Beach Ices at Praa Sands
Ice meeting the sand at the base of the low cliff behind Praa Sands Beach, West Cornwall. 6th January 2009....
Icicles at Trewellard Bottoms
Water seeping through a wall is turned to icicles, ate Trewellard Bottoms, where Geevor Mine meets the sea....
Winter Sunset at Levant
A late afternoon scene, at Levant Mine, West Cornwall. 7th January 2009....
Winter at Levant
The old electricity generator building, at Levant Mine, West Cornwall, during the recent cold snap. 7th Jnauary 2009....
so, before I take this argument any further, you show me first, where you get your information from. urls please.
ILH, I also asked you for proof, twice, and all you can offer is...
www.wikipedia.org
You got anything that contradicts my facts
Yes, www.wikipedia.org
Oh yeah
I am so glad that you agree with me.
Show me where wikipedia contradicts me
No, the onus is on you to show me where i have gone wrong
No, it was you who gave the link www.wikipedia.org as proof that your argument was/is correct.
If you follow that link, you will find that it goes to the title page of the free encyclopedia called "Wikipedia". An encyclopedia, incidentally, that is written by the user, and contains a great deal of opinion, as opposed to fact. An encyclopedia that those with intelligence will use to give themselves pointers to further material, some of it source material, in order for them to make up their own minds, and they will rarely use it as a "proof" to their arguments. In fact, if you were to use Wikipedia as a reference in an academic paper, you would find that your paper would be treated with the contempt that it deserved, ripped into squares and hung for use in the outside dunny.
So, you offer, as evidence of your position, the title page of an online, suspect, encyclopedia, and expect it to be accepted as such. Might I suggest, that if you wish to be taken, even remotely, seriously, that you provide the links to the relevant articles on said encyclopedia, so that other posters are able to follow your argument, and then be able to either agree with your findings, or refute them with references of their own.
You have been called a troll on a few occasions on this board, I have to say that it is a description of you that I am in complete disagreement with. To suggest that you are a troll, is to credit you with a modicum of intelligence, a level of intelligence that I fear you can only aspire to, with little chance of achieving your goal. My 11 year old son is far more competent in putting forward a balanced, well referenced, argument than you.
To put it bluntly, either put up, or shut up.
Kernow Kensa!
Our day will come!
"Everyone has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small, no one is too old or too young to do something."
You obvisouly have not read the article. Apartheid was the theory of races bing set apart. Notice the key wordrace
Then you would state that Isreali Arabs are of a different race to Jewish people?
Well this shows that, in Isreal, all are equal
Political rights, voting and representation
Israeli citizenship law does not differentiate between Israeli citizens based on ethnicity. Formally therefore, Arab citizens of Israel have the same rights as all other Israeli citizens, including suffrage, political representation, and recourse to the courts.[9] The Knesset (Israel's legislature) includes Arab members and Arab parties. Although Arab parties allied to Mapai were members of the first and second government coalitions in Israel, no independent Arab party has ever been part of a coalition government.[60][61]
so, before I take this argument any further, you show me first, where you get your information from. urls please.
ILH, I also asked you for proof, twice, and all you can offer is...
www.wikipedia.org
You got anything that contradicts my facts
Yes, www.wikipedia.org
Oh yeah
I am so glad that you agree with me.
Show me where wikipedia contradicts me
No, the onus is on you to show me where i have gone wrong
No, it was you who gave the link www.wikipedia.org as proof that your argument was/is correct.
If you follow that link, you will find that it goes to the title page of the free encyclopedia called "Wikipedia". An encyclopedia, incidentally, that is written by the user, and contains a great deal of opinion, as opposed to fact. An encyclopedia that those with intelligence will use to give themselves pointers to further material, some of it source material, in order for them to make up their own minds, and they will rarely use it as a "proof" to their arguments. In fact, if you were to use Wikipedia as a reference in an academic paper, you would find that your paper would be treated with the contempt that it deserved, ripped into squares and hung for use in the outside dunny.
