BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 01:43 PM

Whilst your diagnosis is easier to state. The only bit not sure is whether it is judge or psychiatrist territory.




Keep going Keith. Your vicar will be proud of you.

Assuming they haven't found someone else to do the sound in church. (One of the things you told me about when we met, or didn't meet as you insist.)

I haven't met Dave although we have a few mutual friends I assume, judging by geography and folk clubs. Disagreement? The three Muskets disagree on many things between ourselves, but are on safe consensus territory when pointing and laughing at bigots..

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 01:02 PM

It's not a "him".....it's a "them"......but others think that they are three figments of one deranged mind. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 11:23 AM

Dave is almost impossible to engage with, as he has obviously been brainwashed by his heros in "TM".

While statements like that help to promote open, friendly discussion I suppose?

Ake, I don't know haw many more times I need to tell you. I have never met Musket. I have only ever mailed him once or twice and that had nothing to do with any of this crap. I disagree with Musket about many things and we have had heated debates but we can have open, friendly discussions because he does not make absurd sweeping statements about whole sections of society. Nor does he tar everyone who disagrees with him with the same brush.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 06:30 AM

I haven't met anyone who posts here to my knowledge (I had a natter once with Brian Peters but he won't remember). I rarely communicate by private message except to respond to someone who's contacted me first. I'm not in anyone's team and if someone I generally agree with goes off on one I usually just shut up and cringe. But I'd be ashamed of myself if I saw bigotry and ignorant prejudice left unremarked on any forum I was posting on. I didn't permit it in my classroom in 25 years and I'm damned if I'm going to see racism, prejudice against gay people, gay marriage and Muslims, fuelled by hatred and ignorance, pass on this board without comment. As for complaining about multiple identities, well I don't know your identity either, and I don't see you whingeing about the multitude of nameless Guests who post there, often in numbers that make discussion nonsensical. Be honest with yourself for once. You have it in for a particular individual who is very good at ruffling your feathers. And you deserve it, too.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 06:29 AM

I don't think I post obscenities

Gay people are perverts
They should be on a register
They are promiscuous
They should not be allowed to be married

Need I go on? You do not think these statements are obscene and abusive?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 06:01 AM

I think you will find the Professors main purpose is to forward ignorance, ill considered racism and bigotry which he then continues to propound again and again and again. Ad Nauseam.

He is not really worth the effort of a response, however it can be amusing on a rainy day, as it in this morning in Yorkshire.

As you your remark regarding "membership" I should point out to you that I do not know any of the Muskets, Steve and others. Dave the Gnome I have met and have even shared a pint with him on the odd occasion.

Some might say it would possibly be best to ignore his racist, ignorance and bigotry. I do not.

I can normally get on with most people and should our paths ever cross I would hope that you and I could sit down over a pint together. I doubt if I would piss on the Professor even if he was on fire.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 05:57 AM

To Both.....I actually love discussing things with people I disagree with, I don't think I post obscenities, and do you really think that people who have admitted to reporting Mudcat to the authorities over content, who continuously attempt to wreck discussions and who share one member name to "piss take" and confuse the issue, should be allowed to participate here?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 05:45 AM

do you and the rest of the membership wish to see obscenities and abuse replace reasoned debate?

It is very easy. Don't post obscenities about and abuse of minority groups thinly disguised as reasoned debate and people will not react in kind. Think you can manage that? I doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 05:26 AM

I have this dream whereby I wake up one day, click on a Mudcat thread and read a post from Akenaton that is neither generalised and incoherent rubbish, devoid of thought, concerning his strange take on political matters, nor a whinge about the people here with whom he disagrees and about whom he is complaining either directly or indirectly to the powers that be. My good man, we do have a forum, and by far the best use of it is to make your points, preferably well-considered (read that phrase again, please), innocent of your usual prejudices, about the matter under discussion. Think you can manage that? Just for once? Give it a little try, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 04:44 AM

Raggytash, it seems to me that one of Keith's main purposes here is not to defend points which are patently true in any case, but to point out the deliberate lies and distortions propagated by "Team Musket". In doing so Keith is in fact doing a service to the whole forum, for if this behaviour is allowed to continue unopposed, we shall have no forum at all.

