hypochondriac

An awful lot of people have questioned your reasoning and the content of your posts in this thread alone. You forgot whelk, Window Cleaner, Griffo, Orange, Verbal Kint and Lighthouse. Probably more but I didn't look too hard.

So are we assuming that everyone who has viewed this thread agrees with you now? Odd assumption.

1) So again falsehoods dressed up as something else in hindsight. 2) So where is the evidence of someone using stats to try and prove that we were at risk from ALL Muslims in this country? Where do the stats show what you claim? 3) Sadly not. It's clear to anyone with eyes and a computer. 4) Where is this post that shows that ALL Muslims are a threat? Even if the stats were presented as you claim and show a bias against Muslims, I have still found no evidence to show that someone was using stats to prove that we are at risk from all Muslims in this country. You have been unable to show this thus far. 5) You still haven't show any evidence for this. 6) See above. 7) See above. well you were asked to find it at the time and you refused to do so. You still refuse to do so now. The conclusion that can be drawn here is that no such posts exists. 9) Unless you want to explain how any of those posts support what you have said? 10) Fair enough but seeing as you replied to Sour Mash in that post I would have thought it was obvious who you were talking to. 11) Well you haven't been able to prove that you can answer the question. 12) Still unable to show me any evidence for your claim. 13) Until you can provide evidence then you have clearly made up that posters were using stats to prove that all Muslims were a threat.

Ok then: 1) Good to know that from now on when you state that something is untrue you will subsequently say you were exaggerating to make a point. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there at any rate. No one was suggesting we kill all Muslims so it's a pointless thing to say. 2) Yes but again no one said that ALL you should do is kill. That's an example of you creating things to fit your argument. As was pointed out at the time. the killing part was in tandem with other measures but we don't need to go through that again. 3) I said with IS in their current form you have to use aggression and force and then afterwards along with a coalition of Middle Eastern partners seek a peaceful resolution. I said it many times, it appears you are wilfully misrepresenting what I said. 4) Not sure what you mean by "kill them all." I stand by what I said in the previous answer. 5) A possible response from whom? Some imagined fascist from here that only you can see? That's why you get accused with arguing with yourself. 6) You were being ridiculed for making things up, posing answers to questions that you have said yourself that no one else has answered in that manner (see previous question) and taking an idealistic view on IS that many people found to be naive and unrealistic (and when you were asked for a workable alternative you said it wasn't for you to provide any answers.) It had nothing at all to do with a very obvious reaction that you a sick of killing on both sides, a view that everyone in the thread shares. 7) You didn't make anything up there I just used it to highlight how you frequently try to take the moral high ground without thinking things through (and then in this case just ignore it entirely). You posed it as a question that suggested it was a single person on a message board who said it. Clearly that was not the case here so either you were ignorant of the fact that it is not just one individual saying it on a messageboard or you were doing it deliberately. 9) It was obvious at the time (and obvious now) that people were referring to the situation in the present day, no one was talking about the crusades or suggesting that Christianity has not had its share of past violence. 10) Again it's just a lie not hyperbole at all. What point are you trying to make here again? 11) You were arguing with yourself again and saying obvious things that no one disagreed with. 12) It's there. 13) it's there. 14) I doubt it. 15) So you don't think that Islam has a problem within its religion with extremists despite Imams and others saying that they do? 16) It's there. 17) You do it frequently. The suggestion from your post is that people were suggesting that most Muslims do want to kill us, otherwise why post it? 18) Of course he is but I was talking about falsehoods from the thread not just talking about the times you have made things up where I have been involved. Presumably you thought that is what he thought when everyone else could see that was not the case. Why do you keep posing these questions that no one thinks? 19) The implication of your statement is that someone is arguing that it is exclusive to Muslims. No one said it was so why state it?

It was clear to a number of posters. Going back it's also clear that a lot of people pulled you up on it at the time.

It's quite simple to see the posts, if you are on a PC you can click on the little arrow next to them. To make it easier I've just done the first 13 pages before I got bored. It's clear from the above list that you have invented things that people have said in order to try to support your argument.