So, you offer, as evidence of your position, the title page of an online, suspect, encyclopedia, and expect it to be accepted as such. Might I suggest, that if you wish to be taken, even remotely, seriously, that you provide the links to the relevant articles on said encyclopedia, so that other posters are able to follow your argument, and then be able to either agree with your findings, or refute them with references of their own.
You have been called a troll on a few occasions on this board, I have to say that it is a description of you that I am in complete disagreement with. To suggest that you are a troll, is to credit you with a modicum of intelligence, a level of intelligence that I fear you can only aspire to, with little chance of achieving your goal. My 11 year old son is far more competent in putting forward a balanced, well referenced, argument than you.
so, before I take this argument any further, you show me first, where you get your information from. urls please.
ILH, I also asked you for proof, twice, and all you can offer is...
www.wikipedia.org
You got anything that contradicts my facts
Yes, www.wikipedia.org
Oh yeah
I am so glad that you agree with me.
Show me where wikipedia contradicts me
No, the onus is on you to show me where i have gone wrong
No, it was you who gave the link www.wikipedia.org as proof that your argument was/is correct.
If you follow that link, you will find that it goes to the title page of the free encyclopedia called "Wikipedia". An encyclopedia, incidentally, that is written by the user, and contains a great deal of opinion, as opposed to fact. An encyclopedia that those with intelligence will use to give themselves pointers to further material, some of it source material, in order for them to make up their own minds, and they will rarely use it as a "proof" to their arguments. In fact, if you were to use Wikipedia as a reference in an academic paper, you would find that your paper would be treated with the contempt that it deserved, ripped into squares and hung for use in the outside dunny.
So, you offer, as evidence of your position, the title page of an online, suspect, encyclopedia, and expect it to be accepted as such. Might I suggest, that if you wish to be taken, even remotely, seriously, that you provide the links to the relevant articles on said encyclopedia, so that other posters are able to follow your argument, and then be able to either agree with your findings, or refute them with references of their own.
You have been called a troll on a few occasions on this board, I have to say that it is a description of you that I am in complete disagreement with. To suggest that you are a troll, is to credit you with a modicum of intelligence, a level of intelligence that I fear you can only aspire to, with little chance of achieving your goal. My 11 year old son is far more competent in putting forward a balanced, well referenced, argument than you.
Errr, why did you post that twice and it looked like you added nothing?
Why does everyone pick on ilovehelston?
Is it not wrong to mock the afflicted?
It isn't wrong to mock the stupid...
I'm sorry, ILH, but you're demonstrating to me time and time again that you are
1. Unable to present a logically thought out argument which is backed up by fact.
2. That you are totally unable to accept the opinions of anyone else if it is different to your own.
3. Wen asked to back your own views up with facts, not only are you unable to do so, but you go on the defenseve and demand instead that those who do not agree with you prove themselves instead of you.
Now either you really are that thick, and you have no idea that your behaviour is totally infuriating/amusing/annoying to most of us, or you're deliberately trying to do it....
so, which is it?
Unfortunately in England... !
'Griffin Girl'[?]
"Cornish will take over your life. it does. Resistance is futile." Click me
Errr, why did you post that twice and it looked like you added nothing?
Why does everyone pick on ilovehelston?
Is it not wrong to mock the afflicted?
It isn't wrong to mock the stupid...
I'm sorry, ILH, but you're demonstrating to me time and time again that you are
1. Unable to present a logically thought out argument which is backed up by fact.
2. That you are totally unable to accept the opinions of anyone else if it is different to your own.
3. Wen asked to back your own views up with facts, not only are you unable to do so, but you go on the defenseve and demand instead that those who do not agree with you prove themselves instead of you.
Now either you really are that thick, and you have no idea that your behaviour is totally infuriating/amusing/annoying to most of us, or you're deliberately trying to do it....
so, which is it?
I am not thick, i am engaging in a debate
Tell me what the debate is and I will offer my opinoin about it and following facts!
Errr, why did you post that twice and it looked like you added nothing?
Why does everyone pick on ilovehelston?
Is it not wrong to mock the afflicted?
It isn't wrong to mock the stupid...
