Far right traitors

Such is the way of the far right scum, they hate Britain, they hate the British, they would force nazi rule on all of us, the final solution is their goal, which is why snivelling right wing clones have been brainwashed into servitude.

is this opposed to the scum we see, putting up signs in this country telling people of this country how they should live, or the scum who organise ways to terrorise others, or the scum who would like to see sharia laws forced on to people who don't believe their rubbish..lol

i don't think anyone who supports islam should speak about extreme behaviour

Bloody hell ! just as one finally calms down another one pops up Barking at the Moon.






    

ALLAKAKA wrote:


Bloody hell !    just as one finally calms down another one pops up Barking at the Moon.






    

So Kaka chap, you'd stand along side these traitors defiling a war memorial?

Does anyone get the concept of the fact that most people are not extremists of either the far right or the far left and most people object equally to both the defiling of war memorials (although many people under the age of 25 dont know what a war memorial is because education no longer teaches them their own history) and terrorism and sharia law.

sphinx wrote:Does anyone get the concept of the fact that most people are not extremists of either the far right or the far left and most people object equally to both the defiling of war memorials (although many people under the age of 25 dont know what a war memorial is because education no longer teaches them their own history) and terrorism and sharia law.

Agreed though the levels of objection are different

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:Does anyone get the concept of the fact that most people are not extremists of either the far right or the far left and most people object equally to both the defiling of war memorials (although many people under the age of 25 dont know what a war memorial is because education no longer teaches them their own history) and terrorism and sharia law.

Agreed  though the levels of objection are different

Difference of demonstration does not equal difference of level - but that is another argument.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Agreed  though the levels of objection are different

Difference of demonstration does not equal difference of level - but that is another argument.

Of course it does, for arguments sake, if 40% object to say sharia and 99% to terrorism, then the levels of objection are different!

scrat wrote:

Such is the way of the far right scum, they hate Britain, they hate the British, they would force nazi rule on all of us, the final solution is their goal, which is why snivelling right wing clones have been brainwashed into servitude.

FFS Scrat! How many times have you posted that same OLD picture on Inaflap? Can't you come up with something more up to date and more convincing?

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Difference of demonstration does not equal difference of level - but that is another argument.

Of course it does, for arguments sake, if 40% object to say sharia and 99% to terrorism, then the levels of objection are different!

And once again a point is so far above didges head I might as well have not bothered.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Of course it does, for arguments sake, if 40% object to say sharia and 99% to terrorism, then the levels of objection are different!

And once again a point is so far above didges head I might as well have not bothered.

As usual a counter that does not counter, bravo, have a star to put on your fridge for effort

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

And once again a point is so far above didges head I might as well have not bothered.

As usual a counter that does not counter, bravo, have a star to put on your fridge for effort

I have given up trying to explain didge because you only ever understand what you think you want to understand - you never actually get close to peoples points.

Your response shows you would have had more idea of my point if I had made it in Esperanto. Your answer does not relate to my point but is simply another iteration of your point I answered in the first place. I am more than content that the majority of people here repeatedly show they understand what I am saying even if they dont agree with it.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


As usual a counter that does not counter, bravo, have a star to put on your fridge for effort

I have given up trying to explain didge because you only ever understand what you think you want to understand - you never actually get close to peoples points.

Your response shows you would have had more idea of my point if I had made it in Esperanto.  Your answer does not relate to my point but is simply another iteration of your point I answered in the first place.  I am more than content that the majority of people here repeatedly show they understand what I am saying even if they dont agree with it.

Same as that x 1000! I've given up responding to Didge, after a thousand responses that he usually makes, which consists of nothing constructive (or even intelligible at times), just the same old crap about how stupid everyone except him is, silly abuse, sillier emoticons, and ending with "take your time". As far as I'm concerned he can take his pathetic condescension and try to fool someone else with it. I'm ignoring the prat.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


As usual a counter that does not counter, bravo, have a star to put on your fridge for effort

I have given up trying to explain didge because you only ever understand what you think you want to understand - you never actually get close to peoples points.
Irony at its best when this is exactly what you do and never understand others issue, being as you are a closed box, I do however take on views of others, and as seen now your argument is made onto me and not the point at hand
Your response shows you would have had more idea of my point if I had made it in Esperanto.  Your answer does not relate to my point but is simply another iteration of your point I answered in the first place.  I am more than content that the majority of people here repeatedly show they understand what I am saying even if they dont agree with it.

