BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 11:18 AM

Jim and Lox, let me help you.
I will accept that I am indeed a bad person.
All my evidence for the over-representation is still good.
What have you got?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 10:30 AM

No one has to read this against their will, but you two and I are in contention over a disputed fact. (Note NOT a hypothesis!)

I say that there is an over representation, and I have the evidence of hundreds of victims' statements, statements from MPs, police officers, Barnados officials, victim support workers, Sikh and Hindu groups, BPs such as Allibhai-Brown, Lord Ahmed, and Mohammed Shafiq, journalists, conviction stats., .......

You say there is not, but have nothing to suggest significant numbers of any other groups are committing this crime.
Your whole case is that I am a bad person.
So you have to keep saying it, and/or hide.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 10:03 AM

Oh I see - so the mother "Believes" she knows.

And you "Believe" you know.

Wow - that really adds to the mountain of evidence.


"You have none, NONE, to support your denial of the truth. "

This old logical non sequitir again.


The truth = your hypothesis, for which you still fail to provide evidence.

So we don't know if its true or not.

You just believe it to be true thats all.

Just as you blelieve Pakistanis are deviants.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 09:41 AM

"And you mock the compassion that I feel for a murdered child. "
No - I am sickened at the cynical use you have put this tragedy to - and the fact that you have diverted the subject away from the children whose fate you were gloating over a few days ago (you've had the quotes) means that the attention is turned away from the crimes and their causes to an attack on a racial group in Britain - just as those in the 'White Supremists' have done - same line, same objective.
"You have to keep running from the thread "
Can I remind you that EVERYBODY apart from "we few, we happy few, we band of brothers" has run from this thread - have they fled from your mountain of evidence?
Silas has the right of it - I'll leave you to uyour slurry pit.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 09:36 AM

The mother believes she does know Lox.
It is easy to find quotes from her.
I believe I know too.

I hope there is justice beyond ours.
You don't care do you Lox.
You are just glad there is not another conviction to explain away.

Without this case there are mountains of evidence for an over-representation.
You have none, NONE, to support your denial of the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 09:12 AM

"I am deeply shocked at your casual, cold lack of any empathy."

Your imagination is running wild again Keith

"Or are you glad because of who they are? "


I don't know who they are Keith.

How would I know when even the parents don't?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Silas
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 08:44 AM

I can't tell you how interesting this thread is guys, I keep seeing new posts appear and think to myself, "ey up, I bet someone has posted something new...."

Have a little dignity chaps and call it a day.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 08:36 AM

You lie.
I have never addressed anything at the whole BP population.
You have to lie because you have NOT ONE SINGLE HONEST CHALLENGE to the contention that there is an over-representation.

You have to keep running from the thread because you have no reply to the mountain of evidence against you.

And you mock the compassion that I feel for a murdered child.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 08:09 AM

"That was a direct quote of Jack Straw"
Aimed at a specific, but unspecified community - not at the British Pakistani population as a whole - as you would have us accept.
"I do not know what happened to the poor child Lox. She has been denied even the dignity of a grave."
Back to you Beerbohm Tree impersonations Yuuuukkk!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 07:47 AM

Jim,
"no new evidennce to back up your "more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim.","

That was a direct quote of Jack Straw, former Home Secretary, former Foreign Secretary, Blackburn MP.
Not me.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 07:37 AM

I do not know what happened to the poor child Lox.
She has been denied even the dignity of a grave.

I am deeply shocked at your casual, cold lack of any empathy.

Do you care at all that her vicious killers are still laughing at her?
Or are you glad because of who they are?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 07:22 AM

From the IPCC report.

"Six years since the disappearance of Charlene, her parents are no nearer to knowing what happened to their daughter. I cannot imagine how distressing this must be for them. The failings in Lancashire Constabulary's investigation can only have compounded that distress. Lessons must be learned from this matter to ensure such failures cannot happen again."

How come They don't know, yet Keith is sure?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 07:15 AM

Nothing new here, certainly no new evidennce to back up your "more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim.", which flies in the face of yur own 'witnesses' - I'm off - but don't hestiate to call me when you have something fresh (not really a word that can be applied to such a foetid an argument)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 06:15 AM

If course it "in no way implicates the British Pakistani population as a whole"

Nothing I have posted on this thread does!
You don't listen, but I keep saying that only a tiny minority are offending.

