Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just a typo change that I'd make for the last line. Maybe also add something that says "I assume you will be fully aware that you cannot rely on a clause of a contract that you do not produce."
    • Hello, Firstly, and most importantly I am sorry for your loss. I would go back to the bank with the death certificate and ask them to step in. Remind them firmly but politely that there is no limit for DD claims   Please let us know how you get on.
    • My wife is the named person to his bank account with him having Dementia being his daughter (I say named person she still is but he recently passed away and the deputyship application has now being stopped by the solicitor as it's no longer needed) We've only just got the Death Certificate so the bank will be the next step informing them. She went to the bank and explained the situation but even being his named person the bank said she didn't have the power to stop DD without any legal documents (virgin money) was the bank. She could have copies of bank statements that was about it.
    • I see you said you tried to stop the DD but it seems that didn't work. May I please ask why that didn't work? You should be asking your bank to cancel the DD and I don't see why they would have objected, hopefully you can clarify this. I agree that you should be making a claim here against your bank and ask them for a DD refund. There is no timeframes for this.
    • JK: Yeah That's correct. We left rent payment coming out of his bank account from January 2023 - August 2023 until we could find somewhere to sort out his belongings which was fine. I tried to give notice a few times from August 2023 asking for advice from Sanctuary housing how we went about this explaining his condition and that he was in a Nursing home from December 2022. I explained we don't have any legal powers to his account like POT but were in the process of going for Deputyship and that I was the named person to act on his behalf to speak with Santuary housing. I said we could provide details of his condition and proof he was now in a nursing home with date he moved in. This went ignored despite repeated attempts to contact them until a housing manager contacted us end of February 2024 and notice was finally accepted with his tenancy coming to an end March 22 2024. Although they have continued to take rental payments for the flat despite someone else living in it from the 1st April. I wasn't aware payments were still being taken till I checked his May banks statements. I had asked them to back date rental payments to August 2023 when I gave notice rather than just giving notice in March 2024 but they've ignored that bit. I don't see why they shouldn't give it back they've taken money they shouldn't have. Thanks DX, I wasn't aware we could do that for that length of time. I'll ask my wife to check with the bank this week
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

You're European now


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5227 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

You make it up as you go along.

 

I'm going to assume this is an attempt at humour, and that you are able to tell the difference between my two statements you've quoted.

I've clearly touched a nerve explaining how I believe you are misinterpreting the articles to which you link, and I'm not altogether convinced that anyone else subscribes to your assertions either.

 

Again, the issue here is that no amount of rational argument is going to change your stance, which rather invalidates discussion.

You admit yourself that my interpretation of your position as an immovable Euro-skeptic despite all evidence to the contrary is correct, you repeatedly quote then respond to your own material (I can only assume under the impression that doing so lends credibility), and then declare that "you think I'm a Euro-skeptic zealot nut and don't want to give my side of the argument any ammo by agreeing with me at all.", which is beginning to sound a touch paranoid.

 

In point of fact, and I admit influenced by your thread behaviour, yes, I do think you're 'a Euro-skeptic zealot nut'. I also believe you are both confused by - and wrong about - a European reintroduction of the death penalty.

 

And why do I choose not to answer some of your questions?

For the exact same reason that many people refuse to engage Nick Griffin in debate. They are neither frightened of what he says, nor think he's right, but discussing the issues unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion.

 

It might be that Bookworm and others have more patience with you. I do not.

Edited by Tezcatlipoca
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh, and Crusher, while you're here, would you PLEASE sort out that "Your" in the title? It's "You're European now". :mad:

 

Although on matters of grammar, we're agreed. Can somebody please correct the thread title?

 

I did think to myself what is a European Now and how do I get my hands on one?

 

Yam all bein very picky, this is a bostin thread for ya to have a good natter on :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just drop my efforts on this thread I think, as no one really seems remotely interested in my viewpoint. Getting some consensus with my outlook was my motive in starting this thread. That's ok. I'm not wallowing in self-pity! :lol: If people that disagree post I will still do my best to respond solely to what they say and nothing more.

