The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://www.veritasparty.co.uk/[/URL]
Well I thought i'd at least check out his 101 lies section, interesting.
Well I thought i'd at least check out his 101 lies section, interesting.
Page:
That was very big of you. No, I'm not having a pop; I'm serious. It's very gracious to accept responsibility for sounding racist, especially after having had quite as much vitriol hurled at you by me.
I personally don't think that "settling old scores" was the reason people have been having a pop, but I don't know; only they do.
So in response, I apologise for the swathes of posts from me designed specifically to rile, insult, and upset you.
Strafio; you should join the diplomatic corps...
I personally don't think that "settling old scores" was the reason people have been having a pop, but I don't know; only they do.
So in response, I apologise for the swathes of posts from me designed specifically to rile, insult, and upset you.
Strafio; you should join the diplomatic corps...
I've had a pop at you because I'm hoping I can convince you to hang yourself.
Nothing personal
Nothing personal
Well Light, I personally think a lot of people have had a pop at me on here because(and this isn't the only reason)i've upset people on here before and they wan't revenge, and also because when someone has been titled racist(by yourself), it doesn't exacly open invitations for people to be nice. And i'm not just saying this next bit for the sake of it but I also think because I was the one saying some immigrants are here to abuse the system, it's never really going to be popular. I will agree to disagree, but on the basis that you accept i'm not a racist. But rather someone who perhaps tried to explain himself in a manner which was not to everybody's taste, and in doing so accept that I could have been percieved as racist in the way I put my views forward.
kevstar wrote:
> All theese are facts that Light cannot argue against, and when I ask
> him for examples of immigration under control, he resorts to calling
> me a racist to try and justify himself, isn't that right Light?
Nah; I think you'll find I stopped bothering to debate you when you dismissed any pro immigration evidence as "rubbish" without actually even reading it.
And I called you a racist cos...well, you are.
> All theese are facts that Light cannot argue against, and when I ask
> him for examples of immigration under control, he resorts to calling
> me a racist to try and justify himself, isn't that right Light?
Nah; I think you'll find I stopped bothering to debate you when you dismissed any pro immigration evidence as "rubbish" without actually even reading it.
And I called you a racist cos...well, you are.
Strafio wrote:
> The thing is, how do you agree who's evidence is valid?
>
> Problems like this are so complex that they can look so different
> from different angles, and often "political agenda" can
> dictate which angle it is looked from.
> That's why Light says there needs to be a debate, so that the whole
> thing can be looked over properly rather than the odd independant
> report which probably has the wrong end of the wrong stick.
Take the Home office figures, they've been challenged with some of the quotes below. I asked Light to challenge them back and he says something like it needs to go into the debate. To me, that sounds like he hasn't anything to say on the matter because he knows it's right, the fact is the figures are based on inaccurate figures at best, dodgy at worst. Take the foriegn language courses, it's not something that needs to be debated, it's been recorded. They were caught selling visas to immigrants, the courses didn't teach them anything, instead they advised them to go and find illegal work, and when they investigated further, they found more illegal courses than non illegal. And finally the Beverlly Hughes case, this is the first case that led me to beleve the figures on immigration were dodgy.
All theese are facts that Light cannot argue against, and when I ask him for examples of immigration under control, he resorts to calling me a racist to try and justify himself, isn't that right Light?
> The thing is, how do you agree who's evidence is valid?
>
> Problems like this are so complex that they can look so different
> from different angles, and often "political agenda" can
> dictate which angle it is looked from.
> That's why Light says there needs to be a debate, so that the whole
> thing can be looked over properly rather than the odd independant
> report which probably has the wrong end of the wrong stick.
Take the Home office figures, they've been challenged with some of the quotes below. I asked Light to challenge them back and he says something like it needs to go into the debate. To me, that sounds like he hasn't anything to say on the matter because he knows it's right, the fact is the figures are based on inaccurate figures at best, dodgy at worst. Take the foriegn language courses, it's not something that needs to be debated, it's been recorded. They were caught selling visas to immigrants, the courses didn't teach them anything, instead they advised them to go and find illegal work, and when they investigated further, they found more illegal courses than non illegal. And finally the Beverlly Hughes case, this is the first case that led me to beleve the figures on immigration were dodgy.
All theese are facts that Light cannot argue against, and when I ask him for examples of immigration under control, he resorts to calling me a racist to try and justify himself, isn't that right Light?
kevstar wrote:
> That was a good speach Stafio, it seems you're better at explaining
> things than I ever will. I do blame Light though, he was calling me
> racist before any of the reasons he give a few posts back which says
> something about his views.
So now you're admitting the reasons I gave prove you are racist?
They were some of the reasons. The whole "Immigrants are lazier than british people" occurred right at the beginning. The main reason I called you racist beforehand was because whenever you were faced with evidence in favour of immigration, your response was "it's rubbish".
> And do you blame me for saying ha i'm
> right when you accuse me of being racist when you thought the
> evidence was in you're favour, but it turns out it's not? And when I
> turn your very bit of evidence around, you say it needs to go into a
> debate. Well I though thats what we were doing?
...which rather shows your lack of thought. You were saying that there is a problem with immigration, here is the problem, and here is what needs to be done. With me so far?
Okay; I was saying that you have no clue as to the actual immigration system, you're a ignorant bigot who dislikes or at the very least distrusts other races, and that your evidence is from one side of the immigration debate. Therefore, you couldn't possibly say you knew what the problems were.
Your view was symptomatic of the whole debate on immigration; it's polarisation. Which is why I, from the very outset (despite your rather desperate effort to show otherwise), said that what was needed was for an open and honest political debate about what the pro's and cons are, and what could be done to improve the system. For some reason, you seem not to want to accept that.
> I have the evidence,
> i've shown you it, you've even accepted it. Now then, what you should
> be doing is gathering your little bits of evidence to compare, and
> then make a decision on all the available evidence we have.
I did start doing that, admittedly. Then, when you rejected all evidence with a "that's rubbish" (on the rare occasions you bothered to read it), it became clear that, although a debate is needed, it's not needed with such a dyed-in-the-wool racist as yourself.
> And if my
> evidence challenges yours without yours being able to challenge back
> or you yourself, then that evidence should count in the view that the
> system is not under control, and vice versa of course. Only that way
> can I see you conceeding, or me admitting I was wrong. Either way it
> will proove one way or another.
~sigh~ This whole thing has never been about proving one way or the other. Not to me anyway. What, do you think that this forum will be the defining point of the national debate? Will the Election be decided on what you and I say? Of course it won't. You will NEVER admit that there is anything other than major problems with immigration. By the same token, you seem to be asking me to concede that there is no need for open and honest debate. Ain't gonna happen dear boy.
Of course, we could simply agree to disagree. Which, although it would rob me of my daily stress relief, would at least allow you to salvage some of the dignity you've lost throughout this debate (and before you go all ballistic, ask yourself this; if you hadn't lost dignity, why are so many people queueing up to have a pop at you? Not at your views; at you
> That was a good speach Stafio, it seems you're better at explaining
> things than I ever will. I do blame Light though, he was calling me
> racist before any of the reasons he give a few posts back which says
> something about his views.
So now you're admitting the reasons I gave prove you are racist?
They were some of the reasons. The whole "Immigrants are lazier than british people" occurred right at the beginning. The main reason I called you racist beforehand was because whenever you were faced with evidence in favour of immigration, your response was "it's rubbish".
> And do you blame me for saying ha i'm
> right when you accuse me of being racist when you thought the
> evidence was in you're favour, but it turns out it's not? And when I
> turn your very bit of evidence around, you say it needs to go into a
> debate. Well I though thats what we were doing?
...which rather shows your lack of thought. You were saying that there is a problem with immigration, here is the problem, and here is what needs to be done. With me so far?
Okay; I was saying that you have no clue as to the actual immigration system, you're a ignorant bigot who dislikes or at the very least distrusts other races, and that your evidence is from one side of the immigration debate. Therefore, you couldn't possibly say you knew what the problems were.
Your view was symptomatic of the whole debate on immigration; it's polarisation. Which is why I, from the very outset (despite your rather desperate effort to show otherwise), said that what was needed was for an open and honest political debate about what the pro's and cons are, and what could be done to improve the system. For some reason, you seem not to want to accept that.
> I have the evidence,
> i've shown you it, you've even accepted it. Now then, what you should
> be doing is gathering your little bits of evidence to compare, and
> then make a decision on all the available evidence we have.
I did start doing that, admittedly. Then, when you rejected all evidence with a "that's rubbish" (on the rare occasions you bothered to read it), it became clear that, although a debate is needed, it's not needed with such a dyed-in-the-wool racist as yourself.
> And if my
> evidence challenges yours without yours being able to challenge back
> or you yourself, then that evidence should count in the view that the
> system is not under control, and vice versa of course. Only that way
> can I see you conceeding, or me admitting I was wrong. Either way it
> will proove one way or another.
~sigh~ This whole thing has never been about proving one way or the other. Not to me anyway. What, do you think that this forum will be the defining point of the national debate? Will the Election be decided on what you and I say? Of course it won't. You will NEVER admit that there is anything other than major problems with immigration. By the same token, you seem to be asking me to concede that there is no need for open and honest debate. Ain't gonna happen dear boy.
Of course, we could simply agree to disagree. Which, although it would rob me of my daily stress relief, would at least allow you to salvage some of the dignity you've lost throughout this debate (and before you go all ballistic, ask yourself this; if you hadn't lost dignity, why are so many people queueing up to have a pop at you? Not at your views; at you
The thing is, how do you agree who's evidence is valid?
