It takes two to tango, S2. You kept replying to me, so I just kept replying back to you.

Well fair enough, I guess. You didn’t mean that the comparison was "fair" as a means of discrediting John’s support for George Galloway on the grounds that is pisses off all the right mentalist cocks, or indeed that it had any relevance whatsoever to that discussion.You meant that it was "fair" in that GG and OBL are both evil bastards. Ok.

Obviously, there are no public service announcements, and you can discuss what you want. Still, until you wrote the words really isn’t unfair, the principle of supporting people because they piss other people off was the only substantive thing being discussed in this thread, and the GG/OBL comparison formed part of that discussion. Of course you’re at liberty to go off at any tangents you wish, but you might at least say that’s what you’re doing. Otherwise you shouldn’t be surprised if people assume that your words are intended to be relevant to the main topic under discussion (or at least under discussion by everyone except you), and attempt to interpret them in that light. This wastes everyone’s time, and seems to cause you even more frustration that it causes everyone else (What is up with you people? Do you just pick out sentence fragments at random… I don’t get it…. On what planet… I’ll just recap the conversation, since everyone’s having so much difficulty following it…. for some bizarre reason, I am required to quote myself…. If you think that’s the only possible interpretation of that comment, you are a fool…. now you’re just being silly… I can’t believe I’m still having this argument, etc. etc. etc.). So you should probably consider doing so out of consideration for your own well-being, as much as anything else.

Larry, you read it differently to how I did, and you read a lot into my words that wasn’t there. I was talking about comparing Galloway to Bin Laden, which I think was a reasonable follow-on from what had already been said, since Jimmy had drawn a parallel between Osama and Galloway and John had then compared Osama to Galloway. You’re concentrating on a different aspect of what Jimmy said. I must have missed the public service announcement telling us that that was the only part of his writing anyone was allowed to discuss.

That being said, just so you know what my opinion actually is, here’s the difference between Galloway’s supporters and Osama’s supporters: since Osama is honest, his supporters want what he wants; that’s why they support him. Since Galloway is disingenuous and deceitful, most of his supporters don’t want everything he wants. For instance, I doubt that most of his supporters think that the Velvet Revolution was a bad thing, but I doubt that they realise his opinions on the matter. Similarly, I reckon a lot of Galloway’s supporters believe the bullshit about how he was praising the Iraqi people, not Saddam. People who mistakenly support totalitarian bastards are not as bad as people who knowingly and deliberately support totalitarian bastards. This is extremely obvious, which is why I would never argue otherwise. The difference it makes to real-world outcomes is that, the more power Galloway accrues, the more ability he has to actually enact his policies, the more support he’ll lose and therefore the less power he’ll have. The same is not true of Osama.

So I rephrase:

My problem is that you claim that comparing someone who, here and now, supports George Galloway (on the grounds that it pisses off all the right people) to someone who, here and now, supports Osama (for similar reasons) is a fair comparison.

Thank you for pointing out that you and Jimmy Doyle are different people. This is not a matter which had escaped my notice. Nor does it change the fact that after John had shot JD’s comparison down, you resurrected it claiming that it "isn’t really unfair". And you were wrong.

No I don’t.

> Notice that we’re not talking (or at least we weren’t originally) about comparing the characters of the two men

I think it’s pretty obvious that that is what I was talking about.

> we’re comparing the relative morality of politically supporting each of them.

I think the comparison Jimmy Doyle (who is not me) made concerned the morality of admiring anyone who pisses off people one dislikes. That’s not really the same as politically supporting someone. I don’t think so, anyway. But that really is very small-scale quibbling.

A general rule that is worth bearing in mind, Larry: I say what I mean. If you’re reading between my lines, chances are you’re reading something that isn’t there.

Notice that we’re not talking (or at least we weren’t originally) about comparing the characters of the two men, we’re comparing the relative morality of politically supporting each of them.

And that comparison (in effect comparing people who voted RESPECT to Al Qaeda sympathisers) is not fair. It’s not even close to being fair. To support Osama is to support the mass-murder of innocent people. To support Galloway (here and now) is to do no such thing, however much of a cunt he may be.

> As is comparing supporting Hitler to voting Labour. Or comparing eating breakfast to believing in Santa Claus.

Er, yes. You can compare those cases, and find virtually no similarities. Or you can compare the beliefs of Osama and Galloway and find more similarities. Hey, now I’m comparing comparisons. Deep.

> you repeatedly refuse to tackle this point

Oh, now you’re just being silly.