BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

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

"I do not confirm your lies about the ancient stuff."
But you constantly deny having said it, then, when you are presented wuith it, you go on to defend it, as you have just done with the Traveller signs and you have a doen times with your "Muslim implant" theory and many, many other topics, which confirms your dishonesty - quite enough for me.
Claiming Traveller signs are not commen then refusing to respond to the information that says they are is as dishonest as it gets and your sole argument that they are not common because "I've never seen one" is as mindless as it gets, as is persitently calling me a liar
Another mindless trait is persistently demanding answers to questions that have been answered over and over again - it is one on the common symptoms of senility.
Nothing new has emerged about Labour this week.
Those who wish to remove Corbyn because he is a Socialist and they are not and are more concerned with winning elections than actually introducing changes that will benefit the people of Britain - the Left versus the right within the Party is nothing new and until you are prepared to address what is going on, you are a waste of space in any discussion.
You keep producing statements by people who suit your particular nasty right-wing agenda and refuse to discuss them in depth.
You did so over your hopelessly failed "antisemitism" campaign and again and again dragged up statements by right-wing opponents who are trying to expunge anybody with decent socialist principles, either that, or you quote 'Friends of Israel' obeying the 'Their Master's Voice' call in order to get BDS removed from party policy
Responding to facile quotes from these people would be as meaningless as your putting them up.
All these matters can be dealt with by your responding to the overall facts of the situation - certainly not wasting time be dealing with individual quotes from one side of an internal party squabble.
Here's a point for you to respond to (or not, as I am sure the case with be)
These people opposing Corbyn at present are attempting an undemocratic internal coup in the Labour Party.
Corbyn has been elected twice, both times with overwhelming majorities, on a socialist programme.
Those trying to overthrow him are doing so in defiance of the majority of Labour Party members
They are an elected elite defying the democratic decision of the rank-and-file.
How democratic is that?
Britain needs a Labour Party which is a poor shadow of Tory politics like a fish needs a bicycle.
You want to discuss that - fine - we have a common ground of interest
You don't - piss of - I might as well argue with Norman Tebbitt, Nigel Farrago or Nick Griffin - there's little difference in what you are all saying
STILL NO IMPLANT QUOTE - YOU ARE LYING ABOUT THAT ONE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:26 AM

"with an identical political stance"

Twaddle! They have different editors, different journalists, different columnists and are independent newspapers. Identical my big fat bottom!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:53 AM

Teribus - That doesn't surprise me in the slightest Gnome. Fortunately the House of Commons Select committee on Anti-Semitism did understand it and accepted the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism results as being representative

That is probably the worst example of a non-answer I have ever seen. You quote the results of a poll and are not prepared to let us know how the results were arrived at and you are not prepared to comment on the question that was asked?

Says a whole lot about how much you trust the poll itself. But that is par for the course. Until such a time as you are prepared to come back with a sensible answer I think we can safely ignore your nonsense.

You seem to have slipped back into old ways I'm afraid. You really need to work on your humour a bit more. I know it is difficult for a cantankerous old git but, honestly, it will be worth it in the end.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:57 AM

Your whole post is unfocused nonsense, Teribus. Just a load of vague having-a-go.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 06:12 AM

"with an identical political stance"

Twaddle! They have different editors, different journalists, different columnists and are independent newspapers. Identical my big fat bottom!

From the Observer/guardian website:-
Latest Observer news, comment and analysis from the Guardian, the world's leading liberal voice.
or from Wiki.:-
The Observer is a British newspaper, published on Sundays. In the same place on the political spectrum as its sister paper The Guardian.
Talking rubbish as usual Shaw.
If their own website recognizes no distinction between the two, other than title then you are just waffling on as usual.
Try and do a little homework!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 06:45 AM

Well I'm on the same place on the political spectrum of loads of other lefties but I don't have an identical stance to any of 'em because I think for myself and have an independent mind and a separate brain and a different vocabulary and my own style. This is a load of fluff from three of you to cover up for the fact that bobad is ignorant about the two newspapers. Monday to Saturday, Guardian. Sunday, Observer. Different title, different editor, different style, different typeface, different journalists, differ t sections, no G2, different columnists, distinct and proudly so and always has been. There is no Sunday Guardian. He simply didn't check (so what's new?) Easy-peasy!

