Can anyone think of a tool to help solve crosswords, eg you input
something like "a??o" and it lists all the 4-letter words in a
dictionary matching that pattern?

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

In a dim and distant universe ,
   Tony Houghton  enlightened us thusly:
> Can anyone think of a tool to help solve crosswords, eg you input
> something like "a??o" and it lists all the 4-letter words in a dictionary
> matching that pattern?

If you still have your old RISC OS machine, Pipedream has just such a
function. :-)

Paul

-- 
Linux Technical Support & Sun Help - http://www.linuxsupport.org.uk/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/

On 2008-07-19, Tony Houghton wrote:
> Can anyone think of a tool to help solve crosswords, eg you input
> something like "a??o" and it lists all the 4-letter words in a
> dictionary matching that pattern?

grep  ^a..o$ /usr/share/dict/words

    A better word list is the UK Advanced Cryptics Dictionary:
    <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/wordfinder/UKACD17.shtml>.

    There are also many on-line services such as mine at
    <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/wordfinder/>.

-- 
   Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster         <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
   ===================================================================
   Author:
   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Tony Houghton wrote:
> Can anyone think of a tool to help solve crosswords, eg you input
> something like "a??o" and it lists all the 4-letter words in a
> dictionary matching that pattern?

Have a look at http://morewords.com . It would be "a--o", rather than 
"a??o", but it does what you want - and more.



-- 
http://MaldonIT.co.uk

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:33:11 +0100
Paul Vigay  wrote:

> In a dim and distant universe ,
>    Tony Houghton  enlightened us thusly:
> > Can anyone think of a tool to help solve crosswords, eg you input
> > something like "a??o" and it lists all the 4-letter words in a dictionary
> > matching that pattern?
> 
> If you still have your old RISC OS machine, Pipedream has just such a
> function. :-)
> 
> Paul

Amazing, the number of RO refugees here :o

-- 
Will J G

On 2008-07-20, Folderol  wrote:

> Amazing, the number of RO refugees here :o

I think many of us went to University and fell for UNIX while there,
it was certainly Solaris that showed up Risc OS's shortcomings for me,
the only significant things that Risc OS could do better were basic
DTP (using Impression), basic line drawings (using !Draw) and the
saving system using drag and drop into filer windows --- this last one
still hasn't been tackled by anything else properly, which beggars
belief.  Every time I see a file save dialogue my temper bubbles up a
notch.

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/

On 20 Jul at 8:40 Folderol  wrote in message


> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:33:11 +0100 Paul Vigay
>  wrote:
>
> > In a dim and distant universe ,
>>    Tony Houghton  enlightened us thusly:
> > > Can anyone think of a tool to help solve crosswords, eg you input
> > > something like "a??o" and it lists all the 4-letter words in a
> > > dictionary matching that pattern?
>> 
> > If you still have your old RISC OS machine, Pipedream has just such a
> > function. :-)
>> 
> > Paul
>
> Amazing, the number of RO refugees here :o
>
It's the natural progression for those of us not willing to be stuck in the
dark ages ;)

-- 
Tony van der Hoff       | mailto:news_0711@vanderhoff.org
Buckinghamshire, England

In a dim and distant universe
,
   Tony van der Hoff  enlightened us thusly:
> It's the natural progression for those of us not willing to be stuck in
> the dark ages ;)

And to make it relevant to the newsgroup, Pipedream runs under RPCemu -
http://b-em.bbcmicro.com/arculator/ which I have running on Ubuntu.

Paul

-- 
Linux Technical Support & Sun Help - http://www.linuxsupport.org.uk/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/

egrep 'a..o' /usr/share/dict/words
produces 15738 matches.

For all words containing 5 or more vowels in a row (y is a consonant)

  egrep '[aeiou][aeiou][aeiou][aeiou][aeiou]' /usr/share/dict/words

On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 23:54 +0100, Tony Houghton wrote:
> Can anyone think of a tool to help solve crosswords, eg you input
> something like "a??o" and it lists all the 4-letter words in a
> dictionary matching that pattern?
>

In uk.comp.os.linux on Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:54:03 +0100, Tony Houghton
 wrote:

> Can anyone think of a tool to help solve crosswords, eg you input
> something like "a??o" and it lists all the 4-letter words in a
> dictionary matching that pattern?

$ grep '^a..o$' /usr/share/dict/words
also
alto
ammo
auto
$ grep '^.i.ti.n.r.$' /usr/share/dict/words
dictionary



-- 
PJR :-)

<http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/>
<http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/>

In uk.comp.os.linux on Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:42:02 +0000 (UTC), Peter J
Ross <pjr@example.invalid> wrote:

> In uk.comp.os.linux on Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:54:03 +0100, Tony Houghton
>  wrote:
>
>> Can anyone think of a tool to help solve crosswords, eg you input
>> something like "a??o" and it lists all the 4-letter words in a
>> dictionary matching that pattern?
>
> $ grep '^a..o$' /usr/share/dict/words
> also
> alto
> ammo
> auto
> $ grep '^.i.ti.n.r.$' /usr/share/dict/words
> dictionary

P.S. For a case-insensitive search, use the "-i" switch.

$ grep -i '^a..o$' /usr/share/dict/words
Afro
Aldo
Alpo
Argo
Arno
also
alto
ammo
auto


-- 
PJR :-)

<http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/>
<http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/>

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:22:31 +0000
"Chris F.A. Johnson"  wrote:

> On 2008-07-19, Tony Houghton wrote:
> > Can anyone think of a tool to help solve crosswords, eg you input
> > something like "a??o" and it lists all the 4-letter words in a
> > dictionary matching that pattern?
> 
> grep  ^a..o$ /usr/share/dict/words
> 
>     A better word list is the UK Advanced Cryptics Dictionary:
>     <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/wordfinder/UKACD17.shtml>.
> 
>     There are also many on-line services such as mine at
>     <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/wordfinder/>.

Thanks everyone for all the suggestions. Knowing about
/usr/share/dict/words is obviously a major help. Except it doesn't have
the word I was looking for on this occasion, which turned out to be
"agio" :-/

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:54:03 +0100, Tony Houghton wrote:

> Can anyone think of a tool to help solve crosswords, eg you input
> something like "a??o" and it lists all the 4-letter words in a dictionary
> matching that pattern?

   http://www.oneacross.com

-- 
/\/\aurice

(Remove 'removethis.' to reply by email)

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:54:03 +0100, Tony Houghton 
wrote:

>Can anyone think of a tool to help solve crosswords, eg you input
>something like "a??o" and it lists all the 4-letter words in a
>dictionary matching that pattern?
>
>-- 
>TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
>
http://www.crosswordsolver.org/

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:56:07 +0100
Maurice Batey  wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:54:03 +0100, Tony Houghton wrote:
> 
> > Can anyone think of a tool to help solve crosswords, eg you input
> > something like "a??o" and it lists all the 4-letter words in a dictionary
> > matching that pattern?
> 
>    http://www.oneacross.com

This is an astonishingly good helper!

