BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 01:10 PM

Want to examine the indications Raggy?
Teribus, Keith, Ake Bobad - one farts, the other three stink
'The Fucked Up Four'
Don't be so frigging childish Terebus - if we have a gang, so do you.
When are you people going to debate like adults?
Stupid - stupid - stupid!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 12:51 PM

I have never met and am unlikely too.

You have a property in Ireland within reach of Jim.
He has suggested you call in.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 12:23 PM

My word aren't you paranoid.

I have stated quite clearly I have met Steve ONCE, for about 2 or 3 hours a YEAR ago. We must have spent all of 5 minutes talking about Mudcat.

Dave I have met 6 or 7 times, the latest being on Saturday when we mentioned Mudcat for a least 1 minute.

The remainder of your imaginary "little gang" and it is imaginary, I have never met and am unlikely too.

You really are very insecure aren't you. Have you checked for reds under the bed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 12:06 PM

Raggytash - 20 Feb 17 - 07:33 AM

How many times do you need to be told there is no "little gang" professor.

The "little gang" is a figment of your imagination (or paranoia)

Want to examine the indications Raggy?

Should Keith A post on any thread this "little gang" somehow feel what appears to be compulsion to respond and all those responses are in lock-step. Incapable of refuting points introduced to challenge their arguments they dredge up inconsistencies going back years.

So Raggy out of this "little gang" you have actually met and know either two or three of them. The volume of your correspondence by PM with Akenaton does not mean anything, and you know it.

Bit different from me Raggy, I do not know, nor have I ever met any of the "little gang" Carroll thinks exists and thinks I am part of. On many threads that you and your "little gang" post to you will not get a single post from me, you might get contributions but not in the same lock-step fashion of your "little gang".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 11:08 AM

Isn't that rich coming from a Jew hater.

And isn't THAT rich coming from a Truth hater!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 10:52 AM

"Isn't that rich coming from a Jew hater."
And another jackboot tries to kick the door in - this time one that hasn't the bottle to condemn Keith's Jewish Pact of silence claims
The Jewish people need such heroes!!#
As I said Keith - not an honest bone in tyour body
"I do not remember ever calling anyone an ignoramous."
Selective amnesia
Why doin't you all go and burn a cross somewhere
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 09:48 AM

Reinventing the dictionary yet again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 09:17 AM

Jim,
"lefties" or "liars" or "ignoramouses"

Leftie is a neutral term for people of the Left, often used by themselves.
I only call someone a liar in relation to a specific, identified lie.
I do not remember ever calling anyone an ignoramous.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 08:41 AM

or maybe "Klan" or "stormtoopers"

Isn't that rich coming from a Jew hater.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 08:03 AM

`"I refer to the fact that you all act in concert, "
If we "act in concert" that makes you, Ake, Bobad and Teribus another "gang"
or maybe "Klan" or "stormtoopers"
There are people who don't know each other but whose views coincide
It is mindless twaddle to suggest there are gangs
Why don't you people grow up and behave like adults?
Rhetorical question - I know damn well why you don't - you've never left the schoolyard
And you wonder why you're the subject of so much abuse!!
You earn every word of it with your mindless behaviour and your serial lying
"I think and believe that "Muppet" is a term of affection not abuse."
You used it as a tem of abuse until you were pulled up on it - just as you did when you referred to us as "lefties" or "liars" or "ignoramouses"
You really don't have a truthful bone in your body, do you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:50 AM

Yes I met Steve ........... last year. I have explained quite clearly my relationships with other posters on this forum.

However, if you read my post, I said that I had had more personal communication with Akenaton this year than with Jim, Steve, Greg etc.

The exception to this was Dave who I met on Saturday. I have no need to try and hide this from anyone.

That's because it is non of their business really.

So is Akenaton one of the imaginary "little gang"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:41 AM

Rag,
How many times do you need to be told there is no "little gang" professor.

I refer to the fact that you all act in concert, for example in all suddenly talking about flowers to kill the current discussion.
You forgot to mention that you have actually met Steve too. You met with him in Cornwall I recall.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:38 AM

in heaven we'll all play beautifully and sing. and in the other place too.

take my word for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:33 AM

How many times do you need to be told there is no "little gang" professor.

The "little gang" is a figment of your imagination (or paranoia)

I have explained at length my involvement with other posters on this site.

