ChatterBank1 min ago
Richard Littlejohn Right Or Wrong
great article that i agree with, it's a total mess.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
davebro - // A-H
//He is 'right' because he mirrors what his readership think.//
That's total BS and you know it. He is either right or he's wrong (in substance). If I say the earth is flat and my readership agree, am I right? Your weasel words are a device for saying that in your opinion he is wrong but declining to provide any argument as to why you think so. End of. //
You are letting your temper and animosity cloud your ability to understand what I have said.
Take a few deep breaths and re-read my post.
You will observe, hopefully, that far from trying to disguise my view of Mr Littlejohn's piece in the Mail, I did not actually offer any opinion on whether he was right or wrong in what he said.
There is a good reason for that - I haven't read the piece in question.
I find Mr Littlejohn's right-wing bear-poking sarcastic pandering to Middle England patronising and pointless, so I don't read what he writes.
So with regard to whether what he said is right or wrong, I offered no view, and still don't.
What I did do was offer a view on Mr Littlejohn's journalism as a whole, rather than anything specific about this one piece.
Somehow you have managed to twist this simple observation into something that makes me devious and unwilling to back up something I have said, even though I didn't say it - 'weasel' was the adjective you used.
As always you and anyone else, is entirely welcome to take issue with anything I say, and we can discuss it.
What you are not welcome to do is to twist what I said into something I didn't say, and then be rude to me about it.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
//He is 'right' because he mirrors what his readership think.//
That's total BS and you know it. He is either right or he's wrong (in substance). If I say the earth is flat and my readership agree, am I right? Your weasel words are a device for saying that in your opinion he is wrong but declining to provide any argument as to why you think so. End of. //
You are letting your temper and animosity cloud your ability to understand what I have said.
Take a few deep breaths and re-read my post.
You will observe, hopefully, that far from trying to disguise my view of Mr Littlejohn's piece in the Mail, I did not actually offer any opinion on whether he was right or wrong in what he said.
There is a good reason for that - I haven't read the piece in question.
I find Mr Littlejohn's right-wing bear-poking sarcastic pandering to Middle England patronising and pointless, so I don't read what he writes.
So with regard to whether what he said is right or wrong, I offered no view, and still don't.
What I did do was offer a view on Mr Littlejohn's journalism as a whole, rather than anything specific about this one piece.
Somehow you have managed to twist this simple observation into something that makes me devious and unwilling to back up something I have said, even though I didn't say it - 'weasel' was the adjective you used.
As always you and anyone else, is entirely welcome to take issue with anything I say, and we can discuss it.
What you are not welcome to do is to twist what I said into something I didn't say, and then be rude to me about it.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
naomi - // AH. //I don't read what he writes....What I did do was offer a view on Mr Littlejohn's journalism as a whole//
That makes no sense. If you don't read what he writes you're hardly in a position to offer a view on his journalism at all. //
I don't read what he writes, but that is not the same as saying I have never read what he writes, which I have.
Otherwise, I would not, as you point out, be in a position to comment on his journalism, but since I have read previous material, but no longer do so, I am entitled to offer a view, which I did.
That makes no sense. If you don't read what he writes you're hardly in a position to offer a view on his journalism at all. //
I don't read what he writes, but that is not the same as saying I have never read what he writes, which I have.
Otherwise, I would not, as you point out, be in a position to comment on his journalism, but since I have read previous material, but no longer do so, I am entitled to offer a view, which I did.
The only thing that has surprised me about this thread, is that there wasn't more people rubbishing the writer rather than the writing. It's what's happened in the past with Littlejohn.
I'm a hypocrite though, because I would do the exact same thing if a link was given to a Polly Toynbee piece, because I can't stand her or her opinions.
I'm a hypocrite though, because I would do the exact same thing if a link was given to a Polly Toynbee piece, because I can't stand her or her opinions.
davebro - // //I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.//
There is no misunderstanding - you obviously despise Littlejohn & are prepared to dismiss his offerings out of hand without actually reading them. I stand by my comments. //
Progress - of a sort - at least you now understand that I did not read the piece in question, contrary to your misunderstanding - and clearly there was one - of what I actually posted.
I have not dismissed Mr Littlejohn's offerings, merely expressed my opinion on his writing style, to which I am entitled.
By all means agree with him, or not, frankly I am less than disinterested in his view, or yours, but please don't be rude to me because you can't understand a simple view without making it something it isn't, simply so you can be self-righteous about it.
There is no misunderstanding - you obviously despise Littlejohn & are prepared to dismiss his offerings out of hand without actually reading them. I stand by my comments. //
Progress - of a sort - at least you now understand that I did not read the piece in question, contrary to your misunderstanding - and clearly there was one - of what I actually posted.
I have not dismissed Mr Littlejohn's offerings, merely expressed my opinion on his writing style, to which I am entitled.
By all means agree with him, or not, frankly I am less than disinterested in his view, or yours, but please don't be rude to me because you can't understand a simple view without making it something it isn't, simply so you can be self-righteous about it.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Zebu - // // Polly Toynbee piece, because I can't stand her or her opinions //
The purpose of any debate, surely, is to challenge the views being put forward. Not to attack the advocate of those opinions. //
You make a fair point, but the essence of 'personality' columnists, of which Ms Toynbee and Mr Littlejohn are two, is that they are happy to align their views with their personas, so in their case, it's difficult to separate the two.
The purpose of any debate, surely, is to challenge the views being put forward. Not to attack the advocate of those opinions. //
You make a fair point, but the essence of 'personality' columnists, of which Ms Toynbee and Mr Littlejohn are two, is that they are happy to align their views with their personas, so in their case, it's difficult to separate the two.
// they are happy to align their views with their personas //
At one time or another, are we not all guilty of doing this?
An essential foundation of living in a Western democratic society is the freedom (within the constraints of certain provisos) to express one's opinions.
This is not to condone the writings of those professional columnists. However so long as they abide by the rules of journalism and the protocols surrounding free speech, then to deny them of their platform is not only to erode their right to free speech, does it not rob us of OUR liberty too?
At one time or another, are we not all guilty of doing this?
An essential foundation of living in a Western democratic society is the freedom (within the constraints of certain provisos) to express one's opinions.
This is not to condone the writings of those professional columnists. However so long as they abide by the rules of journalism and the protocols surrounding free speech, then to deny them of their platform is not only to erode their right to free speech, does it not rob us of OUR liberty too?
zebu - // / they are happy to align their views with their personas //
At one time or another, are we not all guilty of doing this? //
Of course, but these individuals do it as a profession, and are happy to take the plaudits and brickbats that come with being a professionally opinionated individual.
// An essential foundation of living in a Western democratic society is the freedom (within the constraints of certain provisos) to express one's opinions.
This is not to condone the writings of those professional columnists. However so long as they abide by the rules of journalism and the protocols surrounding free speech, then to deny them of their platform is not only to erode their right to free speech, does it not rob us of OUR liberty too? //
I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here.
I have not, and I don't believe anyone else has on this thread - suggested that the rights of free speech should be denied any columnist in a newspaper, or any poster on this site.
As you say, that is our right, constrained by the applicable laws, and in the case of the AB, they are the Site Rules.
Within those constraints, anyone is entitled to offer a view, disagree with another view, or debate the subject, for as long and as often as they choose.
And amen to that.
At one time or another, are we not all guilty of doing this? //
Of course, but these individuals do it as a profession, and are happy to take the plaudits and brickbats that come with being a professionally opinionated individual.
// An essential foundation of living in a Western democratic society is the freedom (within the constraints of certain provisos) to express one's opinions.
This is not to condone the writings of those professional columnists. However so long as they abide by the rules of journalism and the protocols surrounding free speech, then to deny them of their platform is not only to erode their right to free speech, does it not rob us of OUR liberty too? //
I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here.
I have not, and I don't believe anyone else has on this thread - suggested that the rights of free speech should be denied any columnist in a newspaper, or any poster on this site.
As you say, that is our right, constrained by the applicable laws, and in the case of the AB, they are the Site Rules.
Within those constraints, anyone is entitled to offer a view, disagree with another view, or debate the subject, for as long and as often as they choose.
And amen to that.
davebro - //
A-H that's it, Run off and hide behind the Ed's skirts! Your obvious prejudice has been exposed & it seems to have touched a nerve. Maybe think before you post in future. //
Having given a couple of days for things to cool down -
I am not 'running off', or 'hiding' anywhere at all, I think you know me better than that.
I have no prejudice' - I am not a fan of Mr Littlejohn's writing, or persona, but that's not 'prejudice', that's merely a point of view.
// Maybe think before you post in future. //
I always do!
How about you?
A-H that's it, Run off and hide behind the Ed's skirts! Your obvious prejudice has been exposed & it seems to have touched a nerve. Maybe think before you post in future. //
Having given a couple of days for things to cool down -
I am not 'running off', or 'hiding' anywhere at all, I think you know me better than that.
I have no prejudice' - I am not a fan of Mr Littlejohn's writing, or persona, but that's not 'prejudice', that's merely a point of view.
// Maybe think before you post in future. //
I always do!
How about you?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.