OT: Pope attacked
Spizz
'The woman, said to be mentally unstable, managed to grab him by his
vestments...'
And he still went on to deliver Christmas mass. No doubt an octave or two
higher than planned, but hey, what a trooper!!!
Spizz
Herman van Rumpy (President)
the place was crammed with mentally unstable people...
didgerman
Poor old pope, he has to ride around putting his faith in 2 inches of
bullet proof glass, amen.....
Brad Anton
"didgerman" <didg...@rfu.com> wrote in message
news:hh38fl$qep$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Spizz wrote:
>> two higher than planned, but hey, what a trooper!!!
>>
>> Spizz
>
> Poor old pope, he has to ride around putting his faith in 2 inches of
> bullet proof glass, amen.....
It's a dangerous job mate: senior authority of the world's largest
paedophile organisation
Brad
Will S
"Spizz" <y...@okay.com> wrote in message
news:hh2pg9$4ik$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
and he went back to the vatican to enjoy the company of a couple of lovely
little boys
Gib Bogle
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8430118.stm
>
> 'The woman, said to be mentally unstable, managed to grab him by his
> vestments...'
I didn't think pope's had any.
Uncle Dave
Bit like Brussels when you think about it. I hope the Pope never goes
there - the effect of so much craziness in one place could be
devastating.
UD
didgerman
Now you've said that, it's bound to happen. And you know who'll be
having their agm there at the same time, the RFU.....
>
> UD
didgerman
Perhaps they meant investments, you know, those things the vatican has
billions of all to themselves, just to help African babies in ways that
are above our understanding....
I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often really.
Klitty
> Gib Bogle wrote:
>> Spizz wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8430118.stm
>>>
>>> 'The woman, said to be mentally unstable, managed to grab him by his
>>> vestments...'
>>
>> I didn't think pope's had any.
>
> Perhaps they meant investments, you know, those things the vatican has
> billions of all to themselves, just to help African babies in ways that
> are above our understanding....
You mean like Madonnas or Angelina Jolies? I think Elton John wanted one
too but it, strangely enough, wasn't considered appropriate for a Gay
senior citizen who jets around the world to take up guardianship of a
young boy. Can't think why not.
Herman van Rumpy (President)
at least I can wear my shorts in Brussels
didgerman
A quick google shows that one in twenty UK kids gets adopted by a gay
couple. So I assume it's reasonably normal, and the authorities rejected
Elton on the grounds of his age and busy lifestyle. Who knows....
viper
Well Didge, that's 'cause there's any number of moslems willing to put
'their
faith' in 12kgs of semtex.....
Viper
didgerman
Interesting. So god wouldn't protect the pope?
And, how many attacks on popes during recent times have been by islamic
whackjobs?
>
> Viper
>
>
Stomper
> viper wrote:
> > "didgerman" <didger...@rfu.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Silly Didge.
Everyone knows that good things are god's miracle intervention and bad
things are to test our faith.
My favourite quote.....
"Without religion, we'd have good people doing good things, and evil
people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that
takes religion." -Stephen Weinberg
Karl aka Stomper
viper
These days there are easier targets, like double decker buses and tube
stations. The last muslim
to attack the Pope put four bullets into him. Thereafter the 'Pope Mobile'
was introduced.
You think our islamic friends wouldn't have a crack given the opportunity ?
And you, living in a
country that allows the cunts to practice their brand of hate with virtual
impunity ?
Viper
>>
didgerman
> "didgerman" <didg...@rfu.com> wrote in message
> news:hh62m7$4l5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> viper wrote:
>>> "didgerman" <didg...@rfu.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hh38fl$qep$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Spizz wrote:
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8430118.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> 'The woman, said to be mentally unstable, managed to grab him by his
>>>>> vestments...'
>>>>>
>>>>> And he still went on to deliver Christmas mass. No doubt an octave or
>>>>> two higher than planned, but hey, what a trooper!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Spizz
>>>> Poor old pope, he has to ride around putting his faith in 2 inches of
>>>> bullet proof glass, amen.....
>>>
>>> Well Didge, that's 'cause there's any number of moslems willing to put
>>> 'their
>>> faith' in 12kgs of semtex.....
>> Interesting. So god wouldn't protect the pope?
>> And, how many attacks on popes during recent times have been by islamic
>> whackjobs?
>>
>>> Viper
>
>
> These days there are easier targets, like double decker buses and tube
> stations.
These days? Do you know when the tube opened?
The last muslim
> to attack the Pope put four bullets into him. Thereafter the 'Pope Mobile'
> was introduced.
Yes, despite the alleged intervention of mary to save the old guy. Why
not just cross your fingers again?
>
> You think our islamic friends wouldn't have a crack given the opportunity ?
I think terrorists would, that's pretty obvious.
> And you, living in a
> country that allows the cunts to practice their brand of hate with virtual
> impunity ?
The freest country in the world, that's why they hate it so much.
And fwiw, the muslim girl who comes here to play with my daughter
certainly raids the biscuit tin with impunity, as does the
Italian/Egyptian/Catholic one.
Crazy innit.
