Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    Ah, I see you're not disputing that Amnesty apolgising to two people is not the same as apologising for criticising Israel. Good. You have picked five people and you think you've proved your point? Chomsky, Finkelstein, Said, Pappe, Shlaim, Bregman, Riddley, Galloway, Goldstone, Fisk, nur masalha. I really could go on and on. That's more than one person for every person you named who hasn't apologised and yet you consider it "convention"
    I am disputing ir and I already stated this, not repeating myself again you see. Secondly I think I've proved my point perfectly well, and I reiterate whatever I said prior to this



    I feel the same way. Except I will keep replying instead of making points like this - i.e abandoning the debate.
    So we're having a debate now? keep replying, it's fun!

    You said it was customary to apologise. Even if these people face the consequences, they are not apologising. And like I said above, for every person you name who apologises, I will name many many many more who haven't. "Convention" indeed
    .

    Jimmy did, Jenny did, Cherie did, Amnesty did, countless politicians/academics have, we can go on.

    I never claimed that the Palestine Chronicle article had anything specifically to do with what you said. I said, in my first post that the Palestine Telegraph [I meant the Chronicle] has taken down an article trying to prove this. This was all in the context of me showing that this was a baseless accusation. What I wrote wasn't even in reply to you. And would you stop saying stuff like the above and actually respond to points?

    1) You did
    2)It didn't
    3)Source
    4) owned



    This is basically your argument in this entire thread, and now humiliatingly destroyed.

    :rofl: Hilarious. the pro-Palestinians are ignoring something that would be benficial for their case. Genius. It's not because it's complete crap. No, it's because the pro-Palestinians are missing pro-Palestinian points.
    I don't know why you're asking my to vouch for them, it is they whom you should be asking this :confused:

    I told you before, I have extremely different opinions from them, but to the other pro Palestinians who have agreed, well, that speaks for it self.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    I am disputing ir and I already stated this, not repeating myself again you see. Secondly I think I've proved my point perfectly well, and I reiterate whatever I said prior to this
    You haven't proved anything. I named organisation, people and outlets. You claimed B'Selem apologised (you never gave a source). You claimed Amnesty did - I showed they didn't apologise for criticising Israel. You named five people, I named many many many more who haven't. And you think you've proved your point. Hilarious, again.


    So we're having a debate now? keep replying, it's fun!
    Chose not to reply to the point you evaded, again. And I agree, this is fun - making someone look like a fool is always fun.
    .

    Jimmy did, Jenny did, Cherie did, Amnesty did, countless politicians/academics have, we can go on.
    Amnesty didn't. Chomsky, Finkelstein, Said, Pappe, Shlaim, Bregman, Riddley, Galloway, Goldstone, Fisk, Nur Masalha, HRW, AMW, Breaking the Silence, B'Tselem, Oxfam, Red Cross, UNGA, UNHRA, UNSC, the various Arab and Muslim government around the world - all these didn't apologise. You havent proved that its "convention" because you named 5 people who have apologised.


    1) You did
    2)It didn't
    3)Source
    4) owned
    1. I didn't. Look at the post. I was using it to show that it was a baseless accusation.
    2. It had to do with the subject of the thread
    3. I gave you the source which was retracted.

    This is basically your argument in this entire thread, and now humiliatingly destroyed.
    As I've shown, naming 5 people does not make in a convention. That is your argument destroyed. I actually feel embarrassed for you. 5 people acting in one way vs. all the people, institutions and newspapers I named for you is "customary". :rofl:

    I told you before, I have extremely different opinions from them, but to the other pro Palestinians who have agreed, well, that speaks for it self.
    Hilarious. It "speaks for itself" that pro-Palestinians don't agree with you. Yeah, it really does.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    You haven't proved anything. I named organisation, people and outlets. You claimed B'Selem apologised (you never gave a source). You claimed Amnesty did - I showed they didn't apologise for criticising Israel. You named five people, I named many many many more who haven't. And you think you've proved your point. Hilarious, again.
    So have I yet you choose to ignore them because you know your points have been destroyed. Pitiful

    Try again



    Chose not to reply to the point you evaded, again. And I agree, this is fun - making someone look like a fool is always fun.
    You never had a point you were exposed as fraud a pedantic one at that


