12 September 2009

Daily Chat 12/09/09

In 1846, Elizabeth Barrett eloped with Robert Browning. Arbroath defeated Bon Accord 35-0 in what is still the most lopsided victory in professional football in 1885. The Lascaux cave paintings were discovered in 1940. Bonanza became the world's first regularly-scheduled tv programme to be broadcast in colour in 1959. Emperor Haile Selassie was deposed by the Derg in 1974 and Steve Biko was killed in police custody in 1977.

Notable births: Lorenzo II de Medici (1492-1519), Henry Hudson (1575-1611), H.H. Asquith (1852-1928), Maurice Chevalier (1888-1972), Jesse Owens (1913-1980), Ian Holm (1931), George Jones (1931), Michael Ondaatje (1943) and Neil Peart (1952).

It is National Day in Cape Verde.


  1. "Steve Biko was killed in police custody in 1977."

    and then sometime later he was properly remembered at Ruskin College Oxford. He thus has something in common with a UK hero of the left- the Beast of Bolsover

  2. Hank: Sorry to have missed you last night.

    *I'm sure there's a lot of you on here who find me boring and a tired old class warrior, which is why I don't bother you much anymore*

    Not me, mate. You can “bother” us as much as you like, in my book.

    *You guys have put out like Parisian brunettes for chewing gum and nylons...*

    *I can't help feeling that there's something a little bit, well, sordid, incestuous, back-covering about it all*

    *And then they're both over here trying to put out the fires, and then, well heh, throwing choccie coins to the carnival goers*

    I suspect there may be an element of that on their side, Hank, but if they think they can buy us off with one ATL piece, one Best of Comment inclusion and one Best of the Web citation (welcome as all those are), they really don’t know us very well.

    I’m going to carry on in my normal iconoclastic way, pouring scorn on their stupidity and pointing out their hypocrisy, and I’m sure you’ll do the same. It’s nice to have a new pair of nylons and some chocolate though...

    Maybe it’s a little early in the day, but here’s a tune for you, Hank:

    Rock the Casbah

    Never my favourite Clash song, but it includes a little in-joke that I hope you appreciate.

  3. 'Arbroath defeated Bon Accord 35-0 in what is still the most lopsided victory in professional football in 1885.'

    You mean 36-0 Montana; you are conflating that Scottish cup tie with another game in Fife on the same day, in which Dundee Harp beat Aberdeen Rovers 35-0.


    Hi Hank - I echo andy. I liked your voice on Cif and I like it here.

  4. *'Arbroath defeated Bon Accord 35-0 in what is still the most lopsided victory in professional football in 1885.'

    You mean 36-0 Montana; you are conflating that Scottish cup tie with another game in Fife on the same day, in which Dundee Harp beat Aberdeen Rovers 35-0*

    So which game were you at, Edwin?

    Next you’ll be telling us about the night you spent dancing in the streets of Raith...

  5. #I suspect there may be an element of that on their side, Hank, but if they think they can buy us off with one ATL piece, one Best of Comment inclusion and one Best of the Web citation (welcome as all those are), they really don’t know us very well.#

    I don't think "buying off" comes into it. They want a bit of controversy..bit of debate...they just want to confine it to a narrow spectrum of opinion whose limits they can dictate. They also want the debate conducted on their terms, in a language and manner they determine and...above all...they want certain ATL writers to exude a sort of unchallenged authority.

    You are allowed to challenge them on trivial factual interpretations but outright ridicule is not permitted, opposition from the right or social conservative side of the 'kosher' waveband gets you branded a rightwing nutjob or libertarian psychotic (and they let you stick around as a comic turn/ Aunt Sally) while dissent from the left gets you banned.

    The whole thing's bloody disgrace. Course if you happen to naturally fit into the acceptable zone, you look around you at the variety of nice, well meaning, largely reasonable punters and think it's the very essence of a reasoned, civilised liberal debating forum.

    It isn't though...it's an ideologically tight and dogmatic arena. This isn't immediately apparent because ideology and dogma have connotations which apply themselves more naturally to the extreme left or right...but there is no conceivable reason that they can't apply to centrist bourgeois thinking...this also carries with it an associated veneer of reasonableness since a 'centre' carries with it a notion of a happy 'natural mean'.

    The mask only slips when there is consistent well argued deviation from the hymnbook...since such deviation often requires making reference to the tight-knit, cabalistic, self-serving nature of CIF and the similarity in background, education and outlook of their employees (as well as the rank nepotism and favouritism)...they can always pass it off as abusive, intentionally vexatious or off topic.

    Fuck 'em

  6. They call it bilocation andy! I was with Partick Thistle that day but damned if I can remember the score.

    Gordon Brown is a Rovers fan - I think genuinely a Rovers fan, as well, though the adjective 'genuine' never fits the man.

  7. And of course Raith are, I guess, the only club anywhere with a stand sponsored by a lesbian crime writer: Val McDermid sponsors the North Stand which has been renamed in honour of her father, who scouted Jim Baxter.

    Ah memory lane: when I was a wee laddie I remember Slim Jim and Ferenc Puskas out on a massively drunken night which entered legend before it ended!

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. And as if on cue...CIF Bingo...Who'd want to fall into the 'trap' of mentioning Tuscany, nepotism, Toynbee's learning difficulties etc. after this...a cack-handed attempt at silencing all too justifiable criticism disguised a knowing self-deprecation...

    Kinda says...by all mean mention this stuff but just appreciate you'll be considered an unimaginative, clichéd ingrate...stop complaining..."it's sooooooo boring". This has to be the most cynical move yet...they nearly kinda acknowledge their all too glaring faults...yet they do nothing to remedy the situation...instead they they try to stifle criticism by making it "uncool"...pathetic.

    Moaning about the rank contradictions makes you some kinda droning swot?...why not shut up and get with Bella and Whatsherface...the cool kids having a fag behind the bike sheds?...they don't harp on about the same ol' boring stuff...they're lively, exciting, sophisticated..

    Anyway here's a suggestion for CIF Bingo...that wonderful moment when quality control fucks up and we get something like "be nice to your nanny week"..when the mask slips and you realise that someone has read that and put it up, thinking .."hmmm good stuff..thoughtful...relevant".. without realising the pretentious and condescending tone it carried. Just think of the level of elitism and self-conceit required to read that piece and regard it as relevant comment...So my suggestion for a card.."All embracing liberal bourgeois condescension"...a sort of wild card you can play after reading the first paragraph of 90% of ATL pieces

  10. I'm inclined to agree with monkeyfish here. When many of the usual 'big C' suspects venture btl, I'm always struck by the tedious sameness of their comments. It's as if there is no possibility of independent thought and that the 'centrist bourgeois line' is all that is permitted anyway.

    Of course, it may well be that the various monikers disguise the fact that there is actually only one big C poster btl, rather than just many (identical) expressions of the hive mind. Either way, read one, and you've read 'em all.

  11. CIF Bingo..."Nostaglic reference to someone barred for "INFANTILE" behaviour."

    Constant criticism of Guardian hypocrisy is....INFANTILE...bring on the gown ups to keep us all in line.

    If you don't appreciate CIF, then basically you've got 'maturity' issues. FFS...you couldn't make this stuff up.


  12. monkeyfish:

    I think I’d agree absolutely with what you say about the unwritten rules of Cif. Maybe six months ago I was a little more naive and optimistic, but now my natural cynical instincts are back to the fore.

    We shouldn’t be surprised or outraged when they come down hardest on dissent from the left, just as we’re no longer surprised or outraged at police violence on picket lines or demonstrations.

    This is what the ruling class does, isn’t it? And whatever they might say or think, The Guardian is as much an arm of the ruling class as the police.

    I also still think that it’s worth those of us who see it that way to carry on fighting our corner on Cif, even if it’s increasingly a rear-guard action and the attrition rate gets ever higher.

    What you and Hank have done since you were both banned gets my total respect, and I hope that your final *Fuck ‘em* doesn’t mean you’re about to walk away.

    Keep on keeping on...

  13. monkey notbuying this latest lineof shit eitherfish12 September, 2009 10:51

    And where are Bella or Zena the Princess warrior to tell me to "lighten up ...Sheeesh...it was only a bit of fun"?


    "Criticism's so..like last week.. daddio"

  14. Off to library to get pirate books, some quick random thoughts

    - Cif was great place, not so great now but still much much better than most (just look at Scotsman threads!)

    - but not for me any more

    - Untrusted is fab place for Cif exiles, permanent or temporary, and dissidents, and the Cifmesisters do take notice of the gabble here

    - they take notice because if they lose regulars they risk being left with deadheads and wackos and trolls (fill in your examples) and this makes a hard sell to advertisers

    Right, am off

  15. I just wanted to thank you for your intervention in the garrrrd..I cant post there any more and all my profile has disappear.I suppose critical voices non fitting something who starts to look much more like a moodymodd dictature of complexity phobic vain people "in charge" playing nasty games have to get send to the "thought gulag" during the absurd descriptions can not be reported.not truly egalitarian justice.I hope,it was ok..to use your blog...It simply felt warm to the heart,to have been noticed...as many other probably..who get abused same way.

  16. Forgot to tell that some post simply disappeared(not even marked as "deleted"!) ,that way what was said can not be understood by someone coming later...who wants to make up his own mind.

    That reminds me a poem of an old friend,R.D.Laing about people playing games.

  17. Will get back to you later, MF, Andy et al, have a terrible confession to make. Involves hypocrisy and fraternising with the enemy...

  18. Hi Anonymous, welcome to Untrusted.

    Hope you’ll stick around now you’ve found where we are. Be interested to hear who you were on Cif if you’d like to reveal that to us.

    But for now I’m off down to the allotment to engage in what’s apparently the newly-fashionable-among-the-bien-pensant-chattering-Guardianista-classes activity of digging up my potatoes.

    Catch you all later for a Fair Trade latte.


  19. At the end of the day the Graun and, in particular, CiF is there to proselytise the New Labour party line. New Labour began moving away from the Left years and years ago, and, imo, now finds itself even further to the Right than the LibDems, and the Graun has followed suit.

    However, unlike most news sites (the only other exception being The Inde, but I don't like their format) what the Graun does is to allow people to post what they like, to a very large extent, in response to the articles they put up. (Ever tried posting a comment on the Times, for example? It is a complete farce. )

    Yes we disagree about different aspects of what is being disseminated in CiF. Yes, we don't like the inexorable shift to the Right, and away from the working class it was traditionally supposed to support.

    But attacking the Graun as an entity for publishing what they publish in the first place, or ad homs against the ATL'ers for being hypocrites is a bit like attacking the Daily Mail for being Little Englanders. It won't change a bloody thing and will just end up with people being banned.

    But what you are all forgetting is that it is their website. They pay for it. They get to say what is published on it. They get to say what they want to see published in response to it. And when you start looking at it from that angle, of course it isn't right to call something Comment Is Free, then start whacking dissenters, but there is ultimately bugger all we can do about that. He who pays the piper etc...

    On the other hand, taking the ATL pieces to task on their content - instead of resorting to "Polly is a hypocrite because she has a house in Tuscany" -type responses (and god knows I have my own reasons for intensely disliking Polly) - is pretty much permitted without interference, even if it goes completely against the "party line". As I said, the only other UK news website that allows that to happen is the Inde.

    Of course people get angry with the ATL'ers. But what purpose does it serve to call them liars or hypocrites?

    Are the Graun going to change their position based on what we, a bunch of sometimes disgruntled online readers say, when their paymasters and key advertisers are calling the shots and paying their wages? Nope.

    Are they going to stop commissioning well-known money-spinning ATL'ers because their view of the peasants from their Tuscany patio is warped and hypocritical? Nope.

    Are they going to remove comments/ban posters who ad hom their ATL'ers? Probably, because they don't want their noses rubbed in it.

    So what options are there? Either comment and accept the parameters and, if the parameters piss you off, lay off it for a while. Or, start up a website where comment really is free because it is not being influenced by advertising revenue and politically-driven corporate policies.

    I realise I may not be making myself very popular by posting this, but tbh I don't give a crap. I go to CiF for a good rant about things that get on my wick. I get really pissed off when I get a comment removed. But I am under no illusions as to the value of my influence on CiF which, added to the 50p piece I can see sat on my table here, is worth about 50p.

    Finally - I love you all and it pisses me off that many of you have been banned, or have taken yourselves into exile as a result of being attacked. Which is what brought me to this place in the first place, because I wanted to be able to keep "talking" to you even if you weren't on CiF anymore.

    So there.

  20. BB,
    Yep their ball, their game and we signed up to play. I rarely do so now though.

  21. @BB - first off, no offence meant to you, or anne or montana by last night's post. I'd rather see you lot get some recognition and some space on CiF than Matt's dinner party guests, Geoffrey Alderman and sundry other tossers who get unwarranted room to spout off.

    As for "he who pays the piper", well, up to a point. But as has been said so often, people don't read Cif for the articles, they read them for the debate. Many of the posters are better informed, wittier and more interesting than any of the journos. So, I do think that they should be entitled to a bit more respect from the Graun.

    And if the Graun or its star writers want to take the moral high ground on issues like tax, equality, a more progressive society, then it's wholly appropriate that we should point out the hypocrisy in their position when it comes to the use of tax havens or nepotism.

    If they want to encourage debate, then those points are relevant, whether it's uncomfortable for them or not.

    Silencing that debate by deleting comments or banning posters makes them look a bit fucking weak, at best.

  22. monkey notbuying this latest lineof shit eitherfish said...

    And where are Bella or Zena the Princess warrior to tell me to "lighten up ...Sheeesh...it was only a bit of fun"?


    "Criticism's so..like last week.. daddio"

    That's uncanny, I posted that exact thing: http://tinyurl.com/nnh3mv


  23. Thank you for the welcome...I don't think we are completely irrelevant...considering how often they pick up our creativity for their articles...not to mention the solidarity created by voices speaking up at least questioning the paradigm..it feels a good thing to recognise in other patterns of awareness.My relatives have often over the century speaking up against circumstance being inside them...it needs this courage to change things and save people sometimes(even if some "lost their heads" in the past for it..it helps those in the future...to make a "difference"!).I am the one..recommending to "think your self".

  24. seems this "beauty" is easy on calling people names...in mycase.."mental" and terrifiying to know me in that job"

  25. some are more equal than others..."staff" talking abusive crap is "etiquette"...commentators lousing all their comments of the past,because of the bruised ego of room "princess" in a situation...is..eat shit&smile to it...!

  26. Hank

    No offence taken, mate - you know that!

    I am just being the usual hippy/buddhist/middle-way-er that I am and trying to put forward the hard-nosed reality of the situation, rather than making excuses for it.

    But, as I just posted on the CiF Bingo thread, we may not have the influence or the respect that we are due, but we are certainly not ignored either, and that is completely different from any other online news site I have ever been on.

    Which is a good start...

  27. It's... just.. a.. newspaper!
    Every criticism MF and Hank is made is fair crit... But it's still... just a newspaper. I've got nowhere else to go in my working day that even comes close to being as good as the graun... even at it's worst..
    The stalinist wiping of 'banned' posters posts is very fucking childish... and apart from that.. I don't know what else to say...

  28. Hi all,

    I agree that the CiF bingo will probably be used as a quick, linkable "shut the f*ck up" to many of the common statements on CiF, no matter how justified it might be in that case.

    That would be feeble though, considering everyone posting has an agenda. I noticed one ATL contributor posting about herself, casting herself as the victim.

    What will be interesting is the suggestions that make the final card set ;)


  29. One more thing.. Why have a go about Jess and Bella turning up here? What's wrong with that? Is it not open house here? I don't see them as an 'enemy'... I can think of other targets as an enemy far more...

  30. okeliedokelie

    As I said in my last post on the bingo thread. I recognised myself and had a little chuckle...

    But it doesn't mean I will stop doing it! :o)

  31. BB, you're not the person I was referring to just in case you thought that. I completely agree with what you said about the [whisper] online community [/whisper] thing.... I couldn't bring myself to say it either :o)

    It is a funny little ecosystem.

    If we had a thread where we tried to guess what each other looked like would it turn nasty? It probably would, wouldn't it...

    Kizbot: I can think of other targets as an enemy far more...

    Who? Who?? :o)


  32. Interesting points by some of the regulars, but I should really be hospitable to our new arrival first.

    thinkyourself: Welcome again.

    I’ve just tried to access your Cif profile and it does appear that you have been banned.

    I don’t know how long you were posting on Cif for. I only started to notice your comments very recently, and I have to say some of them looked a little incoherent to me (that’s not a criticism, just an observation).

