| LATEST SCORE : Boris Johnson 0-194 Sir Keir Starmer 12:41 - May 6 with 14677 views | MaySixth |
Boris Johnson : “International comparisons are not being made”
Keir Starmer : “Here is a slide from last night showing the government making international comparisons”
Silence.
(FIVE) [Post edited 15 Jul 2020 19:50]
|  |
| |  |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 20:11 - May 7 with 1443 views | Clapham_Junction |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 19:50 - May 7 by giant_stow |
"So you've gone from financially secure types voting for Corbyn because they aren't going to be impacted too badly, to financially secure types opposing him because they are? "
I don't think I said that no, but not sure I understand what you're saying, so any chance of clarifying?
If it helps, I was talking about youngsters moving to London and feeling they could take a risk with life ahead of them and no dependants, but middle-aged Joe in Bolsover not being so keen cos he's got kids and elderly parents to think of. This point was nothing to do with wealth - more about what you were syaing about demographics. |
You said that "they're often middle-class profesional types living relatively affluent lives." |  | | |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 20:14 - May 7 with 1443 views | BrixtonBlue |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 19:41 - May 7 by Clapham_Junction |
So you've gone from financially secure types voting for Corbyn because they aren't going to be impacted too badly, to financially secure types opposing him because they are?
This just comes across as you taking whatever position justifies your views that people who supported him are the problem (and absolving those that didn't), regardless of what their rationales for supporting him were. |
Yeah Ulla's basically like a drunk in a fight windmilling right now. |  |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 20:21 - May 7 with 1437 views | BrixtonBlue |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 19:43 - May 7 by giant_stow |
Ah, you don't understand the word 'Proportionately’ — fair enough mr, apologies for leaving it out in the first place (lazy of me).
More apologies for the shorthand 'big cities' — I wasn’t referring to their size, more their outlook and voting behaviour in the last election. |
You're all over the place mate. At least put the beer down.
I do understand the word 'proportionately.’ I have an English Language degree (don't like to brag though).
Thing is, the proportion of anywhere is irrelevant here. You've basically attested that London is middle class and thus Corbyn voters are middle class (coz lots are in London). Both of these statements are wrong. Now with 'big cities' you're referring to a city's outlook rather than its size?! What does that even mean?! Which 'big cities' are you talking about then, that you consider middle class and Corbyn-voting? | |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 20:24 - May 7 with 1433 views | BrixtonBlue |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 20:11 - May 7 by Clapham_Junction |
You said that "they're often middle-class profesional types living relatively affluent lives." |
He did say that, didn't he? | |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 21:20 - May 7 with 1415 views | giant_stow |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 20:11 - May 7 by Clapham_Junction |
You said that "they're often middle-class profesional types living relatively affluent lives." |
I thought we were conversing (!) and maybe moving rhe definition of those with 'skin in the game' along a little bit. Ie Older people with dependents have more at stake as do those with less financial security. [Post edited 7 May 2020 22:46]
|  |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 21:23 - May 7 with 1413 views | giant_stow |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 20:21 - May 7 by BrixtonBlue |
You're all over the place mate. At least put the beer down.
I do understand the word 'proportionately.’ I have an English Language degree (don't like to brag though).
Thing is, the proportion of anywhere is irrelevant here. You've basically attested that London is middle class and thus Corbyn voters are middle class (coz lots are in London). Both of these statements are wrong. Now with 'big cities' you're referring to a city's outlook rather than its size?! What does that even mean?! Which 'big cities' are you talking about then, that you consider middle class and Corbyn-voting? |
I think i must be thinking in english and accidently typing Martian. Or are you lot reading in welsh?!