>
> Viper
>
>
>
>
Klitty
I'd love to know what google seeds you typed in and whether you'll be
getting a knock on the door from the paedo squad any day now :-)
didgerman
'gay adoption rates' uk only. Obviously most of the hits were for the
Daily Mail. If I read that rag then I would need a visit from the
authorities.....
Feynman's smarter brother
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
--
Andy
Charles
wrote:
... you are merely cherry-picking those bits and pieces that support
you own clear bias.
What that article actually says is: "One in every 20 children "adopted
from care" ...
... from a total of over 3,700 - so those sums don't add up, unless
you read on:
Where it says: "In some towns where councils are most sympathetic to
the gay rights cause, the likelihood of a child in care being adopted
by a same sex couple is as high as one in five."
However, there were just 30 adoptions by gay couples and 50 by lesbian
couples last year ...
... and we saw the usual response to those who disapprove, from the
homosexuals who control adoption:
"People who have concerns about the adoption of children by gay
couples are 'retarded homophobes', the state-funded national adoption
agency said yesterday."
Charles
wrote:
The fuzzy warm glow generated by tree hugging, and the all-embracing
'kindness buzz' experienced by the do-gooders on the liberal left,
anaesthetises them to the reality of what they are doing.
They have in fact produced a huge fifth column into Britain, who are
so wrapped up in themselves and their business in controlling the rest
of us, that they are unable to see the damage they have done, and are
doing, to this once great and independent country.
It will eventually, all end in tears, as no matter how hard they try,
they cannot fit a quart into a pint pot, and oil and water are never
going to be readily miscible.
Klitty
G> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:56:29 +0000, didgerman <didg...@rfu.com>
I googled it up too and realised it cant be as high as 5%. One
interesting report showed there was no evidence of bullying of kids at
school as a result of being adopted by a gay couple. I call bullshit on
that one - especially when we look at the period this has been legal.
I'm undecided about it - all the usual prejudices do actually colour my
thought process as, sorry, I don't think its "normal" for a young child
to have two daddies.
Mike
She is emptying the tin prior to filling it with home-made explosives
and chocolate chip shrapnel.
Get your family out quick!
Mike
didgerman
It's true, I went to one of those muslim birthday parties the other day:
never played pass the parcel so quick in all my life.
>
> Mike
Will S
"Charles" <cha...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:uoiej5trkdj8b0c6c...@4ax.com...
great ? Great at what ? raping the wealth of countries like India and
Africa to name a couple ?
>
> It will eventually, all end in tears, as no matter how hard they try,
> they cannot fit a quart into a pint pot, and oil and water are never
> going to be readily miscible.
You are full of bullshit. Me, I hate Muslims but then I hate Catholics and
just as much .
See, water and oil do mix quite easily
Will S
"Stomper" <karl...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:c01242a1-65fc-4ce4...@r10g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> "Without religion, we'd have good people doing good things, and evil
> people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that
> takes religion." -Stephen Weinberg
>
>
> Karl aka Stomper
I like it and will even put it in my sig to really piss off the tards in
here.
Klitty
Yup. Imagine had it been the Krauts or the Spanish for example?
>
>>
>> It will eventually, all end in tears, as no matter how hard they try,
>> they cannot fit a quart into a pint pot, and oil and water are never
>> going to be readily miscible.
>
> You are full of bullshit. Me, I hate Muslims but then I hate Catholics and
> just as much .
> See, water and oil do mix quite easily
Will, I realise you're Chucky's IQ brother but hating two things does
not make them the same things and mixable.
Lodi
Speaking as a tard the Weinberg quote is a nonsense.
You can easily modify his punch-line to...
"For evil people to do good things, that takes religion"
Next thing you know, people all over the net who are incapable of original
thought will be quoting you.
Lodi
Will S
"Lodi" <lo...@ccr.com> wrote in message
news:hh935l$jad$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I remember the original quote and thats something along the lines of " for
evil to survive it only takes good people to do nothing"
Stephen Doyle
"Will S" <wi...@nomail.com.au> wrote in message
news:00c19fce$0$15598$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."
Edmund Burke
Cheers
Stephen
didgerman
"Ooops up side your head, say ooops up side your head."
The Gap Band.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
didgerman
Well that's it exactly: The British Empire was our period of <insert
word that would end thread> expansionism. People who still talk about
how great the empire was are like 1930's <that word again> generals
banging on about how they could've won the 1st war, and wouldn't mind
another pop.
>
>>> It will eventually, all end in tears, as no matter how hard they try,
>>> they cannot fit a quart into a pint pot, and oil and water are never
>>> going to be readily miscible.
>> You are full of bullshit. Me, I hate Muslims but then I hate Catholics and
>> just as much .
>> See, water and oil do mix quite easily
>
> Will, I realise you're Chucky's IQ brother but hating two things does
> not make them the same things and mixable.
I dislike religion, is what Will was obviously saying. Unless of course
he thinks there are big differences between islam and catholicism.
Let's see, unseen sky god, mysterious prophet, blokes get all the power
and fun, chicks get a bad deal, unbelievers burnt or buggered.
Striking......
>
>
Klitty
Except it's the other way around. Most people that bring it up do so out
of jealousy and lack of knowledge of the relative "merits" or otherwise
of the British Empire. It was an Empire, it did so some "bad things" it
also didn't express itself in ways that others might have done as a form
of policy - you know like mass extermination of civilians with machine
guns, fires, ovens or gas etc. Wanton destruction and cruelty were
rarely if ever a policy of the British invaders - unlike some others.
