Hard News: The Sunday Capers
129 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
to p forrester jarvie (if that is your actual name): Please reread what you posted and then tell us why we shouldn't call you a pretentious ass.
-
Thank y'all, but I'm more mystified than anything by pfj.
At any rate, I would rather strongly debate that religion enjoys "exceedingly complex relations to the theory of biological evolution in its now myriad forms" if that is meant to say that religion explains biology. It doesn't.
-
Thank y'all, but I'm more mystified than anything by pfj.
I smell a fundy invasion in the near future, as we "pre-shrunk" godless ones must be brought to the light of Jeebus. Bugger.
Though I am of a mind to see "pfj" as "pimply faced jugend" - too much BOFH in my past...
-
At any rate, I would rather strongly debate that religion enjoys "exceedingly complex relations to the theory of biological evolution in its now myriad forms" if that is meant to say that religion explains biology. It doesn't.
So is that what s/he was trying to say...
a learned, dedicated ignorance
How do I get me some?
-
It's learned ignorance, bro.
-
"pre-shrunk" godless ones
Have to say, I rather prefer being preshrunk. I would make showering or bathing a bit difficult otherwise.\
Perhaps I could have chosen 'hand-wash only'? ( oo-err, missus! nurse! the screens! etc etc etc).
-
the image (pre-shrunk) derives from Leiibniz, describing the immanently constrained, minimally adhesive because minimally contrastive, advantages of relations in a post-sacrificial marketplace; he spoke of throwing many stones into the water at once, and how the many ripples manage to cross without ever destroying each other; a new situation in which pre-shrunkenness seems to let everybody succeed all at once at not causing spiritual interference with the other; on the other hand in so many hours we have seen how the mere hint of 'pretentiousness' and/or the ever-anticipated and basically longed-for 'invasion by the fundies' has aroused the 'blog police' to dreary - but we must presume also passionate - states of abuse just like that, as if indeed and in every way they were being somehow interfered with; and that surprises me greatly for i thought the religion of civility and deference you know, like, 'prevailed here'.. to RB himself i apologise for hastily & clumsily written sentence regarding the very-much flogged dead horse of Darwin's theory, but i will re-word that in an imminent post..
-
to RB himself i apologise for hastily & clumsily written sentence regarding the very-much flogged dead horse of Darwin's theory, but i will re-word that in an imminent post
One with carriage returns and conventional sentence case? That'd be cool.
Apology not necessary, but always nice.
-
I like how you got the words imminent and immanent into the same post.
-
the very-much flogged dead horse of Darwin's theory
When did this horse die? Did I miss something?
You know, pfj, it's okay to use full stops on this site. We promise not to judge you (for that, anyway).
-
Darwin proposed a theory (actually more than one.) An enormous amount of evidence - carefully looked at, sieved if you will, certainly checked by many many trained minds - supports the major theory.
Little p - what are you offering in contradiction to Charles Darwin's extraordinary well-backed-up (from his own work- from a thousand thousand (just a guess here!) researchers' work) printed scientific papers?
-
i thought the religion of civility and deference you know, like, 'prevailed here'..
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.
-
I like how you got the words imminent and immanent into the same post.
Yeah, but off-one's meds cute has its limitations.
-
There's a wealth of good material in this thread at the moment (the More Pernicious Still! Pre-shrunk! Do not tumble dry!), but let's face it: I'm just bummed I somehow missed Sam's Carly Simon joke for two days. I feel like I could have worked an apricot scarf into the conversation if I'd caught it in time. 'Regrets, I've had a few.'
-
Yeah, but off-one's meds cute has its limitations.
At the cost of coming across as a little self-important (yeah, I know, what else is new), could you not use that particular expression? I find it quite offensive. It's up there with "spastic" in my book.
-
Sure Gio. Now take your pills, and if the authoritarian streak's still there in the morning, go pick on someone else.
-
And I raise you "retarded"
-
Now take your pills, and if the authoritarian streak's still there in the morning, go pick on someone else.
Well played, sir. Classy.
-
PC gone mad, I tell you!
-
Peter Cresswell? Goes without saying.
-
Getting slightly more on-topic, the Michael Laws article in the SST had this to say about SIDS:
It's like medical authorities trying to scare parents not to share beds with their children. Yes, some drunk, drugged insensate mums do roll over and asphyxiate their kids, but most of us don't. This natural bonding process between breast-feeding mum and infant is portrayed as akin to child abuse.
I wonder if he will bother to read this in today's paper.
-
There's a wealth of good material in this thread at the moment (the More Pernicious Still! Pre-shrunk! Do not tumble dry!), but let's face it: I'm just bummed I somehow missed Sam's Carly Simon joke for two days. I feel like I could have worked an apricot scarf into the conversation if I'd caught it in time. 'Regrets, I've had a few.'
I wondered whether it was just a bit too obtuse to be spotted.
But hey, it's never too late to make something of it. Apricot scarf leads us to wool which 'shrinks' and thus to us the sheeple worshiping at the pagan throne of almighty Darwin. After all, if p insists on making this thread about ludicrous nonsense and overdrawn bows, why not just go hogwild?
-
ScottY: it won't matter a jot to Laws whether he reads it or not. In the Laws-o-verse, studying a matter deeply automatically invalidates your opinion on it, for Common Sense provides all we need to know.
See, in the Laws-o-verse, if you study something, and you confirm the common wisdom on it, then you have wasted the taxpayer's money because Laws could have told you that for free. And if what you learn contradicts the common wisdom, it's also a waste, because a well-honed anecdote from Laws which demonstrates Common Sense is proof that you're merely an ivory-tower academic who's out of touch/greedy for research money/feminist/marxist (strike out that which does not apply).
If necessary, you can use one prejudice to buttress another -- eg, defend bed-sharing by pointing out that only intoxicated Maoris smother their infants. Well-bred Pakeha, who may have a drink or two but can handle their liquor and in any case are never at fault, would never do such a thing. Because that's Common Sense.
-
well-honed anecdote from Laws which demonstrates Common Sense is proof that you're merely an ivory-tower academic
Coming from the guy who got an MA in creative writing at the institute of modern letters.
-
Coming from the guy who got an MA in creative writing at the institute of modern letters.
I'd say it's cognitive dissonance that supercharges Laws' attacks on anyone who publicly displays evidence of higher learning.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.