Ibrahim Halawa acquited(mod warning in op-Heed it)

elperello

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You claimed I was wrong when I said 'not proven' is a verdict given in Scottish courts. You then say this verdict is not pleasing to any party in Scottish courts. You don't see the contradiction? I'm replying no further on this matter.

You brought it up and it was in no way informative or helpful to do so.
By all means if you prefer fold your tent and withdraw.

RustyNut

Hitman3000 wrote: »

All about context. You can't just take all my posts in isolation. Disingenuous tbh.

Do I get an apology for the derogatory and personal claim that lying is the norm in my world.

elperello

gozunda wrote: »

You made a negative statement and then frivousley asked if I had read the link - why to you think I put it up if I had not read it?
You demanded I answer your question. Your reply of 'Your welcome' was in reply to an ironic comment of thanks for the input!

Nothing you said had any relevance whatsoever.

Look if you just want to mess that's fine. Just don't bother replying to any other of my posts. You are on the ignore list along with your lurking supporter of similar ilk ...

I f you had read your own link you would have known it was irrelevant.

I don't see any evidence to back up your claims.

I 'm not messing.

I can back up everything I've said on this thread which is more than a lot of others can say.

gozunda

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The comment of not proven was risen in response to a comment by another poster. Your rush to tell me I was wrong highlighted your own ignorance.

I doubt if there is any purpose in attempting to discuss anything with said poster.

I would suggest the best plan is to ignore those who attempt to create argument for the sake of it.


Edit:
Before adding it to the ignore list - it also hijacked my reply to you. Seems to be the modus operandi - It also thinks that I'm leaving the discussion ...

:rolleyes:

elperello

gozunda wrote: »

I doubt if there is any purpose in attempting to discuss anything with said poster.

I would suggest the best plan is to ignore those who attempt to create argument for the sake of it.

:rolleyes:

Thought you were gone.
If your plan is to ignore the evidence of other posters who point out where you are wrong good luck with that.

gozunda

elperello wrote: »

I f you had read your own link you would have known it was irrelevant.

I don't see any evidence to back up your claims.
I 'm not messing.
I can back up everything I've said on this thread which is more than a lot of others can say.

Well I really don't care what you do or what you claim - you are irrelevant. The original poster already thanked my post. You know what you are and are now on my ignore list. Good riddance ...

First Up

Hitman3000 wrote:

I never side widespread fraud. Read what I said please. I said there was was evidence of fraud by all parties to the election and the subsequent change Morsi attempted with the constitution.

No, you said there were many instances of fraud (without quoting examples or evidence of any of them) that implied a question about the legitimacy of the election result.

Substantiate or retract please.

elperello

gozunda wrote: »

Well I really don't care what you do or what you claim - you are irrelevant. The original poster already thanked my post. You know what you are and are now on my ignore list. Good riddance ...

That's a bit harsh.

Genuinely a pity to lose someone from the discussion but if you enter the debate you can expect your contributions to be examined with rigour.

gozunda

First Up wrote: »

No, you said there were many instances of fraud (without quoting examples or evidence of any of them) that implied a question about the legitimacy of the election result.

Substantiate or retract please.

Ya I have came across that as well. Here's one that I bookmarked at some point

Flock, Elizabeth ."Egypt elections marred by allegations of fraud" Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/egypt-elections-marred-by-allegations-of-fraud/2011/11/29/gIQAqzQl8N_blog.html

You will be allowed only a short duration view of said article - To get full access I believe it has been moved to pay to view ...

I will see if there any more in my references...

Edit this one is accessible

...Shafik's campaign filed "several complaints" with Sultan's commission, alleging the Muslim Brotherhood committed "systemic violations."

Specifically, they accused the Islamist group's supporters of bribing voters with "large sums of money and food" to back Morsi, as well as using "intimidation, threats and violence against supporters of candidate Ahmed Shafik." The former prime minister's camp also said it "filed more than 100 official complaints accusing the Brotherhood of ballot rigging and stuffing."

"The Muslim Brotherhood's systematic election violations prove how the (group) does not believe in freedom of choice and democracy unless this democracy brings them to power," Shafik's campaign said in a statement. "The organized and persistent election fraud by the Muslim Brotherhood proves they ... only talk the talk and never walk the walk of liberal democracy."

The MB denied these claims and made counter claims ....


http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/17/world/meast/egypt-election/index.html

elperello

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The comment of not proven was risen in response to a comment by another poster. Your rush to tell me I was wrong highlighted your own ignorance.

Post 2630
You said - "Scotland announces 'not proven', as an example."
Please check and get back to me.

