manc-mag

Jesus wept at this thread tbh.

Does the Toon have a 'German xmas market' by the way? It's become a bit of an annual event in Mcr; hundreds of the buggers descend from Germany at the end of November and set up their stalls. I'm sure it's all 'highly authentic' like.

Fuckin hell, Dave's got a 'mini me'.

Genuine hero.

Love the way they've obscured the reg plate to ensure nobody would recognise it if they saw it.

With added pathos? If you like, aye.

Welcome to Fop's pick 'n mix tbh.

The other recent health care thread, search back through my posts if you want too (I may charge you for the "service" though ). Link or post number will suffice, tia. £100 per link, paypal will do. This basically sums Fop up these days. Theres a geuine pathos in everything he posts. I'm just promoting efficiency through profit. Nah, it's just pathos tbh. Simple as.

The other recent health care thread, search back through my posts if you want too (I may charge you for the "service" though ). Link or post number will suffice, tia. £100 per link, paypal will do. This basically sums Fop up these days. Theres a geuine pathos in everything he posts.

Still the HMS Irony steams merrily along. On a serious note though that wasn't said for comic effect. Speaking in very general terms, it would cut out the inevitable 10-15 pages where you change the basic premise of your argument as your logic is gradually proved to be defective. Your arguments have become characterised as a complete moveable feast in terms of the underlying premise and a fixed point of reference at the start of the thread would avoid this altogether. Seriously, it's tedious. Any more tedious than the HMS Irony? I think I asked you previously to point out the irony tbh but you didn't, which sort of backs up the point. Theres no argument here by the way, I'm just saying how illegitimate your arguments have become now they are so devoid of credibility. If you're not willing to put them up to scrutiny then you dont have any locus standi tbh. The fact you seem utterly oblivious to it just makes it more amusing. And finally, just ignoring the point I'm making. As expected.

Still the HMS Irony steams merrily along. On a serious note though that wasn't said for comic effect. Speaking in very general terms, it would cut out the inevitable 10-15 pages where you change the basic premise of your argument as your logic is gradually proved to be defective. Your arguments have become characterised as a complete moveable feast in terms of the underlying premise and a fixed point of reference at the start of the thread would avoid this altogether. Seriously, it's tedious. Any more tedious than the HMS Irony? I think I asked you previously to point out the irony tbh but you didn't, which sort of backs up the point. Theres no argument here by the way, I'm just saying how illegitimate your arguments have become now they are so devoid of credibility. If you're not willing to put them up to scrutiny then you dont have any locus standi tbh.

How desperate is the: smiley btw in the context of a supposedly serious debate? Rhetorical question btw.

Still the HMS Irony steams merrily along. On a serious note though that wasn't said for comic effect. Speaking in very general terms, it would cut out the inevitable 10-15 pages where you change the basic premise of your argument as your logic is gradually proved to be defective. Your arguments have become characterised as a complete moveable feast in terms of the underlying premise and a fixed point of reference at the start of the thread would avoid this altogether. Seriously, it's tedious.

I think Fop should be made to put down a minimum ten line, clear and concise skeleton argument as a 'deposit' or 'guarantee' before being allowed to participate in these arguments anymore. The cheek of him demanding people 'discuss' or 'answer' his questions when he unashamedly ignores well structured arguments at will has meant his credibility has been shot to shit for months now. Tiresome tbh.

Tell you what you won't get any bother out of Rob W in this thread either. Or a straight answer at least.

x 2

Verdict: cobblers.

This is much more fun. To couch it in the terms of this issue, if I were in the position to want to spell it out, I wouldn't have been in the position to you in the first place. (think about it ) No, if you could you would as you're obsessed with being proved right. But you can't. Plan B: crack out the emoticons.

I think you're just hitting keys at random now.

No, you'd spell it out if you could. But you can't.

Aye, logic like killing someone legally meaning they aren't dead is the future. That wasn't the logic and death is a scientific fact which is intrinsic to the definition of 'killing'.

Fair enough like, Martin. Point taken.

They need to use "if I have 3 bananas and I take..." or it'll never sink in. And they're going to tax me at 45% too? Cunts. That's another interesting point, an independent financial think tank has said (i) that will basically raise £0, as people will (ii) simply put more effort into tax avoidance. The people that are going to be most hit (and basically pay the most for all this) are those on £19,000 and below. (i) obviously being utter nonsense (ii) obviously being utterly inevitable (i) not my conclusion - an respected independent financial think tanks conclusion. So take it up with them if you're more qualified, they may offer you a job. (ii) indeed, see (i). (i) someone a few £k above the threshold will obviously be able to practice a bit of tax avoidance and thus avoid the rise. Someone a few hundred £k/£million will not and hence the point is disproved. (ii) 'see (i)' being a defective argument. Tax avoidance is standard practice wherever the threshold lies. (i) I think maybe they won't be giving you that job, you know. (ii) again no, which is the reason tax on top earners and large companies has been a taboo issue for so long. Neither of those addressed the points at all. Excellent, you've conceded this one early doors. Just because I you doesn't mean you're right, it just means you have much still to learn. So basically what you always say when you know your argument has been defeated and can't even be resurrected tangentially. Job done.

Yes, I disagree, using that logic surely it is inevitable anyway the moment we gave the police truncheons? Wtf that has to do with tasering people for 2 hours or grasing people with bullets I'm still not sure about mind. Again no, as we've been though several times now (keep up), the use of a truncheon doesn't necessarily mean torture (as defined by the UN) or massive wounding. So the issue with their general deployment is different. If you'd have said CS spray then you'd have a point (and it has paved the way for Tasers, without doubt), but then I'm not sure it should be generally distributed either, as we've seen how it's terms of use have massively degraded in the time it has been available. So if the UN hadn't classified the taser as a weapon of torture (surely this is an abritrary term anyway as any weapon can be used for torture and I don't accept being tasered is worse than being shot, but anyway) we'd have no reason to fear guns being generally distributed to the police? Is that what you're saying? I really can't see the connection, please elaborate. Again that's nothing like what I'm saying (although you seem to be agreeing with Manc-foplite that torture isn't torture so long as you legalise torture - as opposed to it just being legal torture ). You're trying to link a fairy tale with distribution policy, which has nothing to do with anything in this thread (although it may take us another X post before we'd walked you far enough to realise it ). I'm actually really trying to follow your line of thought here Fop, in all honesty you seem to be talking gibberish half the time. The UN has stated the taser is a weapon of torture, yes? And it is being introduced to the police for general use, yes? Now how does that bring an inevitability about the general police being armed with guns, especially since they themselves don't want this? What's the connection or the relevance of 'torture'? It's his logic thats down the tubes mate. That's the problem and thats the real issue I have. He spans the logic gaps with vast cantilevered agenda bridges and from that point it's fucking hopeless. On a serious note though, it's why a clinically objective approach is always more conducive to proper analysis of the issues.

Relatively simple question I thought.