I know he has some fans here...

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 15 Mar 2006, 14:46

Could one of them explain why our prime minister is so keen to leave this log in the legislative toilet before he scarpers?

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 15 Mar 2006, 15:40

Same as it ever was...

give anyone too much power or authority for too long and questioning of it becomes abhorrent to them.

The clean-cut champion of the people becomes the tired and exasperated controller who knows exactly what is needed in every situation.

After all, he will be judged in due course by others more powerful than we...

ps - did anyone see that Parky interview? I didn't think he said anything as horrific as the previous night's reports had suggested. I think it's a bit much to hope your PM believes in God but to be aghast at the thought that he might REALLY believe in him

Jackson Priest · Post by **Jackson Priest** » 15 Mar 2006, 16:02

mr magnolia wrote: ps - did anyone see that Parky interview? I didn't think he said anything as horrific as the previous night's reports had suggested. I think it's a bit much to hope your PM believes in God but to be aghast at the thought that he might REALLY believe in him

I think what was more horrific than anything he said was the way he said it, his accent violently swerving through Received English, Thames Estuary, Geordie, and all points in between.

He always talks in this strange way on chat shows, no doubt to demonstrate that he is merely an ordinary man, just like you or me. Funnily enough, another person who does this is his supposed hero, Mick Jagger.

And his awkward greeting to Kevin Spacey was a bit odd. Kevin I think went for the cheek kiss, but Tone, not wanting to seem to be too much of a lovey in front of the masses, tried to shove him away while at the same time (almost) failing to execute a manly pat on the shoulder, nearly losing his balance in the process. Kaiser Sozer looked a bit upset.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 15 Mar 2006, 16:28

Jackson Priest wrote:an ordinary man, just like you or me.

Oi!

Je suis un homme exceptionel.

Jackson Priest · Post by **Jackson Priest** » 15 Mar 2006, 16:33

mr magnolia wrote:
Jackson Priest wrote:an ordinary man, just like you or me.

Oi!

Je suis un homme exceptionel.

Je suis vraiment dÃ©solÃ©. Vous Ãªtes en effet un homme exceptionnel, bien que vous soyez plus exceptionnel si vous vous assiÃ©riez seulement et liriez l'amour de Geek.

Avec plus aimable au respect, prÃªtre de Jaqueson

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 15 Mar 2006, 16:39

What on earth did Moi start when he chose a French word as his nom de plume. Mon dieu!

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 16 Mar 2006, 11:31

So no one is interested in an almost (due to its recursive nature) unlimited increase in arbitrary executive power?

As tiberius said of the senate (via dh lawrence):
"Oh, how eager these men are to be slaves!"

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Mar 2006, 11:39

xxxx wrote:So no one is interested in an almost (due to its recursive nature) unlimited increase in arbitrary executive power?

As tiberius said of the senate (via dh lawrence):
"Oh, how eager these men are to be slaves!"

xxxx

Please do not include me in your assumption, nor infer that because I did not post on this topic that I do not regard this as being very serious.

I believe my anti-Blair credentials are well known here and would much rather be painted as a "usual suspect" of the left than any smear of complacency or apathy.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 16 Mar 2006, 12:18

Dadaist wrote: I believe my anti-Blair credentials are well known here and would much rather be painted as a "usual suspect" of the left than any smear of complacency or apathy.

I wasn't smearing anyone, just reflecting on the contentment of the forum with this extraordinary legislation which is all I can infer from the response. Defending the right to own 5 cars is what sets this place on fire.

'Anti Blairism' is part of the the leaders success, I don't really care about his persona
(though his personality is interesting) but that's what people starting talking about rather than the specific legislation. He has reduced politics to office politics, neatly misdirecting people from policy matters. He will go, but legislation does not expire, and this act is far too tempting for our all too mortal representatives to repeal.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Mar 2006, 12:26

xxxx wrote:
Dadaist wrote: I believe my anti-Blair credentials are well known here and would much rather be painted as a "usual suspect" of the left than any smear of complacency or apathy.
This is part of the the leaders success, I don't really care about his persona
(though his personality is interesting) but that's what people starting talking about. He has reduced politics to office politics, neatly misdirecting people from policy matters. He will go, but legislation does not expire, and this act is far too tempting for our all too mortal representatives to repeal.

