Meanwhile, GregHunt (one word) and ScoMoFo and BlackShirts Dutton, you know, the people responsible for the little things such as the country and borders and health and vaccines and whatnot, do nothing but play to the camera with their fuck-you-all smirks.
Luckily, Andrews and Victorians have shown themselves to be way smarter and way more responsible than these Liberal and NeoLiberal shitheads. And they, we, will do it again.
Take care, Victorians, and ignore these assholes.
21 Replies to “Yes, Creighton is the Dumbest Man on the Planet”
Wonder what he said about the NSW, QLD, WA, SA recent lockdowns, some of which were triggered by (numerically) fewer cases?
To be fair, I think he’s a pretty consistent idiot.
I can’t seem to understand why these “journalists” (Neil Mitchell was another example today) think that criticizing decisions made on advice from public health experts is in any way helpful.
At least he didn’t do a Bolt and criticize the decision to keep schools open and then a month later say how stupid it was that schools were closed…
I think I’ve reached the point where I need to just stop reading them (which is a pity as I also think that if you only read journalists that you agree with, you lose a sense of perspective somewhat). My favourite type of journo has always been the one for which their writing never gives away their political leaning.
I’m perfectly happy for the health guys to be criticised. They are not omniscient gods, they’ve been less than straight-forward at times, and they have made, and continue to make, plenty of mistakes. But guys like Creighton aren’t trying to analyse and give an intellectually honest critique. They’re just fighting an ideological war, or they’re farting snark.
There is a fine line between criticizing someone because you think their analysis is wrong and criticizing someone because you don’t like their conclusions but cannot comprehend their analysis.
Actually… no, that line is quite thick!
Yes, that line, like Creighton, is thick.
As Taibbi says, all writing is propaganda, it’s all coming from a point of view and pushing a point of view. But propaganda can be mindful or mindless, and it is typically very easy to tell which is which. It is pointless to read the latter, whether it’s from the left or the “left” or the right or some libertarian outer planet.
I have not read a newspaper for more than 20 years; I never look at news web sites, and we have never owned a tv in more than 52 years of married life. I don’t listen to the radio.
Stuff still gets through. It’s impossible to keep all the chatter out.
Today, for example, a taxi driver told me about the lock down – and what he thought of the premier.
Another taxi driver told me earlier this week about massive demonstrations in India – and what he thought of the government in India.
I recall a few years ago when another taxi driver complained about the new 666 rule. Can’t say that I understood this, but he thought it was bad – it sounds Satanic. (Since we don’t drive, we often catch taxis.)
I do follow chess news at a chess website. Just last week I learned that, in the US players, can use both hands to castle, but this is not allowed elsewhere. There is also a taxi driver who is very keen on chess and we usually talk about chess during the ride.
Try not listening to the news for a reasonable time.
Let me follow up with a chess question.
I am interested in proofs in chess. So let me start with what seems to be a simple problem.
How do I *prove* the following statement?
If White has only a king and a bishop, and Black has only a king, prove that, with best play (or maybe any play) that the game must end in a draw.
If it is possible, then a checkmate position must exist using only said pieces. Since such a position does not exist, there cannot be a sequence of moves leading to this position.
Hence, it is not possible.
RF: Well written; concise
After much correspondence in other fora, maybe my original question should have been this.
Prove that if White has only a king and a bishop, and Black has only a king, then White cannot deliver checkmate.
(This takes into account the possibility that one player might resign, and perhaps intricacies associated with FIDE rules of chess – but it does not affect your solution RF.)
I should explain why I posed this question. I am interested in the role of proof in chess problems, and so I started with a simple problem to see how others might attack it. Their replies led me to re-wording the problem. Thank you RF for your contribution.
My favourite example from chess end-game problems is that if a player (lets say White) has a King and two Knights and Black has only a King then there IS a checkmate position, but it is not possible to force Checkmate.
HOWEVER if Black also has a pawn then checkmate IS possible.
Good counter-example perhaps?
You read this blog. Why? What is the purpose of this blog? Do you think it succeeds?
I infer that the purpose of the blog is to stimulate discussion about mathematics education, especially senior mathematics in Victoria. I have no doubt that it succeeds in doing this.
The major mathematical issue in Australia is the teaching of mathematics in our schools. I read the blog because I am interested in this aspect of mathematics. I’d like to make a contribution.
Keep up the good work.
Perhaps AC should read more about the R number of the UK variant before making random assertions? Eg https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55507012
Better to be risk averse and improve the quarantine process going forward IMO
It is exactly Creighton-like laissez-faire idiocy that turned England into a giant petri dish.
You’ve got to admit though, he’s up against some pretty stiff competition for that title considering the brainless goons who occupy the LNP front and back benches. Every time one of them opens their mouth you think: “This has got to be the stupidest thing ever said”, until another one speaks. Watching them is like (to borrow from Blackadder) watching a Lodge meeting of the Guild of Village Idiots.
Yeah, I know. He’s not *really* the dumbest man on the planet. But there’s something about his unbearably smug, more-intelligent-than-thou assholeness that makes him even more revolting than the Liberal knuckle draggers.