BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 01:50 PM

"Jim the introduction of a pitched roof into the thread has me confused."
I suggest you read your own postings Iain, and then read what others have said.
"A blanket ban is the start of a slippery slope. Who polices the policemen?"
Surely you're not going to pick up on a typo - so soon after complaining about others doing it
That bereft of argument already!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 02:05 PM

Talking of Iains and his typos (I'm being kind here and assuming that they are just that and not an indication of a literacy shortfall), get this:

"That is a very bizarre stance you take mr shaw. You imply all those that voted for Trump..."

Not fair! How come Trump gets a capital letter but I don't!

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 02:35 PM

because in the greater scheme of things the President is way more important than you steve. This may come as a surprise to you but there you go.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 02:45 PM

"the President is way more important than you steve."
So us underlings don't merit capital letters to our names?
How big does our bank balance have to be before we do?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 02:51 PM

Anyway, he isn't more important than me.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 02:58 PM

And, in addition, Hump is aconfirmed asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 03:23 PM

Jim the introduction of a pitched roof into the thread has me confused. Can you enlighten me?

He could try, I have no doubt, but ...........

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:11 PM

Why be bashful Mr Red. The rest of the pack seem to be in fine form.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:29 PM

There's no pack. It's your snowflakey persecution complex combined with your thoroughly justified inferiority complex.

Damn. I promised myself never to call anyone a snowflake. What have you done to me, Iains?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 07:20 PM

"The rest of the pack seem to be in fine form."
You really do deal in insults rather than argument, dont oyu
Learn from your mate's failures - those who think themselves superior usually end up proving that they are at the bottom of the heap
Leave him to stew in his own superiority Steve - a new ego-triper on the block is the last thing we need
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 07:41 PM

Well you know me, Jim. I only pick people up on their typos when they get all hoity bloody toity about other people's. But on this occasion I must congratulate you on the finest, most appropriate typo of all, viz:

"Leave him to stew in his own superiority Steve - a new ego-triper on the block...". He's got the ego all right, and he peddles tripe! Genius, Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 07:53 PM

Typo - what typo?
Oh ye of little faith!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:08 PM

I knew it, yer bugger - you did it on purpose! "Ego-triper" - please tell me you haven't copyrighted it, leaving me free to use it here. There are going to be so many opportunities!

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 03:16 AM

As I said, the pack is in fine form. You have just admirably confirmed it. I presume you have to cluster together as you are incapable of acting in isolation, and have run out of anything sensible to say.
How sad that your fixation on monopolising every thread means you have to resort to drivelling when the idea box is empty.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 03:28 AM

"the pack is in fine form. "
Now you are just trolling with insults Iains
It didn't take long
Please don't - people have responded to your insulting aggression with a degree of restraint - nobody wants another slanging match - there have been far too man already
Leave it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 04:36 AM

So, we have had patronisation, insults, accusations of pack bullying and picking up on typos. All we need now is "I have better things to do" and "get a life" for the full set. Always a good fallback in the event of having nothing sensible to add. Well done Iains.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 05:01 AM

Just wait 'til he really tells you what he thinks, Dave. He'll ironically call you a snowflake. Anyway, I'm just off to buy the Saturday Guardian in order to spend half a day embroiled in scepticism. The first thing I do is turn to Blind Date in the mag, look at the pic of the couple, exercise as much prejudice as I can muster from that image alone, then read the text to find out how wrong I can be. That copy of the Mail I got on Thursday is currently polluting my paper recycling bag.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 10:13 AM

All we need now is "I have better things to do" and "get a life" for the full set.

Not quite - you forgot to include "You Lose!"

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 10:26 AM

What about baseless accusations and spittle-flecked rants?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 12:08 PM

Looking at these latest offerings it is easy to see why the Labour party is facing an extinction event very shortly. Can't happen soon enough I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 12:42 PM

Interesting view point Iains, no alternative party ...........

Dictatorship beckons ..............

