This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Stirlingsays  20 Jan 23 4.27pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Brand’s hypocrisy has been exposed by enough people for you to be able to find it for yourself but only if you are prepared to tear yourself away from the “alternative “ sources you are so fond of and start to understand the value of oversight and editing. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (20 Jan 2023 2.42pm) Errr....hang on, you say Brand has been exposed and then when questioned have nothing. I'm willing to hear your claim. If you are going to back a position then provide the evidence. Otherwise you are little better than a purveyor of misinformation making claims that are based upon your biases rather than reality. Otherwise tell me, what has Brand said that has been exposed. You plainly don't watch him do you. From what I've seen of Brand's stuff he's very careful not to make wild claims. Surely you aren't talking out of your posterior. Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Jan 2023 4.31pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Stirlingsays 20 Jan 23 4.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Is just another excuse and no reason to direct opinions at the writer and not the arguments. If I continually directed my comments at your character you would have been shredded years ago, and/or me being banned. You have directed comments at me many times, I still chuckle at your 'sub species' comment. Your attempts at victimhood though are just pathetic. It's fundamental dishonesty. Something so unexpected from an ex marketing manager.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 20 Jan 23 5.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
You have directed comments at me many times, I still chuckle at your 'sub species' comment. Your attempts at victimhood though are just pathetic. It's fundamental dishonesty. Something so unexpected from an ex marketing manager. I only ever react to your personal attacks by pointing them out. I argue with opinions and if I make criticism of the source I try to ensure it’s neutral and general. Not the endless direct personal ad hominems that you sink to when you have run out of answers. Unfortunately for you videos don’t exist that provide answers to logic. So dredging up conspiracy theories is easy. Having to defend them when they have been shredded less so, when the ideas originate in other minds.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 20 Jan 23 6.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I only ever react to your personal attacks by pointing them out. I argue with opinions and if I make criticism of the source I try to ensure it’s neutral and general. Not the endless direct personal ad hominems that you sink to when you have run out of answers. Unfortunately for you videos don’t exist that provide answers to logic. So dredging up conspiracy theories is easy. Having to defend them when they have been shredded less so, when the ideas originate in other minds. You deliberately come onto sites where you differ considerably with the main views and take advantage of the right's more tolerant attitude towards free speech.(a right wing version of yourself would have been banned long ago from the bbs for example). Now, there are left and liberal voices on Hol, however none of them behave in the manner of yourself. It is not without accident that out of all those voices it is you who causes the most rancor by some distance. The view has been put forward many times that you are a troll with a dysgenic desire for contention and discord. Whatever, it's not important. However, one of your regular gambits is to claim victimhood when you are criticised. It's your usual one eyed retelling of events on Hol. There is nothing that happens to you that hasn't also been experienced by just about any regular Hol poster. That you want to play the victim when you deliberately goad people isn't lost upon anybody tasked with reading your delusions. You decide to come to Hol, other sites are available. If you don't like the heat stay out of the kitchen. Otherwise, here's some fake tissues for your fake tears. Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Jan 2023 7.22pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 20 Jan 23 8.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
You deliberately come onto sites where you differ considerably with the main views and take advantage of the right's more tolerant attitude towards free speech.(aright wing version of yourself would have been banned long ago from the bbs for example). Now, there are left and liberal voices on Hol, however none of them behave in the manner of yourself. It is not without accident that out of all those voices it is you who causes the most rancor by some distance. The view has been put forward manytimes that you are a troll with a dysgenic desire for contention and discord. Whatever, it's not important. However, one of your regular gambits is to claim victimhood when you are criticised. It's your usual one eyed retelling of events on Hol. There is nothing that happens to you that hasn't also been experienced by just about any regular Hol poster. That you want to play the victim when you deliberately goad people isn't lost upon anybody tasked with reading your delusions. You decide to come to Hol, other sites are available. If you don't like the heat stay out of the kitchen. Otherwise, here's some fake tissues for your fake tears. Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Jan 2023 7.22pm) Thanks for proving my point! The post above is almost 100% ad hominem. I don’t see myself as any kind of “victim”. I don’t care a jot about your attacks on a personal level. They amuse and disgust me in equal measure. What I care ab out is seeing discussions diverted, misrepresented and otherwise disrupted by an obsessive desire to post personal comments which have nothing at all to do with the subject. The idea that the right has a more tolerant view than the left on free speech made me smile. Both can be extremely intolerant. Just try posting some middle of the road comments on a right wing site to see what happens. The HoL is not a right wing site. It is a football site, just as is the BBS. That there are a bunch of right wingers here doesn’t change that or give them ownership. I will continue to challenge opinions I disagree with, whether from the right or the left. It’s just unfortunate that there are more extreme right views posted here than would generally be found in a more balanced arena. That others have been bullied off the site is nothing for anyone here to be proud of, but you can be sure it’s not going to happen to me. If comments are made which I disagree with on a subject I am either interested in or have sufficient knowledge about to justify a contribution, then expect one. I don’t like the format of the BBS so don’t use it. I have been here from the beginning. I am not going anywhere. I will continue to do what I do. If you post ad hominems, expect to be called out. If you post nonsense, ditto. Don.’t like it, tough! You have no need to read and even less need to reply.