If truth be known I have had more personal communication with Akenaton this year than I have with Jim, Steve, Greg etc. Does that make him part of the imaginary "little gang"

The exception to this is Dave whom I actually met on Saturday. (and no we did not discuss Mudcat, we played, sang and drank, very good it was too)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:19 AM

Jim,
Your favourite "Muppet"

I think and believe that "Muppet" is a term of affection not abuse.
That is how I use it, but when you claimed to be offended by it, I stopped using it at once.
That was years ago now Jim.

If you are trying to suggest that it makes me guilty of using personal abuse, it does not.
It proves my innocence of it.

I am disappointed that Joe stepped in to protect Steve, surely one of the most personal and offensive posters here, but ignored all the personal abuse I have to endure from him and his little gang including you Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:12 AM

There were snowdrops laid in the form of a cross in Ingleton churchyard. Bit cheesy but very pretty.

So, it is a discussion forum? Why then do people keep telling us there are certain rules that we must all follow. That is formalising things which, to my mind, is a debate. A discussion is far more informal with none of the rules of debate that keep getting wheeled out. Also, as far as I know, a discussion has no winners of losers so where does the 'You lose' phrase come in I wonder?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 05:52 AM

Won't work Al.

1.You cannot claim as FACT that God exists.

2.You cannot claim as FACT that Angels exists.

3. As far as I am aware Jim neither plays an instrument nor sings.

Bit of a bugger really.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM

so you say Jim, but i reckon if you felt about Ake the same way as your Granny felt about Mosley, your answers would be more terse.

Face it You guys need each other.
Why not find your feminine side and kiss and make up.

when you're both angels, i bet God will put you together on the same cloud for all eternity - making beautiful music together.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:30 AM

There were lots of Snowdrops out at the weekend, in some area down Wensleydale in particular there were vast swaths of them. Serenely beautiful.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:21 AM

bloody funny discussion.....its circular!

you keep calling each other names. if you really held each other in such contempt, you wouldn't give a shit what the other bloke was saying, because long ago ---you would have said to yourself....this bloke is an idiot, he's never going to say anything sensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:20 AM

"It is not a debating forum it is a discussion forum - vast difference."
Whoops - your semantics are showing again
"The last post on this thread from Jim contains four direct and mean insults."
Not insults a summing up of your extremist and incredibly dishonest contribution.
You have just been given two examples of Trump's racist manipulation of an extremely volatile situation - once again you refuse to comment and will, no doubt, continue to support such behaviour with your silence.
Worthy of a fue harsh words in my book
This fuehrer is turning the world into a political minefield and is putting its future at risk
Happy to insult anybody who supports that.
My grandmother was once arrested for hitting Mosley with a stone - maybe she should have shaken his hand and bought him a pint.
You are what you are Ake, and until I'm proved wrong, I will continue to point it out
You may wish to appease evil - I don't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:03 AM

It is not a debating forum it is a discussion forum - vast difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:42 AM

We wish, Al. It keeps being pointed out that this is a debating forum. It isn't, it is a folk music forum and the BS section is for anything else. But, if it was a debating forum each side of the debate would have once chance to make claim, then counterclaim for each side and there would be a timed section for questions. There would then be a vote and a winner would be declared. Instead what we have here is a war of attrition where someone goes on and on and on and on and on until they think everyone has had enough and that makes them the winner. Sad really.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:41 AM

Come on Al, I hardly ever abuse Jim, in fact I have commended him on quite a few occasions.
Jim's responses to me are almost always identical, a list of untruths and misrepresentations of my position.
The last post on this thread from Jim contains four direct and mean insults.....and that's very mild he missed out the racist, fascist, homophobe bit this time. In fact, I'm beginning to think he might not like me very much.....:0(

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 09:12 PM

you guys have been at this stuff a fair old time..........

the second world war had very little to recommend it, but at least there was a reasonably decisive outcome.
do you think maybe there will come a point where one bloke says - dammit you're right. you win! well done old man!
and the other bloke says, well done ! a fine effort!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 07:45 PM

"OOps wrong thread...sorry Jim"
No problem Ake - gives me another opportunity to post this
Maybe you can get someone to read it to you when you sober up in the morning

Your support for this monster now reaches ' collaboration" proportions
One of his employees invented the "Bowling Green Massacre" that never took place, now he has announced a Terrorist attack in Sweden that never happened
He is made - his supporters are both sick and dishonest
I hope you have no kids to bequeath tha sick world you are going to leave them
You won't respond to this of course, Quisling hero that you are and I doubt if your mate Iain will either.
Doesn't seem part of your makeup
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 03:56 PM

OOps wrong thread...sorry Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 03:54 PM

Hi Ram Ho! fur Donal John,
Wi aw his tanterwallops on,
An' may he niver lack a scone,
While he mak's hi'lan' whisky.......:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 03:06 PM

"Tirade of abuse = Frank and honest opinion"
According to Teribus
Torrent of abuse = par for the course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 03:04 PM

You won't get many flowers this time of the year, Dave. It's bloody grim oop north in Feb. Glad you enjoyed it. Sod the bollocks. Let's turn every annoying thread into fun!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 02:32 PM

We had a lovely weekend in Ribblehead. My man flu did affect the walk in that it took us 4 hours to do the 5 mile walk but, in some ways, that made it all the more enjoyable. As I stopped to catch my breath every 5 minutes, I had time to enjoy the scenery more! Didn't catch many flowers, sorry Steve, but it was lovely all the same. Saturday evening was a dream as well. Thanks for joining us Raggy and Raggywife. Maybe if more people did the same we would all be a lot happier :-)

Sad to see it is the same old bollocks on here.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 09:36 AM

According to Carroll:

Tirade of abuse = Frank and honest opinion

Seems as though Jim and his pals are the only people entitled to opinions - How typically "socialist" of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 08:36 AM

"Bugger off. You are beyond tiresome."
Somewhat bland next to your years of persistent tirades of abuse, I thought
Want more examples - not really stared on it?
Latest examples
"Oh dear Shaw yet another thread where you have run out of steam and cannot resort to meaningless waffle "
"the "Complete and utter" bollocks is my opinion of what Steve Shaw normally writes on any question under the Sun!"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 08:27 AM

Rather strange Joe that you do not find this (Addressed to Keith A) as being too personal - no resulting comment from you at all:

Steve Shaw - 18 Feb 17 - 05:24 PM

Bugger off. You are beyond tiresome.

What I posted was my honest opinion of what Shaw said.

Do I think Shaw posts "Complete and utter" Bollocks? - Yes I do, and I have now stated that opinion - an opinion on what Shaw has said - no personal remark or opinion of the man himself. I could have digressed to waffle on inanely about the first thing that came into my head, as Shaw and his pals have done, in an attempt to destroy the thread, but instead I responded directly to what had been posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 04:14 AM

"Joe, is all the personal stuff directed at me not worthy of comment?"
I've just pointed out your own recently posted 'personal stuff' on another thread.
If you are going to indulge, don't whine when others follow suit
Your favourite "Muppet"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 04:05 AM

Joe, is all the personal stuff directed at me not worthy of comment?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 03:17 AM

"Now, Teribus, you don't have to be so personal about it"
It appears he does have to Joe
It might be a good start if he addresses people in the name they chose
You suggested we did that quite a while ago - he is the only one to persist
It would remove some of the loutishness form his postings
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 02:43 AM

Now, Teribus, you don't have to be so personal about it...

What are the issues you'd like to address?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 09:46 PM

Oh dear Shaw yet another thread where you have run out of steam and cannot resort to meaningless waffle - Otherwise recognised as "Complete and utter" bollocks, to use your expression to divert everybody's attention ( Please note the expression of Shaw's that I am referring to is the word "Bollocks" - the "Complete and utter" bollocks is my opinion of what Steve Shaw normally writes on any question under the Sun).

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 05:24 PM

Bugger off. You are beyond tiresome.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 03:19 PM

Steve,
Nonetheless Keith, you lied in your teeth then and you're still at it now.

No lies from me, now or then Steve.
Instead of always trying to smear, why not discuss the Labour Party as per the thread title?
Too humiliating?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 02:33 PM

I'm surprised that you actually know about the ethos above the line, as you hardly ever go there. Well, except to read, I suppose you'll be telling us. But rarely to contribute.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 12:36 PM

Of course there is a bit of a drought above the line Shaw. Threads above the line tend to be topic specific with less ill-informed, contentious, idiotic ideological bollocks, to use your own expression (Please note that the expression of Shaw's I am referring to is the word bollocks - the "ill-informed, contentious, idiotic ideological bollocks represents what I generally think of your contributions), so there is no need for intervention. Another feature in threads above the line is that there is none of the deliberate stalking and mobbing of contributors that goes on below the line. On the subject of traditional folk music in threads above the line I find myself generally in agreement with Jim Carroll, who when challenged to defend his views does so without the need for any supporting contributions.