Problems like this are so complex that they can look so different from different angles, and often "political agenda" can dictate which angle it is looked from.
That's why Light says there needs to be a debate, so that the whole thing can be looked over properly rather than the odd independant report which probably has the wrong end of the wrong stick.
I was interested in the "Respect" party for a little while (I might give them another look) but they seemed more like a collection of good ideals and I didn't see much policy which could really change this (although their European manfisto for the elections happening around the time looked alright). Having said that, that was well over a year ago and they might've develloped a little bit by now.
I have to say kudos to all these independant parties for standing for what they believe in (and I guess that one even applies to the BNP - it does take balls to be politically incorrect, even if they're still a bunch of wannkers! ;-D), even though I disagree with a lot of them, but I still don't want them running the country! :-)
Problems like this are so complex that they can look so different from different angles, and often "political agenda" can dictate which angle it is looked from.
That's why Light says there needs to be a debate, so that the whole thing can be looked over properly rather than the odd independant report which probably has the wrong end of the wrong stick.
I was interested in the "Respect" party for a little while (I might give them another look) but they seemed more like a collection of good ideals and I didn't see much policy which could really change this (although their European manfisto for the elections happening around the time looked alright). Having said that, that was well over a year ago and they might've develloped a little bit by now.
I have to say kudos to all these independant parties for standing for what they believe in (and I guess that one even applies to the BNP - it does take balls to be politically incorrect, even if they're still a bunch of wannkers! ;-D), even though I disagree with a lot of them, but I still don't want them running the country! :-)
That was a good speach Stafio, it seems you're better at explaining things than I ever will. I do blame Light though, he was calling me racist before any of the reasons he give a few posts back which says something about his views. And do you blame me for saying ha i'm right when you accuse me of being racist when you thought the evidence was in you're favour, but it turns out it's not? And when I turn your very bit of evidence around, you say it needs to go into a debate. Well I though thats what we were doing? I have the evidence, i've shown you it, you've even accepted it. Now then, what you should be doing is gathering your little bits of evidence to compare, and then make a decision on all the available evidence we have. And if my evidence challenges yours without yours being able to challenge back or you yourself, then that evidence should count in the view that the system is not under control, and vice versa of course. Only that way can I see you conceeding, or me admitting I was wrong. Either way it will proove one way or another.
kevstar wrote:
> I praised the news of the world for one reason;
I can't believe you'd actually use the same paper whose first page was about Prince Harry cheating on his girlfriend, followed by 6 more pages of tabloid crap before it finally told you that the Pope was dead.
But of course, you probably skipped those two pages on Sunday because it's all foreign rubbish about people who should never have entered our country ever, because we spent great deals of taxpayers money on welcoming him and accomodating him.
> I praised the news of the world for one reason;
I can't believe you'd actually use the same paper whose first page was about Prince Harry cheating on his girlfriend, followed by 6 more pages of tabloid crap before it finally told you that the Pope was dead.
But of course, you probably skipped those two pages on Sunday because it's all foreign rubbish about people who should never have entered our country ever, because we spent great deals of taxpayers money on welcoming him and accomodating him.
Strafio wrote:
> So in backing people into their corner, I guess you're educating us
> all, you preachy get! :-P
Heh. Would you believe i'm in the adult education business at the moment?
You're right; everyone does fall into that trap from time to time. The thing to do is admit it, apologise, and learn from it. NOT to wail "But I'm RIGHT" ad infinitum a la Bell, Forest, and kevstar.
I suppose the thing is that people learn in different ways. I don't claim that my approach to debate convinces all of the people all of the time; I honestly don't think that's possible. But as a side note, thanks for taking the time to explain to kevstar what has been as plain as the nose on Cyrano's face with a lot more patience than I can muster for him. You never know; maybe he'll get it now.
Oh, and I'm SUCH a preachy get!! Comes from being a Bill Hicks fan I think; I'm inclined to want to preach a point of view to people, and challenge the views of...well, whomever. Myself included.
> So in backing people into their corner, I guess you're educating us
> all, you preachy get! :-P
Heh. Would you believe i'm in the adult education business at the moment?
You're right; everyone does fall into that trap from time to time. The thing to do is admit it, apologise, and learn from it. NOT to wail "But I'm RIGHT" ad infinitum a la Bell, Forest, and kevstar.
I suppose the thing is that people learn in different ways. I don't claim that my approach to debate convinces all of the people all of the time; I honestly don't think that's possible. But as a side note, thanks for taking the time to explain to kevstar what has been as plain as the nose on Cyrano's face with a lot more patience than I can muster for him. You never know; maybe he'll get it now.
Oh, and I'm SUCH a preachy get!! Comes from being a Bill Hicks fan I think; I'm inclined to want to preach a point of view to people, and challenge the views of...well, whomever. Myself included.
Page: