Slow news day? Woman calls a letter from the PM an "insult"

[StefanWolves]

he should lie? ***, I NEVER said that? I advise you go re-read my posts as I didn't say he should lie. I said he should have got someone else to write what he was saying. Instead of writing 'dribble' like that.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Again, this has nothing to do with war... This whole discussion is revolving around common courtesy and basic human kindness, qualities Mrs. Janes lacks. Also, honour is in the eye of the beholder, much like beauty, heroics and so forth. Gordon Brown says he is an honourable and "great" man, these are qualities which can only label a man if they come from someone else (Mr. Janes could not call himself honourable, there needs to be reasons both in action and what is perceived, his friends called him honourable, as with family and someone with a high-status). She literally just urinated on someone calling him honourable and great, not something you should do to your son :rolleyes: Basically like saying "Cheryl Cole is a very beautiful woman" and then someone else saying "this is an insult!" which in turn looks like the person who is "insulted" disagrees with the fact, as Mrs. Janes has done with her son, she took no acknowledgement in the letter other than his arguably "poor" writing. She's a vile woman.

So yeah, get off the war and government argument, it's totally irrelevant, this is about a woman who is too up her own bottom to take the kind words of an individual, simply because of a few minor issues. It's pathetic.

I wouldn't call the woman vile/unhuman compared to Gordon Brown and more so Tony Blair, because all she did was make a petty complaint about a letter, whereas they sent her son to his death for no reason what so ever. That is my point, and its pretty simple; a unjust war which causes death is far more important to be moaning about than a womans opinions on a letter.

[GommeInc]

he should lie? ***, I NEVER said that? I advise you go re-read my posts as I didn't say he should lie. I said he should have got someone else to write what he was saying. Instead of writing 'dribble' like that.

Unlike you, I remember arguments. You suggested that Gordon Brown should have got someone else to write the letter on his behalf:

What use it it someone else writing it? I'll tell you - a well stuctured and well worded letter, the poor women is not going to know the difference between Brown writing it or someone else sitting next to him handwriting what he is saying? it's just common sense - if he isn't up to writing it, then get someone else to write what you are saying, it really isn't rocket science.

You are suggesting someone else write the letter, with his name signed at the bottom. This is lying. He would infact be lying if the letter was signed by him, but not written by him. If he was next to the writer, it would of said "From the Office of the Prime Minister", not signed "Gordon Brown, Prime Minister" for this would be lying to the receiver, for it is not from Gordon Brown himself.

So don't say I was typing dribble, because what you said in your original two posts was exactly that You've discredited those posts, which suggests they were not thought through.

I wouldn't call the woman vile/unhuman compared to Gordon Brown and more so Tony Blair, because all she did was make a petty complaint about a letter, whereas they sent her son to his death for no reason what so ever. That is my point, and its pretty simple; a unjust war which causes death is far more important to be moaning about than a womans opinions on a letter.

Again, you miss the point and keep mentioning war, this has nothing to do with war :/ She is discrediting a letter, that's it. If it was Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or The Queen who wrote that letter, disregarding it is a disgusting thing to do all because of something trivial like bad spelling/writing. Who cares if "they sent him to war", that's irrelevant to the central argument. The central argument is about decency and basic human kindness and indeed respect. You're adding the war to make it relevant, but no one other than you has mentioned the war. I might as well go ahead and mention the Royal Mail :/ It would be totally irrelevant.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Again, you miss the point and keep mentioning war, this has nothing to do with war :/ She is discrediting a letter, that's it. If it was Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or The Queen who wrote that letter, disregarding it is a disgusting thing to do all because of something trivial like bad spelling/writing. Who cares if "they sent him to war", that's irrelevant to the central argument. The central argument is about decency and basic human kindness and indeed respect. You're adding the war to make it relevant, but no one other than you has mentioned the war. I might as well go ahead and mention the Royal Mail :/ It would be totally irrelevant.

No you have it wrong, I am making the point that while you call her vile while shes just lost her son and seem to have a lot to say over her having some petty issue over a letter, if she is vile for making a fuss over a letter then where do you place Gordon Brown and Tony Blair because they were the ones who sent her son to his death for no reason what so ever. If you want respect as a human being then you don't send a mothers son into a unjust war.

..and no, her son was not fighting the Royal Mail, her son was fighting in Afghanistan, so you are right, the Royal Mail doesn't have anything to do with it.

[GommeInc]

No you have it wrong, I am making the point that while you call her vile while shes just lost her son and seem to have a lot to say over her having some petty issue over a letter, if she is vile for making a fuss over a letter then where do you place Gordon Brown and Tony Blair because they were the ones who sent her son to his death for no reason what so ever. If you want respect as a human being then you don't send a mothers son into a unjust war.

..and no, her son was not fighting the Royal Mail, her son was fighting in Afghanistan, so you are right, the Royal Mail doesn't have anything to do with it.

Again, pointless to the argument for they did not send her son to war. Gordon Brown didn't physically drive, fly and then kick him out into the desert. Saying "I think Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are vile" would be ignorant, as they are not the only ones behind this war. Also, if my maths is correct, he joined the military while the war was happening, so yeah, it is even more irrelevant to the discussion, saying he was kicked when he happily walked into it himself (unless he joined the army when he was 11?)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Again, pointless to the argument for they did not send her son to war. Gordon Brown didn't physically drive, fly and then kick him out into the desert. Saying I think Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are vile would be ignorant, as they are not the only ones behind this war. Also, if my maths are correct, he joined the military while the war was happening, so yeah, it is even more irrelevant to the discussion, saying he was kicked when he happily walked into it himself (unless he joined the army when he was 11?)

He could of walked out, you are right, maybe he enjoyed his job - i'm not disputing that he didn't. I am saying that in my opinion Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are the vile ones for sending these young men and women to war for an unjust cause, without correct equipment and to support a puppet regime which is corrupt and rigs elections - whereas the woman is just being petty.

[StefanWolves]

Unlike you, I remember arguments. You suggested that Gordon Brown should have got someone else to write the letter on his behalf:



You are suggesting someone else write the letter, with his name signed at the bottom. This is lying. He would infact be lying if the letter was signed by him, but not written by him. If he was next to the writer, it would of said "From the Office of the Prime Minister", not signed "Gordon Brown, Prime Minister" for this would be lying to the receiver, for it is not from Gordon Brown himself.

So don't say I was typing dribble, because what you said in your original two posts was exactly that You've discredited those posts, which suggests they were not thought through.


Again, you miss the point and keep mentioning war, this has nothing to do with war :/ She is discrediting a letter, that's it. If it was Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or The Queen who wrote that letter, disregarding it is a disgusting thing to do all because of something trivial like bad spelling/writing. Who cares if "they sent him to war", that's irrelevant to the central argument. The central argument is about decency and basic human kindness and indeed respect. You're adding the war to make it relevant, but no one other than you has mentioned the war. I might as well go ahead and mention the Royal Mail :/ It would be totally irrelevant.

Go read it again, ARE YOU BLIND?

What use it it someone else writing it? I'll tell you - a well stuctured and well worded letter, the poor women is not going to know the difference between Brown writing it or someone else sitting next to him handwriting what he is saying? it's just common sense - if he isn't up to writing it, then get someone else to write what you are saying, it really isn't rocket science.

A well written letter written by someone besides the prime minister, but taken from the prime ministers actual words is much better than a letter written by himself in a messy fashion. It would still be FROM him, he would still be SAYING it, just not writing it down. It's still HIS words.

[GommeInc]

Go read it again, ARE YOU BLIND?

Read what I wrote, are you BLIND as well as a 6 letter S word?

You are suggesting someone else write the letter with his name at the bottom. This would be lying, as he personally writes the letters and always has done, if he didn't he would be lying to the person(s), especially as his hand-writing is clearly recognisable. HE writes the letters, get HE in that little head of yours Having someone else write them, with him next to them, would be lying, he is not writing them merely dictating what should be said. This isn't him writing them, he is merely speaking the words in order to be written.

Just leave this argument, as you appear to have lost when Jordy corrected you ages ago. Calling the woman a "poor women" is quite a bad thing to say when you're suggesting someone else writes the letter, because she "is not going to know the difference between Brown writing it or someone else sitting next to him". That is lying :eusa_whis He didn't write the letter, someone else did.

I've noticed how you're not denying the letter was bad, only the handwriting, so yes, you have no central argument as you seem to be hell-bent on the style of his writing and NOT the content. The content of the letter was very good and quite heart-felt. So yes... You're one of these people who, upon receiving a letter from a sweet-heart, will judge how much she cares on the style of hand-writing, and not the content inside. You little teaser

[StefanWolves]

WHERE DID I SAY SOMEONE ELSE WRITE IT WITH HIS NAME AT THE BOTTOM?

All I was saying was that some one else should WRITE what he is SAYING. This is NOT lying, I also said NOTHING about the signage at the bottom, stop making it up as you go along lol.

[GommeInc]

WHERE DID I SAY SOMEONE ELSE WRITE IT WITH HIS NAME AT THE BOTTOM?

All I was saying was that some one else should WRITE what he is SAYING. This is NOT lying, I also said NOTHING about the signage at the bottom, stop making it up as you go along lol.

You didn't, you're suggesting a woman is given a letter by some un-named informant and not Gordon Brown. Well done, that will confuse the poor woman. Gordon Brown always writes these letters, and signs them on behalf of himself. And the signage is how you know who it comes from, dear

And again, you're only caring about the handwriting, not the content of the letter. You're as bad as the woman, blind. The content of the letter is what matters, and the handwriting wasn't even that bad. You're just making it up as you go along it seems.

Can I ask you, why you think this letter "is an insult"? Because I'm getting the idea you don't actually know...