sunday telegraph, 31. oct, pg. 140 (1 Viewer)

[izi]

you can also read the article on my blog (in my sig). Its called Just fur-get it.
i thought it was really inappropriate. how can she make a joke out of protestors by calling them "so five seasons ago"? what a dumb bitch!
does anyone agree with me?
how can she release stuff like that, does anyone proof read it beforehand???

 

[Sophie777]

who said this?

 

[Generator]

Melissa Hoyer. I wouldn't expct anything else from a 'fashion' writer, though.

 

[Lexicographer]

That's what you get for reading the Telegraph.

Of course, both Sunday papers (and their interstate equivalents) are little more than tabloid rubbish. I don't even buy them any more. I can get my Yoga, Feng Shui and [third yuppie craze] tips elsewhere.

 

[Rorix]

you can also read the article on my blog (in my sig). Its called Just fur-get it.
i thought it was really inappropriate. how can she make a joke out of protestors by calling them "so five seasons ago"? what a dumb bitch!
does anyone agree with me?
how can she release stuff like that, does anyone proof read it beforehand???

Dear God you are stupid.

Firstly, she's a fashion writer, so you should be able to outsmart her and raise FACTUAL OBJECTIONS to what she says, not vague ass Kantian emotional appeals. I don't know anything about the fashion show in question, but you've ignored her points such as

Wayne had some possum fur on the runway but these particular New Zealand possums are considered vermin; they are freely hunted and are responsible for massive destruction of NZ's native forest.

you took it upon yourself to limit your only response to the article as "WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU JUST CALL ME FIVE SEASONS OLD BITCH"

If you want to give your cause some fucking credibility, why don't you respond to like, the only fact in the article. Rather than blowing up as some 'five seasons old' comment. Seriously.

Ridiculous.

 

[Rorix]

That's what you get for reading the Telegraph.

YES THE HERALD IS THE BEARER OF ALL TRUTH AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY POLITICAL BIAS WHATSOEVER

If anyone wants to raise some cases regarding either the Telegraph or FOX NEWS (which idiot leftists around the world seem to ridicule out of reputation alone) I'm happy to hear them.

BTW: Regarding Fox News, it's important to distinguish between 'news reporting' and 'news commentry'. Sure, it has outspoken conservative comentators, but I'm waiting to see you make your case regarding the news coverage itself.

 

[Ziff]

YES THE HERALD IS THE BEARER OF ALL TRUTH AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY POLITICAL BIAS WHATSOEVER

If anyone wants to raise some cases regarding either the Telegraph or FOX NEWS (which idiot leftists around the world seem to ridicule out of reputation alone) I'm happy to hear them.

BTW: Regarding Fox News, it's important to distinguish between 'news reporting' and 'news commentry'. Sure, it has outspoken conservative comentators, but I'm waiting to see you make your case regarding the news coverage itself.

No one said the SMH is the bearer of truth. He also said that Sunday papers, which is what he was referring to are all rubbish anyway - THIS INCLUDES THE SUN-HERALD! He was attacking all Sunday papers including those interstate. Not just the Sunday Telegraph.

You just decided to polarise the issue you just made up. I like how you blurred the lines between Sunday papers and regular weekday papers. Then made a comment about lefties and the SMH and ignored the other, more credible (than the Telegraph) paper that is also an alternative and suprisingly a Murdoch paper - The Australian.

I think someone got a bit too e-motional about supposed bias.

 

[walrusbear]

YES THE HERALD IS THE BEARER OF ALL TRUTH AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY POLITICAL BIAS WHATSOEVER

If anyone wants to raise some cases regarding either the Telegraph or FOX NEWS (which idiot leftists around the world seem to ridicule out of reputation alone) I'm happy to hear them.

BTW: Regarding Fox News, it's important to distinguish between 'news reporting' and 'news commentry'. Sure, it has outspoken conservative comentators, but I'm waiting to see you make your case regarding the news coverage itself.

wtf??

you lamearse partisan Rorix
you don't normally polarise shit like this

 

[izi]

Dear God you are stupid.

Firstly, she's a fashion writer, so you should be able to outsmart her and raise FACTUAL OBJECTIONS to what she says, not vague ass Kantian emotional appeals. I don't know anything about the fashion show in question, but you've ignored her points such as

you took it upon yourself to limit your only response to the article as "WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU JUST CALL ME FIVE SEASONS OLD BITCH"

If you want to give your cause some fucking credibility, why don't you respond to like, the only fact in the article. Rather than blowing up as some 'five seasons old' comment. Seriously.

Ridiculous.

i think that calling someone thats out to do something good "five seasons ago" is really rude and low. would it be acceptible to write that about someone thats promoting cancer research or something similar?? i dont think so. people would be offended.
and what the fuck does she know about the NZ possums? shit all. which is why i explained to her exactly how its down, with an electric rod. and thats a fact.

 

[Rorix]

Re: newspapers, I tend to go off on tangent rants. Shrug. I'll just dig it up next thread

i think that calling someone thats out to do something good "five seasons ago" is really rude and low.

I'm not sure exactly what this protest was, but I'm sure not everyone will agree that it was doing good. Regardless, if you wish to show your cause in a positive light you should appear moderate and intellectual, not randomly go off ranting at some side comment which wasn't even the main objection.

would it be acceptible to write that about someone thats promoting cancer research or something similar??

Non sequiter?

and what the fuck does she know about the NZ possums? shit all. which is why i explained to her exactly how its down, with an electric rod. and thats a fact.

Apparently she knows these possoms are hunted and are destroying the forests. I don't know if this is true, but if it is then your beloved possoms are causing suffering to other animals.

OH NO A PARADOX
WHAT SHOULD WE DO

And BTW, just because it's done with an electric rod doesn't mean it isn't done humanely. If the electric rod up the ass causes undue suffering, then you should talk about the suffering. Not the Kantian rod up the ass objection.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I'd like to see izi's response to this.. either it turns out these possums really are a pest and she had no real point other than that the writer was rude, or she might want to do her OWN research and find out about the possums before accusing other people of knowing nothing.

 

[izi]

I'd like to see izi's response to this.. either it turns out these possums really are a pest and she had no real point other than that the writer was rude, or she might want to do her OWN research and find out about the possums before accusing other people of knowing nothing.

regardless of the fact that they are pests, wayne cooper shouldnt be promoting fur as a fashionable item. fur is starting to disappear from the fashion industry and we dont need to go in reverse.

 

[Rorix]

regardless of the fact that they are pests, wayne cooper shouldnt be promoting fur as a fashionable item. fur is starting to disappear from the fashion industry and we dont need to go in reverse.

Premise: We should take action to minimise net animal suffering
(i believe this to be your core belief)
Premise: One possom causes more suffering than killing it would, through its destruction of the forest.

Conclusion: Therefore, the possom should be killed.

Premise: If the possom is killed, it shouldn't be killed for the sake of killing it.
Premise: The possom's dead body can be used productively.

Conclusion: Once the possom is killed, it should be used productively.