Donald Trump for President of the USA

gloswhite wrote: I think we will have enough work on our hands with the implementation of Brexit.

At last something we can agree on!

Don't know why you take 74 on, glos.

He didn't.

Glos said what he said, which was fine for the vast amount of the rest of us but because '74' didn't want Trump to win, he once again went into 'argumentative' mode - something of which he has a long and noted history on the internet for.

Glos being the decent person he is, initially tried to answer 74's questions - like most of us would - but it soon became apparent that this was never going to end - so he did the only thing he could and withdrew from the ongoing dialogue between the two.

I don't know if 74 thinks in his own mind that arguing ad nauseam is showing himself to be smarter than the other person, or he just carries on relentlessly until the other person gives up replying and he thus thinks he has proved his 'internet' point in some way or other, but either way it as the effect of ultimately 'killing' the dialogue between the two, makes utterly boring reading for the rest of us, and gains neither him, us, or the forum in general, any benefit whatsoever.

He once told me he is argumentative in real life.

If that really is true then no wonder he has to resort to being so on here as I would imagine most people who know him would now deliberately keep out of his way rather than endure never ending (and mostly pointless) 'debates'.

The real shame is that 74 can add a great deal to a forum if and when he wants to.

Ah here we go, Sluffy jumping on an opportunity to have a dig - I guess you're annoyed once again because numerous posters including myself have pointed out your agenda against the ST on another thread.

All I did was question Glos and the general support of Trump (I don't see how I've been any more argumentative than anyone else). I don't think Glos has an issue with me or my arguments, I certainly don't with him.

Do apologise if I've bored you though Sluffy, if only we were all as interesting and witty as you.

bwfc1874 wrote:Ah here we go, Sluffy jumping on an opportunity to have a dig - I guess you're annoyed once again because numerous posters including myself have pointed out your agenda against the ST on another thread.

All I did was question Glos and the general support of Trump (I don't see how I've been any more argumentative than anyone else). I don't think Glos has an issue with me or my arguments, I certainly don't with him.

Do apologise if I've bored you though Sluffy, if only we were all as interesting and witty as you.

Really!?!

gloswhite wrote:So you've decided to be abusive have you ? Calling me a moron, and 'seemingly intelligent'.

1874, I have to say that I've noticed that no matter what is put down by someone of an opinion other than yours, you will demand facts, figures, etc, obviously you have some ADHD issues.

If you prefer not to respond to this post, I really wouldn't be upset about it.

As for the ST -

Sluffy wrote:In fact I have deliberately not commented on the ST for several months now, in an attempt to let this matter drop.  

Clearly though others can't or won't!

Finally I've never claimed to be interesting or witty, I'm happy enough with what I am and have no urge or desire to prove something/anything on the internet like some clearly feel the need to.

Actually, I didn't call Glos a moron, I said the argument that Trump was qualified due to his business background was moronic. 

If Glos has an issue I'm sure he's capable of telling me himself but I'd be very surprised if he does, the only poster who seems keen to escalate this is you. As far as I'm concerned I've nothing else to say until President Trump starts to play out a bit.

I think most will be surprised by your unprovoked attack on me, it's certainly come out of the blue. If you want me to stop posting feel free to ban me, but I can't see what I've done wrong.

"Hey....Supporters Trust! I ruv you guys.....seeweously!"

I've not 'escalated' anything, or 'attacked you' but merely responded to a post from Boggers.

Glos clearly HAS an issue with you otherwise he would not have posted what he did - particularly the very thinly veiled 'don't bother to reply please' bit on the end!

In the world of the internet you have done nothing wrong so there is no need for any type of ban but are you saying truly that in real life you don't know when to let things drop, particularly if they are of no real importance other than just a difference in somebody else's point of view to your own?

I hope for your own sake you can or you are just going to make real life very lonely for yourself in the long run.

I'm struggling to see what your issue is here, Glos, I and others on this thread have been discussing Trump's victory. Like Brexit it's an emotive subject for anyone who has taken an interest, hence maybe it got a little tetchy - no harm done. 

You seem to have developed a pretty strong opinion against what I've said over the course of the thread, you'd have to point out to me (and anybody else reading the thread) what that is exactly though, because I've no idea what's set you off.

Please don't try and comment on what I'm like 'in real life' we've never met, we never will and you've no idea - I'v certainly never said to you 'I don't let things drop'.

Thanks for your comments Sluffy, much appreciated.
Even though I was getting irate, very frustrated would be more accurate, I tried to respond to 58, but as you say, in the end I gave in.
There's no malice in any of the posts, but with all the demands for where, when, etc, I did feel I was whistling in the wind, when the emphasis changed to providing minutiae for everything.
I've learned, again, not to get too involved with 58's conversations, and realise that when I tend to work in more broader, (informed),overviews, and he works in details, then there will always be a mismatch in approach. 
No damage done, other than I need to buy, with such a long thread, more Paracetamol, .

bwfc1874 wrote:I'm struggling to see what your issue is here, Glos, I and others on this thread have been discussing Trump's victory. Like Brexit it's an emotive subject for anyone who has taken an interest, hence maybe it got a little tetchy - no harm done. 

You seem to have developed a pretty strong opinion against what I've said over the course of the thread, you'd have to point out to me (and anybody else reading the thread) what that is exactly though, because I've no idea what's set you off.

Please don't try and comment on what I'm like 'in real life' we've never met, we never will and you've no idea - I'v certainly never said to you 'I don't let things drop'.

You have posted to me on this forum that you are argumentative in real life and it has stood you in good stead up to now.

It's there if you doubt me and want to find it.

Frankly I don't give a toss who you are or what you are like as a person, you're nothing more than an internet persona to me.

I very much doubt you are anything as argumentative as you wish to portray yourself on here but if you are then best of luck for the future because no one will put up with that behaviour indefinitely.

Wow, got to say I'm pretty amazed by both of you backing each other up on this. 

I asked Glos for details of what corrupt acts Clinton did in her past, that's about the only detail I did ask for. The constant posts about me demanding minute details from you are simply not true and all it takes is scrolling back a couple of pages to see for yourself. 

I'll make sure not to ask you a question again Glos, I had no idea it wound you up so much.

Sluffy,

Why do you maintain a stance regarding obvious wum accounts along the lines of: "Let them get on with it and don't interfere because everybody should be grown up to get along and we're not here to get involved and tell people what to post" but then...

...when it's someone you clearly don't like (74 in this case, take note Glos - not 58), you think it's ok to shoehorn your nose in and start handing out your patronising lectures?

That's what winds me up - double standards.

Again....

74, (apologies, called you 58 previously), I won't say it didn't wind me up, because it did. Maybe it was a cumulative effect over all, or at least many of your posts, where you always ask for more. I don't mind questions, but I sometimes think they are needless, when the topic in question is well documented and discussed.
I don't see the point in us getting too wound up over this, and think that we'll just have to move on to the next argument discussion. 

If this is the only problem we have to contend with, we are indeed, very lucky people.

Cheers Breaders, I noticed the incorrect 58 when I went to respond. I'll have 58 on at me now 

Bread2.0 wrote:Sluffy,

Why do you maintain a stance regarding obvious wum accounts along the lines of: "Let them get on with it and don't interfere because everybody should be grown up to get along and we're not here to get involved and tell people what to post" but then...

...when it's someone you clearly don't like (74 in this case, take note Glos - not 58), you think it's ok to shoehorn your nose in and start handing out your patronising lectures?

That's what winds me up - double standards.

Again....

Exactly, plenty of boring or even abusive fake accounts have gone undisturbed in the past. Yet simply because Sluffy's got an issue with me I get a grief over non events like the above.

gloswhite wrote:74, (apologies, called you 58 previously), I won't say it didn't wind me up, because it did. Maybe it was a cumulative effect over all, or at least many of your posts, where you always ask for more. I don't mind questions, but I sometimes think they are needless, when the topic in question is well documented and discussed.
I don't see the point in us getting too wound up over this, and think that we'll just have to move on to the next argument discussion. 

If this is the only problem we have to contend with, we are indeed, very lucky people.

For me, asking questions and being questioned about issues I have an opinion on expands the range and depth of my view. One good point raised by you was about Trump draining the swamp, not something I’d put too much thought on before but you are right, as was a friend of mine in the pub after work who spoke about Trump’s lack of corporate sponsorship being a positive.

As mentioned though I didn't know I was winding you up, didn't mean to and I apologise.

Bread2.0 wrote:Sluffy,

Why do you maintain a stance regarding obvious wum accounts along the lines of: "Let them get on with it and don't interfere because everybody should be grown up to get along and we're not here to get involved and tell people what to post" but then...

...when it's someone you clearly don't like (74 in this case, take note Glos - not 58), you think it's ok to shoehorn your nose in and start handing out your patronising lectures?

That's what winds me up - double standards.

Again....

Well for a start I don't believe 74 to be a wum account.

Secondly, ALL accounts should be modded equally.  In this case Glos himself more or less said that he had had enough of the seemingly never ending argument from 74.

Which 74 has now offered his apology.

Third, only those few who have long term issues with me - such as yourself (note - once again your post above having a pop at me over the ST, even though I didn't even raise the subject in the first place!) - believe that I 'shoehorn my nose in' and give 'patronising lectures'.

Lastly, talking about double standards is a bit rich coming from someone who was all over me like a rash one moment because you wanted me to permanently ban someone you didn't like and now very anti me ever since because I didn't!

bwfc1874 wrote:

gloswhite wrote:74, (apologies, called you 58 previously), I won't say it didn't wind me up, because it did. Maybe it was a cumulative effect over all, or at least many of your posts, where you always ask for more. I don't mind questions, but I sometimes think they are needless, when the topic in question is well documented and discussed.
I don't see the point in us getting too wound up over this, and think that we'll just have to move on to the next argument discussion. 

If this is the only problem we have to contend with, we are indeed, very lucky people.

For me, asking questions and being questioned about issues I have an opinion on expands the range and depth of my view. One good point raised by you was about Trump draining the swamp, not something I’d put too much thought on before but you are right, as was a friend of mine in the pub after work who spoke about Trump’s lack of corporate sponsorship being a positive.

As mentioned though I didn't know I was winding you up, didn't mean to and I apologise.

No apologies needed mate. as long as were on an even keel again  

Sluffy wrote:

Secondly, ALL accounts should be modded equally.  In this case Glos himself more or less said that he had had enough of the seemingly never ending argument from 74.

Which 74 has now offered his apology.

My apology to Glos was on the basis of his getting wound up - that was not intentional - I don't think asking somebody questions is in any way out of order and it's telling you can't give me any example of where I have been.

And your so called never-ending argument works both ways, we made the same number of posts, it's an interesting topic for which we both have views.

We'd have been just fine without your condescending lecture this morning, totally unnecessary and clearly a result of your long standing issue with me rather than a protection of Glos.