[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

So therefore irrelevant to this thread and the situation we're discussing.

According to...?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

According to...?

Yourself? You just said so in the post I quoted.

The truth or untruth of this article is irrelevant to the paper's agenda. This thread being about the article itself, the paper's overall agenda is of no relevance to discussing the truths of the man in this article.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yourself? You just said so in the post I quoted.

The truth or untruth of this article is irrelevant to the paper's agenda. This thread being about the article itself, the paper's overall agenda is of no relevance to discussing the truths of the man in this article.

When discussing a published article... the agenda, political leanings, and motivations of the publisher are irrelevant? Really, though? I suppose I wished in a world this simple, it must involve a lot less stress. And... thought. Pesky old thought and analysis .

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

When discussing a published article... the agenda, political leanings, and motivations of the publisher are irrelevant? Really, though? I suppose I wished in a world this simple, it must involve a lot less stress. And... thought. Pesky old thought and analysis .

You yourself said it was irrelevant.

Pointing out the rather obvious political leanings of the Daily Mail isn't really adding anything new to the thread about this particular story.