Thommo wrote:What is it with people misspelling "here's an opinion that agrees with me, no matter how ill-informed" as "Considered and in-depth analysis" when it comes to certain issues?

It's not like you've got the excuse of not having seen the actual qualifying criteria for "major party status" as defined by the independent regulator ofcom, because I linked them to you just the other day. These are the same rules that have been applied for well over a decade.

Of course people are going to disagree, but the only reasonable way to do so is to start from the facts, not just make up some poo to fling.

Um. Did you actually follow the link?

Yes, ignoring the rather silly style (presumably intended to be humourous) the content was dire, it presented reasons that have nothing to do with the decision and proceeded to mock them. It's like watching painful conservative standup.

Thommo wrote:Yes, ignoring the rather silly style (presumably intended to be humourous) the content was dire, it presented reasons that have nothing to do with the decision and proceeded to mock them. It's like watching painful conservative standup.

Oh ffs. I'm not sure I believe you actually followed the link originally.

A considered and in-depth analysis of all the issues:

linking to a very silly cartoon! Clearly & obviously it was a joke.

ronmcd wrote:

Thommo wrote:Yes, ignoring the rather silly style (presumably intended to be humourous) the content was dire, it presented reasons that have nothing to do with the decision and proceeded to mock them. It's like watching painful conservative standup.

Oh ffs. I'm not sure I believe you actually followed the link originally.

Believe it or don't, I don't really give a shit. All my comments "coincidentally" apply exactly to what was contained in there either way.

ronmcd wrote:

A considered and in-depth analysis of all the issues:

linking to a very silly cartoon! Clearly & obviously it was a joke.

So is that conservative comedy I linked to. Are you saying you in fact don't agree with the spurious basis for the "joke" in the comic? If so - great! But that wasn't readily apparent when you said:
"A considered and in-depth analysis of all the issues"
which appeared to endorse the view it was putting forward.

ETA: Here's a similar style of cartoon, with our clean cut and cool hero coming out on top.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
People take that shit seriously too. They really believe the message.

So if I linked to a Spitting Image sketch with the words "A considered and in-depth analysis of all the issues:", you would attack me claiming I *actually* thought the Spitting Image sketch was considered in-depth analysis?

Please.

ronmcd wrote:So if I linked to a Spitting Image sketch with the words "A considered and in-depth analysis of all the issues:", you would attack me claiming I *actually* thought the Spitting Image sketch was considered in-depth analysis?

Please.

Answer the question, do you actually support the message or not? It's still not clear to me.

Off the top of my head I can't recall a spitting image sketch that had the same basis of assertions (which are polemical on the side of an issue you strongly align with) to generate "humour", so I'm tempted to say no. But that's due to the content of your posts and the content of the link.

If you want to tell me whether you actually agree and if you don't what the hell the point was, then this would all be much clearer.

I'm still not even sure you've read the cartoon. Jesus, it's got Sturgeon as a biker-chick and a disco dancing Farage. Which is funny. Moodie's previous cartoons have Gordon Brown's head on a Godzilla body, and Alistair Darling as the eagle Muppet. I think you're looking in the wrong place for "considered and in-depth analysis", because I certainly wouldn't expect it from Greg Moodie, any more than Spiting Image.

Clearly the cartoon is supposed to reflect ofcom's inconsistent view of the status of the parties. No, I don't think it's remotely correct, or could be considered in-depth analysis. (see, that was the joke)

And yes, I think the exclusion of all parties outside the ones deemed major or national is discriminatory. I might have mentioned that before.

...

I would think if you HAD read the cartoon originally, you just wouldn't have bothered with any of this. It's all a little sad.

Thommo wrote:
Off the top of my head I can't recall a spitting image sketch that had the same basis of assertions (which are polemical on the side of an issue you strongly align with) to generate "humour", so I'm tempted to say no. But that's due to the content of your posts and the content of the link.

ronmcd wrote:I'm still not even sure you've read the cartoon. Jesus, it's got Sturgeon as a biker-chick and a disco dancing Farage. Which is funny. Moodie's previous cartoons have Gordon Brown's head on a Godzilla body, and Alistair Darling as the eagle Muppet. I think you're looking in the wrong place for "considered and in-depth analysis", because I certainly wouldn't expect it from Greg Moodie, any more than Spiting Image.

Clearly the cartoon is supposed to reflect ofcom's inconsistent view of the status of the parties. No, I don't think it's remotely correct, or could be considered in-depth analysis. (see, that was the joke)

And yes, I think the exclusion of all parties outside the ones deemed major or national is discriminatory. I might have mentioned that before.

...

I would think if you HAD read the cartoon originally, you just wouldn't have bothered with any of this. It's all a little sad.

I think it's a little sad that it's no worse quality than most of the links and claims you've brought to the thread. For all I know you were "joking" all the other times you blamed the media and BBC for various misfortunes and biases that don't actually exist.

Anyway, now you've clarified I am glad you don't in fact endorse this idiocy, I'm sorry I thought you did. You seem a a bit equivocal on the point (qualifying it with an incorrect assertion from the tract that ofcom have been inconsistent), but any agreement that these arguments (E.g. That ofcom rules say that there must be a possibility of attendees becoming prime minister; That the SNP is the third largest party in any relevant sense due to party membership; That the SNP are being rejected for being "Scottish") are nonsense and not the actual reasons for the Ofcom decision is most welcome.