 

Funny that as I started the thread and I have got some consensus with my outlook :)

 

As for the title change in your post, do you work for RBS by any chance? :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Sorry, but I have been attending to other issues. I am now able to respond for the foreseeable future.

 

 

 

I'm going to assume this is an attempt at humour, and that you are able to tell the difference between my two statements you've quoted.

 

Ok, but barely.

 

 

 

I've clearly touched a nerve explaining how I believe you are misinterpreting the articles to which you link, and I'm not altogether convinced that anyone else subscribes to your assertions either.

 

No you haven't touched a nerve at all. I just speak my mind with logic. Moreover, I try not to speak for others as you seem to.

 

 

 

Again, the issue here is that no amount of rational argument is going to change your stance, which rather invalidates discussion.

 

I think that statement could well be applied to you in my opinion.

 

 

 

You admit yourself that my interpretation of your position as an immovable Euro-skeptic despite all evidence to the contrary is correct

 

You are saying you are wrong? :confused:

 

 

 

you repeatedly quote then respond to your own material (I can only assume under the impression that doing so lends credibility), and then declare that "you think I'm a Euro-skeptic zealot nut and don't want to give my side of the argument any ammo by agreeing with me at all.", which is beginning to sound a touch paranoid.

 

I would say that you are the one who repeats a position without basis and assumes that it gives you credibility. Everything that I have stated is based upon fact. If you have a problem with any of the facts that I have presented, then please highlight these facts.

 

 

 

In point of fact, and I admit influenced by your thread behaviour, yes, I do think you're 'a Euro-skeptic zealot nut'. I also believe you are both confused by - and wrong about - a European reintroduction of the death penalty.

 

You will have your opinion, correct or not. I am not confused or wrong at all. If there is 'really serious dissent' against being part of this corrupt and illegal E.U., to the extent that it might break up, then they WILL use it. I'm amazed that anyone would doubt that.

 

 

 

And why do I choose not to answer some of your questions?

 

No, because you can't.

 

 

 

For the exact same reason that many people refuse to engage Nick Griffin in debate. They are neither frightened of what he says, nor think he's right, but discussing the issues unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion.

 

The same could be said of you and Nick griffin, but I would rather argue my valid points intellectually than ignore someone.

 

 

 

It might be that Bookworm and others have more patience with you. I do not.

 

I have a lot of respect for Bookworm and all the Site Team as it goes. You have my sincere sympathy. :)

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny that as I started the thread and I have got some consensus with my outlook :)

 

As for the title change in your post, do you work for RBS by any chance? :-D

 

Ah, but I wouldn't be resigning if I was with RBS. I'd be retiring with my huge pension. :D

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little bemused as to why you've resurrected the thread at all, to be honest. If I recall correctly, you made a series of confused, indefensible statements regarding your belief that the death penalty was being reintroduced, in response to which the flaws in your thinking were pointed out by myself and others. Repeatedly.

 

That your best response to this, over seven weeks later, is the rather childish "You have my sincere sympathy. :-)" is symptomatic of your continuing lack of any real argument. Ad hominem really is the last refuge in debate.

 

Of course you're upset the flaws in your assertions were pointed out, which culminated in "I'll just drop my efforts on this thread I think, as no one really seems remotely interested in my viewpoint. Getting some consensus with my outlook was my motive in starting this thread. [my emphasis]", but how many more times do you need the same thing repeated to you..? Or do you think if you tell us Europe is reintroducing the death penality enough times it will suddenly become true?

Edited by Tezcatlipoca
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little bemused as to why you've resurrected the thread at all, to be honest. If I recall correctly, you made a series of confused, indefensible statements regarding your belief that the death penalty was being reintroduced, in response to which the flaws in your thinking were pointed out by myself and others. Repeatedly.

 

Incorrect. Everything was based on fact and I backed it all up. There were no flaws whatsoever. That's exactly what they have done. You can argue that it was done with no sinister intent and that it will never be used, but you can't argue that it hasn't happened i'm afraid. Sorry.

 

 

 

That your best response to this, over seven weeks later, is the rather childish "You have my sincere sympathy. :-)" is symptomatic of your continuing lack of any real argument.

 

All my arguments have been fully sourced and backed up. This was already the case several weeks ago before my previous response . My last post, admittedly after a while because I had other issues to attend to in life, was simply in response to yuor previous weak effort.

 

 

 

Ad hominem really is the last refuge in debate.

 

That would make you a bad debater then, because almost all the ad hominem stuff has come from you. You don't seem capable of addressing facts backed up with sources.

 

 

 

Of course you're upset the flaws in your assertions were pointed out, which culminated in "I'll just drop my efforts on this thread I think, as no one really seems remotely interested in my viewpoint. Getting some consensus with my outlook was my motive in starting this thread. [my emphasis]",

 

I am not upset at all. You seem to be the one that is upset making ad hominem attacks and unable to address any of the facts I have presented. I reiterate, all backed up with concrete sources. You don't seem to be able to accept that for some reason though. Otherwise, I would be happy to have made my point and move on. If you wish to post more nonsense though, then of course I will be happy to debate further. As an aside, do you actually think this country being in a huge mess has nothing to do with disinterested people? :rolleyes: It's a shocking state of affairs.

 

 

 

but how many more times do you need the same thing repeated to you..? Or do you think if you tell us Europe is reintroducing the death penality enough times it will suddenly become true?

 

I don't need it repeated to me at all. I know exactly what has happened and why it has happened. It is 'true' regardless of whether I say it or not. If I say it isn't true it will still be true bcause it is true. Accept it and digest it. Feel free to make other arguments about intent and the possibility of future application. I have just raised this issue because it is very serious and I care. :)

 

Let me guess. You believe the official account of 9/11 and think we went to Iraq concerned about WMD? Maybe you need to visit confused.com? :lol:

 

P.S. I predicted well in advance that the Jersey paedo case would get dropped like a hot potato and covered up. I predicted well in advance that the OFT wouldn't take on a new test case. Quite surprising considering the Supreme Court guided them towards the right path. I could go on. Am I psychic? No, I know full well how sick the world is and just apply common sense.

Edited by renegotiation

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything was based on fact and I backed it all up. There were no flaws whatsoever. That's exactly what they have done.

 

Not so, as more than one person has had to explain to you. You'll excuse me if, rather than have to run through this again, I simply quote one of my previous posts (original post in italics, comments in non-italics to explain context):

 

"The problem here is not that myself, Bookworm, or anyone else denies the existence of the articles to which you refer; it's that we do not agree with yours and Rixon's [Rixon Stewart, noted conspiracy theorist and one of the based-on-fact-and-backed-up sources renegotiation originally linked to] interpretation of those articles.

Let me put it more simply. Your statement "22 states [in Europe] reintroduced the death penalty yesterday and I don't think it will be too long before the other 3 follow" is simply wrong. No state has reintroduced the death penalty, and nor would it."

 

This is further qualified by my earlier statement:

 

"The death penalty means, specifically, the execution of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense.

The articles you post are catering for exceptional circumstance, which exists in the law of all countries, and is a long way from constituting a "sneaked in" [renegotiation asserted that the wholesale reintroduction of the death penalty had been sneaked in by Europe] death penalty."

 

The relevant section of Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR states, and I quote: "A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…"

 

You are confusing the existence of an article - which nobody has at any point denied - that says a state may make provision for the death penalty in exceptional circumstance (then further mitigated by a reference that such can only be applied in accordance with law), with an actual attempt by Europe to reintroduce the death penalty into society at large (I refer you back to your clear statement "22 states reintroduced the death penalty yesterday"). Just because it is factually accurate that the penalty is mentioned in these articles, it doesn't follow that it is factually accurate they are present because of a desire nor attempt to reintroduce them. That's where we cross the boundary from fact into supposition.

