BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 11:48 AM

CANADIAN JEWS, NOT THAT THEIR OPINIONS COUNT!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 11:49 AM

"we took three local councils – Leicester, Swansea and Gwynedd – to court for passing BDS motions, and it was on the back of those legal actions that the (UK) Government has decided to move to ban such boycotts"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/12162084/Jews-know-that-a-boycott-is-just-the-beginning.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 12:00 PM

No, no Professor - the two sentances before that.

You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 12:10 PM

Why can't you just say what you mean Greg?
I have replied correctly to Steve's post.
If you disagree explain yourself, otherwise forget it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 12:16 PM

Her words need no interpreting. She could not be clearer about what she now thinks of her anti-Semitic outbursts.

In other words you believe that the words she used

1. Say that she believes being antisemitic is not being a prat
2. That she agrees with whatever it is you are rambling on about and
3. That I do not take antisemitism seriously.

There is something seriously different in our understanding of the English language. Dare I say it... :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 12:27 PM

I HAVE explained myself, Professor, viz: You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 02:05 PM

Dave,
1. Say that she believes being antisemitic is not being a prat

No. that she believes it worse than just being a prat, as I clearly stated.

2. That she agrees with whatever it is you are rambling on about

No. Just on what I clearly stated.

3. That I do not take antisemitism seriously.

You appear not to, equating it with just being a prat.

Greg, I have no idea what you are talking about.
If anyone else does, please explain.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 02:55 PM

PYRRIC VICTORY

PUBLIC SECTOR ONLY

PUBLIC RAGE FORCES RETREAT

UNDEMOCRATIC SAYS BRITISH JEWS

ILLEGAL

BAN DENIES THE RIGHTS WE ARE DEFENDING

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 05:02 PM

That's the whole problem, Prof. - you have no idea what ANYONE is talking about. Including yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 05:31 PM

You have no clue whatsoever what Naz Shah believes, what I believe nor, I suspect, what you believe yourself. Your arguments are just circular and vacuous. You make things up and put words that people have not said in their mouths. When asked to provide evidence you change the subject. When your so called evidence is questioned you cry abuse and bullying. Everyone knows what you are like but still we try to reason with you. I think it must be me that is mad.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 05:36 PM

Well, Keith, you said:

"Steve, I took no part in that discussion, and will pass no comment on it now it is closed.
I just cleared up which thread you were talking about."

But you didn't just "clear up which thread." You did pass comment on it, in a most opportunistic and despicable way. You said, commenting on the thread:

"I think you must mean the "INTERNATIONAL BRIGADES Urge MP support" thread, where Joe said,
'Here's Jim Carroll, proving that he actually may be a Jew-hater after all.'"

That IS a comment on the thread. Your motive for digging out that blatant out-of-context remark was very clear. You wanted to smear Jim. You are truly a horrible man.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 17 - 05:39 PM

No Steve, he's a truly horrible child.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 02:17 AM

What a shower of bullies!

Keith keeps calm and makes his point, you simply offer abuse in return.
Jim continues to show what sort of person he is, liking to dish it out, but completely unable to accept it when proved wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 02:59 AM

"What a shower of bullies!"
You have become just a mindless troll with nothing to say here Ake - you ever hav had the courage to back up your tyrollism with decent argument - your post is lttle more than hate-mail now
Keith chooses to drag this long-dead thread on and on and on for his own gratification - nobody forces him to do so, but at least he responds to what people have to say - in his own distinctive manner
To expect others to allow him to smear the party and the politics and the Party without reply is bullying censorship in the extreme
I sugest you add to the discussion or butt out and mind your own business - if you have nothing to contribute it is nothing to do with you - simple as that
If I have been "proved wrong" show me where I have - but you don't do that sort of thing, do you
You prefer to hide behind others and throw stones from a safe distance - that's what trolls do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 03:37 AM

Incidentally Ake
Has it not occurred to you how partonising your behaviour towards Keith is?
He doesn't need a minder constantly leaping in to defend him from all those "bullies"- people who choose to participate in these debates do so because they feel themselves capable of doing so without having a nurse on hand to wipe their bum and blow their nose.
He is mentally competent enough to stop when he has had enough
You know that because you never allow yourself to get involved in a discussion long enough to even respond to what others have to say - one of your easily recognisable traits
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 03:41 AM

When your so called evidence is questioned you cry abuse and bullying.

Or maybe he does it by proxy?

From: akenaton - PM
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 02:17 AM

What a shower of bullies!

Keith keeps calm and makes his point, you simply offer abuse in return.

You couldn't make this stuff up!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 03:56 AM

Dave,
You have no clue whatsoever what Naz Shah believes,

Yes I do. I read what she writes. That is a big clue to what she believes.

You make things up and put words that people have not said in their mouths

Not true. Produce an example if you can.

When asked to provide evidence you change the subject.

That has never happened, and again you will never produce an example.
Having to make up shit about me shows that your case has failed.

When your so called evidence is questioned you cry abuse and bullying.

If I have ever done that, QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!

Steve,
That IS a comment on the thread

No. I just gave the name of the thread I assumed you meant, with a quote from Joe's post that I assumed you referred to.
I made no comment of my own at all.

Jim, I do not find Ake to be in the least patronising.

Steve, Jim and Greg, I do agree with Joe that you are "bullies who dominate almost every political thread here."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 04:26 AM

Too bad. I wouldn't hang around a place full of bullies if I were you, Keith. Just a helpful suggestion. That's the thing about internet forums. It's not like being sent to school where you live in daily dread of the bullies you're forced to mix with. You have a choice.

"You make things up and put words that people have not said in their mouths."

"Not true. Produce an example if you can."

That is a blatantly fraudulent statement, Keith! 😂😂😂

(Explanation of the joke will be provided on application...)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 04:30 AM

And when you quote from a post in a thread, you are, by implication provided by the fact that you selected the quote to make a point (in this case smearing Jim), passing comment. Let's get rid of that particular piece of Keithly bullshit, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 04:48 AM

That is a blatantly fraudulent statement, Keith!

Just another of your empty assertions that you can not substantiate with any actual facts.

It is amusing how you people all switch to personal attack when your arguments all fail.
You might as well post, "We lose."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 04:53 AM

Not true. Produce an example if you can.

How about

You appear not to, equating it with just being a prat.

I have never equated antisemitism with 'just being a prat'. I have said that anyone using any racist phrases, particularly those in the public eye, are prats. Equating it to just being a prat is your interpretation, not my words.

If I have ever done that, QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!

How about 6 lines down in your same post

Steve, Jim and Greg, I do agree with Joe that you are "bullies who dominate almost every political thread here."

Do you really think that people don't notice these things Keith or do you not care?

Different mora...

Oh, you know the drill.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 05:44 AM

"QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!"
This has become nonsensical Keith
- nobody tells lies and you are dishonest in the way you respond to given facts
You are now entering into the reallms of trollism by making statements you refuse to debate on any issues that don't back up your cursade on a subject that is long dead elsaewhere
Nobody else is discussing Labour antisemitism and you refuse to discuss Israeli antisemitism that has been confirmed by your fellow Israeli supporters on a now closed thread
None of them has describe d it as "a pack of lies" - you even out-troll them
You are truely on your own
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 06:11 AM

You resented the time I suggested you were stonewalling - here you are doing it as a permanent ploy to avoid facts
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 06:21 AM

Incidently, as Shah said in her apology "I wan't antisemitic - what I put up was antisemitic"
The originator of the suggestion, Norman Finklestein" has since leapt to her defence by pointing out that it was a joke circulating throughout America when he first put it up.
It has nothing whatever to do with The Labour Party and the fact that it is the remaining case of "massive Labour antisemitism" and the fact of your clinging onto it like a life-raft makes your argument (or lack of one) a joke in itself
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 07:36 AM

It was not an assertion - it was a joke, which I'll now make serious, based on the fact that you lied about Wheatcroft's use of the word "fraudulent," misapplying it to someone he never said it about, and that you lied about Naz Shah, assigning the word "blatantly" to her statement though she never used it. On top of that, you assigned a remark to Shah that she never made, about advocating the transportation of Jews out of Israel, and you blatantly ignore the fact that the map was intended as a joke which was not her own work at all but that of a Jew who was affected by the Holocaust, Norman Finkelstein, who stated that it was a joke. You make things up, Keith, and you never back down. That's why you are a laughing stock here whose word can never be trusted.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 07:49 AM

I have never equated antisemitism with 'just being a prat'.

Yes you have Dave. Think back.

How about 6 lines down in your same post

Not what I was accused of. I just said I agreed with Joe about something.

Jim,
"QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!"
This has become nonsensical Keith

Yes, you never can, revealing yourselves to be liars.

Nobody else is discussing Labour anti-Semitism

Who was I discussing it with then??

and you refuse to discuss Israeli anti-Semitism

This thread is about UK politics, not Israel.
I will be happy to squash your silly claims again, but not on this thread.

Norman Finklestein" has since leapt to her defence by pointing out that it was a joke

She did not see it as a joke, and really advocated it.

It has nothing whatever to do with The Labour Party

Of course it has. She is a Labour MP and Labour suspended her over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 07:55 AM

Steve,
On top of that, you assigned a remark to Shah that she never made, about advocating the transportation of Jews out of Israel,

She did advocate that. I provided the quotes from the Guardian.
If you are saying I fabricated a quote, you are lying.
QUOTE ME DOING IT, LIAR!

blatantly ignore the fact that the map was intended as a joke

Because she took it seriously and advocated it for real.

You make things up, Keith,

QUOTE ME DOING IT THEN, LIAR!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 07:56 AM

Yes you have Dave. Think back.

I can't. Show me an example of where I said being antisemitic was 'just being a prat'.

Not what I was accused of. I just said I agreed with Joe about something.

I accused you of crying abuse and bullying. You agreed that Steve, Jim and Greg were "bullies who dominate almost every political thread here."

Exactly what I accused you of. There are plenty of examples of you complaining about abuse as well. Want me to get some?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 08:45 AM

"Yes, you never can, revealing yourselves to be liars."
Nobody tells lies Keith - this ha become a stonewalling poly
You demand a quote
You are given one
You ignorre it and a few postings later demand a quote
And so ad infinitum
You debate her to "win something" - want a list of how many times you have claimed "you lose"
Nobody else does this - we are here yto debate issues - you are here to "win" something
That is not what debating is about
Your present technique is to make your claim and then to ignore all evidence to the contrary and continue to make it
Stonewalling, pure and simple
What you don't ignore you deny out of had - a perfect example is the antisemitc support Israel is giving to Hungarian extremists which you dismissed as "lies" while your fellow right wingers were prepared to debate it as fact
Stonewalling again
You have debated BDS and will now probably declare it out of bounds because you refuse to discuss Israeli antisemitism on a thread concerning non existent antisemitism instgated by anti an BDS capaign by Israel #
More stonewalling
You have been given a list of facts about the countries you say support a ban on BDS - you ignore them - more stonewalling
You have moved from "a massive problem of antisemitism" to clinging to one sing piece of driftwood - Naz Shah, in order toi discredit the Labout Party
Utterly insane - even the right wing press have walked away from that one.
"She did not see it as a joke, and really advocated it."
She put it up as a blog five years ago - you don't "advocate it" as a blog- you raise it as a serious proposal at a Party meeting
It was before she was an MP - the Labour Party is not responsible for the views of every single member and to suggest and to suggest they are is spiteful propaganda
Shah apologised for her remarks and the matter was dropped by everyone except you
"She is a Labour MP and Labour suspended her over it."
Half the story again
She was suspended whike the accusations were investigated - she was then reinstated
Why did you miss this bit out (rhetorical question)
You said she confessed to antisemitism when what she actually said was ""I wasn't anti-Semitic, what I put out was anti-Semitic," - half the ****** story again
Labour has proved beyond any doubt that no serious proiblm exists - the British people in the last fiasco of an election has shown this to be a non-event, yet you continue to re-resurrect long dead threads to show the world is wrong and you have "won" something
We can safely assume you are not going to respond to Israel's open antisemitism, just as we can assume you are not going to respond to the actual facts of the banning of BDS in France Britain and Canada
That is what you do - you ignore thenm and let them lie and fester, than raise them again
That is neither honest or intelligent debating - it's trying to "win" something
Tteh fact is simple - no matter how hard you try to claim otherwise - there is not "massive problem" of antisemitism in the Labour Party - there never has been and there never will be
They are siompley not that sort of Party
W can safely leave that to the Tories and their track record of racism, Little Englandism and Bigotry
Ukip, who you one valiantly supported as a serious party, as you do is a dead dead duck
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 09:41 AM

Wheatcroft never said that AJP Taylor was fraudulent. You said he did say it.

Naz never said that her remarks were blatantly antisemitic. You said she did say it.

Naz never said that she advocated the transportation of the Jews out of Israel. You said she did advocate it.

You said you didn't comment on a closed thread. But you lifted a quote from that closed thread in order to make a point (a pretty nasty one - it was made in order to smear Jim), and the quote was out of context.

Lots more like these down the years. In every case you thought that just shifting the meaning would go unnoticed. You thought in each case that you'd get away with it. They all have one thing in common. You never retract. You never say oops, my mistake. No-one is bullying you. You want to get away with telling lies. Well we're not as stupid as you think. We can see you coming a mile off. Four instances there of you telling lies. I'm pretty sure that the others who post here have got their own examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 10:20 AM

Dave,
I can't. Show me an example of where I said being antisemitic was 'just being a prat'.

"They (Shah and Morris) both made prats of themselves. That is a fact."
I replied that Shah was worse than just a prat because she actually made ant-Semitic statements.

I accused you of crying abuse and bullying. You agreed that Steve, Jim and Greg were "bullies who dominate almost every political thread here."

I do agree that they are bullies, but I never cried abuse or bullying.
I think they should stop it, but it has no effect on me and I have never objected about it for myself.
When they (and you) resort to personal abuse I see it as an admission of defeat.

Jim,
Shah apologised for her remarks and the matter was dropped by everyone except you

I admire how she has dealt with it and apologised. I only argue with those who deny her comments were anti-Semitic.
They were.

She was suspended whike the accusations were investigated - she was then reinstated
Why did you miss this bit out (rhetorical question)

I did not. Why did you miss out that she apologised for her anti-Semitic comments and no longer believed them?

Steve,
Naz never said that her remarks were blatantly antisemitic. You said she did say it.

She said they "clearly" were. She also has said she is now ashamed of them, but she was not at the time. That fulfils Rag's definition of "blatantly" so it was an accurate description.

Naz never said that she advocated the transportation of the Jews out of Israel. You said she did advocate it.

She did. I quoted the Guardian and BBC saying she did.

You said you didn't comment on a closed thread. But you lifted a quote from that closed thread in order to make a point

I made no comment. You referred to Joe's post and I clarified what thread it was and an extract of what Joe said.
I made no comment of my own.

Wheatcroft never said that AJP Taylor was fraudulent. You said he did say it.

It is a lie that I quoted him as saying that. I did not use quotes.
I actually quoted him accurately, in full, and in quotes.
And that was years ago! How desperate you are to get something on me, but still you fail!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 10:36 AM

You can't dismiss your lies simply saying they didn't take place. Everything I've said is here in the threads in black and white. I don't care whether the stuff I have on you is four years or forty years old. You could have cleared it up in a heartbeat by saying oops. It would never have been mentioned again. You thought you were going to get away with a loose and inaccurate remark. The way you expressed it suited your agenda better than the original, just as "blatantly," with the pejorative undertones that "clearly" lacks, better suited your agenda apropos of Naz Shah. I picked you up. It's your personality defect that never changes, Keith, so my examples never date. The oops never happens. Make it happen, Keith. I'll never mention it again. Just stop trying to take us for fools. You set our antennae a-twitching whenever you post. That's entirely your fault. You'll be picked up on your dissembling behaviour every single time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 10:37 AM

Latest offering, Steve.

