Should I Stay Or Should I Go

[Filo]

So do you want me to reinstate that post, it's a simple yes or no Mick, over to you?

[IC1967]

So do you want me to reinstate that post, it's a simple yes or no Mick, over to you?

This is silly question. However I will answer it as you are so persistent if you will answer whether you accept my challenge or not. Over to you.

[Filo]

Mick I'm not playing your games, i've asked you this question several times yesterday, so far you've failed to respond, that in itself is an admission that you deleted a post and then asked posters for evidence of it, trying to make out that other posters were lieing. I have evidence, you know I have, would you like me to provide that evidence by reinstating the post?

Yes or No?

[IC1967]

Mick I'm not playing your games, i've asked you this question several times yesterday, so far you've failed to respond, that in itself is an admission that you deleted a post and then asked posters for evidence of it, trying to make out that other posters were lieing. I have evidence, you know I have, would you like me to provide that evidence by reinstating the post?

Yes or No?

Look anyone who knows what you are on about knows what you are asking is very silly. I don't make a habit of answering silly questions. However I have offered to answer you if you will accept my perfectly reasonable challenge to your 'book of lies' jibe.

Over to you.

[Glyn_Wigley]

b*llocks to him, reinstate it and show him up as the charlatan he is. How about digging up some other, too? He wanted me to provide 'evidence' of what he'd said after he'd edited it the other day too...put it back and you'll see that he said two completely opposite things in the same thread then denied he's done it.

For all those who like to see proper debates in this forum, do any of you think the underhand way Mick 'debates' does anyone any good?

[IC1967]

b*llocks to him, reinstate it and show him up as the charlatan he is. How about digging up some other, too? He wanted me to provide 'evidence' of what he'd said after he'd edited it the other day too...put it back and you'll see that he said two completely opposite things in the same thread then denied he's done it.

For all those who like to see proper debates in this forum, do any of you think the underhand way Mick 'debates' does anyone any good?

He won't be able to provide any evidence of anything that I have edited affecting your ability to supply the evidence I was requesting from you because it doesn't exist. I am quite happy to accept that challenge. Once nothing comes of it I expect an immediate abject apology.

You'd do better to try and find 20 of the so called lies from the book of lies. One at a time will do.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Photographic memory claim when plagiarising (16 times).

Grand National bet
Scottish referendum bet
Recent deleted post on tax rates.

There's 19 lies.

Someone else can find the 20th.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Oh aye.

Writing to Saunders to give him advice on possession efficiency.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Photographic memory claim when plagiarising (16 times).

Grand National bet
Scottish referendum bet
Recent deleted post on tax rates.

There's 19 lies.

Someone else can find the 20th.

There's the one I was referring to, about UKIP. First he said that Farage is bound by the wishes of the party, then when I challenged him on that and gave an example of the UKIP leadership having no compunction in ignoring what their membership had decided as party policy by ballot, he deleted it and then stated the opposite.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Glyn

At least he deleted the contradictory post. Usually he just contradicts himself and doesn't bother with the deletion.

The bizarre tale of Mick's conversion in the space of a couple of weeks from being utterly, utterly convinced that we were in the road to hyperinflation, to being even more convinced that we were going into deflation is the perfect example of that.

F Scott Fitzgerald said that the test of a first rate mind is the ability two hold two contradictory ideas at the same time and still be able to function.

I wonder what he would have made of a person who can hold two contradictory ideas at the same time and lie through his teeth every time he's found out?

[Dagenham Rover]

Tbh I'm quite surprised a plagarised version of this  hasn't appeared yet, yes I've been waiting

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-banker-crispin-odey-warns-5074995

[IC1967]

Photographic memory claim when plagiarising (16 times).

Grand National bet
Scottish referendum bet
Recent deleted post on tax rates.

There's 19 lies.

Someone else can find the 20th.

There's the one I was referring to, about UKIP. First he said that Farage is bound by the wishes of the party, then when I challenged him on that and gave an example of the UKIP leadership having no compunction in ignoring what their membership had decided as party policy by ballot, he deleted it and then stated the opposite.

What a pathetic effort. The grand national was a hilarious jape that back fired slightly which has all been sorted and explained. Where was the lie on the Scottish Referendum? I seem to recall posting a copy of my betslip as proof of my claims. How can a deleted post be a lie if indeed this is what happened?

I really don't know what you are on about with UKIP. I'd love to see some evidence of a lie. Don't bother you won't find any.

If I were a teacher, the comment 'must try harder' would be how I would sum up your poor effort. You'd also get detention.

Next.

[wilts rover]

As a card carrying communist leftie I must say I am on Mick's side in this, their does appear to be a conspiricy 'out to get him' for the manner in which he posts on here and I am backing my comrade against 'the man'.

And come on, be honest with yourselves, if he was an ordinary poster, debating honest well thought out opinions with facts and evidence - it wouldn't be half as much fun would it!!!!

[Glyn_Wigley]

Glyn

At least he deleted the contradictory post. Usually he just contradicts himself and doesn't bother with the deletion.

The bizarre tale of Mick's conversion in the space of a couple of weeks from being utterly, utterly convinced that we were in the road to hyperinflation, to being even more convinced that we were going into deflation is the perfect example of that.

F Scott Fitzgerald said that the test of a first rate mind is the ability two hold two contradictory ideas at the same time and still be able to function.

I wonder what he would have made of a person who can hold two contradictory ideas at the same time and lie through his teeth every time he's found out?

I mentioned it the other week, Mick is a perfect example of Doublethink, as postulated by George Orwell in 1984:

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

Only Orwell doesn't maintain you need a first rate mind to exercise Doublethink, just a morally flexible one.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Glyn

It's the sole reason I waste any time on him. He's an intelligent person, doubtlessly, but one who's whole outlook is based on the premise that a lie, told shamefacedly enough and never admitted, is a fair debating approach.

Mick is a fool, but his approach worries me. If you allow intelligent people to act like that, you're on a slippery slope. Especially in a period where that kind of approach to discussion is gaining traction in the political sphere (Salmond, Farage, two masters of the art).

You don't debate with people who use the tactics that Mick does. Because they don't work by the rules of normal debating. What you have to do is to repeatedly point out their mendacity and untrustworthiness. Show their opinions to be worthless because they are based on a tissue of lies.

It passes the time if nowt else.

[IC1967]

As a card carrying communist leftie I must say I am on Mick's side in this, their does appear to be a conspiricy 'out to get him' for the manner in which he posts on here and I am backing my comrade against 'the man'.

And come on, be honest with yourselves, if he was an ordinary poster, debating honest well thought out opinions with facts and evidence - it wouldn't be half as much fun would it!!!!

Fair play Wilts. I like your style. I almost got a compliment there!

[Glyn_Wigley]

As a card carrying communist leftie I must say I am on Mick's side in this, their does appear to be a conspiricy 'out to get him' for the manner in which he posts on here and I am backing my comrade against 'the man'.

And come on, be honest with yourselves, if he was an ordinary poster, debating honest well thought out opinions with facts and evidence - it wouldn't be half as much fun would it!!!!

Fair play Wilts. I like your style. I almost got a compliment there!

I take you agree with his assessment of you as a dishonest debater too.

[IC1967]

Glyn

At least he deleted the contradictory post. Usually he just contradicts himself and doesn't bother with the deletion.

The bizarre tale of Mick's conversion in the space of a couple of weeks from being utterly, utterly convinced that we were in the road to hyperinflation, to being even more convinced that we were going into deflation is the perfect example of that.

F Scott Fitzgerald said that the test of a first rate mind is the ability two hold two contradictory ideas at the same time and still be able to function.

I wonder what he would have made of a person who can hold two contradictory ideas at the same time and lie through his teeth every time he's found out?

What contradictory post was that then? I'm afraid Filo won't be able to help you on that one because there isn't one.

A conversion from a view of hyperflation to deflation isn't a lie. Its called changing your mind when you find new evidence that disproves your previous hypothesis. You are just sore because I alone called it correctly more than 12 months ago. Just shows what an economics expert I am.

Next.

[IC1967]

As a card carrying communist leftie I must say I am on Mick's side in this, their does appear to be a conspiricy 'out to get him' for the manner in which he posts on here and I am backing my comrade against 'the man'.

And come on, be honest with yourselves, if he was an ordinary poster, debating honest well thought out opinions with facts and evidence - it wouldn't be half as much fun would it!!!!

Fair play Wilts. I like your style. I almost got a compliment there!

I take you agree with his assessment of you as a dishonest debater too.

He hasn't called me dishonest. I suggest you issue him with an immediate abject apology.

Look, its very simple. Apparently there is a book of lies. Go and have a look in it and let me know what you've found. That should keep you occupied for a few days. After this time I expect an immediate abject apology when you fail in this mission.

[IC1967]

Glyn

It's the sole reason I waste any time on him. He's an intelligent person, doubtlessly, but one who's whole outlook is based on the premise that a lie, told shamefacedly enough and never admitted, is a fair debating approach.

Mick is a fool, but his approach worries me. If you allow intelligent people to act like that, you're on a slippery slope. Especially in a period where that kind of approach to discussion is gaining traction in the political sphere (Salmond, Farage, two masters of the art).

You don't debate with people who use the tactics that Mick does. Because they don't work by the rules of normal debating. What you have to do is to repeatedly point out their mendacity and untrustworthiness. Show their opinions to be worthless because they are based on a tissue of lies.

It passes the time if nowt else.

You keep banging on about me lying but never produce any evidence. I on the other hand was exposing your lies on a daily basis until Filo asked that we call a truce. I think he felt sorry for you so I complied as I am a magnanimous soul and it was just too easy. Now are you going to respect the truce like what I've done or do you want Filo on your back?

[IC1967]

Oh aye.

Writing to Saunders to give him advice on possession efficiency.

If my memory serves me right I think that was mjdgreg or maybe madmick. I'd be interested to know how you know Saunders wasn't written to. I seem to remember that our possession efficiency improved dramatically afterwards. That would lead me to believe that Saunders took the expert advice on board.

[Glyn_Wigley]

As a card carrying communist leftie I must say I am on Mick's side in this, their does appear to be a conspiricy 'out to get him' for the manner in which he posts on here and I am backing my comrade against 'the man'.

And come on, be honest with yourselves, if he was an ordinary poster, debating honest well thought out opinions with facts and evidence - it wouldn't be half as much fun would it!!!!

Fair play Wilts. I like your style. I almost got a compliment there!

I take you agree with his assessment of you as a dishonest debater too.

He hasn't called me dishonest. I suggest you issue him with an immediate abject apology.

Look, its very simple. Apparently there is a book of lies. Go and have a look in it and let me know what you've found. That should keep you occupied for a few days. After this time I expect an immediate abject apology when you fail in this mission.

"if he was an ordinary poster, debating honest well thought out opinions". That means he doesn't think you are one. And by trying to make out he's saying what you want to believe he's saying, you're showing us all exactly what he means. It's you who owes him an apology for deliberately ignoring what he's said.

[IC1967]

Tbh I'm quite surprised a plagarised version of this  hasn't appeared yet, yes I've been waiting

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-banker-crispin-odey-warns-5074995

I think you'll find that my similar prediction was made weeks ago. I refer you to the 'The future looks extremely grim' thread what I started. Crispin obviously knows his stuff like what I do. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he read my excellent warning before doing a bit more research himself. Great minds think alike.

[IC1967]

As a card carrying communist leftie I must say I am on Mick's side in this, their does appear to be a conspiricy 'out to get him' for the manner in which he posts on here and I am backing my comrade against 'the man'.

And come on, be honest with yourselves, if he was an ordinary poster, debating honest well thought out opinions with facts and evidence - it wouldn't be half as much fun would it!!!!

Fair play Wilts. I like your style. I almost got a compliment there!

I take you agree with his assessment of you as a dishonest debater too.

He hasn't called me dishonest. I suggest you issue him with an immediate abject apology.

Look, its very simple. Apparently there is a book of lies. Go and have a look in it and let me know what you've found. That should keep you occupied for a few days. After this time I expect an immediate abject apology when you fail in this mission.

"if he was an ordinary poster, debating honest well thought out opinions". That means he doesn't think you are one. And by trying to make out he's saying what you want to believe he's saying, you're showing us all exactly what he means. It's you who owes him an apology for deliberately ignoring what he's said.

Seems like you need it explaining to you. He says I'm not ordinary. I said that was almost a compliment. Now if I wasn't modest I could have claimed it was a compliment. But that would be unfair to ordinary posters such as yourself and Billy.

Now to the next bit. 'Debating honest well thought out opinions'. I interpret that as the challenge to me is to debate with others who haven't put forward honest well thought out opinions such as yourself. If anything he is saying I'm not ordinary and the people I have to debate with don't put forward honest well thought out opinions. The key word in all this is 'debating'. If he had said 'putting forward' instead of 'debating' you would have a point. You are pointless.

