Jump to content


Gold Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by xbl

  1. I find your mindless attacks on me childish and embarrassing, and so will not lower myself to that level. Furthermore, that particular post is so spectacularly awful that I cringe when I read it.
  2. So if I was to say "I find your constant attacks on me childish and embarrassing, and so will not lower myself to that level. Furthermore, that particular post is so spectacularly awful that I cringe when I read it"Then this would not be spamming? And yet simply saying the same thing in a more compact way "eesh", IS? If people want it to stop, then perhaps they should criticise those who attack me.
  3. So everyone gets free reign to make comment after comment about me, and yet I get threatened if I dare to respond to them? I don't see how that can possibly be considered fair. If nobody attacks me, then I won't respond. When I respond, there is no actual difference between a two sentence post and a one word post. I don't see how it can get much clearer than that. Stop the attacks, you'll stop me responding, as at no point have I launched an attack on anyone in the last few pages.
  4. What, and let people just constantly attack and insult without provocation? If people want me to stop responding to attacks, maybe they should try actually criticising those that attack me instead?
  5. Eesh. Eta, im not trying to "introduce" anything, I am simply responding to attacks against me in the mildest, least provocative way I can manage, so that I can't be accused of anything. Maybe people should have a go at those that keep talking about me and insulting me, rather than someone who is simply defending himself from unprovoked attacks.
  6. Its an extremely good definition, but possibly not in the way you think. Eesh.
  7. So not one word while others hammered away at me with their attacks, but I literally say two words and Im suddenly the villain here? Eesh.
  8. When people complained, I had said it twice. Both times in response to embarrassingly bad attacks on me. Once again, you and your ilk seem to want to blame the innocent target of attacks for the crime of disgracefully being attacked without provocation. Eesh.
  9. What are you on about? Why does your life revolve around me?
  10. If you imagine 75k a year, then realistically, how many of them would go to Scotland? I suspect a fairly low percentage. I agree with most of your post though, I can't see how it can possibly be legal, and yes, the idea was indeed that we should be able to go anywhere. I also agree with your selfish (not using it as a criticism as I agree) logic that you can move freely, so why shouldn't others? If we start capping everyone, then why wouldn't people do the same to us? I personally believe in open borders, but at the same time, I have no issue with properly counting and keeping track of the number of nationals here. Just so we know how many and where, and also how many are leaving.
  11. If Scotland votes Naw? "EU immigration could be capped at 75,000 a year" http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/eu-immigration-could-be-capped-at-75-000-a-year-1-3234372 Yep, if Scotland votes naw, we can say goodbye to any more immigration. Obviously this is something that the Unionists support, given their obsession with the politics of race, but still. Is that what we want? A country where nobody is welcome?
  12. Ah yes, I remember that, you're both much more qualified than "some nobody from northwestern", as he knew nothing about international law. That would be US ambassador to the UN, specialised in international law, and head of a massive centre for international law. You'll excuse us if we laugh heartily at your "I know everything and am never wrong" statements. Edited to add, and of course, when Reynard did mention it, and not just once, neither you or any of the law squad felt any impulse to "keep him honest". Not once...
  13. You didn't have a problem with it before, and now suddenly you do? Yes Reynard.
  14. That isn't an answer. The law squad have insisted that it cannot be negotiated from within the CDU, and negotiations can't start until independence. Indeed, Reynard has made this point more than once, and not once has the law squad questioned it. So when will we be kicked out? You've also tried this not in the EU argument before. Wrong. We are.
  15. Oooh, goalpost moving, deflection, and an attack too. When will kicking out day be?
  16. By the way, when do those eminent names say kicking out day will be? You left the forum for a few days rather than answer that one. When will we be officially kicked out?
  17. Why should he? You do nothing but duck dive, lie, and deflect. Why should he help you out when anyone can see that you're making a fool of yourself. Again.
  18. I'm enjoying his work hugely! I've never seen Reynard pretend posts never happened so quickly. Normally he waits a week or two before coming back and denying all knowledge.
  • Create New...