I commend Keith for his doggedness in this matter, as myself and others are continually lied about by "TM" and I have neither the time nor the inclination at present, to point them out over and over again.

For one thing, and I think you may be able to agree with me here, three or four people should not be allowed to post under the one handle, as it confuses debate and wrecks serious discussion of important issues.

"TM" have admitted that it is a vehicle for "piss taking".
I think it is pretty obvious to most members why these people are here and what the wrecking tactics are all about......do you and the rest of the membership wish to see obscenities and abuse replace reasoned debate?....I don't really think so, put small personal slights aside and see the bigger picture....Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 04:34 AM

A quote of yours from an earlier post, pete (I can't always seem to be able to access Mudcat):

" And your suggestion that creationists cannot be real scientists is just sticking your head in the sand ..."

Can I remind you that REAL scientists don't start from the premise that they are in possession of absolute truth and 'work backwards' from there? In addition, REAL scientists don't spend all of their time, and expend all of their efforts, trying to discredit the conclusions of other scientists, mainly because those conclusions cast doubt on their prior assumption of absolute truth!

I recently watched an episode of the TV programme 'Mock the Week'. During the programme the comedian, Andy Parsons remarked: "There are five major religions in the world. That means that four of them must be wrong!" Leaving aside the possibilty that all of them might be wrong, how do you know that YOU'VE picked the right one and that you, and your beloved "creationist scientists" (LOL!), are really in possession of absolute truth?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 03:55 AM

Musket,
I said the majority don't believe in God or whatever

The Census and every poll and survey say that is not true.
You are proved wrong again.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 03:08 AM

MGM, if you check back through this and other threads I think you find you come a far distant second in the repeating stakes. I think you will find it is the Professor(KAOH) who repeats things most often.

Sometimes his contributions are repeated like a mantra. Things like "my three points" or "you lose" The "you lose" comment was repeated on one thread in excess of 45 occasions.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 02:58 AM

Just what I've said multiple times about you Three Musketeers, eh? - with the invaluable assistance of Miss Austen's Elinor Dashwood: ""Elinor agreed with it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition." No apology for repetition -- always germane when it comes to the Popguns.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 02:41 AM

You might as well just have a wank. In a debating sense, you are anyway.

Religion fucks you up. pete demonstrates that continually, but at least he is consistent which is fair play given the intelligence level displayed. Keith on the other hand seems ashamed of the absurdity he defends at times and seems to be going through an "I am not religious" phase. To date, his "I am religious" posts outnumber them by a wide margin.

Two people who, strictly speaking, it is self indulgent to try to engage in debate with.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Apr 15 - 02:28 AM

"It is my understanding that observational science had always regarded such preservation as impossible, and it was only the confirming of said phenomenon that caused evolutionists to search for some mechanism that will validate their deep time belief. But presumably we can at least agree that such mechanism has not been found, and that the under wraps new dino find is unlikely to alter that."

pete, keep repeating to yourself: "Science is NOT a belief system. Science is NOT a belief system. Science is NOT a belief system ..."

And once that concept is lodged firmly in your thick, fanatical, fundamentalist little head (It's not yet, is it? Despite our best efforts!)then contemplate the truism that science IS an open-minded, open-ended system for investigating reality. IF soft tissue has been found preserved in dinosaur bones, then the scientists concerned have made an interesting, and possibly ground-breaking, discovery. If it turns out that they are mistaken about having found soft tissue preserved in dinosaur bones then they HAVEN'T made an interesting, and possibly ground-breaking, discovery (although the discovery may mean something else entirely). Nevertheless, the discovery (whatever it means) almost certainly does NOT allow anyone to dismiss the the whole of modern science and conclude that the translated, re-translated and mis-translated myths and legends of some bronze-age, middle-eastern goat herders, recorded in an old book, must be right!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 07:28 PM

