Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 19:47:28 GMT
I've already explained it, and re-written it in a way that would have made it mean what you suggested it meant. You are now questioning whether it's a valid conclusion to reach, I'm not responsible for conclusions that a 3rd party arrives at. Frankly there isn't enough evidence for you to back up your claims. You re-writing it in another way, doesn't make the GoFundMe page the only way to show that they're saying, 'capitalism that disproportionately harms black people' - you are aware of that I assume? You can repeat the same point as many times as you like, but it doesn't make it any truer. What is true is that we have a statement that cannot be agreed upon, there seem to be two views. Would you admit that you're being too close minded to admit that your conclusion may be incorrect? You said you were open minded previously, so I'm curious to see whether you still consider yourself open minded, and if not, what changed? I'm also curious why you felt the need to insult me. We're having a sensible conversation, are we not? I don't think I'm being closed minded, as I've now explained either 3 or 4 times, those words had a meaning, to make them mean what you are suggesting they needed adjusting, I demonstrated that. You can disagree as is your right. Tell you what, would you accept something, unambiguous, direct from the official Twitter acc of BLM UK? Here you go, a little bit for you, mostly for Oldie as he's already expressed his disgust at anti-Semitism, now BLM UK are up to their necks in a row about Israel, and accusations that their members have made threats against members of the Jewish community which the organisation haven't moved to condemn. This is just plain ugly; BLM UK position on Palistine
BLM being told that you can't fight prejudice with prejudice. I certainly hope there's no more of their slogan being used anywhere until this is cleared up. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 29, 2020 20:08:27 GMT
Frankly there isn't enough evidence for you to back up your claims. You re-writing it in another way, doesn't make the GoFundMe page the only way to show that they're saying, 'capitalism that disproportionately harms black people' - you are aware of that I assume? You can repeat the same point as many times as you like, but it doesn't make it any truer. What is true is that we have a statement that cannot be agreed upon, there seem to be two views. Would you admit that you're being too close minded to admit that your conclusion may be incorrect? You said you were open minded previously, so I'm curious to see whether you still consider yourself open minded, and if not, what changed? I'm also curious why you felt the need to insult me. We're having a sensible conversation, are we not? I don't think I'm being closed minded, as I've now explained either 3 or 4 times, those words had a meaning, to make them mean what you are suggesting they needed adjusting, I demonstrated that. You can disagree as is your right. Tell you what, would you accept something, unambiguous, direct from the official Twitter acc of BLM UK? Here you go, a little bit for you, mostly for Oldie as he's already expressed his disgust at anti-Semitism, now BLM UK are up to their necks in a row about Israel, and accusations that their members have made threats against members of the Jewish community which the organisation haven't moved to condemn. This is just plain ugly; BLM UK position on Palistine
BLM being told that you can't fight prejudice with prejudice. I certainly hope there's no more of their slogan being used anywhere until this is cleared up. So you think drawing a conclusion from an ambiguous statement (which many disagree with), whilst refusing to admit there is a possibility you’re not correct - is open minded? I won’t be drawn into your trying to change the narrative whilst you refuse to address the insult you made to me. You made it very clear that we shouldn’t be changing the topic until we’ve finished each point. Why are you ignoring the insult? That’s twice now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 20:17:21 GMT
I don't think I'm being closed minded, as I've now explained either 3 or 4 times, those words had a meaning, to make them mean what you are suggesting they needed adjusting, I demonstrated that. You can disagree as is your right. Tell you what, would you accept something, unambiguous, direct from the official Twitter acc of BLM UK? Here you go, a little bit for you, mostly for Oldie as he's already expressed his disgust at anti-Semitism, now BLM UK are up to their necks in a row about Israel, and accusations that their members have made threats against members of the Jewish community which the organisation haven't moved to condemn. This is just plain ugly; BLM UK position on Palistine
BLM being told that you can't fight prejudice with prejudice. I certainly hope there's no more of their slogan being used anywhere until this is cleared up. So you think drawing a conclusion from an ambiguous statement (which many disagree with), whilst refusing to admit there is a possibility you’re not correct - is open minded? I won’t be drawn into your trying to change the narrative whilst you refuse to address the insult you made to me. You made it very clear that we shouldn’t be changing the topic until we’ve finished each point. Why are you ignoring the insult? That’s twice now. People always disagree, that's the nature of discussion. The statement said what it said, would you like me to post some links to sites / stories where they are being described as anti-capitalist, so it's not only me arriving at that conclusion, but that's not going to help us as you still read something different, so sound as if you still won't agree, as is your right. I'm not surprised you don't want to go anywhere near the racist, anti-sematic position that BLM UK appear to have backed themselves into, good choice. Will you join me in condemning it? Not sure where the insult was, was it the part about me thinking something was obvious but you finding it not so easy to understand? That was an observation, nothing more. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 22:00:54 GMT
