Galloway is back

[angrysoba]

Funnily enough, I've read Swift. If you get kicks from pretending you're being amusing to an imaginary audience as you insult other posters, you crack on. But you're no Swift

I never said I was Swift. My point was that there are social conventions in language use which seem to fly way under your radar and you have just proved that again. If you find my posts difficult to comprehend then I would have thought Swift to be way out of your league; but perhaps you are fascinated by his true-life travels in far away lands populated by little people and I shouldn’t destroy your fantasy. As for my imaginary audience I seem to remember that it was you who started using the “dear reader” gambit that I returned back to you. [Aside] Could it be that our jiggerqua is projecting a little, dear reader?[/Aside]

Of course, what you *meant* is clear to you. To imagine it is then clear to someone else suggests an autistic spectrum disorder. By the by, you keep using the word 'irony'. I realise language develops through the common uptake of mistakes, but that word doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.

Now, it's clear that you're not the kind of adult I'd have round my dinner table for conversation, so I'm going to graciously permit you the last word. Let's see if you can manage a post that isn't offensive.

It is indeed gracious of you, though you do say it yourself, to permit me the last word. However I think the lady doth project too much in saying that I am being offensive while calling me autistic.

Well, being Aspergian I give myself a little more leeway in that regard.

It would be graceless of me to say that that really explains a lot, so I won’t but will instead settle with pointing out that you have accused me from the get-go of being offensive, then of playing to an audience and now of being autistic when the whole time you were all three! I mean, I really try hard to avoid clichés like the plague but it is raining pots and kettles around here!

Furthermore, it is the case that that particular 'delusion' (that others will necessarily have access to the contents of your mind) is one of the key indicators of autistic spectrum 'disorders'. The point needed to be made, I'm not sure what makes it a 'cheap' point, but it was made in a post where I'm clearly withdrawing from an exchange that had been cheapened down to a value of approximately zero.

There was no need for you to have access to the contents of my mind to understand what I wrote in plain English. I have even received a PM from another poster who said that what I meant was perfectly clear and we discussed, privately, whether you were trolling or thick.

 

[angrysoba]

Alcohol is such an inherent part of Western culture that I'd really want to know the reason they didn't before making a judgement. If it was because it's not altogether good for you I might think "Fair enough". If it was because they were raving religious nutcases who believe that the Demon Drink is a snare for the spirit, I might think twice about making a cross against their name.

I'm not sure what Galloway's reason is, but his recent comments on the subject certainly seem to place him in the Snare camp.

Given that he's a catholic, when he says he's teetotal and always has been, its probably because he's grown up watching too many people drink themselves into an early grave. /blatant stereotyping of catholics...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

Galloway's opposition to drink is something that he's mentioned many times before. He was on the Frank Skinner show once in which he told the story of how is dad used to show him the drunks coming out of the pubs in their working class town and saying something to the effect that they will never amount to anything because of their drinking habits.

He actually seems genuine on this and on the use of other drugs. On his TalkSport radio show he once tore up some stoned idiot who called in to complain about Galloway's opposition to drugs. Needless to say, the caller came off decidedly second-best (the anecdote about the boxer is the best bit! ):



I don't think anyone needs to explain themselves if they say they don't drink whether it be a "Western culture" thing or not. But Galloway has done several times on this, if not much else, his stance is laudable enough.

 

[Skepticemea]

Likes a cigar though.

 

[Toontown]

Do you think there is anyone active in this thread who actually voted for Gorgeous George?

Anyway, the way you're going about it would drive any normal person into doing exactly that, even if he hadn't originally intended to.

Rolfe.

Go for it. I'll just laugh at you as you circle the drain.

If you will go Galloway that easily, then you richly deserve to be ruled by his ilk.

 

[jiggeryqua]

What a shame your last word couldn't be gracious. I'll give you another go.

I never said I was Swift. My point was that there are social conventions in language use which seem to fly way under your radar and you have just proved that again. If you find my posts difficult to comprehend then I would have thought Swift to be way out of your league; but perhaps you are fascinated by his true-life travels in far away lands populated by little people and I shouldn’t destroy your fantasy. As for my imaginary audience I seem to remember that it was you who started using the “dear reader” gambit that I returned back to you. [Aside] Could it be that our jiggerqua is projecting a little, dear reader?[/Aside]

You certainly used Swift in comparison to your own writing. Your point is moot. We've thrashed it to death. I responded to your clear statement that Galloway voters (56% of the electorate in his constituency) were paranoid and juvenile. We've discussed your ludicrous assertion that anyone commenting on anything you say should have read everything you've ever written. Even the context you provided didn't help. You've been reduced to insulting me rather than defending your position.

I only introduced 'dear reader' in response to your grandstanding to an audience. Anybody who cares (ie nobody) can scroll back and check that out.

It is indeed gracious of you, though you do say it yourself, to permit me the last word. However I think the lady doth project too much in saying that I am being offensive while calling me autistic.

Oh dear. I am autistic (at least, I'm on the spectrum, it's a catch-all term). Several posters here are. Do try to understand that I am not offended by the label, nor would I use it as a term of offence. Why would I be 'offended'? A homosexual wouldn't be offended if you said they were homosexual, though they might be if you said they were a raging poofter. I am not offended by 'autistic', but I have been by your patronising tone and personal insults that replace actual argument. If you are offended by the identification of autistic traits in yourself, then that offends me and all other autists. I know it's hard trying to keep up with political correctness, but autistics are a class of the set 'people'.

It would be graceless of me to say that that really explains a lot, so I won’t but will instead settle with pointing out that you have accused me from the get-go of being offensive, then of playing to an audience and now of being autistic when the whole time you were all three! I mean, I really try hard to avoid clichés like the plague but it is raining pots and kettles around here!

'From the get go' I asked you if you really thought 56% of Galloway's electorate were paranoid and juvenile. From the get go, you substituted offensive personal attack for actual argument. Eventually, you endeavoured to explain yourself with a tenuous interpetation of something else you posted.

There was no need for you to have access to the contents of my mind to understand what I wrote in plain English.

What you wrote in plain english was that galloway's supporters were paranoid and juvenile. You've written in less than plain english, since then, that you 'clearly' didn't think they were juvenile. No word on the 'paranoid' thing.

I have even received a PM from another poster who said that what I meant was perfectly clear and we discussed, privately, whether you were trolling or thick.

You're got a friend. Woot. And between you, you've cooked up a false dichotomy. Bravo.

I'm popping you on ignore now luvvie, ok?

 

[Toontown]

Freedom is austerity measures and riots?

I had no idea. BTW, I was being sarcastic when I said it's all the Americans' fault. Perhaps you are insufficiently versed in ingrained European habits. To them, everything is America's fault.

Lumping the UK in with europe in a cultural sense suggests that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Your beliefs about "europe in a cultural sense" have no bearing on the fact that the internets crawl with obsessively dedicated and relentless British Amerika-bashers. Many of whom appear deranged, I'll admit.

 

[Skepticemea]

Isn't it lovely when we all play nice?

Anyone want to hazard a guess at the number of times Galloway will be in The Commons in 2013? I know it's a long-term punt, but there'll be a prize.

Here are the rules, you're allowed any number between 0 and 10.

 

[richardm]

Galloway was on the 10 o'clock show with David Mitchell last night

Yes he was, wasn't he? Do you recall what a fuss he was making when one of the other MPs made a comment about the expenses scandal?

I wouldn't go on about expenses if I were you ... my expenses were zero, nothing, not a penny

- when MP2 said that this was "absolute nonsense", Galloway responded

You'll be hearing from my solicitor!

I wonder if he bothered making the call to his solicitor? I'm guessing not, because this sort of hit-and-run rhetoric - making claims that sound memorable but can't easily be refuted on the spot - are typical of his game. That's one reason; the other reason is:

Mr Galloway turned up for just five per cent of votes, spoke in only four debates and submitted just three questions to Ministers. Despite this he claimed a total of £136,390 in expenses last year [2008], including office and staffing.

This made him the MP who was least value for money across the whole of parliament.


I also liked his parting shot "I'll see you in the car park afterwards". What a charmer.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Isn't it lovely when we all play nice?

Anyone want to hazard a guess at the number of times Galloway will be in The Commons in 2013? I know it's a long-term punt, but there'll be a prize.

Here are the rules, you're allowed any number between 0 and 10.

I'm tempted to take that bet, but I think it might be more fun to gamble on whether he'll make more Commons' appearances than Gordon Brown.

 

[zooterkin]

Isn't it lovely when we all play nice?

Anyone want to hazard a guess at the number of times Galloway will be in The Commons in 2013? I know it's a long-term punt, but there'll be a prize.

Here are the rules, you're allowed any number between 0 and 10.

Well, he was on Newsnight the other day (though I couldn't bear to pay too close attention to him), and when Paxo made a comment about his previous attendance in the Commons, he claimed that he had a very good attendance record, but that he just didn't vote very often (something about not having any choice about which way you could vote due to the whip system, so it was better to abstain, I think).

 

[Skepticemea]

George's voting record here:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/george_galloway/bradford_west

 

[angrysoba]

Now, it's clear that you're not the kind of adult I'd have round my dinner table for conversation, so I'm going to graciously permit you the last word. Let's see if you can manage a post that isn't offensive.

What a shame your last word couldn't be gracious. I'll give you another go.

It's a shame you couldn't stick to your word. I suppose that is one reason why it is for others to decide if someone is graceful rather than the person proudly declaring themself that way.

You certainly used Swift in comparison to your own writing. Your point is moot. We've thrashed it to death. I responded to your clear statement that Galloway voters (56% of the electorate in his constituency) were paranoid and juvenile. We've discussed your ludicrous assertion that anyone commenting on anything you say should have read everything you've ever written. Even the context you provided didn't help. You've been reduced to insulting me rather than defending your position.

Could you please find the place where I asserted "anyone commenting on anything you say should have read everything you've ever written". I never made any such comment but I would appreciate if you could at least read the whole post! Is that too much to ask?

I only introduced 'dear reader' in response to your grandstanding to an audience. Anybody who cares (ie nobody) can scroll back and check that out.

Whatever you say...

Oh dear. I am autistic (at least, I'm on the spectrum, it's a catch-all term). Several posters here are. Do try to understand that I am not offended by the label, nor would I use it as a term of offence. Why would I be 'offended'? A homosexual wouldn't be offended if you said they were homosexual, though they might be if you said they were a raging poofter. I am not offended by 'autistic', but I have been by your patronising tone and personal insults that replace actual argument. If you are offended by the identification of autistic traits in yourself, then that offends me and all other autists. I know it's hard trying to keep up with political correctness, but autistics are a class of the set 'people'.

So you were offering me a friendly diagnosis over the internet, were you? And where on the autistic spectrum would you place me?

'From the get go' I asked you if you really thought 56% of Galloway's electorate were paranoid and juvenile. From the get go, you substituted offensive personal attack for actual argument. Eventually, you endeavoured to explain yourself with a tenuous interpetation of something else you posted.

What you wrote in plain english was that galloway's supporters were paranoid and juvenile. You've written in less than plain english, since then, that you 'clearly' didn't think they were juvenile. No word on the 'paranoid' thing.

No, I explained that the UK wasn't about to go Nazi and only paranoid and juvenile people would think so. My "even more paranoid and juvenile" was an obvious dig at the "crap-your-pants!" brigade. If you can't see that you never will. Nevermind.

You're got a friend. Woot. And between you, you've cooked up a false dichotomy. Bravo.

A false dichotomy. Well, indeed, my correspondent did suggest that you could well be both thick and a troll.

I'm popping you on ignore now luvvie, ok?

You'll be missed!

 

[angrysoba]

George's voting record here:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/george_galloway/bradford_west

According to the link to his "maiden speech" (29 Jun 1987), George Galloway was terse:

The hon. and learned Member appears to have lunched rather well.

Only one line and yet pure Galloway!

 

[JihadJane]

Alcohol is such an inherent part of Western culture that I'd really want to know the reason they didn't before making a judgement. If it was because it's not altogether good for you I might think "Fair enough". If it was because they were raving religious nutcases who believe that the Demon Drink is a snare for the spirit, I might think twice about making a cross against their name.

I'm not sure what Galloway's reason is, but his recent comments on the subject certainly seem to place him in the Snare camp.

He's appealing to voters. That's what politicians do.

Not sure I understand the comparison. Would you trust people who don't drink coffee (or smoke crystal meth) more than those who do?

Perhaps thinking about the different effects that these drugs have might bring some understanding.

Well, being Aspergian I give myself a little more leeway in that regard. Furthermore, it is the case that that particular 'delusion' (that others will necessarily have access to the contents of your mind) is one of the key indicators of autistic spectrum 'disorders'. The point needed to be made, I'm not sure what makes it a 'cheap' point, but it was made in a post where I'm clearly withdrawing from an exchange that had been cheapened down to a value of approximately zero.

I called your point cheap because it takes very little intellectual effort to put someone down by comparing them to people on the autism spectrum.

This made him the MP who was least value for money across the whole of parliament.

That depends on what you value. Being one of the few MPs to raise his voice against the then imminent terror, slaughter and plunder in Iraq makes him extremely valuable.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes he was, wasn't he? Do you recall what a fuss he was making when one of the other MPs made a comment about the expenses scandal?

- when MP2 said that this was "absolute nonsense", Galloway responded

I wonder if he bothered making the call to his solicitor? I'm guessing not, because this sort of hit-and-run rhetoric - making claims that sound memorable but can't easily be refuted on the spot - are typical of his game. That's one reason; the other reason is:


This made him the MP who was least value for money across the whole of parliament.

I also liked his parting shot "I'll see you in the car park afterwards". What a charmer.

This is the video:

 

[angrysoba]

Well, he was on Newsnight the other day (though I couldn't bear to pay too close attention to him), and when Paxo made a comment about his previous attendance in the Commons, he claimed that he had a very good attendance record, but that he just didn't vote very often (something about not having any choice about which way you could vote due to the whip system, so it was better to abstain, I think).

Yeah, he was saying that you can either vote for the Government's bills or for the Opposition's amendments so a vote by him in Parliament would make no difference.

Anyway, here's Paxman and Galloway. And Paxman brings up the question of why Galloway was suggesting that he was a better Muslim than his Labour opponent.



This is the full one. Funny sneering at Miliband by Paxman at the beginning:

 

[Virus]

If he stood in my constituency I'd vote for him.

What do you like most about his platform? Is it his pro-Islamic terrorist stance or his commitment to blood-soaked sadists and tyrants?

 

[Pardalis]

I'm not a Muslim but trust people who don't use alcohol (or use heroin) more than those who do.

You mustn't have many friends.

 

[Cleon]

What do you like most about his platform? Is it his pro-Islamic terrorist stance or his commitment to blood-soaked sadists and tyrants?

For me, it's really all about his pro-baby-eating policies.

 

[Pardalis]

Likes a cigar though.

And he obviously likes sex outside of marriage, not very Muslim-like.