Who's Been Running The United States?
News1 min ago
Cowards, Rather A Strong Word, But Fully Deserved In This Case.
59 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
AOG - "Why should I? I don't need such as you to instruct me on how to address you, who do you think you are? "
You really do need to calm down, I am not 'instructing' you at all - you do have a bad habit of seeing things that are not there - as evidenced on the 'Egghead' thread.
If you want to be rude and bombastic, and offensive, then go right ahead, you only demean yourself with your high-handed attitude.
If you prefer not to use your manners, I am not in the business of trying to persuade you - but remember - everyone sees how you behave.
Don't bother posting another reply on this subject - I really have had enough of your futile bombast for one day.
You really do need to calm down, I am not 'instructing' you at all - you do have a bad habit of seeing things that are not there - as evidenced on the 'Egghead' thread.
If you want to be rude and bombastic, and offensive, then go right ahead, you only demean yourself with your high-handed attitude.
If you prefer not to use your manners, I am not in the business of trying to persuade you - but remember - everyone sees how you behave.
Don't bother posting another reply on this subject - I really have had enough of your futile bombast for one day.
Oh, does that mean the AH roundabout has stopped...thank heavens
"Don't bother posting another reply on this subject - I really have had enough of your futile bombast for one day. "
well now you know how the majority of your circular argumentative rambling make a lot of the people on here feel...oh and please dont advise others on here when they can and cant post...thankyou
"Don't bother posting another reply on this subject - I really have had enough of your futile bombast for one day. "
well now you know how the majority of your circular argumentative rambling make a lot of the people on here feel...oh and please dont advise others on here when they can and cant post...thankyou
well Bazile, as funny as that is, its the same two posters who seem able to derail just about any thread on here, so is it any wonder they get stick...
and surely its also not coincidence the one thing they both have in common, is how they like to dish it out but really dont like it when they get incoming...
and surely its also not coincidence the one thing they both have in common, is how they like to dish it out but really dont like it when they get incoming...
I'm a bit confused - how does anyone 'derail a thread'?
For as long as I have been on here, threads develop their own momentum and direction, sometimes the drift quite a long way off the subject, and sometimes they stick rigidly to the OP.
But the one thing that all threads have always had in common - and still do - is that they are directed by anyone and everyone who chooses to post on them.
The notion that any one AB'er can control, direct, or 'de-rail' a thread is facile nonsense.
No-one is obliged to respond to any post if they don't wish to - indeed there are some on here I fervently wish would stop responding to mine!
But it bears repeating - no-one has the 'control' of any thread, they are controlled only by the people who post on them, and if people don't agree they can argue, and if they don't like what they read, they can leave, but on-one ties them in front of their screen and makes them read and then respond - free choice is the cornerstone of the AB.
So maybe we can all drop this nonsense about anyone 'taking over' or 'de-railing' - it's simply not true.
For as long as I have been on here, threads develop their own momentum and direction, sometimes the drift quite a long way off the subject, and sometimes they stick rigidly to the OP.
But the one thing that all threads have always had in common - and still do - is that they are directed by anyone and everyone who chooses to post on them.
The notion that any one AB'er can control, direct, or 'de-rail' a thread is facile nonsense.
No-one is obliged to respond to any post if they don't wish to - indeed there are some on here I fervently wish would stop responding to mine!
But it bears repeating - no-one has the 'control' of any thread, they are controlled only by the people who post on them, and if people don't agree they can argue, and if they don't like what they read, they can leave, but on-one ties them in front of their screen and makes them read and then respond - free choice is the cornerstone of the AB.
So maybe we can all drop this nonsense about anyone 'taking over' or 'de-railing' - it's simply not true.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Only just read this thread, as I've been out most of day.
///Spoken like a true soldier - who'se career raison d'etre has been to fight and kill people perceived as enemies, even if the end product of such killing fails to achieve even a trumped-up objective///.
I have reported the above paragraph (before I saw Retrocops comment) as an insult to our Armed Forces, the working of which are obviously an unknown to AH.
I very much doubt anything will happen as a result of that report given AH's position as a Mod, can but hope though!
Baldric - I have reported the above paragraph (before I saw Retrocops comment) as an insult to our Armed Forces, the working of which are obviously an unknown to AH.
I very much doubt anything will happen as a result of that report given AH's position as a Mod, can but hope though!"
If you imagine that I am immune to Site Rules, then you are mistaken – and that is disrespect to the Editor and all the other Moderators, and since respect seems high on your agenda, you should maybe think about that.
My post – if you choose to read it carefully, says nothing to insult the armed forces – it does take issue with a career soldier whose job is, as stated, to fight and direct troops in combat, but that is not insulting armed forces by any stretch of the imagination.
