The 2017 Election Thread

[TheDemonLord]

You have yet to point out where I reject any other possibility.

I pointed out your own words.


Suggestion. May. This does not a conclusion make.

Re-read - the words Suggest and May are not in relation to the causal link.


Actually it is how the fallacy works. He does not have authority on the facts you say he presents.

No. It isn't. I've already posted the definition, and why your usage is wrong.


Where?

The exact same place.

[TheDemonLord]

That is still debated, their original findings paint a different picture...

And this is for a measurable increase, this is far, far more significant than a minor change in variance. If environmental factors can have a measurable increase on average IQ scores, it logically follows that they can have a measurable impact on variance as well. And as above, there is most certainly positive influences.

From memory - they didn't account for the Flynn effect, which changes it from a "significant increase", down to a few points.

[Graystone]

I pointed out your own words.



Re-read - the words Suggest and May are not in relation to the causal link.



No. It isn't. I've already posted the definition, and why your usage is wrong.



The exact same place.

Which were taken completely out of context to suit your agenda.

"Studies of young infants and children (Matsuzawa et al., 2001), and especially longitudinal studies (Giedd et al., 1999), may help explain the causal direction and the development of sex differences in the relation between brain neuroanatomy and cognitive performance."

See how there is an 'and' between causal direction and the rest of the sentence. That is a separator of ideas, forget a scientific education, start with a BA or something and learn to read.

He is not an authority for the facts you portray him as presenting, thus it is an argument from authority fallacy. It's a simple concept.

You're getting awfully diversionary and redirecty with no attempt to add anything new to thee discussion, this is not the scientific way, this is the way of one who knows he has lost the argument but lacks the humility to admit it.

[Graystone]

From memory - they didn't account for the Flynn effect, which changes it from a "significant increase", down to a few points.

Sounds like it's up for debate. In any case, we now know social factors can contribute a few points to IQ, how many points are a factor in male/female scores again? Zero isn't it? Thus social factors are most definitely still a casual plausibility.

[RDJ]

Sounds like it's up for debate. In any case, we now know social factors can contribute a few points to IQ, how many points are a factor in male/female scores again? Zero isn't it? Thus social factors are most definitely still a casual plausibility.

Casual, certainly. Causal, doubtful.

[Grumph]

Bit of interesting hearsay locally. Reports of rural employees/subcontractors/sharemilkers etc being told by the property owner to vote National - or else...

I'd assume it's happened before but in todays' world, the media would lap it up.

[husaberg]

Casual, certainly. Causal, doubtful.

There was studies done with Irish that sugests the lower scores inittally were because of low level of preschool education that increased with urbanisation.
Once preschool education levels increased so did the IQ by a dramatic rate.

[TheDemonLord]

Which were taken completely out of context to suit your agenda.

Not at all - you said it, and you placed it in the Context.

I merely pointed out that you espouse one stance, then contradicted it moments later and that the contradictory statement is in line with your earlier utterances.


"Studies of young infants and children (Matsuzawa et al., 2001), and especially longitudinal studies (Giedd et al., 1999), may help explain the causal direction and the development of sex differences in the relation between brain neuroanatomy and cognitive performance."

See how there is an 'and' between causal direction and the rest of the sentence. That is a separator of ideas, forget a scientific education, start with a BA or something and learn to read.

And is inclusionary, not exclusionary.

English 101.

They may be (as you are interpreting) separate concepts, but even if I take your interpretation - they are separate, but related.


He is not an authority for the facts you portray him as presenting, thus it is an argument from authority fallacy. It's a simple concept.

Ok - Here's the issue then - that is his field of work. He's recognized by his peers as a leader in his field. He's published works (both peer reviewed and popular science) on these subjects. His presence at the debate I linked shows that he has enough academic credibility to be asked to present his side of the argument.

You are merely saying he isn't an Authority.

So, nice try, but just like your attempt to cry Strawman, you are fundamentally misapplying the fallacy.


You're getting awfully diversionary and redirecty with no attempt to add anything new to thee discussion, this is not the scientific way, this is the way of one who knows he has lost the argument but lacks the humility to admit it.

There's that projection again - it's what you've been doing for the last 30 pages...

[TheDemonLord]

Sounds like it's up for debate. In any case, we now know social factors can contribute a few points to IQ, how many points are a factor in male/female scores again? Zero isn't it? Thus social factors are most definitely still a casual plausibility.

If I stretch to the hypothetical you are trying to paint - okay, sure - social factors can shift IQ by a few points only.

But you are now being exceptionally dishonest about the Male/Female scores - the Averages were the same, but the distribution was certainly not.

The problem is at both extremes, it's not a few points difference, and the higher up the IQ scale you go, the greater the ratio between Men and Women.

If your claim that "social factors are most definitely still a casual plausibility." had any validity, the difference at the extremes would be much smaller, even if I triple the results derived experimentally (to account for all that "sexism" you claim) - it is still nowhere near enough to explain the difference.

[Graystone]

Not at all - you said it, and you placed it in the Context.

I merely pointed out that you espouse one stance, then contradicted it moments later and that the contradictory statement is in line with your earlier utterances.



And is inclusionary, not exclusionary.

English 101.

They may be (as you are interpreting) separate concepts, but even if I take your interpretation - they are separate, but related.



Ok - Here's the issue then - that is his field of work. He's recognized by his peers as a leader in his field. He's published works (both peer reviewed and popular science) on these subjects. His presence at the debate I linked shows that he has enough academic credibility to be asked to present his side of the argument.

You are merely saying he isn't an Authority.

So, nice try, but just like your attempt to cry Strawman, you are fundamentally misapplying the fallacy.



There's that projection again - it's what you've been doing for the last 30 pages...

Incorrect, you had to take it out of context by selectively quoting only one part of the sentence. Try again and quote the whole thing to see how it works with actual context.

Exactly, it is inclusionary of a group of things that may be explained, it does not relate one to the other in a determinant fashion. You are putting the 'related' interpretation on it and calling it a conclusion, please do better with your english 101.

The argument from authority is not field based, that is simply common usage as it dumbs it down for people not to have to think too much. He is not an authority on the causes of IQ variance disparity because it is still being debated, there is no facts to be authoritative on.

Incorrect again, see first sentence in this post.

[Graystone]

If I stretch to the hypothetical you are trying to paint - okay, sure - social factors can shift IQ by a few points only.

But you are now being exceptionally dishonest about the Male/Female scores - the Averages were the same, but the distribution was certainly not.

The problem is at both extremes, it's not a few points difference, and the higher up the IQ scale you go, the greater the ratio between Men and Women.

If your claim that "social factors are most definitely still a casual plausibility." had any validity, the difference at the extremes would be much smaller, even if I triple the results derived experimentally (to account for all that "sexism" you claim) - it is still nowhere near enough to explain the difference.

So let me get this straight, social factors we know shift the average by a few points only, gender shifts it by none at all, correct? Just how do you get from there to concluding social factors causing greater variance is implausible? Did the study show something I missed, or are you gish galloping somewhere else now?

[Brian d marge]

What has all of this got to do with

Sex

Drugs

Or rock n roll

?????????

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[sidecar bob]

Bit of interesting hearsay locally. Reports of rural employees/subcontractors/sharemilkers etc being told by the property owner to vote National - or else...

I'd assume it's happened before but in todays' world, the media would lap it up.

Yep, that's old hat.
A massive local property developer had a staff meeting before the election, informing his staff of their obligation. He later became a National MP, but couldn't stand the bullshit, so very soon, went back to being "bob the builder"
I took a less direct approach & used to remind my staff where their money came from, usually over smoko. I'd tell them, "if I'm doing ok, you're doing ok, remember where your money comes from" & leave it at that.

[Grumph]

You'd have got on well with a guy I worked for. Big man in Rotary. Got a shock one day when I described Rotary as a right wing para-military organisation.
He couldn't deny that they were right wing - and the uniform of black slacks and white shirt was suspicious too....

But on the other hand, he had the balls to respond to Aussie customs at Sydney - Q "have you a prison record sir ?" A "is it still neccessary ?"

Strip searched immediately.

[sidecar bob]

You'd have got on well with a guy I worked for. Big man in Rotary. Got a shock one day when I described Rotary as a right wing para-military organisation.
He couldn't deny that they were right wing - and the uniform of black slacks and white shirt was suspicious too....

But on the other hand, he had the balls to respond to Aussie customs at Sydney - Q "have you a prison record sir ?" A "is it still neccessary ?"

Strip searched immediately.

Bear in mind, I barely give a toss now. The govt no longer has its hand in my pocket up to my nutsack anymore.

[husaberg]

Yep, that's old hat.
A massive local property developer had a staff meeting before the election, informing his staff of their obligation. He later became a National MP, but couldn't stand the bullshit, so very soon, went back to being "bob the builder"
I took a less direct approach & used to remind my staff where their money came from, usually over smoko. I'd tell them, "if I'm doing ok, you're doing ok, remember where your money comes from" & leave it at that.
Why hold elections at all.... afterall thats the next logical step isn't it;)

[Ocean1]

I took a less direct approach & used to remind my staff where their money came from, usually over smoko. I'd tell them, "if I'm doing ok, you're doing ok, remember where your money comes from" & leave it at that.

Everyone knows where their money comes from. The question is: was it given willingly.

[sidecar bob]

Why hold elections at all.... afterall thats the next logical step isn't it;)

Well when the economy turned to shit a few years ago, I had to dump a couple of them. I hope they weren't the makers of their own undoing, but then, why would I care, I still had a job.

[husaberg]

Well when the economy turned to shit a few years ago, I had to dump a couple of them. I hope they weren't the makers of their own undoing, but then, why would I care, I still had a job.
A few years ago, but would that put it in the era of the rock star economy.:headbang:
https://eoms.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/FUNNY-QUOTE-ABOUT-KEITH-RICHARDS-PLANETGRANDKIDS-1.jpg (https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwip5L-OkMPZAhVEULwKHZ9uDDUQjRx6BAgAEAY&url=https%3A%2F%2Feoms.org%2Fcommunity%2Ftopic%2Fs ongs-you-wish-the-stones-would-cover-but-never-have%2Fpage%2F2%2F&psig=AOvVaw0qZHfv0M6DP-vYfEF70Dg-&ust=1519718783481226)

[TheDemonLord]

Incorrect, you had to take it out of context by selectively quoting only one part of the sentence. Try again and quote the whole thing to see how it works with actual context.

I did quote the whole thing... Now you are just making shit up.


Exactly, it is inclusionary of a group of things that may be explained, it does not relate one to the other in a determinant fashion. You are putting the 'related' interpretation on it and calling it a conclusion, please do better with your english 101.

There is only one person putting a spin on what was posted...


The argument from authority is not field based, that is simply common usage as it dumbs it down for people not to have to think too much. He is not an authority on the causes of IQ variance disparity because it is still being debated, there is no facts to be authoritative on.

I've posted the definition of the Fallacy - you are trying to make an argumentum ad logicam.

He's recognised by his Peers as a leading expert in this field, if you don't like that - then tough titties OR get your doctorate in that field, conduct your research, get your works published and then challenge his position as an Expert.


Incorrect again, see first sentence in this post.

You mean the one were you assert something that is clearly not true? Good Job!

[TheDemonLord]

So let me get this straight, social factors we know shift the average by a few points only, gender shifts it by none at all, correct?

Incorrect.

Nice Try Cathy.


Just how do you get from there to concluding social factors causing greater variance is implausible? Did the study show something I missed, or are you gish galloping somewhere else now?

There is no Gish Gallop here - I've not asked you to read entire books or watch entire long format videos - in all bits - I've posted the relevant excerpt and included a link OR pointed you to a time stamp.

Again - Go learn your Fallacies and what they mean.

But back to the original complaint - if the variance between men and women was a difference of only a few points (so the SD was much closer for each dataset) - you would have a point. But the higher up you go, the more the ratio tilts, which means a factor capable of a few points of adjustment does not explain that discrepency.

Thus, we are left with the Social factor being negligible at best, and irrelevant at worst - there is something else that must cause the difference in variation and this aligns exceptionally tightly with the Male Variability hypothesis.

[Crasherfromwayback]

So, Smarmy Simon is the new cheif eh? He won't help ya Nats.

[Katman]

Good 'ol Soimon knows just how to rort the system.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11154765

[TheDemonLord]

So, Smarmy Simon is the new cheif eh? He won't help ya Nats.

Interesting choice, maybe they are thinking that a youngish face might give them a bit of the Jacinda Effect?

[RDJ]

I think they've gone for a leader who can do conversations and pregnancy without bringing along intellect and effort. I.e. Jacindaclone.

[Swoop]

Bit of interesting hearsay locally. Reports of rural employees/subcontractors/sharemilkers etc being told by the property owner to vote National - or else...

How would the person know how another voted?

[jasonu]

How would the person know how another voted?

What the fuck else do you talk about in the pub on election week?

[Grumph]

How would the person know how another voted?

In certain mid Canterbury polling booths, it's pretty clear when the figures come out, LOL.

Local to me, the group of rural women running the booth could tell you - if asked - just who the locals voting labour were likely to be - simply by saying who turned up to vote there.
Things like that are why I now vote early - and at a booth remote from where I live.

[Graystone]

I did quote the whole thing... Now you are just making shit up.



There is only one person putting a spin on what was posted...



I've posted the definition of the Fallacy - you are trying to make an argumentum ad logicam.

He's recognised by his Peers as a leading expert in this field, if you don't like that - then tough titties OR get your doctorate in that field, conduct your research, get your works published and then challenge his position as an Expert.



You mean the one were you assert something that is clearly not true? Good Job!

Where? you've failed to quote shit properly for so long we've both probably forgot that to which you referred...

Do you not understand the difference between inclusionary and determinant terms in the english language?

Post it again then, his authority does not stretch to his opinions being counted as or even based on facts; thus it is an argument from authority fallacy.

It's quite amusing watching your tone go from all high and mighty up on the science horse to this diversionary bullshit. The astute may have noticed mine has gone the other way :laugh:

[Graystone]

Incorrect.

Nice Try Cathy.



There is no Gish Gallop here - I've not asked you to read entire books or watch entire long format videos - in all bits - I've posted the relevant excerpt and included a link OR pointed you to a time stamp.

Again - Go learn your Fallacies and what they mean.

But back to the original complaint - if the variance between men and women was a difference of only a few points (so the SD was much closer for each dataset) - you would have a point. But the higher up you go, the more the ratio tilts, which means a factor capable of a few points of adjustment does not explain that discrepency.

Thus, we are left with the Social factor being negligible at best, and irrelevant at worst - there is something else that must cause the difference in variation and this aligns exceptionally tightly with the Male Variability hypothesis.

Which part of that is incorrect?

The average was adjusted a few points, they mentioned nothing about the variance. It proves only that social factors can affect IQ. I still have no idea how you think that reinforces your point?

Drawing conclusions about variability from such a study which has not quantified it at all is fucking absurd dude, you really need to get an education.

[TheDemonLord]

Where? you've failed to quote shit properly for so long we've both probably forgot that to which you referred...

So, you admit that you are making shit up then, if you've forgotten to what it pertains to.

I, on the other hand, checked - which is why I say with confidence - you are straight up lieing.

Now, why would someone need to lie about being taken out of context in a debate... There is but one reason....


Do you not understand the difference between inclusionary and determinant terms in the english language?

The context is clear, you simply don't like it, hence the attempt at playing word games to minimise it.


Post it again then, his authority does not stretch to his opinions being counted as or even based on facts; thus it is an argument from authority fallacy.

Why? Its in this thread - you've got eyes and hands. If you clicked on it, it will be in your browser history.

Again, you fundamentally fail at using logical fallacies.

It is not 'just his opinion', in the excerpt he points to multiple data sets.

You see, this is why it's not a fallacy - think of a Legal Opinion - it has weight if it is given by someone who is recognized by their peers as having expertise in a field. The opinion isn't just given out of hand, various factors will be given as to why the opinion is such.


It's quite amusing watching your tone go from all high and mighty up on the science horse to this diversionary bullshit. The astute may have noticed mine has gone the other way :laugh:

I've posted the bits of science I use for my opinions, I've cited those whose works best explain the empirical evidence. We've discussed the pros and cons for it - but as above - you are now resorting to flat-out lies to bolster your position, I'm just pointing it out.

[Graystone]

So, you admit that you are making shit up then, if you've forgotten to what it pertains to.

I, on the other hand, checked - which is why I say with confidence - you are straight up lieing.

Now, why would someone need to lie about being taken out of context in a debate... There is but one reason....



The context is clear, you simply don't like it, hence the attempt at playing word games to minimise it.



Why? Its in this thread - you've got eyes and hands. If you clicked on it, it will be in your browser history.

Again, you fundamentally fail at using logical fallacies.

It is not 'just his opinion', in the excerpt he points to multiple data sets.

You see, this is why it's not a fallacy - think of a Legal Opinion - it has weight if it is given by someone who is recognized by their peers as having expertise in a field. The opinion isn't just given out of hand, various factors will be given as to why the opinion is such.



I've posted the bits of science I use for my opinions, I've cited those whose works best explain the empirical evidence. We've discussed the pros and cons for it - but as above - you are now resorting to flat-out lies to bolster your position, I'm just pointing it out.

Not at all, I'm saying that we may disagree about to what it refers, so you should post that. I recall it refers to my description of three opinion states, none of which I stated were my own; thus your partial quote takes it out of context.

Word games? you don't understand how the word 'and' works; correcting you is not word games.

Nah, back your shit up or fuck off with this diversionary bullshit.

That example is why its a fallacy, legal opinion is based on proven facts that can be verified, his opinion remains an opinion only. Thus to present it in an argument espousing the facts, is an argument from authority fallacy.

I pointed out many times how you interpretation of such science is wrong (like the one where they actively contradicted your opinion in their conclusion), I've not lied at all, that is one thing you should certainly back up if you have shred of rational discourse left within you. I won't hold my breath, bigoted fuckwits often get quite irrational when their bullshit is called out and exposed for all to see.

[TheDemonLord]

Which part of that is incorrect?

Your misrepresentation of it.


The average was adjusted a few points, they mentioned nothing about the variance. It proves only that social factors can affect IQ. I still have no idea how you think that reinforces your point?

I never said they mentioned Variance.

I'll try an analogy - An air filter can add 5-10 hp on a Hayabusa, the base HP for that bike is 172 HP at the rear wheel. If there are now a bunch of Hayabusa's putting out 300+ HP, There is no way such a change can be due to JUST the Air filter.

Something else has to have been done to the bike to get such numbers.

And there is your problem - If your position is that there is no differences in variation between the sexes for biological reasons, and you point to a factor where the BEST change is less than 10 points, it does not explain why the gap widens as you progress up the IQ specrtrum, nor does it explain the degree to which the gap widens.

Such a claim would predict 2 things:

1: a Much more linear divergence between Male and Female
2: an upper limit of ~10 points difference between Male and Female

This is not what we see, since the prediction that such a claim infers is divorced from reality, the claim itself is false.

Then you run the same thought experiment again but with a Biological explanation, the prediction inferred from that claim fits perfectly with the real world data.


Drawing conclusions about variability from such a study which has not quantified it at all is fucking absurd dude, you really need to get an education.

Says the person who admits to making shit up because the position they are arguing from is crumbling from beneath them.

[Graystone]

Your misrepresentation of it.



I never said they mentioned Variance.

I'll try an analogy - An air filter can add 5-10 hp on a Hayabusa, the base HP for that bike is 172 HP at the rear wheel. If there are now a bunch of Hayabusa's putting out 300+ HP, There is no way such a change can be due to JUST the Air filter.

Something else has to have been done to the bike to get such numbers.

And there is your problem - If your position is that there is no differences in variation between the sexes for biological reasons, and you point to a factor where the BEST change is less than 10 points, it does not explain why the gap widens as you progress up the IQ specrtrum, nor does it explain the degree to which the gap widens.

Such a claim would predict 2 things:

1: a Much more linear divergence between Male and Female
2: an upper limit of ~10 points difference between Male and Female

This is not what we see, since the prediction that such a claim infers is divorced from reality, the claim itself is false.

Then you run the same thought experiment again but with a Biological explanation, the prediction inferred from that claim fits perfectly with the real world data.



Says the person who admits to making shit up because the position they are arguing from is crumbling from beneath them.

How is that a misrepresentation? The average IQ does not change between genders, but it does based on social bias.

That's a really shit analogy dude. Stop confusing a change in average, with a change in variance.

Social bias can change the IQ, that is proven, I believe earlier you said there was no change found for this, so there is no science in that article to support your opinion. Instead we can extrapolate plausibility of greater/different social bias causing greater/different changes.

[TheDemonLord]

Not at all, I'm saying that we may disagree about to what it refers, so you should post that. I recall it refers to my description of three opinion states, none of which I stated were my own; thus your partial quote takes it out of context.

You made the claim.
You back it up.


Word games? you don't understand how the word 'and' works; correcting you is not word games.

You are saying I don't understand and that is purely because it suits your argument to do so...


Nah, back your shit up or fuck off with this diversionary bullshit.

I have already done so. Hence why it is you that is being diversionary.

This is how standards of proof work - you ask me for proof, I provide it, you can't then continue to ask for it again.


That example is why its a fallacy, legal opinion is based on proven facts that can be verified, his opinion remains an opinion only. Thus to present it in an argument espousing the facts, is an argument from authority fallacy.

You've clearly never dealt with any lawyers....

But back to the point, the proven facts are that which is cited (just like those that were cited in the debate), Because he has:

A: Provided reference material for his opinion
B: Is recognised by his peers as being competent in this field

It is not a Fallacy. You can claim it is till the cows come home, but just like your cries of Strawman - it's not correct.

And for bonus irony points, you try and claim that I'm the one with comprehension trouble :lol:


I pointed out many times how you interpretation of such science is wrong (like the one where they actively contradicted your opinion in their conclusion),

So Steven Pinker, Jordan Peterson - their interpretation of such Science is also wrong yes? If so, publish your paper, collect your Nobel Prize, Prove me wrong.

But, I shall not hold my breath.



I've not lied at all, that is one thing you should certainly back up if you have shred of rational discourse left within you.

Which is it? Can you not remember what it was in reference to or did I not quote you in full?

These 2 statements alone are an attempt to muddy the waters, so as to escape the corner you've painted yourself into it.

I can assure you, I quoted you in full - so either you are lieing about that or you don't know what you are on about and are making things up - either way, you've lost.


I won't hold my breath, bigoted fuckwits often get quite irrational when their bullshit is called out and exposed for all to see.

You mean like lieing to bolster a position? Yes.... yes they do....

[TheDemonLord]

How is that a misrepresentation? The average IQ does not change between genders, but it does based on social bias.

Because you are deliberately ignoring the distribution of results.

a data set of 1 and 10 have an average of 5.5
a data set of 5 and 6 also have an average of 5.5

You are trying to claim they are the same. They are not.


That's a really shit analogy dude. Stop confusing a change in average, with a change in variance.

I'm not, You are.


Social bias can change the IQ, that is proven, I believe earlier you said there was no change found for this, so there is no science in that article to support your opinion. Instead we can extrapolate plausibility of greater/different social bias causing greater/different changes.

Relatively no change, and certainly not the degree of change needed for your "plausable" extrapolation to be true (because it isn't)

[Graystone]

You made the claim.
You back it up.



You are saying I don't understand and that is purely because it suits your argument to do so...



I have already done so. Hence why it is you that is being diversionary.

This is how standards of proof work - you ask me for proof, I provide it, you can't then continue to ask for it again.



You've clearly never dealt with any lawyers....

But back to the point, the proven facts are that which is cited (just like those that were cited in the debate), Because he has:

A: Provided reference material for his opinion
B: Is recognised by his peers as being competent in this field

It is not a Fallacy. You can claim it is till the cows come home, but just like your cries of Strawman - it's not correct.

And for bonus irony points, you try and claim that I'm the one with comprehension trouble :lol:



So Steven Pinker, Jordan Peterson - their interpretation of such Science is also wrong yes? If so, publish your paper, collect your Nobel Prize, Prove me wrong.

But, I shall not hold my breath.




Which is it? Can you not remember what it was in reference to or did I not quote you in full?

These 2 statements alone are an attempt to muddy the waters, so as to escape the corner you've painted yourself into it.

I can assure you, I quoted you in full - so either you are lieing about that or you don't know what you are on about and are making things up - either way, you've lost.



You mean like lieing to bolster a position? Yes.... yes they do....

I'm only to happy to, but you refuse to tell me which claim I need to back up.

I'm saying you don't understand and explaining why.

Actually no, I can ask for proof as many times as I like and you should provide it each time, you really need to get a fucking education about how the whole science thing works mate.

Still, it remains an opinion, he has no authority. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

Steven Pinker, Jordan Peterson have not published papers concluding what you do.

See first sentence, you refuse to show that which you quoted or referred to. It seems a lot more likely that you are the one doing the lying, so refuse to back yourself up since it would only expose your lies.

[Graystone]

Because you are deliberately ignoring the distribution of results.

a data set of 1 and 10 have an average of 5.5
a data set of 5 and 6 also have an average of 5.5

You are trying to claim they are the same. They are not.



I'm not, You are.



Relatively no change, and certainly not the degree of change needed for your "plausable" extrapolation to be true (because it isn't)

So it is correct then; nowhere do I claim they are the same in anything but average.

I'm not using a study showing change in average to try and draw conclusions about change in variance :laugh:

So where are your gender based studies showing a higher causal change? Occams razor dude, we know social bias can change IQ due to isolation of variables, we've not seen gender do the same... You place a much higher burden of proof on the outcome you do not wish to see, then conclude it must have been the other one by elimination; fuck that is unscientific in the extreme!

[TheDemonLord]

I'm only to happy to, but you refuse to tell me which claim I need to back up.

I'm sorry - from such a pre-eminent master of the English language, I expected a bit of reading comprehension.

Your original claim is that I didn't quote you in full.
I'm saying I did and that to claim otherwise is a lie
You then try and muddy the waters and claim "You probably forgot"

I'm saying back up your original claim.


I'm saying you don't understand and explaining why.

And I'm saying you are incorrect (see above for details)


Actually no, I can ask for proof as many times as I like and you should provide it each time, you really need to get a fucking education about how the whole science thing works mate.

You can ask for proof, and you have an expectation to have it provided.

I've fulfilled my obligation, now the burden falls on you.


Still, it remains an opinion, he has no authority. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

According to you, not according to his peers.

You don't get to decide Authority, Peers do.

This is the part you are ignoring.


Steven Pinker, Jordan Peterson have not published papers concluding what you do.

No, that's not what I'm asking - look if you want to stop the debate - by all means, just reply and bow out. I won't lord it over you, but you are better than this disingenuous nonsense.

They have (on numerous occasion) made speeches, in reference to IQ and gender Variability - now, I'll concede, I'm not as learned as they are, nor do I have a tenured professorship, nor have I dedicated decades to the study of such phenomena.

But - If I'm referencing Studies they have referenced, and I have come to the same conclusions as they have - is their interpretation of the Science wrong? If so, write a thesis on it, collect your Nobel prize and claim victory.


See first sentence, you refuse to show that which you quoted or referred to. It seems a lot more likely that you are the one doing the lying, so refuse to back yourself up since it would only expose your lies.

See, you are extremely quick to demand proof from me for a claim I made, yet you are curiously defensive and reticant to provide proof for a claim you made....

Why is that...

[Katman]

The astute may have noticed mine has gone the other way

Hardly.

You sound as autistic as him.

[Graystone]

I'm sorry - from such a pre-eminent master of the English language, I expected a bit of reading comprehension.

Your original claim is that I didn't quote you in full.
I'm saying I did and that to claim otherwise is a lie
You then try and muddy the waters and claim "You probably forgot"

I'm saying back up your original claim.



And I'm saying you are incorrect (see above for details)



You can ask for proof, and you have an expectation to have it provided.

I've fulfilled my obligation, now the burden falls on you.



According to you, not according to his peers.

You don't get to decide Authority, Peers do.

This is the part you are ignoring.



No, that's not what I'm asking - look if you want to stop the debate - by all means, just reply and bow out. I won't lord it over you, but you are better than this disingenuous nonsense.

They have (on numerous occasion) made speeches, in reference to IQ and gender Variability - now, I'll concede, I'm not as learned as they are, nor do I have a tenured professorship, nor have I dedicated decades to the study of such phenomena.

But - If I'm referencing Studies they have referenced, and I have come to the same conclusions as they have - is their interpretation of the Science wrong? If so, write a thesis on it, collect your Nobel prize and claim victory.



See, you are extremely quick to demand proof from me for a claim I made, yet you are curiously defensive and reticant to provide proof for a claim you made....

Why is that...

In which instance? I can give you plenty where you didn't quote me in full.

But not adding the why part, nullius en verba!

Incorrect, the burden of proof remains on the one making the claim, to back up that claim as many times as required, that's how references work. How stupid are you to not get that?

Have his peers given him authority on the cause of that variation then? or are you trying to extend his authority to cover that based on his primary area of expertise? Because the latter is near textbook definition of argument form authority fallacy.

They have not published science on it, thus it is only opinion. Opinion does not make science fact, publishing it does. Get the education mate, you're really lacking here.

See first sentence, the proof you ask for remains ambiguous, thus I ask for clarification, no need to get your knickers in a knot :laugh:

[Graystone]

Hardly.

You sound as autistic as him.

Luckily for us, our resident crayola kid is not regarded as an authority in matters of autistry, or any fucking thing else :lol:

[TheDemonLord]

So it is correct then; nowhere do I claim they are the same in anything but average.

No, because you are trying to frame it in the incorrect context.


I'm not using a study showing change in average to try and draw conclusions about change in variance :laugh:

Neither am I.

It's about the degree of change - one shows only a few points, the other shows a much much much wider change.

If I take the Maximum changes listed in that study, they are not great enough to explain the differences we see on large scale IQ testing between the Genders.


So where are your gender based studies showing a higher causal change?

You're still quibbling about word games on it...


Occams razor dude, we know social bias can change IQ due to isolation of variables, we've not seen gender do the same...

That's not Occams Razor... It's that the explanation with the fewest (or smallest) assumptions is normally correct.

Your assumption is that there is some mythical Social factor that can influence IQ to a degree that is far greater than what the results show.
I don't have an assumption


You place a much higher burden of proof on the outcome you do not wish to see, then conclude it must have been the other one by elimination; fuck that is unscientific in the extreme!

No, there is no tampering with the burden of proof - I'm saying that if your statements were true, the predictive model would look vastly different from the real world data. Since it doesn't resemble what we do know, the statement must be false.

[Graystone]

No, because you are trying to frame it in the incorrect context.



Neither am I.

It's about the degree of change - one shows only a few points, the other shows a much much much wider change.

If I take the Maximum changes listed in that study, they are not great enough to explain the differences we see on large scale IQ testing between the Genders.



You're still quibbling about word games on it...



That's not Occams Razor... It's that the explanation with the fewest (or smallest) assumptions is normally correct.

Your assumption is that there is some mythical Social factor that can influence IQ to a degree that is far greater than what the results show.
I don't have an assumption



No, there is no tampering with the burden of proof - I'm saying that if your statements were true, the predictive model would look vastly different from the real world data. Since it doesn't resemble what we do know, the statement must be false.

So debate the context, don't call the facts incorrect, it makes you look silly.

So what do you think that study shows to help your cause?

Ah, more diversion.

Your assertion is that biology is the causal factor for those IQ differences, there's a lot more assumptions made along that route! What you don't have is a clue about scientific methods :laugh:

What predictive model? and what real world data?

[TheDemonLord]

In which instance? I can give you plenty where you didn't quote me in full.

The context was clear, given the discussion - you are just trying to Weasel out of it.

This is beneath you.


But not adding the why part, nullius en verba!

You want me to take your interpretation seriously, when you can't even get the context above right.... The "Why" as you put it, does not apply in this instance, since the original interpretation was wrong.


Incorrect, the burden of proof remains on the one making the claim, to back up that claim as many times as required, that's how references work. How stupid are you to not get that?

The burden has been met. And it has been referenced. You now have a duty to look it up. If you don't want to do that - it's fine, but stop trying to shift the Burden, ain't going to work.


Have his peers given him authority on the cause of that variation then? or are you trying to extend his authority to cover that based on his primary area of expertise? Because the latter is near textbook definition of argument form authority fallacy.

There is that word "The latter" - that would be your interpretation, which is why it's not the fallacy. Glad you've finally acknowledged it isn't the fallacy.


They have not published science on it, thus it is only opinion. Opinion does not make science fact, publishing it does. Get the education mate, you're really lacking here.

That isn't the question though. And you know it.


See first sentence, the proof you ask for remains ambiguous, thus I ask for clarification, no need to get your knickers in a knot :laugh:

It really isn't - since I multi-quote you and put my comments in line, to remove ambiguity, all it needs is a little English Comprehension, and since you've been trying to pontificate about my lack thereof - it should be easy for one, with such a command of the english language as you ascribe to yourself, to reply to.

So which is it?

Either your word game waffle is just that - Waffle and you need me to point it out.
or
You're being disingenuous as fuck

[Graystone]

The context was clear, given the discussion - you are just trying to Weasel out of it.

This is beneath you.



You want me to take your interpretation seriously, when you can't even get the context above right.... The "Why" as you put it, does not apply in this instance, since the original interpretation was wrong.



The burden has been met. And it has been referenced. You now have a duty to look it up. If you don't want to do that - it's fine, but stop trying to shift the Burden, ain't going to work.



There is that word "The latter" - that would be your interpretation, which is why it's not the fallacy. Glad you've finally acknowledged it isn't the fallacy.



That isn't the question though. And you know it.



It really isn't - since I multi-quote you and put my comments in line, to remove ambiguity, all it needs is a little English Comprehension, and since you've been trying to pontificate about my lack thereof - it should be easy for one, with such a command of the english language as you ascribe to yourself, to reply to.

So which is it?

Either your word game waffle is just that - Waffle and you need me to point it out.
or
You're being disingenuous as fuck

Post 1743, your first quote of me. Clipped and taken out of context. Good enough?

I explained why your original interpretation was wrong, you read 'and' as determinant, not as a grouping term.

But it is not referenced where it can be followed, where it is required and asked for. In this you clearly have no idea how science and its transparency works.

Is english you second language? latter refers to the second part of the sentence, it does not infer it is my opinion only.

It is precisely the question, you claim science has proven causality, yet since it has not been published your claim is a false one.

See first sentence then showing how you quote only part of my post.

[Katman]

You're being disingenuous as fuck

I'm convinced you cunts are twins.

[TheDemonLord]

So debate the context, don't call the facts incorrect, it makes you look silly.

The context has already been provided - for the last 70 pages or so. You tried the old bait and switch - I called it.


So what do you think that study shows to help your cause?

That the best case societal input does not show anywhere near the degree of change required.


Your assertion is that biology is the causal factor for those IQ differences,

Correct


there's a lot more assumptions made along that route! What you don't have is a clue about scientific methods :laugh:

Okay - let's play them out:

Assumption 1: Humans are a Sexually dimorphic species with differences between the Male and Female

Not really an assumption is it...

Assumption 2: Males in both Humans and other species display far more variability for multiple traits compared to Females

You could potentially call this an assumption, when applied to Neurology, but as per one of the articles linked - this variability has been shown to extend to the neurological level in animals.

As opposed to your mystery societal factor that has to manifest itself at measures far larger than what the practical data shows


What predictive model? and what real world data?

One where you say that Societal factors are the cause, and then factor into that explanation the real world shifts in IQ due to society (which is very small) - that predictive model looks nothing like the IQ scores I linked to.

[husaberg]

I'm convinced you cunts are twins.
Thats likely because you have a tenious grasp of reality, plus long really history of being rather stupid.:msn-wink:
Maybe people might take you more serious if you posted that as Cassina next time.

[Graystone]

The context has already been provided - for the last 70 pages or so. You tried the old bait and switch - I called it.



That the best case societal input does not show anywhere near the degree of change required.



Correct



Okay - let's play them out:

Assumption 1: Humans are a Sexually dimorphic species with differences between the Male and Female

Not really an assumption is it...

Assumption 2: Males in both Humans and other species display far more variability for multiple traits compared to Females

You could potentially call this an assumption, when applied to Neurology, but as per one of the articles linked - this variability has been shown to extend to the neurological level in animals.

As opposed to your mystery societal factor that has to manifest itself at measures far larger than what the practical data shows



One where you say that Societal factors are the cause, and then factor into that explanation the real world shifts in IQ due to society (which is very small) - that predictive model looks nothing like the IQ scores I linked to.

Next time call it as a 'bait and switch' instead of calling it incorrect then.

That is not the best case societal input.

Assumption one, equals perform differently in inequal circumstances.
Assumption two, is not required...

Don't be absurd, that is not a predictive model. And at the risk of more unscientific diversion, what results did you link to earlier?

[TheDemonLord]

Post 1743, your first quote of me. Clipped and taken out of context. Good enough?

Look at when I first quoted you - on post 1727. In full, In context.

I again, quoted your post 1738, in full in context in my post.

So nice try, but no.

Each time I replied to the original comment - I quoted you in full. I then used some of your quotes to highlight a hypocrisy, but always leaving the full quote untarnished in my original responses. Hence why I called BS on that claim (and FYI - I continue to call BS)


I explained why your original interpretation was wrong, you read 'and' as determinant, not as a grouping term.

No, I didn't. You are just trying to diminish the implications it has for your house of cards.


But it is not referenced where it can be followed, where it is required and asked for. In this you clearly have no idea how science and its transparency works.

Then how am I able to reference things you've posted? Am I some form of God? Or do I have the same ability to refer to posts you've already made that you do? I've been transparent - you are being disingenuous.


Is english you second language?

Grammar Nazis shouldn't throw accusations of ESL, without making sure their posts are exemplars of perfect English.

Tsk Tsk


latter refers to the second part of the sentence, it does not infer it is my opinion only.

So, you got something to back up your opinion then? No? Hmmmm.


It is precisely the question,

No, cause it's not the question I asked. If you don't want to answer it because it shows how fabricated your point is, that's cool, just don't be a Cathy about it.


you claim science has proven causality, yet since it has not been published your claim is a false one.

See Word game Waffle in previous posts.


See first sentence then showing how you quote only part of my post.

And as above - I prove that each time I originally responded to any of your statements, just like this post in fact, I quote you in full.

[TheDemonLord]

Next time call it as a 'bait and switch' instead of calling it incorrect then.

Bait and Switch is still "Incorrect" - Since you know, language has a context and all.


That is not the best case societal input.

Oh? You have some additional data to show a greater change?


Assumption one, equals perform differently in inequal circumstances.
Assumption two, is not required...

Your assumption one is the "Equals" part - which goes Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaalll the way back to your foundational premise which I disagree with - that we are a dimorphic species and so such a claim on that basis alone is an assumption that the evidence does not support.

I even clarified that this does not preclude being treated as equals.


Don't be absurd, that is not a predictive model. And at the risk of more unscientific diversion, what results did you link to earlier?

Take the Baseline female Bell curve for IQ - add a variance of up to 10 IQ points to it at each end - it looks nothing like any of the bell curves I posted.

[Berries]

Get a room.

[Crasherfromwayback]

You guys really need to give it a rest.

[Graystone]

Look at when I first quoted you - on post 1727. In full, In context.

I again, quoted your post 1738, in full in context in my post.

So nice try, but no.

Each time I replied to the original comment - I quoted you in full. I then used some of your quotes to highlight a hypocrisy, but always leaving the full quote untarnished in my original responses. Hence why I called BS on that claim (and FYI - I continue to call BS)



No, I didn't. You are just trying to diminish the implications it has for your house of cards.



Then how am I able to reference things you've posted? Am I some form of God? Or do I have the same ability to refer to posts you've already made that you do? I've been transparent - you are being disingenuous.



Grammar Nazis shouldn't throw accusations of ESL, without making sure their posts are exemplars of perfect English.

Tsk Tsk



So, you got something to back up your opinion then? No? Hmmmm.



No, cause it's not the question I asked. If you don't want to answer it because it shows how fabricated your point is, that's cool, just don't be a Cathy about it.



See Word game Waffle in previous posts.



And as above - I prove that each time I originally responded to any of your statements, just like this post in fact, I quote you in full.

Right, so it was a different post as I surmised, wouldn't this have been easier if you just referenced it to begin with? What lying claim am I supposed to have made that I now need to back up? 1738 did not give the quote in full. 1727 does not quote anything showing I conclude sociatal bias causality (it clearly states the opposite).

In what way is 'and' a determinant rather than a grouping term then?

If you refer to it, you can reference it. If you look fucking close, you may even see a link between the two words :laugh:


Bait and Switch is still "Incorrect" - Since you know, language has a context and all.



Oh? You have some additional data to show a greater change?



Your assumption one is the "Equals" part - which goes Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaalll the way back to your foundational premise which I disagree with - that we are a dimorphic species and so such a claim on that basis alone is an assumption that the evidence does not support.

I even clarified that this does not preclude being treated as equals.



Take the Baseline female Bell curve for IQ - add a variance of up to 10 IQ points to it at each end - it looks nothing like any of the bell curves I posted.

Bored now, you're getting far less amusing and far more suited to having a 'discussion' with katman, you're on much closer levels I fear. You started out alright (apart from the rampant sexism obviously) but it must irk you to be shown to be so scientifically illiterate in public as your rational thought has gone right out the window now.

[Graystone]

Get a room.


You guys really need to give it a rest.

...moderators...good old days...I miss tags...ftp...

[TheDemonLord]

Right, so it was a different post as I surmised, wouldn't this have been easier if you just referenced it to begin with? What lying claim am I supposed to have made that I now need to back up? 1738 did not give the quote in full. 1727 does not quote anything showing I conclude sociatal bias causality (it clearly states the opposite).

Again - you made the initial claim - you are really hot on the whole burden of proof, right up until it applies to you.

In my original reply to your original comment - I quoted you in full. And then argued against the point you made. Which is the opposite of what you tried to insinuate.

All the vagueness aside - you made a demonstrably false claim, then tried to back pedal.


If you refer to it, you can reference it. If you look fucking close, you may even see a link between the two words :laugh:

And if I've provided it to you, you can go to where it was provided. In the business world, what you are doing is a variant of RTFM - where info has been provided, it's been acknowledged that it was provided, but they insist you provide the info again...

You aren't honoring your obligation of that exchange.


Bored now, you're getting far less amusing and far more suited to having a 'discussion' with katman, you're on much closer levels I fear. You started out alright (apart from the rampant sexism obviously) but it must irk you to be shown to be so scientifically illiterate in public as your rational thought has gone right out the window now.

Interesting response.... So, by that statement - Pinker, JBP etc. are also scientifically illiterate and rampant Sexists. Yet you shied away from explicitly stating that, because you know it's an untenable statement - but it's easier to throw ad hominems at some random on the internet and claim sexism and illiteracy...

Also interesting how you've gone from


just a little bit sexist

to


rampant sexism

right as you are bowing out of the debate.... Sounds like a last ditch ad hominem to poison the last impression...

Or did I take you out of context....

[TheDemonLord]

You guys really need to give it a rest.

This is what I'm doing to try and stay awake whilst doing a long as fuck migration.

[Katman]

...moderators...good old days...I miss tags...ftp...

Really? For someone who joined less than six months ago, that's an interesting reminiscence.

Methinks bogan has re-invented himself.

[Katman]

Thats likely because you have a tenious grasp of reality, plus long really history of being rather stupid.

Refer below.

[sidecar bob]

Really? For someone who joined less than six months ago, that's an interesting reminiscence.

Methinks bogan has re-invented himself.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=methinks

[TheDemonLord]

Really? For someone who joined less than six months ago, that's an interesting reminiscence.

Methinks bogan has re-invented himself.

I thought so too tbh, but some of the mannerisms aren't quite right.

[Graystone]

Again - you made the initial claim - you are really hot on the whole burden of proof, right up until it applies to you.

In my original reply to your original comment - I quoted you in full. And then argued against the point you made. Which is the opposite of what you tried to insinuate.

All the vagueness aside - you made a demonstrably false claim, then tried to back pedal.



And if I've provided it to you, you can go to where it was provided. In the business world, what you are doing is a variant of RTFM - where info has been provided, it's been acknowledged that it was provided, but they insist you provide the info again...

You aren't honoring your obligation of that exchange.



Interesting response.... So, by that statement - Pinker, JBP etc. are also scientifically illiterate and rampant Sexists. Yet you shied away from explicitly stating that, because you know it's an untenable statement - but it's easier to throw ad hominems at some random on the internet and claim sexism and illiteracy...

