This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Stirlingsays 27 Jun 19 2.51am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I anticipated that! You are though wrong. I will explain why. Whenever I respond to you, or any other poster, I try to address the argument and not just attack the poster in personal terms. The decision on whether to read or respond resides only with each member. Being human I might fail sometimes but if that is pointed out I will apologise. In the case in question the posts have been entirely personal so having corrected some of the insults it is hardly cheeky to request the offender to go away. Should they respond to an argument I have made with reasoned counter arguments, and not personal insults more suited to a playground, then that's another matter. I learned on Catholic web forums many years ago to condemn the sin but not the sinner. I try to remember that and apply a similar principle. As usual you post a self justifying load of old waddle. You have directly referred to people's views plenty of times in your posts. You write a pretense here to justify continuing to directly reply to posts once you have been asked to stop. God forbid what the Catholics thought of you. I know what I think.
'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 27 Jun 19 3.34am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
As usual you post a self justifying load of old waddle. You have directly referred to people's views plenty of times in your posts. You write a pretense here to justify continuing to directly reply to posts once you have been asked to stop. God forbid what the Catholics thought of you. I know what I think. Thank you for inadvertently confirming my point. Your first line is a personal attack, which I understand to be banned. Directly referring to people's views is not a personal attack as it attacks the view and not the person. See the difference? I will continue to address any issues and opinions that I choose to, irrespective of who posts them. I have no more right here to stop anyone responding to my arguments than you do. We both though have a reasonable expectation not to receive personal insults. I met many good and wise people on the Catholic sites among some quite seriously deranged ones. It was quite a mind blowing experience. You seem to enjoy the views of the hard right so you might enjoy these sites. I learned a lot including not to associate too many Christian values with a certain sub set of Catholics. It's fair to say my reputation was as mixed as the Catholic community is mixed. Some reserve a special Old Testament hatred for anyone they regard as a "CINO.
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 |
.TUX. 27 Jun 19 4.18am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Given that so much of this thread has been taken up with those vehemently opposed to Trump complaining heavily about 'Russian' meddling I'm curious what they make about the recent revelations against Google election meddling for the upcoming 2020 elections against Trump. Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Jun 2019 5.28pm) Not one response. Go figure.
Buy Litecoin. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 27 Jun 19 4.28am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Thank you for inadvertently confirming my point. Your first line is a personal attack, which I understand to be banned. Directly referring to people's views is not a personal attack as it attacks the view and not the person. See the difference? People get attacked on this forum every day. It's the context and scale of the attacks....anyone with any ounce of sense would realise that from reading the posts. Secondly, You have made numerous comments that several of us don't believe are honest and thirdly other comments that several of us regard as ethnically indefensible......Yet you refuse to stop responding to posts that aren't meant for you. How surprising that you would be regarded as a CINO.....Just like you claiming to be a conservative....I'm sensing a pattern here. Nevertheless, when the facility becomes available you will be blocked and then you can converse with those that can entertain your world-view.
'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 27 Jun 19 4.29am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by .TUX.
Not one response. Go figure. It's almost as though some of them are hypocrites......imagine that. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jun 2019 4.48am)
'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 |
cryrst The garden of England 27 Jun 19 6.03am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Thank you for inadvertently confirming my point. Your first line is a personal attack, which I understand to be banned. Directly referring to people's views is not a personal attack as it attacks the view and not the person. See the difference? I will continue to address any issues and opinions that I choose to, irrespective of who posts them. I have no more right here to stop anyone responding to my arguments than you do. We both though have a reasonable expectation not to receive personal insults. I met many good and wise people on the Catholic sites among some quite seriously deranged ones. It was quite a mind blowing experience. You seem to enjoy the views of the hard right so you might enjoy these sites. I learned a lot including not to associate too many Christian values with a certain sub set of Catholics. It's fair to say my reputation was as mixed as the Catholic community is mixed. Some reserve a special Old Testament hatred for anyone they regard as a "CINO. Really!
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Park Road 27 Jun 19 7.33am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
As usual you post a self justifying load of old waddle. You have directly referred to people's views plenty of times in your posts. You write a pretense here to justify continuing to directly reply to posts once you have been asked to stop. God forbid what the Catholics thought of you. I know what I think. He says insults when in fact they are observations, on my part. Still "now go away" had me in stitches... And unlike the poster in question, I'll respect his wishes, and keep away. But if he's the type to say kids are no angels in abuse cases. Then I will be keeping a very close eye on him.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Midlands Eagle 27 Jun 19 8.09am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Park Road
if he's the type to say kids are no angels in abuse cases. Then I will be keeping a very close eye on him. As I will on you
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Park Road 27 Jun 19 8.15am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
As I will on you You mean as you have been
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Jun 19 8.59am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
People get attacked on this forum every day. It's the context and scale of the attacks....anyone with any ounce of sense would realise that from reading the posts. Secondly, You have made numerous comments that several of us don't believe are honest and thirdly other comments that several of us regard as ethnically indefensible......Yet you refuse to stop responding to posts that aren't meant for you. How surprising that you would be regarded as a CINO.....Just like you claiming to be a conservative....I'm sensing a pattern here. Nevertheless, when the facility becomes available you will be blocked and then you can converse with those that can entertain your world-view.
Attacks on views are to be expected. Personal attacks ought not to be. I refuse to believe you cannot see the difference. So far as I am aware it is not for either of us to determine what is a "fair" request. As I always try to address the argument in a post and not the poster I do not see any justifiable reason to request me to stop responding just because you don't like what I say. That many on here disagree with me is totally unsurprising given the overwhelming similarity of the majority of political world views to be found here. Knowing those world views I am proud to hold an alternative, which in the world outside this forum would probably be in the majority. I am not a CINO! I am an atheist. You jump to conclusions just as some did on the Catholic sites. I am a Conservative. Just not your kind of Conservative. I hope this forum does not permit blocking other than via a moderator. I think the current system of cards to be much better than passing the job to members. What happens in forums which allow blocking is that only those who think the same way end up contributing, resulting in endless confirmation bias and a steady reduction in the quality. It's a sign of cowardice and a way to the eventual death of the forum.
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 27 Jun 19 10.40am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Given that so much of this thread has been taken up with those vehemently opposed to Trump complaining heavily about 'Russian' meddling I'm curious what they make about the recent revelations against Google election meddling for the upcoming 2020 elections against Trump. Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Jun 2019 5.28pm) The reason why I, and I suspect others, did not respond is because I had not heard of the accusation. So I researched it and guess what? It's almost exclusively the right wing press and, of course, RT, who are claiming this. Guess another thing? Google deny it and say they are simply taking steps to ensure that the manipulation that occurred in 2016 cannot happen again. They want to ensure that reliable news sources get proper weighting in their search results and dubious ones get downgraded. Seeking the truth seems pretty responsible to me.
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 |
Hrolf The Ganger 27 Jun 19 11.07am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I anticipated that! You are though wrong. I will explain why. Whenever I respond to you, or any other poster, I try to address the argument and not just attack the poster in personal terms. The decision on whether to read or respond resides only with each member. Being human I might fail sometimes but if that is pointed out I will apologise. In the case in question the posts have been entirely personal so having corrected some of the insults it is hardly cheeky to request the offender to go away. Should they respond to an argument I have made with reasoned counter arguments, and not personal insults more suited to a playground, then that's another matter. I learned on Catholic web forums many years ago to condemn the sin but not the sinner. I try to remember that and apply a similar principle. Are you playing the victim already? You left yourself open for criticism by claiming that scores of victims of the multiple pakistani rape gangs were somehow asking for it. Particularly, noteworthy in the light of your love of the letter of the law. That said, I not going to evoke ME's wrath further by going off topic, so just remember that we now have no doubt that you are a massive hypocrite and clearly blinded by ideological claptrap.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.