boxing ring for kendor, D&J and the rest of the world!!

[Thermo]

Ive opened this thread just so kendor, D&J and the rest can argue it out here rather than going off on a tangent on other posts!

 

[masona]

Ding ding, round 1

 

[david and julie]

I am only asking for him to explain his gobbledegook thats all.

The argument is not the moral of whether he was right or wrong but the fact that people on here can argue so vehemently against a wrong-doer who they don't know anything more about apart from what they read in a paper or saw on the news and yet give support and sympathy to someone who in their own words has presented evidence of their own wrong doing.
I havn't stated one way or another whether i find ninebob guilty again that is up to the courts but on the evidence he has presented the desicion seems to me to be straightforward, but my criticism was not directed to him anyway but to others double standards.

Can anyone honestly say they 100% understand the above?

He also said this though not only to me,

i feel i have a very middle of the road view and i'm having a go at the extremeists on here who paint all that don't fit in with their point of view as the scum of society. now ill say it again for those who read the posts and totally ignore what was written

And this to me.

You are the master of Mis-quoting aren't you! Where in any of my posts do i condone mass immigration? Open your eyes whilst you read this

If i have to spell it out for you then that proves you really don't understand anything and have no idea, hence your totally illogical replies.

kendor consistently accuses most of us of either misquoting or misunderstanding his gobbledegook. All I am saying is answer in plain talk so we know what you mean. Instead of changing tack to suit your own argument afterwards.

 

[kevplumb]

now howay

1 good clean fight
2 no head butting in the clinches
3 no low punches
4 and def no kicking in the nether regions

 

[Richardp]

would,nt it be boring if we was all of the same opinions the same political persuasions and stuff, what if we all agreed? would,nt life be dull. I bet even tories don,t like dull.

 

[shaggy]

Kev said:

4) and def no kicking in the nether regions

 

[Just_back_from_the_pub]

If i'm taking the moral high ground as stated then so be it, does that mean the rest are taking the moral low ground then?
Someone has to on here as there are a lot of comments being made on here that very nearly cross the line or indeed do of decency and normality.

Well frankly we do not really know Simon, or anybody else on this forum, do we? Over some period of time, depending on the frequency of posts we can form some sort of impression perhaps. We know that he has made a pretty candid post of events but this will have no legal impact - perhaps some might hold that justice will be served. To answer your question, yes, I suppose there are some who do take what I (and maybe you) would refer to as the moral low ground and perhaps sad that there does not exist an immoral valley but the greater body of folk perhaps occupy a more even spread up the side of the moral mountain.

If you wsh to appoint yourself as the high-priest of decency and morality, Kendor, then that's your lookout. Remember one thing about the guardians of sententiousness - Lord Longford, Victoria Killick, Mary Whitehouse, Malcolm Mugeridge - they were a tedious bunch of f***ers!

Oh how wrong you are when you put me in the same league as those people, I have not appointed myself as anything it's you that seems to know my mind better than myself? i feel i have a very middle of the road view and i'm having a go at the extremeists on here who paint all that don't fit in with their point of view as the scum of society. now ill say it again for those who read the posts and totally ignore what was written, i have never taken the side of any wrong-doer but i will stand up for those that i feel are being picked on who i believe don't warrant it.
The Gypsies is a post that springs to mind, where i stuck up for the honest people they are and not to blame them all for a few wrong-doers in their folds same as i don't go round saying all white people are drunken, womanising rapists and murderers just because of the few.

I don't think it's just D&J who Kendor claims misrepresent him?

 

[jasy]

My picture of our friend Kendor is a middle aged mature student who smokes rollies, drinks halves, is a black le*bian with 4 kids by a surrogate mother and claims incapacity benefit ( by the way i have nothing against any of the INDIVIDUALS quoted)

 

[Thermo]

ill just get things straight with the world at large. I didnt set this up to have a bash at anyone, it was just there were a few quite serious posts which were flying off in various tangents which werent really appropriate to the nature of the threads. I also thought it might be a bit of fun and intresting!

 

[DforDave]

I am only asking for him to explain his gobbledegook thats all.

The argument is not the moral of whether he was right or wrong but the fact that people on here can argue so vehemently against a wrong-doer who they don't know anything more about apart from what they read in a paper or saw on the news and yet give support and sympathy to someone who in their own words has presented evidence of their own wrong doing.
I havn't stated one way or another whether i find ninebob guilty again that is up to the courts but on the evidence he has presented the desicion seems to me to be straightforward, but my criticism was not directed to him anyway but to others double standards.

Can anyone honestly say they 100% understand the above?

I think I do. Not being a regular member of this web site community, and therefore not taking sides, I think Kendor is saying that if someone criticises a crime or action, he should criticise it whoever commits it. For example, one shouldn't be 100% against drink driving when committed by someone unknown in a newspaper report but then be less critical, even sympathetic, when committed by someone who just happens to contribute regularly to this web site.

I can see where he is coming from - even though I wouldn't personally apply it to every situation one comes across in life.

 

[kevplumb]

nice one shaggy

 

[david and julie]

I think I do. Not being a regular member of this web site community, and therefore not taking sides, I think Kendor is saying that if someone criticises a crime or action, he should criticise it whoever commits it. For example, one shouldn't be 100% against drink driving when committed by someone unknown in a newspaper report but then be less critical, even sympathetic, when committed by someone who just happens to contribute regularly to this web site.

I can see where he is coming from - even though I wouldn't personally apply it to every situation one comes across in life.

This reply sums up exactly what DforDave thinks and I am trying to say. Kendor is giving double meanings to most of his replies and then changing them to suit.

DforDave, wait for his answer and then give me another reply, the mans an ar**hole and you will soon see it.

This has me even more curious,

I could put it in bengalise or chinese or russian if you like it would make no difference to you as all you seem to do is try to pick holes in things instead of coming out with any form of constructive argument. My colleagues here read and understood exactly the gist of what i was saying so perhaps you need new reading glasses then?

Now just tell me kendor which public body do you work for which allows you and your colleaauges to study this forum in the afternoon?

 

[kevplumb]

fink he means us lot

 

[Panjandrum]

On the particular point in question I was fairly sure I DID understand what Kendor meant.
I understand him to be pointing out a moral ambiguity: that people are responding sympathetically to ninebob who has openly confessed his offence here - while the same people, he implies, would condemn the general class of those who have done the same thing.
The words he uses, and the order in which he places them, may not be ideal. But I thought the meaning was pretty clear just the same; and on this point I think he is right.

 

[AdamW]

would,nt it be boring if we was all of the same opinions the same political persuasions and stuff, what if we all agreed? would,nt life be dull. I bet even tories don,t like dull.

Go and eat some lentils, y'socialist hippy!

Toryism goes hand in hand with hedonism. No socialist would ever be found snorting cocaine off the nipples of a Thai ladyboy whilst dining on stuffed endangered animals, washing it all down with a bottle of champagne worth twice the annual salary of the dancing girl whose bottom he is drinking it off.