Also interesting how you've gone from



to



right as you are bowing out of the debate.... Sounds like a last ditch ad hominem to poison the last impression...

Or did I take you out of context....

Those are certainly all words, get an education and come back to us when you can use them properly. Now I guess I'll leave you to have that very important 'last word' :laugh:


Really? For someone who joined less than six months ago, that's an interesting reminiscence.

Gasp, hoodwinked and balarney, look at Private Eye Pastels over here :killingme

[husaberg]

Refer below.
Well a t missing from one post vs 5000 stupid racist and generally dim- witted posts from you, yeah sorry to burst your bubble but that only balances out in a narcissists mind.

[Katman]

Well a t missing from one post.....

It's not one post - it's repeatedly.

You said so yourself.

[husaberg]

It's not one post - it's repeatedly.

You said so yourself.
Well steve each post of yours, just further proves you are one stupid conspiracy nutcase troll, with underlying homosexual tendencies and a narcissism complex.
<strike></strike>

[sidecar bob]

Sexual abuse, let's do this! then try to cover it up

[russd7]

Sexual abuse, let's do this! then try to cover it up

:jerry: haha gonna sit back and watch the shit fight.

[sidecar bob]

:jerry: haha gonna sit back and watch the shit fight.

Lol, suddenly KB has no labour supporters.
Typical response from that quarter, if it doesn't suit your agenda, ignore it.
Makes pulling one ponytail look fairly harmless.

[jasonu]

Sexual abuse, let's do this! then try to cover it up

Give millions (more) of tax payers dollars to the coconuts with no hope of any benefit to NZ. Let’s do this!

[Crasherfromwayback]

Sexual abuse, let's do this! then try to cover it up

Hypocrisy anyone?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11882660

[Ocean1]

Sexual abuse, let's do this! then try to cover it up

Mate, we voted for an outfit that pulls this shit: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/93955534/labour-party-brings-in-unpaid-overseas-students , "because integrity", nothing surprises me.

Oh wait... That's right, we didn't.

[Swoop]

I wonder if Winnie is shitting about having to back up Britain, in the Russian assassinations debacle.
Labour attempting to hide the sexual abuse scandal here? Poorly done.
International investors, who became NZ citizens, threatening to pull out due to liarbour's immigration change of policy.
Coalition getting shaky yet?

[Crasherfromwayback]

Oh wait... That's right, we didn't.



Coalition getting shaky yet?

You guys are still really struggling with the election result eh? Ever heard the term, "build a bridge?". It's prob time boys...

[Madness]

Jacinda looks so hot when she's angry :sweatdrop

[husaberg]

Sexual abuse, let's do this! then try to cover it up
Cover up, from what i understand the alleged victims were encouraged and asked if they wanted te police involved they by all accounts declined.
Contrast this with the secret payments dismissles and huge payouts made during the Barclay cover up.
National allowed Barclay to lie in statements and to avoid taslking to the police.

Barclay denied to members of his electorate there had been recording of Dickson, and about being approached by police.
- English knew Dickson had been recorded by Barclay and spoke to her about it, despite telling media he had not been directly involved in any discussions.
- Then-Prime Minister John Key’s parliamentary budget was used to pay part of a confidential settlement to Dickson, in an attempt to avoid “potential legal action”.
- Dickson and others in the electorate have been threatened and intimidated by others since falling out with Barclay.
Police investigating the case received a range of evidence, including a text exchange from English to electorate chair Stuart Davie which said Barclay had recorded Dickson.
On January 18, 2016, the Parlimentary Service sent representatives from Wellington to meet Dickson and discuss her and another staff member's concerns. At the end of the meeting she was told the MP had lost confidence in her.
Dickson offered to resign immediately but was put on paid leave and told to think it over.

The texts also reveal Dickson’s “settlement was larger than normal because of the privacy breach” and had to be “part paid from the Prime Minister’s budget to avoid potential legal action”


National and Bil English made sure the victim lost their job, then sanctioned the hush money payout to shut up the victim , then claimed he did not know details, Refused to make Bracay front to police or punish Barclay in anyway at all.
Contrast this with Labours banning of the alleged perpetrator from all further events.


Lol, suddenly KB has no labour supporters.
Typical response from that quarter, if it doesn't suit your agenda, ignore it.
Makes pulling one ponytail look fairly harmless.

I think you will find that in the Ponytail pulling Incidents that the National prime Minister was in fact the Person that was doing the unwanted touching, He had also previously been asked to stop.
Where as what is now being alleged the Labour PM was not even aware what at occured.

[Banditbandit]

Sexual abuse, let's do this! then try to cover it up

Who said it was a cover up? So they didn't tell the media - so what? Not telling the media is hardly a cover up ...

What about the victims? Are they worried they might be exposed in this?

The girls were 16 - under our privacy laws the party is not obliged to tell anyone IF the girls said they didn't want to take it any further ...

The Labour Party is not a public organisation, nor is it publically funded - they are voluntary members of a party and pay party fees ... the party is separate from the caucus and this is a party matter, not a caucus matter

The party organised the camp - not the caucus .. why are you all trying to hold politicians responsible for something they were not responsible for ?

The alleged attacker is not a party member - what you all going to say if it turns out he is a member of the national party

[jasonu]

Who said it was a cover up? So they didn't tell the media -


or the parents or their boss, the PM.

Sounds like an attempted cover up don't you think.

[sidecar bob]

Who said it was a cover up? So they didn't tell the media - so what? Not telling the media is hardly a cover up ...

What about the victims? Are they worried they might be exposed in this?

The girls were 16 - under our privacy laws the party is not obliged to tell anyone IF the girls said they didn't want to take it any further ...

The Labour Party is not a public organisation, nor is it publically funded - they are voluntary members of a party and pay party fees ... the party is separate from the caucus and this is a party matter, not a caucus matter

The party organised the camp - not the caucus .. why are you all trying to hold politicians responsible for something they were not responsible for ?

The alleged attacker is not a party member - what you all going to say if it turns out he is a member of the national party
Yeah, all good, it's 1974 & sexual abuse is ok & the people doing it should be backed to the hilt. Sorry, My bad.
Sandal wearing virgins that shove their hands down young girls pants are likely to be the future leaders of the country & im cool with that.

[sidecar bob]

Jacinda looks so hot when she's angry :sweatdrop

Wow, really? Ok.

[Swoop]

Ever heard the term, "build a bridge?". It's prob time boys...
Just following the accepted (leftist) methodology.

[husaberg]

Wow, really? Ok.
So i take it you prefer the look of Bill English?:scratch:

[sidecar bob]

So i take it you prefer the look of Bill English?:scratch:

No, strangely I actually prefer the look & demeanour of my own wife. Bit old fashioned I admit.

[pete376403]

Sandal wearing virgins that shove their hands down young girls pants

You know this to be a fact? So far a lot of things have been alleged, nothing has been proven. Similarly the media going on about people under 18 drinking alcohol? Proven or hype? It has been claimed the alleged perp was aged 20, so completely ok for him to have been drinking.

So much for complying with the alleged victims request for privacy, which by law they are entitled to, now the whole world knows about it, thanks to the media beatup.

[sidecar bob]

You know this to be a fact? So far a lot of things have been alleged, nothing has been proven. Similarly the media going on about people under 18 drinking alcohol? Proven or hype? It has been claimed the alleged perp was aged 20, so completely ok for him to have been drinking.

So much for complying with the alleged victims request for privacy, which by law they are entitled to, now the whole world knows about it, thanks to the media beatup.

Yes, it has been repeatedly reported that he shoved his hand down young girlies pants.
I assume he is a virgin, because that is Virgin behaviour & I assume he wears sandals & a David Bain Jersey because he is a Labour supporter.
So yes, to be fair, there are a couple of assumptions on my part.

[ellipsis]

...sexual abuse?...a near juvenile clutching at vaginas...more like an unhappy bunch of wanks clutching at straws...Who here is turning PC all of a sudden 'cos the media said you should...fuck off...

[Ocean1]

Yes, it has been repeatedly reported that he shoved his hand down young girlies pants.
I assume he is a virgin, because that is Virgin behaviour & I assume he wears sandals & a David Bain Jersey because he is a Labour supporter.
So yes, to be fair, there are a couple of assumptions on my part.

Never mind, dude, I'm sure the "labour function sexual misconduct working group" will enlighten you in due course.

[Banditbandit]

Yeah, all good, it's 1974 & sexual abuse is ok & the people doing it should be backed to the hilt. Sorry, My bad.


Where did I say any of that ?

[Banditbandit]

I assume he wears sandals & a David Bain Jersey because he is a Labour supporter.


The perp was not a labour party member - and no-one knows how he got into the camp ..

[sidecar bob]

Where did I say any of that ?

Nowhere. I simply translated your gibberish into simple english.

[Banditbandit]

Nowhere. I simply translated your gibberish into simple english.

:rofl: :banana: :rofl: :banana:


I think heads should roll - probably Andy Kirton's to start ..

It's pretty clear you need a "reading for Comprehension" course if you believe that was my meaning ..

[husaberg]

No, strangely I actually prefer the look & demeanour of my own wife. Bit old fashioned I admit.
Well ask Tracey who she would rather sleep with if given a choice out of Bill English or Jacinda Ardern.
Be honest now i bet you would purfur it if she swung to the left.;)
After you finished are answering that one explain how you were so dismissive about about John Keys unwanted touching yet so faux outragged over this other alledged incident that does not involve a PM a MP or likely even a member of the actual labour party.



...sexual abuse?...a near juvenile clutching at vaginas...more like an unhappy bunch of wanks clutching at straws...Who here is turning PC all of a sudden 'cos the media said you should...fuck off...
It turns out not all the alleged victims were actually female.

[Swoop]

It turns out not all the alleged victims were actually female.
Very good. "Equal opportunities, equal rights" and all that, eh?
:msn-wink:

[Crasherfromwayback]

Yes, it has been repeatedly reported that he shoved his hand down young girlies pants.
I assume he is a virgin, because that is Virgin behaviour & I assume he wears sandals & a David Bain Jersey because he is a Labour supporter.
So yes, to be fair, there are a couple of assumptions on my part.

What was it you said to me a while ago about facts?

[sidecar bob]

I'm just winding you dopey cunts up for my own entertainment. Realistically you should all be pissed that the 'tards you voted for turned out to be a bunch of gay pedophiles, but na, you're all diving in to rescue them regardless.
They're probably going to turn out to be not a terrible choice, but fuck, you dont have to sell your morals down the river when some shit goes down in order to be a supporter.

[TheDemonLord]

I've stayed out of the recent debacle - mainly because atm it's premature to comment - and whilst there is a hint of delicious irony at various actions (and inactions) - lambasting a group, based on the actions of an individual does not sit well with me.

Lest we end up the hypocrites, we claim to deride.

[Katman]

I've stayed out of the recent debacle - mainly because atm it's premature to comment.......

That's hilarious considering your stance on the PM's pregnancy.


Lest we end up the hypocrites, we claim to deride.

I love the smell of irony in the morning.

[Voltaire]

What exactly is a Young Labour Camp?

Is it a place where people under 20 sit around holding a picture of Michael Joseph Savage, singing The Internationale and discussing policy?

[ellipsis]

What exactly is a Young Labour Camp?



...now that all our kids have grown up and left home, I've had to dismantle mine...

[TheDemonLord]

That's hilarious considering your stance on the PM's pregnancy.

But we know the PM is pregnant....

[oldrider]

What exactly is a Young Labour Camp?

Is it a place where people under 20 sit around holding a picture of Michael Joseph Savage, singing The Internationale and discussing policy?

Camp:- https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Raging%20Homo :rolleyes:

[Voltaire]

...now that all our kids have grown up and left home, I've had to dismantle mine...

Mine moved out....then moved back as Auckland is fucked thanks to an open door immigration policy and I'm guessing far too much compliance and building methods from olden days.
The house across the road has taken over 14 months to build and that's with Chinese builders too.

[Katman]

But we know the PM is pregnant....

The premature conclusion that you jumped to was that her pregnancy will adversely affect her doing her job.

[jasonu]

The premature conclusion that you jumped to was that her pregnancy will adversely affect her doing her job.

Which it almost certainly will, starting with time off to give birth.

[Katman]

Which it almost certainly will, starting with time off to give birth.

She's perfectly entitled to time off to give birth.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Which it almost certainly will, starting with time off to give birth.

You say that she's breaking the law or something mate.

[TheDemonLord]

The premature conclusion that you jumped to was that her pregnancy will adversely affect her doing her job.

I never said it would definitely affect her, only that it could affect her. And it would appear to some that suggesting this was some form of Heresy.

Plus there is a huge difference between speculating on an event that has already happened and speculating on possible outcomes in the future.

[jasonu]

The premature conclusion that you jumped to was that her pregnancy will adversely affect her doing her job.


Which it almost certainly will, starting with time off to give birth.


She's perfectly entitled to time off to give birth.


You say that she's breaking the law or something mate.

Not being at work so as to give birth = not being able to do the job for that period = adversely affect her doing her job
Time will tell if there is more.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Not being at work so as to give birth = not being able to do the job for that period = adversely affect her doing her job
Time will tell if there is more.

Lol. So you ever taken sick leave Bro? If so, what happened when you were gone? Someone else step into your shoes? Look into it. It's what a Dep Prime Minister is for eh!

[Katman]

Lol. So you ever taken sick leave Bro? If so, what happened when you were gone?

They probably had a party.

[Grumph]

Not being at work so as to give birth = not being able to do the job for that period = adversely affect her doing her job
Time will tell if there is more.

You keeping tabs on how much time Trump's wasting playing golf ? Or fending off Stormy Daniels ? Or boasting about telling lies to Trudeau ?

[Crasherfromwayback]

You keeping tabs on how much time Trump's wasting playing golf ? Or fending off Stormy Daniels ? Or boasting about telling lies to Trudeau ?

He's making his ego great again!

[Grumph]

What exactly is a Young Labour Camp?

Is it a place where people under 20 sit around holding a picture of Michael Joseph Savage, singing The Internationale and discussing policy?

Quite possibly - but contrast that to a Young Nats camp where tha average age is 30 plus and they sit around comparing baby pictures....

[jasonu]

He's making his ego great again!

His ego was always great, didn't need any help.

[jasonu]

You keeping tabs on how much time Trump's wasting playing golf ? Or fending off Stormy Daniels ? Or boasting about telling lies to Trudeau ?

I let pritch, the Herald and CNN do that.

[jasonu]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12019978

Your tax dollars hard at work.

[Berries]

Take that back. You can't diss the Ed.


Well not in Dunedin over the next week. The place has gone fucking mental for a singer.

[RDJ]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12019978

Your tax dollars hard at work.

As has been said - "every now and then the common people who vote should get what they think they want, and they should get it good and hard". Otherwise we don't learn.

Ardner, Genter, Davis, Golly G, Twyford and the list continues. Making New Zealand Broke Again.

[RDJ]

You keeping tabs on how much time Trump's wasting playing golf ? Or fending off Stormy Daniels ? Or boasting about telling lies to Trudeau ?

I wasn't aware that Trump was governing New Zealand? so why should I care what he does in the US.

[Brian d marge]

I wasn't aware that Trump was governing New Zealand? so why should I care what he does in the US.Because he is higher up the leaderboard than our lackies ,..same club same agendas

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Crasherfromwayback]

I wasn't aware that Trump was governing New Zealand? so why should I care what he does in the US.

Because the guy being questioned that is a Trump fan, and was knocking Jacinda for having time off to give birth. Please keep up.

[Swoop]

... Twyford and the list continues. Making New Zealand Broke Again.

I had to laugh at the "housing announcement" by this moron. Fucking up Mt Albert and totally screwing Auckland's traffic to an even higher level.

[Brian d marge]

I had to laugh at the "housing announcement" by this moron. Fucking up Mt Albert and totally screwing Auckland's traffic to an even higher level.That's the plan.....

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Swoop]

Well done Comrade jacinda.

Insult the international community and declare we "have no spies to expel"? Dumber than a bag of hammers.

Pro Tip: No nation has had an officially declared spy in it's embassy. A good communist should know this.

[Katman]

Well done Comrade jacinda.

Insult the international community and declare we "have no spies to expel"? Dumber than a bag of hammers.

Pro Tip: No nation has had an officially declared spy in it's embassy. A good communist should know this.

You'd believe anything Theresa May told you, wouldn't you shitforbrains?

[TheDemonLord]

You'd believe anything Theresa May told you, wouldn't you shitforbrains?

Nyet Tovarishch Katman

[jasonu]

You'd believe anything Theresa May told you, wouldn't you shitforbrains?

If what has been reported isn't true what do you think happened?

[T.W.R]

Well done Comrade jacinda.

Insult the international community and declare we "have no spies to expel"? Dumber than a bag of hammers.

Pro Tip: No nation has had an officially declared spy in it's embassy. A good communist should know this.

Ha and run with all the sheeples because the rest do what they're told mob mentality :pinch: It's all smoke & mirrors and long term do they really want to fuck with Russia :oi-grr: don't fuck the bear off!!..everyone that's tried has come away severely fucked over; the French were aghast when they tried, The Poms ran home with theirs tail between their legs when they had a crack and the Krauts got reamed too.
There'll be far more to the whole thing than the affair than the sensationalism of the current propaganda is exposing.
Plain and simple having a crack at Russia is a master class in dumbfuckery :facepalm:

[TheDemonLord]

Ha and run with all the sheeples because the rest do what they're told mob mentality :pinch: It's all smoke & mirrors and long term do they really want to fuck with Russia :oi-grr: don't fuck the bear off!!..everyone that's tried has come away severely fucked over; the French were aghast when they tried, The Poms ran home with theirs tail between their legs when they had a crack and the Krauts got reamed too.
There'll be far more to the whole thing than the affair than the sensationalism of the current propaganda is exposing.
Plain and simple having a crack at Russia is a master class in dumbfuckery :facepalm:

Japan did quite well...

[T.W.R]

Japan did quite well...

:laugh: Bollocks!

[Voltaire]

But even bigger than that...The Privacy Commissioner quits Facebook.https://cdn.grahamcluley.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/facebook-unlike-600.jpeg

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/28/new-zealands-privacy-commissioner-deletes-his-facebook-account

[Katman]

If what has been reported isn't true what do you think happened?

Can you point us towards any proof that what happened is being accurately reported by the mainstream media?

[husaberg]

If what has been reported isn't true what do you think happened?
Are you really expecting Steve to answer a simple direct question relating to his multilple conspiracy theories.......:lol:

[jasonu]

Can you point us towards any proof that what happened is being accurately reported by the mainstream media?

I wasn't disputing anything.
I guess you won't be answering my question.


and who is this 'us' you refer to? Are you some sort of appointed leader or spokesman now?

[RDJ]

...And the gloss is already coming off the pregnant role model and the geriatric serial scammer (not original to me, seen elsewhere on the Internet) for all of the unforced errors over the past few weeks. Told you so...

[Katman]

I guess you won't be answering my question.

Your question suggests you're more interested in my opinion than whether we're being told the truth.

Are you my new fanboy?


and who is this 'us' you refer to? Are you some sort of appointed leader or spokesman now?

See if you can work out the connection between the 'we're' in this post and the 'us' in my previous post.

[jasonu]

Your question suggests you're more interested in my opinion than whether we're being told the truth.

Are you my new fanboy?.

Always with the homosexual talk.

[MGST]

...And the gloss is already coming off the pregnant role model and the geriatric serial scammer (not original to me, seen elsewhere on the Internet) for all of the unforced errors over the past few weeks. Told you so...

Yes but to be fair, they must be the only 2 in the country that couldn't see it was going happen.

When the pregnant unmarried ( she's only a role model of how NOT to do it ) female completely fucks the country, I'm going to lay the blame squarely at the feet of the geriatric serial scammer, because he put her in the position to be able to fuck the country.

[Katman]

Always with the homosexual talk.

Hey, it could have been a whole lot worse.

[Swoop]

You'd believe anything Theresa May told you, wouldn't you shitforbrains?

What the fuck are you smoking, retard? Where did May state "there are no spies to expel"? The chief idiot of NZ (surprisingly not you for once...) stated it.


You really like jumping to conclusions. Is that The First Rule of tinfoil-hat club?

[Crasherfromwayback]

When the pregnant unmarried ( she's only a role model of how NOT to do it ) female completely fucks the country,y.

Seriously, what fucking century are you from? And fuck off back there asap.

[Katman]

What the fuck are you smoking, retard? Where did May state "there are no spies to expel"?

Extrapolate it out, shitforbrains.

[Swoop]

Extrapolate it out, shitforbrains.

May didn't leap to the conclusion that there are no spies to expel from NZ.
Our chief leftist DID.

Capiche?

[T.W.R]

:lol: you realise the whole fiasco is strangely similar to the plot of Gorky Park :clap: Russians made out to be the bad guys and in the end it's revealed the american fur trader & his cartel are the real criminals :nya:

[TheDemonLord]

:lol: you realise the whole fiasco is strangely similar to the plot of Gorky Park :clap: Russians made out to be the bad guys and in the end it's revealed the american fur trader & his cartel are the real criminals :nya:

I'm continually bemused by all this absolute love of Mother Russia....

[T.W.R]

I'm continually bemused by all this absolute love of Mother Russia....

Why? there's nothing to be bemused about no love for any of them..... on the grand scale of things the likes of us as individuals don't even register on anyone's radar :msn-wink:
all the noise being made here should take up residence at a university lecturing political analysis and FFS Russian spies in NZ so fucking what...it'd be a punishment for them, bit like NZ sending a diplomat to take up residence on Pitcairn Island :rolleyes: Ha run with the flock and do what your told or be an individual and take anything on it's merits then decide....fucking sheeple for TPTB :clap:

[Crasherfromwayback]

I'm continually bemused by all this absolute love of Mother Russia....

Well, you'd be speaking German right about now if it wasn't for them.

[TheDemonLord]

Well, you'd be speaking German right about now if it wasn't for them.

Certainly Russia suffered the most casualties during WW2 (by a HUGE margin I might add) - but I'm not entirely certain that the above is entirely a true statement.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Certainly Russia suffered the most casualties during WW2 (by a HUGE margin I might add) - but I'm not entirely certain that the above is entirely a true statement.

More than likely because you've watched too many American movies where they saved the day and our asses. :innocent:

[TheDemonLord]

Why? there's nothing to be bemused about no love for any of them..... on the grand scale of things the likes of us as individuals don't even register on anyone's radar :msn-wink:
all the noise being made here should take up residence at a university lecturing political analysis and FFS Russian spies in NZ so fucking what...it'd be a punishment for them, bit like NZ sending a diplomat to take up residence on Pitcairn Island :rolleyes: Ha run with the flock and do what your told or be an individual and take anything on it's merits then decide....fucking sheeple for TPTB :clap:

My point is more that certain segments react with righteous indignation when anyone in the West does anything slightly untoward - claiming human rights abuses, corruption etc. etc. yet when Russia does Bad, they pretend that Russia is as Pure as the Driven snow...

[TheDemonLord]

More than likely because you've watched too many American movies where they saved the day and our asses. :innocent:

More to the point - The Royal Navy had sunk all the German Capital ships (Bismark, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneissnau), kept the german Destroyers pinned in the Norwegian Fjords, And they didn't have the number of Heavy cruisers required to challenge the RN - all in all - German would not have been able to mount an amphibious assault on the UK even without the Russian involvement.

[jasonu]

Well, you'd be speaking German right about now if it wasn't for them.

That has to be a joke right.

[T.W.R]

My point is more that certain segments react with righteous indignation when anyone in the West does anything slightly untoward - claiming human rights abuses, corruption etc. etc. yet when Russia does Bad, they pretend that Russia is as Pure as the Driven snow...

Oh bollocks!! take ya fuckin blinkers off....spouting that tripe can be directed anywhere you want to look in this world FFS. And if you want to get righteous about that sort of thing ol Britannia we're the masters of it all for a fucking long time to everyone who crossed their paths or got on their radar :niceone:

And like I said in the earlier post it's a master class in dumbfuckery to take on the bear...just leave them alone and don't provoke them with what's being attempted with this current bullshit. Historically it's never worked and it never will and holy shit it's the fuckin 21st century fucking surely the world has had enough of this sort of shit and should realise it never ends well!

[Katman]

I'm continually bemused by all this absolute love of Mother Russia....

I'm equally bemused by the number of dumbfucks that are continually hoodwinked by the Western demonisation of anything Russian.

Dumbfuck.

[Crasherfromwayback]

That has to be a joke right.

I'm guessing WWII history isn't one of your strong points?

[husaberg]

Oh bollocks!! take ya fuckin blinkers off....spouting that tripe can be directed anywhere you want to look in this world FFS. And if you want to get righteous about that sort of thing ol Britannia we're the masters of it all for a fucking long time to everyone who crossed their paths or got on their radar :niceone:

And like I said in the earlier post it's a master class in dumbfuckery to take on the bear...just leave them alone and don't provoke them with what's being attempted with this current bullshit. Historically it's never worked and it never will and holy shit it's the fuckin 21st century fucking surely the world has had enough of this sort of shit and should realise it never ends well!
Russia is flexing its muscles as Putin is insecure.
Trouble is Russia is not that well off and relies on some pretty large subsidies from overseas sources to stay afloat.

Russia provoked the UK with a pretty piss poor display of an assassination.
At least the US are thoughtful enough to make their assassinations look like an accident.:msn-wink:
Russia did not even bother.

As for Adearn and Russian spies in NZ who cares we have few decent secrets to steal.

[Katman]

Russia is flexing its muscles as Putin is insecure.
Trouble is Russia is not that well off and relies on some pretty large subsidies from overseas sources to stay afloat.

Russia provoked the UK with a pretty piss poor display of an assassination.
At least the US are thoughtful enough to make their assassinations look like an accident.:msn-wink:
Russia did not even bother.

As for Adearn and Russian spies in NZ who cares we have few decent secrets to steal.

(Enter stage left.....)

Dumbfuck #2.

[Graystone]

Meanwhile China just laughs it arse off at the funny little men playing at 'world leaders'. Democracy, what a fucking joke.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm equally bemused by the number of dumbfucks that are continually hoodwinked by the Western demonisation of anything Russian.

This is entirely my point.

If it came out tomorrow, that the West (UK, US etc. Take your pick) had seriously considered assassinating someone - you'd be up in arms.

At the suggestion that Russia has actually assassinated someone, your go-to response is that it is the west trying to "demonise anything Russian".

[TheDemonLord]

Oh bollocks!! take ya fuckin blinkers off....spouting that tripe can be directed anywhere you want to look in this world FFS. And if you want to get righteous about that sort of thing ol Britannia we're the masters of it all for a fucking long time to everyone who crossed their paths or got on their radar :niceone:

You've missed the point - it's not about what I get righteous about, it's about the hypocritical standards that others get righteous about.



And like I said in the earlier post it's a master class in dumbfuckery to take on the bear...just leave them alone and don't provoke them with what's being attempted with this current bullshit. Historically it's never worked and it never will and holy shit it's the fuckin 21st century fucking surely the world has had enough of this sort of shit and should realise it never ends well!

Russia plays it's game (and plays it well), so too, do we play our game.

[Grumph]

Russia plays it's game (and plays it well), so too, do we play our game.

Yeah, but they're playing chess at a high level and we're playing croquet...

I'm amused to see that some on the religious right in the US are saying that the poison used in the UK assasination attempt probably came from Porton Down - which is apprently quite close to Salisbury. They're screaming false flag attack....
Not sure at all why it should be the religious crazies saying this, maybe Trump will follow suit ?

[T.W.R]

You've missed the point - it's not about what I get righteous about, it's about the hypocritical standards that others get righteous about.

I didn't miss the point at all, you missed your own point with misinterpretation of what I said



Russia plays it's game (and plays it well), so too, do we play our game.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy :whistle:

[jasonu]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12022820

That 'ill learn em.
Like they were all headed towards NZ to hide out until the dust clears...

[Katman]

If it came out tomorrow, that the West (UK, US etc. Take your pick) had seriously considered assassinating someone - you'd be up in arms.

Whereas you would just pass it off as one of those nasty little necessities required to keep the West safe.


At the suggestion that Russia has actually assassinated someone, your go-to response is that it is the west trying to "demonise anything Russian".

So perhaps you can point us* towards some proof that Russia is behind this latest attack.

*(Calm down jasonu).

[pete376403]

Bridges flip-flop

The Government is taking a lot of heat for not expelling any Russians. That seems like an odd thing to for people to get worked up about, but there you are.

You can judge how the issue has unfolded by the fact that in a space of 24 hours, Simon Bridges has gone from grave statesman "we must stand as one on this issue" mode:

I agree that we need to have a critical eye on issues such as this, but the Prime Minister's position as I understand it is there are no, effectively, spies and so I take her at her word.

to full outraged "why is the Government letting down the country?" mode:

We are being laughed at in the international media. And the reason for that is that other countries, our best friends around the world, are taking a really principled stance on this and we haven't.

Apparently the PM's word is good enough for him, but only until overseas media pokes the borax at us.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/my-spy-boy-told-your-spy-boy-im-gonna-set-you-flag-on-fi-yo

[Grumph]

I'd like to see some figures on numbers expelled. I've seen the figure 19 Russian staff here. If we expel one that's say, 5%. How does that stack up against countries where they have hundreds of staff and expel around 50 ? Is it proportionate ?

As for Slimeon Bridges attempting to appear stern and statesmanlike, not happening.

[jasonu]

ereas you would just pass it off as one of those nasty little necessities required to keep the West safe.



So perhaps you can point us* towards some proof that Russia is behind this latest attack.

*(Calm down jasonu).

