https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rules-to-staff
I'd be useless in this party,I thought comma's were for thick poor grammer commoners like me .
Printable View
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rules-to-staff
I'd be useless in this party,I thought comma's were for thick poor grammer commoners like me .
He can have few moreQuote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
As in
****
Off
You
Daft
backwards
Thinking
Reactionary
Arse
Hole
Perish the thought that we'd try to use our language effectively.
From a post by soulsurfer3 at 20.34 last night;-Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieBird
"I am pleased to learn this antiquity makes a regular cock of himself.
Very • due to • ongoing • hopefully • unacceptable • equal • too many "I"s • yourself • lot • got • speculate • invest (in schools etc) • no longer fit for purpose • I am pleased to learn • meet with • ascertain • disappointment • I note/understand your concerns
According to the Guardian, the official transcript of parliamentary proceedings, Hansard, recorded more than 700 instances of Mr Rees-Mogg using one or other of the banned words or phrases."
He’s a very dangerous man. He’s as far right wing as you can get, he’s anti women’s rights and gay rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
All in all a bloody freak. And, anyone who dresses his son the same as him is off their rocker, poor kid.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/p...essed-16656163
I wondered when you (or Wales-Bales) would pipe up with support for Rees-Mogg.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieBird
However as others have commented he doesn't even follow his own guidelines - whether or not they promote effective use of language. A mixed bag on that score.
Writing formal letters and speaking are two entirely different things. Didn't they teach you that in your English class, or did you just fail to remember it on this occasion?Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
E-Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
Jon is a disruptive pupil and must try harder!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Fair enough. I must remember to address all non-titled men in future as 'esquire'! Shocking how standards have slipped isn't it?
Many organisations have style guides, it is very common, and they are not based on the spoken word.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
Out of interest do you have a title we should be using when talking to you on this board?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Something like Grand Wizard Of The Alt-Right Black Ops Division (Cardiff Chapter)?
Clearly as an admirer of Jacob Rees-Mogg you will be keen to avoid being the subject of accidental disrespect. :biggrin:
He's on the naughty step.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
Bit over the top , bit of a Trump like outburst.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
Do not think WB or RB are supporting the loon, in a
political sense.
The post is a about the use of correct grammar elucation.
Mad Mogg feels the English language has been downgraded over the years, hey he may have a point ,when listening to folk these days.
(Wasn't there a post about this recently, sharing irritating examples of modern speak ? )
It doesnt make one right wing to think about the correct use and appropriate gramner /elecution, surely it is associated to education .
Or is the use of correct grammar / elocution, or speaking correctly , now considered right wing by its nature use (Init ,gorra worry )
Wish I had the skill to deliver better communication and grammar , should have better used my educational opportunities as a child .
Most Ministers have their preferred written style guide when they come into office, though Rees-Mogg's is probably at the extreme end and probably gives an insight into his character. The only equivalent I can recall in my former life was Owen Patterson (spookily also a Brexit hardliner) who had the same hatred of the Oxford comma that Rees-Moss esq. seems to display. Still, the badgers did for Owen pretty quickly so one can only hope a similar fate awaits the Right Honourable Gentleman for the 19th Century Workhouse!
:thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
I wonder if he wants ‘bellend’ hyphenated?
Rees-Mogg's future diktats could include:
Referring to footwear as spats
The use of brilliantine instead of modern hair products
Using dubbin on one's boots
Having a mid-morning spot of tiffin
Starching collars being brought back
The return of cardigans (and with the leather buttons that looked like old-fashioned footballs)
Whalebone corsets being obligatory
Socks with suspenders being de rigeur
Belts to be replaced with braces
Smoking jackets to be worn in Cabinet
Cigarettes only to be smoked in long holders
The new prime minister to be transported from No.10 to Westminster in a sedan chair
Velvet dressing gowns to be worn in late-night parliamentary session
Nanny to put one to bed each evening.
Nah... Think he'll probably be Prime Minister before he's finished. Genuine article you see - not pretending to be anything which he's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
You do have a point , at least you know what he is , no pretence or fence sitting .Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieBird
It will only take a few days in broad daylight and his character would tarnished. Rees-Mogg believes in quite a few things that would be considered completely backward by the majority of the electorate (and that majority grows every day).Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
I have to be fair he is a very strange bod , he is like a throw back to Victorian times, I believe he is a very religious catholic as well with ,string views on abortion and same sex marriage, which should get even more folk going .Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
I’m Catholic and I find him a nauseating hypocrite who’s Victorian obsessed values don’t sit Weill with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
Plus he’s had money tied up in artificial birth control so as well as being a faux sanctimonious arsehole he’s a hypocrite.
David Squires latest - staring the Honourable Member for the 17th Century:
https://www.theguardian.com/football...ld-of-football
Squires is a genius, are we banned from reading the Tory light Guardian though and its non supporting Corbyn viewsQuote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
I think I am one of the biggest critics of the Guardian and its' campaign against Corbyn (using Brexit or anti-semitism as alternate weapons of choice). But I am happy to read it online every day (not uncritically of course) and to link to stories or pieces it carries. It is what it is, and sometimes it is interesting or informative.Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
Mentions Dubbin and Brylcreem! Bit of a coincidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
I expect that you'll be terribly upset when he becomes Prime Minister then.
He's a very intelligent man and a decent chap, a Christian and a patriot - I can therefore see why he upsets you.
He father was a very nice chap too actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieBird
The same JRM who’s investment firm profited from sale of births control pills.
Naughty naughty with him being such a a good Catholic (that he says he is, as a Catholic myself his ideology is rather different to mine)
You are a bit of a dull chap aren't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieBird
No I'm not actually. I've been reasonably successful at most things since you raise it. Hey, I'm not the one who staked his reputation on a mad claim that two board members were the same person am I ?
If you think Jacob Rees-Mogg is dull, I'm in good company - that's another of your faulted judgements really .
It's a pity for your own sake that you're incapable of addressing an issue, still less of addressing an issue in a civil manner, and have to resort to attacking the character of anyone who challenges your somewhat ignorant and intolerant dogmas.
Should we conclude that you don't understand the issues sufficiently to discuss them properly, or are you just an unpleasant little person who takes advantage of Internet anonymity to vent your nasty comments and try to boss people around ?
Dull and hypocritical.
Not shy of dishing out the abuse (which you seem to think is 'discussing the issues properly') but very thin skinned if anyone dares to give you some back. Maybe you don't realise you are doing it? Should we conclude that you are not very self-aware?
And why do you insist on turning every post into a re-run of the striking similarities between your online persona and that of Wales-Bales. Most of us got bored of that weeks ago (whatever the truth of it) but you keep coming back to pick at the scab every time and then project your obsession on to other people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
No, I'm not dull, hypocritical and certainly not abusive. I spent two weeks or so trying to engage you in polite conversation and you kept on being rude.
You re introduced the WB issue yourself in this thread, so don't try and pin that on me. It's always going to be relevant though as a measure of your intellect and judgement, which brings me to your question about what "we" , ( have you got a mouse in your pocket ?), should conclude.
- well firstly you can conclude whatever you like because I don't give a rats arse what you think, and secondly we know from the WB thing just how reliable your conclusions are.
I wouldn't be rude or unkind to anyone but I've found that there's a certain kind of arsehole who takes that as weakness. Numerous people have learned down the years that's a mistake and as long as you insist on being bloody nasty and aggressive that's what you'll get back.
Try excersising normal manners and I can assure you that's what you'll get back, but bully tactics won't work.
He's a big fan of the Clintons, he always sticks up for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieBird
The Dixie mafia ?
Doesn't surprise me really. The two sides of the world seem to be aligning to the poles of the magnet, so I could probably guess where he'd stand on all sorts of issues.
Your relationship to truth is similar to Trumps. Seems Ronnie is standing side by side with you in the cess pool. Not helping his case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
You have a habit of making things up about other posters. Ronnie is developing a habit of joining in. No surprise.
For what it's worth - nothing I know - I despise the Clintons. Have done since Bill executed a prisoner with the mental age of a young child to curry favour with the electorate that you love so much to help him win the top job. Hillary same mould.
However, I do not recall ever posting about the Clintons. Never.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
Not helping my case ? What are you, a Judge or something ? I don't need or particularly seek your approval.
If you don't in fact particularly support the Clintons then I withdraw my comment and apologise that I made it upon the basis of hearsay. If you don't know why it's a good idea to oppose the Clintons I can give you a long list, but I'm pleased to find some common ground.
Might I suggest that we forget these unpleasant exchanges now that I've made my point and return to a positive and mutually respectful dialogue ? I'm sure that we'd probably disagree upon most issues , but we can do that without being disagreeable you know.
I've formed various opinions and positions after very many years of thought , education and professional experience. You might not like them and you might disagree with them, but please don't suggest that I'm insincere, dishonest or stupid because my opinions and conclusions differ from yours.
I've spent long hours in conversation with most intelligent people and now and again they've convinced me that I was mistaken in my view. Perhaps you can do the same, and if you can I shall appreciate it because to be corrected in your thinking is to learn.
Come on then Jon - bury the hatchet and let's start again.
Don't tempt him Sir Jim, I think Jon may end up burying said hatchet in your ever so massive head lolQuote:
Originally Posted by RonnieBird
Nah... Far better men have tried that.
Actually, I withdraw that. I just noticed that I was trying to offer an olive branch and I let you shit stir Dorcus