On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 04:34:39 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



But he still takes risks every time he uses the stairs in his house, blotto
as he always is.

Is THAT why you decided to spend the rest of your senile life as a miserable
troll on Usenet, you ****ed up senile idiot?

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 18:19:53 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Spike wrote:
Perhaps you'd explain why the leave campaign spent so much time
telling us we'd get a much better deal with the EU once out of it,
then?

Was that question on your ballot paper, then? It certainly wasn't on
mine.

Are you saying you voted without listening/reading any of the arguments
for and against?

You must be incredibly well informed. Or rather stupid.

The latter (or a troll, because he tries to argue the unarguable).

If you can see the bigger picture (he can't) and consider the
closeness of the *******ised poll, you will see that the whole thing
isn't wanted by the majority and some people who voted Leave (you
can't count the actions of the fanatic Brexiteers as they are 1)
fanatics and 2) therefore on what could be a kamikaze crusade)) may
not have done so if they had considered for one second that we would
just crash out, not leave with a deal that was blatantly in our
favour.

So, even if only 10% of those who voted leave wouldn't have done if it
meant doing so with no deal, the 'result' would have been very
different and we wouldn't be in this expensive, divisive and
internationally embarrassing mess now.

How many more dirty tricks will the fanatic Brexiteers (or the PM) try
to pull to force this undemocratic clusterfcuk though?

If it was actually wanted by 'the people' it would have happened by
now.

Cheers, T i m

On 24/09/2019 17:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Spike wrote:

Perhaps you'd explain why the leave campaign spent so much time
telling us we'd get a much better deal with the EU once out of it,
then?

Was that question on your ballot paper, then? It certainly wasn't on
mine.

Are you saying you voted without listening/reading any of the arguments
for and against?

I wasn't aware that that was a requirement - when did it become law?

Surely you don't fall for the claptrap put forward at election time? Now
that would be rather stupid.

You must be incredibly well informed. Or rather stupid.

I formed a view on the EEC, and have since seen no reason to change it.
Perhaps I see a bigger picture than you do.


--
Spike

In article ,
Spike wrote:
On 24/09/2019 17:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Spike wrote:

Perhaps you'd explain why the leave campaign spent so much time
telling us we'd get a much better deal with the EU once out of it,
then?

Was that question on your ballot paper, then? It certainly wasn't on
mine.

Are you saying you voted without listening/reading any of the arguments
for and against?

I wasn't aware that that was a requirement - when did it become law?

Surely you don't fall for the claptrap put forward at election time? Now
that would be rather stupid.

You must be incredibly well informed. Or rather stupid.

I formed a view on the EEC, and have since seen no reason to change it.
Perhaps I see a bigger picture than you do.

What research did you personally do to form that opinion on the EEC? How
had it effected you personally? Most seem to have adopted the views from
their favourite newspaper or whatever.

The exception being those in depressed areas with very high immigration.
Who seem to have blamed the years of austerity on the EU.

--
*It's o.k. to laugh during sexŒ.Œ.just don't point!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
I formed a view on the EEC, and have since seen no reason to change it.
Perhaps I see a bigger picture than you do.

Our Dave is very blinkered. I formed my view (that the EU is not fit
for purpose) back in the early 2000's, having been quite supportive up
to then.

And that killer reason was?

--
*Middle age is when it takes longer to rest than to get tired.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 25/09/2019 09:00, Tim Streater wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 24/09/2019 17:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Are you saying you voted without listening/reading any of the arguments
for and against?

I wasn't aware that that was a requirement - when did it become law?

Surely you don't fall for the claptrap put forward at election time? Now

You must be incredibly well informed. Or rather stupid.

I formed a view on the EEC, and have since seen no reason to change it.
Perhaps I see a bigger picture than you do.

Our Dave is very blinkered.

So I'm beginning to understand.

I formed my view (that the EU is not fit
for purpose) back in the early 2000's, having been quite supportive up
to then.

Perhaps we can see a 'bigger picture' than Plowman? One not obtained
from electioneering pamphlets?

Didn't a judge rule that it's OK for politicians to lie during election
campaigns, as no-one was expected to believe them anyway? It might be
that's where he's going wrong.


--
Spike

On 25/09/2019 11:22, Spike wrote:
On 25/09/2019 09:00, Tim Streater wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 24/09/2019 17:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Are you saying you voted without listening/reading any of the arguments
for and against?

I wasn't aware that that was a requirement - when did it become law?

Surely you don't fall for the claptrap put forward at election time? Now

You must be incredibly well informed. Or rather stupid.

I formed a view on the EEC, and have since seen no reason to change it.
Perhaps I see a bigger picture than you do.

Our Dave is very blinkered.

So I'm beginning to understand.

I formed my view (that the EU is not fit
for purpose) back in the early 2000's, having been quite supportive up
to then.

Perhaps we can see a 'bigger picture' than Plowman? One not obtained
from electioneering pamphlets?

Didn't a judge rule that it's OK for politicians to lie during election
campaigns, as no-one was expected to believe them anyway? It might be
that's where he's going wrong.

It is ceratinly the case that they are exempt from charges of making
false claims in political advertising

t



--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

In article ,
Spike wrote:
On 25/09/2019 09:00, Tim Streater wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 24/09/2019 17:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Are you saying you voted without listening/reading any of the arguments
for and against?

I wasn't aware that that was a requirement - when did it become law?

Surely you don't fall for the claptrap put forward at election time? Now

You must be incredibly well informed. Or rather stupid.

I formed a view on the EEC, and have since seen no reason to change it.
Perhaps I see a bigger picture than you do.

Our Dave is very blinkered.

So I'm beginning to understand.

I formed my view (that the EU is not fit
for purpose) back in the early 2000's, having been quite supportive up
to then.

Perhaps we can see a 'bigger picture' than Plowman? One not obtained
from electioneering pamphlets?

Gained from precisely where?

Or could it be you Brexiteers are all like Turnip - some gawd given
insight denied the average person?

Didn't a judge rule that it's OK for politicians to lie during election
campaigns, as no-one was expected to believe them anyway? It might be
that's where he's going wrong.

Oddly the one thing I was certain of because of plenty evidence was that
Boris, the 'head' of the leave campaign, was a liar. He'd been sacked from
one job for this. And now he has lied to the Queen. Seems a characteristic
of Brexiteers. Which does tend to show how shaky the clouds their heads
are in are.

--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 25/09/2019 09:56, Spike wrote:
On 24/09/2019 17:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Spike wrote:

Perhaps you'd explain why the leave campaign spent so much time
telling us we'd get a much better deal with the EU once out of it,
then?

Was that question on your ballot paper, then? It certainly wasn't on
mine.

Are you saying you voted without listening/reading any of the arguments
for and against?

I wasn't aware that that was a requirement - when did it become law?

Surely you don't fall for the claptrap put forward at election time? Now
that would be rather stupid.

You must be incredibly well informed. Or rather stupid.

I formed a view on the EEC, and have since seen no reason to change it.
Perhaps I see a bigger picture than you do.



Perhaps not.

Everyones view is different so unless you actually tell us what your
bigger picture is we have no way to know what you see.

We can see that there are lots of lies about the EU in this group so I
expect your bigger picture may be tainted.

On 25/09/2019 13:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
8


Oddly the one thing I was certain of because of plenty evidence was that
Boris, the 'head' of the leave campaign, was a liar. He'd been sacked from
one job for this. And now he has lied to the Queen. Seems a characteristic
of Brexiteers. Which does tend to show how shaky the clouds their heads
are in are.


We don't know if he lied to the Queen, he doesn't have to give a reason.

We do know he lied to everyone else about why he wanted parliament out
of the way for five weeks.

We also know why just over two weeks ago he didn't want an election and
now he does so he can suspend parliament another way.

I hope the sprinklers work in the commons as brexiteers are getting
desperate to stop our democracy.

On 25/09/2019 13:54, dennis@home wrote:
On 25/09/2019 09:56, Spike wrote:
On 24/09/2019 17:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Spike wrote:

Perhaps you'd explain why the leave campaign spent so much time
telling us we'd get a much better deal with the EU once out of it,
then?

Was that question on your ballot paper, then? It certainly wasn't on
mine.

Are you saying you voted without listening/reading any of the arguments
for and against?

I wasn't aware that that was a requirement - when did it become law?

Surely you don't fall for the claptrap put forward at election time? Now
that would be rather stupid.

You must be incredibly well informed. Or rather stupid.

I formed a view on the EEC, and have since seen no reason to change it.
Perhaps I see a bigger picture than you do.

Perhaps not.

Everyone's view is different so unless you actually tell us what your
bigger picture is we have no way to know what you see.

We can see that there are lots of lies about the EU in this group so I
expect your bigger picture may be tainted.

That's *exactly* what I thought about your particular 'bigger picture'.

--
Spike

On 26/09/2019 08:48, Spike wrote:
8

That's *exactly* what I thought about your particular 'bigger picture'.


Its been shown that the brexiteers lie, do you want to post evidence I do?

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Spike wrote:
On 25/09/2019 09:00, Tim Streater wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 24/09/2019 17:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Are you saying you voted without listening/reading any of the arguments
for and against?

I wasn't aware that that was a requirement - when did it become law?

Surely you don't fall for the claptrap put forward at election time? Now

You must be incredibly well informed. Or rather stupid.

I formed a view on the EEC, and have since seen no reason to change it.
Perhaps I see a bigger picture than you do.

Our Dave is very blinkered.

So I'm beginning to understand.

I formed my view (that the EU is not fit
for purpose) back in the early 2000's, having been quite supportive up
to then.

Perhaps we can see a 'bigger picture' than Plowman? One not obtained
from electioneering pamphlets?

Gained from precisely where?

Or could it be you Brexiteers are all like Turnip - some gawd given
insight denied the average person?

Didn't a judge rule that it's OK for politicians to lie during election
campaigns, as no-one was expected to believe them anyway? It might be
that's where he's going wrong.

Oddly the one thing I was certain of because of plenty evidence was that
Boris, the 'head' of the leave campaign, was a liar. He'd been sacked from
one job for this. And now he has lied to the Queen. Seems a characteristic
of Brexiteers. Which does tend to show how shaky the clouds their heads
are in are.

You have no idea what he said to the Queen - and neither did the Supreme
Court as no evidence was offered.
--
bert

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 08:48, Spike wrote:
8

That's *exactly* what I thought about your particular 'bigger picture'.


Its been shown that the brexiteers lie, do you want to post evidence I do?

The project fear lies you respew is all the evidence we need on that.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 12:43:28 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Its been shown that the brexiteers lie, do you want to post evidence I do?

The project fear lies you respew is all the evidence we need on that.

The website that was dedicated to your trolling and the comments people made
about your trolling is all we need to know here, senile Rodent!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On 27/09/2019 03:43, Rod Speed wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 08:48, Spike wrote:
8

That's *exactly* what I thought about your particular 'bigger picture'.


Its been shown that the brexiteers lie, do you want to post evidence I
do?

The project fear lies you respew is all the evidence we need on that.

Which posts are they in rod?

Just how many nyms are you posting under today to support your lies?

I think it was five last week.