Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9846682)

Daily Mail readers filling the comments section with hate and bile?

Omg, WHAT A REVELATION!!!

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9846695)

There are some and some, like on this forum. Mentioning no names :fist:

Originally Posted by Twosugars (Post 9846672)

This is my beloved doggie.

Ours slept with us too, when he stretched his paws he took up half the bed.

I'm off too.

Originally Posted by jet (Post 9847003)

Awww, he's so handsome. :)

Originally Posted by Robodog (Post 9844907)

Daily Mail was always bad
It was easy back then

But The Indy and The Guardian have become left wing versions of the Daily Mail now
Same kind of sensationalist sh4t stirring but from another angle
Especially in the last couple of years

But there is still hilarious comments and occasional moments of wisdom from people in the comments section of all of them - always worth raking through

You really can't judge a whole readership as being one thing!
That's just being bigoted yourself.
People everywhere can come up with good stuff once in a while.
All forums are the same - you get a mixed bag of people from all perspectives, just like this site

Originally Posted by Rob! (Post 9847050)

Yes because the Daily Mail is known for it’s fair and non bigoted views

Originally Posted by jet (Post 9847003)

Awww, he's so handsome. :)

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9847019)

Yes, two sugars, He is gorgeous a real handsome boy.

It is heartbreaking, poppsy sends her :hugesmile:

Originally Posted by jet (Post 9847048)

Good post. I read a variety of papers for balance. It's more interesting to look at things from all sides rather than just closing your mind and saying "I'm not going to read anything that I won't agree with".

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9847277)

Surprisingly whilst reading about CBB in the Telegraph celebs section, I was struck at how inaccurate it was. I am sure the person had not even seen the programme, yet sensationalized it along the lines the Daily Star uses.

I also read the Huffington Post when they have articles I am interested in.

But mention the Daily Mail and it brings out the wolves even when the article began its life in the Pink News.

People, viewers, posters all have their opinions, one each and to generalize on a whole newspaper readership by decrying it is short sighted.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9847277)

Surprisingly whilst reading about CBB in the Telegraph celebs section, I was struck at how inaccurate it was. I am sure the person had not even seen the programme, yet sensationalized it along the lines the Daily Star uses.

I also read the Huffington Post when they have articles I am interested in.

But mention the Daily Mail and it brings out the wolves even when the article began its life in the Pink News.

People, viewers, posters all have their opinions, one each and to generalize on a whole newspaper readership by decrying it is short sighted.

Originally Posted by Robertocarlo (Post 9847311)

The Daily Mail, the rag that supported Hitler and the NAZIS during the 1930s. Say no more!:fist::nono::fist::nono:

Originally Posted by Robertocarlo (Post 9847311)

The Daily Mail, the rag that supported Hitler and the NAZIS during the 1930s. Say no more!:fist::nono::fist::nono:

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9847334)

Nearly 90 years ago?

What a ridiculous comparison.

Though a typical example of my point.

Originally Posted by Twosugars (Post 9850992)

So far, it seems there's not much support for your paper of choice, popps

I hope you're not on commission