If anyone needs to broaden their horizons, Essex Lad, it isn't us.
Woolich Attack
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Mr Slater and David Johnson
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Mr Slater - a summary
Like I said Mr. Slater - a simple yes or no would suffice to my questions in the main because as you remarked much of the ground is covered elsewhere in the thread - hence my subject, a summary.
Alas you seem unable to give a yes or a no. Hence the seemingly endless blah.
"You said pre-1970. Given Islam is over a thousand years old I think that just using figures of Muslims in the UK for the final year of that time period to back up your argument and provide you with a 'gotcha!' is laughable."
Ah the selective Slater riposte. Did you actually read the part of the post that you are referring to?
What I did say was " Why did WE not hear about those in say the period before 1970s?" I didn't say in the centuries prior to this. And I did reference the population at 1970 in the UK which was a very considerable 700,000 Muslims.
I am clearly talking about recent memory in a media/TV/radio age just before the 70s. which is why I reference the number of Muslims living in the UK and Europe in 1970 as opposed to 1370!!! No need for you to rattle on about how many Muslims that were in the UK in 1900-25.
It would be rather difficult wouldn't it to compare today with its 24 hr worldwide media when violent events are repeated ad infinitum with the Middle Ages when your average peasant didn't know what was going in the next village never mind on another continent? Or in 1910 for that matter.
At least in the 50s to 70s we had "foreign news reportage", full coverage of events in the States and Vietnam and Cambodia etc although not the 24hr media we have now. At least some half sensible comparison is made possible.
SO I repeat for the third time, Mr. Slater.
If you are correct and Islam is a hateful faith still mediaeval in character, where the duty of all good Muslims who follow the one and only true meaning of the Koran is to proselytise the non-believer, aid the spread of Islam, subjugate women, attack homosexuals, take an eye for an eye, why did we not hear much more about "terror attacks" in the fifties, sixties and early seventies than we have done in the last 20 or so years?
Whether such Muslim countries were part of an Empire or not should not have made any difference should they to the level of terror given this, according to you, "hateful" religion's main tenets remained unchanged throughout?
Over to you Mr Slater. No blah please. No need to cut up all the other paragraphs and give me your considered views on them.
Just try to answer my question without evasion.
Thank you kindly.
Alas you seem unable to give a yes or a no. Hence the seemingly endless blah.
"You said pre-1970. Given Islam is over a thousand years old I think that just using figures of Muslims in the UK for the final year of that time period to back up your argument and provide you with a 'gotcha!' is laughable."
Ah the selective Slater riposte. Did you actually read the part of the post that you are referring to?
What I did say was " Why did WE not hear about those in say the period before 1970s?" I didn't say in the centuries prior to this. And I did reference the population at 1970 in the UK which was a very considerable 700,000 Muslims.
I am clearly talking about recent memory in a media/TV/radio age just before the 70s. which is why I reference the number of Muslims living in the UK and Europe in 1970 as opposed to 1370!!! No need for you to rattle on about how many Muslims that were in the UK in 1900-25.
It would be rather difficult wouldn't it to compare today with its 24 hr worldwide media when violent events are repeated ad infinitum with the Middle Ages when your average peasant didn't know what was going in the next village never mind on another continent? Or in 1910 for that matter.
At least in the 50s to 70s we had "foreign news reportage", full coverage of events in the States and Vietnam and Cambodia etc although not the 24hr media we have now. At least some half sensible comparison is made possible.
SO I repeat for the third time, Mr. Slater.
If you are correct and Islam is a hateful faith still mediaeval in character, where the duty of all good Muslims who follow the one and only true meaning of the Koran is to proselytise the non-believer, aid the spread of Islam, subjugate women, attack homosexuals, take an eye for an eye, why did we not hear much more about "terror attacks" in the fifties, sixties and early seventies than we have done in the last 20 or so years?
Whether such Muslim countries were part of an Empire or not should not have made any difference should they to the level of terror given this, according to you, "hateful" religion's main tenets remained unchanged throughout?
Over to you Mr Slater. No blah please. No need to cut up all the other paragraphs and give me your considered views on them.
Just try to answer my question without evasion.
Thank you kindly.
Re: Mr Slater and David Johnson
Sam Slater wrote:
> If anyone needs to broaden their horizons, Essex Lad, it isn't
> us.
>
You jest surely. You must hours posting. Look at the screeds the pair of you post. And I doubt anyone who has managed to wade through it hasn't altered their opinions one iota.
> If anyone needs to broaden their horizons, Essex Lad, it isn't
> us.
>
You jest surely. You must hours posting. Look at the screeds the pair of you post. And I doubt anyone who has managed to wade through it hasn't altered their opinions one iota.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Essex Lad
"And I doubt anyone who has managed to wade through it hasn't altered their opinions one iota."
I never realised we were both so influential!
I never realised we were both so influential!
Re: Essex Lad
David Johnson wrote:
> "And I doubt anyone who has managed to wade through it hasn't
> altered their opinions one iota."
>
> I never realised we were both so influential!
You're not. In fact, it is the often patronising and sanctimonious tone that you adopt that hardens people against you.
> "And I doubt anyone who has managed to wade through it hasn't
> altered their opinions one iota."
>
> I never realised we were both so influential!
You're not. In fact, it is the often patronising and sanctimonious tone that you adopt that hardens people against you.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Essex Lad
Mmm, negatives in sentences, very tricky.
Re: Essex Lad
And with one sentence Mr Johnson proves Essex lad correct.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Gentleman
"frankly I'm not as interested in spending so much time trying to justify my opinion to some unknown on a forum."
Pot, kettle, black?
Pot, kettle, black?
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Essex Lad
Essex Lad states
"Fucking hell ? you two seriously need to get out more."
And then describes me as "patronising".
Pot, kettle, black?
"Fucking hell ? you two seriously need to get out more."
And then describes me as "patronising".
Pot, kettle, black?
Re: Gentleman
Hey I'm just watching the superior intellect at work arguing against someone who just said you come across as arrogant and condescending in your posts by being condescending and arrogant in his response.