Message to Slater

[David Johnson]

How long are you going to keep up this hissy fit that you are having?

1. I didn't agree with your view that the Iraq invasion was legal, so you refused to discuss the topic any more unless I agreed with you first.

2. You threw a wobbler because I disagreed with your view on the Hillsborough deaths and that it was wrong to have minutes' silence at other grounds. The main reason you threw a wobbler was because you felt "slighted".

3. Err, if I threw a wobbler at every time Cunty, Sam Slater, Tom, Dick or Harry who calls me a twat, tells me to fuck off etc. etc. I would have a non-stop hissy fit.

4. Now I may not agree with Cunty, Argie, Bernard, Max, Essex Lad or you etc etc.. but:

a. They are entitled to have their views and post them here.
b. If they ask me a question on a particular thread, I am more than happy to explain why I think as I do. Now I might not always be polite in my reply but then I come from the school of hard knocks in which when you get insulted by someone you keep that in mind when you reply later on. But REPLY I do,

5. As for you, you refuse to debate anything directly with me but seem to want to have some kind of proxy debate with me via a third party. And even moan about me taking advantage in my posts by "twisting your views" knowing you aren't going to reply. Jeez!

Now, don't you think this attitude of yours is just a eensy, teensy, wee, bit immature?

Perhaps if you could reply to me directly? Go on!!! I ain't going to bite

[Cuntybollocks]

"They are entitled to have their views and post them here"

David, are you drunk?. When someone posts something on here which you don't agree with you shoot them down in flames!!. You post things like "This is wrong" or "This is nonsense" before trying to convince us that your view is the correct and only one. Saying things like "I have wasted enough time on you" and "Run along now" as if you are chastising a child, helps to reinforce the idea that you are a self righteous Arse.

I hope this helps. (As you would say)

[David Johnson]

I accept the tone of your comments and will try to cut out some of my more cutting remarks.

Mind, I am not sure if someone like yourself who goes round calling people twats and hassling Number 6 is necessarily the best person to be handing out advice on forum etiquette!!

So a bit of contrition on your part wouldn't go amiss.

[Cuntybollocks]

I can accept that David. I too will try to sheath my tongue!!.

As for Number 6, i had asked him a simple yes or no question and he refused to reply, i was also referred to as "shit on my shoe", he too is not without blame!!.

All water under the bridge however. Lets see how long it will last....

[David Johnson]

"Perhaps if you could reply to me directly? Go on!!! I ain't going to bite"

Ok. I will take that as a No then, shall I?

You realise that your actions on this topic are just a little bit silly?

1. I post something.
2. You can't reply directly to me in line with your on going hissy fit.
3. You wait until someone else makes a post on the same subject as me.
4. You then respond to the third party post with a reference to me and my point, preferably insulting.
5. I respond to you directly, because I am not having a hissy fit, on the content of your post.
6. You then have to hang around in the hope that someone else will make a post on the same topic so that you get to have the opportunity to respond.

I am quite happy to attend a counselling session with you, if you think it will help with your issues.

[Sam Slater]

I'll debate with anyone who wants to debate.

He once stated the Iraq war was illegal. I told him nothing was illegal until it had been to trial and a verdict was decided. He spent over 6 months refusing to say he was wrong.

Given his pedantism, I can only think of two reasons why he'd refuse to admit he was wrong for so long:

1. He's a hypocrite who only believes in 'innocent until proven guilty' when it suits him.

2. This is a game where winning against me is more important to him than the principle being discussed.

I don't think he's a hypocrite. I think he said something silly without much thought but refused to concede the point because it would mean losing to me.

It's a game.........so I won't play. Simple.

It's all part of his vanity project. His points aren't that important to him - what matters is how he thinks we perceive him. I've seen it before and I got fed up with it.

The last straw was his implications I didn't give a fuck about 96 Liverpool supporters who lost their lives. He couldn't apologise even though I gave him ample opportunity because it would be a concession. Again: vanity.

It means he can reply to me and I won't reply. That gives him a real advantage..........but that's ok. My principles come first.

[David Johnson]

"Perhaps he has more important things to do, like have a life"

This point would be valid if Sam did not reply at all, but that isn't the case.

He puts his views on my posts to someone else instead of doing the obvious thing which is to post in reply to me, since it is my comments he is replying to.

This bizarre refusal to direct his views on my posts to someone else and not me, gives Mr.Slater "no more nor less of a life"

[David Johnson]

"He once stated the Iraq war was illegal. I told him nothing was illegal until it had been to trial and a verdict was decided. He spent over 6 months refusing to say he was wrong."

You may have noticed that the majority of the international legal profession took a similar view to mine including the United Nations legal department. Even the British Attorney General warned about these problems until he was leaned on by the Blair government to change his views within a matter of days.

In your book, they are all "hypocrites", following a "vanity project", "playing a game".

I don't think so. They just disagree with you, Sam.