Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeetta

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]


BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Keith A of Hertford 02 Mar 17 - 06:12 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Mar 17 - 04:44 AM
Dave the Gnome 02 Mar 17 - 04:26 AM
Teribus 02 Mar 17 - 02:09 AM
Steve Shaw 01 Mar 17 - 08:24 PM
Jim Carroll 01 Mar 17 - 05:58 PM
bobad 01 Mar 17 - 05:09 PM
Raggytash 01 Mar 17 - 04:51 PM
Iains 01 Mar 17 - 04:38 PM
Big Al Whittle 01 Mar 17 - 10:36 AM
Jim Carroll 01 Mar 17 - 09:45 AM
bobad 01 Mar 17 - 08:17 AM
Dave the Gnome 01 Mar 17 - 07:42 AM
Teribus 01 Mar 17 - 07:31 AM
Steve Shaw 01 Mar 17 - 06:53 AM
Dave the Gnome 01 Mar 17 - 06:40 AM
Dave the Gnome 01 Mar 17 - 06:36 AM
Big Al Whittle 01 Mar 17 - 06:32 AM
Dave the Gnome 01 Mar 17 - 05:21 AM
Teribus 01 Mar 17 - 05:13 AM
Dave the Gnome 01 Mar 17 - 04:41 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Mar 17 - 04:34 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Mar 17 - 04:33 AM
Jim Carroll 01 Mar 17 - 04:31 AM
Dave the Gnome 01 Mar 17 - 03:25 AM
Dave the Gnome 01 Mar 17 - 03:24 AM
Teribus 01 Mar 17 - 01:44 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Feb 17 - 05:21 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Feb 17 - 05:17 PM
Dave the Gnome 28 Feb 17 - 05:11 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Feb 17 - 04:24 PM
Iains 28 Feb 17 - 03:00 PM
Teribus 28 Feb 17 - 02:19 PM
Dave the Gnome 28 Feb 17 - 02:06 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Feb 17 - 01:43 PM
Dave the Gnome 28 Feb 17 - 01:39 PM
Iains 28 Feb 17 - 01:33 PM
Jim Carroll 28 Feb 17 - 01:25 PM
Teribus 28 Feb 17 - 01:13 PM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Feb 17 - 12:57 PM
Dave the Gnome 28 Feb 17 - 12:53 PM
Iains 28 Feb 17 - 12:52 PM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Feb 17 - 12:52 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Feb 17 - 12:51 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Feb 17 - 12:49 PM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Feb 17 - 12:44 PM
Dave the Gnome 28 Feb 17 - 12:39 PM
Jim Carroll 28 Feb 17 - 12:35 PM
Iains 28 Feb 17 - 11:44 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Feb 17 - 11:25 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 06:12 AM

Steve,
- after all, he tried to pull the wool over our eyes with that very word!

You are being blatantly dishonest in your desperation to get something on me.
There was no deception and no attempt at it by me, only by you.

I quoted the passage in full.
It rubbished the books that your side clung to.
I had no need to misquote.
You lie.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 04:44 AM

... something is either viewed as being "vulgar" or it is not - something is viewed as being "fraudulent" or it is not - qualifiers such as "rather" and "largely" are immaterial...

No they are not! 😂😂😂 Carry on like this and I'll set Geoffrey Wheatcroft on you! And show Keith the bit in bold - after all, he tried to pull the wool over our eyes with that very word!

Yours truly, Call-Me-Sherlock


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 04:26 AM

something is either viewed as being "vulgar" or it is not - something is viewed as being "fraudulent" or it is not - qualifiers such as "rather" and "largely" are immaterial

So, would it be true to say that most posts on this thread are rather pointless or largely bollocks? From what you say about rather and largely being immaterial should we be saying completely pointless and total bollocks? I think that some of the posts have a point and some are valid but, if what you say is true, then we should not be using such qualifiers and everything is either is either black or white, with no shades of grey between. Do you not think that is part of the problem here? Some people will not accept that there can be some right and some wrong with most things?

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 02:09 AM

"A man caught out who doesn't like being caught out." - Sherlock Shaw

Very true and this latest post of yours - Steve Shaw - 01 Mar 17 - 08:24 PM - proves it.

