On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 19:06:06 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 26/08/2011 10:56, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 10:13, d wrote:
So whats your solution then? Swing the pendulum so far the other way that
it alienates white heterosexuals?

You got any evidence that white heterosexuals as a group feel alienated
by tolerance of others?

The comments section of the Daily Mail website?

It does make me laugh how people still think implying someone is a Daily Mail
is some kind of knock out punch. As if those limp wristed apologist rags The
Guardian and Observer are bastions of rational considered thought and opinion.
Most of the lentil munching journalists there wouldn't recognise rationality
if it kicked them in their organic nuts.

B2003

On 26/08/11 19:58, d wrote:

It does make me laugh how people still think implying someone is a Daily Mail
is some kind of knock out punch.

... limp wristed apologist rags ... lentil munching journalists ...

You're certain providing a great example of calm, considered rationality.

Ian

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 20:07:31 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 19:58, d wrote:

It does make me laugh how people still think implying someone is a Daily Mail
is some kind of knock out punch.

... limp wristed apologist rags ... lentil munching journalists ...

You're certain providing a great example of calm, considered rationality.

Considering what I really think about the guardian and the sort of people
who read it I felt those comments were pretty reserved.

B2003

On 26/08/2011 19:58, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 19:06:06 +0100
Arthur wrote:
On 26/08/2011 10:56, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 10:13, d wrote:
So whats your solution then? Swing the pendulum so far the other way that
it alienates white heterosexuals?

You got any evidence that white heterosexuals as a group feel alienated
by tolerance of others?

The comments section of the Daily Mail website?

It does make me laugh how people still think implying someone is a Daily Mail
is some kind of knock out punch. As if those limp wristed apologist rags The
Guardian and Observer are bastions of rational considered thought and opinion.
Most of the lentil munching journalists there wouldn't recognise rationality
if it kicked them in their organic nuts.

Is the Guardian actually written (rather than read) by lentil-munchers?
On the admittedly rather small sample of a bloke I once a met on a
Eurostar and someone I knew at university, the Daily Mail isn't written
(entirely?) by foaming-at-the-mouth loonies in black shirts.

I suspect most of the Mail and Guardian journalists could switch papers
and re-slant their stories to suit the different audience with ease.
(what's the old one about The Sun - "Hero saves baby from mad dog"; The
Times - "Man rescues child from dog attack"; Daily Mail - "Immigrant
kills much-loved family pet").


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 26/08/11 20:51, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Is the Guardian actually written (rather than read) by lentil-munchers?
On the admittedly rather small sample of a bloke I once a met on a
Eurostar and someone I knew at university, the Daily Mail isn't written
(entirely?) by foaming-at-the-mouth loonies in black shirts.

The Guardian is written by posh ex-public school types - and, of course,
their children. If there is one thing the Guardian does better than
dobbing in their sources, it's nepotism.

Here's the traditional list. You're not allowed to post it on the
Guardian's forums.

Editor Alan Rusbridger (Cranleigh); political editor Patrick Wintour
(Westminster); leader writer Madeleine Bunting (Queen Mary’s,
Yorkshire); policy editor Jonathan Freedland (University College
School); columnist Polly Toynbee (Badminton); executive editor Ian
Katz (University College School); security affairs editor Richard
Norton Taylor (King’s School, Canterbury); arts editor-in-chief Clare
Margetson (Marlborough College); literary editor Clare Armitstead
(Bedales); public services editor David Brindle (Bablake); city editor
Julia Finch (King’s High, Warwick).; environment editor John Vidal (St
Bees); fashion editor Jess Cartner-Morley (City of london School for
Girls); G3 editor Janine Gibson (Walthamstow Hall); northern editor
Martin Wainwright (Shreswbury); and industrial editor David Gow (St
Peter’s, York); Seumas Milne, an Old Wykehamist (Winchester College)
and at Balliol; the Observer’s Andrew Rawnsley (Rugby School and
Cambridge U); George Monbiot (Stowe); Zoe Williams (Godolphin and
Latymer)

(From
http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2008/05...ivate-schools/)

Ian

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 20:51:28 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
I suspect most of the Mail and Guardian journalists could switch papers
and re-slant their stories to suit the different audience with ease.

Yes, I'll give you that. I was thinking more of columnists like Toynbee
and Burchill rather than the day to day journos.

B2003

On 27/08/11 16:38, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 20:51:28 +0100
Arthur wrote:
I suspect most of the Mail and Guardian journalists could switch papers
and re-slant their stories to suit the different audience with ease.

Yes, I'll give you that. I was thinking more of columnists like Toynbee
and Burchill rather than the day to day journos.

Julie Burchill's major employers have been the Mail on Sunday, the
Guardian, the Times and the Independent.

Ian

On 2011\08\26 20:51, Arthur Figgis wrote:

I suspect most of the Mail and Guardian journalists could switch papers
and re-slant their stories to suit the different audience with ease.

Melanie Phillips did just such a switch, although switching from left to
right with increasing age is probably normal, as Churchill suggested.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:03:47 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\08\26 20:51, Arthur Figgis wrote:

I suspect most of the Mail and Guardian journalists could switch papers
and re-slant their stories to suit the different audience with ease.

Melanie Phillips did just such a switch, although switching from left to
right with increasing age is probably normal, as Churchill suggested.

Not surprising really. The older you get the more you see how the world
really works and gain a better understanding of human nature and peoples real
motivations. Idealism rarely survives a long term encounter with life.

B2003

On 2011\08\27 17:27, d wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:03:47 +0100
Basil wrote:
On 2011\08\26 20:51, Arthur Figgis wrote:

I suspect most of the Mail and Guardian journalists could switch papers
and re-slant their stories to suit the different audience with ease.

Melanie Phillips did just such a switch, although switching from left to
right with increasing age is probably normal, as Churchill suggested.

Not surprising really. The older you get the more you see how the world
really works and gain a better understanding of human nature and peoples real
motivations. Idealism rarely survives a long term encounter with life.

I think it has more to do with the fact that old'uns tend to have, while
young'uns tend to have not. Smash the system loses its appeal as soon as
you become the system.