Metropol

Oh look.

I just don't feel the need to lick the BBC's arse (or moan about the BNP every five minutes, for that matter) just to prove I'm not a frigging Daily Mail reader.

I have never read said newspaper in my life and I think generalising and labelling people with the now derogatory Daily Mail tag just because they have different opinions and beliefs to yourself is extremely offensive, intollerant and actually borders on bullying.

Fair enough if someone is literally racist or homophobic and says they want all minority groups forced out of the country, or worse still, dead, then by all means have a go. But just because somebody would like the news to present balanced reporting of a scientific theory..? Get real.

Chie wrote:But just because somebody would like the news to present balanced reporting of a scientific theory..? Get real.

Good LUCK! Kuh! They still can't even do balanced reporting on whether the Earth is round!

Chie wrote:I have never read said newspaper in my life and I think generalising and labelling people with the now derogatory Daily Mail tag just because they have different opinions and beliefs to yourself is extremely offensive, intollerant and actually borders on bullying.

BBC bashing and climate change denying is the Mail's stock in trade - of course, if you don't read it you wouldn't know that - although I have to tell you I think you could probably be on its staff.

In any event, Chie, that's not bullying. You made your point, I challenged it. Live with it or don't post. Its really your choice.

If you feel strongly or passionately about a subject then you have to accept that others may too - and they may take the polar opposite view.

You ever heard of Godwin's Law?

It states that, "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches".

Certainly sounds familiar to me - having been accused of that recently, even though the word never actually passed my lips. Others may have. Not that one.

I've done a lot of contemplation over the last few weeks, and my conclusion is that I have to be true to what I believe - whether that makes me unpopular or accused of bullying or harassment.

I may have my name at the top of the page, but I haven't banned anyone for taking the opposing view. All are free to post what they think to be right - but I also expect the right to be able to shoot down that which I think is wrong.

So if you want to scream "bully!" and run, then do it. If you want to fight fire with fire, fact with fact or even opinion with opinion - then go right ahead.

You can cry "bully!" - but - what the fuck, I might just cry "nazi!". That's the gig, as far as I'm concerned.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - its a duck.

Chie wrote:But just because somebody would like the news to present balanced reporting of a scientific theory..?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo#t=190

Gavin Scott wrote:BBC bashing and climate change denying is the Mail's stock in trade - of course, if you don't read it you wouldn't know that - although I have to tell you I think you could probably be on its staff.

In any event, Chie, that's not bullying. You made your point, I challenged it. Live with it or don't post. Its really your choice.

If you feel strongly or passionately about a subject then you have to accept that others may too - and they may take the polar opposite view.

You ever heard of Godwin's Law?

It states that, "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches".

Certainly sounds familiar to me - having been accused of that recently, even though the word never actually passed my lips. Others may have. Not that one.

I've done a lot of contemplation over the last few weeks, and my conclusion is that I have to be true to what I believe - whether that makes me unpopular or accused of bullying or harassment.

I may have my name at the top of the page, but I haven't banned anyone for taking the opposing view. All are free to post what they think to be right - but I also expect the right to be able to shoot down that which I think is wrong.

So if you want to scream "bully!" and run, then do it. If you want to fight fire with fire, fact with fact or even opinion with opinion - then go right ahead.

You can cry "bully!" - but - what the fuck, I might just cry "nazi!". That's the gig, as far as I'm concerned.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - its a duck.

The Nazis loved state broadcasting and a bit of end-of-world propaganda would've been right up their street as well, so isn't calling me a Nazi for *not* thinking the sun shines out of the BBC's arse and questioning climate change a bit of a paradox?

It certainly isn't fair to lump somebody in with the Daily Mail lot simply because they're sceptical about some popular beliefs. And crying 'Daily Mail!!!' and flouncing off in a huff is a pathetic way to try and 'win' a debate.

I have to say Gavin, I find it extremely difficult to take anything you say seriously after watching your appearence on the gameshow Golden Balls. You give it gob on TVF and throw your weight around like some butch admin who shouldn't be messed with, but thankfully I now perceive the reality as being very, very different and don't find it so easy to keep a straight face when reading long, bitchy, overblown tirades like that one. So carry on.

Chie wrote:I have to say Gavin, I find it extremely difficult to take anything you say seriously after watching your appearence on the gameshow Golden Balls. You give it gob on TVF and throw your weight around like some butch admin who shouldn't be messed with, but thankfully I now perceive the reality as being very, very different and don't find it so easy to keep a straight face when reading long, bitchy, overblown posts like that one. So carry on.

There's no side to me, Chie. What you read and (to a certain extent) what you watched is how I have always been. I think its your interpretation that has been in error, my dear. "Butch admin" indeed.

Maybe if you had seen that clip a couple of years ago you'd have had a clearer voice in your head when you read my posts.

Its not my fault you leapt to conclusions, is it?

Chie wrote: The Nazis loved state broadcasting and a bit of end-of-world propaganda would've been right up their street as well, so isn't calling me a Nazi for *not* thinking the sun shines out of the BBC's arse and questioning climate change a bit of a paradox?

No, because they tend not to blame these things on the jews

Beep wrote:When was the last time you responded to a request? Posted some information? All you do is let your sad and pathetic opinion be known in borderline libelous comments.

Go to a quiet corner and curl up and die in it because honestly, you are a twat.

Oh let's see - I recently listened over and over to a Thames ident just so you could know which instruments were involved in it. I didn't seee you complaining about my contributions then. Alexia isn't my name all the time you know.

Maybe I was a little harsh before, but maybe it's because you provoke that reaction. I made a frankly tongue in cheek comment about Chie (whose views I find sometimes objectionable, but never intolerable) which you leapt on like a lion onto a gazelle. If you think my opinion is sad and pathetic then you obviously place yourself above me. And to place oneself above others either means you have an ego the size of Birmingham, or you genuinely are deluded.

Incidentally, I've visited both Birmingham and Manchester. Manchester's better.

Sorry if this sounds stupid, but if you have never, ever in your whole life not even once had the chance to read the Daily Mail, how do you know whether it's bad or not? Or are you just like one of the many readers of the Daily Mail who shout at anything they haven't even seen or heard before it was reported in the "derogatory" paper of news?

Alexia wrote: Maybe I was a little harsh before, but maybe it's because you provoke that reaction. I made a frankly tongue in cheek comment about Chie (whose views I find sometimes objectionable, but never intolerable) which you leapt on like a lion onto a gazelle. If you think my opinion is sad and pathetic then you obviously place yourself above me. And to place oneself above others either means you have an ego the size of Birmingham, or you genuinely are deluded.

I 'leapt on like a lion onto a gazelle' because I happen to think what you said about Chie was unfair. Over 1 Comment you suddenly make a post about how you want to 'feed him to cannibal'. That is just silly.

I've visited both Birmingham and Manchester. Manchester's better.

Relevance?


______________________________________________________________________________

Re the request comment, ignore that, I am grateful you replied to it.

Beep - Birmingham regularly gets an irrelevant mention from you more than anyone.

Glass houses, thank you.