BS: uk by-elections

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 08:18 AM

Talking about flowers and the weather is safer.
Sad but true.

I wouldn't say safer. Plants and weather can be pretty dangerous as well. I would say it is a damned site pleasanter that engaging in so called debates on here that are nothing but trivial mental wranglings. There is nothing sad in trying to lift the tone of discussion. I have my rule now, thanks to GregF. Never enter a pissing contest with a skunk.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 08:20 AM

"I did believe it. No lie."
Step two - how many times have you blamed somebody else for making it and refused to produce a quote?
"So, you have to go back SIX YEARS and even then you can't find a lie."
You have lied consistently over this for all that time - not a bad lying
I have linked and named the site consistently and will do again
Your point throughout was that Muslims were potentially dangerous in regard to sexual abuse
MUSLIM PREJUDICE thread, if anybody would like to check
A quote from your sick contribution there
"Paedophilia is not endorsed, but the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took a child bride."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 09:38 AM

Point missed again, Teribus! By abject politics I wasn't talking about the history of political parties' politics. I was talking about yours and Keef's! And Keith, you can't debate, won't debate, have never debated and will never debate. But you could apply to the Guinness Book of Records for typing the shortest possible sentence making the possible uses of "actually/actual!" I actually admired that in actual fact, no, I actually did!

Stopped peeing down again this end but all is mud. Have made a magisterial soup this morning, not for consumption until Thursday (the only thing to do with soups and casseroles). Am also set to make a curry for this evening using a Spice Tailor kit. I haven't mastered the art of curries from scratch, and the jars of Patak's, etc., are overcooked and too gloopy with a lot of sloppy onion and tommy purée, but the Spice Tailor ones are very good, if a bit pricey. A happy-ish medium.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 09:45 AM

Dangerous plants and weather, Dave? Ha! Bet you've never had to deal with an invasive stand of giant hogweed in the teeth of an approaching tornado!


No, neither have I, as it happens...


By the way, it's nearly ostrich breeding season. I don't suppose you seen Betty Swollox lately, have you, Dave...?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 11:00 AM

No, Sorry, Steve. She never had her visa to visit Yorkshire renewed and with the political climate being what it is I suspect any such incursion would be dealt with using extreme prejudice. Not that there is any prejudice in Yorkshire culture of course. I was only quoting people that know better than me and you were telling lies about the weather. If it really was raining so hard how come you cannot come up with a single muddy footprint, eh? Eh? Eh? Just one. I win.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 12:35 PM

That is a baseless assertion, Dave. Go and hide your head in the sand. It's what we members of the ostrichocracy must do. You lose, you spittle-flecked ranter you! And prove it. Prove what, I hear you ask. Don't ask me. Just prove something or other. Yeah.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 02:31 PM

Jim, you knowingly lie about me AGAIN!

In that thread from 2011(!) I stated many times that religion was not an issue.
You know that because we have been there before and you have had the quotes.

You make the same old false, lying accusations and I just knock them down in the same old way.

You go back six years and still find no lie from me.
I produced a list of yours, with quotes, from this thread!

Steve,
I try to debate with you and Jim, but you just resort to personal attack and abuse every time.

My case is that Labour is in serious trouble with its leadership, and has had serious problems with anti-Semitism and misogyny.

I have backed my views with numerous quotes from prominent, senior Labour people.
You just deny without any evidence, and resort to trying to smear me over years old posts.

You are clearly afraid or incapable of entering into serious discussion, but prove me wrong why don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 02:40 PM

I refer you to my post of 08.04am

If anyone queries anything you post you claim you are only repeating what other people have supposedly said.

That is not debate, it is not even discussion.

Not only are you pathetic but you are a decitful fraud.

And no, I won't give you examples they are too numerous to cite. I know your normal cop out it won't work with me.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 04:26 PM

Just out of interest I believe a debate is a formal discussion with set rules about who says what and when. There are time limits and an independent panel or audience assess who made their points best and, therefore, won. That does not happen here.

A discussion is less formal and takes the form of people 'chatting'. Points are made, some are conceded, some compromise is arrived at and most people are happy with the outcome if not in full agreement. That does not happen here.

I am not at all sure that what goes on here can be classified as debate or discussion in any meaningful way so the best idea is for everyone to do their own thing unless the moderation team step in and take control. Which rarely happens.

