Was the Woolwich killing terrorism?

For stuff that can only sensibly reside here. You have been warned. HERE LIVETH TROLLS!

Moderators: nige101uk, willesdenr, qprdotorgadmin, ZENITH R, Virginia_R

Post Reply
User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:34 pm

Stan wrote:To funny. The Guardian have been forced to issue 2 corrections in the last 10 days & you are looking to smear. Why dont you just accept the fact that your beloved Guardian regularly prints lies? Afterall, you proudly informed us of your wide open mind? Not only that, you did your best to belittle others for not questioning what the media says.

The truth is, your ilk aren't that bothered with the truth, as long as the lies reinforce your world view.
BTW dude, we all know that N3 has a large Jewish community, so that probably is the reason you're a lover of cifWatch - because you're probably a Zionist Jew.

And no, before you cry that I am an anti-Semite (cifWatch loves labelling everyone who criticises Israelis as anti-Semites), I have some really close Jewish friends, my manager is a Jew, and I was in Israel last year, and I detest people who are true anti-Semites.

User avatar
Stan
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 4686
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: N3

Post by Stan » Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:41 pm

What made you feel like you needed to state your credentials? Has your integrity on such matters even been alluded to in this thread, let alone questioned?
Danth's Law (also known as Parker's Law) states:

“”If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly.
FYI - I'm mid 40s. I've lived in N3 for the last 9 months. Never even had an "N" post code before that. Your theory really doesn't hold much water.
next year, we'll be champions..

User avatar
1 Bobby Hazell
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 2947
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:05 pm

Post by 1 Bobby Hazell » Thu Jun 06, 2013 6:32 pm

Stan wrote:To funny. The Guardian have been forced to issue 2 corrections in the last 10 days & you are looking to smear. Why dont you just accept the fact that your beloved Guardian regularly prints lies? Afterall, you proudly informed us of your wide open mind? Not only that, you did your best to belittle others for not questioning what the media says.

The truth is, your ilk aren't that bothered with the truth, as long as the lies reinforce your world view.

So Stan, you don't like people who use biased websites to constantly reinforce their world view?

hysterical hysterical hysterical hysterical hysterical
"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality" - Martin Luther King, Jr.

User avatar
Stan
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 4686
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: N3

Post by Stan » Thu Jun 06, 2013 6:57 pm

I like to think I can see the good & bad in everything. Nothing is beyond reproach in my mind. I "use" The Guardian everyday aswell. It's the only newspaper I read every single day infact.
next year, we'll be champions..

User avatar
1 Bobby Hazell
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 2947
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:05 pm

Post by 1 Bobby Hazell » Thu Jun 06, 2013 7:17 pm

Stan wrote:I like to think I can see the good & bad in everything. Nothing is beyond reproach in my mind. I "use" The Guardian everyday aswell. It's the only newspaper I read every single day infact.
Fair do's Stan, although it does comes accross on here as though you only read it in order to condemn it.

Obvioulsy you know that I would contest the 'nothing is beyond reproach' bit when it comes to the actions of certain organisations but let's not get into all that!
"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality" - Martin Luther King, Jr.

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:19 am

Stan wrote:What made you feel like you needed to state your credentials? Has your integrity on such matters even been alluded to in this thread, let alone questioned?
Danth's Law (also known as Parker's Law) states:

“”If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly.
FYI - I'm mid 40s. I've lived in N3 for the last 9 months. Never even had an "N" post code before that. Your theory really doesn't hold much water.
Danth's law isn't a scientific law, which means it doesn't always hold true - like in this case.

I made a guess, of course, I could be wrong there.

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:20 am

Here is an extremely pro-Israeli article on Cif.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ral-ground

But hey, let's just pretend that the Guardian is out to spread bad things about Israel.

User avatar
Stan
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 4686
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: N3

Post by Stan » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:21 pm

Let's get back to your point.

You said nobody takes CIFW seriously. Agreed?

I said "not true" CIF takes it seriously & as proof I showed you 2 corrections the Guardian had made in the previous week due to CIFW. Agreed?

I never said they were perfect, just that the Guardian often makes corrections due to CIFW pressure which means they MUST take CIFW seriously. Agreed?

Now, unless you think the Guardian should be allowed to lie to its readership, where exactly is the problem?

I know, I know you won lol
next year, we'll be champions..

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:50 pm

Stan wrote:Let's get back to your point.

You said nobody takes CIFW seriously. Agreed?

I said "not true" CIF takes it seriously & as proof I showed you 2 corrections the Guardian had made in the previous week due to CIFW. Agreed?

I never said they were perfect, just that the Guardian often makes corrections due to CIFW pressure which means they MUST take CIFW seriously. Agreed?

Now, unless you think the Guardian should be allowed to lie to its readership, where exactly is the problem?

I know, I know you won lol

There is a difference between taking the contents of one's message seriously and correcting a mistake someone points out.

If some crazy conspiracy theorist who thinks we never landed on the moon and that aliens rule the world points out to me that I have made a mistake in a figure I cited, and I correct the figure, it doesn't mean everyone is going to start taking that person seriously, it just means on this instance they were right.

Similarly, the Guardian, like all good publications, corrects mistakes when it is pointed out to them. It still doesn't mean the Guardian takes the contents of the criticisms of cifWatch's articles seriously, and the reason is, most of them are full of pro-Zionist nonsense that aren't even worth debating.

User avatar
Esox Lucius
dot.org vip
dot.org vip
Posts: 21532
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: Banbury, Oxon.

Post by Esox Lucius » Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:22 pm

Do you still really believe that there have been men on the moon? I have seen those landing modules up close and I wouldn't trust the electrics to get get me to Shepherds Bush from Banbury let alone risk a trip above the Earth.
It's not the despair that will kill you, it's the hope.

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:56 pm

Esox Lucius wrote:Do you still really believe that there have been men on the moon? I have seen those landing modules up close and I wouldn't trust the electrics to get get me to Shepherds Bush from Banbury let alone risk a trip above the Earth.
:D

User avatar
Lee Gib
dot.org player kit 2007
dot.org player kit 2007
Posts: 2144
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:25 pm
Location: Gibraltar

Post by Lee Gib » Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:06 pm

Marshy wrote:
Lee Gib wrote: You are more interested in being seen to win an argument then actually responding to what the other person is saying. It's pure arrogance and if this is how you debated on WATRB I'm not surprised they gave you a hard time.
The reason I got banned from WATRB was because mob-justice prevailed.

I joined as a new user in 2012, and I was critical of Mark Hughes (not because we got off to a bad start, but because I felt he wasn't the right man), and this pissed some people off and so they took a dislike to me.

The second point was that I defended Taarabt (the majority dislike him there), and so every time someone tried to make Tarbs a scapegoat. I defended him ... of course, I wasn't saying there isn't legitimate criticism of Tarbs, I just found the threads that we are where we are because of Tarbs to be madness.

Then there was a thread saying Muslims hate us and other nonsense like "not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims", I destroyed those arguments, but it made me some more enemies.

Then I was critical of Harry, saying he will take us down, and that's when it started getting worse - people were getting mad at me and giving out abuse, and so I gave it back. At no point did I use profanities (even though they were used against me), but I am not one to let bullies get away with things.

The final straw came when there was a thread about an R who had died in Afghanistan a few years back, and someone created a RIP thread.
I posted something very similar to "RIP, so sorry to hear of this, I wish our politicians would stop sending our troops on endless wars so we don't have cases like this", and all hell broke loose. I was called all sorts of names, and the thread got polluted, and I got blamed. Ironically, all those claiming to support the troops ... well, I supported the troops more than them, because I wanted the troops to not go fight in endless wars! In the end, I edited my message (in case that guy's family sees the message and are offended - which I don't think is likely, but still), but the abuse continued, and then one of the moderator, a good one actually, said there were too many fights because of me, and created a poll whether I should be banned for life, and 60% or so said I should. And so that was it.

It's sad really, because I think most of the moderators were cool and reasonable, but ultimately, they have a forum to run and want to keep the majority happy, and so I had to go. Myths often get created, and one of the myth was that I was very rude and looking to start fights, but yet if I ask someone to find one post where I am very rude (without reason), they wouldn't be able to find one. The only time I called anyone any names like "stupid" was when that person had been bullying others by calling them names. I never called anyone any vulgar words (which others do). I never indulged in racism (whilst others do, like saying MBia and Diakite are proof that black players are athletic but lack intelligence) - yet these posters still continue to post, and I get a life ban.

Of course, I could easily create a sock-puppet and post and no one will ever know, but I am a man of honour, and sadly, the moderators did not reciprocate the honour and let me post one last thread on QPR before I left.
Yes I've read a couple of threads over there. You certainly made a name for yourself, as you seem intent to do here, and it seems almost everyone has an opinion about you...and it's mostly negative. Perhaps a lot of the negativity was unfounded, there were a couple of interesting quotes though:
"Marshy couldn't handle negative feedback. Outcome was many long and negative threads arguing about nonessentials."
"Its not his views that annoy me. Its the fact that you are automatically wrong and clueless if you hold a different view from him."
This appears to be the way things are developing here too. I think you seem to have a problem differentiating the post from the poster. Feedback on your opinions is not a personal attack and there's no need to go straight to Defcon 1 when someone doesn't agree with you. If I wanted people to agree with me all day long I'd avoid the internet.

I can only imagine how things have developed for you over there. You've probably rubbed too many people up the wrong way and now whenever they see your name it's instantly into fight mode, which is easily reciprocated. As a result everyone is now a bully. Yet I haven't seen a single poster there complain about anything you've said (except the RIP thread), it's all to do with the way you say it and if you don't change to way you debate I can see the same happening here, and every thread you become involved in will end up in IS.

While I might agree with the sentiments you expressed in the RIP thread, this came at a time when you were already in the crosshairs and you'd basically been getting on everyones tits so much that there was a poll as to whether you should be banned or not. So perhaps trying to score a political point in the middle of a condolences thread was not the most sensible thing to do, especially considering politics is essentially banned over there.

Now while many of the comments on WATRB sound familiar I wouldn't say you that you've reached that level of infamy just yet, my concern is how bumpy a ride are we in for? Please don't take any of this as me having a dig, take it as advice.

User avatar
Esox Lucius
dot.org vip
dot.org vip
Posts: 21532
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: Banbury, Oxon.

Post by Esox Lucius » Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:56 pm

A typical troll IMO. Look at posting history and you'll find nothing to do with Queens park Rangers or football. One post about Cricket, all the rest on stuff that ends up in IS. That's why I haven't bothered engaging.
It's not the despair that will kill you, it's the hope.

User avatar
Spiritof76
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 3833
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:14 pm
Location: North Beds

Post by Spiritof76 » Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:28 am

You engaged further up the thread. :wink:

As for Marshy, I say welcome. What has always made this board stand out for me personally above all others, is the fact that it has a wide range of 'personalities' not afraid to debate some difficult subjects.

PS What's this 'football' thing you talk about?
“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:03 pm

Esox Lucius wrote:A typical troll IMO. Look at posting history and you'll find nothing to do with Queens park Rangers or football. One post about Cricket, all the rest on stuff that ends up in IS. That's why I haven't bothered engaging.
Troll? The reason I don't post on QPR is that I refuse to use Paypal for moral reasons. I offered to pay the admin via post or bitcoins, but he rejected both, so I have to remain confined to these areas?

Post Reply