man caught stuffing a beheaded swan into a backpack apologises

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It is not acceptable for random Turkish men to go around killing swans.

If he is hungry, would you prefer him to kill a swan, or attack and beat up someone to rob them of their money?

Again nobody is saying it is right, what I am showing is that it is not a heinous crime to kill an animal bred originally to eat, when somebody is starving, something you would understand if you followed the thread.

So for eample are you placing the value of the swan over the human starving to death?  

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:

If he is hungry, would you prefer him to kill a swan, or attack and beat up someone to rob them of their money?

Again nobody is saying it is right, what I am showing is that it is not a heinous crime to kill an animal bred originally to eat, when somebody is starving, something you would understand if you followed the thread.

So for eample are you placing the value of the swan over the human starving to death?  

I would prefer he wasn't here in the first place

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

I would prefer he wasn't here in the first place

Interesting, so in your job role, have you ever been taught how to hunt and feed on wild animals
if hungry?

I think most normal people would not like you to be here, but as we are tolerant we can make exceptions even for hate preachers like you

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Odd as they were bred to eat here as a delicacy since the 12 century, so I guess it is very much British to eat swans.

Well clearly it is not. Anyone who is British should know that Swans are protected, and that the sight of swans on a river is a lovely thing. We simply can't have people going around destroying them - whether those people are British or not.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:

If he is hungry, would you prefer him to kill a swan, or attack and beat up someone to rob them of their money?

Again nobody is saying it is right, what I am showing is that it is not a heinous crime to kill an animal bred originally to eat, when somebody is starving, something you would understand if you followed the thread.

So for eample are you placing the value of the swan over the human starving to death?  

I would prefer he wasn't here in the first place

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

I would prefer he wasn't here in the first place

Interesting, so in your job role, have you ever been taught how to hunt and feed on wild animals
if hungry?

I think most normal people would not like you to be here, but as we are tolerant we can make exceptions even for hate preachers like you

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

Didge wrote:


Interesting, so in your job role, have you ever been taught how to hunt and feed on wild animals
if hungry?

I think most normal people would not like you to be here, but as we are tolerant we can make exceptions even for hate preachers like you

we need more people like smelly to educate idiots like you about the dangers of islam and i am sure you would say you don't want me here either , but that is fine , and i think you will find the only hate preachers are the islamic hate preachers calling for sharia law in this country and all the other hatred they spout.  

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

Didge wrote:


Interesting, so in your job role, have you ever been taught how to hunt and feed on wild animals
if hungry?

I think most normal people would not like you to be here, but as we are tolerant we can make exceptions even for hate preachers like you

we need more people like smelly to educate idiots like you about the dangers of islam and i am sure you would say you don't want me here either , but that is fine , and i think you will find the only hate preachers are the islamic hate preachers calling for sharia law in this country and all the other hatred they spout.  

Joy Division wrote:Victor, you do hunt yourself,..yes,yes...not Swans I know...

But it sounds to me like it really bothers you the fact mainly that he is a foreigner?..


Yeah well as didges weasle You WOULD think that.....you certainly havnt caught the point here

He was given a disproportionately lenient sentence

and whilst I dont know for sure, it is almost certain that it was because he is a "foreigner"

THAT is wrong, especially when swans are actually low in numbers...30,000 (less one now) approx in the country.....

immigrant. visitor or whatever , he should be held to the SAME standard of behaviour and criminal liability as anyone else...


It's definitely  not nice what he done, but you kill living animals too...yes I know..ones you  are allowed to shoot...

But  it comes down to the same thing....killing a living creature.

and THAT is where you are wrong...muddying the waters with childish emotive rubbish, there is a WORLD of difference between killing a common or indeed specially bred "creature" and one that despite appearances is actually quite low in numbers YOU simply cannot in any argument compare the two...that is false attribution and association fallacy, and plain simple claptrap.

Moreover...like it or not what I do IS legal...strictly so....MY problem is the illegality of what HE did and the way it was responded to....