My whole case, simply put, is that there is an over-representation in this horrendously nasty type of crime, and there is a mass of horrendously nasty evidence confirming that, not least the testimony of the surviving victims themselves.

You deny it, but offer nothing except smears.
IT JUST MUSN'T BE TRUE!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 05:48 AM

"Do you believe that Charlene got justice at the trials for her murder Jim?"
No I don't - the police didn't do their job properly and those guilty escaped - pretty much as happened in the Stephen Lawrence case.
The main pont of all this is as stated - ie; which in no way implicates the British Pakistani population as a whole - even if those arrested had been as guilty as hell.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 05:39 AM

Jim states,
"It was found they had no case to answer and the trial collapsed ie; they were innocent.."

No.
The police messed up and all the evidence had to be withdrawn.
Official report here.
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/pr151009_lancashire.aspx

A shocking miscarriage of justice.
An abused and brutally murdered child, and the rapist killers are still free to carry on.
No glee from me about any of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 05:04 AM

Police investigating the disappearance of a teenage girl allegedly 'chopped up' for kebab meat have been criticised for a catalogue of failures which led to the collapse of a murder retrial.
An independent review found that police surveillance techniques were 'handled poorly and unprofessionally' and as a result nobody is now likely to be convicted of killing Charlene Downes, 14, who was last seen in 2003.

Her mother today said she felt 'badly let down' after the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) recommended that seven officers should be disciplined over the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 05:02 AM

Charlene died all those years ago but the abuse of children goes on.
That is stated by the police.
Do you believe that Charlene got justice at the trials for her murder Jim?

If you have a strong stomach, read this BBC piece about the first trial.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6688137.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 04:39 AM

More glee for Keith:
In context:
This took place 8 years ago.
Two Pakistani kebab takeaway owners were said to have been involved and put on trial.
It was found they had no case to answer and the trial collapsed ie; they were innocent and were compensated for having been wrongly accused.
Some police are now claiming that the reason they did not do their job properly in the first place was that they feared accusaions of racism.
End of story - which in no way implicates the British Pakistani population as a whole - back to square one.
Incidentally, Ake could have put up all the information yesteday - there were a number of sources he could have chosen, such as fascist publications like The White Supremist (think that's the name, but it might be the organisation - speaks for itself though) who have called for their members to 'move into Blackpool and sort things out'.
Wisely, Ake chose not to go there as it would have put this discussion were it truely belongs.
Said I wasn't going to be involved again, and I'm not, but I thought you should know where we stand
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 02:03 AM

link does not work.
cut and paste.
sorry.

By James Tozer
Last updated at 11:12 PM on 7th April 2011



At least 60 schoolgirls were groomed for sex by workers at seedy takeaways linked to the murder of a 14-year-old girl.
Children as young as 11 were targeted by mainly Asian staff at fast food outlets in Blackpool. They were offered food, alcohol and cigarettes in return for sexual favours.
An unpublicised police report produced after 14-year-old Charlene Downes vanished in 2003 found the girls, most if not all white, had been victims of the 'honey pot' premises. There were claims last night that the report was suppressed for reasons of political correctness.
Seedy: The takeaway in Blackpool linked to Charlene Downes, then 14, and Paige Chivers, then 15, who are both missing
Four years later another girl, 15-year-old Paige Chivers, also went missing. Detectives believe she was killed like Charlene, whose body has never been found.
Two Middle Eastern restaurant owners were acquitted over Charlene's murder in 2007 and the crime remains unsolved.
The pair still run a kebab shop in Blackpool which was also linked to Paige, and she too was identified as a victim of sexual exploitation. Last year police reported that the takeaway was attracting young girls who were being supplied with alcohol and cocaine.
Victims: Charlene Downes (left) is believed to have been murdered while Paige Chivers has been missing since 2007

The revelations about the scale of grooming centred around the downmarket cafes comes amid growing concern at disturbing cases involving mainly Asian gangs exploiting young white girls for sex in the Midlands and North of England.
More...The one-boy crime wave: 17-year-old behind 100 burglaries and £445,000 spree is jailed
Mystery of the teenager who went to nightclub restroom... and never returned

