youcanhandlethetruth

I'm taking bets as to how long this thread can possibly get:

4-6 3/1
7-9 2/1
10+ Evens

Hope I'm wrong for George and Brittanist's sake...

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

TannyD

Is that really necessary?

__________________
TannyD, like Sunny D only better!!

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

http://gloucesterr.myminicity.com

http://www.answerbag.com

youcanhandlethetruth

I'm only joking !

Having said that though, I hope they've chosen to call a timeout.

Just trying to help, but of course it's entriely up to them.....

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

Cleopatra

George,

Personally I don't think anybody should be banned for disbelieving somebody's post but as that is the (very strange) rules I think it should not have been you that was banned. I have read the thread in question and Brittanist, Steve Fowler and Ranter should have been banned, not you!

I have had the same problem with Brittanist on another thread, I too was called a troll. It would seem that the admin or (some) moderators would have more to lose if they banned somebody with over 20,000 posts than someone who only joined in January. It's a bit like the local pub; if a regular causes a fight with a newcomer it's more likely that the newcomer will be banned as they would not be spending as much per week.

__________________
"Then they pull down their filthy trousers, squat over a massive, subsidised ditch and evacuate their corrupt, socialist bowels all over a photograph of Shakespeare."

George

Thanks for that, but I have to say I disagree with you. I don't think Ranter deserves any censure, you just need to see post 6 in this thread to see that he has a good character. Sure we don't agree but I don't think he has been abusive at all, certainly not that I recall. The same goes for Steve Fowler.

What I do think is out of order is conducting a debate by simply claiming that the other person is making up details about their personal situation, ignoring the actual debate and then refusing to withdraw these remarks when proved wrong. Even so, I don't think it should be grounds for a ban because it is far better to allow them to continue making themselves look foolish and petty.

__________________
Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła,
Kiedy my żyjemy.

Frith

They called you a troll??!!! ... ...

Cleopatra

Ranters comment to you:

Ranter: George I dont know or care what your agenda is but you are barking (mad) up the wrong tree ...........You have the distinction of being the first person I am going to blank., You are the saddest of the sad ,a numpty puppet who knows nothing of life ,the people of England or who won the last Ryder cup.

I will admit that Steve Fowlers were more comical rather than abusive, sorry Steve:

Steve Fowler: EU immigration should be encouraged!!! you've lost the ******* plot.

This is the funny one:

Steve Fowler: Plus Britannist always backs up his facts on any information that we get.



There is no need for Brittanist's posts to be recorded here as the thread would reach 40 pages.

As far as I can see you posted figures and explained where you got them from. When you asked Brittanist to back up his figures he got all defensive when there wasn't really any need. It's almost like Brittanist feels he should not have to, and his word is gospel.

__________________
"Then they pull down their filthy trousers, squat over a massive, subsidised ditch and evacuate their corrupt, socialist bowels all over a photograph of Shakespeare."

Cleopatra

Yep, see here:

Abortions could be forced on Religous Hospitials

__________________
"Then they pull down their filthy trousers, squat over a massive, subsidised ditch and evacuate their corrupt, socialist bowels all over a photograph of Shakespeare."

Hartlepool

The Angel George called Britannist a liar ten time,this is against the rules,besides,it was the Angel George who was not truthful in all this,and certainly not Britannist or anyone else.

But,Britannist did not stoop to the level of the Angel George and call him a liar did he?

No,not once.

For what it's worth,George should certainly be considered as a troll,in my honest opinion.

George

To be fair, at the beginning of that post Ranter did say it was late and he'd just got home after a hard day and a couple of pints. Also, I'm a bit too thick skinned to take 'numpty' as much of an insult. No, I don't find that abusive or offensive.

Again, I don't find that at all offensive. He disagrees, and quite forcefully, but there's no abuse.

There's not a lot you can say to that, is there?

Again, if he makes statements I will ask him to back them up. If he can't, or if he refuses to, that's his right. In effect, he shouldn't have to. If he wants to make a statement and then withhold any evidence, that's up to him. This is a democracy, after all. It's all about credibility.

No, the only thing I don't like is the way tries to insinuate dishonesty by using slippery language. I have not told any untruths about who or where I am yet he has implied that I have, even after I provided some evidence. Everyone else has realised that I am being truthful yet he refuses to admit this.

__________________
Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła,
Kiedy my żyjemy.