Knew I couldn't trust you guys.

finchy

mercsport wrote:

johnfinch : Your brevity is appreciated .

OK.

nasahapley

pedylan wrote:

nasahapley wrote:

I will admit to one thing though: I am visiting the Mail's website increasingly often, but only to peruse the 'readers comments' under various articles. It may not be too good for my mental health, but a lot of the stuff posted there is pure comedy gold; it makes the BBC's 'Have Your Say' site look like the Oxford Union.

You have got to visit the Have Your Say parody site - Speak Your Branes. It will never be possible to better it as a critique of the truly awful HYS.

http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/

I'm ahead of you on that one - been a regular visitor to SYB for ages! The 'T**t-o-Tron' is a work of pure genius - and eerily accurate.

mercsport

johnfinch wrote:

mercsport wrote:

johnfinch : Your brevity is appreciated .

OK.

teagar

mercsport wrote:

teagar [/b][/i]: I'd suspect you to be a hopeless case for me to try to argue the toss about Quentin Letts' wonderfully brilliant parliamentary sketch writing . So I won't bother , other than to say that I expect the art of satire would be wholly lost on you . From Aristophanes to Hogarth - in the world you inhabit - they wouldn't have a chance today .

That's a pretty weak defence. I've made specific points and given specific examples, and you try and bat me off with "satire would be wholly lost on you". Why not try and actually defend your claim that Letts is a good writer against the criticism I make, and give your own counter-evidence? Or are you just using the same line of defence that the Mail uses? "They're lefty liberals who live in cloud cuckoo land so why bother even critically listening to what they have to say", to paraphrase.

I prefer to stick to satire that holds a mirror against narrow minded ignorance and avoids cheap, vile, and unecessary personal slander.

Anyway, what world do I inhabit? Are you making assumptions on the very narrow line of evidence that I don't like Quentin Letts?

Aggieboy

mercsport wrote:

I'd suspect that most of the Mails' knockers on here are young and likely attended by the modern affliction of short attention spans and never get past the headlines - writ large , and don't trouble to discover that there is some serious comment within on a daily basis . It is absolutely nothing at all like the National Enquirer .

.

Actually, that's The Sun! :P

mercsport

teagar wrote:

mercsport wrote:

teagar [/b][/i]: I'd suspect you to be a hopeless case for me to try to argue the toss about Quentin Letts' wonderfully brilliant parliamentary sketch writing . So I won't bother , other than to say that I expect the art of satire would be wholly lost on you . From Aristophanes to Hogarth - in the world you inhabit - they wouldn't have a chance today .

That's a pretty weak defence. I've made specific points and given specific examples, and you try and bat me off with "satire would be wholly lost on you". Why not try and actually defend your claim that Letts is a good writer against the criticism I make, and give your own counter-evidence? Or are you just using the same line of defence that the Mail uses? "They're lefty liberals who live in cloud cuckoo land so why bother even critically listening to what they have to say", to paraphrase.

I prefer to stick to satire that holds a mirror against narrow minded ignorance and avoids cheap, vile, and unecessary personal slander.

Anyway, what world do I inhabit? Are you making assumptions on the very narrow line of evidence that I don't like Quentin Letts?

Yes .

nolf

mercsport wrote:

I'd suspect that most of the Mails' knockers on here are young and likely attended by the modern affliction of short attention spans and never get past the headlines - writ large , and don't trouble to discover that there is some serious comment within on a daily basis .

The unbridled arrogance required to make that sort of comment is truly sickening. Statements such as that do not deserve a reply.

passout

As a Telegraph reader (no really) I have few problems with the political stance of the Mail but even I hate it. The way it dumbs down complex issues into 'common sense' and often misrepresents the truth does sicken me.

If the Telegraph were a person it would be friendly old Colonel conservative but reasonable and happy in himself. The Guardian would be a genuinely concerned and slightly agitated social worker called Germaine who wears ehtnic print skirts. I'd hate to think who The Mail would be...any ideas?

finchy

passout wrote:

If the Telegraph were a person it would be friendly old Colonel conservative but reasonable and happy in himself. The Guardian would be a genuinely concerned and slightly agitated social worker called Germaine who wears ehtnic print skirts. I'd hate to think who The Mail would be...any ideas?

