rendelharris

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And don't forget these morons may have children > that grow up in this kind of atmosphere. And this week's Golden Shoehorn goes to Uncle...

The increasing fashion in the British press to follow US usage and to omit prepositions: "Leonard Cohen, who died Monday, was..." To paraphrase Basil Fawlty, on is one little word, it's not the Gettysburg address...

There's a war memorial in the College Chapel at the bottom - some sort of Remembrance parade using Gallery Road perhaps?

Thanks for the invitation Dave, but while it's been an interesting discussion with others of all points of view your bilious rhetoric and personal abuse aren't really worth answering.

"Increasingly jaywalkers posts feel like someone has swallowed a philosophy textbook, a thesaurus and a few copies of the Guardian and then picked through the resulting vomit to construct a paragraph" Thank goodness we've got you here as an example of how not to be a patronising f@ckwit. I do hope we can mend our ways and live up to the shining example you've set. ETA - by the way, if you object to being called a Nazi, though I can't actually see where anyone has done so, perhaps you should reconsider using phrases like "Bookburning, anyone?" against others.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At the end of the day, we live in a centre-right > country that voted to leave the EU. I am/did > neither of those things, but I'm starting to get > slightly tired of the whole "we know better than > the silly oiks" attitude I am seeing a lot of. > Don't get me wrong, I've said those things myself, > but now I'm rethinking. I appreciate your point, and you are (if you'll forgive me saying so) clearly a good and thinking guy, but there's a big difference between saying "we know better than the silly oiks" and being furiously angry with the fact that people are just being lied to by a massive section of the mainstream media and making bad decisions as a result of those lies - the ?350M a week claim during the referendum being an egregious example. The vast majority of people aren't stupid, but they make up their minds generally on the basis of what they see in the press, and a lot of the press in this country simply lies. Example: a one inch by two inch box apology in The Sun in 2013: ?Our 21 October headline ?Brussels: UK?s 600,000 benefit tourists is no problem? was not accurate. There is no evidence of 600,000 ?benefit tourists? in the UK. Neither has the European Commission said this would be no problem.? I don't think it's patronising to campaign for those who peddle such lies to have financial support withdrawn from them by supposedly respectable and ethical retailers.

Thanks for posting this - wonderful. So honest, so clever...really enjoyed hearing it.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > unlike > you I genuinely believe in freedom Except of course the freedom for people to mount campaigns with which you don't agree, the freedom of people to tell retailers they don't like their behaviour and the freedom of retailers to choose not to take out advertising with newspapers whose views they or their customers find distasteful. Somebody quoted Voltaire earlier, and quite right we must remember his dictum on "defending the right to say it." What he didn't say was "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to death the right to say it, and I will also supply funding to make sure what you say has as wide an audience as you'd like."

It's very good too, the Southwark training - Mrs H did it and it did wonders for her confidence for riding on the roads. Heartily recommended for anyone who'd like to cycle but is worried about the traffic.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship > > It's really not that complicated > > What is the purpose of this campaign if not to try > and change the editorial content of the newspapers > involved? At least other posters are honest about > this. Rh just getting more and more weaselly As usual, when the right can't win an argument, turn to insults. If you were honest you'd admit that you object to this campaign because it's targetting your political values, you wouldn't complain if it was anti-left and setting yourself up as some champion of free speech is just risible. Apparently your great love of freedom of speech doesn't extend as far as people being free to ask a retailer to stop supporting newspapers which spout hatred. The Daily Mail et al have the freedom of speech to spray their drivel about, advertisers and customers have the right not to pay to support them.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now I bid you farewell, I don't know when I'll be > back > They're moving us tomorrow to that tower down the > track > But you'll be hearing from me baby, long after I'm > gone > I'll be speaking to you sweetly > From a window in the Tower of Song One of my favourites, especially when he growls in those nicotine and whisky soaked tones, "I was born like this/I had no choice/I was born with the gift of a golden voice." All those who think he was just a prophet of doom overlook the fact that he had a brilliant self-deprecating sense of humour.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In answer to the question from rh above, yes - > any act of power where the intention is to silence > or restrict free speech should be opposed, and > freedom of the press is well recognised as having > a special quality in an open democracy. And > coordinated economic activity is absolutely an act > of power. Yet again, it's in no way attempting to restrict free speech, it's an attempt to ask certain entities to stop funding speech which should be antithetical to their ethos.

Oh and one more, sorry - Nina Simone's cover of Suzanne, wonderful.

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Secondly, when you use terms like "generation > snowflake" and "helicopter parents", you are > betraying a very narrow-minded point of view. "Generation snowflake" is such a lazy and meaningless term which is cropping up more and more often. It's the new way of saying "political correctness gone mad" - when Richard Littlejohn uses it in virtually every article you know something's wrong with it. It's so insulting to write off a generation who are actually, from what I've seen in teaching and from working with them as a volunteer, more politically active and more inclined to get involved and volunteer than many of their predecessors.