    I assumed that perhaps English wasn’t your first language; do I remember a French connection? Anyway, for people to dismiss you or anyone else by using mental illness references is definitely offensive, at least as far as I’m concerned.

    Do you know why you’ve been banned? Was it you who got into an exchange with JessicaReed where she said she felt like smashing your face in, or was that someone else?

    If so, it’s pretty fucking ironic, though I don’t imagine you’ll be laughing about it right now.

    You may have noticed that someone (disordered I think was the name) has mentioned on WDYWTTA? the issue of the stigmatisation of those with mental health problems.

    I see that a poster called traneroundthebanned has responded positively, and that his opinions are uncannily similar to mine.

    I hope you’ll stick around, and you might want to create a google Account so you can continue to appear as thinkyourself.

    It’s a good name; don’t give it up just because Cif have kicked you out.

  33. On the Gary Nunn piece on cif he's burbling about how working class kids do not have the contacts that middle class ones have.
    I asked who did he know at the Guardian. Must have struck a nerve, Moderated. Fucking pathetic turds.
    Think I'll pull out of Cif, at least Toynbee wont be able to pinch my stuff.

  34. Hi thinkyourself

    You could create a new CiF account- thinkwhatthemodstellyoutothink... but it is less catchy :)

    I seem to vaguely remember that you're french, or have I dreamt that? If so, I'm sorry :)

    I'd be intrigued to know what happened to get you so utterly deleted. I didn;t know banned people's accounts were deleted, I assumed we'd still be able to see the unmodded stuff they posted.


  35. Thinkyourself,
    If you create a new account don't say so on here. It's an open site and the Atl arseholes on Cif trawl it for the ideas they can't come up with themselves.

  36. I think I’m somewhere between Hank and BB in my attitude to Cif.

    On the one hand, I’m constantly infuriated by both the vacuous nonsense they serve up and the complete double standards of much of the moderation. And I don’t care, frankly, if it’s better than any other mass-media blog. It’s because of what The Guardian is supposed to stand for and what it means to many of us that it infuriates me in a way that similar treatment by The Independent wouldn’t.

    It is, as Hank says, pure hypocrisy for many of their ATL journalists, who come from and continue to enjoy positions of huge privilege, to pontificate from on high about things they really know very little about, and it adds to the hypocrisy when the severest punishments are reserved for those who dare to criticise The Guardian and its stable of thoroughbred opinion-formers.

    The example of what appears to have happened to thinkyourself is just typical, and while it’s obviously no consolation to him/her, those of us who have been around for any length of time are surely not surprised. Annoyed yes, maybe even outraged, but not surprised.

    But on the other hand, while I occasionally feel a strong urge to call them all cunts (metaphorically at least), I can see that that won’t really be productive. It just gives them an excuse, and fuck knows they don’t need much of one, to ban any sort of dissenting voice.

    I now try to remain within the guidelines, because I can’t see any point in making a comment which is going to be censored and which is possibly going to lead to me being pre-modded again.

    I hope that hasn’t led me to not criticise where I feel it’s appropriate, but rather that I’m slightly more careful about the way I do it. Is that self-censorship? Possibly, but we all have to make the way we express ourselves fit the situation we’re in.

    And I can always come here to slag off some ATL fuckwit if I really need to.

    Obviously we each decide for ourselves how we approach it, but it seems to me counter-productive to make comments which we know are going to get us banned and then complain when it happens. There’s an imbalance of power, and we have to be a little bit crafty how we approach it.

    We’ll use the one thing we’ve got more of
    And that’s our minds

  37. Bella M

    #But with such a lot of voices on cif, you're bound to get some pretty well worn sayings getting used here. Most of them are like old friends, it's just meant to be an affectionate look at them.#

    Interesting that you think of them as "old friends"...we must have a different take on friendship. See my liberal use of "old friends" seems to have resulted in multiple deletions and bannings. When an old friend comes around to call, I tend to ask them inside have a good old natter, crack a few cans of Special Brew etc.

    You, I assume, wack then over the head, dismember the body then bury them under 6 feet of concrete before scouring the place of every trace of their existence...probably why I never really fitted in in middle-class circles...I'm just too "friendly".

    I'm certainly too friendly to be suggesting you shouldn't post here as kiz seems to have implied I've done. Apart from making me a bit of a hypocrite, that wouldn't be my style at all. Can't promise I won't lay into anything you say mercilessly however...again that would be hypocritical of me and please feel free to reciprocate...just do me one favour...when talking about CIF policies..never start a sentence with "I can assure you that..."

    None the less...I retain a fair degree of scepticism regarding your motives for coming here.


    I have no problem with anyone turning up here...not like it's anything to do with me anyway...I'm cool with Bella, the other one, Lord Lucan or Bin Laden nipping in to air an opinion or two...

    I'm just aware of the fact that while CIF seems to running a charm offensive, the policy of bannings, deletions, stifling of dissent has in no way been downgraded...meanwhile commissioning of articles relevant to only a tiny, relatively privileged, unrepresentative section of society (which might be reasonably termed upper middle-class arts-graduate liberal) continues unabated. It just seems to me you're all being tempted inside the fold and offered a few crumbs which they hope you'll accept in exchange for toeing the line...which is OK. I'd just like them to be above board about it all.

    I don't even have an issue about being banned...it's their site...they make the rules (maybe it would be nice if they applied them consistently but WTF?)...it just irks me that they go to such enormous lengths to paint the place as open and largely democratic when it just isn't. They can be as authoritarian as they like..just as long as they're honest about it.

    For all the 'amnesties'..'we care and we listen' manoeuvres and the rest...nothing's actually changed and this latest Bingo stunt rather demonstrates the contempt in which posters are held. I really wonder which first-class Oxbridge "tactical supremo" came up with this today's little gem. Anyhow..on a personal note...I think it's now safe to append to the crimes of editorial pretension and condescension, the additional charge of being a bit thick.

    I used to like CIF..maybe 5% of that was ever down to the ATL stuff...there's very little of that which appeals...maybe 5 or 6 articles stick in the mind from about 2 years worth. I liked the fact that it isn't pre-modded and I liked the BTL carrying on...ATL is still pretty dire...all they had to do was go for a bit of 'light-touch' moderating...instead they've completely soured the atmosphere by moderating on ideological grounds and attempting to 'protect' some pretty awful commentators...it's been a disaster.

    I don't post there any more anyhow...I still look at a couple of things..Marina Hyde has always been worth looking at and I take a peek at Cohen on a Sunday strangely enough. I was looking for Ms Hyde when I came across the disastrous bingo thread which I think pretty much confirmed everything I'd posted here this morning. I'll have to stop clicking around during such visits...it just serves to piss me off. And now I'm officially an "outside the tent pissing in" kinda guy...it would be a bit much if I was taking a peek while relieving myself...that'd be creepy.

  38. kizbot: I agree with what you say about not having a go at Bella and Jess for turning up here.

    When Bella came looking for Montana yesterday, I thought that was great, both that she wanted to include Montana’s piece and that she wanted to OK it with her first.

    And more generally, I think it’s good that we can have some dialogue with Cif staff on more neutral turf – though I don’t think it will lead to any changes in the way things happen over there.

    But I also reckon that it’s unrealistic to expect that at least some us are not going to give them a bit of a rough time when they do venture in, particularly if they attempt to defend what some of us see as the indefensible.

    I’m sure they realise that; they know that there are a fair number of dissidents here, and that they won’t be given an easy ride. Credit to them for making the effort, even if I’m unlikely to agree with much of what they have to say.

  39. okelie:

    As I understand it, when you’re banned or otherwise removed your profile page is blanked, but any comments you’ve made still remain in the original threads.

    So the profile page for andysays is no longer there, but most of the comments I made are still on the threads.

    thinkwhatthemodstellyoutothink would be a great name, BTW, but there’s a limit of 20 characters on Cif IDs, at least there was the last time I registered half a dozen new IDs ;-)

  40. andy,
    sure you're right, if the mods weren't what they are we wouldn't have much of a site here.
    I'm quite sure that the Guardian staff think kindly of us while sunning themselves in Tuscany but they wouldn't be too happy if we turned up.

