Mailwatch(ed) Forum

I'm sure we'll be hearing much more from Mr Case as a Birbelsingh or Norman Brennan type rentagob for civil service matters.

I foresee a lot of "not saying I agree with everything Trump is doing, but we need somebody to take government by the scruff of the neck over here too".

That's the optimistic scenario. The pessimistic one is that he goes full Lord Frosty.

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 11:31 am

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.

Here's what I wrote initially. Now you tell me what is wrong with it.

Yes Jolyon Starmer calling out someone who is doing their utmost to block road improvements is just the same as enemy of the people.

I assume Case knows the UK is a parliamentary system without an El Presendente able to announce edicts on a TV spectacular like Chavez, Trump or Ghadaffi.

Yes Simon, your 4th word says it all

Extreme transparency, Jesus Christ.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 6:26 pm
Here's what I wrote initially. Now you tell me what is wrong with it.

Yes Jolyon Starmer calling out someone who is doing their utmost to block road improvements is just the same as enemy of the people.

There needs to be a comma between 'Jolyon' and 'Starmer'. Otherwise it becomes a single name 'Jolyon Starmer' and the rest makes no sense.

You need to learn to punctuate - or, as I suspect, to bother to do it.

I think you are c.

I can fucking punctate. Maybe try treating me like an actual human being and not something you scrapped off the bottom of your shoe.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 11:11 pm I can fucking punctate. Maybe try treating me like an actual human being and not something you scrapped off the bottom of your shoe.

I mean if this is deliberate, then bravo. If not, kind of proves the point, mate.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 11:11 pm I can fucking punctate. Maybe try treating me like an actual human being and not something you scrapped off the bottom of your shoe.

If you can but don't bother, that confirms that you are indeed a C.

And it's "scraped" and "punctuate".

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 11:20 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 11:11 pm I can fucking punctate. Maybe try treating me like an actual human being and not something you scrapped off the bottom of your shoe.

I mean if this is deliberate, then bravo. If not, kind of proves the point, mate.

It wasn't, it's just some words are difficult to spell maybe if certain people didn't make fun of me over it, I'd actually be more ok about correcting it. Also, it helps if people don't rile me up beforehand so I don't type in anger.

Would that be the former head of the woke, metropolitan elite, Remainer Civil Service?

I'm beginining to see how Boiler felt.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 11:11 pm I can fucking punctate. Maybe try treating me like an actual human being and not something you scrapped off the bottom of your shoe.

*scraped

Sorry, I don't want to mock you but you are acting like such a little git...

At least I'm not a bully.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 1:00 am At least I'm not a bully.

Whatever...

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 11:48 pm Also, it helps if I don't type in anger.

FTFY

Is this really necessary? Every fucking time, it descends into 'stop being a thicko, thicko'.

Sure, I like it when punctuation, spelling and the rest are in order. But come on.

Re: Case.

Surely observing the 'transparency' of 'theatre' is a new level of completely inept, moronic thinking about politics? The libs are often mocked for taking things too seriously, appealing to reason where there is no interest in reason etc, but to take the spectacle as a sincere activity is just plain moronic.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 7:14 pm Extreme transparency, Jesus Christ.

I think it’s an autocorrect error, and he meant to say “transparent extremism”.

RedSparrows wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 10:05 am
Sure, I like it when punctuation, spelling and the rest are in order. But come on.

It's just such hard work to decipher. I've blocked them in the past, not because I wasn't interested in what they had to say, but because it wasn't worth the effort of translating it into English. It's not about The Weeping Angel being a 'thicko', I don't think they are, it's about them not having enough respect for the rest of us to do their own proof reading. Why expect me to do all their work for them?