This From A Group Who Are Always Demanding Equality, When They Don't Practice It Themselves.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3492872/LSE-Islamic-Society-holds-segregated-event-veil-room-separate-male-female-students.html

[sp1814]

AOG

If the purpose of this thread is to prove that sometimes you mess up, then you have succeeded.

Honest, if you walk into a room and make a statement, and everyone in the room points out that your statement is ridiculous, it doesn't mean that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

If whilst in the room you look around for your friends (who normally back you up) and they are busy looking out of the window, fiddling with their phones or staring intently at the floor, trying to avoid eye contact - you can be certain that whatever you've said is rubbish, and they're embarrassed for you.

[Togo]

Pity the L.S.E didn't have the courage shown by U.C.L and in particular Dr. Lawrence Krauss. Mind you he is an American.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293248/University-College-London-bans-Islamic-group-iERA-segregating-men-women-debate.html

[Gromit]

Most of AOGs questions are actually just excuses to parade his predudices. In this instance he was lazy, and the linked story demonstrated equality rather than inequality, which he wanted to discuss. It was rather self defeating from the beginning.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// could you explain your bizarre little segue about this mysterious gay lobby who support Islam. ///

I admit when I put the gay lobby it was not intended to mean the whole world wide, gay lobby, but just AnswerBank's gay lobby.

And since I definitely know of two gay ABers who have subscribed to this thread, they did indeed preform true to form in exactly the way that I described.

[sp1814]

AOG

Ah, I see.

Just to clarify something...I'm not pro-Islam.

I'm simply against those who slate gay people and minorities under the guise of 'debate'.

You will probably notice that I've never held a pro-Islam stance on any thread on AB. I have, however argued against bigots who slyly enter threads to *** off gay people in the guise of 'debate'.

You can be sure that if AB ever got a Muslim member who slagged off gay people with the regularity of some on here, he/she would get equally short shrift from those of us who hate bigotry because we have known people who have attempted to take their own lives because of what bigots do.

[sp1814]

That asterisked word was 's l a g'.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

There are one or two in the room who have backed me up and just a few of the Anti-AOG Brigade who have made numerous replies so as to make them seem a lot more in the room than there actually are.

Obviously some of my supporters who are noticeable by their absence, not for the reason you have made up, but because they know you die-hards from old and can't be bothered wasting their time on you.

And thinking about it, I might just join them.

[retrocop]

Mr aog
That's about the truth of it. I just can't be bothering wasting my time whilst some enjoy their protection here.

[sp1814]

AOG

Okay...goodbye.

It has been a genuinely entertaining discussion.

[sp1814]

AOG

By the way - did you notice that those who argued against your point...err...didn't sound drunk?

I think you know what I mean.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

Ah! when all else fails, and one is defeated with one's back to the wall, why not revert to the usual name calling?

But it might work for some, but it certainly doesn't work for me, they are after all only words, providing of course that they are not directly aimed at me, as yours are so cunningly not.

Otherwise that would be against Site Rules, wouldn't it?

[Svejk]

I didn't notice any drunk people on this thread. I think you should name names or stop being such a ***.

[jackthehat]

///But it might work for some, but it certainly doesn't work for me, they are after all only words, providing of course that they are not directly aimed at me, as yours are so cunningly not.

Otherwise that would be against Site Rules, wouldn't it? ///

That's just a little bit hypocritical considering the 6th post on this thread, and posted by you, was a direct dig at me.....

But, hey, if you want to prolong this thread by continuing to deny that which is manifestly obvious....be my guest.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// By the way - did you notice that those who argued against your point...err...didn't sound drunk? ///

Since you have shown to be a stickler for the correct term, may I inform you that one cannot hear anything from the typed word, so they couldn't 'SOUND' drunk, or sound anything else for that matter.

[anotheoldgit]

jackthehat

A dig (if that is what you accuse me of) is not classed as name calling.

So where did I call you names, which were directly aimed at you?

[sp1814]

Svejk

I assumed it was you!

You posted the same comment eight times in a row.

And then when I tried to engage you in the debate, you...well, seemed drunk.

Was that you sober???

If it was - my apologies.

[Svejk]

***

[sp1814]

AOG

You are absolutely correct. However, I should have said, 'appeared to be drunk'.

[Mamyalynne]

I think the repeat posting is a computer glitch, thought there had been a fix for it by now?

I grant you it was a rather excitable post though, just exuberance probably.

[sp1814]

Mamyalynne

I think you may very well be right.

Weird how that can sometimes happen. Perhaps it's browser-dependent.