[Omah]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Why should I endulge in such a lazy attempt to discredit my argument?

So you haven't sat on a jury .....

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by jedward fever

Not everyone would run away from helping the country out though, but I think the people should always have a choice on if they would like to join these services or not.

How do you know they wouldn't? You don't.

The Services are being run at absolue minimum levels currently. It would be necessary to draft in vast numbers of eligible fit men and women. If all of them took the same stance as you suggest they should be able to do : if they all took that same view: who would defend the country?

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Why should I endulge in such a lazy attempt to discredit my argument?

Conversely, why should he indulge your equally as evasive technique?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Goodwin's Law just kicked in.

You are reaching a conclusion on what a person thinks when you know know nothing about that person. That's interesting.

I'm reaching a conclusion based on what you have posted in this thread on a particular subject. Nothing more, nothing less. You posted it, not me.

It's a shame, I was beginning to think that since coming back you had changed, or were starting to change some of your age old tendencies, you know...avoiding or bypassing valid points, resorting to cliches and pedantry. But it seems not. Same old Pyramid, same old techniques.

At the end of the day, Godwin's Law or not, Hitler removed vital civil rights all of which I mentioned in order for him to pass through his fascist, ugly regime. If you don't think things like the right to protest, free speech, and questioning the government and the law are important, then more fool you.

As a side note...the BNP manifesto is in the post. Enjoy.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Omah

So you haven't sat on a jury .....

How does that affect anything? it's a losing tactic to focus on the unimportant details rather then tackling the issues at hand Omah.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

How do you know they wouldn't? You don't.

The Services are being run at absolue minimum levels currently. It would be necessary to draft in vast numbers of eligible fit men and women. If all of them took the same stance as you suggest they should be able to do : if they all took that same view: who would defend the country?





Conversely, why should he indulge your equally as evasive technique?

It's very unlikely that all 60 million people in the United Kingdom would not fight for this country don't you think?

And I said that I would fight for this country if I had to, but I don't think I should be forced to do it and neither should anybody else either, and lets face facts here, a country could attack us tommorrow and there's nothing we could do about it because without America we are not that strong to take on.

Gosh I sounded like Lostalex then lol.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I'm reaching a conclusion based on what you have posted in this thread on a particular subject. Nothing more, nothing less. You posted it, not me.

It's a shame, I was beginning to think that since coming back you had changed, or were starting to change some of your age old tendencies, you know...avoiding or bypassing valid points, resorting to cliches and pedantry. But it seems not. Same old Pyramid, same old techniques.

At the end of the day, Godwin's Law or not, Hitler removed vital civil rights all of which I mentioned in order for him to pass through his fascist, ugly regime. If you don't think things like the right to protest, free speech, and questioning the government and the law are important, then more fool you.

As a side note...the BNP manifesto is in the post. Enjoy.

Your rather poor attempt at patronising me and throwing your usual brand of personal insults because you are unable to provide any tangible response to my reply to you is shocking.

You may have an extensive vocabulary Jack, but a lot of big words put together when they lack any substance, in reality, to use a well known phrase, are not worth 'jack sh.*'.

'looking into' something at the start of A level is a world away from fully understanding precisely what is involved. That is a fact - we've all been there when we've had a passion for a new topic at school - but honestly: the knowledge you think you have is so limited but you will not realise that till much later on in life.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by jedward fever

It's very unlikely that all 60 million people in the United Kingdom would not fight for this country don't you think?

And I said that I would fight for this country if I had to, but I don't think I should be forced to do it and neither should anybody else either, and lets face facts here, a country could attack us tommorrow and there's nothing we could do about it because without America we are not that strong to take on.

Gosh I sounded like Lostalex then lol.

LOL No No and no again.

I'm away to bed - night night.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

How does that affect anything? it's a losing tactic to focus on the unimportant details rather then tackling the issues at hand Omah.

If you haven't sat on a jury then you can't possibly know what goes on inside a jury room - if you haven't been summoned for jury service (and attended) then you probably don't know how the jury system works - no book, video or film can do the experience justice - I used to think all juries were "12 Angry Men" or the extras on "Rumpole of the Bailey" .....

[Omah]

Originally Posted by jedward fever

Lets face facts here, a country could attack us tomorrow and there's nothing we could do about it because without America we are not that strong to take on.

I believe that's called a "defeatist" attitude .....

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Your rather poor attempt at patronising me and throwing your usual brand of personal insults because you are unable to provide any tangible response to my reply to you is shocking.

