Off Topic EU deabte. Which way are you voting ?

[Stan]

I've took "O" levels in the 60s and I would say that the "A" level exams I have seen in the last few years were a lot easier.

"I've took O levels" is grammatically ******ed.

 

[Treble]

I have asked you aleady; show me where I have supported any bigotry of Peter Saxton? You failed to do so, but you continue with the lie. That makes you a repeated liar; it really is that simple, no emotion, no toys out of pram, just fact.

The first part of your post was admitting you were unable to understand sarcasm and wanted me to explain it further. Which I couldn't be bothered to, after all following 2 attempts it's not my fault you don't get it. The second part of your post demanded either evidence for a part of my post that was in itself self-explanatory and needed no evidence, or an apology. Both parts of your post were a rant. Let me make it clear, just because I don't pander to your demands doesn't make me a liar, it just makes you out to be someone with a deluded ego and issues of self-importance. Just fact

 

[remembercolinlee]

I've took "O" levels in the 60s and I would say that the "A" level exams I have seen in the last few years were a lot easier.

That is the same as the older generation complaining about music today being loud and rubbish. It is nostalgic bollocks.

 

[Treble]

Too difficult to disagree with? You come out with rubbish yet when challenged you retreat.

Nope just a simple way of saying the point (once again) has gone flying over your head. You're a dimwit Pete. I'm not trying to be derogatory fella, the problem is it's difficult to have a reasonable conversation with you when you clearly are too stupid to engage in any meaningful dialogue. You are too wrapped up in your prejudices and "small man" syndrome. (For those too dense to understand, I'm not literally referring to Pete's size )

 

[pieguts]

'Police intelligence believe' does not constitute evidence. Show me a list of all ATM thefts and copper thefts and show me the list of convictions.

It's when the Police ask for their names and they say Patrick and Semus, they get confused!!

 

[Fez]

The first part of your post was admitting you were unable to understand sarcasm and wanted me to explain it further. Which I couldn't be bothered to, after all following 2 attempts it's not my fault you don't get it. The second part of your post demanded either evidence for a part of my post that was in itself self-explanatory and needed no evidence, or an apology. Both parts of your post were a rant. Let me make it clear, just because I don't pander to your demands doesn't make me a liar, it just makes you out to be someone with a deluded ego and issues of self-importance. Just fact

You really are a fool, aren't you. I have never said I don't understand sarcasm - again, show me where?

I did ask you to explain something as I wanted to know what your understanding was; that is not admitting I had no understanding myself. Why is it you take 2+2 and keep coming up with 5?

You keep saying that I have supported bigoted posts made by Peter Saxton. I haven't, you lied and you cannot come up with an example as there isn't one. That's not a rant, it's just a statement of fact that you are unable to disprove.

You made the accusation, I have reasonably asked you to support it and you refuse, using nonsense to try and cover being found out telling lies. Unless you made an honest mistake and are too arrogant to admit it, preferring to resort to more lies and insults to cover your tracks - which is failing you badly. I suggest you stop digging.

 

[Treble]

I just googled the Sensible Party, you'll have your work cut out being taken seriously, the first page is full of Monty Python sketches Is this you Pete????

I suppose you are one of those simple people who needs to google rather than knows what sketches Monty Python does. You should think about trying to be a well rounded individual rather than be one of these people who knows nothing and uses google.

Good enough to teach you what a rhetorical question is I wasn't googling Monty Python, I was googling the Sensible Party to have a good chuckle. And Monty Python came up lol. It's also rather strange that the thrust of your latest post seems to think people are simple if they don't know all the Monty Python sketches. You don't even see the irony, that had YOU known the Monty Python sketches you wouldn't be naming a party that was ridiculed by them years earlier

I didn't say you were googling Monty Python but then I can understand why you can't work that out for yourself.

And then this...

I suppose you are one of those simple people who needs to google rather than knows what sketches Monty Python does. You should think about trying to be a well rounded individual rather than be one of these people who knows nothing and uses google. Maybe that's why children have very little knowledge nowadays. We need teachers of quality before we will get children of quality.

What's sad (and ironic) is that dunces like him hold the opinion that we don't have "children of quality" in this country.

You insist on lying. My criticism of schools is not the children it is the teachers. They accept anybody as a teacher nowadays and no matter how extreme their failure they don't get sacked. They simply get moved to another school.

Maybe it's you that needs to go back to school. Or I can just carry on schooling you on here.

You're either an amnesiac, a dimwit, or someone who makes it up as you go along. Which is Pete??

 

[DMD]

They'll desperately cling to anything now, as their arguments against brexit are so weak and ineffectual.

The reaction from some of the tossers on this thread is just an added bonus to the referendum result.

QED.

 

[petersaxton]

'Police intelligence believe' does not constitute evidence. Show me a list of all ATM thefts and copper thefts and show me the list of convictions.

It does

 

[Treble]

You really are a fool, aren't you. I have never said I don't understand sarcasm - again, show me where?

I did ask you to explain something as I wanted to know what your understanding was; that is not admitting I had no understanding myself. Why is it you take 2+2 and keep coming up with 5?

You keep saying that I have supported bigoted posts made by Peter Saxton. I haven't, you lied and you cannot come up with an example as there isn't one. That's not a rant, it's just a statement of fact that you are unable to disprove.

