Is Sean Dyche for real?

Post Reply
redblueuptoyou
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 1:52 pm
Re: Is Sean Dyche for real?

Post by redblueuptoyou » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:09 pm

Isn’t using the term ‘sophisticated fascicm’ (fascism) an ‘overreaction’ in this context as well? Would love to see an example of this in action. I suspect it’s either criticism or an opinion that does not match the writer’s.

ians
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:29 pm
Re: Is Sean Dyche for real?

Post by ians » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:12 pm

ShotOnTarget wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:04 pm
MikeB wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:53 pm
ShotOnTarget wrote:
Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:21 pm


Still counting after 6 1/2 hours? Must be a hell of a lot.
I completely agree with Red-n-Blue. A lot of my wife's teaching colleagues have been infected. What else would you expect when they have been sharing a room with 30 unrelated, unmasked children every day? Yes - it's only about half that number of children at the moment, but the children who are coming into school are unfortunately the ones whose parents are most likely to bring Covid into the family home, because they work in hospitals, schools, shops, etc.

(I'm not sure why you need an exact number for the number of infected teachers, ShotsOnTarget.)
I don't need the number but I'm interested to understand the extent of the problem as other sources have pointed to the success of schools in providing covid-safe envonments. These sources have suggested that a historical tendency towards militancy is a factor in current protestations and infections with the school environment are proportionately extremely low. Your comment that your wife's colleagues have been infected has suggested that the infection hazard is very real and a friend of mine who works with teachers suggested that it is next to impossible to stop primary school age mixing.

The answer in my own opinion is to outsource as much as possible offshore.
Outsource what exactly?

Old Bob
Posts: 449
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:23 pm
Re: Is Sean Dyche for real?

Post by Old Bob » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:42 pm

ShotOnTarget wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:11 pm
Old Bob wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:27 pm
Crowthorne wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:33 am

Your wrong.
... and your reasons for saying this?
Far be it for me to answer for Crowthorne, but here is why you are wrong.

The clue is in the notion that I am others with the same opinion are 'over reacting' to 'legitimate' opinions. Please let me explain. Placing these two words in the same sentence suggest that you believe opinions that you concur with count (because they are 'legitimate' in your view) and mine doesn't (as you class it as an 'over reaction') and thus suggesting that, due to your value judgement, only opinions that you concur with can possibly count because they represent 'the law' and mine is 'emotionally driven'.
The Oxford Dictionary wrote:Overreact: to react in an extreme, especially an angry or frightened, way
The Oxford Dictionary wrote:Legitimate: Allowed by law
What? Is that supposed to be an explanation? As I haven't the slightest idea exactly what opinions you are talking about, except that they were somehow to do with not loving your country enough (I think), how can I concur with them? Here's what you said:

"They have taken the privilege of the freedom of political expression into dark areas that defy the principles of healthy debate and opposition. It's a form of sophisticated fascicm that offends the majority".

You also implied there were large numbers of people indulging in this sophisticated fascism (note the spelling), whatever that is. I was simply wondering who these people were, what dark areas, what principles were being violated, and so on, as I'm not at all sure what you mean.

I had to work very hard to find your dictionary definition of "overreact" as I did not intend to accuse you of being extreme, angry, frightened, etc. Here's the Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionary definition: "to react too strongly". I intended what I said to be taken like that. I did eventually find your definition. It's actually in the Cambridge (not Oxford) dictionary, which is why it took a bit of finding. I was a little surprised by it, as it seems to me rather overstated. But you are right, that's the definition they give and I apologise if I implied you were overreacting in this sense. I really don't know if you are or aren't.

As for "legitimate", your Cambridge dictionary will have given you two definitions: (1) allowed by law (2) reasonable and acceptable. I think you know perfectly well that I was using the word in the second sense.

There is a saying, I'm sure you've heard it: reasonable people may disagree. I subscribe to this. The inference you draw that I believe opinions I do not concur with do not count is simply wrong. I can't really see how you came to this view.


Post Reply