Linkblogging For 23/8/14

I was thinking of reviewing the new Doctor Who episode, but I’ve got a migraine (third one in a week), so instead I’m going to post some links and get an early night…

David Uzumeri annotates Multiversity 1, rather more sensibly than my own piece

Adam Engelbright predicts the new Doctor Who stories, based on their teasers

Andrew Rilstone writes about Richard Dawkins’ case of foot-in-mouth disease, parts 1, 2, 3, 4

A flat in That London that was rented for the same price we paid for our old flat, and was so small you literally couldn’t stand up. There might be a teeny bit of a housing crisis, and also a London crisis…

And Millennium has a hypothesis about the Moffat era…

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Linkblogging For 23/8/14

  1. Emily says:

    I clicked on the link to Andrew Rilstone’s post, hoping that there might be something worth reading under all the cleverclever wankery. I can’t make it past the first few paragraphs, where he self-indulgently returns to beating his dead horse about same-sex marriage and how we’re all SO STUPID for not agreeing with him. I shall go back to ignoring him, it’s not worth the effort.

    • Andrew Hickey says:

      That’s not what he’s saying though — in fact he’s rather saying the opposite, that if people go around saying things in the most inflammatory way possible, they should *expect* people to be angry with them. He’s actually using the priest in question, and his earlier half-defence of him, as an example of the same kind of thing that Dawkins and his defenders do…

      • Emily says:

        Fair point and once I got past the first paragraphs, I found it useful and thought-provoking. All that stuff about Rilstone’s First Law reminded me why I don’t bother in general though.

  2. For the record, at the beginning of the debate, I was neutral or weakly in favor of same sex marriage : I felt that civil partnerships made gay and straight people equal under the law to all intents and purposes. By the end of the debate, I had become strongly in favor of it, very largely because the anti faction, including many of my co religionists had entirely failed to say anything sensible at all. I am not exactly clear why saying that I’ve said things I obviously didn’t say is thought to be a useful critique of what I did say. I can probably live with one more person ignoring me, though.

    • Andrew Hickey says:

      That’s certainly how I always read your posts, yes. Something about your writing style seems to lead to Emily (who is a very good friend, and who I’m not trying to criticise by saying this) interpreting your posts in a very, very different way from the way I do, to the extent that we’ve had quite emotional arguments where I’ve said “he’s just not saying that!”
      But no, I’ve certainly never read your posts as saying you were against same-sex marriage, or for that matter as saying that anyone who disagreed with you on that or any other subject was stupid.

Comments are closed.