    Amnesty didn't. Chomsky, Finkelstein, Said, Pappe, Shlaim, Bregman, Riddley, Galloway, Goldstone, Fisk, Nur Masalha, HRW, AMW, Breaking the Silence, B'Tselem, Oxfam, Red Cross, UNGA, UNHRA, UNSC, the various Arab and Muslim government around the world - all these didn't apologise. You havent proved that its "convention" because you named 5 people who have apologised.
    Amnesty did and besides taking the example of Goldstone and Daniel Levy, they're Jews and as Israel said, they're "satisfied" with their work
    http://www.jpost.com/International/A...aspx?ID=167920

    something wrong here



    1. I didn't. Look at the post. I was using it to show that it was a baseless accusation.
    2. It had to do with the subject of the thread
    3. I gave you the source which was retracted
    .

    1) Yes you did, you said the article was in the Telegraph

    2) You backtracked because it was obviously false

    3) You backtracked again saying you never refered to in the first place

    4) You've showed no source, show the exact source in the Chronicle?

    P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C


    As I've shown, naming 5 people does not make in a convention. That is your argument destroyed. I actually feel embarrassed for you. 5 people acting in one way vs. all the people, institutions and newspapers I named for you is "customary". :rofl:
    There are many other example, besides the ones of I've listed

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005...lishing.france
    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-125950858.html
    http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/693960

    there are countless more, it has become customary to formally apologize.
    Hilarious. It "speaks for itself" that pro-Palestinians don't agree with you. Yeah, it really does.[/QUOTE]

    How does that make sense, do you know how to read?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by halbeth)
    Anti-semitism and criticism of Israel, contrary to popular belief, are not the same thing.
    True, I myself criticise Israeli government policy on several occaisons however, some statements about Israel either have motives other than to bring about serious discussion and descend into the realms of hatred. Fortunatly not alot of people on TSR make these statements if at all (I havn't seen any recently anyway)

    Not that I'm saying these allegations are true, but if there's reason to believe they are there should certainly be an investigation.
    When there's no evidence to say that it is true and the only people publically saying Israel have harvested organs in Haiti is a guy on Youtube who looked at a CNN news report on Israel helping the victims of Haiti by setting up hospitals (and he didn't even explicity claim that Israel were harvesting organs), a story from a Palestinian newspaper with no sources that was found to be baseless and a politician who read that story... Seriously, I find some of the arguments on TSR agaisnt Israel really lacking in any credibility.

    On another note, Hope you're doing well and please stop uploading photos of yourself to facebook, we get it, you've got another haircut :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    So have I yet you choose to ignore them because you know your points have been destroyed. Pitiful
    I haven't ignored them: I'm saying that for the five people you name, I can name many many many more that do not apologise. That means that its not "customary". You name five people. I named 11 people, 11 institutions and various governments around the world. And you seriously think that makes your statement "customary". :rofl:


    You never had a point you were exposed as fraud a pedantic one at that
    Ah, so another non-point. Please refute.

    Amnesty did
    Apologising for criticising two people is not the same as apologising for criticising Israel. They have said that Israel committed war crimes, all they apologised for is claiming that two individuals were standing up for them. And is that seriously the best you can do?! A non-apology from Amnesty and 5 people vs. all the things I've listed (and I can list at five times that).

    and besides taking the example of Goldstone and Daniel Levy, they're Jews and as Israel said, they're "satisfied" with their work
    http://www.jpost.com/International/A...aspx?ID=167920
    So what if they're Jews?! Two of the most known and established critics of Israel are Jewish (Chomsky and Finkelstein). That's irrelevant: they criticised Israel, and they did not apologise. Who cares what Israel is satisfied with? The UNGA, UNSC, UNHRC have all critcised Israel and they haven't responded. With regards to Ban; http://mondoweiss.net/2010/02/ap-mis...goldstone.html
    .

