Is it time to start to question what's really happening?

[Bob]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I think you need to read his tweet again. He is, of course, free to have whatever opinion he chooses; but to say what amounts to ‘here’s what the judge said, it’ll be studied for years as an example of doing the right thing’ when what he said was that is was the wrong thing. That is, in my opinion - which I’m also allowed - wrong headed. 

 

As for dickheads, is it a wonder that I pushed back when I was quoted out of nowhere (by somebody who would only mention me if I mention him, of course) and called a shill cunt? 

 

I’ve got an issue with the way these kids conducted themselves, I think it’s not effective and I don’t think it’s productive or civil. That’s it. How is that a big deal? Got a problem with it, fine. You’ll get over it.

Nah, not having that excuse. The patronising ending aside, of course.

 

you didn’t call the poster that tagged you out of nowhere a dickhead. You called the fella tweeting a dickhead and mocked him for not being able to read, as you attributed words he’d not said to him.

 

I took you advice and went back to re-read the tweet. It still says what it said before and not what you claimed it said.

 

There’s a full stop, which is important, so his tweet says two things.

 

One: 

A remarkable closing statement from the judge in the Just Stop Oil case.
 

Two:

This has the feel of a text that will be studied in the history books of the future as an example of when doing the right thing becomes incompatible with the law.

 

He's acknowledge it’s unlawful - it’s incompatible with the law - as the judge did, which is why he convicted the protestor.

 

The comment is saying that in the future, we might look on that action differently and question whether it was a wrong or right thing to do - and it might possibly be though right - not whether it was a lawful thing to do. It clearly wasn’t lawful, so to a judge, who clearly isn’t there to rule on morals but to rule on law, it must be “wrong” but to society - who can judge on other factors if they wish - it might not always be seen to be.

 

Plenty of right things have been done which were or are legally wrong, in my opinion. The law is the law, but I’m not having it that it’s always right.

 

You’re entitled and welcome to your opinion, but express it as one, rather than calling people who don’t share your view dickheads and misrepresenting them, maybe?

[Numero Veinticinco]

13 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

Nah, not having that excuse. The patronising ending aside, of course.

 

It's not an 'excuse' as I've done nothing wrong to excuse. I stick by what I said, so you 'having it' or not isn't really relevant as you're the arbiter of absolutely fuck all. I responded to something and you've now got it badly, badly wrong. Before tackling that, I want to point out the hypocrisy in you having previously asked 'Ah, why must dickheads always try to prove themselves right all the time?' and then spewing out that monstrosity of garbled logic and pedantry in some inane effort to be proved right. Still, if you want to get into it, I guess we can waste out time on this pedantic nonsense. I'd sooner be repeatedly jabbing things into my eye, but I suppose this is the punishment I get for actually engaging somebody on the cunting GF.  

 

17 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

You didn’t call the poster that tagged you out of nowhere a dickhead. You called the fella tweeting a dickhead and mocked him for not being able to read

 

Wrong. I used the term 'dickheads'. It's plural, meaning more than one. It was a general comment including both the person who tweeted and the person who shared it. I'm more concerned with Gnasher's reading comprehension than Phil's, after all that's who I'm actually responding to. If I wanted to solely mock Phil, I'd do it to him on twitter. I constantly berate Gnasher for his pre-school levels of comprehension. It was a response to him first, Philly second.

 

19 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

as you attributed words he’d not said to him

 

Wrong. That's completely false. I quoted Phil's words, ending with 'says Phil' and I quoted the judge's words, ending with 'says the judge'. That is not 'attributing words he'd not said to him'. If you're going to be pedantic, at lease put your fuckin' back into it Bob. 

 

26 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

I took you advice and went back to re-read the tweet. It still says what it said before and not what you claimed it said.

 

Wrong. It says exactly what I claimed it said. But let's look at it. Let's really waste each other's time on a Friday night in a listless effort to prove how fucking sad we are. I've just ate a pizza. Alone. Had a beer. Alone. So I might as well share this journey into the ridiculous with you. 

 

28 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

There’s a full stop, which is important, so his tweet says two things.

 

Well, it says more than two things if we're actually being pedantic, but sure. I'm aware of how full stops work. I'm aware you can reference things from outside a sentence. I'm even aware you can refer to the first sentence. Generally that's how things work in statements and paragraphs. Oh my lord, I just did it myself. 

 

30 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

 

A remarkable closing statement from the judge in the Just Stop Oil case.

 

Excellent. We're now talking about the closing statement, which was remarkable in his opinion, and it was from the Judge in the JSO case. Well established, Phillip. 

 

31 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

Two:

This has the feel of a text 

 

Excellent. 'This', he says. What's here referring to there? Well, he tells us both in the previous sentence - the closing statement by the judge - and after by saying 'text', as he's referring to the text from the statement in the image he linked. So we're still talking about what the judge said. That makes the first statement irrelevant, though it's there for context if we need it. Absolutely no need for this entire ramble about full stops or separate clauses. Still, fuck it, all grist for the mill isn't it. Helps obfuscate stuff and detract from the very basic thing I actually said. Good times, still not seeing an issue with false attribution. 

