Labour Crusties In A Pickle Over PIE

[salsafan]

It's really hard to work out what you actually mean, or even if you know what you mean.

I know what I mean, but do you know what I mean, or are you trying to play dumb here, or tried to be literal, or try and be smart but reduce your common sense to zero ?

 

You have absolutely no idea how much you ticked me off by posting the above.

 

I could post links to a number of notable cases where women have done

exactly that but I can't be bothered.

 

It does not make things alright. It really doesn't. No wonder women's voices are "shunned" more often than not, especially if it has a strong case when they advocating the right things. Cos guys like yourself tend to try and make women into men, and misconstrue them or their intent and read into it so badly.

[Halibut]

I know what I mean, but do you know what I mean, or are you trying to play dumb here, or tried to be literal, or try and be smart but reduce your common sense to zero ?

 

You have absolutely no idea how much you ticked me off by posting the above.

 

 

 

It does not make things alright. It really doesn't. No wonder women's voices are "shunned" more often than not, especially if it has a strong case when they advocating the right things. Cos guys like yourself tend to try and make women into men, and misconstrue them or their intent and read into it so badly.

 

I was merely correcting your obviously false statement - ''A woman would NEVER allow a child to have sex and push forward such a decision at all. Never.''

 

I never even so much as hinted about any of the other stuff - what's all this nonsense about about 'Guys like me try to make women into men'?

 

It's utter fiction. Stop inventing positions for me that I don't hold.

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2014 at 13:40 ----------

 

I know what I mean, but do you know what I mean, or are you trying to play dumb here, or tried to be literal, or try and be smart but reduce your common sense to zero ?

 

I'm being honest - your posts are really hard to understand. You seem to use English in a very vague and odd way.

[L00b]

I'm being honest - your posts are really hard to understand. You seem to use English in a very vague and odd way.

Join the club, H. Exactly-mirrored behaviour in that linked thread. If anything, I'd have said salsafan was exhibiting some sort of acute persecution complex on here

 

salsafan, with all the best will in the world...it's really hard to follow you/your logic most of the time. Some of your syntax and expressions take all the sense away from your posts, then when posters query you about it (or their meaning), you immediately jump down their throat for no logical or apparent reason, and then just press on and on

 

On-topic: Harman the Harridan? Apologize and commit political hara-kiri? Riiight...

 

EDIT - just seen your latest post below. Oh my.

Edited February 20, 2014 by L00b

[salsafan]

Were you suggesting that people without children shouldn't be allowed to be MP's (or other positions of power) though?

 

In a way, that is my personal opinion, yes, BUT, I know that the UK's political system is NOT like that, and we actually don't have enough people who actually have such indepth experiences across a broad range of issues for citizens, and there is always a disconnect. That is why there is always a lot of focus groups here and there to gathered information, but even though information are more often than not actually changed or bastardised from its original form, such that it becomes a political game.

 

That is why our political system is one of the most bureaucratic and cumbersome type to reduce and stop any loophole situation from happening. But saying that, how can other countries of smaller population size actually get things right ? It is because they focus on the right things,right issues, topics, and people are mostly fairly happy. They do not live this kind of bastardised robotic life and let humanity be degraded. All in the name of "freedom".

 

I remember this, there used to be policies for certain companies to not enable a person who has neither work experiences, nor life experiences to sit in certain positions in the management level. Do you know why that is ? Cos it is respect, and wisdom that one cannot learn or be taught from books, which is most valuable. It is in THIS country which we allow some individuals to not even take responsibility to themselves or to their public life.

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2014 at 14:02 ----------

 

I was merely correcting your obviously false statement - ''A woman would NEVER allow a child to have sex and push forward such a decision at all. Never.''

 

I never even so much as hinted about any of the other stuff - what's all this nonsense about about 'Guys like me try to make women into men'?

 

It's utter fiction. Stop inventing positions for me that I don't hold.

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2014 at 13:40 ----------

 

 

I'm being honest - your posts are really hard to understand. You seem to use English in a very vague and odd way.

