I'm fairly sure I've made my position clear from the start. I'm sorry if you've failed to understand that. It makes every sense. Respecting the opinions of others and learning to debate issues with patience and tolerance is essential to effective communication. When you dismiss the opinions of others out of hand, they stop listening to you. When you make sarcastic comments, you just get people's backs up. Of course it is. It's a public forum. If you post your opinions here, you're entering into a public debate. If you don't like that, then don't post. You're entitled to express your opinion, so don't complain when others do the same. Added to which, your dismissive attitude to the opinions of others is an invitation to confrontation. If you don't want to be confronted, don't set out to wind people up. In some instance Matthew, what you're actually trying to say is not clear. I understand perfectly well how I sound. I've set out to be offensive. But then that's what happens when you start snapping at people... they bite back.
on me and the second thing i said yes very clear. what are you on about .... realy what the hell are you on about ? i don't agree with what the person originaly said i posted my thoughts , thats it. If the original person does not agree with what or how i said it fine ...i would be happy to talk about it , with them...not with you though. If i disagree and don't go along with the general way of thinking or just don't say 'yeah i agree' thats not me being honest ... if you personaly don't agree , just say so don't be a mouth piece for possibly others if the original person has asked you to comment on their behalf fine ( i hope not and doubt it ) fine. I am entering a debate i realise that..you are doing what you accuse me of doing ...dismissing my point of view and asserting that what you say is a more valid opinion . I am pointing out certain things that i think to be true.. you mean agree with you ? more than likely .. i don't have all my opinions stored on hard drive ready to copy and paste at will...like everybody. and ? . so you say you make perfect sense all the time ? I have till i am blue in the face .. nice respectful and inteligent response..hahah you realy are a piece of work Dok' i give you credit for that ... Bye who am i actualy snapping at ... you set out to be offensive..mmm well your just rude..why did you think i said i am not playing this game..i know how it ends up ..hahahah so finaly bye
I don't really want to get embroiled here, but as for the legality issue, I'm a bit of an anorak on the subject. Such an invasion is only legal in international law where specific UN authorisation is given. Resolution 1441 did not authorise war, only a specific formulation of words ("all necessary means") does so. The Attorney General's advice to Tony Blair was that the invasion of Iraq would only be legal if it were regarded to be a resumption of hostilities authorised under UN resoultion 678 (1990). This did authorise war, but it authorised war to remove Saddam from Kuwait. Arguably once this objective was completed the authorisation for war ran out. The fact that 678 didn't explicitly authorise invasion of Iraq is one of the reasons Bush Snr did not go ahead to depose Saddam in 1991. So Lord Goldsmith comes along in 2003 and his opinion is that the 1991 war never actually ended, and therefore any invasion of Iraq now is not a new war, but a resumption of hostilities which ended 12 years previously. Despite the fact that 678 only authorised the removal of Saddam from Kuwait, and despite the fact that the resolutions of which Saddam was in breach regarding the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire (the weapons of mass destruction issue covered in resolution 687, 1991) were subsequent to 678's authorisation of "all necessary means", the objective of 678 having been completed. So going to war over the proscribed WMDs mentioned in 687 was itself never explicitly authorised. This is why some of the most highly respected international lawyers in the world have stated that the legal case for this war was at the very least incredibly shaky. On balance it was most likely illegal, making Tony Blair a war criminal.
