The Meaning of Life next week

pauldla

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

Not particularly 'ironic', moreso the bolded bit:

The bolded bit suggests that some style guides suggest using single quotation marks for ironic usage, does it not? Does the beginning of the article you reference not point out that there is no absolute rule on the usage, and that in the UK (and, by extension, usage that one one might expect to find in Ireland, unless you are Roddy Doyle or James Joyce), either single or double quotes are used?

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I think he forgot whether it was pronounced De Grass or De Grassy so just left it out!

I think Gaybo would know who Tyson is. Whatever else you think of him, he's very professional and he does his research for interviews. (Or he has it done for him, and he has his researchers brief him well.)

But he would also know that many of the viewers would have no idea who Tyson is. So - this is a common technique - he asks the question in the persona of someone who maybe hasn't heard of Tyson, or the name is familiar but he doesn't know much about him. This serves the dual function of (a) not alienating the viewers by giving them the feeling that they are watching a discussion that assumes a higher level of prior knowledge than they actually have, and (b) signalling gently to the interviewee that in his answer he may want to include a bit of context to "place" Tyson; he shouldn't assume that Tyson is a familiar name to the audience.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So you're a fan of Simple Wikipedia, STIF? :pac:

I'm more a 'fan' of Google, and whatever results it brings me, really. Although I probably could learn to use it better, and not just click on the first result.

pauldla wrote: »

Does the beginning of the article you reference not point out that there is no absolute rule on the usage

Yes, exactly.

pauldla

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

...
Yes, exactly.

So, single inverted commas are often used to quote verbatim? I don't get the point you're trying to make, to be honest. The words that Dan attributed to me are not my words. The opinion he has me voicing is not my opinion. Would you be aggrieved if you were misquoted so?

realdanbreen

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

Jesus Christ :rolleyes:

To the power of 10 :rolleyes:

Delirium

realdanbreen wrote: »

To the power of 10 :rolleyes:

Mecha Christ? :eek::P

pauldla

realdanbreen wrote: »

To the power of 10 :rolleyes:

If this is your final comment on the matter, I shall pursue it no further.

realdanbreen

pauldla wrote: »

If this is your final comment on the matter, I shall pursue it no further.

Missing you already..;)

pauldla

realdanbreen wrote: »

Missing you already..;)

Missing, misquoting, misreading, it seems; I ain't going anywhere.

Dan_Solo

realdanbreen wrote: »

Missing you already..;)

but your aim's getting better?
(to quote the country and western song)

Dan_Solo

undesceaux wrote: »

First time I've watched Dawkins in a while and he's still primitive in his beliefs. I expect him (and his followers) to come round soon enough. When he starts viewing evolution in terms of biological and post biological and realizes that his "ultimate boeing 747" rebuttal of God actually is a fatal flaw in his atheism, we will see him finally progress to the next level - a scientific hypothesis of the existence of God. Clearly God didn't create the universe and the religious scriptures cant be taken literally but if Dawkins ever sits down and follows his evolutionary theories all the way, he will come to the point where evolution starts to verify Gods existence. The answer lies in postbiological evolution and the EVOLUTION of a being that is infinitely more intelligent and capable than all humans combined. He is right about one thing though, "the designer himself must be the product of some kind of evolutionary process". When he follows this though, looking into things like AI, singularity, law of accelerating returns etc, he will eventually come to conceive of "God", and all the ramifications that brings. Yes Dawkins, the bible is scientifically erroneous etc, get over it and start actually thinking progressively and use evolution to fill in the gaps and explain how supernatural "God AI" eventually appears.

This sounds brilliant. Where can I buy it?
Oh hang on, I though I was still in the Science Fiction board. Never mind.

pauldla

Dan_Solo wrote: »

but your aim's getting better?
(to quote the country and western song)

That just triggered an ear worm, damn you. Same genre, different song.

