[Jack_]

Ahh TiBB, where points are continuously missed and people's posts aren't bothered to be read and understood properly!

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Because the section explaining it is about a cultural etiquette, it's not just religious people who do those kinds of things.

Exactly. So again, why include the names of two religions in the subtitle of that section?

Originally Posted by Marsh.

And I can only assume someone who thinks every single story has no truth to it automatically because of a paper's political leanings is being wilfully stupid.

Eh? Please direct me to the point in this thread where I've made any suggestion that this story isn't true? In actual fact I made two posts stating very clearly that this story is disgusting, the man should be prosecuted and that in pointing out what the Mail is using this story for, I'm not trying to absolve him of anything.

So where have I insinuated this story isn't true?

Originally Posted by Cherie

Where do you get off? I wasn't partaking in your angle on the discussion, which seems to be Mail, Mail, rant rant nothing new there so nothing to discuss as it's said on every thread with a Mail link. You decided to drag me into your discussion by quoting my post and telling me (and Kaz) that we had missed your point. No I didn't I just didn't acknowledge your point, now you are telling me I shouldn't be commenting at all because I didn't read the article in full, anything else I can do to make your stay more comfortable?

Err...yes you were:

Originally Posted by Cherie

As usual this has turned into a "which is better" debate

I didn't drag you into anything, you decided to drag yourself into a discussion I was having with Vicky in a post that was quite obviously directed at me (although conveniently not quoted), so I responded.

You then said, and I quote, 'what the Mail is doing is neither here nor there', thereby entering yourself into the discussion regarding the article's intentions - so yes you did acknowledge my point, and really, partaking in a discussion about an article when you've not read said article is, well...uh...pointless?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Ahh TiBB, where points are continuously missed and people's posts aren't bothered to be read and understood properly!



Exactly. So again, why include the names of two religions in the subtitle of that section?



Eh? Please direct me to the point in this thread where I've made any suggestion that this story isn't true? In actual fact I made two posts stating very clearly that this story is disgusting, the man should be prosecuted and that in pointing out what the Mail is using this story for, I'm not trying to absolve him of anything.

So where have I insinuated this story isn't true?



Err...yes you were:



I didn't drag you into anything, you decided to drag yourself into a discussion I was having with Vicky in a post that was quite obviously directed at me (although conveniently not quoted), so I responded.

You then said, and I quote, 'what the Mail is doing is neither here nor there', thereby entering yourself into the discussion regarding the article's intentions - so yes you did acknowledge my point, and really, partaking in a discussion about an article when you've not read said article is, well...uh...pointless?

Conveniently not quoted!, because I wasn't addressing your point, hard for you to digest I know. You have an over inflated sense of your own importance, most of the time I don't read your posts

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I agree with everything you have said. This article is a good representative sample of the Daily Mail. Welcome to the modern Britain. Like a new soap powder - it washes whiter than white..

All I can say is, you can't keep addressing peoples objections when those objections are not only disregarded but dismantled. If people are personally offended by your confidence, then be content with that.

Don't worry, I'm often in the minority on here but it doesn't and won't stop me pointing out and standing up for what's right. Thank you though, I'm glad someone agrees and I really appreciate you saying that

Originally Posted by Cherie

Conveniently not quoted!, because I wasn't addressing your point, hard for you to digest I know. You have an over inflated sense of your own importance, most of the time I don't read your posts

So do pray tell, what you were referring to when you said 'as usual this has turned into a "which is better" debate'? Because from the looks of things there wasn't any other discussion going on.

That's quite hilarious coming from you but sure that makes two of us then, I tend to only read yours when you've quoted me...if only you'd have the decency to do the same before you do eh?