  41. monkeyfish:

    *It just seems to me you're all being tempted inside the fold and offered a few crumbs which they hope you'll accept in exchange for toeing the line...*

    That may well be the idea, but I’m confident that most of us are too long in the tooth and too bloody contrary to fall for it. But as I said to Hank, I’m not going to turn down a new pair of nylons and some chocolate.

    BTW, I plagiarised one of your comments to go on that Bingo thread; hope you don’t mind. It’s the sincerest form of flattery, apparently.

  42. *I'm quite sure that the Guardian staff think kindly of us while sunning themselves in Tuscany but they wouldn't be too happy if we turned up.*

    Don’t know what you mean, colin, I’ve got an open invite to the Villa Toynbee. Bella sorted it for me in return for easing off on my criticism of ATL writers ;-)

  43. "BTW, I plagiarised one of your comments to go on that Bingo thread; hope you don’t mind. It’s the sincerest form of flattery, apparently."


    The only thing that would get me to Tuscany is a personal invite from Sting, where the two of us would have the place to ourselves and a few bottles of valpolicella, while his missus was off on a plane saving us from global warming somewhere...

    Tantric? Not 'arf! Phwoar!

    Also, bienvenue a thinkyourself.

  44. andy,
    Grovelling git......oh all right..:)
    Some of the 'ladies' on here are a bit much wouldn't you say?

  45. colin

    "Some of the 'ladies' on here are a bit much wouldn't you say?"

    You talking to me?! You talking to ME? Then who the hell else are you talking to?

  46. Thinkyourself

    Are you related to hou121 ?

  47. monkeyfish,

    I came here to try and answer a question by LordSummerisle originally. I don't have any motives and I'm not paid extra to be here. I just know that good stuff comes out of this site (eg Montana's piece yesterday) so I sometimes take a look. I don't have to comment if it annoys you.


    I'm upgrading you - first week in August at Casa Trudie ok?



  48. You're OK in my book, Bella. As I said t'other day, as far as I'm concerned everyone is welcome here.

    Lord S

  49. Bella: make it two weeks, with a guarantee that Sting won’t be there, and we might have something to talk about.

    But don’t say anything to anyone else – they’ll only be jealous.

    Feel free to drop in again, but don’t be surprised if some of us are a little caustic at times. We're only like that because we care...

  50. 'http://www.palagioretreats.com'

    God I can't see a price list - I suppose if you have to look then you can't afford it anyway, unless you write for the Guardian. One of the Guardian's senior staffwriters is an old acquaintance, and when he told me how much the Guardian was paying him to move there, my darjeeling went up the wrong way alas.

    BB, I should warn you that Sting is on record - in several senses of course - but on tantricums specifically, as saying it was all made up, as of course are most descriptions of astonishingly good sex.

    People always laugh at Trudi but i thought she was marvellous in Love Soup.

    On the matter at hand, Bella I am as much a guest here as you and Jess, and as far as I'm concerned the Untrusted is like the Saracen's Head down the Gallowgate when my dad worked there - huns and fenians alike were welcome, everyone was welcome, as long as you didn't spit in people's glasses and pee against the counter.

    Actually there was a Bella there c. 1960 who used to pat me on the head when I got my dad's war pension off him. I don't suppose. . .

    Caustic and soda please!

  51. LordS, andysays, EdwinMoore ta very much all.

    andysays - you make no mention of Trude, so I take it you specifically want her to be there?

    EdwinMoore, sadly I am not that Bella, and I've never spat in anyone's glass. Ashed in a couple, but only when provoked.

  52. 'I am not that Bella'

    Thank goodness for that, it would make you about 110!

    'andysays - you make no mention of Trude, so I take it you specifically want her to be there?'

    I think you can safely assume that practically all men of any hue or preference would want Trudie to 'be there', if for many & varied reasons.

    Now back to domestic duties and the Proms - good night chums, good will to all.

  53. Bella, Edwin:

    I’m not in the least familiar with Trudie, but I suspect her presence wouldn’t be a special incentive. I’m also assuming she’s not part of the package.

    And maybe we should formally adopt the admissions policy of the Saracen's Head:

    *The Untrusted – everyone welcome, as long as you don't spit in people's glasses or pee against the counter*

  54. #I don't have to comment if it annoys you.#

    What's that meant to mean? I don't think my getting annoyed is any reason for anyone to stop posting anywhere. Never stopped anyone before..besides the whole fuckin world annoys me...what makes you think you're so special?

