Rugby, RSRU & Liberalism
Charles
In all that time the clear indications in rugby clubs around the
world, are that its followers have been almost entirely Conservative,
with most leaning toward the right of that conservatism.
This makes something of a contradiction among the denizens of RSRU,
who largely appear to be on the left of the political spectrum, with
many having a very liberal outlook on life and contemporary issues.
The only difference that I can see between RSRU and rugby club
dynamics, is the obvious 'interest' in computers and the Internet. Of
course the other obvious difference is the relative anonymity, which
appears to provoke a tendency to be obtuse, rude and sometimes
downright cussed simply for the sake of it.
Could the Internet be the cause of such a marked contradiction in
political outlook and idealism?
Have a great Sunday lads - you know I intend to!! ;o)
Large Paddy
physical boneheadedness which is an advantage for playing rugby. The
ability to even plug in a computer is only possessed by those rare
members who are not bone-headed.
Mentalguy2k8
"Large Paddy" <gol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:94599cbc-0630-47cf...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Alternatively you could say it's because one group is out participating in
sport and other activities while the other has nothing better to do.....
Uncle Dave
> I have been involved with rugby union football for a very long time.
> In all that time the clear indications in rugby clubs around the
> world, are that its followers have been almost entirely Conservative,
> with most leaning toward the right of that conservatism.
Ah, perhaps they just don't have the courage to admit their libralism
and so remain shackled by the shackles of convention? Maybe they go
home form committee meetings, throw off their blazers and club ties,
slip into tie-dyes and flip-flops, crank up Frank Zappa and pull out
their stash of dodgy substances from behind the Daily Mail Yearbook
1934...
UD
Herman van Rumpy (President)
go fuck yourself....
Two Dogs
Only an Englishman would try to associate a sport with a political
leaning (or class eh "Charles"?). The rest of the world (and probably
most of England for that matter) has probably moved well past the need
to believe in such things....
Two Dogs
Klitty
Well, Two Dogs, much as I am not right wing, Charles does indeed have a
point. Rugby in the UK is still very much the sport of the more well to
do and a club is most certainly more right wing in general than the
average football club. Of course not all. But certainly a large % of
rugby players and fans would be to the right of the political divide.
Mentalguy2k8
"Klitty" <mitt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hglacr$7kd$1...@klitty.eternal-september.org...
> Two Dogs <nzr...@aol.com> writes:
Rugby definitely has a class imbalance in the UK. Not as bad as it used to
be, but still there. I suppose it follows that any activity mostly run and
pursued by upper classes will have a majority belief in Conservatism too.
Like a darts team will probably have more Labour voters. And those in a
vegetative state vote Lib-Dem....
I always wondered how Jason Leonard achieved what he did... a cheeky cockney
carpenter must have caused a few old farts to choke on their Pimms.
Esra Sdrawkcab
wrote:
>
> "Klitty" <mitt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hglacr$7kd$1...@klitty.eternal-september.org...
>> Two Dogs <nzr...@aol.com> writes:
>>
a different slant in Wales to that in England though.
> Not as bad as it used to be, but still there. I suppose it follows that
> any activity mostly run and pursued by upper classes will have a
> majority belief in Conservatism too. Like a darts team will probably
> have more Labour voters. And those in a vegetative state vote Lib-Dem....
>
> I always wondered how Jason Leonard achieved what he did... a cheeky
> cockney carpenter must have caused a few old farts to choke on their
> Pimms.
--
Nuns! Reverse!
Klitty
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:32:42 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 <Mental...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Klitty" <mitt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hglacr$7kd$1...@klitty.eternal-september.org...
>>> Two Dogs <nzr...@aol.com> writes:
>>>
But not in Scotland where they're all generally Oxford types with
brogue.
Mike
> I have been involved with rugby union football for a very long time.
> In all that time the clear indications in rugby clubs around the
> world, are that its followers have been almost entirely Conservative,
> with most leaning toward the right of that conservatism.
Whilst that may have been teue I know plenty of more left wing supporters.
> This makes something of a contradiction among the denizens of RSRU,
> who largely appear to be on the left of the political spectrum, with
> many having a very liberal outlook on life and contemporary issues.
I'm not sure that believing homosexuality is not some perversion that
should be kept in darkened backalleys and only discussed in whispers
makes us all left wing. Whilst I'd never describe myself as right wing
for fear of being associated with the BNP I am politically conservative.
> The only difference that I can see between RSRU and rugby club
> dynamics, is the obvious 'interest' in computers and the Internet. Of
> course the other obvious difference is the relative anonymity, which
> appears to provoke a tendency to be obtuse, rude and sometimes
> downright cussed simply for the sake of it.
>
> Could the Internet be the cause of such a marked contradiction in
> political outlook and idealism?
Doubt it, if you search througfh other newsgroups you will find plenty
of rabidly right wing nutters as well as left wing types.
> Have a great Sunday lads - you know I intend to!! ;o)
I think the issue maybe, you are still in the middle of the last century.
Mike
William Clark
Charles <cha...@msn.com> wrote:
You obviously have not been around rugby for a very long time - either
that or you never played on the West Country or South Wales. The Pimms
sipping 'Quins supporters you so aspire to be like are actually not that
representative. Sorry.
Klitty
While I don't want to appear to be quite as intolerant as Charles
*appears*, I disagree that Homosexuality should be considered anyway
near as equivalent as heterosexual activity or in any way normal. It's
not normal and it should be not "encouraged" as an equal alternative in
my opinion. Sure I know Gay people and I have zero issue with it as
such, just that to over state its "normalness" is pushing it (oo err) a
tad.
Neilsons
world - not the UK specifically.
Cheers, aMtt
Paul
mitt...@gmail.com says...
...
>
> While I don't want to appear to be quite as intolerant as Charles
> *appears*, I disagree that Homosexuality should be considered anyway
> near as equivalent as heterosexual activity
How can anything be "anyway near as equivalent"?
> or in any way normal. It's
> not normal and it should be not "encouraged" as an equal alternative in
> my opinion. Sure I know Gay people and I have zero issue with it as
> such, just that to over state its "normalness" is pushing it (oo err) a
> tad.
>
It's either normal or it isn't, so how can you overstate its normalness?
Thanks for your opinion though. I won't change mine.
Paul
Klitty
> In article <hglq4r$23i$1...@klitty.eternal-september.org>,
> mitt...@gmail.com says...
> ...
>>
>> While I don't want to appear to be quite as intolerant as Charles
>> *appears*, I disagree that Homosexuality should be considered anyway
>> near as equivalent as heterosexual activity
>
> How can anything be "anyway near as equivalent"?
Oh God. A grammar Nazi.
>
>> or in any way normal. It's
>> not normal and it should be not "encouraged" as an equal alternative in
>> my opinion. Sure I know Gay people and I have zero issue with it as
>> such, just that to over state its "normalness" is pushing it (oo err) a
>> tad.
>>
>
> It's either normal or it isn't, so how can you overstate its
> normalness?
If you cant cope with degrees of normality then god help you.
>
> Thanks for your opinion though. I won't change mine.
>
> Paul
That's nice. I didn't ask you to.
And your opinion is, err, what? That two guys at it is as "normal" as a
man and a woman? If that is your opinion then good on you, you are
entitled to it after all ....
Osbourne Ruddock
news:hglq4r$23i$1...@klitty.eternal-september.org:
>
> While I don't want to appear to be quite as intolerant as Charles
> *appears*, I disagree that Homosexuality should be considered anyway
> near as equivalent as heterosexual activity or in any way normal. It's
> not normal and it should be not "encouraged" as an equal alternative
> in my opinion. Sure I know Gay people and I have zero issue with it as
> such, just that to over state its "normalness" is pushing it (oo err)
> a tad.
>
Heterosexuality is normal in the sense of being the majority state for
humankind but I think homosexuality is perfectly normal for the 10% or so
who are big flouncy gay boys or giant hairy lesbians, it's all just a
chemical spectrum with heterosexuals owning the bell curve.
And let's face it, surely Charles is living proof that heterosexuality
isn't a guarantee of normalcy...
--
Cheers, Os
Uncle Dave
> In article <hglq4r$23...@klitty.eternal-september.org>,
> mitti...@gmail.com says...
> ...
>
>
>
> > While I don't want to appear to be quite as intolerant as Charles
> > *appears*, I disagree that Homosexuality should be considered anyway
> > near as equivalent as heterosexual activity
>
> How can anything be "anyway near as equivalent"?
>
> > or in any way normal. It's
> > not normal and it should be not "encouraged" as an equal alternative in
> > my opinion. Sure I know Gay people and I have zero issue with it as
> > such, just that to over state its "normalness" is pushing it (oo err) a
> > tad.
>
> It's either normal or it isn't, so how can you overstate its normalness?
Point of Order.
There is no such thing as "normal" because we have no way of judging
what is "normal" except in purely statistical terms. The word
"normal" is inherently redundant here as we have only individual
opinion or collective societal opinion on which to base our judgement
and both of these change over time and are likely to be extremely
unreliable as it is evident that some people lie about their sexuality
when asked, or decline to answer. We do have religious books which,
as their foundation is belief, also cannot dictate what is, and what
is not, "normal" as they simply reflect their adherents belief. The
use of "normal" is inappropriate in this context because what you are
in effect saying is "I believe this to be the case". The use of
"norms" might be more appropriate, for example, a significantly
smaller proportion of society claim to be homosexual than heterosexual
but this doesn't actually prove anything and simply illustrates that
with the question of sexuality being of importance to the continuance
of the species one might reasonably expect more heterosexuals than
homosexuals as there is evidence we are driven by our hormones.
Using the word "normal" in an argument is a pretty goof iindication
you just lost the argument.
I have spoken. You know I'm right. I usually am.
UD
Klitty
> On Dec 20, 8:49 pm, some...@nowhere.com (Paul) wrote:
>> In article <hglq4r$23...@klitty.eternal-september.org>,
>> mitti...@gmail.com says...
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > While I don't want to appear to be quite as intolerant as Charles
>> > *appears*, I disagree that Homosexuality should be considered anyway
>> > near as equivalent as heterosexual activity
>>
>> How can anything be "anyway near as equivalent"?
>>
>> > or in any way normal. It's
>> > not normal and it should be not "encouraged" as an equal alternative in
>> > my opinion. Sure I know Gay people and I have zero issue with it as
>> > such, just that to over state its "normalness" is pushing it (oo err) a
>> > tad.
>>
>> It's either normal or it isn't, so how can you overstate its normalness?
>
> Point of Order.
>
> There is no such thing as "normal" because we have no way of judging
> what is "normal" except in purely statistical terms. The word
Yell yes. And the fact that dicks were designed to go into fannys.
Are you sure you're not a lesbian history student?
Uncle Dave
Yeah, I must get out the Extras DVDs, although 'er indoors really
doesn't get it at all :-(
UD
Uncle Dave
> Klitty <mitti...@gmail.com> wrote innews:hglq4r$23i$1...@klitty.eternal-september.org:
Nice one Os, you big poof.
UD
Klitty
She must be pretty humourless:-; There are some cracking moments. The
Keith Chegwin and Ross Kemp ones are amongst my favorites although
Ronnie Corbette doing lines is up there too. "Corbette. You see I expect
it of Corbette..." Or Daniel Radcliffe flicking his johnny onto Dame
Diana Rigg's head... or ... Oh fek it. There are oodles of great
moments.
Osbourne Ruddock
news:b3ddb85a-c5b2-4d1a...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>> Heterosexuality is normal in the sense of being the majority state
>> for humankind but I think homosexuality is perfectly normal for the
>> 10% or so who are big flouncy gay boys or giant hairy lesbians, it's
>> all just a chemical spectrum with heterosexuals owning the bell
>> curve.
>>
>> And let's face it, surely Charles is living proof that
>> heterosexuality isn't a guarantee of normalcy...
>
> Nice one Os, you big poof.
>
Ooo, get you!
--
Cheers, Os
Klitty
Mike
WTF is normal?!
Whilst I agree having a dick up your ass is not what nature intended,
(nor my own preference!) mankind is already well beyond what nature
intended so that argument falls flat on it's face.
Our perception of nomality is forever changing. 100 years ago car
ownership was a rarity, now it's almost an expectation.
