Are they really any worse than other newspapers like the times, though? Just because they're more obvious about their reporter stirring?Sput wrote:I'd say they only stir up the outrage when they think they can. This was a bit of a miscalculation.
Proof Waxy is a Daily Mail-reading nut
-
not-ShowbizGuru
- Banned
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Mon 10 Nov, 2008 13.12
User Removed
I don't think even The Telegraph does such outrage outside its commentary sections. At any rate it doesn't claim things are happening to try and whip up its readership most of the time. If anything I'd say the Mail is most unintentionally obvious and places like the broadsheets are most intentionally obvious.
Knight knight
THANKS..but it wasn't me. I am no longer in Plymouth (hence the name change). The sentiments are possibly similar.Sput wrote:I'd say they only stir up the outrage when they think they can. This was a bit of a miscalculation.
What's really sinister is that they never directly attack the person they're attacking, but hide behind "x was hurled into ANOTHER row". Much like "some people say" on Fox News, no-one but them is actually saying it.
User removed
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Of course it was.Stuart* wrote:THANKS..but it wasn't me. I am no longer in Plymouth (hence the name change). The sentiments are possibly similar.Sput wrote:I'd say they only stir up the outrage when they think they can. This was a bit of a miscalculation.
What's really sinister is that they never directly attack the person they're attacking, but hide behind "x was hurled into ANOTHER row". Much like "some people say" on Fox News, no-one but them is actually saying it.
You're one of the few people who kept banging on about "criminal" activity.
For heavens sake - you might as well stand by what you've said or not bother piping up.
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Stuart - is there a reason why you keep choosing to reply to topics by the Private Messenger system? That is not what it is there for. If you want to reply to my post then do it in the thread.
Please refrain from using the system in that way, or I will have to remove the privilege from you.
Please refrain from using the system in that way, or I will have to remove the privilege from you.
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
No you didn't. Stuart did by messaging me to say, "I don't know what you mean" as a reply to my post above - which would make more sense in the thread - if anywhere.Sput wrote:I meant his reply just in here, in case I've confused you gav.
mmkay, yes that would make more sense. Perhaps we should all post the PMs he sends us as replies to threads!Gavin Scott wrote:No you didn't. Stuart did by messaging me to say, "I don't know what you mean" as a reply to my post above - which would make more sense in the thread - if anywhere.Sput wrote:I meant his reply just in here, in case I've confused you gav.
Knight knight
It was a complaint which I cancelled (and explained through pressing the wrong button), should I continue the procedure?Gavin Scott wrote:Stuart - is there a reason why you keep choosing to reply to topics by the Private Messenger system? That is not what it is there for. If you want to reply to my post then do it in the thread.
Please refrain from using the system in that way, or I will have to remove the privilege from you.
User removed