>
>>
>>>> It will eventually, all end in tears, as no matter how hard they try,
>>>> they cannot fit a quart into a pint pot, and oil and water are never
>>>> going to be readily miscible.
>>> You are full of bullshit. Me, I hate Muslims but then I hate Catholics and
>>> just as much .
>>> See, water and oil do mix quite easily
>>
>> Will, I realise you're Chucky's IQ brother but hating two things does
>> not make them the same things and mixable.
>
> I dislike religion, is what Will was obviously saying. Unless of
> course
Yes. And then said you could mix oil and water which is patently untrue
and totally misses the issue. Hating all religions means nothing in the
context of mixing two religions where ones predominant aim is to convert
OR murder the opposition.
> he thinks there are big differences between islam and catholicism.
Thats exactly what he's not saying. Charles said that. And Charles is
correct. If you don't think so Didge then pick up a newspaper some time.
> Let's see, unseen sky god, mysterious prophet, blokes get all the power
> and fun, chicks get a bad deal, unbelievers burnt or buggered.
> Striking......
Yup.
Herman van Rumpy (President)
> didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> writes:
> > Klitty wrote:
> >> "Will S" <wi...@nomail.com.au> writes:
>
> >>>news:uoiej5trkdj8b0c6c...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:02:00 +0000, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> viper wrote:
> >>>>>> "didgerman" <didger...@rfu.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:hh62m7$4l5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>>>>> viper wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "didgerman" <didger...@rfu.com> wrote in message
Klitty
There are always exceptions. But is was not the general policy. The
point is, as I see it, better a British colonisation/rule than that of
many others.
Herman van Rumpy (President)
I imagine those thoughts went through their heads just before the
bullets....
Klitty
Well, if you want to fixate when I'm trying to push the bigger picture
then feel free.
Meanwhile free to google up Serbian war crimes, Spanish Inquisition,
Nazi Germany etc etc and compare. Don't be shy.
Herman van Rumpy (President)
indeed the British give a better quality death....
Spanish Inquisition = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell
Nazi Germany = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War
Serbian war crimes = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians
Klitty
Nowhere near applicable.
> Nazi Germany = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War
Nowhere near applicable.
> Serbian war crimes =
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians
Nowhere near applicable.
Seriously, you need to get some scale into your arguments.
Herman van Rumpy (President)
>
> Nowhere near applicable.
>
> > Nazi Germany =http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War
>
> Nowhere near applicable.
>
> > Serbian war crimes =
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians
>
> Nowhere near applicable.
>
> Seriously, you need to get some scale into your arguments.
and you need to understand that your MP's will rip you off....people
are all the same
what exactly are you doing in Iraq or Afghanistan ??
Klitty
No they are not. Nations and religions are not the same. As history has
shown countless times. You vastly over simplify things.
> what exactly are you doing in Iraq or Afghanistan ??
Dying because of world politics and extreme religions unfortunately.
Did you hear about the London bombings? September 11th perchance? Things
like that lead to things like the above. Hell, even the Germans are
there.
Herman van Rumpy (President)
wrong again, all religion is shit, all people are the same
further reading for you
http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/amnesty.htm
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4935933,00.html
viper
> viper wrote:
>> "didgerman" <didg...@rfu.com> wrote in message
>> news:hh62m7$4l5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> viper wrote:
>>>> "didgerman" <didg...@rfu.com> wrote in message
Yes and your 'freest' (sic) country looks like it was the country
that 'radicalised' the would be Nigerian terrorist aboard the Delta flight.
What, do these pricks just organise the local Church Hall for their meetings
?
They're laughing at you, the legislators, the courts, the do-gooders and
everyone
else that makes their existence as trouble free as it is. And yes, we're
heading the
same way.
Glad to hear you're having Catholics over.
Viper
viper
Beaten up one time too many in Rugby at school Sutton ? Good to
see the Catholics leaving their mark......lol
Viper
Will S
"Klitty" <mitt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hh8qot$seo$1...@klitty.eternal-september.org...
talk about a dumb fucker
go and read and try to think, I know its hard but just try and you may just
understand
on 2nd thoughts, dont bother
Klitty
I dont need to read this junk.
1) Not all religions are the same - this is clear to even a brick.
2) Not all people are the same - as is evident by your presence :-;
Klitty
OK Willy, lets try to explain it :
You hating two things does not make them the same. I hate both religious
nutters and celery. They are not the same thing.
Get it?
I hate both castor oil and fizzy mineral water : and they still dont mix.
Get it?
Try to think Willy/Chucky :-;
Will S
"Klitty" <mitt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hhbl6l$pae$2...@klitty.eternal-september.org...
is that your best effort MJ ?
go back and try again and again and again
Spizz
Because this place is just overflowing with bible bashers.........
Spizz
Spizz
Africa is not a country! But anyway, what typical, uninformed PC shite and
doubly surprising coming from you. You should try visiting Africa or India,
talk to the occupants, and compare a former British colony to a French one.
You'll see the difference between infrastructure and rape.
>
>>
>> It will eventually, all end in tears, as no matter how hard they try,
>> they cannot fit a quart into a pint pot, and oil and water are never
>> going to be readily miscible.
>
>
> You are full of bullshit. Me, I hate Muslims but then I hate Catholics and
> just as much .
> See, water and oil do mix quite easily
>
Hey, we agree on this one.
Spizz
Will S
"Spizz" <y...@okay.com> wrote in message
news:hhc7ed$qf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
So where are the trouble spots in the world these days ?
Palestine ? India / Pakistan ?
Is the whole middle east part of what the British manage to pollute and we
are now reaping the rewards
>
>>
>>>
>>> It will eventually, all end in tears, as no matter how hard they try,
>>> they cannot fit a quart into a pint pot, and oil and water are never
>>> going to be readily miscible.
>>
>>
>> You are full of bullshit. Me, I hate Muslims but then I hate Catholics
>> and just as much .
>> See, water and oil do mix quite easily
>>
>
> Hey, we agree on this one.
>
> Spizz
No we dont :-)
Spizz
But Britain touched pretty much everywhere, so there is bound to be a bit of
conflict in former colonies but it doesn't have to be down to British
influence. Surely the common denominator is religion? Certainly the Indian
guy I work with says India is a far better place for British influence. I
witness it every day living and working in Africa, just the difference
between Ghana and Togo is enough to prove it. Neighbours, one ex Brit, one
ex French, one rich and prosperous, the other falling to bits.
I'm not saying colonialism was right, but it happened. The difference is the
Brits left behind workable legacies, unlike the French, who raped the land
and left nothing.
>
> Is the whole middle east part of what the British manage to pollute and we
> are now reaping the rewards
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It will eventually, all end in tears, as no matter how hard they try,
>>>> they cannot fit a quart into a pint pot, and oil and water are never
>>>> going to be readily miscible.
>>>
>>>
>>> You are full of bullshit. Me, I hate Muslims but then I hate Catholics
>>> and just as much .
>>> See, water and oil do mix quite easily
>>>
>>
>> Hey, we agree on this one.
>>
>> Spizz
>
>
> No we dont :-)
Heh!
Spizz
Herman van Rumpy (President)
keep those blinkers on ;-)
in a perverse twist of fate the British Empire has at least caused the
influx of some decent food into the UK
Klitty
didgerman
Bishop bashers......
>
> Spizz
didgerman
Preposterous.
And there are many other examples.
didgerman
Er, we were talking about the British Empire, and you mentioned the
Spanish Inquisition?
I'll send a sub-space signal to Andromeda, and ask for our goalposts back.
Klitty
Do you have newspapers in Convict land? And the slink from answering the
question duly noted. Did you spend time in India. I did. And I can tell
you the avergae Brit was a lot more welcome than many.
>
> Palestine ? India / Pakistan ?
>
> Is the whole middle east part of what the British manage to pollute and we
> are now reaping the rewards
Please tell us how YOU would have sorted it out. Hint : just murdering
the lot and stealing all the land wasn't an option. Also take into
account the Proximity of Russia to Afghanistan, the tendency for Muslims
and co to slaughter each other for religious and blood line issues, and
the need to gain some foot hold there.
I think your jealous. A lot of people are. Remember to keep things in
perspective as I told Herr Von Rump. The Serbs probably machine gunned
more innocents in a period of a few years than the British have done in
Britain's entire history. Hell more people even - innocent or not.
The bottom line is this : mass murder, rape, pillage were never the
official lines of the Empire or the soldiers. It happened because shit
things happen in wars but generally the British Empire did not purposely
inflict atrocities. The sacking of the Peking gardens is one such
hilighted by the great G.M.Fraser's Flashman .. Compare that to Russians
in Germany at the end of the war, the Germans in most places, the
Spanish anywhere, the French (although Bony wasn't all bad). We could
mention the rape of Nanking, Japanese treatment of prisoners in general,
the mutilations and mass murders in 19/18th century China and the tank
crushings and death sentences in 20th Century China, or the gassing of
Kurds in 20th Century Iraq . Possibly this morning the fact that a
British man with mental difficulties is being hung in China for
unwittingly being used as a drug mule. Or the other 1800 people they
executed this year alone.
Go read up on some history, drop the obvious anti Brit hatred and learn
something.
If it's the smug dismissal of your ill thought out views that really
gets your goat - fine. I can accept that .... but please don't rant and
spew idiocy to try and cover up your ignorance of world history and the
evil that men do.
Klitty
Yes. See other reply. Thousands in fact.
You really do take the left line don't you Didge? If you don't see the
difference in history between British rule and that of many others then
there's something missing there old chap.
Klitty
I think the point is fairly obvious.
At the same time as the inquisition, which was instigated by church and
ruling powers, Spain was murdering jews and stealing their cash etc etc.
Oy!!!(Frank Doberman voice), if you love 'em so much go and live there
...
Herman van Rumpy (President)
> didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> writes:
> > Klitty wrote:
feel the quality
Charles
>didgerman <didg...@rfu.com> writes:
>
>> Klitty wrote:
>>> "Herman van Rumpy (President)" <michael...@yahoo.com> writes:
[...]
