# the Weeken Guardian.....the last straw...



## cemertyone (Sep 15, 2007)

Page 63 says it all....and to see that cunt from Blur on 85 selling Aga`s...well these lazy bastards are to used to staying in the restaurants of Farringdon to even care.....
If they even bothered to care...( apart from interesting there "Liberal" readers in Hampstead) one day in Brixton would have produced ten times more copy........
fucking useless..won`t buy it ever again.....


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 15, 2007)

Also, their sub-editors appear to have been let loose on the opening post...


----------



## Random (Sep 15, 2007)

cemertyone said:
			
		

> one day in Brixton



and i give you the world


----------



## mk12 (Sep 15, 2007)

cemertyone said:
			
		

> Page 63 says it all....and to see that cunt from Blur on 85 selling Aga`s...well these lazy bastards are to used to staying in the restaurants of Farringdon to even care.....
> If they even bothered to care...( apart from interesting there "Liberal" readers in Hampstead) one day in Brixton would have produced ten times more copy........
> fucking useless..won`t buy it ever again.....



you've only just realised the guardian is an arrogant, liberal pile of shit?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 15, 2007)

<yawns>


----------



## Tom A (Sep 15, 2007)

If you don't like it then don't read it. I just skip through the dross and read the interesting stuff.


----------



## mk12 (Sep 15, 2007)

cockneyrebel: you can criticise Donna all you want about not posting his views, but there's always one thing which will rile him up enough to offer a view: someone criticising his beloved Guardian.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 15, 2007)

I think the OP works for the Guardian and is trying to get us to buy it.  There is no way of making any sense of the opening post unless you have read the edition of the paper in question.


----------



## wtfftw (Sep 15, 2007)

Page 63 is Kelly Osbourne short interview on fashion (where do you shop, what designers do you like, blah blah).

Page 85 is an advert. It's Alex James (blur bassist, now makes cheese and more recently collaborated musically with betty boo) sat in front of an aga looking all like himself.


I hope that helps.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 15, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> cockneyrebel: you can criticise Donna all you want about not posting his views, but there's always one thing which will rile him up enough to offer a view: someone criticising his beloved Guardian.


<Yawns again>

I criticise the Guardian as much as most people. (Incidentally, it's more than eighteen months since I read this supposedly "beloved" paper). However, I find another way to do so than posing about talking about "liberal shit". Who's interested in that?


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 24, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> <Yawns again>
> 
> I criticise the Guardian as much as most people. (Incidentally, it's more than eighteen months since I read this supposedly "beloved" paper). However, I find another way to do so than posing about talking about "liberal shit". Who's interested in that?



Absolutely.

Suggest (for instance) that the Guardian is actually not _quite_ as bad as the Daily Mail, and out come the kneejerk 'liberal Hampstead latte drinkers' cliches.

BORING!!!!!  

(I'm as big a disliker of the ultra consumerist stuff in the Saturday Weekend Guardian as any half way sensible person, but weirdly enough, that's not ALL the Guardian is about unless you're such a bigot that you're unable, or unwilling, to notice the good and interesting articles).


----------



## biff curtains (Sep 24, 2007)

I read that Guardian readers have more blind acceptance of what is published in their paper than Sun readers do of theirs.

Smug, self satisfied hypocritical cunts.


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 24, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> I read that Guardian readers have more blind acceptance of what is published in their paper than Sun readers do of theirs.
> 
> Smug, self satisfied hypocritical cunts.




you're a little charmer aren't you?


----------



## biff curtains (Sep 24, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> you're a little charmer aren't you?



I am once I brylcream my hair and don my size ten winkle pickers


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> I read that Guardian readers have more blind acceptance of what is published in their paper than Sun readers do of theirs.
> 
> Smug, self satisfied hypocritical cunts.


Very, very poor troll attempt.

Must Do Better, Mr Curtains!


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2007)

Let's lighten up ths thread with a hilarious newspaper related joke:

"What's black and white and red all over?" 


 "A newspaper" 

╔╗╔═╦╗
║╚╣║║╚╗
╚═╩═╩═╝


----------



## Belushi (Sep 24, 2007)

Whats pink and hard in the mornings?

The Financial Times Crossword! Boom Boom!


----------



## rich! (Sep 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Very, very poor troll attempt.
> 
> Must Do Better, Mr Curtains!



http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,,1437144,00.html

38% of broadsheet readers trust the content of their paper. 11% of red-top readers.

From an Alan Rusbridger lecture in 2005.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Sep 24, 2007)

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah still better than any other paper blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

what a played out discussion!


----------



## biff curtains (Sep 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Very, very poor troll attempt.
> 
> Must Do Better, Mr Curtains!



Actually I was hoping people would pick up on the implicit hypocrisy of my post but it clearly went over your head.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2007)

rich! said:
			
		

> 38% of broadsheet readers trust the content of their paper. 11% of red-top readers.
> 
> From an Alan Rusbridger lecture in 2005.


Did he conclude that they're all "Smug, self satisfied hypocritical cunts" then?


----------



## biff curtains (Sep 24, 2007)

His Ratner moment...


----------



## audiotech (Sep 24, 2007)

drag0n said:
			
		

> Page 85 is an advert. It's Alex James (blur bassist, now makes cheese and more recently collaborated musically with betty boo) sat in front of an aga looking all like himself.



Writing for The Spectator an' all.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 24, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> Actually I was hoping people would pick up on the implicit hypocrisy of my post but it clearly went over your head.



I wondered at that.  Good stuff!


----------



## rich! (Sep 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Did he conclude that they're all "Smug, self satisfied hypocritical cunts" then?



This was the *editor* of the Guardian. He didn't need to conclude that - his marketing people have charts of the precise types of cunts that read it on various days of the week, along with breakdowns of the best places to put car/Aga adverts to reach appropriate cunt demographics.

*goes back to sales books*


----------



## maximilian ping (Sep 24, 2007)

a midget who speaks to the dead escaped from Brixton prison today

police are looking for a small medium at large


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 24, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Suggest (for instance) that the Guardian is actually not _quite_ as bad as the Daily Mail...


In what sense is it any better?


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> In what sense is it any better?


*deckchairs
*popcorn
*beers


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2007)

rich! said:
			
		

> This was the *editor* of the Guardian.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> *deckchairs
> *popcorn
> *beers


Do they come free with the Grauniad then?


----------



## tim (Sep 24, 2007)

rich! said:
			
		

> This was the *editor* of the Guardian. He didn't need to conclude that - his marketing people have charts of the precise types of cunts that read it on various days of the week, along with breakdowns of the best places to put car/Aga adverts to reach appropriate cunt demographics.
> 
> *goes back to sales books*



The sort of cunt in question, perhaps, being the one who can get to page 63before realising it's not quite their sort of thing.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Do they come free with the Grauniad then?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 24, 2007)

I was quite surprised to see they'd included a speech by Hitler as one of their greatest speeches of all time. Then I realised it was one of the great interviews. Phew!!!


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 24, 2007)

I've never come across people that are more fanatical about their paper of choice than Guardian readers.

William & Donna are prime examples.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> I've never come across people that are more fanatical about their paper of choice than Guardian readers.
> 
> William & Donna are prime examples.


Errr. Donna said that he hasn't read the Guardian for over 18 months.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Errr. Donna said that he hasn't read the Guardian for over 18 months.



That's only because he's living abroad.

British newspapers are outrageously expensive on the continent.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> That's only because he's living abroad.
> 
> British newspapers are outrageously expensive on the continent.


Right. So he's so "fanatical" about the Guardian that he's never once bought one in 18 months because it costs about about a quid more than it does in the UK?

Great argument!


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 24, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> That's only because he's living abroad.
> 
> British newspapers are outrageously expensive on the continent.



True, but the Guardian is easily worth 20 Euros anywhere in the world.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Right. So he's so "fanatical" about the Guardian that he's never once bought one in 18 months because it costs about about a quid more than it does in the UK?
> 
> Great argument!



....and you're presuming it's for sale in his town, which I doubt.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> ....and you're presuming it's for sale in his town, which I doubt.


I would have thought a "fanatic" would get it delivered seeing as you're presuming he can't get it anywhere in the town he lives in.

Or perhaps it might just be easier to admit that you got a little carried away with your 'fanatic' accusation, no?


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 24, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> In what sense is it any better?



It's faults are different. Suggest YOU tell ME why the DM's faults are less obnoxious ...


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 25, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> It's faults are different. Suggest YOU tell ME why the DM's faults are less obnoxious ...


I don't think they are, I just don't think that the Guardian is any _better_.

Edit: I also think that the content of both papers is targetted mostly at middle class people, just different sections of the middle class (the conservative, traditionalist types and the liberal, "progressive" types, respectively), which isn't to say that I think that everybody that reads either paper is necessarily from either group, it's more a question of emphasis.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 25, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> I've never come across people that are more fanatical about their paper of choice than Guardian readers.
> 
> William & Donna are prime examples.



Shove it.

I could make a very long list of the Guardian's many and various faults, faults and flaws which being a regular reader, who isn't actually the 'liberal Hampstead late sipper'  that you seem? to assume I am, and being actually pretty left wing, I suspect I know FAR more about that you.

It's about time that kneejerk 'liberal' bashing morons stopped lying about my politics and those of other critical, politically aware Guardian readers, just because I read a paper that HAPPENS to give me a lot of useful information in amidst the coinsumerist dross and dodgy platforms for corporate politics.

I read that paper with the discrimination and care that you appear totally to  lack when reading my posts. Where exactly have you got this 'fanatical defender' lie from? 

Perhaps from the lies others have consistently spread around about my politics, here and (especially) elsewhere, over the last few years? 

Kindly withdraw your lying accusation and apologise, now, please, and while you're at it, tell your charming, lying 'friends' 'elsewhere'  to stop spreading these persistant lies about my politics. I thank you.

I only came onto this forum yesterday in a case of 'Guardian reader posts Anarchist Book Fair thread shocker' .... 

And I noticed that In Bloom was surprised to see me do that. A lie is half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on, or whatever the exact quote was.


And yes this lying 'liberal fanatical Guardian lover' shit *does* press a raw nerve. Ask your 'mates' elsewhere why, the lying tossers.

<remembers why he almost never reads or posts on the so called 'politics' forums  >


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 25, 2007)

Jesus, chill out, there's no need to get all wound up.

I only said what I said on that particular thread because you'd never posted anything that indicated that you'd be interested in the @ bookfair, to my knowledge.

And DC hasn't even posted on this thread


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 25, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> I don't think they are, I just don't think that the Guardian is any _better_.
> 
> Edit: I also think that the content of both papers is targetted mostly at middle class people, just different sections of the middle class (the conservative, traditionalist types and the liberal, "progressive" types, respectively), which isn't to say that I think that everybody that reads either paper is necessarily from either group, it's more a question of emphasis.



I agree with a lot of your edit. 

But as for the first line, I disagree on the grounds that if I'd read the Daily Mail for as long as I'd read the Guardian, the DM would *correctly* have pissed me off a lot more politically. Either that, or maybe the DM might have insiduously, over time,  persuaded me to adopt far more bigotted, narrowminded and ignorant attitudes about xenophobic stuff, 'political correctness', 'house prices'  etc. The drip drip effect of stridently repeated prejudices if you will.

Not claiming  at all that some Guardian readers don't have dodgy attitudes of a different kind, on some aspects of politics, and that the paper's content might quite often consolidate/confirm those. But I'm not one of them OK?

Another differnce is that when right wing articles are pubished in the Guardian (and it's a myth that ALL the Gaurdian's op-ed pieces are all broadly the same politically, there's far more variety if you look for it), those right wing articles (particularly by people like that Irving Strelzer twat, or some of the more TU-bashing articles you occasionally get, or articles critical of council housing etc.) get challenged in the right of reply  column, or in the letters page, or on some of the website.

Those challengers are Guardian readers too, some of whom just might be quite or even very left wing and just might get a little pissed off and insulted by this blanketly simplistic 'Guardian readers = all middle class complacent liberals' stuff.

So my question might be, why risk pissing off people who might share your politics more than you think?

On less directly political stuff, I do genunely believe that I'd have been able to delve a lot less useful information from the DM.

Of course it's essential to consult other sources, and I do.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 25, 2007)

*Ulp,  bollocks.*




			
				In Bloom said:
			
		

> And DC hasn't even posted on this thread



Oops, swift edit needed there. Imminent 

The rest stands though. I'm not especially accusing you of anything particularly In Bloom, at least you've been polite. But there's far tooo many lies and assumptions been told/made about my politics over the last few years, stemming from peoples' malicious assumptions about my evil and dangerous Guardian habits 

And lies repeatedly told rub off on others on forums like this.

Lies which have denied me my right to stand and post on these forums as the leftie that I really am. And in fact intimidated me from trying to do so, for a long period.

Trade Unioinists, lefties generally, anarchists, radical green campaigners/supporters, ABF attenders, council flat dwellers, etc., might just read the Guardian at times too.

As a PS to my previous post, I think, genuinely, that reading the Guardian _can_ be less compromising to independent thought and to the chance of picking up a wider range of information and opinions**, than the Daily Mail is.

**So long as you don't solely rely on it!


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 25, 2007)

I think the big difference between me and you on this is that I don't see myself sharing any more common ground with liberals than with conservatives.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 25, 2007)

Two words: Polly Toynbee.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 25, 2007)

Must you bring her up?  I'd finally managed to forget she existed altogether.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 25, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Shove it.
> 
> I could make a very long list of the Guardian's many and various faults, faults and flaws which being a regular reader, who isn't actually the 'liberal Hampstead late sipper'  that you seem? to assume I am, and being actually pretty left wing, I suspect I know FAR more about that you.
> 
> ...



You've just my point William with that paranoid, incoherent rant.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 25, 2007)

Liar Ringding's sneering. point evading dismissal said:
			
		

> You've just my point William with that paranoid, incoherent rant.



My post's meaning was perfectly coherent, and you've proved no point *whatsoever* -- except, in your earlier post, that you apparantly delight in believing the lies of lying twats about my politics and about why I read the paper. Above, you're simply missing the point and are doing so deliberately I suspect.

How about addressing the issue : that earlier you were implicitly lying about and misrepesenting my politics? And misrepresenting the politics of a very significant minority of left wing, critical, discriminating Guardian readers with your sneering condescension, and direct lies about 'fanaticism'?

Any chance of you apologising for being a liar (indirect/implied) about my politics and for being a liar (direct) about the nature of my newspaper reading?

Fanatical about the paper my arse -- all I've ever done on here is try to counter various lies and sneers and sweeping blanket judgements about that paper and many of its readers. Lies bundled up with fake or even genuine surprise at times from few mean spirited malice fuelled individuals on Urban (in the past) and elsewhere (now) that I've been a TU member for twenty eight years and an active Trade Union rep in my time as well ('how can he be?  He's a _Guardian reading wiberal_ ie even more of a facist than a Daily Mail reader'), that my politics have been well to the left of the paper's for over twenty five years, that I have many and various criticisms, far more _coherent_ and telling ones than you'd ever be able to make with your  one line dismissals of the Guardian and insulting assumptions about two of its more discerning and discriminating readers on here. Criticisms of the paper that I have consistently made on here and some of which can be found in this very thread.

Suggest you stop gullibly drinking in the lies of malicious twats 'elsewhere' about me. And that you learn a lesson or two about not making enemies of others on the left (are you a leftie, even?) with your parroting the sectarian-spirited lies of others.

I determined to nail this lying 'Guardian reading rascist liberal' shite once and for all and be allowed to be the Trade Unionist leftie and general non aligned radical that I am without being lied about and sneered at just because I happen to read, among other things, a certain fucking newspaper for all its egregious faults.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 25, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> I think the big difference between me and you on this is that I don't see myself sharing any more common ground with liberals than with conservatives.



There's a difference between delving discriminatingly/selectively for facts and information in a broadly 'liberal' paper, and _being_ a liberal though.

I still find it hard to disacconect liberal as term of abuse in the UK, from liberal as a Yank Neocon term of abuse for anyone to the left of a fanatical evangelical Christian Republican. Of course the respective contexts and the respective abusers are very different, but both versions of misuse of the term obscure accuracy to say the least. To me the odious Timothy Garton Ash (frinstance) is not the liberal he claims to be, but a conservative, in his support for the West's intervention in Iraq. But there are other op-ed columns in the Guardian for people far more left wing than him

Another thought, those socialists who mine the FT or Economist for facts (and good luck to them) are hardly capitalists are they?

May return to this cos it's an interesting point you raise. I don't think you're right, but I'm getting short of time now.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 25, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Suggest you stop gullibly drinking in the lies of malicious twats 'elsewhere' about me.



It really is _far_ too early to be that paranoid. 

Who are these 'others' plotting against you of which you speak?

They're not really real are they?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 25, 2007)

*adj.	1.	fanatic - marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea; "rabid isolationist"*

Rabid isolationist sums your posting on this subject pretty well.


----------



## Yossarian (Sep 25, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> In what sense is it any better?


 
Charlie Brooker doesn't write for the Daily Mail, and Steve Bell doesn't draw cartoons for them.


----------



## dash_two (Sep 25, 2007)

So the Guardian is an ABC1-oriented left-liberal newspaper. Any more findings from the Centre for Research into the Bleeding Obvious?


----------



## JoePolitix (Sep 25, 2007)

*Muscular Bakuninite*




			
				In Bloom said:
			
		

> I think the big difference between me and you on this is that I don't see myself sharing any more common ground with liberals than with conservatives.



Ooooh...tuff guy.

NB Yossarian - good call on the Brooker.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 25, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> There's a difference between delving discriminatingly/selectively for facts and information in a broadly 'liberal' paper, and _being_ a liberal though.


Of course there is, but it's somewhat difficult to tell the two apart without directly asking, when the former starts defending the Guardian as "better" than every other paper out there.



> To me the odious Timothy Garton Ash (frinstance) is not the liberal he claims to be, but a conservative, in his support for the West's intervention in Iraq. But there are other op-ed columns in the Guardian for people far more left wing than him


How does supporting the war in Iraq make somebody a conservative though?  There are plenty of conservatives (and not a few Conservatives) who opposed the whole thing from the start.



> Another thought, those socialists who mine the FT or Economist for facts (and good luck to them) are hardly capitalists are they?


I do exactly that on occaision.  Though I think that the FT is qualitatively different from the Guardian, since while it tends to report facts from a certain point of view, which is revealed in the terminology used more than anything else, it's a lot more factual in its approach.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 25, 2007)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> Charlie Brooker doesn't write for the Daily Mail, and Steve Bell doesn't draw cartoons for them.


I have no idea who Charlie Brooker is, but honestly, I think Steve Bell isn't as funny as he used to be.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 25, 2007)

Actually, the weekend guardian pisses me off too. Why mum continues to buy it (retired teacher) is a mystery. There's not one article or anything in there that can be pitched at her.

That said retaining some healthy scepticism for all newspapers and tv news seems like a  good way to go.


----------



## editor (Sep 25, 2007)

Some of the lifestyle/consumer stuff in the Guardian Weekend is ruddy awful.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 25, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Some of the lifestyle/consumer stuff in the Guardian Weekend is ruddy awful.



On that I thorughly (and pissed offly) agree!  

