Scot is an Idiot.

[le pire]

nevermind...

[jester]

In reply to Le Pires post in which he asked me to "prove" the guy was ageist before he edited it out.

I said the advert was ageist. That doesn't mean the guy was ageist. And while Martin may find this subject irrelevant, a fair few people have replied.

So I'm in a minority (although I suspect there is a silent majority). This is a forum and this subject has been debated quite heavily for a "non issue."

[jester]

Originally posted by Evan Young
did you read my last post? I thought I was your fav to argue with.

You are certainly one of my favorites Evan.

[jester]

Re: You degrade the worth of this site

Originally posted by martin ewen
Ageism, what a pathetic farce.

No it isn't.

[le pire]

actually it said this this is all based you your presumptions. Then I asked for some proof.

Speaking of presumptions, you then write:

(although I suspect there is a silent majority)

More presumptions.

advert, guy, whatever. Please don't parse words here.

Anyway...

The reason I deleted my post was I then saw what Martin posted and saw that the "offending" post was gone, so none of this pointless conjecture, debate, and presumtion matters... because YOUU WON jester, hooooooooray. You won. The post is gone and now you can dance around in your jangly hat and cry out how you have chased off that sexist, ageist, anti-ginger advert and made the internet a more liberal and prejudice free place. well done.

[jester]

Originally posted by le pire
. You won. The post is gone and now you can dance around in your jangly hat and cry out how you have chased off that sexist, ageist, anti-ginger advert and made the internet a more liberal and prejudice free place. well done.

That was a presumption I think you'll find.

I do not feel as though I have won at all.

Ageism is wrong. WRONG. 23 years, 27 years, my arguments are good. I'm sorry that upsets you.

[martin ewen]

OK One last reply

Here are some facts, (just so that you can get a beginners impression of the differences between them)
Someone posted a job opportunity on the boards
(whether they were registered or unregistered is irrelevant)
You replyed with your own irrelivant opinions which were critical
The guy withdrew his offer.
I've looked, I can't find it anywhere, including your post history.

This is my opinion
you are an idiot
this is a fact
You have by your actions caused an opportunity that someone else on this site could have benefited by to be lost.

I have no feelings either way about you. Apart from the fact that you are a self styled minor irritant and I sometimes gain small satisfaction from illustrating how amusingly facile you are.
I do care a lot about this site.
You are starting to overstep your boundaries as resident spam ego and impact on the constructive primary functions of this site.
In that this can be proven (see first paragraph)
This is more likely a fact rather than an opinion.
You waste not only my and others time, but you waste (in this case) the opportunities of others and should apologise.

[Rachel Peters]

I was considering of posting my opinion on the topic afterall, but we're past that point now. ...I think that everyone in this thread takes a piece of the blame for keeping this thing alive, me included, considering I've just fed it with another post. It could have ended where it started if no one had replied.
Everyone's been heard. Someone's got to swallow their pride and just stop. That's my opinion.
The phone is ringing and I have to go.

[Stephon]

Deja vu

As I've often had to say to you before, go back and actually read what I wrote:

Originally posted by Stephon
-I wasn't responding to a non-issue, I was responding to your over-reaction to a non-issue. But hey, Good Try!

[Mr.Taxi Trix]

Not a silent majority member

If I want a thirteen year old, one-legged midget for my show, a festering hunchback jester, a chiming mime with a silent lisp, or a chimp with a limp, than that's what I put an ad out for. End of story, windbagging notwithstanding. Approve or disapprove, but if you don't qualify, don't waste my time and yours: don't apply.

[Stephon]

JESTER HAS CONCEDED THE ARGUMENT

Originally posted by jester
Stephon, aesthetics were one of the prime concerns of the third reich as they sought to purify the master race.

From Wikipedia via godwinslaw.com:

Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage in Internet culture originated by Mike Godwin on Usenet in 1990 that states:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

There is a tradition that once such a comparison is made, the thread in which the comment was posted is over and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

Thank natural selection we can put this to rest.

[Rachel Peters]

ok, i give in.

that's my opinion as well, taxi. That's the tv/movie industry too. If I were directing something, I'd be pretty angry if someone bullied me into being PC and an equal opportunity employer, while my project and personal vision suffered.
Thanks for posting, taximan -- that was my original post too.
So, I gave in to the allure of the 'reply' button, but hope not fuel any fires.

[gav]

Let me try and end this by pronouncing drunkenly that you are all stupid fuckers.

[jester]

Nazi Analogies

Stephon

I concede that to make a Nazi analogy was in bad taste.

I did not make the analogy to in anyway suggest that you were behaving like a nazi (which is what nazi anaologies normally amount to) and I think I did qualify what I was saying about aesthetic facism.

However I am sorry if that analogy in any way offended you and I did not mean to imply in anyway that you are at all facistic as an individual. I was expressing my views on a subject which it so happens the analogy was relevant. I beleive that only employing dancers that are a certain height or weight is only a few steps short of facism. I think I made that clear and I think you understood that.

Tradition is not a reason in itself for continuation. It is traditional to have a male chef in a restaurant, but more and more women are breaking through.

Taxi.

You can make the one legged dwarf analogy. It was an argument made by many employers in Britain when the Race/Sex discrimination act was introduced. You can employ who you like. However, if you are advertising a position that could be taken by anybody regardless of skin colour or sex without compromising the safety or welfare of your business you would be legally required to entertain applications from all groups in the UK. I believe that the same principle should apply to age. However, legally this is not the case. I also think that colour of hair is no reason at all to discriminate.

I think you would be angry if your child was refused a job interview because of the colour of her hair . In fact this can be deemed racial discrimination and in 1989 somebody I know got an out of court settlement when she was removed from her post as a PA because her new boss did not like red headed women.

[jester]

Be honest with yourself now Martin.

Martin. Here are the facts:

Somebody advertised a job.
I criticised the advert
A debate ensued.
The advert was removed.

It was removed, and you would have to ask Jim why it was removed. I apologise to the few people who fitted into a rather tight and limiting criteria if they had wanted to apply.

I remain critical of the advert. I think that I am fighting for something I beleive passionately in. While age discrimination may not be an issue you feel is important, that doesn't mean it isn't important to myself.

Prejudice is wrong and to exclude various people from any kind of employment in the name of art is wrong.

As I said before - if Billy Elliot can be Asian or Black (and I think he can) a magicians assistant can be red headed and over the age of 23.

What I find hilarious Martin is you know I am right and you have completely devalued yourself and your integrity to battle this one with me now. That is not a presumption - that is a fact. You do not think, (even one tinsy winsy bit) that a red headed 25 year old should not be allowed to apply for that job if she so wants. Your problem is with the person who challenged the advert, not the challenge in itself. You should apologise to yourself.