All you are saying to me and the majority of contributors to this thread amounts to " Allahu Akbar ". All your supposed knowledge of the subject matter amounts to is a concrete, one track, narrow minded, romanticised fundamentalism. The views you currently - and somewhat condescendingly - espouse are stuck in the past. You seem keen to return - repeatedly - to some throw away remark I made about Mandela, well, there`s a guy who showed you and your true believers the value of recognising the need to move on and change, take his dignity as an example.
Your damning appraisal of my character, accurate or otherwise doesn't mask that you are just making things up as you go along. I do return to your comment about Mandela because it can mean only one of three things. 1) you don't know who Mandela is. 2) you don't know who Bobby Sands is 3) you don't know who either of them are. This has contributed to the view that I have formed about exactly where it is you are coming from when you make the unsupported assertions that you have. It absolutely isn't that I am the fountain of all knowledge. Far from it. It is that I have some degree of knowledge. Enough to recognise that you are talking through your hoop. I think you know it too. You have a lovely turn of phrase, I'll give you that, and I guess it lends some degree of gravitas to your words. But you are speaking from a position of ignorance. Evoking Mandela...ok. Lets do that. You know he was a big advocate of truth and reconciliation don't you? Well the first part of that is the truth... Ain't it.
It doesn't appear that way at all. I understand the meaning and I understand the content and I understand the context. If you want to add layers to it that is your business. So long as you know that is what you are doing.... Unless you want to tell me what I mean when I sing it? That last bit was rhetorical btw.
I know who Mandela is I know who Sands is. I don`t hold the same view of them as you. Perhaps that comes from being a neutral observer in both stories. What are my unsupported assertions exactly ? Yes, you did place yourself as the only person in this debate who actually knew the truth - fundamentalism at its worst. I am not speaking from a position of ignorance, I am speaking from a position of someone who doesn`t agree with your world view - that is tantamount to ignorance to the fundamentalist - if only these infidels could see the light ? What is " the truth " ? Strikes me yours is at great variance with almost everyone else`s.
Really. Which one is a convicted terrorist? Which one engaged in non cooperation as a form of protest in prison? Which one engaged in a hunger strike? Which one espoused a vision of a peaceful, united future? Which one was elected to represent his people? There is nothing fundamentalist about highlighting that you have gotten things wrong. On this subject you are talking through your arse. I would prefer it if you didn't twist my words about the truth. I meant it as something you could go and find out. Not something I was the keeper of.
I am not twisting your words, you have set yourself up as a self-righteous keeper of some flame of truth that none of us other benighted fools can see, descending deeper into ridiculous hysteria along the way. Take a deep breath and look at the questions you asked above. You havent actually " highlighted " anything I have " got wrong ". If only I could go and seek your truth then I would agree, understand and martyr myself to the cause ? Allahu Akbar, Up The Ra.
Look, just forget it. I asked you questions because you are complaining that I think I am the only one with the "truth". Go and find it yourself, but keep your own counsel til you do because right now it is very apparent that you don't know what you are talking about. I don't think you have the right impression of me and I don't think this is going to go anywhere. I am convinced you don't know what you are talking about on this topic and similarly you believe that means I am closed off to entertaining your position. When that becomes the debate then there isn't much more you can add. Never the twain shall meet.
That would have been quite reasonable and I could have agreed, apart from your need to state that I dont know what Im talking about - which in reality is just that I dont agree with you. And, no - its was you who set yourself up as the keeper of the truth - otherwise, what would I have to complain about ?
Rebel: You're it. RL: You're it. Rebel: You're it, quitsies! RL: Anti-quitsies, you're it, quitsies, no anti-quitsies, no startsies! Rebel: You can't do that! RL: Can too! Rebel: Cannot, stamp it! RL: Can too, double stamp it, no erasies! Rebel: Cannot, triple stamp, no erasies, Touch blue make it true. RL: No, you can't do that... you can't triple stamp a double stamp, you can't triple stamp a double stamp! Rebel! Rebel: [hands over ears] LA LA LA LA LA LA! RL: REBEL! REBEL! REBEL!
It's from Dumb and Dumber, the "didn't / did" exchange just reminded me of it. Anyway, I'm glad everyone has now made up
