It has recently come to my attention that Bob Ellis appears to be posting on John Birmingham's blog. As I type this Birmingham himself hasn't responded or anything ... but I don't suppose that A) John Birmingham, or indeed anyone, would be in need of my help in defending themselves against Bob fucking Ellis or anything or, of course, B) either of them are likely to read this anyway. So what the hey, I guess....
First of all, let me just say that I like you, Bob. Well, actually ... that's a blatant lie. You're a complete dick and I can't but help have that inform my opinion of you at least a little bit, but just let me say it anyways, because it will make what follows a little bit easier for both of us. The point I'm trying to get across, and this one I really do mean, is that I think it would be a shame for you to be dropped from the Drum. Not, I suppose I should make clear, because you have anything all that compelling, interesting, well-thought out, internally consistent or, well, intrinsically valuable to say about anything. Rather the opposite in fact, I think you're generally entertaining for much the opposite reason and, well, it's the Drum we're talking about here so it's not like we're parlaying over prospective loss of standards or anything.
Thing is, though, whether or not I, or indeed if most people think it would be a bit of a shame if the Drum refused to publish a single future solitary word you write in future is not, I submit, a particularly good criterion in and of itself on which to base such a decision. It is, I would submit however, a far far better criterion on which to base that decision than it would be to base the decision on, say, whether or not you should be free to, oh I don't know, rape people with impunity. I would have hoped we could agree on that point, Bob, but the demands of your being consistent with the article you wrote would seem sadly to dictate that this isn't to be.
I'd like to introduce you to a friend of mine, Bob. It's called the rule of law. I like it. It was, in it's day, a profoundly revolutionary and progressive idea. A lot more progressive than, just to pluck a few examples from your article, let's say the next French president, JFK, John McCain and even Arnold Schwarzenegger. Honest. What makes it so important, Bobby, is that without this kind of principle there really isn't any point at all debating the ethical questions like, you know, whether or not my clubbing you in the head because of something you wrote on the Drum is a bad thing to do - because if the answer isn't the same whether I'm me, Adolf Hitler or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, well, it probably isn't really an ethical principle, is it? It's probably just a subjective 'people I, personally, like should be accorded with rights other people aren't because, well I like them' statement.
I mean.... people really shouldn't have to point this sort of thing out to you, Bob.
And with that, I'm going to sleep.
First of all, let me just say that I like you, Bob. Well, actually ... that's a blatant lie. You're a complete dick and I can't but help have that inform my opinion of you at least a little bit, but just let me say it anyways, because it will make what follows a little bit easier for both of us. The point I'm trying to get across, and this one I really do mean, is that I think it would be a shame for you to be dropped from the Drum. Not, I suppose I should make clear, because you have anything all that compelling, interesting, well-thought out, internally consistent or, well, intrinsically valuable to say about anything. Rather the opposite in fact, I think you're generally entertaining for much the opposite reason and, well, it's the Drum we're talking about here so it's not like we're parlaying over prospective loss of standards or anything.
Thing is, though, whether or not I, or indeed if most people think it would be a bit of a shame if the Drum refused to publish a single future solitary word you write in future is not, I submit, a particularly good criterion in and of itself on which to base such a decision. It is, I would submit however, a far far better criterion on which to base that decision than it would be to base the decision on, say, whether or not you should be free to, oh I don't know, rape people with impunity. I would have hoped we could agree on that point, Bob, but the demands of your being consistent with the article you wrote would seem sadly to dictate that this isn't to be.
I'd like to introduce you to a friend of mine, Bob. It's called the rule of law. I like it. It was, in it's day, a profoundly revolutionary and progressive idea. A lot more progressive than, just to pluck a few examples from your article, let's say the next French president, JFK, John McCain and even Arnold Schwarzenegger. Honest. What makes it so important, Bobby, is that without this kind of principle there really isn't any point at all debating the ethical questions like, you know, whether or not my clubbing you in the head because of something you wrote on the Drum is a bad thing to do - because if the answer isn't the same whether I'm me, Adolf Hitler or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, well, it probably isn't really an ethical principle, is it? It's probably just a subjective 'people I, personally, like should be accorded with rights other people aren't because, well I like them' statement.
I mean.... people really shouldn't have to point this sort of thing out to you, Bob.
And with that, I'm going to sleep.
Posts
