dieseldave:
Carryfast:
Seems to me that I’m getting blamed just because people can’t,or don’t want to,see or understand the obvious connections between all the (relevant) different aspects of history,which,contrary to RobK’s,kr79’s and switchlogic’s bs and dd’s accusations,that I’ve ‘actually’ referred to on this topic,and where those aspects have gone wrong,that have brought the zb place to where it is now. 
Hi Carryfast,
I’m not sure it’s quite true to say that I accused you of anything, so I went back and had a look at my post. I see that I asked you a couple of questions, which you’ve unskillfully avoided (no surprise there) and I also suggested that “only you could join the dots on that lot.”
Then in another topic you wrote this:
Carryfast:
You seem to be good at making statements but not much good when it comes to justifying them with some reasons.
My questions still stand.
YOU joined the dots, and without becoming involved in the nitty-gritty of the discussion, I simply asked for your reasons, because I’ll openly admit that I couldn’t understand your logic. If you choose not to answer, or give evasive answers, then that’s fine as long as you accept that others may notice and comment on it.
It seems your own quote from the other topic has come back to bite you in the ■■■. 
Carryfast:
So why not just change the forum rules to make it so that anyone who disagrees with RobK etc has their disagreements deleted 
.
Wouldn’t the reverse question be equally valid then? … should anybody who dares to discuss something you wrote be banned from answering?
IMHO, both propositions are as ridiculous as each other.
There ya go, I’ve said my idea is ridiculous, now what do you think of yours?
Here’s a little theory that I’ve formulated:
If somebody posts a psychology/sociology thesis in answer to a post, the replies might turn out to be as lengthy as the thesis itself.
I’d like to ask you another question… if somebody posts something on a public discussion forum, can they seriously expect it to go without being err… discussed ?
And you say you can’t understand my logic. 
If I’ve read it right it was RobK who asked you to delete all of my posts and you said that you’re sorely tempted but the rules won’t let you do it .I’ve not gone whining to you about deleting anyone’s posts concerning any of the bs arguments and comments they’ve made regarding what I’ve posted but I then said if you’re not happy then just do it anyway.Although I still can’t understand the reasoning behind all the bs.
I did join the dots and the logic behind it all is clear.In the context of my reference to the issues that applied at the time of integrationist bs legislation in the states there’s evidence which I’ve posted to show that it was the ethnic european white population in those states who (rightly) wanted to keep segregation from the ethnic black population and got branded as racists for doing so.The ethnic african black population wanted ‘integration’ with the ethnic european white population against the will of that population and eventually got what they wanted by force using the ethnic european white population’s police force to do it on the basis that anyone who disagrees is a racist.
Those police forces,like ours,only have themselves to blame now for the situations they keep finding themselves in concerning the contradiction of an ethnic european white police force trying to police an alienated ethnic african black population who’s idea of society is different to ours.
If you can’t understand how that directly had an effect on all future policies,both in the states and here,and how that has resulted in the situation that we’re in now,in which the white ethnic european police force here,can’t effectively do it’s job in ethnic african black majority areas,on the basis of policing by consent, that’s not my fault.The fact is that RobK has posted a bs argument that contradicts what is possible for the police to implement without causing even further issues and trouble and without exposing themselves to further unacceptable risks.However I did’nt at any time ask for his posts to be removed unlike he asked in the case of mine.
The fact is all of the continuing issues both in the states and here which followed the bs integrationist agenda started in the southern states of america during the 1950’s/60’s have shown that those who stood against it like in the video which I posted were correct.
By the way notice the difference between the peaceful methods of protest used by that ethnic european white so called racist population and those used during the continuing public unrest caused by the ethnic african populations every time that they feel they have a grievance.Ironically it seems that in this case that peacefully demonstrating ethnic european white population there then faced tougher police action,than the violent disorder that we’re seeing now caused by the ethnic african black population here now.No prizes for guessing why.
I’ve posted it again in case you missed it the first time.
youtube.com/watch?v=5z1NLMdpmc4
On the subject of statements without reason on the other topic I was referring to switchlogic’s bs saying I’m a very confused man.He did just make a statement and he did’nt provide any reasons.But if I’m so confused maybe I’ll get an answer from the experts like wheelnut,RobK,you or switchlogic as to why it is that old Surrey town of Croydon,now part of south London, ended up subject to a riot but Epsom,Caterham, Reigate,Leatherhead,Dorking and Guildford did’nt .
its a case of you or them if you go armed for trouble 
being at davies turner of dartford is another kind of nightmare 
