Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm sorry that I couldn't devote even more of my time to following an old thread that I was thoroughly sick of.
its 104 pages long russell,
It is my house.
it is that, as noted.
I'm actually really, really tired of the personal cracks at me of the kind in the above post.
I didn't make any personal cracks,
What bit specifically are you referring to?
are you meaning the bit about opinion piece. They are, you speak as russell brown with your personal view point in these articles. you're not working for a major newspaper tallying the stock market changes and delivering an impersonal anonymous account of events.That's not meant as an insult or to be critical, its an observation, a clarification. The discussion forums are an opportunity for people to agree with or more interestingly to challenge what you've said or what people say to what you've said. That's the most interesting thing as an outsider.
People patting you on the back doesn't make for interesting or thought provoking material to most of the outside audience.When I've been critical of you its been on specific points of contention. A simple "noted but I disagree", or "noted, that's an interesting perspective" finished the conversation as far as that goes. As good as I am at winding you up, you're skilled in the same art and you know it.
You've been doing it from the day you arrived.
bollocks. you only notice those instances and ignore the rest. 1840 posts and they're all an attack on you? come on man. that's just silly.
It's just a discussion thread. It doesn't really hurt.
and we both know, sometimes that's not true.
-
you don't use a pseudonym
and I'm the only one who does?
come on, with some of the bolshy attitudes that go down here why wouldn't you use one? my main mistake is that I let you know who I was. ("I" meaning simon, that big mouth, although people who needed to know already did and respected the 'rules'. credit to you russell for that) -
or it's not the first time somebody has spent pages insisting that a certain word not be used except as defined by the statutes?
Unfortunately mark had a point, and his point was - discussion is unnecessarily blown in one direction by use of inaccurate words.
I don't think mark proved his point in that case, and he certainly took it to arsehole proportions without any intervention from mr god controller which unveils a disturbing level of bias.All you've got to do is say I see your technical point, its not murder until its proven in a court of law, yay, move on.
personally I found the stuff on terrorism and nz law really interesting. I can't even fathom the implications of the deletion of the term but thank Brickley for pointing it out. And he's right, terrorism is a matter of perspective, its an inflammatory term made popular by mission accomplished monkey boy, it doesn't help in viewing what happened in this instance. this was straight up ugly evil violence,
And it still makes no sense: the idea that I might not be allowed to say that a person who's gunned down in front of a room full of witnesses was murdered, or to argue that the murder was an act of terrorism, is ludicrous. It's not as if the world is a court of law.
I don't think Brickley cares about common use of it so much as journalistic use. He's arguing for non inflammatory language in journalism, Russell appears to be arguing (or defending) the opposite - a drop in journalistic standards?
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.
If that's the case then there should be far less resistance to discussion cos we're all amateurs here. (apart from graeme's and the likes comments which enjoy the most and I find most interesting cos they're seriously grounded in fact of law).And by banning people are you criminalising your fans?
wrong thread? -
Grant wasn't a newbie.
behaving as a newbie
you could consider that your work is done here and either go away or stay and discuss the topic.
gee thanks, that's sounds like a bundle of fun, but, no thanks, abortion isn't really a topic one can 'discuss'. Next you'll be inviting me to a "discussion" on religion.
classic troll behaviour,
the trolling comment is bandied about on here regularly, quite often it's merely against people that voice opinions opposed to the mass, at least that's what it looks like to me.
i don't really care one way or the other but you could easily deal with these situations differently, understand their point, acknowledged it and moved on, ignore them also works.
I've asked that you leave me out of this one, that was my point of stepping in,
You could easily say, "fair call, leave it out chumps", but you have to get in there and duck and dive, I'm sure its as much for the debating exercise as anything....haha, susan boyle though. you went on record as being moved by a manipulative idol style program. That's going to be hard to live down the next time you delve into music style-meister territory.
speaking of backlash I remember one to ladyhawk in these's here pages somewhere very close to hyping her, remarkably quick it was.
one more critique, yes I think we can fit it in.
