Discussion:
Chelsy Davy's father faces inquiry into business deals
(too old to reply)
yD
2006-04-26 13:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Offered without comment as to acceptability of father or daughter
within the royal family:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article359108.ece
Breton
2006-04-26 16:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by yD
Offered without comment as to acceptability of father or daughter
Given the capriciousness of the Mugabe regime in Zim, this probably
means very little. The regime is known to trump up charges against its
political enemies; this could mean merely that Davy somehow displeased
Bob and Bob told his Justice Minister to come up with something. Given
the disastrous rate of inflation in Zim any sane business person still
able to do business there is likely going to want to trade in anything
but Zim dollars.

Breton
Jean Sue Libkind
2006-04-26 21:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by yD
Offered without comment as to acceptability of father or daughter
Given the capriciousness of the Mugabe regime in Zim, this probably
means very little. The regime is known to trump up charges against its
political enemies; this could mean merely that Davy somehow displeased
Bob and Bob told his Justice Minister to come up with something. Given
the disastrous rate of inflation in Zim any sane business person still
able to do business there is likely going to want to trade in anything
but Zim dollars.
Breton
Or they hope to embarass the Windsors or snare Chelsy for themselves!!!!!

js
Julian
2006-04-27 00:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by yD
Offered without comment as to acceptability of father or daughter
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article359108.ece
You have to wonder whether his cozy dealings with the Mugabe regime
have only now gone sour because he possibly got greedier than usual and
didn't pay the expected kickbacks to the Zimb. gov't, or whether
Mugabe wanted more than was usually expected. Either way, it doesn't
matter because once in bed with a devil you're known forever by the
company you chose to keep. Chelsy Davis is just as much tainted by
living off blood money as are diamond dealers in New York guilty of
trading in so-called "blood diamonds" from Sierra Leone etc. All
adults, all making adult decisions for which they alone are
responsible. Were she not so tainted, Prince Harry would have had the
green light to go to Zimb. to visit the Davises long ago. So saying
that there's no notoriety around Charles Davis and family just doesn't
add up.
Breton
2006-04-27 13:40:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Chelsy Davis is just as much tainted by
living off blood money as are diamond dealers in New York guilty of
trading in so-called "blood diamonds" from Sierra Leone etc.
Since you have absolutely no knowledge of the relationship between the
Zim president and Davis, you really have no basis for labelling Davis'
wealth as "blood money". There are two possibilities: Davis is somehow
in cahoots with Mugabe and indeed deals in tainted funds; or, Davis is
a businessman who made his fortune in cattle ranching and who has
lately been successful in managing game park businesses owned by a
prominent member of the Mugabe regime. Even if the first case is
nearest the truth, it's a long step to suggesting that Chelsy (who
admittedly is supported by her father) is implicated in any wrongdoing
directly. I don't recall you being similarly outraged when the son of a
known gun runner (M. el Fayed) was dating Diana, Princess of Wales. In
that case, there was no doubt that Fayed was a shady character.
Post by Julian
All
adults, all making adult decisions for which they alone are
responsible.
Chelsy is Davis' daughter, she is who she is and if she is innocent
then I don't see any grounds for complaining about her relationship
with the Prince. Besides, she has been dating the Prince for quite some
time and I would assume that if there was something that concerned the
RF, it would have been enough to end the relationship already.
Post by Julian
Were she not so tainted, Prince Harry would have had the
green light to go to Zimb. to visit the Davises long ago. So saying
that there's no notoriety around Charles Davis and family just doesn't
add up.
It is more likely that the reason Harry hasn't visited her or her
family in Zim thus far is because such a visit would be a huge
propaganda coup for Mugabe. This would be so whether or not Davy's
relationship with the regime is on the up and up or not.

Breton
Jean Sue Libkind
2006-04-27 15:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
Chelsy Davis is just as much tainted by
living off blood money as are diamond dealers in New York guilty of
trading in so-called "blood diamonds" from Sierra Leone etc.
Since you have absolutely no knowledge of the relationship between the
Zim president and Davis, you really have no basis for labelling Davis'
wealth as "blood money". There are two possibilities: Davis is somehow
in cahoots with Mugabe and indeed deals in tainted funds; or, Davis is
a businessman who made his fortune in cattle ranching and who has
lately been successful in managing game park businesses owned by a
prominent member of the Mugabe regime. Even if the first case is
nearest the truth, it's a long step to suggesting that Chelsy (who
admittedly is supported by her father) is implicated in any wrongdoing
directly. I don't recall you being similarly outraged when the son of a
known gun runner (M. el Fayed) was dating Diana, Princess of Wales. In
that case, there was no doubt that Fayed was a shady character.
We wouldn't want to presume innocence until guilt is proven, would we?

js
Brian Pears
2006-04-27 17:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
We wouldn't want to presume innocence until guilt is proven, would we?
;-)
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
t***@comcast.net
2006-04-27 18:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
Chelsy Davis is just as much tainted by
living off blood money as are diamond dealers in New York guilty of
trading in so-called "blood diamonds" from Sierra Leone etc.
Since you have absolutely no knowledge of the relationship between the
Zim president and Davis, you really have no basis for labelling Davis'
wealth as "blood money". There are two possibilities: Davis is somehow
in cahoots with Mugabe and indeed deals in tainted funds; or, Davis is
a businessman who made his fortune in cattle ranching and who has
lately been successful in managing game park businesses owned by a
prominent member of the Mugabe regime. Even if the first case is
nearest the truth, it's a long step to suggesting that Chelsy (who
admittedly is supported by her father) is implicated in any wrongdoing
directly. I don't recall you being similarly outraged when the son of a
known gun runner (M. el Fayed) was dating Diana, Princess of Wales. In
that case, there was no doubt that Fayed was a shady character.
We wouldn't want to presume innocence until guilt is proven, would we?
js
Remember...Presumption is the Mother of Rumor and Assertion is the
Father of Lies!

--
The Verminator
yD
2006-04-27 19:13:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@comcast.net
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
Chelsy Davis is just as much tainted by
living off blood money as are diamond dealers in New York guilty of
trading in so-called "blood diamonds" from Sierra Leone etc.
Since you have absolutely no knowledge of the relationship between the
Zim president and Davis, you really have no basis for labelling Davis'
wealth as "blood money". There are two possibilities: Davis is somehow
in cahoots with Mugabe and indeed deals in tainted funds; or, Davis is
a businessman who made his fortune in cattle ranching and who has
lately been successful in managing game park businesses owned by a
prominent member of the Mugabe regime. Even if the first case is
nearest the truth, it's a long step to suggesting that Chelsy (who
admittedly is supported by her father) is implicated in any wrongdoing
directly. I don't recall you being similarly outraged when the son of a
known gun runner (M. el Fayed) was dating Diana, Princess of Wales. In
that case, there was no doubt that Fayed was a shady character.
We wouldn't want to presume innocence until guilt is proven, would we?
js
Remember...Presumption is the Mother of Rumor and Assertion is the
Father of Lies!
So where is "gossip" in the family?
yD
Post by t***@comcast.net
--
The Verminator
t***@comcast.net
2006-04-27 19:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by yD
Post by t***@comcast.net
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
Chelsy Davis is just as much tainted by
living off blood money as are diamond dealers in New York guilty of
trading in so-called "blood diamonds" from Sierra Leone etc.
Since you have absolutely no knowledge of the relationship between the
Zim president and Davis, you really have no basis for labelling Davis'
wealth as "blood money". There are two possibilities: Davis is somehow
in cahoots with Mugabe and indeed deals in tainted funds; or, Davis is
a businessman who made his fortune in cattle ranching and who has
lately been successful in managing game park businesses owned by a
prominent member of the Mugabe regime. Even if the first case is
nearest the truth, it's a long step to suggesting that Chelsy (who
admittedly is supported by her father) is implicated in any wrongdoing
directly. I don't recall you being similarly outraged when the son of a
known gun runner (M. el Fayed) was dating Diana, Princess of Wales. In
that case, there was no doubt that Fayed was a shady character.
We wouldn't want to presume innocence until guilt is proven, would we?
js
Remember...Presumption is the Mother of Rumor and Assertion is the
Father of Lies!
So where is "gossip" in the family?
yD
Post by t***@comcast.net
--
The Verminator
Gossip is the bastard offspring of Presumption and Assertion.

--
The Verminator
Julian
2006-04-27 20:49:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@comcast.net
Post by yD
Post by t***@comcast.net
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
Chelsy Davis is just as much tainted by
living off blood money as are diamond dealers in New York guilty of
trading in so-called "blood diamonds" from Sierra Leone etc.
Since you have absolutely no knowledge of the relationship between the
Zim president and Davis, you really have no basis for labelling Davis'
wealth as "blood money". There are two possibilities: Davis is somehow
in cahoots with Mugabe and indeed deals in tainted funds; or, Davis is
a businessman who made his fortune in cattle ranching and who has
lately been successful in managing game park businesses owned by a
prominent member of the Mugabe regime. Even if the first case is
nearest the truth, it's a long step to suggesting that Chelsy (who
admittedly is supported by her father) is implicated in any wrongdoing
directly. I don't recall you being similarly outraged when the son of a
known gun runner (M. el Fayed) was dating Diana, Princess of Wales. In
that case, there was no doubt that Fayed was a shady character.
We wouldn't want to presume innocence until guilt is proven, would we?
js
Remember...Presumption is the Mother of Rumor and Assertion is the
Father of Lies!
So where is "gossip" in the family?
yD
Post by t***@comcast.net
--
The Verminator
Gossip is the bastard offspring of Presumption and Assertion.
--
The Verminator
Since this is alt.GOSSIP.royalty, you can always choose to get out of
the kitchen when the heat of the gossip doesn't suit you. Especially
when it's gossip that tends to expose the double standards of
sycophants...
Julian
2006-04-27 20:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
Chelsy Davis is just as much tainted by
living off blood money as are diamond dealers in New York guilty of
trading in so-called "blood diamonds" from Sierra Leone etc.
Since you have absolutely no knowledge of the relationship between the
Zim president and Davis, you really have no basis for labelling Davis'
wealth as "blood money". There are two possibilities: Davis is somehow
in cahoots with Mugabe and indeed deals in tainted funds; or, Davis is
a businessman who made his fortune in cattle ranching and who has
lately been successful in managing game park businesses owned by a
prominent member of the Mugabe regime. Even if the first case is
nearest the truth, it's a long step to suggesting that Chelsy (who
admittedly is supported by her father) is implicated in any wrongdoing
directly. I don't recall you being similarly outraged when the son of a
known gun runner (M. el Fayed) was dating Diana, Princess of Wales. In
that case, there was no doubt that Fayed was a shady character.
We wouldn't want to presume innocence until guilt is proven, would we?
js
And what pray tell would something like you know about the word
"innocence" except by the remotest hearsay?

Hilarious indeed.
Jean Sue Libkind
2006-04-27 22:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
Chelsy Davis is just as much tainted by
living off blood money as are diamond dealers in New York guilty of
trading in so-called "blood diamonds" from Sierra Leone etc.
Since you have absolutely no knowledge of the relationship between the
Zim president and Davis, you really have no basis for labelling Davis'
wealth as "blood money". There are two possibilities: Davis is somehow
in cahoots with Mugabe and indeed deals in tainted funds; or, Davis is
a businessman who made his fortune in cattle ranching and who has
lately been successful in managing game park businesses owned by a
prominent member of the Mugabe regime. Even if the first case is
nearest the truth, it's a long step to suggesting that Chelsy (who
admittedly is supported by her father) is implicated in any wrongdoing
directly. I don't recall you being similarly outraged when the son of a
known gun runner (M. el Fayed) was dating Diana, Princess of Wales. In
that case, there was no doubt that Fayed was a shady character.
We wouldn't want to presume innocence until guilt is proven, would we?
js
And what pray tell would something like you know about the word
"innocence" except by the remotest hearsay?
Hilarious indeed.
"something" like me. My, aren't we droll?

js
Brian Pears
2006-04-27 22:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
"something" like me. My, aren't we droll?
Especially when it comes from something like him.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
f***@verizon.net
2006-04-27 23:44:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by Julian
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
We wouldn't want to presume innocence until guilt is proven, would we?
js
And what pray tell would something like you know about the word
"innocence" except by the remotest hearsay?
Hilarious indeed.
"something" like me. My, aren't we droll?
Nah. We're just projecting.

Susan
Julian
2006-04-28 01:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@verizon.net
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
Post by Julian
Post by Jean Sue Libkind
We wouldn't want to presume innocence until guilt is proven, would we?
js
And what pray tell would something like you know about the word
"innocence" except by the remotest hearsay?
Hilarious indeed.
"something" like me. My, aren't we droll?
Nah. We're just projecting.
Susan
Nah, you do that daily with your sister's part-time lover Rev. Phil, he
has you rightly pegged as the projecting Irish Scum wannabe Jew
Princess.
Julian
2006-04-27 20:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
Chelsy Davis is just as much tainted by
living off blood money as are diamond dealers in New York guilty of
trading in so-called "blood diamonds" from Sierra Leone etc.
Since you have absolutely no knowledge of the relationship between the
Zim president and Davis, you really have no basis for labelling Davis'
wealth as "blood money".
By that token, neither do you have absolutely any knowledge of the
relationshiop between Mugabe and Davis, so anything else you have to
counter with is just biased speculation of its own kind.

There are two possibilities: Davis is somehow
Post by Breton
in cahoots with Mugabe and indeed deals in tainted funds; or, Davis is
a businessman who made his fortune in cattle ranching and who has
lately been successful in managing game park businesses owned by a
prominent member of the Mugabe regime. Even if the first case is
nearest the truth, it's a long step to suggesting that Chelsy (who
admittedly is supported by her father) is implicated in any wrongdoing
directly.
There is only one *likely* possibility and that is the one I outlined.
The rest is you reaching hard and far and being disengenuous. Therein
lies the long step.

As to Chelsy, since she as an adult has chosen to continue living off
the blood money of her father, she in turn bears an adult
responsibility for her actions. If Harry bears responsibility over his
actions in drinking/smoking/wearing nazi uniforms, rather minor by
comparison with association with a savage dictatorship, then Chelsy
most certainly is answerable for her own choices as well.


I don't recall you being similarly outraged when the son of a
Post by Breton
known gun runner (M. el Fayed) was dating Diana, Princess of Wales. In
that case, there was no doubt that Fayed was a shady character.
How does that gainsay what Chelsy Davis and her father are up to in the
present?

However, since I wasn't the party who decided to make any such
comparison initially in this thread, perhaps you should follow your own
advice and move on and get over it.
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
All
adults, all making adult decisions for which they alone are
responsible.
Chelsy is Davis' daughter, she is who she is and if she is innocent
then I don't see any grounds for complaining about her relationship
with the Prince. Besides, she has been dating the Prince for quite some
time and I would assume that if there was something that concerned the
RF, it would have been enough to end the relationship already.
Post by Julian
Were she not so tainted, Prince Harry would have had the
green light to go to Zimb. to visit the Davises long ago. So saying
that there's no notoriety around Charles Davis and family just doesn't
add up.
It is more likely that the reason Harry hasn't visited her or her
family in Zim thus far is because such a visit would be a huge
propaganda coup for Mugabe. This would be so whether or not Davy's
relationship with the regime is on the up and up or not.
Breton
Breton
2006-04-27 20:57:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
By that token, neither do you have absolutely any knowledge of the
relationshiop between Mugabe and Davis, so anything else you have to
counter with is just biased speculation of its own kind.
You really are rather thick, aren't you, Julian. You seem to be
agreeing with me that since we don't know what the relationship is,
your use of "blood money" is ridiculous.
Post by Julian
There is only one *likely* possibility and that is the one I outlined.
No. The possibility I outlined is also likely too.
Post by Julian
As to Chelsy, since she as an adult has chosen to continue living off
the blood money of her father,
Again, you have no basis for assuming that Davy's assets are "blood"
money. I have already indicated that it's possible that Davy might be
involved with a Mugabe minister, but "blood money" is over the top (but
you know that and only wrote it for effect.)
Post by Julian
I don't recall you being similarly outraged when the son of a
Post by Breton
known gun runner (M. el Fayed) was dating Diana, Princess of Wales. In
that case, there was no doubt that Fayed was a shady character.
How does that gainsay what Chelsy Davis and her father are up to in the
present?
It doesn't. And Chelsy and her father are not necessarily "up to"
anything. I was merely pointing out that because you have chosen to
criticize Harry and not Diana, you are biased again Harry. If you have
specific knowledge of some wrongdoing by Davy (and not just speculation
or assumption) let's hear it.
Post by Julian
However, since I wasn't the party who decided to make any such
comparison initially in this thread, perhaps you should follow your own
advice and move on and get over it.
Well, I am the one who has asked you and the other Dianamaniacs for
years to accept the fact that Diana is dead, and move on.

