Sponsored Links
R
RogueHanger
I think, BT, you’re either being intentionally deceitful, obtuse or squirming.
Your recent question, asked repeatedly was:
Now you claim that the question was really somewhere in this thread, Page 38:
The quote that you claim was the question that you asked, reprinted here as you did, came on Page 38
Now can you see a question in there, ‘cos I can’t!
Now I’ve been trying over many, many pages, with umpteen analogies, examples and illustrations, to show why and how PA does not discriminate.
I’ll try once more, with yet another analogy, and if you still claim I’m not addressing your “question”. Then I can’t help you any further.
There is a training course, which has historically only attracted males. There are ten places available and ideally they would be filled by five females and five males. There is no reason why the course should not attract females. There might be some whispering in the trade, as to why, but there’s nothing certain.
The next advert is a) specifically addressed to females, with a phrase something like “applicants from females would be welcome”, and b) some additional adverts are placed where females are more likely to see them.
There are some essential criteria.
In the end four females apply and twenty-five males.
Only three of the females have the essential criteria and fifteen of the males.
The selection panel want to choose the best and brightest five female and five males.
Obviously they choose all three females, ‘cos there’s only three that qualify. They choose the best five males.
Now they can either re-advertise for two more females, or choose the two best of the remaining males.
Due to time constraints they choose the best two of the remaining males.
Now if you think that is unjust or prejudicial treatment of the male applicants.
Then I can’t help you any further.
None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.
Matthew Henry
Your recent question, asked repeatedly was:
Page 42 and again Page 42:Or whether you can answer a direct question with a direct answer without resorting to irrelevant and verbose straw-man argument.
Does Positive Action Discriminate? Yes or no?
And again Page 43:
And again, Page 43
And again, Page 43:
And again, Page 43:
And again, Page 44, only this time, almost immediately after my post saying “I think that PA does not discriminate.”
I can't recall the number of times that I've given you my opinion: PA does not discriminate!
Now you claim that the question was really somewhere in this thread, Page 38:
The quote that you claim was the question that you asked, reprinted here as you did, came on Page 38
Now can you see a question in there, ‘cos I can’t!
Now I’ve been trying over many, many pages, with umpteen analogies, examples and illustrations, to show why and how PA does not discriminate.
I’ll try once more, with yet another analogy, and if you still claim I’m not addressing your “question”. Then I can’t help you any further.
There is a training course, which has historically only attracted males. There are ten places available and ideally they would be filled by five females and five males. There is no reason why the course should not attract females. There might be some whispering in the trade, as to why, but there’s nothing certain.
The next advert is a) specifically addressed to females, with a phrase something like “applicants from females would be welcome”, and b) some additional adverts are placed where females are more likely to see them.
There are some essential criteria.
In the end four females apply and twenty-five males.
Only three of the females have the essential criteria and fifteen of the males.
The selection panel want to choose the best and brightest five female and five males.
Obviously they choose all three females, ‘cos there’s only three that qualify. They choose the best five males.
Now they can either re-advertise for two more females, or choose the two best of the remaining males.
Due to time constraints they choose the best two of the remaining males.
Now if you think that is unjust or prejudicial treatment of the male applicants.
Then I can’t help you any further.
None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.
Matthew Henry
Pack mentality Tone, it's human nature. recognising it and trying to resist it is about all we can do.
Though this did have me in knots " ‘I can’t believe it’s not discrimination’"
FWIW in my experience, the sort of people that espouse what RH does are generally white, dislike themselves and their own culture, and have no real experience of people of different ethnicities. They tend to simplify things down to a matter of colour which is ironically an insult to the culture and intelligence of all ethnicities. These leftists are invariably disliked and treated with suspicion by their own race and the races they are 'championing'.
A black man is not just a man with a different colour of skin, he's a black man with a heritage, maybe british with african roots or having been raised in another country. He will have more respect for someone who understands this and treats and respects him as an individual, than some lefty moron who thinks he's just different coloured sweetie in the jar who needs a pat on the head and 'protection' from the nasty white man.
Though this did have me in knots " ‘I can’t believe it’s not discrimination’"
FWIW in my experience, the sort of people that espouse what RH does are generally white, dislike themselves and their own culture, and have no real experience of people of different ethnicities. They tend to simplify things down to a matter of colour which is ironically an insult to the culture and intelligence of all ethnicities. These leftists are invariably disliked and treated with suspicion by their own race and the races they are 'championing'.
A black man is not just a man with a different colour of skin, he's a black man with a heritage, maybe british with african roots or having been raised in another country. He will have more respect for someone who understands this and treats and respects him as an individual, than some lefty moron who thinks he's just different coloured sweetie in the jar who needs a pat on the head and 'protection' from the nasty white man.
B
Big Tone
A "yes" or "no" to my question would have sufficed RogueHanger.
Sponsored Links
B
Big Tone
It's very embarrassing.
(Yes or no?)
(Yes or no?)
