OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[MadAmster]

There is, absolutely, NO RIGHT WAY TO BULLY!

Bullying is bullying is bullying, whichever way you look at it. Anybody who's ever been on the wrong end of bullying would agree with that. Those who don't agree may well be bullies themselves.

Personally, I have zero time for bullies and even less tolerance.

When I was teaching, bullies had a hard time of it as I always stuck up for the bullied. Now I'm retired and 71, I will still stand up for the bullied. Bullies be warned!

[ramAnag]

I didn?t see anyone getting the better of me, I think that?s your bias showing through

Yes you have claimed. ?Victory? a number of times when I?ve withdrawn from a discussion. I?ll have to trawl back a bit further than the last time I proved you wrong but I will if you wish

If you don?t want a grown-up discussion that?’s fine, I brought up the subject of the paradox of tolerance which you seemed to engage with but then went off at a tangent, then withdrew. Genuinely, I didn?t understand

Lol. No you wouldn’t. That couldn’t be your own bias showing by any chance could it?

Okay. Keep trawling. I’ll just wait for the evidence of me ‘claiming victory’.

The ‘paradox of tolerance’. Generally understood and often misinterpreted as those who exercise tolerance being ultimately responsible for allowing intolerance to thrive I suppose. You suggested you had examples ‘big and small’ of when intolerance was required to counteract further intolerance. It’s an argument that clearly can be made. I tried to relate it to recent forum events but you didn’t seem keen so, rather than starting a spat, I left it. Take it further if you think fit. Up to you.

[Andy_Faber]

Honestly AF, what do you want? My observation was that Swale seemed to be getting the better of you?again, so I opted to leave you two to it.

I've been quietly pondering this comment and your earlier one about me 'having my hands full' with Swale, I couldn't work out what you meant, I now can and it just reinforces my belief that you've lost all sense of balance and, like Swale, you are focussing on personalities not their opinions. Your observations that I had my hands full with Swale and that Swale was 'getting the better of me' I now realise relate to two posts from Swale made at 3.04 and 3.31 yesterday, DURING THE RAMS GAME, during which time, if you'll excuse me, I was too concerned with Derby's performance to even register that there was a post or posts never mind diverting from the game to offer a response. Yet there you are, just as the half time whistle blew, calling a debate in favour of Swale BEFORE I HAD CHANCE TO RESPOND. Very even handed of you

[swaledale]

I've been quietly pondering this comment and your earlier one about me 'having my hands full' with Swale, I couldn't work out what you meant, I now can and it just reinforces my belief that you've lost all sense of balance and, like Swale, you are focussing on personalities not their opinions. Your observations that I had my hands full with Swale and that Swale was 'getting the better of me' I now realise relate to two posts from Swale made at 3.04 and 3.31 yesterday, DURING THE RAMS GAME, during which time, if you'll excuse me, I was too concerned with Derby's performance to even register that there was a post or posts never mind diverting from the game to offer a response. Yet there you are, just as the half time whistle blew, calling a debate in favour of Swale BEFORE I HAD CHANCE TO RESPOND. Very even handed of you

Which sounds a good explanation, except for my posts were made in the afternoon of the 26, which was nearly 24hrs BEFORE the Rams game. Honestly if your going to deflect, avoid responding to a post or otherwise weasel your way out of having posted something clearly wrong, then at least offer a reasonable excuse.

Seems to me you've been watching too many right wing commentators and politicians whose general approach is to deny or ignore falsehoods or silly remarks even though its ludicrous to do so.

[ramAnag]

I've been quietly pondering this comment and your earlier one about me 'having my hands full' with Swale, I couldn't work out what you meant, I now can and it just reinforces my belief that you've lost all sense of balance and, like Swale, you are focussing on personalities not their opinions. Your observations that I had my hands full with Swale and that Swale was 'getting the better of me' I now realise relate to two posts from Swale made at 3.04 and 3.31 yesterday, DURING THE RAMS GAME, during which time, if you'll excuse me, I was too concerned with Derby's performance to even register that there was a post or posts never mind diverting from the game to offer a response. Yet there you are, just as the half time whistle blew, calling a debate in favour of Swale BEFORE I HAD CHANCE TO RESPOND. Very even handed of you

You and Swale had resurrected an old on going argument in which he invariably, IMO, runs circles round you. That is what I meant by you having your hands full. I have my views but was staying out of it.

As for posting during the game. What can I say? Should I apologise for being able to multitask? I’m sorry, but I don’t find it hugely taxing to type a brief response while listening to the radio/Sky Sports.

Poor attempt at deflection. Still trawling?

[Andy_Faber]

You and Swale had resurrected an old on going argument in which he invariably, IMO, runs circles round you. That is what I meant by you having your hands full. I have my views but was staying out of it.

