Jump to content
Fancy running a forum? Sheffield Forum is for sale! Learn more


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About GhostRiders

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No it's not. The name Jehovah is an amalgamation of the Tetragammatron (YHWH) and the vowels from the phrase Adonai (which is translated from the Hebrew as my Lord) in somewhere between the 9th and the 12th century. It was first used widely as the name of God in the 16th Century. At the time of Jesus there was neither the letter, nor the phonetic 'J' in Hebrew so God literally cannot have been called Jehovah at that time. And this is why the easiest way to get rid of the Jehovah's Witnesses from your door is to present them with the facts and tell them that they're taking the Lord's name in vain. I'm blacklisted.
  2. Andrew is a good friend of mine who should be able to help https://www.facebook.com/Andrew-Jones-Tui-na-massage-and-Acupuncture-Sheffield-336092194501/
  3. I think you're thinking of one of the security guards who said that the part about the children singing ring o roses never happened. I find this very interesting as that's the only account of the children from the original story and yet to this day investigators claim to see them or contact them. As far as I am aware he still insists the rest of the story about the monk actually happened though. If this is the case I have no idea where the children part came from or how it got woven into the myth as fact, I suspect it was probably a case of Chinese Whispers.
  4. You did in fact state that I was not brainwashed, but by the same token you have also implied that those who aren't Corbyn supporters are duped by the media. So by my reckoning that makes me both not brainwashed but stupid enough to be duped by the people who are brainwashing people, which makes me believe you have realised your error and are now backtracking. Regarding meeting politicians face to face, I am sure that I already told you that I'm not going to trust anyone just because they speak scented words. Our political system is hardly renowned for its political elite coming to power and keeping their promises. To me Corbyn has a long way to go before pleasent words convince me. There's stuff he has, and hasn't done which has lead me to believe he's no different to any other politician, and having a fan base that bend over to defend him and go around wearing t shirts with his name on is not enough for this old dog to fall for it. If he comes to power and proves me wrong then brilliant (the same as if any party leader did that, regardless of party) but until that happens a bunch of hardline, he never does any wrong-ers telling me that he's wonderful just isn't going to cut the mustard.
  5. What would you recommend as an impartial source if not a complete third party? I don't think calling someone who is blatantly a massive Corbyn supporter a Corbyn lover is a barbed comment. Are you really sinking to going down that route when you yourself have suggested that if people don't support Corbyn they must be so stupid that they are brainwashed by the media. Stop and think for a second which is the worst of the two above examples.
  6. Yes you are, you posted a link to something that you considered, 'facts' (your words) to disprove the opinion of those you call 'haters' (your words). Therefore you are trying to prove something. The language you are using is betraying the words you are saying. Linguistically this is called 'implicature' and it is a philosophical term to describe exactly what you are doing. They don't make him look at all foolish. Again, your language betrays you. It is blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't in the trees that you're in the Corbyn wood. You quite obviously put the exceptionally biased, out of context link up as a form of 'evidence' to try and back up your own perspective. And you are fooling no one by saying otherwise. If you want an impartial view you would have linked to something like a cross section of the American media's opinion of Jeremy Corbyn (not necessarily America, France, Spain etc) basically any non UK country who is looking in from the outside. That would be considered impartial.