Shakey head icon thingy | |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 21:40 - May 7 with 1376 views | jaykay |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 15:30 - May 7 by chummywalnut |
Starmer's biggest problem is that most Labour voters are very militant without being particularly intelligent. |
so whats your views on lambert ? another posters whose first post is not about football. |  |
| forensic experts say footers and spruces fingerprints were not found at the scene after the weekends rows |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 22:47 - May 7 with 1364 views | Ryorry |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 15:54 - May 7 by BrixtonBlue |
Yep, I've noticed this. Pretty blatant. When the going gets tough, the tough suddenly need to walk their dog... |
Your stepping in with defamatory comments & petty insults when people disagree with you is one thing (dozens of examples of you doing this in the past) but when you have the cheek to accuse another on this thread of doing so, I draw the line. Maybe an online self-awareness course would help you. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 23:17 - May 7 with 1360 views | Ryorry |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 15:53 - May 7 by GlasgowBlue |
She has a point though.
I’m just back from an 8 mile run and you’re still on the same thread repeating the same tired old arguments.
Embrace Starmer, forget Corbyn. You’ll feel better. |
True, but it's more than that, it's about him (and he's not the only one) deliberately making insulting & derogatory personal comments that he knows full well are untrue, about people who disagree with him. And that's him swerving. I made a point he disagreed with (on p7. I think) that a couple of people agreed with; his response was to chuck a diversionary old chestnut at me which he then followed up for over an hour & several posts, instead of following through the real point re JC that I'd made.
Going back further than that, it's also about how myths about people start & become a thing on here. One person says something about you, then a couple of other people who've previously disagreed with you for some reason, or who you've disagreed with, decide to pick up & run with it for their own reasons. When I first joined this place over 20 years ago, it was the first forum I'd ever been on - in fact I'd never been on the internet before. I thought it was polite if leaving a convo or debate to explain to others in it that I had to go, and why, just as you would if you were face-to-face with people in a room. Someone promptly mocked me for that, & over the years three people in particular turned it into a myth for their own particular purposes (2 of them are on this thread, the third has left the forum).
Other people just leave conversations without comment & come back later without anyone remarking on that at all. But as someone also said, there are a tiny minority on here who enjoy pushing the buttons of others, either as a diversion or just to get a reaction. | |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 08:34 - May 8 with 1291 views | giant_stow |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 23:17 - May 7 by Ryorry |
True, but it's more than that, it's about him (and he's not the only one) deliberately making insulting & derogatory personal comments that he knows full well are untrue, about people who disagree with him. And that's him swerving. I made a point he disagreed with (on p7. I think) that a couple of people agreed with; his response was to chuck a diversionary old chestnut at me which he then followed up for over an hour & several posts, instead of following through the real point re JC that I'd made.
Going back further than that, it's also about how myths about people start & become a thing on here. One person says something about you, then a couple of other people who've previously disagreed with you for some reason, or who you've disagreed with, decide to pick up & run with it for their own reasons. When I first joined this place over 20 years ago, it was the first forum I'd ever been on - in fact I'd never been on the internet before. I thought it was polite if leaving a convo or debate to explain to others in it that I had to go, and why, just as you would if you were face-to-face with people in a room. Someone promptly mocked me for that, & over the years three people in particular turned it into a myth for their own particular purposes (2 of them are on this thread, the third has left the forum).
Other people just leave conversations without comment & come back later without anyone remarking on that at all. But as someone also said, there are a tiny minority on here who enjoy pushing the buttons of others, either as a diversion or just to get a reaction. |
Did you even say you were off to walk the dog in this thread? Missed it. Feel for you either way - if a poster doesnt want to carry on with a thread, there could be any number of real life reasons. Weird to make a thing of it. | |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 09:37 - May 8 with 1281 views | BrixtonBlue |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 08:34 - May 8 by giant_stow |
Did you even say you were off to walk the dog in this thread? Missed it. Feel for you either way - if a poster doesnt want to carry on with a thread, there could be any number of real life reasons. Weird to make a thing of it. |
Whilst you are correct, there does appear to be a trend with certain posters that when they're losing an argument or the questions/points get too difficult, THAT"S when they suddenly get busy. | |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 09:46 - May 8 with 1274 views | GlasgowBlue |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 09:37 - May 8 by BrixtonBlue |
Whilst you are correct, there does appear to be a trend with certain posters that when they're losing an argument or the questions/points get too difficult, THAT"S when they suddenly get busy. |
Or people don’t spend 24/7 on here and have more commitments and things going on in their lives.
