Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn And

nitram <[email protected]> wrote:

[]
    > I assumed you hadn't watched the video.
    >
    > The video does contain "his response
    > to direct questioning, under oath".
    >
    > So what's your point?

I think it's something like DFM referred to reading, when the only text
there was the opening statement (one of the most interesting bits
anyway.) To most normal human beings, I wouldn't have thought it would
be a big deal. But Fig Off finds it very, very, very, very, very
telling.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

The Reids

Following up to nitram

    >The video does contain "his response
    >to direct questioning, under oath".
    >So what's your point?

the US is always right, whatever the facts that must be ignored?
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reids

Following up to Charles Hawtrey

    >> I changed my mind about him.
    >As mentioned above, were you anti-Bush and anti-(Iraq) war to begin
    >with?

many, many Brits are anti Galloway and anti Iraq.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn And

The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Following up to nitram
    >
    > >The video does contain "his response
    > >to direct questioning, under oath".
    > >
    > >So what's your point?
    >
    > the US is always right, whatever the facts that must be ignored?

That's very, very, very, very telling. You LIE!!!!!!!!!!!

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Go Fig

In article <1gwtd28.7g1he21si2mwwN%this_address_is_for_spam@y ahoo.com>,
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > nitram <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > []
    > > I assumed you hadn't watched the video.
    > >
    > > The video does contain "his response
    > > to direct questioning, under oath".
    > >
    > > So what's your point?
    >
    > I think it's something like DFM referred to reading, when the only text
    > there was the opening statement (one of the most interesting bits
    > anyway.) To most normal human beings, I wouldn't have thought it would
    > be a big deal. But Fig Off finds it very, very, very, very, very
    > telling.

Perhaps you like being spoon fed info that is only consistent with your
POV... and then exclaiming: "Exactly, I knew it all the time"

jay
Thu May 19, 2005
mailto:[email protected]

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn And

Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In article <1gwtd28.7g1he21si2mwwN%this_address_is_for_spam@y ahoo.com>,
    > chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > nitram <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > []
    > > > I assumed you hadn't watched the video.
    > > >
    > > > The video does contain "his response
    > > > to direct questioning, under oath".
    > > >
    > > > So what's your point?
    > >
    > > I think it's something like DFM referred to reading, when the only text
    > > there was the opening statement (one of the most interesting bits
    > > anyway.) To most normal human beings, I wouldn't have thought it would
    > > be a big deal. But Fig Off finds it very, very, very, very, very
    > > telling.
    >
    > Perhaps you like being spoon fed info that is only consistent with your
    > POV... and then exclaiming: "Exactly, I knew it all the time"

You are becoming increasingly surreal Figgy... very confusing... quite a
BAD TEMPER you seem to have too... maybe if you had something to say
that was actually worth ARGUING with... or perhaps it's just easier to
start calling people LIARS... LIARS!!!...

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Alan Harrison

"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gwt4of.1v4xh49qn11ufN%this_address_is_for_sp [email protected]...

    > I don't know if Galloway was directly responsible for the nastiness in
    > the campaign or not, but it _was_ an exceedingly nasty campaign, and
    > some of the things Galloway is on _record_ as saying didn't were
    > troubling. I can't think of a good reason why he had to say "including a
    > lot of women who had blacker faces than hers" (referring to murdered
    > Iraqis)?

I can think of a very good reason, David. Ms King has in the past been
highly successful in making a political issue of her "blackness". I can
easily imagine Mr Galloway responding in this way to the argument that he
was somehow behaving disgracefully in standing against a black woman MP.
(See for example the egregious Jeremy Paxman's line of questioning in his
post-election interview with Mr Galloway.) I can see why he might react in
this way to Ms King's whining her victimhood. She really does come across as
a bad loser.

Alan Harrison

Alan Harrison

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:14:47 +0000 (UTC), "ALAN HARRISON"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>More accurately, Ms King ALLEGED that Mr Galloway did so, and he denied
    >>it.
    >>It may also be worth noting that Mr Galloway is a famously successful
    >>libel
    >>litigant, and that he has recovered damages from - among others - Ms Oona
    >>King.

