Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Stupid old fart
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 13 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
shanshee_allures
2563 posts

Edited Feb 11, 2008, 14:35
Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 11, 2008, 14:30
Eh, no. I watched him on C4 news and took time to look at several video clips before addressing this. Some others maybe haven't (not accusing anyone here in particular).

His words were exremely wooly, non commital, adjective ridden, evasive, and did not even begin to address anything.

I think I've said that already.If someone can tell me what he said other than a heap of buzz-phraseology, then I take it all back.



x
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Edited Feb 11, 2008, 14:50
Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 11, 2008, 14:41
shanshee_allures wrote:
If someone can tell me what he said other than a heap of buzz-phraseology, then I take it all back.

Well, I've posted a link to the actual speech.

It concerns me that people are willing to judge his position based upon a few decontextualised media snippets ("what has he said other than a few phrases"). I've said before, he's too thoughtful and subtle a man to come across well in soundbites. Anyone who has ever seen Chomsky's position elucidated in media soundbite would also consider him woolly and unclear. This is why he no longer does short interviews.

Williams doesn't have that luxury, as his official position means he is obliged to be available to the media.

But the intellectual debate you called for ("bring it on") cannot occur in a few short media appearances, and to judge the man's position without first actually reading it is profoundly unfair in my view (I mean, that Radio 4 interview makes several references to his lecture... I'm surprised anyone could have listened to it without realising that it was merely an interview "about his position" and not an elucidation "of it").

EDIT: Even the link you provided way back at the start of this thread includes the lines:
The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said it was grateful for the archbishop's "thoughtful intervention". The organisation added that it was saddened by the "hysterical misrepresentations" of his speech, which would only "drive a wedge between British people".

How can anyone who genuinely seeks a fair and balanced debate of the subject, not follow that up and examine the speech itself rather than rely upon the "hysterical misrepresentations" that appeared in the media?

EDIT 2: In fact, the BBC article you initially linked to has a direct link to the PDF of his speech! How can you possibly describe his position as "a few phrases" and then simply ignore the opportunity (assuming you read the article you asked others to read) to find out more?
shanshee_allures
2563 posts

Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 11, 2008, 14:51
Well you've been happy to discuss it yourself up until now without specifically referring to it! Make yer mind up!
x
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Edited Feb 11, 2008, 14:56
Re: Stupid old fart (edited)
Feb 11, 2008, 14:52
shanshee_allures wrote:
Well you've been happy to discuss it yourself up until now without specifically referring to it! Make yer mind up!
x

That's because I assumed I was discussing it with people who had already read it. It was only when you claimed he'd only uttered "a few phrases" on the subject that I realised I wasn't.

EDIT: Also, I stated (right back at the beginning of all this):
In fact, and I think this is where people really need to read the totality of what he said rather than appealing to a single quote out of context...

I assumed it would be clear that I was talking about his lecture when I said "the totality of what he said". It didn't occur to me that people would be debating this without even knowing the lecture existed!
shanshee_allures
2563 posts

Re: Stupid old fart (edited)
Feb 11, 2008, 14:58
Well maybe you're wrong. Maybe I have read it but didn't find anything relevant in it, how do you actually know?
x
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Re: Stupid old fart (edited)
Feb 11, 2008, 15:00
shanshee_allures wrote:
Well maybe you're wrong. Maybe I have read it but didn't find anything relevant in it, how do you actually know?
x


Ummm... because you just said so?

shanshee_allures wrote:
As for intellectual debate...bring it on sure, where it exists. But I reitterate, what exactly has he said save a few phrases? A few phrases loaded with suggestion without any real content.
shanshee_allures
2563 posts

Edited Feb 11, 2008, 15:05
Re: Stupid old fart (edited)
Feb 11, 2008, 15:03
No, never said that at all. Please find where I did. I said 'eh no, I have watched this and that blah blah' meaning I was not coming from a totally blind viewpoint. 'Said nothing else.

Found the speech to be erodite and these things ususally are but not all that practical or relevant. Said it was my grip right from the start.

x
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Edited Feb 11, 2008, 15:08
Re: Stupid old fart (edited)
Feb 11, 2008, 15:04
shanshee_allures wrote:
No, never said that at all. Please find where I did. I said 'eh no, I have watched this and that blah blah' meaning I was not coming from a totally blind viewpoint. 'Said nothing else.

x


Please read your response to machineryelf.

EDIT: I'm not sure there's much to be gained debating with someone who writes something, and then within a few hours denies they ever did ("No, never said that at all"), despite it still being there plain for all to see. That's called arguing from bad faith.
shanshee_allures
2563 posts

Re: Stupid old fart (edited)
Feb 11, 2008, 15:06
Got our wires crossed her, please go back to my edited response there.
x
shanshee_allures
2563 posts

Re: Stupid old fart (edited)
Feb 11, 2008, 15:14
I'm not denying what I said. I did read the thing and found the speech to address zippo. That and all else I've read on this amounted to alot of conjecture. There, Sorted. Sorry you feel a need to pick me up on something I didn't even do.
x
Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 13 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

U-Know! Forum Index