And actually called p a poltroon revealing he had entirely misunderstood the meaning of that word :-(
I used it in the poetic context of a thing 'speaking to' something within the soul of man. Such a usage is timeworn and acceptable.
Had I used the phrase in the sense of 'It speaks to a wider corporate culture' or similar, I would indeed be the Charlie Uniform you describe.
You did used to get elderly pooftahs who used to speak wistfully of the good old days when it was illegal. They seemed to feel it made it a more exclusive club and added a certain frisson to things.
I don't think they were as keen on the whole 'hard labour' and 'chemical castration' side of things, though.
Yes, and they would never have dreamed of making such a big deal out of it. Many were long-term married and had raised families, so were of the view that what difference did it make where else they put their piece; they'd done their duty by their sort and their species.
Trouble now is being "gay" seems to preclude, prohibit, all that and there's no need for it.
Yes. Gore Vidal (a chap for whom I've always had a huge soft spot despite him being a bit of a lefty) used to say that 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' were descriptions of acts, not of people. He had a point, I think. It seems rather a shame that we've lost sight of that in our rush to categorise in order to appease the gods of identity politics.
The trouble is that, in order to right actual wrongs on behalf of certain groups, you invariably end up ring-fencing those groups within rigid definitions. Thus, a married father of four who likes a spot of cock now and again has to be categorised as gay or bisexual. This is ultimately an unhelpful way of looking at things.
Here's my understanding:
She doesn't assert, as Burney said, she suspects.
What does she suspect? First of all she suspects that Trump did say that Pence "wanted to hang them all". This is her opinion (not a fact). If Trump did say that then all it says is that Trump is more liberal about gays than Pence.
Secondly (removing the sub-clause) she "suspects ... that he (Trump) would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people if he thought it would get him good ratings."
So she's gone from using a rumour about Trump either joking or believing that Pence is highly illiberal about gays to suspecting that Trump is basically ok with hanging gay people.
That's only a notch or two down from assert, isn't it?
I assumed the point LA was making was that the author wasnt necessarily saying that Trump wants to hang gays- she is suggesting he would be willing to do pretty much anything for the sake of good ratings.
This doesnt really add up, particularly as she says it immediately after suggesting he did say that his VP wants to hang them.
My judgement- she is saying he wants to hang gays. Case closed. :judge:
Right. So you don't think that saying that the President of the United States "would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people" (for whatever bullshīt reason) is a massive slight? Only I'd say it's a bit more than a slight. I'd say it's a gross and tasteless calumny with no substance whatsoever and if you're defending it, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.
Because she doesnt say he will do anything to get ratings. She says he would happily preside over the hanging of gays to get ratings.
Removing this part is precisely the same as removing the ratings part. If she wants to say he will do anything to get ratings, say that. She doesnt. She says he would happily (happily!) preside over it for ratings. Whatever way you cut it she 'suspects' he would happily hang gays. Why does the motivation for hanging gays matter more than the, you know, hanging of gays?
Of course. It's part of the usual old toss, the subtext of which is 'Trump hates gays. I don't have any actual evidence that he hates gays, but we all know he does, right? Because...Trump, yeah? Ooooh, I hate that Trump! Grrrr!'
God knows, there are plenty of actual things for which one can criticise Trump without having to resort to this sort of shít. At best it's pathetic, childish mudslinging and has no place anywhere near a reputable newspaper. If I'd tried to write something like that about anyone as a junior reporter I'd have been - quite rightly - out on my fùcking ear.
What?
"One suspects....that he himself would happily preside over the televised hanging of gay people if he thought it would get him good ratings"
Direct quote, one sentence, the two points entirely co-dependent. Would happily do it for good ratings.
I dont really get your point.
No, I don't think it is a massive slight on a man who chose a massive homophobe as his VP and whom she believes, with some justification, openly jokes about the subject. I don't think it a massive slight on a man who openly says in an election campaign he could walk into Times Square and shoot someone without it affecting his ratings. He has set the bar very low and I don't think it does much credit to anyone to sink to his level and I think it is a poorly written piece. ffs awimb now constitutes half the readership of that story I would think
Yes. Mind you, I was reading about the Bloodhound lot in the Telegraph and they came up with this gem: 'Mr Ayer's interest in planes began as a child during the Blitz, when he would watch Spitfires and Hurricanes flying in the sky.'
I really despair. :-( First of all, they mean the Battle of Britain and second, where else would they be flying? In his ****ing bath?
And apart from that, it's ugly. Ugly prose makes me sad.
I can't stop thinking about when The Grauniad finally folds and that little **** Jones is on the dole. Hopefully all his whining about the plight of the poor will turn out to be true and the juvenile commie will starve to death. :cloud9:
Or drown in his own shít. :cloud9:
Or get caught up in a hideous psycho killer scanrio, where the bloke eviscerates his mother in front of his face and then chokes him to death on her steaming guts. :cloud9:
I don't like him much.
So based on your feelings about his VP, the suspicion that he jokes about the subject (although, if he said that, I read that as him making fun of his VP, tbh) and something entirely unrelated that he said during the election, you're happy with the suggestion that he'd happily preside over the hanging of gay people?
Righto.
Sadly, the lefties will always find a slot for him. He'll end up being a Labour spokestw@t and probably an MP or what have you.
I don't know what Abi Wilkinson will do, though. I suspect the poor girl has trouble putting her clothes on the right way round, so god knows what she'll do without the safety net of The Guardian feature pages. :-(