Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%

  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%
  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
ELLERS said:
it was a joke SM. A bit like the generlising video you posted.
Click to expand...

Mate, I was on those terraces, singing that song.

I remember the Thatcher years well, and thinking at the time everything was all rosy - she looked after us in the south east of England. But once I moved away from London and saw the devastation her policies bought to the north of England and to Scotland I had to re-evaluate my ideas of her time in charge. Seeing communities ripped to shreds and discarded like old chip papers all over the UK, be it mining, ship building or other types of manufacturing, introducing the Poll Tax just in Scotland "as a trial" at the start, focussing solely on empowering the grip that London had on the country. She was a tyrant
 
  • Like
Reactions: ELLERS
West WindsR said:
I gave you too much credit then. It’s ridiculous to write off the views of someone who didn’t directly experience an event for many reasons. Secondary sources tend to be less biased than one person’s view of an entire era, especially viewed through the misty eyes of their youth.

It’s like comparing the war rhetoric of boomers to the generally more balanced accounts of wartime from the generation that actually had to live through it.
Click to expand...
What so you reading a book about something gives you a better idea than of someone who was actually there experiencing it?
You really are stupid at times Watford. You should stick to your anti-country rhetoric?
 
Steelmonkey said:
Mate, I was on those terraces, singing that song.

I remember the Thatcher years well, and thinking at the time everything was all rosy - she looked after us in the south east of England. But once I moved away from London and saw the devastation her policies bought to the north of England and to Scotland I had to re-evaluate my ideas of her time in charge. Seeing communities ripped to shreds and discarded like old chip papers all over the UK, be it mining, ship building or other types of manufacturing, introducing the Poll Tax just in Scotland "as a trial" at the start, focussing solely on empowering the grip that London had on the country. She was a tyrant
Click to expand...
I will never forget going to Liverpool in the 80's (Boys from the Blackstuff) and thinking what the 2222 has happened here!
 
ELLERS said:
What so you reading a book about something gives you a better idea than of someone who was actually there experiencing it?
You really are stupid at times Watford. You should stick to your anti-country rhetoric?
Click to expand...

You weren’t experiencing all of it though. You saw it through the eyes of teenage Ellers. That’s the point.
 
Willhoops said:
Hitler was he a bad guy? Can't comment because I wasn't there
Click to expand...
Hitler was a bad guy now tell me what is like in one of his concentration camps? Tell us about the smells, the depravity? Tell me what the air tasted like? Or the smell of food.
Come Mr flash tells us?
Actually it's no good telling me as I can only imagine from my own life experiences... However my old teacher was a surviver (she must be long dead now) she explained it to us one day in class.
 
ELLERS said:
Hitler was a bad guy now tell me what is like in one of his concentration camps? Tell us about the smells, the depravity? Tell me what the air tasted like? Or the smell of food.
Come Mr flash tells us?
Click to expand...

Well was it that bad? you weren't there you can't know...an extreme version of the point but the point non the less
 
Willhoops said:
Well was it that bad? you weren't there you can't know...an extreme version of the point but the point non the less
Click to expand...
I added on the bit before you posted this. No I wasn't there and like you I can only judge by what I have seen and read. Living through it is a different experience.
 
ELLERS said:
I added on the bit before you posted this. No I wasn't there and like you I can only judge by what I have seen and read. Living through it is a different experience.
Click to expand...

Ok I'd value a historians knowledge of an era higher, someone who has studied and read a multitude of books about a situation higher than someone who may well of lived through it, but will only have seen small section of what went on and was not privy to much wider information.
 
West WindsR said:
Except I have answered it.
Click to expand...
All you did was give a stupid scarcest response.
Why do you go to watch a live QPR? Why not just read about it in the paper? Because according to your theory that is just as good as being there?
Truth is you go to a live game so you can experience everything, everything you can't get from not being there. Agree, like your stupid 'Pot' post, you can tell we QPR beat Swansea 4-0 and that Adel scored. But you will never get the real experience of how good that moment was unless you were there.
How many times have you read a match report and thought that guy wasn't at the same game? This is because he puts his own slant on it... there are many reasons for this, however getting back to my point. Reading will give you a good idea but it's not the same as being there.
 