Travelling lonely from one hotel room to another will take its toll on a person
cliche!!! I almost choked on the loving spoonfuls of syrup you coated that in. you've been watching too many made for tv movies mate.
You'll remember when I first met you was on tour with a band and that was the furthermost thing from lonely hotel rooms I've ever been. It was an absolute fun filled fiesta.
If Boyle's going to be raking in the dosh she can take an entourage and insist on long stop overs in beautiful locations. Hardly a life of pain, but her choice how it plays. -
Did I phrase it that badly?
yes, and its a distinction you'll have to make very clear,
but you can't tell me there is absolutely no element of point scoring against the opposing side on the abortion issue when one of em acts like a evangelical mad man. Grant appears to be sensitive to that and I can understand that, if not his position on the overall issue.
-
but I'm just not sure why you need to lend moral support to Grant
Read my post, i'm not. I said that.
I read grants posts as making clear that there was a difference, as him distancing himself from the people who do these shit things.
I don't have to read any aspect of pro life pro choice into it.
I think its fair he make the distinction painfully clear. I don't happen to agree with his position on the overall argument as I pointed out with the lineWhile I disagree with grants position
I don't feel threatened by it either. He has the right to disagree with me, and me with him. apparently on here he doesn't have the right to disagree with some.
Did you just drop by to offer patronising observations on a debate to which you have offered nothing yourself?
read my post, don't drag me into it.
I'm not really wanting to contribute to this debate, again, don't drag me into it, and by extension don't try to devalue my arguments in other threads by associating me with people I have absolutely no alliance with. Like Grant doesn't want to be seen as a terrorist, I don't want to be associated with him. fair point? I find it offensive.And as everyone but he and you seems to grasp, no one was saying that.
it wasn't necessarily his point. not that I want to defend his position at all, just his right to have one.
He was quite clearly behaving as a troll.
itchy trigger finger.
I think he was quite clearly behaving as a newbie, he had a point but didn't know how to make it. you see it differently, -
Pulls on tinfoil hat.
don't be such a cock,
if you guys are so insecure in your beliefs that you need to shout down or ban arguments that differ from yours then bring it out in the open and do it. be proud of it, call it private address if that's what you want it to be. don't pretend to be a public forum if in reality you're really only looking to have a chit chat amongst people who agree.Brickley has a point and it's one of a trend to use hyperbole and generalisation to describe situations.
if you want to be intellectuals then you're going to have to get your terms correct however inconvenient it might be.While I disagree with grants position he was objecting to people lumping his grandma who disagrees with abortion in with the twat who shot and killed the guy yesterday. It may not be a distinction you care to make through laziness or disinterest but its the kind of distinction you're be only to happy to have made when you get lumped in with people you don't agree with.
on that note don't lump me in with people who's views have nothing to do with mine. ie don't drag me into it.
sofie - got to say, I expect more of you, some others not so much, but you,...
-
Derek Clarke, the head of South Africa's mapping agency, the CDSM – which moved from a "paid for" to a "free" data model in 2000 through a government edict
when they say free do they mean paid for by govt through taxes?
-
what with neither being at all true.
go to a bit torrent site like this one https://isohunt.com/
search for a new release movie and look at the comments and votes for the file. minus means a reported bogus file. nothing means unknown. if you don't know to read the comments you may make a mistake. if there are no comments yet you run the risk of bogus.we were talking about the uninitiated university or high school teacher.
if you don't know what you're doing you'll get a bogus file which tells you to go to a website to unlock your film and then who knows.They're not going to all be seasoned pros mate. the warning is valid considering who they're talking to. you may well be giving the average school teacher too much credit for internet know how.
-
You're innocent of a crime until proven guilty, surely you're also innocent if you've not even been charged?
put that idea to the test.
if you shoplift a can of coke and don't get caught, are you innocent of shoplifting?if you run over a cyclist and no body sees you do it and you drive away are you innocent of hit and run?