Tommy Smith.
- Thread starter themn
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Ian Callaghan's the man (pre Dirk)
“He’s the other type Negro, he’s not like me… “There are two types of slaves, Joe Frazier’s worse than you to me … That’s what I mean when I say Uncle Tom, I mean he’s a brother, one day he might be like me, but for now he works for the enemy”…
[/size]“Joe Frazier should give his face to the Wildlife Fund. He’s so ugly, blind men go the other way. Ugly! Ugly! Ugly! He not only looks bad, you can smell him in another country! What will the people of Manila think? That black brothers are animals.Ignorant. Stupid. Ugly and smelly.”
[/size]
[/size]That's some good old internalized racism.
[/size]“Joe Frazier should give his face to the Wildlife Fund. He’s so ugly, blind men go the other way. Ugly! Ugly! Ugly! He not only looks bad, you can smell him in another country! What will the people of Manila think? That black brothers are animals.Ignorant. Stupid. Ugly and smelly.”
[/size]
[/size]That's some good old internalized racism.
I wasn't talking to you, since you didn't bring it up.
I know it sounds ludicrous in these educated and ever increasingly tolerant times but it's just the way it was, and since the eighties a whole raft of prejudices has gradually started becoming less and less acceptable.
Christ it should not come as such a shock, you only have to be aware of some of the accepted comedy shows in the seventies and eighties. Children did not grow up knowing it was wrong, because their parents didn't see it that way, because their (Victorian) parents didn't. I can't say I was a paragon of political correctness in my younger days, few of my piers were either, perhaps the minority that went to University might have been more aware.
I bet most of you who are lucky to still have them around have awkward moments with grandparents or great grandparents who say things that they can't see any harm in, but are just not said these days, you know they are not bad people, you tell them they shouldn't (sometimes) and get on with it.
My generation have probably seen the biggest change from overtly racist almost socially acceptable behaviour to where we are today, it's not perfect , but it's a long way away from the times when Tommy Smith thought it was OK to say what he did. I think we have come a fucking long way in a relatively short period of time to be honest, as I say it could be better and it will get better and better, but there is no point getting angry about an old duffer from the past who should have known better, but perhaps did not know any better as he has been in his own little bubble all his footballing life, I don't think it helps.
regards
Christ it should not come as such a shock, you only have to be aware of some of the accepted comedy shows in the seventies and eighties. Children did not grow up knowing it was wrong, because their parents didn't see it that way, because their (Victorian) parents didn't. I can't say I was a paragon of political correctness in my younger days, few of my piers were either, perhaps the minority that went to University might have been more aware.
I bet most of you who are lucky to still have them around have awkward moments with grandparents or great grandparents who say things that they can't see any harm in, but are just not said these days, you know they are not bad people, you tell them they shouldn't (sometimes) and get on with it.
My generation have probably seen the biggest change from overtly racist almost socially acceptable behaviour to where we are today, it's not perfect , but it's a long way away from the times when Tommy Smith thought it was OK to say what he did. I think we have come a fucking long way in a relatively short period of time to be honest, as I say it could be better and it will get better and better, but there is no point getting angry about an old duffer from the past who should have known better, but perhaps did not know any better as he has been in his own little bubble all his footballing life, I don't think it helps.
regards
Thanks fark
Re: smith
For me it's the same reason why I wouldn't have a go at my grandad if he was still about
He was raised in a time where it was normal to be racist like that.
Does that make it right? Of course fucking not. but it makes it understandable.
Some could argue it was indoctrination of the times, like the members of the hitler youth.
Re: smith
For me it's the same reason why I wouldn't have a go at my grandad if he was still about
He was raised in a time where it was normal to be racist like that.
Does that make it right? Of course fucking not. but it makes it understandable.
Some could argue it was indoctrination of the times, like the members of the hitler youth.
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=48546.msg1476759#msg1476759 date=1328302703]
I know it sounds ludicrous in these educated and ever increasingly tolerant times but it's just the way it was, and since the eighties a whole raft of prejudices has gradually started becoming less and less acceptable.
Christ it should not come as such a shock, you only have to be aware of some of the accepted comedy shows in the seventies and eighties. Children did not grow up knowing it was wrong, because their parents didn't see it that way, because their (Victorian) parents didn't. I can't say I was a paragon of political correctness in my younger days, few of my piers were either, perhaps the minority that went to University might have been more aware.
I bet most of you who are lucky to still have them around have awkward moments with grandparents or great grandparents who say things that they can't see any harm in, but are just not said these days, you know they are not bad people, you tell them they shouldn't (sometimes) and get on with it.
My generation have probably seen the biggest change from overtly racist almost socially acceptable behaviour to where we are today, it's not perfect , but it's a long way away from the times when Tommy Smith thought it was OK to say what he did. I think we have come a fucking long way in a relatively short period of time to be honest, as I say it could be better and it will get better and better, but there is no point getting angry about an old duffer from the past who should have known better, but perhaps did not know any better as he has been in his own little bubble all his footballing life, I don't think it helps.
regards
[/quote]
Prince Philip top 90 'Gaffs':
1 After being told that Madonna was singing the Die Another Day theme in 2002: “Are we going to need ear plugs?”
Advertisement >>
2 To a car park attendant who didn’t recognise him in 1997, he snapped: “You bloody silly fool!”
3To Simon Kelner, republican editor of The Independent, at Windsor Castle reception: “What are you doing here?” “I was invited, sir.” Philip: “Well, you didn’t have to come.”
4To female sea cadet last year: “Do you work in a strip club?”
5 To expats in Abu Dhabi last year: “Are you running away from something?”
6 After accepting a conservation award in Thailand in 1991: “Your country is one of the most notorious centres of trading in endangered species.”
7 At a project to protect turtle doves in Anguilla in 1965, he said: “Cats kill far more birds than men. Why don’t you have a slogan: ‘Kill a cat and save a bird?’”
8 To multi-ethnic Britain’s Got Talent 2009 winners Diversity: “Are you all one family?”
Prince Philip with the Nigerian president
9To President of Nigeria, who was in national dress, 2003: “You look like you’re ready for bed!”
10 His description of Beijing, during a visit there in 1986: “Ghastly.”
11 At Hertfordshire University, 2003: “During the Blitz, a lot of shops had their windows blown in and put up notices saying, ‘More open than usual’. I now declare this place more open than usual.”
12 To deaf children by steel band, 2000: “Deaf? If you’re near there, no wonder you are deaf.”
13 To a tourist in Budapest in 1993: “You can’t have been here long, you haven’t got a pot belly.”
14To a British trekker in Papua New Guinea, 1998: “You managed not to get eaten then?”
15 His verdict on Stoke-on-Trent, during a visit in 1997: “Ghastly.”
16To Atul Patel at reception for influential Indians, 2009: “There’s a lot of your family in tonight.”
17Peering at a fuse box in a Scottish factory, he said: “It looks as though it was put in by an Indian.” He later backtracked: “I meant to say cowboys.”
18To Lockerbie residents after plane bombing, 1993: “People say after a fire it’s water damage that’s the worst. We’re still drying out Windsor Castle.”
19 In Canada in 1976: “We don’t come here for our health.”
20“I never see any home cooking – all I get is fancy stuff.” 1987
21On the Duke of York’s house, 1986: “It looks like a tart’s bedroom.”
22 Using Hitler’s title to address German chancellor Helmut Kohl in 1997, he called him: “Reichskanzler.”
23“We go into the red next year... I shall have to give up polo.” 1969.
24 At party in 2004: “Bugger the table plan, give me my dinner!”
25To a woman solicitor, 1987: “I thought it was against the law for a woman to solicit.”
26To a civil servant, 1970: “You’re just a silly little Whitehall twit: you don’t trust me and I don’t trust you.”
27 On the 1981 recession: “A few years ago, everybody was saying we must have more leisure, everyone’s working too much. Now everybody’s got more leisure time they’re complaining they’re unemployed. People don’t seem to make up their minds what they want.”
28 On the new £18million British Embassy in Berlin in 2000: “It’s a vast waste of space.”
29After Dunblane massacre, 1996: “If a cricketer suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, are you going to ban cricket bats?”
30 To the Aircraft Research Association in 2002: “If you travel as much as we do, you appreciate the improvements in aircraft design of less noise and more comfort – provided you don’t travel in something called economy class, which sounds ghastly.”
31 On stress counselling for servicemen in 1995: “We didn’t have counsellors rushing around every time somebody let off a gun. You just got on with it!”
32On Tom Jones, 1969: “It’s difficult to see how it’s possible to become immensely valuable by singing what are the most hideous songs.”
33 To the Scottish WI in 1961: “British women can’t cook.”
34 To then Paraguay dictator General Stroessner: “It’s a pleasure to be in a country that isn’t ruled by its people.”
35 To Cayman Islanders: “Aren’t most of you descended from pirates?”
Prince Philip has a laugh
36 To Scottish driving instructor, 1995: “How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?”
37 At a WF meeting in 1986: “If it has four legs and it’s not a chair, if it’s got two wings and it flies but is not an aeroplane and if it swims and it’s not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it.”
38“You ARE a woman, aren’t you?” Kenya, 1984.
39A VIP at a local airport asked HRH: “What was your flight, like, Your Royal Highness? Philip: “Have you ever flown in a plane?” VIP: “Oh yes, sir, many times.” “Well,” said Philip, “it was just like that.”
40On Ethiopian art, 1965: “It looks like the kind of thing my daughter would bring back from school art lessons.”
41 To a fashion writer in 1993: “You’re not wearing mink knickers,are you?”
42 To Susan Edwards and her guide dog in 2002: “They have eating dogs for the anorexic now.”
43 When offered wine in Rome in 2000, he snapped: “I don’t care what kind it is, just get me a beer!”
44“I’d like to go to Russia very much – although the bastards murdered half my family.” 1967.
45 At City Hall in 2002: “If we could just stop the tourism, we could stop the congestion.”
46 On seeing a piezo-meter water gauge in Australia: “A pissometer?”
47“You have mosquitoes. I have the Press.” To matron of Caribbean hospital, 1966.
48 At a Bangladeshi youth club in 2002:“So who’s on drugs here?... HE looks as if he’s on drugs.”
49 To achildren’s band in Australia in 2002: “You were playing your instruments? Or do you have tape recorders under your seats?”
50At Duke of Edinburgh Awards scheme, 2006. “Young people are the same as they always were. Just as ignorant.”
51 On how difficult it is in Britain to get rich: “What about Tom Jones? He’s made a million and he’s a bloody awful singer.”
52 To Elton John on his gold Aston Martin in 2001: “Oh, it’s you that owns that ghastly car, is it?”
53At an engineering school closed so he could officially open it, 2005: “It doesn’t look like much work goes on at this university.”
Duke of Edinburgh watches a culture show at Tjapukai Aboriginal Culture Park
54To Aboriginal leader William Brin, Queensland, 2002: “Do you still throw spears at each filmother?”
55 At a Scottish fish farm: “Oh! You’re the people ruining the rivers.”
56 After a breakfast of bacon, eggs, smoked salmon, kedgeree, croissants and pain au chocolat – from Gallic chef Regis Crépy, 2002: “The French don’t know how to cook breakfast.”
57To schoolboy who invited the Queen to Romford, Essex, 2003: “Ah, you’re the one who wrote the letter. So you can write then?”
58To black politician Lord Taylor of Warwick, 1999: “And what exotic part of the world do you come from?”
59To parents at a previously struggling Sheffield school, 2003: “Were you here in the bad old days? ... That’s why you can’t read and write then!”
60 To Andrew Adams, 13, in 1998: “You could do with losing a little bit of weight.”
61“Where’s the Southern Comfort?” When presented with a hamper of goods by US ambassador, 1999.
62To editor of downmarket tabloid: “Where are you from?” “The S*n, sir.” Philip: “Oh, no . . . one can’t tell from the outside.”
63 Turning down food, 2000: “No, I’d probably end up spitting it out over everybody.”
64 Asking Cate Blanchett to fix his DVD player because she worked “in the film industry”, 2008: “There’s a cord sticking out of the back. Might you tell me where it goes?”
Prince Philip at a film premiere
65“People think there’s a rigid class system here, but dukes have even been known to marry chorus girls. Some have even married Americans.” 2000.
66 After hearing President Obama had had breakfast with leaders of the UK, China and Russia, 2010: “Can you tell the difference between them?”
67 On students from Brunei, 1998: “I don’t know how they’re going to integrate in places like Glasgow and Sheffield.”
68On Princess Anne, 1970: “If it doesn’t fart or eat hay, she isn’t interested.”
69To wheelchair-bound nursing-home resident, 2002: “Do people trip over you?”
70Discussing tartan with then-Scottish Tory leader Annabel Goldie last year: “That’s a nice tie... Do you have any knickers in that material?”
71 To a group of industrialists in 1961: “I’ve never been noticeably reticent about talking on subjects about which I know nothing.”
72 On a crocodile he shot in Gambia in 1957: “It’s not a very big one, but at least it’s dead and it took an awful lot of killing!”
73 On being made Chancellor of Edinburgh University in 1953: “Only a Scotsman can really survive a Scottish education.”
74“I must be the only person in Britain glad to see the back of that plane.” He hated the noise Concorde made flying over Buckingham Palace, 2002
75To a fashion designer, 2009: “Well, you didn’t design your beard too well, did you?”
76 To the General Dental Council in 1960: “Dontopedalogy is the science of opening your mouth and putting your foot in it, which I’ve practised for many years.”
77 On stroking a koala in 1992: “Oh no, I might catch some ghastly disease.”
78 On marriage in 1997: “You can take it from me the Queen has the quality of tolerance in abundance.”
79To schoolchildren in blood-red uniforms, 1998: “It makes you all look like Dracula’s daughters!”
80“I don’t think a prostitute is more moral than a wife, but they are doing the same thing.” 1988.
81 To female Labour MPs in 2000: “So this is feminist corner then.”
82 On Nottingham Forest trophies in 1999: “I suppose I’d get in trouble if I were to melt them down.”
83“It’s my custom to say something flattering to begin with so I shall be excused if I put my foot in it later on.” 1956.
84 To a penniless student in 1998: “Why don’t you go and live in a hostel to save cash?”
85On robots colliding, Science Museum, 2000: “They’re not mating are they?”
86 While stuck in a Heriot Watt University lift in 1958: “This could only happen in a technical college.”
87To newsreader Michael Buerk, when told he knew about the Duke of Edinburgh’s Gold Awards, 2004: “That’s more than you know about anything else then.”
88To a British student in China, 1986: “If you stay here much longer, you’ll go home with slitty eyes.”
89 To journalist Caroline Wyatt, who asked if the Queen was enjoying a Paris trip, 2006: “Damn fool question!”
90On smoke alarms to a woman who lost two sons in a fire, 1998: “They’re a damn nuisance - I’ve got one in my bathroom and every time I run my bath the steam sets it off.”
Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royal-wedding/2011/06/10/prince-philip-quotes-relive-90-classic-gaffes-to-mark-his-90th-birthday-115875-23191024/#ixzz1lMCTSwEM
I know it sounds ludicrous in these educated and ever increasingly tolerant times but it's just the way it was, and since the eighties a whole raft of prejudices has gradually started becoming less and less acceptable.
Christ it should not come as such a shock, you only have to be aware of some of the accepted comedy shows in the seventies and eighties. Children did not grow up knowing it was wrong, because their parents didn't see it that way, because their (Victorian) parents didn't. I can't say I was a paragon of political correctness in my younger days, few of my piers were either, perhaps the minority that went to University might have been more aware.
I bet most of you who are lucky to still have them around have awkward moments with grandparents or great grandparents who say things that they can't see any harm in, but are just not said these days, you know they are not bad people, you tell them they shouldn't (sometimes) and get on with it.
My generation have probably seen the biggest change from overtly racist almost socially acceptable behaviour to where we are today, it's not perfect , but it's a long way away from the times when Tommy Smith thought it was OK to say what he did. I think we have come a fucking long way in a relatively short period of time to be honest, as I say it could be better and it will get better and better, but there is no point getting angry about an old duffer from the past who should have known better, but perhaps did not know any better as he has been in his own little bubble all his footballing life, I don't think it helps.
regards
[/quote]
Prince Philip top 90 'Gaffs':
1 After being told that Madonna was singing the Die Another Day theme in 2002: “Are we going to need ear plugs?”
Advertisement >>
2 To a car park attendant who didn’t recognise him in 1997, he snapped: “You bloody silly fool!”
3To Simon Kelner, republican editor of The Independent, at Windsor Castle reception: “What are you doing here?” “I was invited, sir.” Philip: “Well, you didn’t have to come.”
4To female sea cadet last year: “Do you work in a strip club?”
5 To expats in Abu Dhabi last year: “Are you running away from something?”
6 After accepting a conservation award in Thailand in 1991: “Your country is one of the most notorious centres of trading in endangered species.”
7 At a project to protect turtle doves in Anguilla in 1965, he said: “Cats kill far more birds than men. Why don’t you have a slogan: ‘Kill a cat and save a bird?’”
8 To multi-ethnic Britain’s Got Talent 2009 winners Diversity: “Are you all one family?”
Prince Philip with the Nigerian president
9To President of Nigeria, who was in national dress, 2003: “You look like you’re ready for bed!”
10 His description of Beijing, during a visit there in 1986: “Ghastly.”
11 At Hertfordshire University, 2003: “During the Blitz, a lot of shops had their windows blown in and put up notices saying, ‘More open than usual’. I now declare this place more open than usual.”
12 To deaf children by steel band, 2000: “Deaf? If you’re near there, no wonder you are deaf.”
13 To a tourist in Budapest in 1993: “You can’t have been here long, you haven’t got a pot belly.”
14To a British trekker in Papua New Guinea, 1998: “You managed not to get eaten then?”
15 His verdict on Stoke-on-Trent, during a visit in 1997: “Ghastly.”
16To Atul Patel at reception for influential Indians, 2009: “There’s a lot of your family in tonight.”
17Peering at a fuse box in a Scottish factory, he said: “It looks as though it was put in by an Indian.” He later backtracked: “I meant to say cowboys.”
18To Lockerbie residents after plane bombing, 1993: “People say after a fire it’s water damage that’s the worst. We’re still drying out Windsor Castle.”
19 In Canada in 1976: “We don’t come here for our health.”
20“I never see any home cooking – all I get is fancy stuff.” 1987
21On the Duke of York’s house, 1986: “It looks like a tart’s bedroom.”
22 Using Hitler’s title to address German chancellor Helmut Kohl in 1997, he called him: “Reichskanzler.”
23“We go into the red next year... I shall have to give up polo.” 1969.
24 At party in 2004: “Bugger the table plan, give me my dinner!”
25To a woman solicitor, 1987: “I thought it was against the law for a woman to solicit.”