Oddly enough Raggy I didn't bother looking you up as I regard you as more of "hanger on", compared to the rest of the crew but thank you very much for the correction.

Shaw - 14,425 member since 13th May, 2007
Carrol - 18,401 member since 6th December, 2007
Gnome - 16,088 member since 22nd June 2000

I'd look up Musket, but there were three of them which would skew the figures somewhat. Greg F. I simply do not bother with as he very rarely ever actually says anything (The noise he makes is like the music they play in a Lift {elevator for our American friends}). But I think you get the drift and general point being made.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:59 AM

It ill-behoves you to draw attention to your posting history, Teribus. Bit of a drought above the line, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:56 AM

You really should verify your "facts" teri before you post.

Since 2002 when you first posted using the pseudonym Teribus you have posted on 8092 occasions.

Since 2001 when I first posted using the pseudonym Raggytash I have posted on 2884 occasions

Since 2001 when I first posted using the pseudonym Guest Raggytash I have posted on 3099 occasions.

2884 plus 3099 equals 5983, some 2109 posts fewer in a slightly longer time scale.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:56 AM

Nonetheless Keith, you lied in your teeth then and you're still at it now. Absolutely bang to rights. Trivial enough in the overall scheme of things, but the episode speaks volumes about your character failings. All you had to do was admit that you'd got it wrong. Teribus does that, Jim does that, I do that, Raggytash does that, Dave does that and bobad does that. I've provided enough here to show how you got it wrong, and the place in the thread is accessible (date and time above) for anyone who wants to see your disreputable behaviour in full detail. When you are arguing or debating with someone, it's crucial to know exactly who you're arguing with. That whole sorry episode, and your refusal to put your hands in the air, tells me that I can't trust a single word you say.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:43 AM

Well the reality of the situation is Jim"
No - the reality is if you didn't persist in talking down to people and insulting everybody who disagreed with you these threads would be far more useful and pleasant to be part of
Between you and your arrogance and Keith and his serial obsessive dishonesty, you've managed to turn this forum into a swamp
How about packing it in - the pair of you and behaving like adult human beings?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:30 AM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-claims-candidate-fair-right-twitter-meme-a7570181.html

Huff. Post 12 hours ago on resignation of Simon Fletcher,

"But another Labour source told HuffPost UK: "Having got Corbyn elected in the first place he has reaped what he sowed.
"It's clear team Corbyn won't listen to anyone with a track record of delivery now. The last person to have masterminded a vote winning campaign has left the building."
"Simon made the hard left electable with Ken, clearly Corbyn was a bridge too far. Vaguely talented man realises very late in the day he's only ever worked for congenital idiots."
Another Labour insider said: "Don't forget that Simon Fletcher was a member of a Socialist Action, a Trotskyist group. When they are considered too moderate, it sends a really powerful message to everyone else that this isn't even a group that is willing to co-operate with other Trotskyist groups." "
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/more-pain-for-jeremy-corbyn-as-simon-fletcher-quits-as-campaign-chief_uk_58a7102ce4b07602a

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:21 AM

Back to discussing the Labour Party.
The Independent 9 days ago,

"Former Labour parliamentary candidate(and current councillor) accused of anti-Semitism after retweeting a far-right meme"

"It suggested that Israel controlled both houses in the US House of Representatives and that the country, along with the Rothschild family, had taken over the world. 
He later apologised, saying he did not realise the user, Tinnelle88, was spreading far-right hate speech and conspiracy theories. But he had not deleted it at the time of publication."

"They (the Rothschilds) have since been the target of many unfounded conspiracy theories – many of which are anti-Semitic in nature. 
Mr Clarke's comments have reignited the controversy over anti-Semitism within the Labour party which has plagued leader Jeremy Corbyn over the past year.
The party was forced to confront a series of incidents last year including remarks made by members on Twitter and at public meetings."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:16 AM

Well the reality of the situation is Jim that if you and your pals didn't post such "contentious, ill-informed and idiotic" bollocks, to use Steve's expression (Please note the expression of Steve's that I am referring to here is the word Bollocks - the "contentious, ill-informed and idiotic" bollocks is my opinion of what you post) Then I for one would hardly ever post at all - to check that out take a look at my posting record with regard to:

(a) Length of time I have been a member
(b) Number of posts I have made (Far, far less than you and rest of the "usual suspects")
(c) Number of posts that I have initiated. ( Less than the fingers on one hand IIRC in 17 years)