Last Thursday, examinator asked me:

>>Pericles How are your answers etc in context to the question as posted?... Simply put they aren't they don't even remotely go to addressing the questions posed<<

Since that time, there has been only one single on-topic post on this thread. (Fractelle, you're now officially the class swot)

So why pick on me, examinator?

But being the generous soul that I am, I'll make an attempt at a response "in context to the question", as you so quaintly phrase it.

"What do you think should be done about 'breeding pure breeds to death' for cosmetics?"

My definitive statement on the question is that breeding any dog 'to death", pure breed or no, should be illegal.

But, I hear you all ask, what about drowning puppies at birth in a little sack - surely that shouldn't be illegal as well? It's a well-documented mechanism for population management...

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=371

And it's been happening since Shakespeare's time, evidently.

"The rogues slighted me into the river with as little remorse
as they would have drown'd a blind bitch's puppies, fifteen
i' th' litter" (Falstaff: Merry Wives of Windsor Act III Scene 5)

Interestingly, I haven't seen a single post saying "Hey, examinator, don't be so crazy. Of course we should breed pure breeds to death for cosmetics"

With such a controversial stance, no wonder everyone has wandered off at a tangent.

On the whole, I think my observations were relatively relevant.

Pericles says:

"Interestingly, I haven't seen a single post saying "Hey, examinator, don't be so crazy. Of course we should breed pure breeds to death for cosmetics""

Aw, come on Pericles. I reckon I came reasonably close with this post: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3076#72183 At least I accepted the status quo as it was told to be!

Yes, I know it wasn't in this thread, but didn't you read it? Yes, I know it wasn't quite the affirmation you expressed an interest in not having yet seen, but surely it goes part way toward the validation of the topic that you seem to feel should be evidenced. I think examinator has missed his calling: there is a great void out there in media earth for a headliner like him. Posters judge threads by their OLO 'headlines'. No worthy headline, no post. (Maybe even no read.)

Shock the socks of 'em, examinator! Lipstick it to 'em! "Grind 'em up. Lead 'em out. Round 'em up. Breed 'em in. Rawhide!"

Do us a favour. (A Gil Favour.) Doggone if it wouldn't be a drover's dream. "Don't try to understand 'em, just rope and throw and brand 'em. Git 'em up, move 'em out, smear 'em on, Rawhide!"

Ode to a breeder reactor.

One must pursue truth doggedly, I always say. Where is the curiosity, the inventiveness in the use of the search tools, the sheer dalliance upon the inconsequential that is so often the precursor to true enlightenment? Here, on OLO, where so much enlightenment is to be had for the taking.

Truly, Pericles, I sometimes despair!

Forrest 'Non Sequitur' Gump

<< Where is the curiosity, the inventiveness in the use of the search tools, the sheer dalliance upon the inconsequential that is so often the precursor to true enlightenment? Here, on OLO, where so much enlightenment is to be had for the taking. >>

Perhaps we don't have the limitless time of some, also I must enquire, "OLO = enlightenment"; truth in jest?

Pericles

Response to my challenge any time soon? Adopt a dog? It will change your life.

Hmmm, maybe there is enlightenment to be had here after all...

However, I am too modest to say anything further.

Bronwyn,

Looking at the list of terms you have distilled from disparate posts of mine I have to agree that, when so concentrated, they certainly could create the impression that I am trying to paint you as 'some sort of elitist speech zealot'. Such is, however, not my intention. As used, in their original contexts, they were all intended as humorous back-handed compliments of your writing style or expression. Dished out to one who in my judgement, and by self-confession, could take them.

The inclusion of 'English teacher' in that list caused me pause: it stood out as not projecting any perceivable perjorative 'edge', for the like of which I am regarded as having a penchant. Then I remembered 'speech zealotry'.

Language snobbery is not at all what I am trying to imply. It is rather a protest at the closing off of certain subjects to further discussion that, to my way of thinking, can be achieved by the placing of certain words 'off limits'. In the context of the generality of the asylum seeker debate, for example, the exclusion of the (perceivably perjorative) term 'illegals' threatens to exclude discussion of what may admittedly be regarded as convenient legal technicalities whereby persons who initially, in their primary movement to another country, may have been able to claim the status of 'asylum seeker' can subsequently be rightfully deprived of that status with respect to their secondary attempt at movement to Australia.

I see you, Bronwyn, as one who attempts to place the use of the word 'illegals' off limits in this way. Rather than just say you are wrong, I prefer to attempt via humour, or wry back-handed compliments, to make you think about other dimensions of a vexed issue about which you are commendably passionate. Just as by your spirited and well expressed defense of your own positions you make me think about things like SIEVs, as, for example, here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3037#71809

And no, you don't need to use more smilies.

There, that should make Michel's day!

It does Forest. Thank you!

Although I'm sure you could expand at length if you wanted too. Do take up the challenge.

I reckon examinator thinks he expresses himself as well as you. Tell 'im he's dreamin'! He aspires to that sort of prose, but ends up closer to one under god, although much less readable.

I think what you really would love is for Bronny to mark your paper with red ink. There's some sexual tension there, that's for sure. Anyone seen that film 'The Secretary'?

Forrest

Thanks for your explanation. I feel much better!

I still don't agree with your reasoning on the term 'illegals'. Far from shutting down debate, in my view, using the correct terminology only helps ensure a more balanced and less emotive discussion. And the 'secondary movement' stuff is plain rubbish. You've listened to cracked record, Franklin, once too often! But I mustn't say anymore here. Poor examinator's already been driven to 'ranting' over the many tangents this thread of his has taken! Ludwig's new thread is sure to throw up the same old 'illegals' and 'secondary movement', so I guess I can take it up there. Ho hum.

<< Just as by your spirited and well expressed defense of your own positions you make me think about things like SIEVs, as, for example, here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3037#71809 >>

Yes, I saw that 'SIEV of Eratosthenes' you parachuted in there. I decided not to rise to the bait, as I knew by that stage that Foxy was already worrying about me!

Houellebecq

'Michel' hey? Well at least I wouldn't have to do a cut-and-paste every time I went to use your name. It's a very nice name but I think I'll stick to Houellebecq. It's more suited to the image I've built up of you.

<< There's some sexual tension there, that's for sure. >>

Well, we all know you like some good 'soap opera action', but I'm afraid you'll have to look for some other characters to play your romantic leads. Our history is a history of minds and it goes back well before your time on OLO. Forrest once started a story stemming from some minor online incident between him and Fractelle. I made a few disparaging comments to begin with but he gave me a minor role and you could say I've been smitten ever since. As I know has Fractelle. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2063#43464

PP

I think there's a message for me somewhere in your ice story, but I'm afraid it went right over my head! For me at least, it's as cryptic as the best, or worst, of Forrest's writing. :)