And don't be so bloody rude.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 06:48 AM

I can only seem to get into to Mudcat on my iPhone this morning, hence the typos. I'm going boggle eyed here!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 07:14 AM

"You quote the results of a poll and are not prepared to let us know how the results were arrived at and you are not prepared to comment on the question that was asked?" - The Gnome

As I had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the poll in question I haven't got the foggiest notion how the results were arrived at - you prat. The "Campaign Against Anti-Semitism conducted the poll so maybe you should direct your questions to them. The Commons Select Committee obviously seemed to think the poll and it's results valid enough to quote them in their report to the House of Commons - good enough for me.

The question asked on the other hand was simple enough to understand to anyone with even basic English comprehension skills.

On the "Sunday Guardian" thing. As the Observer occupies the same political stance each Sunday as the Guardian does throughout the rest of the week, then "Sunday Guardian" seems to me to be an accurate and a very good way of describing the Observer - so good and so accurate in fact that I think I will adopt it just to annoy Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 07:44 AM

Shaw: You never have anything to say.

But you sure like reading and responding to the nothing I have to say, so what that tell us about you........lol.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:00 AM

OK - So we have no idea how many people were asked or when and where it was taken so we do not know if the poll is actually a significant representation. But let us leave that for now and move on to the question.

"Do you feel that any political parties are too tolerant of anti-Semitism among their MPs, members and supporters?"

This does not ask if the parties in question are more or less antisemitic that any others. So it in no way negates my point that the Labour party is not likely to be any more antisemitic than any others.

However, seeing as it is now acceptable to quote surveys without looking at how they were taken or whether the sample is representative I need to report the results of a recent survey taken about Mudcat posters. The question asked was "Who is most likely to show his arse off Blackpool tower?" the results were

- 87% responded affirmatively to Teribus
- 49% for Ake
- 43% for Iains
- 40% for the Bobad
- 37% for the Keith A
- 13% for the Steve Shaw

Who would have thought it, eh? I don't know how it was arrived at but the Mudcat (very) select committee anti-arse showing accepted so it must be true.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:34 AM

"THE" Steve Shaw, eh? I like it! Usually get called THAT Steve Shaw!

You won't annoy me, Teribus, ever. In fact, you may have started a trend. If the Observer (obvious, accepted and universally-recognised name) can become the Sunday Guardian (millions of people now scratching their heads in puzzlement), then maybe I'll start telling people that I live in Dumnonia. How are things up there in Deira, Dave? Fings ain't wot they used to be like in Aelfwine's time, eh?!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:43 AM

"But you sure like reading and responding to the nothing I have to say, so what that tell us about you........lol."

Well I have the good manners to read your links and respond to them. In the last few days you've done little except make unhappy sniping little remarks. Join the Iains-and-Teribus club, neither of whom seem able to post without including an insult or two. It makes you look incredibly foolish, which saves the rest of us a job I suppose!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:46 AM

Your poll of course is nonsense as the truth is that nobody showed anything off Blackpool Tower and we both know that.

The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism did however conduct a poll asking people - "Do you feel that any political parties are too tolerant of anti-Semitism among their MPs, members and supporters?"

The result (Of a real poll Gnome) was that:

- 87% responded that they thought the Labour Party were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour;
- 49% thought the Green Party were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour;
- 43% thought UKIP were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour;
- 40% thought the SNP were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour;
- 37% thought the Liberal Democrats were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour;
- 13% thought the Conservative Party were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour.

Wonder what it was that made those polled think that? The poll sample by the way was 1,864, their campaign started in 2015, same year as Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:55 AM

Ahhhh. OK. Just short of 2000 people then. Not a significant sample. Wonder how they were picked? I also wonder about something. Mainly why it was timed to coincide with Corbyn's leadership. Still, may or may not have a bearing. What does have a bearing, and I note that you do not address the issue, is that the question posed does not ask whether there is antisemitism. Funny thing that.

What do you mean no one showed anything off Blackpool tower? The photo you promised arrived the other day and it does seem to be you. You mean it was not? Why would you lie about something like that? I have now forwarded it to ake seeing as he seems to have a fetish about such things.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 09:16 AM

About normal for most polls Gnome.

Why would you lie about an none-existent photograph?

What makes you think it was timed to coincide with anything?

IIRC Corbyn was elected in May 2015 the CAA report into anti-Semitism wasn't published until October 2015. When was it that the Co-Chair of the Oxford University Labour Club resigned again and what events led to that resignation would have naturally preceded the resignation. That resignation prompted the Royall Enquiry into the OULC, which in turn led to the Chakrabarti Enquiry into the Labour Party. Irrespective it would appear that the CAA poll was spot on the money.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 09:29 AM

So, did the poll conclude that antisemitism was more prevalent in the Labour party than anywhere else?

You are just not getting into the swing of this Blackpool tower business are you? It was you that first mentioned the photograph -

By the way Gnome the incident you mention might have been that time in the summer of '75, I could send you a glossy 10x8 of it if you like.

So, you say you could send me a photograph and I play along with that. You then deny there was one! How could you? :-( Some will be bitterly disappointed.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 11:05 AM

Based on a brief overview it seems to me that Steve is taking the high ground to the annoyance of a few.

Beyond the unwashed public's private and personal opinions of Semitism or Anti Semitism there is an issue that involves the most forbidden subject in the US. It is Top Secret and Israel fucked it all up. Back then it was codenamed Olympic games. It has gone further in operation nitro zeus. It is about cyber war with Iran. That war is currently held at bay in part due to the American Iranian Deal.

The Obama Netanyahu feud was about stuxnet betrayal and not merely settlements.

If you are uneducated to these realities, and I don't blame you, but I would refer you to the film 'Zero Days' for deeper view of the issues at hand that we are forbidden to discuss in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 11:19 AM

"87% responded that they thought the Labour Party were too tolerant of anti-Semitic behaviour;"
Given the massive campaign instigated by the people opposing BDS, it's surprising that the percentage isn't higher
The gutter press must be losing its edge
That same survey also finds that 45% of British people believe at least one stereotype of Jewish people is true, one in four believe two stereotypes and 17% believe three stereotypes.
2015 saw the largest rise in antisemitic crime recorded ever recorded in Britain with a rise of 26% in antisemitic crime and 51% leap in violence against Jews
It would be totally stupid to ignore the fact that this rise coincides with the massacres that were being reported from Gaza nightly on on our television screens.
There can be no other reason for that rise.
Implicating the Jewish people as a whole in Israeli war crimes is bound to have a detrimental effect on the safety and well-being of the Jewish people as a whole.
If you believe it to be antisemitic to criticise Israel's behaviour towards the Palestinians, then equally, you must believe it is the Jewish people who are responsible for Gaza.
Just like "love and marriage", as the song says, you can't have one without the other.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 12:38 PM

"Beyond the unwashed public's private and personal opinions of ......... (Whatever)

There you go Donuel - that is the attitude of the "liberal" Democrat elite that won Donald J Trump the 2016 US Presidential Election.

Three people on this forum have proven themselves to be liars:

1: Yourself
2: Steve Shaw
3: Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 01:26 PM

"Three people on this forum have proven themselves to be liars:"
Prove it - and didn't you miss the supreme one - your friend Keith
You don't overburden yourself with accuracy either with your edited and unlinked cut-'n-pastes.
You are trolling with the best of them now
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 01:51 PM

Prove it

He has, many times, do keep up.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:07 PM

I expcted on troll to back another
As I said to him - prove it
I don't tell lies - you people are such eejits that I don;t have to
A least I don't dredge up filth from fascist sites like The Whitte Supremist then deny having done it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:29 PM

Jim,
your sole argument that they are not common because "I've never seen one" is as mindless as it gets,

Nor has anyone else except you Jim!
How can they be common if no-one has ever seen them except a well known Mudcat liar?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:30 PM

Considering your dishonesty before the rule change, I would suggest that you are the last person on earth to call anyone else a liar, bobad. I may make mistakes, Teribus, but I don't tell lies. I don't see the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:35 PM

Steve,
"with an identical political stance"
Twaddle! They have different editors, different journalists, different columnists and are independent newspapers. Identical my big fat bottom!

Opening sentence of "Observer" Wiki page, which Observer will have written,
"The Observer is a British newspaper, published on Sundays. In the same place on the political spectrum as its sister papers The Guardian and The Guardian Weekly"

Up your "big fat bottom" I think Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:46 PM

Dave,

OK - So we have no idea how many people were asked or when and where it was taken so we do not know if the poll is actually a significant representation

No, but Parliament will know all of that and Parliament considered it a reliable source of information.
They had no reason to doubt its reliability. What reasons do you have?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:46 PM

" I may make mistakes, Teribus, but I don't tell lies."

Oh but you do Shaw and I exposed them as such on this very thread if I am not mistaken. However if you want it one more time:

THE 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.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:47 PM

Well let's stop repeating ourselves and just decide that you are, as ever, utterly deluded. Let's agree to agree on that. Good!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:48 PM

That post was meant for Keith but I see it applies very well to Teribus too!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 02:59 PM

Steve and Jim,
You are talking this up in the same way as you talk up the "serious antisemitism problem" in Labour

I only quoted prominent Labour people and leaders saying it was a serious problem.
I did not distort what they said and can reproduce the quotes which were all from reputable media sources.
Do not claim distortion unless you can quote me doing it Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 04:08 PM

Considering your dishonesty before the rule change,

No dishonesty whatsoever - another whopper from Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 04:26 PM

I f you like liars you must love SNL. I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:18 PM

They had no reason to doubt its reliability. What reasons do you have?

Well, Keith, what this survey boils down to is that 2000 people were asked their opinion on which party they felt was too tolerant of antisemitism. Remember the question?

Do you feel that any political parties are too tolerant of anti-Semitism among their MPs, members and supporters?

That was it. It was, literally, an opinion poll. It asks about perceptions yet does not ask about any actual antisemitism nor does it provide any evidence of anything. Yet Teribus tries to use it as documentary evidence that the Labour party is more antsemitic than others. And you wonder why I question it?

Take a look at this article - key facts that you are probably wrong about - and then tell me how accurate public opinion is about anything.

Still, one thing in its favour for Teribus though. It does deflect attention from the Blackpool tower photograph fiasco,

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:30 PM

Keith, boring. Bobad, your cheating was confirmed by the mods. You did it to be able to call Jim and me Jew-haters from behind a wall. You were caught. You and the guest, identical styles. The "anonymous guest" had the same internet address as yours. That fact was divulged, though not the actual address, before you go off on one again. Just to confirm that you were one and the same person. I have the correspondence. Bang to rights, mate! You blokes rattle on about us being a pack. Well you, Keith, Iains and Teribus have undergone convergent evolution in that you all seem to think that repeating lies eventually makes them true. Well I've told you now and I'm not bothered. Have you actually got anything to discuss?

Good news, chaps! I've finally fixed my drive. Now all I have to do is get all the mud off it. I have a gorilla broom and I need a cloudburst. Watch this space! Primroses are amazing this spring. I can see both mud and stars! Aurora amber alert this evening!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 05:54 PM

You have sent us that shite weather you were having earlier, Steve. Woke up to snow, sleet, hail, wind, rain and, quite possibly, an alien invasion this morning. Well, maybe not the latter but I never know what I can get away with on here nowadays. Daughters were trapped. One on the 8am bus that did turn up and one at home because the 8:20 one did not! The latter was the lucky one. Buses could not make it down the slope from Haworth to Keighley. Gritters were caught with their pants down. Snow in March, eh? Who'd have thought it :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 06:33 PM

Bobad, your cheating was confirmed by the mods

Nope, never cheated, you're a proven liar. If a mod told you I was posting under two identities then that mod is as much a liar as you. I don't need anonymity to call proven Jew haters what they are. If I were to meet you or Carroll in person I would not hesitate to tell you to your face what you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 07:19 PM

Funny, innit boobs, how your mood darkens when you're confronted by your own dishonesty. You know the truth, I know the truth, the mods know the truth, but methinks thou dost still protesteth too loudeth! That's twice now. You're lucky, mate. The mods chose to let it go whilst keeping an eye on you. We've probably bored them half to death with our nonsense by now and they probably think we deserve you. Have you complained to the mods that you think they're liars? Tell it to the Marines! 😂

The writing is on the wall! Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin! You have been held in the scales and found wanting, old boy! Get thee to a vivisectionist!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 07:28 PM

By the way, boobs, I'm six foot eight, built like a brick shithouse and have fourteen black belts in so many different oriental combat sports that I've forgotten what they are. If a parking space is a tad too small I just lift my car gently into it. I run a one-man operation which shifts Steinway grands up flights of stairs for concert pianists. That one man is me and I don't waste money on kit. I can build a complete concrete toilet block single-handed in three hours without a ladder. If I were me I definitely wouldn't want to meet me in a bad mood on a dark night. As for Jim, I'm saying nothing, but I think I saw him once and he scares me...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 07:33 PM

My mood darkens? In your dreams Shaw. You are the one who has been shown to be a proven liar. I see you're squirming now and trying to deflect, I'm enjoying the spectacle.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 07:44 PM

Or, rather, you need spectacles.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 07:55 PM

Hey Greg, how's it hanging? As for spectacles I do need and wear them that's why I can see clearly. I would recommend a seeing eye dog for you and the pack though.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:16 PM

Yahoo I'm in a top 3! In this sandbox that's credibility.
Unless one suffers from a peevish ignorance one needs to see that reading between the lines is not a form of lying but is rather simple supposition.

Unwashed public is obviously not politically correct but it was a challenge to come up with a term regarding people who do NOT know a lot about top secret programs concerning cyber warfare.
To be polite it is better to say "the uninformed" by all means.

As for the details of self expression, we all differ. You guys sometimes get lost in that forest of diversion. This thread is where I can rely on the bad boys to be itching for a fight.

I need no armor here since I have no ego to be damaged. I lost it and am delighted it is gone. When it comes to family however any nefarious harm would not go unanswered so do not think that no ego has anything to do with an acceptance of victimhood for loved ones.


I do not have an enemies list for any individual here since there is some nexus of agreement with anyone. Now back to the future of the next cyberwar...

The US dropped the first A bomb and the first deadly cyber strike with the interference of
Israel.
If you know or care about the advancement of cyberwar
What is your opinion?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:19 PM

You see, boobs, you know I'm playing a dead straight bat here. You also know that the information I have about your double identity (which really is proof, no messing!) is contained in private messages only. You are gambling on the fact that it isn't ethical to publish them verbatim in the open forum. I can tell everyone here that your exposure as two people posting from the same internet address sits very badly with your denials and your specious claims that you were staying anonymous (whilst calling us Jew-haters and retaining your bobad identity elsewhere) in order to address the argument, not attract attacks on the man. It's all there in the threads. You think that your bad-tempered shouting and denials and insults are the way to divert away from this sorry stuff. Well that might impress your gullible little cabal but, well, as I say, bit of a gamble, innit! Don't worry, I'm a fluffy bunny really. But even fluffy bunnies don't like to be called liars by liars! 🐰🐇🐰🐇🐰

Anyway, enough of this entertainment! Sorry about the bad weather, Dave, though you seem to have sent it back!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:34 PM

Well Shaw, you've been shown to be a proven liar, a bigot, a hypocrite and a Jew hater. Is that succinct enough for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:41 PM

Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie...🤡

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 08:55 PM

Yep, get that tail between your legs and slink off like the lying weasel you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 17 - 09:02 PM

❤️😍😻💋👨‍❤️‍👨🌼🌈💝❌❌❌

💤

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 02:59 AM

"you all seem to think that repeating lies eventually makes them true." - Shaw

Only problem with that Shaw is that you have yet been unable to pin one single instance of me ever having lied. As for repeating lies, how many times since December 2014 have you thrown your "Wheatcroft" lie in Keith A's face?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 04:22 AM

💤

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 17 - 05:13 AM

Re Labour, this week we have had the spectacle of the Deputy Leader claiming that Momentum and Unite are plotting to take over the Party, and he has a recording which seems to support that.
Momentum, Unite and McDonnell the Shadow Chancellor deny the charge and counter claim that Watson is trying to influence Unite's leadership election.

Whatever the truth of all this, how can anyone take them seriously with such shenanigans going on?