    1) Yes you did, you said the article was in the Telegraph
    2) You backtracked because it was obviously false
    3) You backtracked again saying you never refered to in the first place
    4) You've showed no source, show the exact source in the Chronicle?
    1. Yes, and I said it was my bad - I mistakenly said that it was in the Telegraph and not the Chronicle, but not in reference to anything you had said. I used it to show that it was baseless
    2. It's irrelevant to my point whether it was from the Telegraph or the Chronicle: my point was that if a paper retracted the 'evidence', then it says something.
    3. When did I say I never refered to it?! I said that "The Palestine Chronicle had nothing to do with anything you said." because it didn't. I was building up a case.
    4. Are you retarded?! It's been retracted from the Chronicle. I showed you reprint of the article here: http://baltimorechronicle.com/2010/012610Lendman.shtml

    There are many other example, besides the ones of I've listed

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005...lishing.france
    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-125950858.html
    http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/693960

    there are countless more, it has become customary to formally apologize.
    I didn't even look at your links, but lets assume that they all show that three more people apologised for criticising Israel, aside from the ones I've already listed: Chomsky, Finkelstein, Said, Pappe, Shlaim, Bregman, Riddley, Galloway, Goldstone, Fisk, Nur Masalha, HRW, AMW, Breaking the Silence, B'Tselem, Oxfam, Red Cross, UNGA, UNHRA, UNSC, the various Arab and Muslim government around the world - I will name more: Mearsheimer, Walt, Neumann, Shehadeh, Cook, Avnery, Ben White, Barghouti. So that's 19 people, 11 institutions and various governments vs. eight examples. and you think its "customary".

    Now let's actually look at your links: first one, they didn't apologise. Second link, he didn't apologise. Third link: didn't apologise. Your claim is that it is customary to apologise. None of the three links show people apologising.

    You're going to say "but they lost their jobs and were demonised" - irrelevant: they didn't apologise. Your point is that its customary to apologise, not in those cases - and not in the cases of the 19 people, 11 institutions and various governments.

    How does that make sense, do you know how to read?
    Another non-point. Please go back and refute.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    I haven't ignored them: I'm saying that for the five people you name, I can name many many many more that do not apologise. That means that its not "customary". You name five people. I named 11 people, 11 institutions and various governments around the world. And you seriously think that makes your statement "customary".
    Yes you have you proved that with your reply further down :rolleyes:

    Ah, so another non-point. Please refute.
    ditto

    Apologising for criticising two people is not the same as apologising for criticising Israel. They have said that Israel committed war crimes, all they apologised for is claiming that two individuals were standing up for them. And is that seriously the best you can do?! A non-apology from Amnesty and 5 people vs. all the things I've listed (and I can list at five times that).
    I already replied to this, Israel and Jew have become interchangeable terms.


    So what if they're Jews?! Two of the most known and established critics of Israel are Jewish (Chomsky and Finkelstein). That's irrelevant: they criticised Israel, and they did not apologise. Who cares what Israel is satisfied with? The UNGA, UNSC, UNHRC have all critcised Israel and they haven't responded. With regards to Ban; http://mondoweiss.net/2010/02/ap-mis...goldstone.html
    So they're a safe bet for Israel, they know Israel wouldn't tolerarte a "gentile" conducting such investigation hence whatever they say, they know they can't use the anti semite card.
    .



    1. Yes, and I said it was my bad - I mistakenly said that it was in the Telegraph and not the Chronicle, but not in reference to anything you had said. I used it to show that it was baseless
    Finally you admit to your dishonest, lying ways, excellent

    2. It's irrelevant to my point whether it was from the Telegraph or the Chronicle: my point was that if a paper retracted the 'evidence', then it says something.
    No it is very relevant you made a baseless claim and dishonestly attributed it to something else, hence you fail.

    3. When did I say I never refered to it?! I said that "The Palestine Chronicle had nothing to do with anything you said." because it didn't. I was building up a case.
    LOL you pathetic backtracking fool, now your shifting positions because you know you've been exposed. There's no point to take you seriously.

    4. Are you retarded?! It's been retracted from the Chronicle. I showed you reprint of the article here: http://baltimorechronicle.com/2010/012610Lendman.shtml
    Are you retarded that article makes no mention of the Palestinian chronicle or it being retracted, try again you lying fool.

    I didn't even look at your links,"
    .