Breton
Julian
2006-04-27 21:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
By that token, neither do you have absolutely any knowledge of the
relationshiop between Mugabe and Davis, so anything else you have to
counter with is just biased speculation of its own kind.
You really are rather thick, aren't you, Julian. You seem to be
agreeing with me that since we don't know what the relationship is,
your use of "blood money" is ridiculous.
No, I'm asserting that it's a perfectly reasonable speculation that all
of Davis's wealth can be characterised as ill-gotten gain through his
direct long-time association with members of the Mugage regime. What
part of that are you too stupid to understand?
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
There is only one *likely* possibility and that is the one I outlined.
No. The possibility I outlined is also likely too.
No, it's not likely that he "just happened" somehow to be operating at
an enormous profit in Zimbabwe all these years, when most other white
farmers and business people have had property either confiscated, sold
at a loss, or in some cases had to physically flee for their lives.
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
As to Chelsy, since she as an adult has chosen to continue living off
the blood money of her father,
Again, you have no basis for assuming that Davy's assets are "blood"
money. I have already indicated that it's possible that Davy might be
involved with a Mugabe minister, but "blood money" is over the top (but
you know that and only wrote it for effect.)
I haven't assumed anything. You have. You're assuming that Davis is in
all likelihood clean of any wrongdoing in being involved with the
Mugabe regime. You're free to speculate, although your speculations
are the ones so desperately over the top.
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
I don't recall you being similarly outraged when the son of a
Post by Breton
known gun runner (M. el Fayed) was dating Diana, Princess of Wales. In
that case, there was no doubt that Fayed was a shady character.
How does that gainsay what Chelsy Davis and her father are up to in the
present?
It doesn't. And Chelsy and her father are not necessarily "up to"
anything. I was merely pointing out that because you have chosen to
criticize Harry and not Diana, you are biased again Harry. If you have
specific knowledge of some wrongdoing by Davy (and not just speculation
or assumption) let's hear it.
I never said they were "neccesarily" up to anything. It has nothing to
do with Harry except insofar as I pointed out, he rightly took
responsibility for his own personal actions as an adult but Chelsy
Davis has clearly not. She rushes back and forth between Harare and
London at a moment's notice...usually to party it up or spend some more
blood money on Bond St.. Now, if you know of some specific knoweldge
why she should not be an object of speculation in terms of her own
lifestyle decisions, perhaps you can present it. But you don't.
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
However, since I wasn't the party who decided to make any such
comparison initially in this thread, perhaps you should follow your own
advice and move on and get over it.
Well, I am the one who has asked you and the other Dianamaniacs for
years to accept the fact that Diana is dead, and move on.
Well, since I'[m not a Dianamaniac [sic] your delusions aren't
applicable here any more than the silly comparision between a "gun
runner" who *was* received by the Queen and a blood businessman who has
*never* been received by the Queen. So perhaps you'd be best advised
to follow your own recent advise and move on. This is about the
present royal family, and someone dating a member of the royal family,
nothing else. Get over it if the picture doesn't square well with your
amazingly myopic sycophancy.
Post by Breton
Breton
volcaran
2006-04-28 16:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
By that token, neither do you have absolutely any knowledge of the
relationshiop between Mugabe and Davis, so anything else you have to
counter with is just biased speculation of its own kind.
You really are rather thick, aren't you, Julian. You seem to be
agreeing with me that since we don't know what the relationship is,
your use of "blood money" is ridiculous.
No, I'm asserting that it's a perfectly reasonable speculation that all
of Davis's wealth can be characterised as ill-gotten gain through his
direct long-time association with members of the Mugage regime. What
part of that are you too stupid to understand?
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
There is only one *likely* possibility and that is the one I outlined.
No. The possibility I outlined is also likely too.
No, it's not likely that he "just happened" somehow to be operating at
an enormous profit in Zimbabwe all these years, when most other white
farmers and business people have had property either confiscated, sold
at a loss, or in some cases had to physically flee for their lives.
The Mugabe regime's seizure of farms and intimidation/violence etc
against white farmers is well documented. Which "most" other business
people have had assets confiscated etc.
Post by Julian
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
As to Chelsy, since she as an adult has chosen to continue living off
the blood money of her father,
Again, you have no basis for assuming that Davy's assets are "blood"
money. I have already indicated that it's possible that Davy might be
involved with a Mugabe minister, but "blood money" is over the top (but
you know that and only wrote it for effect.)
I haven't assumed anything. You have. You're assuming that Davis is in
all likelihood clean of any wrongdoing in being involved with the
Mugabe regime. You're free to speculate, although your speculations
are the ones so desperately over the top.
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
I don't recall you being similarly outraged when the son of a
Post by Breton
known gun runner (M. el Fayed) was dating Diana, Princess of Wales. In
that case, there was no doubt that Fayed was a shady character.
How does that gainsay what Chelsy Davis and her father are up to in the
present?
It doesn't. And Chelsy and her father are not necessarily "up to"
anything. I was merely pointing out that because you have chosen to
criticize Harry and not Diana, you are biased again Harry. If you have
specific knowledge of some wrongdoing by Davy (and not just speculation
or assumption) let's hear it.
I never said they were "neccesarily" up to anything. It has nothing to
do with Harry except insofar as I pointed out, he rightly took
responsibility for his own personal actions as an adult but Chelsy
Davis has clearly not. She rushes back and forth between Harare and
London at a moment's notice...usually to party it up or spend some more
blood money on Bond St.. Now, if you know of some specific knoweldge
why she should not be an object of speculation in terms of her own
lifestyle decisions, perhaps you can present it. But you don't.
Post by Breton
Post by Julian
However, since I wasn't the party who decided to make any such
comparison initially in this thread, perhaps you should follow your own
advice and move on and get over it.
Well, I am the one who has asked you and the other Dianamaniacs for
years to accept the fact that Diana is dead, and move on.
Well, since I'[m not a Dianamaniac [sic] your delusions aren't
applicable here any more than the silly comparision between a "gun
runner" who *was* received by the Queen and a blood businessman who has
*never* been received by the Queen. So perhaps you'd be best advised
to follow your own recent advise and move on. This is about the
present royal family, and someone dating a member of the royal family,
nothing else. Get over it if the picture doesn't square well with your
amazingly myopic sycophancy.
Post by Breton
Breton
Julian
2006-04-28 21:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Most that I've either heard of or even had the chance to speak to
personally, including people in the hospitality and resort industry,
some who were managerial level in financial sector and banking. Maybe
not quite most in the bigger picture, but I suspect many others since
Mugabe wasn't targeting farmers alone by any means.
volcaran
2006-04-29 05:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Most that I've either heard of or even had the chance to speak to
personally, including people in the hospitality and resort industry,
some who were managerial level in financial sector and banking. Maybe
not quite most in the bigger picture, but I suspect many others since
Mugabe wasn't targeting farmers alone by any means.
Your statement was that to the effect that most businesses were subject
to the same treatment as the white commercial farmers. If so, it has
not been reported AFAIK. There have been a few high profile cases like
the removal of Chief Justice Gubbay and the expulsion of journalists
but these have not involved the seizure of business assets. Similarly
there has been reports from time to time that a system of
"semi-nationalisation" of mining interests was to be introduced (but
not happened AFAIK). Equally, the Mugabe regime has been active against
the country's black population particularly along party or tribal lines
and with the bulldozing of shanty towns etc. While Mugabe and his
followers are responsible for appalling viloence and the decline of the
country, its economy and its people, the picture you paint is not a
correct one. No doubt some of the white population have chosen not to
remain there but so too have millions of the black population who have
decamped to neighbouring countries. You do injustice to those who
remain if you are seeking to suggest they only do so out of support for
the regime.
Julian
2006-04-29 12:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Most that I've either heard of or even had the chance to speak to
personally, including people in the hospitality and resort industry,
some who were managerial level in financial sector and banking. Maybe
not quite most in the bigger picture, but I suspect many others since
Mugabe wasn't targeting farmers alone by any means.
Your statement was that to the effect that most businesses were subject
to the same treatment as the white commercial farmers. If so, it has
not been reported AFAIK. There have been a few high profile cases like
the removal of Chief Justice Gubbay and the expulsion of journalists
but these have not involved the seizure of business assets. Similarly
there has been reports from time to time that a system of
"semi-nationalisation" of mining interests was to be introduced (but
not happened AFAIK). Equally, the Mugabe regime has been active against
the country's black population particularly along party or tribal lines
and with the bulldozing of shanty towns etc. While Mugabe and his
followers are responsible for appalling viloence and the decline of the
country, its economy and its people, the picture you paint is not a
correct one. No doubt some of the white population have chosen not to
remain there but so too have millions of the black population who have
decamped to neighbouring countries. You do injustice to those who
remain if you are seeking to suggest they only do so out of support for
the regime.
"... the picture you paint is not a
correct one."

I'm not painting any picture, you are. I spoke about what I have been
told and observed first-hand. The picture you've gone off on a tangent
about is your own distorted one. If you want to ask me what I think,
then I've told you. If you don't like it, that's fine but don't put
words in my mouth.

" No doubt some of the white population have chosen not to
remain there but so too have millions of the black population who have
decamped to neighbouring countries. You do injustice to those who
remain if you are seeking to suggest they only do so out of support for
the regime."

You do injustice to those that remain if you are seeking to suggest
they all stand to profit in the millions like Charles Davy. Many stay
in the hope of taking back their country, that they can survive at all
is a far cry from saying they're all taking kickbacks and profiteering
with blood money courtesy of Mugabe.
volcaran
2006-04-29 18:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Most that I've either heard of or even had the chance to speak to
personally, including people in the hospitality and resort industry,
some who were managerial level in financial sector and banking. Maybe
not quite most in the bigger picture, but I suspect many others since
Mugabe wasn't targeting farmers alone by any means.
Your statement was that to the effect that most businesses were subject
to the same treatment as the white commercial farmers. If so, it has
not been reported AFAIK. There have been a few high profile cases like
the removal of Chief Justice Gubbay and the expulsion of journalists
but these have not involved the seizure of business assets. Similarly
there has been reports from time to time that a system of
"semi-nationalisation" of mining interests was to be introduced (but
not happened AFAIK). Equally, the Mugabe regime has been active against
the country's black population particularly along party or tribal lines
and with the bulldozing of shanty towns etc. While Mugabe and his
followers are responsible for appalling viloence and the decline of the
country, its economy and its people, the picture you paint is not a
correct one. No doubt some of the white population have chosen not to
remain there but so too have millions of the black population who have
decamped to neighbouring countries. You do injustice to those who
remain if you are seeking to suggest they only do so out of support for
the regime.
"... the picture you paint is not a
correct one."
I'm not painting any picture, you are. I spoke about what I have been
told and observed first-hand. The picture you've gone off on a tangent
about is your own distorted one. If you want to ask me what I think,
then I've told you. If you don't like it, that's fine but don't put
words in my mouth.
Your own words were:

"when most other white
farmers and business people have had property either confiscated, sold
at a loss, or in some cases had to physically flee for their lives"

So far you have yet provide any back up to your claim of what "most"
other businesses have been subject to the losses claimed.
Post by Julian
" No doubt some of the white population have chosen not to
remain there but so too have millions of the black population who have
decamped to neighbouring countries. You do injustice to those who
remain if you are seeking to suggest they only do so out of support for
the regime."
You do injustice to those that remain if you are seeking to suggest
they all stand to profit in the millions like Charles Davy.
Where in my words do you read that?
Post by Julian
Many stay
in the hope of taking back their country, that they can survive at all
is a far cry from saying they're all taking kickbacks and profiteering
with blood money courtesy of Mugabe.
You have yet to demonstrate anyone is.
Julian
2006-05-06 01:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Most that I've either heard of or even had the chance to speak to
personally, including people in the hospitality and resort industry,
some who were managerial level in financial sector and banking. Maybe
not quite most in the bigger picture, but I suspect many others since
Mugabe wasn't targeting farmers alone by any means.
Your statement was that to the effect that most businesses were subject
to the same treatment as the white commercial farmers. If so, it has
not been reported AFAIK. There have been a few high profile cases like
the removal of Chief Justice Gubbay and the expulsion of journalists
but these have not involved the seizure of business assets. Similarly
there has been reports from time to time that a system of
"semi-nationalisation" of mining interests was to be introduced (but
not happened AFAIK). Equally, the Mugabe regime has been active against
the country's black population particularly along party or tribal lines
and with the bulldozing of shanty towns etc. While Mugabe and his
followers are responsible for appalling viloence and the decline of the
country, its economy and its people, the picture you paint is not a
correct one. No doubt some of the white population have chosen not to
remain there but so too have millions of the black population who have
decamped to neighbouring countries. You do injustice to those who
remain if you are seeking to suggest they only do so out of support for
the regime.
"... the picture you paint is not a
correct one."
I'm not painting any picture, you are. I spoke about what I have been
told and observed first-hand. The picture you've gone off on a tangent
about is your own distorted one. If you want to ask me what I think,
then I've told you. If you don't like it, that's fine but don't put
words in my mouth.
"when most other white
farmers and business people have had property either confiscated, sold
at a loss, or in some cases had to physically flee for their lives"
So far you have yet provide any back up to your claim of what "most"
other businesses have been subject to the losses claimed.
No, nor will I.