 

Let me put it even more simply for you; it is a fact that the sea is wet. I might personally believe that it's wet because the Flying Spaghetti Monster made it so, but that doesn't quite make it true. I can bang on about it until I'm blue in the face, and point to the fact the sea is wet as proof of my belief, but no matter how often I repeat my own posts or resurrect my old threads, it is still no more true than when I started. This is classic confirmation bias, the stalwart psychology of many a religious belief and the foundation of most conspiracy theories.

 

You believe the official account of 9/11 and think we went to Iraq concerned about WMD? Maybe you need to visit confused.com? :lol:

 

Yeah, about that behaviour we were discussing... :rolleyes:

 

For the record, whilst there's little doubt about the illegality of the Iraq 'war' and the shameful behaviour of our government over the issue (a subject on which I've campaigned numerous times), I for one would very much like to see you tell us all the TRUTH about 9/11; really, I would. I suggest you should start a new thread about it, so as not to hijack this one, which is pretty much concluded (assuming it doesn't have another miraculous resurrection another two months down the line).

And before you rush to reference your other resurrected thread that mentions 9/11 briefly but which everyone ignored, I mean a thread containing ideas that you have had of your own, not just a link to somebody else's ideas.

Of course, since your assertions are "fully sourced and backed up", you will be sure to clearly state the facts that have led you to your conclusions on 9/11 for us, won't you..?

Edited by Tezcatlipoca
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so, as more than one person has had to explain to you. You'll excuse me if, rather than have to run through this again, I simply quote one of my previous posts (original post in italics, comments in non-italics to explain context):

 

"The problem here is not that myself, Bookworm, or anyone else denies the existence of the articles to which you refer; it's that we do not agree with yours and Rixon's [Rixon Stewart, noted conspiracy theorist and one of the based-on-fact-and-backed-up sources renegotiation originally linked to] interpretation of those articles.

Let me put it more simply. Your statement "22 states [in Europe] reintroduced the death penalty yesterday and I don't think it will be too long before the other 3 follow" is simply wrong. No state has reintroduced the death penalty, and nor would it."

 

This is further qualified by my earlier statement:

 

"The death penalty means, specifically, the execution of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense.

The articles you post are catering for exceptional circumstance, which exists in the law of all countries, and is a long way from constituting a "sneaked in" [renegotiation asserted that the wholesale reintroduction of the death penalty had been sneaked in by Europe] death penalty."

 

The relevant section of Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR states, and I quote: "A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…"

 

You are confusing the existence of an article - which nobody has at any point denied - that says a state may make provision for the death penalty in exceptional circumstance (then further mitigated by a reference that such can only be applied in accordance with law), with an actual attempt by Europe to reintroduce the death penalty into society at large (I refer you back to your clear statement "22 states reintroduced the death penalty yesterday"). Just because it is factually accurate that the penalty is mentioned in these articles, it doesn't follow that it is factually accurate they are present because of a desire nor attempt to reintroduce them. That's where we cross the boundary from fact into supposition.

 

Let me put it even more simply for you; it is a fact that the sea is wet. I might personally believe that it's wet because the Flying Spaghetti Monster made it so, but that doesn't quite make it true. I can bang on about it until I'm blue in the face, and point to the fact the sea is wet as proof of my belief, but no matter how often I repeat my own posts or resurrect my old threads, it is still no more true than when I started. This is classic confirmation bias, the stalwart psychology of many a religious belief and the foundation of most conspiracy theories.

 

I have already fully addressed everything you have just stated. You are just going round in circles like a dog with a bone. If you are too ignorant to undrestand it isn't my fault. If you have anything 'new' you wish to add I will happily address it. :)

 

 

 

 

For the record, whilst there's little doubt about the illegality of the Iraq 'war' and the shameful behaviour of our government over the issue (a subject on which I've campaigned numerous times), I for one would very much like to see you tell us all the TRUTH about 9/11; really, I would. I suggest you should start a new thread about it, so as not to hijack this one, which is pretty much concluded (assuming it doesn't have another miraculous resurrection another two months down the line).

