The Aerodrome Forum - View Single Post

bristol scout · 3 November 2009, 01:43 PM

DIRTYSHIRT

Now come along!

It is NOT hijacking to answer a point opened up by the co-originator of the thread!!!

If a statement is made--or a stance taken---that statement or stance is allowed to be challenged--and should do so without an IMMEDIATE personal attack!! Do you mean to say that in my FIRST debate with MT it is reasonable to be called idiot (and what on earth he thinks he means by in the Greek sense--IDIOTAI---I know ancient history) just for taking a contrary stance--is MT so venerated by you that you can't countenance someone disagreeing with him in a civilised fashion?

I quote some of MT--"let me be a little bit arrogant" (idiot is being a bit too arrogant) "stupid agression" "

bloody april came to a bad end".........

Let me also quote GMU from a different thread--but valid nonetheless "......This is a public forum, and we are in a public debate. Of course I am trying to prove your arguments wrong.
I will attack your arguments as hard as I can I expect you to do the same---this is a debate, what did you expect...."

almost the first word said to me by MT was that I was hateful---then very quickly that i am an idiot---well if obsequiousness is mandatory then I will not be involving myself in debates with MT---BUT of course it is not mandatory--only optional ---and I reserve the right to challenge statements--no matter who makes them---and do NOT expect to be personally insulted for having the temerity to do so.

MT may be hugely knowledgeable--or not. But on historical matters and W.W.1 I reserve the right to question his assumptions and erroneous beliefs whenever I encounter them.

This is because I am not an idiot---nor hateful.

Dave.

3 November 2009, 01:43 PM	#141 (permalink)
bristol scout Shot Down Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 3,612	DIRTYSHIRT Now come along! It is NOT hijacking to answer a point opened up by the co-originator of the thread!!! If a statement is made--or a stance taken---that statement or stance is allowed to be challenged--and should do so without an IMMEDIATE personal attack!! Do you mean to say that in my FIRST debate with MT it is reasonable to be called idiot (and what on earth he thinks he means by in the Greek sense--IDIOTAI---I know ancient history) just for taking a contrary stance--is MT so venerated by you that you can't countenance someone disagreeing with him in a civilised fashion? I quote some of MT--"let me be a little bit arrogant" (idiot is being a bit too arrogant) "stupid agression" " bloody april came to a bad end"......... Let me also quote GMU from a different thread--but valid nonetheless "......This is a public forum, and we are in a public debate. Of course I am trying to prove your arguments wrong. I will attack your arguments as hard as I can I expect you to do the same---this is a debate, what did you expect...." almost the first word said to me by MT was that I was hateful---then very quickly that i am an idiot---well if obsequiousness is mandatory then I will not be involving myself in debates with MT---BUT of course it is not mandatory--only optional ---and I reserve the right to challenge statements--no matter who makes them---and do NOT expect to be personally insulted for having the temerity to do so. MT may be hugely knowledgeable--or not. But on historical matters and W.W.1 I reserve the right to question his assumptions and erroneous beliefs whenever I encounter them. This is because I am not an idiot---nor hateful. Dave. Last edited by bristol scout; 3 November 2009 at 02:00 PM.