|
Post by foster on May 17, 2022 13:35:55 GMT
Losing the argument so just make up another criteria to suit ones own purpose. Ely logic... 2 + 2 = 5&^4668^#48! Edit: First time in my life I've used 'ones' in that context. Seems you can teach an old dog new tricks. To be fair mate, you can't really talk when it comes to goalpost moving on this issue. Even on this very page, he gave you an example of another Royal palace which you then decided shouldn't count and didn't even try to justify why it shouldn't or what criteria you were now using, you just arbitrarily decided it was irrelevant....a bit Trumpesque to be honest What's your point?
|
|
|
Post by foster on May 17, 2022 13:36:20 GMT
I think after 11 pages we can safely conclude that the only reason anyone goes to London is to see the Royal family. Yep, nothing to do with the sights, culture, nightlife, sports, theatres, shopping and countless restaurants... Finally, somebody gets it.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on May 17, 2022 13:42:41 GMT
To be fair mate, you can't really talk when it comes to goalpost moving on this issue. Even on this very page, he gave you an example of another Royal palace which you then decided shouldn't count and didn't even try to justify why it shouldn't or what criteria you were now using, you just arbitrarily decided it was irrelevant....a bit Trumpesque to be honest What's you point? The first 2 lines of your post i quoted.... Kinda exactly what you did in the first place really "Losing the argument so just make up another criteria to suit one's own purpose"
|
|
|
Post by foster on May 17, 2022 13:51:02 GMT
The first 2 lines of your post i quoted.... Kinda exactly what you did in the first place really "Losing the argument so just make up another criteria to suit one's own purpose" You're anti-monarchy mate, we get it. I pointed out London was more popular than New York. Then someone replied saying Paris was more popular (due apparently to the fact that they have no monarchy), so I pointed out Bangkok was more popular, which in itself is still a weak argument. I was just pointing out that using Paris as an example was inconclusive. Anyway, the palace residency thing was never bought up by me. Merely that the Royals aid tourism, which is an undeniable fact.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on May 17, 2022 14:11:40 GMT
The first 2 lines of your post i quoted.... Kinda exactly what you did in the first place really "Losing the argument so just make up another criteria to suit one's own purpose" You're anti-monarchy mate, we get it. I pointed out London was more popular than New York. Then someone replied saying Paris was more popular (due apparently to the fact that they have no monarchy), so I pointed out Bangkok was more popular, which in itself is still a weak argument. I was just pointing out that using Paris as an example was inconclusive. Anyway, the palace residency thing was never bought up by me. Merely that the Royals aid tourism, which is an undeniable fact. Another long running myth If the royal family were abolished tomorrow there’d be no decrease of visitors London if facts are your thing mate People would still visit in huge amounts just to see how they lived in just the same way they visit now to see how they live
|
|
|
Post by foster on May 17, 2022 14:25:04 GMT
You're anti-monarchy mate, we get it. I pointed out London was more popular than New York. Then someone replied saying Paris was more popular (due apparently to the fact that they have no monarchy), so I pointed out Bangkok was more popular, which in itself is still a weak argument. I was just pointing out that using Paris as an example was inconclusive. Anyway, the palace residency thing was never bought up by me. Merely that the Royals aid tourism, which is an undeniable fact. Another long running myth If the royal family were abolished tomorrow there’d be no decrease of visitors London if facts are your thing mate
People would still visit in huge amounts just to see how they lived in just the same way they visit now to see how they live And you know that how? Is it because people would still flock there to check out the celebrity cribs? You're making a statement based on no evidence...a bit like Boris saying how things post-Brexit were going to be. The funny thing is that it's the anti-monarchy crowd that started this whole visitor number debate and it's not important at all. There are so many other reasons why people visit major cities (Paris for food, wine, museums and romance for example). The royals bring in more money than they cost so the financial aspect of this debate is irrelevant... and even if they didn't (which isn't the case) then they still do a lot in terms of engagements and representing the country. Most of the billionaires/millionaires around do nothing for normal people and those are the ones you should really be banging your drum about.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on May 17, 2022 14:25:15 GMT
