"we're all in this together"

[eFestivals]

No Neil.

The policy is 'scrapping ID cards', the reasoning of which you say is strictly ideological. Therefore, if you both share the same policy you both share the same ideological reasoning.

However, if a policy is free from ideological reasoning (which you say isn't possible) then the policy can be shared without sharing the same ideological reasoning.

You share the same policy and not the same ideologoical reasoning. Therefore, that particular policy is not ideologically bound. So you can't call all of the policy used by the tories ideological in nature.

No, the policy is "scrapping ID cards for reason X, Y & Z".

I refer you to the definition of 'policy'.

pol·i·cy

1    /ˈpɒləsi/ Show Spelled[pol-uh-see] Show IPA

–noun, plural -cies.

1. a definite course of action adopted for the sake of expediency, facility, etc.: We have a new company policy.

2. a course of action adopted and pursued by a government, ruler, political party, etc.: our nation's foreign policy.

3. action or procedure conforming to or considered with reference to prudence or expediency: It was good policy to consent.

4. sagacity; shrewdness: Showing great policy, he pitted his enemies against one another.

5. Rare . government; polity.

Do I also need to refer you to the definition of expediency? Or are you going to do the honourable thing and own up to yourself being a twat of the highest order who invents false meanings for words and expects others to mindlessly accept your belief in your own genius?

[worm]

They are not the same policy

Edited October 26, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

They are, in everything other than reasoning.

The reasoning is a part of the policy.

Unless you want to show me a policy that exists for no reason?

I refer you again to the definition of policy.

Mind you, you being the world's biggest expert on language as you've claimed, I really shouldn't need to do that.

[worm]

No, the policy is "scrapping ID cards for reason X, Y & Z".

[worm]

The reasoning is a part of the policy.

Edited October 26, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

Let's try a little of "the world according to worm" then, shall we....?

As I'm sure you're all aware, I have a policy of banning people from using these forums, sometimes.

It's a policy that gets implemented in the event of serious wrongdoing (to use an extreme example for clarity: using these forums to make threats of violence to another user here).

It's a policy that worm himself has commented on before now and approved of.

Now, seeing as the reasoning for that policy isn't any part of that policy (according to worm), and approval of the policy is a blanket approval of the policy for any implementation, then worm 100% approves of what I might do next.

Bye worm.

[worm]

Now, seeing as the reasoning for that policy isn't any part of that policy (according to worm), and approval of the policy is a blanket approval of the policy for any implementation, then worm 100% approves of what I might do next.

Edited October 27, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

are you banning him?

nope, because I'm not a sad f**ker who has a policy for no reason, because there is no such thing as any policy for no reason.

[eFestivals]

Wrong.....

The rule cannot be said to accord to your ideological reasoning alone as I agree with it, while disagreeing with your ideology.

Your own words say....

The policy is 'banning'. You've stated your full approval of banning. Reasons don't come into why people might be banned.

The consequence is being banned.

You therefore approve of me banning you, no matter why I might chose to ban you.

-----

But oh look, you've jumped again.

You've now ceased to talk about policy and instead swapped back to ideology. You're fooling no one you moron. Diversion tactics are as obvious as things can get.

You approve of any banning I might do. for whatever reason I choose to do it. That's because you approve of the banning policy (which you've previously clearly stated as being the case) in all circumstances. Your words.

[llcoolphil]

Oh, so to support your stupidity, you reckon that your idea having a greater number of the stupid makes you right?

[Pogues Mcgogues]

I just like to say I agree with worm.

[eFestivals]

I just like to say I agree with worm.

In which case you agree with worm being banned, and him being exceedingly happy about it.

But as worm has shown previously, he doesn't agree with being banned. In fact, he absolutely detests the idea and thinks it's wrong.

So while you agree with worm, worm doesn't even agree with himself.

[eFestivals]

So when I repost what I've actually said and that reposting highlights that what you've said I've posted is totally and utterly wrong - and I mean totally and utterly wrong, not a bit wrong or a misinterpretation - you being wrong makes me stupid now does it? If it wasn't that everybody already knows you'll never admit to being wrong, you'd be embarrassing yourself now.

I note that you haven't responded to the post that highlights your current position of village idiot.

I look forwards to you reporting all you've ever posted, so that you can prove yourself correct (anything less proves nothing ).

If I've got you wrong, we wouldn't be here in the first place.

But anyway, you've replied here to something else entirely, to a statement of worm's that policy has no trace of ideology within it, and that reasons are not any part of any policy.

So just as I've asked worm to do, I'll ask you: please show me a policy that exists for no reason. That's the only thing that proves your take as right.

As both you and I know you can't do that, try an intelligent approach instead. What causes a policy to be formed? Answer: an underlying idea.

Now, tell me again that ideology has nothing to do with any policy.

[worm]

The policy is 'banning'.

[worm]

You're totally crap at everything language based.

Edited October 29, 2010 by worm

[RABun]

Boris said something i agree with

[eFestivals]

Then what you said is incorrect as I don't believe in banning without discrimination. However, the policy of 'banning' is analogous to the policy of 'scrapping', not scrapping ID cards, so your analogy is not valid.

You're totally crap at everything language based. It's hilarious, given your opinion of yourself.

It's a policy of "banning people", which is fully analogous with "scrapping ID cards". With both you have "action", and "where applied".

And as you get to show, your agreement with "banning people" is 100% based within the reason of why they might be banned. You are not giving blanket approval to any and all banning, you are only giving it where you feel there is good reason for banning.

Oh dear, you've just proven yourself 100% wrong.

Not that it's a surprise. You always talk crap.

Edited October 28, 2010 by eFestivals

[llcoolphil]

Boris said something i agree with

[MrZigster]

Boris said something i agree with

[eFestivals]

It shows that announcing cuts and actually achieving them might not actually be the same thing.

Yup. Dave Moron is starting to discover that you can't run a country with PR, because it's a job that requires substance.

Still, I guess you have to allow a man doing his first real job a bit of slack, eh?

[sifi]

It shows that announcing cuts and actually achieving them might not actually be the same thing.

[worm]

You're totally crap at everything language based.

Edited October 29, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

Banning people is not analogous with scrapping ID cards. Banning people is analogous with scrapping cards. Banning UNRULY people is fair analogy of scrapping ID cards. The adjective is key here.

You talking worthless bollocks is key here.

Right. So as I said, I do not agree with your policy. The analogy doesn't work.

But you DO agree with banning people - you stated it explicitly in this thread in the last day or two, and you've stated it again below.

I don't agree with the policy of banning people undiscriminately. I agree with the policy of banning certain posters.

I don't agree with banning people. I agree with banning certain types of posts (or certain people, if you like).

So what you're saying is that it gets your approval only if the REASONS for the banning meet your approval.

Which is funnily enough my exact stance towards the scrapping of ID cards.

Which you said isn't possible.

Playing the petty semantic game is dull Neil.

You really are an utter moron, aren't you?

YOU are the person who started "playing the petty semantic game", and now you've lost at the game you started you're looking for a way out.

Prick.

[llcoolphil]

Yup. Dave Moron is starting to discover that you can't run a country with PR, because it's a job that requires substance.

Still, I guess you have to allow a man doing his first real job a bit of slack, eh?

[llcoolphil]

I thinking the word cleansing is a bit heavy to be honest. It's more like social engineering.