Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: BBC IPlayer waste of money

  1. #11
    Super Moderator eatmywords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kingston upon Hull
    Posts
    2,474

    Default

    Rook, I'm quoting what the BBC said to me.

    You are not challenging you are attacking, and again you are just going over and over the same pedantic points that it becomes tiresome and boring to respond to.
    Faced with certain disaster, defiance is the only answer.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    Rook, I'm quoting what the BBC said to me.

    You are not challenging you are attacking, and again you are just going over and over the same pedantic points that it becomes tiresome and boring to respond to.
    Stop being so sensitive. You said something I did not understand so I asked what you meant. Your explaination made little sense, so I corrected you and explained the error in your thinking. No doubt you believe you were ATTACKED in Uni as well . . . you need to learn to deal with being critcised and challenged

  3. #13
    Super Moderator eatmywords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kingston upon Hull
    Posts
    2,474

    Default

    It's not being sensitive, although I do have good grounds for being so lately. And what's this response based on, the last three topics you have demanded me respond to? "Wtf do you mean by that??", "idiotic ramblings", "*Sigh. If you have no source and you pulled the figure from your arse". If you pile this on top of the stream of diatribe from Northumbrian, and now the magically appearing "Red", then indeed I could well be feeling tetchy whenever I am forced to read their irrational diatribes; I will at least say Rook your posts do at least have semblance of reason, if only egregiously put forward; nonetheless I still have to read them all and in most cases I skim read whenever a topic seems to be stable and flowing in a reasonable and affable manner. I believe I was being attacked for not responding to people's questions some weeks back, and now I'm being attacked for responding to people's questions. I have my style Rook, as you do yours, and perhaps we should say never the twain shall meet

    I can deal with a lot Rook, but you know nothing about me, or what is going on in my life. I come here to have fun, but over the last few months I've been defending my opinions against personal attacks and ridiculous irrational responses, of which I'm more than up for the challenge. If people really have to descend to such tactics then they must realise the debating has stopped and what is then going on is something perverted and probably doing more harm than good to this site; in the way other people perceive what is going on here then I'm sure we will only attract similar-minded people rather than the more rational and reasonable. Therefore I am more than willing to raise the moderator hat to help Will in defending his site, but I'm doing my best to avoid this and uphold free speech. However, I'm starting to consider free-speech should not be given free-reign, because as Lenin said, "Freedom? For whom? And to do what?" And we are starting to see the "to do what" in action. I am more than capable to remove my personal opinions from this site and continue solely in a moderating capacity if people are unwilling to confine their attacks solely to the post and not the poster; and that includes me before Northumbrian and/or "Red" jump all over another one of my statements. However, I really do think you need to look over our opinions and to consider who is actually being explicit in their attacks and who is actually being objective and/or subtle in their own responses. I hate teachers. I like men who rape children. My lifestyle is conducive to raping children. I support terrorists. I don't answer questions. I don't answer questions the right way. If I go into certain pubs in Britain and air my opinion I would most likely not come out of them alive. I'm wrong, I'm not right enough. I should condemn when told. I should not support when told. I should deny the indefensible, even though they are innocent until proved guilty. I should not support the guilty unless proved innocent. My education is woeful, my university is woeful, my tutors are woeful, and scum. And now I'm demanded to reveal personal information, and for not revealing it I'm being ridiculed. And what in reply? Paedophillia seems to be developing in the teaching profession on a par with the Catholic Church. Secondary teachers are nothing more than rote learners. Based upon the overwhelming amount of racially motivated posts, it could be implied that poster is consumed with race on an irrational level.

    It is certainly permissible to state I am wrong, but to enter into a frenzy of demanding people recant, retract or revise serves no purpose, and a more rational response would be to point out to the member they are wrong, and the actual fact is such-and-such. And in some cases I really may not respond or even thank-you for your interjection. I would think it necessary to just add the point of view rather than embark and a puerile journey to arrive at destination far later than necessary. I tend to avoid circumstantial facts, as in History the selection, or omission, of facts are critical in establishing the objective point of departure. A person is free to therefore manipulate or misrepresent the facts in whatever capacity, if only the substance of the argument is nonetheless valid/stable; the sun will rise tomorrow because it rose today and yesterday. This is why objectivity is considered no less dangerous than moral or ideological history. There was a Jewish historian (Abraham I think his name was) who got into remarkable trouble over the mass of facts he put into his work on Nazi economic history. It was not so much the substance of his work that were called into doubt, but the validity of his facts and figures; such as the amount of iron production, or the distribution of coal through the Nazi empire. Because of the distinct lack of Nazi documentation, it would have been impossible to reasonably state what these measures were at any point in time; such as there was very little auditing oversight in the concentration camps. An interesting question was therefore raised, if the substance of the work is plausible, but the facts inaccurate or unstable, then is the body of history still valid? I think this equally applies to David Irving. It's not so much his facts that are called into question (in his books) but in the narrative he surrounds his facts by. In many cases his histories read like novels, and Hitler's War is a particularly dynamic and engrossing read, as Hitler, his generals and adjuncts all come alive in the text. However, there is no way Irving could know what was going on in the Wolf's Den in 1942-3 in such detail, and across so many days (such as a very intimate discussion between Hitler and Schaub, or the mannerisms of Monke when being told of Hitler's final plans in 1945. Nonetheless you are convinced this is living history.

    I cannot accept Northumbrian actually believed I would go out and purchase alcohol and cigarettes for young children, but unless he is being remarkably sarcastic, then I can only conclude he is taking my words literally to substantiate a remarkably dense and vacuous point of criticism; I did actually put that sentence in as I knew he would respond to it. I find he is a remarkably easy person to provoke and I'm sure he would like to think the same of me, but I can assure you, I only seek people to be rational and understand everyone's point of view regardless of how unpleasant or in contradiction to their own. Last year we had a serious problem with Caradoc, and I, whether in wisdom or error, permitted him many chances to promote his racist agenda if only he would refrain from making personal and hateful replies. I am more than willing to accept and appreciate such points of view, but when they become hateful or repugnant then I would always seek to censure or prevent those views from infecting the site. This is why I am accepting all the personal attacks, because I can more than deal with it, but for people to carry this on over months now is showing those people up to be hateful, ridiculous, and wholly irrational, and in some ways they should not be allowed to debate in such places as this, or even have a public platform under any circumstances. The same could be said of me, but I sure you cannot find anywhere previously, even with Caradoc, where I have had to respond in such a manner.

    I think therefore you should seek to read around much of what I say in the aim to find out exactly what I'm saying. Rather than holism, which I deplore, structuralism is a much more interesting concept; inside-out instead of outside-in. If you would like to assist in helping me say exactly what I want to say then I would be very grateful, as I'm sure anyone would. But if we must play in no-man's land, then I will certainly never surrender, nor give quarter when reading, critically, your posts.

    Therefore, again, can we start to focus on the posts and not the person. I can more than willingly permit all that has gone before as a rash of summer-madness and to just move things along. In contrast I can keep this going if it doesn't stop. However in the interest of the site, and Will's generosity in providing this site for all of us to contribute, I will instead seek to protect his interests rather than my own.
    Last edited by eatmywords; 07-12-2013 at 12:16 PM.
    Faced with certain disaster, defiance is the only answer.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Wow. All I have done, is attempt to debate with you the things you say and to pull you up when you so blatantly avoid countering the points a poster took the time and effort to make. Why is that so wrong? That is the nature of debate - to counter (or "attack" in your overdramatic parlance) the views of others. You keep referring to the actions of Northumbrian, but what has that got to do with me? You keep referring to you wanting "rational and reasonable" debate, but that is not entirely true is it? A rational and reasonable debate involves providing sources for your claims (which you are reluctant to do) and it involves countering (or at least addressing) the points others make (which again, you are extremely reluctant to do - hiding behind an arrogant "this-is-my-posting-style-deal-with-it" line as though that is in any way valid). It isn't valid. It's a cop out. A way for you to sit in isolation with your views and avoid having them challenged in any meaningful way

  5. #15
    Super Moderator eatmywords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kingston upon Hull
    Posts
    2,474

    Default

    I'm not comparing, just expressing the situation at the moment, and how that will influence me and my actions on this site. I'm sure cacoethes carpendi is appealing in many instances by trying to find fault in other people's posts, and indeed I succumb to that method sometimes too. I can often go into sarcastic overload, or use some other literary trope like farce, but ultimately they all result in the same thing; a desire to challenge or substantiate another person's comment/s.

    I did use your method in university when close reading English. I would read the page while taking scrupulous notes on any and every aspect that could arise in the text. However, the amount of extra reading time this would place upon me was extremely burdensome, and ultimately I would end up with a lot of extraneous information; if I were writing a number of essays on that text then it would ultimately prove fruitful over the three years. However, what you see as important in a topic may not necessarily be what I consider important in a topic. I will admit I did overlook your initial post on this topic, but I am so focused on checking other people's comments for a failure to adhere to the site's standards, particularly recently, then I'm more concerned with protecting the site than seeking to enjoy myself and respond to a topic that takes my interest; and besides, most times I'm clicking a link in Outlook that directs me straight to the latest post. But consider how you define the reason for posting: "countering". You therefore see a post as something to be challenged before you find something to find agreement with. You are waiting for a punch to be thrown before you throw one back (that is what held me back in boxing, as I could not throw the first punch, and sometimes this is all that was necessary). If we consider Red's latest post I find his view ultimately sexist, and his response is exactly what I expected. I would imagine if a woman had replied then his tone and language would have been extremely different; although I imagine his structural opinion would remain the same; sexist. Therefore, yes, that post should have been challenged, but to make an issue of it is a moot point, but I'm not going to censure you for responding in such a manner, but don't be surprised if like is returned with like.

    However, in this post I agree with Will in substance, but not wholly on his views. In most ways I usually focus on the title of the post before the body of the argument. I will therefore look for aspects of the post to either support or deny what I find appealing or unappealing. If I'm in support of the post I will probably disregard anything I do not support in the topic, and perhaps use other people's replies to substantiate what I am trying to say; essentially the method of objectivity. And finally I do usually apply sources and facts if I consider them necessary, but we are not defining acts and laws on the site, so I will not break a sweat to advocate a post if it is not explicitly necessary; and if I use another site's quote, or use their material, I will always reference the site. I would like to promote any site in the least for providing material that advances my opinion; and that is ultimately what the use of quotes are for. But in some cases it is not practical to apply a source if there is downloading involved or it is from my own library. Although I still consider how I reference my sources and provide links to my claims is still about 97% better than Northumbrian's; who once told me to find the article myself (about George Galloway stating Muslims should murder British troops). I would imagine if this were how university tutors reacted, then it would take about ten-times as long to mark a single essay. From this you can tell Northumbrian has his own style of "debating" in contrast to any one of us. I enjoy everyone's opinion without prejudice so long as they themselves do not display any prejudice.

    And really I don't want to respond to every line of someone's post. I look at the reply and consider what I think is important about the response. In some cases it can be quite syllogistic to argue in such ways, in that you make responses to point a, b and c, but come to a completely contradictory conclusion based on what you have stated in point a, b and/or c.. Such as if the age of consent is 12 years old, and parents give permission for their 12 year olds to have sex, then all 12 years olds must be having sex; which is clearly not true. And this is what Northumbrian and Red have been doing with regard my posts; unless you consider my reasoning the cause of girls entering prostitution comes in isolation and without any reason for their doing so whatsoever. Nothing happens in isolation, but just because you take sympathy with a teacher who has sex with a pupil doesn't necessarily mean you are supporting what he did. There is developing in some places attacks on what people think, no countering, no reasoning, just blatant attacks on character, and this refers back to what I was saying about the similarities to the methods of the Gestapo.

    I think the nature of debate, in the classic sense is to use rhetoric and other similar linguistic styles and devices to promote what you have to say. But there should not be any penalising for not using clever devices or linguistic theories. I suppose attacking is a valid option, but if the person is not skilled in such ways, or have the constitution, then it will clearly be a one-sided debate and will move things towards trolling and bullying; whereupon a moderator should intervene. Like I said, you have a certain style, but in some ways it will undoubtedly clash with other people. Whereas I will just focus in on a few statements in a post, you and few others will address the entire post. In most cases I do not consider the whole post relevant to my overall opinion. Clearly some people do. It's like Humpty Dumpty. Most people see an egg, but there is no egg mentioned anywhere in the rhyme. And as much as I may criticise style, pedantry is as valid as sardony, sarcasm, rhetoric, and any of the other debating styles. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean it isn't valid, to me, under some circumstances.

    It's not a cop-out. I was told at university I had an insightful technique and that is what I look for in posts, some insight. People have been reading Humpty for centuries, and never seemingly question the egg aspect; how can an egg get on a wall and why would all the king's horses and all the king's men bother putting an oversized egg back together again? The whole rhyme is nonsensical until you actually see what is going on inside it. In many ways I don't mind anyone challenging my views, but if I don't respond it's not because I've copped out or am pissed off, or cannot respond, but instead back-off in the hope another person may respond in another context, or present a new hitherto unknown aspect, or support myself or my detractors. I try to allow space for other people to respond and try to get as any views into the debate as possible, so we can cherry-pick from all the views together, or develop teams for and against; like a Newsnight, or Jerry Springer. I really don't consider a forum should become a monopoly for two people's personal battles.
    Last edited by eatmywords; 07-13-2013 at 07:03 AM. Reason: edited
    Faced with certain disaster, defiance is the only answer.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •