Continually, I'm afraid. If that was not your intention then you might want to think about your tone, or the phrases you choose, because that is how it comes across. I'm not wilfully looking for reasons to disagree here, this is what springs off the page to me.
I have not said that you are talking about Boris or are being supportive of him, because I'm well aware that you have already denied this. What I am taking issue with is your repeated reduction of the issues of privilege surrounding inherited wealth.
I'd also point out that comments such as;
"I've been made redundant several times but never gone on the dole. "
or
"Good for you. I never went on benefits, I did crappy temping jobs for peanuts instead."
read, without any tone of voice, as very snide and self-aggrandizing. No doubt you didn't intend them that way but again, that is how they read. You certainly appear not to see *that*
I have also disagreed with you on several specific points, not least that I was specifically arguing in favour of 'less-educated' (whatever that means - less-educated than who?) people in power, and also your statement (by disagreement) that this was a bad idea anyway (yes, it is possible to disagree with you on two apparently opposite arguments, both can be wrong).
If I have failed to express the reasons for my own disagreement sufficiently clearly, then, of course, mea maxima culpa. Hey, I guess *I* could run London - apparently knowing a bit of Latin is a big part of the job (cf Stanley Johnson)... **
**this isn't just me being flippant - this is a perfect example of the nonsensical idea that certain kinds of education = competence & leadership skills. I'm actually quite in favour of a classical education, but I don't think it makes you any better at balancing transport budgets
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 09:10 pm (UTC)Continually, I'm afraid. If that was not your intention then you might want to think about your tone, or the phrases you choose, because that is how it comes across. I'm not wilfully looking for reasons to disagree here, this is what springs off the page to me.
I have not said that you are talking about Boris or are being supportive of him, because I'm well aware that you have already denied this. What I am taking issue with is your repeated reduction of the issues of privilege surrounding inherited wealth.
I'd also point out that comments such as;
"I've been made redundant several times but never gone on the dole. "
or
"Good for you. I never went on benefits, I did crappy temping jobs for peanuts instead."
read, without any tone of voice, as very snide and self-aggrandizing. No doubt you didn't intend them that way but again, that is how they read. You certainly appear not to see *that*
I have also disagreed with you on several specific points, not least that I was specifically arguing in favour of 'less-educated' (whatever that means - less-educated than who?) people in power, and also your statement (by disagreement) that this was a bad idea anyway (yes, it is possible to disagree with you on two apparently opposite arguments, both can be wrong).
If I have failed to express the reasons for my own disagreement sufficiently clearly, then, of course, mea maxima culpa. Hey, I guess *I* could run London - apparently knowing a bit of Latin is a big part of the job (cf Stanley Johnson)... **
**this isn't just me being flippant - this is a perfect example of the nonsensical idea that certain kinds of education = competence & leadership skills. I'm actually quite in favour of a classical education, but I don't think it makes you any better at balancing transport budgets