tinyclanger2 wrote:Jesus wept. I come here for intelligent something and occasional light relief. In these troubled times can all parties, give it a rest.
(Ta)
Night ephie.ephemerid wrote:tinyclanger2 wrote:Jesus wept. I come here for intelligent something and occasional light relief. In these troubled times can all parties, give it a rest.
(Ta)
I think I love you.
I'm off to bed now - and if I've been a bit of a strop-pot..... well, never mind, just one of those days.
Night all.
If it 'only has so much force as the arguments possess' it is merely an excercise in rhetoric and empty of meaning - a bit like many in teh PLP really. I am nnot sure you will understand that, though.SpinningHugo wrote:Well, don't read it then. One of the things I like about the blog is that it only has so much force as the arguments possess. You shouldn't defer to authority. Make your own mind up.refitman wrote:I think it's a fair question. You keep posting stuff on the legalities of things, but we have no idea if you are speaking from a position of authority, or ust blowing smoke up our arses.SpinningHugo wrote: We have been through this before. I post anonymously and won't be doing 20 questions on my identity. Work it out for yourself.
take this
https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2016 ... on-brexit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
here I say a senior QC (and three senior academic public lawyers) are all wrong and try to explain why in simple terms. I am pretty sure I am right, but would the arguments be better if you knew my name was Hugo Spin QC, or Spin LJ? I try to be as accessible and short as possible, but if you don't find it helpful, look elsewhere.
I don't think that is right about legal, or any valid, argument.Temulkar wrote:]
If it 'only has so much force as the arguments possess' it is merely an excercise in rhetoric and empty of meaning - a bit like many in teh PLP really. I am nnot sure you will understand that, though.
Sorry tinyclanger2. If it helps... John Humphrys. Still a complete knob.JonnyT1234 wrote:ATL at the PLB:Irrespective of what you think of Eagle at the moment: John Humphrys, what a complete knob.Angela Eagle, the former shadow business secretary who announced that she was challenging Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership yesterday, was on the Today programme this morning. John Humphrys said Eagle describes herself as strong, but that she was heard sounding tearful in interviews two weeks as she talked about resigning from the shadow cabinet. Would someone like that be tough enough to take on President Putin, he asked.
You'd be welcome too. But OK, point taken.tinyclanger2 wrote:Less of the italics.
How gracefully you prove my point.SpinningHugo wrote:I don't think that is right about legal, or any valid, argument.Temulkar wrote:]
If it 'only has so much force as the arguments possess' it is merely an excercise in rhetoric and empty of meaning - a bit like many in teh PLP really. I am nnot sure you will understand that, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Times, November 28th 2015-SpinningHugo wrote: Who is the 'they'? Watson? Eagle? Smith?
What is the evidence for this longterm conspiracy by the 172 members of the PLP?
As for Benn, that really depends on your view of intervening in Syria, which is another big and difficult question. I didn't approve of the Iraq War (because it was unlawful) but did approve of intervening in Syria (where it was lawful).
if interested in legality
https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2015 ... -in-syria/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
TR'sGhost wrote:Perhaps you should try knitting instead.
TR'sGhost wrote:Perhaps you should try knitting instead.
TR'sGhost wrote:Perhaps you should try knitting instead.
Well, it has been a pleasure.TR'sGhost wrote: other than to from tome to time point out your rather sad whataboutery, egotism, self-promotion and concern-trolling for what it is.
Attempting clever spinning really isn't your strong point Hugo. Perhaps you should try knitting instead.
What happened to omov? Sorry if I'm stupid but what is he consulting them about?TechnicalEphemera wrote:So the kicker in all this is the decision the NEC took on members eligability to vote and registered supporters.
Both suggest that if Owen Smith stands Corbyn looks very beatable. Incidentally I wonder if Len is going to consult his members on who to support - of course he won't.
Paul Flynn is a bit of an arse. JMcT is a tosser, but he can hardly be blamed for Scotland.ohsocynical wrote:Paul Flynn @PaulFlynnMP 2h2 hours ago Lambeth, London
John McTernan who masterminded Labour's political suicide in Scotland gives advice on JC's election victories
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Paul Flynn is a bit of an arse. JMcT is a tosser, but he can hardly be blamed for Scotland.ohsocynical wrote:Paul Flynn @PaulFlynnMP 2h2 hours ago Lambeth, London
John McTernan who masterminded Labour's political suicide in Scotland gives advice on JC's election victories
Corbyn is actually far less succesful up there than JMcT. Perhaps Paul could apply his brains to coming up with any sort of strategy for beating our new Tory overlord. Or does he share Lansmans view that election victories are minor things that only matter to the elite.
Unite backing Corbyn is a decision the union takes. It is about resources and funding.Tonibel wrote:What happened to omov? Sorry if I'm stupid but what is he consulting them about?TechnicalEphemera wrote:So the kicker in all this is the decision the NEC took on members eligability to vote and registered supporters.
Both suggest that if Owen Smith stands Corbyn looks very beatable. Incidentally I wonder if Len is going to consult his members on who to support - of course he won't.
That is as false in its own way as Gove suggesting we ignore experts. They are close enough that the numbers show an anti Corbyn majority even allowing for error of 2015 proportions.JonnyT1234 wrote:Dear TE. None of the polling companies are reputable. The past two elections of any major significance have demonstrated that they quite literally do not know their arses from their elbows.
Don`t know if you have found it, but there`s a freinds/foes bit in the settings, I tried it, and it`s great, if someone is marked as "foe" you don`t see their posts unless you want to. Brilliant!frog222 wrote:Ephe -- I've always had a Golden Rule that it is not in fact compulsory to post, or reply to posts, and that the little wheel we have on top of our mice (in France , at least) is for scrolling by .ephemerid wrote:Since this forum was set up - and thank you Sky, Adam, Refit, Paul, and all the founding members - it has been a "haven" from the G's nesting and all the predicted consequences of same.
I have felt as though I am among friends; and some of you are in communication with me in real life. We do not all agree, this is far from the echo chamber some accuse it of being.
Stupid, nasty, vicious and invariably badly-informed trolls are dealt with, and our lovely admin people have seen them off when they cause too much disruption. Thank you.
I have no problem with people whose views I disagree with; we have regular posters here who do not mince their words, and there are times when things get a bit tetchy.
But - it's a whole new ballgame when days on end of comments end up with the sort of escalation we have had here today.
For nearly a week, the same person has been causing, deliberately IMHO, an atmosphere so unpleasant I felt the need to stay away.
Didactic (or probably auto-didactic) pronouncements, short on fact and heavy on opinion, delivered in a patronising tone; instructions imparted to "admit your error" or "think like me"; and when a reasonable response is given, or indeed actual facts in counter-argument, the result is invariably more ridiculous questions, more denial of what people have said, and the whole day is spoiled.
Those who suggest that we should simply ignore all this (or keep it civil, sorry Refitman) are, with the deepest of respect, missing the point that the person doing this is, effectively, a troll. A person who chooses to sow discord and who behaves this way should be asked to stop.
This place is special to me. It feels like the old CIF used to feel - people having discussions on the issues of the day in a safe and civilised space.
It hasn't felt like that for the past week, and one person is responsible for it.
Of course, we have been here before. It has been said by the person concerned that I have a problem with him - I do; and judging by the thanks and responses over the past few days it seems I am not alone.
I have already refused to engage with his nonsense. I hope others do too. Maybe then he will see that for some of us he is not welcome.
Problem solved
extankie wrote:Don`t know if you have found it, but there`s a freinds/foes bit in the settings, I tried it, and it`s great, if someone is marked as "foe" you don`t see their posts unless you want to. Brilliant!frog222 wrote:Ephe -- I've always had a Golden Rule that it is not in fact compulsory to post, or reply to posts, and that the little wheel we have on top of our mice (in France , at least) is for scrolling by .ephemerid wrote:Since this forum was set up - and thank you Sky, Adam, Refit, Paul, and all the founding members - it has been a "haven" from the G's nesting and all the predicted consequences of same.
I have felt as though I am among friends; and some of you are in communication with me in real life. We do not all agree, this is far from the echo chamber some accuse it of being.
Stupid, nasty, vicious and invariably badly-informed trolls are dealt with, and our lovely admin people have seen them off when they cause too much disruption. Thank you.
I have no problem with people whose views I disagree with; we have regular posters here who do not mince their words, and there are times when things get a bit tetchy.
But - it's a whole new ballgame when days on end of comments end up with the sort of escalation we have had here today.
For nearly a week, the same person has been causing, deliberately IMHO, an atmosphere so unpleasant I felt the need to stay away.
Didactic (or probably auto-didactic) pronouncements, short on fact and heavy on opinion, delivered in a patronising tone; instructions imparted to "admit your error" or "think like me"; and when a reasonable response is given, or indeed actual facts in counter-argument, the result is invariably more ridiculous questions, more denial of what people have said, and the whole day is spoiled.
Those who suggest that we should simply ignore all this (or keep it civil, sorry Refitman) are, with the deepest of respect, missing the point that the person doing this is, effectively, a troll. A person who chooses to sow discord and who behaves this way should be asked to stop.
This place is special to me. It feels like the old CIF used to feel - people having discussions on the issues of the day in a safe and civilised space.
It hasn't felt like that for the past week, and one person is responsible for it.
Of course, we have been here before. It has been said by the person concerned that I have a problem with him - I do; and judging by the thanks and responses over the past few days it seems I am not alone.
I have already refused to engage with his nonsense. I hope others do too. Maybe then he will see that for some of us he is not welcome.
Problem solved
