Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    Hey, you're the one who claims that Tonight Matthew is harassing you, and repeatedly asks people not to attack him/her. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy.
    Harassment is defined as following:

    A course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy an individual.

    The act of tormenting by continued persistent attacks and criticism

    Persistent, unwanted annoyance toward another person.

    Yes, I think Tonight Matthew has been harrassing me, even when asked to stop.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    You're clearly not worried about causing controversy, which was your excuse for not answering my previous question. So what's your real excuse?
    I do with you'd stop whinging about that ridiculous question you decided to ask. I have exmplained many times my reasons for not answering it. I have also seen you ask me the same questions in threads which are completely unrelated. Please will you stop asking me, as I'm quite simply not going to answer you.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Hey Straight Talker, answer visesh/Tonight Matthew's question please, you've dodged them for a page now. Kthx.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Straight Talker)
    Harassment is defined as following:

    A course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy an individual.

    The act of tormenting by continued persistent attacks and criticism

    Persistent, unwanted annoyance toward another person.

    Yes, I think Tonight Matthew has been harrassing me, even when asked to stop.
    OK whatever, for such a 'Straight Talker', I'm surprised that you deem two PM's harassment.

    Anyway:

    Back on topic - about your claim that British donators will be angry that their money isn't going to help British victims.

    I've got news for you. The drug causing Thalidomide was withdrawn in Britain by about 1960. It is still legal in other parts of the world however, including in Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece and Turkey. As a result, how many people are really going to expect that their money is spent on British children, when British children are so much less likely to get Thalidomide in the first place?

    Explain that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Straight Talker)
    I do with you'd stop whinging about that ridiculous question you decided to ask.
    Why was my question ridiculous?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by visesh)
    What would you say if the baby was granted British Citizenship, just because the adoptive mother is a Briton? (I understand that it's not that easy...but it is still possible)
    Sorry Visesh I didn't see your question, I don't think the baby will be granted British Citiszenship so your question isn't really valid.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Back on topic Straight Talker - about your claim that British donators will be angry that their money isn't going to help British victims.

    I've got news for you. The drug causing Thalidomide was withdrawn in Britain by about 1960. It is still legal in other parts of the world however, including in Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece and Turkey. As a result, how many people are really going to expect that their money is spent on British children, when British children are so much less likely to get Thalidomide in the first place?

    Explain that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Why was my question ridiculous?
    Please stop bringing up this question, it has nothing to do with this thread.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Straight Talker)
    Please stop bringing up this question, it has nothing to do with this thread.
    Will you PM me an explanation of why my question was ridiculous then? If not, why not? If you label something 'ridiculous', it is up to you to justify why you believe it to be so.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Why was my question ridiculous?
    I am going to ask you to do something very simple. Stop bringing up this question, it has nothing to do with this thread. Do you understand?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Straight Talker)
    I am going to ask you to do something very simple. Stop bringing up this question, it has nothing to do with this thread. Do you understand?
    No, I'm not going to stop asking you until you give me an answer. As it stands now, you are unwilling to apply the same standards to people irrespective of their race - you are a racist.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Straight Talker)
    Sorry Visesh I didn't see your question, I don't think the baby will be granted British Citiszenship so your question isn't really valid.
    Why do you think the baby wont be granted citizenship? It is entirely possible that this could be the mother's 'next step'.

    would the baby's nationality have any bearing on your views on this matter?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    OK, I'll stop bringing up past threads. Let's stick with this thread.

    Back on topic - about your claim that British donators will be angry that their money isn't going to help British victims.

    I've got news for you. The drug causing Thalidomide was withdrawn in Britain by about 1960. It is still legal in other parts of the world however, including in Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece and Turkey. As a result, how many people are really going to expect that their money is spent on British children, when British children are so much less likely to get Thalidomide in the first place?

    Explain that.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    kthxbye
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Haha it's like Michael Howard and Jeremy Paxman.

    Remind me to rep you tomorrow Tonight Matthew.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    Haha it's like Michael Howard and Jeremy Paxman.

    Remind me to rep you tomorrow Tonight Matthew.
    :dito:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Why thanks, I'll trust you two to remember rather than having to go rep-begging.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    S/he appears to have gone, pretending that this question is irrelevant and/or personally insulting. Ah well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    it seems the president of the charity is paying for the treatment....on the site it says, "Our President Freddie Astbury, who was also born without arms or legs is paying for little Freddie's medical treatment ". kind man!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masonne)
    it seems the president of the charity is paying for the treatment....on the site it says, "Our President Freddie Astbury, who was also born without arms or legs is paying for little Freddie's medical treatment ". kind man!
    Well this further negates any 'argument' ST could have ever claimed to have. I'm sure she will still find some way of objecting to it though (although she won't be able to answer questions about her objection, obviously).
 
 
 

3,546

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.