The first 2 lines of your post i quoted.... Kinda exactly what you did in the first place really "Losing the argument so just make up another criteria to suit one's own purpose" You're anti-monarchy mate, we get it. I pointed out London was more popular than New York. Then someone replied saying Paris was more popular (due apparently to the fact that they have no monarchy), so I pointed out Bangkok was more popular, which in itself is still a weak argument. I was just pointing out that using Paris as an example was inconclusive. Anyway, the palace residency thing was never bought up by me. Merely that the Royals aid tourism, which is an undeniable fact. No, i'm not anti monarchy. I'm genrrally apathetic towards the whole issue but that's irrelevant and simply your way of putting words into someone's mouth because you can't actually address what they have said, so just make a sweeping statement that is utterly irrelevant to anything i said anyway. Really really poor from you. You're usually way better than that. You don't have to be anti monarchy to be able to spot you moving goalposts all over the place as and when someone opposes you and you don't know how to counter them. To then criticise THEM for doing that as a deflection tactic is 1) Massively hypocritical especially given that you were the first to start doing that 2) Poor as any kind of argument anyway, as it doesn't at all address the valid points he's made against you and 3) Just so,so obvious and transparent to all that it beggars belief.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on May 17, 2022 14:26:49 GMT
You're anti-monarchy mate, we get it. I pointed out London was more popular than New York. Then someone replied saying Paris was more popular (due apparently to the fact that they have no monarchy), so I pointed out Bangkok was more popular, which in itself is still a weak argument. I was just pointing out that using Paris as an example was inconclusive. Anyway, the palace residency thing was never bought up by me. Merely that the Royals aid tourism, which is an undeniable fact. Another long running myth If the royal family were abolished tomorrow there’d be no decrease of visitors London if facts are your thing mate People would still visit in huge amounts just to see how they lived in just the same way they visit now to see how they live If people were just visiting for the Royals they'd flock to Windsor. It's not like your average tourist is going to bump into Lizzie in Harrod's 😀
|
|
|
Post by foster on May 17, 2022 14:28:56 GMT
You're anti-monarchy mate, we get it. I pointed out London was more popular than New York. Then someone replied saying Paris was more popular (due apparently to the fact that they have no monarchy), so I pointed out Bangkok was more popular, which in itself is still a weak argument. I was just pointing out that using Paris as an example was inconclusive. Anyway, the palace residency thing was never bought up by me. Merely that the Royals aid tourism, which is an undeniable fact. No, i'm not anti monarchy. I'm genrrally apathetic towards the while issue but that's irrelevant and simply your way of putting words into someone's mouth because you can't actually address what they have said, so just make a sweeping statement that is utterly irrelevant to anything i said anyway. Really reqlly poor from you. You're usually way better than that. You don't have to be anti monarchy to be able to spot you moving goalposts all over the place as and when someone opposes you and you don't know how to counter them. To then criticise THEM for doing that as a deflection tactic is 1) Massively hypocritical especiallyngoven that you were the first to start doing that 2) Poor as any kind of argument anyway, as it doesn,xt at all address the valid points he's made against you and 2) Just so,so obvious and transparent to all that it beggars belief. Fucking hell mate. You'd better head to the nearest 'lost and found' and see if someone's handed in your sense of humour. If you're going to start pissing your pants over my highly relevant posts then perhaps don't bother replying.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on May 17, 2022 14:30:21 GMT
Another long running myth If the royal family were abolished tomorrow there’d be no decrease of visitors London if facts are your thing mate
