Posts by Keir Leslie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Keir Leslie - at one stage I mistakenly thought pollywog was a lil p sockpuppet: I was only right in that it was a reincarnation of dubmugga...I cant recall Sacha making that kind of error.
I think I can, but like I say, I am not going to riffle through the archives. I am totes willing to take you all on faith here.
I just don't like the dog-piling thing, where we all leap on one person we disagree with.
But honestly, I don't think anyone behaved awfully here. I don't think picking at old scabs ever helps. I think that moving on is best, and I base that, Emma, on observation of Making Light going horribly wrong in the was boing boing went wrong and other places.
-
Keir, it's a direct word for word quote. Given I quoted the whole comment just a little further up the page, I don't consider that to be 'out of context'.
I really do. I think that you traduced Robbie's meaning there. I do not think that Robbie wanted to be out in the open in the sense you mean. Of course, he may disagree and I shan't say nought. (And it isn't a word for word quote; Robbie never said ``i want to be out in the open'' did he?)
Dunno; I quite agree I am being judgemental. That is rather the point. Again, you are quite free to ignore me.
(Sacha, I can't be arsed trawling through the archives at the moment, so of course you may assume I am wrong. But I do remember you accusing someone of sock puppetry who was merely unfortunate enough to start posting at the wrong time.)
-
Wow, Keir, neither have I, where would you like to put your moral superiority?
Yeah but Sacha has. I do not take well to people who have spectacularly fucked it up lecturing the rest of us on how to treat others.
Also, and I note this from some experience across a number of forums, it's really easy to decide how things should be policed when you're not the one who actually has to do it.
Er Emma the other forum I comment on has fuck all moderation apart from the democratic opinion of the members. (OK, that forum is mainly dedicated to cock jokes but.) So you know, it isn't like one is approaching this from a completely virginal position.
Mainly I am approaching this from the position that grudges are a bad idea and that getting moralistic about how people behave on the internet is so much of a lost cause it isn't funny. Most people are basically cunts and there is very little you can do about that that doesn't turn you into a cunt too.
(And Emma ``- don't say you want to be "out in the open"'' is not at all an adequate paraphrase of Robbie's words; it's really really shitty behaviour to make people say things they didn't say, especially stripped of context.)
-
Well the problem is that to establish that you have to allow for staggering bad faith/immorality on the other fellow's part, and that always ends badly. (This is basically an argument against ad homs and meta arguments.)
Of course you can disagree. This is merely my opinion.
However, I have never yet managed to lay false accusations of sock-puppetry and trollery, so I think that I may be doing a bit better than some.
-
But that's not to say he wants to admit to it. He says he's done with it, he's put it behind him. He's repudiating the others. (And then he basically says `take it off-blog', which is pretty much a request not to talk about it here.)
It is in my opinion bad form to respond to that with snark about the other names.
-
C'mon, it was kind of incredibly obvious who you were in previous incarnations, Robbie. You're not exactly Subtle McCoy.
Yes but. If Robbie doesn't want to admit to it, I think it's bad form to pin it on him. I also think that there are a bunch of people here who have at least once managed to misidentify someone as a sock puppet who should be rather wary about claiming x is y.
Discussions of pseudonyms descend into accusations of bad faith really really quickly, and generally at that point the conversation's screwed. (& I think `fake handles' is the sort of inflammatory talk that hastens that on its way.)
(I think changing pseuds is bad practice if you don't link the old and new in general, but I don't think it is anyone else's prerogative to link them involuntarily.)
-
So, he never advocated eugenics or changed his mind about it? Keir, if you're going to call me a liar and/or an idiot please do be arsed to make your case before doing so.
No, I am saying he was never enthusiastic about eugenics; I am also saying he was not consistent about his (always grudging) support for eugenics. Craig, it would be very nice were you to make a habit of reading the words actually written on the screen, and not reading the meaning you have already ascribed to them.
Further, if you want to start bringing up nasty discriminatory policies of the early twentieth century, you are a Tory. It isn't a glass house you are living in so much as a crystal palace.
-
Oh ffs, not this again. I can quite confidently say you are full of shit about this Craig. Wells was not enthusiastic about eugenics (understood in the negative sense); he thought of it as a depressing notion that had to be faced up to.
Further, he wasn't consistent on this either; he changed his mind and if I could be arsed looking it up I could give you chapter and verse.
Finally: who were the actual implementers of the policy of Empire again Craig? Oh, right, yeah.
-
* Ensure New Zealand retains regulatory control of the dietary supplements industry.
Read: let's not have any of that nasty science-y evidence stuff around here.
-
I think that if you are of the opinion that the Greens ought have the same allowance as the National Party, you surely have to have the opinion that the Socialist Workers'* ought get the same allowance, and the anarchists, and the Posadaists and so-on.
I mean, requiring a registered party is merely another way to strap the chicken.
I also think that the cap and allowance should be identical, and would prefer an uneven cap with identical allowance to an even cap without identical allowance.
(Not the workers' party, but the CPNZ continuing.)