Henry Blofeld, dieting, Belsen and the Jewish Stand

[RH156RH]

Note: A good example of the terror which political correctness generates... RH


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/10/13/two-gaffes-almost-cost-henry-blofeld-job-bbc/

The two gaffes that almost cost Henry Blofeld his job at the BBC


Henry Blofeld's taste for colourful language has occasionally landed him in trouble CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES

Henry Blofeld
13 OCTOBER 2017 • 1:00PM
Political correctness does not always take common sense into account. On the other hand, there have certainly been occasions when I have found myself saying things I wish I hadn’t.

In one of the early matches I covered at Durham, I’m afraid I made an extremely crass remark on air. I can’t remember why, but we were talking about putting on weight. I had recently seen my doctor in London and he had pointed a finger at my steadily increasing girth. He said, in the sanctity of his surgery, that it was a good idea to eat rather less and underlined his point by saying that there were not many fat people in Belsen.

I can hardly believe it, but I came up with this story at Durham. Mike Gatting, who was sitting beside me in the summariser’s chair, instantly looked round at those behind him and clearly did not know what he should say, before vigorously shaking his head in mystified horror. I also remember Mark Saggers, who had been commentating for us, wagging a formidable finger in my direction too. Oh dear – the more I thought about it, the worse it sounded and it resulted in some agitated telephone calls.

ADVERTISING

For a while I got the feeling that I was now definitely part of the castle not normally shown to visitors. I often wondered later what my old BBC boss, Henry Riddell, would have made of it. Maybe, in those distant days, he would have simply shrugged his shoulders, but I suspect he would have prepared himself for our final interview. As it was, I was mercifully not cast into the outer darkness I probably deserved.

While I am on the subject of career-threatening bloomers, I had better get the other stinker out of my system. England were playing the West Indies at Headingley. The Cardigan Road runs behind the ground in the north-east corner.

Henry Blofeld at Lord's
Henry Blofeld admits he was lucky not to have been sacked during his time on TMS CREDIT: GEOFF PUGH
There is a row of formidable red-brick Victorian houses on the Headingley side of the road, some way back from the cricket. For that match, two of the houses had turned their adjoining balconies into a stand for their friends, and there was quite a gathering. I took listeners on my usual journey round the ground and mentioned this impromptu stand. I speculated that the ticket price was small.

Then I likened it to Eden Park in Auckland where I remembered a balcony being used in the same way. I knew that the stand in Auckland had been given a jokey name which suggested cut-price tickets. I thought it would be a suitable name for this stand at Headingley. Suddenly I found myself calling it ‘the Jewish Stand’.

I was mercifully not cast into the outer darkness I probably deserved
Henry Blofeld
This time there was an immediate shocked, eerie silence in the box. Bill Frindall was never quiet for long on such occasions and he made a few short and meaningful comments. Otherwise my fellow commentators just looked at me, and there was some uncomfortable fidgeting.

I knew I had got it wrong, but as my mind raced I could not work out why they had used that name in Auckland and got away with it. Then it came to me. At Eden Park it was actually known as ‘the Scottish Stand’. I realised the magnitude of my folly. Our producer Peter Baxter was not at all happy, while Christopher Martin-Jenkins just shook his head silently and sorrowfully.

Christopher Martin-Jenkins
Christopher Martin-Jenkins was mortified by one of Henry Blofeld's on-air blunders CREDIT: PATRICK EAGAR
After I had handed over to the next commentator and stood up, I could see that my colleagues were looking the other way. After much discussion I was told by Baxter that I must apologise on air, which I did in my next spell. Telephone calls poured in from the bosses back in London and, of course, complaints followed from listeners. I have never been good at handling things like this.

Read more at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/10/13/two-gaffes-almost-cost-henry-blofeld-job-bbc/

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 9:24:10 PM UTC+11, RH156RH wrote:
> Note: A good example of the terror which political correctness generates... RH
>

Yeah, somebody makes a reference to a concentration camp and goes with the "jews are skinflints" lines and considers they've said something stupid.

Terrible

[Richard Dixon]

Unfortunately behind a paywall but this was another take on Blofeld that I agree with:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/09/12/henryblofeld-much-loved-character-surely-can-do-little-better/

I'll definitely miss the voice but not loads else.

Richard

[Offramp]

On Sunday, 15 October 2017 11:17:58 UTC+1, Richard Dixon wrote:

> Unfortunately behind a paywall but this was another take on Blofeld that I agree with:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/09/12/henryblofeld-much-loved-character-surely-can-do-little-better/

The small amount that I could read looked very good, pretty damning stuff. Does anyone have the whole article?

[Bob Dubery]

It's transcribed at https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/6zt9zr/this_is_a_thought_provoking_piece_on_henry/

[Offramp]

Henry Blofeld was born in 1939, on the landed Norfolk estate where his family have lived since the 16th century. He attended Eton and then King’s College, Cambridge, despite not passing any A-Levels (“my family had been going to King’s forever”, he explained). Asked by an interviewer many years later what subject he studied, he thought for some time before responding: “I think it was history.”
He failed his Cambridge exams and dropped out. This, however, did not deter a merchant bank in London from taking him on at the persuasion of his uncle, a wealthy City financier. After a while, however, Blofeld began to get bored of that.
“A couple of my friends were writing about cricket,” he thought. “Why the hell shouldn’t I do likewise?”
At a cocktail party in Knightsbridge he met John Woodcock, cricket correspondent of The Times, who arranged for Blofeld to write some county reports, despite possessing no formal skills or training. And thus began the tale of Blowers, which ended at Lord’s on Saturday evening after a 45-year career, with a boundary lap of honour, a plate of lobster thermidor, and warm tributes from on and off the field.
It has been a good life, and an easy life too, as these things go. Naturally, Blofeld was self-deprecating to the last: “Listeners will be relieved to know that their chances of being told the right name of fielders have greatly increased,” he wrote. And this seems to sum up Blofeld’s broad and lasting appeal: a cherished broadcasting persona based on two parts upper-crust charm, one part winking incompetence.
This is to make no personal slight on Blofeld himself: a clever, erudite, well-read, well-travelled man who has endured some genuine strife, and whose buffoonish radio guise is, you suspect, only a well-rehearsed fraction of the whole. I wish him the happiest of retirements. Equally, however, I think his journey matters, because it raises important questions: about the type of public life we want, the public figures we want, and who can prosper in a society we occasionally and amusingly describe as a meritocracy.
Was Blofeld the best man for the job over his 45 years? Or was he simply in many right places at many right times? How many potential commentary greats from less privileged backgrounds never enjoyed his fortune, never knew the right people, never had the luxury of being able to give up a good job, never got to go to the Knightsbridge cocktail party? We shall never know. At every stage of Blofeld’s life, his path was smoothed, facilitated, expedited. Doors swung open; you can hardly blame him for walking through them.
Blofeld’s good fortune continued to inure him in the commentary box. Over the years, his melodic Old Etonian vowels and kooky gift for description earned him a certain kooky affection. His mistakes - an increasing inability to identify players, misquoting the score, a tendency to talk over his fellow commentators - were invariably explained away as foibles, bloopers, part of the endearing, vaguely-bewildered-posh-man schtick that Boris Johnson and latterly Jacob Rees-Mogg have exploited to great effect.
Only the privileged white man has this luxury: of being cast as a “loveable eccentric”, “a distinctive voice”, “a bit of a character”. The young female commentator who keeps misidentifying fielders will not last long. Nor will the working-class black commentator who frequently gets the score wrong and refers to Jonny Bairstow as “David”. This is the gift of privilege: you need only be half as good as another to earn twice the acclaim.
The world is changing. Test Match Special is changing, too: the culture of chattering “ex-public schoolboys”, as the late Don Mosey put it, is slowly eroding. And you suspect that a good deal of the affection towards Blofeld is actually nostalgia, not so much for one man, as for what he represented: a place of pigeons and buses and cake and laughter, where the cream always rose to the top, and everyone knew their place.

[RH156RH]

Translation: politically correct victimhood whining... RH

[Bob Dubery]

On Monday, 16 October 2017 10:55:44 UTC+2, Offramp wrote:

I'd agree. I'm getting tired of the argument that so-and-so "is a man of their time". Times and mores change.

I grew up in England learning jokes involving Jewish people and concentration camps that I would cringe to tell now.

Why? Not for fear of the PC Police, but because, actually, we do move on, we do improve and we do get to a point where we understand some things just aren't funny, and never were for the butt of the joke.

[RH156RH]

Translation: Bob the Builder of pc fantasies wallows in his pc fantasy world... RH

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 7:11:52 PM UTC+10, RH156RH wrote:
> Translation: Bob the Builder of pc fantasies wallows in his pc fantasy world...

Translation: It pains RH that we can't return to the good ol days when we could be overtly* racist

* more overt than he is today

[Bob Dubery]

I was going to say it's an old dog not being able to learn new tricks. But I learned, and my salad days are long behind me. Is it too much to expect that an experience radio broadcaster realise that some things are not funny?

[RH156RH]

Translation: I believe in free expression .... RH

[Michael Gooding]

Quite a chippy little article, that. The stuff about cake and pigeons is part of the charm of TMS and, I think, largely arises because they keep broadcasting all day, play or no play, and so just have to keep talking and being entertaining. Also serves to remind us that it's a game, however seriously it's taken.

So he was wafted into possibly undeserved prominence on the basis of family name and connections? Not the first, or the last; Polly Toynbee and David Cameron are two other examples.

Mike Gooding
----------------

[Offramp]

The Beeb has always been rife with nepotism and old-schoolism. Look at the Dimblebys, or Peter Snow's talentless son. There are hundreds of others. How often have I heard someone on the BBC saying "I was so pleased when my daughter also joined the corporation."

[Richard Dixon]

On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 08:37:15 UTC+1, RH156RH wrote:

> Translation: politically correct victimhood whining... RH

Did you *actually* think Blofeld was any good whatsoever at commentating?

Richard

[Richard Dixon]

On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 10:11:52 UTC+1, RH156RH wrote:

> Translation: Bob the Builder of pc fantasies wallows in his pc fantasy world... RH

Not, it's the actual world Robert. You're the one left wallowing in your black and white 1950s fantasy.

Richard

[grabber]

On 10/17/2017 12:05 PM, RH156RH wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 10:20:14 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 7:11:52 PM UTC+10, RH156RH wrote:
>>> Translation: Bob the Builder of pc

Delusional obsession showing again.

>> fantasies wallows in his pc fantasy world...
>>
>> Translation: It pains RH that we can't return to the good ol days when we could be overtly* racist
>>
>> * more overt than he is today
>
> Translation: I believe in free expression .... RH

If only you were equipped to speak coherently on the subject.

Here are some relevant questions, which I dare say you'll not be able to
answer:-

1) Do you accept there is such a thing as good/poor taste?

2) Do you realise that broadcasters may legitimately wish to avoid too
much poor taste in, say, a programme of sports commentary?

3) Do you understand that Blofeld was writing a puff piece for his book,
and that the degree of post-gaffe trepidation he describes having felt
might therefore be exaggerated?

4) Did you clock that the only explicitly described objection to his
gaffes - and the one that he describes as causing him the most disquiet
- turned out to be a wind-up perpetrated by David Bairstow?

5) Did you notice that at no point does Blofeld mention that anyone from
the BBC indicated that his position might be at risk?

6) Did you notice that Blofeld's perception is that his earlier manager
would have been less tolerant of his gaffes than his later ones?

[Bob Dubery]

On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 14:49:57 UTC+2, Michael Gooding wrote:
> Quite a chippy little article, that. The stuff about cake and pigeons is part of the charm of TMS and, I think, largely arises because they keep broadcasting all day, play or no play, and so just have to keep talking and being entertaining. Also serves to remind us that it's a game, however seriously it's taken.

I think it's understood that commentating cricket over the radio requires a lot of filler. South Africans of my age will remember Charles Fortune* who could waffle grandly and at length.

But most wafflers don't descend into racist stereotypes or little funny ha-has about concentration camps.

[Offramp]

Although I think Blofeld is a twat I would not like to see the TMS room taken over by ex-pros such as the disastrous Charlie Dagnall. Vic Marks is okay but normal professionals, even cricketers, do not have the savoir-faire to wing it for two rainy hours.

There has to be a mix of enthusiastic amateurs to go with the ex-pros. People such as Arlott and Peter West who really love cricket but are really professional broadcasters/journalists.

[RH156RH]

His was an eccentric style which mixed well with other commentators. RH

[RH156RH]

Translation: my 1950s actually existed... RH

[Dave Cornwell]

-------------------------------------------------------
Well said that man. I have to say that being of a compassionate nature I
feel that everyone in their life has said something cruel, stupid or
crass. It is instantly realising and regretting it that is important,
learning from it and in our own cases being thankful that we had not
broadcast our shortcomings to millions of people.
I once had someone suddenly pull out on me whilst driving and whilst I
did an emergency stop I uttered a racist remark. Bad enough, but I was
giving my black friend a lift home at the time. I'd spent most of my
life before and since that event standing up against racism - not easy
at times in my part of Essex. But, still, 25 years down the line it
haunts me because I wonder why was it in there somewhere?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Dave Cornwell]

Well written. If you wrote it perhaps you should apply for his old TMS job!

[Dave Cornwell]

On 18/10/2017 04:45, Offramp wrote:
> Although I think Blofeld is a twat I would not like to see the TMS room taken over by ex-pros such as the disastrous Charlie Dagnall. Vic Marks is okay but normal professionals, even cricketers, do not have the savoir-faire to wing it for two rainy hours.
>
> There has to be a mix of enthusiastic amateurs to go with the ex-pros. People such as Arlott and Peter West who really love cricket but are really professional broadcasters/journalists.
>

----------------------------------------------------------------
At last, I've found someone else who finds Charles Dagnall particularly
annoying and rather unfairly, a voice not suited to radio.

[John Hall]

In message <ebd592a7-667e-45d9...@googlegroups.com>,
RH156RH <anywh...@yahoo.co.uk> writes

For once I have to agree with Robert.

On the wider question, Blofield has certainly said some very unfortunate
things, but judging by how he's written about them in the extracts from
his book he's felt proper remorse afterwards, and I don't think there's
any malice in him. He's a child of his time and upbringing, and who on
occasion speaks without first putting his brain in gear.
--
John Hall
"Three o'clock is always too late or too early
for anything you want to do."
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 5:31:12 PM UTC+10, RH156RH wrote:
> Translation: my 1950s actually existed...

The fantasy is that is was better, and that it will return.

It wasn't, and it won't.

[John Hall]

In message <DfFFB.67282$b87....@fx18.am4>, Dave Cornwell
<davemc...@nospam.co.uk> writes

>On 16/10/2017 20:52, Offramp wrote:
>> Henry Blofeld was born in 1939, on the landed Norfolk estate where
>>his family have lived since the 16th century.

<snip>

>>
>Well written. If you wrote it perhaps you should apply for his old TMS
>job!
>

It's a posting of Jonathan Liew's article in the Telegraph that was
linked to earlier in the thread. Liew is an excellent writer who covers
a wide range of sports, but cricket seems to be his first love.

A few years ago he was a contestant on Channel 4's "Countdown", and
managed to reach either the semi-finals or the quarter-finals - I can no
longer recall which.

[Bob Dubery]

On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 11:28:43 UTC+2, Dave Cornwell wrote:
> On 17/10/2017 09:58, Bob Dubery wrote:
> > On Monday, 16 October 2017 10:55:44 UTC+2, Offramp wrote:
> >> On Sunday, 15 October 2017 11:17:58 UTC+1, Richard Dixon wrote:
> >>
> >>> Unfortunately behind a paywall but this was another take on Blofeld that I agree with:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/09/12/henryblofeld-much-loved-character-surely-can-do-little-better/
> >>
> >> The small amount that I could read looked very good, pretty damning stuff. Does anyone have the whole article?
> >
> > I'd agree. I'm getting tired of the argument that so-and-so "is a man of their time". Times and mores change.
> >
> > I grew up in England learning jokes involving Jewish people and concentration camps that I would cringe to tell now.
> >
> > Why? Not for fear of the PC Police, but because, actually, we do move on, we do improve and we do get to a point where we understand some things just aren't funny, and never were for the butt of the joke.
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Well said that man. I have to say that being of a compassionate nature I
> feel that everyone in their life has said something cruel, stupid or
> crass. It is instantly realising and regretting it that is important,
> learning from it and in our own cases being thankful that we had not
> broadcast our shortcomings to millions of people.

Agreed. We need to be a bit human, a bit compassionate, and to understand that people don't necessarily have their values mapped out forever early in their lives.

I get a bit annoyed when I see, say, a picture of somebody who is now a celebrity, in a nazi uniform, but the picture was taken 20 years ago when the person was not a celebrity and was not as wise, and was more impressionable.

[Michael Gooding]

I do remember CF. And I agree that Blofeld's remarks were, at least, very unfortunate for a professional commentator.

I always preferred Jonners, Bailey and Arlott; can't imagine any of them coming out with tasteless remarks like this.

Mike Gooding
-----------------

[Dave Cornwell]

On 17/10/2017 19:27, Offramp wrote:
> The Beeb has always been rife with nepotism and old-schoolism. Look at the Dimblebys, or Peter Snow's talentless son. There are hundreds of others. How often have I heard someone on the BBC saying "I was so pleased when my daughter also joined the corporation."
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True - but as a TV Company it is, in my opinion, also still rife with
the best TV programmes- especially drama, comedy, science and
technology, nature and documentaries.

[Bob Dubery]

On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 14:49:57 UTC+2, Michael Gooding wrote:

> Quite a chippy little article, that. The stuff about cake and pigeons is part of the charm of TMS and, I think, largely arises because they keep broadcasting all day, play or no play, and so just have to keep talking and being entertaining. Also serves to remind us that it's a game, however seriously it's taken.
>
> So he was wafted into possibly undeserved prominence on the basis of family name and connections? Not the first, or the last; Polly Toynbee and David Cameron are two other examples.

The article isn't really about Blofeld, it's about privilege. Really it's questioning whether a commentator who got things as wrong and made the same gaffes and was not a white male from an upper middle class background would have been tolerated as long and found his path so easy.

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 19 October 2017 08:49:24 UTC+2, Bob Dubery wrote:
> The article isn't really about Blofeld, it's about privilege.

It's mirthless, literal-minded trash, of the kind that makes a point of missing the point. Do you listen to TMS because of its painstaking professionalism and pedantic solicitude for the facts? I rather doubt you do. You listen to TMS for its humanism and its humour, and for its adorable cast of characters.

> Really it's questioning whether a commentator who got things as wrong and made the same gaffes and was not a white male from an upper middle class background would have been tolerated as long and found his path so easy.

You'll recall that Peter Bacela (neither white nor privileged) was viewed in much the same way, and for the same reasons, in South Africa. Cricket commentary, at least on the radio, is above all about personality.

Rodney

[Bob Dubery]

On Saturday, 21 October 2017 23:13:51 UTC+2, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 October 2017 08:49:24 UTC+2, Bob Dubery wrote:
> > The article isn't really about Blofeld, it's about privilege.
>
> It's mirthless, literal-minded trash, of the kind that makes a point of missing the point. Do you listen to TMS because of its painstaking professionalism and pedantic solicitude for the facts? I rather doubt you do. You listen to TMS for its humanism and its humour, and for its adorable cast of characters.

It's been a long time since I listened to TMS. If I've got time to listen to TMS, I have time to watch on TV, so I do.

I do recall not being that impressed by Blofeld. Sure he's got the accent and a certain chirpy eccentricity about him, but he only seemed to me to be useful at the Oval, when he would give good information on how the busses were running.

I'd read him previously in WCM or the Cricketer, that'd be 30 odd years ago, and already then he seemed to me to be more form than substance. But then radio personality doesn't translate to the written page.

>
> > Really it's questioning whether a commentator who got things as wrong and made the same gaffes and was not a white male from an upper middle class background would have been tolerated as long and found his path so easy.
>
> You'll recall that Peter Bacela (neither white nor privileged) was viewed in much the same way, and for the same reasons, in South Africa. Cricket commentary, at least on the radio, is above all about personality.

I remember him too. The Affirmative Action tag is all too easily applied to any black person who ends up in a position where we got used to seeing white faces or hearing white voices, so we need to have some salt handy. I don't believe you're cut from that cloth, but it's a common enough reflex in SA.

Bacele was actually had previous history as a commentator, having worked for the SABC (from segregated facilities) for Xhosa language station. So it may be a bit like Haroon Lorgat. Too many white people had never heard of him and so the conclusion is that he knows nothing about cricket and got the job because of political pressures.

[rodney...@gmail.com]

I'm not saying Bacela got the job because he was black. I'm pointing that, *despite* being black, and despite his propensity for Blofeldesque gaffes, he retained his post and popularity. He did this because, like Blofeld, he had and has a lovable personality.

Rodney

[Richard Dixon]

On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 08:29:46 UTC+1, RH156RH wrote:

> His was an eccentric style which mixed well with other commentators. RH

Blimey, you did think he was good commentator. Mind you, you are the natural born contrarian.

[Richard Dixon]

On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 08:31:12 UTC+1, RH156RH wrote:

> Translation: my 1950s actually existed... RH

And how he pines for it *gets out violin*

Richard

[Richard Dixon]

That was Jonathan Liew's piece, wasn't it?

He's now chief sports writer at the Independent. I don't think he's even 30 yet...

Richard

[hamis...@gmail.com]

and obviously post-apartheid RSA and England are exactly comparable...

[Bob Dubery]

Bob: Really it's questioning whether a commentator who got things as wrong and made the same gaffes and was not a white male from an upper middle class background would have been tolerated as long and found his path so easy.

Rodney: You'll recall that Peter Bacela (neither white nor privileged) was viewed in much the same way, and for the same reasons, in South Africa.

It's easy to have missed your point and to think that you were pointing at the perception amongst the upper crust that Bacela got the gig for one reason only.

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 23 October 2017 05:12:11 UTC+2, Bob Dubery wrote:
> Bob: Really it's questioning whether a commentator who got things as wrong and made the same gaffes and was not a white male from an upper middle class background would have been tolerated as long and found his path so easy.
> Rodney: You'll recall that Peter Bacela (neither white nor privileged) was viewed in much the same way, and for the same reasons, in South Africa.
> It's easy to have missed your point and to think that you were pointing at the perception amongst the upper crust that Bacela got the gig for one reason only.

With respect, Bob, that's ridiculous. You asked whether a non-white commentator from a disadvantaged background would have gotten away with Blofeld's gaffes, and I promptly offered you one who did. There was not the slightest allusion, at any point or in any way, to affirmative action.

I'd mention Navjot Singh Sidhu in the same breath.

Rodney

[Bob Dubery]

I take you on your word at what you meant, but my response is not ridiculous when you said "viewed in the same way". Of course, it would have helped if I'd stipulated "on the BBC", because SABC and CA were looking for unification, to take the game to all the people, which is not something that TMS ever had to worry about.

[John Hall]

In message <5ee72f03-726d-489c...@googlegroups.com>,
Richard Dixon <richsdi...@gmail.com> writes

>That was Jonathan Liew's piece, wasn't it?
>
>He's now chief sports writer at the Independent. I don't think he's
>even 30 yet...

Has he left the Telegraph then? That's a blow, as he's an excellent
writer. It must have been very recent. I'm a little surprised that he's
made the move, given that AIUI The Independent is these days only
available in an online edition, so his readership will almost certainly
decrease and they're unlikely to be able to afford to pay him as much.
If it was the Telegraph's doing as a cost-cutting measure, then they're
idiots.

ETA: A web search has now told me that he's made the move this month. I
shall now have to try to remember to read the Independent's sports pages
on a regular basis,
--
John Hall "George the Third
Ought never to have occurred.
One can only wonder
At so grotesque a blunder." E.C.Bentley (1875-1956)

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 23 October 2017 11:10:31 UTC+2, Bob Dubery wrote:
> I take you on your word at what you meant, but my response is not ridiculous when you said "viewed in the same way".

He was viewed as an erratic eccentric whose mistakes were part of his charm. That's all I meant.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 23 October 2017 11:42:09 UTC+2, John Hall wrote:
> In message <5ee72f03-726d-489c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Richard Dixon <richsdi...@gmail.com> writes
> >That was Jonathan Liew's piece, wasn't it?
> >He's now chief sports writer at the Independent. I don't think he's
> >even 30 yet...
> Has he left the Telegraph then? That's a blow, as he's an excellent
> writer. It must have been very recent. I'm a little surprised that he's
> made the move, given that AIUI The Independent is these days only
> available in an online edition, so his readership will almost certainly
> decrease and they're unlikely to be able to afford to pay him as much.
> If it was the Telegraph's doing as a cost-cutting measure, then they're
> idiots.

He is very good, but I totally understand the allergic reaction to his complacent sloganeering. He seems a nice enough sort -- I remember an excellent contribution to The Anfield Wrap's "Midnight Caller" series a year or so ago -- but he clearly spent too much time with the humanities students at whichever university he attended. I can't be alone in having noticed how these people let their slogans ("check your privilege") and catchphrases ("straight white male") do their thinking for them. There's never any argument to trace; it's always bald assertion and self-satisfied presumption (generally followed, when challenged, by ad hominem hysteria). His piece suffers on all but the parenthesised counts.

Rodney

[RH156RH]

On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 10:59:19 AM UTC+1, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
. I can't be alone in having noticed how these people let their slogans ("check your privilege") and catchphrases ("straight white male") do their thinking for them. There's never any argument to trace; it's always bald assertion and self-satisfied presumption (generally followed, when challenged, by ad hominem hysteria). His piece suffers on all but the parenthesised counts.
>
> Rodney

They chant their slogans because (1) they are bigots and (2) they have no confidence in their ideas and wish top enforce them through in timidation... RH

[grabber]

On 10/23/2017 10:59 AM, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 23 October 2017 11:42:09 UTC+2, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <5ee72f03-726d-489c...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Richard Dixon <richsdi...@gmail.com> writes
>>> That was Jonathan Liew's piece, wasn't it?
>>> He's now chief sports writer at the Independent. I don't think he's
>>> even 30 yet...
>> Has he left the Telegraph then? That's a blow, as he's an excellent
>> writer. It must have been very recent. I'm a little surprised that he's
>> made the move, given that AIUI The Independent is these days only
>> available in an online edition, so his readership will almost certainly
>> decrease and they're unlikely to be able to afford to pay him as much.
>> If it was the Telegraph's doing as a cost-cutting measure, then they're
>> idiots.
>
> He is very good, but I totally understand the allergic reaction to his complacent sloganeering. He seems a nice enough sort -- I remember an excellent contribution to The Anfield Wrap's "Midnight Caller" series a year or so ago -- but he clearly spent too much time with the humanities students at whichever university he attended. I can't be alone in having noticed how these people let their slogans ("check your privilege") and catchphrases ("straight white male") do their thinking for them.

Just like Robert with his "political correctness" and other sloganised
obsessions, then. But at least privilege, straightness, whiteness and
maleness are non-delusional categories, unlike "pc" as Robert defines it.

I think JL's piece is reasonable *if* you start from the premise that HB
was not up to scratch as a commentator.

If, instead, it's viewed as an attempt to establish that he wasn't up to
scratch, then your criticism is spot on. He wasn't my favorite
commentator, but I could put up with him happily enough. I'm enough of a
fogey to think that the team now is less interesting than it was a few
decades later, so I'm happy to forgive Blofeld for his good fortune.

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 23 October 2017 13:41:17 UTC+2, grabber wrote:
> On 10/23/2017 10:59 AM, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> > He is very good, but I totally understand the allergic reaction to his complacent sloganeering. He seems a nice enough sort -- I remember an excellent contribution to The Anfield Wrap's "Midnight Caller" series a year or so ago -- but he clearly spent too much time with the humanities students at whichever university he attended. I can't be alone in having noticed how these people let their slogans ("check your privilege") and catchphrases ("straight white male") do their thinking for them.
> Just like Robert with his "political correctness" and other sloganised
> obsessions, then.

Absolutely.

> But at least privilege, straightness, whiteness and
> maleness are non-delusional categories, unlike "pc" as Robert defines it.

There is at least a grain of truth in most of what RH believes. (Please don't ignore the tenth word in this paragraph.) Likewise there's truth aplenty in the position Liew argues, or rather parrots. The trouble is when these truths are inflated to the proportions of catch-all ideology. That's when they become boring and thoughtless and predictable, and above all less true.

Liew is a gifted stylist; it's sad to see his sentences writing themselves.

Rodney

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 11:11:42 AM UTC+11, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 23 October 2017 13:41:17 UTC+2, grabber wrote:
> > On 10/23/2017 10:59 AM, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > He is very good, but I totally understand the allergic reaction to his complacent sloganeering. He seems a nice enough sort -- I remember an excellent contribution to The Anfield Wrap's "Midnight Caller" series a year or so ago -- but he clearly spent too much time with the humanities students at whichever university he attended. I can't be alone in having noticed how these people let their slogans ("check your privilege") and catchphrases ("straight white male") do their thinking for them.
> > Just like Robert with his "political correctness" and other sloganised
> > obsessions, then.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > But at least privilege, straightness, whiteness and
> > maleness are non-delusional categories, unlike "pc" as Robert defines it.
>
> There is at least a grain of truth in most of what RH believes. (Please don't ignore the tenth word in this paragraph.)

Which bit?
That non-whites can never be english?
that non-whites don't try playing for England?
that true english people magically know other english people?
That cricket was better in the 50s?
That cricketers before modern days never broke down?

>Likewise there's truth aplenty in the position Liew argues, or rather parrots. The trouble is when these truths are inflated to the proportions of catch-all ideology. That's when they become boring and thoughtless and predictable, and above all less true.

Kind of like your Bernie worship and hatred of all things Clinton except you're basing it on a lot less evidence than Liew has...

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 24 October 2017 02:24:21 UTC+2, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 11:11:42 AM UTC+11, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 23 October 2017 13:41:17 UTC+2, grabber wrote:
> > > On 10/23/2017 10:59 AM, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > He is very good, but I totally understand the allergic reaction to his complacent sloganeering. He seems a nice enough sort -- I remember an excellent contribution to The Anfield Wrap's "Midnight Caller" series a year or so ago -- but he clearly spent too much time with the humanities students at whichever university he attended. I can't be alone in having noticed how these people let their slogans ("check your privilege") and catchphrases ("straight white male") do their thinking for them.
> > > Just like Robert with his "political correctness" and other sloganised
> > > obsessions, then.
> > Absolutely.
> > > But at least privilege, straightness, whiteness and
> > > maleness are non-delusional categories, unlike "pc" as Robert defines it.
> > There is at least a grain of truth in most of what RH believes. (Please don't ignore the tenth word in this paragraph.)
> Which bit?
> That non-whites can never be english?
> that non-whites don't try playing for England?
> that true english people magically know other english people?
> That cricket was better in the 50s?
> That cricketers before modern days never broke down?

If you're spoiling for a fight, Hamish, why not return to the one you abandoned a couple of weeks ago?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.sport.cricket/VRHbGCehv0U/8V_aKBpgBAAJ

This was a fairly even-tempered exchange before your hysterical intervention.

