Big bang near a mosque in Tipton.
Discussion
Invaded Afghanistan?
I must be getting feeble minded... you know what? I thought my country and her allies' military intervention was because the nice civilised Mr Karzhai (sp?) invited/requested/begged assistance.
I suppose you get a point for Bliar's Iraq incursion though, I was part of the democratic process there.
Voted against the smarmy turd's henchmen any time I had a ballot though.
I must be getting feeble minded... you know what? I thought my country and her allies' military intervention was because the nice civilised Mr Karzhai (sp?) invited/requested/begged assistance.
I suppose you get a point for Bliar's Iraq incursion though, I was part of the democratic process there.
Voted against the smarmy turd's henchmen any time I had a ballot though.
Boshly said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Sorry Mark but what a ridiculous thing to say. Of course its not impossible but its pretty improbable. You are not helping matters, in fact I'd go so far as to say you are hindering.What does hack me off a bit is the seemingly one sided nature of the ability to even discuss a probability when it might cast a negative light in a certain direction.
I also don't deny it could be seen as inflammatory and some folks will take offence; however to my mind there are far to many almost professional offence takers these days and frankly it is getting a little tiring to not able to debate in a reasonable and adult manner any hypothesis or probability surrounding an event based on someone 'taking offence'.
heppers75 said:
To be fair I don't think anyone has commented on the probability just the fact it is possible and for the record I agree it is not high on the probability scale, even less so as a group organised act.
What does hack me off a bit is the seemingly one sided nature of the ability to even discuss a probability when it might cast a negative light in a certain direction.
I also don't deny it could be seen as inflammatory and some folks will take offence; however to my mind there are far to many almost professional offence takers these days and frankly it is getting a little tiring to not able to debate in a reasonable and adult manner any hypothesis or probability surrounding an event based on someone 'taking offence'.
I don't disagree with much if not all what you say, but read that particular post again. I have met Mark personally (though have never discussed politics) and I know his PH persona, and that was IMHO an inflammatory comment (maybe in a trolling sort of way What does hack me off a bit is the seemingly one sided nature of the ability to even discuss a probability when it might cast a negative light in a certain direction.
I also don't deny it could be seen as inflammatory and some folks will take offence; however to my mind there are far to many almost professional offence takers these days and frankly it is getting a little tiring to not able to debate in a reasonable and adult manner any hypothesis or probability surrounding an event based on someone 'taking offence'.
). Throwing the comment out gives people ammunition to state it as fact etc. That's different to discussing the possibility or probability of something happening. Remember people will believe what they want to believe.As an example, we have a close family friend who is a bit anti Murray shall we say. During the final, my nephew who works in the betting industry mentioned fraud and collusion is rife in football particularly in certain countries. He also said, that Murray was due to increase his lifetime earnings far more considerably than Djokovic and a number of £100m was mentioned, and thus suggested, somewhat tongue in cheek, that they may have colluded to share the windfall. I was then party to a phone conversation where said family friend began recounting in Ernest to his brother how it was all a fix. This guy is very well educated and a very intelligent guy. Sometimes you believe what you want to.
As to the issues here, what is required is reasonable integration, less inflammation (more aimed at bombs both ways rather than simply comments) and more reasonable prominent people to define what is acceptable behaviour and what isn't. Examples being the Imams that invited the BNP in for tea, and the plethora of reasonable sane people in these isles who accept integration as a fact of the smaller world we live in, and accept people can make different choices yet still live and integrate happily alongside each other. Both statements relate to both sides!
Boshly said:
heppers75 said:
To be fair I don't think anyone has commented on the probability just the fact it is possible and for the record I agree it is not high on the probability scale, even less so as a group organised act.
What does hack me off a bit is the seemingly one sided nature of the ability to even discuss a probability when it might cast a negative light in a certain direction.
I also don't deny it could be seen as inflammatory and some folks will take offence; however to my mind there are far to many almost professional offence takers these days and frankly it is getting a little tiring to not able to debate in a reasonable and adult manner any hypothesis or probability surrounding an event based on someone 'taking offence'.
I don't disagree with much if not all what you say, but read that particular post again. I have met Mark personally (though have never discussed politics) and I know his PH persona, and that was IMHO an inflammatory comment (maybe in a trolling sort of way What does hack me off a bit is the seemingly one sided nature of the ability to even discuss a probability when it might cast a negative light in a certain direction.
I also don't deny it could be seen as inflammatory and some folks will take offence; however to my mind there are far to many almost professional offence takers these days and frankly it is getting a little tiring to not able to debate in a reasonable and adult manner any hypothesis or probability surrounding an event based on someone 'taking offence'.
). Throwing the comment out gives people ammunition to state it as fact etc. That's different to discussing the possibility or probability of something happening. Remember people will believe what they want to believe.As an example, we have a close family friend who is a bit anti Murray shall we say. During the final, my nephew who works in the betting industry mentioned fraud and collusion is rife in football particularly in certain countries. He also said, that Murray was due to increase his lifetime earnings far more considerably than Djokovic and a number of £100m was mentioned, and thus suggested, somewhat tongue in cheek, that they may have colluded to share the windfall. I was then party to a phone conversation where said family friend began recounting in Ernest to his brother how it was all a fix. This guy is very well educated and a very intelligent guy. Sometimes you believe what you want to.
As to the issues here, what is required is reasonable integration, less inflammation (more aimed at bombs both ways rather than simply comments) and more reasonable prominent people to define what is acceptable behaviour and what isn't. Examples being the Imams that invited the BNP in for tea, and the plethora of reasonable sane people in these isles who accept integration as a fact of the smaller world we live in, and accept people can make different choices yet still live and integrate happily alongside each other. Both statements relate to both sides!
For reference, and I am not sure if anyone else caught it at the beginning of this thread but there were 3 or 4 posts that were heading exactly down that route in response to the post that I am assuming were modded out. Those posts were exactly that kind if crap that irks reasonable people willing and indeed wanting to have a reasonable discussion that includes all probabilities and possibilities even those that certain quarters find unpalatable.
heppers75 said:
To be fair I don't think anyone has commented on the probability just the fact it is possible and for the record I agree it is not high on the probability scale, even less so as a group organised act.
What does hack me off a bit is the seemingly one sided nature of the ability to even discuss a probability when it might cast a negative light in a certain direction.
I also don't deny it could be seen as inflammatory and some folks will take offence; however to my mind there are far to many almost professional offence takers these days and frankly it is getting a little tiring to not able to debate in a reasonable and adult manner any hypothesis or probability surrounding an event based on someone 'taking offence'.
That's a bit like speculating it might have been you that planted it. Is is low on the probability scale, but how do we know you didn't plant it so that a thread could be started and other people could then speculate it was planted by Muslims?What does hack me off a bit is the seemingly one sided nature of the ability to even discuss a probability when it might cast a negative light in a certain direction.
I also don't deny it could be seen as inflammatory and some folks will take offence; however to my mind there are far to many almost professional offence takers these days and frankly it is getting a little tiring to not able to debate in a reasonable and adult manner any hypothesis or probability surrounding an event based on someone 'taking offence'.
I hope you don't take offence.
Transmat said:
heppers75 said:
To be fair I don't think anyone has commented on the probability just the fact it is possible and for the record I agree it is not high on the probability scale, even less so as a group organised act.
What does hack me off a bit is the seemingly one sided nature of the ability to even discuss a probability when it might cast a negative light in a certain direction.
I also don't deny it could be seen as inflammatory and some folks will take offence; however to my mind there are far to many almost professional offence takers these days and frankly it is getting a little tiring to not able to debate in a reasonable and adult manner any hypothesis or probability surrounding an event based on someone 'taking offence'.
That's a bit like speculating it might have been you that planted it. Is is low on the probability scale, but how do we know you didn't plant it so that a thread could be started and other people could then speculate it was planted by Muslims?What does hack me off a bit is the seemingly one sided nature of the ability to even discuss a probability when it might cast a negative light in a certain direction.
I also don't deny it could be seen as inflammatory and some folks will take offence; however to my mind there are far to many almost professional offence takers these days and frankly it is getting a little tiring to not able to debate in a reasonable and adult manner any hypothesis or probability surrounding an event based on someone 'taking offence'.
I hope you don't take offence.
It is the reactions of others to those kind of throwaway comments that leads me (as a rule) very quickly to be able to conclude whether the person who wishes to engage in a given discussion has a broad enough view and ability to consider all aspects; no matter how detrimental to their starting position those points/probabilities/hypothesis may be to be able to have a full scope discourse. If someones immediate reaction to something like that is akin to knee-jerk, dogmatic, attack to defend, irrational or just plain insulting one as opposed to a well thought out and logical retort then it is pretty safe to conclude any debate of a substantive nature is unlikely to occur.
I am not saying it is the right way to do it, I am not even saying it is the best way to do it, I am simply saying it is something I have found has served me well over the years in deciding who I bother entering a debate/discussion I am interested in having at all levels.
ETA - I have a pretty rock solid alibi so I reckon I am pretty low on the probability curve!
Edited by heppers75 on Saturday 13th July 13:01
Guam said:
We dont need east european headcases stirring up more racial tension!
Well, thanks to Tony Bliar's open-door, multi-culti, happy-clappy experiment we have them, by the boat and train full. This is now the problem that the police are being tasked with, after spending nearly two decades being told to 'ignore' immigration full stop. A real Mad Hatter's Tea Party.Pinched from elsewhere on NP&E but highly relevant: http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2013/...
scenario8 said:
Interesting development. Not really fitting the type some people were hoping they were going to be.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff