Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

You said what i said was crass. You were invited to elaborate and responded that it was sick. I asked you to elaborate and you gave a dictionary definition of 'crass'. My problem, as I suspect you realise, is not that I don't understand what your word means; it's that I don't see why it applies.

You said it was not 'rational', and when asked to explain you chose instead to say 'there is no point carrying on this conversation'. That is, in itself, carrying on the conversation; it would have been a matter of seconds more to have said what your problem actually is.

Rhiannon pointed out that this is a discussion board and asked if you would respond as it had been presented logically. You acknowledged the logical point and still - having been asked four or five times do do so - refused to elaborate.

By raising points and not explaining them, you're not actually discussing anything. To merely repeat or paraphrase yourself doesn't help anyone understand your point or agree with you, and so negates the purpose of saying anything in the first place. But that is still more communicative than - as you've done more than once on this thread - telling people that what they've said is what they've said, which as a response is something akin to barking.

The purpose of discussion boards is to set out points so that we disabuse one another of misunderstandings and falsehoods. Even if someone's own position is too cherished to be relinquished, it's a public forum with far more reading than participating, so if you're right then you can persuade the reasonable independent third party of your view.

Coming on and going 'bad!' then when being asked why you think that saying 'bad!' again doesn't convince anyone of anything, except that you are unwilling or incapable of giving your reasons. It makes your perspective look unfounded and actually serves to reinforce the position you oppose.

If there are sound reasons for what you think on an issue being discussed, let's hear them. If there are not, and you wish to avoid appearing foolish, then perhaps it's better not to post anything on that topic.

But are you not willfully misinterpreting? You are happy to quote the 'all but one of them...' but you miss out the previous bit of Merrick's post, which was about 'hundreds of officers' (which he'd seen because he was there). That's not ALL the officers that were there is it? But that's the premise you've been using. If you're offended because of the 'all'... it's not even the all you're making it out to be in your posts??

Not sure what your point is seeing as it says "Sgt Andrews was reported by a female police officer".

Sorry missed this post.. Well I'm pointing out that the original assault goes off like business as usual totally ignored by any of the other officers in the room..
Regarding the "Sgt Andrews was reported by a female police officer" I see that simply as the female officer covering her own back later after she finds out that the assault later led to the victim laying knocked out on the cell floor to protect her own position if there were further repercussions, if not then why did nobody step in, including the snitch, before Sgt Andrews reached the cell to deliver what he considers justice?

I've no idea. I was dealing with facts not hypotheses.

You’ve also got this use of ‘all’

Merrick wrote:
How his colleagues don't react at all, indicating they had all done similar things dozens of times that day.

First of all let me just say I've re-read all the entries after reading your message and not all of what you say above is strictly factual if you want to re-read them yourself.

I was expressing an opinion that I thought what you had written was crass. I replied as I saw fit.

If disagreeing with you means I look foolish in your eyes, so be it.

I don't really see how you can write "It makes your perspective look unfounded and actually serves to reinforce the position you oppose." I'm opposing you so of course you think my perspective look unfounded. Doh!

What do you want me to elaborate about? I think the sentence "All but one were lucky enough not to kill someone" was crass.

You're saying every single police officer who was on duty there that day was 'lucky' they didn't kill someone.

once we get into the theoretical medical conditions of every person attending

And please don't have a go at me about repeating myself.

Rhiannon gave her explanation about it but just because she argued it logically doesn't mean I have to agree with her / you or conversely that I had to get into some big argument with her.