You're trying to create red herrings and go off on tangents to provide
a smokescreen for the main subject, which is Charles Davy.

Sorry, you failed.
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
" No doubt some of the white population have chosen not to
remain there but so too have millions of the black population who have
decamped to neighbouring countries. You do injustice to those who
remain if you are seeking to suggest they only do so out of support for
the regime."
You do injustice to those that remain if you are seeking to suggest
they all stand to profit in the millions like Charles Davy.
Where in my words do you read that?
Where in MY words did you read that I was discounting the presence of
black people in Zimbabwe?

You on the other hand are the one who again makes a transparently sly
attempt to conflate Charles Davy with ordinary Zimbabweans.

Sorry you got tripped up in your own deviousness.
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Many stay
in the hope of taking back their country, that they can survive at all
is a far cry from saying they're all taking kickbacks and profiteering
with blood money courtesy of Mugabe.
You have yet to demonstrate anyone is.
You have yet to demonstrate that no one is.
Brian Pears
2006-05-06 02:41:05 UTC
Permalink
No good wriggling like the worm we know you to be. The onus to
provide proof is on the originator of the claim that Davy was
profiteering on blood-money courtesy of Mugabe - YOU.
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Most that I've either heard of or even had the chance to speak to
personally, including people in the hospitality and resort industry,
some who were managerial level in financial sector and banking. Maybe
not quite most in the bigger picture, but I suspect many others since
Mugabe wasn't targeting farmers alone by any means.
Your statement was that to the effect that most businesses were subject
to the same treatment as the white commercial farmers. If so, it has
not been reported AFAIK. There have been a few high profile cases like
the removal of Chief Justice Gubbay and the expulsion of journalists
but these have not involved the seizure of business assets. Similarly
there has been reports from time to time that a system of
"semi-nationalisation" of mining interests was to be introduced (but
not happened AFAIK). Equally, the Mugabe regime has been active against
the country's black population particularly along party or tribal lines
and with the bulldozing of shanty towns etc. While Mugabe and his
followers are responsible for appalling viloence and the decline of the
country, its economy and its people, the picture you paint is not a
correct one. No doubt some of the white population have chosen not to
remain there but so too have millions of the black population who have
decamped to neighbouring countries. You do injustice to those who
remain if you are seeking to suggest they only do so out of support for
the regime.
"... the picture you paint is not a
correct one."
I'm not painting any picture, you are. I spoke about what I have been
told and observed first-hand. The picture you've gone off on a tangent
about is your own distorted one. If you want to ask me what I think,
then I've told you. If you don't like it, that's fine but don't put
words in my mouth.
"when most other white
farmers and business people have had property either confiscated, sold
at a loss, or in some cases had to physically flee for their lives"
So far you have yet provide any back up to your claim of what "most"
other businesses have been subject to the losses claimed.
No, nor will I.
You're trying to create red herrings and go off on tangents to provide
a smokescreen for the main subject, which is Charles Davy.
Sorry, you failed.
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
" No doubt some of the white population have chosen not to
remain there but so too have millions of the black population who have
decamped to neighbouring countries. You do injustice to those who
remain if you are seeking to suggest they only do so out of support for
the regime."
You do injustice to those that remain if you are seeking to suggest
they all stand to profit in the millions like Charles Davy.
Where in my words do you read that?
Where in MY words did you read that I was discounting the presence of
black people in Zimbabwe?
You on the other hand are the one who again makes a transparently sly
attempt to conflate Charles Davy with ordinary Zimbabweans.
Sorry you got tripped up in your own deviousness.
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Many stay
in the hope of taking back their country, that they can survive at all
is a far cry from saying they're all taking kickbacks and profiteering
with blood money courtesy of Mugabe.
You have yet to demonstrate anyone is.
You have yet to demonstrate that no one is.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
volcaran
2006-05-06 06:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Most that I've either heard of or even had the chance to speak to
personally, including people in the hospitality and resort industry,
some who were managerial level in financial sector and banking. Maybe
not quite most in the bigger picture, but I suspect many others since
Mugabe wasn't targeting farmers alone by any means.
Your statement was that to the effect that most businesses were subject
to the same treatment as the white commercial farmers. If so, it has
not been reported AFAIK. There have been a few high profile cases like
the removal of Chief Justice Gubbay and the expulsion of journalists
but these have not involved the seizure of business assets. Similarly
there has been reports from time to time that a system of
"semi-nationalisation" of mining interests was to be introduced (but
not happened AFAIK). Equally, the Mugabe regime has been active against
the country's black population particularly along party or tribal lines
and with the bulldozing of shanty towns etc. While Mugabe and his
followers are responsible for appalling viloence and the decline of the
country, its economy and its people, the picture you paint is not a
correct one. No doubt some of the white population have chosen not to
remain there but so too have millions of the black population who have
decamped to neighbouring countries. You do injustice to those who
remain if you are seeking to suggest they only do so out of support for
the regime.
"... the picture you paint is not a
correct one."
I'm not painting any picture, you are. I spoke about what I have been
told and observed first-hand. The picture you've gone off on a tangent
about is your own distorted one. If you want to ask me what I think,
then I've told you. If you don't like it, that's fine but don't put
words in my mouth.
"when most other white
farmers and business people have had property either confiscated, sold
at a loss, or in some cases had to physically flee for their lives"
So far you have yet provide any back up to your claim of what "most"
other businesses have been subject to the losses claimed.
No, nor will I.
Of course you won't because it is untrue.
Post by Julian
You're trying to create red herrings and go off on tangents to provide
a smokescreen for the main subject, which is Charles Davy.
Sorry, you failed.
How is questioning an untruth in your statements a red herring?
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
" No doubt some of the white population have chosen not to
remain there but so too have millions of the black population who have
decamped to neighbouring countries. You do injustice to those who
remain if you are seeking to suggest they only do so out of support for
the regime."
You do injustice to those that remain if you are seeking to suggest
they all stand to profit in the millions like Charles Davy.
Where in my words do you read that?
Where in MY words did you read that I was discounting the presence of
black people in Zimbabwe?
I didn't, I was describing the general situation in the country which
differs markedly from your claim which you have now refused to
substantiate because you can't.

Surely you are not now trying to introduce red herrings to hide the
flaws in your analysis.
Post by Julian
You on the other hand are the one who again makes a transparently sly
attempt to conflate Charles Davy with ordinary Zimbabweans.
Where do you read that? I have acknowledged elsewhere that he has
questionable links with the Mugabe regime. You are the one making
emotive and spurious claims which you can't back up.
Post by Julian
Sorry you got tripped up in your own deviousness.
There is little need to be devious to highlight flaws in your "logic".
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Many stay
in the hope of taking back their country, that they can survive at all
is a far cry from saying they're all taking kickbacks and profiteering
with blood money courtesy of Mugabe.
You have yet to demonstrate anyone is.
You have yet to demonstrate that no one is.
Since I am not making the spurious and unsubstantiate claim about Davy
I have nothing to demonstrate.
Julian
2006-05-06 06:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Most that I've either heard of or even had the chance to speak to
personally, including people in the hospitality and resort industry,
some who were managerial level in financial sector and banking. Maybe
not quite most in the bigger picture, but I suspect many others since
Mugabe wasn't targeting farmers alone by any means.
Your statement was that to the effect that most businesses were subject
to the same treatment as the white commercial farmers. If so, it has
not been reported AFAIK. There have been a few high profile cases like
the removal of Chief Justice Gubbay and the expulsion of journalists
but these have not involved the seizure of business assets. Similarly
there has been reports from time to time that a system of
"semi-nationalisation" of mining interests was to be introduced (but
not happened AFAIK). Equally, the Mugabe regime has been active against
the country's black population particularly along party or tribal lines
and with the bulldozing of shanty towns etc. While Mugabe and his
followers are responsible for appalling viloence and the decline of the
country, its economy and its people, the picture you paint is not a
correct one. No doubt some of the white population have chosen not to
remain there but so too have millions of the black population who have
decamped to neighbouring countries. You do injustice to those who
remain if you are seeking to suggest they only do so out of support for
the regime.
"... the picture you paint is not a
correct one."
I'm not painting any picture, you are. I spoke about what I have been
told and observed first-hand. The picture you've gone off on a tangent
about is your own distorted one. If you want to ask me what I think,
then I've told you. If you don't like it, that's fine but don't put
words in my mouth.
"when most other white
farmers and business people have had property either confiscated, sold
at a loss, or in some cases had to physically flee for their lives"
So far you have yet provide any back up to your claim of what "most"
other businesses have been subject to the losses claimed.
No, nor will I.
Of course you won't because it is untrue.
No, I won't because it's absolutely *none* of your business who I know
that said what about their experiences in Zimbabwe to me. I certainly
trust what they say than your obvious agenda and prejudice.
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
You're trying to create red herrings and go off on tangents to provide
a smokescreen for the main subject, which is Charles Davy.
Sorry, you failed.
How is questioning an untruth in your statements a red herring?
Where is the untruth? How have you proven it? You haven't, except to
your choir but not to me. My opinion remains my opinion on this:
Charles Davy reeks of blood money made in collusion with the Mugabe
regime. Now the thieves have fallen out, although it doesn't really
matter to scum like Davy.

