|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 5, 2023 19:17:39 GMT
Nobody said that DM headlines were always accurate. I posted ‘I suspect there was a fair sprinkling of Labour MPs there. Otherwise the headlines would be different.’ . This seemed to trigger a diatribe about the DM in your head . No one cares if you read the DM or not . It is an issue here when people post links to the Mail to try and make a case, when some of us regard it as so unreliable as a news source that we refuse to read it. It is only an issue because the usual suspects insist upon linking to it and expecting us to read it like it is the font of all knowledge just because they are daft enough to see it as their bible. If the same story were linked to a more reliable source, not only would more people read it but the unreliability of the Fail would not even be a topic of discussion. More verbiage to support a non point . You seem to think that a point made about a DM headline should be addressed by a general whine by you about the DM and why you don’t read it . If you dont read it then you can’t know how accurate one particular headline is can you ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2023 19:43:36 GMT
It is an issue here when people post links to the Mail to try and make a case, when some of us regard it as so unreliable as a news source that we refuse to read it. It is only an issue because the usual suspects insist upon linking to it and expecting us to read it like it is the font of all knowledge just because they are daft enough to see it as their bible. If the same story were linked to a more reliable source, not only would more people read it but the unreliability of the Fail would not even be a topic of discussion. More verbiage to support a non point . You seem to think that a point made about a DM headline should be addressed by a general whine by you about the DM and why you don’t read it . If you dont read it then you can’t know how accurate one particular headline is can you ? If as claimed the information exists in multiple outlets, then surely only an idiot would choose to support his case by linking to one of the most notoriously unreliable of sources? How about bypassing the Fail altogether and just tell me in your own words the gist of the story? Perhaps even back it up with links to multiple more reliable sources? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 5, 2023 19:49:46 GMT
More verbiage to support a non point . You seem to think that a point made about a DM headline should be addressed by a general whine by you about the DM and why you don’t read it . If you dont read it then you can’t know how accurate one particular headline is can you ? If as claimed the information exists in multiple outlets, then surely only an idiot would choose to support his case by linking to one of the most notoriously unreliable of sources? How about bypassing the Fail altogether and just tell me in your own words the gist of the story? Perhaps even back it up with links to multiple more reliable sources? Why should I indulge you ? You are the one who completely ignored the post you answered in order to deliver a diatribe about the DM. Now you want me to spoon feed you the story via other sources …bigger fool you 😁 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2023 20:01:15 GMT
If as claimed the information exists in multiple outlets, then surely only an idiot would choose to support his case by linking to one of the most notoriously unreliable of sources? How about bypassing the Fail altogether and just tell me in your own words the gist of the story? Perhaps even back it up with links to multiple more reliable sources? Why should I indulge you ? You are the one who completely ignored the post you answered in order to deliver a diatribe about the DM. Now you want me to spoon feed you the story via other sources …bigger fool you 😁 Bigger fool you for presenting me with the Daily Mail and expecting me to not only read it but to take it seriously. Lol |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 5, 2023 20:12:18 GMT
Why should I indulge you ? You are the one who completely ignored the post you answered in order to deliver a diatribe about the DM. Now you want me to spoon feed you the story via other sources …bigger fool you 😁 Bigger fool you for presenting me with the Daily Mail and expecting me to not only read it but to take it seriously. Lol I didn’t present YOU with anything of the sort . I replied to a post from Steve with a specific comment regarding the headlines. This triggered an urge in your head to bore us with a post about how reliable DM headlines were and how you never read them. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 5, 2023 20:42:48 GMT
This Charlotte Nichols character seems to be typical of the young low grade talentless sort of an MP we get these days. Especially on the Labour benches. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 6, 2023 0:14:09 GMT
This Charlotte Nichols character seems to be typical of the young low grade talentless sort of an MP we get these days. Especially on the Labour benches. Have they got one single MP with any talent? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2023 5:42:04 GMT
Bigger fool you for presenting me with the Daily Mail and expecting me to not only read it but to take it seriously. Lol I didn’t present YOU with anything of the sort . I replied to a post from Steve with a specific comment regarding the headlines. This triggered an urge in your head to bore us with a post about how reliable DM headlines were and how you never read them. The unreliability of Daily Mail headlines is a relevant point when an entire thread is based around a link to one. Even though supporters insist the same story is reported in multiple sources, no one has as yet seen fit to post a link to a more reliable source. And this point is only being repeated because you keep arguing with me about it instead of doing something more constructive like posting a link to a more reliable source. Am starting to suspect that no one reliable has reported it. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 6, 2023 6:14:57 GMT
I didn’t present YOU with anything of the sort . I replied to a post from Steve with a specific comment regarding the headlines. This triggered an urge in your head to bore us with a post about how reliable DM headlines were and how you never read them. The unreliability of Daily Mail headlines is a relevant point when an entire thread is based around a link to one. Even though supporters insist the same story is reported in multiple sources, no one has as yet seen fit to post a link to a more reliable source. And this point is only being repeated because you keep arguing with me about it instead of doing something more constructive like posting a link to a more reliable source. Am starting to suspect that no one reliable has reported it. Well you could always get off your fat arse and look for one. What did your last slave die of? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2023 7:42:08 GMT
