Murdoch diversion

[scottycelt]

Why all these constant, puerile comments about one of our more active members ... ?

It sometimes seems that insulting Simon is now the favourite pastime of a significant number here, who apparently cannot bear the thought of anyone having the gall to challenge their personal sacred cows.

These 'liberal' members simply can't abide Simon's views? Then maybe they shouldn't be participating in an adult internet forum in the first place!

Give it a rest! Simon is entitled to hold any views he wishes, and, even though I often strongly disagree with many of those, this place would be far poorer and more stultifyingly predictable without some of his refreshingly 'politically-incorrect' contributions.

[Mr Pee]

Why all these constant, puerile comments about one of our more active members ... ?

It sometimes seems that insulting Simon is now the favourite pastime of a significant number here, who apparently cannot bear the thought of anyone having the gall to challenge their personal sacred cows.

These 'liberal' members simply can't abide Simon's views? Then maybe they shouldn't be participating in an adult internet forum in the first place!

Give it a rest! Simon is entitled to hold any views he wishes, and, even though I often strongly disagree with many of those, this place would be far poorer and more stultifyingly predictable without some of his refreshingly 'politically-incorrect' contributions.

I couldn't agree more!!

[amateur51]

Why all these constant, puerile comments about one of our more active members ... ?

It sometimes seems that insulting Simon is now the favourite pastime of a significant number here, who apparently cannot bear the thought of anyone having the gall to challenge their personal sacred cows.

These 'liberal' members simply can't abide Simon's views? Then maybe they shouldn't be participating in an adult internet forum in the first place!

Give it a rest! Simon is entitled to hold any views he wishes, and, even though I often strongly disagree with many of those, this place would be far poorer and more stultifyingly predictable without some of his refreshingly 'politically-incorrect' contributions.

Are you saying that we should not react to them, scotty? Let them pass, no comment, take it on the chin, turn the other wossername?

Sounds like appeasement to me

[Anna]

That's interesting. I usually read the comments from Simon and others from that edge of the political spectrum, smile sadly, shake my head and move on.
I've always believed in the "more rope..... hang themselves" policy, and in free speech.
(I'm not so sure about free poetry )

I belong to the mangerton school of thought but Lat's post about being insulted by that MP has got me baffled. For the life of me I cannot think what the second word in the insult was ("a------e") and I'm normally good at crosswords!

Edit: Nice to see Am51 back again and firing on all cylinders!

[french frank]

This thread seems to call for the diversion of a certain number of posts. It is a discussion about Murdoch, News Corps, News International, the power in the hands of (especially non-British) individuals to influence the democratic processes in this country. It has been started (this one a continuation of a previous one which had to be locked because of disruption) by people who believe the issues to be important and who have explained, quite clearly, why. If you think the issue is a 'storm in a teacup', feel free to say so, and then go away.

Clearly, the two points of view clash too violently for a proper discussion to be held on either side if they mix. If you wish, start a thread on how you think Murdoch is being hounded by a self-interested left-wing media and politically motivated hangers-on, or however you like to express your view. The global situation is not being manipulated by anyone here, so neither side need refer to the members, individually or collectively, who express an opposite view.

The 'Simon' question is just like all the rest. Your view depends on your own (political) position. Just like on Murdoch. And the BBC.

Simon has, in the past, said to me that he feels I have been unfair to him. If true, it is probably because we are on opposite sides on most issues so I do see things in a different way. I do what I feel is fair but some people will disagree. Simon has been warned privately, but equally there are several other people here who will confirm that they also have been warned about 'attacking' Simon.

In message #434, Simon wrote:

"You have this annoying habit of jumping in pompously with patronising comments which might more often be useful if you bothered to understand the points you wish to argue against. I don't doubt your sincerity: your comprehension is what worries me. "

This, to my mind, breaks the House Rules. I have looked at the message which Simon was answering and read:

"What an astonishingly simple world is the one which you appear to inhabit, Simon! Why do you suppose that life is so simple and so black-and-white as you seem to paint it?"

This, in my view, does not break the rules. It goes on to amplify the argument. You may find it persuasive, you may not. Unpersuasive arguments do not, in any case, automatically break the House Rules.

My view of this situation is that is has a long history, going back to the old boards; and if Simon stopped sneering at, denigrating and insulting everything that *he* perceives as left-wing as a matter of course, the sneers against him would stop. My patience isn't quite infinite.

I shall remove this diversion when people have read it and we can return to the discussion of a running story.

One more thing: I would ask people NOT to start discussions, topical or otherwise, purely as some kind of propaganda point-scoring. I have to confess that I did not regard the Murdoch question as one which was indisputably a matter of right and left.

[mangerton]

I belong to the mangerton school of thought but Lat's post about being insulted by that MP has got me baffled. For the life of me I cannot think what the second word in the insult was ("a------e") and I'm normally good at crosswords!

Edit: Nice to see Am51 back again and firing on all cylinders!

Anna, I too am a crossword fan, and have found this helpful in the past: www.crosswordsolver.org

It lists over 400 words which might fit, including archduke and amputee. There was another word I noticed - ar****le - but I really can't imagine that any MP, especially a tory, would use such a word.

[handsomefortune]

> ar****le <

thanks mangerton - it was giving me a headache too!