According to Keith I said being antisemitic was 'just being a prat'. When asked to produce evidence, this is what he comes up with. These are my exact words.

"They both made prats of themselves. That is a fact."

There we have it once again. I never equated being antisemitic with 'just being a prat' yet Keith insists that is what I said and that is his evidence. Unbelievable? It would be in any other circumstance but this is Keith we are talking about.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 10:46 AM

"I admire how she has dealt with it and apologised. I only argue with those who deny her comments were anti-Semitic.
They were."
Your perogative but it proves nothing other than you disagree - SFA tyo doi with the Labour Party
"Why did you miss out that she apologised for her anti-Semitic comments and no longer believed them?"
This has been my ongoing position since the very first time you raised tis on the now deleted thread - I never omit things deliberately and I didn't here
Why do you insist in continuing to flog this long dead horse ?
If you had the slightest concern for te Jewish people you would not continue to dodge Israeli support for antisemitic propaganda
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 12:10 PM

Steve
You can't dismiss your lies simply saying they didn't take place.

You can not make me a liar just by claiming it.
I do not lie.
That is why none of you can quote me doing it.
"Everything I've said is here in the threads in black and white."
Yes it is, so quote me, liar.

as "blatantly," with the pejorative undertones that "clearly" lacks,

I did not quote her as saying "blatantly" but her comments were blatantly anti-Semitic and she would not deny that.
She is ashamed of it now, but unashamed at the time. See Rag's definition.

It's your personality defect that never changes, Keith, so my examples never date.

Like all your gang's recent posts, personal about me and nothing about the issue we are supposed to be discussing.

If you could argue your case you would.
You can't so you go for me personally. An admission of defeat!

Dave,
I never equated being antisemitic with 'just being a prat'

You did Dave.
Shah spouted anti-Semitism and to you that just made her a prat.
To me it is worse.

Jim,
Your perogative but it proves nothing other than you disagree

Yes. But so does Shah herself, the Labour Party and every other Party.
Your case is that she and everyone else are lying or wrong, but you have it right!
Hardly convincing!

- SFA tyo doi with the Labour Party

Of course it is. She was a big part and an important example of the problem Labour has with anti-Semitism.

Why do you insist in continuing to flog this long dead horse ?

Because the dead horse is galloping all over you and trampling all your arguments into the dirt!

If you had the slightest concern for te Jewish people you would not continue to dodge Israeli support for antisemitic propaganda

I dispute that claim about Israel, but this thread is about UK politics not Israel.
You are obsessed!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 01:32 PM

Well I'm back in one of my favourite bars on the West coast of Ireland enjoying my first pint of decent Guinness in weeks.

I see that the professor didn't find an adult to explain the difference between "blatantly" and clearly.

Either that or he is clearly a blatant liar.

May drop in from time to time when I am not drinking and enjoying the music that abounds ............. and I can be arsed.

Have fun!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 03:19 PM

You did Dave.
Shah spouted anti-Semitism and to you that just made her a prat.

I simply did not equate antisemitism with being a prat. There is no law to say you cannot make antisemitic comments if you are a prat or vice versa. In fact, if you make any racist comments, particularly if you are in the public eye you are definitely a prat and quite possibly other things.

You have failed dismally to show in any way shape or form to show that I said anywhere that being antisemitic was 'just being a prat'. The word 'just' was inserted by you in the same way that 'blatantly' was inserted elsewhere.

If I so chose I could refer to you as a prat. That does not stop you from being the thick cunt that someone else called you. Not that I would stoop to either of course but the two are not mutually exclusive. Not difficult to understand is it?

Now you have been caught in yet another lie and you are trying your best to wriggle out of it. It doesn't work. Everyone can see what has happened and they all know you too well. Deny away as I am sure you will but we all know the truth.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 06:13 PM

"You can not make me a liar just by claiming it.
I do not lie.
That is why none of you can quote me doing it.
...so quote me, liar."

