To mister Canteen Correspondent

TheKav

Shroomfox is spot on.

We're mature enough to choose who we hang out with and therefore all the clichés that come with the territory.

E.G. I'm a professed Drama-head. I whine about the standard of the Drama Society since the glory days and yet do nothing about it!

trekkypj

Can I just say this...

I think it's bloody elitist to deny (or to want to deny) any writer (however good or bad they are) the opportunity to express their views. I don't like the Canteen Correspondant column. It's whimsical, utterly facetious and wholly uninteresting to me. To me it is so much horse dung.

But that article is not meant to be enjoyed. I see it as a faithful (if repulsive) account of the way people act. It is horse dung because the people who unwittingly supply the material for the column are speaking horse dung. In other words, dung begets dung. That is why I read it. It reminds me that people are capable of incredibly petty, shallow and downright stupid behaviour .

Whoever writes it doesn't subscribe to the beliefs in the article, methinks. He/she presents it because it mocks the stupidity that has taken hold of our lives; the ease in which we can act in a dumb fashion. It's a work of irony and a window into something within ourselves that we'd rather deny.

I have a question for the detractors. Is it that they despise the content of the article, or are they afraid of seeing themselves within the paragraphs?

Beau

I think its trying to be funny in a way like Ross O`Carroll-Kelly

Whiskeyjack

TheKav wrote:

Shroomfox is spot on.

We're mature enough to choose who we hang out with and therefore all the clichés that come with the territory.

E.G. I'm a professed Drama-head. I whine about the standard of the Drama Society since the glory days and yet do nothing about it!

Hmm, funny how you seem to be the only person that uses the word Melvin and you seem to be defending the CC.Give it up.We all know.

It's the blind cynicism of it that really annoys me, judging one person based on one or two characteristics and assuming they have others based on the stereotype that those characteristics apply to.People are different and they don't all conform to some narrowly defined half-baked definition.

TheKav

Whiskeyjack wrote:

Hmm, funny how you seem to be the only person that uses the word Melvin and you seem to be defending the CC.Give it up.We all know.

It's the blind cynicism of it that really annoys me, judging one person based on one or two characteristics and assuming they have others based on the stereotype that those characteristics apply to.People are different and they don't all conform to some narrowly defined half-baked definition.

I'm not defending The Canteen Correspondent, I'm attacking you! It's satire and you're all idiots.

And didn't someone point out earlier in the thread that Aunt Gertrude uses Melvin a lot. Like I said, it caught on around the office...probably because you all conform to a stereotype.

Take for example the fact that you won't complain to the Spoke, you'll post it online you utter nerd!

Whiskeyjack

TheKav wrote:

I'm not defending The Canteen Correspondent, I'm attacking you! It's satire and you're all idiots.

And didn't someone point out earlier in the thread that Aunt Gertrude uses Melvin a lot. Like I said, it caught on around the office...probably because you all conform to a stereotype.

Take for example the fact that you won't complain to the Spoke, you'll post it online you utter nerd!

It's sh1t satire, that's my point, I don't think that mr CC (Whoever he might be, :rolleyes: ) doesn't have the right to plaster his egotistical drivel if people want to read it, I just feel like airing my opinion on him, the same as I would about some band I thought was cack or a crap T.V. show.No one really cares about other peoples opinions, I just felt like putting mine into words.And if you're so above posting stuff online what are you doing here?

coffee_cake

trekkypj wrote:

I have a question for the detractors. Is it that they despise the content of the article, or are they afraid of seeing themselves within the paragraphs?

Trying to turn the tables isn't going to make the articles any better.
I've only read one to date, and it was pathetic.
If it's satire, dude needs to learn how to do it properly.

The Mad Hatter

TheKav wrote:

And didn't someone point out earlier in the thread that Aunt Gertrude uses Melvin a lot.

Um, yeah, that was me suggesting it as evidence that they're both the same person. Funny, I've never heard anyone using it in real life...or, indeed, anywhere other than that paper.

trekkypj

bluewolf wrote:

Trying to turn the tables isn't going to make the articles any better.
I've only read one to date, and it was pathetic.
If it's satire, dude needs to learn how to do it properly.

Turn the tables? I was making a valid point. You've decided that the Canteen Correspondant column is a load of ****e. That's your right.

But do you not think it a little elitist to rubbish something that probably wasn't targeted at you? There are other groups out there and just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't liked by other people. I have seen people here and elsewhere spout about it as if they were somehow chosen by everyone who has been, is or could be a Maynooth Student to right their wrongs.