We''ve been dating since high school we never once left this town
We use to go out on the weekends and we'd drink 'til we drowned
But now she's acting funny and I don't understand
I think that she's found her some other man

She left me for Jesus and that just ain't fair
She says that He's perfect, how could I compare?
She says I should find Him and I'll know peace at last
If I ever find Jesus, I'm kicking His ass

She showed me a picture all I could do was stare
At that freak in His sandals with His long pretty hair
They must think that I'm stupid or I don't have a clue
I'll bet He's a commie or ever worse yet a Jew

She left me for Jesus and that just ain't fair
She says that He's perfect, how could I compare?
She says I should find Him and I'll know peace at last
If I ever find Jesus, I'm kicking His ass

She's given up whiskey and ah taking up wine
While she prays for His troubles, she's forgot about mine
I'm a gonna get even, I can't handle the shame
Why last time we made love she even called out his name

She left me for Jesus and that just ain't fair
She says that He's perfect, how could I compare?
She says I should find Him and I'll know peace at last
If I ever find Jesus, I'm kicking His ass

It coulda been Carlos or even Billy Ortez
But if I ever find Jesus
He's gonna wish He was dead, Amen

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I'm afraid to ask but curiosity has, as it so often does, gotten the better of me.
What's 'post biological'?

Genetic and synthetic engineering of humans and/or the rise of the artificial intelligence machine.

undesceaux wrote: »

First time I've watched Dawkins in a while and he's still primitive in his beliefs. I expect him (and his followers) to come round soon enough. When he starts viewing evolution in terms of biological and post biological and realizes that his "ultimate boeing 747" rebuttal of God actually is a fatal flaw in his atheism, we will see him finally progress to the next level - a scientific hypothesis of the existence of God. Clearly God didn't create the universe and the religious scriptures cant be taken literally but if Dawkins ever sits down and follows his evolutionary theories all the way, he will come to the point where evolution starts to verify Gods existence. The answer lies in postbiological evolution and the EVOLUTION of a being that is infinitely more intelligent and capable than all humans combined. He is right about one thing though, "the designer himself must be the product of some kind of evolutionary process". When he follows this though, looking into things like AI, singularity, law of accelerating returns etc, he will eventually come to conceive of "God", and all the ramifications that brings. Yes Dawkins, the bible is scientifically erroneous etc, get over it and start actually thinking progressively and use evolution to fill in the gaps and explain how supernatural "God AI" eventually appears.

But even if some god-like entity were to arise in the future, that would not invalidate Dawkins' atheism in the present.
Unless you think that this entity would develop the ability to go back in time and engineer the sequence of events (the start of biological life ) which would eventually lead to its own creation. Which is a paradox.

robindch

Well, who'd have guessed that no less a public intellectual than Bristol Palin watched Dawkins and Gaybo? And she's upset. Very upset.

At Dawkins since he said that the 9/11 terrorists were not evil men. Of course, he explained the context in which he made that comment, but Bristol ignores it.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2015/10/richard-dawkins-says-911-hijackers-werent-evil/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/10/23/according-to-bristol-palin-richard-dawkins-says-911-hijackers-werent-evil/

Absolam

"militant Atheist scientist". Sounds like an awesome job title. Probably comes with epaulettes. Big ones, to match the A.

Sonics2k

robindch wrote: »

Well, who'd have guessed that no less a public intellectual than Bristol Palin watched Dawkins and Gaybo? And she's upset. Very upset.

At Dawkins since he said that the 9/11 terrorists were not evil men. Of course, he explained the context in which he made that comment, but Bristol ignores it.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2015/10/richard-dawkins-says-911-hijackers-werent-evil/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/10/23/according-to-bristol-palin-richard-dawkins-says-911-hijackers-werent-evil/

Regardless of your religious beliefs or lack thereof, it’s absolutely ludicrous to say that men who chose to train for years with the sole aim to kill as many people as possible are somehow not evil. I would say their actions are the very definition of evil.

Sounds like she's talking about most Army's across the world.

Hotblack Desiato

They're not evil when they're shooting away from you.

expectationlost

latest broadcasting complaints decisions published

3. Complaint Summary
The complainant states that at about 12 minutes into the programme, the programme
presenter referred to his guest, Ms. Mary Black, as having attended the St. Louis School
in Rathmines, and he stated (not asked): “You must have realised that the real purpose
of you being there was to be indoctrinated with the Roman Catholic faith, and that did
happen of course”.
The complainant further states:-
• To use the highly charged word “indoctrinate” is, in his opinion, a serious
allegation, and confuses indoctrination with religious education. He states that, in
saying that this was “the real purpose” of her education the presenter was saying
that this “indoctrination” was the over-riding purpose of the school. The
complainant states that this is a gratuitous insult to the school, and the presenter
made no effort whatsoever to balance it by suggesting that there could have
been any other agenda in the school which was beneficial. The complainant
states that in the format of the programme there was no representative of the
school to answer that charge, so at the very least, the presenter of the
programme had a responsibility to put an opposite view

decision

The Forum acknowledged that some audience members may find the use of the word
“indoctrinate” offensive. However, the members had regard for the context in which the
word was used. The question was about the interviewee’s experience attending
Catholic school and was not about a religious view, belief or image. Further, the Forum
noted that this is a long-running programme and regular viewers would be very familiar
with the format and types of interview questions.
• The members noted the complainant’s belief that the programme was unfair and that
an opposing view should have been provided regarding Catholic schools, but were of
the view that as this is not a current affairs programme, there is no requirement for
fairness, objectivity and impartiality.

BAI rarely upholds a complaint

Hotblack Desiato

They did manage to prevent anyone talking on TV and radio about gay marriage without an Iona representative present however - even before the referendum date was set.

expectationlost

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They did manage to prevent anyone talking on TV and radio about gay marriage without an Iona representative present however - even before the referendum date was set.

im not sure that ever actually occurred, its was claimed by Una Mullalaly but never backed up, the BAI repeatedly said that balance could be achieved across programmes.

Hotblack Desiato

Because her book mentions gayness, she wasn't allowed talk about it without an 'opponent' (:rolleyes:) being present

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/bai-ruling-on-marriage-equality-comments-stifles-ongoing-debate-1.2029836

I’ve spent two years working on it [her book] and I’m very proud of it. Now comes the time to talk about it. In light of these two BAI rulings, that’s the tricky bit. I have been told by national radio stations that in order to discuss this history book, there must be someone present who opposes rights for gay people. These are not editorial decisions. They are instructions from above. The utterly normal issue of civil marriage is being treated hysterically, and stations can’t risk getting another black mark from the BAI.

She is saying what broadcasters told her. In what way does her personal testimony of what happened to her need to be 'backed up' ?

expectationlost

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Because her book mentions gayness, she wasn't allowed talk about it without an 'opponent' (:rolleyes:) being present

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/bai-ruling-on-marriage-equality-comments-stifles-ongoing-debate-1.2029836



She is saying what broadcasters told her. In what way does her personal testimony of what happened to her need to be 'backed up' ?

she didn't name the broadcasters, and I think the Radio stations were misinterpreting the rules. I inherently disbelive anything any columnist writes particularily her as she's made mistakes in the past a refused to admit them.

Pherekydes

expectationlost wrote: »

she didn't name the broadcasters, and I think the Radio stations were misinterpreting the rules. I inherently disbelive anything any columnist writes particularily her as she's made mistakes in the past a refused to admit them.

She mentioned it was on Mooney Goes Wild, which I believe is on RTE 1.

expectationlost

Pherekydes wrote: »

She mentioned it was on Mooney Goes Wild, which I believe is on RTE 1.

no she mentioned Mooney Goes Wild she didn't say that was the programme she wanted to discuss her book on

Hotblack Desiato

expectationlost wrote: »

she didn't name the broadcasters

There are not very many national radio broadcasters.
We can rule out 2FM and probably TodayFM
4FM is a maybe.
But almost certainly she is talking about RTE Radio1 and Newstalk - she gives examples of feckwitted BAI decisions applicable to each of them in the article.

, and I think the Radio stations were misinterpreting the rules.

Perhaps, but it's up to the BAI to provide rules which are workable and don't unnecessarily restrict their editorial freedom. The broadcasters interpreted the rules in the light of the (bizarre) BAI decisions mentioned in the article.

I inherently disbelive anything any columnist writes

There's a big difference between opinion pieces and factual pieces, this is a factual piece as she is describing events she says happened to her. So are you saying she is lying and what is your evidence if so?

expectationlost

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There are not very many national radio broadcasters.
We can rule out 2FM and probably TodayFM
4FM is a maybe.
But almost certainly she is talking about RTE Radio1 and Newstalk - she gives examples of feckwitted BAI decisions applicable to each of them in the article.




Perhaps, but it's up to the BAI to provide rules which are workable and don't unnecessarily restrict their editorial freedom. The broadcasters interpreted the rules in the light of the (bizarre) BAI decisions mentioned in the article.




There's a big difference between opinion pieces and factual pieces, this is a factual piece as she is describing events she says happened to her. So are you saying she is lying and what is your evidence if so?

Opinion http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/bai-ruling-on-marriage-equality-comments-stifles-ongoing-debate-1.2029836 i'd like her to provide some corroborating evidence

Hotblack Desiato

Well perhaps we can put her on the rack and see if she'll recant

It's certainly plausible given the BAI decisions, and it's a little odd that a fairly well-known journalist launching a book on a topic of much current interest would not be interviewed about it on the radio, obviously the author and publisher benefit from it but it's very cheap radio for the broadcaster and helps them fill up their 'current affairs' quota and maybe stir up the angry texter brigade too - win win - so why didn't it happen?

expectationlost

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Well perhaps we can put her on the rack and see if she'll recant

It's certainly plausible given the BAI decisions, and it's a little odd that a fairly well-known journalist launching a book on a topic of much current interest would not be interviewed about it on the radio, obviously the author and publisher benefit from it but it's very cheap radio for the broadcaster and helps them fill up their 'current affairs' quota and maybe stir up the angry texter brigade too - win win - so why didn't it happen?

did it not happen?, did she not go on those programmes?

Hotblack Desiato

Not to my knowledge and not according to the articles she's written.

Peregrinus

Sorry, I'm confused. Is her complaint that:

(a) an Iona representative was present on every single programme where her book was discussed, or

(b) that she was not present on every single programme where her book was discussed?

And, in either, is there any evidence (beyond her assertion) that this was so?

expectationlost

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sorry, I'm confused. Is her complaint that:

(a) an Iona representative was present on every single programme where her book was discussed, or

(b) that she was not present on every single programme where her book was discussed?

And, in either, is there any evidence (beyond her assertion) that this was so?

her complaint was that she was told by radio show produces that somebody else would have to be on the show to give a counter arguement when she was promoting her book (before the referendum period started) (not a reasonable request imho)

i suspect she may have eventually gone on those programmes

Peregrinus

But was this just one particular programme that she was going on, or was she given the impression that this was a rule that would apply to every occasion on which her book was discussed?

I could easily see a situation where a producer wants a bit of of biffo on the show, and so brings in someone with a contrary view, and tries to keep the author onside by saying that "my hands are tied", or some such thing. I'm not saying that that is what happened here, but there does seem to be some distance between what Mullally is saying she was told were the rules , and what others say the rules are.

expectationlost

Peregrinus wrote: »

But was this just one particular programme that she was going on, or was she given the impression that this was a rule that would apply to every occasion on which her book was discussed?

I could easily see a situation where a producer wants a bit of of biffo on the show, and so brings in someone with a contrary view, and tries to keep the author onside by saying that "my hands are tied", or some such thing. I'm not saying that that is what happened here, but there does seem to be some distance between what Mullally is saying she was told were the rules , and what others say the rules are.

i think more then one producer said it was the what they were being told by the BAI, and what they were inferring from the decisions of the BAI she mentioned.

my impression is that book authors are mainly invited on by themselves (although it may be changing now), if they do a review of the book later they may have more then one person their to give a range of views.

I understand her point that her book was partly personal and it would be unreasonable for her to come on and tell her story and have to debate somebody else about it, she could debate somebody at some other time if they want.

although book authors are selling their wares,but radio and TV need content (between their own ads ) and this gives them some, maybe a programme needs some sort of balance to be more then just being a commercial for a book, but the presenter can do that Im not sure it needs means a potentially hostile counter guest