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

TWO FACE TWAT ALERT
Completely wound up ha ha

once again that moron has porved his two faced ness
Near to bursting a blood vessel it seems  ::D:: 

i'll explain....in many past arguments about the plight of those on benefits, facing hard times...didge thehypocrite has repeatedly blamed the poor for their own plight, telling us all how much the "realy" have and spouting rubbish about how poor he was as a kid and how his parents managed even though they had far less....
Oh my attack my family again because the reality is I did grow up with levels of poverty, though this has no bearing on the debate as seen
NOW


ahhh poor old didge.....someone pass me the violin

If this turk is here LEGALLY he will either be working OR on benefits...

If that is the case why, according to didges claims, can he not "manage"?
He is unemployed, that does not mean he did not come here employed and lose later his job when he has been here since 2006 and stated he had no food. Ih he was illegal my wound up grumpy grandad, it would have stated this in the Mail and it did not

was I asking why? he was unemployed....all i was doing was making the point that its either or...so he's here legally and unemployed.....SO FECKIN WHAT????
why does that give him a get away with it card???
 

if he's not doing either then do we assume he is here illegally....and if so...why is he still here?
He could have been here as stated and lost his job, how is that so difficult for your teeeny tiny brain to work out, it would not mean he is here illegally, and you think the Mail would have left something like that out?
Behave, you are embarrassing yourself now because I so easily wound you up

see above cretin..clearly a two way choice is too much for you tiny mind

THEN he flies in the face of law...IGNORANCE IS NOT A DEFENCE or a "mitigating factor"
As seen you are assuming bullshit

I'm assuming nothing of the sort.....


Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law does not excuse" or "ignorance of the law excuses no one") is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content. In the United States, exceptions to this general rule are found in cases such as Lambert v. California (knowledge of city ordinances) and Cheek v. United States (willfulness requirement in U.S. federal tax crimes).

European-law countries with a tradition of Roman law may also use an expression from Aristotle translated into Latin: nemo censetur ignorare legem (nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law) or ignorantia iuris nocet (not knowing the law is harmful).

Contents [hide]
1 Explanation
2 Translation
3 Into law
4 See also
5 References
Explanation[edit]
The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that he or she is unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even though the person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a state's activities, this is the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis of exculpation. Thus, it is well settled that persons engaged in any undertakings outside what is common for a normal person, such as running a nuclear power plant,(or in fact doing ANYTHING) will make themselves aware of the laws necessary to engage in that undertaking. If they do not, they cannot complain if they incur liability.

The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly published and distributed, for example, by being printed in a government gazette, made available over the internet, or printed in volumes available for sale to the public at affordable prices. (which it has ...repeatedly)

In the criminal law, although ignorance may not clear a defendant of guilt, it can be a consideration in sentencing, particularly where the law is unclear or the defendant sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials. For example, in one Canadian case, a person was charged with being in possession of gambling devices after they had been advised by customs officials that it was legal to import such devices into Canada.[citation needed] Although the defendant was convicted, the sentence was an absolute discharge.

moreover as to those shoots that get "raided" by these scumbags....
Way off topic now, which is getting funnier

I belong to a small syndicate
Of harpies?

we each pay £600 per year
we buy the birds in as poults
we pay to feed them for several months
we pay to make the release pens
we do all the feeding and watering
we maintain the environment

I'd say THAT give us the right to them ....
AND we are legally doing what is our RIGHT to do....
So you basically buy birds to kill them, how nice indeed, bet you feel such a many killing something so much smaller than you, who's only defense against you is shitting its pants with speed

more childish emotive silly claptrap...is it any different to raising them in my back yard and them wringing their necks for the table....so stuff that argument where the sun dont shine...its IRRELEVANT...

now according to didge's thinking...its perfectly ok for some foreign scumbag to hold you at knife point and rob you..Provided he's "hungry" and pretends he doesnt realise its against the law...
Never claimed that once, now that is funny and you just made that up, as never stated that once

You have said that its ok to break the law if you are foreign and can claim to be hungry...

