mac300zx

ROFL. You kicked it all off! :p

I'm guessing there will be a re-count first.

And this is the NZR forum.

So you want to ban Kim for putting up a thread entitled "General Election 2010", do you? -------------------------- Forum Rules Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index. Although the administrators and moderators of 300zx.co.uk Club Bulletin Board will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of 300zx.co.uk Club Bulletin Board, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message. By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws. The owners of 300zx.co.uk Club Bulletin Board reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason. -------------------- Nothing there about politics. Searching for "politics" in the FAQ search gives "Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms." What rules am I supposed to have broken? I'd like to see them.

Is that the connector that you can stick a spade end terminal in to disable HICAS?

Have you seen the Kung Fu remix of the video?

Meant for vodkashots, obviously.

All you've proven, is your inability to discuss things rationally. Your closing the initial thread leaving it on a "my point wins" tone is "taking your ball home". And even if we were "going round in circles" (which we weren't since I raised points that you declined to answer because you knew you were losing the argument), that doesn't automatically give you the right to close a thread that is not, by any stretch of the imagination, anything more than reasoned debate.

Must...... not........ look........

Vodkashots, just because you were losing a debate, which HADN'T got out of hand and showed no sign of doing so, is no reason to close a thread. What you've done, is "taken your ball home".

If you are intimidated by someone walking like that, you must live in constant fear. There was no need for the BNP guy to initiate physical contact. He could have backed away or waited to see what the young guy would do. Out of fear (rightful to be fearful given the obvious fact that the fist thing we hear in the clip from the BNP guy amounts to little more than "My gang is bigger than your gang"), he pushed. If he hadn't, and had just stood there, he probably just would have been face to face with someone he'd obviously provoked. What other rational explanation is there for the young guy squaring up to him? If you are in a smaller gang you don't go after a bigger gang unless you're very upset. Human nature. No, I am. It's you who is letting your assumptions cloud your vision. No, read it again. He was trying to equate my assertion that young people are more likely to try and solve problems with violence to my being against the war on terror (which I'm not - I just don't think that more violence helps). You're missing cause and effect. Saying "Uh?", "What you saying?" and "Uh?" whilst walking towards somebody, really quite slowly and with your head tilted, listening for an answer, is not an act of aggression. If it had been you and me there instead of the BNP guy, would you feel threatened by it? Probably not. Would you feel threatened if we'd been spouting some racist crap/provocative "come and have a go" language two seconds before? Probably. Hence the BNP guys feeling the need to stop the "advance" by making the first physical contact. That's your assumption again. Look at the video. From the moment we first see the lads (2 secs), the bigger lad takes 11 steps to get to BNP guy and covers approx. 10 yards in 7 seconds. That's about 2.9 miles an hour. Hardly the walking speed of someone wishing to appear tough. The first thing he said (that we saw) was "How many is there of us". His body language was clearly saying "We outnumber you - come and have a go". And backed this up with "Don't start giving it large, mate, I tell you." Clearly provocative. It was hard to comprehend the sentence you wrote, though. Do you want to try explaining it instead of avoiding the point by going off on a tangent about gangs? And exactly how is that relevant to a street brawl? Dragging up any old emotive case which is hardly relevant to the topic at hand is not a reasonable way to debate things. It's a different issue. You are trying to equate "I defended my property and the law screwed me" with "I provoked someone and got spat on". It doesn't work.

So you think the young lad was trying to give the BNP guy TB, do you? :rolleyes: A pre-meditated attack with a solid projectile (even if comically intended) is completely different to an on-the-spot spit of revulsion in a tense situation, even if it is legally the same assault. An egg could give you salmonella (or so they used to claim) ;)

You seem to think I'm left wing. I'm actually right wing. Punish them harder, lawfully, by all means. Personally, I'm up for bread and water in prisons and making them such horrible places that no-one would ever want to return there. Then you'll have to explain what you think I implied, because what I meant was that a policeman being allowed to arrest someone for spitting at them whilst they're doing their job is perfectly acceptable to me. I wouldn't expect anything less. The rolleyes thing wasn't for the policeman's actions, it was for the lack of expectation that that would happen.

I can't honestly remember. If I read your subtext correctly, I'm guessing he didn't. Saliva and hard projectiles such as eggs are, I'm guessing, a bit different in law.

If you look closely, and have any talent at all for reading body language, it's obvious that the lads were initially walking towards the BNP to have a discussion (we can only guess why, having not seen any footage before this). As they got closer, BNP bloke started being provocative with is "How many is there of us". That's the real start of it from what can be seen. This prompted the young lad to square up. BNP bloke pushed, physically, first at 8.5 secs. I worked with what can be seen, as above. I tried to avoid the comments that others made that could be construed as racist. The war on terror (I think you'll find it was) is completely unrelated to the video and should never have even been brought up as a rational point for discussion. The only way the BNP bloke could have come out of that in any kind of "righteous" light, is if the young guys had been shown initiating agro in the seconds before the clip. Judging by the lack of shouting from them and the docile body language up to about 6 secs, I seriously doubt it. I'm not so sure it has been edited the way you suggest. Agreed. But it's not necessarily lawful. And the proclivity for violence can be retrained if one is willing to learn how. Had he not been provoking, I doubt he would have been spat on in the first place. I'm still not defending the spitting, btw. You lost me there. Perspective. Relevance. Again (different person though).

Violence is never justified. If you have to resort to violence, you've already lost. I didn't say that. I said "but that's a policeman". You're the one reading things into what I said. I'm not saying it is needed. I'm not condoning it. I can think of lots of more horrible things you can do to a child, quite legally, that don't involve violence. Perspective. Relevance. Again. Please compare apples with apples.

And don't think I haven't noticed that you're steering the debate away from the original topic ;)

But if kids are rasied right there's no need to belt them. So the fact that it's now illegal is a moot point, so can't be a fault of the govt (not that I'm defending the current lot - I can't wait to see the back of them tomorrow).

I've never said that violence solved anything. If one country wins a war because it uses more violence than the other side, that doesn't actually solve things. I said there is a time and a place for corporal punishment. I didn't say that corporal punishment solved anything, I said that standards had slipped for want of it being used correctly. My opinion is totally constant. Do try to keep up.

Then it was her fault and not the govt's then. Had she done it properly, the govt wouldn't come into it.

If you prefix that with "BNP went out provoking then...", I'll agree with you.

There's a time and a place, and a way, for using corporal punishment. Chances are the woman herself didn't know this and was seen as "kicking the crap out of her kid". I've seen a lot of this kind of behaviour and it's horrible. She probably deserved it - police/social services don't just arrest people willy-nilly for stuff like that, despite what the Guardian tells us.

If you can't see that the "war on terror" and "being spat on" are not the same thing, you need help. Even at the most fundamental level, they are very, very different.

That's shirking responsibility. Appropriate use of force has always been justifiable - otherwise we wouldn't have slipped as far as we have.

That's completely justified. Way to go, your mum! Would you say the same if she'd, three seconds earlier, called them bitches, insulted their manhood, got you out of a van behind her and told them to get on their way just because she didn't like one of their bikes?