I don't think I'm being closed minded, as I've now explained either 3 or 4 times, those words had a meaning, to make them mean what you are suggesting they needed adjusting, I demonstrated that. You can disagree as is your right. Tell you what, would you accept something, unambiguous, direct from the official Twitter acc of BLM UK? Here you go, a little bit for you, mostly for Oldie as he's already expressed his disgust at anti-Semitism, now BLM UK are up to their necks in a row about Israel, and accusations that their members have made threats against members of the Jewish community which the organisation haven't moved to condemn. This is just plain ugly; BLM UK position on Palistine
BLM being told that you can't fight prejudice with prejudice. I certainly hope there's no more of their slogan being used anywhere until this is cleared up. So you think drawing a conclusion from an ambiguous statement (which many disagree with), whilst refusing to admit there is a possibility you’re not correct - is open minded? I won’t be drawn into your trying to change the narrative whilst you refuse to address the insult you made to me. You made it very clear that we shouldn’t be changing the topic until we’ve finished each point. Why are you ignoring the insult? That’s twice now. So I clicked on his link, thinking "sh*t" what have they said. Lo and behold it's the Fu**ING Daily Mail. Christ Almighty. Then it turns out BLM are critical of Israel's further annexation of Palestinian territory...wow, aren't we all? Then have the temerity to suggest these acts of Apartheid are not being condemned enough by British Politicians, suggesting they are being gagged? Wtf is ugly about that? |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 29, 2020 22:12:49 GMT
So you think drawing a conclusion from an ambiguous statement (which many disagree with), whilst refusing to admit there is a possibility you’re not correct - is open minded? I won’t be drawn into your trying to change the narrative whilst you refuse to address the insult you made to me. You made it very clear that we shouldn’t be changing the topic until we’ve finished each point. Why are you ignoring the insult? That’s twice now. People always disagree, that's the nature of discussion. The statement said what it said, would you like me to post some links to sites / stories where they are being described as anti-capitalist, so it's not only me arriving at that conclusion, but that's not going to help us as you still read something different, so sound as if you still won't agree, as is your right. I'm not surprised you don't want to go anywhere near the racist, anti-sematic position that BLM UK appear to have backed themselves into, good choice. Will you join me in condemning it? Not sure where the insult was, was it the part about me thinking something was obvious but you finding it not so easy to understand? That was an observation, nothing more. “Written in a way that isn’t easy to understand” is suggesting I am either stupid, or not as intelligent as you. Which is an insult. So what will you do, stick with your insult, which discredits everything you’ve said in this thread, apologize and redact your statement, or try and argue your way out of it? You can keep trying to divert away from the topic as much as you’d like, but until we finish this, “I will not defend a position that isn’t mine to defend”. What was it about gum balls? |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 29, 2020 22:15:36 GMT
So you think drawing a conclusion from an ambiguous statement (which many disagree with), whilst refusing to admit there is a possibility you’re not correct - is open minded? I won’t be drawn into your trying to change the narrative whilst you refuse to address the insult you made to me. You made it very clear that we shouldn’t be changing the topic until we’ve finished each point. Why are you ignoring the insult? That’s twice now. So I clicked on his link, thinking "sh*t" what have they said. Lo and behold it's the Fu**ING Daily Mail. Christ Almighty. Then it turns out BLM are critical of Israel's further annexation of Palestinian territory...wow, aren't we all? Then have the temerity to suggest these acts of Apartheid are not being condemned enough by British Politicians, suggesting they are being gagged? Wtf is ugly about that? I haven’t read it yet, nor will I until Jung has discussed my previous points. But from what you’re saying, I’m curious as to why he’d slander C4 and Sky, but promote the Daily Mail. Actions speak louder than words, I guess? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 22:20:49 GMT
