Interesting WWI piece in today's Guardian

[Buzzer]

I was taught in the Marxist hotbed of Dorothy Stringer, but they did go through the papers in a lesson and tell you the 'reading age' you would need to be able to understand them. It was something like The Sun/Mirror=10-12, The Mail=14, Times/Guardian = 16, Telegraph/Independent 18

Which is all well and good but that is surely a minimum reading age rather than an average, isn't it? The average Mail reader is an adult with an adult reading age and I sincerely doubt the Guardian writes anything in its newspaper that is intellectually beyond the reach of this average Mail reader.

 

[BadFish]

Yes you did, you numpty. Right here:



I'm the one equating the Mail with the Guardian in this thread - the one you wrote this in - ergo I'm the desperate Mail reader attempting to defend the indefensible.

No, you are just perpetuating the myth. You don't need to be a mail reader to do that, just a little misguided.

Are you going to continue the name calling or can you hold a discussion like a grown up?

 

[Buzzer]

No, you are just perpetuating the myth. You don't need to be a mail reader to do that, just a little misguided.

Are you going to continue the name calling or can you hold a discussion like a grown up?

I'm going to repeat what I wrote because it is extremely simple:

You said that equating the Guardian with the Mail is the desperate attempts of Mail readers to defend the indefensible. I've equated the Guardian with the Mail. Those two points are incontrovertible. There's no other conclusion to come to than you think I'm a Mail reader. And you are wrong on this, you're a presumptive numpty.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I'm going to repeat what I wrote because it is extremely simple:

You said that equating the Guardian with the Mail is the desperate attempts of Mail readers to defend the indefensible. I've equated the Guardian with the Mail. Those two points are incontrovertible. There's no other conclusion to come to than you think I'm a Mail reader. And you are wrong on this, you're a presumptive numpty.

Specious correlation.

 

[Buzzer]

Specious correlation.

The bit about being a numpty?

 

[DIFFBROOK]

I do agree about his sentiments about Germany. I do find it stange and very sad that we have found ourselves at War with Germany, albeit for WW2 at least for the right reason. We do share an Anglo Saxon heritage and to this day I think the peoples of Germany and the UK have so much in common.

To link it to modern day Britain and Germany, I am sure that rather than standing on the outside or even thinking of leaving the EU the Uk could really make a success of the EU and being a partner with Germany. I'm sure the Germans would rather work with us than the French. Who knows we could turn the EU into something that the UK actually believes in.

Going back to the piece - time will tell if remembrance of WW1 has been glorified. I truly hope not. Any war is the result of failiure of mankind to get along with each other.

 

[sten_super]

Getting back on topic, I think the article is rubbish. For me he completely fails to make a significant (or useful) point. I actually think the people contributing in this thread (asking why we're celebrating the start, rather than the end, of the war, etc.) have done it much better.

I often peruse the Guardian website (but don't buy the paper - so I don't know how they segregate that). The comments articles are often hilarious left-wing garbage, but they are clearly packaged as that. Their choice of what to report certainly does to an extent reflect their left-wing bias, although they do publish other noteworthy news (albeit often more quietly). I think it's the best of the (non-paywalled) broadsheet websites.

 

[keaton]

Which is all well and good but that is surely a minimum reading age rather than an average, isn't it? The average Mail reader is an adult with an adult reading age and I sincerely doubt the Guardian writes anything in its newspaper that is intellectually beyond the reach of this average Mail reader.

As someone who reads both fairly regularly I would have to disagree.

 

[BBassic]

I read the Guardian and disagree entirely with this article.

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

Wonderful stuff, NSC at its best. Can't see a debate like this appearing on the BBS or Millwall's North Stand Banter any time soon.

An instinctive Guardianista myself, I do at least acknowledge that the Mail does carry comment pieces by its natural enemies from time to time. Whether anyone actually reads them is something else entirely.

 

[Tubby Mondays]

Really cant agree with that article at all.

It is not about self congratulation and celebration it is about remembrance and commemoration.

Why has David cameron likened marking the start of the First World War to the Olympics then?

They were only about celebration werent they?

 

[Steve in Japan]

I respectfully disagree with the article. I am all in favour of remembering mankinds peacetime achievements, but not at the expense of remembering how and why we went to war, and the suffering that resulted.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I respectfully disagree with the article. I am all in favour of remembering mankinds peacetime achievements, but not at the expense of remembering how and why we went to war, and the suffering that resulted.

He quite clearly states that undeniably we should remember why we went to war, and of the immense sacrifice. I think the article is actually concerned that the marking of the centenary will be less about remembering the how and why we went to war (exactly as you've said), but more about what a great job we did, and how our superior values stood up to the evil enemy. The article welcomes the debate on the very detailed causes, and an honesty into our own culpability. The struggle is, that with such a devastating loss of life, how do we properly reflect by saying it wasn't worth it? Does the memory of the loss require us to believe the sacrifice was worthwhile, or should history tell us plainly that it wasn't?

The failure of the article I think is the rhetoric at the start puts most peoples backs up, and Jenkins has lost half his readers before they get to the main body of his article.

 

[User removed 4]

I do agree about his sentiments about Germany. I do find it stange and very sad that we have found ourselves at War with Germany, albeit for WW2 at least for the right reason. We do share an Anglo Saxon heritage and to this day I think the peoples of Germany and the UK have so much in common.

To link it to modern day Britain and Germany, I am sure that rather than standing on the outside or even thinking of leaving the EU the Uk could really make a success of the EU and being a partner with Germany. I'm sure the Germans would rather work with us than the French. Who knows we could turn the EU into something that the UK actually believes in.

Going back to the piece - time will tell if remembrance of WW1 has been glorified. I truly hope not. Any war is the result of failiure of mankind to get along with each other.

A hell of a lot of things I agree with in this post.

 

[pastafarian]

Why has David cameron likened marking the start of the First World War to the Olympics then?

I dont know......go and ask him not me.

I`m glad however Paxman and many others took him to task on it though.