New Schools Proposal - The Wilder Issues

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 30 Nov 2006, 22:48

seanie wrote:Er...the point of the petition is to try and influence the vote on what happens regarding PHS.

Your distinction between applying pressure, which is acceptable, and trying to influence votes, which isn't, is meaningless.

It's one and the same thing.

Well, I'd only support a Texan golfer as far as he/she, in his/her capacity as a golf player, registered solidarity with golfers in Duddingston who wanted their course to stay where it was.

It's probably a peculiarity of my own approach to protest politics - I must be projecting the line I won't cross (which may well strike others as meaningless) which is subjective, onto this debate.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 Nov 2006, 22:54

seanie wrote: Your distinction between applying pressure, which is acceptable, and trying to influence votes, which isn't, is meaningless.
.

The texans did not know that; the golf course was being replaced, it was a schoo (s)l that was being built, that although only 4% of the people who play are juniors, yet its is was described as "child-friendly" by Portygreenkeeper, they did not know that "last year it had 30,000 tee off times, all of which were taken" which is a deeply mis-leading statement.

Portygreenkeeper led these poor suckers to believe it was, developers, a completley lost golf course that was popular with youngsters and that it was busy. He even forgot to mention that he is not a golfer.

That is some length to go to prevent portobello's children getting the best educational facility that they can have. It is a pretty sick, dirty trick.

Especillay when Portygreenkeeper announces on POL that its "599 portobello people who have voted with their feet" just a couple of days after encouraging the texans to be petition number 600.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 Nov 2006, 22:55

Dadaist wrote: Well, I'd only support a Texan golfer as far as he/she, in his/her capacity as a golf player, registered solidarity with golfers in Duddingston who wanted their course to stay where it was.
.

Sorry Dadaist, the Texans were not aware that the course was being re-located, which is a key difference but probably not in your book. And if Portygreenkeeper is Dave Connelly then he is not a golfer so solidarity is out the window too.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 30 Nov 2006, 23:05

Porty wrote: Portygreenkeeper led these poor suckers to believe it was, developers,

That strikes a chord of Ying-Yang with me.

The PFANS consultation response misrepresents Monbiot, who was talking about private golf course developers and not municipal ones. So it could be argued that PFANS were trying to lead those poor suckers at the council into not replacing the golf course - an eye-wool-pullingly queasy, grubby hoax.

Bellybabe's "Pot & Kettle" are conversing so much they are losing their blackness and starting to shine!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 30 Nov 2006, 23:09

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote: Well, I'd only support a Texan golfer as far as he/she, in his/her capacity as a golf player, registered solidarity with golfers in Duddingston who wanted their course to stay where it was.
.
Sorry Dadaist, the Texans were not aware that the course was being re-located, which is a key difference but probably not in your book. And if Portygreenkeeper is Dave Connelly then he is not a golfer so solidarity is out the window too.

Golfers from PGC who fear or feared housing or schools on their turf may have or may yet draw strength from viewing the comments from their trans-atlantic brothers and sisters, irrespective of Dave's golfing habits.

So solidarity has climbed back in through the window.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 Nov 2006, 23:11

Dadaist wrote:
Porty wrote: Portygreenkeeper led these poor suckers to believe it was, developers,
That strikes a chord of Ying-Yang with me.

The PFANS consultation response misrepresents Monbiot, who was talking about private golf course developers and not municipal ones. So it could be argued that PFANS were trying to lead those poor suckers at the council into not replacing the golf course - an eye-wool-pullingly queasy, grubby hoax.

Nowhere in Monbiot's article does it distinguish between private and public courses. So the argument would be wrong and you know it.

Tell me.why are you so keen to excue a "person" that deliberately seeks out American Golfers. lies to them by omission and then portrays those Americans as locals to his fellow community members. All in aid of preventing your kids and thousands of others having a decent school.

I hope you are proud of yourself. I think you should change sides. I wil happily enter you on the balance sheet as a liability.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 30 Nov 2006, 23:50

Epykat wrote:I'm not sure where this newly invented "Portobello Park" is either . As long as I've been here we've never had a "Portobello Park" - the Council just made it up.