People always disagree, that's the nature of discussion. The statement said what it said, would you like me to post some links to sites / stories where they are being described as anti-capitalist, so it's not only me arriving at that conclusion, but that's not going to help us as you still read something different, so sound as if you still won't agree, as is your right. I'm not surprised you don't want to go anywhere near the racist, anti-sematic position that BLM UK appear to have backed themselves into, good choice. Will you join me in condemning it? Not sure where the insult was, was it the part about me thinking something was obvious but you finding it not so easy to understand? That was an observation, nothing more. “Written in a way that isn’t easy to understand” is suggesting I am either stupid, or not as intelligent as you. Which is an insult. So what will you do, stick with your insult, which discredits everything you’ve said in this thread, apologize and redact your statement, or try and argue your way out of it? You can keep trying to divert away from the topic as much as you’d like, but until we finish this, “I will not defend a position that isn’t mine to defend”. What was it about gum balls? You can choose to be insulted by whatever you fancy, but I won't be bullied into making an apology where none is due. I found it easy to understand, I've explained my understanding of it and reworded it in a way that made if fit your definition. Maybe it's you who is correct and I'm a bit dim, hence my inability to see what's apparent to you. Yes, the thing about gumballs. If I've stated that I do not accept something as being the case that does not mean that I've made a positive assertion that it is true. I think you've just made my point for me, so thanks for that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2020 22:30:55 GMT
So I clicked on his link, thinking "sh*t" what have they said. Lo and behold it's the Fu**ING Daily Mail. Christ Almighty. Then it turns out BLM are critical of Israel's further annexation of Palestinian territory...wow, aren't we all? Then have the temerity to suggest these acts of Apartheid are not being condemned enough by British Politicians, suggesting they are being gagged? Wtf is ugly about that? I haven’t read it yet, nor will I until Jung has discussed my previous points. But from what you’re saying, I’m curious as to why he’d slander C4 and Sky, but promote the Daily Mail. Actions speak louder than words, I guess? I'm not promoting The Daily Mail, it's just that the link goes to their website. All I commented on was the content of the official BLM UK Twitter acc and one of the responses to it. Sky and C4 are, in my opinion, low quality with a left wing bias. But for a laugh, watch the C4 coverage of Dec's election results, the studio reaction when the exit poll is announced is hilarious. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 30, 2020 6:36:47 GMT
“Written in a way that isn’t easy to understand” is suggesting I am either stupid, or not as intelligent as you. Which is an insult. So what will you do, stick with your insult, which discredits everything you’ve said in this thread, apologize and redact your statement, or try and argue your way out of it? You can keep trying to divert away from the topic as much as you’d like, but until we finish this, “I will not defend a position that isn’t mine to defend”. What was it about gum balls? You can choose to be insulted by whatever you fancy, but I won't be bullied into making an apology where none is due. I found it easy to understand, I've explained my understanding of it and reworded it in a way that made if fit your definition. Maybe it's you who is correct and I'm a bit dim, hence my inability to see what's apparent to you. Yes, the thing about gumballs. If I've stated that I do not accept something as being the case that does not mean that I've made a positive assertion that it is true. I think you've just made my point for me, so thanks for that. Bullied now? So you’ve insulted me, you refuse to acknowledge that you’ve insulted someone and because I’ve asked you to acknowledge it, I’m now bullying you. That’s quite the imagination you have there. Personally I thought we were having a nice conversation, well, until you started insulting me. I’ve been polite throughout, so why on earth do you believe I’m now bullying you? I think we can conclude that you’re not as open minded as you like to say you are. On top of that, you want to discredit news sources like Sky as not reputable, as is your right, but then you use the Daily Mail to portray a story that suits your narrative. Am I incorrect? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 7:52:15 GMT
You can choose to be insulted by whatever you fancy, but I won't be bullied into making an apology where none is due. I found it easy to understand, I've explained my understanding of it and reworded it in a way that made if fit your definition. Maybe it's you who is correct and I'm a bit dim, hence my inability to see what's apparent to you. Yes, the thing about gumballs. If I've stated that I do not accept something as being the case that does not mean that I've made a positive assertion that it is true. I think you've just made my point for me, so thanks for that. Bullied now? So you’ve insulted me, you refuse to acknowledge that you’ve insulted someone and because I’ve asked you to acknowledge it, I’m now bullying you. That’s quite the imagination you have there. Personally I thought we were having a nice conversation, well, until you started insulting me. I’ve been polite throughout, so why on earth do you believe I’m now bullying you? I think we can conclude that you’re not as open minded as you like to say you are. On top of that, you want to discredit news sources like Sky as not reputable, as is your right, but then you use the Daily Mail to portray a story that suits your narrative. Am I incorrect? Yes, you are incorrect, as mentioned yesterday, it wasn't the fact that