-- 
Will J G

On 20 Jul 2008, Tony Houghton said:
> Thanks everyone for all the suggestions. Knowing about
> /usr/share/dict/words is obviously a major help. Except it doesn't have
> the word I was looking for on this occasion, which turned out to be
> "agio" :-/

What kind of a crossword is this? I've never seen a crossword puzzle
with obsolete legal terminology in it before.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Raphael Mankin wrote:-

> egrep 'a..o' /usr/share/dict/words
>produces 15738 matches.
>
>For all words containing 5 or more vowels in a row (y is a consonant)
>
>  egrep '[aeiou][aeiou][aeiou][aeiou][aeiou]' /usr/share/dict/words

Or the same with much less typing:

egrep '[aeiou]{5,}' /usr/share/dict/words


Regards,
        David Bolt

-- 
Team Acorn: http://www.distributed.net/ OGR-P2 @ ~100Mnodes RC5-72 @ ~15Mkeys
SUSE 10.1 32 |                     | openSUSE 10.3 32bit | openSUSE 11.0 32bit
             | openSUSE 10.2 64bit | openSUSE 10.3 64bit | openSUSE 11.0 64bit
RISC OS 3.6  | TOS 4.02            | openSUSE 10.3 PPC   | RISC OS 3.11

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:41:35 +0100
Nix  wrote:

> On 20 Jul 2008, Tony Houghton said:
> > Thanks everyone for all the suggestions. Knowing about
> > /usr/share/dict/words is obviously a major help. Except it doesn't
> > have the word I was looking for on this occasion, which turned out
> > to be "agio" :-/
> 
> What kind of a crossword is this? I've never seen a crossword puzzle
> with obsolete legal terminology in it before.

"The World's Smallest Hardest Crossword" in the Daily Mail. It's always
only 4x4 and most of the words are obscure.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

On 20 Jul 2008, Tony Houghton told this:

> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:41:35 +0100
> Nix  wrote:
>
>> What kind of a crossword is this? I've never seen a crossword puzzle
>> with obsolete legal terminology in it before.
>
> "The World's Smallest Hardest Crossword" in the Daily Mail. It's always
> only 4x4 and most of the words are obscure.

Oh. I might be interested in it if it wasn't in the Daily Mail, but I
won't buy *that* rag for the sake of 16 bytes.

> Thanks everyone for all the suggestions. Knowing about
> /usr/share/dict/words is obviously a major help. Except it doesn't have
> the word I was looking for on this occasion, which turned out to be
> "agio" :-/


agio is in /usr/share/dict/words in the version used with openSUSE 11.0

graham  wrote:
> 
>> Thanks everyone for all the suggestions. Knowing about
>> /usr/share/dict/words is obviously a major help. Except it doesn't have
>> the word I was looking for on this occasion, which turned out to be
>> "agio" :-/
> 
> 
> agio is in /usr/share/dict/words in the version used with openSUSE 11.0

Hmmm, it's not in ubuntu hardy 
-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
|            in            |  suck is probably the day they start making     |
|     Computer science     |  vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge            |

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 07:47:00 +0100
Nix  wrote:

> Oh. I might be interested in it if it wasn't in the Daily Mail, but I
> won't buy *that* rag for the sake of 16 bytes.

I think its reputation is to its merit, if you actually look at who
criticises it: BBC retained "comedians" who trot out the same piece
about the Mail every week instead of any real jokes (every time I watch
Mock The Week I start thinking it's a repeat) and bigots who substitute
the objects of their hate with groups whom its actually legal to
persecute at the last minute before publishing in the Guardian.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

On 2008-07-21, Tony Houghton  wrote:

> I think its reputation is to its merit, if you actually look at who
> criticises it

Err, no, the Mail, more so than most other papers, is a panic-rag who
crank up the panic as their circulation drops, all the papers do it
but the Mail is a particularly bad example.

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:02:20 +0100
Ian Rawlings  wrote:

> On 2008-07-21, Tony Houghton  wrote:
> 
> > I think its reputation is to its merit, if you actually look at who
> > criticises it
> 
> Err, no, the Mail, more so than most other papers, is a panic-rag who
> crank up the panic as their circulation drops, all the papers do it
> but the Mail is a particularly bad example.

Oh, OK, most people call it a hate rag rather than a panic rag. I've
only seen it this week because my mum's collecting the costume drama
DVDs, but I think it's a shame I'm made to feel I have to point that out
as an excuse for reading it when other papers, especially the most
self-righteous, do worse.

Its circulation must be quite healthy lately, I don't think the "credit
crunch" has made the front page at all in the last week or so, and knife
culture only made it once.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

On 2008-07-21, Tony Houghton  wrote:

> Oh, OK, most people call it a hate rag rather than a panic rag. I've
> only seen it this week because my mum's collecting the costume drama
> DVDs, but I think it's a shame I'm made to feel I have to point that out
> as an excuse for reading it when other papers, especially the most
> self-righteous, do worse.

I don't see papers like the grauniad as worse than the mail, I used to
read it, and found it to be the most reliable of the newspapers, which
isn't saying much of course.  The Daily Scare on the other hand just
seemed to bounce from one overblown moral panic to the next, with the
gaps in between filled out with articles on 101 fatal diseases that
you will catch this year.  I can still remember them ranting on about
paedophiles hiding in every drain while in the same paper, publishing
pictures of an under-age Charlotte Church in low-cut dresses with the
accompanying text making remarks about the size of her boobs.  I think
they did the same with that girl in the Harry Potter movies too.  Then
of course there was all the paparazzi photos that they were no longer
going to use after Princess Di's crash.  Sleaze and fear, that's what
they sell.

> Its circulation must be quite healthy lately, I don't think the "credit
> crunch" has made the front page at all in the last week or so, and knife
> culture only made it once.

Blasted knife culture!  I'm watching editions of Have I Got News For
You going back to the first series, and the gags from 1992 are about
corrupt politicians, knife crime, straight bananas, immigrants, MP's
expenses, and so on.  As for knife culture, the NHS has reported that
there were no teenagers with knife wounds in any English hospitals
outside of London in the last year, unlike when the Teddy Boys were
around, and after them, the Mods and Rockers, and later still, the
Punk Rockers.

