OT another terrorist attack.

[sota]

How can you argue against anyone that uses the word "scoundrels"? I haven't heard that word for donkey's years. I hope it lives on but fear it won't.

[monty_rhodes]

So what you are saying is that you have found an article by two Muslims who hold an opinion that suits your purpose and so believe that settles the issue?

It's good to know that you have such an open and enquiring mind.

By the way, who appointed her the 'leading Muslim lawyer in the UK'? I can think of a few Muslim lawyers who might disagree with that assessment.

The "her" is a journalist. The Times referred to the guy as the UK's leading Muslim lawyer. There wasn't "an article" but 2 separate ones, one in the Times, the other the Sunday Times. You are a proven liar, Kerr. You can simply check by looking at my original posts after the Manchester attack with references these articles.
You are also a pompous twit. You would see that my comments are not meant to be definitive but are in the context of the thread and specifically roly's observation that Islamic terrorism emerged as a response to Western foreign policy. I merely offer the views of prominent Muslims that such a view is wrong and other explanations exist.

[monty_rhodes]

How can you argue against anyone that uses the word "scoundrels"? I haven't heard that word for donkey's years. I hope it lives on but fear it won't.

I originally used "knaves" but thought that was a bit too old fashioned.

[KerrAvon]

The "her" is a journalist. The Times referred to the guy as the UK's leading Muslim lawyer. There wasn't "an article" but 2 separate ones, one in the Times, the other the Sunday Times. You are a proven liar, Kerr. You can simply check by looking at my original posts after the Manchester attack with references these articles.
You are also a pompous twit. You would see that my comments are not meant to be definitive but are in the context of the thread and specifically roly's observation that Islamic terrorism emerged as a response to Western foreign policy. I merely offer the views of prominent Muslims that such a view is wrong and other explanations exist.

Ah, so it's The Times editorial policy that settles the argument as far as you are concerned? Every other opinion has to bow down in the face of that promulgated by the Murdoch Empire?

I've learned over time that it pays to check your 'interpretation' of anything that you rely upon, but I believe that the online version of The Times uses pay walls? Never mind. I'll take your word for it, but did The Times justify the use of the term 'leading Muslim lawyer' in there, I am sure, entirely objective piece?

In what way am I a proven liar, monty? I think that title suits you better given your mangling of the Radio 4 interview to suit your purpose the other week.

[monty_rhodes]

Ah, so it's The Times editorial policy that settles the argument as far as you are concerned? Every other opinion has to bow down in the face of that promulgated by the Murdoch Empire?

I've learned over time that it pays to check your 'interpretation' of anything that you rely upon, but I believe that the online version of The Times uses pay walls? Never mind. I'll take your word for it, but did The Times justify the use of the term 'leading Muslim lawyer' in there, I am sure, entirely objective piece?

In what way am I a proven liar, monty? I think that title suits you better given your mangling of the Radio 4 interview to suit your purpose the other week.

Why did you not respond to my original posts in respect of these articles? Why have you allowed people to belive that you are a supporter of RUFC, Barnsley and the Blades? Why did you misrepresent my post here which used the plural "statements" and my clear reference the the woman being a journalist to deliberately minimise the impact by referring to a single article and stating that I has said the woman was the UK's "leading Muslim lawyer"? As to the Radio 4 interview you will see that most posters felt my summary was perfectly fair. You are a disgrace too to suggest that reporters and editors on the Times and Sunday Times (papers that have exposed some of the biggest scandals in UK life) are simply Murdoch pawns. You must know this is a disgraceful calumny but you never hesitate to use any tactic, however low, to "prove" a point. Get lost you creep.

[KerrAvon]

So you'd like me to get lost? Fair enough.

How about we do a Proven Liar Challenge? A couple of weeks ago you asserted that I had claimed to be a life long supporter of Sheffield United and Barnsley (albeit you now seem to be retreating from that position a little), whereas I say that I've never done any such thing.

If you can link to a single post where I have claimed to support any team other than Rotherham, I'll get lost. I'll put a single post on here accepting that I'm a proven liar and walk away never to post again

On the flipside, if you can't substantiate your allegation, you will accept you are a proven liar and walk away, never to post again (under any of your user names).

Does that sound like a deal? If not, will you explain why?

[monty_rhodes]

So you'd like me to get lost? Fair enough.

How about we do a Proven Liar Challenge? A couple of weeks ago you asserted that I had claimed to be a life long supporter of Sheffield United and Barnsley (albeit you now seem to be retreating from that position a little), whereas I say that I've never done any such thing.

If you can link to a single post where I have claimed to support any team other than Rotherham, I'll get lost. I'll put a single post on here accepting that I'm a proven liar and walk away never to post again

On the flipside, if you can't substantiate your allegation, you will accept you are a proven liar and walk away, never to post again (under any of your user names).

Does that sound like a deal? If not, will you explain why?

I will explain exactly why. It's the same reason why I can't nail a couple of Kempo's old falsehoods. You simply can no longer access posts made before a certain date. I know Barnsley fans and Blades who believe you to support their team.
I have never commented on Kempo's frequent assertions that you are not a lawyer but today's events suggest you cannot be. I present a short witness statement - far shorter and plainer than many a lawyer would encounter. Yet you confuse plural with singular, get the occupation of one witness wrong and jump to an erroneous conclusion about the gender of another. Some lawyer.
Who the f*ck gives you the right to demand I never post again?
I know from past experience that you check references. yet when I referred to articles in ealier posts with page and date included you said nothing. Why? Obviously because you knew my points were correct.
Also, explain why when roly and others make a link between terrorism and Western foreign policy without providing any evidence, any witnesses, any academic support or any mechanism for the causal effect you let it pass. No evidence or witnesses whatsoever. Yet you let it pass. But when I quote 2 witnesses with contrary testimony you immediately decry it as "only" two. Why?
You are an unpleasant individual and are held in contempt by many decent posters on 3 separate club forums.

[Exiletyke]

So what you are saying is that you have found an article by two Muslims who hold an opinion that suits your purpose and so believe that settles the issue?

It's good to know that you have such an open and enquiring mind.

By the way, who appointed her the 'leading Muslim lawyer in the UK'? I can think of a few Muslim lawyers who might disagree with that assessment.

By the way, who appointed her the 'leading Muslim lawyer in the UK'? I can think of a few Muslim lawyers who might disagree with that assessment.[/QUOTE]



I bet you can

[monty_rhodes]

By the way, who appointed her the 'leading Muslim lawyer in the UK'? I can think of a few Muslim lawyers who might disagree with that assessment.

I bet you can[/QUOTE]
He's no lawyer. His response to my post is riddled with errors. As well as those I mention above he also distorted my statement that the content of the articles "confirmed their view" - ie, the "view", not necessarily the correct view but "their" view, ie the view of the people making the statements - with the fatuous distortion that I claimed this "settled the issue." The guy is a muppet.
The Blades/Tykes outrage by him is rubbish. let's take it a step at a time. I have never posted on another club's forum. Has KerrAvon posted on Blades, Tykes and Millers forums? Yes or no. Does Kerr's username make it obvious he is a Miller? yes or no. Has Kerr stated on Barnsley and Blades forums that he is a Miller? Is it a reasobale assumption if not that he is in fact a supporter of that club? Why does a lifelong Miller post on other clubs' forums? Has he made observations about other teams' performances and players? yes or no.

[KerrAvon]

So that's a 'no' to taking the 'Proven Liar Challenge'?

Pity.

Have you checked to see how far back you can go? Surely you can find a single post to support your allegation?

My offer remains open even if you won't accept the challenge. One post to prove your claim and I'll go, never to return.