OK - for "Blair" please read "New Labour project". You only responded to the second part of my post btw.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Mar 2006, 12:36

xxxx wrote:
Dadaist wrote: I believe my anti-Blair credentials are well known here and would much rather be painted as a "usual suspect" of the left than any smear of complacency or apathy.
I wasn't smearing anyone, just reflecting on the contentment of the forum with this extraordinary legislation which is all I can infer from the response. Defending the right to own 5 cars is what sets this place on fire.

'Anti Blairism' is part of the the leaders success, I don't really care about his persona
(though his personality is interesting) but that's what people starting talking about rather than the specific legislation. He has reduced politics to office politics, neatly misdirecting people from policy matters. He will go, but legislation does not expire, and this act is far too tempting for our all too mortal representatives to repeal.

If you're going to answer by going back in time and editing old posts - kindly let me know! It gets confusing if, while you're doing the editing, someone has quoted your old post.

Your inference, in my case, is false.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 16 Mar 2006, 12:53

Dadaist wrote:
If you're going to answer by going back in time and editing old posts - kindly let me know! It gets confusing if, while you're doing the editing, someone has quoted your old post.

Just edited while you were replying, these things happen.

Your inference, in my case, is false.

Well I know that now.I didn't want to jump to any conclusions, though anyone who bangs on about the fidelity of their 'anti blair credentials' would be an unlikely supporter of this bill. The original question was addressed to the prime ministers fans, after all.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Mar 2006, 13:07

anyone who bangs on about the fidelity of their 'anti blair credentials' would be an unlikely supporter of this bill.

....although someone who uses a crude rhetorical device to force people to disprove a negative assertion is perhaps closer to the tyrannical aesthetic of the legislation!

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 16 Mar 2006, 13:38

Dadaist wrote:
anyone who bangs on about the fidelity of their 'anti blair credentials' would be an unlikely supporter of this bill.
....although someone who uses a crude rhetorical device to force people to disprove a negative assertion is perhaps closer to the tyrannical aesthetic of the legislation!

I really don't see how you work that out, but there you go.
I honestly don't mean to hurt your feelings, but if you take offence and suggest I am smearing people rather than discuss the topic, you're bound to get a little bit of teasing.
Suggesting I am smearing is a smear and a low rhetorical trick, but do I get upset? No, I take it in good humour like the great guy I am.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Mar 2006, 13:55

No, if anything I am supporting your view by asserting that complacency and apathy are bad.

I'm not suggesting you are smearing. I'm actually saying it.

Would you like me to show you my working?

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 16 Mar 2006, 14:05

Dadaist wrote:
Would you like me to show you my working?

Go on then

I started a topic, got one rather fatalistic on-topic reply and therefore concluded hardly anyone was interested enough to discuss it. That's not a smear, it's a conclusion.

Where's Michael Winner when you need him?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Mar 2006, 14:10

xxxx wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
Would you like me to show you my working?
Go on then

I started a topic, got one rather fatalistic on-topic reply and therefore concluded hardly anyone was interested enough to discuss it. That's not a smear, it's a conclusion.

Where's Michael Winner when you need him?

Before you get a chance to edit it out, the post which I claim is a big smeary smear from planet Smear is :

So no one is interested in an almost (due to its recursive nature) unlimited increase in arbitrary executive power?

As tiberius said of the senate (via dh lawrence):
"Oh, how eager these men are to be slaves!"

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 16 Mar 2006, 15:04

Dadaist wrote: Before you get a chance to edit it out,

There you go, why would I edit out?
Are you suggesting I unfairly edit to my advantage? Is it wrong to correct yourself? You must think I'm quite the bounder.

the post which I claim is a big smeary smear from planet Smear is :

So no one is interested in an almost (due to its recursive nature) unlimited increase in arbitrary executive power?

As tiberius said of the senate (via dh lawrence):
"Oh, how eager these men are to be slaves!"

I threw in a little quotation that I recalled for a little colour, it seems reasonable enough to me. Complete and arbritrary power over people has great potential to limit freedom. Slavery is the end point of this, the complete removal of freedom.

As I said before this wasn't meant to cause offense, when I started this thread I hoped people might look at the legislation and say 'my goodness, what a dangerous bill, I must write to my MP about this' or explain to me why such a bill is a good thing.

I didn't forsee anyone getting steamed up and thinking I was insulting them. I regret this callous and cruel act, I just didn't realise how sensitive people really are.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Mar 2006, 15:12

Your defense is almost better at defeating your own argument than the working I have yet to present will be.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Mar 2006, 15:30

Are you two having fun?

Where you been xxxx?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Mar 2006, 15:34

Porty wrote:Are you two having fun?

Where you been xxxx?