The girls, often from vulnerable homes or in the care system, were befriended by men who showered them with gifts and affection before using them for sex.
Former Home Secretary Jack Straw has said the girls were seen as 'easy meat', while David Cameron called on police to follow criminal acts 'without fear or favour' wherever the evidence leads.
The Home Office commissioned a nationwide investigation into the problem, which has long been considered taboo by police officers fearful of being branded racist.
Indeed, a former senior detective at Lancashire Police yesterday blamed political correctness for its failure to highlight its 2003 findings in Blackpool.
But the force denied this, saying the report had been available online since 2007 but had never been intended for publication.
Senior officers insisted an intensive programme to break the cycle of exploitation had been a success and that in the last six months 50 of 54 grooming suspects were white.
Shocking claims made in court over Charlene's murder revealed fears that her body had been put through a mincing machine, with takeaway staff said to have joked that her remains had 'gone into the kebabs'.
A jury failed to reach a verdict on charges that Jordanian immigrant Iyad Albattikhi had murdered her while his Iranian landlord Mohammed Reveshi had disposed of her body.
A retrial collapsed in 2008 amid failings in the police investigation and the men were paid almost £250,000 each in compensation.
The kebab shop run by Mr Albattikhi and Mr Reveshi has changed its name from Funny Boyz to Mr Beanz. It was refused a hot food licence last year amid fears about 'sexual activity' linked to the premises, but the pair blame a 'police vendetta' and have appealed.
Following Charlene's disappearance in 2003, police found more than 60 girls were being groomed for sex by non-white men centred around 11 Blackpool takeaways.
They were mainly aged between 13 and 15, but some were as young as 11. Yesterday former Detective Superintendent Mick Gradwell warned that research into the problem was being hampered by 'political correctness and concerns about upsetting community cohesion'.
But Lancashire police denied a cover-up. Assistant Chief Constable Andy Rhodes said his officers were making significant progress in tackling child sex exploitation across Lancashire, regardless of the background of the culprits.
He added: 'We recognise that in some areas the number of Asian offenders is disproportionate to the population and far from ignoring this, have been tackling the issue head on by working with the local communities, giving presentations to community forums and visiting mosques to raise awareness.'
It was reported yesterday that while most British sex offenders are lone white men, details of court cases in 13 towns showed that out of 56 men convicted of multiple offences of grooming girls for sex, 50 were Muslim, mostly of Pakistani heritage.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1374443/Police-hid-abuse-60-girls-Asian-takeaway-workers-linked-Charlene-Downes-murder.html#ixzz1IuP4Tqn0

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 02:00 AM

More info. here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1374443/Police-hid-abuse-60-girls-Asian-takeaway-workers-linked-Charlene-Downes-murder.h

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 01:58 AM

The Telegraph picked up on that story.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8433887/60-girls-groomed-for-sex-at-takeaway-shops-in-Blackpool.html

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 04:51 PM

Full front page in today's Times.

More than sixty white schoolgirls were being groomed for sex in Blackpool, by a group of men who have been linked to the murder of a fourteen year old girl.
All the girls were white and all the perps Muslim....mainly BPs

"The endemic nature of the abuse was kept secret"

Sorry, unable to link to this story which covers three pages.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 04:47 PM

Of course I believe Wilmer.
You would need a bloody good reason to believe she would lie about all this.
What is yours?

These crimes do not involve the rapist creeping up on the victim with a balaclava on.
The victim knows the names, the cars, where they work, everything.

I am slightly disgusted that you try to discredit the word of raped children with talk of heresay, when you clearly have not read any of the testimonies from children or families, or researchers or support workers.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 04:11 PM

BTW Keith, we never did get to hear your answer to my question about HOW those children could have identified all their abusers as Pakistani, rather than Indian, Spanish, Maltese, or any other darkish skinned race.

And please remember that we are talking about 400 children, not just those who were victim to. the Pakistani groups already convicted.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 04:04 PM

""And explain also why all the victims say their abusers were BPs, and why none have been found who accuse others.""



To be more accurate, Wilmer says that the kids said all of the abusers were Pakistani, and it suits you to believe her, so you present it as evidence that what you wish to believe is FACT!

You would never get that level of hearsay admitted into evidence in any court in either the UK, let alone presented as fact to a jury.

So, if that is your case, best of luck with it Keith. You are being persistently foolish and dishonest in calling that evidence, simply because it supports your hard wired prejudice.

I would hate to see you on a jury trying any member of an ethnic minority.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 10:13 AM

Explanation of your last post Lox?

