Mrs Merkel

[Brian Kirby]

Yes, English is exact. But it is unreasonable, IMO, to try to introduce specific legal definitions into conversations between non-lawyers in order to score points. By all means point out the difference and seek a clarification. That would be reasonable.

 

But just writing off someone's contribution as "crap" because they used a word that has a particular meaning in a specific legal context, of which I suspect neither the author nor a majority of readers would be aware, is not, IMO, reasonable.

 

So that we can all be clear, do you have a legal definition for crap? :-D

[antony1969]

Maybe Barry could start by putting up one or two of these young men fleeing war and persecution ... Poor darlings ... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5115441/Albanian-stowaways-sneaking-Britain.html#ixzz4zR5jZeB4

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 11:04 AMYes, English is exact. But it is unreasonable, IMO, to try to introduce specific legal definitions into conversations between non-lawyers in order to score points. By all means point out the difference and seek a clarification. That would be reasonable. But just writing off someone's contribution as "crap" because they used a word that has a particular meaning in a specific legal context, of which I suspect neither the author nor a majority of readers would be aware, is not, IMO, reasonable. So that we can all be clear, do you have a legal definition for crap? :-D

It really does seem to me that you are rather hypocritical in your defence of Barry's incorrect use of 'refugee' yet you criticised another poster for not being sufficiently precise regarding some/all during a Muslim/Islam debate.  On my intervention it was you who brought the preciseness/legal aspect of usage of the English language into the 'ring' yet you now challenge my contention that Barry's claim was sensationalised (crap) by the use of the term 'refugees' as an all encompassing description for those who are genuine refugees and those 'internally displaced' persons. 

So which is it to be?  Are you correct this time and incorrect previously or vice versa?

I presume your question regarding the legal definition of 'crap' was a pointless 'dig' but by the by here it is:

'The definition of crap is a slang and vulgar term for feces, nonsense or filth.

Read more at http://law.yourdictionary.com/crap#R5CWJS9EjHrKVbDm.99

Clearly appropriate use of the word when one accepts it does actually apply to the claim it referred to.  :-)

[Guest pelmetman]

antony1969 - 2017-11-25 12:10 PM

 

Maybe Barry could start by putting up one or two of these young men fleeing war and persecution ... Poor darlings ... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5115441/Albanian-stowaways-sneaking-Britain.html#ixzz4zR5jZeB4

 

WOT? 8-) .......

 

You mean the forums do gooders having the courage of their convictions? >:-) ........

 

It'll never happen Antony......They're just Plastic Do Gooders (lol) .........

 

All full of P*ss & Impotence >:-) .......

 

 

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-11-25 12:10 PM

 

Maybe Barry could start by putting up one or two of these young men fleeing war and persecution ... Poor darlings ... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5115441/Albanian-stowaways-sneaking-Britain.html#ixzz4zR5jZeB4

 

A rather good article Antony on the "pull factors" that lead so many Albanians send their children/young adults to the UK. In my view they remain poor darlings in one sense. I visited a local car wash once and never again as it was obviously involved in the slave trade. These establishments are getting away most vile and obvious exploitation of slave labour every day of the week up and down the country in full view of users and the police. Close them down and we would be doing much to address their parents' desire to send them here.

Veronica

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 3:03 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-11-25 12:10 PM

 

Maybe Barry could start by putting up one or two of these young men fleeing war and persecution ... Poor darlings ... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5115441/Albanian-stowaways-sneaking-Britain.html#ixzz4zR5jZeB4

 

A rather good article Antony on the "pull factors" that lead so many Albanians send their children/young adults to the UK. In my view they remain poor darlings in one sense. I visited a local car wash once and never again as it was obviously involved in the slave trade. These establishments are getting away most vile and obvious exploitation of slave labour every day of the week up and down the country in full view of users and the police. Close them down and we would be doing much to address their parents' desire to send them here.

Veronica

 

Yes I can see why their parents send them here from war torn Albania too ... I liked the bit in the article where the Albanian government allegedly said Britain was a soft touch ... Poor darlings ... Lets hope they find a nice family to stay with very soon

[Guest pelmetman]

antony1969 - 2017-11-25 3:27 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 3:03 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-11-25 12:10 PM

 

Maybe Barry could start by putting up one or two of these young men fleeing war and persecution ... Poor darlings ... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5115441/Albanian-stowaways-sneaking-Britain.html#ixzz4zR5jZeB4

 

A rather good article Antony on the "pull factors" that lead so many Albanians send their children/young adults to the UK. In my view they remain poor darlings in one sense. I visited a local car wash once and never again as it was obviously involved in the slave trade. These establishments are getting away most vile and obvious exploitation of slave labour every day of the week up and down the country in full view of users and the police. Close them down and we would be doing much to address their parents' desire to send them here.

Veronica

 

Yes I can see why their parents send them here from war torn Albania too ... I liked the bit in the article where the Albanian government allegedly said Britain was a soft touch ... Poor darlings ... Lets hope they find a nice family to stay with very soon

 

Apparently there's space at Bullets gaff ;-) ........

 

 

[antony1969]

pelmetman - 2017-11-25 5:09 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-11-25 3:27 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 3:03 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-11-25 12:10 PM

 

Maybe Barry could start by putting up one or two of these young men fleeing war and persecution ... Poor darlings ... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5115441/Albanian-stowaways-sneaking-Britain.html#ixzz4zR5jZeB4

 

A rather good article Antony on the "pull factors" that lead so many Albanians send their children/young adults to the UK. In my view they remain poor darlings in one sense. I visited a local car wash once and never again as it was obviously involved in the slave trade. These establishments are getting away most vile and obvious exploitation of slave labour every day of the week up and down the country in full view of users and the police. Close them down and we would be doing much to address their parents' desire to send them here.

Veronica

 

Yes I can see why their parents send them here from war torn Albania too ... I liked the bit in the article where the Albanian government allegedly said Britain was a soft touch ... Poor darlings ... Lets hope they find a nice family to stay with very soon

 

Apparently there's space at Bullets gaff ;-) ........

 

 

The givers just keep on giving and in the run up to Christmas its so beautiful ... Well done Bullet and Barry for not just talking about it but actually doing it ... Your both amazing

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-11-25 1:24 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 11:04 AMYes, English is exact. But it is unreasonable, IMO, to try to introduce specific legal definitions into conversations between non-lawyers in order to score points. By all means point out the difference and seek a clarification. That would be reasonable. But just writing off someone's contribution as "crap" because they used a word that has a particular meaning in a specific legal context, of which I suspect neither the author nor a majority of readers would be aware, is not, IMO, reasonable. So that we can all be clear, do you have a legal definition for crap? :-D

It really does seem to me that you are rather hypocritical in your defence of Barry's incorrect use of 'refugee' yet you criticised another poster for not being sufficiently precise regarding some/all during a Muslim/Islam debate.  On my intervention it was you who brought the preciseness/legal aspect of usage of the English language into the 'ring' yet you now challenge my contention that Barry's claim was sensationalised (crap) by the use of the term 'refugees' as an all encompassing description for those who are genuine refugees and those 'internally displaced' persons. 

So which is it to be?  Are you correct this time and incorrect previously or vice versa?

I presume your question regarding the legal definition of 'crap' was a pointless 'dig' but by the by here it is:

'The definition of crap is a slang and vulgar term for feces, nonsense or filth.

