Journalism is ruining Politics

[StuartO]

Brian, it's time you brought to mind Dennis Healy's Rule of Holes.  You are making yourself look extremely foolish. No one else but you and Veronica though Anthony was referring to all muslims and surely you only interpreted it that way to be pedantic and argumentative.  Let it drop.

 

[Brian Kirby]

antony1969 - 2017-07-20 4:36 PM....................I'm sorry I don't understand ... Are you having a go at me as its unclear ... You need to be a little clearer Brian ... I thought you'd ended this tedious debate that only you and Veronica misunderstood ? obviously not ... Could this go down as officially the most pathetic spat of all time after Clive and Franks I earn more than you do dispute

No Antony, I am not, and have not been, having a "go" at you. I'm merely trying to persuade you that if you could just be a bit more diplomatic with what you write, you won't get the angry allegations to which you object, and will not be made to feel that folk are trying to freeze you out and prevent you expressing your views. That is all. It's obvious you don't like some of the more personal replies you get, and nor should I. I actually am trying to suggest a way to avoid them, and still have your say.

[Brian Kirby]

StuartO - 2017-07-20 4:58 PM

 

Brian, it's time you brought to mind Dennis Healy's Rule of Holes.  You are making yourself look extremely foolish. No one else but you and Veronica though Anthony was referring to all muslims and surely you only interpreted it that way to be pedantic and argumentative.  Let it drop.

Stuart, please seem my reply to Antony above. Only I know my motivations, so I'm afraid you'll just have to accept that they are as I say.

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-20 5:18 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-20 4:36 PM....................I'm sorry I don't understand ... Are you having a go at me as its unclear ... You need to be a little clearer Brian ... I thought you'd ended this tedious debate that only you and Veronica misunderstood ? obviously not ... Could this go down as officially the most pathetic spat of all time after Clive and Franks I earn more than you do dispute

No Antony, I am not, and have not been, having a "go" at you. I'm merely trying to persuade you that if you could just be a bit more diplomatic with what you write, you won't get the angry allegations to which you object, and will not be made to feel that folk are trying to freeze you out and prevent you expressing your views. That is all. It's obvious you don't like some of the more personal replies you get, and nor should I. I actually am trying to suggest a way to avoid them, and still have your say.

 

Im hoping for a start your not making "angry allegations" ... Why would anyone be angry on a faceless free motorhome forum ? ... Brian the only thing that has concerned me about this whole tedious affair is your obvious dislike of me bringing up the subject matter to which you have with this and other threads in the past taken great offence with because of that said subject ... Muslims ! ... Its not to do with wether I put the word some before the word Muslim if we are to be honest is it ? ... Think you are making yourself look a little silly to be fair but you know best ... As always

[Brian Kirby]

antony1969 - 2017-07-20 5:44 PM.................

1 Brian the only thing that has concerned me about this whole tedious affair is your obvious dislike of me bringing up the subject matter to which you have with this and other threads in the past taken great offence with because of that said subject ... Muslims ! ...

 

2 Its not to do with wether I put the word some before the word Muslim if we are to be honest is it ? ........... Think you are making yourself look a little silly to be fair but you know best ... As always

Antony:

 

1 I have no "dislike" whatever of you commenting on anti-social or criminal activities being committed by certain Muslims (or any other identifiable group), and I share many of your reservations about the failure of substantial numbers of Muslims to integrate into this country. However, those comments should be proportionate and reasonable. It is when they are not that I am moved to object.

 

2 Yes, that omission is exactly what led me to object to your post. I think it unacceptable to use indiscriminate language, that implies these problems are far more widespread than they are, and tars all Muslims with the same brush.

 

I think I have made all this quite clear before, and we are both being urged to shut up about it. We are way off topic, and I think we should do so out of respect for Stuart, who started this string about a quite different subject. If that makes me look silly to you, or anyone else, so be it. I can live with that.

[teflon2]

I think both Veronica and Brian need to read Anthony's original post. ie Muslim paedophiles not all Muslim men or even most just specifically paedophiles as a group from a specific religion. John *-)

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-20 6:44 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-20 5:44 PM.................

1 Brian the only thing that has concerned me about this whole tedious affair is your obvious dislike of me bringing up the subject matter to which you have with this and other threads in the past taken great offence with because of that said subject ... Muslims ! ...

 

2 Its not to do with wether I put the word some before the word Muslim if we are to be honest is it ? ........... Think you are making yourself look a little silly to be fair but you know best ... As always

Antony:

 

1 I have no "dislike" whatever of you commenting on anti-social or criminal activities being committed by certain Muslims (or any other identifiable group), and I share many of your reservations about the failure of substantial numbers of Muslims to integrate into this country. However, those comments should be proportionate and reasonable. It is when they are not that I am moved to object.

