egafd.com

Maybe I misunderstood your post because I am not suggesting anything at all like what you suggest.

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

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

Rightly or wrongly I assumed you meant that he had better things to do than to reply to me. I merely pointed out that he has been posting very regularly and in fact responding to my posts but not directly to me so I don't see how "having a life" is a relevant comment in these circumstances.

"Whether that's in the actual content of the post or not it seems you'd like to have some sort of time limit in which people must respond to you,"

It isn't part of the actual content of my post. You are correct. Nor have I implied it.

I am not interested in having a "sort of time limit in which people must respond to you".

When I ask for Sam to reply to me directly I am referring NOT to a time limit but the fact that Sam refuses to make his points about my views directly to me but puts his response to me in a post to someone else.

It's a bit like you making a point to me in this thread but instead of my responding to you directly as I am doing now, I respond to a post from Andy, for example, and address your points and start slagging you off in my post to Andy.

Rightly or wrongly, I think that attitude seems a bit strange.

" and if they don't presumably you can cry victory."

No. I am just having a discussion as I am with you. It has nothing to do with "victory".

[quote]Whether that's in the actual content of the post or now it seems you'd like to have some sort of time limit in which people must respond to you, and if they don't presumably you can cry victory.[/quote]

Of course. It's about who can keep the argument going the longest, not who has the best points.

An example of this is his most recent reply to me:

Sam: "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."

David's reply: "You may have noticed that the majority of the international legal profession took a similar view to mine including the United Nations legal department."

Do you see what he did? My point was that he 'stated' the war was illegal. This infers or implies a fact. That was my side of the argument all along and said it many times.

Rather than admit he was wrong, he uses the views of lawyers and the UN. But they haven't 'stated' the war was illegal. They 'view' the war as illegal. A 'view' is opinion, not fact. Big difference. We all have views on things and I didn't pull him up on his view. I pulled him up on a false statement.

This is purposeful. I've explained this to him already and he's still mixing 'view' and 'statement' to avoid admitting he was wrong. This time he's using it for you. For you to think....."Yeah......Sam's wrong." Thus: 'David's right'. Except he isn't. Why go through all this trouble when a quick retraction of a silly comment would have sufficed? Vanity, of course. It's more important for him to be seen as beating me in the argument than sharing, debating and expressing opinions.

I've defended David on things he's right......and he has me. I will do so in future. I'm just not debating with him when he's so disingenuous or sullying my character.

"Rather than admit he was wrong, he uses the views of lawyers and the UN. But they haven't 'stated' the war was illegal. They 'view' the war as illegal. A 'view' is opinion, not fact." and "I've explained this to him already and he's still mixing 'view' and 'statement' to avoid admitting he was wrong"

Sam, definition of the word "to state" - express something clearly in speech or writing.

e.g. Money hasn?t changed me,? she stated firmly. or ?people will be invited to state their views?

Contrary to what you say Sam, the meaning of the word "state" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the thing being stated is a fact or an opinion as you imply.

Just to show you how slimey this man is, here is the original statement I pulled David up on:

[quote]"Blair with his dodgy dossier was responsible for taking this country into an illegal war that turned out to be based on a completely wrong premise i.e. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction." - David Johnson[/quote]

I'll leave you to decide if this statement is implying a fact, or a view. The post is here>

Now he's trying to make out it's a stating opinion akin to a statement like "Money hasn?t changed me." Using pedantry (you can 'state' opinion as well as fact) to worm his way out of admitting he made a mistake. I too can be a pedant with the best of them, but not to be disingenuous.

So to summarise for any poor bugger who has had the misfortune to read this part of the thread. Apologies to all that have, by the way.

1. We disagree as to whether the Iraq invasion was legal or not. Plenty agree with my stating the view that it was not legal. Some, typically part of the American and British government structure, agree with you that it was legal. You have got hung up on a misunderstanding of what the verb "to state" means.

2. In this small part of the thread, you have called me disingenuous, slimy, pedantic, silly, running a vanity project in which I don't believe what I say and at the same time accused ME of sullying YOUR character.

Blimey!

!idontbelieveit! !idontbelieveit! !idontbelieveit!

As you can see......9 months on from that first remark and he still can't admit he was wrong. Even after I quote him exactly and link to the beginning of the argument for everyone to read for themselves. It's there, in beautiful black and white.

He then tries to equate my calling him disingenuous and 'slimy' to his implication of me not caring about 96 people dying. Like they're equateable insults. Unbelievable.

Arguing with a guy who's willing to deny he was wrong, for so long, against all the evidence, is pointless. What is the benefit? I can't see one. If anybody can think of one, let me know.

These are reasons why I refuse to discuss anything with him anymore. If he's willing to argue black = white, just because he enters debates with a 'win at all costs' mentality, then there is no intellectual merit to it. It's part of his vanity project.

I'd be embarrassed to deny I'd said something when it was there for all the forum to see. I'd feel like I was worming my way out of it in an attempt to save face and that everyone would know it too. My conscience wouldn't let me.

"I'd be embarrassed to deny I'd said something when it was there for all the forum to see"

I have never denied stating that view. And the majority of the legal fraternity agree with me that "Blair with his dodgy dossier was responsible for taking this country into an illegal war "

"As you can see......9 months on from that first remark and he still can't admit he was wrong."

I have no problem generally saying that I am wrong.

I will say that I am wrong with regard to the Iraq war illegality when the international legal fraternity, who stated/took the view/whatever that the invasion was illegal, change their view and announce that they were wrong and Blair and Bush were right.

And these are the guys who know far, far, far more than either of us on this matter.

"He then tries to equate my calling him disingenuous and 'slimy' to his implication of me not caring about 96 people dying. Like they're equateable insults. Unbelievable."

Obviously, this is a complete misrepresentation of what I stated. Since you like specific quotes from previous posts, here's some actual posts for you.

You posted about the remembrance of the Hillsborough dead at different grounds
"Like he (Bob Singleton) said, we don't have it for other tragedies and many football fans feel they're being guilt-tripped into paying respect to something they've moved on from. Sounds harsh, but unless you're over 30, you'll not remember anything about that day. Let Liverpool hold their anniversaries, but we don't need it at every ground, every year.

I responded
"Yeah lets forget about all this Remembrance Day shite. World War 2 who gives a fuck. 96 people who got smeared by the police and the Sun, give it a fucking rest. Move on. Eh?"

Clearly what I am suggesting IS NOT that you don't care about the Hillsborough deaths or the deaths in wars, but that I do not agree with your view that we should not be remembering the dead whether that be the Hillsborough dead or the dead of various disasters etc. even though for a lot of kids under 30 they may know next to nothing about these disasters.