Re: Saturday 11th and Sunday 12th February 2017
Posted: Sun 12 Feb, 2017 3:28 pm
Funny enough,my Geography teacher was called Miss Demeenor.
One of the good guysHindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/f ... shocked-me
Kirk Douglas: ‘I never thought I’d live to 100. That’s shocked me’
My advice is to vote for Gareth Snell, Labour.
All those films, Saturday afternoon at the pics. Tara Bulba, Heroes of Telemark, queuing up in the break for a half melted choc ice. Hiding in the seat to see the second showing.AnatolyKasparov wrote:One of the good guysHindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/f ... shocked-me
Kirk Douglas: ‘I never thought I’d live to 100. That’s shocked me’
No place like home: America’s eviction epidemic
Soaring rents and low wages have hit the poorest families in the US hard. Harvard sociologist Matthew Desmond introduces an extract from his heartbreaking book about the crisis
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ing-crisis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Good; hope the Brummies organise enough press coverage. Would be good to demonstrate to the world that we are not only a bunch of anti-refugee, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, racist, nationalistic, isolationists.Donald Trump told he won’t escape the ‘biggest protest in British history’ by moving his state visit
Local politicians in Birmingham have pledged to greet any trip by the President with mass protests
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 76211.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Donald Trump’s state visit will be greeted by the biggest anti-racism protest in British history no matter where in the country the Government moves it to, campaigners have said.
Local politicians and activists in Birmingham reacted with anger to suggestions that the trip could be relocated to their city – and pledged to flood the streets with protesters to greet the “hateful” President.
Continuous performances - seeing the end, then the beginning!yahyah wrote:All those films, Saturday afternoon at the pics. Tara Bulba, Heroes of Telemark, queuing up in the break for a half melted choc ice. Hiding in the seat to see the second showing.AnatolyKasparov wrote:One of the good guysHindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/f ... shocked-me
Kirk Douglas: ‘I never thought I’d live to 100. That’s shocked me’
Mmmm, Ice-cream sandwich.Eric_WLothian wrote:Continuous performances - seeing the end, then the beginning!yahyah wrote:All those films, Saturday afternoon at the pics. Tara Bulba, Heroes of Telemark, queuing up in the break for a half melted choc ice. Hiding in the seat to see the second showing.AnatolyKasparov wrote: One of the good guys
Choc ices were 6d - a 'sandwich' (block of ice cream between two wafers, for those too young to remember) were only 3d.
The same as most others. To engage with other people about topical political questions. Far from not respecting people here, I am here because I do respect you, but am interested in why others see the world so differently from me.tinyclanger2 wrote:. SH - what's your view on the fact that so many people want you to leave? Give us a clue as to why you're here.
HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... stamp-duty
Foreign billionaires in London choosing to rent to avoid stamp duty
Number of lettings costing more than £3,000 a week increased by 28% in the last three months of 2016, research shows
Possibly the best thing about that article is this comment btl.PorFavor wrote: The Andrew Rawnsley article isn't too bad today, either. (Although the first paragraph is a bit snidey - and I don't even like Diane Abbott.)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ur-history
nonanon1
Parliament has diminished itself from the very beginning of this sorry referendum fiasco. Voting for constitutional change on a simple majority. Not making clear that the vote was advisory when the government assured the public that it would be acted upon. Accepting the "will of the people" based on verifiable lies and misinformation expressed in a protest vote as a mandate for hard Brexit, that even Leave campaigners had assured the public would not happen. Abrogating the duty to act in the best interest of the country despite mounting evidence. The mother of parliaments has been found negligent, feeble and more suitable to a banana republic than mature democracy.
tinybgoat wrote:How to win arguments online, a Flamers guide.
http://www.jonathancrossfield.com/blog/ ... nline.html
Ohsocynical, pointed out (elsewhere) that Hugo doesn't troll so much as 'flame' & I agree that it's a better fit.
Personally I find some of Hugo's links & info useful, it's the Sophistry that gets to me.
There's more than one way to insult people, than offensive language & I think from reading posts that others have found your words/actions insulting in the past.SpinningHugo wrote:tinybgoat wrote:How to win arguments online, a Flamers guide.
http://www.jonathancrossfield.com/blog/ ... nline.html
Ohsocynical, pointed out (elsewhere) that Hugo doesn't troll so much as 'flame' & I agree that it's a better fit.
