egafd.com

Delighted I flushed you out.

"It means he's angry with you for queering his pitch. He might even get in your face, shout and swear at you, call you a cunt and tell you to move on further up the beach or else he'll call in the Donkey Patrol. But there's very unlikely to be any actual threat to your life. He's just pissed off. He's not actually going to kill you. It's a figure of speech. Nothing more."

"Queering your pitch"? Yes, it must be so depressing when people disagree with Rodders, Lizard and you Eric. An understandable response. To go off to another forum and have a good moan, swear and threaten violence.

Little Eric this is a forum, not a cuthroat, competitive business where a loss could mean the end of your home, so your analogy sweet and twee as it is, is totally irrelevant.

"Similarly if Lizard or Rodders types in a thread that Sam Slater deserves a "decking" or "shooting", I'm quite confident that there's no need for Sam to hire an ex-SAS bodyguard to look after him. He'd be quite safe (even if they knew Sam's real name and where and how to find him in the real world). Again - it's just a figure of speech"

Ah yes Eric, I get it now. So when those lovely EDL people march through Oldham chanting "Fucking Pakis go home or we gonna fuck your wives" it's just a figure of speech. Nothing at all for those Pakistanis to be concerned about? Just a figure of speech, eh Eric? Or I suppose stalkers who discuss violence against individuals enthusiastically, they are nothing to be concerned about either? Just involved in an exchange of "figures of speech".

Well I am surprised that you didn't enter the argument, Eric and explain that the lads should use the power of language rather than threatening violence !wink!

After all, you appear to be the Mahatma Gandhi of the BGAFD and you seemed so quick to give that advice to Kim in the situation in which John was faced with. So Eric in the John example, your advice is just to use language to defuse the situation, not violence but if someone disagrees with you, Rodders and Lizard, Eric, you just sit by without saying anything when violence is discussed.

Ok, so in summary, your argument is that you lads were all just fantasising about violence without any intent whatsoever, ssimply because people disagreed with you. That's your explanation, right?

How old are you? 12?

Whatever age you are Eric, you are clearly a rather confused, somewhat inadequate hypocrite.

I wouldn't worry about David Kim, who wouldn't think it was out of order to twatt someone with a pool que if they were making racist remarks? It's alright for folk like David Johnson they have never had it tough like you and me, born with a silver spoon in his Lippy mouth, I bet he has gold plated taps, and I don't even have a forum, so you can see what your dealing with chuck, the man clearly has issues.

Blah blah blah .... !boring!

More cant, bluster, twisting and bullshit from DJ.

Read back through the thread David and you'll see that apart from Kim boasting about her John's prowess with a pool cue, the only poster advocating or excusing violence of any sort is you.

What is it you said? "Violence and the moral high ground can go together sometimes". Your very words.

Keep on taking the tablets!

- Eric

thealtruist wrote:

> But I see how your story's changing. I like that. It's gone
> from one gobby twat being racist to a whole group of people
> where a set to was going to happen.


I've noticed that as well.

- Eric

You guys just love to argue about anything & looking at previous posts on this forum you do this all the time slagging off various individuals as sport rather than anything else lol!

If you guys could be serious for a moment people might just listen but its more about the banter & one up onemanship of getting a better post than the other that ruins threads.

Anyway you guys carry on with your handbags at dawn...not including David as even though he didn't agree with violence he understands where you have brought up reflects on how you handle certain things.

Merry Christmas to you all xx

"Violence and the moral high ground can go together sometimes" with the genocide & destruction of Iraq & Palestine...others in authority must surely thinking the same wouldn't you agree - better take some of them tablets yourself Eric as we live in the real world not a cyber one lol!

videokim wrote:

> "Violence and the moral high ground can go together sometimes"
> with the genocide & destruction of Iraq & Palestine...others in
> authority must surely thinking the same wouldn't you agree -
> better take some of them tablets yourself Eric as we live in
> the real world not a cyber one lol!


Says the woman with her own "cyber porn" site !laugh!

Someone higher up (might have been Sam or the altruist or even both, but I can't be arsed to check back) pointed out to you why that's a stupid comparison Kim.

Almost as stupid as DJ comparing throwaway forum banter with EDL marchers and psychotic stalkers.

I do agree with you on one thing though - the thread has pretty much run its course and degenerated into a pissing contest, so I'm gone as well.

- Eric

So what is the difference between the two? You are saying countries can do this for the good of mankind but individuals can't, yes the 2 do go together which is not nice but part of what the UK has created in its violent past & present.

It degenerated into a pissing contest from you first post this we all agree on.

There's a big difference between thinking/writing something and doing it.

"There's a big difference between thinking/writing something and doing it."

You are absolutely right but quite often no-one knows whether the thinking/saying/writing will convert into action.

Two situations.

1 Someone makes a racist comment in a pub. Let's say Eric is present in the pub but doesn't know if violence will result. It may or may not. Eric's line is that he would use language to defuse the situation so that violence will not result. His view is that violence would be totally over the top as a reaction.

2. Two people make violent comments about "shooting" or "decking" people on the INternet. Eric is on the web and present on the forum when these comments are made. He doesn't really know the people concerned other than through their comments. In this situation, he cannot be 100% sure to what extent this violent language will convert into action. In the same way he doesnt know at the point the offensive racist remark is made whether it will lead to violence.

Does he try to defuse the situation as he would in Kim's scenario? No. He doesn't say "For Christ sakes it's just a forum if you disagree with someone and they disagree with you, just ignore them if it winds you up that much".

Instead as I recall Eric started fantasising about the size of my penis.

It takes all sorts. !wink!