Re: The Mail and its odious style of reporting : Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:04 pm  

Him wrote:

I can understand why you sympathise with Littlejohn, he makes things up too.

As I said on the Leeds thread to you - prove it!! As on the Leeds thread you can't yet you try take some moral high ground.

Like a child in a gang you act all tough when you're surrounded by the cliquey clan of keyboard warriors. You are like everyone else on here simply touting your opinion as fact as if it actually carried more gravitas it would be sad if it weren't so funny. At least Mintball quotes other people who can articulate her opinion for her.

Re: The Mail and its odious style of reporting : Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:38 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

As I said on the Leeds thread to you - prove it!! As on the Leeds thread you can't yet you try take some moral high ground.

Like a child in a gang you act all tough when you're surrounded by the cliquey clan of keyboard warriors. You are like everyone else on here simply touting your opinion as fact as if it actually carried more gravitas it would be sad if it weren't so funny. At least Mintball quotes other people who can articulate her opinion for her.

You see, I can take the moral high ground. For a couple of very simple reasons:
1. The person making the assertion (you) is the person who has to provide evidence to backup those assertions, especially when there is little to no logic or common sense behind those assertions

2. You are factually (note fact, not opinion) wrong.

Now, do you wish to answer the questions anyone put to you on other threads on here? Like how much Ineos were paying Len McCluskey? Or since you've brought up the Leeds thread, you could tell us all how Gary Hetherington got Nigel Wood the role of Chairman of the RFL? A role he's never actually been appointed to.

Now, feel free to either answer the questions put to you, admit you were wrong, or what is most likely is do as you've done on the Leeds board (and regularly do on here after cocking up) and disappear again for a while.

Re: The Mail and its odious style of reporting : Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:56 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Is this for real - are you seriously suggesting that the majority of single mothers have had a convent based education or come from strict Religious upbringing? Have you got any data that supports this argument not just a bias think tank with a point to try and prove...

Try to read what I actually wrote.

Including how what I mentioned was not a "think tank", never mind a 'biased' one "with a point to try to prove", which idea you have entirely imagined into existence.

Incidentally, look up The Education of Shelby Knox, a documentary on the US and this subject.

Sal Paradise wrote:

We have higher rates of teenage pregnancy than more religious countries such as Italy, Spain and France how is that?

We also finally have rates that are declining. But on religion, see my previous post and the segment on the US, itself a rather religious country.

Sal Paradise wrote:

All children in the country have extensive sexual education as part of the national curriculum ...

In theory. But that doesn't have to be anything like extensive.

Re: The Mail and its odious style of reporting : Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:00 pm  

carl_spackler wrote:

You mean there's been research conducted that has backed up the 'Catholic girls are right nymphos' stereotype?

As I said to Sal, try reading what I actually wrote.

I could suggest that 'clergy kids' are all reprobates, and that can mean a number of things.

That's actually a subject in it's own right, but every other clergy child I've met will tell you, in essence, the same thing, irrespective of whether their parents were fundamentalists or liberal. Which suggests that what creates the pressures and problems is actually a result of a kind of goldfish bowl experience and in part at least about how parishioners react to you as 'clergy kids'.

Re: The Mail and its odious style of reporting : Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:50 pm  

Mintball wrote:

As I said to Sal, try reading what I actually wrote.

I could suggest that 'clergy kids' are all reprobates, and that can mean a number of things.

That's actually a subject in it's own right, but every other clergy child I've met will tell you, in essence, the same thing, irrespective of whether their parents were fundamentalists or liberal. Which suggests that what creates the pressures and problems is actually a result of a kind of goldfish bowl experience and in part at least about how parishioners react to you as 'clergy kids'.

Blimey, I was only cracking wise.

Re: The Mail and its odious style of reporting : Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:01 am  

Re: The Mail and its odious style of reporting : Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:14 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

His English is significantly better than anyone on here by a big distance, he is clever enough to get a national newspaper to pay him big money for the use of said English!!..

Oh please ... his stuff will be sub-edited and it still comes out sounding like playground taunts.

Sal Paradise wrote:

It depends on whether you actually take every word she says as being without bias?..

Riiiiight, so we'll rely on Littlejohn to tell us the "truth" shall we?
I mean he obviously knows better than she does about her circumstances and has a deeply distinguished past record of considered, factual reporting.
A few slight flaws there ... can you spot them?

Sal Paradise wrote:

...One thing I find strange is she didn't seem to have engaged the fire service in what the opportunities would be if she had a baby until after she had the baby and then complained about the lack of flexibility. Perhaps if she had engaged the fire service prior to pregnancy she maybe would not have got pregnant or she would not have been so surprised at the outcome?

For crying out loud, read what she says rather than just dismissing the facts as bias ...
It was after she returned to work that her relationship broke down and she then explored ways in which she could work that allowed her to look after the child as well ... these were not be found in the Fire Service, even with the father doing his bit, because he worked shifts too.
BTW I don't see she "complained" about it, she is simply explaining the circumstances .... she got on with it and eventually found a job that fitted.
Isn't that what we want people to do?