Tales of The Midde Kingdom - Life in China

[John V]

The Chinese mind-set and how it works
Where ever you go in the world, you encounter a culture shock, but nowhere like China.
For decades, China remained isolated and in that time Maoism took root and flourished. In one generation it’s possible to produce a society so alienated from western ideals, which is where most get their knowledge from; that it’s like two separate kinds of human species.

China as a super power
https://ipa.org.au/publications/2168/the-chinese-capitalist-miracle (https://ipa.org.au/publications/2168/the-chinese-capitalist-miracle)
‘By 1984 when Hu Yaobang, as General Secretary of the Communist Party, had taken this further in asking, ‘Since the October revolution (of 1917) more than 60 years have passed. How is it that many socialist countries have not been able to overtake capitalist ones in terms of development? What is it (in socialism) that does not work?'

The Chinese remain an extremely clever people and unlike the old USSR, saw that communism failed everywhere it was tried. They therefore changed their economy to a capitalist one, but kept the communist party leadership. Those who think a revolution might occur fail to realize that every person in China might not love the system they live under, but would fight to the death to defend it. No anti-war protests here, no burning flags; they’d lose 500 million and not even blink – and if it ever comes to it, they will.

The social system
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/04/17/chinas-levels-of-bureaucracy-have-gotten-ridiculous-premier-says/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/04/17/chinas-levels-of-bureaucracy-have-gotten-ridiculous-premier-says/)
‘Even without corruption, analysts say, a system that has relied for centuries on favors, horse trading and gift giving is now freezing up in the face of the near-evangelical antigraft campaign. “They’re taking away the levers of power,” said David Kelly, research director with China Policy, a research and advisory firm. “There’s policy gridlock,” he added.’

How do you maintain such a system, although it’s trying to change and here lies the clue to China’s success. Unlike the centralized Soviet system, China spreads power to each individual. There is a system of ‘leaders’, each person has responsibility in their own sphere and each has a leader above them.
An example: The man who sweeps the street might be an illiterate peasant, but he can tell the most powerful man where to park his car on his ‘patch’. He is the ‘leader’ of his allotted part of the street. He will not be able to tell you where to catch the number 21 bus as that’s not his job, for that you have to find the person whose job it is to provide bus stop locations and to find that person you’ll need to find the information desk, which is a problem because no one else knows where it is either and if they did, it’s not their job to tell you as then you’d be as knowledgeable as they are. The street sweeper also has a leader and should there be a problem the first question the police will ask him is, “Which leader told you to do that”? A reply of, “Well, I thought that . . .” will land him in deep trouble – it’s not his job to make decisions, he has a leader to do that for him.
Each leader also has a leader and your leader is very reluctant to tell you anything, as then you’ll have as much knowledge as s/he has, which defeats the purpose of having a leader. Everyone operates on a need to know basis and no one wants to lose their bit of power. That’s the key! Limited power is spread around and no one wants to lose their own. Depending on your abilities, you rise through the leadership and become powerful by what you know, which others don’t and are able to use that to your advantage.
It’s a perfect system to control 1.3 billion people through a shared power structure. I’m a leader in the classroom, above me I have a coordinator leader and above us both we have a political leader and so it goes on.

The economic system
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2f1ef30-47c2-11e4-ac9f-00144feab7de.html#axzz3bCmzAS3M (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2f1ef30-47c2-11e4-ac9f-00144feab7de.html#axzz3bCmzAS3M)
‘In the west there is an underlying assumption that the Achilles heel of China is its political system. Since the country lacks western-style democracy, its system of governance is unsustainable. Ultimately, China will be obliged to adopt our kind of political system. Yet China’s governance system has been remarkably successful for more than three decades. It has presided over the greatest economic transformation in modern history.’

Firmly under party leadership, there are no shareholders or Bernie Madoff’s, which means no one individual or group can bring down the economy and so it fluctuates, but doesn’t collapse. Like the west, you grab what you can, but unlike the west you aren’t allowed to destroy the goose that lays the golden egg. It is seen as in everyone’s best interests to keep it all going. The banks are all under State control, prices are pre-determined according to wage levels and taxes are kept artificially low or non-existent to encourage spending. According to western economics it should all collapse, but it doesn’t because it doesn’t use the free market laissez-faire capitalist model by which we judge our own system.
Of course there is corruption; knowledge and leader permission cost money, but every corporate leader and the whole of Wall Street would face a firing squad in China and that’s not because they’re capitalist, but because they’d destroy (and have done), their country in a personal quest for profit.
The reason for Chinese individual investment in the west is because the State has the power to access your bank account; having too much money means corruption and so people spend and invest instead of accumulating monetary wealth. The Chinese are just as interested in seeing the west return to pre-recession days as the west itself is. After all, the west were the main buyers, hence the Chinese loans and investment in a future potential customer.

Summary
What all this does is produce a very dumbed down but generally happy society. It’s happy and nationalistic because it doesn’t worry about the future, that’s your leader’s problem. People don’t care where India is located on a map, it’s not necessary in their daily lives to know that. This ‘togetherness’ and everyone pulling in the same direction is what makes China so powerful. A minimum of dissent, no arguments, no cartels; the police are the final arbiters in daily life and follow the party line in a huge police State, which keeps it all on track.
As a Laowai (outsider - foreigner), we are tolerated, even welcomed, but it’s a totally closed and locked in society. China is an experience, not a learning curve and totally different to the west.

[Drummond]

The Chinese mind-set and how it works
Where ever you go in the world, you encounter a culture shock, but nowhere like China.
For decades, China remained isolated and in that time Maoism took root and flourished. In one generation it’s possible to produce a society so alienated from western ideals, which is where most get their knowledge from; that it’s like two separate kinds of human species.

China as a super power
https://ipa.org.au/publications/2168/the-chinese-capitalist-miracle (https://ipa.org.au/publications/2168/the-chinese-capitalist-miracle)
‘By 1984 when Hu Yaobang, as General Secretary of the Communist Party, had taken this further in asking, ‘Since the October revolution (of 1917) more than 60 years have passed. How is it that many socialist countries have not been able to overtake capitalist ones in terms of development? What is it (in socialism) that does not work?'

The Chinese remain an extremely clever people and unlike the old USSR, saw that communism failed everywhere it was tried. They therefore changed their economy to a capitalist one, but kept the communist party leadership. Those who think a revolution might occur fail to realize that every person in China might not love the system they live under, but would fight to the death to defend it. No anti-war protests here, no burning flags; they’d lose 500 million and not even blink – and if it ever comes to it, they will.

The social system
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/04/17/chinas-levels-of-bureaucracy-have-gotten-ridiculous-premier-says/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/04/17/chinas-levels-of-bureaucracy-have-gotten-ridiculous-premier-says/)
‘Even without corruption, analysts say, a system that has relied for centuries on favors, horse trading and gift giving is now freezing up in the face of the near-evangelical antigraft campaign. “They’re taking away the levers of power,” said David Kelly, research director with China Policy, a research and advisory firm. “There’s policy gridlock,” he added.’

How do you maintain such a system, although it’s trying to change and here lies the clue to China’s success. Unlike the centralized Soviet system, China spreads power to each individual. There is a system of ‘leaders’, each person has responsibility in their own sphere and each has a leader above them.
An example: The man who sweeps the street might be an illiterate peasant, but he can tell the most powerful man where to park his car on his ‘patch’. He is the ‘leader’ of his allotted part of the street. He will not be able to tell you where to catch the number 21 bus as that’s not his job, for that you have to find the person whose job it is to provide bus stop locations and to find that person you’ll need to find the information desk, which is a problem because no one else knows where it is either and if they did, it’s not their job to tell you as then you’d be as knowledgeable as they are. The street sweeper also has a leader and should there be a problem the first question the police will ask him is, “Which leader told you to do that”? A reply of, “Well, I thought that . . .” will land him in deep trouble – it’s not his job to make decisions, he has a leader to do that for him.
Each leader also has a leader and your leader is very reluctant to tell you anything, as then you’ll have as much knowledge as s/he has, which defeats the purpose of having a leader. Everyone operates on a need to know basis and no one wants to lose their bit of power. That’s the key! Limited power is spread around and no one wants to lose their own. Depending on your abilities, you rise through the leadership and become powerful by what you know, which others don’t and are able to use that to your advantage.
It’s a perfect system to control 1.3 billion people through a shared power structure. I’m a leader in the classroom, above me I have a coordinator leader and above us both we have a political leader and so it goes on.

The economic system
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2f1ef30-47c2-11e4-ac9f-00144feab7de.html#axzz3bCmzAS3M (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2f1ef30-47c2-11e4-ac9f-00144feab7de.html#axzz3bCmzAS3M)
‘In the west there is an underlying assumption that the Achilles heel of China is its political system. Since the country lacks western-style democracy, its system of governance is unsustainable. Ultimately, China will be obliged to adopt our kind of political system. Yet China’s governance system has been remarkably successful for more than three decades. It has presided over the greatest economic transformation in modern history.’

Firmly under party leadership, there are no shareholders or Bernie Madoff’s, which means no one individual or group can bring down the economy and so it fluctuates, but doesn’t collapse. Like the west, you grab what you can, but unlike the west you aren’t allowed to destroy the goose that lays the golden egg. It is seen as in everyone’s best interests to keep it all going. The banks are all under State control, prices are pre-determined according to wage levels and taxes are kept artificially low or non-existent to encourage spending. According to western economics it should all collapse, but it doesn’t because it doesn’t use the free market laissez-faire capitalist model by which we judge our own system.
Of course there is corruption; knowledge and leader permission cost money, but every corporate leader and the whole of Wall Street would face a firing squad in China and that’s not because they’re capitalist, but because they’d destroy (and have done), their country in a personal quest for profit.
The reason for Chinese individual investment in the west is because the State has the power to access your bank account; having too much money means corruption and so people spend and invest instead of accumulating monetary wealth. The Chinese are just as interested in seeing the west return to pre-recession days as the west itself is. After all, the west were the main buyers, hence the Chinese loans and investment in a future potential customer.

Summary
What all this does is produce a very dumbed down but generally happy society. It’s happy and nationalistic because it doesn’t worry about the future, that’s your leader’s problem. People don’t care where India is located on a map, it’s not necessary in their daily lives to know that. This ‘togetherness’ and everyone pulling in the same direction is what makes China so powerful. A minimum of dissent, no arguments, no cartels; the police are the final arbiters in daily life and follow the party line in a huge police State, which keeps it all on track.
As a Laowai (outsider - foreigner), we are tolerated, even welcomed, but it’s a totally closed and locked in society. China is an experience, not a learning curve and totally different to the west.

This definitely deserves more attention than I've given it so far ... nearly 4AM as I type, and I'm feeling very tired ! I shall come back to this thread.

But one point that jumps out at my currently foggy brain is your picture of .. what's your wording ? ..


Those who think a revolution might occur fail to realize that every person in China might not love the system they live under, but would fight to the death to defend it. No anti-war protests here, no burning flags;

To which I offer the following ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/10862408/The-truth-about-the-Tiananmen-Square-massacre.html


The events of Tiananmen Square have been erased from Chinese history. On the 25th anniversary of the massacre, eyewitness accounts are tackling this public amnesia.

To those who watched it unfold – the massive demonstrations across Chinese cities; the sea of protesters’ tents in Tiananmen Square; the open confrontation between student activists and Party elders; the erecting of a “Goddess of Democracy” statue in Tiananmen, right in front of the portrait of Mao – an overturning of Chinese Communist rule seemed genuinely possible in 1989. Then, on the night of June 3, the People’s Liberation Army turned its guns on the people. A handful of vignettes retain a powerful hold on our memories of this year: the pale, hunger-striking students in the square, their banners demanding “democracy or death”; the grainy video of a white-shirted civilian successfully facing off a tank just south of the Forbidden City on June 5.

The writer Paul French has described the protests and their denouement as “the most pivotal moment in modern China’s history”. Both Louisa Lim and Rowena Xiaoqing He justify this claim in their fascinating new books exploring the realities and legacies of these events on their 25th anniversary. In 1989, for the first time in the history of the People’s Republic of China, “people power” threatened to defeat the iron fist of the state. On May 20, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) imposed martial law and truckloads of soldiers began travelling into Beijing, with orders to secure Tiananmen Square. Only a few miles into their mission, however, throngs of civilians hemmed in the lorries, explaining why they were protesting and asking the army to “go home”; a few days later, the troops retreated. “You might have said that our army was big and powerful,” one of the soldiers later told Louisa Lim, “but at that time… we felt very useless.” In order to reassert authority over the capital in early June, the government needed to mobilise armed divisions personally loyal to the country’s veteran leader, Deng Xiaoping.

Inevitably, the consequences of the crackdown of spring 1989 have transformed the destinies of the student leaders, who have had to live with the consequences of their activism in prison terms, exile and political marginalisation. But these events have also fundamentally shaped the China of the past two and a half decades. The bloody suppression of dissent led directly to contemporary China’s headlong drive for materialism: China’s post-1989 leaders accelerated economic reforms, while slamming the door on political liberalisation. The Chinese state’s decision to resort to violence in 1989 was a harsh reminder of the CCP’s ruthlessness: that the party’s chief concern was the preservation of its power, and that its power came out of the barrel of a gun. Popular fear of state violence and preservation of stability have consequently become two of the defining features of post-Tiananmen Chinese politics.

I'm noticing a few differences between your offering and that published by the Telegraph, John V.

Or am I imagining it ?

[John V]

Well, I guess the Telegraph must be right? Please don’t bother coming back to it, read it, believe it or not and if you disagree, go out into the big wide world and report back to us, not from some third hand account you read in the media or have googled. Liberals annoy me Drummond no use pretending otherwise, now go and write an essay opinion of somewhere or something you personally know about and have experienced yourself.

[Perianne]

The Chinese mind-set and how it works
Where ever you go in the world, you encounter a....

Interesting. Very interesting!

[John V]

Interesting. Very interesting!

Thank you. I spent two hours writing this from the top of my head. It’s not meant to be a Ph.D. thesis, but a summarisation based on my own experiences and to show the differences between East and West. http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/icons/icon7.png

[Perianne]

Thank you. I spent two hours writing this from the top of my head. It’s not meant to be a Ph.D. thesis, but a summarisation based on my own experiences and to show the differences between East and West. http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/icons/icon7.png



To be honest, it is such a different concept of society that, even though you wrote it up well, I cannot fathom how it actually works. I will think about it for a long time.

[John V]

To be honest, it is such a different concept of society that, even though you wrote it up well, I cannot fathom how it actually works. I will think about it for a long time.

It works because no one person or small group is allowed to bring down an economy. Because of a leadership ethos, there are checks and balances for each decision you take. Banks are government controlled so you can’t speculate and politicians are elected on their expertise, not because they’re photogenic and are good at script written public speaking. People are groomed for high positions depending on their intelligence and so you get this hierarchy that wants to keep its privileges and the masses are happy that it doesn’t all collapse. Obama, in this kind of society, would be a traffic policeman at best because that’s all he can do, organise at a grass roots level.
It’s not a system I prefer because it has no social mobility and too much bureaucracy, but it does work for the Chinese.

[Perianne]

It works because no one person or small group is allowed to bring down an economy. Because of a leadership ethos, there are checks and balances for each decision you take. Banks are government controlled so you can’t speculate and politicians are elected on their expertise, not because they’re photogenic and are good at script written public speaking. People are groomed for high positions depending on their intelligence and so you get this hierarchy that wants to keep its privileges and the masses are happy that it doesn’t all collapse. Obama, in this kind of society, would be a traffic policeman at best because that’s all he can do, organise at a grass roots level.
It’s not a system I prefer because it has no social mobility and too much bureaucracy, but it does work for the Chinese.


As the Chinese people enjoy capitalism and new freedoms, do you see the culture changing with time to a more Western style of capitalism?

[fj1200]

It works because no one person or small group is allowed to bring down an economy.

In general no one person or small group is allowed to bring down an economy in the US either. Unless you count the Federal Reserve or Congress/POTUS but I imagine that a dictatorial mindset could screw up China too.

[John V]

In general no one person or small group is allowed to bring down an economy in the US either. Unless you count the Federal Reserve or Congress/POTUS but I imagine that a dictatorial mindset could screw up China too.

Wall street speculators and banks did a good job. That wouldn't be allowed in China.

[Drummond]

Well, I guess the Telegraph must be right? Please don’t bother coming back to it, read it, believe it or not and if you disagree, go out into the big wide world and report back to us, not from some third hand account you read in the media or have googled. Liberals annoy me Drummond no use pretending otherwise, now go and write an essay opinion of somewhere or something you personally know about and have experienced yourself.



Interesting. All of a sudden, Internet media links have no value ?

The Daily Telegraph, John, as we will both know, is a newspaper of highly reputable standing in the UK. Since they've certainly been around for as long as we've both been alive, and, I somehow think that in all that time they've sent more than one single journalist to more than one Province .... they MIGHT have a greater collective understanding than you, as one single person with a single overall experience and single viewpoint, currently possess of your location and its people.

Your 'Liberals annoy me Drummond' comment isn't understood (i.e your intended context). I am not a 'liberal', nor any form of Left winger type. Between us, it is you who's shown a greater willingness to be critical of America, using the old Leftie argument of 'it's all about the oil' to argue against their military actions. Oh, and as we'll both be aware .. the Daily Telegraph is one of the UK's MORE Conservative newspapers ... so any suggestion of 'left wing bias' from them, just isn't credible.

[John V]

Interesting. All of a sudden, Internet media links have no value ?

The Daily Telegraph, John, as we will both know, is a newspaper of highly reputable standing in the UK. Since they've certainly been around for as long as we've both been alive, and, I somehow think that in all that time they've sent more than one single journalist to more than one Province .... they MIGHT have a greater collective understanding than you, as one single person with a single overall experience and single viewpoint, currently possess of your location and its people.

Your 'Liberals annoy me Drummond' comment isn't understood (i.e your intended context). I am not a 'liberal', nor any form of Left winger type. Between us, it is you who's shown a greater willingness to be critical of America, using the old Leftie argument of 'it's all about the oil' to argue against their military actions. Oh, and as we'll both be aware .. the Daily Telegraph is one of the UK's MORE Conservative newspapers ... so any suggestion of 'left wing bias' from them, just isn't credible.

Drummond, part of my job involves spotting nit-pickers, baiters and those with such a poor level of knowledge that they latch on to other posters but never put their own ideas out for others to see. The Telegraph is media, now if that, google and Wiki is where you get your info from it makes a poor showing. I have you down as a typical product of a UK leftie liberal, integrating yourself with the mainstream because you are unable to articulate anything yourself. I’m not critical of America, I’m critical of every country, its politicians and their policies – it’s what I do for a living.


Now, I’ll tell you what will impress me. Away you go and write a short 1000 word essay on any aspect of the political or social topic of your choice. Post it, no google, no quotes, (we can usually spot plagiarism), in your own words and using your own explanations. Now go away and impress me, I’ll give you an honest opinion and if I was wrong about you, I’ll admit it.

[fj1200]

Wall street speculators and banks did a good job. That wouldn't be allowed in China.

I disagree strongly with the former. Speculators (I don't like that word) more accurately, investors are an essential part of the functioning of free markets; it can be argued that the most speculative, the short sellers, were the ones who more accurately predicted the overvaluations in the US markets. Nevertheless I pin the blame on the Federal Reserve which allowed an excessive monetary supply to build up causing the problems in the first place.

To the latter I think to say that there is no speculation in China is incorrect if the stories I see about the Chinese property "bubble" and the built but essentially vacant cities are to be believed. The "speculation" just moves from the private sector in the US to the public sector in China. Bubbles and the responsibility for causing them is essentially the same in both countries, it's based at the government level and we both have governments, large ones unfortunately.

[John V]

I disagree strongly with the former. Speculators (I don't like that word) more accurately, investors are an essential part of the functioning of free markets; it can be argued that the most speculative, the short sellers, were the ones who more accurately predicted the overvaluations in the US markets. Nevertheless I pin the blame on the Federal Reserve which allowed an excessive monetary supply to build up causing the problems in the first place.

To the latter I think to say that there is no speculation in China is incorrect if the stories I see about the Chinese property "bubble" and the built but essentially vacant cities are to be believed. The "speculation" just moves from the private sector in the US to the public sector in China. Bubbles and the responsibility for causing them is essentially the same in both countries, it's based at the government level and we both have governments, large ones unfortunately.

Yet speculators are what they were, betting on the stock market and investing in shady deals and derivatives. I don’t know about the U.S. but I suspect it probably mirrors the UK. There is now a property bubble from private companies who started projects years ago and are now suffering, but my point is that the Chinese government didn’t join in by deregulation and turning a blind eye. Major UK companies started to lay off workers as early as 2005, even they knew what was going to happen. Tell the truth, we all did didn’t we, but we were too busy maxing out our credit cards and taking on mortgages to care.
The fallacy is that there was this great global crash and blame shifting, but no there wasn’t. It started in the west and the recession affects spread outwards because the peripheries lost their markets.

Regarding the ‘ghost cities’. They’re empty, but most of the properties have been sold as an investment; in a country where the government can look at your bank account, people buy properties, luxury cars and somehow have to spend the corruption profits.
As an aside I live near a ‘ghost city.’ On a walk through one of its many parks we came across a sort of huge ramp with a canopy leading down into the ground and unusually there was a sign in both English and Chinese that said, ‘Public shelter’. Now, this is in an area of no earthquakes or floods and away from major cities. Do they know something we don’t, or is that a conspiracy theory?

[fj1200]

Yet speculators are what they were, betting on the stock market and investing in shady deals and derivatives. I don’t know about the U.S. but I suspect it probably mirrors the UK. There is now a property bubble from private companies who started projects years ago and are now suffering, but my point is that the Chinese government didn’t join in by deregulation and turning a blind eye. Major UK companies started to lay off workers as early as 2005, even they knew what was going to happen. Tell the truth, we all did didn’t we, but we were too busy maxing out our credit cards and taking on mortgages to care.
The fallacy is that there was this great global crash and blame shifting, but no there wasn’t. It started in the west and the recession affects spread outwards because the peripheries lost their markets.

Regarding the ‘ghost cities’. They’re empty, but most of the properties have been sold as an investment; in a country where the government can look at your bank account, people buy properties, luxury cars and somehow have to spend the corruption profits.
As an aside I live near a ‘ghost city.’ On a walk through one of its many parks we came across a sort of huge ramp with a canopy leading down into the ground and unusually there was a sign in both English and Chinese that said, ‘Public shelter’. Now, this is in an area of no earthquakes or floods and away from major cities. Do they know something we don’t, or is that a conspiracy theory?


Everyone is a speculator so it's a loaded term. Nevertheless they were swimming in a pool overfilled by the Fed; they didn't cause the bubble they merely were raised by the water level. I do fear that the Fed has merely created a different bubble causing other assets to rise but we'll see.

So regarding the ghost cities it seems that they have been sold as speculation to speculators. If that bubble happens to burst then whose fault would it be? The speculators or the government who allowed a corruption profits bubble?

[John V]

Everyone is a speculator so it's a loaded term. Nevertheless they were swimming in a pool overfilled by the Fed; they didn't cause the bubble they merely were raised by the water level. I do fear that the Fed has merely created a different bubble causing other assets to rise but we'll see.

So regarding the ghost cities it seems that they have been sold as speculation to speculators. If that bubble happens to burst then whose fault would it be? The speculators or the government who allowed a corruption profits bubble?

The government couldn’t care less whose fault it is. If the bubble bursts the property companies go bust and the owners lose, not the economy. If it in any way affected the economy, the property company owners would be arrested and jailed, or shot.

[fj1200]

The government couldn’t care less whose fault it is. If the bubble bursts the property companies go bust and the owners lose, not the economy. If it in any way affected the economy, the property company owners would be arrested and jailed, or shot.


Especially when it's the government's fault and they are the ones with the guns. ;) Bubbles burst but it's the aftermath that determines how badly things get. We had an '87 market crash, barely a blip in the long run and we moved on. We had an '08/'09 crash and the Fed muffed up the response to Bear Stearns/Lehman, etc.; it's ridiculous to blame "speculators" both here and there.

[Drummond]

Drummond, part of my job involves spotting nit-pickers, baiters and those with such a poor level of knowledge that they latch on to other posters but never put their own ideas out for others to see. The Telegraph is media, now if that, google and Wiki is where you get your info from it makes a poor showing. I have you down as a typical product of a UK leftie liberal, integrating yourself with the mainstream because you are unable to articulate anything yourself. I’m not critical of America, I’m critical of every country, its politicians and their policies – it’s what I do for a living.


Now, I’ll tell you what will impress me. Away you go and write a short 1000 word essay on any aspect of the political or social topic of your choice. Post it, no google, no quotes, (we can usually spot plagiarism), in your own words and using your own explanations. Now go away and impress me, I’ll give you an honest opinion and if I was wrong about you, I’ll admit it.

Well, well. And to think I welcomed you here.

Anyone accusing me of any form of link, sympathy, adherence to, ANY measure of Leftieism WHATEVER insults me. My most fervent wish is to consider that, one day, any and all forms of Socialism on this planet will be universally shunned every bit as completely, with every bit of comparable disgust and revulsion, as NATIONAL Socialism is, today.

Your insult against me defies my entire history on this forum, as well as others I participated on before it.

When I was very young, I had some belief in Socialism. Then I saw how all the hype in no way measured up to the 'promise'. So, I grew up. I experienced the Three Day Week of the early '70's. I experienced the Union chaos leading up to, and during, the Winter of Discontent. I saw Britain become a basket case of a society.

And I saw Margaret Thatcher reverse our fortunes, give us a sense of self-respect once more.

You should also know this history, and know it well, and appreciate the truth of my words probably more than almost any other contributor currently here. But my guess is that you'd rather continue to abuse. As you abuse the honourable spirit of Conservative America, true to their willingness to fight evils which you'd happily dismiss as a form of nationalistic jingoism.

Your cynicism is negative. It serves no creditable purpose.

Now congratulate me on my 'original' words. Or, dream up another excuse to libel my entire political nature. Your choice.

[John V]

Well, well. And to think I welcomed you here.

Anyone accusing me of any form of link, sympathy, adherence to, ANY measure of Leftieism WHATEVER insults me. My most fervent wish is to consider that, one day, any and all forms of Socialism on this planet will be universally shunned every bit as completely, with every bit of comparable disgust and revulsion, as NATIONAL Socialism is, today.

Your insult against me defies my entire history on this forum, as well as others I participated on before it.

When I was very young, I had some belief in Socialism. Then I saw how all the hype in no way measured up to the 'promise'. So, I grew up. I experienced the Three Day Week of the early '70's. I experienced the Union chaos leading up to, and during, the Winter of Discontent. I saw Britain become a basket case of a society.

And I saw Margaret Thatcher reverse our fortunes, give us a sense of self-respect once more.

You should also know this history, and know it well, and appreciate the truth of my words probably more than almost any other contributor currently here. But my guess is that you'd rather continue to abuse. As you abuse the honourable spirit of Conservative America, true to their willingness to fight evils which you'd happily dismiss as a form of nationalistic jingoism.

Your cynicism is negative. It serves no creditable purpose.

Now congratulate me on my 'original' words. Or, dream up another excuse to libel my entire political nature. Your choice.

Oh come on Drummond, you want me to be straight with you, or what? The nit picking is what ‘lefties’ do, we’ve all been through it. You could write a brilliant article against Obama, but get his date of birth wrong and you know as well as I do a ‘leftie’ would jump on that to prove the whole article wrong. It’s why I said that the British mainland hadn’t been invaded since 1066 (it was for your benefit) and true to form you picked up on that straight away. You’re a googler, a searcher for alternative information, relying on other people’s quotes. That’s not insulting, it just makes it difficult to have a debate with you.

By the way, the only way to get rid of socialism is to introduce anarchism where there is no government as a third party distributor and that would simply produce a different hierarchal structure.

Yes, I agree with what you’ve just said about Thatcher, in fact I’d go further and say if it wasn’t for her we’d now be a UKSSR led by a comrade party secretary Galloway. Where I disagree is the U.S. as a knight in ideological shining armour out to police the world. That’s not just my view, it’s a view that a large part of the world share, including the other big two, China and Russia. Exceptionalism, a view of superiority, is exactly that, nationalistic jingoism.

Your ‘original’ words contain a paragraph of hurt feelings, one of a very basic subjective account of Thatcher and a sentence of how I should be aware of history and another sentence reiterating your support of America’s actions. Hardly an explanation of anything is it. I’m waiting for an in depth explanation on anything from you.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Drummond, part of my job involves spotting nit-pickers, baiters and those with such a poor level of knowledge that they latch on to other posters but never put their own ideas out for others to see. The Telegraph is media, now if that, google and Wiki is where you get your info from it makes a poor showing. I have you down as a typical product of a UK leftie liberal, integrating yourself with the mainstream because you are unable to articulate anything yourself. I’m not critical of America, I’m critical of every country, its politicians and their policies – it’s what I do for a living.


Now, I’ll tell you what will impress me. Away you go and write a short 1000 word essay on any aspect of the political or social topic of your choice. Post it, no google, no quotes, (we can usually spot plagiarism), in your own words and using your own explanations. Now go away and impress me, I’ll give you an honest opinion and if I was wrong about you, I’ll admit it.



Drummond, part of my job involves spotting nit-pickers, baiters and those with such a poor level of knowledge that they latch on to other posters but never put their own ideas out for others to see.

^^^^^^^ Hoss, you are not riding that train all by your lonesome. I too have a keen eye and ear for that type of poster and Drummond is by no measure one of that type. I know him from another forum in which he impressed me with his keen intellect and passion for conservative ideas. In fact, it was I that invited him here to add to this forum as an outstanding member.

Myself, I find it quite strange that you level such a charge then add to the insult the request(?)/demand(?), that he should race away to write an essay to prove that mistaken accusation to be an error by you! Such audacity may be a staple in your dealing with your students in Thailand
, but here it just seems insulting, petty and unduly given!
Methinks it is he that should now use that cover all that you swear by....--Tyr

[John V]

^^^^^^^ Hoss, you are not riding that train all by your lonesome. I too have a keen eye and ear for that type of poster and Drummond is by no measure one of that type. I know him from another forum in which he impressed me with his keen intellect and passion for conservative ideas. In fact, it was I that invited him here to add to this forum as an outstanding member.

Myself, I find it quite strange that you level such a charge then add to the insult the request(?)/demand(?), that he should race away to write an essay to prove that mistaken accusation to be an error by you! Such audacity may be a staple in your dealing with your students in Thailand
, but here it just seems insulting, petty and unduly given!
Methinks it is he that should now use that cover all that you swear by....--Tyr

‘’I know him from another forum in which he impressed me with his keen intellect and passion for conservative ideas.’’
I’ve already said I’m willing to change my mind if I discover proof of that. So far, I haven’t. As for my own views, they’re already here on the forum.

P.S.
I’ll tell you the difference between us Tyr. I’m willing to state my opinions, put them online, explain them and debate them; not hide behind an ideological label and have to goggle for explanations and pick bits I don’t like out of those of others. You know my thoughts, they’re here on the forum; I still haven’t got a clue as to yours. I’m not frightened of being proved wrong, in fact I’d welcome it, as it would provide me with a new perspective. I don’t stand on the side lines using one liners and pretending I know about political or social science and if someone writes a piece I’d welcome it, even if it contains inaccuracies. That’s the difference between us.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

‘’I know him from another forum in which he impressed me with his keen intellect and passion for conservative ideas.’’
I’ve already said I’m willing to change my mind if I discover proof of that. So far, I haven’t. As for my own views, they’re already here on the forum.


I agree with many of those views but certainly not all.
I walk not in lockstep with others to garner strength, aid or favor.
I found that to be a solid stand and one that my friend Drummond adheres to himself.
He could just as well launch the same accusation against you and make the same threat as you did about those that overuse Google, snipe and troll.. That he does not do so speaks highly of his integrity and keen sense of fair play.

Myself, I've seen none of the evidence which you claim validates the charge you made against him..
Write me a validation paper on those charges made , say a thousand words or less stating the evidence that leads to your bringing such a charge. If your paper proves your case , you will have my apology for my disbelief and my suspicion of your true character.
See, lets all be accusers and demanding of proof of unfounded accusations .
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, eh? -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

‘’I know him from another forum in which he impressed me with his keen intellect and passion for conservative ideas.’’
I’ve already said I’m willing to change my mind if I discover proof of that. So far, I haven’t. As for my own views, they’re already here on the forum.

P.S.
I’ll tell you the difference between us Tyr. I’m willing to state my opinions, put them online, explain them and debate them; not hide behind an ideological label and have to goggle for explanations and pick bits I don’t like out of those of others. You know my thoughts, they’re here on the forum; I still haven’t got a clue as to yours. I’m not frightened of being proved wrong, in fact I’d welcome it, as it would provide me with a new perspective. I don’t stand on the side lines using one liners and pretending I know about political or social science and if someone writes a piece I’d welcome it, even if it contains inaccuracies. That’s the difference between us.






You know my thoughts, they’re here on the forum; I still haven’t got a clue as to yours.

Thats not my problem, plenty of evidence here about who and what I am. I hold nothing back and say exactly what I think, never been big into presenting Goggled ideas and words of others then claiming them my own -in fact never done that all on the falsely claim credit for others words.
Here let me help you on your ignorance about me that you cited.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/search.php?searchid=81759

^^^^ My threads started--47 pages.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/search.php?searchid=81738

^^^^^ My posts--596 pages

14, 894 posts, think you could learn about me if you cared to. So lets not hear any requests from you of me writing for you. There is tons of my writing here already.
Have at it if you need information or ammo to fire.. Matters not to me.. -Tyr

[John V]

I agree with many of those views but certainly not all.
I walk not in lockstep with others to garner strength, aid or favor.
I found that to be a solid stand and one that my friend Drummond adheres to himself.
He could just as well launch the same accusation against you and make the same threat as you did about those that overuse Google, snipe and troll.. That he does not do so speaks highly of his integrity and keen sense of fair play.

Myself, I've seen none of the evidence which you claim validates the charge you made against him..
Write me a validation paper on those charges made , say a thousand words or less stating the evidence that leads to your bringing such a charge. If your paper proves your case , you will have my apology for my disbelief and my suspicion of your true character.
See, lets all be accusers and demanding of proof of unfounded accusations .
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, eh? -Tyr

I’ve already explained my views and the reasons why to Drummond, go and read them above. He didn’t post a thread explaining his position and neither have you and come to think of it, there’s an awful lot of missing beliefs here, but an awful lot of criticism of those of others.
Look at the threads I’ve posted in just one week, can you match that and actually say something? I’ve already stated my views and position, have you? Have you got anything at all to say except walking in locksteps and cryptic nonsense?

Of course I’m annoyed, never mind all this ‘he’s my friend’ rubbish, the pair of you haven’t the courage to stand up, speak out and make your views known for fear of challenge and if you ever do, that’s when I’ll respect you, no matter the criticism you’ll get from others. I’ve stated my position in long explanatory threads on Islam, my political beliefs, Religion, Modern Social Liberals, Googling and media information . . . and been criticised for it every step of the way by the lurkers just like yourself. Pop up, pretend you have any kind of knowledge of the subject, criticise and move on.
I don’t have to validate myself I’ve already done it in explanatory threads. Here’s my answer to the pair of you in seven words, not a thousand. Explain to me what YOUR views are! If you’re frightened to do so, or haven’t a clue, I’ll understand and help you to explain them.

I thought I’d do a quick thread post on socialism, something that’s commonly misunderstood. Perhaps you’d like to do it instead and tell us all the difference between the terms, socialism, socialist and communism and the role of the State as distributor? No? I didn’t think so, but just like the ones who won’t take the risk of flak, I’m willing to bet that you’ll be one of those jumping in to criticise me if I do. Now go and walk in lockstep with all that and unless you’ve got something to say about the social or politics, don’t waste my time.

I very much doubt there’s anything I’ll learn from you about social or political theory.
Your two links above provide the message: Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

[John V]

Found one of yours on Islam. Our beliefs on Islam bear obvious similarities, except that I maintain it’s a problem across the western world.

Here’s a ten minute academic critique. No silliness and no baiting. ‘I take my stand, you?’
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36912-I-take-my-stand-you (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36912-I-take-my-stand-you)

A total of 564 words that could be condensed into three short paragraphs in half the words used, 1) The problem, 2) The solution, 3) A summarisation.

Structure
1. English is obviously not your first language and an excessive wordiness at an attempt to produce an academic article makes it appear rambling and without direction or structure. It contains redundant phrases and excessive spelling errors.

Example
‘Should we fail to unite and arrive at that conclusion, create a proper plan of action and pursue it with determination we shall meet our destruction. For abandoning our integrity, honor and justice we shall pay a heavy price. One that few will dare admit because such tragedy is always the fate of others and we console ourselves with that old line of comforting thinking. Should we fail to act such tragedy may possibly be a just fate for a peoples that have betrayed the sacrifice of millions that gave us the most precious of blessings: Independence, freedom, Rule of law and Constitution.! Such a combination that was not only unique in the world but has since failed to be duplicated !’
Or
If we choose to ignore and even encourage the problems inherent in a submissive Islamic ideology our way of life will be altered to such an extent that it will bear no resemblance to the constitution, or to those ideas which our Founding Fathers proposed. It is for this primary reason that the Islamification of America be halted.
Continue with instances of why Islam is a danger and examples of its destructive nature.
End with a summary of points raised and a conclusion.

Content
‘Should we fail to unite and arrive at that conclusion, create a proper plan of action and pursue it with determination we shall meet our destruction.’ What is your ‘plan of action’? That ought to have been your summary.

Redundant phrases
‘Shall not if we face it without fear and with determination birthed from defending that which is good and right about our nation.’
‘If you have no “blade” sell your costly toys to buy the best money can buy.’

Summary
The article has no structure and therefore the reader is forced to plough through the various repetitive points you’re trying to make about consequences, with no direction or conclusion. ‘Disjointed’ might be an appropriate word. It’s clear where you’re coming from, but excessively subjective.

Now that’s a quick once over academic critique. No baiting or trying to pretend I’m something I’m not. No goggle to try to pretend I’m clever and no leading questions to try to catch anyone out.

As for myself:
a) I speak my mind and that’s often taken for arrogance, and b) I speak of what I know and that’s often seen as disdainful and c) I know what I’m talking about and that’s often viewed as elitist.
If I come across as such it is not intentional.
or
a) I say what I mean and I mean what I say and b) Part of my job is to know and explain social and political theory and c) If you don’t know ask, instead of guessing and trying to be clever.
Perhaps I will take your advice and be a one liner nodding dog.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I’ve already explained my views and the reasons why to Drummond, go and read them above. He didn’t post a thread explaining his position and neither have you and come to think of it, there’s an awful lot of missing beliefs here, but an awful lot of criticism of those of others.
Look at the threads I’ve posted in just one week, can you match that and actually say something? I’ve already stated my views and position, have you? Have you got anything at all to say except walking in locksteps and cryptic nonsense?

Of course I’m annoyed, never mind all this ‘he’s my friend’ rubbish, the pair of you haven’t the courage to stand up, speak out and make your views known for fear of challenge and if you ever do, that’s when I’ll respect you, no matter the criticism you’ll get from others. I’ve stated my position in long explanatory threads on Islam, my political beliefs, Religion, Modern Social Liberals, Googling and media information . . . and been criticised for it every step of the way by the lurkers just like yourself. Pop up, pretend you have any kind of knowledge of the subject, criticise and move on.
I don’t have to validate myself I’ve already done it in explanatory threads. Here’s my answer to the pair of you in seven words, not a thousand. Explain to me what YOUR views are! If you’re frightened to do so, or haven’t a clue, I’ll understand and help you to explain them.

I thought I’d do a quick thread post on socialism, something that’s commonly misunderstood. Perhaps you’d like to do it instead and tell us all the difference between the terms, socialism, socialist and communism and the role of the State as distributor? No? I didn’t think so, but just like the ones who won’t take the risk of flak, I’m willing to bet that you’ll be one of those jumping in to criticise me if I do. Now go and walk in lockstep with all that and unless you’ve got something to say about the social or politics, don’t waste my time.

I very much doubt there’s anything I’ll learn from you about social or political theory.
Your two links above provide the message: Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.



I very much doubt there’s anything I’ll learn from you about social or political theory.

Are you truly this clueless?? This is not a classroom and nobody here is conducting classes on any subject being discussed. Do you in your supposed greater intelligence think it is civil to come here , set classroom assignment to members and pretend we must obey or else be dismissed as buffoons?
Be as damn rude as you like but knock off the holier than thou bullshit dude. Ive already seen your tango attempt at gunny. He took you apart and you ran quickly to label him a waste thus excuse yourself from having to reply to his comments addressing your biased judgments and errors.
How did that turn out for you?--Tyr




Today, 10:15 AM #179 John V's Avatar John V John V is offline
Member
I think a solution might be just to put you on ignore gunny. You've obviously nothing to say of any value. It's a little late for that tonight, so have your little rant, stamp your foot and I'll do it in the morning.



Gunny's Avatar Gunny Gunny is online now
Merciless & Cruel


Quote Originally Posted by John V View Post
I don’t think people in the west fully understand the effect of ‘sanctions.’ Of course it damages trade and everyone suffers, the European farmers are also suffering with reverse sanctions, but my point to those who think you can destroy a people’s will by them is this. The Chinese will, if it comes to it, exist on a bowl of rice a day and come out fighting – I expect it’s the same with the Russians, they’ll just tighten their belts. Conversely, in the west it would equal a major life catastrophe if your favourite brand of cheerio’s wasn’t available and that would hurt.



The U.S. and EU introduce sanctions against Russia; Russia now sells oil and gas to China and Europe freezes. ‘We want the Ukraine to be an independentnation? The EU and U.S. were already in there trying to do deals and get it into the EU before Putin arrived. Take away those oil pipelines and no one in the west would have raised an eyebrow or cared less what happened there.
Again, a broad judgment based on no actual knowledge. You should spend less time telling others what they are and more time listening. Your success at whatever you do WHERE YOU ARE has led to the same arrogance you are accusing everyone else of.



Gunny Gunny is online now
Merciless & Cruel


Quote Originally Posted by John V View Post
I’m just agreeing with one of your fellow Americans, Revelarts and asking you to consider new perspectives with an open mind as he did, instead of a closed mind. You’re not the only country to have suffered from an insular and myopic outlook.

Look back at the revolution and what springs to mind when you think of the British Empire? Haughty, arrogant, controlling and what did they do in a rebellion? Send in the army. It happened over nearly a third of the world, ‘damn foreigners, they’re not like us’ and out they went to subdue. The French, Dutch (who still had apartheid until fairly recently in South Africa) . . . Many countries suffered from ‘exceptionalism’. In my lifetime I remember black golliwogs on jars of jam and signs in rented buildings stating, ‘No blacks, Irish or pets’. The older ones amongst you can still remember segregation in America itself. This isn’t communism and ‘reds under the beds’, this is basic history.


Many have the same attitude now as England had just a century ago; if they’re not one of us and you can’t control them, kill them. They’re dangerous, a threat, they’re going to invade us . . . The end days of British rule is what you’re now experiencing with the backlash of terrorism and the bigger countries themselves drawing red lines, it’s just that many of you with closed ideological mind-set can’t see it or have difficulty accepting it.
There's nothing open-minded about you so far, and if I'm not thinking like rev, I must be doing something right.

You talk about having an open mind; yet, your argument amounts to little more than a presumptive judgment. No "bigger countries" created extremist Islam. The sectarian war WITHIN Islam between the Shia and Sunni did.


Will be a neat trick if you can pull it off. Just put on ignore all that walk not in lockstep with you!
Myself, I doubt you can justify to any member here your putting gunny on ignore, especially since his replies to you were both informative and presented without any form of rudeness.
Hoss, this is a message board and you are not a teacher here. You are just another member expressing his opinion complete with bias that we all have.
May be best for you to learn that now IMHO.-TYR

[John V]

It would take someone a lot cleverer than either you or gunny to take me apart and I’ve offered both of you a debate. This is a political debate forum, not a message board. I gave up replying to comments because I know baiting when I see it and I’ve already tried being polite and conciliatory with you. Now instead of personal comments, ‘man up’ as I believe they say in America and debate me on politics, or leave it at that.
I’ve already said I’m prepared to stop the essay articles and do the one liners and nod in agreement stuff. If you want to keep it simple so it doesn’t tax your brain too much I’m OK with that.

[Perianne]

It would take someone a lot cleverer than either you or gunny to take me apart and I’ve offered both of you a debate. This is a political debate forum, not a message board. I gave up replying to comments because I know baiting when I see it and I’ve already tried being polite and conciliatory with you. Now instead of personal comments, ‘man up’ as I believe they say in America and debate me on politics, or leave it at that.
I’ve already said I’m prepared to stop the essay articles and do the one liners and nod in agreement stuff. If you want to keep it simple so it doesn’t tax your brain too much I’m OK with that.



I like your essay articles. Don't stop with them.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It would take someone a lot cleverer than either you or gunny to take me apart and I’ve offered both of you a debate. This is a political debate forum, not a message board. I gave up replying to comments because I know baiting when I see it and I’ve already tried being polite and conciliatory with you. Now instead of personal comments, ‘man up’ as I believe they say in America and debate me on politics, or leave it at that.
I’ve already said I’m prepared to stop the essay articles and do the one liners and nod in agreement stuff. If you want to keep it simple so it doesn’t tax your brain too much I’m OK with that.



Really? I recall reading a post by you somewhere here in which you admitted having very little knowledge about America and American politics.
Know suddenly you claim to have master knowledge on all politics.. I guess Google has become your new friend.:laugh:
Do not worry about taxing my brain. Better and smarter than you haven't ever taxed it enough to make me break a sweat.
How about you stop pretending to be a teacher here?
I doubt that Jim hired you to come here and teach your biased and arrogant judgments to we Americans.
With that being a fact it is obvious that you desire to march in here and attempt to command members to obey your dictates while you spew false accusations against any that oppose in any way your agenda.
I do not care if you write essays or one liners but I've never asked a soul to walk lockstep with me. As I like being ahead of the crowd and on my own.
Carry on as you like but know this- you do not get to dictate to me how I post or how I may reply to you.
If I agree with you I say so, if not I say so. Nobody has ever stopped me from doing and many have tried.
Not just in Internet exchanges but also in a great many real life clashes- ALL FAILED..
My blade has never been rusted in its scabbard.. -TYR

[John V]

Really? I recall reading a post by you somewhere here in which you admitted having very little knowledge about America and American politics.
Know suddenly you claim to have master knowledge on all politics.. I guess Google has become your new friend.:laugh:
Do not worry about taxing my brain. Better and smarter than you haven't ever taxed it enough to make me break a sweat.
How about you stop pretending to be a teacher here?
I doubt that Jim hired you to come here and teach your biased and arrogant judgments to we Americans.
With that being a fact it is obvious that you desire to march in here and attempt to command members to obey your dictates while you spew false accusations against any that oppose in any way your agenda.
I do not care if you write essays or one liners but I've never asked a soul to walk lockstep with me. As I like being ahead of the crowd and on my own.
Carry on as you like but know this- you do not get to dictate to me how I post or how I may reply to you.
If I agree with you I say so, if not I say so. Nobody has ever stopped me from doing and many have tried.
Not just in Internet exchanges but also in a great many real life clashes- ALL FAILED..
My blade has never been rusted in its scabbard.. -TYR

I’m serious about what I said in my PM. Take care your big mouth doesn’t lead to your downfall, because any time now you might have to eat your personal comments. Understood?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I’m serious about what I said in my PM. Take care your big mouth doesn’t lead to your downfall, because any time now you might have to eat your personal comments. Understood?


A fool heeds not sound advice given. I gave you sound advice and appears to me you are about to not heed it.
Just remember this Hoss, you pm'ed me with a threat. I do not ignore such and never back down...

Now do your damn best to destroy me as you promised but know this , well over a hundred people have tried in my 61 years here on this blue marble. Nobody succeeded in that vain attempt.
I just do not respond sheepishly to threats Hoss. Careful what the hell you ask for, comprende?--Tyr

[John V]

A fool heeds not sound advice given. I gave you sound advice and appears to me you are about to not heed it.
Just remember this Hoss, you pm'ed me with a threat. I do not ignore such and never back down...

Now do your damn best to destroy me as you promised but know this , well over a hundred people have tried in my 61 years here on this blue marble. Nobody succeeded in that vain attempt.
I just do not respond sheepishly to threats Hoss. Careful what the hell you ask for, comprende?--Tyr

The threat is genuine. I will not destroy you, I will let your arrogance destroy you against the knowledge of a social science teacher and every time it happens, I will continue to issue challenges to you, again and again and again. I will wipe your arrogance off this forum. I will look at the thread tomorrow.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The threat is genuine. I will not destroy you, I will let your arrogance destroy you against the knowledge of a social science teacher and every time it happens, I will continue to issue challenges to you, again and again and again. I will wipe your arrogance off this forum. I will look at the thread tomorrow.


Methinks your arrogance knows no bounds. What? You think you are the only teacher in the world?
When you flew to your foreign overseas job did they charge you extra fair for the massive ego?
Issue as many challenges as you like, I respond to posts that I want to and not to commands from any person.
Start wiping dude, the counter needs cleaning first and after that the windows. :laugh:--Tyr

[Drummond]

The threat is genuine. I will not destroy you, I will let your arrogance destroy you against the knowledge of a social science teacher and every time it happens, I will continue to issue challenges to you, again and again and again. I will wipe your arrogance off this forum. I will look at the thread tomorrow.


This is just sick.

