The Queen / The Monarchy

[multitool]

Thought as much, found your voice lately by the sounds of things at least.

A brighter person would have recognised the sarcasm and not chosen to play a tedious game of faux naiveté.

What is your next trick going to be? Pooing yourself and wiping it on your face for a reaction?

 

[Deleted member 28]

A brighter person would have recognised the sarcasm and not chosen to play a tedious game of faux naiveté.

What is your next trick going to be? Pooing yourself and wiping it on your face for a reaction?

Oh I see, you're trying to play the insult game now.

I note your futile attempt at starting a thread to draw me out failed miserably and just highlighted the fact you dickheads (about a dozen of you) are just as happy having a row as the next person, even fatpoodle joined in and he's supposed to have me and jowser on 'ignore' so why the f*ck would he click on the thread.

Epic fail.

 

[icowden]

I didn't say that you said it did. But I'm not surprised to see you put up this strawman.

Yes you did.
This was your actual assertion:-

'On average' 😏
Tells us nothing about wealth inequality.

I agree it doens't and the study was not purporting to. So what was the comment and how have you forgotten it so quickly when it is written down for all to see?

You rarely post anything of merit or interest, but it would be nice if, just for once, you tried.

Back atcha rude boi

 

[multitool]

Oh I see, you're trying to play the insult game now.

Not at all. I'm describing the nature of our discourse.

I note your futile attempt at starting a thread to draw me out failed miserably and just highlighted the fact you dickheads (about a dozen of you) are just as happy having a row as the next person, even fatpoodle joined in and he's supposed to have me and jowser on 'ignore' so why the f*ck would he click on the thread.

Epic fail.

See the bolded. I'm afraid you are conflating the title of the thread with the purpose of the thread. The two things were not the same. You do not know the purpose of the thread and therefore are in no position to judge its efficacy or otherwise.

But... it had exactly the intended aim.

 

[icowden]

I used the term 'statues' figuratively.
Figuratively means a use to indicate a departure from a literal use of words, or in other words metaphorically.

Yes. I understood that people were not actually shagging statues.

The relationship of statues to history is the same as the relationship of the monarchy to history.

I disagree entirely. The monarchy has been around for over 1000 years. Most of those statues for about 100 years.
It still stands that the statues are useful. No-one knew who Edward Colston was until his statue was thrown into the harbour. That single act demonstrated the value of that statue to historical education.

It doesn't follow that we should remove all statues, nor that we should leave them all in place. It does however follow that they are a useful tool to understand history. Similarly the Royal Family in one form or another has been around for 1000 years or so, not withstanding a quick break in the middle for Cromwell. We have a lot of history and historic institutions. The monarchy generates a huge amount of wealth for the country and a great deal of the historical crown properties are open to the public.

More needs to be done to slim down the royal purse, to make more of the monarchy open a bit more normal. Some of it is stuffy and outdated. I don't have a strong argument for doing our own version of the French Revolution however.

 

[multitool]

Yes you did.

This was your actual assertion:-

Nope. Here is the interaction. You will see that the words " You said this tells us something about wealth inequality do not appear in my reply. You won't realise this, but you actually excelled yourself in you next post by creating a strawman to your own strawman.

It takes a very special person to be able to do that.

 

[icowden]

Nope. Here is the interaction. You will see that the words " You said this tells us something about wealth inequality do not appear in my reply. You won't realise this, but you actually excelled yourself in you next post by creating a strawman to your own strawman.

I think you may actually be entirely insane. As such I don't think there is much point in continuing to speak to you.
Keep taking the pills.
.
Also therapy may be useful, I'm concerned that you are seeing strawmen everywhere. Were you traumatised by Wurzel Gummidge when you were younger?

 

[multitool]

Yes. I understood that people were not actually shagging statues.

That is not the figurative use I'm referring to.

Keep up at the back.

 

[icowden]

That is not the figurative use I'm referring to.
Keep up at the back.

I have no desire to keep anything up near your back.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Not at all. I'm describing the nature of our discourse.



See the bolded. I'm afraid you are conflating the title of the thread with the purpose of the thread. The two things were not the same. You do not know the purpose of the thread and therefore are in no position to judge its efficacy or otherwise.

But... it had exactly the intended aim.

Here we go again, I appreciate you're an educated person but c'mon, you're full of sh*t, what was the 'intended aim'?

You must be very frustrated that the only opportunity you have to be so confrontational is from behind a screen via a keyboard.

 

[multitool]

As such I don't think there is much point in continuing to speak to you.

If you bothered to read any of the interactions I've had with you at any point over the last few weeks you would have realised that I came to the same conclusion after our first interaction, though naturally for a different reason.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

No-one knew who Edward Colston was until his statue was thrown into the harbour. That single act demonstrated the value of that statue to historical education.

Strange comment - some people knew exactly who Edward Colston was and what the statue represented. They didn't tear down a random statue. There was a possibility to use the statue to further education of his historical role, but that possibility was denied - too bloody 'woke' by half.

 

[multitool]

Here we go again, I appreciate you're an educated person but c'mon, you're full of sh*t, what was the 'intended aim'?

You must be very frustrated that the only opportunity you have to be so confrontational is from behind a screen via a keyboard.

If I had wished the intended aim to be overt, it would have been so.

As to the rest of your post, much like your previous attempts to estimate location, character and hobbies, you are p1ssing in the wind.

But, typically, most of it has gone on your trousers.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

You must be very frustrated that the only opportunity you have to be so confrontational is from behind a screen via a keyboard.

Is this the point where we all stand round and shout 'fight, fight, fight'?

 

[Deleted member 28]

If I had wished the intended aim to be overt, it would have been so.

As to the rest of your post, much like your previous attempts to estimate location, character and hobbies, you are p1ssing in the wind.

But, typically, most of it has gone on your trousers.

So come on then, what exactly was the 'aim'?

Almost an insult there, shouldn't it say 'grade 8 pink hobo player' in your signature?