Personally I find some of Hugo's links & info useful, it's the Sophistry that gets to me.
Flaming is, on my understanding, insulting people, often involving swearing.
I don't do that, IMO.
If I am guilty of sophistry, plenty of clever people on here perfectly capable of pointing out the flaws in an argument. Why be scared of that?
Me neither - but it's curious how little you engage in the discussion about it. Do you want to change anyone's mind here (if so you'll need to work on your communication style)? Or do you want to learn something (ditto)? Or is it of casual anthropological interest?SpinningHugo wrote:The same as most others. To engage with other people about topical political questions. Far from not respecting people here, I am here because I do respect you, but am interested in why others see the world so differently from me. Sounds familiar.tinyclanger2 wrote:. SH - what's your view on the fact that so many people want you to leave? Give us a clue as to why you're here.
Some reasons I'm not here
1. To reinforce the prejudices most of us share. What is the point of my posting "Tory cuts to X are really bad for those affected." Of course they are. How does that carry forward our understanding of anything? Tend to agree (somewhat)
2. To post links to stories I can see on the frontpage of the Guardian or through a quick perusal of twitter. I post links to things that are interesting that are more obscure. The board tends to get cluttered up with trivial stuff we've all seen, always reinforcing one point of view. Unecessary and condescending.
I came back in 2016, after a hiatus, to try and understand why some people were still backing Corbyn, despite the overwhelming evidence of catastrophe. What would lead people I respected to double down on such an obviously daft choice? TBH, I am not much the wiser. There is a strain of the left that doesn't mind losing, as it doesn't involve any of the unpleasant compromises winning requires. Partly agree but this is a tricky area. In the past have been faced with that question: do we want to win? and what is the line that we will not cross to do so? I think there has to be a line (but perhaps a very different one from the ones we tend to draw)
What do I think about so many people wanting me to leave? I don't care very much. I am not, despite the constant allegations, a troll of any kind, concern or otherwise. I actually believe what I post. Always? or some of the time? I am 'of the left' have always voted Labour, but can't morally vote for a party led by Jeremy Corbyn. If people think I am a troll, and leave because of that, what can I say other than that they are mistaken? Why morally, specifically?
If I were cynical, and/or disingenuous? I'd suggest one reason for departures is that people don't like confessing to error. Now, I am not claiming I make no mistakes. Here are three I have made over the last 2 years
1. The polls immediately before the 2015 election convinced me Labour would be in government. I was wrong.
2. I thought it completely improbably people would vote for Brexit. I was wrong. What was the evidence there?
3. Despite some scepticism on here, I do know about the law, and know what the right result to the Miller case should have been. I thought the UKSC would agree. That a majority did not is inexplicable to me. Could it be that you don't know as much about the law as you think? ("the law", apart from anything else, being fundamentally open to interpretation)
But, if you argue at length about, say, Jeremy Corbyn, or whether Labour voting for Brexit would be for the best, and it then looks like you're just obviously wrong, the temptation is to leave. Labour has disgraced itself over Brexit and if you put what is good for the poor over loyalty to a particular party, you shouldn't vote Labour. But are the Greens any better?
More generally, who likes having their beliefs or assumptions challenged? I don't but it is good for me.
I don't swear, I don't insult. The worst personal thing I've said is repeatedly calling AK over optimistic. But, if I am not breaking the rules, I don't see why I should leave just for forcefully expressing views others don't agree with.
tinyclanger2 wrote:Thanks for responding - some (personal) responses on your responses below.
Me neither - but it's curious how little you engage in the discussion about it. Do you want to change anyone's mind here (if so you'll need to work on your communication style)? Or do you want to learn something (ditto)? Or is it of casual anthropological interest?SpinningHugo wrote:The same as most others. To engage with other people about topical political questions. Far from not respecting people here, I am here because I do respect you, but am interested in why others see the world so differently from me. Sounds familiar.tinyclanger2 wrote:. SH - what's your view on the fact that so many people want you to leave? Give us a clue as to why you're here.
