Lilith

Immortelle
May 19, 2006
6,719
And marriage does?



Sounds like new year, new yob time.
Marriage does not in the least.



Not even being married to four women at the same time :D

:lol: Agreed!

No, but it was a good hint. He was a wanker, and unfortunately I see him a lot lately now that I am FB friends with Sam (same name).

Are there many others going?

As for the job thing. I am just really unhappy in this whole field. Today however, what pissed me off was the level of unfairness that goes on inside here due to favouritism. As long as you suck up, you don't get boatloads of work pawned off on you. :disagree:
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Nzoric

Grazie Mirko
Jan 16, 2011
37,877
Our days? were you this age in late 80's/early 90s?

Doug stanhope is one of the greatest social critics of OUR days, Bill Hicks was the greatest of his day.
Since this forum has people in their 40's, I was referring to "our days" in a broad sense. Our days also applies because a good part of Hick's material is still applicable to societies today.
Doug Stanhope has some valid points, but he resorts to banalities way too much - especially rhetorically, for me to consider him great.
 

Ford Prefect

Senior Member
May 28, 2009
10,557
Since this forum has people in their 40's, I was referring to "our days" in a broad sense. Our days also applies because a good part of Hick's material is still applicable to societies today.
Doug Stanhope has some valid points, but he resorts to banalities way too much - especially rhetorically, for me to consider him great.
Example?
 

Nzoric

Grazie Mirko
Jan 16, 2011
37,877
I would argue that he is one of the most important social critics of the modern age, but that might be because i've never disagreed with any he said as im a social libertarian too.
It's not because I disagree with him on everything, but take this clip as an example:


You could argue that this is a very valid point, but the way he does it just doesn't appeal to me. He keeps the discourse in a low level, which isn't fitting for a "great" social critic. Whereas Hick's did introduce banalities to his performances too, especially when mocking those he disagrees with, but his points were more well rounded and presented in a much better package.

I might be biased in a similar way because I've never really heard something from Hick's and disagreed with it :p
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 89)