currently playing: A Camp – Song for the Leftovers
T
August 30, 2005 7:27 PM
* Pedant alert *
Now Snappish Productions is actually making... well... er... products (such as your life-enriching random DVD) I suspect it might be a real company, not an imaginary one.
Thus
Snappish Productions: an imaginary company for the work of Ian Pointer (and his sister Bonnie).
needs updating.
Killing U2? I'm confused (not for the first time).
Ian
August 31, 2005 6:41 AM
We're an imaginary compay that makes real things! It's the new 21st century company...or something.
I was just struck with how U2-like the start of that song sounds. Early U2 anyway.
R
September 1, 2005 10:10 AM
Wrong response as usual, in re Ken.
It's not that I think he shouldn't have said it. It's the hypocrisy which I loathe. If Ken's hubris is so monstrous that he thinks anyone who asks him difficult questions is only doing it because they get paid and are told to by Associated Newspapers, and not because they may have legitimate questions about his conduct, then let him liken them to concentration camp guards and let his fate be decided where it should be: by the voters. But if a rival of his had said that, Ken wouldn't be seen for the dust kicked up on his charge for the high ground. It's the double standards he need to work on, not the sensitivity.
Ian
September 1, 2005 10:29 AM
Oh, certainly, I can't see the point of sending him to sensitivity training, or banning him from taking office (which would sit ill at ease with, say, BNP members being able to stand for office).
In other news: the Government's plan to allow relatives of victims give a speech before sentencing: a complete waste of time, or yet another cynical does-nothing-but-suggests-feel-your-pain move by our wonderful Government (see also: new violent pornography rules…)
R
September 1, 2005 4:53 PM
Should first clarify that "wrong response as usual" referred not to your sensitivity training idea but to the disciplinary hearing. I "had my say" at the time on the BBC website (amusingly was published), saying exactly what I just said. The only disciplinary procedure he should face is getting voted out. I long so fervently to see the back of him that I'd seriously consider election rigging, but the only thing I have against what he said is the hypocrisy. I can't see that he broke any laws; the hearing is unquestionably a sop to the Jewish community and (to quote Marbury) any arguments made in its defence will surely be moronic.
As for the other two things you mention ... grrr. Fortunately for your other readers, I have to go and eat, so they shall be spared further reams of self-importance on these topics. :)
* Pedant alert *
Now Snappish Productions is actually making... well... er... products (such as your life-enriching random DVD) I suspect it might be a real company, not an imaginary one.
Thus
needs updating.Killing U2? I'm confused (not for the first time).
We're an imaginary compay that makes real things! It's the new 21st century company...or something.
I was just struck with how U2-like the start of that song sounds. Early U2 anyway.
Wrong response as usual, in re Ken.
It's not that I think he shouldn't have said it. It's the hypocrisy which I loathe. If Ken's hubris is so monstrous that he thinks anyone who asks him difficult questions is only doing it because they get paid and are told to by Associated Newspapers, and not because they may have legitimate questions about his conduct, then let him liken them to concentration camp guards and let his fate be decided where it should be: by the voters. But if a rival of his had said that, Ken wouldn't be seen for the dust kicked up on his charge for the high ground. It's the double standards he need to work on, not the sensitivity.
Oh, certainly, I can't see the point of sending him to sensitivity training, or banning him from taking office (which would sit ill at ease with, say, BNP members being able to stand for office).
In other news: the Government's plan to allow relatives of victims give a speech before sentencing: a complete waste of time, or yet another cynical does-nothing-but-suggests-feel-your-pain move by our wonderful Government (see also: new violent pornography rules…)
Should first clarify that "wrong response as usual" referred not to your sensitivity training idea but to the disciplinary hearing. I "had my say" at the time on the BBC website (amusingly was published), saying exactly what I just said. The only disciplinary procedure he should face is getting voted out. I long so fervently to see the back of him that I'd seriously consider election rigging, but the only thing I have against what he said is the hypocrisy. I can't see that he broke any laws; the hearing is unquestionably a sop to the Jewish community and (to quote Marbury) any arguments made in its defence will surely be moronic.
As for the other two things you mention ... grrr. Fortunately for your other readers, I have to go and eat, so they shall be spared further reams of self-importance on these topics. :)