Read more at http://law.yourdictionary.com/crap#R5CWJS9EjHrKVbDm.99

Clearly appropriate use of the word when one accepts it does actually apply to the claim it referred to.  :-)

You'd have to refer me to the actual quote before I'd want to comment further. In the meantime, I don't recall accusing anyone (even Antony :-)) of mis-using a legal definition in the course of a discussion. I'm afraid my reaction to your legalistic response to Barry's post was that it was a diversionary smokescreen because he'd made a good general point that you didn't like, so you went fishing for a big stick to discredit his opinion. What was conspicuously absent from then on was any further engagement with his central point which was, IIRC, however one chooses to describe those affected, there is a huge number of them, and that is demonstrably causing significant difficulties for many governments over a very wide area.Re crap: is that definition legal under US Federal Law, or California State Law? :-D

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 5:32 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-25 1:24 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 11:04 AMYes, English is exact. But it is unreasonable, IMO, to try to introduce specific legal definitions into conversations between non-lawyers in order to score points. By all means point out the difference and seek a clarification. That would be reasonable. But just writing off someone's contribution as "crap" because they used a word that has a particular meaning in a specific legal context, of which I suspect neither the author nor a majority of readers would be aware, is not, IMO, reasonable. So that we can all be clear, do you have a legal definition for crap? :-D

It really does seem to me that you are rather hypocritical in your defence of Barry's incorrect use of 'refugee' yet you criticised another poster for not being sufficiently precise regarding some/all during a Muslim/Islam debate.  On my intervention it was you who brought the preciseness/legal aspect of usage of the English language into the 'ring' yet you now challenge my contention that Barry's claim was sensationalised (crap) by the use of the term 'refugees' as an all encompassing description for those who are genuine refugees and those 'internally displaced' persons. 

So which is it to be?  Are you correct this time and incorrect previously or vice versa?

I presume your question regarding the legal definition of 'crap' was a pointless 'dig' but by the by here it is:

'The definition of crap is a slang and vulgar term for feces, nonsense or filth.

Read more at http://law.yourdictionary.com/crap#R5CWJS9EjHrKVbDm.99

Clearly appropriate use of the word when one accepts it does actually apply to the claim it referred to.  :-)

You'd have to refer me to the actual quote before I'd want to comment further. In the meantime, I don't recall accusing anyone (even Antony :-)) of mis-using a legal definition in the course of a discussion. I'm afraid my reaction to your legalistic response to Barry's post was that it was a diversionary smokescreen because he'd made a good general point that you didn't like, so you went fishing for a big stick to discredit his opinion. What was conspicuously absent from then on was any further engagement with his central point which was, IIRC, however one chooses to describe those affected, there is a huge number of them, and that is demonstrably causing significant difficulties for many governments over a very wide area.Re crap: is that definition legal under US Federal Law, or California State Law? :-D

Legal/illegal maybe not but one which suits your side of the argument ... Maybe B-)

[Brian Kirby]

antony1969 - 2017-11-25 5:42 PM.........................Legal/illegal maybe not but one which suits your side of the argument ... Maybe B-)

Don't know Antony. Which side of which argument are you assuming I'm on? Barry's original argument, or Rogers legalistic one?

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 5:32 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-25 1:24 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 11:04 AMYes, English is exact. But it is unreasonable, IMO, to try to introduce specific legal definitions into conversations between non-lawyers in order to score points. By all means point out the difference and seek a clarification. That would be reasonable. But just writing off someone's contribution as "crap" because they used a word that has a particular meaning in a specific legal context, of which I suspect neither the author nor a majority of readers would be aware, is not, IMO, reasonable. So that we can all be clear, do you have a legal definition for crap? :-D

It really does seem to me that you are rather hypocritical in your defence of Barry's incorrect use of 'refugee' yet you criticised another poster for not being sufficiently precise regarding some/all during a Muslim/Islam debate.  On my intervention it was you who brought the preciseness/legal aspect of usage of the English language into the 'ring' yet you now challenge my contention that Barry's claim was sensationalised (crap) by the use of the term 'refugees' as an all encompassing description for those who are genuine refugees and those 'internally displaced' persons. 

So which is it to be?  Are you correct this time and incorrect previously or vice versa?

I presume your question regarding the legal definition of 'crap' was a pointless 'dig' but by the by here it is:

'The definition of crap is a slang and vulgar term for feces, nonsense or filth.

Read more at http://law.yourdictionary.com/crap#R5CWJS9EjHrKVbDm.99

Clearly appropriate use of the word when one accepts it does actually apply to the claim it referred to.  :-)

You'd have to refer me to the actual quote before I'd want to comment further. In the meantime, I don't recall accusing anyone (even Antony :-)) of mis-using a legal definition in the course of a discussion. I'm afraid my reaction to your legalistic response to Barry's post was that it was a diversionary smokescreen because he'd made a good general point that you didn't like, so you went fishing for a big stick to discredit his opinion. What was conspicuously absent from then on was any further engagement with his central point which was, IIRC, however one chooses to describe those affected, there is a huge number of them, and that is demonstrably causing significant difficulties for many governments over a very wide area.Re crap: is that definition legal under US Federal Law, or California State Law? :-D

Point you to the original quote?  Sorry I have neither the time or inclination to point you to one of your posts.  Suffice to say it was one of Anthony's Muslim posts that caused you to hop in and point out the error of his wording (and you brought in the legal issue of English language exactness by introducing 'contract writing') by not clarifying some/all Muslims.  You even went on to use 'legal' as a defence for the required exactness of posts.  In return it was I who said (paraphrase) this is a forum and latitude is the name of the game for which I was cried down.  Therefore I ask once more are you right this time and wrong previously?

Regarding your feeling my comments were a smokescreen you couldn't be more wrong.  At risk of boring you and others I maintain the difference between refugees and displaced persons is important and relevant.  Having seen both first hand in a few countries I am fully aware of the vastness of numbers and consequently I can differentiate between those we can help (refugees) and those we can not (internally displaced) unless invited in....Ethiopia, Sudan, Syria, Congo, Burundi, Afghanistan, Myanmar etc etc.  The whole reason for differentiating is to show Barry's claim of 65 million is totally incorrect and sensationalist.  Yes the refugee situation is bad but the figures he quotes are so very wrong.

I trust you can accept the world authority on the refugee issue is UNHCR?  I hope so because they show:

65.6 million 'forcibly'displaced of which 22.5 million are refugees.

Now that means there are 22.5 million who can be helped through international law, the intervention of aid agencies and where necessary military support.  Unfortunately for those 'internally displaced', according to UNHCR it was 40.5 million by the end of 2016, unless the nations concerned ask for international aid 'nothing' can be done by either aid agencies or military assistance.  Yes it is a disgrace but the fact is however much people look at the situation there is nothing to be gained from falsely inflating the figures regarding the actual number of refugees which is the core of my comment.

Were Barry's comment be made Mail headlines I'm certain you and the other Mail 'knockers' would be all over it like a swarm of locusts. 