 

You wrote and advocated that women actually should enable and also to allow a child to have sex even when under a young age. This article was actually a bad smearing campaign, and instead of recognising that for what it is, you then read "into" the literal words itself, and then turn this around and blame that it is not a woman issue. When really you cannot even use your own common sense and see the article for what it is. Instead of doing that, I wrote about my anger and I expressed my anger, and I read that if I woman was put into the position of such areas about consensual relationship age and so forth, it would NEVER be endorsed that a woman would want this. Yet, you then complained and fought against my point that this is not the case, even when you don't seem to think that women would want this at all. So you are implying that women WILL want a child to have sex, is that what you are advocating to me ?? Or challenging me on ? Despite me telling you that a woman who has any moral values or common sense is not likely to let that happen, and you seem to disagree with me on that and you think that women WILL? Are you saying that women WANT this to happen ?

 

Listen to yourself also. If I was that literal and use "logic" without common sense, then I too would seem to think that you are advocating that women want children to have sex at a young age (!) If I for a moment stop being a women, and started to think with my "logical mind", then yes, I think you seem to think that this is plausible and acceptable, even when I find it immoral as a woman ! NO.

 

Why is Jimmy Saville is so sick ? This is precisely why. Sometimes the guys on this forum is quite sickening to be honest.

 

...

 

salsafan, with all the best will in the world...it's really hard to follow you/your logic most of the time. Some of your syntax and expressions take all the sense away from your posts, then when posters query you about it (or their meaning), you immediately jump down their throat for no logical or apparent reason, and then just press on and on

 

On-topic: Harman the Harridan? Apologize and commit political hara-kiri? Riiight...

 

EDIT - just seen your latest post below. Oh my.

 

I have a persecution complex? This is why quite rich coming from some of the heavy weighted writers who are armchair warriors of the Republica Of Sheffield. This kind of sick newspaper articles are scary, it is quite sickening and for those with an ounce of common sense can see that this is political. Smearing, damaging those in politics. It is also manipulation too. But yet, others still lap it up and "try" to talk and gentrify this kind of issue as if this is of upmost importance of social current affairs. There is definitely a strong disconnect here somewhere.

 

I do not have to give in my values and fold and talk like you do, and BE like you. The fact that you do not respect me as a person or my opinion speaks loudly of how you perceive society to be, and how you cannot even understand why this kind of article can alarm, and actually is revolting to many individuals. It is always the case to attack someone personally and on their English just because you do not understand or is able to relate to their emotions. I think that is the absolute danger here. Why your lack of empathy represses those who feel so strongly on such sensitive and immoral subjects. This forum incubates some of the sickest individual sometimes. It really does. All in the name of "freedom of speech".

Edited February 20, 2014 by salsafan

[JFKvsNixon]

In a way, that is my personal opinion, yes, BUT, I know that the UK's political system is NOT like that, and we actually don't have enough people who actually have such indepth experiences across a broad range of issues for citizens, and there is always a disconnect. That is why there is always a lot of focus groups here and there to gathered information, but even though information are more often than not actually changed or bastardised from its original form, such that it becomes a political game.

 

That is why our political system is one of the most bureaucratic and cumbersome type to reduce and stop any loophole situation from happening. But saying that, how can other countries of smaller population size actually get things right ? It is because they focus on the right things,right issues, topics, and people are mostly fairly happy. They do not live this kind of bastardised robotic life and let humanity be degraded. All in the name of "freedom".

 

I remember this, there used to be policies for certain companies to not enable a person who has neither work experiences, nor life experiences to sit in certain positions in the management level. Do you know why that is ? Cos it is respect, and wisdom that one cannot learn or be taught from books, which is most valuable. It is in THIS country which we allow some individuals to not even take responsibility to themselves or to their public life

 

What hell are you on about?

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2014 at 14:12 ----------

 

You wrote and advocated that women actually should enable and also to allow a child to have sex even when under a young age.........

 

Has anyone actually suggested this?

[Obelix]

 

I'm being honest - your posts are really hard to understand. You seem to use English in a very vague and odd way.

 

There was a thread in the Computer section about the prospects for employment as a developer that went the same way. I have to agree, salsafan does seem to fit people into preconceived idea's that actually bear no resemblence to what is being discussed at all. I think this is part of the problem - the two sides in the debate are not actually debating the same thing!

[rickiethecat]

Why is Jimmy Saville is so sick ? This is precisely why. Sometimes the guys on this forum is quite sickening to be honest.

 

 

 

 

EH?

 

salsafan, your posts read like you've put them through an online translator into a foreign language and then back again!

[Halibut]

 

You wrote and advocated that women actually should enable and also to allow a child to have sex even when under a young age. This article was actually a bad smearing campaign, and instead of recognising that for what it is, you then read "into" the literal words itself, and then turn this around and blame that it is not a woman issue. When really you cannot even use your own common sense and see the article for what it is. Instead of doing that, I wrote about my anger and I expressed my anger, and I read that if I woman was put into the position of such areas about consensual relationship age and so forth, it would NEVER be endorsed that a woman would want this. Yet, you then complained and fought against my point that this is not the case, even when you don't seem to think that women would want this at all. So you are implying that women WILL want a child to have sex, is that what you are advocating to me ?? Or challenging me on ? Despite me telling you that a woman who has any moral values or common sense is not likely to let that happen, and you seem to disagree with me on that and you think that women WILL? Are you saying that women WANT this to happen ?

 

Listen to yourself also. If I was that literal and use "logic" without common sense, then I too would seem to think that you are advocating that women want children to have sex at a young age (!) If I for a moment stop being a women, and started to think with my "logical mind", then yes, I think you seem to think that this is plausible and acceptable, even when I find it immoral as a woman ! NO.

 

Why is Jimmy Saville is so sick ? This is precisely why. Sometimes the guys on this forum is quite sickening to be honest.

 

 

I have a persecution complex? This is why quite rich coming from some of the heavy weighted writers who are armchair warriors of the Republica Of Sheffield. This kind of sick newspaper articles are scary, it is quite sickening and for those with an ounce of common sense can see that this is political. Smearing, damaging those in politics. It is also manipulation too. But yet, others still lap it up and "try" to talk and gentrify this kind of issue as if this is of upmost importance of social current affairs. There is definitely a strong disconnect here somewhere.

 

You might want to look up the meaning of the word 'advocate'. I didn't advocate anything and I strongly resent you saying I did - even if it's the fault of your poor grasp of English.

 

I repeat - I was refuting your false statement that ''A woman would NEVER allow a child to have sex and push forward such a decision at all. Never.''

 

Regrettably there are many examples I could point you to where women have procured children for abuse by men and participated in that abuse.

 

That was my point. All the rest is your own (apparently successful) attempts to tie yourself in knots.

[salsafan]

Sick people act in a sick way. That is all I am going to say !

Some of you are absolutely as irresponsible to also advocate and discredit what is actually being discussed too. In the actual context of that newspaper article, and actually also misconstrue, and like to "nit pick", rather than to address the issue.

 

Maybe that is your "political debating tactic", of which I have seen so many times online here. This is NOT normal. Normal people do not talk like this in a day to day basis. It is actually quite sickening, and the lowest of depth of some of the comments made here sometimes. It really is.

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2014 at 14:30 ----------

 

You might want to look up the meaning of the word 'advocate'. I didn't advocate anything and I strongly resent you saying I did - even if it's the fault of your poor grasp of English.

 

I repeat - I was refuting your false statement that ''A woman would NEVER allow a child to have sex and push forward such a decision at all. Never.''

 

Regrettably there are many examples I could point you to where women have procured children for abuse by men and participated in that abuse.

 

That was my point. All the rest is your own (apparently successful) attempts to tie yourself in knots.

 

It is plain to see that the newspaper article was a smear campaign and shove actions and words into the position of those MPs. It was saying that those MPs endorse this to happen by a loose link of their positions. But in reality, those articles and section of those private documents on the policies are possibly not even signed or endorsed by the MPs themselves. That is why I then said that I do not even believe a woman like Harriet Harman would even THINK that she WOULD endorse this to happen. Which is what the point of the article is about isn't it ? I cannot even imagine any woman would not have an ounce of maternal instinct to not even push back on that. Yet, YOU went ahead and say that "I don't believe that woman CAN".... What the hell is that about ???!?!?!

 

Don't tell me that you are SO open-minded such that, you have bumped your head and really not seeing the common sense angle and why the anger are expressed by other females here or in this kind of situation ? I really am shocked that you even continued to challenge a female's angle when she tried to downplay this kind of smearing campaign. Cos it also means that you think that someone like Harriet Harman CAN actually do what the newspaper is doing.

 

Then you went ahead and attacked my English. Absolutely great !

Edited February 20, 2014 by salsafan

[Obelix]

The only person being discredited here is you I'm afraid, and only for the shall we say, somewhat odd way you are debating. I don't see anyone endorsing the viewpoint that PIE has been taking at all.