Peak guardian?

[TheCat]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > More 'balance' from our friends at the

> Graun....

>

> Perhaps you should start a thread trolling

> Telegraph readers, you know, for balance...

Honestly...'trolling'?....get a grip DR.....

The Lounge has got threads on anything and everything, from the serious to the downright bizarre....if you have no interest in a topic...or feel that you are being 'trolled' becuase somebody says something you don't like....just don't read it, and certainly don't respond....

I actively read the Guardian to the extent I would classify myself a 'Guardian reader'..am I also trolling myself?.....

[Effra]

The author has created a carefully crafted example of selective reporting that results in fake news. But would the Gruniad ever do that?

For example, take the photo of the building of the Peoples Daily in Beijing. This was taken when it was being constructed. The photo was taken from one end of the site which makes it look cylindrical when in fact it is not. It has the scaffolding and screens on top and is supported by cable stays.

Here's what it looks like when finished.

[diable rouge]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Lounge has got threads on anything and

> everything, from the serious to the downright

> bizarre....if you have no interest in a topic...or

> feel that you are being 'trolled' becuase somebody

> says something you don't like....just don't read

> it, and certainly don't respond....

Nice try at moving the goalposts again, fails to detract from the point I made that complaining that the Guardian shows a lack of balance, when you show none yourself, does come across as a tad hypocritical.

As for trolling itself, I don't mind it as it can sometimes be subjectively clever and witty, make a valid point, so shouldn't be seen exclusively as a negative thing.

> I actively read the Guardian to the extent I would

> classify myself a 'Guardian reader'..am I also

> trolling myself?.....

Of course you do, how else would you come up with your 'ammunition'?...

[TheCat]

Perhaps the balance I am striving for is against the overwhelming uniformity of thought on this forum from the most active members....

Your behaviour in this thread suggests that I must be the first person ever to mock the Guardian or accuse them of being unbalanced in their own coverage.....I'll give you a little hint...I'm really not...and if suggesting so makes you this irate and verging on personal attacks in your responses, then everything in your life must appear like 'trolling' to you....

[Sephiroth]

Putting aside the ?uniformity of thought? on this forum and the ego required to decide you?re the one to take it on...

Given The State of Things in August 2020, with an 80 majority tory govt in ?charge? of said shitshow, why is it you don?t apply such critical thinking to the bigger issues Catty? Like seriously, the ridiculous articles and columnists the guardian seemingly pump out at will (not to mention sales) are inconsequential in the bigger scheme of things

Whatever ills require fixing in this country, tackling anything guardian related is merely and indulgence.

[KalamityKel]

I read the back of cereal boxes... There must be something wrong with me too *rolls eyes

[TheCat]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Putting aside the ?uniformity of thought? on this

> forum and the ego required to decide you?re the

> one to take it on...

>

> Given The State of Things in August 2020, with an

> 80 majority tory govt in ?charge? of said

> shitshow, why is it you don?t apply such critical

> thinking to the bigger issues Catty? Like

> seriously, the ridiculous articles and columnists

> the guardian seemingly pump out at will (not to

> mention sales) are inconsequential in the bigger

> scheme of things

>

> Whatever ills require fixing in this country,

> tackling anything guardian related is merely and

> indulgence.

Of course it is Sephiroth. As you well know ,I've commented extensively on a broad range of 'bigger' issues...both agreeing an disagreeing with 'the crowd' and low and behold, it seems people only claim I'm a 'troll' when I'm disagreeing....funny that....

In anycase, as I said earlier on the thread, there are all sorts of things covered by threads on this Lounge, and suggesting this one thread should encapsulate my entire thought process on all social and political issues seems a little OTT....Shall we have a go at Spartacus next for starting a thread about boring movie titles? I mean, how pointless in these troubled times in which we live!

However, given both you and dr have brought this fairly low profile/seemingly innoffensive thread around to challenging how I conduct myself and suggesting what I should direct my thoughts towards instead.....,I must really get up your collective noses....duly noted...:)

[Sephiroth]

Purlease

Don't sound so surprised. It's at least 80% of your intention with these threads. I'm partly surprised I held off this long but here you still are giggling away at your ripples again

I don't think I'm commenting because we disagree The Guardian is frequently silly. I think we agree on that front

I'm commenting because I don't see how it passes the "so what" test. Picking away at silly newspaper articles seems perfectly legit reason for a topic - but to pick on the lowest circulation print publication, one that is most obviously against the current government (and against Corbyn era Labour) seems a bit.. unnecessary? Fish in a barrel? It's not exactly holding power to account. And I know you say you comment across a wide range of topics but really - on the big topics of the day? I dont see much. Endless government U turns and fiascos and people dying with a no deal end of transition brexit months away - and at best you only really try and tweak the noses of critics of the government.

[TheCat]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Purlease

>

> Don't sound so surprised. It's at least 80% of

> your intention with these threads. I'm partly

> surprised I held off this long but here you still

> are giggling away at your ripples again

I'll respond to you purlease with a comeonnnnn.....