Sorry, Epykat, but looking at the Scotsman Archive, the park in question has been known as the Portobello Park for 100 years.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 01 Dec 2006, 01:23

Dadaist wrote:The PFANS consultation response misrepresents Monbiot, who was talking about private golf course developers and not municipal ones. So it could be argued that PFANS were trying to lead those poor suckers at the council into not replacing the golf course - an eye-wool-pullingly queasy, grubby hoax.

Well just provide us with the relevent text demonstrating how keen George Monbiot is on municipal golf courses and I'm sure an apology for accidental misrepresentation will be forthcoming.

Given any further thought to your" Texans as a race" theory?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Dec 2006, 01:54

seanie wrote:
Dadaist wrote:The PFANS consultation response misrepresents Monbiot, who was talking about private golf course developers and not municipal ones. So it could be argued that PFANS were trying to lead those poor suckers at the council into not replacing the golf course - an eye-wool-pullingly queasy, grubby hoax.
Well just provide us with the relevent text demonstrating how keen George Monbiot is on municipal golf courses and I'm sure an apology for accidental misrepresentation will be forthcoming.

Given any further thought to your" Texans as a race" theory?

The quote used did not pertain to municipal golf course development and you chaps tore it out of its setting. Keen or not - what you published was a misrepresentation.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this theory you say I invented - I told you what I meant when I said xenophobia/racism though. Maybe it wasn't the answer you wanted.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Dec 2006, 02:22

Porty wrote: Nowhere in Monbiot's article does it distinguish between private and public courses. So the argument would be wrong and you know it.

I'm satisfied enough, having read "A Pox On The Planet", that Monbiot wasn't talking about development of municipal courses but those run as purely commercial ventures. You're welcome to have a different interpretation - understandable given the glowing terms you talk about the consultation document in - but I think to take a Monbiot quote which relates to one thing and apply it to something different is a misrepresentation. I don't think he had to distinguish if he was only talking about the commercial ones. They were his target - by putting the replacement PGC in his firing line, PFANS misrepresented him.

Tell me.why are you so keen to excue a "person" that deliberately seeks out American Golfers. lies to them by omission and then portrays those Americans as locals to his fellow community members. All in aid of preventing your kids and thousands of others having a decent school.

I hope you are proud of yourself. I think you should change sides. I wil happily enter you on the balance sheet as a liability.

I can't properly answer the above without risking suspension again. I would be happy to elaborate, but my answer would almost certainly be moderated.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Dec 2006, 09:58

Dadaist wrote: I'm satisfied enough, having read "A Pox On The Planet", that Monbiot wasn't talking about development of municipal courses but those run as purely commercial ventures. You're welcome to have a different interpretation -

So whether or not there was mis-representation is open to interpretation.

Which is significantly different from someone who on September 30th is trawling American websites recruiting petition signatures on what amounts to a false premise and on October 4th telling his fellow community members that "599 people from Portobello have voted with their feet". There is no room for differing interpretation . Its a scam. It is against your own and others children and its sa great pity you don't condem it.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Dec 2006, 10:07

I assert there was a misrepresentation. Whilst I'm happy to concede that others may have a different interpretation, you aren't when it comes to the thing you disagree with.

You're quite right - I haven't condemned it. I just hope you don't confuse failure to condemn with support though. If that is interpreted by you as being objective support then that's the price I'll have to pay for saying what I think.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Dec 2006, 10:14

Dadaist wrote: If that is interpreted by you as being objective support then that's the price I'll have to pay for saying what I think.

Its tacit support in its purest form and when there is an attempt to excuse it with a spurious comparison it is something worse. Like I say its a gret pity that you don't condem it.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 01 Dec 2006, 10:27

Many of history's great tragedies have come about because too many people turned a blind eye and did not condemn - even though they did not support.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Dec 2006, 10:46

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote: If that is interpreted by you as being objective support then that's the price I'll have to pay for saying what I think.
Its tacit support in its purest form and when there is an attempt to excuse it with a spurious comparison it is something worse. Like I say its a gret pity that you don't condem it.

I respect your opinion. Don't agree with it for toffee but.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Dec 2006, 10:51

Pal of Porty wrote:Many of history's great tragedies have come about because too many people turned a blind eye and did not condemn - even though they did not support.

Like I said, if that's the price I have to pay for saying what I think then so be it. Youse can think I'm pro-PPAG if you want. The same probably goes on in the terraces when one lot of fans don't like the tactics of another lot from the same team, and end up being called the same names as the crew they were criticizing called the other lot.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Dec 2006, 12:18

On the Monbiot quote used by PFANS you said:

Dadaist wrote: The quote used did not pertain to municipal golf course development .

The reason for non-pertainance Monbiot did not differentiate bewteen municipal and private. The quote applied to golf courses.

You must be thinking of the wrong Monbiot book. the one that you want is "A Pox on the Private Planet"

Sounds ridic, no?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Dec 2006, 12:41

Porty wrote:On the Monbiot quote used by PFANS you said:

Dadaist wrote: The quote used did not pertain to municipal golf course development .
The reason for non-pertainance Monbiot did not differentiate bewteen municipal and private. The quote applied to golf courses.

You must be thinking of the wrong Monbiot book. the one that you want is "A Pox on the Private Planet"

Sounds ridic, no?

As far as I know, it's an article and not a book. I think that the reason he didn't differentiate was because he didn't have to - he was only talking about commercial developments. I assert that PFANS taking his comment and using it to help justify not replacing a municipal course is a misrepresentation.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Dec 2006, 12:47

Dadaist wrote: I think that the reason he didn't differentiate was because he didn't have to - he was only talking about commercial developments. .

I think that the reason he didn't differentiate was because he didn't have to - he was only talking about golf courses. And he was taling about enivironmental worth and justice.

Portygreenkeeper knowingly idenitified American Golfers as Portobello people. A deliberate mis-representation or not?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Dec 2006, 12:55

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote: I think that the reason he didn't differentiate was because he didn't have to - he was only talking about commercial developments. .
I think that the reason he didn't differentiate was because he didn't have to - he was only talking about golf courses. And he was taling about enivironmental worth and justice.

Portygreenkeeper knowingly idenitified American Golfers as Portobello people. A deliberate mis-representation or not?

We think differently on whether or not PFANS misrepresented Monbiot or not. I think that taking his quote, from an article which only mentions commercial developments, and applying it to the replacement of a municipal one is a misrepresentation.

You have unanswered questions of mine on this thread. I'd be really interested to read your answers.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Dec 2006, 12:56

Dadaist wrote:
You have unanswered questions of mine on this thread. I'd be really interested to read your answers.

Which ones?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 01 Dec 2006, 12:58

Dadaist wrote:
Pal of Porty wrote:Many of history's great tragedies have come about because too many people turned a blind eye and did not condemn - even though they did not support.
Like I said, if that's the price I have to pay for saying what I think then so be it. Youse can think I'm pro-PPAG if you want.

The point I was making is that sometimes it is what people do not say that makes the difference.

PS As my Gran used to say 'youse' are female sheep!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Dec 2006, 12:58

These ones.

Dadaist wrote:
Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Porty - also :

If you were an independent consultant and were given the job of making a summary of the various groups/bodies involved in and/or commenting on the consultation, is this the list you would come up with?
Hard to say. Although. I certainly wouldn't be refuting the facts.

Bob said neither (Texas & Linlithgow signatories) should have a say in the consultation. Do you agree?
I understand the legalities of the consultation and accept them.

Thanks for those answers. Delineating the questions as (1) and (2) - in the above order - could you further enhance those answers by providing "Yes" or "No" to (1) and "Yes" or "No" to (2).

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Dec 2006, 13:01

Pal of Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
Pal of Porty wrote:Many of history's great tragedies have come about because too many people turned a blind eye and did not condemn - even though they did not support.
Like I said, if that's the price I have to pay for saying what I think then so be it. Youse can think I'm pro-PPAG if you want.
The point I was making is that sometimes it is what people do not say that makes the difference.

PS As my Gran used to say 'youse' are female sheep!

Difference or not, I'm happy to be accused of anything youse can come up with if it affords me the freedom to pass comment as I choose.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Dec 2006, 13:10

Ok

1) Hard to say as i'm not an independent consultant but my understanding is they don't take decisions.. However if I was a council official who was going to make a recomendation a balance sheet like the one I have posted would be very usefful. I already know that the decision makers are not going to read through the supportive data. They want the headlines. Not saying it would be the only "tool" but an important one.

"2) Texan and linlithgow should not be taken into consideration.

so

Portygreenkeeper knowingly idenitified American Golfers as Portobello people. A deliberate mis-representation or not?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 01 Dec 2006, 13:15

I am not accusing you of you anything.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Dec 2006, 13:21

Thanks.

That's really interesting to know that both you and Bob agree that signatures should be discounted from the PFANS E-petition.

Rather than passing comment on the PPAG one, I'd get my own house in order first - I wouldn't want Bellybabe to get out her "Pots & Kettles" !!!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Dec 2006, 13:24

Dadaist wrote: Thanks.

That's really interesting to know that both you and Bob agree that signatures should be discounted from the PFANS E-petition.

It may be interesting but I'm happy that they are discounted.

Dadaist wrote: Rather than passing comment on the PPAG one, I'd get my own house in order first - I wouldn't want Bellybabe to get out her "Pots & Kettles" !!!

That's a pretty scummy response to a straight question, thanks for nothing.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Dec 2006, 13:24

Pal of Porty wrote:I am not accusing you of you anything.

The inference is yours. I'm not accusing you of accusing me of anything. I'm saying I'm happy to be accused - in the past, present or future - of anything youse like. I am lumping you in with the negativo posse though after your dreadful "no junior section" letter.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Dec 2006, 13:28

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote: Thanks.

That's really interesting to know that both you and Bob agree that signatures should be discounted from the PFANS E-petition.
It may be interesting but I'm happy that they are discounted.

Dadaist wrote: Rather than passing comment on the PPAG one, I'd get my own house in order first - I wouldn't want Bellybabe to get out her "Pots & Kettles" !!!
That's a pretty scummy response to a straight question, thanks for nothing.

That wasn't my response to your Portygreenkeeper question - sorry if I confused you - I can see how his post on their forum ended up with signatures on their E-petition. No - that was just a continuation of my response to your belated answer to my question.

I was going to put my answer to your Portygreenkeeper question on a new post.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Dec 2006, 13:34

My apologies.

The isuue is not about the actual signatures on the petitions, they are equally invalid on both petitions or at least they shoud be discounted. Its about the way that the signatures were recruited and how they are presented to the community and others.

PFANS are not claiming people from Linlithgow are from portobello, which is why you are able to identify them as being from Linlithgow and the full information on the issue is divulged to all that sign the PFANS petition.

PPAG are telling a false story to texans and claiming that those texans are from portobello.

There are major differences.

so

Portygreenkeeper knowingly idenitified American Golfers as Portobello people. A deliberate mis-representation or not?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Dec 2006, 13:40

Portygreenkeeper knowingly idenitified American Golfers as Portobello people. A deliberate mis-representation or not?

Big time, but it's the kind of tactic I'd expect from them.

Part of the reason I've not commented is because I feel sorry for them.
Part of the reason is because I think they are beneath my contempt.
Part of the reason is that I think it's more useful to give them enough rope such that they will hang themselves.

The rest of it concerns time management (there just aren't enough hours in the day for me to write everything I'd like on here) and other reasons, which concern the history of the whole thread, which I can't really comment on for fear of suspension.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Dec 2006, 13:41

Thank you.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Dec 2006, 13:45

Glad you got a chance to read it. Enjoy the Xmas do and love to PoP too.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 01 Dec 2006, 13:45

Dadaist wrote:I am lumping you in with the negativo posse though after your dreadful "no junior section" letter.

That's fair enough it was a very negative letter!