Re: self-promotion?
- From: "Steve Terry" <gFOURwwk@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:28:02 -0000
"Bing Trotsky" <ericjarvis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.239791d4112a8277989c1b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <ggjafa$v6c$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, gFOURwwk@xxxxxxxxx says...So his Taps worked, it got you out of your pram enough to write a 160
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1ir07vh.swwhpfnzhhhcN%%steve%@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
james <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:i'll explain and decode James obtuse reference, it's in two parts:
In message <1iqykqq.elvs5i1bfz2wwN%%steve%@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Steve Firth
<%steve%@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
james <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sad that there are a few emotionally impoverished sickos who use
their
warped views to spoil the ethos of this newsgroup -- those who have
used
this miserable episode as a vehicle for the mindless parade their
seething, jealousy-fuelled hatred of me.
Have you started to hoard urine, toe nails and earwax yet?
Wonderful! A priceless example of invalidation with the bonus of being
original thus enlivening an otherwise glum morning for which I thank
you! Doncha just lurve the idiosyncrasies of this newsgroup and its
shining wit bile beacons lighting our darkness? My Tavvie taps
sometimes
dislodge real pearls for my strut and pace file.
Was that drivel intended to mean something?
Part 1: "Tavi" is short for members of the "Tavistock institute for human
relations" which is a group of existentialist Psychologists who study
what
it is to "Be" (is in being) and what it is to "Experience".
Not quite. The Tavistock Institute researches ways to improve
organisational effectiveness by combining psychology, anthropology and
the social sciences.
What I, and others, object to is James claiming that it's OK for him to
make statements that are racist, homophobic, or otherwise offensive
because he defines those statements as "Tavi taps" as opposed to the
normal definition which is "abuse".
It's long been known that insults and abuse can be a useful political
tool. Many miscreants are familiar with the technique, and indeed use it
often. The difference with James is that he claims to be morally superior
to anyone else using that approach because he uses different terminology.
As an argument it's utter bollocks. It might work in a situation where
everyone else is scared of the jargon and thus too intimidated to follow
the (lack of ) logic. It doesn't work on uk.misc, and James is too far up
his own backside to realise that. He thinks he's being cleverer than
everyone else, and doesn't seem capable of understanding that he's
intellectually outgunned by several miscreants and no more than equal
with most of the rest of us.
In short, he's being a complete twat and trying to blame that on everyone
else.
eric
word reply
J.P. Sartre rightly said "offence only exists in the mind of the speaker"
You claim that "What I, and "others", object to is James claiming that
it's OK for him to make statements that are racist, homophobic"
The offence only exists in your own mind, and you have to claim the
jurisdiction of "others" to try and justify your own illusion
I find nothing anyone says including James as offensive, at best only
an indication of their state of mind, or ability to play games.
Steve Terry
.
- References:
- Re: self-promotion?
- From: Amethyst Deceiver
- Re: self-promotion?
- From: Fevric J Glandules
- Re: self-promotion?
- From: Lou Ravi
- Re: self-promotion?
- From: Steve Terry
- Re: self-promotion?
- From: Steve Firth
- Re: self-promotion?
- From: james
- Re: self-promotion?
- From: Steve Firth
- Re: self-promotion?
- From: Steve Terry
- Re: self-promotion?
- From: Bing Trotsky
- Re: self-promotion?
- Prev by Date: Re: self-promotion?
- Next by Date: Re: self-promotion?
- Previous by thread: Re: self-promotion?
- Next by thread: Re: self-promotion?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