You!ve had four examples of the way in which you "adjust" the truth to fit your agenda. Chapter and verse. Quoted. Clear as a bell. No, as BLATANT as a bell! You won't address what I've told you at all. Too bad. Just put your hands over your ears and shout la la la, Keith. It suits you. It's what you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 03:28 AM

Steve,
You!ve had four examples of the way in which you "adjust" the truth to fit your agenda.

No. Just your interpretation. No single quote of me lying, and there never will be.

Dave,
I simply did not equate antisemitism with being a prat.

That was the only criticism you made of Shaw, and compared her to Morris as just both prats.
I say that blatant racism is worse.

Rag,
Are you not an adult?
You provided this definition,


Definitions:
1.blatantly
ˈbleɪt(ə)ntli/Submit
adverb
in an open and unashamed manner.

Shah is ashamed of it now, but not at the time, so her anti-Semitism was "unashamed."

In this context "open" and "clear" are synonymous and she admitted to "openly anti-Semitic."

My usage was accurate and correct

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 03:57 AM

My usage was accurate and correct

Yes it was. But it was your usage, not hers. Just like it was your usage and not mine that said 'just'. I never made such a remark and so far you have failed miserably to link to one.

Give it up, Keith. You have been caught out yet again and still you will not admit putting words in peoples mouths. Everyone knows that you have this peculiar habit already so stop digging.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 06:18 AM

You really couldn't make this stuff up, could you.* I'm beginning to question my own sanity here! 😱🤡🤠🤓🤗👻🐸


*Well, Keith can...😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:02 PM

Guess you lads just like playing with toddlers. Couldn't you just make or adopt some of your own? I've got an old pram I gould let you have.

;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:17 PM

Thanks Greg but I have Grandkids to play with and to be honest they often make a lot more sense.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:24 PM

Only "often"? Not always?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:28 PM

Well, I don't think I have heard anyone on here shouting 'I want a poo!'

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:50 PM

Dave,
Yes it was. But it was your usage, not hers.

Yes, but I did not claim that she said the word.
It is entirely consistent with what she did say.
She was not ashamed at the time, and Rag's definition give "shameless" as equivalent to "blatant" and she actually did describe her words as "clearly anti-Semitic."
No deception. My description was entirely consistent with her expressed views.
This is just a pedantic vendetta by a gang of would be bullies to try to discredit me because you have no answer to my actual case.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 01:57 PM

Dave,
Just like it was your usage and not mine that said 'just'. I never made such a remark and so far you have failed miserably to link to one.

Again, I never quoted you as saying "just."
That was my word for your position.
She spouted nasty racism, and you just called it being a prat,

Just pedantic nit picking because you have no reply to my actual case.
A nasty would be bully who will tolerate alternative views being expressed.

No wonder decent people will not express political views on this forum.
They know the will be hounded by a whole gang of bullies if they dare to antagonise any one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 02:00 PM

Greg too.
Nothing whatever to say on the issue under discussion, just nasty attempted put downs to warn others what to expect if they dare express a view the gang don't like.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 02:12 PM

There's no point saying anything to you, Keith, unless it's taking the mick. You are just like McEnroe's umpire. You can NOT be serious. Ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 02:13 PM

Just a reminder what my case actually is.
What the wanna be bullies don't want posted.
They just want to make it all about me with pedantic nit picking in place of reasoned argument, because they have no argument.

Although the gang of five bullies deny it, Shah made grossly anti-Semitic statements.
That is not just my view. She now readily admits it, and all Parties including Labour recognise that fact
Just calling her a prat is an inadequate response to her blatantly racist comments.

She said, "The Jews are rallying!"

Guardian, "Labour MP Naz Shah admits to the Guido Fawkes blog she wrote a Facebook post arguing for Israel's population to be "transported" out of the Middle East to America."


BBC, "The graphic said relocating Israel would be a "solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict", and that it would allow Palestinians to "get their life and their land back". "

The bullies deny this is anti-Semitic.
It is just someone being a prat.