People would still visit in huge amounts just to see how they lived in just the same way they visit now to see how they live And you know that how? Is it because people would still flock there to check out the celebrity cribs? You're making a statement based on no evidence...a bit like Boris saying how things post-Brexit were going to be. The funny thing is that it's the anti-monarchy crowd that started this whole visitor number debate and it's not important at all. There are so many other reasons why people visit major cities (Paris for food, wine, museums and romance for example). The royals bring in more money than they cost so the financial aspect of this debate is irrelevant... and even if they didn't (which isn't the case) then they still do a lot in terms of engagements and representing the country. Most of the billionaires/millionaires around do nothing for normal people and those are the ones you should really be banging your drum about. I could spin those first 2 paragraphs on their head and ask you the same
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on May 17, 2022 14:35:46 GMT
No, i'm not anti monarchy. I'm genrrally apathetic towards the while issue but that's irrelevant and simply your way of putting words into someone's mouth because you can't actually address what they have said, so just make a sweeping statement that is utterly irrelevant to anything i said anyway. Really reqlly poor from you. You're usually way better than that. You don't have to be anti monarchy to be able to spot you moving goalposts all over the place as and when someone opposes you and you don't know how to counter them. To then criticise THEM for doing that as a deflection tactic is 1) Massively hypocritical especiallyngoven that you were the first to start doing that 2) Poor as any kind of argument anyway, as it doesn,xt at all address the valid points he's made against you and 2) Just so,so obvious and transparent to all that it beggars belief. Fucking hell mate. You'd better head to the nearest 'lost and found' and see if someone's handed in your sense of humour. If you're going to start pissing your pants over my highly relevant posts then perhaps don't bother replying. Usually you're pretty funny and it's clear when you're joking. If that was your intention on this thread, my bad and i apologise. Having said that mate...i'd say that, judging by other responses you've had, it hasn't been clear to anyone at all that you're just having a laugh really.
|
|
|
Post by foster on May 17, 2022 14:36:15 GMT
And you know that how? Is it because people would still flock there to check out the celebrity cribs? You're making a statement based on no evidence...a bit like Boris saying how things post-Brexit were going to be. The funny thing is that it's the anti-monarchy crowd that started this whole visitor number debate and it's not important at all. There are so many other reasons why people visit major cities (Paris for food, wine, museums and romance for example). The royals bring in more money than they cost so the financial aspect of this debate is irrelevant... and even if they didn't (which isn't the case) then they still do a lot in terms of engagements and representing the country. Most of the billionaires/millionaires around do nothing for normal people and those are the ones you should really be banging your drum about. I could spin those first 2 paragraphs on their head and ask you the same You could, but I don't consider visitor numbers for an inhabited or uninhabited palace an important factor. I'm pro Monarchy so we'll never agree, although I am in favour of reducing the extended family and whatever benefits they get.
|
|
|
Post by foster on May 17, 2022 14:39:12 GMT
Fucking hell mate. You'd better head to the nearest 'lost and found' and see if someone's handed in your sense of humour. If you're going to start pissing your pants over my highly relevant posts then perhaps don't bother replying. Usually you're pretty funny and it's clear when you're joking. If that was your intention on this thread, my bad and i apologise. Having said that mate...i'd say that, judging by other responses you've had, it hasn't been clear to anyone at all that you're just having a laugh really. Ok mate, but I think my sarcasm is pretty obvious (both posts and profile pic change) and nobody has tried to bite my head off like you.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on May 17, 2022 14:46:03 GMT
Usually you're pretty funny and it's clear when you're joking. If that was your intention on this thread, my bad and i apologise. Having said that mate...i'd say that, judging by other responses you've had, it hasn't been clear to anyone at all that you're just having a laugh really. Ok mate, but I think my sarcasm is pretty obvious (both posts and profile pic change) and nobody has tried to bite my head off like you. Well, a few others have also disagreed with you, so i think it's pretty clear that your sarcasm isn't that clear, despite you telling people it is (it's usually a sign of a bad joke if you have to explain it to people...just saying, it may be a you thing rather than everyone else's fault) And since when has pointing out someone's hypocrisy been biting anyone's head off? Maybe it's you that needs to stop replying if you're that offended by your own hypocrisy being called out mate.
