You should really decide whether you agree with it or not. This halfway between "it was fine" and attempts to distance yourself from any responsibility for it is a bit desperate.
You should really decide whether you agree with it or not. This halfway between "it was fine" and attempts to distance yourself from any responsibility for it is a bit desperate.
Agree with what? Apartheid. I've consistently said I don't agree with it. Only an idiot, someone with a preconception, or both, can claim I have ever approved of it.
So what do you want? Blacks are allowed to drink at the water fountain but not able to hold office? What is the actual point you were trying to make with this thread? It's all I'm asking.
Competent people. I accept it was a free vote but I'm just dealing with reality here - and that reality is that things have got worse on many levels. What I want or don't want is irrelevant, I was just pointing this out.
The quote from Wikipedia. You know, the subject of our recent posts? Pretty much the only thing we were discussing?Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
You might have meant apartheid, since you didn't quote anything.
And what reason would I have to disagree with it?
So your thread is, 'I would like to point out that a country doesn't have competent politicians and things are worse on many levels since they stopped letting the whites rule them'?
Why? I'm asking for the psychology behind making the thread more than anything. I'm struggling to understand the point behind the thread if you're not claiming Apartheid was better?
Saying it's better than what they have now is an approval of it, Harold, no matter how strenuously you qualify that with 'Apartheid was shit but'.
That Wikipedia link is fun. You should read more than the blurb at the top, Harold. And you should stop accusing other people of 'cherry-picking' when the sentence you've quoted from it actually starts 'Despite a rising GDP', which you've left out.
I really feel like context was clear. I mean, I don't hold you personally responsible in any way for Apartheid and there's no reason I would.
I think most people could read a little more into it than that. The reason they don't have competent politicians is because black people, who sing songs about killing white people, voted in black people because they're black. I'm just doing my bit for anti-racism, whoch you should be applauding me for.
I just shake my head at this point.
Nothing to do with responsibility, you simply asked if I agree with 'it'.
Phonics, I'm sick of you!
If you agree with it, defend it.
Posting something as 'evidence' for a position you're clearly aligning yourself with and then directing anyone who disagrees with it to the article you stole it from is like qualifying your drivel with 'just sayin', or calling anyone who thinks you're a twat a 'hater'. It's pathetic.
The post is literally at the top of the page, but if you'd like to check it again I'll quote:
It's entirely obvious what I meant, but context has never been your strong suit.
It absolutely is not. That's you drawing conclusions from it that you want.
I never said everything was worse.That Wikipedia link is fun. You should read more than the blurb at the top, Harold. And you should stop accusing other people of 'cherry-picking' when the sentence you've quoted from it actually starts 'Despite a rising GDP', which you've left out.
How many pages do you reckon we can squeeze out of thios, Tobes? 'Context' is usually the start oif a great marathon.
There's no need to drag it out. I'll take you dodging the question as you continuing to distance yourself from the quote and assume that you don't want to defend it in the face of criticism.
I'm not dodging anything. I accept what it says, as I perfectly intimated before when I said I have no reason to doubt it.
Bringing the evidence, indeed.
I didn't and don't see any post saying that.
So rather than defer to Wikipedia when asked anything, why not answer questions on the previous page? How is land ownership "worsening"? On what figures is unemployment worsening?
Try post number 56, dipshit.
Yesterday Harold said that he agreed with some Nazi policies. He's definitely digging deeper.
It (Post number 56, in case you're not sure) just says:
So I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking for.
Yes, I do. What's the problem? Is every Nazi policy ever made a bad policy because they were the Nazi party? Was increased animal welfare a bad policy?
The very fucking clear implication that yes, I agree with what it says. Deliberately obtuse or very stupid, which are you?
And Mr Disingenuous, here is post 56 in full:
There's no need to get upset just because your attempts to dodge scrutiny have run into a dead end. When challenged on it you deferred to "that's what wikipedia says" rather than actually defending it, and when I asked if you agreed with it you spazzed out, so we're again back at square one asking - since you agree with the quote- if you could please answer the questions people have about it.
I guess you tried to edit after I had replied and that there is something wrong with the board, since I get differently.And Mr Disingenuous, here is poist 56 in full:
Just no.
Posting Permissions
