On 14/07/2022 09:27, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 14/07/2022 00:07, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 13/07/2022 21:14, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2022 13:01, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 13/07/2022 12:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>> On 13/07/2022 09:54, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/07/2022 09:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 13/07/2022 07:36, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at least
>>>>>>>> choose a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to fail
>>>>>>>> because that was the only way that they could gain power.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did NOT say that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, indeed you did not
>>>>>
>>>>> QED
>>>>
>>>> QED that you stated an absurd and impossible conspiracy theory,
>>>> rather than one that such as the above that at least had some
>>>> plausibility to it; no-one is surprised that you chose the
>>>> impossible one.
>>>>
>>> You studied maths (or claim to have done) so why do you not recognise
>>> QED as being the end of a process and not the start of a new one?
>>
>> Because you weren't using it correctly, merely by appending QED trying
>> to pretend that you'd won some sort of argument, whereas in fact you
>> hadn't, so I pointed this out.
>>
> <quote>
> >>>>>> I did NOT say that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, indeed you did not
> >>>>
> >>>> QED
> <end quote>
>
> You agreed with me, so that *is* the correct use.

Not in the context of the subthread, which was about the fantastical
allegations that you did try to claim, not the more reasonable one that
I suggested that you could have claimed but did not, so your application
of QED was incorrect for the context.

And why are you still arguing, when at least ten or a dozen posts ago
you said that you would stop wasting everyone's time like this?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 14/07/2022 10:35, Java Jive wrote:
> On 14/07/2022 09:27, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 14/07/2022 00:07, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2022 21:14, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>> On 13/07/2022 13:01, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 13/07/2022 12:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/07/2022 09:54, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13/07/2022 09:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 13/07/2022 07:36, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at
>>>>>>>>> least choose a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to
>>>>>>>>> fail because that was the only way that they could gain power.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did NOT say that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, indeed you did not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> QED
>>>>>
>>>>> QED that you stated an absurd and impossible conspiracy theory,
>>>>> rather than one that such as the above that at least had some
>>>>> plausibility to it; no-one is surprised that you chose the
>>>>> impossible one.
>>>>>
>>>> You studied maths (or claim to have done) so why do you not
>>>> recognise QED as being the end of a process and not the start of a
>>>> new one?
>>>
>>> Because you weren't using it correctly, merely by appending QED
>>> trying to pretend that you'd won some sort of argument, whereas in
>>> fact you hadn't, so I pointed this out.
>>>
>> <quote>
>>  >>>>>> I did NOT say that.
>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>>> No, indeed you did not
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> QED
>> <end quote>
>>
>> You agreed with me, so that *is* the correct use.
>
> Not in the context of the subthread, which was about the fantastical
> allegations that you did try to claim, not the more reasonable one that
> I suggested that you could have claimed but did not, so your application
> of QED was incorrect for the context.
>
> And why are you still arguing, when at least ten or a dozen posts ago
> you said that you would stop wasting everyone's time like this?
>
Because you ignored the QED, which was a good indicator of termination.
So obviously you don't mind your time being wasted. I don't mind
humouring you in that case.

On 14/07/2022 15:28, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 14/07/2022 10:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Not in the context of the subthread, which was about the fantastical
>> allegations that you did try to claim, not the more reasonable one
>> that I suggested that you could have claimed but did not, so your
>> application of QED was incorrect for the context.
>>
>> And why are you still arguing, when at least ten or a dozen posts ago
>> you said that you would stop wasting everyone's time like this?
>>
> Because you ignored the QED, which was a good indicator of termination.
> So obviously you don't mind your time being wasted. I don't mind
> humouring you in that case.