They're not, and you're not, the only ones whose opinion counts. I agree it is a load of ****e but I find it amusing to read the article nonetheless... as I said it does remind you that people are capable of stupidity, and let's face it... some of us find other people's stupidity funny, or nobody would watch Big Brother. If it's not your cup of tea, it's simple... SKIP THE DAMN ARTICLE AND READ THE REST. Surely ye all can't be that hung up over it. It's one article in the paper ffs.

And even if everyone hated it, is it right to say that because of this, it shouldn't be in the paper. You could say the same thing of Union Council reports, or Sports news, if you don't like those articles either. Just because it's unpopular doesn't mean it shouldn't have the opportunity to be published. The Spoke is a medium that is there for people to express opinions, get their views voiced, and yes, whether we like it or not, to talk ****e for 500 words. That's freedom of expression for you.

coffee_cake

trekkypj wrote:

But do you not think it a little elitist to rubbish something that probably wasn't targeted at you?

Who else is the paper targeted at? I'm a student, I read it, I decided it was rubbish. That's how it goes

There are other groups out there and just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't liked by other people.

Did I say it wasn't?

They're not, and you're not, the only ones whose opinion counts.

Did I say it was, hm?

I agree it is a load of ****e but I find it amusing to read the article nonetheless... as I said it does remind you that people are capable of stupidity, and let's face it... some of us find other people's stupidity funny, or nobody would watch Big Brother. If it's not your cup of tea, it's simple... SKIP THE DAMN ARTICLE AND READ THE REST. Surely ye all can't be that hung up over it. It's one article in the paper ffs.

And you're doing such a wonderful job of defending that one little article eh

And even if everyone hated it, is it right to say that because of this, it shouldn't be in the paper.

I said he should learn to write properly if it is satire. I don't think I said it shouldn't be in the paper, just of a higher quality.
And if everyone hates it, then there's something seriously wrong, and yes perhaps it might just have to be taken out of the paper.
What else is the paper there for but to read and enjoy? If people won't read a part of it and aren't enjoying it then it's not doing its job.

You could say the same thing of Union Council reports, or Sports news, if you don't like those articles either. Just because it's unpopular doesn't mean it shouldn't have the opportunity to be published.

If it's complete drivel, then perhaps it should be of a higher quality.

The Spoke is a medium that is there for people to express opinions, get their views voiced, and yes, whether we like it or not, to talk ****e for 500 words. That's freedom of expression for you.

Just like you going nuts at anyone who dares to criticize anything about the spoke or the su, hm?

lordgoat

good rant!

trekkypj

bluewolf wrote:

Who else is the paper targeted at? I'm a student, I read it, I decided it was rubbish. That's how it goes.

You've said it enough times already. What that says to me is that you're not content to dislike it yourself, but to spread it as far as possible. If you were merely stating an opinion, why do you feel the need to repeat yourself so insistently?

bluewolf wrote:

And you're doing such a wonderful job of defending that one little article eh

I said he should learn to write properly if it is satire. I don't think I said it shouldn't be in the paper, just of a higher quality.

Firstly, I don't see why it needs to be castigated. I mean it hasn't insulted someone's beliefs... it's harmless and, to be honest, I do think it's a bit ridiculous to complain about one column in a paper. I hate repeating myself but DON'T READ IT if you don't like it.

Secondly, who says it is a he? That's a huge assumption to make. It isn't TheKav despite popular belief. That I do know.

Who says (s)he isn't writing properly? I think it works fine the way it is.

bluewolf wrote:

And if everyone hates it, then there's something seriously wrong, and yes perhaps it might just have to be taken out of the paper.
What else is the paper there for but to read and enjoy? If people won't read a part of it and aren't enjoying it then it's not doing its job.

The nature of the press means that different articles are aimed at different people. I did not say that people hated it. I said 'if' so don't quote me out of context, if you please.

And as any editor would tell you, if an article did not have an audience, it would not get published. The fact that it has been published suggests that the editor recognises that there is, in fact, an audience for the article.

bluewolf wrote:

If it's complete drivel, then perhaps it should be of a higher quality.

Have you considered the possibility that people read it (and find it funny perhaps) BECAUSE it is complete drivel? You'd prefer we bored them to death with an article on watching paint dry?

bluewolf wrote:

Just like you going nuts at anyone who dares to criticize anything about the spoke or the su, hm?

That's a low shot, right there. Ow, ma, that hurts....

Seriously, don't be daft. Just because I was in the SU doesn't mean I sleep with it.

What makes me nuts are people who stand up on their soapbox and preach to the masses about how this is wrong, that is wrong, and all is wrong, without offering any answers as to how to fix things, who make assumptions on behalf of the world and their mothers, and who think 'I could do a better job, but gosh I'm too busy for all that nonsense'.

