Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 15:58:30 GMT -5
So is everything Ariel Sharon said true? Congratulation BE, you know you've painted yourself into a corner so you just ignore my question. Self awareness is a good thing. Keep at it. Congratulations to you dude, you have just made an idiot out of yourself with your self proclaimed victory. You got too smug too soon. I chose not to answer your 'question' because I saw it as a kind of surrender post and I tried to let you off the hook gently but have at it. I suspect for you Sharon speaks the truth when it suits you and he lies when it doesn't. Let's have your comments on the article I posted... poo-poo away.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 29, 2014 18:29:56 GMT -5
Shari'a is antithetical to British law. They are diametrically opposed. How can it "adhere to and work within the boundaries" of a law it doesn't recognize? And every time Shari'a is used instead of British law, regardless of whether the participants "voluntarily" accept it, it supplants the British law that was formerly used. It's supplanting British law. You just refuse to recognize it. You are now just being stupid. You are taking an idiotic stance. I have repeatedly educated you about British law, which probably every other reasonable poster here understands, only you continue with such a ridiculous stance. You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about and yet you continue to spout such stupid bullshyte. Stick with what you know, if indeed there is anything that you know, because you know absolutely feck all about Britain and its law, you just keep embarrassing yourself with your total and complete ignorance No, you've repeatedly provided spin, irrelevance, and misinformation. Obviously, you either agree with Shari'a replacing British law, or are absolutely clueless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 19:16:47 GMT -5
You are now just being stupid. You are taking an idiotic stance. I have repeatedly educated you about British law, which probably every other reasonable poster here understands, only you continue with such a ridiculous stance. You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about and yet you continue to spout such stupid bullshyte. Stick with what you know, if indeed there is anything that you know, because you know absolutely feck all about Britain and its law, you just keep embarrassing yourself with your total and complete ignorance No, you've repeatedly provided spin, irrelevance, and misinformation. Obviously, you either agree with Shari'a replacing British law, or are absolutely clueless. I have done no such thing. You are just being stupid. Total ignorance. You are so out of your depth and yet you are still arguing about something you clearly know absolutely sod all about. Grow up and don't be so idiotic.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 29, 2014 19:22:31 GMT -5
No, you've repeatedly provided spin, irrelevance, and misinformation. Obviously, you either agree with Shari'a replacing British law, or are absolutely clueless. I have done no such thing. You are just being stupid. Total ignorance. You are so out of your depth and yet you are still arguing about something you clearly know absolutely sod all about. Grow up and don't be so idiotic. Sounds like another surrender post. You have done nothing but regurgitate propaganda, and declare it "the last word". You have been wrong every time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 19:26:26 GMT -5
I have done no such thing. You are just being stupid. Total ignorance. You are so out of your depth and yet you are still arguing about something you clearly know absolutely sod all about. Grow up and don't be so idiotic. Sounds like another surrender post. You have done nothing but regurgitate propaganda, and declare it "the last word". You have been wrong every time. You are blathering. You have made a total arse of yourself with your ridiculous assertions. You know nothing of law and even less of British Law. Grow up, you are like a spoiled kid having a tantrum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 19:28:06 GMT -5
Redleg is deliberately trying to derail or close this thread down, so let's bring this thread back to its topic. Holocaust families criticise Israeli genocide.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Aug 29, 2014 21:03:49 GMT -5
Ok they have a right to criticize, As the Israeli's have a right to shoot back at the rocket firing Hamas.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 30, 2014 9:53:25 GMT -5
Redleg is deliberately trying to derail or close this thread down, so let's bring this thread back to its topic. Holocaust families criticise Israeli genocide. They are no different than citizens here voting to enslave themselves here. Note the number of Jews voting Democrat. Note the number of LIVs that believe the lies and propaganda coming from the "Progressives". These families are no different. How many of them actually live in Israel? How many have lost family to Hamas' rockets?
