S
Shutpa
In the 'In or Out' thread, F & I said:
At the end of all that I was left with a couple of questions, but because there is an interesting debate taking place in the 'In or Out' thread, and also because my exchanges with F & I had nothing to do with the topic under discussion, I have chosen to ask them here. They are:
1. Why did F & I claim that he had looked back at that particular thread and found that "....immigration seems to be the only thing Bolo wants to talk about", when he clearly had not?
2. Why did he make such a statement when he must have known that because it was untrue, he couldn't back it up with examples because there were none.
3. Where were his fellow travellers when he really needed them?
Why, why, F & I?
I replied:I have looked back at that particular thread and note that following the New Years Resolution, tone new member was determined to discuss immigration... That member was Bolo, so I feel that it is pretty rich for Bolo to bellyache about us discussing immigration now.. He was the one to break the New Years resolution and to be honest immigration seems to be the only thing Bolo wants to talk about.
As F & I did not provide such examples, I posted the following reply:Despite the fact that I do not, and never have had, any inclination to discuss immigration, F & I claims otherwise. Now I can see from his contributions to the forum, that he is well acquainted with the quote facility, so for the benefit of those members and visitors to the forum who are not up to speed on the thread he refers to, perhaps it would be a good idea if he were to quote from my posts in that thread, examples of "....immigration seems to be the only thing Bolo wants to talk about".
I was right. F & I replied:Elsewhere in this thread I referred to the Outers as "lacking the intellectual capacity" to fight their own corner. Now I am not saying that F & I is such a person and I am also not saying that I am not. What I will say, is that if any of my fellow Outers make a statement, for example, like this:
"....immigration seems to be the only thing Bolo wants to talk about"
referring to posts in another thread, and is asked by the subject of that statement to justify it by quoting real examples to prove his case, he must do so. Otherwise, some readers will go straight to that thread searching for replies proving that:
"....immigration seems to be the only thing Bolo wants to talk about".
And if they do find evidence to that effect, they will think that F & I is quite right,
"....immigration seems to be the only thing that Bolo wants to talk about. What a Pratt!".
But what if there are no such posts? What if there isn't a single word, let alone a whole reply from bolo, which gives an indication that:
"....immigration seems to be the only thing that Bolo wants to talk about"?
What then? What will those readers think then? I would imagine that they will think that F & I has been a bit silly making claims he can't substantiate because quite simply they are untrue. And when he finds that he cannot back up his claims, how will he react? I know, he will post a couple of replies that will blow bolo right out of the water.
....followed by:The members know what you are and any visitors who start to read this thread will have eaten their own feet with boredom by the end of your first post.
We know, it is all that you do talk about, then when someone says something that you disagree with, you write it in bold an jump up and down like a primary school child needing his potty
At the end of all that I was left with a couple of questions, but because there is an interesting debate taking place in the 'In or Out' thread, and also because my exchanges with F & I had nothing to do with the topic under discussion, I have chosen to ask them here. They are:
1. Why did F & I claim that he had looked back at that particular thread and found that "....immigration seems to be the only thing Bolo wants to talk about", when he clearly had not?
2. Why did he make such a statement when he must have known that because it was untrue, he couldn't back it up with examples because there were none.
3. Where were his fellow travellers when he really needed them?
Why, why, F & I?
Last edited by a moderator: