BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

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.

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

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!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 06:35 AM

Keith, do you still not understand that no one is trying to get anything on you? These discussions simply do not matter that much. It is like we are two different species trying to communicate. If it makes you feel any happier please feel free to take the role of the higher intelligence trying communicate with us dumb creatures. I really could not give a toss what you or anyone on here thinks of me because the ones that really count are the ones that know me and I can talk to without it becoming a battle. Now, do you not feel it would be better all round if all attempts at talking to those you obviously consider lesser mortals was to stop? I am willing to give it a go if you are.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 06:41 AM

D the G
"Some people will not accept that there can be some right and some wrong with most things?"
How very right you are!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 06:49 AM

Or maybe only partly right? :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 06:53 AM

Dave,
Keith, do you still not understand that no one is trying to get anything on you?

Really Dave?
Steve rakes up that 2014 thread in a desperate attempt to smear me as a liar.
Jim rakes up the 2011 thread in a desperate attempt to smear me as a racist.
They both do it whenever they are losing an argument.

These discussions simply do not matter that much.

They do if you are the one being attacked and smeared, especially when there are four of you acting as a gang doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:01 AM

So, people you do not care about and know even less say something about you that you dislike and you spend hours and hours trying to defend your 'honour' from attacks on a forum that few people read and even less could give a fuck about?

Well, it is folk music forum so I guess I can use a song

Who's the fool now?

Enjoy

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:03 AM

Keep wriggling Shaw you still remain a loutish, posturing, barefaced liar.

So you're going to "set Geoffrey Wheatcroft on me" are you Shaw?? That would be interesting to see precisely how you would go about doing that and what you might expect him to do.

Dave the Gnome - 02 Mar 17 - 04:26 AM

"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?"

Well Gnome you'd have to further identify them by author - Yours vary from being "rather" to "completely" pointless while Shaw's tend to be "largey" to "totally" bollocks, to use Steve's own expression.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:07 AM

BTW - I have been at the receiving end of all manner of unpleasantness, including one person trying to draq my family into it and then wishing me a slow and painful death. As well as having my identity cloned on Facebook by those nice people on the right that you love to defend. You are not the only one to get this treatment and I would advise that there are much better things to do in this world than this.

Hope this helps

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:09 AM

That is fine by me Teribus. If you chose to respond to pointless posts and complete bollocks then that is entirely up to you. The question at the end of my 02 Mar 17 - 07:01 AM post applies equally to you :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:12 AM

Certainly are better things to do Dave. I've just finished my last batch of marmalade for this year. I now have over 70 jars sitting on my kitchen top. A nice donation for the Rescue Boat once again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:29 AM

Bloody cold and draughty in Radcliffe Asda car park. And now Mother wants to go to Whitefield Morrisons. Woe is me!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:29 AM

Sounds brilliant, Raggy. I have not tried your marmalade yet - Will there be any left at Whitby FF time?

Cheers

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:32 AM

Should try Swinton, Steve. Morrisons is directly across the road from Asda and next door to Aldi. May make a nice change for your Mum too.

Cheers

D

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 07:42 AM

Dave,
So, people you do not care about and know even less say something about you that you dislike and you spend hours and hours trying to defend your 'honour' from attacks on a forum that few people read and even less could give a fuck about?

Instead of suggesting it a waste of time to deny false accusations of racism and lying against me, why not suggest to the false accusers that they stop doing it?

And how about you not joining in with them next time they do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 08:08 AM

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

That's precisely why he and Carroll continually deflect with lies and misrepresentation and dredge up ancient posts. They cannot accept that they are ever wrong about anything - that's the problem with ideologues, they cling to their ideology in the face of facts that show them wrong else their entire house of cards come tumbling down.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 08:18 AM

No need, Keith. Almost everyone else understands that when I say "and even less could give a fuck about" it is all encompassing. When I say it is a waste of time almost everyone else understands that it is a waste of time for everyone. Including me. That fact that I chose to join in is entirely up to me but I do fully understand it is trivial to the extreme. If you chose to take offence at any of it, that is entirely up to you but don't expect everyone to take you seriously.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 08:31 AM

Dave,
I'll keep a jar back, I have also added Whiskey to a couple of batches so you have a choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 08:51 AM

Ooooh - Whiskey please Raggy. I was contemplating going to the Moor and Coast June do but I see it ain't on this year :-( I am pretty sure I will be over some time before August but, if not, I know it will keep :-)

Cheers

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 09:26 AM

I've just finished a jar that I made in 2015, it keeps for years.

