Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:




Classic, it is obvious the way Brians censorship would work.
Brian would retain the right to pontificate without censure denigrating others,  accusing them of poor education, (nice work from a bloke with no academic standing) being ignorant and undefined personal  inadequacies and not consider it abusive.    

But if you decided to return service and distil his verbosity to a succinct you’re an idiot he would ban it and leave his own statements to stand.

I like it without moderation!  Much more fun!   

If FD was a hater - he would have banned quite a few of the right whingers by now.

Be grateful that he's so tolerant and generous enough to let some of you post here.

|dev|null wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 2:47pm:


Busy running his hate wiki.

True Colours wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 9:53pm:



True_Colours,

Can you explain something to me ?

Why do some people describe an opinion or argument as being 'hateful', whenever they cannot prove that an opponents opinion/argument is untrue ?

And why do some people describe the act of exposing truthful, and factual information, as a 'hateful' act ?




REGARDING WHAT IS TRUE;
Shouldn't all persons be prepared to confront, and to deal with, the consequences of those circumstances which are seen [shown] to be, true ?

Rather than, trying to avoid [or to ban] the knowledge of something which is true, because that knowledge may be inconvenient to themselves ?


Whereas, if you can prove that some 'information' [e.g. relating to ISLAM/moslems] is incorrect, then if you publish the proof that you have, supporting your own argument, everyone will be enlightened.

But, if your purpose is merely to shout down everyone who expresses an opinion which you disagree with, then those who witness your 'exhibition' will simply form their own judgement about the 'worth' of your own opinions and arguments.

True Colours wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 10:42pm:




True_Colours,

I am not familiar with the details of the accusations that the Nazis made, against teh Jews.

What were the specifics of those accusations ?

Were those accusations made by the Nazis [against 'the Jews'], credible ?



And, would a reasonable person [i.e. a non-Nazi], believe that the Jews [living in 1930's Germany] were, or had been committing criminal acts [against teh German people] ?

True Colours wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 8:16am:



I always like to go with, demonstrating who the liars are.




True_Colours,

You have CLAIMED that the Nazis were liars.

I CLAIM that the moslems are habitual liars.
I CLAIM that the moslems are falsely portraying ISLAM as a benign and peace-loving philosophy.
I CLAIM that the moslems use lies, deception and violence in seeking to advance their [own] policitcal ambitions.
I CLAIM that the moslems justify their own aggressive and vilent conduct, by falsely claiming that they [moslems] are always provoked to violence [by others], when in fact it is moslems who can be observed, to be slaughtering people all over the world, on a daily basis.


i.e.
IF WE EXAMINE THE FACTS [and not just the claims being made];
The claims that moslems are always victims of persecution - HAS NO CREDIBILITY
The claim that ISLAM is a benign and non-threatening philosophy - HAS NO CREDIBILITY
The claim that ISLAM is a philosophy which teaches tolerance towards those - HAS NO CREDIBILITY


The accusation that moslems are deceitful, bare faced liars - HAS CREDIBILITY
The accusation that moslems use intimidation and threats of violence whenever moslems are asked to account for 'apparent' moslem intolerance - HAS CREDIBILITY
The accusation that ISLAM is a religion is a vicious supremacist political philosophy, which promotes the use of deception, blatant lying, intimidation and extreme violence to further its aims - HAS CREDIBILITY




+++



e.g.
We have all observed, how moslems will intentionally use a very particular form of words [sophistry] so as to deceive the 'audience' that the moslem is talking to - while at the same time, the form of words used, allows the moslem to portray himself [and ISLAM] as 'innocent', virtuous and sincere.

But when we compare how moslems speak to non-moslems, and then to a moslem audience, a reasonable person can only conclude that that there are two distinct narratives being presented [by moslems], and that moslems are intentionally lying to non-moslems about their real attitudes and intentions.



e.g. #1,
speaking in the UK, publicly, AND THEN PRIVATELY, regarding the London 7/7 bombing victims.

Quote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1724541,00.html





e.g. #2,


Quote:


http://www.mcb.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2307:mcbnewst...
http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-656




- WHICH DEMOLISHES THE CREDIBILITY OF THE CLAIMS, OF [moslems of] THE REJECTION OF EXTREMISM AND INTOLERANCE, IN ISLAM;

ISLAMIC law....

"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."...."
fiqhussunnah/#3.110

n.b.
"Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."





FROM THE SUNNA OF MOHAMMED


hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260

[/quote]





"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29


True_Colours,

- by 'sweeping generalisations',
when the behaviour of violent moslems, which we observe, aligns with the tenets of ISLAM, that we find, within ISLAMIC 'religious' texts ?

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 10:00am:


A poll is not necessarily 'authoritative'.

The results of a poll are only [ever], a reflection of the opinions of those who participated in it.