 

2 Yes, that omission is exactly what led me to object to your post. I think it unacceptable to use indiscriminate language, that implies these problems are far more widespread than they are, and tars all Muslims with the same brush.

 

I think I have made all this quite clear before, and we are both being urged to shut up about it. We are way off topic, and I think we should do so out of respect for Stuart, who started this string about a quite different subject. If that makes me look silly to you, or anyone else, so be it. I can live with that.

 

Im the one that normally looks silly Brian not an educated fella like yourself ... It would seem Veronica and your good self are out numbered heavily with your way off concerns regarding my supposed lack of respect towards the Queens English ... Regarding being urged to "shut up about it" I believe that its yourself more than me thats having that request waved their way but I am again hoping that comes true

[RogerC]

I have one last comment to make on the'attack/pedantry' issue....Brian your first comment has precipitated this reply as I have not bothered...yet...to read beyond the first stupidly irrelevant comment. We are not all lawyers writing contracts....we are not all so bloody specific that one dare not express an opinion for fear of getting pilloried for it.  This is an open forum where opinions are expressed....NOT the High court of correctness and exactitude........ Your comments I find are extremely high handed and IMO arrogant in the extreme.  

Strangely in another thread you defended a certain antagonistic posters right to self expression when he was attacked over irrelevant inputs, denigration of our Armed Forces and links so tenuous as to be better off in outer space etc etc..........so which is right, is it the right to self expression regardless of relevance or denigration of others or your pedantry regarding grammatical construction and intent of a topic?

As has been said already most all on here understood the OP didn't mean 'every'...as in all encompassing so surely a man who usually comes across as understanding and if I may say somewhat displaying an understanding and intelligent approach can see that?  Or is it a case of you demonstrating a superior air by taking offence on behalf of those you feel in need of defending but who clearly are never going to be offended by the comment unless they are readers on here in which case they can defend themselves?

[Brian Kirby]

You ask a question I feel I have already answered in my reply to your earlier post, Roger.

 

However, I'll re-state it here:

 

"I'll give you my reasoning. A person posts on a contentious topic and is misunderstood by others, resulting in allegations of, at their worst, bigotry and racism. The poster is stung by these allegations, responds that they are untrue, that he is being shouted down, that he is being denied his right to express his opinion, that his accusers are hopelessly politically correct, and displays understandable irritation. This continues over a lengthy period, across a number of topics, with always much the same results. The process disrupts debate while the exchanges over the disputed posts take a familiar path, often simply ending in acrimony. I find it tedious and unconstructive and, apparently, from their comments, so do others.

 

I therefore try to persuade the poster that if he will modify his language, and take a just bit more care with what he writes, he can avoid those hurtful allegations. That he can express his opinions, if only he will do so with more tact, in recognition that clumsiness will almost inevitably result in misunderstanding and a repeat of the allegations he dislikes."

 

My underlying motivation (freedom of expression) is the same in the defence you referred to here:

 

"Strangely in another thread you defended a certain antagonistic posters right to self expression when he was attacked over irrelevant inputs, denigration of our Armed Forces and links so tenuous as to be better off in outer space etc etc..........so which is right, is it the right to self expression regardless of relevance or denigration of others or your pedantry regarding grammatical construction and intent of a topic?"

 

The distinction between the two, as I see it, is that in the former case the poster unintentionally writes ambiguously, resulting in personal attacks against him, which he then (understandably) indignantly says traduce him, and in the latter case the poster makes deliberately provocative comments for which he is justly taken to task. So, in the former case I try to explain that if the poster would write with more clarity, he could avoid the hurt of being traduced, and in the latter case I defend the poster's right to be provocative, because that is what he intended. He doesn't claim to have been misunderstood: indeed, he takes obviously mischievous delight in the responses he provokes! You may not like them, but they are (supposedly) his opinions.

 

If poster one were to show clear intent to provoke, I would defend his right to do so. But he does not, he says (and has said for a very long time) that he is misunderstood, and is unjustifiably attacked as a consequence. I take that at face value.

 

Both have an equal right to be heard, IMO: the former free from misunderstanding (which only he can remedy), the latter on grounds of free expression. I do not seek to sensor either, or deny them the right to their opinions.

 

There obviously has to be a limit to freedom of expression, if people are trolling, incite violence, racial or religious hatred, etc. but

a) I don't think we are anywhere near those extremes and

b) it is Warner's judgement (and not mine) as to what is appropriate for their forum.

 

I don't think I can be much clearer, or can I?