>>> There are always exceptions. But is was not the general policy. The
>>> point is, as I see it, better a British colonisation/rule than that of
>>> many others.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Preposterous.
>> And there are many other examples.
>>
>
>Yes. See other reply. Thousands in fact.
>
>You really do take the left line don't you Didge?
Which is why I mentioned a "fifth column" a few days ago. The liberal
left, which includes vast numbers of the middle classes with their
misplaced 'tolerances' & 'kindnesses', are dismantling all that
Britain stands for (stood for?), and with British nationals of that
ilk, we don't need too many enemies.
It is a mystery why they want to undermine their own homeland, and
nurture and spoil any number of misfits in selfish special interest
minority groupings, that already obtain far more than their worth to
society, to the detriment of the vast majority of real British people.
Herman van Rumpy (President)
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:57:47 +0100, Klitty <mitti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> writes:
>
> >> Klitty wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> There are always exceptions. But is was not the general policy. The
> >>> point is, as I see it, better a British colonisation/rule than that of
> >>> many others.
>
> >> Preposterous.
> >> And there are many other examples.
>
> >Yes. See other reply. Thousands in fact.
>
> >You really do take the left line don't you Didge?
>
> Which is why I mentioned a "fifth column" a few days ago. The liberal
> left, which includes vast numbers of the middle classes with their
> misplaced 'tolerances' & 'kindnesses', are dismantling all that
> Britain stands for (stood for?), and with British nationals of that
> ilk, we don't need too many enemies.
>
> It is a mystery why they want to undermine their own homeland, and
> nurture and spoil any number of misfits in selfish special interest
> minority groupings, that already obtain far more than their worth to
> society, to the detriment of the vast majority of real British people.
...bring back slavery ?
Klitty
Having lived outside of the UK for many years I am shocked and disgusted
by how the loony left has managed to allow pride in our backgrounds as
Britains to erode at the behest of the whining minorities. Meanwhile I
see Germans criticise Britain because of Ireland (amazing but true) and
all other countries proud of their national days and their often dismal
and dodgy pasts. It seems the fashion to knock being British. I call it
jealousy in many ways. Personally I'm proud of it and see little that
we, as a nation, need to apologise for when we put our history side by
side against the extravagances of those wishing to knock us and our
past. Fortunately a lot of nations don't forget our contributions and
its often best not to let the PC gobshite at the bar too much into your
head. Most countries know the average Brit is not a drunken yob and I
have found myself welcome and treated well wherever I have gone. Which
is amazing. As I am a drunken yob ...
Klitty
Ah thanks. The British were the first major nation to abolish slavery
and actually lost Navy fighting the slavery trade. Yes, we had slavery
ports etc initially but so did everyone - but when people saw that the
blacks were not "monkeys" thoughts soon changed and the public and
aristos fought to kill the business as soon as possible.
Another thank you to the Empire ....
Herman van Rumpy (President)
er...you can only abolish it if you start it....the British must have
killed more people than the Nazis....
more fodder for your undernourished brain
http://www.amazon.com/Frontiers-Africas-Creation-Tragedy-People/dp/0679401369
Klitty
OK you are Willy "or" Chucky. I even said above "yes we had slavery".
>
> more fodder for your undernourished brain
> http://www.amazon.com/Frontiers-Africas-Creation-Tragedy-People/dp/0679401369
Your point being?
It's as if you can't juggle more than one thing at once. "Ug! You bad"
being about the limit of it.
But let's run by it carefully again
1) Yes we had it as it everyone else.
2) Slavery existed long before any British were involved in it. (Hint:
were were slaves to German and Romans an Vikings and ...).
3) The people revolted against it
3) We banned it
4) We policed the enforcing of the ban
Difficult I know. But do try.
Herman van Rumpy (President)
>
> Your point being?
>
> It's as if you can't juggle more than one thing at once. "Ug! You bad"
> being about the limit of it.
>
> But let's run by it carefully again
>
> 1) Yes we had it as it everyone else.
> 2) Slavery existed long before any British were involved in it. (Hint:
> were were slaves to German and Romans an Vikings and ...).
> 3) The people revolted against it
> 3) We banned it
> 4) We policed the enforcing of the ban
>
> Difficult I know. But do try.
....so the British are just the same as anyone else.
Klitty
Herman van Rumpy (President)
I did...but you failed me....
didgerman
Soon? 500 years isn't that quick tbh.....
Two Dogs
A fairly myopic view there, Klit.
I'll start by saying that no nation has clean hands or conscience,
and I'm not trying to villify The "Empire" specifically, but here are
some facts to consider.
The "Empire" transported 2.5 million people from their home in
Africa to the New World and into slavery. That was 41% of all the
slaves traded by that route, easily the largest contributor. They
*were* the problem.
The Empire did indeed outlaw the Transatlantic Slave trade, and did
use their Navy to enforce the ban. That was in 1806. For the next
thirty years your boys fought bravely against the slave trade, losing
men I'm sure, while back home in England slavery, amazingly, was still
both legal and practiced, and was for the next 30 years. Makes you
wonder about the altruism of banning the TransAtlantic trade, doesn't
it?