Ryorry, as I understand, lives in a remote area, has animals and lives a fairly self sufficient life. That takes a lot of maintenance,
For my part, I can be half way through having another pointless and unproductive ding dong with you and I’ll have the Mrs tell me we are taking the kids to x,y or z. Or it will be time for my daily run.
Some people either live on their own or with their girlfriend and their lives are not so chaotic or hectic.
This “disappearing when losing an argument” is rather silly. Winning or losing an argument in a football message board is irrelevant in the scheme of things. It’s only important to some obsessive posters who have to be right all of the time.
[Post edited 8 May 2020 9:57]
|  |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 09:50 - May 8 with 1266 views | NewcyBlue |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 16:52 - May 7 by Darth_Koont |
I've got three snakes to braid. |
I was going to reply to this yesterday, but was a bit annoyed so didn’t and slept on it.
This is bullying. I really think you need to adjust your attitude.
Remember how I said you’re coming across as a brainwashed religious loon? This is just showing up a nastier side of it. |  |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 09:54 - May 8 with 1264 views | NewcyBlue |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 09:37 - May 8 by BrixtonBlue |
Whilst you are correct, there does appear to be a trend with certain posters that when they're losing an argument or the questions/points get too difficult, THAT"S when they suddenly get busy. |
So what? Maybe people feel the need to be courteous to tell you why they won’t be replying for a little while? So they tell you and go and do something more productive rather than arguing on a forum. I’d say rather than arguing the same points over and over, which isn’t uncommon on here, going out and doing something else is a good use of time. | |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 10:32 - May 8 with 1250 views | GlasgowBlue |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 09:54 - May 8 by NewcyBlue |
So what? Maybe people feel the need to be courteous to tell you why they won’t be replying for a little while? So they tell you and go and do something more productive rather than arguing on a forum. I’d say rather than arguing the same points over and over, which isn’t uncommon on here, going out and doing something else is a good use of time. |
POTD | |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 11:26 - May 8 with 1231 views | Darth_Koont |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 23:17 - May 7 by Ryorry |
True, but it's more than that, it's about him (and he's not the only one) deliberately making insulting & derogatory personal comments that he knows full well are untrue, about people who disagree with him. And that's him swerving. I made a point he disagreed with (on p7. I think) that a couple of people agreed with; his response was to chuck a diversionary old chestnut at me which he then followed up for over an hour & several posts, instead of following through the real point re JC that I'd made.
Going back further than that, it's also about how myths about people start & become a thing on here. One person says something about you, then a couple of other people who've previously disagreed with you for some reason, or who you've disagreed with, decide to pick up & run with it for their own reasons. When I first joined this place over 20 years ago, it was the first forum I'd ever been on - in fact I'd never been on the internet before. I thought it was polite if leaving a convo or debate to explain to others in it that I had to go, and why, just as you would if you were face-to-face with people in a room. Someone promptly mocked me for that, & over the years three people in particular turned it into a myth for their own particular purposes (2 of them are on this thread, the third has left the forum).
Other people just leave conversations without comment & come back later without anyone remarking on that at all. But as someone also said, there are a tiny minority on here who enjoy pushing the buttons of others, either as a diversion or just to get a reaction. |
I have no idea about who you are talking about in the first paragraphs. This is also the second time you've tried to drag me into a beef you've actually been having with other people.
I don't know about any of that, I'm purely talking about what you've said to me on at least a couple of occasions when you've not addressed evidence. And let's not forget that this evidence is in the context of me defending myself against insinuations that I'm antisemitic or trading in antisemitic tropes etc which again you yourself have made towards me along the way.
So, sorry but I'm not taking that from you.