Second the Buckley - first heard it in Without a Trace (I don't have my finger quite on the pulse) and after my absolute delight in realising a Cohen song was being used thought "I've got to have this..." Reckon his and Len's versions just about tie. Random anecdote - Len once said to Dylan "Hey, I love Desolation Row, how long did it take you to write that?" Dylan, "Uh, 'bout twenny minutes. That Hallelujah, that's a great song too. How long did that take you?" Cohen: "Oh, about eight years..." And another one I only heard today - Cohen and Dylan were in a car and Cohen said, "Bob, you're number one, no question, I just hope I'm number two." Dylan: "No man, you're number one. I'm number zero." While I'm rambling (obviously the great man is much on all our minds today) I thought one of his last public pronouncements summed up his grace, wit and good humour: asked what he thought of Bob getting the Nobel prize, he replied, "To me it's like pinning a medal on Mount Everest for being the tallest mountain."

I found this graph really fascinating, it basically demonstrates that Trump has done no better than the previous two Republican candidates, he's lucked into a lot of antipathy for Hillary. *well it would be interesting if I could upload the photo but it's resolutely refusing to do so, sorry!

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A boycott aimed at removing editorial content from > a newspaper using economic coercion is no > different from censorship using legal coercion. > Weasel words don't change that. I'm against it, > whether I agree with the content or not. Anybody > who genuinely believes in freedom of the press > should also be against it Except, as mentioned above, that's not what's being asked. The campaign is not saying tell the Daily Mail to change its content, it's saying given the content of the Daily Mail, please stop giving them money. Two different things. You will of course call these "weasel words" but never mind. I wonder if John Lewis advertised in a publication which regularly called, quite legally, for the establishment of an Islamic caliphate in the UK, and people said they might withdraw their business from John Lewis if they didn't stop advertising in such a publication, if you'd call that censorship as well?

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What if a religious leader urged his congregation > to stop buying a particular newspaper unless it > stopped supporting gay marriage? Or a gay rights > campaigner led a boycott of a publisher who > printed Bibles? Either you support censorship or > you don't. I don't. It appears you do when you > disagree with the message. Book burning anyone? Neither of those examples you quote are anything to do with censorship, they would just be boycotting content, not censoring it. Two different things. The press have the freedom to print what they want, within reason, the public have the right to boycott it. Is the boycott of the Sun in Liverpool censorship? No, it's protest. Kudos on the book burning reference though, yes that's exactly what everyone who disagrees with buying/funding a particular newspaper is really doing.

Great quote my sister just sent me: "Of all the responses to Trump's election, Cohen's was the best." I think the black humour of that would have tickled him.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So to sum up the great and good of the EDF...I > think it's a great pity the plebs have the > vote......yes, pesky democracy eh Funny, I said absolutely the opposite - don't patronise the working class by treating their voting choice as just an angry tantrum which is someone else's fault, every adult has a vote and takes responsibility for how they use it. A rightwing maniac becomes president and it seems, to some people, that's not the fault of the people who voted for him, it's the left's fault really...

Alexandra Leaving, Heart With No Companion, Joan of Arc. God this year sucks.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for explaining. JLP/Waitrose remains one of > the most ethical employers in this country and did > fair trade a century ago before there was a name > for it, which is a big part of why people like > spending money with them. Surely it would be more > effective to target someone with a less ethical > reputation. Seems unfair and a bit dishonest to > focus only on one aspect of what they do. Indeed, I too regard them as something of a shining example of workplace practices. I suppose the campaigners think that precisely because they're more ethical than the rest they're most likely to take note.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let's cut to the chase here. People who vote in a > dangerous Proto-fascist deserve to be called out > for their choices. The things Trump has said and > done aren't OK. If someone is a racist and a > sexist and a bully and a liar and you support > them, then personally I don't think that's some > kind of legitimate form of protest. Well said, "I'm angry because the system has failed me and hung my community out to dry" is perfectly legitimate, "I'm angry because the system has failed me and hung my community out to dry and so I'm going to vote for an extreme right wing bully with a record of sexual assault, lying and bullying and who's as fit to run the country as a mouldy turnip" is not. That was what I tried to say originally, I think it patronises the working class to act as though they're too stupid to see who they're voting for - it's the same over here when people vote BNP, "Oh they're angry" as if they're a bunch of children who can't be held responsible for their choices.

Seemed reasonably obvious to me (unless I've totally missed the point which is more than possible) - asking big retailers to stop taking out adverts promoting peace and goodwill at Christmas when the money they're paying for them is funding rags like the Daily Mail etc which promote hatred. Quite a good conceit I thought, though I very much doubt it'll have any effect...

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The great Michael Moore, who told the world they > should take Trump seriously and stop with their > sneering a good year ago now... Michael Moore who says in the piece you link to ?He was never a joke. Treating him as one only strengthened him. He is both a creature and a creation of the media and the media will never own that.? Is that the same Michael Moore who wrote here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/trump-self-sabotage_b_11545026.html that he knew "for a fact" Trump only ran for President in order to get a better TV deal and that he was deliberately trying to sabotage his campaign so he'd be ditched by the Republicans? This was in August this year. Seems like he's rewriting his own history in a way that rather echoes Trump...