Sony Kowtowing to North Korea
Discussion
wolves_wanderer said:
WinstonWolf said:
pork911 said:
WinstonWolf said:
I concur, put up or shut up. If you're not willing to explain how it's offensive you'll just have to kowtow to all of us.
This better be good...
as good for you as your happiness in total ignorance? probably notThis better be good...
even the fount of all PH knowledge wikipedia gives a slight introduction but of course froth mouthed posters demand packaged enlightenment to 'disprove' their entirely uninformed yet fixed opinion
ah well, hardly a surprise really
If you have to consult an article which doesn't really explain why it *might* be offensive you're definitely clutching at straws.
So, humour my ignorance, pretty please, with sugar on top, explain the fking insult.
PZR said:
Yes, I am.
It was - I believe - a fair question (all the more so considering the reaction) and the OP answered it. What did you find so extraordinary about that?
If you believe that it was a fair question then you are a simpleton. This must be one of the weirdest threads I have ever read. What is the matter with people?It was - I believe - a fair question (all the more so considering the reaction) and the OP answered it. What did you find so extraordinary about that?
So what, if he meant to offend, which I don't think he did. People are mean to each other. Diddums.Did any of the offended in this thread go to a normal school. If they did, they'd be in tears every day.
FFS!
WinstonWolf said:
BigMacDaddy said:
A quick skim via Google suggests that to Kowtow was the act of going down on both knees and touching one's head to the floor, either as an act of religious worship or "as an act of supplication by an inferior to a superior".
It seems to be Chinese in origin.
Only the professionally offended or hard-of-thinking would somehow twist its use here into some sort of slight against the Koreans, although it seems Pork911 may fit both of those descriptions so no surprises here. I eagerly await a Confucius-esque reply containing something about ignorance, something else about being happy with the use of the word in the context of the OP, but nothing of any actual substance. Oh no wait a minute - I don't care.
Anyway, back on topic; I'm veering more towards this being Sony seeking to drive huge publicity for what might actually be a real stinker of a film, and yet even in this mind-set I might be tempted to have a watch to see what the fuss is about. the thought of this being some sort of honey-trap to capture a NK hacking cell is far more interesting though
Nope, definitely not offensive unless you're grammatically or comprehensionally challenged.It seems to be Chinese in origin.
Only the professionally offended or hard-of-thinking would somehow twist its use here into some sort of slight against the Koreans, although it seems Pork911 may fit both of those descriptions so no surprises here. I eagerly await a Confucius-esque reply containing something about ignorance, something else about being happy with the use of the word in the context of the OP, but nothing of any actual substance. Oh no wait a minute - I don't care.
Anyway, back on topic; I'm veering more towards this being Sony seeking to drive huge publicity for what might actually be a real stinker of a film, and yet even in this mind-set I might be tempted to have a watch to see what the fuss is about. the thought of this being some sort of honey-trap to capture a NK hacking cell is far more interesting though
Pork911 seems to be the only person in the world (well the internet) who thinks its offensive in any way.
Magog said:
Either,
A. The US government has intelligence of a genuine threat if the film is shown.
B. The hackers have got their hands on some very sensitive documents exposing Sony's part in the New World Order conspiracy.
C. The US government is leveraging the hell out of the situation in order to further it's own political aims.
Absolutely not the 1st or 3rd. The government are not happy at Sony, this goes to the heart of the 1st amendment. It's a terribly bad precedent to set, Obama said at lunch time that Sony had got it wrong and should have shown the film. A. The US government has intelligence of a genuine threat if the film is shown.
B. The hackers have got their hands on some very sensitive documents exposing Sony's part in the New World Order conspiracy.
C. The US government is leveraging the hell out of the situation in order to further it's own political aims.
hornet said:
Magog said:
Rick_1138 said:
Something else is going on here we aren't finding out about yet.
Either,A. The US government has intelligence of a genuine threat if the film is shown.
B. The hackers have got their hands on some very sensitive documents exposing Sony's part in the New World Order conspiracy.
C. The US government is leveraging the hell out of the situation in order to further it's own political aims.
unrepentant said:
Magog said:
Either,
A. The US government has intelligence of a genuine threat if the film is shown.
B. The hackers have got their hands on some very sensitive documents exposing Sony's part in the New World Order conspiracy.
C. The US government is leveraging the hell out of the situation in order to further it's own political aims.
Absolutely not the 1st or 3rd. The government are not happy at Sony, this goes to the heart of the 1st amendment. It's a terribly bad precedent to set, Obama said at lunch time that Sony had got it wrong and should have shown the film. A. The US government has intelligence of a genuine threat if the film is shown.
B. The hackers have got their hands on some very sensitive documents exposing Sony's part in the New World Order conspiracy.