YOur argument is not only worse than absurd...it shows what a stinking "brit hating" turd you really are...


you have in that one paragraph totally turned everything you have ever said before upside down.

exposing your self as nothing but a hypocrite and a troll...arguing whichever way suits you ...just for the argument...

you have no principles.....

the refered to crime is
theft
an offence under the wild life and countryside act
an offence under the The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)

and...had he not been caught in the act ...some wanker of a "concerned passer by" would have blamed either the fishermen OR a "shooter" for it and raised hell...its happened before...
doubtless didge would be of that ilk...

Actually what I am showing is how a country perceives to think it owns all wildlife an how nobody and nobody has been able to have rights to fend for themselves off the land with animals, which is the point and I fail to see what is so much of a horror, if a man truly is hungry and kills a swan to eat, so what, big deal, at least he is not robbing stores or holding people up at knife point. He thought he was going something legal, which if you think about it, why is it illegal to feed yourself?  

Didge wrote:I see the old ranter is back ha ha.

Still not grasping any of the points as well as usual and the fact he himself has a love of killing.

Speaks volumes as there is no difference between any killing of animals, that is just some lame thing people who advocate killing come up with as an excuse.

Irrelevant..since what i do is "within the law"...strictly so...so grow up and stop being such a silly emotive child

The reality as stated before is he killed a bird to eat, it is not a heinous crime, if he killed to make profit out of animal by selling that would be worse, but are we now to punish people when they are hungry, we might as well go back to the past in the "Gin era" where children were hanged for stealing because their parents were to pissed to feed them.


ahh,,,but...you two faced old bugger....YOU have repeatedly said that people in that situation are there because of their own fault...not being able to manage...
funny how your arguments change to suit your motives...clearly protecting a foreigner is more improtant than deriding our own poor....well at least it give them a break...

He even apologised, was fined also, I fail to see the big deal and no doubt if this had been an Englishman that had done this and blamed immigration for him being unemployed (If he (the englishman )said THAT in court , he'd get 5 years on top for hate speech) and that he was forced to kill the swan to eat, nobody would bat an eyelid and then past judgement onto immigrants to blame for why he killed the swan

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:I see the old ranter is back ha ha.

Still not grasping any of the points as well as usual and the fact he himself has a love of killing.

Speaks volumes as there is no difference between any killing of animals, that is just some lame thing people who advocate killing come up with as an excuse.

Irrelevant..since what i do is "within the law"...strictly so...so grow up and stop being such a silly emotive child

The reality as stated before is he killed a bird to eat, it is not a heinous crime, if he killed to make profit out of animal by selling that would be worse, but are we now to punish people when they are hungry, we might as well go back to the past in the "Gin era" where children were hanged for stealing because their parents were to pissed to feed them.


ahh,,,but...you two faced old bugger....YOU have repeatedly said that people in that situation are there because of their own fault...not being able to manage...
funny how your arguments change to suit your motives...clearly protecting a foreigner is more improtant than deriding our own poor....well at least it give them a break...

He even apologised, was fined also, I fail to see the big deal and no doubt if this had been an Englishman that had done this and blamed immigration for him being unemployed (If he (the englishman )said THAT in court , he'd get 5 years on top for hate speech) and that he was forced to kill the swan to eat, nobody would bat an eyelid and then past judgement onto immigrants to blame for why he killed the swan

Phillipa wrote:
I often feed the swan's with Bacon scraps , left over pork sausages and pork pies.

Didge wrote:This is why poor victor is quite clearly clueless, he states we need to go by the law and not any mitigating circumstances, so if somebody is killed it would be murder in Victors book, no second degree or manslaughter, just plain old murder. poor didge is clearly a mental case as he thinks all killing is of the same degree....rubbish you clearly have no idea of the law.....

So he did what he was able to do which is ironic as you advocate this with not having to get qualifications to fix your house, (association fallacy)but now say this many should not kill wildlife to feed himself, because he is unemployed. (exactly....he could ...have killed something that IS legal to take and eat...pigeons...well wild ones at least...) Of course he could have gone to a food bank or other options, exactly.... but no doubt thought as some people do that they do not want to impose on others and thought killing something wild to eat would not harm anyone.