I am perhaps in the pre-fun stage, warming up to a bit of mild fun, yes.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 16 Mar 2006, 16:01

Porty wrote:Are you two having fun?

Not in the least, while I do love the sound of my own voice, constantly repeating myself gets a bit dull. I abhor conflict yet it seems to find me out

Where you been xxxx?

Nowhere special, I think I'd better get back there, as I seemed to have insulted and smeared the entire Community with my humble words and under handed editing tricks. Having been exposed for my crimes I must slink to the sewer where I belong. You are lucky to have such a doughty defender of your good name in dada

What do you think of the topic itself?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Mar 2006, 16:12

xxxx

It's not just repeating yourself that's dull - your approach to this matter qualifies too.

I am no more likely to defend Porty than to defend you - I judge you both on content alone. If Porty would like to defend a mass-murderer then that is his choice, and if you decide to use the techniques and quotes that you have on this thread, that too is entirely your choice.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Mar 2006, 16:23

xxxx wrote:
What do you think of the topic itself?

I must confess I haven't had time or inclination to digest it. I'm on a School project.

Gemini posted the guardian (?) article a few weeks ago and when Gemini does that, it has the same the effect on me as watching Gail Tilsley do her doe eyed I'm falling in love with you expression. I have to avert my eyes.

From what I've taken in so far, it looks like a major dilution of democracy. Maybe even an abuse. I'm certainly not at odds with your concern or perspective.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 16 Mar 2006, 16:32

Dadaist wrote:xxxx

It's not just repeating yourself that's dull - your approach to this matter qualifies too.

I'm sorry my approach is dull, I try in my way to be entertaining. Alas! I fail again

I am no more likely to defend Porty than to defend you - I judge you both on content alone.

Thats big of you,The 'you' was the community at large, not porty individually

If Porty would like to defend a mass-murderer then that is his choice, and if you decide to use the techniques and quotes that you have on this thread, that too is entirely your choice.

So what is the problem? If I can use the quotes I wish (and those sinister sounding 'techniques') and say what I want and you take an unintended offence, then thats just hard cheddar.
I keep apologising but it doesn't seem enough.

Wheres Engelbert Humperdink when you need him?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Mar 2006, 16:42

xxxx surely not.......

I wondered should I go, or should I stay
The band had only one more song to play
And then I saw you out the corner of my eye
A little girl alone and so shy

I had the last waltz with you
Two lonely people together
I fell in love with you
The last waltz should last forever

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 16 Mar 2006, 16:45

Porty wrote:xxxx surely not.......

I wondered should I go, or should I stay
The band had only one more song to play
And then I saw you out the corner of my eye
A little girl alone and so shy

I had the last waltz with you
Two lonely people together
I fell in love with you
The last waltz should last forever

More this:
Please release me, let me go
For I don't love you anymore
To waste our lives would be a sin
Release me and let me love again

I have found a new love, dear
And I will always want her near
Her lips are warm while yours are cold
Release me, my darling, let me go

(Please release me, let me go)
For I don't love you anymore
(To waste my life would be a sin)
So release me and let me love again

Please release me, can't you see
You'd be a fool to cling to me
To live a lie would bring us pain
So release me and let me love again
(Let me love, let me love)

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 16 Mar 2006, 16:59

this is my rough working as promised :

your morality is not law

using forced justification parallels the kind of tyranny you fear in microcosm

mote in thy neighbours eye

"no one" points the finger at everyone and forces them to defend neutrality

a silent majority can defend or oppose as it sees fit, but you cannot treat them
as a homogenous blob, ie it is defined by its silence first as opposed to its unwrit view

you attempt to address everyone using tiberius, dh lawrence, and phrases like "recursive arbitrary executive power"
and wonder why people who werent bored enough already start dropping unconscious

if a smear is an unfounded allegation, pointing at everyone and saying that they are
disinterested unless they state otherwise (and hence in some way responsible) is bound to
not only point at someone who is apathetic and/or complacent, but also those who aren't, but
have not responded for different reasons

Since when have you kept apologising? You expressed regret, but then so did the Japanese government over war crimes which means chuff all. If you want to apologise, say "sorry" which then puts the ball in my court to accept or not.

Denial of intent is no defence whatsoever as it cannot be proved or disproved.

As an internet expert I thought you would understand what happens if you don't keep things simple - that is, not only did your initial thread title not mention Blair or the legislation, but you provide a *link* only? So you lose a percentage of your readers right there. And nothing surrounding your link actually says what it's pointing to, just some attempt at toilet humour.

