Brimstone wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Killing people is irrelevant,
That shows a lack of respect for human life.
It's irrelevant to the discussion.

You don't get to decide what is and is not relevant to the
discussion.

the excuse that one is "only following orders" is and is not
sufficient excuse for behaving in an unreasonable manner to
another person.

You think the systematic slaughter of millions is simply
"behaving in an unreasonable manner" and is on the order of
magnitude of a few unfair articles? Get real.

I didn't say it was of the same magnitude. Go back and read what I said, not
what you think I said, but to do that it looks as if you'll have to get rid
of your prejudices.

You asked what the difference was. I thought that was a
rhetorical question, but I will concede that if I take your
words at face value you were only asking to be informed.

You have now been so informed. And I now realize this thread is
thoroughly off-topic so I won't be participating further.

Cheers,
--
Michael Hoffman

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:39:51 +0000 (UTC), Brimstone
wrote:

Killing people is irrelevant,

That would be your recommended defence for a murder defendant?

the excuse that one is "only following orders"

....was not used by the reporter.

Next!

In message , Huge
writes
Probably a bit harsh but when the newspaper with the monopoly on
evening reading in London is always against anything you do you must be
able to see how he feels

No. The comparison is odious and you are a moron.
As I don't live within 350 miles of London their local rag is a bit hard
to get here, but I did hear his reply and it sounded a very creditable
performance, regardless of the pressure he was under. It's about time
a few more politicians had the same guts, then we might all get the
truth instead of constant warnings telling us of impending disaster if
London got bombed, and therefore we need them even more.
--
Clive.

In message , CAMILLE SAINT SAENS
writes
However, back, as you say, to modern day the Mail does *not* have a
history of 'constant attacks' on minority groups; it has a policy of
attacking certain *attitudes* to minority groups.
Is there a difference?
--
Clive.

Clive Coleman wrote:
In message , Huge
writes
Probably a bit harsh but when the newspaper with the monopoly on
evening reading in London is always against anything you do you
must be able to see how he feels

No. The comparison is odious and you are a moron.
As I don't live within 350 miles of London their local rag is a bit
hard to get here,

Except that it's on the internet. Did you realise that the Standard
supported Livingstone at the last mayoral election? Or that Livingstone
has worked for the Standard as a restaurant critic?. Try reading
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard
for the transcript of the incident if you haven't seen it.

but I did hear his reply and it sounded a very
creditable performance, regardless of the pressure he was under.

Perhaps you should also read the journalist's view of the incident at
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/l...ing%20Standard

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)