George

I dare say Brittanist and I would enjoy a pint or two in each others company (although probably no more than two)! The world would be a boring place indeed if we all agreed about everything and a good barney about politics is quite fun.

__________________
Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła,
Kiedy my żyjemy.

Westcountryman

I didn't say 'rude', I said 'completely out of order'. Accusing someone of being a liar is against the rules unless you have hard evidence.

I can't see his signature, so I wouldn't know.

You read the whole thing did you? Or at least the New Testament?

Again, we're not covering 'rudeness'. We're talking about directly accusing someone else of being a liar.

__________________
Porthemmet Beach

Akria

And why is it against the rules?

Here:
Primarily the Old Testament and course-relevant parts of the New Testament.
And of course I am faced with verses every time I start up my web browser - to refresh my memory I installed a widget to quote random verses.
Some of them I have found quite profound. Others I find disgusting.

And why is this a bad thing, then?

__________________
http://real-democracy.co.uk | Admin and proud

I look forward to the days when people will define themselves by their humanity rather than their country.

Users on ignore list: None, and there never shall be.

Westcountryman

It's been the convention of the forum for as long as I've been here, which is over 2 years now. Britannist has been here longer than me, so perhaps he can enlighten us further.

Thanks for the update on YCHTT's signature, I can't say I'm bothered though. He's probably upset because a) I think he buys too much into conspiracy theories and 2) he's on my ignore list.

I would suggest that the New Testament is where you should be concentrating your efforts, pay special attention to what Jesus says.

__________________
Porthemmet Beach

Britannist

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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".

Britannist

Exactly. Good point, Eurosceptic Atlanticist.

They don't allow usage of the word liar (or lying) in the House of Commons or House of Lords and nor do they allow it in debate within council Chambers.

I have noticed that if the word liar (or lying) is used at all - it is not used in a direct exchange between one person and another in a debate (unless - on very rare occasions - someone loses their temper and starts calling the other one a liar).

In other words, a politician may say that former Labour Prime Minister Blair is a liar but in a direct verbal or written exchange with him s/he would most certainly not accuse him directly to his face or in a written exchange with him of being a liar. They might say to him "I am afraid I cannot accept what you say as being correct" or "I find what you say very hard to believe". They might even tell him to his face "I think you are being economical with the truth" or write to him to inform him that they think he is being "untruthful" on a particular point. Terms such as "if it is true" or "you claim" are used in debates up and down the land every day - and are acceptable because they are not blatantly rude. Unlike the term liar when used in direct written or verbal exchange between two individuals.

Britannist

Yes - right from the time I joined this forum using the word liar against someone else on the forum has been a breach of the rules.

No different, then, from conventions surrounding political debates or discussions I have been involved in with those who held different views elsewhere.

I mean it is not the done thing is it - to call someone directly who has been good enough to spend the time to debate with oneself a liar?

If someone says something in a political discussion with which I might not think is accurate I would ask them "Are you sure you are right on this?" or "Are your facts correct?" In direct debate between two people I have even heard stated "I think you are being untruthful" - but that is usually considered acceptable because no one has had the word liar thrown at them directly in a direct verbal or written exchange/discussion involving two people.

Of course, usage of the words liar and lying do take place in politics - but it is against convention to use those words against a political opponent in a direct verbal or written exchange. Just as it is not right that one person on this forum should be allowed to use the actual word liar or lying against another poster here.

In other words - the word liar is most often used when directed at a large group of people (i.e. the europhile Liberal 'Democrats' - no surprise there) and not when two people are having a chat or debate with each other about a political issue (or some other subject - sport, music or whatever).

Britannist

It has been confirmed by others that you have recently posted to this forum from a Polish ISP address. I do not know if you were posting from a Polish ISP address at the time you used the word liar TEN TIMES against me.

As for your identity (which you refer to above). Does it matter? I have never categorically and specifically stated that you are not the person you claim to be.

You say you are George from Poland and that's fine by me. It is your views people may be interested in hearing here and not who or where you are.

Remember George, you are quoted in posting number 22 to this thread as allegedly stating of the fact that you could not post here for a month:

Now (in the quote above at the top of this posting) you say "...it would all be over in a moment as far as I'm concerned if Britannist would just admit that I am who and where I have said I am".

So, on the basis of the two quotes above - you want two things at the same time: you want this thread to end but also not to end.

George

Unfortunately you seem to have completely misunderstood what I am talking about.

I broke the rules. I was banned. Fair enough, I'm not complaining. What I am complaining about is the fact that you have called me exactly what I called you, albeit using more 'political' language.

You have suggested that I am not being truthful about who and where I am. That is what I find insulting and that is why this thread is continuing. I think you will not find a single example of me using the "L" word regarding your political views, rather your attempts to attack me personally by suggesting I am telling lies. You even continue to do so above . So you are suggesting what? That even though it is now proven beyond doubt that I am posting from Poland I was not previously? Do you think I emigrated within the last month just to score a point against you? Your implication is quite clear - that although I may be in Poland now I was not when I previously stated I was and I am therefore not telling the truth.

Is it really so hard for you to admit a mistake?


I'm glad you mentioned this. The reason for this is that politicians are deemed to be 'honourable' men, and it seems you have a similar level of honour as most MP's.

__________________
Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła,
Kiedy my żyjemy.

TannyD

*sigh* I wonder if history will reapeat itself once more?

__________________
TannyD, like Sunny D only better!!

http://www.nationstates.net/01838/pa...n=mutantfreaks:

http://gloucesterr.myminicity.com

http://www.answerbag.com