That is what annoys the crap out of me. That, and people taking a swipe at me because apparently I'm a so called 'Union Head'.

Whiskeyjack

Trekky, if you care so much about letting peoples voices be heard then why are you bitching about people criticising that article?I started this thread because I the generalisations and cynical attempts to be cool and intellectual annoyed me.Maybe I was a little overzealous, I just think it was a cynical, half-baked elitist, pointless piece of literary diaorrhea.Not that it should be banned or anything.And I'm pretty sure Bluewolf feels the same way.And what the hell is wrong about saying that on a forum where peoples opinions are meant to be aired?

coffee_cake

trekkypj wrote:

You've said it enough times already. What that says to me is that you're not content to dislike it yourself, but to spread it as far as possible. If you were merely stating an opinion, why do you feel the need to repeat yourself so insistently?

You keep arguing about it is why.

Firstly, I don't see why it needs to be castigated. I mean it hasn't insulted someone's beliefs... it's harmless and, to be honest, I do think it's a bit ridiculous to complain about one column in a paper. I hate repeating myself but DON'T READ IT if you don't like it.

What else is the paper there for, to light a bonfire?

Secondly, who says it is a he? That's a huge assumption to make. It isn't TheKav despite popular belief. That I do know.

I don't CARE.

Who says (s)he isn't writing properly? I think it works fine the way it is.

Myself and several other people, obviously.

The nature of the press means that different articles are aimed at different people. I did not say that people hated it. I said 'if' so don't quote me out of context, if you please.

I said "if" as well.

And as any editor would tell you, if an article did not have an audience, it would not get published. The fact that it has been published suggests that the editor recognises that there is, in fact, an audience for the article.

So we shouldn't try to improve it at all then eh?

Have you considered the possibility that people read it (and find it funny perhaps) BECAUSE it is complete drivel? You'd prefer we bored them to death with an article on watching paint dry?

If more people are of the same opinion as you that the only possibility for an article is drivel vs paint drying, the state of the Spoke is certainly explained.

That's a low shot, right there. Ow, ma, that hurts....

Seriously, don't be daft. Just because I was in the SU doesn't mean I sleep with it.

And yet you seem to be very unhappy when anyone criticizes it. To the point of suggesting that people don't like the CC article because they're afraid of being mocked.

What makes me nuts are people who stand up on their soapbox and preach to the masses about how this is wrong, that is wrong, and all is wrong, without offering any answers as to how to fix things, who make assumptions on behalf of the world and their mothers, and who think 'I could do a better job, but gosh I'm too busy for all that nonsense'.

I was sitting in the car today thinking, I have enough time to write Spoke articles. Excellent. Now, on what? I'm never in the canteen, I'm on campus two days a week, etc. I'm not very involved with the student life so to speak, so there's not much of relevance to the student paper I could write.

That is what annoys the crap out of me. That, and people taking a swipe at me because apparently I'm a so called 'Union Head'.

I haven't taken any swipes at you. I didn't know or care whether you're in the union or not.

trekkypj

Whiskeyjack wrote:

Trekky, if you care so much about letting peoples voices be heard then why are you bitching about people criticising that article?

Because while I believe it to be important for people to have their voices heard, I also believe that the discussion should not be allowed to be monopolised by one viewpoint, especially if one user (i.e. me) feels that because something is crap to one group but entertaining as **** to me (because of the ridiculousness of its content) that my viewpoint should be presented in an appropriate response. In that case I should step in and balance things out, and that's what I've tried to do.

I'm happy to accept that you think it's crap. I don't agree that it shouldn't be in the paper, because while it's annoying crap to you and bluewolf, it's entertaining crap to me and to others.

Whiskeyjack wrote:

I started this thread because I the generalisations and cynical attempts to be cool and intellectual annoyed me.Maybe I was a little overzealous, I just think it was a cynical, half-baked elitist, pointless piece of literary diaorrhea.Not that it should be banned or anything.And I'm pretty sure Bluewolf feels the same way.

Possibly... the very fact that it is written that way is what makes it so dumb, and the dumbness of it makes it funny in my eyes. Not everything has to have a reason. The Simpsons is an exercise in pointless toilet humour, animated violence, cliches and obvious cultural references, for example. It's also damn funny. There's no reason behind The Simpsons, except to entertain. And while a LOT more people find it funny than don't, there are people who think it's 'satan spawn' and so not appealing at all.

The CC is a column that people either hate because they feel like you, or they think it's hillarious because they find humour in its dumbness, like me. I guess we just think differently on this one.