|
|
|
Post by foster on May 17, 2022 14:54:07 GMT
Ok mate, but I think my sarcasm is pretty obvious (both posts and profile pic change) and nobody has tried to bite my head off like you. Well, a few others have also disagreed with you, so i think it's pretty clear that your sarcasm isn't that clear, despite you telling people it is (it's usually a sign of a bad joke if you have to explain it to people...just saying, it may be a you thing rather than everyone else's fault) And since when has pointing out someone's hypocrisy been biting anyone's head off? Maybe it's you that needs to stop replying if you're that offended by your own hypocrisy being called out mate. Disagreeing doesn't equate to not understanding. Although you've done a good job of both. Let's be honest here. You're the only one who seemingly doesn't understand sarcasm, or humour in general. Nobody has complained other than you. Nobody has thrown around insults other than you. Even now you're calling me a hypocrite like I even know what that means. You've literally come on here and killed the mood. If you want to head down this path then fine, but I'd appreciate it if you just ignored my posts and I'll do the same with you. Also, it's nearly 4pm so I'd head down to the lost and found before it closes.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on May 17, 2022 15:28:32 GMT
Well, a few others have also disagreed with you, so i think it's pretty clear that your sarcasm isn't that clear, despite you telling people it is (it's usually a sign of a bad joke if you have to explain it to people...just saying, it may be a you thing rather than everyone else's fault) And since when has pointing out someone's hypocrisy been biting anyone's head off? Maybe it's you that needs to stop replying if you're that offended by your own hypocrisy being called out mate. Disagreeing doesn't equate to not understanding. Although you've done a good job of both. Let's be honest here. You're the only one who seemingly doesn't understand sarcasm, or humour in general. Nobody has complained other than you. Nobody has thrown around insults other than you. Even now you're calling me a hypocrite like I even know what that means. You've literally come on here and killed the mood. If you want to head down this path then fine, but I'd appreciate it if you just ignored my posts and I'll do the same with you. Also, it's nearly 4pm so I'd head down to the lost and found before it closes. So calling someone out for being hypicritical during a discussion is throwing around insults Good god man, if someone uses facts to counter someone now are you going to call them a big bully? Grow up mate. It's not an insult to say someone is a hypocrite if they are being. If you get all upset being called one, the onus is on you not to be one, not on everyone else to just pretend you never were so it suits you. Get you ego in check fella. But yeah, i'm killing the mood from a man whose bullshit posts made one poster leave the thread...but yeah, it's everyone else not you You have zero self awareness
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on May 17, 2022 15:30:48 GMT
Usually you're pretty funny and it's clear when you're joking. If that was your intention on this thread, my bad and i apologise. Having said that mate...i'd say that, judging by other responses you've had, it hasn't been clear to anyone at all that you're just having a laugh really. Ok mate, but I think my sarcasm is pretty obvious (both posts and profile pic change) and nobody has tried to bite my head off like you. I'm looking at this forum on my phone, all I can see of your profile is that it's a picture of Laurel and Hardy, the words are just a blur.
