On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 10:02:35 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 20:58:32 UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 20:28:54 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 8:23:22 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Monday, 13 April 2015 21:10:06 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:

Next time, think a little of the consequences before descending from your tree. It will help you greatly.

If ever I descend from a tree it will be as a vast and terrifying eagle that will pick you up and fly you to the land of Middle Earth. There I will drop you amongst your fellow trolls. You'll be home at last.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Oh dear. You now appear to be incapable of facing up to the question you have provoked and you are now trying anything to deflect and escape in whatever way you can. I'll repeat:

It was a highly discriminatory statement from larry, with which you've agreed. wasn't it?



Incapable of answering the question? How about if I try my question again. What is your PC term for calling individual who have chosen to consume alcohol all day long?


You won't answer, you never do. .

No answer and no more from me; you're a time-waster, probably the least of the highly undesirable facets of your personality that you have brought to this group. You have contributed nothing; your meteorological knowledge is that of a mere dilletante despite your pompous bullying attempts to persuade us otherwise. Get over whatever it is that has turned you into such a poisonous presence and try and learn some meteorology. Be thankful you haven't been beaten up. Above all go away and stay away.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Love the way that, in the end, you run away from the issue and all you have is abuse. An argument is always lost when that happens. However, the question you are attempting, desperately to avoid. is this:

'methers' *It was a highly discriminatory statement from larry, with which you've agreed. wasn't it?*

Why do you now find it so difficult to answer? It's because the answer would embarrass you and I've been spot on all the way through to highlight yours and larry's clear and impossible to justify, discrimination? I will continue to do such and no amount of threats, abuse and attempts at bullying from people like you will stop that.

When people say interesting things about the weather, I'll reply very differently - as I *always* do.

In article ,
says...
'methers' *It was a highly discriminatory statement from larry, with which you've agreed. wasn't it?*


I certainly wouldn't agree with it. Derogatory, yes, but highly
discriminatory? No, not even close.

If you describe 'Methers' as being 'highly discriminatory', how would
you describe the N* word?


It's like the word pedophile, which thanks to the Judicial system,
politicians and the press, now encompasses post-pubescent children
within its range of victims, thus mitigating the seriousness of the true
pre-pubescent pedophile. Social stupidity on a grand scale.


Highly discriminatory? Only because it suits your agenda of the moment.
Methers would be quite low on any list of pc-incorrect words, no matter
what the criteria.

--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 2:30:42 PM UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...
'methers' *It was a highly discriminatory statement from larry, with which you've agreed. wasn't it?*


I certainly wouldn't agree with it. Derogatory, yes, but highly
discriminatory? No, not even close.

Your opinion.

If you describe 'Methers' as being 'highly discriminatory', how would
you describe the N* word?

Highly discriminatory. They are both appalling to the receiver.

It's like the word pedophile,

No it is not, no matter how you feel about it.

which thanks to the Judicial system,
politicians and the press, now encompasses post-pubescent children
within its range of victims, thus mitigating the seriousness of the true
pre-pubescent pedophile. Social stupidity on a grand scale.

Rubbish and your opinion again.

Highly discriminatory? Only because it suits your agenda of the moment.
Methers would be quite low on any list of pc-incorrect words, no matter
what the criteria.

Try being one of the people in larry's park. You'd deserve all you got if you called any of them by that term. You have absolutely no idea of their problems, or addictions, if indeed they have any. Neither does larry, but like him, you are prepared to tar people you don't know with whatever brush comes to hand.

Vile, really.

Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 2:30:42 PM UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...
'methers' *It was a highly discriminatory statement from larry, with which you've agreed. wasn't it?*


I certainly wouldn't agree with it. Derogatory, yes, but highly
discriminatory? No, not even close.

Your opinion.

Err. Yep. Well done for spotting that. It is indeed my opinion. Posted
as a counter to /your/ opinion.

That's how it works isn't it?

Or (are you of the opinion / is it a fact), that you only deal in
'facts' and people who don't agree with you have 'opinions?



If you describe 'Methers' as being 'highly discriminatory', how would
you describe the N* word?

Highly discriminatory. They are both appalling to the receiver.

You are of the opinion that both groups would, respectively, be equally
offended. You are well wrong with that!

How about the word 'Ginger'? Is that equally highly discriminatory?

If all discriminatory words and terms are highly discriminatory then the
prefix is not needed surely? We just need to say that it is
discriminatory.

Or perhaps you would like to venture forth some discriminatory words or
terms that you don't consider to be 'highly' discriminatory. Maybe you
would care to share with us how you would differentiate a discriminatory
term from a derogatory one?

Or perhaps it's just easier to quote the whole post and plop an
'Idiot!' on the end.


It's like the word pedophile,

No it is not, no matter how you feel about it.

which thanks to the Judicial system,
politicians and the press, now encompasses post-pubescent children
within its range of victims, thus mitigating the seriousness of the true
pre-pubescent pedophile. Social stupidity on a grand scale.

Rubbish and your opinion again.

Well I thank you for your considered rebuttal, however I find myself
unable to parse anything useful from it whatsoever.

Which bit is rubbish? That the term now encompasses pre and post
pubescent children as a result of misuse by authority or that it always
has done.

Or that it doesn't really matter whether the victims are pre or post
pubescent?

Is it just your opinion that it is rubbish or is that a fact?



Highly discriminatory? Only because it suits your agenda of the moment.
Methers would be quite low on any list of pc-incorrect words, no matter
what the criteria.

Try being one of the people in larry's park. You'd deserve all you got if you called any of them by that term. You have absolutely no idea of their problems, or addictions, if indeed they have any. Neither does larry, but like him, you are prepared to tar people you don't know with whatever brush comes to hand.

Vile, really.

Unlike you, I live amongst people like that.

I have a neighbour who has had human and dog excrement and lit
cigarettes put through her letterbox for complaining about drug abuse
(cannabis) in the stairwell. That is deserving of the label 'vile' but
you insist on diluting the term with your melodramatics. Just as you
dilute the term 'highly discriminatory' and the way you appear to
welcome the dilution of the term 'pedophile'.


Try and keep things in perspective.



--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 5:01:08 PM UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 2:30:42 PM UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...
'methers' *It was a highly discriminatory statement from larry, with which you've agreed. wasn't it?*


I certainly wouldn't agree with it. Derogatory, yes, but highly
discriminatory? No, not even close.

Your opinion.

Err. Yep. Well done for spotting that. It is indeed my opinion. Posted
as a counter to /your/ opinion.

That's how it works isn't it?

Or (are you of the opinion / is it a fact), that you only deal in
'facts' and people who don't agree with you have 'opinions?



If you describe 'Methers' as being 'highly discriminatory', how would
you describe the N* word?

Highly discriminatory. They are both appalling to the receiver.

You are of the opinion that both groups would, respectively, be equally
offended. You are well wrong with that!

How about the word 'Ginger'? Is that equally highly discriminatory?

If all discriminatory words and terms are highly discriminatory then the
prefix is not needed surely? We just need to say that it is
discriminatory.

Or perhaps you would like to venture forth some discriminatory words or
terms that you don't consider to be 'highly' discriminatory. Maybe you
would care to share with us how you would differentiate a discriminatory
term from a derogatory one?

Or perhaps it's just easier to quote the whole post and plop an
'Idiot!' on the end.


It's like the word pedophile,

No it is not, no matter how you feel about it.

which thanks to the Judicial system,
politicians and the press, now encompasses post-pubescent children
within its range of victims, thus mitigating the seriousness of the true
pre-pubescent pedophile. Social stupidity on a grand scale.

Rubbish and your opinion again.

Well I thank you for your considered rebuttal, however I find myself
unable to parse anything useful from it whatsoever.

Which bit is rubbish? That the term now encompasses pre and post
pubescent children as a result of misuse by authority or that it always
has done.

Or that it doesn't really matter whether the victims are pre or post
pubescent?

Is it just your opinion that it is rubbish or is that a fact?



Highly discriminatory? Only because it suits your agenda of the moment.
Methers would be quite low on any list of pc-incorrect words, no matter
what the criteria.

Try being one of the people in larry's park. You'd deserve all you got if you called any of them by that term. You have absolutely no idea of their problems, or addictions, if indeed they have any. Neither does larry, but like him, you are prepared to tar people you don't know with whatever brush comes to hand.

Vile, really.

Unlike you, I live amongst people like that.

I have a neighbour who has had human and dog excrement and lit
cigarettes put through her letterbox for complaining about drug abuse
(cannabis) in the stairwell. That is deserving of the label 'vile' but
you insist on diluting the term with your melodramatics. Just as you
dilute the term 'highly discriminatory' and the way you appear to
welcome the dilution of the term 'pedophile'.


Try and keep things in perspective.



--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

You can say exactly what you want about it, as you have the right to your opinion, which I would defend your right to have. Mine is different and I find the term highly discriminatory. Your knowledge about discrimination is clearly limited, however. I'm sure the people in the park would agree with me and not you and it matters nought what you think; it is how discrimination feels to those discriminated against.

On Wednesday, 15 April 2015 14:49:25 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 2:30:42 PM UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...
'methers' *It was a highly discriminatory statement from larry, with which you've agreed. wasn't it?*


I certainly wouldn't agree with it. Derogatory, yes, but highly
discriminatory? No, not even close.

Your opinion.

If you describe 'Methers' as being 'highly discriminatory', how would
you describe the N* word?

Highly discriminatory. They are both appalling to the receiver.

It's like the word pedophile,

No it is not, no matter how you feel about it.

which thanks to the Judicial system,
politicians and the press, now encompasses post-pubescent children
within its range of victims, thus mitigating the seriousness of the true
pre-pubescent pedophile. Social stupidity on a grand scale.

Rubbish and your opinion again.

Highly discriminatory? Only because it suits your agenda of the moment.
Methers would be quite low on any list of pc-incorrect words, no matter
what the criteria.

Try being one of the people in larry's park. You'd deserve all you got if you called any of them by that term. You have absolutely no idea of their problems, or addictions, if indeed they have any. Neither does larry, but like him, you are prepared to tar people you don't know with whatever brush comes to hand.

Vile, really.

Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

The early dusk December/November evening I walked through the park and saw the mess they left I did call them that to their faces. I called '**** artists who take benefits and people like me who never dump their rubbish have to work and pay taxes to keep people like them in booze. People need to be told what they are sometimes especially by those that fund them. Lets face laughing boy you never hesitate to tell people they are 'idiots', do you. Difference is I will do it face to face- unlike you.

I would also say that I derived no enjoyment from having to spell out some home truths to this particular group and do you know what they were as nice as pie with me when I saw them again , clearing up their rubbish, a small price to pay for being s a state funded drunk.
As I drive to work every day and through the streets of SE London, Croydon, Sutton and Hackbridge I constantly see working people as well, let alone those on state benefits dump their 'Morley's chicken', 'McDonalds' and other junk willy nilly on the streets, Mitcham common and practically anywhere I walk or drive.

These people need to be publicly called the anti social pigs that they are and shamed. In the case of those that don't work and give nothing back to system , its the least they can do. I have a sister with two adult daughters who have never worked out of choice. They are not at the 'dosser' stage but they have never worked. But what a strange world where to state a fact of truth is seen to be a righ-wing lie

Now with you Garvey you have fled to a affluent part of the country to escape such things. There is nothing stopping your left charitable yearnings and go and live say in Thornton Heath, no one is stopping you. At least Piers who lives in Camberwell/Walworth puts his money you know where.

But once again I ask you: what do you call someone who drinks meths?

So far I've asked twice and now is the third time. Stop running away/

On Wednesday, 15 April 2015 17:43:06 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 5:01:08 PM UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 2:30:42 PM UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...
'methers' *It was a highly discriminatory statement from larry, with which you've agreed. wasn't it?*


I certainly wouldn't agree with it. Derogatory, yes, but highly
discriminatory? No, not even close.

Your opinion.

Err. Yep. Well done for spotting that. It is indeed my opinion. Posted
as a counter to /your/ opinion.

That's how it works isn't it?

Or (are you of the opinion / is it a fact), that you only deal in
'facts' and people who don't agree with you have 'opinions?



If you describe 'Methers' as being 'highly discriminatory', how would
you describe the N* word?

Highly discriminatory. They are both appalling to the receiver.

You are of the opinion that both groups would, respectively, be equally
offended. You are well wrong with that!

How about the word 'Ginger'? Is that equally highly discriminatory?

If all discriminatory words and terms are highly discriminatory then the
prefix is not needed surely? We just need to say that it is
discriminatory.

Or perhaps you would like to venture forth some discriminatory words or
terms that you don't consider to be 'highly' discriminatory. Maybe you
would care to share with us how you would differentiate a discriminatory
term from a derogatory one?

Or perhaps it's just easier to quote the whole post and plop an
'Idiot!' on the end.


It's like the word pedophile,

No it is not, no matter how you feel about it.

which thanks to the Judicial system,
politicians and the press, now encompasses post-pubescent children
within its range of victims, thus mitigating the seriousness of the true
pre-pubescent pedophile. Social stupidity on a grand scale.

Rubbish and your opinion again.

Well I thank you for your considered rebuttal, however I find myself
unable to parse anything useful from it whatsoever.

Which bit is rubbish? That the term now encompasses pre and post
pubescent children as a result of misuse by authority or that it always
has done.

Or that it doesn't really matter whether the victims are pre or post
pubescent?

Is it just your opinion that it is rubbish or is that a fact?



Highly discriminatory? Only because it suits your agenda of the moment.
Methers would be quite low on any list of pc-incorrect words, no matter
what the criteria.

Try being one of the people in larry's park. You'd deserve all you got if you called any of them by that term. You have absolutely no idea of their problems, or addictions, if indeed they have any. Neither does larry, but like him, you are prepared to tar people you don't know with whatever brush comes to hand.

Vile, really.

Unlike you, I live amongst people like that.

I have a neighbour who has had human and dog excrement and lit
cigarettes put through her letterbox for complaining about drug abuse
(cannabis) in the stairwell. That is deserving of the label 'vile' but
you insist on diluting the term with your melodramatics. Just as you
dilute the term 'highly discriminatory' and the way you appear to
welcome the dilution of the term 'pedophile'.


Try and keep things in perspective.



--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

You can say exactly what you want about it, as you have the right to your opinion, which I would defend your right to have. Mine is different and I find the term highly discriminatory. Your knowledge about discrimination is clearly limited, however. I'm sure the people in the park would agree with me and not you and it matters nought what you think; it is how discrimination feels to those discriminated against.



"Your knowledge about discrimination is clearly limited"

Say the man who calls everyone that disagrees with him an idiot.

I mean "Your knowledge about discrimination is clearly limited", is loaded with vile, vain, triumphant words.

In article ,
says...
"Your knowledge about discrimination is clearly limited"

Say the man who calls everyone that disagrees with him an idiot.

I mean "Your knowledge about discrimination is clearly limited", is loaded with vile, vain, triumphant words.


It was simply a cop out so that he didn't have to answer any of the
points I raised.

I'm done.

--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

You lead a poor life larry. Ever thought of helping these people, instead of castigating them and hating them?

I addressed all your points lehun. Your difficulty is in answering mine. In the end all you've done is expressed your opinion. What you've failed to do is to recognise that discrimination is in the eye of the discriminated against. Not in the opinion of anyone else - including you.