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-21 12:56 PM

 

You ask a question I feel I have already answered in my reply to your earlier post, Roger.

 

However, I'll re-state it here:

 

"I'll give you my reasoning. A person posts on a contentious topic and is misunderstood by others, resulting in allegations of, at their worst, bigotry and racism. The poster is stung by these allegations, responds that they are untrue, that he is being shouted down, that he is being denied his right to express his opinion, that his accusers are hopelessly politically correct, and displays understandable irritation. This continues over a lengthy period, across a number of topics, with always much the same results. The process disrupts debate while the exchanges over the disputed posts take a familiar path, often simply ending in acrimony. I find it tedious and unconstructive and, apparently, from their comments, so do others.

 

I therefore try to persuade the poster that if he will modify his language, and take a just bit more care with what he writes, he can avoid those hurtful allegations. That he can express his opinions, if only he will do so with more tact, in recognition that clumsiness will almost inevitably result in misunderstanding and a repeat of the allegations he dislikes."

 

My underlying motivation (freedom of expression) is the same in the defence you referred to here:

 

"Strangely in another thread you defended a certain antagonistic posters right to self expression when he was attacked over irrelevant inputs, denigration of our Armed Forces and links so tenuous as to be better off in outer space etc etc..........so which is right, is it the right to self expression regardless of relevance or denigration of others or your pedantry regarding grammatical construction and intent of a topic?"

 

The distinction between the two, as I see it, is that in the former case the poster unintentionally writes ambiguously, resulting in personal attacks against him, which he then (understandably) indignantly says traduce him, and in the latter case the poster makes deliberately provocative comments for which he is justly taken to task. So, in the former case I try to explain that if the poster would write with more clarity, he could avoid the hurt of being traduced, and in the latter case I defend the poster's right to be provocative, because that is what he intended. He doesn't claim to have been misunderstood: indeed, he takes obviously mischievous delight in the responses he provokes! You may not like them, but they are (supposedly) his opinions.

 

If poster one were to show clear intent to provoke, I would defend his right to do so. But he does not, he says (and has said for a very long time) that he is misunderstood, and is unjustifiably attacked as a consequence. I take that at face value.

 

Both have an equal right to be heard, IMO: the former free from misunderstanding (which only he can remedy), the latter on grounds of free expression. I do not seek to sensor either, or deny them the right to their opinions.

 

There obviously has to be a limit to freedom of expression, if people are trolling, incite violence, racial or religious hatred, etc. but

a) I don't think we are anywhere near those extremes and

b) it is Warner's judgement (and not mine) as to what is appropriate for their forum.

 

I don't think I can be much clearer, or can I?

 

If "poster one" is myself and I have supposedly said for "a very long time I am misunderstood" then I am afraid your wrong and trying to validate your point with untruths ... Off memory I believe I once had to explain to yourself on one post I was trying to be funny with a comment when you took it as serious and then once I reminded you what you had said about the late Eddie (Judgemental) ... I believe your response to me reminding you of that was "fair point" ... Ive hardly claimed to be misunderstood for "a very long time" ... This is of course if "poster one" is me if not then I have misunderstood you

[Brian Kirby]

Then maybe I have misunderstood poster one. I'm glad you don't feel your posts have been misunderstood. I just wish I could say the same! :-)

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-21 12:56 PMYou ask a question I feel I have already answered in my reply to your earlier post, Roger.However, I'll re-state it here:"I'll give you my reasoning. A person posts on a contentious topic and is misunderstood by others, resulting in allegations of, at their worst, bigotry and racism. The poster is stung by these allegations, responds that they are untrue, that he is being shouted down, that he is being denied his right to express his opinion, that his accusers are hopelessly politically correct, and displays understandable irritation. This continues over a lengthy period, across a number of topics, with always much the same results. The process disrupts debate while the exchanges over the disputed posts take a familiar path, often simply ending in acrimony. I find it tedious and unconstructive and, apparently, from their comments, so do others.I therefore try to persuade the poster that if he will modify his language, and take a just bit more care with what he writes, he can avoid those hurtful allegations. That he can express his opinions, if only he will do so with more tact, in recognition that clumsiness will almost inevitably result in misunderstanding and a repeat of the allegations he dislikes."My underlying motivation (freedom of expression) is the same in the defence you referred to here:"Strangely in another thread you defended a certain antagonistic posters right to self expression when he was attacked over irrelevant inputs, denigration of our Armed Forces and links so tenuous as to be better off in outer space etc etc..........so which is right, is it the right to self expression regardless of relevance or denigration of others or your pedantry regarding grammatical construction and intent of a topic?"The distinction between the two, as I see it, is that in the former case the poster unintentionally writes ambiguously, resulting in personal attacks against him, which he then (understandably) indignantly says traduce him, and in the latter case the poster makes deliberately provocative comments for which he is justly taken to task. So, in the former case I try to explain that if the poster would write with more clarity, he could avoid the hurt of being traduced, and in the latter case I defend the poster's right to be provocative, because that is what he intended. He doesn't claim to have been misunderstood: indeed, he takes obviously mischievous delight in the responses he provokes! You may not like them, but they are (supposedly) his opinions.If poster one were to show clear intent to provoke, I would defend his right to do so. But he does not, he says (and has said for a very long time) that he is misunderstood, and is unjustifiably attacked as a consequence. I take that at face value.Both have an equal right to be heard, IMO: the former free from misunderstanding (which only he can remedy), the latter on grounds of free expression. I do not seek to sensor either, or deny them the right to their opinions.There obviously has to be a limit to freedom of expression, if people are trolling, incite violence, racial or religious hatred, etc. but a) I don't think we are anywhere near those extremes and b) it is Warner's judgement (and not mine) as to what is appropriate for their forum. I don't think I can be much clearer, or can I?