Whiskeyjack wrote:

And what the hell is wrong about saying that on a forum where peoples opinions are meant to be aired?

Nothing. But if you make grand statements saying that it is a load of **** and shouldn't be published, if I disagree (and I do), I have to remind you of the need to qualify these statements, remembering that while your viewpoint is not necessarily wrong, it only applies to you and to those that agree with you and that others who disagree have the right to challenge you on your view that it should be scrapped/banned/whatever.

trekkypj

bluewolf wrote:

You keep arguing about it is why.

And you've replied by repeating yourself and rattling off a whole bunch of generalisations about how it is 'a heap of crap'. What you describe is not crappiness, nor is it even an explanation of why you think that way, but a statement by you of your dislike of the subject material. That doesn't make it rubbish. That makes it outside your range of tastes.

Technically there is less wrong with the article than with most others in the Spoke. The spelling isn't perfect but far better than some of the mistakes that have been made in 'serious' articles.

bluewolf wrote:

Myself and several other people, obviously.

That does not imply a concensus. I and 'several other' people strongly disagree with your views as expressed.

bluewolf wrote:

I said "if" as well.

Your intent was quite clear. You implied that you agreed with the argument by adding a consequence to my original statement.

And in any case, the argument doesn't hold. I, at least, like the article, and presumably the author too so that's two at least. And I am very confident that there are more people, but I don't presume to speak for their tastes.

bluewolf wrote:

So we shouldn't try to improve it at all then eh?

Improve it? Of course. Arbitrarily deciding that it doesn't belong in the paper based on one viewpoint? I don't agree with that. Your views are not the only views that matter. My views are just as relevant and so are those of other people. So, of course I'm going to stick my oar in and disagree. That's debate.

bluewolf wrote:

If more people are of the same opinion as you that the only possibility for an article is drivel vs paint drying, the state of the Spoke is certainly explained.

You know, it's not polite to make assumptions about my opinions like that. Especially using statements like that. There has to be a mix of seriousness and fun. You basically attack the CC article because it is too whimsical for your tastes (or so I gather) and you don't get it. Fine.

But I don't want to read a paper that has nothing but serious material in it. I like the article. It makes me smile, sometimes laugh aloud. If I wanted to read something that was serious, I would read something dry and brain-numbingly boring like Principles of Irish Law.

bluewolf wrote:

And yet you seem to be very unhappy when anyone criticizes it. To the point of suggesting that people don't like the CC article because they're afraid of being mocked.

I'm not unhappy about valid criticism. You have yet to substantiate your view that the article merits being 'thrown' off the paper. All you have succeeded in doing is forcibly make your views crystal clear to every joe soap that frequents these boards, to the point almost of forcing them down other people's throats.

I don't mean to be unkind, but to be honest that's how you come across to me. You haven't proven to me at least what exactly is wrong with it, except for a list of adjectives associated with personal taste. I don't see anything wrong with it being 'elitist' and 'whimsical' in tone, if the context is to make the article self depreciating and humorous.

You don't like it so you attack it. You post here and preach about how it shouldn't be put in a student newspaper. You have a subjective view.

The editor, on the other hand, should recognise that there are different audiences for different material, and the fact that the material is not to his/her taste is irrelevant because he/she has to be objective. It's not the opinion of the editor that matters, but that of the audience, and the audience is fragmented.

There are people like you who hate the CC column, people like me who think it's funny, and there are people who say 'meh' and give it a quick glance then go read summat else. Your hatred of the article does not give you the right to deny me or anyone like me the right to view it. Our opinions are valued too, are as relevant as yours, and should be considered on the same terms.

bluewolf" wrote:

I was sitting in the car today thinking, I have enough time to write Spoke articles. Excellent. Now, on what? I'm never in the canteen, I'm on campus two days a week, etc. I'm not very involved with the student life so to speak, so there's not much of relevance to the student paper I could write.

Oh I don't know. You seem intelligent enough. I dare say you could set a crossword, or ooh maybe send a list of questions to some prominent figure asking him/her about his/her experiences in Maynooth and maybe some less serious stuff like 'What did you want to be when you were a child?'. You don't HAVE to write directly about student life and this stuff is hardly that challenging, is it?

bluewolf wrote:

I haven't taken any swipes at you. I didn't know or care whether you're in the union or not.

So why mention it at all? Better yet, what relevance does it have?

St_Crispin

trekkypj wrote:

I don't like the Canteen Correspondant column. It's whimsical, utterly facetious and wholly uninteresting to me. To me it is so much horse dung.

trekkypj wrote:

The CC is a column that people either hate because they feel like you, or they think it's hillarious because they find humour in its dumbness, like me. I guess we just think differently on this one.