Well, pete, Piltdown Man has long been discredited. By scientists. Would you like me to repeat that? Oh yes, there have been fraudsters masquerading as scientists. As an impressionable young botany graduate I was taken in, like lots of others, by the claims of John Heslop-Harrison that he'd found some incredible rarities on Rhum. He'd planted them there himself as it turned out. Have a google. But here's the thing, pete. He was exposed by his fellow scientists, you see. We hate dishonesty and cheating. Science will not knowingly allow falsehood to set the agenda, because it knows that an agenda set that way can lead only to blind endings. As for those drawings you refer to, do tell us what your take on them is. Naturally, I shall be expecting your account to contain some science.   Over to you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST, Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 05:42 PM

Well Steve, maybe you might want to quibble as to whether these were considered " proofs " but I was thinking things like the forgeries of piltdown man , and hackyls recapitulation ontogeny drawings , various missing links that were put in the evolutionary dustbin, and the more recent fizz in the pan re background microwave radiation.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 05:31 PM

Are you sure I said atheists are in the majority Keith?

Are you making things up again?

Naughty naughty.

I don't recognise the term atheist as meaning rational person who doesn't believe in imaginary friends for starters.

I said the majority don't believe in God or whatever. I am not any atheist. I don't reject theism on the basis it isn't my delusion either way.

Just like most people. fool.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 05:22 PM

Stu, as far as written records are concerned , there is one, and I would not expect many more, seeing as the judgment of God swept all except 8 away in judgment. There are however flood stories from around the world, including the Gilgamesh epic. But there are aural traditions from diverse locations,often with similarities to the biblical record.       Why would you expect mountain ranges that only sprung up in the flood yr to be recorded, certainly not by name.          As to erosion and weathering, it is hard to generalise, esp as I am not a geologist. However, I think that often what " you lot " put down to slow processes , creationist geologists put down to catastrophic phenomenon , and produce observational evidence to support that interpretation of the data.      I have reread you're your former post and can see now how I misunderstood it.......ie you were claiming nothing, but rather expressing a hope that the problem will be ironed out,   Presumably validating your preference that soft tissue can be preserved multimillion yrs.   sorry you don't understand the problem with soft tissue preservation. I would have thought a " ten year old " would comprehend the problem. It is my understanding that observational science had always regarded such preservation as impossible, and it was only the confirming of said phenomenon that caused evolutionists to search for some mechanism that will validate their deep time belief. But presumably we can at least agree that such mechanism has not been found, and that the under wraps new dino find is unlikely to alter that.   I don't know what the declassification of brontosaurus has to do with it !.       Sedimentary layers were laid down in the flood year. And I don't think I see what you are asking. I had formerly discussed how I understood how the geologic column , if we grant that there is such, was laid down. Ie, that there is a general order, but which is rearranged from time to time as the need arises to maintain the paradigm.   I am glad to see you don't see faith as a problem to being scientific, but if the creationist model is extremist, that don't mean it is wrong. You are merely expressing an opinion until you can demonstrate otherwise. And as to conforming ,you can hardly accuse creationists of that !. Rather it is the evolutionist that is following the herd.                      And yes I did write poetry, before going on to songwriting. Glad you like it !

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 02:50 PM

One minute Keith says all Christians are religious

No.
Keith has never said that.
You are making up shit again.

You previously stated, "Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."

You made that up too!

You stated that atheists are a majority.

More made up shit!

You have made yourself even more laughable than usual over this.
Do keep it up.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 02:38 PM

One minute Keith says all Christians are religious the next minute he isn't.

I'm happy him calling me a liar. He seems to be deranged.

Or saying anything to justify his religion, for which up to the last post, said he is religious.