I've got all the vegetables prepared for the Corned Beef Hash tomorrow night, 8 kilos of potatoes, 4 kilos of carrots 4 kilos of onions all peeled and chopped ready to cook tomorrow, just need to throw in 6 tins of chopped tomatoes. 5 1/2 kilos of corned beef in the fridge ready to dice at the last minute.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 10:16 AM

Dave,
That fact that I chose to join in is entirely up to me but I do fully understand it is trivial to the extreme.

I do not find it trivial to be falsely accused of nasty things.
I find it deeply offensive, and I doubt that many people would find it "trivial in the extreme" either.

I think most people would find such behaviour despicable, and question the motivation of those doing it.

Instead of suggesting I ignore it you should stop doing it yourself and suggest that your friends stop too.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 10:28 AM

If anyone takes this part of the forum seriously they really do need medical help.

Psychiatrists at the ready !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 10:32 AM

I do not find it trivial to be falsely accused of nasty things.

So, Keith, where were you when a certain right wing organisation set up a facebook page in my name to post obscene things about women and how I supported the extermination of immigrants? The page has now gone and the organisation that arranged it has now mutated into one that you defend vigourously. Not many people saw it and those who mattered knew it was not me so, in the overall scheme of things, it was pretty trivial.


Where were you when someone on here posted a happy little ditty about my dying in slow agony? He was a hateful little shite and is now no longer here so, once again, trivial.

If someone I cared about did any of these things it would be important. If someone or something I cared about was in danger, it would be important. Absolutely none of this crap is. Get over it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 10:50 AM

Dave,
I would find your experiences despicable, and would have supported you and certainly not joined in with the abuse.
I would also not suggest that you just accept it and "get over it."

I did have a fake profile of me put up by some far right persons. Richard Bridge helped me deal with it.

the organisation that arranged it has now mutated into one that you defend vigourously.

I assume you mean Ukip.
I do not "defend them vigorously" but as they have no defenders here I do point out untruths spoken about them. That is all.

I think your claim that some unpleasant organisation mutated into them is such an untruth, or have you evidence?

I do not find it trivial to be falsely accused of nasty things.
I find it deeply offensive, and I doubt that many people would find it "trivial in the extreme" either.

I think most people would find such behaviour despicable, and question the motivation of those doing it.

Instead of suggesting I ignore it you should stop doing it yourself and suggest that your friends stop too.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 11:18 AM

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

Sorry Keith, I really have tried to meet you at least part way but there is obviously no point any more. I don't know how to put it any plainer. I would find it offensive to be accused of anything nasty BY SOMEONE THAT MATTERS TO ME and even then I would endeavour to resolve it personally rather than whinge to the world about it. I know we are all different and my way is not yours. But you never make allowances for that and I have had enough.

When anyone says anything, someone will disagree. Sometimes in a very robust manner. I accept that and suggest you do the same. Drop the martyr act or stop posting things that you know will cause a reaction.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 11:19 AM

Makes one wonder, if someone gets SO upset by it, that they actually bother to post to the BS section at all. Especially when that self same person rarely posts above the line.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 11:59 AM

"That's precisely why he and Carroll continually deflect with lies and misrepresentation and dredge up ancient posts. "
The invitation I have put out to Keith goes for you Bobad - produce the quotes Keith claims and I am happy to withdraw my accusations
Fail to do so and it is you who is lying
So far, neither Keith nor Teribus have come us with anything of the enormity of entire cultures infected to rape children.
You claim to have the interests of the Jewish people at heart - the Nazis made exactly the same claims about the Jewish culture - not a shred of difference
You would be outraged if somebody claimed that all Jews were "culturally implanted" - why is it permissible for someone to make the same claim against Muslims
You won't attempt to respond to this - your responses seems to be confined to vitriolic abuse.
Fine by me - it underlines your trollish behaviour and your dishonesty - a win-win situation from my point of view
What I am totally unable to figure out is if the people ever consider the effect that these statements have on Muslim families - the kids that get persecuted at schools, the women spat at in the street, the threat od arson attacks, the graffiti.... and all the shit that these accusations bring into their homes and lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 12:09 PM

The books were not rubbished, bobad dear chap. Calling a book "rather vulgar" is not rubbishing it. I've read some really good "rather vulgar" books in my time. Very enjoyable too! Calling it "fraudulent" WOULD be rubbishing it, but of course the only person in the world who ever called Taylor's book "fraudulent" was Keith, and he was hoping to get away with it. Hope this helps!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 12:18 PM

Didn't finish:
What kind of people would make an accusation like this knowing the effects it has on people's lives?
Even if the handful of people Keith claimed ever made such a basically racist statement, why believe them and not the thousands of Muslims who have totally rejected the idea that the acts of these criminals - what makes the so-called claims of a few more acceptable than the rest - are they more honest - are they greater authorities on Muslim culture - or do they just suit and already IMPLANTED BIGOTRY of Keith and people who think like him?
What sort of human being would target an entire culture on the basis of a handful of statements from relatively unknown individuals and reject everything else that has been said.
The Muslim community as a whole has rejected it, the Magistrates who trised tha cases rejected it - the police rejected it - the enquirers into the incidents rejected it.
If Keith "only believes it becaus all those prominent people said it was true"
NO LINK AS EVER BEEN FOUND BETWEEN THESE CRIMES AND THE MUSLIM CULTURE - NONE!!!
What have these people ever done to you?
I brought this up because Keith asked for examples of hiw extremism - this is as extreme as it gets
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 12:52 PM

There's a very nice Italian deli called Roma next to Whitefield Morrisons. Just bought three jars of aglio alla Marchigiana and I may be chomping a handful along with this pot of gorgeous Nocellara olives, stone-in, by the time you read this. It's amazing that they can get garlic cloves to stay crunchy yet mild enough for you to be able to eat a dozen. Also bought some pancetta in the piece so that I can make Mrs Steve a carbonara at the weekend. They didn't have the pig's cheek I wanted but the pancetta looks just the ticket.

Now where's that bloody corkscrew! It's grim up north...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 01:22 PM

Gnome how hypocritical of you to advise somebody to ignore lies, insults, smears and baseless accusations, when you yourself didn't. Steve Shaw is on record as stating that he was not the sort of person to let any "lie on this forum stand" - albeit that he was the one doing the lying. And guess what Gnome, you and the rest of your little gang took great delight in making sure the pot kept boiling. One part of that gang (The Musktwats) have fallen silent, around the time that you yourself fell silent, you did occasionally post using a GUEST, identity but your posting style and comments made you easy to identify resulting in you ditching your GUEST identity.

It was on one of the early WWI threads in 2013 or 2014 that I commented on the "mobbing" and bullying that Keith A was being subjected to. You and your pals have been relentlessly stalking him ever since.

So on an open forum that anyone can read and anyone can contribute to Keith A must accept the treatment being dished out to him and ignore it. Care to tell me why? Akenaton is subjected to baseless accusations related to cruelty to animals and he is just to accept his name and reputation being traduced. Care to tell me why?

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

Different indeed you and your pals are well known for your hypocritical double standards.

By the way your facebook tale is true and was shared by quite a few members on this forum, myself included, your experience was far from being unique. Quite rightly action was taken to take those pages down, it is equally natural, correct and understandable that when subjected to similar abuse on this forum steps are taken to end that abuse as well. On this thread two of your pals have been exposed for what they are - Liars - So now you are all complaining. For people who claim they are not a gang, your actions and your posting history, screams that the opposite is the case.

At some point or other this stalking by you and the little gang of ideologues has got to stop. If, in discussion, you and your pals cannot restrict yourselves to addressing the points made and countering the facts presented then remain silent.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 01:54 PM

Steve Shaw - 02 Mar 17 - 12:09 PM

1: The books were not rubbished, bobad dear chap. Calling a book "rather vulgar" is not rubbishing it. I've read some really good "rather vulgar" books in my time. Very enjoyable too!"

Both books were most certainly "rubbished" Shaw dear chap. Both were subject to highly critical peer review and not solely by Geoffrey Wheatcroft - for you to state as you have done that Taylor and Clark's books were not criticised demonstrates your ignorance at best and yet another of your lies at worst. I'm sure you have read "some really good "rather vulgar" books in my time" - very plausible - but I think in your case the meaning of "vulgar" was far different from what Geoffrey Wheatcroft meant by "vulgar".

2: "Calling it "fraudulent" WOULD be rubbishing it, but of course the only person in the world who ever called Taylor's book "fraudulent" was Keith, and he was hoping to get away with it

It was for all of roughly ONE HOUR. Hoping to get away with what exactly Shaw - this being an article, a book and a subject that you say you have no interest in - it was however an opportunity that you seized on to "stick it to Keith A" didn't you, after all he had been trouncing you in discussions on the other WWI threads. Only trouble was Keith A acknowledged the mistake and immediately corrected it didn't he Shaw as can be seen here:

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.

Hope this helps!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 02:07 PM

Dave,
I would find it offensive to be accused of anything nasty BY SOMEONE THAT MATTERS TO ME and even then I would endeavour to resolve it personally rather than whinge to the world about it

Well most people would be offended by anyone attacking them personally in public. You and your morality are clearly very unusual.

Why should anyone coming on Mudcat and putting reasonable views on reasonable topics be subject to such attacks, and why should they be criticised by the attackers for denying their accusations?

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

Hey Raggytash.
Isaiah 5:21

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 02:20 PM

Wrong end of the stick yet again, Teribus. I am not complaining about anything as I have already pointed out in the statement "I would find it offensive to be accused of anything nasty BY SOMEONE THAT MATTERS TO ME and even then I would endeavour to resolve it personally rather than whinge to the world about it."

You are another

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

And note that nowhere in that statement is there any indication that different is any better or worse. Just different. We obviously cannot communicate and have nothing in common so there is no point in even trying. I wonder why you seem to want to bang your head on a brick wall so much?

Good to see that so many people experienced the Facebook cloning though. Maybe now your mate will understand that he is not the only one that has been subjected to any abuse. He is the one who whiges most about it most though.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 02:27 PM

Jim,
So far, neither Keith nor Teribus have come us with anything of the enormity of entire cultures infected to rape children.

Of course not. What a ludicrous idea.

NO LINK AS EVER BEEN FOUND BETWEEN THESE CRIMES AND THE MUSLIM CULTURE - NONE!!!

No. And no-one here has ever suggested one.

You would be outraged if somebody claimed that all Jews were "culturally implanted" - why is it permissible for someone to make the same claim against Muslims
You won't attempt to respond to this - your responses seems to be confined to vitriolic abuse.

No vitriolic abuse. Sorry but I agree with you. It is not permissible.
Muslims include a vast range of different cultures.

a handful of statements from relatively unknown individuals and reject everything else that has been said.

Jack Straw (Home Sec), Ann Cryer MP, Lord Ahmed, Alibhai-Brown, Mohamed Safiq.
No other explanation for the over-representation was available then, and there views were carried by all the media.

Even if the handful of people Keith claimed ever made such a basically racist statement,

The whole media carried their views and in the whole world only YOU have claimed the to be racist.
Or can you find someone?

The Muslim community as a whole has rejected it, the Magistrates who trised tha cases rejected it - the police rejected it - the enquirers into the incidents rejected it.

None of that is true.


I brought this up because Keith asked for examples of hiw extremism - this is as extreme as it gets

It is not extreme to say that we are all implanted with our culture to some extent, it is not extreme for people with knowledge to say that the cultue is to blame, and it is not extreme to believe them in the absence of any other theory.

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

Dave,
I would endeavour to resolve it personally rather than whinge to the world about it."

It is natural to whinge about such behaviour, and I also endeavour to resolve it personally by refuting all the false accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 02:29 PM

"Isaiah 5:21"
Iain Paisley is back - mind your bums lads
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 02:29 PM

Why should anyone coming on Mudcat and putting reasonable views on reasonable topics be subject to such attacks

Why would anyone think that posting anything at all, let alone anything controversial, would not attract any response? Why would you "point out untruths spoken about" a right wing organisation on a forum with a large left wing membership and not expect an argument? Why would you prod a wasps nest and not expect to get stung?

I would say you must be mad but rather than that I am sure it is just

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 17 - 02:30 PM

1000!

Not received the new undies yet but I'll keep you posted.

:D tG