Does Everyone Actually Still Have Turkey...
Christmas1 min ago
I Wonder If Their Community Will Hand These Two Pieces Of Scum In?
218 Answers
http://
They are quite recognisable, so let's hope so.
They are quite recognisable, so let's hope so.
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.
Svejk
I'm not capitalising - I'm highlighting AOG's hypocrisy.
If he can spend hours trying to excuse the Chelsea racists - why is he not doing the same for these two thugs?
andy_hughes summed it up thus:
"It is not a comparison being made about the two situations, obviously there is no comparison - but the approach you took to one then the other is what has caused comment.
I'm not capitalising - I'm highlighting AOG's hypocrisy.
If he can spend hours trying to excuse the Chelsea racists - why is he not doing the same for these two thugs?
andy_hughes summed it up thus:
"It is not a comparison being made about the two situations, obviously there is no comparison - but the approach you took to one then the other is what has caused comment.
-- answer removed --
divebuddy
I will explain - AOG raised a thread about the Paris attack saying that it was 'alleged' and that the black man may have even aggressively sounded off to the Chelsea racists.
He spent hours arguing on behalf of the attackers.
But these attackers are immediately scum.
I want to understand why AOG thought that the racists weren't scum, but these two thugs are.
If it's simply down to the violence of the attack that's one thing.
But it isn't.
I will explain - AOG raised a thread about the Paris attack saying that it was 'alleged' and that the black man may have even aggressively sounded off to the Chelsea racists.
He spent hours arguing on behalf of the attackers.
But these attackers are immediately scum.
I want to understand why AOG thought that the racists weren't scum, but these two thugs are.
If it's simply down to the violence of the attack that's one thing.
But it isn't.
-- answer removed --
SP, //If he can spend hours trying to excuse the Chelsea racists - why is he not doing the same for these two thugs? //
You're not seriously comparing the two, are you? Really?
Actually, thinking about it, I'm at a loss to know why we're discussing the train incident - or why it was introduced in the first place.
You're not seriously comparing the two, are you? Really?
Actually, thinking about it, I'm at a loss to know why we're discussing the train incident - or why it was introduced in the first place.
-- answer removed --
naomi24
I recently defended AOG when he was charged with being racist (again). I said he should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Now it occurs to me that I may have been a bit stupid. This story is extreme, but I recall the two occasions where someone posted a question about white racists screaming abuse at black and Asian people on the tube.
On both occasions, AOG suggested that we didn't know the whole story and that we don't know what the black/Asian people had done beforehand.
With regards to the Paris incident, again AOG proffered that the black man may have approached the carriage and spoken to the fans 'aggressively'.
I want to understand whether these are coincidences, or whether his views on news stories are governed by race.
If I'm right, then I won't back him when others accuse him of being a bigot.
I recently defended AOG when he was charged with being racist (again). I said he should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Now it occurs to me that I may have been a bit stupid. This story is extreme, but I recall the two occasions where someone posted a question about white racists screaming abuse at black and Asian people on the tube.
On both occasions, AOG suggested that we didn't know the whole story and that we don't know what the black/Asian people had done beforehand.
With regards to the Paris incident, again AOG proffered that the black man may have approached the carriage and spoken to the fans 'aggressively'.
I want to understand whether these are coincidences, or whether his views on news stories are governed by race.
If I'm right, then I won't back him when others accuse him of being a bigot.
divebuddy - //Perhaps the yob blocking the door to the metro train was really doing the guy a favour by keeping him out.//
I need a little assistance here, if you can help me out – how does a man who probably uses the same train every day to go home, in his own city, in his own country, get ‘helped’ by an aggressive foreign football yob, part of an intimidating racist, threatening group of football yobs, who pushes him out of the train?
I know I must be missing something – can you assist, since the observation that the fan was ‘helping’ him is yours – perhaps you can expand on where this ‘help’ is?
I need a little assistance here, if you can help me out – how does a man who probably uses the same train every day to go home, in his own city, in his own country, get ‘helped’ by an aggressive foreign football yob, part of an intimidating racist, threatening group of football yobs, who pushes him out of the train?
I know I must be missing something – can you assist, since the observation that the fan was ‘helping’ him is yours – perhaps you can expand on where this ‘help’ is?
Naomi - //SP, //If he can spend hours trying to excuse the Chelsea racists - why is he not doing the same for these two thugs? //
You're not seriously comparing the two, are you? Really?
Actually, thinking about it, I'm at a loss to know why we're discussing the train incident - or why it was introduced in the first place. //
I don't believe sp is looking for, or claiming any similarity in the two incidents.
The issue he is debating is AOG’s response to one incident, in which he robustly defended the actions of a bunch of racist thugs for some considerable time, against virtually total opposition to his view, and this incident, in which he labels the two protagonists as ‘scum’, and they remain without any of the exhaustive possibilities – provocation etc., that the racists enjoyed in his defence of them.
It is an interesting change of approach, and AOG is simply being asked why his position is so very different in the two circumstances, and whether or not his view is based on the ethnicity of the protagonists in each case.
It’s simply a facet of the debate – nothing more than that.
You're not seriously comparing the two, are you? Really?
Actually, thinking about it, I'm at a loss to know why we're discussing the train incident - or why it was introduced in the first place. //
I don't believe sp is looking for, or claiming any similarity in the two incidents.
The issue he is debating is AOG’s response to one incident, in which he robustly defended the actions of a bunch of racist thugs for some considerable time, against virtually total opposition to his view, and this incident, in which he labels the two protagonists as ‘scum’, and they remain without any of the exhaustive possibilities – provocation etc., that the racists enjoyed in his defence of them.
It is an interesting change of approach, and AOG is simply being asked why his position is so very different in the two circumstances, and whether or not his view is based on the ethnicity of the protagonists in each case.
It’s simply a facet of the debate – nothing more than that.
andy-hughes
You are such a hypocrite, as I have already pointed out to you, you have set yourself up as the moderator of Site Rules etc etc but this only come into play when people oppose you, while at the same time you allow such things to continue when it is one of your 'friends' (and thank goodness there are not many of them) who break the rules.
Read what others have said in my defence, need we go back to past none associated debates?
Should we attach this thread back to the ways blacks were treated during slavery days, perhaps that is the reason for the girls aggression against an 87 year old white woman?
See how stupid that association is? So get up on your high horse now and condemn sp1814 for bringing this topical news thread into what it has now once again become, an invitation to a slanging match.
You are such a hypocrite, as I have already pointed out to you, you have set yourself up as the moderator of Site Rules etc etc but this only come into play when people oppose you, while at the same time you allow such things to continue when it is one of your 'friends' (and thank goodness there are not many of them) who break the rules.
Read what others have said in my defence, need we go back to past none associated debates?
Should we attach this thread back to the ways blacks were treated during slavery days, perhaps that is the reason for the girls aggression against an 87 year old white woman?
See how stupid that association is? So get up on your high horse now and condemn sp1814 for bringing this topical news thread into what it has now once again become, an invitation to a slanging match.
andy-hughes
/// The issue he is debating is AOG’s response to one incident, in which he robustly defended the actions of a bunch of racist thugs for some considerable time, against virtually total opposition to his view, and this incident, in which he labels the two protagonists as ‘scum’, ///
And the issue that I am debating is due to the fact that I entered a thread specifically on the subject, not past subjects, observations or conclusions.
If you or sp1814 wish to debate the differences of approach between two or more past threads, then may I suggest that you both raise your heads above the parapet, and enter a specific thread on your concerns?
/// The issue he is debating is AOG’s response to one incident, in which he robustly defended the actions of a bunch of racist thugs for some considerable time, against virtually total opposition to his view, and this incident, in which he labels the two protagonists as ‘scum’, ///
And the issue that I am debating is due to the fact that I entered a thread specifically on the subject, not past subjects, observations or conclusions.
If you or sp1814 wish to debate the differences of approach between two or more past threads, then may I suggest that you both raise your heads above the parapet, and enter a specific thread on your concerns?
AOG - In the interests of avoiding a slanging match - which are usually provoked and sustained by a select few, this is going to be my only response to you on this issue -
// andy-hughes
You are such a hypocrite, as I have already pointed out to you, you have set yourself up as the moderator of Site Rules etc etc but this only come into play when people oppose you, while at the same time you allow such things to continue when it is one of your 'friends' (and thank goodness there are not many of them) who break the rules. //
First of all, there is no need to be offensive.
Second, I have not 'set myself up' as anything at all - that is an assumption on your part, and it is incorrect.
I apply Site Rules as a moderator fairly and without favour, and to suggest that I apply them more stringently to people who disagree with me is also incorrect, and it is offensive to attack my integrity in this manner.
//Read what others have said in my defence, need we go back to past none associated debates?
Should we attach this thread back to the ways blacks were treated during slavery days, perhaps that is the reason for the girls aggression against an 87 year old white woman?//
Again, I feel you have missed the point that sp1814 is making - it is not a comparison of the two situations that is being addressed it is the difference in your defence of one, and not the other that has caused comment.
You don't need me to tell you that the spirit of this section is that debates are vigorous, and if you take up a position, you must be willing to defend it - as you certainly do, but on this occasion, you appear to be seeing sp's point as an attack, when clearly it is not.
//So get up on your high horse now and condemn sp1814 for bringing this topical news thread into what it has now once again become, an invitation to a slanging match. //
I am not going to condemn sp1814 for making a valid point as part of a debate. There is no 'slanging' on his part - so I hope you will see that his posts are merely requests for clarification on your position regarding your instant and strongly worded condemnation of actions in this instance, as against your considerable efforts to defend the protagonists in another incident.
To be clear - it is your different attitudes that are being questioned, and that is in the spirit of debate, and should be answered in that spirit, without recourse to person rudeness against either of us.
// andy-hughes
You are such a hypocrite, as I have already pointed out to you, you have set yourself up as the moderator of Site Rules etc etc but this only come into play when people oppose you, while at the same time you allow such things to continue when it is one of your 'friends' (and thank goodness there are not many of them) who break the rules. //
First of all, there is no need to be offensive.
Second, I have not 'set myself up' as anything at all - that is an assumption on your part, and it is incorrect.
I apply Site Rules as a moderator fairly and without favour, and to suggest that I apply them more stringently to people who disagree with me is also incorrect, and it is offensive to attack my integrity in this manner.
//Read what others have said in my defence, need we go back to past none associated debates?
Should we attach this thread back to the ways blacks were treated during slavery days, perhaps that is the reason for the girls aggression against an 87 year old white woman?//
Again, I feel you have missed the point that sp1814 is making - it is not a comparison of the two situations that is being addressed it is the difference in your defence of one, and not the other that has caused comment.
You don't need me to tell you that the spirit of this section is that debates are vigorous, and if you take up a position, you must be willing to defend it - as you certainly do, but on this occasion, you appear to be seeing sp's point as an attack, when clearly it is not.
//So get up on your high horse now and condemn sp1814 for bringing this topical news thread into what it has now once again become, an invitation to a slanging match. //
I am not going to condemn sp1814 for making a valid point as part of a debate. There is no 'slanging' on his part - so I hope you will see that his posts are merely requests for clarification on your position regarding your instant and strongly worded condemnation of actions in this instance, as against your considerable efforts to defend the protagonists in another incident.
To be clear - it is your different attitudes that are being questioned, and that is in the spirit of debate, and should be answered in that spirit, without recourse to person rudeness against either of us.
Latest Posts
Crosswords7 mins ago
Body & Soul15 mins ago
Family Life27 mins ago
I Think I've Found P Ps True...
Society & Culture48 mins ago
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.