OT - Manchester again.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Thanks, but you really are odd. You and AF constantly and consistently agree with/support each other but no one is infantile enough to mention rear seat/rear gunner etc, yet every time I agree with Swale you reach for the same tedious and childish response.
You’ve said nothing about MA, who reached exactly the same conclusion, but it’s Swale and rA so, in your head, I must be just acting in his defence.

It’s nothing to do with that. Yes, Swale and I - and MA, mac and Sith for that matter - often agree politically, while you, AF and TTR - if he can tear himself away from all things Thai - tend to adopt an opposite stance. That is kind of what happens in arguments and debates so don’t be surprised if and when you get called out for fabricating and misrepresenting others. If you talk bollux and say things that are simply untrue you - and anyone else - are likely to get shot down in flames…and not just by me.

Who is surprised?? You are possibly the most predictible poster on this forum.

[ramAnag]

Who is surprised?? You are possibly the most predictible poster on this forum.

Lol…says he who’s been repeating the same ‘joke’, time and time again, for about the last nine years.

[swaledale]

What?s clear is you got caught out.

So here is the relevant bit of my post you made that comment to.

"Hang on a minute, proscribing an organisation is about terrorist organisations, not those whose activities might on occasion involve breaking the law. There are existing laws which are more than enough to deal with people who cause criminal damage.

I've not seen any evidence that the stated aims of PA are breaking the law and criminal damage, but in the history of protest, there has always been (often for justified reasons) protest groups that have engaged in law breaking.

Lets face it governments often ignore or side line protests, or society is such that it takes something dramatic to actually change views and bring about change. Personally I admire people who are prepared to risk their freedom for a just cause."

Your comment:

"So you?re saying it?s ok for folk to cause terror / break the law so long as they say they?re going to do so? Nice one Swale"


Quite how you reached that conclusion from what I posted will I'm sure puzzle others, because it clearly isn't what I said. I might have gvien you the benefit of the doubt, that you didn't express correctly what you meant. But as you still (erroneously) think you made a valid point. It seems my conclusion, that either your ability to comprehend what's written is flawed, or your just interpret what's written to suit your own blinkered view of the world, was in fact correct.

You do make yourself look silly sometimes.

[swaledale]

Who is surprised?? You are possibly the most predictible poster on this forum.

As indeed are you, though I do realise a lot of what you post is with tongue lodge firmly in cheek.


However, maybe acknowledging that your comment about me lauding Kirk's death wasn't true would be in order?

[ramAnag]

Your comment:

"So you?re saying it?s ok for folk to cause terror / break the law so long as they say they?re going to do so? Nice one Swale"


Quite how you reached that conclusion from what I posted will I'm sure puzzle others, because it clearly isn't what I said. I might have gvien you the benefit of the doubt, that you didn't express correctly what you meant. But as you still (erroneously) think you made a valid point. It seems my conclusion, that either your ability to comprehend what's written is flawed, or your just interpret what's written to suit your own blinkered view of the world, was in fact correct.

You do make yourself look silly sometimes.

No Swale, you misunderstand. It’s all in the ‘tactics’ of the ‘game’, according to Mr. F in post #78.
It’s not his inability to comprehend. Heaven forbid. It’s his unwillingness, as moderator, to take any sort of stance against deliberate misinterpretation and indeed his apparent desire to indulge in that self same strategy. Just a little ‘quirk’ of his.
As long as he’s wearing his - allegedly - (very) big boy’s pants that’s all okay, in other words…dishonesty is fine on here.

[SithHappens]

Interesting thoughts on celebrating someone's death.

Ian Watkins? Can't be many mourning him.

[Andy_Faber]

Interesting thoughts on celebrating someone's death.

Ian Watkins? Can't be many mourning him.

Unanimously not on the music forums I moderate.

[ramAnag]

Unanimously not on the music forums I moderate.

Not sure how a thread about the Manchester synagogue attack leads to the death of a child abusing musician in ‘Monster Mansion’.

[Andy_Faber]

Not sure how a thread about the Manchester synagogue attack leads to the death of a child abusing musician in ‘Monster Mansion’.

In the same way swale and gp?s all-our-yesterdays conversation did - a diversion started, it ran its course, folk moved on.

[SithHappens]

My fault sorry. I sort of know, in my own head anyway, why i posted it here. Had a few shandies though.