Ok who know who it is?????????
Discussion
jaf01uk said:
Even though you just did....
It wasn't clear from the topic title so ...jaf01uk said:
I have never understood this newspaper hierarchy?
It's not about hierarchy. I don't seek to rank newspapers in terms of how worthy their content is.The Daily Mail just irritates me as it pretends to be something it just isn't.
Its readership believe it's a "serious" newspaper. They devour all it's twaddle because, I think, they enjoy being angry and outraged.
So, just for you, I scanned this piece and without analysing its content, here are two things which jumped out at me.
- The man is apparently a "North Sea oil worker" and his employers are Aberdeen based. I don't know of any way he could have a "tax-free salary".
- If he's a "North Sea oil worker" he's never "thousands of miles away from anywhere".
I'm afraid this is the case with most everything I've read in the Daily Mail in recent years.
I don't have a problem with it's existence. I don't have a problem with people reading it and, even, enjoying it.
When people quote it or link to it as if its content represents anything approaching fact though; I'm afraid I can't just smile and nod.
It's strange as well that I never seem to have the same difficulty with readers of red top papers.
jaf01uk said:
Robert Burns said:
But still what a slut of a wife.
Hold on though.You've acknowledged two aspects of the story which are blatantly make-believe yet it sounds like you accept what’s been reported on the behaviour of the wife as fact. That doesn’t stack up.
If certain aspects of an article are wrong then surely the whole lot has to be questioned?
I don’t doubt that the man has been wronged by his wife and I don’t doubt that he acted inappropriately – that’s why he was in court.
How it has been represented by the Daily Mail is utter twaddle though and it’s consistent with everything else I read on that site.
It’s just garbage.
Sorry, I’m sure this all reads like me being pompous and patronising.
I don’t mean it that way and, for the sake of clarity, I don’t know the couple involved.
This just seems to get under my skin every time it comes up.
In another thread, I objected to this link being posted ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512663/He...
... so I said ...
I don’t mean it that way and, for the sake of clarity, I don’t know the couple involved.
This just seems to get under my skin every time it comes up.
In another thread, I objected to this link being posted ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512663/He...
... so I said ...
Kiltie said:
When I read that DM piece, I think to myself that designing that kind of building with a view to having a single campaign to change the lighting elements every few years seems reasonable - as does using rope access techs.
The DM would have it that the need to maintain the lighting had never been thought about - which is clearly nonsense.
Then the DM tells us that T5 are using "high-wire artists".
This kind of fantasy writing is aimed at a typical hard of thinking reader to outrage them with imagery of light bulbs being changed by people whose day job is in a circus.
Hence the OP then referring to "trapeze artists".
For me quoting a piece of nonsense is as bad as linking to a piece of nonsense is as bad as swallowing the nonsense in the first place.
... and ...The DM would have it that the need to maintain the lighting had never been thought about - which is clearly nonsense.
Then the DM tells us that T5 are using "high-wire artists".
This kind of fantasy writing is aimed at a typical hard of thinking reader to outrage them with imagery of light bulbs being changed by people whose day job is in a circus.
Hence the OP then referring to "trapeze artists".
For me quoting a piece of nonsense is as bad as linking to a piece of nonsense is as bad as swallowing the nonsense in the first place.
Kiltie said:
Do you think that the building services lady rang Lord Richard Rogers and said ...
"Sorry to bother you Lord Rogers but there's some light bulbs gone in T5 and we don't know how to change them"
... and on the other end of the phone, Lord Rogers went ...
... do you?
I don't exaggerate when I say that I've never seen a piece on that site which I reckoned to be anything other than sensationalist melodramatic copy aimed at people who enjoy being enraged.
That's fine. Others like it. If I change my mind, I know where it is.
I don't need to see links to it on PH though; I really don't.
... and then, that Friday night, I'm watching "Have I Got News For You", the same story comes up and Ian Hislop said that Exaro had employed Cirque du Soleil to change their light bulbs in T5."Sorry to bother you Lord Rogers but there's some light bulbs gone in T5 and we don't know how to change them"
... and on the other end of the phone, Lord Rogers went ...
... do you?
I don't exaggerate when I say that I've never seen a piece on that site which I reckoned to be anything other than sensationalist melodramatic copy aimed at people who enjoy being enraged.
That's fine. Others like it. If I change my mind, I know where it is.
I don't need to see links to it on PH though; I really don't.
Edited by Kiltie on Friday 13th December 14:02
Kiltie said:
Hold on though.
You've acknowledged two aspects of the story which are blatantly make-believe yet it sounds like you accept what’s been reported on the behaviour of the wife as fact. That doesn’t stack up.
If certain aspects of an article are wrong then surely the whole lot has to be questioned?
I don’t doubt that the man has been wronged by his wife and I don’t doubt that he acted inappropriately – that’s why he was in court.
How it has been represented by the Daily Mail is utter twaddle though and it’s consistent with everything else I read on that site.
It’s just garbage.
I'm only holding what I know to be wrong laughable. The other part of the story, wife sleeping with other men, spending his money on her/lover and building debt in his name. If true she's a b**** of a wife. I can only take what crap the daily whine has presented myself with. Yes I take all rubbish that comes of that paper with a pinch of salt.You've acknowledged two aspects of the story which are blatantly make-believe yet it sounds like you accept what’s been reported on the behaviour of the wife as fact. That doesn’t stack up.
If certain aspects of an article are wrong then surely the whole lot has to be questioned?
I don’t doubt that the man has been wronged by his wife and I don’t doubt that he acted inappropriately – that’s why he was in court.
How it has been represented by the Daily Mail is utter twaddle though and it’s consistent with everything else I read on that site.
It’s just garbage.
Kiltie said:
... and then, that Friday night, I'm watching "Have I Got News For You", the same story comes up and Ian Hislop said that Exaro had employed Cirque du Soleil to change their light bulbs in T5.
Can't believe they never fitted LED's from the start, penny pinching f*ckers!Edited by Kiltie on Friday 13th December 14:02
gogsboy said:
Can't believe they never fitted LED's from the start, penny pinching f*ckers!
Whatever they have, I don't doubt the decision was a product of many months of cost–benefit analysis.That the DM says they have "lightbulbs" is no guarantee that's what's there.
My take is that it's probably a good indication that that's not what's there.
Edited by Kiltie on Saturday 14th December 13:50
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff