Joined: 23 July 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2955
Topic: Those who live by the sword.... Posted: 30 January 2008 at 7:28am
Originally posted by leeh
Originally posted by Shootist
Originally posted by leeh
In what context? Wrong about what? Or just wrong? Did God tell you this? She didn't mention it to me (The real one, that is, not M&&&MB)
Just wrong, plain 'ol incorrect.
Originally posted by Shootist
Originally posted by leeh
Perhaps you are answering some of the questions I have about todays police.
and perhaps you speak plain old drivel, who's to know? I think everyone is just about as dead as a dodo after scrolling through your beautiful literature.
Well, you are entitled to your opinions, however incapable you are of explaining them.
Edited by Shootist - 30 January 2008 at 7:29am
This animal is dangerous. If attacked, it will defend itself. -----
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
George Orwell
Joined: 02 October 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
Posted: 29 January 2008 at 10:54pm
Originally posted by Shootist
Originally posted by leeh
In what context? Wrong about what? Or just wrong? Did God tell you this? She didn't mention it to me (The real one, that is, not M&&&MB)
Just wrong, plain 'ol incorrect.
Originally posted by Shootist
Originally posted by leeh
Perhaps you are answering some of the questions I have about todays police.
and perhaps you speak plain old drivel, who's to know? I think everyone is just about as dead as a dodo after scrolling through your beautiful literature.
Edited by leeh - 29 January 2008 at 10:56pm
The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat.
*Views/opinions expressed in this post do not reflect those of any organisation but only those of the individual author*
Joined: 22 November 2006
Online Status: Online
Posts: 61279
Posted: 29 January 2008 at 10:48pm
Originally posted by Old Codger
Originally posted by leeh
Why can't a 'Handbags at Dawn' forum be created, so that these creative, artistic, 'break every reply down, turn it on it's head and throw it back at you' (Alistair Campbell spin anyone?) types can beat the hell out of eachother with a rolled up broadsheet?
If we are going to have duals with English at ten paces we need Brutus to act as ref.
Especially if you spell duels like that. If they are agents of the Crown, does that make them Crown duels?
MOP, Joker & reformed character. Honest. I moderate with purple prose
Joined: 23 July 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2955
Posted: 29 January 2008 at 10:39pm
Originally posted by MAD MAX
I've lost the will to live
All good things come to those who wait.
This animal is dangerous. If attacked, it will defend itself. -----
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
George Orwell
Joined: 23 July 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2955
Posted: 29 January 2008 at 10:38pm
Originally posted by Grade1
"You do realise that you are talking utter b*llocks?"
And there was me thinking the debate had run it's course!
It has. We've moved on to playtime now.
This animal is dangerous. If attacked, it will defend itself. -----
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
George Orwell
Joined: 23 July 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2955
Posted: 29 January 2008 at 10:37pm
Originally posted by leeh
Now now, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
I have to consider my audience, and in your case, I felt it appropriate to your level of 'discussion'.
Unlike my idea of a seperate forum comment, I genuinely think such a forum would be appropriate for you to discuss subjects, as you have done above.
Any chance of putting that in English? such a what forum, if it's unlike your idea of a seperate forum?
I don't have to have to argue with you as I know i'm right and you sir, are wrong.
You do, however, feel the need to make offensive comments, without backing them up.
In what context? Wrong about what? Or just wrong? Did God tell you this? She didn't mention it to me (The real one, that is, not M&&&MB)
Such certain, but undefined, knowledge puts you in august company. Peter Sutcliffe, Harold Shipman, A bloke called Derek who keeps phoning the office to say that the world is ending, to name but a few.
Are you a police officer? Do you assume the guilt of your prisoners by the same process? I don't need evidence to know you are guilty? Do your prosecution files just have typed across the front "Because I bleedin' say so"? Perhaps you are answering some of the questions I have about todays police.
This animal is dangerous. If attacked, it will defend itself. -----
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
George Orwell
Joined: 09 August 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 871
Posted: 29 January 2008 at 10:17pm
Originally posted by leeh
Why can't a 'Handbags at Dawn' forum be created, so that these creative, artistic, 'break every reply down, turn it on it's head and throw it back at you' (Alistair Campbell spin anyone?) types can beat the hell out of eachother with a rolled up broadsheet?
If we are going to have duals with English at ten paces we need Brutus to act as ref.
Joined: 23 July 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2955
Posted: 29 January 2008 at 8:40pm
Originally posted by leeh
You do realise that you are talking utter b*llocks?
Your eloquently phrased analysis and impeccably argued, observations are clearly irrefutable.
Why can't a 'Handbags at Dawn' forum be created, so that these creative, artistic, 'break every reply down, turn it on it's head and throw it back at you' (Alistair Campbell spin anyone?) types can beat the hell out of eachother with a rolled up broadsheet?