 

35 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

The comment is saying that in the future, we might look on that action differently

 

No, the comment isn't saying that. He might well also think that, and he may or may not be correct, but what the comment actually says is that the judge's words, 'this text', might be used in future text books as an example of something. In this case, he says, an example of when 'doing the right thing becomes incompatible with the law'. Now, people in the future may or may not think that it was right or wrong. However, what 'this text' won't be an example of - an example of - is of 'the right thing'. It'll be an example of 'the wrong thing' in the judge's opinion. How do I know this? Well, the judge said it in 'this text'. Which is what Philly H was chatting about. 

 

Now, the way I responded was to compare what Phil said it was an example of with what the judge said it was. I didn't say that Phil was claiming that's what the judge said. Had I said that, and you clearly are mistaken on what I said [something sarcastic here about dickheads and reading] about that, you'd be right. But I didn't, so you're not. I didn't call Phil a dickhead because I thought he'd wrongly quoted the judge. He didn't quote the judge at all. 

 

48 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

Plenty of right things have been done which were or are legally wrong, in my opinion. The law is the law, but I’m not having it that it’s always right.

 

And that's a perfectly valid opinion, and one I share. I mean, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I've said in this thread, but yes, lex iniusta non est lex seems to be fairly well argued by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica and Thoreau in Civil Disobedience; I dare say they gave it more thought than either of us, or Phil, and definitely Gnasher. If that was the argument ol' Pip made, that'd be fine. It wasn't though. It was about the example of 'this text'. Phil seems to believe it's the right thing, justified by the reason they did it, regardless of law - which is fine and valid opinion. My point here is that 'this text' wasn't an example of that. It was an example of - in the judge's opinion - of good people doing the wrong things for a reason that he sees as a valid concern. It's all there in what the judge said. 

 

1 hour ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

You’re entitled and welcome to your opinion, but express it as one, rather than calling people who don’t share your view dickheads and misrepresenting them, maybe?

 

No, I'll continue to do what I think is right and then either change my mind based on logic, reasoning, and evidence or continue to share my view. People aren't dickheads for not sharing my view, I think people are dickheads when they're dickheads. Unfortunately for Phillipe, he's been caught in the crossfire. He was simply wrong, in my view. That's no crime, we're all wrong at times - even you, right now. What I was really trying to say was, 'fuck off Gnasher, you haven't got the first idea what you're talking about; you're forced to share the opinion of somebody else - who is demonstrably incorrect, in my view - because you're too thick to form one yourself. I haven't misrepresented anybody, to claim I did is false. Hopefully you retract it, but I doubt it. This is, after all, the GF. 

 

[Bob]

43 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

 

It's not an 'excuse' as I've done nothing wrong to excuse. I stick by what I said, so you 'having it' or not isn't really relevant as you're the arbiter of absolutely fuck all. I responded to something and you've now got it badly, badly wrong. Before tackling that, I want to point out the hypocrisy in you having previously asked 'Ah, why must dickheads always try to prove themselves right all the time?' and then spewing out that monstrosity of garbled logic and pedantry in some inane effort to be proved right. Still, if you want to get into it, I guess we can waste out time on this pedantic nonsense. I'd sooner be repeatedly jabbing things into my eye, but I suppose this is the punishment I get for actually engaging somebody on the cunting GF.  

 

 

Wrong. I used the term 'dickheads'. It's plural, meaning more than one. It was a general comment including both the person who tweeted and the person who shared it. I'm more concerned with Gnasher's reading comprehension than Phil's, after all that's who I'm actually responding to. If I wanted to solely mock Phil, I'd do it to him on twitter. I constantly berate Gnasher for his pre-school levels of comprehension. It was a response to him first, Philly second.

 

 

Wrong. That's completely false. I quoted Phil's words, ending with 'says Phil' and I quoted the judge's words, ending with 'says the judge'. That is not 'attributing words he'd not said to him'. If you're going to be pedantic, at lease put your fuckin' back into it Bob. 

 

 

Wrong. It says exactly what I claimed it said. But let's look at it. Let's really waste each other's time on a Friday night in a listless effort to prove how fucking sad we are. I've just ate a pizza. Alone. Had a beer. Alone. So I might as well share this journey into the ridiculous with you. 

 

 

Well, it says more than two things if we're actually being pedantic, but sure. I'm aware of how full stops work. I'm aware you can reference things from outside a sentence. I'm even aware you can refer to the first sentence. Generally that's how things work in statements and paragraphs. Oh my lord, I just did it myself. 

 

 

Excellent. We're now talking about the closing statement, which was remarkable in his opinion, and it was from the Judge in the JSO case. Well established, Phillip. 

 

 

Excellent. 'This', he says. What's here referring to there? Well, he tells us both in the previous sentence - the closing statement by the judge - and after by saying 'text', as he's referring to the text from the statement in the image he linked. So we're still talking about what the judge said. That makes the first statement irrelevant, though it's there for context if we need it. Absolutely no need for this entire ramble about full stops or separate clauses. Still, fuck it, all grist for the mill isn't it. Helps obfuscate stuff and detract from the very basic thing I actually said. Good times, still not seeing an issue with false attribution. 

