youreavinalaff

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

 

OK, I'll play your game.

 

You said, in full, and I have no idea what you meant by your last paragraph. Perhaps you have a problem writing comprehensible text. You certainly have no problem personally insulting other posters.

"

No, I didn't. I'm not wrong. I stated a fact.

 

Let's see:

 

I invite anyone on this forum to hold their hands up and say "Wow. I'm shocked someone has died in a warzone".

 

That is, with no reference to who the deceased are, what they were doing in the war zone, who they were representing or who killed them. No discrimination, no blame, no taking sides.

 

You are the only one. That speaks volumes.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s nevertheless true.

No, it isn't. 

Even grass roots level sport involves making a profit.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t speak for others.

 

You might consider avoiding pretending to do so yourself.

I've not seen any comments on here saying anyone should not be able to compete in sport.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:03 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

I think I’m one of those that agrees sport should be open to anyone who wants to take part.

As is everyone else.

On 4/8/2024 at 8:09 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

Lots of sports are mixed.

 

When was the last time you were involved in any competitive sports other than as a spectator?

A list would be interesting.

On 4/8/2024 at 7:15 AM, JonnyF said:

 

Because no doubt the open categories would demand the same amount of prize money, media coverage etc. when in reality it would be a handful of transwomen that aren't good enough to compete in the men's category.

 

Events like Wimbledon have enough trouble getting through all the matches already, without pandering to the wishes of a tiny minority by introducing a third category. 

 

Plus then you'd have the likes of BBC Sport pushing trans sport like they do now with the WSL etc. Nothing worse than clicking on "Chelsea beat Man Utd" to find out they're actually talking about the women's game and the score was 12-0 including 3 own goals. 😃

 

 

Your views, outdated as they are, on women's football drags your comment down.

On 4/8/2024 at 5:12 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

Regardless, the vast majority of sport is amateur and non profit.

That is the funniest attempt at trolling by you for sometime. Hilarious.

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If you are referring to

"That is, with no reference to who the deceased are, what they were doing in the war zone, who they were representing or who killed them. No discrimination, no blame, no taking sides."

 

That makes no sense and I have no idea what that means, so I disregarded it.

You don't understand it because you cropped my comment.

Either that or you don't want to understand it or you struggle with reading and comprehension.

Probably the latter.

37 minutes ago, billd766 said:

If you are anti executioner please tell us who has killed 32,xxx men, women and children, who has laid waste to vast areas of Gaza with air to ground missiles, helicopter gunships, drones, smart and dumb bombs, tanks, armoured bulldozers etc.

 

I had no idea that Hamas even had an airforce let alone, drones, tanks and armoured bulldozers.

The deaths in this conflict are the fault of all sides.

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wasn't laughing about the deaths, as you probably know. I was LOL about the IMO ludicrous post trying to justify the israeli atrocity by blaming the victims.

Not justifying. Not blaming.

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I am when they were killed after clearing their movements by the IDF.

 

I'm probably more shocked by the pathetic attempt by the IDF to justify their atrocity.

If what they say is true, it makes them incompetent in that command does not communicate with troops on the ground, or apparently in this case with drone operators, and there is no operational command structure, which I do not believe. Unlike some on here I've actually been in the military, and understand how it works, which is not how the IDF are trying to justify their actions.

Judging by your first sentence, you clearly did not read my comment in full.

Your comment is therefore inane 

21 minutes ago, sirineou said:

"How many Isreali and Palestinian civilians have been "intentionally" targeted, and killed? "

IMO one too many. 

 

IMO . it is not a good idea to dismiss war crimes by any side as things that happen in war and should not be shocked by.

You made an inappropriate post.(I am trying to be kind)  From time to time we all do, I certainly have, Instead of doubling down , it would IMO be easier to say  

"Fair enough, I  did not think this through" and leave it at that.

It is now a shame to admit you are wrong, Who among us has never been wrong? 

No, I didn't. I'm not wrong. I stated a fact.

Let's see:

I invite anyone on this forum to hold their hands up and say "Wow. I'm shocked someone has died in a warzone".

That is, with no reference to who the deceased are, what they were doing in the war zone, who they were representing or who killed them. No discrimination, no blame, no taking sides.

4 minutes ago, sirineou said:

It is a shock when these people are civilians and aid workers Intentionally  targeted, In fact is is a war crime!!!

Germans after WW2 were hanged because of things like that!!

I didn't reference who they were or whether they were intentionally targeted, mistakenly or deliberately. 

I said, " the headline makes people dying in war zones seem a shock".

How many Isreali and Palestinian civilians have been "intentionally" targeted, and killed?

18 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

He is obviously not laughing at that but laughing at you and what you believe. 

What I believe? Not at all.

I said it's not a shock when people get killed in war zones. 

Not a belief. A fact.

If he's laughing at yhat, it is he who is the fool.

8 minutes ago, sirineou said:

You would have to ask him that, not me,

I just commented on your post of  

"Laughing at deaths in war zones? "

and said that this was IMO am incorrect observation 

To say "LOL" in reply to a post about dying in war zones would suggest otherwise.

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

Fully agreed, but totally irrelevant to my post.

It is totally relevant. You condemn one but condone the other.

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

I think he is laughing at the idea that they were not targeted by the IDF.

Why is he? My comment that he quoted didn't say they weren't.

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I don't think anyone would disagree that the charge against the wife beating fraudster and drug dealer, Yaxley Lennon, was justified. But in the case of the retired social worker, I would happily argue that the law, if applied correctly in this case, is an ass. In fact, it's a dangerous ass.

If one person is arrested for a crime because of what people think of them, then another is not arrested because of their previous career, that would be discrimination.

Discrimination is a terrible thing. Which ever way you look at it.

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Evidence - they are instructed only to take into account evidence presented to them in court. The accused in this case was not providing any comment on the facts of that particular case. She was making clear an aspect of the law.

Jurors don't get told the law in court? How strange. I wonder how the u derstand the charge and come to a decision.

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I have since read the details of his arrest. I am happy to confirm that it bears no similarities whatsoever with the case I mentioned other than they both took place outside a court. Glad to have cleared that up for you.

Excellent. Glad you've cleared up the reason both were arrested.

It's called "contempt of court".

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

She is tenacious and trying to change things for the better. She should be applauded for that. 

Very good to see she's getting on people's nerves.

I would have thought protesters aims are the complete opposite.

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

She was holding a sign which started a fact of law. Do you not think that it's important that jurors are made aware of the law? Would you prefer that they made decisions in ignorance?

I believe jurors are informed by the judge, at the beginning of the trial, to only take into account what happens inside the court.

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL.

The aid workers informed the IDF, who approved their journey

They were deliberately targeted by the IDF.

This wasn't some mortar bomb that went off target by accident, it was a directed missile strike.

Laughing at deaths in war zones?

Not good.

23 hours ago, kwilco said:

No such thing - Camembert is origin protected....which BTW under EU regs Stilton no longer is so it can be copied throughout the world. It is also symptomatic that Brexiteers know so little about "the good things in life".

Your comment about British cheeses just shows how little you know about world cheeses and the varieties available - bet you don't even know where Cheddar is.

That's an interesting comment. No, not really. I'm joking.

I guess you were joking too, when you suggested someone's knowledge and preference for cheese is in some way connected to a vote.

I know people that don't like cheese. Not sure how they voted in the referendum though.