I am citing a post that supports the definition that pardon does not absolve guilt
At no point have I stated my personal opinion on the guilt of the individual.... you still need to prove your spurious and unsubstantiated claim
The man was pardoned and you're agreeing that the pardon does not absolve the guilt. And no I don't need to prove it again because I already have.
Still YOUR interpretation.... I am agreeing that ANY pardon does not remove the guilt, nut does remove the sentence
It ILLUSTRATES that a pardon does not absolve guilt in ANY CASE
It is a bit like :
I agree with a post that agrees that all bicycles have wheels and you claiming that I am talking specifically about a 26" wheel Pashley Municycle with a polka dot paint scheme
Your claims are still untrue, I have at no point made any statement that this man is guilty (or not) and you have still (unequivocally) failed to provide any evidence that I have.
I look forward to some evidence rather than a further additional untrue misinterpretations
Would you prefer to be played by Kenneth WIlliams or Charles Hawtrey in "Carry on Obfuscating".
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
pete75 wrote: The man was pardoned and you're agreeing that the pardon does not absolve the guilt. And no I don't need to prove it again because I already have.
Still YOUR interpretation.... I am agreeing that ANY pardon does not remove the guilt, nut does remove the sentence
It ILLUSTRATES that a pardon does not absolve guilt in ANY CASE
It is a bit like :
I agree with a post that agrees that all bicycles have wheels and you claiming that I am talking specifically about a 26" wheel Pashley Municycle with a polka dot paint scheme
Your claims are still untrue, I have at no point made any statement that this man is guilty (or not) and you have still (unequivocally) failed to provide any evidence that I have.
I look forward to some evidence rather than a further additional untrue misinterpretations
Would you prefer to be played by Kenneth WIlliams or Charles Hawtrey in "Carry on Obfuscating".
Childish name calling will not mask your increasingly desperate attempts to cover the fact that you are unable to provide any evidence support your untrue claims that I have alleged guilt (or not)
Personally I was never a fan of either actor, but given the standard of your evidence so far, I am sure that you will be claiming that I am saying that they are guilty of spying in the UAE and quoting your post as "proof"
Last edited by Cunobelin on 30 Nov 2018, 5:50pm, edited 2 times in total.
Tangled Metal wrote:Giving examples of past mistreatment doesn't prove or indicate it happened in this case. It does make it easier for his supporters to make that claim though.
Look I take the view that there really is no way for us to be certain of mistreatment or guilt. There's no evidence of torture. There's no evidence given of spying. We don't know much of what really happened.
What is clear to me is the way UK press reported it with UK bias for their readership obviously. So keen to listen to mistreatment claims. Plus guilty of looking at UAE legal system compared to UK system. Plus not looking into what MH was actually doing.
Has anyone on here actually read what he was doing? The type of person he talked to? What their role in UAE security? Was there any possible reason to think he was spying?
That is where the crux lies. We do not have any evidence that allows us to decide either way. One side is going to argue guilt, the other innocence. In each case the argument will be biased by their agenda.
We know insufficient to make a valid decision either way
Cunobelin wrote: Still YOUR interpretation.... I am agreeing that ANY pardon does not remove the guilt, nut does remove the sentence
It ILLUSTRATES that a pardon does not absolve guilt in ANY CASE
It is a bit like :
I agree with a post that agrees that all bicycles have wheels and you claiming that I am talking specifically about a 26" wheel Pashley Municycle with a polka dot paint scheme
Your claims are still untrue, I have at no point made any statement that this man is guilty (or not) and you have still (unequivocally) failed to provide any evidence that I have.
I look forward to some evidence rather than a further additional untrue misinterpretations
Would you prefer to be played by Kenneth WIlliams or Charles Hawtrey in "Carry on Obfuscating".
Childish name calling will not mask your increasingly desperate attempts to cover the fact that you are unable to provide any evidence support your untrue claims that I have alleged guilt (or not)
Personally I was never a fan of either actor, but given the standard of your evidence so far, I am sure that you will be claiming that I am saying that they are guilty of spying in the UAE and quoting your post as "proof"
You're getting funnier by the post. Is it comic genius or unintentional?
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
pete75 wrote:I backed them up several pages ago. I'm just keeping this going because I find your reactions amusing.
Some of us don't.
I'm a bit perplexed to see you and Cunobelin (both of whom I regard as amongst the more sensible and responsible contributors to this forum) getting into such a spat, which, as I see it, is simply over a matter of semantics.
Perhaps it just illustrates forum-speak at its liveliest - a whole different game from face-to-face-speak....
OK - carry on if you must. I'm not joining in!
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity. Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments... --- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Oh come off it! I don't have either of you marked down as a troll. Nor, I imagine, does anyone else on this forum. Believe me - I know what an internet troll is, having suffered from their assaults in the past....
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity. Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments... --- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Oh come off it! I don't have either of you marked down as a troll. Nor, I imagine, does anyone else on this forum. Believe me - I know what an internet troll is, having suffered from their assaults in the past....
My apologies, you are correct, it is simply frustrating to have untrue allegations made about your posts.
pete75 wrote:I backed them up several pages ago. I'm just keeping this going because I find your reactions amusing.
Some of us don't.
I'm a bit perplexed to see you and Cunobelin (both of whom I regard as amongst the more sensible and responsible contributors to this forum) getting into such a spat, which, as I see it, is simply over a matter of semantics.
Perhaps it just illustrates forum-speak at its liveliest - a whole different game from face-to-face-speak....
OK - carry on if you must. I'm not joining in!
You may well be right!
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