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:05:32 +0100
Ian Rawlings  wrote:

> On 2008-07-21, Tony Houghton  wrote:
> 
> > Oh, OK, most people call it a hate rag rather than a panic rag. I've
> > only seen it this week because my mum's collecting the costume drama
> > DVDs, but I think it's a shame I'm made to feel I have to point
> > that out as an excuse for reading it when other papers, especially
> > the most self-righteous, do worse.
> 
> I don't see papers like the grauniad as worse than the mail, I used to
> read it, and found it to be the most reliable of the newspapers, which
> isn't saying much of course.  The Daily Scare on the other hand just
> seemed to bounce from one overblown moral panic to the next, with the
> gaps in between filled out with articles on 101 fatal diseases that
> you will catch this year.  I can still remember them ranting on about
> paedophiles hiding in every drain while in the same paper, publishing
> pictures of an under-age Charlotte Church in low-cut dresses with the
> accompanying text making remarks about the size of her boobs.  I think
> they did the same with that girl in the Harry Potter movies too.  Then
> of course there was all the paparazzi photos that they were no longer
> going to use after Princess Di's crash.  Sleaze and fear, that's what
> they sell.

I don't mean others are necessarily worse at scare-mongering, but that
they print things more objectionable than the Daily Mail's
scare-mongering. The Guardian is a prime example. It's a steaming pile
of hypocrisy. While the Daily Mail gets a reputation for victimising
minority groups, it's actually the Guardian that goes the whole hog and
proposes "solutions" such as holding them up to public ridicule and
deporting them to somewhere deserted. Just because their victims are
carefully selected to not be covered by anti-discrimination laws and the
headlines aren't as awful as the Sun's doesn't mean they aren't bigotry
and the Guardian isn't a "hate rag".

> > Its circulation must be quite healthy lately, I don't think the
> > "credit crunch" has made the front page at all in the last week or
> > so, and knife culture only made it once.
> 
> Blasted knife culture!  I'm watching editions of Have I Got News For
> You going back to the first series, and the gags from 1992 are about
> corrupt politicians, knife crime, straight bananas, immigrants, MP's
> expenses, and so on.  As for knife culture, the NHS has reported that
> there were no teenagers with knife wounds in any English hospitals
> outside of London in the last year, unlike when the Teddy Boys were
> around, and after them, the Mods and Rockers, and later still, the
> Punk Rockers.

I got the impression (not from the Mail - I didn't read that article)
that the problem wasn't unique to London. The NHS quote wouldn't stand
up to a good scaremonger ;). Why only teenagers; are the statistics
including adults something they want to keep buried? When did "the last
year" end and has there been a rise since then? Do they count teenagers
who died of stab wounds before they got to hospital?

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

On 2008-07-21, Tony Houghton  wrote:

> I don't mean others are necessarily worse at scare-mongering, but that
> they print things more objectionable than the Daily Mail's
> scare-mongering. The Guardian is a prime example. It's a steaming pile
> of hypocrisy.

JH Christ mate, the Mail is the paragon of self serving self
contradiction.  It's an industry joke paper.  Every time I visit my
parents I have a read of their copy and it's not getting any better.

> I got the impression (not from the Mail - I didn't read that article)
> that the problem wasn't unique to London. The NHS quote wouldn't stand
> up to a good scaremonger ;). Why only teenagers; are the statistics
> including adults something they want to keep buried? When did "the last
> year" end and has there been a rise since then? Do they count teenagers
> who died of stab wounds before they got to hospital?

You might like to turn a tenth of that criticality onto the bilge
printed in your daily paper.  While I can't talk for the NHS, the
hand-wringing was about teenagers and how they carry knives because
they don't feel safe.  As for the date period covered by their stats,
a line has to be drawn somewhere, and wherever that is drawn, you
could try and puff up some conspiracy about it.

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/

On 21 Jul 2008, Ian Rawlings stated:

> On 2008-07-21, Tony Houghton  wrote:
>
>> I think its reputation is to its merit, if you actually look at who
>> criticises it
>
> Err, no, the Mail, more so than most other papers, is a panic-rag who
> crank up the panic as their circulation drops, all the papers do it
> but the Mail is a particularly bad example.

More to the point, their editor has explicitly stated on the record that
he doesn't care what is true and will happily make stuff up if it sells.

The formal technical term for such a lack of interest in truth-values is
`bullshit': <http://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946/>.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:16:37 +0100
Ian Rawlings  wrote:

> On 2008-07-21, Tony Houghton  wrote:
> 
> > I don't mean others are necessarily worse at scare-mongering, but
> > that they print things more objectionable than the Daily Mail's
> > scare-mongering. The Guardian is a prime example. It's a steaming
> > pile of hypocrisy.
> 
> JH Christ mate, the Mail is the paragon of self serving self
> contradiction.  It's an industry joke paper.  Every time I visit my
> parents I have a read of their copy and it's not getting any better.

Nah, knocking the Daily Mail is no more than an overused fashion
statement and the Guardian is its perceived opposite. After a bit of
digging I've just rediscovered the article which turned my faint
distaste for it into disgust:
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,534337,00.html>. Instead of
"Grauniad" the nickname "Gudarian" (pronounced "good Aryan") would be
more appropriate.

I'm sure that isn't really representative or the sort of thing which
makes you prefer it to the Daily Mail, but I hope it'll at least help
you understand why I'm fed up with people slagging off the Daily Mail
when they're nearly always Guardian readers.

> > I got the impression (not from the Mail - I didn't read that
> > article) that the problem wasn't unique to London. The NHS quote
> > wouldn't stand up to a good scaremonger ;). Why only teenagers; are
> > the statistics including adults something they want to keep buried?
> > When did "the last year" end and has there been a rise since then?
> > Do they count teenagers who died of stab wounds before they got to
> > hospital?
> 
> You might like to turn a tenth of that criticality onto the bilge
> printed in your daily paper.

Are you still singling out the Mail, or papers in particular? I don't
actually read any regularly, but I've learnt to take them all with a
pinch of salt, and TV news, including the BBC, even more.

> While I can't talk for the NHS, the
> hand-wringing was about teenagers and how they carry knives because
> they don't feel safe.  As for the date period covered by their stats,
> a line has to be drawn somewhere, and wherever that is drawn, you
> could try and puff up some conspiracy about it.

Did you miss the smiley? If I was trying to make any point it was that I
wouldn't trust anything from a government spokesman etc any more than I
would from a newspaper.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:01:57 +0100
Nix  wrote:

> On 21 Jul 2008, Ian Rawlings stated:
> 
> > Err, no, the Mail, more so than most other papers, is a panic-rag
> > who crank up the panic as their circulation drops, all the papers
> > do it but the Mail is a particularly bad example.
> 
> More to the point, their editor has explicitly stated on the record
> that he doesn't care what is true and will happily make stuff up if
> it sells.

