David Torrance

David Torrance

@davidtorrance

Recently described as a 'Scottish urban hipster in London' - political journalist, broadcaster and contemporary historian (& biographer of Alex Salmond)

London · http://www.davidtorrance.com

Tweets

    1. My interpretation of what you said respectfully differs. But then, I'm a paranoid deranged maniac.

    2. not embarrassed to have written blog based on a misrep'ion of my argument & undermined it with puerile language & use of pix?

    3. But, y'know, shall I start scouring your work for things I consider inaccurate or misrepresentation?

    4. yes, and I'll fess up when they (genuinely) are inaccurate or misleading, something you seem incapable of doing.

    5. What Salmond actually said in that interview was "Yes, [+qualifier]". You've ignored the qualifier and called him a liar.

    pretty feeble. And I called no one a 'liar' - that's the sort of word people like you use.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. In the same piece, you talked of "the political pooper-scooper" and "cleaning up First Ministerial mess". Not puerile?

    2. "Desperate not to be labelled a “cutter” Salmond presented a reduction in further education college funding as a modest rise"

    3. A clear implication that he did it deliberately, rather than reading figures provided in error in good faith.

  1. Image will appear as a link
    1. I never disputed that more yes than no votes in the wouldn't constitute a majority.I was talking about opinion polls

    2. My interpretation of what you said respectfully differs. But then, I'm a paranoid deranged maniac.

    3. not embarrassed to have written blog based on a misrep'ion of my argument & undermined it with puerile language & use of pix?

    4. But, y'know, shall I start scouring your work for things I consider inaccurate or misrepresentation?

    yes, and I'll fess up when they (genuinely) are inaccurate or misleading, something you seem incapable of doing.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. And just by the by, I've added a footnote to the article noting that you object to the description "Tory". Fair-minded, me.

    2. you could also correct the part of the blog which claims I said something I didn't. And remove the irrelevant picture.

    3. I never disputed that more yes than no votes in the wouldn't constitute a majority.I was talking about opinion polls

    4. My interpretation of what you said respectfully differs. But then, I'm a paranoid deranged maniac.

    not embarrassed to have written blog based on a misrep'ion of my argument & undermined it with puerile language & use of pix?

    Image will appear as a link
    1. And just by the by, I've added a footnote to the article noting that you object to the description "Tory". Fair-minded, me.

    2. you could also correct the part of the blog which claims I said something I didn't. And remove the irrelevant picture.

    3. I never disputed that more yes than no votes in the wouldn't constitute a majority.I was talking about opinion polls

    4. My interpretation of what you said respectfully differs. But then, I'm a paranoid deranged maniac.

    it's not a matter of interpretation, it's about what I did & did not say. And you consider your blog responsible & accurate?

    Image will appear as a link
    1. But mostly disappointed that you're sticking to your absurd line that most votes in a 2-choice referendum isn't a majority.

    2. when did I say that? I was only ever talking about polling - you've erroneously conflated the two.

    3. And just by the by, I've added a footnote to the article noting that you object to the description "Tory". Fair-minded, me.

    4. you could also correct the part of the blog which claims I said something I didn't. And remove the irrelevant picture.

    I never disputed that more yes than no votes in the wouldn't constitute a majority.I was talking about opinion polls

    Image will appear as a link
    1. My interpretation of what you said respectfully differs. But then, I'm a paranoid deranged maniac.

    2. it's not a matter of interpretation, it's about what I did & did not say. And you consider your blog responsible & accurate?

    3. That assertion rests on a non-definitive interpretation of the word "majority". As far as I'm concerned, a poll showing...

    4. not embarrassed to have written blog based on a misrep'ion of my argument & undermined it with puerile language & use of pix?

    1. The blog was about you and it's a picture of you. That's a connection. I like having a picture in a post.

    2. that's an incredibly feeble argument but then, as I said, you're a little bit nuts. I've tried to reblock u but can't. G'nite

    3. But mostly disappointed that you're sticking to your absurd line that most votes in a 2-choice referendum isn't a majority.

    4. when did I say that? I was only ever talking about polling - you've erroneously conflated the two.

    5. And just by the by, I've added a footnote to the article noting that you object to the description "Tory". Fair-minded, me.

    you could also correct the part of the blog which claims I said something I didn't. And remove the irrelevant picture.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. I never disputed that more yes than no votes in the wouldn't constitute a majority.I was talking about opinion polls

    2. My interpretation of what you said respectfully differs. But then, I'm a paranoid deranged maniac.

    3. it's not a matter of interpretation, it's about what I did & did not say. And you consider your blog responsible & accurate?

    4. That assertion rests on a non-definitive interpretation of the word "majority". As far as I'm concerned, a poll showing...

    1. The blog was about you and it's a picture of you. That's a connection. I like having a picture in a post.

    2. that's an incredibly feeble argument but then, as I said, you're a little bit nuts. I've tried to reblock u but can't. G'nite

    3. But mostly disappointed that you're sticking to your absurd line that most votes in a 2-choice referendum isn't a majority.

    4. when did I say that? I was only ever talking about polling - you've erroneously conflated the two.

    5. Define "erroneously". As there will be no Don't Knows, the polls show which side will win, and therefore have the majority.

    I didn't assert what you just claimed I did; I was only ever talking about Indy polling, not the itself. Sigh.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. The blog was about you and it's a picture of you. That's a connection. I like having a picture in a post.

    2. that's an incredibly feeble argument but then, as I said, you're a little bit nuts. I've tried to reblock u but can't. G'nite

    3. But mostly disappointed that you're sticking to your absurd line that most votes in a 2-choice referendum isn't a majority.

    when did I say that? I was only ever talking about polling - you've erroneously conflated the two.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. Define "erroneously". As there will be no Don't Knows, the polls show which side will win, and therefore have the majority.

