The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 13, 2021 10:05:57 GMT
Thank you, proven liar Graham Murray. From David Boothroyd I don't know whether to take that as the ultimate insult or an intended compliment. Mate, it was you who made the original claim that Labour had sent out "dual messages" during the Wirral South byelection campaign in 1997 regarding local grammar schools. All we are patiently waiting for, is for you to produce something that even remotely backs up this claim. Yes we all know that DB is a strong pro-Labour partisan. That should not obscure the fact that on this dispute so far, he appears to be very much in the right. As we say in chess, your move  |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 13, 2021 10:06:51 GMT
Thank you, proven liar Graham Murray. From David Boothroyd I don't know whether to take that as the ultimate insult or an intended compliment. Produce the leaflet, or you're a liar. |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jun 13, 2021 14:54:56 GMT
From David Boothroyd I don't know whether to take that as the ultimate insult or an intended compliment. Produce the leaflet, or you're a liar. That doesn't follow. Your powers of logic are as pisspoor as your manners. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jun 13, 2021 14:57:28 GMT
Produce the leaflet, or you're a liar. That doesn't follow. Your powers of logic are as pisspoor as your manners. It would however improve your case if you could produce such evidence. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,901
|
Post by Tony Otim on Jun 13, 2021 15:19:35 GMT
That doesn't follow. Your powers of logic are as pisspoor as your manners. It would however improve your case if you could produce such evidence. Or indeed any kind of evidence at all. At the moment this discussion consists of a claim, a challenge to back up that claim, multiple diversions and evasions to divert from that challenge, multiple insults prompted by those evasions and yet more insults prompted by the first insults. So either provide some evidence or let it drop because this is going nowhere helpful at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jun 13, 2021 16:09:59 GMT
That doesn't follow. Your powers of logic are as pisspoor as your manners. It would however improve your case if you could produce such evidence. It will. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jun 13, 2021 19:36:42 GMT
I think what’s happened here is something quite common. One party claims that the opposition holds a certain position and produces tendentious justification for this. Part of normal knockabout party politics. In fact that is a distortion of what the party’s position actually is (often vague and weaselly to be fair). But if you’re a partisan you may take it at face value. Add in historical memory, and you get the sort of conflict you see here. I’m sure grahammurray believes his assertion. But it seems that it’s untrue. As I’m sure many people here can provide chapter and verse, many Labour assertions about Conservative policy are equally bollocks. |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jun 13, 2021 21:12:24 GMT
I think what’s happened here is something quite common. One party claims that the opposition holds a certain position and produces tendentious justification for this. Part of normal knockabout party politics. In fact that is a distortion of what the party’s position actually is (often vague and weaselly to be fair). But if you’re a partisan you may take it at face value. Add in historical memory, and you get the sort of conflict you see here. I’m sure grahammurray believes his assertion. But it seems that it’s untrue. As I’m sure many people here can provide chapter and verse, many Labour assertions about Conservative policy are equally bollocks. I'm sure you also believe yours. The difference is that nasty little herberts like Boothroyd didn't leap all over it and demand citations. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 13, 2021 21:29:44 GMT
I would if it was wrong.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823 
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jun 13, 2021 21:48:45 GMT
I think what’s happened here is something quite common. One party claims that the opposition holds a certain position and produces tendentious justification for this. Part of normal knockabout party politics. In fact that is a distortion of what the party’s position actually is (often vague and weaselly to be fair). But if you’re a partisan you may take it at face value. Add in historical memory, and you get the sort of conflict you see here. I’m sure grahammurray believes his assertion. But it seems that it’s untrue. As I’m sure many people here can provide chapter and verse, many Labour assertions about Conservative policy are equally bollocks. I'm sure you also believe yours. The difference is that nasty little herberts like Boothroyd didn't leap all over it and demand citations. Citations which are still conspicuous by their absence, leading to the increasingly strong conclusion that they’re but a figment of your imagination, and now, having entered the hole your only option is to keep lobbing distractions and insults in the vain hope that we’ll forget your failure to deliver. |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jun 13, 2021 23:09:43 GMT
Then you'll be able to provide a citation for it. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jun 14, 2021 12:56:29 GMT
Then you'll be able to provide a citation for it. What citation does he need to provide?
|
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jun 14, 2021 13:03:46 GMT
Then you'll be able to provide a citation for it. What citation does he need to provide?
Any he has. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 14, 2021 13:06:28 GMT
Like here where I correct a fellow Labour Party member for a misinterpretation of a remark made by the then Conservative Party leader? |
|
