Farage and the neo Nazis.

Addressing the neo Nazi far rights in Germany. He apparently admires them.
This one dangerous man.

https://t.co/wpwfoGE7ID

It's clear why Tommy idolized him.

I don't think there's any point in continuing answering Andy's post, he's so under the spell of the Communist Labour Party and it's Jew hating, Terrorist, Hammas and IRA leader, that nothing will convince him he's wrong, so it's better to let his SMAMMING continue !

nicko wrote:I don't think there's any point in continuing answering Andy's post, he's so under the spell of the Communist Labour Party and it's Jew hating, Terrorist, Hammas and IRA leader, that nothing will convince him he's wrong, so it's better to let his SMAMMING continue !

Pretty sure he has me blocked anyway, so there isn't really any need to answer his ramblings.

+1

nicko wrote:I don't think there's any point in continuing answering Andy's post, he's so under the spell of the Communist Labour Party and it's Jew hating, Terrorist, Hammas and IRA leader, that nothing will convince him he's wrong, so it's better to let his SMAMMING continue !

I thought you had me on ignore anyway , Rambo.
Do you seriously think I would give a flying fuck?

Andy wrote:Addressing the neo Nazi far rights in Germany. He apparently admires them.
This one dangerous man.

https://t.co/wpwfoGE7ID

It's clear why Tommy idolized him.

There’s no reason to name another poster if you’re making a thread about something Andy.
Stop making digs at people. You look like Trump.

He has OCD !

I couldn't even read this link.

It says I have to subscribe

eddie wrote:

Andy wrote:Addressing the neo Nazi far rights in Germany. He apparently admires them.
This one dangerous man.

https://t.co/wpwfoGE7ID

It's clear why Tommy idolized him.

There’s no reason to name another poster if you’re making a thread about something Andy.
Stop making digs at people. You look like Trump.

Waaayy too little, to late.

So...no addressing other people in posts?

Not allowed, Quill. The rw are taking over. Criticism will be outlawed.

Andy wrote:Not allowed, Quill. The rw are taking over. Criticism will be outlawed.

Ridiculous. The fact is that you are too frit, to use the great Margaret Thatcher's word, and arrogant to accept there are opposing points of view to your own and that they deserve equally to be heard.

Feel free to address anything a poster actually says. But I think it's crappy to preemptively criticize a poster in a thread in which they haven't even posted.

To me, that always sounds like you care more about bashing that poster than you do about the topic of your post. I'm tired of seeing monumentally important topics like global warming reduced to "something Tommy doesn't believe in" on this forum.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Andy wrote:Not allowed, Quill. The rw are taking over. Criticism will be outlawed.

Ridiculous. The fact is that you are too frit, to use the great Margaret Thatcher's word, and arrogant to accept there are opposing points of view to your own and that they deserve equally to be heard.

Well fucking said. That’s EXACTLY how I feel.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Andy wrote:Not allowed, Quill. The rw are taking over. Criticism will be outlawed.

Ridiculous. The fact is that you are too frit, to use the great Margaret Thatcher's word, and arrogant to accept there are opposing points of view to your own and that they deserve equally to be heard.

I think you are taking your argument from the reverse image of a mirror. You are on the side of censorship (of names), right?

I believe Andy was using a person's name as a brand for a certain position taken by that person. Lord knows, y'all don't pull punches when it's Wolf.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Ridiculous. The fact is that you are too frit, to use the great Margaret Thatcher's word, and arrogant to accept there are opposing points of view to your own and that they deserve equally to be heard.

I think you are taking your argument from the reverse image of a mirror.  You are on the side of censorship (of names), right?

I believe Andy was using a person's name as a brand for a certain position taken by that person.  Lord knows, y'all don't pull punches when it's Wolf.  

I think you are probably the first person here who apparently believes that I want to censor anything, names included. Censorship goes against everything I have believed in since I was an inky fingered cub reporter in the 1950s!.

And as for Wolf, as one of the most notorious and abusive character assassins and opponents of the right of dissent from Left wing views in this place, he is positively and pathetically lamentable in his serial wailing about the supposed demonisation and abuse of himself and his little company of fellow political purists.

Not being able to click on the link, I can't really comment on the article but I think it's completely pointless and unnecessary to bring a poster into your OP before they have even had a chance to comment

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think you are taking your argument from the reverse image of a mirror.  You are on the side of censorship (of names), right?

