Wanted:
Someone who has the faintest idea what Ryan Cleary meant when he scribbled this:
Newfoundland and Labrador may be 500 years old, but it’s immature for its age — primarily because our growth was stunted. (Livyers were shot on sight for the first few hundred years.)
posted by WJM @ 12:51 AM
14 Comments:
Hard to tell you didn't even give us any context. Why is that?
I would assume that refers to the fact that back when the resources (all that fish) around the island was first being taken, the British didn't want anyone settling there. Really didn't want it happening, and they kept very good records on who went on what boat.
Whenever the ships would return the next year, if they found anyone who stayed, they were dealt with (and their living place, unless it was one of the temporary buildings that had been built for the purposes of the fleets, was destroyed).
Good summary:
There was no intention of allowing the island of Newfoundland to be settled, and they were quite willing to enforce it. Until it became too hard (and they realized the need to have people live there, y'know, to keep the blasted French away).
I don't usually respond to posts in my own blog (too Sun-chain like, bad form), but Liam, all the context you could ever need is right there.
If Ryan Cleary, or anyone else with more profound historical knowledge can illuminate us, when were "livyers... shot on sight"?
(While he, or someone else, is at it, perhaps Cleary can justify the "500 years" figure, too.)
You don't respond to posts in other people's blogs either.
I respond all the time, but I'm not going to get myself into eternal pissing matches with people of dubious sanity, either.
Speaking of not responding, that Liam guy still hasn't said how what "context" would have aided his reading comprehension of the original post.
Why not include the entire article?
Continue pissing, Wally McLean.
Why not include the entire article?
Because that would go beyond fair use.
Why not answer the question: what is their in the context of the rest of the article that will help us figure out where and when "livyers were shot on sight"?
If you had at least quoted more of the article you could see that Cleary was using many metaphors and other devices quite light heartedly. . . from "rape" to saying that the government was "telling people to screw off."
Are you going to also slice them up and seperate them and ask when we were all actually raped? Or when businesses were specifically told to "screw off"???
Of course, you chose to cut out those pieces and focus-in on one comment and take it as completely serious.
A larger sample of the argument would have provided the tone. You sample of the argument, and your decision to assume that the statement is completeley serious and take it lierally, is interesting!
I might be a bit confused about Cleary's statement anyway even after reading the article. But I think it's a lot more likely that he might not be talking about "shooting" somebody after reading it.
If you had at least quoted more of the article you could see that Cleary was using many metaphors and other devices quite light heartedly. . .
It's Ryan Cleary of the Independent; how can you tell?
Are you going to also slice them up and seperate them and ask when we were all actually raped? Or when businesses were specifically told to "screw off"???
What is the metaphorical meaning of "shot on sight"?
Maybe it could be the same as fuddle duddle! :P
Odd how Liam can recognise humour, metaphor, exaggeration and so forth, when the comments support his own point of view, that of one of his friends, or any context other than one in which he is on the receiving end of said comments.
Please Ed, It's embarassing for you to engage in ad-hominem on a 3rd party's blog comments section when you haven't got the guts to allow commentary on your own blog!
;-)
For the record, I find many of your posts very funny indeed! You have a splendid sense of humour!
PS - Note to Wally -- I am in no way suggesting that Ed was eviscerated...
:P
;-)
Liam, Liam, Liam.
Yet again with the comments thing. It's getting tired man.
And pointing out the nature of your argument, the consistency of your approach is not ad hominem. Andy Wells engages in ad hominem arguments by calling people names.
However, pointing to the pattern in the way you construct your arguments is not an attack on you personally.
As for the comments thing, you seem to be able to manage quite nicely being baited by my blog to add to your own.
Why the consistent whining?
and the ad hominem attack by saying I lack courage?
Yet again you accuse others of your own patterns of behaviour
Ed, the only "whining" I have seen in the NL blogosphere as of late is your own very clear (and strong, and passionate) opposition to changing the flag. Your arguments indicate that you don't just view this as a distraction from "more important things," you have an active distaste for changing the flag.
If you're embarassed by the fact that you haven't been able to face up to commentary on your own site and on your own articles, at least find an explanation for it. Suggesting that "it's getting tired" only indicates that you have no explanation for the control-freakyness except that you are indeed afraid of seeing criticisms attached below your articles... something most bloggers seem to handle quite easily.
You have taken such an interest in my comments on several matters that you now seem to actively seek me out and attack my methods (because you have no substantive reply to make?) on a 3rd party's blog. If this didn't reek of slight measure of cyber-stalkerism, It'd almost be flattering.
Please continue to tilt against those windmills... the evil Andy Wells, the evil voting system that cost your municipal candidate his seat, the evils of those who dare suggest changing the provincial flag. It's fun to watch.
[big hugs]
;-)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home