Now get that abject apology sorted and we'll say no more about it.

[Glyn_Wigley]

There goes that Doublethink again!

[Glyn_Wigley]

As a card carrying communist leftie I must say I am on Mick's side in this, their does appear to be a conspiricy 'out to get him' for the manner in which he posts on here and I am backing my comrade against 'the man'.

And come on, be honest with yourselves, if he was an ordinary poster, debating honest well thought out opinions with facts and evidence - it wouldn't be half as much fun would it!!!!

Fair play Wilts. I like your style. I almost got a compliment there!

I take you agree with his assessment of you as a dishonest debater too.

He hasn't called me dishonest. I suggest you issue him with an immediate abject apology.

Look, its very simple. Apparently there is a book of lies. Go and have a look in it and let me know what you've found. That should keep you occupied for a few days. After this time I expect an immediate abject apology when you fail in this mission.

"if he was an ordinary poster, debating honest well thought out opinions". That means he doesn't think you are one. And by trying to make out he's saying what you want to believe he's saying, you're showing us all exactly what he means. It's you who owes him an apology for deliberately ignoring what he's said.

Seems like you need it explaining to you. He says I'm not ordinary. I said that was almost a compliment. Now if I wasn't modest I could have claimed it was a compliment. But that would be unfair to ordinary posters such as yourself and Billy.

Now to the next bit. 'Debating honest well thought out opinions'. I interpret that as the challenge to me is to debate with others who haven't put forward honest well thought out opinions such as yourself. If anything he is saying I'm not ordinary and the people I have to debate with don't put forward honest well thought out opinions. The key word in all this is 'debating'. If he had said 'putting forward' instead of 'debating' you would have a point. You are pointless.

Now get that abject apology sorted and we'll say no more about it.

If that's how you interpret things no wonder you keep editing your posts hours after you've written them...

[IC1967]

Look, you've obviously read what he said the wrong way. That's OK. We all make mistakes (I must admit I can't remember the last time I made one though).

It's very simple. I've explained it to you what his statement meant. Stop digging yourself a hole and get that abject apology sorted pronto and we can move on.

If you're not careful you won't just be pointless, you'll be extremely annoying as well.

[Glyn_Wigley]

How about we let him tell us what his statement meant himself?

[IC1967]

How about we let him tell us what his statement meant himself?

Look its obvious that wilts is an intelligent man. I don't know what qualifications he's got but that is of no interest to me. I consider him to be intelligent but misguided. That's OK. Life would be boring if we were all like you.

Now given that wilts knows perfectly well how to construct a statement, why on earth are you asking him to say he constructed this particular statement very badly? Are you trying to insinuate that he is unintelligent? Because if he agrees with you that will be the distinct impression that is left.

You'd do better spending your time finding a lie from the book of lies. Also how's it going with Filo finding this alleged post about UKIP I allegedly deleted? I'll tell you. Very badly because I didn't delete or amend any posts to scupper your argument.

Its a bit like whats going with wilts' statement. You've misread something and gone off at a tangent (yet again).

Now cut your losses. Admit there isn't a book of lies. There isn't even a pamphlet of lies. Get an abject apology sorted and we'll put this sorry mess behind us.

[Filo]

How about we let him tell us what his statement meant himself?

Look its obvious that wilts is an intelligent man. I don't know what qualifications he's got but that is of no interest to me. I consider him to be intelligent but misguided. That's OK. Life would be boring if we were all like you.

Now given that wilts knows perfectly well how to construct a statement, why on earth are you asking him to say he constructed this particular statement very badly? Are you trying to insinuate that he is unintelligent? Because if he agrees with you that will be the distinct impression that is left.

You'd do better spending your time finding a lie from the book of lies. Also how's it going with Filo finding this alleged post about UKIP I allegedly deleted? I'll tell you. Very badly because I didn't delete or amend any posts to scupper your argument.

Its a bit like whats going with wilts' statement. You've misread something and gone off at a tangent (yet again).

Now cut your losses. Admit there isn't a book of lies. There isn't even a pamphlet of lies. Get an abject apology sorted and we'll put this sorry mess behind us.

You'd probably like to pretend that this exchange did n't happen Mick, you would n't want to be made to look silly would you Lol!