Or people like you, obviously.
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
" No doubt some of the white population have chosen not to
remain there but so too have millions of the black population who have
decamped to neighbouring countries. You do injustice to those who
remain if you are seeking to suggest they only do so out of support for
the regime."
You do injustice to those that remain if you are seeking to suggest
they all stand to profit in the millions like Charles Davy.
Where in my words do you read that?
Where in MY words did you read that I was discounting the presence of
black people in Zimbabwe?
I didn't,
Yes you did. You are the liar who keeps trying to put words in other
people's mouths when it's *you* that couldn't clearly give a shit about
the fate of ordinary Zimbabweans.


I was describing the general situation in the country which
Post by volcaran
differs markedly from your claim which you have now refused to
substantiate because you can't.
You were describing your own opinion which is not in the least
"substantiated" and which has nothing to do with the reality of the
place.
Post by volcaran
Surely you are not now trying to introduce red herrings to hide the
flaws in your analysis.
What analysis? I never made any, you are the one claiming a super
irrefutable knowledge of everything that happens in Zimbabwe, I'm
posting about *one* man. See who's introducing red herrings.
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
You on the other hand are the one who again makes a transparently sly
attempt to conflate Charles Davy with ordinary Zimbabweans.
Where do you read that? I have acknowledged elsewhere that he has
questionable links with the Mugabe regime. You are the one making
emotive and spurious claims which you can't back up.
You stated as much by bringing up the condition of ordinary
Zimbabweans. "Claims"? No, unfortunately for supporters of white
racism masquerading as white liberals, there is such a thing as having
an opinion. Mine remains that Charles Davy has colluded with the Mugabe
regime in the past and it remains that.
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Sorry you got tripped up in your own deviousness.
There is little need to be devious to highlight flaws in your "logic".
Yes, do try and make it "about" flaws in other people's logic when
there's absolutely no logic in anything you've had to say so far.
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Many stay
in the hope of taking back their country, that they can survive at all
is a far cry from saying they're all taking kickbacks and profiteering
with blood money courtesy of Mugabe.
You have yet to demonstrate anyone is.
You have yet to demonstrate that no one is.
Since I am not making the spurious and unsubstantiate claim about Davy
I have nothing to demonstrate.
But you are making the emotive, spurious and unsubstantiated claim that
Davy is just like ordinary Zimbabweans who have suffered under Mugabe.
Not only emotive, but disgusting. I won't bother with your usual
stupid sophistry in this thread any further.
volcaran
2006-05-06 13:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Most that I've either heard of or even had the chance to speak to
personally, including people in the hospitality and resort industry,
some who were managerial level in financial sector and banking. Maybe
not quite most in the bigger picture, but I suspect many others since
Mugabe wasn't targeting farmers alone by any means.
Your statement was that to the effect that most businesses were subject
to the same treatment as the white commercial farmers. If so, it has
not been reported AFAIK. There have been a few high profile cases like
the removal of Chief Justice Gubbay and the expulsion of journalists
but these have not involved the seizure of business assets. Similarly
there has been reports from time to time that a system of
"semi-nationalisation" of mining interests was to be introduced (but
not happened AFAIK). Equally, the Mugabe regime has been active against
the country's black population particularly along party or tribal lines
and with the bulldozing of shanty towns etc. While Mugabe and his
followers are responsible for appalling viloence and the decline of the
country, its economy and its people, the picture you paint is not a
correct one. No doubt some of the white population have chosen not to
remain there but so too have millions of the black population who have
decamped to neighbouring countries. You do injustice to those who
remain if you are seeking to suggest they only do so out of support for
the regime.
"... the picture you paint is not a
correct one."
I'm not painting any picture, you are. I spoke about what I have been
told and observed first-hand. The picture you've gone off on a tangent
about is your own distorted one. If you want to ask me what I think,
then I've told you. If you don't like it, that's fine but don't put
words in my mouth.
"when most other white
farmers and business people have had property either confiscated, sold
at a loss, or in some cases had to physically flee for their lives"
So far you have yet provide any back up to your claim of what "most"
other businesses have been subject to the losses claimed.
No, nor will I.
Of course you won't because it is untrue.
No, I won't because it's absolutely *none* of your business who I know
that said what about their experiences in Zimbabwe to me. I certainly
trust what they say than your obvious agenda and prejudice.
Translation: "I have nothing to back up my absurd claim that most
other white
farmers and business people have had property either confiscated, sold
at a loss."
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
You're trying to create red herrings and go off on tangents to provide
a smokescreen for the main subject, which is Charles Davy.
Sorry, you failed.
How is questioning an untruth in your statements a red herring?
Where is the untruth? How have you proven it? You haven't, except to
your choir but not to me.
You are the one making the claim. Any onus of proof is upon you.
Post by Julian
Charles Davy reeks of blood money made in collusion with the Mugabe
regime. Now the thieves have fallen out, although it doesn't really
matter to scum like Davy.
Or people like you, obviously.
Since you don't know what matters to me your opinion only has value to
yourself.
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
" No doubt some of the white population have chosen not to
remain there but so too have millions of the black population who have
decamped to neighbouring countries. You do injustice to those who
remain if you are seeking to suggest they only do so out of support for
the regime."
You do injustice to those that remain if you are seeking to suggest
they all stand to profit in the millions like Charles Davy.
Where in my words do you read that?
Where in MY words did you read that I was discounting the presence of
black people in Zimbabwe?
I didn't,
Yes you did. You are the liar who keeps trying to put words in other
people's mouths when it's *you* that couldn't clearly give a shit about
the fate of ordinary Zimbabweans.
Ah name calling, the last refuge of those devoid of any real arguments.
Again, since you don't know what matters to me your opinion only has
value to yourself..
Post by Julian
I was describing the general situation in the country which
Post by volcaran
differs markedly from your claim which you have now refused to
substantiate because you can't.
You were describing your own opinion which is not in the least
"substantiated" and which has nothing to do with the reality of the
place.
Actually I was describing what I have read and heard and the complete
absence of anything to back up your claim.
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Surely you are not now trying to introduce red herrings to hide the
flaws in your analysis.
What analysis? I never made any, you are the one claiming a super
irrefutable knowledge of everything that happens in Zimbabwe, I'm
posting about *one* man.
And making claims about the country you can't back up.
Post by Julian
See who's introducing red herrings.
Indeed as I stated earlier.
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
You on the other hand are the one who again makes a transparently sly
attempt to conflate Charles Davy with ordinary Zimbabweans.
Where do you read that? I have acknowledged elsewhere that he has
questionable links with the Mugabe regime. You are the one making
emotive and spurious claims which you can't back up.
You stated as much by bringing up the condition of ordinary
Zimbabweans.
Only insofar as it was relevant to do so to question your absurd claim.
Post by Julian
"Claims"? No, unfortunately for supporters of white
racism masquerading as white liberals, there is such a thing as having
an opinion.
Now you really have lost the plot but probably close enough to invoke
Godwin's Law.
Post by Julian
Mine remains that Charles Davy has colluded with the Mugabe
regime in the past and it remains that.
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Sorry you got tripped up in your own deviousness.
There is little need to be devious to highlight flaws in your "logic".
Yes, do try and make it "about" flaws in other people's logic when
there's absolutely no logic in anything you've had to say so far.
Ah, another opinion devoid of any factual basis.
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Many stay
in the hope of taking back their country, that they can survive at all
is a far cry from saying they're all taking kickbacks and profiteering
with blood money courtesy of Mugabe.
You have yet to demonstrate anyone is.
You have yet to demonstrate that no one is.
Since I am not making the spurious and unsubstantiate claim about Davy
I have nothing to demonstrate.
But you are making the emotive, spurious and unsubstantiated claim that
Davy is just like ordinary Zimbabweans who have suffered under Mugabe.
No I didn't. Perhaps you would do better reading what is actually
written occasionally instead of making up your own version of it.
Post by Julian
Not only emotive, but disgusting. I won't bother with your usual
stupid sophistry in this thread any further.
Not surprising really since you have failed to support your claim.
Jean Sue Libkind
2006-04-29 12:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by volcaran
Post by Julian
Most that I've either heard of or even had the chance to speak to
personally, including people in the hospitality and resort industry,
some who were managerial level in financial sector and banking. Maybe
not quite most in the bigger picture, but I suspect many others since
Mugabe wasn't targeting farmers alone by any means.
Your statement was that to the effect that most businesses were subject
to the same treatment as the white commercial farmers. If so, it has
not been reported AFAIK. There have been a few high profile cases like
the removal of Chief Justice Gubbay and the expulsion of journalists
but these have not involved the seizure of business assets. Similarly
there has been reports from time to time that a system of
"semi-nationalisation" of mining interests was to be introduced (but
not happened AFAIK). Equally, the Mugabe regime has been active against
the country's black population particularly along party or tribal lines
and with the bulldozing of shanty towns etc. While Mugabe and his
followers are responsible for appalling viloence and the decline of the
country, its economy and its people, the picture you paint is not a
correct one. No doubt some of the white population have chosen not to
remain there but so too have millions of the black population who have
decamped to neighbouring countries. You do injustice to those who
remain if you are seeking to suggest they only do so out of support for
the regime.
Wow! Julian missed the big picture! Now, there's a surprise....NOT!

js
Brian Pears
2006-04-29 13:22:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by volcaran
Your statement was that to the effect that most businesses were subject
to the same treatment as the white commercial farmers. If so, it has
not been reported AFAIK.
You are correct. I've been following news from that area quite
closely and have seen no reports of businesses other than farming
been interfered with to any significant extent. I wonder if Julian
can name some businesses that have been so affected and thereby
add at least some credence to his assertion that Davy could only
have operated by being "illicitly involved with" Mugabe.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Brian Pears
2006-04-27 21:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
As to Chelsy, since she as an adult has chosen to continue living off
the blood money of her father, she in turn bears an adult
responsibility for her actions.
1) "Blood money", where does that nonsense come from?
What evidence have you of *any* wrongdoing by her
father, let alone anything justifying the use of that
term? None!!

