the Weeken Guardian.....the last straw...
- Thread starter cemertyone
- Start date
editor said:
On that I thorughly (and pissed offly) agree!
You have to have money to appreciate it, and even if you were to have a bit of dsiposable at times, it's still fucking irritating to say the least.
_angel_ said:
Agree -- I'm pretty sceptical to a LOT of stuff in the Guardian and can criticise it all the more effectively the more I know what they're missing out (on subjects I know more about myself/independently for eg).
DrRingDing said: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.
My views on the Gioardian are far more unremarkable -- appropriately critical -- than your RABID (and lying) slandering of someone who ever posts ANYTHING in defence of aspects of it, as 'fanatical'
I'm never going to be critical enough of it for some, but don't even TRY to pretend that you weren't consciously and deliberately pushing my buttons, and consciously and deliberately echoing old lies and slanders about me and the Guardian from elsewhere, when you posted that 'fanatical defender' lying shite.
If I was a 'fanatical defender' of the Guardian (and stop now twisting what you meant originally into something else DRD!) why would I be so critical of it at times?
Criticism you've clearly (and deliberately) never noticed. I await your apology still.
Will get back to some of this later -- I want to repond to IB properly, but don't have time any more now.
Spion
I hear ya
I think you're talking bollocks. The Guardian's standards of *news* reporting and writing are fine. All that differs between it and other broadsheets are the stories it selects. If you buy the G the news stories that are different to other broadsheets will be those of interest to teachers or of a social interest. Buy the Telegraph and you'll find the odd story about old soldiers and slightly better business pages.In Bloom said:
The op-ed pages in the FT are no more factual than any paper, as you'd expect.
If you'd like to point out factual innacuracies in the Guardian then I'm happy for you to convince me.
William of Walworth said: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
Are you like this to people in real life who criticse your beloved Guardian?
Stobart Stopper
Well-Known Member
The Guardian's tv/entertainment guide is the best one out of all the other papers, I always make sure I buy the paper on Saturday's, just to get this.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
William of Walworth said:
How do you think you appear on this thread William?
Also I'm still waiting to find out who these mystery 'mates' are, what exactly they have been plotting against you and where.
I've got nothing against you William but your behaviour on this thread is very strange.
mk12 said:
That so called (by you) 'beloved Guardian' of mine that I strongly criticise many and various aspects of, consistently on here, you mean?
Just as I'm happy to quote as useful/insightful at times, specific aspects of/articles in (as appropriate), you mean?
As you seem so full of assumptions, how about telling me where you got this 'beloved Guardian' shit about me from anyway? Your pals elsewhere?
What's this twat's track record on here, others?
Stobart Stopper said:
Shut it with the fanatical defence of your beloved Guardian!!!!
You're such a 'liberal' .....
Does this cunt hang out on TI?
No more 'strange' than your suspiciously close recycling of lies by others, repeated on here and elsewhere over several years by a few, about me and my politics and my 'fanatical' paper reading habits.
Still waiting for your apology for you slanderously writing me off as a 'fanatical defender' of a paper I have consistently criticised on here and elsewhere over many years.
And from a political position well to the left of the paper's general editorial approach.
Do you want to explain to the group why you're so stubbornly insistent on lying about me. my politics and my paper reading?
Alternatively, as an easy way out for you, you can always admit in retrospect that you were deliberately posting like a shitstirring trolling lie-recycling unoriginal twat.
DrRingDing said:
No more 'strange'
than your suspiciously close recycling of lies by others, repeated on here and elsewhere over several years by a few, about me and my politics and my 'fanatical' paper reading habits.Still waiting for your apology for you slanderously writing me off as a 'fanatical defender' of a paper I have consistently criticised on here and elsewhere over many years.
And from a political position well to the left of the paper's general editorial approach.
Do you want to explain to the group why you're so stubbornly insistent on lying about me. my politics and my paper reading?
Alternatively, as an easy way out for you, you can always admit in retrospect that you were deliberately posting like a shitstirring trolling lie-recycling unoriginal twat.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
Do do have an odd relationship with this paper.
If you can't see that, many people here can.
Who are these 'others' of which you speak?
Where are they hiding?
What are they planning?
...and why the fuck could anyone really give a toss about a loon throwing a hissyfit over fuck all?
If you can't see that, many people here can.
Who are these 'others' of which you speak?
Where are they hiding?
What are they planning?
...and why the fuck could anyone really give a toss about a loon throwing a hissyfit over fuck all?
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
William of Walworth said:
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
<yawn>mk12 said:
DrRingDing said:
Merely 'odd' now, is it?
It was 'fantical devotion' originally ..
I do despise a man who can't bring himelf to back down gracefully and/or just admit he was wrong and that he was deliberately spreading a lie and a smear, when cornered and his LIE exposed.
Do feel free to run a pointless, petty poll to see how 'many' of this 'many' also think you're a disruptive, shitstirring, button pushing, deliberately provocative twat. You'll lose.
