On 10/06/2022 11:36, MB wrote:
>
> Just going by hearsay as I do not look at the tabloids.

In other words, you're just repeating the possible lies of others
without attempting to verify them, which makes you a potential liar.

When are you and Jeff going to start basing your views on *EVIDENCE*
rather than bigoted prejudice?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 21:14:21 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> I wonder if "BATC" would have worked?

I doubt it! Neither would my C & G RAE (Subject 55?).

--
TOJ. (ex G8CTO)

In article <xn0niy49wideoui01i@news.individual.net>,
Jeff Gaines <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> >Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in
> >the article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.

> This is (at least) the second offensive remark you have posted
> because I have a different view to you, my view is mine and you
> are welcome to disagree with it but I have a right to it and you
> do not have a right to ask me to change it.

I'm afraid the liberal left have a problem. They cannot tolerate or
comprehend people having a different opinion to them. They can't cope
with it at all. All of them quickly start to use insulting language
they simply can't resist or control themselves.

Jim Lesurf gave us "the Dinosuars of the DUP" and JJ, I've lost count
of the number of people he's call a bigot.

Or the best from the current conversation came from Brian G who gave
us "the stinking turd in humanoid form know as "Farage"

All because someone has a different opinion to them.

They have no shame about it either, I've seen the left in Parliament
with their faces all screwed up as bile screams from their mouths.
Absolutely dripping with hate.

The irony is that it's also the left that have these organisations
trying to shut down anyone they disagree with whilst claiming they're
doing this to fight hate.

In reality, hate is a horrible characteristic almost always only
found in the left. I can't recall hate coming from the right at all.

This is yet another reason why I think the left abandoned reason and
rationality in favour of religion and ideology.

Bob.

On 10/06/2022 15:03, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <xn0niy49wideoui01i@news.individual.net>,
> Jeff Gaines <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[Jeff Gaines has broken the quoting again. I think R Mark Clayton said]

>>> Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in
>>> the article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.
>>
>> This is (at least) the second offensive remark you have posted
>> because I have a different view to you, my view is mine and you
>> are welcome to disagree with it but I have a right to it and you
>> do not have a right to ask me to change it.

Grow up and stand up for your views like a man - that is: with robust
evidence - or shut the fuck up. Nobody is going to take any notice of
your pathetic whingeing. As you have been told many times before, put
up or shut up - in other words, let's see *EVIDENCE* to support your
views, or else keep them to yourself.

> I'm afraid the liberal left have a problem. They cannot tolerate or
> comprehend people having a different opinion to them. They can't cope
> with it at all. All of them quickly start to use insulting language
> they simply can't resist or control themselves.

They see no reason to tolerate those who consistently flout the
conventions of normal, adult, rational debate. In my time, I have known
literally school children who could debate more effectively and
rationally than you, Jeff, and MB. A simple beginner's rule is: if you
can't support a claim with believable *EVIDENCE*, then don't make it.
Yet all three of you constantly fail this basic test of rationality.

> Jim Lesurf gave us "the Dinosuars of the DUP" and JJ, I've lost count
> of the number of people he's call a bigot.

Of the current conversation, it's the three above, the same three people
who seem unable to grasp the well understood conventions of how to
conduct public debate.

> Or the best from the current conversation came from Brian G who gave
> us "the stinking turd in humanoid form know as "Farage"

Brian has never expressed politically leaning opinions that I can
recall, I am not left wing, Jim and R Mark Clayton will doubtless speak
for themselves, but all that is irrelevant to the real problem here,
which is your and others' consistent failure to support any of your
claims with verifiable *EVIDENCE*.

> All because someone has a different opinion to them.

All because we can support our claims with *EVIDENCE*, while none of you
can, yet you still persist in making them, in other words, you still
persist on re-telling the same lies that have been debunked multiple
times before.

> They have no shame about it either, I've seen the left in Parliament
> with their faces all screwed up as bile screams from their mouths.
> Absolutely dripping with hate.

Oh FFS, you sound more like Putin every day.

> The irony is that it's also the left that have these organisations
> trying to shut down anyone they disagree with whilst claiming they're
> doing this to fight hate.
>
> In reality, hate is a horrible characteristic almost always only
> found in the left. I can't recall hate coming from the right at all.
>
> This is yet another reason why I think the left abandoned reason and
> rationality in favour of religion and ideology.

HYPOSHITE! Nobody uses the language of hate more in this ng. The above
is a classic example of hyposhitical Bob-LieToThem double-speak.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 04/06/2022 13:07, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> Did you know that the number of unemployed is now about equal to the
> number of job vacancies? Time for the unemployed to get on their bikes.

If anyone wants a more useful and realistic assessment, listen to the
first 7 minutes or so of this:

More or Less - Employment puzzle, pyramids and triplets
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001817c

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 08/03/2022 09:46 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 08/03/2022 20:52, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>> Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me.  His is clearly not an
>>> English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in origin,
>>> but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that still makes
>>> his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
>
>> He didn't lie about Europe, because his beef was with the EU and not
>> the member states themselves.
>
> The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
> lying about Europe as well.

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Hilarious!

On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 11:01:12 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 10/06/2022 in message
> <2e65c804-09b7-48c3...@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton
> wrote:

SNIP

> >Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in the
> >article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.
> This is (at least) the second offensive remark you have posted because I
> have a different view to you, my view is mine and you are welcome to
> disagree with it but I have a right to it and you do not have a right to
> ask me to change it.

The jibe is at your refusal to consider any evidence - you are refusing - aren't you?

> >>>>Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)
> >>>In the very first UK wide referendum in 1975 it was >2:1 to stay in.
> >>NO! Remoaners keep saying that IT WASN'T A VOTE TO STAY IN THE EU, it was
> >>a vote to remain in the Common Market and I voted "yes".
>
> >1. It WAS the first UK wide referendum in 1975, at the time unprecedented.
> > Brexiteers always say there should have been one before joining, but there never had previously (e.g. joining Nato or UN, invading Suez, declaring war on Germany twice etc...)
> >2. It was >2:1 in favour.
> >3. I did NOT say what the vote was for, but it was to stay in the European
> >Economic Community.
> >4. The European Union, superseding the Community, did not come into being
> >until 1993, continued membership of that was ratified in Parliament.
> Thank you, that my recollection. I voted to stay in the Common Market but
> there was no vote on joining the EU, just the referendum to leave it.

What I am taking exception to is your accusing me of saying something I hadn't.

> >>Good luck to them, your arrogance in trying to change what I think is
> >>astonishing.
> >
> >Agreed, it is very difficult to change the view of prejudiced people...
> And another insult see above.

Well you have pre-judged the issue - haven't you?

> >Leavers, Trump and Putin all spread lies about Brexit on social media to
> >swing opinion ahead of the referendum - successfully alas. The government
> >and Brextremists are now desperately trying to stop the truth of the
> >failure of Brexit being publicised, of course people who complain online
> >about empty shelves, gifts held up in customs, queues in Kent and at
> >foreign airports and all the myriad of problems created by Brexit are
> >accused of being propagandists and the BBC attacked as biased.
> As I have said several times you really, really, can't believe marketing
> puff.
> >
> >Clearly the almost complete absence of publicity on the benefits of Brexit
> >(and certainly any truthful coverage) also tells you all you need to know
> >about how it is going.
> It's going very well in my view, I have no wish to try and change your
> view as that would be rude, arrogant and offensive.

Not really, but the important difference between us is that I would change my view if there was strong evidence to do so.

For instance I changed my mind on some aspects of responding to the pandemic as further evidence emerged.

> --
> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
> 640k ought to be enough for anyone.
> (Bill Gates, 1981)

On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 11:36:21 UTC+1, MB wrote:
> On 10/06/2022 09:56, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> > Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in the article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.
> Though I believe the Grauniad, like the Liberals, have a history of
> using dodgy graphs.

The Guardian cited their sources. Anyway I had a look around for something a little more unbiased than the Grauniad. This article is three months out of date and the UK position has probably worsened but: -
https://obr.uk/box/the-latest-evidence-on-the-impact-of-brexit-on-uk-trade/
Shows how dire it was by March.

The OBR was set up by a Conservative government in 2010.

>
> Just going by hearsay as I do not look at the tabloids.

In article <xn0niy49wideoui01i@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in the
> >article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.

> This is (at least) the second offensive remark you have posted because I
> have a different view to you, my view is mine and you are welcome to
> disagree with it but I have a right to it and you do not have a right to
> ask me to change it.

Slippery and selective use of "right" detected. :-)

Particularly as your comment implicity conflicts with your assertions. If
you have a "right" to express a "view", so does he - in that case his view
being what he wrote.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <59f6645eb5bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <xn0niy49wideoui01i@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
> <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> > >Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in the
> > >article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.

> > This is (at least) the second offensive remark you have posted because
> > I have a different view to you, my view is mine and you are welcome to
> > disagree with it but I have a right to it and you do not have a right
> > to ask me to change it.

> I'm afraid the liberal left have a problem. They cannot tolerate or
> comprehend people having a different opinion to them.

The snag being when opinions are stated as if fact. if you can spout you
'opinions' I can give mine : eg-

> Jim Lesurf gave us "the Dinosuars of the DUP" and JJ,

Yup. My "view". Which apparently I have a "right" to express.

> I've lost count of the number of people he's call a bigot.

Perhaps you can quote some examples along with their usenet details so I
can check? So far as I know I don't often use the word "bigot", but I agree
that my memory isn't what it was... erm, IIRC. :-)

> They have no shame about it either, I've seen the left in Parliament
> with their faces all screwed up as bile screams from their mouths.
> Absolutely dripping with hate.

Nice "view" but seems not to notice the behaviour on the other side of the
house. Where even many Tory MPs now regard their 'leader' as a well dodgy
and can't be trusted. Oh well, perhaps your "view" is that those Tories
are *also* really "lefties". :-)

> The irony is that it's also the left that have these organisations
> trying to shut down anyone they disagree with whilst claiming they're
> doing this to fight hate.

So why do you express your hate as above about the "left"?

> In reality, hate is a horrible characteristic almost always only found
> in the left. I can't recall hate coming from the right at all.

Ah. You seem to have a memory problem. :-)

> This is yet another reason why I think the left abandoned reason and
> rationality in favour of religion and ideology.

.... that being your term for example of the details of the clear evidence
wrt climate change. Including an excellent book on the topic you refuse to
even *READ* because your mind is closed to any possibility that seeing the
evidence might mean facing reality. You "know" is MUST BE "religion"
because it risks clashes with what you WANT to believe.

i.e. You are looking into a mirror when trying to brand others as
peddling a "religion".

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <t7vkmv$3eo$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Brian has never expressed politically leaning opinions that I can
> recall, I am not left wing, Jim and R Mark Clayton will doubtless speak
> for themselves, but all that is irrelevant to the real problem here,
> which is your and others' consistent failure to support any of your
> claims with verifiable *EVIDENCE*.

Bob's "view" seems to be that anyone who wants him to actually read and
understand mere evidence that clashs with his "views" MUST be a leftie
spounting "religion"... on the basis of flatly refusing to even READ the
evidence himself. Climate Change being the exemplar of his "view" and way
of waving away mere evidence.

Instead he has a history as long as yer arm of posting cod 'facts' that
fall to bits when examined. The good old "two points paper" being a classic
example preference for cherries that he likes rather than actually face
up to understand reality.

Whereas I have read a lot of the tosh he has linked / referred to, and
it tends to be what serious researchers call "cobblers".

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 11/06/2022 in message <59f6ccdebanoise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf wrote:

>In article <xn0niy49wideoui01i@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
><jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in the
>>>article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.
>
>>This is (at least) the second offensive remark you have posted because I
>>have a different view to you, my view is mine and you are welcome to
>>disagree with it but I have a right to it and you do not have a right to
>>ask me to change it.
>
>Slippery and selective use of "right" detected. :-)
>
>Particularly as your comment implicity conflicts with your assertions. If
>you have a "right" to express a "view", so does he - in that case his view
>being what he wrote.

Absolutely right. However, I am not rude and arrogant enough to feel I
have a right to criticise anybody else's view. I am getting quite
concerned about your response and one or two other responses. To some
extent I can put it down to the snowflake generation, brought up with no
discipline and participating in non-competitive games so not ready to face
the realities of life but now I am beginning to wonder if they are all die
hard bigots, or being paid to spout left wing drivel.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Remember, the Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.

In message <t7na96$dfu$2@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> writes
>On 07/06/2022 11:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> I have expressed my view and people can take it or leave it or do
>>you feel that others have a right to tell me how to think?
>
>No-one's trying to tell you what to think, they are merely trying to
>persuade not to post lies in public.
>
But HOW to think and WHAT to think are not necessarily the same thing.
--
Ian

On 12/06/2022 13:55, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 11/06/2022 in message <59f6ccdebanoise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf
> wrote:
>>
>> Particularly as your comment implicity conflicts with your assertions. If
>> you have a "right" to express a "view", so does he - in that case his
>> view
>> being what he wrote.
>
> Absolutely right. However, I am not rude and arrogant enough to feel I
> have a right to criticise anybody else's view. I am getting quite
> concerned about your response and one or two other responses. To some
> extent I can put it down to the snowflake generation, brought up with no
> discipline and participating in non-competitive games so not ready to
> face the realities of life but now I am beginning to wonder if they are
> all die hard bigots, or being paid to spout left wing drivel.

LOL! Think of a well-known phrase involving pots and kettles. FTR I
was brought up to play competitive games, and was in the Rugby 1st XV at
preparatory school, but it's the three of you who are the problem here,
in that *YOU* are behaving like the snow-flake generation - you
consider that you have a 'right' to spout tosh in public places and then
go all hurt and surprised when others debunk it and show it to be the
tosh it truly is. If you can't stand the heat, stay outta the kitchen.
If you can't substantiate a claim with verifiably evidence, then don't
make it. But if you will insist on flouting the conventions of public
debate by spouting tosh in public spaces, expect to get flak for it.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <xn0nj11wsleiitf003@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >Particularly as your comment implicity conflicts with your assertions.
> >If you have a "right" to express a "view", so does he - in that case
> >his view being what he wrote.

> Absolutely right. However, I am not rude and arrogant enough to feel I
> have a right to criticise anybody else's view.

The problem is with with your use of "view" to include "assertions
presented as fact but which are - often incorrect - belief".

People are pointing out that mere reality doesn't accord with your "view"
in various instances.

BTW Given that I retired some years ago, it is in a way quite flattering to
be suspected as being of the "snowflake generation". However the reality
seems to be that old farts can also issue wind. :-)

Jim

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <t84tdd$934$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> LOL! Think of a well-known phrase involving pots and kettles. FTR I
> was brought up to play competitive games, and was in the Rugby 1st XV at
> preparatory school, but it's the three of you who are the problem here,

Crumbs! You are posh! :-) I always dodged 'games'... often by the method of
not going to school. And the playground of my primary school wasn't big
enough for more than a kick-about of whatever ball someone might have.

My secondary school had a small playground around it and a bigger one on
the roof. This was used by some kids to 'bomb' those below with opened
cartons of school milk.

The 'gramma' school I got sent to for A-levels *did* have playing fields.
But I avoided them. I always felt sport was an unhealthy activity. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 13/06/2022 in message <59f7d30354noise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf wrote:

>>Absolutely right. However, I am not rude and arrogant enough to feel I
>>have a right to criticise anybody else's view.
>
>The problem is with with your use of "view" to include "assertions
>presented as fact but which are - often incorrect - belief".

If you think I have done that then please let me have an example(s).

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his
life.
(Jeremy Thorpe, 1962)

On 13/06/2022 09:55, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Crumbs! You are posh!:-) I always dodged 'games'... often by the method of
> not going to school. And the playground of my primary school wasn't big
> enough for more than a kick-about of whatever ball someone might have.

My school expected six formers to act as referees on a Saturday, I never
bothered going because I have no idea of the rules so could not see how
I could referee a match!

And when we did cricket I could walk wander off to an adjacent pitch and
chat to a friend.

At one time they expected us to rugby and told me take my glasses off so
I explained I could not see anything without them, there was some common
sense and I was told to get changed.

I think there was one teacher who recognised that many people have no
interest in sports and just told us keep moving and out of the way,
perhaps kicking the ball if it came near.

On 13/06/2022 10:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 13/06/2022 in message <59f7d30354noise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf
> wrote:
>
>>> Absolutely right. However, I am not rude and arrogant enough to feel I
>>> have a right to criticise anybody else's view.
>>
>> The problem is with with your use of "view" to include "assertions
>> presented as fact but which are - often incorrect - belief".
>
> If you think I have done that then please let me have an example(s).

Previously in the thread you were given by myself examples of 'views',
which I and many others would justifiably call lies, posted by you that
multiple independent lines of well-established information, including
from a government department, have proven to be false.

So stop repeating previously failed tactics in an attempt to prolong an
argument that was already lost many days ago.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 13/06/2022 in message <t8792l$i79$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>On 13/06/2022 10:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>On 13/06/2022 in message <59f7d30354noise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Absolutely right. However, I am not rude and arrogant enough to feel I
>>>>have a right to criticise anybody else's view.
>>>
>>>The problem is with with your use of "view" to include "assertions
>>>presented as fact but which are - often incorrect - belief".
>>
>>If you think I have done that then please let me have an example(s).
>
>Previously in the thread you were given by myself examples of 'views',
>which I and many others would justifiably call lies, posted by you that
>multiple independent lines of well-established information, including from
>a government department, have proven to be false.
>
>So stop repeating previously failed tactics in an attempt to prolong an
>argument that was already lost many days ago.