If posts were deleted because of opinions, the AB would cease to function – you can disagree with my view, but it not a reportable offence to express an opinion that you don’t agree with.
Try looking at opinions a little less personally – i.e. zooming in on mine and looking to pick a fight, and maybe share your vitriol around a little – it will make life a more bearable for everyone else on this thread, and many others.
As soon as you stop attacking my personally, I can give up the tiresome task of defending myself, and everyone can stop being sick your personalised aggression.
Something to consider.
I very much doubt anything will happen as a result of that report given AH's position as a Mod, can but hope though!"
If you imagine that I am immune to Site Rules, then you are mistaken – and that is disrespect to the Editor and all the other Moderators, and since respect seems high on your agenda, you should maybe think about that.
My post – if you choose to read it carefully, says nothing to insult the armed forces – it does take issue with a career soldier whose job is, as stated, to fight and direct troops in combat, but that is not insulting armed forces by any stretch of the imagination.
If posts were deleted because of opinions, the AB would cease to function – you can disagree with my view, but it not a reportable offence to express an opinion that you don’t agree with.
Try looking at opinions a little less personally – i.e. zooming in on mine and looking to pick a fight, and maybe share your vitriol around a little – it will make life a more bearable for everyone else on this thread, and many others.
As soon as you stop attacking my personally, I can give up the tiresome task of defending myself, and everyone can stop being sick your personalised aggression.
Something to consider.
Never have looked to pick a fight AH, leave that to others. I found your comment offensive along with many you have made about our Armed Forces over the years, I reported it as such, and stand by what I did.
///and everyone can stop being sick your personalised aggression///
I would have done the same to anyone who made that statement so it was not personalised, however if you wish to continually play the Martyr on
here, so be it, not my problem!
-- answer removed --
agree with Sqad. Labour candidates have learnt from the fate of Tony Blair what happens to attempts to take on Ayrabs, and what happens to those who support taking them on. Good to see someone learning from the past.
What about you, aog? You've been a strong critic of the British presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, as I recall. Should Britain now be taking on an enemy that doesn't even have a home base that can be bombed?
What about you, aog? You've been a strong critic of the British presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, as I recall. Should Britain now be taking on an enemy that doesn't even have a home base that can be bombed?
jno - "What about you, aog? You've been a strong critic of the British presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, as I recall. Should Britain now be taking on an enemy that doesn't even have a home base that can be bombed?"
An interesting point jno.
The problem as I see it with the gung-ho views of AOG and similar is that the notion of 'bombing' sounds wonderful - destruction of the enemy = result.
Except it doesn't.
The effectiveness of trying to bomb IS is likened to plaiting fog - you can't bomb a target if you don't know where your target is.
But we should have learned that already - it's not as though the concept of previous military solutions failing their objective is all that far in the past that we can't remember - is it?
An interesting point jno.
The problem as I see it with the gung-ho views of AOG and similar is that the notion of 'bombing' sounds wonderful - destruction of the enemy = result.
Except it doesn't.
The effectiveness of trying to bomb IS is likened to plaiting fog - you can't bomb a target if you don't know where your target is.
But we should have learned that already - it's not as though the concept of previous military solutions failing their objective is all that far in the past that we can't remember - is it?
@AOG
The article, interestingly, points out that we missed an opportunity to topple Assad and get moderate rebels to take over, some years ago, before IS had become involved.
//Mr Osborne has said the Government must be sure of Commons support for Syria air strikes before asking for a new vote.//
If we were as picky over the three words "Syrian air strikes" as ABesr sometimes are with each others' phraseology, we'd be saying that is a strangely wide, umbrella term. Have his actual words been abbreviated in some way? Did he not specify "air strikes on IS" with the qualifier "within Syria's borders".
Open wording gives him scope to bomb Assad and/or his forces as well, doesn't it? Shouldn't there be a diplomatic phase (threats, with deadlines) before it's put before parliament?
The article, interestingly, points out that we missed an opportunity to topple Assad and get moderate rebels to take over, some years ago, before IS had become involved.
//Mr Osborne has said the Government must be sure of Commons support for Syria air strikes before asking for a new vote.//
If we were as picky over the three words "Syrian air strikes" as ABesr sometimes are with each others' phraseology, we'd be saying that is a strangely wide, umbrella term. Have his actual words been abbreviated in some way? Did he not specify "air strikes on IS" with the qualifier "within Syria's borders".
Open wording gives him scope to bomb Assad and/or his forces as well, doesn't it? Shouldn't there be a diplomatic phase (threats, with deadlines) before it's put before parliament?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.