OK so let's get this straight ........simple and to the point:

You defend a poster whom I and many others consider to be a trolling a55hole yet you take to task another who fails to be, in your judgement, 'clear' and unambiguous and thereby fails to meet with the exacting standards....the precision in the use of the written word you feel are/is required in order to avoid offending 1.6 billion people??

The case here as I see it is that you 'appear' to be exhibiting all the traits of one who is overtly precise, pedantic in the extreme and so unbelievably guarded in what you post that you seem, at least in this case to be unable to read with any degree of latitude or exhibit the ability to discern the posters intent...............or are you playing the extreme devil's advocate?  Because if so it is in bad taste.

Bottom line is you are coming across with an arrogant superior attitude that is IMO highly distasteful and does you no credit whatsoever.

This opinion is based most recently on your latest:

"try to persuade the poster that if he will modify his language"......

"take a just bit more care with what he writes".......

"That he can express his opinions, if only he will do so with more tact"....

"clumsiness".....

"I try to explain that if the poster would write with more clarity,..."     

..and those are just some of the comments that have given substance to the opinion I have formed and because of which I have to admit to feeling not merely a little unsettled that one who is usually so measured and seemingly benevolent and considerate in his posts can consider this attitude to be acceptable.

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-21 4:02 PM

 

Then maybe I have misunderstood poster one. I'm glad you don't feel your posts have been misunderstood. I just wish I could say the same! :-)

 

Admittedly poster one doesn't have the greatest grammar skills but just where poster one has claimed he's been misunderstood for a long time on here I don't know ... Even poster one who's lack of intelligence is legendary on here knows that if your using someone and something they've said as your defence then you really do need to make sure they've said what your claiming ... Poster one could be offended and we don't like any mistaken offence towards people on here do we now ?

[Brian Kirby]

Oh dear, Roger, I just can't get it across, can I? :-) My fault.

 

I said above "So, in the former case I try to explain that if the poster would write with more clarity, he could avoid the hurt of being traduced, and in the latter case I defend the poster's right to be provocative, because that is what he intended."

 

The first point is in any case now lost, because, whereas I had thought he was having a rough time - because I thought he felt his posts were being unfairly interpreted, he has already stated that this was not the case. So, my attempt to explain why he seems so often to be taken to task for his views was a mistake. He says he thinks I have misunderstood him, and I am happy to accept that I have.

 

But was I trying, as you seem to think, to belittle him? No, I was trying to point out to him how to avoid, as I had mistakenly thought he felt, being misunderstood. In short, I was trying to assist, not deride. Clearly, that was a mistake, and I will try to avoid it in future.

 

The second point is that I simply don't agree with your judgement of the other poster. I think your reactions to his views are rather overblown, I think he knows he can produce that reaction from you and a couple of others on demand, and that he baits you for your reaction. Light blue touch paper, and wait! However, he does not do this to all posters, so I don't think he is so much a troll, as a mischievous wind-up merchant who enjoys making fun of "the establishment" to see who bites back. You, and a couple others do, and generally lash out angrily rather than arguing a coherent alternative case. He wins, but you seem not to see it. At least, that's my take.

 

I apologise to Stuart, who started this string, that it has become stuck on a vision a couple of posters have developed of me, and has strayed off a topic that he wished it to follow.

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-21 6:26 PM

 

Oh dear, Roger, I just can't get it across, can I? :-) My fault.