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 20 Jan 23 10.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Thanks for proving my point! The post above is almost 100% ad hominem. I don’t see myself as any kind of “victim”. I don’t care a jot about your attacks on a personal level. They amuse and disgust me in equal measure. What I care ab out is seeing discussions diverted, misrepresented and otherwise disrupted by an obsessive desire to post personal comments which have nothing at all to do with the subject. The idea that the right has a more tolerant view than the left on free speech made me smile. Both can be extremely intolerant. Just try posting some middle of the road comments on a right wing site to see what happens. The HoL is not a right wing site. It is a football site, just as is the BBS. That there are a bunch of right wingers here doesn’t change that or give them ownership. I will continue to challenge opinions I disagree with, whether from the right or the left. It’s just unfortunate that there are more extreme right views posted here than would generally be found in a more balanced arena. That others have been bullied off the site is nothing for anyone here to be proud of, but you can be sure it’s not going to happen to me. If comments are made which I disagree with on a subject I am either interested in or have sufficient knowledge about to justify a contribution, then expect one. I don’t like the format of the BBS so don’t use it. I have been here from the beginning. I am not going anywhere. I will continue to do what I do. If you post ad hominems, expect to be called out. If you post nonsense, ditto. Don.’t like it, tough! You have no need to read and even less need to reply. Rather than write a full blown reply to your drivel I'll remind you that our personal animosity isn't the subject of this thread. Try not to get covid while you cruise around. I recommend you watch some Brand videos to pass the time in the cabin. He has many interesting things to say.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 20 Jan 23 10.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by The groover
Sorry, but some of the sh1te printed online has been deliberately edited. I have done extensive research into the anti vax movement and it is fundamentally aimed at making money. The guy who fronts it, Andrew Wakefield, was the idiot who linked the MMR vaccine to autism. His data was non-existent and made up. He did it because he was the "doctor" presenting evidence for those whose children had autism who were suing the makers of the MMR vaccine for millions!! He was struck off. Fast forward and he joined the anti-vax movement. He now makes millions from donations to'fight' the use of vaccines. My favourite piece of made up sh1te was the 'covid vaccine causes men and women to become sterile'. At the time the only people getting the vaccine were over 60......... And the other one, a very impressive looking document from the CDC (US Centre for disease control). This document claimed that 100's of people had suffered serve reactions to the covid vaccines and that dozens had died. It was on CDC headed paper and looked very convincing. Until you search for the original document and looked closely at the edited fake one. At the bottom in small print it said 'The views and data published in this document are the views of the author and are not endorsed by the CDC'. The headings and numbers had been changed i.e. shifted along. The original document had no recorded deaths and a few people that had reacted badly to it. But these were people who had a history of reacting to vaccines. Hence they started asking if you had previously reacted badly to a vaccine. I challenged them on their facebook group and posted the original doc. My post was promptly deleted and I was blocked!! I therefore reported them to facebook. So I was probably one of the reasons they got banned! Andrew Wakefield then tried to sue Facebook and twitter. Why? Because he was losing millions in donations............. Says it all.
Interesting. Wondered when he’d pop up again. Bizarre TBF there should always be a place for critical discussion for and against these sorts of things but people going all in on generating income from social soapboxing usually only leads to one outcome as everyone else gets the same idea and dilutes the impact - exaggeration and made up dross to sustain and grow the audience / income This is not exclusive to any one group I might add. But what it does do is make it very difficult to firstly be balanced and genuine in this space when everyone else is trying out outbats*** each other, and secondly even harder to identify who, if anyone, is actually worth speaking any sort of truth. As with journalism, it often doesn’t pay to be good at your job. It’s also a much harder path to take as it often involves a lot of friction, sacrifice and avoidance of temptation. It’s the rabbit hole to swallow all rabbit holes, and a lot of people end up falling in
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 20 Jan 23 10.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
In this one paragraph you use "risk (x2), could, probably, at a guess". All pretty loose terms. I'm not condoning smoking, or saying that it has any benefits, but if you want to argue the costs, don't estimate them. If you post information to prove your point which turns out to be flawed, please don't try to correct that with false guesswork. Plenty of other holes here too, but as you have a superiority complex, I really can't be bothered to engage. Poor reply Simply, smokers are more susceptible to being I’ll more often and more severely, as per years of research. This fact doesn’t appear to have been taken into account in the statistics (that yes, I was drawing on, but the point of critical debate is to evolve one’s position rather than stay entrenched, ironically) from what I can see. Ergo it’s highly likely smokers are Ill more often and with more serious ailments, therefore one could state with some confidence the hypothesis that they’d be responsible for far more of that total figure than is presented. The figures were a bit of fun to see where it went. Ultimately a precise figure doesn’t matter - what matters is the research regarding smoking and frequency and severity of illness. Superiority complex LOLE Simple logic BTW the NHS point still stands, unless you can show me that the government ringfence that 10bn specifically for the NHS. Separate analysis all from government data. Net negative, feel free to prove otherwise Edited by SW19 CPFC (20 Jan 2023 11.06pm)