This makes no sense. I have no idea what you're talkig about. You dismiss the potential illegality of the war on the strength of one questionable UN resolution, despite the fact that the UN is not exactly in the habit of overthrowing regimes on the basis of broken resolutions. That's not showing a respect for people's opinions. Utter rubbish. You could at least have the originality to fomulate your own criticisms rather than falling back on copying mine like a five year old. I've never asserted that my opinions are more valid than yours. Stop making things up. You've dismissed the opinions of the anti-war movement, and I've strived to explain why they have intellectual credibility. Putting forward an opinion is not the same thing as asserting that it's superior, which is what you do when you dismiss the opinions of others. Grow up, Matthew. You know very well I've never suggested you should agree with me. I've simply suggested that you should show some respect to the opinions of others. You're descending further and further into infantile rambling here. Yup. You might not agree with me, but I explain myself clearly. No you haven't. And by the fact that you're failing to answer the question I can only assume that you have no basis for your assertion. I thought I'd already pointed out that I've lost all respect for you? Yes, it ends up with you being insulting, patronising, arrogant and plain old stupid, to the point where you provoke me into responding. Fortunately, I rather enjoy putting you down, so I'll play for as long as you like
what in this post is disrespectful arrogant or any of the other things you claim that i am being? your first post was this I then went onto say i think my earlier comment of . covered the fact that saying sorry for things that don't need or should not need apologies is fair. I think my initial thought (sorry if it was not articulated very well) was that saying sorry for ousting saddam would almost say this war was illegal and that the deaths of all partys was all our fault and maybe this one apolgy would finaly make the anti war position the most valid. Dok'..if you had said from the start that how i had said and what i had said was arrogant or badly put and could i please explain what i was saying more clearer and/or more sucsinct . Then maybe possibly you (and then me) would not have said this I think you said you were purposly being offensive because i was being arrogant ... surely i was only reduced to being arrogant because you were not actualy debating fully what i had said in its entirity ?. Yes you have a good point in disputing what you initialy were disputing , but it all ended in silly one upmanship . with you being arrogant and all the things i have accused you of being and all the things you have accused me of being. So i think we may be as bad as each other . yeah i rather like answering your pompousness so yeah lets continue
I'm surprised you even need to ask. How about "Being at the top of the morale supperiority tree must be bloody lovely" for starters? Just because people hold a different opinion to your own, it doesn't mean they believe themselves to be morally superior, yet you insist on making sweeping, insulting generalisations about those with whom you disagree. I'm not going back to the start of the debate and going through the whole thing again, so I didn't even read this bit I'm afraid. Maybe it's my mistake for falsely assuming that you understand the basics of courtesy. Maybe you're genuinely stupid enough to be offensive without really meaning to. If this is the case, then I sincerely apologise. I'll do my best to explain it to you in the future when you're being insulting. Arrogant, patronising, insulting and offensive would cover it more accurately. And yes, under those circumstances I'll most certainly set out to be wilfully offensive in return. If you're capable of having a civilised discussion without resorting to sarcasm and childish sneering, then I'll engage with you on a similar level. Well maybe we could have stuck to the actual debate if you could manage to articulate your point without being so dismissive and insulting? Well I enjoy educating morons. So that's good with me However, to get back to the point of the original discussion, are you any closer to understanding why people feel an apology should be forthcoming from Mr Blair?
Did you read what somebody else said about that ... they said 'it is'.. i am not going to be a shrinking violent so as not to offend your good self , yoy clearly did not agree with what i said and the point you made about what i said was never brought ip until just now. Please be a be more not direct as to what you find arrogant isulting and the like , from the start . maybe you should because your being far to precious about what i said and how i said it . if i was as thugish as you i could quite easily take offence to lots of what you say and how you say it. blaming your style of response on something that i did during your tirade at me is prety stupid , your prety much prevoking me into being all the things you say i am being , merely by showing those faults yourself ..yeah i bet you don't want to go over what you said and what i said ...because you would realise your being a jackass , now i am being sneerring disrespectful you fucking bet . I have more courtesy and more respect in my littlee finger , than you have in your entire body ...this is a fact . Though i am sure you show respect for people that agree with you an sit and your feet in awe ..yes i bet you show them great respect. do you have a twin brother that also posts along with you..go find him and ask him what he wrote ..because i am sure you forget or don't know what is written within your post s half the time. You said that you started being offensive because i was from the start arrogant ... you have not resorted in being on the same level as me , you were that way from the start. I have resorted in comeing down too your level if anything. I have not had the chance to articulate my point i think. You like i said from the start have watered down anything that i have said .. used your twisted logic to make me out to be something i am not and generaly (let me say again) been a jackass. I probably somewere have made my point very clear but its hidden amongst tiresome crap that i have to write to politely communicate with you..not in this post i guess , i am being all the things you wish for me to be and more. Don't i wish you would educate me , i have asked enough times ?.. I am not a moron i am a person that thinks that you are a jackass that does not like anyone that does not intelectualise to the enth degree everything and anything...i prety much think you don't give a rats ass about anything apart from large slabs of rock in the midle of knowere I know why people wish for Mr blair to apologise , one of the many reasons , i pointed out one (IMHO) IN MY VERY FIRST POST. If you had posted a reponse to the topic from the start , instead of giving me shit (nice shit , a grain of truth shit .... but shit non the less) we could be happily chatting about it right now.