3) Even if Mr Davy has done something we disapprove of
and think Chelsy should disapprove of, are you
seriously suggesting that she should disassociate
herself from her parents and refuse their support
before she's in a position to support herself?

Would you? I seriously doubt it. We don't choose our
parents, nor do we bear any responsibility for
their actions or any guilt for a continued affection
for them, relationship with them and reliance on
them, whatever they do and whatever we might think
of their actions.

3) Yes Chelsy has an adult responsibility for *her*
actions - so please complain when *she* does
something criminal or immoral.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Julian
2006-04-27 22:00:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
As to Chelsy, since she as an adult has chosen to continue living off
the blood money of her father, she in turn bears an adult
responsibility for her actions.
1) "Blood money", where does that nonsense come from?
What evidence have you of *any* wrongdoing by her
father, let alone anything justifying the use of that
term? None!!
3) Even if Mr Davy has done something we disapprove of
and think Chelsy should disapprove of, are you
seriously suggesting that she should disassociate
herself from her parents and refuse their support
before she's in a position to support herself?
Would you? I seriously doubt it. We don't choose our
parents, nor do we bear any responsibility for
their actions or any guilt for a continued affection
for them, relationship with them and reliance on
them, whatever they do and whatever we might think
of their actions.
3) Yes Chelsy has an adult responsibility for *her*
actions - so please complain when *she* does
something criminal or immoral.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
You could have summarised your blather into one paltry point instead of
attempting to stretch it out into three separate rants, all of which
would have simply come down to: let's whitewash what Chelsy Davis and
her father and family are up to in Zimbabwe. Let's ignore the
likelihood of their nasty involvement with a murderous thug that has
profited them enormously. Which is all it probably adds up to, no
matter what you say. Not about what I would do, or you would do
(althoug obviously you don't care about criminal association with
murderers). Save the trite rubbish about your parents are your parents
as a pathetic excuse for anything and everything. It was people like
you in the dock at Nuremberg complaining about how "I was only
following orders".when it suited them!
t***@comcast.net
2006-04-27 23:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
As to Chelsy, since she as an adult has chosen to continue living off
the blood money of her father, she in turn bears an adult
responsibility for her actions.
1) "Blood money", where does that nonsense come from?
What evidence have you of *any* wrongdoing by her
father, let alone anything justifying the use of that
term? None!!
3) Even if Mr Davy has done something we disapprove of
and think Chelsy should disapprove of, are you
seriously suggesting that she should disassociate
herself from her parents and refuse their support
before she's in a position to support herself?
Would you? I seriously doubt it. We don't choose our
parents, nor do we bear any responsibility for
their actions or any guilt for a continued affection
for them, relationship with them and reliance on
them, whatever they do and whatever we might think
of their actions.
3) Yes Chelsy has an adult responsibility for *her*
actions - so please complain when *she* does
something criminal or immoral.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
You could have summarised your blather into one paltry point instead of
attempting to stretch it out into three separate rants, all of which
would have simply come down to: let's whitewash what Chelsy Davis and
her father and family are up to in Zimbabwe. Let's ignore the
likelihood of their nasty involvement with a murderous thug that has
profited them enormously. Which is all it probably adds up to, no
matter what you say. Not about what I would do, or you would do
(althoug obviously you don't care about criminal association with
murderers). Save the trite rubbish about your parents are your parents
as a pathetic excuse for anything and everything. It was people like
you in the dock at Nuremberg complaining about how "I was only
following orders".when it suited them!
Julian,

You were an unwelcomed poster pre 2000... and are just as unwelcomed
today!
Please return forthwith from whence you came.

--
The Verminator
Julian
2006-04-28 01:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@comcast.net
Post by Julian
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
As to Chelsy, since she as an adult has chosen to continue living off
the blood money of her father, she in turn bears an adult
responsibility for her actions.
1) "Blood money", where does that nonsense come from?
What evidence have you of *any* wrongdoing by her
father, let alone anything justifying the use of that
term? None!!
3) Even if Mr Davy has done something we disapprove of
and think Chelsy should disapprove of, are you
seriously suggesting that she should disassociate
herself from her parents and refuse their support
before she's in a position to support herself?
Would you? I seriously doubt it. We don't choose our
parents, nor do we bear any responsibility for
their actions or any guilt for a continued affection
for them, relationship with them and reliance on
them, whatever they do and whatever we might think
of their actions.
3) Yes Chelsy has an adult responsibility for *her*
actions - so please complain when *she* does
something criminal or immoral.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
You could have summarised your blather into one paltry point instead of
attempting to stretch it out into three separate rants, all of which
would have simply come down to: let's whitewash what Chelsy Davis and
her father and family are up to in Zimbabwe. Let's ignore the
likelihood of their nasty involvement with a murderous thug that has
profited them enormously. Which is all it probably adds up to, no
matter what you say. Not about what I would do, or you would do
(althoug obviously you don't care about criminal association with
murderers). Save the trite rubbish about your parents are your parents
as a pathetic excuse for anything and everything. It was people like
you in the dock at Nuremberg complaining about how "I was only
following orders".when it suited them!
Julian,
You were an unwelcomed poster pre 2000... and are just as unwelcomed
today!
Please return forthwith from whence you came.
--
The Verminator
A big middle finger to you and your ilk pre-2000, and just as much
today too!

roflmao...
Brian Pears
2006-04-28 00:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
You could have summarised your blather into one paltry point instead of
attempting to stretch it out into three separate rants, all of which
would have simply come down to: let's whitewash what Chelsy Davis and
her father and family are up to in Zimbabwe. Let's ignore the
likelihood of their nasty involvement with a murderous thug that has
profited them enormously. Which is all it probably adds up to, no
matter what you say. Not about what I would do, or you would do
(althoug obviously you don't care about criminal association with
murderers). Save the trite rubbish about your parents are your parents
as a pathetic excuse for anything and everything. It was people like
you in the dock at Nuremberg complaining about how "I was only
following orders".when it suited them!
So, not content with 'guilty until proven innocent' and 'guilt
by association', you're now comparing me with the Nazi war
criminals and attacking the characters of my long-dead parents!
You really are a pathetic and ignorant little twerp, aren't you?
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Julian
2006-04-28 01:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
You could have summarised your blather into one paltry point instead of
attempting to stretch it out into three separate rants, all of which
would have simply come down to: let's whitewash what Chelsy Davis and
her father and family are up to in Zimbabwe. Let's ignore the
likelihood of their nasty involvement with a murderous thug that has
profited them enormously. Which is all it probably adds up to, no
matter what you say. Not about what I would do, or you would do
(althoug obviously you don't care about criminal association with
murderers). Save the trite rubbish about your parents are your parents
as a pathetic excuse for anything and everything. It was people like
you in the dock at Nuremberg complaining about how "I was only
following orders".when it suited them!
So, not content with 'guilty until proven innocent' and 'guilt
by association', you're now comparing me with the Nazi war
criminals and attacking the characters of my long-dead parents!
You really are a pathetic and ignorant little twerp, aren't you?
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Do learn to *read*, moron. *You* chose to try and distort the issue
into one about people not being "responsible" for the acts of their
parents. When I used the word "your" I wasn't referring to your
individual parents in the least. No one posted about your parents in
particular except you. You must be very desperate to run a cover for
murderers, thugs and their profiteers.
Julian
2006-04-28 01:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
You could have summarised your blather into one paltry point instead of
attempting to stretch it out into three separate rants, all of which
would have simply come down to: let's whitewash what Chelsy Davis and
her father and family are up to in Zimbabwe. Let's ignore the
likelihood of their nasty involvement with a murderous thug that has
profited them enormously. Which is all it probably adds up to, no
matter what you say. Not about what I would do, or you would do
(althoug obviously you don't care about criminal association with
murderers). Save the trite rubbish about your parents are your parents
as a pathetic excuse for anything and everything. It was people like
you in the dock at Nuremberg complaining about how "I was only
following orders".when it suited them!
So, not content with 'guilty until proven innocent' and 'guilt
by association', you're now comparing me with the Nazi war
criminals and attacking the characters of my long-dead parents!
You really are a pathetic and ignorant little twerp, aren't you?
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Do learn to *read*, moron. *You* chose to try and distort the issue
into one about people not being "responsible" for the acts of their
parents. When I used the word "your" I wasn't referring to your
individual parents in the least. No one posted about your parents in
particular except you. You must be very desperate to run a cover for
murderers, thugs and their profiteers.
Additionally, I will add in reply to this very self-serving piece of
pontification you wrote that: "We don't choose our parents, nor do we
bear any responsibility for their actions or any guilt for a continued
affection for them, relationship with them and reliance on them,
whatever they do and whatever we might think of their actions." Indeed
you do bear responsibility for a continued affection for them if they
are up their eyeballs in questionable practices, associations and
dubious connections with dictators, especially if that connection
inures to their benefit *and* yours. Thus my use of the word "your",
meaning anyone in general and Chelsy Davy in particular.
Brian Pears
2006-04-28 10:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Do learn to *read*, moron. *You* chose to try and distort the issue
into one about people not being "responsible" for the acts of their
parents. When I used the word "your" I wasn't referring to your
individual parents in the least. No one posted about your parents in
particular except you. You must be very desperate to run a cover for
murderers, thugs and their profiteers.
I read and correctly interpreted what you actually wrote and
responded accordingly. It may not be the sense you intended
to convey, but that's rather beside the point, it's what you
wrote.