Or you could 'point us' to some proof that is wasn't Russia behind this latest attack.




but I'm sure you won't.....

[Katman]

Or you could 'point us' to some proof that is wasn't Russia behind this latest attack.




but I'm sure you won't.....

Clearly you don't subscribe to the theory of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

[husaberg]

Clearly you don't subscribe to the theory of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
Why would that be you clearly don't. You repeatedly even claim innocent even when clearly proven guilty.
In this case Russia was given a time frame to answer if.
1, They had lost control of the Nerve agent used, that was clearly developed by them
2, or they had in fact used it themselves.
Russia failed to respond to the ultimatum, thus sanctions were brought against them for failing to respond.
It pretty simple (although clearly not simple enough for you to understand)

[Swoop]

Russia is flexing its muscles as Putin is insecure.
Trouble is Russia is not that well off and relies on some pretty large subsidies from overseas sources to stay afloat.

Russia provoked the UK with a pretty piss poor display of an assassination.

Remember that there has been an "election" in the motherland and Fred Putin is always portrayed as being strong on every issue (Russian's like strong)...

It makes interesting discussion where "wet" work is conducted in certain countries. Perhaps slow-acting (or, at the least, not instant) poisons are not seen as as this due to the non-instant death? The Gentleman's Agreement might have been slightly re-written with the new Czars protecting their billion-rouble empires.

[Katman]

Why would that be you clearly don't. You repeatedly even claim innocent even when clearly proven guilty.
In this case Russia was given a time frame to answer if.
1, They had lost control of the Nerve agent used, that was clearly developed by them
2, or they had in fact used it themselves.
Russia failed to respond to the ultimatum, thus sanctions were brought against them for failing to respond.
It pretty simple (although clearly not simple enough for you to understand)

What about the claim that British authorities have refused to hand over a sample of the supposed nerve agent to Russia for examination?

They seem rather reluctant to give anyone the opportunity to refute their allegations.

[oldrider]

Remember that there has been an "election" in the motherland and Fred Putin is always portrayed as being strong on every issue (Russian's like strong)...

It makes interesting discussion where "wet" work is conducted in certain countries. Perhaps slow-acting (or, at the least, not instant) poisons are not seen as as this due to the non-instant death? The Gentleman's Agreement might have been slightly re-written with the new Czars protecting their billion-rouble empires.

Fear is the most powerful and easy to administer weapon that there is - all "they" have to do is sow a little seed of fear here there and everywhere to keep it simmering!

Then it is not a big step to up the anti by the desired (war) spending degree according to need greed etc and still keep control of the situation.

Hitler almost got out of control and turned the tables - "They" do not want to see any repeats of that little fiasco happening again! :oi-grr:

Mushroom syndrome - keep the population in the dark and feed them measured quantities of bullshit they will (and do!) behave accordingly! :niceone: Works every time! :rolleyes:

Give me control of the finances of the world - I care not who makes the laws! - Springs to mind! :kick:

[husaberg]

Remember that there has been an "election" in the motherland and Fred Putin is always portrayed as being strong on every issue (Russian's like strong)...

It makes interesting discussion where "wet" work is conducted in certain countries. Perhaps slow-acting (or, at the least, not instant) poisons are not seen as as this due to the non-instant death? The Gentleman's Agreement might have been slightly re-written with the new Czars protecting their billion-rouble empires.
Interestingly the poison used when applied properly is almost undetectable as it looks like a natural death its only detectable if you go looking for it or if used in to low a dose.
This series of Nerve agent was actually used in an internal struggle in Russia were a banker was killed.
in this case the murder of Ivan Kivelidi and Zara Ismailova. where Vladimir Khutsishvili, a former business partner of the banker was convicted of murder.

The Russian ministry of foreign affairs analysed the substance and announced that it was "a phosphorus-based military-grade nerve agent" "whose formula was strictly classified".According to Nesterov, the administrative head of Shikhany, he did not know of "a single case of such poison being sold illegally" and noted that the poison "is used by professional spies

Yet the nerve agent was alledged to be obtained from a former lab employee who was Leonard Rink, He told police he had been storing poisons in his garage and selling them to pay off debts.
Some in Russia believe Vladimir Khutsishvili was framed by the security forces who wanted rid of Ivan Kivelidi. As the alleged source of the poison was not even detained in relation to this for at least 10 years.
Who knows what actually happened in both cases other than a Russian developed nerve agent was used in an attempt kill someone.



What about the claim that British authorities have refused to hand over a sample of the supposed nerve agent to Russia for examination?

They seem rather reluctant to give anyone the opportunity to refute their allegations.
Yet another Katman gish gallop.
The Russians had the opportunity to refute they chose to not answer the questions posed to them.
Did you not comprehend that?

Why would that be you clearly don't. You repeatedly even claim innocent even when clearly proven guilty.
In this case Russia was given a time frame to answer if.
1, They had lost control of the Nerve agent used, that was clearly developed by them
2, or they had in fact used it themselves.
Russia failed to respond to the ultimatum, thus sanctions were brought against them for failing to respond.
It pretty simple (although clearly not simple enough for you to understand)

Thus they had sanction's placed against them,
Its pretty simple but clearly going whoosh as it flies over your head.

[jasonu]

Clearly you don't subscribe to the theory of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Clearly you hand around here to get your jollies.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Or you could 'point us' to some proof that is wasn't Russia behind this latest attack.
but I'm sure you won't.....

It's so so obvious it was Russia. 335920

[Crasherfromwayback]

The Russians had the opportunity to refute they chose to not answer the questions posed to them. Did you not comprehend that?


.

It's my understanding they said they'd refuse to answer to any cunt until they had a sample of the toxin used? Is that not fair enough? Like David Bain's lawyers not answering to any cunt unless they were privy to the very same info?

[husaberg]

It's my understanding they said they'd refuse to answer to any cunt until they had a sample of the toxin used? Is that not fair enough? Like David Bain's lawyers not answering to any cunt unless they were privy to the very same info?

Refusing to answer a question is not an answer. As such they were sanctioned.
It was the Russian refusal to answer that resulted in these sanctions
#pretty sure David Bain was not a Russian.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Refusing to answer a question is not an answer. As such they were sanctioned.
It was the Russian refusal to answer that resulted in these sanctions
#pretty sure David Bain was not a Russian.

Fuck off. Would you answer an incredibly serious question until you had all the facts? Rather than just the ones presented by your very own enemies?

[husaberg]

Fuck off. Would you answer an incredibly serious question until you had all the facts? Rather than just the ones presented by your very own enemies?
If they were innocent they would have. The Russians had the facts they needed to be able to answer the simple questions.
They didn't thus they were sanctioned
Seriously are you honestly suggesting they needed a sample of the nerve agent to know if they carried out an attack?
Are you suggesting they needed a sample of the nerve agent to know if they had any go missing?

Note using your own silly analogy, the funny thing is until he was charged David Bain freely spoke with police, he in fact contacted them first.

[jasonu]

If they were innocent they would have. The Russians had the facts they needed to be able to answer the simple questions.
They didn't thus they were sanctioned
Seriously are you honestly suggesting they needed a sample of the nerve agent to know if they carried out an attack?
Are you suggesting they needed a sample of the nerve agent to know if they had any go missing?

Note using your own silly analogy, the funny thing is until he was charged David Bain freely spoke with police, he in fact contacted them first.

Wouldn't it be a bit pointless to give then some?
They would 'test' it then say it wasn't theirs.

[Katman]

If they were innocent they would have. The Russians had the facts they needed to be able to answer the simple questions.


If someone leveled an accusation at me but refused to offer any proof to back up that accusation, I'd tell them to get fucked too.

[husaberg]

If someone leveled an accusation at me but refused to offer any proof to back up that accusation, I'd tell them to get fucked too.

So instead of protesting your innocence, before you could do so, you would need to see all their evidence..:killingme
What a crack up you are.:lol:
Maybe you should attempt to answer the questions posed as if you not actually the guilty party
Especially considering that from your own accounts of previous dealings with the police, we know you still claim to be innocent, even when you are guilty.
http://www.politifake.org/image/political/small/1303/paranoia-strikes-deep-paranoia-conspiracy-loons-politics-1363278631.gif (https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi3ltf8ipXaAhUFEbwKHSL9Dg8QjRx6BAgAEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politifake.org%2Fcomments%2F3 3961&psig=AOvVaw1wQFvAWmqhAd2VKxldNw2k&ust=1522534990898630)https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4b/d5/03/4bd503f5dda52fbd225036e88de0b8ba.jpg (https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwixo6XLiZXaAhULW7wKHbRHA4IQjRx6BAgAEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kiwibiker.co.nz%2Fforums%2Fa rchive%2Findex.php%2Ft-176504.html&psig=AOvVaw1RuGsUYe-CZdfvRmVNM0jx&ust=1522534515299403)

[eldog]

Perhaps there is some trade agreement pending?

[Crasherfromwayback]

If someone leveled an accusation at me but refused to offer any proof to back up that accusation, I'd tell them to get fucked too.

Especially something that serious.

[Crasherfromwayback]

So instead of protesting your innocence, before you could do so, you would need to see all their evidence..:killingme
L]

So if the Poms have nothing to hide, and are indeed telling the truth, why not comply with Russia's requests? Seems they're the ones not playing the game.

[husaberg]

So if the Poms have nothing to hide, and are indeed telling the truth, why not comply with Russia's requests? Seems they're the ones not playing the game.
The Russians had the facts they needed to be able to answer the simple questions.
1, They had lost control of the Nerve agent used, that was clearly developed by them
2, or they had in fact used it themselves.
They didn't answer the simple questions thus they were sanctioned
Seriously are you honestly suggesting they needed a sample of the nerve agent to know if they carried out an attack?
Are you suggesting they needed a sample of the nerve agent to know if they had any go missing?

[Katman]

The Russians had the facts they needed to be able to answer the simple questions.

Maybe they're wanting some sort of proof that it's even the Novichok strain of nerve agent.

[Viking01]

The Russians had the facts they needed to be able to answer the simple questions.
1, They had lost control of the Nerve agent used, that was clearly developed by them
2, or they had in fact used it themselves.
They didn't answer the simple questions thus they were sanctioned
Seriously are you honestly suggesting they needed a sample of the nerve agent to know if they carried out an attack?
Are you suggesting they needed a sample of the nerve agent to know if they had any go missing?


I think that the statements you made above need some challenge.

A. Source

Personally, I think that there has been enough information (from various sources)
to indicate that to accuse the Russians specifically of using such a chemical agent
is indeed a very long stretch of the imagination e.g.

-Russian destroyed their own stocks back in the 1990's under OPCW watch;
-The US were involved in a cleanup of the last lab (in Uzbekistan) back in the late
1980's , so the US was quite able to gain possession itself;
-The nerve agent is apparently not that difficult to synthesise, according to a number
of renown synthetic organic chemists. Dangerous - yes; difficult - no.
-Iran has admitted to having synthesised a Novichek agent within the last few years.

If Porton Downs staff have been able to (or are planning to) verify the identify of the
nerve agent, then how did they acquire their own sample for comparison purposes ?

B. identification

Porton Down lab staff have also been recently quoted as saying that the sample may
possibly be "a Novichek or some related compound", and that it would take 2-3 weeks
to perform enough analysis to conclusively confirm its true identity.

Synthesis of organic compounds often leaves a chemical "signature". I find it quite
realistic to think that any residual samples obtained by OPCW during the destruction
of Russian stocks could be compared against the British sample - and the source of
the British sample from the attack verified as being Russian (or not).

Do I think the British sample is Russian in origin ? Highly unlikely.

Do I think the Russians would be so stupid to undertake such an attack in the first
place, and use an agent which might track back to themselves ? Again, highly unlikely.

Perhaps read the following link:

http://www.theblogmire.com/30-questions-that-journalists-should-be-asking-about-the-skripal-case/

C. Politics

The fact that the British political establishment were so very quick to (i) categorically
identify the nerve agent (ii) accuse the Russians (iii) demand that the Russians disprove
the British assertion - without providing them a sample (as per OPCW protocol) should
tell you that this is a "false flag" event and a political "snow job".

The "innocent until proven guilty" basis of international law has been quickly cast aside.

And the non-provision of a sample to the Russians - to allow them to defend themselves
within the international arena - just adds further weight.

The "sanctioning" of the Russians was always going to happen. For so many reasons.

If you have any further doubt, perhaps read the following two links:

https://southfront.org/skripal-case-the-big-picture/

http://thesaker.is/how-the-east-can-save-the-west/

[husaberg]

Maybe they're wanting some sort of proof that it's even the Novichok strain of nerve agent.

Well if that was the case maybe you can explain exactly why they would need a sample of the nerve agent to ascertain if.
1, They had lost control of the Novichok nerve agent that was developed by them and them alone.
2, or they had in fact used it themselves to carry out the attack.

Because they would clearly know if they carried out the attack themselves?
Also they would also know if some had gone missing?

Yet they refused to answer the very direct question asked by the British leader if they had carried out the attack or if they had lost control of some of their nerve agents.

[husaberg]

I think that the statements you made above need some challenge.

A. Source

Personally, I think that there has been enough information (from various sources)
to indicate that to accuse the Russians specifically of using such a chemical agent
is indeed a very long stretch of the imagination e.g.

-Russian destroyed their own stocks back in the 1990's under OPCW watch;
-The US were involved in a cleanup of the last lab (in Uzbekistan) back in the late
1980's , so the US was quite able to gain possession itself;
-The nerve agent is apparently not that difficult to synthesise, according to a number
of renown synthetic organic chemists. Dangerous - yes; difficult - no.
-Iran has admitted to having synthesised a Novichek agent within the last few years.

If Porton Downs staff have been able to (or are planning to) verify the identify of the
nerve agent, then how did they acquire their own sample for comparison purposes ?

B. identification

Porton Down lab staff have also been recently quoted as saying that the sample may
possibly be "a Novichek or some related compound", and that it would take 2-3 weeks
to perform enough analysis to conclusively confirm its true identity.

Synthesis of organic compounds often leaves a chemical "signature". I find it quite
realistic to think that any residual samples obtained by OPCW during the destruction
of Russian stocks could be compared against the British sample - and the source of
the British sample from the attack verified as being Russian (or not).

Do I think the British sample is Russian in origin ? Highly unlikely.

Do I think the Russians would be so stupid to undertake such an attack in the first
place, and use an agent which might track back to themselves ? Again, highly unlikely.

Perhaps read the following link:

http://www.theblogmire.com/30-questions-that-journalists-should-be-asking-about-the-skripal-case/

C. Politics

The fact that the British political establishment were so very quick to (i) categorically
identify the nerve agent (ii) accuse the Russians (iii) demand that the Russians disprove
the British assertion - without providing them a sample (as per OPCW protocol) should
tell you that this is a "false flag" event and a political "snow job".

The "innocent until proven guilty" basis of international law has been quickly cast aside.

And the non-provision of a sample to the Russians - to allow them to defend themselves
within the international arena - just adds further weight.

The "sanctioning" of the Russians was always going to happen. For so many reasons.

