Daily Mail Shocker

No. he's suggesting that you're gullible.
To suggest that I should not be confused with any 'Truths' suggests by implication I can be clearly associated with 'Untruths' which does not mean 'Gullible' it means 'Lying'

I happen to resent that implication as I am not a Liar.
 
To suggest that I should not be confused with any 'Truths' suggests by implication I can be clearly associated with 'Untruths' which does not mean 'Gullible' it means 'Lying'

I happen to resent that implication as I am not a Liar.
You're reading it wrong.. You're interpreting it in a manner in which you can be offended by it, so that you can demand an apology.. If you read it through then you'll see that he's saying you're gullible.. I may have several issues with SILH's posts, but he's never been overtly insulting, and you know that..
 
I know...and then they try to hit back by dissing one of the UK's most factual political blogs [when they are serious] as a similar example:o.....hopelessly oot o' touch.

There's huge difference between political opinion and reporting news. Wings, just like EVERY newspaper, mixes in a huge amount of opinion.
 
You're reading it wrong.. You're interpreting it in a manner in which you can be offended by it, so that you can demand an apology.. If you read it through then you'll see that he's saying you're gullible.. I may have several issues with SILH's posts, but he's never been overtly insulting, and you know that..
I read it as it is written.

If he is indeed suggesting I am 'Gullible' then that's his prerogative. Maybe if that's the case he could clarify it and support that accusation with something more than the fact we hold different points of view.
 
I read it as it is written.

If he is indeed suggesting I am 'Gullible' then that's his prerogative. Maybe if that's the case he could clarify it and support that accusation with something more than the fact we hold different points of view.

You read it in the way you wanted to.. It could be interpreted either way.. The rest is between you and SILH.. I don't really want to get in the way of the interminable post battle between you two.. I'm not sure I'd live long enough to see it through to the finish, and I'm only in my early 40's
 
You read it in the way you wanted to.. It could be interpreted either way.. The rest is between you and SILH.. I don't really want to get in the way of the interminable post battle between you two.. I'm not sure I'd live long enough to see it through to the finish, and I'm only in my early 40's
Neither do or would I expect you to :thup:
 
And so - today - the day after a neo-fascist terrorist is found guilty and sentenced to life for the murder of a sitting MP for political reasons - the Daily Mail deem fit to report this on page 30. Why? Does the editor of the most influential newspaper in the UK seem to think that this is not important and worthy of more prominence?
 
And so - today - the day after a neo-fascist terrorist is found guilty and sentenced to life for the murder of a sitting MP for political reasons - the Daily Mail deem fit to report this on page 30. Why? Does the editor of the most influential newspaper in the UK seem to think that this is not important and worthy of more prominence?

Perhaps he his soul searching.
 
And so - today - the day after a neo-fascist terrorist is found guilty and sentenced to life for the murder of a sitting MP for political reasons - the Daily Mail deem fit to report this on page 30. Why? Does the editor of the most influential newspaper in the UK seem to think that this is not important and worthy of more prominence?

To be fair all papers do it and do not give much prominence to stories that do not fit their political narrative. I suppose the worrying thing is that when that story involves the murder of an elected MP for political reasons then if you deem that to be worthy of just page 30, then you really should take a look at yourself if you are calling yourself a newspaper, as opposed to a propaganda sheet.

But again they would probably refer you to their web site where they no doubt did cover it in between all the articles trying to say that he was a nut job and the propaganda they constantly spew into the public domain had nothing to do with it. And in between all the objectification of women with pictures of female celebs in bikinis that they pass off as news.
 
To be fair all papers do it and do not give much prominence to stories that do not fit their political narrative. I suppose the worrying thing is that when that story involves the murder of an elected MP for political reasons then if you deem that to be worthy of just page 30, then you really should take a look at yourself if you are calling yourself a newspaper, as opposed to a propaganda sheet.

But again they would probably refer you to their web site where they no doubt did cover it in between all the articles trying to say that he was a nut job and the propaganda they constantly spew into the public domain had nothing to do with it. And in between all the objectification of women with pictures of female celebs in bikinis that they pass off as news.

On the web site it was '4ft' down
 
If Mair had cried "Allahu Akbar“ rather than "This is for Britain”, “keep Britain independent”, and “Britain first”, I suspect the story would not have been on p30 of the Daily Mail. Tell me I am wrong.
 
If Mair had cried "Allahu Akbar“ rather than "This is for Britain”, “keep Britain independent”, and “Britain first”, I suspect the story would not have been on p30 of the Daily Mail. Tell me I am wrong.
I think you are being rather disrespectful to Joe Cox in using her death to make your point against the DM
 
I think you are being rather disrespectful to Joe Cox in using her death to make your point against the DM

Nice attempt to deflect. In fact youy have it the wrong way round - I am getting at the DM for being disrespectful of the memory of Jo Cox and the conciliatory words and thoughts of her husband.

So what think you of the story being relegated to p30 of the DM. Is that where you think the outcome of the terrorist murder by a neo-nazi of a sitting MP deserves to be reported? And why do you think it was not front page news?
 
Nice attempt to deflect. In fact youy have it the wrong way round - I am getting at the DM for being disrespectful of the memory of Jo Cox and the conciliatory words and thoughts of her husband.

So what think you of the story being relegated to p30 of the DM. Is that where you think the outcome of the terrorist murder by a neo-nazi of a sitting MP deserves to be reported? And why do you think it was not front page news?
To be honest, unlike you I have no interest where the DM posts anything as I dont read it. What's the point in getting annoyed about such things as in reality they are not important to anyone.
 
To be honest, unlike you I have no interest where the DM posts anything as I dont read it. What's the point in getting annoyed about such things as in reality they are not important to anyone.

Are you honestly telling me that what the most influential newspaper in the UK prints; and the way it presents news and the accompanying headlines are not important to anyone. You cannot be serious.

Anyway - don't take my word for it...from prior to the 2015 GE

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...erage-30-cent-said-paper-greatest-impact.html

And you don't need to read a paper to have a view on it. So what's your opinion on the outcome of the Mair trial being reported on p30. An appropriate place in that paper?
 
Last edited:
Top