the Weeken Guardian.....the last straw...

[tim]

This was the editor of the Guardian. He didn't need to conclude that - his marketing people have charts of the precise types of cunts that read it on various days of the week, along with breakdowns of the best places to put car/Aga adverts to reach appropriate cunt demographics.

*goes back to sales books*

The sort of cunt in question, perhaps, being the one who can get to page 63before realising it's not quite their sort of thing.

 

[editor]

Do they come free with the Grauniad then?

 

[goldenecitrone]

I was quite surprised to see they'd included a speech by Hitler as one of their greatest speeches of all time. Then I realised it was one of the great interviews. Phew!!!

 

[DrRingDing]

I've never come across people that are more fanatical about their paper of choice than Guardian readers.

William & Donna are prime examples.

 

[editor]

I've never come across people that are more fanatical about their paper of choice than Guardian readers.

William & Donna are prime examples.

Errr. Donna said that he hasn't read the Guardian for over 18 months.

 

[DrRingDing]

Errr. Donna said that he hasn't read the Guardian for over 18 months.

That's only because he's living abroad.

British newspapers are outrageously expensive on the continent.

 

[editor]

That's only because he's living abroad.

British newspapers are outrageously expensive on the continent.

Right. So he's so "fanatical" about the Guardian that he's never once bought one in 18 months because it costs about about a quid more than it does in the UK?

Great argument!

 

[goldenecitrone]

That's only because he's living abroad.

British newspapers are outrageously expensive on the continent.

True, but the Guardian is easily worth 20 Euros anywhere in the world.

 

[DrRingDing]

Right. So he's so "fanatical" about the Guardian that he's never once bought one in 18 months because it costs about about a quid more than it does in the UK?

Great argument!

....and you're presuming it's for sale in his town, which I doubt.

 

[editor]

....and you're presuming it's for sale in his town, which I doubt.

I would have thought a "fanatic" would get it delivered seeing as you're presuming he can't get it anywhere in the town he lives in.

Or perhaps it might just be easier to admit that you got a little carried away with your 'fanatic' accusation, no?

 

[William of Walworth]

In what sense is it any better?

It's faults are different. Suggest YOU tell ME why the DM's faults are less obnoxious ...

 

[In Bloom]

It's faults are different. Suggest YOU tell ME why the DM's faults are less obnoxious ...

I don't think they are, I just don't think that the Guardian is any better.

Edit: I also think that the content of both papers is targetted mostly at middle class people, just different sections of the middle class (the conservative, traditionalist types and the liberal, "progressive" types, respectively), which isn't to say that I think that everybody that reads either paper is necessarily from either group, it's more a question of emphasis.

 

[William of Walworth]

I've never come across people that are more fanatical about their paper of choice than Guardian readers.

William & Donna are prime examples.

Shove it.

I could make a very long list of the Guardian's many and various faults, faults and flaws which being a regular reader, who isn't actually the 'liberal Hampstead late sipper' that you seem? to assume I am, and being actually pretty left wing, I suspect I know FAR more about that you.

It's about time that kneejerk 'liberal' bashing morons stopped lying about my politics and those of other critical, politically aware Guardian readers, just because I read a paper that HAPPENS to give me a lot of useful information in amidst the coinsumerist dross and dodgy platforms for corporate politics.

I read that paper with the discrimination and care that you appear totally to lack when reading my posts. Where exactly have you got this 'fanatical defender' lie from?

Perhaps from the lies others have consistently spread around about my politics, here and (especially) elsewhere, over the last few years?

Kindly withdraw your lying accusation and apologise, now, please, and while you're at it, tell your charming, lying 'friends' 'elsewhere' to stop spreading these persistant lies about my politics. I thank you.

I only came onto this forum yesterday in a case of 'Guardian reader posts Anarchist Book Fair thread shocker' ....

And I noticed that In Bloom was surprised to see me do that. A lie is half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on, or whatever the exact quote was.


And yes this lying 'liberal fanatical Guardian lover' shit does press a raw nerve. Ask your 'mates' elsewhere why, the lying tossers.

<remembers why he almost never reads or posts on the so called 'politics' forums >

 

[In Bloom]

Jesus, chill out, there's no need to get all wound up.

I only said what I said on that particular thread because you'd never posted anything that indicated that you'd be interested in the @ bookfair, to my knowledge.

And DC hasn't even posted on this thread

 

[William of Walworth]

I don't think they are, I just don't think that the Guardian is any better.

Edit: I also think that the content of both papers is targetted mostly at middle class people, just different sections of the middle class (the conservative, traditionalist types and the liberal, "progressive" types, respectively), which isn't to say that I think that everybody that reads either paper is necessarily from either group, it's more a question of emphasis.

