[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'm not denying it's existence I just wanna know what it is so I can continue the debate. Here's my original statement that you branded nonsense in the last post. At least summarise your previous arguments so you can defend your recent remarks that I'm deluded and don't know what I'm talking about.

That wasn't the one I responded to - yours was deleted as well!

I am not re-writing it again - it's clearly not as important to me as it is to you!

Maybe James can U2U to you - ask him!

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

That wasn't the one I responded to - yours was deleted as well!

I am not re-writing it again - it's clearly not as important to me as it is to you!

Maybe James can U2U to you - ask him!

Well that's the post I've always referred to so perhaps it's best if you delete those posts calling me deluded and such if you misunderstood me.

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Well that's the post I've always referred to so perhaps it's best if you delete those posts calling me deluded and such if you misunderstood me.

I didn't misunderstand you - they were all linked! You did rather arrogantly try to imply that anyone who disagrees with you on this - has no mind of their own and has just been influenced by the media. Yes dear. You, of course, are far too well informed and in the know to have fallen for it like the rest of us gullible idiots!

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

I didn't misunderstand you - they were all linked! You did rather arrogantly try to imply that anyone who disagrees with you on this - has no mind of their own and has just been influenced by the media. Yes dear. You, of course, are far too well informed and in the know to have fallen for it like the rest of us gullible idiots!

Oh dear, once again you misunderstand which is alarmingly is becoming a regular occurence. The reason I said that you were a Daily Mail sheep was not because I didn't agree with you it's because most of your opinions are shared with the sheep and that you fit right into a demographic, Parents are (but of course not always) affected most by moral panics and media related hysteria because newspapers and other media formats tend to prey on the parent's primal urge to protect their children. That is all, I profiled what I knew of you and that is what my conclusions came to.

Also unlike you who brands everyone that disagrees with her sexist or an ignorant girl I haven't called anyone on this topic or anywhere else a Daily mail sheep. Only You. So get your facts right.

Ironically all through today when we've been arguing you could have prevented all of this by simply just trying to counter argue my original day yet you spent the whole day branding me arrogant and deluded amongst other things, in that time you could have just done a small summary of your counterpoint that got deleted but you've chosen to keep this hostile while I've done my best to keep my composure unlike you.

Finally I AM too informed to be taken in by most media techniques, I've studied it for years and have qualifications in the matter, I'm not saying I'm perfect and I never have but I know enough not to take everything I see and read at face value as well as the techniques they use to create a successful story. At the end of the day if a person knows where to look for traps then they're not as likely to get caught in one and this rings true for media techniques amongst things in life.

Now you have 3 choices;

1. Simply do not reply and end the matter here.
2. Argue my point on Media narratives and Hysteria and then we can bring it back to being a debate.
3. Insult me and start this sorry repetitive matter all over again.

Your choice.

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Oh dear, once again you misunderstand which is alarmingly is becoming a regular occurence. The reason I said that you were a Daily Mail sheep was not because I didn't agree with you it's because most of your opinions are shared with the sheep and that you fit right into a demographic, Parents are (but of course not always) affected most by moral panics and media related hysteria because newspapers and other media formats tend to prey on the parent's primal urge to protect their children. That is all, I profiled what I knew of you and that is what my conclusions came to.

Also unlike you who brands everyone that disagrees with her sexist or an ignorant girl I haven't called anyone on this topic or anywhere else a Daily mail sheep. Only You. So get your facts right.

Ironically all through today when we've been arguing you could have prevented all of this by simply just trying to counter argue my original day yet you spent the whole day branding me arrogant and deluded amongst other things, in that time you could have just done a small summary of your counterpoint that got deleted but you've chosen to keep this hostile while I've done my best to keep my composure unlike you.

Finally I AM too informed to be taken in by most media techniques, I've studied it for years and have qualifications in the matter, I'm not saying I'm perfect and I never have but I know enough not to take everything I see and read at face value as well as the techniques they use to create a successful story. At the end of the day if a person knows where to look for traps then they're not as likely to get caught in one and this rings true for media techniques amongst things in life.

Now you have 3 choices;

1. Simply do not reply and end the matter here.
2. Argue my point on Media narratives and Hysteria and then we can bring it back to being a debate.
3. Insult me and start this sorry repetitive matter all over again.

Your choice.

As I said before - you have far too high an opinion of yourself - and the arguments you present simply do not back up that inflated opinion. You are totally transparent - in your pathetic attempts to constantly undermine my self-confidence and create self-doubt by constant put-down remarks such as embarrassing and misunderstand - when such remarks are clearly more appropriate and applicable to you. I don't misunderstand my dear - you just speak a load of incoherrent twaddle!

What points exactly do you think you made so eloquently! That everyone barr you is taken in by media hype (particularly us gullible, over-protective parents) - bully for you! Well you fit into your own little demographic - of those that like blowing their own trumpet -and spout nought but utter bull****e!

I argued my point in the deleted post - not that there was much to argue - as I said before - ask James to send it to you, if it is so important to you - me thinks you are getting a bit hysterical about this!

Your opinions mean little to me as your arguments have no substance, just opinionated drivel. You harp on about facts - when you produce none yourself - just repeatedly tell us how well informed and well qualified on the subject you are! Really!

Definition of facts:

"Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact - your suposition that I read the Daily Mail is not!

b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case." - You have failed to prove that you are an expert on the subject!

10/10 for effort - but, in the end, your comments are simply opinion - nothing more.

We are all aware of media hype - do you really think that knowledge is exclusive to you, with all your qualifications on the subject? But believe it or not - some of us are able to form our own opinions regardless!

As for your immature 3 choices - I wonder - which have I made!