For the record, though, I believe there's some truth in RH's thoughts on tribal solidarity. We really *do* tend to empathise more with people who look and sound like ourselves. This seems uncontroversial. The Hendersonian error is to make an "ought" of an "is," and to see that "is" everywhere, even where it isn't.

The same holds of other forms of racism. Antisemitism, for example. Jewish people appear to be disproportionately represented in certain industries and occupations. So what? There's nothing particularly scary or weird about that. But the Judeophobe looks at it and decides that they're colluding as a race to manipulate the world.

Which is why it's so misguided to describe such people as "discriminatory." The one thing they *can't* do is discriminate.

> >Likewise there's truth aplenty in the position Liew argues, or rather parrots. The trouble is when these truths are inflated to the proportions of catch-all ideology. That's when they become boring and thoughtless and predictable, and above all less true.
> Kind of like your Bernie worship

You're trying to replay an argument you've already conceded. Why? You know perfectly well that I don't "worship" Sanders. I've criticised him for his love affair with the Democratic Party, as well as for his fondness for liberal intervention. As I told Holmanculus at the time, I'm far more enthused by the movement that coalesced around him than by the man himself.

But I'm giving you much more than you deserve. We both know that if *I* had told a transparent porkie about *your* political leanings, you wouldn't bother taking the time to refute it. You'd simply type, over and over again, "Where's the evidence?" and leave it at that.

> and hatred of all things Clinton except you're basing it on a lot less evidence than Liew has...

Oh, for goodness sake. You're obsessed, aren't you? I have two main reasons for hating Clinton, which I've shared with you before:

1. On the campaign trail last year, she threatened war with Putin's Russia, in flagrant violation of the UN Charter, which forbids both the use and the threat of force. Russia has nuclear weapons.
2. She stubbornly backed the Keystone Pipeline (over whose approval her State Department wielded no little power) even after James Hansen, NASA's chief climate scientist, and the man who first brought global warming to public attention, declared that it would mean "game over" for the planet.

Do I really need to explain to you that either of these things could kill us all? Do you really fail to see why they might inspire hatred in me?

Sigh. Back to Blofeld, then...

Rodney

[grabber]

On 10/24/2017 10:20 AM, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 October 2017 02:24:21 UTC+2, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 11:11:42 AM UTC+11, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, 23 October 2017 13:41:17 UTC+2, grabber wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2017 10:59 AM, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> He is very good, but I totally understand the allergic reaction to his complacent sloganeering. He seems a nice enough sort -- I remember an excellent contribution to The Anfield Wrap's "Midnight Caller" series a year or so ago -- but he clearly spent too much time with the humanities students at whichever university he attended. I can't be alone in having noticed how these people let their slogans ("check your privilege") and catchphrases ("straight white male") do their thinking for them.
>>>> Just like Robert with his "political correctness" and other sloganised
>>>> obsessions, then.
>>> Absolutely.
>>>> But at least privilege, straightness, whiteness and
>>>> maleness are non-delusional categories, unlike "pc" as Robert defines it.
>>> There is at least a grain of truth in most of what RH believes. (Please don't ignore the tenth word in this paragraph.)
>> Which bit?
>> That non-whites can never be english?
>> that non-whites don't try playing for England?
>> that true english people magically know other english people?
>> That cricket was better in the 50s?
>> That cricketers before modern days never broke down?
>
> If you're spoiling for a fight, Hamish, why not return to the one you abandoned a couple of weeks ago?
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.sport.cricket/VRHbGCehv0U/8V_aKBpgBAAJ
>
> This was a fairly even-tempered exchange

Entirely good-natured, as far as I'm concerned.

> before your hysterical intervention.

> For the record, though, I believe there's some truth in RH's thoughts on tribal solidarity. We really *do* tend to empathise more with people who look and sound like ourselves. This seems uncontroversial. The Hendersonian error is to make an "ought" of an "is," and to see that "is" everywhere, even where it isn't.

Yes, indeed. The problem is that he skips from a boringly
uncontroversial truth to a boringly stupid overstatement whilst entirely
bypassing the bits in the middle which might possibly be interesting
(though desperately OT here). Is the template for what "looks and sounds
like ourselves" learned or innate (or both)? To what extent can an
instinctive tendency be overridden by socialisation? These are not
questions you'll catch Robert thinking sensibly about.

> The same holds of other forms of racism. Antisemitism, for example. Jewish people appear to be disproportionately represented in certain industries and occupations. So what? There's nothing particularly scary or weird about that. But the Judeophobe looks at it and decides that they're colluding as a race to manipulate the world.
>
> Which is why it's so misguided to describe such people as "discriminatory." The one thing they *can't* do is discriminate.

"Discrimination" is sometimes used on its own as shorthand for "unfair
discrimination". I don't think this is a problem if people can recognise
when the elision has occurred. If they don't, then you are right that
there is a problem.

[grabber]

On 10/24/2017 1:11 AM, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 23 October 2017 13:41:17 UTC+2, grabber wrote:
>> On 10/23/2017 10:59 AM, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> He is very good, but I totally understand the allergic reaction to his complacent sloganeering. He seems a nice enough sort -- I remember an excellent contribution to The Anfield Wrap's "Midnight Caller" series a year or so ago -- but he clearly spent too much time with the humanities students at whichever university he attended. I can't be alone in having noticed how these people let their slogans ("check your privilege") and catchphrases ("straight white male") do their thinking for them.
>> Just like Robert with his "political correctness" and other sloganised
>> obsessions, then.
>
> Absolutely.
>
>> But at least privilege, straightness, whiteness and
>> maleness are non-delusional categories, unlike "pc" as Robert defines it.
>
> There is at least a grain of truth in most of what RH believes.

Maybe (see below), but his obsession with "pc" is delusional because,
*according to his own definition* "pc" is an ideology with apparently no
adherents at all, yet he insists on seeing "pc" everywhere.

[rodney...@gmail.com]

My trouble with the word is that it implies some sort of thought process, which gives it too much credit. To be discriminate is to see nuances and exceptions and contradictions, which is something the bigot is incapable of doing. There's no difference for him between one black or Jew and another. It would be far more accurate and suggestive to describe this thinking as "indiscriminate."

But you're right to suspect that I'm just being provocative and contrary here.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 24 October 2017 02:24:21 UTC+2, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:

> Kind of like your Bernie worship

I've just remembered something, which is that you have form in this department. Last month you made me out to be an apologist for the corruption and sex-criminality of Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma. You did this on no detectable grounds other than the fact that I live in South Africa.

What a slimy little man you are.

Rodney

[RH156RH]

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 1:24:21 AM UTC+1, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 11:11:42 AM UTC+11, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 23 October 2017 13:41:17 UTC+2, grabber wrote:
> > > On 10/23/2017 10:59 AM, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > He is very good, but I totally understand the allergic reaction to his complacent sloganeering. He seems a nice enough sort -- I remember an excellent contribution to The Anfield Wrap's "Midnight Caller" series a year or so ago -- but he clearly spent too much time with the humanities students at whichever university he attended. I can't be alone in having noticed how these people let their slogans ("check your privilege") and catchphrases ("straight white male") do their thinking for them.
> > > Just like Robert with his "political correctness" and other sloganised
> > > obsessions, then.
> >
> > Absolutely.
> >
> > > But at least privilege, straightness, whiteness and
> > > maleness are non-delusional categories, unlike "pc" as Robert defines it.
> >
> > There is at least a grain of truth in most of what RH believes. (Please don't ignore the tenth word in this paragraph.)
>
>
> Which bit?

The bit which deals with reality, that is, anything I write in this ng... RH

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 1:30:54 AM UTC+11, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 October 2017 02:24:21 UTC+2, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Kind of like your Bernie worship
>
> I've just remembered something, which is that you have form in this department. Last month you made me out to be an apologist for the corruption and sex-criminality of Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma.

Bullshit.
Stop reading your own tactics onto other people rodders

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 25 October 2017 01:05:25 UTC+2, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> Bullshit.
> Stop reading your own tactics onto other people rodders

Rodney: "I'm no admirer of Jacob Zuma, but he deserves credit for telling Obama to shove it."
Slimy: "took time off from raping people and HIV denial did he? Or did he just take a bribe?"
Rodney: "Where to begin? I suppose I should start by asking what motivated these questions. [They were totally ancillary to the discussion we were having, but your tone suggested you thought I'd find them devillishly hard to answer.] I may be wrong, but it does appear that, despite my pre-emptory disassociation, you've made me out to be an apologist for Zuma and his crimes. This could conceivably be effective, if it were a little more subtle in its execution, but all one has to do is to read the remarks you were answering. I'm afraid you convict yourself of having flung bullshit in the cynical hope that some of it will stick. Like all racists and imperialists, there are no depths to which you will not stoop."

As in the case of your lie about my "worship" of Senator Sanders, you made no effort either to corroborate the charge or to answer mine. I draw the obvious conclusion.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

It's certainly of a piece with your sabotage of this thread: Rock up here, scream a series of rhetorical questions at me, misrepresent my position, and then accuse me of doing the same thing. I'd love to know what you feel you've contributed.

Rodney

[Mad Hamish]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 01:23:50 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, 25 October 2017 01:05:25 UTC+2, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Bullshit.
>> Stop reading your own tactics onto other people rodders
>
>Rodney: "I'm no admirer of Jacob Zuma, but he deserves credit for telling Obama to shove it."
>Slimy: "took time off from raping people and HIV denial did he? Or did he just take a bribe?"
>Rodney: "Where to begin? I suppose I should start by asking what motivated these questions. [They were totally ancillary to the discussion we were having, but your tone suggested you thought I'd find them devillishly hard to answer.]
> I may be wrong, but it does appear that, despite my pre-emptory disassociation, you've made me out to be an apologist for Zuma and his crimes.

Rodders, where exactly did I say anything about your opinion on Zuma?
I just pointed out some of what believes and what he's done.

> This could conceivably be effective, if it were a little more subtle in its execution,
>but all one has to do is to read the remarks you were answering. I'm afraid you convict yourself of having flung bullshit in the cynical hope that some of it will stick. Like all racists and imperialists, there are no depths to which you will not stoop."

Or you're convinced that everytbody who doesn't bow to the opinions
exrpessed in your purple prose is completely against you.

>
>As in the case of your lie about my "worship" of Senator Sanders, you made no effort either to corroborate the charge or to answer mine. I draw the obvious conclusion.
>

You might want to look at posts you made during the election campaign.

