On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:50:47 +0200, BrritSki 
wrote:

>Nick wrote:
>> dennis@fake wrote:
>>> Trent SC wrote:
>>>>>> Personalities aside, what I remember most about Thatcher's reign 
>>>>>> was how
>>>>>> _tacky_ the country became; you could see it in the flimsy new 
>>>>>> buildings
>>>>>> and the tin-can trains running packed-out on neglected 
>>>>>> infrastructure, and
>>>>>> the gaudy post-deregulation buses, and the end of the independent 
>>>>>> shop on
>>>>>> the High Street, and the superficial excesses of the Me-generation 
>>>>>> piling
>>>>>> into Liverpool Street each morning and wasting the evening in 
>>>>>> champagne
>>>>>> bars called "The Altruist", and good sociable pubs ripped apart and
>>>>>> replaced by off-the-peg "themes" from the ascendent marketing people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure I'm not AOU in seeing it this way.
>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> The thing that sticks in my mind was the strong impression that the 
>>>>> Tories enjoyed the suffering of the victims of their policies.
>>>>
>>>> That or they just didn't care - the people at the bottom of the pile 
>>>> were never going to be true, traditional Tories, so they didn't 
>>>> matter to the likes of Thatcher.
>>>>
>>> Nothing changes, Tories are still The Nasty party.
>> 
>> Thanks for that.  Let me know where you live so I can come round and 
>> break your legs, won't you?
>> 
>> Nick, nasty.
>
>Leave the arms for me will you ?

And you had the gall to complain about this thread being deeply nast
up there somewhere? Am I the only one who doesn't find these physical
threats in response to someone's political opinions even REMOTELY
funny?

lff

Linda Fox wrote:

> And you had the gall to complain about this thread being deeply nast
> up there somewhere? Am I the only one who doesn't find these physical
> threats in response to someone's political opinions even REMOTELY
> funny?

No. HTH.


-- 
Kimbo xx

Books, by Kimbo!
Used and collectible books at sensible prices.
Buy direct at www.booksbykimbo.com
Find me on Ebid http://uk.ebid.net/stores/Books-by-Kimbo

Linda Fox wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:50:47 +0200, BrritSki 
> wrote:
> 
>> Nick wrote:
>>> dennis@fake wrote:
>>>> Trent SC wrote:
>>>>>>> Personalities aside, what I remember most about Thatcher's reign 
>>>>>>> was how
>>>>>>> _tacky_ the country became; you could see it in the flimsy new 
>>>>>>> buildings
>>>>>>> and the tin-can trains running packed-out on neglected 
>>>>>>> infrastructure, and
>>>>>>> the gaudy post-deregulation buses, and the end of the independent 
>>>>>>> shop on
>>>>>>> the High Street, and the superficial excesses of the Me-generation 
>>>>>>> piling
>>>>>>> into Liverpool Street each morning and wasting the evening in 
>>>>>>> champagne
>>>>>>> bars called "The Altruist", and good sociable pubs ripped apart and
>>>>>>> replaced by off-the-peg "themes" from the ascendent marketing people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sure I'm not AOU in seeing it this way.
>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The thing that sticks in my mind was the strong impression that the 
>>>>>> Tories enjoyed the suffering of the victims of their policies.
>>>>> That or they just didn't care - the people at the bottom of the pile 
>>>>> were never going to be true, traditional Tories, so they didn't 
>>>>> matter to the likes of Thatcher.
>>>>>
>>>> Nothing changes, Tories are still The Nasty party.
>>> Thanks for that.  Let me know where you live so I can come round and 
>>> break your legs, won't you?
>>>
>>> Nick, nasty.
>> Leave the arms for me will you ?
> 
> And you had the gall to complain about this thread being deeply nast
> up there somewhere? Am I the only one who doesn't find these physical
> threats in response to someone's political opinions even REMOTELY
> funny?

Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
(satirically?) nasty way.  The others have joined in.  Sorry if you 
didn't find it funny, it was intended that way, and was my second 
response to the original gratuitous insult which was entirely different.

Or is being rude about tories allowed normal here?

Linda Fox wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:50:47 +0200, BrritSki 
> wrote:
> 
>> Nick wrote:
>>> dennis@fake wrote:
>>>> Trent SC wrote:
>>>>>>> Personalities aside, what I remember most about Thatcher's reign 
>>>>>>> was how
>>>>>>> _tacky_ the country became; you could see it in the flimsy new 
>>>>>>> buildings
>>>>>>> and the tin-can trains running packed-out on neglected 
>>>>>>> infrastructure, and
>>>>>>> the gaudy post-deregulation buses, and the end of the independent 
>>>>>>> shop on
>>>>>>> the High Street, and the superficial excesses of the Me-generation 
>>>>>>> piling
>>>>>>> into Liverpool Street each morning and wasting the evening in 
>>>>>>> champagne
>>>>>>> bars called "The Altruist", and good sociable pubs ripped apart and
>>>>>>> replaced by off-the-peg "themes" from the ascendent marketing people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sure I'm not AOU in seeing it this way.
>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The thing that sticks in my mind was the strong impression that the 
>>>>>> Tories enjoyed the suffering of the victims of their policies.
>>>>> That or they just didn't care - the people at the bottom of the pile 
>>>>> were never going to be true, traditional Tories, so they didn't 
>>>>> matter to the likes of Thatcher.
>>>>>
>>>> Nothing changes, Tories are still The Nasty party.
>>> Thanks for that.  Let me know where you live so I can come round and 
>>> break your legs, won't you?
>>>
>>> Nick, nasty.
>> Leave the arms for me will you ?
> 
> And you had the gall to complain about this thread being deeply nast
> up there somewhere? Am I the only one who doesn't find these physical
> threats in response to someone's political opinions even REMOTELY
> funny?
>
Martin was joking and I didn't spot it. I'm pretty sure Nick and Gid 
were joking and hopefully a bit more obviously. I know I was.

Funny how you didn't mention not finding this sort of stuff "even 
REMOTELY funny" when it was Maggie involved. Hypocrite.

"Nick"  wrote
> Linda Fox wrote:
>>BrritSki  wrote:
>>> Nick wrote:
>>>> dennis@fake wrote:
>>>>> Trent SC wrote:

[The 80s.]

>>>>>>> The thing that sticks in my mind was the strong impression that the 
>>>>>>> Tories enjoyed the suffering of the victims of their policies.
>>>>>> That or they just didn't care - the people at the bottom of the pile 
>>>>>> were never going to be true, traditional Tories, so they didn't 
>>>>>> matter to the likes of Thatcher.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing changes, Tories are still The Nasty party.
>>>> Thanks for that.  Let me know where you live so I can come round and 
>>>> break your legs, won't you?
>>>>
>>>> Nick, nasty.
>>> Leave the arms for me will you ?
>>
>> And you had the gall to complain about this thread being deeply nast
>> up there somewhere? Am I the only one who doesn't find these physical
>> threats in response to someone's political opinions even REMOTELY
>> funny?
>
> Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
> (satirically?) nasty way.  The others have joined in.  Sorry if you didn't 
> find it funny, it was intended that way, and was my second response to the 
> original gratuitous insult which was entirely different.
>
> Or is being rude about tories allowed normal here?

Oh dear. I hope I wasn't being rude about the Tories. I was talking about 
how I felt at the time. When I was still a slightly angry young man. I know 
a bit more now.

The 80s left a nasty taste in my mouth. But I don't kid myself that anyone 
who disagrees with me about that is *necessarily* evil. ;-)

-- 
SB

Nick wrote:

> Or is being rude about tories allowed normal here?

Is this a trick question?

:o>

-- 
Kimbo xx

Books, by Kimbo!
Used and collectible books at sensible prices.
Buy direct at www.booksbykimbo.com
Find me on Ebid http://uk.ebid.net/stores/Books-by-Kimbo

Kim Andrews wrote:
> Linda Fox wrote:
> 
>> And you had the gall to complain about this thread being deeply nast
>> up there somewhere? Am I the only one who doesn't find these physical
>> threats in response to someone's political opinions even REMOTELY
>> funny?
> 
> No. HTH.

Driving near Windsor yesterday I saw a dirty great Bentley with a number 
plate something like HRH 1.  I couldn't see who was in it while at the 
same time keeping my middle class sensibilities - I'd have had to crane 
my neck and stare, and I just couldn't do it.

-- 
David

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:04:31 +0100, Nick
 wrote:
>
>Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
>(satirically?) nasty way. 

Well, actually, Nick, nobody said YOU were nasty, unless you personify
the conservative party. There are a few people here who do take any
generalised political comment personally, which I find very odd -
there are weaknesses and less appealing traits to pretty well all
political parties, but if we started transferring them to all
supporters of those parties, we'd all see one another as a pretty
unsavoury lot, wouldn't we?

>The others have joined in.  Sorry if you 
>didn't find it funny, it was intended that way, and was my second 
>response to the original gratuitous insult which was entirely different.
>
Oh, I've got lost in all the masses of chevrons in this thread now -
which one was that? (No, don't go to the effort of resurrecting it, in
the present climate it can't make it any better - but wasn't this one
by someone different?)