Obviously, you have my sympathy as no-one should be targeted by people and certainly over a longer period but call that out to Phil rather than dragging me into it. |  |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 11:28 - May 8 with 1224 views | Ryorry |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 08:34 - May 8 by giant_stow |
Did you even say you were off to walk the dog in this thread? Missed it. Feel for you either way - if a poster doesnt want to carry on with a thread, there could be any number of real life reasons. Weird to make a thing of it. |
Nope, I didn't, but as I said, some people have chosen to turn the fact that I was polite enough about 20 years ago to eplain why I was leaving a debate on here, into a myth that is now used as a stick to beat me with by a tiny number of people when I don't agree with them (but which, funnily enough, was never mentioned in lengthy debates in which I was agreeing with them that I took breaks from!). | |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 11:31 - May 8 with 1224 views | Darth_Koont |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 09:50 - May 8 by NewcyBlue |
I was going to reply to this yesterday, but was a bit annoyed so didn’t and slept on it.
This is bullying. I really think you need to adjust your attitude.
Remember how I said you’re coming across as a brainwashed religious loon? This is just showing up a nastier side of it. |
Newcy, you've been following me around with sarky comments for a while now but ramped it up yesterday afternoon. You also have no idea about the context of that comment - from my side at least, it was a relatively gentle p!ss-take between me and someone who were having a particular ongoing discussion.
So rein it in a little. | |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 11:34 - May 8 with 1220 views | Darth_Koont |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 11:28 - May 8 by Ryorry |
Nope, I didn't, but as I said, some people have chosen to turn the fact that I was polite enough about 20 years ago to eplain why I was leaving a debate on here, into a myth that is now used as a stick to beat me with by a tiny number of people when I don't agree with them (but which, funnily enough, was never mentioned in lengthy debates in which I was agreeing with them that I took breaks from!). |
See above.
Please stop dragging me into whatever that 20-year stuff is about with other posters. I've not done that and never even knew about it. | |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 11:44 - May 8 with 1205 views | Ryorry |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 11:26 - May 8 by Darth_Koont |
I have no idea about who you are talking about in the first paragraphs. This is also the second time you've tried to drag me into a beef you've actually been having with other people.
I don't know about any of that, I'm purely talking about what you've said to me on at least a couple of occasions when you've not addressed evidence. And let's not forget that this evidence is in the context of me defending myself against insinuations that I'm antisemitic or trading in antisemitic tropes etc which again you yourself have made towards me along the way.
So, sorry but I'm not taking that from you.
Obviously, you have my sympathy as no-one should be targeted by people and certainly over a longer period but call that out to Phil rather than dragging me into it. |
Para 1. Nice attempt at a swerve from you. This is a beef directed at you because it's only you on this thread (plus Brixton Blue swiping from the sidelines) that's been doing this. Read your own responses to me. If you can't see it, you really must be blind to what you yourself are actually saying.
Para 2. I've already told you on this thread what happened on one of those occasions, ie that I *did* read your evidence (which was numerous links requiring dozens of hours of reading *extremely* complex stuff - actually very interesting) - yet you've completely ignored that. You've also ignored the fact that I said I work a 17 hour day & have extremely limited time on here, unlike you who expects everyone to go round 24/7 in the tedious circles you create. Other occasions would be that I'm working (often weather-critical) or have appointments, or am going out, back in the good old days.
Para 3. Well then just bloody stop doing it. As for "calling Phil" I haven't seen the need (and fwiw I know there are 2 people on here, not you, who if I did would see that too as a stick to beat me with).
*Edited for the record to incorporate your posts of 11.34 & 12.09 that I didn't get round to replying to at the time - I've no wish to resuscitate the thread by adding to it.
"Please stop dragging me into whatever that 20-year stuff is about with other posters. I've not done that and never even knew about it."
"Eh? You've given this a context of other people and something going back 20 years. I'm speaking directly to you about our discussions - no-one else's."
So you fastened there on one of my posts mentioning the origins of the myth - and ignored all the rest of my numerous other posts over these 9 pages of this thread about how you & 1 more poster in particular have picked that thing up regularly, to use as a stick to beat me with when I disagree with you,Para 1. Nice attempt at a swerve from you. This is a beef directed at you because it's only you on this thread (plus Brixton Blue swiping from the sidelines) that's been doing this. Read your own responses to me. If you can't see it, you really must be blind to what you yourself are actually saying.