Regarding your question on the validity of the definition of the word 'crap'.  If you are so determined to delve into the depths of 'crap' might I suggest you use a little of your own time instead of challenging others into doing your work for you.  :-)

[Barryd999]

RogerC - 2017-11-25 9:48 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 5:32 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-25 1:24 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 11:04 AMYes, English is exact. But it is unreasonable, IMO, to try to introduce specific legal definitions into conversations between non-lawyers in order to score points. By all means point out the difference and seek a clarification. That would be reasonable. But just writing off someone's contribution as "crap" because they used a word that has a particular meaning in a specific legal context, of which I suspect neither the author nor a majority of readers would be aware, is not, IMO, reasonable. So that we can all be clear, do you have a legal definition for crap? :-D

It really does seem to me that you are rather hypocritical in your defence of Barry's incorrect use of 'refugee' yet you criticised another poster for not being sufficiently precise regarding some/all during a Muslim/Islam debate.  On my intervention it was you who brought the preciseness/legal aspect of usage of the English language into the 'ring' yet you now challenge my contention that Barry's claim was sensationalised (crap) by the use of the term 'refugees' as an all encompassing description for those who are genuine refugees and those 'internally displaced' persons. 

So which is it to be?  Are you correct this time and incorrect previously or vice versa?

I presume your question regarding the legal definition of 'crap' was a pointless 'dig' but by the by here it is:

'The definition of crap is a slang and vulgar term for feces, nonsense or filth.

Read more at http://law.yourdictionary.com/crap#R5CWJS9EjHrKVbDm.99

Clearly appropriate use of the word when one accepts it does actually apply to the claim it referred to.  :-)

You'd have to refer me to the actual quote before I'd want to comment further. In the meantime, I don't recall accusing anyone (even Antony :-)) of mis-using a legal definition in the course of a discussion. I'm afraid my reaction to your legalistic response to Barry's post was that it was a diversionary smokescreen because he'd made a good general point that you didn't like, so you went fishing for a big stick to discredit his opinion. What was conspicuously absent from then on was any further engagement with his central point which was, IIRC, however one chooses to describe those affected, there is a huge number of them, and that is demonstrably causing significant difficulties for many governments over a very wide area.Re crap: is that definition legal under US Federal Law, or California State Law? :-D

Point you to the original quote?  Sorry I have neither the time or inclination to point you to one of your posts.  Suffice to say it was one of Anthony's Muslim posts that caused you to hop in and point out the error of his wording (and you brought in the legal issue of English language exactness by introducing 'contract writing') by not clarifying some/all Muslims.  You even went on to use 'legal' as a defence for the required exactness of posts.  In return it was I who said (paraphrase) this is a forum and latitude is the name of the game for which I was cried down.  Therefore I ask once more are you right this time and wrong previously?

Regarding your feeling my comments were a smokescreen you couldn't be more wrong.  At risk of boring you and others I maintain the difference between refugees and displaced persons is important and relevant.  Having seen both first hand in a few countries I am fully aware of the vastness of numbers and consequently I can differentiate between those we can help (refugees) and those we can not (internally displaced) unless invited in....Ethiopia, Sudan, Syria, Congo, Burundi, Afghanistan, Myanmar etc etc.  The whole reason for differentiating is to show Barry's claim of 65 million is totally incorrect and sensationalist.  Yes the refugee situation is bad but the figures he quotes are so very wrong.

I trust you can accept the world authority on the refugee issue is UNHCR?  I hope so because they show:

65.6 million 'forcibly'displaced of which 22.5 million are refugees.

Now that means there are 22.5 million who can be helped through international law, the intervention of aid agencies and where necessary military support.  Unfortunately for those 'internally displaced', according to UNHCR it was 40.5 million by the end of 2016, unless the nations concerned ask for international aid 'nothing' can be done by either aid agencies or military assistance.  Yes it is a disgrace but the fact is however much people look at the situation there is nothing to be gained from falsely inflating the figures regarding the actual number of refugees which is the core of my comment.

Were Barry's comment be made Mail headlines I'm certain you and the other Mail 'knockers' would be all over it like a swarm of locusts. 

Regarding your question on the validity of the definition of the word 'crap'.  If you are so determined to delve into the depths of 'crap' might I suggest you use a little of your own time instead of challenging others into doing your work for you.  :-)

Once again. I never once stated there were 65 million refugees. I actually used the term "Displaced". There ARE 65 million displaced people. Whether they have made it out of their country of displacement is irrelevant. If anything those that are fleeing persecution or conflict but have not made it out of their country are probably in more danger than those that have crossed borders and can now be officially labelled Refugees. The point I was making is the problem is huge, bigger than anything we have seen before but according to you thats "crap". *-)

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-11-25 9:48 PM.........................Point you to the original quote?  Sorry I have neither the time or inclination to point you to one of your posts.  Suffice to say it was one of Anthony's Muslim posts that caused you to hop in and point out the error of his wording (and you brought in the legal issue of English language exactness by introducing 'contract writing') by not clarifying some/all Muslims.  You even went on to use 'legal' as a defence for the required exactness of posts.  In return it was I who said (paraphrase) this is a forum and latitude is the name of the game for which I was cried down.  Therefore I ask once more are you right this time and wrong previously......................

Well, it's nice to know what one is being accused of. The reference is, I believe, this one. http://tinyurl.com/y9znqkta

 

The context is different (in a broad nutshell, Islamophobia, not refugees), but the issue underlying the debate was similar - the casual use of language. In the linked debate I argued that referring to entire ethnic or religious groups when criticising a trait exhibited by only a minority of the group, was to (and did) invite charges of racial or religious intolerance. In short, that tarring all with the same brush risked censure, and care was therefore desirable. My plea for greater care was rejected as excessively pedantic.

 

I invite you to re-visit some of your own comments in that string, regarding the undesirability of legalistic criticism of every-day language, and to contrast them with your comments above regarding casual use of language in this string. But, as above, I think the different contexts of the two discussions negate much of what may, at first sight, appear as similarities. Again in short, I think this risks conflating apples and pomegranates.

[RogerC]

Barryd999 - 2017-11-26 11:46 AM

RogerC - 2017-11-25 9:48 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 5:32 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-25 1:24 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 11:04 AMYes, English is exact. But it is unreasonable, IMO, to try to introduce specific legal definitions into conversations between non-lawyers in order to score points. By all means point out the difference and seek a clarification. That would be reasonable. But just writing off someone's contribution as "crap" because they used a word that has a particular meaning in a specific legal context, of which I suspect neither the author nor a majority of readers would be aware, is not, IMO, reasonable. So that we can all be clear, do you have a legal definition for crap? :-D

It really does seem to me that you are rather hypocritical in your defence of Barry's incorrect use of 'refugee' yet you criticised another poster for not being sufficiently precise regarding some/all during a Muslim/Islam debate.  On my intervention it was you who brought the preciseness/legal aspect of usage of the English language into the 'ring' yet you now challenge my contention that Barry's claim was sensationalised (crap) by the use of the term 'refugees' as an all encompassing description for those who are genuine refugees and those 'internally displaced' persons. 

So which is it to be?  Are you correct this time and incorrect previously or vice versa?

I presume your question regarding the legal definition of 'crap' was a pointless 'dig' but by the by here it is:

'The definition of crap is a slang and vulgar term for feces, nonsense or filth.

