Membership Level: Full Posts: 7779 Status: Offline
Re-birth etc
Scouse,
This is getting silly. Let me make my point another way. It is the only point I am concerned with in this instance.
Do you know with an absolute certainty that Alastair Campbell has never had anything to do with phone hacking in any way, even if only indirectly and irrespective of who the victim/s is/are?
Membership Level: Full Posts: 9889 Status: Offline
Quoting: Terry Carey Scouse,
This is getting silly. Let me make my point another way. It is the only point I am concerned with in this instance.
Do you know with an absolute certainty that Alastair Campbell has never had anything to do with phone hacking in any way, even if only indirectly and irrespective of who the victim/s is/are?
Please answer with a simple ’Yes’ or ’No’.
I await your reply with interest.
TC.
Alright Terry, Let’s put your question on it’s head; what proof do you have that Campbell was associated with any phone hacking, whereas the Police have enough proof of Coulsons involvement to charge him with it.
You’re assuming guilt by a single unsubstantiated accusation.
Membership Level: Full Posts: 7779 Status: Offline
Re-birth
Scouse,
That is even sillier than your last post. You know damn well I have never accused Campbell of phone hacking but asked you three times to justify your assertion that he has never been associated with it.
Since you will not, or cannot do that, I can only assume that you have some reason why you will not give a straight answer to a straight question.
Your tactics in argument or discussion are always to change things around to attempt to make it seem that your antogonist is in the wrong. This is the clearest example you have ever given.
It is a classic Communist ploy to besmirch the opposition by any and all means possible. You claim not to be a Communist but you certainly sing from their hymn sheet.
In addition you are once again bringing in someone to whom I have not referred in this discussion and who has no bearing on the argument.
Give it up Scouse. You are well beaten and you know it. What is more every one else who reads these posts knows it as well.
This is the last time I will discuss this matter with you so any future reply will go unanswered - not because you have won but because of the sheer futility of getting a sensible answer or any answer from you.
Membership Level: Full Posts: 2605 Status: Offline
[QUOTE]Quoting: Terry Carey [I]Scouse,
That is even sillier than your last post. You know damn well I have never accused Campbell of phone hacking but asked you three times to justify your assertion that he has never been associated with it.
Since you will not, or cannot do that, I can only assume that you have some reason why you will not give a straight answer to a straight question.
Your tactics in argument or discussion are always to change things around to attempt to make it seem that your antagonist is in the wrong. This is the clearest example you have ever given.
It is a classic Communist ploy to besmirch the opposition by any and all means possible. You claim not to be a Communist but you certainly sing from their hymn sheet.
In addition you are once again bringing in someone to whom I have not referred in this discussion and who has no bearing on the argument.
Give it up Scouse. You are well beaten and you know it. What is more every one else who reads these posts knows it as well.
This is the last time I will discuss this matter with you so any future reply will go unanswered - not because you have won but because of the sheer futility of getting a sensible answer or any answer from you. ------------------End of Quote
I fully agree with your comments Terry.
Well, I’ve thought long and hard about whether I really need to be here at all, given the puerile arguments advanced by some people, and the level of ignorance displayed by others who should really get into the habit of reading all that’s happened in a thread before effectively taking sides.
What you get here in place of rational discussion is misrepresentation of an opposing viewpoint,achieved by twisting his/her words or by means of [false] assumptions. All quite deliberate.
The opposing view is replaced with superficial hyperbole without ever having actually refuted the original position or by presenting an over-simplified version of the opponent’s original statement. Again, quite deliberate.
Then you get the "joyriders" who take no part in a discussion but inject criticism at a personal level when they clearly haven’t read all of the posts, or didn’t understand them. I have been personally abused , and when that didn’t work, comments, albeit utterly ignorant and ill-informed were directed at the country I live in, yet when I made an in-context response, one of the side-line commenter’s decided I was delivering a "low blow". Another, who clearly hadn’t read anything, suggested we leave poor Scouse alone!
As I said at the beginning, I have thought long and hard as to whether I need to be here! I’ve got Scouse on ignore, so I can’t read his nonsensical socialistic claptrap and yes, I appreciate that’s an opinion but it is mine, and I don’t really care if anyone disagrees because that’s my mindset at present.
I’m going to give myself the weekend to consider whether I breally need all the bolleaux that goes on here from time to time.
Membership Level: Full Posts: 9889 Status: Offline
Alright Terry, I will answer your post in detail,
You say;
"That is even sillier than your last post. You know damn well I have never accused Campbell of phone hacking but asked you three times to justify your assertion that he has never been associated with it."
My reply;
As I don’t move in Campbells circles I obviously have not been assured by him that he had nothing to do with the phone’ hacking disgrace.
I must assume that you are in the ’incrowd’ with Coulson as you are most probably the only man in the UK who doesn’t know that the police have enough evidence to charge him with it. That , by the way, is evidence not inuendo.
You said;
"Since you will not, or cannot do that, I can only assume that you have some reason why you will not give a straight answer to a straight question."
My reply;
Let’s be honest the whole premise of your alledged question is to shirk off the disgaceful actions of a close friend of the PM by constantly demanding an answer in a rather purile attempt to pass on the disgrace to a victim of those illegal acts by setting the ludicrous senario that someone can only be innocent if he tells everyone in the UK individually.
You say;
"Your tactics in argument or discussion are always to change things around to attempt to make it seem that your antogonist is in the wrong. This is the clearest example you have ever given."
My reply;
Erm if putting my case forward & in this case, by showing the planned unfairness of the attempted throwing of the blame on the victim, by reversing the question & asking you the same question you asked me but with different names is wrong, could you tell me how are we supposed to debate! me agreeing to every crack pot suggestion aimed at proving the Tories are whiter than white & Labour are the biggest criminals of all times is not a debate it’s a Tory conference.
You say;
"Your tactics in argument or discussion are always to change things around to attempt to make it seem that your antogonist is in the wrong. This is the clearest example you have ever given."
My reply;
I’m sorry me auld mate but if you’re wrong & I will show it. You seem to think that if I ask the same question as you only with the name changed then I’m changing things ’round, it’s called you being ’Hoist with your own petard’.
You say;
"It is a classic Communist ploy to besmirch the opposition by any and all means possible. You claim not to be a Communist but you certainly sing from their hymn sheet."
My reply;
For a start there’s no need to recourse to personal insult, I am as much a communist as you are a fascist. What I’m doing is called debating what do you call what you are doing?
You say;
"In addition you are once again bringing in someone to whom I have not referred in this discussion and who has no bearing on the argument."
I say;
I don’t know who you’re talking about! If you mean my mention of Cameron, let me explain a couple of things to you;
1 - As a close friend of & after hiring Coulson after he was warned not to Cameron is an intrinsic part of this sorry & disgusting affair it’s only natural that he should at some stage be brought in.
2 - I’m afraid you have no veto on who should be fairly raised in debate. If you find the truth about the Cameron/Coulson association uncomfortable & not fitting in with your plans you should have thought out your debating points a bit better.
You say;
"Give it up Scouse. You are well beaten and you know it. What is more every one else who reads these posts knows it as well."
My reply;
I think the opposite has been proved, You have moaned about me;
using your own questions on you & You setting rediculous parameters for questions of guilt. & by you falling back on personal insult
You have proved my point better than I could.
You say;
"This is the last time I will discuss this matter with you so any future reply will go unanswered - not because you have won but because of the sheer futility of getting a sensible answer or any answer from you."
I say;
Would you like a white flag with that? Don’t worry there’s no shame in being out debated especially if the point you’re defending is totally indefencable.
