Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: BillyStubbsTears on April 19, 2015, 10:16:17 am
-
BBC mobile website.
Lead headline news article
"Clarkson had cancer scare before fracas"
Fourth story
"700 migrants feared drowned in Mediterranean capsize"
-
Oh dont worry Billy. Katie Hopkins in The Sun says we shouldn't care two hoots about migrants drowning. She's just told us all that they are "feral" and we would do well to ignore it. So that's alright then.
BobG
-
I'd need to know what the second and third stories were first before I could form an opinion.
-
It's one of the things that is now so very wrong about the way news is reported and presented. Clarkson's 'I thought that I was poorly and I'd had rough year, so it's okay to act like a thug' non-story gets top billing not for its real-world value or importance, but rather because it'll garner the site more hits and is, therefore, more "Google-friendly".
Doubtless, several media outlets will post on Twitter and Facebook a headline along the lines of "Clarkson in cancer scare" just to get the vapid masses a-clicking. But hey, let's learn about how not ill Clarkson is/was and how he still hasn't, technically, apologised for his behaviour whilst still in this phase of feeling so very sorry himself over something that was entirely of his own making. That's WAY more important than the lives of the 700 people feared dead and the back story that's driving these poor souls to risk life and limb just to try to have a standard of living similar to that which we all take for granted.
And then there are the twunts that actually do think that a Clarkson non-story *is* more important. I'm not even going there because there's no hope for them.
-
Apparently doctors found what they thought was a nasty malignant growth attached to Clarkson's tongue.
Turns out it was...(tired, cliched, "here comes the punchline" pause)...the rest of Jeremy Clarkson.
-
There's a petition going round to get the insufferably unpleasant Katie Hopkins given the bums rush by The Sun. It's hardly likely to succed, but it might give her, and them, a bit of a shock. And that would be a very nice thing to happen. If anyone wants the link, let me know.
BobG
-
It's one of the things that is now so very wrong about the way news is reported and presented. Clarkson's 'I thought that I was poorly and I'd had rough year, so it's okay to act like a thug' non-story gets top billing not for its real-world value or importance, but rather because it'll garner the site more hits and is, therefore, more "Google-friendly".
Doubtless, several media outlets will post on Twitter and Facebook a headline along the lines of "Clarkson in cancer scare" just to get the vapid masses a-clicking. But hey, let's learn about how not ill Clarkson is/was and how he still hasn't, technically, apologised for his behaviour whilst still in this phase of feeling so very sorry himself over something that was entirely of his own making. That's WAY more important than the lives of the 700 people feared dead and the back story that's driving these poor souls to risk life and limb just to try to have a standard of living similar to that which we all take for granted.
And then there are the twunts that actually do think that a Clarkson non-story *is* more important. I'm not even going there because there's no hope for them.
I'd be interested to know what you lefties think the solution to this ongoing tragedy should be. I get the impression you think they should all be invited into the UK and mainland Europe. Is this correct? If so do you think we should just go into these countries and transport whoever wants to come to the destination of their choice regardless of how many millions would want to come?
-
I'd be interested to know what you lefties think the solution to this ongoing tragedy should be. I get the impression you think they should all be invited into the UK and mainland Europe. Is this correct? If so do you think we should just go into these countries and transport whoever wants to come to the destination of their choice regardless of how many millions would want to come?
Well, I would obviously like to teach the world to sing because I'm a leftie apparently. However, rather than be drawn into an argument with you because, presumably, you crave as much attention as humanly possible (seriously, go out and get some air - it's a lovely day), your high priestess has already been battered over this one, so do take a listen.
http://ow.ly/LPWbv (http://ow.ly/LPWbv)
See how much time I have saved us there? You don't have to regurgitate vile things about human beings (and in this case, dead human beings) that you've read elsewhere, and I don't have to become exasperated at you and your trolling.
You don't have to thank me. I just care for my fellow man (and trolls). Ta-ta!
-
I'd be interested to know what you lefties think the solution to this ongoing tragedy should be. I get the impression you think they should all be invited into the UK and mainland Europe. Is this correct? If so do you think we should just go into these countries and transport whoever wants to come to the destination of their choice regardless of how many millions would want to come?
Well, I would obviously like to teach the world to sing because I'm a leftie apparently. However, rather than be drawn into an argument with you because, presumably, you crave as much attention as humanly possible (seriously, go out and get some air - it's a lovely day), your high priestess has already been battered over this one, so do take a listen.
http://ow.ly/LPWbv (http://ow.ly/LPWbv)
See how much time I have saved us there? You don't have to regurgitate vile things about human beings (and in this case, dead human beings) that you've read elsewhere, and I don't have to become exasperated at you and your trolling.
You don't have to thank me. I just care for my fellow man (and trolls). Ta-ta!
What a crap answer. I'm genuinely interested in what you think we should be doing. The impression I've formed so far is that you think we should be doing all we can to rescue these people and then invite them into our country. Is this what you think should happen? Do you have a limit on numbers? Do you not think that by doing this we will encourage many more to try to come?
Like I say I'm genuinely interested in what you think the solution should be. I'm asking a legitimate question. The typical leftie response not to tell us what your solution is and to criticise anyone that asks such a reasonable question does you no favours. You're all more bothered about being seen as a nice person than confronting reality.
Now give us a proper answer like what I always do to any question that is thrown at me. Get on with it man (or any of your leftie friends). I'm waiting.
-
I suppose the RAF could bomb ships before they leave port eh,instant death would be better than drowning,isn't life simple IC
-
I suppose the RAF could bomb ships before they leave port eh,instant death would be better than drowning,isn't life simple IC
Come on. What's your solution? Again you resort to criticism and personal abuse. Please try and be more constructive in future. We get that all you lefties are nice people and all us right wingers are scum of the earth in your opinion. Now get on with giving us an answer instead of showing what a nice person you are all the time.
-
I suppose the RAF could bomb ships before they leave port eh,instant death would be better than drowning,isn't life simple IC
Personally, I'd favour the nuclear option. Blow the buggers up, sterilise the survivors and put barbed wire around Blighty - serves 'em right for being born where they were. Frankly, I'm disgusted that their parents shagged at all - who in their right mind would raise a child in those circumstances?
Immigration is such a new thing that it's so very hard to come up with sensible ways to deal with it. Now - with our combined intellects - we have come up with a couple of sensible plans of action that our "right-thinking", liberal gentleman can really get behind. ;)
-
I suppose the RAF could bomb ships before they leave port eh,instant death would be better than drowning,isn't life simple IC
Personally, I'd favour the nuclear option. Blow the buggers up, sterilise the survivors and put barbed wire around Blighty - serves 'em right for being born where they were. Frankly, I'm disgusted that their parents shagged at all - who in their right mind would raise a child in those circumstances?
Immigration is such a new thing that it's so very hard to come up with sensible ways to deal with it. Now - with our combined intellects - we have come up with a couple of sensible plans of action that our "right-thinking", liberal gentleman can really get behind. ;)
Look. You've proved you're a nice person. No need to keep pushing that agenda. Why won't you answer my questions? Why am I the only one with a 100% track record for answering everything ever asked of me?
What is it you're scared of? Just get on with it will you. You know you should.
-
Rescue them, then take them back from whence they came.
-
Rescue them, then take them back from whence they came.
Would this be against their will? Another point to consider is that they aren't all from Libya. Would you just drop them off at the ports in Libya and leave them to get on with it?
Look, at least you've come up with a response. What about the rest of you?
I'm getting fed up of waiting even though I knew most of my questions would go unanswered. No change there then.
-
Sadly, this would appear to illustrate why towing 'em back isn't going to work. Presuming you value human life, that is: http://ow.ly/LRTlb (http://ow.ly/LRTlb)
-
Rescue them, then take them back from whence they came.
Would this be against their will? Another point to consider is that they aren't all from Libya. Would you just drop them off at the ports in Libya and leave them to get on with it?
Look, at least you've come up with a response. What about the rest of you?
I'm getting fed up of waiting even though I knew most of my questions would go unanswered. No change there then.
Against there will if necessary.
Where the come from shouldn't be our problem where they boarded is that's where they go back to, war zone or not. Where they go then there problem not ours
-
Gloster.
Serious question. What would you have done with the Jewish asylum seekers who wanted to escape from Central Europe to Britain in the 1930s?
-
The socialist answer is of course the redistribution of wealth from the richer parts of the world into the poorer ones. There would then be less reason for people to migrate.
-
Billy, when they came over in 1905 we just kept moving them along, in on one side of the country, straight onto a train and then off on to a ship to America on the other. That is why there is an extra long platform at Hull Station - and despite 10's of thousands of people moving through it, no significant Jewish population in Hull.
-
The socialist answer is of course the redistribution of wealth from the richer parts of the world into the poorer ones. There would then be less reason for people to migrate.
What a load of old cock. It isn't going to happen. It wouldn't work anyway.
Come on man. Come up with something that is more practical. Gloster has at least come up with a solution. You lefties haven't. You just want everyone to think you're nice. That's not going to get us very far is it?
-
Gloster.
Serious question. What would you have done with the Jewish asylum seekers who wanted to escape from Central Europe to Britain in the 1930s?
We live in different times so really cannot answer that, but a question to you, should Europe be solving Africa's problems?
-
Gloster.
You can't answer the question of whether you'd have given someone asylum from the gas chambers?
-
The socialist answer is of course the redistribution of wealth from the richer parts of the world into the poorer ones. There would then be less reason for people to migrate.
What a load of old cock. It isn't going to happen. It wouldn't work anyway.
Come on man. Come up with something that is more practical. Gloster has at least come up with a solution. You lefties haven't. You just want everyone to think you're nice. That's not going to get us very far is it?
Then you wont solve the problem of poor people moving to rich countries.
-
The socialist answer is of course the redistribution of wealth from the richer parts of the world into the poorer ones. There would then be less reason for people to migrate.
What a load of old cock. It isn't going to happen. It wouldn't work anyway.
Come on man. Come up with something that is more practical. Gloster has at least come up with a solution. You lefties haven't. You just want everyone to think you're nice. That's not going to get us very far is it?
Then you wont solve the problem of poor people moving to rich countries.
Is that it? Is that the best you lefties can come up with. An airy fairy statement that the solution is the redistribution of wealth. Pathetic and totally unworkable.
Come on the rest of you lefties. Help him out. He needs all the help he can get.
-
You wanted a solution to the problem, there is the solution to the problem. As to whether or not I think it will work, well I have just been reading a thread by someone who had posted what he wanted to happen rather than what he thought would happen...funny old world isn't it.
-
Should Europe be solving Africa's problems?
I would argue that, on a human level, we shouldn't just ignore the plights of thousands upon thousands of people. I just believe that we have a responsibility to all the citizens who share the same rock we spin around on. We can and should do better.
However, another way of looking at it is that the reason why Libya is in such a state now is that we cruised in there to topple Gaddafi (*cough* OIL *cough*) and then left the whole country in such a state that many of its inhabitants are trying to flee the country to avoid certain death. So I kind of think that, given that we helped make this mess, we ought to try our best to fix it.
-
Gloster.
You can't answer the question of whether you'd have given someone asylum from the gas chambers?
We, as I said are living in different times, the Jewish asylum question was a European problem and I support a European answer to that question. This is an African problem an Asian problem which will only be solved by the African and Asian nations sorting out their own problem.
Let's face it why let anyone into this country of ours, irrespective out their colour, race or creed, the NHS is creaking at its seems and there is not enough money to fun it properly, there are not enough school places to allow children to go to schools they want to and we have a housing shortage.
-
There's quite a lot to work through Gloster, but this is my favourite explanation of why we need immigration - seriously, it's both funny and clever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HMhWB95ldQ
-
Remind me please? Who was it bombed the hell out of Iraq, got rid of the structures in their society like police, army, control processes and a modicum of Sunni/Shiite tolerance yet expected everything to turn out hunky dory? And who, then, is responsible for the shambles in Libya given what's been happening in the Sunni v Shiite debacle and the exporting of their jihadism across the middle east?
I know there are a million angles to this, and I know some of the Arabs aren't blameless, but who was it took the lid off? Lipsy has the right of it. Shits like Katie Hopkins clearly can neither read not reflect on cause and effect. On those grounds alone she is unfit to practice journalism never mind her manic suggestions we send the navy in to attack the floating refugee death traps they are forced to use.
And Gloucester: along with the middle European Jews in the 1930's, could you tell us, please, what you would have done with the likes of Michael Portillo's family, and many others, who fled from civil war torn Spain in the 1930's to England too? Shame on you. Billy's question was what would you have done in the 1930's? Not what would you do today? Refusing to stand up for what is right, tacitly accepting the holocaust as you clearly are doing, inevitably allows the bad guys to move in. Is that what you want?
BobG
-
Sorry. Thought I'd keep this .
BobG
Gloster.
You can't answer the question of whether you'd have given someone asylum from the gas chambers?
We, as I said are living in different times, the Jewish asylum question was a European problem and I support a European answer to that question. This is an African problem an Asian problem which will only be solved by the African and Asian nations sorting out their own problem.
Let's face it why let anyone into this country of ours, irrespective out their colour, race or creed, the NHS is creaking at its seems and there is not enough money to fun it properly, there are not enough school places to allow children to go to schools they want to and we have a housing shortage.
-
Should Europe be solving Africa's problems?
I would argue that, on a human level, we shouldn't just ignore the plights of thousands upon thousands of people. I just believe that we have a responsibility to all the citizens who share the same rock we spin around on. We can and should do better.
However, another way of looking at it is that the reason why Libya is in such a state now is that we cruised in there to topple Gaddafi (*cough* OIL *cough*) and then left the whole country in such a state that many of its inhabitants are trying to flee the country to avoid certain death. So I kind of think that, given that we helped make this mess, we ought to try our best to fix it.
More airy fairy platitudes. Where are the answers to my questions? Gloster is the only one that has made a reasonable stab at it. No one is saying we should ignore the plights of thousands of people (millions more like). We should do better! Tell us what we should be doing then.
No we didn't cause this mess. We had a very small part to play in what happened. The population of Libya wanted him gone. We helped them achieve this goal. It was up to them to sort their own country out. They didn't. So you then heap all the blame on us. You couldn't make it up.
Now I'd be grateful if you lefties would just come clean and admit that you think as many of these people that want to come to our country should be allowed in. You think we should have the Royal Navy patrolling around the clock rescuing millions of people that should then be brought to the UK. You couldn't care less that the country is already full and is already creaking under the weight of EU immigration. To you anyone in the world who wants to come should be welcomed with open arms no matter what the consequences.
I think I've covered what all you lefties really think. If not please explain where I'm going wrong.
-
Can you hear it? Hear what I hear you say? The deafening silence from the nice lefties.
-
Nige hasn't been silent: he said he'd welcome them. I didn't have him down as such a card-carrying leftie.
-
Nige hasn't been silent: he said he'd welcome them. I didn't have him down as such a card-carrying leftie.
Who is 'them'? No way has Nige said he would welcome them all.
Look. Stop prevaricating and answer my questions. We all know you're a 'nice' person. Now back up this 'niceness' with some proper answers will you?
-
They should be put into the proper asylum process of whichever country rescues them. If that's us, fine.
-
They should be put into the proper asylum process of whichever country rescues them. If that's us, fine.
That's not very fair on Italy and Greece is it? I think you'll find that most people that land in Italy and Greece don't want to stay there. A lot of them quite like the idea of coming to the UK. Italy and Greece seem quite keen on helping them with that objective. What say you to that?
-
If refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier. 'We' that is the richer nations of the UN sort the problem out at source. If we don't, then there will always be a refugee/migrant problem. If only you was clever like wot I is.
-
If refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier. 'We' that is the richer nations of the UN sort the problem out at source. If we don't, then there will always be a refugee/migrant problem. If only you was clever like wot I is.
Not good enough. Totally airy fairy and shows you are not living in the real world.
It's a good job I've got the solution.
We should fly over the affected countries and drop leaflets stating that anyone that attempts to leave their own country will not be allowed into the EU. We should gain access to any media that is still working and put out the same message. Once we are sure that everyone knows that they will not be allowed into the EU we put up the shutters.
We make it plain that any ships that still try and make the journey will be sunk. Now I know this may seem a tad harsh but it is the only way to make sure they get the message. It would only take a few sunk ships for the flood of immigrants to stop.
Now, I expect howls of outrage from all you 'nice' lefties. How can you possibly countenance such a thing? It's because I have done a cost benefit calculation. I have calculated that by being firm there will be less loss of life than there would otherwise be. I would feel very sorry for the 2,000 but would feel very happy at the countless thousands of lives I would save.
For example, let's say we sink 5 ships and the loss of life is 2,000. That seems unbelievably harsh. However when you then realise that this is the total loss of life over the next say 10 years it's only 200 deaths per year. Look at what we've just had in the last week or so. Many hundreds have died. Unless these people get the message then over 10 years there will probably be hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Then there is the serious implications of accommodating millions of refugees to consider.
What's it to be? Wishy washy liberal socialism or hard nosed right minded thinking that sorts the problem out with minimal loss of life. 2,000 deaths or hundreds of thousands of deaths?
These are the sorts of decisions the likes of Winston Churchill had to make. If no one has the stomach for such things then I am quite happy to step forward and implement the plan.
Sorted.
-
They should be put into the proper asylum process of whichever country rescues them. If that's us, fine.
That's not very fair on Italy and Greece is it? I think you'll find that most people that land in Italy and Greece don't want to stay there. A lot of them quite like the idea of coming to the UK. Italy and Greece seem quite keen on helping them with that objective. What say you to that?
I've given my answer. Your answer to your own question is conspicuous by its absence.
-
They should be put into the proper asylum process of whichever country rescues them. If that's us, fine.
That's not very fair on Italy and Greece is it? I think you'll find that most people that land in Italy and Greece don't want to stay there. A lot of them quite like the idea of coming to the UK. Italy and Greece seem quite keen on helping them with that objective. What say you to that?
I've given my answer. Your answer to your own question is conspicuous by its absence.
I beg your pardon. Have you not read my previous post?
Look. Your answer needs fleshing out a bit more. For example do you think the Royal Navy should be patrolling 24/7? What should our level of involvement be?
-
They should be put into the proper asylum process of whichever country rescues them. If that's us, fine.
That's not very fair on Italy and Greece is it? I think you'll find that most people that land in Italy and Greece don't want to stay there. A lot of them quite like the idea of coming to the UK. Italy and Greece seem quite keen on helping them with that objective. What say you to that?
I've given my answer. Your answer to your own question is conspicuous by its absence.
I beg your pardon. Have you not read my previous post?
Look. Your answer needs fleshing out a bit more. For example do you think the Royal Navy should be patrolling 24/7? What should our level of involvement be?
That doesn't answer the question of what you do about those that need rescuing here and now. You know, the question that you've asked the rest of us.
-
Adolph, as you believe it will take 2000 deaths to stop migrants coming across the Mediterranean - how many people died crossing it last year? And how many so far this?
-
Oh! Wasn't 1,750 so far this year was it Wilts? Plus the 800 or 900 this week of course.
Is that yet another research failure then Mick? Soft sod. I really cannot comprehend anyone being as unintelligent as you Mick. The repeated and boringly repetitively failures can only point to one conclusion: you are irretrievably stupid. You must be. You've bitten several hands that have made well meaning offers to help you. Well, it's your loss - and, for you, it's a big loss too.
BobG
-
Adolph, as you believe it will take 2000 deaths to stop migrants coming across the Mediterranean - how many people died crossing it last year? And how many so far this?
You are twisting my words. What a surprise. I'm not saying it will take 2,000 deaths to stop them coming. Can't you read properly? How about you try and put what I say in context.
You totally ignore the excellent first part of my policy. At the moment the immigrants are aware that if they manage to get to Europe they will be taken in. That is why they take the risk to come. Under my policy they would be under no illusion that they wouldn't be taken in. You conveniently ignore this crucial part of the policy.
Before they attempt to come they would know that they wouldn't be able to get in. If they did try then the ultimate sanction would be employed of sinking their boats. It would be nice if they would believe that we were serious but unfortunately I think they would think we were bluffing. A few sunk boats would soon change that illusion.
Unfortunately this would lead to a loss of life. I've estimated 2,000. It may be more, it may be less. However the bigger picture is that they would soon stop trying to come. This would save many more lives than it would cost.
You lefties haven't come up with anything that would discourage them from coming. You lefties are so politically correct that you would rather let hundreds of thousands of people attempt to get to Europe than give a seconds thought to my excellent plan. You would be responsible for many more deaths than me.
However you would feel this was worth it as long as people still thought you were a nice person. How ludicrous is that.
I am the nice person because under my plan there would be many more lives saved than if we carry on with this washy washy liberal socialist way of doing things.
Sometimes you need to be tough to be kind. It's a shame Churchill is still not around. He had to make decisions such as this. I'm sure he would have backed me up.
So it's time for you lefties to get a grip. If you don't like my plan then please explain how you would manage to keep the loss of life lower than I would. If we carry on as we are my figure will be surpassed in weeks. (That's ignoring what's just happened).
-
Oh! Wasn't 1,750 so far this year was it Wilts? Plus the 800 or 900 this week of course.
Is that yet another research failure then Mick? Soft sod. I really cannot comprehend anyone being as unintelligent as you Mick. The repeated and boringly repetitively failures can only point to one conclusion: you are irretrievably stupid. You must be. You've bitten several hands that have made well meaning offers to help you. Well, it's your loss - and, for you, it's a big loss too.
BobG
Hahaha! I thought you'd blocked me. If you have and didn't read my excellent plan then I need to offer you some advice. Don't take what Wilts says at face value. He has wilfully misrepresented what I said.
There you go again attacking the man. You really can't help yourself. Look, get over the fact that I'm more intelligent and better looking than you. Stop attacking the man. Discuss the issue at hand. Come up with a plan to sort the problem out.
Why is it always me that has to solve everything? I'd have thought all you lefties combined would have been able to come up with at least one good idea.
IC1967
-
How about scrapping trident and ploughing 80 billion into foreign aid, thus making poorer countries more appealing to its citizens.
With an SNP\ Labour coalition, featuring naughty Nicola and cuddly Ed calling the shots, this is a distinct possibility.
Get in.
-
How about scrapping trident and ploughing 80 billion into foreign aid, thus making poorer countries more appealing to their citizens.
With an SNP\ Labour coalition, featuring naughty Nicola and cuddly Ed calling the shots, this is a distinct possibility.
Get in.
I'd rather we spent the money on reducing our deficit and national debt. It makes no sense to me at all that we borrow billions to give to other countries. I've nothing against helping out people worse off than ourselves but this should only be when we've got our own house in order.
If I was in a lot of debt I wouldn't dream of borrowing money to give to charity. Why do governments think it's OK?
-
We'd just waste the money on over-priced houses and imported plastic Chinese tat, so best give it away to our brothers and sisters in need.
As for repaying the deficit, why bother? It's all just numbers on a fictional balance sheet.
We should splash a bit of cash on foreign aid, bump up unemployment benefits, invest in community arts projects and then default on our bond repayments and just chill for a bit.
You only live once Mick.
-
We'd just waste the money on over-priced houses and imported plastic Chinese tat, so best give it away to our brothers and sisters in need.
As for repaying the deficit, why bother? It's all just numbers on a fictional balance sheet.
We should splash a bit of cash on foreign aid, bump up unemployment benefits, invest in community arts projects and then default on our bond repayments and just chill for a bit.
You only live once Mick.
Fictional? I'm sure the Greeks think it's fictional or the Russians, as did the Germans in the 20th century....
-
We'd just waste the money on over-priced houses and imported plastic Chinese tat, so best give it away to our brothers and sisters in need.
As for repaying the deficit, why bother? It's all just numbers on a fictional balance sheet.
We should splash a bit of cash on foreign aid, bump up unemployment benefits, invest in community arts projects and then default on our bond repayments and just chill for a bit.
You only live once Mick.
If you don't already live there may I suggest a move to Scotland. I feel the policies of the SNP are more in keeping with your philosophy. Hang on a minute. I just realised that you may not have to move after all. Wait until after the election and if Labour win the SNP will make them put your policies into operation.
Sorted.
-
It's just SO relaxing to read these threads yet not see all the shite that, no doubt, our witless friend is pouring out. I see he can't keep his hands off the keyboard again! Lol. Bloke's a w**ker.
BobG
-
It's just SO relaxing to read these threads yet not see all the shite that, no doubt, our witless friend is pouring out. I see he can't keep his hands off the keyboard again! Lol. Bloke's a w**ker.
BobG
Hahaha! I know you're still reading. So is silly Billy. You can't keep away.
Thank you for your compliments. Much appreciated.
IC1967
-
We'd just waste the money on over-priced houses and imported plastic Chinese tat, so best give it away to our brothers and sisters in need.
As for repaying the deficit, why bother? It's all just numbers on a fictional balance sheet.
We should splash a bit of cash on foreign aid, bump up unemployment benefits, invest in community arts projects and then default on our bond repayments and just chill for a bit.
You only live once Mick.
If you don't already live there may I suggest a move to Scotland. I feel the policies of the SNP are more in keeping with your philosophy. Hang on a minute. I just realised that you may not have to move after all. Wait until after the election and if Labour win the SNP will make them put your policies into operation.
Sorted.
I'm quite happy where I am thanks.
As you so sagely point out Mick we are about to experience a tidal wave of no-nonsense, common sense, hardcore leftie policies.
This is in reaction to the failed extreme right experiment of the past few years and the realisation by the public that Ukip and their ilk appeal only to the uneducated and those with deeply entrenched personal issues.
That we are about to swept away in a joyous tide of hardcore socialist policies is inevitable.
Embrace the change Mick.
Got it? Get it?
Get in.
-
We'd just waste the money on over-priced houses and imported plastic Chinese tat, so best give it away to our brothers and sisters in need.
As for repaying the deficit, why bother? It's all just numbers on a fictional balance sheet.
We should splash a bit of cash on foreign aid, bump up unemployment benefits, invest in community arts projects and then default on our bond repayments and just chill for a bit.
You only live once Mick.
If you don't already live there may I suggest a move to Scotland. I feel the policies of the SNP are more in keeping with your philosophy. Hang on a minute. I just realised that you may not have to move after all. Wait until after the election and if Labour win the SNP will make them put your policies into operation.
Sorted.
I'm quite happy where I am thanks.
As you so sagely point out Mick we are about to experience a tidal wave of no-nonsense, common sense, hardcore leftie policies.
This is in reaction to the failed extreme right experiment of the past few years and the realisation by the public that Ukip and their ilk appeal only to the uneducated and those with deeply entrenched personal issues.
That we are about to swept away in a joyous tide of hardcore socialist policies is inevitable.
Embrace the change Mick.
Got it? Get it?
Get in.
I'm with you. I hope you are 'right'. It will ruin the country short term, but in the long term hard core leftie socialism will die a death. I'd give it 2 years before the country comes to it's senses and we then vote in a hard right alternative.
I really don't think you lefties get it. If you do win the election you will (no ifs and buts) have to make a lot of very unpopular cuts. This will destroy your support in the medium to long term. Just look at what's happened in Scotland in such a short space of time. Why do you think I now want Labour and the SNP to rule?
I'm playing a long game. I want to see Labour finished in England like it is in Scotland. The best way to achieve this is to let them rule with the SNP for a couple of years. That should do the job.
Get in.
-
I'm just loving this! Seeing Mick writing post after post after post after post - yet not having to read a single one of them! It's quite amazing though looking at just how 'You are ignoring this user' lines I'm seeing. He never stops! He can't have a job poor duck. Pergaps this is his only gorm of enjoyment? You'd do better to get out a bit more Mick. Give you a bit of perspective on the world. You clearly need it. In Spades. Redoubled.
Cheers
BobG
BobG
-
Nige hasn't been silent: he said he'd welcome them. I didn't have him down as such a card-carrying leftie.
Unlike you lefties and establishment politicians Nige answers the question head on. He doesn't mess about. I'm broadly in agreement with him. He's not quite as tough as me but his idea could be workable.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32409901
What's who will hopefully soon be our future leader got to say. Not a lot. Just like you lefties. Here it is 'Labour leader Ed Miliband has called for the rescue patrol operations to be restarted'. Right. Brilliant. That's really going to sort things out.
-
Eh, Nige has said we can let thousands of migrants into the UK - you say shoot anyone who tries to come! How is that agreeing?
And on your blow 'em out of the water plan, you failed to answer my question. The answer was just short of 4000 deaths last year - so if 4000 people dying didnt put others off trying to escape how many will you need to kill before it does?
-
I've come to the conclusion that you are irredeemably stupid. You don't seem able to understand perfectly straightforward statements.
I said I was broadly in agreement with Nige and that he isn't as tough as I would be. What is so hard to understand?
The number of deaths we've already seen is irrelevant that's why I ignored it. You stupidly state that I think if we kill 2000 they'll stop coming. You say I'm wrong because more than this number have already died. Unbelievable crass stupidity.
Stop ignoring the first part of the excellent strategy - the leaflet drop. This would be a game changer. After reading what I'd put in the leaflet I guarantee many of them would be scared to death to try and come.
There will of course be a hardcore that don't think the plan would be implemented. These are the ones that get sunk without trace.
Sorted.
-
After reading what I'd put in the leaflet I guarantee many of them would be scared to death to try and come.
What would it say? "Come over to the UK and I promise to be your best friend"?
-
Mick, we all came to the conclusion you are very stupid a long time ago - but that hasn't stopped you posting so we point out your mistakes and try and educate you. It may take a while but its for the good of the community.
Yes I can understand perfectly stright forward statements - I can also understand that when they say different things they contradict one another. Therefore you cannot believe one if you believe the other. Sorry if this is a difficult concept for you to grasp but I shall keep trying, I am used to talking to 3-year olds.
I didnt stupidly state that - I took it from your, errr, stupid post.
-
Right. You've asked for it.
I challenge you to show 10 statements I've made that are contradictory. You've been stalking me for a long time now so it shouldn't be too difficult for you.
You don't have to do them all at once. According to you there are some in this thread. Should be quite easy for you. The only condition I as ask is that the statements are not taken out of context.
Think carefully before you begin. Your recent efforts have been laughable.
Now get on with it man. Once you fail I will require an immediate abject apology.
You better get this right or it won't just be me that thinks you're irredeemably stupid.
-
Can you hear it? What's that I hear you say? The deafening silence from Wilts. No surprise there then.
Right. Moving on. My excellent plan is more of a medium to long term plan. What to do in the short term I hear you ask. Well once again I've come up with the solution.