Also, the 500,000 Irish and the 50,000 of your own citizens who were
transported to the Americas and sold into indentured servitude would
probably like to argue that one man's indentured servitude is another
man's slavery. Most of these were sent *after* the banning of the
transatlantic slave trade. More than one way to pad the pockets with
human trafficking, apparently.
Two Emancipated Dogs
Herman van Rumpy (President)
Charles
wrote:
Commenting with critical intent on historical matters, using 21st
Century politically correct morality, is pointlessly risible, as is
the hair-shirted breast-beating contemporary practice of making
hypocritical apologies and financial recompense.
The past is the past and while making judgment with the benefit of
hindsight may give temporary access to the high moral ground, those
that glow with the wisdom enlightened reminiscence are warmed only by
the heat of the bullshit in which they wallow.
Have a great New Year Two "Retrospective" dogs - you know I intend
to!! ;o)
Mike
Well said, in two hundred years time who knows which of our enlightened
practices will be seen as barbaric (the porn industry springs to mind).
You cannot make any sensible judgement of actions taken two hundred
years ago by your 21st century moral compass from the comfort of your
armchair.
Mike
Two Dogs
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:42:00 -0800 (PST), Two Dogs <nzre...@aol.com>
My point exactly, Charles. Klitty was promoting the Empire as the
champion of anti slavery forces, I was showing him historical balance,
You'll note I quite clearly said my point was *not* to vilify the
Empire.
>
> The past is the past and while making judgment with the benefit of
> hindsight may give temporary access to the high moral ground, those
> that glow with the wisdom enlightened reminiscence are warmed only by
> the heat of the bullshit in which they wallow.
>
> Have a great New Year Two "Retrospective" dogs - you know I intend
> to!! ;o)
As a keen student of history I am careful never to take the moral
high ground based on "modern" standards. But I don't dismiss history
or it's effects on "modern" society by accepting that the "past is the
past" and has no relevance, or that the past should not be judged by
some kind of standards.
You can't hide history behind rhetorical bluster.
Enjoy your New Year, Charles, although I'm surprised an old pro
like you would enjoy a night when so many amateurs are out and about.
Two Dogs
Two Dogs
wrote:
> Charles wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:42:00 -0800 (PST), Two Dogs <nzre...@aol.com>
I'm thinking that in 200 years censorship of the porn industry will
be seen as barbaric!
>
> You cannot make any sensible judgement of actions taken two hundred
> years ago by your 21st century moral compass from the comfort of your
> armchair.
>
> Mike
Yes I can. Do it all the time. Are you saying not to bother studying
history because we can't understand it?
Or are you saying just pay attention to the bits that make you feel
good?
Two Dogs
Charles
wrote:
>On Dec 30, 4:58�am, Charles <j...@msn.com> wrote:
Which is much in line with the club bore starting a conversation with,
"Now I don't want to bore you ..."
>
>>
>> The past is the past and while making judgment with the benefit of
>> hindsight may give temporary access to the high moral ground, those
>> that glow with the wisdom enlightened reminiscence are warmed only by
>> the heat of the bullshit in which they wallow.
>>
>> Have a great New Year Two "Retrospective" dogs - you know I intend
>> to!! ;o)
>
> As a keen student of history I am careful never to take the moral
>high ground based on "modern" standards.
Having said very weaselly: "More than one way to pad the pockets with
human trafficking, apparently", et al ...
>But I don't dismiss history or it's effects on "modern" society by accepting that the "past is the
>past" and has no relevance, or that the past should not be judged by some kind of standards.
Perhaps you would indicate where "and has no relevance" was
attributable, as you have clumsily attempted to infer. The past should
be "judged" on the standards of the time, and on its subsequent value
to society and its impact on world evolution.
>
> You can't hide history behind rhetorical bluster.
Says he blustering rhetorically ...
>
> Enjoy your New Year, Charles, although I'm surprised an old pro
>like you would enjoy a night when so many amateurs are out and about.
I said nothing about any intentions to be "out and about" - how very
presumptive and gauche of you Two "Uncultured" Dogs!
HAGNY! ;o)
Charles
wrote:
>On Dec 30, 6:08�am, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
>wrote:
>> Charles wrote:
>> > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:42:00 -0800 (PST), Two Dogs <nzre...@aol.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
[...]
A return to common decency, good manners and higher standards of
morality are quite likely, and would be very welcome.
>
>>
>> You cannot make any sensible judgement of actions taken two hundred
>> years ago by your 21st century moral compass from the comfort of your
>> armchair.
>>
>> Mike
>
> Yes I can. Do it all the time.
Which is why you are so judgmental, and why you undoubtedly
misinterpret much that is of immense historical interest and value.
>Are you saying not to bother studying history because we can't understand it?
I suspect that he is suggesting you should study history with an open
mind, the better to understand it 'properly', without bias and without
making pointless public pronouncements.
> Or are you saying just pay attention to the bits that make you feel
>good?
For a man who considers himself so intelligent, you do say the most
inane things at times.
Do buck up Two "Vapid" Dogs!
HAGNY!! ;o)
Two Dogs
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:35:11 -0800 (PST), Two Dogs <nzre...@aol.com>
I bow to your superior knowledge of Club bores, Charles.
>
>
> >> The past is the past and while making judgment with the benefit of
> >> hindsight may give temporary access to the high moral ground, those
> >> that glow with the wisdom enlightened reminiscence are warmed only by
> >> the heat of the bullshit in which they wallow.
>
> >> Have a great New Year Two "Retrospective" dogs - you know I intend
> >> to!! ;o)
>
> > As a keen student of history I am careful never to take the moral
> >high ground based on "modern" standards.
>
> Having said very weaselly: "More than one way to pad the pockets with
> human trafficking, apparently", et al ...
Are you suggesting that no one made a profit from indenturing the
Irish, and English "petty" criminals? Or that the system hasn't human
trafficking? Or that it was done after slavery was banned in 1806?
These are facts, Charles, not opinions, or taking the moral high
ground. It's what happened.
You're trying too hard to pick a fight.
>
> >But I don't dismiss history or it's effects on "modern" society by accepting that the "past is the
> >past" and has no relevance, or that the past should not be judged by some kind of standards.
>
> Perhaps you would indicate where "and has no relevance" was
> attributable, as you have clumsily attempted to infer. The past should
>be "judged" on the standards of the time, and on its subsequent value
>to society and its impact on world evolution.
What a lot of old claptrap. Relevance to today, Charles. You quite
clearly inferred that because I gave a couple of hard facts on the
19th Century Slave trade my opinion, which I never gave, is tainted by
the fact I live in the 21st Century, and this made my opinion, which I
never gave, bullshit. It's impossible to look at any historical event
*without* the benefit of hindsight. Without it, and applied knowledge
of what transpired in the interim, what relevance can history have?
Nothing has occurred, then or now, in a vacuum. Perhaps you see
history as a mere timeline of events, I look a little deeper.
Happy to have a sensible discussion with you on this, but I don't
think that's what you have in mind, eh?
Two Dogs
Virgin Mary
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:39:18 -0800 (PST), Two Dogs <nzre...@aol.com>
.....bring back John Major......
Charles
wrote:
>On Dec 30, 11:02�ｿｽam, Charles <char...@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:35:11 -0800 (PST), Two Dogs <nzre...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 30, 4:58�ｿｽam, Charles <j...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:42:00 -0800 (PST), Two Dogs <nzre...@aol.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Dec 29, 7:42�ｿｽam, Klitty <mitti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "Herman van Rumpy (President)" <michaelnewp...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> >> > �ｿｽA fairly myopic view there, Klit.
>>
>> >> > �ｿｽI'll start by saying that no nation has clean hands or conscience,
>> >> >and I'm not trying to villify The "Empire" specifically, but here are
>> >> >some facts to consider.
>>
>> >> > �ｿｽThe "Empire" transported 2.5 million people from their home in
>> >> >Africa to the New World and into slavery. That was 41% of all the
>> >> >slaves traded by that route, easily the largest contributor. They
>> >> >*were* the problem.
>>
>> >> > �ｿｽThe Empire did indeed outlaw the Transatlantic Slave trade, and did
>> >> >use their Navy to enforce the ban. That was in 1806. For the next
>> >> >thirty years your boys fought bravely against the slave trade, losing
>> >> >men I'm sure, while back home in England slavery, amazingly, was still
>> >> >both legal and practiced, and was for the next 30 years. Makes you
>> >> >wonder about the altruism of banning the TransAtlantic trade, doesn't
>> >> >it?
>>
>> >> > �ｿｽAlso, the 500,000 Irish and the 50,000 of your own citizens who were
>> >> >transported to the Americas and sold into indentured servitude would
>> >> >probably like to argue that one man's indentured servitude is another
>> >> >man's slavery. Most of these were sent *after* the banning of the
>> >> >transatlantic slave trade. More than one way to pad the pockets with
>> >> >human trafficking, apparently.
>>
>> >> Commenting with critical intent on historical matters, using 21st
>> >> Century politically correct morality, is pointlessly risible, as is
>> >> the hair-shirted breast-beating contemporary practice of making
>> >> hypocritical apologies and financial recompense.
>>
>> > �ｿｽMy point exactly, Charles. Klitty was promoting the Empire as the
>> >champion of anti slavery forces, I was showing him historical balance,
>> >You'll note I quite clearly said my point was *not* to vilify the
>> >Empire.
>>
>> Which is much in line with the club bore starting a conversation with,
>> "Now I don't want to bore you ..."
>>
>
> I bow to your superior knowledge of Club bores, Charles.
Well someone had to draw it to your attention, or perhaps you would
have gone on forever not knowing ...
>
>>
>> >> The past is the past and while making judgment with the benefit of
>> >> hindsight may give temporary access to the high moral ground, those
>> >> that glow with the wisdom enlightened reminiscence are warmed only by
>> >> the heat of the bullshit in which they wallow.
>>
>> >> Have a great New Year Two "Retrospective" dogs - you know I intend
>> >> to!! ;o)
>>
>> > �ｿｽ As a keen student of history I am careful never to take the moral
>> >high ground based on "modern" standards.
>>
>> Having said very weaselly: "More than one way to pad the pockets with
>> human trafficking, apparently", et al ...
>
>
> Are you suggesting that no one made a profit from indenturing the
>Irish, and English "petty" criminals? Or that the system hasn't human
>trafficking? Or that it was done after slavery was banned in 1806?