Hmmm....

St_Crispin

trekkypj wrote:

There are people like you who hate the CC column, people like me who think it's funny, and there are people who say 'meh' and give it a quick glance then go read summat else. Y

Just thought I'd quote this as well. Goes wull with the dung comment

coffee_cake

trekkypj wrote:

And you've replied by repeating yourself and rattling off a whole bunch of generalisations about how it is 'a heap of crap'. What you describe is not crappiness, nor is it even an explanation of why you think that way, but a statement by you of your dislike of the subject material. That doesn't make it rubbish. That makes it outside your range of tastes.

When I have the article to hand, I'll see about posting up some reasons then.

And please quote my "generalisations about how it is a heap of crap", since I can't seem to find any.

That does not imply a concensus. I and 'several other' people strongly disagree with your views as expressed.

I didn't say it did imply a consensus. You asked who thought s/he wasn't writing properly; I answered.

Your intent was quite clear. You implied that you agreed with the argument by adding a consequence to my original statement.

All still within the "if" territory.

Improve it? Of course. Arbitrarily deciding that it doesn't belong in the paper based on one viewpoint? I don't agree with that. Your views are not the only views that matter. My views are just as relevant and so are those of other people. So, of course I'm going to stick my oar in and disagree. That's debate.

Yes, I think we all know what debate is.
It doesn't belong in the paper at that standard, in my opinion.
In any case, where did I say it doesn't belong in the paper, without any qualifier?

Will you please stop telling me my views aren't the only ones that matter, I'm well aware of that fact and don't recall implying otherwise.

You know, it's not polite to make assumptions about my opinions like that.
Especially using statements like that.

You wrote:

You'd prefer we bored them to death with an article on watching paint dry?

This implies that the only alternative to an article of the type CC is an article on watching paint dry.
I didn't make any assumptions there. I also said "if".

There has to be a mix of seriousness and fun. You basically attack the CC article because it is too whimsical for your tastes (or so I gather) and you don't get it. Fine.

I get it. But its attempt at humour in the article about the "Ralphs" was to repeatedly write "(I wonder who she is, hmm)" and variants on that, concluding the article with the answer to this repeated question.

But I don't want to read a paper that has nothing but serious material in it. I like the article. It makes me smile, sometimes laugh aloud. If I wanted to read something that was serious, I would read something dry and brain-numbingly boring like Principles of Irish Law.

Again, you seem to think the only alternative to that drivel is something dry and brain-numbing.
Here's a novel idea: something light-hearted that isn't completely stupid.

I'm not unhappy about valid criticism. You have yet to substantiate your view that the article merits being 'thrown' off the paper. All you have succeeded in doing is forcibly make your views crystal clear to every joe soap that frequents these boards, to the point almost of forcing them down other people's throats.

Exaggerating much :rolleyes:
Please quote where I said it should be "thrown off" the paper, where I have "forcibly" made any views.

You don't like it so you attack it. You post here and preach about how it shouldn't be put in a student newspaper. You have a subjective view.

Please quote where I have preached that it shouldn't be in a student newspaper.

There are people like you who hate the CC column, people like me who think it's funny, and there are people who say 'meh' and give it a quick glance then go read summat else. Your hatred of the article does not give you the right to deny me or anyone like me the right to view it. Our opinions are valued too, are as relevant as yours, and should be considered on the same terms.

Given that this must be the fifth or sixth time you have mentioned "our opinions are as relevant/valued/important as yours", I can only conclude that you suffer from some kind of insecurity regarding the validity of your own opinions.

Please quote where I said I had the right to deny someone the right to view the article, and some indication of my apparent hatred for it.

Oh I don't know. You seem intelligent enough. I dare say you could set a crossword, or ooh maybe send a list of questions to some prominent figure asking him/her about his/her experiences in Maynooth and maybe some less serious stuff like 'What did you want to be when you were a child?'. You don't HAVE to write directly about student life and this stuff is hardly that challenging, is it?

I'll think about it.

So why mention it at all? Better yet, what relevance does it have?

I didn't mention it, you did. And I don't see any relevance.

I would also like to know how I managed to "repeat [myself] so insistently" after two posts on the thread; you quoted my second post and said so.

trekkypj

You know, I could reply YET AGAIN and respond to all your points in another post running at around the max character limit...

But you know, I am bloody tired. I know where you stand, you know where I stand, and everyone knows where we both stand (and are possibly as sick of it all as I am).

I don't think you're going to change your mind, and you haven't said anything that has changed my mind. So unless you have something new for me to consider, I respectfully request that we leave the matter rest. I hate typing multiple posts of such length and above all I hate repeating myself.