I believe Andy was using a person's name as a brand for a certain position taken by that person.  Lord knows, y'all don't pull punches when it's Wolf.  

I think you are probably the first person here who apparently believes that I want to censor anything, names included. Censorship goes against everything I have believed in since I was an inky fingered cub reporter in the 1950s!.

And as for Wolf, as one of the most notorious and abusive character assassins and opponents of the right of dissent from Left wing views in this place, he is positively and pathetically lamentable in his serial wailing about the supposed demonisation and abuse of himself and his little company of fellow political purists.

Yet, there you are speaking out against free and open speech. I was surprised as well.

" Free and open speech", is that what you call insults and name calling ?

nicko wrote:  " Free  and open speech", is that what you call insults and name calling ?

I've clarified that; but for you I will repeat.  It's not name-calling if it serves to identify someone's argument.  It's more of a branding of the subject, so that we can use the shorthand notation.

Tommy's thesis may be that nature has personification, that nature has intentions, and that nature has a code of good and evil.  But if we call it merely: 'tommy's argument', we don't have to keep repeating that long form.

It's not the fact of name-calling, but the purpose. What Andy has been doing is using the shorthand.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I think you are probably the first person here who apparently believes that I want to censor anything, names included. Censorship goes against everything I have believed in since I was an inky fingered cub reporter in the 1950s!.

And as for Wolf, as one of the most notorious and abusive character assassins and opponents of the right of dissent from Left wing views in this place, he is positively and pathetically lamentable in his serial wailing about the supposed demonisation and abuse of himself and his little company of fellow political purists.

Yet, there you are speaking out against free and open speech.  I was surprised as well.

For once, I fail completely to understand your conclusion that I am speaking out against free and open speech

Where?

How?

Go back to eds post, and my response that we should be free to mention people by names. Read from there...

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I think you are probably the first person here who apparently believes that I want to censor anything, names included. Censorship goes against everything I have believed in since I was an inky fingered cub reporter in the 1950s!.

And as for Wolf, as one of the most notorious and abusive character assassins and opponents of the right of dissent from Left wing views in this place, he is positively and pathetically lamentable in his serial wailing about the supposed demonisation and abuse of himself and his little company of fellow political purists.

Yet, there you are speaking out against free and open speech.  I was surprised as well.

Fred, nicko and Victor are simply insanely jealous that they didn't think up some of those more classy insults first...

Then they could have been hurling them at their despised "left wingers" over the years, instead of copping them from Andy, veya, et al,  and my most humble self..

"Hill shepherds unite !  Circle those mobility scooters.."  should be their new rallying call,  as they prepare to face off against our barbaric hordes.

Wolfie you are a coward sir, you sit behind your Computer throwing insults left right and centre . The fact is you would never repeat these words face to face because you would be "decked" in an instant. Your insulting words to the Ladies on here have resulted to most leaving the Forum ! You are little man with a big chip on your Shoulder, most likely because you can never get a Woman, I repeat sir ,you are a miserable little COWARD !

"Circle those mobility scooters.." I love it. I couldn't stop chuckling.

I hope you pissed yourself laughing !

Mobility scooter leading a biker band....

Charge of the Light Brigade on mobility scooters...

'Wolfie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yet, there you are speaking out against free and open speech.  I was surprised as well.

Fred, nicko and Victor are simply insanely jealous that they didn't think up some of those more classy insults first...

Then they could have been hurling them at their despised "left wingers" over the years, instead of copping them from Andy, veya, et al,  and my most humble self..

"Hill shepherds unite !  Circle those mobility scooters.."  should be their new rallying call,  as they prepare to face off against our barbaric hordes.

Wolfie, dear boy, I have to admit that I have never associated either you or your posts with anything that could warrant the adjective "classy."

And were I in the habit of plagiarising insults I would (and occasionally do so) restrict myself to those whose words are at least worth plagiarising...such as "Your horse would trot as well were some of your brags dismounted..."

Shakespeare's "Henry V", just to save you looking it up..............

Original Quill wrote:Go back to eds post, and my response that we should be free to mention people by names.  Read from there...

I have done so.

Ah, the words of lawyers, like the peace of God, passeth all understanding..........

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Go back to eds post, and my response that we should be free to mention people by names.  Read from there...