And before you rush to reference your other resurrected thread that mentions 9/11 briefly but which everyone ignored, I mean a thread containing ideas that you have had of your own, not just a link to somebody else's ideas.

Of course, since your assertions are "fully sourced and backed up", you will be sure to clearly state the facts that have led you to your conclusions on 9/11 for us, won't you..?

 

You are beginning to sound like a 'conspiracy theorist'. :eek: Governments being responsible for an 'illegal war' that has killed well over 1 million innocent people, 'your words', and then defensively demanding 'truth' about 9/11? Like it's crazy to suggest that they wouldn't be put off by a few thousand deaths to kick it all off? That's a racist comment if ever I heard one. Nick Griffin watch out. You have a rival! :p As for 9/11 I can sum it up easily in a few sentences. Michael Meacher said:

 

'Look at everything that happened before 9/11, at 9/11, and after 9/11. You will get a much better sense of what is happening than the bogus War On Terror.'

 

I completely agree with Michael Meacher. Please see the videos on this thread and if you really feel the need to respond, then good luck to you.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/235645-meacher-von-bulow.html

 

I think i'll take the words of Meacher and Von Bulow, ex-ministers who have no reason to lie and in combination with common sense, over Tezcat. Sorry! :lol:

Edited by renegotiation

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Post 76 'Unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion.'

 

This is like a contradiction in terms.Surely not 'unduly' if it raises them to the level of a valid opinion.

 

Not so. The entire sentence, which defines the context of your quote, is "They [people who refuse to engage Nick Griffin in debate] are neither frightened of what he says, nor think he's right, but discussing the issues unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion."

 

The word 'unduly' means immoderately, being the antithesis of 'duly', to mean appropriately or in a proper manner. To have a discussion with the likes of Mr Griffin duly raise the debate to the level of valid debate is to do so appropriately and with moderation, which infers that engaging in the debate is in itself a moderate act. In this context, this obviously carries the implication that the issue(s) at hand are worthy of discussion; if they weren't, you wouldn't duly engage with them (and I think most people would agree that Mr Griffin's issues are rarely worth genuine debate).

To duly raise something is correct grammar, but would rather obviously be the opposite of the context of the statement being made, and is thus inappropriate in this case.

 

If, however, engaging in debate with Mr Griffin is to unduly raise the issues to the level of valid opinion, the context undergoes an inversion. The inference becomes that the act of engaging itself is an immoderate act, an extreme act. In this case it refers to the fact that said engagement only elevates what is almost exclusively Mr Griffin's racist and xenophobic tirade to the level of an actual debate.

So the original statement "They are neither frightened of what he says, nor think he's right, but discussing the issues unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion." is correct in terms of context, grammar and inference.

 

It's also, oddly enough, exactly what I intended it to mean. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so. The entire sentence, which defines the context of your quote, is "They [people who refuse to engage Nick Griffin in debate] are neither frightened of what he says, nor think he's right, but discussing the issues unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion."

 

The word 'unduly' means immoderately, being the antithesis of 'duly', to mean appropriately or in a proper manner. To have a discussion with the likes of Mr Griffin duly raise the debate to the level of valid debate is to do so appropriately and with moderation, which infers that engaging in the debate is in itself a moderate act. In this context, this obviously carries the implication that the issue(s) at hand are worthy of discussion; if they weren't, you wouldn't duly engage with them (and I think most people would agree that Mr Griffin's issues are rarely worth genuine debate).

To duly raise something is correct grammar, but would rather obviously be the opposite of the context of the statement being made, and is thus inappropriate in this case.

 

If, however, engaging in debate with Mr Griffin is to unduly raise the issues to the level of valid opinion, the context undergoes an inversion. The inference becomes that the act of engaging itself is an immoderate act, an extreme act. In this case it refers to the fact that said engagement only elevates what is almost exclusively Mr Griffin's racist and xenophobic tirade to the level of an actual debate.

So the original statement "They are neither frightened of what he says, nor think he's right, but discussing the issues unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion." is correct in terms of context, grammar and inference.

 

It's also, oddly enough, exactly what I intended it to mean. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Teachers pet:p

 

 

 

 

red-apple.jpg

 

 

If all else fails, kick them where it hurts and SOD'EM;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Teachers pet:p

 

Nah, it was entirely my fault for using intermediate-level English in my original post on Mr Griffin. I'd have written it in Kiswahili for clarity, but I'm not fluent enough in it to accomodate the contextual shift.

 

I can say 'conspiracy theorist' in Kiswahili, though :D

Edited by Tezcatlipoca
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, it was entirely my fault for using intermediate-level English in my original post on Mr Griffin. I'd have written it in Kiswahili for clarity, but I'm not fluent enough in it to accomodate the contextual shift.

 

I can say 'conspiracy theorist' in Kiswahili, though :D

 

D'you know I'm still not convinced about your theory about 'what happened before the big bang,' though!

Link to post
Share on other sites

D'you know I'm still not convinced about your theory about 'what happened before the big bang,' though!

 

Careful, she'll have you dressed like this soon:

 

http://allo.crudo.cz/images/epizody/3/3_12.jpg

 

'Bring in determindator!' :eek::eek::eek:

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

D'you know I'm still not convinced about your theory about 'what happened before the big bang,' though!

 

Er...I suspect you are alluding the three month old thread you've just resurrected in which you asked the question "What happened before the Big Bang?" and I responded thusly. My response isn't a theory in answer to your question. My response is a breakdown of why I think the question itself is flawed, assuming a particular premise (which is why the word 'if' starts the second paragraph).

Unless of course you're talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster I mentioned at the time, in which case - and I'll let you in on a secret here - I just might have been using his Pastafarian Highness to take the proverbial... :rolleyes:

 

You must have been hunting through a lot of old threads before resurrecting that one; I'm touched.

Edited by Tezcatlipoca
Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't do any hunting, just have a fascination with the subject so it was easy just to press my CP list of threads i've posted on and hey presto the thread appeared! Thought Caggers may want to endulge and give a theory.

 

Glad you're touched!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so. The entire sentence, which defines the context of your quote, is "They [people who refuse to engage Nick Griffin in debate] are neither frightened of what he says, nor think he's right, but discussing the issues unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion."

 

The word 'unduly' means immoderately, being the antithesis of 'duly', to mean appropriately or in a proper manner. To have a discussion with the likes of Mr Griffin duly raise the debate to the level of valid debate is to do so appropriately and with moderation, which infers that engaging in the debate is in itself a moderate act. In this context, this obviously carries the implication that the issue(s) at hand are worthy of discussion; if they weren't, you wouldn't duly engage with them (and I think most people would agree that Mr Griffin's issues are rarely worth genuine debate).

To duly raise something is correct grammar, but would rather obviously be the opposite of the context of the statement being made, and is thus inappropriate in this case.

 

If, however, engaging in debate with Mr Griffin is to unduly raise the issues to the level of valid opinion, the context undergoes an inversion. The inference becomes that the act of engaging itself is an immoderate act, an extreme act. In this case it refers to the fact that said engagement only elevates what is almost exclusively Mr Griffin's racist and xenophobic tirade to the level of an actual debate.

So the original statement "They are neither frightened of what he says, nor think he's right, but discussing the issues unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion." is correct in terms of context, grammar and inference.

 

It's also, oddly enough, exactly what I intended it to mean. :rolleyes:

 

What utter nonsense. Now, where do I begin? :p

 

Some times it's best to just agree to disagree... :eek:

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time to settle down now, renegotation.

 

child.jpg

 

If you carry on, you'll have to go on the naughty-step, mmkay?

 

Determindator told me the punishment was worth the thrill... :-)

 

How old are you in that picture by the way? You look like the butter wouldn't melt... :p

Edited by renegotiation

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...