Tony Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Let me get this straight, you are saying that Geoffry Howe was to blame for not doing something spectacularly well that Gordon Brown did do disastrously wrong? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Let me get this straight, you are saying that Geoffry Howe was to blame for not doing something spectacularly well that Gordon Brown did do disastrously wrong? Wow. You expect reason from someone who thinks that throwing bricks at small children is acceptable Tony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 while debating the minutiae of gold price movements with the benefit of hindsight is all very interesting there are two points which people seem to be overlooking..... the first one is a minor one which is that no one knows what the price of gold in the future will be, and there was no real expectation in 1997 that the world economy was going to go insane a few years later resulting in a rush to gold as the last safest bet. the second one which is very important, is that the money raised was used to fund some of the saner new labour plans and had they not sold the gold then the alternative was not going ahead with those plans or borrowing the money, neither of which were particularly good alternatives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 You expect reason from someone who thinks that throwing bricks at small children is acceptable Tony? You can tell when a debate is lost when contributors start with the lies and smears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 It's not certain that you've begun debating yet Wildcat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 You can tell when a debate is lost when contributors start with the lies and smears. Since I've only stated facts then the debate clearly isn't lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Since I've only stated facts then the debate clearly isn't lost. I have never said anything of the sort. You claimed I did on a thread about the miner's strike. I remember because you went on and on about it, and keep going on about it whenever you can't think of a response to back up your selfish opinions. Others as well as myself pointed out I said nothing of the sort at the time. Liars have no credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 It's not certain that you've begun debating yet Wildcat. That is extraordinarily dumb even for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I have never said anything of the sort. You claimed I did on a thread about the miner's strike. I remember because you went on and on about it, and keep going on about it whenever you can't think of a response to back up your selfish opinions. Others as well as myself pointed out I said nothing of the sort at the time. Liars have no credibility. I think you remember from a guilty conscience rather than any other reason. As I said at the time - it's unacceptable for that to happen to a child and you essentially said that I deserved it for my father being a scab -which he was not. You then tried to defend your cheap and bitter position by claiming that my father was selfish for not supporting men in a different union to himself to whom he owed and expected to be owed nothing in return. You were a cheap nasty bitter little man in that thread and you havn't changed. As I said then I'll remind you of it till you apologise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 I think you remember from a guilty conscience rather than any other reason. As I said at the time - it's unacceptable for that to happen to a child and you essentially said that I deserved it for my father being a scab -which he was not. You then tried to defend your cheap and bitter position by claiming that my father was selfish for not supporting men in a different union to himself to whom he owed and expected to be owed nothing in return. You were a cheap nasty bitter little man in that thread and you havn't changed. As I said then I'll remind you of it till you apologise. This is the post you are moaning about.... You didn't get bricks through your window every night because he dared to go to work. He got bricks through his window because he sold his workmates and their communities down the river for short term personal gain. That doesn't make what happened right, but the damage your father did was far greater than a few broken windows. I have added the bold in here because you appear unable to see it. I was saying the opposite of what you are claiming. People can see it in its full context here: http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=676143&page=6 and you on the previous page making light of Des Warren's treatment by the state for conspiracy to organise a picket. The only "cheap nasty bitter little man" in that thread was the one that deliberately (I afford you more intelligence than simply being stupid) decided to misunderstand what I was saying in order to justify their opinions. You are a nasty liar, unable to argue your points without making up personal defamations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.