[RH156RH]

Would that be Sanders of the River?

[Mad Hamish]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 02:20:14 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Tuesday, 24 October 2017 02:24:21 UTC+2, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 11:11:42 AM UTC+11, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Monday, 23 October 2017 13:41:17 UTC+2, grabber wrote:
>> > > On 10/23/2017 10:59 AM, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > He is very good, but I totally understand the allergic reaction to his complacent sloganeering. He seems a nice enough sort -- I remember an excellent contribution to The Anfield Wrap's "Midnight Caller" series a year or so ago -- but he clearly spent too much time with the humanities students at whichever university he attended. I can't be alone in having noticed how these people let their slogans ("check your privilege") and catchphrases ("straight white male") do their thinking for them.
>> > > Just like Robert with his "political correctness" and other sloganised
>> > > obsessions, then.
>> > Absolutely.
>> > > But at least privilege, straightness, whiteness and
>> > > maleness are non-delusional categories, unlike "pc" as Robert defines it.
>> > There is at least a grain of truth in most of what RH believes. (Please don't ignore the tenth word in this paragraph.)
>> Which bit?
>> That non-whites can never be english?
>> that non-whites don't try playing for England?
>> that true english people magically know other english people?
>> That cricket was better in the 50s?
>> That cricketers before modern days never broke down?
>
>If you're spoiling for a fight, Hamish, why not return to the one you abandoned a couple of weeks ago?
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.sport.cricket/VRHbGCehv0U/8V_aKBpgBAAJ
>
>This was a fairly even-tempered exchange before your hysterical intervention.

If you think that's a hysterical intervention then you must be in
constant need of a fainting couch.

>
>For the record, though, I believe there's some truth in RH's thoughts on tribal solidarity. We really *do* tend to empathise more with people who look and sound like ourselves. This seems uncontroversial. The Hendersonian error is to make an "ought" of an "is," and to see that "is" everywhere, even where it isn't.

As I understand it there's significant evidence that it's less people
who look and sound like ourselves than it is people who look like
we're exposed to early.

However I'd consider that well short of "most of what RH believes"

>
>The same holds of other forms of racism. Antisemitism, for example. Jewish people appear to be disproportionately represented in certain industries and occupations. So what? There's nothing particularly scary or weird about that. But the Judeophobe looks at it and decides that they're colluding as a race to manipulate the world.
>
>Which is why it's so misguided to describe such people as "discriminatory." The one thing they *can't* do is discriminate.

Discriminate has multiple meanings in English.

>
>> >Likewise there's truth aplenty in the position Liew argues, or rather parrots. The trouble is when these truths are inflated to the proportions of catch-all ideology. That's when they become boring and thoughtless and predictable, and above all less true.
>> Kind of like your Bernie worship
>
>You're trying to replay an argument you've already conceded. Why? You know perfectly well that I don't "worship" Sanders. I've criticised him for his love affair with the Democratic Party, as well as for his fondness for liberal intervention. As I told Holmanculus at the time, I'm far more enthused by the movement that coalesced around him than by the man himself.
>
>But I'm giving you much more than you deserve. We both know that if *I* had told a transparent porkie about *your* political leanings, you wouldn't bother taking the time to refute it. You'd simply type, over and over again, "Where's the evidence?" and leave it at that.
>
>> and hatred of all things Clinton except you're basing it on a lot less evidence than Liew has...
>
>Oh, for goodness sake. You're obsessed, aren't you? I have two main reasons for hating Clinton, which I've shared with you before:
>
>1. On the campaign trail last year, she threatened war with Putin's Russia, in flagrant violation of the UN Charter, which forbids both the use and the threat of force. Russia has nuclear weapons.

A quick google finds 2 possible sources for this.
1) a statement that the USA needs to increase readiness and
preparedness to deal with cyberattacks which does include a mention of
military action.
Which doesn't seem entirely unreasonable if an enemy country is trying
to, say, hack fire control systems, nuclear plants, take down the
electricity grid etc.
2) establishing a no-fly zone in Syria

Now compare it to Trump's blustering on North Korea and statements
that he should send people back to Iraq to get the oil...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-us-banned-syria-de-escalation-zones-no-fly-iran-turkey/
Notes that Turkey, Russia and Iran were discussing a no-fly zone which
would exclude USA planes

>2. She stubbornly backed the Keystone Pipeline (over whose approval her State Department wielded no little power) even after James Hansen, NASA's chief climate scientist, and the man who first brought global warming to public attention, declared that it would mean "game over" for the planet.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/22/politics/hillary-clinton-opposes-keystone-xl-pipeline/index.html
By Eric Bradner, Dan Merica and Brianna Keilar, CNN

Updated 2323 GMT (0723 HKT) September 22, 2015
"Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she opposes the controversial Keystone
XL pipeline, taking sides with progressives who are fighting the
1,179-mile project over environmental concerns.
The announcement, which comes after months of Clinton remaining mum
over the hot-button 2016 issue, immediately drew praise from liberals
and environmental groups but was criticized by Republican presidential
candidates."

So unless "stubbonly backed" has a meaning it appears that you're
somewhat out of line on the issue

For the record permits for the original pipeline were granted in March
2008, which means damned near all the work was pre-Clinton
Keystone XL was proposed in 2008 and the Department of State report
was released after Clinton had left and did not recommend the
extension.

BTW you've just given a perfect example of why I ask for evidence.
Clinton had stated that she was opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline
over a year before the presidential election you're stating that she'd
stubbornly backed it...

>
>Do I really need to explain to you that either of these things could kill us all? Do you really fail to see why they might inspire hatred in me?

She's far less likely to do something rash with a nuclear power than
Trump is, nor based on what's happening in Russia do I want Putin to
feel that he can operate without opposition.

And you're wrong on the keystone pipeline

As for her position on Fossil Fuels during the campaign
"Fossil fuels
Coal

During a debate in March 2016, Clinton said that "we need" to
implement "all of the president's executive actions" on the
environment and that we need to "quickly move to make a bridge from
coal to natural gas to clean energy."[202]

Speaking at a CNN town hall forum in March 2016, Clinton said: "I'm
the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic
opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country.
Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out
of business, right? And we're going to make it clear that we don't
want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for
generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on
our lights and power our factories. Now we've got to move away from
coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away
from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that
we relied on."[203]

When confronted about her "out of business" statement while
campaigning in West Virginia, Clinton stated "I don't know how to
explain it other than what I said was totally out of context for what
I meant because I have been talking about helping coal country for a
very long time. It was a misstatement because what I was saying is the
way things are going now, they will continue to lose jobs. It didn't
mean that we were going to do it. What I said is that is going to
happen unless we take action to help and prevent it."[204][205]

She has a $30 billion plan intended to revitalize coal communities and
aid them in the transition away from coal. The plan calls for
increased job training, small-business development, and infrastructure
investment, especially in Appalachia. The plan also seeks to safeguard
miners' healthcare and pensions.[206][207]
Fracking

Clinton supports allowing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) but only
when it meets her conditions regarding local choice, stronger
environmental regulation and chemicals.[208] In a March 2016 debate,
Clinton outlined her position as follows: "I don’t support it when any
locality or any state is against it, No. 1. I don’t support it when
the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t
support it — No. 3 — unless we can require that anybody who fracks has
to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using. So by the time we
get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many
places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I
think that's the best approach, because right now, there are places
where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated."[208]
According to PolitiFact, the implementation of Clinton's three
conditions "would uphold existing bans and add new ones to the
mix."[209] PolitiFact notes that there are 11 states with noted cases
of spills (which could be covered under her second condition) and two
fracking states where there are no rules on chemical disclosure on the
books (which would be covered under her third condition).[208][210]]"

"Environment

Evaluating all her votes throughout Clinton's Senate career, the
League of Conservation Voters (LCV) has given Clinton a lifetime 82
percent pro-environment action rating.[224]

Clinton accepts the scientific consensus on climate change.[225] In a
December 2014 speech to the LCV, Clinton said, "The science of climate
change is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers may say. Sea levels
are rising; ice caps are melting; storms, droughts and wildfires are
wreaking havoc. … If we act decisively now we can still head off the
most catastrophic consequences."[225] Clinton has called climate
change "the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of
challenges we face as a nation and a world."[226]

In 2007, Clinton co-sponsored the Climate Stewardship and Innovation
Act (a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade initiative proposed by John McCain
and Joseph Lieberman which aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
60 percent from 2000 levels by 2050) and the Global Warming Pollution
Reduction Act (a more ambitious plan propose by Bernie Sanders and
Barbara Boxer which sought to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80
percent from 2000 levels by 2050).[227] Clinton's then-colleague
Barack Obama also cosponsored both bills.[227]"

[rodney...@gmail.com]

Jesus.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

I needed a cold shower and a stiff drink before I could read any of this, let alone respond to it. For the sake of brevity, I'm keeping to those of your effusions which aren't trite or pedantic. I can find only two of them.

On Sunday, 19 November 2017 12:08:15 UTC+2, Mad Hamish wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 02:20:14 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, 24 October 2017 02:24:21 UTC+2, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 11:11:42 AM UTC+11, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

> >Oh, for goodness sake. You're obsessed, aren't you? I have two main reasons for hating Clinton, which I've shared with you before:
> >1. On the campaign trail last year, she threatened war with Putin's Russia, in flagrant violation of the UN Charter, which forbids both the use and the threat of force. Russia has nuclear weapons.
> A quick google finds 2 possible sources for this.
> 1) a statement that the USA needs to increase readiness and
> preparedness to deal with cyberattacks which does include a mention of
> military action.
> Which doesn't seem entirely unreasonable if an enemy country is trying
> to, say, hack fire control systems, nuclear plants, take down the
> electricity grid etc.

Yes, I suppose it *is* true that in the event of a nuclear holocaust, all this would cease to be a problem.

> 2) establishing a no-fly zone in Syria

An unbelievably stupid thing to do. As Wikipedia's (woefully incomplete) list shows, we've been brought by far less to the brink of extinction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls

> Now compare it to Trump's blustering on North Korea and statements
> that he should send people back to Iraq to get the oil...

Why should I make that comparison? Do you apologise for Mussolini because Hitler was worse, or for Lenin because his crimes were fewer and lesser than Stalin's? You're a fucking moron if you do. To say that Clinton isn't as mad as Donald Trump is like saying she isn't as creepy as Harvey Weinstein, or as literal-minded as Hamish. Being less bad than The Worst doesn't make you good.

And it *certainly* doesn't qualify you to play with the nuclear codes.

[...]

> >2. She stubbornly backed the Keystone Pipeline (over whose approval her State Department wielded no little power) even after James Hansen, NASA's chief climate scientist, and the man who first brought global warming to public attention, declared that it would mean "game over" for the planet.
> http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/22/politics/hillary-clinton-opposes-keystone-xl-pipeline/index.html
> By Eric Bradner, Dan Merica and Brianna Keilar, CNN
> Updated 2323 GMT (0723 HKT) September 22, 2015
> "Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she opposes the controversial Keystone
> XL pipeline, taking sides with progressives who are fighting the
> 1,179-mile project over environmental concerns.
> The announcement, which comes after months of Clinton remaining mum
> over the hot-button 2016 issue, immediately drew praise from liberals
> and environmental groups but was criticized by Republican presidential
> candidates."
> So unless "stubbonly backed" has a meaning it appears that you're
> somewhat out of line on the issue

The trouble with you, Hamish, is that you have zero background knowledge of any of the issues we've been debating here, since you clearly didn't follow them in real time. You freely admit that you've just done some hasty googling and clicked on the first link that seemed to tell you what you wanted to hear.

Clinton's ties to TransCanada are well documented. For example, the company's chief lobbyist, Paul Elliott, served as deputy director on her 2008 campaign. And in her public remarks on the subject while Secretary of State in 2010, she told him what he wanted to hear:

"We've not *yet* signed off on it, but we are *inclined to do so*." (Emphasis added.)

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/22/politics/hillary-clinton-keystone-pipeline-history/index.html

That is an expression of support. She refused subsequently -- and yes, stubbornly -- to retract it, or indeed to say anything more on the subject, on the ridiculous grounds that it would be inappropriate to do so while her State Department successors were considering it.

The retraction you cite (without, tellingly, calling it a retraction, or recounting the history I've just detailed) means nothing, since it was already clear in late September of 2015 that the Obama administration would be opposing it. (It did so formally in November of that year.) As subsequent WikiLeaked emails have established, this was a political manoeuvre, carefully timed and stage-managed. If Clinton was to succeed in branding herself as a sequel to, or a simple continuation of, the Obama administration, it was important that she only retract or reiterate her position when that administration's became clear.

Nor, patently, have you read the emails and transcripts in which she slates the environmental movement that coalesced around this issue.

But none of this matters to you, does it? It suffices in your mind that she's only slightly less dangerous than Donnie Tinyhands. Liberal lesser-evilism is an extraordinary thing.

<snip>

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 19 November 2017 13:22:07 UTC+2, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]

> On Sunday, 19 November 2017 12:08:15 UTC+2, Mad Hamish wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 02:20:14 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > >On Tuesday, 24 October 2017 02:24:21 UTC+2, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 11:11:42 AM UTC+11, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]
> > >Oh, for goodness sake. You're obsessed, aren't you? I have two main reasons for hating Clinton, which I've shared with you before:
> > >1. On the campaign trail last year, she threatened war with Putin's Russia, in flagrant violation of the UN Charter, which forbids both the use and the threat of force. Russia has nuclear weapons.
> > A quick google finds 2 possible sources for this.
> > 1) a statement that the USA needs to increase readiness and
> > preparedness to deal with cyberattacks which does include a mention of
> > military action.
> > Which doesn't seem entirely unreasonable if an enemy country is trying
> > to, say, hack fire control systems, nuclear plants, take down the
> > electricity grid etc.
> Yes, I suppose it *is* true that in the event of a nuclear holocaust, all this would cease to be a problem.

This response, I regret to say, reads rather too much like the juvenile sarcasm which is your standard mode in these dicussions. So let me respond more substantively, with a pair of simple questions:

1. Would it have been "not entirely unreasonable" for Iran to launch a military assault on the United States after the latter's Stuxnet cyberattack of 2010?
2. Would it have been "not entirely unreasonable" for China to launch a military assault on the United States after the latter hacked into Chinese phone companies and CERNET, mining the internet data of millions of Chinese citizens?

Rodney

[RH156RH]

And what did you do in the apartheid era, laddie? RH

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 19 November 2017 13:35:35 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:
> And what did you do in the apartheid era, laddie? RH

You're going senile, Robert. You asked me that question less than two months ago, almost word for word:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.sport.cricket/VRHbGCehv0U/a98E8DxLAwAJ

Remember? No? You poor old thing. I'll have to repeat the response I gave at the time (and which you can check by clicking the link above, if you haven't lost it already):

"My memory of those years is foggy, but I'm reliably informed that I spent most of them crying, sleeping, eating and shitting myself. I was an infant when apartheid ended."

Whereas, going by the "Letters" columns of several magazines I've archived, you were already an addlepated fossil.

Rodney

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:22:07 PM UTC+11, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> I needed a cold shower and a stiff drink before I could read any of this, let alone respond to it. For the sake of brevity, I'm keeping to those of your effusions which aren't trite or pedantic. I can find only two of them.

Based on your definition of pedantic as "correct but disagrees with my opinion so must be wrong"

>
> On Sunday, 19 November 2017 12:08:15 UTC+2, Mad Hamish wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 02:20:14 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > >On Tuesday, 24 October 2017 02:24:21 UTC+2, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 11:11:42 AM UTC+11, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]
> > >Oh, for goodness sake. You're obsessed, aren't you? I have two main reasons for hating Clinton, which I've shared with you before:
> > >1. On the campaign trail last year, she threatened war with Putin's Russia, in flagrant violation of the UN Charter, which forbids both the use and the threat of force. Russia has nuclear weapons.
> > A quick google finds 2 possible sources for this.
> > 1) a statement that the USA needs to increase readiness and
> > preparedness to deal with cyberattacks which does include a mention of
> > military action.
> > Which doesn't seem entirely unreasonable if an enemy country is trying
> > to, say, hack fire control systems, nuclear plants, take down the
> > electricity grid etc.
>
> Yes, I suppose it *is* true that in the event of a nuclear holocaust, all this would cease to be a problem.

If a country is using cyberattacks as an attack action then military intervention may be an appropriate response.

If a country was trying to take control of the USA nuclear arsenal via cyberattacks wouldn't attacking it be justified?

The idea wasn't that "They've tried to read my email, nuke them."

>
> > 2) establishing a no-fly zone in Syria
>
> An unbelievably stupid thing to do.

Yeah, let's just abandon people to the mercies of the Syrian government...
and let Russia have their way anywhere they want.

> As Wikipedia's (woefully incomplete) list shows, we've been brought by far less to the brink of extinction:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls
>

Back to the fainting couch for you...

> > Now compare it to Trump's blustering on North Korea and statements
> > that he should send people back to Iraq to get the oil...
>
> Why should I make that comparison? Do you apologise for Mussolini because Hitler was worse, or for Lenin because his crimes were fewer and lesser than Stalin's?

Because Rodders, the two options for the presidency of the USA were Trump or Clinton.
Of the two Clinton has some idea of politics, international relations and is sane.

> You're a fucking moron if you do. To say that Clinton isn't as mad as Donald Trump is like saying she isn't as creepy as Harvey Weinstein, or as literal-minded as Hamish.

Yeah, this whole wanting to discuss facts rather than flights of fancy from the mind of Rodney is clearly strange behaviour...

iirc you've got a law degree, what do you actually do to make a living?

>Being less bad than The Worst doesn't make you good.
>
> And it *certainly* doesn't qualify you to play with the nuclear codes.
>
> [...]
> > >2. She stubbornly backed the Keystone Pipeline (over whose approval her State Department wielded no little power) even after James Hansen, NASA's chief climate scientist, and the man who first brought global warming to public attention, declared that it would mean "game over" for the planet.
> > http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/22/politics/hillary-clinton-opposes-keystone-xl-pipeline/index.html
> > By Eric Bradner, Dan Merica and Brianna Keilar, CNN
> > Updated 2323 GMT (0723 HKT) September 22, 2015
> > "Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she opposes the controversial Keystone
> > XL pipeline, taking sides with progressives who are fighting the
> > 1,179-mile project over environmental concerns.
> > The announcement, which comes after months of Clinton remaining mum
> > over the hot-button 2016 issue, immediately drew praise from liberals
> > and environmental groups but was criticized by Republican presidential
> > candidates."
> > So unless "stubbonly backed" has a meaning it appears that you're
> > somewhat out of line on the issue
>
> The trouble with you, Hamish, is that you have zero background knowledge of any of the issues we've been debating here, since you clearly didn't follow them in real time.
> You freely admit that you've just done some hasty googling and clicked on the first link that seemed to tell you what you wanted to hear.
>
> Clinton's ties to TransCanada are well documented. For example, the company's chief lobbyist, Paul Elliott, served as deputy director on her 2008 campaign. And in her public remarks on the subject while Secretary of State in 2010, she told him what he wanted to hear:
>
> "We've not *yet* signed off on it, but we are *inclined to do so*." (Emphasis added.)

So your idea of "stubbornly backing" is made a comment back in 2010 that they were leaning towards approving the pipeline but hadn't made a decision.
Then not signing off on it for the next 3 years.
That's your idea of stubbornly backing a project and rules her out of being considered for president?

>
> http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/22/politics/hillary-clinton-keystone-pipeline-history/index.html
>
> That is an expression of support.

Wow, you're really going all in on the "evil clinton wrecking the climate" cool aide.
Your entire case is that she stated in 2010 that they hadn't made a decision but were inclined to approve it.
Then by not commenting for years she's still stubbornly supporting it.

That's a long bow rodders.

> She refused subsequently -- and yes, stubbornly -- to retract it, or indeed to say anything more on the subject, on the ridiculous grounds that it would be inappropriate to do so while her State Department successors were considering it.

Doesn't really seem all that inappropriate.
Note that her statement was after the state department had finished their recommendations and around the time Obama was going to reject it.

>
> The retraction you cite (without, tellingly, calling it a retraction, or recounting the history I've just detailed) means nothing, since it was already clear in late September of 2015 that the Obama administration would be opposing it.

And Hillary couldn't have had a different position than Obama on the issue?
And Hillary's statements on the need to go to a non-carbon based power system
and her statements on climate change from 2014 suggest that it's not just a political pose

> (It did so formally in November of that year.) As subsequent WikiLeaked emails have established, this was a political manoeuvre, carefully timed and stage-managed.

It's a presidential campaign, deciding when and how to release policy is part of it.
the factors in timing the announcement included
- not trying to shut out Obama
- stopping Bernie hitting her with accusations that she was supporting it
- developing policies to minimize damage to relationships with unions and losses from voters who might feel affected by it.

