In the beginning
To say that this blog was only a by-product of an attempt to lodge a perfectly respectful comment to a raving conservative's opinions, is in fact, entirely correct. We shall just have to live with the consequences.
Being a web log comments from readers should be encouraged. Why one would want to comment on this posting however is moot.
The intention is to convey ideas, provoke debate, provide a forum for discussion and irritate people and institutions that deserve to be so disturbed, always with a view to reform and advancement of ourselves, our society, our state, and our world. Kia ora.
posted by Bomber @ 8:44 am
9 comments
9 Comments:
Testing.
The "conservative" blog was Sir Humphery's and it all ended in tears.
After an abusive, idiotic rant by AL and my (in comparison) measured and analytical response, this:
Adolf Fiinkensein said...
I really can't be bothered.
Antarctic Lemur said...
No, neither can I.
t selwyn said...
As the uncomfortable silence descends the guest realises that some things just aren't spoken about in the hosts' company as it contradicts the secure tedium of their shared prejudices. With slight embarrassment, a measure of dissappointment and pity, the guest now akwardly makes his exit having upset an otherwise jolly evening of chums slapping each other on the back. The guest should have realised his terrible faux pas was ignoring the original exclusion. Good day.
Sir Humphrey's doesn't seem to be interested in different viewpoints. Especially if they perceive you as a "leftie".
If I'm a leftie I'd hate to know what a right winger is supposed to be (such as themselves). I certainly hope to aim higher than an apoplectically frothing, infantile, reactionary prone to belts of group cyber-masturbation. Well, at least, just not the infantile bit.
Timothy, I would look forward to reading your revolutionary musings. You most certainly aren't a leftie. Perhaps a liberatarian nationalist? Is there such a thing?
There is now.
Response to AL:
Oh, you're afraid of the bogey man now as well! He's scary, he hurts Iraqis.... He would not even be a basis of conversation were it not for our American friends. [ie. invading Iraq]. Here's another comparison: Would you believe everything the Nazi occupiers of Poland wrote in their newsletters? -Like the US bloggers in Iraq you trust? I have spoken to Americans in Iraq (on telephone) and I take that into consideration when evaluating what they say.
What part do you find offensive about the Dr Evil comparison?: Fictionality or Hollwyood movie? I have backed up the stance with my analysis. If those photos on the computer are true (though I doubt it) they will appear shortly because the one thing the US would want is his pictures on every lamppost in the country. I'm sure you will put them on your site ASAP and I will have to pretend I have not been humiliated.
The odiousness of the comparisons are relative to the positions taken on the issues. We'll have to disagree about that? I'm aiming for accurate and amusing epithets rather than one-dimensional ones such as "Radio Left Wing."
I have also compared George Bush with the Beeblebrox character on the Hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy. I'll stand by that one as well.
"Vulgar little comment": It was neither little or particularly vulgar (unless you misconstrued cyber-masturbation with the actual, physical act.... I can't believe I'm having to expain this). I was being self-depricating for heaven's sake that is why the only real criticism I have of you is the infantile part. That stems from your sugar-deficit-induced invective based on very little information. Your point 9, above, must apply to yourself as well.
The style sets the level of discourse and, thanks to you, I have learnt a lesson about conducting discourse in different fora. That is why I would never put such vulgar comments on your site as I know that you will find them offensive and while not a form of hate speech against America, is nonetheless provacative in sensitive company. Not to say that you are guilty of any of your media bias index points - people should have their own standards and enforce then stringently, as is their right and duty.
Tim, wasn't it you who threw an axe through the Prime Minister's window? Do you REALLY think any of your rantings are going to get one iota of respect now that your violent persona has been displayed to the country?
Looks like anonymous has found Google.
I have been charged with meaning what I say.
My lawyers would say take your comment off, but I'll let it remain.
The Court settles these sorts of accusations in this country. Whilst they are in the throws of so doing it is customary not to engage in public debate on the matters before it.
But I will say this:
I respect people who who are prepared to jeopardise their own liberty so that someone else may have their's. I respect people who are prepared to make a stand, engage in self-defence and resistance against injustice for which there is no other immediate remedy and whose actions are proportionate to the situation. Respect for opinions and repect for the person who happens to utter them are two different things. Violent personas are routinely sanctified by the Crown as well as by society in general - so long as they were acting under colour of right whether they are absolved by history or not.
Post a Comment
<< Home