On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:59:49AM +0100, b.stevens611@??? wrote:
> So... It's ok to be sanctimonious and patronise people but not ok to
> call people on it?
> Hmmm...
No, both of those things are fine by me. I just don't think that's whwat
happened.
> It was an OT thread about godwin's law. I was trying to have a laugh
> when graham took exception to what i said about MPs. I called him on his
> holier than thou attitude and now a bunch of you have your knickers in a
> twist.
I understand that you are rightfully pissed off about MPs claiming for
ridiculous expenses. I am pissed off about that too. I just don't
believe that it bears any comparison with Hitler. That is literally all
I said.
By saying that fiddling expenses is not as bad as the actions of the
Nazis, I am not saying that fiddling expenses is not bad. Fiddling
expenses and appropriating taxpayers' money is definitely bad. I hope
that clears up any confusion on the subject.
The reason I responded to your original mail is that by making these
sort of trivial comparisons I think the magnitude of the Nazi crimes
gets diminished in our heads.
> Still, graham... What more could i expect from someone who describes
> the wholesale theft of millions of pounds of taxpayers money as
> "opportunist expenses claims"? Are you sure you're not related to an MP?
> :-)
Ha, I do believe it was theft and I should have said so. Not sure if it
is worth arguing about the use of wholesale, although it is tempting ;-)
Actually I am related to an MP, but he's not a politician. He works for
the Australian Navy if you need any further clues ;-) Other than that,
I don't know of any.
> It was all tongue in cheek (hence the smilies) but if the result was
> making the politically correct brigade have a fit of the vapours, it was
> well worth it :-)
Ah, the "smilies absolve me of all responsibility for my actions" card. I
haven't seen that played for a couple of years. It's about as effective
an argument as saying that anyone who disagrees with you is part of the
"PC Brigade" ;-) [*]
My expectation of this list, even on OT threads, is that people will at
least attempt to have some sort of rational debate, which means
at least responding to each other's points and not getting distracted
into personal attacks. Maybe my expectation is unrealistic.
Obviously it is quite infuriating to be called a patronising arse hat,
but I'm not that bothered about it as long as you actually bother to
respond to my arguments. "You were right all along, MPs' dodgy expenses
claims are not as bad as the actions of Hitler." will do fine, thanks.
I think I've spent enough of my time on this now, so that will probably be
my last contribution on the subject, unless I feel that anyone needs to
be patronised into submission.
Cheers,
Graham
[*] You many not take exception to anything with a smilie after it,
remember. Otherwise I will be able to say unkind things about you.
--
One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code.
-- Ken Thompson