Views and opinions cannot be "lies" by definition, anyway I was addressing
the organ grinder, not the monkey.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant

On 13/06/2022 14:18, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 13/06/2022 in message <t8792l$i79$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 13/06/2022 10:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> On 13/06/2022 in message <59f7d30354noise@audiomisc.co.uk> Jim Lesurf
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The problem is with with your use of "view" to include "assertions
>>>> presented as fact but which are - often incorrect - belief".
>>>
>>> If you think I have done that then please let me have an example(s).
>>
>> Previously in the thread you were given by myself examples of 'views',
>> which I and many others would justifiably call lies, posted by you
>> that multiple independent lines of well-established information,
>> including from a government department, have proven to be false.
>>
>> So stop repeating previously failed tactics in an attempt to prolong
>> an argument that was already lost many days ago.
>
> Views and opinions cannot be "lies" by definition

They are by definition lies if they are publicly expressed after they
have been shown to be false, which is exactly what you persist in doing.

> anyway I was
> addressing the organ grinder, not the monkey.

You are rapidly becoming a pathetic Bob-LieToThem-style HYPOSHITE! Who
was it up thread whingeing about being insulted?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 13/06/2022 02:48 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> Java Jive wrote:
>>> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>>>> The problem is with with your use of "view" to include "assertions
>>>>> presented as fact but which are - often incorrect - belief".
>
>>>> If you think I have done that then please let me have an example(s).
>
>>> Previously in the thread you were given by myself examples of
>>> 'views', which I and many others would justifiably call lies, posted
>>> by you that multiple independent lines of well-established
>>> information, including from a government department, have proven to
>>> be false.
>
>>> So stop repeating previously failed tactics in an attempt to prolong
>>> an argument that was already lost many days ago.
>
>> Views and opinions cannot be "lies" by definition
>
> They are by definition lies if they are publicly expressed after they
> have been shown to be false, which is exactly what you persist in doing.
>
>> anyway I was addressing the organ grinder, not the monkey.
>
> You are rapidly becoming a pathetic Bob-LieToThem-style HYPOSHITE!  Who
> was it up thread whingeing about being insulted?

You must be a barrel of laughs around the local pubs (assuming you
haven't been barred from all those where you are known).

Do you lead your entire life like that?

On 13/06/2022 in message <t87f6k$f7v$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>>Views and opinions cannot be "lies" by definition
>
>They are by definition lies if they are publicly expressed after they have
>been shown to be false, which is exactly what you persist in doing.

You don't seem to understand what a view or opinion is, they cannot be
false or wrong. All you can do is disagree with another person's opinion.

>>anyway I was addressing the organ grinder, not the monkey.
>
>You are rapidly becoming a pathetic Bob-LieToThem-style HYPOSHITE! Who
>was it up thread whingeing about being insulted?

Oh, you don't like it when it's addressed to you then?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
The true meaning of life is to plant trees under whose shade you do not
expect to sit.

On 13/06/2022 16:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 13/06/2022 in message <t87f6k$f7v$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>
[Jeff Gaines has broken the quoting again, he wrote:]
>>>
>>> Views and opinions cannot be "lies" by definition
>>
>> They are by definition lies if they are publicly expressed after they
>> have been shown to be false, which is exactly what you persist in doing.
>
> You don't seem to understand what a view or opinion is, they cannot be
> false or wrong. All you can do is disagree with another person's opinion.

You don't seem to understand what a lie is - to begin to understand,
start by examining those 'views' that you express here in public that
don't match reality as measured by the external facts that have been
placed before you.

>>> anyway I was  addressing the organ grinder, not the monkey.
>>
>> You are rapidly becoming a pathetic Bob-LieToThem-style HYPOSHITE!
>> Who was it up thread whingeing about being insulted?
>
> Oh, you don't like it when it's addressed to you then?

It's not a question of whether I'm insulted or not - it would take
someone a great deal more imaginative and a great deal less pathetic
than you to insult me, because you are making yourself look more and
more pathetic with every time-wasting post you make here. If you had
half a brain you would have realised by now that you're in a hole, and
stopped digging, but no, yours is the typical idiotic and stubborn
hypocrisy of a liar who having been found out in a lie, insults the ng
further by continuing to repeat the lie, then complains about people
'insulting' him for calling out the lie, and then insults those calling
out the lie, all simply because he isn't man enough to admit when he's
in the wrong.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <t87f6k$f7v$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> > Views and opinions cannot be "lies" by definition

> They are by definition lies if they are publicly expressed after they
> have been shown to be false, which is exactly what you persist in doing.

Be fair. It can happen if someone is simply deluded to the point of being
incapable of accepting mere reality.

However whatever the cause, the result is false statements that may mislead
others, and mean the "views" are at minimum, worthless, and at worst
harmful.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html