Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




Please, never link to the Daily Mail. The time spent finding the same news on another site is well spent. The terrible "journalism" and sensationalist crap that the Daily Mail spews forth does not deserve revenue from ads.

warspite1

Linking to the Daily Mail is a billion times better than linking to rags like the Guardian or Mirror....

The Daily Mail and the Sun are firmly established as the only newspaper worth less than toilet paper.

Thankfully we have broadsheets.

Does not matter to me. I only read page 3 anyways.

Quality tabload

Is this from the Guardian?

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

How different is Anderson's vs "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom"? I read that many decades ago

Oh I if you don't know it, they're doing a remake of LOA - may god strike them down [:@]

warspite1

Is Rafe Macauley in it? [:D]

Not that I've heard but they could do a Pixar type thing & put Lemchek in it. I'm sure whoever is they'll be best buds for life but then their love interest will switch between them. Afterall TE Lawrence did have an interesting love life didn't he from stories heard [:'(]

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

How different is Anderson's vs "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom"? I read that many decades ago

Oh I if you don't know it, they're doing a remake of LOA - may god strike them down [:@]

Starring Ben Affleck ?

.. with a tank, just to make it more exciting.

I wouldn't use The Daily Mail to line a birdcage

Interesting story about TE Lawrence, nonetheless.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




The Daily Mail and the Sun are firmly established as the only newspaper worth less than toilet paper.

Thankfully we have broadsheets.

warspite1

Firmly established? Maybe in your mind. Fact is they happen to be the two most widely circulated daily newspapers in the UK.

The broadsheets together do not sell as many copies as the Daily Mail - or even the 3rd placed Mirror. Pleased to see the Guardian barely scrapes 200,000.

The large circulation figures is due to the fact that they appeal to the lowest common denominator in the population.

Just because they sell well doesn't make them good examples of journalism. Fact is (for the Daily Mail at least, can't claim any familiarity with the Sun) it thrives on controversy and sensation rather than anything resembling good journalism.

I get the feeling that you're basing your opinion off your political leanings. I'm not; my judgement of these papers is based off of their journalistic merit alone.

warspite1

Guess we'll agree to disagree on that then [;)]

I take it that The Daily Mail is UK equivalent to National Enquirer w/ I'm Bigfoots love child stories?

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

I take it that The Daily Mail is UK equivalent to National Enquirer w/ I'm Bigfoots love child stories?

That would be the Sunday Sport.

Freddie Starr ate my Hamster
Lancaster Bomber found on the moon

and many many other crazies.
That's assuming its still going.

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

I take it that The Daily Mail is UK equivalent to National Enquirer w/ I'm Bigfoots love child stories?

warspite1

No - nothing like it. The Daily Mail is a serious newspaper.

Daily Mail headline predictor

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

I take it that The Daily Mail is UK equivalent to National Enquirer w/ I'm Bigfoots love child stories?

That would be fine - such newspapers are comics and they know it. Problem with The Daily Mail is that it takes itself seriously. Its stock in trade is xenophobia, racism, sexism and hysteria. I'm no left winger (my daily newspapers are The Daily Telegraph and The Financial Times, one beloved of retired Army colonels and the other of stockbrokers). The Mail is, in my opinion, only a thin shade short of being evil.

By the way, I do not subscribe to the idea that readers slavishly follow their preferred newspaper (people read newspapers for sport, culture, reviews etc, not only news and political slant) and I know that the Mail has an incredible level of coverage about 'celebrity' (not my cup of tea, but what the heck). I think the newspaper is awful, I'm not necessarily saying all of its readers are.

Our US colleagues may not know of this fine analysis of the papers from Yes Prime Minister

Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Oh and Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Daily Mail headline predictor

WILL FOXES MAKE COMMON SENSE AND DECENCY OBESE? [:D]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

I take it that The Daily Mail is UK equivalent to National Enquirer w/ I'm Bigfoots love child stories?

warspite1

No - nothing like it. The Daily Mail is a serious newspaper.

Exactly, nothing worse than a newspaper with 3/5th "celebrity" gossip and 2/5th xenophobia and racism taking itself seriously.

ORIGINAL: DSwain

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

I take it that The Daily Mail is UK equivalent to National Enquirer w/ I'm Bigfoots love child stories?

That would be fine - such newspapers are comics and they know it. Problem with The Daily Mail is that it takes itself seriously. Its stock in trade is xenophobia, racism, sexism and hysteria. I'm no left winger (my daily newspapers are The Daily Telegraph and The Financial Times, one beloved of retired Army colonels and the other of stockbrokers). The Mail is, in my opinion, only a thin shade short of being evil.

By the way, I do not subscribe to the idea that readers slavishly follow their preferred newspaper (people read newspapers for sport, culture, reviews etc, not only news and political slant) and I know that the Mail has an incredible level of coverage about 'celebrity' (not my cup of tea, but what the heck). I think the newspaper is awful, I'm not necessarily saying all of its readers are.

warspite1

Evil? Wow.

