0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: IC1967 on April 28, 2015, 06:38:09 pmIt's me you should be abjectly apologising to and yes you have missed the threads where people are laughing at you.Evidence man, where is it? There are seven threads on here from three different contributors, which ones are laughing at me?
It's me you should be abjectly apologising to and yes you have missed the threads where people are laughing at you.
Quote from: IC1967 on April 28, 2015, 06:41:00 pmFair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).This one:Quote from: wilts rover on March 09, 2015, 09:28:52 pmQuote from: IC1967 on March 09, 2015, 09:16:41 pmQuote from: Capital Steez on March 09, 2015, 07:55:38 pmNo one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wetBobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.
Fair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).
Quote from: IC1967 on March 09, 2015, 09:16:41 pmQuote from: Capital Steez on March 09, 2015, 07:55:38 pmNo one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wetBobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.
Quote from: Capital Steez on March 09, 2015, 07:55:38 pmNo one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wetBobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.
No one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wet
Lol! Look!! Our Resident Idiot just can't help himself can he?? He's made two replies already. It's just not normal. You'll end up upsetting Orlando Wilts! Mick must be in reight frenzy thrapping himself off to all that Lol. Keep it up Mick. It's probably best you waste your spunk in as many places as possible. Helps ensure there'll be less progeny carrying on a line that natural selection is inevitably going to weed out.BobG
Quote from: wilts rover on April 28, 2015, 06:45:03 pmQuote from: IC1967 on April 28, 2015, 06:38:09 pmIt's me you should be abjectly apologising to and yes you have missed the threads where people are laughing at you.Evidence man, where is it? There are seven threads on here from three different contributors, which ones are laughing at me?Not for the first time you've completely lost me. There are a lot more than 7 threads on the forum. There are a lot more than 3 contributors. You need to try again but this time try and make your post more coherent.
Look. When people read your post and my response they are going to be laughing behind your back.
Quote from: wilts rover on April 28, 2015, 06:49:12 pmQuote from: IC1967 on April 28, 2015, 06:41:00 pmFair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).This one:Quote from: wilts rover on March 09, 2015, 09:28:52 pmQuote from: IC1967 on March 09, 2015, 09:16:41 pmQuote from: Capital Steez on March 09, 2015, 07:55:38 pmNo one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wetBobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.I've already dealt with this issue comprehensively. More than once now.I'd appreciate it if you could explain how a trade agreement is being introduced by the Tories when it hasn't even yet been agreed? Why is Bob not answering the question? Why is he saying its a Tory agreement when everyone knows its an EU agreement with the US which is mainly being driven by Germany?
Quote from: IC1967 on April 28, 2015, 07:34:20 pmQuote from: wilts rover on April 28, 2015, 06:49:12 pmQuote from: IC1967 on April 28, 2015, 06:41:00 pmFair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).This one:Quote from: wilts rover on March 09, 2015, 09:28:52 pmQuote from: IC1967 on March 09, 2015, 09:16:41 pmQuote from: Capital Steez on March 09, 2015, 07:55:38 pmNo one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wetBobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.I've already dealt with this issue comprehensively. More than once now.I'd appreciate it if you could explain how a trade agreement is being introduced by the Tories when it hasn't even yet been agreed? Why is Bob not answering the question? Why is he saying its a Tory agreement when everyone knows its an EU agreement with the US which is mainly being driven by Germany?No you haven't, you have avoided and evaded the question several times now. Where in Bob's statement are those words?
Quote from: wilts rover on April 29, 2015, 08:37:05 pmQuote from: IC1967 on April 28, 2015, 07:34:20 pmQuote from: wilts rover on April 28, 2015, 06:49:12 pmQuote from: IC1967 on April 28, 2015, 06:41:00 pmFair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).This one:Quote from: wilts rover on March 09, 2015, 09:28:52 pmQuote from: IC1967 on March 09, 2015, 09:16:41 pmQuote from: Capital Steez on March 09, 2015, 07:55:38 pmNo one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wetBobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.I've already dealt with this issue comprehensively. More than once now.I'd appreciate it if you could explain how a trade agreement is being introduced by the Tories when it hasn't even yet been agreed? Why is Bob not answering the question? Why is he saying its a Tory agreement when everyone knows its an EU agreement with the US which is mainly being driven by Germany?No you haven't, you have avoided and evaded the question several times now. Where in Bob's statement are those words?You really do take pedantry to a new level. It is not true that I have evaded the question. I have comprehensively answered it previously. Anyway The exact words he used are irrelevant. He said that TTIP is being introduced by the Tories. It's very simple. This statement is not true. I've explained why it's not true. What is it you can't understand?Answer my questions. He won't. He just likes to indulge in personal attacks. If you think I've misrepresented what he said then do us all a favour and explain why, because he won't.Now get on with it will you. Answer the questions (I fully expect you not to) and explain the unexplainable will you. Failure to do this will require an immediate abject apology. Get on with it man.
Our own version of Godwin's Law. As the length of a thread increases, the probability of it descending into a morass of Mick's egotistical neediness tends towards 1.
Quote from: IC1967 on April 29, 2015, 10:20:48 pmQuote from: wilts rover on April 29, 2015, 08:37:05 pmQuote from: IC1967 on April 28, 2015, 07:34:20 pmQuote from: wilts rover on April 28, 2015, 06:49:12 pmQuote from: IC1967 on April 28, 2015, 06:41:00 pmFair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).This one:Quote from: wilts rover on March 09, 2015, 09:28:52 pmQuote from: IC1967 on March 09, 2015, 09:16:41 pmQuote from: Capital Steez on March 09, 2015, 07:55:38 pmNo one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wetBobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.I've already dealt with this issue comprehensively. More than once now.I'd appreciate it if you could explain how a trade agreement is being introduced by the Tories when it hasn't even yet been agreed? Why is Bob not answering the question? Why is he saying its a Tory agreement when everyone knows its an EU agreement with the US which is mainly being driven by Germany?No you haven't, you have avoided and evaded the question several times now. Where in Bob's statement are those words?You really do take pedantry to a new level. It is not true that I have evaded the question. I have comprehensively answered it previously. Anyway The exact words he used are irrelevant. He said that TTIP is being introduced by the Tories. It's very simple. This statement is not true. I've explained why it's not true. What is it you can't understand?Answer my questions. He won't. He just likes to indulge in personal attacks. If you think I've misrepresented what he said then do us all a favour and explain why, because he won't.Now get on with it will you. Answer the questions (I fully expect you not to) and explain the unexplainable will you. Failure to do this will require an immediate abject apology. Get on with it man.You have not answered my question. You can write about TTIP as much as you wish, all you are doing is avoiding my question - where in Bob's statement are those words?
Ha ha ha!!! You done it AGAIN Mick!!You just can't resist it can you? Wasn't one climax enough for you? Again?BobG
Once again you refuse to answer my question and instead answer an entirely different one. Just to give you a clue, the question has nothing to do with TTIP - nor is it pedantic. It is in fact related to your truth, accuracy and honesty. You wonder why I keep asking. I will tell you. I want to show you up for what you are. What your 'answers' prove is that you are unable to give an honest answer to a direct question. You pretend to be one thing but faced with real facts are obfuscating, deceptive and dishonest. All of these characteristics you have more than proven in your answers. Go on, have another go, there is only one answer, tell the truth, give an honest answer, it will make you feel better (but it will mean you will need to apologise to Bob):Where in Bob G's statement does he say TTIP has been introduced?By the way it is 'being introduced'. It is being discussed at a high government level, and it wouldn't be if the government were not thinking of introducing it. It may never actually be introduced, but that is a separate discussion entirely.You have not answered my question from post 96. Funny that.
You are refusing to answer both my questions then Mick?
QED m'ludYou're screwed Mick.BobG
Quote from: BobG on April 30, 2015, 08:45:05 pmQED m'ludYou're screwed Mick.BobGJust answer the questions. IC1967
Quote from: IC1967 on April 30, 2015, 09:19:23 pmQuote from: BobG on April 30, 2015, 08:45:05 pmQED m'ludYou're screwed Mick.BobGJust answer the questions. IC1967Why, you wont answer mine?
I won't quote the post I'm responding to; this post is quite long enough. Refer to your last response to me if needed.No contradiction whatsoever. With over 2700 posts, that's a lot to go through.The hunted animal enjoys it not one little bit, I'd imagine. That said, I'm SURE they hate getting eaten alive by other predators, starving to death, or dying slowly of disease FAR more.For the fifth(?) and final time, I don't follow any recognised or organised religion, not that it's even remotely relevant, nor have I ever claimed that any deity has given man permission to do as he wishes. Having made myself abundantly clear on the subject so many times that even somebody with remedial comprehension skills would understand, I will be ignoring any and all further irrelevant comments regarding religious beliefs.To clarify for the benefit of the educationally challenged, non predatory animals are prey due to evolution, not the will of a deity. I won't be repeating that 5 more times so it sinks in, so pay attention.Mick, there IS no explanation to your contradictory stance on PETA, beyond "Yes it's contradictory, and on this subject, I'm a hypocrite." Not only did you state and AGREE with each of those principles, YOU QUOTED THEM TO ME! You only backtracked on those stated principles and tried to quantify them, when I just pointed out that those principles are incompatible and contradictory with your love of the races. It's simple and blatant hypocrisy, that is clear to everybody but you.If riding a horse during its rehabilitation, and occasionally for fun is wrong (YOUR STATED BELIEF, backed up with links to PETA), then what is the exploitation of horses in the racing industry? Acceptable, as per your recently stated opinion. A text book example of contradiction/hypocrisy. I always remember being at school and laughing when I pointed out the dictionary definition of hypocrite to a vegetarian/animal activist friend. As an example it simply stated, "a vegetarian who wears leather shoes." This is as clear an example as that one. Hypocrite - a vegan professing that the use of animals for work or entertainment is wrong, who actively participates and makes a living from the horse racing industry.If you simply didn't agree with everything PETA say, fine no problem. I mean, how could you; you'd have to have a few screws loose. However, you agreed with them on these two main points specifically, until I applied them to you.You previously claimed that keeping pets was wrong, but because they are already here, domesticated, and need homes, taking one in and keeping them is a good thing, as backed up by PETA. My horses are no different. Almost every horse that I have ever rescued would have ended up as dog food, or would have starved to death or died from disease, had I not intervened. I don't buy, breed, or sell them. In fact, I have never received a penny for a single one of them when people have adopted them, and I often even end up giving them food and tack. So individuals who rescue and/or adopt horses at their own expense are animal abusers, but PETA, an international corporation that collects millions of pounds every year in donations, who rescue animals for adoption and DESTROY them if they don't manage to get them adopted in a timely fashion, are morally superior? Give me a break! PETA fanatics have no issue with having pets, and most of them don't pass them on so they can rescue more, once fluffy has become a part of the family. I've adopted injured or old horses that I knew nobody would ever adopt, and they've died happy, well fed, and with dignity. You can shove your moral high ground up your a***.Again, to be clear, we are not disagreeing whether or not you agree 100% with everything PETA believes, we are arguing over 2 of their main philosophies that you wholeheartedly supported (and vehemently defended), right up until I pointed out how incompatible they are with your hobby/livelihood.So, keeping pets is wrong, which usually involves an animal becoming an adopted member of the family, receiving love, attention, food, and any necessary medical treatment, but the horse racing industry, which uses horses purely as a tool for entertainment, work, etc is fine? The same industry where all but the very best (and luckiest) end up in meat auctions after a few years? But hey, they receive good nutrition and medical care for a few years, (whilst being exploited, tortured, and abused - your words), so it's fine what happens to them? They had a good run while it lasted? Are you aware that horses can live into their 30's? For what proportion of their lives are racehorses "treated better than humans"? You say they're treated better than humans, but since when were children bred to be Olympic athletes, treated as slaves, forced to run against their wills, and all but the best of them sent for slaughter when they either don't make the grade, or age or injuries render them incapable of competing at the highest level anymore?You're a zealot, whose hypocrisy has been exposed. Admit it, get over it. A lot of vegetarians eat bacon from time to time. It doesn't make you a bad person, but when you set yourself up as a paragon of morality and virtue, and challenge people to prove you contradictory, it does make you look like a prat... Especially when you won't admit what is obvious to everyone. You still haven't answered the question I asked regarding your other usernames. We all know you are IC1967, but we all know you have (or have had) other usernames in the past. What are those other usernames? As we both know, you can't/won't answer that truthfully, so your mythical 100% record, were it still intact, has gone.Another - How can rescuing a horse and riding it to train it for adoption, be bad, but the horse racing industry that breeds animals, trains and exploits them for monetary gain, pumps them full of drugs, and ultimately discards them, usually condemning them to death, be morally superior? It simply can't.Abject apologies, or keep digging; either way is just as amusing.I await your attempts at baiting and misdirection; since to do otherwise would simply be admitting you're wrong.The offer to lock my rifle away in return for your word that you'll give up on the gambling and the racing still stands, btw. After being endangered and protected for 30 years, bears are back on the menu later this year. Just sayin'.
Where does he attack people who don't eat animals as pathetic? I can't find it in his last article. He does use the vegetarian and leather shoes analogy as use of the word hypocrite, but as he said, it was a simple way of explaining the word to children, then expanded it to vegans and the horse racing industry. Please enlighten me, or are you reading a different article?
Where is the attack on people who don't eat meat in the article? You give it as a FACT statements in your response,
Quote from: Hounslowrover on May 01, 2015, 01:47:24 pmWhere is the attack on people who don't eat meat in the article? You give it as a FACT statements in your response,He said - 'I always remember being at school and laughing when I pointed out the dictionary definition of hypocrite to a vegetarian/animal activist friend. As an example it simply stated, "a vegetarian who wears leather shoes." There you have it. He recalls taking the piss out of people that care about animals. No wonder he turned into a barbarian.Now I'd be grateful if you could confirm that you were joking about being a head teacher. If your standard of literacy is anything to go by I feel very sorry for the children under you. 'You give it as a FACT statements'. What king of gibberish is that? You do know that you're supposed to end a sentence with a full stop and not a comma don't you?