I agree with a lot of your edit.

But as for the first line, I disagree on the grounds that if I'd read the Daily Mail for as long as I'd read the Guardian, the DM would correctly have pissed me off a lot more politically. Either that, or maybe the DM might have insiduously, over time, persuaded me to adopt far more bigotted, narrowminded and ignorant attitudes about xenophobic stuff, 'political correctness', 'house prices' etc. The drip drip effect of stridently repeated prejudices if you will.

Not claiming at all that some Guardian readers don't have dodgy attitudes of a different kind, on some aspects of politics, and that the paper's content might quite often consolidate/confirm those. But I'm not one of them OK?

Another differnce is that when right wing articles are pubished in the Guardian (and it's a myth that ALL the Gaurdian's op-ed pieces are all broadly the same politically, there's far more variety if you look for it), those right wing articles (particularly by people like that Irving Strelzer twat, or some of the more TU-bashing articles you occasionally get, or articles critical of council housing etc.) get challenged in the right of reply column, or in the letters page, or on some of the website.

Those challengers are Guardian readers too, some of whom just might be quite or even very left wing and just might get a little pissed off and insulted by this blanketly simplistic 'Guardian readers = all middle class complacent liberals' stuff.

So my question might be, why risk pissing off people who might share your politics more than you think?

On less directly political stuff, I do genunely believe that I'd have been able to delve a lot less useful information from the DM.

Of course it's essential to consult other sources, and I do.

 

[William of Walworth]

Ulp, bollocks.

And DC hasn't even posted on this thread

Oops, swift edit needed there. Imminent

The rest stands though. I'm not especially accusing you of anything particularly In Bloom, at least you've been polite. But there's far tooo many lies and assumptions been told/made about my politics over the last few years, stemming from peoples' malicious assumptions about my evil and dangerous Guardian habits

And lies repeatedly told rub off on others on forums like this.

Lies which have denied me my right to stand and post on these forums as the leftie that I really am. And in fact intimidated me from trying to do so, for a long period.

Trade Unioinists, lefties generally, anarchists, radical green campaigners/supporters, ABF attenders, council flat dwellers, etc., might just read the Guardian at times too.

As a PS to my previous post, I think, genuinely, that reading the Guardian can be less compromising to independent thought and to the chance of picking up a wider range of information and opinions**, than the Daily Mail is.

**So long as you don't solely rely on it!

 

[In Bloom]

I think the big difference between me and you on this is that I don't see myself sharing any more common ground with liberals than with conservatives.

 

[phildwyer]

Two words: Polly Toynbee.

 

[In Bloom]

Must you bring her up? I'd finally managed to forget she existed altogether.

 

[DrRingDing]

Shove it.

I could make a very long list of the Guardian's many and various faults, faults and flaws which being a regular reader, who isn't actually the 'liberal Hampstead late sipper' that you seem? to assume I am, and being actually pretty left wing, I suspect I know FAR more about that you.

It's about time that kneejerk 'liberal' bashing morons stopped lying about my politics and those of other critical, politically aware Guardian readers, just because I read a paper that HAPPENS to give me a lot of useful information in amidst the coinsumerist dross and dodgy platforms for corporate politics.

I read that paper with the discrimination and care that you appear totally to lack when reading my posts. Where exactly have you got this 'fanatical defender' lie from?

Perhaps from the lies others have consistently spread around about my politics, here and (especially) elsewhere, over the last few years?

Kindly withdraw your lying accusation and apologise, now, please, and while you're at it, tell your charming, lying 'friends' 'elsewhere' to stop spreading these persistant lies about my politics. I thank you.

I only came onto this forum yesterday in a case of 'Guardian reader posts Anarchist Book Fair thread shocker' ....

And I noticed that In Bloom was surprised to see me do that. A lie is half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on, or whatever the exact quote was.


And yes this lying 'liberal fanatical Guardian lover' shit does press a raw nerve. Ask your 'mates' elsewhere why, the lying tossers.

<remembers why he almost never reads or posts on the so called 'politics' forums >

You've just my point William with that paranoid, incoherent rant.

 

[William of Walworth]

You've just my point William with that paranoid, incoherent rant.

My post's meaning was perfectly coherent, and you've proved no point whatsoever -- except, in your earlier post, that you apparantly delight in believing the lies of lying twats about my politics and about why I read the paper. Above, you're simply missing the point and are doing so deliberately I suspect.

How about addressing the issue : that earlier you were implicitly lying about and misrepesenting my politics? And misrepresenting the politics of a very significant minority of left wing, critical, discriminating Guardian readers with your sneering condescension, and direct lies about 'fanaticism'?

