BS: Jingoism or Commemoration

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:52 AM

"WTF!!!! - Can you actually READ Mr Carroll??? What part of this do you NOT UNDERSTAND???"
Will you stop talking down to people, you bullying moron - you really aren't bright enough to do that to anybody.
It doesn't matter who Tommy Kenny was unless you are calling him a liar or claiming he is a figment of my imagination - his story exists as recorded as archived and was witness by John Faulkner and Sandra Kerr - so which is it to be - was Tommy lying or am I?
As for Tommy's story not existing elsewhere - probably the stupidest thing you have said to date
Tommy's story is identical to many accounts of World War One - young ben not able to find work, dissatisfied with their lives tricked into joining up by the promise of a regular job and the romance of travel and a unifirm to attract the girls - as old as warfare itself - utterly crass.
The army didn't need military policemen to force men to fight against their will - what king of stupid argument is that.
They had laws and the threat of imprisonment and the firing squad if, once enlisted or recruited, they refused to fight.
Please don't try to throw dust in my eyes with your supposed military knowledge (gained no doubt in the galley of your cross-channel ferry while you were washing the pots)
THe lads who fought and died were, by and largely r#tricked into doing so with false promises of a better world and other enticements - there are enough examples of ex-soldiers saying so - Harry Patch being one of them.
Their sacrifice deserved far more than your jingoistic establishment bollocks.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:52 AM

Part Two of the triple alliance boldly puts his foot forward. Is there no start to the bravery of these three illustrious gentlemen.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:49 AM

"What was the "it" you will not bother with again?
The Festival.
The service is an integral part of the Festival and always has been.
I said "They find the existing Festival "objectionable." "
The existing Festival includes the service." - Keith A

Game, Set & Match Gnome stop wriggling and trying to move the goalposts.

As far as the likes of you and Raggy go the "I never said that" line is a bit irritating and unnecessary really - neither of you ever say anything germane to any subject under discussion anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:30 AM

"The fact thay you couldn't find Tommy Kenny in your "researches" is immaterial"

WTF!!!! - Can you actually READ Mr Carroll??? What part of this do you NOT UNDERSTAND???

"(I on the other hand did the research and found that in the entire First World War only six men with the name Thomas Kenny served in the British Army, the most likely candidate won the Military Medal - I also did the research and found that in the course of that war there was not one instance of anything even remotely resembling your Tommy Kenny's story ever having occurred)

Just in case you still don't understand that Mr Carroll - couldn't find Tommy Kenny - I FOUND ALL SIX OF THEM AND READ THEIR RECORDED WAR RECORDS - YOU PRAT

You on the other hand talked to a man in interview for three days and you checked and corroborated absolutely nothing. Of course you could prove me wrong by going back to your notes and interview tapes and tell us all:

1: What year your man joined the army
2: What regiment he served in
3: What theatre of war he served in
4: What action in fought in where members of the MFP or MMP lined up behind British soldiers to force them "over the top"
5: What action he fought in where he saw MFP or MMP shooting British soldiers for refusing to advance or for returning to their trenches

I can say with absolute certainty that you will provide none of those details because so eager were you to get all this "working class hero" bullshit down you forgot the one most important thing about researching and recording history - you forgot to check up and get corroboration and supporting background and information to validate what you had been told.

"You and your fellow jingoists have done this with every statement by veterans critical of the war raised in discussion - you prefer the offiucial establishment version rather than the words of those whoo actually fought."

Care to offer me any explanation as to how and why it was that the Tommy Kenny that you and your little group interviewed over a period of three days was the only person to have witnessed these things? Care to even examine how such acts could be carried out using reason and logic? You have never studied military history or battlefield archaeology, you simply have no grasp about what you are prattling on about.

A: How many Military Policemen would you need to force a regiment of infantry men over the top at gunpoint- let alone an entire Division? Reasonably and logically you as the military policemen would have to be better armed than the soldiers of that infantry regiment and you would have to have parity in numbers or superiority in numbers otherwise once you started shooting soldiers the soldiers would turn their guns on you. Tell me Jim, how many men served in the war as military policemen (IIRC they started in 1914 with a few hundred and finished in 1918 with around 25,000 covering an army that was 440,000 strong in 1914 and around 5,300,000 strong in 1918). You are completely hopeless when it comes to detail, perspective, logic or reason - you start out with your view and your preconceptions then go hell for leather to prove them irrespective of what substantive evidence tells you, if it doesn't fit your theory you ignore it.