Actually my point has every relevance where two sides are using wrongs done by groups of people.
My point was adding to your point, which there is nothing wrong with which again you took issue with, that is what is absurd.
As to being understood that is your consensus and view on me and has no relevance again to any debate, as all you are doing is seeking to undermine me in the debate with poor assumptions based upon your own opinions. That is called deflecting at its best and a poor way to debate, no wonder so many people left your forum in droves if that is how you cast views on people who were your guests!

Another life lesson for you

Tess. wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I have given up trying to explain didge because you only ever understand what you think you want to understand - you never actually get close to peoples points.

Your response shows you would have had more idea of my point if I had made it in Esperanto.  Your answer does not relate to my point but is simply another iteration of your point I answered in the first place.  I am more than content that the majority of people here repeatedly show they understand what I am saying even if they dont agree with it.

Same as that x 1000!  I've given up responding to Didge, after a thousand responses that he usually makes, which consists of nothing constructive (or even intelligible at times), just the same old crap about how stupid everyone except him is, silly abuse, sillier emoticons, and ending with "take your time".  As far as I'm concerned he can take his pathetic condescension and try to fool someone else with it.  I'm ignoring the prat.

Again another who seeks to undermine the poster who also contradicts themselves,claiming countless times to giving up and always responding.
The reality is both of you are just not up to the task, that is what the real issue is, hence why you are only left with lame accusations, which just makes me smile

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I have given up trying to explain didge because you only ever understand what you think you want to understand - you never actually get close to peoples points.
Irony at its best when this is exactly what you do and never understand others issue, being as you are a closed box, I do however take on views of others, and as seen now your argument is made onto me and not the point at hand
Your response shows you would have had more idea of my point if I had made it in Esperanto.  Your answer does not relate to my point but is simply another iteration of your point I answered in the first place.  I am more than content that the majority of people here repeatedly show they understand what I am saying even if they dont agree with it.

Actually my point has every relevance where two sides are using wrongs done by groups of people.
My point was adding to your point, which there is nothing wrong with which again you took issue with, that is what is absurd.
As to being understood that is your consensus and view on me and has no relevance again to any debate, as all you are doing is seeking to undermine me in the debate with poor assumptions based upon your own opinions. That is called deflecting at its best and a poor way to debate, no wonder so many people left your forum in droves if that is how you cast views on people who were your guests!

Another life lesson for you

You still do not understand what I posted or how it related to your post
If at any time you manage to explain to me what I put and how it relates then I will pay attention. Its called reflective listening.

So you put that people object more to somethings than others. I heard that as you seeing some things were more protested against than others. I responded by saying

Difference of demonstration does not equal difference of level - but that is another argument

which you heard as me saying that people objected to things equally and so countered with evidence that they did not. As what you heard was not what I meant I gave up. Which gets us to here.

Tess. wrote:

scrat wrote:

Such is the way of the far right scum, they hate Britain, they hate the British, they would force nazi rule on all of us, the final solution is their goal, which is why snivelling right wing clones have been brainwashed into servitude.

FFS Scrat!  How many times have you posted that same OLD picture on Inaflap?  Can't you come up with something more up to date and more convincing?

Hi Tess,

Kaka is back to his old tricks, he is obsessed with Muslims and homosexuals, to him the world is full of these people and he fears they'll fuck him up the arse while reciting the Koran, and because this desire remains unfulfilled, he'll trawl the internet for anti-Muslim and homophobic bile and post it en masse, discussion on other interesting topic sink into oblivion, which in reality is the desired effect.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Actually my point has every relevance where two sides are using wrongs done by groups of people.
My point was adding to your point, which there is nothing wrong with which again you took issue with, that is what is absurd.
As to being understood that is your consensus and view on me and has no relevance again to any debate, as all you are doing is seeking to undermine me in the debate with poor assumptions based upon your own opinions. That is called deflecting at its best and a poor way to debate, no wonder so many people left your forum in droves if that is how you cast views on people who were your guests!

Another life lesson for you

You still do not understand what I posted or how it related to your post
If at any time you manage to explain to me what I put and how it relates then I will pay attention.  Its called reflective listening.

So you put that people object more to somethings than others.  I heard that as you seeing some things were more protested against than others.  I responded by saying

Difference of demonstration does not equal difference of level - but that is another argument

which you heard as me saying that people objected to things equally and so countered with evidence that they did not.  As what you heard was not what I meant I gave up.  Which gets us to here.

It is also called adding my view onto what you have stated, it cracks me up as if you are the be all and end all of how a debate is formulated from reading the view of how some others feel a debate should formulate, again an absurd notion and nothing you have formulated yourself.

Then if you feel I have not understood your point you do as you do now which helps end confusing does it not and would have saved time in the first place if you had done so instead of placing a view onto me. People can and do take what is written the wrong way, hence the problem with written words, you do understand this, but my point was not even on demonstration, but levels of objection, two different things all together. So you jumped in on my valid first point on the fact there is different levels of objection which is different to the level of people demonstrating of that objection.

So who created this problem?

You did by taking issue over my views to levels of objection, your first post stated nothing on demonstrating

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You still do not understand what I posted or how it related to your post
If at any time you manage to explain to me what I put and how it relates then I will pay attention.  Its called reflective listening.

So you put that people object more to somethings than others.  I heard that as you seeing some things were more protested against than others.  I responded by saying

which you heard as me saying that people objected to things equally and so countered with evidence that they did not.  As what you heard was not what I meant I gave up.  Which gets us to here.

It is also called adding my view onto what you have stated, it cracks me up as if you are the be all and end all of how a debate is formulated from reading the view of how some others feel a debate should formulate, again an absurd notion and nothing you have formulated yourself.

Then if you feel I have not understood your point you do as you do now which helps end confusing does it not and would have saved time in the first place if you had done so instead of placing a view onto me. People can and do take what is written the wrong way, hence the problem with written words, you do understand this, but my point was not even on demonstration, but levels of objection, two different things all together. So you jumped in on my valid first point on the fact there is different levels of objection which is different to the level of people demonstrating of that objection.

So who created this problem?

You did by taking issue over my views to levels of objection, your first post stated nothing on demonstrating

You are saying I took issue with your views on levels of objections.

That is not what I said. I said difference of demonstration does not equate to difference of level.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


It is also called adding my view onto what you have stated, it cracks me up as if you are the be all and end all of how a debate is formulated from reading the view of how some others feel a debate should formulate, again an absurd notion and nothing you have formulated yourself.

Then if you feel I have not understood your point you do as you do now which helps end confusing does it not and would have saved time in the first place if you had done so instead of placing a view onto me. People can and do take what is written the wrong way, hence the problem with written words, you do understand this, but my point was not even on demonstration, but levels of objection, two different things all together. So you jumped in on my valid first point on the fact there is different levels of objection which is different to the level of people demonstrating of that objection.

So who created this problem?

You did by taking issue over my views to levels of objection, your first post stated nothing on demonstrating

You are saying I took issue with your views on levels of objections.

That is not what I said.  I said difference of demonstration does not equate to difference of level.

Demonstration was never my point though was it?

Which you brought into my view on levels of objection

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You are saying I took issue with your views on levels of objections.

That is not what I said.  I said difference of demonstration does not equate to difference of level.

Demonstration was never my point though was it?

Which you brought into my view on levels of objection

You are stating your belief that I am talking about demonstration which was not your point. I am not. Your point was that there were/are different levels of objection to the 2 examples. My point is relevant to your point - only you have no idea what it is.

This is the point I have been trying to get across - I understand what you are saying perfectly - you do not understand what I am saying. I have given you multiple opportunities to reflect my statement back to me to demonstrate you know what I am saying and you have not done so.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Demonstration was never my point though was it?

Which you brought into my view on levels of objection

You are stating your belief that I am talking about demonstration which was not your point.  I am not. Your point was that there were/are different levels of objection to the 2 examples.  My point is relevant to your point - only you have no idea what it is.

This is the point I have been trying to get across - I understand what you are saying perfectly - you do not understand what I am saying.  I have given you multiple opportunities to reflect my statement back to me to demonstrate you know what I am saying and you have not done so.

You want me to explain the physiology behind a concept you have read off the internet?

Is that what you are saying

Lets hear your explanation, in fact cannot wait!

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You are stating your belief that I am talking about demonstration which was not your point.  I am not. Your point was that there were/are different levels of objection to the 2 examples.  My point is relevant to your point - only you have no idea what it is.

This is the point I have been trying to get across - I understand what you are saying perfectly - you do not understand what I am saying.  I have given you multiple opportunities to reflect my statement back to me to demonstrate you know what I am saying and you have not done so.

You want me to explain the physiology behind a concept you have read off the internet?

Is that what you are saying

Lets hear your explanation, in fact cannot wait!

You believe I am talking about something I have read off the internet - not sure what you mean by physiology as the word means biological function (study of) so you seem to be asking me to explain the biological function of an abstract idea idea I got from the internet.

What I said was difference of demonstration does not equate difference of level

So take level as level of objection - what you were talking about.
Take difference as "not the same"
Take demonstration as "A public display of group opinion",
Take equate as same as
Take does not as a negative.

so

a not the same pubic display of group opinion is not the same as a not the same level of objection

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

You want me to explain the physiology behind a concept you have read off the internet?

Is that what you are saying

Lets hear your explanation, in fact cannot wait!

You believe I am talking about something I have read off the internet - not sure what you mean by physiology as the word means biological function (study of) so you seem to be asking me to explain the biological function of an abstract idea idea I got from the internet.

What I said was difference of demonstration does not equate difference of  level

So take level as level of objection - what you were talking about.
Take difference as "not the same"
Take demonstration as "A public display of group opinion",
Take equate as same as
Take does not as a negative.

so

a not the same pubic display of group opinion is not the same as a not the same level of objection

Does the level of protest never match the level of objection?


Think long and hard about that.

If one person has a cause and is the only one who objects to something and demonstrates this then your whole concept only applies to most situations does it not and not all?

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You believe I am talking about something I have read off the internet - not sure what you mean by physiology as the word means biological function (study of) so you seem to be asking me to explain the biological function of an abstract idea idea I got from the internet.

What I said was difference of demonstration does not equate difference of  level

So take level as level of objection - what you were talking about.
Take difference as "not the same"
Take demonstration as "A public display of group opinion",
Take equate as same as
Take does not as a negative.

so

a not the same pubic display of group opinion is not the same as a not the same level of objection

Does the level of protest never match the level of objection?


Think long and hard about that.

If one person has a cause and is the only one who objects to something and demonstrates this then your whole concept only applies to most situations does it not and not all?

 ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: 

You think I am talking about levels of protest matching objection. I am talking about levels of demonstration (public display) matching objection.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



Does the level of protest never match the level of objection?


Think long and hard about that.

If one person has a cause and is the only one who objects to something and demonstrates this then your whole concept only applies to most situations does it not and not all?

 ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: 

You think I am talking about levels of protest matching objection.  I am talking about levels of demonstration (public display) matching objection.

Lol you just got schooled again Sphinx, sorry I knew what you meant from the start was just funny to wind you up further.
I am talking about all 3 levels, where you can have individuals with their own cause, which nobody has an opinion on

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:
 ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: 

You think I am talking about levels of protest matching objection.  I am talking about levels of demonstration (public display) matching objection.

Lol you just got schooled again Sphinx, sorry I knew what you meant from the start was just funny to wind you up further.
I am talking about all 3 levels, where you can have individuals with their own cause, which nobody has an opinion on

You believe you know and knew what I was talking about but have still been unable to either reflect it back to me or make any sort of appropriate comment.

I have no idea what you mean with 3 levels and individuals and opinions and cannot see how it could remotely be applied to my point.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Lol you just got schooled again Sphinx, sorry I knew what you meant from the start was just funny to wind you up further.
I am talking about all 3 levels, where you can have individuals with their own cause, which nobody has an opinion on

You believe you know and knew what I was talking about but have still been unable to either reflect it back to me or make any sort of appropriate comment.

I have no idea what you mean with 3 levels and individuals and opinions and cannot see how it could remotely be applied to my point.

Very easy, are you saying there are now never exceptions to concepts or rules?

I am loving you getting so worked up over this, must be because you got a pounding yesterday

 :D 

Think you need to chill out, its only a forum

Far right Muslim terrorist and the Labour leadership all traitors.

Labour is leading us into an anti democratic Europe and conniving to deny the people a vote with the Liberals.

The Far right are by nature anti democratic in power and Islam hates democracy. QED they are all the same.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You believe you know and knew what I was talking about but have still been unable to either reflect it back to me or make any sort of appropriate comment.

I have no idea what you mean with 3 levels and individuals and opinions and cannot see how it could remotely be applied to my point.

Very easy, are you saying there are now never exceptions to concepts or rules?

I am loving you getting so worked up over this, must be because you got a pounding yesterday

 :D 

Think you need to chill out, its only a forum

You think I am getting worked up because you think you know what I am talking about. You are claiming that you out debated me yesterday
As you have clearly failed to understand my point right from the start you are totally wrong. Why would I get worked up about your points when they have absolutely no relation to what I said.

Again if the point comes where you show you actually get what I am posting then we will be able to debate - until that happens we are no doubt stuck with you making random statements about being right even though the random statements have nothing to do with anything that has gone before.