You have to have money to appreciate it, and even if you were to have a bit of dsiposable at times, it's still fucking irritating to say the least.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 25, 2007)

_angel_ said:
			
		

> That said retaining some healthy scepticism for all newspapers and tv news seems like a  good way to go.



Agree -- I'm pretty sceptical to a LOT of stuff in the Guardian and can criticise it all the more effectively the more I know what they're missing out (on subjects I know more about myself/independently for eg).


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 25, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> *adj.	1.	fanatic - marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea; "rabid isolationist"*
> 
> Rabid isolationist sums your posting on this subject pretty well.



My views on the Gioardian are far more unremarkable -- appropriately critical -- than your RABID (and lying) slandering of someone who ever posts ANYTHING in defence of _aspects_ of it, as 'fanatical'

I'm never going to be critical enough of it for some, but don't even TRY to pretend that you weren't consciously and deliberately pushing my buttons, and consciously and deliberately echoing old lies and slanders about me and the Guardian from elsewhere, when you posted that 'fanatical defender' lying shite.

 If I was a 'fanatical defender' of the Guardian (and stop now twisting what you meant originally into something else DRD!)  why would I be so critical of it at times?

Criticism you've clearly (and deliberately) never noticed. I await your apology still.

Will get back to some of this later -- I want to repond to IB properly, but don't have time any more now.


----------



## Spion (Sep 25, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Though I think that the FT is qualitatively different from the Guardian, since while it tends to report facts from a certain point of view, which is revealed in the terminology used more than anything else, it's a lot more factual in its approach.


 I think you're talking bollocks. The Guardian's standards of *news* reporting and writing are fine. All that differs between it and other broadsheets are the stories it selects. If you buy the G the news stories that are different to other broadsheets will be those of interest to teachers or of a social interest. Buy the Telegraph and you'll find the odd story about old soldiers and slightly better business pages.

The op-ed pages in the FT are no more factual than any paper, as you'd expect.

If you'd like to point out factual innacuracies in the Guardian then I'm happy for you to convince me.


----------



## mk12 (Sep 25, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Shove it.
> 
> I could make a very long list of the Guardian's many and various faults, faults and flaws which being a regular reader, who isn't actually the 'liberal Hampstead late sipper'  that you seem? to assume I am, and being actually pretty left wing, I suspect I know FAR more about that you.
> 
> ...



Are you like this to people in real life who criticse your beloved Guardian?


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Sep 25, 2007)

The Guardian's tv/entertainment guide is the best one out of all the other papers, I always make sure I buy the paper on Saturday's, just to get this.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 25, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> My views on the Gioardian are far more unremarkable -- appropriately critical -- than your RABID (and lying) slandering of someone who ever posts ANYTHING in defence of _aspects_ of it, as 'fanatical'
> 
> I'm never going to be critical enough of it for some, but don't even TRY to pretend that you weren't consciously and deliberately pushing my buttons, and consciously and deliberately echoing old lies and slanders about me and the Guardian from elsewhere, when you posted that 'fanatical defender' lying shite.
> 
> ...



How do you think you appear on this thread William?

Also I'm still waiting to find out who these mystery 'mates' are, what exactly they have been plotting against you and where. 

I've got nothing against you William but your behaviour on this thread is very strange.


----------



## editor (Sep 25, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> I've got nothing against you William ....


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 25, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> Are you like this to people in real life who criticse your beloved Guardian?



That so called (by you) 'beloved Guardian' of mine that I _strongly criticise_ many and various  aspects of, consistently on here, you mean?

Just as I'm happy to quote as useful/insightful at times, _specific_ aspects of/articles in (as appropriate), you mean?

As you seem so full of assumptions, how about telling me where you got this 'beloved Guardian' shit about me from anyway? Your pals elsewhere?

What's this twat's track record on here, others?


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 25, 2007)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> The Guardian's tv/entertainment guide is the best one out of all the other papers, I always make sure I buy the paper on Saturday's, just to get this.




Shut it with the fanatical defence of your beloved Guardian!!!! 


You're such a 'liberal' .....


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 25, 2007)

*Does this cunt hang out on TI?*




			
				DrRingDing said:
			
		

> How do you think you appear on this thread William?
> 
> Also I'm still waiting to find out who these mystery 'mates' are, what exactly they have been plotting against you and where.
> 
> I've got nothing against you William but your behaviour on this thread is very strange.



No more 'strange'   than your _suspiciously close_ recycling  of lies by others, repeated on here and elsewhere over several years by  a few, about me and my politics and my 'fanatical' paper reading habits.

Still waiting for *your* apology for you slanderously writing me off as a 'fanatical defender' of a paper I have _consistently criticised_ on here and elsewhere over many years. 

And from a political position _well to the left_ of the paper's general editorial approach.

Do you want to explain to the group why you're so stubbornly insistent on lying about me. my politics and my paper reading?

Alternatively, as an easy way out for you, you can always admit in retrospect that you were deliberately posting like a shitstirring trolling lie-recycling unoriginal twat.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 26, 2007)

Do _do_ have an odd relationship with this paper.

If you can't see that, many people here can.

Who are these 'others' of which you speak?

Where are they hiding?

What are they planning?

...and why the fuck could anyone really give a toss about a loon throwing a hissyfit over fuck all?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 26, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> You're all SO unfair!!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 26, 2007)

mk12 said:
			
		

> beloved Guardian?


<yawn>


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 26, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> Do _do_ have an odd relationship with this paper.



Merely 'odd' now, is it?

It was 'fantical devotion' originally .. 

I do despise a man who can't bring himelf to back down _gracefully_ and/or just admit he was wrong and that he was deliberately spreading a lie and a smear, when cornered and his LIE exposed.



> If you can't see that, many people here can.



Do feel free to run a pointless, petty poll to see how 'many' of this 'many' also think you're  a disruptive, shitstirring, button pushing, deliberately provocative twat. You'll lose.

With no discernable politics (on this thread at least)



> Who are these 'others' of which you speak?



The ones whose long term smears and lies about my attitude to the paper I happen to read (and mindlessly agree with every word in, obviously  ) have gone on for quite a few years now. Smears and lies that you're echoing and recycling to near perfection with this 'fanatical devotion' shit. 

And don't lie or evade, you know perfectly well who I'm talking about, I even specify it above FFS.



> Where are they hiding?



You tell me.



> What are they planning?



To inspire useful idiots like you to recycle their lies 'for a lauigh' and for a trolling windup, just possibly, perhaps? If they're not paying you, they should be. You're certainly recycling their lying smears in suspiciously similar terminology ....



> ...and why the fuck could anyone really give a toss about a loon throwing a hissyfit over fuck all?



Perhaps they might instead give just a little bit of a toss about you lying about another Urban poster. If I lose my temper and dignity over that , it's still not me who comes out of this exchange looking like _quite_ such a  scumbag as you.

Any chance of an apology, or at least a clear (and sneer free) withdrawal of your deliberate smear, for lyingly calling me a 'fanatical' devotee of the so called 'beloved' Guardian? 

Alternatively, just ADMIT you're a troll on an infantile windup, looking for people whose buttons you can press (yay! You've succeeded! Well done!) so you can then snicker immaturely behind your screen about what a successful pisstaker you are and take the  congatulatory online backslaps off your 'friends' elsewhere -- OH SO MATURE. Your tactics are straight out of the  manual and make YOU look like the clown here sunshine.

Stop  wriggling out of admitting exactly what you've been up to here, and stop smearing me as a loon because I stand my ground on a silly, petty little principle like *the truth* and because I refuse to tolerate lying scumbags like you and your mentors lying about my newspaper reading habits/attitudes and thus (by implication) my politics. Even for a 'windup'

I lost my temper, sure  still some more lessons to learn there, ahem, but that doesn't stop me being right about the essentials : that  you knew *exactly* what you were doing when you provoked me into losing it with your lies. Cause and effect innit, and you canlt just focus on the effect in isolation while dissasociating yourself from the cause -- which is you.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 26, 2007)

Any thoughts on the editor's Pinnocchio pic, Dr Ring Ding?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 26, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Any thoughts on the editor's Pinnocchio pic, Dr Ring Ding?


<yawn>


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 26, 2007)

dash_two said:
			
		

> So the Guardian is an ABC1-oriented left-liberal newspaper. Any more findings from the Centre for Research into the Bleeding Obvious?



Merely common sense.

My views on th Guardian are fairly ordinary and probably shared at least in part by plenty of people here who don't get smeared as 'fanatical devotees' of the paper -- I agree with some articles in it, disagree with more, and made to think by others, provoked to do more research from other (lefter) sources by still others, pick up on some facts/news/stories that I might not have had tiome to become aware of at all by others (but I always approach with due scepticism because of what they so often leave out, like any other newspaper), have a laugh with some articles, get infuriated by the triviality and consumerism and celeb-centredness of others. And read the footy reports.

For this I'm a 'fantical devotee' for whom the Guardian is 'beloved'   

Alternatively I might just be a non aligned radical (if lazy) Trade Unionist of very many years standing, a long term Council Tenant thoroughly opposed to stock tranfer/privatisation, a person attempting to be independent minded, taking stories, issues and politics issue by issue on their merits and usually reaching a position on them *well* to the left of the Guardian's. And very often very very different from 'liberalism', and thus pretty damned critical of the paper's editorial line -- as has been clear enough here for those who want to see -- on many many issues. But also a historian by background, trained to assess sources critically and sceptically, yet mine them discriminatingly/selectively for contents that might _contribute_ to a broader understanding.

I have never advocated taking the Guardian on trust or relying it as your only source. Far from.

More on the 'liberalism' aspect later ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 26, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> <yawn>



The minimalist approach ... has its merits, admittedly 

I'm sure you've been delighted to read that we're both mindless automatons fanatically devoted to the Guardian though .... two very different posters, one of whom was you, were lumped in together about that.