So in reality you were playing the very game that you accused me of,
trying to get the last word in. Makes no difference, you still lost the
argument, because you never provided any credible *EVIDENCE* for your
fantastical allegations.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 14/07/2022 16:16, Java Jive wrote:
> On 14/07/2022 15:28, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 14/07/2022 10:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> Not in the context of the subthread, which was about the fantastical
>>> allegations that you did try to claim, not the more reasonable one
>>> that I suggested that you could have claimed but did not, so your
>>> application of QED was incorrect for the context.
>>>
>>> And why are you still arguing, when at least ten or a dozen posts ago
>>> you said that you would stop wasting everyone's time like this?
>>>
>> Because you ignored the QED, which was a good indicator of
>> termination. So obviously you don't mind your time being wasted. I
>> don't mind humouring you in that case.
>
> So in reality you were playing the very game that you accused me of,
> trying to get the last word in.  Makes no difference, you still lost the
> argument, because you never provided any credible *EVIDENCE* for your
> fantastical allegations.
>
But that wasn't an argument. I am entitled to my opinion, you are
entitled to disagree with it, but you should nevertheless support my
right to express it.

On 14/07/2022 20:26, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 14/07/2022 16:16, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> So in reality you were playing the very game that you accused me of,
>> trying to get the last word in.

And are still playing it.

>> Makes no difference, you still lost
>> the argument, because you never provided any credible *EVIDENCE* for
>> your fantastical allegations.
>
> But that wasn't an argument.

Call it what you like, you lost it through not being able to provide any
credible *EVIDENCE* for your fantastical allegations.

> I am entitled to my opinion, you are
> entitled to disagree with it, but you should nevertheless support my
> right to express it.

You are not entitled to make claims in public that you cannot substantiate.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 15/07/2022 00:18, Java Jive wrote:
> On 14/07/2022 20:26, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 14/07/2022 16:16, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> So in reality you were playing the very game that you accused me of,
>>> trying to get the last word in.
>
> And are still playing it.
>
>>> Makes no difference, you still lost the argument, because you never
>>> provided any credible *EVIDENCE* for your fantastical allegations.
>>
>> But that wasn't an argument.
>
> Call it what you like, you lost it through not being able to provide any
> credible *EVIDENCE* for your fantastical allegations.
>
>> I am entitled to my opinion, you are entitled to disagree with it, but
>> you should nevertheless support my right to express it.
>
> You are not entitled to make claims in public that you cannot substantiate.
>
Different people may draw opposing conclusions (opinions) even if they
agree on the same set of facts.

Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that opinions cannot be expressed
in public.

On 15/07/2022 10:01, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that opinions cannot be expressed
> in public.

Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions stated in
public cannot be debunked and shown to be untrue.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 15/07/2022 00:18, Java Jive wrote:
> On 14/07/2022 20:26, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 14/07/2022 16:16, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> So in reality you were playing the very game that you accused me of,
>>> trying to get the last word in.
>
> And are still playing it.
>
>>> Makes no difference, you still lost the argument, because you never
>>> provided any credible *EVIDENCE* for your fantastical allegations.
>>
>> But that wasn't an argument.
>
> Call it what you like, you lost it through not being able to provide any
> credible *EVIDENCE* for your fantastical allegations.
>
>> I am entitled to my opinion, you are entitled to disagree with it, but
>> you should nevertheless support my right to express it.
>
> You are not entitled to make claims in public that you cannot substantiate.
>

Please substantiate that claim.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 15/07/2022 00:18, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 14/07/2022 20:26, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 14/07/2022 16:16, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So in reality you were playing the very game that you accused me of,
>>>> trying to get the last word in.
>>
>> And are still playing it.
>>
>>>> Makes no difference, you still lost the argument, because you never
>>>> provided any credible *EVIDENCE* for your fantastical allegations.
>>>
>>> But that wasn't an argument.
>>
>> Call it what you like, you lost it through not being able to provide any
>> credible *EVIDENCE* for your fantastical allegations.
>>
>>> I am entitled to my opinion, you are entitled to disagree with it, but
>>> you should nevertheless support my right to express it.
>>
>> You are not entitled to make claims in public that you cannot substantiate.
>>
>
> Please substantiate that claim.
>

Indeed. It would be the end of faith based religions.

On 15/07/2022 11:30, Tweed wrote:
>
> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 15/07/2022 00:18, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> You are not entitled to make claims in public that you cannot substantiate.
>>
>> Please substantiate that claim.

:-)

> Indeed. It would be the end of faith based religions.

Which would be an excellent result! I can't help wishing that those who
insist on pushing religion into everything would wear their trousers the
same way round as some of them wear their collars, the world would
gradually become a better place.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 15/07/2022 12:31, Java Jive wrote:
> On 15/07/2022 11:30, Tweed wrote:
>>
>> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15/07/2022 00:18, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You are not entitled to make claims in public that you cannot
>>>> substantiate.
>>>
>>> Please substantiate that claim.
>
> :-)

Ah, I had wondered if you've really been engaged in a Sacha Baron
Cohen-style piss-take of censorious fact-checkers like e.g. those who
banished mention of Hunter Biden's laptop.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 15/07/2022 10:24, Java Jive wrote:
> On 15/07/2022 10:01, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that opinions cannot be
>> expressed in public.
>
> Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions stated in
> public cannot be debunked and shown to be untrue.
>
Different people may draw opposing conclusions (opinions) even if they
agree on the same set of facts.

That quote is not mine, it came from the Encarta Encyclopedia of
Quotations, a book I own. You have decided my opinions are false, but
that does not prove that others cannot disagree with you.

Now it is your turn:
Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that opinions different from your
own cannot be expressed in public.

On 15/07/2022 23:26, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> Different people may draw opposing conclusions (opinions) even if they
> agree on the same set of facts.

You haven't provided any facts so [snip crap]

Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions stated in
public cannot be debunked and shown to be untrue.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16/07/2022 00:47, Java Jive wrote:
> On 15/07/2022 23:26, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> Different people may draw opposing conclusions (opinions) even if they
>> agree on the same set of facts.
>
> You haven't provided any facts so [snip crap]
>
> Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions stated in
> public cannot be debunked and shown to be untrue.
>
I asked first.
You are using your normal approach of avoiding things you don't like by
asking a question rather than giving an answer.

So I replace the relevant bits you snipped.

You have decided my opinions are false, but that does not prove that
others cannot disagree with you.

Now it is your turn:
Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that opinions different from your
own cannot be expressed in public.

On 16/07/2022 11:18, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 16/07/2022 00:47, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 15/07/2022 23:26, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> Different people may draw opposing conclusions (opinions) even if
>>> they agree on the same set of facts.
>>
>> You haven't provided any facts so [snip crap]

And still haven't, so there are no facts to disagree on, only your wild
and fantastical claims, so it still remains the case that you have to
prove any of your opinion have the simple merit of truth.

>> Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions stated in
>> public cannot be debunked and shown to be untrue.

> I asked first.

Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Shouldn't you be at school now?

You started this whole idiotic subthread by making fantastical claims
without any provenance, that Remainers were responsible for the failure
of Brexshit, which I then debunked, and the entirety of the rest of it
is just you not being able to accept losing an argument.

> You are using your normal approach of avoiding things you don't like by
> asking a question rather than giving an answer.

No, I'm pointing out that any fantastical claims made without provenance:
Should not be made
If nevertheless they are:
Should be debunked and
Should not be believed.

> Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that opinions different from your
> own cannot be expressed in public.

Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions that are
unwisely and ill-manneredly stated in public cannot be debunked and
shown to be untrue, as has happened here.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Sat, 16 Jul 2022 13:40:30 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>>>> Different people may draw opposing conclusions (opinions) even if
>>>> they agree on the same set of facts.
>>>
>>> You haven't provided any facts so [snip crap]
>
>And still haven't, so there are no facts to disagree on, only your wild
>and fantastical claims, so it still remains the case that you have to
>prove any of your opinion have the simple merit of truth.
>
>>> Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions stated in
>>> public cannot be debunked and shown to be untrue.
>
>> I asked first.
>
>Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Shouldn't you be at school now?

Could somebody direct me to the grownups' newsgroups please?

Rod.

On 16/07/2022 13:44, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2022 13:40:30 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
[Quoting broken Indy Jess John wrote:]
>>>
>>> I asked first.
>>
>> Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Shouldn't you be at school now?
>
> Could somebody direct me to the grownups' newsgroups please?

Quite!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16/07/2022 13:44, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2022 13:40:30 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>

>> Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Shouldn't you be at school now?
>
> Could somebody direct me to the grownups' newsgroups please?
>
> Rod.

Right group, wrong thread. :-)

Try down that way
v v
v v
v v
V

On 16/07/2022 13:40, Java Jive wrote:
> On 16/07/2022 11:18, Indy Jess John wrote:

>> Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that opinions different from
>> your own cannot be expressed in public.
>
> Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions that are
> unwisely and ill-manneredly stated in public cannot be debunked and
> shown to be untrue, as has happened here.
>
You are true to form, I will give you that.

Again you avoid answering a question by asking another. At the moment
the only opinion I have seen that claims to debunk mine is yours. You
are entitled to your opinion. That doesn't prove that I can't have a
different one.

Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that opinions different from
your own cannot be expressed in public.

On 16/07/2022 23:29, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
[snip your attempts to wriggle out of having lost an argument]

Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions that are
unwisely and ill-manneredly stated in public cannot be debunked and
shown to be untrue, as has happened here.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16/07/2022 23:39, Java Jive wrote:
> On 16/07/2022 23:29, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
> [snip your attempts to wriggle out of having lost an argument]
>
> Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions that are
> unwisely and ill-manneredly stated in public cannot be debunked and
> shown to be untrue, as has happened here.
>

<unsnip your snip where you try to pretend you haven't got a question
you can't answer>

You are true to form, I will give you that.

Again you avoid answering a question by asking another. At the moment
the only opinion I have seen that claims to debunk mine is yours. You
are entitled to your opinion. That doesn't prove that I can't have a
different one.

I can provide evidence:
Different people may draw opposing conclusions (opinions) even if they
agree on the same set of facts.
Evidence:
ISBN 0 7475 5065 4 (Hardback, 1319 pages covering 25,000 quotations)

Now it *is* your turn:
Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that opinions different from your
own cannot be expressed in public.

If you don't, then that will be proof that you can't.

On 17/07/2022 09:58, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 16/07/2022 23:39, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions that are
>> unwisely and ill-manneredly stated in public cannot be debunked and
>> shown to be untrue, as has happened here.

STET. Subthread ignored henceforth.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 17/07/2022 12:46, Java Jive wrote:
> On 17/07/2022 09:58, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 16/07/2022 23:39, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions that are
>>> unwisely and ill-manneredly stated in public cannot be debunked and
>>> shown to be untrue, as has happened here.
>
> STET.  Subthread ignored henceforth.
>

<quote>
Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that opinions different from your
own cannot be expressed in public.

If you don't, then that will be proof that you can't.
<end quote>

And you didn't. That is proof enough that you have none.

On Saturday, 2 July 2022 at 12:41:57 UTC+5:30, Jeff Layman wrote:
> Anyone here using the iPlayer app with an Android phone?
>
> The iPlayer app insists on defaulting to using Chrome to sign in (or
> register) on my Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 phone, even though I have Firefox
> set as my default browser. I've tried setting the phone to other default
> browsers, but iPlayer will still only allow me to open it in Chrome. I
> never use Chrome and have removed all permissions from it. If I tap on
> iPlayer's "Privacy" panel on its opening screen instead of signing in,
> it does then open the privacy statement in Firefox, and allow me access
> to all of iPlayer via that page (as I'm apparently already signed in to
> the account). The BBC News app has no privacy panel available so access
> is only via Chrome.
>
> Do others have this issue with iPlayer?
>
> --
>
> Jeff
You can use macros as long as you don't spam them, and don't use any unapproved macros. Don't use anything that gives you an advantage in gameplay like auto clicker macros, but if you have a macro that allows you to say ''gg'' when the game ends that completely fine. https://tgmacro.org/