That said, if you have something new for me I'll gladly consider it.

coffee_cake

trekkypj wrote:

You know, I could reply YET AGAIN and respond to all your points in another post running at around the max character limit...

But you know, I am bloody tired. I know where you stand, you know where I stand, and everyone knows where we both stand (and are possibly as sick of it all as I am).

I don't think you're going to change your mind, and you haven't said anything that has changed my mind. So unless you have something new for me to consider, I respectfully request that we leave the matter rest. I hate typing multiple posts of such length and above all I hate repeating myself.

That said, if you have something new for me I'll gladly consider it.

I love how you back off when I ask you to actually quote all this stuff I've apparently said. That most certainly wouldn't be repeating yourself, not if you actually showed me.

NotWormBoy

pisslips wrote:

So are you pro-globalisation, anti-american,I'm asking a question here but if so I actually hate you, REALLY!Your ****.
I can understand excuses such as lazyness and greed and human nature but if your ideals stretch as far as globalisation, you don't deserve to exist IMO.
Richard

IMO, huh? Well, I'd hope it was your opinion you were coming out with, rather than someone elses...

But just to drag this baby back up again... No, I'm not pro-globalisation. I just can't stand the its-cool-to-be-an-antiglobalisation-hippie crowd. Amongst others. I'm just a seething ball of hate though, obviously.

pisslips

NotWormBoy wrote:

IMO, huh? Well, I'd hope it was your opinion you were coming out with, rather than someone elses...

But just to drag this baby back up again... No, I'm not pro-globalisation. I just can't stand the its-cool-to-be-an-antiglobalisation-hippie crowd. Amongst others. I'm just a seething ball of hate though, obviously.

O.K, so I've no real argument here with this total generalisation but I'll try;
you don't like this group because;
A) They claim to be idealist, are self-rightious,see themselves as have unique ideas but abvoiusly don't,most of these people can't even rationalise their way of living but when put to the test constantly worm their way out of arguments with false-empathy, as if suedo-higher morale standing is a valid way of influencing an argument.And behind it all are as greedy and self-centred as everyone else.
B)They smoke hash and are generally slumbersome wasters.
C)They're tryin to identify with some community because they're insecure self-centred bastards like everyone else.
D) Some random combination of A-C
E)Some other reason(i.e. they throw chips at me!)
If it's A, well then, let me tell you,that describes any group or category of us losers.Is an anti-left wing thing cause really look at the bible-belt(since we're generalising)Does A not describe that extreme also.I don't have a clue where your comin from, Are you just tryin to be safely politically correct.
You know most people are actually capitalists in belief aswell as practice. This anti-hippie thing is just old fashioned anti-socialist propaganda.The minorty is left-wing, we're influenced to think evryone is turning left-wing in this modern age because humans naturally rebel against control.Thats what life is a struggle for control.Control=power, no control=insanity.people who eexperience depression will tell you that.I realise this has turned into some pointless statement now, forgive me you seething ball of hate.

trekkypj

bluewolf wrote:

I love how you back off when I ask you to actually quote all this stuff I've apparently said. That most certainly wouldn't be repeating yourself, not if you actually showed me.

You want bloody examples!... I don't have the time or the inclination to spend hours trawling through the thread, and especially rereading those monstrous posts we put up. I spent far too much time doing that already.

I didn't just post direct replies to what you said, line by line. I read the other posts first. And you HAVE been repeating yourself. And you DID say that the column shouldn't be in the paper. It's there for all to see. Maybe if I had the time I'd root out the examples for all to see, just to show that I'm not actually talking out of my arse.

But I have other things that occupy my time. I have a dissertation to write and only 6 weeks to do it, a 3000 word essay to write, I have to help organise a Bar Ex, capture 4 hours of footage into Final Cut Pro and edit it down to a complete, four minute program, with voiceovers, music and titles dubbed in, by next Friday. And not least, I have to go to lectures and actually get my 2.1 degree.

Don't waste my time by being pedantic. If I have time after all that I'll post examples. I see no reason, however, why I should go out of my way to do so when it is perfectly visible in your posts for all to see, should they want to.

coffee_cake

trekkypj wrote:

You want bloody examples!... I don't have the time or the inclination to spend hours trawling through the thread, and especially rereading those monstrous posts we put up. I spent far too much time doing that already.

The ONLY posts I've made here are the ones addressing you.

I didn't just post direct replies to what you said, line by line. I read the other posts first. And you HAVE been repeating yourself. And you DID say that the column shouldn't be in the paper. It's there for all to see.

Then maybe I should get some glasses cos I sure as hell can't find it.

