King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]Locked Out wrote:[/b]
[quote]&quot;I am genuinely interested in why you have spent so much time refuting my hypothesis that David Kelly was murdered and &quot;Where&quot; you are coming from...&quot;

This is the only bit of your posting which really counts. But I'll address the others anyway later.

I haven't spent any time at all refuting your &quot;hypothesis&quot;. I've spent time refuting that what you so often claim as &quot;fact&quot; is in fact opinion, as you yourself now realise. You never say &quot;I think&quot;. You never say &quot;In my opinion&quot;. What you do do is lay in front of this discussion board repeatedly the latter as if it should be plain to all that it's the former. As you say, this IS a discussion board. Very few people discuss your postings, let alone anylise them. I'd have thought you would welcome the engagement. It would be helpful to those {like me} who do bother to read your threads if in future you made clear that all you are doing here is presenting opinions. That way people have the opportunity to engage what you say rather than just take it as read that that's what happened....

Now then. Onto the rest;

&quot;Many thanks for your critique of my Grammatical skills. Academics in all areas are quite often hard to read because grammar is not a strong point in research. But if it makes you happy to try and belittle my writing on blogs then that is fine.&quot;

On the contrary, grammatical skills, and their correct usage, are an essential of communication. If you don't write clearly your message is either misinterpreted or misunderstood. Any written work must be plainly, clearly and correctly communicated to the reader for this reason quite apart from anything else. As it appears that I have misunderstood or misinterpreted what you have written, it should be easy to see I'm right. I'm not trying to belittle you, where would be the point in that? I enjoy writing here because of the freedom to express opinion without worrying about judgment. It would make little sense for me to get so heavily involved in that sort of sophistry.

&quot;This is a discussion forum where generally people give opinions. For anyone to provide primary evidence would mean access to enquiries and often secret documents. You know full well that for many things that is not going to be provided on King of Hits the blog.&quot;

Then why do you pitch things the way you do? My dear chap, as I've pointed out to you already, you never engage in discussion in this way. You simply present things as if they're undeniably true. That's at the hub of my argument. And to say that you can't quote primary sources on a blog is ludicrous. If, for instance, you were to say to me that there's no evidence to suggest that Jesus really existed {I know, you'd never say that...} I'd say that there is, and quote you Josephus as a primary source. If you were to tell me that the Emperor Hadrian never had a secretary I'd tell you you're wrong and quote Suetonius as a primary source. There's nothing... nothing... to stop you quotong primary sources other than the fact that you constantly make allegations which are unsubstantiated and cannot be supported by any real evidence. That's my issue.

&quot;Therefore I find your requests slightly strange - because you are now saying that for someone to have an opinion they need to have the actual source. Whereas for most of us on here we have to rely on secondary evidence for most of our opinions on Government and events.&quot;

No, I'm saying that if someone is going to make a statement they should be prepared to back it up with something other than platitudes. Is that really that unreasonable? And we can easily form opinions on government and events by our own judgment of their actions, where there is no need for evidence, primary or secondary source.

&quot;The only people who have access to the Primary Sources are those in power.&quot;

While that's true it shouldn't stop people forming their own judgement on current events without the need for conspiracy theory. Just because all the facts in the Kelly case don't add up doesn't automatically mean that we should assume that MI5 got rid of him. The fact that every single one of his fellow weapons inspectors is still alive and free to talk would rather suggest that we shouldn't assume that.

&quot;Therefore your argument actually means that nothing on this forum or any other on the internet has any academic rigour&quot;

No it doesn't. Discussion is one thing. As I've repeatedly pointed out, the presentation of allegation as established fact is not discussion. And I could point you to lots of discussion forums where people back up their arguments with things like &quot;according to...&quot; or &quot;to quote...&quot;.

&quot;That may be true in some respects if you want to discuss say current Government policy at the level of say research into National Socialism where some of the documentary evidence is available.&quot;

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. All government policy - at least at a parliamentary level - is backed up by white papers, green papers, bills and statute law. In fact we have primarly sources for every piece of legislation the government produces. Plus the House of Commons is open to scrutiny by anyone with access to the neccessary TV channel.

&quot;You question my &quot;Qualifications&quot; but I can assure you that several people posting on here know me and know that those qualifications are true. So how about you telling us about your qualifications on which you base your comments. I doubt if you would say reveal which degree at which University you have obtained....but until you do how do we know that you are not just reading a GCSE textbook on History about sources or cut and pasting some Wiki about &quot;Evidence&quot; onto this forum.&quot;