Hope this helps

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 05:35 PM

I am clearly very bored with you, Keith. Very very very very bored indeed. I am so bored that the hole has gone right through. A two-foot length of three-by-two that has been attacked by a million-strong swarm of manic wood-boring beetles cannot be more bored than me. I am terribly, terribly bored. If it's any consolation, I'm just as bored by Teribus. I don't do favourites. I'm fair-minded like that, me. Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 17 - 08:08 PM

"Jim, you knowingly lie about me AGAIN!
How can I lie by quoting you?
"In that thread from 2011(!) I stated many times that religion was not an issue."
""Paedophilia is not endorsed, but the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took a child bride.""
That was a spiteful attack on a religion that is not your own and is using that attack to persecute the believers - two birds with one petrol bomb
"You make the same old false, lying accusations and I just knock them down in the same old way."
Nope - I quote you - you call them lies
By accusing me of lying, are you actually saying you didn't write these things?
No answer is an admittance you did.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 05:53 AM

"Paedophilia is not endorsed, but the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took a child bride."

Now we are obviously talking about Islam here. As someone who purports to be an expert in that particular religion to a degree whereby you set yourself up as it's defender Jim can you point out anything in that quote that is factually incorrect. Two things are mentioned:

1 - Islam does endorse or condone paedophilia - which is true it doesn't.

2 - The Prophet took a child bride - The girls name was Aisha she was six years old when Muhammad asked for her hand in marriage and she was nine years old when that marriage was consummated according to Islamic text.

Care to explain Jim how, given that both statements appear to be fact, the passage quoted above can in any way at all be considered as:

".....a spiteful attack on a religion that is not your own and is using that attack to persecute the believers>" - Jim Carroll

It is of course nothing of the sort, it is merely a statement of fact. Fact that for some reason you are conditioned to ignore, fact that you are not prepared to accept irrespective of any evidence that can be brought to show the truth of the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 06:37 AM

both statements appear to be fact

We are talking about quotes from religious texts here aren't we? The same sort of facts that declare that the world was created in 7 days, that Jesus rose from the dead and Muhammad received his instructions from the Angel Gabriel?

If anyone thinks that any of these works can be described as factual we do have somewhat of an impasse.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 06:55 AM

Another version which indicates that Aisha was older:

"Muslim authors who calculate Aisha's age based on the more detailed information available about her sister Asma estimate that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen at the time of her marriage.[28] Muhammad Niknam Arabshahi, an Iranian Islamic scholar and historian, has considered six different approaches to determining Aisha'a age and concluded that she was engaged in her late teens.[29] Using the age of Fatimah as a reference point, the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement scholar Muhammad Ali has estimated that Aisha was over ten years old at the time of marriage and over fifteen at the time of its consummation.[30]"

From Wikipedia

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 07:02 AM

Don't get into interpretations of works of fantasy, Raggy. Unless it is to discuss who would win a fight between Wolverine and Batman. Now we are talking...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 07:18 AM

Nah Dave, just putting an alternative view.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: bobad
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 07:52 AM

Don't get into interpretations of works of fantasy

So your pal Carroll is getting all apoplectic and accusing others of having a "phobia" over a work of fantasy? I think you need to have a talk with him.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 08:41 AM

I think it needs to be a standard phrase...

(See other thread)

WTF are you on about poobad?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 10:27 AM

Ah but Raggy strictly speaking there is only one book to those of the faith - the Quran.

And on marriage it states that girls become women eligible for marriage at the onset of puberty. Hell of a stink going on over in Bangladesh at the moment as they even seem to be dispensing with that restriction - Don't tell Jom but that was what we were going on about before - what is happening in Bangladesh is a "Bangladeshi culture" thing NOT a "Muslim culture" thing - they want to do this so that child rapists can avoid punishment by "saving the honour" of their victim by marrying them.

So while your alternative view is appreciated it proves nothing with regard to the Prophet and does nothing to alter the marriage bar set by the Quran - onset of puberty. The statement:

"Paedophilia is not endorsed, but the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took a child bride."

Remains accurate and can in no way be described as any sort of "spiteful attack on a religion that is not your own and is using that attack to persecute the believers"

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 10:43 AM

It remains accurate only in as much as any such work of fantasy remains accurate. People will interpret and pick and chose what they see fit but, at the end of the day, it is all bollocks.