the link went to The Mail that was the subject, I referenced BLM UK's Twitter feed. Are you disputing the veracity of the claim that this was written on their official Twitter account, or do you agree that the content, as carried on The Mail's outlet was accurate? Sky News, well, I think it's pretty woeful, but I'm sure others enjoy it. If there's something to apologise for then I will, this is an important part of forums, we all make mistakes from time to time and it's good to be able to accept that and acknowledge it, but a disagreement isn't a mistake. You've shown nothing yet that I feel I need to apologise for. For the very last time, I understood what was written, you didn't seem to, I changed it to make it mean what you claimed it meant in it's original format. I therefore concluded that you struggled to understand the original meaning. Sounds like fair comment to me. I'm moving on, you obsess on that point if you want to. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 8:07:36 GMT
So you think drawing a conclusion from an ambiguous statement (which many disagree with), whilst refusing to admit there is a possibility you’re not correct - is open minded? I won’t be drawn into your trying to change the narrative whilst you refuse to address the insult you made to me. You made it very clear that we shouldn’t be changing the topic until we’ve finished each point. Why are you ignoring the insult? That’s twice now. So I clicked on his link, thinking "sh*t" what have they said. Lo and behold it's the Fu**ING Daily Mail. Christ Almighty. Then it turns out BLM are critical of Israel's further annexation of Palestinian territory...wow, aren't we all? Then have the temerity to suggest these acts of Apartheid are not being condemned enough by British Politicians, suggesting they are being gagged? Wtf is ugly about that? Well, the UK Campaign Against Antisemitism don't agree with you, and as you were so vocal about the mess that Labour got itself into, maybe you'll read this and reconsider? antisemitism.uk/caa-calls-out-bigoted-claim-by-black-lives-matter-uk-that-zionism-has-gagged-britain/ |
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 30, 2020 8:09:00 GMT
You can choose to be insulted by whatever you fancy, but I won't be bullied into making an apology where none is due. I found it easy to understand, I've explained my understanding of it and reworded it in a way that made if fit your definition. Maybe it's you who is correct and I'm a bit dim, hence my inability to see what's apparent to you. Yes, the thing about gumballs. If I've stated that I do not accept something as being the case that does not mean that I've made a positive assertion that it is true. I think you've just made my point for me, so thanks for that. Bullied now? So you’ve insulted me, you refuse to acknowledge that you’ve insulted someone and because I’ve asked you to acknowledge it, I’m now bullying you. That’s quite the imagination you have there. Personally I thought we were having a nice conversation, well, until you started insulting me. I’ve been polite throughout, so why on earth do you believe I’m now bullying you? I think we can conclude that you’re not as open minded as you like to say you are. On top of that, you want to discredit news sources like Sky as not reputable, as is your right, but then you use the Daily Mail to portray a story that suits your narrative. Am I incorrect? Gassy. I don't wish to be dragged into the discussion but I do try to dip in and out of the General Chat threads when I can. At the moment there seems to be an accusation from you that Jung has insulted you. To prevent me reading pages of this thread could you point me to where he insulted you. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 30, 2020 8:10:45 GMT
Bullied now? So you’ve insulted me, you refuse to acknowledge that you’ve insulted someone and because I’ve asked you to acknowledge it, I’m now bullying you. That’s quite the imagination you have there. Personally I thought we were having a nice conversation, well, until you started insulting me. I’ve been polite throughout, so why on earth do you believe I’m now bullying you? I think we can conclude that you’re not as open minded as you like to say you are. On top of that, you want to discredit news sources like Sky as not reputable, as is your right, but then you use the Daily Mail to portray a story that suits your narrative. Am I incorrect? Yes, you are incorrect, as mentioned yesterday, it wasn't the fact that the link went to The Mail that was the subject, I referenced BLM UK's Twitter feed. Are you disputing the veracity of the claim that this was written on their official Twitter account, or do you agree that the content, as carried on The Mail's outlet was accurate? Sky News, well, I think it's pretty woeful, but I'm sure others enjoy it. If there's something to apologise for then I will, this is an important part of forums, we all make mistakes from time to time and it's good to be able to accept that and acknowledge it, but a disagreement isn't a mistake. You've shown nothing yet that I feel I need to apologise for. For the very last time, I understood what was written, you didn't seem to, I changed it to make it mean what you claimed it meant in it's original format. I therefore concluded that you struggled to understand the original meaning. Sounds like fair comment to me. I'm moving on, you obsess on that point if you want to. So why not post the twitter link, rather than a daily mail report? I am surprised to see that you believe sending a daily mail article and asking someone’s opinion on the