To refer to someone else's words, as you now claim you were
doing, the convention is use single or double quotation marks.
So, had you written "Save the trite rubbish about 'your parents'
are 'your parents' [as] a pathetic excuse for anything and
everything." instead of "Save the trite rubbish about your
parents are your parents [as] a pathetic excuse for anything
and everything." then you could justifiably require that I
"learn to *read*, moron". As it is, it's more a case of -
do learn to *write*, moron.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Julian
2006-04-28 15:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
Do learn to *read*, moron. *You* chose to try and distort the issue
into one about people not being "responsible" for the acts of their
parents. When I used the word "your" I wasn't referring to your
individual parents in the least. No one posted about your parents in
particular except you. You must be very desperate to run a cover for
murderers, thugs and their profiteers.
I read and correctly interpreted what you actually wrote and
responded accordingly. It may not be the sense you intended
to convey, but that's rather beside the point, it's what you
wrote.
To refer to someone else's words, as you now claim you were
doing, the convention is use single or double quotation marks.
So, had you written "Save the trite rubbish about 'your parents'
are 'your parents' [as] a pathetic excuse for anything and
everything." instead of "Save the trite rubbish about your
parents are your parents [as] a pathetic excuse for anything
and everything." then you could justifiably require that I
"learn to *read*, moron". As it is, it's more a case of -
do learn to *write*, moron.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Pathetic. Lame. Predictable. Go off on a tangent and create red
herrings when you can no longer whitewash/evade/excuse the Davey
family's questionable dealings and profiteering in Zimbabwe. "... but
that's rather beside the point,..." which is what summarises very
nicely about 90 percent of what you've written in this thread.

Oh, and a wee suggestion: iIn future, don't try the old saw about what
"other" people's parents would do or how other people would react in
regard to their family if you're hypersensitive about your own being
dragged in as well.
Brian Pears
2006-04-28 17:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Pathetic. Lame. Predictable.
Indeed you are; I'm pleased you realise it.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Julian
2006-04-28 21:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
Pathetic. Lame. Predictable.
Indeed you are; I'm pleased you realise it.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Indeed you are all that, along with being a sickening apologist for
blood money profiteerers. No doubt *your* long-dead parents would
thoroughly approve.-- since you're so inclined to drag in other
people's parents when it suits you to create lame excuses.
Brian Pears
2006-04-29 01:04:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Indeed you are all that, along with being a sickening apologist for
blood money profiteerers.
You really are coming over as a bigoted zealot with a bee in your
bonnet over something about which you know absolutely nothing.

And when you aren't badmouthing our royal's chosen girlfriend,
you're badmouthing anyone who takes exception to your baseless,
venomous rants. We're "sycophants" or "apologist[s] for blood
money profiteerers (sic)" - or even strangers to innocence in
the case of females, perhaps because ladies make you feel uneasy
and inferior. And you - slimeball that you are - have the
arrogance and effrontery to claim the moral high ground. Don't
make us laugh.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Julian
2006-04-29 04:10:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
Indeed you are all that, along with being a sickening apologist for
blood money profiteerers.
You really are coming over as a bigoted zealot with a bee in your
bonnet over something about which you know absolutely nothing.
And when you aren't badmouthing our royal's chosen girlfriend,
you're badmouthing anyone who takes exception to your baseless,
venomous rants. We're "sycophants" or "apologist[s] for blood
money profiteerers (sic)" - or even strangers to innocence in
the case of females, perhaps because ladies make you feel uneasy
and inferior. And you - slimeball that you are - have the
arrogance and effrontery to claim the moral high ground. Don't
make us laugh.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
You love to blather on about how anyone who disagrees with you "knows
absolutely nothing." In fact, it's you who knows absolutely nothing
about what I may or may not know about Zimbabwe. If posts in this
thread are meant to be indicative of everything that someone knows on
the topic, then you certainly know next to nothing, aside from foaming
at the mouth in your stupd knee-jerk reaction that the Davy's must be
Saints above critcism simply because one of them is going out with
Prince Harry. Get over it.

Like most people who are used to badmouthing when they deserve it so
much more richly themslves, you do squeal a lot of tripe when you're
paid back with your own medicine. In your case and in this thread as
in several other threads, the words sycophant and apologist do come
frequently to mind, yes. As to bigoted zealot, you are that
consistently.
Brian Pears
2006-04-29 11:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
You love to blather on about how anyone who disagrees with you "knows
absolutely nothing." In fact, it's you who knows absolutely nothing
about what I may or may not know about Zimbabwe.
The parents of a friend of mine have been in Zimbabwe, or rather
Rhodesia and Zimbabwe, since 1966 and are still managing to
scrape a living there despite not supporting the present regime
in any way. Their daughter, my friend, crossed the border into
SA years ago but they are determined to stay despite feeling
constantly under threat. That's why I regard your ignorant
presumption that Davy must be in cahoots with Mugabe with
disgust - I *know* that it is quite possible to run a business
there without any collaboration with or support of Mugabe.
Indeed it requires guts to stay in Zimbabwe whoever you are
because nobody is safe from a man who rules by whim, and anyone
who stays there deserves praise not censure.

I don't claim to know much about Zimbabwe, but I know enough
to be sure that your condemnation of Davy based on nothing more
than his successful business operation in that country is utterly
ridiculous. Indeed it now seems that Davy is being targeted
by the regime. You, of course, tried to spin that as "didn't pay
the expected kickbacks to the Zimb. gov't", again without any
evidence whatsoever, but I think that most impartial observers
simply regard the moves against Davy as just a continuation
of the policy of plundering the assets of successful whites.
First it was the farmers, now, apparently, it's other white-run
businesses and it appears to be Davy's turn. And far from
supporting any idea that Davy collaborated with Mugabe, it
suggests that the idea was tripe.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Julian
2006-04-29 12:23:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
You love to blather on about how anyone who disagrees with you "knows
absolutely nothing." In fact, it's you who knows absolutely nothing
about what I may or may not know about Zimbabwe.
The parents of a friend of mine have been in Zimbabwe, or rather
Rhodesia and Zimbabwe, since 1966 and are still managing to
scrape a living there despite not supporting the present regime
in any way. Their daughter, my friend, crossed the border into
SA years ago but they are determined to stay despite feeling
constantly under threat. That's why I regard your ignorant
presumption that Davy must be in cahoots with Mugabe with
disgust - I *know* that it is quite possible to run a business
there without any collaboration with or support of Mugabe.
Indeed it requires guts to stay in Zimbabwe whoever you are
because nobody is safe from a man who rules by whim, and anyone
who stays there deserves praise not censure.
I don't claim to know much about Zimbabwe, but I know enough
to be sure that your condemnation of Davy based on nothing more
than his successful business operation in that country is utterly
ridiculous. Indeed it now seems that Davy is being targeted
by the regime. You, of course, tried to spin that as "didn't pay
the expected kickbacks to the Zimb. gov't", again without any
evidence whatsoever, but I think that most impartial observers
simply regard the moves against Davy as just a continuation
of the policy of plundering the assets of successful whites.
First it was the farmers, now, apparently, it's other white-run
businesses and it appears to be Davy's turn. And far from
supporting any idea that Davy collaborated with Mugabe, it
suggests that the idea was tripe.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
You can go on from now till the cows come home with new personal
anecdotal evidence. If that's the best you've got, then don't bother
spouting off about evidence against Davy, which you still haven't
produced to show he's somehow "innocent" when in fact he could hardly
have operated at his level and to his degree of profit without
substantial underhanded involvement with the Mugabe regime at the
highest levels. Your inference that somehow it's only been farmers who
have been targeted till now, just because it's "suddenly happening" to
Charles Davy, is totally false, and takes your type of sickening
sycophancy to a new low considering the people from every walk of life
who have suffered under Mugabe. As to the notion that he's suddenly
been caught in illegal activites by the regime means somehow that he's
never been illicitly involved with them himself, what a hoot. Much
more likely a case of "honour among thieves" falling apart due to
limitless greed byboth sets of thieves.
Julian
2006-04-29 14:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
You love to blather on about how anyone who disagrees with you "knows
absolutely nothing." In fact, it's you who knows absolutely nothing
about what I may or may not know about Zimbabwe.
The parents of a friend of mine have been in Zimbabwe, or rather
Rhodesia and Zimbabwe, since 1966 and are still managing to
scrape a living there despite not supporting the present regime
in any way. Their daughter, my friend, crossed the border into
SA years ago but they are determined to stay despite feeling
constantly under threat. That's why I regard your ignorant
presumption that Davy must be in cahoots with Mugabe with
disgust - I *know* that it is quite possible to run a business
there without any collaboration with or support of Mugabe.
Indeed it requires guts to stay in Zimbabwe whoever you are
because nobody is safe from a man who rules by whim, and anyone
who stays there deserves praise not censure.
I don't claim to know much about Zimbabwe, but I know enough
to be sure that your condemnation of Davy based on nothing more
than his successful business operation in that country is utterly
ridiculous. Indeed it now seems that Davy is being targeted
by the regime. You, of course, tried to spin that as "didn't pay
the expected kickbacks to the Zimb. gov't", again without any
evidence whatsoever, but I think that most impartial observers
simply regard the moves against Davy as just a continuation
of the policy of plundering the assets of successful whites.
First it was the farmers, now, apparently, it's other white-run
businesses and it appears to be Davy's turn. And far from
supporting any idea that Davy collaborated with Mugabe, it
suggests that the idea was tripe.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
"I don't claim to know much about Zimbabwe.." Yet, within hous of
posting this you post again that you've been following events there
very closely. You realy do get tangled up easily in your own
dishonesty don't you, Pears?

