Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1092

Radge Jougal called me "Super Dave".

This was an attempt to imply that I make some sort of exaggerated claims regarding my own abilities. Which isn't true.

Radge Jougal also wrote "I was just asking an innocent question".

That's a lie.

I'm not saying that _everything_ you say is a lie, but, on this particular occasion, you are a liar.

For reasons of your own, which I'm not even going to bother speculating about, you have a long record of aiming quite unprovoked snide remarks at myself, and there was nothing "innocent" about your remarks on this particular occasion.

As for what I have done for free speech, well, in my old age I'm not as active as I used to be, but I've done a bit over the years, and I will be glad to compare my record on this with yours, if you can ever manage to pluck up the courage to slither out from under your stone so that it is possible to examine your record.

Red Justice · Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject:

RadgeJougal · Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:39 pm Post subject:

"What is essentailly fair?"

Well, it's not fair that I don't exist.

"on this particular occasion, you are a liar."

On this occasion you dodged the question, with a question. Like you normally do.

But I'm not entitled to free speech, as I don't exist.

"if you can ever manage to pluck up the courage to slither out from under your stone so that it is possible to examine your record."

Post reams and reams of stuff about how wonderful and clever I am? I'm sure everyone would love that. But there's not enough space on here for two of us to do so, and anyway, I'm imaginary.

"This was an attempt to imply that I make some sort of exaggerated claims regarding my own abilities. Which isn't true. "

And you call me a liar! Laughing

Read this forum. Read that News of the World "article".

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1092

Radge Jougal wrote

> I'm not entitled to free speech

You are entitled to spout your manure, and I am entitled to say "Piss off". I'm not a politician, I'm not a candidate for any kind of public office job, I never have been, and I never will be. So I don't have to answer anybody's questions if I don't feel like it. I don't have be nice to anybody if I don't feel like it. Piss off.

> you dodged the question

No I didn't.

If somebody asks me "where were you last Friday at 10pm?" and I say "Piss off", that is not "dodging" the question, that is a refusal to answer. Which is a completely different thing. "Dodging" is when you avoid a question. Not when you refuse to answer.

Not only did I refuse to answer, I gave you my reason for refusing. YOU have no right to ask me, unless you are prepared to compare your own record in standing up for freedom of speech with mine. But any claims made by "Radge Jougal" would be completely meaningless. They might as well be made by "Mickey Mouse". Therefore...............Piss off.

RadgeJougal · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:38 am Post subject:

"I don't have be nice to anybody if I don't feel like it."

No change there then.

I'm off to the fair the morra for the DODGEMS. Smile

"This was an attempt to imply that I make some sort of exaggerated claims regarding my own abilities. Which isn't true. "

The funniest thing I've heard all week.

By the way, do you change in a phonebox when you're off to save the world?

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1092

This topic started off being about "is freedom of speech under attack in Scotland?". Apparently, the specific case which prompted the question related to Aamer Anwar. This was an important matter. Radge Jougal has quite deliberately sought to change the subject, to try to make it about me personally. Note that it was HIM that did this, not me. All I did was to respond to his totally irrelevant personal attacks on me.

As any of us who has ever read the comics knows, Clark Kent has some quite astonishing abilities. In taunting me as "Super Dave", Radge Jougal sought, quite deliberately, to change the subject from "is freedom of speech under attack in Scotland?", to make it about me personally, by suggesting (out of a clear blue sky, and not in relation to anything I had actually said in this discussion) that I had made some sort of exaggerated claim regarding my own abilities. Note that word "abilities". It does NOT mean "what a person has done", it means "means what a person can do". Now, all of us have abilities of one sort or another. For instance, some people are expert on the workings of computers. Some people can draw, or paint, or play a musical instrument. Some people can climb mountains, or are good in the boxing ring, or they can win cycling races. Some people are good at woodworking, or plumbing, or electrical work. Some people have "green fingers", they can make plants grow into a beautiful garden. I can't do any of these things, and I have never claimed that I could. In fact, I would be interested to know just what "abilities" Radge Jougal is alleging I have made exaggerated claims about. I would be willing to bet that he can't produce one single example (quoting my exact words, not his own malicious twisting of them) of me making an exaggerated claim about my abilities.