Read more at http://law.yourdictionary.com/crap#R5CWJS9EjHrKVbDm.99

Clearly appropriate use of the word when one accepts it does actually apply to the claim it referred to.  :-)

You'd have to refer me to the actual quote before I'd want to comment further. In the meantime, I don't recall accusing anyone (even Antony :-)) of mis-using a legal definition in the course of a discussion. I'm afraid my reaction to your legalistic response to Barry's post was that it was a diversionary smokescreen because he'd made a good general point that you didn't like, so you went fishing for a big stick to discredit his opinion. What was conspicuously absent from then on was any further engagement with his central point which was, IIRC, however one chooses to describe those affected, there is a huge number of them, and that is demonstrably causing significant difficulties for many governments over a very wide area.Re crap: is that definition legal under US Federal Law, or California State Law? :-D

Point you to the original quote?  Sorry I have neither the time or inclination to point you to one of your posts.  Suffice to say it was one of Anthony's Muslim posts that caused you to hop in and point out the error of his wording (and you brought in the legal issue of English language exactness by introducing 'contract writing') by not clarifying some/all Muslims.  You even went on to use 'legal' as a defence for the required exactness of posts.  In return it was I who said (paraphrase) this is a forum and latitude is the name of the game for which I was cried down.  Therefore I ask once more are you right this time and wrong previously?

Regarding your feeling my comments were a smokescreen you couldn't be more wrong.  At risk of boring you and others I maintain the difference between refugees and displaced persons is important and relevant.  Having seen both first hand in a few countries I am fully aware of the vastness of numbers and consequently I can differentiate between those we can help (refugees) and those we can not (internally displaced) unless invited in....Ethiopia, Sudan, Syria, Congo, Burundi, Afghanistan, Myanmar etc etc.  The whole reason for differentiating is to show Barry's claim of 65 million is totally incorrect and sensationalist.  Yes the refugee situation is bad but the figures he quotes are so very wrong.

I trust you can accept the world authority on the refugee issue is UNHCR?  I hope so because they show:

65.6 million 'forcibly'displaced of which 22.5 million are refugees.

Now that means there are 22.5 million who can be helped through international law, the intervention of aid agencies and where necessary military support.  Unfortunately for those 'internally displaced', according to UNHCR it was 40.5 million by the end of 2016, unless the nations concerned ask for international aid 'nothing' can be done by either aid agencies or military assistance.  Yes it is a disgrace but the fact is however much people look at the situation there is nothing to be gained from falsely inflating the figures regarding the actual number of refugees which is the core of my comment.

Were Barry's comment be made Mail headlines I'm certain you and the other Mail 'knockers' would be all over it like a swarm of locusts. 

Regarding your question on the validity of the definition of the word 'crap'.  If you are so determined to delve into the depths of 'crap' might I suggest you use a little of your own time instead of challenging others into doing your work for you.  :-)

Once again. I never once stated there were 65 million refugees. I actually used the term "Displaced". There ARE 65 million displaced people. Whether they have made it out of their country of displacement is irrelevant. If anything those that are fleeing persecution or conflict but have not made it out of their country are probably in more danger than those that have crossed borders and can now be officially labelled Refugees. The point I was making is the problem is huge, bigger than anything we have seen before but according to you thats "crap". *-)

Barry this all started because you said:

QUOTE

Facing the biggest refugee crisis we have ever seen

UNQUOTE

Please note it is your initial claim and the words 'refugee crisis'..... to which I responded 'crap' and still maintain it is crap.

You then brought in:

QUOTE

Do you know of a bigger refugee crisis going on somewhere or something? Bigger than 65 million displaced people around the globe including 5 million just from Syria with a further 6 million of them displaced within Syria? UNQUOTE

.....and it is here where you brought in displaced persons which is after your erroneous claim.

So clearly you can't even recall your own incorrect claim and are trying to justify your claim by latterly including 'displaced persons' which I maintain are NOT REFUGEES.  Therefore say what you will....there is clearly an humanitarian crisis....but it is not the worst 'refugee' crisis we have ever seen.

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-26 12:40 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-25 9:48 PM.........................Point you to the original quote?  Sorry I have neither the time or inclination to point you to one of your posts.  Suffice to say it was one of Anthony's Muslim posts that caused you to hop in and point out the error of his wording (and you brought in the legal issue of English language exactness by introducing 'contract writing') by not clarifying some/all Muslims.  You even went on to use 'legal' as a defence for the required exactness of posts.  In return it was I who said (paraphrase) this is a forum and latitude is the name of the game for which I was cried down.  Therefore I ask once more are you right this time and wrong previously......................

Well, it's nice to know what one is being accused of. The reference is, I believe, this one. http://tinyurl.com/y9znqktaThe context is different (in a broad nutshell, Islamophobia, not refugees), but the issue underlying the debate was similar - the casual use of language. In the linked debate I argued that referring to entire ethnic or religious groups when criticising a trait exhibited by only a minority of the group, was to (and did) invite charges of racial or religious intolerance. In short, that tarring all with the same brush risked censure, and care was therefore desirable. My plea for greater care was rejected as excessively pedantic.I invite you to re-visit some of your own comments in that string, regarding the undesirability of legalistic criticism of every-day language, and to contrast them with your comments above regarding casual use of language in this string. But, as above, I think the different contexts of the two discussions negate much of what may, at first sight, appear as similarities. Again in short, I think this risks conflating apples and pomegranates.

Good to see you revisited your original comments Brian.  It was your perceived 'pedantry' and injection of the legalistic argument in that thread that actually led me to comment on the 'refugee' claim.  My feeling being that if one is to criticise/take to task another for not making things crystal clear over a religious themed debate then surely it is just as appropriate to attach it to a comment that completely distorts the refugee situation.  

So in comparison it has been my plea, albeit started by a rather unsubtle term, that sensationalising the true refugee situation as Barry did does it no favours.  In real terms if the world is asked to assist 20+ million people it is a figure one could more readily view as something achievable whereas if one says 65+ million surely even the world leaders would have to say where and how to start?

I am aware of my comments in the previous thread regarding your injection of 'preciseness' and legalistic applicability of words which, at risk of repeating myself is why I chose to comment.  The debate then took off to the differentiation between 'refugee' and 'displaced persons' which actually is not simply a language/legalistic argument but a factual one in terms of representative numbers.

Lastly I dispute your claim that the context of both threads negate similarities. Surely the imprecise (according to you) language used by Anthony in the Islam/Muslim thread is no different to the imprecision demonstrated by Barry in this thread?

[Violet1956]

UNHCR acknowledges that some of the internally displaced would come under the definition of “refugee” as set out in the 1951 Convention, a definition which would apply to them had they had managed to cross an international border. The problem with the term “refugee” is that it has a different meaning depending on the context.

 

You have not demonstrated Roger that to say that we are facing an unprecedented " refugee" crisis throughout the world is an overstatement or “crap” as you initially posted. To say that it’s complicated is an understatement see the link below.

 

http://www.unhcr.org/4d93528a9.pdf

 

I know I can trust you to read what is in the link because you, as distinct from other contributors that I am inclined to disagree with from time to time,are inclined to do the necessary research to support your arguments.

 

 

;-)

 

Veronica

[Barryd999]

RogerC - 2017-11-26 12:57 PM

Barryd999 - 2017-11-26 11:46 AM

RogerC - 2017-11-25 9:48 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 5:32 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-25 1:24 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 11:04 AMYes, English is exact. But it is unreasonable, IMO, to try to introduce specific legal definitions into conversations between non-lawyers in order to score points. By all means point out the difference and seek a clarification. That would be reasonable. But just writing off someone's contribution as "crap" because they used a word that has a particular meaning in a specific legal context, of which I suspect neither the author nor a majority of readers would be aware, is not, IMO, reasonable. So that we can all be clear, do you have a legal definition for crap? :-D

It really does seem to me that you are rather hypocritical in your defence of Barry's incorrect use of 'refugee' yet you criticised another poster for not being sufficiently precise regarding some/all during a Muslim/Islam debate.  On my intervention it was you who brought the preciseness/legal aspect of usage of the English language into the 'ring' yet you now challenge my contention that Barry's claim was sensationalised (crap) by the use of the term 'refugees' as an all encompassing description for those who are genuine refugees and those 'internally displaced' persons. 

So which is it to be?  Are you correct this time and incorrect previously or vice versa?

I presume your question regarding the legal definition of 'crap' was a pointless 'dig' but by the by here it is:

'The definition of crap is a slang and vulgar term for feces, nonsense or filth.

Read more at http://law.yourdictionary.com/crap#R5CWJS9EjHrKVbDm.99

Clearly appropriate use of the word when one accepts it does actually apply to the claim it referred to.  :-)

You'd have to refer me to the actual quote before I'd want to comment further. In the meantime, I don't recall accusing anyone (even Antony :-)) of mis-using a legal definition in the course of a discussion. I'm afraid my reaction to your legalistic response to Barry's post was that it was a diversionary smokescreen because he'd made a good general point that you didn't like, so you went fishing for a big stick to discredit his opinion. What was conspicuously absent from then on was any further engagement with his central point which was, IIRC, however one chooses to describe those affected, there is a huge number of them, and that is demonstrably causing significant difficulties for many governments over a very wide area.Re crap: is that definition legal under US Federal Law, or California State Law? :-D

Point you to the original quote?  Sorry I have neither the time or inclination to point you to one of your posts.  Suffice to say it was one of Anthony's Muslim posts that caused you to hop in and point out the error of his wording (and you brought in the legal issue of English language exactness by introducing 'contract writing') by not clarifying some/all Muslims.  You even went on to use 'legal' as a defence for the required exactness of posts.  In return it was I who said (paraphrase) this is a forum and latitude is the name of the game for which I was cried down.  Therefore I ask once more are you right this time and wrong previously?

Regarding your feeling my comments were a smokescreen you couldn't be more wrong.  At risk of boring you and others I maintain the difference between refugees and displaced persons is important and relevant.  Having seen both first hand in a few countries I am fully aware of the vastness of numbers and consequently I can differentiate between those we can help (refugees) and those we can not (internally displaced) unless invited in....Ethiopia, Sudan, Syria, Congo, Burundi, Afghanistan, Myanmar etc etc.  The whole reason for differentiating is to show Barry's claim of 65 million is totally incorrect and sensationalist.  Yes the refugee situation is bad but the figures he quotes are so very wrong.

I trust you can accept the world authority on the refugee issue is UNHCR?  I hope so because they show:

65.6 million 'forcibly'displaced of which 22.5 million are refugees.

Now that means there are 22.5 million who can be helped through international law, the intervention of aid agencies and where necessary military support.  Unfortunately for those 'internally displaced', according to UNHCR it was 40.5 million by the end of 2016, unless the nations concerned ask for international aid 'nothing' can be done by either aid agencies or military assistance.  Yes it is a disgrace but the fact is however much people look at the situation there is nothing to be gained from falsely inflating the figures regarding the actual number of refugees which is the core of my comment.

Were Barry's comment be made Mail headlines I'm certain you and the other Mail 'knockers' would be all over it like a swarm of locusts. 

Regarding your question on the validity of the definition of the word 'crap'.  If you are so determined to delve into the depths of 'crap' might I suggest you use a little of your own time instead of challenging others into doing your work for you.  :-)

Once again. I never once stated there were 65 million refugees. I actually used the term "Displaced". There ARE 65 million displaced people. Whether they have made it out of their country of displacement is irrelevant. If anything those that are fleeing persecution or conflict but have not made it out of their country are probably in more danger than those that have crossed borders and can now be officially labelled Refugees. The point I was making is the problem is huge, bigger than anything we have seen before but according to you thats "crap". *-)

Barry this all started because you said:

QUOTE

Facing the biggest refugee crisis we have ever seen

UNQUOTE

Please note it is your initial claim and the words 'refugee crisis'..... to which I responded 'crap' and still maintain it is crap.

You then brought in:

QUOTE

Do you know of a bigger refugee crisis going on somewhere or something? Bigger than 65 million displaced people around the globe including 5 million just from Syria with a further 6 million of them displaced within Syria? UNQUOTE

.....and it is here where you brought in displaced persons which is after your erroneous claim.

So clearly you can't even recall your own incorrect claim and are trying to justify your claim by latterly including 'displaced persons' which I maintain are NOT REFUGEES.  Therefore say what you will....there is clearly an humanitarian crisis....but it is not the worst 'refugee' crisis we have ever seen.

Lets see you prove otherwise then. Your just playing semantics again, trying to make out I was sensationalising the figures probably in a attempt to avoid discussing the actual problem which you have achieved very well so well done.65 million displaced people 22.5 million of whom we can safely label as refugees is as big a humanitarian / refugee crisis as I Can certainly remember or even looking back through history can find as well since world war two and it probably surpasses that now anyway.

[RogerC]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-26 2:19 PMUNHCR acknowledges that some of the internally displaced would come under the definition of “refugee” as set out in the 1951 Convention, a definition which would apply to them had they had managed to cross an international border. The problem with the term “refugee” is that it has a different meaning depending on the context. You have not demonstrated Roger that to say that we are facing an unprecedented " refugee" crisis throughout the world is an overstatement or “crap” as you initially posted. To say that it’s complicated is an understatement see the link below.http://www.unhcr.org/4d93528a9.pdfI know I can trust you to read what is in the link because you, as distinct from other contributors that I am inclined to disagree with from time to time,are inclined to do the necessary research to support your arguments. ;-) Veronica

I agree it is complicated which is why my not accepting the original statement regarding the 'greatest refugee crisis'.

This extract goes part way to explaining that which I am driving at:

"“every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place

outside his country of origin or nationality”. 

There are conditions and caveats but the overriding factor in all cases of determining 'refugee' status is the individual 'must' have left their country of origin or nationality.  Therefore the 'refugee' crisis is, I agree, large but not as Barry claimed. 

As I have said previously had his claim been Daily Mail headlines some on here would have been bashing their keyboards in condemnation of sensationalising a humanitarian catastrophe.

PS...Sorry I don't have time to read all of the attachment you offered but what I did read served to refresh somewhat that which I already knew and added more to my understanding.

[RogerC]

Barryd999 - 2017-11-26 2:32 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-26 12:57 PM

Barryd999 - 2017-11-26 11:46 AM

RogerC - 2017-11-25 9:48 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 5:32 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-25 1:24 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 11:04 AMYes, English is exact. But it is unreasonable, IMO, to try to introduce specific legal definitions into conversations between non-lawyers in order to score points. By all means point out the difference and seek a clarification. That would be reasonable. But just writing off someone's contribution as "crap" because they used a word that has a particular meaning in a specific legal context, of which I suspect neither the author nor a majority of readers would be aware, is not, IMO, reasonable. So that we can all be clear, do you have a legal definition for crap? :-D

It really does seem to me that you are rather hypocritical in your defence of Barry's incorrect use of 'refugee' yet you criticised another poster for not being sufficiently precise regarding some/all during a Muslim/Islam debate.  On my intervention it was you who brought the preciseness/legal aspect of usage of the English language into the 'ring' yet you now challenge my contention that Barry's claim was sensationalised (crap) by the use of the term 'refugees' as an all encompassing description for those who are genuine refugees and those 'internally displaced' persons. 

So which is it to be?  Are you correct this time and incorrect previously or vice versa?

I presume your question regarding the legal definition of 'crap' was a pointless 'dig' but by the by here it is:

'The definition of crap is a slang and vulgar term for feces, nonsense or filth.

Read more at http://law.yourdictionary.com/crap#R5CWJS9EjHrKVbDm.99

Clearly appropriate use of the word when one accepts it does actually apply to the claim it referred to.  :-)

You'd have to refer me to the actual quote before I'd want to comment further. In the meantime, I don't recall accusing anyone (even Antony :-)) of mis-using a legal definition in the course of a discussion. I'm afraid my reaction to your legalistic response to Barry's post was that it was a diversionary smokescreen because he'd made a good general point that you didn't like, so you went fishing for a big stick to discredit his opinion. What was conspicuously absent from then on was any further engagement with his central point which was, IIRC, however one chooses to describe those affected, there is a huge number of them, and that is demonstrably causing significant difficulties for many governments over a very wide area.Re crap: is that definition legal under US Federal Law, or California State Law? :-D

Point you to the original quote?  Sorry I have neither the time or inclination to point you to one of your posts.  Suffice to say it was one of Anthony's Muslim posts that caused you to hop in and point out the error of his wording (and you brought in the legal issue of English language exactness by introducing 'contract writing') by not clarifying some/all Muslims.  You even went on to use 'legal' as a defence for the required exactness of posts.  In return it was I who said (paraphrase) this is a forum and latitude is the name of the game for which I was cried down.  Therefore I ask once more are you right this time and wrong previously?

Regarding your feeling my comments were a smokescreen you couldn't be more wrong.  At risk of boring you and others I maintain the difference between refugees and displaced persons is important and relevant.  Having seen both first hand in a few countries I am fully aware of the vastness of numbers and consequently I can differentiate between those we can help (refugees) and those we can not (internally displaced) unless invited in....Ethiopia, Sudan, Syria, Congo, Burundi, Afghanistan, Myanmar etc etc.  The whole reason for differentiating is to show Barry's claim of 65 million is totally incorrect and sensationalist.  Yes the refugee situation is bad but the figures he quotes are so very wrong.

I trust you can accept the world authority on the refugee issue is UNHCR?  I hope so because they show:

65.6 million 'forcibly'displaced of which 22.5 million are refugees.

Now that means there are 22.5 million who can be helped through international law, the intervention of aid agencies and where necessary military support.  Unfortunately for those 'internally displaced', according to UNHCR it was 40.5 million by the end of 2016, unless the nations concerned ask for international aid 'nothing' can be done by either aid agencies or military assistance.  Yes it is a disgrace but the fact is however much people look at the situation there is nothing to be gained from falsely inflating the figures regarding the actual number of refugees which is the core of my comment.

Were Barry's comment be made Mail headlines I'm certain you and the other Mail 'knockers' would be all over it like a swarm of locusts. 

Regarding your question on the validity of the definition of the word 'crap'.  If you are so determined to delve into the depths of 'crap' might I suggest you use a little of your own time instead of challenging others into doing your work for you.  :-)

Once again. I never once stated there were 65 million refugees. I actually used the term "Displaced". There ARE 65 million displaced people. Whether they have made it out of their country of displacement is irrelevant. If anything those that are fleeing persecution or conflict but have not made it out of their country are probably in more danger than those that have crossed borders and can now be officially labelled Refugees. The point I was making is the problem is huge, bigger than anything we have seen before but according to you thats "crap". *-)

Barry this all started because you said:

QUOTE

Facing the biggest refugee crisis we have ever seen

UNQUOTE

Please note it is your initial claim and the words 'refugee crisis'..... to which I responded 'crap' and still maintain it is crap.

You then brought in:

QUOTE

Do you know of a bigger refugee crisis going on somewhere or something? Bigger than 65 million displaced people around the globe including 5 million just from Syria with a further 6 million of them displaced within Syria? UNQUOTE

.....and it is here where you brought in displaced persons which is after your erroneous claim.

So clearly you can't even recall your own incorrect claim and are trying to justify your claim by latterly including 'displaced persons' which I maintain are NOT REFUGEES.  Therefore say what you will....there is clearly an humanitarian crisis....but it is not the worst 'refugee' crisis we have ever seen.

Lets see you prove otherwise then. Your just playing semantics again, trying to make out I was sensationalising the figures probably in a attempt to avoid discussing the actual problem which you have achieved very well so well done.65 million displaced people 22.5 million of whom we can safely label as refugees is as big a humanitarian / refugee crisis as I Can certainly remember or even looking back through history can find as well since world war two and it probably surpasses that now anyway.

I already said it is not semantics Barry and please don't ever accuse me of avoiding the subject of refugees/internally displaced persons.  When you've got off your comfortable backside and been to where 'displaced' persons are dying of starvation and others are living in abject squalor with no sanitation and are living in rags with no protection from the elements and little or no food or water come and tell me about it.  Until then please keep your baseless insulting comments to yourself!

[Barryd999]

RogerC - 2017-11-26 6:09 PM

Barryd999 - 2017-11-26 2:32 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-26 12:57 PM

Barryd999 - 2017-11-26 11:46 AM

RogerC - 2017-11-25 9:48 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 5:32 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-25 1:24 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 11:04 AMYes, English is exact. But it is unreasonable, IMO, to try to introduce specific legal definitions into conversations between non-lawyers in order to score points. By all means point out the difference and seek a clarification. That would be reasonable. But just writing off someone's contribution as "crap" because they used a word that has a particular meaning in a specific legal context, of which I suspect neither the author nor a majority of readers would be aware, is not, IMO, reasonable. So that we can all be clear, do you have a legal definition for crap? :-D

It really does seem to me that you are rather hypocritical in your defence of Barry's incorrect use of 'refugee' yet you criticised another poster for not being sufficiently precise regarding some/all during a Muslim/Islam debate.  On my intervention it was you who brought the preciseness/legal aspect of usage of the English language into the 'ring' yet you now challenge my contention that Barry's claim was sensationalised (crap) by the use of the term 'refugees' as an all encompassing description for those who are genuine refugees and those 'internally displaced' persons. 

So which is it to be?  Are you correct this time and incorrect previously or vice versa?

I presume your question regarding the legal definition of 'crap' was a pointless 'dig' but by the by here it is:

'The definition of crap is a slang and vulgar term for feces, nonsense or filth.

