Wednesday 11th March 2015

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 12:06 pm

Ah! I was posting while you were, Jemahl.

Glad to know your brother is sorting things out. I hope he keeps well.

On libel - LVZ has libelled Owen Smith. She has attributed/interpreted words he did not say and she has done it in writing.

Mike's article links directly to the Facebook post containing the words that were not spoken. It uses the same words and it continues the theme.

It really is not ok.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 12:09 pm

You know me, Temulkar - I would be quite happy to see the Greens fighting every GB seat this time round.

Its assertions about ones opponents made in bad faith, that are depressing.

If you lurk here regularly, you will know I announced yesterday that I am going to be posting irregularly (here and elsewhere) for a while.

Part of that is because I am finding the increasingly petty bickering between those who should be united in getting this monstrous regime out, increasingly emotionally draining.

All the best to you and yours

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 12:10 pm

Willow904 wrote: None of these tweeks would do much good if Labour were far enough ahead, though. The Labour collapse in Scotland is the only real movement from a year ago and it has cost them dearly. All in all, Labour are holding up pretty well in England and Wales, you just can't see it because of the drop in Scottish support suppressing the national figures. This is again why using past patterns as a basis for predicting the future is of limited use. All the seat calculators assume Scotland is still in the national game but it isn't, yet this isn't being taken into account when assessing how many seats current percentages will give Labour in rUK. As AK pointed out a few days ago, if Rees-Mogg is on course to lose his seat to Labour, no 72 on their target list, that would point to Labour gaining enough in Eng & Wales for a majority regardless of Scotland. It's all still to play for and remember all the narrow polls in the last Presidential election may have created the impression the election was "too close to call" but they couldn't change the reality that it really wasn't. If Rees-Moggy is really in danger then things are looking better than may superficially appear. (Predictive text came up with Rees-Moggy. I rather like it!)

I find it hard to believe the interpretation of the Scottish situation in respect of the alleged collapse of support for Labour. The rise of the SNP vote in the 2011 Holyrood election was the result of the corresponding collapse of the LibDems. The support for Labour (and Tories) barely changed.
Looking at Electoral Calculus, it appears that they are predicting a swing of 20%+ (to the SNP) in virtually every constituency - and considerably more than 20% in many.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlist_scot.html
I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, an expert on opinion polls, but I just cannot envisage such a huge swing in every constituency. In my own simplistic way, I wonder if the 2011 swing to the SNP is being interpreted as the starting point, and the LibDem collapse is effectively being double-counted.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 12:15 pm

ephemerid wrote:Ah! I was posting while you were, Jemahl.

Glad to know your brother is sorting things out. I hope he keeps well.

On libel - LVZ has libelled Owen Smith. She has attributed/interpreted words he did not say and she has done it in writing.

Mike's article links directly to the Facebook post containing the words that were not spoken. It uses the same words and it continues the theme.

It really is not ok.

Well, from what I have read of LVZ post on fb and really I havent spent that much time, she has been very careful about her attribution and punctuation, remarkably so for a fb post I would certainly add.

As for the inference, take it up with Mike and LVZ as I said its very Robinsonesque, but shouting libel isnt doing you any favours.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 12:18 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:You know me, Temulkar - I would be quite happy to see the Greens fighting every GB seat this time round.

Its assertions about ones opponents made in bad faith, that are depressing.

If you lurk here regularly, you will know I announced yesterday that I am going to be posting irregularly (here and elsewhere) for a while.

Part of that is because I am finding the increasingly petty bickering between those who should be united in getting this monstrous regime out, increasingly emotionally draining.

All the best to you and yours

Yes - this.

And as I am one of the people engaged in said bickering, I'll try to behave better. I am not blessed with your restraint.

But - there are some things I cannot allow to pass unchallenged.

That's how it is for me.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 12:20 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:You know me, Temulkar - I would be quite happy to see the Greens fighting every GB seat this time round.

Its assertions about ones opponents made in bad faith, that are depressing.

