Mailwatch(ed) Forum

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:46 am Yeah it is. I mean you have heard of Jolyon Maugham? KC, campaigner, he clubbed a fox to death whilst wearing a kinimo a few years back. Come on you two you must know who he is?

A kinimo?

So none of you have ever spelled anything wrong? Not once. Yeah I made one spelling mistake and I get treated like shit because of it. Still I should be used to it by now.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:51 am

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:46 am Yeah it is. I mean you have heard of Jolyon Maugham? KC, campaigner, he clubbed a fox to death whilst wearing a kinimo a few years back. Come on you two you must know who he is?

A kinimo?

A Kimono.

Was the fox Japanese?

Oboogie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 1:30 am Was the fox Japanese?

You're taking the fucking piss.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 1:39 am

Oboogie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 1:30 am Was the fox Japanese?

You're taking the fucking piss.

Am I? Well how do you explain this then?

You know Oboogie picking on people and acting like a Wind up Merchant doesn't show you in a good light.

This is a rather old and tired game, isn't it?

This takes me back to the days when Groucho Attlee shot an elephant in his Pyjamas.

Margaret Dumont enters stage left...

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:55 am So none of you have ever spelled anything wrong? Not once. Yeah I made one spelling mistake and I get treated like shit because of it. Still I should be used to it by now.

Here's the thing. This is an online forum for serious political discussion (as well as more light-hearted topics). When you post something here that contains really obvious spelling or syntax errors, some of which may be absolute howlers, that you clearly haven't bothered to check or correct before posting, you leave yourself open to derision and/or mild piss-taking. If you keep doing it, time after time, you risk appearing to be rather stupid (the usual dyslexia excuse-me excepted).

We all make typos. But most of us take 15 seconds or so to scan-read what you've typed and correct any errors- we don't just blunderingly whack the post button regardless. Lord knows, I make typos myself, and I've rightly had the pish ripped out of me a couple of times for it, but I try really hard not to do so, and make sure that what I write makes comprehensible sense. I'll even go back and correct a typo if I spot it after it's been posted up. It isn't difficult.

So why not quit whining that you're being hard done by, and just raise your game? Just a suggestion.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:19 am

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:55 am So none of you have ever spelled anything wrong? Not once. Yeah I made one spelling mistake and I get treated like shit because of it. Still I should be used to it by now.

Here's the thing. This is an online forum for serious political discussion (as well as more light-hearted topics). When you post something here that contains really obvious spelling or syntax errors, some of which may be absolute howlers, that you clearly haven't bothered to check or correct before posting, you leave yourself open to derision and/or mild piss-taking. If you keep doing it, time after time, you risk appearing to be rather stupid (the usual dyslexia excuse-me excepted).

We all make typos. But most of us take 15 seconds or so to scan-read what you've typed and correct any errors- we don't just blunderingly whack the post button regardless. Lord knows, I make typos myself, and I've rightly had the pish ripped out of me a couple of times for it, but I try really hard not to do so, and make sure that what I write makes comprehensible sense. I'll even go back and correct a typo if I spot it after it's been posted up. It isn't difficult.

So why not quit whining that you're being hard done by, and just raise your game? Just a suggestion.

Here's a suggestion why don't certain members stop treating me like shit? If you treat people like shit don't act shocked when they get upset or react badly. Certain members on here have treated me like shit over the years and frankly I've had it up to here.

Okay. So you reject a modest suggestion that you raise your game a little , and continue to whine.

Noted.

Pointing out that I've been treated like crap isn't whining.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2025 8:57 pm Yes Jolyon Starmer calling out someone who is doing their utmost to block road improvements is just the same as enemy of the people.

https://bsky.app/profile/jolyonmaugham. ... fzneedik2s

*Absolutely disgraceful* from Starmer, to write using this inflammatory language, about an identifiable individual.

Wildly irresponsible - reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Johnson era when Cummings fed the papers thinly disguised attack lines and I got real death threats.

Maugham is a grifting bullshitter. He reckons this article (on a bloke who 6 times took the government to court) is tantamount to inviting death threats. The bloke is a public campaigner, raising tens of thousands for this stuff, which had no hope of succeeding. If you can't strongly criticize this stuff, then we might as well give up. Maugham and nimby greens certainly dish it out. It's not like the Cummings era where somebody who complained on telly about their local hospital being run down was then monstered because they were a Labour member. It's somebody out there, with a public profile, campaigning and raising money. Very different.

There's a long thread on this case and this bloke on Bluesky that I annoyingly can't find by an ex-senior civil servant.

Maugham, having once walked out of Labour because Corbyn won re-election, will doubtless grift a load of money from anti-Starmer people now.

Maugham used to strike me as having his heart in the right place but being a bit too in your face. That was a good while ago.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:11 pm Pointing out that I've been treated like crap isn't whining.

On the Kemi Badenoch thread davidjay described Farage as a "grafter". It was an obvious typo for "grifter" and Abers corrected him. It's an easy mistake, we all make them, it's no biggie and David did not see the need to whine about Abers treating him like crap and the world moved on.
You could learn from David.
Just a suggestion.

Except Abers didn't mock and make fun of David.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 6:30 pm Except Abers didn't mock and make fun of David.

And Abers didn't mock or make fun of you either, Malcolm queried what you meant and, instead of explaining what you'd meant to say, you got cross and started whining. I'm suggesting that, as a strategy, that response may not be the most effective.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:11 pm Pointing out that I've been treated like crap isn't whining.

A necessary preface: This isn’t me having a go - it’s an observation from 30-odd years of editorial work.

If you publish something with a strong opinion and it’s poorly or sloppily written, it gets taken in 3 ways: (a) you’re not great at writing, (b) your argument isn’t great so you can’t explain it clearly because it’s actually not got much to it outside of strength of feeling, or (c) - and this is the one that rubs people up the wrong way - you’re so convinced you’re right and/or so arrogant about what you think is the right thing, you don’t see the need to have the courtesy to make sure what you’ve written is clear and understandable because you think people should do the work for you to have the honour of reading and understanding what you’ve written.

The problem is, you could be (a) - and that’s fine, as there’s nothing wrong with not being a great writer - but be perceived as (c), because it’s down to the eye of the reader and the context. And as political discussions tend to be topics that can rile people up regardless, that context is not one that leads directly to benefit of the doubt.

I’d be surprised to find out you’re (c), because this tends to be real arsehole types - in academia, the smuggest and most up themselves professionals and researchers (the types I’ve most dealt with). In politics, people like Hitchens or Rees-Mogg and his laughable ‘style guide’ - utterly unable to accept criticism and convinced of their own ability. So it’s well worth the 30 seconds or so it takes for a quick review, because it shows you do have courtesy for your reader - and that changes the whole perception of how your writing is seen, and it helps you get across what you want to say rather than anyone focusing on how you say it.

It’s absolutely a practice thing, but gets easier and faster with time. I’m *far* better at making reasoned, objective arguments than I was when I joined this forum however billion years ago that was, and that is absolutely down to discussing things with people who are excellent at making points. Agreement isn’t necessary, but you can always respect an argument you don’t agree with if it’s well written.

I see Sir Simon Case has written for the Telegraph. Bluesky is unanimous that it's absolute bollocks, and shows that Case was a bad lot all the time.

When Starmer criticized some (obviously) senior civil servants recently, the same people went ballistic.

Funny old game.