RealCabforce wrote:
It seems all of a sudden, after claims to the contrary by several of the "inner cell" on this forum, that one disagrees at one's peril with the aims of this site.
It is a sad sad day when people like Ali T and Skull have used much more abusive language and belligerence than others, yet are still here when others are barred without even warnings as to their conduct.
A great deal is made about hiding one's real identity, yet most accept JD, TDO, Sussex, Skull, Dusty Bin et al as usernames without question. WHY? Could it be because they are on the right side of the tracks for TDO?
I think the time is rapidly approaching (if it is not already here) when this site becomes irrelevant to serious debate.
One cannot claim to be fair and equitable yet treat people differently on the basis of whether they share your goals or not.
As for my username, it is as acceptable as any other. When I joined, there was no similarity with any other name, yet, TDO and others dare to tell me that I should change it to avoid confusion. They even suggest, again because I disagree with their goals, that I have multiple identities, which again is not true.
Perhaps they cannot distinguish between "myth & reality"
It is a sad sad day when people like Ali T and Skull have used much more abusive language and belligerence than others, yet are still here when others are barred without even warnings as to their conduct.
A great deal is made about hiding one's real identity, yet most accept JD, TDO, Sussex, Skull, Dusty Bin et al as usernames without question. WHY? Could it be because they are on the right side of the tracks for TDO?
I think the time is rapidly approaching (if it is not already here) when this site becomes irrelevant to serious debate.
One cannot claim to be fair and equitable yet treat people differently on the basis of whether they share your goals or not.
As for my username, it is as acceptable as any other. When I joined, there was no similarity with any other name, yet, TDO and others dare to tell me that I should change it to avoid confusion. They even suggest, again because I disagree with their goals, that I have multiple identities, which again is not true.
Perhaps they cannot distinguish between "myth & reality"
Your arguments just don't stack up and your skewed perspective is one of having a vested interest to protect as do others who support you. This being the case your failure to be objective in your argument is all to apparent, by not, answering anything that doesn't fit in with your working model of the trade.
Think about all the councils that have already de-restricted and why?
Could it be that the inevitability of the situation is what you are against and not us.
We debate it, you don't.
Grow up and smell the coffee.
