No wonder the lefties are distrusted.

Crikey
This elevated level of debate does everyone so much credit!

Chris

The problem we have got here is one person inventing things to discredit someone whose opinions he disagrees with. That is unacceptable.

The second problem is how do you deal with him, I would ban him for a few weeks just to ram home the message that he cannot go around inventing things.

Regards

Mick

Good job I "is" conservative then, innit? Fredrik

Please note the "small c" in consevrive in the last post! Fredrik!

Mick
I sympathise with you in your extreme irritation. The problem with the web is that even in a moderated forum once the poster hits the send key their opinion is out there. Banning somebody might prevent your future upset but won't stop their toughts being registered by the rest of us.

It is also conceivable that they might want you banned too. If everyone who disagreed here was banned it would become hideously anodyne. I have been known to get ludicrously worked up over some issue or other here, but afterwards I usually feel a total prat. Spleen venting is more harmful to the venter than the ventee in my experience.

So I hope none of you get banned and the rest of us can carry on with our knitting and baying for blood. (Frenche reference for Adam!)

The controversy over the quantity meant by the term 'multiple' has come about because ignorance - too many people have forgotten that language is subject to regional variations. (BTW, 2 unequivocally qualifies as 'multiple' for me.)

Too many people think that conversing with the people s/he sees is a valid method for finding out what the general population thinks. These folks really need to spnd some time thinking about how they know what they think they know.

And if Mick wants to initiate a conversation, he needs to learn how to ask better questions.

Of course, Mick probably wants cntroversy, so he proabaly won't see a need to learn anything.

In fact, Mick was pretty cavalier in defining 'lefties' - are they just the rioters, or are all those who voted for Royal? (Of course, from Mick's other writings, it appears he considers everyone to the left of George III to be a 'lefty'.)

He certainly provided no evidence that lefties are distrusted by anyone but him.

Personally, I distrust ... well, you get the picture....

Regards.

Phil

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Kelly:
It is also conceivable that they might want you banned too. If everyone who disagreed here was banned it would become hideously anodyne. I have been known to get ludicrously worked up over some issue or other here, but afterwards I usually feel a total prat. Spleen venting is more harmful to the venter than the ventee in my experience.

So I hope none of you get banned and the rest of us can carry on with our knitting and baying for blood. (Frenche reference for Adam!)

Well Chris, for my part I don't want to see anyone banned. Certainly not Mick - as much as I believe he talks complete rot, he has a perfect right to spout bollocks if he wants, whenever he wants, it's a free country. If he wants to call me a spiv or a lowlife or a camel's bum or whatever, he can do that too; I certainly wouldn't ask for him to be banned for that - he's never met me or spoken to me and in fact he knows absolutely nothing about me so who cares?

Where I do have a problem is that he's a hypocrite in that he wants to dish it out but can't take it back. He posts controversial/ill-judged/poorly-thought-through/ill-informed/ignorant threads/sub-Daily Mail threads and then throws hissy fits when people disagree with him or point out the (usually gaping) holes in his arguments. And then calls for people to be banned when a few insults are lobbed his way. Which I find a bit rich considering the odure he's heaped upon various people over the years.

But then again, maybe he's just not very bright. He's certainly nowhere near as interesting as he thinks he is.

Onwards and upwards!

K

I think you should be banned for calling Mick a bigot.

Simple, really.

I think that by any reasonable definition of the word, Mick is a bigot.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
I think that by any reasonable definition of the word, Mick is a bigot.

Careful Nigel, you may end up joining me in the Legion of the Banned!

Fred,

quote:

Don, you can't ask people to avoid putting words in your mouth ......

Oh but I can. And I don't mind it when others correct things that I have assumed they said.

quote:

...And here you're making uninformed assumptions about a lack of conviction.....

we all go by what we read in these threads. Your statements and responses, or lack of them, indicated a lack of conviction. It was certainly not an uninformed assumption.

quote:

My feeling is that I want to live in a society in which everyone, not just "half," believes in helping those who need it. I want a government that works to improve people's lives, advance the causes of justice and peace, and generally do well for people.