Some reasons I'm not here
1. To reinforce the prejudices most of us share. What is the point of my posting "Tory cuts to X are really bad for those affected." Of course they are. How does that carry forward our understanding of anything? Tend to agree (somewhat)
2. To post links to stories I can see on the frontpage of the Guardian or through a quick perusal of twitter. I post links to things that are interesting that are more obscure. The board tends to get cluttered up with trivial stuff we've all seen, always reinforcing one point of view. Unecessary and condescending.
I came back in 2016, after a hiatus, to try and understand why some people were still backing Corbyn, despite the overwhelming evidence of catastrophe. What would lead people I respected to double down on such an obviously daft choice? TBH, I am not much the wiser. There is a strain of the left that doesn't mind losing, as it doesn't involve any of the unpleasant compromises winning requires. Partly agree but this is a tricky area. In the past have been faced with that question: do we want to win? and what is the line that we will not cross to do so? I think there has to be a line (but perhaps a very different one from the ones we tend to draw)
What do I think about so many people wanting me to leave? I don't care very much. I am not, despite the constant allegations, a troll of any kind, concern or otherwise. I actually believe what I post. Always? or some of the time? I am 'of the left' have always voted Labour, but can't morally vote for a party led by Jeremy Corbyn. If people think I am a troll, and leave because of that, what can I say other than that they are mistaken? Why morally, specifically?
If I were cynical, and/or disingenuous? I'd suggest one reason for departures is that people don't like confessing to error. Now, I am not claiming I make no mistakes. Here are three I have made over the last 2 years
1. The polls immediately before the 2015 election convinced me Labour would be in government. I was wrong.
2. I thought it completely improbably people would vote for Brexit. I was wrong. What was the evidence there?
3. Despite some scepticism on here, I do know about the law, and know what the right result to the Miller case should have been. I thought the UKSC would agree. That a majority did not is inexplicable to me. Could it be that you don't know as much about the law as you think? ("the law", apart from anything else, being fundamentally open to interpretation)
But, if you argue at length about, say, Jeremy Corbyn, or whether Labour voting for Brexit would be for the best, and it then looks like you're just obviously wrong, the temptation is to leave. Labour has disgraced itself over Brexit and if you put what is good for the poor over loyalty to a particular party, you shouldn't vote Labour. But are the Greens any better?
More generally, who likes having their beliefs or assumptions challenged? I don't but it is good for me.
I don't swear, I don't insult. The worst personal thing I've said is repeatedly calling AK over optimistic. But, if I am not breaking the rules, I don't see why I should leave just for forcefully expressing views others don't agree with.
(cJA edit)gilsey wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ur-history
Possibly the best thing about that article is this comment btl.nonanon1
Parliament has diminished itself from the very beginning of this sorry referendum fiasco. Voting for constitutional change on a simple majority. Not making clear that the vote was advisory when the government assured the public that it would be acted upon. Accepting the "will of the people" based on verifiable lies and misinformation expressed in a protest vote as a mandate for hard Brexit, that even Leave campaigners had assured the public would not happen. Abrogating the duty to act in the best interest of the country despite mounting evidence. The mother of parliaments has been found negligent, feeble and more suitable to a banana republic than mature democracy.
tinyclanger2 wrote:can't morally vote for a party led by Jeremy Corbyn. If people think I am a troll, and leave because of that, what can I say other than that they are mistaken? Why morally, specifically?
Is scrutiny done any more?RogerOThornhill wrote:Oh dear....
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The number of quotes used by orgs that simply don't stand up to scrutiny...
descend a rock face or other near-vertical surface by using a doubled rope coiled round the body and fixed at a higher point.HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -warehouse
Thieves steal £2m of rare books by abseiling into warehouse
Their base don't care.AngryAsWell wrote:Owen Bennett @owenjbennett 28m28 minutes ago
This has just been retweeted by Ukip's Immigration Spokesman and party treasurer @JohnBickleyUKIP
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think UKIP may have gone a step to far with this one.
True, but maybe, just maybe the MSM might realise what they have spawned ?Tubby Isaacs wrote:Their base don't care.AngryAsWell wrote:Owen Bennett @owenjbennett 28m28 minutes ago
This has just been retweeted by Ukip's Immigration Spokesman and party treasurer @JohnBickleyUKIP
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think UKIP may have gone a step to far with this one.