John V: really ... what the hell is wrong with you ??

You haven't been on this forum five minutes, and you're exhibiting an attacking 'haughtiness' suggestive of someone very badly in need of exercising a monumental ego. I am indeed sorry I welcomed you here, certainly if you intend to continue with such ridiculous conduct.

My belief is that you've one almighty chip on your shoulder about what you've seen Americans do in the wider world. Are you here in the hope of, as you'd see it, 'teaching them the error of their ways' .. ?

I've a couple of things to say to you.

One - I feel absolutely no need, see absolutely no reason, to make any effort to 'prove myself' to you. I have my beliefs. I have my debating style. I am thoroughly clear on what I consider I wish to do on a forum such as this. What I do NOT need is judgmentality from you on this, nor to satisfy your self-opinionated 'standards' so that I may 'gratefully' gain your 'approval' !!!

You want to know what I believe in, and why, and how I justify my various thoughts ? THEN DO THE RESEARCH. There's plenty to check on, here, on this forum. It's only a few mouse-clicks away. Your sick dialogue with Tyr convinces me that I want no dialogue with you ... so, research will be your only recourse.

If, regardless, you feel any continuing need to libel me, first be sure of the extent of that libel before you do. In so doing, you may gain an appreciation of just how ludicrous such attacks really are. And how counterproductively pointless is the effort.

As for what I think is true of you -- I do think you're heavily jaundiced in your thinking about American conduct in the world. You resent any and all capabilities they have to make their mark .. don't you ? So, if or when any American shows pride, self-belief, self-righteousness, you feel some need within you to knock it down, any way you can.

This is what's currently fueling your exchange with Tyr, isn't it ?

It's shameful conduct, in my view. Since you're on this forum, you should be using the opportunity it provides you to expand your horizons. If you have disagreements, and you think you can creditably defend your corner, do it dispassionately, and non-judgmentally.

And if, ultimately, that extent of objectivity is really beyond you .. then ask yourself .. who REALLY needs to learn a lesson here.

[Drummond]

Methinks your arrogance knows no bounds. What? You think you are the only teacher in the world?
When you flew to your foreign overseas job did they charge you extra fair for the massive ego?
Issue as many challenges as you like, I respond to posts that I want to and not to commands from any person.
Start wiping dude, the counter needs cleaning first and after that the windows. :laugh:--Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[aboutime]

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:



I suspect John has had major construction work done where he lives, and works. They probably spent thousands WIDENING EVERY DOOR....to allow his Huge Head entry into different rooms. It's not an ego thing.
It's called ARROGANCE!

John is probably a good candidate for a professorship at one of our Liberal, Ivy League, Bastions of Stupidity.

[aboutime]

The threat is genuine. I will not destroy you, I will let your arrogance destroy you against the knowledge of a social science teacher and every time it happens, I will continue to issue challenges to you, again and again and again. I will wipe your arrogance off this forum. I will look at the thread tomorrow.



John. We have names for people like you. But, in keeping with the wishes of the Owner of this forum. I will simply remind everyone else how Literally Stupid, Arrogant, and Self-centered I believe you have proven to be.

[aboutime]

I’m serious about what I said in my PM. Take care your big mouth doesn’t lead to your downfall, because any time now you might have to eat your personal comments. Understood?



John. SO, based on what you have been advertising here to all of us. Would you like to tell us HOW LONG you have been an ACTIVE member of ISIS? Making threats is something most all of us VETERANS look forward to allowing people like you to PERSONALLY appear to back up your TALK with the WALK.

Now, it's your turn.

[Drummond]

John. We have names for people like you. But, in keeping with the wishes of the Owner of this forum. I will simply remind everyone else how Literally Stupid, Arrogant, and Self-centered I believe you have proven to be.:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Well said, Aboutime.

We have, in this character, someone who refuses to move a fraction of an inch beyond his extremely narrow perceptions ... and thinks that others have a duty to conform to his comparably narrow points of reference in order to then receive the 'gift' of his approval.

He has every right to express whatever beliefs he holds to. If he feels he can justify himself, fine. But this attacking judgmentality, aiming such attacks as personalised threatening ... it's disgusting.

If he has British values, he should understand that he utterly fails to represent them in any creditable fashion on this forum.

[John V]

No, it’s not arrogance, it’s called being sick and tired of the baiting by the few and the constant criticism and personal attacks when posting more than one liners. The Russians were also jumped on from the word go and I can assure you in PMs, they also feel the same. The introductory threads contain warnings to tone it down for newcomers and it always applies to the same few. My response is, as the English say, put your money where your mouth is and prove how clever you are face to face, instead of throwing insults from behind your key boards! Come on big mouth Tyr, let's see what you've got.

As this is a political forum, I issue a personal challengeof a one to one debate toTyr-Ziu Saxnoton aspects of social or political science, explanation only, without google or plagiarised quotes.

Aspects of which could include Marxism, progressivism, and critical theory (Frankfurt school, cultural Marxism), classical ideologies, criminology . . .
Specifics might include but are not limited to the differences between socialism and communism; the rise and effects of industrialism in the western world; the development of classical ideological thought; social and cultural changes in values and norms as a result of mass immigration . . .
Or any of the classical theorists, Durkheim, Marx, Weber, Foucault . . .

I envisage that this person will accept, given his many criticisms and personal comments on my work already posted here.

[aboutime]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Well said, Aboutime.

We have, in this character, someone who refuses to move a fraction of an inch beyond his extremely narrow perceptions ... and thinks that others have a duty to conform to his comparably narrow points of reference in order to then receive the 'gift' of his approval.

He has every right to express whatever beliefs he holds to. If he feels he can justify himself, fine. But this attacking judgmentality, aiming such attacks as personalised threatening ... it's disgusting.

If he has British values, he should understand that he utterly fails to represent them in any creditable fashion on this forum.

Thank you, but I should add. John seems to be nothing but a Brit version of any one of the Obama followers who demand ONLY they can decide what other people can say, do, eat, read, or believe. It is exactly how Obama managed to get such a following of Idiots, and Low Information voters to do his bidding.
John is just a SCAB on the wound we call Socialism, and the Band-aids for such wounds can only come in the form of PREPARATION H applied to their lips!:laugh:

[John V]

Thank you, but I should add. John seems to be nothing but a Brit version of any one of the Obama followers who demand ONLY they can decide what other people can say, do, eat, read, or believe. It is exactly how Obama managed to get such a following of Idiots, and Low Information voters to do his bidding.
John is just a SCAB on the wound we call Socialism, and the Band-aids for such wounds can only come in the form of PREPARATION H applied to their lips!:laugh:

My political beliefs are here:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49871-Where-do-I-stand-in-American-politics (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49871-Where-do-I-stand-in-American-politics)

Don’t worry you’ll also get your chance of a one to one debate later.

[Drummond]

Don’t worry you’ll also get your chance of a one to one debate later.


Bestowing your generous consideration, eh ? Should he feel honoured ?

As for your link, I found this wording from you within it ...


I’m always kind, I’m British. :laugh:

... except when you're issuing threats, of course, because you have an overwhelming need to slap a 'naughty American' (i.e one not appreciative of your self-styled 'superiority') down. The part of your quote I can agree with is the smilie ...

You really need to drop the attitude. CAN YOU ? If you did but understand, you're making a fool of yourself. Precious few here will feel any need to defer to your wholly invented sense of insufferable superiority ... and why on earth would they even consider it ?

[Drummond]

No, it’s not arrogance ...

Trust me: IT IS. It pervades your posting.

What fascinates me is that you obviously think that you'll get people to show you deference in the face of it. I think that nothing could be more unlikely.

You want (- and no doubt yearn for -) some respect ? Simple life lesson, here ... BE WILLING TO SHOW SOME.

Drop the confrontational rot, stop the threats. They are completely pointless.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Trust me: IT IS. It pervades your posting.

What fascinates me is that you obviously think that you'll get people to show you deference in the face of it. I think that nothing could be more unlikely.

You want (- and no doubt yearn for -) some respect ? Simple life lesson, here ... BE WILLING TO SHOW SOME.

Drop the confrontational rot, stop the threats. They are completely pointless.

I suspect that he wants me to place him on ignore that way he eliminates any that would post replies opposing this arrogance and self- aggrandizing display of his Brit superiority over we ignorant Americans. Dude acts like being a "social science teacher" is some kind of holy and majestic achievement worthy of lesser beings bowing to his far omnipotent being.
Look at me, I am a magnificent "social science teacher" --don't you wish you were one as well? :laugh::laugh::laugh:
I suspect that he choose the social science path because there is so much leeway to be arrogant and advance by towing the line.-:laugh:-Tyr

[John V]

Bestowing your generous consideration, eh ? Should he feel honoured ?

As for your link, I found this wording from you within it ...



... except when you're issuing threats, of course, because you have an overwhelming need to slap a 'naughty American' (i.e one not appreciative of your self-styled 'superiority') down. The part of your quote I can agree with is the smilie ...

You really need to drop the attitude. CAN YOU ? If you did but understand, you're making a fool of yourself. Precious few here will feel any need to defer to your wholly invented sense of insufferable superiority ... and why on earth would they even consider it ?

It is not deference I’ve asked for or want and a challenge is not a threat, it’s the chance I have to show you few up for the phoney pretend academics you are. I’m not prepared to spend my time throwing insults against three to one in a never ending round of personal insults and abuse every time I post something, so my response to you few is to get on here and challenge me in a one to one debate. Am I annoyed? To bloody right I am. You first big mouth Tyr, put up or shut up!

I’ve already tried a conciliatory approach and tried to explain what you see as arrogance.
Post 25, page 2. Quote:
‘As for myself:
a) I speak my mind and that’s often taken for arrogance, and b) I speak of what I know and that’s often seen as disdainful and c) I know what I’m talking about and that’s often viewed as elitist.
If I come across as such it is not intentional.’

I come on here as a newcomer, I’m prepared to spend time and effort in producing a short series of political science based explanatory essays, which explain how we’re governed today, the reasons behind ideologies, their make up and how they’re applied in practice, in other words, why are we where we are today and in return I get a heap of abuse from a small minority of keyboard warriors. Have any of you few explained anything for the benefit of the forum instead of constant attacks on those who try? Have you ever thought that because of this abuse and bullying that posters will receive from you few is why there’s a distinct lack of political beliefs or explanationswritten here? You’ve met your match, the politeness stops with forum bullies.

As this is a political forum, I issue a personal challenge of a one to one debate to Tyr-Ziu Saxnot on aspects of social or political science, explanation only, without google or plagiarised quotes.

Aspects of which could include Marxism, progressivism, and critical theory (Frankfurt school, cultural Marxism), classical ideologies, criminology . . .
Specifics might include but are not limited to the differences between socialism and communism; the rise and effects of industrialism in the western world; the development of classical ideological thought; social and cultural changes in values and norms as a result of mass immigration . . .
Or any of the classical theorists, Durkheim, Marx, Weber, Foucault . . .

I envisage that this person will accept, given his many criticisms and personal comments on my work already posted here.

[aboutime]

My political beliefs are here:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49871-Where-do-I-stand-in-American-politics (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49871-Where-do-I-stand-in-American-politics)

Don’t worry you’ll also get your chance of a one to one debate later.


No need to concern yourself with such self-flattery. I rarely, if ever decide to deal with genuine SNOBS.

[fj1200]

... it’s called being sick and tired of the baiting by the few and the constant criticism and personal attacks when posting more than one liners. The Russians were also jumped on from the word go and I can assure you in PMs, they also feel the same.

Trust me, you're not too far off.

[Drummond]

No need to concern yourself with such self-flattery. I rarely, if ever decide to deal with genuine SNOBS.

This idiot's really full of himself, isn't he ? Not been here five minutes, and we're being loftily judged from 'up on high', presumably from his own self-styled Mount Olympus.

Dunno about you, but I feel 'really honoured' John V spends entire minutes with us mortals ...

[Drummond]

It is not deference I’ve asked for or want and a challenge is not a threat, it’s the chance I have to show you few up for the phoney pretend academics you are.
I see but one way of interpreting this, in terms of your reason for being here. Simplistically put - yet, ACCURATELY - your intentions here are hostile in nature.

In which case, responses also exhibiting hostility would seem appropriate. After all, why should anyone just sit back and take your judgmentality ??


I’m not prepared to spend my time throwing insults against three to one in a never ending round of personal insults and abuse every time I post something, so my response to you few is to get on here and challenge me in a one to one debate. Am I annoyed?
To bloody right I am.
Typo time, 'Mr Superior'. One would've imagined your 'thoroughly superior' intellectual capacity would've prepared you for the correct spelling (please take notes if you need to) of the word, 'TOO' .. ??