    That said,I did think that your description of certain of the comments on Bingo cards as "old friends" was a bit ironic given the moderators' stance on the subject...for instance how can Tuscany or Nepotism be viewed as an "old friend" at CIF when even a cryptic reference to the place has at times led to deletions,pre-modding and bannings?...just asking...since it now appears it was all a bit of a laugh.

    Can I play that tune too?...("Oh don't mind me...the digs about nepotism, Polly's intellectual deficiencies and Matt Seaton's bourgeois sensibilities were just me kiddin' around...no hard feelings")...Nope?...thought not. One rule..etc etc.

    As I explained earlier I don't even have a problem with the way your employers run their site..it's their party after all...I just have a real issue with the way they want their site to be perceived and the lengths they go to to present it as a free thinking, free-speech meritocracy...you know and I know it is nothing like that.

    It's a little self-appreciation club for a smallish circle of like-minded people of a similar background with no hesitation in preaching a particular brand of identity liberalism which they try desperately to promote as a self evident moral imperative. I find that ill-considered and patronising.

    But please don't feel deterred from posting here...I can guarantee that if I respond...and I'm hardly a permanent presence..I'll only ever come back on the content of individual posts...not your position at CIF...however, if your posts mention CIF, then that seems fair game...etc

  55. BB,
    No petal, I was talking about you. How ya bin?

  56. Just seen that vacuum cleaner piece on the proms. Be a shame if someone was trying to give up drinking and turned that shite on.

  57. I don't have a problem with anyone posting on here, whoever they are. That's probably because I'm the sort of weirdo who believes in free speech. Not just free speech, actually, but freedom in as many ways as you can have it. One of the reasons that I left Cif is because freedom is a complete anathema there: whatever the question, the answer is always 'more control'.

    Life is too short to kowtow to any 'authority', however righteous they may believe themselves to be, and regardless of its Fabianesque leanings, the Guardian bows down to privilege in only superficially different ways to the Daily Mail.

    A plague on both your houses: human beings are not a 'market'.

  58. cher amis,I noticed that people pointed at my awful english when they had no argument left.with a bit of good will ,less complexity phobia and less thoughterminating cliché arrogance,I am "trés easy" to understand.Even being a dyslexic one fingertyper(dont know hou121!).The problem appears more that I am talking very straighforward, my mother was fighting in the résistance, must be épigentic!.I have the wrong upbriging to be used to the "belly up in the middle of the road"willingness to be abused ,like it seems "normal"these days over the chanel.My man is british and happy to noticed how people "function"overhere!I ask myself how under the berne convention of copyright...earasing all previous post because of the moods of a mobbing(it WAS a "witch" hunt!)bunch of schoolyard territory pissing flog of bruised ego´s belonging to the "politcly correc"t minority bashing everybody down,not fitting their lobby agenda,...is allowed.Mocking people with this new"game" shows the level of "respect"these people have!.From what i hear in many comments..."playing cool"as the owning of "power"legitimates everything...is for sure not my way.This "power"is not THAT strong and ternal,if it reacts the way it reacts.Very pathetical..I would say...to pretend those overinflated spoiled badly educated anti intellectual neopist kids are the frontline of defence of the system.Why did I get kicked...let me guess..reflecting about the vainess of the fashion circus driving young girls into danger and gay fashion designer imposing to real ladys with curves the impossible dictate to look like glitter toyboys...was worth the call me mental., something..I think points more to the one using that therm,..i noticed, as I worked in psychiatry,that mostly people with the biggest issues points at others that way, as if it was some kind of insult.What makes me simply laugh..is that these brats are bathing in their prout-prout étiquette,but you cant report them,when they missbehave.But I know out of expirience,that energys flys back...and the nulabour arrogance is going to be served back to these people in soon.The other lot will be as bad...but at least..to see these aparatchicks in tears loosing control....will be a delight, welcome to reality,little princesses and darlings.

  59. I find it frightening...how USED many are to madness and pretend..reality sense is accepting this madness.

    it´s not about getting "more smart" but more aware!

  60. and by "madness" I talk about what we used to call"outside the zoo..far more weirder animals!"

    Quis custodit custodes?
    who controls the controllers?