  7. You do realise that even the study Anna posted, by far the best piece of evidence posted by ANY Corbyn supporter I have ever seen regarding his unfair treatment by the press (I'm sure I don't need to remind you that it's not comparative so is useless as evidence that he is unfairly treated proportionately to other politicians) shows that out of the 8 newspapers looked at there was only one that had nothing positive to say about Jeremy Corbyn at all. You seem to have a very exaggerated view of the actual amount of negativity shown towards Corbyn by the media. And before you start calling me a Sun reader (I'm not) I'm using as evidence the academic study that Anna posted who's very aim was to find out if Jeremy Corbyn attracted negative media attention. The result clearly showed (and I agree) that Corbyn received over all negative press. It did not say, as you seem to be repeatedly pushing, that he does not receive ANY positive press at all. ---------- Post added 11-05-2018 at 15:47 ---------- And the Ironic post of the day award goes to..... Are you not very good with grammar or are you saying that you are God AND an intellectual? (Sorry, religious psychology and philosophy is MY area of expertise and that was too easy to resist. Don't get it? Research it. Shouldn't be too difficult you being an intellectual and all)
  8. I'm an ordinary person. I'm not being duped by the Daily Mail. I don't read the mainstream press. I only started looking at the media (not just newspapers) treatment of politicians since our previous conversation the other week. I'm reasonably intelligent. I admit politics isn't in general my field, but I do enough comparison in the areas I do have an interest in to be confident enough in myself that I do it as unbiased as possible. I have not seen any 'special' treatment of Corbyn. I have seen lots of Corbyn supporters highlighting (cherry picking) or even exaggerating the negative treatment of Labour, and Corbyn (usually depending on whether it's the press or other Labour Party members respectively) As I've said, and it seems others on this thread agree, that Corbyn supporters are so focused on their blind defence of him that they simply refuse that he is anything other than perfect. What's so offensive is that you (Corbyn supporters) seem to think that if we don't share your opinion of him that we must somehow be being duped by a negative media campaign. Has it not occurred to you that people can actually make their own minds up without being 'brainwashed' that they just don't see Corbyn as this special saviour of British politics?
  9. Cherry picking. Anti Corbyn stuff. Read what I said. Anna seemed to have the same difficulty reading the words I had written. I never, ever, for one second mentioned a pro Corbyn headline. Did I? That would be a no then. AS I have already stated, countless times to be fair, is that I am not saying that there is no anti Corbyn press. What I HAVE said, and for fear of repeating myself again, is that I haven't found a major difference between anti Corbyn and anti other politician media. The report that Anna provided (which, tbf is BY FAR the best attempt I have seen from any Corbyn supporter to legitimise the 'anti Corbyn media' rhetoric) is useless as a stand alone piece of evidence because it is not COMPARATIVE. It shows only that there is SOME negativity towards Corbyn in the media. I do not, nor have I ever denied this. The problem with it, and it is a massive, very important problem, is that it doesn't compare the negative media towards Corbyn to the negative media of other named politicians. To do this it would have to use different source material because the sources used do not claim to be unbiased. Some of them are known not to be party neutral. Now having read the report I'm sure it's author's would take that into account should they undertake a similar, comparative report, because the report, for what it was, was very good. And imo provided reasonable evidence for what it set out to achieve. So yes, cherry picking. If you insist on arguing at least read the words written before you jump on your high horse.
  10. And has already been established, which this study in no way, shape or form addresses could be said of many, perhaps even ANY other politician of any party. All this proves is the nature of the UK media, not that they are unfairly bias against Jeremy Corbyn, and we get to that word again, and for the risk of repeating MYSELF, COMPARATIVELY. That word is very, very important, because all you're doing is cherry picking anti Corbyn stuff. Ironically very similar to the charge you're levelling against the media.
  11. Not a problem, and that respect is duly returned.
  12. While I appreciate the link to the article (and read it carefully and with interest) I (ironically) found it to be slightly bias, although not by design. Let me explain. While I am not disputing the content I would be interested in seeing a report by the same people regarding other politicians to see how they faired (let's remember I've never claimed the British media are fair and impartial). Let's take, for example, the part of the report regarding Corbyn being targeted for his looks. Now imagine if that report was done concerning Boris Johnson. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue against the fact that he has come under more fire than any other British politician regarding his appearance. Yet this report has no comparable data to measure against. So while (and I don't disagree) it shows Corbyn has been misrepresented by the media,let's not forget that this was never my claim (that he hadn't) my claim was that comparatively he hasn't been treated overly negatively. This last bit is very, very important, because all that your link has shown is that he has been treated unfairly, not that he has been treated unfairly in comparison with other players. Overall it comes up with no real surprises. The right wing media have been more unfair than the left wing media? Well d'uh. Regarding it not being blind devotion, that's your opinion. I disagree. I don't know you but I cannot stress the people I do know who are Corbyn supporters do show this trait. You certainly are firing at 110% in defence of him despite having shown me nothing of real substance to change my mind. The linked to article just fuels my claim about blind devotion. You've linked to an article saying Corbyn has been unfairly treated. I've never once claimed our press aren't unfair or biased. What it hasn't addressed, at all, is my claim that I haven't seen anywhere near the one sidedness towards Corbyn that his supporters claim, to do this it would HAVE TO be comparative. So essentially you've either not understood, or point blank refused to acknowledge my argument in favour of trying to defend Corbyn at any cost. That to me suggests blind devotion. If you've not understood you've been so eager to defend him that you haven't read my post properly, if you've point blank dismissed my argument you've done so in order to defend him at any cost. Either way you've gone out of your way to try and defend him. There are many, many articles on line about the media bias against Jeremy Corbyn. However, the majority are the 'opinion' of bloggers and other supporters. Some are from his own camp which have been actively pushing this line and those that are, like this article 'non bias' are not comparative. Let me repeat again, just so you get it. I agree we have a bias and unfair media. I disagree that this unfairness is disproportionately aimed COMPARATIVELY towards Jeremy Corbyn. I have no doubt at all that you're sane (in fact I quite enjoy your posts, in general on Sheffield Forum, I just happen to disagree with you on this) unfortunately, referring to my earlier post, that's what scares me so much about the devotion of Corbyn's followers. If they were all eye rolling loonies then I wouldn't be anywhere near as concerned. The fact is that they are sane, otherwise rational people who seem to push all that aside when it comes to their devotion to JC. ---------- Post added 09-05-2018 at 19:20 ---------- To be fair to Anna the report is about media bias and unfair reporting so in that respect 74% is a high number. It's not about HIM, it's about how he's reported on. That still doesn't excuse the fact that it is no way shape or form comparative. All it really proves is that our media are toe rags, if we didn't already know that then there's not really much hope. One thing I neglected in my response to Anna (so for no particularly fair reason I'm going to lump it onto my response to you) is that one of the things the report criticised was Corbyn 'not having a voice' to respond to negative media. What this doesn't address, and I think this is important in light of the nature of the report is that one of my criticisms of Corbyn is his lack of response to things he SHOULD, in my opinion be responding to. This isn't the medias fault, it's his, or his office. I don't think the report is clear enough in this respect to differentiate. Is it that he doesn't have the platform to respond due to the media censorship or that he chooses NOT to respond due to, well whatever reason he chooses not to respond for. The report does not give us enough information to make a distinction.
  13. The blind devotion of Corbyn supporters genuinely frightens me. We've already had a previous conversation about this in which you simply blew his trumpet without actually addressing the point I made so there's no point trawling over old ground (my dissatisfaction with your answer was why I stopped talking to you the first time) If he was so inclined (and let me stress, I'm not suggesting for one second he is, and I appreciate this is a very extreme example) I could easily see his supporters turning a blind eye to him committing genocide. I've been doing a little bit of research since the last time we spoke, and the 'besmirching of his good name' seems, largely* to be lots of his supporters (and in some cases his camp) trying to create a 'woe is me, the media are so evil' campaign which has been bought into Hook, line and sinker. There are plenty of things that make me question his integrity. I stress again, no more than any other politician, but certainly enough to show me he's not the saint his supporters make out. But plenty of things that had they been done by 'the other team' his supporters would be all over it nitpicking every little detail. *I'm not suggesting the media have been 100% fair and impartial, this is not the nature of our media, but I haven't seen anywhere near the one sidedness claimed by Corbyn's camp/supporters. I think it's definitely more of a case of grasping at any bit of negativity and highlighting (or even exaggerating) it and ignoring the positive bits, and vice versa for the other parties.
  14. To character is more important than policies, because let's face it in Britain politicians (of all party's) have a habit of saying things when they want votes and 'forgetting' about them when they've been elected. Someone's character to me defines how likely they are to carry out their policies. I think assessing someone's character (which includes the friends they choose to associate with) is far more important than 'when I'm elected I'll give you the world'. Statements are easy to make, character is harder to maintain if you're intention is to dupe people. This isn't an attack on JC, it is a general statement aimed at all politicians/parties.
  15. I'm not putting anyone on a pedestal. There is a marked difference between accepting the faults of a leader and pretending that his stance on something you're fundamentally opposed to isn't his stance on it because you hold him to be beyond reproach. If it were a case of mild disagreement it probably wouldn't matter, but the fact is that Corbynites are at best, rude, but often downright nasty to Brexiteers simply because of their stance, regardless of their political affiliation yet simply ignore Corbyn's stance on it. On the one hand it's burying your head in the sand but on the other it's potentially dangerous idolisation.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.