Jump to content

Numero Veinticinco

Season Ticket Holder
  • Posts

    26,868
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    44

Numero Veinticinco last won the day on February 2 2023

Numero Veinticinco had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    . Location. Location.

Recent Profile Visitors

15,053 profile views

Numero Veinticinco's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Marathon Runner
  • Dedicated
  • Reacting Well
  • Very Popular
  • One Year In

Recent Badges

9.1k

Reputation

  1. You talking to me? Most of my friends are either Corbyn supporters or to the left of Corbyn. As a working class boy, from abject poverty, growing up on a council estate with a single mum reliant on benefits (you know, your traditional posh Tory sort), my childhood friends are mostly in working class jobs (though often earning bloody good money). Why wouldn't I have Corbyn supporting friends? Surely you haven't bought into another of Gnasher's lies that I'm some posh kid who went to private school and hangs around with posh people. I did work really, really fucking hard to break free of poverty though. I wanted things to get better for my family, then I had a kid early and I really, really didn't want my son to suffer through some of the things I did, so I gave my everything to educate myself outside of the shithole school then I went to university and did well whilst being a young father and working when I wasn't studying. Then I got a good job paying good money, and I use that money in a smart way so I can support several people. So I guess that makes me a cunt. Well, fair enough, I didn't like being poor very much. Sorry, I guess. *shrug* Yeah, I might. Instinctively I don't want to because I have as much right to a view as anybody. I'm a stubborn cunt like that. I am getting worn down though, so yeah I probably will bore off. Not because I feel forced out - I've always done and said whatever the fuck I want - but because it's a waste of time (mine and others) and not really enjoyable. I already started posting about politics elsewhere, so I'm here out of habit really. I need to plan a mega-flounce though, having been wrongly accused of it before (strangely regurgitated) I might as well commit the crime. Pft, who am I kidding, I can't even be bothered to do that. Enjoy what you're left with. (Pst. That was my flounce. Feel free to make fun of it at my expense to make yourselves feel superior).
  2. I actually quite liked Reacher. Probably a 7 from me. Looking forward to seeing season 2 but it's a shame the blonde from S1 won't be there.
  3. For me, that's a totally valid perspective. Some people like him more than others and put more truck into criticisms and some have a more generous view of things based on other factors of his life. That's totally fine to have that level of disagreement. For me it's when you get to those who think he's some sort of God's gift to peace and love and understanding and a great human of historic significance or the ones who think he's some Jew hating, fascist loving, terrorist. The extremes are ridiculous with Corbyn. He really is just a bloke, who in my view bit of WAY more than he could chew but is ultimately as decent as most left wingers you'd find at a CLP. What baffles me is where it goes nuclear on either side. Now I don't deny that I wouldn't let many of the current SCG members run anything of significance, but that has nothing to do with their political beliefs. It doesn't make you a Tory or a right winger to think somebody is just a bit shit. It doesn't even mean you hate that person, I don't hate Corbyn I voted for him twice even though I have some fundamental disagreements with him and think he just isn't capable enough to lead a party or a country. I just hope he decides to stand down and the twitter left find a new champion.
  4. I think they contributed mate, I don’t think it’s the everything though. Maybe there were some things people might have disliked that actually had merit. Hates his own country and the west is certainly something that comes up, and the argument that attacking your own country’s government relentlessly for decades doesn’t amount to hate didn’t penetrate. Some of the stuff around Russia has been something that gets mentioned a lot.
  5. Anybody who advocates voting Tory over Labour at a general election should be a million miles away from the Labour party. Simple as a that really. That said, I do wonder if staunch Corbyn fans, who're still banging on about the bloke now and bringing up videos from years ago and have their twitter bio dedicated to him, ever look inwards and ever had a period of reflection to ask themselves why so many people didn't take to Corbyn (or frankly, much worse, despised him), or if they ever asked why somebody they regard so highly (as a man of greatness, the most successful Labour politician in living memory, etc) was rejected twice by the British public when he was trying to give them free stuff. They don't seem the most level-headed of people, so I suspect they didn't often ask this question. Not everyone in the country is some horrible, nasty bastard so stupid they are swayed by what the media say. Surely? Or maybe it is as simple as that, Corbyn is great and anybody who can't see it is a brainwashed cunt or a borderline Nazi truth twister. I found it interesting at the time, so I asked two questions to different people I knew or was working with then. First was 'why do you like Corbyn so much' to his supporters, and it's easy to guess why and it's easy to know why without asking the question. He's a decent man, with principles that are focused on wanting to help people in obvious, caring ways. He gives a shit and isn't establishment in the way others were. It's not some mystery why some like him. He was somebody the left could get behind. The overegging his pudding was a bit nauseating but still. I also asked why people disliked him with such ferocity. How could such a loved personality be hated so much. I honestly expected it to be mixed between 'dirty socialist' and 'antisemite', and although some people mentioned socialism, very rarely did anybody ever mention antisemitism. I don't think the media was particularly persuasive on that. Much more regular were things like 1) the sort of people he associated with 2) his lack of competence and faith in his ability 3) concerns over the economy and debt 4) foreign policy (Russia, Iran, etc) 5) anti-western views 6) a total rejection of the 'benevolent grandad' vibe 7) Brexiteer in sheep's clothing. Now, the media did mention his connections, but some of the other things were barely pushed. I don't see many Corbynites accepting any of these criticisms, even though they're valid concerns for many voters. This is obviously just small scale of people I interacted with at the time, anecdotal stuff that has no merits outside of those I asked, but self reflection when there has has been such a big failure, like the 2019 loss, is important. Whatever happened with Corbyn needs to be examined by the left so the next time a left wing candidate comes along, the same mistakes aren't repeated.
  6. They dropped almost the entire cast from 2, which was fucking terrible, so this is pretty different. No story continuation either. Very different.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Hahahah. ‘Doing the right thing’ says Phil. ‘Doing the wrong thing’ says the judge. Ah, when will dickheads learn to read.
  10. This is TLW. Threads aren't closed. What are you, some sort of RAWK Nazi? BOOOOOOOOOOO I do agree. It should be shot into space.
  11. Yes, that's what I thought. I know you didn't think it's real, I think you're stupid not blind; I was taking the piss out of Stig for thinking you might have thought it was real. You're such an insufferable cunt that I can't even do that without you being a prick.
  12. Depends really, what do you want it for?
  13. Nah, that really is a boxing gym with giants very close wearing the same things they wore at conference. Can't believe it really, but it's definitely legit.
  14. Well, that narrative has nothing to do with me and what I said, I'm only going to back up what I said. Can you not see how you agreeing as soon as I say it wasn't a good system before Corbyn might feed my idea that you get pissed off at criticism because it's Corbyn. To add further to that, you don't mention how badly it was handled under Corbyn, how his team failed badly in response to this, how they didn't implement recommendations - that part wasn't in what you cited from the report on this particular subject - you chose to only reference the part where there was some improvement. What they said in the two paragraphs prior to the one I posted above regarding Chakrabarti's recommendations was 'Our investigation has identified serious failings in leadership and an inadequate process for handling antisemitism complaints across the Labour Party, and we have identified multiple failures in the systems it uses to resolve them. We have concluded that there were unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination for which the Labour Party is responsible. While there have been some recent improvements in how the Labour Party deals with antisemitism complaints, our analysis points to a culture within the Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it.' If what you present is 'the report found it improved under Corbyn'. Well... sorry if I find that a little cherrypickery. This isn't the media framing it, this isn't me framing it, this is the report's own summary. Yes, it goes into further detail. You quoted SOME of it previously, though left out some important things.
×
×
  • Create New...