OT - Manchester again.

[Geoff Parkstone]

reread and contextualise post 35 hereon

[MadAmster]

reread and contextualise post 35 hereon

I realise that was aimed at rA but I decided to read #35.

There's nothing in there lauding or applauding Kirk's death. No wallowing in it either.

Respect is earned, Swale is of the opinion Kirk didn't garner respect when alive so why give it to him in death? There will be people close to him that genuinely loved him, what we saw of him was a public aura of which there's not much to be proud, IMO. Was the private aura different? We'll never know.

That's my take on #35. I'd like to understand what it is in #35 that you want rA to re-read and contextualise?

[ramAnag]

I realise that was aimed at rA but I decided to read #35.

There's nothing in there lauding or applauding Kirk's death. No wallowing in it either.

Respect is earned, Swale is of the opinion Kirk didn't garner respect when alive so why give it to him in death? There will be people close to him that genuinely loved him, what we saw of him was a public aura of which there's not much to be proud, IMO. Was the private aura different? We'll never know.

That's my take on #35. I'd like to understand what it is in #35 that you want rA to re-read and contextualise?

Me too! Entirely agree. Unfortunately it is a repeated strategy of some on here to exaggerate and misrepresent.
Swale has neither lauded nor wallowed in Kirk’s death. He’s suggested that the fact that someone has died shouldn’t alter one’s opinion of them and, imo, he’s quite right.
Those who feel the need to misrepresent have usually lost the argument in my experience.

[Andy_Faber]

NO and that's perfectly clear in my whole post, although clearly either your comprehension skills are lacking or you interpret what you read to align with your own dogma and blinkered thinking.

What?s clear is you got caught out.

[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.

[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.

[swaledale]

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.

Its obvious he has the ability of an 11 year old regarding English comprehension and context. Which is why its barely worth trying to debate with him. That an odd fixation in trying to find the good in neo fascists!

Still it does amuse one when he posts what he thinks is a clever repost, only to make himself look silly.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Me too! Entirely agree. Unfortunately it is a repeated strategy of some on here to exaggerate and misrepresent.
Swale has neither lauded nor wallowed in Kirk’s death. He’s suggested that the fact that someone has died shouldn’t alter one’s opinion of them and, imo, he’s quite right.
Those who feel the need to misrepresent have usually lost the argument in my experience.

Glad you've recovered from your arduous drive back from holidays (?) and good to see you nestled in the back seat again 😃😃

[ramAnag]

Glad you've recovered from your arduous drive back from holidays (?) and good to see you nestled in the back seat again ����

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.

[MadAmster]

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.

Simply understood what was written. Nothing special.