Somehere inside the preaching and obfuscation lies an important and noble sentiment. Keep it simple and don't insult your audience.

Matthew

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 16 Mar 2006, 19:07

All this effort over me? You really shouldn't have bothered.

Dadaist wrote:this is my rough working as promised :

your morality is not law

You're quite there, my morality is not law, my morality is my morality and the law is the law

using forced justification parallels the kind of tyranny you fear in microcosm

Where is the forced justification? It doesn't parallel anything, let alone tyranny.
I ask something, general disinterest follows, I conclude people are not interested, I recall a quote which reflects my concerns. If you get the hump with those 4 lines, its sad but not a tragedy.

mote in thy neighbours eye

So what is the beam in my eye?

"no one" points the finger at everyone and forces them to defend neutrality
a silent majority can defend or oppose as it sees fit, but you cannot treat them
as a homogenous blob, ie it is defined by its silence first as opposed to its unwrit view

This is your elaboration of what I said. I said noone (apart from mr m) seemed interested, perfectly reasonable conclusion.

you attempt to address everyone using tiberius, dh lawrence, and phrases like "recursive arbitrary executive power"
and wonder why people who werent bored enough already start dropping unconscious

If you're dull and have a decent vocabulary,its tough . However the bill is recursive as it can be used to modify itself, it is arbtrary as it is not specific and has few limitations (and due to its recursive nature it can be used to remove them) and it removes power from parliament to the cabinet, which is the executive. So there's nothing wrong with the sentence.
I don't know what I can do about being boring. Some of us just are. No need to keep reminding us.

if a smear is an unfounded allegation, pointing at everyone and saying that they are
disinterested unless they state otherwise (and hence in some way responsible) is bound to
not only point at someone who is apathetic and/or complacent, but also those who aren't, but
have not responded for different reasons

I drew a reasonable conclusion, you didn't like it. Its called an opinion and it has the potential to upset very sensitive people. As I have no military,economic or political power, my opinion is going to cause little harm to anyone.

Since when have you kept apologising? You expressed regret, but then so did the Japanese government over war crimes which means chuff all. If you want to apologise, say "sorry" which then puts the ball in my court to accept or not.

I said what I think. I have yet to implement my plans for using pow slave labour to build the long awaited portobello railway station, so the comparison with Japanese war criminals is a touch premature. I regret hurting anyones feelings, I do not require your approval to hold an opinion.

Denial of intent is no defence whatsoever as it cannot be proved or disproved.

I stated that I didn't want offend anyone, can't you take my word for it? Or is mendacity to be added to my list of failings?

As an internet expert I thought you would understand what happens if you don't keep things simple - that is, not only did your initial thread title not mention Blair or the legislation, but you provide a *link* only? So you lose a percentage of your readers right there. And nothing surrounding your link actually says what it's pointing to, just some attempt at toilet humour.

Somehere inside the preaching and obfuscation lies an important and noble sentiment. Keep it simple and don't insult your audience.

Matthew

I don't know where you get the expert bit, I started the thread in the way I wanted, It was a simple metaphor which expressed my feelings for the subject and illustrated its nature. Its unpleasant for the people that follow, not its creator.

I supplied a link to a site that set out the details very well, why repeat them?
Where's the preaching, where's the obfuscation? Nice of you to spot the noble sentiment, it lends your solemn drivel just the right amount of condescension.

However,I have much to thank you for,his thread has been a journey of self discovery, I now know I am:

Boring
Ignorant of the World wide internet
Insincere
Insulting to everyone
A sneaky editor

Most philosophers would look at these and call them ad hominem attacks.

If I'm dull, do you have to rub it in all the time.?We can't all be interesting.
If I don't know how to post, can't you just pity me?
If I'm insincere, why worry about what I say?
If I'm insulting, why stoop to my level?
If I correct a post, is that so wrong?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Mar 2006, 00:00

All this effort over me? You really shouldn't have bothered.

Weren't no effort.

Where is the forced justification? It doesn't parallel anything, let alone tyranny.
I ask something, general disinterest follows, I conclude people are not interested, I recall a quote which reflects my concerns. If you get the hump with those 4 lines, its sad but not a tragedy.

Everyone you pointed the finger at was guilty until proven innocent. You wrongly concluded that they were disinterested in the topic - overlooking that they might have been put off by your presentation of it.

So what is the beam in my eye?

Pre-judgement.

I said noone (apart from mr m) seemed interested, perfectly reasonable conclusion.