 

I said above "So, in the former case I try to explain that if the poster would write with more clarity, he could avoid the hurt of being traduced, and in the latter case I defend the poster's right to be provocative, because that is what he intended."

 

The first point is in any case now lost, because, whereas I had thought he was having a rough time - because I thought he felt his posts were being unfairly interpreted, he has already stated that this was not the case. So, my attempt to explain why he seems so often to be taken to task for his views was a mistake. He says he thinks I have misunderstood him, and I am happy to accept that I have.

 

But was I trying, as you seem to think, to belittle him? No, I was trying to point out to him how to avoid, as I had mistakenly thought he felt, being misunderstood. In short, I was trying to assist, not deride. Clearly, that was a mistake, and I will try to avoid it in future.

 

The second point is that I simply don't agree with your judgement of the other poster. I think your reactions to his views are rather overblown, I think he knows he can produce that reaction from you and a couple of others on demand, and that he baits you for your reaction. Light blue touch paper, and wait! However, he does not do this to all posters, so I don't think he is so much a troll, as a mischievous wind-up merchant who enjoys making fun of "the establishment" to see who bites back. You, and a couple others do, and generally lash out angrily rather than arguing a coherent alternative case. He wins, but you seem not to see it. At least, that's my take.

 

I apologise to Stuart, who started this string, that it has become stuck on a vision a couple of posters have developed of me, and has strayed off a topic that he wished it to follow.

 

Eh ... Some 8 posts back of yours you agreed the subject matter had become tedious and said it was "best left" ... Then you were back all over it ... If by the way Brian I am one of the couple of posters who've developed a vision of ya good self mine was formed way before this dire rubbish came about as I am sure your opinion of me was also formed way back in Chatterbox history

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-21 6:26 PMOh dear, Roger, I just can't get it across, can I? :-) My fault. I said above "So, in the former case I try to explain that if the poster would write with more clarity, he could avoid the hurt of being traduced, and in the latter case I defend the poster's right to be provocative, because that is what he intended."The first point is in any case now lost, because, whereas I had thought he was having a rough time - because I thought he felt his posts were being unfairly interpreted, he has already stated that this was not the case. So, my attempt to explain why he seems so often to be taken to task for his views was a mistake. He says he thinks I have misunderstood him, and I am happy to accept that I have.But was I trying, as you seem to think, to belittle him? No, I was trying to point out to him how to avoid, as I had mistakenly thought he felt, being misunderstood. In short, I was trying to assist, not deride. Clearly, that was a mistake, and I will try to avoid it in future.The second point is that I simply don't agree with your judgement of the other poster. I think your reactions to his views are rather overblown, I think he knows he can produce that reaction from you and a couple of others on demand, and that he baits you for your reaction. Light blue touch paper, and wait! However, he does not do this to all posters, so I don't think he is so much a troll, as a mischievous wind-up merchant who enjoys making fun of "the establishment" to see who bites back. You, and a couple others do, and generally lash out angrily rather than arguing a coherent alternative case. He wins, but you seem not to see it. At least, that's my take.I apologise to Stuart, who started this string, that it has become stuck on a vision a couple of posters have developed of me, and has strayed off a topic that he wished it to follow.

....and that is an example of the superior attitude and arrogance coming across in your posts.  Coherent counter posts have been the backbone of the responses to the 'troll' to the point whereby his ravings and irrelevances do, one admits, result in exasperation.  The Monarchy, the Armed Forces, Suffragettes oh and not forgetting the Chartists etc all seem to find their way into whichever thread the 'troll' is targeting to the point where I and a number of other forum contributors have basically had enough and yes the constructive contributions tend to become less 'on message' and more focused on the irritating oik. Likely you can't see it Brian but despite your rather ungratious comment above (bold) I am hoping this will not result in a lasting spat.  As you have said you have tried, possibly in error of understanding, or simply the intent was lost amongst all the to and fro, to advise another poster of the, in your opinion, error of his offerings.  So might I be so bold as to suggest your own offerings would be considered less judgemental and 'headmaster like' if you could but tone down the high handedness and the backhanded criticisms as you have delivered in the 'bold' highlight above?

I post in the hope of a reversion to the times when, apart from the 'entertaining' protagonists who were/are likely known by all, threads were allowed latitude, offered understanding and advice or contribution, nay they even on occasion resulted in strong differences of opinion but without feeling the need to 'educate' the poster on the rights and wrongs of his/her terminology.  Possibly the best place for that, the need to offer advice on delivering 'on message', is through PM's and not on the thread where, as we have seen far too often, the topic is rendered an irrelevance on the altar of argument and counter argument.

I rest my case.......and look forward to a less confrontational period of forum activity.