|
Scoll
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
rusty wrote:Scoll wrote:rusty wrote:I thought you inferred you went to Oxford? Did you actually go to Oxford, or were you telling porkies? A third party implies, you inferred. Don't need to go to Oxford for that one. And look, the person in question aside, a scholarship to a prestigious university is not a measure of intelligence. It's all about who you know, not what you know. A sign of privilege, not profound intellect. On top of that, a 2:2 is considered very mediocre by Oxford standards. I'm pretty certain it's completely appropriate to use 'inferred' in this context, but I see you couldn't resist opportunity to be a grammar nazi. And your musings about prestigious universities sounds rather envious and paranoid, typical of someone who perhaps didn't go to a prestigious university. Finally TA achieved a respectable second class degree, not a 2:2. He's clearly no genius, but he is far from the idiot many like to portray him as. 1) No it isn't. To infer is to deduce. You cannot deduce to someone that you went to Oxford by alluding to it. That makes no sense. 2) Your sense of righteousness makes you sound like a knob, and whilst I'm aware of the irony in saying that it is amusing to highlight you making such a basic English error. 3) He got a 2:2: Quote:His marks seem to show he gained a solid 2:2, known to students of his era (he graduated in 1983) as a “Desmond”. Check your facts before crying bullshit. 4) My musings are on scholarships full stop. As a graduate from one university and having been employed at another, both reputable, my observation of student intelligence is that it is no better or worse than society at large. There are some geniuses, plenty in the middle and some who you wonder how they wrangled an acceptance. I don't claim to be more intelligent than Abbott; sure there are subjects I believe I could eclipse him on, but others he would undoubtedly run rings around me. It's OK to defend Abbott as not an idiot, but it's another kettle of fish to falsely assert that being a Rhodes scholar contradicts that notion. It's also probably not a good idea to criticise people with first hand experience as jealous or just plain lying when you yourself have no actual experience with the subject. For the record, I don't think he is an idiot- I believe he has poor critical thinking which results in him making some very questionable decisions (and probably explains why he received middling marks in Philosophy and Politics) and has no self-censorship which causes him to spout poorly formed thoughts to the amusement (or chagrin) of the public. But neither of those preclude intelligence. I also completely disagree with his politics, but again that doesn't mean he isn't intelligent. It just means he's an over-entitled douchebag. [Edit: readability] Edited by Scoll: 15/3/2015 02:07:32 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
Scoll wrote:rusty wrote:Scoll wrote:rusty wrote:I thought you inferred you went to Oxford? Did you actually go to Oxford, or were you telling porkies? A third party implies, you inferred. Don't need to go to Oxford for that one. And look, the person in question aside, a scholarship to a prestigious university is not a measure of intelligence. It's all about who you know, not what you know. A sign of privilege, not profound intellect. On top of that, a 2:2 is considered very mediocre by Oxford standards. I'm pretty certain it's completely appropriate to use 'inferred' in this context, but I see you couldn't resist opportunity to be a grammar nazi. And your musings about prestigious universities sounds rather envious and paranoid, typical of someone who perhaps didn't go to a prestigious university. Finally TA achieved a respectable second class degree, not a 2:2. He's clearly no genius, but he is far from the idiot many like to portray him as. 1) No it isn't. To infer is to deduce. You cannot deduce to someone that you went to Oxford by alluding to it. That makes no sense. 2) Your sense of righteousness makes you sound like a knob, and whilst I'm aware of the irony in saying that it is amusing to highlight you making such a basic English error. 3) He got a 2:2: Quote:His marks seem to show he gained a solid 2:2, known to students of his era (he graduated in 1983) as a “Desmond”. Check your facts before crying bullshit. 4) My musings are on scholarships full stop. As a graduate from one university and having been employed at another, both reputable, my observation of student intelligence is that it is no better or worse than society at large. There are some geniuses, plenty in the middle and some who you wonder how they wrangled an acceptance. I don't claim to be more intelligent than Abbott; sure there are subjects I believe I could eclipse him on, but others he would undoubtedly run rings around me. It's OK to defend Abbott as not an idiot, but it's another kettle of fish to falsely assert that being a Rhodes scholar contradicts that notion. It's also probably not a good idea to criticise people with first hand experience as jealous or just plain lying when you yourself have no actual experience with the subject. For the record, I don't think he is an idiot- I believe he has poor critical thinking which results in him making some very questionable decisions (and probably explains why he received middling marks in Philosophy and Politics) and has no self-censorship which causes him to spout poorly formed thoughts to the amusement (or chagrin) of the public. But neither of those preclude intelligence. I also completely disagree with his politics, but again that doesn't mean he isn't intelligent. It just means he's an over-entitled douchebag. 