I have done so.

Ah, the words of lawyers, like the peace of God, passeth all understanding..........

Isn't the topic on not identifying topics with posters...a form of censorship? And don't you find yourself right in the middle of it?

Homeless mobility scooter...

Mobility scooter Grand Prix...

Dykes on mobility scooters...

WWE on mobility scooters...

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:


Fred, nicko and Victor are simply insanely jealous that they didn't think up some of those more classy insults first...

Then they could have been hurling them at their despised "left wingers" over the years, instead of copping them from Andy, veya, et al,  and my most humble self..

"Hill shepherds unite !  Circle those mobility scooters.."  should be their new rallying call,  as they prepare to face off against our barbaric hordes.

Wolfie, dear boy, I have to admit that I have never associated either you or your posts with anything that could warrant the adjective "classy."

And were I in the habit of plagiarising insults I would (and occasionally do so) restrict myself to those whose words are at least worth plagiarising...such as "Your horse would trot as well were some of your brags dismounted..."

Shakespeare's "Henry V", just to save you looking it up..............

Are you not doing to wolf, what you claim others are doing to Tommy? By discounting his views based off him being a complete wally at times?

I respect you Fred, butthe door opens both ways.
As to Tommy on climate change, I same debate happens over and over again over one single graph and even worse his latest claims on glaciers in iceland failed to understand any history or formation on this. If Tommy made some valid scientific points on this and backed this with actual evidence instead of the same tired graph that has been easily countered. Then people would certainly be more open to debate. He often though creates debate for the simple reason to mock and deride people based on his denialism and clearly thinks everyone is brainwashed. When he himself refuses to actually read the data on this

Wolf certainly excels both of us in some of the sciences when he is not hurling abuse. If you find time he does actually sometimes post very useful points and information. Its when he gets political that he loses the plot.
So if you are open to Tommy's views, which by the way we all are as we constantly debate him. Then you have to be with Wolf. As I say the problem with Wolf is when he is outraged at anything that rightly is critical of the left and he goes into abusive apologist mode.

The frustration with Tommy is because he is politically motivated with a bias and more so he constantly dismisses evidence to the contrary of his views

As to Quills claim that you are against free speech and open speech is nonsense
He is claiming that being highly critical is now censurship. When as seen you reply to wolf and wolf has not been stop from posting. Neither have you called for him to be stopped from posting when he loses the plot. You simple find it denies interesting debate. If anything and i am guilty at times. Such antics shuts down the debate with poor abusive deflection.

So Quill is spouting the most ridiculous whatboutism going

phildidge wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Wolfie, dear boy, I have to admit that I have never associated either you or your posts with anything that could warrant the adjective "classy."

And were I in the habit of plagiarising insults I would (and occasionally do so) restrict myself to those whose words are at least worth plagiarising...such as "Your horse would trot as well were some of your brags dismounted..."

Shakespeare's "Henry V", just to save you looking it up..............

Are you not doing to wolf, what you claim others are doing to Tommy? By discounting his views based off him being a complete wally at times?

I respect you Fred, butthe door opens both ways.
As to Tommy on climate change, I same debate happens over and over again over one single graph and even worse his latest claims on glaciers in iceland failed to understand any history or formation on this. If Tommy made some valid scientific points on this and backed this with actual evidence instead of the same tired graph that has been easily countered. Then people would certainly be more open to debate. He often though creates debate for the simple reason to mock and deride people based on his denialism and clearly thinks everyone is brainwashed. When he himself refuses to actually read the data on this

Wolf certainly excels both of us in some of the sciences when he is not hurling abuse. If you find time he does actually sometimes post very useful points and information. Its when he gets political that he loses the plot.
So if you are open to Tommy's views, which by the way we all are as we constantly debate him. Then you have to be with Wolf. As I say the problem with Wolf is when he is outraged at anything that rightly is critical of the left and he goes into abusive apologist mode.

The frustration with Tommy is because he is politically motivated with a bias and more so he constantly dismisses evidence to the contrary of his views

As to Quills claim that you are against free speech and open speech is nonsense
He is claiming that being highly critical is now censurship. When as seen you reply to wolf and wolf has not been stop from posting. Neither have you called for him to be stopped from posting when he loses the plot. You simple find it denies interesting debate. If anything and i am guilty at times. Such antics shuts down the debate with poor abusive deflection.

