BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 12:59 PM

"Never overused"
Yeas it is Bobad, especially by you
You call me a "Jew hater" yet you have never been able to produce on attack I have made on the Jewish people, despite the offer of a money donation to a charity of choice - not once.
Your friend Keith claims that Jews in Parliament refuse to describe Labour's antisemitism because of their love of the party - an antisemitic 'Jewish pact of silence' - you refuse even to comment, which makes you a hypocrite.
Israeli public figures, including the justice minister, have stated publicly that to criticise Israel is antisemitic - they associate Israeli war crimes with being Jewish - that is antisemitic by definition and, in my opinion, is the only possible explanation of the rise in antisemitism in the world today - if Israel ban describe its actions in Gaza as "Jewish" why can't anybody.
You don't respond to my comments on Livingstone and I doubt if you will, which makes me suspect that 'Fifty One Documents' has something substantial to say
You are a liar, and a coward Bobad - you don't have the balls to stand beside what you say
Your use of sites like 'White Supremist' and 'Muslim Watch' and your disparagging both Muslims and Irish (you called them antisemitic and refused to provide proof and refuse) makes me believe your views are not unlike those that sent six million Jews to their deaths
All in all, you are a ******* disgrace
Jim Carroll
.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 12:45 PM

From what I understand Keith does not consider it antisemitic to state facts either. Bit of a poser that one init poos?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 12:40 PM

Not anyone you'd want to associate with? Well stop associating with me then!

I take it that means you don't consider his comments to be anti-Semitic. If so you are in good company with the likes of Nick Griffin and Gilad Atzmon.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 11:44 AM

"Commonly-accepted?" Weeeeee-zel words! Not anyone you'd want to associate with? Well stop associating with me then!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 11:36 AM

Yours and Israel's overuse of the term has made it completely meaningless

Never overused - always used in compliance with the commonly accepted definition.

If it's overused to you maybe you should reconsider your anti-Semitic comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 11:11 AM

"I don't know anyone who would deny that they are anti-Semitic "
Yours and Israel's overuse of the term has made it completely meaningless
Livingstone was quoting something that is stated by whole sections of Jews, including orthodox ones like 'The True Torah
' which has been virtually censcored out of existence by Wiki
I haven' read '51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis.', but I know the author not to be an antisemite and afre seeing to and people like yo perform, I will make a point of doing so - argument by name-calling always makes me supicios that people have something to hide
"Been overdosing on the supermarket vino again shaw?"
As does trolls emerging from under their bridge, then sprinting away
You are an arrogant and cowardly twat - write it down and remember it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 10:47 AM

Shaw: Well, Ken wasn't expressing an appalling view. He was stating a fact!

Here are the "facts" Livingstone was stating in the linked piece. I don't know anyone who would deny that they are anti-Semitic (well, not anyone I would want to associate with anyway)

It wasn't enough that Livingstone, a year ago, had claimed that Hitler "was supporting Zionism" in the 1930s. He dug this hole deeper than anyone thought possible by claiming, on the threshold of his own disciplinary hearing, that in the 1930s "The SS set up training camps" to prepare German Jews for life in Palestine and Nazi Germany sold weapons "to the underground Jewish army" as part of "real collaboration" that continued up to the start of World War Two.

Needless to say, neither of these particular claims are true, and his other examples of supposed collaboration between the Nazi authorities and the Zionist movement are either completely baseless or such distortions of history as to be fundamentally misleading. But that's not the point.

Livingstone's claims go well beyond the lazy moral equations of Israel with Nazi Germany that have become ubiquitous in anti-Israel circles. They even exceed the claims of ideological kinship between Zionism and Nazism that Trotskyists like Lenni Brenner (who Livingstone cites as a key influence) have worked up for decades.

Livingstone's latest claims have more in common with Holocaust denial than with Holocaust equivalency, because to believe that on the eve of the Holocaust, the SS – the most anti-Semitic organization in modern history, dedicated to the mass murder of Jews and to the extermination of the Jewish people – provided weapons and training to the Zionist movement requires a complete suspension of reality. It is false history for a political purpose.

By this way of thinking, either the SS was not as anti-Semitic as we think; or the Jewish national movement was so morally depraved and wicked that it would connive in the destruction of its own people. Given that Livingstone has called the Holocaust "the greatest racist crime of the 20th century," it is presumably the latter conclusion that he wants people to draw.

That Livingstone can repeatedly say these things and remain in the Labour Party makes it impossible to still see it as a party that consistently opposes anti-Semitism in all its forms, as Jeremy Corbyn insists. The two are not compatible.

There is not a single serious historian of the Holocaust or of Nazi Germany who agrees with Livingstone's interpretation of history, but his comments have been applauded by Nick Griffin, former leader of the British National Party, and by Gilad Atzmon, who calls himself a "proud self-hating Jew" and is generally shunned by many pro-Palestinian activists because of his record of anti-Semitic statements. It may not be a coincidence that both Griffin and Atzmon have indulged in Holocaust denial in their own past.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 10:08 AM

They are resorting to the usual insults. Funny how anyone who has a different take on events is invariably called stupid. Obviously there is no substance to their accusations.

What insults are those Iains? Which accusations in particular have no substance? The one where I was accused of denying that there was any antisemitism in the Labour party maybe? Maybe the combined insult and accusation that I am immoral? We need to know these things!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:56 AM

Bad form online to accuse anyone of being alcoholic. Or mentally ill. Baseless accusations. Bill'll explain that to you.


Hey, whaddam I like! I just invented a word with quadruple 'l' in it!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:52 AM

"Coo! e-Bono!"

(Expression of surprise upon finding Bono in cyberspace)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:50 AM

Been overdosing on the supermarket vino again shaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:49 AM

Well, Ken wasn't expressing an appalling view. He was stating a fact! Got any more unbiased sources that you want to post then say absolutely nothing about? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:45 AM

"Coo! Eeee, Bono!"

(Yorkshire lass admiring Bono's pecs)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:44 AM

Livingstone would have us believe that these complaints are really a devious attempt to silence criticism of Israel. In reality, none of the comments outlined here have anything to do with normal political criticism of Israeli policies. Instead, they are part of an obsessive hatred of Israel, detached from reality and ever more inventive in its slanders, that both reflects and fuels contemporary anti-Semitism.

The British left is not anti-Semitic per se, but it is increasingly becoming a place where a certain type of anti-Semite feels more comfortable than an average British Jew.

None of this is new. CST and others have warned for years that anti-Semitic attitudes are allowed to pass unchecked and unchallenged in anti-Israel circles, and have become normalized and widespread as a result. This is the source of the Labour Party's anti-Semitism problem, which the party is failing to tackle effectively. It will continue to be a problem in the anti-Israel movement for as long as leaders and activists are willing to share platforms, hold conferences and organize petitions for people who express such appalling views.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.781684

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:43 AM

"Coooeeee! Bono!"

(That's Bono's mum trying to get him to come in for tea)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:39 AM

The pack must be losing it again. They are resorting to the usual insults. Funny how anyone who has a different take on events is invariably called stupid. Obviously there is no substance to their accusations. They are rather sad really.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:39 AM

Who said it didn't exist? Not me! Yah boo sucks, baseless accusation!

🎶Rumpy pumpy pumpy pum, rumpy pumpy pum pum🎶🎶

--that's the Sunday morning omnibus version if you're still in bed...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:21 AM

Incidentally
I know very little of the Haavara Agreement that Livingston bases his opinions of, but there is oceans of evidence that the wartime Zionists did co-operate with the Nazis
Instaed of wildly throwing unqualified accusations about, why not debate what he actually said?
My respect and regard for the Jewish people does not include their political organisations any more than my respect for Christians does
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 09:10 AM

"Mr Watson"
Crooked politician forced to resign as cabinet minister for expenses fiddles who is a chairman of Friends of Israel" (do you mean?
Chief Rabbi Mirvis
"As Chief Rabbi of Ireland and before the opening of an Israeli Embassy in Ireland, he represented Israel's interests at government level and in the media. In 1999, he led a group of British rabbis on a solidarity trip to Israel. Since 1997, he has hosted the annual Bnei Akiva Yom Ha'atzmaut service at Finchley synagogue. Regarding the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, while deploring the loss of life in Gaza, Mirvis defended Israel's right to protect itself from Hamas rocket attacks, adding that the conflict was used as a cover to voice anti-Semitic sentiment."
The Israel - BDS connection that Terribus, Keith and Bobad said did not exist
The problesm still does not exist until someone disentangles these accusations from the Israeli BDS campaign and actually show us exactly what these charges consist of.
You crowd can drag in every quote in the world but until you put a face to these accusations they remain only accusations directly traceable back to the Israeli regime
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 08:43 AM

The problem that Shaw, Gnome, Carroll said did not exist

I have never said it does not exist and suggest, as your mate does, that if you want to make these accusations you back them up with evidence.

Over to you...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 08:13 AM

The Shami Chakrabarti Legacy

Mr Watson [Deputy Leader of the Labour Party] said: "I find it incomprehensible that our elected lay members on the disciplinary panel found Ken Livingstone guilty of such serious charges, and then concluded that he can remain a member of the Labour Party.

"When I read the words of Chief Rabbi Mirvis, who says that 'the Labour Party has failed the Jewish community, it has failed its members and it has failed all those who believe in zero tolerance of anti-Semitism', I can't disagree with him. I wish I could, but I can't.

"I am ashamed that we have allowed Mr Livingstone to cause such distress. It isn't just Jewish people who feel disgusted and offended by what Mr Livingstone said and by the way he has conducted himself over this matter, and it isn't just Jewish Labour members who feel ashamed of any indulgence of his views anywhere in the Labour Party. This shames us all, and I'm deeply saddened by it.

The problem that Shaw, Gnome, Carroll said did not exist - Quite naturally the more rational, logical and reasonable among us will accept that the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party knows more about what is happening in the Party that he is Deputy Leader of than Shaw, Gnome and Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 08:10 AM

"You are behaving as though you have some ownership rights"
And you, with your ill mannered hit-'n-run interbventions which bring nothing but inn brought up insults, are behaving like the troll that you are
You offer nothing else
Why are ignorant people like yourself invariably stupid?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 07:39 AM

After all the inane waffle in this thread, I get accused of inane waffle when I mention my beautiful cheese and guacamole. Hey, proper irony! Wibble!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 07:37 AM

I know NOthing. I come from Barcelona...

🎶Dum di dum di dum di dum, dum di dum di dum dum...🎶🎶

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 07:30 AM

Once the baseless accusations have been exposed and shown to be what they are you next resort to thread drift and deflection which finally lapses into inane waffle .......

Well done Shaw, proved my point beautifully.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 07:29 AM

Keep it TO yourself!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 07:28 AM

"Do you get paid commission for exceeding 25 posts a day or do you have nothing better to do?"

Shhh! It's cash in hand only and I don't charge VAT. That's why I'm such an attractive proposition! Keep it yourself!

Have I told y'all yet about the glories of Vallage cheese? I have that with Bath Olivers and Morrisons Nero d'Avola for us tonight, together with my take on chunky guacamole with crudités (pretentious, moi?) and a stone-in nocellara olive or ten. Christ, I'm in a good mood. I feel one of those fun afternoons coming on.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 07:21 AM

What time is The Archers on...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 06:57 AM

Steve,
the point I've patiently tried to make that your mate Keith set out to deceive

And failed Steve.
There was no deception and no need for it.
Everything he said supported my case.
Yours was the only deception trying to save face.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 06:53 AM

Perhaps Shaw you and your pals cannot come out with your cliché riddled ideological arguments above the line so you come out with none of the lies, misrepresentations and myths above the line.

I do read threads above the line and I do follow what is going on. It may come as a great surprise to you that while below the line there is probably nothing that Jim Carroll and I have in common - above the line however Jim and myself would generally on all topics appear to be in lock-step agreement on everything to do with what we see as being folk music.

Your take on the Wheatcroft thing is based on a lie, you contributed to the WWI was No Mans Land thread after Keith A had accurately quoted the passage from Wheatcroft's article and you did not comment or contest the point that Keith A was making - i.e. that the work of AJP Taylor and Alan Clark and the views they espoused had, in the light of subsequent information, been shown to be at worst, simply wrong, at least, ill-informed.

It was only after Keith made the passing reference to an accurately quoted passage on another thread that you decided to seize upon an error of omission that Keith A acknowledged and corrected immediately it was brought to his attention. Even then Shaw you refused point blank to discuss the content of Wheatcroft's article, instead you started a three year epic dancing on the head of a pin concerning Keith's error of omission and in that time NOT ONCE did you concede that he had acknowledged the error and corrected it, instead you embarked on a deliberate campaign of propagating the lie that he had done neither - that Shaw is utterly despicable, dishonest and cowardly at "Master-Class" level.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 06:39 AM

Shaw I really think you should try and tame your obsession with mudcat.
You are behaving as though you have some ownership rights. Do you get paid commission for exceeding 25 posts a day or do you have nothing better to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 06:04 AM

I'm not bothered who posts what where, frankly, Teribus, but I know you're a man who likes evidence, and the overwhelming evidence from your postings is that you appear to have very little interest in the music that this site was established for. You come here to do battle below the line only. You've found a site where you can do that and to hell with what the site is supposed to be for. I don't mention this because I WANT you to post more above the line (more than just the one post in six months and very little before that!), but because I know you'd rather I didn't mention it. Compared with some of the invective you spout at anyone who doesn't agree with you, I'd say that was a very mild observation. You're getting very shouty and repetitive over the Wheatcroft saga (oops, there I go again - are you already doing pat-a-cake with Keithie again?), having completely missed the point I've patiently tried to make that your mate Keith set out to deceive, and you're now foaming at the mouth because you said I said the IDF went in when I said no such thing. I've explained precisely what my opinion is on that, it's based on the facts of the matter and your mate is busy revising the history. What more is there to be said, really?

Citing opinions, Jim? Is there such a word as mis-citing? 😂

I have a couple of music threads to visit now, so excuse me....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 05:37 AM

Dave,
Keith, no matter how you phrase it, calling someone a liar and immoral is personal abuse as much as 'random abusive names' are.

No matter how you deny it, calling someone a liar in response to them lying is not abuse, and neither is disparaging the morality of someone telling nasty lies about someone while criticising them for a trivial slip three years earlier.
You make yourself look ridiculous by claiming it is "personal abuse as much as 'random abusive names' "
Of course it isn't!

Ken Livingstone's excuse for what he said is that he was only stating the facts and what he said did happen so it cannot be antisemitic.

I think he makes a fair point on that, but he also defended the admitted anti_Semitic comments of Naz Shah.

Jim, if they were "common throughout Britain" some of us Catters who live here would have seen one.
We have not.
Case proved.
You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 04:48 AM

"OK. None of us living here have ever seen one."
So what Keith plenty of others have
Mudcat is a very small puddle in this very big ocean of of ours and those who contributed to this discussion number no more than..... how many?
So less tan a dozen people have not seen them (actually - the toltal who actually sid that number less than six
The people who have seen them you dismissed as liars - a lose lose situation
Those who saw them are liars, those who didn't are proof that they don't exist
You are a bigoted racist and, like all racists, not very bright
Prove all those articles that say they are common are lies or you are lying
Simple as that
You have not had the honesty to even attempt to do that
And you dare to call others dishonest.........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Wheatcroft"
Who the **** gives a toss about the opinions of an unqualified journalist
You busted a gut dismissing qualified historians because they were dead
Nutty or what?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 04:48 AM

BTW - Ken Livingstone's excuse for what he said is that he was only stating the facts and what he said did happen so it cannot be antisemitic. Does that sound a familiar excuse to anyone? Does anyone here use it in reference to anti Muslim or anti Traveler rhetoric by any chance?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 04:12 AM

Keith, no matter how you phrase it, calling someone a liar and immoral is personal abuse as much as 'random abusive names' are. If you address the person instead of the issue it can be nothing but personal. If in addressing that person you suggest that their character is flawed, it is abuse. Whenever you say that you do not indulge in personal abuse I shall remind you of this.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 04:12 AM

Indy headline today,
"Labour members 'ripping up membership cards' in disgust at Ken Livingstone ruling, say furious MPs
Former London mayor had said he was expecting to be kicked out of party - but disciplinary panel instead re-instated him as a member"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:55 AM

It's my party, not yours, so bugger off, Iains.

Shaw you are a tiresome fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:54 AM

Dave,
To say that someone is a liar and that their morality is shit is personal abuse by anyone's reckoning.

Not if you do it in relation to a specific and nasty lie of yours and in the context of your pursuing me for dropping one word three years ago.

I condemn such morality.
I do not call you random abusive names.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:50 AM

Jim,
if these signs are not common, prove it -

OK. None of us living here have ever seen one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:47 AM

Steve again,
Their troops were in total control of the area and they stood aside to allow the Christian phalangists, their allies, to enter those camps to do the killing.

They had a legitimate reason for sending them into the camp, and no possible motive for wanting a massacre.
That is not a minority opinion except among despicable regimes with real blood on their hands."enter those camps to do the killing."

a history book written by a living historian in the last thirty years, preferably one on the shelves of a reputable bookshop. It will assuredly confirm what I've just said,

I have yet to find one that does, Please suggest one.

You said that Wheatcroft called Taylor fraudulent when Wheatcroft had said no such thing. You said this more than once. You want us to think that you're not thick and that you are the bearer of the sword of truth. But you read the Guardian the same as I did that day (unfortunately for you), and only a complete imbecile would have "innocently" made that mistake.

I quoted the Guardian accurately that day, but dropped one of the words used to dismiss the books some days later.
Sorry about that, but it did not alter the meaning.
Both books say the same thing and both were contemptuously dismissed by Wheatcroft.
Your seizing on one word instead of two was a desperate act of trivia because Wheatcroft supported my case not yours, leaving you with no genuine argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:39 AM

Ah Gnome - I tend to deal with people in the same coin they themselves use - as previously stated no moderator on this forum has ever censured me over any post I have written publicly or privately, the same cannot be said for you, the Musktwats or that lying git Steve Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:36 AM

To say that someone is a liar and that their morality is shit is personal abuse by anyone's reckoning. To deny it is not just stupid but bending the definition beyond all reason.

Not that I really give a shit about your opinion of me but I will happily bring this back every time you say you never use personal abuse.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:36 AM

Steve,
Keithie baby, if I said that IDF soldiers went into the camps to kill people, I would be obliged if you could provide the quote.

Certainly, but Teribus did just a few posts back,
"I think that massacring hundreds of civilians in refugee camps is a terrible war crime. I think that leaving hundreds of thousands of unexploded cluster bomblets scattered over fields in someone else's country is a terrible war crime. I've heard people say that the Israeli regime (not "Israel" or "Jews") acted like Nazis when they did those things."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:30 AM

Dave,
So telling someone that their morality is shit and that they have lied is not personal

I would only call someone a liar in connection with a specific lie that they have told, in this case your false claim that, "Keith and friends chose to interpret them as an indication that travelers are some sort of modern day slave traders."

To tell such a lie about me while criticising me for once using one word instead of two, with no deception, over 3 years ago and accusing me of having a "different morality" indicates a morality in yourself that I would describe as "shitty."
That is not personal abuse but a reasoned case.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:16 AM

I'm not in on this strange Wheatcroft argument, but it strikes me odd that someone like Keith, who stridently demands that we present evidence from "real historians' who sell their books in "real bookshops" should cite the opinion only of a journalist with no historical qualifications whatever on the work of one of Britain's recognised great historians whose historical importance has been compared to that of "Gibbon and MacCauley"
Funny what a little bit of jingoism does to some people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 03:16 AM

That I do using logic, reason, common sense backed up by detail and facts

You forgot to mention insults, invective and bluster. A discussion (remember - This is a discussion forum, not a debating society. You said it.) is as much about interacting with your fellow man as it is about the topic itself. What you state you gain in the above you more than lose in interpersonal skills.

they have never once addressed any such remarks to me in public or in private.

Maybe not to you, Teribus, but plenty about you.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 02:50 AM

"you come here to lambast and insult anyone who dares to disagree with you." - the bleat of an increasingly frazzled lying git

Well no actually Shaw I don't. What I do is I respond to the sort of cliched rhetoric, lies, misrepresentations, half-truths and myths posted by such as yourself and your pals when you are engaged in mobbing other members of this forum usually on subjects you do not have the foggiest notion about.

That I do using logic, reason, common sense backed up by detail and facts that you and your pals somehow find impossible to refute, counter, or challenge.

Your default position is to throw out personal insult accompanied by downright lies coupled to baseless accusations and allegations (Your latest, another lie in an ever lengthening line of them, accuses Keith A of Hertford stating that the works of AJP Taylor and Alan Clark were "fraudulent" on more than one occasion - He did in fact make that mistake in a passing reference only once at the tail end of a post specifically addressing points made to him by Jim Carroll. When it was brought to his attention he immediately acknowledged the error and corrected it.).

Once the baseless accusations have been exposed and shown to be what they are you next resort to thread drift and deflection which finally lapses into inane waffle that for some bizarre reason at the moment seems to centre around what you stuff down your digestive tract.

Hate to burst your bubble Shaw but you do not run this site, you do not dictate who posts what and where. Moderators on this forum have publicly frequently censured you and your pals for your conduct on this site - they have never once addressed any such remarks to me in public or in private.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 02:41 AM

"We all know the old Weatherspoons story. You have quoted it enough times."
You have a full description of how the Travellers are treated by a whole string of businesses in that article - your refusal to respond to says all that needs to be said about your cultural bigotry
The article points out the ongoing refusal to serve Travellers, you refuse to respond to that
You have not, on any occasion, even responded to the Wheatherspoon -case - it doesn't suit your bigoted racism
if these signs are not common, prove it - you have been given masses of evidence that they are
There are plenty of reasons why you haven't seen one - you have been told them, but the most likely one is that, like the good Christian you claim to be, you chose to pass by on the other side
You are a vicious racist twat
You refuse to tell us whether the account of the enslaving of a woman for eight years is a "massive over-representation of Christian slavery - if numerous cases of this Christian enslaving women is not a massive over-representation, why is it with Travellers?
Tou continue to call people liars yet you are the greatest proven liar on this forum - you have been given example after example of those lies and you ignore them and ask for more examples
To preempt your doing so again - if you don't tell lies, give us examples of your disgustingly racist "implant" theory.
ou won't of course, because it is the the most ongoing lie that you or anybody on this forum has told.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 17 - 01:53 AM

Ahem - WHEATCROFT!!!! - Steve Shaw - LYING GIT

"You said that Wheatcroft called Taylor fraudulent when Wheatcroft had said no such thing. You said this more than once". - [Steve Shaw LIE]

SHAW'S WHEATCROFT SAGA

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.

That is the actual exchange you lying git, so where did he say it more than once?

Just remember folks that everytime Steve Shaw mentions WHEATCROFT (With or without the "Ahem" or the "Wheee"), all he is in fact doing is pointing up the fact that he is a lying bastard who has been caught out, who is too cowardly to acknowledge or own up to HIS mistake (Unlike Keith A of Hertford who Shaw and his pals have been stalking and mobbing on this forum now for over four years).

Oh by the way Shaw, couple of weeks have gone by now, and guess what? I'm still here, bobad is still here, Akenaton is still here, Iains is still here, Keith A of Hertford is still here - Your prediction was that bombarded by inane waffle from you and your pals we'd all be driven from the forum - just chalk it up as something else you got wrong - lying git.