Is that what you really want ............?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 01:01 PM

Probably, Raggy, probably. It's the only way these people have any hope of winning an argument :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 01:27 PM

Raggytash. No one in their right mind would want a one party state. There are plenty of examples from recent history to amply illustrate the resultant dangers.
But you must admit the Tories do not have a viable opposition. They are a joke and become more pitiful by the day.

dtheg you are presumtuous . I can articulate my own thoughts
quite easily thank you. You have not the slightest idea of what my thoughts on dictatorship may be, although your arrogance may lead you to think that you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 01:38 PM

I did say probably in case you did not notice. Glad it annoyed you enough to respond though ;-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 02:04 PM

"I can articulate my own thoughts quite easily thank you."

Then:

"But you must admit the Tories do not have a viable opposition. They are a joke and become more pitiful by the day."

Who are? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 02:30 PM

"There are plenty of examples from recent history to amply illustrate the resultant dangers."
There are indeed - Mrs T described Pinochet's one party state that was achieved my mass murder, rape and torture as her kind of democracy and its architect as "a hero of democracy"
Britin has being selling arms to one party states throughout my lifetime and a year or so ago sent it's Prime Minister to one of them while a journalist was being administered 1000 LASHES .
It seems to depend on which party constitutes a one party system to some people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 04:47 PM

You decide stevie. I deliberately phrased it for you to exhibit your "skills".

Jim. quoted from the Independent about 5 months back:-Britain is now the second biggest arms dealer in the world, official government figures show – with most of the weapons fuelling deadly conflicts in the Middle East.

Since 2010 Britain has also sold arms to 39 of the 51 countries ranked "not free" on the Freedom House "Freedom in the world" report, and 22 of the 30 countries on the UK Government's own human rights watch list.

A full two-thirds of UK weapons over this period were sold to Middle Eastern countries, where instability has fed into increased risk of terror threats to Britain and across the West.
Read more

    British arms companies ramp up bomb sales to Saudi Arabia by 100 times despite air strikes on civilians
    MPs to investigate evidence of illegal weapons sales at London's DSEI arms fair
    British government dismisses concerns about selling arms to Saudi Arabia

Meanwhile statistics collated by UK Trade and Investment, a government body that promotes British exports abroad, show the UK has sold more arms than Russia, China, or France on average over the last 10 years. Only the United States is a bigger exporter.

"The UK is one of the world's most successful defence exporters, averaging second place in the global rankings on a rolling ten-year basis, making it Europe's leading defence exporter in the period," the body boasted in a report released this summer.

However these sales were signed off by both Labour and Conservative governments. Also to add a little balance Labour can hardly be regarded as saints.

"Labour is the only Party in the history of the United Kingdom to have single-handedly wrecked the economy. Twice. And started illegal war. Twice.
Elected into power in a landslide election in 1997, lead by Tony Blair, and then quickly set about laying waste to manufacturing. Went to war in 2001, the War on Terror (the first ever war to be waged upon an abstract noun), later followed by the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
Pursued pseudo-Conservative policies interspersed with fantastical socialism, both of which usually end up failing.
Famed for woeful management of the country, and the economy. Work on the pretences of capitalist-friendliness, while overtaxing and regulating the private sector, and generally receiving dollops of hatred from business leaders.
Leaders have connections to Marxism (Alistair Darling) and Communism (Peter Mandelson), both of which condescending lectured the right wing press and business leaders on how to run the country.
Hell bent on achieving equality, even though to achieve such a thing would mean an end to aspiration and result in the ultimate downfall of the British economy.
Fighting the General Election of 2010 on the principles of fairness:- so long as you consider fairness to be a wrecked economy, no aspiration and authoritarian surveillance, social breakdown and short-sighted political gain. Have an irrational hatred of Conservatives and the rich

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 05:14 PM

What sources are you quoting? Or are you quoting yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 17 - 05:56 PM

Well whatever he was quoting, the second essential speech marks were missing. And it was drivel in any case. Iains has a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 03:51 AM

"What sources are you quoting?"
He is quoting 'The Urban Dictionary', "which is a crowdsourced online dictionary of slang words" assembled by blogged definitions contributed by ..... whoever!
A blogger's "dictionary"
It has no authoritative grounding, no history of research, no credibility - nothing in the way of a reputation - if you are looking for an off-the cuff quote on anything, from politics - to stand-up-comedy - to the most satisfying porn channel - it's in U.D.
The level of reliability of the dictionary can be found in the last line of that particular definition, which is entitled entitled "Labour", from the contributor
"You stupid Labourite! Go munch some lentils, ya hippie.
by TGPEG April 18, 2010"
The "Independant' doesn't stand a chance next to such erudition, does it!!!
My first encounter with Ians was when he called me naive for believing everything I read - unfortunately, he failed to introduce me to The Urban Dictionary - it would have saved me making all the mistakes I have!!
Within a week of the start of the Arab Spring protests, David Cameron lauunched a massive ARMS FAIR in London aimed at such 'Democracies' as Saudi Arania and Bahrain
Britain supplied sniper ammunition to Syria which was possibly used to train the snipers who cut down the citizens of Homs and riot control equipment (tear gas, batons, body armour and armoured cars) which allowed the protesters to be rounded up and herded into Assad's prisons where they were tortured in their many thousands, and later 'disappeared'
Five days ago The Daily Telegraph reported that 13,000 people were executed in just one of Assad's prisons in Damascus over the last five years.
Britain was condemned internationally during the period when the Assad regime was using chemical weapons on its own people, when it was revealed that we had sold chemicals to Syria which were capable of being used in the manufacture of those weapons.
The rise of Isis can be traced back directly to the failure of the UN to act on the Homs massacres and the support given by Western countries to regimes such as Assad's
Wonder if The Urban Dictionary carried any of that information!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 03:51 AM

"What sources are you quoting?"
He is quoting 'The Urban Dictionary', "which is a crowdsourced online dictionary of slang words" assembled by blogged definitions contributed by ..... whoever!
A blogger's "dictionary"
It has no authoritative grounding, no history of research, no credibility - nothing in the way of a reputation - if you are looking for an off-the cuff quote on anything, from politics - to stand-up-comedy - to the most satisfying porn channel - it's in U.D.
The level of reliability of the dictionary can be found in the last line of that particular definition, which is entitled entitled "Labour", from the contributor
"You stupid Labourite! Go munch some lentils, ya hippie.
by TGPEG April 18, 2010"
The "Independant' doesn't stand a chance next to such erudition, does it!!!
My first encounter with Ians was when he called me naive for believing everything I read - unfortunately, he failed to introduce me to The Urban Dictionary - it would have saved me making all the mistakes I have!!
Within a week of the start of the Arab Spring protests, David Cameron lauunched a massive ARMS FAIR in London aimed at such 'Democracies' as Saudi Arania and Bahrain
Britain supplied sniper ammunition to Syria which was possibly used to train the snipers who cut down the citizens of Homs and riot control equipment (tear gas, batons, body armour and armoured cars) which allowed the protesters to be rounded up and herded into Assad's prisons where they were tortured in their many thousands, and later 'disappeared'
Five days ago The Daily Telegraph reported that 13,000 people were executed in just one of Assad's prisons in Damascus over the last five years.
Britain was condemned internationally during the period when the Assad regime was using chemical weapons on its own people, when it was revealed that we had sold chemicals to Syria which were capable of being used in the manufacture of those weapons.
The rise of Isis can be traced back directly to the failure of the UN to act on the Homs massacres and the support given by Western countries to regimes such as Assad's
Wonder if The Urban Dictionary carried any of that information!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 04:15 AM

I thought the urban dictionary gave a fairly apt description of labour.
Actually quite mild compared to the pack savaging the esteemed Mrs Thatcher( a heroine to any discriminating person)

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 04:26 AM

"I thought the urban dictionary gave a fairly apt description of labour."
You would, wouldn't you
Thatcher
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/tories-have-forgotten-that-thatcher-wasnt-just-a-terrorist-sympathiser-but-close-friends-with-one-10507850.html
From the Independent - (can't blue clickie)
Are you going to persist with this infantile "the pack" - shall we add your name to "The Fanatical Foursome"
I don't know how old you are, but for the sake of a rational discussion, please make an effort to grow up"
At present you are coming over as a somewhat truckulent schoolchild
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 04:26 AM

"I thought the urban dictionary gave a fairly apt description of labour."
You would, wouldn't you
Thatcher
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/tories-have-forgotten-that-thatcher-wasnt-just-a-terrorist-sympathiser-but-close-friends-with-one-10507850.html
From the Independent - (can't blue clickie)
Are you going to persist with this infantile "the pack" - shall we add your name to "The Fanatical Foursome"
I don't know how old you are, but for the sake of a rational discussion, please make an effort to grow up"
At present you are coming over as a somewhat truckulent schoolchild
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 04:28 AM

About as accurate as the Daily Mail as well I would say. From the article -

Went to war in 2001, the War on Terror (the first ever war to be waged upon an abstract noun)

From Wikipedia

The War on Drugs" is an American term usually applied to the United States government's campaign of prohibition of drugs, military aid, and military intervention, with the stated aim being to reduce the illegal drug trade. This initiative includes a set of drug policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs that the participating governments and the UN have made illegal. The term was popularized by the media shortly after a press conference given on June 18, 1971

Does that not make the war on terror phrase some 30 years later that the war on drugs?

Makes you wonder what their sources are and what other drivel is being quoted as fact.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 04:42 AM

Jim you should read your sources more closely:
"The Syrian regime has executed up to 13,000 people in secret mass hangings carried out in the basement of a military prison near Damascus, according to Amnesty International.

A new report by the human rights group alleges that Bashar al-Assad's security forces carried out "a calculated campaign of mass hangings and extermination" at Saydnaya, a military prison outside the capital."

You carefully omit the word alleges. No proof, just an unsubstantiated allegation.

You are yet another peddling FALSE NEWS.
Where is your proof to support your quoted facts?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 04:51 AM

A bit like the false statement that the war on terror was "the first ever war to be waged upon an abstract noun"?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 05:01 AM

dtheg A rather good phrase I thought. As good a reason for going to war as the one we were given.

Jim Another view of Amnesty:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/amnesty-internationals-kangaroo-report-on-human-rights-in-syria/5574195

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 05:05 AM

It is not the phrase that is in question. It is that your article says 'the first ever' etc. when that is completely untrue.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 05:07 AM

dtheg if you do not like the author's attempt at levity. How about this:
Speaker to Prime Minister:"I am not Happy"
David Cameron to Bercrow:"Which one are you then?"

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 05:13 AM

Are you really claiming that the information Syria is false?
I suggest that you read through your newspapers
The terrorist natiour of Syria is an established fact - it was only prevented from being tried for war Crimes in the International Court by vetoes from Russia and China
Jeeze - an you call me naive
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 05:19 AM

Ahhh. Got it now. Lying is levity More alt-truth?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 05:31 AM

Ah the "Homs Massacres", wasn't the source of Jom's British Arms sales claims the "Daily Mail"?

Funny it seemed to be reputable enough, authoritative and credible enough for him then.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 05:32 AM

Jim you are floundering. Allegations need verification. Simples!

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 05:56 AM

"wasn't the source of Jom's British Arms sales claims the "Daily Mail"?"
No it wasn't - it was from an official document published in The Daily Express and covered by numerous newspapers
It's validity has never been questioned other than by you and Keith
"Jom's"
Can't break with your imbecilic display of insecurity, I see, despite havign humiliated yourself publicly
Comforting that my arguments are still hitting Home, as you once said about someone else
"Jim you are floundering. Allegations need verification."
No they do not - you have had them
Do your really not recall that the British Parliament voted on whether to send troops into Syria and decided not to become involved
VOTE of SHAME
What on earth are you on Iains?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 06:23 AM

You do realise you are totally on your own hre Iaians?
The best your sad mate could ever offer was the Britain couldn't possibly have known that Assad was a murderous torturer because "they didn't have a crystal ball"
Even he wasn't stupid enough to deny what was happening in Syria
BRITISH LICENSES TO SYRIA
Syria        2,676,460        30,000        1        Small arms ammunition
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 06:40 AM

dtheg if you do not like the author's attempt at levity. How about this:
Speaker to Prime Minister:"I am not Happy"
David Cameron to Bercrow:"Which one are you then?"

Well as you like to regale others about their false news, let me correct you. It was junior health minister Simon Burns who is reputed to have made that wisecrack to Bercow after Burns' driver had reversed into Bercow's car. Ever thought of reporting for a tabloid?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 07:56 AM

Personally, I like the story of thatcher taking oher cabinet out for a meal
She ordered steak, very rare.
The waiter asked, "and the vegetables"
She replied, "They'll have the same".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Stu
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 08:22 AM

That was Spitting Image. Margaret Thatcher cabinet of vegetables

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Feb 17 - 08:37 AM

100! :-)