Zoe wrote:There's a difference in method here. One makes a reasoned, civil comment and gets back an irrational reply along the lines of 'fascist' or 'What nonsense are you talking about?', that's it. To which I might reply 'What nonsense are you talking about, have you been living abroad?' or ' Here's the images from the demo's, now retract your invective.' But those who vent their spleen in lieu of reason aren't likely to revert to civility or reason, so the incentive to reason with them is weak. Too bad for discussion.markadams99 wrote:Would that the police applied the same assertiveness against mobs inciting the murder of British soldiers.
What nonsense are you talking about?
James Johnston wrote:Sorry ADT, I can see my statement was ambiguous and you misunderstood the point I was trying to make.
longlaner wrote:Then our differences extend to reading comprehension. That's all.In what sense is "Would that the police applied the same assertiveness against mobs inciting the murder of British soldiers" a "reasoned, civil comment"? To begin with, it is not a comment, but a wish. Additionally, it is couched in language scarcely less emotive than that of the response "What nonsense are you talking about?"
For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.
7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?
Read the latest issue before signing up