Incredible level of celebrity eh? Er... no not really. They have the odd bit devoted to such stuff but not much and I think you are confusing the Mail with the red tops.

Racism? Er... no again! The paper campaigned tirelessly for justice for Stephen Lawrence and were brave enough (unlike other papers) to name the "guilty" - remember that? Other newspaper editors applauded their bravery.

Racism? who was in the forefront of the campaign for justice for the Gurkha soldiers?

Racism? Sorry but I had hoped we had moved on from the time - just a few years ago under New Labour - when to mention the I - word was to be branded a screaming racist. The Daily Mail is not racist just because it doesn't believe an immigration policy should consist of doing nothing when the country is growing at the size of Birmingham every 7 seconds and halting any debate by branding people who question said policy as Adolf Hitler's love children. I thought we'd all grown up a bit since then? They are questioning, that is all.

Sexism? Given the readership make-up that comment is just ridiculous - unless you think they are sexist against blokes. Would you prefer they replaced Fred Bassett with Andy Capp or George and Lynn?

Xenophobia? Can't think of anything particular to support that.

Hysteria? Yes guilty as charged - they are no different to any other paper, they need to attract sales in a rapidly shrinking market.

And finally, the Mail has one huge thing going for it - it doesn't have Polly Toynbee writing for it....[;)]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: DSwain

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

I take it that The Daily Mail is UK equivalent to National Enquirer w/ I'm Bigfoots love child stories?

That would be fine - such newspapers are comics and they know it. Problem with The Daily Mail is that it takes itself seriously. Its stock in trade is xenophobia, racism, sexism and hysteria. I'm no left winger (my daily newspapers are The Daily Telegraph and The Financial Times, one beloved of retired Army colonels and the other of stockbrokers). The Mail is, in my opinion, only a thin shade short of being evil.

By the way, I do not subscribe to the idea that readers slavishly follow their preferred newspaper (people read newspapers for sport, culture, reviews etc, not only news and political slant) and I know that the Mail has an incredible level of coverage about 'celebrity' (not my cup of tea, but what the heck). I think the newspaper is awful, I'm not necessarily saying all of its readers are.

warspite1

Evil? Wow.

Incredible level of celebrity eh? Er... no not really. They have the odd bit devoted to such stuff but not much and I think you are confusing the Mail with the red tops.

Racism? Er... no again! The paper campaigned tirelessly for justice for Stephen Lawrence and were brave enough (unlike other papers) to name the "guilty" - remember that? Other newspaper editors applauded their bravery.

"campaigned tirelessly"?

Hahahaha, that's a good one.

Twenty articles over three years doesn't sound like a "tireless campaign" to me. That works out as one article every 54.75 days . Does it sound like "tireless campaigning" to you?

Racism? Sorry but I had hoped we had moved on from the time - just a few years ago under New Labour - when to mention the I - word was to be branded a screaming racist. The Daily Mail is not racist just because it doesn't believe an immigration policy should consist of doing nothing when the country is growing at the size of Birmingham every 7 seconds and halting any debate by branding people who question said policy as Adolf Hitler's love children. I thought we'd all grown up a bit since then? They are questioning, that is all.

Odd how you mention Adolf Hitler, when the Daily Mail once ran the headline "Hurray for the Blackshirts".

Let's not forget the paper opposing the boycotting of Apatheid South Africa.

Sexism? Given the readership make-up that comment is just ridiculous - unless you think they are sexist against blokes. Would you prefer they replaced Fred Bassett with Andy Capp or George and Lynn?

http://www.expertwitnesstoday.co.uk/art ... -witnesses

Xenophobia? Can't think of anything particular to support that.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2014/02/sil ... ge-deniers

And let's not forget this jem - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -LEVY.html

I could list a whole load more, but I'll just leave you this link - http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/mail

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: DSwain




That would be fine - such newspapers are comics and they know it. Problem with The Daily Mail is that it takes itself seriously. Its stock in trade is xenophobia, racism, sexism and hysteria. I'm no left winger (my daily newspapers are The Daily Telegraph and The Financial Times, one beloved of retired Army colonels and the other of stockbrokers). The Mail is, in my opinion, only a thin shade short of being evil.

By the way, I do not subscribe to the idea that readers slavishly follow their preferred newspaper (people read newspapers for sport, culture, reviews etc, not only news and political slant) and I know that the Mail has an incredible level of coverage about 'celebrity' (not my cup of tea, but what the heck). I think the newspaper is awful, I'm not necessarily saying all of its readers are.

warspite1

Evil? Wow.

Incredible level of celebrity eh? Er... no not really. They have the odd bit devoted to such stuff but not much and I think you are confusing the Mail with the red tops.

Racism? Er... no again! The paper campaigned tirelessly for justice for Stephen Lawrence and were brave enough (unlike other papers) to name the "guilty" - remember that? Other newspaper editors applauded their bravery.

"campaigned tirelessly"?

Hahahaha, that's a good one.

Twenty articles over three years doesn't sound like a "tireless campaign" to me. That works out as one article every 54.75 days . Does it sound like "tireless campaigning" to you?

Racism? Sorry but I had hoped we had moved on from the time - just a few years ago under New Labour - when to mention the I - word was to be branded a screaming racist. The Daily Mail is not racist just because it doesn't believe an immigration policy should consist of doing nothing when the country is growing at the size of Birmingham every 7 seconds and halting any debate by branding people who question said policy as Adolf Hitler's love children. I thought we'd all grown up a bit since then? They are questioning, that is all.

Odd how you mention Adolf Hitler, when the Daily Mail once ran the headline "Hurray for the Blackshirts".

Let's not forget the paper opposing the boycotting of Apatheid South Africa.

Sexism? Given the readership make-up that comment is just ridiculous - unless you think they are sexist against blokes. Would you prefer they replaced Fred Bassett with Andy Capp or George and Lynn?

http://www.expertwitnesstoday.co.uk/art ... -witnesses

Xenophobia? Can't think of anything particular to support that.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2014/02/sil ... ge-deniers

And let's not forget this jem - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -LEVY.html

I could list a whole load more, but I'll just leave you this link - http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/mail

warspite1

Why is campaigning tirelessly such "a good one"? If the right on Guardian cared so much why didn't they name the scum?

Odd how you mention Adolf Hitler, when the Daily Mail once ran the headline "Hurray for the Blackshirts".

Bizarre.... a) it did not (the spelling is wrong so that must have been the Guardian
b) a cheap shot no? A little context perhaps?

Let's not forget the paper opposing the boycotting of Apatheid South Africa.

Oh dear... Depends if you think the boycott was right doesn't it? OF course you jump to the conclusion that anyone that thinks it was wrong is a racist. Sorry, but many of those who were anti-boycott took that line because, when South Africa had finally got rid of that evil regime, they wanted her to still be economically strong and not a basket case. THAT makes those people caring about the majority black population - not racists.

Hellooooooo....T. E. Lawrence![:-]

Why is campaigning tirelessly such "a good one"? If the right on Guardian cared so much why didn't they name the scum?

Because "innocent until proven guilty" is the key foundation of our legal system, and a popular newspaper is, quite simply, not a court of law in any way, shape or form.

Bizarre.... a) it did not (the spelling is wrong so that must have been the Guardian
b) a cheap shot no? A little context perhaps?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ro698J4AWNE/U ... kshits.jpg

It was the 1930's. The Daily Mail didn't like people who weren't "British" (mainly Jews) way back then as well.

Oh dear... Depends if you think the boycott was right doesn't it? OF course you jump to the conclusion that anyone that thinks it was wrong is a racist. Sorry, but many of those who were anti-boycott took that line because, when South Africa had finally got rid of that evil regime, they wanted her to still be economically strong and not a basket case. THAT makes those people caring about the majority black population - not racists.

So, the Daily Mail opposing the arms embargo (the only non-voluntary embargo) on Apatheid South Africa was them...caring about the suppressed black majority...how exactly?

Sorry, I just can't wrap my head around the massive level of stupidity containted in your statement.

The boycott was right. Stopping the sale of arms to a racist state was a good thing, and the South African economy was not likely to collapse if the consumers didn't get their M-16s and 7.62 rounds.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Why is campaigning tirelessly such "a good one"? If the right on Guardian cared so much why didn't they name the scum?

Because "innocent until proven guilty" is the key foundation of our legal system, and a popular newspaper is, quite simply, not a court of law in any way, shape or form.

Bizarre.... a) it did not (the spelling is wrong so that must have been the Guardian
b) a cheap shot no? A little context perhaps?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ro698J4AWNE/U ... kshits.jpg

It was the 1930's. The Daily Mail didn't like people who weren't "British" (mainly Jews) way back then as well.

Oh dear... Depends if you think the boycott was right doesn't it? OF course you jump to the conclusion that anyone that thinks it was wrong is a racist. Sorry, but many of those who were anti-boycott took that line because, when South Africa had finally got rid of that evil regime, they wanted her to still be economically strong and not a basket case. THAT makes those people caring about the majority black population - not racists.

So, the Daily Mail opposing the arms embargo (the only non-voluntary embargo) on Apatheid South Africa was them...caring about the suppressed black majority...how exactly?

Sorry, I just can't wrap my head around the massive level of stupidity containted in your statement.

The boycott was right. Stopping the sale of arms to a racist state was a good thing, and the South African economy was not likely to collapse if the consumers didn't get their M-16s and 7.62 rounds.

warspite1

Innocent until proven guilty? Nice one.... Let's ignore the facts of the case eh?

It was the 1930's????? I can't get my head around that level of stupidity. You quote a paper from the 1930's??? Right so by that reckoning, every German living now is a Nazi??

Opposing the Arms embargo? We seem to be a little selective in what we are posting. Was a boycott the right way to go or the wrong way to go? Who knows? History shows the evil apartheid regime was eventually overthrown, but whether that could have been achieved earlier/later, better/worse is now immaterial. WHAT IS NOT immaterial is the idea that someone is racist because they have a different view on how to achieve it.