Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Does not follow. Are you trying?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I know! Why don't we all (mothers and fathers) just not bother about our children at all. Let's just hand them all over to the state to take care of, then we can go out and do what the hell we like!

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Anyone who calls people 'vermin' is unlikely to engage in any worthwhile discussion with others imo.

He won't be here long.

---

I agree that such terminology is unwise, especially on here.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
Hell’s bells. If the best line in intimidation is to pick up on this sort of thing people really are getting stuck. I know some folks are happier with Anglo-Saxon grunts but “Non placet” has been around long enough to be English – Oxford Movement and all that. I don’t know who is going to set himself up as the oracle as to what is or is not English but it is in English dictionaries. Despite its original form the phrase is English enough to be treated as a regular English noun and forms it plural by adding “s”. It is bound to be familiar to graduates of either of the universities. Or am I missing the real agenda?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
I don’t know who is going to set himself up as the oracle as to what is or is not English

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But you don't seem to understand the context of the thread in the first place.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
This is so weaselly. I.e. he has no problems in declaring other people to be vermin apart from the risk that "liberal-revolutionaries" might get you if you do. Playing the victim card whilst actually agreeing with Berwickshire's spittle-flecked rants. He manages to be a tool and gutless at the same time.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But you don't seem to understand the context of the thread in the first place.

---

Your evidence for that being what? (Needs to be more than simply non-agreement with you, by the way).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You seem to have no concept of the difference between the women (who happen to be mothers) going out to cause trouble, possibly leading to their arrest, and working mothers.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You seem to have no concept of the difference between the women (who happen to be mothers) going out to cause trouble, possibly leading to their arrest, and working mothers.

I've tried to explain, but you and your liberal clique are so sure you were right in the first place that I feel I have wasted my time. You ask me to explain myself, then when I do you're not interested.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
You'll observe on this thread and elsewhere that the ship is not especially prone to consensus.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You seem to have no concept of the difference between the women (who happen to be mothers) going out to cause trouble, possibly leading to their arrest, and working mothers.

---

I'm sorry Mark. I suspect that somewhere or another you make this distinction and I have missed it. My bad.

Please be kind enough to take the time to help me understand the distinction.

Thank you in advance,

Tortuf

---

OK, no problem Just read this thread again from start to finish, and if you still can't see the distinction do it again.

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
You'll observe on this thread and elsewhere that the ship is not especially prone to consensus.

---

On the contrary, I have found many on the ship are, including down here - they tend to be the ones who dominate threads.

---

Yeah, that's me. Utterly full of agreement with other posters. Never have heated arguments with any of the others.

I'd point you to the hell call I issued not so long ago, but the hosts around here like doing regular clean ups.

[ 20. August 2012, 13:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
This is so weaselly. I.e. he has no problems in declaring other people to be vermin apart from the risk that "liberal-revolutionaries" might get you if you do. Playing the victim card whilst actually agreeing with Berwickshire's spittle-flecked rants. He manages to be a tool and gutless at the same time.

---

I don't agree with everything Berwickshire writes, and I doubt if he would agree with everything I write. It's known as discernment, but you wouldn't know anything about that would you Pre-cambrian.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I know! Why don't we all (mothers and fathers) just not bother about our children at all. Let's just hand them all over to the state to take care of, then we can go out and do what the hell we like!

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Out of curiosity, Mark Betts, what's your opinion of the two single moms on my staff?

---

I hope you treat them well, and ensure they have adequate care for their children. They are not out trying to seek fame and publicity, and risking arrest which would seperate them from their offspring, are they?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You seem to have no concept of the difference between the women (who happen to be mothers) going out to cause trouble, possibly leading to their arrest, and working mothers.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I have discerned, Mark Betts, that you are a petty authoritarian conservative with all the paranoia of a Daily Mail letters page. I have also discerned that whenever you are challenged on something you have written you then go off on a tangent in order to avoid the issue. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by attributing it to your being too stupid to understand words, rather than to dishonesty.

Cue the next bit of puerile nose-thumbing.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
It is bound to be familiar to graduates of either of the universities. Or am I missing the real agenda?

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Apparently you don't even know where you live...

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You seem to have no concept of the difference between the women (who happen to be mothers) going out to cause trouble, possibly leading to their arrest, and working mothers.

---

You've stated that you think it a Bad Thing for women to be "going out to cause trouble" (while remaining very quiet about men doing the same) because they may be arrested and therefore be unable to care for their children. Leaving aside the glaring privilege that leads you to assume that it's the sole responsibility of women to take their children into account:

How do you define "may be arrested" in this context? Should arrest be forseeable, a likely outcome, or a theoretical possibility?

Where does legitimate protest meet "going out to cause trouble"? I'm sure you can't really be saying that no mother should ever participate in a demonstration or rally (for example), so what are you saying?

