Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

In the UK it's a paegant....in NK it's propaganda....


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-117 of 117 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 11:57:33 BDT
David Groom says:
Simon TFB,

'The person or persons who reported the collapse of building seven did NOT make a mistake.'

Evidence that they didn't make a mistake? And don't say because building hadn't collapsed at that time, as that's a circular argument.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 12:00:55 BDT
David....please...you are embarrassing yourself....

They didn't make a mistake because it actually happened. Do you think the building did not collapse?

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 12:13:03 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
Your wasting your breath or fingernails Simon,
I'm still waiting for an answer on why David thinks we should all believe his 'friends' version of what North Korea is like or where his evidence is that Republicans are a tiny minority in this country,

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 13:04:57 BDT
David Groom says:
SimonTFB,

'David....please...you are embarrassing yourself....'

You should look in the mirror before you post this sort of comment.

'They didn't make a mistake because it actually happened. Do you think the building did not collapse?'

Do I really have to spell out the obvious? The mistake was in reporting something that hadn't happened at the time of reporting. In short they had it wrong at that time. Shortly afterwards, it did actually fall, unsurprisingly given the damage to it. Why did Reuters get it wrong? I don't know. Maybe a typist mistook a 2 for a 7. Maybe the Reuters people were referring to either WTC 1 or 2 and didn't understand the numbering. However, given that the report on this occurred only 25 minutes before the fall, and the fire service were well aware of the danger of collapse several hours earlier I don't see anything strange about it. The most logical explanation is that Reuters picked up the likelihood of it falling from the fire service and somebody in their organisation assumed this meant that it had. I for one have no difficulty in understanding how this mistake could have been made, given the chaos and confusion on the day.

The alternative, that somebody tipped off Reuters that it would fall, based on some prior knowldge or pre-planning is too laughable for words.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 13:07:28 BDT
David Groom says:
dav45,

'I'm still waiting for an answer on why David thinks we should all believe his 'friends' version of what North Korea is like or where his evidence is that Republicans are a tiny minority in this country,'

Interesting, that you don't know this man at all, yet you already think he's lying. In any case, I didn't say you should believe his version. What you should do is consider it alongside the other reported evidence as to what the place is like. What he had to say accords perfectly with the impression the outside world has on NK, so I have no reason to doubt the evidence of his eyes. Why should I?

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 13:17:48 BDT
gille liath says:
There was a poll here a few years back, putting support for republicanism at over 30%. It stuck in my mind because it was dismissed in the media as a negligible minority - whilst at the exact same time they were reporting on republicanism in New Zealand, put then at 25%, as 'significant and growing'.

Posted on 9 Jun 2012 13:25:49 BDT
Last edited by the author on 9 Jun 2012 13:27:13 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
David,

You originally posted,

'Dav45 made a claim based on ignorance and I refuted it with specific information. Can't be clearer than that can it?'

So now you are saying we shouldn't believe your friend if we dont want to, and yet this is the specific information you used to refute my post on whether news feeds should be entirely believed or actually report true facts like Sky or Fox News.
You're right I do not know this man which is why you should 'suggest' that this person has been to NK and relate what he had to say, rather than pompously announce that this friend is highly credible and therefore supersedes any other point of view,
Pomposity David is the key word, I always suggest things in my posts instead of calling people ignorant, stupied, troofers or loons when their opinion doesn't nescessarily coincide with mine.

You haven't presented any evidence that suggests Republicans are in such a 'tiny' minority,
Evidence doesn't include polls from the daily mail

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 14:29:01 BDT
Mr Groom.....I love it.....you are a hoot!....when you watch the news how often do reporters display clairvoyance?

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 14:30:12 BDT
Dav...yes I see what you mean?

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 15:19:32 BDT
Last edited by the author on 9 Jun 2012 15:21:25 BDT
David Groom says:
Dav45,

'So now you are saying we shouldn't believe your friend if we dont want to, and yet this is the specific information you used to refute my post on whether news feeds should be entirely believed or actually report true facts like Sky or Fox News.'

Of course you don't have to believe it. Do I have to spell out the obvious in a free country like the UK - in NK you would have to believe it if told to do so. In the UK you don't. I'd have thought that was a given, but there you go, you obviously need it spelling out to you.

The reason I used it to refute your post is that you claimed 'we only have the 'unbiased news feeds to inform us otherwise (about NK)'. The key word in here was your use of 'only'. Clearly my friend who has been there and doesn't work for any news agency demonstrates that we don't have to rely on news feeds alone for opinion about the place. Seems a perfectly reasonable reason to refute you to me, or are you claiming some sort of infallibility?

'You're right I do not know this man which is why you should 'suggest' that this person has been to NK and relate what he had to say, rather than pompously announce that this friend is highly credible and therefore supersedes any other point of view,'

I didn't say he was highly credible and that his view supersedes anything else. Clearly from what he saw and experienced, he was in a position to verify very closely the view that the western media portrays of NK. That's hardly superseding anything.

'Pomposity David is the key word, I always suggest things in my posts instead of calling people ignorant, stupied, troofers or loons when their opinion doesn't nescessarily coincide with mine.'

There's nothing laudable about entering into serious debate with people who are unable to understand evidence, ignore it when it doesn't accord with their pre-conceived ideas, are unable to frame any kind of counter argument and who themselves throw out the first insult. As far as I am concerned they are being accurately described as ignorant, stupid or troofers, especially when they start the abuse flying. They get all they deserve. And if you find this hard to accept then go read the 9/11 threads and see where the insults and stupidity come from.

'You haven't presented any evidence that suggests Republicans are in such a 'tiny' minority,'

Well you tell me how many you saw during the Jubilee weekend events. A couple of hundred from my recollection in amongst a crowd of hundreds of thousands - scarcely a major political movement.

Posted on 9 Jun 2012 15:55:17 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
David,

You really do make me chuckle,

People have better things to do than demonstrate at the Jubilee weekend,
the demise of your beloved monarchy will come about by natural means,
Still no evidence of Republicans being in a tiny majority?
You really do need to get your act together - how you can claim to be a disaster manager - Anderson shelter manager maybe?

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 18:45:26 BDT
David Groom says:
Dav45,

'You really do make me chuckle,'

You are easily amused then.

'People have better things to do than demonstrate at the Jubilee weekend,'

Not very dedicated to the cause then if they can't be ar*ed to get out of bed and demonstrate. Doesn't bode well for the future of republicanism if they can't be bothered on THE one occasion that mattered.

'the demise of your beloved monarchy will come about by natural means,'

Not my monarchy. I don't have a strong view either way. However, I'm absolutely certain that I'd need a very good reason to trash a 1000 years of history in favour of I don't know what, but if it's President Blair, Prescott, Cameron, Clegg or Beckham then I do know what I'll stick with. I also think that those who would prefer to be without the monarchy have little idea what they do and what benefits accrue to the UK as a result. And before you sneer about this and ask for details, try looking it up for yourself, then ask how a faceless President would be able to do the same job.

Either way, it doesn't matter as I don't see the end of the monarchy any time soon. I can't imagine any government going along with it for one thing. They are scared enough of Scottish independence let alone abolishing the monarchy.

'You really do need to get your act together - how you can claim to be a disaster manager - Anderson shelter manager maybe?'

If you knew anything about Anderson shelters you would know that they are completely irrelevant so far as today's disasters are concerned.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 20:29:50 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
David,

You certainly have livened up a pretty dull day at work for me with your chivalrous posts,
To be honest I am not really concerned whether the Monarchy remains or not,
Either way their reign over Scotland will probably end after the referendum,
Northern England may go the same way as Scotland eventually as there is a lot of concern up here at being governed permanently by a Tory adminstration if Scotland does leave the Union - not that Labour is much better anyway,
I dont particularyl want a president myself, certainly not Blair just a further level of expensive burocracy which is what royalty boils down to.
There was an Anderson shelter in the field adjoining my garden up until the 1990's,
Apparently in the 70's an elderly neighbour told me she had been advised to use it in the event of a nuclear attack in a leaflet from the goverment,
Some use that would be and certainly an indicator of how well prepared this country was and probably still is for a nuclear attack!

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 20:55:19 BDT
gille liath says:
Besides the fact that, last I heard, Scottish opinion polls were against independence, the Nats say they'll keep the monarchy (whose right in Scotland is prior to that in England) whatever the result.

As for northern England - it'd be fine by me, but we've heard all this stuff before; when it came to the polls, again, the answer was an emphatic 'no'.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 21:43:07 BDT
David Groom says:
Dav45,

'You certainly have livened up a pretty dull day at work for me with your chivalrous posts,'

Always nice to know that I continue to amuse.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 08:28:44 BDT
Molly Brown says:
And more people left for the country for the weekend to get away from the Jubilee than actively supported it. Rather unpatriotic don't you think?

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 10:55:37 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
Kepping the monarchy is only a symbolic gesture,
it would absolve the Scottish taxpayer of any having to provide financial support towards the upkeep of royallty,
Former colonies such as Australia recognise the Queen as their monarch but dont pay towards their upkeep,
An article here depicts the queens role,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/16/qanda.jubilee

Interesting footnote to this article - Roman Catholics, Muslims and other non Protestants are barred from succeeding to the throne by The 1701 Act of Settlement - still enforcable - dashes my ambitions then,

A further Act is The Treason of Felony Act 1848 which barrs discussion of Republican forms of goverment - so I can expect a knock on the door perhaps,
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  17
Total posts:  117
Initial post:  3 Jun 2012
Latest post:  10 Jun 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions