Enhanced Britishness

[the snail]

Did you miss the post where the term was used, despite me posting it again?

Perhaps you would also care to explain what 'ditched' means?

Although we all know, it means restricting the public use of the song, aka censoring its public use.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word 'censorship'. Presumably if the nastional anthem were to be changed, it would be decided by whoever it is that decides these things. That is not censorship any more than if a tv program decided to change its theme tune. You would still be allowed to listen to God Save The Queen, or sing it.

 

[Rusty Nails]

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word 'censorship'. Presumably if the nastional anthem were to be changed, it would be decided by whoever it is that decides these things. That is not censorship any more than if a tv program decided to change its theme tune. You would still be allowed to listen to God Save The Queen, or sing it.

That bastion of quality journalism The Sun would have headlines saying it had been ditched. Nuff said!

 

[Pale Rider]

Given up or replaced would be perfectly suitable alternatives. And you know this perfectly well.

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/ditch_2 gives an example:
The series was ditched after the star of the show quit. Only one person on this planet would confuse this with the censoring of a series.

The informal definition in the first online dictionary I came across is 'got rid of' or 'give up', which sounds fine to me.

Getting rid of a song or giving up using it must remove it from public view, which is a form of censorship.

it would be decided by whoever it is that decides these things

Agreed, and by forcing us to get rid of Land of Hope and Glory that body is operating a form of censorship.

Being told 'you are no longer allowed to use that song' cannot be anything else.

 

[Rusty Nails]

The informal definition in the first online dictionary I came across is 'got rid of' or 'give up', which sounds fine to me.

Getting rid of a song or giving up using it must remove it from public view, which is a form of censorship.




Agreed, and by forcing us to get rid of Land of Hope and Glory that body is operating a form of censorship.

Being told 'you are no longer allowed to use that song' cannot be anything else.

 

[classic33]

Any chance of you showing us where Fabbers proposed this or are you misrepresenting her words

Her words!
Is there something that's not being said?

 

[Pale Rider]

View attachment 19

Stupid gifs designed to ridicule.

Very impressive.

They were, of course, officially ditched in the old place, which goes to show that not all censorship is a bad thing.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

The informal definition in the first online dictionary I came across is 'got rid of' or 'give up', which sounds fine to me.

Getting rid of a song or giving up using it must remove it from public view, which is a form of censorship.

When I ditched my minidisk did I really censor it?

The person who's ditched their car outside the Sainsburys petrol station in New Cross Gate, were they really censoring it? What they are doing is creating a tailback along the eastbound carriage of the A2. The people queueing up to get to the shut station are just plain stupid though.

When the Swiss ditched the tune to God Save the Queen for their national anthem in 1961, were they really censoring the tune? I mean it's survived perfectly well in serving Liechtenstein and the UK ever since.

 

[Pale Rider]

When I ditched my minidisk did I really censor it?

The person who's ditched their car outside the Sainsburys petrol station in New Cross Gate, were they really censoring it? What they are doing is creating a tailback along the eastbound carriage of the A2. The people queueing up to get to the shut station are just plain stupid though.

When the Swiss ditched the tune to God Save the Queen for their national anthem in 1961, were they really censoring the tune? I mean it's survived perfectly well in serving Liechtenstein and the UK ever since.

I agree not all ditching is censorship, but context is everything.

Ditching - throwing an item away - is clearly not censorship, but seeking to restrict a song's public use clearly is.

So while we've still got the chance and before the thought police take over, all together now:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r94sjdHQ0c

 

[Rusty Nails]

Stupid gifs designed to ridicule.

Very impressive.

They were, of course, officially ditched in the old place, which goes to show that not all censorship is a bad thing.

Of course it was used to ridicule a ridiculous man. That was the point of it. Glad you were impressed.

No replies to my comments, or deptfordmarmoset's, about your obsession about the narrow use of a wide-ranging word. But that does not surprise me.

I agree not all ditching is censorship, but context is everything.

Especially when you get to define the context to suit your prejudices.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I agree not all ditching is censorship, but context is everything.

Ditching - throwing an item away - is clearly not censorship, but seeking to restrict a song's public use clearly is.

So, are you still claiming that the Swiss censored the melody to their national anthem back in 1961?

 

[Deleted member 28]

The taliban are not watching you.

Or you!

 

[Pale Rider]

Of course it was used to ridicule a ridiculous man. That was the point of it. Glad you were impressed.

No replies to my comments, or deptfordmarmoset's, about your obsession about the narrow use of a wide-ranging word. But that does not surprise me.


Especially when you get to define the context to suit your prejudices.

So it's prejudice now is it?

What next, does seeking to preserve Land of Hope and Glory in its current usage make me a racist?

According to the dictionary, ditched does have a narrow informal usage - got rid of.

Regrettably for you, that suits my contention more than yours, so I suppose it must be wrong as well.

Indeed, and people wonder why newspapers are going the way of the Dodo.

If you must bring in off-topic snipes at my profession, you could at least make some attempt at accuracy.

Or am I asking you to be too narrow?

 

[Rusty Nails]

So it's prejudice now is it?

What next, does seeking to preserve Land of Hope and Glory in its current usage make me a racist?

According to the dictionary, ditched does have a narrow informal usage - got rid of.

Regrettably for you, that suits my contention more than yours, so I suppose it must be wrong as well.


If you must bring in off-topic snipes at my profession, you could at least make some attempt at accuracy.

Or am I asking you to be too narrow?

Everyone, including you, has some level of prejudices. The important thing is to recognise them and reflect on them.

You are the one who has raised that with absolutely no justification, but tbh, although I think you base a lot of your responses on prejudices that you stubbornly see as facts, I have never considered you to be racist.

Nowhere, whether in narrow or wide informal usage, does ditched get defined as or equated with censorship.

Referring to the "quality" of The Sun's journalism and use of words, which you have in the past admired, is not off topic, just a justified tangent when talking about misuse of certain words.

 

[Pale Rider]

Referring to the "quality" of The Sun's journalism and use of words, which you have in the past admired, is not off topic, just a justified tangent when talking about misuse of certain words.

That was your second effort.

In the post I quoted, you clearly inferred that newspapers are going extinct because people such as me work for them.

I have no idea what you do/did for a living, but even if I knew I wouldn't insult you/your profession purely to make some snippy irrelevant point.

I genuinely wonder where you get off on doing that, although I won't be losing any sleep over it.

 

[Rusty Nails]

That was your second effort.

In the post I quoted, you clearly inferred that newspapers are going extinct because people such as me work for them.

I have no idea what you do/did for a living, but even if I knew I wouldn't insult you/your profession purely to make some snippy irrelevant point.

I genuinely wonder where you get off on doing that, although I won't be losing any sleep over it.

Yes, I admit that was a bit below the belt, but you constantly remind us of your profession as a means of strengthening some of your arguments. Many of your posts do not give answers or follow-up to statements you make for impact, in the same way as many newspapers do not give much attention to inconvenient points of view. The Sun is a prime example of that tendency, although it is not only confined to right-wing newspapers.

Can I take it, by concentrating on this point, that you do not disagree with my first three points.