In my opinion.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 11:14 AM

A few minutes after the post that Jim refers to, I posted,

"Child marriage was accepted here until recently.
Adultery itself is unislamic.
But it happens. "

I recall that the mother of our own Henry Tudor conceived him when a child bride of 12, and Eleanor was only 10 when she married Edward 1st.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 11:17 AM

Irrelevant Gnome, the Hadith written immediately after the Prophet's death from testimony taken by those who knew the Prophet. The Hadith however are classified with a sort of quality control into:

sahih - Authentic

hasan - Good

da'if - Weak


Sahih al-Bukhari states that Aisha narratated that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:64

Aisha had an important role in early Islamic history, both during Muhammad's life and after his death. In Sunni tradition, Aisha is thought to be scholarly and inquisitive. She contributed to the spread of Muhammad's message and served the Muslim community for 44 years after his death. She is also known for narrating 2210 hadiths, not just on matters related to the Prophet's private life, but also on topics such as inheritance, pilgrimage, and eschatology.

As commentator on the Prophet's private life it should come as no surprise whatsoever that her accounts would be considered by the faithful to be totally authentic and unimpeachable.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 11:22 AM

A few minutes earlier, I posted this,

"I agree that there is an issue about parenting and the security of children in care.
I hope that is not being offered as an excuse for the sexual abuse of children.
Anne Cryer gave a very plausible explanation of why these abusers are mostly from that community.
It is nothing to do with Islam. "

Jim quotes me very selectively to give a false impression of what I was saying.
Why did you not quote the whole post Jim?
Not helpful to your dishonest case.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 11:26 AM

Quite selective quotes there Terikins.

Not making a comment other than to say I'm not surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 11:57 AM

Of course you refuse to comment - you are only here by your own admission because you - "Just like winding people up I suppose when I've got a little time to waste."

You are of no use nor ornament Raggy the forum would better off without you.

My quotes Raggy were no less selective than your own, the exception being of course that I stated why Aisha's written testimony should be regarded as "authentic" by the faithful.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 01:18 PM

So, some bits of the Koran are true while others are not? Pretty much like other peoples takes on the old and new testaments. Believe the bits that suit you, dismiss the ones you don't like. Hate to say it Teribus, but you seem to be learning from the boutique god botherers on here. Of course if you want to believe everything said by an 18 year old girl 1400 years ago, be my Guest but don't expect everyone to be so gullible.

Now, about this fortune I have inherited. I just need your bank details to transfer the funds...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 01:39 PM

"Why did you not quote the whole post Jim?"
It didn't need to be - it stands on its own Keith
If is wasn't part of your denigrating the Muslim people via your religion, why did you use it on a thread on whioch you made hundreds of postings doing just that
Once again it was a single handed effort by you to do so.
Each time I have quoted from that thread, I have given the title
Im sick and tired of you denying what you have put up
- you put it up to attack Muslims - it's what you are about
"The Prophet took a child bride "
Muhammad lived in the 7th century, - child marriages weer a common feature throughout the world at that time

""Aisha, betrothed to Muhammad at the age of 9 in 623
Margaret Beaufort, (age approximately 7) was married to John de la Pole (age 7) in 1450 by the arrangement John's father.[5] The marriage was annulled in 1453.
Joan of France, Duchess of Berry, betrothed in a wedding contract at age 8 days old, she was officially married at age 12 in 1476.
Anne de Mowbray, 8th Countess of Norfolk (age 6) was married to Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York (age 4) in 1477. She died at age 10 and he, as one of the Princes in the Tower is believed to have been murdered at age 10.
Rukhmabai was married in India to her husband when she was 11 and he was 19.[9] After a lengthy court battle, the marriage was dissolved by an order from Queen Victoria and the publicity helped influence the passage of the Age of Consent Act, 1891 which outlawed child marriages across the British Empire.[contradictory]Janakiammal Iyengar was married at the age of 10 years to the Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan.
Nujood Ali, an arranged marriage by her father to a 30-year-old man at age 10[12] in 2008.[13] Coverage of her self-presented application for divorce later that year led to the legal age of marriage in Yemen to be raised to 18.
Of course it was a "a spiteful attack on a religion that is not your own and is using that attack to persecute the believers.
This is the 21st century - Keith used his scummy statement to attack today's Muslim men and women, not those of over a millennium ago
You might as well use hanging, drawing and quartering to condemn British justice
The fact that Keith used it and you defended it make you the scummy racists that you are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 03:28 PM

I don't know what happened in your life around November 2015 Terrikins, prior to that your posts could, on occasion, cause pause for thought.

Since that time you have become ever more belligerent, blustering and bullying.

This forum is not real life, if you consider it to be so you really are a sad bastard, like your friend, the professor.

I honestly do not care one iota what you think of me, I have far better things to do.

Bye bye ........... kissy kissy

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 04:45 PM

For someone who does give one iota for what I think about you, you seem to spend rather a great deal of time posting about it.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 05:18 PM

That's because we're concerned about you, Teribus. Let's face it, you're not getting any younger, grandad!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 05:28 PM

Isn't it about time you left your childhood behind Steve?

Riveting tho' your interminable stories of mopeds and other childish pranks may be, this section of the forum is in the main inhabited by adults who like to discuss serious or controversial subjects without the threads being sabotaged by the antics of spoiled children......

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 06:12 PM

Well even your muse Teribus is way too embarrassed to defend you, akenaton. Do permit me to apprise you of a couple of points. "Mopeds" have been mentioned in one extremely recent post only. Hardly what you'd call "interminable." Second, hardly any person of relatively normal sanity levels would regard your alleged serious discussions of adult issues as in any remote way sensible. So our childish interventions, which are going to break you lot down in the end, serve a very good purpose. You are one of the reasons for the mutiny you now behold. You are the seed of your own destruction. In a few weeks' time, you and your ilk will be so pissed off with our childlike mucking about that you will want to quietly disappear. You simply can't win. You are yesterday's men. Your demise will be to the enduring benefit of this forum. You are poison, old chap, and it's not just me who thinks so. We are on your case. You're doomed!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 17 - 07:19 PM

"For someone who does give one iota for what I think about you, you seem to spend rather a great deal of time posting about it."
Have we finished with your thousand year old evidence of Muslim degeneracy?
Seems to have gone the same way as that Tory enquiry into Islamophobia!!!
and ridden off into the SUNSET
1000 years - you couldn't make it up!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 01:24 AM

No ones mentioned Edward Heath, he was not a Muslim, but he had strong connections with a convicted paedophile, and allegedly boys went missing off his yacht.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 02:24 AM

Ah yes GSS but as everybody knows on this forum making baseless accusations and allegations is easy.

There's that non-gang "WE" again Shaw.

Might take time today as I have to stay in and wait for something to be delivered to trawl through how many times you have been publicly censured on this forum and told to mend your ways. I know for certain that it has never happened to me and I am pretty sure that it has never happened to Akenaton, or to Keith A.

The danger to any general discussion forum is very neatly stated by you Shaw here:

"So our childish interventions, which are going to break you lot down in the end, serve a very good purpose. You are one of the reasons for the mutiny you now behold. You are the seed of your own destruction. In a few weeks' time, you and your ilk will be so pissed off with our childlike mucking about that you will want to quietly disappear. You simply can't win. You are yesterday's men. Your demise will be to the enduring benefit of this forum. You are poison, old chap, and it's not just me who thinks so. We are on your case. You're doomed!"

Well your little gang have been trying your hardest with Keith A and Ake for at least six years now without result - so much for your "In a few weeks' time".

I am delighted that you describe your antics on this forum as "childlike", saves anyone else stating the obvious and cuts the ground clear out from under you completely should you ever challenge or deny that you are acting "childishly". The counter by the way to your "cunning Baldrick-like Plan" is that we just ignore you and let you all make complete and utter arses of yourselves. I am sure that in good time the Mods will catch on and clean up the threads by deleting your puerile, irrelevant, off-topic twaddle, or just move it onto a thread of its own. At least your little outburst quoted above serves as a good indication to those watching over this site that you are openly challenging the principle of "free speech" (Never popular with Union activists I know) upheld by this forum as a "collective" of stalkers and trolls - well done Shaw, tremendous "Own Goal" if ever there was one.

What has been achieved in a couple of current threads is that both yourself and Carroll have been exposed as proven hypocrites and liars, that Raggy, by his own admission, just posts to deliberately wind people up and that the Gnome is a "passive-aggressive" troll who was forced to ditch his GUEST, In good company posting ID.

As to being "doomed"? Tell me how are the "Musktwats" these days? Their departure from the scene has at least let in some fresh air.

I think I will mark that post of yours in my "Favourites" so that it can be recalled and reposted whenever required in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 03:20 AM

As you well know, Teribus, because I have told you before, I voluntarily logged out of my Gnome ID for around 6 months to stop my posting in the BS section. You will note that all 'In good company' posts are after the ban on Guests posting in BS. I then decided to log back in. Again voluntarily (as you seemed to be missing me so much :-) ). Once more I invite you to corroborate that version with the moderation team if you like. As ever you put your own spin on events that is, what shall we say, slightly untruthful. Tsk, tsk.

Still, if it pleases you to think that you can force anyone to do anything I am happy to let you. I like doing good deeds and making people feel better about themselves is one of the best. You really do need to take it easier. I am sure all this bile cannot be doing your blood pressure any good at all.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 03:23 AM

"So our childish interventions, which are going to break you lot down in the end, serve a very good purpose."

I suspect it is time you changed your medication Shaw. You are posting inane twaddle. I suppose it is different to interminable babblings concerning weeds, soups, guzzling wine and rambling.
If your culinary and guzzling skills match the quality of your postings, it may explain your fixation on bodily functions of a few days ago.
It does make a change from your cunningly crafted put downs, obviously honed by years of practise in the classroom where your hapless students could not retaliate.
If you cannot contribute to a thread you could consider simply shutting up. I am sure many would breathe a huge sigh of relief should your dribblings cease for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 03:34 AM

Cor, it must be really uncomfortable in those twisted knickers.

Incidentally, I did notice that you dismissed out of hand my post regarding the prophet Mohammed in favour of information you had previously gained.

I would suggest that this was for two reasons.

Firstly I posted it therefore you would attack it simply for that reason. Secondly it doesn't fit in with your agenda to show Islamic faith in a bad light.

Now I don't know for certain but I'm pretty sure that you are not an expert of the Quran and dismissing an different opinion about a subject you know little about indicates just how blinkered you really are.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 03:40 AM

"I suspect it is time you changed your medication Shaw. "
It seems a "cultural implant" with you people (there aren't many of you on this forum) that you are so shallowly nasty
And you have nothing to offer other than your nastiness.
Just read through your post(s) Iains - is that the way an adult behaves
I defy you to extract on serious statement, one adult argument, one piece of information from your invective filled postings.
You and Teribus have accused me and others of "ranting" - what the **** is it you are posting if it is not childishly infantile rants.
Is that what you think 'discussion' is.
I don't know if any of the Mudcat Forum Fairies are in the vicinity at the moment, but I suggest one of them has a quiet word in the ear of this troll.
Tweedldee Teribus, with his similar vaccuous insulting, is back in full throttle with invective again - perhaps somebody should speak to him too.
Any moron can call names - it takes a little thought to offer and respond to information
Where are your arguments - it can't be that difficult, surely!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 04:25 AM

Have you been taking lessons off Teribus, Iains? If so, may I suggest a different form of higher education. This one will only make you ill.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 05:04 AM

Jim,
If is wasn't part of your denigrating the Muslim people via your religion,

That is another of your nasty little lies about me Jim.
You can never give the quote because you always have to lie.
Unlike every member of your little gang I have never, ever denigrated any faith or anyone for their faith.

Muhammad lived in the 7th century, - child marriages weer a common feature throughout the world at that time

As I said at the time, but you carefully edited out, "Child marriage was accepted here until recently."

I gave two historical examples, one of which you repeated.
Here are two more, one from fiction and one from a "fairy story."
Romeo's Juliet was 12, and Joseph's Mary would have been under 16 and possibly as young as 12.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 05:33 AM

Gnome:
Your recollection is very different to mine GUEST, In good company posted to a thread above the line that requested WWI songs written at the time that were critical of the leadership. Your style was obvious so throughout I referred to you as "Gnome". You dropped your "Dave the Gnome" tag just about the same time that the "Musktwats" disappeared.

As for that thread Gnome? Result was that not one single song was found that criticised leadership, even although the scope with regard to period widened considerably. What did come out was a great deal of information and some very interesting perspectives on what songs were mentioned.

My blood pressure is fine Gnome and I would draw your attention to the fact that I am not part of the gang of children threatening doom and promising to drive people from this site, something that none of you have any right to threaten let alone attempt to do.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 05:39 AM

Yes, different recollections, Teribus. Yours is wrong. Seemples. I have given you the true reasons and whether you accept them or not, they remain true. Glad to hear that your blood pressure is fine.

I, for one, have never threatened to drive anyone away from anywhere. Far from it. I try my best to add sweetness and light onto otherwise obnoxious threads. Nice to see you joining in with the jocularity the other day. Apart from that, what value do you add?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 05:40 AM

"That is another of your nasty little lies about me Jim."
I quoted what you sais=d and the nasty way you said it
- a thousand year old example of how Muslim culture makes them rape children
No lies Keith - a straight quote
Why make it where you did if it wasn't denigrating a religion?
You are a nasty racist little man
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 05:55 AM

Good luck with your trawling, Bill. You're going to have to read every post from me and mods in controversial threads over the last ten years. Cor, get that right (you won't, but hey) and you'll have earned a PhD, mate! Take your time!

No-one has tried to force anyone to shut up here for the last six years, etc., Teribus. As for your bleat about free speech, if I want to talk about flowers in a Labour thread that's the right I'm exercising. Why, only yesterday you were rattling on about paedophilia in this very thread - one that's "supposed" to be about UK by-elections! I suspect it's a more a case of your wanting to define the terms of every conversation in your usual rather arrogant, control-freakery manner. If you ever stop posting here it'll be either (a) because you're dead, (b) because you've had the boot, (c) because we've seriously pissed you off with our "silly" inter-squabble pleasantries. No mere member will have forced you to desist. Maybe one day we can all start to talk sensibly and civilly. In the meantime I'd ask everyone reading this to consider whether or not they prefer the bonhomie to the negative, abusive and interminably repetitive squabbling. Well I'm pissed off big time with that myself. An attempt to shed a little light where there is presently only heat seems like one way to confront it. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. Tenaciously. Just you wait and see.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 06:02 AM

"So our childish interventions, which are going to break you lot down in the end, serve a very good purpose."

I suspect it is time you changed your medication Shaw. You are posting inane twaddle. I suppose it is different to interminable babblings concerning weeds, soups, guzzling wine and rambling.
If your culinary and guzzling skills match the quality of your postings, it may explain your fixation on bodily functions of a few days ago.
It does make a change from your cunningly crafted put downs, obviously honed by years of practise in the classroom where your hapless students could not retaliate.
If you cannot contribute to a thread you could consider simply shutting up. I am sure many would breathe a huge sigh of relief should your dribblings cease for a while.

Just look at this resentful, spiteful, hate-filled little polemic. You'd think the bloke actually knew me! Thanks for helping to reinforce what I said in my last post!

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 06:14 AM

Jim,
I quoted what you sais=d and the nasty way you said it
- a thousand year old example of how Muslim culture makes them rape children

Only because you carefully edited out the bit where I reiterated that it was nothing to do with religion, and the bit you did quote did not denigrate any religion.
You people denigrate religion all the time!

Why make it where you did if it wasn't denigrating a religion?

You mean in that thread where I stated repeatedly that religion was not an issue?

You can not make a case against me on this without lying, because I am no racist and have never denigrated any religion.
Unlike you and all your little gang.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 06:27 AM

Teribus, an example of two paedophiles who were not muslims with strong connections to Heath, jimmy saville and king cornet were convicted paedophiles.
Jimmy Savile's nephew today claimed a 14-year-old friend was abused by Sir Edward Heath as police revealed they are investigating his links to the DJ and a paedophile ice cream mogul.
Guy Marsden, who was taken to 'paedophile parties' by his uncle from the age of 13, says the alleged attack happened in central London in the 1970s.
It came as North Yorkshire Police detectives started examining Sir Edward Heath's relationship with Jimmy Savile and his paedophile friend Peter Jaconelli, who was known as 'King Cornet'.
A new photo has emerged of Heath with Jaconelli, the 21-stone former mayor of Scarborough who made a fortune in ice cream but also used his power to lure in children, abusing them unhindered for 40 years.
'King Cornet' would also crawl the streets with Savile in his pink Rolls Royce looking for boys to abuse and the pair were believed to be at the head of a nine-strong paedophile ring.
Jaconelli even appeared on Jim'll Fix it with his close friend.
Today Savile's nephew strengthened calls for a full investigation after he claimed a friend was abuse by Ted Heath.
He told the Evening Standard: 'The four of us would arrive at these parties together, then my friend would disappear. He'd be gone for a while, led away by a man, then he'd be back. I knew there was stuff going on but didn't know the extent of it until much later.
'I am in touch with my friend and he has told me what they did to him and it's just horrific, absolutely unbelievable stuff. He would sometimes leave the house we were at then get driven round to some other place. Hours later he'd be back. At that time we never really asked where he had been.
'He later told us that Ted Heath was an abuser but that he didn't know who he was at the time. He said it was a year after the abuse took place that he was watching TV and recognised him.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3186719/Police-probing-links-Ted-Heath-Jimmy-Savile-paedophile-ice-cream-mogul-known-King-Cornet.html#ixzz4aoyUMQ00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 06:38 AM

Good Soldier Schweik, I mentioned Saville and Jaconelli some time ago and linked to a article on The North Yorks Enquirer website.

Both Teri and the professor failed to comment on my post.

One cannot help but wonder why.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 17 - 06:43 AM

200! :-D