If you lurk here regularly, you will know I announced yesterday that I am going to be posting irregularly (here and elsewhere) for a while.

Part of that is because I am finding the increasingly petty bickering between those who should be united in getting this monstrous regime out, increasingly emotionally draining.

All the best to you and yours

Both sides are doing it and yes it is depressing, and counterproductive, and it has ruined this site, perhaps I will return regularly after the election.

Post by **adam** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 12:21 pm

If people choose to call themselves who they are (and I am indeed adam) then that's all well and good but I think there's an issue about using names other than user names unless the people being named encourage it. Bit pedantic but there you go.

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 12:33 pm

Inferences and innuendoes are also prosecutable offenses and should be seen as dangerous as any direct statement.

http://www.journalism-now.co.uk/media-law-defamation-6/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 12:34 pm

Toby Latimer wrote:Wondering the same myself about select committees, when the Right Honorable Secretary of State for Work & Pensions can blatantly lie and obfuscate in front of the committee members without any real repercussion, followed by his minions like McVey doing the same with a cheesy grin on her gobshite face, they don't hold any power to bring the executive to account.

Me too. Have done for a long time.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 12:36 pm

Even by his "standards", Cameron was a nasty petulant arse at PMQs today.

And with that observation, I will return to lurking

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 12:37 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Even by his "standards", Cameron was a nasty petulant arse at PMQs today.

And with that observation, I will return to lurking

I can see you!

(Take care xx )

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 12:40 pm

The people who voted for LibDem ended up with Cameron, Osborne & IDS etc .

: ScreenShot00322.jpg (32.68 KiB) Viewed 7767 times

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 12:43 pm

@Robert

Not arguing about the inference, but I think MS and LVZ have been very careful about the way they have punctuated it. Im half tempted to put it up on Authonomy as an example. It's exactly the same as Nick Robinsons recent frenzy about milly dowler moments.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 12:43 pm

adam wrote:If people choose to call themselves who they are (and I am indeed adam) then that's all well and good but I think there's an issue about using names other than user names unless the people being named encourage it. Bit pedantic but there you go.

I agree, it is disrespectful, if people know who an alias is they should not broadcast this fact to the world.

If more than a small handful of people read this site I would be somewhat surprised. I imagine it occasionally gets a look from a larger group. But I think the principle of anonymity is important.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 12:51 pm

Temulkar wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
Temulkar wrote:I'm also going to say something else. Everyone on here is concerned about the upcoming election and perhaps even the greens splitting the left wing vote or the damage that can be done to Labour's election chances. Indeed it is often so bitter I no longer post here.

I know of at least two green constituency groups in labour/tory marginals, whose decision to stand a candidate in the next election was swayed by behavior on this site. Maybe think about that hey before unleashing the attack dogs.
I didn't realise FTN had such power and influence Tem.
You would be surprised at how many people of all parties read this place then.

I'm not surprised at how many people of all parties read FTN.

We're intelligent adults, Temulkar, we're going to argue, we're not always going to agree & we'll have occasional falling outs over contentious issues. I've been helped by you & other friends to see a broader picture, not be devastated by disagreement, stay with the conversation while we live our way into consensus until we're disagreeing again & so on. Isn't that politics? An aspect of the political process?

I will say it's exhausting sometimes to hold all this going on while we're supporting ourselves & families simultaneously.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 12:54 pm

Woohooo, just opened my post & my application for a Disabled Facilities Grant has been approved

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 12:56 pm

@TechnicalEphemera
I replied to one of your posts abruptly last night - you're a straightforward, no nonsense commentator. I wasn't angry - I was bantering. If I've caused offence please excuse me.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:00 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:However, Robinson, when challenged, clarified that neither Miliband nor anyone linked to him used those actual words.