That could explain why it has less ill-humour and hypocrisy than the
bullshit in some other papers.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

On 2008-07-22, Tony Houghton  wrote:

> That could explain why it has less ill-humour and hypocrisy than the
> bullshit in some other papers.

Are you talking about the Daily Mail, a paper published in Britain?

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/

On 2008-07-22, Tony Houghton  wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:16:37 +0100
> Ian Rawlings  wrote:
>
>> On 2008-07-21, Tony Houghton  wrote:
>> 
>> > I don't mean others are necessarily worse at scare-mongering, but
>> > that they print things more objectionable than the Daily Mail's
>> > scare-mongering. The Guardian is a prime example. It's a steaming
>> > pile of hypocrisy.
>> 
>> JH Christ mate, the Mail is the paragon of self serving self
>> contradiction.  It's an industry joke paper.  Every time I visit my
>> parents I have a read of their copy and it's not getting any better.
>
> Nah, knocking the Daily Mail is no more than an overused fashion
> statement and the Guardian is its perceived opposite. After a bit of
> digging I've just rediscovered the article which turned my faint
> distaste for it into disgust:
><http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,534337,00.html>. Instead of
> "Grauniad" the nickname "Gudarian" (pronounced "good Aryan") would be
> more appropriate.

And that's far worse than the daily grind of right-wing bollocks that
the mail spouts is it?  The incessant exploitation of women, the
leering pictures of under-age sports stars, the constant blaming of
just about anything on the European Union, and their harping on about
the Human Rights Act and how it gives more rights to burglars than it
does to victims (which is bollocks)?

And what you don't like about the guardian (which I don't read
incidentally) is that it publishes an opinion piece about how people
are keen to give themselves a label to excuse what is often a vice?

> Are you still singling out the Mail, or papers in particular? I don't
> actually read any regularly, but I've learnt to take them all with a
> pinch of salt, and TV news, including the BBC, even more.

Mostly the Mail as it's the one I have most experience with, and I
think it's still the most popular.

As for the BBC and TV news, what you may be mistaking for bias is
their regulatory requirement to present both sides of an argument,
something that will seem alien to you.  I've seen articles on the BBC,
especially about off-road 4x4 driving, that were very poor journalism,
but that's nothing compared to the rantings I used to read in the
Mail.  And generally on the beeb the other side gets to present their
argument, not something the mail bothers with.

> Did you miss the smiley? If I was trying to make any point it was that I
> wouldn't trust anything from a government spokesman etc any more than I
> would from a newspaper.

Bear in mind though that the newspaper has to generate a newspaper's
worth of news every single day, and I use the word "generate" quite
deliberately.

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/

Tony Houghton wrote:

> Nah, knocking the Daily Mail is no more than an overused fashion
> statement and the Guardian is its perceived opposite. After a bit of
> digging I've just rediscovered the article which turned my faint
> distaste for it into disgust:
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,534337,00.html>. Instead of
> "Grauniad" the nickname "Gudarian" (pronounced "good Aryan") would be
> more appropriate.

Ha ha. Julie Burchill always was a bit of a wanker - even in her NME 
days in the good old punk 70s! But that article's quite funny. It's not 
very PC, but it does make at least one interesting and valid point.



-- 
http://MaldonIT.co.uk

Ian Rawlings wrote:
> On 2008-07-22, Tony Houghton  wrote:
> 
>> That could explain why it has less ill-humour and hypocrisy than the
>> bullshit in some other papers.
> 
> Are you talking about the Daily Mail, a paper published in Britain?

Ha ha. This country's got the worst newspapers in the world! I've 
travelled to lots of different countries and i've never come across any 
papers anywhere that even get close to it. I have to admit that i'm 
limited to reading English and Spanish language papers, but there are 
plenty of English language papers in Asia. The only papers that come 
anywhere near the rubbish that's published here are most of Murdoch's 
rags in Australia.

The Guardian's the only paper in this country that i'd trust to not have 
an ulterior motive and to try and pull the wool over people's eyes. 
That's not to say it's 100% objective - because that's impossible. 
Papers are written by people and, by their nature, people are incapable 
of objectivity. The Guardian's the only one that's not owned by 
mega-rich manipulators for the sole purpose of exerting control over 
this country.



-- 
http://MaldonIT.co.uk

On 2008-07-22, Will Kemp  wrote:

> Ha ha. Julie Burchill always was a bit of a wanker - even in her NME 
> days in the good old punk 70s! But that article's quite funny. It's not 
> very PC, but it does make at least one interesting and valid point.

IIRC she was deliberately bought on to write controversial articles,
they always have at least one loon on every paper to generate letters
and publicity, and she's done so for a variety of papers, including
the Mail on Sunday.

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/

On 22 Jul 2008, Tony Houghton verbalised:

> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:01:57 +0100
> Nix  wrote:
>> More to the point, their editor has explicitly stated on the record
>> that he doesn't care what is true and will happily make stuff up if
>> it sells.
>
> That could explain why it has less ill-humour and hypocrisy than the
> bullshit in some other papers.

Er, this *is* the Daily Mail we're talking about. `Less ill-humour'? 
Than what? The only non-celeb news they report is the stirring up of
moral panics based entirely on the prejudices of the worst component
of Little England.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:05:32 +0100, Ian Rawlings wrote:
> I don't see papers like the grauniad as worse than the mail, I used to
> read it, and found it to be the most reliable of the newspapers

The Grauniad has its own slant on the world, but it seems more
intelligently written and more likely to analyse events than other
papers.

-- 
Stephen Patterson :: steve@patter.mine.nu :: http://patter.mine.nu/
GPG: B416F0DE :: Jabber: patter@jabber.earth.li 
"Don't be silly, Minnie. Who'd be walking round these cliffs with a gas oven?"

Will Kemp  wrote:
> The Guardian's the only paper in this country that i'd trust to not have 
> an ulterior motive and to try and pull the wool over people's eyes. 
> That's not to say it's 100% objective - because that's impossible. 
> Papers are written by people and, by their nature, people are incapable 
> of objectivity. The Guardian's the only one that's not owned by 
> mega-rich manipulators for the sole purpose of exerting control over 
> this country.

Just out of interest, what do you dislike about the Independent?

#Paul

On 22 Jul 2008, Will Kemp said:
> The Guardian's the only paper in this country that i'd trust to not
> have an ulterior motive and to try and pull the wool over people's
> eyes. That's not to say it's 100% objective - because that's
> impossible. Papers are written by people and, by their nature, people
> are incapable of objectivity. The Guardian's the only one that's not
> owned by mega-rich manipulators for the sole purpose of exerting
> control over this country.