I couldn't see any sign of wit in the follow-ups, they just sounded
like a lot of MTAAW

>Or is being rude about tories allowed normal here?

Eh? 

lff

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:00:18 +0200, BrritSki 
wrote:

>Linda Fox wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:50:47 +0200, BrritSki 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Nick wrote:
>>>> dennis@fake wrote:
>>>>> Trent SC wrote:
>>>>>>>> Personalities aside, what I remember most about Thatcher's reign 
>>>>>>>> was how
>>>>>>>> _tacky_ the country became; you could see it in the flimsy new 
>>>>>>>> buildings
>>>>>>>> and the tin-can trains running packed-out on neglected 
>>>>>>>> infrastructure, and
>>>>>>>> the gaudy post-deregulation buses, and the end of the independent 
>>>>>>>> shop on
>>>>>>>> the High Street, and the superficial excesses of the Me-generation 
>>>>>>>> piling
>>>>>>>> into Liverpool Street each morning and wasting the evening in 
>>>>>>>> champagne
>>>>>>>> bars called "The Altruist", and good sociable pubs ripped apart and
>>>>>>>> replaced by off-the-peg "themes" from the ascendent marketing people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm sure I'm not AOU in seeing it this way.
>>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The thing that sticks in my mind was the strong impression that the 
>>>>>>> Tories enjoyed the suffering of the victims of their policies.
>>>>>> That or they just didn't care - the people at the bottom of the pile 
>>>>>> were never going to be true, traditional Tories, so they didn't 
>>>>>> matter to the likes of Thatcher.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing changes, Tories are still The Nasty party.
>>>> Thanks for that.  Let me know where you live so I can come round and 
>>>> break your legs, won't you?
>>>>
>>>> Nick, nasty.
>>> Leave the arms for me will you ?
>> 
>> And you had the gall to complain about this thread being deeply nast
>> up there somewhere? Am I the only one who doesn't find these physical
>> threats in response to someone's political opinions even REMOTELY
>> funny?
>>
>Martin was joking and I didn't spot it. I'm pretty sure Nick and Gid 
>were joking and hopefully a bit more obviously. I know I was.

School bully type "jokes" was the way they came across. 
>
>Funny how you didn't mention not finding this sort of stuff "even 
>REMOTELY funny" when it was Maggie involved. Hypocrite.

And what unpleasant personal remarks were made to specific umrats
during that exchange? And apart from making some suggestions about
songs in a musical about Mrs T, how did I contribute to that? Am I not
allowed to say I find one thing unpleasant unless I say the same about
_all_ things that _anyrat_ might possibly take a dislike to?

I won't throw that insulting word back at you, Roger, I'll just mutter
something about pots and kettles and recommend that you go and have a
lie down. I think you owe me an apology.

lff

lff

Linda Fox wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:04:31 +0100, Nick
>  wrote:
>> Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
>> (satirically?) nasty way. 
> 
> Well, actually, Nick, nobody said YOU were nasty,

Sorry, but you're wrong. I am well known as a life-long Tory voter 
(although never a party member). When someone says the Tories are the 
nasty party I take it personally and I'm sure that's how it's meant by 
the majority and taken by most Tories.

> 
>> Or is being rude about tories allowed normal here?
> 
> Eh? 
> 
I had an email the other day from someone who has followed umra for 5 
years but never dared post because of their right-wing views.

That's what some people consider is "normal" on umra.

Personally I think it's a shame, but it can be very difficult posting 
here sometimes. I respect the great majority of umrats for their 
political views and their intelligent and reasonable posts on them, but 
occasionally it goes over the line. This was one of those times imo.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:15:41 +0200, BrritSki 
wrote:

>Linda Fox wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:04:31 +0100, Nick
>>  wrote:
>>> Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
>>> (satirically?) nasty way. 
>> 
>> Well, actually, Nick, nobody said YOU were nasty,
>
>Sorry, but you're wrong. I am well known as a life-long Tory voter 
>(although never a party member). When someone says the Tories are the 
>nasty party I take it personally and I'm sure that's how it's meant by 
>the majority and taken by most Tories.

I began supporting the Liberals while still at school, but have voted
Tory on occasion and felt quite defensive about them being called
nasty.

I didn't like the thread about Mrs T and was also quite shocked for a
moment about the breaking limbs posts.  Of course I know they were not
real threats, but maybe because I have played online roleplaying games
I found them unpleasant.  We get a warm glow from the offers of
chocolate and biscuits and pints.  There can also be a sense of shock
and violence with virtual limb-breaking.
>
>> 
>>> Or is being rude about tories allowed normal here?
>> 
>> Eh? 
>> 
>I had an email the other day from someone who has followed umra for 5 
>years but never dared post because of their right-wing views.
>
>That's what some people consider is "normal" on umra.
>
>Personally I think it's a shame, but it can be very difficult posting 
>here sometimes. I respect the great majority of umrats for their 
>political views and their intelligent and reasonable posts on them, but 
>occasionally it goes over the line. This was one of those times imo.

Having mostly moved in circles (education) where having voted Tory is
seen as shameful I'm used to it.

Linda Fox wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:00:18 +0200, BrritSki 
> wrote:
> 
>> Linda Fox wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:50:47 +0200, BrritSki 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nick wrote:
>>>>> dennis@fake wrote:
>>>>>> Trent SC wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Personalities aside, what I remember most about Thatcher's reign 
>>>>>>>>> was how
>>>>>>>>> _tacky_ the country became; you could see it in the flimsy new 
>>>>>>>>> buildings
>>>>>>>>> and the tin-can trains running packed-out on neglected 
>>>>>>>>> infrastructure, and
>>>>>>>>> the gaudy post-deregulation buses, and the end of the independent 
>>>>>>>>> shop on
>>>>>>>>> the High Street, and the superficial excesses of the Me-generation 
>>>>>>>>> piling
>>>>>>>>> into Liverpool Street each morning and wasting the evening in 
>>>>>>>>> champagne
>>>>>>>>> bars called "The Altruist", and good sociable pubs ripped apart and
>>>>>>>>> replaced by off-the-peg "themes" from the ascendent marketing people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm sure I'm not AOU in seeing it this way.
>>>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The thing that sticks in my mind was the strong impression that the 
>>>>>>>> Tories enjoyed the suffering of the victims of their policies.
>>>>>>> That or they just didn't care - the people at the bottom of the pile 
>>>>>>> were never going to be true, traditional Tories, so they didn't 
>>>>>>> matter to the likes of Thatcher.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing changes, Tories are still The Nasty party.
>>>>> Thanks for that.  Let me know where you live so I can come round and 
>>>>> break your legs, won't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nick, nasty.
>>>> Leave the arms for me will you ?
>>> And you had the gall to complain about this thread being deeply nast
>>> up there somewhere? Am I the only one who doesn't find these physical
>>> threats in response to someone's political opinions even REMOTELY
>>> funny?
>>>
>> Martin was joking and I didn't spot it. I'm pretty sure Nick and Gid 
>> were joking and hopefully a bit more obviously. I know I was.
> 
> School bully type "jokes" was the way they came across. 

>> Funny how you didn't mention not finding this sort of stuff "even 
>> REMOTELY funny" when it was Maggie involved. Hypocrite.
> 
> And what unpleasant personal remarks were made to specific umrats
> during that exchange? 

Why does it make a difference whether they were to an umrat or not ?

> And apart from making some suggestions about
> songs in a musical about Mrs T, how did I contribute to that? 

Errm, by making some suggestions about songs in a musical ?

> Am I not
> allowed to say I find one thing unpleasant unless I say the same about
> _all_ things that _anyrat_ might possibly take a dislike to?
> 
You can say whatever you want.

> I won't throw that insulting word back at you, Roger, I'll just mutter
> something about pots and kettles and recommend that you go and have a
> lie down. I think you owe me an apology.

I think there's a clear difference between someone saying something in 
jest and someone saying something seriously. I mistakenly thought Martin 
was serious originally so took offence. I didn't insult him (or anyone 
else) back, I just flounced.

If you thought the leg/arm breaking posts were serious then I'm sorry. 
If you didn't then the charge sticks I'm afraid. Double standard.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:15:41 +0200, BrritSki 
wrote:

>Linda Fox wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:04:31 +0100, Nick
>>  wrote:
>>> Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
>>> (satirically?) nasty way. 
>> 
>> Well, actually, Nick, nobody said YOU were nasty,
>
>Sorry, but you're wrong. I am well known as a life-long Tory voter 
>(although never a party member). When someone says the Tories are the 
>nasty party I take it personally and I'm sure that's how it's meant by 
>the majority and taken by most Tories.
>
>> 
>>> Or is being rude about tories allowed normal here?
>> 
>> Eh? 
>> 
>I had an email the other day from someone who has followed umra for 5 
>years but never dared post because of their right-wing views.
>
>That's what some people consider is "normal" on umra.
>
>Personally I think it's a shame, but it can be very difficult posting 
>here sometimes. I respect the great majority of umrats for their 
>political views and their intelligent and reasonable posts on them, but 
>occasionally it goes over the line. This was one of those times imo.

I wonder who dennis@fake really is?