Willhoops said:
Ok I'd value a historians knowledge of an era higher, someone who has studied and read a multitude of books about a situation higher than someone who may well of lived through it, but will only have seen small section of what went on and was not privy to much wider information.
Click to expand...
A historian is only going on second/third/fourth hand information?
 
ELLERS said:
A historian is only going on second/third/fourth hand information?
Click to expand...

You mean someone who has had access to hundreds of accounts, first, second and third hand?

With regards to your football analogy, would you say that someone behind the goal has a better view of the game than someone who has watched the footage and gets clear views, including close ups of all incidents? Would someone from behind the goal be able to give a more valued opinion from what they saw of a challenge in the box at the other end from someone who has had access to all the different camera views?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ELLERS
Willhoops said:
Ok I'd value a historians knowledge of an era higher, someone who has studied and read a multitude of books about a situation higher than someone who may well of lived through it, but will only have seen small section of what went on and was not privy to much wider information.
Click to expand...
I was read Antony Beevor's Stalingrad. There was a section called (How much land does someone need?) in it he he describes a story of a man walking across this vast land. Now I can only imagine what he means by 'vast'. When he describes people walking in mud and dying and the smell or corpses.. I don't know as I didn't experience it. I can imagine it through my life experience but you never get the whole picture... no matter how good the writer is.
 
ELLERS said:
All you did was give a stupid scarcest response.
Why do you go to watch a live QPR? Why not just read about it in the paper? Because according to your theory that is just as good as being there?
Truth is you go to a live game so you can experience everything, everything you can't get from not being there. Agree, like your stupid 'Pot' post, you can tell we QPR beat Swansea 4-0 and that Adel scored. But you will never get the real experience of how good that moment was unless you were there.
How many times have you read a match report and thought that guy wasn't at the same game? This is because he puts his own slant on it... there are many reasons for this, however getting back to my point. Reading will give you a good idea but it's not the same as being there.
Click to expand...

I don’t go to QPR in order to get the most accurate view of the match possible though and often after seeing highlights back I’ll have a totally different opinion on an incident compared to seeing it from one imperfect angle at the time along with the emotion of being at the match.

So great analogy.
 
Last edited:
Willhoops said:
You mean someone who has had access to hundreds of accounts, first, second and third hand?

With regards to your football analogy, would you say that someone behind the goal has a better view of the game than someone who has watched the footage and gets clear views, including close ups of all incidents? Would someone from behind the goal be able to give a more valued opinion from what they saw of a challenge in the box at the other end from someone who has had access to all the different camera views?
Click to expand...
So now you are talking about certain aspects and camera manipulation of events. Interestingly I read a fab book on that very subject. Agree, you could be behind a support beam and miss that tackle. The later viewing of the incident only reinforces the whole experience. However, the camera only lets you see what it wants you to see. By that I mean you will never get the full picture. It will never show the fella next to you swearing at the linesmen and it can never replicate the atmosphere. It's simply a reproduction of events.
I have been to many live events and watched them again on TV and it's never the same. Listening to an opera or watching a play in a theatre or seeing a live match is never replicated the same.
 
ELLERS said:
So now you are talking about certain aspects and camera manipulation of events. Interestingly I read a fab book on that very subject. Agree, you could be behind a support beam and miss that tackle. The later viewing of the incident only reinforces the whole experience. However, the camera only lets you see what it wants you to see. By that I mean you will never get the full picture. It will never show the fella next to you swearing at the linesmen and it can never replicate the atmosphere. It's simply a reproduction of events.
I have been to many live events and watched them again on TV and it's never the same. Listening to an opera or watching a play in a theatre or seeing a live match is never replicated the same.
Click to expand...


Depends what you are looking for, if personal emotion yes you are absolutely correct. Watching a game at Loftus Road is a totally different experience than watching it on the TV. However if you are looking for a more accurate representation of what happened, factually based having a wider access to more information, different view points, etc.. watching it on the box is a much better representation. When reporting on history emotions will only lead to distort facts, like with the football analogy people get caught up in emotion and feelings and can see something with extreme bias, not representing what actually happened, we've all called for penalties that weren't for example
 
  • Like
Reactions: ELLERS
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back