We already have a taxation system in place, albeit imperfect, for everyone to contribute to the welfare of the whole. This is what many who oppose welfare don't seem to understand ... if your child has plenty to eat, is well educated, etc. great! But when we help the children who aren't as well off, we actually improve our own lives, too. Same with the fat cats who don't think it necessary to reduce pollution and other human activities which are detrimental to quality of life ... what air are they breathing? What water are they drinking? We're all in this boat together; we all pitch in and help ... not just "half" of us.

I think that what you have said above is what you said/implied earlier, ie you would rather wait until your side is in government and is in a position to force people, through taxation, to contribute more to welfare.

Nothing wrong with that, but given your re-itterated conviction, I would have been more impressed if you had taken up my idea of you and your half of the electorate contributing "2 x a little" now, rather than waiting in the hope of a change in government/policy.

Cheers

Don

Kevin

I do not mind you thinking I am a bigot, no doubt you regard me as a total dipstick. I have no objection to you calling me what you think I am. Hence I can "take it" as you put it.

What you did in your reference to Littlejohn was to make wild and inaccurate assumptions. To quote this particular instance, I have never once made derogatory remearks about the French or Lesbians.

To liken your opponent to something they are not, is wrong, simple as that.

Regards

Mick

Oh dear. I fear this point is going to be completely ignored, but it might be worth a punt anyway: Mick, if you go back and read the origianl post, I never actually said you had insulted French people or lesbians. There's a subtle nuance in what I said that you have not picked up. Or chosen not to pick up. Whatever.

Kevin

The implication is clear .. I am the sort of bigot who insults Lesbians and the French, less so than Littlejohn but certainly the type to do so.

You were wrong to say it.

Regards

Mick

Mick,

Kevin-W said 'Basically he is a brasher, more bigoted Mick Parry, a similarly self-styled "voice of common sense and the man in the street"; one of those retards who still thinks it's amusing to say the French stink of garlic or that all women who want to work are lezzas. You know the type. But unlike Parry, he has a wider audience than just bemused folk on hi-fi fora.

Whilst it is clear Kevin thinks you are brash and bigoted he has fallen well short of accusing you of insulting the French or Lesbians.

acad

He said that I am like one of those retards who still thinks it's amusing to say the French stink of garlic or that all women who want to work are lezzas.

The only difference being I have a more limited audience.

There is no point in persuing this, everyone else will get bored with it.

Just to sum up .. kevin thinks I am a racist lesbian hating bigot and I just think he is an unprincipled person who is adept at making unfounded allegations.

Leave it at that.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Leave it at that.
Regards
Mick

And I thought this might get ugly.

Adam

There is no need for me to become riled because kevin has demonstrated my point that you cannot trust lefties. He invented things and the proof is there for all decent people to see.

He has done me a favour in a strange sort of way.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:

Leave it at that.

Nope. Let's have a vote! How many people think Kevin-W was referring to Littlejohn when he wrote 'one of those retards who still thinks it's amusing to say the French stink of garlic or that all women who want to work are lezzas' and how many who think incorrectly that he was referring to you?

I will keep a tally.

acad

You may be super intelligent but you know little of human nature.

A lot of people will vote according to which one of us (kevin or I) they like/dislike the most.

Regards

Mick

Mick gets my vote

The implied slur was quite clear.

Typical left response..lose the argument, forget logic and attack the character of the opponent instead. Nothing new here then.....

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
acad


[QUOTE]
You may be super intelligent but you know little of human nature.

A lot of people will vote according to which one of us (kevin or I) they like/dislike the most.

Mick,

I agree and I knew it when I proposed the vote. I can be very manipulative.

Its straightforward

I like Mick and (most of) his views.

and Jo put it so well about Kevin :-

The slur was clear and deliberate, typical leftie response etc

Mick's topic header is now confirmed beyond doubt.

Game, set and match to Mick

Nothing new here then..........

Cheers

It shouldn't come down to a vote. It should come down to who understands the finer points of English punctuation and who doesn't.

quote:

It should come down to who understands the finer points of English punctuation and who doesn't.

I suggest we have a "multiple-choice" type exam paper on this subject then........

Cheers

Don