Even if so, still no excuse to point the finger.

there's nothing wrong with the sentence

subjective.

I have yet to implement my plans for using pow slave labour to build the long awaited portobello railway station, so the comparison with Japanese war criminals is a touch premature.

I'm not the one who started the "slaves" quotes.

I stated that I didn't want offend anyone, can't you take my word for it?

Next time, sure - but this horse has bolted.

Or is mendacity to be added to my list of failings?

Don't put words into my mouth. If I was going to make a direct accusation like that, I'd make sure I could prove it.

I supplied a link to a site that set out the details very well, why repeat them?

Where did you get the idea that the only option was to repeat them?

1) Research shows that you will lose a percentage of people every time they are forced to click.

2) This was your main pitch, where you could have told us what motivated you to post, why you were passionate about the inherent dangers etc etc - instead we get a one-liner about toilet humour and you expect us to do all the leg-work - and you blame the people who read your post?

Where's the preaching, where's the obfuscation? Nice of you to spot the noble sentiment, it lends your solemn drivel just the right amount of condescension.

I would say the preaching was the context of the "slaves" quote - that is, "these men" mapped onto "no one".

In my mind the title of the post, the construction of the solitary line in it and the presence of the link - none of which got to grips with the nuts and bolts of the legislation - constituted obfuscation where what was required was the exact opposite - you should have been explaining exactly what the legislation was and what that meant to you and us.

If I'm dull, do you have to rub it in all the time.?

"all the time" surely means more than once. When have I said this before?

If I don't know how to post, can't you just pity me?

It depends on how important the topic is.

If I'm insincere, why worry about what I say?

It depends on how important the topic is.

If I'm insulting, why stoop to my level?

I only insulted you. Your "slaves" quote was aimed at anyone who failed to answer your post. I wouldn't dare stoop to your level.

If I correct a post, is that so wrong?

Don't put words into my mouth. I explained why you shouldn't go back in time and re-work old posts - especially without telling anyone or making clear what the change was. Not only could someone be in the process of quoting your unedited text, it is patently unfair to expect them to check back constantly to make sure that it doesn't look like they have failed to respond to something that has been added afterwards.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 17 Mar 2006, 01:26

Again, you don't like my opinion, so what? We can't agree on everything. In your opinion I made a very bad post. I can live with that.
However, you didn't point it out when I posted. It has just been added, along with pre-judgement, to the ever increasing rag bag of misdeeds you charge me with.

I was curious if people were concerned about an issue, it seemed to me there was not a great deal of interest and I recalled Tiberius's wistful reflection on the the attitudes of his senate to a similar issue.

I asked a question and made a judgement after the replies, it's exactly like pre-judgement I suppose, except it happens afterwards.

Having specific insults hurled at me for the crime of having (in your rather overwrought interpretation) an unflattering opinion of an aspect of communal attitudes has been a very upsetting experience. While the psychological impact has been shattering, finding out just how awful I really am, the fact that I'm all growed up makes me confident I'll recover.

If my opinions upset the people you speak for, I'm sorry about that (and convey that to each and everyone of them), but thats free speech for you. Feel free to complain to the moderators about the hurt and anguish I have caused. I'll take my punishment. However, I don't see any reason to retract anything.

This will have to be my last post though, if you haven't convinced me of my wrong doing by now, it ain't going to happen.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Mar 2006, 08:25

xxxx wrote:Again, you don't like my opinion, so what? We can't agree on everything.

An ironic statement to make on an internet discussion forum.

In your opinion I made a very bad post. I can live with that.
However, you didn't point it out when I posted.

I agreed with you though, and was on your side until you decided to insult everyone. At that point, you changed my opinion of what my approach should be to your approach.

It has just been added, along with pre-judgement, to the ever increasing rag bag of misdeeds you charge me with.

Yup. J'accuse. I just tend to throw my darts at dart boards whereas you decided to gun for not just people who disagreed with you - but people who didn't agree enough!

I was curious if people were concerned about an issue, it seemed to me there was not a great deal of interest and I recalled Tiberius's wistful reflection on the the attitudes of his senate to a similar issue.

If I tried to sell something on Ebay and got no hits, I'd worry not only about the buyers but also about my ad. I'm not sure if I'd change the ad to be "so don't any of you apathetics want this then?"

I asked a question and made a judgement after the replies, it's exactly like pre-judgement I suppose, except it happens afterwards.

In absolute terms - you started it. So there.

