Two types of folk

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 33931
  • Start date Start date
btiw2 said:
Yeah, but that doesn’t mean you can run them over with a quad bike.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised that he restrained himself from actually doing so.
Don't all farmers take up farming as a profession solely for the opportunity to run over non country folk with a quad bike?
Perhaps it was because he knew the cameras were rolling.
Better luck next time.
 
longboat said:
I'm surprised that he restrained himself from actually doing so.
Don't all farmers take up farming as a profession solely for the opportunity to run over non country folk with a quad bike?
Perhaps it was because he knew the cameras were rolling.
Better luck next time.
Click to expand...
He wasn’t typical of rural folk.

Designer boiler suit too? How laa dee dah!

A real farmer would be covered in *ahem* soil and yelling at east European migrants, not razzing about on a quad bike following the hunt. That ain’t a farmer. It’s a businessman who’s playing at it.

Uh oh. My prejudices are coming to the surface. Religion? Don’t care. Brexit vote? Don’t care. Sexual orientation? None of my business. Clean John Deere boiler suit? Break out the pitchforks!
 
I've never considered myself a fashion icon, but certain things are to be avoided. My blue jeans with a blazer or sports jacket are fine, chinos with either are acceptable, my denim jacket with black jeans is cool but not with blue jeans (double denim is a strict no no), I might even wear a two piece suit with a t shirt. For work, I will wear anything as long as it's covered in paint or plaster or a tasteful combination of both. I cannot think of a scenario where I could be induced to wear a John Deere boiler suit, not even roughing up sabs or remainers.
john_deere_overalls.jpg
 
btiw2 said:
Yeah, but that doesn’t mean you can run them over with a quad bike.

I have little sympathy with either side here, but if the rule is that we’re allowed to run people over who are deliberately disruptive then I want a quad bike and a map of the route DA takes for his dogs walking.
Click to expand...

In case it helps, my daily walking route is a wee circular down Butts Lane near Stalling Busk.



(that should keep him busy...)
 
longboat said:
DA has already covered that base by claiming that if he did vote remain then he'd be an anomaly who was selfishly thinking about his pocked.
See, he's not daft.
He just thinks everyone else is.
Click to expand...

Not everyone, Longs.

Damn - I'm so predictable

See? I covered that base too.
 
btiw2 said:
I agree with you. DA likes splitting things between black and white - a moral FW de Klerk.

I’m deliberately staying out of the moral dimension of Brexit. I think it’s nonsense and poisonous. “I voted remain therefore I’m more virtuous”? I don’t use emoji, but if there was an emoji for the hand gesture that sort of attitude deserves then maybe I’d make an exception.

I’m just saying that you can’t run people over because they hack you off. But if you could.... man... that’d be sweet.
Click to expand...

For the purposes of the point I was making - a perfectly valid point, I believe - I did indeed split this issue in to black and white.

Or more like black and other colours.

The only perps I was actually interested in were the rabid foul-mouths who replied to the vid on t'net. Oh, and the two characters at the end of the vid.

Is my point valid? Yes, I think so. I reckon it's a nigh-on certain bet that these folk are also rabid Brexiters.

Don't you think so? Do you not think so?

Why stand away from the 'moral dimension' since the whole campaign was based on distorted morals. It was a moral issue. It has become an even larger moral issue. You reckon Trump's presidency is a purely political issue?!

Of course these are moral issues, and I do not understand your reluctance to acknowledge this.

Perhaps it's because argueme... discussions on such issues are largely 'pointless' in that they won't arrive at a 'conclusion'? It's unprovable?

Fair do's, btiw2, but I've done the 'political' bit on here waaaay before the Ref, and that was ultimately pointless - the u-s went all weird and exposed themselves by saying anything to try and justify their ultimate 'reason'.

I mean, all your graphs and charts have had terrific success, yes? No.


I also don't think it helps your point to try and simplify what I have been saying down to a single exaggerated remark - and one that I have never actually made.

btiw2: "I voted remain therefore I’m more virtuous"?

Filly: "DA pulled his usual stunt of bringing it round to 'leavers' and 'remainers', the 'antagonists' in the video were 'leavers' whilst the 'victims' were 'remainers', eh?"

You are both being equally disingenuous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
btiw2 said:
Yeah, but that doesn’t mean you can run them over with a quad bike.

I have little sympathy with either side here, but if the rule is that we’re allowed to run people over who are deliberately disruptive then I want a quad bike and a map of the route DA takes for his dogs walking.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The point of my post was in answer to jackoftrades belief, that ONLY the farmer acted unreasonably, the sabs were there as innocent bystanders.
Which they were most definitely not.
Both parties were taking up vigilante actions, with no authority to do so.

Mr. HandyAndy - Really
 
Mr. Handyandy said:
Agreed. The point of my post was in answer to jackoftrades belief, that ONLY the farmer acted unreasonably, the sabs were there as innocent bystanders.
Which they were most definitely not.
Both parties were taking up vigilante actions, with no authority to do so.

Mr. HandyAndy - Really
Click to expand...


That may or may not be truthful, but this whole thread is reliant on the video evidence produced.
That video evidence clearly shows only 3 people showing aggression (Mr Famer Giles and the two morons at the end) none of them were Sabs.

So any speculation as to what the Sabs were or were not doing is just that.
 
Isitreally said:
That may or may not be truthful, but this whole thread is reliant on the video evidence produced.
That video evidence clearly shows only 3 people showing aggression (Mr Famer Giles and the two morons at the end) none of them were Sabs.

So any speculation as to what the Sabs were or were not doing is just that.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
kangaroo-court.jpg
6a00d8341bf7d953ef0192ac020722970d-600wi.png

That may or may not be truthful, but this whole thread is reliant on the video evidence produced.
 
Last edited:
longboat said:
View attachment 20085
View attachment 20084

That may or may not be truthful, but this whole thread is reliant on the video evidence produced.
Click to expand...


And you have constantly invented (no) supporting evidence to show why the farmer was justified to take UNreasonable steps to remove them.

No body has ever declared any support fir the sabs remember

Just the attitude of the farmer.

And his supporters, of course
 
Jackoftrades said:
And you have constantly invented (no) supporting evidence to show why the farmer was justified to take UNreasonable steps to remove them.

No body has ever declared any support fir the sabs remember

Just the attitude of the farmer.

And his supporters, of course
Click to expand...
You can build a fence between it if you want. I say 'want', but that's not quite accurate, is it?

You are right though that based on nothing but the video evidence alone we can all condemn the land owner to the gallows.

Thank ****, it doesn't work like that anymore, eh?
 
You still on this thread, Longs?

Wow - you've got balls, man.


Or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top