_

Here, is my analysis of Andrew Constantine's original post, exposing its assumptions and the logical meaning of some his assertions:

Originally Posted by Andrew Constantine:
RTL

I liked your responses.

There are broadly two classes of folks who post on this forum.

The great majority of this forum's members have sincere and positive views, wish to improve matters, and work hard to build their respective parties up. Whatever their party, I respect their patriotism and hard work.

Then there is this small minority of ... social misfits, who do not get on with their fellow men and who take refuge in decrying the hard work of others. Some of these are sad men with nothing better to do, but a few are simply idle layabouts living on public welfare, who hate to see others working to improve the common good. They say of course that in trying to undermine our patriotic parties, they are simply 'holding public figures to account', or some such nonsense. Well, be damned with them!

Regards, Andrew

Originally Posted by cassie:
This post reveals much about its author who presumes, without adducing a shred of objective evidence, to classify those who post on this forum in order to bolster his own ego.

According to Andrew, there are 'broadly' two classes. The first, comprises more than 2,450 members having 'sincere and positive views, wish to improve matters and work hard to build their respective parties up'! Would it be unreasonable to conclude that Andrew regards himself as being in this virtuous class? From this we can conclude that anyone without a party cannot be within this class. So there you have it, all you non-joiners [and we know who many of you are - I could list a number myself!], you must be in the other 'broad' class!

The second class is to be disparaged as much as possible. First, they are not merely a minority, but a 'small minority'.

Second, they are 'social misfits' . . . well they must be, they offer opinions with which Andrew disagrees! [Incidentally, anyone encountered a 'social misfit' who does get on with his fellow man? Bit of tautology here in the cause of emphasising how reprehensible these individuals are.]

Third, some [but, apparently, not all] of this 'small minority of social misfits' are "sad men with nothing better to do". Unfortunately, Andrew's emotional outburst omits to tell us either what they do or what they have nothing better to do????

Fourth, "a few of some of this small minority" are really to be deprecated - allegedly they are "simply idle lay-abouts living on public welfare"! The obvious implications here are: (1) this undefined 'public welfare' is invariably reprehensible; and (2) that those on 'public welfare' are ALL 'idle lay-abouts'!

Fifth, presuming to see into the minds of this "few of some of the small minority", Andrew informs us that they "hate to see others working for the common good" whatever that presumed 'common good' may be!

Well Andrew, you may think that, overcome by a desire to expound your prejudiced and prejudicial, sanctimonious opinions, that you come across as a 'good fella', but you don't. Your conduct gives the lie to that! In all my career, I have never treated [or been party to the treatment of] anyone the way in which you treated me. Indeed, as I have told you, your actions fell very short of the code of conduct set out by your professional institute. [I say this as someone who had considerable experience in what is now known as human resources and industrial relations, which included appearing before the CAC, Industrial Tribunals, the Certification Officer and the EAT.]

If you were wise, you'd keep on the right side of me. One day, you might be fortunate enough to be prominent in the public's consciousness - in the context of elections perhaps? If you continue to rub me up in the wrong way, I'll increasingly see it as my public duty to ensure your behaviour is made known as widely as possible.

My advice to you, as the would-be leader of a political party, is to contain such opinions. Otherwise, by association, you convey the image of the FEP being a nasty party. In other words, your cure might well be seen as being worse than England's current condition!

_____________________________

For example, does anyone truly believe that Mr Constantine has consulted in excess of 2,450 members [half of those recorded as being active at the time] to make his claim about 'the great majority of members'?

Another example of the vacuousness of his sanctimonious post is indicated by his inability to cite one name of those he alleges are "simply idle lay-abouts living on public welfare"!


-
[Rep]

I don't think "tolerance" extends to allowing people to be ripped to pieces in public this way. These trolls would be banned permanently from any other forum. Their comments and accusations make this forum seem extremely low grade. I find this very odd.
It can only be a moral weaknes of the moderators or allowing these personal attacks because they are politically biased against certain points of view expressed, or, more particularly English nationalism and thus allow its enemies free reign to practice character assassination against its proponents. That false tolerance is in itself a cheap, underhand form of prejudice. This forum and the behaviour of the moderators may start finding its way into articles and publications.
[Rep]

Quoted by cassie dear one in all his glory directly to Andrew Constantine:

Originally Posted by :
If you were wise, you'd keep on the right side of me. One day, you might be fortunate enough to be prominent in the public's consciousness - in the context of elections perhaps? If you continue to rub me up in the wrong way, I'll increasingly see it as my public duty to ensure your behaviour is made known as widely as possible.

That is a direct threat, apart from which you are also suggesting that you hold a position whereby you are capable of destroying people simply because you feel like it. You sound like a government official.

You have demonstrated that you are willing and able to coerce people into doing your will. You have insulted many with impunity, especially myself (and I will never forgive you for it) and you now wish to take things a rung up the dirt ladder and offer to defecate upon the heads of anyone who does not please you, your group or your ideology. That's very dangerous, cassie. You can insult people like me all you like but you really can't do this to the leadership of a political party with the express intention of damaging them to the point of destruction simply because you will this. Either you are psychotic and suffer from delusions of grandeur or you are a nasty plant and are panicking because your masters want results and you aren't achieving them.

Is that what this is? A direct threat. A little piece of "advice" that could come straight out of Soviet Russia, Apartheid South Africa or nazi Germany. An apparatchik who feels he must make his move in case his insults are no longer having the desired effect.

You smell bad, cassie. You stink of interventionist tactics. But you won't win. The time has come for people like you with your threats and your insults and your noblesse oblige to get out of politics so freedom can come to those who need it more than anything else right now.

And perhaps your strange little doppelganger Danny should take the hint too. He doesn't fool me. I have seen his like before. Tell me, cassie, is he the same one, or is this a different shadow?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by SilverFalcon:
We're all too ashamed of ourselves to answer. We're all hanging our heads so far down they come out from under our legs and we are gazing at the world backwards. Such is our contrition and our regret. Woe is us. :-)

On a rational level, though, I don't know how much more of this rubbish Mr Constantine is expected to endure. He is the leader of a political party and his integrity is being destroyed by someone else's malicious slander. Surely this isn't acceptable, whether the excuse is made that it may emanate from a mentally deranged individual or individuals or not. That really isn't the point.

What a load of complete drivel the only Integrity at stake is the statement in which Constantine made in which he as a party political leader Insults British and Democracy forum members INTEGRITY. A statement in which YOU silverfalcon support and it would seem David H and a few more FEP supporters support as well and if he had any shred of decency he(Constantine like you silverfalcon should publicly apoligise
[Rep]

Originally Posted by SilverFalcon:
Quoted by cassie dear one in all his glory directly to Andrew Constantine:


That is a direct threat, apart from which you are also suggesting that you hold a position whereby you are capable of destroying people simply because you feel like it. You sound like a government official.

You have demonstrated that you are willing and able to coerce people into doing your will. You have insulted many with impunity, especially myself (and I will never forgive you for it) and you now wish to take things a rung up the dirt ladder and offer to defecate upon the heads of anyone who does not please you, your group or your ideology. That's very dangerous, cassie. You can insult people like me all you like but you really can't do this to the leadership of a political party with the express intention of damaging them to the point of destruction simply because you will this. Either you are psychotic and suffer from delusions of grandeur or you are a nasty plant and are panicking because your masters want results and you aren't achieving them.

Is that what this is? A direct threat. A little piece of "advice" that could come straight out of Soviet Russia, Apartheid South Africa or nazi Germany. An apparatchik who feels he must make his move in case his insults are no longer having the desired effect.

You smell bad, cassie. You stink of interventionist tactics. But you won't win. The time has come for people like you with your threats and your insults and your noblesse oblige to get out of politics so freedom can come to those who need it more than anything else right now.

And perhaps your strange little doppelganger Danny should take the hint too. He doesn't fool me. I have seen his like before. Tell me, cassie, is he the same one, or is this a different shadow?

You may believe that you have some facility with the English language Tawney Owl but, however true that might be, it will always be limited by your ability to comprehend.

You post here, based in South Africa, and assert that I have made a 'direct threat' - such impertinence [in more than one sense]! What is the action, the 'direct threat' to which you refer? You have not said! No change there then!

Therefore, I am free to construe that you are referring to my words: "I'll increasingly see it as my public duty to ensure your behaviour is made known as widely as possible." So, there we have it! The assertion that if Constantine continues to 'attack' [there, I've used one of your absurd terms!] me, directly or indirectly, I may react by disseminating facts of public interest in the context of elections is portrayed by you as a 'direct threat'! Well, that might be the standard in South Africa but, hopefully, it could be better here in England.

Do carry on with your inane posts, and readers can see for themselves how distorted is your view! Characterising something as innocuous as publishing facts of public interest is not usually seen as a threat by any rational person. Just because you seek to dress something up as a threat [in your warped judgement], does not necessarily render it so; it's the relevant action which counts. Just see if you can, somehow, get over yourself! :-)

-
[Rep]

Danny, I do not think the statement significant but your interpretation of it is laughable. What worries me is that the moderators allow you to indulge in constant personal attacks on other posters. I am also waiting to see how they will cover up cassie's personal threat against Andrew.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by david H:
I don't think "tolerance" extends to allowing people to be ripped to pieces in public this way. These trolls would be banned permanently from any other forum. Their comments and accusations make this forum seem extremely low grade. I find this very odd.
It can only be a moral weaknes of the moderators or allowing these personal attacks because they are politically biased against certain points of view expressed, or, more particularly English nationalism and thus allow its enemies free reign to practice character assassination against its proponents. That false tolerance is in itself a cheap, underhand form of prejudice. This forum and the behaviour of the moderators may start finding its way into articles and publications.

More inane drivel from david H. Care to specify just who has been "ripped to pieces in public" together with details of the way?

Frankly, I think that inadequate non-joiners like you who make such sanctimoniously asinine remarks should be banned! I see you're now accusing others of 'moral weakness' for not giving censorious you the elbow!

I guess the only ways you're ever likely to win an argument is if you have in a cemetery or your opponents are censored by being banned! I can see why making you a Moderator would be a contradiction in itself! :-)


-
[Rep]

Originally Posted by david H:
Danny, I do not think the statement significant but your interpretation of it is laughable. What worries me is that the moderators allow you to indulge in constant personal attacks on other posters. I am also waiting to see how they will cover up cassie's personal threat against Andrew.

You David H are the one that is laughable you are not clever enough to fully understand and digest what Constantine says in his statement no change there then hey david.You David and silver falcon run around like headless chickens posting frantic personal attacks on me and trying in vain to defend constantines statement which has now being fully exposed.You both try to deflect attention away from constantines statement that is the laughable thing .
[Rep]

Originally Posted by david H:
Danny, I do not think the statement significant but your interpretation of it is laughable. What worries me is that the moderators allow you to indulge in constant personal attacks on other posters. I am also waiting to see how they will cover up cassie's personal threat against Andrew.

Ahem! As a matter of interest, are you able to say what, exactly, is the personal threat which you allege I've made? Your unsubstantiated post making such an allegation is, itself, defamatory. Perhaps you'd do better to worry about that!


--
[Rep]

"If you were wise, you'd keep on the right side of me. One day, you might be fortunate enough to be prominent in the public's consciousness - in the context of elections perhaps? If you continue to rub me up in the wrong way, I'll increasingly see it as my public duty to ensure your behaviour is made known as widely as possible."

Is that a direct threat or not? I call upon the moderators: Is that a direct threat or not?
[Rep]