Hard News: Still crazy after all these years
516 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 21 Newer→ Last
-
some positive actions and interfaces to occur at that point
The pro-choice movement should adopt this language to liberalise laws. The pro-lifers won’t even know what’s going on.
-
The pro-choice movement should adopt this language to liberalise laws. The pro-lifers won’t even know what’s going on.
This is what I was trying to get at yesterday with the paradox clause. Was it just me, or were there KB exponents suggesting Eugenics was somehow justifiable, but abortion wasn’t?
Oh, that’s right, Darwinian law would presume that in this utopian world only ‘worthy people’ would be giving birth, which would make the unborn children sacred.
It also relates to the fact that both eugenics and pro-lifers are inclined to take the freedom to choose away from the individual, as Sacha alluded to some time back.
Happy daze…
-
I’m happy with the way Emma has dealt with this.
Robbie, I do think Islander missed your irony there, but the way to respond to someone misunderstanding you is not to start issuing threats and escalating it.
-
Personally, I’d rather the State was not positively interfacing with anyone’s reproductive organs without obeying the third date rule.
-
Personally, I’d rather the State was not positively interfacing with anyone’s reproductive organs without obeying the third date rule.
Informed consent?
-
not to start issuing threats and escalating it.
Fair enough, but please could you remove reference to the other pseudonyms to say…
As in, wont ever respond to any of your posts again.
Those alter egos were and are created for specific intents not relevent to this site anymore.
-
Those alter egos were and are created for specific intents not relevent to this site anymore.
I see.
-
I see.
It’s much like the et al project. Only without the art.
-
Anyone else just a little bit confused by now?
-
Anyone else just a little bit confused by now?
Nah… I’ve started dividing the world into “confusing shit I’ve got to deal with” and “confusing shit I can safely ignore”. Robbie’s ongoing performance art project is very much in the latter file.
Remember: Compartmentalisation is your friend.
-
Wait, have I unwittingly become part of a social experiment? Don’t we get tea and biscuits?
-
Wait, have I unwittingly become part of a social experiment? Don’t we get tea and biscuits?
Tea and bikkies are conspicuous by their absence really.
Must be a social experiment that we’re not meant to know about. They’re the scary ones.
-
Anyone else just a little bit confused by now?
I admit, I’m struggling with it.
-
Personally, I’d rather the State was not positively interfacing with anyone’s reproductive organs without obeying the third date rule.
…
Informed consent?No, buying you at least two drinks first.
-
No, buying you at least two drinks first.
A nice fish dinner and dancing afterwards, even…
-
A nice fish dinner and dancing afterwards, even…
It would only be a first date. Dancing maybe, but fish?
-
Dancing maybe, but fish?
It’s Friday, man.
-
Ah, no dancing then. Whoops.
-
Ah, no dancing then. Whoops.
Catholic, darling. As long as there’s no stripper poles involved, I’m yours as soon as we hit Eastertide.
-
Hey Russell, If you’re going to police the right to privacy in using a pseudonym then apply the rule of law fairly. Islander called me on some alter ego shit and made it personal, i responded by posting her real name. If you’re going to remove one then remove the other or force her to own her insults and use her real name.
-
You used both of these handles on this forum, though, right? I’m not sure that making such connections is a breach of etiquette. Others may correct me on this.
-
Hmmm.
On teh interwebs everyone can hear you scream.And toes by any other name will still be chomped by the piranhas.
And on another point and perhaps another thread, I lose track sometimes.
When I bump into a celebrity I always smile and say hello and relish the feeling that all day they will wonder whether they should have remembered me. -
I’m not sure that making such connections is a breach of etiquette
If someone appears under several successive handles, others will quite naturally form impressions about the reliability, courage and integrity of their utterances. By now I have no confidence that our stoushy friend is indeed named “Robbie Siataga”, and nor do I care. But having previous fake handles outed after abandoning them hardly seems outrageous to me.
The personal blog ‘Robbie’ previously linked to (which matched a pseudonym used here and elsewhere) was much more reasonable in tone than the try-hard sneering we’ve been subjected to. In my book that’s bad faith and it seldom contributes to a good discussion.
I also believe Islander’s rather intemperate response was not up to her usual standards. I’m grateful Emma and Russell are looking out for us and I respect anyone with standing here reminding me if my own behaviour is out of line.
-
Catholic, darling.
Yes, I married one. [Too much information]
In your honours honour we had deep fried Snapper in chilli for dinner. Cheers.
And I’m stuck with this for my 500th post. Meh!
-
I’m not sure that making such connections is a breach of etiquette. Others may correct me on this.
It’s an interesting question. A pretty minor breach to connect one pseudonym to another, not really in the league of connecting a pseudonym to an actual name, particularly when that name is rather famous. Also, Islander has many years invested in her pseudonym, compared to a couple of weeks.
I distinctly remember her outing myself (there may have been other occasions), at the hands of one C Ranapia. IIRC, I’d never have even noticed it, if Islander hadn’t made quite a fuss about it, for which Craig humbly apologized. Until then, I had actually thought that she was a he, and also a Pacific Islander. Silly me.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.