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
paladisious wrote:Scoll wrote:rusty wrote:Scoll wrote:rusty wrote:I thought you inferred you went to Oxford? Did you actually go to Oxford, or were you telling porkies? A third party implies, you inferred. Don't need to go to Oxford for that one. And look, the person in question aside, a scholarship to a prestigious university is not a measure of intelligence. It's all about who you know, not what you know. A sign of privilege, not profound intellect. On top of that, a 2:2 is considered very mediocre by Oxford standards. I'm pretty certain it's completely appropriate to use 'inferred' in this context, but I see you couldn't resist opportunity to be a grammar nazi. And your musings about prestigious universities sounds rather envious and paranoid, typical of someone who perhaps didn't go to a prestigious university. Finally TA achieved a respectable second class degree, not a 2:2. He's clearly no genius, but he is far from the idiot many like to portray him as. 1) No it isn't. To infer is to deduce. You cannot deduce to someone that you went to Oxford by alluding to it. That makes no sense. 2) Your sense of righteousness makes you sound like a knob, and whilst I'm aware of the irony in saying that it is amusing to highlight you making such a basic English error. 3) He got a 2:2: Quote:His marks seem to show he gained a solid 2:2, known to students of his era (he graduated in 1983) as a “Desmond”. Check your facts before crying bullshit. 4) My musings are on scholarships full stop. As a graduate from one university and having been employed at another, both reputable, my observation of student intelligence is that it is no better or worse than society at large. There are some geniuses, plenty in the middle and some who you wonder how they wrangled an acceptance. I don't claim to be more intelligent than Abbott; sure there are subjects I believe I could eclipse him on, but others he would undoubtedly run rings around me. It's OK to defend Abbott as not an idiot, but it's another kettle of fish to falsely assert that being a Rhodes scholar contradicts that notion. It's also probably not a good idea to criticise people with first hand experience as jealous or just plain lying when you yourself have no actual experience with the subject. For the record, I don't think he is an idiot- I believe he has poor critical thinking which results in him making some very questionable decisions (and probably explains why he received middling marks in Philosophy and Politics) and has no self-censorship which causes him to spout poorly formed thoughts to the amusement (or chagrin) of the public. But neither of those preclude intelligence. I also completely disagree with his politics, but again that doesn't mean he isn't intelligent. It just means he's an over-entitled douchebag. you know rusty will find faults with this argument :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Holy fucking cringe. He added a little catchphrase in there at the beginning for Rusty and his mates.
[youtube]HvP71iA0Cdc[/youtube]
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:Holy fucking cringe. He added a little catchphrase in there at the beginning for Rusty and his mates.
[youtube]HvP71iA0Cdc[/youtube] Those hands! -PB
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Scoll wrote:rusty wrote:Scoll wrote:rusty wrote:I thought you inferred you went to Oxford? Did you actually go to Oxford, or were you telling porkies? A third party implies, you inferred. Don't need to go to Oxford for that one. And look, the person in question aside, a scholarship to a prestigious university is not a measure of intelligence. It's all about who you know, not what you know. A sign of privilege, not profound intellect. On top of that, a 2:2 is considered very mediocre by Oxford standards. I'm pretty certain it's completely appropriate to use 'inferred' in this context, but I see you couldn't resist opportunity to be a grammar nazi. And your musings about prestigious universities sounds rather envious and paranoid, typical of someone who perhaps didn't go to a prestigious university. Finally TA achieved a respectable second class degree, not a 2:2. He's clearly no genius, but he is far from the idiot many like to portray him as. 1) No it isn't. To infer is to deduce. You cannot deduce to someone that you went to Oxford by alluding to it. That makes no sense. 2) Your sense of righteousness makes you sound like a knob, and whilst I'm aware of the irony in saying that it is amusing to highlight you making such a basic English error. 3) He got a 2:2: Quote:His marks seem to show he gained a solid 2:2, known to students of his era (he graduated in 1983) as a “Desmond”. Check your facts before crying bullshit. 4) My musings are on scholarships full stop. As a graduate from one university and having been employed at another, both reputable, my observation of student intelligence is that it is no better or worse than society at large. There are some geniuses, plenty in the middle and some who you wonder how they wrangled an acceptance. I don't claim to be more intelligent than Abbott; sure there are subjects I believe I could eclipse him on, but others he would undoubtedly run rings around me. It's OK to defend Abbott as not an idiot, but it's another kettle of fish to falsely assert that being a Rhodes scholar contradicts that notion. It's also probably not a good idea to criticise people with first hand experience as jealous or just plain lying when you yourself have no actual experience with the subject. For the record, I don't think he is an idiot- I believe he has poor critical thinking which results in him making some very questionable decisions (and probably explains why he received middling marks in Philosophy and Politics) and has no self-censorship which causes him to spout poorly formed thoughts to the amusement (or chagrin) of the public. But neither of those preclude intelligence. I also completely disagree with his politics, but again that doesn't mean he isn't intelligent. It just means he's an over-entitled douchebag. [Edit: readability] Edited by Scoll: 15/3/2015 02:07:32 AM I'm not sure that a half baked unsubstantiated quote from a left wing newspaper with an obvious vendetta against the PM stands up to your own rigorous academic standards and expectations? An 2:2 infers the PM achieved mostly C's , but if you look at his record he achieved mostly B's, with a B average overall, which infers he most likely achieved a 2:1, which would make him an average Oxford student, but certainly no "desmond". Being average by Oxford standards is nothing to sneeze at. It's just the left wing media doing their best to sully the reputation of the PM and feed the narrative he is a village idiot. While there may be exceptions to the rule I find it really hard to believe an idiot could somehow wrangle an acceptance as a Rhodes Scholar. I suspect applicants would need to be high academic achievers and the selection process rigorous enough to weed out the deadwood. I think the safest assumption to make is PM probably is intelligent and his acceptance into the Rhodes Scholar program supports this notion, although in the absence of an IQ test we can only make safe assumptions, but it's safer assumption to make than the PM being an idiot because he cups his hands and wears a green tie. Edited by rusty: 16/3/2015 11:32:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
I still don't know how/why Credlin has so much sway? -PB
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Q&A was actually good tonight. It was nice to see some intelligent policy discussion rather than usual cheering and heckling. You could see most of the economic taxation debate was way above the heads of most of the audience which explains why they were a bit quieter than usual.
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Rusty wrote:I'm not sure that a half baked unsubstantiated quote from a left wing newspaper with an obvious vendetta against the PM stands up to your own rigorous academic standards and expectations? An 2:2 infers the PM achieved mostly C's , but if you look at his record he achieved mostly B's, with a B average overall, which infers he most likely achieved a 2:1, which would make him an average Oxford student, but certainly no "desmond". Being average by Oxford standards is nothing to sneeze at. It's just the left wing media doing their best to sully the reputation of the PM and feed the narrative he is a village idiot. Can't make this shit up :lol: I'm starting to wonder whether people like this actually exist or are robots created by Rupert Murdoch to spout inane shit on forums, ring into AM radio and comment on news sites. The cunt just ate a raw fucking onion you mong. Edited by Draupnir: 16/3/2015 11:59:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/joe-hockey-outclassed-on-qa-by-an-economist-20150316-1m0nrs.htmlQuote:Treasurer Joe Hockey was upstaged and shirtfronted on Q&A Monday night, but not by a member of the audience or the other of politics.
The man who cut him down to size on questions including negative gearing, tax and infrastructure spending was John Daley, the Melbourne-based research economist who runs the Grattan Institute.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/joe-hockey-outclassed-on-qa-by-an-economist-20150316-1m0nrs.html Quote:Treasurer Joe Hockey was upstaged and shirtfronted on Q&A Monday night, but not by a member of the audience or the other of politics.
The man who cut him down to size on questions including negative gearing, tax and infrastructure spending was John Daley, the Melbourne-based research economist who runs the Grattan Institute. Whilst it is true, it's hardly newsworthy to outclass Joe Hockey :lol:
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:notorganic wrote:http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/joe-hockey-outclassed-on-qa-by-an-economist-20150316-1m0nrs.html Quote:Treasurer Joe Hockey was upstaged and shirtfronted on Q&A Monday night, but not by a member of the audience or the other of politics.
The man who cut him down to size on questions including negative gearing, tax and infrastructure spending was John Daley, the Melbourne-based research economist who runs the Grattan Institute. Whilst it is true, it's hardly newsworthy to outclass Joe Hockey :lol: I know I shouldn't have been... but he really caught me by surprise at just how inept he was last night. I always give him stick for not knowing his stuff, but secretly I had a little bit of faith that he was a smart guy just towing the party line trying to make the best presentation of terrible policy.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Metadata bill expected to be passed by the end of next week. Good to see the Senate isn't backing down over Pyne and his deregulation either. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:Metadata bill expected to be passed by the end of next week. Looks like I'll be campaigning for the Sex Party. Poor Giles, he's got no idea what's in store for him.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:Rusty wrote:I'm not sure that a half baked unsubstantiated quote from a left wing newspaper with an obvious vendetta against the PM stands up to your own rigorous academic standards and expectations? An 2:2 infers the PM achieved mostly C's , but if you look at his record he achieved mostly B's, with a B average overall, which infers he most likely achieved a 2:1, which would make him an average Oxford student, but certainly no "desmond". Being average by Oxford standards is nothing to sneeze at. It's just the left wing media doing their best to sully the reputation of the PM and feed the narrative he is a village idiot. Can't make this shit up :lol: I'm starting to wonder whether people like this actually exist or are robots created by Rupert Murdoch to spout inane shit on forums, ring into AM radio and comment on news sites. The cunt just ate a raw fucking onion you mong. What do you have against raw onions?
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/joe-hockey-outclassed-on-qa-by-an-economist-20150316-1m0nrs.html Quote:Treasurer Joe Hockey was upstaged and shirtfronted on Q&A Monday night, but not by a member of the audience or the other of politics.
The man who cut him down to size on questions including negative gearing, tax and infrastructure spending was John Daley, the Melbourne-based research economist who runs the Grattan Institute. Yeah of course Hockey was outclassed, upstaged and shirtfronted, according to Fairfax. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:The cunt just ate a raw fucking onion you mong. Peta told him to do it :lol: -PB
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:mcjules wrote:notorganic wrote:http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/joe-hockey-outclassed-on-qa-by-an-economist-20150316-1m0nrs.html Quote:Treasurer Joe Hockey was upstaged and shirtfronted on Q&A Monday night, but not by a member of the audience or the other of politics.
The man who cut him down to size on questions including negative gearing, tax and infrastructure spending was John Daley, the Melbourne-based research economist who runs the Grattan Institute. Whilst it is true, it's hardly newsworthy to outclass Joe Hockey :lol: I know I shouldn't have been... but he really caught me by surprise at just how inept he was last night. I always give him stick for not knowing his stuff, but secretly I had a little bit of faith that he was a smart guy just towing the party line trying to make the best presentation of terrible policy. That Four Corners report was interesting though mostly a recap. Seems like a lot of the policies in the last budget were done on the run and they were so clueless of the backlash. Talk about incompetence.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
^^ That was pretty insipid
|
|
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
"Be quiet and eat your onion"
Lol.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
lol at that video of Piney on Sky News :lol: "I fixed it" "I cleared it away" Rofl. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
If Labor ran a household budget .. 
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
rusty wrote:If Labor ran a household budget .. And that has what to do with LNP's ineptitude? -PB
|
|
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
rusty wrote:If Labor ran a household budget .. Your Visa has expired. Edited by u4486662: 17/3/2015 12:19:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:rusty wrote:If Labor ran a household budget .. And that has what to do with LNP's ineptitude? -PB I don't think the LNP is being inept. They are trying to implement necessary fiscal reform but having their measures blocked by retards like Lambie, Muir and Lazarus. Seriously when you have intellectual sinkholes like Lazarus, Wong, Muir and Lambie blocking everything you can't blame the government entirely for not being able to pass their sensible reforms. That's because these people don't understand sense they just understand their pay packets and that stifling government policy is a populist way of ingratiating themselves to the public. If they continue to impede everything the government I support a double dissolution and clearing out the senate so the new government, whoever it might be, can govern properly and pass legislation without having to deal with people who posses the IQ of a tractor.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
That's because their reforms are poor. Nothing wrong with fiscal reform, how they're going about it is wrong. -PB
|
|
|
|