Re: panorama
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:26 pm
At least Maffy is open minded and can always see both sides of every argument before siding with the reactionaries.
The Unofficial and Independent Leyton Orient Message Board
https://lofcforum.com/forum1/phpBB3/
At least Maffy is open minded and can always see both sides of every argument before siding with the reactionaries.
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.Admin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:19 pmYeah,but f*** that. Lets talk about Corbyn instead.RoryRocks wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:16 pmI'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.
No. I can see deleted posts here at Admin central and there's no such post on this thread.Winchesterfan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:26 pm ADMIN
Have you just taken down my response to you I submitted a few minutes ago?
1 shoe is not a piece of clothing,point nine one eight wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:29 am1st phrase is nonsensical, a shoe is a piece clothing,tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:37 ampoint nine one eight wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:02 am
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 ?
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 ?
ADMIN. Thank you for this and also for clarifying your position re insults etc.Admin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:56 pmNo. I can see deleted posts here at Admin central and there's no such post on this thread.Winchesterfan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:26 pm ADMIN
Have you just taken down my response to you I submitted a few minutes ago?
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.Admin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:48 amQuick 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.
In two posts on this thread, you've saidRedline wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:20 pmI 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.
Winchesterfan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:26 pmADMIN. Thank you for this and also for clarifying your position re insults etc.Admin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:56 pmNo. I can see deleted posts here at Admin central and there's no such post on this thread.Winchesterfan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:26 pm ADMIN
Have you just taken down my response to you I submitted a few minutes ago?
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.
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.Admin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:51 pmIn two posts on this thread, you've saidRedline wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:20 pmI 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.
"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.
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.Winchesterfan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:23 pm 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.
So you are just on the WUM then. At least we're clear that you're just wasting everyone's time as per usual.Redline wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:31 pmThe 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.Admin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:51 pmIn two posts on this thread, you've saidRedline wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:20 pm
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.
"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.
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
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.Admin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:38 pmSo you are just on the WUM then. At least we're clear that you're just wasting everyone's time then.Redline wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:31 pmThe 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.Admin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:51 pm
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.
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
Thanks. Glad you understand how this place works.Winchesterfan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:58 pm 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!
Disoriented wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 1:00 pmYou applaud the fact that Hancock lied about saying that PPE from Turkey was on its way before it had even been ordered?Winchesterfan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:39 am 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?
Well do you, punk?
By the way, the name is Oriented.
Dis Oriented.
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.Redline wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 6:03 pmTo 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.Admin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:38 pmSo you are just on the WUM then. At least we're clear that you're just wasting everyone's time then.Redline wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:31 pm
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
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.
You was doing so well especially with the glasses, we will differ about the shoestuffers#1 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:02 pm1 shoe is not a piece of clothing,point nine one eight wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:29 am1st 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 ?
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
I like his digs in so far as i can understand them.point nine one eight wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:43 pmYou was doing so well especially with the glasses, we will differ about the shoestuffers#1 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:02 pm1 shoe is not a piece of clothing,point nine one eight wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:29 am
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 ?
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
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-hppoint nine one eight wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:43 pmYou was doing so well especially with the glasses, we will differ about the shoestuffers#1 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:02 pm1 shoe is not a piece of clothing,point nine one eight wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:29 am
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 ?
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
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.
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 piecetuffers#1 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:08 pmhttps://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... gws-wiz-hppoint nine one eight wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:43 pmYou was doing so well especially with the glasses, we will differ about the shoestuffers#1 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:02 pm
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
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.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 ?