    That's all I wanted to hear
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Even if they did whats up with saving lives?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Diaz selectively quotes so it looks I'm ignoring his points, please read below (or the actual post and not his cut outs) to see how he does this


    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Yes you have you proved that with your reply further down :rolleyes:
    If you had carried on reading you would have seen this: "Now let's actually look at your links: first one, they didn't apologise. Second link, he didn't apologise. Third link: didn't apologise. Your claim is that it is customary to apologise. None of the three links show people apologising." I said I didn't read them, but let's assume I have. I then went on to debunk your links. You should have read the full response. Your idiocy has been shown. You didn't even read the full reply.

    I already replied to this, Israel and Jew have become interchangeable terms.
    Thats complete stupidity. You really are clutching at straws aren't you? That's false because that logic is simply retarded: Jews =/= Israel. But lets assume that's right: Amnesty apologised to two Jews, not Jews as a whole, not for criticising Israel or Jews.

    So they're a safe bet for Israel, they know Israel wouldn't tolerarte a "gentile" conducting such investigation hence whatever they say, they know they can't use the anti semite card.
    Yes, and?. Goldstone criticised Israel. He hasn't apologised. So have Chomsky and Finkelstein. These are all Jews. Your maxim that "anytime anything" is said against Israel is not subject or affected by the race of individual saying them. You know that the 19 people listed, the three aforementioned Jews included, haven't apolgised and you're still talking this nonsense.


    Finally you admit to your dishonest, lying ways, excellent
    A mistake isn't a lie. A lie must have an intention to deceive.

    No it is very relevant you made a baseless claim and dishonestly attributed it to something else, hence you fail.
    Yes, I have admitted that I meant Chronicle and not the Telegraph. I'm saying that that fact in itself is not relevant: my point was that a paper which 'ran' this evidence retracted it. I was using it to make a case against the credibility of the claim that Israel was harvesting organs.

    LOL you pathetic backtracking fool, now your shifting positions because you know you've been exposed. There's no point to take you seriously.
    Please don't talk to me about backtracking, you've tried to qualify your original statement like five times because you know it flies in the face of facts. The only reason I made reference to the Chronicle was to show that it had been retracted because it was baseless.

    Are you retarded that article makes no mention of the Palestinian chronicle or it being retracted, try again you lying fool.
    You want a source: a blogger called Elder of Ziyon said the following: "Interestingly, the article in the Palestine Chronicle that Tonge was referring to seems to have disappeared from that site. Were they embarrassed? A copy can be seen here."

    It was also reported in the Palestine Telegraph but you will not be able to find it on the website: "The allegation that IDF medics harvested organs from Haitians to use in transplants was published in the Gaza-based Web site The Palestine Telegraph, of which Tonge is a patron. The article, titled “Focus on Israel: Harvesting Haitian Organs,” was written by a Boston blogger Stephen Lendman."

    According to the Palestine Telegraph itself: "Concerns about possible organ theft by Israeli medical-relief workers were aired by a Jewish columnist for the Palestine Telegraph, Stephen Lendman." yet if you look for the article 'Focus on Israel:

    I have provided you with sources showing that the article was on both the Palestine Telegraph and the Palestine Chronicle, yet if you search for 'Focus on Israel: Harvesting..' - you will not find it. To make it easier for you, here's a search for 'harvesting' on PT.


    That's all I wanted to hear
    What a disgusting selection of my actual position.

    As I've stated above, if you had went on to read you would have seen this following - but you're not interesting in debating, you're interesting in evading;

    I didn't even look at your links, but lets assume that they all show that three more people apologised for criticising Israel, aside from the ones I've already listed: Chomsky, Finkelstein, Said, Pappe, Shlaim, Bregman, Riddley, Galloway, Goldstone, Fisk, Nur Masalha, HRW, AMW, Breaking the Silence, B'Tselem, Oxfam, Red Cross, UNGA, UNHRA, UNSC, the various Arab and Muslim government around the world - I will name more: Mearsheimer, Walt, Neumann, Shehadeh, Cook, Avnery, Ben White, Barghouti. So that's 19 people, 11 institutions and various governments vs. eight examples. and you think its "customary".

    Now let's actually look at your links: first one, they didn't apologise. Second link, he didn't apologise. Third link: didn't apologise. Your claim is that it is customary to apologise. None of the three links show people apologising.

    You're going to say "but they lost their jobs and were demonised" - irrelevant: they didn't apologise. Your point is that its customary to apologise, not in those cases - and not in the cases of the 19 people, 11 institutions and various governments.


    Funny how you not only didn't reply, you didn't even read. What a joke. I would say your credibility is gone, but you lost that ages a go. You don't even do the minimum: read the opponents response.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    Diaz selectively quotes so it looks I'm ignoring his points, please read below (or the actual post and not his cut outs) to see how he does this




    If you had carried on reading you would have seen this: "Now let's actually look at your links: first one, they didn't apologise. Second link, he didn't apologise. Third link: didn't apologise. Your claim is that it is customary to apologise. None of the three links show people apologising." I said I didn't read them, but let's assume I have. I then went on to debunk your links. You should have read the full response. Your idiocy has been shown. You didn't even read the full reply.



    Thats complete stupidity. You really are clutching at straws aren't you? That's false because that logic is simply retarded: Jews =/= Israel. But lets assume that's right: Amnesty apologised to two Jews, not Jews as a whole, not for criticising Israel or Jews.



    Yes, and?. Goldstone criticised Israel. He hasn't apologised. So have Chomsky and Finkelstein. These are all Jews. Your maxim that "anytime anything" is said against Israel is not subject or affected by the race of individual saying them. You know that the 19 people listed, the three aforementioned Jews included, haven't apolgised and you're still talking this nonsense.




    A mistake isn't a lie. A lie must have an intention to deceive.



    Yes, I have admitted that I meant Chronicle and not the Telegraph. I'm saying that that fact in itself is not relevant: my point was that a paper which 'ran' this evidence retracted it. I was using it to make a case against the credibility of the claim that Israel was harvesting organs.



    Please don't talk to me about backtracking, you've tried to qualify your original statement like five times because you know it flies in the face of facts. The only reason I made reference to the Chronicle was to show that it had been retracted because it was baseless.



    You want a source: a blogger called Elder of Ziyon said the following: "Interestingly, the article in the Palestine Chronicle that Tonge was referring to seems to have disappeared from that site. Were they embarrassed? A copy can be seen here."

    It was also reported in the Palestine Telegraph but you will not be able to find it on the website: "The allegation that IDF medics harvested organs from Haitians to use in transplants was published in the Gaza-based Web site The Palestine Telegraph, of which Tonge is a patron. The article, titled “Focus on Israel: Harvesting Haitian Organs,” was written by a Boston blogger Stephen Lendman."

    According to the Palestine Telegraph itself: "Concerns about possible organ theft by Israeli medical-relief workers were aired by a Jewish columnist for the Palestine Telegraph, Stephen Lendman." yet if you look for the article 'Focus on Israel:

    I have provided you with sources showing that the article was on both the Palestine Telegraph and the Palestine Chronicle, yet if you search for 'Focus on Israel: Harvesting..' - you will not find it. To make it easier for you, here's a search for 'harvesting' on PT.




    What a disgusting selection of my actual position.

    As I've stated above, if you had went on to read you would have seen this following - but you're not interesting in debating, you're interesting in evading;

    I didn't even look at your links, but lets assume that they all show that three more people apologised for criticising Israel, aside from the ones I've already listed: Chomsky, Finkelstein, Said, Pappe, Shlaim, Bregman, Riddley, Galloway, Goldstone, Fisk, Nur Masalha, HRW, AMW, Breaking the Silence, B'Tselem, Oxfam, Red Cross, UNGA, UNHRA, UNSC, the various Arab and Muslim government around the world - I will name more: Mearsheimer, Walt, Neumann, Shehadeh, Cook, Avnery, Ben White, Barghouti. So that's 19 people, 11 institutions and various governments vs. eight examples. and you think its "customary".

    Now let's actually look at your links: first one, they didn't apologise. Second link, he didn't apologise. Third link: didn't apologise. Your claim is that it is customary to apologise. None of the three links show people apologising.

    You're going to say "but they lost their jobs and were demonised" - irrelevant: they didn't apologise. Your point is that its customary to apologise, not in those cases - and not in the cases of the 19 people, 11 institutions and various governments.