If I am ignorant of some fact I appreciate being enlightened.

Hitman3000

RustyNut wrote:

Do I get an apology for the derogatory and personal claim that lying is the norm in my world.

No apology necessary. I said 'maybe' the norm. Again you need to read what I wrote and not make up stuff.

Hitman3000

gozunda wrote:

I doubt if there is any purpose in attempting to discuss anything with said poster.

Noted.

Hitman3000

First Up wrote:

No, you said there were many instances of fraud (without quoting examples or evidence of any of them) that implied a question about the legitimacy of the election result.

But you claimed I said widespread fraud. I also said all parties engaged in fraud as did Morsi in his attempt at changing the constitution. Of course there is an issue of legitimacy when electoral fraud exists.

Hitman3000

First Up wrote:

Substantiate or retract please.

I have no intention of retracting anything.

RustyNut

Hitman3000 wrote: »

No apology necessary. I said 'maybe' the norm. Again you need to read what I wrote and not make up stuff.

I'll leave the making stuff up to you. You have form...

tomwaterford

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I have no intention of retracting anything.

Substantiate so?

Hitman3000

elperello wrote:

Post 2630 You said - "Scotland announces 'not proven', as an example." Please check and get back to me.

Already have responded to you about this and will not engage further about it.

elperello

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Noted.

Considering your username it's surprising that you were so off target yesterday about the age of majority topic.
Today you are just shooting blanks.

Hitman3000

tomwaterford wrote:

Substantiate so?

Easily found on the net. Al-monitor, Aljazerra.

tomwaterford

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Easily found on the net. Al-monitor, Aljazerra.

Meh....it's up to me to prove your point?

Hitman3000

elperello wrote:

Considering your username it's surprising that you were so off target yesterday about the age of majority topic. Today you are just shooting blanks.

Thought the idea here was to address the comment and not attack the poster? Is this your preferred target. As for your comment about yesterday I mentioned his cultures acceptance of maturity not the legal defination by either the Irish or Egyptian government. You can claim a 17 year old is a child all you want but you can't throw your toys out of the pram when others disagree with you.

Hitman3000

tomwaterford wrote:

Meh....it's up to me to prove your point?

Not at all. Do you think I care whether you believe me or not. The information is out there if you want it.

First Up

Hitman3000 wrote:

But you claimed I said widespread fraud. I also said all parties engaged in fraud as did Morsi in his attempt at changing the constitution. Of course there is an issue of legitimacy when electoral fraud exists.

I think all parties engaging in fraud would meet most people's definition of "widespread".

However allegations do not constitute "instances" and you will find allegations of fraud around every Egyptian election since (and probably before) Mubarak.

You insinuated that the election of the MB was uniquely in question because of fraud. There is no evidence (not even from the Kenyan monitoring group) to support this.

Hitman3000

First Up wrote:

I think all parties engaging in fraud would meet most people's definition of "widespread".

You claimed I said widespread. Engaging in semantics does not change the fact you attempted to misrepresent what I said.

tomwaterford

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Not at all. Do you think I care whether you believe me or not. The information is out there if you want it.

Seems to me....you can't back it up and want others to find evidence for you??


Why the need to paraphrase x files (truth is out there)is weird?

First Up

Hitman3000 wrote:

I have no intention of retracting anything.

That's fine. Yours is the only credibility at stake.

Hitman3000

First Up wrote:

You insinuated that the election of the MB was uniquely in question because of fraud. There is no evidence (not even from the Kenyan monitoring group) to support this.

Since this thread deals with the MB as much as the Egyptian lad, why would I bother with earlier Egyptian elections.
As for the rest of your snide remark I addressed that earlier to another poster. As for no evidence it appears you are not willing to accept any suggestion there is.

Hitman3000

tomwaterford wrote:

Seems to me....you can't back it up and want others to find evidence for you??

No I don't as I said I could care less whether you believe me or not.

elperello

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Thought the idea here was to address the comment and not attack the poster? Is this your preferred target. As for your comment about yesterday I mentioned his cultures acceptance of maturity not the legal defination by either the Irish or Egyptian government. You can claim a 17 year old is a child all you want but you can't throw your toys out of the pram when others disagree with you.

You are no shrinking violet yourself.
The idea of debate is to exchange information and views.
You need to be open to having your contributions interrogated and be willing to back them up with real facts.
I'll get back to you on the child/age of majority thing.

Hitman3000

First Up wrote:

That's fine. Yours is the only credibility at stake.

I have no worries about my credibility, now the lad that claimed he has shouted Allah Akbar in several European Airports without consequence that's stretching credibility.