Slugger O'Toole

Conversation, politics and stray insights

Profile for Nunoftheabove

This user has not yet written a description

Latest comments from Nunoftheabove (see all)

Nunoftheabove has commented 1,666 times (0 in the last month).

  1. Comment on “Them and us” versus “all of us” with the Alliance party in the middle…
    on 30 November 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Framer

    The chapter and verse inclusion is appreciated. My jaw’s still not quite undropped as yet though. “…while furthering the reconciliation of historical divisions between the major religious communities there” is ranking fairly highly among the more counter-intuitive sentences I’ve read so far today. It’s early yet, though.

    Go to comment

  2. Comment on “Them and us” versus “all of us” with the Alliance party in the middle…
    on 30 November 2011 at 10:09 am

    Lionel Hutz

    How are you/we here reasonably to define legitimacy ? And legitimate purpose, in the circumstances, through the use of…public expenditure ? When the greater public interest cannot be argued to be optimally served through the return achieved for that expenditure ?

    Go to comment

  3. Comment on “When this is all over, ordinary priests and regular RTÉ journalists will have something in common?”
    on 30 November 2011 at 10:04 am

    Harry Flasman

    Interestingly positioned line. Whether it can actually be described as Leftism per se (whatever about its self-identification as Leftism) though is a bigger question and one certainly worth grappling with and at least attempting to answer. To that extent, I’m not certain that what passes for official Leftism is other than fairly… conservative… in its own right. There’s a sickly relativist intolerance aboutsome of it, certainly.

    I would argue that even if the above is all or mainly true,as much as anything it speaks volumes for the redundancy of what we used to call the Left. In general terms though I would accept the thrust i.e. that there’s an orthodoxy in place within RTE just as there is in the mainstream media in the UK and in a great many other places and it’s nothing much to do with any liberal and/or lefty conspiracy per se.

    A lot of what you say has been commented upon in and about the UK in a not altogether dissimilar fashion by Peter Hitchens….and I don’t say that only/just/even to annoy you. It immediately reminded me of some of what he’s said in recent years about the BBC in particular.

    Go to comment

  4. Comment on “Refuelling a pre-existing culture of victimhood with the burning kerosene of distant injustice”
    on 30 November 2011 at 5:22 am

    Congal Claen

    But that number may conceal any number of other factors; how many are actually involved (one man involved in 16 killings, evades arrest, 3 people incolved in three killings, not adept at evading apprehension etc), how adept they were/are at evading arrest/conviction etc, the extent of state penetration and ability to gather evidence etc – seems like you’re possibly reading into a lot into these numbers without considering causality or different possible bases of interpretation.

    Go to comment

  5. Comment on “Refuelling a pre-existing culture of victimhood with the burning kerosene of distant injustice”
    on 29 November 2011 at 9:13 pm

    What is the relationship between the number of murders and number of murderers, still less the number of people convicted of crimes in relation to those murders ?

    Go to comment

  6. Comment on “Them and us” versus “all of us” with the Alliance party in the middle…
    on 29 November 2011 at 8:49 pm

    “All applicants must be committed to the religious and pastoral development of a Catholic school”

    Is the act of applying for the job considered as a de facto undertaking of such a commitment or is this commitment routinely assessed as part of the selection process ? If so, how ? How strongly weighted is it as one of presumably a number of selection criteria vis-a-vis, say, the ability to, like, teach actual stuff ? Is it possible to lose out on a job purely on the basis of being assessed as slightly less committed to the religious and pastoral development notion than another candidate ?

    Go to comment

  7. Comment on Sammy Wilson’s #dupconf routine – complete with doubtful gags about SF’s Long Creche
    on 29 November 2011 at 12:32 pm

    Alias

    Many thanks. Colouring-in book, is it ? Crayons provided ? Is that your review, the one about how utterly unintelligible it all was for you but how you liked the nice shiny cover and so gave it three stars, a great big kiss and an extra large cute smiley sticker ?

    Cheer up, xmas is coming and they might issue a special pop-up picture edition just for you. Let’s hope so.

    Go to comment

  8. Comment on Sammy Wilson’s #dupconf routine – complete with doubtful gags about SF’s Long Creche
    on 28 November 2011 at 8:31 pm

    Alias

    I’ll support the claims which I actually make and the implications which go with them thanks. Those will be the implications I put on them though, not the ones you make up and endeavour to project onto me from within your fairly obviously parochial perspective.

    Thanks again for the revelation on how you think. Tells us plenty, babe.

    Go to comment

  9. Comment on Sammy Wilson’s #dupconf routine – complete with doubtful gags about SF’s Long Creche
    on 28 November 2011 at 8:16 pm

    Alias

    My own prejudice ?! About what or who ? And why ? Why would I go to the bother of constructing a fairly readily understandable question if I simple wished to name-call ?

    “There is no logic or fact supporting your biased conclusion, and so you acted to seek support for it by a “show of hands.””

    What biased conclusion ? I asked a question, you’re the one who’s projecting here to a highly noticeable extent. It’s a stupid, cheap thing to say from an uncultured and unimpressive public figure. As a matter of fact I didn’t suggest that Mr Wilson was or is unintelligent. His remarks do rather suggest he can identify that many of his audience are lacking in intelligence and civility and that his failed attempts at humour are his attempt to identify with them on precisely that basis. You can deny that if you wish but lots of luck disproving it.

    “you only support his right to say whatever you agree with; and you seek the support of others to condemn him”

    I don’t need anyone else’s support do so, thanks; thus, if you’re as supportive of the right to free speech as I am then you’ll support me in offering my opinion or, in this case, the mere asking of as fairly intelligible question. I’d prefer to know what he thinks than not but I suspect this particular comment tells us more about Wilson and his relationship to his audience than perhaps conceivably he could possibly know himself. To try to explain this, for, oh, the third time though, if you can’t quite grasp that defending that right doesn’t indicate wholehearted support for what he says and that we should esteem public representatives who conduct themselves like street corner layabouts in their use of language then the IQ problem ain’t mine, kid.

    Go to comment

Copyright © 2003 - 2014 Slugger O'Toole Ltd. All rights reserved.
Powered by WordPress; produced by Puffbox.
43 queries. 7.924 seconds.