Although, as I mentioned yesterday, the Mail claim otherwise.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:11 pm

I'm just watching PMQs on replay and the response from the Tory benches when Douglas Carswell stood up was noticeably disrespectful and rude. After Cameron's display today, I'm starting to understand why he may consider the political wilderness of Ukip an improvement on being a member of the Tory party. I've become so used to the contempt Cameron and his cronies show our democratic process I'm struggling to remember if the Tories have always been this blatant about their disdain for anyone who isn't a Tory and, as a consequence the members of the public who elected them as their representative, or whether this is the influence of the Bullingdon boys and the arrogance such an upbringing has imbued them with.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:11 pm

Temulkar wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:You know me, Temulkar - I would be quite happy to see the Greens fighting every GB seat this time round.

Its assertions about ones opponents made in bad faith, that are depressing.

If you lurk here regularly, you will know I announced yesterday that I am going to be posting irregularly (here and elsewhere) for a while.

Part of that is because I am finding the increasingly petty bickering between those who should be united in getting this monstrous regime out, increasingly emotionally draining.

All the best to you and yours
Both sides are doing it and yes it is depressing, and counterproductive, and it has ruined this site, perhaps I will return regularly after the election.

Not ruined the site, Temulkar, I don't agree. Petty bickering is a stage in the political process. We'll work our way into comradeship.

discordantharmony · Post by **discordantharmony** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:12 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote: Attack dogs?

Guaardvarks??

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:13 pm

Just to put my two pennorth in.

I guess many Tweeters are like me. Not that hot on punctuation and grammar so wouldn't recognise the niceties of a sentence if it bit them on the bum....

You also can't do subtle very well with such a small wordcount so there's always a danger of using a punch line in order to get your point across, that can be more inflammatory than intended.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:16 pm

ephemerid wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:You know me, Temulkar - I would be quite happy to see the Greens fighting every GB seat this time round.

Its assertions about ones opponents made in bad faith, that are depressing.

If you lurk here regularly, you will know I announced yesterday that I am going to be posting irregularly (here and elsewhere) for a while.

Part of that is because I am finding the increasingly petty bickering between those who should be united in getting this monstrous regime out, increasingly emotionally draining.

All the best to you and yours

Yes - this.

And as I am one of the people engaged in said bickering, I'll try to behave better. I am not blessed with your restraint.

But - there are some things I cannot allow to pass unchallenged.

That's how it is for me.

I learn from your excellent example & principles, my friend, sincerely.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:18 pm

discordantharmony wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote: Attack dogs?

Guaardvarks??

Oh, right on!

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:18 pm

Funny - it seems the PM expects the SNP to win more UK seats than Labour:

DAVID Cameron today said that the election head-to-head debate should be between him and Alex Salmond.
In ferocious exchanges in Prime Minister’s questions, Mr Cameron accused Ed Miliband of wanting to “crawl into Downing Street on the coat tails of the SNP.”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/david-c ... -1-3715852

Might be good entertainment though - two buffoons together.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:19 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Just to put my two pennorth in.

I guess many Tweeters are like me. Not that hot on punctuation and grammar so wouldn't recognise the niceties of a sentence if it bit them on the bum....

You also can't do subtle very well with such a small wordcount so there's always a danger of using a punch line in order to get your point across, that can be more inflammatory than intended.

The whole thing stared on FB though, and was followed up in a blog, so word count not that important on this occasion

This is what started it.....

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Followed by MS blog with the title
"Why are disabled people being asked to die for Labour’s election hopes"

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:19 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:Funny - it seems the PM expects the SNP to win more UK seats than Labour:

DAVID Cameron today said that the election head-to-head debate should be between him and Alex Salmond.
In ferocious exchanges in Prime Minister’s questions, Mr Cameron accused Ed Miliband of wanting to “crawl into Downing Street on the coat tails of the SNP.”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/david-c ... -1-3715852

Might be good entertainment though - two buffoons together.

Has someone told Dave the leader of the SNP is Sturgeon?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:21 pm

Sky News has revealed the murder of yet another man who was about to expose a paedophile ring operating within a London council.

http://news.sky.com/story/1442551/was-m ... phile-ring" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:22 pm

And a thrupenny worth too.