    > Apparently, everyone on earth accuses him of tons of things that he
    > always denies. Were these damages he got from her for her saying that
    > she was Jewish or for something else?

Duhhh? You don't get libel damages for what people say about themselves, but
for what they say about you. Ms King's having said that she was Jewish could
not possibly be a cause of action for Mr Galloway to sue her. It could at
some point become a further cause of action for Mr Galloway if he were to
allege that Ms King's accusations of anti-Semitism were defamatory. Ms
King's Jewishness has been well-known for years, and has not in the past
deterred Muslim constituents from voting for her. The election in her
constituency was basically a single issue campaign around her support for
the war.

Alan Harrison

jbk

On Thu, 19 May 2005 17:09:22 +0100, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
wrote:

    >Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> In article <1gwtd28.7g1he21si2mwwN%this_address_is_for_spam@y ahoo.com>,
    >> chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> > nitram <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> > []
    >> > > I assumed you hadn't watched the video.
    >> > >
    >> > > The video does contain "his response
    >> > > to direct questioning, under oath".
    >> > >
    >> > > So what's your point?
    >> >
    >> > I think it's something like DFM referred to reading, when the only text
    >> > there was the opening statement (one of the most interesting bits
    >> > anyway.) To most normal human beings, I wouldn't have thought it would
    >> > be a big deal. But Fig Off finds it very, very, very, very, very
    >> > telling.
    >>
    >> Perhaps you like being spoon fed info that is only consistent with your
    >> POV... and then exclaiming: "Exactly, I knew it all the time"
    >You are becoming increasingly surreal Figgy... very confusing... quite a
    >BAD TEMPER you seem to have too... maybe if you had something to say
    >that was actually worth ARGUING with... or perhaps it's just easier to
    >start calling people LIARS... LIARS!!!...

Why not when that's exactly what you are. You and your ilk when
challenged to provide proof of your claims, always come back with
bullshit like this. And no proof. I love you guys now adopting the
Galloway character now when he was accusing Coleman of exactly the
same thing. So like Galloway said, where is your proof?

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn And

ALAN HARRISON <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:1gwt4of.1v4xh49qn11ufN%this_address_is_for_sp [email protected]...
    >
    > > I don't know if Galloway was directly responsible for the nastiness in
    > > the campaign or not, but it _was_ an exceedingly nasty campaign, and
    > > some of the things Galloway is on _record_ as saying didn't were
    > > troubling. I can't think of a good reason why he had to say "including a
    > > lot of women who had blacker faces than hers" (referring to murdered
    > > Iraqis)?
    >
    > I can think of a very good reason, David. Ms King has in the past been
    > highly successful in making a political issue of her "blackness". I can
    > easily imagine Mr Galloway responding in this way to the argument that he
    > was somehow behaving disgracefully in standing against a black woman MP.

Was that the context though? Even if it was, I'm certainly not
comfortable with that kind of language.

I'm not sure what you mean by King being "highly successful in making a
political issue of her "blackness"." Can you clarify that?

    > (See for example the egregious Jeremy Paxman's line of questioning in his
    > post-election interview with Mr Galloway.) I can see why he might react in
    > this way to Ms King's whining her victimhood. She really does come across as
    > a bad loser.

I don't think it was an egregious line of questioning. I did initially,
but I think Paxman has a pretty honed sense of irony. I've no time for
Oona King, or her party, but I think that Galloway was very savvy indeed
in exploiting a racially divided constituency. I find all of it a bit
disturbing, really. It sounds like a tough and troubled constituency.
I'm not convinced that Galloway will make much time for it in his busy
schedule, until the next election- if he runs there.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Deep Foiled Malls

On Thu, 19 May 2005 08:17:26 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <1gwtd28.7g1he21si2mwwN%this_address_is_for_spam@y ahoo.com>,
    >chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >> nitram <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> []
    >> > I assumed you hadn't watched the video.
    >> >
    >> > The video does contain "his response
    >> > to direct questioning, under oath".
    >> >
    >> > So what's your point?
    >>
    >> I think it's something like DFM referred to reading, when the only text
    >> there was the opening statement (one of the most interesting bits
    >> anyway.) To most normal human beings, I wouldn't have thought it would
    >> be a big deal. But Fig Off finds it very, very, very, very, very
    >> telling.
    >Perhaps you like being spoon fed info that is only consistent with your
    >POV... and then exclaiming: "Exactly, I knew it all the time"

What's the condition that you're suffering from? It's not getting
better, whatever it is.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn And

ALAN HARRISON <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Ms
    > King's Jewishness has been well-known for years, and has not in the past
    > deterred Muslim constituents from voting for her. The election in her
    > constituency was basically a single issue campaign around her support for
    > the war.