Getting all hepped up because an announcement is stage managed and calculated during an election campaign is a degree of naivety I wouldn't expect from anybody past primary school.

> If Clinton was to succeed in branding herself as a sequel to, or a simple continuation of, the Obama administration, it was important that she only retract or reiterate her position when that administration's became clear.

Ah so her deep commitment to the pipeline and her being bought off only mattered until Obama finally (after 5 years) decided against it.

>
> Nor, patently, have you read the emails and transcripts in which she slates the environmental movement that coalesced around this issue.
>

"They come to my rallies and they yell at me and, you know, all the rest of it," Clinton said. "They say, 'Will you promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again?' No. I won't promise that. Get a life, you know."


Yeah, saying that she's not going to say that no fossil fuels will be taken out of the ground during her presidency clearly marks her as a shill for big oil.
Criticisms of environmental activists who ask her to make a comment like that are hardly unreasonable.
If she'd have come out with that position she'd never have got near an election and there is no way that it could be done without massive disruption and almost certainly huge loss of life.

She'd said back in 2014 that changes need to be made.
She had plans for the move away from fossil fuels and more would have been developed

> But none of this matters to you, does it?

Well seeing as your take on the world seems to be entirely unrelated to the actual facts or events I'm not entirely convinced that it means anything.

> It suffices in your mind that she's only slightly less dangerous than Donnie Tinyhands.

You really might want to have a look at policies Trump has put forwards if you think Clinton is only slightly less dangerous than he is.
Not to mention the next in line of Pence who'd like to tie you down and shock the demons out of you...

> Liberal lesser-evilism is an extraordinary thing.
>

Given that they were the two people with the faintest chance of getting the presidency and that Clinton is sane while Trump isn't it's a simple choice who to vote for.

As I recall the democrat candidates all of them seemed far more sane than any of the republican candidates.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

I'd missed a couple of things I meant to go back on comment on.

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:44:44 AM UTC+11, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:22:07 PM UTC+11, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The trouble with you, Hamish, is that you have zero background knowledge of any of the issues we've been debating here, since you clearly didn't follow them in real time.

Or I haven't been obsessing over them reshaping them in my find to fit my favored narrative...

> > You freely admit that you've just done some hasty googling and clicked on the first link that seemed to tell you what you wanted to hear.

I did some googling and found an actual quote from Clinton stating that she would not approve the Keystone XL pipeline about a year before the election.

> >
> > Clinton's ties to TransCanada are well documented. For example, the company's chief lobbyist, Paul Elliott, served as deputy director on her 2008 campaign.

Gee, TransCanada hires people with ties to the current president and current secretary of state to try and get their project up.
How unusual.

Now despite that the Department of State did not recommend that the pipeline be built and their report was only finalized after Clinton had left the department.
Nothing you've produced justifies the claim that she was stubbornly backing the idea.


If Saunders had become president companies would be hiring people with ties to him.

>> And in her public remarks on the subject while Secretary of State in 2010, she told him what he wanted to hear:
> >

That they hadn't made a decision but the initial thoughts were it was slightly in favor of it going ahead?
How controversial, clear signs she'd been bought and sold by big oil...

How about you provide any evidence that Hillary Clinton exerted pressure to get the pipeline built?

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:35:29 PM UTC+11, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 November 2017 13:22:07 UTC+2, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]
> > On Sunday, 19 November 2017 12:08:15 UTC+2, Mad Hamish wrote:
> > > On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 02:20:14 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> > > >On Tuesday, 24 October 2017 02:24:21 UTC+2, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 11:11:42 AM UTC+11, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> > [...]
> > > >Oh, for goodness sake. You're obsessed, aren't you? I have two main reasons for hating Clinton, which I've shared with you before:
> > > >1. On the campaign trail last year, she threatened war with Putin's Russia, in flagrant violation of the UN Charter, which forbids both the use and the threat of force. Russia has nuclear weapons.
> > > A quick google finds 2 possible sources for this.
> > > 1) a statement that the USA needs to increase readiness and
> > > preparedness to deal with cyberattacks which does include a mention of
> > > military action.
> > > Which doesn't seem entirely unreasonable if an enemy country is trying
> > > to, say, hack fire control systems, nuclear plants, take down the
> > > electricity grid etc.
> > Yes, I suppose it *is* true that in the event of a nuclear holocaust, all this would cease to be a problem.
>
> This response, I regret to say, reads rather too much like the juvenile sarcasm which is your standard mode in these dicussions. So let me respond more substantively, with a pair of simple questions:
>
> 1. Would it have been "not entirely unreasonable" for Iran to launch a military assault on the United States after the latter's Stuxnet cyberattack of 2010?

Never start a war where you'll get your arse kicked.
Saying that a deliberate destruction of property being used to develop vital resources makes a response worth considering.
If the destruction had been done with a missile an attack would be justified (but still unwise)

> 2. Would it have been "not entirely unreasonable" for China to launch a military assault on the United States after the latter hacked into Chinese phone companies and CERNET, mining the internet data of millions of Chinese citizens?

Compare that with the actual examples I gave and ask yourself what the differences are Rodders.

[RH156RH]

On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 1:10:20 PM UTC, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 November 2017 13:35:35 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:
> > And what did you do in the apartheid era, laddie? RH
>
> You're going senile, Robert. You asked me that question less than two months ago, almost word for word:

But its such fun watching you and Bob the Builder of pc fantasies squirm... RH
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.sport.cricket/VRHbGCehv0U/a98E8DxLAwAJ
>
>

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 19 November 2017 16:47:50 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:
> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 1:10:20 PM UTC, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, 19 November 2017 13:35:35 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:
> > > And what did you do in the apartheid era, laddie? RH
> > You're going senile, Robert. You asked me that question less than two months ago, almost word for word:
> But its such fun watching you and Bob the Builder of pc fantasies squirm... RH

I'm squirming for *you*, Robert. It's painful to see you lose control of your faculties in this way.

Rodney

[Bob Dubery]

There is no end to this argument. If you are posting to usenet, this means that you haven't been bludgeoned to death by the security forces and therefore you did not make a proper effort to protest against a policy that Henderson approves of.

You can see how he can argue this one forever. And he will.

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 19 November 2017 15:44:44 UTC+2, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]

> > On Sunday, 19 November 2017 12:08:15 UTC+2, Mad Hamish wrote:
> > > On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 02:20:14 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> > > >On Tuesday, 24 October 2017 02:24:21 UTC+2, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 11:11:42 AM UTC+11, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> > [...]
> > > >Oh, for goodness sake. You're obsessed, aren't you? I have two main reasons for hating Clinton, which I've shared with you before:
> > > >1. On the campaign trail last year, she threatened war with Putin's Russia, in flagrant violation of the UN Charter, which forbids both the use and the threat of force. Russia has nuclear weapons.
> > > A quick google finds 2 possible sources for this.
> > > 1) a statement that the USA needs to increase readiness and
> > > preparedness to deal with cyberattacks which does include a mention of
> > > military action.
> > > Which doesn't seem entirely unreasonable if an enemy country is trying
> > > to, say, hack fire control systems, nuclear plants, take down the
> > > electricity grid etc.
> > Yes, I suppose it *is* true that in the event of a nuclear holocaust, all this would cease to be a problem.
> If a country is using cyberattacks as an attack action then military intervention may be an appropriate response.

Except, you say, when the guilty party is the United States. Convenient, that.

> If a country was trying to take control of the USA nuclear arsenal via cyberattacks wouldn't attacking it be justified?

"If a country was trying to take control of the USA nuclear arsenal via cyberattacks," the first thing to do would be to take those weapons off-line (and thereby, incidentally, comply at last with their obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty). The next thing to do would be to take the matter to the United Nations and try to find a diplomatic solution. Failing that, the thing to do would be to secure a resolution from the Security Council. Failing that, the thing to do would be to ask whether it's worth violating international law, since the UN Charter protects "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence [only] if an *armed* attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." Emphasis added. It would also be worth asking, if the other country were a nuclear-armed Russia, if all this is worth the risk of human extinction. My opinion, since you ask, is that it's not. Your opinion, and that of Hillary Clinton, is that it is. I think you should both be institutionalised.

> The idea was that "They've tried to read my email. Let's seriously consider bombing them, and thereby risking the lives of everyone on this planet."

I've edited your remarks for accuracy.

> > > 2) establishing a no-fly zone in Syria
> > An unbelievably stupid thing to do.
> Yeah, let's just abandon people to the mercies of the Syrian government...
> and let Russia have their way anywhere they want.

The United States has not "abandoned" the Syrians to the mercies of anyone. It has actively *participated* in their slaughter, by arming actors like al-Nusra through its allies Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

And if they really wanted to topple Asad, they could easily have done so, and at relatively little cost. After all, their closest ally in the region, armed to teeth, is illegally occupying the Golan Heights barely sixty kilometres from the Syrian capital...

> > As Wikipedia's (woefully incomplete) list shows, we've been brought by far less to the brink of extinction:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls
> Back to the fainting couch for you...

That's a pretty remarkable response to the prospect of the planet's desolation. You *are* a maniac.

> > > Now compare it to Trump's blustering on North Korea and statements
> > > that he should send people back to Iraq to get the oil..

> > Why should I make that comparison? Do you apologise for Mussolini because Hitler was worse, or for Lenin because his crimes were fewer and lesser than Stalin's?
> Because Rodders, the two options for the presidency of the USA were Trump or Clinton.

Not true.

> Of the two Clinton has some idea of politics, international relations and is sane.

She is not. She was willing to countenance war with Russia. War with Russia would almost certainly be nuclear. And nuclear war would kill us all.

That is not sane.

