Quote:
Originally Posted by George
What a pity. I had hoped you would prove yourself an honest man. Still, you can't say I didn't give you the opportunity.
|
There you go again, George.....(above quote).
You are quoted in posting number 22 to this thread, George, as allegedly stating (of the fact that you were banned for a month from this forum) "I'm not going to complain about it - as far as I'm concerned it's history" - then why go on about it again now? Why open - soon after your return to the forum - a thread about your ban as you have done here? Why not just take my advice (given earlier in this thread) to just 'move on' from this matter?
Out of politeness I will respond to the points you have just raised George - but I am not going to make it a habit of posting long replies to this thread you have started about yourself because I am busy and my purpose here (unlike some europhile trolls on this forum) is to spend time debating sovereignty/EU matters:
Quote:
|
George wrote: As far as I was aware at that time, that was the reason. It was the only thing which was brought to my attention. However, I have been told since that it is possible to be banned for using the "L" word....
|
Your above comment, George, is (for the attention of readers who may not know it) regarding the suggestion that you were banned for quoting me in a way in which the meaning of my original words were changed. The main reason why you were banned was because you used the word liar against me TEN TIMES in less than three hours. You write above "However I have been told since that it is possible to be banned for using the 'L' word". After being banned for a month I think that you may have read in the thread in question - during that ban - that usage of the world liar is prohibited in the thread in which you used that word against me TEN TIMES.
Quote:
|
George wrote: I now understand the "L" word is banned. However, what you said about me was not true.
|
That is your opinion - I never used the world liar against you TEN TIMES in writing in less than two hours across two threads. That is the important fact.
Quote:
|
George wrote: You have suggested that I am lying about living in Poland.
|
I have checked through the links you provided underneath the above comment. Apart from the very obvious fact that I did not use the word liar against you TEN TIMES (as you did with me) - it is not a breach of forum rules to doubt what someone writes/states. And it is not against the rules of form 'netiquette' to say "I do not believe you" or (as I sometimes do and did in previous replies to you) use the term "you allege" or "you claim". Doubting the views or comments of another in debate is not exactly unheard of. What is bad-mannered is to explicitly call someone a liar using that very word. It is word which is banned from the House of Commons and I have never heard the actual word liar used in any televised studio debate between politicians. I might also add that at no point did I say that I thought that you were definitely, categorically not posting from Poland. The issue of being in Poland and posting from Poland are two separate matters.
You are 'clutching at straws' on this as they say.
Quote:
|
George wrote: You have suggested that I am not British
|
I have looked through each of the links you provided under the above comment you made, George and the exact terminology I used was "you claim" and "if it is true". Nothing bad about those words - they are part of the language of normal debate. I never in those postings called you a liar TEN TIMES (as you did with me) and neither did I specifically and categorically state that you are not British.
Yet again, you are 'clutching at straws' on this as they say.
Quote:
|
George wrote: You have suggested that I am untruthful
|
I have checked the links you have provided under your above comment. Usage of the terms "I don't believe you" or "politically speaking - a stranger to the truth" are in wide use in political debate (except to those 'sheltered' from the real political arena). Such terminology cannot be compared to blatantly using the word liar against someone TEN TIMES in less than three hours across two threads.
Not for the first time, you are again 'clutching at straws' on this as they say.
Quote:
|
George wrote: Seventeen posts where you have suggested that my statements are untrue. Given that I scanned my passport and you now have proof of the location of my IP address I would expect you to apologise or at the very least withdraw these statements.
|
Certainly not - and what a nerve you have to even ask this.
I did not blatantly use the rude word liar against you TEN TIMES in writing across two threads in less than three hours as you did with me. As I wrote earlier, they are ways within 'netiquette' rules to imply that you might not believe someone over a particular point - and you do not appear to know what those are. I would also mention that I have been reading and contributing to threads on this forum long before you arrived here and never have I used the word liar against anyone; nor have I come across usage of it by another on this forum except on one occasion when the poster (a europhile troll) was banned.
Quote:
|
George wrote: No, you know the rules. Instead you have implied the very same thing in a sneaky underhand way.
|
That is not a very nice thing to write is it now George? It is the sort of comment which is not exactly conducive to cordial debate. Has your ban made you particularly bitter? You are entitled to disagree with my views, but do not, please, use the word liar against me. I do not imply "the very same thing in a sneaky underhand way." Let me put it this way - in political debates I have heard one person say to another (instead of using the world liar) "I find that very hard to believe". It is pretty clear what that remark means - but is not a blatantly rude and outrageous term like the word "liar" is when used in the context you used it in TEN TIMES against me (i.e. in writing in a public forum in full view of other regular forum contributors and readable by other visitors to the forum).
Quote:
|
George wrote: you simply insinuated that I was not telling the truth.
|
Did I? Insinuating that a person might not be telling the truth is done in the Chamber of the House of Commons all day long. In fact, it is done in the Commons Chamber more than anything else. Insinuating that a person may not be telling the truth is also done on almost every radio 'phone-in discussions broadcast in the UK where two callers debate with each other. But you may have noticed that one word is missing, George, from the Commons Chamber and from radio 'phone-ins involving two callers: and that word is the word liar. A word you used against me TEN TIMES in less than three hours across two threads.
Quote:
|
George wrote: And the best thing you could have done would have been to enter this thread only to say: "Well it seems George was telling the truth, sorry if I implied otherwise". Everyone now knows where I am, is it really too much for you to type that simple sentence?
|
Is this (above) a joke? You called me a liar TEN TIMES and now want an apology? I could have replied within minutes of you calling me a liar the first time you used it against me but refused to respond to the insult. You then (metaphorically speaking) 'dug yourself into a deeper hole' and carried on insulting me a further nine times (further rudeness from you which I rightly did not respond to). And then you got banned. It is your own fault.
George: In view of your protests in this thread may I ask you - are you very bitter indeed about being banned for a month for your rude usage of the word liar against me TEN TIMES?
I had hoped that you would just take my advice, George, and just 'move on' from all this. Remember that, according to a quote in posting number 22 to this thread (as I pointed out at the start of this posting), you allegedly stated "I am not going to complain about it - as far as I'm concerned it's history".