Page 2 of 4
Re: Proof Waxy is a Daily Mail-reading nut
Posted: Tue 11 Nov, 2008 12.26
by not-ShowbizGuru
Sput wrote:I'd say they only stir up the outrage when they think they can. This was a bit of a miscalculation.
Are they really any worse than other newspapers like the times, though? Just because they're more obvious about their reporter stirring?
Re: Proof Waxy is a Daily Mail-reading nut
Posted: Tue 11 Nov, 2008 12.37
by Sput
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.
Re: Proof Waxy is a Daily Mail-reading nut
Posted: Tue 11 Nov, 2008 22.59
by Stuart*
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.
THANKS..but it wasn't me. I am no longer in Plymouth (hence the name change). The sentiments are possibly similar.
Re: Proof Waxy is a Daily Mail-reading nut
Posted: Tue 11 Nov, 2008 23.01
by Gavin Scott
Stuart* wrote: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.
THANKS..but it wasn't me. I am no longer in Plymouth (hence the name change). The sentiments are possibly similar.
Of course it was.
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.
Re: Proof Waxy is a Daily Mail-reading nut
Posted: Tue 11 Nov, 2008 23.09
by Sput
I'm just wondering why he's replying to MY post which is about the Mail's journalists, not his comment.
Re: Proof Waxy is a Daily Mail-reading nut
Posted: Tue 11 Nov, 2008 23.26
by Gavin Scott
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.
Re: Proof Waxy is a Daily Mail-reading nut
Posted: Tue 11 Nov, 2008 23.28
by Sput
I meant his reply just in here, in case I've confused you gav.
Re: Proof Waxy is a Daily Mail-reading nut
Posted: Tue 11 Nov, 2008 23.29
by Gavin Scott
Sput wrote:I meant his reply just in here, in case I've confused you gav.
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.
Re: Proof Waxy is a Daily Mail-reading nut
Posted: Tue 11 Nov, 2008 23.30
by Sput
Gavin Scott wrote:Sput wrote:I meant his reply just in here, in case I've confused you gav.
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.
mmkay, yes that would make more sense. Perhaps we should all post the PMs he sends us as replies to threads!
Re: Proof Waxy is a Daily Mail-reading nut
Posted: Tue 11 Nov, 2008 23.36
by Stuart*
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.
It was a complaint which I cancelled (and explained through pressing the wrong button), should I continue the procedure?
Re: Proof Waxy is a Daily Mail-reading nut
Posted: Tue 11 Nov, 2008 23.36
by Sput
I wouldn't bother if I were you.