to be in dire straights to listen to 'em", but The Wall is really a great example of a, like it or not, creatively very impressive album (and a long one at that), the enormous popularity of which had little to do with singles. I can think of 4 from that record, but only one made a very significant commercial splash.
Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin are probably the best examples of incredibly popular and successful acts who for almost a decade prospered magnificently, despite issuing almost no singles at all. [Of course, you know all that. I'm just sayin'].
Re: John Key
Fave movie: Johnny English
Worst movie: The Exorcist
Personally, I fear for a country run by someone with such shockingly poor judgement.
After I posted I thought about it a bit and realised that I should've perhaps taken the time to explain a bit more.
My point is that most men (at least all those I know), are totally against that sort of behaviour, not just personally but socially. I guess I just assumed that most people would realise that the vast majority of men (thesedays, at least) are on your side. I just felt for a moment like all the decent muslims who are made to feel accountable for suicide bombings.
The Men-as-a-group that I know do take responsibility for this issue by making it clear, when necessary, that it won't be tolerated.
Nevertheless, I apologise for any upset caused.
(And since I've brought it up: the schoolboy rape story is awful; esp on the heels of our own Police rape allegations. When are MEN going to own this problem?)
Unfair, I suggest. I've never perpetrated a sexual assault, and have twice stepped in to prevent one.