Prescott the fat fkkr...

[Softus]

...must have perfomed some kind of magic

I suspect that his £250K in salary and benefits in kind seemed quite magical to her at the time.

 

[oilman]

Then I presume you are saying he shouldn't be judged for LANDING A PUNCH ON THE JAW OF A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC as we only saw this on the television and the media was involved.

In giving the member of the public the egg?

..........can you rewrite this post so that it makes one iota of sense!
i've read it several times now and it's total nonsense!

 

[Softus]

Then I presume you are saying he shouldn't be judged for LANDING A PUNCH ON THE JAW OF A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC as we only saw this on the television and the media was involved.

In giving the member of the public the egg?

..........can you rewrite this post so that it makes one iota of sense!
i've read it several times now and it's total nonsense!

Why don't you understand that oilman?

The egg - you must remember the egg! And the member of public, which clearly there was? And the giving of the egg?

Well then, in the giving (of the egg), to the said member, John Prescott clearly, um, well he clearly, er, er, gave... um... it... to... erm.... well the giving the member of public the egg

Crystal clear

 

[oilman]

I thought he only gve his member to his secretary (or any other nearby female).

 

[Softus]

Member? Secretary? Egg? The potential for smutty jokes is almost infinite...

But now that he's gone, we can no longer blame him for the state of the Buiding Regulations

 

[Handyman]

But now that he's gone, we can no longer blame him for the state of the Buiding Regulations

Excellent. Does that mean I can resume installing electrics in kitchens, and revert to using clear and unambiguously identified red and black T&E cabling?

Which piece of important legislature do you think was the first he signed off after he had that bl*w j*b in his office? And do you think it affected his judgement?

 

[Nige F]

I normally find people won't hear a bad word against Prescott or Blair are very loyal Labour supporter type regardless if they have done wrong.

?

I am the exception, then Labour all my voting life........socialist priciples.....Actually thought Blair could create a genuine New Labour Blue as the blood in my blue vein from now on Blair has done for Lab what Th*****r did to the tories.

 

[Softus]

So kendor, now that paulbrown has nothing left to say, how about answering this one:

Which of the following is incorrect or untrue?

1. You are not prepared to publicly judge John Prescott.
2. You are prepared to privately judge John Prescott.
3. You disapprove of the public judgment of John Prescott.

 

[paulbrown]

Softus wrote,

I don't know what the wink means, what with me being falsely intelligent an' all.

I am not passing comment on your intelligence softus, I am only saying that being too complicated has a negative effect.

I imagine your audience is the whole forum as there is no PM facility.

You are turning kendor's straightforward comment into an argumentative issue. He has his beliefs and is entitled to them, we don't need chapter and verse.

For what its worth I disagree with kendor on this and believe the press are correct in telling us whats going on.

...all of which kendor claims to be unable to understand. I guess it was just too wordy

No your comment wasn't, but this was.

I don't think I'm reading too far into anything - your post conveyed the following information:

1. The fact that you are not prepared to publicly judge John Prescott.
2. The logical conclusion that you are prepared to privately judge John Prescott.
3. The implication that you disapprove of the public judgment of John Prescott.

You might now claim that the purpose of your post was merely to convey point 1, but that would not be a very credible claim. I don't see you posting on every topic that criticises people, stating that you don't publicly judge the subject of those other topics. I don't see a sticky topic declaring your general policy of not publicly judging people. Therefore I conclude that there was an additional point that you were making - this is simple logic.

My observation, not judgment, as per point 3 above, is that you were, and are, judging other posters according to your own moral code, in such a way as to be hypocritical. This isn't my judgment - it's a reasoned conclusion. You may take it as a criticism, if you think hypocrisy is a bad thing, but I've never claimed that I'm not prepared to publicly criticise, therefore my public criticism of you is not hypocrisy.

If I'm wrong, then I'll apologise, but can you explain the purpose of your post, because "merely stating from seeing their own posts that they were making judgement on someone they don't know" really doesn't wash I'm afraid.

 

[Softus]

I doubt that you're right about it being too words, but there were certainly fewer words when it all kicked off, viz:

...i'm fully entitled to say what i did so what's the problem?

Your post declared that you decline to judge Prescott because you don't know him, but you imply criticism of those on this topic who are judging him. Criticism involves a judgment, and you don't know those on the forum who you criticise, so you're a hypocrite - that's the problem.

Everything that followed was my answer to kendor's disingenuous replies. If he'd owned up to the hypocrisy then there would have been fewer words. If he'd answered the question then there would have been fewer words. If he'd ignored me then there would have been fewer words.

As long as kendor denies his hypocrisy then I'll keep pointing it out and explaining it. If he's incapable of understand the words then the best advice I can give is that he takes it slowly and a little bit at a time. Perhaps silently moving his lips as he reads might help

 

[paulbrown]

Softus it is your adversarial approach which is the issue. Kendor's original post was no big deal really, it was only a simple comment. I am quite sure he didn't make it with the intention of having a lecture on English or a row with a fellow member.

Lighten up a bit. btw, using this may get on some people nerves, but I just find it ignorant.

 

[oilman]

Softus it is your adversarial approach which is the issue. Kendor's original post was no big deal really, it was only a simple comment. I am quite sure he didn't make it with the intention of having a lecture on English or a row with a fellow member.

Lighten up a bit. btw, using this may get on some people nerves, but I just find it ignorant.

This is a forum, the discussions develop as they develop. Why do you want softus to change his style? (Is that too wordy?

 

[Softus]

Softus it is your adversarial approach which is the issue.

I do take your point paulbrown, I really do, and although I'm not averse to change, I don't yet see the need. If I have an "approach", then it's simply that I'm persistent, perhaps even obstinate. But I never make a [serious] point when there's nothing to substantiate it, and there has to be someone arguing back for me to become an "adversary", n'est pas?

Kendor's original post was no big deal really, it was only a simple comment. I am quite sure he didn't make it with the intention of having a lecture on English or a row with a fellow member.

He asked the question "what's the problem", and I answered it. I believed, and I still believe, that his post was far from being a simple comment, and that it was a big deal. If kendor didn't want to discuss it with me, he went about ignoring me in a very strange way.

Lighten up a bit.

If that's too heavy then that's just life. This topic can easily be ignored by anyone who's irritated, or bored, by my words. That's the beauty, and the strength, of the forum.

btw, using this may get on some people nerves, but I just find it ignorant.

I see. Well that's a matter for them and for you, and not for me. If you don't like the existence of the icon, I suggest that you ask admin to remove it from the available set. Notwithstanding that, if you wish to seal some kind of pact, then for the purposes of showing my willingness to compromise over trivial issues, I'm prepared to forego the use of if you agree to entirely give up your use of

Deal, or no deal?

 

[Softus]

So, kendor, now that paulbrown has given up arguing, I'll repeat my question to you, in not very many words.

Which of the following is incorrect or untrue?

1. You are not prepared to publicly judge John Prescott.
2. You are prepared to privately judge John Prescott.
3. You disapprove of the public judgment of John Prescott.

Moderator

Several posts have been removed - rule 20.

 

[oilman]

..............
Moderator

Several posts have been removed - rule 20.

Then why not remove all posts after the third one? and come to that almost every other thread as well?
Come to think of it

rule 20

20 ) Do not hi-jack posts

(Hi jacking, is adding your question to a post you did not start, it causes confusion)

This looks very much like the state the government are trying to impose by inappropriately imposing rules which have little to do with the claimed reasons.