Cyclone Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 So by not giving a detailed history of Littlejohn before criticising him I'm a hypocrite? This appears to be what you want someone to do before they criticise the speaker of the house or a politician. Some people don't need their CV read out. If someone on here says they hate Thatcher I don't think its because her favourite colour was green. Have some perspective and don't play the tiresome hypocrisy card. So why so defensive about someone disliking the speaker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I would dismiss his comments, but should a randomer who overhears his comment assume the same? Probably not, they should probably just mind their own business since they've no idea why the guy dislikes me. Are you actually John Berscrow? I'm actually Sutekh, Lord of Death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 It's not evasion at all and you don't set the agenda of how I act. Normal people know that if you say you dislike a 'superstar' politician or writer its obvious why, in the case of Bercow less so. Disimssing a tabloid hack isn't the same as simply dismissing an MP with thousands of votes without reasons on a whim. You act inconsistently, you want to hold people to a higher standard than you yourself behave. Or at least you want to decide when it's okay to just express an opinion (Thatcher or Littlejohn apparently) and when it's not (Bercrow). What makes you capable of making that decision? It's not thousands of votes (not that this would somehow make you any more capable). This is the hypocrisy that we've been trying to point out to you, but you don't seem to be able to see it. Think about what you're saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I'm actually Sutekh, Lord of Death. So why are you so concerned about another posters opinion of Bercrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 This appears to be what you want someone to do before they criticise the speaker of the house or a politician. So why so defensive about someone disliking the speaker? As I've said more than once, simply dismissing an MP as a nomark is a hit and run childish thing to do. For someone without a vote to their name to dismiss someone who's attracted thousands of votes is ridiculous unless you can justify it e.g. you must have a point so strong that it overrides the fact that before you start the person you're criticising is above you in terms of respect and being taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 You make some very strange assumptions and appear to believe the world is as it exists in you head. You are both entitled to and certainly welcome to your own opinion. Anyway I'm off out for a coffee. Good luck. They're not strange at all, they are assumptions based on how most people behave. If someone says Noel Edmonds is a prat it doesn't require an explanation. If someone says an MP is a nomark an explanation is required as to what principle or piece of political work has offended the critic. I really don't see how that puzzles you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 You act inconsistently, you want to hold people to a higher standard than you yourself behave. Or at least you want to decide when it's okay to just express an opinion (Thatcher or Littlejohn apparently) and when it's not (Bercrow). What makes you capable of making that decision? It's not thousands of votes (not that this would somehow make you any more capable). This is the hypocrisy that we've been trying to point out to you, but you don't seem to be able to see it. Think about what you're saying. Define hypocrisy as you seem to have a different standard. Littlejohn and Thatcher need no introduction, many will be unaware of the work of Bercow. If you think I'm promoting a methodology where we all write a history of a person when mentioning them then you're being very literal and lacking in any kind of perspective at all. Are you the kind of joyless, dry SF bore who demands several links and stats to every assertion made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 How have we come to this? The thread is supposed to be about Sally Bercow. If you read her biography she seems to be all over the place - first campaigning for the Tories, then supporting Labour, then wanting to be an MP and now wanting to be a TV presenter. It seems all she wants is fame and is using any transport she can (politics, TV, columns in The Star, saucy photo shoots, Big Brother, cavorting with gypsies, Twitter) to get it. At least she's not Tweeting any more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/20/sally-bercow-twitter-feed-deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 How have we come to this? The thread is supposed to be about Sally Bercow. If you read her biography she seems to be all over the place - first campaigning for the Tories, then supporting Labour, then wanting to be an MP and now wanting to be a TV presenter. It seems all she wants is fame and is using any transport she can (politics, TV, columns in The Star, saucy photo shoots, Big Brother, cavorting with gypsies, Twitter) to get it. At least she's not Tweeting any more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/20/sally-bercow-twitter-feed-deleted Because Pinky and Perky see themselves as grand inquisitors like the Dimbleby brothers or something so have tried to wind me up with tiresome hand wringing nonsense. As for Sally Bercow she's a loose cannon who no party could trust to behave herself. She plays at politics, having failed to be elected as a Labour councillor she then decides to try something else. Politics was clearly a bit of jolly good fun to her. She should realise that people respect hard political work and if she fails she should keep trying until she breaks that electoral barrier. This is done by winning respect and she seems to be trying to do the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Because Pinky and Perky see themselves as grand inquisitors like the Dimbleby brothers or something so have tried to wind me up with tiresome hand wringing nonsense. As for Sally Bercow she's a loose cannon who no party could trust to behave herself. She plays at politics, having failed to be elected as a Labour councillor she then decides to try something else. Politics was clearly a bit of jolly good fun to her. She should realise that people respect hard political work and if she fails she should keep trying until she breaks that electoral barrier. This is done by winning respect and she seems to be trying to do the opposite. Yet she is likely to replace dear old frank Dobson at the next election according to wiki, although events over the past week may well have torpedoed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.