Forum Topic

Steve Taylor's Posts on Local Forums..

Steve has posted a lot recently on both TW8 and ChiswickW4, rabid tory stuff but I was amused by the following posted today on W4 which gives his view as to our collective intelligence on TW8, you can make your own mind up as to Steve and his postings.... "That either means that for the vast majority of the electorate in Brentford and Isleworth the personality of the candidate is irrelevant or Ann Keen's work in the constituency was underestimated. Probably a combination of both." Yes I think B&I has many die hards who follow the 'family' trend and lets face it there are many, many disinterested people. One only has to look at the low participation on the Brentford forum to understand how few have the capacity to think, debate, challenge. Put crudely - there are lots of thickos out there.

Iain Muir ● 3925d40 Comments

The "ur" was not intended, a mere slip of the keyboard or perchance a slip of my brain. I do believe it is an insult in prakalubi but it is a compliment in dwong. There you go.However, you may wish to see some slight and as such I apologise in advance. Plop xx

William Prentice ● 3921d

Iain, thank you so much for your in depth, to the bowels of the Earth and beyond, exposé of the foul, corrupt, disease ridden, filthy, disgusting, perverted dregs who might have slightly different views to your moan, sorry, own.I love you anyway. Kiss kiss,PS. Please don't carry out your terrifying threat to publish on CW4 - the world would surely end.Burp.ur

William Prentice ● 3921d

Steve, I do not get angry about internet posts but do like to expose right wing stupidity which occasionally emerges from multiple tory clone posters like yourself. You are currently ahead of the David Giles score on recent performance. First you denigrate Brentford residents as 'thicko's' and now London is full of 'scroungers'. I can contribute to which ever thread I want to but as your original post referred to Brentford (my home)I thought your latest stupidity warranted TW8........ I might continue the thought on CW4 in the morning. I believe the average reader can cope with different sites and threads........

Iain Muir ● 3921d

Oh dear,oh dear. Iain is still so upset with himself for misinterpreting a simple post that now he is confusing threads. I wish he would just get over it. Its no big deal. However, as this thread has exhausted itself, as Iain was shown to be wrong, it would probably be sensible to comment on, or debate, the Edstone story on the appropriate thread on the correct forum. Just a thought so that people can actually follow the thread as otherwise it becomes meaningless.

Steve Taylor ● 3921d

The fact that people you thought had brain cells they could use independently of politician's sound bites and right wing media barons just shows how wrong you can be. All this nonsense about 'scroungers' - the biggest call on the public purse are landlords and their exorbitant rents and pensions that people have contributed for. I only hope all these cock-a-hoop supporters of this government are never in want, never ill, never out of work or ever have a serious illness, because there'll be sod-all from this lot, we will be a mean, inward looking country by the time the next election rolls around.

Vanessa Smith ● 3921d

From his post on the Chiswick forum. (see Edstone thread)...'The point is that Ed offered little to hard working families. He concentrated on scroungers. Hence they did well in London.'So London is full of 'scroungers'.............

Iain Muir ● 3921d

Nothing equivocal at all about the wording in the first post on this thread.To interpret something wrongly does not make that thing equivocal.The interpreter in failing to see their error becomes a fool.

William Prentice ● 3923d

Thank you William. Finally its Q.E.D.

Steve Taylor ● 3923d

Careful you do not fall from your pinnacle of (self)righteousness.The post was interpreted thus and therefore was equivocal - end of debate.

Nigel Brooks ● 3923d

The simple fact is that Steve DID NOT say that people posting on TW8 were thickos.I am at a loss to understand the ridiculous over-reaction to what was clearly a misinterpretation of what he actually said.That it continues on and on like this is pathetic. Grow up.

William Prentice ● 3923d

QED!

Nigel Brooks ● 3923d

I obviously did need to put it very simply because you had no comprehension of the fact. I too have no desire to engage further with yourself as it has become tedious. I will however try to explain to the OP of this thread (and others who failed to understand) exactly what I said in the original txt which instigated this attack up me. I will do so because I promised to and I keep my word. I have no real desire to continue this nonsense.

Steve Taylor ● 3923d

You really do not need to 'put it simply'.The 'light' of your arrogance shines ever brighter.Consider it a Pyrrhic victory, I have neither the time nor the inclination to prolong a debate with someone who fails to acknowledge their own shortcomings.Doubtless this will initiate a typically arrogant "look at me, I was right" post. Please enjoy yourself in typing it.

Nigel Brooks ● 3923d

“I see that, sadly, you failed to acknowledge your arrogance.” Once again I am astounded by your inability to comprehend a simple post.To reiterate. I do not acknowledge any arrogance; I countered it.  I said “ I am also not entirely sure if arrogant or supercilious  are superlatives which could be ascribed to ‘buffoon’  but in any event I am neither. I am passive  and humble.“Put very simply for you to understand To your accusation of arrogance I said I was passiveTo your accusation of supercilious I said I was humble but could it be that you are confusing supercilious with one who doesn’t suffer fools  gladly?

Steve Taylor ● 3923d

I see that, sadly, you failed to acknowledge your arrogance.Do trust me I have been called far worse than 'thicko' by people of the ilk of those who cannot construct a comprehensible post and, when they are alerted to this, have neither the common courtesy to acknowledge their error nor apologise for it.

Nigel Brooks ● 3923d

It intrigues me when people  can do little more than resort  to personal name calling. A  buffoon I am not, and cannot be, because I jest not. I am also not entirely sure if arrogant or supercilious  are superlatives which could be ascribed to ‘buffoon’  but in any event I am neither. I am passive  and humble. Could it be that you are confusing supercilious with one who doesn’t suffer fools  gladly?  To call me a buffoon is silly to the point of stupidity, but that may be too harsh so I will not call you stupid.  It has, however , driven me to  consider nominating you,  for consideration as the first ever TW8  ‘thicko’ contributor.  However, I have never before called any TW8  contributor a ‘thicko’ so I will not allow myself to be lowered by you to do so.Must dash now to do some work but feel free to continue with the name calling if it gives you such pleasure.

Steve Taylor ● 3923d

Well there seems to be a lot of it about - because it seems quite plain to me - the meaning is 'if you don't agree with me you're thick'????

Vanessa Smith ● 3923d

Oh dear I missed a comma. Thank you for the correction.You know come across as simply a buffoon, I shall avoid the full phrasing.Arrogant and supercilious are superlatives you may insert at you leisure.Enjoy your sandwich, Do ask if they serve Umble Pie.

Nigel Brooks ● 3923d

Ok class. I will spell it out for you later. Must dash out now to grab a sandwich. Ponder in the meantime some sentence construction and consider,if you will, a comma after 'sentiments'. Would you also like me to provide the grammatical rule?

Steve Taylor ● 3923d

Either I am one of your thickos (I think not) or you lack of ability to construct a post that conveys, without concern for misinterpretation, your sentiments results in you acting like a supercilious buffoon. The latter methinks.

Nigel Brooks ● 3923d

Sorry Steve, I have read your views a number of times and you are accusing the majority of not thinking, able to debate or challenge people's views. You finish off by calling people thickos.  Am I missing something, perhaps I'm one of your thickos.

Neil Chippendale ● 3923d

Yep I wrote ityep I posted itNope I will not apologise for something you too don't appear to understand / comprehend. Quite concerning really because it is written in very simple English.

Steve Taylor ● 3923d

Did you post it?I have read and re-read it.I would man up and either admit you posted it or, better still, apologise.

Nigel Brooks ● 3924d

Oh dear, oh dear. Can you not read the sentence properly and just try to comprehend it?If you can't I'll spell it out for you when I find the energy

Steve Taylor ● 3924d

"Why on earth would I believe or say people posting on TW8 were thickos.??"See below - did you post that comment or not?"Yes I think B&I has many die hards who follow the 'family' trend and lets face it there are many, many disinterested people. One only has to look at the low participation on the Brentford forum to understand how few have the capacity to think, debate, challenge. Put crudely - there are lots of thickos out there."

Vanessa Smith ● 3924d

"From what I could see Iain was critical of you calling people who post here 'thickos',"Why on earth would I believe or say people posting on TW8 were thickos.?? Quite the contrary. I was bemoaning the fact that,unlike W4, very few TW8 people post on the forum. I would welcome it if TW8 could get its contributor numbers anywhere close to W4.I welcome and enjoy most posts and the open debate, even Betty's, which are quite funny. I also enjoyed Robin Taylor's posts, some of which I totally agreed with his views. I have no idea why he was banned but I would welcome him back as he made interesting reading whether I agreed with him or not. He gave many of us food for thought if not a good chuckle.  One poster made the point that perhaps more TW8 people don't post because they don't have time etc. I respect that view and it is probably right. Perhaps W4 people have too much time on their hands?  Adam Beamish aired his views. I respect them to, some I agree with, some I don't. I don't believe that I have ever stated that people who don't agree with me are thick. The original amicable debate was about the suggested numbers, or support, for Labour against the numbers or support for the conservatives within our Borough and the historical 'family' vote of those who didn't really bother to think about it.IMHO the W4 forum discussions suggested an incredible number of undecided voters and those having intelligent discussions about tacticle voting, mansion tax theories / calculations etc etc. I do however repeat that I find it offensive for someone who    has never met me or entered into reasonable debate, to use words like far right, extremist or rabid. I find that type of language abhorrent, despicabe and quite unnecessay. And obviously quite untrue.

