Re: SCW's legacy

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!

>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!

>
>>>
>>>>>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.

>those you attacked aren't that bothered.

Given that they are non-existent then that is not too difficult a
conclusion at which to arrive!


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SCWs legacy
    ... The fact that you make incorrect exaggerations? ... The "reality of the situation" is that immigration was demonstrably ... >>to attack those who were reasonably refusing to place the blame for ... >>>Your response would appear to indicate otherwise. ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
  • Re: Can a US PR go home for a few months?
    ... > Officers response: Welcome back to USA ... > Officers response: Please sign the form revoking your USA PR. ... > do not sign the form, then you have to go before an immigration judge. ... there is only ONE attorney who responded to this thread and his ...
    (misc.immigration.usa)
  • Re: population sizes for colonising a planet
    ... >> Kristopher wrote: ... >>> rates and the overall human population, does immigration count ... MONITOR no response from all muscle groups. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: The difference between them and us..
    ... >> Hey, I was there and in a message that I just sent in response to Ben ... >> discussed the same hole. ... Some of those exaggerations are BS, ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: Expired EAD
    ... to appear at the interview.She had attempted to apply ... for renewal aEAD around 1 year and had no response back from ... immigration so at a guess they thrown it in the bin and the sites ...
    (misc.immigration.usa)