Again,, You stated early on in this thread that "Positive Discrimination " and "Positive Action" were one and the same (the only difference is the terminology) Therefore PA must discriminate. You have failed to comment on this (I feel ) very pertinent point. ( I feel the filibustering coming on shortly)
R
RogueHanger
Again,, You stated early on in this thread that "Positive Discrimination " and "Positive Action" were one and the same (the only difference is the terminology) Therefore PA must discriminate. You have failed to comment on this (I feel ) very pertinent point. ( I feel the filibustering coming on shortly)
FFS, how many times must I repeat myself.
I knew what I meant and used the term PA before this thread even started. (I have provided a link to that occasion way back about Page 12 or 13)
Unfotunately, and I publicly acknowledged (Page 12 and 13) that I had allowed myself to use the inappropriate term PD. I explained myself at the time and how the mistaken use of terminology occured.
I have also explained to all and sundry the difference between PA and PD.
Now will someone else ask me the same question again?
Since Page 12 and 13 I have constantly stated that I meant PA and referred anyone and eveyone reptitively back to my public acknowledgment.
I will accept that I may have been taking the poverbial out of cajar because he was accusing me of something (Hmmm can't think what it might have been now.
Ahh, yes, it was exactly the same as your accusation, some twenty pages later. ) and I was publicly challenging him to differentiate between PA and PD, which he failed to do, went off air and reappeared later to point out to me that PA and PD was not the same thing, after I'd explained the difference to all and sundry. Now if you'd been keeping up you would have realised all of what I've just explained.
You might even appreciate the difference between PA and PD.
Don't eat your words eat a banana.
A public demonstration against racism.
Edit:
I just found this post of yours, about page 42 or 43:
Positive Action does not discriminate. Discrimination is illegal.
How many times?
Yet earlier in the thread , you yourself conceded that "Positive Discrimination and Positive Action were one and the same thing.. So therefore it follows that "Positive Action" does indeed discriminate.
Talk about repititve garbage.
If you ask a question at least have the decency to read the reply.
R
RogueHanger
Thanks, BT, but you wanted a "yes", "yes", "yes", or a "no", "no", "no" ad infinitum.
And it's only after you got it that you appear satisfied.
B
Big Tone
Er no, I didn’t “get it”. Show me where you said either yes or no please?
You, sir, have an aversion to saying either yes or no to a direct question without going into a ‘War and Peace’ monologue and prevaricating.
So then, care to point to where you said "No" in response to my direct question? For the first time on this Board I'm going to use the phrase 'He wont'.
You allude to 'no'. You tell us all what the law thinks. And you bring up PD which is not what anyone is asking anymore. And lastly you keep telling me you answered in every way possible without saying yes or no. Which tells me you’re hiding something or fear it will come back to bite you on the ar$e.
So here I go again. Do YOU think PA discriminates? The world is watching Rogue. Baby steps now. Options are either yes or no.
The reason is simple. So long as you refer the answer to something else, a law or link etc., you can claim that YOU did not actually or strictly say it. More political speak...
We got a situation here! (Just for you JBR )
You, sir, have an aversion to saying either yes or no to a direct question without going into a ‘War and Peace’ monologue and prevaricating.
So then, care to point to where you said "No" in response to my direct question? For the first time on this Board I'm going to use the phrase 'He wont'.
You allude to 'no'. You tell us all what the law thinks. And you bring up PD which is not what anyone is asking anymore. And lastly you keep telling me you answered in every way possible without saying yes or no. Which tells me you’re hiding something or fear it will come back to bite you on the ar$e.
So here I go again. Do YOU think PA discriminates? The world is watching Rogue. Baby steps now. Options are either yes or no.
The reason is simple. So long as you refer the answer to something else, a law or link etc., you can claim that YOU did not actually or strictly say it. More political speak...
We got a situation here! (Just for you JBR
)
R
RogueHanger
I think you've taken leave of your sense, BT, how does "PA does not discriminate" not equate to "No"?Er no, I didn’t “get it”. Show me where you said either yes or no please?
You, sir, have an aversion to saying either yes or no to a direct question without going into a ‘War and Peace’ monologue and prevaricating.
So then, care to point to where you said "No" in response to my direct question? For the first time on this Board I'm going to use the phrase 'He wont'.
You allude to 'no'. You tell us all what the law thinks. And you bring up PD which is not what anyone is asking anymore. And lastly you keep telling me you answered in every way possible without saying yes or no. Which tells me you’re hiding something or fear it will come back to bite you on the ar$e.
So here I go again. Do YOU think PA discriminates? The world is watching Rogue. Baby steps now. Options are either yes or no.
The reason is simple. So long as you refer the answer to something else, a law or link etc., you can claim that YOU did not actually or strictly say it. More political speak...
We got a situation here! (Just for you JBR
They're both negative versions of the same thing.
I'll say it again "PA does not discriminate."
Or are you insisting I use only the words that you specify are acceptable, in my responses?
Instead of me saying "No" I made a definitive statement that could not be misinterpreted or twisted into something that it isn't.
You can decribe that with any "GD Forum nonesense" that you like: politician speak, leftie speak, etc. That is my response.
Now if you don't like that, tough!
Sorry, BT, but you're becoming as repetitive and circuitous as the rest of the looney racists on this forum.
B
Big Tone
Wise to do that RH; and so predictable.
I think PA does discriminate. If you asked me I would say Yes, (ouch that was hard!), and I have clearly given my reason. If I thought it didn’t I would say No and give my reason.
You won’t say Yes it does for obvious and self-defeating reasons of course. And you certainly won’t say No because if, or when, it is deemed to still discriminate in its current form, (as indeed it does), you can distance yourself from the term. (Once bitten twice shy?)
You see, when you are confident and certain of something, it’s really not hard. Try pulling the same stunt with your wife when she next asks “Do you still love me?”
I think PA does discriminate. If you asked me I would say Yes, (ouch that was hard!), and I have clearly given my reason. If I thought it didn’t I would say No and give my reason.
You won’t say Yes it does for obvious and self-defeating reasons of course. And you certainly won’t say No because if, or when, it is deemed to still discriminate in its current form, (as indeed it does), you can distance yourself from the term. (Once bitten twice shy?)
You see, when you are confident and certain of something, it’s really not hard. Try pulling the same stunt with your wife when she next asks “Do you still love me?”
MPs are stupid. Well we all know that, don't we?
When they (and presumably RH) avoid answering a direct question it only serves to indicate to people what their honest response would have been.
In the case of the Jeremy Paxman interview I'm sure that the honest response, had it been given, would have been 'yes'. Everyone watching must have realised that, in avoiding a direct answer, he was obviously covering something up.
When they (and presumably RH) avoid answering a direct question it only serves to indicate to people what their honest response would have been.
In the case of the Jeremy Paxman interview I'm sure that the honest response, had it been given, would have been 'yes'. Everyone watching must have realised that, in avoiding a direct answer, he was obviously covering something up.
B
Big Tone
I actually saw that in full originally JB. Much later in a different interview he said that he basically dug his heels in unnecessarily and wish he’d just said yes or no. But because he didn’t, it turned into being the big deal and joke it has become. Maybe that interview is out there too somewhere. (Will have a look later).
I think all politicians should be dragged over hot coals like that! Say what you mean and mean what you say. Be very clear and leave any ‘voter’ in no doubt exactly what you stand for. I also think that you should be able to call someone a liar in The Commons, if the cap fits.
That’s why I respect Dennis Skinner in a famous argument when he said, and I’ll have to paraphrase, “Half the opposition are crooks and liars!” The Speaker of the House said “Sir, order! Please retract that statement immediately!” And Dennis said “Okay, half the opposition are not crooks and liars”. Absolutely brilliant stuff But I digress...
I do not doubt Rogue’s sincerity, seriously I don’t. I think he’s most likely a decent guy who genuinely wants to do the right thing and fight racism. (Despite his taunts at me claiming I am racist). I'm sure he’s a guy I could get on with in real life I feel. It’s a shame we met this way really.
Forums never bring the best out of people who would quite likely get on in real life. I’m happy to let it go now Rogue. I've said my piece and I think we’ve done well not to get arrested by the ‘thread getting ridiculous’ police.
I think all politicians should be dragged over hot coals like that! Say what you mean and mean what you say. Be very clear and leave any ‘voter’ in no doubt exactly what you stand for. I also think that you should be able to call someone a liar in The Commons, if the cap fits.
That’s why I respect Dennis Skinner in a famous argument when he said, and I’ll have to paraphrase, “Half the opposition are crooks and liars!” The Speaker of the House said “Sir, order! Please retract that statement immediately!” And Dennis said “Okay, half the opposition are not crooks and liars”. Absolutely brilliant stuff
But I digress...I do not doubt Rogue’s sincerity, seriously I don’t. I think he’s most likely a decent guy who genuinely wants to do the right thing and fight racism. (Despite his taunts at me claiming I am racist). I'm sure he’s a guy I could get on with in real life I feel. It’s a shame we met this way really.
Forums never bring the best out of people who would quite likely get on in real life. I’m happy to let it go now Rogue. I've said my piece and I think we’ve done well not to get arrested by the ‘thread getting ridiculous’ police.
R
RogueHanger
If I answer with "I still love you". Do you think my partner will be in any doubt?Wise to do that RH; and so predictable.
I think PA does discriminate. If you asked me I would say Yes, (ouch that was hard!), and I have clearly given my reason. If I thought it didn’t I would say No and give my reason.
You won’t say Yes it does for obvious and self-defeating reasons of course. And you certainly won’t say No because if, or when, it is deemed to still discriminate in its current form, (as indeed it does), you can distance yourself from the term. (Once bitten twice shy?)
You see, when you are confident and certain of something, it’s really not hard. Try pulling the same stunt with your wife when she next asks “Do you still love me?”
If I had to say it umpteen times, and my partner still doesn't understand I think there would be a parting of the ways because we'd be on different wavelengths.
Sponsored Links