Excellent point. A very good example of the way your patronising and sneering comments soon lower the tone of the debate. Nor would I expect you to be. 'Polite' might be a good start though. Or respectful of others'. Sorry Matthew, but that sentence does not make sense. If you can't construct a sentence, you can't expect me to know what you're talking about, can you? No Matthew. The reason I don't want to go back over the whole argument is because you're not very intelligent. Trying to explain things to you once is hard enough work without having to do it twice. You can choose to believe you were provoked if you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you enter discussions with a sneering and patronising attitude. Perhaps when you're finally able to behave like an adult we'll be able to hold a civilised conversation. Matthew, it's you who starts out by sneering at people who don't agree with you. When you've learned the basics of courteous debate, maybe you'll understand this subtle point. Resorting to the "no, you are" style of discussion just makes you look childish. As I've said before, I'm quite happy for you to hold different opinions, so long as you can manage to treat other people's opinions with respect. Seeing as all you constantly accuse me of expecting everyone to agree with me, I can only assume that this point is too subtle for you to grasp. I've already illustrated to you where your posts started out as sneering and contemptuous. Again, you seem to lack the intellect to actually understand the point that's being made to you. LOL, it's a free forum Matthew. You can articulate anything you like (or more rather, anything you're able). That's right. It's always someone else's fault. Honestly, you really don't need my help to make yourself look like an idiot. And I've attempted to educate you. Unfortunately, you seem to lack a basic grasp of logic, and so are apparently unable to understand any of the points that have been made. You can take a horse to water, but you can;t make it drink. Is irony something you understand? Because frankly, that sentence makes you look.... umm... intellectually challenged. "Large slabs of rock in the middle of nowhere"? LOL, well I'll give you marks for originality. Don't think I've ever been accused of that before. Although I'm not sure what exactly it is I'm being accused of, since it doesn't make any sense. You know what? It's not that I don't like people who "don't intellectualise to the enth degree". What I actually dislike is people who are incredibly ill-informed on a subject, and yet insist on arguing with those of us who actually know what we're talking about. Especially when those ill-informed opinions serve to support the extermination of thousands of innocent lives. There's a quote that sums up my feelings nicely: You're not entitled to an opinion. You're entitled to an informed opinion. I see. It's all my fault. Even though you're the one who appears unwilling to actually discuss the topic? Very intellectual Matthew. I'm sure everyone's very impressed by how much of a moron you're not. You might do well to actually go back and read the topic. The debate was staying quite polite until you started undermining your argument with typically childish comments, dismissing my opinions simply because you didn't agree with them. I'll think you'll find it all started to go downhill from the moment you accused me thusly: Which as I pointed out at the time, was incredibly insulting, arrogant, patronising and childish. Just because you disagree with someone, it does not mean that their views have no intellectual basis. This is where the trouble always starts with you. You're incapable of debating with someone whilst maintaining a respect for their opinion. You always fall back on sneering comments that attack the credibility and integrity of the other person. Such behaviour may be suitable in the playground, but it's entirely out of place in the adult world.
yeah i was being very childish ...don't you have a sense of humour.. what debate was going very politely ? you giving me lessons on how to behave ? mmm whatever . maybe i should have added a at the end of that but its still a point you only brought up now ...again your critising anything and everything as soon as one thing makes little sense and falls down or i try and explain , you bring up something else. Your lazy because your just repeating yourself over and over again making no real fresh thoughts about what i said ... most of the actual points i have made or questions i have asked politely have been ignored ..you just pick up on a minor point or way of phrasing i have and focus on that with a magnyfing glass (enlarging by about x10) . courteous debates require both people to have a bit of respect or at least give and take .. i never wished to discuss anything with you because i know how you are..yes this is a free forum , but that does not mean i have to answer too you or anything ..when you started your first post with 'fuck you matthew' ...i prety much knew i was onto a losing battle with you ... but its been a bit of fun and wasted a few hours ... why not go look at my other posts and see what fault you can find with them...because this is getting a bit stale i think ...
So let me get this straight. You repeatedly fail to make sense, and somehow this is my fault? No, I'm not lazy. I'm patient enough to keep repeating myself until you understand. In fact, I have to keep repeating myself because you keep bringing up the same points over and over again. Ah! Here's a good example.... So you keep saying. And yet every time I ask you exactly what it is I'm meant to be ignoring, you go quite on the subject for the next couple of posts until you repeat the same accusation again, while repeatedly failing to actually back your accusation up with anything as old fashioned as facts. I see. So you mean you know that I'm not likely to let your sneering, contemptuous sarcasm pass without comment? Well, you're entirely correct. If you're going to quote me, you could at least make the attempt to quote me correctly. What I actually said was 'fuck off, Matthew'. A subtle but importantly different statement. Which, I might add, was made in light of you (again) attempting to use the example of one UN resolution to justify a war, despite having had it pointed out to you repeatedly in other posts that other countries are in breach of more security council resolutions and have never been subject to invasion. This is a fine example of you refusing to actually listen when people attempt to educate you. If you refuse to learn from your mistakes, you can't be surprised when people are dismissive of your opinions in turn. Furthermore, you might also recall that my comment followed on from your sarcastic little dig, "Being at the top of the morale supperiority tree must be bloody lovely". Be polite, and others will be polite to you. Simple. Yes, it's been getting a little stale ever since you adopted your typically rude demeanour.
why do you say things like 'when people' and stuff that denotes the thinking that other people are on your wavelengh and feel the same way you do and that people rather than yourself have been trying to tell me something....? I repeatedly fail to make sense , because you either don't know what i am talking about or realise what i am talking about and don't like it. No , i realy think you have no sense of humour at all... i was being rude and not saying an awful lot to see if you could (and you did) pick apart my posts just because ?.. thanks showmet , Its was most likely illegal . But then again more than likely not . Or most deffinitly possibly just about 'if you wish' maybe ... All i was saying Dok' is that some people will take an apology from Mr blair as full and explicite refrence to the fact that in his own words he thinks the war was illegal therefore wrong and that full justification for apposing the whole war was correct and that being "Being at the top of the morale supperiority tree must be bloody lovely" is lovely ?... I think i said some people not all or did not even accuse anyone by name or anything . Do you agree or disagree that some people will think the way i have said ?.... This i have no problem with you disputing . If i came across as arrogant then so bleeding what someone did answer with 'yes it is' is that arrogant of them ? in your eyes i guess it should be.. did i spend days questioning them and insulting their inteligence and calling them all kind of names .... NO . its a point of view and thats all. You may say you were not questioning that or disputing that ... i think i was saying that should resolutions be apologised for and each one scrutinised for their accuracy and legitamcy ... no i don'nt think they should , just as getting rid of saddam should not be apologised for. Like i said if you had trouble understanding what i was saying or was not happy with the way i said it ...this should have been your first reason to post and not jumping on what you did not think to be true or something you misinterpreted or any failing or arrogance with what i said .
What are you talking about? You're failing to make sense again. I can't answer your quesions if you don't phrase them rationally. See above. You repeatedly fail to make sense because you're often unable to string a coherent sentence together. Don't blame me for your poor grasp of English/sentence construction/logical process. Yeah, whatever. You know, just the other day I had a PM out of the blue telling me I'm a really funny guy. That tends to happen a lot to people with no sense of humour I've noticed. Again, you're not really making sense. Are you asking why I've pulled your posts apart? I thought I already covered that. It's because you've been rude and offensive. Quote: I don't really want to get embroiled here, but as for the legality issue, I'm a bit of an anorak on the subject. Such an invasion is only legal in international law where specific UN authorisation is given. Resolution 1441 did not authorise war, only a specific formulation of words ("all necessary means") does so. The Attorney General's advice to Tony Blair was that the invasion of Iraq would only be legal if it were regarded to be a resumption of hostilities authorised under UN resoultion 678 (1990). This did authorise war, but it authorised war to remove Saddam from Kuwait. Arguably once this objective was completed the authorisation for war ran out. The fact that 678 didn't explicitly authorise invasion of Iraq is one of the reasons Bush Snr did not go ahead to depose Saddam in 1991. So Lord Goldsmith comes along in 2003 and his opinion is that the 1991 war never actually ended, and therefore any invasion of Iraq now is not a new war, but a resumption of hostilities which ended 12 years previously. Despite the fact that 678 only authorised the removal of Saddam from Kuwait, and despite the fact that the resolutions of which Saddam was in breach regarding the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire (the weapons of mass destruction issue covered in resolution 687, 1991) were subsequent to 678's authorisation of "all necessary means", the objective of 678 having been completed. So going to war over the proscribed WMDs mentioned in 687 was itself never explicitly authorised. So as I was saying all along, subject to interpretation of law. There's room for both opinions. That would depend entirely on what he specifically apologised for. I don't want him to apologise for deposing Saddam Hussein. I don't even want him to apologise for taking us into an illegal war. I want him to apologise for leading us into a war on a false pretext. Quite. So if you were aiming your comments at someone outside the thread, then you should have made that absolutely clear. By not doing so, you give the impression that your comments were aimed at the anti-war people in this forum. Of course some people think that way. Be they pro or anti war. But your comments, in context, can only be taken to refer to the anti-war people in this forum, or possibly the original poster. Well by that logic, then if I insult you in turn, so bleeding what? No, I'd say that was a sarcastic reply to your original patronising comment. Like I said, I don't see Saddam as the issue. The apology should be for leading us into a war on a false pretext. Namely, the removal of an Iraqi threat and weapons of mass destruction that never existed. What, so let me get this straight. You can make arrogant, patronising comments. You can insult me. You can make sarcastic remarks. But I have to respond calmly and politely? Not likey.
Well i got a PM saying i was a nice , pleasant , reasonable and very cute guy ... yes all that in one PM . yes , i was never debating this fact . I was not aiming it at anyone in particular , you seem to agree with what i am saying to a point ...so whats your problem ?. So we agree , even if what i said or how i said it could be misinterprented ..you did see what i meant ? if you did not then questioning what i am saying or what i meant ...would have brought my views out a lot quicker , with a lot less bullshit that we have been giving each other . Mr Blair has already in effect said sorry for mistakes made . just because he is not apologising for the things you wish him to apologise for , this you have a problem with ?. What makes your point of view correct and why should he apolgise for something that he does not believe to be true ? Arrogant jeepers creepers your more arrogant by the minute , not that i care ...but even so . your deeming me arrogant and you say the things you say and don't see how overwhelmingly arrogant you are ..?? No you can say and do what you like , what i find strange is that you don't seem to spend so long telling anyone else ofF for what or how they say things. I am not the only person you can wag the arrogance finger at , i don't believe i am arrogant and even if i am so what..SO ARE YOU , so what . So we agree ... this was all i was saying nothing more nothing less. if did point the finger at someone in particular ...yes i would be arrogant . i said This is the core of what i was saying , anything else can be disputed as arrogant or whatever you keep saying i am ...but so what , lots of people are just the same ... why not pick on every person that is that way ? i don't realy mind your personal attention on what i am saying , its quite nice ... but come on you must see your stretching it out a bit... The apology you want is not the point of the thread..The apology you want is a point of view and you would not be as arrogant as to assume you are right. You would not be as arrogant as to assume what you think is 100% fact would you ?. Why apologise for something that is a point of view ?. i am realy failing to see what was so bad with my original post , quite frankly ... if anyone else can see my point of view or Dok's point of view please post something ?. Its getting quite ridiculous now...
Shhhh. You weren't meant to tell anyone That's not true. You've consistently attacked the credibility of the anti-war movement, accusing us of wishful thinking and fuzzy logic. You've disparaged the credibility of the secretary general of the UN. You've consistently refused to contemplate the posibility that one UN resolution might not actually be legal justification for a war. You've repeatedly belittled the opinions of those who disagree with you. In short, you've shown no respect for the integrity of the anti-war position. As I've said along, you're quite welcome to disagree with it, but what you actually do is show it no respect. If you're going to drop that kind of comment into a debate, you should make it absolutely clear who it's aimed at. If you fail to do so, then the logical assumption is that it's either aimed specifically at the previous poster or at the opinion which he represents. No. It wasn't misinterpreted. You failed to express yourself clearly. You posted a provocative comment which you're now saying wasn't aimed at anyone in this forum, without expressing that in the post at the time. While the legality of the war. amongst pther aspects of it, is a matter for opinion and debate, the fact that we were led into war on a false pretext is exactly that - a fact. We were told specifically that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. We were told they were in a position to deploy these weapons quickly. We were told that there was compelling evidence linking the Iraqi regime to Al Qaeda. These were the reasons we were taken to war. All have proved to be false. That's not a matter for debate - event the governments in question now admit this. This is what should be aplogised for. What you mistake for my arrogance is actually your own inability to understand the case that's being made. It would be arrogant of me to expect an apology for something that was subject to individual moral interpretation and opinion, but as I have said, I expect an apology for something that's a demonstrable fact - and has actually already been admitted by the governements in question. Your failure to grasp this point does not demonstrate arrogance on my part, but rather ineffective reasoning on your part. Yes, most of your argument seems to come down to "you are too". Reminds me of the schoolyard. As I've said, I brand you as arrogant for some very specific reasons. Namely, your readiness to dismiss the opinions of others, even when they are backed up by solid reasoning. I, on the other hand, respect the opinions of others. Where I disagree with them, I accpet that there is room for more than one interpretation of the facts. What I don't respect is people who dismiss alternative points of view, and people who refuse to accept facts that don't fit into their interpretation of a debate. Presumably, this is why you cling to the false assumption that I'm arrogant - simply because you don't agree with me. And yes, there are others with arrogant opinions. Fortunatley, they manage to express them without intentionally setting out to cause offence. They don't generally make sarcastic remarks about others or set about insulting other people's point of view. When they do do that, I have been know to point out their attitude. So your criticism is, again, entirely baseless. That's possibly the most infantile argument I;ve ever heard. So because other people behave in a particular way, that makes it OK for you to behave in that way also? Really Matthew, surely you can do better than that? I'm glad you're enjoying it. Perhaps you're learning something. However, I'm stretching it out no more than you are. Should you wish to end the discussion at any point, then you're free to not reply. I've already explained this once, but let me explain it again seeing as you're finding this point so difficult to grasp. The pretext of the war was false. This is a fact, not an opinion. We were told there were WMD. There weren't. We were told Iraq could deploy WMD at short notice. They couldn't. We were told Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. It didn't. We were told they had links to Al Qaeda. They didn't. Not only are these facts, but they are positions that are now acknowledged by both the UK and US governments. While you're busy trying to argue that this is a matter of opinion, the US and UK governments have already conceded the point. You're a bit behind the times.