It's not nice to be at odds with other posters and tempers sometimes run high, but if there is a wider readership of this site than we thought, surely seeing the points of view from a broad [and we are in terms of sex, age, physical fitness and location] section of the population is useful to would be politicians and policy makers?
If it isn't it should be.

I can't believe people gather in places such as pubs, and never disagree on aspects of policy even though they might be voting for the same party?

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:22 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Eric_WLothian wrote:Funny - it seems the PM expects the SNP to win more UK seats than Labour:

DAVID Cameron today said that the election head-to-head debate should be between him and Alex Salmond.
In ferocious exchanges in Prime Minister’s questions, Mr Cameron accused Ed Miliband of wanting to “crawl into Downing Street on the coat tails of the SNP.”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/david-c ... -1-3715852

Might be good entertainment though - two buffoons together.
Has someone told Dave the leader of the SNP is Sturgeon?

You reckon she's calling the shots?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:23 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:Funny - it seems the PM expects the SNP to win more UK seats than Labour:

DAVID Cameron today said that the election head-to-head debate should be between him and Alex Salmond.
In ferocious exchanges in Prime Minister’s questions, Mr Cameron accused Ed Miliband of wanting to “crawl into Downing Street on the coat tails of the SNP.”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/david-c ... -1-3715852

Might be good entertainment though - two buffoons together.

Dave chickened out of debating Alex Salmond before the referendum as well so he certainly has form on running away when the going get tough.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:27 pm

Dave continues to make a larger fool out of himself by calling attention to who he won't debate when mouthing off about who he will.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:31 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:Just to put my two pennorth in.

I guess many Tweeters are like me. Not that hot on punctuation and grammar so wouldn't recognise the niceties of a sentence if it bit them on the bum....

You also can't do subtle very well with such a small wordcount so there's always a danger of using a punch line in order to get your point across, that can be more inflammatory than intended.
The whole thing stared on FB though, and was followed up in a blog, so word count not that important on this occasion
This is what started it.....

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Followed by MS blog with the title
"Why are disabled people being asked to die for Labour’s election hopes"

I saw the Tweet when it was first posted. It was an inflammatory sentence to direct people to his blog but it's the Tweet that is doing the most damage.
When the furore started I checked the link, but a lot of Tweeters don't, and if they did the niceties of punctuation and grammar are lost on them.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:32 pm

pk1 wrote:Sky News has revealed the murder of yet another man who was about to expose a paedophile ring operating within a London council.

http://news.sky.com/story/1442551/was-m ... phile-ring" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That story has been doing the rounds for a while - it's mentioned here from December.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bu ... le-3578788" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:32 pm

citizenJA wrote:@TechnicalEphemera
I replied to one of your posts abruptly last night - you're a straightforward, no nonsense commentator. I wasn't angry - I was bantering. If I've caused offence please excuse me.

Nope, I never let internet posts get to me. If I did I wouldn't post.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:36 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:
Willow904 wrote: None of these tweeks would do much good if Labour were far enough ahead, though. The Labour collapse in Scotland is the only real movement from a year ago and it has cost them dearly. All in all, Labour are holding up pretty well in England and Wales, you just can't see it because of the drop in Scottish support suppressing the national figures. This is again why using past patterns as a basis for predicting the future is of limited use. All the seat calculators assume Scotland is still in the national game but it isn't, yet this isn't being taken into account when assessing how many seats current percentages will give Labour in rUK. As AK pointed out a few days ago, if Rees-Mogg is on course to lose his seat to Labour, no 72 on their target list, that would point to Labour gaining enough in Eng & Wales for a majority regardless of Scotland. It's all still to play for and remember all the narrow polls in the last Presidential election may have created the impression the election was "too close to call" but they couldn't change the reality that it really wasn't. If Rees-Moggy is really in danger then things are looking better than may superficially appear. (Predictive text came up with Rees-Moggy. I rather like it!)
I find it hard to believe the interpretation of the Scottish situation in respect of the alleged collapse of support for Labour. The rise of the SNP vote in the 2011 Holyrood election was the result of the corresponding collapse of the LibDems. The support for Labour (and Tories) barely changed.
Looking at Electoral Calculus, it appears that they are predicting a swing of 20%+ (to the SNP) in virtually every constituency - and considerably more than 20% in many.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlist_scot.html
I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, an expert on opinion polls, but I just cannot envisage such a huge swing in every constituency. In my own simplistic way, I wonder if the 2011 swing to the SNP is being interpreted as the starting point, and the LibDem collapse is effectively being double-counted.