B: The battlefield archaeology bit comes in here Jim - any idea how a system of trenches is laid out? How many different sorts of trenches there were and what their functions were - or do you think that Captain Blackadder's cosy little dug-out was what frontline trench warfare was all about? THE frontline trench if you look at all the pictures form the first world war just simply would not be big enough to allow space for those about to mount the attack and a line of men behind them ready to shoot them if they didn't go - that is just simple physical fact.

Your old man's tale never happened I say that because I have examined the allegation that it did, I have looked at it logically, I have applied reason to it, I have looked for anything at all that could even be remotely considered by way of corroboration and have found absolutely nothing to support this "Urban Myth" that you seem so sold on.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:23 AM

I said "They find the existing Festival "objectionable."

You did indeed, Keith. No one else said it but you. I do not know how I can make it any more clear. I do not find the festival objectionable. I do find the inclusion of christian prayers for non-christians objectionable. I do not find you objectionable. I do find your abuse of the English language objectionable. I do not find buses objectionable. I do find people farting on them is. What is there to not understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:16 AM

But I, Raggytash, did not type that did I?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:14 AM

What was the "it" you will not bother with again?
The Festival.
The service is an integral part of the Festival and always has been.
I said "They find the existing Festival "objectionable." "
The existing Festival includes the service.

Now I have wasted another post on your nonsense!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:13 AM

You couldn't apply that logic to the whole forum could you professor.


Not that it matters one way or the other. Once again you have clearly demonstrated your true colours.













A sort of shitty yellow.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:09 AM

You stated, "I still find it objectionable either way and will not bother with it again."

I did indeed Keith, and I still find the inclusion of a christian service in remembrance of non-christian fallen objectionable. I do not and have never found the remembrance objectionable. Which is what you are implying. Why don't you just admit that you misinterpreted my comment? I have no idea if it was accidental or malicious but I shall give you the benefit of the doubt. I will even help you by saying that I could have phrased it better. I don't mind. I have already clarified what I meant but assume you did not read that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:07 AM

I accused you of agreeing with Dave, not of saying anything Rag.
Whatever Dave says now, he said earlier that it was "objectionable."
I am not wasting another post on this nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:44 AM

"Dave used the word and you always agree with him Rag"

Just to jog your poor memory.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM

About time Keith, you've convinced yourself overnight that you were right, that you've done nothing wrong. What a sad, gutless little man you are. We should feel sorry for you really. Just one thing I hope you are going to confess before you go to church on Sunday. You go on about people losing. Well you have lost. You have courage, you have lost all credibility, you have lost all honesty, you have lost integrity, you have lost trustworthiness, you have lost legitimacy. You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:24 AM

Rag,
You HAVE ACCUSED me of saying it was objectionable,

No I have not.

Dave,
I also agree that the festival is not objectionable

You stated, "I still find it objectionable either way and will not bother with it again."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:14 AM

"I certainly have no recollection of ever having stated that Harry Patch was a liar. "
Your response to my accounts of the WW1 veteran we spent three days recording was "soldiers tell lies" - dismissing what had to say in three words - so much for your respect for war heroes!
You and your fellow jingoists have done this with every statement by veterans critical of the war raised in discussion - you prefer the offiucial establishment version rather than the words of those whoo actually fought.
You now appear to be calling me or Tommy Kenny a liar (again) in support of the official version.
You have ignored and continue to do so, the lies, distortions, the pressure, the blackmail and the open threats of imprisonment and death that caused people to join up.
Tommy Kenny joined up a couple of years after leaving school - like his contemporaries, he couldn't get work in poverty-stricken Liverpool, he was offered a wage, a uniform and the romance of foreign places and told the war was a forgone conclusion that would soon be over, so he lied about his age and joined up - that was the case with many thousands of young lads who risked and gave their lives to join the bloodbath.
The fact thay you couldn't find Tommy Kenny in your "researches" is immaterial - his interviews (carried out by me, two well-known singers and the folk scene and Tommy's grandson) is archived along with the rest of our collection in three national archives.   
Jeremy Paxman's programmes devoted a great deal of time to the machinations of recruiting - one of the high-spots was the master-recruiter. Horatio Bottomley, who presented jingoistic pantomimes downplaying and distorting the horrors of what was actually happening.         
Bottomley not only became a millionaire on his sending many thousands of young men to their deaths, but he was later jailed as a crook - too late to save the lives he helped take.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:44 AM

"They died for what they were told to believe."