It would be wandering around a padded cell, saying in a dead flat voice "They're all out to get me, I know they are. The foreigners, the government, the loony left, the PC brigade. They won't stop until I'm dead, they even poison my water so it will give me cancer and push my house price down. I need somebody to protect me. A strongman. I will live under his complete domination as long as he defends me against non-conformists who want to destroy me."

Then it would slump into a corner as the bitter emptiness of it all drains his soul of joy and hope.

teagar

mercsport wrote:

teagar wrote:

That's a pretty weak defence. I've made specific points and given specific examples, and you try and bat me off with "satire would be wholly lost on you". Why not try and actually defend your claim that Letts is a good writer against the criticism I make, and give your own counter-evidence? Or are you just using the same line of defence that the Mail uses? "They're lefty liberals who live in cloud cuckoo land so why bother even critically listening to what they have to say", to paraphrase.

I prefer to stick to satire that holds a mirror against narrow minded ignorance and avoids cheap, vile, and unecessary personal slander.

Anyway, what world do I inhabit? Are you making assumptions on the very narrow line of evidence that I don't like Quentin Letts?

Yes .

No wonder you can't make any intelligent headway in discussions.

What world do I inhabit anyway?

jimmypippa

Aggieboy wrote:

mercsport wrote:

I'd suspect that most of the Mails' knockers on here are young and likely attended by the modern affliction of short attention spans and never get past the headlines - writ large , and don't trouble to discover that there is some serious comment within on a daily basis . It is absolutely nothing at all like the National Enquirer .

.

Actually, that's The Sun! :P

At least the Sun doesn't try to find justifications to print pictures of scantily-clad women.

The Mail (and Express) find any tenuous link, print the pictures, and claim shock. Repressed titillation.

"Outrage as woman wears few clothes - made-up story, and gratuitous pictures ad infinitum."


I looked at the mail's website as a consequence of this thread, and lo! this story was on the top page.


Nazis and Sex, an utterly winning combination.

mercsport

nolf wrote:

mercsport wrote:

I'd suspect that most of the Mails' knockers on here are young and likely attended by the modern affliction of short attention spans and never get past the headlines - writ large , and don't trouble to discover that there is some serious comment within on a daily basis .

The unbridled arrogance required to make that sort of comment is truly sickening. Statements such as that do not deserve a reply.

Oh dear . At the very least your statement displays the overworked ,foam-flecked rhetoric of , .. of , say , the 'Anti-Nazi League' and other 'right-on' causes .


nasahapley : " I'm such a smarty-pants I even know who Aristophanes and Hogarth are, so I know that the quip mentioning them in your last post is nonsense "

Eh ? :?

mercsport

jimmypippa wrote:

Aggieboy wrote:

mercsport wrote:

I'd suspect that most of the Mails' knockers on here are young and likely attended by the modern affliction of short attention spans and never get past the headlines - writ large , and don't trouble to discover that there is some serious comment within on a daily basis . It is absolutely nothing at all like the National Enquirer .

.

Actually, that's The Sun! :P

At least the Sun doesn't try to find justifications to print pictures of scantily-clad women.

The Mail (and Express) find any tenuous link, print the pictures, and claim shock. Repressed titillation.

"Outrage as woman wears few clothes - made-up story, and gratuitous pictures ad infinitum."


I looked at the mail's website as a consequence of this thread, and lo! this story was on the top page.


Nazis and Sex, an utterly winning combination.

Yes , I found that funny too . Did you actually read it ? No , I didn't either .

To be fair though , the so called quality papers are increasingly adopting the same tactics to flog their rags . They have to I'd suppose . Haven't you noticed ? At least it's so with my daily acquaintance with the Tel', and the occasional Times and Independent .

mmitchell88

Using my full rights as a registered user of a cycling internet forum, I will TELL YOU ALL what I think of UK newspapers. Because I know you will find it vitally important information.

The Economist - By far the best and most informed on world political and business matters. I subscribe, yet strangely I rarely read. It IS a newspaper, ok?
The Times - buy it regularly. I like the editorial, the sport section does a decent job on cycling often enough, and I get the chance to sneer at Matthew Parris. I will read anything written by Caitlin Moran, especially Friday's CelebWatch.
FT - boring but useful. I remember when their daily TV guide was written by someone with a genuine wit. Last time I looked it was just a description of the programs on the telly. Shame
Daily Mail - hateful rag for reactionary geriatrics. Panders to every conceivable prejudice for people of a certain generation. As a consequence, the weekend Financial Mail section is excellent. Never buy a financial product without having at least skimmed it.
Telegraph - for me it's a toss up between this and The Times. I buy The Times instead because I can read it more easily on the train. Then I use the internet to look at Alex. Influential business section.
The Sun - buy it as a treat on a Friday - motoring section. A bit of celeb gossip and the letters don't go amiss either. Wonder why I don't get excited by page 3 anymore - ah yes,I remember - internet porn.
Daily Mirror - like the Sun, but all in the wrong order. Therefore avoid.
News of the World - disappointing.
Express - Like the Daily Mail but with the good bits taken out and added Princess Diana. Why anyone would actively choose to buy the Express is beyond me.
Sunday Times - always buy it. Enjoy throwing 70% of it away every week unread. Why is 'In Gear' always hidden Russian Doll-like in 5 layers of other sections? Might see a bit of boob in Style.

There you have it. Did I miss anything?

finchy

mmitchell88 wrote:

The Economist - By far the best and most informed on world political and business matters. I subscribe, yet strangely I rarely read. It IS a newspaper, ok?

Decent political & diplomatic coverage, but for a magazine that specialises in economics, it acted as a cheerleader for the de-regulation of the financial sector, which has lead to the present mess. Now it continues to present itself as some sort of organ of economic wisdom. A bit of humility (we got it wrong, big time, don't trust us!) wouldn't be amiss.

I try to read from a number of different viewpoints - Economist, New Internationalist, Guardian, New Statesman, sometimes the Telegraph or Times. Whatever your ideology, it's best to hold it up to some criticism.

guilliano

Does Nuts count as a newspaper? If so am I allowed to buy it?

nolf

[="mercsport"]

nolf wrote:

mercsport wrote:

I'd suspect that most of the Mails' knockers on here are young and likely attended by the modern affliction of short attention spans and never get past the headlines - writ large , and don't trouble to discover that there is some serious comment within on a daily basis .

The unbridled arrogance required to make that sort of comment is truly sickening. Statements such as that do not deserve a reply.

Oh dear . At the very least your statement displays the overworked ,foam-flecked rhetoric of , .. of , say , the 'Anti-Nazi League' and other 'right-on' causes .

[/quote]

As a 19 year old university student, I 100% agree that I'm overworked.

In terms of campaigning for causes, my cynicism is matched only by my apathy.

heathy_76

mercsport wrote:

nolf wrote:

mercsport wrote:

I'd suspect that most of the Mails' knockers on here are young and likely attended by the modern affliction of short attention spans and never get past the headlines - writ large , and don't trouble to discover that there is some serious comment within on a daily basis .

The unbridled arrogance required to make that sort of comment is truly sickening. Statements such as that do not deserve a reply.

Oh dear . At the very least your statement displays the overworked ,foam-flecked rhetoric of , .. of , say , the 'Anti-Nazi League' and other 'right-on' causes .


nasahapley : " I'm such a smarty-pants I even know who Aristophanes and Hogarth are, so I know that the quip mentioning them in your last post is nonsense "

Eh ? :?

I've been reading this thread with great interest and would've been happy to remain an observer but I am truly shocked to read a comment on this forum dismissing the the Anti-Nazi league as a 'right on' cause. :shock:

mercsport

nolf : " As a 19 year old university student, I 100% agree that I'm overworked. In terms of campaigning for causes, my cynicism is matched only by my apathy. "

As a near 63 year old 'reactionary geriatric' ( thus it would appear I've been labelled ) at least we can agree on something . I too am still addled by cynicism and apathy , alas .

healthy_76 : Isn't it ? I confess to not even being sure there is an anti-nazi league . I feel there was one once , but I was flailing around trying to think of an organization that routinely spews forth bile in the name of 'freedom ' . I don't mind at all rage filled sermons by all and sundry , as I also believe in freedom of expression . Except that irony appears to be lost on some as they do their best to stifle and gag opposite opinion , with expression of mock outrage and hyperbole such as 'unacceptable ' and the like .