Any chance of you apologising for being a liar (indirect/implied) about my politics and for being a liar (direct) about the nature of my newspaper reading?

Fanatical about the paper my arse -- all I've ever done on here is try to counter various lies and sneers and sweeping blanket judgements about that paper and many of its readers. Lies bundled up with fake or even genuine surprise at times from few mean spirited malice fuelled individuals on Urban (in the past) and elsewhere (now) that I've been a TU member for twenty eight years and an active Trade Union rep in my time as well ('how can he be? He's a Guardian reading wiberal ie even more of a facist than a Daily Mail reader'), that my politics have been well to the left of the paper's for over twenty five years, that I have many and various criticisms, far more coherent and telling ones than you'd ever be able to make with your one line dismissals of the Guardian and insulting assumptions about two of its more discerning and discriminating readers on here. Criticisms of the paper that I have consistently made on here and some of which can be found in this very thread.

Suggest you stop gullibly drinking in the lies of malicious twats 'elsewhere' about me. And that you learn a lesson or two about not making enemies of others on the left (are you a leftie, even?) with your parroting the sectarian-spirited lies of others.

I determined to nail this lying 'Guardian reading rascist liberal' shite once and for all and be allowed to be the Trade Unionist leftie and general non aligned radical that I am without being lied about and sneered at just because I happen to read, among other things, a certain fucking newspaper for all its egregious faults.

 

[William of Walworth]

I think the big difference between me and you on this is that I don't see myself sharing any more common ground with liberals than with conservatives.

There's a difference between delving discriminatingly/selectively for facts and information in a broadly 'liberal' paper, and being a liberal though.

I still find it hard to disacconect liberal as term of abuse in the UK, from liberal as a Yank Neocon term of abuse for anyone to the left of a fanatical evangelical Christian Republican. Of course the respective contexts and the respective abusers are very different, but both versions of misuse of the term obscure accuracy to say the least. To me the odious Timothy Garton Ash (frinstance) is not the liberal he claims to be, but a conservative, in his support for the West's intervention in Iraq. But there are other op-ed columns in the Guardian for people far more left wing than him

Another thought, those socialists who mine the FT or Economist for facts (and good luck to them) are hardly capitalists are they?

May return to this cos it's an interesting point you raise. I don't think you're right, but I'm getting short of time now.

 

[DrRingDing]

Suggest you stop gullibly drinking in the lies of malicious twats 'elsewhere' about me.

It really is far too early to be that paranoid.

Who are these 'others' plotting against you of which you speak?

They're not really real are they?

 

[DrRingDing]

adj. 1. fanatic - marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea; "rabid isolationist"

Rabid isolationist sums your posting on this subject pretty well.

 

[Yossarian]

In what sense is it any better?

Charlie Brooker doesn't write for the Daily Mail, and Steve Bell doesn't draw cartoons for them.

 

[dash_two]

So the Guardian is an ABC1-oriented left-liberal newspaper. Any more findings from the Centre for Research into the Bleeding Obvious?

 

[JoePolitix]

Muscular Bakuninite

I think the big difference between me and you on this is that I don't see myself sharing any more common ground with liberals than with conservatives.

Ooooh...tuff guy.

NB Yossarian - good call on the Brooker.

 

[In Bloom]

There's a difference between delving discriminatingly/selectively for facts and information in a broadly 'liberal' paper, and being a liberal though.

Of course there is, but it's somewhat difficult to tell the two apart without directly asking, when the former starts defending the Guardian as "better" than every other paper out there.

To me the odious Timothy Garton Ash (frinstance) is not the liberal he claims to be, but a conservative, in his support for the West's intervention in Iraq. But there are other op-ed columns in the Guardian for people far more left wing than him

How does supporting the war in Iraq make somebody a conservative though? There are plenty of conservatives (and not a few Conservatives) who opposed the whole thing from the start.

Another thought, those socialists who mine the FT or Economist for facts (and good luck to them) are hardly capitalists are they?

I do exactly that on occaision. Though I think that the FT is qualitatively different from the Guardian, since while it tends to report facts from a certain point of view, which is revealed in the terminology used more than anything else, it's a lot more factual in its approach.

 

[In Bloom]

Charlie Brooker doesn't write for the Daily Mail, and Steve Bell doesn't draw cartoons for them.

I have no idea who Charlie Brooker is, but honestly, I think Steve Bell isn't as funny as he used to be.

 

[_angel_]

Actually, the weekend guardian pisses me off too. Why mum continues to buy it (retired teacher) is a mystery. There's not one article or anything in there that can be pitched at her.

That said retaining some healthy scepticism for all newspapers and tv news seems like a good way to go.