If you have any further doubt, perhaps read the following two links:

https://southfront.org/skripal-case-the-big-picture/

http://thesaker.is/how-the-east-can-save-the-west/
There was more than one lab so all your points relating to it are moot
The fact that the Russians refuse to answer the simple questions posed to them but still want to carry out a media only denial strategy reveals far more than any conspiracy theory you are trying to push.

I note the Russian ambassador to the EU Chizhov flatly denied that not only That Russia never had any stocks of Novichok He also stated Russia had never manufactured Novichok.
Yet by your own points you are using they clearly did have stocks of Novichok and they clearly had manufactured Novichok.
So what is it have the Russians lied about having it? or not having it?
Especially funny that you state that the Russians have destroyed all their stockpiles of nerve agents
Because by stating this its clear that you didn't know that Russia never even declared its existence Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which oversees a treaty banning their use.
Maybe its time you did a bit of research before offering up so much conspiracy theory that clearly contradicts your own arguments

[Katman]

I note the Russian ambassador to the EU Chizhov flatly denied that not only That Russia never had any stocks of Novichok He also stated Russia had never manufactured Novichok.

Do you have a source for that claim?

[husaberg]

Do you have a source for that claim?

Its a statement he made.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/russian-ambassador-suggests-british-lab-12208590
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-accuses-russia-secretly-12208849
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18031801.pdf
but cool another Katman gish gallop

so how are you getting on with the previous questions

Maybe they're wanting some sort of proof that it's even the Novichok strain of nerve agent.

Well if that was the case maybe you can explain exactly why they would need a sample of the nerve agent to ascertain if.
1, They had lost control of the Novichok nerve agent that was developed by them and them alone.
2, or they had in fact used it themselves to carry out the attack.

Because they would clearly know if they carried out the attack themselves?
Also they would also know if some had gone missing?

Yet they refused to answer the very direct question asked by the British leader if they had carried out the attack or if they had lost control of some of their nerve agents.

[Katman]

Yet they refused to answer the very direct question asked by the British leader if they had carried out the attack or if they had lost control of some of their nerve agents.

As far as I'm aware Russian authorities have clearly denied carrying out the attack.

[husaberg]

As far as I'm aware Russian authorities have clearly denied carrying out the attack.
Only through the media not in a direct response to the UK leaders questions.
Which is why they were sanctioned.
You seem to have no understanding of how diplomacy works.
Its carried out through defined diplomatic channels not through the media.
As I pointed out they also claimed to have never manufactured it or have even acknowledged it existence of Novichok.

[Viking01]

There was more than one lab so all your points relating to it are mute.
The fact that the Russians refuse to answer the simple questions posed to them but still want to carry out a media only denial strategy reveals far more than any conspiracy theory you are trying to push.

I note the Russian ambassador to the EU Chizhov flatly denied that not only That Russia never had any stocks of Novichok He also stated Russia had never manufactured Novichok.
Yet by your own points you are using they clearly did have stocks of Novichok and they clearly had manufactured Novichok.
So what is it have the Russians lied about having it? or not having it?
Especially funny that you state that the Russians have destroyed all their stockpiles of nerve agents
Because by stating this its clear that you didn't know that Russia never even declared its existence Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which oversees a treaty banning their use.
Maybe its time you did a bit of research before offering up so much conspiracy theory that clearly contradicts your own arguments



A. Laboratories

Irrespective of how many labs "might have been involved", the fact that Porton Downs lab
staff have themselves indicated:

-that the sample may possibly be "a Novichek or some related compound", and
-that it would take 2-3 weeks to perform enough analysis to conclusively confirm its identity

should be an indicator that the "identification" process is not trivial and requires a reasonable
amount of time.

For the politicians to state its identity "with certainty" within two days of the attack does not
imply to me that "a robust chemical analytical process" has been performed.

So I'll disagree with your comment, and simply watch what transpires over the next 2-3 weeks.


B. Conspiracy Theories

Your words, not mine. I'm just interested in a few more facts. And less political spin.


C. Russian Investigation and Manufacture

The Russians have already admitted that their research into such types of agents started well
before the 1970's.

Please note that it is not a single compound we are talking about, but a family of "similar related
compounds". There is no one definitive formulae.

The Russians also acknowledged that their research ultimately led them to believe that these were
not particularly viable agents for warfare purposes.

For those two reasons, large scale manufacture by the Russians was never undertaken - and a
definitive "nerve agent formula" was never declared to OPCW.

However, destruction of stocks of such chemicals held was undertaken by Russia (with OPCW
acknowledgement).

This occurred roughly around the period that "glasnost" between the USA and the USSR was
occurring, and reflected willingness on the Russians part to reduce the risk of large scale death
occurring during a possible conflict.

At that time, the US indicated to the Russians that they were quite agreeable to doing likewise
- but somehow, destruction of US nerve agent stocks has never eventuated.

This is not "conspiracy theory". It's documented fact (though sometimes hard to find within the
literature).


d. Politics

I fully expect the current political sideshow to continue. Especially given the situation in Syria,
and the upcoming FIFA Soccer World Cup in Russia.

I will indeed be surprised if some conclusive result (confirming Russian culpability) ends up being
determined and published to the wider public.

[jasonu]

Especially something that serious.

At that level everything is 'that serious'.

[jasonu]

As far as I'm aware Russian authorities have clearly denied carrying out the attack.

Didn't see that one coming...

[Viking01]

https://www.rt.com/uk/422598-chemical-weapons-expert-novichok/

[husaberg]

A. Laboratories
Irrespective of how many labs "might have been involved", the fact that Porton Downs lab
staff have themselves indicated:
-that the sample may possibly be "a Novichek or some related compound", and
-that it would take 2-3 weeks to perform enough analysis to conclusively confirm its identity
should be an indicator that the "identification" process is not trivial and requires a reasonable
amount of time.
For the politicians to state its identity "with certainty" within two days of the attack does not
imply to me that "a robust chemical analytical process" has been performed.
So I'll disagree with your comment, and simply watch what transpires over the next 2-3 weeks.
B. Conspiracy Theories

Your words, not mine. I'm just interested in a few more facts. And less political spin.


C. Russian Investigation and Manufacture
The Russians have already admitted that their research into such types of agents started well
before the 1970's.
Please note that it is not a single compound we are talking about, but a family of "similar related
compounds". There is no one definitive formulae.
The Russians also acknowledged that their research ultimately led them to believe that these were
not particularly viable agents for warfare purposes.
For those two reasons, large scale manufacture by the Russians was never undertaken - and a
definitive "nerve agent formula" was never declared to OPCW.
However, destruction of stocks of such chemicals held was undertaken by Russia (with OPCW
acknowledgement).This occurred roughly around the period that "glasnost" between the USA and the USSR was
occurring, and reflected willingness on the Russians part to reduce the risk of large scale death occurring during a possible conflict.
At that time, the US indicated to the Russians that they were quite agreeable to doing likewise
- but somehow, destruction of US nerve agent stocks has never eventuated.
This is not "conspiracy theory". It's documented fact (though sometimes hard to find within the
literature
d. Politics
I fully expect the current political sideshow to continue. Especially given the situation in Syria,
and the upcoming FIFA Soccer World Cup in Russia.
I will indeed be surprised if some conclusive result (confirming Russian culpability) ends up being
determined and published to the wider public.
If you were interested in anything rather than conspiracy theories or Political spin you would have aknowleded what you were posting was not facts but simply conspiracy theories.
For instance you would have know their was more than one Russian lab involved.
You would have known Russia never declared the existence of the nerve agent to OPCW. Yet you claim that had destroyed it.
You would have known they are now trying to claim it never existed yet you previous post acknowledged that they did develop it and stockpile it.

[Viking01]

If you were interested in anything rather than conspiracy theories or Political spin you would have aknowleded what you were posting was not facts but simply conspiracy theories.
For instance you would have know their was more than one Russian lab involved.
You would have known Russia never declared the existence of the nerve agent to OPCW. Yet you claim that had destroyed it.
You would have known they are now trying to claim it never existed yet you previous post acknowledged that they did develop it and stockpile it.

Did you actually read and understand the points I made in the previous post ?

[husaberg]

Did you actually read and understand the points I made in the previous post ?
Lets see I initially pointed out two simple questions posed to Russia that they refused to answer you keep pushing a whole heap of conspiracy crap that is ill conceived and laughable as well as contradictory.
I point this out to you along with why it is laughable and contradictory so you post more ill conceived crap. That again contradicts stuff you had already posted
I look forward to a ten paragraph reply.

[Katman]

Did you actually read and understand the points I made in the previous post ?

A hopeful, yet ultimately futile, expectation.

[Crasherfromwayback]

If you were interested in anything rather than conspiracy theories or Political spin you would have aknowleded what you were posting was not facts but simply conspiracy theories.
.

Pretty rich from a cunt that's taking the British *official line*, hook, line and fucking blind sinker. But oh no...because it's us, the *good guys*, what you hear must be *facts*! Great logic Glenn.

[husaberg]

Pretty rich from a cunt that's taking the British *official line*, hook, line and fucking blind sinker. But oh no...because it's us, the *good guys*, what you hear must be *facts*! Great logic Glenn.
No Pete its simple s logic (but likely beyond your simple mind), that one lot is asking questions the other lot is not only avoiding giving answers they are claiming there was nothing that ever existed that should be questioned.
Hint why would the Russians now claim the nerve agent never existed when they had previously acknowledged it did.
You should be familiar with the avoiding giving answers as you haven't answered the questions put to you yet.

So if the Poms have nothing to hide, and are indeed telling the truth, why not comply with Russia's requests? Seems they're the ones not playing the game.

The Russians had the facts they needed to be able to answer the simple questions.
1, They had lost control of the Nerve agent used, that was clearly developed by them
2, or they had in fact used it themselves.
They didn't answer the simple questions thus they were sanctioned
Seriously are you honestly suggesting they needed a sample of the nerve agent to know if they carried out an attack?
Are you suggesting they needed a sample of the nerve agent to know if they had any go missing?

The simple question must have been too hard aye.:msn-wink:

[TheDemonLord]

Whereas you would just pass it off as one of those nasty little necessities required to keep the West safe.

Depends - there are certainly individuals in the world whose actions have merited a quick covert assassination.

There are also those who have faced some form of Governmental sanction, under the guise of necessary tyranny, that I don't agree with.

The difference is that you seem to only deal in absolutes.



So perhaps you can point us* towards some proof that Russia is behind this latest attack.

*(Calm down jasonu).

Why?
Have I expressed an opinion on the matter?

The only opinion I've expressed is that you would hang a western government out to dry on an accusation with less evidence, yet you defend Russia (whose 20th century record is exceptionally tyrannical).

And I happen to find that reaction far more interesting.

[Katman]

The only opinion I've expressed is that you would hang a western government out to dry on an accusation with less evidence, yet you defend Russia (whose 20th century record is exceptionally tyrannical).

Seriously dude, if you had the ability to read these threads through the eyes of a normal person you'd see that I'm not 'defending' anyone.

I'm simply pointing out that there is nothing as yet that proves that Russia was behind it.

[Brian d marge]

Seriously dude, if you could read these threads through the eyes of a normal person you'd see that I'm not 'defending' anyone.

I'm simply pointing out that there is nothing as yet that proves that Russia was behind it.Yeah there is , the toast was burnt this morning. ..

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Coldrider]

Yeah there is , the toast was burnt this morning. ..

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
Yeah, and I got served a Black Russian with generic spirits, fuck you Putin, it tasted like burnt dutch luggage.

[Brian d marge]

Yeah, and I got served a Black Russian with generic spirits, fuck you Putin, it tasted like burnt dutch luggage.That's called counter intelligence... Oss, later renamed cia
Think ya drinking the real deal, you been duped.... That there was from a stainless tank in ..a caravan...

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[TheDemonLord]

I'm simply pointing out that there is nothing as yet that proves that Russia was behind it.

And I'm pointing out that you'd not be so generous if it were an accusation against a western government...

And by proxy of that statement - you are showing an implied support for Russia...

[Katman]

And I'm pointing out that you'd not be so generous if it were an accusation against a western government...

And by proxy of that statement - you are showing an implied support for Russia...

That's merely your autistic interpretation.

[Katman]

Hint why would the Russians now claim the nerve agent never existed when they had previously acknowledged it did.

Is that the official Russian standpoint or is it just some words you plucked from a Daily Mirror article?

[Katman]

Depends - there are certainly individuals in the world whose actions have merited a quick covert assassination.

Like David Kelly perhaps?

[husaberg]

Is that the official Russian standpoint or is it just some words you plucked from a Daily Mirror article?
Its clearly not just words plucked, its a direct quote.
I showed you what statement the quote came from, the statement made by Vladimir Chizhov, its repeated in other articles as being said by Vladimir Chizhov by other British officials.
You clearly don't like it as it goes against the narrative you had created in your increasingly paranoid mind.
Funny enough Its sentiment was also repeated by the Russian Ambassador to the Netherlands and a representative to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin “There has never been any program under the group name Novichok in the Russian Federation,” which is of course a clever misrepresentation of facts, as the Russian Federation was only formed in 1991.

Now you have finished your latest gish gallop how are you getting on with the previous questions

Maybe they're wanting some sort of proof that it's even the Novichok strain of nerve agent.

Well if that was the case maybe you can explain exactly why they would need a sample of the nerve agent to ascertain if.
1, They had lost control of the Novichok nerve agent that was developed by them and them alone.
2, or they had in fact used it themselves to carry out the attack.

Because they would clearly know if they carried out the attack themselves?
Also they would also know if some had gone missing?

Yet they refused to answer the very direct question asked by the British leader if they had carried out the attack or if they had lost control of some of their nerve agents.

I note how you were recently up in arms about one person dying in the US from a trail of chemical weapons in the 70's
Yet have never mentioned or commented on
Yekaterinburg Russia — the site of a 1979 accidental anthrax release that killed 100 people.

[Katman]

Its clearly not just words plucked its a direct quote.I showed you what statement the quote came from the statement made by Vladimir Chizhov, its repeated in other articles.

Go back and have another read.

The bit about there being no stockpiles is in quotation marks but the bit about the Novichok programme never existing is certainly not presented as a 'direct quote'.

[husaberg]

Go back and have another read.

The bit about there being no stockpiles is in quotation marks but the bit about the Novichok programme never existing is certainly not presented as a 'direct quote'.

