=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Ian Tomlinson unlawfully killed
Log In to post a reply
86 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

Re: Ian Tomlinson unlawfully killed
May 15, 2011, 12:24
keith a wrote:
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.


Either make your point or don't; but vague slurs help nobody.

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


And what you saw fit to do was either restate your point instead of explain, or tell someone that they had said what they had said. Both actions are pointless and undermine the purpose of a discussion board.

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


No it doesn't. I didn't say that and I don't think that. I said that if you do not have sound reasons for your opinions then expressing them will make you look foolish.

keith a wrote:
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!


There are lots of opinions I disagree with that have foundation. I'm often disagreed with on this board - I think it's even happened in this thread - with foundation.

I was trying to say that you have to give reasons for what you think, as repeating short statements of position without giving reasons - especially when you've been asked to give reasons - makes it appear that you have none.

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


I know that. What I want you to elaborate about is *why* you think that.

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


No I'm not. I said "we can be confident that not one officer arrested a colleague that day despite witnessing repeated criminal assaults. Hundreds of officers, thousands of crimes, no charges brought. This means that they all breached their sworn duty and a huge proportion of them committed crimes themselves. All but one were lucky enough not to kill someone and have it caught on film that went to a lefty media outlet."

I am not referring to all the officers, nor even all the ones who committed assaults. I am referring to all the ones who committed crimes of violence or failure to report assaults but did not get singled out for media scrutiny.

keith a wrote:
once we get into the theoretical medical conditions of every person attending


I didn't mention that at all.

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


I was having a go at you for refusing to give reasons for your stated opinion.

keith a wrote:
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.


It's a discussion board. If you state a position without reason then people who disagree are entitle to expect you to give your reasons, otherwise it's not a discussion.
In reply to:
Re: Ian Tomlinson unlawfully killed (keith a)		 Replies:
Re: Ian Tomlinson unlawfully killed (keith a)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index