International Journal of Inactivism (now supplanted by Decoding SwiftHack)

2010/01/03

We need more summaries of stuff

[cite as: F. Bi. 2010. We need more summaries of stuff. Intl. J. Inact., 3:2]

Shorter Tom Harris: The organizers of the Copenhagen climate conference gave out way more NGO participant registrations than the conference centre could hold, leading to some really bad riots. This shows that global warming is a scam. [cached]

Shorter Frederik Engel: In the light of the Climatic Research Unit crack, the global warming alarmists are becoming the true deniers of truth! To show why this is the case, I’ll simply insinuate that the e-mails show climate scientists manipulating data. Manipulating data! No, I don’t need to show that they manipulated data, but the fact that they did manipulate data (which I don’t need to show) is proof that the global warming alarmists are trying to bring about a UN-led One World Government, and therefore the alarmists are wrong. Or something. [cached]

Advertisements

12 Comments »

  1. Heartland is really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one…

    Comment by hidden — 2010/01/03 @ 22:17 | Reply

    • Not that it’s any surprise though. I mean, given that Heartland has already decided that the Free Software movement is a Marxist conspiracy…

      Comment by frankbi — 2010/01/05 @ 13:09 | Reply

  2. Er, hello . . . ?

    (Sorry that’s a bit brief but I thought I would start what I just know is going to be an exciting and fruitful e-friendship with something strictly neutral and non-controversial. Pretty cool, eh? – oops, sorry, I mean warm – no I don’t mean that either … Oh God, this isn’t going very well, is it?)

    Comment by David Duff — 2010/01/16 @ 22:17 | Reply

    • Sure. But what are your definitions of “neutral” and “non-controversial”? Are the definitions themselves possibly non-neutral or controversial? Can there ever be anything that’s “strictly neutral and non-controversial”? Unfortunately, these are difficult questions, and they’re not merely theoretical. If you can sort them out, then please, be my guest.

      Comment by frankbi — 2010/01/17 @ 07:42 | Reply

  3. I don’t think there is anything difficult to understand in those terms – he said controversially!

    To be ‘neutral’ is simply to refuse to take sides in a dispute. The reasons for it might vary, for example, lack of knowledge on the details of the dispute, absolutely no interest in the outcome of the dispute, fear of picking the losing side and so on.

    ‘Controversial’, it seems to me, has two slightly different meanings. Usually it describes the subject of a lengthy and heated debate, but a more modern meaning might be an act designed to cause shock or publicity.

    For an example of ‘neutral’ and ‘non-controversial’, try this:

    “Hello!”

    So far, so tedious! I do think words are important but conversation, which withers under too much linguistic analysis, is much more important. What do you think?

    Comment by David Duff — 2010/01/17 @ 09:38 | Reply

    • David Duff:

      For an example of ‘neutral’ and ‘non-controversial’, try this:

      “Hello!”

      That’s where you’re wrong, David, because even “Hello!” is controversial:

      In 1997, Leonso Canales Jr. from Kingsville, Texas convinced Kleberg County commissioners to designate “heaven-o” as the county’s official greeting, on the grounds that the greeting “hello” contains the word “hell”, and that the proposed alternative sounds more “positive”.

      The science is not settled, no Sir!

      So, if you can find something which is truly “neutral” and “non-controversial”, then be my guest.

      Comment by frankbi — 2010/01/17 @ 12:40 | Reply

  4. OK, so can I take it that a phrase like “Where the CRU attacker …” is obviously neutral and non-controversial, it must be because you wrote it, then the phrase ‘the CRU truth-exposer’ would fail your test because it implies a very different motive?

    You see how carefully I tread upon this hallowed turf!

    Comment by David Duff — 2010/01/17 @ 14:39 | Reply

    • No, David. You wanted to start discussion with “something strictly neutral and non-controversial”. I asked you what your definition of “strictly neutral and non-controversial” is, and whether you can find something that’s truly “strictly neutral and non-controversial”. You couldn’t.

      Think about it. Till then, good day.

      Comment by frankbi — 2010/01/17 @ 15:11 | Reply

  5. Lol, this is probably the lamest beginning of a trolling attempt I have ever seen 🙂

    Comment by hidden — 2010/01/18 @ 17:13 | Reply

    • Well, too bad it’s not working here. It’s kind of easy to see who’s actually willing to do some real thoughtful discussion, and who’s just looking for an excuse to brainlessly dump stuff.

      Comment by frankbi — 2010/01/19 @ 13:04 | Reply

  6. Here is my piece: ██████████████████████████████████████████████████ . Perhaps people should read it versus simply making up what I supposedly said?

    [duplicate link removed –stepanovich]

    Comment by Tom Harris — 2010/04/09 @ 20:50 | Reply

    • We did link to your piece, so that everyone can judge for himself whether our summary is accurate.

      Comment by stepanovich — 2010/04/10 @ 05:19 | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: