|
Live
Whacking Permalink Archive
click "Live Whacking"
button for the latest entries
18
August 2003
Back
Was busy
motorbike riding and socialising last weekend. Last night I had an ISP
outage to contend with. Oh well, I'm back now.
link
Quote of
the day
And
I think you'll all agree that via my mathematically quantifiable analysis,
Arnie should be president of the world and Heath Ledger cleaning public
toilets on Pluto.
- Tony
Taylor
link
The ideal replacement
Yobbo
has found
the perfect guy to take Hugh Mackay's spot at The Sydney Morning
Herald.
link
Yowza
If you
ever want to convert someone to motorcycle racing, show them a tape of
last
night's MotoGP race in its entirety.
link
Hero picture
One of
my personal gods: Kif - the ever-suffering starship officer from
Futurama.
link
Discomfort
in The Mother Country
Jason
Soon aint
much enjoying the English summer.
link
The
Green Left Weekly spreads hoax
The stinky,
brain-dead ones are
growling about the latest Evil American Cultural Outrage.
A woman’s
place is in the struggle: Hunting for Bambi
After mud-wrestling,
we didn't think it could get much worse. “Hunting for Bambi”,
the latest form of “adult entertainment” for some in the US,
is a sadistic twist on the already sadistic sport skirmish (paintball).
“Hunting
for Bambi” involves shooting paintballs at naked women within a
hunting scenario. The punters, dressed in army fatigues, pay up to $30,000
for a game, which is taped so they can take it home and show it to their
buddies.
The women aren't
allowed to wear any form of clothing, only sneakers. According to founder
Michael Burdick, “The main goal is to be as true to nature as possible
. I don't go deer hunting and see a deer with a football helmet on,
so I don't want to see one on my girl either.”
Yikes. Those American
capitalist pigs. Hey, it's another excuse for really, really
deep greenie cultural analysis:
The appalling
welfare system in the US also leaves many women financially desperate.
This will get worse if US President George Bush succeeds in planned
reforms to crack down on single mothers getting money to live on.
The US media
constantly reaffirms that to be valid and part of the US community,
one must be affluent. Yet wealth is available to very few. For example,
20% of the global population consumes 80% of the world’s resources,
the remaining 80% of people have to fight over the crumbs. This division
is also evident in the US.
Those who have
limited funds, and limited ability to earn more because of poor education,
are forced to degrade themselves to live up to expectations.
By blaming women,
furthermore, the misogynist instigators of games like “Hunting
for Bambi” get away with it, and can continue to profit out of
the objectification of women.
Thank god we have
the greenies to keep track of all the evil in the world. Too bad the
whole thing is a hoax.
link
Fellating
Fidel
Misha
examines the BBC's fawning coverage of the left's favourite tyrant.
link
Jeebus, not
again
Niall
Cook has another
interminable post in which he waffles at length about non-issues before
finally spitting out his justification for using my money to fund the
ABC. What can you say to this lunacy?
I
don’t have to justify spending YOUR money, which it isn’t
anyway, anymore than I need to justify spending MY money, which it isn’t.
Taxation is not our money.
Um, where
did they get it from then?
But before
then, we have his attempts at argument:
Southpark is
televised on SBS, which doesn’t help Tex’s argument much given
that he decries the very existence of the national broadcasters,of which
SBS is one.
Mmmm,
well seeing as I'm forced to pay for SBS, I have a right to watch
it. Should the opportunity arise for me to withdraw my involuntary support,
I will quit watching it. By the way, I have seen exactly 3 episodes of
South Park, one of which was in the USA.
And here's
his reponse to my posting statistics proving the unpopularity of public
networks:
Says who, Tex?
Says Tex, that’s who.
No, says the ratings
figures. Here's
the SBS figures (which Niall provided, proving his memory is as bad
as his reasoning ability) and here's
the ABC figures which are actually worse than the 16% I quoted first.
C’mon, at
least make a fist of it. Don’t simply resort to a Bandwagon Fallacy
because you have no other avenue.
Um, here
they are again stupid guy:
| %
of taxpayers funding the ABC |
100% |
| %
of taxpayers watching the ABC |
16% |
| %
of taxpayers funding SBS |
100% |
| %
of taxpayers watching SBS |
5.5% |
Can't
refute them? Didn't think so. He does however whinge about them:
Just a note to
readers: The above ARE NOT definitive data. The above are selective
representations of what Tex would have you believe. The realities of
television viewing public over an extremely small programming sample
as Tex has attempted to use, as opposed to overall users of national
broadcaster electronic programming would be vastly different to the
above. I originally provided the example in refutation of his 'near-zero'
premise. Now it's being taken as the be all & end all in ratings
evidence. I’m left to wonder just which out of Tex or myself, is
living in the real world.
So? Provide
different figures. The fact that you have not speaks volumes. I'm
providing them out of context? The provide the context. Show us these
"vastly different" ratings figures...... the silence is deafening.
The bottom line
is that Tex is not comparing like with like in his argument that the
ABC should not exist because it can’t compete.
No, it
shouldn't use my money to exist. If it can survive via private
subscription then that's just fine by me. How many more times do I have
to explain this for you to understand, you dolt?
The ABC is a
NON-COMMERCIAL broadcaster. Capitalised so it catches Tex’s attention.
Its funding comes from Joe Bloggs.
Well,
D-U-H. Niall sez it's taxpayer funded. Did anyone else not get that impression
from my last three posts?
I’d love
Tex to explain to me why, if because it cannot avail of commercially
based funding and cannot compete on the same level, the Corporation
still participates in Logie awards, indeed wins a few too. Surely one
needs ratings to win awards, or are they just handed out because the
public don’t rate the broadcaster? I’m sure Tex will have
the answer to that one.
Niall,
the ABC wins the industry voted awards, not the popular
voted ones, on account of the ABC not being popular and all.
You want to break
up the ABC, per se, because YOU don’t like it and YOU believe YOUR
viewing and listening choices are superior to mine.
No I
don't. I want you to pay for your choices, and for me to pay for my choices.
You are not paying for my Foxtel channels, but I am paying for your ABC.
Tex, it’s
clear that you have a gripe, but it’s a gripe you can’t substantiate.
Aside
from proving hardly anyone who pays for public broadcasters actually watches
them of course. Niall considers this point unimportant.
It’s a gripe
you can resolve by opting out of the system which you are a part of.
If you’re willing to do that, then be my guest.
No, I
can't opt out, because paying for the ABC and SBS is mandatory. Get it?
Continual argument
through the use of Ad hominem and a host of related logical fallacies
does nothing to further your reasoning.
Statistical
proof with links are dismissed as logical fallacies. Well, Niall
is a far-leftie after all.
It’s painfully
obvious to me that you can’t hold a debate and simply need a lever
off which to pivot your ludicrous need for vitriolic comment.
As refuting
simple statistical evidence, elementary reading and knowledge of simple
principles of taxation are little beyond your abilities, it seems debate
is not something you know much about.
This
is like trying to teach algebra to a hamster.
link
|
