panorama

[Max B Gold]

Whilst there is an element of wummery, it's based on his genuine beliefs, of that I have no doubt.

Same with Thor/Gilso and his numerous characters/aliases.

At least Maffy is open minded and can always see both sides of every argument before siding with the reactionaries.

[DonaldRocks]

New messages raise more questions than answers. Conclusive proof I’d say.

I'm struggling to keep up with the criminality. Everyday, it's another thing. No wonder he was trying to rip up the Dept of Justice, Intelligence services, Internal Revenue Services, Homeland Security, Obama Care, the Judges and Court system, International Organisations, Centre for Disease Control and Election Services . He has wrecked America and it's going to take a long time for America to gain back any respect.

Yeah,but f*** that. Lets talk about Corbyn instead.

Imagine that, Corbyn who f*cked up on Brexit, that's yesterday's news, means f*** all now. Everybody needs to wake up. We wouldn't be in the position we are if you had a leader in America and the UK. France are acting the bollix too. They are tweaking their daily figures too.

Read down to France on this link.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/about/

[Admin]

ADMIN
Have you just taken down my response to you I submitted a few minutes ago?

No. I can see deleted posts here at Admin central and there's no such post on this thread.

[tuffers#1]

And how do they count a pair of trousers or glasses then, shoes, pants, socks, scissors,,,,

1 shoe is not a piece of clothing ,
It is a piece of sh*t wardrobe malfunction
You use 1 set of pants, 2 only if you are incontenant .
Spectacles are 1 item for 2 eyes .

How have you managed to get through life not knowing these things ?

1st phrase is nonsensical, a shoe is a piece clothing,
2nd You use one set of pants is plural so phrase is a pair other wise it's one set of pant.
3rd Monacal is for one eye, two become a pair hence the phrase a pair of glasses.

How have you got through life not knowing these things ?

1 shoe is not a piece of clothing,
Nonsensical ?

1 shoe is a wardrobe malfunction & therefore not deemed clothing .

A mini brief or brief are sold usually seperate or in boxes of 3 . Nothing plural there

A monocle

The antiquarian Philipp von Stosch wore a monocle in Rome in the 1720s, in order to closely examine engravingsand antique engraved gems, but the monocle did not become an article of gentlemen's apparel until the 19th century. It was introduced by the dandy's quizzing glass of the 1790s, as a sense of high fashion.[1

from wikipedia


So nothing more than a dandys fashion.

Phrases are often spouted incorrectly ,
Pathetic responses , still ive leant that many of your posts fall into that category

[Winchesterfan]

ADMIN
Have you just taken down my response to you I submitted a few minutes ago?

No. I can see deleted posts here at Admin central and there's no such post on this thread.

ADMIN. Thank you for this and also for clarifying your position re insults etc.

Might I ask that when this dreadful crisis is over, and we have all had time to reflect on what happened and have understood what the enquiry conclusions are, and how they should be dealt with, we can then have a further discussion about the way things were handled? Should some of your claims be proved to be wrong would you agree to apologise? I certainly will if anything I have said is proved to be wrong.

I would respectively draw your attention to three points, made very well on the radio this morning, as follows:

1. However anyone looks at the death count, it is terrible, but we should also accept that there could be underlying factors that make a difference to why certain countries have more deaths. In the case of the UK it has been suggested that we have a larger than most problem with our general health because of obesity, excessive drinking and smoking, and unhealthy diet.

2. It would appear that the ethnic minorities seem to have a higher % of deaths than others. Nothing at all racist about this comment but IF this is true then the Government needs to be making sure that the more vulnerable of this group who work in particular in the NHS, are better protected and those most at risk moved to safer areas.

3. Comparisons are always dangerous and the only way to compare deaths in different countries is to establish EXACTLY where and how each death occurred and, if there were any underlying factors, account for these separately. AS far as I understand things at the moment no two countries count the deaths in exactly the same way so , for example, we have no idea the % of those who have died were obese and how that relates to the overall death count as a %.

It is so easy to be critical without the full facts and I hope you'll agree that we are all entitled to our opinions and interpretations of information given, but until the full and complete facts are published it is very hard to make any comparisons other than total deaths registered that are related in some way to the virus.

School taught me that 'Statistics can prove anything'. I hope and pray that this awful virus will be over soon and mean whilst wish you continued good health.
Up the O's.

[Dohnut]

I like to consider Corbyn comment following the Panorama programme highlighting issues with Labour. He said the programme had predetermined conclusions and contained many inaccuracies.

What’s good for the goose as they say.

Still the apologist I see. Why don't you do what I suggested DuvB does and enlighten us all to the timely actions taken by the government. It won't take long.

Quick tip Bonio. Discussion with Maffy is futile and not a time-worthy exercise. Better to just let him doff his cap and tug his foreskin at those who he wishes he could be.

I have not offered any opinion, just That it’s worth looking at the reaction to the two programmes. Which is amusing. As for past debates. Let’s just say recent history proved me right. Tough to take I know. So I expect the usual insults. The last refuge of the defeated.

But I’ve moved on. Seems others have not.

[Admin]

Still the apologist I see. Why don't you do what I suggested DuvB does and enlighten us all to the timely actions taken by the government. It won't take long.

Quick tip Bonio. Discussion with Maffy is futile and not a time-worthy exercise. Better to just let him doff his cap and tug his foreskin at those who he wishes he could be.

I have not offered any opinion, just That it’s worth looking at the reaction to the two programmes. Which is amusing. As for past debates. Let’s just say recent history proved me right. Tough to take I know. So I expect the usual insults. The last refuge of the defeated.

But I’ve moved on. Seems others have not.

In two posts on this thread, you've said

"I like to consider Corbyn comment following the Panorama programme highlighting issues with Labour. He said the programme had predetermined conclusions and contained many inaccuracies.

What’s good for the goose as they say."

And:

"New messages raise more questions than answers. Conclusive proof I’d say."

But these aren't opinions? Do leave off. You're still doing the same old act which is plain tiresome.

Despite this, I do agree you've moved on though. You're a bigger c*nt now than you were before.

[Admin]

ADMIN
Have you just taken down my response to you I submitted a few minutes ago?

No. I can see deleted posts here at Admin central and there's no such post on this thread.

ADMIN. Thank you for this and also for clarifying your position re insults etc.

Might I ask that when this dreadful crisis is over, and we have all had time to reflect on what happened and have understood what the enquiry conclusions are, and how they should be dealt with, we can then have a further discussion about the way things were handled? Should some of your claims be proved to be wrong would you agree to apologise? I certainly will if anything I have said is proved to be wrong.

I would respectively draw your attention to three points, made very well on the radio this morning, as follows:

1. However anyone looks at the death count, it is terrible, but we should also accept that there could be underlying factors that make a difference to why certain countries have more deaths. In the case of the UK it has been suggested that we have a larger than most problem with our general health because of obesity, excessive drinking and smoking, and unhealthy diet.

2. It would appear that the ethnic minorities seem to have a higher % of deaths than others. Nothing at all racist about this comment but IF this is true then the Government needs to be making sure that the more vulnerable of this group who work in particular in the NHS, are better protected and those most at risk moved to safer areas.

3. Comparisons are always dangerous and the only way to compare deaths in different countries is to establish EXACTLY where and how each death occurred and, if there were any underlying factors, account for these separately. AS far as I understand things at the moment no two countries count the deaths in exactly the same way so , for example, we have no idea the % of those who have died were obese and how that relates to the overall death count as a %.

It is so easy to be critical without the full facts and I hope you'll agree that we are all entitled to our opinions and interpretations of information given, but until the full and complete facts are published it is very hard to make any comparisons other than total deaths registered that are related in some way to the virus.

School taught me that 'Statistics can prove anything'. I hope and pray that this awful virus will be over soon and mean whilst wish you continued good health.
Up the O's.

Afternoon Winchester.

Using your numbering above.

1. I'm glad you agree it's terrible. It is also shameful that this country's government was so initially dismissive of Covid-19 and therefore completely unprepared for it. You mention obesity, poor health etc which is usually linked to poor living standards - perhaps you might want to consider whether 10 years of austerity and stripping the NHS to it's bare bones has contributed to this.
2. Given the Tories fairly deplorable treatment of black and minorty ethnic population coupled with its dog-whistle right-wing racist agenda, how likely do you think BAME's at higher risk are at getting assistance?
3. Whilst there are differences in reporting methods, I believe there is a clear trend in lower death rates in those countries that locked down earlier and started testing regimes much earlier. Do you think we perhaps lag behind on this? If so, who's responsibility was that?

I agree there are still facts that need to be established. However, anyone giving this government any benefit of the doubt is at best naive and at worst being downright dishonest about what is happening.

[Winchesterfan]

ADMIN
You still insist on insulting me and people who disagree with your views. I am neither ‘naive’ or ‘downright dishonest’.
Those are extremely inflammatory words and I ask that you remove your accusation that I am ‘downright dishonest’. If you think I am naive then that’s your opinion.
Why can’t you just accept different opinions without resorting to insults?
Was Blair ‘downright dishonest’ over WOMD?
Accept you just might be wrong on occasions.

[StillSpike]

You should go on the internet and complain.

[Dohnut]

Quick tip Bonio. Discussion with Maffy is futile and not a time-worthy exercise. Better to just let him doff his cap and tug his foreskin at those who he wishes he could be.

I have not offered any opinion, just That it’s worth looking at the reaction to the two programmes. Which is amusing. As for past debates. Let’s just say recent history proved me right. Tough to take I know. So I expect the usual insults. The last refuge of the defeated.

But I’ve moved on. Seems others have not.

In two posts on this thread, you've said

"I like to consider Corbyn comment following the Panorama programme highlighting issues with Labour. He said the programme had predetermined conclusions and contained many inaccuracies.

What’s good for the goose as they say."

And:

"New messages raise more questions than answers. Conclusive proof I’d say."

But these aren't opinions? Do leave off. You're still doing the same old act which is plain tiresome.

Despite this, I do agree you've moved on though. You're a bigger c*nt now than you were before.

The no comment, comment was specifically relating to Panorama reactions. And indeed I make no comment as I don’t feel one is really needed. Self explanatory to me.

Same as I make no comments on our past discussions, preferring to let the results of the last election and comments that followed do my talking for me.

QED

[Admin]

ADMIN
You still insist on insulting me and people who disagree with your views. I am neither ‘naive’ or ‘downright dishonest’.
Those are extremely inflammatory words and I ask that you remove your accusation that I am ‘downright dishonest’. If you think I am naive then that’s your opinion.
Why can’t you just accept different opinions without resorting to insults?
Was Blair ‘downright dishonest’ over WOMD?
Accept you just might be wrong on occasions.

Sigh. It's not complicated. In my opinion, you're either naive or being dishonest based on the opinions you've placed in this thread.

Blair - Yes - he was downright dishonest as far as I am concerned. Not sure why you've brought another labour leader into this?

Just to be clear, it is possible to consider yourself left-wing and be critical of Corbyn, Blair and if required Keir Starmer.

[Admin]

I have not offered any opinion, just That it’s worth looking at the reaction to the two programmes. Which is amusing. As for past debates. Let’s just say recent history proved me right. Tough to take I know. So I expect the usual insults. The last refuge of the defeated.

But I’ve moved on. Seems others have not.

In two posts on this thread, you've said

"I like to consider Corbyn comment following the Panorama programme highlighting issues with Labour. He said the programme had predetermined conclusions and contained many inaccuracies.

What’s good for the goose as they say."

And:

"New messages raise more questions than answers. Conclusive proof I’d say."

But these aren't opinions? Do leave off. You're still doing the same old act which is plain tiresome.

Despite this, I do agree you've moved on though. You're a bigger c*nt now than you were before.

The no comment, comment was specifically relating to Panorama reactions. And indeed I make no comment as I don’t feel one is really needed. Self explanatory to me.

Same as I make no comments on our past discussions, preferring to let the results of the last election and comments that followed do my talking for me.

QED

So you are just on the WUM then. At least we're clear that you're just wasting everyone's time as per usual.

[Winchesterfan]

ADMIN
So you won’t remove your accusation that I am downright dishonest?
At least that shows your true colours and that any further argument with you is pointless as you have this extraordinary gift of always being right. Congratulations!

[Dohnut]

In two posts on this thread, you've said

"I like to consider Corbyn comment following the Panorama programme highlighting issues with Labour. He said the programme had predetermined conclusions and contained many inaccuracies.

What’s good for the goose as they say."

And:

"New messages raise more questions than answers. Conclusive proof I’d say."

But these aren't opinions? Do leave off. You're still doing the same old act which is plain tiresome.

Despite this, I do agree you've moved on though. You're a bigger c*nt now than you were before.

The no comment, comment was specifically relating to Panorama reactions. And indeed I make no comment as I don’t feel one is really needed. Self explanatory to me.

Same as I make no comments on our past discussions, preferring to let the results of the last election and comments that followed do my talking for me.

QED

So you are just on the WUM then. At least we're clear that you're just wasting everyone's time then.

To be honest, since I’ve returned my comments have been minimal and will remain so. Sometimes it’s just not necessary to say anything at all as demonstrated by the satisfying fallout from the last election. But sometimes I just can’t resist responding to stupidity. But I do try. Better to keep quiet before my username gets changed again.

I’ve long since realised that any sort of sensible debate is impossible, as demonstrated by some of the language used by some. Shame really.

[Admin]

ADMIN
So you won’t remove your accusation that I am downright dishonest?
At least that shows your true colours and that any further argument with you is pointless as you have this extraordinary gift of always being right. Congratulations!

Thanks. Glad you understand how this place works.

PS - Try and read what I've said again. There were two options. HTH.

[Long slender neck]

Disorientated. No I didn’t watch Panorama. I try and avoid the BBC as it remains too biased for me. It wasn’t called the Blair Brown Corporation for nothing. I prefer to listen to facts and not those cherry picked for only the bad mistakes whilst ignoring the positives.
This terrible crisis is having a devastating effect on the world. Just look at what has happened in Germany and Japan recently. Who is to blame there for relaxing social lockdown too early?
If the top scientists can’t agree what are governments supposed to do? Split the country in half and allow the scientists to prove which theory is correct by seeing which side most people die on?
It is unknown territory and governments are taking what they think is the best advice, for better or for worse. What is the alternative?

You applaud the fact that Hancock lied about saying that PPE from Turkey was on its way before it had even been ordered?

Well do you, punk?

By the way, the name is Oriented.

Dis Oriented.

[BoniO]

The no comment, comment was specifically relating to Panorama reactions. And indeed I make no comment as I don’t feel one is really needed. Self explanatory to me.

Same as I make no comments on our past discussions, preferring to let the results of the last election and comments that followed do my talking for me.

QED

So you are just on the WUM then. At least we're clear that you're just wasting everyone's time then.

To be honest, since I’ve returned my comments have been minimal and will remain so. Sometimes it’s just not necessary to say anything at all as demonstrated by the satisfying fallout from the last election. But sometimes I just can’t resist responding to stupidity. But I do try. Better to keep quiet before my username gets changed again.

I’ve long since realised that any sort of sensible debate is impossible, as demonstrated by some of the language used by some. Shame really.

Anyone who starts a sentence with "To be honest" is a willy, because it implies he isn't usually honest. I would have thought a captain of industry would know that.

Anyone who keeps on referring back to the last election to try and demonstrate how clever he is is an even bigger willy. What the feck has that got to do with this dog's breakfast of a governments handling of the crisis.

Anyone who is an apologist for this vile government is the biggest willy of all. I annoint you Sir Biggus Dickus (and don't take it as a compliment)

[Admin]

*Checks his posts on this thread to see if any have started with "to be honest"

[Winchesterfan]

*Checks his posts on this thread to see if any have started with "to be honest"

??
Who checks!

[point nine one eight]

1 shoe is not a piece of clothing ,
It is a piece of sh*t wardrobe malfunction
You use 1 set of pants, 2 only if you are incontenant .
Spectacles are 1 item for 2 eyes .

How have you managed to get through life not knowing these things ?

1st phrase is nonsensical, a shoe is a piece clothing,
2nd You use one set of pants is plural so phrase is a pair other wise it's one set of pant.
3rd Monacal is for one eye, two become a pair hence the phrase a pair of glasses.

How have you got through life not knowing these things ?

1 shoe is not a piece of clothing,
Nonsensical ?

1 shoe is a wardrobe malfunction & therefore not deemed clothing .

A mini brief or brief are sold usually seperate or in boxes of 3 . Nothing plural there

A monocle

The antiquarian Philipp von Stosch wore a monocle in Rome in the 1720s, in order to closely examine engravingsand antique engraved gems, but the monocle did not become an article of gentlemen's apparel until the 19th century. It was introduced by the dandy's quizzing glass of the 1790s, as a sense of high fashion.[1

from wikipedia


So nothing more than a dandys fashion.

Phrases are often spouted incorrectly ,
Pathetic responses , still ive leant that many of your posts fall into that category

You was doing so well especially with the glasses, we will differ about the shoes
I don't think many if any man would admit to wearing women style briefs, note the plural
But you still had to have a dig didn't you, disappointing.

[Max B Gold]

1st phrase is nonsensical, a shoe is a piece clothing,
2nd You use one set of pants is plural so phrase is a pair other wise it's one set of pant.
3rd Monacal is for one eye, two become a pair hence the phrase a pair of glasses.