The Private Eye? (Ian Hislop, mega-rich manipulator!)

kinslerp@delillo.lsr.ph.ic.ac.uk wrote:
> Will Kemp  wrote:
>> The Guardian's the only paper in this country that i'd trust to not have 
>> an ulterior motive and to try and pull the wool over people's eyes. 
>> That's not to say it's 100% objective - because that's impossible. 
>> Papers are written by people and, by their nature, people are incapable 
>> of objectivity. The Guardian's the only one that's not owned by 
>> mega-rich manipulators for the sole purpose of exerting control over 
>> this country.
> 
> Just out of interest, what do you dislike about the Independent?

I never said there was anything i dislike about it. I've got no opinion 
on it at all - i can't say i've ever read it since its very early days.

But it's not actually independent, is it? As far as i know, it's owned 
by an Irish billionaire, who no doubt uses it to further his own 
personal ends.

The Guardian, on the other hand, is owned by a non-profit trust which 
exists purely to publish the Guardian and the Observer and keep them 
independent.



-- 
http://MaldonIT.co.uk

On 2008-07-22, Will Kemp  wrote:

> The Guardian, on the other hand, is owned by a non-profit trust which 
> exists purely to publish the Guardian and the Observer and keep them 
> independent.

Usually I stick to the BBC website, and take a look at the Grauniad
website from time to time, plus Times Online, and sub to Private Eye,
but mindful of the way they've all published very poor articles on
subjects I know something about so I assume they publish very poor
articles on things I don't know about too ;-)

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/

In article ,
	Nix wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2008, Will Kemp said:
>> The Guardian's the only paper in this country that i'd trust to not
>> have an ulterior motive and to try and pull the wool over people's
>> eyes. That's not to say it's 100% objective - because that's
>> impossible. Papers are written by people and, by their nature, people
>> are incapable of objectivity. The Guardian's the only one that's not
>> owned by mega-rich manipulators for the sole purpose of exerting
>> control over this country.

> The Private Eye? (Ian Hislop, mega-rich manipulator!)

Part time Jimmy Sommerville impersonator?

-- 
Paul Martin

Ian Rawlings wrote:
> On 2008-07-22, Will Kemp  wrote:
> 
>> The Guardian, on the other hand, is owned by a non-profit trust which 
>> exists purely to publish the Guardian and the Observer and keep them 
>> independent.
> 
> Usually I stick to the BBC website, and take a look at the Grauniad
> website from time to time, plus Times Online, and sub to Private Eye,
> but mindful of the way they've all published very poor articles on
> subjects I know something about so I assume they publish very poor
> articles on things I don't know about too ;-)

Yeah, that goes for everything written by journalists - and practically 
everyone else, if it comes to that!

I get most of my daily news from the Sydney Morning Herald web site, 
Slashdot and The Register. I read Private Eye most months and the 
Observer most weeks. If i had time to read it, i'd probably buy the 
Guardian most days...



-- 
http://MaldonIT.co.uk

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:43:14 +0100
Nix  wrote:

> On 22 Jul 2008, Tony Houghton verbalised:
> 
> > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:01:57 +0100
> > Nix  wrote:
> >> More to the point, their editor has explicitly stated on the record
> >> that he doesn't care what is true and will happily make stuff up if
> >> it sells.
> >
> > That could explain why it has less ill-humour and hypocrisy than the
> > bullshit in some other papers.
> 
> Er, this *is* the Daily Mail we're talking about. `Less ill-humour'? 
> Than what? The only non-celeb news they report is the stirring up of
> moral panics based entirely on the prejudices of the worst component
> of Little England.

I really need to get out of this habit of being oblique. What I meant
was that all papers publish made-up bullshit to sell more copies. If the
Daily Mail's editor is the only one prepared to admit it, well just
maybe it shows a thin streak of honesty lacking in his competitors. Or
was the word "happily" crucial? As if being reluctant about it somehow
justifies the bullshitting.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:27:05 +0100
Ian Rawlings  wrote:

> On 2008-07-22, Tony Houghton  wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:16:37 +0100
> > Ian Rawlings  wrote:
> >
> > Nah, knocking the Daily Mail is no more than an overused fashion
> > statement and the Guardian is its perceived opposite. After a bit of
> > digging I've just rediscovered the article which turned my faint
> > distaste for it into disgust:
> ><http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,534337,00.html>. Instead
> >of
> > "Grauniad" the nickname "Gudarian" (pronounced "good Aryan") would
> > be more appropriate.
> 
> And that's far worse than the daily grind of right-wing bollocks that
> the mail spouts is it?

As a matter of fact, yes.

> The incessant exploitation of women, the
> leering pictures of under-age sports stars,

So when you say you've read the Daily Mail, are you sure you don't
really mean you've read some sweeping generalisations about tabloids in
general which lumped in everything including the Daily Sport?

> the constant blaming of
> just about anything on the European Union, and their harping on about
> the Human Rights Act and how it gives more rights to burglars than it
> does to victims (which is bollocks)?
> 
> And what you don't like about the guardian (which I don't read
> incidentally) is that it publishes an opinion piece about how people
> are keen to give themselves a label to excuse what is often a vice?

That's not all it said though. Anorexia, depression and ME aren't vices
that people choose to get more attention. But regardless of how the
actual article compares with the Mail's, what makes it worse is the
hypocricy. One minute, it's, "Oh, the Daily Mail is vile, look at how it
treats vulnerable heroin addicts and poor old John Prescott with his
tragic eating disorder." But put an identical article in a paper that
comes with a "right-on" label and it suddenly becomes the most
intelligent and balanced piece you've ever read.

> > Are you still singling out the Mail, or papers in particular? I
> > don't actually read any regularly, but I've learnt to take them all
> > with a pinch of salt, and TV news, including the BBC, even more.
> 
> Mostly the Mail as it's the one I have most experience with, and I
> think it's still the most popular.
> 
> As for the BBC and TV news, what you may be mistaking for bias is
> their regulatory requirement to present both sides of an argument,
> something that will seem alien to you.

It seems alien to TV directors. Unless you count inviting someone's wife
and mistress to appear together on a daytime TV show in the hope they'll
have a cat fight.

> I've seen articles on the BBC,
> especially about off-road 4x4 driving, that were very poor journalism,
> but that's nothing compared to the rantings I used to read in the
> Mail.  And generally on the beeb the other side gets to present their
> argument, not something the mail bothers with.

They do on the radio, the Jeremy Vine show in particular (at least when
Dermott wotsisface isn't covering for him), but TV doesn't strike me as
doing a good job of presenting both sides. Speaking of JV, I think the
first part of his show today was based on Channel 4 having just been
slapped with some sort of punishment from the regulators for presenting
the other side of a popular argument.