Basically, yes, but lots of other nastiness thrown in. Just because
Muslims vote for a Jew in one election doesn't mean that some will be
deterred in subsequent elections if it's made an issue. You can
substitute any number of religious combinations in that statement. I'm
not entirely clear if this happened or not- I don't live there for a
start, but I have a couple of friends who do, and they were disturbed by
the general tenor of the campaigns, and felt it was about more than just
the war. (They're liberal democrats btw, as they very well should be!)

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Alan Harrison

"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gwtu67.1ii7qsh126ee96N%this_address_is_for_s [email protected]...
    > ALAN HARRISON <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> I can think of a very good reason, David. Ms King has in the past been
    >> highly successful in making a political issue of her "blackness". I can
    >> easily imagine Mr Galloway responding in this way to the argument that he
    >> was somehow behaving disgracefully in standing against a black woman MP.
    > Was that the context though? Even if it was, I'm certainly not
    > comfortable with that kind of language.

I'm guessing, of course, since you only cited his words originally. Ms King
has been relentlessly self-pitying, and encouraged in this by much of the
media. This would seem to me the most likely context for this remark.
    > I'm not sure what you mean by King being "highly successful in making a
    > political issue of her "blackness"." Can you clarify that?

Numerous interviews in which her ethnic origin has been the focus. My
impression - and it is only an impression - is that she has made much more
of being black than have, say, Diane Abbott or David Lammy.

    > I'm not convinced that Galloway will make much time for it in his busy
    > schedule, until the next election- if he runs there.

I had understood that it was his publicly stated intention not to do so -
that he was keeping the seat warm for a Bengali candidate next time round.
Remains to be seen whether he does so. Given the vilification of Galloway
from the right, it's interesting to note that there is a substantial
critique from the left of Galloway and Respect, over such issues as the
concessions made to Muslim religiosity, Galloway's lifestyle (needs £150K a
year to "function politically") and so on.

Alan Harrison

Jim Ley

On Thu, 19 May 2005 15:34:20 +0100, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to Charles Hawtrey
    >>> I changed my mind about him.
    >>As mentioned above, were you anti-Bush and anti-(Iraq) war to begin
    >>with?
    >many, many Brits are anti Galloway and anti Iraq.

The majority anti-Galloway, and probably the majority anti Iraq war
too, doesn't mean we dislike the theatre, or agree with allegations
being published before even talking to the man about them...

Jim.

jbk

On Thu, 19 May 2005 19:50:03 +0000 (UTC), "ALAN HARRISON"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    ><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected].. .
    >> On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:14:47 +0000 (UTC), "ALAN HARRISON"
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>More accurately, Ms King ALLEGED that Mr Galloway did so, and he denied
    >>>it.
    >>>It may also be worth noting that Mr Galloway is a famously successful
    >>>libel
    >>>litigant, and that he has recovered damages from - among others - Ms Oona
    >>>King.
    >> Apparently, everyone on earth accuses him of tons of things that he
    >> always denies. Were these damages he got from her for her saying that
    >> she was Jewish or for something else?
    >Duhhh? You don't get libel damages for what people say about themselves, but
    >for what they say about you. Ms King's having said that she was Jewish could
    >not possibly be a cause of action for Mr Galloway to sue her. It could at
    >some point become a further cause of action for Mr Galloway if he were to
    >allege that Ms King's accusations of anti-Semitism were defamatory. Ms
    >King's Jewishness has been well-known for years, and has not in the past
    >deterred Muslim constituents from voting for her. The election in her
    >constituency was basically a single issue campaign around her support for
    >the war.

Uh, duhhh, the question was what did he get damages from her for? You
said he did, so what was it for?