Look you plonker...the point is you cannot excuse one thing on that basis...where do you draw the line....deer? perhaps...or free roaming sheep in the hills?? (after all he could have said he "thought" they were wild.....)

In its way IT IS trivial BUT it has far more important overtones...what he did was unacceptable...and that over lenient sentence does nothing to drive that home....

So as we see Victor gets his knickers in a twist over something so trivial whilst he advocates and has a blood lust over killing animals himself, quite extraordinary really and why the poor chap is getting delusional it seems that he thinks this is such a serious crime, where now poverty that drives somebody to feed themselves(which as you have TIMES stated...is a self inflicted state of affairs...or has that changed to protect a foreigner) is seen as a heinous crime to him, where clearly he really belongs back as on of the judges in the 18th century

Didge wrote:




Incorrect I said many people are there because of their situation, not people who have lost their jobs, (Liar...you spoke also of people on benefits in the same way) so you are once again poorly trying to twist what I said, I spoke of people being irresponsible with their money getting themselves into debt. Hey ho that was funny and again you offer not to refute my points, which is even more amusing and shows you are nothing more than a hater as describer, a selfish spoilt brat who thinks he can impose his views onto the world and if he does not get his way, incite violence and anarchy.

oh yeah...bring on the anarchy.... ://?roflmao?/: 

and i rather think I have refuted your points...they are irrelevant...and childish...

No the Englishman would not, no doubt he would not even get arrested in the first place as seen by the countless evidence of many of them getting away with arrests and even sentencing showing again how clueless you are

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:




Incorrect I said many people are there because of their situation, not people who have lost their jobs, (Liar...you spoke also of people on benefits in the same way) so you are once again poorly trying to twist what I said, I spoke of people being irresponsible with their money getting themselves into debt. Hey ho that was funny and again you offer not to refute my points, which is even more amusing and shows you are nothing more than a hater as describer, a selfish spoilt brat who thinks he can impose his views onto the world and if he does not get his way, incite violence and anarchy.

oh yeah...bring on the anarchy.... ://?roflmao?/: 

and i rather think I have refuted your points...they are irrelevant...and childish...

No the Englishman would not, no doubt he would not even get arrested in the first place as seen by the countless evidence of many of them getting away with arrests and even sentencing showing again how clueless you are

Tesstacious wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well clearly it is not. Anyone who is British should know that Swans are protected, and that the sight of swans on a river is a lovely thing. We simply can't have people going around destroying them - whether those people are British or not.

So by Didge's logic, if it was okay in the 12th century it's okay now.  No wonder he endorses a certain culture's ways.

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

No I did not lie, and proved that you just lied, showing how utterly childish you really are and how I show up your poor pessimism all the time, you are in fact everything that is not great and British about this country.

You points as seen were torn apart as they always are, it is too easy for me to be honest

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:



No I did not lie, and proved that you just lied, showing how utterly childish you really are and how I show up your poor pessimism all the time, you are in fact everything that is not great and British about this country.

You points as seen were torn apart as they always are, it is too easy for me to be honest

what utter tosh...now you see why I move ever rightward.....quite simply the "left" as exampled by didge disgust me...

no regard for equity of law
nor regard for law...when it suits them
no idea of the principles of law


wild life crime...how an english man is treated  

A number of successful high profile convictions have taken place so far in 2011. Dean BARR
received a £3,300 fine at Inverness Sheriff Court in May after 10kg of carbofuran were found
on the Skibo Estate (Northern). The stash was discovered on the estate during a warrant during
which one golden eagle, a sparrowhawk, a grouse, three parts of birds and various items were
seized in May 2010. Also at Inverness Sheriff Court, a former apprentice gamekeeper was fined
£1,500 after he admitted possessing a dead red kite. The gamekeeper at Moy Estate (Northern)
said he found the bird of prey in a trap set for stoats and weasels but picked it up and put the
bird in his Land Rover rather than leave it and inform his bosses,   (funny I recon that constitutes "lawful excuse..even more law full that "i didnt know)..and yet,,,,)the police, or RSPB. Rolfe
was found with the dead red kite by police who had arrived on Moy estate with search
warrants, issued under the WCA in June 2010. Further to this, in June 2011 a Derbyshire
gamekeeper was convicted at Chesterfield Magistrates Court of seven offences under the
Wildlife and Countryside Act after a 10-day hearing. Brown was also ordered to pay costs of
£10,000 and carry out 100 hours community service for attempting to trap and kill birds of
prey.


strange how it differs from dodges racist claims that englishmen would get away with it....