Steve Taylor ● 3924d

Thank you Vanessa, it was the 'Thicko's' comment that prompted me to start this thread, it shows Steve's contempt for Brentford residents. I do not post that much and unlike Steve very little on this election. I do regard right wing views as extremist hence rabid is a fair term to use. Also Steve I am a Labour supporter, but not a member or activist, otherwise I would be knocking on doors to get the vote out rather than posting here at 20.10pm on election night.....

Iain Muir ● 3924d

From what I could see Iain was critical of you calling people who post here 'thickos', not despicable and certainly nothing to do with you expressing opinions that are somewhat to the right. Of course you are entitled to your opinion but don't for one minute make the mistake of thinking that people who disagree with you are thick.

Vanessa Smith ● 3924d

Democracy should be cherished and freedom of speech should be relished so I am quite astounded that a Labour Party activist feels it appropriate to accuse anyone who opposes his views, or has an opinion different to his, on any  particular issue, as being 'rabid'. Its a harsh and cruel word. Quite despicable and uneccessary really.

Steve Taylor ● 3924d

Quite an imagination you have there, I don't think I'd get on very well with the suppression of democracy !.

Adam Beamish ● 3924d

Ha ha.I,m just imagining you in Germany in 1933.

William Prentice ● 3924d

Affected ? - obviously.  Complaining about ? - no, indeed I never complain about such issues, because of my personal view (which I'm entitled to have) that there isn't that much difference between what any political parties offer in respect of such wider-ranging issues.Saying that, over the years you'll rarely (if indeed ever) see any kind of a political bias/angle to any of my posts regarding any subject, major or minor, because I'm simply not that way inclined.But as I say each to their own.

Adam Beamish ● 3924d

Got it in one Vanessa.A dodgy manhole cover is broadly immaterial as it is a local service, which, if dangerous, would be delivered broadly irrespective of the party in power.At a national level you are voting on far wider-ranging issues from management of the economy through to defence of the Realm. Tell me you are not affected Adam by any of these,

Nigel Brooks ● 3924d

Adam, if your argument was followed to a logical conclusion, the only people voting would be the politicians themselves.That, in effect, still happens in the most corrupt regimes.Shame on you if you can't be bothered to even try and make a difference.

William Prentice ● 3925d

None of us endorses every little detail any party stands for, so I guess you just go with the one that most fits what you believe overall, but if you choose not to exercise your democratic right then you don't really have the right to complain.

Vanessa Smith ● 3925d

The problem I have with that Nigel is that a vote for a particular party or individual doesn't necessarily mean the voter endorses everyone that party or individual stands for. But, if we follow your logic through then if the party or individual that voter votes for gets elected, that voter also doesn't have the right to make any subsequent complaint about that party or individual because after all it was they that endorsed them by voting for them in the first place.So in turn essentially the only people that should be able to make a complaint of a political nature would be those who voted for an unsuccessful candidate, which one could argue they are bound to do anyway !.Also, apart from at election time, much of the discussions/issues raised/complaints posted on forums like this aren't directly related to politics, e.g. I don't think not voting should prevent me from complaining about a clanking manhole cover in the road !.

Adam Beamish ● 3925d

Good points Adam and we'll respected as usual

Steve Taylor ● 3925d

If you choose not to exercise your democratic right sobeit, but you should then be disenfranchised from making any complaint of a political nature as you had the opportunity to make a difference.

Nigel Brooks ● 3925d

Come on guys, each to their own and all that.But I do have an issue with any supposed correlation between not voting and intelligence.  Personally speaking, I find it odd how some people can be so passionate/supportive of one particular party, in a similar way to how I perceive 'hard-core' fans of any single football fans who sing about supporting so and so until they die to be idiots, but as I say each to their own.I certainly wasn't impressed to wake up to a friend of mine spouting off on Facebook about how it is our duty to vote, what our soldiers fought/fight for etc., and how if we don't vote then we're no friend of his.I won't be voting today, I'm perfectly intelligent, I do have an interest in politics and I wouldn't think of disowning a friend just because they voted/didn't vote.

Adam Beamish ● 3925d

Iain, with respect you have missed the point entirely. But never mind, perversely you amplify my point.

Steve Taylor ● 3925d