Main Stream Black Out.

[transam]

worked with a Plymouth brethren bloke for a good while

He worked for the same firm as me

Came across as bit strange . Came to my attention that interest free loans were possibly available to
Those who were in the caper ?

Me and my mate said we may be interested in joining up if said loans were onthe cards ? Prepared to turn up ounce a month and sing s couple of hymns ?

Bloke was not impressed on our reasons for joining up and basically inferred I or we were a couple of lady's Wiley's never actually used the wording but it boiled down to the same thing

Still that's there loss

 

[durhamplumber]

If you cannot provide such evidence, I cannot accept your proposal.

Arrogant prat

 

[jasonzyx]

Wow! Someone was having a right hissy fit last night, and I missed it all. I had to go back several pages to catch up.
Most of it was completely over my head, but I did recognise one bit. And there are a couple of other points I'd like to address.

The bit that I did recognise was the part about someone claiming to be mentally incapacitated. Well, not that bit, but the description of the person who claimed to be mentally incapacitated.
I think there's probably about three people on here whose spelling is bad.
Conny, but what I've seen of him, he's a straight up kind of fella. The mere thought of him claiming something to which he was not entitled would probably fill him with utter shame. So we can discount Conny.

Bodd, now Bodd and I have many vociferous disagreements, I vehemently disagree with his politics and his ideology. But I very much doubt that he would or could stoop so low as to claim a mental incapacity to which he wasn't entitled.

Then there's transam. What I've seen of transam, he is totally devoid of any morals at all, perhaps amoral would be a better description. I think I have yet to see a comment of his that could be said to even approach usefulness in this forum. Of course I have no idea what he does in other forums.
In this forum, his posts are just a constant stream of vituperation.
Someone who can stoop low enough to accuse others, of whom he has no personal knowledge, of sexual and violent abuse against children, could easily fit the description of someone who claims a mental incapacity, to which he is not entitled. Because of his amorality, that would not bother him in the slightest.
So any of his comments can be discounted as vile vituperation, not worth a second consideration.
I would, like Noseall, put him on ignore so that I do not have to suffer his insufferable invective. But I think it's important to refute and dismantle his nonsense theories and claims.

 

[jasonzyx]

The other point I would like to address is Andy's comments. I'm not intending to offer any kind of argument against his Islamophobia. There's no need.
In one way, it's OK for him to spout off his bigoted comments, So that the rest of society can see for themselves how totally ridiculous his ideology is.
In another way, of course, others can see how dangerous, divisive and disturbing his ideology really is.

As far as him not recognising the word Islamophobia, well it's his choice, but it is defined in the All-party parliamentary group, which of course includes Tories, including the right wing of the party..

“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/20/labour-formally-adopts-definition-islamophobia
​

I think andy should pay special attention to the words, "Muslimness or perceived Muslimness".
Islamophobia doesn't only have to be prejudice against Muslims. It can be bigotry against "perceived Muslimness".

No doubt this will send ELFImpudence into a hissy fit of his own.

 

[jasonzyx]

Phew. I had to go back all the way to page 10 to find out where I had used the word gobbledygook.
Now, to put it simply, I was describing what you had written. I was not describing you, or making any judgement about you, only and purely about what you had written, and only about the one sentence, in a post of many sentences.

Whereas, you were describing everything that I had written in that post, my whole argument, and was making a comment about me in general, with your response:

"Unbelievable twaddle.
It is pointless replying to you. I should know better."​

You never attempted to address any of my points. You simply resorted to your usual stock reply to avoid admitting that your reasoned argument had been exhausted.

My description of your sentence as gobbledygook, well let the readers decide. This was the sentence I described as gobbledygook:

"...because that's the nature of language and because you don't accept our word, there must be another - IF our word is wrong."​

The meaning did become clear several posts later, but at the time it did appear to be gobbledygook, and I did address your other points in that post one by one. So it was abundantly obvious that I was addressing that one point, not your whole post, nor your whole argument.

In addition, you compared only my use of a word "gobbledygook", with your use of just a fraction of your whole comment.That is not a fair comparison. In fact, it's an intentional distortion of a fair comparison.

I think there is a clear distinction between describing one sentence in a whole array of an argument as "gobbledygook", compared to describing the whole argument as "absolute twaddle", and making a disparaging comment about the person.

 

[Notch7]

^^^^
Unbelievable twaddle

 

[jasonzyx]

^^^^
Unbelievable twaddle

At least you read it. That's a start.
But did you understand it properly? Or are you going to misquote me?

 

[transam]

Wow! Someone was having a right hissy fit last night, and I missed it all. I had to go back several pages to catch up.
Most of it was completely over my head, but I did recognise one bit. And there are a couple of other points I'd like to address.

The bit that I did recognise was the part about someone claiming to be mentally incapacitated. Well, not that bit, but the description of the person who claimed to be mentally incapacitated.
I think there's probably about three people on here whose spelling is bad.
Conny, but what I've seen of him, he's a straight up kind of fella. The mere thought of him claiming something to which he was not entitled would probably fill him with utter shame. So we can discount Conny.

Bodd, now Bodd and I have many vociferous disagreements, I vehemently disagree with his politics and his ideology. But I very much doubt that he would or could stoop so low as to claim a mental incapacity to which he wasn't entitled.

Then there's transam. What I've seen of transam, he is totally devoid of any morals at all, perhaps amoral would be a better description. I think I have yet to see a comment of his that could be said to even approach usefulness in this forum. Of course I have no idea what he does in other forums.
In this forum, his posts are just a constant stream of vituperation.
Someone who can stoop low enough to accuse others, of whom he has no personal knowledge, of sexual and violent abuse against children, could easily fit the description of someone who claims a mental incapacity, to which he is not entitled. Because of his amorality, that would not bother him in the slightest.
So any of his comments can be discounted as vile vituperation, not worth a second consideration.
I would, like Noseall, put him on ignore so that I do not have to suffer his insufferable invective. But I think it's important to refute and dismantle his nonsense theories and claims.

mentioned in dispatches

vituperation whats that mean



most things are over yer ead himmagin

tbh I would bung u on ignore but I am of the opinion that it is important to refute & dismantle yer nonsense theories and claims"