We form an international task force and we contribute one ship to it. We form a blockade of the ports off Libya, say 20 miles out from the coast. Under international law if a boat or ship is not seaworthy then legally it can be turned around and sent back to port. We stop every boat or ship and inspect it. We escort the ones that aren't seaworthy back to port.
I'd be very surprised if any of the boats or ships would be found to be seaworthy so they would all be sent back to port.
Sorted.
-
Mick, there is absolutely no way I am spending any more time than I have to answering your posts. Your contradiction of yourself in this thread is there for all to see. You cannot both claim to support Nigel Farage who says he will let migrants from Libya into Britain - and claim that you will not let any migrants out of Libya, and shoot the ones who are trying. See different. Contradictory. Got it. Good.
I am very disappointed in you if your response to me showing to the forum how ridiculous your posts are is an accusation that I am stalking you. If you cannot compete in a proper robust debate then I suggest you find another forum. However as you are such a sensitive soul I will reduce my posts on your threads - but reserve the right to counter your stupidity.
-
Mick, there is absolutely no way I am spending any more time than I have to answering your posts. Your contradiction of yourself in this thread is there for all to see. You cannot both claim to support Nigel Farage who says he will let migrants from Libya into Britain - and claim that you will not let any migrants out of Libya, and shoot the ones who are trying. See different. Contradictory. Got it. Good.
I am very disappointed in you if your response to me showing to the forum how ridiculous your posts are is an accusation that I am stalking you. If you cannot compete in a proper robust debate then I suggest you find another forum. However as you are such a sensitive soul I will reduce my posts on your threads - but reserve the right to counter your stupidity.
Pathetic. You've delayed your response because you've spent ages trying to find contradictions and you can't find any. So you come up with a crap excuse that you're not going spend any more time than you have to answering my posts. The other readers of the forum will be able to work it out. They know you would jump at the chance to try and prove me wrong. You can't, so you come up with that crap excuse.
Of course I can support Nige even if I don't totally agree with everything he says. When did saying you were 'broadly' in agreement with someone mean you agreed with everything they say? If you support Ed Milliband does that mean you agree with everything he says? Of course not. Any dimwit knows that, but not you apparently. In the next breath so there was absolutely no confusion I said 'He's not quite as tough as me but his idea could be workable'. Let me explain. That means I think he is on the right lines but I am more hard line. So you see it is possible to be in broad agreement with someone whilst holding slightly different views.
Do you get it? It should be quite easy to understand. So absolutely no contradiction there.
So come on. Let's have another one. No more crap excuses. Just get on with it man or issue an immediate abject apology.
-
Mick, our resident professional gambler, racing tipster extraordinaire... How do you reconcile that with your role as outspoken vegan, and forum champion of PETA?
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/horse-racing/ (http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/horse-racing/)
You quoted half that website to at me not too long ago, having the nerve to condemn me for being so "cruel" as to train and ride the horses I spend thousands of dollars a year rescuing. People rarely adopt green or unbroken horses, and I can only save more if I am able to make room for them. Typically, whilst you are denouncing me as an animal abuser, you are (supposedly) making a living out of their exploitation. What's more, you encourage others to do the same, bragging of your successes in an activity that is completely incompatible with your professed principles.
So there it is, as requested, you pompous hypocrite!
You asked for evidence of your contradictory nature, well there's one, which is a perfect example of the smug, self-righteous drivel that your troll of a persona posts.
-
Mick, our resident professional gambler, racing tipster extraordinaire... How do you reconcile that with your role as outspoken vegan, and forum champion of PETA?
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/horse-racing/ (http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/horse-racing/)
You quoted half that website to at me not too long ago, having the nerve to condemn me for being so "cruel" as to train and ride the horses I spend thousands of dollars a year rescuing. People rarely adopt green or unbroken horses, and I can only save more if I am able to make room for them. Typically, whilst you are denouncing me as an animal abuser, you are (supposedly) making a living out of their exploitation. What's more, you encourage others to do the same, bragging of your successes in an activity that is completely incompatible with your professed principles.
So there it is, as requested, you pompous hypocrite!
You asked for evidence of your contradictory nature, well there's one, which is a perfect example of the smug, self-righteous drivel that your troll of a persona posts.
No contradiction there I'm afraid. You must try harder. In fact I'd be quite happy for anyone on the forum to accept the challenge and help Wilts out. He obviously needs some help.
I seem to remember you enjoy hunting. Anyone that hunts in my opinion is a barbarian. I seem to remember you think a fictitious God has given man dominion over animals. The fact that you believe this says a lot about your lack of intelligence.
It is perfectly feasible to be broadly in agreement with PETA without agreeing with everything they say. Do people who vote for Dave Cameron agree with everything he says? You'd be hard pushed to find anyone that agrees with him on everything. Does this mean they won't support him? Of course not.
There are some aspects of horse racing that are cruel but overall horses get treated far better than most humans. See I am a big picture sort of person. There are some aspects of the way the government runs the country that are cruel but overall having a government makes life better for the majority of people. You wouldn't ban government just because some people get treated cruelly by it would you?
So get a grip. Stop hunting animals and believing in a fictitious God that you believe has given you dominion over animals. Try using your brain for a change and try to work things out for yourself without having to rely on fairy stories in the Bible for your belief system.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029149/Why-people-believe-God-likely-lower-IQ.html
-
Touch. Into. Touche.
Get in!
BobG
-
OK so that's:
Contradiction No 1 - supporting Farage to let migrants into Britain - but stopping migrants from reaching Britain
Contradiction No 2 - accusing me of stalking when I show how silly you are - and then continually asking me to reply to you
Contradiction No 3 - being a vegetarian and interested in animal welfare - yet supporting a business that weekly sends dozen of healthy animals to be slaughtered (many of which end up in the human food chain) because they cant run fast enough
Contradiction No 4 - you are a Leeds United supporter trolling a Doncaster Rovers forum
Contradiction No 5 - you oppose migration to Britain - but are (alledgedly) happy to take money off them by renting out your (alledge) houses to them
................ and that's without even trying
-
I reckon you're wrong on Contradiction 4 Wilts :) He can't have enough time to support ANY football club can he? I mean, it's not just the vast, immeasurable hours he spends on here, but think of all those businesses he runs and all that support he gives to other people. The mind boggles tbh just how busy he has to be. No. He can't support any football team. There's just not enough time in the day for him to do that AS WELL!
Bob
-
OK so that's:
Contradiction No 1 - supporting Farage to let migrants into Britain - but stopping migrants from reaching Britain
Contradiction No 2 - accusing me of stalking when I show how silly you are - and then continually asking me to reply to you
Contradiction No 3 - being a vegetarian and interested in animal welfare - yet supporting a business that weekly sends dozen of healthy animals to be slaughtered (many of which end up in the human food chain) because they cant run fast enough
Contradiction No 4 - you are a Leeds United supporter trolling a Doncaster Rovers forum
Contradiction No 5 - you oppose migration to Britain - but are (alledgedly) happy to take money off them by renting out your (alledge) houses to them
................ and that's without even trying
You've tried your best and what you have come up with is absolutely pathetic. All you tried to do is take things out of context and then twist the meanings. Well, this is going to be very easy.
Contradiction No 1 - supporting Farage to let migrants into Britain - but stopping migrants from reaching Britain
Stopping migrants coming to Britain! What's that supposed to mean. If we take what you've said literally and in the context of your statement you appear to be saying I am against all migrants coming to Britain. Totally wrong. I am against uncontrolled immigration. I am actually for immigration. In fact I've done a few posts stating this. If you were up to date on the forum you'd see that I've done a post within the last week supporting immigration. I've even gone so far as to say if it came to uncontrolled immigration or no immigration I'd be for uncontrolled immigration. You are totally unbelievable. I even said this on the 'Time to cut the crap' thread in response to you!!! 'I totally disagree with you that uncontrolled immigration is the biggest single problem we are facing. Makes you sound like a racist. I'd rather have uncontrolled immigration than no immigration. On the whole immigration is good for the country.'
We do have an ageing population you know that needs paying for. Immigrants help the economy more than they damage it and make it easier for us to increase standards of living for everyone. I do wish it was controlled though. Not knowing how many are coming in every year makes it impossible to plan the future infrastructure needed to accommodate a growing population.' Can't you remember? Ffs.
Contradiction No 2 - accusing me of stalking when I show how silly you are - and then continually asking me to reply to you
Hahaha! Evidence man. Where is it. You have never made me look silly. I've made you look silly. This post will be another example of this. I don't continually ask you to respond to me. You are confusing this with me asking you pertinent questions that you hardly ever answer and with me asking you to clarify what you've said because I've been unable to understand what you are on about (as I'm sure have other forum members).
Contradiction No 3 - being a vegetarian and interested in animal welfare - yet supporting a business that weekly sends dozen of healthy animals to be slaughtered (many of which end up in the human food chain) because they cant run fast enough
I've already answered this. Why are you re-hashing an alleged contradiction that has already been swiftly debunked when Orlando put it to me? I suspect you must be struggling to find 'contradictions'.
Contradiction No 4 - you are a Leeds United supporter trolling a Doncaster Rovers forum
Hahahaha! That is not a contradiction. It's a statement. I think you're trying to say that (it's always so hard with you to know what you're on about) that because I'm a Leeds fan I can't also support Rovers. I've also previously dealt with this. Also it is obvious to anyone I am not a troll. I'm the voice of reason. It is possible you know to support your home town team and also another Premier League class club. Many people 'support' two teams. I have even previously stated that if Leeds played Rovers and the winner got promoted I'd support Rovers. So no contradiction there (I wouldn't be surprised if you're a Man Utd fan).
Contradiction No 5 - you oppose migration to Britain - but are (alledgedly) happy to take money off them by renting out your (alledge) houses to them
You've tried to make 2 contradictions out of one. Pathetic. See my previous answers and posts on immigration which show the complete opposite to what you are trying to portray. I'll say it again just in case in might get through this time. I am pro immigration. I am anti uncontrolled immigration. If it came to a choice between uncontrolled immigration and no immigration I would opt for uncontrolled immigration.
So no contradictions whatsoever in your little list.
Look. When people read your post and my response they are going to be laughing behind your back. Take down your post and I promise to immediately take down mine to save you further embarrassment. All I ask is an immediate abject apology. I can't be fairer than that.
The daft thing is that it is you that has been contradicting himself. Here's what you said earlier in the thread -'Mick, there is absolutely no way I am spending any more time than I have to answering your posts. ' You weren't going to offer up any contradictions. Then what do you do. You offer up what you thought were 5 contradictions that weren't. You couldn't make it up.
-
Contradiction No 6 - since you came back on this forum you have been saying how bad a Labour election victory would be for the country - 2 weeks ago you said you wanted them to win
Contradiction No 7 - you attack the Labour Party for raising the National Debt - but appear to think that the Tory Party raising the National Debt is a good thing
Contradiction No 8 - you pointed out how historical events could be used to predict future outcomes - and then later in the same thread said that historical events could not be used to predict future outcomes
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=246708.0
Contradiction No 9 - you contributed an outpouring of verbal diarrhoea to an 8 page argument, with inside knowledge, on the sacking of Jeremy Clarkson - before being suprised that as a freelance tv presenter he wasn't actually employed by them, therefore couldn't be sacked (and is apparently discussing new shows)
Contradiction No 10 - you claim to have answered 100% of all questions on here - I am still waiting
No one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wet
BobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.
Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.
I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=251475.30
as is BJW on the 'I've changed my mind' thread
So there you are, 10 Contradictions (and 25 minutes of my life checking them that I wont get back again). Whatever weasel words you have to explain your way out of them are totally irrelevant, you asked for Contradictions. You got them. Got it. Good. Your apology is awaited.
-
It's reallyvery instructive how The Muppet consistently, regularly, abjectly, distorts a word or a phrase that someone else has said, in a vain effort to bolster his own puerile argument. That example above, that you quoted Wilts, is absolutely typical. Takes something I said, and simply by a slight change of tense makes out that I said TTIP has 'been' introduced, or, being generous, is 'being' introduced. Even my lad Alex, and he's not yet 14, knows neither of those are true. So Mick, beaten by a 13 year old. Are you finding your level at long, long last? Misquoting can lead to very serious consequences you know. I guess you should look up what they might be. If you are able, of course.
BobG
-
It's reallyvery instructive how The Muppet consistently, regularly, abjectly, distorts a word or a phrase that someone else has said, in a vain effort to bolster his own puerile argument. That example above, that you quoted Wilts, is absolutely typical. Takes something I said, and simply by a slight change of tense makes out that I said TTIP has 'been' introduced, or, being generous, is 'being' introduced. Even my lad Alex, and he's not yet 14, knows neither of those are true. So Mick, beaten by a 13 year old. Are you finding your level at long, long last? Misquoting can lead to very serious consequences you know. I guess you should look up what they might be. If you are able, of course.
BobG
Hahahaha! You actually said in your post and I quote -'And surprise, surprise, it's being introduced by the Tories.' Are you for real? Above you accuse me of changing tense and give 2 examples - 'has been introduced or, being generous, is being introduced'. I can't get my breath at your total idiocy. You said it's being introduced. We can elongate that to it is being introduced. 'It's' is short for 'it is' in case you didn't know. As an aside, I'd appreciate it if you stopped using the word abject or an of it's derivatives. I like to think it's a word I've made my own. You should only use it in an apology you offer to me.
So you have said it is being introduced. I accused you of saying is being introduced. I didn't use the word 'it' because it was obvious what I was on about. Are you seriously saying I changed a word and tense to completely change the meaning of what you said? Any fool can see I quoted you correctly.
You never did answer the question 'how can something that hasn't been agreed yet and indeed may never be agreed be introduced?' Correct me if I'm wrong but 'is being' is not the future tense. If an agreement is reached this will be in the future. Therefore it's impossible for it to have been introduced already. You claimed it is being introduced.
You've been caught bang to rights and made a complete fool of yourself.
Get an abject apology sorted and we'll try and overlook your crass stupidity. Get on with it man. You know you should.
IC1967
-
Contradiction No 6 - since you came back on this forum you have been saying how bad a Labour election victory would be for the country - 2 weeks ago you said you wanted them to win
Contradiction No 7 - you attack the Labour Party for raising the National Debt - but appear to think that the Tory Party raising the National Debt is a good thing
Contradiction No 8 - you pointed out how historical events could be used to predict future outcomes - and then later in the same thread said that historical events could not be used to predict future outcomes
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=246708.0
Contradiction No 9 - you contributed an outpouring of verbal diarrhoea to an 8 page argument, with inside knowledge, on the sacking of Jeremy Clarkson - before being suprised that as a freelance tv presenter he wasn't actually employed by them, therefore couldn't be sacked (and is apparently discussing new shows)
Contradiction No 10 - you claim to have answered 100% of all questions on here - I am still waiting
No one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wet
BobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.
Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.
I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=251475.30
as is BJW on the 'I've changed my mind' thread
So there you are, 10 Contradictions (and 25 minutes of my life checking them that I wont get back again). Whatever weasel words you have to explain your way out of them are totally irrelevant, you asked for Contradictions. You got them. Got it. Good. Your apology is awaited.
I do despair for you. Is that really the best you could come up with? Look. The offer still stands. Take down your daft posts and I'll take down my responses to save you further embarrassment.
Right, time to do another number on you.
