Terrorist attack in London

[Himaginn]

It's still belittling and nasty.

So is abusive four-letter expletives.
Which is OK for you, but not OK for anyone else.
Double standards anyone?

Yes, I don't disagree, never said I did. I actually said your name calling is no better than my swear words.
I actually do this all the time to point out what you do, to give you a taste of your own medicine. Like how you've used my point to your behaviour and put it back on me, and yet can't understand or admit that you do this behaviour to others. You're a bit thick.
You can do no wrong, right?

If you can find an example of when you think I called someone a racist, or accused them of racism, I'll happily discuss it with you and explain my reasoning.
In the meantime you're making unsupported accusations, based on theoretical examples.

 

[blightymam]

It's still belittling and nasty.

So is abusive four-letter expletives.
Which is OK for you, but not OK for anyone else.
Double standards anyone?

Yes, I don't disagree, never said I did. I actually said your name calling is no better than my swear words.
I actually do this all the time to point out what you do, to give you a taste of your own medicine. Like how you've used my point to your behaviour and put it back on me, and yet can't understand or admit that you do this behaviour to others. You're a bit thick.
You can do no wrong, right?

If you can find an example of when you think I called someone a racist, or accused them of racism, I'll happily discuss it with you and explain my reasoning.
In the meantime you're making unsupported accusations, based on theoretical examples.

You're denying your bad behaviour again Himmy. Can do no wrong, right? You really are a spineless toad. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

 

[Himaginn]

Except you can hear them shout Alluha Akbar, quite clearly.

Blithering idiot. It could easily.....

Are you 100% correct on that? Just wondering before you call people blithering idiots.

Not call people blithering idiots and be condescending... is that much more of a balanced post? No, instead you just prove again and again that you're a dick, a condescending nasty dickhead.

So why didn't you respond to Gerrydelightful's post with your comment, in the way that you wanted to?

Why did you respond in such a condescending way?

Let me get this straight, you agree with my sentiments but not my precise wording?
So you oppose me on my wording, not my sentiment? That'll be a first!

I repeat, why didn't you respond to Gerry's obviously incorrect claim in that polite way that you seem to have?
Instead you attack my comments, which appear to demonstrate that you support Gerry's comment.
Do you think that's logical?

 

[Himaginn]

It's still belittling and nasty.

So is abusive four-letter expletives.
Which is OK for you, but not OK for anyone else.
Double standards anyone?

Yes, I don't disagree, never said I did. I actually said your name calling is no better than my swear words.
I actually do this all the time to point out what you do, to give you a taste of your own medicine. Like how you've used my point to your behaviour and put it back on me, and yet can't understand or admit that you do this behaviour to others. You're a bit thick.
You can do no wrong, right?

If you can find an example of when you think I called someone a racist, or accused them of racism, I'll happily discuss it with you and explain my reasoning.
In the meantime you're making unsupported accusations, based on theoretical examples.

You're denying your bad behaviour again Himmy. Can do no wrong, right? You really are a spineless toad. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Not denying, asking you for examples. You appreciate the difference?
Your abusive insults are demonstrating your level of intellect and heightened sense of hatred and blind rage, and your inability to respond reasonably, with appropriate responses to my request.
Calm down.

 

[blightymam]

I repeat, why didn't you respond to Gerry's obviously incorrect claim in that polite way that you seem to have?
Instead you attack my comments, which appear to demonstrate that you support Gerry's comment.
Do you think that's logical?

See, this is where you always go wrong. You read something and then make up the meaning in your head.
Let me explain it to you.
I attacked your name calling, your patronising way you wrote your response to Gerry. You are a nasty man and I was pointing this out to you. I do this because of your double standards, you hate it if someone else is nasty to you and yet you do it yourself.
Next is by pointing out your nasty comment does not mean I support Gerry's comment. There is nothing in what I wrote that supports his comment, I was talking to you and you only and only pointing out your nastiness.

You get this wrong all the time - you did it with me when I pointed out your nasty behaviour in calling people racists and Islamophobic. You presumed, yes presumed that I am a racist when all I did was point out your unhelpful, nasty comments to those who expressed concern over what is happening in the world.

This is where dealing with you is nauseating. You read something and take it to mean something else then are adamant that was what was said. Basically you make stuff up and you have the gall to say to others that they do the same.

Is that clear at last? Has it sunk into your tiny brain?

 

[Himaginn]

I repeat, why didn't you respond to Gerry's obviously incorrect claim in that polite way that you seem to have?
Instead you attack my comments, which appear to demonstrate that you support Gerry's comment.
Do you think that's logical?

See, this is where you always go wrong. You read something and then make up the meaning in your head.
Let me explain it to you.
I attacked your name calling, your patronising way you wrote your response to Gerry. You are a nasty man and I was pointing this out to you. I do this because of your double standards, you hate it if someone else is nasty to you and yet you do it yourself.

Despite the fact that you agreed with my sentiments?

Next is by pointing out your nasty comment does not mean I support Gerry's comment. There is nothing in what I wrote that supports his comment, I was talking to you and you only and only pointing out your nastiness.

Like I said, you oppose my every comment out of blind rage and hatred, rather than sound reasoning, irrespective of the argument.

You get this wrong all the time - you did it with me when I pointed out your nasty behaviour in calling people racists and Islamophobic. You presumed, yes presumed that I am a racist when all I did was point out your unhelpful, nasty comments to those who expressed concern over what is happening in the world.

Maybe because you waded into the discussion as a duck?

Basically you make stuff up

What like accusing me of calling everyone a racist?

Is that clear at last? Has it sunk into your tiny brain?

You're resorting to insults again. But at least you seem to be able to control yourself over the four-letter expletives.

 

[blightymam]

I repeat, why didn't you respond to Gerry's obviously incorrect claim in that polite way that you seem to have?
Instead you attack my comments, which appear to demonstrate that you support Gerry's comment.
Do you think that's logical?

See, this is where you always go wrong. You read something and then make up the meaning in your head.
Let me explain it to you.
I attacked your name calling, your patronising way you wrote your response to Gerry. You are a nasty man and I was pointing this out to you. I do this because of your double standards, you hate it if someone else is nasty to you and yet you do it yourself.

Despite the fact that you agreed with my sentiments?

Next is by pointing out your nasty comment does not mean I support Gerry's comment. There is nothing in what I wrote that supports his comment, I was talking to you and you only and only pointing out your nastiness.

Like I said, you oppose my every comment out of blind rage and hatred, rather than sound reasoning, irrespective of the argument.

You get this wrong all the time - you did it with me when I pointed out your nasty behaviour in calling people racists and Islamophobic. You presumed, yes presumed that I am a racist when all I did was point out your unhelpful, nasty comments to those who expressed concern over what is happening in the world.

Maybe because you waded into the discussion as a duck?

Basically you make stuff up

What like accusing me of calling everyone a racist?

Is that clear at last? Has it sunk into your tiny brain?

You're resorting to insults again. But at least you seem to be able to control yourself over the four-letter expletives.

And here we have it boys and girls, a excellent example of a dickhead.
Funny, I read not so long ago a post by Himmy saying he was willing to admit when he was wrong. Sure doesn't look like it.

Himmy, you are proper mad. You have a warped mind, no ability to see anything wrong in yourself and to top it off, you're nasty. Well done.

 

[Himaginn]

And here we have it boys and girls, a excellent example of a dickhead.
Funny, I read not so long ago a post by Himmy saying he was willing to admit when he was wrong. Sure doesn't look like it.

Himmy, you are proper mad. You have a warped mind, no ability to see anything wrong in yourself and to top it off, you're nasty. Well done.

No reasoned response then?
Just resort to abusive insults.
Your ability to debate deserted you?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

I attacked your name calling, your patronising way you wrote your response to Gerry. You are a nasty man and I was pointing this out to you. I do this because of your double standards, you hate it if someone else is nasty to you and yet you do it yourself.

Despite the fact that you agreed with my sentiments?

I'm lost. Which sentiments did he agree with?

 

[Himaginn]

I attacked your name calling, your patronising way you wrote your response to Gerry. You are a nasty man and I was pointing this out to you. I do this because of your double standards, you hate it if someone else is nasty to you and yet you do it yourself.

Despite the fact that you agreed with my sentiments?

I'm lost. Which sentiments did he agree with?

She disagreed with you hearing alluha akbar.
She didn't like the way I disagreed with you, although she agreed with my sentiments.
Rather than objecting to your claim of hearing alluha akbar, she decided to oppose my comments.
I guess it was a matter of priorities.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

She disagreed with you hearing alluha akbar.

In which post?

Also, Blightyman is a woman??

 

[Himaginn]

In which post?

Also, Blightymam is a woman??

Except you can hear them shout Alluha Akbar, quite clearly.

I know. It's an easy mistake to make.
Bit of Elfi'sh there. I can deny which comment I'm responding to later.

 

[blightymam]

No reasoned response then?
Just resort to abusive insults.
Your ability to debate deserted you?

Blithering idiot.

Chortle. Practice what you preach Himmy.

 

[blightymam]

She disagreed with you hearing alluha akbar.

In which post?

Don't question the ramblings of a madman. It will get you nowhere....

I know. It's an easy mistake to make.

That's right, Himmy got it wrong - like so many many things.

 

[Himaginn]

No reasoned response then?
Just resort to abusive insults.
Your ability to debate deserted you?

Blithering idiot.

Chortle. Practice what you preach Himmy.

I do, I elaborated on why I called him a blithering idiot. I provided a reason for him being a blithering idiot.
Not like yourself who just launches into a tirade of abuse:

Not at all - want some?
Ok

**** off you stupid ****ing c**t.
Hope you like them, they're specially for you.

Additionally, you're still opposing my comments despite agreeing with my sentiment.
That's how illogical you are.
It also explains why your posts are so full of blind rage, deep hatred and abusive four-letter expletives.