    Funny how you not only didn't reply, you didn't even read. What a joke. I would say your credibility is gone, but you lost that ages a go. You don't even do the minimum: read the opponents response.

    Go to sleep bruvva.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    Diaz selectively quotes so it looks I'm ignoring his points, please read below (or the actual post and not his cut outs) to see how he does this
    So you admit to not reading my links, ignoring what I say and I'm being selective? tut tut tut, you're really squriming now bud.

    If you had carried on reading .
    Coming from someone who ignores everything and adds his own fanciful allusions? save it

    Thats complete stupidity. You really are clutching at straws aren't you? That's false because that logic is simply retarded: Jews =/= Israel. But lets assume that's right: Amnesty apologised to two Jews, not Jews as a whole, not for criticising Israel or Jews
    .

    You keep saying that phrase even though you've been totally pedantic and selective throughout this entire thread. Not only have you proved yourself to be liar but also an utter moron, and I stand by my point, it's interchangeable. Try again


    Yes, and?. Goldstone criticised Israel. He hasn't apologised. So have Chomsky and Finkelstein. These are all Jews. Your maxim that "anytime anything" is said against Israel is not subject or affected by the race of individual saying them. You know that the 19 people listed, the three aforementioned Jews included, haven't apolgised and you're still talking this nonsense.
    Goldstone was called every name under sun, even an anti Semitic self hating Jew if that makes any sense. The only reason he wasn't asked to apologize because logically he is a Jew and his arguments can't be rationally or credibly construed as anti Semitic, but those non Jews, well then that's a different matter.


    A mistake isn't a lie. A lie must have an intention to deceive.
    That's all you ever do, lie lie lie, and you've been exposed to that. You're pitiful.



    Yes, I have admitted that I meant Chronicle and not the Telegraph. I'm saying that that fact in itself is not relevant: my point was that a paper which 'ran' this evidence retracted it. I was using it to make a case against the credibility of the claim that Israel was harvesting organs.
    No you've been backtracking you say the telegraph, then you say the Palestinian chronicle, then you say the Baltimore chronicle, then you say you never said anything, and then you say the above, it's embarrassing!


    Please don't talk to me about backtracking, you've tried to qualify your original statement like five times because you know it flies in the face of facts. The only reason I made reference to the Chronicle was to show that it had been retracted because it was baseless
    You've backtracked this entire thread, you came here with your lies and you've been exposed. Simple



    You want a source
    I want a source from the Chronicle.

    It was also reported in the Palestine Telegraph but you will not be able to find it on the website: "The allegation that IDF medics harvested organs from Haitians to use in transplants was published in the Gaza-based Web site The Palestine Telegraph, of which Tonge is a patron. The article, titled “Focus on Israel: Harvesting Haitian Organs,” was written by a Boston blogger Stephen Lendman."
    It's in the Telegraph now, oh and not finding it? that' very convenient, pathetic.



    I have provided you with sources showing that the article was on both the Palestine Telegraph and the Palestine Chronicle, yet if you search for 'Focus on Israel: Harvesting..' - you will not find it. To make it easier for you, here's a search for 'harvesting' on PT.
    You've done the exact opposite, you say it wasn't in the Telegraph, you say it's in the Chronicle (and have yet to provide credible evidence) and now you say you have sources for both which you don't. None talk about any sort of retraction all they talk about is the actual article. Seriously, the fun is over now it's getting boring



    What a disgusting selection of my actual position.

    As I've stated above, if you had went on to read you would have seen this following - but you're not interesting in debating, you're interesting in evading;
    That's rich coming from a self professed historian who's yet to provide a single source from the Chronicle outlining their retraction

    [i]I didn't even look at your links and you think its "customary".
    Again.....


    Funny how you not only didn't reply, you didn't even read. What a joke. I would say your credibility is gone, but you lost that ages a go. You don't even do the minimum: read the opponents response.
    Funny how if you'd read the article you would've seen how moronic that post is.

    1) He got criminally convicted
    2)He got fired
    3) He got persecuted

    You're an utter imbecile, try again.
    Offline

    2
    Closed at the request of the OP.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 15, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.