How have you got through life not knowing these things ?

1 shoe is not a piece of clothing,
Nonsensical ?

1 shoe is a wardrobe malfunction & therefore not deemed clothing .

A mini brief or brief are sold usually seperate or in boxes of 3 . Nothing plural there

A monocle

The antiquarian Philipp von Stosch wore a monocle in Rome in the 1720s, in order to closely examine engravingsand antique engraved gems, but the monocle did not become an article of gentlemen's apparel until the 19th century. It was introduced by the dandy's quizzing glass of the 1790s, as a sense of high fashion.[1

from wikipedia


So nothing more than a dandys fashion.

Phrases are often spouted incorrectly ,
Pathetic responses , still ive leant that many of your posts fall into that category

You was doing so well especially with the glasses, we will differ about the shoes
I don't think many if any man would admit to wearing women style briefs, note the plural
But you still had to have a dig didn't you, disappointing.

I like his digs in so far as i can understand them.

[tuffers#1]

1st phrase is nonsensical, a shoe is a piece clothing,
2nd You use one set of pants is plural so phrase is a pair other wise it's one set of pant.
3rd Monacal is for one eye, two become a pair hence the phrase a pair of glasses.

How have you got through life not knowing these things ?

1 shoe is not a piece of clothing,
Nonsensical ?

1 shoe is a wardrobe malfunction & therefore not deemed clothing .

A mini brief or brief are sold usually seperate or in boxes of 3 . Nothing plural there

A monocle

The antiquarian Philipp von Stosch wore a monocle in Rome in the 1720s, in order to closely examine engravingsand antique engraved gems, but the monocle did not become an article of gentlemen's apparel until the 19th century. It was introduced by the dandy's quizzing glass of the 1790s, as a sense of high fashion.[1

from wikipedia


So nothing more than a dandys fashion.

Phrases are often spouted incorrectly ,
Pathetic responses , still ive leant that many of your posts fall into that category

You was doing so well especially with the glasses, we will differ about the shoes
I don't think many if any man would admit to wearing women style briefs, note the plural
But you still had to have a dig didn't you, disappointing.

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... gws-wiz-hp


https://www.mariner-underwear.com/?lang=en


A brief is different in shape than a mini brief or even a slip

as shown in the links above .


Having worked in Menswear for 18 years + , At the top end of the Market as well
There are many things i could pick a part in your argument on clothing & Hosiery


The well used phrase he has a pair of left feet ( titters louldly)
Plates of feet is Cocker-nee rhyming slang for a pair of feet ( no its not, its for 2 feet numbnuts )

Finally to fully undervalue your comments on shoes , is a suit 1 piece of Clothing or 2 ?

[point nine one eight]

1 shoe is not a piece of clothing,
Nonsensical ?

1 shoe is a wardrobe malfunction & therefore not deemed clothing .

A mini brief or brief are sold usually seperate or in boxes of 3 . Nothing plural there

A monocle

The antiquarian Philipp von Stosch wore a monocle in Rome in the 1720s, in order to closely examine engravingsand antique engraved gems, but the monocle did not become an article of gentlemen's apparel until the 19th century. It was introduced by the dandy's quizzing glass of the 1790s, as a sense of high fashion.[1

from wikipedia


So nothing more than a dandys fashion.

Phrases are often spouted incorrectly ,
Pathetic responses , still ive leant that many of your posts fall into that category

You was doing so well especially with the glasses, we will differ about the shoes
I don't think many if any man would admit to wearing women style briefs, note the plural
But you still had to have a dig didn't you, disappointing.

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... gws-wiz-hp


https://www.mariner-underwear.com/?lang=en


A brief is different in shape than a mini brief or even a slip

as shown in the links above .


Having worked in Menswear for 18 years + , At the top end of the Market as well
There are many things i could pick a part in your argument on clothing & Hosiery


The well used phrase he has a pair of left feet ( titters louldly)
Plates of feet is Cocker-nee rhyming slang for a pair of feet ( no its not, its for 2 feet numbnuts )

Finally to fully undervalue your comments on shoes , is a suit 1 piece of Clothing or 2 ?

Well a suit in my book is one item, however a suit normally is two pieces, Jacket and pair of trousers, then we have the 3 piece ,iacket, trousers waistcoat, don't know if there is a 4 piece

[Max B Gold]

3 if it comes with matching waistcoat.