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Aug 30, 2014 12:33:19 GMT -5
Congratulation BE, you know you've painted yourself into a corner so you just ignore my question. Self awareness is a good thing. Keep at it. Congratulations to you dude, you have just made an idiot out of yourself with your self proclaimed victory. You got too smug too soon. I chose not to answer your 'question' because I saw it as a kind of surrender post and I tried to let you off the hook gently but have at it. I suspect for you Sharon speaks the truth when it suits you and he lies when it doesn't. Let's have your comments on the article I posted... poo-poo away. Bottom line is you won't answer the question. Why: 1. If you say everything Sharon said is true then you would be endorsing his comments about the Palestinians. 2. If you say everything Sharon said is false then you would be saying that what he said about Jews in American is not true. 3. If you say somethings he said are true and some are false then you would be guilty of cherry picking Sharon's statements in a cafeteria style approach to proving whatever point you wish to make which, of course, is intellectually dishonest. So you can blather on all you want to about me making an idiot out of myself, self proclaimed victory, surrender posts , poo-poo (must have gotten that little bit of scatology from Kashmir) and all that other...to use one of your favorite words...claptrap but that doesn't hide the fact that you refused to answer my question. You're really not fit to debate with. The only reason I continue to respond to your posts is that people like you must be exposed for what you really are lest your particular contagion spread to others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2014 12:50:02 GMT -5
Congratulations to you dude, you have just made an idiot out of yourself with your self proclaimed victory. You got too smug too soon. I chose not to answer your 'question' because I saw it as a kind of surrender post and I tried to let you off the hook gently but have at it. I suspect for you Sharon speaks the truth when it suits you and he lies when it doesn't. Let's have your comments on the article I posted... poo-poo away. Bottom line is you won't answer the question. Why: 1. If you say everything Sharon said is true then you would be endorsing his comments about the Palestinians. 2. If you say everything Sharon said is false then you would be saying that what he said about Jews in American is not true. 3. If you say somethings he said are true and some are false then you would be guilty of cherry picking Sharon's statements in a cafeteria style approach to proving whatever point you wish to make which, of course, is intellectually dishonest. So you can blather on all you want to about me making an idiot out of myself, self proclaimed victory, surrender posts , poo-poo (must have gotten that little bit of scatology from Kashmir) and all that other...to use one of your favorite words...claptrap but that doesn't hide the fact that you refused to answer my question. You're really not fit to debate with. The only reason I continue to respond to your posts is that people like you must be exposed for what you really are lest your particular contagion spread to others. What a contortionist you are... what a load of poppycock you spout out? Quoting a couple of Sharon quotes does not mean one has to agree or disagree with everything else he says, what sort of an idiot would suppose that to be the case? Your logic and 'reasoning' is all over the place.
Also, Kashmir is an ex poster and you are not supposed to mention those. Oh! And your question? Further silliness from you and not worth addressing.
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Sept 1, 2014 0:42:33 GMT -5
Bottom line is you won't answer the question. Why: 1. If you say everything Sharon said is true then you would be endorsing his comments about the Palestinians. 2. If you say everything Sharon said is false then you would be saying that what he said about Jews in American is not true. 3. If you say somethings he said are true and some are false then you would be guilty of cherry picking Sharon's statements in a cafeteria style approach to proving whatever point you wish to make which, of course, is intellectually dishonest. So you can blather on all you want to about me making an idiot out of myself, self proclaimed victory, surrender posts , poo-poo (must have gotten that little bit of scatology from Kashmir) and all that other...to use one of your favorite words...claptrap but that doesn't hide the fact that you refused to answer my question. You're really not fit to debate with. The only reason I continue to respond to your posts is that people like you must be exposed for what you really are lest your particular contagion spread to others. What a contortionist you are... what a load of poppycock you spout out? Quoting a couple of Sharon quotes does not mean one has to agree or disagree with everything else he says, what sort of an idiot would suppose that to be the case? Your logic and 'reasoning' is all over the place.
Also, Kashmir is an ex poster and you are not supposed to mention those.Oh! And your question? Further silliness from you and not worth addressing. If she's an "ex poster" how come she's still in the Members list?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2014 5:54:35 GMT -5
What a contortionist you are... what a load of poppycock you spout out? Quoting a couple of Sharon quotes does not mean one has to agree or disagree with everything else he says, what sort of an idiot would suppose that to be the case? Your logic and 'reasoning' is all over the place.
Also, Kashmir is an ex poster and you are not supposed to mention those.Oh! And your question? Further silliness from you and not worth addressing. If she's an "ex poster" how come she's still in the Members list? The same reason that the other ex poster is. Once denied access to the site you are unable to remove your details or posts. I expect administration will get around to it eventually.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Sept 1, 2014 6:42:48 GMT -5
If she's an "ex poster" how come she's still in the Members list? The same reason that the other ex poster is. Once denied access to the site you are unable to remove your details or posts. I expect administration will get around to it eventually.So how do you know then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2014 6:57:20 GMT -5
The same reason that the other ex poster is. Once denied access to the site you are unable to remove your details or posts. I expect administration will get around to it eventually.So how do you know then? ' They' still post elsewhere. And according to management declarations, 100% warning points will get you permanently gone. Denied access? Knowledge gained from personal time-outs. The method used here is to block the 'naughty persons' IP address.
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Sept 1, 2014 7:40:43 GMT -5
' They' still post elsewhere. And according to management declarations, 100% warning points will get you permanently gone. Denied access? Knowledge gained from personal time-outs. The method used here is to block the 'naughty persons' IP address. A blocked IP address seems pretty easy to defeat, I would think. I've never heard of an IP address being exclusively "assigned" to a poster. I would expect that the admins could remove a poster from the forum even easier than giving the poster a time-out. That's speculation, of course, but it seems reasonable to me. My guess is posters who have stopped posting have either done so voluntarily, or are on time-out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2014 7:51:35 GMT -5
' They' still post elsewhere. And according to management declarations, 100% warning points will get you permanently gone. Denied access? Knowledge gained from personal time-outs. The method used here is to block the 'naughty persons' IP address. A blocked IP address seems pretty easy to defeat, I would think. I've never heard of an IP address being exclusively "assigned" to a poster. I would expect that the admins could remove a poster from the forum even easier than giving the poster a time-out. That's speculation, of course, but it seems reasonable to me. My guess is posters who have stopped posting have either done so voluntarily, or are on time-out. Getting around a blocked IP address is very easy to do, once you have achieved that, you can then see when your suspension ends. The posters in question have informed me that they are at 100% warning levels, they did not leave voluntarily, that is not speculation. Elsewhere on these boards you can find a management declaration that 100% warning levels will bring a permanent ban.
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on Sept 1, 2014 7:51:50 GMT -5
From what I can see if a poster leaves it will say 0 posts. The names are still on the list.
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Sept 1, 2014 8:11:46 GMT -5
From what I can see if a poster leaves it will say 0 posts. The names are still on the list. I think most of those posters with 0 posts have the same timestamps for "Joined" and "Last Online." To me, that implies they never posted.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Sept 1, 2014 12:38:49 GMT -5
A blocked IP address seems pretty easy to defeat, I would think. I've never heard of an IP address being exclusively "assigned" to a poster. I would expect that the admins could remove a poster from the forum even easier than giving the poster a time-out. That's speculation, of course, but it seems reasonable to me. My guess is posters who have stopped posting have either done so voluntarily, or are on time-out. Getting around a blocked IP address is very easy to do, once you have achieved that, you can then see when your suspension ends. The posters in question have informed me that they are at 100% warning levels, they did not leave voluntarily, that is not speculation. Elsewhere on these boards you can find a management declaration that 100% warning levels will bring a permanent ban. And they call conservatives "a gang".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2014 12:59:35 GMT -5
Getting around a blocked IP address is very easy to do, once you have achieved that, you can then see when your suspension ends. The posters in question have informed me that they are at 100% warning levels, they did not leave voluntarily, that is not speculation. Elsewhere on these boards you can find a management declaration that 100% warning levels will bring a permanent ban. And they call conservatives "a gang". Oh vosa, you're stalking again... and I was just getting over myself, as you suggested...
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Sept 1, 2014 15:25:49 GMT -5
A blocked IP address seems pretty easy to defeat, I would think. I've never heard of an IP address being exclusively "assigned" to a poster. I would expect that the admins could remove a poster from the forum even easier than giving the poster a time-out. That's speculation, of course, but it seems reasonable to me. My guess is posters who have stopped posting have either done so voluntarily, or are on time-out. Getting around a blocked IP address is very easy to do, once you have achieved that, you can then see when your suspension ends. The posters in question have informed me that they are at 100% warning levels, they did not leave voluntarily, that is not speculation.Elsewhere on these boards you can find a management declaration that 100% warning levels will bring a permanent ban. Just curious... If the posters in question are at 100% warning levels, how did they inform you that they were at 100% warning levels?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2014 16:34:11 GMT -5
' They' still post elsewhere. And according to management declarations, 100% warning points will get you permanently gone. Denied access? Knowledge gained from personal time-outs. The method used here is to block the 'naughty persons' IP address. Getting around a blocked IP address is very easy to do, once you have achieved that, you can then see when your suspension ends. The posters in question have informed me that they are at 100% warning levels, they did not leave voluntarily, that is not speculation.Elsewhere on these boards you can find a management declaration that 100% warning levels will bring a permanent ban. Just curious... If the posters in question are at 100% warning levels, how did they inform you that they were at 100% warning levels? See above.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Sept 2, 2014 7:49:31 GMT -5
And they call conservatives "a gang". Oh vosa, you're stalking again... and I was just getting over myself, as you suggested... Sometimes you just can't help looking at a train wreck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 12:21:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Sept 2, 2014 13:56:51 GMT -5
Seems you're obsessed with me. Gee, ain't that swell.
|
|