I suppose if you believe in fairies, the humpty dumpy clause can easily apply.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 01:22 PM

I'm not a Christian but I don't not believe in God. I don't know whether there's a God or not. Not a single Christian, nor anyone else on this planet, knows whether there's a God or not. I don't understand why any rational person allows belief to enter into it. We should all be placing ourselves on a spectrum according to the weight we put on each piece of evidence for or against. Dawkins's spectrum goes from 1 (100% certain that God exists - an irrational position) to 7 (100% certain that God does not exist - equally irrational). Dawkins and I both put ourselves at 6.9. Atheists are atheists because of the sheer lack of evidence that God exists. But we have to leave that tiny margin of 0.1 because, well, you never know when evidence might crop up. We atheists are completely open to new evidence about God. It is vital to understand that lack of evidence is not the same as non-belief. Vital, but seldom understood by God-adherents. I sometimes call the latter believers, because they call themselves that. But that's just irrational. In future, I think I may ask them where they are on that scale.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 10:00 AM

Musket, your survey said some Christians do not consider themselves religious.
No surprise.
I do not consider myself a religious person and would have answered no to it.

I do not believe that anyone who calls them self a Christian would answer no to believing in God and nothing in the surveys suggest that.

Musket, you stated as a fact, ""Most who said yes to being a Christian said they didn't believe in God."

That was a blatant, deliberate lie.
No survey or any Census says any such thing.
You are exposed as a liar and a fraud, again.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 09:17 AM

Correct but Rt Rev Field Marshall Acheson VD&bar stated that all Christians believe in God.

Then said this survey didn't exist.

Then said it wasn't valid because those commissioning it were rational.

Then said the second bit didn't exist.

Then went thankfully quiet.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 07:54 AM

"39% ticked 'No religion'."

Having no religion is not the same as not believing god exists. Further, participating in a religion is not proof one believes in god.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 06:50 AM

"but it is part of the flood model also, minus the sloooooooooow !"

Except . . . this would have had to happen in times we have written records for, and as far as I am aware these make no mention of the Himalayas, the Rockies or the Andes (to name but a few) rising in the last few thousand years. Surely this event didn't go unnoticed? Your flood is mentioned in texts older than Christian, your lot merely appropriated them for their own use (a typically Christian habit, it appears), so why no mention of the of the Alpine orogeny?

Also, why do you discount erosion and weathering? Did God speed these processes up after the deposits were thrust to high elevation. We can observe these processes now and understand the speeds they occur and their mechanisms of action. Were these changed supernaturally, then slowed at some point? At what point were they slowed? What would be the purpose of this?


"So, stu you are privy to groundbreaking research that will validate your contentions and claims, and finally undo what experimental science has afore to held to"

No! No! NO! Listen man! I saw new data presented at a conference (along with hundreds of others) on the survival of soft tissue in a dinosaur that's not been reported before. The findings were preliminary and might not be borne out, hence the embargo. It's another piece of the jigsaw rather than a definitive answer, that's how science progresses. I really don't understand your issue with soft tissue survival. Did you think we'd discovered the sum total knowledge of palaeontology when Cope and Marsh were battling for Brontosaurus?


"why the flood model only thousands of yr ago should produce an uninterrupted total column "

Surely if all the sedimentary layers we see were laid down in a single event, which happened mere thousands of years ago, then they haven't had time to arrange themselves as we see today? See comments above. Provide explanation.


" Take Pasteur , as you found quotes about him, which you think helps your case. The fact that his faith did not hinder his science seems rather to hinder your contention"

Faith doesn't hinder science, we've discussed this at length on other threads pete. Plenty of scientists have faith, but you're an extremist. What hinders science is ignorance, a lack of curiosity and the desire to conform. Also things have moved on since Pasteur's day, as you might notice if you actually understood anything about science.


"and finally undo what experimental science has afore to held to"

That is such poorly constructed entrance it's almost poetry. I actually quite like it! Nice one.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 02:49 AM

Always happy to oblige fuckwit.

Using your link, just in case you changed it from the original as you did once with a link Jim supplied on a different subject ;

"However, in a poll conducted by YouGov in March 2011 on behalf of the BHA, when asked the census question 'What is your religion?', 61% of people in England and Wales ticked a religious box (53.48% Christian and 7.22% other) while 39% ticked 'No religion'. When the same sample was asked the follow-up question 'Are you religious?', only 29% of the same people said 'Yes' while 65% said 'No', meaning over half of those whom the census would count as having a religion said they were not religious."