With no discernable politics (on this thread at least)
The ones whose long term smears and lies about my attitude to the paper I happen to read (and mindlessly agree with every word in, obviously
) have gone on for quite a few years now. Smears and lies that you're echoing and recycling to near perfection with this 'fanatical devotion' shit. And don't lie or evade, you know perfectly well who I'm talking about, I even specify it above FFS.
You tell me.
To inspire useful idiots like you to recycle their lies 'for a lauigh' and for a trolling windup, just possibly, perhaps? If they're not paying you, they should be. You're certainly recycling their lying smears in suspiciously similar terminology ....
Perhaps they might instead give just a little bit of a toss about you lying about another Urban poster. If I lose my temper and dignity over that
, it's still not me who comes out of this exchange looking like quite such a scumbag as you.Any chance of an apology, or at least a clear (and sneer free) withdrawal of your deliberate smear, for lyingly calling me a 'fanatical' devotee of the so called 'beloved' Guardian?
Alternatively, just ADMIT you're a troll on an infantile windup, looking for people whose buttons you can press (yay! You've succeeded! Well done!) so you can then snicker immaturely behind your screen about what a successful pisstaker you are and take the congatulatory online backslaps off your 'friends' elsewhere -- OH SO MATURE. Your tactics are straight out of the manual and make YOU look like the clown here sunshine.
Stop wriggling out of admitting exactly what you've been up to here, and stop smearing me as a loon because I stand my ground on a silly, petty little principle like the truth and because I refuse to tolerate lying scumbags like you and your mentors lying about my newspaper reading habits/attitudes and thus (by implication) my politics. Even for a 'windup'
I lost my temper, sure
still some more lessons to learn there, ahem, but that doesn't stop me being right about the essentials : that you knew exactly what you were doing when you provoked me into losing it with your lies. Cause and effect innit, and you canlt just focus on the effect in isolation while dissasociating yourself from the cause -- which is you.
Any thoughts on the editor's Pinnocchio pic, Dr Ring Ding?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
<yawn>William of Walworth said:
dash_two said:
Merely common sense.
My views on th Guardian are fairly ordinary and probably shared at least in part by plenty of people here who don't get smeared as 'fanatical devotees' of the paper -- I agree with some articles in it, disagree with more, and made to think by others, provoked to do more research from other (lefter) sources by still others, pick up on some facts/news/stories that I might not have had tiome to become aware of at all by others (but I always approach with due scepticism because of what they so often leave out, like any other newspaper), have a laugh with some articles, get infuriated by the triviality and consumerism and celeb-centredness of others. And read the footy reports.
For this I'm a 'fantical devotee' for whom the Guardian is 'beloved'
Alternatively I might just be a non aligned radical (if lazy) Trade Unionist of very many years standing, a long term Council Tenant thoroughly opposed to stock tranfer/privatisation, a person attempting to be independent minded, taking stories, issues and politics issue by issue on their merits and usually reaching a position on them well to the left of the Guardian's. And very often very very different from 'liberalism', and thus pretty damned critical of the paper's editorial line -- as has been clear enough here for those who want to see -- on many many issues. But also a historian by background, trained to assess sources critically and sceptically, yet mine them discriminatingly/selectively for contents that might contribute to a broader understanding.
I have never advocated taking the Guardian on trust or relying it as your only source. Far from.
More on the 'liberalism' aspect later ...
Donna Ferentes said:
The minimalist approach ... has its merits, admittedly
I'm sure you've been delighted to read that we're both mindless automatons fanatically devoted to the Guardian though .... two very different posters, one of whom was you, were lumped in together about that.
Got to go, thankfully.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Deo gratias.
editor said:
That's enough from me. Honestly. Said me bit
JoePolitix
Gone
Bakuninite asserts liberal broadsheet no better than the Daily Mail
-----------------------------
Meady O' Whore
Political Editor
-----------------------------
A fresh row has broken out on the popular online forum Urban 75 following remarks concerning the Guardian newspaper earlier this week.
The conflict was sparked by comments made by the muscular Bakuninite contributor In Bloom who responded to the assertion that “the Guardian is actually not quite as bad as the Daily Mail” by asking “In what sense is it any better?”. In Bloom then proceeded to qualify his rhetorical question: “I 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.”
His remarks received praise from fellow partisans MK12 and Dr RingDing.
But others remained unconvinced and suggested that In Bloom’s analysis lacked subtlety and nuance. One contributor, Spion remarked “I think you're talking bollocks”.
The rift highlights a longstanding faultline on Urban 75 – the tension that exists between liberal leftists and self styled revolutionaries. Most of the latter departed Urban a few years ago to devote their revolutionary online activism elsewhere. But some, such as In Bloom have remained.
The dispute is ongoing.
Leader comment – page 32
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
William of Walworth said:
It was bollocks at the time but with you continued behaviour like a teenager throwing a wobbler on acid, I'm losing respect for you.....fast.
You're really making a cock of yourself.
You've been behaving irrationally on these boards for a while. I think it's time you sobered up and realised that these conspirators persecuting you are just you making excuses for your sorry self.
DrRingDing said:
<Zen Like Calm descends
>I have nothing more to say about you.
chico enrico
No hair shows you care.
In Bloom said:
fanny batter. you wouldnt be on U75 if that were the case.
Similar threads
