And much can also be said of the Brexit supporters on here (although the percieved "partisan" nature of links is usually in the eye of the beholder).
Both sides of the argument do this. Either side are backing up an argument with evidence (and often challenged to do so by the other side), and either side can be questioned/challenged on the evidence provided. Much like that of the first post in this thread. It's how things work around here.
I'm very much looking forward to Ruperts presentation of evidence based on his "nearly every post has a spurious link" statement.
I very rarely post with links anyway, and nor does Weavie much.
Plus I've never seen Weavie sh*t stir once on this forum, so equally his evidence for that will be eagerly anticipated.
I suspect he's all mouth and no trousers slippers. Purely because of his contempt for anyone who dares question Brexit is already laid bare in this section.
Comparatively a poster such as Tapzilla2k has a much greater insight, very rarely has this poster deliberately used liberal fiction or called into question the intelligence of voters choices.
My point is this, a question was asked by the government, the answer was given by the people, the answer should be carried out without delay. That's it. Democracy.
However I also reject the notion that the UK should become a quasi-nation sate under the umbrella of the Eu and its Eurocratic aims. Trade yes, adoption and adaptation of laws, yes upon discussion, adoption of liberalism and political correctness. Most certainly not.
I do not have party affiliations, nor do I have any allegiances to persons or representatives.
And what does any of that have to do with your accusation that I'm a sh*t stirrer, or that my feelings towards the article shared are somehow wrong, because they differ from yours?You accuse me of bias, and using bias sources, yet clearly state your own bias with regards to the Referendum and therefore the validity of the article.You're no different to me, yet suggest that I'm wrong and resort to name calling.
Fixed  
You accuse the writer of the post piece of having no knowledge, working in a supermarket, yet yours and 007 lacks even basic fundamental political and economic insights. Then try to frame the comments by saying its all about opinions. However, you started the personal assertions about me in another thread. So there you go and here we are bickering.
Basically you were poking fun at someone and I've poked fun back. Now what.
So, back to my first response, was anything I said incorrect? I didn’t accuse him of having no knowledge, I linked to his public LinkedIn account and asked about his apparent rise to the
DexEU.The same query was raised by Bl4ckGryphon, including suggesting that the guy didn’t even write the article himself, yet you’re not showing the same aggressive posting towards him, what’s the difference? Surely you’re not just targeting me because we have different opinions regarding Brexit.
I also haven’t seen you poke fun back at me, just real off a random selection of political wording in the hope that you come across as superior.I’m not sure what thread I’ve already shown personal assertions towards you either?
Both you and rich skirt the line all the time.Rupert is doing the same. I would suggest all three of you drop it.
Bl4ckGryphon has a working knowledge that other posters should take note of, so I have quite a bit of respect when he posts.
That'll be the end from me.
fair enough, yet the actual comments he posted were the same things I highlighted , moving on.