Nick O
-- 
real e-mail is nickodell (at) bigfoot (dot) com

Nick Odell wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:15:41 +0200, BrritSki 
> wrote:
> 
>> Linda Fox wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:04:31 +0100, Nick
>>>  wrote:
>>>> Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
>>>> (satirically?) nasty way. 
>>> Well, actually, Nick, nobody said YOU were nasty,
>> Sorry, but you're wrong. I am well known as a life-long Tory voter 
>> (although never a party member). When someone says the Tories are the 
>> nasty party I take it personally and I'm sure that's how it's meant by 
>> the majority and taken by most Tories.
>>
>>>> Or is being rude about tories allowed normal here?
>>> Eh? 
>>>
>> I had an email the other day from someone who has followed umra for 5 
>> years but never dared post because of their right-wing views.
>>
>> That's what some people consider is "normal" on umra.
>>
>> Personally I think it's a shame, but it can be very difficult posting 
>> here sometimes. I respect the great majority of umrats for their 
>> political views and their intelligent and reasonable posts on them, but 
>> occasionally it goes over the line. This was one of those times imo.
> 
> I wonder who dennis@fake really is?
>
I also wondered whether my emailer was someone real or just someone 
trying to wind me up.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:52:54 +0100, Martin Clark 
wrote:

>BrritSki wrote...
>>Nick Odell wrote:
>
>>>  I wonder who dennis@fake really is?
>>>
>>I also wondered whether my emailer was someone real or just someone 
>>trying to wind me up.
>
>No paranoia necessary. Dennis has posted here occasionally for several 
>years. He posts more frequently in another newsgroup in which I partake 
>so, despite the word "fake" in his addy, is actually real, and living in 
>South Wales.

I asked because my impression was of a series of terse one-liners
without explanation or follow-up. Like the one in this thread.  BIMBAM

>
>The 2006 thread "Your Money or your Lupins" might explain why he now 
>uses "fake" in his addy. Or maybe it was just to ward off the spam.
><http://groups.google.com/group/uk.media.radio.archers/browse_thread/thre
>ad/24ead348b7ab0f6e>
>
>What emailer?

The person mentioned by Brritski a couple of articles ^^upthread^^

Nick O
-- 
real e-mail is nickodell (at) bigfoot (dot) com

Nick Odell wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:52:54 +0100, Martin Clark 
> wrote:
> 
>> BrritSki wrote...
>>> Nick Odell wrote:
>>>>  I wonder who dennis@fake really is?
>>>>
>>> I also wondered whether my emailer was someone real or just someone 
>>> trying to wind me up.
>> No paranoia necessary. Dennis has posted here occasionally for several 
>> years. He posts more frequently in another newsgroup in which I partake 
>> so, despite the word "fake" in his addy, is actually real, and living in 
>> South Wales.
> 
> I asked because my impression was of a series of terse one-liners
> without explanation or follow-up. Like the one in this thread.  BIMBAM
> 
>> The 2006 thread "Your Money or your Lupins" might explain why he now 
>> uses "fake" in his addy. Or maybe it was just to ward off the spam.
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/uk.media.radio.archers/browse_thread/thre
>> ad/24ead348b7ab0f6e>
>>
>> What emailer?
> 
> The person mentioned by Brritski a couple of articles ^^upthread^^
> 
> Nick O

Real enough, and I still get loads of spam. It was Theresa May, who 
during her speech at the 2002 Conservative party while making her point 
about why here party must change she stated that the Conservatives were 
currently perceived as the "nasty party." In my opinion nothing has changed.

I wish politics would be left out of discussions here. Until it is, I 
will challenge the opinions expressed in postings I disagree with.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:51:56 +0100, "dennis@fake" <dennis@fake> wrote:

>Nick Odell wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:52:54 +0100, Martin Clark 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> BrritSki wrote...
>>>> Nick Odell wrote:
>>>>>  I wonder who dennis@fake really is?
>>>>>
>>>> I also wondered whether my emailer was someone real or just someone 
>>>> trying to wind me up.
>>> No paranoia necessary. Dennis has posted here occasionally for several 
>>> years. He posts more frequently in another newsgroup in which I partake 
>>> so, despite the word "fake" in his addy, is actually real, and living in 
>>> South Wales.
>> 
>> I asked because my impression was of a series of terse one-liners
>> without explanation or follow-up. Like the one in this thread.  BIMBAM
>> 
>>> The 2006 thread "Your Money or your Lupins" might explain why he now 
>>> uses "fake" in his addy. Or maybe it was just to ward off the spam.
>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/uk.media.radio.archers/browse_thread/thre
>>> ad/24ead348b7ab0f6e>
>>>
>>> What emailer?
>> 
>> The person mentioned by Brritski a couple of articles ^^upthread^^
>> 
>> Nick O
>
>Real enough, and I still get loads of spam. It was Theresa May, who 
>during her speech at the 2002 Conservative party while making her point 
>about why here party must change she stated that the Conservatives were 
>currently perceived as the "nasty party." In my opinion nothing has changed.
>
>I wish politics would be left out of discussions here. Until it is, I 
>will challenge the opinions expressed in postings I disagree with.

Thank you, Dennis. I appreciate you coming back into the discussion
and I absolutely agree that you should challenge opinions you disagree
with (and support those with which you agree, I hope). I just feel
that if, upthread, you had said something similar to what you've
written here, you would have made your point as effectively as you
have done here but that subthread might not have developed in such an
unpleasant way. 

As for discussing politics (or religion or sex or whatever...) I think
that when the Archers' storylines are strong enough and stimulating
enough, they inevitably get brought into a real-life context. And when
they're not, real-life tends to get talked about instead. Or as well.

Nick O
-- 
real e-mail is nickodell (at) bigfoot (dot) com

BrritSki wrote:
> Linda Fox wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:04:31 +0100, Nick
>>  wrote:
>>> Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
>>> (satirically?) nasty way. 
>>
>> Well, actually, Nick, nobody said YOU were nasty,
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong. I am well known as a life-long Tory voter 
> (although never a party member). When someone says the Tories are the 
> nasty party I take it personally and I'm sure that's how it's meant by 
> the majority and taken by most Tories.

I think the remark about the Nasty Party has a certain truth, but not in 
the way you took it. It has to be said that the Tory party is still the 
party where the more unpleasant right-wing views and personalities will 
be found. The likes of Max Mosley, and Derek Conway and his ghastly son, 
for instance, will be drawn to the Tory party rather than any other of 
the main parties. This does not mean or imply that all or most Tory 
voters are like them, but that if you join or support the party, it does 
mean that you're joining the ranks of some deeply dodgy people.

I'm not saying that either of the other two main parties is without 
blemish, but there are some particularly repugnant views on the right 
wing, and they tend to be found in the Tory party.

It's a bit like Muslims complaining that we think they're all terrorists 
- of course we don't, but when all the suicidal terrorists intent on 
mass murder of declare themselves to be Muslims who are doing it in the 
cause of Islam, it does make their religion look a bit suspect, even if 
most of its adherents are peaceable people.


-- 
Marjorie

BrritSki  wrote in
news:6e89l1F5lcjmU1@mid.individual.net: 

> Linda Fox wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:00:18 +0200, BrritSki 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Funny how you didn't mention not finding this sort of stuff "even 
>>> REMOTELY funny" when it was Maggie involved. Hypocrite.
>> 
>> And what unpleasant personal remarks were made to specific umrats
>> during that exchange? 
> 
> Why does it make a difference whether they were to an umrat or not ?

To me it makes a huge difference. I think of umrats as my friends, and I 
find threats of violence to my friends considerably more troubling than 
threats of violence to distant people who I don't know. The rational part 
of me insists that all people are valuable, but another part of me values 
friends more highly. If that's hypocrisy then I'll have to live with it.
-- 
Jim                             <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0

Marjorie wrote:
> BrritSki wrote:
>> Linda Fox wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:04:31 +0100, Nick
>>>  wrote:
>>>> Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
>>>> (satirically?) nasty way. 
>>>
>>> Well, actually, Nick, nobody said YOU were nasty,
>>
>> Sorry, but you're wrong. I am well known as a life-long Tory voter 
>> (although never a party member). When someone says the Tories are the 
>> nasty party I take it personally and I'm sure that's how it's meant by 
>> the majority and taken by most Tories.
> 
> I think the remark about the Nasty Party has a certain truth, but not in 
> the way you took it. It has to be said that the Tory party is still the 
> party where the more unpleasant right-wing views and personalities will 
> be found. The likes of Max Mosley, and Derek Conway and his ghastly son, 
> for instance, will be drawn to the Tory party rather than any other of 
> the main parties. This does not mean or imply that all or most Tory 
> voters are like them, but that if you join or support the party, it does 
> mean that you're joining the ranks of some deeply dodgy people.

That's certainly true now, for a variety of reasons, and the party 
probably ought to do more to distance itself.   I have the feeling it 
seems worse now than it used to, because the sort of nutters who used to 
hang around the left and be equally repugnant about things like soldiers 
being murdered in Ireland seem to have packed in and gone home.

> I'm not saying that either of the other two main parties is without 
> blemish, but there are some particularly repugnant views on the right 
> wing, and they tend to be found in the Tory party.

Also it seems to be that many hate-full people on the left tend to spend 
their energy on fighting others over hair-thin differences in policy, 
which tends not to attract attention rather than picking fights with 
sections of the general public, which does.

