View previous topic | View next topic

Its Official: 3.26m Arseholes in the UK

Page 3 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

PDR
890650.  Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:14 pm Reply with quote

He's playin' all week, folks!

PDR

 
barbados
890652.  Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:28 pm Reply with quote

HarryAlffa wrote:


I have.
I assume a deal more intelligence of members of this forum than of the average person.
Which is why when faced with the "quadratic" answer of Stupid/Dishonest. I rule one out. As I have shown in previous posts.
It's a logically forced conclusion that Neotenic is "profoundly dishonest", as I said to and of him.



quick question for you here, What on earth are you talking about here?
It looks as though you have just cut words out of the paper, chucked them up in the air, then copied them into your post in the order they landed.

 
HarryAlffa
890658.  Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:52 pm Reply with quote

Harry Alffa wrote:
It is unclear if Amanda Holden's medical records were blagged, stolen, hacked or raped from her.


CB27 wrote:
I think you'll find it was an "exclusive interview" which Ms Holden sold the Sun, there's nothing "unclear" about it.
...it's best to have the clear details first.


Neotenic wrote:
calling a people a bunch of arseholes constitutes satire


I'm really disappointed that some denizens here (apparently) do not understand where the satire is, or perhaps even what satire means - although I did supply a link to a definition of satire.

The "headline" or topic title of the thread was obviously meant to reflect the RedTops tendancies to declare spurious bollocks as "It's Official" - my use was obviously sarcastic (look it up yourself*).
The satirical nature of the comment on the source of the "exclusive" is so obvious I'm obviously going to have to explain it to the slow-witted respondents - the dumb people, which Neo includes himself in - obviously.
* Don't be childish

Satire
So Harry Alffa gathered the idiots from QI around him, and lo, they were few in number! He explained slowly and clearly so that they might understand and see.

Quote:
Loads of people said for lots of years that the nasty tabloid newspapers blackmailed people into giving details for "stories", they threatened to tell a bad story about them, unless they gave private "juicy" details so they could tell a "good" story - even though the blackmailed people did not want any story told about them, you know 'cause there Mum was feeling not very well, or that they were a virgin, 16 year old girl or something.

But Lord Leveson has been hearing that's what happened - so if its true it can't be satire.
So that's not it!

Quote:
Loads of people said for lots of years that the nasty tabloid newspapers blagged details for "stories". That's were they would phone up hospitals and stuff pretending to be the actual, you know, real actual person - but they weren't! So they would totally lie to peoples faces, except it was on the phone. Then they found out stuff about peoples boils on their bum and stuff, which is funny, but it wouldn't be funny if it happened to you, or it was your Mum's hysterectomy or something. Then they would use these details to blackmail people. And that is not very nice at all.

But Lord Leveson has been hearing that's what happened - so if its true it can't be satire.
So that's not it!

Quote:
Loads of people said for lots of years that the nasty tabloid newspapers hacked details for "stories". That's where they would use two phones to call a stupid famous person who was always after more and more fame no matter what, so they deserved it ha ha. And then they would hear all the stupid famous person's voicemails. So they found out where they were meeting all their friends all the time, and always be everywhere all at once - like God. But God is nice and journalists care more about stories than being nice. So even though a famous person was wanting a rest from being famous for a little bit, they couldn't 'cause all the nasty newspaper people were writing what they were doing all the time and stuff about them, and some of them were fibs even though they found out the actual truth.

But Lord Leveson has been hearing that's what happened - so if its true it can't be satire.
So that's not it!

Quote:
Loads of people said for lots of years that the nasty tabloid newspapers stole details for "stories". That's where they would raid peoples bins for private details, and the journalists said, ah but you threw the bits of paper away, so ha ha if you threw it away, so finders keepers ha ha. But the people said they didn't throw away the information that was on the bits of paper. But the journalists pretended that they didn't understand the difference, and claimed that the stuff on the paper was thrown away as well and that the information had no existence outwith the paper it was printed on, and then they said ha ha we've got loads of lawyers and you don't so ha ha. But then Max Mosley gave some journalists a bit of a spanking, and helped other people do the same, so he said ha ha, you have to pay me lots of money. And also as well the journalists had to admit that bits of paper being thrown away doesn't mean that the information on them is thrown away as well, so ha ha they can't pretend that's what they think any more. Good.

But Lord Leveson has been hearing that's what happened - so if its true it can't be satire.
So that's not it!


Quote:
Loads of people haven't said for lots of years that the nasty tabloid newspapers raped people to get details - this was an extrapolation of the journalist's behaviour. That's where you look at something over a long period of time and see how it changes, then you imagine that change continuing without change and see what you think the next thing will be. And it shows the level of personal injury industriously and industrially heaped on fellow human beings that in order to achieve satire, rape is recognisable as a significant point on the extrapolation curve.

Lord Leveson hasn't been hearing that's what happened.
So that's it!

Quote:
And some people have gone to see a Judge to complain, but lots of lawyers paid by the bad men said they didn't. But the bad men had to pay lots of money. So what do you think?


Then after he said all that, and that was a lot wasn't it boys and girls? He said there's a bit of satire included in the explanation of satire, this is called recursion, but you should be intelligent enough to figure it out - you should be.

But seriously, are some of you going to pretend to believe that pretending to think the title of this thread is the satire, is somehow "poking logical holes"?

 
HarryAlffa
890659.  Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:53 pm Reply with quote

Then as a bit of a foot note, and still not believing that even any of the denizens of QI could be this stupid he expanded somewhat on the explanation. But first he gave up putting stuff in Quote form, 'cause that's really for repeating stuff already said, and that was the first time he said that stuff, but I think he thought that it was a satirical device and some of it was trying to be funny, 'cause this isn't a forum for a revolutionary intelligentsia, although there's nothing in the rules about that, but that's what some people think, you know - when it suits them.

The satirical "raped from" part alludes to the psychological damage, and reported feelings of violation by victims of the press. You could even argue that the threat of psychological rape was used to coerce "interviews" from subjects/victims, and that sometimes previous targets of psychological rape were coerced with threats of "more of the same".

So actually the real tragedy of this whole thread, it might be argued, is that there is no satire in it all.
If its true it can't be satire.
So that's not it!

 
dr.bob
890762.  Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:30 am Reply with quote

HarryAlffa wrote:
I'm really disappointed that some denizens here (apparently) do not understand where the satire is, or perhaps even what satire means


I think the general difficulty here is that satire is traditionally supposed to be amusing.

 
Jenny
890825.  Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:13 am Reply with quote

GPWM, dr.bob

Harry - I don't care what anybody else says on their own website. I am merely cautious about ours. It is not actionable if you report that somebody else makes an allegation or even link to the place where such an allegation is made. It may be actionable if you repeat the allegation as if it were factual. I do not wish to take such a risk, and as I am a moderator on this site it is my opinions, whether you agree with them or not, that count.

 
RLDavies
890875.  Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:24 am Reply with quote

HarryAlffa wrote:
this isn't a forum for a revolutionary intelligentsia

Well, you're right on that point. This is a forum for witty banter and information exchange.

Leaving aside any arguments about what is or isn't satirical, I'm still struggling to find the point you were trying to make in your original post. Surely you can't be surprised that a newspaper sells in large quantities on its launch day -- especially a tabloid with an established name, selling at cut price, and with a huge advertising campaign pushing it hard in the run-up to the launch.

 
masterfroggy
890878.  Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:29 am Reply with quote

RLDavies wrote:
HarryAlffa wrote:
this isn't a forum for a revolutionary intelligentsia

Well, you're right on that point. This is a forum for witty banter and information exchange.

Leaving aside any arguments about what is or isn't satirical, I'm still struggling to find the point you were trying to make in your original post. Surely you can't be surprised that a newspaper sells in large quantities on its launch day -- especially a tabloid with an established name, selling at cut price, and with a huge advertising campaign pushing it hard in the run-up to the launch.
Don't forget tits :)

 
Neotenic
890882.  Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:39 am Reply with quote

RLDavies wrote:
HarryAlffa wrote:
this isn't a forum for a revolutionary intelligentsia

Well, you're right on that point. This is a forum for witty banter and information exchange.



Of course he was right on that point - he was directly quoting me.

 
PDR
890891.  Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:52 am Reply with quote

But that means it can't be true, because you are a liar...

:-)

PDR

 
Neotenic
890924.  Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 am Reply with quote

And dishonest.

Don't forget that.

I just find myself thinking that if Harry had put as much effort into outlining why bankers were all to blame, after being repeatedly asked to do so (and chucking out straw men large enough to burn Edward Woodward in as part of the process), as he has in defining what satire supposedly is, we might actually have gotten somewhere.

I think what we are dealing with here is someone with a fetish for victimhood.

 
Arcane
890938.  Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:14 am Reply with quote

Harry Affa is the lovechild of bobwilson and Peter Dow AICMFP.

 
RLDavies
890943.  Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:27 am Reply with quote

masterfroggy wrote:
RLDavies wrote:
Surely you can't be surprised that a newspaper sells in large quantities on its launch day -- especially a tabloid with an established name, selling at cut price, and with a huge advertising campaign pushing it hard in the run-up to the launch.

Don't forget tits :)

Oh yes, and tits.

 
HarryAlffa
890979.  Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:21 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
I think the general difficulty here is that satire is traditionally supposed to be amusing.


Not necessarily.

 
HarryAlffa
890981.  Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:30 pm Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
claiming that a named (and litigious) person or organization is corrupt and tells lies

http://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=%22news+international+sues%22
http://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=%22Rupert+Murdoch+sues%22
http://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=%22Rupert+Murdoch+lies%22

Jenny wrote:
... It may be actionable if you repeat the allegation as if it were factual. I do not wish to take such a risk, and as I am a moderator on this site it is my opinions, whether you agree with them or not, that count.

I wasn't questioning your task.
I was questioning your basis; the assertion that Rupert Murdoch (and NI?) is litigious in this context. I was under the impression that UK tabloids and News International pride themselves for never suing anyone - or is that a myth QI could bust?

 

Page 3 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group