What a wonderful idea. Perhaps it could run alongside the "Oh yes it is, Oh no it isn't forum", or the "The police are always right, even when they're wrong" forum. either might be more appropriate to a person of your so superior intellect.
This animal is dangerous. If attacked, it will defend itself. -----
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
George Orwell
Joined: 02 October 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
Posted: 29 January 2008 at 7:46pm
You do realise that you are talking utter b*llocks?
Why can't a 'Handbags at Dawn' forum be created, so that these creative, artistic, 'break every reply down, turn it on it's head and throw it back at you' (Alistair Campbell spin anyone?) types can beat the hell out of eachother with a rolled up broadsheet?
The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat.
*Views/opinions expressed in this post do not reflect those of any organisation but only those of the individual author*
Joined: 23 July 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2955
Posted: 29 January 2008 at 1:32pm
Your cunning device of making a good and cogent response leaves me no alternative but to accept that we have reached a better understanding, and some degree of accord. That can never be a bad thing. Pity about the bet, though, I've just been looking at holidays.
It's also nice to know that a meaningful and enlightening dialogue can be conducted in a rational manner, in spite of initial differences. (Yours wasn't too bad either ). Keep posting. I don't doubt we will engage in further dialogue, hopefully to the benefit of our mutual enlightenment.
Truth is beauty, beauty is truth.
This animal is dangerous. If attacked, it will defend itself. -----
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
George Orwell
Joined: 28 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6
Posted: 29 January 2008 at 1:14pm
Shootist, I have broken this post down not to be picky but so I can respond individually to some of your points.
"It does make me wonder, though, why your first post was so lacking in any clarity, which said lack you have so thoughtfully failed to address."
Firstly, I also think there was an understanding from you about what I was saying, however, in terms of addressing your point I accept it was more emotive than cognitive which of course could have provided a less clear communication. I also accept that the meaning of your communication is the response that you get, which goes for both you and I.
"Should we not discuss anything then?" - Indeed we should discuss, that's a cornerstone of our society and the staple diet of a healthy mind.
It's the conclusions we come to, how they are based and how we communicate that that interests me. I'm just as interested in what that says about us as individuals, myself included.
"Of course, it may be that the person killed was a decent young lad, who had made but a single mistake in his life" - I'm pretty sure neither of us thinks he made but a single mistake and I feel that had he had other choices that he perceived to be better that he may have taken them instead. I also think people should take responsibility for their actions, a decision quite obviously made for him in this instance.
"Are you, by chance, a gambling man? Do you make bets? Perhaps we need to communicate further on this, in terms of amount to bet, and the exact terms of the wager."
You assume I am a man. Just kidding, I am. As for the wager, your offer makes me smile (genuinely). You know full well I wouldn't take that bet, based on how you structured the wording of it and the fact that we've both been around the job long enough to know the odds.
I do not write here trying to convey a message that this person was all sweetness and light (how would I know) but I also don't know what took him to where he ended up, which was my point. That somebody ended up as he did to me is sad, which includes how he got there. That isn't to say that he didn't play his part in it and I have no less compassion for any people who's live he may have blighted.
I also accept what you are saying regarding your commentary on society as a whole and I of course understand that. I guess my challenge was around the clarity of that and I took it as a statement directed at that individual and the people who attacked him.
"But I have no way of supporting such an assertion, just as you have no way of supporting yours, so we have to agree to differ."
Absolutely. I refer to the map again.
As far as police officers go, I believe that my initial post would reflect the opinions of the majority."
Again we can't be sure can we. What I do know is that it didn't reflect my opinion.
"Of course, I also think that it was an entirely valid statement, even if it broke some arcane and exclusive rules of English useage."
I don't think it broke arcane and exclusive rules of English, I just think it was a generalised opinion that was challenged. I don't think either of us can specifically validate opinion, it just is. It's the forming of it that gets the debate going.
"Most people I know would understand the sentiment it conveyed."
I have to accept your word on that.
On a final note, although some mentioned the thread had degenerated I'm glad that we at least stuck with it long enough to create a worthwhile debate.
I can't speak for you but I think we found some common ground in there.
Joined: 23 July 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2955
Posted: 29 January 2008 at 11:19am
Grade 1,
Now that's a reply. It does make me wonder, though, why your first post was so lacking in any clarity, which said lack you have so thoughtfully failed to address. No matter. Now we have something to chew on.
Basically, we can play around with semantics all we want, but the fact is, you know what I meant, I am sure. Your understanding of the construction of English, it's uses and abuses makes me quite certain of that.
So, to the point.
You say that I put my point over in a cold, uncaring way. Perhaps you are right. I prefer to think of it, as I'm sure now you will agree, that it is possible to interpretat my brief initial post as a wry comment upon society as a whole, made in a speculative discussion, for surely, nobody on this forum is likely (there it is again) to be in possession of the full facts of the case. That's how it was meant, in any event.