Para 2. I've already told you on this thread what happened on one of those occasions, ie that I *did* read your evidence (which was numerous links requiring dozens of hours of reading *extremely* complex stuff - actually very interesting) - yet you've completely ignored that. You've also ignored the fact that I said I work a 17 hour day & have extremely limited time on here, unlike you who expects everyone to go round 24/7 in the tedious circles you create. Other occasions would be that I'm working (often weather-critical) or have appointments, or am going out, back in the good old days.
Para 3. Well then just bloody stop doing it. As for "calling Phil" I haven't seen the need (and fwiw I know there are 2 people on here, not you, who if I did would see that too as a stick to beat me with).
*Edited for the record to incorporate your posts of 11.34 & 12.09 that I didn't get round to replying to at the time - I've no wish to resuscitate the thread by adding to it.
"Please stop dragging me into whatever that 20-year stuff is about with other posters. I've not done that and never even knew about it."
"Eh? You've given this a context of other people and something going back 20 years. I'm speaking directly to you about our discussions - no-one else's."
So you fastened there on one of my posts mentioning the origins of the myth - and ignored all the rest of my numerous other posts over these 9 pages about how you & 1 more poster in particular have picked that thing up & regularly use it as a stick to beat me with when I disagree with you - to the extent that another poster spots you doing it several times over in this thread alone, and describes it as "bullying".
I don't think anyone can be that self-deluded about what they've written, and I don't think you're stupid. I've come to the conclusion that you do this because you know that I'm time-poor (I've mentioned it too much no doubt) and by continually trying to bait & wind me up with the old chestnut, you're wasting more of my time. Which is just another kind of bullying really. [Post edited 11 May 2020 13:05]
| |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 11:54 - May 8 with 1204 views | Darth_Koont |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 09:37 - May 8 by BrixtonBlue |
Whilst you are correct, there does appear to be a trend with certain posters that when they're losing an argument or the questions/points get too difficult, THAT"S when they suddenly get busy. |
Indeed.
What's particularly strange is that GB and Ryorry are the ones getting all prickly here with me about swerving. Within the context of, for example, me presenting evidence that goes against their ongoing insinuations that I'm an antisemite or trading in antisemitic language and antisemitism denial.
Will they address the evidence and dial back on the insinuations? No. This isn't about standards of debate or behaviour at all. | |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 12:02 - May 8 with 1191 views | Ryorry |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 11:54 - May 8 by Darth_Koont |
Indeed.
What's particularly strange is that GB and Ryorry are the ones getting all prickly here with me about swerving. Within the context of, for example, me presenting evidence that goes against their ongoing insinuations that I'm an antisemite or trading in antisemitic language and antisemitism denial.
Will they address the evidence and dial back on the insinuations? No. This isn't about standards of debate or behaviour at all. |
I have never even once before mentioned you "swerving".* ie before my post on this or it might have been previous page.
I've already *twice* in the last 24 hours told you that I *did* address the evidence and "dial back", yet you still completely ignore that. You've now simply actually proved yourself to be a liar. | |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 12:05 - May 8 with 1191 views | NewcyBlue |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 11:31 - May 8 by Darth_Koont |
Newcy, you've been following me around with sarky comments for a while now but ramped it up yesterday afternoon. You also have no idea about the context of that comment - from my side at least, it was a relatively gentle p!ss-take between me and someone who were having a particular ongoing discussion.
So rein it in a little. |
I’ve hardly followed you around.
I’ve been engaged in this thread.
None of my comments have been sarcastic.
I know the context of the comment, it’s all about Ryorry walking her dog in the middle of a thread. You need to rein it in really.
Own it. | |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 12:09 - May 8 with 1187 views | Darth_Koont |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 11:44 - May 8 by Ryorry |
Para 1. Nice attempt at a swerve from you. This is a beef directed at you because it's only you on this thread (plus Brixton Blue swiping from the sidelines) that's been doing this. Read your own responses to me. If you can't see it, you really must be blind to what you yourself are actually saying.
Para 2. I've already told you on this thread what happened on one of those occasions, ie that I *did* read your evidence (which was numerous links requiring dozens of hours of reading *extremely* complex stuff - actually very interesting) - yet you've completely ignored that. You've also ignored the fact that I said I work a 17 hour day & have extremely limited time on here, unlike you who expects everyone to go round 24/7 in the tedious circles you create. Other occasions would be that I'm working (often weather-critical) or have appointments, or am going out, back in the good old days.
