talkFORUM

kancutlawns wrote:

m4rkb wrote:

subsub wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

subsub wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:Don't know about anyone else, but my scepticism wasn't whether or not he was attacked (not exactly a difficult scenario to imagine to be honest) but the fact that he immediately and continually blamed the 'far right'.
That remains my interest in this case.

*REVERSING*

Reversing?
You're on a roll today aren't you?

This was one of my few comments on this thread (I preferred my 'blue oyster bar' link though - always makes me chuckle) from a couple of weeks ago :

"Could be wrong, but I think the main question is whether it was a 'politically motivated attack by right wing extremists' as claimed, or not".

In the words of hillman, - please tell us from what I am reversing?

My apologies, Roy, it was your partner in crime, m4rk.
It is quite tricky to tell one from the other, though.

I do like to make my opinions clear so it takes someone particularly dim not understand what I'm saying. Or more frequently these days, people living in a left wing dream world who imagine something else is being said when it's not.

Here's a precis of my views.

Jones is a petulant left wing goading squirt who probably knows there's good value having a gob on him just asking to be closed.
The rest is him bullshitting and using his wordy skills to paint a distorted and heavily politicised version of events.

No decent assault worth it's name took place.

I come across virtually nothing about Jones. I’m sure you can like me avoid him if you choose to, it’s easily done unless you seek him out so you can get on your soapbox about him goading you and being a component of a loony left wing liberal plot to specifically upset you. A precise of your views are those that have been comprehensively debunked many times over.

I know that Littlejohn, Liddle and Hitchens are right wing, reactionary cunts triggering the little people and who take the penny for their own fatuous needs. I don’t need to seek out their opinions though as I really do dislike them.

If you don’t like him, stop bloody well listening and reading him. It ain’t hard.

Roy Twing wrote:

kancutlawns wrote:

m4rkb wrote:

subsub wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

subsub wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:Don't know about anyone else, but my scepticism wasn't whether or not he was attacked (not exactly a difficult scenario to imagine to be honest) but the fact that he immediately and continually blamed the 'far right'.
That remains my interest in this case.

*REVERSING*

Reversing?
You're on a roll today aren't you?

This was one of my few comments on this thread (I preferred my 'blue oyster bar' link though - always makes me chuckle) from a couple of weeks ago :

"Could be wrong, but I think the main question is whether it was a 'politically motivated attack by right wing extremists' as claimed, or not".

In the words of hillman, - please tell us from what I am reversing?

My apologies, Roy, it was your partner in crime, m4rk.
It is quite tricky to tell one from the other, though.

I do like to make my opinions clear so it takes someone particularly dim not understand what I'm saying. Or more frequently these days, people living in a left wing dream world who imagine something else is being said when it's not.

Here's a precis of my views.

Jones is a petulant left wing goading squirt who probably knows there's good value having a gob on him just asking to be closed.
The rest is him bullshitting and using his wordy skills to paint a distorted and heavily politicised version of events.

No decent assault worth it's name took place.

I come across virtually nothing about Jones. I’m sure you can like me avoid him if you choose to, it’s easily done unless you seek him out so you can get on your soapbox about him goading you and being a component of a loony left wing liberal plot to specifically upset you. A precise of your views are those that have been comprehensively debunked many times over.

I know that Littlejohn, Liddle and Hitchens are right wing, reactionary cunts triggering the little people and who take the penny for their own fatuous needs. I don’t need to seek out their opinions though as I really do dislike them.

If you don’t like him, stop bloody well listening and reading him. It ain’t hard.

Forgive me for interjecting, but if I'm not mistaken, - you started this thread

Roy Twing wrote:

kancutlawns wrote:

m4rkb wrote:

subsub wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

subsub wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:Don't know about anyone else, but my scepticism wasn't whether or not he was attacked (not exactly a difficult scenario to imagine to be honest) but the fact that he immediately and continually blamed the 'far right'.
That remains my interest in this case.

*REVERSING*

Reversing?
You're on a roll today aren't you?

This was one of my few comments on this thread (I preferred my 'blue oyster bar' link though - always makes me chuckle) from a couple of weeks ago :

"Could be wrong, but I think the main question is whether it was a 'politically motivated attack by right wing extremists' as claimed, or not".

In the words of hillman, - please tell us from what I am reversing?

My apologies, Roy, it was your partner in crime, m4rk.
It is quite tricky to tell one from the other, though.

I do like to make my opinions clear so it takes someone particularly dim not understand what I'm saying. Or more frequently these days, people living in a left wing dream world who imagine something else is being said when it's not.

Here's a precis of my views.

Jones is a petulant left wing goading squirt who probably knows there's good value having a gob on him just asking to be closed.
The rest is him bullshitting and using his wordy skills to paint a distorted and heavily politicised version of events.

No decent assault worth it's name took place.

I come across virtually nothing about Jones. I’m sure you can like me avoid him if you choose to, it’s easily done unless you seek him out so you can get on your soapbox about him goading you and being a component of a loony left wing liberal plot to specifically upset you. A precise of your views are those that have been comprehensively debunked many times over.

I know that Littlejohn, Liddle and Hitchens are right wing, reactionary cunts triggering the little people and who take the penny for their own fatuous needs. I don’t need to seek out their opinions though as I really do dislike them.

If you don’t like him, stop bloody well listening and reading him. It ain’t hard.