What is your position on women whose very jobs involve unsocial hours, or are genuinely dangerous? Surely, if ability to care for their children is the only measure, they're at least as deserving of your scorn?

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
You've stated that you think it a Bad Thing for women to be "going out to cause trouble" (while remaining very quiet about men doing the same) because they may be arrested and therefore be unable to care for their children.

---

quote:

---

Where does legitimate protest meet "going out to cause trouble"? I'm sure you can't really be saying that no mother should ever participate in a demonstration or rally (for example), so what are you saying?

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
I'm curious: Is it possible that Mark Betts is on far more intimate terms with Pussy Riot than he's previously let on? He seems privy to so much of their thought process, values, and goals.

C'mon, mate: how do you know what you claim to know about these women?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Since when was it a "legitimate" protest?

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
The women's statements are quite lengthy, and I'll admit to having scanned some portions. But the following remarks strike me (YMMV) as statements of genuine plitical protest (Hope these are brief enough to steer clear of potential copyright issues):

Yekaterina (sorry, forgot to add her patronymic)

Compared to the judicial machine, we are nobodies, and we have lost. On the other hand, we have won. The whole world now sees that the criminal case against us has been fabricated. The system cannot conceal the repressive nature of this trial. Once again, the world sees Russia differently than the way Putin tries to present it at his daily international meetings.

Maria Alyokhina

The current government will have occasion to feel shame and embarrassment because of [this] for a long time to come. At each stage it has embodied a travesty of justice. As it turned out, our performance, at first a small and somewhat absurd act, snowballed into an enormous catastrophe.

Nadezhda Tolokonnikova

By and large, the three members of Pussy Riot are not the ones on trial here. If we were, this event would hardly be so significant. This is a trial of the entire political system of the Russian Federation, which, to its great misfortune, enjoys quoting its own cruelty toward the individual, its indifference toward human honor and dignity, repeating all of the worst moments of Russian history.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
BTW, I'm still awaiting your advice about the two single mothers who place themselves at so much risk while working at our company. To fire, or not to fire?

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
BTW, I'm still awaiting your advice about the two single mothers who place themselves at so much risk while working at our company. To fire, or not to fire?

---

What are you asking me for? They are your employees, so you do what you think is best for them.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
BTW, I'm still awaiting your advice about the two single mothers who place themselves at so much risk while working at our company. To fire, or not to fire?

---

What are you asking me for? They are your employees, so you do what you think is best for them.

---

Then STFU about Russian pop singers.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
BTW, I'm still awaiting your advice about the two single mothers who place themselves at so much risk while working at our company. To fire, or not to fire?

---

What are you asking me for? They are your employees, so you do what you think is best for them.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
BTW, I'm still awaiting your advice about the two single mothers who place themselves at so much risk while working at our company. To fire, or not to fire?

---

What are you asking me for? They are your employees, so you do what you think is best for them.

---

I am asking you because you have argued on this thread that women who place themselves at risk obviously care little about their children.

Since mothers who work -- at policing, at soldiering, in heavy industries, as medical and security personnel, as performers (esp. when they achieve significant fame) -- routinely place themselves at significant risk, should employers (A) fire employed mothers and/or (B) refuse to hire mothers who apply for risky jobs, in order to reduce the chances that these mothers' children might end up neglected?

I'm simply trying to suss out the principle, assuming there is one, behind the argument you've made.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I know! Why don't we all (mothers and fathers) just not bother about our children at all. Let's just hand them all over to the state to take care of, then we can go out and do what the hell we like!

---

Mark, do you really not understand why what you said was offensive?

Do you understand that it was offensive?

You don't really think that people are just picking on you because you're conservative and they're liberal, do you?

These are not rhetorical questions, intended as some sort of slam. They're genuine questions.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
How long have they had to prepare these statements? About 6 months or just under, I believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Of course, lawyers and others would make them look like genuine political protest, <snip>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
<snip> . . .

why would they compose statements which made out that they only stormed the Cathedral for publicity and fame?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm glad you took the time to skim through them, but you also have to read between the lines and discern what's really going on.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
In case you missed it the first time, Mark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I know! Why don't we all (mothers and fathers) just not bother about our children at all. Let's just hand them all over to the state to take care of, then we can go out and do what the hell we like!

---

Mark, do you really not understand why what you said was offensive?

Do you understand that it was offensive?

You don't really think that people are just picking on you because you're conservative and they're liberal, do you?

These are not rhetorical questions, intended as some sort of slam. They're genuine questions.

---

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I doubt I'm alone in mentally putting you on my "ignore" list at this point, because you're acting like a total leotard.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Ah. Is "self-employment" a different fish-kettle from "employment," in your view? Self-employment can, in itself, be fairly risky, in an economic sense. Should parents be barred from self-employment?

---