Comments on: Chutzpah

By: tom p

tom p — Mon, 16 May 2005 10:10:03 +0000

However, if it’s only wheeled out in conjunction with whatever is Beyer’s latest sondbite, then it’s putting the con to the pro that is ‘Media Watchdog, John Beyer, said”, which is the sort of phrase that usually accompanies his latest blast of idiocy and is phrased to give him a spurios credibility. Whenever he speaks, he’s the pro (albeit very amateurish). Using this quote to point out he’s a rentaquote idiot would be the con and would be providing the balance for once. duh!

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Sun, 15 May 2005 14:12:22 +0000

I agree. It’s no good writing ‘it’s plainly evidenc’. If it is plainly evident, there must be one of two things: statistical evidence or conceptual overlap.

By: Garry

Garry — Sun, 15 May 2005 12:37:40 +0000

Or this:
Remember – switching off and remaining silent, or grumbling to your friends and neighbours, will change nothing!
Here we can see a positive contribution to the debate on censorship in the 21st century, a contribution absolutely removed from ideological bias.
Perhaps we could compose a list of the good directors comments in order to diplay their nuanced nature.

(And it should say balanced in my previous comment, not balance. Doh!)

By: Garry

Garry — Sun, 15 May 2005 12:22:15 +0000

Hi Dr Shell. I couldn't agree more. Like this perhaps: It is plainly evident that some young people are emulating precisely the behaviour and activities that are being demonstrated in the pornography, apparently, unhindered by the criminal law and with no known admonition from the political establishment. Source A balance addition to the debate on censorship, clearly written by someone with an open mind and no axe to grind.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Sun, 15 May 2005 11:51:46 +0000

Can I jog your memory? 😮
I guess the solution is for debate contributions to set things out in pros and cons. It’s one of the only ways of ensuring that participants are not partisan.

By: Garry

Garry — Sat, 14 May 2005 23:46:00 +0000

Unless someone points out both pros and cons, they tend to be either an ideologue or someone unaccustomed to seeing different sides of a situation.
This reminds me of someone. Oh,what’s his name again? One sided arguments, an ideologue, can’t see different sides to a situation…
No, I give up, sorry, I just can’t remember.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Sat, 14 May 2005 08:51:35 +0000

OK, but how can anyone take seriously such a monochrome/uniform and unnuanced account of any person’s views? Let alone one verging on abuse (which tends to go with lack of thought)?
Unless someone points out both pros and cons, they tend to be either an ideologue or someone unaccustomed to seeing different sides of a situation. After all, no-one’s views are all bad – or all good. Not even yours or mine. 😮

By: tom p

tom p — Sat, 14 May 2005 00:20:54 +0000

However, in this case the quote is representative of Beyerâ€s whole MO

Your entire comment 13 is irrelevant because you did not address the fundamental point underpining the whole of my argument. It's barely his worst quote, simply the best representation of his idiocy. If you've got it, flaunt it, baby. Stuart - I like your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter (to slightly misquote Homer J. simpson)

By: Stuart

Stuart — Fri, 13 May 2005 19:17:54 +0000

This reminds me a bit of the old joke about various newspapers and their readers that used to get wheeled out at party conferences.
Essentially, what Beyer is saying is that BBC programming shouldn’t be dictated by the people who govern the BBC, and it definitely shouldn’t be dictated by the people who work for the BBC, but it is the god-given right to dictate BBC programming of people whose invisible friend has told them how to do so.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Fri, 13 May 2005 16:58:28 +0000

Can anyone’s worst quote be representative? By virtue of being worst, it would not be representative. By virtue of being representative, it would not be worst.