ChatterBank1 min ago
Question removed.
115 Answers
Yesterday I posted a question regarding a Gang of Asian men who were jailed for abusing young white girls as young as 12.
http://tinyurl.com/27kl46p
For some reason I notice it has been removed, without any exclamation.
This was a legitimate news story, so why was it removed?
http://tinyurl.com/27kl46p
For some reason I notice it has been removed, without any exclamation.
This was a legitimate news story, so why was it removed?
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.
Answerprance
/// (another in a long line of previously asked questions you dodged).///
You are always going on about me not answering other's questions, but you yourself should practice what you preach, I have answered many of your ramblings in fact a huge proportion, although I don't see why you should be given precedence over others.
Perhaps now you will give me the courtesy of commenting on the reply I gave you a couple of days ago, after all you have gone on relentless for a reply, that was appertaining to cash in hand payments while on benefits.
You also chose to ignore my apology for the slur I gave regarding your use of the Daily Mail for toilet reasons.
I await your reply
/// (another in a long line of previously asked questions you dodged).///
You are always going on about me not answering other's questions, but you yourself should practice what you preach, I have answered many of your ramblings in fact a huge proportion, although I don't see why you should be given precedence over others.
Perhaps now you will give me the courtesy of commenting on the reply I gave you a couple of days ago, after all you have gone on relentless for a reply, that was appertaining to cash in hand payments while on benefits.
You also chose to ignore my apology for the slur I gave regarding your use of the Daily Mail for toilet reasons.
I await your reply
anotheoldgi
"I have answered many of your ramblings in fact a huge proportion"
No, you have defended yourself when I have picked you up on something I believe shows gross intolerance or presumed generalisation.
"I don't see why you should be given precedence over others"
I don't expect you to give me precedence over others and making it seem as if I do seems deliberately deceptive to me.
Very often I think about reacting to one of your right-wing rants but then I notice that someone else has already covered what I would have said, in many cases putting it far more effectively that I probably would have. I am just as concerned about *those* posts being 'overlooked' than any of my responses.
"...after all you have gone on relentless for a reply"
I asked you *twice* about your implied accusation - that is not "relentless".
"Perhaps now you will give me the courtesy of commenting on the reply I gave you a couple of days ago".
You didn't give a reply. My question to you about the bogus suggestion of signing on and accepting cash in hand remains unanswered.
"You also chose to ignore my apology for the slur I gave regarding your use of the Daily Mail for toilet reasons".
"Chose to"??
Didn't it occur to you that I may not have seen it ?
There was a post removed that appeared to be from you, alas I didn't get to read it before it was removed. If you feel the need to apologise for an invisible post that's very magnanimous of you - apology accepted.
"I have answered many of your ramblings in fact a huge proportion"
No, you have defended yourself when I have picked you up on something I believe shows gross intolerance or presumed generalisation.
"I don't see why you should be given precedence over others"
I don't expect you to give me precedence over others and making it seem as if I do seems deliberately deceptive to me.
Very often I think about reacting to one of your right-wing rants but then I notice that someone else has already covered what I would have said, in many cases putting it far more effectively that I probably would have. I am just as concerned about *those* posts being 'overlooked' than any of my responses.
"...after all you have gone on relentless for a reply"
I asked you *twice* about your implied accusation - that is not "relentless".
"Perhaps now you will give me the courtesy of commenting on the reply I gave you a couple of days ago".
You didn't give a reply. My question to you about the bogus suggestion of signing on and accepting cash in hand remains unanswered.
"You also chose to ignore my apology for the slur I gave regarding your use of the Daily Mail for toilet reasons".
"Chose to"??
Didn't it occur to you that I may not have seen it ?
There was a post removed that appeared to be from you, alas I didn't get to read it before it was removed. If you feel the need to apologise for an invisible post that's very magnanimous of you - apology accepted.
Answerprance
/// You didn't give a reply. My question to you about the bogus suggestion of signing on and accepting cash in hand remains unanswered.//
It does not remain unanswered, I gave below, a very lengthy answer to your question.
You seem oblivious to the fact that you attack me on a regular basis, so my attacks on you are not unprovoked as you untruthfully say, so why be so surprised when I do retaliate?