Really GUEST 16 Nov 15 - 02:58 AM? And what was it they were told to believe? And who was it that told them to believe it? Do you believe what you are told to believe? I know that I certainly wouldn't. Your rather idiotic statement tends to indicate that you have never served in any of the armed forces and have never spoken to veterans who have actually seen and experienced combat, if you had you would have noted and found as a common denominator the fact that in combat soldiers do not fight for "King and Country", they do not fight for "the honour and glory of the regiment or the colours" - they fight for each other, they fight for their mates, they fight to get through it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:31 AM

"You have already described soldiers like Harry Patch as liars"

Did I Jim? Where? When? I certainly have no recollection of ever having stated that Harry Patch was a liar. Ah but you write "soldiers like" which leads me to recall your belief in a tale told to you by someone called Tommy Kenny about British Military policemen forcing British soldiers out of trenches and shooting them if they refused to go. I remember at the time I asked you what regiment Tommy Kenny served in - you couldn't tell me (I on the other hand did the research and found that in the entire First World War only six men with the name Thomas Kenny served in the British Army, the most likely candidate won the Military Medal - I also did the research and found that in the course of that war there was not one instance of anything even remotely resembling your Tommy Kenny's story ever having occurred). You on the other hand were so eager to believe this fairytale that you checked and confirmed nothing related to what he had told you (I at least know with 100% certainty that Harry Patch did serve on the Western Front as a soldier - as far as YOUR Tommy Kenny you haven't a clue one way or another) - you might swallow any line and take it at face value I do not. This will prove to be another case of Jim Carroll "Made Up Shit" similar to your accusation that "I once stated that your long dead mother had been on the game" which as I recall was an accusation that was proven to have been totally groundless i.e. another example of Jim Carroll "Made Up Shit". No wonder I have long since ceased to pay any attention to your poorly presented, ranting, multi-coloured, ramblings, your interminable cut 'n ' pastes and your idiotic insistence that newspaper articles are proof of anything when they suit your biased and bigoted view and baseless right-wing lies and propaganda when they don't. Who did you model yourself on Jim - Citizen "Wolfie" Smith??

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:58 AM

They died for what they were told to believe.

I suppose in a warped way, that makes them martyrs. Some weren't martyrs though. They put in a uniform because society expected it, or to get away from boring or awful jobs. Read Spike Milligan's war memoirs.

Their latter day comrades also died to make the world safer according to Bliar & Bush.

That worked......

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 07:31 PM

"They died in order that you could be born and brought up and live in peace"
No they didn't - they died for a whole number of reasons whicch we have discussed ad-nauseum
You have already described soldiers like Harry Patch as liars because they disagreed with your jingoistic claptrap - there were many who shared his view
Even those who may have fallen for your line were sold out by depression, hunger marches mass unemployment, appeasement to fascism and yet another World War where "We started all over again" as the song says.
"Land fit for heroes to live in" my arseum!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 06:54 PM

"to return to the british legion - yes, i do object . it's all about men who died because they were fighting to do what their governments told them to"

Wrong GUEST,achmelvich - They died in order that you could be born and brought up and live in peace, security and liberty, free to spout your ill-informed cliche-riddled drivel to your hearts content without fear of let or hindrance.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raffles
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 06:31 PM

Drank like a fire-engine, but only got drunk enough to make us a speech that I wouldn't have missed for ten pounds.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 05:35 PM

for the purpose of clarifying any doubt can i just say that i find the service objectionable?
i could add that it is objectionable and depressing and pathetic that several aging/aged blokes on here think it is ok to squabble away about inconsequential nonsense.
it is objectionable, depressing, pathetic and sick that while there is so much shite going on around the world that we think it is still worthwhile to attempt to score cheap points off each other.
mo, it is not acceptable to be racist, aggressive , tory or rude about each other or anyone else. fuckin pack it in.
ever wonder why why there are no woman or younger people on this site? it could well be because we are all just objectionable .....and stupid....and blinkered.

but to return to the british legion - yes, i do object . it's all about men who died because they were fighting to do what their governments told them to. more than that, it is currently about a bunch of macho/racist aggressive blokes who think that supporting our hired army makes them more hard or patriotic or something.
to be honest, i'm an old hippy and into peace and these guys have too much body weight and not enough brain.

imagine if everyone just stopped fighting or idolising the warriors among us-it isn't hard to do .

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:21 PM

I'll place my last comment again:

I have NOT commented on the festival being objectionable or not.

You HAVE ACCUSED me of saying it was objectionable, I did not.

That deserves an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:14 PM

Actually, Raggy, I have just twigged.

If you agree with Dave that it is objectionable, then I was right.
If you agree with me that it is not, then I do owe you an apology.

Just agree that the festival is not objectionable and Keith will owe you an apology. I also agree that the festival is not objectionable so it is a win/win situation.

I bet he doesn't apologise though ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:13 PM

I have not accused you of saying anything Rag.
I said, "They find the existing Festival "objectionable."

I believe that to be true.
If I was wrong you would certainly announce it, but you won't because I was right about you.

Prove me wrong and say you do not find the existing festival, with its service, objectionable like Dave says he does.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:10 PM

But I have never said the festival is objectionable so how can anyone agree or disagree with that?

Back to you.

Rag - Just disagree with me that something I did not say is not objectionable. Or maybe it is, I think. Whatever the fuck he is on about. Just disagree. I don't mind at all and it will be worth it to see the Keithy babe either apologise or, more likely, renege on his promise.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:05 PM

I have NOT commented on the festival being objectionable or not.

You HAVE ACCUSED me of saying it was objectionable, I did not.

That deserves an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 02:59 PM

Dave, the service is a small but integral part of the festival, and you said it was "objectionable."

Rag, anyone reading the thread would conclude that you and Dave are in agreement.

If you agree with Dave that it is objectionable, then I was right.
If you agree with me that it is not, then I do owe you an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 01:06 PM

Will do, Rag. If anyone wants to find it they can look up the Facebook page of my Spanish friend, Mudcat DelThreads. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 12:34 PM

Dave I meant to say the whole thread

Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 12:33 PM

Dave, can you do me a favour and copy this to your facebook page.

Thanks

Raggytash

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 12:17 PM

Keith

Rag, Dave said he finds the existing festival "objectionable."

Nowhere on this thread or any other have I said I find the existing festival objectionable. On the second post in the thread I said "the thing I objected to most was turning it into a CofE thing". I subsequently said "Anyway, I am more than happy to change my statement from being 'turning into a CofE thing' to 'turning into a christian thing'." I stated at the outset and have repeated that it is the inclusion of a Christian service in a remembrance for people of all or no faith that I find objectionable. Never the festival itself. Why do you feel the need to manipulate the truth so much?

I would find it objectionable if someone was to fart loudly and smellily on the bus but it does not mean I object to buses. How on earth do you manage to put a different slant on everything I say?

Teribums - What Guest alter-egos? Can you substantiate the ridiculous claim that I post as anyone other than myself or is it yet another load of bollocks?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 11:15 AM

When Keith says he finds something objectionable that is his view.

When says a comment is objectionable he is elevating his opinion to being the arbiter of taste, which with his track record he most certainly isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 10:41 AM

Even you know Teribus the difference between not offering an argument and libel

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 10:38 AM

Good heavens Raggy there you go demanding this and demanding that of people while you never provide any of the information or detail when requested by others - what is the party line again for the likes of yourself, the Gnome and your GUEST alter egos? - Oh yes that is it, whatever you say is merely your opinion and that you never have to explain or justify it to anybody. So tell me why does Keith have to justify his opinion that he thinks that you, tacitly agree with the gnome and find the festival in its current format "objectionable" - you have had more than ample opportunity to deny it yet you have remained silent - can't really fault Keith A for holding to his opinion, you haven't really done much (in fact nothing at all) to dissuade him.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:52 AM

I am not playing your game.

You stated " Certainly not, but there is a little gang of them here who do have a problem. They find the existing Festival "objectionable."

I asked you to find one example of me doing that. You have failed to do so because there isn't one example.

