Are we there yet ...

[silver fox]

The simple fact that you chose to directly reply to my post is suggestive that you're not a member of Momentum.

It's also suggestive that you're not a voting member of the Labour party who internally voted for Corbyn, either time.

.

Your powers of deduction are quite correct on this, however please note that I will never be a bloody Tory either.

[Desert Region]

Your powers of deduction are quite correct on this, however please note that I will never be a bloody Tory either.

Fair enough .

[AdmiralAckbar]

Putting it very bluntly are you trolling ?

as clearly you have deliberately misconstrued what I said presumably to make mischief.

Or do you just not want to accept you got it wrong ?

Interestingly, it's not the first time you've called me a troll - the last time was also an occasion where I had the temerity to question something you had posted, and persist in cross examining your inadequate/poor explaination.

I started this post on 15/1, for a bit of fun and light relief - other than my responses to you (and some discussion with H) you will see my posts on this thread have been light hearted mixed in with a slice or three of sarcasm.

Your 1st contribution (post #23), 2 weeks after the start of the thread, was what I would class as a Seagull post - flying in from nowhere, making a lot of noise and dumping on the thread before flying off to the next challenge. That's more Troll-like than any other response here.

Hamble's post (#46) misconstrued something I said, so I took the time to respond in a civil manner (post #47, advising I perhaps could have clarified my post with an "and" between two sentences) all done without insults, name calling or patronising arrogance.

I haven't deliberately misconstrued your words, like you accuse. I did question why you respond (in the way you do) to people who don't share your opinions.

In the context of your responses on this thread, I consider my interpretation of your words as valid - you disagree and that's fine ... as I said, we will have to agree to disagree on this one as well.

Other people can make up their own minds.

If you wanted to contribute positively on this thread, as stated in post #36, all you needed to say was "nothing to see yet".

However, you choose to insult, dump, and generally respond negatively when in all fairness you could have just gone on to the next thread. Fair play though, you managed to resist for two weeks.

I'd be more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt if you hadn't have waded in with the standard diatribe we have come to expect.


... nearly there now.

[bambi275]

We're there! You can rest easy now Admiral

[Hamble]

Interestingly, it's not the first time you've called me a troll - the last time was also an occasion where I had the temerity to question something you had posted, and persist in cross examining your inadequate/poor explaination.

I started this post on 15/1, for a bit of fun and light relief - other than my responses to you (and some discussion with H) you will see my posts on this thread have been light hearted mixed in with a slice or three of sarcasm.

Your 1st contribution (post #23), 2 weeks after the start of the thread, was what I would class as a Seagull post - flying in from nowhere, making a lot of noise and dumping on the thread before flying off to the next challenge. That's more Troll-like than any other response here.

Hamble's post (#46) misconstrued something I said, so I took the time to respond in a civil manner (post #47, advising I perhaps could have clarified my post with an "and" between two sentences) all done without insults, name calling or patronising arrogance.

I haven't deliberately misconstrued your words, like you accuse. I did question why you respond (in the way you do) to people who don't share your opinions.

In the context of your responses on this thread, I consider my interpretation of your words as valid - you disagree and that's fine ... as I said, we will have to agree to disagree on this one as well.

Other people can make up their own minds.

If you wanted to contribute positively on this thread, as stated in post #36, all you needed to say was "nothing to see yet".

However, you choose to insult, dump, and generally respond negatively when in all fairness you could have just gone on to the next thread. Fair play though, you managed to resist for two weeks.

I'd be more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt if you hadn't have waded in with the standard diatribe we have come to expect.


... nearly there now.

Quote AA
"I want the truth. I want the smear campaign to be shown up for what it was.

I believe the investigation will conclude that any problems with racism, within the Labour party, are no better or worse than any other similar organisation."

I did not 'misconstrue' your reply.

[AdmiralAckbar]

Quote AA
"I want the truth. I want the smear campaign to be shown up for what it was.

I believe the investigation will conclude that any problems with racism, within the Labour party, are no better or worse than any other similar organisation."

I did not 'misconstrue' your reply.

With all due respect H, and through no fault of your own, you did (or at least in the part of which you subsequently quoted) ...

misconstrue = to interpret (a person's words or actions) wrongly.

I originally said ...

I want the truth. I want the smear campaign to be shown up for what it was.

I believe the investigation will conclude that any problems with racism, within the Labour party, are no better or worse than any other similar organisation.

You replied ...

You want the truth as long as it is'a smear campaign'.

I then stated ...

Perhaps I should have inserted an "and" in between the two sentences to make it clearer...
I want both.

... and you then replied ...

Accepted.

... at that point I thought you'd now understood that my meaning/intention differed from your initial interpretation.

I do concede that it can still be easily misinterpreted or misconstrued, so now offer this ...

a) I want the truth (even if it uncovers something I might find hard to digest).
b) I want/hope the truth will also show the smear campaign up for what it was.

It was most certainly not a case of one "as long as" the other.

That said, I can understand why you interpreted it the way you did and that's why I offered clarification both then and now.

You misconstrued my poorly worded message.

"as long as" was not what I meant.

I hope that is clear now... it's not an "only if" ... it's an either/or, or hopefully both.

[local]

Interestingly, it's not the first time you've called me a troll - the last time was also an occasion where I had the temerity to question something you had posted, and persist in cross examining your inadequate/poor explaination.

I started this post on 15/1, for a bit of fun and light relief - other than my responses to you (and some discussion with H) you will see my posts on this thread have been light hearted mixed in with a slice or three of sarcasm.

