advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VII

I sort of agree on the incrementalism bit - you can't risk frightening the electorate or they'll not be behind you when you want to make changes. However, there's a clear mood for change in the air right now, so 'more of the same just not as bad' risks doing the opposite, disappointing the electorate, which is almost worse.
 
Starmer is also trying to win an election - a grubby business that requires conversations with Red Wallers and disaffected Conservatives

I think that's basically it. He's trying to appeal to a country that habitually votes in Conservative governments by presenting himself as a Conservative.

Probably a good election strategy. Just not one that gets my vote.
 
Err..15 years but why are you bothered?

I'm bothered because you seem to be struggling with the fact that lino/linoleum was invented in 1855, which I'm pretty sure despite my appalling maths, makes you guess of 'from the 70s' 115 years out, not 15.
 
I didn't say I'd not gathered your meaning. What I am arguing is that the way you expressed it lends itself to misunderstanding on a casual reading. So: many ways of reading what you wrote would construe the intent I suggested. Not that I, after many readings, had construed it as such.

This is what you often do. Lay little linguistic traps so that you can argue against anybody who falls into them. It's a form of trolling, and it's also what I just did.
It's not trolling, it's how I express myself and we all write stuff differently. You like to 'read between the lines' and invent meaning that isn't there, for example.

I'm bothered because you seem to be struggling with the fact that lino/linoleum was invented in 1855, which I'm pretty sure despite my appalling maths, makes you guess of 'from the 70s' 115 years out, not 15.
:rolleyes: I'm wondering why you were bothered enough to even mention it. Did I say 1970's? I didn't think I did. If you want to make something out of nothing carry on but I really can't be arsed with such nonsense.
 
It's not trolling, it's how I express myself and we all write stuff differently. You like to 'read between the lines' and invent meaning that isn't there, for example.


:rolleyes: I'm wondering why you were bothered enough to even mention it. Did I say 1970's? I didn't think I did. If you want to make something out of nothing carry on but I really can't be arsed with such nonsense.

Brian said:
What on earth is lino? Afaik it's a floor covering from the 70's

Technically, he didn't say the 1970s, but that is what people usually mean when they write '70s.
 
I didn't say I'd not gathered your meaning. What I am arguing is that the way you expressed it lends itself to misunderstanding on a casual reading..

This is what you often do. Lay little linguistic traps so that you can argue against anybody who falls into them. It's a form of trolling, and it's also what I just did.

Be fair Mull, he didn’t specify which ‘70s he was referring to…
There you go. Another of Brian’s little linguistic traps. It’s his thing.
 
It seems that our pal Brian can't even admit when he makes a simple and, to be fair, inconsequential error, such as misreading the link I gave him stating that lino was invented in 1855.
As I said, in itself pretty inconsequential..but to quote Holmes, or Watson, or somebody...
'suggestive'...
 
There you go. Another of Brian’s little linguistic traps. It’s his thing.
Such utter crap. The original comment I made was not a 'trap' at all and I don't lay traps, but obviously yet another label to go with all of the others is hardly a surprise.
 
It seems that our pal Brian can't even admit when he makes a simple and, to be fair, inconsequential error, such as misreading the link I gave him stating that lino was invented in 1855.
As I said, in itself pretty inconsequential..but to quote Holmes, or Watson, or somebody...
'suggestive'...
'Our' pal? Sounds like an appeal. You don't know me, you aren't my pal.

Where you are correct is my original comment was inconsequential yet you decided to make something of it. Why is that, I wonder? If you want to play infantile games go snipe at someone else, pal.

And I didn't misread your link, pal. I know I got it wrong but sadly you have no sense of humour.
 
Claiming you could have meant 1870 when the context implied 1970 is just juvenile. You do it a lot. It’s either an intentional linguistic trap, or it’s a juvenile attempt not to lose an argument. Either way, not a good look.
 
Claiming you could have meant 1870 when the context implied 1970 is just juvenile. You do it a lot. It’s either an intentional linguistic trap, or it’s a juvenile attempt not to lose an argument. Either way, not a good look.
Another with no sense of humour.

The 'context' didn't mean 1970's, I actually meant 1970's as that's when I remember the stuff. I wasn't around in the 1870's, after all.

Would :p or ;) have helped you?

The way you ( and a couple of others ) make an issue of nothing is really quite a nasty thing. You do it a lot, I assume only over the internet. Not a good look at all.
 
Well yes, a smiley would help because you do do that ‘read what I wrote’ thing frequently. And if you go back, what you wrote is quite often, if not overtly ambiguous, then open to misinterpretation. It happens too often to be coincidental. As does the fact that when the ‘misinterpretation’ happens, you rarely clarify, you just do the ‘read what I wrote’ thing. While often throwing around accusations about reading between the lines and ‘deliberately’ misinterpreting what you wrote. It’s tiresome.
 
'Our' pal? Sounds like an appeal. You don't know me, you aren't my pal.

Where you are correct is my original comment was inconsequential yet you decided to make something of it. Why is that, I wonder? If you want to play infantile games go snipe at someone else, pal.

And I didn't misread your link, pal. I know I got it wrong but sadly you have no sense of humour.

So.. if I've got this right....
You are right even when you admit to being wrong, but my attempt to enlighten you proves I have no sense of humour...

OK Pal..I'll bear that in mind. .but 'pot- kettle' springs to mind...
 
Well yes, a smiley would help because you do do that ‘read what I wrote’ thing frequently. And if you go back, what you wrote is quite often, if not overtly ambiguous, then open to misinterpretation. It happens too often to be coincidental. As does the fact that when the ‘misinterpretation’ happens, you rarely clarify, you just do the ‘read what I wrote’ thing. While often throwing around accusations about reading between the lines and ‘deliberately’ misinterpreting what you wrote. It’s tiresome.
You're off again. You leave the sniping for a bit and then you start again. I really wish you would just give it a rest and drop your vendetta.

What I wrote earlier was plain English. An example of what you do was your personal interjection, despite nothing personal having been posted by me toward you.
A snip from it is ...
"On many readings, this comes across as suggesting that the person is worried about the Tories being ousted, ie suggesting the person is a Tory. "

My comment meant nothing of the sort, drood got it, I see no reason for you not to have got it other than it being intentional because you're looking for something.

As for these frequent posts I make that are ripe for misinterpretation, I'm not seeing it. A few recent posts below from just before your interjection, perhaps you can explain how these could be misinterpreted?

So nothing really wrong with what Starmer says, just complaints he isn't saying exactly what you want to hear.

Labour is the only party that can replace the tories.

We had a hung parliament in 2010 and that didn't work out well.

Labour definitely is the only party that can replace the tories. We need to start reversing the mess somewhere and that is it.

What I'm bothered about is the tories losing the next GE. I don't disagree that young people are alienated by politicians but that is a different subject.





 
So.. if I've got this right....
You are right even when you admit to being wrong, but my attempt to enlighten you proves I have no sense of humour...

OK Pal..I'll bear that in mind. .but 'pot- kettle' springs to mind...
I have no idea what your issue is but I'm glad you'll bear in mind how you understand things.
 
It’s that Déjà vu feeling all over again,​

DP2VmGZ.jpg
 
I earn my living writing stuff. Often complex, semi legal stuff. If somebody misunderstands what I write, my immediate and natural reaction is to assume I didn’t write clearly enough. I never blame the reader. It’s the height of arrogance to assume your writing is incapable of misinterpretation.
 
I have no idea what your issue is but I'm glad you'll bear in mind how you understand things.
I don't have an issue. You made an inaccurate comment about Lino, I made a lighthearted comment and posted an educative link.
You misunderstood the link..
etc. etc...
It was briefly funny.
You weren't.
Lighten up...
Pal..
 


advertisement


Back
Top