Oh come off it...you can hardly talk to anyone about providing any kind of 'tangible response'. Please, don't make me laugh.

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

'looking into' something at the start of A level is a world away from fully understanding precisely what is involved. That is a fact - we've all been there when we've had a passion for a new topic at school - but honestly: the knowledge you think you have is so limited but you will not realise that till much later on in life.

What was that thing you just accused me of again? A 'poor attempt at patronising'? Ah yeah...that was it. Funny that, considering right after you said that you then went on to post this. I can smell hypocrisy...I wonder which direction it's coming from.

Please, do tell me, if experience is oh so necessary in order to justify an opinion, then why is it that some people forty years older than me hold the same opinions with regards to questioning governments and the law and protecting civil rights? Please, I would love to know. If it all boils down to experience, then why is it that some people with tonnes of experience still hold the same opinions as I do?

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Omah

I believe that's called a "defeatist" attitude .....

I like to class myself as being realistic but whatever floats your boat.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Oh come off it...you can hardly talk to anyone about providing any kind of 'tangible response'. Please, don't make me laugh.



What was that thing you just accused me of again? A 'poor attempt at patronising'? Ah yeah...that was it. Funny that, considering right after you said that you then went on to post this. I can smell hypocrisy...I wonder which direction it's coming from.

Please, do tell me, if experience is oh so necessary in order to justify an opinion, then why is it that some people forty years older than me hold the same opinions with regards to questioning governments and the law and protecting civil rights? Please, I would love to know. If it all boils down to experience, then why is it that some people with tonnes of experience still hold the same opinions as I do?

Jack, you do not appear to understand what constructive feedback is -which is what I gave you regarding your passion for your studies and your belief that you think you know what is involved. You will not understand what I am saying in this respect until you do have that bit more 'age' under your belt. That is not patronising - it is very much being said from being the truth in that, like you, at an age where you are grasping something which which you have a passion for, you think the text book knowledge is all you need. It's not, that's all I am trying to say to you, but no matter how I try to word it to you, you are taking it as a personal slight.

I mentioned nothing about needing (or not) tons experience. I mentioned knowledge Jack. There is a vast difference in the meanings.

So what if there are some people with 'tonnes' of experience who hold the same opinions as you do. That doesn't make them or you right or effective.

I know lots of people who have experience in all manner of things - but are completely useless in effecting & implementing that experience efficiently.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Omah

If you haven't sat on a jury then you can't possibly know what goes on inside a jury room - if you haven't been summoned for jury service (and attended) then you probably don't know how the jury system works - no book, video or film can do the experience justice - I used to think all juries were "12 Angry Men" or the extras on "Rumpole of the Bailey" .....

All you have are assumptions and evasive maneuvres Omah. What do you know about my credentials? The right answer is nothing and I know **** all about your's so why don't you actually try to argue against my points for once instead of running in circles trying to avoid them?

I'm bored of this repetitive and childish game, come talk to me when you actually want to discuss the topic at hand.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jedward fever

I like to class myself as being realistic but whatever floats your boat.

Just to interject on this one small point. You think because we may not be strong enough to hold our own without America's help, we shouldn't bother and just give in? Would you not rather go down fighting for your country, for your freedom?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Omah

If you haven't sat on a jury then you can't possibly know what goes on inside a jury room - if you haven't been summoned for jury service (and attended) then you probably don't know how the jury system works - no book, video or film can do the experience justice - I used to think all juries were "12 Angry Men" or the extras on "Rumpole of the Bailey" .....

I disagree....One jury is equal to the next...picked at random , a cross section of peers that as civil duty sit on a jury.....Whats wrong with that?..

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

All you have are assumptions and evasive maneuvres Omah. What do you know about my credentials? The right answer is nothing and I know **** all about your's so why don't you actually try to argue against my points for once instead of running in circles trying to avoid them?

I'm bored of this repetitive and childish game, come talk to me when you actually want to discuss the topic at hand.

That's just out and out rudeness Dezzy and is unnecessary.

If someone can't enter a debates thread to discuss a serious debate without being sworn and verbally abused by a moderator - then it's a very poor show.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Jack, you do not appear to understand what constructive feedback is -which is what I gave you regarding your passion for your studies and your belief that you think you know what is involved. You will not understand what I am saying in this respect until you do have that bit more 'age' under your belt. That is not patronising - it is very much being said from being the truth in that, like you, at an age where you are grasping something which which you have a passion for, you think the text book knowledge is all you need. It's not, that's all I am trying to say to you, but no matter how I try to word it to you, you are taking it as a personal slight.

Well it came across as patronising to me, but if it wasn't intended that way, then fair enough and I apologise.

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I mentioned nothing about needing (or not) tons experience. I mentioned knowledge Jack. There is a vast difference in the meanings.

So what if there are some people with 'tonnes' of experience who hold the same opinions as you do. That doesn't make them or you right or effective.

I know lots of people who have experience in all manner of things - but are completely useless in effecting & implementing that experience efficiently.

But the point I'm trying to make is, you used my age as a grounds for which to argue your point, saying that because I am younger, and have as such less 'knowledge' of such a subject, I'm perhaps in no place to comment. Now this is all well and good, but my point is - there are people who are forty years older than me, with plenty of 'knowledge', as you call it, on this subject who hold the same opinions as me. So what I'm saying is, how can you possibly use my age to defend your point, if my point is held by many with again 'more knowledge' of the subject than me? Quite clearly having more knowledge of such a subject doesn't mean that your opinion of it is going to change, as you are making out...which is my point.

[Jords]

Jack and Pyra need to have some hate-sex.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

All you have are assumptions and evasive maneuvres Omah. What do you know about my credentials?

See below :

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The right answer is nothing and I know **** all about your's

Well, I HAVE done jury service and say on FOUR juries, dealing with child molestation, firearms offences, murder and fraud.

Originally Posted by Dezzy

so why don't you actually try to argue against my points for once instead of running in circles trying to avoid them?

Because, IMO, you don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'm bored of this repetitive and childish game, come talk to me when you actually want to discuss the topic at hand.

Frankly, I don't see the point.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by kizzy

I disagree....One jury is equal to the next...picked at random , a cross section of peers that as civil duty sit on a jury.....Whats wrong with that?..

Blimey ..... I sat on FOUR juries and the composition of each was totally different ..... and there were no peers, but we had a rather well-spoken Jewish jewellers wife who looked like Joan Collins on one jury .....

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

Just to interject on this one small point. You think because we may not be strong enough to hold our own without America's help, we shouldn't bother and just give in? Would you not rather go down fighting for your country, for your freedom?

I would but I wouldn't want to be forced into doing something that I wouldn't want to do.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

Just to interject on this one small point. You think because we may not be strong enough to hold our own without America's help, we shouldn't bother and just give in? Would you not rather go down fighting for your country, for your freedom?

Yeah, that's more like it - Dunkirk, the Few, the Blitz, the Desert Rats, the Cruel Sea - Blimey, I've come over all patriotic .....

(They don't like it up'em, Pikey ..... )

[Ammi]

Anyway...going back to the OP...I think 56 days is harsh..in fact any custodial sentence is harsh imo..there are people who harm someone..and don't get custodial sentences

..on the opinion of who should do jusy service..well I suppose if we had 'volunteers'..you might have to question why they're volunteering and whether they're the right people..so I'm not sure about that

...but then if people are 'forced' and really against it..that could effect their opinions..

...hmmm

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Omah

See below :



Well, I HAVE done jury service and say on FOUR juries, dealing with child molestation, firearms offences, murder and fraud.



Because, IMO, you don't know what you're talking about.



Frankly, I don't see the point.

It's very easy to say that you've done something on the internet so I tend to focus on the arguments at hand and you haven't provided a solid one since I cut through your little quotes so instead you've been focused on trying to make out you're an expert on the subject without actually adding anything to the topic.

I don't have to bring in my own credentials into this since I can rely on my own argument to get things done, You lack a cohesive argument so all you can do is try to discredit me. You're transparent in your approach Omah and I can't see the point in carrying on this charade since it's obvious you know nothing about what you claim to be an expert in.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's very easy to say that you've done something on the internet so I tend to focus on the arguments at hand and you haven't provided a solid one since I cut through your little quotes so instead you've been focused on trying to make out you're an expert on the subject without actually adding anything to the topic.

I don't have to bring in my own credentials into this since I can rely on my own argument to get things done, You lack a cohesive argument so all you can do is try to discredit me. You're transparent in your approach Omah and I can't see the point in carrying on this charade since it's obvious you know nothing about what you claim to be an expert in.

Isn't that the very point of healthy debate? To discredit the 'opponents' arguement, to persuade others to accept your point of view based upon the arguments & points being made?