I wonder if 'Hyde Park Corner' as a Sunday morning institution is still around ?

mmitchell88

mercsport wrote:

As a near 63 year old 'reactionary geriatric' ( thus it would appear I've been labelled ) at least we can agree on something . I too am still addled by cynicism and apathy , alas .

Mercsport, I didn't label you as a reactionary geriatric. I only labelled the DM as being for reactionary geriatrics. I read it myself, as I hoped I'd made clear.

mercsport

mmitchell88 wrote:

mercsport wrote:

As a near 63 year old 'reactionary geriatric' ( thus it would appear I've been labelled ) at least we can agree on something . I too am still addled by cynicism and apathy , alas .

Mercsport, I didn't label you as a reactionary geriatric. I only labelled the DM as being for reactionary geriatrics. I read it myself, as I hoped I'd made clear.

Oh , my mistake . :oops:

No worries on my part , I wasn't affronted anyway . In a perverse sort of way it would've been rather flattering to be labelled 'reactionary' . 8) ( no denying the fact that I'm geriatric though )

I noted a few you omitted from your mighty reading list of the daily papers : The Daily Star ; Morning Star ; Daily Sport ; Independent ; Daily Record ; Observer . I'm not sure if I've missed any . Likely . We certainly have a shedload of choice in this country .

CyclingBantam

My favourite story was recently when the mail accused the Taliban of turning Cannabis into heroin. Absolutely outstanding.

To me for a newspaper to print something so incorrect, it casts doubt on any other story they report which in turn renders the whole publication worthless.

Terrible small minded paper.

passout

johnfinch wrote:

passout wrote:

If the Telegraph were a person it would be friendly old Colonel conservative but reasonable and happy in himself. The Guardian would be a genuinely concerned and slightly agitated social worker called Germaine who wears ehtnic print skirts. I'd hate to think who The Mail would be...any ideas?

It would be wandering around a padded cell, saying in a dead flat voice "They're all out to get me, I know they are. The foreigners, the government, the loony left, the PC brigade. They won't stop until I'm dead, they even poison my water so it will give me cancer and push my house price down. I need somebody to protect me. A strongman. I will live under his complete domination as long as he defends me against non-conformists who want to destroy me."

Then it would slump into a corner as the bitter emptiness of it all drains his soul of joy and hope.

Yes, that answers my question. Well done!


This is a great thread. Do you think that in post-modern society we define ourselves by what we consume (houses, holidays, bikes, newpapers etc) rather than our class, profession and what we do? Or does that question make me a Guardian reader? Discuss...

STEFANOS4784

Daily sport is hilarious and the only one worth reading, even if just for the 50 stone cats 8)

I used to work in a 24 hour garage and used to read through most of the papers. Because they're written by individuals who have they're own opinions the papers tend to be bought by people with similar opinions. Best off to read them all then forget what you read and make your mind up using just raw facts. IMHO

nasahapley

passout wrote:

This is a great thread. Do you think that in post-modern society we define ourselves by what we consume (houses, holidays, bikes, newpapers etc) rather than our class, profession and what we do? Or does that question make me a Guardian reader? Discuss...

I agree this is a great thread - good clean knockabout fun! As to your question, well , errmm, probably a bit, I suppose...

Let's have some classic DM headlines while we think about it properly:

EU RULES ALLOW ABU HAMZA TO SELL ECSTACY IN SCHOOLS

POLISH KNIFECRIMERS AND RUSSELL BRAND CAUSE HOUSE PRICE SLUMP

Has anyone got any more?

antfly

heathy_76 wrote:

mercsport wrote:

nolf wrote:

mercsport wrote:

I'd suspect that most of the Mails' knockers on here are young and likely attended by the modern affliction of short attention spans and never get past the headlines - writ large , and don't trouble to discover that there is some serious comment within on a daily basis .

The unbridled arrogance required to make that sort of comment is truly sickening. Statements such as that do not deserve a reply.

Oh dear . At the very least your statement displays the overworked ,foam-flecked rhetoric of , .. of , say , the 'Anti-Nazi League' and other 'right-on' causes .


nasahapley : " I'm such a smarty-pants I even know who Aristophanes and Hogarth are, so I know that the quip mentioning them in your last post is nonsense "

Eh ? :?

I've been reading this thread with great interest and would've been happy to remain an observer but I am truly shocked to read a comment on this forum dismissing the the Anti-Nazi league as a 'right on' cause. :shock:

I too am a little shocked.I would have thought even some DM readers are anti-nazi.Presumably he prefers pro-nazis.

passout

antfly wrote:

heathy_76 wrote:

mercsport wrote:

nolf wrote:

mercsport wrote:

I'd suspect that most of the Mails' knockers on here are young and likely attended by the modern affliction of short attention spans and never get past the headlines - writ large , and don't trouble to discover that there is some serious comment within on a daily basis .

The unbridled arrogance required to make that sort of comment is truly sickening. Statements such as that do not deserve a reply.

Oh dear . At the very least your statement displays the overworked ,foam-flecked rhetoric of , .. of , say , the 'Anti-Nazi League' and other 'right-on' causes .


nasahapley : " I'm such a smarty-pants I even know who Aristophanes and Hogarth are, so I know that the quip mentioning them in your last post is nonsense "

Eh ? :?

I've been reading this thread with great interest and would've been happy to remain an observer but I am truly shocked to read a comment on this forum dismissing the the Anti-Nazi league as a 'right on' cause. :shock:

I too am a little shocked.I would have thought even some DM readers are anti-nazi.Presumably he prefers pro-nazis.

DM readers are not anti-Nazi, just anti FOREIGN Nazis. They come over here and take the jobs of good honest British Nazis....It's a disgrace I'm writing a letter to the BBC etc etc.

But seriously anyone who says that they are 'anti anti-Nazis' is on dangerous ground and probably needs to explain themselves carefully. I guess he meant that he distrusted banner wavers more generally.

Just to avoid confusion (I get a lot of that) I am not nor have I ever been a member of the NAZI party. They are horrible people.... I hope that's clear.

finchy

passout wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

passout wrote:

If the Telegraph were a person it would be friendly old Colonel conservative but reasonable and happy in himself. The Guardian would be a genuinely concerned and slightly agitated social worker called Germaine who wears ehtnic print skirts. I'd hate to think who The Mail would be...any ideas?

It would be wandering around a padded cell, saying in a dead flat voice "They're all out to get me, I know they are. The foreigners, the government, the loony left, the PC brigade. They won't stop until I'm dead, they even poison my water so it will give me cancer and push my house price down. I need somebody to protect me. A strongman. I will live under his complete domination as long as he defends me against non-conformists who want to destroy me."

Then it would slump into a corner as the bitter emptiness of it all drains his soul of joy and hope.

Yes, that answers my question. Well done!


This is a great thread. Do you think that in post-modern society we define ourselves by what we consume (houses, holidays, bikes, newpapers etc) rather than our class, profession and what we do? Or does that question make me a Guardian reader? Discuss...

Just a quick update on the Daily Mail's state of mind, it's now on the pyschiatrist's couch, shouting "Mummy, mummy, why did you never love me? Why did you slam the door to your heart in my face? I only wanted to please you, but I know that I will always be a disappointment to you. I'm the one who ruined your life. I'm sorry, Mummy, I'm sorry."

passout

Wow....I feel that we are providing some form of therapy

teagar

passout wrote:

This is a great thread. Do you think that in post-modern society we define ourselves by what we consume (houses, holidays, bikes, newpapers etc) rather than our class, profession and what we do? Or does that question make me a Guardian reader? Discuss...

If it was trully post-modern, everyone would understand that everything is relative...


And nothing is objective...