Read more at http://law.yourdictionary.com/crap#R5CWJS9EjHrKVbDm.99

Clearly appropriate use of the word when one accepts it does actually apply to the claim it referred to.  :-)

You'd have to refer me to the actual quote before I'd want to comment further. In the meantime, I don't recall accusing anyone (even Antony :-)) of mis-using a legal definition in the course of a discussion. I'm afraid my reaction to your legalistic response to Barry's post was that it was a diversionary smokescreen because he'd made a good general point that you didn't like, so you went fishing for a big stick to discredit his opinion. What was conspicuously absent from then on was any further engagement with his central point which was, IIRC, however one chooses to describe those affected, there is a huge number of them, and that is demonstrably causing significant difficulties for many governments over a very wide area.Re crap: is that definition legal under US Federal Law, or California State Law? :-D

Point you to the original quote?  Sorry I have neither the time or inclination to point you to one of your posts.  Suffice to say it was one of Anthony's Muslim posts that caused you to hop in and point out the error of his wording (and you brought in the legal issue of English language exactness by introducing 'contract writing') by not clarifying some/all Muslims.  You even went on to use 'legal' as a defence for the required exactness of posts.  In return it was I who said (paraphrase) this is a forum and latitude is the name of the game for which I was cried down.  Therefore I ask once more are you right this time and wrong previously?

Regarding your feeling my comments were a smokescreen you couldn't be more wrong.  At risk of boring you and others I maintain the difference between refugees and displaced persons is important and relevant.  Having seen both first hand in a few countries I am fully aware of the vastness of numbers and consequently I can differentiate between those we can help (refugees) and those we can not (internally displaced) unless invited in....Ethiopia, Sudan, Syria, Congo, Burundi, Afghanistan, Myanmar etc etc.  The whole reason for differentiating is to show Barry's claim of 65 million is totally incorrect and sensationalist.  Yes the refugee situation is bad but the figures he quotes are so very wrong.

I trust you can accept the world authority on the refugee issue is UNHCR?  I hope so because they show:

65.6 million 'forcibly'displaced of which 22.5 million are refugees.

Now that means there are 22.5 million who can be helped through international law, the intervention of aid agencies and where necessary military support.  Unfortunately for those 'internally displaced', according to UNHCR it was 40.5 million by the end of 2016, unless the nations concerned ask for international aid 'nothing' can be done by either aid agencies or military assistance.  Yes it is a disgrace but the fact is however much people look at the situation there is nothing to be gained from falsely inflating the figures regarding the actual number of refugees which is the core of my comment.

Were Barry's comment be made Mail headlines I'm certain you and the other Mail 'knockers' would be all over it like a swarm of locusts. 

Regarding your question on the validity of the definition of the word 'crap'.  If you are so determined to delve into the depths of 'crap' might I suggest you use a little of your own time instead of challenging others into doing your work for you.  :-)

Once again. I never once stated there were 65 million refugees. I actually used the term "Displaced". There ARE 65 million displaced people. Whether they have made it out of their country of displacement is irrelevant. If anything those that are fleeing persecution or conflict but have not made it out of their country are probably in more danger than those that have crossed borders and can now be officially labelled Refugees. The point I was making is the problem is huge, bigger than anything we have seen before but according to you thats "crap". *-)

Barry this all started because you said:

QUOTE

Facing the biggest refugee crisis we have ever seen

UNQUOTE

Please note it is your initial claim and the words 'refugee crisis'..... to which I responded 'crap' and still maintain it is crap.

You then brought in:

QUOTE

Do you know of a bigger refugee crisis going on somewhere or something? Bigger than 65 million displaced people around the globe including 5 million just from Syria with a further 6 million of them displaced within Syria? UNQUOTE

.....and it is here where you brought in displaced persons which is after your erroneous claim.

So clearly you can't even recall your own incorrect claim and are trying to justify your claim by latterly including 'displaced persons' which I maintain are NOT REFUGEES.  Therefore say what you will....there is clearly an humanitarian crisis....but it is not the worst 'refugee' crisis we have ever seen.

Lets see you prove otherwise then. Your just playing semantics again, trying to make out I was sensationalising the figures probably in a attempt to avoid discussing the actual problem which you have achieved very well so well done.65 million displaced people 22.5 million of whom we can safely label as refugees is as big a humanitarian / refugee crisis as I Can certainly remember or even looking back through history can find as well since world war two and it probably surpasses that now anyway.

I already said it is not semantics Barry and please don't ever accuse me of avoiding the subject of refugees/internally displaced persons.  When you've got off your comfortable backside and been to where 'displaced' persons are dying of starvation and others are living in abject squalor with no sanitation and are living in rags with no protection from the elements and little or no food or water come and tell me about it.  Until then please keep your baseless insulting comments to yourself!

Your easily insulted Roger. I fail to see what is insulting about my comments to be honest. Do you not think accusing me of sensationalising a grim topic could be classed as insulting not that Im bothered whatsoever?Ive been to the Calais Jungle, does that count? Im not sure many of us can probably claim to have been out to places like Syria or Afghanistan in recent times unless your in the armed forces or an aid worker but that does not mean your not qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

[Guest pelmetman]

Barryd999 - 2017-11-26 8:36 PM

 

Ive been to the Calais Jungle, does that count? Im not sure many of us can probably claim to have been out to places like Syria or Afghanistan in recent times unless your in the armed forces or an aid worker but that does not mean your not qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

 

It just means your opinion is based on UK based Loony Liberal Twendy Wendy's having hissy fits *-) .......

 

Much like Bullets >:-) .......

[RogerC]

Barryd999 - 2017-11-26 8:36 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-26 6:09 PM

Barryd999 - 2017-11-26 2:32 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-26 12:57 PM

Barryd999 - 2017-11-26 11:46 AM

RogerC - 2017-11-25 9:48 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 5:32 PM

RogerC - 2017-11-25 1:24 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 11:04 AMYes, English is exact. But it is unreasonable, IMO, to try to introduce specific legal definitions into conversations between non-lawyers in order to score points. By all means point out the difference and seek a clarification. That would be reasonable. But just writing off someone's contribution as "crap" because they used a word that has a particular meaning in a specific legal context, of which I suspect neither the author nor a majority of readers would be aware, is not, IMO, reasonable. So that we can all be clear, do you have a legal definition for crap? :-D

It really does seem to me that you are rather hypocritical in your defence of Barry's incorrect use of 'refugee' yet you criticised another poster for not being sufficiently precise regarding some/all during a Muslim/Islam debate.  On my intervention it was you who brought the preciseness/legal aspect of usage of the English language into the 'ring' yet you now challenge my contention that Barry's claim was sensationalised (crap) by the use of the term 'refugees' as an all encompassing description for those who are genuine refugees and those 'internally displaced' persons. 

So which is it to be?  Are you correct this time and incorrect previously or vice versa?

I presume your question regarding the legal definition of 'crap' was a pointless 'dig' but by the by here it is:

'The definition of crap is a slang and vulgar term for feces, nonsense or filth.

Read more at http://law.yourdictionary.com/crap#R5CWJS9EjHrKVbDm.99

Clearly appropriate use of the word when one accepts it does actually apply to the claim it referred to.  :-)

You'd have to refer me to the actual quote before I'd want to comment further. In the meantime, I don't recall accusing anyone (even Antony :-)) of mis-using a legal definition in the course of a discussion. I'm afraid my reaction to your legalistic response to Barry's post was that it was a diversionary smokescreen because he'd made a good general point that you didn't like, so you went fishing for a big stick to discredit his opinion. What was conspicuously absent from then on was any further engagement with his central point which was, IIRC, however one chooses to describe those affected, there is a huge number of them, and that is demonstrably causing significant difficulties for many governments over a very wide area.Re crap: is that definition legal under US Federal Law, or California State Law? :-D

Point you to the original quote?  Sorry I have neither the time or inclination to point you to one of your posts.  Suffice to say it was one of Anthony's Muslim posts that caused you to hop in and point out the error of his wording (and you brought in the legal issue of English language exactness by introducing 'contract writing') by not clarifying some/all Muslims.  You even went on to use 'legal' as a defence for the required exactness of posts.  In return it was I who said (paraphrase) this is a forum and latitude is the name of the game for which I was cried down.  Therefore I ask once more are you right this time and wrong previously?

Regarding your feeling my comments were a smokescreen you couldn't be more wrong.  At risk of boring you and others I maintain the difference between refugees and displaced persons is important and relevant.  Having seen both first hand in a few countries I am fully aware of the vastness of numbers and consequently I can differentiate between those we can help (refugees) and those we can not (internally displaced) unless invited in....Ethiopia, Sudan, Syria, Congo, Burundi, Afghanistan, Myanmar etc etc.  The whole reason for differentiating is to show Barry's claim of 65 million is totally incorrect and sensationalist.  Yes the refugee situation is bad but the figures he quotes are so very wrong.

I trust you can accept the world authority on the refugee issue is UNHCR?  I hope so because they show:

65.6 million 'forcibly'displaced of which 22.5 million are refugees.

Now that means there are 22.5 million who can be helped through international law, the intervention of aid agencies and where necessary military support.  Unfortunately for those 'internally displaced', according to UNHCR it was 40.5 million by the end of 2016, unless the nations concerned ask for international aid 'nothing' can be done by either aid agencies or military assistance.  Yes it is a disgrace but the fact is however much people look at the situation there is nothing to be gained from falsely inflating the figures regarding the actual number of refugees which is the core of my comment.

Were Barry's comment be made Mail headlines I'm certain you and the other Mail 'knockers' would be all over it like a swarm of locusts. 

Regarding your question on the validity of the definition of the word 'crap'.  If you are so determined to delve into the depths of 'crap' might I suggest you use a little of your own time instead of challenging others into doing your work for you.  :-)

Once again. I never once stated there were 65 million refugees. I actually used the term "Displaced". There ARE 65 million displaced people. Whether they have made it out of their country of displacement is irrelevant. If anything those that are fleeing persecution or conflict but have not made it out of their country are probably in more danger than those that have crossed borders and can now be officially labelled Refugees. The point I was making is the problem is huge, bigger than anything we have seen before but according to you thats "crap". *-)

Barry this all started because you said:

QUOTE

Facing the biggest refugee crisis we have ever seen

UNQUOTE

Please note it is your initial claim and the words 'refugee crisis'..... to which I responded 'crap' and still maintain it is crap.

You then brought in:

QUOTE

Do you know of a bigger refugee crisis going on somewhere or something? Bigger than 65 million displaced people around the globe including 5 million just from Syria with a further 6 million of them displaced within Syria? UNQUOTE

.....and it is here where you brought in displaced persons which is after your erroneous claim.

So clearly you can't even recall your own incorrect claim and are trying to justify your claim by latterly including 'displaced persons' which I maintain are NOT REFUGEES.  Therefore say what you will....there is clearly an humanitarian crisis....but it is not the worst 'refugee' crisis we have ever seen.

Lets see you prove otherwise then. Your just playing semantics again, trying to make out I was sensationalising the figures probably in a attempt to avoid discussing the actual problem which you have achieved very well so well done.65 million displaced people 22.5 million of whom we can safely label as refugees is as big a humanitarian / refugee crisis as I Can certainly remember or even looking back through history can find as well since world war two and it probably surpasses that now anyway.

I already said it is not semantics Barry and please don't ever accuse me of avoiding the subject of refugees/internally displaced persons.  When you've got off your comfortable backside and been to where 'displaced' persons are dying of starvation and others are living in abject squalor with no sanitation and are living in rags with no protection from the elements and little or no food or water come and tell me about it.  Until then please keep your baseless insulting comments to yourself!

Your easily insulted Roger. I fail to see what is insulting about my comments to be honest. Do you not think accusing me of sensationalising a grim topic could be classed as insulting not that Im bothered whatsoever?Ive been to the Calais Jungle, does that count? Im not sure many of us can probably claim to have been out to places like Syria or Afghanistan in recent times unless your in the armed forces or an aid worker but that does not mean your not qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

My wording regarding insulting was in response to your comment that I was 'probably' attempting and had achieved an aim of avoiding the issue.  The fact is it is/was the complete opposite.  I was attempting to correct your spurious claim which would then focus on the real issue which 'can' be addressed....that of the vast number of 'refugees'.  

My response to your spurious claim was to show you distorted and misrepresented the actual figures which can incorrectly colour opinions and distort the real tragedy.  

I agree opinions are the remit of our freedom of speech.  However when there is a clear misrepresentation of such a serious issue surely it is incumbent on those who can see the error to correct it?  Is that not how we learn from our mistakes?

As for the Calais jungle I would say it shows a microscopic facet of the problem but I don't recall anyone dying from starvation there, being so malnourished that orange juice can kill them, people dying from the fear of being relocated by an aircraft (something they have never seen before except that dot in the sky).....Will the smell last with you for ever?  Will the sight of children skeleton thin with distended stomachs, faces/eyes covered in flies etc on TV footage make you leave the room or risk bursting into tears?

Now possibly you understand my determination to correct the initial error.  Some we can help....refugees.  Others we should be able to help but can't because 'we' are not invited in....for example how does the 'civilised' world help internally displaced Syrians or those internally fleeing ISIS or Boko Haram?  We can't.

So far from diverting the issue my intent was to make it clearer and give focus to the real numbers of true refugees. 

[Barryd999]

pelmetman - 2017-11-26 9:08 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2017-11-26 8:36 PM

 

Ive been to the Calais Jungle, does that count? Im not sure many of us can probably claim to have been out to places like Syria or Afghanistan in recent times unless your in the armed forces or an aid worker but that does not mean your not qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

 

It just means your opinion is based on UK based Loony Liberal Twendy Wendy's having hissy fits *-) .......

 

Much like Bullets >:-) .......

 

My opinions are influenced from a wide array of sources Dave. The Daily Mail though isnt one of them, or the only one.

[Guest pelmetman]

Barryd999 - 2017-11-26 11:38 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-11-26 9:08 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2017-11-26 8:36 PM

 

Ive been to the Calais Jungle, does that count? Im not sure many of us can probably claim to have been out to places like Syria or Afghanistan in recent times unless your in the armed forces or an aid worker but that does not mean your not qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

 

It just means your opinion is based on UK based Loony Liberal Twendy Wendy's having hissy fits *-) .......

 

Much like Bullets >:-) .......

 

My opinions are influenced from a wide array of sources Dave. The Daily Mail though isnt one of them, or the only one.

 

So you'd be happy to let this lot in? ;-) .........

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5118483/Two-Afghan-gangs-open-fire-Calais.html