Now dont deliberately misunderstand this....those idiots deserved everything (and more) that they got....

so why wasnt this Turk treated similarly......

eddie wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
So by Didge's logic, if it was okay in the 12th century it's okay now.  No wonder he endorses a certain culture's ways.

His argument is absurd.

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:

His argument is absurd.

So is your reply, that is not debating Eddie, if you disagree with me fine, but prove my argument is absurd, otherwise your words are meaningless

Thanks

Didge wrote:So now law is the philosophy behind the morality of killing animals now?

That is hilarious and shows you did not read what I said. So killing pigeons is fine but not a swan, even though these swans were bred to eat, how absurd and idiotic again, so your view was based on now his choice of what is tastier is now your beef with him killing the swan.


What is wrong with killing deer to eat, if it had not been for humans in the first place decimating their populations and also the elite controlling them, there would now no doubt be a far greater population of them, but again we have completely changed their environment,which of course goes over that simple teeny tiny brain of yours.

So basically poverty is not a factor or a mitigating factor to take into account in crime according to Victor, even though in this country it is and why the Judge rules as he did because he like me has far more common sense than you do and does not show such fake outrage as you do when the fact is you have a blood lust to kill animals yourself.

Thank goodness are youth of today are not like you, pessimistic fear mongers, who would as stated hang children for stealing a swan to eat, because they were hungry. 


He was charged and fined, that was sufficient punishment, I think a fitting punishment for you would be to let you lose with no gun against a pack of wolves and see how you feel about being hunted yourself, I mean after all, wolves have to eat also.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:


So is your reply, that is not debating Eddie, if you disagree with me fine, but prove my argument is absurd, otherwise your words are meaningless

Thanks

Because of what you said that Tess had quoted?

"If it was okay in the 12th century it's okay now."

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:One simply can't go around killing swans, it's just not British.

Odd as they were bred to eat here as a delicacy since the 12 century, so I guess it is very much British to eat swans.

Tesstacious wrote:

Didge wrote:So now law is the philosophy behind the morality of killing animals now?

That is hilarious and shows you did not read what I said. So killing pigeons is fine but not a swan, even though these swans were bred to eat, how absurd and idiotic again, so your view was based on now his choice of what is tastier is now your beef with him killing the swan.


What is wrong with killing deer to eat, if it had not been for humans in the first place decimating their populations and also the elite controlling them, there would now no doubt be a far greater population of them, but again we have completely changed their environment,which of course goes over that simple teeny tiny brain of yours.

So basically poverty is not a factor or a mitigating factor to take into account in crime according to Victor, even though in this country it is and why the Judge rules as he did because he like me has far more common sense than you do and does not show such fake outrage as you do when the fact is you have a blood lust to kill animals yourself.

Thank goodness are youth of today are not like you, pessimistic fear mongers, who would as stated hang children for stealing a swan to eat, because they were hungry. 


He was charged and fined, that was sufficient punishment, I think a fitting punishment for you would be to let you lose with no gun against a pack of wolves and see how you feel about being hunted yourself, I mean after all, wolves have to eat also.

These swans aren't bred to eat, you thick as pigshit moron!  Wake up call idiot - it's not the 12th century any more!  Geez I can't argue with this retard any more, he's just too embarrassing for a grown-up.

nicko wrote:It will be a cold day in hell before didge admits he has got something wrong, it will be another cold day before he stops treating other posters as morons and continually insulting them,and didge if you think you know more about wild life and firearms laws than people who have spent years learning them you are sadly mistaken.   please note in all that I have posted I have not once insulted you!!!

nicko wrote:It will be a cold day in hell before didge admits he has got something wrong, it will be another cold day before he stops treating other posters as morons and continually insulting them,and didge if you think you know more about wild life and firearms laws than people who have spent years learning them you are sadly mistaken.   please note in all that I have posted I have not once insulted you!!!

