|
Re: Bill Bryson was wrong about Canberra!
Originally Posted by NKSK version 2
I think that you just want a fight.
Originally Posted by NKSK version 2
You seem to want evidence when it argues against your point - very much like a certain other poster on here (you're not him in disguise are you?).
Originally Posted by NKSK version 2
But you are happy to provide "conjecture" when it suits you... "Personally I think that the UK government is on a par with the federal government" "I find that the MPs in my state government to be of a poorer quality than those found at the federal level and poorer than those found in the UK's assemblies"
Originally Posted by NKSK version 2
Come on, mature your argument and your philosophy - do you like facts or do you like conjecture?
Originally Posted by NKSK version 2
Because your comments which I've quoted above are certainly conjecture - unless you've somehow managed to quantify the performance of UK and Australian politicans at federal and state level.
Originally Posted by NKSK version 2
My posts were littered with terms which were suggestive - based on my feelings. I'm not going to apologise to you for that. But the posts also had evidence - the John Brogden and Alan Carpenter case studies.
Originally Posted by NKSK version 2
I assume that you are non-white, have successfully provided evidence of "patronising" racism and ever-so-subtle exclusion?
Originally Posted by NKSK version 2
Or perhaps you have even experienced something negative that can't be explained by anything other than discrimination but is just so subtle that it could never be proved in any official capacity?
Originally Posted by NKSK version 2
Take your convenient-when-it-suits-me scientific proof requirements to another poster. Eventually you may realise that all things in life can't be proved or evidenced.
I'm perfectly entitled to challenge dogma - especially when it has been created out of someone’s biases rather than reality. There are many types of people in this world (more than the 2 I'm about to give). One type likes to form opinions and then finds the evidence to justify those opinions. Another type likes to form opinions and then check them against all the evidence and if necessary change those opinions to more accurately reflect the evidence. This is my type - I'm not going to apologise for it and I'm not going to stop challenging people if their opinions are based on their biases rather than reality. |
Re: Bill Bryson was wrong about Canberra!
Originally Posted by MartinLuther
Nope. I just like to provide a reality check. You just think that, because you can't cope with a decent argument.
I can definitely say I'm not any certain poster (although I don’t know who the certain poster would be). Neither of these are conjecture. They are based on real experience and information. You obviously don't know the difference between a personal opinion and a conjecture. I like to form my opinions as much as possible from facts, however I accept that sometimes conjecture may be necessary for people to form their initial opinions but think that they should then test and modify their opinion as facts and information as they are obtained. Again my comments are not conjecture (you really need to look this up) and the levels of government can be quantified (or qualified) through things like sovereignty, ability to make war, foreign policy, border control and control of immigration policy, economic control, etc... And fine posts they were. You then went onto say "But I'm not convinced that I heard it within UK political circles such as the Australian examples that I have given." which you have a right to voice. I then gave a UK example where a UK politician was more blatant than your Australian examples (which is my right to voice). You then took exception to my reply highlighting that the UK MP had told a "joke" (your quotes). Bad assumption. Another bad assumption. I take it your not able to provide a real argument then. I guess that is why your trying to make an argument about my approach rather than my argument. I'm perfectly entitled to challenge dogma - especially when it has been created out of someone’s biases rather than reality. There are many types of people in this world (more than the 2 I'm about to give). One type likes to form opinions and then finds the evidence to justify those opinions. Another type likes to form opinions and then check them against all the evidence and if necessary change those opinions to more accurately reflect the evidence. This is my type - I'm not going to apologise for it and I'm not going to stop challenging people if their opinions are based on their biases rather than reality. Isn't this what you did? |
Re: Bill Bryson was wrong about Canberra!
Originally Posted by NKSK version 2
Conjecture: reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
Isn't this what you did? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture |
Re: Bill Bryson was wrong about Canberra!
Originally Posted by MartinLuther
I then gave a UK example where a UK politician was more blatant than your Australian examples (which is my right to voice). You then took exception to my reply highlighting that the UK MP had told a "joke" (your quotes).
. I didn't take exception to you providing an example at all. You assumed that I did (not bad for someone who likes to portary themselves as the paragon of scientific investigation) but the post below shows no evidence of that: I remember this one too. My comment is not that it doesn't exist in the UK but that the British media raise issues like this into the spotlight. When you read the article you can see the furore it created. She was sacked and it made front page news because she made a racist "joke". I doubt that the media would focus so much on the racism of a politician here in Australia. No definitives, no absolutes, no dogma - just a doubt. The message which I was conveying was that although it occurs in the UK I think the media takes people to task for that. I don't believe that this occurs in Australia to the same extent. This remains my view based on my experience of Australia and will remain my view until there is evidence to change that. You certainly haven't changed my mind but maybe the media, over time, will. The only thing that you have proved in all of this is a researched example - which I accept - of racism in UK politics. Opinions are formed out of experience like it or not - your choice - and the insuations made at the end of your post betray a condescending. patronising trait. (BTW the assumptions were sarcastic - I found it difficult to believe that you could have experienced racism either first or second hand.) |
Re: Bill Bryson was wrong about Canberra!
Originally Posted by MartinLuther
Nope. You missed out the 'mostly' from your definition. Otherwise you would be saying that all scientific theories are conjecture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture S: (n) guess, conjecture, supposition, surmise, surmisal, speculation, hypothesis (a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence) http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=conjecture |
Re: Bill Bryson was wrong about Canberra!
Originally Posted by MartinLuther
Nope. You missed out the 'mostly' from your definition. Otherwise you would be saying that all scientific theories are conjecture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture |
Re: Bill Bryson was wrong about Canberra!
Originally Posted by arkon
So if I read you right, what you are saying is that my thinking Canberra is the best city to live in Australia is purly conjecture as I have no actual proof it is? It's a good job in real life you don't need real positive proof otherwise people would never find a good place to live....Back to Canberra...
|
Re: Bill Bryson was wrong about Canberra!
Originally Posted by NKSK version 2
S: (n) guess, conjecture, supposition, surmise, surmisal, speculation, hypothesis (a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence)
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=conjecture S: (n) speculation, conjecture (a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)) "speculations about the outcome of the election"; "he dismissed it as mere conjecture" You really don't understand this. |
Re: Bill Bryson was wrong about Canberra!
Originally Posted by MartinLuther
You really don't understand this. |
Re: Bill Bryson was wrong about Canberra!
Originally Posted by NKSK version 2
Yep, patronising.
Originally Posted by NKSK version 2
You really are quite a sensitive little soul aren't you?
|
Re: Bill Bryson was wrong about Canberra!
Sorry about the short post earlier - kids to sort out...
Look ML, the main thing is this.... You may get off on destroying arguments, by asking for proof, by picking up on semantics or the pedantics of grammar. This may be your bag - I used to partake in this type of thing at school and as a first year undergrad. I'm beyond this now and I don't have the time or inclination to prove everything that I post. Instead of trying to find a definitive definition of "conjecture" which would have ruled out all other intepretations and if you'd been able to see past the need to attack, you may have had the good grace to admit that your statements about politicians were as worthless (or as valuable) as anybody elses opinions on race, Australia, the UK or the universe. They weren't couched in fact, there was no proof, no evidence. Clearly by that point you'd gone past expressing opinions contrary to my original post - which would have been perfectly acceptable - and just wanted to attack anything which was said in whatever way you could. You can take this or leave it but my opinions are formed as time has gone by. Of course I don't have proof for everything - but I do have intuition, gut instincts and a year of residence and experience to form opinions - which may, and have changed over the last 12 months. My own enjoyment comes from posting my experiences of Australia and by trying to ensure that nothing that I post is drssed up as fact - unless I am absolutely sure. To that end my posts have always been couched in language which suggests an opinion. (I can see you now busily searching through my past posts to find proof which will counter this claim) You may see yourself as the true destroyer of opinion and the superhero of challenging dogma but others will see you as a pedant. And on that point, you are now the first - after nearly 2 years of BE in two incarnations - person to go onto my Ignore list. |
Re: Bill Bryson was wrong about Canberra!
Originally Posted by MartinLuther
You missed this from your link
S: (n) speculation, conjecture (a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)) "speculations about the outcome of the election"; "he dismissed it as mere conjecture" You really don't understand this. |
Re: Bill Bryson was wrong about Canberra!
Any chance of this thread going back to Canberra please. It may be entertaining to a couple of posters trying to score points with regard to the English language, but most of us would rather hear other peoples opinions on Canberra please :D
|
Re: Bill Bryson was wrong about Canberra!
Originally Posted by moneypen20
Any chance of this thread going back to Canberra please. It may be entertaining to a couple of posters trying to score points with regard to the English language, but most of us would rather hear other peoples opinions on Canberra please :D
:D It's got to be said, ;) Arkon's threads are always most interesting. Canberra... I thought it was great when I went. I even went to the Parliament public gallery to watch the politicians swear at each other. It was fabulous. :D |
Re: Bill Bryson was wrong about Canberra!
Originally Posted by NKSK version 2
Sorry about the short post earlier - kids to sort out...
Look ML, the main thing is this.... You may get off on destroying arguments, by asking for proof, by picking up on semantics or the pedantics of grammar. This may be your bag - I used to partake in this type of thing at school and as a first year undergrad. I'm beyond this now and I don't have the time or inclination to prove everything that I post. Instead of trying to find a definitive definition of "conjecture" which would have ruled out all other intepretations and if you'd been able to see past the need to attack, you may have had the good grace to admit that your statements about politicians were as worthless (or as valuable) as anybody elses opinions on race, Australia, the UK or the universe. They weren't couched in fact, there was no proof, no evidence. Clearly by that point you'd gone past expressing opinions contrary to my original post - which would have been perfectly acceptable - and just wanted to attack anything which was said in whatever way you could. You can take this or leave it but my opinions are formed as time has gone by. Of course I don't have proof for everything - but I do have intuition, gut instincts and a year of residence and experience to form opinions - which may, and have changed over the last 12 months. My own enjoyment comes from posting my experiences of Australia and by trying to ensure that nothing that I post is drssed up as fact - unless I am absolutely sure. To that end my posts have always been couched in language which suggests an opinion. (I can see you now busily searching through my past posts to find proof which will counter this claim) You may see yourself as the true destroyer of opinion and the superhero of challenging dogma but others will see you as a pedant. And on that point, you are now the first - after nearly 2 years of BE in two incarnations - person to go onto my Ignore list. Just for the record – I don’t get off destroying arguments. If I see something wrong then I challenge it - You do the same thing. The only difference is that I’ve usually thought about the issue rather than just spouting off. You’re the one who started the semantics debate and kept it fuelled. I wouldn’t start that debate nor would I start one about grammar - but I'm prepared to finish one that someone else has started. --------------------------------------------------------- I send good wishes to all those that are dreaming of a new life in Aus and to all those that are returning to the UK with their eyes widened and brain expanded by their experience here. Goodbye and good luck to you all and don't let the acerbic Aus-knockers put you off. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 6:16 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.