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 21 Jan 23 12.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by The groover
Sorry, but some of the sh1te printed online has been deliberately edited. I have done extensive research into the anti vax movement and it is fundamentally aimed at making money. The guy who fronts it, Andrew Wakefield, was the idiot who linked the MMR vaccine to autism. His data was non-existent and made up. He did it because he was the "doctor" presenting evidence for those whose children had autism who were suing the makers of the MMR vaccine for millions!! He was struck off. Fast forward and he joined the anti-vax movement. He now makes millions from donations to'fight' the use of vaccines. My favourite piece of made up sh1te was the 'covid vaccine causes men and women to become sterile'. At the time the only people getting the vaccine were over 60......... And the other one, a very impressive looking document from the CDC (US Centre for disease control). This document claimed that 100's of people had suffered serve reactions to the covid vaccines and that dozens had died. It was on CDC headed paper and looked very convincing. Until you search for the original document and looked closely at the edited fake one. At the bottom in small print it said 'The views and data published in this document are the views of the author and are not endorsed by the CDC'. The headings and numbers had been changed i.e. shifted along. The original document had no recorded deaths and a few people that had reacted badly to it. But these were people who had a history of reacting to vaccines. Hence they started asking if you had previously reacted badly to a vaccine. I challenged them on their facebook group and posted the original doc. My post was promptly deleted and I was blocked!! I therefore reported them to facebook. So I was probably one of the reasons they got banned! Andrew Wakefield then tried to sue Facebook and twitter. Why? Because he was losing millions in donations............. Says it all.
Err, ok... what does Andrew Wakefield and anti vax movements have to do with my post?
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 21 Jan 23 12.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Poor reply Simply, smokers are more susceptible to being I’ll more often and more severely, as per years of research. This fact doesn’t appear to have been taken into account in the statistics (that yes, I was drawing on, but the point of critical debate is to evolve one’s position rather than stay entrenched, ironically) from what I can see. Ergo it’s highly likely smokers are Ill more often and with more serious ailments, therefore one could state with some confidence the hypothesis that they’d be responsible for far more of that total figure than is presented. The figures were a bit of fun to see where it went. Ultimately a precise figure doesn’t matter - what matters is the research regarding smoking and frequency and severity of illness. Superiority complex LOLE Simple logic BTW the NHS point still stands, unless you can show me that the government ringfence that 10bn specifically for the NHS. Separate analysis all from government data. Net negative, feel free to prove otherwise Edited by SW19 CPFC (20 Jan 2023 11.06pm) Whilst smokers are more likely to die from serious illness, they are not more likely to be ill. Most smokers retire before serious illness occurs. Some never contract serious illnesses. If they die they have a neutral effect on society, barring emotional loss. That you think that ASH didn't take negative data into account is risible. Their sole purpose is to prohibit smoking and tobacco products. Do you really, and I mean truthfully, think that they would miss an opportunity to present those figures? Or maybe your knowledge is superior to theirs...? And I don't think that the £10bn is ring-fenced. It is merely tax paid solely by smokers to HMRC. To suggest that it is net negative is rather childish, when the NHS is funded by the taxpayer. £10bn less is £10bn less. Remove both the cost to the NHS and the tax paid by smokers and there is a shortfall in income. Budgets are probably not your thing though.
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Jan 23 10.19am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Errr....hang on, you say Brand has been exposed and then when questioned have nothing. I'm willing to hear your claim. If you are going to back a position then provide the evidence. Otherwise you are little better than a purveyor of misinformation making claims that are based upon your biases rather than reality. Otherwise tell me, what has Brand said that has been exposed. You plainly don't watch him do you. From what I've seen of Brand's stuff he's very careful not to make wild claims. Surely you aren't talking out of your posterior. Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Jan 2023 4.31pm) It’s perfectly true that I don’t salivate over Brand’s daily offerings of recycled conspiracy theories and self opinionated drivel. I have watched enough to tell me that he cannot be trusted and therefore to watch more is a waste of time, when other more reliable sources are available. I question the reasoning, and motivation, of anyone who reaches the opposite opinion. Apart from which his style is extremely irritating and more than a little creepy. There is nothing funny or remotely intelligent about him. He makes my skin crawl in much the same way that Saville used to, and we ignored that feeling to our ultimate dismay. I had never heard of Andrew Tate until recently but now I have I sense a similar aroma around Brand as from that story. We will see. So I rely on my instincts plus a variety of sources that when taken together confirm those instincts. There are lots, but you can find sufficient here:-
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Jan 23 10.29am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Rather than write a full blown reply to your drivel I'll remind you that our personal animosity isn't the subject of this thread. Try not to get covid while you cruise around. I recommend you watch some Brand videos to pass the time in the cabin. He has many interesting things to say. Good that you understand that you need to set aside your personal animosity and concentrate on the content and the arguments. It’s also good that the internet will only be available when the ship is in port and I will be far too busy looking at interesting places to bother with anything more than I must. If I avoid Brand at home why on earth would I waste precious time on him when on holiday? He has nothing to say that’s worth hearing. Read the links I posted in my previous post and perhaps you will understand that too.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.