Posts by Kracklite
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I can pad it out beyond that with compounded qualifiers, or...
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Sacha,
Prepare to be disappointed. The very concept of making a concise and focused statement is entirely against my nature.
...um, maybe I just did that? In which case I wish to subvert it by adding an unnecessary qualifying statement.
And I don't wish to undermine or distract from my earlier post by indulging in such self-referential, indeed postmodern meta-commentary either.
Oh shit.
No, I mean what I said. So there.
-
Yes, further kudos to Hilary.
And me? I might as well use this big megaphone I’ve got.
I believe “Bomber” Bradbury said “Foghorn”? :)
I’m afraid that I’ve been highly sceptical of MPs who’ve been perhaps sincerely concerned about people or issues, but all too eager to throw them under the bus, let their gestures remain mere gestures and quietly slip out the back door or find that they have a prior engagement when it really matters. Sincere praise then to Judge Stephen Erber and Jonathan Eaton for making their principles practice.
And of course Arie and Michael, for enduring what they should never have endured.
As for Cliff, Erasmus and Lhaws, here are some pineapples, see where you can stick them, scum.
-
Not many people know that Christopher Lee has a splendid singing voice...
-
we have criteria in law; they are tested by the courts; they are continuously updated as society and the media evolve.
There goes Giovanni again, saying what I meant but sadly failed to say…
Seconded, thirded, πed, whatever.
Because I’m not an Objectivist, I don’t believe that you can quantify offensiveness and use quanta of offensiveness in algebra, so the old vague measure of “community standards” articulated through a “jury of one’s peers” is preferable to me. It may not be definite, but it’s adaptable, and provides as good a measure as any of the prevailing moral climate as it continues to change.
Of course it’s all the more cause to worry about the decline of the jury system.
(Because I can’t resist, if one were to quantify offensiveness, what would one name the units? “Well, I read Ansell’s letter and it scored only 0.38 Carrolls of logical absurdity due to its illogic, but a whopping great 7.21 Murdochs of sheer nastiness”)
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Paul Williams,
Hi Paul,
It's more of a dissection of a specific example than a universal definition, but feel free to copy and disseminate in whole or part as you please.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to son of little p,
Boo!
-
Most people have got it, thankfully, but just in case, observe typical trolling behaviour and learn to avoid falling into the trap.
(1) A cursory, disingenuous apology that really isn’t an apology. That’s been used before. Note that the contrition begins and ends there to be followed by more implied insults or challenges below.
(2) An assertion that a point raised is genuinely important and a suggestion that anyone who doesn’t answer is devoid of curiosity or integrity, which leads to the essence of trolling:
(3) The assumption that all conversation is challenge/response. A fallacy of course, as true conversation is more theme and variation along an evolutionary model, or simply jamming.
(4) Selecting a few likely individuals to bait or quotes to offer as bait. There is also in this case the passive-agressive “don’t you love me?” added.
(5) “I’m not a troll, but if you call me one, it’s your fault, not mine.” An attempt to make the bait more compelling by making it a point of honour to accept.
(6) And another challenge, with an ellipsis to reinforce its role as such.
(7) Also, throughout, awful syntax and grammar and absolutely no sense of how to construct a paragraph.
As you were.
Anyway, I’m not without intellectual curiosity myself and I’m currently fascinated by the Permian Mass Extinction. I’ve been reading this book by biologist Peter Ward, Under a Green Sky and it’s quite a page-turner. The voices in my head (which sound like African Grey Parrots and not Toucans) aren’t at all interested, so I demand that you discuss it with me…
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
Some people have very cool jobs...
Yeah, I take your point about the fossil record and the fact that nothing close to a trilobite has been around for a long, long time. Wistfully, though, I note that not all habitats are conducive to forming fossils. In any case, I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of marvelous, unexpected discoveries yet to come, even if they aren't trilobites, because every major expedition seems to come back with some.
Marine biologist - another career path I wish I'd taken.
-
Actually, I vaguely remember a short story, probably Irish, about someone who had died in a way that meant that they could not be buried in consecrated ground, so they were buried adjacent to but outside the churchyard. One night, the people of the village came out, tore down the wall, and rebuilt it to enclose the fresh grave.