    2. And just by the by, I've added a footnote to the article noting that you object to the description "Tory". Fair-minded, me.

    3. I didn't assert what you just claimed I did; I was only ever talking about Indy polling, not the itself. Sigh.

    4. you could also correct the part of the blog which claims I said something I didn't. And remove the irrelevant picture.

    1. The blog was about you and it's a picture of you. That's a connection. I like having a picture in a post.

    that's an incredibly feeble argument but then, as I said, you're a little bit nuts. I've tried to reblock u but can't. G'nite

    Image will appear as a link
    1. Then feel free to just ignore me. I shan't bother you again. I'm genuinely disappointed and baffled that you're so angry.

    2. But mostly disappointed that you're sticking to your absurd line that most votes in a 2-choice referendum isn't a majority.

    3. when did I say that? I was only ever talking about polling - you've erroneously conflated the two.

    4. Define "erroneously". As there will be no Don't Knows, the polls show which side will win, and therefore have the majority.

  2. I've written several articles for newsnetscotland too, so not sure what your point is.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. My point, simply enough, is that the impression I've personally formed is that you lean towards the Conservatives.

  3. Image will appear as a link
  4. Image will appear as a link
    1. ZING! Must be a lot of deranged maniacs in Scotland, then. But as a Tory I imagine you think that already.

    2. and don't you think labelling me a 'Tory' & using a (rather good) old pic to illustrate your blog is a bit puerile?

    3. You are, aren't you? I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, even though I'm at the opposite end.

    4. and if it's nothing to be ashamed of, why did your pejorative use of the term & picture feature so prominently in your blog?

    5. "Pejorative"? In what sense? Mentioned it once, in the phrase "Tory commentator David Torrance", which doesn't seem to fit.

    to imply political bias/allegiance in a commentator is generally pejorative. Your use of that pic underlined that general aim

    Image will appear as a link
    1. I've repeatedly said on the site that there's nothing wrong with commentators having allegiances. They're people too.

    1. ZING! Must be a lot of deranged maniacs in Scotland, then. But as a Tory I imagine you think that already.

    2. and don't you think labelling me a 'Tory' & using a (rather good) old pic to illustrate your blog is a bit puerile?

    3. You are, aren't you? I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, even though I'm at the opposite end.

    4. by any measurement - voting habits, political beliefs & party membership - I'm not, & here's you claiming to be 'factual'.

    5. Happy to stand corrected, merely the impression I've arrived at from everything I've seen you say.

    u'll be referring, of course, to all the articles I've written slagging off the Scottish Tory Party (of which there are many)

    Image will appear as a link
    1. ZING! Must be a lot of deranged maniacs in Scotland, then. But as a Tory I imagine you think that already.

    2. and don't you think labelling me a 'Tory' & using a (rather good) old pic to illustrate your blog is a bit puerile?

    3. You are, aren't you? I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, even though I'm at the opposite end.

    4. by any measurement - voting habits, political beliefs & party membership - I'm not, & here's you claiming to be 'factual'.

    5. Happy to stand corrected, merely the impression I've arrived at from everything I've seen you say.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. Not quite sure why believing in basic X>Y arithmetic makes one a "deranged maniac", but as you like.

    2. ZING! Must be a lot of deranged maniacs in Scotland, then. But as a Tory I imagine you think that already.

    3. and don't you think labelling me a 'Tory' & using a (rather good) old pic to illustrate your blog is a bit puerile?

    4. You are, aren't you? I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, even though I'm at the opposite end.

    and if it's nothing to be ashamed of, why did your pejorative use of the term & picture feature so prominently in your blog?

    Image will appear as a link
    1. "Pejorative"? In what sense? Mentioned it once, in the phrase "Tory commentator David Torrance", which doesn't seem to fit.

    2. to imply political bias/allegiance in a commentator is generally pejorative. Your use of that pic underlined that general aim

    3. I've repeatedly said on the site that there's nothing wrong with commentators having allegiances. They're people too.

    1. Not quite sure why believing in basic X>Y arithmetic makes one a "deranged maniac", but as you like.

    2. ZING! Must be a lot of deranged maniacs in Scotland, then. But as a Tory I imagine you think that already.

    3. and don't you think labelling me a 'Tory' & using a (rather good) old pic to illustrate your blog is a bit puerile?

    4. You are, aren't you? I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, even though I'm at the opposite end.

    by any measurement - voting habits, political beliefs & party membership - I'm not, & here's you claiming to be 'factual'.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. Except the referendum isn't an election, is it? Who wins if there are two Yes votes and one No vote?

    2. anyway enough, as a pal once said: you can't shout logic at a maniac & expect to win the argument. Happy (deranged) blogging.

    3. Not quite sure why believing in basic X>Y arithmetic makes one a "deranged maniac", but as you like.

    4. ZING! Must be a lot of deranged maniacs in Scotland, then. But as a Tory I imagine you think that already.

    and don't you think labelling me a 'Tory' & using a (rather good) old pic to illustrate your blog is a bit puerile?

    1. Except the referendum isn't an election, is it? Who wins if there are two Yes votes and one No vote?

    2. anyway enough, as a pal once said: you can't shout logic at a maniac & expect to win the argument. Happy (deranged) blogging.

    3. Not quite sure why believing in basic X>Y arithmetic makes one a "deranged maniac", but as you like.

    4. ZING! Must be a lot of deranged maniacs in Scotland, then. But as a Tory I imagine you think that already.

    no, you're the deranged maniac, who (ironically) gives your own side a bad name; you'd need self-awareness to appreciate that

    Image will appear as a link