That has to go both ways though bart.
My opinion is that you blame Kearney for any negatives you see but refuse to credit him with any of the positives.
Of course, you don't like some people expressing their opinions on here and you do your best to inhibit the free expression of those opinions.
I'm just typing words on the internet, bart. If you don't like that then it's your problem.
Yeah sure Poupou. But I'd say your opinion is wrong, and I've given creidt for the positives I've seen (I just happen to see less positives than you do, and that's fine too).
I'd also say that there is a difference between "opinions about people on here" and "opinions about things or issues", but I've been through that with you before, and it gets boring tbh.
Thanks for clarifying what was behind your quotes Bart.
As a side note my opinion is that it is impossible to take anything in here on face value.
I don't care about agendas or conspiracies but whenever anyone writes anything there is a background or history that is infused in their writing.
When I'm trying to teach remote indigenous kids to be literate I don't teach them to take text on face value. That is called barking at text and is a marker of underdeveloped literacy. To gain meaning from text tou need to understand the context. We get context from a few different places. The physical place or subject, the types of words used, our own world view and experiences, and what we know about the author.
When the context is unclear or when we just bark at text we are more than likely going to get the wrong meaning behind the text.
It's what people do when they take random verses out of the Bible and can be very dangerous.
"Judas threw himself from a cliff..."
"Jesus said go and do likewise..."
No problem H, thanks for being thoughtful in your responses. I get what you mean about face value and context, and how that's a useful notion to instill in kids learning literacy - especially when it relates to critical reflection about say news and media. (And of course you know that I do greatly respect the line of work you're in, and the way I'd imagine you carry it out.)
But I'm not sure sure how much currency that same notion has for us regular joes reading posts on a messageboard here though - if that path was followed through to its conclusion we'd be asking everyone to put discliamers about their own contexts under every post, just so we can be sure that we are clear? I'd suggest it's much easier to just not be drawn into making negative assumptions, generalisations or conclusions about any individual's motives or contexts in the first place unless you are sure - could we even say that making those negative assumptions or generalisations against people on here is barking at text in a different way?
I thought you didn't play the man, Bart?
Suity
Usually only when returning serve Suity... but yes you've got me there, because you hadn't "played" me in this thread yet by the time I made that comment. My apologies - though I'm sure you'd recognise that I'm still behind by the rate of about 10:1 against personal aspersions you've cast my way in this place, instead of disagreeing with the posts and issues. ;-).