Having specific insults hurled at me for the crime of having (in your rather overwrought interpretation) an unflattering opinion of an aspect of communal attitudes has been a very upsetting experience. While the psychological impact has been shattering, finding out just how awful I really am, the fact that I'm all growed up makes me confident I'll recover.

I'm laughing inwardly. Pointing out an unflattering aspect of communal attitudes with an insult will only serve to reinforce them.

If my opinions upset the people you speak for, I'm sorry about that (and convey that to each and everyone of them), but thats free speech for you. Feel free to complain to the moderators about the hurt and anguish I have caused. I'll take my punishment. However, I don't see any reason to retract anything.

Me too.

This will have to be my last post though, if you haven't convinced me of my wrong doing by now, it ain't going to happen.

Come back, Shane!

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 17 Mar 2006, 19:37

I'll try one last round up.
Your whole tirade has been based around a false accusation that I insulted everybody who didn't post a reply.

As I have consistently said, there was only one on topic reply originally. I concluded that there was not much interest in the matter.

As porty pointed out gemini posted on the matter earlier and received no replies.So my approach was a little more successful.

Which is the safer conclusion to draw from these responses?

that people aren't interested enough to post,
That people are interested but won't post,

The former gets my vote.

Is the potential for infringement of freedom increasedby the imposition of potentially unlimited power over a person?

Yes

Is it an insult to register my concerns against this heightened possibility?

No

As I could lose something I value due to others lack of interest, do I have the right to be hold a low opinion of their priorities? This is not like the working time directive, no opt outs with this legislation.

Yes - I become a potential slave with them, I am concerned to avoid this, but cannot do it alone. In this day and age slavery is seen as unjust and its victims are worthy of compassion. This is hardly an insult, it is an expression of fear and concern and a certain bafflement at their attitude.

Does my low opinion in any way impact on their ability or right to set their priorities?

Not at all

Is it wrong to express an opinion that might offend?

Not if you believe in free speech

Is it insulting to hold an opinion that might offend?

Not if you know the difference between the two.

There is a nuance of difference with the bill and the quote, the senate offered its power while our government seeks to impose it by stealth. Nevertheless, the situations have in common a lack of concern for liberty and the limitation of power.

There may be disapproval but there is no insult.

I try by and large to keep within the bounds of acceptable debate, barring the odd joke here and there. You do not feel so constrained, which is why it is impossible to win a debate, because we are not having a debate.

I keep repeating my position and you keep saying it is insulting and throwing in any old insult you feel like yourself, 'boring','obfuscatory'.,'subjective' etc so you definitely have no problems with insults when you're dishing them out

Because I used the word slaves, candidates for sympathy, I can be compared for some reason with a japanese war criminal, a stock caricature of evil.

I can only conclude there are two insult types in your scheme of things,the ones which you imagine I make,which are very very bad and the ones you actually make which are very very good.

I point out I don't pre judge and you say I do when I am merely making the most plausible inference from the lack of response

I don't claim to know what people think while You claim to know there are insulted people. You can't have taken offense, as you disagree with the bill, so who else? why have they not reported me to the moderators? How do they convey their hurt to you? Why have they not conveyed their hurt to me?

You tell me I should keep it simple when my entire on topic posting was about 4 lines, how simple and straightforward can you get?

As my post was so poor in your belated opinion, how could I garner enough attention to effectively insult all these people anyway?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Mar 2006, 20:06

xxxx wrote: tirade

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Mar 2006, 20:41

Because I used the word slaves, candidates for sympathy, I can be compared for some reason with a japanese war criminal, a stock caricature of evil.

Here's what happened.

1. You expressed regret for something or other.

2. You said that you had apologised, which to my mind means actually saying the word "sorry".

3. I pointed out that the Japanese government similarly expressed regret whilst not actually saying "sorry".

I did not compare you to a Japanese war criminal. I compared you to a late 20th century government which used careful language (presumably to try and solve an existing problem without causing a new one, as in recent times a Mayor who dared to say "I believe the Emperor had a war responsibility" was assasinated by ultra-nationalists). My comparison was to do with the difference between the expression of regret and actually apologising, and nothing to do with war crime itself.

Nor was it because of the first instance of your use of the word "slaves". That reference was pointed at the second time you used the word, when you attempted some sort of humour in relation to the Portobello railway station. You have made that connection yourself - when I compared you to the Japanese government, the only thing I was pointing out was the fact that you had not apologised but merely expressed regret.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

I know he has some fans here...

I know he has some fans here...

\

Re: \