On 27/08/11 20:35, Paul Corfield wrote:
I might not like the Daily Mail "view" of life (or even views more
extreme than that) but I have to recognise a lot of people think that
way and you won't shift them from that position. It's why we regularly
elect Conservative governments in this country. Boltar is just one of
many who holds such views.

For me, it's less about politics and more about civility. For example,
anyone who writes:

: Oh boo hoo. Grow a pair you wuss.

as Boltar did upthread, should be ignored because he's a jerk, not
because he reads the Daily Mail.

T

On 28/08/11 04:35, Tom Nicholls wrote:

For me, it's less about politics and more about civility.

I don't think these nutcases even have much political importance. Sure,
they make a lot of noise on the comments pages of the Telegraph, Mail,
BBC (Speak You're Branes) and so on, but if they vote at all it will
almost certainly be for the lunatic fringe: UKIP, BNP etc.

My own infallible test for wackjobs is the use of "so-called": as soon
as you see references to "so-called experts" or the "so-call Human
Rights Act" you know that the author has significant problems with reality.

Ian

On Aug 28, 8:39*am, The Real Doctor wrote:

On 28/08/11 04:35, Tom Nicholls wrote:

For me, it's less about politics and more about civility.

I don't think these nutcases even have much political importance. Sure,
they make a lot of noise on the comments pages of the Telegraph, Mail,
BBC (Speak You're Branes) and so on, but if they vote at all it will
almost certainly be for the lunatic fringe: UKIP, BNP etc.

My own infallible test for wackjobs is the use of "so-called": as soon
as you see references to "so-called experts" or the "so-call Human
Rights Act" you know that the author has significant problems with reality.

ITYM "so-called reality"...

On Aug 28, 8:39*am, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 28/08/11 04:35, Tom Nicholls wrote:

For me, it's less about politics and more about civility.

I don't think these nutcases even have much political importance. Sure,
they make a lot of noise on the comments pages of the Telegraph, Mail,
BBC (Speak You're Branes) and so on, but if they vote at all it will
almost certainly be for the lunatic fringe: UKIP, BNP etc.

My own infallible test for wackjobs is the use of "so-called": as soon
as you see references to "so-called experts" or the "so-call Human
Rights Act" you know that the author has significant problems with reality.

Another infallible test, in my experience, is to see whether they
believe in the literal truth of words written by bronze-age desert
tribesmen over the findings of modern science aka religious
fundamentalism. I've yet to meet anyone falling into that category
who has anything to say that's worth listening to. Mr "Auer"-Hudson
is the living embodiment of that principle.