You made the accusation, I have reasonably asked you to support it and you refuse, using nonsense to try and cover being found out telling lies. Unless you made an honest mistake and are too arrogant to admit it, preferring to resort to more lies and insults to cover your tracks - which is failing you badly. I suggest you stop digging.

Another rant

Go back and read your first paragraph in response to my post about how deroragotory terminology of bigots has been used against bigots to hold a mirror up to their bigotry. You've gone on to rant about how you don't get the sarcasm. All you saw was posters using the terms "darkies". Just because you don't get the sarcasm is neither here nor there, that's your problem not ours I've tried to explain how it's sarcasm to you twice already and it's not my fault you're too ignorant to understand it.

My post was quite clear on how you choose to support the bigotry of people like Pete. It's self-explanatory, you do it by focusing on attacking those who ridicule his bigotry rather than holding him to account for it. How hard is that for you to understand? Ofcourse YOU have no comeback to this so you go off on a rant about evidences and apologies. If only you went after him as veciferously as you do the posters who used sarcasm to show him up to be the bigot he is, then I wouldn't have made the post would I. That's ALL I intimated in my post, it's not rocket science fella, just fact. You want to carry on stroking that chip on your shoulder because you don't like the truth, you carry on.

 

[petersaxton]

The first part of your post was admitting you were unable to understand sarcasm and wanted me to explain it further. Which I couldn't be bothered to, after all following 2 attempts it's not my fault you don't get it. The second part of your post demanded either evidence for a part of my post that was in itself self-explanatory and needed no evidence, or an apology. Both parts of your post were a rant. Let me make it clear, just because I don't pander to your demands doesn't make me a liar, it just makes you out to be someone with a deluded ego and issues of self-importance. Just fact

So you make statements that you can't justify. You say it's because you don't want to justify them but we all know it's because you can't.

 

[Treble]

So you make statements that you can't justify. You say it's because you don't want to justify them but we all know it's because you can't.

post 8527

 

[petersaxton]

And then this...







Maybe it's you that needs to go back to school. Or I can just carry on schooling you on here.

You're either an amnesiac, a dimwit, or someone who makes it up as you go along. Which is Pete??

I've explained that it is you failing the children not the children failing you.
Try to understand things a lot better.
I see you can't even begin to justify your claims of "failure". At every stage you show your own failure. I can tell how you wallow in your inadequacy saying it's always somebody else's fault why children are not doing well at school, or why you lost the referendum but you will never even attempt to justify your claims of "bigotry" because you know it is just a lie.

 

[petersaxton]

Another rant

Go back and read your first paragraph in response to my post about how deroragotory terminology of bigots has been used against bigots to hold a mirror up to their bigotry. You've gone on to rant about how you don't get the sarcasm. All you saw was posters using the terms "darkies". Just because you don't get the sarcasm is neither here nor there, that's your problem not ours I've tried to explain how it's sarcasm to you twice already and it's not my fault you're too ignorant to understand it.

My post was quite clear on how you choose to support the bigotry of people like Pete. It's self-explanatory, you do it by focusing on attacking those who ridicule his bigotry rather than holding him to account for it. How hard is that for you to understand? Ofcourse YOU have no comeback to this so you go off on a rant about evidences and apologies. If only you went after him as veciferously as you do the posters who used sarcasm to show him up to be the bigot he is, then I wouldn't have made the post would I. That's ALL I intimated in my post, it's not rocket science fella, just fact. You want to carry on stroking that chip on your shoulder because you don't like the truth, you carry on.

What bigotry? You don't seem to be able to give an example of it. That would be because it doesn't exist.

 

[DMD]

I've explained that it is you failing the children not the children failing you.
Try to understand things a lot better.
I see you can't even begin to justify your claims of "failure". At every stage you show your own failure. I can tell how you wallow in your inadequacy saying it's always somebody else's fault why children are not doing well at school, or why you lost the referendum but you will never even attempt to justify your claims of "bigotry" because you know it is just a lie.

You're wasting your time. They don't need facts, they need tissues and tenna lady.

 

[Treble]

I've explained that it is you failing the children not the children failing you.
Try to understand things a lot better.
I see you can't even begin to justify your claims of "failure". At every stage you show your own failure. I can tell how you wallow in your inadequacy saying it's always somebody else's fault why children are not doing well at school, or why you lost the referendum but you will never even attempt to justify your claims of "bigotry" because you know it is just a lie.

You've just been shown for the backtracking baffoon you are in those quotes and yet you still persist with the bare-faced bullshit

Shave your balls, Pete, your pubes are blocking your eyes

 

[petersaxton]

post 8527

What's that to do with bigotry?
Neither of the points you were trying to make stand up to any logic. Don't you understand that because I pointed out I wasn't saying you googled Monty Python it doesn't mean you don't google something to find out what you should know without having to google.
You should give up this arguing/debating or whatever you want to call it. You don't have the skills for it.

 

[Stan]

I think poor old Pete has found slum landlord life quite frustrating!

 

[Treble]

What bigotry? You don't seem to be able to give an example of it. That would be because it doesn't exist.

The thread is full of them. Even if I did quote them, you'd still deny them as you've just done with the "quality of children" quote. I've already given one example of your bigotted views and you put up a baseless, innaccurate Daily Mail article instead of doing your own research and realising you're a prize idiot.

 

[Tiddler]

You must log in or register to see images

So many grammatical errors. Mr High Horse is gonna get me now