When challenged about his totally irrelevant personal attacks on me, Radge Jougal claimed "all I did was to ask an INNOCENT question". I know that was a lie, most people reading this will know it was a lie, and Radge Jougal himself knows perfectly well his claim about "innocent" remarks was a lie.

If every discussion descends into a personal slanging match, then genuine discussion becomes impossible. Maybe that is the INTENTION. Maybe Radge Jougal is a paid agent of those who want to prevent genuine discussion on such matters as freedom of speech being under attack in Scotland. The reason I quit the Our Scotland forum before was because such irrelevant personal attacks made genuine discussion of important issues virtually impossible on this forum. Yes, they could be discussed elsewhere, but not here. Within days of me returning to this forum, here we go again. This discussion on freedom of speech in Scotland has been hijacked and turned into something else. But note that this was NOT my choice.

Aventinian · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject:

RadgeJougal · Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:35 pm Post subject:

Great stuff, Dave. Keep it coming. I'm noting it all down for a sitcom I'm writing.

"Maybe Radge Jougal is a paid agent"

Yes, for a theatre, and you're hired for the role of Widow Twankie.

" suggesting (out of a clear blue sky, and not in relation to anything I had actually said in this discussion) that I had made some sort of exaggerated claim regarding my own abilities."

Never! You have never exaggerated your abilities or past. Wink

I've heard the first cuckoo now. Spring must be coming. Laughing

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1092

At today's meeting of 'Determination', the campaign for self-determination for Scotland, I put forward a proposal that if, in future, the group should ever want to seek publicity for any kind of action we are doing, then the person to contact the press should definitely NOT be myself. Other members at the meeting were a bit worried that if we passed such a motion this could be wrongly interpreted (by the sort of folk who like to deliberately twist things), as being some sort of reflection on me, whereas what it actually represents is an attempt by me and other members to take the focus away from me personally. And speaking about the sort of folk who like to deliberately twist things, the coward who hides behind the pseudoname Radge Jougal wrote.

> Keep it coming.

Unfortunately, I do have to. Because you do. And yes, I do realise that this may be precisely your intention. Whether this is because you are actually being paid to disrupt the campaign for self-determination, or just because you get some sort of sick pleasure out of doing that sort of thing, I don't know. But whichever of these is your motive, unfortunately I do still have to respond, because, unfortunately, if I don't, then that could lead to your lies becoming more widely accepted as the truth by default. But let's be clear about this: the person who is making it difficult to have serious discussion about things like "is freedom of speech under attack in Scotland?" is the coward who hides behind the pseudoname 'Radge Jougal'. It is he who has chosen to turn this discussion into being about me personally. That most certainly was NOT my choice. I am not a politician, I am not a candidate for any kind of public office, I never have been and I never will be, and I have no interest in trying to impress the public with my abilities, whether real or exaggerated.

> Never! You have never exaggerated your abilities or past.

We weren't discussing my past. There was no mention of "the past". Only of abilities. As anybody who has ever read the comics knows, Clark Kent was supposed to have some quite astonishing abilities. In taunting me as "Super Dave", you sought, quite deliberately, and not in relation to anything said by me in this discussion, to change the subject from "is freedom of speech under attack in Scotland?", to make it about me personally, by suggesting that I had made some sort of exaggerated claim regarding my own abilities. Note that word "abilities". It does NOT mean "what a person has done", it means "what a person can do". Now, all of us have abilities of one sort or another. For instance, some people are expert on the workings of computers. Some people can draw, or paint, or play a musical instrument. Some people can climb mountains, or are good in the boxing ring, or they can win cycling races. Some people are good at woodworking, or plumbing, or electrical work. I can't do any of these things, and I have never claimed that I could. In fact, I would be interested to know just what "abilities" you are alleging I have made exaggerated claims about. I would be willing to bet, oh, let's see, ten pounds, yes, I would place a ten pound bet, that you can't produce one single example (quoting MY exact words, not your own malicious twisting of them) of me making an exaggerated claim about my abilities in any way. Go on, take the bet. Try to prove your lies.

RadgeJougal · Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:24 am Post subject:

"Try to prove your lies."

You mean the lies about how you never brag about your "abilities"?

"the coward who hides behind the pseudoname 'Radge Jougal'."

It's pseudonym as I keep on telling you. Do you think most of the people on this board are cowards? How do we know you're real, and not some bizarre "comedy terrorist"?

Comedy terrorists
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/m...?xml=/arts/2003/07/01/btbar01.xml

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1092

I have always disliked "spy" stories. Regardless of which "side" they are on, for me, the main characteristic of a spy is not courage, or glamour, but lying. All spies are, almost by definition, liars. I also take a rather old-fashioned view on "special operations". For me, anybody who snipes from deep cover is, by definition, a coward.

The coward who goes under the pseudoname Radge Jougal asks "Do you think most of the people on this board are cowards?"

No. With many of them, there is no real attempt to hide their identity from us. For instance, "Rinty" has told us quite clearly who he is, "Holebender", I have met on dozens of occasions, and the same for Carol. While I prefer folk to be open and honest, I recognise that some people can have valid reasons for not using their own names. However, when a pseudoname is used with deliberate intention to mislead, and when this cover is used to launch unprovoked personal attacks on more open and honest folk, that I consider cowardly.

This topic started off being about "is freedom of speech under attack in Scotland?". Apparently, the specific case which prompted the question related to Aamer Anwar. This was an important matter. The coward who hides behind the pseudoname Radge Jougal has quite deliberately sought to change the subject, to try to make it about me personally. Note that it was HIM that did this, not me. All I did was to respond to his totally irrelevant personal attacks on me.

I challenged the coward Radge Jougal "Try to prove your lies". He has, of course, realised that he cannot do so. He has realised that he cannot convict me (from my own words, and not HIS twisted version of them) of what he alleges. So he has backed down. Of course, like the liar he is, he will try to present this differently. Nevertheless, that is the reality.

RadgeJougal · Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject:

"He has, of course, realised that he cannot do so"

You've just told another lie, without realising it.

Didn't your mum tell you that every time you tell a lie, God kills a kitten?

"pseudoname"

Pseudonym. Pseudo-intellectuals should check their spelling before they pontificate.

If you think that's a lie, looky here -
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pseudonym

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1092

This topic started off being about "is freedom of speech under attack in Scotland?". This was an important matter. The coward who hides behind the pseudo-name Radge Jougal has quite deliberately sought to change the subject, to try to make it about me personally. Note that it was HIM that chose to change the subject, not me. All I did was to respond to his totally irrelevant personal attacks on me.

The liar who uses the pseudo-name “Radge Jougal” wrote (about me) “You've just told another lie”

When you say “another”, you are suggesting that I told a first one. You were challenged with a bet of ten pounds that you couldn’t produce any evidence for this. Of course you backed off from taking the bet.

“without realising it”.

It is impossible to tell a lie without realising it. If somebody says something which they honestly believe to be true, but it isn’t, that’s not a lie, it’s just a mistake. For instance, when Christopher Columbus set out to sail round the world, many people still believed the world was flat. They were wrong, but they were not liars. Columbus himself calculated the world was much smaller than it actually is, and thought he could find a short cut to the East Indies. He was wrong, but he wasn’t lying. When he described the native people of America as “Indians” (because he honestly believed he had found his short cut to the Indies) he was wrong, but he wasn’t lying.

When I call you a liar (which I do) I mean that you are consciously and deliberately lying, not that you are doing so “without realising it”. The Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, another one who went in for consciously and deliberately lying, operated on the principle that there was no need to produce any "evidence" for his lies, if he just kept on repeating them often enough people would come to believe them, simply because they'd heard them so often. You apparently follow Goebbels' example in this.

> Pseudonym.

I know how you spell that word. But that word makes the thing sound almost respectable, which, as far as I’m concerned, it isn’t. If you look up the adjective “pseudo” in the Oxford English Dictionary, you will find it defined as “ NOT GENUINE ; FAKE ; PRETENCIOUS ; or INSINCERE “. It is in these senses I quite deliberately refer to the false name you have chosen as your “pseudo-name”.

RadgeJougal · Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject:

"You were challenged with a bet of ten pounds that you couldn’t produce any evidence for this. Of course you backed off from taking the bet. "

You can't back off from something you never accepted. What bet? Do you think anyone can actually be bothered wading through your spiels? Everyone just humours you.

"If you look up the adjective “pseudo” in the Oxford English Dictionary, you will find it defined as “ NOT GENUINE ; FAKE"

As in pseudo-intellectual. You ought to know about that one, Davie.

RFM · Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:41 pm Post subject:

To Red Justice,

I am informed that the Laws of Scotland include an offense known as "Murmuring the judges", a sort of a contempt action which may be initiated by the procurator fiscal. I understand the gravamen of the offense is speaking contemptuously of or with ridicule about or attempting to demean, the Scottish legal system. Robert Louis Stevenson wrote about it in "Wier of Hermeston".

The point is that Mr Anwar as an attorney admitted to practice before the bar of Scotland's courts would and certainly should have known about that Law. While freedom of speech may well be the right of every citizen of Scotland, the obligation of an attorney is that of an officer of the court. As the American Supreme Court Justice O.W. Homes wrote in a land mark case in America, "Petitioner may have a constitutional right (not to incriminate himself) but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman".

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1092

For some reason which I will leave it to the mental health professionals to try to fathom, the person who masquerades under the pseudo-name Radge Jougal is obsessed with me. He seeks to change the subject of discussions here on this Our Scotland forum, to make them about me. Some people might think I ought to be flattered, but really it is just a nuisance. He now says "Everyone just humours you".

I know for certain that isn't true. I encounter people every day who listen to what I have to say with a certain amount of interest. I have friends who are not involved in political activity in any way, who think about what I say. Also, yesterday, I was at a meeting of a campaign of which I am a member. I know for certain that, although of course my fellow members of Determination do not always agree with me, they do consider my contributions to the discussion. Therefore, you do not speak on behalf of "everyone". Some, maybe. But so what? I have never in my life believed that it is possible to win them all. What proportion of people find my views interesting? I don't know. But it doesn't need to be a majority. It only needs to be "enough". And I think I am probably reaching "enough".

As for your "pseudo-intellectual" remark, it is, like so much else that you say, irrelevant. Since I have never in my life claimed to be an "intellectual", it therefore follows that I cannot possibly be a "pseudo"-intellectual.

RadgeJougal · Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:27 pm Post subject:

"I encounter people every day who listen to what I have to say with a certain amount of interest."

OMG! Laughing

You actually believe that?!

'Therefore, you do not speak on behalf of "everyone".'

No of course, I don't. But you do, don't you? That's why you get on with everyone so well.

'it therefore follows that I cannot possibly be a "pseudo"-intellectual.'

That's called fallacy. You fancy yourself as one, and pretend to be one... pretty obvious from your own words.

"What proportion of people find my views interesting? I don't know"

I'd guess it's probably well under 10%. Possibly under 1%.

Most of your views are ripped off other people, but you never acknowledge that.

Crank it up loon! (That's "loon" in the Doric sense. Laughing

)

http://tinyurl.com/3dzzxn

azzuri · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3796

Thread locked.

Absolutely pointless - this has turned into nothing more than a mud-slinging thread.

RadgeJougal, please keep this sort of 'dialogue' to private messages and email, I'm sick of this pish littering the forum.
_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub

Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/