|
|
|
Post by foster on May 17, 2022 15:39:58 GMT
Disagreeing doesn't equate to not understanding. Although you've done a good job of both. Let's be honest here. You're the only one who seemingly doesn't understand sarcasm, or humour in general. Nobody has complained other than you. Nobody has thrown around insults other than you. Even now you're calling me a hypocrite like I even know what that means. You've literally come on here and killed the mood. If you want to head down this path then fine, but I'd appreciate it if you just ignored my posts and I'll do the same with you. Also, it's nearly 4pm so I'd head down to the lost and found before it closes. So calling someone out for being hypicritical during a discussion is throwing around insults Good god man, if someone uses facts to counter someone now are you going to call them a big bully? Grow up mate. It's not an insult to say someone is a hypocrite if they are being. If you get all upset being called one, the onus is on you not to be one, not on everyone else to just pretend you never were so it suits you. Get you ego in check fella. But yeah, i'm killing the mood from a man whose bullshit posts made one poster leave the thread...but yeah, it's everyone else not you You have zero self awareness Oh dear mate. It's cute how you're trying to make out that I'm the one who's had a hissy fit Our posts are there for everyone to see and adding smileys now isn't going to make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by foster on May 17, 2022 15:48:09 GMT
Ok mate, but I think my sarcasm is pretty obvious (both posts and profile pic change) and nobody has tried to bite my head off like you. I'm looking at this forum on my phone, all I can see of your profile is that it's a picture of Laurel and Hardy, the words are just a blur. It's a bit of harmless banter mate. Tommy even took it well. Can't same the same for Mick though. He responds to banter in a way that can only be likened to spontaneous combustion.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on May 17, 2022 16:12:06 GMT
I'm looking at this forum on my phone, all I can see of your profile is that it's a picture of Laurel and Hardy, the words are just a blur. It's a bit of harmless banter mate. Tommy even took it well. Can't same the same for Mick though. He responds to banter in a way that can only be likened to spontaneous combustion. Ignore me mate. Bad day all round so should have stayed off, no offence meant.
|
|
|
Post by foster on May 17, 2022 16:22:57 GMT
It's a bit of harmless banter mate. Tommy even took it well. Can't same the same for Mick though. He responds to banter in a way that can only be likened to spontaneous combustion. Ignore me mate. Bad day all round so should have stayed off, no offence meant. No worries mate. Apologies if I riled you. I'm actually a nice guy in real life Hope you feel better soon. PS - If you fancy some phone sex just send me your number..... and I'll hook you up with Partick.
|
|
|
Post by tommycarlsberg on May 17, 2022 16:41:17 GMT
Another long running myth If the royal family were abolished tomorrow there’d be no decrease of visitors London if facts are your thing mate
People would still visit in huge amounts just to see how they lived in just the same way they visit now to see how they live And you know that how? Is it because people would still flock there to check out the celebrity cribs? You're making a statement based on no evidence...a bit like Boris saying how things post-Brexit were going to be. The funny thing is that it's the anti-monarchy crowd that started this whole visitor number debate and it's not important at all. There are so many other reasons why people visit major cities (Paris for food, wine, museums and romance for example). The royals bring in more money than they cost so the financial aspect of this debate is irrelevant... and even if they didn't (which isn't the case) then they still do a lot in terms of engagements and representing the country. Most of the billionaires/millionaires around do nothing for normal people and those are the ones you should really be banging your drum about. Mate, what is your obsession with these celebrity homes? Nobody has said people go to London to look at celebrity houses, just that it's the home of many celebrities which adds to the aura of it being a cool or glamorous place or whatever (for some people, certainly not me).
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on May 17, 2022 18:35:46 GMT
And you know that how? Is it because people would still flock there to check out the celebrity cribs? You're making a statement based on no evidence...a bit like Boris saying how things post-Brexit were going to be. The funny thing is that it's the anti-monarchy crowd that started this whole visitor number debate and it's not important at all. There are so many other reasons why people visit major cities (Paris for food, wine, museums and romance for example). The royals bring in more money than they cost so the financial aspect of this debate is irrelevant... and even if they didn't (which isn't the case) then they still do a lot in terms of engagements and representing the country. Most of the billionaires/millionaires around do nothing for normal people and those are the ones you should really be banging your drum about. Mate, what is your obsession with these celebrity homes? Nobody has said people go to London to look at celebrity houses, just that it's the home of many celebrities which adds to the aura of it being a cool or glamorous place or whatever (for some people, certainly not me). I think it's some form of "sarcasm" again, I genuinely don't know where he's at, just switched to my tablet and seen his avatar that he was somewhat coy about - I can see why So he's invented another strawman and attributed it to us two it seems, neither of us has mentioned celebrities as far as I've seen Seems the earlier exchanges got to him a bit
|
|
|
Post by foster on May 17, 2022 18:55:25 GMT
Mate, what is your obsession with these celebrity homes? Nobody has said people go to London to look at celebrity houses, just that it's the home of many celebrities which adds to the aura of it being a cool or glamorous place or whatever (for some people, certainly not me). I think it's some form of "sarcasm" again, I genuinely don't know where he's at, just switched to my tablet and seen his avatar that he was somewhat coy about - I can see why So he's invented another strawman and attributed it to us two it seems, neither of us has mentioned celebrities as far as I've seen Seems the earlier exchanges got to him a bit People don't visit London on the off chance of seeing a celebrity. Without the royal pomp it would be nothing more than any other major city and secondary to the likes of New York. What if, instead of the (extremely outside) chance they'll see one of them, they could have a walk around where they used to live? There you go. You probably meant the royals but responded to a post about celebs. Anyway. How about you two stop tugging each other off and get back to the point of the thread. Thanks. Edit: Haven't seen the Wizard of Oz for years so I'm probably a little out of date on the strawman nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on May 17, 2022 19:05:20 GMT
Astonishing amount of bitching on this thread
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on May 17, 2022 19:06:22 GMT
I think it's some form of "sarcasm" again, I genuinely don't know where he's at, just switched to my tablet and seen his avatar that he was somewhat coy about - I can see why So he's invented another strawman and attributed it to us two it seems, neither of us has mentioned celebrities as far as I've seen Seems the earlier exchanges got to him a bit What if, instead of the (extremely outside) chance they'll see one of them, they could have a walk around where they used to live? There you go. You probably meant the royals but responded to a post about celebs. Anyway. How about you two stop tugging each other off and get back to the point of the thread. Thanks. Edit: Haven't seen the Wizard of Oz for years so I'm probably a little out of date on the strawman nonsense. I don't think there's much ambiguity there tbh, the subject was Royals leaving the Palace and I mention "where they used to live". Why would I mention (or care) where a non specified random celebrity used to live? Why don't you drop a pm to Cobham, you seem somewhat lonely and disparate (and judging by your last retort somewhat desperate ) since he bailed out
|
|
|
Post by foster on May 17, 2022 19:06:58 GMT
Astonishing amount of bitching on this thread Admin?
|
|
|
Post by lordb on May 17, 2022 19:14:28 GMT
Astonishing amount of bitching on this thread Admin? Them as well?
|
|
|
Post by foster on May 17, 2022 19:25:27 GMT
There you go. You probably meant the royals but responded to a post about celebs. Anyway. How about you two stop tugging each other off and get back to the point of the thread. Thanks. Edit: Haven't seen the Wizard of Oz for years so I'm probably a little out of date on the strawman nonsense. I don't think there's much ambiguity there tbh, the subject was Royals leaving the Palace and I mention "where they used to live". Why would I mention (or care) where a non specified random celebrity used to live? Why don't you drop a pm to Cobham, you seem somewhat lonely and disparate (and judging by your last retort somewhat desperate ) since he bailed out Damn girl, look at you with the passive aggressive personals Listen mate, I don't see how celebs in London has anything to do with the Royals so can you just stop bringing it up. Quite frankly, it's just tedious and boring now.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on May 17, 2022 19:33:09 GMT
I don't think there's much ambiguity there tbh, the subject was Royals leaving the Palace and I mention "where they used to live". Why would I mention (or care) where a non specified random celebrity used to live? Why don't you drop a pm to Cobham, you seem somewhat lonely and disparate (and judging by your last retort somewhat desperate ) since he bailed out Damn girl, look at you with the passive aggressive personals Listen mate, I don't see how celebs in London has anything to do with the Royals so can you just stop bringing it up. Quite frankly, it's just tedious and boring now. It wasn't exactly rivetting to start with really and it never rose much above that at any point
|
|