Got to go, thankfully.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 26, 2007)

Deo gratias.


----------



## editor (Sep 26, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Got to go, thankfully.


Phew!


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 26, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Phew!





That's enough from me. Honestly. Said me bit


----------



## JoePolitix (Sep 26, 2007)

*Bakuninite asserts liberal broadsheet no better than the Daily Mail
*
-----------------------------
*Meady O' Whore*
Political Editor

-----------------------------

A fresh row has broken out on the popular online forum Urban 75 following remarks concerning the Guardian newspaper earlier this week.

The conflict was sparked by comments made by the muscular Bakuninite contributor In Bloom who responded to the assertion that “the Guardian is actually not quite as bad as the Daily Mail” by asking “In what sense is it any better?”. In Bloom then proceeded to qualify his rhetorical question: “I think that the content of both papers is targetted mostly at middle class people, just different sections of the middle class (the conservative, traditionalist types and the liberal, "progressive" types, respectively), which isn't to say that I think that everybody that reads either paper is necessarily from either group, it's more a question of emphasis.”

His remarks received praise from fellow partisans MK12 and Dr RingDing.

But others remained unconvinced and suggested that In Bloom’s analysis lacked subtlety and nuance. One contributor, Spion remarked “I think you're talking bollocks”.

The rift highlights a longstanding faultline on Urban 75 – the tension that exists between liberal leftists and self styled revolutionaries. Most of the latter departed Urban a few years ago to devote their revolutionary online activism elsewhere. But some, such as In Bloom have remained.

The dispute is ongoing.

*Leader comment – page 32*


----------



## Belushi (Sep 26, 2007)

Pmsl :d


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 26, 2007)

Spion said:
			
		

> I think you're talking bollocks. The Guardian's standards of *news* reporting and writing are fine. All that differs between it and other broadsheets are the stories it selects. If you buy the G the news stories that are different to other broadsheets will be those of interest to teachers or of a social interest. Buy the Telegraph and you'll find the odd story about old soldiers and slightly better business pages.
> 
> The op-ed pages in the FT are no more factual than any paper, as you'd expect.
> 
> If you'd like to point out factual innacuracies in the Guardian then I'm happy for you to convince me.


It's not so much about innacuracy as the Guardian's approach, so much of the news reported in it is fluff that you can spend most of your time reading it just finding the odd interesting story.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 26, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Any thoughts on the editor's Pinnocchio pic, Dr Ring Ding?



It was bollocks at the time but with you continued behaviour like a teenager throwing a wobbler on acid, I'm losing respect for you.....fast.

You're really making a cock of yourself.

You've been behaving irrationally on these boards for a while. I think it's time you sobered up and realised that these conspirators persecuting you are just you making excuses for your sorry self.


----------



## editor (Sep 26, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> It was bollocks at the time but with you continued behaviour as teenage temper tantrum on a bad acid trip, I'm losing respect for you.....fast.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 26, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> It was bollocks at the time but with you continued behaviour like a teenager throwing a wobbler on acid, I'm losing respect for you.....fast.
> 
> You're really making a cock of yourself.
> 
> You've been behaving irrationally on these boards for a while. I think it's time you sobered up and realised that these conspirators persecuting you are just you making excuses for your sorry self.



<Zen Like Calm descends    >

I have nothing more to say about you.


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 26, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> I think the big difference between me and you on this is that I don't see myself sharing any more common ground with liberals than with conservatives.



fanny batter. you wouldnt be on U75 if that were the case.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 26, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> fanny batter. you wouldnt be on U75 if that were the case.


How do you figure?  Just because I post on the same board as somebody, doesn't mean that I agree with them.  I used to post on Christianforums.com until they banned me, doesn't mean I see myself as sharing any ideological common ground with mental US creationists.


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 26, 2007)

My my, there's a lot of folk talking tosh on this thread.

yes, the guardian winds me up like fuck sometimes, especially the crappy mag on saturdays but by and large its good points weigh out it's bad.

that's why i've been reading it for 20 years or so and that's why it is one of the few things i know i would actually miss if i moved abroad (and believe me there ain't many others)

i find it most irksome when you get someone who has written a letter in saying something like 'i want to buy a nice deck chair - where can i get one' and you just know that the one they recommend is going to be some be Corbusier job which costs £1,000+  but then again i expect they just blag one if they agree to give it a plug ('contra deal' or whatever it's called) and i know id do the same if i was in their position so what the fuck.


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 26, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> How do you figure?  Just because I post on the same board as somebody, doesn't mean that I agree with them.  I used to post on Christianforums.com until they banned me, doesn't mean I see myself as sharing any ideological common ground with mental US creationists.



i _figure_ cos i've noticed you've posted on some @ related threads which means you're a radical/lefty/anarcho/liberal type. easy


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 26, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> i _figure_ cos i've noticed you've posted on some @ related threads which means you're a radical/lefty/anarcho/liberal type. easy


An anarchist I may be, a liberal I'm most certainly fucking not


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 26, 2007)

"I'm not a liberal. I'm a wishy-washy Marxist."


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 26, 2007)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> *Bakuninite asserts liberal broadsheet no better than the Daily Mail
> *
> -----------------------------
> *Meady O' Whore*
> ...



Quite splendid.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 26, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I'm not a liberal. I'm a fantastically dull individual with absolutely nothing of any interest to say.


Fixed


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 26, 2007)

Thank God for that. Now I can get on with what remains of my life. Where's my chess set?


----------



## dash_two (Sep 26, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> An anarchist I may be, a liberal I'm most certainly fucking not



If some Madeleine Bunting type gave you the come-on, you'd be in there like a rat up a drainpipe, living in Crouch End and saying naughty things at dinner parties.

It happened to Ronan Bennett, so it can happen to you.


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 26, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> An anarchist I may be, a liberal I'm most certainly fucking not



yes you are. all anarchists are. the opposite of liberal is reactionary. it's just semantics. like left wing/right wing.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 26, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> My my, there's a lot of folk talking tosh on this thread.
> 
> yes, the guardian winds me up like fuck sometimes, especially the crappy mag on saturdays but by and large its good points weigh out it's bad.
> 
> that's why i've been reading it for 20 years or so and that's why it is one of the few things i know i would actually miss if i moved abroad (and believe me there ain't many others)


A not wholly inaccurate summation.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 26, 2007)

dash_two said:
			
		

> If some Madeleine Bunting type gave you the come-on, you'd be in there like a rat up a drainpipe, living in Crouch End and saying naughty things at dinner parties.
> 
> It happened to Ronan Bennett, so it can happen to you.


----------



## JoePolitix (Sep 26, 2007)

I actually think that In Bloom is ideologically closer to the Daily Mail than the Guardian. Consider his reflections on capital punishment:




			
				In Bloom said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong, if there was any way to know 100% for sure that somebody was guilty, I'd be all for executing certain kinds of dangerous, utterly unrepentant scumbags.



http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=206819

Spoken like a true revolutionary comrade!

You see, its In Bloom posts like these that I just love. No sentimental warbling about humanism, rights, the dialectic, historical materialism or other assorted useless appended garbage. Unlike the facilitating liberal denizens of U75, In Bloom understands the purifying power of merciless destruction.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 26, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> yes you are. all anarchists are. the opposite of liberal is reactionary. it's just semantics. like left wing/right wing.


It's amazing how many factual errors you've managed to fit into five little sentences here, kind of admirable in it's own way.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 26, 2007)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> *Bakuninite asserts liberal broadsheet no better than the Daily Mail
> *
> -----------------------------
> *Meady O' Whore*
> ...



More!  More!  Make it a regular column!


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 26, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> More on the 'liberalism' aspect later ...



Promises, promises.  We haven't got all day you know.


----------



## Spion (Sep 26, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> It's not so much about innacuracy as the Guardian's approach, so much of the news reported in it is fluff that you can spend most of your time reading it just finding the odd interesting story.


You said yesterday that the FT was  'a lot more factual in its approach'. Now you're going back on this and seem to be saying you don't find the stories interesting, which is entirely subjective. I hear the sound of pedals going backwards


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 26, 2007)

Spion said:
			
		

> You said yesterday that the FT was  'a lot more factual in its approach'. Now you're going back on this and seem to be saying you don't find the stories interesting, which is entirely subjective. I hear the sound of pedals going backwards


I'm not back pedalling, I'm just trying to explain what I meant.  The FT doesn't tend to have as much fluff and spin as the Guardian, it tends to focus on solid facts instead.  That's what I meant by "more factual in its approach", it's not exactly difficult to understand.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 26, 2007)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> You see, its In Bloom posts like these that I just love. No sentimental warbling about humanism, rights, the dialectic, historical materialism or other assorted useless appended garbage. Unlike the facilitating liberal denizens of U75, In Bloom understands the purifying power of merciless destruction.


What do the dialetic or historical materialism have to do with my views on capital punishment?  Or anybody's view on capital punishment, for that matter?

And as for "humanism", frankly, it is a load of sentimental shite.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 26, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> And as for "humanism", frankly, it is a load of sentimental shite.


"Liberal", too. Don't forget "liberal".


----------



## Spion (Sep 26, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> I'm not back pedalling, I'm just trying to explain what I meant.  The FT doesn't tend to have as much fluff and spin as the Guardian, it tends to focus on solid facts instead.  That's what I meant by "more factual in its approach", it's not exactly difficult to understand.


I am finding you difficult to understand. As far as I can see news article in both the FT and the Guardian are written to equally good standards of news journalism, with sources attributed. If you can find me a news story in the Guardian that doesn't comply with this then you may have a point, but I don't think you'll find one. One example of this 'fluff and spin' in a Guardian news story wil prove your point. I'm waiting


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 26, 2007)

Has anyone mentioned this dirty rags unflinching support for Blair?

