Oh!! Such a dependable information source!!Sorry, but ...irrelevant statements don't constitute a counterpoint.
What media? Just using the internet, mate. Prove me wrong, if you can
Really? Including this thread and your posts in it?
Many SJWs, whose modus operandi is the automatic demonisation of their ideological opponents, are renowned for expressing such sentiments!Really? Including this thread and your posts in it?
Are you really saying the entire internet, including ASF, is not a library but a Nazi bible?
Just how dependable is your data???
But... you don't believe them do you? Don't disappoint us mate
Which brings me back to my very simple counterpoint!But... you don't believe them do you? Don't disappoint us mate
Tell us you're an independent thinker, like the rest of us here yeah?
Look, it really doesn't matter what the political persuasion of any movement is left, far left, right, far right. alt right, whatever... doesn't matter. The underlying prerequisite for credibility is the ability to convey your message without force, without violence, fear, threats, intimidation etc.
The far left in particular fail this hands down. It's this very attribute that many on this site and others use to condemn their actions. But Tommy Robinson is no different. He has a history of thuggery and violence just like the far left - so it undermines not only his credibility - but also those that support him.
So my point to the far right is very simple. Find a better leader.
Because you don't need to rely on the media to do a check on someones' history. The internet isn't media - it's a library. If you don't agree that's your prerogative. But you do realise that Tommy wrote for the media and his autobiography is by definition a media statement?
And libraries often house newspaper and magazine publications!! Does this mean that newspapers and magazines, so housed, are no longer media sources?
Was he not incorrectly jailed these past few months?...
It's all BS right? He's never been to jail in your opinion?
and err.... where are you getting your info from if not the internet/media/Nazi bible?
No that's a false conclusion.
Easy, a technical error in his last case doesn't constitute a false record of his earlier cases. I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks it does.
Are you saying that information stored on the internet never originates from other sources of media?
Not so easy!!
Are you saying your last ten posts originated from a source of media rather than your keyboard?
How do you know they're not? What intel do you have that the internet doesn't ?
No.
Yes.
The appeal findings demonstrated the truth of what I am seeking to convey!
So you are now discrediting your earlier statement about the "only people posting information on the internet, are either saintly SJWs or demonic Nazis?" (your words)
No argument there. But these appeal findings have nothing to do with (nor do they quash) his earliest convictions of assault and fraud.
They have relevance to the counterpoint I am making. If someone is suddenly caught telling lies today, does that not cast doubt on all statements made by that person, including those made prior to the more recent discovery of deception?
If person A were to post the following:
Of course it does. But who is this person you speak of?
I think person A would probably try to pretend they were misquoted when they weren't and they would use that as an excuse to avoid retracting their funny little conspiracy theory when held to account. Person B knows the context in person A's comment is the same FUD with or without the deleted content.
Errmm Britain, perhaps!
No pretense necessary!
Britain is lying? That's what you're saying? On what basis should we accept that assertion?
Summarising (by saying "about the") in a quote isn't a misquote - it's a reference.
Perhaps I was being a little too liberal, and then again, perhaps I wasn't!
Person A was most certainly quoted out of context!!!Summarising (by saying "about the") in a quote isn't a misquote - it's a reference.
Person A was not quoted out of context and to suggest it was it a naked lie. Furthermore, if person A posts a series of wild conspiracy theories whether in the third person or not then person B has every right to debunk it. Free speech and all that.
For the record, this is the horrendous statement person B has made..
"So you are now discrediting your earlier statement about the "only people posting information on the internet, are either saintly SJWs or demonic Nazis?" (your words)"
Obvious TNT trigger there
Perhaps an overreach? It seems to be the gun app in this thread of late...
Why would I need to! I have no intention of misrepresenting you and am simply objecting to your repetitious misrepresentations of myself!Perhaps an overreach? It seems to be the gun app in this thread of late...
Person A is either clearly mistaken or attempting to gain fake mileage from false accusations of being misquoted by person B. I would say I'm correct on all points on that subject.
In fact I would say that portion of my reply has a Flesch Reading Ease score of 63.2, a Gunning Fog score of 10.2, a Coleman-Liau Index of 8, an Automated Readability Index of 6.9, a Linsear Write Formula of 8.5 and an accuracy level of around 100.1%
Person A's failure to grasp this level of vocabulary is only slightly worse than that of John Howard, which, at first glance doesn't sound too bad...
....until we remember that he lost his seat to an ABC journalist.
Also, when prompted, person A also thinks person B is talking to a ghost, yet person B remains civil and retains his composure by not taking umbrage with 31.5 explanation points.
Even Tommy Robinson could learn from this - gotta be better than beating people up.
Misrepresent that one as you wish
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.
