Science9 mins ago
Are There No Limits To The Depths Of Depravity That Some Sections Of The Press Will Sink?
92 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
AOG - // I have even been openly chastised for daring to use his surname. //
I asked you politely and repeatedly not to address me by my surname, I find it offensive, which is precisely the reason why you ignored my requests. Eventually the Ed stepped in and told you to stop - so please don't try to play the wounded victim, it's not fooling anyone.
I asked you politely and repeatedly not to address me by my surname, I find it offensive, which is precisely the reason why you ignored my requests. Eventually the Ed stepped in and told you to stop - so please don't try to play the wounded victim, it's not fooling anyone.
Zacs-Master
/// AOG, let's not turn this into a bash AH thread eh, otherwise it might be seen to be hippocrasy ///
I wouldn't have mentioned it Zacs if you yourself had not brought it up.
And regarding "another overwrought question by AOG"
I will continue to post questions "overwrought" or otherwise, just the same as most other ABers are allowed to do.
/// If he just toned down his questioning and didn't sensationalise then he'd get more
measured responses. ///
Ah! so I have to tone my questioning down must I? Then I promise to do so if others do the same.
As for "sensationalising" them, isn't that what all headlines are designed to do, it is to make some sit up and take notice, and then perhaps choose to join in a legitimate adult debate, without the sole need to automatically "shoot" the messenger.
If one cannot carry out that simpler task then of course one is at liberty to choose another thread to contribute to.
/// AOG, let's not turn this into a bash AH thread eh, otherwise it might be seen to be hippocrasy ///
I wouldn't have mentioned it Zacs if you yourself had not brought it up.
And regarding "another overwrought question by AOG"
I will continue to post questions "overwrought" or otherwise, just the same as most other ABers are allowed to do.
/// If he just toned down his questioning and didn't sensationalise then he'd get more
measured responses. ///
Ah! so I have to tone my questioning down must I? Then I promise to do so if others do the same.
As for "sensationalising" them, isn't that what all headlines are designed to do, it is to make some sit up and take notice, and then perhaps choose to join in a legitimate adult debate, without the sole need to automatically "shoot" the messenger.
If one cannot carry out that simpler task then of course one is at liberty to choose another thread to contribute to.
AOG
Are you saying hand on heart that you thought it was perfectly reasonable to refer to the judge as 'openly gay'?
Seriously - I know we are both on opposite sides of the argument, but why on earth do you think this was acceptable?
The descriptions of the other judges were slurs and the DM were trying to use this third judge's sexuality as a slur too.
Are you saying hand on heart that you thought it was perfectly reasonable to refer to the judge as 'openly gay'?
Seriously - I know we are both on opposite sides of the argument, but why on earth do you think this was acceptable?
The descriptions of the other judges were slurs and the DM were trying to use this third judge's sexuality as a slur too.
sp1814
/// Are you saying hand on heart that you thought it was perfectly reasonable to refer to the judge as 'openly gay'? ///
You said that he was "attacked for being openly gay", that is provocative and sensationalistic language, and it was this that I was addressing.
/// Seriously - I know we are both on opposite sides of the argument, but why on earth do you think this was acceptable? ///
Like most minority groups it would seem that they are easily offended
whilst I myself cannot see any reason that his sexuality needed to be mentioned, but it isn't a secret since as it states that he is openly gay.
So I repeat he was not attacked for being "openly gay".
So please can we not turn this tread into a gay issue or even a anti Daily Mail issue, and get back on track?
/// Are you saying hand on heart that you thought it was perfectly reasonable to refer to the judge as 'openly gay'? ///
You said that he was "attacked for being openly gay", that is provocative and sensationalistic language, and it was this that I was addressing.
/// Seriously - I know we are both on opposite sides of the argument, but why on earth do you think this was acceptable? ///
Like most minority groups it would seem that they are easily offended
whilst I myself cannot see any reason that his sexuality needed to be mentioned, but it isn't a secret since as it states that he is openly gay.
So I repeat he was not attacked for being "openly gay".
So please can we not turn this tread into a gay issue or even a anti Daily Mail issue, and get back on track?
Since some of you don't seem offended by all this, perhaps they would have also find this quite acceptable?
http://
http://
Regarding your picture. It's less offensive than these which have been doing the rounds for years:
https:/
https:/
Let me explain - in the context of the story - the Daily Mail's headline made sense up to a point.
It highlighted a possible conflict of interest because one judge was the founder of a European law group.
The second judge charged the taxpayer 'millions for advice', and this too would cast him in a bad light (within the context of the story).
But when it came to the third judge, why on earth would his sexuality be of any relationship to the story?
Yes, it might be factually correct, but why does it need to be highlighted?
This is how ridiculous the headline is:
[i]The judges who blocked Brexit: One founded a EUROPEAN law group, another charged the taxpayer millions for advice and the third is a man with ginger hair[i]
Do you see what I mean?
It's completely irrelevant to the story.
Unless of course, for some reason the Daily Mail thinks its readership thinks that being gay is somehow a character flaw.
As an avid reader, what do you think?
It highlighted a possible conflict of interest because one judge was the founder of a European law group.
The second judge charged the taxpayer 'millions for advice', and this too would cast him in a bad light (within the context of the story).
But when it came to the third judge, why on earth would his sexuality be of any relationship to the story?
Yes, it might be factually correct, but why does it need to be highlighted?
This is how ridiculous the headline is:
[i]The judges who blocked Brexit: One founded a EUROPEAN law group, another charged the taxpayer millions for advice and the third is a man with ginger hair[i]
Do you see what I mean?
It's completely irrelevant to the story.
Unless of course, for some reason the Daily Mail thinks its readership thinks that being gay is somehow a character flaw.
As an avid reader, what do you think?
sp1814
Those images are most offensive, I can't see why you chose to air them.
But what is interesting that the Obama one was banned but not the Bush one.
https:/
Those images are most offensive, I can't see why you chose to air them.
But what is interesting that the Obama one was banned but not the Bush one.
https:/
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.