Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
That's a bit harsh, Spontaneous may be a plodding, pedantic, pettifogging, tedious, self-regarding, point-missing,disingenous,nitpicking,needlesly offensive, boorish, vapid, juvenile sophist.
That's a bit harsh, Spontaneous may be a plodding, pedantic, pettifogging, tedious, self-regarding, point-missing,disingenous,nitpicking,needlesly offensive, boorish, vapid, juvenile sophist.
I really don't understand how so many people can't tell the difference between causation & correlation.
1) Desire to cause offence -> call someone something insulting -> offence probably taken.
2) Desire to accuse -> accuse someone accurately -> no offence taken.
3) Desire to accuse -> accuse someone inaccurately -> potential for offence to be taken.
The fact that points 1 and 3 both involve the potential to cause offence does not make accusations & insults synonymous.
You should be able to see the paradox in telling a lie to insult someone by accusing them of being a liar ?
So, as I said, not a very good insult. Much better for making an accusation.
Well, I'm just a dopey moron but it seems to me that the 'red inside' bit is asserting that the 'watermelon' in question is accused of using environmentalism to conceal an anti-capitalist agenda.
Dishonest is not something that people are 'happy to be'.
I really don't understand how so many people can't tell the difference between causation & correlation.
1) Desire to cause offence -> call someone something insulting -> offence probably taken.
2) Desire to accuse -> accuse someone accurately -> no offence taken.
3) Desire to accuse -> accuse someone inaccurately -> potential for offence to be taken.
The fact that points 1 and 3 both involve the potential to cause offence does not make accusations & insults synonymous.
You should be able to see the paradox in telling a lie to insult someone by accusing them of being a liar ?
So, as I said, not a very good insult. Much better for making an accusation.
Well, I'm just a dopey moron but it seems to me that the 'red inside' bit is asserting that the 'watermelon' in question is accused of using environmentalism to conceal an anti-capitalist agenda.
Dishonest is not something that people are 'happy to be'.
I know my IQ is negligible by comparison to yours so it cannot possibly the case that you know all this perfectly well, and are indulging in disingenuousness and sterile semantics. It must be the Socratic Method. Or something.
The jibe may have had a grain of truth once, however Governments of all colours signed up to the Paris treaty, and many of the organisations supporting action are true blue capitalists, seeing the risk to their future profits.
So... you mean it's not an insult then? It's a shorthanded misrepresentation of motives?
Well, I'm just a dopey moron but it seems to me that the 'red inside' bit is asserting that the 'watermelon' in question is accused of using environmentalism to conceal an anti-capitalist agenda.
Dishonest is not something that people are 'happy to be'.
I know my IQ is negligible by comparison to yours so it cannot possibly the case that you know all this perfectly well, and are indulging in disingenuousness and sterile semantics. It must be the Socratic Method. Or something.
The jibe may have had a grain of truth once, however Governments of all colours signed up to the Paris treaty, and many of the organisations supporting action are true blue capitalists, seeing the risk to their future profits.
Leave a comment: