hypochondriac

Regardless, it's really not an association he should be encouraging imo.

Definitely the highlight was quoting Mao

I couldn't disagree more with virtually all of that and I find it hard that someone can hold that view and also love true works of brilliance like the office and extras to a lesser extent. But don't take my word for it, have a flick through this 300 page thread from real fanatics of Gervais and his works. Note that reviews are fairly positive for the pilot and then slowly descend into deep disappointment and then simply ridicule. http://www.pilkipedia.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11701&sid=b319b0bdddfb87d5f4d013198b7231f3

That makes me reassess your judgement. Derek was awful.

I thought you had me on ignore because you were beneath all that? Your principles didn't last long! So actually we have no idea if these IS people are being recruited by sun headlines, they could very easily be some of the media savvy ones who disregard silly newspaper headlines.

If I'm honest I knew there would be tighter security this week and I did think namur what I was bringing in. Is that not what everyone did?

But you considered people to be very stupid when you suggested that sun headlines were helping to recruit people for ISIS? So either people are clever and realise that many of the headlines are rubbish or they are stupid and believe everything that the sun tells them. Which is it?

Hopefully it has made you reconsider your action and you haven't gone off to discuss this forum elsewhere.

I'm not sure that the tone of posts has influenced actions like America too much. Granted the language on Fox News frequently strays into that area but it's much more likely to be just a few ignorant Americans looking for something to rail against. Sadly there will always be these reactionary attacks in some form but I hope that they remain isolated incidents and that those who go too far are prosecuted accordingly.

I wouldn't worry about it then if that's the case.

He didn't say that religion was the only reason, simply that it is a central part of the creation of IS. Which it is.

You know you've been made to look a fool when not only do you have to put people on ignore, you have to advertise that fact to the rest of the forum. Soggy may pretend he has no idea what you are talking about whelk but he knows. He knows.

Are you suggesting that stewards at saints should receive anti terrorism training?

And no one has argued that. Ever.

I really don't think that's why people take offence at your posts. I would imagine there are quite a few people who would challenge your assertion that the problem other posters have with you is because you tend to argue based on evidence.

that genuinely made me laugh. You just proved his point!

I don't want to speak for whelk but the attitude, general superior tone of your posts and the hypocrisy is pretty objectionable.

But rich considering how disgusting everyone was for wanting to debate anything when this started. You seem happy to roll around in the mud now though.

So you didn't try to claim that posters were saying Islam has the potential to be more violent than Christianity?

What relevance do the Crusades have when discussing the problem of violence within Islam in 2015?

I really don't understand what their position is. They are desperately trying to twist thing to suit their agendas (everyone else thinks Muslims are evil, everyone else thinks Islam is a violent evil religion compared to pure and wholesome Christianity.) and then- amusingly - CEC thinks that the majority of responses on here are in fact disagreeing with the alternate viewpoint and by implication agreeing with him! You really couldn't make it up (unless you are soggy, in which case you make it up whenever you feel like it.) Whelk has it spot on.

A huge amount of yours and soggys responses are misrepresentations of what I have said so it's not much of a surprise that I would think that- it's true. As far as I'm aware I answer the majority of questions posed on here except when I don't feel it's relevant to the discussion.

Seems incredibly clear to me my friend. I'd you're struggling to understand again then I'd just move on. Maybe you simply are not cut out for this type of thing.

Well the record doesn't show that, it mostly shows a couple of disagreements and then a load of posts from yourself and soggy that a number of people have disagreed with and replied to (and quite a few saying soggy had made stuff up.) then a load of stuff where you went all round the houses bringing up irrelevant Christian atrocities that everyone already knows about, had never denied and thus served no purpose. I have no other points to make at this time that I haven't already written on here. Most of my posts have been to counter the bizarre rantings from yourself and soggy and trying to clarify for you what was actually being said by posters rather than what you imagined had been said. I'll stick to that thanks (it's an important job to ensure you both get called out on it) and continue to comment as I see fit whilst this story continues.

And that's fine but I don't really blame the club for taking it off you. If I had to bring my laptop for any reason at the moment then I would expect not to be allowed to take it inside.