[...]
> > > >2. She stubbornly backed the Keystone Pipeline (over whose approval her State Department wielded no little power) even after James Hansen, NASA's chief climate scientist, and the man who first brought global warming to public attention, declared that it would mean "game over" for the planet.
> > > http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/22/politics/hillary-clinton-opposes-keystone-xl-pipeline/index.html
> > > By Eric Bradner, Dan Merica and Brianna Keilar, CNN
> > > Updated 2323 GMT (0723 HKT) September 22, 2015
> > > "Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she opposes the controversial Keystone
> > > XL pipeline, taking sides with progressives who are fighting the
> > > 1,179-mile project over environmental concerns.
> > > The announcement, which comes after months of Clinton remaining mum
> > > over the hot-button 2016 issue, immediately drew praise from liberals
> > > and environmental groups but was criticized by Republican presidential
> > > candidates."
> > > So unless "stubbonly backed" has a meaning it appears that you're
> > > somewhat out of line on the issue
> > The trouble with you, Hamish, is that you have zero background knowledge of any of the issues we've been debating here, since you clearly didn't follow them in real time.
> > You freely admit that you've just done some hasty googling and clicked on the first link that seemed to tell you what you wanted to hear.
> > Clinton's ties to TransCanada are well documented. For example, the company's chief lobbyist, Paul Elliott, served as deputy director on her 2008 campaign. And in her public remarks on the subject while Secretary of State in 2010, she told him what he wanted to hear:
> > "We've not *yet* signed off on it, but we are *inclined to do so*." (Emphasis added.)
> So your idea of "stubbornly backing" is made a comment back in 2010 that they were leaning towards approving the pipeline but hadn't made a decision.
> Then not signing off on it for the next 3 years.
> That's your idea of stubbornly backing a project and rules her out of being considered for president?

She expressed support for the project while she had the power to do something about it. When she no longer had that power, she said nothing, and refused to retract her support until such time as it no longer mattered.

Yes. I do think that counts as stubborn.

> > http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/22/politics/hillary-clinton-keystone-pipeline-history/index.html
> > That is an expression of support.
> Wow, you're really going all in on the "evil clinton wrecking the climate" cool aide.
> Your entire case is that she stated in 2010 that they hadn't made a decision but were inclined to approve it.

A candidate for the Presidency of the United States, the most powerful office on the planet, expressed support for a pipeline that, according to her country's leading climate scientist, would destroy that planet. She only retracted that support when (a) it was no longer material and (b) politically expedient.

This is a simple statement of fact.

[...]

> > The retraction you cite (without, tellingly, calling it a retraction, or recounting the history I've just detailed) means nothing, since it was already clear in late September of 2015 that the Obama administration would be opposing it.
> And Hillary couldn't have had a different position than Obama on the issue?

She clearly did. I've *quoted* her taking a different position.

> And Hillary's statements on the need to go to a non-carbon based power system
> and her statements on climate change from 2014 suggest that it's not just a political pose

Why, then, was she "inclined" to sign off on that pipeline?

> > (It did so formally in November of that year.) As subsequent WikiLeaked emails have established, this was a political manoeuvre, carefully timed and stage-managed.
> It's a presidential campaign, deciding when and how to release policy is part of it.
> the factors in timing the announcement included
> - not trying to shut out Obama
> - stopping Bernie hitting her with accusations that she was supporting it

The accusation was that she *had* supported it, and had stubbornly failed to retract that support. That accusation was true.

> - developing policies to minimize damage to relationships with unions and losses from voters who might feel affected by it.
> Getting all hepped up because an announcement is stage managed and calculated during an election campaign is a degree of naivety I wouldn't expect from anybody past primary school.

Do try to keep up. I'm not objecting to the process as a process. I'm citing that process as part of my objection to the idea that this was some sort of principled stand. It clearly wasn't, because it contradicted her previous remarks on the subject. It was purely political.

> > If Clinton was to succeed in branding herself as a sequel to, or a simple continuation of, the Obama administration, it was important that she only retract or reiterate her position when that administration's became clear.
> Ah so her deep commitment to the pipeline and her being bought off only mattered until Obama finally (after 5 years) decided against it.

Exactly.

> > Nor, patently, have you read the emails and transcripts in which she slates the environmental movement that coalesced around this issue.
> "They come to my rallies and they yell at me and, you know, all the rest of it," Clinton said. "They say, 'Will you promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again?' No. I won't promise that. Get a life, you know."
> Yeah, saying that she's not going to say that no fossil fuels will be taken out of the ground during her presidency clearly marks her as a shill for big oil.

You think that conversation actually happened? You honestly believe that's a question she was asked on a regular basis? You don't have the slightest suspicion she's setting up a straw man?

You are very stupid.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 19 November 2017 16:15:24 UTC+2, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:35:29 PM UTC+11, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 1. Would it have been "not entirely unreasonable" for Iran to launch a military assault on the United States after the latter's Stuxnet cyberattack of 2010?
> Never start a war where you'll get your arse kicked.

The thing about nuclear war is that *everyone* gets his arse kicked. And yet you think it "not unreasonable" to risk such arse-kicking by attacking Russia. Kindly square this circle.

> > 2. Would it have been "not entirely unreasonable" for China to launch a military assault on the United States after the latter hacked into Chinese phone companies and CERNET, mining the internet data of millions of Chinese citizens?
> Compare that with the actual examples I gave and ask yourself what the differences are Rodders.

I'm not going to make your case for you. You are a very lazy person, you know that?

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 20 November 2017 11:31:51 UTC+2, Bob Dubery wrote:
> You can see how he can argue this one forever. And he will.

But now we know why: His wit is failing him.

Suddenly his psychosis is a lot more forgivable.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

It occurred to me just now, Hamish, that we're wasting our time with all this dancing around points of fact and emphasis. As a gesture of goodwill, I'm going to concede everything you've said. So far as I can tell, what we're left with is this:

1. You defend a woman who, in response to organised social-media propaganda and the hacking of emails, is prepared to consider a military attack on a nuclear-armed state.
2. You defend a woman who was "inclined" to support (even if she never "stubbornly" did so) an oil pipeline that would be disastrous for the planet and for civilised life.

Actually, it's less a gesture of goodwill than an awakening to the fact that your standard mode of argument is to grouse and nitpick until we can't see the wood for the trees. Even on your watered-down account, you're still defending the indefensible.

Rodney

[RH156RH]

Hamis and you are Tweedledum and Tweedledee ... RH

[Bob Dubery]

Come on. It's hardly his fault if your parents didn't throw baby Rodney at a policeman as a protest, or if you didn't literally spit your dummy into PW's face.

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 21 November 2017 19:00:28 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:
> Hamis

Who is Hamis? Now you're forgetting names as well.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 22 November 2017 07:43:30 UTC+2, Bob Dubery wrote:
> Come on. It's hardly his fault if your parents didn't throw baby Rodney at a policeman as a protest, or if you didn't literally spit your dummy into PW's face.

Since he's clearly well into his second childhood, you'd think he'd be more empathetic about the limitations of my first.

Rodney

[RH156RH]

Translation: Tweedledum meanders... RH

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 22 November 2017 18:01:10 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:
> Translation: Tweedledum meanders... RH

You've already used this one, Robert.

Rodney

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 3:08:22 AM UTC+11, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> It occurred to me just now, Hamish, that we're wasting our time with all this dancing around points of fact and emphasis. As a gesture of goodwill, I'm going to concede everything you've said. So far as I can tell, what we're left with is this:
>
> 1. You defend a woman who, in response to organised social-media propaganda and the hacking of emails, is prepared to consider a military attack on a nuclear-armed state.

You're making a massive jump there.
“We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses. And we’re going to invest in protecting our governmental networks and our national infrastructure. I want us to lead the world in setting the rules of cyberspace."

Political, economic and military responses.
It's pretty damned obvious that military responses would be for really serious situations such as, say, trying to hack military assets on patrol, serious damage to infrastructure etc.

> 2. You defend a woman who was "inclined" to support (even if she never "stubbornly" did so) an oil pipeline that would be disastrous for the planet and for civilised life.

I'm not seeing how transporting oil via a pipeline is more damaging than transporting it via other methods in terms of carbon impact
(there are major issues with the Keystone pipelines in terms of damage a leak can do, time will tell how much damage the recent leak will do) and the process of setting the route and handling of protests about it were abysmal.

But the fact of the matter is that the USA is going to need a large amount of oil for a significant time and the initial state department investigation saw it as a reasonable way to get that oil in.
Further investigation (including a review by the EPA) raised issues and investigation continued resulting in the department eventually not recommending the pipeline be built.

>
> Actually, it's less a gesture of goodwill

What a shock, you'd rather make cheap shots and ignore what actually happened because it doesn't fit your preferred narrative

> than an awakening to the fact that your standard mode of argument is to grouse and nitpick until we can't see the wood for the trees.

Where nitpick means produce actual quotes and sourced information to challenge your overhyped statements and asking you to justify your position.

> Even on your watered-down account, you're still defending the indefensible.

Except that your opinion on a watered down account is still going far beyond what the facts and statements actually show.

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 23 November 2017 16:02:47 UTC+2, a fucking idiot wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 3:08:22 AM UTC+11, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It occurred to me just now, Hamish, that we're wasting our time with all this dancing around points of fact and emphasis. As a gesture of goodwill, I'm going to concede everything you've said. So far as I can tell, what we're left with is this:
> > 1. You defend a woman who, in response to organised social-media propaganda and the hacking of emails, is prepared to consider a military attack on a nuclear-armed state.
> You're making a massive jump there.
> “We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses. And we’re going to invest in protecting our governmental networks and our national infrastructure. I want us to lead the world in setting the rules of cyberspace."
> Political, economic and military responses.
> It's pretty damned obvious that military responses would be for really serious situations such as, say, trying to hack military assets on patrol, serious damage to infrastructure etc.

No. She was speaking explicitly about the DNC hacks. Here's the full context:

"Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we've got to step up our game, make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us. As President, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses."

You're not even good at parsing anymore. Again, though, let's assume that we're all as semi-literate as you are, and concede the point you're trying to make. You think there are "really serious" cyber-attacks that would justify a planet-destroying response.

> > 2. You defend a woman who was "inclined" to support (even if she never "stubbornly" did so) an oil pipeline that would be disastrous for the planet and for civilised life.
> I'm not seeing how transporting oil via a pipeline is more damaging than transporting it via other methods in terms of carbon impact

The purpose of the pipeline is to transmit tar sands, arguably the filthiest of the planet's fossil fuels, and one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse-gas emissions in Canada. The opposition is to the substance being transported, not to the mode of transportation per se. It's extraordinary that I should have to explain this.

<snip more point-missing, purse-clutching waffle>

Rodney

[RH156RH]

Tweedledee speaks. RH

[RH156RH]

Tweedledum replies... RH

[Richard Dixon]

On Thursday, 23 November 2017 15:03:00 UTC, RH156RH wrote:

> Tweedledum replies... RH

Can someone remember to use this when Robert starts tag-teaming with his nom de plume Farmer Giles?

[MaybeNot]

Farmer Giles is his bum buddy.

[RH156RH]

Good to see you keeping your record of always being wrong... RH

[RH156RH]

You must make allowances for Malcolm because he is always projecting his sexual traits into ngs regardless of ng general subject... RH