pigpot's Pot

[pigpot]

Hold your horses Mr. Impatient. I'm doing other things as well... Some people.

You told me that you had already counted. I haven't asked you to count again. I asked you what was the tally of your original count.

I thought I'd check again to make sure that the "evidence" was correct. I agree with my first estimate. More than a dozen anyway. Way more. Do you use government prescription glasses as if they are government issued you'll need better.

Oh! My GODDDDD! I'm getting better and it's coming naturally. I'm gone for two hours approximately "rump". Please don't say that I was gone out for longer and it was different to original quote like you did about the number at Tom's informal get together eh! Anyway it'll allow you to recharge your sarcasm and wit batteries somewhat. By God they need it.

Charisma by-pass not avoided yet.

[pigpot]

I reckon a good fifty or sixty plus maybe.

Please link to the picture that shows fifty to sixty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfxCg1_au9A

At 7:27 minutes then look at the numbers behind them as well. Good stuff is old Tom. Made of Steel.

[pigpot]

Out for two hours. Have life. Will be back.

Cheers.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I reckon a good fifty or sixty plus maybe.

Please link to the picture that shows fifty to sixty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfxCg1_au9A

At 7:27 minutes then look at the numbers behind them as well. Good stuff is old Tom. Made of Steel.

I see. I had not taken into consideration the fact that you have absolutely no reading comprehension skills.
When I wrote "You call a dozen people a 'baying mob'" within my post I had quoted your post where you had linked to the Daily Mail's article about the Heathrow protestors. If you had taken the three seconds it requires to read my post correctly you would have seen that the "dozen" I was referring to are the Plane Stupid group. I kind of gave you a clue....I quoted your post containing the link to the Daily Mail.
This is my post. viewtopic.php?p=197417#p197417 That is the post that you quoted, the post that you responded to, but for some strange reason your response did not in any way relate to my own post that you quoted. I was talking about the Heathrow mob and you responded saying that I was wrong. To show I was wrong about the amount of protestors at Heathrow you have linked to a video about Tom Crawford.

[pigpot]

I counted.

How many did you count?

I reckon a good fifty or sixty plus maybe. Each calls a mate and it's doubling. It's going to cause a problem for a local "Court" of that size when 120 people turn up. The 240 at the next hearing down the road. The Police don't have the numbers. One guy said, "we'll take the "Court". Funnily enough he may have just meant it. What if they do and the Police aren't enough? The U.K. version of "Posse comitatus" in reverse. I wouldn't want to live near your little semi (pardon me no pun intended , you see I'm great value when I don't try, I seriously wrote it before I thought anything about it) when the mob comes baying.

Anyway quite some numbers and enough to upset the local Gendarme.

Civil disobedience and lawful rebellion. Lawful and lovely. Both at the same time.

I'll refer you to my quote here which references two mentions of "Court", at which no time did you specify which case you are talking about. Could this be a problem with cutting, chopping and pasting threads together. Speak to your moderation team about that.

Anyway here you go. Be more specific please. I'll post three.

It's going to cause a problem for a local "Court" of that size when 120 people turn up. The 240 at the next hearing down the road. The Police don't have the numbers. One guy said, "we'll take the "Court".

The protestors you were on about were not outside a "Court" as I made reference to. I even stated,

One guy said, "we'll take the "Court".

No photo's were shown of any "Court" in the Daily Fail quote I mentioned. Is your "semi" getting to big for you these days "rumps" losing your marbles as you navigate the place? Keep it together "rumpy". Don't lose your mind now.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I'll refer you to my quote here which references two mentions of "Court", at which no time did you specify which case you are talking about.

I quoted your post that contained the link to the Daily Mail. It is normal practice when quoting somebody else's post to respond directly to that post. Your post contained the Daily Mail link, that was what I was responding to. I was not responding to any other of your posts. Obviously you assumed I was. Perhaps you think that when someone quotes one of your posts they are responding to a different post of yours?

Could this be a problem with cutting, chopping and pasting threads together.

No. The problem is you failed to read my post correctly. Please pay more attention in future.

Speak to your moderation team about that.

I suggest that you go back and read my post that you quoted. Then you will see that I was referring to the article that you linked to in the Daily Mail.
Do try and keep up.

[pigpot]

I quoted your post that contained the link to the Daily Mail. It is normal practice when quoting somebody else's post to respond directly to that post. Your post contained the Daily Mail link, that was what I was responding to. I was not responding to any other of your posts. Obviously you assumed I was. Perhaps you think that when someone quotes one of your posts they are responding to a different post of yours?

If you say so "rump" we can all use forgetfulness as an excuse. I suggest you look at the content of the posted quote before presuming anything i.e. read it first. I could have made a post on ice cream but YOU having not read it, the post I mean, could determine that it was about something else... A previous post for instance. Which ironically is what you did.

Cheers anyway.

[rumpelstilzchen]

pigpot, I did read the post of yours that I quoted. It also contained a link to the Daily Mail. I then read the article in the Daily Mail very carefully. I then commented on your post that contained that link. That is why I only quoted that post.
The mistake was made when you did not read my post carefully and you thought I was responding to a separate post of yours. How ironic it is that you should lecture me to read a post carefully when it was you who failed to do so.

[pigpot]

pigpot, I did read the post of yours that I quoted. It also contained a link to the Daily Mail. I then read the article in the Daily Mail very carefully. I then commented on your post that contained that link. That is why I only quoted that post.
The mistake was made when you did not read my post carefully and you thought I was responding to a separate post of yours. How ironic it is that you should lecture me to read a post carefully when it was you who failed to do so.

A professor you shall not make, a lecturer so you shall. Keep up. How's Freda your next door neighbour at number 12. Does she still read the Express these days? Honestly take a leaf out of "Wes's" book. Far more laid back and that's why his avatar is in red and your's ain't mate. Can I call you mate?

I disagree as I've said over the posts about who said what and how meanings got mixed up. Call it an honourable draw then squire?

[rumpelstilzchen]

Call it an honourable draw then squire?

Don't be silly. Anyone can read the thread and see that it was you who made the mistake.

[pigpot]

Call it an honourable draw then squire?

Don't be silly. Anyone can read the thread and see that it was you who made the mistake.

I disagree Sir, pistols at dawn.

"rump" Man, you've got it all wrong same as your government stuff. Just because some says it is so doesn't make it that way. We've had opinions on the matter and you my love aren't right. Consider the matter closed me duck.

Love to ya. p. Mwaaaaa!

[AndyK]

...

Consider the matter closed me duck.

...

And, given the total lack of content, so should be the thread.

[pigpot]

...

Consider the matter closed me duck.

...

And, given the total lack of content, so should be the thread.

More than one contributor "AndyK". I agree close it if you want. It's a mash anyway. My posts have been pulled from their original points. It seems I can't respond where I want due to the restrictions in place that the site accepts the law as is and won't question anything.

Logically apply that to Germany pre-1939 and most would be dead if no-one questioned the status quo. I don't understand the value in that and if you or any here could move me on that with FACTS I would be most appreciative. It's like explaining you are who you are because you are you... Not because you are the product of the breeding of your parents. This site (though entirely entitled to do so) is almost forgetting the two entities that created you (and also their fore-bearers) and saying you are what you are because you are. The law is the law because the law says so is a fantasy. If people cannot see it then the world they wish for will truly be upon them.

Maybe as "Wes" said there's not much more point to it than this so..... I'd like to think so but hey man up to you.

It's a little like the "Theory of Evolution" and saying it all started at the "Big Bang" and not being able to prove the "Big Bang" actually took place.

Over on Marc Stevens site is a copy of this a "Wes" has already been over there and thank him for that please. It's all down to Marc who comes and stays there but I'd like to argue it out with you either here or there, both would be preferable.

Anyway "AndyK" have a good one. Green. Nice.

[The Observer]

My posts have been pulled from their original points. It seems I can't respond where I want due to the restrictions in place that the site accepts the law as is and won't question anything

.

Yes, you do not have the privilege on this site to post as you would like. Nor does anyone else, for that matter. Your posts were moved due to them not being relevant to the thread topic. As much as you would like to share your particular philosophies with us, you cannot do that at the expense of hijacking topics. It only results in chaos, misunderstanding, miscommunication, not to mention ruining a topic for others.

If you have a particular point to make that is outside the subject at hand, then you are welcome to start a new thread (and you get to title the topic as well as a further incentive). And the moderators and admins will ensure that no one comes in and hijacks your thread with irrelevant issues.

As far as the site being accepting of the law "as is", that may be due to the fact that no one has ever been able to come here and prove that the law is somehow wrong or incorrect. Such people have blustered, lied, misquoted, incorrectly cited, and just made up out of whole cloth all sorts of "evidence" proving that the law is wrong or is being applied wrongly, but that is as close as it has gotten. And that ain't close. So I won't be holding my breath thinking that it will be any different with you.

But you do have it wrong about this site not questioning anything. We will question anything you have to say and will expect you to provide verifiable and accurate evidence.

[Burnaby49]

My posts have been pulled from their original points. It seems I can't respond where I want due to the restrictions in place that the site accepts the law as is and won't question anything

.

Yes, you do not have the privilege on this site to post as you would like. Nor does anyone else, for that matter. Your posts were moved due to them not being relevant to the thread topic. As much as you would like to share your particular philosophies with us, you cannot do that at the expense of hijacking topics. It only results in chaos, misunderstanding, miscommunication, not to mention ruining a topic for others.

If you have a particular point to make that is outside the subject at hand, then you are welcome to start a new thread (and you get to title the topic as well as a further incentive). And the moderators and admins will ensure that no one comes in and hijacks your thread with irrelevant issues.

Actually he is free to post pretty much as he likes as long as he does it in this discussion and keeps it civil. He's quite free to hijack his own topics. He's made another gibberish posting in the Menard discussion that I'm still pondering moving but it at least touches Menard peripherally. If he posts any more like it they'll all end up here.

[Hyrion]

Call it an honourable draw then squire?

Don't be silly. Anyone can read the thread and see that it was you who made the mistake.

I disagree Sir, pistols at dawn.

Rumpel... you do realize Pigpot has been baiting you this whole time.

And you kept up a running back-n-forth even while knowing the rest of us could easily see you responded to a specific point of Pigpots and he produced evidence of something completely different.

Since Pigpot could bait you so easily.... I wonder if it can be said Pigpot is quite the Master Baiter.

My apologies if that's too off-color a pun. I saw a reference to Mel Brooks "History Of The World Part I" earlier, remembered that line in the movie and the given situation was a little too irresistible.

[bmxninja357]

Are you saying there is a rump roast in the pig pot?

Ninj

[pigpot]

....What the heck are you lot on about with this stuff about cars and registration....

Come on team. Eyes on the prize. Stay focussed. Not on the man (ad hominem), target the idea.

Peter is a liar and can't possibly be insured. Let me know how you feel about uninsured drivers please because they are a pet hate of mine. And I'm attacking the liar and fraudster not the man. Also, his fake bank and "helping" people in debt is backfiring on the people he claims to help.

Many countries in the world allow uninsured vehicles to run around perfectly well. Even "Western Nations" allow it happen. I'm on the fence about insurance. I pay it. End of. As for the "fake bank" stuff, that's yet to be tested and I'm not bothered about opinions. So we'll see. This video sorts everything out as far as I'm concerned. Here:

Law without Government: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0

[pigpot]

Since Pigpot could bait you so easily.... I wonder if it can be said Pigpot is quite the Master Baiter.

My apologies if that's too off-color a pun.

No, no... I like it. My second title here. First an

annoyance

and now a

Master Baiter

.

Thanks.

[Dr. Caligari]

So we'll see. This video sorts everything out as far as I'm concerned. Here:

How many threads have you pasted that video to?