 

 

No, the comment isn't saying that. He might well also think that, and he may or may not be correct, but what the comment actually says is that the judge's words, 'this text', might be used in future text books as an example of something. In this case, he says, an example of when 'doing the right thing becomes incompatible with the law'. Now, people in the future may or may not think that it was right or wrong. However, what 'this text' won't be an example of - an example of - is of 'the right thing'. It'll be an example of 'the wrong thing' in the judge's opinion. How do I know this? Well, the judge said it in 'this text'. Which is what Philly H was chatting about. 

 

Now, the way I responded was to compare what Phil said it was an example of with what the judge said it was. I didn't say that Phil was claiming that's what the judge said. Had I said that, and you clearly are mistaken on what I said [something sarcastic here about dickheads and reading] about that, you'd be right. But I didn't, so you're not. I didn't call Phil a dickhead because I thought he'd wrongly quoted the judge. He didn't quote the judge at all. 

 

 

And that's a perfectly valid opinion, and one I share. I mean, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I've said in this thread, but yes, lex iniusta non est lex seems to be fairly well argued by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica and Thoreau in Civil Disobedience; I dare say they gave it more thought than either of us, or Phil, and definitely Gnasher. If that was the argument ol' Pip made, that'd be fine. It wasn't though. It was about the example of 'this text'. Phil seems to believe it's the right thing, justified by the reason they did it, regardless of law - which is fine and valid opinion. My point here is that 'this text' wasn't an example of that. It was an example of - in the judge's opinion - of good people doing the wrong things for a reason that he sees as a valid concern. It's all there in what the judge said. 

 

 

No, I'll continue to do what I think is right and then either change my mind based on logic, reasoning, and evidence or continue to share my view. People aren't dickheads for not sharing my view, I think people are dickheads when they're dickheads. Unfortunately for Phillipe, he's been caught in the crossfire. He was simply wrong, in my view. That's no crime, we're all wrong at times - even you, right now. What I was really trying to say was, 'fuck off Gnasher, you haven't got the first idea what you're talking about; you're forced to share the opinion of somebody else - who is demonstrably incorrect, in my view - because you're too thick to form one yourself. I haven't misrepresented anybody, to claim I did is false. Hopefully you retract it, but I doubt it. This is, after all, the GF. 

 

[Bob]

I’m out. And I’m half pissed. So I’ve not read all of it, but the first 8th or so that I did read was funny. I hope the rest is. I’ll find out tomorrow.

 

you’re full of shit, but to be fair to you, you’re bloody good at it.

 

I wish I could be half the man.

[TheHowieLama]

14 hours ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

 

I wish I could be half the man.

Take it to the transgender thread.

[johnsusername]

Just another thing seemingly underfunded by the government.

 

 

[johnsusername]

Nice one, the HS2 line to Manchester delayed until 2043. The irony of a British train project being late and expensive.

 

Another shambles. 

 

 

[Bobby Hundreds]

Its a gravy train for some cunts somewhere.

 

[TheHowieLama]

1 hour ago, johnsusername said:

Nice one, the HS2 line to Manchester delayed until 2043. The irony of a British train project being late and expensive.

 

Another shambles. 

 

 

 

 A train in 2043 hah - be flying cars then lad. 

[Poor Scouser T]

3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

 A train in 2043 hah - be flying cars then lad. 

Need to sort hover boards 1st.

[TheHowieLama]

Just now, Poor Scouser T said:

Need to sort hover boards 1st.

 

Why? Those are going to be for children in 20 years.

[Poor Scouser T]

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

 

Why? Those are going to be for children in 20 years.

I'd still want one.

[Section_31]

2 hours ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

Its a gravy train for some cunts somewhere.

 

Oh definitely,  that's what all big projects are in Britain, from the Royal to PPE.

[Kepler-186]

The board is set, and the pieces are moving. 

 

https://open.substack.com/pub/bylinesupplement/p/rishi-sunak-defends-suella-bravermans?r=7i95q&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

 

 

 

[Clem H Fandango]

I just don't understand how the human race evolved over thousands of years to sit in the same metal box 5 days a week doing the same journey over and over getting stuck in the same traffic congestion to go do some shitty job to pay for stuff that ultimately breaks or some kind of holiday which is only a temporary fix for happiness.

 

How did we come to this?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Beefing up security at Epsom isn't enough to reassure posh cunts. Police also arrested 19 people in dawn raids on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance.

 

Even thinking about acts of dissent is being criminalised. 

https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/multiple-arrests-in-pre-dawn-raids-on-derby-day/

[Redder Lurtz]

5 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Beefing up security at Epsom isn't enough to reassure posh cunts. Police also arrested 19 people in dawn raids on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance.

 

Even thinking about acts of dissent is being criminalised. 

https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/multiple-arrests-in-pre-dawn-raids-on-derby-day/

 

Thought crimes. It's almost as if it was prophesied in a book written over 70 years ago.