Hard News: The Sunday Capers
129 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Actually, I'm not convinced that Laws actually believes anything he writes or says. He's a Coulteresque performer whose main goal is arousing the passions. I wouldn't be at all surprised, for example, if it turned out that his children had never slept in the parental bed because it was too dangerous for his own sproggen.
-
On another note, epic win from Danyl on the Herald's Napier siege coverage.
-
I wouldn't be at all surprised, for example, if it turned out that his children had never slept in the parental bed because it was too dangerous for his own sproggen.
I suspect the reason might be more that I can't imagine anyone would ever want to sleep with Lhaws.
-
Dude, I don't know if you know anything about blog comment etiquette. I'm really hoping you don't, because you've basically wandered in and crapped all over it. You're off topic, you're starting an argument with yourself, and you're being abusive of your host while putting your feet up on his coffee table. You want to be treated with deference, try showing some. You know, like in any other form of social interaction. You behave like a tosser, you get treated like one.
because i am brand new at this, and because, like George W.Bush vis-a-vis stem-cell research, i wish to take but one meticulous step at a time (i am after all, apparently, a man without his meds); thus before going any further i need to know how many of you present here would agree with the above most vehemently expressed conviction? If what EH maintains is the generally-accepted case, then i'm not ready for prime-time, now am i.. Are we merely passing through a glade of 'congenial abuse' here, or have i truly transgressed? -
She's right on the money and you are without a brass razoo.
-
pfj, I'll assume for a moment that you're well meaning and not some troll.
You might get a better reception, however, if you:
- don't criticise everyone else
- especially don't stray off topic for the sole purpose of attacking RB (he's like our guru, man!)
- write coherent, short sentences. You wouldn't talk that way, would you?If that's too hard, can I suggest you try this site next?
-
Ahahahah ScottY, you pasted your post as a link! ;-)
Perhaps you meant this site? -
Thank you Mark. I'm hopeless with these interknots. Serves me right for trying to be clever (and yes you got the right site)
-
so far as i can see there is nothing incoherent in what i say (full-stop). Since when was there a policing of the length of sentences? I have never, ever understood this notion! For i speak more-or-less exactly as i write and write more-or-less exactly as i speak - and methinks there are hereabouts already too many cute assignations and call-signs bouncing around within this commentariat - just who is to determine whether or not i am one of these 'trolls'? Who is to know what my intentions could be? Do even i? Why, for all you know, i am a renegade scientist tired of mere kennel-management in the lab and have ventured out to do business in the wider field of sign-bearing creatures and the unspoken religious fervour that does not (yet?) know its name! Never forget - that for those with a position to protect, real freedom-of-thought is largely an inconvenience..
hhe heh, just loosening up my stem, y'all..
-
If you speak as you write, it's no surprise you don't get invited to parties.
-
Dear little p - please come to my party.
-
pfj, you need help to communicate effectively.
Try these people. They're good.
-
the most astonishing thing of all really is the way in which so many to all intents-and-purposes free citizens speak, utter & declaim, in every way as if they verily did have a position to protect, and even if they are still labouring under the fond conceit that this position of theirs re-presents 'science' in all its bright bristling rawboned clarity, they should try not to forget that it IS first & foremost a sacred territory they have assigned themselves to protect, and perhaps also not to forget that the point they REALLY came to believe in the Theory of E was the point at which they believed everybody else must have committed...
-
...Hari Kari?
-
and what is communicating effectively? Slip sliding off your thread like a snowboarder at an Effective Communication seminar whilst thrusting my business card into your backpocket as i go sailing by?
-
TROLL!
-
so far as i can see there is nothing incoherent in what i say
Unfortunately the test of effective communication isn't whether you can understand what you're on about, it's whether the rest of us are getting a worthwhile signal-to-noise ratio from your posts.
It took me a while, but I've summed up your second-to-last post as "evolution isn't pure science but a faith position, and many people who believe in evolution only do so because of herd mentality". Hope I got that right; assuming that I did, I'll just respond that precisely the same things can be said about creationism and ID, which don't have anything near the scientific consensus or even basic usefulness behind them that evolution does. Others more qualified can reply at more length if they want.
And your last post was actually kinda neat, which shows how you can retain some style in your writing when your prose inflammation subsides a bit.
-
Oh, and don't go and quit now. You do seem fairly switched on and we'll make something of you yet. One of us ...
-
TROLL!
Ya think? ;-)
-
ahh, but the devil is the detail, aka the noise! i always like a damn good signal-to-noise ratio myself, but the last thing i expected when signing on here was to be pounced upon & scolded by a team of schoolmarms!
Very well, if it's bullet paragraphs you require, then it is bullet paragraphs you shall get..
I do not think that what i wrote in those posts deserves to be subject to such a brute 'summing-up' drill and automatically re-assimilated to some formulaic old, pre-humiliated horsedog about 'faith positions' versus 'consensus' - one thing is for sure, we did not arrive at the great yawping dawn of the scientific 20th century via a series of consensus meetings!
And do keep in mind sir that the genuine linguistic act is always an irreducible event; verily, the interruption of history by freedom.. Even creating a pole of attraction, contempt & ridicule is above all generative of *attention* - and thus participates in that most noble of all human activities, the constant re-defining of the centre (as resentments re-circulate on the periphery)..
but i have already breached my vow to take one step at a time when approaching anywhere near the great floundering incumbent beast that Darwin's once most innocent little thought experiment (based on analogy with domestic breeding/selection) has become..
so i withdraw my inflamed little troll-bullets for the momeant..
-
And do keep in mind sir that the genuine linguistic act is always an irreducible event; verily, the interruption of history by freedom.
Gadzooks, methinks thar maybe scrofula in the ether. Swine scrofula or maybe bovine spongiform encephalitis.
-
I think he's swallowed some of the MPAA's crack.
-
and that btw, the contractive little signatures of those enthralled by the materials of which they are supposedly 'composed', is pretty much what i meant by immanently constrained...
-
3410,
Oh. Thanks for the 'clarification'.
-
Oh. Thanks for the 'scare quote-marks'
Post your response…
This topic is closed.