Mr Chizhov claimed Russia has never produced Novichok, saying it had “no stockpiles whatsoever” of any nerve agent and "Russia has stopped production of any chemical agents back in 1992".Chizhov flatly denied that Russia had any stocks of novichok or had ever manufactured it. The Guardian

But why not read the transcript
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18031801.pdf

<nobr>AM: This is a very obscure nerve agent, not much understood</nobr>
<nobr>around the world. Has Russia ever produced this agent, Novichok?
</nobr><nobr>VC: No.
</nobr><nobr></nobr><nobr>AM: Never?</nobr><nobr></nobr>
<nobr></nobr><nobr></nobr><nobr>VC: No. Actually Russia has stopped production of any chemical</nobr><nobr></nobr>
<nobr></nobr><nobr></nobr><nobr>agents back in 1992. So we cannot even talk about any chemical</nobr><nobr></nobr>
<nobr></nobr><nobr></nobr><nobr>agents produced by Russia. All that have been produced</nobr><nobr></nobr>
<nobr></nobr><nobr></nobr><nobr>previously was produced by the Soviet Union. In 1992 the then</nobr><nobr></nobr>
<nobr></nobr><nobr></nobr><nobr>President, Boris Yeltsin, signed a decree stopping all production,</nobr><nobr></nobr>
<nobr></nobr><nobr></nobr><nobr>and on – according to the international convention on prohibition</nobr><nobr></nobr>
<nobr></nobr><nobr></nobr><nobr>of chemical weapons last year, 2017,</nobr><nobr></nobr>

This represents a bit of an issue relating to your narritive now doesn't it?
You have said you know Novichok exists and was a Russian nerve agent.
Yet now you have the Russians claiming it never existed.
You also know the Russians never admitted it existed to the authorities that overseen the destruction of the 40 plus tons of nerve agent Russia actually admitted existed (enough to kill ever person in the world many times over) Which the USA actually paid for as the Russians claimed they couldn't afford it.
So as they never admitted Novichok existed and still do not, yet you clearly know it did, The only explanation is the Russians clearly lied about its existence and never destroyed it.

[Katman]

But why not read the transcript

Comprehension really isn't your strongpoint, is it?

He clearly makes the differentiation between 'Russia' and the 'Soviet Union'.



Yet now you have the Russians claiming it never existed.


He's not claiming it never existed, you fucking moron.

He's claiming that Russia hasn't produced any since the demise of the Soviet Union.

[husaberg]

Maybe they're wanting some sort of proof that it's even the Novichok strain of nerve agent.


Comprehension really isn't your strongpoint, is it?

He clearly makes the differentiation between 'Russia' and the 'Soviet Union'.



He's not claiming it never existed, you fucking moron.

He's claiming that Russia hasn't produced any since the demise of the Soviet Union.

Nice try but that was already pointed out to you which makes you the using your words the
fucking moron.

Its clearly not just words plucked, its a direct quote.
I showed you what statement the quote came from, the statement made by Vladimir Chizhov, its repeated in other articles as being said by Vladimir Chizhov by other British officials.
You clearly don't like it as it goes against the narrative you had created in your increasingly paranoid mind.
Funny enough Its sentiment was also repeated by the Russian Ambassador to the Netherlands and a representative to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin “There has never been any program under the group name Novichok in the Russian Federation,” which is of course a clever misrepresentation of facts, as the Russian Federation was only formed in 1991.
.
Now why do you think it is the RUssians are playing word games in an attempt to cover facts.
As I pointed out there is clearly a Nerve agent called Novichok which was never declared thus it was also never destroyed in accordance with OPCW.
Which was signed in 1992

All States Parties have agreed to chemically disarm by destroying any stockpiles of chemical weapons they may hold and any facilities which produced them, as well as any chemical weapons they abandoned on the territory of other States Parties in the past.
Which means Russia has been caught rather red handed much like your red face.
I case you are more confused than normal and are having trouble keeping up Russia never reported the existence of Novichok to the OPCW.

The beauty of the OPCW is in it rules

A unique feature of the CWC is its incorporation of the 'challenge inspection', whereby any State Party in doubt about another State Party's compliance can request the Director-General (https://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/technical-secretariat/director-general/) to send an inspection team. Under the CWC's 'challenge inspection' procedure, States Parties have committed themselves to the principle of 'any time, anywhere' inspections with no right of refusal.

Expect more sanctions followed by expulsions as Russia try to avoid the inspections.

[Graystone]

which makes you the FUCKING MORRON

I mean, this seems nice...

[Viking01]

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/31/26507/

[Crasherfromwayback]

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/31/26507/

But...but...but...The Russians did so do it! Western media said so!!! Ask Glenn!

[husaberg]

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/31/26507/
The author is a regular guest on Russia Today.:lol:
Today Last time I seen something on Russia Today it was when they made the mistake of showing a Russian jet being loaded with cluster bombs to bomb a civilian area of Syria.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-01/syrian-government-use-banned-bombs-amnesty-international-says/9213754
Russian media where it is a crime punishable by imprisonment to criticise Russia:2thumbsup
His website also has links directing people to David Icke, Alex Jones :wings:

[Crasherfromwayback]

The author is a regular guest on Russia Today.:lol:
Russian media where it is a crime punishable by imprisonment to criticise Russia:2thumbsup

Aren't we all still waiting on you to produce some actual *facts* that Russia was behind the attacks?

[husaberg]

Aren't we all still waiting on you to produce some actual *facts* that Russia was behind the attacks?
Are you that's nice, Show me an actual question. or where I have said Russia was responsible for the attacks.
What I have said is Russia has been caught in a series of lies and untruths.
Much like your statements.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Are you that's nice, Show me an actual question.
.

Did you see that funny curly thing with the lil dot under it at the end of my post? <<<< like that one? It's called a fucking question mark, you docile cunt. That makes what I *asked* you, a fucking question.

[husaberg]

Did you see that funny curly thing with the lil dot under it at the end of my post? <<<< like that one? It's called a fucking question mark, you docile cunt. That makes what I *asked* you, a fucking question.
Did you notice I have never once said Russia was responsible for the attack. Because I have clearly spelled it out quite a few times now.
Do I need to use smaller words for you to be able to comprehend that?
So its time for you to explain why you would be waiting for me to produce fact to back up a statement I never made?

Aren't we all still waiting on you to produce some actual *facts* that Russia was behind the attacks?

[Swoop]

So if the Poms have nothing to hide, and are indeed telling the truth, why not comply with Russia's requests? Seems they're the ones not playing the game.
Just, perhaps, the UK might be collecting all of the evidence?
With the lady now emerging from danger, perhaps she has some more to add to all of this?

Then, perhaps, there might be some samples handed over to Russia for them to play with.

In the meantime, the regular game of expulsions / counter expulsions happens. Just like during the cold war. Nothing new. Rinse & repeat.

[TheDemonLord]

Like David Kelly perhaps?

Interesting example - given my entire critique has been the disparity between how you judge actions by those in the western world vs everyone else...

So instead of frothing at the mouth with your nauseating cries of:


That's merely your autistic interpretation.

Why don't you extend the same level of ambiguity you are currently showing Russia to the circumstances of one David Kelly?

[Laava]

Imagine if Russia was given a sample of the nerve agent and they test it and say, "yep, that's one of ours!" They already have made pathetic denials so pretty unlikely they will backtrack...
Be interesting to see if the daughter can name the perpetrator, also unlikely tho...

[Katman]

Why don't you extend the same level of ambiguity you are currently showing Russia to the circumstances of one David Kelly?

What's ambiguous about wanting to find out the truth?

[sidecar bob]

What's ambiguous about wanting to find out the truth?

And finding out what you believe to be the truth on this topic will improve your quality of life exactly how?
There's a cracking commercial property investment to be had in Taupo right now that might improve your lot. You should try to beat me too it. That would improve your quality of life.;)

[Katman]

And finding out what you believe to be the truth on this topic will improve your quality of life exactly how?
There's a cracking commercial property investment to be had in Taupo right now that might improve your lot. You should try to beat me too it. That would improve your quality of life.;)

My quality of life is perfectly adequate, thanks all the same.

[jasonu]

What's ambiguous about wanting to find out the truth?

You're not interested in finding out the truth. All you want to do is start bitch fests and call people shit for brains and talk about gay acts.

[Graystone]

Viking's link does bring up one hell of a good point, what is the burden of proof for international incidents?


You're not interested in finding out the truth. All you want to do is start bitch fests and call people shit for brains and talk about gay acts.

Nail, head. And don't forget the autism...

[oldrider]

BLAGOVESHCHENSK (Russia) (Sputnik) - Russian Ambassador to the United Kingdom Alexander Yakovenko on Sunday said that the so-called Skripal case is a false flag operation conducted by the UK secret services.

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201804011063118486-ambassador-uk-skripal-provocation/?utm_source=https://t.co/fZ47t7M6Y2&utm_medium=short_url&utm_content=hgtU&utm_campaign=URL_shortening

[husaberg]

You're not interested in finding out the truth. All you want to do is start bitch fests and call people shit for brains and talk about gay acts.


Nail, head. And don't forget the autism...
That sums him up, rather well.
Plus he never accepts anything as being the truth or facts that doesn't suit his preconceived and increasing paranoid conspiracy driven narrative of events.

[Katman]

Nail, head. And don't forget the autism...

TDL is never likely to let us forget.

[Graystone]

TDL is never likely to let us forget.

I was referring to yours.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Just, perhaps, the UK might be collecting all of the evidence?
With the lady now emerging from danger, perhaps she has some more to add to all of this?

Then, perhaps, there might be some samples handed over to Russia for them to play with.

In the meantime, the regular game of expulsions / counter expulsions happens. Just like during the cold war. Nothing new. Rinse & repeat.

Agree there. Although I doubt she'll have much to add other than " I felt good, then very very bad".

[husaberg]

I was referring to yours.
Never expect to be able to reason with a Narcissist
Just point out how they are wrong and wind up that highly fragile ego
335989335990335988

[Crasherfromwayback]

Never bother to reason with a Narcissist
335989335990335988

Hate to tell ya Bro, but if you're to be honest with yourself, you're a classic.

[Graystone]

Never expect to be able to reason with a Narcissist
Just point out how they are wrong and wound that highly fragile ego
335989335990335988


Hate to tell ya Bro, but if you're to be honest with yourself, you're a classic.

I'm with this guy, husaberg, you and katman are two peas in a pod.

[husaberg]

I'm with this guy, husaberg, you and katman are two peas in a pod.
Well if I must share a pod in your mind with katman, I would like to point out my side is the one without the incessant homoerotic fantasies and is not the one decorated in Nazi regalia :whistle:


Hate to tell ya Bro, but if you're to be honest with yourself, you're a classic.

So if the Poms have nothing to hide, and are indeed telling the truth, why not comply with Russia's requests? Seems they're the ones not playing the game.

The Russians had the facts they needed to be able to answer the simple questions.
1, They had lost control of the Nerve agent used, that was clearly developed by them
2, or they had in fact used it themselves.
They didn't answer the simple questions thus they were sanctioned
Seriously are you honestly suggesting they needed a sample of the nerve agent to know if they carried out an attack?
Are you suggesting they needed a sample of the nerve agent to know if they had any go missing?
Still waiting for that answer Pete


Aren't we all still waiting on you to produce some actual *facts* that Russia was behind the attacks?

Are you that's nice, Show me an actual question. or where I have said Russia was responsible for the attacks.
What I have said is Russia has been caught in a series of lies and untruths.
Much like your statements.



Did you see that funny curly thing with the lil dot under it at the end of my post? <<<< like that one? It's called a fucking question mark, you docile cunt. That makes what I *asked* you, a fucking question.

Did you notice I have never once said Russia was responsible for the attack. Because I have clearly spelled it out quite a few times now.
Do I need to use smaller words for you to be able to comprehend that?
So its time for you to explain why you would be waiting for me to produce facts to back up a statement I never made?
Isn't it odd you can't answer simple questions posed to you, yet expect me to answer questions about statements I clearly never made.
You are delusional Pete

[Crasherfromwayback]

...............

[TheDemonLord]

My quality of life is perfectly adequate, thanks all the same.

Is it?

Then why the deep dissatisfaction?

[TheDemonLord]

What's ambiguous about wanting to find out the truth?

That would be a noble and laudible goal...




except no one believes you...

If you were truly the skeptic you claim to be, you'd treat all claims with equal suspicion, but as you yourself demonstrate, that isn't the case.

[Katman]

except no one believes you...

So how about you? Are you interested in finding out the truth or are you happy with any old story as long as it's called the official story?

[husaberg]

The plot thickens from the Official Russian News agency TASS


MOSCOW, April 1. /TASS/. Russia has referred to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) a list of 13 questions concerning the so-called Skripal case framed-up against Russia, the Russian foreign ministry said on Sunday.....
London claimed that the toxin of Novichok-class had been allegedly developed in Russia. Moscow refuted the accusations that it had participated in the incident and points out that neither the Soviet Union nor Russia have ever done research into that toxic chemical.http://tass.com/politics/997160



He's claiming that Russia hasn't produced any since the demise of the Soviet Union.
It seems now the Russian News Agency now is though.


Mirzayanov was employed by the State Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology. . In 1992, they published an article of the USSR and Russia's development of extremely potent fourth-generation chemical weapons from the 1970s until the early 1990s, in Moskovskiye Novosti weekly,[and for safety purposes in the Baltimore Sun through an associated article written by veteran correspondent Will Englund. The publication appeared just on the eve of Russia's signing of the 1990 Chemical Weapons Convention. Later according to Mirzayanov, the Russian Military Chemical Complex (MCC) was using defense conversion money received from the West for development of the chemical warfare facility.
Mirzayanov was immediately fired. He was then arrested on October 22, 1992, on charges of treason, brought by the Russian military industrial complex authorities — he was not allowed to know the exact charges, as they were also declared a state secret. Held in Lefortovo prison, during the resultant court case, the existence of Novichok agents was openly admitted by Russian authorities. According to expert witness testimonies prepared for the KGB by three scientists, Novichok and other related chemical agents had indeed been produced and therefore the disclosure by Mirzayanov represented high treason.
However, the trial collapsed. Mirzayanov was released because "not one of the formulas or names of poisonous substances in the Moscow News article was new to the Soviet press, nor were locations ... of testing sites revealed." According to Yevgenia Albats, "the real state secret revealed by Fyodorov and Mirzayanov was that generals had lied — and were still lying — to both the international community and their fellow citizens."
Mirzayanov was released, but kept under house arrest and observation. When allowed to do so by Russian authorities, he relocated to the United States where he presently resides, taking a position at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9OOLBN0j7c
1994
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14119161-600-russians-release-chemist-after-international-protest/
2010
https://science.howstuffworks.com/biochem-war3.htm
2000
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/novichok-agent
2010
http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Novichok
2014
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Novichok
2013
https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/CSP/RC-3/en/rc3wp01_e_.pdf

[TheDemonLord]

So how about you? Are you interested in finding out the truth or are you happy with any old story as long as it's called the official story?

On issues I care about - then sure, I'll look at what is being cited as evidence and look at its legitimacy.

Sometimes it is clear that the official story is at best embellished, but other times the official story is closest to what could be referred to as 'the truth'

However - these days I'm more interested in why you make statements such as above where you infer that the Official story is contrasted opposite the truth.

[Katman]

On issues I care about - then sure, I'll look at what is being cited as evidence and look at its legitimacy.

So do you care about this issue or are you just here due to your fixation on me?


However - these days I'm more interested in why you make statements such as above where you infer that the Official story is contrasted opposite the truth.

Well I suppose that answers the question.