Even going as far as sacking arch trot Mark Steel to enforce their new agenda?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 26, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> Has anyone mentioned this dirty rags unflinching support for Blair?
> 
> Even going as far as sacking arch trot Mark Steel to enforce their new agenda?



What nobody defending it's neo-liberalism?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 26, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> Has anyone mentioned this dirty rags unflinching support for Blair?


Well, apart from all their columnists who don't. So not quite "unflinching".


----------



## Spion (Sep 26, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> Has anyone mentioned this dirty rags unflinching support for Blair?
> 
> Even going as far as sacking arch trot Mark Steel to enforce their new agenda?


What do you hope to gain from your oh-so withering critique of the Guardian?

Because at the moment, to anyone savvy enough to understand how to read a newspaper critically, you're just looking like a bit of a dick


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 26, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Well, apart from all their columnists who don't. So not quite "unflinching".



You really don't understand the nature of this propaganda?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 26, 2007)

Spion said:
			
		

> Because at the moment, to anyone savvy enough to understand how to read a newspaper critically, you're just looking like a bit of a dick



Many people do attempt to decode the agenda of a newspaper but they will do it with their own heuristics, which I find are often flawed...

...hence some of the more bonkers defenses on here.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 26, 2007)

Spion said:
			
		

> What do you hope to gain from your oh-so withering critique of the Guardian?
> Because at the moment, to anyone savvy enough to understand how to read a newspaper critically, you're just looking like a bit of a dick


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 26, 2007)

I think the heart of this discussion -- those parts of it which have been serious anyway --  is much more to do with differing (often wildly differing) definitions/perceptions of 'liberalism', than to do with the Guardian per se. 

Perhaps best ask what people think of as 'liberal'/'liberalism' .....

Maggot's birthday do calls pretty soon, but I just thought I'd throw that in. To muddy the waters or clarify attides? Down to you now ...

PS I have never been a liberal in any real sense, but I'm aware (frinstance) that In Bloom thinks I am one -- however that may well be down to his  definitions of/criticisms of 'liberalism' being different from mine. There's about as many definitions of and criticisms of 'liberalism' as there are days in the year ...


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 26, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

>



So you've gone from page long, misspelt, rambling, unrelated, paranoid rants to smilies?

Thank the lord.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 26, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> There's about as many definitions of .....liberalism' as there are days in the year ...



No there's not.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 26, 2007)

*In a blinding flash of sudden and inspired self liberation!*

The freedom from general nastiness and unpleasantness gained from the use of the Ignore button is a wonderful thing 

Pretty rarely employed by me (only against two, now three, people currently -- apart from past use against two who have long now been permaBANNED). But always deservedly.

   indeed.

New FAQ profoundly to be wished for : Absolutely Zero positive/friendly/constructive/non shitstirring to contribute to Urban 75 = permabannable after enough offences. Will never happen though, so the ignore button it is


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 26, 2007)




----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> So you've gone from page long, misspelt, rambling, unrelated, paranoid rants to smilies?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 27, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

>



What exactly are you trying to say and do you have evidence to support it?


----------



## cemertyone (Sep 27, 2007)

Back to the topic....i didn`t realise that it would cause so much concern...
The reason why i posted it was because i thought it was more or less systematic ( gosh i can`t spell after the Stella`s) of why i thought the paper had lost its way.
It was not a complete rant against the ethos of the paper its just that they could ( and fucking should) do better....thats all.
I did not want it to turn into a free for all about the pro`s and cons of its being.......


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> What exactly are you trying to say and do you have evidence to support it?


Your continuing presence on this thread proves my point perfectly.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 27, 2007)

I've given up on UK newspapers. I find  Le Monde, El Pais and the Frankfurter Allgemeine give a much more objective view off events in the UK.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 27, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Your continuing presence on this thread proves my point perfectly.



You're such a bitch,


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 27, 2007)

goldenecitrone said:
			
		

> I've given up on UK newspapers. I find  Le Monde, El Pais and the Frankfurter Allgemeine give a much more objective view off events in the UK.



Fine if you're fluently multilingual ...


----------



## Maggot (Sep 27, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> I read that Guardian readers have more blind acceptance of what is published in their paper than Sun readers do of theirs.
> 
> Smug, self satisfied hypocritical cunts.


 That's why most of the letters printed (in the Weekend section at least) are criticising the paper.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 27, 2007)

cemertyone said:
			
		

> Back to the topic....i didn`t realise that it would cause so much concern...
> The reason why i posted it was because i thought it was more or less systematic ( gosh i can`t spell after the Stella`s) of why i thought the paper had lost its way.
> It was not a complete rant against the ethos of the paper its just that they could ( and fucking should) do better....thats all.
> I did not want it to turn into a free for all about the pro`s and cons of its being.......



Well that's what happened, especially after at least 2 shitstirrers came in to accuse people with a somewhat more balanced, constructively critical view of the Guardian of being 'fanatical defenders' of a paper which to them, the critics, was according to the shitstirrers, in some way 'beloved'.

Thing is though, it's very easy to single out some of the more outrageous aspects -- all that obnoxious consumerism in the weekend Guardian, their infuriating habit on the op-ed pages of commissioning some really, really, obnoxiusly right wing columnists at times.

But as you yourself agree, those bad aspects aren't the be all and end all, although I thoroughly agree that they can be fucking annoying.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 27, 2007)

Maggot said:
			
		

> That's why most of the letters printed (in the Weekend section at least) are criticising the paper.



You fanatical defender you!!!!


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 27, 2007)

Maggot said:
			
		

> That's why most of the letters printed (in the Weekend section at least) are criticising the paper.



Yout really don't understand, do you?


----------



## YoursTruly (Sep 27, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Errr. Donna said that he hasn't read the Guardian for over 18 months.



Can he read?


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 28, 2007)

Maggot said:
			
		

> That's why most of the letters printed (in the Weekend section at least) are criticising the paper.


Since when?  I've seen letters to the Guardian criticising individual articles or journalists, but that's another matter entirely.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Since when?  I've seen letters to the Guardian criticising individual articles or journalists, but that's another matter entirely.



True, but that's better than nothing, some of those letters are VERY critical ... (not a defence, just a point)


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 28, 2007)

YoursTruly said:
			
		

> Can he read?



What do you think?


----------



## Geri (Sep 28, 2007)

I like the Guardian/Observer but their lifestyle magazines always give me the rage. I was reading a few months ago about this "green" couple who lived in Brighton and had decided to give up *their weekend home.*  How big of them.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> Yout really don't understand, do you?


I think the point we're supposed to be grasping here is that the critical letters are put in so as to give the impression that dissent is allowed.

It's a marvellous argument since it covers everything. "No, that's just what they _want_ you to think." It's reminiscent of those conpsiracy theories which always explain away inconsistencies - huge ones, usually - by telling us that they're false trails to put us off the scent.

DRD is a classic Urban75 poseur: everybody else is a mug, a liberal, etc. He can see through it all, though, because he's hard.


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 28, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> DRD is a classic Urban75 poseur: everybody else is a mug, a liberal, etc. He can see through it all, though, because he's hard.



spot on.

For what it's worth - I read the Guardian. Partly from habit, partly because I like some of the writers, partly for the lack of an alternative.

This doesn't mean I slavishly follow its worldview, am unable to see its flaws or desire to buy the very same Aga that Alex James advertises. It's a newspaper, not a secret society.

DRD et al might be advised to both look for some other more worthwhile cage to rattle AND perhaps, y'know, grow up.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 28, 2007)

Geri said:
			
		

> I like the Guardian/Observer but their lifestyle magazines always give me the rage. I was reading a few months ago about this "green" couple who lived in Brighton and had decided to give up *their weekend home.*  How big of them.



Oh god I remember that.


----------



## biff curtains (Sep 28, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> spot on.
> 
> For what it's worth - I read the Guardian. Partly from habit, partly because I like some of the writers, partly for the lack of an alternative.
> 
> This doesn't mean I slavishly follow its worldview, am unable to see its flaws or desire to buy the very same Aga that Alex James advertises. It's a newspaper, not a secret society.



Yep I read it as well, at least on a Saturday.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 28, 2007)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> I actually think that In Bloom is ideologically closer to the Daily Mail than the Guardian. Consider his reflections on capital punishment:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


given that an anarchist is a revolutionary, do you seriously believe that a blooodless revolution is possible?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 28, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I think the point we're supposed to be grasping here is that the critical letters are put in so as to give the impression that dissent is allowed.
> 
> It's a marvellous argument since it covers everything. "No, that's just what they _want_ you to think." It's reminiscent of those conpsiracy theories which always explain away inconsistencies - huge ones, usually - by telling us that they're false trails to put us off the scent.



...and you, still, do not understand how propaganda works.

I suggest you read some of Goebbel's ideas because the controllers of the Guardian certainly have.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 28, 2007)

i'm surprised that no-one's made the point that the Guardian's reputation is enhanced by the sheer awfulness of the UK national press, in general. its' readers wouldn't be so devoted otherwise


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 28, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> ...and you, still, do not understand how propaganda works.
> 
> I suggest you read some of Goebbel's ideas because the controllers of the Guardian certainly have.




grow up


----------



## Belushi (Sep 28, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> i'm surprised that no-one's made the point that the Guardian's reputation is enhanced by the sheer awfulness of the UK national press, in general. its' readers wouldn't be so devoted otherwise



Yup, I read the Guardian and agtree with a lot of the criticisms made of it - its just most of the rest of the press is so fucking awful.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> i'm surprised that no-one's made the point that the Guardian's reputation is enhanced by the sheer awfulness of the UK national press, in general.



The UK national press is actually far better than that of most countries, and Brits read more newspapers than anyone else in the world.  In fact I think that's the source of the problem here: people *identify* with their newspaper of choice.


