Katie Hopkins.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3458287/KATIE-HOPKINS-Today-surgeons-cut-brain-try-cure-epilepsy.html

On the News Section we have seen Katie Hopkin's opinions both criticised or supported, but whatever your opinion of her, I am sure most of us will wish to convey all our good wishes along with every success on coming out of this surgery successfully cured of her dreadful epilepsy?

Get well soon Katie.

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - //You've only got to remember the vile way the lefties "celebrated" Maggie Thatcher's death to realise what an unsavoury bunch of miserable excuses for normal human beings they are. //

You are in danger of falling into the standard right-wing view of any opposition, which is that it is a homogenous mass of people without dissent or original thought.

To assume that everyone whose politics are not right-wing celebrated the death of Lady Thatcher and "... an unsavoury bunch of miserable excuses for normal human beings ... " is as lazy as it is offensive.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //I have to go out now but if someone can explain what appears to me to be a strange anomaly, I’d be grateful. Back later. //

Unless you want the debate to be conducted like a trial, where people are picked up for what they said previously, and are under oath - you will need to accept that adjectives are interchangeable.

[Answerprancer]

Just because *you* wish her well does not give you the right to judge anyone who doesn't AOG. may I remind you for the UMPTEENTH time, you have no "ownership" over the threads you start. People have the right NOT to wish her well if they so wish, in typing if necessary. By offering this up on a public forum, you have no right to dictate how people respond, in effect you are asking for opinions and you're getting them.
I for one have little more than contempt for the old rat bag but I wouldn't wish her to come to any physical harm.

[andy-hughes]

Answerprancer - //Just because *you* wish her well does not give you the right to judge anyone who doesn't AOG. may I remind you for the UMPTEENTH time, you have no "ownership" over the threads you start. People have the right NOT to wish her well if they so wish, in typing if necessary. By offering this up on a public forum, you have no right to dictate how people respond, in effect you are asking for opinions and you're getting them.
I for one have little more than contempt for the old rat bag but I wouldn't wish her to come to any physical harm. //

Your point underlines my position - that debates take their own path, and never stick rigidly to the OP - they would be very tedious if they did.

People will think of other aspects of the subject, and comment on them, which adds to additional comments, and so the debate runs on.

Unless a discussion is conducted like Question Time, with a chairman to direct how the conversation goes, it will always be like this - indeed it always has - as those of us who have been here a while know perfectly well - and enthusiastically follow that format when it suits them.

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - //So, I'll ask again. Why do you so often tell people that they are off topic when it suits you. //

Letting a debate take its natural course is one thing - using it to personally snipe and attack other AB'ers is another.

I am sure you are aware of the difference.

[anotheoldgit]

/// Unless a discussion is conducted like Question Time, with a chairman to direct how the conversation goes, it will always be like this ///

We do have a chairman don't we? He is called the AB Editor and who has been known to interject at times, in an attempt to keep a specific thread on track.

[pixie374]

To prevent personal attacks, aog...your choice of BA says it all!

[anotheoldgit]

/// Letting a debate take its natural course is one thing - using it to personally snipe and attack other AB'ers is another. ///

/// I am sure you are aware of the difference. ///

Perhaps that is the question that you must first ask yourself?

[Bathsheba]

Blimey....is this still going?

Baths
x x

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - //AH. You are being economical with the truth again. Look again at the Captain Scott thread. You just leapt in with your "hey guys back on topic" thing. Nobody was bad mouthing anybody. //

I am not getting into this argument with you.

It goes nowhere, it winds up the rest of the AB community, and it's a waste of my valuable time - so let's leave it there shall we?

[anotheoldgit]

divebuddy

Don't let him try and get this thread closed, seeing it is perfect proof for all to see, of how a thread can be high- jacked by those who simply want to get their agenda over on such valid well wishing thread as this was meant to be.

[ummmm]

AOG...you're the problem, not Andy!

[Answerprancer]

"Don't let him try and get this thread closed, seeing it is perfect proof for all to see, of how a thread can be high- jacked by those who simply want to get their agenda over on such valid well wishing thread as this was meant to be".

If you were honest (at least with yourself) you would admit that your OP also had an "agenda". As do a lot of your posts. You routinely light fireworks here that go off in your face.

It takes two to tango and it could be just as much your butt-hurt and passive aggressive responses that might get this thread closed.

[andy-hughes]

Answerprancer - //"Don't let him try and get this thread closed, seeing it is perfect proof for all to see, of how a thread can be high- jacked by those who simply want to get their agenda over on such valid well wishing thread as this was meant to be".

If you were honest (at least with yourself) you would admit that your OP also had an "agenda". As do a lot of your posts. You routinely light fireworks here that go off in your face.

It takes two to tango and it could be just as much your butt-hurt and passive aggressive responses that might get this thread closed.//

I cannot but agree with you.

I have deliberately ceased from getting into spats with those who wish to pick them - but the prods and needles and digs go on - I am sure the remainder of the community, and the Editorial Team can see clearly where this provocation is coming from - hopefully they may step in to stop it spoiling debates for everyone.

[sp1814]

naomi24

No - you've misunderstood, which is understandable, as there are apparently two subjects in the line separated with a nasty hanging participle.

The subject of the following sentence is italicised:

If anyone criticises them, they are spouting vitriol.

So what I'm saying is that people who criticise Katy Hopkins are accused of spouting vitriol. I wasn't saying that Katy Hopkins is the vitriol-spouter.

[ummmm]

Andy...sometimes you do my head in :-) but...if this spat was between you and AOG I would read it thinking you just don't get along. It's not though. It's you verses about 5 other people.

They are more interested in pulling your replies apart than what the thread is about.

I'm surprised some of them are still active.

If my child treated someone as you get treated I'd ground him for a very long time!

[andy-hughes]

ummmm - //Andy...sometimes you do my head in :-) but...if this spat was between you and AOG I would read it thinking you just don't get along. It's not though. It's you verses about 5 other people.

They are more interested in pulling your replies apart than what the thread is about.

I'm surprised some of them are still active.

If my child treated someone as you get treated I'd ground him for a very long time! //

Thank you for your kind support.

In the past, I have been as guilty as anyone of prolonging the nasty arguments that occur on here. I would say that I respond rather than provoke, and I am sure others would say the opposite.

As you will see from my recent posts, I am simply not willing to engage in these pointless arguments any more - they go nowhere, they are draining to be involved in, and they simply annoy and deter other AB'ers.

So - any further attempts at picking a fight with me will be largely ignored - and then everyone can see exactly who the snipers are - if they don't actually know already!