Para 3. Well then just bloody stop doing it. As for "calling Phil" I haven't seen the need (and fwiw I know there are 2 people on here, not you, who if I did would see that too as a stick to beat me with).
*Edited for the record to incorporate your posts of 11.34 & 12.09 that I didn't get round to replying to at the time - I've no wish to resuscitate the thread by adding to it.
"Please stop dragging me into whatever that 20-year stuff is about with other posters. I've not done that and never even knew about it."
"Eh? You've given this a context of other people and something going back 20 years. I'm speaking directly to you about our discussions - no-one else's."
So you fastened there on one of my posts mentioning the origins of the myth - and ignored all the rest of my numerous other posts over these 9 pages of this thread about how you & 1 more poster in particular have picked that thing up regularly, to use as a stick to beat me with when I disagree with you,Para 1. Nice attempt at a swerve from you. This is a beef directed at you because it's only you on this thread (plus Brixton Blue swiping from the sidelines) that's been doing this. Read your own responses to me. If you can't see it, you really must be blind to what you yourself are actually saying.
Para 2. I've already told you on this thread what happened on one of those occasions, ie that I *did* read your evidence (which was numerous links requiring dozens of hours of reading *extremely* complex stuff - actually very interesting) - yet you've completely ignored that. You've also ignored the fact that I said I work a 17 hour day & have extremely limited time on here, unlike you who expects everyone to go round 24/7 in the tedious circles you create. Other occasions would be that I'm working (often weather-critical) or have appointments, or am going out, back in the good old days.
Para 3. Well then just bloody stop doing it. As for "calling Phil" I haven't seen the need (and fwiw I know there are 2 people on here, not you, who if I did would see that too as a stick to beat me with).
*Edited for the record to incorporate your posts of 11.34 & 12.09 that I didn't get round to replying to at the time - I've no wish to resuscitate the thread by adding to it.
"Please stop dragging me into whatever that 20-year stuff is about with other posters. I've not done that and never even knew about it."
"Eh? You've given this a context of other people and something going back 20 years. I'm speaking directly to you about our discussions - no-one else's."
So you fastened there on one of my posts mentioning the origins of the myth - and ignored all the rest of my numerous other posts over these 9 pages about how you & 1 more poster in particular have picked that thing up & regularly use it as a stick to beat me with when I disagree with you - to the extent that another poster spots you doing it several times over in this thread alone, and describes it as "bullying".
I don't think anyone can be that self-deluded about what they've written, and I don't think you're stupid. I've come to the conclusion that you do this because you know that I'm time-poor (I've mentioned it too much no doubt) and by continually trying to bait & wind me up with the old chestnut, you're wasting more of my time. Which is just another kind of bullying really. [Post edited 11 May 2020 13:05]
|
Eh? You've given this a context of other people and something going back 20 years. I'm speaking directly to you about our discussions - no-one else's.
I see this is only going to go one way. I suggest you put me on ignore and I'll give you a wide berth too. | |
| |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 12:10 - May 8 with 1185 views | GlasgowBlue |
| FT : Boris Johnson 0-3 Sir Keir Starmer on 11:54 - May 8 by Darth_Koont |
Indeed.
What's particularly strange is that GB and Ryorry are the ones getting all prickly here with me about swerving. Within the context of, for example, me presenting evidence that goes against their ongoing insinuations that I'm an antisemite or trading in antisemitic language and antisemitism denial.
Will they address the evidence and dial back on the insinuations? No. This isn't about standards of debate or behaviour at all. |
I've never once said you are an antisemite. In fact I have said the opposite.
What I have said is that you have engaged in, repeated and defended antisemitic tropes.
Your defence of this is that you don't agree with or recognise the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Well tough titty. That is the universally adopted definition.
Rather odd to drag this back up after months but I think I'll leave you to it. The barking at the moon DK is making an appearance and it never ends well. [Post edited 8 May 2020 12:14]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