It's a very petty point. But since you're so very driven by ego, you'll still hate being picked up on it ... :laugh:

But you're just not getting the nub of the matter, John V. None of us have any need to defer to any sliding scale of yours of so-called 'worthiness'. We comment as we choose. We debate as we choose. We are entitled not to have this forum turned into a classroom by an egomaniac trying desperately to prove his self-invented superiority to us all.

Have you got that, John V .. or am I wasting my time ?


You first big mouth Tyr, put up or shut up!

Issuing orders ? Tut tut. Manners, John V ...:rolleyes:


I’ve already tried a conciliatory approach and tried to explain what you see as arrogance.

Post 25, page 2. Quote:
‘As for myself:
a) I speak my mind and that’s often taken for arrogance, and b) I speak of what I know and that’s often seen as disdainful and c) I know what I’m talking about and that’s often viewed as elitist.If I come across as such it is not intentional.’

It's revealing that you'd come up with such insights by post #25. 'Often' taken for arrogance means that you've already had a lot of experience of being judged as arrogant. Yet .. have you been willing to be receptive to the way others view you, John V .. ? As you expect others to be to YOUR views ? H'mm .. ?

A 'no' answer would seem to confirm such a judgment of you as a provenly valid one.


I come on here as a newcomer, I’m prepared to spend time and effort in producing a short series of political science based explanatory essays, which explain how we’re governed today, the reasons behind ideologies, their make up and how they’re applied in practice ..

... and us mere mortals didn't heap praise and appreciation in your direction !! John, how could you EVER forgive us for being so derelict in our duty ??


in other words, why are we where we are today and in return I get a heap of abuse from a small minority of keyboard warriors.

Forgive us. We Are Not Worthy to inhabit the same debating forum by one as exalted as yourself !! :laugh2:


Have any of you few explained anything for the benefit of the forum instead of constant attacks on those who try?

Have YOU tried to find out ?? You're clearly too busy sitting in judgment on other posters here, to do the proper research and discover just WHAT we've posted here over the months and years. If, for example, you'd done enough research on me, you'd have a precise picture of what I believe, and why, and what it is that reveals the worth of my own beliefs.

But you don't know of any real detail of that. Do you, John V ? THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE TOO BUSY LAUNCHING JUDGMENTAL ATTACKS OF YOUR OWN.

I've already picked you up on your libel about my supposed 'Left Wing' leanings. You haven't acknowledged your judgmental hastiness. In fact, you're busily compounding it.


Have you ever thought that because of this abuse and bullying that posters will receive from you few is why there’s a distinct lack of political beliefs or explanationswritten here? You’ve met your match, the politeness stops with forum bullies.

Curious. Your own example of confrontational posting continues unabated. Yet you're preachy about others' posts.

The point bears repeating - in case you can understand it, belatedly. We each of us have our posting styles, and A RIGHT TO THEM. It's not for you, especially as a self-opinionated newcomer, to dictate what YOU require from others.

You don't like what you read from others ? You can 'ignore' posts, and posters, you object to.


As this is a political forum,
I issue a personal challengeof a one to one debate to Tyr-Ziu Saxnoton aspects of social or political science, explanation only, without google or plagiarised quotes.


Aspects of which could include Marxism, progressivism, and critical theory (Frankfurt school, cultural Marxism), classical ideologies, criminology . . .
Specifics might include but are not limited to the differences between socialism and communism; the rise and effects of industrialism in the western world; the development of classical ideological thought; social and cultural changes in values and norms as a result of mass immigration . . .
Or any of the classical theorists, Durkheim, Marx, Weber, Foucault . . .

I envisage that this person will accept, given his many criticisms and personal comments on my work already posted here.


And it's HIS CHOICE to accept, or decline. Either way, you should respect the outcome.

But then, 'respect' is not what you're about. Is it ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Drummond, part of my job involves spotting nit-pickers, baiters and those with such a poor level of knowledge that they latch on to other posters but never put their own ideas out for others to see. The Telegraph is media, now if that, google and Wiki is where you get your info from it makes a poor showing. I have you down as a typical product of a UK leftie liberal, integrating yourself with the mainstream because you are unable to articulate anything yourself. I’m not critical of America, I’m critical of every country, its politicians and their policies – it’s what I do for a living.


Now, I’ll tell you what will impress me. Away you go and write a short 1000 word essay on any aspect of the political or social topic of your choice. Post it, no google, no quotes, (we can usually spot plagiarism), in your own words and using your own explanations. Now go away and impress me, I’ll give you an honest opinion and if I was wrong about you, I’ll admit it.



Drummond, part of my job involves spotting nit-pickers, baiters and those with such a poor level of knowledge that they latch on to other posters but never put their own ideas out for others to see.

^^^^ Care to tell us how doing that is part of your job teaching foreign students about social science?-Tyr




part of my job involves spotting nit-pickers, baiters and those with such a poor level of knowledge
Really--you do that in a classroom of foreign students??-Tyr




that they latch on to other posters

^^^^ So the students you teach are doing that?--Tyr

I think you may have stepped in it and not kept your story straight about what you said you do. -Tyr

[Drummond]

^^^^ Care to tell us how doing that is part of your job teaching foreign students about social science?-Tyr




Really--you do that in a classroom of foreign students??-Tyr





^^^^ So the students you teach are doing that?--Tyr

I think you may have stepped in it and not kept your story straight about what you said you do. -Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

VERY WELL SPOTTED, TYR.

So, John V. What are you REALLY here for ?

Seems very evident that we cannot trust in you to honestly represent yourself. It's probably stupid of me to expect total honesty from you, now or at any time. Still, if you'd now care to come clean about yourself, that might be a good idea. Under the circumstances, honesty is now very much your best option.

I think that a part of the truth - or, maybe, ALL of it ? - is that you have some sort of a chip on your shoulder about America's place in the world. In truth, you're some sort of 'attack dog' poster, targeting anyone likely to be patriotic and principled in their support of it.

If you had the brains, not to mention the integrity, that you'd like us to believe you possess, you'd realise for yourself how complete an injustice that position is. Our Left wing push that opinion, over here in the UK, for all they're worth. So I know your type all too well.

Regardless, John V .. and, as some in Britain would say .. YOU'VE BEEN 'RUMBLED', MY SON. Nicely spotted, Tyr !

[Drummond]

'You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Tyr-Ziu Saxnot again.'

Quite a pity. Tyr, that post of yours richly deserved a 'Reputation' comment.

[aboutime]

This idiot's really full of himself, isn't he ? Not been here five minutes, and we're being loftily judged from 'up on high', presumably from his own self-styled Mount Olympus.

Dunno about you, but I feel 'really honoured' John V spends entire minutes with us mortals ...


Sir Drummond. I am actually enjoying how this character is demonstrating exactly what I have warned other members here...to be on the lookout for in the past. The very same things are now surfacing from the NEW MEMBERS who are so convincing...because we need to get more members...that present members are soundly warned, and scolded for daring to offer such warnings. But...speaking for myself. Because I have ruffled feathers in the past..using only the TRUTH, based on my own methods of investigation, and...I might say. Practical experience with PHONIES, and WANNABE'S.
People (members) like me are the target instead of the phonies who are needed to create hostilities while pretending to be something they are not
If anyone honestly believes I have been responsible for chasing members away from DP. I honestly do feel sorry for you for falling under the Obama-like, Liberal-phoniness spell, and rejecting my attempts to honestly help Jim with increasing the VALIDITY of this forum.
Just keep in mind. All of you will eventually get older. It may take years for all of you to finally understand. Meanwhile. I can only laugh, and just wish for the impossible.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I have no problem with the man staying and posting but I'll not be told I have to nod my head and agree with everything he says. He makes some damn good posts/commentaries.
However , that does not mean that anybody should bow to him as if he is some kind of demi-god.
He seems to think there should be some kind of forced agreement to his posts.
I do not respond kindly to force myself.
I was cool with his posts until I disagreed with one(American Exceptionalism)--then he went ballistic--thats not cool with me. After that he lodged lying accusations against me-- again, not cool. Sent a threatening pm to me, again not cool.. --Tyr

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. I am actually enjoying how this character is demonstrating exactly what I have warned other members here...to be on the lookout for in the past. The very same things are now surfacing from the NEW MEMBERS who are so convincing...because we need to get more members...that present members are soundly warned, and scolded for daring to offer such warnings. But...speaking for myself. Because I have ruffled feathers in the past..using only the TRUTH, based on my own methods of investigation, and...I might say. Practical experience with PHONIES, and WANNABE'S.
People (members) like me are the target instead of the phonies who are needed to create hostilities while pretending to be something they are not
If anyone honestly believes I have been responsible for chasing members away from DP. I honestly do feel sorry for you for falling under the Obama-like, Liberal-phoniness spell, and rejecting my attempts to honestly help Jim with increasing the VALIDITY of this forum.
Just keep in mind. All of you will eventually get older. It may take years for all of you to finally understand. Meanwhile. I can only laugh, and just wish for the impossible.:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Well said, as ever.

It goes to show .. we need to be on our guard a lot more than we in fact are. I myself was convinced to a great degree by that character . thinking he was maybe an academic who had fallen too much under the influence from Leftist thinking in the past, and hadn't moved on from it.

But Tyr spotted the inconsistent scope of his posting. We are now alerted to him.

Perhaps he'll 'do a runner', as us Brits say. Or maybe he'll try to bluster and insult his way out of this. Doesn't matter -- the truth has won out. As it deserves to.

People such as you, Aboutime, are the bedrock of the forum. I've long since learned to respect your succinct observations as worth their weight in gold.

[Drummond]

I have no problem with the man staying and posting but I'll not be told I have to nod my head and agree with everything he says. He makes some damn good posts/commentaries.
However , that does not mean that anybody should bow to him as if he is some kind of demi-god.
He seems to think there should be some kind of forced agreement to his posts.
I do not respond kindly to force myself.
I was cool with his posts until I disagreed with one(American Exceptionalism)--then he went ballistic--thats not cool with me. After that he lodged lying accusations against me-- again, not cool. Sent a threatening pm to me, again not cool.. --Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap:

I agree.

I've said it before, and I'm saying it again now .. HONEST posting has its own worth. Represent yourself honestly, regardless of the view expressed, and in the spirit of honest and open interaction, views and beliefs can be tested for their full and proper worthiness.

But ... posturing, airs of superiority expressed for the sake of one-upmanship, insults, libels, even threats .. that's attack-dog posting, reminiscent of trolling. It earns NO respect, nor should it. Ever.

Nobody needs that rot. It's thoroughly, pointlessly, counterproductive.

Standards exist for a reason.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

I agree.

I've said it before, and I'm saying it again now .. HONEST posting has its own worth. Represent yourself honestly, regardless of the view expressed, and in the spirit of honest and open interaction, views and beliefs can be tested for their full and proper worthiness.

But ... posturing, airs of superiority expressed for the sake of one-upmanship, insults, libels, even threats .. that's attack-dog posting, reminiscent of trolling. It earns NO respect, nor should it. Ever.

Nobody needs that rot. It's thoroughly, pointlessly, counterproductive.

Standards exist for a reason.

Now appears that JohnV would much rather run away than answer to the discrepancies of his earlier posts.
Especially how and why a "social science " teacher's job would be ---





Quote Originally Posted by John V View Post
Drummond, part of my job involves spotting nit-pickers, baiters and those with such a poor level of knowledge that they latch on to other posters but never put their own ideas out for others to see. The Telegraph is media, now if that, google and Wiki is where you get your info from it makes a poor showing. I have you down as a typical product of a UK leftie liberal, integrating yourself with the mainstream because you are unable to articulate anything yourself. I’m not critical of America, I’m critical of every country, its politicians and their policies – it’s what I do for a living.


Now, I’ll tell you what will impress me. Away you go and write a short 1000 word essay on any aspect of the political or social topic of your choice. Post it, no google, no quotes, (we can usually spot plagiarism), in your own words and using your own explanations. Now go away and impress me, I’ll give you an honest opinion and if I was wrong about you, I’ll admit it.
Drummond, part of my job involves spotting nit-pickers, baiters and those with such a poor level of knowledge that they latch on to other posters but never put their own ideas out for others to see.
^^^^ Care to tell us how doing that is part of your job teaching foreign students about social science?-Tyr



part of my job involves spotting nit-pickers, baiters and those with such a poor level of knowledge
^^^ Really--you do that in a classroom of foreign students??-Tyr




that they latch on to other posters


^^^^ So the students you teach are doing that, latching on to other posters?
AND ITS PART OF YOUR JOB!??--Tyr


Or he present any evidence of the false accusation he made against me the first time I rejected one of his claims!!

By the way, still waiting to see just how he is going to destroy me as he threatened to do.. - :laugh::laugh::laugh:--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Trust me, you're not too far off.

How did that amazing insightful(not inciting or even exciting) judgment turn out there , hoss?
Did that amazing pillar of virtue prove to be an innocent victim of stalkers, trolls and a gang of attackers?
Or did it eventually come to light that he himself was not what he claimed and played to be?

You aren't batting a very good streak in your judgment of others as far as I can see.
Will you stupidly declare that he was an honorable man, wrongly attacked and now has carried forth a judicious and honorable retreat?
Or dare to admit you backed a damn fraud and dishonorable arrogant person?
Do tell, if man enough to admit the truth. --Tyr

[fj1200]

:blah:

Considering that you knuckleheads are still piling on when he's not even here anymore... Besides, he correctly identified a "nit-picking lefty." That's what I suggested he was correct on.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Considering that you knuckleheads are still piling on when he's not even here anymore... Besides, he correctly identified a "nit-picking lefty." That's what I suggested he was correct on.

Really? The man issued an unprovoked attack on me and you say I am piling on him.
You are as full of shat as Christmas turkey, dude.
Had that been the case he's still be here and supported by many..
You spit that shat out while ignoring the comments by Kat, Jeff and Dragonstryke shows a screw loose in your head. Are they too, piling on with their impartial comments ?
I suggest that you read Dragon's cage thread if you have not already done so.
You must be blind as bat amigo to utter such rubbish as that. :mad:--Tyr

[Drummond]

Considering that you knuckleheads are still piling on when he's not even here anymore... Besides, he correctly identified a "nit-picking lefty." That's what I suggested he was correct on.

So ... you're NOT trying to make capital out of this yourself, FJ ?

He 'correctly identified a nit-picking lefty', you say ? NO, HE DID NOT.

You, too, then, are fond of libel ? In between displays of egotism .. ?

You seem to identify strongly with our apparently now-departed newcomer. Strangely, I'm not surprised.

It'll be interesting to see if you continue to drag out the potential for controversy long after it should've all died a death.

[fj1200]

Really? The man issued an unprovoked attack on me and you say I am piling on him.

So the one who fashions himself as the toughest guy on the board gets all in a kerfuffle because of some words on a screen? If you knuckleheads would spend more time discussing than whining like stuck pigs anytime someone dares have a differing opinion then maybe we'd get some new blood.

[fj1200]

:blah:

He 'correctly identified a nit-picking lefty', you say ? NO, HE DID NOT.

... drag out the potential for controversy ...

Your blustery sputtering aside I'm sure that you're too stupid to realize that it's your buddy who took the time to single out my post long after this issue was dead. Yeah, you're too much of a hypocritical moron to understand that. FWIW, you are the very definition of "nit-picking" and we know you love your big government.

And you care about libel now? Interesting. :)

[sundaydriver]

And I thought they acted like children before all this. :laugh2:

I see John V has joined another board I belong to. There is a note of condensation is some of his posts when he turns to lecturer, but his posts are ORIGINAL, coherent, and well thought out. No copy/paste, no ranting, and no trolling.
Too bad ( see Drummond, I know the proper use) the few that are intolerant of a different viewpoint as well as being shown how hollow their arguments are remind me of an old proverb.

The empty cart rattles the loudest.

[Drummond]

Your blustery sputtering aside I'm sure that you're too stupid to realize that it's your buddy who took the time to single out my post long after this issue was dead. Yeah, you're too much of a hypocritical moron to understand that. FWIW, you are the very definition of "nit-picking" and we know you love your big government.

And you care about libel now? Interesting. :)

I don't recall adding a 'blah' smilie to my post, FJ. But of course, YOU have because you're back to your usual, provocative, abusive ways.

If you consider yourself innocent of any charge of prolonging this, aka 'flogging a dead horse', then why do you continue to post on this ? What you accuse 'my buddy' of, you are certainly culpable of yourself.

Which was, after all, the point I was suggesting before, which you are working to prove valid ...

Why wouldn't I care about libel ? What are you talking about ?? Such as ...


we know you love your big government.

For you to know it, it would have to be true. A pity for you, then, that it isn't.

You are well aware of where I stand on 'big Government' .. that it is neither to be preferred nor sought if it is unnecessary. Where and when it IS necessary, then that's a different matter.

And if you were the 'one true Thatcherite' you like to abusively claim yourself to be, you'd be 100 percent in agreement with that.

You're not, though. Proof of FRAUDULENT bona fides.

[fj1200]

I don't recall adding a 'blah' smilie to my post, FJ. :blah:

...Defense of Big Government Hackery...

I was boiling your post down to its essence. It's a service I do for the board.

Do you have any more hypocrisy to add? Oh, and there's a thread or twenty that you've been avoiding because you suck at this. :)

[Drummond]

And I thought they acted like children before all this. :laugh2:

I see John V has joined another board I belong to. There is a note of condensation is some of his posts when he turns to lecturer, but his posts are ORIGINAL, coherent, and well thought out. No copy/paste, no ranting, and no trolling.

No trolling, you say ? That's very good news, Sundaydriver. Long may it continue to be so.

I take it, then, given the truth of that .. that John V has now learned not to send bullying PM's to anyone choosing to oppose him, nor to refer to PM exchanges in public ? If he's learned those minimal standards, then his time here wasn't wasted.


Too bad ( see Drummond, I know the proper use)

... Congratulations !


the few that are intolerant of a different viewpoint as well as being shown how hollow their arguments are remind me of an old proverb.

The empty cart rattles the loudest.

I'm unclear as to your intended context. Are you somehow claiming that your charge of intolerance didn't apply to John V ?

He was intolerant of the usual practice of people posting online proofs of their arguments, requiring instead that media sources be scorned as offered evidence.

His intolerance extended to trying to bully people to conform to what he expected from them.

Sundaydriver, are you saying that this is permissible from certain people, but not others ?

[Drummond]

I was boiling your post down to its essence. It's a service I do for the board.

Do you have any more hypocrisy to add? Oh, and there's a thread or twenty that you've been avoiding because you suck at this. :)

Abusing the quoting of other peoples' posts is not any form of 'service', FJ.

I have added no hypocrisy whatever. If I'm to be accused of such a thing ... as they say, 'put up, or shut up'. Make your case.

After all, it helps drag out gratuitous contention. And yes ... I must say, you do NOT suck at that. Must be all the practice you get ...

[fj1200]

Make your case.

I already did. Do you need the definition?


I'm unclear as to your intended context.

Possibly because you're not very bright.

[Drummond]

I already did. Do you need the definition?



Possibly because you're not very bright.

Evasion doesn't help you, FJ. Neither does gratuitous abuse.

If you can't get down to specifics, my suggestion is that you stop wasting my time, and give it a rest !

[fj1200]

Evasion doesn't help you, FJ.

If you can't get down to specifics, my suggestion is that you stop wasting my time, and give it a rest !


the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform;

That would be you. It's called a link; that must be where you're confused. Trolling is OK as long as you or one of your knucklehead friends is the one doing. :) Can I get me a Thatcherite diversion???

Maybe make your next post in all caps and bold. That seems to work for you. :laugh:

[Drummond]

That would be you. It's called a link; that must be where you're confused.

Still no specifics, I see. Ho hum.

On your 'It's called a link' point ... your friend John V wasn't himself fond of them. As for myself .. I have a history, on this forum, of posting links when I consider evidence to support my argument(s) is required. This - except for you, apparently ? - must surely be a well known fact about me.


Trolling is OK as long as you or one of your knucklehead friends is the one doing. :)

Trolling is trolling. Since when was trolling OK ?

I'm sorry to note that you make the case for the admission of 'certain' trolling. But then, considering the nature of your posting, FJ, you could hardly do otherwise.


Can I get me a Thatcherite diversion???

You mean, the false bona fides of being 'The One True Thatcherite', the implied insult being - you'd hope - a continued diversion from actual truth ?


Maybe make your next post in all caps and bold. That seems to work for you. :laugh:

Well, since it's your recommendation, I'm assuming it actually works for YOU.

Anything I can do to help you assimilate the sheer commonsense of my material, FJ, I will gladly do. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Still no specifics, I see. Ho hum.

On your 'It's called a link' point ... your friend John V wasn't himself fond of them. :blabla:

You don't know specifics when I slap you in the face with them. Friend? I acknowledge that he can see through your nitpicky prattle and that makes him my friend? Your imagination is quite endless as I've been pointing out. Nevertheless links are how I demonstrate fact to you, fact that you ignore.

[Drummond]

You don't know specifics when I slap you in the face with them. Friend? I acknowledge that he can see through your nitpicky prattle and that makes him my friend? Your imagination is quite endless as I've been pointing out. Nevertheless links are how I demonstrate fact to you, fact that you ignore.

You don't have the ability to 'slap me in the face' AT ALL. You just wish you did.

Yes, 'friend'. I'm unsure whether you have too little experience of it to understand the concept, but given that you do, it could explain your approach to John V, and your motivation behind trying to defend him, NOW.

Your 'friend' went so far as to try and suggest Leftieism on my part. THAT is how lacking in truth he was when trying to characterise me. So why would 'nitpicky prattle' be any more true ?

I think, in fact, that its your imagination that's run away with itself. For example, consider your 'Thatcherite' claim. That has no grounding in reality at all.

As for ...


Nevertheless links are how I demonstrate fact to you

... it's probably just as well your 'friend' is no longer here. He'd disapprove of that.

[fj1200]

You don't have the ability to 'slap me in the face' AT ALL.

You're too frigging stupid to understand a metaphor so why would I think you're smart enough to understand anything else? You could also point out where I defended him; all I said was that he ran afoul of the knuckleheads and he hadn't been here long enough to know that you can't debate anything with a knucklehead. After a few facts and truth are laid down they/you pretty much slink away to prattle the same ignorance in another thread; you know, like you do with all your Thatcherite business. You can't debate facts so you try and make it about the individual; that's just another of the many ways that you argue like a leftie. That's not too far a stretch for you because you love your big government solutions when you can justify a big government solution which apparently is quite often.

[DragonStryk72]

You're too frigging stupid to understand a metaphor so why would I think you're smart enough to understand anything else? You could also point out where I defended him; all I said was that he ran afoul of the knuckleheads and he hadn't been here long enough to know that you can't debate anything with a knucklehead. After a few facts and truth are laid down they/you pretty much slink away to prattle the same ignorance in another thread; you know, like you do with all your Thatcherite business. You can't debate facts so you try and make it about the individual; that's just another of the many ways that you argue like a leftie. That's not too far a stretch for you because you love your big government solutions when you can justify a big government solution which apparently is quite often.

Sorry, fj, but John dug his own grave. No one made him go straight to condescension, or start assigning essay assignments to people who didn't immediately get on board with him.

I've railed at both Tyr and Drummond, at great length, but this one isn't on them.

[fj1200]

Sorry, fj, but John dug his own grave. No one made him go straight to condescension, or start assigning essay assignments to people who didn't immediately get on board with him.

I've railed at both Tyr and Drummond, at great length, but this one isn't on them.

Hmm, I don't disagree with you so I'm not sure the issue. My only statement is that once you run afoul of one knucklehead you won't get reasoned debate with any of them. Nit-picky leftie debate (you know what I'm talking about ;) ) is what comes next.

[Drummond]

You're too frigging stupid to understand a metaphor so why would I think you're smart enough to understand anything else? You could also point out where I defended him; all I said was that he ran afoul of the knuckleheads and he hadn't been here long enough to know that you can't debate anything with a knucklehead. After a few facts and truth are laid down they/you pretty much slink away to prattle the same ignorance in another thread; you know, like you do with all your Thatcherite business. You can't debate facts so you try and make it about the individual; that's just another of the many ways that you argue like a leftie. That's not too far a stretch for you because you love your big government solutions when you can justify a big government solution which apparently is quite often.

FJ ... tell me. When was the last time you posted in reply to me, without either launching into abuse, or implying the validity of some ? Quite a while ago, wasn't it ?

Trolling my posts is a favourite tactic. You rewrite them, frequently abusively. Or -- you substitute prose for an abusive use of a smilie. All juvenile stuff, to be sure, but the point is that this is what YOU do.

So I find your wording ...


You can't debate facts so you try and make it about the individual; that's just another of the many ways that you argue like a leftie.

... rather ironic. What do YOU do, when in 'troll mode', BUT do anything ELSE than this ?? Your attacks are personalised ones, done (of course) for effect, to substitute for reasoned debate.

I've lost count of the number of times you've done this, FJ.

You libel me when you associate my thinking with Leftieism, and well you know it. That, of course, doesn't begin to stop you, however. Nonetheless - since you say that such behaviour is evidence of Leftieism, and since it's what YOU do ... is this a form of admission from you that you ARE one YOURSELF ?

I also note your post to DragonStryk. You claim in it ...


My only statement is that once you run afoul of one knucklehead you won't get reasoned debate with any of them

.. YET .. I'm one so-called 'knucklehead', FJ, who actually DID have a reasoned debate, only recently, with DragonStryk. He knows the truth of that, as do I. In fact, I even thanked him for it afterwards, reminded as I was how refreshing a change it made from my exchanges with you, and your trolling rot !!

Finally ... as for 'the Thatcherite business', of course, you hate my arguments on that score. You know what they are. That you, as 'The One True Thatcherite', or 'The Ultimate Thatcherite', automatically set yourself above every OTHER Thatcherite out there.

Which means that you're attacking them, and since that's in your monicker, it means the attack is contained in your every post. Logically, you can't be doing anything else. Which is curious, coming from someone professing to NOT attack Conservatives !!!

What would continually motivate you to do such a thing ? ALL THE TIME ? With such single-minded persistence ?

[Drummond]

Sorry, fj, but John dug his own grave. No one made him go straight to condescension, or start assigning essay assignments to people who didn't immediately get on board with him.

I've railed at both Tyr and Drummond, at great length, but this one isn't on them.

Totally fair comment. John V created his situation, and so held responsibility for where it led.

For what it's worth .. I don't mind being 'railed' at, providing the one doing the railing does it from a position of honesty. Decent debate is something I'll always want to encourage, and I can enjoy it when it's forthcoming.

As for FJ, it's long been my belief that he ultimately cannot help his personalised goading 'style'. The truth is that he has such enmity for Conservatives that, when encountering those who'll oppose him outright, he doesn't feel, nor can he so much as conceive of, any need to be constrained by decency.

[fj1200]

FJ ... tell me. When was the last time you posted in reply to me, without either launching into abuse, or implying the validity of some ? Quite a while ago, wasn't it ?

It has been quite awhile since you've been deserving of my taking the time to respond to you. You are apparently incapable of having a straight up debate with me because you're so hung up on this Thatcherite business and your imagination has tainted any ability you might have had. I'm happy to no longer advertise my Thatcherite cred once you acknowledge that this leftie business is of your imagination. :)


Decent debate is something I'll always want to encourage, and I can enjoy it when it's forthcoming.

When you've been had you always fall back on your leftie crutch. I'm happy to have a straight up debate and I'm happy to call you a moron when you post like a moron; it is completely within your power to determine which way the conversation goes.

[fj1200]

You libel me when you associate my thinking with Leftieism, and well you know it.

I'm sorry, I almost missed this one. 1. You don't really care about libel when you don't call our your pals when they do it. 2. I know exactly what your thinking is; I advance a small government, Constitutional, free market ideology whereby you will accept a larger government, damn the Constitution when it's inconvenient ideology. Who's demonstrating the "leftie" thinking here?

[Drummond]

It has been quite awhile since you've been deserving of my taking the time to respond to you.

What a ridiculous statement. If you genuinely thought that, then YOU WOULDN'T respond. Yet, here we are, my having just seen TWO responses posted by you !

It's as if you can't HELP but tell untruths. Your assertion is obviously untrue, it's obvious that you think no such thing. But you'll still claim that you do.


You are apparently incapable of having a straight up debate with me

It takes a minimum of two people to debate. You do not, in the main, attempt to debate, preferring abuse instead.


because you're so hung up on this Thatcherite business and your imagination has tainted any ability you might have had.

As I've repeatedly said on this forum, those who want debate should do it from a position of honesty. But you've been insisting, for a very considerable time, to present yourself DIShonestly. You're no Thatcherite AT ALL, but you insist on alleging otherwise. And in such a way that you continue a long-running insult against GENUINE Thatcherites.


I'm happy to no longer advertise my Thatcherite cred once you acknowledge that this leftie business is of your imagination. :)

But, why WOULD anyone dishonestly claim to be a Thatcherite without its being true ? WHY attempt such a deception ?

An obvious answer is that, if you're not what you say you are, then the deception exists to hide that you're the very opposite.

A Leftie is the opposite to a Conservative. You hold to Leftie sensibilities. You even admitted to Libertarian sympathies ! So .. why not take that one step more, and admit outright that you're a Left winger type ?


When you've been had you always fall back on your leftie crutch.

I've never been 'had', because you've never succeeded in conning me.


I'm happy to have a straight up debate and I'm happy to call you a moron when you post like a moron; it is completely within your power to determine which way the conversation goes.

Then your course of action is clear.

1. Finally admit you're a Leftie.

2. Commit yourself to honest posting in future.

3. Doing each of the above will ease your path towards decent, honest debate.

My posting message after message, each stating the blindingly obvious about you, is indeed a moronic exercise, since once a case is proven, I shouldn't have to KEEP on 'proving' it even more. Honest, decent debate from you will end the need for it.

It is completely within your power to determine which way any future conversations go. Just be honest about yourself, admit what you are, and we can then proceed more usefully.

And if you can find it within yourself to stop insulting Conservatives, so much the better.

[Drummond]

I'm sorry, I almost missed this one.

Why 'sorry', if I'm not worth responding to ???

CAN you be truthful, FJ ?


1. You don't really care about libel when you don't call our your pals when they do it.

WHAT 'libel' ?


2. I know exactly what your thinking is; I advance a small government, Constitutional, free market ideology whereby you will accept a larger government, damn the Constitution when it's inconvenient ideology. Who's demonstrating the "leftie" thinking here?

You're demonstrating a deception.

You claim to be a 'Thatcherite' .. and not just 'any old' Thatcherite, but the 'One True Thatcherite'. YET ... Margaret Thatcher only held a to small Government approach when she considered it appropriate. When she didn't, she exercised Government powers just as she thought she should.

Was Margaret Thatcher a 'leftie' ? YES or NO ?

So, are you what you now claim to be, OR, are you a Thatcherite ? Which is the truth, and which is your deception ?

As for your 'damn the Constitution' jibe, you forget that I have no Constitution to 'damn' in the first place. Whether you do, and the extent you want to 'damn' it ... that's not ultimately my business.

JUST START POSTING HONESTLY.

[fj1200]

What a ridiculous statement. If you genuinely thought that, then YOU WOULDN'T respond. Yet, here we are, my having just seen TWO responses posted by you !

It's as if you can't HELP but tell untruths. Your assertion is obviously untrue, it's obvious that you think no such thing. But you'll still claim that you do.

You're correct, I should have been more clear. It takes no time at all to edit out the crap in your posts and boil it down to it's ignorant essence. I could also have clarified that I see no sense in responding in any manner that would afford you respect that you are not entitled to.


It takes a minimum of two people to debate. You do not, in the main, attempt to debate, preferring abuse instead.

I debate with those who debate. I don't debate with morons who can't live outside their imagination.


As I've repeatedly said on this forum, those who want debate should do it from a position of honesty. But you've been insisting, for a very considerable time, to present yourself DIShonestly. You're no Thatcherite AT ALL, but you insist on alleging otherwise. And in such a way that you continue a long-running insult against GENUINE Thatcherites.

I've never been dishonest your ignorant moron. I can't help your imagination is to stupid to see past itself.


But, why WOULD anyone dishonestly claim to be a Thatcherite without its being true ? WHY attempt such a deception ?

An obvious answer is that, if you're not what you say you are, then the deception exists to hide that you're the very opposite.

A Leftie is the opposite to a Conservative. You hold to Leftie sensibilities. You even admitted to Libertarian sympathies ! So .. why not take that one step more, and admit outright that you're a Left winger type ?

And you still haven't provided any links that support your stupid proclamations. That's why you suck at this.


I've never been 'had', because you've never succeeded in conning me.

You've been had in debate more often than I can count because you are operating from an ignorant basis.


Then your course of action is clear.

1. Finally admit you're a Leftie.

2. Commit yourself to honest posting in future.

3. Doing each of the above will ease your path towards decent, honest debate.

My posting message after message, each stating the blindingly obvious about you, is indeed a moronic exercise, since once a case is proven, I shouldn't have to KEEP on 'proving' it even more. Honest, decent debate from you will end the need for it.

It is completely within your power to determine which way any future conversations go. Just be honest about yourself, admit what you are, and we can then proceed more usefully.

And if you can find it within yourself to stop insulting Conservatives, so much the better.

Hey moron, 1. I'm more conservative than you. 2. I'll debate honestly when you stop being a lying sack. 3. You don't know anything about honest debate when your stuck in your ignorant imagination.

BTW, I've never insulted anyone for espousing conservative views. And regarding you in particular I've never insulted a conservative. ;)

[fj1200]

WHAT 'libel' ?

Your knucklehead pal stated I was a person he knows at a former site and was also at one point banned, among other ridiculous statements. Both of those are patently false which either makes him an outright liar or willfully ignorant. Of course he won't come clean on any specifics because the truth of his statement would be known. Of course now it's up to you, will you call him out for libel or will you revert to your standard hypocritical stance.


JUST START POSTING HONESTLY.

Hey moron, you can't win the debate in the countless other threads so you need to lose the debate again?

As for Mags, the more I read the more I'm convinced that she was more conservative than you even know because you're not really a conservative. You just prattle ignorance and stomp your feet when I point out truth.

[Drummond]

You're correct, I should have been more clear. It takes no time at all to edit out the crap in your posts and boil it down to it's ignorant essence. I could also have clarified that I see no sense in responding in any manner that would afford you respect that you are not entitled to.

It would take you less time, still, if you didn't respond AT ALL. But, you DO respond (.. as you have here ..). So your argument doesn't hold water in terms of what you claimed before.


I debate with those who debate. I don't debate with morons who can't live outside their imagination.

Translation: you only indulge in actual debate with those prepared to believe your bogus rot.


I've never been dishonest your ignorant moron. I can't help your imagination is to stupid to see past itself.

Oh, I see.

So, you are TRULY 'The One True Thatcherite' .. ? Meaning, you say you tell the truth when implying that every other Thatcherite out there is NOT a 'True Thatcherite' ... ??

FJ, why do you bother ? You are all too transparently a liar.


BTW, I've never insulted anyone for espousing conservative views.

LIAR.

I skipped to this because I've just dealt with an example of where you DO.

Any and all Thatcherites out there, FJ, actually DO espouse Conservative views !!! Yet, according to you, you are THE ONE TRUE THATCHERITE. That makes all the others FALSE ones. So, when a Thatcherite supports Margaret Thatcher's Conservative views, according to you, all they deserve is to be labelled 'false' in doing so.

And you don't think they should find that insulting ??


...... I've never insulted a conservative. ;)

LIAR.

[fj1200]

... a liar.

LIAR.

LIAR.

Is that all you've got? The same old prattle that you can't prove in the first place? You suck at this.

[Drummond]

Your knucklehead pal stated I was a person he knows at a former site and was also at one point banned, among other ridiculous statements. Both of those are patently false which either makes him an outright liar or willfully ignorant.

It's the first I've been aware of this. Are you telling the truth ?

In any case, you're asking me to take you at your word. Why would I ?


Hey moron, you can't win the debate in the countless other threads so you need to lose the debate again?

Lies come easily to you. Perhaps that answers my above point.


As for Mags, the more I read the more I'm convinced that she was more conservative than you even know because you're not really a conservative.

... and another one. You just can't help yourself, it seems.

By the way: are you, or are you not, a Libertarian ? If you are one, then this itself brings your 'Thatcherite' 'credentials' seriously into question, right there ...

[Drummond]

Is that all you've got? The same old prattle that you can't prove in the first place? You suck at this.

Isn't it enough ???

Not only are you a liar, and a PROVEN liar ... it seems not to matter to you.

Still bothering with my posts, I see ... :rolleyes: ... despite .....


It has been quite awhile since you've been deserving of my taking the time to respond to you

And all the posts you've added here, today, testify to that being true ??

FJ, your lies are obvious and ridiculous.

[fj1200]

It's the first I've been aware of this. Are you telling the truth ?

In any case, you're asking me to take you at your word. Why would I ?

Hey moron, you don't have to take my word for it. Ask your buddy to back up his posts.


`...fj...(Fx-John) (past call name before banned on another site)

Do you have the courage?


... a PROVEN liar ...

Still lying like a sack when you don't get your way I see.

[fj1200]

Do you have the courage?

Apparently not.