Mr Prime Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Yet she is likely to replace dear old frank Dobson at the next election according to wiki, although events over the past week may well have torpedoed that. Indeed, the events should have torpedoed it but I see her as one of those people who just bounce back regardless. We shall see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 As I've said more than once, simply dismissing an MP as a nomark is a hit and run childish thing to do. For someone without a vote to their name to dismiss someone who's attracted thousands of votes is ridiculous What do you think votes have got to do with it? unless you can justify it e.g. you must have a point so strong that it overrides the fact that before you start the person you're criticising is above you in terms of respect and being taken seriously. You didn't ask for an explanation though, you told them that they had no right to their opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Define hypocrisy as you seem to have a different standard. Littlejohn and Thatcher need no introduction, many will be unaware of the work of Bercow. Clearly someone who would criticise him would have to be aware of him. If you think I'm promoting a methodology where we all write a history of a person when mentioning them then you're being very literal and lacking in any kind of perspective at all. Are you the kind of joyless, dry SF bore who demands several links and stats to every assertion made? I think you're trying to tell people not to criticise MPs because they might have thousands of votes for them. You've already stated that this makes them superior to everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Because Pinky and Perky see themselves as grand inquisitors like the Dimbleby brothers or something so have tried to wind me up with tiresome hand wringing nonsense. Because you took it on yourself to tell people what they were and were not allowed to think about MPs and then tried to justify the rather ridiculous position you'd adopted. (And all based on you not actually reading the OP correctly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Because you took it on yourself to tell people what they were and were not allowed to think about MPs and then tried to justify the rather ridiculous position you'd adopted. (And all based on you not actually reading the OP correctly). Good point, it's actually your job to float about the forum telling people what they can and can't think. You clearly see yourself as some kind of shrewd analyst. You're a very boring wo/man. Jog on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I don't believe I do that at all. I've said quite a few times that you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how ridiculous it seems to be. Feel free to jog on yourself if you can't manage to debate anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I don't believe I do that at all. I've said quite a few times that you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how ridiculous it seems to be. Feel free to jog on yourself if you can't manage to debate anymore. Sorry but no. There are debates and then there are debates that ramble on forever revealing no new ground. These usually occur when SF addicts who live on here press on and on long after their peers who share their opinions have called time. Looking at your long list of threads including classics like the car in Bolsover I can see you're even more of a boring attic geek than I thought. I'd also class you as a troll. Wasn't it you that was promoting the 'tiger repelling rock' theory on here a few years ago? Try looking at yourself from an outsiders view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 You're one of them then? Refusing to drop a debate, but expecting to be able to tell the other side to 'jog on'. Another example of your hypocrisy. I've no idea what rock you're talking about, it sounds like gibberish. Whilst we're taking a look at ourselves, maybe you should look back and see how many people agreed with your self nominated position of arbiter of who can have an opinion, and see how many argued against you... It's almost like you lost a popular vote, which would apparently make my side of the debate superior... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 You're one of them then? Refusing to drop a debate, but expecting to be able to tell the other side to 'jog on'. Another example of your hypocrisy. I've no idea what rock you're talking about, it sounds like gibberish. Whilst we're taking a look at ourselves, maybe you should look back and see how many people agreed with your self nominated position of arbiter of who can have an opinion, and see how many argued against you... It's almost like you lost a popular vote, which would apparently make my side of the debate superior... Zzz. I'm now off to something called work, you should try it sometime or are you superglued to your PC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I'm at work, superglued to my PC, you should try setting off earlier, I've been here for nearly an hour! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.