Do you have a source for your 80 percent figure? But seriously, neither should you act so surprised on my uniformity of thought comments about this forum. You can call it stirring, but I stand by all my comments on this forum, and I am genuinely interested to understand and know what people who likely disagree with me on those issues have to say in response. I genuinely believe I learn something that way - while also robustly defending my own view (perhaps not on the peak guardian thread, as it's really NOT THAT IMPORTANT..(and I don't k now how's it's got so blown out of proportion)..which is something we can all agree on)

> I don't think I'm commenting because we disagree

> The Guardian is frequently silly. I think we agree

> on that front

Great. So feel free to mock the guardian in this thread, which is sort of what it's for. If you want to start a thread titled 'Isn't TheCat a tosser' then we can address the rest of your points on there.

>

> I'm commenting because I don't see how it passes

> the "so what" test. Picking away at silly

> newspaper articles seems perfectly legit reason

> for a topic - but to pick on the lowest

> circulation print publication, one that is most

> obviously against the current government (and

> against Corbyn era Labour) seems a bit..

> unnecessary? Fish in a barrel? It's not exactly

> holding power to account. And I know you say you

> comment across a wide range of topics but really -

> on the big topics of the day? I dont see much.

> Endless government U turns and fiascos and people

> dying with a no deal end of transition brexit

> months away - and at best you only really try and

> tweak the noses of critics of the government.

You don't see much? Fair enough, that's your opinion. But it's a matter of fact that Ive started, (and been very active) a thread about racism and the BLM narrative recently, not shy about expressing views that the majority of the crowd didn't like..that seems like sort of a big issue, no? Also been very active on the Brexit threads at different times (as you well know)..also sort of a big issue. U-turns?...I made a comment earlier this week mocking Gavin Williamson and comparing his ineptitude to Chris Grayling...is that not enough of an issue for you?

Do you value my opinion so much that I need to start threads on every big issue? In anycase, what I comment on is surely no one's business but my own. Don't like what I say?...then argue against it. If not, don't comment and start your own threads on issues you'd like to discuss....if I have something to say on that issue, I'll say it there....

[diable rouge]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Perhaps the balance I am striving for is against

> the overwhelming uniformity of thought on this

> forum from the most active members....

> Your behaviour in this thread suggests that I must

> be the first person ever to mock the Guardian or

> accuse them of being unbalanced in their own

> coverage.....I'll give you a little hint...I'm

> really not...and if suggesting so makes you this

> irate and verging on personal attacks in your

> responses, then everything in your life must

> appear like 'trolling' to you....

Nice try, yet more deflectionary tactics, none of which detract from your hypocrisy...

[TheCat]

Give it a rest DR.

You're now starting to look quite petty with constant personal snipes.

[diable rouge]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Give it a rest DR.

>

> You're now starting to look quite petty with

> constant personal snipes.

Peak EDF...

[TheCat]

okay....let me indulge you....please explain this 'hypocrisy' you're accusing me of?

As it stands.....I start a thread about the Guardian, and post comments about the Guardian. You have come on to the thread and said that by not mocking other publications im being hypocritical...have a i got that right? To clarify...by NOT saying something im being hypocritical in your book.

this from a person who hasn't started a thread in living memory, and just chips at other peoples thoughts. You want to discuss something else?...start a thread of your own....the button is right there.....

[TheCat]

This older thread looks like a good spot to leave this...some of the Graun's best work....

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/10/the-guardians-hottest-takes/

[j.a.]

Ah, poor Trolley, such a snowflake that he can?t stand the idea of a journalist reviewing the third largest industry in this country.

What a melt...

I mean, it?s ok for people to spend ?150 on other things they like, but not eating out. Darling, how much effort it must take for you to maintain your hatred that you actually look through Rayner?s columns and read the comments?

Maybe better to...you know...just ignore it? Or do you feel that a restaurant review somehow contributes to the downfall of our society? As if ?real people? don?t go anywhere but KFC and Wetherspoons or whatever your laughable justification for ridiculing these reviews is.

The next time you?re fuelling that internalised culture war that helps you justify your views, maybe count up the percentage of places Rayner visited in the last year that charges ?150 per head. Doesn?t take long, I just did it. The answer might surprise you.

I?ve never quite understood the idea that enjoying eating out is such an awful thing, but given how much it contributes to the economy I?d have to say that I?m glad TrolleyMelt isn?t at the Treasury...

ETA - is it just Rayner you loath, or is it all restaurant critics? Giles Coren? Grace Dent? Fay Maschler? Or do you have something specific against Jay? Hmmm...

[KidKruger]

He doesn?t care who the food critic is, it?s whatever will insult the intended audience that matters.

[TheCat]

So to combine two recent threads Trolley...I guess you wont be looking forward to Jay's review of the new local, upscale, Indian restaurant 'Heritage'?

[Seabag]

Trolley Snatcha Wrote:

-----------------------

.....................................

By far the most cringey, middle class, stuck up thing about the Guardian is local chump Jay Rayner and his column boasting about going to expensive restaurants and triumphantly and quite sneerily telling readers how marvellous it all was.

- My comments are written like this

- He?s a paid food journalist, in that he?s paid to eat at the restaurants he reviews. The Newspaper pay the bill. On balance Jay?s (seeing as his name is Jay Rayner) reviews are often critical in the required places, though I have seen sneering, but mostly with contempt. This contempt is usually reserved for places with aspiration beyond execution and having the gaul to charge through the nose for it. He hates people taking the piss, trying to pass off and exploit customers.

Try a read of this https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/aug/11/blue-boar-smokehouse-restaurant-review to

Or in contrast, this one, making what was a chef grafting his own dollar that little bit more successful. This kind of review gives a place a much needed focus. No ?150 dinners here.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/food/2019/sep/22/lagom-at-hackney-church-brew-co-dishes-throbbing-with-flavour-restaurant-review

- In fairness, his review can make or break a place. He?s probably the most revered in the industry, because he?s earned it, and the industry respects it. But he stays at the Guardian, because it suits his style, it gives him freedom to be Jay Rayner first, Guardian Food Journalist second.

His legion of fanboys who comment underneath are beyond pathetic, gushing about he 'made their Sunday' and writing 'thank you Jay!', as if they are so pally with him they know him by first name terms.

- As above, he goes by the name Jay Rayner. What would you rather people called him ? Mr Rayner, or just plain Rayner?

Not sure what your point is here, other than you sneering, which you appear to dislike previously.

If you dare to say anything other than the hareem do, such as questioning the value for money of a meal costing ?150, you'll be jumped on and criticised for daring to question their darling 'Jay'.

I have no doubt that some of these complete melts are here and present on this forum.

- You?ve obviously some class warrior aspirations, and best of luck with that. But there?s been many before you (and better at it tbf). You?ll need to up your game somewhat to compete.

-Anyways, as they now say at Mc Donald?s

-"Lovin' Beats Hatin,"

[KidKruger]

Don?t waste time on this numpty. He?s not interested in those details, because it?s just about insulting an intended audience.

[Sephiroth]

* whispers *

it's all an attempted diversion to get the "libs" all outraged given that the "brexit thing" is going pretty badly and "they" can't genuinely stick to those threads so confections like this are all they have

I know, I'm embarrassed for them too

[TheCat]

I'm not a fan of Trolley's slightly antagonistic class baiting, But to be fair, it wasn't trolley who shoehorned this 'brexit thing' into this thread.....

[Seabag]

Trolley Snatcha Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, thanks all for proving me right.

> Particularly the person who threw out the

> 'snowflake' jibe, little tip fella- it makes you

> sound like a sad, ageing, balding, sex starved

> bloke, who is a little bitter at younger people

> living their lives. Not a good look.

>

> Also, the one who linked criticism of a food

> column on a website to Brexit- cretinous reply.

>

> Anyway, of course the column hasnt reviewed many

> ?150 meals of late, as restaurants have been

> mostly closed for the last 12 months. Perhaps that

> little detail didnt register? Try not to be too

> busy nitpicking to remember perspective. I have

> noted however he has been reviewing meals that

> come in the post that you have to cook for

> yourself for over ?100! But, i suppose if you live

> in a nice ?1.5 million East Dulwich house with 2

> well behaved, privately educated children to help

> you with the baking bit, it must be quite a nice

> activity for you. If so, then you are as exactly

> as how i described- cringey, middle class, stuck

> up.

>

> I hope you'll be looking forward to Sunday where

> you can shower a fat, rude food journalist who has

> been busy helping to gentrify Brixton ever since

> he moved there from North London, in high praise

> for simply getting paid to review an expensive

> meal and write a couple of hundreds words about

> it. But no matter how many times you call the

> journalist by his first name, or say his words are

> majestic and they make you salivate, he's probably

> not going to come round and toss you off, however

> much you would like that.

To be fair, you?ve been reading a lot more Jay than I have lately.

Research I expect, carry on, knock yourself out. Maybe come back when you?ve got something to say that?s worth reading.

3/10

[malumbu]

Question to all, why do most refer to the PM by his first name? I don't. He is not my mate.

PS I have no idea what this thread is about.

[JohnL]

Trolley Snatcha Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you know the Guardian columnist personally? Why

> do you mention to him by only his first name?

> Sounds and looks stupid.

>

> Do you refer to BBC news presenters by first name?

> 'Naga' or maybe 'Dan'. No you dont, so stop

> pretending its perfectly normal.

Reminds me of a woman I worked with back in 1990 "I hate this middle management idea of calling people by their first names"

Up to that point many people still called work colleagues Mr+surname especially people above or below you in the hierarchy.

[BrandNewGuy]

Yeah, as in "Mr Snatcha". Reminds me of the apocryphal record company exec talking to Meat Loaf and saying, "Ah, Mr Loaf ? or may I call you 'Meat'...?"

Mr Snatcha clearly has it in for fat, balding, middle-aged, middle-class residents of East Dulwich. Luckily I'm only two of those.