BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 01:41 PM

So Jim having been given the opportunity you can find no posts of mine that support your idiotic, untrue and outrageous contentions and lies - Thank you.
You seem to have developed an acute case of amnesia, if you7 are referring to your bad manners
If not - you supported Keith's racism
Jim Carroll

A reminder
"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled.""
It will remind everyone that you are truly clueless and gormless to an astounding degree.
"Got the point now Shaw"
Probably because Carroll
Really Carroll
Keep floundering about Carroll
So all in all Christmas
For Jim:
No need for reminders Jim I have nothing but the utmost contempt for you and everything you stand for. Not many humans wander this planet without one single redeeming feature - you seem to have managed that without even trying.
The Truth according to Jim - thick as shit and proud of it
I will repeat IT YET AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE AMONG US WHO ARE TOO BLOODY THICK TO UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH (i.e. YOU RAGGY)
"complete and utter buffoon"
"That by the way THICKO "
"clueless ignoramus of truly astounding degree"
"Carroll"
"Have you found an echo Jim?"
Or have you always wandered through life making a complete and utter Jim-like CUNT of yourself?
Carroll
"Here is a link for you Jim:"
"By the way Jim"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it Jim?"
"Don't worry Jim"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:45 PM

Give it a rest, Bill. You look daft.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:44 PM

At half time I would say thats One-Nil to Teribus



He has managed to divert the topic away from the lying of another poster. However I'm sure it wouldn't be for long.


Well played Scotland by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:41 PM

"If anyone is interested in a prediction? We'll not get a peep out of Carroll, what will be treated to will be yet another highly emotive, ill-informed, deflecting rant." - Teribus 25 Feb 17 - 11:24 AM

And that is exactly what we got from Jim Carroll - 25 Feb 17 - 12:14 PM - Predictable or what!!!

So Jim having been given the opportunity you can find no posts of mine that support your idiotic, untrue and outrageous contentions and lies - Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:33 PM

"Whaddam I like! 😂" - Steve Shaw

As you asked Shaw? A posturing, lying Prat who has been exposed as such and is now wriggling and trying like hell to escape.

There is not one thing that I have said that you can counter or refute.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:26 PM

I always understate, Jim. It's my humility, you see. It's my middle name. I could have added "big fibber" to that accurate description of mine (not name-calling). He said something about a single word in Dec 2014. Can't think what he's on about. Don't want to ask him, though, for fear of getting three feet of irrelevant scrolling to do through ancient posts peppered with spittle-flecked rants. Hey, I just used his favourite insulting cliché. Whaddam I like! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:14 PM

"Teribus, you are an agitated, irritated, insecure, rude, tribal, shouty, insulting, right-wing establishment, little Englander, not very truthful nitpicking waste of space."
Measures pretty small against the examples I put up of your insults over the years, wouldn't you say - want me to putt them up again so we can compare them?
The only difference between your hundreds and Steve's one is your own track record proved Steve's description of you to be fairly accurate (if understated)
You just admitted that yourself by saying you take it as a compliment.
The rst is simple denial of what has been discussed interminably and long proven.
You behvae like an ill mannered lot on this forum and have done so for several years, despite being asked to desist. - it is little wonder people occasionally respond in kind.
Finished here, I think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:55 AM

Don't tempt me to suggest that I've just heard the first good argument ever as to why we should have kept the Iron Curtain.

And I'm sure you feel the same about the concentration camps too.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:35 AM

Hi Jim, how's this for name calling? How's this for ignoring the content of a post or points made in a discussion and just attacking the messenger?

"Teribus, you are an agitated, irritated, insecure, rude, tribal, shouty, insulting, right-wing establishment, little Englander, not very truthful nitpicking waste of space." - Steve Shaw

From you I take all of those as a compliment. Thank you Mr Shaw you have just proved beyond any question of doubt everything I have ever said about you.

As far as "nitpicking" goes Shaw who was it in February 2017 that started mithering on about the omission of one single word from a long dead thread dating back to December 2014 - sure as f**k wasn't me was it Shaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:29 AM

Eastern European extraction huh? Don't tempt me to suggest that I've just heard the first good argument ever as to why we should have kept the Iron Curtain.

I don't recall going after Al as a pack. Chapter and verse, pease.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:24 AM

"You've had it how about telling us about the stupid Irish or the Implanted Muslims or Bin laden not being a businessman or Britain bearing no blame for the outcome of the famine or the Polaris scheme that wasn't.... or all the other subjects you sprinted away from with egg on your face" - Jim Carroll

OK then Jim, following posts from me that support your contentions

1: Where have I said, or made any reference to "the stupid Irish" - my post Carroll not your interpretation of my post, my words not yours.

2: Where have I ever made any reference to Implanted Muslins - my post Carroll not your interpretation of my post, my words not yours.

3: Osama bin Laden may be known throughout the world for many things - businessman ain't one of the them, which was I think my stance, you were putting him forward as businessman of the year.

4: With regard to the Famine where I have ever claimed that Britain was blameless - my post Carroll not your interpretation of my post, my words not yours.

5: What Polaris scheme that wasn't Jim? Been no Polaris since 1996. I must admit when you set out to display your ignorance you do it in "Spades". On the Nuclear subs thread you and your pals were demolished. Now your task is to show me where I lied in that thread - my post Carroll not your interpretation of my post, my words not yours.

If anyone is interested in a prediction? We'll not get a peep out of Carroll, what will be treated to will be yet another highly emotive, ill-informed, deflecting rant.

Great game up at Murrayfield - Well done Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:10 AM

Jim,
describing an entire race or cultur 'potential perverts' is recism in the extreme

No-one has though Jim. It is a smear. A lie.

I did say that we are all implanted to an extent by our culture.
That is neither extreme nor racist.
I did quote a number of very credible people who said that the culture led to the offending, and I said I believed them.
I also asked why you did not. You never answered.
That is not extreme or racist either.

Now, why do we need to have this discussion again?
Why do you want to try and prove anything about me?
Because you can't argue against me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:10 AM

I think I still have the exact exchange somewhere but I would prefer not to embarasss him any further without good reason.

I remember that exchange as well and he is not the one who should be embarrassed by it. Al said he witnessed a theft or robbery by persons he recognized as being of eastern European extraction by their appearance and accents. You immediately branded him a racist and other members of the pack joined in lecturing him on his purported racism. I myself am of full blooded eastern European extraction and I saw absolutely nothing racist in what he said. As Mark Twain said; 'To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.'

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:05 AM

No I won't look it up, because it is of no interest to me not then, not now, not ever. If it was a choice between looking it up and painting my privates with chocolate before bringing on the dancing ants, I'd choose the latter every time. Teribus, you are an agitated, irritated, insecure, rude, tribal, shouty, insulting, right-wing establishment, little Englander, not very truthful nitpicking waste of space. It's not that I can't argue with someone like that (a cinch, actually), but that I just don't really feel like it. My purple sprouting is cropping like mad. Gonna have a big plateful with a traditional Spanish tortilla tonight. I have wine, a wood-burning stove and a flat-screen telly. I win!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:03 AM

Dave,
You asked for a reason for the over-representation, not for why they were doing it.

I was asked in that old thread for an explanation of why they did it.
No such explanation had then appeared apart from the one I reported.
If that is not true Dave, produce one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 10:59 AM

Dave,
You said there was no other explanation. I said there was.

When I posted the explanation that had appeared in all the media, NO OTHER EXPLANATION FOR WHY THEY DISPROPORTIONATELY DO IT HAD BEEN PUT FORWARD.

If that is not true, put one up Dave.
I already asked earlier and you seem unable to.

All you put up was suggested reasons why the stats. might lie and they were not doing it, but they were.

I didn't start it
You mean rehashing these long dead debates to try and smear me? Neither did I Dave.
The rest of your little gang did, so you felt you had to join in as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 10:41 AM

No, it was me, Steve. I have never brought it up since but for some reason All likes to. Masochistic tendencies maybe? Anyway, he said that crime rates increase with the influx of east Europeans. I said that was a racist thing to say. Al spat his dummy out and has been doing so ever since. I think I still have the exact exchange somewhere but I would prefer not to embarasss him any further without good reason.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 10:36 AM

Resignation? Got a date for that Jim? No thought not

Your "Kitchener was forced to resign" was a LIE - deliberately told by you through total ignorance on the subject you decided to comment on. Now Steve Shaw doesn't stand for lies being deliberately but despite the fact that it can be clearly shown that Kitchener was appointed Secretary of State for War on the 5th August 1914 and remained in that post until he was killed when HMS Hampshire struck a mine laid by a German U-boat to the west of Orkney off Marwick Head on 6th June 1916.

By the way Jim, Steve - none of that is my invention - look it up - neither of you will - liars and hypocrites the pair of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 09:38 AM

""Now them Jim"
By the way
If I was to sink to your level of debate I would have asked you, didn't you mean "Now then Jim" - whoops, I just did
Hope I'm not there already!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 09:17 AM

"Now them Jim, Steve tell us all about Kitchener resigning "
You've had it how about telling us about the stupid Irish or the Implanted Muslims or Bin laden not being a businessman or Britain bearing no blame for the outcome of the famine or the Polaris scheme that wasn't.... or all the other subjects you sprinted away from with egg on your face
Any moron can hide behind semantics to suggest that a military resignation caused by incompetence wasn't really a resignation, as you have proven beyond doubt.
Having leapt to the defence of your disturbed friend, you once again find yourself in the klarts and attempt to reopen a long won battel to prove black is white elsewhere
Stick to the rugby, it has all the finesse and sensitivity you lack!!!
Suits you from your bone-head to your regularly placed foot in mouth
Name your lies instead of hiding behind your anonymity and distance - not the heroic behaviour the armed services are looking for
Aaaaabout turn, quiiiick march
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 09:01 AM

Make sure the word "stupid" is in there! Calling me names diminishes you. You do seem to be a little hot-headed and emotional. Watch those blood vessels of yours. Relax while you're watching the rugby and keep telling yourself that I'm not worth it. Fifteen minutes to kick-off.

Christ, I'm beginning to sound like your psychiatrist! Has he got a beard and sandals?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:55 AM

That is because the "clique" as you chose to call some people, is not a "clique" or a "mob" or a "little gang"

You can't seem to get that into your head can you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:53 AM

Rugby time now Shaw, will post your comments about the electorate being too stupid to vote from the Brexit threads later.

Easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:53 AM

They don't immediately see the need to leap to my defence because (a) they know I'm tough, calm and collected, and (b) because they're not a gang. 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:51 AM

No trouble Shaw, no effort even - plain simple fact is that you are a liar, and less than 15 minutes searching has resulted in conclusive proof of you being a liar that is now available to post in seconds any time you "hark back" to December 2014 and "Wheatcroft".

Now them Jim, Steve tell us all about Kitchener resigning - got a date for that? Or are you now going to prove that you do stand for deliberate lies being told and spread and "allowed to stand" on this forum Shaw - you set out the stall regarding how principled your stand was now prove it - You won't because you are a hypocrite, a liar and a coward (Pretty much goes for the rest of your little "clique", not one of whom has seen fit to rush to your defence I see).

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:40 AM

I meant the longer post before that last one. As for the latter, that's completely ridiculous. I have never said that people are too "stupid" to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:38 AM

That post makes you look a complete arse, Teribus. I find it totally wacky that you can muster the energy to dig up plethora after plethora of past posts then work out how to twist everything with steam coming out of your ears. Calm down, dear. It would be devilishly easy to make a whole career out of provoking you and enjoying the reaction but that just isn't me. I'm finished with that topic now though I'm reserving the right to mention it whenever Keith tells us that he never dissembles or accuses anybody else of misquoting, etc.

I don't recall branding you a racist, Al. Remind me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:38 AM

Tyranny of the minority: How the most sinister trend of our age is a poisonous conviction taking root on the Left and among the elite that ordinary people are too stupid to be trusted with voting

Something Shaw has mentioned before.

As the Daily Mail is held in such high regard, with our "Usual Suspects" quoting it right, left and centre whenever it suits their purposes, here's the rest of the article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4258522/A-poisonous-conviction-taking-root-Left.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:21 AM

"well as you know Jim, Steve and Dave are experts in racism."
It doesn't take "experts" to work out that describing an entire race or cultur 'potential perverts' is recism in the extreme
You want to address that statement, feel free, otherwise you are sniping from the sidelines
"Meanwhile the Labour Party is in shitsville. "
Is it?
It is if it continues to be a pale shadow of Toryism, as it has been over the last few decades.
We have a one-system system in Britain, all the parties scrambling to support the status quo.
If that continues, so will declining industry and increasing inequality.
Changing that situation won't be easy and is bound to lose friends, but it is noticeable that, while the Labour Party leadership were scrambling to keep Corbyn out, the membership voted him in as leader by a significant majority.
If that can be repeated outside the party, we will end up with a genuine two-party system - if not, there is little use of having a Labour party that is a pale repetition of The Tories.
Carreer politics and self-serving has well and truely naused up any chance we have of real democracy in Britain
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:37 AM

Why is Christianity (or any other religion)losing ground perceived as a bad thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:29 AM

well as you know Jim, Steve and Dave are experts in racism. They detected it in me and I didn't know I'd got it.

You do sometimes feel with mudcat. These guys missed their calling in life. They should have been working for HUAC at the height of the MacCarthy era detecting doctrinal impurity in others. Or maybe the Spanish Inquisition. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

'first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.'

Such a demanding commandment. In these judgemental times, Jeremy Kyle is so popular, you can see why Christianity is losing ground.

Meanwhile the Labour Party is in shitsville. I keep looking at this thread hoping we can get some ideas for solutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:29 AM

For fucks sake, this is now a war of attrition dating back to WW1 and as just as vacuously vicious
Let these morons drown in their own swill
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:19 AM

More Shaw misrepresentations

1: "Keith deliberately misrepresented a quote in a different thread from the one where he first pasted it a week earlier."

Prove that it was done deliberately Shaw - The fact that it was corrected immediately by Keith A kills your deliberately nonsense.

2: "He knew the article so he did it on purpose in order to promote his argument about only listening to modern, living historians."

Shaw misrepresentation - But I will give you a chance to disprove it - show us any post where Keith A has EVER suggested anything even remotely like that assertion about only listening to modern, living historians." in any of the WWI threads. I can however dig out posts of yours that claim he has but putting words in other people's mouths and taking them to task for it is a favoured tactic of both yourself and Jim Carroll for years on this forum.

3: "Nobody "rubbished" the two books and nobody called Taylor "fraudulent". He could have had Keith in court for that."

Nobody? Well Geoffrey Wheatcroft did for a start he called a book by a man thought by many to be the finest historian of his day "rather vulgar", but there again Taylor was writing about something that was not his specialised area of expertise. Go to a post of mine in the "Oh What A Lovely War" Thread (If you don't I will) and there you will find a detailed list of about eighteen names of historians, specialists in the period and topic, present and past who "rubbished" both books. A.J.P. Taylor's greatest critic being Hugh Trevor-Roper, Regius Professor of Modern History at the University of Oxford, the man he beat to that job was A.J.P. Taylor.

As for being taken to court? Given the speed of the acknowledgement of the omission and the appearance of the correction no case would ever have been brought, no case would have had the remotest chance of succeeding. After all you do not deliberately set out to deceive by misquoting a sentence that you have faithfully and accurately quoted days before, you complete and utter idiot.   

4: "Keith did it on purpose.This appears to be eluding you."

a) As previously stated - Prove it
b) The only person I see who has missed something is you:

The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

Steve Shaw questioned this and within an hour of Steve Shaw posting Keith A of Hertford replied as follows:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM

Ok Steve. [The acknowledgement]
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent." [The correction]

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. [Further correction making clear what adjective applied to which author's work]

After the above acknowledgment and correction had been given in the "I am not an historian but ...." thread the complete passage from Wheatcroft's article was posted five times which when you couple that to the speed of Keith A's response and correction blows the Shaw theory of it being deliberate misrepresentation clear out of the water - and yet Shaw to this day still attempts to convey the idea that no acknowledgement and correction was ever made, which of course is a downright LIE.

5 "Had someone not picked him up, the lie would have stood."

What lie? An error of omission at worst, that was corrected, your post asked for a link and that is what you got not just once but five times.

6: Neither you nor I approve of that sort of thing. Jaysus, man, you even nitpick about what size bullets were fired somewhere or other a hundred years ago.

"Neither you nor I approve of that sort of thing." Well you certainly do and you have in your very next sentence led us on to two examples of you "standing for it" when members of your own little gang are guilty of spreading lies.

The "nitpicking" about what sized of bullets were fired. This "nitpick" was in response to Jim Carroll stating that Kitchener had supplied the wrong sized shells to the BEF in 1915. I picked him up on that Shaw and demonstrated that factually his statement was rubbish and a lie, if any statement made in complete and utter ignorance can indeed be a lie (Jim Carroll does indeed make very many statements in complete and utter ignorance - you never pick him up on them Shaw). Having explained to Carroll that it was not the wrong sized shells that had been supplied but the wrong type of shell Carroll went on to his second deliberately told lie - that Kitchener had been forced to resign as Secretary of State for War. Truth was of course there was never any such resignation, a matter of simple well recorded and documented fact - Now as someone who does not approve of deliberate lies being told can you explain why you did not take Jim Carroll to task over this whopper Shaw? I'll tell you why shall I? It would have meant publicly embarrassing one of your own little band wouldn't it. Oh and on that theme, there were no corrections from Keith A's other "stalkers" - Raggy, Dave the Gnome, the Muskets, Greg F either.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:05 AM

"There is no "little gang" it's all in your head."
It must be very lonely all on its own up there

I really would leave this nasty trio Kluxers to their own devices if I were you Dave and Steve
The longer you encourage them, the the bigger the field they have to spread their racist manure
I always thought it a great pity that their offensiveness managed to drive off the few Muslim contributors this forum once had
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 06:11 AM

BTW - You asked for a reason for the over-representation, not for why they were doing it. As far as I know no one has asked that but if they did they would receive the answer that they do it for the same reason that any other criminal gangs do it - profit. Regardless of creed, culture or colour.

Are you now saying that British Pakistanis commit these crimes because they are culturally implanted so to do while while anyone else doing the same does so for other reasons?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 06:05 AM

Well, Teribus, if you were digging and aiming for Oz you'd be taking so many twists and turns that you'd probably emerge in Dudley town centre. Focus, my good man. Keith deliberately misrepresented a quote in a different thread from the one where he first pasted it a week earlier. He knew the article so he did it on purpose in order to promote his argument about only listening to modern, living historians. Nobody "rubbished" the two books and nobody called Taylor "fraudulent". He could have had Keith in court for that. Keith did it on purpose.This appears to be eluding you. Had someone not picked him up, the lie would have stood. Neither you nor I approve of that sort of thing. Jaysus, man, you even nitpick about what size bullets were fired somewhere or other a hundred years ago.

Please stop bleating about "gangs," Keith. You bring this stuff on yourself time and time again. You do it over Israel, you do it over "cultural implanting," you do it over Labour's "serious antisemitism problem" and you did it over the Guardian piece. You are obsessively one-sided and blinkered in almost every issue you take on. You think you are never wrong and you make it clear that you are out to win. If you get people's backs up you have only yourself to blame. Stop moaning. If you can't stand the heat, etc...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:45 AM

Paranoia, pure and simple. There is no "little gang" it's all in your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM

I didn't start it but I am going to finish it - You said there was no other explanation. I said there was. You believe you know what I meant better than I do. You are wrong. End of story.

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:29 AM

Dave,
I was pointing out possible reasons for the reported over-representation.

No. You were trying to explain it away.

You provided no explanation for why they did it, just suggested that they might not be doing it.

They were doing it and I was asked for an explanation for why they did it.

I gave the only explanation for why they were doing it that had appeared at that time.

If that is not true Dave, show us an explanation for why they were doing it from before my post.

Also please explain why you feel the need to have that discussion all over again.

Rag, the four of you, acting together as a gang as you often do, are now all trying to smear me by misrepresenting two posts from years ago.

You walk, talk and quack like ducks.
A gang of ducks.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:58 AM

You were "wondering" or suggesting that the alarming statistic did not describe reality. That the over-representation was an illusion.


AAARRRRGGGGHHHHH! NO I FUCKING WASN'T!

Sorry but you are enough to make a saint swear. I was pointing out possible reasons for the reported over-representation. I usually blame myself for not putting the point over well enough but in this case I do not see how it can be misinterpreted. Apart from by you.

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:35 AM

"Why do you need to prove extremism?"
Because you have infected this forum with yours
"I am not an extremist,"
Proof of the pudding and the rest of this postings is exactly that
Muslims are not implanted perverts, as you claim they are.
"Don't judge me according to your values Jim,"
I don't Ake, I judge you by what you say and what I believe you are
"My remarks were motivated by frustration over the sheer inability of your group to realise what you are attempting to do."
We are attempting to stop a racist attack on an entire community - what do you believe we are trying to do?
Keith persists, we attempt to show what he is doing
You make mindless claims of what "Teribus has proved" and he has proved nothing
Can we add you to the list of those who believe Muslims are implanted perverts?
"Of course your whole idiotic "liberal" agenda is based on the denial of evidence."
I'll take that as a "yes"
"And then there were three"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:33 AM

Once again professor there is no "little gang" no matter how many times you say it, it will not become true. Not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow.

It is a sign of paranoia.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:22 AM

Steve,
If someone feels compromised by their failing health, it behoves them to back off from online squabbles

I tried to back off from your dredging up of ancient posts to misrepresent and use against me.
I can not allow myself to be smeared by the whole gang of you without defending myself.

If you just challenged my arguments on the current issues I would have no complaint.
It is the historical smearing attempted simultaneously by the whole gang of you that is so hard for one person to deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:17 AM

Dave,
That is indeed a very alarming statistic. I assume it is verified, Keith? But are we working on the same basis that in the 70's and 80's most youths involved in stop and search operations were black? I am not disagreeing or agreeing - just wondering if the figures have been skewed by an inherent predjudice against asian gangs by police? Or are the groups of non-moslem paedophiles more sophisticated and not as easy to convict?

You were "wondering" or suggesting that the alarming statistic did not describe reality. That the over-representation was an illusion.

I put forward my evidence that it was real, you suggested reasons it might not be.
I chose not to argue.

No-one came up with an explanation for the real over-representation.
Why they were doing it rather than explaining it away.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:09 AM

Steve,
If you don't feel up to the arguments there's nothing stopping you from retiring to the subs' bench.

I should allow you and your gang to smear me and traduce my character and reputation?
Of course I have to defend myself however many of you combine against me with your nasty personal attacks.

You even admitted a few days ago that you were just trying show me as a bad person.
Why can you not just demolish my arguments?
You would if you could, but smearing is something you are capable of.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:03 AM

Jim,
You are being asked to justify an obscenely racist statement - it was raised in response to a request for evidence of your extremism

Why do you need to prove extremism?
I am not an extremist, but if I was you should still just demolish my arguments.
Calling me a name is not the same thing.

The trouble is that you can not demolish my arguments so you go for personal attacks.
You have to go back six years to find something you can misrepresent as extremist.
It is not extreme to say we are all implanted to some extent by our culture.
It is not extreme to quote people from and close to that culture blaming the culture.

Stick to the current issues and stop making personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 03:48 AM

"I was left with a feeling that Ake's "Oh for God's sake, have you NO shame?" was an underhanded reference to this subject - I sincerely hope not, but I can't think os what else he fely we should feel ashamed about."

Don't judge me according to your values Jim, I would no more allude to the health problems of my friend Keith than I would to any other member. Especially to make any sort of debating point.

My remarks were motivated by frustration over the sheer inability of your group to realise what you are attempting to do.
You are engaged in a disgusting attempt to obfuscate. Teribus has shown brilliantly where this has been taking place yet you still SHAMEFULLY deny the evidence presented.

Of course your whole idiotic "liberal" agenda is based on the denial of evidence......and strangely enough for self confessed Atheists, reliance on blind faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 03:46 AM

No - Here it is
I re-read the 'Muslim Prejudice' thread last night - it is probably one of the most sickening one-handed campaigns against a social/national group I have ever come across.
Single-highhandedly, Keith set out to show that an entire racial/national community were a threat to British society because of their "implanted" tendency - an entire community inclined were inclined to abuse of young women because of their culture and were forced to resist that "implant" to stop themselves from doing so.
The only support he had was an 'small invisible army' of people he had invented to back up what, if made publicly, would have been exposed for what it was, a one-man racist attack
Nobody on that thread agreed with him and one by one, his opponents walked away in disgust until finally, Joe Offer had the good sense to close down the thread.
Similar subjects have come and gone, Ireland being the one that sticks in my memory because it was an attack on me and mine, this time it was a two-handed job - the same invisible army was conjured up then with the same invented facts.
Nobody is "making up shit" here Teribus", other than you and you are doing it in order to support Keith's fanaticism.
You want to prove people are lying - show Keith didn't say what he said or produce the "implanted culture" quotes that suggest an entire cultural/national group tend towards underage sex" - you have produced nothing but denial so far.
The Muslim people are probably the most law-abiding, respectful and industrious community in Britain today.
Despite this, they bear the brunt of extremist harassment, open persecution and actual verbal and physical attacks from the lower echelons of British society.
I have no intention of encouraging people like you pair to spread that persecution to the threads of this forum.
You want to prove that Muslims are a bunch of child-molesting perverts (on the basis of the actions of probably 300 criminals nationally) produce your evidence.
The same goes for Keith.
I'm not interested in the (invented) opinions of others - anybody who holds the views being expressed here is an out-and-out racist.
Anybody who expressed those views publicly and openly outside the internet would be guilty of breaking British law regarding incitement to race hatred and liable to prosecution (that fact alone is proof positive that Keith's claims of support are made-up)   
Until you justify your claims with evidence of cultural perversion, or produce actual examples of "prominent people" describing an entire cultural community as 'The Enemy Within', I think we're finished here.
I have no intention of giving your offensive views 'the oxygen of publicity', as someone infamous once said.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 02:57 AM

Steve Shaw - 24 Feb 17 - 01:26 PM

1: "Keith still did not retract his misrepresentation and never has" [Example of Steve Shaw lying], and still did not accurately reproduce Wheatcroft's remarks in the "explanatory" post of his you reproduce". [Oh yes he did as shown in my previous post and by the fact that the particular passage was posted a further five times subsequently in the thread in question - a FACT that you seem to have conveniently forgotten.]

2: "The qualifying adjectives that he omitted to reproduce are crucial for accuracy."

Oh yes and here we read your views on how "crucial" they were:

Steve Shaw - 24 Feb 17 - 05:52 PM

"You're still rattling on about those books as if I give a toss. I haven't read them and have never used them in any argument about the whys and wherefores of the war."

Crucial Indeed

As to you never using them = another Shaw lie - you have stated in argument that the works of the revisionist historians (1929 to 1969 - which includes work by Taylor and Clark) are of equal weight and importance to work done later. If memory serves me correctly you and the "pack" had a little theme going for a while with adjectives describing various "historians"

Keep going Shaw, let me know when you reach Australia.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 02:28 AM

Here it is:

How Steve Shaw "makes up shit" and what an acknowledgement and correction of an error looks like:

On the 10th December, 2014 the following text was faithfully and accurately posted by Keith A of Hertford in a thread titled "WWI was No Mans Land" from an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft that appeared in the Guardian, 9 Dec 2014

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

This thread was closed on 18th December but the discussion continued on another WWI thread titled "I am not an historian but ..." in which Keith A made a passing reference to the passage quoted above on the 17th December, 2014

The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

Steve Shaw questioned this and within an hour of Steve Shaw posting Keith A of Hertford replied as follows:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM

Ok Steve. [The acknowledgement]
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent." [The correction]

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. [Further correction making clear what adjective applied to which author's work]

After the above acknowledgment and correction had been given in the "I am not an historian but ...." thread the complete passage from Wheatcroft's article was posted five times which when you couple that to the speed of Keith A's response and correction blows the Shaw theory of it being deliberate misrepresentation clear out of the water - and yet Shaw to this day still attempts to convey the idea that no acknowledgement and correction was ever made, which of course is a downright LIE.

You've got some bloody neck to complain about deliberate misrepresentation Shaw.