Contradiction No 6 - since you came back on this forum you have been saying how bad a Labour election victory would be for the country - 2 weeks ago you said you wanted them to win
Your point is? You must try harder to make yourself clear. I assume you are trying to say that up until a fortnight ago I was saying that a Labour victory would be bad for the country and that now because I want them to win that would be good for the country. Therefore I have contradicted myself. Have I understood you correctly? Once again you are trying to twist things. I have never said a Labour victory would be good for the country. I've always said it would be bad. I want them to win even though it would be bad for the country short term because within 2 years they would be unelectable for a generation. So absolutely no contradiction there.
Contradiction No 7 - you attack the Labour Party for raising the National Debt - but appear to think that the Tory Party raising the National Debt is a good thing
No way. I have never said that raising the national debt is a good thing. Evidence man. Where is it? Don't bother looking. You won't find any. So absolutely no contradiction there.
Contradiction No 8 - you pointed out how historical events could be used to predict future outcomes - and then later in the same thread said that historical events could not be used to predict future outcomes
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=246708.0
You what? Evidence man. Where is it? Until you provide the relevant statements I allegedly made then I'm going to have to chalk this one up as another abject failure to provide a contradiction.
Contradiction No 9 - you contributed an outpouring of verbal diarrhoea to an 8 page argument, with inside knowledge, on the sacking of Jeremy Clarkson - before being suprised that as a freelance tv presenter he wasn't actually employed by them, therefore couldn't be sacked (and is apparently discussing new shows)
You what? You're not making sense again. Jeremy was sacked by the BBC end of. If I had contradicted myself on this issue I would initially have said he'd been sacked and then later said that he hadn't been sacked. I always took the line that he'd been sacked. So again you've not come up with anything.
Contradiction No 10 - you claim to have answered 100% of all questions on here - I am still waiting
My record is intact. I have a 100% record for answering all questions that are thrown at me (unless they are silly). Your record is lamentable. You must still be waiting because your questions whilst seeming perfectly sensible to you have been deemed silly by me. I'll say it again in the vain hope it might get through. All questions are answered. The ones that aren't are silly. No one comes close to having my 100% record. So yet another abject failure at showing a contradiction.
So that's 10 alleged contradictions and not one of them valid.
Look. Take down your daft posts. The longer they're up, the more people will see them. Rescue what is left of your reputation. I promise to take down my responses.
You were obviously not thinking straight when you slandered me. I'll let you off. Just one condition. An immediate abject apology. Get on with it man. You'll feel so much better for it.
-
It's just SO damn funny writing about our Resident Idiot an then sitting back, knowing he's gonna froth at the mouth, seeing the whole series of posts it always provokes, and, so very, very happily not being bothered by his shite actualy appearing on my screen. Froth away Mick lad if thats what gets you off.
BobG
-
No contradiction there I'm afraid. You must try harder. In fact I'd be quite happy for anyone on the forum to accept the challenge and help Wilts out. He obviously needs some help.
I seem to remember you enjoy hunting. Anyone that hunts in my opinion is a barbarian. I seem to remember you think a fictitious God has given man dominion over animals. The fact that you believe this says a lot about your lack of intelligence.
It is perfectly feasible to be broadly in agreement with PETA without agreeing with everything they say. Do people who vote for Dave Cameron agree with everything he says? You'd be hard pushed to find anyone that agrees with him on everything. Does this mean they won't support him? Of course not.
There are some aspects of horse racing that are cruel but overall horses get treated far better than most humans. See I am a big picture sort of person. There are some aspects of the way the government runs the country that are cruel but overall having a government makes life better for the majority of people. You wouldn't ban government just because some people get treated cruelly by it would you?
So get a grip. Stop hunting animals and believing in a fictitious God that you believe has given you dominion over animals. Try using your brain for a change and try to work things out for yourself without having to rely on fairy stories in the Bible for your belief system.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029149/Why-people-believe-God-likely-lower-IQ.html
Wilts is doing just fine; the only difficulty he may have is that since you spend such a disproportionate amount of your life on here, he has a lot of s*** to sift through.
Odd that you believe that you have a pugnacious debating style; I'd call it juvenile. Case in point, as per usual, right off the bat you're trying to muddy the waters by going off on wild tangents, in a pathetic attempt to irritate, and distract from your inadequate response. Hunting, religion etc.... Completely irrelevant to the topic. You'd lose marks for that in English language/literature at elementary school level. Of course you end with an insult, and one that is, as is par for the course with you, completely irrelevant, which you would be aware of were your comprehension skills not so inadequate.
As I said, juvenile.
I enjoy hunting very much. There's a lot of satisfaction to be had in eating what you have caught/killed/grown with your own two hands, especially when you know you're doing your bit for the ecology of the area. It's a primal sense of self-sufficiency that I wouldn't expect a pampered little city-dweller like you to understand. For the record, I do so 100% legally, usually on my own land, and I don't ask for your approval or pardon.
I know you must struggle to keep track with the sheer volume of drivel you post, but the whole God argument was another one of your infantile attempts at trolling and misdirection. You'd asked why somebody might think they have the right to use animals for food etc, and I responded that somebody might mention God granting them dominon over the animals, were they of a religious persuasion. Numerous anti-religious jibes followed, despite the fact I had never claimed those opinions to be my own. I have pointed this out to you on at least 3 occasions now.
Besides, I suggest it would be better to be a deluded follower of a fabricated religion that offers some degree of comfort and moral structure to live by, than a miserable atheist, terrified by the knowledge that their short life is ultimately meaningless, with nothing but oblivion awaiting you at the end.
I also offered up evolution, but that was too logical, so you conveniently ignored the point in preference of attacking Christianity.
You agreed with every word PETA said not so long ago, until it became inconvenient and contradictory to your professed values. You even quoted the link above to me in your post! LMFAO! You agreed with it 100% until I applied to something you enjoy.
Governments and politicians have F*** all to do with it, but keep scurrying around grasping at straws, it's rather amusing.
Here's a challenge for you Mr. 100%. Here's a question you can't/won't answer properly, ie without completely missing the point entirely, or changing the subject - How can you possibly condemn somebody who spends thousands of dollars and hours every year rescuing horses from the glue factory, for riding horses, when you, and people like you, actively participate in the industry that often leads to them needing to be saved by people like me in the first place?
(In case you're wondering, the answer is "because I'm a hypocrite, and often contradictory.")
The irony is that I mostly ride them so they can be adopted, not for fun. Anyone who has ever done it will tell you that riding abused former racehorses is not something you would ever dream of doing for fun. It's dangerous, and hard going, but necessary, for their sakes. If you could see the state these poor bas**rds are usually in, physically and/or mentally, you'd never watch a race again. It's not a great deal more humane than bullfighting, IMHO.
It'll be easier to just accept you're a hypocrite and not embarrass yourself, but feel free to further display your argue-for-argument's-sake nature.
You agreed with PETA that keeping pets was wrong, FFS, but horse racing is acceptable? Using animals for entertainment or work is wrong, so you say, but horse racing is OK?
YOU stated that even riding a horse I had saved was wrong, yet riding them for sport and exploiting them for money and killing them is OK? Even watching them is immoral, according to your previous statements.
Just admit it, you're a hypocrite. You're blatantly contradicting yourself; at least be a man about it.
Claiming that you see 'the big picture,' is simply more evidence of your stubborn refusal to ever admit you're beaten. You say parts are cruel, but they are treated well on the whole, up until they are of no use anymore. When I pointed out that my animals are treated similarly until they are slaughtered, you condemned me for it. Isn't that contradictory?
You're wrong, you're backed into a corner, and you've got nothing. Absolutely nothing. Your response offers no kind of rebuttal or counter-point whatsoever.
You're a prime example of a hypocrite. You may choose to buy items that are free of animal ingredients, eat a vegan diet, and pat yourself on the back, telling yourself how you are saving the planet, but if you bought them with money earned at the races, then you're no better than the average man on the street who doesn't give a flying f***. That said, unlike you, he's not a hypocrite.
I'll tell you what, you stop making money by perpetuating a disgusting, animal abusing industry that offers nothing of value to society, besides abused animals and gambling addicts, and I'll agree to lock away the rifle, deal?
Epic fail on the religious trolling (again), btw, and I'm still laughing at you for quoting the Daily Mail.
-
Froth away Mick lad if thats what gets you off.
BobG
Firstly, I don't know why you're calling him Mick, since Mick IC1967 has catagoricaly denied ever using any other username, despite all evidence to the contrary. :whistle:
Hang on, didn't he claim to answer every question, not necessarily answer every question truthfully?
Secondly, I wish you hadn't said that. Now I feel like I need a shower. :sick:
-
Froth away Mick lad if thats what gets you off.
BobG
Firstly, I don't know why you're calling him Mick, since Mick IC1967 has catagoricaly denied ever using any other username, despite all evidence to the contrary. :whistle:
Hang on, didn't he claim to answer every question, not necessarily answer every question truthfully?
Secondly, I wish you hadn't said that. Now I feel like I need a shower. :sick:
I've answered this question many times but just for you I will answer it again. 100% record still intact.
I am IC1967.
-
No contradiction there I'm afraid. You must try harder. In fact I'd be quite happy for anyone on the forum to accept the challenge and help Wilts out. He obviously needs some help.
I seem to remember you enjoy hunting. Anyone that hunts in my opinion is a barbarian. I seem to remember you think a fictitious God has given man dominion over animals. The fact that you believe this says a lot about your lack of intelligence.
It is perfectly feasible to be broadly in agreement with PETA without agreeing with everything they say. Do people who vote for Dave Cameron agree with everything he says? You'd be hard pushed to find anyone that agrees with him on everything. Does this mean they won't support him? Of course not.
There are some aspects of horse racing that are cruel but overall horses get treated far better than most humans. See I am a big picture sort of person. There are some aspects of the way the government runs the country that are cruel but overall having a government makes life better for the majority of people. You wouldn't ban government just because some people get treated cruelly by it would you?
So get a grip. Stop hunting animals and believing in a fictitious God that you believe has given you dominion over animals. Try using your brain for a change and try to work things out for yourself without having to rely on fairy stories in the Bible for your belief system.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029149/Why-people-believe-God-likely-lower-IQ.html
Wilts is doing just fine; the only difficulty he may have is that since you spend such a disproportionate amount of your life on here, he has a lot of s*** to sift through.
Odd that you believe that you have a pugnacious debating style; I'd call it juvenile. Case in point, as per usual, right off the bat you're trying to muddy the waters by going off on wild tangents, in a pathetic attempt to irritate, and distract from your inadequate response. Hunting, religion etc.... Completely irrelevant to the topic. You'd lose marks for that in English language/literature at elementary school level. Of course you end with an insult, and one that is, as is par for the course with you, completely irrelevant, which you would be aware of were your comprehension skills not so inadequate.
As I said, juvenile.
I enjoy hunting very much. There's a lot of satisfaction to be had in eating what you have caught/killed/grown with your own two hands, especially when you know you're doing your bit for the ecology of the area. It's a primal sense of self-sufficiency that I wouldn't expect a pampered little city-dweller like you to understand. For the record, I do so 100% legally, usually on my own land, and I don't ask for your approval or pardon.
I know you must struggle to keep track with the sheer volume of drivel you post, but the whole God argument was another one of your infantile attempts at trolling and misdirection. You'd asked why somebody might think they have the right to use animals for food etc, and I responded that somebody might mention God granting them dominon over the animals, were they of a religious persuasion. Numerous anti-religious jibes followed, despite the fact I had never claimed those opinions to be my own. I have pointed this out to you on at least 3 occasions now.
Besides, I suggest it would be better to be a deluded follower of a fabricated religion that offers some degree of comfort and moral structure to live by, than a miserable atheist, terrified by the knowledge that their short life is ultimately meaningless, with nothing but oblivion awaiting you at the end.
I also offered up evolution, but that was too logical, so you conveniently ignored the point in preference of attacking Christianity.
You agreed with every word PETA said not so long ago, until it became inconvenient and contradictory to your professed values. You even quoted the link above to me in your post! LMFAO! You agreed with it 100% until I applied to something you enjoy.
Governments and politicians have F*** all to do with it, but keep scurrying around grasping at straws, it's rather amusing.
Here's a challenge for you Mr. 100%. Here's a question you can't/won't answer properly, ie without completely missing the point entirely, or changing the subject - How can you possibly condemn somebody who spends thousands of dollars and hours every year rescuing horses from the glue factory, for riding horses, when you, and people like you, actively participate in the industry that often leads to them needing to be saved by people like me in the first place?
(In case you're wondering, the answer is "because I'm a hypocrite, and often contradictory.")
The irony is that I mostly ride them so they can be adopted, not for fun. Anyone who has ever done it will tell you that riding abused former racehorses is not something you would ever dream of doing for fun. It's dangerous, and hard going, but necessary, for their sakes. If you could see the state these poor b*****ds are usually in, physically and/or mentally, you'd never watch a race again. It's not a great deal more humane than bullfighting, IMHO.
It'll be easier to just accept you're a hypocrite and not embarrass yourself, but feel free to further display your argue-for-argument's-sake nature.
You agreed with PETA that keeping pets was wrong, FFS, but horse racing is acceptable? Using animals for entertainment or work is wrong, so you say, but horse racing is OK?
YOU stated that even riding a horse I had saved was wrong, yet riding them for sport and exploiting them for money and killing them is OK? Even watching them is immoral, according to your previous statements.
Just admit it, you're a hypocrite. You're blatantly contradicting yourself; at least be a man about it.
Claiming that you see 'the big picture,' is simply more evidence of your stubborn refusal to ever admit you're beaten. You say parts are cruel, but they are treated well on the whole, up until they are of no use anymore. When I pointed out that my animals are treated similarly until they are slaughtered, you condemned me for it. Isn't that contradictory?
You're wrong, you're backed into a corner, and you've got nothing. Absolutely nothing. Your response offers no kind of rebuttal or counter-point whatsoever.
You're a prime example of a hypocrite. You may choose to buy items that are free of animal ingredients, eat a vegan diet, and pat yourself on the back, telling yourself how you are saving the planet, but if you bought them with money earned at the races, then you're no better than the average man on the street who doesn't give a flying f***. That said, unlike you, he's not a hypocrite.
I'll tell you what, you stop making money by perpetuating a disgusting, animal abusing industry that offers nothing of value to society, besides abused animals and gambling addicts, and I'll agree to lock away the rifle, deal?
Epic fail on the religious trolling (again), btw, and I'm still laughing at you for quoting the Daily Mail.
Wilts is not doing fine. He has failed abysmally to find even one contradiction. You say there is a lot to sift through. Surely this should make it much easier for him as apparently I contradict myself all the time. Bit of a contradiction there if you don't mind me saying.
Let's get one thing straight. You enjoy hunting very much. I wonder if the poor animal enjoys it as much as you do. It's very simple. You are a barbarian. I'd love to have the chance to hunt you. I doubt you'd enjoy it very much then.
Look. It's very simple. From everything you've said it's obvious you believe in God. You mentioned God and him giving dominion over animals. That's just a pathetic excuse you use so you can torture and butcher these poor creatures. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows there is no God. You believe in him because it suits your twisted moral compass and because you lack the intelligence to think about the subject logically.
As far as PETA goes I'll have one more attempt at explaining my position in the vain hope it might get through your thick skull this time. I broadly agree with PETA's views. I don't agree with everything they say. I have never said I agree with them 100%. It's possible to support an organisation without agreeing with everything they say you know. We have a general election coming up you know. Do you seriously think that when people vote for a party, they agree with everything that party says 100%? Get a grip.
You ask -'How can you possibly condemn somebody who spends thousands of dollars and hours every year rescuing horses from the glue factory, for riding horses, when you, and people like you, actively participate in the industry that often leads to them needing to be saved by people like me in the first place?
I condemn you because you have proved yourself to be a barbarian. You're not 'saving' them. You're purchasing them for your own enjoyment and no doubt a healthy profit when you sell them on to other animal abusers.
I do think keeping pets is wrong. Keeping pets is so prevalent in our societies that it would take many decades to change this. In the meantime I would encourage everyone not to have a pet. If there is no demand then eventually there will be no supply.
I have said some aspects of horse racing are cruel. However as a big picture sort of person I approve of horse racing. Horses used for horse racing are on the whole much better treated than the vast majority of humans on the planet.
I think that's all your drivel sorted.
100% record still intact.
Get in.
-
It's just SO damn funny writing about our Resident Idiot an then sitting back, knowing he's gonna froth at the mouth, seeing the whole series of posts it always provokes, and, so very, very happily not being bothered by his shite actualy appearing on my screen. Froth away Mick lad if thats what gets you off.
BobG
Hahahaha! You're the one that's been providing the laughs lately. You used to be respected around here. Not anymore. You are mistaking my answering every question for frothing at the mouth. I'm proud of my 100% record and will maintain it (unlike you that hardly ever answers a question). I'll ask again. How can it be that a trade agreement is being introduced by the Tories when it hasn't even been agreed on yet?
Come on. Answer the question. If you do you may restore a small part of your battered reputation.
IC1967
-
Ha ha ha Orlando! I apologise to you profusely and unreservedly. I'm not apologising to the Resident Idiot though. I'm sure that's got to be the reason why he behaves in such a juvenile manner. What other pleasure can he be getting given the life we see and he's told us that he leads? It would explain the longevity of his stupidity too. It's gotta be the only way he knows to get himself off. Gotta be. See the evidence: right after your thoughtful and intelligent post Karla, I see there's THREE from the Resident Idiot. Three FFS! Why would anyone write three posts when one would do unless he was thrapping himself off each time? Told you before that the Idiot is a w**ker.
BobG
-
There are enough countries to take a small percentage of the people in, and it then wouldn't hurt much as the immigration would be spread out, they are human beings, to try and escape a country as they have they must have been very desperate.
If you were one of these people you would hope somebody could help you and your family feel safe, of course a country of our size can't take massive amounts in, but each country should take some.
Why aren't these people escaping to other African countries? This would save them a perilous sea journey. By going to another African country they are far more likely to be culturally similar and it would be far easier for them to return to their own countries when the warring is over.
I'll tell you why. It's because our standard of living is a big pull. Well that's not a good enough reason I'm afraid.
-
There are enough countries to take a small percentage of the people in, and it then wouldn't hurt much as the immigration would be spread out, they are human beings, to try and escape a country as they have they must have been very desperate.
If you were one of these people you would hope somebody could help you and your family feel safe, of course a country of our size can't take massive amounts in, but each country should take some.
Why aren't these people escaping to other African countries? This would save them a perilous sea journey. By going to another African country they are far more likely to be culturally similar and it would be far easier for them to return to their own countries when the warring is over.
I'll tell you why. It's because our standard of living is a big pull. Well that's not a good enough reason I'm afraid.
True if they are desperate then you would expect them to go to the nearest safe place, i don't agree with us taking in immigrants all over the place because our country is not big enough to support a massive influx.
Though when i see people struggling my natural instinct is to try and help, i think the world as a whole, not just Europe is big enough and financially secure enough to help it's fellow human beings in a time of crisis.
The problem is that though they are desperate they want to come to a country which they believe is a land of milk and honey. So to some extent they are also economic migrants. If we open the doors they will flood in and we will send the message that we'll take them all in. This is not practical especially in the UK where we are already full to busting. At the moment we are taking in 300,000 people a year. This is not sustainable. The last thing we need is millions of people in war torn countries coming as well.
They should stay in Africa\Middle East. History has shown that if you are a refugee close to your home country you are far more likely to go back to your own country. We should help by helping neighbouring countries cope with the influx off refugees. It's not as though they haven't got plenty of spare land.
Sorted.
-
Apologies to everyone concerned for continuing the diatribe with the muppet but he appears to require his answers to be marked. I will do it two threads:
Contradiction No 1 - supporting Farage to let migrants into Britain - but stopping migrants from reaching Britain
Stopping migrants coming to Britain! What's that supposed to mean. If we take what you've said literally and in the context of your statement you appear to be saying I am against all migrants coming to Britain. Totally wrong. I am against uncontrolled immigration. I am actually for immigration. In fact I've done a few posts stating this. If you were up to date on the forum you'd see that I've done a post within the last week supporting immigration. I've even gone so far as to say if it came to uncontrolled immigration or no immigration I'd be for uncontrolled immigration. You are totally unbelievable. I even said this on the 'Time to cut the crap' thread in response to you!!! 'I totally disagree with you that uncontrolled immigration is the biggest single problem we are facing. Makes you sound like a racist. I'd rather have uncontrolled immigration than no immigration. On the whole immigration is good for the country.'
We do have an ageing population you know that needs paying for. Immigrants help the economy more than they damage it and make it easier for us to increase standards of living for everyone. I do wish it was controlled though. Not knowing how many are coming in every year makes it impossible to plan the future infrastructure needed to accommodate a growing population.' Can't you remember? Ffs.
What a load of rubbish - see back in this thread - Wilts 1 Mick 0
Contradiction No 2 - accusing me of stalking when I show how silly you are - and then continually asking me to reply to you
Hahaha! Evidence man. Where is it. You have never made me look silly. I've made you look silly. This post will be another example of this. I don't continually ask you to respond to me. You are confusing this with me asking you pertinent questions that you hardly ever answer and with me asking you to clarify what you've said because I've been unable to understand what you are on about (as I'm sure have other forum members).
See this thread and FAO IC1967 thread, (I can't help it of you are thick btw I make my questions simple for you) - Wilts 2 Mick 0
Contradiction No 3 - being a vegetarian and interested in animal welfare - yet supporting a business that weekly sends dozen of healthy animals to be slaughtered (many of which end up in the human food chain) because they cant run fast enough
I've already answered this. Why are you re-hashing an alleged contradiction that has already been swiftly debunked when Orlando put it to me? I suspect you must be struggling to find 'contradictions'.
No you haven't, you only confirmed it - Wilts 3 - Mick 0
Contradiction No 4 - you are a Leeds United supporter trolling a Doncaster Rovers forum
Hahahaha! That is not a contradiction. It's a statement. I think you're trying to say that (it's always so hard with you to know what you're on about) that because I'm a Leeds fan I can't also support Rovers. I've also previously dealt with this. Also it is obvious to anyone I am not a troll. I'm the voice of reason. It is possible you know to support your home town team and also another Premier League class club. Many people 'support' two teams. I have even previously stated that if Leeds played Rovers and the winner got promoted I'd support Rovers. So no contradiction there (I wouldn't be surprised if you're a Man Utd fan).
I support Doncaster Rovers, end of. You are a troll. Thats a two pointer to me - Wilts 5 Mick 0
Contradiction No 5 - you oppose migration to Britain - but are (alledgedly) happy to take money off them by renting out your (alledge) houses to them
You've tried to make 2 contradictions out of one. Pathetic. See my previous answers and posts on immigration which show the complete opposite to what you are trying to portray. I'll say it again just in case in might get through this time. I am pro immigration. I am anti uncontrolled immigration. If it came to a choice between uncontrolled immigration and no immigration I would opt for uncontrolled immigration.
Yes I missed that, thanks for pointing it, two contradictions, thats another two points - Wilts 7 Mick 0
So no contradictions whatsoever in your little list.
Look. When people read your post and my response they are going to be laughing behind your back. Take down your post and I promise to immediately take down mine to save you further embarrassment. All I ask is an immediate abject apology. I can't be fairer than that.
The daft thing is that it is you that has been contradicting himself. Here's what you said earlier in the thread -'Mick, there is absolutely no way I am spending any more time than I have to answering your posts. ' You weren't going to offer up any contradictions. Then what do you do. You offer up what you thought were 5 contradictions that weren't. You couldn't make it up.
Your contribution to proving point No 2 is welcome and have I missed the threads where people are laughing at me?
-
I do despair for you. Is that really the best you could come up with? Look. The offer still stands. Take down your daft posts and I'll take down my responses to save you further embarrassment.
Right, time to do another number on you.
Contradiction No 6 - since you came back on this forum you have been saying how bad a Labour election victory would be for the country - 2 weeks ago you said you wanted them to win
Your point is? You must try harder to make yourself clear. I assume you are trying to say that up until a fortnight ago I was saying that a Labour victory would be bad for the country and that now because I want them to win that would be good for the country. Therefore I have contradicted myself. Have I understood you correctly? Once again you are trying to twist things. I have never said a Labour victory would be good for the country. I've always said it would be bad. I want them to win even though it would be bad for the country short term because within 2 years they would be unelectable for a generation. So absolutely no contradiction there.
My point is its a contradiction. As you have only confirmed - Wilts 8 Mick 0
Contradiction No 7 - you attack the Labour Party for raising the National Debt - but appear to think that the Tory Party raising the National Debt is a good thing
No way. I have never said that raising the national debt is a good thing. Evidence man. Where is it? Don't bother looking. You won't find any. So absolutely no contradiction there.
From the FAO IC1967 thread: You lefties really make my piss boil with your totally incorrect view of spending under the Tories. The last 2 Tory governments have doubled the national debt when in office! What more proof do you want that they are not the mean minded so and so's that you lefties try to portray - Wilts 9 - Mick 0
Contradiction No 8 - you pointed out how historical events could be used to predict future outcomes - and then later in the same thread said that historical events could not be used to predict future outcomes
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=246708.0
You what? Evidence man. Where is it? Until you provide the relevant statements I allegedly made then I'm going to have to chalk this one up as another abject failure to provide a contradiction.
What a pathetic answer, the evidence is in that thread:
Get in!
The latest YouGov/Sun opinion poll shows – CON 34%, LAB 35%, LD 9%, UKIP 14%. No opposition starting from such a low base and with such an unpopular leader has gone on to win a general election.
No it's not. Like I said just because it happened in the past doesn't mean it can't happen in the future.
Wilts 10 Mick 0
Contradiction No 9 - you contributed an outpouring of verbal diarrhoea to an 8 page argument, with inside knowledge, on the sacking of Jeremy Clarkson - before being suprised that as a freelance tv presenter he wasn't actually employed by them, therefore couldn't be sacked (and is apparently discussing new shows)
You what? You're not making sense again. Jeremy was sacked by the BBC end of. If I had contradicted myself on this issue I would initially have said he'd been sacked and then later said that he hadn't been sacked. I always took the line that he'd been sacked. So again you've not come up with anything.
So you still dont realise that you cant sack someone who doesnt work for you - a point away for extra stupidity there. Wilts 11 Mick -1
Contradiction No 10 - you claim to have answered 100% of all questions on here - I am still waiting
My record is intact. I have a 100% record for answering all questions that are thrown at me (unless they are silly). Your record is lamentable. You must still be waiting because your questions whilst seeming perfectly sensible to you have been deemed silly by me. I'll say it again in the vain hope it might get through. All questions are answered. The ones that aren't are silly. No one comes close to having my 100% record. So yet another abject failure at showing a contradiction.
Where is my answer to that question? It's a clear question, it's a simple question - where are those words in Bob's statement? That's 5 times now you have refused to answer it so along with proving how contrary you are I am verging on calling you a liar.
So that's 10 alleged contradictions and not one of them valid.
All of them proven and even more than proven, by my basic maths I make it, Wilts 12 - Mick -1
Look. Take down your daft posts. The longer they're up, the more people will see them. Rescue what is left of your reputation. I promise to take down my responses.
You were obviously not thinking straight when you slandered me. I'll let you off. Just one condition. An immediate abject apology. Get on with it man. You'll feel so much better for it.
Oh I want to keep them up Mick - it's not me looking silly. And when you have the time to answer that question...
-
Apologies to everyone concerned for continuing the diatribe with the muppet but he appears to require his answers to be marked. I will do it two threads:
Contradiction No 1 - supporting Farage to let migrants into Britain - but stopping migrants from reaching Britain
Stopping migrants coming to Britain! What's that supposed to mean. If we take what you've said literally and in the context of your statement you appear to be saying I am against all migrants coming to Britain. Totally wrong. I am against uncontrolled immigration. I am actually for immigration. In fact I've done a few posts stating this. If you were up to date on the forum you'd see that I've done a post within the last week supporting immigration. I've even gone so far as to say if it came to uncontrolled immigration or no immigration I'd be for uncontrolled immigration. You are totally unbelievable. I even said this on the 'Time to cut the crap' thread in response to you!!! 'I totally disagree with you that uncontrolled immigration is the biggest single problem we are facing. Makes you sound like a racist. I'd rather have uncontrolled immigration than no immigration. On the whole immigration is good for the country.'
We do have an ageing population you know that needs paying for. Immigrants help the economy more than they damage it and make it easier for us to increase standards of living for everyone. I do wish it was controlled though. Not knowing how many are coming in every year makes it impossible to plan the future infrastructure needed to accommodate a growing population.' Can't you remember? Ffs.
What a load of rubbish - see back in this thread - Wilts 1 Mick 0
Contradiction No 2 - accusing me of stalking when I show how silly you are - and then continually asking me to reply to you
Hahaha! Evidence man. Where is it. You have never made me look silly. I've made you look silly. This post will be another example of this. I don't continually ask you to respond to me. You are confusing this with me asking you pertinent questions that you hardly ever answer and with me asking you to clarify what you've said because I've been unable to understand what you are on about (as I'm sure have other forum members).
See this thread and FAO IC1967 thread, (I can't help it of you are thick btw I make my questions simple for you) - Wilts 2 Mick 0
Contradiction No 3 - being a vegetarian and interested in animal welfare - yet supporting a business that weekly sends dozen of healthy animals to be slaughtered (many of which end up in the human food chain) because they cant run fast enough
I've already answered this. Why are you re-hashing an alleged contradiction that has already been swiftly debunked when Orlando put it to me? I suspect you must be struggling to find 'contradictions'.
No you haven't, you only confirmed it - Wilts 3 - Mick 0
Contradiction No 4 - you are a Leeds United supporter trolling a Doncaster Rovers forum
Hahahaha! That is not a contradiction. It's a statement. I think you're trying to say that (it's always so hard with you to know what you're on about) that because I'm a Leeds fan I can't also support Rovers. I've also previously dealt with this. Also it is obvious to anyone I am not a troll. I'm the voice of reason. It is possible you know to support your home town team and also another Premier League class club. Many people 'support' two teams. I have even previously stated that if Leeds played Rovers and the winner got promoted I'd support Rovers. So no contradiction there (I wouldn't be surprised if you're a Man Utd fan).
I support Doncaster Rovers, end of. You are a troll. Thats a two pointer to me - Wilts 5 Mick 0
Contradiction No 5 - you oppose migration to Britain - but are (alledgedly) happy to take money off them by renting out your (alledge) houses to them
You've tried to make 2 contradictions out of one. Pathetic. See my previous answers and posts on immigration which show the complete opposite to what you are trying to portray. I'll say it again just in case in might get through this time. I am pro immigration. I am anti uncontrolled immigration. If it came to a choice between uncontrolled immigration and no immigration I would opt for uncontrolled immigration.
