Renart Posted 12 June 2013 Author Posted 12 June 2013 Tbf do you think she would have said what she said to the people she was sneering at face to face? Yes, although I am not sure 'sneering' is the right word. I got another e-mail from her (this is going to pour petrol on the fire for the conspiracy theorists - ha ha) in response to what I had said about only playing to audiences that already share her way of thinking about the world (I think they have been refered to on here as 'leftie liberals'). The upshot of it was that: 1) I don't think she minds this thread at all or the criticism that comes with it (she describes it as 'one of the best threads I have ever read', although, I might add, I would find it hard, personally, to deal with some of the insults - but she hasn't said that). 2) She is actively trying to engage with different audiences which is why she has started posting on YouTube, the Daily Mail, The Sun and the packets of Dove Soap (was tempted to leave that one out as I know the reaction it will get ). 3) She doesn't just want people to 'smile and agree, that is not the point'. 4) She is considering using a voice transformer next time she records a poem (maybe MattP would like to send that video of Jacob Rees-Mogg to her instead - so that she knows what she should be aiming at? Maybe someone can make a transformer based on this for anyone who doesn't conform to the standards set on here for public speaking - we could call it The Moggifier) From the limited knowledge I have of her from her website poems and the 2 e-mails I don't think she would hold back from saying what she thinks to those people. Why should she? It is what she believes.
bovril Posted 12 June 2013 Posted 12 June 2013 Maybe comprehension lessons would be better. You calling her two faced? Not at all, not sure how you got that from my post.
Captain... Posted 12 June 2013 Posted 12 June 2013 Not at all, not sure how you got that from my post. Read your post again, you'll see it.
Rincewind Posted 12 June 2013 Posted 12 June 2013 Yes, although I am not sure 'sneering' is the right word. I got another e-mail from her (this is going to pour petrol on the fire for the conspiracy theorists - ha ha) in response to what I had said about only playing to audiences that already share her way of thinking about the world (I think they have been refered to on here as 'leftie liberals'). The upshot of it was that: 1) I don't think she minds this thread at all or the criticism that comes with it (she describes it as 'one of the best threads I have ever read', although, I might add, I would find it hard, personally, to deal with some of the insults - but she hasn't said that). 2) She is actively trying to engage with different audiences which is why she has started posting on YouTube, the Daily Mail, The Sun and the packets of Dove Soap (was tempted to leave that one out as I know the reaction it will get ). 3) She doesn't just want people to 'smile and agree, that is not the point'. 4) She is considering using a voice transformer next time she records a poem (maybe MattP would like to send that video of Jacob Rees-Mogg to her instead - so that she knows what she should be aiming at? Maybe someone can make a transformer based on this for anyone who doesn't conform to the standards set on here for public speaking - we could call it The Moggifier) From the limited knowledge I have of her from her website poems and the 2 e-mails I don't think she would hold back from saying what she thinks to those people. Why should she? It is what she believes. I can see exactly what she means and where she is coming from. She is just trying to raise awareness and dispel myths about the subject, something I and some of my colleagues are also trying to do. It is difficult though with some. Like describing the colour red to a blind person, they will never see it.
flowwolf Posted 12 June 2013 Posted 12 June 2013 I can see exactly what she means and where she is coming from. She is just trying to raise awareness and dispel myths about the subject, something I and some of my colleagues are also trying to do. It is difficult though with some. Like describing the colour red to a blind person, they will never see it. Back in my day we simply called it children patronising adults.
Guest MattP Posted 12 June 2013 Posted 12 June 2013 Yes, although I am not sure 'sneering' is the right word. I got another e-mail from her (this is going to pour petrol on the fire for the conspiracy theorists - ha ha) in response to what I had said about only playing to audiences that already share her way of thinking about the world (I think they have been refered to on here as 'leftie liberals'). The upshot of it was that: 1) I don't think she minds this thread at all or the criticism that comes with it (she describes it as 'one of the best threads I have ever read', although, I might add, I would find it hard, personally, to deal with some of the insults - but she hasn't said that). 2) She is actively trying to engage with different audiences which is why she has started posting on YouTube, the Daily Mail, The Sun and the packets of Dove Soap (was tempted to leave that one out as I know the reaction it will get ). 3) She doesn't just want people to 'smile and agree, that is not the point'. 4) She is considering using a voice transformer next time she records a poem (maybe MattP would like to send that video of Jacob Rees-Mogg to her instead - so that she knows what she should be aiming at? Maybe someone can make a transformer based on this for anyone who doesn't conform to the standards set on here for public speaking - we could call it The Moggifier) From the limited knowledge I have of her from her website poems and the 2 e-mails I don't think she would hold back from saying what she thinks to those people. Why should she? It is what she believes. I wouldn't recommend it Good for her expanding her to Youtube and the Mail for a wider audience, if I started spouting my opinions delibrately on the Guardian and BBC sites I'd probably be labelled a troll. I have no problem with her opinions, it's a free country, I'm just making the point she might she it different if she was a cleaner from Lincoln whose business is now fcuked because of politicians who have allowed so much unskilled migiration in that has helped drive wages into the ground. I don't think it's right to patronise people who have suffered from that and slander them as racists for not agreeing with it.
Rincewind Posted 12 June 2013 Posted 12 June 2013 Can't call it The Moggifier. On our radio show there is a presenter that does mainly disabled rights and he is known as the Moggiefier. His show is Mogmobile.
Guest MattP Posted 12 June 2013 Posted 12 June 2013 Can't call it The Moggifier. On our radio show there is a presenter that does mainly disabled rights and he is known as the Moggiefier. His show is Mogmobile. I could think of a far better nickname for him just by adding one letter.
MooseBreath Posted 12 June 2013 Posted 12 June 2013 I can see exactly what she means and where she is coming from. She is just trying to raise awareness and dispel myths about the subject, something I and some of my colleagues are also trying to do. It is difficult though with some. Like describing the colour red to a blind person, they will never see it. You realise that the poem is pro-immigration purely from an economic view point, dont you? Ie that it is good because it benefits the economy as a whole, deeming the negative consequences felt by the lower paid and lesser skilled as a necessary evil In pursuit of progress? Because that's something you're usually dead against, and yet here you are saying you agree with her. A little bit of consistency would be nice, kenbo.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.