26To a civil servant, 1970: “You’re just a silly little Whitehall twit: you don’t trust me and I don’t trust you.”
27 On the 1981 recession: “A few years ago, everybody was saying we must have more leisure, everyone’s working too much. Now everybody’s got more leisure time they’re complaining they’re unemployed. People don’t seem to make up their minds what they want.”
28 On the new £18million British Embassy in Berlin in 2000: “It’s a vast waste of space.”
29After Dunblane massacre, 1996: “If a cricketer suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, are you going to ban cricket bats?”
30 To the Aircraft Research Association in 2002: “If you travel as much as we do, you appreciate the improvements in aircraft design of less noise and more comfort – provided you don’t travel in something called economy class, which sounds ghastly.”
31 On stress counselling for servicemen in 1995: “We didn’t have counsellors rushing around every time somebody let off a gun. You just got on with it!”
32On Tom Jones, 1969: “It’s difficult to see how it’s possible to become immensely valuable by singing what are the most hideous songs.”
33 To the Scottish WI in 1961: “British women can’t cook.”
34 To then Paraguay dictator General Stroessner: “It’s a pleasure to be in a country that isn’t ruled by its people.”
35 To Cayman Islanders: “Aren’t most of you descended from pirates?”
Prince Philip has a laugh
36 To Scottish driving instructor, 1995: “How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?”
37 At a WF meeting in 1986: “If it has four legs and it’s not a chair, if it’s got two wings and it flies but is not an aeroplane and if it swims and it’s not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it.”
38“You ARE a woman, aren’t you?” Kenya, 1984.
39A VIP at a local airport asked HRH: “What was your flight, like, Your Royal Highness? Philip: “Have you ever flown in a plane?” VIP: “Oh yes, sir, many times.” “Well,” said Philip, “it was just like that.”
40On Ethiopian art, 1965: “It looks like the kind of thing my daughter would bring back from school art lessons.”
41 To a fashion writer in 1993: “You’re not wearing mink knickers,are you?”
42 To Susan Edwards and her guide dog in 2002: “They have eating dogs for the anorexic now.”
43 When offered wine in Rome in 2000, he snapped: “I don’t care what kind it is, just get me a beer!”
44“I’d like to go to Russia very much – although the bastards murdered half my family.” 1967.
45 At City Hall in 2002: “If we could just stop the tourism, we could stop the congestion.”
46 On seeing a piezo-meter water gauge in Australia: “A pissometer?”
47“You have mosquitoes. I have the Press.” To matron of Caribbean hospital, 1966.
48 At a Bangladeshi youth club in 2002:“So who’s on drugs here?... HE looks as if he’s on drugs.”
49 To achildren’s band in Australia in 2002: “You were playing your instruments? Or do you have tape recorders under your seats?”
50At Duke of Edinburgh Awards scheme, 2006. “Young people are the same as they always were. Just as ignorant.”
51 On how difficult it is in Britain to get rich: “What about Tom Jones? He’s made a million and he’s a bloody awful singer.”
52 To Elton John on his gold Aston Martin in 2001: “Oh, it’s you that owns that ghastly car, is it?”
53At an engineering school closed so he could officially open it, 2005: “It doesn’t look like much work goes on at this university.”
Duke of Edinburgh watches a culture show at Tjapukai Aboriginal Culture Park
54To Aboriginal leader William Brin, Queensland, 2002: “Do you still throw spears at each filmother?”
55 At a Scottish fish farm: “Oh! You’re the people ruining the rivers.”
56 After a breakfast of bacon, eggs, smoked salmon, kedgeree, croissants and pain au chocolat – from Gallic chef Regis Crépy, 2002: “The French don’t know how to cook breakfast.”
57To schoolboy who invited the Queen to Romford, Essex, 2003: “Ah, you’re the one who wrote the letter. So you can write then?”
58To black politician Lord Taylor of Warwick, 1999: “And what exotic part of the world do you come from?”
59To parents at a previously struggling Sheffield school, 2003: “Were you here in the bad old days? ... That’s why you can’t read and write then!”
60 To Andrew Adams, 13, in 1998: “You could do with losing a little bit of weight.”
61“Where’s the Southern Comfort?” When presented with a hamper of goods by US ambassador, 1999.
62To editor of downmarket tabloid: “Where are you from?” “The S*n, sir.” Philip: “Oh, no . . . one can’t tell from the outside.”
63 Turning down food, 2000: “No, I’d probably end up spitting it out over everybody.”
64 Asking Cate Blanchett to fix his DVD player because she worked “in the film industry”, 2008: “There’s a cord sticking out of the back. Might you tell me where it goes?”
Prince Philip at a film premiere
65“People think there’s a rigid class system here, but dukes have even been known to marry chorus girls. Some have even married Americans.” 2000.
66 After hearing President Obama had had breakfast with leaders of the UK, China and Russia, 2010: “Can you tell the difference between them?”
67 On students from Brunei, 1998: “I don’t know how they’re going to integrate in places like Glasgow and Sheffield.”
68On Princess Anne, 1970: “If it doesn’t fart or eat hay, she isn’t interested.”
69To wheelchair-bound nursing-home resident, 2002: “Do people trip over you?”
70Discussing tartan with then-Scottish Tory leader Annabel Goldie last year: “That’s a nice tie... Do you have any knickers in that material?”
71 To a group of industrialists in 1961: “I’ve never been noticeably reticent about talking on subjects about which I know nothing.”
72 On a crocodile he shot in Gambia in 1957: “It’s not a very big one, but at least it’s dead and it took an awful lot of killing!”
73 On being made Chancellor of Edinburgh University in 1953: “Only a Scotsman can really survive a Scottish education.”
74“I must be the only person in Britain glad to see the back of that plane.” He hated the noise Concorde made flying over Buckingham Palace, 2002
75To a fashion designer, 2009: “Well, you didn’t design your beard too well, did you?”
76 To the General Dental Council in 1960: “Dontopedalogy is the science of opening your mouth and putting your foot in it, which I’ve practised for many years.”
77 On stroking a koala in 1992: “Oh no, I might catch some ghastly disease.”
78 On marriage in 1997: “You can take it from me the Queen has the quality of tolerance in abundance.”
79To schoolchildren in blood-red uniforms, 1998: “It makes you all look like Dracula’s daughters!”
80“I don’t think a prostitute is more moral than a wife, but they are doing the same thing.” 1988.
81 To female Labour MPs in 2000: “So this is feminist corner then.”
82 On Nottingham Forest trophies in 1999: “I suppose I’d get in trouble if I were to melt them down.”
83“It’s my custom to say something flattering to begin with so I shall be excused if I put my foot in it later on.” 1956.
84 To a penniless student in 1998: “Why don’t you go and live in a hostel to save cash?”
85On robots colliding, Science Museum, 2000: “They’re not mating are they?”
86 While stuck in a Heriot Watt University lift in 1958: “This could only happen in a technical college.”
87To newsreader Michael Buerk, when told he knew about the Duke of Edinburgh’s Gold Awards, 2004: “That’s more than you know about anything else then.”
88To a British student in China, 1986: “If you stay here much longer, you’ll go home with slitty eyes.”
89 To journalist Caroline Wyatt, who asked if the Queen was enjoying a Paris trip, 2006: “Damn fool question!”
90On smoke alarms to a woman who lost two sons in a fire, 1998: “They’re a damn nuisance - I’ve got one in my bathroom and every time I run my bath the steam sets it off.”
Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royal-wedding/2011/06/10/prince-philip-quotes-relive-90-classic-gaffes-to-mark-his-90th-birthday-115875-23191024/#ixzz1lMCTSwEM
[quote author=Fabio link=topic=48546.msg1476763#msg1476763 date=1328303338]
Thanks fark
Re: smith
For me it's the same reason why I wouldn't have a go at my grandad if he was still about
He was raised in a time where it was normal to be racist like that.
Does that make it right? Of course fucking not. but it makes it understandable.
Some could argue it was indoctrination of the times, like the members of the hitler youth.
[/quote]
This is quite fair. But from your point of view, in your shoes, tommy smith still has his rights intact (thats intact, not in tact). You afford him his human right to be judged fairly according to his circumstances. The thing you're missing in this thread is that for whatever reason, themn is no longer affording him those rights. Why could that be? Perhaps because he's a cunt in general, or because of his media work, or because of what he said about Hughes, or anything more personal to do with themn. We don't know.
What I do know, is if tommy smith did some injustice to me or angered me in some way, then I will revoke those rights. His ubringing, his generation, his social environment, none of that would matter a damn to me anymore. All I would want is his blood. The man has just fucked me. Why in the name of God should I afford him any rights? And I don't just mean for the time I am angry. I will take actions which assume he never had rights - not now, not ever in the future, and not in the past. I'll go over his entire life again. Any miniscule thing I can find to fuck him with .... he gets fucked (you'll make a joke here at your own risk Fabio). That's the way it works. Those are the consequences for tommy smith fucking me first. I can easily imagine myself reeling off quotes to kill his legacy first, so that he would die a humiliated broken man.
Revenge is a really interesting thing. Imagine this, that I get slapped in the face by themn. And then everyone on this site laughts at dantes, they all point and laugh along with themn. According to the standards we learn as children, I should (a) not respond in kind, or else failing that (b) respond fairly by delivering a return slap. Here's the problem. The slap isn't what is eating away in my mind. It's more the laughter and the perception that it is created that dantes is being laughed at. So a simple return slap will not stop those laughs. In fact it would just provoke further laughter and result in more humiliation for myself. I'm not out to be humiliated, I'm out for revenge. So my option here is to violentlly attack themn, tear away lumps of his flesh and soft tissue. Leave blood everywhere, make a horrible sickening scene like you couldn't imagine. Then, that will stop the laughter and leave everyone numb with shock. And then I can laugh, and then I can have revenge. That's how it works when you have complex situations with not just one-on-one disagreements, but also a wider environment with onlookers and memories, and perceptions in other peoples minds to factor in.
So that poster who told me it was not about mathematics. It really is. When you do things that affect me, a child just focuses on the affect it had upon me and expects me to respond in that respect. Dantes/themn/whistleblowers/aspergers'/mathematicians will all see the affect not just on themselves, but the ripples and knock-on effects it has to all ALL aspects of their environment. So when we seek revenge, we have a LOT of fucking work to do, in order to make the culprit pay for EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of those affects. Over the top? I understand why you would call it that. But to me, it's justified and it is revenge. Fuck anyone who gets in the way.
Thanks fark
Re: smith
For me it's the same reason why I wouldn't have a go at my grandad if he was still about
He was raised in a time where it was normal to be racist like that.
Does that make it right? Of course fucking not. but it makes it understandable.
Some could argue it was indoctrination of the times, like the members of the hitler youth.
[/quote]
This is quite fair. But from your point of view, in your shoes, tommy smith still has his rights intact (thats intact, not in tact). You afford him his human right to be judged fairly according to his circumstances. The thing you're missing in this thread is that for whatever reason, themn is no longer affording him those rights. Why could that be? Perhaps because he's a cunt in general, or because of his media work, or because of what he said about Hughes, or anything more personal to do with themn. We don't know.
What I do know, is if tommy smith did some injustice to me or angered me in some way, then I will revoke those rights. His ubringing, his generation, his social environment, none of that would matter a damn to me anymore. All I would want is his blood. The man has just fucked me. Why in the name of God should I afford him any rights? And I don't just mean for the time I am angry. I will take actions which assume he never had rights - not now, not ever in the future, and not in the past. I'll go over his entire life again. Any miniscule thing I can find to fuck him with .... he gets fucked (you'll make a joke here at your own risk Fabio). That's the way it works. Those are the consequences for tommy smith fucking me first. I can easily imagine myself reeling off quotes to kill his legacy first, so that he would die a humiliated broken man.
Revenge is a really interesting thing. Imagine this, that I get slapped in the face by themn. And then everyone on this site laughts at dantes, they all point and laugh along with themn. According to the standards we learn as children, I should (a) not respond in kind, or else failing that (b) respond fairly by delivering a return slap. Here's the problem. The slap isn't what is eating away in my mind. It's more the laughter and the perception that it is created that dantes is being laughed at. So a simple return slap will not stop those laughs. In fact it would just provoke further laughter and result in more humiliation for myself. I'm not out to be humiliated, I'm out for revenge. So my option here is to violentlly attack themn, tear away lumps of his flesh and soft tissue. Leave blood everywhere, make a horrible sickening scene like you couldn't imagine. Then, that will stop the laughter and leave everyone numb with shock. And then I can laugh, and then I can have revenge. That's how it works when you have complex situations with not just one-on-one disagreements, but also a wider environment with onlookers and memories, and perceptions in other peoples minds to factor in.
So that poster who told me it was not about mathematics. It really is. When you do things that affect me, a child just focuses on the affect it had upon me and expects me to respond in that respect. Dantes/themn/whistleblowers/aspergers'/mathematicians will all see the affect not just on themselves, but the ripples and knock-on effects it has to all ALL aspects of their environment. So when we seek revenge, we have a LOT of fucking work to do, in order to make the culprit pay for EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of those affects. Over the top? I understand why you would call it that. But to me, it's justified and it is revenge. Fuck anyone who gets in the way.
I know. But they are being really lazy in their black and white interpretations of what consequences should be faced by someone who does infringe those rights.
In financial fraud, you are held liable for every single penny that has gone astray because of it. I see no reason to not apply the same logic to moral violations. You, as well as any court, would only hold smith accountable for an arbritarily narrow narrow range of affects to consider. I will hold him accountable for everything, for every single penny. Cos pennys are no different to human perceptions and memories to me. It's all just particles.
In financial fraud, you are held liable for every single penny that has gone astray because of it. I see no reason to not apply the same logic to moral violations. You, as well as any court, would only hold smith accountable for an arbritarily narrow narrow range of affects to consider. I will hold him accountable for everything, for every single penny. Cos pennys are no different to human perceptions and memories to me. It's all just particles.
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48546.msg1476774#msg1476774 date=1328307019]
I know. But they are being really lazy in their black and white interpretations of what consequences should be faced by someone who does infringe those rights.
In financial fraud, you are held liable for every single penny that has gone astray because of it. I see no reason to not apply the same logic to moral violations. You, as well as any court, would only hold smith accountable for an arbritarily narrow narrow range of affects to consider. I will hold him accountable for everything, for every single penny. Cos pennys are no different to human perceptions and memories to me. It's all just particles.
[/quote]
Normally I'm pretty tolerant of your posts but this is utter, utter fucking garbage (both in lay terms, and in your own "high logic" reasoning; against which it spectacularly fails).
I know. But they are being really lazy in their black and white interpretations of what consequences should be faced by someone who does infringe those rights.
In financial fraud, you are held liable for every single penny that has gone astray because of it. I see no reason to not apply the same logic to moral violations. You, as well as any court, would only hold smith accountable for an arbritarily narrow narrow range of affects to consider. I will hold him accountable for everything, for every single penny. Cos pennys are no different to human perceptions and memories to me. It's all just particles.
[/quote]
Normally I'm pretty tolerant of your posts but this is utter, utter fucking garbage (both in lay terms, and in your own "high logic" reasoning; against which it spectacularly fails).
Stop referring to your aborted fetus of an attempt at philosophy or morality as mathematical. There's nothing logical or mathematical about it. There's nothing proportional about it. It's incredibly simplistic.
There is no human right to be judged fairly by some random other person and no one has stated there is. That sort of individual judgment isn't a court, it's just a personal opinion with no authority whatsoever. Themn doesn't afford any human rights to Tommy Smith. If we believe in those rights at all, they must be apriori. Tommy Smith isn't even aware of Themn, or his opinions. No meaningful exchange of any kind has happened between them, and certainly not one of revenge.
Throwing aside that silly misapprehension of the criticism you are responding to, we are left with a fairly primitive argument. You say that in the event you are angered for whatever wholly subjective reason, you can retaliate in whatever way you can, with no regard to fairness or sympathy. Of course you can, no one can stop you, it's called being an asshole and not having any self awareness or perspective.
But that isn't what happened. Themn just made a remark to the extent that he hated Tommy Smith and wished he were dead. It wasn't educational, it didn't attempt to educate by putting Tommy Smith's achievements into context with his despicable personal beliefs. It certainly didn't achieve revenge. So what are you talking about? You think ranting on an internet forum, making overblown statements as you have consistently made where you reduce an argument and spew predictably controversial hyperbole in defense of it is actually somehow edgy, interesting, or illuminating. You aren't "tearing away lumps of flesh and soft tissue," you are just talking without saying anything. It takes a certain kind of real intellectual brilliance to carry off the sorts of strident remarks you make on issues of significance, especially with such violent imagery. Neitzsche could do it. Not you. Neitzsche has complex, subtle, interesting, permeable beliefs.
Yes, it's true, in some unfathomably small way, Tommy Smith's racism could be seen to further a particular discourse of racism, which then can have knock on effects which could then make Themn some injured party. I can appreciate that. He may feel Tommy Smith's racism resonate with other racism he has experienced. He may feel injured. He may hate Tommy Smith, and that's fine.
The only way to really meaningfully counter it would be to have a substantive discussion about it, and that's not what happened. All that happened was an impotent expression of disgust.
There is no human right to be judged fairly by some random other person and no one has stated there is. That sort of individual judgment isn't a court, it's just a personal opinion with no authority whatsoever. Themn doesn't afford any human rights to Tommy Smith. If we believe in those rights at all, they must be apriori. Tommy Smith isn't even aware of Themn, or his opinions. No meaningful exchange of any kind has happened between them, and certainly not one of revenge.
Throwing aside that silly misapprehension of the criticism you are responding to, we are left with a fairly primitive argument. You say that in the event you are angered for whatever wholly subjective reason, you can retaliate in whatever way you can, with no regard to fairness or sympathy. Of course you can, no one can stop you, it's called being an asshole and not having any self awareness or perspective.
But that isn't what happened. Themn just made a remark to the extent that he hated Tommy Smith and wished he were dead. It wasn't educational, it didn't attempt to educate by putting Tommy Smith's achievements into context with his despicable personal beliefs. It certainly didn't achieve revenge. So what are you talking about? You think ranting on an internet forum, making overblown statements as you have consistently made where you reduce an argument and spew predictably controversial hyperbole in defense of it is actually somehow edgy, interesting, or illuminating. You aren't "tearing away lumps of flesh and soft tissue," you are just talking without saying anything. It takes a certain kind of real intellectual brilliance to carry off the sorts of strident remarks you make on issues of significance, especially with such violent imagery. Neitzsche could do it. Not you. Neitzsche has complex, subtle, interesting, permeable beliefs.
Yes, it's true, in some unfathomably small way, Tommy Smith's racism could be seen to further a particular discourse of racism, which then can have knock on effects which could then make Themn some injured party. I can appreciate that. He may feel Tommy Smith's racism resonate with other racism he has experienced. He may feel injured. He may hate Tommy Smith, and that's fine.
The only way to really meaningfully counter it would be to have a substantive discussion about it, and that's not what happened. All that happened was an impotent expression of disgust.
[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=48546.msg1476769#msg1476769 date=1328305690]
[quote author=Fabio link=topic=48546.msg1476763#msg1476763 date=1328303338]
Thanks fark
Re: smith
For me it's the same reason why I wouldn't have a go at my grandad if he was still about
He was raised in a time where it was normal to be racist like that.
Does that make it right? Of course fucking not. but it makes it understandable.
Some could argue it was indoctrination of the times, like the members of the hitler youth.
[/quote]
This is quite fair. But from your point of view, in your shoes, tommy smith still has his rights intact (thats intact, not in tact). You afford him his human right to be judged fairly according to his circumstances. The thing you're missing in this thread is that for whatever reason, themn is no longer affording him those rights. Why could that be? Perhaps because he's a cunt in general, or because of his media work, or because of what he said about Hughes, or anything more personal to do with themn. We don't know.
What I do know, is if tommy smith did some injustice to me or angered me in some way, then I will revoke those rights. His ubringing, his generation, his social environment, none of that would matter a damn to me anymore. All I would want is his blood. The man has just fucked me. Why in the name of God should I afford him any rights? And I don't just mean for the time I am angry. I will take actions which assume he never had rights - not now, not ever in the future, and not in the past. I'll go over his entire life again. Any miniscule thing I can find to fuck him with .... he gets fucked (you'll make a joke here at your own risk Fabio). That's the way it works. Those are the consequences for tommy smith fucking me first. I can easily imagine myself reeling off quotes to kill his legacy first, so that he would die a humiliated broken man.
Revenge is a really interesting thing. Imagine this, that I get slapped in the face by themn. And then everyone on this site laughts at dantes, they all point and laugh along with themn. According to the standards we learn as children, I should (a) not respond in kind, or else failing that (b) respond fairly by delivering a return slap. Here's the problem. The slap isn't what is eating away in my mind. It's more the laughter and the perception that it is created that dantes is being laughed at. So a simple return slap will not stop those laughs. In fact it would just provoke further laughter and result in more humiliation for myself. I'm not out to be humiliated, I'm out for revenge. So my option here is to violentlly attack themn, tear away lumps of his flesh and soft tissue. Leave blood everywhere, make a horrible sickening scene like you couldn't imagine. Then, that will stop the laughter and leave everyone numb with shock. And then I can laugh, and then I can have revenge. That's how it works when you have complex situations with not just one-on-one disagreements, but also a wider environment with onlookers and memories, and perceptions in other peoples minds to factor in.
So that poster who told me it was not about mathematics. It really is. When you do things that affect me, a child just focuses on the affect it had upon me and expects me to respond in that respect. Dantes/themn/whistleblowers/aspergers'/mathematicians will all see the affect not just on themselves, but the ripples and knock-on effects it has to all ALL aspects of their environment. So when we seek revenge, we have a LOT of fucking work to do, in order to make the culprit pay for EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of those affects. Over the top? I understand why you would call it that. But to me, it's justified and it is revenge. Fuck anyone who gets in the way.
[/quote]
*nods*
[quote author=Fabio link=topic=48546.msg1476763#msg1476763 date=1328303338]
Thanks fark
Re: smith
For me it's the same reason why I wouldn't have a go at my grandad if he was still about
He was raised in a time where it was normal to be racist like that.
Does that make it right? Of course fucking not. but it makes it understandable.
Some could argue it was indoctrination of the times, like the members of the hitler youth.
[/quote]
This is quite fair. But from your point of view, in your shoes, tommy smith still has his rights intact (thats intact, not in tact). You afford him his human right to be judged fairly according to his circumstances. The thing you're missing in this thread is that for whatever reason, themn is no longer affording him those rights. Why could that be? Perhaps because he's a cunt in general, or because of his media work, or because of what he said about Hughes, or anything more personal to do with themn. We don't know.
What I do know, is if tommy smith did some injustice to me or angered me in some way, then I will revoke those rights. His ubringing, his generation, his social environment, none of that would matter a damn to me anymore. All I would want is his blood. The man has just fucked me. Why in the name of God should I afford him any rights? And I don't just mean for the time I am angry. I will take actions which assume he never had rights - not now, not ever in the future, and not in the past. I'll go over his entire life again. Any miniscule thing I can find to fuck him with .... he gets fucked (you'll make a joke here at your own risk Fabio). That's the way it works. Those are the consequences for tommy smith fucking me first. I can easily imagine myself reeling off quotes to kill his legacy first, so that he would die a humiliated broken man.
Revenge is a really interesting thing. Imagine this, that I get slapped in the face by themn. And then everyone on this site laughts at dantes, they all point and laugh along with themn. According to the standards we learn as children, I should (a) not respond in kind, or else failing that (b) respond fairly by delivering a return slap. Here's the problem. The slap isn't what is eating away in my mind. It's more the laughter and the perception that it is created that dantes is being laughed at. So a simple return slap will not stop those laughs. In fact it would just provoke further laughter and result in more humiliation for myself. I'm not out to be humiliated, I'm out for revenge. So my option here is to violentlly attack themn, tear away lumps of his flesh and soft tissue. Leave blood everywhere, make a horrible sickening scene like you couldn't imagine. Then, that will stop the laughter and leave everyone numb with shock. And then I can laugh, and then I can have revenge. That's how it works when you have complex situations with not just one-on-one disagreements, but also a wider environment with onlookers and memories, and perceptions in other peoples minds to factor in.
So that poster who told me it was not about mathematics. It really is. When you do things that affect me, a child just focuses on the affect it had upon me and expects me to respond in that respect. Dantes/themn/whistleblowers/aspergers'/mathematicians will all see the affect not just on themselves, but the ripples and knock-on effects it has to all ALL aspects of their environment. So when we seek revenge, we have a LOT of fucking work to do, in order to make the culprit pay for EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of those affects. Over the top? I understand why you would call it that. But to me, it's justified and it is revenge. Fuck anyone who gets in the way.
[/quote]
*nods*
Farky, why would you think I am trying to argue about philosophy or morality?
1. I am not arguing, I am telling you the way I think.
2. I am defending the way I think for the reason that people have refused to adopt it, so I am trying to see if they can adopt it given more information
Don't think I have some silly moral crusade to make you adopt my thinking for the sake of it. It's embarrassing to me if it seems like I care about other peoples viewpoints on that. What I am saying is I acutally think this way. I am not spewing arguments. What I am doing is explaining my thoughts in detail, with imagery, with violence. Whatever i see fit. The reason I am doing that is because the way I think about revenge and my past experiences are both connected. One affects the other, but I don't know by how much. So the interesting thing to consider is whether that effect is big enough to make other (normal) people think the same way I do. If you were in my shoes, would you adopt my way of thinking? Or else that way of thinking is not so much down to my envrionment and experiences, and more down to my brain. The latter case is when you get to call me an ass-hole. But you are refusing to even look at it. You just take my situation, apply your own thinking (completely ignoring how yours and my thinking would be affected by the situation), and then proclaim I am an ass-hole. Then you call me simplistic? What can you do.
In short, I know your way of thinking. I know how to apply it to my situation. You don't need to remind me of that in every reply to my posts. What I want is for you to modify your way of thinking according to situations similar to what I have experienced (and what I assume themn has experiences though we don't know what goes through his head). You could say your thinking is absolute and you won't change it if you like. But at least acknowledge that.
In fact don't bother answering that question now, because that's the problem with the mind. Now that you know it is a question, you will think about it and over-think it... so I can't have faith that you will give the correct answer and it will be useless to me. I was hoping for an honest reaction to my thinking instead, and then I could have decided an honest answer to the question of whether I am weird, or I am just reacting rationally given my situation. And you'd get to learn something too. Now we've ruined that. Because you wanted an argument instead, and you wanted to use it as a criticism of my intellectual brilliance. Congratulations.
1. I am not arguing, I am telling you the way I think.
2. I am defending the way I think for the reason that people have refused to adopt it, so I am trying to see if they can adopt it given more information
Don't think I have some silly moral crusade to make you adopt my thinking for the sake of it. It's embarrassing to me if it seems like I care about other peoples viewpoints on that. What I am saying is I acutally think this way. I am not spewing arguments. What I am doing is explaining my thoughts in detail, with imagery, with violence. Whatever i see fit. The reason I am doing that is because the way I think about revenge and my past experiences are both connected. One affects the other, but I don't know by how much. So the interesting thing to consider is whether that effect is big enough to make other (normal) people think the same way I do. If you were in my shoes, would you adopt my way of thinking? Or else that way of thinking is not so much down to my envrionment and experiences, and more down to my brain. The latter case is when you get to call me an ass-hole. But you are refusing to even look at it. You just take my situation, apply your own thinking (completely ignoring how yours and my thinking would be affected by the situation), and then proclaim I am an ass-hole. Then you call me simplistic? What can you do.
In short, I know your way of thinking. I know how to apply it to my situation. You don't need to remind me of that in every reply to my posts. What I want is for you to modify your way of thinking according to situations similar to what I have experienced (and what I assume themn has experiences though we don't know what goes through his head). You could say your thinking is absolute and you won't change it if you like. But at least acknowledge that.
In fact don't bother answering that question now, because that's the problem with the mind. Now that you know it is a question, you will think about it and over-think it... so I can't have faith that you will give the correct answer and it will be useless to me. I was hoping for an honest reaction to my thinking instead, and then I could have decided an honest answer to the question of whether I am weird, or I am just reacting rationally given my situation. And you'd get to learn something too. Now we've ruined that. Because you wanted an argument instead, and you wanted to use it as a criticism of my intellectual brilliance. Congratulations.
I can only engage with your view points as they are described to me, that's all I'm discussing. I don't care whether you want to position the way you've advanced your points as an argument or not, but most would consider it so, in fact you've used the word to describe your stance.
Previously you advanced an absurd argument that in the interests of revenge, a fan, who is hurt in an incredibly insignificant, oblique way by Evra's accusations, which you have decided are false, could be racist to Evra directly, and this would constitute justice. That justice would look like a fat fuck welshman making monkey noises at a black man. We've fleshed that out a bit now, and now we've another version of justice, seem to include being ok with wishing death on a random old racist.
Great, we get it, you are motivated by revenge and want to acknowledge that. There's nothing mathematical about that, there's just something lazy and emotional about it, and it doesn't get us anywhere in this situation, or indeed most situations. It's not particularly laudable or interesting. It doesn't go anywhere. Especially when we are merely discussing a topic, it's not something visceral and immediate, it's a fucking football forum.
You've enjoyed being on a windup about it, or you can't understand why it's so grating, I really don't care, I'm done with it. Enjoy the weekend.
Previously you advanced an absurd argument that in the interests of revenge, a fan, who is hurt in an incredibly insignificant, oblique way by Evra's accusations, which you have decided are false, could be racist to Evra directly, and this would constitute justice. That justice would look like a fat fuck welshman making monkey noises at a black man. We've fleshed that out a bit now, and now we've another version of justice, seem to include being ok with wishing death on a random old racist.
Great, we get it, you are motivated by revenge and want to acknowledge that. There's nothing mathematical about that, there's just something lazy and emotional about it, and it doesn't get us anywhere in this situation, or indeed most situations. It's not particularly laudable or interesting. It doesn't go anywhere. Especially when we are merely discussing a topic, it's not something visceral and immediate, it's a fucking football forum.
You've enjoyed being on a windup about it, or you can't understand why it's so grating, I really don't care, I'm done with it. Enjoy the weekend.
I don't mind if you engage with my views as an argument and argue back, I'll still learn things from your reply. But it's when you suggest that I am poor at arguing in an attempt to make me look foolish... at that point I'll point out I'm not arguing so that you don't get away with calling me stupid. Also I did not say that a person hurt by Evra could be racist to him. So you haven't understood my thinking which is ironic considering you called it simplistic.
I'll try to remember not to wind you up or post things which grate you next time. Themn will wish death upon tommy smith. The next 100 posts will be people rightly disagreeing with him. Hopefully someone like gene or krump will post a witty joke somewhere in there, or else it will turn into a complete waste of anyone's time to read that thread.
I'll try to remember not to wind you up or post things which grate you next time. Themn will wish death upon tommy smith. The next 100 posts will be people rightly disagreeing with him. Hopefully someone like gene or krump will post a witty joke somewhere in there, or else it will turn into a complete waste of anyone's time to read that thread.
- Status