What other posts? The ONLY posts I've made here have started with:

me wrote:

Trying to turn the tables isn't going to make the articles any better.
I've only read one to date, and it was pathetic.
If it's satire, dude needs to learn how to do it properly.

at which point you started telling me to stop repeating myself, started claiming I said it shouldn't be in the paper, and started arguing with me.
Repeating WHAT, trekkypj?

Maybe if I had the time I'd root out the examples for all to see, just to show that I'm not actually talking out of my arse.

Ah, so instead of having a quick glance through TWO pages you type all this waffle out? Yeah, complete lack of time, sure.

But I have other things that occupy my time. I have a dissertation to write and only 6 weeks to do it, a 3000 word essay to write, I have to help organise a Bar Ex, capture 4 hours of footage into Final Cut Pro and edit it down to a complete, four minute program, with voiceovers, music and titles dubbed in, by next Friday. And not least, I have to go to lectures and actually get my 2.1 degree.

Bully for you. I still claim you're talking absolute rubbish and can't read my posts properly.

Don't waste my time by being pedantic. If I have time after all that I'll post examples. I see no reason, however, why I should go out of my way to do so when it is perfectly visible in your posts for all to see, should they want to.

If it's so perfectly visible, how come you're not quoting them? If it's so perfectly visible, then your protests of having no time wouldn't apply.
This is a 3 page thread, I've only posted on 2 pages.
Don't waste my time talking crap.
I want quotes, or you've conceded.

trekkypj

bluewolf wrote:

Don't waste my time talking crap.
I want quotes, or you've conceded.

Ah, the classic hold em over the side of the bridge routine... I love it.

I find it laughable that you demand quotes... is this like a schoolground stand off where if I don't do something, I'm gay? Looks that way to me.

Grow up. I'm not in the mood for such childishness. I can understand you not wanting to concede on any of your views. Unlike you, I won't force you to do that. There's no need to go throwing your toys out of the pram. :mad:



As for your demands, why should I quote what's accesible to read freely? Your arguments are so weak, anaemic even, that I'm not going to waste my time doing so.

In conclusion, I've said all I need to say on this. Draw your own conclusions from what I have posted.

coffee_cake

trekkypj wrote:

Ah, the classic hold em over the side of the bridge routine... I love it.

I find it laughable that you demand quotes... is this like a schoolground stand off where if I don't do something, I'm gay? Looks that way to me.

Grow up. I'm not in the mood for such childishness. I can understand you not wanting to concede on any of your views. Unlike you, I won't force you to do that. There's no need to go throwing your toys out of the pram. :mad:

As for your demands, why should I quote what's accesible to read freely? Your arguments are so weak, anaemic even, that I'm not going to waste my time doing so.

In conclusion, I've said all I need to say on this. Draw your own conclusions from what I have posted.

In other words, you can't back up any of the claims you made about what I said and concede that I did NOT say what you said I did.
Grand so.

Next time you're arguing with someone, try not to confuse them with someone else and actually read their posts. It helps immensely.

trekkypj

bluewolf wrote:

In other words, you can't back up any of the claims you made about what I said and concede that I did NOT say what you said I did.
Grand so.

Next time you're arguing with someone, try not to confuse them with someone else and actually read their posts. It helps immensely.

My dear bluewolf.

If you insist on being such a whinge, I'll start losing respect for you. You not only posted it on this thread, you have complained repeatedly about the spoke and the quality of the articles in the thread now titled 'Pro Union/Anti Union'. Perhaps I did get confused about the number of times on THIS thread but in the boards section you've been bitching about the Spoke incessently and the lack of quality in the articles.

bluewolf wrote:

Yeah that attempt at being funny with all the (I wonder who jessica is...?) rubbish was seriously lame

Then.... in a seperate post

bluewolf wrote:

His points and arguments were that the Spoke recently published a load of rubbish. Which is true. There is no finger wagging about "how does ... fair" and "literareture" etc.

And perhaps the most damning of all.

bluewolf wrote:

I don't care if it's done voluntarily or they're all forced to do it by law, rubbish like that "canteen correspondant" piece does not belong in any paper.Recording a conversation from the canteen, describing the people who took part in it, throwing in a few attempts at wit, and finishing with the conclusion that the author is an idiot who drinks too much and snogs random girls is a joke. And I don't mean in the way he intended. Trying to make it sound like it's deep and meaningful was worse.
If they can't do it properly, they shouldn't be doing it.

So you see, not only HAVE you been repeating yourself, but you've made a fool out of yourself by insisting you haven't. Just because it isn't on this thread doesn't change the fact.

