In reply to Simon4:
> No chance of that.
> How likely would it be that you would accept or even think about anything put forward by an article in the Daily Mail, i.e. equal an equal and opposite propaganda rag? You would immediately dismiss it due to its source as being loaded, selective, distorted or just false, written solely to confirm the prejudices of its readers and to inflame their irrational passions and hatreds. But the one-way mirror never shows you your own reflection, so you don't see the irony. You think the Daily Mail is produced by barely human wretches who delight in torturing the poor or immigrants just for the fun of it given the tendency of the left to dehumanise its opponents, why would you expect anyone of opposing views to see this piece in any other way, given its source?
> An highly polemical and partisan article in the Guardian (not that there is no other kind), will never convince anyone, it will simply be taken by Guardian readers as self-evident confirmation of their high-minded, generous, profound wisdom, while anyone else will dismiss it as typical Guardian b******. Just standard boilerplate, no thought required either to write it or to read it. Which is why the vast majority of comment pieces, in most newspapers, never change minds at all, just reinforce existing views. Indeed, confirming people in their comfort zone (together of course with trying to maintain permanently declining newspaper sales and shore up their collapsing economics), is the main purpose of most of these pieces.
> Mark Twain was once asked if he believed in ghosts. He replied "no ma'am, I've seen too many of them". Which is exactly how non-Guardian readers react to a Guardian columnist with a pitiful, one-sided sob-story. We've heard too many of them, which is why they are immediately dismissed. Or rather not even listened to for long enough to dismiss, just viewed as general whining waffle.
You're a very strange man it can seem.
Firstly, aren't you don't just the same thing with the Guardian you're assuming I would do with an article from the Daily Mail? I think you are
Secondly, since you don't actually know me, I do read and consider with an open mind (as far as humans subjectively can do) articles from The Spectator and The Telegraph and The Times, as well as the more left wing papers.
With regards to the Daily Mail, with how their online content features comments about circa 12/14 year old girls being 'leggy' and similar, I don't check it's website or buy it as a point of principle. Have a google about the Daily Mail's online comments on young girls and you might be surprised, and perturbed too.
Edit, Here you go Simon, how does a comment along the lines of 'All eyes being on the 8 year old' grab you for creepiness?
http://www.themediablog.co.uk/the-media-blog/2013/01/daily-mail-turns-the-c...
Please, if you're not going to read the article in the OP with an open mind, can you not send this thread off topic with your opinions on people you've never actually met?
Other than that, (genuinely) have a nice Sunday.
Post edited at 12:31