chikrodah

Bob, I often wonder just how much you retain of what you read when others post.

Come to that, I often wonder just how much you remember from what you post yourself.

You stated in http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/ukip...tml#post536115
Now, you've been told, not just by Aardvark, but also by your mysterious friends with their undisclosed emails, that Aardvark is ex-RAF. 16 years as an RAF officer, as well as 8 years experience in international democratisation and monitoring gives Aardvark a certain amount of background experience in a wide number of areas including, funnily enough, a variety of aircraft types and their uses, not to mention the current state of affairs re Russia and Georgia. He is respected for that experience by many in UKIP, you and your friends' opinions notwithstanding.

Aardvark posted, in response to your opening gambit re the state of the UK's SeaKings (http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/ukip...tml#post536263):
You had referred to your son and his rank in the Navy. It is logical that Aardvark might also refer to the Navy in his response. Those without your reaction to him probably read his post in a different way to yours.

No matter. You needed to prove that you were right, and referred us to an article mentioning RAF SAR aircrew being deployed. No mention was made of the aircraft being deployed. You misinterpreted the information.

You then, apparently, made another post to prove you were right, of which we have one sentence quoted by Aardvark. That sentence puts his post http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/ukip...tml#post536276 into perspective as his opening line was cryptic without it. You deleted that post, on your own admission, as it was inaccurate.

You see, Bob, I know you edited your post http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/ukip...tml#post536368

I know exactly what you edited because I read your post as it was originally loaded (hence my previous questions).

The amendments you added were: You are, IMHO, protesting too much. You are the one who has repeatedly referred to being in contact with others re Aardvark. You are the one who has repeatedly referred to the mystic email that reveals all about Aardvark. You are the one who is obsessed with your status as PPC as well as Aardvark's non-PPC status. You are the one who is demonstrating obsessive, if not paranoid, reactions to those who disagree with you.

I suggest you spend a few weeks in a remote Eastern European country with a radio modem as your only means of internet connection before you claim to know anything about the type and quantity of lag that can be experienced between submitting two posts to a discussion forum hosted outside that country. I could go into details regarding packet latency, but I can't be bothered.

I disagree with Aardvark on one thing, though. IMHO, your ability to misinterpret facts, rebuff well-reasoned points with ad-hominem attacks, claim victimisation and persecution when it does not exist, and present poorly researched information as the whole story makes you an obvious choice for a UKIP PPC.

Bob FM

What a laugh, I haven't chuckled so much for ages. chikrodah in your attempts to defend your friend you just indicate so clearly why he has never achieved within UKIP what he set out to do. It matter not what I think about him, to be honest having read his various contributions in the public domain, he comes across exactly as decribed in the emails I have been sent.

You repeat his diatribes with great gusto, which is your choice. The only fact you post is that I am a PPC.

chikrodah

I'm glad you felt entertained.

What exactly has Aardvark set out to do? Names, dates, figures, achievements, results.

What exactly has he not achieved? Response as above, please.

What contributions have you read that are in the public domain? Sources, please.

What are the contents of the emails you have been sent? Who are they from?

If you re-read my post, something you obviously haven't done properly so far, you will note that I haven't repeated any diatribe of Aardvark's. Correct me with reference to the exact line(s) in my post dated 1043 today.


Thank you for confirming that as far as you are concerned, the following are not facts:

1. Quote:

   You stated in http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/ukip...tml#post536115 ...

2. Quote:

   ...you've been told, not just by Aardvark, but also by your mysterious friends with their undisclosed emails, that Aardvark is ex-RAF

3. Quote:

   16 years as an RAF officer, as well as 8 years experience in international democratisation and monitoring gives Aardvark a certain amount of background experience in a wide number of areas including, funnily enough, a variety of aircraft types and their uses, not to mention the current state of affairs re Russia and Georgia.

4. Quote:

   He is respected for that experience by many in UKIP, you and your friends' opinions notwithstanding.

5. Quote:

   Aardvark posted, in response to your opening gambit re the state of the UK's SeaKings (http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/ukip...tml#post536263):

6. Quote:

   You had referred to your son and his rank in the Navy.

7. Quote:

   You needed to prove that you were right, and referred us to an article mentioning RAF SAR aircrew being deployed. No mention was made of the aircraft being deployed. You misinterpreted the information.

8. Quote:

   You then, apparently, made another post to prove you were right, of which we have one sentence quoted by Aardvark. That sentence puts his post http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/ukip...tml#post536276 into perspective as his opening line was cryptic without it. You deleted that post, on your own admission, as it was inaccurate.

9. Quote:

   I know exactly what you edited because I read your post as it was originally loaded (hence my previous questions).

May I suggest you provide evidence as soon as possible regarding your decision not to accept these statements as facts.

Bob FM

I am not playing your silly games sorry. I don't have the time to post endless screeds, I post in between working for a living.

chikrodah

Sorry, Bob, not good enough. You posted various claims. You called me a liar, remember. . By implication, you suggest that Aardvark is a liar. I have asked you to provide the evidence to back up your claims. You refused. I'm offering you the opportunity to retract your statement or provide evidence.

Bob FM

The facts, as you claim them to be, are not yours. By the way your perception of 'implication' is also not fact, it is your opinion.
Whilst I'm at it moderators I have not seen your ruling re my earlier request.

chikrodah

Bob, prevarication is not going to help here.

You posted You have chosen not to provide evidence of your claims re and as well as You stated which you took from one of my opinions.

You did not categorically state what facts you were referring to when you posted I posted a number of facts. State how those facts fall into your definition that I did not claim them to be facts. They are facts. Whether they were originally posted by me or not, they are still facts. Your denying my "ownership" of them does not allow you to evade my statement that you called me a liar and I require evidence from you to support your statement or a retraction.

By denying the existence of the facts I posted, including the facts re that which Aardvark has told you and his experience in two separate careers, you are implying that Aardvark is a liar as well. That is not perception or opinion. That is a fact.

Please state clearly and categorically which facts you accept and which facts you deny. Alternatively, I will accept a retraction and apology. After all, I appreciate that you are a very busy publican.

Aardvark

Bob, I am happy for all facts relating to me on this thread to be shared. You are hiding from the fact that your inaccurate post, albeit withdrawn, was couched in a sarcastic way to suggest that as nobody had posted the rubbish you posted on the forum it 'can't be true'. In fact nobody posted it because it wasn't true.

Your 2 posts were both posted before I replied to either and therefore you were confident that you knew more about Sea Kings than I. Because I denied what you had said I was lying as the truth hadn't been posted on the forum, apparently.

You may chuckle, from a warped sense of humour or what I do not know, but the fact is you posted something as true and hinted that to deny it was a denial of that truth. You have been caught telling porkies to support your lack of evidence and now you're ducking and weaving and trying to attack others.

I originally joined UKIP to contest the 2005 General Election and had not been a member before that date, although I voted UKIP in 2004. What I achieved with little preparation for my candidacy and with a small team of dedicated helpers was the largest UKIP vote, both numerically and in percentage terms, in Oxfordshire, at the last GE. That is all I could have hoped to achieve and so I can't see how I have failed. Your votes haven't been counted yet; I'd wait until you have beaten my result before you crow about achievements.

I am still available on the head office list as a PPC at the next GE.

You still assert that the truth is not the truth although you cannot support such assertions. You keep talking about the e-mails you have received, but have never dared share the names of the anonymous people who brief against me. You take as truth criticisms of me, but won't let me clarify them. Everything that you have been told could be a lie, and I suspect that a lot of it is since the people who contacted you are IMHO liars. If they were honest they would allow you to share the information, but they won't as they know that they cannot prove their assertions.

Do you really think that a Russian citizen should be UKIP's spokesman on policy toward Russia?

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Aardvark

Bob, The mods don't follow every post of every thread and many of us don't read all of your posts. If you have a complaint to make you should put it in the complaints section where the mods do look. If you suspect that I have done something wrong you can write to Anthony. I'm obviously content with my own postings; IMHO they're all brilliant, well crafted and frequently contain native wit.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Bob FM

IMHO they're all brilliant, well crafted and frequently contain native wit. Whoopy do, self praise is no recommendation. So if I have libel either you or your mate then feel free to sue me.