Didge wrote:

nicko wrote:It will be a cold day in hell before didge admits he has got something wrong, it will be another cold day before he stops treating other posters as morons and continually insulting them,and didge if you think you know more about wild life and firearms laws than people who have spent years learning them you are sadly mistaken.   please note in all that I have posted I have not once insulted you!!!

Yes thanks for all that bullshit, you need to actually show I am wrong.

Nothing worse than someone who claims I am wrong yet cannot even show I am wrong, as seen I know plenty of things. I suppose Tess calling me from the first posts with insults escaped you as it always does? Calling me retard, which is very derogatory, even though I have defended her from derogatory remarks, exposing your bullshit hypocrisy yet again how you are silent on when others insult.

Piss poor

Try again

Joy Division wrote:I really don't see why the hysteria ...

Humans eat far worse than a swan for goodness sake..I know what this man done was savage and unheard if here ..being a swan, and yes they are a protected species etc, but we now have kangaroo steaks here, ostrich if we want it, and many in places like Cambodia eat Rats, Scorpions, insects and bats...

So why all the fake outrage?

So sort from being a protected  species...

Can someone explain what is the big  difference between eating an Ostrich, a Swan or a Pheasant?...

Apart form the protected species part of course.

nicko wrote:I would like to reply to JadedFox, re your remark about shooting pigeons. we will take a field of peas as an example.The average Wood Pigeon can stuff about 4oz of peas in it's crop,they do this on average twice a day,thats 8oz of peas one a day. Don't sound much does it? Then factor in the number of pigeons coming down,probly 5 hundred or a thousand would not be exaggerating,take the figure of 1,ooo twice a day that's 500 pounds of peas,don't take more than a few days to strip a field.The same goes for Wheat and Corn, Farmers are not keen on this!!

smelly_bandit wrote:

Joy Division wrote:I really don't see why the hysteria ...

Humans eat far worse than a swan for goodness sake..I know what this man done was savage and unheard if here ..being a swan, and yes they are a protected species etc, but we now have kangaroo steaks here, ostrich if we want it, and many in places like Cambodia eat Rats, Scorpions, insects and bats...

So why all the fake outrage?

So sort from being a protected  species...

Can someone explain what is the big  difference between eating an Ostrich, a Swan or a Pheasant?...

Apart form the protected species part of course.

Fucking idiot lefties

Let's just ignore the primary reason for  the outrage because we can't deal with it

Joy Division wrote:I really don't see why the hysteria ...

Humans eat far worse than a swan for goodness sake..I know what this man done was savage and unheard if here ..being a swan, and yes they are a protected species etc, but we now have kangaroo steaks here, ostrich if we want it, and many in places like Cambodia eat Rats, Scorpions, insects and bats...

So why all the fake outrage?

So sort from being a protected  species...

Can someone explain what is the big  difference between eating an Ostrich, a Swan or a Pheasant?...

Apart form the protected species part of course.

Joy Division wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

Fucking idiot lefties

Let's just ignore the primary reason for  the outrage because we can't deal with it

What you can't deal with is the fact this guy is Turkish smelly..and most likely MUSLIM.

So keep yer erse cheeks together   

nicko wrote:The owners of the orchard were shooting illegally,apart from jays and crows,[witch I have never seen eating blossom] all other small birds are on the protected list.  [did you ever go "scrumping]?being so close.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


What you can't deal with is the fact this guy is Turkish smelly..and most likely MUSLIM.

So keep yer erse cheeks together   

Which is pretty much the only reason you have no problem with this

nicko wrote:didge, your problem is you take forums much too seriously,they are for people to swap opinions, not to keep telling posters you are much more intelligent than they are and insulting them in your replies. you are too preoccupied in getting your opinion across to realise that some subjects are out your comfort zone.Instead of bowing out gracefully you continue to keep posting  to have the last word even if you are wrong.I know you will deny this and reply with more insults,i await your explanation.I see once again in your answer you say "I know more than you" says it all really.