Family & Relationships1 min ago
I Wonder If Their Community Will Hand These Two Pieces Of Scum In?
218 Answers
http://
They are quite recognisable, so let's hope so.
They are quite recognisable, so let's hope so.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Naomi - //The subject of the hooligans on the train shouldn't have been raised here at all. There is no comparison between the two incidents. //
sp1814 - who raised the point about the hooligans - has pointed out several times, as have I, that no-one is inferring a comparison, or seeking to see any similarity in the two situations.
The connection concerns AOG's OP in which he instantly and vociferously attacks the individuals involved, which is utterly at odds with his position regarding the hooligans, and spent considerable time exploring ways in which the assaulted individual may have been the architect of his own assault!
Instead of addressing that point, AOG has descended into a froth of self-righteous ire, spitting insults left right and centre.
We regulars on here are well-known to each other precisely because of a history of positions which we can be reasonably expected to assume given a certain situation - and that comes from experience of previous discussions.
So when someone adopts a completely opposite view on this thread, compared to their default position previously, it is not unreasonable for someone to notice, and query it - and that is all that has happened.
AOG is entitled to either address the point, or ignore it.
What he is not entitled to do is to make gratuitously offensive remarks and infer that he is once again the subject of a plot to upset him.
sp1814 - who raised the point about the hooligans - has pointed out several times, as have I, that no-one is inferring a comparison, or seeking to see any similarity in the two situations.
The connection concerns AOG's OP in which he instantly and vociferously attacks the individuals involved, which is utterly at odds with his position regarding the hooligans, and spent considerable time exploring ways in which the assaulted individual may have been the architect of his own assault!
Instead of addressing that point, AOG has descended into a froth of self-righteous ire, spitting insults left right and centre.
We regulars on here are well-known to each other precisely because of a history of positions which we can be reasonably expected to assume given a certain situation - and that comes from experience of previous discussions.
So when someone adopts a completely opposite view on this thread, compared to their default position previously, it is not unreasonable for someone to notice, and query it - and that is all that has happened.
AOG is entitled to either address the point, or ignore it.
What he is not entitled to do is to make gratuitously offensive remarks and infer that he is once again the subject of a plot to upset him.
Talbot - //I don't see why not, naomi.
AOG was making excuses for the rabble on the train, I feel sure if anyone on this thread was making excuses for the rabble on the bus he would have asked why. I'm sure we have all been guilty of highlighting what has been said on another thread. //
Exactly.
If people behave differently - especially if their views are as oft expressed and as trenchant as AOG's are - then a question regarding that difference is legitimate in the area of debate, and should be addressed as such.
How would AOG go on if he had really had every single post analysed and attacked by a select band of mischief-makers - as some on here have endured?
AOG was making excuses for the rabble on the train, I feel sure if anyone on this thread was making excuses for the rabble on the bus he would have asked why. I'm sure we have all been guilty of highlighting what has been said on another thread. //
Exactly.
If people behave differently - especially if their views are as oft expressed and as trenchant as AOG's are - then a question regarding that difference is legitimate in the area of debate, and should be addressed as such.
How would AOG go on if he had really had every single post analysed and attacked by a select band of mischief-makers - as some on here have endured?
Naomi - //andy-hughes, I was responding to your post. The OP can read what I said if he likes. //
The issue of side-tracking must be laid squarely at the door of the OP who has ignored requests to comment on the position raised by his Question, even so far as to say that he declines the invitation to debate the point.
I have received a nasty and insulting response to my input - what can that be if not rampant side-tracking, which I have halted by stating that my response will not be the start of the very 'tit-for-tat' about which you are complaining.
The issue of side-tracking must be laid squarely at the door of the OP who has ignored requests to comment on the position raised by his Question, even so far as to say that he declines the invitation to debate the point.
I have received a nasty and insulting response to my input - what can that be if not rampant side-tracking, which I have halted by stating that my response will not be the start of the very 'tit-for-tat' about which you are complaining.
I think andy_hughes understands my point.
I am curious as to your differing attitudes to two different sets of thuggish behaviour, and why one would cause you to enter Devil's Advocate mode using the words 'alleged' when referring to the Chelsea hooligans, and 'scum' when referring to these two thugs.
On the face of it, it seems that your stance has undergone a fundamental change. Why are these two attackers convicted in your mind, when the Chelsea thugs were not?
I am curious as to your differing attitudes to two different sets of thuggish behaviour, and why one would cause you to enter Devil's Advocate mode using the words 'alleged' when referring to the Chelsea hooligans, and 'scum' when referring to these two thugs.
On the face of it, it seems that your stance has undergone a fundamental change. Why are these two attackers convicted in your mind, when the Chelsea thugs were not?
naomi24
Also, please be aware that AOG's question was about the black community, and not about the attack itself.
If he is able to question the motivations of the black community, as a member of that community, is it not right that I can turn the question back to him and question his own motivations?
Also, please be aware that AOG's question was about the black community, and not about the attack itself.
If he is able to question the motivations of the black community, as a member of that community, is it not right that I can turn the question back to him and question his own motivations?
sp1814 - //I think andy_hughes understands my point.
I am curious as to your differing attitudes to two different sets of thuggish behaviour, and why one would cause you to enter Devil's Advocate mode using the words 'alleged' when referring to the Chelsea hooligans, and 'scum' when referring to these two thugs.
On the face of it, it seems that your stance has undergone a fundamental change. Why are these two attackers convicted in your mind, when the Chelsea thugs were not? //
That absolutely sums up the point you raised, and as you say, I understand it, even it appears that others have a vested interest in trying to make it something it is not.
Experience of similar calls for an enlightenment from some posters has been met with hostility, followed by eternal silence, so no actual response or resolution.
I see no reason why this would be any different - but full marks for giving it a good go!
I am curious as to your differing attitudes to two different sets of thuggish behaviour, and why one would cause you to enter Devil's Advocate mode using the words 'alleged' when referring to the Chelsea hooligans, and 'scum' when referring to these two thugs.
On the face of it, it seems that your stance has undergone a fundamental change. Why are these two attackers convicted in your mind, when the Chelsea thugs were not? //
That absolutely sums up the point you raised, and as you say, I understand it, even it appears that others have a vested interest in trying to make it something it is not.
Experience of similar calls for an enlightenment from some posters has been met with hostility, followed by eternal silence, so no actual response or resolution.
I see no reason why this would be any different - but full marks for giving it a good go!
SP, I assume your post at 11:12 wasn’t addressed to me. I haven’t used the word ‘alleged’.
Look, I think AOG comes across as biased, and I don’t believe I’m alone in having gained that impression, but I can't see the point in constantly demanding that he explain himself and destroying threads in the process. We know what his answers will be and he’s not going to change. Tell him he’s wrong by all means, and explain why he’s wrong, but this continual to-ing and fro-ing seems to me to be tediously unproductive to say the least. I don't think I have any more to say on the matter.
Look, I think AOG comes across as biased, and I don’t believe I’m alone in having gained that impression, but I can't see the point in constantly demanding that he explain himself and destroying threads in the process. We know what his answers will be and he’s not going to change. Tell him he’s wrong by all means, and explain why he’s wrong, but this continual to-ing and fro-ing seems to me to be tediously unproductive to say the least. I don't think I have any more to say on the matter.
AOG - //andy-hughes
/// AOG - In the interests of avoiding a slanging match - which are usually provoked and sustained by a select
few, ///
Ah, so both you and sp1814 admit to starting a slanging match do you?
Well at least we are now making progress, thank you. //
Please don't think that my willingness to try and avoid a tedious spat with you gives you carte blanche to twist what I say into a blatant untruth.
You are already on record as being rude and nasty on this thread - let's not add any more to that dubious personality trait shall we?
/// AOG - In the interests of avoiding a slanging match - which are usually provoked and sustained by a select
few, ///
Ah, so both you and sp1814 admit to starting a slanging match do you?
Well at least we are now making progress, thank you. //
Please don't think that my willingness to try and avoid a tedious spat with you gives you carte blanche to twist what I say into a blatant untruth.
You are already on record as being rude and nasty on this thread - let's not add any more to that dubious personality trait shall we?
/// So when someone adopts a completely opposite view on this thread, compared to their default position previously, it is not unreasonable for someone to notice, and query it - and that is all that has happened. ///
Once again I can't ague with that, you have been the one to adopt a completely different view compared to the default position that you always wish others to attach to you.
And that is precisely what I noticed about yourself, hence my not "spitting insults left right and centre" as you so dramatically described, but my perfectly reasonable usage of the word Hypocrite, that I attached to you.
But reading through most of yours and sp1814 posts, it would seem that it is the description that I attached to these two pieces of scum (other's have described them as 'Bitches' but I am not allowed to), that is really upsetting you, simply because I didn't attach the same to the train football hooligans.
Well let me inform you two, I make no excuses for using such descriptions, against these two savages as their crime is miles away from a petty altercation between a drunken crowd and an adult male, which had he been white would not have even been reported on.
Once again I can't ague with that, you have been the one to adopt a completely different view compared to the default position that you always wish others to attach to you.
And that is precisely what I noticed about yourself, hence my not "spitting insults left right and centre" as you so dramatically described, but my perfectly reasonable usage of the word Hypocrite, that I attached to you.
But reading through most of yours and sp1814 posts, it would seem that it is the description that I attached to these two pieces of scum (other's have described them as 'Bitches' but I am not allowed to), that is really upsetting you, simply because I didn't attach the same to the train football hooligans.
Well let me inform you two, I make no excuses for using such descriptions, against these two savages as their crime is miles away from a petty altercation between a drunken crowd and an adult male, which had he been white would not have even been reported on.
/// How would AOG go on if he had really had every single post analysed and attacked by a select band of mischief-makers - as some on here have endured? ///
I have and it has been noticed by some more moderate ABs so much so that they have come to my defence on numerous occasions, some have called it pack bullying.
I have and it has been noticed by some more moderate ABs so much so that they have come to my defence on numerous occasions, some have called it pack bullying.
AOG - //But reading through most of yours and sp1814 posts, it would seem that it is the description that I attached to these two pieces of scum (other's have described them as 'Bitches' but I am not allowed to), that is really upsetting you, simply because I didn't attach the same to the train football hooligans. //
I realise that you either don't grasp the point that sp is making, or that you do grasp it and refuse to address it because it highlights aspects of your character which you would not unduly exposed to analysis.
Which ever it is, it is quite clear that you are not going to debate in a reasonable manner on this thread - so I for one will bow out because further exchanges are rendered pointless.
If you feel you must have the last word - feel free.
I realise that you either don't grasp the point that sp is making, or that you do grasp it and refuse to address it because it highlights aspects of your character which you would not unduly exposed to analysis.
Which ever it is, it is quite clear that you are not going to debate in a reasonable manner on this thread - so I for one will bow out because further exchanges are rendered pointless.
If you feel you must have the last word - feel free.
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
News10 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.