eFestivals
-
Posts
103,423 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by eFestivals
-
-
4 minutes ago, dentalplan said:
Couple of self confirms in-tandem for those who like their Afrobeats and Jazz fusers:
(the bandsintown listings are somehow connected so I dunno if it's a collab or just how it works on that website)
damn ... I'd already had word of United Vibrations, just hadn't had a chance to put it up yet.
West Holts, so I hear.
i'm guessing that's where Afrquoi are too.
-
4 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:
Don't say they're headlining, come on now
I've heard they're playing, nowt more, tho it's not impossible what i've heard is wrong (tho it's probably not).
I'm not thinking they're headliners.
-
2 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:
Oh no amount of "good luck" was ever going to matter with the unfair trial by a Queen's judge in a Queen's court. I was found "guilty" as expected.
I suspect you'd have been found the same 'guilty' by a people's judge in a people's court.
After all, making threats is a crime and you made threats.
-
2 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:
I wasn't making any kind of "threat" idle or otherwise. It was political rhetoric. The hyperbole gives a strong impression of political opposition but one cannot reasonably take the words literally.
It's just not reasonable to assume I have an army. It is unreasonable to assume I have an army. One cannot reasonably assume that random individuals have armies. That's absurd.
Peter, if you read some words "I want Peter Dow dead", can you wholely dismiss that as merely hyperbole?
Or, because you don't know anything about the person who said it, is there the intellectual room to believe they might have serious intent?
That's why your defence is unlikely to work.
I suspect you made these arguments to the old bill when you were arrested, and they didn't accept them hence you ended up before a court. While it's not certain a court would take the same view, the likelihood is that they will.
Because the court will take the view that the police must have believed enough intent was there to bring it before the court in the first place. That sort of self-re-enforcement of the establishment is their standard operating manner.
-
3 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:
If you think about these words literally, then holding someone's feet to a fire, or sticking a knife in them is gruesome words.
good luck with arguing equivalence of those with what you tweeted. :lol:
-
cabbage.
-
8 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:
No reasonable person could feel threatened
similarly, no reasonable person would write the words you did.
By writing the words you did, you move things into the unreasonable - where it's not unreasonable to assume you meant it.
-
10 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:
Nonsense. "my army" is clearly indicating hyperbole. How many people do you know who have armies?
If you were not making idle threats, you'd probably have that army (or don't you really want to achieve your aims?)
Someone reading that message doesn't know either way, but you say you have one. It's not unreasonable for them to assume you do.
I'm no fan of the old bill, but if you tangle with the man the man will play to his rules and not the rules you'd like him to have.
-
11 minutes ago, Peter Dow said:
I accept full responsibility for my words which were hyperbole and not "threatening" and therefore not criminal.
except there's absolutely nothing to indicate they were hyperbole. To any reader they're a clear threat.
Whether or not a court would accept that because you've not followed thru on similar tweets these are similarly harmless I've no idea, but I wouldn't have thought so. They could simply take the view that you've not followed thru to date but would if you got a reasonable opportunity to do so.
-
22 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:
Does anyone of this forum have any experience organising music festivals? What advice would you give to people that are thinking about giving it a go? How much staff do you believe are necessary? Can it primarily be organised by one person?
Thanks
You need to have a read of this:-
http://www.thepurpleguide.co.uk/ -
36 minutes ago, LJS said:
I refer you to my earlier answer where I exposed the threadbare nature of your argument.
"Scotland is a nation (I'm sure you used to say country) is a simple statement. You may agree or disagree. As a statement it has nothing either civic or ethnic about it. Just as saying "this is a bowl of soup" doesn't tell you if it's tomato or lentil.
You have to ask "what sort of soup?" Or "what sort of nation?"
The answer to the second question contains no blood & no soil."
PMSL
You know i'm right, because you have to lie about how Sturgeon uses that phrase.
-
3 minutes ago, LJS said:
I refer you to my earlier answer where I exposed the threadbare nature of your argument.
you're ignoring the context in which Sturgeon always says those words.