content, isn’t promoting the daily mail. I haven’t commented either way on the article itself, so you asking me if I am disputing anything is a desperate attempt at trying to catch me out. Why are you so desperate for me to comment on a position that I have no need to defend? This is now the 2nd or 3rd time. I would be keen for you to explain your thought process here in detail. And whilst we’re at it, your evidence of bullying. You’ve claimed I am bullying you, when I am merely asking you to defend a position you’ve put yourself in, so please as part of the proof of burden show where I have bullied you and why you believe that to be bullying. It’s nice logic you have, essentially you’re more than happy to apologize, but if you reply saying you haven’t done anything wrong, then it’s done. What a dangerous precedent to set. If that’s the case, we can all do what we want and just deem ourselves to have done nothing wrong. I think it’s clear from these round of posts what you’re really here for. You say you’re here to learn and not upset anyone, but that seems laughable. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jun 30, 2020 8:13:57 GMT
Bullied now? So you’ve insulted me, you refuse to acknowledge that you’ve insulted someone and because I’ve asked you to acknowledge it, I’m now bullying you. That’s quite the imagination you have there. Personally I thought we were having a nice conversation, well, until you started insulting me. I’ve been polite throughout, so why on earth do you believe I’m now bullying you? I think we can conclude that you’re not as open minded as you like to say you are. On top of that, you want to discredit news sources like Sky as not reputable, as is your right, but then you use the Daily Mail to portray a story that suits your narrative. Am I incorrect? Gassy. I don't wish to be dragged into the discussion but I do try to dip in and out of the General Chat threads when I can. At the moment there seems to be an accusation from you that Jung has insulted you. To prevent me reading pages of this thread could you point me to where he insulted you. Thanks. “You have their own words, I can't help it if what they say isn't acceptable to you or isn't written in a way that you find easy to understand, it was pretty clear to me.” Suggesting that either I am stupid, or inferior to his intellect is an insult. A soft one, maybe. But there was no need for it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 8:45:03 GMT
So I clicked on his link, thinking "sh*t" what have they said. Lo and behold it's the Fu**ING Daily Mail. Christ Almighty. Then it turns out BLM are critical of Israel's further annexation of Palestinian territory...wow, aren't we all? Then have the temerity to suggest these acts of Apartheid are not being condemned enough by British Politicians, suggesting they are being gagged? Wtf is ugly about that? Well, the UK Campaign Against Antisemitism don't agree with you, and as you were so vocal about the mess that Labour got itself into, maybe you'll read this and reconsider? antisemitism.uk/caa-calls-out-bigoted-claim-by-black-lives-matter-uk-that-zionism-has-gagged-britain/There is nothing anti semetic in being critical of Israel and the practice of Apartheid it is imposing on Arabs in Palestine. What is wrong, abhorrent, is the casual and ignorant portrayal of Jews made by both political extremes. The right insinuating people like Soros are behind certain popular movements, the far left seeing Israeli influence everywhere. All of it bollox. But this, from the link you provided " “Zionism is the movement for the self-determination of Jews. The right to the ‘self-determination of peoples’ is universal and enshrined in Article 1 of the UN charter. So-called ‘anti-Zionism’ exclusively denies Jews that universal right and is therefore antisemitic." They are of course correct about the UN Charter. BLM are calling out the expansion of Israeli settlements into Arab territory. Which is a breach of UN resolutions and the very charter they quote for themselves. The hypocrisy of the CAA on this is stunning. |
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 30, 2020 8:55:54 GMT
Gassy. I don't wish to be dragged into the discussion but I do try to dip in and out of the General Chat threads when I can. At the moment there seems to be an accusation from you that Jung has insulted you. To prevent me reading pages of this thread could you point me to where he insulted you. Thanks. “You have their own words, I can't help it if what they say isn't acceptable to you or isn't written in a way that you find easy to understand, it was pretty clear to me.” Suggesting that either I am stupid, or inferior to his intellect is an insult. A soft one, maybe. But there was no need for it. Yep, that was the only thing I could find as well. I'm still not seeing the insult though. I'm also not sure that someone perceiving they have been wronged is the same as the accused being guilty of the charge. This is very tame in the big scheme of things and has the potential to get blown up into something much bigger as happened with you and Nobby. Have a look at the Brexit thread and see how the Remainers were regularly referring to Leavers as thick and unintelligent for their views on wanting to leave the EU. Your little spat here with Jung is small fry in comparison and, with respect, it reads like he's hurt your feelings rather than insulted you. As someone who is not able to debate like some of you on here, it's been interesting reading the exchanges on this thread so can't you two get past this perceived insult stage and get on with the debating?
Just asking 
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 9:00:51 GMT
“You have their own words, I can't help it if what they say isn't acceptable to you or isn't written in a way that you find easy to understand, it was pretty clear to me.” Suggesting that either I am stupid, or inferior to his intellect is an insult. A soft one, maybe. But there was no need for it. Yep, that was the only thing I could find as well. I'm still not seeing the insult though. I'm also not sure that someone perceiving they have been wronged is the same as the accused being guilty of the charge. This is very tame in the big scheme of things and has the potential to get blown up into something much bigger as happened with you and Nobby. Have a look at the Brexit thread and see how the Remainers were regularly referring to Leavers as thick and unintelligent for their views on wanting to leave the EU. Your little spat here with Jung is small fry in comparison and, with respect, it reads like he's hurt your feelings rather than insulted you. As someone who is not able to debate like some of you on here, it's been interesting reading the exchanges on this thread so can't you two get past this perceived insult stage and get on with the debating?
Just asking
"Remainers were regularly referring to Leavers as thick and unintelligent for their views on wanting to leave the EU" What's wrong with that? Although I thought the Leavers Convention held on Bournemouth Beach last week was indicative. (😜😜😂) |
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on Jun 30, 2020 9:17:53 GMT
Yep, that was the only thing I could find as well. I'm still not seeing the insult though. I'm also not sure that someone perceiving they have been wronged is the same as the accused being guilty of the charge. This is very tame in the big scheme of things and has the potential to get blown up into something much bigger as happened with you and Nobby. Have a look at the Brexit thread and see how the Remainers were regularly referring to Leavers as thick and unintelligent for their views on wanting to leave the EU. Your little spat here with Jung is small fry in comparison and, with respect, it reads like he's hurt your feelings rather than insulted you. As someone who is not able to debate like some of you on here, it's been interesting reading the exchanges on this thread so can't you two get past this perceived insult stage and get on with the debating?
Just asking
"Remainers were regularly referring to Leavers as thick and unintelligent for their views on wanting to leave the EU" What's wrong with that? Although I thought the Leavers Convention held on Bournemouth Beach last week was indicative. (😜😜😂) I'm not going to bite 
|
|
Marshy
Proper Gas
Posts: 14,358 
|
Post by Marshy on Jun 30, 2020 9:28:11 GMT
"Remainers were regularly referring to Leavers as thick and unintelligent for their views on wanting to leave the EU" What's wrong with that? Although I thought the Leavers Convention held on Bournemouth Beach last week was indicative. (😜😜😂) I'm not going to bite
Don’t do that Scoob, or we’ll have to have you put down. 😱 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 10:26:27 GMT
“You have their own words, I can't help it if what they say isn't acceptable to you or isn't written in a way that you find easy to understand, it was pretty clear to me.” Suggesting that either I am stupid, or inferior to his intellect is an insult. A soft one, maybe. But there was no need for it. Yep, that was the only thing I could find as well. I'm still not seeing the insult though. I'm also not sure that someone perceiving they have been wronged is the same as the accused being guilty of the charge. This is very tame in the big scheme of things and has the potential to get blown up into something much bigger as happened with you and Nobby. Have a look at the Brexit thread and see how the Remainers were regularly referring to Leavers as thick and unintelligent for their views on wanting to leave the EU. Your little spat here with Jung is small fry in comparison and, with respect, it reads like he's hurt your feelings rather than insulted you. As someone who is not able to debate like some of you on here, it's been interesting reading the exchanges on this thread so can't you two get past this perceived insult stage and get on with the debating?
Just asking
I've already said that it may be me that has it wrong, maybe Gassy missed that bit. I'm happy to move on, but am being polite so am replying to the same point repeatedly. |
|