I haven't questioned your qualifications, merely suggested that you should apply what you learned in gaining them. My own qualifications don't really come into it, however I'm perfectly happy to disclose no great academic achievements on my part, only 7 O levels. Does that matter? You may be sure that my words, however, are entirely my own. I doubt if you could find any Wiki article that could so comprehensively engage your postings line by line. The 
etiquette of good, scholarly research is well known enough not to require plagiarism by anyone. Equally, I doubt that you will find anything I've written in a GCSE history textbook. Probably because nothing I've so far written  would be likely to be covered by such a volume.[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: David Kelly : Latest Article on his death
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
BR	onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4904.shtml The PLOT THICKENS. Thank you Locked OUt and Veritas - good points. Consider this : why is the UK government grabbing so much DNA ? Read the article and see that DR KELLY and a colleague were working on DNA MARKERS for BIOLOGICAL WARFARE. In other words drugs that would attack certain people with certain DNA markers in a WARFARE situation. If the GOVERNMENT holds our DNA records then it means that if they "fell" into the wrong hands then whole groups of people could be killed just by putting something in their breakfast or in the air. It would look RANDOM to the outside world but would kill them. Very very clever and more effective than "poisons" based Biological attack which effect everyone and basically risk the life of the attacker as well. Harder to carry out as well. KELLY could have been threatening to reveal in his book this research - having had enough of the way the Government was using their work ( UK and USA ) More than any other death in recent times we need a public enquiry into a ) His death and b) The Claims now being made about him going public about other things apart from Iraq. Possibly Blair/UK Government did not murder him. Possibly it was a "higher power"........
veritas	there are aspects of Kelly's death that are disturbing and the Hutton investigation appears to be extraordinarily slack. The fact there was no coronial enquiry which is always independant- not that they can't be fixed-but it's things like this give ride to people's mistrust of the process. Add in other troubling things like no fingerprints being taken on the water bottle or tablet blister packs. Particularly in such a high profile case.
Locked Out	"When you lose the argument rule number one - ridicule the person !!" I've lost the argument? Which one? I've said repeatedly that I share your view that there is something deeply fishy about the way Dr Kelly met his end. I have no beef with your conclusions here. It's your inconsistent logic and flawed thinking that I take issue with. It's those elements I ridicule rather than the person. But then again, who IS the person? I have difficulty recognising your position{s} as belonging in the space occupied by only one man. One moment you claim not to be a conspiracy theorist. The next you refer to conspiracy theorists as "we". You claim that conspiracy theorists are also known as "truthers". Then a couple of days later that is no longer the case. You claim to have inside knowledge of the US secret service. Your source? "my daughter works for a company that has connections with Dick Cheney." You'll pardon, of course, a sardonic smirk here. You can't back up your claim that Milliband told you {or someone, apparently} that the British and US governments have "Stargates" which allow them to see into the future. You make much of Gordon Brown's statements on the relationship between the war on the Taliban and issues of British domestic national security, flagging them up as if their sudden appearance in some way proves something you've "revealed" to us here. Which would be fine if Brown and others haven't been saying exactly the same things for years. And you've entirely failed to recognise my own position throughout this thread; "I think that though Locked Out does not believe me then perhaps you need to read this : 13 Scientists and Friends of David Kelly have now launched a campaign." If you had read ANYTHING I've written here other than what it has pleased to to take as ad hominem you would see that I have no problem with the basic premise that MI5 might have been involved with Dr Kelly's death. I repeat, however, that conclusions like this should be reached in a considered way. Not simply because they suit the causes of whichever conspiracy theorist has impressed you this week. If you believe that I have lost the argument it's because I'm arguing from a position of consistency. Something which, it's clear, you have little personal relationship with.
BR	When you lose the argument rule number one - ridicule the person !! You have ignored the last post in which 13 very high ranking doctors have agreed TOTALLY with what I have said. They have looked at the medical evidence and come to the conclusion that Dr KELLY was murdered by the Government. In addition Liberal MP Norman Baker has written a long book coming to the same conclusion. in addition there was NO CORONER's REPORT into his death and the official verdict was from TONY BLAIR's HUXLEY report. I might also add that this forum is a bit of fun sometimes !!! But this topic is serious and I think you need to look at the article by the Doctors. Whom I am sure you wont ridicule !
Locked Out	Quote Number One; "Let me just be clear about what you are saying here, B R. Are you seriously describing David Kelly as a Conspiracy Theorist? The capitals, by the way, are yours, not mine." Quote Number Two; "I'm not at all happy with official expanation of David Kelly's death myself." As usual, my friend, your arguments are spurious. You claim I "don't believe you", and in many cases {such as your plainly ludicrous idea that Britain and the US have a device which enables them to see into the future}, you're right. However, as Quote Number Two, taken from this page illustrates, I'm far from convinced that in this, as in many other cases, that our government is not telling us the truth. My reason for challenging you in the way I have is that you are mixing reasonable arguments, such as the one surrounding the death of Kelly, with plainly insane rantings about David Bowie, Nazi states and UFOs {oh, and the seeing-into-the-future device which led to the US ramming two of its own jets into one of its own high prestige buildings while attacking another of its own high prestige buildings with one of its own rockets and then pretending it was another of its own jets} and conflating them together as if they all shared the same degree of credence. They don't. In fact in terms of believability they're as far polarised from each other as seriously suspicious death and utterly incredulous, mouth-breathing bullshit can be. I originally asked you for a quote which backed up your claim that the government regarded Kelly as a "conspiracy theorist". You have failed to do this. You presumably feel the need to get me to respond to your postings, given that this is at least the second time that you have namechecked me. Why is this? You think that if you throw enough lunacy at me I'll catch some of it myself? Away with you, you strange individual...