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?Oh!! Such a dependable information source!!
You do of course realise, (and I have it on that most dependable of all authorities - namely left wing opinion consensus), that the only people posting information on the internet, are either saintly SJWs or demonic Nazis?!
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 mateMany SJWs, whose modus operandi is the automatic demonisation of their ideological opponents, are renowned for expressing such sentiments!
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?Which brings me back to my very simple counterpoint!
How do you know that what the media is reporting about Tommy's history,( or indeed the history of any "leader" daring enough to express views contrary to postmodernistic ideology), is a true and accurate representation of facts, when the judiciary and the media have been shown to have behaved dishonestly?
And libraries often house newspaper and magazine publications!! Does this mean that newspapers and magazines, so housed, are no longer media sources?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?
It's all BS right? He's never been to jail in your opinion?
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.And libraries often house newspaper and magazine publications!! Does this mean that newspapers and magazines, so housed, are no longer media sources?
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.Was he not incorrectly jailed these past few months?
In light of this, what does that say about the dependability of forming character judgments based upon a person's penal history?
Are you saying that information stored on the internet never originates from other sources of media?No that's a false conclusion.
Just because a chemist sells dingers doesn't mean it's primarily a sex shop.
Are you saying your last ten posts on ASF are really media statements and therefore fake?
Not so easy!!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 your last ten posts originated from a source of media rather than your keyboard?Are you saying that information stored on the internet never originates from other sources of media?
How do you know they're not? What intel do you have that the internet doesn't ?Now that you know that the system cannot be relied upon to operate correctly at all times, how do you know that the earlier convictions are correct and dependable?
No.Are you saying your last ten posts originated from a source of media rather than your keyboard?
Yes.Am I having this debate with a ghost?
The appeal findings demonstrated the truth of what I am seeking to convey!How do you know they're not? What intel do you have that the internet doesn't ?
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)Are you saying your last ten posts originated from a source of media rather than your keyboard?
No argument there. But these appeal findings have nothing to do with (nor do they quash) his earliest convictions of assault and fraud.The appeal findings demonstrated the truth of what I am seeking to convey!
Either the judicial system failed by overturning a rightful conviction of an appellant, or it had earlier failed, by making the wrongful conviction that was being appealed.
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?No argument there. But these appeal findings have nothing to do with his earliest convictions of assault and fraud.
If person A were to post the following: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)
Oh!! Such a dependable information source!!
You do of course realise, (and I have it on that most dependable of all authorities - namely left wing opinion consensus), that the only people posting information on the internet, are either saintly SJWs or demonic Nazis?!
Of course it does. But who is this person you speak of?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?
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.If person A were to post the following:
Don't let the bigots take you down!
And then person B, sometime later, responded with:
Person A has made the statement "let the bigots take you down!"(Person A's words)
How do you think person A would then feel about person B?
For the benefit of those just tuning in, my original post, within its true context:
Errmm Britain, perhaps!Of course it does. But who is this person you speak of?
No pretense necessary!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.
Britain is lying? That's what you're saying? On what basis should we accept that assertion?Errmm Britain, perhaps!
Summarising (by saying "about the") in a quote isn't a misquote - it's a reference.No pretense necessary!
Person A was clearly quoted out of context!
Furthermore, person B's opinion, about person A's statement, does not entitle person B, to make blatant misrepresentations, about what person A has truly stated!!
Perhaps I was being a little too liberal, and then again, perhaps I wasn't!Britain is lying? That's what you're saying? On what basis should we accept that assertion?
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...Perhaps I was being a little too liberal, and then again, perhaps I wasn't!
Person A was most certainly quoted out of context!!!
To say otherwise is at best misinformed, and at worst intentionally deceitful.
I am undecided as to whether the former, or the latter applies to your repeated misrepresentations of myself.
But you are right on at least one point!
This is most certainly a TNT moment!!
There are few things I detest more than having my statements misconstrued, even moreso when such misconstruances are intentionally and deliberately reiterated!!!
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?