As even Comfy referenced:-
On 2/19/2017 at 1:45 PM, comfortablynumb1910 said:As far as I'm aware, Sturgeon has to state the obvious.....Scotland is a Country.....because people keep putting it to her that some city in England also voted remain.
Do I have to post that cringeworthy interview with Andrew Neil where she used it *exactly* as I'm saying....?
It wasn't said as a statement of fact, it was said as a statement to try to claim a greater right to independence.
What is the civic in demanding a greater right to independence via "Scotland is a country"?
Unless you can tell me with an answer that stands up, the blood and soil stands as true.
-
7 minutes ago, LJS said:
I refer you to my earlier answer where I exposed the threadbare nature of your argument.
"Scotland is a nation (I'm sure you used to say country) is a simple statement. You may agree or disagree. As a statement it has nothing either civic or ethnic about it. Just as saying "this is a bowl of soup" doesn't tell you if it's tomato or lentil.
You have to ask "what sort of soup?" Or "what sort of nation?"
The answer to the second question contains no blood & no soil."
and I refer you to what even comfy referenced, Sturgeon's use of that phrase to claim a greater right to independence.
lookie....
On 2/19/2017 at 1:45 PM, comfortablynumb1910 said:As far as I'm aware, Sturgeon has to state the obvious.....Scotland is a Country.....because people keep putting it to her that some city in England also voted remain.
If it's not blood and soil, you'll have to tell me how the status of any place defines it's civic right to independence.
I keep on asking, and you keep on not answering with deflective bollocks like this.
What is the civic in demanding a greater right to independence via "Scotland is a country"?
Unless you can tell me with an answer that stands up, the blood and soil stands as true.
-
6 minutes ago, russycarps said:
hmm.
yes, indeed. :lol:
-
23 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:
As far as I'm aware, Sturgeon has to state the obvious.....Scotland is a Country.....because people keep putting it to her that some city in England also voted remain.
'some city in England' has the same civic right as anywhere else to demand independence.
What don't you understand about what 'civic' is?
FFS.
What is the civic in demanding a greater right to independence via "Scotland is a country"?
Unless you can tell me with an answer that stands up, the blood and soil stands as true.
-
30 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:
Perhaps I am too stupid. I'll reflect on that.
In case it helps, I note you've slipped greater in again.
the 'greater' right to independence is what she claims when she says "Scotland is a country".
You've even posted within the last few days stating yourself that's what she's doing when she says it.
FFS. It's like trying to have a conversation with a goldfish.
-
5 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:
I have already accepted that your inclusion of greater was in error. I said I accepted that but for clarity I'm saying it again here.
I could have accused you of being a lying moron who was making up bullshit but I am saying that I accept that you made an error :-)
and I could have accused you of avoiding the real question.
And I do, because you are. You're avoiding the question.
Is that because you're too stupid to answer the question, or because you know you need to deflect away from it because I'm right?
What is the civic in demanding a greater right to independence via "Scotland is a country"?
Unless you can tell me with an answer that stands up, the blood and soil stands as true.
-
14 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:
But it appears no-one, apart from you which I accept you have now twice removed, has said greater.
that was cock up, which I managed to copy and so cock-up twice. Ignore, don't be a twat by ignoring me saying it was cock-up.
14 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:Should Scotland be an independent Country.
Scotland is a Country.
Scotland is a country, if you like.
Scotland being a country gives it no greater civic right to independence than a place which isn't currently thought of as a country.
The civic right is given *ONLY* by that civic society, and not by history.
There is no greater right to independence via history. To claim there is is to invoke the blood and soil of that ancient/historical tribal state.
14 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:Ive made my point.
But you still haven't addressed mine.
What is the civic in demanding a greater right to independence via "Scotland is a country"?
Unless you can tell me with an answer that stands up, the blood and soil stands as true.
-
12 minutes ago, Muppetmark said:
@eFestivals you've got the details for wireless festival as the banner in the community festival news article.
doh! Thanks, now corrected.
That'll teach me to copy old articles.
-
19 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:
Why is "Scotland is a greater Country" in quotes ?
Did she say that or have you slipped greater in ?
the 'greater' was simply a typing cockup. i'd seen the error and removed it before you made your post.
whoops, i'd done it twice but only removed one of them. I've now removed the other.
QuoteAre we actually talking about Glasgow being an independent Country......
In the civic world, ANYWHERE can be independent. All it takes is the choice of the demos within the civic society.
What don't you understand about the civic movement you claim to be a part of? FFS.
QuoteAs I've said, I regard Manchester as a City and Wales as a Country. I suspect most people agree. I know I'm wasting my time with this.
Whatever you regard them as, it makes fuck all difference to a civic want to self-determine.
That's what a civic movement is. FFS.
As soon as someone starts invoking a greater right via tribal history, that's blood & soil.
-
9 minutes ago, Stuielooie said:
For £35, this festival looks ideal for me... Does anyone know if this is just on one stage? I would hate if The Wombat and Catfish clash...
Lineup includes:
Catfish and The Bottlemen
The Wombats
Slaves
Nothing But Thieves
The Hunna
Fickle Friends
Darlia
Red Faces
there's no indication of how many stages on the press release.
-
9 minutes ago, LJS said:
I think we just need to give up on this comfy and leave Neil to his Nazi delusions.
Why not actually address the question I asked?
Until you actually do, you're addressing nothing of what I've said.
Is that because you're thick, or because you know I'm right?
Here's that question again:-
what is the 'civic' when Sturgeon claims a greater right to new-nationhood with the words "Scotland is a country"?
-
56 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:
Yes I think Wales could be an independent Country if the people living there wanted it to be. I've no idea why anyone would have a problem with that.
In my view, Glasgow could not be an independent Country.
Why not?
In the civic world, it only requires a civic decision.
Meanwhile, Sturgeon invokes blood and soil each time she says "Scotland is a country" to claim a greater right to nationhood than just a civic decision.
QuoteI have already accepted that you don't recognise Scotland as a Country so not even sure why I'm responding to this Country stuff lol.
Whether I recognise Scotland as a country or not is no part of what I'm raising and you're trying to deflect from.
I recognise that Sturgeon claims a greater right to a new sovereign country of Scotland via Scotland's blood and soil past.
Why won't you address that? Because you know I'm right, or because you're just too thick for this discussion?
QuoteYou say Scotland could be an independent Country. Nicola Sturgeon says Scotland is a Country and thinks it should be independent. I think Scotland is a Country that could be independent.
Nicola also says "Scotland is a country" to claim a greater right to independence than other places.
A claim that is absent of anything civic, and which invokes Scotland's past as a blood and soil nation.
-
22 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:
It's almost as if you have ran out of ideas here mate.
PMSL.
Says the man who has run out of answers to deflect the fact of Sturgeon's words.
QuoteShould Scotland be an independent Country. This was the question.
which Scotland's past status as a country has fuck all to do with.
people in Scotland either vote for a new sovereign Scotland or they don't.
Demanding a greater right of indy because "Scotland is a country" has fuck all to do with anything of that, apart from its past as a blood and soil nation.
QuoteYou yourself have previously stated Scotland could be an independent Country.
It could be.
And you've stated it will be a much poorer one, and (finally) agreed with what i've been saying for 3+ years.
QuoteGlasgow is a City. Wales is a Country. There's nothing to see here.
Glasgow is a city. Does that give it a greater right to be an independent city?
Wales is a country. Does that give it a greater right to be an independent country?
Texas is a country. Does that give it a greater right to be an independent country?
Scotland is a country. Does that give it a greater right to be an independent country?
Nope.
So why does Sturgeon claim that it does, unless the blood and soil of the part gives a greater right to now?
QuoteDesperate scenes.
Yep, you and LJS keep on posting all sorts of empty bollocks that never actually addresses what the 'civic' is when that greater right is demanded.
It's very desperate of you.
Peter Dow's political defence -v- "criminal tweets" charge
in Discussions
Posted
so does the subjectivity of the reader. You cannot define that subjectivity for them, apart from via the specific words you use.
And seeing as you didn't lead them towards a conclusion of hyperbole, that's not necessarily what they'll subjectively take from your words.
Which is why you were found guilty.