egafd.com

Reggie Perrin wrote:

> I studied Literature not language, don't you ever slip up then?
Of course; but then I don't boast about my educational credentials
as a substitute for rational argument : -)


> What qualifies you in your pap diagnosis of somebody
> you've never even met btw?
50 years' worth of life-experience, innate cynicism and ten years
counselling students. But your replies today cause me to doubt
my snap diagnosis- so I apologise unreservedly. But you need
perhaps to be less 'heated' in future debates. No-one, least of all
me, has a monopoly on the truth.


> My point was that
> regardless of the actual crime Biggs and Huntley will play the
> same option because they are both selfish, manipulative people.
True; they're both sociopaths- but there the similarity ends.


> I have to say that I won't be debating with you an JRP
You weren't debating- you were declaiming. I think that's what
irritated us so much. There is ALWAYS another POV; often a better
one, as I've learned to my frequent embarrassment.


> as I have said before on this forum I don't do cut and paste
> debating, it's a lazy way of expressing yourself. If you can't
> be bothered to express your ideas in a more articulate way then
> why should I really.
I was as articulate as I thought you could handle; IIRC I used few if
any quadrasyllabic words; and very little litotes, irony and empyrean
rhetoric.

> Nothing personal.
Really ? !!! You jest, Sir.

Reggie Perrin wrote:
> Nice to see you have a sense of humour there.
Well, one has to try : -)

I don't think my
> remarks were even addressed to you,
I took them as general abuse. It's hard to gauge intentions in the
heat of battle, as it were.


> but you're one who is
> spoiling for a fight regardless of that aren't you?
No; I merely responded in kind.


> I didn't say 'fuck' and I didn't START the personal remarks.
I believe you did. But; no matter, it's the [lack of] strength of
your arguments that's the main issue, surely?


> point of view to me by making a personal insult out of having a
> differing point of view, such as having 'a twisted view of
> reality'.
A POV is surely amenable to rational criticism- and thus one can
change one's mind, surely? On this ground, to maintain a blatant
falsehood seems to me to be verifiably 'a twisted view of reality'.


> You're a sick sick person. Oh and btw I also studied to be a
> mental health professional
So you failed the exams, eh? : -),
> so don't diagnose me you cretin.
And therefore neither should you. Cretinism is a recognosed medical
condition, as you ought to have known. Such unnecessary abuse
does your case little good.

You must be a riot at dinner-parties.

Reggie Perrin wrote:
> He was in a conspiracy which means he was liable to the same
> sentence as the others.
I don't believe so. AFAIK, non-violent or inactive conspirators
tend to receive lesser sentences.


He could also have chosen not be a criminal perhaps?
Indeed. We all make bad life-choices- he chose a particularly
bad one..

Oh, dear.
TRY and stick to the facts, darling, and spare the mindless abuse.

Wot? While escaping??????

Train robber Ronnie Biggs back in hospital

Stick him on a plane back to Brazil.

If you can't do the time don't do the crime.