Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The One on One--The Sidelines

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Adam Went
    replied
    We've witnessed classic Russo again today!
    If you can't win an argument, throw a tantrum and leave....my housemate's 6 year old nephew is more mature than that.

    Cheers,
    Adam.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
    A final point . Anderson was committed to the Unionist cause so I reckon he gave Catholics and Catholisism short shrift!
    Indeed he might have done and political and religious extremists have, do and will no doubt continue to resort to terrorism and start wars. But not everyone who holds strong political or religious views is such an extremist. In fact, very few are, so having strong convictions doesn't mean that you would be predisposed to think they were likely to commit a crime, or would feed the delusions of the mentally ill, or would kill those you with whom you disagree.

    So even if Anderson was strongly anti-Catholic, that doesn't mean he'd have fed the delusions of Supt. Cutbush. That is pure fantasy and without considerable supporting evidence has about as much place in a serious assessment of Anderson's personality as the philosophy of a Hobbit.

    That Anderson was a devout Protestant if, of course, a factor in his personality. That it led him to do bizarre things is not - at least, it isn't until we have supporting evidence.

    Cheers
    Paul

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Paul View Post
    Thanks Natalie. Maybe you are right about A.P., and I did carefully consider your interpretation myself, but, as I've written, a gentle warning about how these disgusting sites use of my words and those of Robert House and others, without any permission, did not take a succession of posts or statements such as 'Perhaps Paul could tell us who shares his extremist views...'

    Anyway, whilst I have no particular interest in discussing things with A.P. anymore, I am interested in hearing other opinions about Anderson which can, I hope, perhaps lead us to a better understanding of the man.
    Thanks Paul and the more points of view the better.
    A final point . Anderson was committed to the Unionist cause so I reckon he gave Catholics and Catholisism short shrift!
    Cheers Paul,
    Natalie

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
    Thanks Paul , How and Stan,
    I was quite pleased we were able to discuss the matter as I clearly misunderstood what was happening,so my apologies.I understand too how,with each of us concentrating on our own issues it was difficult for Paul to address all those issues simultaneously.
    However Paul,I do not think AP was saying what you thought.I really dont, and I have debated with him over other such issues for a number of years now [five] and often been a bit confused about whether he was having a go at me, but I must admit that most often, he was not.
    What I picked up was simply that AP was pointing out that we all have to be careful on the net that such organisations do not have the opportunity to get hold of our words and twist them to suit their own ends, and to me when I read it, it looked like this may have happened.But at no point,at any time, did I consider AP was saying that "you" yourself , were in any way racist etc ,though I can see how very easily his statements could have been misinterpreted that way in text form.Our language depends very much on verbal intonation and a subtle ordering of words ,and when you can"t be face to face with someone in discussions its only too easy to get a different, drift .
    Maybe I am wrong over this but thats how I read it.
    Its very good to see your writing again on this thread Paul and I am glad Stan gets an opportunity to have his take on things properly heard.
    Best Wishes
    Natalie

    Thanks Natalie. Maybe you are right about A.P., and I did carefully consider your interpretation myself, but, as I've written, a gentle warning about how these disgusting sites use of my words and those of Robert House and others, without any permission, did not take a succession of posts or statements such as 'Perhaps Paul could tell us who shares his extremist views...'

    Anyway, whilst I have no particular interest in discussing things with A.P. anymore, I am interested in hearing other opinions about Anderson which can, I hope, perhaps lead us to a better understanding of the man.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by A.P. Wolf View Post
    For clarity I was merely pointing out that extremist groups were using Paul's words to justify their extremist views about the killer being Anderson's Jew.
    This is a truth.
    It was clear at the time that the comments I made were to make Paul aware that his words were indeed being used in a manner that he obviously did not intend, but nonetheless extremists do accept his argument as part of their extremist material.
    I was not accusing Paul of anything, apart from having a blinkered view of history.
    (1) That is not what you wrote. You specifically attributed extremist views to me, writing 'Perhaps Paul could tell us who shares his extremist views...'

    (2) I do not have an 'argument'. Anderson said Jack the Ripper was a Polish Jew and I have investigated that claim. It is Anderson's claim, not mine.

    (3) I am not alone in concluding from your posts that your intention was not a gentle warning about how material of mine was being used, but was an attack on me and as near as you could get to calling me anti-Semitic and white supremacist. It is difficult to interpret your comments differntly when you wrote 'Perhaps Paul could tell us who shares his extremist views...'

    (4) My reason for declining to discuss the subject of Anderson was clearly stated to you. You have since written of petticoats and ego-brushing, and of me being banged into a corner from which I had no escape. I was not banged into any corner. All nonsense efforts to try and hide your disgraceful behaviour.

    (5) Given that you can seriosuly and on no good evidence invest Anderson with anti-Catholic hatred and fantasise about him feeding the anti-Catholic delusions of a mentally ill subordinate, I am not worried by your claim that I have a blinkered view of history.

    (6) So stop twsting things around A.P. You said something, it's there for everyone to see, I have quoted it for you, so at least have the guts to acknowledge it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Thanks Paul , How and Stan,
    I was quite pleased we were able to discuss the matter as I clearly misunderstood what was happening,so my apologies.I understand too how,with each of us concentrating on our own issues it was difficult for Paul to address all those issues simultaneously.
    However Paul,I do not think AP was saying what you thought.I really dont, and I have debated with him over other such issues for a number of years now [five] and often been a bit confused about whether he was having a go at me, but I must admit that most often, he was not.
    What I picked up was simply that AP was pointing out that we all have to be careful on the net that such organisations do not have the opportunity to get hold of our words and twist them to suit their own ends, and to me when I read it, it looked like this may have happened.But at no point,at any time, did I consider AP was saying that "you" yourself , were in any way racist etc ,though I can see how very easily his statements could have been misinterpreted that way in text form.Our language depends very much on verbal intonation and a subtle ordering of words ,and when you can"t be face to face with someone in discussions its only too easy to get a different, drift .
    Maybe I am wrong over this but thats how I read it.
    Its very good to see your writing again on this thread Paul and I am glad Stan gets an opportunity to have his take on things properly heard.
    Best Wishes
    Natalie

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    For clarity I was merely pointing out that extremist groups were using Paul's words to justify their extremist views about the killer being Anderson's Jew.
    This is a truth.
    It was clear at the time that the comments I made were to make Paul aware that his words were indeed being used in a manner that he obviously did not intend, but nonetheless extremists do accept his argument as part of their extremist material.
    I was not accusing Paul of anything, apart from having a blinkered view of history.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
    Well I spent every day for a month or so debating with Paul Begg and a few others, on aspects of Robert Anderson"s statements about his" Polish Jew theory".I couldnt quite understand why I couldnt get to see the thread unless I "signed in"----but now I find I have been "sidelined"-
    Oh Well-like AP ,maybe I"m best outta here!
    Cheers
    Natalie
    I don't think anyone has been sidelined, Natalie.

    The simple fact is that A.P. was maintaining that Anderson was anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, and godness knows what else he could find to smear him with, you made a good case based on Anderson's supposed anti-Parnell writings, and Stan wanted to argue that the identification never took place at all. I felt like one of the movie musketeers fighting off three assailants at the same time, and when this happens it is sometimes difficult to follow the different strands of argument. Then A.P. got into the gutter and started to fling cr*p and I thought the time had come to take a break from the thread. Stan wanted to continue his debate with me and came up with the idea of the one-on-one where two people with opposing points of view could argued their respective cases free of the aformentioned cr*p, silly one-liners, and all the other guffins that can often obscure a sensible debate. It was a fine idea which in some cases could work very well if two people with very strong opinions could duke it out free from diversion - what would such a debate between Feldman and Harris have been like!

    Unfortunately, whilstI can see where that sort of one-on-one could really work, as when Republican and Decomcrat candidates have a head on clash, I have no hard and fast opinions about Anderson and I am ready and able to accept that he was an anti-Semitc elitist if that if what the evidence suggests that he was, and it is the evidence I want. Where I felt the supportive evidence was wrong or questionable, I said so, not with the intention of debate but to elicit evidence.

    So here's no need to leave. When I have calmed down a little I'll return and we can take up the cudgels again.

    Cheers
    Paul

    Leave a comment:


  • Adam Went
    replied
    Hey all,

    How, what about sending a group PM to all members of the forum to give an explanation of the who, what, where, why and when of this new idea? It seems that a lot of people are confused about it and feel left out of issues that they'd like to discuss, so I think a bit of an explanation might be the way to go. Obviously a lot of people have missed the threads about it earlier - with a group PM, everyone will know exactly what the go is. That way, members reaction can also be gauged which will give an idea of how successful this idea will be, and it might attract more members who don't post that frequently. Just a thought - it's never a good thing when an idea is plagued with issues right from the start.

    Cheers,
    Adam.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by A.P. Wolf View Post
    Well, I see all this as being a result of Paul being banged into a corner from which he had no exit. Thereby he has found one.
    The eventual outcome being that I could be offered an exclusive one on one with myself where I could blow hot air out of my asp for the next twenty years or so.
    I know, How, that you gotta brush ego in this business, but hell when petticoats get in the way of honest and open debate then I'm outta 'ere.
    I was not banged into a corner from which I had no escape. You accused me of having racially extremist view - you wrote, 'Perhaps Paul could tell us who shares his extremist views...' - and I take exception to that sort of moronic nonsense and decline to debate further with you. No petticoats, no ego brushing, just a plain and simple refusal to discuss further with someone who resorts to personal attacks of that kind. So get your facts right and stop putting your own peculiar spin on things.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    How,

    I'll take full blame for this thread.

    The problem with what happened on the Anderson up or down thread was that three people were essentially challenging one on a certain aspect of the case, so it was becoming counter-productive and nothing was actually getting done.

    Nats should not feel "sidelined", as the Anderson up or down thread is still open and she has the right to challenge anyone, including Paul, to a debate on Anderson from what interests her.

    With regards to AP's comments about Paul, perhaps you should re-read your own posts, specifically the one where you came as close to possible of accusing Paul of anti-Semitism and or endorsing anti-Semitic remarks. If I were Paul, I would have bowed out of anything more to do with you after that as well.

    I challenged Paul to a debate on this issue for a number of reasons, most notably that I knew our debate would not be volatile and I believe that there is a lot of information out there that we can challenge each other with.

    This may be the worst idea in history, but then again, it may not.

    I'd accept your challenge Nats, although I agree with your assessment of the issue, so it wouldn't be much of a debate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Dear A.P.

    The "One on One" wasn't intended to be a forum, rather a venue for Stan to debate Paul ( and once more, the Anderson Up or Down is still operational and that is an open forum ) based on a request that was made and granted.

    Stan felt that ( and I am not dumping the establishment of the thread in his lap, but giving credit where its due...since I sort of like this diversion to see where it goes ) if he could debate Paul one on one, it might be interesting. Thats all.

    I was not aware of Mr. Begg "pulling stakes" on the Anderson thread permanently....if thats being implied here. I certainly hope not, since that thread was developing very nicely and I had hoped we could segue into other parts of the Anderson saga.

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    Dear How, what does 'forum' mean?

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Dear A.P. & Nats:

    The idea for the "one on one" has nothing to do with the already existing "Anderson Up or Anderson Down" thread.

    The idea, in fact, was Stan's....an idea which I accomodated in the same manner that I would have accomodated one for either of you. There was no motivation to initiate the thread based on anyone else's desires or wishes, nor was it an attempt to limit who would discuss what.

    I'm sorry if either of you or both of you feel "sidelined", when that was not the intent at all on my part. The "Anderson Up or Down" thread is still in operation.

    In addition, anyone who wishes to participate in the "Anderson" thread can do so at any time.

    How

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Well I spent every day for a month or so debating with Paul Begg and a few others, on aspects of Robert Anderson"s statements about his" Polish Jew theory".I couldnt quite understand why I couldnt get to see the thread unless I "signed in"----but now I find I have been "sidelined"-
    Oh Well-like AP ,maybe I"m best outta here!
    Cheers
    Natalie

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X