Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

"we're all in this together"


Guest eFestivals

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

No Neil.

The policy is 'scrapping ID cards', the reasoning of which you say is strictly ideological. Therefore, if you both share the same policy you both share the same ideological reasoning.

However, if a policy is free from ideological reasoning (which you say isn't possible) then the policy can be shared without sharing the same ideological reasoning.

You share the same policy and not the same ideologoical reasoning. Therefore, that particular policy is not ideologically bound. So you can't call all of the policy used by the tories ideological in nature.

No, the policy is "scrapping ID cards for reason X, Y & Z".

I refer you to the definition of 'policy'. :rolleyes:

pol·i·cy

1    /ˈpɒləsi/ Show Spelled[pol-uh-see] Show IPA

–noun, plural -cies.

1. a definite course of action adopted for the sake of expediency, facility, etc.: We have a new company policy.

2. a course of action adopted and pursued by a government, ruler, political party, etc.: our nation's foreign policy.

3. action or procedure conforming to or considered with reference to prudence or expediency: It was good policy to consent.

4. sagacity; shrewdness: Showing great policy, he pitted his enemies against one another.

5. Rare . government; polity.

Do I also need to refer you to the definition of expediency? Or are you going to do the honourable thing and own up to yourself being a twat of the highest order who invents false meanings for words and expects others to mindlessly accept your belief in your own genius? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 633
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin

They are, in everything other than reasoning.

The reasoning is a part of the policy. :rolleyes:

Unless you want to show me a policy that exists for no reason? :lol::lol:

I refer you again to the definition of policy.

Mind you, you being the world's biggest expert on language as you've claimed, I really shouldn't need to do that. :lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Let's try a little of "the world according to worm" then, shall we....? :)

As I'm sure you're all aware, I have a policy of banning people from using these forums, sometimes.

It's a policy that gets implemented in the event of serious wrongdoing (to use an extreme example for clarity: using these forums to make threats of violence to another user here).

It's a policy that worm himself has commented on before now and approved of.

Now, seeing as the reasoning for that policy isn't any part of that policy (according to worm), and approval of the policy is a blanket approval of the policy for any implementation, then worm 100% approves of what I might do next.

Bye worm. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, seeing as the reasoning for that policy isn't any part of that policy (according to worm), and approval of the policy is a blanket approval of the policy for any implementation, then worm 100% approves of what I might do next.

Edited by worm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Wrong.....

The rule cannot be said to accord to your ideological reasoning alone as I agree with it, while disagreeing with your ideology.

Your own words say....

The policy is 'banning'. You've stated your full approval of banning. Reasons don't come into why people might be banned.

The consequence is being banned.

You therefore approve of me banning you, no matter why I might chose to ban you. :)

-----

But oh look, you've jumped again. :lol:

You've now ceased to talk about policy and instead swapped back to ideology. You're fooling no one you moron. Diversion tactics are as obvious as things can get. :rolleyes:

You approve of any banning I might do. for whatever reason I choose to do it. That's because you approve of the banning policy (which you've previously clearly stated as being the case) in all circumstances. Your words. :)

:lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I just like to say I agree with worm.

In which case you agree with worm being banned, and him being exceedingly happy about it. :)

But as worm has shown previously, he doesn't agree with being banned. In fact, he absolutely detests the idea and thinks it's wrong.

So while you agree with worm, worm doesn't even agree with himself. :lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

So when I repost what I've actually said and that reposting highlights that what you've said I've posted is totally and utterly wrong - and I mean totally and utterly wrong, not a bit wrong or a misinterpretation - you being wrong makes me stupid now does it? If it wasn't that everybody already knows you'll never admit to being wrong, you'd be embarrassing yourself now.

I note that you haven't responded to the post that highlights your current position of village idiot.

I look forwards to you reporting all you've ever posted, so that you can prove yourself correct (anything less proves nothing :P). :lol::lol:

If I've got you wrong, we wouldn't be here in the first place. :)

But anyway, you've replied here to something else entirely, to a statement of worm's that policy has no trace of ideology within it, and that reasons are not any part of any policy.

So just as I've asked worm to do, I'll ask you: please show me a policy that exists for no reason. That's the only thing that proves your take as right.

As both you and I know you can't do that, try an intelligent approach instead. What causes a policy to be formed? Answer: an underlying idea.

Now, tell me again that ideology has nothing to do with any policy. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Then what you said is incorrect as I don't believe in banning without discrimination. However, the policy of 'banning' is analogous to the policy of 'scrapping', not scrapping ID cards, so your analogy is not valid.

You're totally crap at everything language based. It's hilarious, given your opinion of yourself. :lol::lol::lol:

It's a policy of "banning people", which is fully analogous with "scrapping ID cards". With both you have "action", and "where applied". :rolleyes:

And as you get to show, your agreement with "banning people" is 100% based within the reason of why they might be banned. You are not giving blanket approval to any and all banning, you are only giving it where you feel there is good reason for banning.

Oh dear, you've just proven yourself 100% wrong. :lol:

Not that it's a surprise. You always talk crap. :)

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

It shows that announcing cuts and actually achieving them might not actually be the same thing.

Yup. Dave Moron is starting to discover that you can't run a country with PR, because it's a job that requires substance.

Still, I guess you have to allow a man doing his first real job a bit of slack, eh? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Banning people is not analogous with scrapping ID cards. Banning people is analogous with scrapping cards. Banning UNRULY people is fair analogy of scrapping ID cards. The adjective is key here.

You talking worthless bollocks is key here. :rolleyes:

Right. So as I said, I do not agree with your policy. The analogy doesn't work.

But you DO agree with banning people - you stated it explicitly in this thread in the last day or two, and you've stated it again below. :rolleyes:

I don't agree with the policy of banning people undiscriminately. I agree with the policy of banning certain posters.

I don't agree with banning people. I agree with banning certain types of posts (or certain people, if you like).

So what you're saying is that it gets your approval only if the REASONS for the banning meet your approval. :lol::lol:

Which is funnily enough my exact stance towards the scrapping of ID cards. :)

Which you said isn't possible. :lol::lol:

Playing the petty semantic game is dull Neil.

You really are an utter moron, aren't you? :lol:

YOU are the person who started "playing the petty semantic game", and now you've lost at the game you started you're looking for a way out.

Prick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...