Thanks for the link. Truly fascinating stuff. I didn't realize the predicted sweeping gains for the SNP from Labour were quite so reliant on a wholesale switch to the SNP from the Libdems. I'm not to going to suggest the prediction is wrong just merely admit my complete inability to understand that development. Clearly anything Libdem voters do wouldn't matter if Labour could retain support, so the post-referendum slump in Scottish Labour is still the main story, but it isn't quite as made out, is it. Those figures show Labour remain just as popular in Scotland as any other part of the UK and it's the fact that the Tories and Libdems have made themselves poison in Scotland that has allowed the SNP to flourish and if they do hold the next government of whatever complexion to ransom, I suggest it will be the fault of the Coalition and their actions, not Labour!

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:41 pm

Just had a long political survey from YouGov.
It paid 200 points, usually you only get 25 or 50.
So am wondering why/who would be spending the dosh to get the results ?

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:45 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:You know me, Temulkar - I would be quite happy to see the Greens fighting every GB seat this time round.

Its assertions about ones opponents made in bad faith, that are depressing.

If you lurk here regularly, you will know I announced yesterday that I am going to be posting irregularly (here and elsewhere) for a while.

Part of that is because I am finding the increasingly petty bickering between those who should be united in getting this monstrous regime out, increasingly emotionally draining.

All the best to you and yours
Both sides are doing it and yes it is depressing, and counterproductive, and it has ruined this site, perhaps I will return regularly after the election.
Not ruined the site, Temulkar, I don't agree. Petty bickering is a stage in the political process. We'll work our way into comradeship.

Really? many many people have left this site from other parties of the left, not just greens, citing the same thing. I only lurk now and again, indeed I only posted today because some rather spurious claims about who I know and who knows me were being made, as well as comments on my understanding of English.

That's after ignoring the 'skewed vision of the world' or 'guff' or 'snarky' comments made about me yesterday, and because my real name was used I decided to at least respond, initially I sent it as an email to ephy, but wanted to make sure it was seen.

Often I read complaints on here about the behaviour of the scottish cyber nats and their online behaviour and how deplorable it is. Then I see people shout with glee about who has blocked them on twitter that day or this.

My point about the two green groups standing candidates was supposed to highlight how counterproductive this behaviour has become on here. If Labour fails to secure a majority because of the green vote in two marginals, and labour supporters keep telling us it's that close, are you going to blame green voters? the green party? or the labour supporters whose non stop bile was a factor influencing those candidates standing in the first place. If it really is that close, some people on here could be directly responsible for Labour failing to get a majority. So do it out of self interest if nothing else.

To quote the only good tory prime minister, 'scurrility is not sarcasm, and insolence is not invective'. or Yoda 'Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.'

Attack policies, attack manifestos, attack party records of course, and debate with vigour, but too often on here the attacks are personal and have nothing to say about policy.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:48 pm

If Dan, Ernst or Paul are around, I did ask late last night but not sure if you read it.

If you have RebeccaRiots email address, could you check she and Mr Riots are okay? It's been five days now since she posted.....

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:50 pm

PorFavor wrote:So far, no rebeccariots2 again today (ohsocynical yesterday remarked upon missing her for a few days).

We've had some heavy winds around these parts.
I know RR lives a bit off the beaten track so may be an electric or phone connection problem ?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:54 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
pk1 wrote:Sky News has revealed the murder of yet another man who was about to expose a paedophile ring operating within a London council.

http://news.sky.com/story/1442551/was-m ... phile-ring" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That story has been doing the rounds for a while - it's mentioned here from December.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bu ... le-3578788" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whoops, my bad (as my son says, to my irritation....)

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:57 pm

yahyah wrote:Just had a long political survey from YouGov.
It paid 200 points, usually you only get 25 or 50.
So am wondering why/who would be spending the dosh to get the results ?

Blimey !

Can you remember the questions asked ?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 2:00 pm

Can we please have a separate thread where Temulkar can grind his axe with those who wish to engage with him ?

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 2:00 pm

Fine Im out.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 2:01 pm

yahyah wrote:Can we please have a separate thread where Temulkar can grind his axe with those who wish to engage with him ?

Careful yahyah, you might be accused of forcing somebody to leave the site of their own free will......

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 2:02 pm

Temulkar wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
Temulkar wrote: Both sides are doing it and yes it is depressing, and counterproductive, and it has ruined this site, perhaps I will return regularly after the election.
Not ruined the site, Temulkar, I don't agree. Petty bickering is a stage in the political process. We'll work our way into comradeship.

Really? many many people have left this site from other parties of the left, not just greens, citing the same thing. I only lurk now and again, indeed I only posted today because some rather spurious claims about who I know and who knows me were being made, as well as comments on my understanding of English.

That's after ignoring the 'skewed vision of the world' or 'guff' or 'snarky' comments made about me yesterday, and because my real name was used I decided to at least respond, initially I sent it as an email to ephy, but wanted to make sure it was seen.

Often I read complaints on here about the behaviour of the scottish cyber nats and their online behaviour and how deplorable it is. Then I see people shout with glee about who has blocked them on twitter that day or this.

My point about the two green groups standing candidates was supposed to highlight how counterproductive this behaviour has become on here. If Labour fails to secure a majority because of the green vote in two marginals, and labour supporters keep telling us it's that close, are you going to blame green voters? the green party? or the labour supporters whose non stop bile was a factor influencing those candidates standing in the first place. If it really is that close, some people on here could be directly responsible for Labour failing to get a majority. So do it out of self interest if nothing else.

To quote the only good tory prime minister, 'scurrility is not sarcasm, and insolence is not invective'. or Yoda 'Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.'

Attack policies, attack manifestos, attack party records of course, and debate with vigour, but too often on here the attacks are personal and have nothing to say about policy.

I'm not sure how this can be answered without the reply being turned into a "personal attack" on you.
So I shall leave it at
I disagree with you.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 2:02 pm

Temulkar wrote:Fine Im out.

Again.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 2:03 pm

pk1 wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:
pk1 wrote:Sky News has revealed the murder of yet another man who was about to expose a paedophile ring operating within a London council.

http://news.sky.com/story/1442551/was-m ... phile-ring" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That story has been doing the rounds for a while - it's mentioned here from December.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bu ... le-3578788" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Whoops, my bad (as my son says, to my irritation....)

No, it's OK...I do wonder whether there's less to this story than we're being led to believe. Fair play to the family, they're trying to get answers - it doesn't mean that there's some great conspiracy theory behind it though.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 2:04 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
adam wrote:If people choose to call themselves who they are (and I am indeed adam) then that's all well and good but I think there's an issue about using names other than user names unless the people being named encourage it. Bit pedantic but there you go.
I agree, it is disrespectful, if people know who an alias is they should not broadcast this fact to the world.

If more than a small handful of people read this site I would be somewhat surprised. I imagine it occasionally gets a look from a larger group. But I think the principle of anonymity is important.

Re. aliases - I agree.

But I have let an error slip today because one person has 2 names - my mistake, and I apologise. That was wrong.

I've only got the one name for posting everywhere - though a few people know my real name because I've told them.
Today is the first time it's been used outside PMs though.

Looks like I need to smarten up a bit all round....

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 11 Mar, 2015 2:05 pm

After Cameron's PMQs, it'd be great to hear Salmond 'agreeing' to debate Cameron one to one