We discuss on this forum very few, if any, events where we are in full possession of the facts. Should we not discuss anything then? This is why, having been taken to task by another individual, I try to qualify my remarks by use of the 'if, then' process. This must, on occasions lead to the 'lost performative' issue, of which I am not familiar.
Of course, it may be that the person killed was a decent young lad, who had made but a single mistake in his life, and paid a bitter penalty for it. It may equally be that the crowd that killed him were all thoroughly decent people the victim of a temporary loss of control brought about by an insane herd mentality, and that they now profoundly regret their actions, as opposed to regretting getting caught.
Are you, by chance, a gambling man? Do you make bets? Perhaps we need to communicate further on this, in terms of amount to bet, and the exact terms of the wager.
As for members of the public reading this thread and having their opinion of the police lowerd as a result, I, personally, doubt that on this thread. But I have no way of supporting such an assertion, just as you have no way of supporting yours, so we have to agree to differ.
As far as police officers go, I believe that my initial post would reflect the opinions of the majority. Of course, I also think that it was an entirely valid statement, even if it broke some arcane and exclusive rules of English useage. Most people I know would understand the sentiment it conveyed.
This animal is dangerous. If attacked, it will defend itself. -----
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
George Orwell
Joined: 28 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6
Posted: 29 January 2008 at 10:28am
Shootist. Let me start by saying I admire your clear passion for the construction of language and apparent interest in semantics.
You may be interested in the work of Alfred Korbysky and Gregory Bateson who have done a great deal of work around the structure and meaning of language. Not to forget, of course, the great work by Milton Erikson.
In particular you may be interested in the following term:
LOST PERFORMATIVE (Value judgements where evidence for the judgement is omitted).
So for example the way you used the term "likely" was actually a lost performative because there was no empirically researched evidence attached to justify your statement. Of course second time round you attached IMO - so you took ownership thereby deleting the lost performative and I accept that as your opinion.
Likewise with your editor's note "The burglar was, by all accounts a scumbag. " - A Fantastic lost performative! Those accounts are what? and from whom? and where did they get this information? What terms of reference were they using when they came to this conclusion and are these universally accepted terms of reference or subject to challenge? Oh yes I almost forget, and when did they make all of this information available to you? Or where you there when this happened? Or are you just making it up as you go along?
Moving on, I also liked your use of "but to accurately describe him, albeit in politically incorrect terminology." Now I know that to assume makes an ass out of u & me, but I'll indulge myself and assume the last statement's meaning to be that as far as you are concerned you feel you described this person that has been killed accurately although you accept that there may be an opposing view or at least some opposition to the language you used.
Hang on this could go on for hours because if there is an opposing view that would have you using different words, heaven forbid, that might give it all a different meaning and then you might actually be saying something different, or maybe even er wrong . Ah, but I see how you got around it. It was the word "albeit" wasn't it. Come on, come clean you pesky rascal.
You used a cheeky word that used in this way served to devalue anything that came after it. So by constructing this seemingly simple line you not only reinforced your own value statement you also managed to put political correctness down too. I was right, you are a genius.
Anyway, I'm glad we share the same love of language albeit my take is perhaps a little different to yours (You see what I did, I actually reduced the emphasis on the second part and reinforced my happiness at us having something to share xx.)
Enough of the semantics back to the matter at hand.
I have taken on board your feedback so I will hopefully communicate my message in a clearer way so I make sense for you.
I disagree with some of your comments because I feel they devalue people in a cold uncaring way and I also think that you give the impression of being less intelligent than you clearly are when making some of these comments (before you tell me that's a lost performative I know).
I also think that there is the possibility that some members of the public will read your comments and form an opinion that we all have views similar to the one's expressed by you in this post. Which I do not, and was highlighting the fact.
I think that most members of the public are less concerned about a detection than the quality of the interaction they have with the officer that visits them and my personal feeling is that some of your comments would be unlikely to inspire people to want that officer to be you, if you were still a Police Officer which I appreciate you are not.
The map is not the territory it serves to represent and there is always more than one map. - Or in the style you seem to like Shootist:
Your reality is not true for everyone and therefore you cannot be right all of the time no matter how much you try, not even by challenging every dot, comma and typo and subjecting every word to the dictionary to the point where people give up. But secretly I think you know that don't you.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Active Topics
Memberlist
Calendar
Search
Help
Register
Login
IP Logged
I moderate with purple prose
I can't take it anymore................................
). Keep posting. I don't doubt we will engage in further dialogue, hopefully to the benefit of our mutual enlightenment.
. Ah, but I see how you got around it. It was the word "albeit" wasn't it. Come on, come clean you pesky rascal.