I'm sorry, ILH, but you're demonstrating to me time and time again that you are
1. Unable to present a logically thought out argument which is backed up by fact.
2. That you are totally unable to accept the opinions of anyone else if it is different to your own.
3. Wen asked to back your own views up with facts, not only are you unable to do so, but you go on the defenseve and demand instead that those who do not agree with you prove themselves instead of you.
Now either you really are that thick, and you have no idea that your behaviour is totally infuriating/amusing/annoying to most of us, or you're deliberately trying to do it....
so, which is it?
I am not thick, i am engaging in a debate
Tell me what the debate is and I will offer my opinoin about it and following facts!
Should this reply not have been posted in the Cornwall24 Lite section?
Kernow Kensa!
Our day will come!
"Everyone has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small, no one is too old or too young to do something."
Errr, why did you post that twice and it looked like you added nothing?
Why does everyone pick on ilovehelston?
Is it not wrong to mock the afflicted?
It isn't wrong to mock the stupid...
I'm sorry, ILH, but you're demonstrating to me time and time again that you are
1. Unable to present a logically thought out argument which is backed up by fact.
2. That you are totally unable to accept the opinions of anyone else if it is different to your own.
3. Wen asked to back your own views up with facts, not only are you unable to do so, but you go on the defenseve and demand instead that those who do not agree with you prove themselves instead of you.
Now either you really are that thick, and you have no idea that your behaviour is totally infuriating/amusing/annoying to most of us, or you're deliberately trying to do it....
so, which is it?
I am not thick, i am engaging in a debate
Tell me what the debate is and I will offer my opinoin about it and following facts!
Should this reply not have been posted in the Cornwall24 Lite section?
Errr, why did you post that twice and it looked like you added nothing?
Why does everyone pick on ilovehelston?
Is it not wrong to mock the afflicted?
It isn't wrong to mock the stupid...
I'm sorry, ILH, but you're demonstrating to me time and time again that you are
1. Unable to present a logically thought out argument which is backed up by fact.
2. That you are totally unable to accept the opinions of anyone else if it is different to your own.
3. Wen asked to back your own views up with facts, not only are you unable to do so, but you go on the defenseve and demand instead that those who do not agree with you prove themselves instead of you.
Now either you really are that thick, and you have no idea that your behaviour is totally infuriating/amusing/annoying to most of us, or you're deliberately trying to do it....
so, which is it?
I am not thick, i am engaging in a debate
Tell me what the debate is and I will offer my opinoin about it and following facts!
Should this reply not have been posted in the Cornwall24 Lite section?
No this has gone off topic
Never did like Topic, always preferred a Mars.
It's the nuts you see, don't like nuts.
A Mars is sooooo much better.
Mind you, I much prefer a nice juicy pear, You bite into it, and it just melts in your mouth, the sweet juice runs down your chin, and drips on your shirt. Can't get them nowadays, there all hard and gritty. I blame the supermarkets.
Kernow Kensa!
Our day will come!
"Everyone has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small, no one is too old or too young to do something."
Rise in county's road death toll
The number of people who have died on Cornwall's roads rises in the last year to 35, police say.
Film con man ordered to pay £100K
The man who swindled almost £2m in a film studio scam is ordered to forfeit £100,000 by a judge.
Triplets survive against the odds
A woman from Cornwall who gave birth to triplets 14 weeks early describes their survival as a "miracle".
Call for inquiry into fire centre
Fire chiefs demand a public inquiry into the delayed opening of the regional fire control centre.
Prison sentence for benefit cheat
A man who admitted swindling more than £51,000 in benefits over a six-year period is jailed for 18 months.
Divers face trial over shipwreck
Three Cornish divers accused of plundering a shipwreck off the coast of Spain are to be tried in a Spanish court.
‘NO’ TO NUCLEAR WASTE IN CORNWALL - MPs
Proposals to bring nuclear waste to Cornwall have been described as ‘absurd and irresponsible’ by Cornish MPs.
Route Partnership Plan for Penzance unnecessary
Their plan having been rejected by the public in the final exhibition in Septmber with 90% against the Route Partnership have decided to try again in mid January after a mailout and poster campaign.The Chamber of Commerce has been at the forefront of this campaign.