Martin Clark wrote:
> BrritSki wrote...
>> Nick Odell wrote:
> 
>>>  I wonder who dennis@fake really is?
>>>
>> I also wondered whether my emailer was someone real or just someone 
>> trying to wind me up.
> 
> No paranoia necessary. 

I was talking about my emailer, who used a name I didn't recognise, not 
Dennis.

Nick Odell wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:51:56 +0100, "dennis@fake" <dennis@fake> wrote:
> 
>> Nick Odell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:52:54 +0100, Martin Clark 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BrritSki wrote...
>>>>> Nick Odell wrote:
>>>>>>  I wonder who dennis@fake really is?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I also wondered whether my emailer was someone real or just someone 
>>>>> trying to wind me up.
>>>> No paranoia necessary. Dennis has posted here occasionally for several 
>>>> years. He posts more frequently in another newsgroup in which I partake 
>>>> so, despite the word "fake" in his addy, is actually real, and living in 
>>>> South Wales.
>>> I asked because my impression was of a series of terse one-liners
>>> without explanation or follow-up. Like the one in this thread.  BIMBAM
>>>
>>>> The 2006 thread "Your Money or your Lupins" might explain why he now 
>>>> uses "fake" in his addy. Or maybe it was just to ward off the spam.
>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/uk.media.radio.archers/browse_thread/thre
>>>> ad/24ead348b7ab0f6e>
>>>>
>>>> What emailer?
>>> The person mentioned by Brritski a couple of articles ^^upthread^^
>>>
>>> Nick O
>> Real enough, and I still get loads of spam. It was Theresa May, who 
>> during her speech at the 2002 Conservative party while making her point 
>> about why here party must change she stated that the Conservatives were 
>> currently perceived as the "nasty party." In my opinion nothing has changed.
>>
>> I wish politics would be left out of discussions here. Until it is, I 
>> will challenge the opinions expressed in postings I disagree with.
> 
> Thank you, Dennis. I appreciate you coming back into the discussion
> and I absolutely agree that you should challenge opinions you disagree
> with (and support those with which you agree, I hope). I just feel
> that if, upthread, you had said something similar to what you've
> written here, you would have made your point as effectively as you
> have done here but that subthread might not have developed in such an
> unpleasant way. 

<languid wave>

Nick wrote:
> Marjorie wrote:
>> BrritSki wrote:
>>> Linda Fox wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:04:31 +0100, Nick
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
>>>>> (satirically?) nasty way. 
>>>>
>>>> Well, actually, Nick, nobody said YOU were nasty,
>>>
>>> Sorry, but you're wrong. I am well known as a life-long Tory voter 
>>> (although never a party member). When someone says the Tories are the 
>>> nasty party I take it personally and I'm sure that's how it's meant 
>>> by the majority and taken by most Tories.
>>
>> I think the remark about the Nasty Party has a certain truth, but not 
>> in the way you took it. It has to be said that the Tory party is still 
>> the party where the more unpleasant right-wing views and personalities 
>> will be found. The likes of Max Mosley, and Derek Conway and his 
>> ghastly son, for instance, will be drawn to the Tory party rather than 
>> any other of the main parties. This does not mean or imply that all or 
>> most Tory voters are like them, but that if you join or support the 
>> party, it does mean that you're joining the ranks of some deeply dodgy 
>> people.
> 
> That's certainly true now, for a variety of reasons, and the party 
> probably ought to do more to distance itself.   I have the feeling it 
> seems worse now than it used to, because the sort of nutters who used to 
> hang around the left and be equally repugnant about things like soldiers 
> being murdered in Ireland seem to have packed in and gone home.
> 
>> I'm not saying that either of the other two main parties is without 
>> blemish, but there are some particularly repugnant views on the right 
>> wing, and they tend to be found in the Tory party.
> 
> Also it seems to be that many hate-full people on the left tend to spend 
> their energy on fighting others over hair-thin differences in policy, 
> which tends not to attract attention rather than picking fights with 
> sections of the general public, which does.

Or they're running broken down countries like Zimbabwe or Cuba...

Jim Easterbrook wrote:
> BrritSki  wrote in
> news:6e89l1F5lcjmU1@mid.individual.net: 
> 
>> Linda Fox wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:00:18 +0200, BrritSki 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Funny how you didn't mention not finding this sort of stuff "even 
>>>> REMOTELY funny" when it was Maggie involved. Hypocrite.
>>> And what unpleasant personal remarks were made to specific umrats
>>> during that exchange? 
>> Why does it make a difference whether they were to an umrat or not ?
> 
> To me it makes a huge difference. I think of umrats as my friends, and I 
> find threats of violence to my friends considerably more troubling than 
> threats of violence to distant people who I don't know. The rational part 
> of me insists that all people are valuable, but another part of me values 
> friends more highly. If that's hypocrisy then I'll have to live with it.

But surely the point of the joke was that as umrats WE WOULDN'T GO ROUND 
BREAKING FUCKING ARMS OR LEGS !

I can understand that people didn't find the joke funny, but to not 
recognise it as a joke is beyond me.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:15:41 +0200, BrritSki 
wrote:

>Linda Fox wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:04:31 +0100, Nick
>>  wrote:
>>> Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
>>> (satirically?) nasty way. 
>> 
>> Well, actually, Nick, nobody said YOU were nasty,
>
>Sorry, but you're wrong. I am well known as a life-long Tory voter 
>(although never a party member). When someone says the Tories are the 
>nasty party I take it personally and I'm sure that's how it's meant by 
>the majority and taken by most Tories.

The idea that the Tory Party is "the Nasty Party" is a well worn
political turn of phrase - just Google the words and take a look.

<http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=nasty+party>

For you to take it personally, with your regular invective against the
current Prime Minister and his predecessor is, I fear, to invite
suggestions that you can give it out, but you can't take it.  Is
"frit" the relevant word? 

>>> Or is being rude about tories allowed normal here?
>> 
>> Eh? 
>> 
>I had an email the other day from someone who has followed umra for 5 
>years but never dared post because of their right-wing views.
>
>That's what some people consider is "normal" on umra.
>
>Personally I think it's a shame, but it can be very difficult posting 
>here sometimes. I respect the great majority of umrats for their 
>political views and their intelligent and reasonable posts on them, but 
>occasionally it goes over the line. This was one of those times imo.

You commented elsewhere in the thread that it was hypocritical to
condemn "humorous" threats of violence against umrats, but not against
other people.  I'd respond with two points.  Firstly, unless you can
make a case that these threats of violence are qualitatively different
from other insults, then you might be in danger of accusations of
hypocrisy for being willing to hurl rather childish invective at the
Prime Minister that you never (happily) deploy against umrats.

Secondly, I think that there is a spectrum, in on-line debating terms,
that runs from people we have actually met and know, through people we
only know on-line, through people whom other people know, through a
range of public figures, into fictional figures that we know as well
as some real public figures, through realistic but less well drawn
fictional characters, through to cartoons.  While it is possible to
argue that there is an absolute distinction between real and fictional
people, it doesn't feel like that.  As far as discussion on umra goes,
for me Caroline Bone is far more real than Diana, Princess of Wales
ever was.  Some of us may put Margaret Thatcher towards the "people
whom other people know" part of the scale, and others will put her up
near Susan Carter or the Wicked Witch of the West.  They will act, and
react, accordingly.

The trick is to turn down the gain on our offensiveness aerials so
that when we read posts from those who are coming from another part of
the spectrum we can let it wash over us.

And as for people with right wing views not daring to post: I for one
would much rather see a well-argued assertion of a political position
I disagreed with than a self-serving whine about "not being allowed to
support the Tories on umra."  That sort of thing is only a few steps
away from claiming that the most discriminated-against group in
Britain are straight white males.
-- 
Stephen

Into my heart an air that kills From yon far country blows:
What are those blue remembered hills, What spires, what farms are those?
That is the land of lost content, I see it shining plain,
The happy highways where I went And cannot come again.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:38:25 +0100 Nick wrote :
> That's certainly true now, for a variety of reasons, and the party 
> probably ought to do more to distance itself.

Give Dave credit, he is doing his best to come across as an ordinary 
decent guy, whilst his 'friends' in the media (Mail/Express esp) do 
their best to maintain the nasty party image.

-- 
Tony B

BrritSki  wrote in
news:6e9fhgF632tmU4@mid.individual.net: 

> I can understand that people didn't find the joke funny, but to not 
> recognise it as a joke is beyond me.

You're obviously not as used as I am to having your jokes go unrecognised.

Lucky bastard.
-- 
Jim                             <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0

Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:15:41 +0200, BrritSki 
> wrote:
> 
>> Linda Fox wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:04:31 +0100, Nick
>>>  wrote:
>>>> Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
>>>> (satirically?) nasty way. 
>>> Well, actually, Nick, nobody said YOU were nasty,
>> Sorry, but you're wrong. I am well known as a life-long Tory voter 
>> (although never a party member). When someone says the Tories are the 
>> nasty party I take it personally and I'm sure that's how it's meant by 
>> the majority and taken by most Tories.
> 
> The idea that the Tory Party is "the Nasty Party" is a well worn
> political turn of phrase - just Google the words and take a look.
> 
> <http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=nasty+party>

Yes, I know, and when it's in the media I couldn't care less, but when 
it's in umra amongst "friends" I think it's different. Of course being 
part of the political majority in umra you've probably never noticed.
> 
> For you to take it personally, with your regular invective against the
> current Prime Minister and his predecessor is, I fear, to invite
> suggestions that you can give it out, but you can't take it.  Is
> "frit" the relevant word? 