The unreliability of Daily Mail headlines is a relevant point when an entire thread is based around a link to one. Even though supporters insist the same story is reported in multiple sources, no one has as yet seen fit to post a link to a more reliable source. And this point is only being repeated because you keep arguing with me about it instead of doing something more constructive like posting a link to a more reliable source. Am starting to suspect that no one reliable has reported it. Well you could always get off your fat arse and look for one. What did your last slave die of? It's not me who started this thread with a point to prove. Those that want to prove their point would be best advised posting links to reliable sources. Why should I do your lazy arse work for you? It's you lot seeking to persuade me and you want me to do the work of finding the reliable evidence to support you because you can't be bothered? Doesn't work like that sunshine. The onus is upon those trying to make the case to provide the reliable evidence. It's not me trying to persuade anyone of anything with Daily Mail headlines. Sorry but if you can't provide more persuasive evidence than that it is a total fail. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2023 10:44:35 GMT
Well you could always get off your fat arse and look for one. What did your last slave die of? It's not me who started this thread with a point to prove. Those that want to prove their point would be best advised posting links to reliable sources. Why should I do your lazy arse work for you? It's you lot seeking to persuade me and you want me to do the work of finding the reliable evidence to support you because you can't be bothered? Doesn't work like that sunshine. The onus is upon those trying to make the case to provide the reliable evidence. It's not me trying to persuade anyone of anything with Daily Mail headlines. Sorry but if you can't provide more persuasive evidence than that it is a total fail. Would you discuss the matter in hand if the source was the Independent? Then yyou could stop vilifying the Daily Mail in a thread where you have declined to read the source. Here you go, I'll give it a go. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-whatsapp-sex-pest-allegations-b2254701.html |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 6, 2023 14:44:41 GMT
Well you could always get off your fat arse and look for one. What did your last slave die of? It's not me who started this thread with a point to prove. Those that want to prove their point would be best advised posting links to reliable sources. Why should I do your lazy arse work for you? It's you lot seeking to persuade me and you want me to do the work of finding the reliable evidence to support you because you can't be bothered? Doesn't work like that sunshine. The onus is upon those trying to make the case to provide the reliable evidence. It's not me trying to persuade anyone of anything with Daily Mail headlines. Sorry but if you can't provide more persuasive evidence than that it is a total fail.It's you who is a total fail....But of course those of us who can see further than the end of our hooters know that anyway. You just prove your failures with every post. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 6, 2023 14:58:46 GMT
I didn’t present YOU with anything of the sort . I replied to a post from Steve with a specific comment regarding the headlines. This triggered an urge in your head to bore us with a post about how reliable DM headlines were and how you never read them. The unreliability of Daily Mail headlines is a relevant point when an entire thread is based around a link to one. Even though supporters insist the same story is reported in multiple sources, no one has as yet seen fit to post a link to a more reliable source. And this point is only being repeated because you keep arguing with me about it instead of doing something more constructive like posting a link to a more reliable source. Am starting to suspect that no one reliable has reported it. If you look around ,you can find it . That isn’t the point . The point was that you hijacked my specific point to bore everybody about your view of the DM . You are still doing it . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2023 19:22:15 GMT
It's not me who started this thread with a point to prove. Those that want to prove their point would be best advised posting links to reliable sources. Why should I do your lazy arse work for you? It's you lot seeking to persuade me and you want me to do the work of finding the reliable evidence to support you because you can't be bothered? Doesn't work like that sunshine. The onus is upon those trying to make the case to provide the reliable evidence. It's not me trying to persuade anyone of anything with Daily Mail headlines. Sorry but if you can't provide more persuasive evidence than that it is a total fail. Would you discuss the matter in hand if the source was the Independent? Then yyou could stop vilifying the Daily Mail in a thread where you have declined to read the source. Here you go, I'll give it a go. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-whatsapp-sex-pest-allegations-b2254701.htmlThanks, but it thinks I need to have an account into which I must log before I can read anything more than the first few sentences. Am not signing up to anything. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2023 19:49:00 GMT
The unreliability of Daily Mail headlines is a relevant point when an entire thread is based around a link to one. Even though supporters insist the same story is reported in multiple sources, no one has as yet seen fit to post a link to a more reliable source. And this point is only being repeated because you keep arguing with me about it instead of doing something more constructive like posting a link to a more reliable source. Am starting to suspect that no one reliable has reported it. If you look around ,you can find it . That isn’t the point . The point was that you hijacked my specific point to bore everybody about your view of the DM . You are still doing it . It's a valid point when you quote something so unreliable as a source. If its honest you should be able to supply the same facts from elsewhere, in which case I will read it and if I have anything to add I will comment on it. But expecting me to read the Daily Mail will get you nowhere. |
|