Whatever you type, whatever you contend, no matter how much you wriggle, twist and turn Shaw - NOTHING alters the FACT that since December 2014 you have deliberately misrepresented the situation and LIED about Keith A of Hertford NEVER having corrected himself and acknowledged the error. If you doubt that then here it is again:

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.

A downright LIE that you now AFTER just over two years you appear to be walking back on in your latest post - "That makes Keith's retractions reluctant and downright curmudgeonly at best" - Sherlock Shaw 1st March 2017.

I also note now that your pedantry and outraged semantic senses are now in an uproar about the words "rather" and "largely" - Don't make an even bigger idiotic spectacle of yourself than you already have - something is either viewed as being "vulgar" or it is not - something is viewed as being "fraudulent" or it is not - qualifiers such as "rather" and "largely" are immaterial, especially considering the number of times the entire passage, word perfect, was posted five times in that "I am not an historian but..." thread.

By the way Shaw please do feel free to keep posting that tripe - it serves as a massive confession and highlights your dishonesty especially as the "How Steve Shaw......." passage will be posted immediately after it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 08:24 PM

This could well be my last shot at this (for now), Teribus, but let me try to concentrate your mind and help you to not miss the point. Keith stated that "the Guardian" had said that Taylor's book was "fraudulent." You OK with that? Good! Do you realise that the article said NO SUCH THING? Good! Now a week earlier, Keith had quoted a lump of the Guardian piece (which was penned by Geoffrey Wheatcroft, NOT "the Guardian"), including the relevant passage, IN A DIFFERENT THREAD. You OK with that? Good! Not only that, Keith had also made ANOTHER REFERENCE to the piece (a highly-inaccurate one, but hey) in that earlier thread, yeah? Good! So, when Keith referred to the passage, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE OTHER THREAD, on the 16th, saying that "the Guardian" (lie) had called Taylor's book "fraudulent," (lie) he was clearly trying to reinforce his fatuous point that only living historians from the last thirty years should be listened to. This was no mistake. Keith was doing what Keith always does. He was making a claim that he hoped no-one would pick up on. He reckoned without Sherlock Shaw, of course. To claim, as you are doing, that this was some kind of accidental error that Keith then gracefully and promptly corrected is just about the most naive thing imaginable. Keith knew the piece, had quoted the piece, and had DELIBERATELY misquoted it in the hope that he would get away with it. Which he would have, save for the fact that, unfortunately for him, I'd also read the article on the 9th. Without my picking up on it, there would have been NO retraction from Keith. Not only that, the retractions from Keith you're so keen on quoting at us do not even restore the qualifying adjectives, RATHER vulgar and LARGELY fraudulent. That makes Keith's retractions reluctant and downright curmudgeonly at best, even though he knew full well that he'd been sussed over his dishonesty. A man caught out who doesn't like being caught out. The trouble is, Teribus, is that we seem to know Keith and his ways a damn sight better than you do. And please stop calling me a liar on this matter, otherwise, well, I could consider reposting this post every time you do, though I'll probably rise above such bloody childishness, unlike you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 05:58 PM

Iains
on't believe in fairy stories Jockie
You have had a rational statement politely put yet you still insist in trying to talk to peole from your hole in the ground
Shows real intellect
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 05:09 PM

Hypocrisy from a blatant anti-Semite? How shocking.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 04:51 PM

Hi Iains,

I really do not think that biblical quotations have any place in the 21st century.

I have not looked up your passages purely on that basis.

If you have a faith, fine, your issue not mine, but please do not expect me to take any notice of it.

Could I ask, if you have a statement to make, you could make it relevant to the present day and not based on what I consider to be fairy stories.

Please note I do not intend to offend you by saying this.

Thank you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 04:38 PM

Jimmie.
Matthew 7:3-5 King James Version


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 10:36 AM

well they're all a lot more media savvy than we were. they have internalised the three minute telebyte culture.

i turned for my audition very hung over, there had been wedding the day before and i have vague memories of getting slung out of the red lion folk club, after the festivities

anyway Denise kicked me out of bed and i crawled into this birmingham hotel, where they held the audition. Etched on my mind was the experience of going in the bog for a wee, and two young guys in sky blue outfits and white tap shoes singing and dancing at my side, Iwanna be happy, but i won't be happy...while i tried to squeeze out a few drops.

upstairs was a table with hughie, a tape op, and peter dulay who used to do candid camera sitting behind a desk. i presented my letter, but i had to wait. first a fat lady - idon't suppose she was that old - but 5foot 4, and twenty three stone in a gold lame dress that had seen better days. you shook yourself - this was ten o'clock in the morning singing Let's Do It...
this was before stage schools were on every street corner. this young lass in a leotatrd came on singing and dancing, good morning! good morning! from singing inthe rain. thirty seconds in - she ran out pf puff - should she dance or sing? debbie reynolds made it look so easy! there were no backing tapes in those days - so then came a lady who didn't like the piano accompaniment provided...tough shit!
then it was me. i sang my best friend - the don williams song, and they liked me. took my picture -no video in those days!. made a recording. my plan was to do Eric Bogle on the show - but hughie got the heave ho and english folk music was denied a new megastar. such is life!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 09:45 AM

"He would eventually issue a gushing, grovelling apology and promise not to do it again"
Like your mythical quotes Keith, you are welcome to produce any of them here.
Your complaints about being persecuted are comparable to someone complaining about having their fingers trapped in a letterbox they were attempting to pour petrol through
Your dishonesty and lack of self-respect appear to have no limits.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 08:17 AM

It is an opinion of mine, but no doubt shared by others, that their behaviour is loutish and posturing, and Steve Shaw is without any doubt in my mind an objectionable, complete and utter prat.

I wouldn't be quite as measured as you in my assessment of them and especially of Shaw, Teribus.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 07:42 AM

So it was a rhetorical question? What is the point in that?

Do you actually know anything about anyone?

(Hint. See line 1)

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 07:31 AM

Please correct me if I am wrong here Shaw but you did state on numerous occasions on many threads that Keith A of Hertford had never corrected himself, or acknowledged that he had misquoted from an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft that appeared in the Guardian in December 2014. Even after it had been drawn to your attention that you were in error, you still persisted with your lie - That makes you a proven liar by any definition of the word, and it should come as no surprise to you that that shall be taken into consideration with regard to anything you post to this forum.

"If you think we deserve it, keep it to yourself and demolish us via measured, careful argument." - Shaw

Good heavens Shaw it would make one hell of a departure from the norm if either yourself or your pals ever even made the slightest pretence of following that bit of advice - all we tend to get is personal abuse, no point addressed and baseless allegations and accusations that you point blank refuse to substantiate.

Oh Gnome, I worked you and your pals out a long, long time ago.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 06:53 AM

I wasn't knocking Hughie, Al, just reporting back what my mate said!

Teribus, you need to stop ranting on about "proven liars," etc. Nobody "proves" a damn thing about anybody else on this forum. "Proofs" of the kind you propagate are predicated on half-truths, omissions, missing the point, deserting the context, personal bias, axes to grind, the need for vengeance or out-and-out misrepresentation. Every time you call me or anybody else a "proven liar" you are making an arse of yourself. It's just empty, splenetic, distempered bile and it's almost certainly pissing a damn sight more people off than those who get any satisfaction from your horrible behaviour. If you think we deserve it, keep it to yourself and demolish us via measured, careful argument. Every time you feel the steam coming out of your ears at the keyboard you need to say to yourself that you shouldn't be starting from here.

Right. Back to the show...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 06:40 AM

Flashback time! I seem to remember that Lenny Henry won 'New Faces'. I think the first time he appeared he did an impression of Frank Spencer bent over a pram talking to his baby. When he turned round the audience were in stitches and Lenny had them from that moment on :-) Eeeeh. Those were the days (Back to Mary Hopkin)

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 06:36 AM

As a much more interesting topic than what has been going on here of late that is worth exploring, Al. There was 'Opportunity Knocks' and another talent show called 'New faces' if I remember rightly. What is so different between those and the the new flush of talent shows such as 'Britains got talent', 'The X Factor'. 'The Voice', etc.?

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 06:32 AM

hughie greene was nice to me. i would have been on his show - only they closed it down. it would have been a big career break for me.

no one much gives ordinary people breaks in the music business. hughie did.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 05:21 AM

Work it out for yourself, Teribus :-)

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 05:13 AM

What personal abuse were you responding to gnome?

It has plainly and conclusively been proven on this thread that both Steve Shaw and Jim Carroll are liars. It is an opinion of mine, but no doubt shared by others, that their behaviour is loutish and posturing, and Steve Shaw is without any doubt in my mind an objectionable, complete and utter prat.

So were you responding as a non-member of a non-clique on this forum or did you consider that you yourself had been personally abused as said non-member of that non-clique on this forum.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 04:41 AM

It was a response, Keith. How better to respond to personal abuse or would you rather I respond in kind?

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 04:34 AM

Dave, anyone can type what you just did.
Responding to what has been said is harder.
Impossible for some apparently.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 04:33 AM

Jim has raised the old 2011 thread many, many times since then.
Previously he has had to do it on his own.
If the mods did not close it down, other folk would beg him to stop.
He would eventually issue a gushing, grovelling apology and promise not to do it again.
A few weeks later, when he was losing another argument, he would do it again.

Now he has a gang to back him up and support him, and understandably few people are prepared to take them all on.
You have created a monster!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 04:31 AM

Iains
Your posting of "28 Feb 17 - 11:44 AM " was a meaningless piece of invective which is made ridiculous by the fact that you have now become a fully paid up member o Teribus and co's Klan Storm-Troopers with their empty right wing posturings - if you cannot see the irony of referring to us as "a pack", you are even more stupid that you appear.
Your Gruppenführer, having painted himself into a corner by making claims he is unable substantiate, first retreated back into the trenches of World War One, and has now falling back to his old habit of hurling insecure abuse.
As Keith has often been heard to remark "they lost".

With that comforting thought under my belt, I'm outta here and I suggest anybody with a modicum of sense and self-respect follows suit.
This level of posting debases this forum
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 03:25 AM

Sorry, missed a bit

Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahaha


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 03:24 AM

Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 01:44 AM

Ah but Shaw as someone who does not like to see, and cannot "stand to see" lies, misrepresentations, myths and half-truths peddled and presented as fact in discussions on this forum I am naturally drawn to the idiotic ramblings of you and your "socialist" little gang. The other factor of course is your stalking and attempts at browbeating and bullying certain members of this forum by you and your pals.

As previously stated, on this thread and on many others you've made complete and utter arses of yourselves. I cannot think of any good reason why on earth I would wish to share any aspect or detail of my "real life" with any proven loutish, posturing, lying, prat such as yourself or any of your equally objectionable pals.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:21 PM

It's not real life here, Dave. There are plenty of real people but a good few whose main outlet in life seems to be here. Thinking of our friendly neighbourhood cabal. Funny how you never hear much about their real lives...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:17 PM

I have a photo of me playing the theme tune on the harmonica outside that café. You can see Compo inside! My sister lives just three miles away.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:11 PM

I know, Iains, I know.

You know, Steve. I caught a bit of classic last of the summer wine earlier. A new customer in Sid's cafe got a right ear bashing of Ivy. When she went in the back the new customer said to Sid "Is that yours?"
On getting am affirmative answer he then asked "would it not be quicker just to cut your throat?"

It's like that here at times...

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 04:24 PM

Don't take any notice of me then, Billy. I'd like that. In some ways it'd be less fun, admittedly, but I'm only thinking of you. You'd live a lot longer if you didn't get so agitated all the time. Very few people read what we type and a good few of THEM already hate your guts, so what's the point? Eh? Eh??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 03:00 PM

D the G. It is not just Canada that produces maple syrup, there is appreciable production in the northern States of America also. That colonial title may upset our American cousins.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 02:19 PM

Boring - you certainly are Shaw. It must be an awful burden being a serial "Gobshite".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 02:06 PM

I had forgotten about that Steve - I don't really follow Steve Bell but I do recall one or two of those. Funny thing is, our erstwhile grey PM has been a bit of a star recently with his comments on Brexit. I never thought I would see that day when he would make me smile :-)

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 01:43 PM

Bo-ring, Teribus! You're defending a deliberate attempt at deceit! Have you got your underpants on back to front? Or are your knickers in a twist?

You forgot John Major à la Steve Bell, Dave!

I'm told that Jeremy Kyle always goes commando. Now there's an interesting fact!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 01:39 PM

Maple syrup is good to. Albeit a little colonial :-)

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 01:33 PM

An interesting response by some to my post of 28 Feb 17 - 11:44 AM

Matthew 7:16


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 01:25 PM

Seems we've retreated back to the trenches
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 01:13 PM

Odd isn't it Shaw that you mentioned arses - the only people who have made complete and utter arses of them selves on this thread have been Jim Carroll who was the person to drag this thread back to 2011, yourself responsible for the attempted deflection by spreading your 2014 "Wheatcroft" lie.

For those wondering what that was all about read on:

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:57 PM

Steve, how dishonest you are!
And don't change the subject, Keith. You said we've only just joined in, now you're quoting me from 2011. Wheatcroftesque again.

Of course we were all in the original thread, but Jim has dredged it up many times since.
This is the first time that you have all joined in.
Now it is one for all and all for one in your little gang of musketeers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:53 PM

Should probably stick to important topics like who would win a fight between Superman and Batman. They both wear their underpants on the outside don't they?

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:52 PM

D the G. Glad you enjoyed the pancakes. I like mine with maple syrup.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:52 PM

Jim,

Nobody has ever suggested yo did - your claim was the Muslim, which is what we are discussing


You knowingly lie Jim.
I have never suggested that it was a Muslim issue.
I made it very clear that I did not.

I used the description "British Pakistani Muslims" because that was the description put to me, and I put it in quotes for that reason.

The "Muslim" was superfluous, but I left it in AS I HAD ALREADY MADE CLEAR THAT BEING MUSLIM WAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

I had no way of knowing some lying scum would take that out of its context to try and smear me with blatant lies based on knowingly misrepresenting what I said.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:51 PM

And don't change the subject, Keith. You said we've only just joined in, now you're quoting me from 2011. Wheatcroftesque again. Over to you, Teribus!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:49 PM

He and bobad are two cheeks of the same sorry arse. No substance, no debating skills, no-nothing trolls. Here for the fight only. Even Keith and Teribus aren't of that ilk. An arse, what's more, that even an Asda George underpant, were it sentient, would rebel against. Ignore 'em. Now they're going to swear at me, just you watch.

Reminds me of a phase that M&S went through a few years back when everything suddenly became singular. Shorts became a short. Jeans became a jean. Pants became pant. Trousers became trouser. Briefs became brief. Knickers became knicker. "Why, that looks like just the jean for me!" I was once heard to declare in the Blue Harbour aisle!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:44 PM

Steve,
Why, you've just been asking me whether I "still deny it"

Not true. That is what I asked you back in 2011.
You had given every reason to believe you denied the over-representation in your total support for Jim.

You said you never had, and went on to say,
"I can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else."

That gives every impression of accepting the over-representation, but I invite you now to state if you accept or deny it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:39 PM

To be associated with a mythical gang is far superior than being in a pack of curs doncha think?

WTF are you on about Iains? Seeing as neither exist apart from in the deluded minds of some members that is a particularly stupid question. The nearest description, which applies to everyone involved in both sides of this argument was Joe's description - 'The usual suspects'.

On a much better subject we just had some lovely pancakes. Decided against making them this year which is just as well because neither Mrs G nor I feel up to much at the mo. They were bought ready made crepes, heated in the microwave and delicious with a full fat cream cheese filling with assorted berries and topped with Lancashire Farm yogurt. Bit odd having a healthy(ish) pancake as it is supposed to be the last splurge before the rigours of lent. Still, seeing as we don't do lent it is no big deal :-)

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:35 PM

A fine display of erudition and intellect, doncha think
Hit and run seems the order of the day with this here
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 11:44 AM

D THE G. To be associated with a mythical gang is far superior than being in a pack of curs doncha think?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 11:25 AM

But you know those were not my words.
That is why I put them in quotes.
Don asked if that is what you believed - you confirmed it was
"And you know that I can PROVE that I never blamed Islam."
Nobody has ever suggested yo did - your claim was the Muslim, which is what we are discussing
"You put up the same, tired, old, false accusations, and I knock them all down the same old way."
You have your own quote in front of you - is it a fake?
"I am neither racist nor extremist."
Then it must have been somebody else using your name to say what was said about Irish brainwashing and Travellers - and all that support for racist Ukip........ !!
Hoist on your own petard as naval Norman will tell you
Unless you have something to say otehr than denials - don't bother
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 29 April 9:29 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.