But my invective is against those remote individuals, I don't post that 
all Labour supporters are idiots (well I did post something along those 
lines thge other day, but only in response to the nasty party jibe).
> 
>>>> Or is being rude about tories allowed normal here?
>>> Eh? 
>>>
>> I had an email the other day from someone who has followed umra for 5 
>> years but never dared post because of their right-wing views.
>>
>> That's what some people consider is "normal" on umra.
>>
>> Personally I think it's a shame, but it can be very difficult posting 
>> here sometimes. I respect the great majority of umrats for their 
>> political views and their intelligent and reasonable posts on them, but 
>> occasionally it goes over the line. This was one of those times imo.
> 
> You commented elsewhere in the thread that it was hypocritical to
> condemn "humorous" threats of violence against umrats, but not against
> other people.  I'd respond with two points.  Firstly, unless you can
> make a case that these threats of violence are qualitatively different
> from other insults, 

Sticks and stones perhaps ?

> then you might be in danger of accusations of
> hypocrisy for being willing to hurl rather childish invective at the

Yes it's often childish but there's a pretty solid case behind it as 
others are finally starting to realise.

> Prime Minister that you never (happily) deploy against umrats.
> 
True, but it's another spectrum isn't it ?  And occasionally I do hurl 
invective at other umrats when I think it's deserved. This "umratic" 
stuff is a 2-way street imo.

> Secondly, I think that there is a spectrum, in on-line debating terms,
> that runs from people we have actually met and know, through people we
> only know on-line, through people whom other people know, through a
> range of public figures, into fictional figures that we know as well
> as some real public figures, through realistic but less well drawn
> fictional characters, through to cartoons.  While it is possible to
> argue that there is an absolute distinction between real and fictional
> people, it doesn't feel like that.  As far as discussion on umra goes,
> for me Caroline Bone is far more real than Diana, Princess of Wales
> ever was.  Some of us may put Margaret Thatcher towards the "people
> whom other people know" part of the scale, and others will put her up
> near Susan Carter or the Wicked Witch of the West.  They will act, and
> react, accordingly.
> 
> The trick is to turn down the gain on our offensiveness aerials so
> that when we read posts from those who are coming from another part of
> the spectrum we can let it wash over us.

I'll be sure to bear that in mind. Make sure you've got yours turned up 
when I suggest that you are being (umratic edit) rather condescending.
> 
> And as for people with right wing views not daring to post: I for one
> would much rather see a well-argued assertion of a political position
> I disagreed with than a self-serving whine about "not being allowed to
> support the Tories on umra."  

I didn't say that, my emailer said they were "afraid to" becuase of the 
responses. I don't altogether agree as I told him, but it can be 
difficult sometimes.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:48:55 +0200, BrritSki 
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:15:41 +0200, BrritSki 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Linda Fox wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:04:31 +0100, Nick
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
>>>>> (satirically?) nasty way. 
>>>> Well, actually, Nick, nobody said YOU were nasty,
>>> Sorry, but you're wrong. I am well known as a life-long Tory voter 
>>> (although never a party member). When someone says the Tories are the 
>>> nasty party I take it personally and I'm sure that's how it's meant by 
>>> the majority and taken by most Tories.
>> 
>> The idea that the Tory Party is "the Nasty Party" is a well worn
>> political turn of phrase - just Google the words and take a look.
>> 
>> <http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=nasty+party>
>
>Yes, I know, and when it's in the media I couldn't care less, but when 
>it's in umra amongst "friends" I think it's different. Of course being 
>part of the political majority in umra you've probably never noticed.

Never noticed what?  I've certainly noticed your contempt for civil
servants, expressed among umrats, quite a few of whom are civil
servants.  Or is that somehow "different" again?

>> For you to take it personally, with your regular invective against the
>> current Prime Minister and his predecessor is, I fear, to invite
>> suggestions that you can give it out, but you can't take it.  Is
>> "frit" the relevant word? 
>
>But my invective is against those remote individuals, I don't post that 
>all Labour supporters are idiots (well I did post something along those 
>lines thge other day, but only in response to the nasty party jibe).

And so is the invective against Margaret Thatcher, which you felt was
crossing some sort of line.

>>>>> Or is being rude about tories allowed normal here?
>>>> Eh? 
>>>>
>>> I had an email the other day from someone who has followed umra for 5 
>>> years but never dared post because of their right-wing views.
>>>
>>> That's what some people consider is "normal" on umra.
>>>
>>> Personally I think it's a shame, but it can be very difficult posting 
>>> here sometimes. I respect the great majority of umrats for their 
>>> political views and their intelligent and reasonable posts on them, but 
>>> occasionally it goes over the line. This was one of those times imo.
>> 
>> You commented elsewhere in the thread that it was hypocritical to
>> condemn "humorous" threats of violence against umrats, but not against
>> other people.  I'd respond with two points.  Firstly, unless you can
>> make a case that these threats of violence are qualitatively different
>> from other insults, 
>
>Sticks and stones perhaps ?

Not really.  They are all just words.  There has been no actual
violence, nor any real prospect of it.

>> then you might be in danger of accusations of
>> hypocrisy for being willing to hurl rather childish invective at the
>
>Yes it's often childish but there's a pretty solid case behind it as 
>others are finally starting to realise.

Well then why not make the case, if it is really there?

>> Prime Minister that you never (happily) deploy against umrats.
>> 
>True, but it's another spectrum isn't it ?  And occasionally I do hurl 
>invective at other umrats when I think it's deserved. This "umratic" 
>stuff is a 2-way street imo.
>
>> Secondly, I think that there is a spectrum, in on-line debating terms,
>> that runs from people we have actually met and know, through people we
>> only know on-line, through people whom other people know, through a
>> range of public figures, into fictional figures that we know as well
>> as some real public figures, through realistic but less well drawn
>> fictional characters, through to cartoons.  While it is possible to
>> argue that there is an absolute distinction between real and fictional
>> people, it doesn't feel like that.  As far as discussion on umra goes,
>> for me Caroline Bone is far more real than Diana, Princess of Wales
>> ever was.  Some of us may put Margaret Thatcher towards the "people
>> whom other people know" part of the scale, and others will put her up
>> near Susan Carter or the Wicked Witch of the West.  They will act, and
>> react, accordingly.
>> 
>> The trick is to turn down the gain on our offensiveness aerials so
>> that when we read posts from those who are coming from another part of
>> the spectrum we can let it wash over us.
>
>I'll be sure to bear that in mind. Make sure you've got yours turned up 
>when I suggest that you are being (umratic edit) rather condescending.

You've accused me of that before, when I have previously suggested
that there were inconsistencies in your arguments.

>> And as for people with right wing views not daring to post: I for one
>> would much rather see a well-argued assertion of a political position
>> I disagreed with than a self-serving whine about "not being allowed to
>> support the Tories on umra."  
>
>I didn't say that, my emailer said they were "afraid to" becuase of the 
>responses. I don't altogether agree as I told him, but it can be 
>difficult sometimes.

Isn't it all a matter of having the courage of one's convictions?  I'm
not afraid to express my views not because I think that they fit with
the majority opinion, but because I firmly believe in them.  It would
be harder if nobody agreed at all, but I think that one person
agreeing makes a huge difference, and another ten very little more.
There are plenty of umrats with view well to the right of mine who
would, I am sure, give moral support to your e-mailer if he were to
post something that reflected his politics (assuming that we are not
in the territory of Shula's secret supporters, of course.)
-- 
Stephen

Into my heart an air that kills From yon far country blows:
What are those blue remembered hills, What spires, what farms are those?
That is the land of lost content, I see it shining plain,
The happy highways where I went And cannot come again.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:09:46 +0200, BrritSki 
wrote:
>
>> And apart from making some suggestions about
>> songs in a musical about Mrs T, how did I contribute to that? 
>
>Errm, by making some suggestions about songs in a musical ?
>
A very common umratic pastime as I'm sure you'll agree. And yet you
seem to have found it offensive in this instance. This is a wind-up,
isn't it?

>> Am I not
>> allowed to say I find one thing unpleasant unless I say the same about
>> _all_ things that _anyrat_ might possibly take a dislike to?
>> 
>You can say whatever you want.

But apparently it makes me a hypocrite.

>If you thought the leg/arm breaking posts were serious then I'm sorry. 

Serious? in the sense that I might assume they were genuine threats,
no. In the sense that they were thoroughtly NASTY personal attacks,
yes I did, and apparently I'm not the only one. So I'll take that
sorry as being the most gracious apology you can bring yourself to
utter.

>If you didn't then the charge sticks I'm afraid. Double standard.

You just don't stop, do you? 

lff

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:15:41 +0200, BrritSki 
wrote:

>Linda Fox wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:04:31 +0100, Nick
>>  wrote:
>>> Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
>>> (satirically?) nasty way. 
>> 
>> Well, actually, Nick, nobody said YOU were nasty,
>
>Sorry, but you're wrong. 

No I b****y well am not wrong. I was addressing that comment to Nick,
since it was he who responded to it. And if it had been only Nick's
response, I think it would have been OK: it wasn't a joke as such, but
it would have stood as typical umratic dry wit. It was when you and
Gid piled in apparently in support that it turned sour.

>I am well known as a life-long Tory voter 
>(although never a party member). When someone says the Tories are the 
>nasty party I take it personally and I'm sure that's how it's meant by 
>the majority and taken by most Tories.

I suppose that by now (sorry to be so late replying but I've been out
at work all day) you've realised the progeny of the original remark
and have managed to wash the egg off your face.
>
>>> Or is being rude about tories allowed normal here?
>> 
>> Eh? 
>> 
>I had an email the other day from someone who has followed umra for 5 
>years but never dared post because of their right-wing views.
>
>That's what some people consider is "normal" on umra.

My "eh?" was actually querying the syntax. I didn't know what it
meant.

lff

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:58:09 +0200, BrritSki 
wrote:

>But surely the point of the joke was that as umrats WE WOULDN'T GO ROUND 
>BREAKING FUCKING ARMS OR LEGS !

That does sound distressingly like those people accused of watching
hard porn who say it doesn't suggest that they would actually go and
do all those things.
>
>I can understand that people didn't find the joke funny, but to not 
>recognise it as a joke is beyond me.

Abhsolutely typical school bully talk, that is. Nasty psychological
threats shrugged off as "It was only a joke, sir" or "We were only
teasing him, sir"

lff

This has been one of the worst threads on umra for a very long time.
Please stop.
Wishing anyone dead and dancing on anyones grave! It doesn't matter
who. Some people should perhaps take a good look at themselves.

==== end of thread ====

Linda Fox wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:15:41 +0200, BrritSki 
> wrote:
> 
>> Linda Fox wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:04:31 +0100, Nick
>>>  wrote:
>>>> Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
>>>> (satirically?) nasty way. 
>>> Well, actually, Nick, nobody said YOU were nasty,
>> Sorry, but you're wrong. 
> 
> No I b****y well am not wrong. I was addressing that comment to Nick,
> since it was he who responded to it. And if it had been only Nick's
> response, I think it would have been OK: it wasn't a joke as such, but
> it would have stood as typical umratic dry wit. It was when you and
> Gid piled in apparently in support that it turned sour.

Well actually it was intended to be a joke.  I did take offence, but the 
reply was entirely jocular (actually I'm not sure quite where the line 
between "dry wit" and "a joke" lies anyway).

But I did take offence.  Several of you have told me that I shouldn't, 
that it's a perfectly reasonable way to describe people.  I'm going to 
reply with the response of the minority: "if offended me.  I accept it 
wasn't necessarily intended to, but it did and therefore I have the 
right to be offended and demand that you don't do that".

Linda Fox wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:58:09 +0200, BrritSki 
> wrote:
> 
>> But surely the point of the joke was that as umrats WE WOULDN'T GO ROUND 
>> BREAKING FUCKING ARMS OR LEGS !
> 
> That does sound distressingly like those people accused of watching
> hard porn who say it doesn't suggest that they would actually go and
> do all those things.
>> I can understand that people didn't find the joke funny, but to not 
>> recognise it as a joke is beyond me.
> 
> Abhsolutely typical school bully talk, that is. Nasty psychological
> threats shrugged off as "It was only a joke, sir" or "We were only
> teasing him, sir"

Careful though.  I really will flounce off if I'm being accused of being 
"typical school bully".  I've been on the receiving end of that, and 
don't take kindly to being accused of it.

I felt - as I've said upthread - that the one line comment (which the 
originator has now provided a lot more context for, and which had it 
been there I'd not have responded as I did) was a verbal attack.  I felt 
that a strongish but jocular response (I notice you say it was a "nasty 
psychological threat": the whole point of the "threat" was that the 
accusation was about being "nasty" and so it /had/ to be a "nasty" 
response to work) was called for.  That it came from someone I didn't 
recognise as a regular contributor also tainted my views - although I've 
now learned he is a semi-regular one I wasn't inclined to hunt up 
histories on Google before replying.

I am getting slightly hurt that anyone could take a comment like that 
from me as even slightly serious.

In article , Nick generously decided 
to share with us..

Snippetry..

> But I did take offence.  Several of you have told me that I shouldn't, 
> that it's a perfectly reasonable way to describe people.  I'm going to 
> reply with the response of the minority: "if offended me.  I accept it 
> wasn't necessarily intended to, but it did and therefore I have the 
> right to be offended and demand that you don't do that".

Nobody has the right to not be offended, but everybody has the right 
not to take offense.. If I talk about worthless Niggers, corner-shop 
opening Wogs, job-grabbing Polacks or holiday home buying English, they 
can all be offended, but they can also claim the right not to be 
offended by it..

-- 
Gid

Current Project: Bragdy'r Ddraenen Wen 
(if it ever stops raining for long enough)

Linda Fox wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:15:41 +0200, BrritSki 
> wrote:
> 
>> Linda Fox wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:04:31 +0100, Nick
>>>  wrote:
>>>> Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
>>>> (satirically?) nasty way. 
>>> Well, actually, Nick, nobody said YOU were nasty,
>> Sorry, but you're wrong. 
> 
> No I b****y well am not wrong. I was addressing that comment to Nick,
> since it was he who responded to it. And if it had been only Nick's
> response, I think it would have been OK: it wasn't a joke as such, but
> it would have stood as typical umratic dry wit. It was when you and
> Gid piled in apparently in support that it turned sour.

I can see that somerats did find the leg-breaking mini-thread 
unpleasant, but I would like to say that I most certainly didn't. 
People "piling in" I saw as merely umrats feeling it was a good place to 
own up to being Tory and while it was not actually funny, it did feel at 
least an ironic way of people putting their hands up while at the same 
time saying the equivalent of "you *cannot be serious* about all Tories 
really being nasty and violent!".

I'm afraid I don't think most people feel the same way as you do, Linda, 
when you said elsewhere that one person agreeing was supportive, ten 
others didn't make a lot of difference.  I think most of us feel more 
comfortable in circles where our views are the norm.

We do try to keep things pleasant between ourselves on umra and by and 
large succeed by avoiding personal insults.  Occasionally things feel 
personal to someratorother and then it's less pleasant.  We mostly 
manage to avoid having 'off-limit' subjects, which I personally, think 
is a good thing.

There are areas where I don't go into as much detail as I could about my 
views because I can only explain my position by including opinions about 
those who hold the opposite view, and I don't wish to be overtly 
critical about people's values in that kind of personal way.  Sometimes 
it happens by association anyway.

I think the Toryrats are right in saying that much more of this 
second-hand unpleasantness comes their way, simply because of numbers. 
The degree of unpleasantness *can* be more coming from the left, too, 
and IMO this is because most of us lefties see Mrs Thatcher not just as 
any other Tory politician, but as someone who was personally responsible 
for a vast amount of damage to many aspects of British life.  Obviously 
those further to the right disagree, but I think it's maybe hard for 
them to understand the difference in our feelings towards MT and, say 
Edward Heath.  Both can be roundly criticised by the left.  But MT is, 
and always will be, seen differently.


-- 
Jane
The potter in the purple socks

http://www.clothandclay.co.uk/umra/cookbook/contents.htm for recipes 
supplied by umrats

In article , Linda Fox 
generously decided to share with us..

> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:58:09 +0200, BrritSki 
> wrote:
> 
> >But surely the point of the joke was that as umrats WE WOULDN'T GO ROUND 
> >BREAKING FUCKING ARMS OR LEGS !
> 
> That does sound distressingly like those people accused of watching
> hard porn who say it doesn't suggest that they would actually go and
> do all those things.

Isn't it terrible that children all over the world hit each other over 
the head with frying pans because they watched Tom and Jerry on the 
TV.. what's that Sooty?.. they *don't* do that?..

-- 
Gid

Current Project: Bragdy'r Ddraenen Wen 
(if it ever stops raining for long enough)

Jane Vernon wrote:
> Linda Fox wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:15:41 +0200, BrritSki 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Linda Fox wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:04:31 +0100, Nick
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
>>>>> (satirically?) nasty way. 
>>>> Well, actually, Nick, nobody said YOU were nasty,
>>> Sorry, but you're wrong. 
>>
>> No I b****y well am not wrong. I was addressing that comment to Nick,
>> since it was he who responded to it. And if it had been only Nick's
>> response, I think it would have been OK: it wasn't a joke as such, but
>> it would have stood as typical umratic dry wit. It was when you and
>> Gid piled in apparently in support that it turned sour.
> 
> I can see that somerats did find the leg-breaking mini-thread 
> unpleasant, but I would like to say that I most certainly didn't. People 
> "piling in" I saw as merely umrats feeling it was a good place to own up 
> to being Tory and while it was not actually funny, it did feel at least 
> an ironic way of people putting their hands up while at the same time 
> saying the equivalent of "you *cannot be serious* about all Tories 
> really being nasty and violent!".
> 
> I'm afraid I don't think most people feel the same way as you do, Linda, 
> when you said elsewhere that one person agreeing was supportive, ten 
> others didn't make a lot of difference.  I think most of us feel more 
> comfortable in circles where our views are the norm.
> 
> We do try to keep things pleasant between ourselves on umra and by and 
> large succeed by avoiding personal insults.  Occasionally things feel 
> personal to someratorother and then it's less pleasant.  We mostly 
> manage to avoid having 'off-limit' subjects, which I personally, think 
> is a good thing.
> 
> There are areas where I don't go into as much detail as I could about my 
> views because I can only explain my position by including opinions about 
> those who hold the opposite view, and I don't wish to be overtly 
> critical about people's values in that kind of personal way.  Sometimes 
> it happens by association anyway.
> 
> I think the Toryrats are right in saying that much more of this 
> second-hand unpleasantness comes their way, simply because of numbers. 
> The degree of unpleasantness *can* be more coming from the left, too, 
> and IMO this is because most of us lefties see Mrs Thatcher not just as 
> any other Tory politician, but as someone who was personally responsible 
> for a vast amount of damage to many aspects of British life.  Obviously 
> those further to the right disagree, but I think it's maybe hard for 
> them to understand the difference in our feelings towards MT and, say 
> Edward Heath.  Both can be roundly criticised by the left.  But MT is, 
> and always will be, seen differently.
> 
> 
Thanks for all that Jane. I do understand how some people feel about MT, 
even if I disagree and think she was the saviour of the country.

As for EH, he's a lying traitor who should be taken out and shot :)

Linda Fox wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:09:46 +0200, BrritSki 
> wrote:
>>> And apart from making some suggestions about
>>> songs in a musical about Mrs T, how did I contribute to that? 
>> Errm, by making some suggestions about songs in a musical ?
>>
> A very common umratic pastime as I'm sure you'll agree. And yet you
> seem to have found it offensive in this instance. This is a wind-up,
> isn't it?

No. If you contribute to a thread which I find offensive, I'm going to 
find your contribution offensive aren't I ?
You either contribute or you don't, up to you.
What I find offensive or not is entirely up to me.
> 
>>> Am I not
>>> allowed to say I find one thing unpleasant unless I say the same about
>>> _all_ things that _anyrat_ might possibly take a dislike to?
>>>
>> You can say whatever you want.
> 
> But apparently it makes me a hypocrite.
> 
>> If you thought the leg/arm breaking posts were serious then I'm sorry. 
> 
> Serious? in the sense that I might assume they were genuine threats,
> no. In the sense that they were thoroughtly NASTY personal attacks,
> yes I did, and apparently I'm not the only one. So I'll take that
> sorry as being the most gracious apology you can bring yourself to
> utter.
> 
>> If you didn't then the charge sticks I'm afraid. Double standard.
> 
> You just don't stop, do you? 
>
No, because I think on this you have a double standard and I'm fed up 
with being lectured, so I'm going to have the courage of my convictions 
and say it.

Someone jokes that they wish a real person was dead because of their 
political opinions. You say nothing.
Someone jokes about breaking another real person's legs/arms because of 
their political opinions and you don't find it "REMOTELY funny".

YOUR jokey contribution to a thread *I* found offensive is OK.
MY jokey post in a jokey thread that *YOU* found offensive is not OK.

Simple enough for you ?

"Jane Vernon"  wrote
>
> I can see that somerats did find the leg-breaking mini-thread unpleasant,
> but I would like to say that I most certainly didn't. People "piling in" I
> saw as merely umrats feeling it was a good place to own up to being Tory
> and while it was not actually funny, it did feel at least an ironic way of
> people putting their hands up while at the same time saying the equivalent
> of "you *cannot be serious* about all Tories really being nasty and
> violent!".

<snip excellent post>

Thank you, Jane.  I have been trying to compose something saying and
failing, and now you've done it for me.

I really have found this thread distressing, with umrats I like very much on
both sides of the...er...well, discussion will do as a descripion, I
suppose.  As both sides now feel deeply aggrieved I doubt whether any
rapprochement on this thread is possible at the moment.  I'd hate to see
more of my friends feeling they had to leave, and I can see this happening
soon.  I'd like to support Paul's suggestion that we call a halt to it now,
take a deep breath and leave it be for a while. [1]
-- 
Sid
Make sure Matron is away when you reply
[1]I' ain' worf i'.  Really - i' ain'.

Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:48:55 +0200, BrritSki 
> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:15:41 +0200, BrritSki 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Linda Fox wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:04:31 +0100, Nick
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>> Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
>>>>>> (satirically?) nasty way. 
>>>>> Well, actually, Nick, nobody said YOU were nasty,
>>>> Sorry, but you're wrong. I am well known as a life-long Tory voter 
>>>> (although never a party member). When someone says the Tories are the 
>>>> nasty party I take it personally and I'm sure that's how it's meant by 
>>>> the majority and taken by most Tories.
>>> The idea that the Tory Party is "the Nasty Party" is a well worn
>>> political turn of phrase - just Google the words and take a look.
>>>
>>> <http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=nasty+party>
>> Yes, I know, and when it's in the media I couldn't care less, but when 
>> it's in umra amongst "friends" I think it's different. Of course being 
>> part of the political majority in umra you've probably never noticed.
> 
> Never noticed what?  I've certainly noticed your contempt for civil
> servants, expressed among umrats, quite a few of whom are civil
> servants.  Or is that somehow "different" again?

Civil servants in general or the specific ones that I had trouble with 
over IR35, or those involved in the Scottish Ballot problems ?

Googling on posts from you/me about Civil Servants, the last one I can 
find was in 2007 about those Scottish Ballots, where several respected 
umrats also thought the problem might be with the CS.

Next was in 2004 in a thread started by STilley which Rachel Reynolds 
objected to. When I queried the term "constant" you agreed that it had 
been some time since an egregious case of civil service abuse on umra.

The times before that were in 2002 & 2000 when in fact I praised the IR 
(as it was then) generally, and then went on to discuss IR35 and 
criticise those involved in it. (Don't forget that it was only because 
of the assistance of the PCG that I dared to fight this in the Special 
Commissioners where the IR people involved got such a mauling. Not quite 
a case of "no win no fee", but an example of why there is another side 
to the coin of that law change. The USA also has such laws and doesn't 
have the H&S nonsense Brits put up with, so I'm not so sure of the 
direct connection between the law passing and its alleged undesireable 
side-effects).

No doubt I'll have missed a couple of other references, but with a brain 
the size of a plant no doubt you'll find them,

But, no, you haven't noticed "contempt for civil servants, expressed 
amongst umrats" from me because it doesn't exist in any general sense 
except possibly in your imagination because I'm clearly an evil 
right-wing bigot. A few posts from me over several years on the subject 
of civil servants in no way equates to the general anti-Tory climate in 
umra.
It certainly is somehow "different".


> 
>>> For you to take it personally, with your regular invective against the
>>> current Prime Minister and his predecessor is, I fear, to invite
>>> suggestions that you can give it out, but you can't take it.  Is
>>> "frit" the relevant word? 
>> But my invective is against those remote individuals, I don't post that 
>> all Labour supporters are idiots (well I did post something along those 
>> lines thge other day, but only in response to the nasty party jibe).
> 
> And so is the invective against Margaret Thatcher, which you felt was
> crossing some sort of line.

I don't have a problem with invective against MaggieT or anyone else. 
I'm sure she can take it. So can I. Genuinely wishing someone dead 
though is something else. Now I understand that the original post was 
intended comically I don't have a problem with it.
> 
>>>>>> Or is being rude about tories allowed normal here?
>>>>> Eh? 
>>>>>
>>>> I had an email the other day from someone who has followed umra for 5 
>>>> years but never dared post because of their right-wing views.
>>>>
>>>> That's what some people consider is "normal" on umra.
>>>>
>>>> Personally I think it's a shame, but it can be very difficult posting 
>>>> here sometimes. I respect the great majority of umrats for their 
>>>> political views and their intelligent and reasonable posts on them, but 
>>>> occasionally it goes over the line. This was one of those times imo.
>>> You commented elsewhere in the thread that it was hypocritical to
>>> condemn "humorous" threats of violence against umrats, but not against
>>> other people.  I'd respond with two points.  Firstly, unless you can
>>> make a case that these threats of violence are qualitatively different
>>> from other insults, 
>> Sticks and stones perhaps ?
> 
> Not really.  They are all just words.  There has been no actual
> violence, nor any real prospect of it.

So you think that LFF is wrong as well then ?
> 
>>> then you might be in danger of accusations of
>>> hypocrisy for being willing to hurl rather childish invective at the
>> Yes it's often childish but there's a pretty solid case behind it as 
>> others are finally starting to realise.
> 
> Well then why not make the case, if it is really there?

I have made a case many times on all sorts of things, although I know I 
haven't convinced you or probably anyone else. I rarely descend to the 
childish invective, but I'm afraid that GB just enrages me.

> 
>>> Prime Minister that you never (happily) deploy against umrats.
>>>
>> True, but it's another spectrum isn't it ?  And occasionally I do hurl 
>> invective at other umrats when I think it's deserved. This "umratic" 
>> stuff is a 2-way street imo.
>>
>>> Secondly, I think that there is a spectrum, in on-line debating terms,
>>> that runs from people we have actually met and know, through people we
>>> only know on-line, through people whom other people know, through a
>>> range of public figures, into fictional figures that we know as well
>>> as some real public figures, through realistic but less well drawn
>>> fictional characters, through to cartoons.  While it is possible to
>>> argue that there is an absolute distinction between real and fictional
>>> people, it doesn't feel like that.  As far as discussion on umra goes,
>>> for me Caroline Bone is far more real than Diana, Princess of Wales
>>> ever was.  Some of us may put Margaret Thatcher towards the "people
>>> whom other people know" part of the scale, and others will put her up
>>> near Susan Carter or the Wicked Witch of the West.  They will act, and
>>> react, accordingly.
>>>
>>> The trick is to turn down the gain on our offensiveness aerials so
>>> that when we read posts from those who are coming from another part of
>>> the spectrum we can let it wash over us.
>> I'll be sure to bear that in mind. Make sure you've got yours turned up 
>> when I suggest that you are being (umratic edit) rather condescending.
> 
> You've accused me of that before, when I have previously suggested
> that there were inconsistencies in your arguments.

Would that be the time that you agreed that condescension as a form of 
thoughtful abuse was not only acceptable but funny ?  Did you think I 
was too thick to notice, or that the smiley made it OK ?

 >Stephen wrote:
 >> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:54:12 +0200, BrritSki 
 >> wrote:
...
 >> On the other hand, maybe you are falling back on abuse because you
 >> can't think of anything sensible to say?  Please try harder.

 >Is condescension just a posher form of abuse ?  EMNTK

Not posher, just more thoughtful.  ;-)

> 
>>> And as for people with right wing views not daring to post: I for one
>>> would much rather see a well-argued assertion of a political position
>>> I disagreed with than a self-serving whine about "not being allowed to
>>> support the Tories on umra."  
>> I didn't say that, my emailer said they were "afraid to" becuase of the 
>> responses. I don't altogether agree as I told him, but it can be 
>> difficult sometimes.
> 
> Isn't it all a matter of having the courage of one's convictions?  I'm
> not afraid to express my views not because I think that they fit with
> the majority opinion, but because I firmly believe in them.  

Likewise. But very few people will agree with me on umra because of the 
prevailing climate, which is what you don't seem able to accept.

Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:48:55 +0200, BrritSki 
> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:15:41 +0200, BrritSki 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Linda Fox wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:04:31 +0100, Nick
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>> Somebody said I was nasty - so I responded in a stereotypically 
>>>>>> (satirically?) nasty way. 
>>>>> Well, actually, Nick, nobody said YOU were nasty,
>>>> Sorry, but you're wrong. I am well known as a life-long Tory voter 
>>>> (although never a party member). When someone says the Tories are the 
>>>> nasty party I take it personally and I'm sure that's how it's meant by 
>>>> the majority and taken by most Tories.
>>> The idea that the Tory Party is "the Nasty Party" is a well worn
>>> political turn of phrase - just Google the words and take a look.
>>>
>>> <http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=nasty+party>
>> Yes, I know, and when it's in the media I couldn't care less, but when 
>> it's in umra amongst "friends" I think it's different. Of course being 
>> part of the political majority in umra you've probably never noticed.
> 
> Never noticed what?  I've certainly noticed your contempt for civil
> servants, expressed among umrats, quite a few of whom are civil
> servants.  Or is that somehow "different" again?

Civil servants in general or the specific ones that I had trouble with 
over IR35, or those involved in the Scottish Ballot problems ?

Googling on posts from you/me about Civil Servants, the last one I can 
find was in 2007 about those Scottish Ballots, where several respected 
umrats also thought the problem might be with the CS.

Next was in 2004 in a thread started by STilley which Rachel Reynolds 
objected to. When I queried the term "constant" you agreed that it had 
been some time since an egregious case of civil service abuse on umra.

The times before that were in 2002 & 2000 when in fact I praised the IR 
(as it was then) generally, and then went on to discuss IR35 and 
criticise those involved in it. (Don't forget that it was only because 
of the assistance of the PCG that I dared to fight this in the Special 
Commissioners where the IR people involved got such a mauling. Not quite 
a case of "no win no fee", but an example of why there is another side 
to the coin of that law change. The USA also has such laws and doesn't 
have the H&S nonsense Brits put up with, so I'm not so sure of the 
direct connection between the law passing and its alleged undesireable 
side-effects).

No doubt I'll have missed a couple of other references, but with a brain 
the size of a plant no doubt you'll find them,

But, no, you haven't noticed "contempt for civil servants, expressed 
amongst umrats" from me because it doesn't exist in any general sense 
except possibly in your imagination because I'm clearly an evil 
right-wing bigot. A few posts from me over several years on the subject 
of civil servants in no way equates to the general anti-Tory climate in 
umra.
It certainly is somehow "different".


> 
>>> For you to take it personally, with your regular invective against the
>>> current Prime Minister and his predecessor is, I fear, to invite
>>> suggestions that you can give it out, but you can't take it.  Is
>>> "frit" the relevant word? 
>> But my invective is against those remote individuals, I don't post that 
>> all Labour supporters are idiots (well I did post something along those 
>> lines thge other day, but only in response to the nasty party jibe).
> 
> And so is the invective against Margaret Thatcher, which you felt was
> crossing some sort of line.

I don't have a problem with invective against MaggieT or anyone else. 
I'm sure she can take it. So can I. Genuinely wishing someone dead 
though is something else. Now I understand that the original post was 
intended comically I don't have a problem with it.
> 
>>>>>> Or is being rude about tories allowed normal here?
>>>>> Eh? 
>>>>>
>>>> I had an email the other day from someone who has followed umra for 5 
>>>> years but never dared post because of their right-wing views.
>>>>
>>>> That's what some people consider is "normal" on umra.
>>>>
>>>> Personally I think it's a shame, but it can be very difficult posting 
>>>> here sometimes. I respect the great majority of umrats for their 
>>>> political views and their intelligent and reasonable posts on them, but 
>>>> occasionally it goes over the line. This was one of those times imo.
>>> You commented elsewhere in the thread that it was hypocritical to
>>> condemn "humorous" threats of violence against umrats, but not against
>>> other people.  I'd respond with two points.  Firstly, unless you can
>>> make a case that these threats of violence are qualitatively different
>>> from other insults, 
>> Sticks and stones perhaps ?
> 
> Not really.  They are all just words.  There has been no actual
> violence, nor any real prospect of it.

So you think that LFF is wrong as well then ?
> 
>>> then you might be in danger of accusations of
>>> hypocrisy for being willing to hurl rather childish invective at the
>> Yes it's often childish but there's a pretty solid case behind it as 
>> others are finally starting to realise.
> 
> Well then why not make the case, if it is really there?

I have made a case many times on all sorts of things, although I know I 
haven't convinced you or probably anyone else. I rarely descend to the 
childish invective, but I'm afraid that GB just enrages me.

> 
>>> Prime Minister that you never (happily) deploy against umrats.
>>>
>> True, but it's another spectrum isn't it ?  And occasionally I do hurl 
>> invective at other umrats when I think it's deserved. This "umratic" 
>> stuff is a 2-way street imo.
>>
>>> Secondly, I think that there is a spectrum, in on-line debating terms,
>>> that runs from people we have actually met and know, through people we
>>> only know on-line, through people whom other people know, through a
>>> range of public figures, into fictional figures that we know as well
>>> as some real public figures, through realistic but less well drawn
>>> fictional characters, through to cartoons.  While it is possible to
>>> argue that there is an absolute distinction between real and fictional
>>> people, it doesn't feel like that.  As far as discussion on umra goes,
>>> for me Caroline Bone is far more real than Diana, Princess of Wales
>>> ever was.  Some of us may put Margaret Thatcher towards the "people
>>> whom other people know" part of the scale, and others will put her up
>>> near Susan Carter or the Wicked Witch of the West.  They will act, and
>>> react, accordingly.
>>>
>>> The trick is to turn down the gain on our offensiveness aerials so
>>> that when we read posts from those who are coming from another part of
>>> the spectrum we can let it wash over us.
>> I'll be sure to bear that in mind. Make sure you've got yours turned up 
>> when I suggest that you are being (umratic edit) rather condescending.
> 
> You've accused me of that before, when I have previously suggested
> that there were inconsistencies in your arguments.

Would that be the time that you agreed that condescension as a form of 
thoughtful abuse was not only acceptable but funny ?  Did you think I 
was too thick to notice, or that the smiley made it OK ?

 >Stephen wrote:
 >> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:54:12 +0200, BrritSki 
 >> wrote:
...
 >> On the other hand, maybe you are falling back on abuse because you
 >> can't think of anything sensible to say?  Please try harder.

 >Is condescension just a posher form of abuse ?  EMNTK

Not posher, just more thoughtful.  ;-)

> 
>>> And as for people with right wing views not daring to post: I for one
>>> would much rather see a well-argued assertion of a political position
>>> I disagreed with than a self-serving whine about "not being allowed to
>>> support the