So its not what i am saying here in particular .. its my general attitude you have a problem with ? Well i am not going to try and defend everything i say and i am not going to apologise for anything either. if you don't like what i say ... their is a thing people do sometimes ... ignore me . It not realy fair to argue a point with the whole of what i say and how i say it as justification for pulling apart one thought i have had here.
Bit of both, really. Lol Matthew, it cuts both ways you know! If you don't like my criticism, you can ignore me. However, this is a forum for discussion. If you post something that I disagree with or in a manner that I believe is disrespectful, then guess what? I'm going to discuss it. Again, that doesn't really make sense. Are you saying I'm only pulling apart one point that you've made? I thought I'd criticised you for a few reasons. Which particular point did you have in mind?
yeah so its unfair..try keeping what your talking about to the matter in this thread ..not dragging all your gripes you have with me into it..thats not fair. hey why not just PM me with all this , rather than resorting to all this twoing and throwing ..that may just show respect and less arogange . Your misrepresenting me and bringing out the worst in me and prety much making people that read this think i am totaly arrogant rude and all the other crap your throwing at me..the minute i point out something about you and the way you are you don't seem to think i am being fair . and i don't realy believe all the shit that i am throwing at you to be true..i am sure your a nice chap and all that ..but just like i said a jackass (at times). thats true...but hey if you see the negative try posting the positive in anything i say ...a bit of praise might be nice.
Don't you think people are capable of making up their own minds? You keep accusing me of being arrogant, so surely I could say the same? It's not a question of 'fair'. It's a question of logic. I've illustrated the reasons that I believe you to be arrogant, but you haven't been able to do the same in return. The only 'shit' I'm throwing at you, Matthew, is criticism of things that you've actually said. I'm sure you're capable of being a nice chap too. You just don't seem to be able to construct a rational argument or to refrain from insulting people (at times). I'm more than happy to be positive. You'll remember that I've agreed with you on a number of points, rather than being stubbornly confrontational. I've also attempted to remain polite towards you in the Ken Bigley thread despite provocation. I think it's good that you seem to be attempting to defuse this argument to an extent now, but calling me a jackass isn't really the most constructive way to go about it.
yes people are..so why not just vent your displeasure with me threw a PM or something ..its probably quite amusing/strange and disruptive and all. but its realy getting silly ... thats for sure. I think i have ...when i said read what you have written , i guess you can't see the arrogance in what you say and the way you say it ...but for me your possibly more arrogant that myself. Point out were i see you being this way (you may ask)...no , it realy does not bother me. i can see past all that ... why can't you.
As I keep pointing out, it cuts both ways. If you don't like my criticism, why not vent your displeasure by sending me a PM or something? You keep making this entirely groundless criticism. If you think I'm being arrogant, then you should be able to illustrate your accusation with examples. Yet you've failed to do so. If you can't back up your criticism, then it's not criticism at all - it's just name calling. I've repeatedly explained to you why my position isn't arrogant, yet all you've done in return is to keep calling me arrogant without any explanation as to why this is the case. Well then, if you're not bothered, stop throwing insults around. If it's not just an insult, then back it up. See past what? What are you talking about?