Yeah, all Christians believe in God eh?
😂😂😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 07:45 PM

What former proofs of evolution? Take your time now...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:03 PM

Stu, please tell me where I dismissed tectonic movements. It may be part of the evolutionist model, presumably slowly crashing together and causing uplift, but it is part of the flood model also, minus the sloooooooooow !.   And please explain why the flood model only thousands of yr ago should produce an uninterrupted total column rather than the slow and gradual (and occasional catastrophe ) model.          So, stu you are privy to groundbreaking research that will validate your contentions and claims, and finally undo what experimental science has afore to held to. I wonder if that will outlast the former proofs of evolution. If you are right , I shall have to retire from that argument......but your excitement might be a little early don't you think?.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:59 PM

Musket, here is the link to the Humanist Assoc page.
https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/religion-and-belief-some-surveys-and-statistics/

There is absolutely nothing there about Christians not believing in God.
If I am lying, cut and paste it.
If you are lying, make some pathetic excuse.
Which will it be?!!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:40 PM

You certainly are missing something here, pete. You're missing your brain.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:37 PM

All true my arse, Billyboy. Please show me where I lied on the historians thread, will you?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:30 PM

"Experimental evidence is not the only evidence available". Agreed shimrod, but we all got the same data, we all got the evidence. It is whether it can be interpreted in more than one way. And if experimental evidence is available it must trump theories and interpretations that run counter to known laws , until such time as experimental evidence overthrows such laws.    And your suggestion that creationists cannot be real scientists is just sticking your head in the sand   Take Pasteur , as you found quotes about him, which you think helps your case. The fact that his faith did not hinder his science seems rather to hinder your contention. And as usual there is the equivocation !. Did I say the scientific method was the same as belief ?.   No argument with that quote from new scientist. After all, you have yet to demonstrate that evolutionism is validated by the scientific method !.                                                                                  I may be missing something here , Steve, or you may be grossly exaggerating the time that soft tissue and other degradable items can last.   But did anyone think that such preservation over myo was possible before the data conflicted with the theory ?.   What do you think the conditions were that prohibited micro organisms doing their bit. I would suggest rapid burial, such as would be consistent with a catastrophic flood.    And yes I do believe God created from nothing. After all he is God !. Your option that there is no creator is more problematic.....unless you believe the general theory of evolution is god.........judging by the religious fervour exhibited by the atheists here......?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:20 PM

Read the fucking link.

Stop assuming nobody bothered to look.

I am not a liar. You however are typing them even though anyone can read up and see them. The people who answered Christian were then asked if they believe in God. How many Keith eh? Why did you proclaim the survey you are talking about didn't exist and I lied when I mentioned it? Eh fuckwit?

Your medicine man must be proud of you.

God or Clapton help the poor kids who had to learn from your idea of reality and reason. Education is a wonderful thing but relies on sane teachers.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 02:01 PM

How many of the 53% turned out to believe in God?

All of them, but that question was not asked Musket.
You lied when you said that many who answered as Christian said they did not believe in God.

I now call it a lie because I have pointed out several times that it is not true.
You still try to deceive the forum.
You were wrong to claim that atheists are a majority, and you lie to try and hide your ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 07:33 AM

Put the follow up question Keith. I stated that in the survey, two questions were asked to ascertain whether people identify as Christian through social conditioning and use the word in the same way they might use star sign or blood group.

How many of the 53% turned out to believe in God? Come on, I'll let you tell the boys and girls. I'll just mention your dishonesty when you said all Christians believe in God.

Dishonest fool. Real Christians must wince when they see you and your intellect fighting their good fight as they unfortunately call it...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 06:41 AM

Of course, I stand by everything I wrote.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 06:23 AM

But all true though Raggy

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:40 AM

Yawn.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:33 AM

"On a recent thread about historians you used the term "you lose" over 45 times to my knowledge (I was bored one day and counted them)

You repeat constantly, you lie constantly, you are deceitful and two faced to say nothing of your limited intelligence. It is tedious, boring and serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever as no-one takes you seriously in the first place." - Raggytash

1: "Your repeat constantly"

And? The one thing about the truth and the one thing about facts is they rarely, if ever, alter and on such occasions that they do it is usually due to new information coming to light. Facts supported by the fullest and latest information tend to be constant and verifiable, unlike some of the assertions made by the likes of yourself, Dave the Gnome, the Musktwats, Steve Shaw and Jim Carroll on that self same thread "about historians"

2: "you lie constantly"

Really?? Only in your fevered imagination, but there again perhaps you could provide some examples of these lies then we could compare them with the ones told by the likes of yourself, Dave the Gnome, the Musktwats, Steve Shaw and Jim Carroll on that self same thread "about historians"

3: "deceitful

Where? when? C'mon Raggy you've made the observation and felt compelled to comment so now substantiate it - or have the decency to STFU.

4: "and two faced to say nothing of your limited intelligence"

Well from what I have seen on this Forum you appear to condemn people you see on one side of the argument for faults that you let pass when exhibited by those you regard as supporting your views - that Raggy ol'son is being two faced. As to the "lack of intelligence" jibe - well in that particular thread Keith ran circles round all of you, purely because his knowledge of the events was based on a balance of what historians of the time and of those down throughout the century that has passed have written about it - unlike those arguing against it who relied on the out of date and discredited writings of those with a particular axe to grind, a few poets, left-wing luvvies with their own unconnected agenda and comedy script writers.

5: As to Keith A's contributions on that particular thread being - "tedious, boring and serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever" - well they would be to you wouldn't they, his views first challenged, then completely blew apart all those myths and smug assumptions your lazy approach to the topic held dear, and instead of being open to debate and actually learning something you preferred to wallow in ignorance - the purpose by the way was to inform and to go some way towards righting a tremendous wrong that had been done to people who could not defend themselves.

6: "as no-one takes you seriously in the first place."

If that is true Raggy then more fool you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:23 AM

2011 YouGov poll commissioned by the Humanist Association.
(The one Musket keeps on about.)

What is your religion?

No religion 39%
Christian 53%

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:11 AM

Even The Daily Torygraph say half the population have no religion.

And I am sure they are right.
I made no claims about people having religion, only about people with belief, and atheists.

You Musket claimed that atheists are a majority.
No single poll supports that.
It was a completely unsupported assertion.

The National Census and all the polls show atheists to be a minority.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Bizibod
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:06 AM

And...........Back to Jeremy Clarkson!
Have I Got News For You will not see JC as host later this month.
That would have been quite some programme with Hislop and Merton mercilessly extracting the urine...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:57 AM

Professor, your quote:

" Not true. I only repeat when there is a denial"

On a recent thread about historians you used the term "you lose" over 45 times to my knowledge (I was bored one day and counted them)

You repeat constantly, you lie constantly, you are deceitful and two faced to say nothing of your limited intelligence. It is tedious, boring and serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever as no-one takes you seriously in the first place.

A lot of people like winding you up just to see which inanity you come out with next, it can be quite amusing on a rainy day.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:39 AM

In one sentence Keith went from saying there was no poll to saying it was by an atheist organisation so doesn't count. Didn't retract from calling me a liar of course but you can't educate pork.

He gets better. Who needs Top Gear anyway? Keith gives far better value for money in the light entertainment stakes.

The poll by the way was by one of the accredited polling companies and therefore feeds into ONS data.

Even The Daily Torygraph say half the population have no religion. Factor in the many who put a religion on forms but don't believe in imaginary friends and you start to look at the reality society reflects.

Talking of God. He is possibly called Tim Cooke and the Jesus character is called Jonny Ives. They have just given me a wafer and wine. Or put another way, I have just pre ordered my Apple Watch. No need for it, no situation I couldn't deal with without it and I crave it.

Fuck me, I must be religious!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 06:11 PM

Suggestion for everyone on this thread:

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 05:38 PM

I know it's not true. It just seems to be true. Allow me a cri de coeur occasionally.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 05:00 PM

Not true.

I only repeat when there is a denial.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 04:26 PM

It does when you go on and on and on and on and bloody on about it. Which you do. As ever. With everything. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseam.