Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2018 18:10:16 GMT
So if you are ignoring it why have you brought the subject up on several occasions I think perhaps you need to go back to page 15 of this thread. And then skip to page 17 where the main discussion started and is now being continued on this page. You will see that I haven't kept bringing the subject up. Most of my posts are on this page, and result from you asking me questions. Now, I quote from your post above in response to Bamber. What you say here suggests that you misunderstand what the debate is about. In which case there's probably not a lot anyone can say to appease you. "If you are so offended by the word used as you and a couple of others said then you must have led a very sheltered life.
When I played football I was called a lot worse than that and just laughed it off I didn't go running to my mother saying how upset I was at being sworn at."
... . That's rubbish as you well know because when I asked if you had seen the posteam you said that you had said so on several occasions so that was not in response to my questongue. And you know exactly where the offending article was posted.and I don't misunderstand at all you and a few others are getting worked up over someone being called a nAmerican that is not even rated as a swear word I would suggest you are either very religious or have an agenda which we both know you have and it is not a new one |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2018 18:10:30 GMT
So if you are ignoring it why have you brought the subject up on several occasions I think perhaps you need to go back to page 15 of this thread. And then skip to page 17 where the main discussion started and is now being continued on this page. You will see that I haven't kept bringing the subject up. Most of my posts are on this page, and result from you asking me questions. Now, I quote from your post above in response to Bamber. What you say here suggests that you misunderstand what the debate is about. In which case there's probably not a lot anyone can say to appease you. "If you are so offended by the word used as you and a couple of others said then you must have led a very sheltered life.
When I played football I was called a lot worse than that and just laughed it off I didn't go running to my mother saying how upset I was at being sworn at."
... . That's rubbish as you well know because when I asked if you had seen the posteam you said that you had said so on several occasions so that was not in response to my questongue. And you know exactly where the offending article was posted.and I don't misunderstand at all you and a few others are getting worked up over someone being called a nAmerican that is not even rated as a swear word I would suggest you are either very religious or have an agenda which we both know you have and it is not a new one |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2018 19:01:52 GMT
That's called a Strawman. People do that when they talk themselves into a corner. Sure, there are lots of bad things happening, try to discuss them on here and you get shouted down by people saying that it's a football forum, so, in context, we are left with things like Harry and his threats of violence. Absolutely rubbish you are trying to defend the indefensible ? We've gone from a Strawman position to just plain fishing. Off you toddle, go try to annoy someone else. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2018 19:07:30 GMT
Absolutely rubbish you are trying to defend the indefensible ? We've gone from a Strawman position to just plain fishing. Off you toddle, go try to annoy someone else. Typical of you when you have no sensible response you revert to childish insults.just out of curiosity who was the poster who was sworn at |
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Nov 10, 2018 19:10:56 GMT
1982 lost
That's a fact
I'm lost with this, and other threads, but hey ho.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2018 19:14:46 GMT
? We've gone from a Strawman position to just plain fishing. Off you toddle, go try to annoy someone else. Typical of you when you have no sensible response you revert to childish insults.just out of curiosity who was the poster who was sworn at I've got no idea, that's not my issue with Mike, I'm willing to believe that he did it though, he has previous, including, as I'm happy to quote because I know it happened, threats of violenece. I kind of recall him upsetting ex-service personnel on here a year or so back, I guess I could find that thread if you are desperate to see it, but it's just as easy for you to find it yourself if you are that interested. Say something sensible or ask a question that relates to something I've said and I'll happily reply, Strawman my position and I'll mock you. It's quite straightforward  |
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,069
Member is Online
|
Post by Angas on Nov 10, 2018 19:22:36 GMT
I think perhaps you need to go back to page 15 of this thread. And then skip to page 17 where the main discussion started and is now being continued on this page. You will see that I haven't kept bringing the subject up. Most of my posts are on this page, and result from you asking me questions. Now, I quote from your post above in response to Bamber. What you say here suggests that you misunderstand what the debate is about. In which case there's probably not a lot anyone can say to appease you. "If you are so offended by the word used as you and a couple of others said then you must have led a very sheltered life.
When I played football I was called a lot worse than that and just laughed it off I didn't go running to my mother saying how upset I was at being sworn at."
... . That's rubbish as you well know because when I asked if you had seen the posteam you said that you had said so on several occasions so that was not in response to my questongue. And you know exactly where the offending article was posted.and I don't misunderstand at all you and a few others are getting worked up over someone being called a nAmerican that is not even rated as a swear word I would suggest you are either very religious or have an agenda which we both know you have and it is not a new one I said "a couple of times". In my book that's twice. And I don't think anyone was called a nAmerican? I really do suggest you need to go back to page 15 and read through properly from there. (No religion, no agenda btw.) |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2018 19:24:42 GMT
Typical of you when you have no sensible response you revert to childish insults.just out of curiosity who was the poster who was sworn at I've got no idea, that's not my issue with Mike, I'm willing to believe that he did it though, he has previous, including, as I'm happy to quote because I know it happened, threats of violenece. I kind of recall him upsetting ex-service personnel on here a year or so back, I guess I could find that thread if you are desperate to see it, but it's just as easy for you to find it yourself if you are that interested. Say something sensible or ask a question that relates to something I've said and I'll happily reply, Strawman my position and I'll mock you. It's quite straightforward So you are getting all upset but it was nothing to do with you What an idiot |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2018 19:27:44 GMT
... . That's rubbish as you well know because when I asked if you had seen the posteam you said that you had said so on several occasions so that was not in response to my questongue. And you know exactly where the offending article was posted.and I don't misunderstand at all you and a few others are getting worked up over someone being called a nAmerican that is not even rated as a swear word I would suggest you are either very religious or have an agenda which we both know you have and it is not a new one I said "a couple of times". In my book that's twice. And I don't think anyone was called a nAmerican? I really do suggest you need to go back to page 15 and read through properly from there. (No religion, no agenda btw.) That was meant to say a name as you well know.so you don't know who he was referring to either.as for agenda you have had that for 12 years or so with anyone connected to the s.c. So did the person the insult was aimed at complain |
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,069
Member is Online
|
Post by Angas on Nov 10, 2018 19:41:56 GMT
I said "a couple of times". In my book that's twice. And I don't think anyone was called a nAmerican? I really do suggest you need to go back to page 15 and read through properly from there. (No religion, no agenda btw.) That was meant to say a name as you well know.so you don't know who he was referring to either.as for agenda you have had that for 12 years or so with anyone connected to the s.c. So did the person the insult was aimed at complain You see you really aren't understanding the issue at all. It was never about someone being insulted directly, nor sworn at. It was the subject matter of the post which caused offence. You're completely on the wrong track. I admire your loyalty to Harry but you can't argue a point which you have no understanding of. You're assuming you know what's what when you really don't. Now what I am struggling to understand is your first sentence here. What was meant to say a name and who is it that I don't know is being referred to or by whom? I'm completely baffled on that one. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2018 19:49:46 GMT
That was meant to say a name as you well know.so you don't know who he was referring to either.as for agenda you have had that for 12 years or so with anyone connected to the s.c. So did the person the insult was aimed at complain You see you really aren't understanding the issue at all. It was never about someone being insulted directly, nor sworn at. It was the subject matter of the post which caused offence. You're completely on the wrong track. I admire your loyalty to Harry but you can't argue a point which you have no understanding of. You're assuming you know what's what when you really don't. Now what I am struggling to understand is your first sentence here. What was meant to say a name and who is it that I don't know is being referred to or by whom? I'm completely baffled on that one. Not defending anyone as I don't know him just wondering why 2 people who had nothing to do with the original conversation should get so irate about it.everyone has the right to their opinions even you and if the original recipient of the alleged insult wasn't upset why are you and bambino getting your knickers in a twist.I detest what UKIP say and stand for but will defend their god given right to to have those opinions and voice it.but if you both want to be the speech police then so be it let's close the forum down to any comments or opinions that you pair do not agree with |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2018 19:56:17 GMT
You see you really aren't understanding the issue at all. It was never about someone being insulted directly, nor sworn at. It was the subject matter of the post which caused offence. You're completely on the wrong track. I admire your loyalty to Harry but you can't argue a point which you have no understanding of. You're assuming you know what's what when you really don't. Now what I am struggling to understand is your first sentence here. What was meant to say a name and who is it that I don't know is being referred to or by whom? I'm completely baffled on that one. Not defending anyone as I don't know him just wondering why 2 people who had nothing to do with the original conversation should get so irate about it.everyone has the right to their opinions even you and if the original recipient of the alleged insult wasn't upset why are you and bambino getting your knickers in a twist.I detest what UKIP say and stand for but will defend their god given right to to have those opinions and voice it.but if you both want to be the speech police then so be it let's close the forum down to any comments or opinions that you pair do not agree with ...but you don’t know what comments you’re defending.... |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2018 19:58:48 GMT
I've got no idea, that's not my issue with Mike, I'm willing to believe that he did it though, he has previous, including, as I'm happy to quote because I know it happened, threats of violenece. I kind of recall him upsetting ex-service personnel on here a year or so back, I guess I could find that thread if you are desperate to see it, but it's just as easy for you to find it yourself if you are that interested. Say something sensible or ask a question that relates to something I've said and I'll happily reply, Strawman my position and I'll mock you. It's quite straightforward So you are getting all upset but it was nothing to do with you What an idiot Brilliant. Just in case you haven't noticed, it's got nothing to do with you, but you're so excited that I make it 16 posts from you on this thread since yesterday. You're about as bright as Harry Anyway, nothing to see here, Oct came and went, thread anchored. We'll have to wait for the next made up story that a couple of people believe so report as fact. |
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,069
Member is Online
|
Post by Angas on Nov 10, 2018 20:14:24 GMT
You see you really aren't understanding the issue at all. It was never about someone being insulted directly, nor sworn at. It was the subject matter of the post which caused offence. You're completely on the wrong track. I admire your loyalty to Harry but you can't argue a point which you have no understanding of. You're assuming you know what's what when you really don't. Now what I am struggling to understand is your first sentence here. What was meant to say a name and who is it that I don't know is being referred to or by whom? I'm completely baffled on that one. Not defending anyone as I don't know him just wondering why 2 people who had nothing to do with the original conversation should get so irate about it.everyone has the right to their opinions even you and if the original recipient of the alleged insult wasn't upset why are you and bambino getting your knickers in a twist.I detest what UKIP say and stand for but will defend their god given right to to have those opinions and voice it.but if you both want to be the speech police then so be it let's close the forum down to any comments or opinions that you pair do not agree with There was no recipient. The post was in poor taste. One person objected vehemently (and in my opinion justifiably and understandably). That was that. No more was said by anyone until eleven days later someone referred back to the original post which had been deleted. He misidentified the author of said post. I replied to explain that to him. No speech police from me, I've just answered posts from people who didn't see the original one and asked what it was about. And now today I have been in conversation with you because you asked me a question. The best I can offer you is to go back to page 15, post 6 timed at 4.22. That's the starting point really. The original offending post was on page 12 I believe, timed at 4.22 on 23rd October, objected to at 11pm that day, edited (as in completely re-written) by Harry at 3.55pm the following day, and deleted at some point by admin (no time stamp for that as far as I can see). Personally I don't see why you're getting so irate about all this when you had nothing to do with the original conversation. But I respect your right to question and I have done my best to answer. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2018 20:49:49 GMT
So you are getting all upset but it was nothing to do with you What an idiot Brilliant. Just in case you haven't noticed, it's got nothing to do with you, but you're so excited that I make it 16 posts from you on this thread since yesterday. You're about as bright as Harry Anyway, nothing to see here, Oct came and went, thread anchored. We'll have to wait for the next made up story that a couple of people believe so report as fact. Makes me 10 times brighter than you |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2018 20:51:42 GMT
Not defending anyone as I don't know him just wondering why 2 people who had nothing to do with the original conversation should get so irate about it.everyone has the right to their opinions even you and if the original recipient of the alleged insult wasn't upset why are you and bambino getting your knickers in a twist.I detest what UKIP say and stand for but will defend their god given right to to have those opinions and voice it.but if you both want to be the speech police then so be it let's close the forum down to any comments or opinions that you pair do not agree with There was no recipient. The post was in poor taste. One person objected vehemently (and in my opinion justifiably and understandably). That was that. No more was said by anyone until eleven days later someone referred back to the original post which had been deleted. He misidentified the author of said post. I replied to explain that to him. No speech police from me, I've just answered posts from people who didn't see the original one and asked what it was about. And now today I have been in conversation with you because you asked me a question. The best I can offer you is to go back to page 15, post 6 timed at 4.22. That's the starting point really. The original offending post was on page 12 I believe, timed at 4.22 on 23rd October, objected to at 11pm that day, edited (as in completely re-written) by Harry at 3.55pm the following day, and deleted at some point by admin (no time stamp for that as far as I can see). Personally I don't see why you're getting so irate about all this when you had nothing to do with the original conversation. But I respect your right to question and I have done my best to answer. Not irate just don't like censorship or intolerance and if the cap fits with you then fine |
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,069
Member is Online
|
Post by Angas on Nov 10, 2018 22:09:08 GMT
There are times when those are justified. In this instance you are not qualified to judge.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 8:05:50 GMT
There are times when those are justified. In this instance you are not qualified to judge. And you are not qualified to be judge or jury more like a vigilante. |
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294 
|
Post by Igitur on Nov 11, 2018 8:23:25 GMT
Thank goodness for anchors.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Nov 11, 2018 8:36:49 GMT
I used to love my school days holidays to Padstow, growing up.
When it came to May Day celebrations we naturally preferred to follow the Blue Oss around the town, rather than the Red Oss.
Rather apt for today, being Remembrance Sunday and 100 year Armistice Day, the Blue Oss is also known as the 'Peace Oss'.
|
|