Yes I missed that, thanks for pointing it, two contradictions, thats another two points - Wilts 7 Mick 0
So no contradictions whatsoever in your little list.
Look. When people read your post and my response they are going to be laughing behind your back. Take down your post and I promise to immediately take down mine to save you further embarrassment. All I ask is an immediate abject apology. I can't be fairer than that.
The daft thing is that it is you that has been contradicting himself. Here's what you said earlier in the thread -'Mick, there is absolutely no way I am spending any more time than I have to answering your posts. ' You weren't going to offer up any contradictions. Then what do you do. You offer up what you thought were 5 contradictions that weren't. You couldn't make it up.
Your contribution to proving point No 2 is welcome and have I missed the threads where people are laughing at me?
It's me you should be abjectly apologising to and yes you have missed the threads where people are laughing at you.
-
I do despair for you. Is that really the best you could come up with? Look. The offer still stands. Take down your daft posts and I'll take down my responses to save you further embarrassment.
Right, time to do another number on you.
Contradiction No 6 - since you came back on this forum you have been saying how bad a Labour election victory would be for the country - 2 weeks ago you said you wanted them to win
Your point is? You must try harder to make yourself clear. I assume you are trying to say that up until a fortnight ago I was saying that a Labour victory would be bad for the country and that now because I want them to win that would be good for the country. Therefore I have contradicted myself. Have I understood you correctly? Once again you are trying to twist things. I have never said a Labour victory would be good for the country. I've always said it would be bad. I want them to win even though it would be bad for the country short term because within 2 years they would be unelectable for a generation. So absolutely no contradiction there.
My point is its a contradiction. As you have only confirmed - Wilts 8 Mick 0
Contradiction No 7 - you attack the Labour Party for raising the National Debt - but appear to think that the Tory Party raising the National Debt is a good thing
No way. I have never said that raising the national debt is a good thing. Evidence man. Where is it? Don't bother looking. You won't find any. So absolutely no contradiction there.
From the FAO IC1967 thread: You lefties really make my piss boil with your totally incorrect view of spending under the Tories. The last 2 Tory governments have doubled the national debt when in office! What more proof do you want that they are not the mean minded so and so's that you lefties try to portray - Wilts 9 - Mick 0
Contradiction No 8 - you pointed out how historical events could be used to predict future outcomes - and then later in the same thread said that historical events could not be used to predict future outcomes
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=246708.0
You what? Evidence man. Where is it? Until you provide the relevant statements I allegedly made then I'm going to have to chalk this one up as another abject failure to provide a contradiction.
What a pathetic answer, the evidence is in that thread:
Get in!
The latest YouGov/Sun opinion poll shows – CON 34%, LAB 35%, LD 9%, UKIP 14%. No opposition starting from such a low base and with such an unpopular leader has gone on to win a general election.
No it's not. Like I said just because it happened in the past doesn't mean it can't happen in the future.
Wilts 10 Mick 0
Contradiction No 9 - you contributed an outpouring of verbal diarrhoea to an 8 page argument, with inside knowledge, on the sacking of Jeremy Clarkson - before being suprised that as a freelance tv presenter he wasn't actually employed by them, therefore couldn't be sacked (and is apparently discussing new shows)
You what? You're not making sense again. Jeremy was sacked by the BBC end of. If I had contradicted myself on this issue I would initially have said he'd been sacked and then later said that he hadn't been sacked. I always took the line that he'd been sacked. So again you've not come up with anything.
So you still dont realise that you cant sack someone who doesnt work for you - a point away for extra stupidity there. Wilts 11 Mick -1
Contradiction No 10 - you claim to have answered 100% of all questions on here - I am still waiting
My record is intact. I have a 100% record for answering all questions that are thrown at me (unless they are silly). Your record is lamentable. You must still be waiting because your questions whilst seeming perfectly sensible to you have been deemed silly by me. I'll say it again in the vain hope it might get through. All questions are answered. The ones that aren't are silly. No one comes close to having my 100% record. So yet another abject failure at showing a contradiction.
Where is my answer to that question? It's a clear question, it's a simple question - where are those words in Bob's statement? That's 5 times now you have refused to answer it so along with proving how contrary you are I am verging on calling you a liar.
So that's 10 alleged contradictions and not one of them valid.
All of them proven and even more than proven, by my basic maths I make it, Wilts 12 - Mick -1
Look. Take down your daft posts. The longer they're up, the more people will see them. Rescue what is left of your reputation. I promise to take down my responses.
You were obviously not thinking straight when you slandered me. I'll let you off. Just one condition. An immediate abject apology. Get on with it man. You'll feel so much better for it.
Oh I want to keep them up Mick - it's me that's looking silly. And when you have the time to answer that question...
Fair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.
What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).
-
It's me you should be abjectly apologising to and yes you have missed the threads where people are laughing at you.
Evidence man, where is it? There are seven threads on here from three different contributors, which ones are laughing at me?
-
Fair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.
What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).
This one:
No one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wet
BobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.
Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.
I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.
-
It's me you should be abjectly apologising to and yes you have missed the threads where people are laughing at you.
Evidence man, where is it? There are seven threads on here from three different contributors, which ones are laughing at me?
Not for the first time you've completely lost me. There are a lot more than 7 threads on the forum. There are a lot more than 3 contributors. You need to try again but this time try and make your post more coherent.
-
Fair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.
What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).
This one:
No one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wet
BobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.
Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.
I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.
I've already dealt with this issue comprehensively. More than once now.
I'd appreciate it if you could explain how a trade agreement is being introduced by the Tories when it hasn't even yet been agreed? Why is Bob not answering the question? Why is he saying its a Tory agreement when everyone knows its an EU agreement with the US which is mainly being driven by Germany?
-
Lol! Look!! Our Resident Idiot just can't help himself can he?? He's made two replies already. It's just not normal. You'll end up upsetting Orlando Wilts! Mick must be in reight frenzy thrapping himself off to all that :) Lol. Keep it up Mick. It's probably best you waste your spunk in as many places as possible. Helps ensure there'll be less progeny carrying on a line that natural selection is inevitably going to weed out.
BobG
-
Lol! Look!! Our Resident Idiot just can't help himself can he?? He's made two replies already. It's just not normal. You'll end up upsetting Orlando Wilts! Mick must be in reight frenzy thrapping himself off to all that :) Lol. Keep it up Mick. It's probably best you waste your spunk in as many places as possible. Helps ensure there'll be less progeny carrying on a line that natural selection is inevitably going to weed out.
BobG
Hahahha! You're hilarious. What's normal is answering a question. Wilts asks a question. It gets an answer. I even answer the occasional silly ones like the ones being pedantic over your statement that the TTIP is being introduced by the evil Tories. Total b*llocks.
You'd do better answering the questions I've put to Wilts. It's partly your fault that he's been made to look so foolish. Once again you attack the man instead of answering the questions. I've been through the forum and can advise you that your current response rate to questions is running at around 6.453%. Pathetic. Mine is still 100%.
No wonder you are now known as daft Bob. Hahahahahaha!
IC1967
-
It's me you should be abjectly apologising to and yes you have missed the threads where people are laughing at you.
Evidence man, where is it? There are seven threads on here from three different contributors, which ones are laughing at me?
Not for the first time you've completely lost me. There are a lot more than 7 threads on the forum. There are a lot more than 3 contributors. You need to try again but this time try and make your post more coherent.
Do you not bother to read wot u ave ritten or are you just not capable of checking facts?
In post No 70 on this thread you wrote:
Look. When people read your post and my response they are going to be laughing behind your back.
In the seven responses between that and the quote at the top of this post - which ones are laughing at me?
-
Fair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.
What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).
This one:
No one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wet
BobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.
Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.
I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.
I've already dealt with this issue comprehensively. More than once now.
I'd appreciate it if you could explain how a trade agreement is being introduced by the Tories when it hasn't even yet been agreed? Why is Bob not answering the question? Why is he saying its a Tory agreement when everyone knows its an EU agreement with the US which is mainly being driven by Germany?
No you haven't, you have avoided and evaded the question several times now. Where in Bob's statement are those words?
-
It's ok Wilts. It's obvious. Our Resident Idiot can't read. It's the only solution. even if he could, he clearly (!) cannot comprehend what is vbeing said to him. The bloke's an utter w**ker.
Who's good on computers? I'd like to know his IP address.
BobG
-
Fair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.
What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).
This one:
No one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wet
BobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.
Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.
I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.
I've already dealt with this issue comprehensively. More than once now.
I'd appreciate it if you could explain how a trade agreement is being introduced by the Tories when it hasn't even yet been agreed? Why is Bob not answering the question? Why is he saying its a Tory agreement when everyone knows its an EU agreement with the US which is mainly being driven by Germany?
No you haven't, you have avoided and evaded the question several times now. Where in Bob's statement are those words?
You really do take pedantry to a new level. It is not true that I have evaded the question. I have comprehensively answered it previously. Anyway The exact words he used are irrelevant. He said that TTIP is being introduced by the Tories. It's very simple. This statement is not true. I've explained why it's not true. What is it you can't understand?
Answer my questions. He won't. He just likes to indulge in personal attacks. If you think I've misrepresented what he said then do us all a favour and explain why, because he won't.
Now get on with it will you. Answer the questions (I fully expect you not to) and explain the unexplainable will you.
Failure to do this will require an immediate abject apology. Get on with it man.
-
Fair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.
What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).
This one:
No one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wet
BobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.
Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.
I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.
I've already dealt with this issue comprehensively. More than once now.
I'd appreciate it if you could explain how a trade agreement is being introduced by the Tories when it hasn't even yet been agreed? Why is Bob not answering the question? Why is he saying its a Tory agreement when everyone knows its an EU agreement with the US which is mainly being driven by Germany?
No you haven't, you have avoided and evaded the question several times now. Where in Bob's statement are those words?
You really do take pedantry to a new level. It is not true that I have evaded the question. I have comprehensively answered it previously. Anyway The exact words he used are irrelevant. He said that TTIP is being introduced by the Tories. It's very simple. This statement is not true. I've explained why it's not true. What is it you can't understand?
Answer my questions. He won't. He just likes to indulge in personal attacks. If you think I've misrepresented what he said then do us all a favour and explain why, because he won't.
Now get on with it will you. Answer the questions (I fully expect you not to) and explain the unexplainable will you.
Failure to do this will require an immediate abject apology. Get on with it man.
You have not answered my question. You can write about TTIP as much as you wish, all you are doing is avoiding my question - where in Bob's statement are those words?
-
Our own version of Godwin's Law.
As the length of a thread increases, the probability of it descending into a morass of Mick's egotistical neediness tends towards 1.
-
Our own version of Godwin's Law.
As the length of a thread increases, the probability of it descending into a morass of Mick's egotistical neediness tends towards 1.
You're just annoyed that as the main champion of this hard left forum I have managed to convince so many people of the paucity of your thinking. May I refer you to the Voting Intention thread where the right wing view is more than holding its own with the left wing view.
This wouldn't have happened if I hadn't totally demolished you and all your leftie mates in every debate I've ever had with them.
The voice of reason is cutting through. Get over it.
-
Fair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.
What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).
This one:
No one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wet
BobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.
Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.
I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.
I've already dealt with this issue comprehensively. More than once now.
I'd appreciate it if you could explain how a trade agreement is being introduced by the Tories when it hasn't even yet been agreed? Why is Bob not answering the question? Why is he saying its a Tory agreement when everyone knows its an EU agreement with the US which is mainly being driven by Germany?
No you haven't, you have avoided and evaded the question several times now. Where in Bob's statement are those words?
You really do take pedantry to a new level. It is not true that I have evaded the question. I have comprehensively answered it previously. Anyway The exact words he used are irrelevant. He said that TTIP is being introduced by the Tories. It's very simple. This statement is not true. I've explained why it's not true. What is it you can't understand?
Answer my questions. He won't. He just likes to indulge in personal attacks. If you think I've misrepresented what he said then do us all a favour and explain why, because he won't.
Now get on with it will you. Answer the questions (I fully expect you not to) and explain the unexplainable will you.
Failure to do this will require an immediate abject apology. Get on with it man.
You have not answered my question. You can write about TTIP as much as you wish, all you are doing is avoiding my question - where in Bob's statement are those words?
Ffs! Why won't you let it lie? Why are you so determined to make yourself look foolish all the time? Why are you such a pedant? I interpreted what he said and proved categorically that what he said was untrue. You, being the pedant you are can't see the wood for the trees. Try looking at the big picture for a change instead of arguing the toss over 'been' or being.
Like I said I've answered this question comprehensively before. You haven't answered any of my questions. I've answered all of yours. What do you think that says about you? Right just to prove it here's what I actually said when you first asked the question on the Green Party thread.
Haha! You lefties do make me laugh. Talk about clutching at straws. Pedantry is being taken to a new level. BobG said it is being introduced by the Tories. 'Is' is the present tense. Now to any right minded person that means it's introduction has already started. He didn't say it will be introduced in the future. 'Will' is the future tense. He said it is being introduced. If he meant to say the introduction would be in the future he would have said will be introduced not is being introduced. Got it? Get it? Good.
Now I don't want to sink to your level of pedantry so I'm even prepared to let the word being be substituted for been. Let's be generous and let's say that BobG meant to say the Tories will introduce the TTIP in the future. How does he know this? He doesn't. The TTIP hasn't yet been agreed. There isn't yet a TTIP to introduce. There may never be a TTIP to introduce.
So whichever way you look at it he has made a fatuous, seriously misleading statement. Anyone that took him at his word would think that the Tories were the only ones pushing the TTIP and it is being introduced. The Tories may well not even be in power when the TTIP is agreed if it ever is. So how the hell does he know they will be introducing it?
As the voice of reason, I felt it was my duty to point out this serious slander on the Tories.
Now get an abject apology sorted pronto for a change. I don't know how many more times I have to expose leftie drivel before you start apologising.
I've even highlighted a bit in bold that shows I totally dealt with your question even though you were asking me a stupid question in the first place. I've never said he said has been introduced. He said is being introduced. He never said 'is being introduced in the future'. He said 'is being introduced'. Any right minded person would take that to mean that it is currently happening.
Even if he had said 'is being introduced in the future' he would have been talking complete b*llocks. For one last time please answer the question. How can it be that TTIP is being introduced by the Tories when it hasn't been and may never be agreed?
Answer the question for a change and you may re-establish some of your trashed reputation. Get on with it man.
-
Ha ha ha!!! You done it AGAIN Mick!!
You just can't resist it can you? Wasn't one climax enough for you? Again?
BobG
-
Ha ha ha!!! You done it AGAIN Mick!!
You just can't resist it can you? Wasn't one climax enough for you? Again?
BobG
Hahahahaha! What's that. Oh, I know. Answered a question yet again. 100% record intact (unlike you whose response rate is pitiful).
Come on daft Bob. Help your mate out. he needs all the help he can get.
IC1967
-
Once again you refuse to answer my question and instead answer an entirely different one. Just to give you a clue, the question has nothing to do with TTIP - nor is it pedantic. It is in fact related to your truth, accuracy and honesty.
You wonder why I keep asking. I will tell you. I want to show you up for what you are. What your 'answers' prove is that you are unable to give an honest answer to a direct question. You pretend to be one thing but faced with real facts are obfuscating, deceptive and dishonest. All of these characteristics you have more than proven in your answers.