Assuming you've been following events there "very closely", perhaps you
can tell us how many white-owned non-farming businesses continue to
prosper under Mugabe's rule? Assuming also you're the one that keeps
statistics world-wide on anyone who might even vaguely need a quick
whitewashing due to their least association with a royal family
anywhere.
Brian Pears
2006-04-29 16:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
"I don't claim to know much about Zimbabwe.." Yet, within hous of
posting this you post again that you've been following events there
very closely.
Following events closely by listening to and reading news does
not entitle anyone to claim to know a country well - though one
can justifiably claim to be aware of any events serious enough
to have featured in those reports. There's no contradiction
whatsoever.
Post by Julian
You realy do get tangled up easily in your own dishonesty don't you,
Pears?
I've never intentionally been dishonest on this or any other
newsgroup - can you say the same?

You can use my surname disparagingly like that because I don't
hide it - unlike some - and generally folks only resort to such
tactics when they've lost an argument, so I'll take it as that.
Post by Julian
Assuming you've been following events there "very closely", perhaps you
can tell us how many white-owned non-farming businesses continue to
prosper under Mugabe's rule? Assuming also you're the one that keeps
statistics world-wide on anyon
Now you're backed into a corner and can't back up your blather.
It would be trivially easy to prove an assertion such as yours,
if it were true, by simply pointing to one or more reports of
white non-farming businesses being closed by Mugabe's regime. You
can't because it hasn't happened - so you try to switch the onus,
knowing full well that what you ask is impossible to answer.
Things that don't happen don't generate news reports, there's
nothing newsworthy in businesses that haven't been affected, so
how the blazes would I somehow divine the statistics you demand
from news reports that weren't made? Don't be so bloody
disingenuous.

So prove me wrong - don't wriggle and squirm, just point to some
reports of white non-farming businesses which have been closed
down by Mugabe. Fail to point to such reports and I'll take
it as a further admission that you are wrong.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Julian
2006-05-06 01:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
"I don't claim to know much about Zimbabwe.." Yet, within hous of
posting this you post again that you've been following events there
very closely.
Following events closely by listening to and reading news does
not entitle anyone to claim to know a country well - though one
can justifiably claim to be aware of any events serious enough
to have featured in those reports. There's no contradiction
whatsoever.
No, there's never a contradiction when liars like you persist in
parsing their words is there.
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
You realy do get tangled up easily in your own dishonesty don't you,
Pears?
I've never intentionally been dishonest on this or any other
newsgroup - can you say the same?
Yes, and I can also say that I'm not a desperate little arselicker who
thinks anything that can vaguely be ascribed to a royal has to be okay,
as long as it's a royal.
Post by Brian Pears
You can use my surname disparagingly like that because I don't
hide it - unlike some - and generally folks only resort to such
tactics when they've lost an argument, so I'll take it as that.
Unlike "some" - meaning your snake pal "Q" or the clod in NYC, you
mean? You can be glad I use your last name disparagingly and keep your
mouth shut about disparagement when you and your ilk on this forum are
the biggest name callers and disparagers of all. Pot black. Keep on
telling yourself you've won any "argument" because you've won nothing,
except to prove what a bunch of dunces you are as usual.
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
Assuming you've been following events there "very closely", perhaps you
can tell us how many white-owned non-farming businesses continue to
prosper under Mugabe's rule? Assuming also you're the one that keeps
statistics world-wide on anyon
Now you're backed into a corner and can't back up your blather.
It would be trivially easy to prove an assertion such as yours,
if it were true, by simply pointing to one or more reports of
white non-farming businesses being closed by Mugabe's regime. You
can't because it hasn't happened - so you try to switch the onus,
knowing full well that what you ask is impossible to answer.
Things that don't happen don't generate news reports, there's
nothing newsworthy in businesses that haven't been affected, so
how the blazes would I somehow divine the statistics you demand
from news reports that weren't made? Don't be so bloody
disingenuous.
So prove me wrong - don't wriggle and squirm, just point to some
reports of white non-farming businesses which have been closed
down by Mugabe. Fail to point to such reports and I'll take
it as a further admission that you are wrong.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Brian Pears
2006-05-06 02:31:47 UTC
Permalink
So you can't back up your ludicrous claim.
Post by Julian
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
"I don't claim to know much about Zimbabwe.." Yet, within hous of
posting this you post again that you've been following events there
very closely.
Following events closely by listening to and reading news does
not entitle anyone to claim to know a country well - though one
can justifiably claim to be aware of any events serious enough
to have featured in those reports. There's no contradiction
whatsoever.
No, there's never a contradiction when liars like you persist in
parsing their words is there.
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
You realy do get tangled up easily in your own dishonesty don't you,
Pears?
I've never intentionally been dishonest on this or any other
newsgroup - can you say the same?
Yes, and I can also say that I'm not a desperate little arselicker who
thinks anything that can vaguely be ascribed to a royal has to be okay,
as long as it's a royal.
Post by Brian Pears
You can use my surname disparagingly like that because I don't
hide it - unlike some - and generally folks only resort to such
tactics when they've lost an argument, so I'll take it as that.
Unlike "some" - meaning your snake pal "Q" or the clod in NYC, you
mean? You can be glad I use your last name disparagingly and keep your
mouth shut about disparagement when you and your ilk on this forum are
the biggest name callers and disparagers of all. Pot black. Keep on
telling yourself you've won any "argument" because you've won nothing,
except to prove what a bunch of dunces you are as usual.
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
Assuming you've been following events there "very closely", perhaps you
can tell us how many white-owned non-farming businesses continue to
prosper under Mugabe's rule? Assuming also you're the one that keeps
statistics world-wide on anyon
Now you're backed into a corner and can't back up your blather.
It would be trivially easy to prove an assertion such as yours,
if it were true, by simply pointing to one or more reports of
white non-farming businesses being closed by Mugabe's regime. You
can't because it hasn't happened - so you try to switch the onus,
knowing full well that what you ask is impossible to answer.
Things that don't happen don't generate news reports, there's
nothing newsworthy in businesses that haven't been affected, so
how the blazes would I somehow divine the statistics you demand
from news reports that weren't made? Don't be so bloody
disingenuous.
So prove me wrong - don't wriggle and squirm, just point to some
reports of white non-farming businesses which have been closed
down by Mugabe. Fail to point to such reports and I'll take
it as a further admission that you are wrong.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Julian
2006-05-06 03:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
So you can't back up your ludicrous claim.
Go and parse your words and spin, arselicker. What's ludicrous is
people like you with your delusions that he *must* be innocent because
his daughter is going out with a royal. Ridiculous? Go look in a
mirror...Pears.
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
"I don't claim to know much about Zimbabwe.." Yet, within hous of
posting this you post again that you've been following events there
very closely.
Following events closely by listening to and reading news does
not entitle anyone to claim to know a country well - though one
can justifiably claim to be aware of any events serious enough
to have featured in those reports. There's no contradiction
whatsoever.
No, there's never a contradiction when liars like you persist in
parsing their words is there.
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
You realy do get tangled up easily in your own dishonesty don't you,
Pears?
I've never intentionally been dishonest on this or any other
newsgroup - can you say the same?
Yes, and I can also say that I'm not a desperate little arselicker who
thinks anything that can vaguely be ascribed to a royal has to be okay,
as long as it's a royal.
Post by Brian Pears
You can use my surname disparagingly like that because I don't
hide it - unlike some - and generally folks only resort to such
tactics when they've lost an argument, so I'll take it as that.
Unlike "some" - meaning your snake pal "Q" or the clod in NYC, you
mean? You can be glad I use your last name disparagingly and keep your
mouth shut about disparagement when you and your ilk on this forum are
the biggest name callers and disparagers of all. Pot black. Keep on
telling yourself you've won any "argument" because you've won nothing,
except to prove what a bunch of dunces you are as usual.
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
Assuming you've been following events there "very closely", perhaps you
can tell us how many white-owned non-farming businesses continue to
prosper under Mugabe's rule? Assuming also you're the one that keeps
statistics world-wide on anyon
Now you're backed into a corner and can't back up your blather.
It would be trivially easy to prove an assertion such as yours,
if it were true, by simply pointing to one or more reports of
white non-farming businesses being closed by Mugabe's regime. You
can't because it hasn't happened - so you try to switch the onus,
knowing full well that what you ask is impossible to answer.
Things that don't happen don't generate news reports, there's
nothing newsworthy in businesses that haven't been affected, so
how the blazes would I somehow divine the statistics you demand
from news reports that weren't made? Don't be so bloody
disingenuous.
So prove me wrong - don't wriggle and squirm, just point to some
reports of white non-farming businesses which have been closed
down by Mugabe. Fail to point to such reports and I'll take
it as a further admission that you are wrong.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Brian Pears
2006-05-06 04:14:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian
Go and parse your words and spin, arselicker. What's ludicrous is
people like you with your delusions that he *must* be innocent because
his daughter is going out with a royal. Ridiculous? Go look in a
mirror...Pears.
So now it's just abuse - you really are a waste of space.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Julian
2006-05-06 06:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Pears
Post by Julian
Go and parse your words and spin, arselicker. What's ludicrous is
people like you with your delusions that he *must* be innocent because
his daughter is going out with a royal. Ridiculous? Go look in a
mirror...Pears.
So now it's just abuse - you really are a waste of space.
My, isn't it just amazing when just a little of the muck you spew out
gets tossed back at you once in a while...Pears.

You were a waste of space from the minute that long-dead slagheap you
called your mother conceived you, you ridiculous lying arselicker.
Post by Brian Pears
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Loading...