Blog powered by Typepad

« Oh, the sweet joy of being right! | Main | Oh, the sweet joy of being right: Part II »

Thursday, 22 November 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Obviously no-one would ever get censored here for their 'jokey style', would they?

No.

L**r.

[Obscene word deleted]

Only joking.

On a lighter note, I saw Patrick Stewart in Macbeth last night.

"I saw Patrick Stewart in Macbeth last night"

The dirty so-and-so.

Hilary, ignore the children! What was your opinion? It's had rave reviews but after seeing two rave reviewed duds in the West End, I am somewhat jaundiced with critics these days.

I thought he was brilliant. Effectively he turns into Stalin, body language, paranoia, the lot. Macbeth has been summed up in one word as "ambition", but I think this director's take is more like "determinism" - the story of a man who, effectively, sells his free will in exchange for success. So, at the start, when he first meets the witches, you see him contemplating murder as nothing more than a possibility, one he can scarcely even bring himself to name. But by the end, when he delivers the "tomorrow & tomorrow &.." speech, he's become utterly trapped in the unfolding of his own fate - or at any rate perceives that he is... Possibly the key line is "cribbed, cabined and confined." The same set, a claustrophobic basement, is used throughout. It's a production that makes you re-think your ideas of Hell.

Damn! It closes on Dec 1st. Wish I'd shot round to Chichester when it first came out in the summer. I wasted a day at Salisbury last week going to see an "Othello" that was beyond dire. I just hope to God, Russell Beale and Zoe Wannamaker do the business with "Muc Ado ..." at the National in January. Fingers crossed!

Hey! Only half of is obscene!

Damn, that doesn't even make sense anymore. Some censor you are.

You say: "I have been causing them some grief recently by pointing up one or three blooper's in their reasoning".

In fact, you said: "Why would anyone waste their time even opening this report which is the work of politicians and their bureaucrats" and then said anybody who gave it credence was a gullible mug.

The IPCC report *is* the work of politicians and bureaucrats, so it follows that anyone who does give it credence *is* a gullible mug.

Is it right that I should be censored for stating the obvious?

I worry for you, Duff, old thing, you'll be sidling up to people in the street soon and telling them out of the corner of your mouth that you have the real truth about the International Socialist/Fascist Global Warming Conspiracy...

You mean, 'NIB', that *you* are one of those who believe that a report produced from that political, bureaucratic cesspit, otherwise known as the United Nations, in which everything must be 'fudged and nudged' in order to gain concensus, is a piece of fine, stringent, scientific thinking upon which the peoples of the world may place complete trust.

'NIB', can I interest you in one of my own, very fine, collecter's cars? You must act quickly because this bargain will be snapped up in an instant when I tell you, confidentially, that you will be buying two cars for the price of one - but, honestly, you can't see the join! I just know that you will appreciate this car being a man of such shrewd perspicacity.

David, I'm not saying you *are* a raving conspiracy theorist. But you do sound like one, ranting on about the eeeeeviiil-yoooooouuu-eeennnnnn like that.

Which is a bit of a problem for you, credibility-wise.

Oh, sorry, 'NIB', you mean the governments of Zimbabwe and most other African states; Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt in the middle East; sundry South and Central American nations; to say nothing of China and North Korea; and not forgetting Russia and all those little gangsterdoms that fell out of the old Soviet Union; are all parliamentary democracies with impeccable human rights records and whose sole purpose in life is to save the globe?

Sorry, whose credibility were you doubting?

Ah, so there *is* a conspiracy. All the oil producing nations want us to stop using their exports!

Keep taking the pills David.

No, 'NIB', I have never mentioned the word "conspiracy". A simple question for you: Do you believe the IPCC report is a serious, scientific document?

Do you believe it is a serious, scientific document? If not, explain why *without* attacking its authors, or what you imagine their motivation might be. Or copying something off Climate Audit.

Doesn't hold breath.

Alas, as I thought, it is now confirmed that 'NIB' cannot answer even a simple question.

(Yes, yes, I realise we all knew that but I just wanted it demonstrated.)

Yes, well done David, you've proved I'm a member of the Global Socialist/Liberal/Nazi Climate Change Conspiracy (nee Trot Lot). Good to see your interrogation training wasn't wasted.

Now, do you believe the IPCC is a serious, scientific document? If not, explain why *without* attacking its authors, or what you imagine their motivation might be. Or copying something off Climate Audit, or spewing up something that sounds like you cribbed it from a David Icke book.

Doesn't hold breath.

I was in attendance when you tried to entice Lambert and his fanboys to at least address a point or two. They would have none of it and answered with repeated salvos of peurile taunts.

Pretty much typical of the place really.


Thank you, Lance, and the pity of it is that they never realise how much damage they do their own cause by their behaviour.

It just betrays their true motives, which are purely political.

Much as liberal democrats here in the states wait gleefully for news of ghastly carnage in Iraq, lefties world wide relish any disaster that can be blamed on "climate change".

Sad to have an ideology whose ultimate success is dependent on the death and suffering of others.

Indeed, Lance, as I never cease to point out to those I call the 'Trot-lot', they can only ever hope for political success when, and only when, disaster strikes. Thus, despite their protestations concerning the plight of the 'working man', or the poor, or who ever, their real aim is to make things worse, not better, because only then will they get their chance. A similar imperative drives the HAFs (Hot Air Fanatics).

The comments to this entry are closed.