C. The US government is leveraging the hell out of the situation in order to further it's own political aims.
wolves_wanderer said:
WinstonWolf said:
pork911 said:
WinstonWolf said:
I concur, put up or shut up. If you're not willing to explain how it's offensive you'll just have to kowtow to all of us.
This better be good...
as good for you as your happiness in total ignorance? probably notThis better be good...
even the fount of all PH knowledge wikipedia gives a slight introduction but of course froth mouthed posters demand packaged enlightenment to 'disprove' their entirely uninformed yet fixed opinion
ah well, hardly a surprise really
If you have to consult an article which doesn't really explain why it *might* be offensive you're definitely clutching at straws.
So, humour my ignorance, pretty please, with sugar on top, explain the fking insult.
eldar said:
PZR said:
[obvious simpleton]Why?[/obvious simpleton]
Sorry, I can't think of any yellow/slope/etc 'comedy' punchlines for the end of my post.
It did rather fall into the 'Have you stopped shagging sheep?' class of question. What don't you say what you mean? Sorry, I can't think of any yellow/slope/etc 'comedy' punchlines for the end of my post.
Jimbeaux said:
unrepentant said:
Magog said:
Either,
A. The US government has intelligence of a genuine threat if the film is shown.
B. The hackers have got their hands on some very sensitive documents exposing Sony's part in the New World Order conspiracy.
C. The US government is leveraging the hell out of the situation in order to further it's own political aims.
Absolutely not the 1st or 3rd. The government are not happy at Sony, this goes to the heart of the 1st amendment. It's a terribly bad precedent to set, Obama said at lunch time that Sony had got it wrong and should have shown the film. A. The US government has intelligence of a genuine threat if the film is shown.
B. The hackers have got their hands on some very sensitive documents exposing Sony's part in the New World Order conspiracy.
C. The US government is leveraging the hell out of the situation in order to further it's own political aims.
unrepentant said:
Jimbeaux said:
unrepentant said:
Magog said:
Either,
A. The US government has intelligence of a genuine threat if the film is shown.
B. The hackers have got their hands on some very sensitive documents exposing Sony's part in the New World Order conspiracy.
C. The US government is leveraging the hell out of the situation in order to further it's own political aims.
Absolutely not the 1st or 3rd. The government are not happy at Sony, this goes to the heart of the 1st amendment. It's a terribly bad precedent to set, Obama said at lunch time that Sony had got it wrong and should have shown the film. A. The US government has intelligence of a genuine threat if the film is shown.
B. The hackers have got their hands on some very sensitive documents exposing Sony's part in the New World Order conspiracy.
C. The US government is leveraging the hell out of the situation in order to further it's own political aims.
Jimbeaux said:
unrepentant said:
Jimbeaux said:
unrepentant said:
Magog said:
Either,
A. The US government has intelligence of a genuine threat if the film is shown.
B. The hackers have got their hands on some very sensitive documents exposing Sony's part in the New World Order conspiracy.
C. The US government is leveraging the hell out of the situation in order to further it's own political aims.
Absolutely not the 1st or 3rd. The government are not happy at Sony, this goes to the heart of the 1st amendment. It's a terribly bad precedent to set, Obama said at lunch time that Sony had got it wrong and should have shown the film. A. The US government has intelligence of a genuine threat if the film is shown.
B. The hackers have got their hands on some very sensitive documents exposing Sony's part in the New World Order conspiracy.
C. The US government is leveraging the hell out of the situation in order to further it's own political aims.
groucho said:
PZR said:
[obvious simpleton]Why?[/obvious simpleton]
Sorry, I can't think of any yellow/slope/etc 'comedy' punchlines for the end of my post.
You don't get it, do you? The OP wasn't being offensive!!! Sorry, I can't think of any yellow/slope/etc 'comedy' punchlines for the end of my post.
I think there's something you're not getting.
PZR said:
The OP wasn't being intentionally offensive. He says.
I think there's something you're not getting.
Oh for fks sake, clearly yes I am ignorant and a village idiot, so would you or pork 911 please explain in terms a simpleton such as I can understand the reasons why this is so offensive?I think there's something you're not getting.
PZR said:
The OP wasn't being intentionally offensive. He says.
I think there's something you're not getting.
Stop being so cryptic and clever. Are you playing the 'he is a racist' card or are you being the subtle racist?I think there's something you're not getting.
This may assist. http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/
unrepentant said:
Umm... Because I imagine that they're scared stless that their premises will get bombed, executives houses targetted etc...
A reality check is required; what track record do NK have for acts of terrorism overseas? None in the US or Europe, a few kidnappings in Japan 30 years ago and assassination attempts in South Korea in the same period, and that's it. No suicide bombing, fire bombing, dive bombing or love bombing. They don't do it. It's bks.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff