egafd.com

Well, Argie, good of you to provide advice to Sam. He seems to think quite highly of you e.g.

"Unless you've got it in your head I'm in any way in that cunt Argie's camp,"

"Don't waste your time arguing with someone who is always right..."

If only.. I thought Ed Miliband would be an excellent leader. Under his leadership, Labour have made a number of potentially catastrophic mistakes:

1. Not been radical enough in his policies.
2. Not taken on the Tories over their asinine claim that Gordon Brown was somehow responsible for the global finance collapse.
3. Sounding like a robot in terms of his answers to stiff questioning.
4. Not taking on Farage and his lot in terms of their policies.

He'd better start shaping up or otherwise Labour is going to hand the 2015 election to another Tory led coalition.

Can't we all just get along?

Obviously not.

I tried and just got sarcasm in return.

I don't mind someone who thinks he/she is always right. It can be arrogant and annoying but it's also honest in it's own way.

Now, for someone to be disingenuous and twist things just to be SEEN to be right at the expense of others......that's a different story. It's dishonest and serves no purpose but to stroke the ego of the person doing it.

Hardly the whole story, Slater

"If he admits he was wrong over the Iraq war statement and apologises for his nasty implications regarding Hillsborough, I will let bygones be bygones."

Meanwhile back in the real world...

As you can see,

"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."

the above is a false statement. He only has to admit this, and apologise for implying I don't care about the Hillsborough victims and I will debate with him again.........and you know how many times he's asked me to debate with him again this last few weeks. For a man so desperate to do so, he's not that keen if he can't concede a few points.

It's all a game to him.

I'm not debating with a disingenuous forumite who's only interested in stroking his own ego. Only David benefits from this and nobody else. They are not the rules I want to play by.

Again........I offered a hand and he shoved it back in my face.

"Blair with his dodgy dossier was responsible for taking this country into an illegal war "

the above is a false statement. He only has to admit this, and apologise for implying I don't care about the Hillsborough victims

Well Samuel if that is a "false statement" I will admit to this when the following individuals admit to it first. Let me know how you get on with changing their minds.









And as for apologising for offence, people in glasshouses.......





"and you know how many times he's asked me to debate with him again this last few weeks."

I am totally fucking bored with this as must be everyone else, so I COULD NOT care less whether you ever respond to a post of mine directly again. I will carry on responding to your posts.

One thing I will NEVER EVER do is give in to a demand from you that I MUST agree with your view before you respond directly to one of my posts.

andy at handiwork wrote:

> Mike and Bernie Winters Funny? In what parallel universe? When,
> early in their career, they were appearing in variety in
> Glasgow before a very hostile crowd, their act began with only
> one of them on stage with Bernie coming on a little later. ' Oh
> no' shouted someone in the audience, 'There's two of them.'

They were appearing at the Glasgow Empire and the actual quote was "Fookin' hell, there's two o' them."

As you can see, David uses the statements and opinions of others, to justify his own false statements.

It doesn't matter what others think or say. My argument is with David and his claim that Iraq war was illegal, without anyone going to trial (like claiming Bill Roache fiddled with young girls before a trial).

If Mr. Chilcot was on here saying the Iraq war was illegal, worded as a statement of fact, I'd pull him up too. If he worded it as his opinion, I'd say 'fair enough'. This seems sensible and in accordance with my principles surrounding the presumption of innocence.

It's just another diversion tactic to stop scrutiny of his own mistakes.

And, as you can see......he talks up me 'demanding' things before I debate with him. While this is true, the 'demands' are hardly outrageous. He said the Iraq war was illegal and tried to pass it off as opinion, when we can all see that it was worded as a statement of fact. My demand (I'd rather call them 'requests' but whatever) is to admit a mistake on his part. He likes pulling people up for their small mistakes and does so regularly. Maybe he thinks he's above everyone else on the forum and that the same rules and expectations of courtesy do not apply to him - an elitist in that respect. Regardless......it's a small concession that he can't make. I didn't call for him to lie, hand over his life savings or kill his first born. Just proof that even such a trivial request can be seen as utterly unpalatable when your pride might be damaged. Vanity.

And after the implications I don't care about 96 people being crushed to death, he has the gall to not only refuse to apologise, but paint himself as the victim because I 'demand' one. He really thinks he's better than us all. Egoist.

One could see this another way. He's been dishonest, discourteous, implied I'm apathetic to people dying, yet still demanded/requested and provoked me into being on speaking terms so we can debate things playing his game and using his rules. One has to ask who's demanding the most here? Who's being the most unfair? The person that has been offended is me. The person calling for a little honesty is me. The person who created a separate post to explain my stance and offer a hand out is me. The one who got rebuffed and had a bucket load of sarcasm sent back to him is me.

I'm still amazed at his attitude over all this. He really thinks he's better than everyone else.