So I'll take it then that you have absolutely no rational or logical arguments with which to reply to what I said, and all you can do is to throw up increasingly incoherent insults.
I find it incredible that you could ask me three questions - directly ask them and explicitly ask me to reply, saying you are interested in my opinions, and then go into such paroxysms of rage when I stand by what I said.
I'm not saying that you have to agree with what I say, but having entered into the debate, and invited replies, you should behave more civilly. I don't agree with all of what you say, but I find that I am able to argue with you without becoming offensive. If you do not have the ability or temperament to do the same then maybe you should stay away from fora like this.
Regarding the "cashpoint" post, if you take the trouble to read the entire thread, or at least the posts preceding mine, you will see that it had nothing to do with me thinking that the perpetrators were Jewish, and it wasn't an inane "what if" lecture, it was an example of how a report would read if a different group of people were characterised in it. It had nothing to do with any prejudices of mine, except those against sloppy reporting and unfair characterisation.
Just what "deep inner prejudices" do you think I have? Or are you not able to actually say?
Turning to the "bodybag" post, you said
Finally the "slogger shooting himself" post - the full story has been covered exhaustively in the original thread. My guess, given the two "examples" you have misrepresented above is that either you haven't actually read the whole thing or you are another one of these people who are quite happy for Slogger to spew out his hate filled posts, advocating arson, torture and murder, but react in an incredibly biased way when anybody so much as hints that he might be on the receiving end of some violence.
I find it incredible that you could ask me three questions - directly ask them and explicitly ask me to reply, saying you are interested in my opinions, and then go into such paroxysms of rage when I stand by what I said.
I'm not saying that you have to agree with what I say, but having entered into the debate, and invited replies, you should behave more civilly. I don't agree with all of what you say, but I find that I am able to argue with you without becoming offensive. If you do not have the ability or temperament to do the same then maybe you should stay away from fora like this.
Regarding the "cashpoint" post, if you take the trouble to read the entire thread, or at least the posts preceding mine, you will see that it had nothing to do with me thinking that the perpetrators were Jewish, and it wasn't an inane "what if" lecture, it was an example of how a report would read if a different group of people were characterised in it. It had nothing to do with any prejudices of mine, except those against sloppy reporting and unfair characterisation.
Just what "deep inner prejudices" do you think I have? Or are you not able to actually say?
Turning to the "bodybag" post, you said
Again, if you take the trouble to read the entire thread, or at least the posts preceding mine, you will plainly see that Slogger mentioned body bags and personal threats before me:
Slogger said:
Finally the "slogger shooting himself" post - the full story has been covered exhaustively in the original thread. My guess, given the two "examples" you have misrepresented above is that either you haven't actually read the whole thing or you are another one of these people who are quite happy for Slogger to spew out his hate filled posts, advocating arson, torture and murder, but react in an incredibly biased way when anybody so much as hints that he might be on the receiving end of some violence.
Thank you for giving me a laugh. You quote posts where I am talking about somebody else as examples of egotism. Brilliant.
Let me give you a hint to help you understand: it's the phrase "do as you would be done by".
You've been looking at that signature for quite some time. Why did you choose now to indulge in cod psycho-analysis of it? Did you think that it would add weight to your arguments, or make the things that I have said untrue?