Originally posted by: kage69
You already accuse me of backpeddling, you know jumping to conclusions, because you won't research an article yourself or because you might not like what you see, see I can do it to, jump to conclusions that is
Research an article? I wasn't the one making leaps of faith concerning someone's name, nor was I the one who tried to replace 'consultant' with 'lobbyist.' You did jump to a conclusion, you did backpeddle, and if you had done the actual research you spoke of then why wouldn't you quote it instead of just bolding the guys name? You're F.O.S.
When an individual or organization tries to use the state to impose ones religious beliefs on another whether its the religious right or in this case produced by the following organization I will call it out.
Still not fessin up like a man, and now your offering this strawman in hopes that I'll play along - nevermind my position on this issue is the same as yours. Integrity, ever heard of it?
So who produced this guidance the health boards or Glasgow consultancy Meem?
That's not a point of contention. Relevance?
Well at least your honest here and admit you don't know, I don't look at anyones name other to use it as a reference to look into who the individual is and what he says or does.
Again, you're F.O.S - your sarcasm and bolding of his name seems to indicate otherwise.
Tell me who's guidance did the health boards adopt, their own or that provided to them by Glasgow consultancy Meem and Na?eem Raza and why is he thrilled that others will be prevented from eating at their desks?
Wow, trying to make you address a valid criticism is like trying to heard cats. Here we go with more strawmen. Are you really this dense, or are these the lengths you'll go to in order to avoid admitting you spoke before you thought? Your question is already answered in the OPs article concerning Neem's role, and I believe I've already made myself quite clear about Raza himself.
Yet some how you come to the same conclusion I do, so what are you arguing about again?
I have a problem with being called out by someone stupid enough not to live up to their own call-out. The details of Raza himself are irrelevant - what is relevant is you
still have yet to acknowledge you tried to paint Raza as the driving force behind this policy being adopted. You saw him being thrilled and went "Aha!"
I was always told you keep religion and politics out of the workplace because all they do is cause strife and resentment regardless who is right or wrong.
First sensible thing you've said so far, way to go. If your waiting for me to argue with that, don't hold your breath...
And last but not least let us take your sign:
*yawn* Spare us your immaterial and faulty comparisons. I'm still laughing at your other strawmen and the fact that your continuing to try and shift the context of this to make it look like I don't have a problem with that behavior. It would seem you've read my posts with the same attention to detail you used on the OP article. :laugh: Ugh, just sad...