No wonder the Guardian is losing readers every year.

Note - it's a "comment" in the newspaper, rather than an editorial or
some such. My posting it didn't have a Guardian bashing agenda, nor
should it be used for one (IMHO).

"Martin Petrov" wrote..
No wonder the Guardian is losing readers every year.
Note - it's a "comment" in the newspaper, rather than an editorial or
some such. My posting it didn't have a Guardian bashing agenda, nor
should it be used for one (IMHO).

If the Guardian didn't want to be associated with paranoid idiots, they
could have deleted it.

We all choose the company we keep, and others are entitled to make
judgements based on that.

For example, I fully realise that if any of my friends knew I was even
having this ridiculous discussion, they'd laugh at me - I know my defence of
"it passes the time" would probably be insufficient.

And that's my burden.

You, it seems, are the Guardian's burden. Their choice. That's what civil
liberties is all about; choice. No need to defend their suicidal stupidity.
If they want to be laughed off the planet, who are we to knock that
editorial policy?
--

Andrew
"If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z.
Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein

On 3 Feb, 15:57, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:

"Martin Petrov" wrote..

No wonder the Guardian is losing readers every year.
Note - it's a "comment" in the newspaper, rather than an editorial or
some such. My posting it didn't have a Guardian bashing agenda, nor
should it be used for one (IMHO).

If the Guardian didn't want to be associated with paranoid idiots, they
could have deleted it.

We all choose the company we keep, and others are entitled to make
judgements based on that.

For example, I fully realise that if any of my friends knew I was even
having this ridiculous discussion, they'd laugh at me - I know my defence of
"it passes the time" would probably be insufficient.

And that's my burden.

You, it seems, are the Guardian's burden. Their choice. That's what civil
liberties is all about; choice. No need to defend their suicidal stupidity.
If they want to be laughed off the planet, who are we to knock that
editorial policy?

???

Anyway I think you'll find it's actually a comment piece that's just
on their 'Comment is free' website as opposed to being in their
newspaper (which I bought this morning) - the whole idea of which is
intended to provoke debate, which I believe it does fairly well but
it's not something I'm going to spend my time getting immersed in. And
since when does a newspaper have to stand by the opinion of those who
contribute pieces for it?

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!

"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.

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?
--

Andrew
http://www.wordskit.com/
http://www.flayme.com/

"If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z.
Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein

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! ;-)

"Mizter T" wrote ...
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! ;-)

Fair point; In fact, I don't see some challenges to my points, because the
other joy of usenet is the killfile; Once a poster has convinced me they are
racist / overly pedantic / just plain nasty / think they own the group / , I
simply cease seeing their posts. So if they did (Heaven forbid) come up with
a constructive criticism, I'd probably never get to know. And they are
spared the tedium of me pointing out their shortcomings, too! Many, of
course, will have killfiled me, which is very sensible of them.
Frighteningly so, in fact!

Point is, usenet has no moderation, and so you have to decide what suits
*you* and arrange things accordingly.

I do attempt to distinguish between the innocent/ naive / ill informed and
the arrogant / stupid / ignorant, and I think we all have some kind of a
'duty' not to pick on folk who've done nothing wrong; that still leaves
plenty who have, and my pet hates are the bullies who think they own the
place - they are ALWAYS fair game, and I find it hard to resist that
temptation.

And then of course, there are the the sensible, reasonable, intelligent
folk!
God Bless 'em!

"Andrew Heenan" wrote in message
...

Fair point; In fact, I don't see some challenges to my points, because the
other joy of usenet is the killfile; Once a poster has convinced me they
are racist / overly pedantic / just plain nasty / think they own the group
/ ,

From the man who calls people pure scum.

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Mizter T wrote:

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!

Some have already done so.

tom

--
Tristan Tzara offered to create a poem on the spot by pulling words at
random from a hat. A riot ensued and Andre Breton expelled Tzara from
the movement.

Martin Petrov wrote:
No wonder the Guardian is losing readers every year.

Note - it's a "comment" in the newspaper, rather than an editorial or
some such. My posting it didn't have a Guardian bashing agenda, nor
should it be used for one (IMHO).

Quite right - it is a trifle harsh on the Guardian to object to the
entire newspaper on the basis of one commentator on their comment
website. The point of CiF is that you get all sorts of different
opinions; Thatcherite throatslashers, neocon Israeli apologists, PC
do-gooders, frothing feminists, eco-zealots... The great benefit of all
this is that it keeps a lot of morons happily flaming each other and off
the streets.

I comment there quite a lot, of course.

Tom

"Tom Barry" wrote...
... The point of CiF is that you get all sorts of different opinions;
Thatcherite throatslashers, neocon Israeli apologists, PC do-gooders,
frothing feminists, eco-zealots... The great benefit of all this is that
it keeps a lot of morons happily flaming each other and off the streets. I
comment there quite a lot, of course.

Your secret is safe with us ;o)