egafd.com

Sam:

You didn't wind me up at all. Indeed, I deliberately did not even begin to discuss the gun control issue because I know there is no point. You have wound yourself up over whether something is "true" or "objectively true", and I think it should be clear by now that I think you are being absolutely ridiculous. My advice is to try and calm down a bit, and realise that out of 7 billion people in the world, you are the only one who thinks this is of any importance.

I'm not wound up, Robches. I'm just not letting you off the hook for being wrong. Sorry about that.

[quote]I deliberately did not even begin to discuss the gun control issue because I know there is no point.[/quote]

Yes. So you deliberately made the thread about me, rather than the article I posted. Glad you've shown the forum what this is all about for you.

[quote]You have wound yourself up over whether something is "true" or "objectively true", and I think it should be clear by now that I think you are being absolutely ridiculous.[/quote]

Actually, it was you who had a bee in your bonnet about me supposedly presenting something as 'objectively true' and trying to desperately equate that to an opinion on whether something is true. I just defended myself from a false accusation, Robches. It's a natural reaction to being falsely accused of something.

[quote]My advice is to try and calm down a bit, and realise that out of 7 billion people in the world, you are the only one who thinks this is of any importance.[/quote]

I can't have a conversation on my own, Robches. It takes two to tango, pal. Sorry to be pedantic, but it's two out of 7 billion...and you make up 50% of that two.

Now...where else are you going with this discussion in your attempt to deflect attention away from the fact you're wrong?

All Robches is doing is suggesting that you believe there is some truth in an article you describe as "very good". You yourself accept that you see some truth in the article.

No need then for the histrionics I would have thought.

Robches first implication I'm presenting facts:

"Simple enough, but please do not post a link to some left wing anti-gun website and think you have found some sort of objective truth, because you haven't."

Found here>

Robches direct accusation of me seeking the presenting of facts:

"But that does not make it right, which is why I pull you up when you seek to present such a piece as if it is objective truth."

Found here>

Nowhere in any post have I said the article I posted is factual. I never implied it either. Robches was wrong and is trying the Johnson tactic of trying to wriggle out of the mess he's got himself in.

And talking of Johnson.....it is actually a delight to see him yet again show his true motives and colours and to justify my accusations of him being snidey and disingenuous. He knows Robches is wrong here and this isn't about defending Robches' stance on guns either given David's attitude to guns is more in line with my thinking than anything. No, this brief alliance with Robches is a strategic maneuver against me and he's come back into a thread that was in flow during the week he wasn't present to act out this snidey tactic.

Here's one of his last posts to Robches with regards to guns:

With regards to guns, Robches and David are enemies, but right now what's more important to David is my ostracization from other forumites, hence this little standing my Robches' side.

Maybe he thought that after a week his repeated attempts to ostracize a fellow forumite would have been forgotten about and he could come back as a forum savior rather than the bully that left 7 days ago in a huff.

"With regards to guns, Robches and David are enemies"

No, we disagree. There is a difference between disagreeing with someone's point of view and being "enemies".

"No, this brief alliance with Robches is a strategic maneuver against me"

This is a discussion forum not global realpolitik.

"Maybe he thought that after a week his repeated attempts to ostracize a fellow forumite would have been forgotten about"

More histrionics from you. People disagree with some of your views just as people disagree with some of my views. Fine by me.

Sam:

For the record, you really are the only person in the world who cares about this, because I certainly don't.

As for all your rather over the top talk of "enemies" and the like, do calm down. This is meant to be a discussion forum. You have not been "accused" of anything other than linking to an article, which I assumed meant you thought its arguments were valid, or dare I say, true. At this point, I must say that I have ceased to care one way or the other.

As the forum can see, David disagrees with Robches on guns and does not argue that Robches' accusation about me 'presenting facts' and yet he chooses to take Robches' side in his quest to ostracize another forumite.

It may not be realpolitik, but the snidey tactics are the same.

And as for histrionics: I'm the one pointing out another forums bullying tactics. Hardly hysterical stuff. I wasn't the bully that sulked and left the forum in a huff after being called out for my behavior. We all know where the real histrionics came from.

[quote]For the record, you really are the only person in the world who cares about this, because I certainly don't.[/quote]

See my last post but one to you. It takes two to tango. You care enough to reply.

When are you going to show the forum where I did what you accused me of?

Sam Slater wrote:


>
> See my last post but one to you. It takes two to tango. You
> care enough to reply.
>

Not any more I don't.

So you don't care anymore? I suppose you do lose interest after 7 days of trying to find a slither of evidence for your false accusation and coming up with zilch.

An apology would be nice, Robches, my old mucka! And be careful with those guns of yours.