Er, that’s actually pretty close. I’d amend it to “Activists are more likely to be stupid than non-activists”. All i’m “worming out of” is your accusation that i’m saying most activists are stupid.
I’d still like a cite on that.
What part?
The stats that would cause you to make such a bizarre statement. You know… the stupidity measure of activists. What prompted you to make this accusation? And please don’t say it was Sheryl Crow’s toilet paper comment. I think we’ve already put that to bed.
I don’t recall claiming to have stats. I’m basing this on personal opinion and logical conjecture. If norms are reasonably intelligent, then logically there are bound to be more stupid people disagreeing with them than there are agreeing.
It’s all opinion, of course. But hey, I never claimed otherwise. Have you taken back your “He says most activists are stupid!” accusation yet?
Not a chance.
It is what it is.
Couldn’t agree more. I’d still really like someone other than us two to weigh in on this.
Aha! I’ve figured out the problem!
We’ve been using different "than"s! What I meant was this;
Activists are pretty much more likely to have stupider ideas (than non-activists) by definition.
What you read into it was this;
**Activists are pretty much more likely to have stupider ideas (than non-stupid ideas ) by definition.
There’s the problem. You read a different implication into what I said than the one I meant. Either because you made a mistake interpreting or I did in writing it. But either way, I see where you got your side from, and it is reasonable. I apologise for being condescending to you. Your interpretation isn’t the one I meant, though. I hope you can trust that i’m not lying about that.
The BBC didn’t seem to think it was a joke when they wrote a news story on it Monday.
Is the BBC in kahoots with Rove, Inc.? Part of the VRWC? Made up of severely mentally impaired morons, stupid and humorless?
They are incapable of making mistakes? They are perfect? What’s your point?
So are you trying to argue that she WAS serious? Do you think she was serious about washing out the squares?
I don’t care how the media reported on it. We have the original words and can comment on them directly. She OBVIOUSLY wasn’t serious.
We’re cool. I still don’t see how you can make a broad statement like that, regardless of your “than” positioning.
But this is even more stupid. With this assertion, you’re basically saying that you have an appreciation of the number of ideas that activists hold so that you can assert that activists would have more stupid ideas vs. non stupid ideas. Do you even understand what you’re saying?
If they reported it in the same way the stupid American networks reported it, then no, they’re not mentally impaired; they’re just stirring shit where none exists.
However, if, after reading the entire blog piece, they still feel that it was done in all seriousness, then they are, indeed, mentally impaired, humorless, and pathetic excuses for newspeople.
Yes, I do. I believe I do have an appreciation of that number - I believe the number of ideas that activists hold is probably about the same as the number of ideas non-activists hold. I make no claim as to know the actual number, since as you say that would be stupid.
A public service announcement:
When Ms Crow says that people should wash and recycle toilet paper, she is joking.
When Ms Crow is playing her guitar and saying words that rhyme, she is singing.
Ms Crow will not explicitly tell her listeners when she is making a joke or singing a song. Listeners will have to read the above guidelines and learn to recognize the signs on their own. Ms Crow regrets any confusion and/or difficulty this will cause to listeners who are mentally retarded and/or Rush Limbaugh fans. But you guys are going to have to learn to keep up with the rest of us.
This post had been closed captioned for the humor impaired.
Why the “Ifs”? I gave the link, and you can see how they reported it yourself.
I read it as a straight news report (albeit in the “entertainment news” section) but still, no hint that her comments were meant as a joke.
So which is it? Is the BBC “shit-stirring” (on behalf of GWB, no less), or mentally impaired?
Who gives a shit why they got it wrong? It doesn’t change the fact that the comments cannot be seen as serious in their original context.
What are you people even talking about?
An activist is someone who has an idea and then goes out in a proactive manner to do something about it. I don’t understand what the proportion of good ideas and bad ideas and bad ideas have anything to do with anything?
Not that obviously, apparently.