On 3 Feb, 16:27, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote ...

since when does a newspaper have to stand by the opinion of those who
contribute pieces for it?

Come on; that's *a tad unfair. I'm not suggesting they stand by opinions;
it's about the level of debate. Those arguments would not inspire me to buy
the Guardian.

Fair enough, in that case the 'Comment is free' section on the
Guardian's website has done the opposite of what it is intended to do,
which is to get people to engage with the Guardian more and either buy
their paper or visit their website lots.

It should be noted (as it is by Tom Anderson downthread) that the
'Comment is free' (or 'Cif') website is something of a separate entity
to the newspaper. AIUI the idea basically grew out of the notion of
letting people have their say in response to comment pieces that
appeared in the main newspaper. However with 'Cif' many/most of the
comment pieces only ever appear online - there are some from the
paper's own writers, others from various 'movers and shakers' etc -
indeed I'm unclear as to what the renumeration arrangements are for
'Cif' pieces. There are also short 'Cif' piece or two that then go on
to appear in the main paper in a small column - I'm not sure of
whether this is a case of the best on offer being picked or what.


And Andrew, people might also make judgements based on the
ease on which others dispatch judgements on all and sundry in
*the world as well!

I'd not have it any other way; That's what I love (and hate) about usenet;
you can say *exactly* what you think - and you then accept the consequences
of that.

My idea of free speech; I never judge people on the Internet - I judge their
words. There has to be an assumption they *intended* those words, but those
who spout twaddle have an absolute right to be told that they are spouting
twaddle.

And I'm more than happy to be told when I spout twaddle, which is much of
the time; I'm equally happy (for example) when a Boris fan insults me
because of my (usual) support for Ken-like policies. And I do my best to
give as good as I get. That's the way it works.

I come here to learn and share views (and occasionally to educate); I also
come here for entertainment.

Twaz ever thus. Anyone who mouths off on Usenet surely accepts that?


Fair enough. I guess I'm less of one for the more abrasive 'mouthing
off' and 'giving as good as I get' style here on usenet - I like the
fact that it can be a great arena for discussing issues in a fairly
well reasoned and considered manner (operative words there being "can
be" - not "is", just "can be"!). I guess my between-the-lines comment
on some elements of your posting style wasn't really that cryptic was
it?! Well, I suppose I'd essentially stand by that, it seems you can
be a bit quick to jump in there and throw in the hand grenade labelled
'obvious' or 'self-evident' when I think things are often a bit more
complicated than that. Perhaps in part this is for your own
entertainment. But there are all sorts of posting styles here on
usenet and there's no rules that dictate a certain way of posting - I
likewise find some of the comments made by others here intriguing for
their brash certainty too. Just so long as you know that just because
an outlandish comment you may have made wasn't challenged doesn't mean
it is unchallengeable! ;-)