Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Sacha,
Yeah, I know. Like with Grant, I gave him the benefit of the doubt, only to find he was in fact not arguing in good faith after all.
How can I ever trust again!! : (
...
Seriously though, it was all worth it just for that gotcha: Isn't it hilarious? He may as well have just said to me: "I don't call people names, you fuckwit!"
-
Also: pray at home, people. Hovering outside the gate with beads is just a fake-assed way of intimidating women and their families and friends.
...
Yes, I agree its not on. How would Tess like it if me and my mates hung around outside her church holding large photos of human genitals with gonorrhea and herpes.
To be fair, didn't Tess say she was not in favour of "hovering outside with beads", and did in fact pray at home?
-
Rob said:
[I] refrain from name calling or verbal abuse
Rob also said:
don't be such a cock,
-
Aww, Rob, hon, don’t be like that!
Regards name calling: Firstly, I think it’s pretty hypocritical to take the moral high ground, while otherwise being snarky and acting obnoxious. Your position seems to be: “It’s okay to act like an asshole, just don’t say the word ‘asshole’”. Secondly, if you mean the “dense” comment, I wasn’t calling anyone dense, I was saying you made it look like you think he’s dense if you feel the need to state the obvious.
To your straw men:
It's nice that you weigh in for russell, sad that you think you need to, and unfortunate that you feel I have no point. I'm not entirely sure what the point you're trying to make is either.
I didn’t way in for Russell, I disagreed with a contention you seemed to be making in one of your comments - one you now admit was worded poorly. I didn’t say you had no point, and in fact said one of your points was “fair enough” once you clarified it. My point was that you stated the obvious in order to make a cheap shot, or alternatively you worded your comment very poorly. But you know this as you already admitted to the latter: why be disingenuous? So much for always arguing in good faith.
I was just being fair and giving you credit for admitting to your botched wording of your earlier post. There’s no need to go all petulant.
-
I don't think my location (ie. outside my own mother) or abilities make any difference to my uniqueness or my humanity.
See, I would have thought it manifestly obvious that your abilities, and the other differences between you and a bunch of cells, make a huge difference to your uniqueness, but oh well.
Re: your location outside your own mother, and the related issue of dependency on another human, have you considered this thought experiment?
-
"Omegalomania'
Nice! -
…its got to do with continually challenging the information we get, what we read hear and see.
Is there a problem with that?Not at all. It just seems to me that a lot of your challenging involves you being a dickhead unnecessarily - especially when responding to Russell.
how does it need "acknowledging"?
it needs to be rememberedand yeah, it was poorly worded,
I just think it’s so obvious (hence the ‘you must think he’s dense’ angle). But if you’re saying it was something that someone arguing a point like Brickley's needs to keep in mind, then fair enough. But the way you worded it did look like you were more interested in having a dig at Russell than clarifying anything for Brickley. But at least you acknowledge it was poorly worded, so I’ll leave it there.
-
So stop going on about it. Christ, I think I just figured out how the copyright thread got to 100 pages.
Oh Giovanni, stop with your last wordism.
-
my point was Brickley was going at it like this was a court of law and its an opinion site. Brickley had a point, but the point didn't really matter to this forum, it would have mattered in a court of law, but not here.
You're kidding, right? That's your explanation for:
personally I like my journalism as close to fact as possible, but maybe what russell does isn't journalism, its opinion piece, and if so it should be acknowledged as such.
You weren't making a distinction between a court of law and a blog forum, you were making a distinction between journalism and 'opinion piece'. And putting aside the obvious snark,the opinion aspect of the blog is obvious: how does it need "acknowledging"?
Or maybe you just worded that really, really poorly, and you think Brickley is a bit dense. With those two assumptions, I can see why you wrote it.
-
You get used to it.
I haven't followed a lot of his posting. Is he just a bit dim, then? Feeling the need to point out what is obvious to everyone else?