You also said in THIS thread that the article shouldn't be in the spoke if it were crap, and you CLEARLY implied that you held this view. Anyone reading that sentance would come to that conclusion.

bluewolf wrote:

And if everyone hates it, then there's something seriously wrong, and yes perhaps it might just have to be taken out of the paper.

You also posted your disdain for the article in this thread.

bluewolf wrote:

Trying to turn the tables isn't going to make the articles any better.
I've only read one to date, and it was pathetic.
If it's satire, dude needs to learn how to do it properly.

Incidentally, do you think it's wise to judge a regular column based on ONE article?

You wanted quotes, you got em. Now I'm sure I could find more for you... you want me to waste more of MY time or are you going to concede?

coffee_cake

trekkypj wrote:

My dear bluewolf.

If you insist on being such a whinge, I'll start losing respect for you.

Hey, it worked
If it's the only way to get you to back up something in a semi-debate then...*shrug*
I also wouldn't regard it as whinging.

You not only posted it on this thread, you have complained repeatedly about the spoke and the quality of the articles in the thread now titled 'Pro Union/Anti Union'. Perhaps I did get confused about the number of times on THIS thread but in the boards section you've been bitching about the Spoke incessently and the lack of quality in the articles.

I wouldn't say a few posts was incessantly, tbh

me wrote:

His points and arguments were that the Spoke recently published a load of rubbish. Which is true. There is no finger wagging about "how does ... fair" and "literareture" etc.

That had nothing to do with the CC, though.

So you see, not only HAVE you been repeating yourself, but you've made a fool out of yourself by insisting you haven't. Just because it isn't on this thread doesn't change the fact.

I asked where and what I was repeating since I had no idea what you were talking about. Fool of myself? All you had to do was quote it properly in the first place.

You also said in THIS thread that the article shouldn't be in the spoke if it were crap, and you CLEARLY implied that you held this view. Anyone reading that sentance would come to that conclusion.

Which is why I asked:

me wrote:

In any case, where did I say it doesn't belong in the paper, without any qualifier?

I agree I said it in the other thread, and I'll concede that point only.

You wanted quotes, you got em. Now I'm sure I could find more for you... you want me to waste more of MY time or are you going to concede?

I got some from another thread yes. All you had to do was say that in the first place instead of ignoring it then making 2 posts about how you didn't have time - it would have saved a lot of trouble.

I'm very tempted to argue how your claims of me forcing my view on everyone and me insisting it should be thrown out of the paper are most certainly not backed up by one instance of my iterating that I didn't think it belonged in the paper, but it's not worth it anymore.

Incidentally, do you think it's wise to judge a regular column based on ONE article?

In that thread, we were discussing the one issue of the Spoke. I said the article didn't belong in a paper, not the whole column.
I've yet to read the latest one and will be quite happy to give my review when I do

Until then adieu.

trekkypj

bluewolf wrote:

Hey, it worked
If it's the only way to get you to back up something in a semi-debate then...*shrug*
I also wouldn't regard it as whinging.

Meh, it's all the same to me

bluewolf wrote:

That had nothing to do with the CC, though.

I suppose so... but it is criticising the Spoke... I too can make errors.

bluewolf wrote:

I asked where and what I was repeating since I had no idea what you were talking about. Fool of myself? All you had to do was quote it properly in the first place.

Well in fairness I didn't want to. I felt my argument was sound. I also felt that there was no need to quote because it was blindingly obvious to anyone reading the thread. And yes, I did think those comments were on this thread. I was tired and couldn't be bothered to check.

bluewolf wrote:

I agree I said it in the other thread, and I'll concede that point only.

Fair enough. I'm not trying to be an asshat here.

bluewolf wrote:

I got some from another thread yes. All you had to do was say that in the first place instead of ignoring it then making 2 posts about how you didn't have time - it would have saved a lot of trouble.

Maybe I wanted to see how far you'd go???

bluewolf wrote:

I'm very tempted to argue how your claims of me forcing my view on everyone and me insisting it should be thrown out of the paper are most certainly not backed up by one instance of my iterating that I didn't think it belonged in the paper, but it's not worth it anymore.

Nope, not worth it. That's a point of view thing. And maybe I was a bit harsh, but you have posted quite a bit about it.

I'm not trying to tell you how to think. I agree that some people won't like the CC article. I like it and for that reason I'll defend it. I can't help it, it's in my nature to argue these things. I know it's not exactly fashionable to be the dissenting voice, but to be honest I don't give two figs what other people think of my views. But I'll defend them, oh yes indeedy.

Nor am I trying to make you look like an idiot. But you annoyed me when you started demanding quotes, so I responded. Try not to hold it against me, eh? :rolleyes: