bez 0 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Good point. Given the ignorant comments on here I dont share your optimism though.As ever it becomes less of debate and more of a 'i want to win' argument for bairns on half term. It is disappointing that people feel the need to trivialise the issue simply because they cant understand it. That is what propogates the problem and gives it life. 49404[/snapback] The mind boggles. 49409[/snapback] So basically, given you've referred to people as 'side lights' bez, you're trivialsing the issue and, hence, propogating the problem? 49411[/snapback] Well done Alex. Your ignorance has trivialised a decent debate. I worry for people like you. I worry that you have so little to say of relevance. Enjoy half-term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 I have little problem with you. More with the attitude that trivialises it. There are plenty of examples. This issue was one i raised as a reminder of KROF day. Bairns like sima and Alex arent bright or mature enough. You might be. Bruner would help you get the picture though. I can post you a copy if you wish. Racism is one strike and out. There are plenty of example in N-Os history where that hasnt been the case and some very odd examples of people on here going well overboard and probably saying something just a shade away from criminal. I am absolutely certain (as are my colleagues) that in 3 years time Albert Kirkleys comments will be criminal in context. 49410[/snapback] I feel privileged, honestly. The irony of you callling others bairns on this issue! If Bruner is a one strike and out kind of guy I doubt I'd have much time for him, I'm not really down with the totalitarian posse, ooh, racist, shame. The idea that I trivialise racism? Another pathetic misconception by yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 (edited) 16 letters eh? Are they "A sycophantic cunt"? Edited October 25, 2005 by Sima Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Good point. Given the ignorant comments on here I dont share your optimism though.As ever it becomes less of debate and more of a 'i want to win' argument for bairns on half term. It is disappointing that people feel the need to trivialise the issue simply because they cant understand it. That is what propogates the problem and gives it life. 49404[/snapback] The mind boggles. 49409[/snapback] Assuming the people here had one. Apologies for grammar and typing. Wasnt aware it was it a test. As for 1sr year sociology? Nope 16 letters after name so far. More to come in December. Yourself? 49412[/snapback] I've got 11 letters in my name, first time I've ever checked that, had to use my fingers and all! How do you feel about Pirzig's arguments on the Church of Reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Good point. Given the ignorant comments on here I dont share your optimism though.As ever it becomes less of debate and more of a 'i want to win' argument for bairns on half term. It is disappointing that people feel the need to trivialise the issue simply because they cant understand it. That is what propogates the problem and gives it life. 49404[/snapback] The mind boggles. 49409[/snapback] So basically, given you've referred to people as 'side lights' bez, you're trivialsing the issue and, hence, propogating the problem? 49411[/snapback] Well done Alex. Your ignorance has trivialised a decent debate. I worry for people like you. I worry that you have so little to say of relevance. Enjoy half-term. 49413[/snapback] I may be wrong but I believe you started the name calling. What is writing off the views of people who don't agree with you as school kids if it isn't trivialising the debate? You may well be an academic and you come across as a clever person but that doesn't necessarily make you right. The funny thing is, nobody defended the comments about Jenas, just some people didn't think they were necessarily racist. You disagreed, which is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Where's Asprilla's Foreskin anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bez 0 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 I have little problem with you. More with the attitude that trivialises it. There are plenty of examples. This issue was one i raised as a reminder of KROF day. Bairns like sima and Alex arent bright or mature enough. You might be. Bruner would help you get the picture though. I can post you a copy if you wish. Racism is one strike and out. There are plenty of example in N-Os history where that hasnt been the case and some very odd examples of people on here going well overboard and probably saying something just a shade away from criminal. I am absolutely certain (as are my colleagues) that in 3 years time Albert Kirkleys comments will be criminal in context. 49410[/snapback] I feel privileged, honestly. The irony of you callling others bairns on this issue! If Bruner is a one strike and out kind of guy I doubt I'd have much time for him, I'm not really down with the totalitarian posse, ooh, racist, shame. The idea that I trivialise racism? Another pathetic misconception by yourself. 49414[/snapback] Bruner isn't. The irony is that you assume he is. Read up on it. You might learn something. He talks of culture and it's place and importance in modern society. Sadly, there are examples of you trivialising this issue. You commented on one yourself. As for misconception? Well, tell me how well qualified you are to tell me I'm a 1st year sociology student. Plenty of irony from you Dotbum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bez 0 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 (edited) Good point. Given the ignorant comments on here I dont share your optimism though.As ever it becomes less of debate and more of a 'i want to win' argument for bairns on half term. It is disappointing that people feel the need to trivialise the issue simply because they cant understand it. That is what propogates the problem and gives it life. 49404[/snapback] The mind boggles. 49409[/snapback] So basically, given you've referred to people as 'side lights' bez, you're trivialsing the issue and, hence, propogating the problem? 