Where can i get a copy of RESPECT's accounts?

[oisleep]

There are, of course, far too may RESPECT threads on here and it can do nothing but put off people who are interested in political discussion but don't want to wade through loads of obsessive threads on the same topic. The solution is not to tell other people to post other threads but for the obsessive types to be encouraged to post fewer.

or, the people who have nothing to add to the topic of the thread in question, to politely fuck off

 

[oisleep]

anyway, anyone know if they met their extended deadline of aug 4th to file their accounts?

more than two months since their extended deadline expired

 

[audiotech]

anyway, anyone know if they met their extended deadline of aug 4th to file their accounts?

more than two months since their extended deadline expired

Are you the Solicitor General, or summat?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

or, the people who have nothing to add to the topic of the thread in question, to politely fuck off

I would, if it were thread rather than threads. In the very considerable and excessive plural.

 

[butchersapron]

No you wouldn't.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Well we could always experiment.

 

[butchersapron]

Let's see you keep your oar out for a few months then and see how we go.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Let's see you keep your oar out for a few months then

That would require the aforesaid condition to apply.

 

[butchersapron]

No it wouldn't. It would require some will power on your part. Alas...

 

[Donna Ferentes]

No it wouldn't.

Er, obviously it would, since my claim was that if condition A were obtaining then action B would be carried out.

 

[butchersapron]

No, not if i'm talking about something different. i.e you stopping your moaning. Don't assume.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Sigh...

Me: I would, if it were thread rather than threads. In the very considerable and excessive plural.

You: No you wouldn't.

 

[butchersapron]

Sigh...

Me: I would, if it were thread rather than threads. In the very considerable and excessive plural.

You: No you wouldn't.

Laughs...

Sorry, it doesn't apply to a post that doesn't derive from your above claim - you do know which post you replied to don't you? Hint, posts #37-38, not #35

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Laughs...

Sorry, it doesn't apply to a post that doesn't derive from your above claim - you do know which post you replied to don't you? Hint, posts #37-38, not #35

Hang on, that's bullshit.

I suggested that if A were to apply, then B would occur. In that order.

You then said it wouldn't.

I suggested we give it a go, and see.

You then suggested [post #37] that we give B a go, saying nothing about A.

I then pointed out [post #38] that B was dependent on A.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Fucking hell you're a bore.

 

[butchersapron]

Hang on, that's bullshit.

I suggested that if A were to apply, then B would occur. In that order.

You then said it wouldn't.

I suggested we give it a go, and see.

You then suggested [post #37] that we give B a go, saying nothing about A.

I then pointed out that B was dependent on A.

You're still turning in the same circle. You suggested that we could 'experiment' and suggested one such experiment. I then suggested another - i.e my post #37 was concerning my experiment, not yours. It's no use demanding that my post refers to yours when it didn't.

 

[butchersapron]

Fucking hell you're a bore.

Ooh do me too!

 

[cockneyrebel]

I've done you too many times already.

 

[butchersapron]

You've never done me mate

 

[cockneyrebel]

I was wearing a zoro mask. You remember, it was to that western tune called raw hide.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

You're still turning in the same circle. You suggested that we could 'experiment' and suggested one such experiment. I then suggested another - i.e my post #37 was concerning my experiment, not yours. It's no use demanding that my post refers to yours when it didn't.

I'm afraid the circle is yours. Just because you suggested doing it the other way around, doesn't mean that I considered that a valid suggestion. In fact, plainly I did not. I said "er, obviously it would", trying to communicate the sense that, as I say, action B is dependent on occurrence A. Now I'm well aware that you're suggesting that action B should take place regardless of occurrence A, but just because you want to insist that doesn't mean that I have to go along with it. I understood the suggestion you were making: but I was rejecting it.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I'm afraid the circle is yours.

Don't start on butcher's circle.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm afraid the circle is yours. Just because you suggested doing it the other way around, doesn't mean that I considered that a valid suggestion. In fact, plainly I did not. I said "er, obviously it would", trying to communicate the sense that, as I say, action B is dependent on occurrence A. Now I'm well aware that you're suggesting that action B should take place regardless of occurrence A, but just because you want to insist that doesn't mean that I have to go along with it. I unsderstood the suggestion you were making: but I was rejecting it.

It's irrelavent whether or not you consider it a valid suggestion. That's not what at's issue.

There is nothing at all in your logic that requires A to be true for you to do do B. You can do B independently (and i do urge you to). Which is where your argument falls to pieces. And where your claim that B entails something of A does not hold.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

It's irrelavent whether or not you consider it a valid suggestion. That's not what at's issue. Your insistence that i meant what you meant and now what i meant is. There is nothing at all in your logic that says that requires A to be true for you to do do B. You can do A independently. Which is where your argument falls to pieces.

No it doesn't, because I was not discussing whether something was merely possible. I was making it clear that B would not happen without A: that it was dependent on A. Not for the first time, you're playing at semantics: you're taking your interpretation of somebody else's words and insisting that they accept your interpretation. I can't prevent it, but I can refuse to accept it.

 

[butchersapron]

No it doesn't, because I was not discussing whether something was merely possible. I was making it clear that B would not happen without A: that it was dependent on A. Not for the first time, you're playing at semantics: you're taking your interpretation of somebody else's words and insisting that they accept your interpretation. I can't prevent it, but I can refuse to accept it.

No, you suggested that B could not happen without A:

"That would require the aforesaid condition to apply."

I've just shown (and so have you btw) that this is not true.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

No, you suggested that B could not happen without A:

"That would require the aforesaid condition to apply."

I've just shown (and so have you btw) that this is not true.

That's exactly what I've just pointed out: your semantic interpretation of other people's words.

If, for instance, two people have a row, and a mutual friend says to Peter, "are you going to start speaking to John?", Peter might reply: "that would require him to apologise to me first".

Now, if we treat that as a question of is it possible, it's plainly untrue: there is no such requirement. But in fact, words and phrases have several and varying meanings, and I think we would all recognise the meaning of what Peter said and recognise it as a perfectly valid usage.

As it was in my case, whether you like it or not.

Well, it's been fun, but I really must go and do something else now. See you on the next unnecessarily tedious RESPECT post, perhaps.

 

[cockneyrebel]

How you can talk about anything being tedious I don't know. You must be the most tedious poster on here.

 

[butchersapron]

"That would require the aforesaid condition to apply."

"Now, if we treat that as a question of is it possible, it's plainly untrue"

"But in fact, words and phrases have several and varying meanings"

See ya!

 

[darren redparty]

just to keep the respec' pot boiling
the mps expences have been published
george claimed a total of £145,072
on top of his salary
Now he wasn't the highest claimer (oona spent £51,000 on stationary alone!)

 

[oisleep]

That's exactly what I've just pointed out: your semantic interpretation of other people's words.

If, for instance, two people have a row, and a mutual friend says to Peter, "are you going to start speaking to John?", Peter might reply: "that would require him to apologise to me first".

Now, if we treat that as a question of is it possible, it's plainly untrue: there is no such requirement. But in fact, words and phrases have several and varying meanings, and I think we would all recognise the meaning of what Peter said and recognise it as a perfectly valid usage.

As it was in my case, whether you like it or not.

Well, it's been fun, but I really must go and do something else now. See you on the next unnecessarily tedious RESPECT post, perhaps.

way to make a dull thread duller, dullard