Fantastic player with dodgy political opinions it seems.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61009245
Printable View
Fantastic player with dodgy political opinions it seems.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61009245
[QUOTE=the other bob wilson;5290360]Fantastic player with dodgy political opinions it seems.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61009245.
[QUOTE=TWGL1;5290496]Oops! Hope no one saw that you had originally linked this bit of classic fake news :hehe:
https://twitter.com/horacealgernon1/...26175403524101
[QUOTE=TWGL1;5290502]You certainly can ask, and I am happy to answer.
These things will get shared regardless, so it's better for it to be clearly labelled as fake news than not.
Can I ask why you were intending to post it in the first place, and if you were also going to say it is not genuine?
I think with most things on line , it could be argued both ways if it’s genuine or not.
That being said , with posters like you, who are really comfortable following the official narrative, I couldn’t be bothered wasting time with the justification of the post which is why I decided to remove it.
The fact that you took the time to add it again……well you know the answer….
Oh yes, it can be argued. Anything can be argued online but that doesn't change facts.
As I answered your question willingly, could you answer mine? Why were you posting it in the first place, and were you going to say that it's not real?
Although if you really are going to stop posting fake rubbish because of "posters like me" then we all win. A few others on here could do with following your good example.
I posted it to back up the original post …. The media is one sided from both angles .
How did you deduce that the footage was fake out of interest?
What a strange way to make your point. Anyway, to answer your question:
Original video uploaded to YouTube 5 Feb 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o3Rph8DcUY
Ukraine invasion began 24 Feb 2022
Don't have to be a rocket scientist!
I don’t think it’s the date of the footage that’s the problem ,it’s the news ticker tape
You chose to repost a link which I offered no opinion , I thought it was Russian/Ukraine bias
CLassic trolling thread from you fair play , reactivating a post that was up for less than 40 seconds.
It appears to me that this is what you do. You don’t bring any value to the contributions of posters with different opinions to yours.
A bit of advice here …. If you don’t like what I post , put me on ignore
Mr Lardy
I call out people who post nonsense like the moving corpse video. I agree, they don't like it when I do.
I don't agree that it is about different opinions. Showing that something is completely false is not about opinion.
I'm not going to put you on ignore. But it seems you don't like what I post, so can I ask why you haven't followed your own advice and put me on ignore?
We are going over old ground.As I’ve said we will agree to disagree. Ultimately at first glance it appeared false propaganda and it still could be , however , With some posts you have to consider service users like yourself and it’s not worth the noise. This thread is a classic example.
I’ve got to go to work shortly , do you work ?
Poor Le Tizz has been cancelled , brilliant example of closing down debate and different views by personal attacks
If the media coverage was fair and impartial, very few accusations of “misinformation spreading”would occur. Credible reporting would crush any falsehoods. It is a testimony to just how little the public actually know probably is one of the main reasons that such brutal accusations continue.
This has been the case for quite some time.
Climate change and the pandemic is the same.
What was cancelled, by whom and why?
I read the report that he had posted some fake news (trying to undermine reports of Russian atrocities in Ukraine), got called out for it, deleted it and stepped aside as a Saints Ambassador as a result.
Which bits did you see were brilliant examples of closing down debate and different views by personal attack? What examples of fake nonsense do you want spread more widely as a result?
I saw LeTissier described in a magazine article as the sort of libertarian who wants the freedom to do what he likes no matter what the consequences of that were to others - would have thought that was pretty bleeding obvious actually and rather comes with the territory with those who identify with the term.
How is debate being closed down? He can still talk as much as he wants, Southampton just don't agree with his views so don't want to associate themselves with him. Perfect example of the right to free speech at work - free speech doesn't mean free speech without consequences, some righty snowflakes seem to forget that
The people who talk most about free speech don't really know what it means. I'm sure if i did a search on "free speech" on ccmb, three quarters of the posts would be getting it wrong, thinking that it means they should be insulated from being told they're talking rubbish.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how wrong is he?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYLqJ3h9KQw