As you know, I don;t accept that at all. The developments in civil aviation since the 747 came into service in 1969 pale into insignificance compared to the developments from 1903-1969. The pace of improvement has slowed dramatically.RobertSnozers wrote:SH, please don't forget that you were completely, utterly, embarrassingly wrong about aviation, despite pontificating on the subject, and when it was pointed out how wrong you were, doubled down and repeated your original, excruciatingly wrong point.
Again, I don't accept that. Clearly the NHS is being underfunded and more should be spent per capita as the population ages. But to deny, as you do, that there are pinch points in the year, in particular in January where we see a combination of A&E demand from people who postpone seeking help over Xmas, and the general upswing in accidents/illness over winter is, I am afraid, a bit daft. Nobody thinks demand, and hence the pressure, remains the same all year round.RobertSnozers wrote: You were also offensively wrong about the pressure the NHS is under, declaring it to be a short term 'uptick' over the coldest week and not the reality which is sustained demand on an unprecedented level coinciding with years of flat funding and disruptive reorganisation leading to record numbers of cancelled operations and failure to meet basic targets for months.
There is of course a contradiction here. If, as you claim, my arguments were clearly and obviously wrong, easily refuted by your superior grasp of these things, nobody would be taken in. Certainly not on a message board like this. You could laugh it off as just another rightwing troll making mischief and ignore it.RobertSnozers wrote:So this is where you are not just offensive but dangerous. You claim knowledge you just don't have in order to further your agenda. People being generous might attribute to you some proportion of the expertise you claim. You left temporarily once before after having been caught in a lie, and went to ground until it had blown over rather than stick around to either apologise or defend your actions.
I think the very examples you've given indicate why you can't do that.
I don't generally have contempt for people. Very few on here defend Corbyn's views on the IRA or Putin or Hamas. The line of defence is usually the soft-leftish one of explaining away his views, rather than defending them, or engaging in whataboutery. If I did have contempt I wouldn't bother engaging, and that includes with you.RobertSnozers wrote:Then there's the obvious contempt for other members, which you've outlined above at length.
I can't really engage with assertions like that, save to say that I don't think my posting history supports you.RobertSnozers wrote:You have been personally rude to people. You haven't used expletives, which frankly I don't give a fuck about. They're just words. Your insults are far more invidious. Just because you can avoid swear words doesn't make you morally superior. You don't argue, you don't debate, you twist people's words, resort to straw man tactics, and just act as though you're right in everything, which can have a certain persuasiveness but isn't argument.
And whatabout?RobertSnozers wrote:Morally? Yawn. Miliband met Netanyahu. And as for your man David M, he had clean hands, did he? Hypocrite.
And no, I don't equate meeting Netanyahu with being paid by Iranian propaganda TV or supporting the IRA. I think to do so is to lose your moral compass.