Go on, have another go, there is only one answer, tell the truth, give an honest answer, it will make you feel better (but it will mean you will need to apologise to Bob):
Where in Bob G's statement does he say TTIP has been introduced?
By the way it is 'being introduced'. It is being discussed at a high government level, and it wouldn't be if the government were not thinking of introducing it. It may never actually be introduced, but that is a separate discussion entirely.
You have not answered my question from post 96. Funny that.
-
Once again you refuse to answer my question and instead answer an entirely different one. Just to give you a clue, the question has nothing to do with TTIP - nor is it pedantic. It is in fact related to your truth, accuracy and honesty.
You wonder why I keep asking. I will tell you. I want to show you up for what you are. What your 'answers' prove is that you are unable to give an honest answer to a direct question. You pretend to be one thing but faced with real facts are obfuscating, deceptive and dishonest. All of these characteristics you have more than proven in your answers.
Go on, have another go, there is only one answer, tell the truth, give an honest answer, it will make you feel better (but it will mean you will need to apologise to Bob):
Where in Bob G's statement does he say TTIP has been introduced?
By the way it is 'being introduced'. It is being discussed at a high government level, and it wouldn't be if the government were not thinking of introducing it. It may never actually be introduced, but that is a separate discussion entirely.
You have not answered my question from post 96. Funny that.
I give up. You are unbelievable. The rest of the forum can make their minds up about the wrongs and rights of the issue.
Now, where are the answers to my questions? Get on with it man.
-
You are refusing to answer both my questions then Mick?
-
You are refusing to answer both my questions then Mick?
:suicide:
-
QED m'lud
You're screwed Mick.
BobG
-
QED m'lud
You're screwed Mick.
BobG
Just when I thought you'd stopped with homo erotic nonsense.
Just answer the questions. :headbang: :suicide:
IC1967
-
QED m'lud
You're screwed Mick.
BobG
Just answer the questions. :headbang: :suicide:
IC1967
Why, you wont answer mine?
-
I won't quote the post I'm responding to; this post is quite long enough. Refer to your last response to me if needed.
No contradiction whatsoever. With over 2700 posts, that's a lot to go through.
The hunted animal enjoys it not one little bit, I'd imagine. That said, I'm SURE they hate getting eaten alive by other predators, starving to death, or dying slowly of disease FAR more.
For the fifth(?) and final time, I don't follow any recognised or organised religion, not that it's even remotely relevant, nor have I ever claimed that any deity has given man permission to do as he wishes. Having made myself abundantly clear on the subject so many times that even somebody with remedial comprehension skills would understand, I will be ignoring any and all further irrelevant comments regarding religious beliefs.
To clarify for the benefit of the educationally challenged, non predatory animals are prey due to evolution, not the will of a deity. I won't be repeating that 5 more times so it sinks in, so pay attention.
Mick, there IS no explanation to your contradictory stance on PETA, beyond "Yes it's contradictory, and on this subject, I'm a hypocrite."
Not only did you state and AGREE with each of those principles, YOU QUOTED THEM TO ME! You only backtracked on those stated principles and tried to quantify them, when I just pointed out that those principles are incompatible and contradictory with your love of the races. It's simple and blatant hypocrisy, that is clear to everybody but you.
If riding a horse during its rehabilitation, and occasionally for fun is wrong (YOUR STATED BELIEF, backed up with links to PETA), then what is the exploitation of horses in the racing industry? Acceptable, as per your recently stated opinion. A text book example of contradiction/hypocrisy.
I always remember being at school and laughing when I pointed out the dictionary definition of hypocrite to a vegetarian/animal activist friend. As an example it simply stated, "a vegetarian who wears leather shoes." This is as clear an example as that one. Hypocrite - a vegan professing that the use of animals for work or entertainment is wrong, who actively participates and makes a living from the horse racing industry.
If you simply didn't agree with everything PETA say, fine no problem. I mean, how could you; you'd have to have a few screws loose. However, you agreed with them on these two main points specifically, until I applied them to you.
You previously claimed that keeping pets was wrong, but because they are already here, domesticated, and need homes, taking one in and keeping them is a good thing, as backed up by PETA. My horses are no different. Almost every horse that I have ever rescued would have ended up as dog food, or would have starved to death or died from disease, had I not intervened. I don't buy, breed, or sell them. In fact, I have never received a penny for a single one of them when people have adopted them, and I often even end up giving them food and tack.
So individuals who rescue and/or adopt horses at their own expense are animal abusers, but PETA, an international corporation that collects millions of pounds every year in donations, who rescue animals for adoption and DESTROY them if they don't manage to get them adopted in a timely fashion, are morally superior? Give me a break! PETA fanatics have no issue with having pets, and most of them don't pass them on so they can rescue more, once fluffy has become a part of the family. I've adopted injured or old horses that I knew nobody would ever adopt, and they've died happy, well fed, and with dignity. You can shove your moral high ground up your a***.
Again, to be clear, we are not disagreeing whether or not you agree 100% with everything PETA believes, we are arguing over 2 of their main philosophies that you wholeheartedly supported (and vehemently defended), right up until I pointed out how incompatible they are with your hobby/livelihood.
So, keeping pets is wrong, which usually involves an animal becoming an adopted member of the family, receiving love, attention, food, and any necessary medical treatment, but the horse racing industry, which uses horses purely as a tool for entertainment, work, etc is fine? The same industry where all but the very best (and luckiest) end up in meat auctions after a few years? But hey, they receive good nutrition and medical care for a few years, (whilst being exploited, tortured, and abused - your words), so it's fine what happens to them? They had a good run while it lasted? Are you aware that horses can live into their 30's? For what proportion of their lives are racehorses "treated better than humans"? You say they're treated better than humans, but since when were children bred to be Olympic athletes, treated as slaves, forced to run against their wills, and all but the best of them sent for slaughter when they either don't make the grade, or age or injuries render them incapable of competing at the highest level anymore?
You're a zealot, whose hypocrisy has been exposed. Admit it, get over it. A lot of vegetarians eat bacon from time to time. It doesn't make you a bad person, but when you set yourself up as a paragon of morality and virtue, and challenge people to prove you contradictory, it does make you look like a prat... Especially when you won't admit what is obvious to everyone.
You still haven't answered the question I asked regarding your other usernames. We all know you are IC1967, but we all know you have (or have had) other usernames in the past. What are those other usernames? As we both know, you can't/won't answer that truthfully, so your mythical 100% record, were it still intact, has gone.
Another - How can rescuing a horse and riding it to train it for adoption, be bad, but the horse racing industry that breeds animals, trains and exploits them for monetary gain, pumps them full of drugs, and ultimately discards them, usually condemning them to death, be morally superior? It simply can't.
Abject apologies, or keep digging; either way is just as amusing.
I await your attempts at baiting and misdirection; since to do otherwise would simply be admitting you're wrong.
The offer to lock my rifle away in return for your word that you'll give up on the gambling and the racing still stands, btw. After being endangered and protected for 30 years, bears are back on the menu later this year.
Just sayin'. ;)
-
QED m'lud
You're screwed Mick.
BobG
Just answer the questions. :headbang: :suicide:
IC1967
Why, you wont answer mine?
:headbang: :crying: :suicide:
-
Yup. Pavlov's dog. Unquestionably.
BobG
-
I won't quote the post I'm responding to; this post is quite long enough. Refer to your last response to me if needed.
No contradiction whatsoever. With over 2700 posts, that's a lot to go through.
The hunted animal enjoys it not one little bit, I'd imagine. That said, I'm SURE they hate getting eaten alive by other predators, starving to death, or dying slowly of disease FAR more.
For the fifth(?) and final time, I don't follow any recognised or organised religion, not that it's even remotely relevant, nor have I ever claimed that any deity has given man permission to do as he wishes. Having made myself abundantly clear on the subject so many times that even somebody with remedial comprehension skills would understand, I will be ignoring any and all further irrelevant comments regarding religious beliefs.
To clarify for the benefit of the educationally challenged, non predatory animals are prey due to evolution, not the will of a deity. I won't be repeating that 5 more times so it sinks in, so pay attention.
Mick, there IS no explanation to your contradictory stance on PETA, beyond "Yes it's contradictory, and on this subject, I'm a hypocrite."
Not only did you state and AGREE with each of those principles, YOU QUOTED THEM TO ME! You only backtracked on those stated principles and tried to quantify them, when I just pointed out that those principles are incompatible and contradictory with your love of the races. It's simple and blatant hypocrisy, that is clear to everybody but you.
If riding a horse during its rehabilitation, and occasionally for fun is wrong (YOUR STATED BELIEF, backed up with links to PETA), then what is the exploitation of horses in the racing industry? Acceptable, as per your recently stated opinion. A text book example of contradiction/hypocrisy.
I always remember being at school and laughing when I pointed out the dictionary definition of hypocrite to a vegetarian/animal activist friend. As an example it simply stated, "a vegetarian who wears leather shoes." This is as clear an example as that one. Hypocrite - a vegan professing that the use of animals for work or entertainment is wrong, who actively participates and makes a living from the horse racing industry.
If you simply didn't agree with everything PETA say, fine no problem. I mean, how could you; you'd have to have a few screws loose. However, you agreed with them on these two main points specifically, until I applied them to you.
You previously claimed that keeping pets was wrong, but because they are already here, domesticated, and need homes, taking one in and keeping them is a good thing, as backed up by PETA. My horses are no different. Almost every horse that I have ever rescued would have ended up as dog food, or would have starved to death or died from disease, had I not intervened. I don't buy, breed, or sell them. In fact, I have never received a penny for a single one of them when people have adopted them, and I often even end up giving them food and tack.
So individuals who rescue and/or adopt horses at their own expense are animal abusers, but PETA, an international corporation that collects millions of pounds every year in donations, who rescue animals for adoption and DESTROY them if they don't manage to get them adopted in a timely fashion, are morally superior? Give me a break! PETA fanatics have no issue with having pets, and most of them don't pass them on so they can rescue more, once fluffy has become a part of the family. I've adopted injured or old horses that I knew nobody would ever adopt, and they've died happy, well fed, and with dignity. You can shove your moral high ground up your a***.
Again, to be clear, we are not disagreeing whether or not you agree 100% with everything PETA believes, we are arguing over 2 of their main philosophies that you wholeheartedly supported (and vehemently defended), right up until I pointed out how incompatible they are with your hobby/livelihood.
So, keeping pets is wrong, which usually involves an animal becoming an adopted member of the family, receiving love, attention, food, and any necessary medical treatment, but the horse racing industry, which uses horses purely as a tool for entertainment, work, etc is fine? The same industry where all but the very best (and luckiest) end up in meat auctions after a few years? But hey, they receive good nutrition and medical care for a few years, (whilst being exploited, tortured, and abused - your words), so it's fine what happens to them? They had a good run while it lasted? Are you aware that horses can live into their 30's? For what proportion of their lives are racehorses "treated better than humans"? You say they're treated better than humans, but since when were children bred to be Olympic athletes, treated as slaves, forced to run against their wills, and all but the best of them sent for slaughter when they either don't make the grade, or age or injuries render them incapable of competing at the highest level anymore?
You're a zealot, whose hypocrisy has been exposed. Admit it, get over it. A lot of vegetarians eat bacon from time to time. It doesn't make you a bad person, but when you set yourself up as a paragon of morality and virtue, and challenge people to prove you contradictory, it does make you look like a prat... Especially when you won't admit what is obvious to everyone.
You still haven't answered the question I asked regarding your other usernames. We all know you are IC1967, but we all know you have (or have had) other usernames in the past. What are those other usernames? As we both know, you can't/won't answer that truthfully, so your mythical 100% record, were it still intact, has gone.
Another - How can rescuing a horse and riding it to train it for adoption, be bad, but the horse racing industry that breeds animals, trains and exploits them for monetary gain, pumps them full of drugs, and ultimately discards them, usually condemning them to death, be morally superior? It simply can't.
Abject apologies, or keep digging; either way is just as amusing.
I await your attempts at baiting and misdirection; since to do otherwise would simply be admitting you're wrong.
The offer to lock my rifle away in return for your word that you'll give up on the gambling and the racing still stands, btw. After being endangered and protected for 30 years, bears are back on the menu later this year.
Just sayin'. ;)
The fact that you think hunting is acceptable and actually enjoy it marks you out as a despicable human being. You are a barbarian. FACT.
Horse racing isn't perfect but the vast majority of horses in the industry are treated better than many humans. FACT.
You brought God into it and used it as an excuse to have dominion over animals. This shows a complete lack of intelligence. FACT.
Attacking people who don't eat animals is pathetic. At least they are making an effort to reduce the amount of cruelty in the world suffered by animals. They should be commended. FACT.
I'd keep it quiet that you enjoy hunting if I were you. You won't find much support around here for that horrific activity. FACT.
-
Where does he attack people who don't eat animals as pathetic? I can't find it in his last article. He does use the vegetarian and leather shoes analogy as use of the word hypocrite, but as he said, it was a simple way of explaining the word to children, then expanded it to vegans and the horse racing industry. Please enlighten me, or are you reading a different article?
-
Where does he attack people who don't eat animals as pathetic? I can't find it in his last article. He does use the vegetarian and leather shoes analogy as use of the word hypocrite, but as he said, it was a simple way of explaining the word to children, then expanded it to vegans and the horse racing industry. Please enlighten me, or are you reading a different article?
No wonder children leaving school don't have a basic grasp of English if you used to be a headteacher. Can't you understand simple sentences? I'm glad you weren't my English teacher. I said 'Attacking people who don't eat animals is pathetic'. He never used the word 'pathetic.' I did. He did attack people who don't eat meat. I think that's pathetic.
Got it, get it, good.
At least it seems you agree with my other points.
-
Where is the attack on people who don't eat meat in the article? You give it as a FACT statements in your response,
-
Where is the attack on people who don't eat meat in the article? You give it as a FACT statements in your response,
He said - 'I always remember being at school and laughing when I pointed out the dictionary definition of hypocrite to a vegetarian/animal activist friend. As an example it simply stated, "a vegetarian who wears leather shoes."
There you have it. He recalls taking the piss out of people that care about animals. No wonder he turned into a barbarian.
Now I'd be grateful if you could confirm that you were joking about being a head teacher. If your standard of literacy is anything to go by I feel very sorry for the children under you. 'You give it as a FACT statements'. What king of gibberish is that? You do know that you're supposed to end a sentence with a full stop and not a comma don't you?
-
Where is the attack on people who don't eat meat in the article? You give it as a FACT statements in your response,
He said - 'I always remember being at school and laughing when I pointed out the dictionary definition of hypocrite to a vegetarian/animal activist friend. As an example it simply stated, "a vegetarian who wears leather shoes."
There you have it. He recalls taking the piss out of people that care about animals. No wonder he turned into a barbarian.
Now I'd be grateful if you could confirm that you were joking about being a head teacher. If your standard of literacy is anything to go by I feel very sorry for the children under you. 'You give it as a FACT statements'. What king of gibberish is that? You do know that you're supposed to end a sentence with a full stop and not a comma don't you?
And you are making the general assumption that all vegetarians are vegetarians because they love animals.
-
Where is the attack on people who don't eat meat in the article? You give it as a FACT statements in your response,
He said - 'I always remember being at school and laughing when I pointed out the dictionary definition of hypocrite to a vegetarian/animal activist friend. As an example it simply stated, "a vegetarian who wears leather shoes."
There you have it. He recalls taking the piss out of people that care about animals. No wonder he turned into a barbarian.
Now I'd be grateful if you could confirm that you were joking about being a head teacher. If your standard of literacy is anything to go by I feel very sorry for the children under you. 'You give it as a FACT statements'. What king of gibberish is that? You do know that you're supposed to end a sentence with a full stop and not a comma don't you?
And you are making the general assumption that all vegetarians are vegetarians because they love animals.
Evidence man where is it? Let me give you a clue. He said - 'vegetarian/animal activist'.
Got it, get it, good.
What is it with some people on this forum? I seem to be spending more time pointing out the blindingly, bleeding obvious. Please try to read a bit more slowly and take the information in before making false statements. You know who you are.
I await your abject apology.
-
Good grief, he's still at it. I thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
With regard to your comments above about people making false statements....
....you haven't answered my questions about you use of false statements. Nor have you apologised.
-
Horses are treated better than humans, what sort of a lie is that propogated by the horse racing/hunting lobby. Yes if you regard being shut in a 12ft square box most of the day, being feed food laced with chemicals and no variety, not being able to have sex unless someone decided you could - and then being forced to perform for a load of baying punters at the risk of injury whether you like it or not, and then after a career of a couple of years being shunted of to the knackers yard - sounds worse than prison to me.
-
Good grief, he's still at it. I thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
With regard to your comments above about people making false statements....
....you haven't answered my questions about you use of false statements. Nor have you apologised.
What on earth does 'you use of false statements mean?' Clarity man. Where is it? :woot: :crying:
You could try answering some of my questions. Your current response rate is running at approximately 4.234%. My 100% record is still intact.
-
Horses are treated better than humans, what sort of a lie is that propogated by the horse racing/hunting lobby. Yes if you regard being shut in a 12ft square box most of the day, being feed food laced with chemicals and no variety, not being able to have sex unless someone decided you could - and then being forced to perform for a load of baying punters at the risk of injury whether you like it or not, and then after a career of a couple of years being shunted of to the knackers yard - sounds worse than prison to me.
If you don't mind me saying that is a slightly biased view that bears no resemblance to reality. What on earth does 'being feed food' mean?
-
Horses are treated better than humans, what sort of a lie is that propogated by the horse racing/hunting lobby. Yes if you regard being shut in a 12ft square box most of the day, being feed food laced with chemicals and no variety, not being able to have sex unless someone decided you could - and then being forced to perform for a load of baying punters at the risk of injury whether you like it or not, and then after a career of a couple of years being shunted of to the knackers yard - sounds worse than prison to me.
If you don't mind me saying that is a slightly biased view that bears no resemblance to reality. What on earth does 'being feed food' mean?
it means you have missed 'laced with chemicals' off the end.
And it is all entirely factual, my late uncle was an ex-jockey. You wouldn't be connected with the racing industry would you, making your living from gambling or something similar, the way you defend this cruel treatment of these poor defenceless horses.....
-
Good grief, he's still at it. I thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
With regard to your comments above about people making false statements....
....you haven't answered my questions about you use of false statements. Nor have you apologised.
What on earth does 'you use of false statements mean?' Clarity man. Where is it? :woot: :crying:
You could try answering some of my questions. Your current response rate is running at approximately 4.234%. My 100% record is still intact.
It means I have read post 122 above. It also means I can repeat my favourite topic and say that it relates to your accusation that another poster had used the words 'been introduced' when they had not.
In this post actually:
No one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wet
BobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.
Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.
I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.
And your constant refusal to answer this means that your supposed answer rate is now also a false statement.
-
100% record intact. May I remind you I don't answer silly questions.
:zzz:
-
Pavlov still alive and well I see.
I wonder what sort of life this poor buffoon is going to end up with? Clearly there will be a marked absence of friends and equally clearly an ever growing frustration with no one ever taking him seriously. A very noticeable tendency to emotional upset is pretty likely too when things don't go the way he believes they should, along with an obtuse terrier like perpetual worrying at bones who's juice dried up 75 posts ago.
Like I said. He's one of Pavlov's dogs. Probably one of the bitches :)
U my bitch then Mick?
BobG
-
Back to the OP
What's more important?
Hundreds of migrants drowning?
The nasty malignancy in Clarkson?
Mick's need to make ever discussion about his neediness?
-
Back to the OP
What's more important?
Hundreds of migrants drowning?
The nasty malignancy in Clarkson?
Mick's need to make ever discussion about his neediness?
With my plan it would be hundreds drowning after we'd sunk their boats. They'd soon stop coming. With your plan it would be many thousands and they'd still keep coming. Never mind. You'd be able to sleep in your bed convinced you're a nice person and I am horrible. You just haven't got my backbone have you? All you're bothered about is being perceived (wrongly) as a nice person. Sometime you have to be tough to be kind. That's where I come in.
Read up on Churchill. He'd have understood my point of view.
-
Back to the OP
What's more important?
Hundreds of migrants drowning?
The nasty malignancy in Clarkson?
Mick's need to make ever discussion about his neediness?
It's all a matter of perspective. If you're Mick, then the wanton desire just to reach out and touch people is the single most important thing (to borrow a Clarksonism)... In the world.
I think that he's lonely and in need of a hug. Sadly, I am not in a position to offer him that kind of support, but others might be able to help. Can someone just 'take one for the team' on this?
-
You lefties have had your chance to come up with a plan. You have failed abysmally. I've come up with a couple of brilliant plans to sort the problem out.
Boats would only be sunk after the leaflet drop. This would result in far fewer deaths than is currently the ongoing situation. I'm for less deaths. You 'nice' lefties are for more deaths, many more.
Go figure.
-
Where is the attack on people who don't eat meat in the article? You give it as a FACT statements in your response,
He said - 'I always remember being at school and laughing when I pointed out the dictionary definition of hypocrite to a vegetarian/animal activist friend. As an example it simply stated, "a vegetarian who wears leather shoes."
There you have it. He recalls taking the piss out of people that care about animals. No wonder he turned into a barbarian.
Now I'd be grateful if you could confirm that you were joking about being a head teacher. If your standard of literacy is anything to go by I feel very sorry for the children under you. 'You give it as a FACT statements'. What king of gibberish is that? You do know that you're supposed to end a sentence with a full stop and not a comma don't you?
And you are making the general assumption that all vegetarians are vegetarians because they love animals.
Evidence man where is it? Let me give you a clue. He said - 'vegetarian/animal activist'.
Got it, get it, good.
What is it with some people on this forum? I seem to be spending more time pointing out the blindingly, bleeding obvious. Please try to read a bit more slowly and take the information in before making false statements. You know who you are.
I await your abject apology.
And a forward slash mean 'and/or'.
Apology awaited.
-
:suicide:
-
Oh yes, the 'shock & awe' leaflet campaign... The one that says, presumably, 'Good people of Libya (and any other foreigners), we know that we f**ked up your country (serves you right for having oil), but we would kindly ask you to stay where you are. There's no point trying to escape from the shitehole that we helped create, and - frankly - if you do, we'll kill you anyway and/or tow you back to the hell you tried to escape from. You're not wanted anywhere else, so please stay here to be killed. THANKS!'
Even Mick's bestest mate Clarkson seems to appreciate that not letting people be killed is a good thing. And the whole argument about the UK being full (not that they necessarily want to get to the UK in the first place), the one that gets trotted about by the 'kippers? That's total bull, and anyone that actually bothers to look into immigration our 'fullness' knows it.
That's the thing about repeating other people's bile. If you're only ever an empty vessel, the noise you make - whilst loud enough - will only ever be empty and hollow.
-
And it's handy that 'full' is a totally subjective judgement too. Mick, of course, has never bothered to define what 'full' means in his world. But then, he hasn't got the equipment to do it I suppose.
It's getting to be quite fun this isn't it? Ridiculing our Resident Idiot and and showing him up for the fathead he is. It's a pleasant pastime for a wet Sunday. Carry on the good work Mick. You're becoming vastly entertaining :) It's especially brilliant when I don't have to read any of your turgid nonsense any more. I'm enjoying this.
BobG
-
Oh yes, the 'shock & awe' leaflet campaign... The one which says, presumably, 'Good people of Libya (and any other foreigners), we know that we f***ed up your country (serves you right for having oil), but we would kindly ask you to stay where you are. There's no point trying to escape from the shitehole that we helped create, and - frankly - if you do, we'll kill you anyway and/or tow you back to the hell you tried to escape from. You're not wanted anywhere else, so please stay here to be killed. THANKS!'
Even Mick's bestest mate Clarkson seems to appreciate that not letting people be killed is a good thing. And the whole argument about the UK being full (not that they necessarily want to get to the UK in the first place), the one that gets trotted about by the 'kippers? That's total bull, and anyone that actually bothers to look into immigration our 'fullness' knows it.
That's the thing about repeating other people's bile. If you're only ever an empty vessel, the noise you make - whilst loud enough - will only ever be empty and hollow.
Excuse me. We didn't mess up their country. They managed to do that all by themselves. We intervened to stop a massacre by Gadaffi. Presumably you were all for this at the time (I wasn't).
What on earth is wrong with them escaping to other African countries? They have plenty of spare land you know and their cultures are far more similar and it would be easier for them to go home.
Why do you want millions of economic migrants to come here from around the world?
Why do you want more to die than me?
Why don't you come up with sensible plans?
Why don't you answer my pertinent questions?
Why do you always want people to think you're nice?
Why are you so insecure?
I could go on.
-
I don't answer your questions because I am not your dancing monkey. I don't answer your questions because I don't have discussions with or argue with idiots. I don't answer your questions because I don't have to. I don't answer your questions because you don't actually bother to read or FULLY AND UNDERSTAND what I write. You are one-note and needy, to the point where you appear to clamour attention from people you have - I would guess - never met and are never likely to. It must be depressing for you.
Like you, I could go on (and on), but I choose not to do so because - unlike you - I have other things to do.
-
I don't answer your questions because I am not your dancing monkey. I don't answer your questions because I don't have discussions with or argue with idiots. I don't answer your questions because I don't have to. I don't answer your questions because you don't actually bother to read or FULLY AND UNDERSTAND what I write. You are one-note and needy, to the point where you appear to clamour attention from people you have - I would guess - never met and are never likely to. It must be depressing for you.
Like you, I could go on (and on), but I choose not to do so because - unlike you - I have other things to do.
You don't answer my questions because vacuous leftie thinking does not provide answers. I've checked your record and you are currently running at around a pathetic 3.456% response rate.
Just be grateful I'm around to cut through your wooly, impractical thinking.
Now get an abject apology sorted for not answering my questions.
-
This would not be happening if only they'd implement my plan.
How many more people do you lefties want to die and land on the shores of Europe?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32573389
-
Good God above. YOu really have got a problem Mick. Only our Resident Idiot could ever even begin to think that 50% of the posts in a thread of 142 posts now is a sensible or productive use of time. More consecutive ones again tonight I see. Has Mr Pavlov got you by the short hairs?
You really are an idiot Mick. Entertaining in a juvenile and predictable kind of way - but a real idiot. I know for a fact that there's well over a dozen regular contributors to these threads that have you on ignore now. Theyre not reading your shite. Like me, they're simply laughing at your guaranteed automatic response - happily unseen by us - and your transparent need for people to address you. Just how lonely are you Mick? I reckon Lipsy has got you bang to rights. Of course, that doesn't alter the fact that you remain our Resident Idiot.
By the way, got that rope yet Mick? It's coming. It's inevitably going to be part of your future Mick unless you really do get serious help.
BobG
-
Good God above. YOu really have got a problem Mick. Only our Resident Idiot could ever even begin to think that 50% of the posts in a thread of 142 posts now is a sensible or productive use of time. More consecutive ones again tonight I see. Has Mr Pavlov got you by the short hairs?
You really are an idiot Mick. Entertaining in a juvenile and predictable kind of way - but a real idiot. I know for a fact that there's well over a dozen regular contributors to these threads that have you on ignore now. Theyre not reading your shite. Like me, they're simply laughing at your guaranteed automatic response - happily unseen by us - and your transparent need for people to address you. Just how lonely are you Mick? I reckon Lipsy has got you bang to rights. Of course, that doesn't alter the fact that you remain our Resident Idiot.
By the way, got that rope yet Mick? It's coming. It's inevitably going to be part of your future Mick unless you really do get serious help.
BobG
Look daft Bob. For someone that isn't even (allegedly) reading my posts you are getting very worked up about them. It's not easy being the voice of reason on this forum I'll have you know. The way I have transformed it into a right wing forum is a magnificent achievement.
You'd do better to to offer me congratulations for my fine work instead of coming up with abuse all the time. I shudder to think what the other members of the forum think about you now. You've obviously lost the plot and need to take a chill pill.
May I suggest you take a break from the Off Topic part of the forum for the good of your mental health. I and I'm sure many others are seriously concerned for your mental well-being.
Before you go though I'd be grateful if you could offer up an abject apology for all the horrid things you've said about me. One will do (even though you owe me dozens). Let's call it an amnesty.
Come back in a few months and let's see if we can get along a bit better than we have done in the past. Like I say you seem reasonably intelligent and I'm sure with the right help from me you'd be able to make a useful contribution to the forum.
All the best.
IC1967
-
In the east the wind is blowing the boats across the sea
And the sails will fill the morning and their cries ring out to me.....
-
As I've got Mick on ignore I really cant see the point in our Resident Idiot answering every single post I make. But, to be fair, it is hugely entertaining seeing just how many times I can provoke him into making a response into thin air. We're in the 30's now in this thread alone RI. You really are Pavlovs bitch. And I claim my £5.
Woof woof.
BobG
-
f**k me Bob, I've said it before and I'll say it again, you need to get a hobby. You come across as just as sad, if not more so, than you continually suggest IC is. Surely an obsession with someone who has an obsession is worse than the original obsession itself?! Time was I used to enjoy reading your posts. Now I just pity you.
-
f*** me Bob, I've said it before and I'll say it again, you need to get a hobby. You come across as just as sad, if not more so, than you continually suggest IC is. Surely an obsession with someone who has an obsession is worse than the original obsession itself?! Time was I used to enjoy reading your posts. Now I just pity you.
Look daft Bob. Nick is just saying up front what a lot of people are saying behind your back. I'm surprised some of your mates haven't been PMing you with the same advice. They can't be proper mates if you ask me if they allow you to continue to make a fool of yourself.
I must take issue with Nick on one comment though. I'm not a saddo obsessive. I'm the voice of reason! You're the saddo obsessive.
Read my previous post daft Bob. Take my advice. Given your reasonable intellect I'm sure one day you could come back and make a worthwhile contribution.
You'll feel so much better for it. (Don't forget that abject apology though before you go).
IC1967
-
:0 Nick. YOu're probably right. But dealing with my lad takes up an enormous amount of time andmy recent spell in hosiptal hasn't left me with many otpions at the moment. so taking the piss out of our Resident Idiot is fun for the time being.
Cheers
Bob
-
Bob, that being the case I hope you focus your time on your lad and your recuperation. No need to waste it on a faceless entity on here. :)
-
Let's hope he takes your advice.
IC1967
-
Thank you Nick. That's very good advice. Watched him take 4 for 4 (!!) in 4 overs today. The opposition weren't up to much, but he bowled it in the right place. He's coming on.
Bob