And explain also why all the victims say their abusers were BPs, and why none have been found who accuse others.

And why you choose to ignore what the actual victims say.

And why we should listen to you and Jim instead of those who, as victims, know more about this evil crime than anyone else in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 05:57 AM

"I am with the raped kids."

mm hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 03:04 PM

No jim.
The children and families have a right to be heard.
It is disgusting that you won't accept the word of those who actually experienced the rape.

Why won't you?
Saving your face?

Let it go both of you.
You are on the wrong side.
I am with the raped kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 02:49 PM

Keith - one more time:

                                                                                        G T A F F

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 02:44 PM

The various journalists, MPs, Support workers etc. did not go out looking for victims of BPs.
They just looked for victims, or the victims sought them out.

And all those victims said they had been raped by gangs of BPs.
There are no other victims claiming different attackers are there Lox?
That is because this really is mainly a crime of BPs.

Sorry, but I am just the messenger.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 02:35 PM

How thick can you be ...

... all the vcitims of Pakistanis say they were raped by Pakistanis.

Are you suggesting that only Pakistanis in the North of England abuse children or commit rape?

Get a life!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 02:29 PM

Jim,
""This crime is mainly committed by BPs."
Calmly - No it isn't Keith;"

It is according to the child victims.
They all say they were raped by gangs of BPs.
None say different.
Why will you not listen to them?
Why do you deny and betray them?
Have they not suffered enough?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 02:17 PM

"This crime is mainly committed by BPs."
Calmly - No it isn't Keith; the figures you received from Lively with such obscene glee:
                         "I can hear YOU screaming Jim, and I'm bloody enjoying it."
represents a miniscule fraction of such crimes that have been going on since the dawn of time and all over the world. To lay them at the door of one race is RACIST.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 01:49 PM

Jim and Lox.
"Because they are crimes committed by ALL RACES, CREEDS and COLOURS and to claim them as "mainly a Pakistani" crime is SIMPLY NOT THE CASE."

This crime is mainly committed by BPs.
All the children say they were raped by gangs of BPs.

To deny their claims is to abuse them further.
I believe them.
You can't.

IT JUST CAN'T BE TRUE!
THEY ARE ALL RACISTS BIGOTS AND LIARS!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 01:41 PM

Its all academic now.

2 and 1/2 months diligently trying to prove that Pakistanis are perverts is enough evidence of Keiths motives to be completely clear about them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 01:33 PM

And we haven't forgotten how you crowed like an egg-bound black bird and told us how good it was for you when Lively uncovered these figures.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 01:21 PM

"Again you deny and betray the child victims."
Are the child victims saying that this is not true? This is what you have been saying and this is what we have been denying throughout this thread.
"Because they are crimes committed by ALL RACES, CREEDS and COLOURS and to claim them as "mainly a Pakistani" crime is SIMPLY NOT THE CASE."
"Why will you not listen to those poor raped children."
And for crying out loud
".....Why will you not listen to those poor raped children......." you're beginning to sound like Michael McLiammoír reading "The Death of Little Nell"
You're the same bloody hypocrite who has cynically used these children to make your racist case.
Sod off!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 12:29 PM

Again you deny and betray the child victims.
They all say they were raped by gangs of BPs, not by other groups.
Why will you not listen to those poor raped children.
No-one likes it, any more than you do.
But, it is a fact and we should learn to deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,wampum
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 12:09 PM

Barking, absolutely and totally barking!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 12:05 PM

"Where has Keith used my 'name-calling of Lox"
M
"Stinkilox – CrapLox – ObnoxiousLoxious - Poxy-Loxy-Woxy – SilliLox –PsychoLox - SickoLox"
K
"Bastard Lox - Ludicrous Lox! - Obnoxious Lox - obnoxious Lox – ludicrous Lox - ridiculous Lox - ridiculous Lox"

Not commenting on the quality you understand, or even the usage, - there but for the grace......! just the lack of imagination on Keith's part in not developing his own style of invective (is that the word).
And this is the last time I'm trawling through this swam looking for stuff that is either flatly denied or ignored.
".....that they have all been raped by gangs of BPs, and none say different, how can you deny that it is mainly a crime of BPs?"
Because they are crimes committed by ALL RACES, CREEDS and COLOURS and to claim them as "mainly a Pakistani" crime is SIMPLY NOT THE CASE.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Silas
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 11:34 AM

Boynnng. Time for bed said Zeberdee.

g'it a rest lads - 38 pages should be enough for anyone...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 11:10 AM

If you accept what they all say, that they have all been raped by gangs of BPs, and none say different, how can you deny that it is mainly a crime of BPs?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 10:59 AM

"That is a worse insult to Lively than just posing a question."
The quote in full - referring to your poncing off Lively's information - no reference at all to Lively on my part
"Nothing you (rather Lively - you tend to ponce off other's input's) have put up here in any way backs up the claims you have continually made since you first turned this thread into a torrent of hatred for Pakistani culture. If it does, please point it out."
"But what would they say to you and Lox, for denying the truth of what they say?"
Once again - where has anybody denied what they say, certainly not me?
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 09:57 AM

"Not innuendo Keith - statement of fact"
That we "ponce off each other"
That is a worse insult to Lively than just posing a question.

Jim it is monstrous that you accuse me of using the child victims as "an emotional jack-hammer."

Those families are angry that their stories have been suppressed.
They told their "dreadful stories" to the journalist Binden because they wanted to be heard.
In my small way I am helping them to be heard.
I know they would thank me for putting their "dreadful stories" on this forum.

But what would they say to you and Lox, for denying the truth of what they say?
If they called you bastard, who would blame them.

Every one of them says they were raped by BP gangs.
Likewise all the testimonies we have heard and read.
Likewise all those who went to Straw, Cryer, and the Hindu and Sikh groups.
Likewise all the hundreds who went to Wilmer.
And not one says different.
So, why won't you listen?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 09:25 AM

---Mike, am referring to his openly dishonest behaviour, which you have chosen not to comment on:---

Why, Jim, yes I have: by saying more than once I do not perceive it as dishonest quite as you do; but that is not the issue I have been pursuing of late ...

it was the tone, rather than the content, of your posts that I have been commenting on these last couple of times.

{Where has Keith used my 'name-calling of Lox' btw? I don't remember calling anyone any names; only recall his disobliging refs to me a while since ~~ since when he & I have exchanged some observations without too much heat, IIRC.}

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 09:01 AM

Not talking about his posts Mike, am referring to his openly dishonest behaviour, which you have chosen not to comment on: his doctoring of 'evidence', his innuendos of a dirty-tricks campaign on mine and Lively's part, his posting of snide attacks on other threads and and fact that the implication of what he has repeated over and over again is that we are liars, stupid and (his current approach) if we do not endorse his hypocritical plea for sympathy, heartless bastards who ignore or support paedophelia.
"Remember this innuendo Jim?"
Not innuendo Keith - statement of fact. You took Lively's findings, which he introduced into the discussion sensitively and responsibly, and emblazoned it all over the thread (in case it disappeared!!!) and used those dreadful cases as an emotional jack-hammer to make your racist point over and over again, and are still doing so as a piece of emotional blackmail (endorse what I say or you are all heartless bastards).
You are so unimaginitive that you even took Mike's name-calling of Lox and used it yourself - if not word-for-word, certainly in form - want me to dig it out?.
Whatever points you or we may or may not have made here, your behaviour has been abominable towards others you are debating with.
Nobody really gives a shit about name-calling, we all do it at times, but at least we try to respond honestly to each other's points, even when we disagree.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 07:52 AM

Remember this innuendo Jim?
Nothing you (rather Lively - you tend to ponce off other's input's) have put up here

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 07:40 AM

I think we are agreed, Jim, that we differ as to the significance or effects of Keith's posts and points; there is probably no purpose in our pursuing that argument further. My point was simply that I thought your arguments would come over more cogently if expressed more moderately and less abusively. It is always more effective if one can keep one's temper, whatever the provocation. Most people {unless looking for the perverse enjoyment which comes from watching someone 'losing it'} would have preferred to watch Stan Smith play tennis rather than John McEnroe, despite the frequent brilliance of the latter's play. I know I certainly did.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 06:46 AM

"Why do you deny what all the children say? "

I haven't denied anything they said Keith.

Where I have had access to what they have said, I have read it. In all 3 cases.

Unlike you who hove superimposed you hypothesis and misrepresent the eviidence to support it, or just invent it when it doesn't.

I have found nothing that supports your hypothesis.