I know the press hate us, but - they are right to complain, here

[compo 6,161]

3 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

The press are right to hate us because one of our players is a bit of a daftie?  Eh???

 

The dog might be a Tim for all we know.

A Terrier 

[der Berliner 3,257]

Irrespective of the wrongs of the dogs stuff, I have no doubts that the media has but one intent with that story.

[colinstein 294]

Q  why have dogs got big ears ?

 

A   because Noddy wouldn't pay the ransom

[ranger_syntax 3,779]

7 hours ago, der Berliner said:

Irrespective of the wrongs of the dogs stuff, I have no doubts that the media has but one intent with that story.

Quite.  Should we circulate it further?

[SteveC 150]

Deja Vu time, as the locked Collymore Tweet thread theme resurfaces.

 

 

There is no "irrespective" for me. Despite thinking the same as der Berliner in the second part of his sentence, the first half to me is a large enough issue to remain just that, an issue, even given that.

 

 

Edit: PS - Sorry, I forgot to answer the question - "Yes, of course". I only posted it here, but thanks for that suggestion.

 

Edited June 2, 2018 by SteveC
Forgot to answer the question.

[ranger_syntax 3,779]

13 hours ago, SteveC said:

Deja Vu time, as the locked Collymore Tweet thread theme resurfaces.

 

 

There is no "irrespective" for me. Despite thinking the same as der Berliner in the second part of his sentence, the first half to me is a large enough issue to remain just that, an issue, even given that.

 

 

Edit: PS - Sorry, I forgot to answer the question - "Yes, of course". I only posted it here, but thanks for that suggestion.

 

Am I reading this right?

 

You think that the media intend to release a negative story on the new manager's first day but you still want to circulate it?

 

[SteveC 150]

Perhaps or perhaps I was making the point that the timing of press's release of the story does not obviate the content of the story itself. A story which concerns an abhorrent practice that should be stopped.  Hence, my reference to the word "irrespective" and it not holding sway over me as detailed in: " the first half to me is a large enough issue to remain just that, an issue, even given that".

 

I know you like to control what people post on here but, like Ian, I'll decide what I think I should post.

[ranger_syntax 3,779]

52 minutes ago, SteveC said:

Perhaps or perhaps I was making the point that the timing of press's release of the story does not obviate the content of the story itself. A story which concerns an abhorrent practice that should be stopped.  Hence, my reference to the word "irrespective" and it not holding sway over me as detailed in: " the first half to me is a large enough issue to remain just that, an issue, even given that".

 

I know you like to control what people post on here but, like Ian, I'll decide what I think I should post.

Titter, I can't control anything.

 

I do ask that, before amplifying the message of our critics, you think about it though.

 

You did think about it but after you showed your working it appears that your thoughts on the matter are very muddled indeed.

[SteveC 150]

Not muddled at all, far less 'very' or 'indeed'.  No need to jump to that conclusion if you have difficulty following.  Admittedly my brevity will not have helped if you didn't realise that my responses took a turn in response to your post, that's all. Simplified:

 

I thought you were provocatively returning to the recently closed topic regarding the risible view that posting something on Gersnet, which was already widely circulating, was "dancing to the tune of our enemies".  If it is already spreading far and wide in MSM and twitter and other outlets that "amplification" seems a rather grand and misleading term for it being shared on Gersnet, as did the above accusation re dancing to our enemies' tune.

 

Life is not a simple matter of black and white, no matter the modern inability or disinclination to grasp that it is actually something more complex.  Here there are two points. The actions of the press and the practice of mutilating dogs. I am against both but the latter takes precedence for me over the former.

Two wrongs do not make a right they say, and nor does the secondary wrong (press's timing) mean the primary fault (mutilating dogs for personal gain and/or 'fashion') should not be reported, even if one would have hoped for it to be reported at another time.

There surely would be similar cases for anyone, as in however bad you felt the press's timing was there are surely some things that you'd still want to be reported even if the timing was another reason to feel an injustice (a separate one) was being done by that timing. The injustice of the timing would not negate the need to report on whatever the subject may be - drug running, child abuse, murder, animal cruelty, slave trading, defrauding, bullying or whatever the case may be. I realise we would all have different ethical or criminal transgressions which we'd place as more serious than the press's timing of stories, but there would surely be, for everyone, a point where we'd say "yes, the press's timing is lousy/underhand/a matter for complaint but over and above that the action being reported is abhorrent and should be discussed."

Edited June 3, 2018 by SteveC
Missing "to be".... To be or not to be....

[colinstein 294]

chopping up dogs is wrong.....like hunting for sport......perverse