----------



## audiotech (Sep 28, 2007)

Steve Bell is ace!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> I suggest you read some of Goebbel's ideas because the controllers of the Guardian certainly have.


Brilliant. That's perfect, people. It's a wrap!


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 28, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> spot on.
> 
> For what it's worth - I read the Guardian. Partly from habit, partly because I like some of the writers, partly for the lack of an alternative.
> 
> This doesn't mean I slavishly follow its worldview, am unable to see its flaws or desire to buy the very same Aga that Alex James advertises. It's a newspaper, not a secret society.


And yet so many people on here appear to be utterly incapable of acknowledging the same about the Sun, the Mail, etc.


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> And yet so many people on here appear to be utterly incapable of acknowledging the same about the Sun, the Mail, etc.




that's because although the Guardian clearly has problems, they're not the SAME kind of problems as the tabloid press.

Sure, the Guardian reinforces bourgeois lifestyles. But it does it in a manner and to an extent which isn't the same as the hysterical right wing content etc of the tabloids.


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> And yet so many people on here appear to be utterly incapable of acknowledging the same about the Sun, the Mail, etc.



mate, you're talking shite and you know it. 

the Guardian's failings are relatively benign, The Sun and Mail's 'failings' can generate 'aggressive' manifestations (xenophobia translated into racism, discrimination against Asylum Seekers, homophobia etc etc)

hardly comparable


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

I would have thought that both the Sun and the Vile were rather more clear-sighted about what they're trying to do and say, and who they're trying to say it to, than the Guardian.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 28, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> that's because although the Guardian clearly has problems, they're not the SAME kind of problems as the tabloid press.
> 
> Sure, the Guardian reinforces bourgeois lifestyles. But it does it in a manner and to an extent which isn't the same as the hysterical right wing content etc of the tabloids.


That's not the point though, just like people who read the Guardian are capable of reading critically, so are those who read the tabloid press.  Or do you really think that anybody other than a tiny minority of intellectual cripples reads the Sun and completely believes everything it it?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> That's not the point though, just like people who read the Guardian are capable of reading critically, so are those who read the tabloid press.


That's so, and yet's it's so in _not quite the same way_ regarding each paper. Because the papers and the audiences aren't quite the same.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 28, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I would have thought that both the Sun and the Vile were rather more clear-sighted about what they're trying to do and say, and who they're trying to say it to, than the Guardian.


yes they are. there is a well-known meejah phrase 'the fog factor'. The Sun is universally regarded by the journo trade as  having the lowest fog factor i.e. it's crystal clear what they are on about


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> That's not the point though, just like people who read the Guardian are capable of reading critically, so are those who read the tabloid press.  Or do you really think that anybody other than a tiny minority of intellectual cripples reads the Sun and completely believes everything it it?




I don't believe I said that I did.
By the same token do you really think that anybody other than a tiny minority of 'intellectual cripples' reads The Guardian and completely believes everything in it?
What's sauce for the goose..


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> That's not the point though, just like people who read the Guardian are capable of reading critically, so are those who read the tabloid press.  Or do you really think that anybody other than a tiny minority of intellectual cripples reads the Sun and completely believes everything it it?



Of course they don't.  The vast majority of its readers treat the Sun as comedy.  Its journos are well aware of this, and play up to it.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 28, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> I don't believe I said that I did.
> By the same token do you really think that anybody other than a tiny minority of 'intellectual cripples' reads The Guardian and completely believes everything in it?
> What's sauce for the goose..


Of course not, though it is the case that more Guardian readers regard their choice of paper to be "trustworthy" compared with Sun readers.

I'm not trying to argue that the Guardian is the root of all evil in the universe here, just that it's no "better" than any other mainstream newspaper, despite the perceptions of a sizable chunk of its readership.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 28, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> That's so, and yet's it's so in _not quite the same way_ regarding each paper. Because the papers and the audiences aren't quite the same.


That's such a relevant point, what with me saying that they were the same and all.


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> That's not the point though, just like people who read the Guardian are capable of reading critically, so are those who read the tabloid press.  Or do you really think that anybody other than a tiny minority of intellectual cripples reads the Sun and completely believes everything it it?



But so what? get a grip, mate. 

You're just arguing your non-argument from  some daft 'ultra-libertarian' perspective which like most such positions is totally divorced from reality.

the Sun prints a story about 'Swan Eating Asylum Seekers'

the Guardian prints a story saying what a load of shite this is and that no swans were ever stolen, by any Asylum Seekers or anyone else.

the Mail prints stories of us being 'swamped' by eastern Europeans.

the Guardian prints the statistics of more british moving abroad every year than eastern Europeans move here and how the UK infrastructure is now reliable in their cheap-labour...

want me to go on...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Of course they don't.  The vast majority of its readers treat the Sun as comedy.  Its journos are well aware of this, and play up to it.


I'd be wary of the adjective "vast" here. I think it's got a bit more impact than that, and that explains why it is able to be so malign. That doesn't detract frrom the fact that it neither takes itself nor is taken entirely seriously.


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to argue that the Guardian is the root of all evil in the universe here, just that it's no "better" than any other mainstream newspaper, despite the perceptions of a sizable chunk of its readership.



whereas I firmly believe it is 'better', for as donna has already pointed out, its problems are not as grave as those of the tabloids. 

You don't even believe this shit, do you?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> That's such a relevant point, what with me saying that they were the same and all.


Well, with you not in any wayetting out any sort of differences. So my rejoinder was not only relevant but helpful and productive.

It's a free service.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 28, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> the Guardian's failings are relatively benign, The Sun and Mail's 'failings' can generate 'aggressive' manifestations (xenophobia translated into racism, discrimination against Asylum Seekers, homophobia etc etc)


Oh aye, because people read the Sun and suddenly start hating asylum seekers as a result 

And in any case, the politics promoted by the Guardian are no better than those promoted by the Sun.  Two sides of the same coin.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> And in any case, the politics promoted by the Guardian are no better than those promoted by the Sun.


May I borrow those rolleyes for a moment?


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to argue that the Guardian is the root of all evil in the universe here, just that it's no "better" than any other mainstream newspaper, despite the perceptions of a sizable chunk of its readership.



But it is.

As you know only too well. If that wsn't the case you wouldnt be arguing against it.

i suppose you're one of those folk who slags off searchlight cos they give info to M15 etc ?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Oh aye, because people read the Sun and suddenly start hating asylum seekers as a result


As it goes, hostile attitudes to asylum seekers increased in the UK substantially over a long period of time. It is at least reasonable to propose that a substantial factor in this change may have been the effective, over the medium term, that the press has in moulding, rather than creating, public opinion.

Your postings here, as everywhere, are full of exaggerations and straw men.


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> And in any case, the politics promoted by the Guardian are no better than those promoted by the Sun.  Two sides of the same coin.



Comedy Gold, pure Comedy Gold 

next you'll be arguing there's no difference between Jeremy Clarkson and Noam Chomsky.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 28, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> the Sun prints a story about 'Swan Eating Asylum Seekers'
> 
> the Guardian prints a story saying what a load of shite this is and that no swans were ever stolen, by any Asylum Seekers or anyone else.
> 
> ...


And?  What's your point?

The only people who took that "Swan eating asylum seekers" shit seriously were liberals.  Most Sun readers have the wit to realise that the Sun is a fucking comic anyway.

The Guardian has consistantly supported New Labour in its editorial line, promotes a bullshit "ethical consumerist" line on global warming and supports so-called green taxes.



> want me to go on...


I'd appreciate it if you attempted to make some kind of argument instead, rather than just talking bollocks, but that's up to you.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I'd be wary of the adjective "vast" here. I think it's got a bit more impact than that, and that explains why it is able to be so malign. That doesn't detract frrom the fact that it neither takes itself nor is taken entirely seriously.



Yes the Sun has a big impact, but the way in which it achieves this impact isn't straightforward.  Its readers certainly recognize it as self-parody, but like all parody, it is affectionate.  So those who identify with the parodied attitudes will feel affirmed through consuming the parody.

The Guardian, in sharp contrast, is quite revoltingly smug and its readers take it (and themselves) extremely seriously.  I read the New York Times.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 28, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> i suppose you're one of those folk who slags off searchlight cos they give info to M15 etc ?


I mostly slag off Searchlight because it's a pile of shite, though the fact that they're quite happy to hop into bed with the secret state, who present far more of a danger than those jokers in the BNP, doesn't help.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 28, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> As it goes, hostile attitudes to asylum seekers increased in the UK substantially over a long period of time. It is at least reasonable to propose that a substantial factor in this change may have been the effective, over the medium term, that the press has in moulding, rather than creating, public opinion.


Honestly, I think that people's day to day experience plays a far greater role in shaping their opinions than the rediculous, semi-coherent nonsense the Sun puts out.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The Guardian, in sharp contrast, is quite revoltingly smug and its readers take it (and themselves) extremely seriously.  I read the New York Times.


The Guardian can be smug (though a number of its writers aren't) and it's true what good old Ace used to say, that when you see a lot of its Continental counterparts you realise what it's missing. Mind you, that's because El Pais, for instance, is rather more influenced by the overthrow of Fascism than the coming of consumerism. It will probably change as time goes by, and for the worse.

Smug isn't evil though. Dennis Potter didn't call his cancer The Scott Trust, and there's a reason for that.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Honestly, I think that people's day to day experience plays a far greater role in shaping their opinions than the rediculous, semi-coherent nonsense the Sun puts out.


That is surely so. And yet it is possible that their day-to-day experiences do not play the major role when it comes to people of whom they have no day-to-day experience.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 28, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Dennis Potter didn't call his cancer The Scott Trust, and there's a reason for that.



Sorry mate you've lost me now.


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> I mostly slag off Searchlight because it's a pile of shite, though the fact that they're quite happy to hop into bed with the secret state, who present far more of a danger than those jokers in the BNP, doesn't help.



"secret state" hohohohohohohohohohohohohohoho..... 

pray tell, what is this 'secret state' you speak of? the same secret state that was behind 9/11...allowed David Copeland to continue his nail-bombings...has the McAnns as agents to railroad an international 'super police' ostensibly to combat child-kidnappings.

for fucks sake!!  get a grip man, yer head's full of mince!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Sorry mate you've lost me now.


He called it "Rupert".


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 28, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> He called it "Rupert".



What, after _The Bear_


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

You know that when Philippe Albert was playing for Newcastle, the fans used to chant

_Philippe, Philippe Albert
Everyone knows his name_


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 28, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> "secret state" hohohohohohohohohohohohohohoho.....
> 
> pray tell, what is this 'secret state' you speak of? the same secret state that was behind 9/11...allowed David Copeland to continue his nail-bombings...has the McAnns as agents to railroad an international 'super police' ostensibly to combat child-kidnappings.
> 
> for fucks sake!!  get a grip man, yer head's full of mince!


No, you fucking muppet, the secret state as in the fairly well known name used for spooks.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 28, 2007)

A mental conspiracy theorist website


----------



## Belushi (Sep 28, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> What, after _The Bear_



Think Press Barons


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 28, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> That is surely so. And yet it is possible that their day-to-day experiences do not play the major role when it comes to people of whom they have no day-to-day experience.


So you don't think that people's experience of scarcity has any influence on the scapegoating of minorities?  It's all down to the Sun brainwashing the stupid masses, right?


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> No, you fucking muppet, the secret state as in the fairly well known name used for spooks.
> 
> Do you have any idea what you're talking about?



'spooks' - what? _Ghosts_ ? _Things that go bump in the night_ ??!! woooo-woooo.......

Yes. I do.

You, sonny-boy, don't. 

come back to this argument when you've grown some hair on your balls and got some experience of the real world cos you're just making a horses arse of yourself with your foolish postings and you'll just regret it later on, believe me.


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 28, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Smug isn't evil though. Dennis Potter didn't call his cancer The Scott Trust, and there's a reason for that.



When Rupert Murdoch got low grade prostate cancer, I sent a letter to the Guardian referring to the above and then wondering why Murdoch had in turn named HIS cancer after lovable old entertainment impresario Lew Grade. I thought it was jolly funny, and they printed it. But they edited it to the point of utter meaninglessness


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 28, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> 'spooks' - what? _Ghosts_ ? _Things that go bump in the night_ ??!! woooo-woooo.......
> 
> Yes. I do.
> 
> ...


Fuck me, you're really, stupid, aren't you?  I mean, really stupid, to the point of actual mental impairment.


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> A mental conspiracy theorist website



haha!! I love it!! the beeb dresses up some well-known stories (well reported in The Guardian I should say) up in this 'secret state' series to get the ratings in and you think this is something new or in some way contentious? 

and _you're_ saying _*you're*_ not 'manipulated' by the media - aaaaa-hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha

cock.


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 28, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Think Press Barons



think 'joke'


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 28, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> haha!! I love it!! the beeb dresses up some well-known stories (well reported in The Guardian I should say) up in this 'secret state' series to get the ratings in and you think this is something new or in some way contentious?
> 
> and _you're_ saying _*you're*_ not 'manipulated' by the media - aaaaa-hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha
> 
> cock.


Listen, retard, I never said that anything in that website was "contentious", it's just a matter of fact that the phrase "secret state" is a perfectly legitimate term for MI5 and Special Branch, which has absolutely fuck all to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories, or your childish streams of abuse and pointless bolding/itallics.


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Listen, retard, I never said that anything in that website was "contentious", it's just a matter of fact that the phrase "secret state" is a perfectly legitimate term for MI5 and Special Branch, which has absolutely fuck all to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories, or your childish streams of abuse and pointless bolding/itallics.



_*'retard'*_.  

cool  

anyway, im off down the pub. peace y'all.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 28, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> I don't believe I said that I did.
> By the same token do you really think that anybody other than a tiny minority of 'intellectual cripples' reads The Guardian and completely believes everything in it?
> What's sauce for the goose..


as it happens, the Guardian's audience, as proven by NRS/TGI research AND GMG's own inhouse research, has shown their audience to be more homogenous - socially, geodemographically, occupationally, age-wise, wealthwise etc - than any other national paper, and The Sun's to be more diverse


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 28, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> 'spooks' - what? _Ghosts_ ? _Things that go bump in the night_ ??!! woooo-woooo.......
> 
> Yes. I do.


well, no, you clearly don't, or else you would have instantly cottoned that In Bloom was referring to the security, surveillance and intelligence services.
you missed it by a country mile


----------



## audiotech (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Oh aye, because people read the Sun and suddenly start hating asylum seekers as a result



No, they have their prejudices affirmed, as do Guardian readers.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 28, 2007)

MC5 said:
			
		

> No, they have their prejudices affirmed, as do Guardian readers.


true, but if anything sun readers are more honest. they're aware of their prejudices. guardianistas don't seem to ever contemplate the possibility of their ever having ANY prejudices


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 28, 2007)

Why is it the so called, 'liberal lefties' here get more angry over criticism of their beloved neoliberal broadsheet than say, for example, mass murder for capital gain?

How queer.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> Why is it the so called, 'liberal lefties' here get more angry over criticism of their beloved neoliberal broadsheet than say, for example, mass murder for capital gain?


<yawn>


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> So you don't think that people's experience of scarcity has any influence on the scapegoating of minorities?  It's all down to the Sun brainwashing the stupid masses, right?


No. I think the things that I think, and not entirely different things that you would prefer me to think.

Did it ever occur to you that if you're obliged to be dishonest about other people's ideas, not only does it say very little for your own, but other people _can tell_? Might that be why people don't queue up to agree with you?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 28, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> <yawn>



The only topics you, william and the editor get really hot under the collar about are the Guardian and any suggestion that the Bush business clique would kill americans for their own ends.

Funny that


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> The only topics you, william and the editor get really hot under the collar about are the Guardian and any suggestion that the Bush business clique would kill americans for their own ends.


<yawns again>


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 28, 2007)




----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 28, 2007)




----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

<checks watch, though naturally fails to look at it, listen to it or ask anybody the time>


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 28, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> well, no, you clearly don't, or else you would have instantly cottoned that In Bloom was referring to the security, surveillance and intelligence services.
> you missed it by a country mile



and you appear to miss 'irony' by two country miles, sir.


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 28, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> true, but if anything sun readers are more honest. they're aware of their prejudices. guardianistas don't seem to ever contemplate the possibility of their ever having ANY prejudices



by 'honest' i take it you mean _un-reconstructed?_ - i'd agree with you there. I'm sure 'Guarianistas' harbour as many little-britain bourgeouis prejudices re 'hoodies', 'single parents' or whatever which in some cases you could legitimately argue do indeed impact on the lives of those they have preceonceived opinions of, as guardian readers will have more power in implementing social policy than the majority of sun readers, however - while a valid point that is a tad off argument. The Guardian does _critique _ elements of the status quo and manifestations of reactionary social policy and attitudes, whereas the Sun merely affirms them.


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 28, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> The only topics you, william and the editor get really hot under the collar about are the Guardian and any suggestion that the Bush business clique would kill americans for their own ends.
> 
> Funny that



RingDing?

DingDong...anybody there? No, I don't think so.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 28, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> The only topics you, william and the editor get really hot under the collar about are the Guardian and any suggestion that the Bush business clique would kill americans for their own ends.
> 
> Funny that


Must you come out with this embarrassing bullshit all the time?  Even I feel embarrassed for you, and I have no sense of shame.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 28, 2007)

Edit: Nevermind, misread something.  Chico's still a liberal prick with no understanding of what he's talking about though


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> The only topics you, william and the editor get really hot under the collar about are the Guardian and any suggestion that the Bush business clique would kill americans for their own ends.


Where have I got "hot under the collar" about the Guardian please? 

Time to back it up or shut up, bigmouth!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Chico's still a liberal prick


But who is not?


----------



## the button (Sep 28, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> next you'll be arguing there's no difference between Jeremy Clarkson and Noam Chomsky.


Of course there a difference. I once managed to get to the end of an article written by Jeremy Clarkson.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 28, 2007)

the button said:
			
		

> Of course there a difference. I once managed to get to the end of an article written by Jeremy Clarkson.


----------



## cesare (Sep 28, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Chico's still a liberal prick



*glares under lowered brows and snaps pencil*


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

the button said:
			
		

> Of course there a difference. I once managed to get to the end of an article written by Jeremy Clarkson.


Quite likely it used shorter words.


----------



## cesare (Sep 28, 2007)

DrRingDing's alive


----------



## the button (Sep 28, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Quite likely it used shorter words.


It's true.

I'm a bit thick, tbh.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 28, 2007)

the button said:
			
		

> It's true.
> 
> I'm a bit thick, tbh.



I've put a couple of Chomsky's books 'on hold' because he likes to be so tediously dry and academic.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 28, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Quite likely it used shorter words.



What university did you attend and what did you study?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 28, 2007)

I have attended two universities. Well, three if we include the one I droppped out of.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> I've put a couple of Chomsky's books 'on hold' because he likes to be so tediously dry and academic.


Talking of tedious, are you going to support your claim about me getting "hot under the collar" about the Guardian or just admit to being an attention seeking oik who makes stuff up in a rather pathetic quest to be controversial?


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 28, 2007)

Quit moaning, hippy.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> Quit moaning, hippy.


Oh, I can't be arsed with this juvenile shit.

Weekend ban.