No one said that. No one was using stats to try and prove that we are at risk from all Muslims in this country. When you were asked for evidence of this claim you ignore it and then said you had already answered it. You hadn't and you still haven't. That's pretty amusing considering the evidence above. You still haven't shown a post that suggests that. Erm nope. See above. See above. (in a post asking where someone has used stats to prove that all Muslims are a threat) no evidence of this post above exists. And just for some balance... Looked through all of them. None of them prove what you claim. You clearly do make stuff up, as evidenced by the posts above. I had nothing to do with the post above yet you claimed I did. You were unable to show where these answers were. You were unable to show where you had explained this. You were unable to provide those answers when asked. It's reasonable to assume these answers were invented since you were unable to show where they were.

As I said, no one was denying that Christianity had a violence problem historically. You claimed I missed the point... Here is another post from me highlighting other times you have invented things to support your argument. One poster said this. Lets not pretend it's a commonly held view on here to try to boost your argument. The point of one poster and I believe you have inferred quite a lot from his comment there. As you said it's interpretation. In fact guan points out this discrepancy here: No one said it was. So that's the first ten pages done and as you can see, a hell of a lot of evidence of you making things up to support your argument. I'll do a few more pages later if I have time. Lets not pretend you don't do it though eh?

OK here we go then. I warn you this could take a while: No one said that. No one said all you do is kill. Not sure what you mean by that but sounds like you are putting words in mouth to support your argument. I didn't say that. No one said seek to kill every last one of them in isolation. No one was ridiculing you for saying that you are sick of killing on both sides. Pointless line you didn't stop at all. Thousands of people offline have said the same thing, making out it was just one person to lessen the argument against you there. Nice soundbite but what criteria are you using here? Sounds like you could be dressing something subjective up as a fact to try to support your argument. The person you were replying to never said that. No one said they did. No one said that. No one said they weren't. (in response to someone saying that no one said that all Muslims are plotting to kill us) No one said it. This suggests to me that you are saying that Islam has a similar extremism problem at the moment to Christianity. This is clearly untrue. (in response to someone saying that Islam and Christianity do not currently have the same problem with violence) No one said that. Stating the obvious. No one was arguing otherwise. No one said that. A lot wrong here. We were talking about Islam having a bigger problem with violence at the moment than Christianity. One poster mentioned Islam and their holy book, no one was denying that their aren't a lot of peaceful Muslims in the West, no one said that many of them do not kill and maim people.

What response? I replied on the previous page.

He's mentioned it an awful lot on here yet virtually no one has said it. If memory serves we have maybe two people who insinuated it on the entire thread.

You know I've always had a fascination with distances in South America. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity guys!

No it most definitely is not that. There are quite a few examples but one is where you think comparing yourself to christ makes you more likely to be a Christian. *waits for post to say I missed the point.

Really? Because you display a woeful ignorance of faiths and other cultures if we are using this thread as a guide.

No offence but I'm not prepared to take your claim that "there have been plenty of reports of asylum seekers being abused and attacked" at face value considering your history of making stuff up to suit your argument. I'm not saying that these reports don't exist about Britain but I certainly haven't seen anything recent to suggest that it has been a big problem previous to this incident. If that is the case them I'm not sure how these organisers were supposed to assume that the asylum seekers would get abuse because they get given a wristband so that they can receive aid.

Probably a wise choice. It's like the wild west out there.

2-0

Hold on, has there been a lot of targeted abuse at asylum seekers in Britain? I certainly haven't seen any other than this report. Besides it's a wristband in the middle of winter. Cover it with a jumper then you're not broadcasting it to anyone. It's hardly the equivalent of carrying a sign and ringing a bell.

How could the people organising this possibly envisage that they would get abuse? It's like if saints introduced a wristband system for entry and I got abuse for wearing it from a rival fan. The blame would lie with the fan not saints.

If anyone is guilty here it is the people who abused migrants, not those who gave them wristbands in order to give them food.

That's your stock phrase once you say something silly and get pulled up for it. An awful lot of people have missed the point on this thread according to you!

Damn whitey beat me to it.

I went to a nightclub last week and they inflicted mental torture on me by forcing me to wear a wristband when I entered the club

So actually. There is no comparison at all. If it isn't comparable then seems an odd thing to bring up.

It's disgusting that people were identifying asylum seekers in order to give them food and assistance. Comparable with the nazis I tell you.