Re: SCW's legacy

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:01:18 +0100, DaveyWavey <davey.wavey@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 00:22:19 +0100, Charles <charles@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:02:09 +0100, DaveyWavey <davey.wavey@xxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:28:38 +0100, Charles <charles@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You will not be able to back this up with references, as it is
>>>>>>>patently false. FWIW, I do not consider my own posting here to be
>>>>>>>"hyper-critical".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are hoist by your own petard given your admission above where you
>>>>>>state unequivocally: "I am *occasionally* "hyper-critical"!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>But not *invariably* "hyper-critical"? Which was your (incorrect)
>>>>>statement.
>>>>
>>>>Which was qualified by my later response:
>>>>
>>>>"So I exaggerated the point in order to make the point!!".
>>>>
>>>>But you did say:
>>>>
>>>>"I do not consider my own posting here to be "hyper-critical", which
>>>>was at variance with your admission that: "I am *occasionally*
>>>>"hyper-critical"!!
>>>>
>>>>Do try and keep up Davey!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Keep up with what?
>>
>>With the fact that you have already admitted something, and have again
>>attempted to deny it, which is going back over old ground!
>>
>
>What?

I will repeat:

"With the fact that you have already admitted something, and have
again attempted to deny it, which is going back over old ground!"


>Are you delusional?

Quite possibly from your defensive viewpoint!

>I admitted that I am "occasionally
>hyper-critical", but not "invariably hyper-critical". When did I
>attempt to deny this?

We have already clarified that, which is why I posted "Do try and keep
up Davey" and later explained why thus:

"I made a deliberate exaggeration in order to make a point, which was
clearly conceded as you later admitted it!"

>
>>>The fact that you make incorrect exaggerations?
>>
>>I made a deliberate exaggeration in order to make a point, which was
>>clearly conceded as you later admitted it!
>>
>>>We're both in agreement here.
>>
>>No we're not!
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>However, you knew this already. Your posting of this gross
>>>>>>>exaggeration is merely a poor attempt to divert attention from your
>>>>>>>own silliness in this thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That would be at variance in what way with the MO of most others here
>>>>>>(and the whole of Usenet), seeking "invariably" to prove the other
>>>>>>chap wrong? "Silliness" by your definition would appear to be quite
>>>>>>common!! ;o)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You used a similar tactic in the silly discussion about whether
>>>>>>>"immigration" was to blame for the bombings of last week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's not just me Wavey Davey:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The findings of YouGov's survey 9/7/05
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Excerpt:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Fully 82 per cent are apparently convinced already that Islamic
>>>>>>extremists - whether foreign Muslims, British Muslims or some
>>>>>>combination of the two - were behind the bombings and 60 per cent
>>>>>>believe Britain's security services "should now focus their
>>>>>>intelligence-gathering and terrorism-prevention efforts on Muslims in
>>>>>>this country or seeking to enter it"."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not really a damning indictment of immigration, is it?
>>>>
>>>>It depends whether you want to accept the reality of the situation, as
>>>>the vast majority of the UK population do, or to wander around with
>>>>your head stuck firmly up your ample posterior!
>>>>
>>>
>>>The "reality of the situation" is that immigration was demonstrably
>>>not the cause of this atrocity.
>>
>>Yes it was - four immigrants killed 55 of their fellow citizens in the
>>name of Islam!
>>
>
>Wrong.

Rubbish!

>
>Firstly, all four perpetrators were British. Three of the four were
>born and had lived all their lives in Britain. One was a Briton born
>in Jamaica. So it's incorrect to call them "four immigrants".

That is naive or obtuse!

>
>Secondly, saying they killed "in the name of Islam" is somewhat
>premature. There is no record of their motivations, and they are in no
>position to clarify them. It MAY turn out that Islam is a distorted
>motivation in these attacks, but you are being somewhat premature in
>declaring this at this point.

That is definitely obtuse!

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>You massively over-reacted to a posting saying no more than the fact that
>>>>>>>such comments were unhelpful,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You actually said to me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"But making general noise about "immigration and asylum" as a response
>>>>>>to something as terrible as this is pretty stupid."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Indeed. And I prefixed this sentence with: "Not a particularly helpful
>>>>>comment.", referring to your comments about immigration.
>>>>
>>>>That was not the sentence to which I responded, and against which I
>>>>purportedly "over-reacted"!!
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>then sought to obscure your own
>>>>>>>silliness by posting wild tangential exaggerations about what others
>>>>>>>in the thread had actually said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You mean like that which the other goon "Uncle Bully" had to say?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The particular exaggerations I had in mind was the ones which sought
>>>>>to attack those who were reasonably refusing to place the blame for
>>>>>the atrocities on immigration.
>>>>
>>>>(you may have meant "were the ones"!)
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps you would be kind enough to cite examples of such "wild
>>>>tangential exaggerations", in order that I may apologise to those whom
>>>>I "attacked" so unreasonably!!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Life is too short.
>>
>>By what scale?
>>
>>>Read the thread. But don't bother apologising,
>>
>>You are unable to back up your false accusations.
>>
>
>OK. If you insist. Some of the key phrases that you chose to use about
>my comment about not laying the blame on "immigation" were:
>
>"attempted trivialisation"
>"staggeringly insensitive"
>"your attempt to confuse"
>"breathtakingly naive or obtuse"
>"deliberately obtuse"
>"naive assumption"

Nothing "wild tangential or exaggerated" about those old darling, they
are all exactly that which I meant to convey, and are wholly true and
justified!

>
>Phrases that you used about others' similar comments include:
>
>"politically correct liberal apologist"
>"woolly minded liberal fart"

Again, as above, although I do think "liberal fart" has a nice ring to
it!! ;o)

>
>And all this just because someone dared to suggest that immigration
>was not the cause of these bombings.

Quite right!

No need to add more to such obtusity and ignorance!!


.