As for posting during the game. What can I say? Should I apologise for being able to multitask? I’m sorry, but I don’t find it hugely taxing to type a brief response while listening to the radio/Sky Sports.

Poor attempt at deflection. Still trawling?

Swale is so on point with his comments that he can?t even get his dates right, he never runs rings round me, TTR, GP (or for that matter you on football matters). His deflection tactics are to deny proof exists, try to discredit it, mention the Nazis, accuse people of being racist (or another-ist) and those with open minds or opposing views (so excluding yourself regrettably) see through him and his playbook.

Note, and referring back to my first sentence, the two of you need to get your ducks in a row, you agree that Swales posts occurred during the game,Swale denies it, maybe he?s just better at deflection than you

You?ve also stated that Swale and I have arguments. Name the last one.

[ramAnag]

Swale is so on point with his comments that he can?t even get his dates right, he never runs rings round me, TTR, GP (or for that matter you on football matters). His deflection tactics are to deny proof exists, try to discredit it, mention the Nazis, accuse people of being racist (or another-ist) and those with open minds or opposing views (so excluding yourself regrettably) see through him and his playbook.

Note, and referring back to my first sentence, the two of you need to get your ducks in a row, you agree that Swales posts occurred during the game,Swale denies it, maybe he?s just better at deflection than you

You?ve also stated that Swale and I have arguments. Name the last one.

Give it a rest, AF. You’re becoming obsessed.

If you don’t think Swale makes better political points than you that’s your opinion. I don’t share it but so what?

Get our ducks in a row? What are you talking about? Swale has made a mistake. He did mention things during the first half of Saturday’s match. Again, so what? I have made no reference to it. Nothing to do with me, take it up with him, but being able to listen and type at the same time doesn’t surprise me. It’s not, as far as I know, as if any of us were actually at the match so what is your point?

Name the last time you and Swale had an argument? You’re the one who wants to trawl back, although so far I note nothing has been forthcoming, but everyone knows that you and he are in a permanent state of attrition. You, imo, go out of your way to provoke which isn’t the role of a moderator (clue is in the name).

In the meantime, I’d suggest you concentrate on sorting the site so posts can become readable (properly punctuated with something other than question marks) and threads to do with DCFC (i.e. the PotS thread) are identified by the stickies you were so keen to introduce. That’d be so much more useful.

[MadAmster]

... and breathe.

[swaledale]

Swale is so on point with his comments that he can?t even get his dates right, he never runs rings round me, TTR, GP (or for that matter you on football matters). His deflection tactics are to deny proof exists, try to discredit it, mention the Nazis, accuse people of being racist (or another-ist) and those with open minds or opposing views (so excluding yourself regrettably) see through him and his playbook.

Note, and referring back to my first sentence, the two of you need to get your ducks in a row, you agree that Swales posts occurred during the game,Swale denies it, maybe he?s just better at deflection than you

You?ve also stated that Swale and I have arguments. Name the last one.

Mea culpa, on this occasion the great AF is right, those posts were during the game, for some reason I thought 26 was Friday, my mistake. Although clearly you had 24 hrs plus afterwards to respond if he wanted to! So no attempt at deflection by me at all.

Now as for your claim that I have never run rings round you, well I guess if one is deluded about one's right wing views, then self delusion is clearly a common occurrence. I mean I still remember your clearly racist comment about too many people of ethnic backgrounds in the media!

Interesting how you try to suck up to RA in your comment on football matters. RA can stand up for himself my dear, you on the otherhand retreat when exposed as you have been.

Most interesting though is your failure again, to explain or justify how Trump can do the "right sort of bullying". or to explain how in your opinion the attacks on DEI, Government departments and deporting immigrants without due process are what you class as the "right sort of bullying".

Your failure to do so, is rather revealing of the fact that you do believe that if there are issues one doesn't agree with, its perfectly fine to ignore due process or inconveniences like the rule of law. That is of course the play book of authoritarian regimes and leaders.

Mind you I'm still pissing myself laughing at you saying you take our dim Red friends posts at face value, that one post alone shatters any credibility you might have had.

I mention the Nazi's purely because that's how it started in Germany, a politician was elected and then proceeded to act above and outside the law and many of the population didn't push back for a variety of reasons, reasons indeed like, the "right sort of bullying" against people or issues that may disliked. We see the same play book of the right in Hungary, in Poland before a change of government.

Your apparent approval of some of the actions and the manner of them by Trump is quite revealing. I mean explain how else one is meant to interpret what you posted?

As for you having an open mind, blimey that's some delusion you've got going there.

I can see why you object to the insult gammon being used, as I often say, if the cap fits, toodle pip.

[Trickytreesreds]

So, Starmers attempts to curtail free speech/ using the law to suppress one political view more than another/ changing laws to protect one minority over another. Is that acceptable bullying?