> > Did you miss the smiley? If I was trying to make any point it was
> > that I wouldn't trust anything from a government spokesman etc any
> > more than I would from a newspaper.
> 
> Bear in mind though that the newspaper has to generate a newspaper's
> worth of news every single day, and I use the word "generate" quite
> deliberately.

And the government has to generate voters.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

On 2008-07-22, Tony Houghton  wrote:

> As a matter of fact, yes.

So you're fine about mindless discrimination based on false
stereotyping on a daily basis preferring that to one instance of a
paper that carried an article by a known shite opinion piece writer
who doesn't even work for the paper any more.

> So when you say you've read the Daily Mail, are you sure you don't
> really mean you've read some sweeping generalisations about tabloids in
> general which lumped in everything including the Daily Sport?

I don't mean that at all, I mean the Daily Mail.  I used to read it,
and occasionally have a look at the online version for a quick bit of
slumming.  It always lives up to the stereotype.  It's only one step
away from having a nipple count.  The articles are salacious and any
excuse to cover something to do with bonking or women in bikinis is
grabbed with both hands;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

If that's what you want then fine but don't describe it as a "newspaper".

> That's not all it said though. Anorexia, depression and ME aren't vices
> that people choose to get more attention. But regardless of how the
> actual article compares with the Mail's, what makes it worse is the
> hypocricy. One minute, it's, "Oh, the Daily Mail is vile, look at how it
> treats vulnerable heroin addicts and poor old John Prescott with his
> tragic eating disorder." But put an identical article in a paper that
> comes with a "right-on" label and it suddenly becomes the most
> intelligent and balanced piece you've ever read.

What utter tripe.  Julie Burchill is a shithead and no longer works
for the paper.  Strange how despite us saying that all papers are
shite but the mail is particularly bad, we're all in total agreement
that her piece was the most balanced article we've ever read!  Are you
sure you're not stereotyping us?

> It seems alien to TV directors. Unless you count inviting someone's wife
> and mistress to appear together on a daytime TV show in the hope they'll
> have a cat fight.

What's that got to do with this little discussion?

> They do on the radio, the Jeremy Vine show in particular (at least when
> Dermott wotsisface isn't covering for him), but TV doesn't strike me as
> doing a good job of presenting both sides.

From what you've said in this little thread I'm not sure you could
tell.  It's certainly not totally right *as I did mention* but it's a
damn sight closer than any of the papers as the broadcasters have a
mandate to make an efford to show both sides, not to be 100%
impartial.  The newspapers have absolutely no control whatsoever and
will spin you a line that suits them.

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:21:18 +0100
Ian Rawlings  wrote:

> On 2008-07-22, Tony Houghton  wrote:
> 
> > As a matter of fact, yes.
> 
> So you're fine about mindless discrimination based on false
> stereotyping on a daily basis

You're obviously happy with it provided it's directed at Daily Mail
readers or "Middle England".

> preferring that to one instance of a
> paper that carried an article by a known shite opinion piece writer
> who doesn't even work for the paper any more.

I doubt it's an isolated instance or that it had anything to do with her
no longer working there. 

> > So when you say you've read the Daily Mail, are you sure you don't
> > really mean you've read some sweeping generalisations about
> > tabloids in general which lumped in everything including the Daily
> > Sport?
> 
> I don't mean that at all, I mean the Daily Mail.  I used to read it,
> and occasionally have a look at the online version for a quick bit of
> slumming.  It always lives up to the stereotype.  It's only one step
> away from having a nipple count.  The articles are salacious and any
> excuse to cover something to do with bonking or women in bikinis is
> grabbed with both hands;
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
> 
> If that's what you want then fine but don't describe it as a
> "newspaper".

Sure, it's racier than the Guardian, but I don't understand why you've
picked sex and sexism to make a case that the Mail is worse than
anything else. The other tabloids seem just as salacious to me, and
the Sun is definitely worse in that respect. I'm told its football
coverage is quite good though.

> > That's not all it said though. Anorexia, depression and ME aren't
> > vices that people choose to get more attention. But regardless of
> > how the actual article compares with the Mail's, what makes it
> > worse is the hypocricy. One minute, it's, "Oh, the Daily Mail is
> > vile, look at how it treats vulnerable heroin addicts and poor old
> > John Prescott with his tragic eating disorder." But put an
> > identical article in a paper that comes with a "right-on" label and
> > it suddenly becomes the most intelligent and balanced piece you've
> > ever read.
> 
> What utter tripe.  Julie Burchill is a shithead and no longer works
> for the paper.  Strange how despite us saying that all papers are
> shite but the mail is particularly bad, we're all in total agreement
> that her piece was the most balanced article we've ever read!  Are you
> sure you're not stereotyping us?

That was based on before you changed your position from there being
nothing much wrong with the article to it being an ex-employee's fault
for which the paper has no responsibility.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

On 2008-07-22, Tony Houghton  wrote:

> You're obviously happy with it provided it's directed at Daily Mail
> readers or "Middle England".

I'm directing my ire against the Daily Mail, I've not mentioned the
readers.

> I doubt it's an isolated instance or that it had anything to do with her
> no longer working there. 

So you read it regularly then?  And what is it that you think the
paper is guilty of on a daily basis that the Mail isn't?

> Sure, it's racier than the Guardian, but I don't understand why you've
> picked sex and sexism to make a case that the Mail is worse than
> anything else.

It's the obession with the trivial, anything grubby, any celebrities,
and pandering to popular prejudices that they themselves have helped
to create, that's far worse than any of the papers like the guardian,
times, indie, etc.

One of my pet hates is the ridiculous trumpeting that I hear so much
about how the country is going to the dogs because it's swamped with
immigrants and paedophiles and we can't defend ourselves against
criminals because we'll be hauled off and thrown into prisons, and how
prisons are holiday camps (not the ones we'd be thrown into though,
only the ones for the criminals it seems) and so on.  The Mail is one
of the most visible proponents of this fantasy state.

> The other tabloids seem just as salacious to me, and
> the Sun is definitely worse in that respect. I'm told its football
> coverage is quite good though.

Who mentioned those rags?  They're certainly worse than the mail.

> That was based on before you changed your position from there being
> nothing much wrong with the article to it being an ex-employee's fault
> for which the paper has no responsibility.

I didn't change my position, I didn't think the article was
particularly good, but it wasn't particularly bad either, it seems you
think you know what I feel better than I do.

You appear to be oscillating wildly from one extreme to the other,
it's a common mistake, thinking that you have to be totally for
something or totally against it.  I know the Mail's view of the world
is simplistic right and wrong, but in the real world it's not like
that, perhaps you need to change paper, or stop buying them completely.

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:19:33 +0100
Ian Rawlings  wrote:

> On 2008-07-22, Tony Houghton  wrote:
> 
> > Sure, it's racier than the Guardian, but I don't understand why
> > you've picked sex and sexism to make a case that the Mail is worse
> > than anything else.
> 
> It's the obession with the trivial, anything grubby, any celebrities,
> and pandering to popular prejudices that they themselves have helped
> to create, that's far worse than any of the papers like the guardian,
> times, indie, etc.

So not topless birds after all then.

> One of my pet hates is the ridiculous trumpeting that I hear so much
> about how the country is going to the dogs because it's swamped with
> immigrants and paedophiles and we can't defend ourselves against
> criminals because we'll be hauled off and thrown into prisons, and how
> prisons are holiday camps (not the ones we'd be thrown into though,
> only the ones for the criminals it seems) and so on.  The Mail is one
> of the most visible proponents of this fantasy state.

At least it's perceived to be. I think you missed the bit where I said I
don't regularly read it, but although I don't regularly read any others
(like you, the Mail is what I see most often) I hear/see people moaning
about the Daily Mail moaning about immigrants far more often than I've
ever seen the DM moaning about immigrants, and that's what I've got fed
up with, and actually curious about why it gets the most flak if it
isn't just because it's fashionable to attack it.

> > The other tabloids seem just as salacious to me, and
> > the Sun is definitely worse in that respect. I'm told its football
> > coverage is quite good though.
> 
> Who mentioned those rags?  They're certainly worse than the mail.

Ah, I guess you didn't actually say the Mail was the very worst, it just
seemd that way. Strange to bring up the objectifying women angle without
mentioning the Sun.

> > That was based on before you changed your position from there being
> > nothing much wrong with the article to it being an ex-employee's
> > fault for which the paper has no responsibility.
> 
> I didn't change my position, I didn't think the article was
> particularly good, but it wasn't particularly bad either, it seems you
> think you know what I feel better than I do.
> 
> You appear to be oscillating wildly from one extreme to the other,
> it's a common mistake, thinking that you have to be totally for
> something or totally against it.  I know the Mail's view of the world
> is simplistic right and wrong, but in the real world it's not like
> that, perhaps you need to change paper, or stop buying them
> completely.

It's not "my paper", I said my family is only buying it this week
because my mum wants the costume drama DVDs. I expect it's not uncommon
for people to choose a paper based on considerations other than the main
articles. The Daily Mail seems to have the best freebies like these
DVDs, or at least the best ad campaigns for them. My brother-in-law
usually gets the Sun because he reckons it has the best football
coverage, which is all he's interested in it for, and my sister reckons
the TV guide it comes with on Saturdays isn't bad as far as cheap TV
guides go. The last two times I can remember buying a paper for myself
was because of the freebies. I can't even remember which papers they
were now, except they were (ex-) broadsheets.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

On 22 Jul 2008, Tony Houghton said:

> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:43:14 +0100
> Nix  wrote:
>
>> Er, this *is* the Daily Mail we're talking about. `Less ill-humour'? 
>> Than what? The only non-celeb news they report is the stirring up of
>> moral panics based entirely on the prejudices of the worst component
>> of Little England.
>
> I really need to get out of this habit of being oblique. What I meant
> was that all papers publish made-up bullshit to sell more copies. If the
> Daily Mail's editor is the only one prepared to admit it, well just
> maybe it shows a thin streak of honesty lacking in his competitors. Or

He publishes rather a lot *more* made-up bullshit than most of the rest
seem to, and he doesn't even care if what he publishes is true or not.

Maybe I'm being overly idealistic expecting journalists to actually
have, you know, ethics.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:28:44 +0100
Nix  wrote:

> Maybe I'm being overly idealistic expecting journalists to actually
> have, you know, ethics.

There must be some honest journalists mustn't there? OTOH even the one
who wrote a nice piece of trivia in the local paper about my sister and
mother graduating with different nursing qualifications but at the same
time made up the quotes :-/.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

Tony Houghton wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:28:44 +0100
> Nix  wrote:
> 
>> Maybe I'm being overly idealistic expecting journalists to actually
>> have, you know, ethics.
> 
> There must be some honest journalists mustn't there? OTOH even the one
> who wrote a nice piece of trivia in the local paper about my sister and
> mother graduating with different nursing qualifications but at the same
> time made up the quotes :-/.

I'm sure there are honest journalists. And most of the "dishonest" ones 
aren't really dishonest - they're just lazy (or drunk!). But local 
papers are a different story altogether - it's cause for celebration if 
they manage to get something *right*! They're not usually dishonest, 
just absolutely hopeless - and probably bored mindless by the local 
non-news they have to cover. Our local paper here is a prime example of 
that. I'm sure they try hard - but they just haven't got a clue, poor 
buggers!



-- 
http://MaldonIT.co.uk

On 2008-07-22, Tony Houghton  wrote:

> So not topless birds after all then.

Eh?

So no comment to make about the gutter nature of the paper other than
"not topless birds then"?

>> One of my pet hates is the ridiculous trumpeting that I hear so much
>> about how the country is going to the dogs because it's swamped with
>> immigrants and paedophiles and we can't defend ourselves against
>> criminals because we'll be hauled off and thrown into prisons, and how
>> prisons are holiday camps (not the ones we'd be thrown into though,
>> only the ones for the criminals it seems) and so on.  The Mail is one
>> of the most visible proponents of this fantasy state.
>
> At least it's perceived to be.

If "perceived" you mean it's seen to carry such stories and have an
editorial line that pushes that agenda, then yes.  It's not as full-on
as the lower end of the market but it's the most visible and
influencial proponent because it's the one bought most by the middle
classes.

> I think you missed the bit where I said I
> don't regularly read it, but although I don't regularly read any others
> (like you, the Mail is what I see most often) I hear/see people moaning
> about the Daily Mail moaning about immigrants far more often than I've
> ever seen the DM moaning about immigrants, and that's what I've got fed
> up with, and actually curious about why it gets the most flak if it
> isn't just because it's fashionable to attack it.

It's not a fashion thing.  Also you're doing that exteme thing again,
if people say they have an overblown editorial line against subjects
like immigration, europe, modern crime policies etc and deliberately
distort against them, it doesn't mean that every single article does
so.  Some of them are about celebrities or teenage girls in bikinis!

> Ah, I guess you didn't actually say the Mail was the very worst, it just
> seemd that way. Strange to bring up the objectifying women angle without
> mentioning the Sun.

Or the porn mags surely?  Why bring up them when it's the Mail we're
griping about.

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/

On 2008-07-22, Tony Houghton  wrote:

> There must be some honest journalists mustn't there? OTOH even the one
> who wrote a nice piece of trivia in the local paper about my sister and
> mother graduating with different nursing qualifications but at the same
> time made up the quotes :-/.

I was on prime-time TV a few months back, 6PM news, talking about the
demise of HD-DVD.  According to the article I'm a movie buff who loves
all the latest movies and when HD-DVD came out I rushed out to buy the
first range of players.  In reality I buy *very* few movies, all of
them old (my faves are 1960s sci-fi) and I waited until HD-DVD players
dropped tto 160 quid or so, a long time after they first came out. I
also don't have a vast collection of HD-DVDs like I was supposed to
have, just 12 in fact, all of them bought cheaply and 6 of them were
free.  Ho hum.

If a Daily Mail reporter came round, I'd be a hard-working
cancer-victim mum robbed of my vast collection of reikki videos by
mandarins from europe!  Where will it all end!

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/

Ian Rawlings wrote:
> On 2008-07-22, Tony Houghton  wrote:
> 
>> There must be some honest journalists mustn't there? OTOH even the one
>> who wrote a nice piece of trivia in the local paper about my sister and
>> mother graduating with different nursing qualifications but at the same
>> time made up the quotes :-/.
> 
> I was on prime-time TV a few months back, 6PM news, talking about the
> demise of HD-DVD.  According to the article I'm a movie buff who loves
> all the latest movies and when HD-DVD came out I rushed out to buy the
> first range of players.  In reality I buy *very* few movies, all of
> them old (my faves are 1960s sci-fi) and I waited until HD-DVD players
> dropped tto 160 quid or so, a long time after they first came out. I
> also don't have a vast collection of HD-DVDs like I was supposed to
> have, just 12 in fact, all of them bought cheaply and 6 of them were
> free.  Ho hum.
> 
> If a Daily Mail reporter came round, I'd be a hard-working
> cancer-victim mum robbed of my vast collection of reikki videos by
> mandarins from europe!  Where will it all end!

Ha ha. Our local paper had me "dodging bullets" in Afghanistan last 
year. I'm pleased to say i never saw a shot fired while i was working 
there - but that doesn't make for such exciting reading, does it?



-- 
http://MaldonIT.co.uk

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:56:32 +0100
Will Kemp  wrote:

> Ha ha. Our local paper had me "dodging bullets" in Afghanistan last 
> year. I'm pleased to say i never saw a shot fired while i was working 
> there - but that doesn't make for such exciting reading, does it?

And by the time the nationals got hold of it they were blaming you for
making it up and calling you Hillary ;-).

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:07:15 +0100
Ian Rawlings  wrote:

> On 2008-07-22, Tony Houghton  wrote:
> 
> > So not topless birds after all then.
> 
> Eh?
> 
> So no comment to make about the gutter nature of the paper other than
> "not topless birds then"?

A comment about your being extreme would be a valid alternative.

> > I think you missed the bit where I said I
> > don't regularly read it, but although I don't regularly read any
> > others (like you, the Mail is what I see most often) I hear/see
> > people moaning about the Daily Mail moaning about immigrants far
> > more often than I've ever seen the DM moaning about immigrants, and
> > that's what I've got fed up with, and actually curious about why it
> > gets the most flak if it isn't just because it's fashionable to
> > attack it.
> 
> It's not a fashion thing.  Also you're doing that exteme thing again,
> if people say they have an overblown editorial line against subjects
> like immigration, europe, modern crime policies etc and deliberately
> distort against them, it doesn't mean that every single article does
> so.  Some of them are about celebrities or teenage girls in bikinis!

I still think the amount of criticism the Mail gets compared to other
papers is out of proportion to how its content actually compares to them
and the main reason for that is because it's like a catchphrase.

> > Ah, I guess you didn't actually say the Mail was the very worst, it
> > just seemd that way. Strange to bring up the objectifying women
> > angle without mentioning the Sun.
> 
> Or the porn mags surely?  Why bring up them when it's the Mail we're
> griping about.

Yes, I thought you were trying to show why the Mail is one of the worst
examples of a newspaper. In terms of sleazy pictures of women there are
obviously worse culprits which are well known as "newspapers".  Porn
mags are a different kettle of fish, they don't make any claim to
providing a news service.

-- 
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

Tony Houghton wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:56:32 +0100
> Will Kemp  wrote:
> 
>> Ha ha. Our local paper had me "dodging bullets" in Afghanistan last 
>> year. I'm pleased to say i never saw a shot fired while i was working 
>> there - but that doesn't make for such exciting reading, does it?
> 
> And by the time the nationals got hold of it they were blaming you for
> making it up and calling you Hillary ;-).

;-)



-- 
http://MaldonIT.co.uk

On 2008-07-23, Tony Houghton  wrote:

> I still think the amount of criticism the Mail gets compared to other
> papers is out of proportion to how its content actually compares to them
> and the main reason for that is because it's like a catchphrase.

The reason why is because it's the most influential, so its faults and
deliberate distortions have the most impact by far.  Even its website,
which I'm told is actually more right-wing and salacious than the
paper version, is the most read newspaper website for all UK
newspapers (I don't know if they include the BBC website in that).

> Yes, I thought you were trying to show why the Mail is one of the worst
> examples of a newspaper. In terms of sleazy pictures of women there are
> obviously worse culprits which are well known as "newspapers".  Porn
> mags are a different kettle of fish, they don't make any claim to
> providing a news service.

The women angle is actually fairly minor to me (as I'm a bloke) but is
just an example of its trivialisation and eagerness to tittilate, it's
the gross distortion of the state of the country that gets of my
nerves the most, and their willful distortion of stories like the
Madeleine Mcann affair in order to sell papers.

Still, with any luck all the Mail readers will whip each other up into
such a frenzy that they'll emigrate!

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/

On 23 Jul 2008, Will Kemp stated:
> local papers are a different story altogether - it's cause for
> celebration if they manage to get something *right*! They're not
> usually dishonest, just absolutely hopeless - and probably bored
> mindless by the local non-news they have to cover.

Oh yes. For example, our local award-winning Bedford paper (founded by
the now Mayor, run by an ex-County-Councillor, vehemently anti-council
as a result) had a truly remarkable front-page story two weeks ago.  It
was a story about a murder. Normally murders are interesting enough that
you can actually have, you know, a *story* in your story. What was this
story? Well, despite the byline, 95% of it was obviously a straight
reproduction of the charge sheet, language unadjusted: even the legal
citations were in place (looking horrendously *out* of place in a
newspaper).