I’m trying to decipher what you say in your first paragraph.

“GeekLayer, why do you have to stoop to personal attack to attempt to win an argument if you are as intelligent as you say you are. In regards to saying he his breaking the law in stating his desire to see Blair dead, I think that you are only highlighting the rediculous nature of the anti-terror laws.”

Geeklawyer stoops to personal attacks despite being intelligent? Well, he doesn’t stoop, intelligent or not. (I fancy the word is “educated”). GL lives and revels in the stooped position, if his blog is anything to go by.

“The ridiculous nature of the anti-terror laws”?

Are you sure you’re not GL?

You seem to be saying that the anti-terror laws are ridiculous in this case, as they were meant for terrorist sympathisers who might encourage other would-be terrorists. Therefore the law if it fits GL’s “incitement” is unjust, therefore to be ignored or not applied?

Is that right?

If it is right then the point is that it is NOT up to such as you or me or GL to decide what is just/ridiculous and on that judgement decide what to obey or not to obey.

As for Sharon Stone – she is entitled to say what she likes of course – in the free democratic west. But in many Islamic countries she’d lose her head for speaking out against her government’s foreign policy to the international media in this way … especially without wearing suitable headwear!

And yes, I DO think that this is beneath contempt:

‘ … Sharon Stone for claiming to Arab media the U.S. used the Sept. 11 attacks as “pretext” for launching wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.’

She is behaving like a stupid, brainwashed individual, imho.

And as for this:

“… that the terrorist attacks were used a pretext for invasion, that she must thereby be a supporter of those countries invaded, and all policies of their governments.”

My comments above DID not suggest this. It DID suggest that she is only being permitted to speak so freely because her (naive) message is also theirs. And they are not listening to her for HER good, but only for the p.r. it offers them.

You are not alone in thinking that violence is a not a preferable solution.

Sadly, sometimes it is the only and necessary solution.

I just wish to draw attention to this particular passage:

“Another enemy within – Sharon Stone: ‘JAFFA, Israel, 19th February, 2008 – Mideast terrorist leaders today thanked actress Sharon Stone for claiming to Arab media the U.S. used the Sept. 11 attacks as “pretext” for launching wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.’

Interesting how these Islamist men listen to THIS particular non-Islamic woman, when their own are handed the “see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil” role in life. I hesitate to dismiss any religion as evil or intrinsically wrong, but after looking at the above video, you have to wonder if Sharon Stone is in cloud cuckoo land. I know this does NOT apply to every Muslim land, but if she emigrated to one of the countries she seems to so admire she’d better be prepared to give up acting, and driving, and going out with male friends, and contemplating divorce, and coveting anyone else’s husband. Unless she wanted to lose her head”.

You seem to be saying that in suggesting that the terrorist attacks were used a pretext for invasion, that she must thereby be a supporter of those countries invaded, and all policies of their governments. There doesn’t seem to any evidence provided to support this. Perhaps, like myself, she merely thought that that the attacks were being exploited as justification for wars that could potentially still reap huge political and economic benefit in the long run (or more likely continue to be disasterous) In opposing the invasions perhaps she was opposing the use of force which inevitably would result in huge loss of civilian life. Am I alone in thinking that violence is not a preferable solution?

;0(

I have to say that GL’s responses to the latest round of blogging exchanges reminds me of one of those sad stags who have just lost a rutting contest and slouch off emitting the odd and ever fainter bellow in a pitiful attempt to save face.

‘You have nothing intelligent to say’……
I think that anyone reading the content of this blog would just laugh at you. I’m assuming you’ve looked at more on this site than the current upset? BS is a very serious and experienced commentator and I imagine that his ‘day job’ involves politics or journalism, certainly something along those lines, and so to say that is just silly and lashing out isn’t it?
He is saying plenty to you, much more than you anticipated judging by your reply, and it sounds perfectly intelligent and well enough researched to me, as is everything he puts on this blog, and even his most severe critics have never accused him of being stupid.

…… ‘and you are mentally ill’…..
That really is the lowest and last response of someone who has lost their argument, and the fact that you repeat it three times smacks of desperation. Regrettably it’s not unknown, and you’re not the first to use the term ‘mentally ill’ as a term of abuse, and it’s also repeated again here by another pitifully poisonous jack in the box. But then care, consideration and respect is reserved and fiercely protected for terrorists, but evidently not even a jot of respect for the home grown mentally ill? Nice one. The really ugly side of the ‘legal’ profession is being revealed in every comment and it’s quite an eye opener for members of the public like me to read. Talk about bringing into disrepute.

….. ‘the innocents that he has killed, in order to make money on book deals and speaking tours,’…..
Well, I suppose you’ll be saying that this is another one of your jokes when challenged, and it’s a pretty sick one alright. See Private Eye 8-21 Feb page 19. They were having a good laugh too. And mentioning lawyers.
I do hope that when you’ve (both) sobered up today, you’ll be able to come up with something better than spiteful abuse. You are alleged to be ‘decent’ lawyers for Gods sake, do attempt to respect yourselves.

Why are you still refusing to come clean about what happened to your site?

Now get back into bed, Mavis. And put down that union jack, for Gawd’s sake. When did you start knitting it? Ten years ago?

One of the favourite parts of my job is eliciting information from nutters, always puts a smile on my face, so earnest, yet so very wrong. If you were one of my clients I would giggle for one whole week!

Love ya work!

Apology accepted.

Excuse me while I smile. Can’t concentrate so well when I’m amused.

“Contrary opinion” – the thing “I” fear most?

You must admit if that’s what I feared I’d never have started this blog. I’m a contrarian by nature and nurture, as I think I may have mentioned before.

And even if you choose to disagree with me, and why not, I too can be disagreeable, I’ve managed to master the English language to the extent that I can put over my disdain, distrust or dislike WITHOUT abuse.

Try it. You can do it. You’re almost becoming self-aware.

More or less.

I can put in English, hopefully you’ll understand anyway.

“I have as I said committed no offence other than thing you ear most contrary opinion.”

“I have, as I said, committed no offence: other than thing that you fear most: contrary opinion.”

If this is not clear perhaps you could use your crayons to scribble another question, assuming that the nurses don’t feed you your medication first.