So Quill is spouting the most ridiculous whatboutism going

I rather think that you failed to spot the relevance of the quotation from Henry V to Wolfie's over-inflated assessment of his own literary capabilities.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Are you not doing to wolf, what you claim others are doing to Tommy? By discounting his views based off him being a complete wally at times?

I respect you Fred, butthe door opens both ways.
As to Tommy on climate change, I same debate happens over and over again over one single graph and even worse his latest claims on glaciers in iceland failed to understand any history or formation on this. If Tommy made some valid scientific points on this and backed this with actual evidence instead of the same tired graph that has been easily countered. Then people would certainly be more open to debate. He often though creates debate for the simple reason to mock and deride people based on his denialism and clearly thinks everyone is brainwashed. When he himself refuses to actually read the data on this

Wolf certainly excels both of us in some of the sciences when he is not hurling abuse. If you find time he does actually sometimes post very useful points and information. Its when he gets political that he loses the plot.
So if you are open to Tommy's views, which by the way we all are as we constantly debate him. Then you have to be with Wolf. As I say the problem with Wolf is when he is outraged at anything that rightly is critical of the left and he goes into abusive apologist mode.

The frustration with Tommy is because he is politically motivated with a bias and more so he constantly dismisses evidence to the contrary of his views

As to Quills claim that you are against free speech and open speech is nonsense
He is claiming that being highly critical is now censurship. When as seen you reply to wolf and wolf has not been stop from posting. Neither have you called for him to be stopped from posting when he loses the plot. You simple find it denies interesting debate. If anything and i am guilty at times. Such antics shuts down the debate with poor abusive deflection.

So Quill is spouting the most ridiculous whatboutism going

I rather think that you failed to spot the relevance of the quotation from Henry V to Wolfie's over-inflated assessment of his own literary capabilities.

Seriously spare me the woke Shakespeare quotations Fred. The only thing shakespeare has done is find me a path to ensure I am able to sleep I am so bored at his works. English literature is to me utterly inane

The point is if you go off of providing what I come to see as just about the worst apologist arguments to dfend Tommy. Then the same arguments you use apply to Wolf.

Tommy certainly does not listen and ignores evidence and I am sorry your latest girlfriend may well be very educated, but how many agree with her conclusions on climate change? Is it more she is and holds a bias based more politically? So you will forgive me when I take this view with what she claims with an ounce of salt mate. Whjat i would rather is you poroduce evidence for her conclusions and opinions

On a side note, am glad you have found each other and are happy

phildidge wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I rather think that you failed to spot the relevance of the quotation from Henry V to Wolfie's over-inflated assessment of his own literary capabilities.

Seriously spare me the woke Shakespeare quotations Fred. The only thing shakespeare has done is find me a path to ensure I am able to sleep I am so bored at his works. English literature is to me utterly inane

The point is if you go off of providing what I come to see as just about the worst apologist arguments to dfend Tommy. Then the same arguments you use apply to Wolf.

Tommy certainly does not listen and ignores evidence and I am sorry your latest girlfriend may well be very educated, but how many agree with her conclusions on climate change? Is it more she is and holds a bias based more politically? So you will forgive me when I take this view with what she claims with an ounce of salt mate. Whjat i would rather is you poroduce evidence for her conclusions and opinions

On a side note, am glad you have found each other and are happy

Since you haven't the slightest idea of what she "claims" and what her politics are, your silly, uninformed  observations are totally irrelevant. Anyway, I think I'm inclined to be more persuaded by the the arguments of a PhD in geology and a BSc in earth sciences than someone with a C grade O level GCSE in Googling.

And I am hardly surprised that someone who has such difficulties with the basics of the English language should find English literature "inane."

Freddie most likely has his "Ready Reference of Shakespearean Quotes for Every Occasion !" right at hand there on his bedroom table, prepared for every eventuality...

'Wolfie wrote:


Freddie most likely has his "Ready Reference of Shakespearean Quotes for Every Occasion !" right at hand there on his bedroom table, prepared for every eventuality...

Just back from holiday, thus the long delay in my response, Wolfie.

No, you have a degree in agriculture and I am more than willing to bow to your superior knowledge on the subject. Mine is in English literature...and I have a pretty good memory in spite of my advanced years.