49411[/snapback] Well done Alex. Your ignorance has trivialised a decent debate. I worry for people like you. I worry that you have so little to say of relevance. Enjoy half-term. 49413[/snapback] I may be wrong but I believe you started the name calling. What is writing off the views of people who don't agree with you as school kids if it isn't trivialising the debate? You may well be an academic and you come across as a clever person but that doesn't necessarily make you right. The funny thing is, nobody defended the comments about Jenas, just some people didn't think they were necessarily racist. You disagreed, which is fine. 49419[/snapback] You have lost track. In fact I responded to your trivilisation alex. The name calling? Look back and see where it starts. You will be surprised. Nb: If this opens anyones eyes to the issue rather than descending into childish behaviour then its worth it. There are more racist issues here (supporting NUFC) than people are aware of. In a few years time some of what is written will look deplorable. That it isnt evident to some now doesnt mean it doesnt exist. That is the point and I will argue that for now and remind you of it sometime. Edited October 25, 2005 by bez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Assuming the people here had one. Apologies for grammar and typing. Wasnt aware it was it a test. As for 1sr year sociology? Nope 16 letters after name so far. More to come in December. Yourself? 49412[/snapback] 16 letters? daf_fu_kingsh_te so if you have 16 letters after your name then you must have started university a lot earlier than anyone else because by my calculations you are 20. Now normal people start higher ed at the age of 18 and it takes 4 years or so. I applaud you my friend because you are either a very early starter or more likely attempting to make yourself look better than everyone else by making up pure bollocks to look academicacacal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 16 letters eh? Are they "A sycophantic cunt"? 49416[/snapback] I call Beckham a "bling tosser" plenty of times. Could someone clarify if the word "tosser" makes it racist please, I've lost my racial equality dictionary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 (edited) Bruner isn't. The irony is that you assume he is. Read up on it. You might learn something. He talks of culture and it's place and importance in modern society. Sadly, there are examples of you trivialising this issue. You commented on one yourself. As for misconception? Well, tell me how well qualified you are to tell me I'm a 1st year sociology student. Plenty of irony from you Dotbum. Let me try and make this simple for you. If Bruner is a one strike and out kind of guy I doubt I'd have much time for him. That's a conditional, I assumed nothing. "Bruner would help you get the picture though. I can post you a copy if you wish. Racism is one strike and out." The positioning of those comments, from talking about the author to a totalitarian ideal, led me to believe you were referring to his beliefs. See how that works? If you walk into every situation assuming you're already ahead of the game, when exactly do you learn anything new? As you've already recommended Bruner to me and then suggested I should read it as I might learn something, several minutes later. Am I supposed to have read it by now? How do you think that anyone of even average intelligence is going to see that as anything other than a cheap wind-up? Usually reserved for the ickle kiddies and holidays, Professor. Edited October 25, 2005 by DotBum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Good point. Given the ignorant comments on here I dont share your optimism though.As ever it becomes less of debate and more of a 'i want to win' argument for bairns on half term. It is disappointing that people feel the need to trivialise the issue simply because they cant understand it. That is what propogates the problem and gives it life. 49404[/snapback] The mind boggles. 49409[/snapback] So basically, given you've referred to people as 'side lights' bez, you're trivialsing the issue and, hence, propogating the problem? 49411[/snapback] Well done Alex. Your ignorance has trivialised a decent debate. I worry for people like you. I worry that you have so little to say of relevance. Enjoy half-term. 49413[/snapback] I may be wrong but I believe you started the name calling. What is writing off the views of people who don't agree with you as school kids if it isn't trivialising the debate? You may well be an academic and you come across as a clever person but that doesn't necessarily make you right. The funny thing is, nobody defended the comments about Jenas, just some people didn't think they were necessarily racist. You disagreed, which is fine. 49419[/snapback] You have lost track. In fact I responded to your trivilisation alex. The name calling? Look back and see where it starts. You will be surprised. 49422[/snapback] I don't really care, I think people may have trivialised the argument on the basis it was very boring and repetitive I know that's why I did. No doubt that makes me a racist in your eyes but like most people in academia being clever doesn't necessarily give you any grip on the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bez 0 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Let me try and make this simple for you. If Bruner is a one strike and out kind of guy I doubt I'd have much time for him. That's a conditional, I assumed nothing. "Bruner would help you get the picture though. I can post you a copy if you wish. Racism is one strike and out." The positioning of those comments, from talking about the author to a totalitarian ideal, led me to believe you were referring to his beliefs. See how that works? If you walk into every situation assuming you're already ahead of the game, when exactly do you learn anything new? 49426[/snapback] This isnt a game to win. Stop acting like a child. You have trivialised enough. That is the issue. The cropping of your post does indeed make you look less of a tit but if that makes you happy then fair enough. i am flattered by your assumption of my age peasepud. Incorrect but that seems to be par for the course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 I'll tell you what Bez, I'm pleased this is the sort of thing that goes on in Universities in this country, discussions about the rights and wrongs of whether 'bling' is racist or not. Meanwhile, the only black people working there 99 times out of 100 are the fucking cleaners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 This isnt a game to win. Stop acting like a child. You have trivialised enough. That is the issue.The cropping of your post does indeed make you look less of a tit but if that makes you happy then fair enough. i am flattered by your assumption of my age peasepud. Incorrect but that seems to be par for the course. 49429[/snapback] That entire post is made up of childish name-calling and no value, I'll give this one more go. You've failed to answer questions about Pirzig and a few others since that post. Read them, answer them reasonably, without resorting to name-calling. Or I'm done here. How does someone with 16 letters after his name feel so inferior? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bez 0 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 I'll tell you what Bez, I'm pleased this is the sort of thing that goes on in Universities in this country, discussions about the rights and wrongs of whether 'bling' is racist or not. Meanwhile, the only black people working there 99 times out of 100 are the fucking cleaners. 49430[/snapback] That could, of course, be one and the same problem. Incorrect though. Academia isn't any better than anywhere else with regard to racism. It does note the problems though and takes an interest in what is happening at present. It is aware of what is right and what is wrong. What can lead to where. What is derived from what and why. That allows progress. Funnily enough the same sort of thing happened in the last 50 years and we have progressed as a result. Now isnt the time to stop. For your information. 'Bling' is NOT racist on its own. However, the choice of terminology and context combined do lead to problems. Hence the comments regarding David 'bling' Beckham being very different to Jermaine 'bling bastard i hope you die' Jenas. It's use becomes slightly worse when we note that similar terms are used for NUFC's black players but the white ones avoid it. We havent had Craig 'bling (in its OED sense) bastard' Bellamy for instance. That it is condoned on both forums tells you all you need to know about the age of those running them. Enjoy your evening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bez 0 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 (edited) Good point. Given the ignorant comments on here I dont share your optimism though.As ever it becomes less of debate and more of a 'i want to win' argument for bairns on half term. It is disappointing that people feel the need to trivialise the issue simply because they cant understand it. That is what propogates the problem and gives it life. 49404[/snapback] The mind boggles. 49409[/snapback] Assuming the people here had one. Apologies for grammar and typing. Wasnt aware it was it a test. As for 1sr year sociology? Nope 16 letters after name so far. More to come in December. Yourself? 49412[/snapback] I've got 11 letters in my name, first time I've ever checked that, had to use my fingers and all! How do you feel about Pirzig's arguments on the Church of Reason? 49417[/snapback] It's Pirsig. Not Pirzig I said after name . Not in it. Edited October 25, 2005 by bez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 It's Pirsig.Not Pirzig 49439[/snapback] Yes it is, I'm interested in why it took you so long to say that. Google is our friend, hey, AF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bez 0 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 It's Pirsig.Not Pirzig 49439[/snapback] Yes it is, I'm interested in why it took you so long to say that. Google is our friend, hey, AF? 49440[/snapback] I didnt see it? You commented on it. I replied. Everyone can mis-spell so I won't go down your purile route. Pirsig's work is flawed but interesting in the manner its constructed. Do you want me to explain it to you? With your razor sharp mind and wit you will go far. So how many words AFTER your name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 This isnt a game to win. Stop acting like a child. You have trivialised enough. That is the issue.The cropping of your post does indeed make you look less of a tit but if that makes you happy then fair enough. i am flattered by your assumption of my age peasepud. Incorrect but that seems to be par for the course. 49429[/snapback] Ahh apologies I just assumed that someone of a more advanced aged and intellect wouldnt lie about their age on their main logon account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bez 0 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 This isnt a game to win. Stop acting like a child. You have trivialised enough. That is the issue.The cropping of your post does indeed make you look less of a tit but if that makes you happy then fair enough. i am flattered by your assumption of my age peasepud. Incorrect but that seems to be par for the course. 49429[/snapback] Ahh apologies I just assumed that someone of a more advanced aged and intellect wouldnt lie about their age on their main logon account. 49445[/snapback] My apologies for hitting random numbers when making accounts. anything else? Do you always fill in junk accurately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Where have I been puerile? You're the one who's picked up on my spelling error, and avoided the question: "How do you feel about Pirzig's argument on the church of reason." "Pirsig's work is flawed but interesting in the manner its constructed." Who's supposed to believe that's not waffle, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Ahh apologies I just assumed that someone of a more advanced aged and intellect wouldnt lie about their age on their main logon account. 49445[/snapback] IP check throw up anything of interest? Some sort of name and shame section whould be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bez 0 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Where have I been puerile? You're the one who's picked up on my spelling error, and avoided the question: "How do you feel about Pirzig's argument on the church of reason." "Pirsig's work is flawed but interesting in the manner its constructed." Who's supposed to believe that's not waffle, exactly? 49448[/snapback] Very quickly, If you look at the construction of his own reality then consider the issues relating to quality within that reality then I think his error in assuming we don't have that quality withing our own reality. Too much empirical evidence is used. Its a theory. Flawed though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bez 0 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Ahh apologies I just assumed that someone of a more advanced aged and intellect wouldnt lie about their age on their main logon account. 49445[/snapback] IP check throw up anything of interest? Some sort of name and shame section whould be nice. 49450[/snapback] Heavens. Am I of that much interest to you? Lordy. You know how to have a good time don't you. So, letters AFTER name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now