Labour MP's harassment

No-one wants to have what they said misrepresented either, ab. Everyone makes mistakes in understanding, and typos, and grammatical errors, and spelling mistakes. The three latter are not so important (unless meaning is changed by them but it usually isn't) and I wouldn't presume to correct them. Being misunderstood because of apparent misreading is completely different.

It's also very common in all kinds of discussions by all of us. As is explaining what was actually meant when it happens.

I don't see what is snobbish or patronising if my reply to someone saying "thatbags said this" is No, I didn't say that; you misunderstood.

Other people do it, not just me. It's normal behaviour for heaven's sake!

Such a pity, particularly at our age!!!!!!

When there are misunderstandings, the use of language in the written word is important to clarify one's point. Nothing snobbish or patronising about that.

I agree, the thread is political but descends into correcting posters knowledge of the English language, yes wrong to respond but understandable, no one wants to be patronise

These threads go from bad to worse on the sniping, carping and criticising front. No wonder a proportion of people simply don't bother to join in any more. It would be nice to be able to have a thoughtful conversation that respects other people's point of view without degenerating to personal comments that include ridicule. It's such a pity.

Come off it thatbag, you are sneering and showing off , no different to correcting posters spelling mistakes , ill mannered at best . Try talking about the weather, far more interesting

Exactly. Thank you, elegran.

If it were . . . . one would judge it.
If it is . . . . one judges it.

The second more immediate in meaning than the first.

I'd say it is often not language but comprehension and deduction that falters. Replies assume that something is meant or implied that is completely missing from the post, and can only be inferred by someone who already has a bias against that poster.

If caring about accuracy and logical argument, and if refuting incorrect statements about me, is snobbish, perhaps I am a snob. That's not how I would define snobbery but you're entitled to your opinion, dj. This is not the first time you've sneered at me in a superior way.

"the rest of you"? Rather a large generalisation, pet.

I was really just complaining about people (one or two, max, I think, on this thread) who didn't appear from their apparent (mis)understanding of what I said to have read what I said then accusing me of not reading something that I had read.

I wouldn't call such a person an idiot. In fact I hope I wouldn't call them anything except wrong about what I said.

Which is what I've done, along with some comments about how to avoid such wrongness in future.

Straightforward debating.

Should you not say "If it were impenetrable nonsense"?

And you are insulting lots of us. I cannot understand how I managed to teach the English language for as many years as I did.

If I were you, I wouldn't criticise other people's use of language so much. It sounds so snobbish. This is, after all, just a forum for anybody, whatever their language skills.

Is there not a thread on languages

Bags I sometimes get the impression you think the rest of us are idiots!

We're not though

If one can't cope with if, one can't construct a logical argument, and an argument that isn't logical is pointless. Discuss

The premises of one's logical argument can, of course, be as daft as you like.

So, all of you who accuse me of not having read this article, or others, when you have no actual knowledge of that, kindly stop it. It doesn't do your comprehension marks any good at all, nor my faith in your judgment, both of which make me less likely to accept anything you state as fact. I'm not saying that to be insulting, just pointing out the effect of such mistakes.

Details matter. Small but very important words like 'if' matter. A lot.

comment about her...

I read the article. Twice. I referred to janea's comment her not being able to "penetrate the ramblings" by using the paraphrase "impenetrable waffle". I did not say it was impenetrable waffle. I said "if it is impenetrable waffle..."

So many people seem to find comprehending If Clauses impossible! So weird.

thatbags refers to Floyd's article as "impenetrable waffle", janeainsworth says she didn't persevere with reading the article because it was "impenetrable waffle" and Ana didn't bother to read the article because she took it for granted that if others had described it as such then it must be.

So it appears that none of you had actually read the whole article, which I did not think was particularly impenetrable.

Floyd said:

"Is it really controversial to say that without the US intervention of Iraq there would be no ISIS? I don't think even the supporters of that war dispute this" [Tony Blair admitted as much just recently].

"Is it controversial to say that the NATO intervention in Libya has turned that country into a chaotic spawning ground for violent extremism?" [this is acknowledge by all Middle East commentators]

"Is it disputable that the US and Britain overthrew a secular democracy in Iran in 1953 with the help of religious fundamentalists .."
[The Guardian reported in August 2013:
"The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, in documents that also show how the British government tried to block the release of information about its own involvement in the overthrow ........ Britain regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP) ..... the archived CIA documents include a draft internal history of the coup titled "Campaign to Install a Pro-Western Government in Iran." ]

"Is it disputable that the US and Saudi Arabia helped organise a worldwide network of violent jihadis in order to provoke the Soviet Union into intervening in Afghanistan ..?
[former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said in an interview with Le Nouvel Observateurs in January 1995 in relation to the aid given by the US to the Mujahadeen:
"That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap ..... we now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War ..."]

"Did not Ronald Reagan sit down in the White House with the forerunners of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and praise them as "freedom fighters"?"
[Business Insider February 2013: "[this photograph] is from 1983 when Reagan and the CIA were dancing around the idea of arming Mujahadeen fighters ... the result was a well-armed, well-trained group of jihadis .." - Ronald Reagan's speech of 21 March 1983 commences with his tribute to these "freedom fighters"]

"Has the West not plied the Saudis with money, weapons and kowtowing respect, even as they exported their Wahhabi sectarianism all over the world" [I was at a fringe meeting at the Labour Party Conference which was very anti-Corbyn when Tim Montgomerie of Conservative Home expressed his disgust at successive governments' close relationship with Saudi].

Floyd refers to the phrase he used "reaping the whirlwind" as a "good biblical phrase" which means "You sow violence, you reap violence" but goes on to say:

"[the article] did not blame the French, it did not blame the victims. Nothing absolves the perpetrators of the Paris massacres, this is so self-evident that it seems insultingly condescending to have to spell it out. They chose to do evil and the responsibility is their own."

It seems like a reasoned and fact-based analysis to me, and those who describe it as "impenetrable waffle" are welcome to challenge any of the points he raised.

I cannot imagine anyone will complain about the clarity of this message.

www.planetsyria.org/

From Planet Syria to Planet Earth.

Jens links do cause problems for some , !

At the risk of prolonging an argument about Chris Floyd, I have to say that I read the article yesterday and found it very interesting, informative, and above all crystal clear, and that was as someone who had never heard of him and knew nothing about the back story with regard to STW. I am completely mystified as to why anyone should find it difficult to read (which is not the same thing as saying you don't agree with him).

Shuffling off back to my own planet now

Your brain sounds very organised thatbags almost like library bookshelves. You must be very up to date with your filing !

I shall mentally and conversationally put Trump wherever I want, ab. At present he's in the group my brain calls human beings. Liking or approving (or their opposites) the ideas of particular human beings is on a separate brain shelf which itself is divided into sections. Trump, Blair and Cameron are all in separate sections although sometimes Blair and Cameron visit each other's section. The label on Trump's shelf is "Nutters".

I asked you what it was in the article that you found objectionable or untrue and there was no response. Of course, as you say, you can choose not to read the article but then why do you feel qualified to comment on it?

There was no response, Eloethan, because I'd gone to bed by the time you posted the above and yesterday things seemed to have moved on rather.

I didn't comment on the article, I commented on Chris Floyd, whose style I find pretentious and self-satisfied. And if even thatbags and janea can't penetrate his waffle I don't think his views are going to cut much ice with the majority of readers/posters on here.