You are getting personal, suggesting he is smoking drugs etc, it isnt necessary and hes entitled to his opinion. And I love Mick Lynch so i am on the same side as you.
The personal attacks came before the drugs jibe in his posts . And yes he is entitled to his opinion and I’m entitled to challenge it if he puts it in public , or are you saying otherwise ?
You wouldn't accept his opinion though and he said several times lets agree to disagree and you wouldn't drop it. He didn't get personal with you from what I've just read, just frustrated you wouldn't respect his opinion. The drugs stuff was unnecessary. Like I say I am on your side so it makes no sense whatsoever for me to put this other than it being a fair account of the interaction between the two of you.
Titus it takes two to not argue , if he replied so did I , I can’t argue with myself ( well maybe I could ) There is in his posts personal suggestions of myself and my views .
Believe what you like Marlon if it makes you feel better bless.. I won't be responding to you again on this, far better things to discuss.
Thanks for the permission . I’m sure you’ve plenty of little patronising remarks left for other posts ,
Man says something out of personal bias. Spends reply after reply clearly demonstrating that bias. Prejudice comes from ‘feelings’ rather than facts. Man can’t demonstrate any evidence whilst others so. Doubles down.
Tbf I'd be as frustrated as Marlon has been - trying to reason with some of the drivel posted in a couple of threads today is testing.
I don't agree with MDG's views but he's entitled to have an opinion and there's too many on here that can't accept that people have different views. It's easy to say they are entitled to a view- mean it, then and don't keep going round the houses in the hope they'll cave and admit you're right. Mutual respect, that's all.
If that’s aimed at me I wasn’t going around no houses ! You seem to be having a go at me for keep replying to MDG but not the other way around.? Yes I was highlighting his posts as he was mine. I’m not apologising for answering his posts , It seems his view is more important to you than mine snd that I was aggressive which is miles away . I was challenging his views he chose to put in public then pleading not to be challenged as he’s entitled to them , which he is and I’m entitled to challenge them .
Why would his view be more important to me when I am pro Lynch? That makes no sense whatsoever. Perhaps it is more likely that I feel you are often intolerant of people holding a different view to your own and can be like a dog with a bone. I've said what I wanted to say, if you want the last word I won't deprive you of it.
Because you are telling me I can’t challenge him because he’s pleading that he’s entitled to his view he’s out into public domain . I don’t post themn say don’t challenge me challenge me on it . You’re just going down the same road as him firkin monk on . I’m not intolerant because I challenged him , Christ on a bike . If you feel that way then you have a problem with debate imo . He highlighted my posts but it’s only me you have a go at that’s prejudiced against me ! I was having a debate , he was pleading he didn’t want his view challenging . We’ll hard luck he shouldn’t have put it out there . Trouble with people putting their oar in them crying off .
No- there's challenging, then there's challenging again and again and again when he's already told you at least twice it is just an impression he has got watching him. Most people would say "fair enough but I disagree" and leave it there. You are unwilling to respect or accept it. I don't like Claudia Winkleman- I have no idea whatsoever why I don't like her. Are you going to keep on at me until I cave and say she's lovely and I got it wrong and I'm out of order, or will you accept Im just not keen and I don't have any hard evidence to offer? That's all I'm saying. You go too far with it. And 99.9% of the time the frustrating thing about all this is that me and you are on the same page politically. And I was "putting my oar in" to try and keep the peace but I wish I hadn't bothered now.
So he’s allowed to put his views and why then when challenged . I answered his posts which highlighted mine . It’s not as if I was stalking him as you’re making out . Every post he ended with the fact there was evidence to him his view was correct , whether opinion or not I disagreed then he’d highlight my post again then I would do same ageing then he would highlight my post again , see the pattern ? He was as complacent in that debate as I was whether monotonous to onlookers or not that’s the way it was but you decided I was the one at fault . If he hadn’t highlighted my post that would have been end of , as I said it takes two debate . If (Winkelman) Lynch had said something that was nothing like what you’d said she said then yes I’d pull you up on it as did others by the way .
