Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Steve: a wager doesn't have to be a sure thing to be a good bet...
-
Danyl, adding the additional information that the original claimant has no evidence (really? how did you make that judgment?), consulting experts and contrasting their authority with the claimant's seems awfully like fact-checking to me. You're clinging to the form of being disinterested, but the content is nonetheless contradictory of the original claim.
-
OPINIONS DIFFER ON SHAPE OF EARTH
-
[I removed some unnecessary abuse here -- RB] try joining us in the 21st century where women are allowed to have jobs and opinions without a permission slip from their husbands.
It isn't sexism to bet that spouses influence each other more than randomly assorted couples, but common sense.
-
Gio: on reflection, perhaps I should have used "put" as my example. Crazy English orthography with its misleading and inconsistent conventions strikes again. I blame the Normans and Caxton.
-
Yeah, for me the first vowel in "woman" is the same as the vowel in "book". Then again, I pronounce bear and beer differently, whereas my daughter perceives and produces the same sound for both. So I may just be a fogey.
Dad was listed as Dr Judd in the phone book for while, possibly at my mother's insistence, but a few late night calls from people seeking medical assistance put paid to that.
Incidentally, I think Stephen Potter specifically mentions having a PhD but not using the title as a winning strategem in One-Upmanship.
-
If anyone should get inappropriately aroused, I expect they'll get a stiff reprimand.
-
Mike, I feel you haven't grasped the point here that the aim here is to cut out the retailer, not the publisher. I have read and re-read David's article looking for the whinging about publishers, and I haven't found it.
I did make a snarky allusion to having the commerce commission on speed-dial -- to forestall booksellers leaning on publishers. Surely that's sympathetic to publishers?
It rather sounds as though you have a huge store of (no doubt very justified) resentment towards people who bag publishers, and have been trigged by a false alarm.
PS: I too hide under my real name -- feel free to get in touch if you like.
-
Angus: fer sure. I was more thinking about broadcast media and print.
-
Graeme: sponsors already set the boundaries of speech in a sponsored broadcast. They can enlarge or move those boundaries as well as constrain them. In fact, we can urge sponsors to hold firm or to change their minds in favour of some threatened voice if we have a mind to.
It seems to me that you are on the verge of advocating that all views be given equal access to the resources currently offered by sponsors. If not, on what basis is it bad to lobby for my particular preference for allocation?
Picking up what Gio said about the unsatisfactory notion of a marketplace of ideas, the offerings we currently enjoy are already arbitrarily limited and homogeneous.