[Lateralthinking1]

Have you seen the doctor about it? Sounds like a complex condition. Now here's a bit of history -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8576133.stm

And this was when he declared that his bags had been packed by Osama Bin Laden before expressing very colourfully from his cakehole in an entirely different sense -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218007/MP-says-bags-packed-Bin-Laden-violently-ill-plane--sends-letter-complaint-Virgin.html

He is the tenth most senior MP. Elected 1983 and still under 60. Is the future of the BBC to be influenced by such a gent who is concerned about its lack of proportion? Could Mr Murdoch find that he ends up sitting prettily by comparison after all?

[Simon]

Why all these constant, puerile comments about one of our more active members ... ?

It sometimes seems that insulting Simon is now the favourite pastime of a significant number here, who apparently cannot bear the thought of anyone having the gall to challenge their personal sacred cows.

Thanks, scotty, but I do assure you it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Left-liberals have always been, once challenged, the least liberal and least open-minded of all sectors of opinion - if you go back for years on this MB and its forerunner, you'll find that the only people who have ever suggested "banning" other people have been from the left. It's the same in the "real" world - the EDL, for example, never call for the banning of the various extremist left groups, but there are continuous calls for the EDL to be banned.

Free speech is OK, they seem to believe, as long as you agree with them!

[Serial_Apologist]

> ar****le <

thanks mangerton - it was giving me a headache too!

Whereas I felt de-hyphenated...

[Simon]

Amateur- perhaps you might consider deleting your rather juvenile and tiresome signature, for a start......

What's this? Does it relate to me?

[french frank]

What's this? Does it relate to me?

It is quite simply a request which asks people NOT to quote directly from his messages - a request which you also made to members - as if they did you would be able to see what he had written, despite having him on your Ignore list.

I shall shortly be removing all diversions from the topic and placing them in the 'Basement' where they will still be viewable.

[Serial_Apologist]

the EDL, for example, never call for the banning of the various extremist left groups, but there are continuous calls for the EDL to be banned.

Free speech is OK, they seem to believe, as long as you agree with them!

Ah yes, that fine upstanding right-liberal organisation. I'm glad someone is keeping abreast of them on this board.

I take it, Simon, that your final paragraph refers to them, and not to left-liberals, as referred to earlier in your post?

[Mahlerei]

Why all these constant, puerile comments about one of our more active members ... ?

It sometimes seems that insulting Simon is now the favourite pastime of a significant number here, who apparently cannot bear the thought of anyone having the gall to challenge their personal sacred cows.

These 'liberal' members simply can't abide Simon's views? Then maybe they shouldn't be participating in an adult internet forum in the first place!

Give it a rest! Simon is entitled to hold any views he wishes, and, even though I often strongly disagree with many of those, this place would be far poorer and more stultifyingly predictable without some of his refreshingly 'politically-incorrect' contributions.

scotty

Sorry, but that's just piffle. Simon can give as good as he gets, as those of us who have sparred with him for years - long before you arrived - will surely attest.

As for being one of our 'more active posters' just look at the number of posts he's made; hardly a record. Moreover, while the rest of us make a contribution to musical topics here I can't remember the last time I saw him do so. That rather begs the question: why is he here at all?

That said, I certainly wouldn't want him silenced. I usually disagree with him, but that's just the way it goes. I don't lose any sleep over it and I'm sure he doesn't either.

Back to Murdoch. I hope the questioning of the Grauniad reporter isn't a sign of things to come. Sources need to be protected at times if the public interest is to be served.

[ahinton]

Originally Posted by scottycelt
Why all these constant, puerile comments about one of our more active members ... ?

It sometimes seems that insulting Simon is now the favourite pastime of a significant number here, who apparently cannot bear the thought of anyone having the gall to challenge their personal sacred cows.

Thanks, scotty, but I do assure you it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Left-liberals have always been, once challenged, the least liberal and least open-minded of all sectors of opinion - if you go back for years on this MB and its forerunner, you'll find that the only people who have ever suggested "banning" other people have been from the left. It's the same in the "real" world - the EDL, for example, never call for the banning of the various extremist left groups, but there are continuous calls for the EDL to be banned.

Free speech is OK, they seem to believe, as long as you agree with them!

As I've already made quite clear, I have no interest in insulting anyone, let alone in encouraging forum moderators to "ban" members merely on account of the political views that they happen to hold; Simon is indeed entitled to hold whatever views he likes and to express any or all of them here within the bounds of the forum rules but, by the same token, the rest of us are equally entitled to challenge any or all of the conclusions that he may draw as a direct consequence of having such views, especially when he refrains from providing definitions (even if only his own) of certain terms that he chooses to use or, even more importantly, ensure that what he seeks to present as factual is indeed factual rather than an expression of personal opinion.

For the record, I do not call for the banning of EDL or of extreme left-wing groups, for all that I disagree with many views expressed by each of them and would not automatically condone the violent or other anti-social actions of either.

What, Simon, is a "left-liberal" (in your view)? and how would you specifically distinguish one from any other kind of "liberal"? - and how would you personally define a "liberal"?

As to the final sentence in #472, it should read "free speeach is OK, as long as it means that what is said under its umbrella remains open to challenge by others who believe in free speech. You should say just what you like, Simon, but at the same time you must be prepared for it to be challenged, especially when what you say lacks even personal definition and/or seeks to present personal opinion as though it were fact; under that banner of free speech, one might indeed argue that "right-wing fundamentalists have always been, once challenged, the least liberal and least open-minded of all sectors of opinion"...