If you look at the actual article, it says nothing like what your comment states. I can only assumed you didn't bother to actually read the source material before blurting out your response. But you at least made your prejudices very clear.
I've read the article and don't get what you mean. Seems to me that Davids observation was astute & to the point. Also, regarding his 'prejudice' - it's not 'prejudice' to think someone is a bit daft after they've done something, well, a bit daft. It's judgement.
To be fair to Colin he wasn't referring to my original post, but Vulgarcrinimals reply in what I assumed was a satirical sort of way. I thought that someone mocking the political illiteracy and prejudices of the Guardian being mocked for their prejudices in return was satire? Or did I misread things?
Re: The other 25%
Date: 2006-11-03 01:01 pm (UTC)Re: The other 25%
Date: 2006-11-26 11:35 pm (UTC)Re: The other 25%
Date: 2006-11-27 10:10 am (UTC)I thought that someone mocking the political illiteracy and prejudices of the Guardian being mocked for their prejudices in return was satire? Or did I misread things?
Re: The other 25%
Date: 2006-11-28 08:31 pm (UTC)Re: The other 25%
Date: 2006-11-29 01:54 pm (UTC)