100 years ago Pre marital sex was taboo (though an often practiced one)
now, almost an expectation.
Hands up who had a computer of some sort in the house 40 years ago - not
many hands I'll wager but now, I have four in the house. We consider
computer ownership normal.
People should be encouraged to follow their own path and not put into
pigeon holes so those less broadminded can sleep better at night. If
being a grumpy old homophobe is your path charles, enjoy, just don't
expect the rest of us to skip down it with you.
Mike
didgerman
Indeed. Love the 'relative anonymity': everyone else is on facebook
{with real names, pictures of their kids, phone numbers, addresses, no
anonimity at all} while Charles supplies more bullshit than an army of
yoghurt weaving lesbians could cope with.
Obviously not all of us put up pictures of our kids, matua for instance
puts up pictures of other people's kids. I expect Charles would have a
picture of Harry and William, and possibly Lady Di in the background,
sniff......
Klitty
Err, heterosexual attraction, sex and reproduction. It's not that
amazing. You can tell from looking around.
>
> Whilst I agree having a dick up your ass is not what nature intended,
> (nor my own preference!) mankind is already well beyond what nature
> intended so that argument falls flat on it's face.
Are we? Were you born from two Daddies Mike?
>
> Our perception of nomality is forever changing. 100 years ago car
> ownership was a rarity, now it's almost an expectation.
Not really. Homsexuality has always been a minority thing.
>
> 100 years ago Pre marital sex was taboo (though an often practiced one)
> now, almost an expectation.
Dont believe everything you read. It happened then as it happens now.
>
> Hands up who had a computer of some sort in the house 40 years ago - not
> many hands I'll wager but now, I have four in the house. We consider
> computer ownership normal.
It is now. Getting shagged up the arse by a guy isn't. There is a
difference. Comparing the two things is ridiculous.
>
> People should be encouraged to follow their own path and not put into
> pigeon holes so those less broadminded can sleep better at night. If
> being a grumpy old homophobe is your path charles, enjoy, just don't
> expect the rest of us to skip down it with you.
>
> Mike
>
Sounds like skipping might be normal Mike ...
Klitty
I wonder your views people thinking sex with young kids (say 14 to 16)
is normal too ? Or would objecting to that be being pushy and
conservative? Its legal at 14 in some countries. Whose to say it wont be
in the UK in 10 years? Where do we set our limits as to normality?
Whats the line in Private Eye's "Online Community" skit? If that "peedo
touched my kids I'd do time I swear. Maddie wuz a saint" etc etc
etc. Right wing idiot not allowing others to make their own decisions?
Greig Blanchett
Which group of fans would be more likely to join the National Front?
Rugby or soccer? There's right wing and then there's RIGHT WING.
--
greig
Herman van Rumpy (President)
Charles
wrote:
... thus revealing Two 'Yapping' Dogs depth of knowledge of the
English, his propensity for mischief and his penchant for
personalising even honest debate for the sake of trolling.
Ugh! It's Monday - but the Christmas hols are very close!!
Charles
wrote:
... proving that the Group idiot's grasp on reality is at best
somewhat tenuous. Whatever is it that you are "sniffing" Didge, it's
time you stopped before all of your bulbous snot-box falls off!!
Ugh! It's Monday - but Santa is on his way!!
Charles
wrote:
... don't you find the concept of "normalcy" (beyond the realms of
grubby bum-banditry) so terribly mundane and restrictive. We have but
one crack at this bizarre existence Os old chum - and we must be all
we can!
Ugh! It's Monday - but hark the herald Angels!!
didgerman
It's pretty normal to the two blokes. It may not form the majority of
sexual activity on any given evening, but some people think it's normal.
What most definitely isn't normal is growing up, realising you fancy
men, but decide to shag women anyway in case someone else {like you or
Charles} gets upset.
I'm really not sure where you get all this 'encouraged' business from. I
think you've made that up.....
Klitty
Yes. but we're not talking about the two blokes. We talking about
society in general. It seemed normal for SS commandants to gas 2000
people a day.
> sexual activity on any given evening, but some people think it's
> normal.
Yes some. A minority.
> What most definitely isn't normal is growing up, realising you fancy
> men, but decide to shag women anyway in case someone else {like you or
> Charles} gets upset.
Huh? Thats beneath you. Where did I say I get "upset"?
> I'm really not sure where you get all this 'encouraged' business from. I
> think you've made that up.....
Not really. University days.
>
> If that is your opinion then good on you, you are
>> entitled to it after all ....
>>
Thats the first post from you where you actively did what Charles accuses
you of! Paint me black because I suggest that its not normal while
plainly stating I accept it as such regardless.
didgerman
Woah, we're going to need a major expedition to find those goal posts.
>
>> sexual activity on any given evening, but some people think it's
>> normal.
>
> Yes some. A minority.
What's wrong with being in a minority? Conservatives are in a minority,
as are religious believers. And yet they're still allowed to practice
their abhorrent beliefs in our land.
Democracy, bastard eh?
>
>> What most definitely isn't normal is growing up, realising you fancy
>> men, but decide to shag women anyway in case someone else {like you or
>> Charles} gets upset.
>
> Huh? Thats beneath you. Where did I say I get "upset"?
You seem to be upset by a minority group who carry out acts which are
normal to them. Why not mind your own beak, in a normal way....
>
>> I'm really not sure where you get all this 'encouraged' business from. I
>> think you've made that up.....
>
> Not really. University days.
Ah right, so because some bloke suggested you might like to try cranking
off some other student, that means it's happening everywhere. We did
this in scotland a few years ago: some businessman decided kids were
being taught how to be gay in school and went nuts with the media.
Funnily enough, it all turned out to be total shit, who'd have thought.
>
>> If that is your opinion then good on you, you are
>>> entitled to it after all ....
>>>
>
> Thats the first post from you where you actively did what Charles accuses
> you of!
You'll have to be more specific: Charles accuses me of many things, it's
what's called ad-hominem, it's what you do when you've lost.
Paint me black because I suggest that its not normal while
> plainly stating I accept it as such regardless.
I missed you plainly stating that...
didgerman
> On Dec 20, 5:26 am, Charles <char...@msn.com> wrote:
>> I have been involved with rugby union football for a very long time.
>> In all that time the clear indications in rugby clubs around the
>> world, are that its followers have been almost entirely Conservative,
>> with most leaning toward the right of that conservatism.
>>
>> This makes something of a contradiction among the denizens of RSRU,
>> who largely appear to be on the left of the political spectrum, with
>> many having a very liberal outlook on life and contemporary issues.
>>
>> The only difference that I can see between RSRU and rugby club
>> dynamics, is the obvious 'interest' in computers and the Internet. Of
>> course the other obvious difference is the relative anonymity, which
>> appears to provoke a tendency to be obtuse, rude and sometimes
>> downright cussed simply for the sake of it.
>>
>> Could the Internet be the cause of such a marked contradiction in
>> political outlook and idealism?
>>
>> Have a great Sunday lads - you know I intend to!! ;o)
>
> leaning (or class eh "Charles"?). The rest of the world (and probably
> most of England for that matter) has probably moved well past the need
> to believe in such things....
Speak not of the outside world, for Charles knoweth not.
Happy pagan drinking festival to you my worldly amigo.
>
> Two Dogs
Charles
wrote:
This is just typical rabble-rousing and exaggeration, which is in line
with the liberal left-wing feminist agenda.
Many more people would like to express their honest views on a number
of contemporary topics and values. However, we have largely been
denied our freedom of speech, either by hastily and poorly framed
legislation, or by contrived censorious so-called 'public' opinion
which is policed strictly by the adherents of political correctness.
It is a brave or foolish person who offers honest opinion on many
subjects, either here in RSRU or in 'real life', for the vilification
and personal attacks that surely follow can be quite daunting for
gentler souls.
HTH! ;o)
Charles
wrote:
The richness of the irony is almost artistic ...
... and in answer Didgerman, I only ever respond to you in kind, so as
ye sew, so shall ye reap.
In addition to my reciprocal "ad hominem" posts, I also point out,
often, the error of your ways in detailed summary, which of course,
like most of your bent - you are unable to give any coherent response.
HTH!
Have a great Christmas mate - you know I intend to!! ;o)
Charles
wrote:
Says the Group idiot who spends all his time, when he is not in a
drunken stupor, in that strange never-never land that is cyber-space.
A word from our sponsors:
This was a 'Reciprocal Ad Hominem' post!!
HAGC! ;o)
Charles
>ye sew*, so shall ye reap.
>
>In addition to my reciprocal "ad hominem" posts, I also point out,
>often, the error of your ways in detailed summary, which of course,
>like most of your bent - you are unable to give any coherent response.
>
>HTH!
>
>Have a great Christmas mate - you know I intend to!! ;o)
Of course that should have been sow - sowwy!! ;o)
Have a great Christmas and a successful New Year - you know I intend
to!! ;o)
Klitty
Not really. The claim was that what normal today is not normal tomorrow
or last year.
>
>>
>>> sexual activity on any given evening, but some people think it's
>>> normal.
>>
>> Yes some. A minority.
>
> What's wrong with being in a minority? Conservatives are in a
> minority,
Where did I say there was anything wrong with being in a minority. I
belong in one here : I think Simon is full of shit :-,
> as are religious believers. And yet they're still allowed to practice
> their abhorrent beliefs in our land.
> Democracy, bastard eh?
What are you talking about? Did you see me saying anything should be banned?
>
>>
>>> What most definitely isn't normal is growing up, realising you fancy
>>> men, but decide to shag women anyway in case someone else {like you or
>>> Charles} gets upset.
>>
>> Huh? Thats beneath you. Where did I say I get "upset"?
>
> You seem to be upset by a minority group who carry out acts which are
> normal to them. Why not mind your own beak, in a normal way....
Where do I seem to upset by this? Chapter and verse please. I thought
you knew where I lived and what i did for a living. And no, I'm not a
rent boy. Getting upset by a few queers sucking each other off in the
Gents is not going to upset me. Unless they spit.
>
>>
>>> I'm really not sure where you get all this 'encouraged' business from. I
>>> think you've made that up.....
>>
>> Not really. University days.
>
> Ah right, so because some bloke suggested you might like to try cranking
> off some other student, that means it's happening everywhere. We did
Where did I say its happening everywhere? I most certainly did not. I
SAID it didnt make it right to promote is as "as normal" as heterosexual
activities.
You're on a role Didge. It's as if you read what you want to read in
order be able to huff and puff and scream as who you see as intolerant
nazis.
> this in scotland a few years ago: some businessman decided kids were
> being taught how to be gay in school and went nuts with the media.
> Funnily enough, it all turned out to be total shit, who'd have
> thought.
Funny that. You seem to be doing similar with my views ...
>
>>
>>> If that is your opinion then good on you, you are
>>>> entitled to it after all ....
>>>>
>>
>> Thats the first post from you where you actively did what Charles accuses
>> you of!
>
> You'll have to be more specific: Charles accuses me of many things, it's
> what's called ad-hominem, it's what you do when you've lost.
>
> Paint me black because I suggest that its not normal while
>> plainly stating I accept it as such regardless.
>
> I missed you plainly stating that...
>
It's plain you did. Especially since its in this post.
Here:
,----
| Sure I know Gay people and I have zero issue with it as
| >>>>>> such, just that to over state its "normalness" is pushing it (oo err) a
| >>>>>> tad.
`----
To clarify : I am NOT anti gay. I know gay people. I have gay
friends. But it is not "as normal" as your typical heterosexual
attraction: In my view. And that of most societies. Sorry, but thems the
the facts.
Two Dogs
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 05:06:23 -0800 (PST), Two Dogs <nzre...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 20, 5:26 am, Charles <char...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> I have been involved with rugby union football for a very long time.
> >> In all that time the clear indications in rugby clubs around the
> >> world, are that its followers have been almost entirely Conservative,
> >> with most leaning toward the right of that conservatism.
>
> >> This makes something of a contradiction among the denizens of RSRU,
> >> who largely appear to be on the left of the political spectrum, with
> >> many having a very liberal outlook on life and contemporary issues.
>
> >> The only difference that I can see between RSRU and rugby club
> >> dynamics, is the obvious 'interest' in computers and the Internet. Of
> >> course the other obvious difference is the relative anonymity, which
> >> appears to provoke a tendency to be obtuse, rude and sometimes
> >> downright cussed simply for the sake of it.
>
> >> Could the Internet be the cause of such a marked contradiction in
> >> political outlook and idealism?
>
> >> Have a great Sunday lads - you know I intend to!! ;o)
>
> >Only an Englishman would try to associate a sport with a political
> >leaning (or class eh "Charles"?). The rest of the world (and probably
> >most of England for that matter) has probably moved well past the need
> >to believe in such things....
>
> ... thus revealing Two 'Yapping' Dogs depth of knowledge of the
> English,
Thank you for acknowledging that
>his propensity for mischief and his penchant for
> personalising even honest debate for the sake of trolling.
>
Anytime anyone calls you on something they are being rude, creating
mischief or trolling it seems. So much for honest debate.
Try this then. Had it occurred to you that your sampling "in person"
was a very narrow and selective (based upon you putting yourself in
places you like and with people that you knew would appeal to you, in
your own country, and very near your home) and that the sampling on
RSRU was probably broader in a geographic and social sense as none of
us need invites or membership to be here other than the ability to
operate a computer and an interest in rugby?
I wonder which sample you think might be the more "skewed"?
> Ugh! It's Monday - but the Christmas hols are very close!!
Are you still working on the 21st? How dweadful for you, poor boy!
Two Dogs
Two Dogs
And to you Didge. Hopefully you and Mrs D have all the necessary
requirements to see you through the mandatory locking and barring of
the front door period necessary when living in Glasgow during
Christmas and New Year...
Two Dogs
didgerman
Locked and loaded, you know me.
>
> Two Dogs
>
didgerman
Mr Scrooge only gives him Boxing day afternoon off, but Charles knows
his place.
Charles
wrote:
>On Dec 21, 4:10�am, Charles <char...@msn.com> wrote:
There's another interpretation for your heavily weighted:
"(or class eh "Charles"?)"?
Do enlighten us ...
>So much for honest debate.
QED!
Please tell me where my original post was dishonest or in any way
confrontational or off-topic.
>
>Try this then. Had it occurred to you that your sampling "in person"
>was a very narrow and selective (based upon you putting yourself in
>places you like and with people that you knew would appeal to you, in
>your own country, and very near your home) and that the sampling on
>RSRU was probably broader in a geographic and social sense as none of
>us need invites or membership to be here other than the ability to
>operate a computer and an interest in rugby?
My original post said quite clearly:
"In all that time the clear indications in rugby clubs around the
world" ...
... which was based on my own personal and very considerable
experience "around the world", which I would hazard, knowing
absolutely bugger all about you other than your unpleasant persona at
RSRU, would at the very least match your own!!
>
> I wonder which sample you think might be the more "skewed"?
>
I would claim my own personal experiences to be of much greater value
than the vituperative and biased crap that often spews forth here!
>
>> Ugh! It's Monday - but the Christmas hols are very close!!
>
> Are you still working on the 21st? How dweadful for you, poor boy!
Absolutely distastwous, old darling. However, it's not all about me is
it? We do have our loyal and faithful wetainers to wowwy about - in a
noblesse oblige sort of way.
Do have a gweat Chwistmas Two "Elmer Fudd" Dogs - you know I intend
to!! ;o)
Charles
wrote:
"God Bless Us, Every One!" ;o)
HAGC&AHNY! - you know I intend to!! ;o)
Mike
Just typical of the rabid right wing - anything you don't like blame,
the dykes and/or political correctness .... oh look
> Many more people would like to express their honest views on a number
> of contemporary topics and values. However, we have largely been
> denied our freedom of speech, either by hastily and poorly framed
> legislation, or by contrived censorious so-called 'public' opinion
> which is policed strictly by the adherents of political correctness.
Not vilifying people for their personal behaviour might be considered
good manners rather than PC. Whilst I do think PC has insidiously
spread too far I don't think allowing arse bandits to get on with in the
privacy of their own bedrooms is PC.
> It is a brave or foolish person who offers honest opinion on many
> subjects, either here in RSRU or in 'real life', for the vilification
> and personal attacks that surely follow can be quite daunting for
> gentler souls.
>
> HTH! ;o)
I'll wager not half as daunting for gay players and refs from coming out.
Mike
Paul
mitt...@gmail.com says...
> Uncle Dave <david...@t-online.de> writes:
>
...
> > There is no such thing as "normal" because we have no way of judging
> > what is "normal" except in purely statistical terms. The word
>
> Yell yes. And the fact that dicks were designed to go into fannys.
>
How do you know, do you have a direct line to the Creator?
Dicks go well into mouths and arseholes, too, even heterosexuals know
that.
Paul
Charles
Yada fucking ya!
>
>> Many more people would like to express their honest views on a number
>> of contemporary topics and values. However, we have largely been
>> denied our freedom of speech, either by hastily and poorly framed
>> legislation, or by contrived censorious so-called 'public' opinion
>> which is policed strictly by the adherents of political correctness.
>
>Not vilifying people for their personal behaviour might be considered
>good manners rather than PC.
Suggesting good manners to a generally ungracious population is an
exercise in futility, and a sure fire way to get a quick smack in the
mouth, so that's just another 'red herring' ...
>Whilst I do think PC has insidiously
>spread too far I don't think allowing arse bandits to get on with in the
>privacy of their own bedrooms is PC.
... that is not an issue, as you well know. The conduct of individual
"arse bandits" is not the problem. It's being told that we cannot have
an alternative opinion in many areas, and that we must always toe the
PC line!
>
>> It is a brave or foolish person who offers honest opinion on many
>> subjects, either here in RSRU or in 'real life', for the vilification
>> and personal attacks that surely follow can be quite daunting for
>> gentler souls.
>>
>> HTH! ;o)
>
>I'll wager not half as daunting for gay players and refs from coming out.
Then they shouldn't bother; who the fuck wants to know? They should
keep their heads down (no pun intended) and make the most of their
lives despite their quite severe impediments!!
Have a great Christmas Mike, and a happy New Year - you know I intend
to!! ;o)
Mike
Just because the barbarians are at the gate you shouldn't join them.
>> Whilst I do think PC has insidiously
>> spread too far I don't think allowing arse bandits to get on with in the
>> privacy of their own bedrooms is PC.
>
> ... that is not an issue, as you well know. The conduct of individual
> "arse bandits" is not the problem. It's being told that we cannot have
> an alternative opinion in many areas, and that we must always toe the
> PC line!
You can have all the opinions you like as can I. You state
homosexuality is not normal, I and others disagree and can state as such.
>>> It is a brave or foolish person who offers honest opinion on many
>>> subjects, either here in RSRU or in 'real life', for the vilification
>>> and personal attacks that surely follow can be quite daunting for
>>> gentler souls.
>>>
>>> HTH! ;o)
>> I'll wager not half as daunting for gay players and refs from coming out.
>
> Then they shouldn't bother; who the fuck wants to know? They should
> keep their heads down (no pun intended) and make the most of their
> lives despite their quite severe impediments!!
And there's the rub, you insist that they have to pretend to be
straight, do we expect you to pretend to be anything other than a dinosaur?
> Have a great Christmas Mike, and a happy New Year - you know I intend
> to!! ;o)
You to charles - a great xmas starts with the first party of the season,
so I'm already having a great one!
Mike
Osbourne Ruddock
news:hbfui5tabte5uitq5...@4ax.com:
>>
>>Heterosexuality is normal in the sense of being the majority state for
>>humankind but I think homosexuality is perfectly normal for the 10% or
>>so who are big flouncy gay boys or giant hairy lesbians, it's all just
>>a chemical spectrum with heterosexuals owning the bell curve.
>>
>>And let's face it, surely Charles is living proof that heterosexuality
>>isn't a guarantee of normalcy...
>
> ... don't you find the concept of "normalcy" (beyond the realms of
> grubby bum-banditry) so terribly mundane and restrictive. We have but
> one crack at this bizarre existence Os old chum - and we must be all
> we can!
Absolutely Charles, bring on the weirdness I say.
I have a question though as you've made a couple of references to bum sex
recently, and you may find this question a little impertinent but here
goes anyway. As a man of the world, have you never fucked a woman up the
arse? If not, why not? It's presumably not gay because it's with a woman
but does it come under the category of grubby bum-banditry mentioned
above? I really don't know. From my experience, the front bottom still
feels better but there's no doubt that the back door gets the job done
nearly as well and if the woman is open minded enough and you don't stint
on the lube she seems to have quite a bit of fun as well.
So I can't really get too apoplectic about the thought that men might be
doing something similar, each to their own and all that.
How about a finger up the arse during the licorice strokes? Surely that's
not a one way ticket to San Francisco?
--
Cheers, Os
Charles
wrote:
>Charles <cha...@msn.com> wrote in
>news:hbfui5tabte5uitq5...@4ax.com:
>
>>>
>>>Heterosexuality is normal in the sense of being the majority state for
>>>humankind but I think homosexuality is perfectly normal for the 10% or
>>>so who are big flouncy gay boys or giant hairy lesbians, it's all just
>>>a chemical spectrum with heterosexuals owning the bell curve.
>>>
>>>And let's face it, surely Charles is living proof that heterosexuality
>>>isn't a guarantee of normalcy...
>>
>> ... don't you find the concept of "normalcy" (beyond the realms of
>> grubby bum-banditry) so terribly mundane and restrictive. We have but
>> one crack at this bizarre existence Os old chum - and we must be all
>> we can!
>
>Absolutely Charles, bring on the weirdness I say.
>
>I have a question though as you've made a couple of references to bum sex
>recently, and you may find this question a little impertinent but here
>goes anyway. As a man of the world, have you never fucked a woman up the
>arse? If not, why not?
My dear Sir, a gentleman doesn't talk about these things ...
>It's presumably not gay because it's with a woman
>but does it come under the category of grubby bum-banditry mentioned
>above? I really don't know. From my experience, the front bottom still
>feels better but there's no doubt that the back door gets the job done
>nearly as well and if the woman is open minded enough and you don't stint
>on the lube she seems to have quite a bit of fun as well.
>
>So I can't really get too apoplectic about the thought that men might be
>doing something similar, each to their own and all that.
>
>How about a finger up the arse during the licorice strokes? Surely that's
>not a one way ticket to San Francisco?
... but you did get me laughing and your very funny input rivals that
of Matty, who also has the capacity to get me snorting uncontrollably.
Crude and foul humour interspersed with a few four-letter words, has
an earthiness to it that always reduces me to gales of laughter.
Thanks for that; I hope you have a great Christmas and a happy New
Brad Anton
"didgerman" <didg...@rfu.com> wrote in message
news:hgnl7b$1eq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Klitty wrote:
>> som...@nowhere.com (Paul) writes:
>>
>>> In article <hglq4r$23i$1...@klitty.eternal-september.org>,
>>
>> And your opinion is, err, what? That two guys at it is as "normal" as a
>> man and a woman?
>
> It's pretty normal to the two blokes. It may not form the majority of
> sexual activity on any given evening, but some people think it's normal.
> What most definitely isn't normal is growing up, realising you fancy men,
> but decide to shag women anyway in case someone else {like you or Charles}
> gets upset.
> I'm really not sure where you get all this 'encouraged' business from. I
> think you've made that up.....
>
> If that is your opinion then good on you, you are
>> entitled to it after all ....
>>
Seems the tendency is spread across (!) the whole animal kingdom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIcrCZQkSlg
Next thing people will be trying to tell you there is a god.
Merry Eczema to all
Brad
didgerman
> Charles <cha...@msn.com> wrote in
> news:hbfui5tabte5uitq5...@4ax.com:
>
>>> Heterosexuality is normal in the sense of being the majority state for
>>> humankind but I think homosexuality is perfectly normal for the 10% or
>>> so who are big flouncy gay boys or giant hairy lesbians, it's all just
>>> a chemical spectrum with heterosexuals owning the bell curve.
>>>
>>> And let's face it, surely Charles is living proof that heterosexuality
>>> isn't a guarantee of normalcy...
>> ... don't you find the concept of "normalcy" (beyond the realms of
>> grubby bum-banditry) so terribly mundane and restrictive. We have but
>> one crack at this bizarre existence Os old chum - and we must be all
>> we can!
>
> Absolutely Charles, bring on the weirdness I say.
>
> I have a question though as you've made a couple of references to bum sex
> recently, and you may find this question a little impertinent but here
> goes anyway. As a man of the world, have you never fucked a woman up the
> arse?
Of course he bloody has. He might not have realised it in his drunken
state, but he has.
If not, why not? It's presumably not gay because it's with a woman
> but does it come under the category of grubby bum-banditry mentioned
> above? I really don't know. From my experience, the front bottom still
> feels better but there's no doubt that the back door gets the job done
> nearly as well and if the woman is open minded enough and you don't stint
> on the lube she seems to have quite a bit of fun as well.
>
> So I can't really get too apoplectic about the thought that men might be
> doing something similar, each to their own and all that.
>
> How about a finger up the arse during the licorice strokes?
It's a wonderful offer Oz, but not just now eh?
Charles
wrote:
>Osbourne Ruddock wrote:
>> Charles <cha...@msn.com> wrote in
>> news:hbfui5tabte5uitq5...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>> Heterosexuality is normal in the sense of being the majority state for
>>>> humankind but I think homosexuality is perfectly normal for the 10% or
>>>> so who are big flouncy gay boys or giant hairy lesbians, it's all just
>>>> a chemical spectrum with heterosexuals owning the bell curve.
>>>>
>>>> And let's face it, surely Charles is living proof that heterosexuality
>>>> isn't a guarantee of normalcy...
>>> ... don't you find the concept of "normalcy" (beyond the realms of
>>> grubby bum-banditry) so terribly mundane and restrictive. We have but
>>> one crack at this bizarre existence Os old chum - and we must be all
>>> we can!
>>
>> Absolutely Charles, bring on the weirdness I say.
>>
>> I have a question though as you've made a couple of references to bum sex
>> recently, and you may find this question a little impertinent but here
>> goes anyway. As a man of the world, have you never fucked a woman up the
>> arse?
>
>Of course he bloody has. He might not have realised it in his drunken
>state, but he has.
I really have no recollection of this incident, but I gather you were
watching again Didgerman, you pervy little bugger ...
>
> If not, why not? It's presumably not gay because it's with a woman
>> but does it come under the category of grubby bum-banditry mentioned
>> above? I really don't know. From my experience, the front bottom still
>> feels better but there's no doubt that the back door gets the job done
>> nearly as well and if the woman is open minded enough and you don't stint
>> on the lube she seems to have quite a bit of fun as well.
>>
>> So I can't really get too apoplectic about the thought that men might be
>> doing something similar, each to their own and all that.
>>
>> How about a finger up the arse during the licorice strokes?
>
>It's a wonderful offer Oz, but not just now eh?
>
Now that is funny! ;o)
HAGC&AHNY! ;o)
didgerman
> Uncle Dave <david...@t-online.de> writes:
>
>> On Dec 20, 8:49 pm, some...@nowhere.com (Paul) wrote:
>>> In article <hglq4r$23...@klitty.eternal-september.org>,
>>> mitti...@gmail.com says...
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> While I don't want to appear to be quite as intolerant as Charles
>>>> *appears*, I disagree that Homosexuality should be considered anyway
>>>> near as equivalent as heterosexual activity
>>> How can anything be "anyway near as equivalent"?
>>>
>>>> not normal and it should be not "encouraged" as an equal alternative in
>>>> my opinion. Sure I know Gay people and I have zero issue with it as
>>>> such, just that to over state its "normalness" is pushing it (oo err) a
>>>> tad.
>>> It's either normal or it isn't, so how can you overstate its normalness?
>>
>> There is no such thing as "normal" because we have no way of judging
>> what is "normal" except in purely statistical terms. The word
>
> Yell yes. And the fact that dicks were designed to go into fannys.
Designed? Do you mean at the moment of creation, 6000 years ago.....?
>
> Are you sure you're not a lesbian history student?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klXUOM4wtT8
Klitty
Yes. When God made us all.,,, Amen.
>
>>
>> Are you sure you're not a lesbian history student?
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klXUOM4wtT8
>
--
Herman van Rumpy (President)
> Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> writes:
> > On Dec 20, 8:49 pm, some...@nowhere.com (Paul) wrote:
> >> In article <hglq4r$23...@klitty.eternal-september.org>,
> >> mitti...@gmail.com says...
> >> ...
>
> >> > While I don't want to appear to be quite as intolerant as Charles
> >> > *appears*, I disagree that Homosexuality should be considered anyway
> >> > near as equivalent as heterosexual activity
>
> >> How can anything be "anyway near as equivalent"?
>
> >> > or in any way normal. It's
> >> > not normal and it should be not "encouraged" as an equal alternative in
> >> > my opinion. Sure I know Gay people and I have zero issue with it as
> >> > such, just that to over state its "normalness" is pushing it (oo err) a
> >> > tad.
>
> >> It's either normal or it isn't, so how can you overstate its normalness?
>
> > Point of Order.
>
> > There is no such thing as "normal" because we have no way of judging
> > what is "normal" except in purely statistical terms. The word
>
> Yell yes. And the fact that dicks were designed to go into fannys.
>
...dont forget mouths...
Gib Bogle
> I have been involved with rugby union football for a very long time.
> In all that time the clear indications in rugby clubs around the
> world, are that its followers have been almost entirely Conservative,
> with most leaning toward the right of that conservatism.
>
> This makes something of a contradiction among the denizens of RSRU,
> who largely appear to be on the left of the political spectrum, with
> many having a very liberal outlook on life and contemporary issues.
>
> The only difference that I can see between RSRU and rugby club
> dynamics, is the obvious 'interest' in computers and the Internet. Of
> course the other obvious difference is the relative anonymity, which
> appears to provoke a tendency to be obtuse, rude and sometimes
> downright cussed simply for the sake of it.
>
> Could the Internet be the cause of such a marked contradiction in
> political outlook and idealism?
>
It takes brains to know how to turn a computer on and click the mouse
button.
didgerman
Or in Charles' case, the home help.
Klitty
Heh, heh, and I bet the visiting young offender who got lumbered with
visiting gets really miffed at being called Mrs Hudson(1) and summoned with
a bell ....
(Sorry Charles ..:-;)
(1): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstairs,_Downstairs#Cast_Downstairs_.28in_alphabetical_order.29
Charles
wrote:
One has staff for that sort of assistance old love; not all of us are
able to rely on State assistance for everything like your Good self
...
... enjoy the wonder of it anyway Didge - you know I intend to just as
soon as I can break free of the office!
Have a great Christmas and a Happy New Year! ;o)
Charles
Nothing so antiquated Walter, we are all wirelessly connected to
'downstairs' and other essential services, including hot & cold
wenches who want to offend!!
Have a great Christmas mate, and a Happy New Year - you know intend
to!! ;o)
William Clark
didgerman <didg...@rfu.com> wrote:
Charles IS the home help.
Charles
It's like naughty children sending jibes about their Headmaster to
Facebook or via their text-phones.
Bill, you little scamp, have a great Christmas and a happy New Year -
you know I intend to!!
TFICE!
rick boyd
wrote:
> Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> wrote innews:b3ddb85a-c5b2-4d1a...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> Heterosexuality is normal in the sense of being the majority state
> >> for humankind but I think homosexuality is perfectly normal for the
> >> 10% or so who are big flouncy gay boys or giant hairy lesbians, it's
> >> all just a chemical spectrum with heterosexuals owning the bell
> >> curve.
>
> >> And let's face it, surely Charles is living proof that
> >> heterosexuality isn't a guarantee of normalcy...
>
>
> Ooo, get you!
>
> --
> Cheers, Os
Give us a kiss Os.
I'm back in Richmond in a few weeks. You up for another beer at the
Sprig and Fern?
-- rick boyd
rick boyd
> ... don't you find the concept of "normalcy" (beyond the realms of
> grubby bum-banditry) so terribly mundane and restrictive. We have but
> one crack
You couldn't help yourself, could you John? I know you old squaddies,
it's all 'crack' with you buggers in the barracks after lights out. Go
on, out of the foxhole with you -- you've enjoyed the fruits of other
blokes y-fronts on many a midnight manouvre, eh?
-- rick boyd
rick boyd
<mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> People should be encouraged to follow their own path and not put into
> pigeon holes
Jesus Christ, first it's arses and now fucking poor inoffensive
birdlife. Are there no depths to which you filthy poms will not sink?
-- rick boyd
Dave (SA)
He's back...
Been off the board for month or so myself.
Charles
WOW!!
A contribution right out of the top drawer of Australian journalism
from the ex-pat Kiwi, to herald and celebrate his return to the fold
following his long-term sabbatical.
Welcome back Rick, now we'll see standards return to the previous low
levels we know and love you for, and some real trolling we can
actually get our teeth into.
Charles
Mmmmmm ... more playground homo humour; are we sure this is really
Boyd, it sounds more like our little chum MG? Rick would never open
his account with this kind of low-grade banality - would he?
rick boyd
> Mmmmmm ... more playground homo humour; are we sure this is really
> Boyd, it sounds more like our little chum MG? Rick would never open
> his account with this kind of low-grade banality - would he?
He said b-anality. Warf warf!
-- rick boyd
Osbourne Ruddock
news:660ac393-173f-47df...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Nice one Os, you big poof.
>>
>> Ooo, get you!
>>
>> --
>> Cheers, Os
>
>
> Give us a kiss Os.
Bloody hell, I thought you'd escaped this shithole for good. I was hoping
you'd give me the escape route next time we caught up :(
>
> I'm back in Richmond in a few weeks. You up for another beer at the
> Sprig and Fern?
>
Sounds good. Best Nelson change since you were last here is the presence
now of a Sprig & Fern right in the heart of Brightwater! It's like God
really does exist or something...
--
Cheers, Os
rick boyd
> rick boyd <bo...@comswest.net.au> wrote in
> news:660ac393-173f-47df...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
>>>> Nice one Os, you big poof.
>>> Ooo, get you!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers, Os
>>
>> Give us a kiss Os.
>
> Bloody hell, I thought you'd escaped this shithole for good. I was hoping
> you'd give me the escape route next time we caught up :(
I'll be using it again soon. I'll tell you all about it in a couple of
weeks.
>> I'm back in Richmond in a few weeks. You up for another beer at the
>> Sprig and Fern?
>>
>
> Sounds good. Best Nelson change since you were last here is the presence
> now of a Sprig & Fern right in the heart of Brightwater! It's like God
> really does exist or something...
Excellent. Another fine place to get drunk at.
-- rick boyd
JD
> I have been involved with rugby union football for a very long time.
> In all that time the clear indications in rugby clubs around the
> world, are that its followers have been almost entirely Conservative,
> with most leaning toward the right of that conservatism.
I should imagine that would be the case in countries where the upper
middle class almost exclusively play rugby.
> This makes something of a contradiction among the denizens of RSRU,
> who largely appear to be on the left of the political spectrum, with
> many having a very liberal outlook on life and contemporary issues.
Perhaps "very liberal" in comparison to your own outlook.
> The only difference that I can see between RSRU and rugby club
> dynamics, is the obvious 'interest' in computers and the Internet. Of
> course the other obvious difference is the relative anonymity, which
> appears to provoke a tendency to be obtuse, rude and sometimes
> downright cussed simply for the sake of it.
It's my experience that political matters aren't discussed in rugby
clubs terribly much. Of course the internet does create difficulty in
communicating as animals that still rely heavily on visual clues, the
text only format can and does lead to the occasional misunderstanding.
> Could the Internet be the cause of such a marked contradiction in
> political outlook and idealism?
No. It merely offers those who share a common interest the ability to
communicate and argue vociferously. RSRU has for many years not been
particularly tolerant of idiocy.
Charles
At the risk of appearing patronising, which is not my intention, that
is a very lucid and helpful response.
However, I'm a little confused at the time lapse between my original
post and your response.
JD
I've been busy doing far more entertaining things. :)
Charles
That sounds reasonable, I too had a very 'busy' and 'entertaining'
fortnight. ;o)