The Chilcot Report

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, feral chile said:

And then find evidence to support his claim.

if you ever do, get back to me.

I'll just replant in your memory what I originally said the first time you made this claim. I said I'd seen the claim made hundreds of times, which has been called out with "go on then, show us the proof", and that proof has never been provided.

(it's not impossible that claim is correct, but as no one seems to have the proof it seems highly unlikely)

You've now made numerous attempts at backing up your claim, but have never once been able to provide proof.

[eFestivals]

PS: it's claimed by Scotland that the UK has robbed them of EU money too (no proof for that, either!), so they've demanded they have their own administrative system for it to stop the UK robbing their farmers of the EU money.

So far the SNP have spent £200M of that Scottish farmers money - that's not now able to go to Scottish farmers - on building a system they've just thrown away cos its unfit for purpose. It's going well.

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I quoted a Bush one in an edit, by the way. I might be thinking of the whole 'axis of evil' stuff as it unfolded.

yep, you quoted something different to what you claimed and proved yourself wrong. Again.

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

yep, you quoted something different to what you claimed and proved yourself wrong. Again.

How so?

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, feral chile said:

How so?

if you can't understand words - words of your own and words you put forwards to back up your own that don't say what you claimed - you'#re beyond help and all conversation.

[feral chile]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

if you can't understand words - words of your own and words you put forwards to back up your own that don't say what you claimed - you'#re beyond help and all conversation.

interesting that you'd rather spend time and effort being rude than proving your point.

why are you so angry/

we're having a conversation here - a simple 'no I don't remember that' would have sufficed. then I'd have pottered away and seen if I could find anything from way back then.

Edited July 8, 2016 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, feral chile said:

interesting that you'd rather spend time and effort being rude than proving your point.

why are you so angry/

we're having a conversation here - a simple 'no I don't remember that' would have sufficed. then I'd have pottered away and seen if I could find anything from way back then.

I remember what you linked to. It's not the same as what you claimed.

When a tory talks bullshit, I'll call it out as bullshit. When Labour talks bullshit I'll call it out as bullshit. When you talk bullshit - and you're talking more and more as each day passes recently - I'll call it out as bullshit.

It's not anger, it's laughter.

I'll leave you to work out what I'm laughing at.

 

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

I remember what you linked to. It's not the same as what you claimed.

When a tory talks bullshit, I'll call it out as bullshit. When Labour talks bullshit I'll call it out as bullshit. When you talk bullshit - and you're talking more and more as each day passes recently - I'll call it out as bullshit.

It's not anger, it's laughter.

I'll leave you to work out what I'm laughing at.

 

I can't honestly be bothered. I really don't know what your issue is. you could have just said 'oh you're thinking of .... I expect, that's not the same thing' and I might have said 'oh yeah'. supposing I could tell what it was you disagreed with.

I'm not continuing this, I want a conversation, not an argument. You're a negative person to have contact with, and i'm not in the mood tio chat with someone emanating such bad vibes.

(cue for neil to dance around in his underpants whooping 'nanana nana I won')

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I want a conversation, not an argument

then perhaps try one with facts? Then I'd have no need to point out just how wrong you are.

If you want to keep your factual void but keep talking and not get that response you need to stop making statements of certainty.

Edited July 8, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, feral chile said:

You're a negative person to have contact with

because of course not-facts is the positive.

 

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

then perhaps try one with facts? Then I'd have no need to point out just how wrong you are.

If you want to keep your factual void but keep talking and not get that response you need to stop making statements of certainty.

'I have a memory' and 'do you remember' weren't factual statements.

you were the one who talked about myths and lies. I didn't have an investment till then of caring one way or the other.

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

because of course not-facts is the positive.

 

the only facts in that conversation were that I had a memory that you didn't share. I then quoted articles that came from around that time, which suggest that I really did have a memory of conversations from then and it wasn't a false memory.

that's all i'm really interested in, since we're talking about my internal processes here.

quite why you've taken such exception to this I don't know. are you hungover or something?

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, feral chile said:

'I have a memory' and 'do you remember' weren't factual statements.

you were the one who talked about myths and lies. I didn't have an investment till then of caring one way or the other.

and then you invest in the myth.

You're still trying to push the myth of the UK robbing Wales of EU money, on the basis of nothing at all and despite the fact that your own searches for info have drawn a total blank.

We know the accusation is out there, if it wasn't you wouldn't be making the accusation. Pulling up something that is merely the same accusation is proof of nothing at all.

You don't even have the most basic of grasps on the relevant background facts, as you demonstrated when you said the robbery was from before when that EU money existed.

A smart person might conclude that the lack of evidence said something.

Edited July 8, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

the only facts in that conversation were that I had a memory that you didn't share. I then quoted articles that came from around that time, which suggest that I really did have a memory of conversations from then and it wasn't a false memory.

that's all i'm really interested in, since we're talking about my internal processes here.

quite why you've taken such exception to this I don't know. are you hungover or something?

except you're trying the re-write you're accusing me of doing.

You might have a memory of something, so why not present something which matches yuour claimed memory and not something which clearly doesn't?

In all cases where you're embarrassed about your own failings you start an argument about me. I'm not blind to it. It's pathetic.

[feral chile]

Just now, eFestivals said:

except you're trying the re-write you're accusing me of doing.

You might have a memory of something, so why not present something which matches yuour claimed memory and not something which clearly doesn't?

In all cases where you're embarrassed about your own failings you start an argument about me. I'm not blind to it. It's pathetic.

neil it was decades ago! it was a half remembered thing that I'm unsure what triggered it - I can just remember thinking that Bush was being threatening.

why are my memories so important to you this morning? there have been no assertions of fact there, apart from you talking of myths and lies.

You've been better lately, I don't know why you're having such a bad morning, or what's triggered it. Did you have a heavy night last night?

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, feral chile said:

it was a half remembered thing

That's fine.

Presenting something which is not the claimed memory as backing up that memory isn't. If you'd have posted that link and said "this isn't what I said but is probably what I was thinking" that would have been different.

 

31 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I don't know why you're having such a bad morning, or what's triggered it.

And there you go again. Me pointing out your failing isn't any failing of yours, it's only a failing of mine.

Might you actually be the one having a bad morning? Posting bollocks that you try to claim as right with more bollocks and then failing to admit that's what you've done and instead start a different argument where you ignore you own wrong message to try to shoot the messenger of the right message.

I don't know if you're having a bad morning or not, but I know with certainly what's triggered your response because it's what you always do.

You being an idiot and being embarrassed about it.

[feral chile]

45 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

except you're trying the re-write you're accusing me of doing.

You might have a memory of something, so why not present something which matches yuour claimed memory and not something which clearly doesn't?

In all cases where you're embarrassed about your own failings you start an argument about me. I'm not blind to it. It's pathetic.

I didn't start an argument with you. I asked if you remembered something, which randomly set you off. I don't care enough to argue about that. I do care about being called a liar however. And i also care about my memory, so I'm happy enough now.

[eFestivals]

42 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I didn't start an argument with you. I asked if you remembered something, which randomly set you off. I don't care enough to argue about that. I do care about being called a liar however. And i also care about my memory, so I'm happy enough now.

And I simply said it wasn't true, and that it looked like another of your myths (while stating that you might still be right).

Which you then proved yourself to be that myth.

Edited July 8, 2016 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And I simply said it wasn't true, and that it looked like another of your myths (while stating that you might still be right).

Which you then proved yourself to be that myth.

nah no myth.

as for the EU/wales one, what you said about the internet confused me, as I know there was no internet. So I did a bit more remembering, and realised that my contact with this guy would have been around 1987-1993, and I can remember some reform sorting out the issue.

So, this must have been under the EC, and prior to the 1988 reform.

I've been doing a bit of googling around that, for my own benefit, because my memory actually isn't as good as it was. But it was good in 1988.

I could do without the aggro from you though, there was no need for it this morning, and it was a real downer.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, feral chile said:

nah no myth.

as for the EU/wales one, what you said about the internet confused me, as I know there was no internet. So I did a bit more remembering, and realised that my contact with this guy would have been around 1987-1993, and I can remember some reform sorting out the issue.

So, this must have been under the EC, and prior to the 1988 reform.

I've been doing a bit of googling around that, for my own benefit, because my memory actually isn't as good as it was. But it was good in 1988.

I could do without the aggro from you though, there was no need for it this morning, and it was a real downer.

Objective One (etc): from the year 2000.

Your last claim - you even provided a link - was about that, and that specifically. There was very definitely an internet then.

You're now claiming EU development money in 1988 or prior to that.

I know that the proof that proves you wrong, again, can be googled because I recently googled it myself.

There was no EU development money in 1988.

Try again, with another new story...?

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

There was no EU development money in 1988.

to clarify: for the UK.

 

[feral chile]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Objective One (etc): from the year 2000.

Your last claim - you even provided a link - was about that, and that specifically. There was very definitely an internet then.

You're now claiming EU development money in 1988 or prior to that.

I know that the proof that proves you wrong, again, can be googled because I recently googled it myself.

There was no EU development money in 1988.

Try again, with another new story...?

Why don't you help me clarify what I remember instead of being so negative? it must have been around one of the reforms in 1988 and 1993.

it was before the Welsh Assembly, and used as arguments in favour of devolution

 

Edited July 8, 2016 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Why don't you help me clarify what I remember instead of being so negative? it must have been around one of the reforms in 1988 and 1993.

you can remember whatever you like. I don't doubt someone told you something. That says nothing about the truth of what you were told.

FFS

 

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

you can remember whatever you like. I don't doubt someone told you something. That says nothing about the truth of what you were told.

FFS

 

I think we're at cross purposes here. my priority at the moment is getting that memory of something in context, never mind putting the truth of what was told me to the test. In other words, working out what was actually claimed, to start with. It was way before 2000, for a start.

[eFestivals]

Just now, feral chile said:

It was way before 2000, for a start.

yet you didn't seem to think that earlier today when you posted a link to something which couldn't have been about anything pre-2000.

If you're now recognising that you got it wrong there that's fine, but you should also be realising that there ceases to be a reason to criticise me for pointing out your error.