I only answer in a way that I feel justifies those uncalled for sarcastic jibes, every belittling comment, or any other hateful remark you regularly make against me, I don't think, oh I do hope I haven't offended him, why should I?.
My statement said,
/// These long term 'work shy' are at the moment, sitting around doing nothing... ///
You again true to form, sarcastically questioned this by saying,
/// How do you know this, are you a social worker or a professional statistician ? ///
///Or is this just presumption reinforced by 'facts' you've read in the Daily Mail ? ///
I therefore thought I may have got it wrong, if they are not 'sitting around doing nothing', then perhaps they are out working while still on benefits, and since it was you that questioned me, perhaps you also came under this criteria.
Obviously you were hurt by this, but if you don't wish to burn yourself, don't play with fire.
14:39 Tue 09th Nov 2010
The comment that was removed about your aggressive remark about using the Daily Mail for your toilet needs, to which I replied (hoping it doesn't get removed again) was, couldn't be more appropriate because he is full of ........
And although I took the trouble to afterwards apologise, because it was simply out of character for me to say such things (but some things rub off) you once again accepted my apology aggressively.
/// If you feel the need to apologise fo
/// You didn't give a reply. My question to you about the bogus suggestion of signing on and accepting cash in hand remains unanswered.//
It does not remain unanswered, I gave below, a very lengthy answer to your question.
You seem oblivious to the fact that you attack me on a regular basis, so my attacks on you are not unprovoked as you untruthfully say, so why be so surprised when I do retaliate?
I only answer in a way that I feel justifies those uncalled for sarcastic jibes, every belittling comment, or any other hateful remark you regularly make against me, I don't think, oh I do hope I haven't offended him, why should I?.
My statement said,
/// These long term 'work shy' are at the moment, sitting around doing nothing... ///
You again true to form, sarcastically questioned this by saying,
/// How do you know this, are you a social worker or a professional statistician ? ///
///Or is this just presumption reinforced by 'facts' you've read in the Daily Mail ? ///
I therefore thought I may have got it wrong, if they are not 'sitting around doing nothing', then perhaps they are out working while still on benefits, and since it was you that questioned me, perhaps you also came under this criteria.
Obviously you were hurt by this, but if you don't wish to burn yourself, don't play with fire.
14:39 Tue 09th Nov 2010
The comment that was removed about your aggressive remark about using the Daily Mail for your toilet needs, to which I replied (hoping it doesn't get removed again) was, couldn't be more appropriate because he is full of ........
And although I took the trouble to afterwards apologise, because it was simply out of character for me to say such things (but some things rub off) you once again accepted my apology aggressively.
/// If you feel the need to apologise fo
*I'M* aggressive ? LMAO
As was said earlier, you are "hypocritical to the nth degree".
Oh dear old Mr Git, you do love twisting peoples' words when faced with adversity don't you.
I just read your "apology" and it looked far more like desperate soap-box mounted struggle to hang onto some fast ebbing credibility.
What a waste of space copying and pasting an entire post which I've already seen.
It doesnt answer the question:
"How do you correlate my disagreeing with you with presumptions of this kind of criminal activity ?"
"Aggressive" by definition implies an unprovoked attack, yet 90 percent of your original posts are of matters that appear to be loaded with hatred and are usually sourced from a 'newspaper' which is notorious for twisting the truth in order to appeal to people who *want* to be angry.
YOU are the aggressive one IMO.
As was said earlier, you are "hypocritical to the nth degree".
Oh dear old Mr Git, you do love twisting peoples' words when faced with adversity don't you.
I just read your "apology" and it looked far more like desperate soap-box mounted struggle to hang onto some fast ebbing credibility.
What a waste of space copying and pasting an entire post which I've already seen.
It doesnt answer the question:
"How do you correlate my disagreeing with you with presumptions of this kind of criminal activity ?"
"Aggressive" by definition implies an unprovoked attack, yet 90 percent of your original posts are of matters that appear to be loaded with hatred and are usually sourced from a 'newspaper' which is notorious for twisting the truth in order to appeal to people who *want* to be angry.
YOU are the aggressive one IMO.
