Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:37 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote: Bitter much? She can be a bit caustic in her use of the English language, the Gender Bender article that upset a noisy minority a few years back sticks in my mind. A radical feminist lesbian writer and journalist with a definite Left Wing political stance, who is not afraid to stand up to the bigots and Politically Correct within all sections of society...... should have thought her picture would have been plastered all over your bedoom walls. I recommend her article of a few weeks ago. Although I suspect there will be the usual suspects huffing and puffing on here. That is simply a bonus. In Julie's world, all men are rapists – so that's you then, isn't it, you nasty little raping bar steward? Of course, you have a lot in common: being extremist trolls, for starters.

rumpelstiltskin wrote: Bitter much? She can be a bit caustic in her use of the English language, the Gender Bender article that upset a noisy minority a few years back sticks in my mind. A radical feminist lesbian writer and journalist with a definite Left Wing political stance, who is not afraid to stand up to the bigots and Politically Correct within all sections of society...... should have thought her picture would have been plastered all over your bedoom walls. I recommend her article of a few weeks ago. Although I suspect there will be the usual suspects huffing and puffing on here. That is simply a bonus. In Julie's world, all men are rapists – so that's you then, isn't it, you nasty little raping bar steward? Of course, you have a lot in common: being extremist trolls, for starters.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:15 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote: ...or the equally unattractive former head of Harringey Social Services... Why the fascination with people's appearance? rumpelstiltskin wrote: ...I rather like Julie Bindel's acerbic appraisal of this woman. Although, it should be remembered that it was an Ed Balls cockup, and poor Legal advice that opened the door to her unfair dismissal claim. I'm not keen on Shoesmith either but I decided that all by myself without the assistance of a low-fact rant from Julie Bindel. In that article there is absolutely no analysis of Shoesmith's job or what she did or did not do. In short, a total sharticle(*) Also, apart from some fragile and tenuous "incompetence" connection, it has feckall to do with the Grangemouth dispute. (*) © Southstander.com

rumpelstiltskin wrote: ...or the equally unattractive former head of Harringey Social Services... Why the fascination with people's appearance? rumpelstiltskin wrote: ...I rather like Julie Bindel's acerbic appraisal of this woman. Although, it should be remembered that it was an Ed Balls cockup, and poor Legal advice that opened the door to her unfair dismissal claim. I'm not keen on Shoesmith either but I decided that all by myself without the assistance of a low-fact rant from Julie Bindel. In that article there is absolutely no analysis of Shoesmith's job or what she did or did not do. In short, a total sharticle(*) Also, apart from some fragile and tenuous "incompetence" connection, it has feckall to do with the Grangemouth dispute. (*) © Southstander.com

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:27 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Bitter much?

She can be a bit caustic in her use of the English language, the Gender Bender article that upset a noisy minority a few years back sticks in my mind. A radical feminist lesbian writer and journalist with a definite Left Wing political stance, who is not afraid to stand up to the bigots and Politically Correct within all sections of society...... should have thought her picture would have been plastered all over your bedoom walls.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:06 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

:lol:

Ya boo! Again

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:20 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

:lol:

Yet again, you add nothing.

Do you ever have an actual thought of your own, or do you just cling to other people's coat tails, a but like a sort of brain-dead limpet?

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:23 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

I'm gonna stick with 2@

This post added something did it Mintball?

Strange how you didn't pick this one out as 'not adding anything too'.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:24 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Yet again, you add nothing.

Do you ever have an actual thought of your own, or do you just cling to other people's coat tails, a but like a sort of brain-dead limpet?

Absolutely no need to insult limpets Minty.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:26 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Absolute nonsense. You don't even know how to read a dictionary if that is what you think.

The dictionaries definition of socialism is this in its entirety:

noun
[mass noun]

• a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
  
• policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
  (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy

Not this just this:

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

If the bits you deliberately omitted where not part of the Oxford's Dictionaries definition of socialism they would not have included them!

They understand what Socialism is. You don't.

We must agree to differ I would suspect that given both descriptions were started with a bullet point they are separate, if not they would be all under the same bullet point would you not agree? Of course you wouldn't!! I just picked one description from a million I could have chosen.

I suspect there isn't a person on here who could give a succinct definitive definition of Socialism - and that includes you and Mintball.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:26 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

This post added something did it Mintball?

Strange how you didn't pick this one out as 'not adding anything too'.

I shall try to explain it in simple terms.

You NEVER add anything.

He does – at least on occasion.

So up your game – or maybe risk losing your posting rights.

And the same applies to all the trolls on here who add nothing. Ever.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:26 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

This post added something did it Mintball?

Strange how you didn't pick this one out as 'not adding anything too'.

I can get away with it b'cos I'm not as fooking stupid as you.
Mind you, who is?