Your 1st contribution (post #23), 2 weeks after the start of the thread, was what I would class as a Seagull post - flying in from nowhere, making a lot of noise and dumping on the thread before flying off to the next challenge. That's more Troll-like than any other response here.

Hamble's post (#46) misconstrued something I said, so I took the time to respond in a civil manner (post #47, advising I perhaps could have clarified my post with an "and" between two sentences) all done without insults, name calling or patronising arrogance.

I haven't deliberately misconstrued your words, like you accuse. I did question why you respond (in the way you do) to people who don't share your opinions.

In the context of your responses on this thread, I consider my interpretation of your words as valid - you disagree and that's fine ... as I said, we will have to agree to disagree on this one as well.

Other people can make up their own minds.

If you wanted to contribute positively on this thread, as stated in post #36, all you needed to say was "nothing to see yet".

However, you choose to insult, dump, and generally respond negatively when in all fairness you could have just gone on to the next thread. Fair play though, you managed to resist for two weeks.

I'd be more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt if you hadn't have waded in with the standard diatribe we have come to expect.


... nearly there now.

I am so glad the usual coterie of losers "like" your long winded diatribe.


The sad pathetic losers are those who cannot accept the democratic outcome of a referendum then a general election.

It was not my referendum nor my general election you aren't disagreeing with me about the outcome, it is not opinion the results are fact.

You sneer and make puerile comments because you lost and have no argument.

You will continue I have no doubt.

Are you single by any chance ?

[AdmiralAckbar]

I am so glad the usual coterie of losers "like" your long winded diatribe.


The sad pathetic losers are those who cannot accept the democratic outcome of a referendum then a general election.

It was not my referendum nor my general election you aren't disagreeing with me about the outcome, it is not opinion the results are fact.

You sneer and make puerile comments because you lost and have no argument.

You will continue I have no doubt.

Are you single by any chance ?

Thank you for your concise response.... it merely goes towards re-enforcing long standing critique (not just by myself) of your posting style.

... and btw, please don't ask me personal questions like that (about whether I'm single or not).

You got really upset (even as far as abject denial) when I answered a previous personal post with this ...

... oh and as for your offer, I'm flattered but no thanks.

... and we wouldn't want you to get upset again, would we.

[local]

Oh have I hit a nerve.

[AdmiralAckbar]

Oh have I hit a nerve.

au contraire, mon ami ...

I was thinking more about not wanting to upset you further !

[local]

But I didn't get upset, your whining is the norm for your posts, You have little to say and you expend a lot of air saying it.

You deliberately seek to wind people up because your on the losing side consistently and it gets you comfort from playing to your coterie of fellow losers.

You could all meet up and share a digestive.

[AdmiralAckbar]

But I didn't get upset, your whining is the norm for your posts, You have little to say and you expend a lot of air saying it.

You deliberately seek to wind people up because your on the losing side consistently and it gets you comfort from playing to your coterie of fellow losers.

You could all meet up and share a digestive.

I don't seek to wind people up at all.

However, I do have a habit of calling out people/posts when I see fit - you clearly are averse to that when it happens to you.

It's always interesting when people respond in a negative way, how they often demonstrate most if not all the criticisms that they choose to aim at other people, and you are no exception.

On a lighter note, personally I prefer chocolate hobnobs to digestives, but if you want to talk biscuits, maybe this article might be of interest ... https://www.nme.com/eats-and-beats/b...its-us-2222907

[Toodles McGinty]

I am so glad the usual coterie of losers "like" your long winded diatribe.


The sad pathetic losers are those who cannot accept the democratic outcome of a referendum then a general election.

Oh dear. There's that fragile little ego getting wound up about 'likes' again. Never seen anyone else on this site mention 'likes', apart from the 'Sensitive One'.

'Losers', 'sad' 'pathetic', all playground insults from those who can't compile a coherent argument. Still so angry that others don't share your beliefs. Remind me, what exactly have you 'won'? As you stated: it wasn't your general election or your referendum. But you're a 'winner' and others are 'losers'?

Other people have an opinion. That opinion might be different to yours. Get over it, as the knuckle draggers like to shout. People don't agree with you. Accept it. Or go to your safe space where you've got more imaginary 'likes' than anyone.

[said]

Oh dear. There's that fragile little ego getting wound up about 'likes' again. Never seen anyone else on this site mention 'likes', apart from the 'Sensitive One'.

'Losers', 'sad' 'pathetic', all playground insults from those who can't compile a coherent argument. Still so angry that others don't share your beliefs. Remind me, what exactly have you 'won'? As you stated: it wasn't your general election or your referendum. But you're a 'winner' and others are 'losers'?

Other people have an opinion. That opinion might be different to yours. Get over it, as the knuckle draggers like to shout. People don't agree with you. Accept it. Or go to your safe space where you've got more imaginary 'likes' than anyone.

Ha!Ha! That makes your post hypocritical! Everyone has a point of view, you included!

[Toodles McGinty]

Ha!Ha! That makes your post hypocritical! Everyone has a point of view, you included!

Read it again. I only quoted what another person wrote.

I'd say that makes the person I quoted hypocritical. I stated quite plainly that

'Other people have an opinion. That opinion might be different to yours'.

That makes them neither winners nor losers. But they are entitled to an opinion without the usual sneering. Although on that subject, I would say 'you won, get over it'. Seems even when folk achieve their objective, they are still quite angry about it.

And as I said, only one person on here becomes a snowflake over 'likes'. I mean, if that's the only point you can make, I wouldn't bother. But that's just my opinion.