Comments for dark looks

Comment on The Phenomenology of Trash by Mike

Mike — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:54:35 +0000

@CheddarChica: By the sound of it, you and I are on the same path — at the peak of a hill — and about to start running!

@Mark: Yes! See also your email.

Comment on The Phenomenology of Trash by Mark

Mark — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:29:51 +0000

Sounds exciting!

Hope to discuss such matters in person soon ..

Comment on The Phenomenology of Trash by CheddarChica

CheddarChica — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:22:56 +0000

Be warned: the path you are on is slippery and increasingly steep. I recently felt genuine grief upon hearing that my in laws had thrown away some photos because they didn’t know what family members were in them and they felt no connection to them. I have asked them not to throw anything else away until I have raced to the south coast to rescue anything else that could be used for unidentified ‘projects’. Dx

Comment on Cornify darklooks.com by Mike

Mike — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:55:56 +0000

My dear chap, feel eminently free to post corny comments at will. I have to assume that the one above is simply the honest and sincere truth….

Comment on Cornify darklooks.com by floyd

floyd — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:53:44 +0000

nice

… though I was expecting an invite to post corny comments, shame.

*sniff* you are such a beautiful man.

Comment on Tercet of the day by Mike

Mike — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:32:20 +0000

If you like it, be sure you check out the poem this blog is named for: http://uk.poetryinternationalweb.org/piw_cms/cms/cms_module/index.php?cwolk_id=26840&x=1

Comment on Tercet of the day by Boz

Boz — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:45:54 +0000

I do like a good wafting off.

Lovely, though!

Comment on If you were a theme park…. by Mike

Mike — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:01:58 +0000

Now this: http://is.gd/59lmK

AAAUUUUUUUUUGGGHHHHHHH!

Comment on Fatuous “research” reveals foregone conclusion! by Honoria

Honoria — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:54:17 +0000

Calm down, dear, it’s only the Daily Mail.

Besides, if some of those chaps who like to look at ladies have got the gay, then that’s a very efficient way of selling toothpaste, non?

Comment on Beyond Belief? by Mike

Mike — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:55:50 +0000

Honoria, please accept my apologies; I shall try to be more inflexibly tendentious in future.

To be absolutely clear for the record (though it advances the argument/agreement very little) about where I was going with the whole TB-cow thing: my point was really more that whilst situations like that undoubtedly do have ethical dimensions, that does *not* guarantee that the ethics of the situation will make it into the programming. (In fact there’s probably an argument to be made (which I’ve not subjected to any rigour) that anything newsworthy is intrinsically an ethical matter to some extent.) And the BBC’s long-evidenced belief that there are *exactly* two sides to any debate tends to emphasize the adversarial at the expense of the inquiring. Which doesn’t, by the way, mean that I think anyone else does it very much better; such programming on all channels is deeply contextualised; the programming is concerned with the substance of the debate (quite properly) and not with the structure of the debate or analysis of the meta-ethical positions underlying the various arguments advanced. No one wants 50% of the news to be about Hume or Moore; but I think there’s room for separate programming which is. The level of national debate on such topics might be enhanced by it (though I suspect those interested enough would be those who already had a level of understanding which would reduce the potential benefit); at worst it could do no harm and might even be interesting.

This of course has parallels with legalistic territory (the debate about whether the investigating magistrate or the sparring advcates are the best method for uncovering the truth), and I’m not advocating the Napoleonic code in all programming (nor even in law)… which is territory I’m scarcely qualified to opine on. So, for once, I sha’n't.