I asked for an apology. I am still waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:41 AM

I was right about you.
You do find it objectionable as I correctly stated.
If I was wrong you would say so, but you do not.

I ask you to deny nothing, just was I right about you or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:32 AM

I have already stated Dave can say what he wants, I have no influence on the things he writes.

I have not said that the remembrance service was objectionable and take exception that you are now trying to persuade me to deny something I didn't do in the first place.

An apology please.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:24 AM

"The "church" played no part Jim."
But you are claiming this as a religious event as kindly suggesting that the rest of us can come along if we wish to - very kind of you of course (even if it is only for the good and the great) - helps to foster universal love and brotherhood no end!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:22 AM

If you agree with Dave it is objectionable, then I was right about you and you should apologise for making an issue..

If you agree with me that he was wrong, I will apologise.

Your call Rag.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 08:09 AM

I have never posted anything to give you a reason to believe that I found the remembrance festival objectionable. That was YOUR creation not mine.

An apology would not go amiss.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 07:59 AM

The "church" played no part Jim.
Dave, the Drumhead Service is a small but integral part of the event, and you said you found it objectionable.
I think you are being intolerant.

Rag, Dave said he finds the existing festival "objectionable."
Everything you have posted supports my view that you do too.
If you do not, say so and I will apologise.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 06:23 AM

Wonderful comment on the increasing awfulness of some of the acts trawled up to take part in these commemoration beanfeasts by A.A Gill in The Sunday Times this morning (must have had the dreadful cabaret style rendering of Willie McBride last year).
He describes them as Captain Mainwearing's version of 'Britain's Got Talent'.
Couldn't have done it without the church!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:52 AM

Keith - See my post of 15 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM. Tell me which bit you do not understand and I will endeavour to explain more clearly. No one is saying the festival is objectionable. You are hinging your argument around the word 'it' being the festival when you know damn well it is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:52 AM

I do not need to answer that question. What Dave, or anyone else, writes is entirely up to them. I do not answer for them.

YOU POSTED " Certainly not, but there is a little gang of them here who do have a problem.They find the existing festival "objectionable."


You accuse ME of doing so but can find NOTHING to substantiate your vindictive words.

The ball is firmly in your court.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:47 AM

Oh, and for the record, I have started to make arrangements for The Republican Leftwing Atheists Festival Of Remembrance. It will be in our village, possibly in the local pub. Tickets will be £25,000 each. Keith has already committed to it so I know costs are covered -

I would watch that.
I would pay to watch that.

I suspect he was lying but you never know :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:40 AM

Dave,
I still find it objectionable either way and will not bother with it again.

Rag, do you agree with Dave or not?
If you do not, I do owe you an apology.
If you do, no apology is owed.
Which is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:37 AM

If Dave used a word, fine that's Dave's prerogative.

You made an unsubstantiated ACCUSATION against me.

A honourable person would offer an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM

I know I said I would leave you to it but that last one really needs addressing. I have never said the festival was objectionable. My exact phrase, not that you cannot look it up yourself, was

but the thing I objected to most was turning it into a CofE thing.

I subsequently changed that from a CofE thing to a christian thing because you pointed out that other christian cults were involved. At no point in time have I objected to the remembrance itself and Raggy has nothing to disagree with me about. No one has objected to the festival itself. You are, as usual, misrepresenting what was said for your own gain. Now, I know you will try your best to wheedle and worm your way out of anything so, for the record and as clearly as I can put

I DO NOT OBJECT TO THE FESTIVAL OF REMEMBRANCE

I DO OBJECT TO A CHRISTIAN SERVICE BEING PART OF IT WHEN SO MANY THAT DIED WERE NOT OF THAT FAITH.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:23 AM

Rag,
Hmmmm Perhaps professor you could provide a link to any post where I have even suggested that I find the festival "objectionable"

Dave used the word and you always agree with him Rag.
Prove me wrong.
Say you disagree with him on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:15 AM

Keith defends bigotry. I point it out. My post is deleted.

Perhaps the normal well adjusted decent people on here might realise that the reason ignorance prevails is that you either try to reason with it unsuccessfully (Dave etc) or your posts are deleted because Max runs a website that reflects his own right wing bigoted agenda.

Fair play, he is a foreigner eh?