----------



## JoePolitix (Sep 28, 2007)

Friday night wind down material:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=999OFGq7WwI


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Sep 28, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I have attended two universities. Well, three if we include the one I droppped out of.


Not surprised, with spelling like that!


----------



## the button (Sep 29, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Quite likely it used shorter words.


Often a shorter word can be more apt than a longer one.

Twat.

(For example).


----------



## Maggot (Sep 29, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> And? What's your point?
> 
> The only people who took that "Swan eating asylum seekers" shit seriously were liberals. Most Sun readers have the wit to realise that the Sun is a fucking comic anyway.


 If people don't take the tabloids seriously, why did the News of the Worlds Paedophile campaign lead to protests in Portsmouth and attacks on suspected paedos, many of whom were innocent?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 29, 2007)

the button said:
			
		

> Often a shorter word can be more apt than a longer one.


So it can. Short words should be used where one can. But sometimes it is necessary to communicate complicated conceptions requiring a different vocabulary.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 29, 2007)

Maggot said:
			
		

> If people don't take the tabloids seriously, why did the News of the Worlds Paedophile campaign lead to protests in Portsmouth and attacks on suspected paedos, many of whom were innocent?


I've never seen any evidence that this was actually a major thing.  A few cranks might have kicked off on the odd person and one mad demo, but that's another matter altogether and hardly proves that there's some great, homogeneous, cult-like mass out there, taking all their views from the tabloids.


----------



## Maggot (Sep 29, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> A few cranks might have kicked off on the odd person and one mad demo, but that's another matter altogether and hardly proves that there's some great, homogeneous, cult-like mass out there, taking all their views from the tabloids.


 I never said there was, but the number of people who take action over something like this, are usually a fraction of of the number who believe it but don't bother to act.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Sep 29, 2007)

Maggot said:
			
		

> I never said there was


What people actually _have _said doesn't play a major role on this thread...


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 29, 2007)

Maggot said:
			
		

> I never said there was, but the number of people who take action over something like this, are usually a fraction of of the number who believe it but don't bother to act.


I would think that the percentage of people who genuinely believed that they had the details of convicted sex offenders that went after one of them would be reasonably high.


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 29, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> I've never seen any evidence that this was actually a major thing.  A few cranks might have kicked off on the odd person and one mad demo, but that's another matter altogether and hardly proves that there's some great, homogeneous, cult-like mass out there, taking all their views from the tabloids.



Who ever said there was? 

anyway, until 'few cranks might have kicked off on the odd person' as the result of a Guardian 'campaign' (perhaps a viginante group is forming in hampstead as I speak , hell-bent on torching the houses of those with unnaceptably high carbon footprints) I shall remain of the opinion thet the Guardian, for all it's failings and bourgouise trappings inhabits a moral high-ground above The Sun  

In Bloom: you're young. go out, get drunk, get laid, but - really - don't waste your time posting ill-conceived foolishness on this thread as you're only making a complete fanny-pad of yourself.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 29, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> Who ever said there was?
> 
> anyway, until 'few cranks might have kicked off on the odd person' as the result of a Guardian 'campaign' (perhaps a viginante group is forming in hampstead as I speak , hell-bent on torching the houses of those with unnaceptably high carbon footprints) I shall remain of the opinion thet the Guardian, for all it's failings and bourgouise trappings inhabits a moral high-ground above The Sun


In the grand scheme of things, a few nutters causing trouble don't exactly worry me overmuch.  It's of no real consequence and not exactly the great and terrible social evil you seem to think it is.



> In Bloom: you're young. go out, get drunk, get laid, but - really - don't waste your time posting ill-conceived foolishness on this thread as you're only making a complete fanny-pad of yourself.


You know, a quick glance at your posts shows that you were still on here at ten o'clock on a Friday night.


----------



## JoePolitix (Sep 29, 2007)

Back to the Daily Mail – amid all the usual immigrant/gypsy/muslim/paedophile/criminal/EU/liberal/single parent/chav/darky/lefty hordes taking over the country stories and the apocalyptic warnings of plagues/pestilence/flooding/terrorism etc the middle England rag is fond of running cute animal stories*.

Here’s a recent Daily Mail tearjerker about an abandoned monkey who found love with a pigeon:







In this case, I can’t help thinking the Hail readers could learn something from those two. 

*I guess there’s nothing that unusual about this (Hitler was an animal loving vegetarian apparently) and it strikes me that this fixation with “cute” animals does have a whiff of fascism about it. By focusing exclusively on creatures that look aesthetically pleasing the viewer is invited to regard both the value and quality of life on an entirely superficial level where little regard is spared for “undesirables”.


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 30, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> In the grand scheme of things, a few nutters causing trouble don't exactly worry me overmuch.  It's of no real consequence and not exactly the great and terrible social evil you seem to think it is.
> 
> 
> You know, a quick glance at your posts shows that you were still on here at ten o'clock on a Friday night.



a) but then again, i suspect you aren't an asylum seeker, gypsy, muslim, paediatrician/old man who wears bottle-thick glasses and shuffles a bit, unemployed, single parent, habitual wearer of hoodies and baseball caps etc. etc.  

b) yup, went out about eleven on Friday, just got back home now. I done good.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2007)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> (Hitler was a.... vegetarian apparently)


PS he wasn't.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 30, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Let's lighten up ths thread with a hilarious newspaper related joke:
> 
> "What's black and white and red all over?"
> 
> ...



Actually it's a penguin with a nosebleed.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 1, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> but then again, i suspect you aren't an asylum seeker, gypsy, muslim, paediatrician/old man who wears bottle-thick glasses and shuffles a bit, unemployed, single parent, habitual wearer of hoodies and baseball caps etc. etc.


1) What you don't know about me could fill libraries.
2) The paediatrician thing is actually bollocks.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 1, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> No. I think the things that I think, and not entirely different things that you would prefer me to think.
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that if you're obliged to be dishonest about other people's ideas, not only does it say very little for your own, but other people _can tell_? Might that be why people don't queue up to agree with you?


eh? I thought he made a fair point


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 1, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> and you appear to miss 'irony' by two country miles, sir.


if that was irony, rather than obtuseness, then I'm billy hague


----------



## chico enrico (Oct 1, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> if that was irony, rather than obtuseness, then I'm billy hague



Oh dear...


----------



## chico enrico (Oct 1, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> if that was irony, rather than obtuseness, then I'm billy hague



yes mr Hague, having worked in media, seen that Shayler clown speak and generally sporting a head on my shoulders with ears on each side, I have never heard of the term "spooks"


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 1, 2007)

<shrugs>
whatever


----------



## chico enrico (Oct 1, 2007)

Jesus man, there was even a TV show called "Spooks" - i think it'd be pretty weird if you _hadn't_ heard the phrase, don't you?


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 1, 2007)

in that case, i'd really polish the 'irony' cos earlier on _it came across_ as you being spectacularly obtuse. perception is all.
and I am also not privy to your TV tastes


----------



## chico enrico (Oct 2, 2007)

ah, go polish yer helmet


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 2, 2007)

It's like Jonathan Swift never left us after all.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 2, 2007)

oh such wit....


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Oct 2, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> PS he wasn't.


can I be last in on this one, Newbie sneaked in while I was unloading the tumble dryer.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 2, 2007)

I don't think we're quite in Last In territory ... are we??? 

yet! 

I found out a Subversive Fact  in The Guardian today.

So subversive, I'm not going to share it with you. Some of you will just write it off as a middle class 'liberal' fact ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 2, 2007)

It was a football score ...


----------



## chico enrico (Oct 3, 2007)

great two page feature in the mail yesterday on how polish folk are swamping england but don't assimilate  and stay in their own communities.

some school-kid who told a polish classmate to 'go back home' was attacked by a group of polish adults n'all.

terrible state of affairs innit? those swan eaters are taking over.

funnily enough, couldnt find anything bout the swampings or polish attacks on british schoolkids in The guardian....


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 3, 2007)

Here's the thing though, there are serious problems with communitarianism, this _does_ breed racial prejudice and it's Guardian pimping fuckwits like you who make the problem worse by pretending that this isn't the case.

That's not to say that the Mail's agenda and emphasis are any less vile or that the language they use isn't a load of sensationalist shit, but the fact that the Guardian ignores some very real issues of ethnic division going on in this country right now, because it doesn't fit into their postmodern, multiculturalist agenda hardly makes them the heroes of the piece.


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 4, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> That's not to say that the Mail's agenda and emphasis are any less vile or that the language they use isn't a load of sensationalist shit, but the fact that the Guardian ignores some very real issues of ethnic division going on in this country right now, because it doesn't fit into their postmodern, multiculturalist agenda hardly makes them the heroes of the piece.




to be fair they've had loads of articles recently about the current eastern European influx, exploring all aspects of it with some real depth and some decent conclusions. Undermined by op ed pieces that say everything is fine of course but still, let's not be too simplistic.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 5, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> to be fair they've had loads of articles recently about the current eastern European influx, exploring all aspects of it with some real depth and some decent conclusions. Undermined by op ed pieces that say everything is fine of course *but still, let's not be too simplistic*



Let's not!




			
				someone on Page One of this thread said:
			
		

> I read that Guardian readers have more blind acceptance of what is published in their paper than Sun readers do of theirs.
> 
> Smug, self satisfied hypocritical cunts.



Are you turning into just a bit of a a 'liberal' now biff???


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2007)

William - a bit of advice. Don't do the post that you're thinking about doing next.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 5, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> William - a bit of advice. Don't do the post that you're thinking about doing next.



You reading my thoughts now ... ??  

I don't know biff, so will leave alone. Prefer his later post (and agree with his criticism of the Grauniad op eds) to his earlier one though, let's just leave it at that.

Running out of time anyway.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 5, 2007)

Oh please don't go William.


----------

