<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for skepticlawyer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://skepticlawyer.com.au/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au</link>
	<description>Two lawyers on law, legislation and liberty. And other stuff.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 19:58:11 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on I&#8217;m sorry, Big Brother is objectively crap by Stephen Lloyd</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Comments+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fskepticlawyer.com.au%2F2008%2F05%2Fim-sorry-big-brother-is-objectively-crap%2F%23comment-11962&amp;seed_title=I%26%238217%3Bm+sorry%2C+Big+Brother+is+objectively+crap#comment-11962</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Lloyd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 18:25:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticlawyer.com.au/?p=685#comment-11962</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;and the hero would launch into a giant discursive monologue which went on for pages. To my mind, this is bad writing according to an objective standard&lt;/blockquote&gt;

LOL, you mean like the last &lt;b&gt;60&lt;/b&gt; (!) or so pages of &lt;i&gt;Atlas Shrugged&lt;/i&gt;?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>and the hero would launch into a giant discursive monologue which went on for pages. To my mind, this is bad writing according to an objective standard</p></blockquote>
<p>LOL, you mean like the last <b>60</b> (!) or so pages of <i>Atlas Shrugged</i>?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on I&#8217;m sorry, Big Brother is objectively crap by Stephen Lloyd</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Comments+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fskepticlawyer.com.au%2F2008%2F05%2Fim-sorry-big-brother-is-objectively-crap%2F%23comment-11961&amp;seed_title=I%26%238217%3Bm+sorry%2C+Big+Brother+is+objectively+crap#comment-11961</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Lloyd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 18:20:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticlawyer.com.au/?p=685#comment-11961</guid>
		<description>It's only a reflection of society to the extent the Southern Star-employed Psychologists select a balanced sample, which is self-evidently not the case. 

I fail to see how ostensibly intelligent people can try to analyse BB as a society-in-a-bottle experiment. Rubbish. 

The psychologists have a market-driven interest in selecting the most provocative, gratingly opposite and conflicted group of ego-centric and selfish people they can find. 

The producers, by virtue of the reams of reports given to them by the psychologists in the selection process know exactly how the contsestants are most likely to react in any given situation.

It's about as far from a microcosm of society as one can get.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s only a reflection of society to the extent the Southern Star-employed Psychologists select a balanced sample, which is self-evidently not the case. </p>
<p>I fail to see how ostensibly intelligent people can try to analyse BB as a society-in-a-bottle experiment. Rubbish. </p>
<p>The psychologists have a market-driven interest in selecting the most provocative, gratingly opposite and conflicted group of ego-centric and selfish people they can find. </p>
<p>The producers, by virtue of the reams of reports given to them by the psychologists in the selection process know exactly how the contsestants are most likely to react in any given situation.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s about as far from a microcosm of society as one can get.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on I&#8217;m sorry, Big Brother is objectively crap by skepticlawyer</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Comments+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fskepticlawyer.com.au%2F2008%2F05%2Fim-sorry-big-brother-is-objectively-crap%2F%23comment-11960&amp;seed_title=I%26%238217%3Bm+sorry%2C+Big+Brother+is+objectively+crap#comment-11960</link>
		<dc:creator>skepticlawyer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 07:31:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticlawyer.com.au/?p=685#comment-11960</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Because there is no objective standards for the judgment of taste.&lt;/blockquote&gt;This is the general skepticism that Prof Gardner is talking about; it's a philosophical nuclear option that pretends the truth is unattainable.

NPOV: I have no problem with people getting their enjoyment by watching this stuff - in that sense, I'm  true market anti-perfectionist, and don't think the state should be into funding conceptions of the good (like the arts). 

However - like Ken over at Troppo - I think that interest in this kind of stuff on the part of genuine intellectuals is a bit silly, particularly as so many of the analyses are so woolly, confusing 'sociological phenomenon' with 'good'.

