Waterstones - the end in sight?

[Don Basilio]

I think "liberal" is OK as an adverb (a tolerant, wide ranging, informed, imaginative attitude) but iffy as an adjective, in which it can mean different things.

[scottycelt]

So don't use it as catchall term of condemnation.

A curious statement from any sort of 'liberal' ..

You know perfectly well what I mean ...ie a social 'liberal' ... you may not like my 'illiberal' views on social issues (in your view) but have you ever even considered that your own 'liberal' view on such matters is both thoroughly 'illiberal' and indeed at least as equally as 'condemnatory' towards those who take an opposing view?

In short, I see see little difference in practice between 'liberal' dogmatism/bigotry and its more widely advertised 'illiberal' counterpart!

[Flosshilde]

I'm not sure how you would describe your views, Scotty - I'm a bit confused by the various 'liberals' & 'illiberals' - but what you are dismissing isn't 'liberal dogma' but evidence, experience and knowledge held by a wide range of government, pan-government, religious and secular charitable organisations, some of whom couldn't be described as 'socially liberal'. With that range of support we're not talking about any particular 'dogma'


(BTW, Scotty, when you include a quote from someone's message, why don't you include their name & the link to the post you're quoting from?)

[scottycelt]

I'm not sure how you would describe your views, Scotty -

Searingly logical... and apparently grossly unfashionable! :cool2:

(BTW, Scotty, when you include a quote from someone's message, why don't you include their name & the link to the post you're quoting from?)

Great idea, Floss, and why don'y you, in turn, provide a similar link(s) to the posts you have in mind?

[french frank]

and why don'y you, in turn, provide a similar link(s) to the posts you have in mind?

Looking back, scotty, it seems to apply to all your posts that include quotes ...

A general note To Whom It May Concern: if you wish to quote from the message you're replying to, use the Reply With Quote button as this automatically includes a link back to the original.

It is general netiquette to edit that quote down to a short point, or just a few lines, rather than leaving the entire post. Thereafter, use the ordinary Quote button in the toolbar above the message window and copy-and-paste each subsequent point separately.

Information Officer
Forum Advice Centre

[scottycelt]

Looking back, scotty, it seems to apply to all your posts that include quotes ...

Information Officer
Forum Advice Centre

Is this the correct procedure, FF?

Funnily enough, I first started using this method (quoting the whole post then manually deleting the irrelevance) until I noticed the special quote/copy/paste button which I thought was precisely there to provide a quicker alternative to that process. I now take the point that it doesn't actually show the name of the original poster and link the actual post.

I therefore plead guilty and will immediately revert to the correct method ...

[french frank]

I therefore plead guilty and will immediately revert to the correct method ...

<Titter>

Yes, the text button is the quickest in some circumstances, but it benefits all readers if they know who you're replying to and how they can get quickly back to the quoted post.

Now, latest news about Waterstones

[Don Basilio]

A curious statement from any sort of 'liberal' ..

How do you know I'm "liberal", particularly as I had made a point that on at least one important theological point I'm not. That's what I mean by you using it as a sloppy catchall term of condemnation

You know perfectly well what I mean ...ie a social 'liberal' ...

No I don't. Flossy put it nicely:

I'm not sure how you would describe your views, Scotty - I'm a bit confused by the various 'liberals' & 'illiberals' - but what you are dismissing isn't 'liberal dogma' but evidence, experience and knowledge held by a wide range of government, pan-government, religious and secular charitable organisations, some of whom couldn't be described as 'socially liberal'. With that range of support we're not talking about any particular 'dogma'

[scottycelt]

How do you know I'm "liberal" ..

Well, er, I can only go by your post (#88) which included the following line ...

I have a smidgen of sympathy for you being cold called with a heavy sell based on moral persuasion, but none at all for your views on "liberals".

I agree, that by using a recognised definition of the word (favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms), you are obviously no true 'liberal', so I apologise profusely ..

PS ... sorry, French Frank and Flossie, I couldn't find a way of providing a suitable link to the second quote.

[Flosshilde]

Now, latest news about Waterstones

The focus on 'localism' could be very good news for Scotland & the Scottish publishing scene. It's long been a complaint that Waterstone's (& other chains) were driven by head office & their demands for 'bribes' from publishers if the latter wanted their books displayed prominently. The smaller publishers here didn't neccessarily have the money to pay up (& why should they have to?). The 'New Waterstone's' localism might mean that there is more Scottish material, better displayed.
Not neccessarily a specifically local concern, but I hope that they will also have a better selection of lesbian & gay material - perhaps I will have to whip up local demand for it.

But it does look as if Tim Waterstone has again lost out - it was hinted in earlier reports that he might be involved in the new deal, but no mention of him now.

[Flosshilde]

How do you know I'm "liberal",

Well, er, I can only go by your post (#88) which included the following line ...

I have a smidgen of sympathy for you being cold called with a heavy sell based on moral persuasion, but none at all for your views on "liberals".

So, if I said that I had no sympathy for someone's views on vegetarianism, you would assume that I was vegetarian?
Or, if I said that I had no sympathy for someone's views that women were not opressed, you would assume that I am a woman?

Is this the

Searingly logical...

thinking you lay claim to?

[scottycelt]

So, if I said that I had no sympathy for someone's views on vegetarianism, you would assume that I was vegetarian?
Or, if I said that I had no sympathy for someone's views that women were not opressed, you would assume that I am a woman?

Well, if someone says they have no sympathy for my views (which was the actual case in point) I can only assume that person's views are diametrically opposed to my own.

Seems logical enough to me ...

[Don Basilio]

One last time.

Scotty, you are talking as though there are only two possibilities, liberal and non-liberal. As I keep on saying, that is not the case. The word "liberal" can be used in many different contexts with a whole variety of associations.

[Flosshilde]

Don, Scotty was educated by the Jesuits.

'nuff said, I think

[scottycelt]

One last time.

Scotty, you are talking as though there are only two possibilities, liberal and non-liberal.

Trust your time won't be wasted, Don ...

Of course people can be 'liberal' on some social issues and 'conservative' on others, I readily understand that.

However, I think we all really know that I am referring to the largely 'secular liberalism' of today's western societies.

If not, I am!