Cliffs of Dover, a Year Later

>>Actually, it appears that he found a huge hole right in the middle of your posts. It was pretty funny. <<

Really? Where? I think your cackle may be sounding a bit hollow. Desperation? The old nastiness trying to find a bed for the night?

Unlike you, I do not need a nod from the peanut gallery. Stand on your own two feet, son.

Ben

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Taildragger...no, I think you're trying to be too clever and picking holes in an argument that isn't there. Ego? Like Hayward's?

No champion of natural justice or anything of the sort, nothing so grandiose.

Posters such as Hayward should get a little back of what they put out, it's as simple and silly as that.

Trying to impute anything more to it is wasted energy and isn't going to get the big argumentative response that perhaps you hope it will?

Ben

I absolutely loved this post, 'trying to be too clever'......classic, so who exactly is really 'trying to be clever'?

if you like I can actually 'quote' the part where you said you werent pretending to be a 'white knight' followed by your own justifications for defending 'natural justice'

here goes

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Actually taildragger, I did..check with the mods. I checked-in again on the off-chance that my IP cycle has ticked over, whcih it seems to have done. The only reason was to give back a taste to some posters what they have been dishing-out, which I dont like.

A ban is imminent (I hope) so you can carry on lionising such posters if you wish, and defend their right to attack people unopposed. I'm not pretending to be a white knight of righteousness, more just venting at some of the nastier idiots who seems to have this place in thrall.

Ben

Originally Posted by Falstaff

taildragger said:

>>2 wrongs don't make a right dear boy <<

No, they dont. But a little natural justice doesn't hurt occasionally, if it's kept in check, and if it's justified, as here.

Ben

your proclamation may not have been verbatim, but it is clear you are justifying your rants here for exactly that reason, therefore my point is very valid and I picked a hole in an argument very much present, no ego or sinister motives behind my post.......other than perhaps to highlight some hypocrisy on your behalf, I look forward to your most eloquent attemps to dig yourself out of another hole.

Taildaragger said:

>>I absolutely loved this post, 'trying to be too clever'......classic, so who exactly is really 'trying to be clever'?<<

Did you absolutely love it? Adore it? Or is this just the usual exaggeration for effect?

>>if you like I can actually 'quote' the part where you said you werent pretending to be a 'white knight' followed by your own justifications for defending 'natural justice'<<

Let me help. A white knight is a rather grandiose emblem (deliberately). I am not claiming any spear of valour or leading a charge, I am simply giving back a little to a couple of the nastier members here, hence the natural justice.

The two are not incompatible, and they are not the same.

It seems you are intent on dragging this down to semantic hair-splitting (where you are also mistaken) instead of going with the spirit of the thing. And in a sad kind of way, you are doing Hayward's work for him (if you are not him)

Your tone of sprightly success is a bit premature.

I'll boil it down for you. This place suffers because of the tone of those such as Hayward, Carguy, Ace of Aces et al.

And yes, you are trying to be clever by following this tack and trying to pick holes, rather than answer the main charge...which is the pure (veiled) spite of many of those posters named above. Fundamentally they get away with it because this forum is run in aid of the game, and they pretend to be doing a service by ridding it of pesky critics.

The end result is the exact opposite. They drag it down, confuse genuine critcism, and give a lop-sided view of the real state of play - which is still fairly atrocious.

>>your proclamation may not have been verbatim<<

Eh? No prooclamation...or edict...or dictat...or whatever word you choose.

>> but it is clear you are justifying your rants here for exactly that reason, therefore my point is very valid and I picked a hole in an argument very much present, no ego or sinister motives behind my post.......other than perhaps to highlight some hypocrisy on your behalf, I look forward to your most eloquent attemps to dig yourself out of another hole. <<

I am not ranting, not in the least

Look at the above sentence. Logically it does not follow whatsoever. (To paraphrase) ranting...therefore my point is correct? Run that by me again...? It is saturday therefore this Easter egg is blue...?

Yes, there is plenty of ego - why get involved in a spat that doesn't involve you, but Hayward? Why try and appear to win a debate by making spurious points and ignoring the main charge? And why make non-logical statements and then claim victory/hypocrisy on the back of them? Probably a bit of a fun for you, and ego. A bit like Hayward. 'Other than to highlight'...oh, righty ho....sure, sure....


That is a shame.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

david Hayward said:

>>Do you expect anyone is ever going to call you out for your awful malicious manner? <<

No, because generally I do not have one.

All evidence in here to the contrary, I suppose.