She said she smiled when she saw their names; clearly meaning she was amused by it. If you really want to have a ridiculous debate about semantics, knock yourself out, but it's an incredibly weak.
So why did Guido change it? If "smile" and "laugh" are the same then Guido had no reason to change it.
It also seemed to swoop, soar and sail far over the recipient's head. .
It didn't soar over my head; I was well aware of what he was referring to.
But as this is the politics forum I didn't think it particularly worthy of note that someone would make a reference to the suffragettes.
As to the defenders. just look at the lengths Ethel_Fred is going to playing the semantics game on the difference between a smile and a laugh.
We all know that she was pleasantly amused by the deaths of middle class white people with double-barrelled names. Ethel_Fred is using semantics to try and wriggle off that hook.
Fair enough my claim that "half the posters" here are defending here was wrong; but that anyone should try to defend her at all is worrying enough.
There was more than just class intolerance on display in her tweets; and if that situation had been reversed and it was a white person making those comments about the deaths of non-whites the "racism flag" would have been the first up the pole and the class intolerance would have been overlooked.
We all know it; only a few of us dare say it though.
From my personal recollection and because the OP posted it that way - most posters post the headline as it appears and tend only to change the headline if it doesn't fit in the title.
But what difference does it make even if it was changed or not? The headline in either version is wrong, and STILL contains a lie as well as an implication about Guardian involvement.
I take you have given up trying to defend Guido and his lies.
Next time I shall put "Left Winger", rather than "Guardianista" in a thread title. Although I could see that being a far greater controversial move.
Pity I was looking forward to MartinP condemning you for misquoting the Words And Truths Of the Blessed Guido
I wouldn't say misquoting. I put my own headline in because I felt Gweedo was a bit harsh with his. I guess I tried to do what Labour posters usually do on here, I've now realised I'm just not as good as them for sensationalist headlines and misquoting.
I shall take my dunce hat and sit in the corner.
Irrespective of what the headline says or doesn't, if it has grammar or spelling mistakes in it or whatever, the issue is the story. She's clearly a fan of the Guardian enough to write for it and have articles published, even on a freelance basis. I wouldn't expect Richard Littledick to do freelance for the Guardian or Polly Toytown to do freelance for the Daily Heil. And if they did I dare say their past would be where the focus lay.
Now I couldn't care less if she worked for Viz, let alone the Guardian, the issue is her comments.
Thank goodness I never put "Muslim" and "mocks white students" in the thread title. But that would be a little too close to the truth, wouldn't it.
From my personal recollection and because the OP posted it that way - most posters post the headline as it appears and tend only to change the headline if it doesn't fit in the title.
Oh dear. So where you accused Guido of changing the title you had no real evidence for it at all?
I wouldn't say misquoting. I put my own headline in because I felt Gweedo was a bit harsh with his. I guess I tried to do what Labour posters usually do on here, I've now realised I'm just not as good as them for sensationalist headlines and misquoting.
I shall take my dunce hat and sit in the corner.
Irrespective of what the headline says or doesn't, if it has grammar or spelling mistakes in it or whatever, the issue is the story. She's clearly a fan of the Guardian enough to write for it and have articles published, even on a freelance basis. I wouldn't expect Richard Littledick to do freelance for the Guardian or Polly Toytown to do freelance for the Daily Heil. And if they did I dare say their past would be where the focus lay.
Now I couldn't care less if she worked for Viz, let alone the Guardian, the issue is her comments.
Thank goodness I never put "Muslim" and "mocks white students" in the thread title. But that would be a little too close to the truth, wouldn't it.
According to her website she's also written for the Evening Standard, so does that make her a fan of its right wing stance? She's clearly an equal opportunities freelance.
According to her website she's also written for the Evening Standard, so does that make her a fan of its right wing stance? She's clearly an equal opportunities freelance.
Don't think I have heard of the Evening Standard? is this to do with ThisIsLondon.co.uk?
It didn't soar over my head; I was well aware of what he was referring to.
But as this is the politics forum I didn't think it particularly worthy of note that someone would make a reference to the suffragettes.
.
are you quite sure?
this reads as though you didn't get the reference at all
Not to sure I'd encourage anyone to throw themselves under galloping horse though -- even people with whom I disagree.
anyway, the part I liked was the implied contrast between those willing to die for a noble and worthy cause for an oppressed group, and..., well, other stuff
Don't think I have heard of the Evening Standard? is this to do with ThisIsLondon.co.uk?
I don't know what political stance they take .
Thisislondon.co.uk is the Standard's website. It used to be owned by Associated Newspapers, a sister title to the Daily Mail. It was sold and relaunched in 2009. It supported Cameron at the general election.
The article she wrote for it was in 2006, when it was owned by Associated Newspapers :eek:. Not exactly Guardianista reading.
Comments
So why did Guido change it? If "smile" and "laugh" are the same then Guido had no reason to change it.
It didn't soar over my head; I was well aware of what he was referring to.
But as this is the politics forum I didn't think it particularly worthy of note that someone would make a reference to the suffragettes.
As to the defenders. just look at the lengths Ethel_Fred is going to playing the semantics game on the difference between a smile and a laugh.
We all know that she was pleasantly amused by the deaths of middle class white people with double-barrelled names. Ethel_Fred is using semantics to try and wriggle off that hook.
Fair enough my claim that "half the posters" here are defending here was wrong; but that anyone should try to defend her at all is worrying enough.
There was more than just class intolerance on display in her tweets; and if that situation had been reversed and it was a white person making those comments about the deaths of non-whites the "racism flag" would have been the first up the pole and the class intolerance would have been overlooked.
We all know it; only a few of us dare say it though.
Next time I shall put "Left Winger", rather than "Guardianista" in a thread title.
I wouldn't say misquoting. I put my own headline in because I felt Gweedo was a bit harsh with his. I guess I tried to do what Labour posters usually do on here, I've now realised I'm just not as good as them for sensationalist headlines and misquoting.
I shall take my dunce hat and sit in the corner.
Irrespective of what the headline says or doesn't, if it has grammar or spelling mistakes in it or whatever, the issue is the story. She's clearly a fan of the Guardian enough to write for it and have articles published, even on a freelance basis. I wouldn't expect Richard Littledick to do freelance for the Guardian or Polly Toytown to do freelance for the Daily Heil. And if they did I dare say their past would be where the focus lay.
Now I couldn't care less if she worked for Viz, let alone the Guardian, the issue is her comments.
Thank goodness I never put "Muslim" and "mocks white students" in the thread title.
Oh dear. So where you accused Guido of changing the title you had no real evidence for it at all?
You were the one making a big deal out of it, Ethel. You have quite a nerve coming back and pretending it made no difference.
Ethel, right now I'm just trying to unearth the truth about your allegation. And to be honest, it isn't looking too good!
Don't think I have heard of the Evening Standard? is this to do with ThisIsLondon.co.uk?
I don't know what political stance they take .
are you quite sure?
this reads as though you didn't get the reference at all
anyway, the part I liked was the implied contrast between those willing to die for a noble and worthy cause for an oppressed group, and..., well, other stuff
You wouldn't be assuming she's Muslim and they're white just from their names, would you?
The article she wrote for it was in 2006, when it was owned by Associated Newspapers :eek:. Not exactly Guardianista reading.
I would be assuming they were white if I was Kia, but since I actually did read up on the incident I found 2 of them were white, I won't assume.
And a quick Google tends to find the answer, it's a pity she never used such a facility instead of spouting off her hate on twatter.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/07/july7.religion
Still, at least we don't need to assume now.