Not really.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Because there is no objective standards for the judgment of taste.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is the general skepticism that Prof Gardner is talking about; it&#8217;s a philosophical nuclear option that pretends the truth is unattainable.</p>
<p>NPOV: I have no problem with people getting their enjoyment by watching this stuff - in that sense, I&#8217;m  true market anti-perfectionist, and don&#8217;t think the state should be into funding conceptions of the good (like the arts). </p>
<p>However - like Ken over at Troppo - I think that interest in this kind of stuff on the part of genuine intellectuals is a bit silly, particularly as so many of the analyses are so woolly, confusing &#8217;sociological phenomenon&#8217; with &#8216;good&#8217;.</p>
<p>Not really.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on I&#8217;m sorry, Big Brother is objectively crap by Legal Eagle</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Comments+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fskepticlawyer.com.au%2F2008%2F05%2Fim-sorry-big-brother-is-objectively-crap%2F%23comment-11959&amp;seed_title=I%26%238217%3Bm+sorry%2C+Big+Brother+is+objectively+crap#comment-11959</link>
		<dc:creator>Legal Eagle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 05:46:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticlawyer.com.au/?p=685#comment-11959</guid>
		<description>Incidentally, Adrien, I think you can prove that Dan Brown is a bad author by counting up the number of cliched phrases he uses. If I had the energy, I'd count the number of times he says that the heroine has "mahogany hair" in &lt;i&gt;The Da Vinci Code&lt;/i&gt;. Or the number of times the heroine would say "So who are the Templars?" (for example) and the hero would launch into a giant discursive monologue which went on for pages. To my mind, this is bad writing according to an objective standard (thou shalt not use too many cliches, thou shalt not use the same similes or metaphors over and over again, thou shalt work descriptive sections into a proper narrative).

Of course, to an extent taste is a subjective personal thing, but I think you can also point to objective factors which make someone's writing good or bad.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Incidentally, Adrien, I think you can prove that Dan Brown is a bad author by counting up the number of cliched phrases he uses. If I had the energy, I&#8217;d count the number of times he says that the heroine has &#8220;mahogany hair&#8221; in <i>The Da Vinci Code</i>. Or the number of times the heroine would say &#8220;So who are the Templars?&#8221; (for example) and the hero would launch into a giant discursive monologue which went on for pages. To my mind, this is bad writing according to an objective standard (thou shalt not use too many cliches, thou shalt not use the same similes or metaphors over and over again, thou shalt work descriptive sections into a proper narrative).</p>
<p>Of course, to an extent taste is a subjective personal thing, but I think you can also point to objective factors which make someone&#8217;s writing good or bad.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Freedom of speech to speak foolishly&#8230; by Legal Eagle</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Comments+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fskepticlawyer.com.au%2F2008%2F05%2Ffreedom-of-speech-to-speak-foolishly%2F%23comment-11958&amp;seed_title=Freedom+of+speech+to+speak+foolishly%26%238230%3B#comment-11958</link>
		<dc:creator>Legal Eagle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 05:39:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticlawyer.com.au/?p=684#comment-11958</guid>
		<description>Why, thank you, Laura - do keep visiting, and we'll do our best to keep it up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why, thank you, Laura - do keep visiting, and we&#8217;ll do our best to keep it up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on I&#8217;m sorry, Big Brother is objectively crap by Legal Eagle</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Comments+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fskepticlawyer.com.au%2F2008%2F05%2Fim-sorry-big-brother-is-objectively-crap%2F%23comment-11957&amp;seed_title=I%26%238217%3Bm+sorry%2C+Big+Brother+is+objectively+crap#comment-11957</link>
		<dc:creator>Legal Eagle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 05:37:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticlawyer.com.au/?p=685#comment-11957</guid>
		<description>I can't stand BB - I just have no interest in the conversations people have or the silly things they do. It's like being stuck on a train having to overhear the loud and inane conversation of other passengers. 

I get no joy in watching people make fools of themselves or do nasty bitchy things to each other either. It makes me want to come out in hives (yes, I know, I'm overly sensitive).

My objection is not a class thing per se. I just find much more interesting people and opinions through a brief browse of the blogosphere than I do through an episode of BB.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t stand BB - I just have no interest in the conversations people have or the silly things they do. It&#8217;s like being stuck on a train having to overhear the loud and inane conversation of other passengers. </p>
<p>I get no joy in watching people make fools of themselves or do nasty bitchy things to each other either. It makes me want to come out in hives (yes, I know, I&#8217;m overly sensitive).</p>
<p>My objection is not a class thing per se. I just find much more interesting people and opinions through a brief browse of the blogosphere than I do through an episode of BB.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on I&#8217;m sorry, Big Brother is objectively crap by Adrien</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Comments+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fskepticlawyer.com.au%2F2008%2F05%2Fim-sorry-big-brother-is-objectively-crap%2F%23comment-11956&amp;seed_title=I%26%238217%3Bm+sorry%2C+Big+Brother+is+objectively+crap#comment-11956</link>
		<dc:creator>Adrien</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 05:32:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticlawyer.com.au/?p=685#comment-11956</guid>
		<description>I agree SL. &lt;i&gt;Big Brother&lt;/i&gt; is crap. However I disagree it ain't &lt;i&gt;objectively&lt;/i&gt; crap. Because there is no objective standards for the judgement of taste. You can't prove that Shakespeare is a good writer. You can't prove Dan Brown is a bad one. You just know it.

That said &lt;i&gt;Big Brother&lt;/i&gt; is crap :)

Did Roman bogans have fuzzy dice?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree SL. <i>Big Brother</i> is crap. However I disagree it ain&#8217;t <i>objectively</i> crap. Because there is no objective standards for the judgement of taste. You can&#8217;t prove that Shakespeare is a good writer. You can&#8217;t prove Dan Brown is a bad one. You just know it.</p>
<p>That said <i>Big Brother</i> is crap <img src='http://skepticlawyer.com.au/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Did Roman bogans have fuzzy dice?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Riding the porcelain plane? by Legal Eagle</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Comments+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fskepticlawyer.com.au%2F2008%2F05%2Friding-the-porcelain-plane%2F%23comment-11955&amp;seed_title=Riding+the+porcelain+plane%3F#comment-11955</link>
		<dc:creator>Legal Eagle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 05:26:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticlawyer.com.au/?p=679#comment-11955</guid>
		<description>Ha ha ha - depends whether they suffered from motion sickness? 

I have a friend who vomits even if the plane hasn't taken off yet - it's just the thought of taking off that gets her...

Fortunately, I don't get plane sick, although I do get very sea sick...no sailor me!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ha ha ha - depends whether they suffered from motion sickness? </p>
<p>I have a friend who vomits even if the plane hasn&#8217;t taken off yet - it&#8217;s just the thought of taking off that gets her&#8230;</p>
<p>Fortunately, I don&#8217;t get plane sick, although I do get very sea sick&#8230;no sailor me!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on I&#8217;m sorry, Big Brother is objectively crap by pommygranate</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Comments+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fskepticlawyer.com.au%2F2008%2F05%2Fim-sorry-big-brother-is-objectively-crap%2F%23comment-11954&amp;seed_title=I%26%238217%3Bm+sorry%2C+Big+Brother+is+objectively+crap#comment-11954</link>
		<dc:creator>pommygranate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 04:38:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticlawyer.com.au/?p=685#comment-11954</guid>
		<description>skeptic

It is mind-numbingly crap but it is also strangely interesting if only to discover what so many of the population find interesting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>skeptic</p>
<p>It is mind-numbingly crap but it is also strangely interesting if only to discover what so many of the population find interesting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on I&#8217;m sorry, Big Brother is objectively crap by NPOV</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&amp;feed=Comments+%28RSS2%29&amp;seed=http%3A%2F%2Fskepticlawyer.com.au%2F2008%2F05%2Fim-sorry-big-brother-is-objectively-crap%2F%23comment-11953&amp;seed_title=I%26%238217%3Bm+sorry%2C+Big+Brother+is+objectively+crap#comment-11953</link>
		<dc:creator>NPOV</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 03:32:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticlawyer.com.au/?p=685#comment-11953</guid>
		<description>Good to hear a libertarian basically allowing that the immediate market is not (always) a good judge of quality.
Would you accept that the market over a sufficiently long period of time, say, a century, comes close?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good to hear a libertarian basically allowing that the immediate market is not (always) a good judge of quality.<br />
Would you accept that the market over a sufficiently long period of time, say, a century, comes close?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