Forgive me for interjecting, but if I'm not mistaken, - you started this thread

kancutlawns wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

kancutlawns wrote:

m4rkb wrote:

subsub wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

subsub wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:Don't know about anyone else, but my scepticism wasn't whether or not he was attacked (not exactly a difficult scenario to imagine to be honest) but the fact that he immediately and continually blamed the 'far right'.
That remains my interest in this case.

*REVERSING*

Reversing?
You're on a roll today aren't you?

This was one of my few comments on this thread (I preferred my 'blue oyster bar' link though - always makes me chuckle) from a couple of weeks ago :

"Could be wrong, but I think the main question is whether it was a 'politically motivated attack by right wing extremists' as claimed, or not".

In the words of hillman, - please tell us from what I am reversing?

My apologies, Roy, it was your partner in crime, m4rk.
It is quite tricky to tell one from the other, though.

I do like to make my opinions clear so it takes someone particularly dim not understand what I'm saying. Or more frequently these days, people living in a left wing dream world who imagine something else is being said when it's not.

Here's a precis of my views.

Jones is a petulant left wing goading squirt who probably knows there's good value having a gob on him just asking to be closed.
The rest is him bullshitting and using his wordy skills to paint a distorted and heavily politicised version of events.

No decent assault worth it's name took place.

I come across virtually nothing about Jones. I’m sure you can like me avoid him if you choose to, it’s easily done unless you seek him out so you can get on your soapbox about him goading you and being a component of a loony left wing liberal plot to specifically upset you. A precise of your views are those that have been comprehensively debunked many times over.

I know that Littlejohn, Liddle and Hitchens are right wing, reactionary cunts triggering the little people and who take the penny for their own fatuous needs. I don’t need to seek out their opinions though as I really do dislike them.

If you don’t like him, stop bloody well listening and reading him. It ain’t hard.

Forgive me for interjecting, but if I'm not mistaken, - you started this thread

So what? You’ve started threads about the establishment railroading the EU and about the BBC. It hasn’t stopped you and your type’ bleating about them has it?

You’ve probably wilfully chosen to completely misinterpret what I said. I forgive you.

Roy Twing wrote:

kancutlawns wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

kancutlawns wrote:

m4rkb wrote:

subsub wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

subsub wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:Don't know about anyone else, but my scepticism wasn't whether or not he was attacked (not exactly a difficult scenario to imagine to be honest) but the fact that he immediately and continually blamed the 'far right'.
That remains my interest in this case.

*REVERSING*

Reversing?
You're on a roll today aren't you?

This was one of my few comments on this thread (I preferred my 'blue oyster bar' link though - always makes me chuckle) from a couple of weeks ago :

"Could be wrong, but I think the main question is whether it was a 'politically motivated attack by right wing extremists' as claimed, or not".

In the words of hillman, - please tell us from what I am reversing?

My apologies, Roy, it was your partner in crime, m4rk.
It is quite tricky to tell one from the other, though.

I do like to make my opinions clear so it takes someone particularly dim not understand what I'm saying. Or more frequently these days, people living in a left wing dream world who imagine something else is being said when it's not.

Here's a precis of my views.

Jones is a petulant left wing goading squirt who probably knows there's good value having a gob on him just asking to be closed.
The rest is him bullshitting and using his wordy skills to paint a distorted and heavily politicised version of events.

No decent assault worth it's name took place.

I come across virtually nothing about Jones. I’m sure you can like me avoid him if you choose to, it’s easily done unless you seek him out so you can get on your soapbox about him goading you and being a component of a loony left wing liberal plot to specifically upset you. A precise of your views are those that have been comprehensively debunked many times over.

I know that Littlejohn, Liddle and Hitchens are right wing, reactionary cunts triggering the little people and who take the penny for their own fatuous needs. I don’t need to seek out their opinions though as I really do dislike them.

If you don’t like him, stop bloody well listening and reading him. It ain’t hard.

Forgive me for interjecting, but if I'm not mistaken, - you started this thread

So what? You’ve started threads about the establishment railroading the EU and about the BBC. It hasn’t stopped you and your type’ bleating about them has it?

You’ve probably wilfully chosen to completely misinterpret what I said. I forgive you.

You were complaining about a poster contributing to a thread that you started, apparently implying that only those who like the subject of the topic should do so.

kancutlawns wrote:I was making comments about a poster who gets triggered that leads to him complaining irrationally and ad nauseum about someone he obviously has contempt for and leads to a predictable stream of crap about a liberal left wing conspiracy.

Happy to do a commentary on mark’s mental behaviour to you on request.

subsub wrote:How do these previously perma-banned posters keep getting allowed back? Crazy.

Zambo wrote:

subsub wrote:How do these previously perma-banned posters keep getting allowed back? Crazy.

They get back initially because more and more people are using VPNs at least to register. Custard made three posts before being banned. Instead of moaning take a mod job for a couple of weeks and see how you get on. You can have mine if you like.

Zambo wrote:

subsub wrote:How do these previously perma-banned posters keep getting allowed back? Crazy.

They get back initially because more and more people are using VPNs at least to register. Custard made three posts before being banned. Instead of moaning take a mod job for a couple of weeks and see how you get on. You can have mine if you like.

kancutlawns wrote:I was making comments about a poster who gets triggered that leads to him complaining irrationally and ad nauseum about someone he obviously has contempt for and leads to a predictable stream of crap about a liberal left wing conspiracy.

Happy to do a commentary on mark’s mental behaviour to you on request.