>These are facts, Charles, not opinions, or taking the moral high
>ground. It's what happened.
No, I'm suggesting that your denial of not wanting to " to vilify the
Empire" or "carefully not taking the high moral ground", was
mealy-mouthed and not worthy of you.
>
> You're trying too hard to pick a fight.
You appear to take that stance with almost everything I say. This
thread was not about you, or addressed even remotely to you, but you
still jumped in and accused me of "rhetorical bluster" covering for my
lack of knowledge ...
... given our 'history' - now *that's* "picking a fight" - again!!
>
>>
>> >But I don't dismiss history or it's effects on "modern" society by accepting that the "past is the
>> >past" and has no relevance, or that the past should not be judged by some kind of standards.
>>
>> Perhaps you would indicate where "and has no relevance" was
>> attributable, as you have clumsily attempted to infer. The past should
>>be "judged" on the standards of the time, and on its subsequent value
>>to society and its impact on world evolution.
>
>
> What a lot of old claptrap. Relevance to today, Charles.
Just answer the question: why did you say that I said the "past is the
past" 'and has no relevance'?
>You quite
>clearly inferred that because I gave a couple of hard facts on the
>19th Century Slave trade my opinion, which I never gave,
Yes you did: you said very weaselly: "More than one way to pad the
pockets with human trafficking, apparently", et al ...
>is tainted by the fact I live in the 21st Century, and this made my opinion, which I
>never gave
Yes you did, go back and read your snide comments again.
>bullshit. It's impossible to look at any historical event
>*without* the benefit of hindsight.
No it's not, you should try being 'more of the time' and a little more
understanding and analytical.
>Without it, and applied knowledge of what transpired in the interim, what relevance can history have?
Apart from being a fascinating journal for its own sake, it helps us
to understand how we arrived where we are now.
>Nothing has occurred, then or now, in a vacuum. Perhaps you see
>history as a mere timeline of events, I look a little deeper.
You have been wriggling, waffling, introducing 'red herrings', making
it up as you go along - and continuing with your own "rhetorical
bluster"!!
>
> Happy to have a sensible discussion with you on this
I don't think that's what you have in mind, eh?
>but I don't think that's what you have in mind, eh?
I have in mind to always respond to you in a reciprocal manner, as I
told you before Christmas.
Should you really want to change course, then "starboard your rudder
and show your red"!! ;o)
HAGNY!!
Two Dogs
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:45:44 -0800 (PST), Two Dogs <nzre...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 30, 11:02 am, Charles <char...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:35:11 -0800 (PST), Two Dogs <nzre...@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:42:00 -0800 (PST), Two Dogs <nzre...@aol.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> "Herman van Rumpy (President)" <michaelnewp...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
> >> >> >and I'm not trying to villify The "Empire" specifically, but here are
> >> >> >some facts to consider.
>
> >> >> >Africa to the New World and into slavery. That was 41% of all the
> >> >> >slaves traded by that route, easily the largest contributor. They
> >> >> >*were* the problem.
>
> >> >> >use their Navy to enforce the ban. That was in 1806. For the next
> >> >> >thirty years your boys fought bravely against the slave trade, losing
> >> >> >men I'm sure, while back home in England slavery, amazingly, was still
> >> >> >both legal and practiced, and was for the next 30 years. Makes you
> >> >> >wonder about the altruism of banning the TransAtlantic trade, doesn't
> >> >> >it?
>
> >> >> >transported to the Americas and sold into indentured servitude would
> >> >> >probably like to argue that one man's indentured servitude is another
> >> >> >man's slavery. Most of these were sent *after* the banning of the
> >> >> >transatlantic slave trade. More than one way to pad the pockets with
> >> >> >human trafficking, apparently.
>
> >> >> Commenting with critical intent on historical matters, using 21st
> >> >> Century politically correct morality, is pointlessly risible, as is
> >> >> the hair-shirted breast-beating contemporary practice of making
> >> >> hypocritical apologies and financial recompense.
>
> >> >champion of anti slavery forces, I was showing him historical balance,
> >> >You'll note I quite clearly said my point was *not* to vilify the
> >> >Empire.
>
> >> Which is much in line with the club bore starting a conversation with,
> >> "Now I don't want to bore you ..."
>
> > I bow to your superior knowledge of Club bores, Charles.
>
> Well someone had to draw it to your attention, or perhaps you would
> have gone on forever not knowing ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> The past is the past and while making judgment with the benefit of
> >> >> hindsight may give temporary access to the high moral ground, those
> >> >> that glow with the wisdom enlightened reminiscence are warmed only by
> >> >> the heat of the bullshit in which they wallow.
>
> >> >> Have a great New Year Two "Retrospective" dogs - you know I intend
> >> >> to!! ;o)
>
Charles, my original post was to Klitty. You were the one jumping in,
as you always do, and you introduced the personal ad homs, as you
always do, and then claimed you are merely reciprocating, which you
always do.
Now I understand that you have had some rough treatment on usenet
in the past, and have had some unpleasant experiences, but this is not
a weightlifting newsgroup and I'm not John Williams. Let it go....
Til next year
Two Dogs
David W Noon
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:02:31 -0800 (PST), Virgin Mary wrote about Re:
OT: Pope attacked:
[snip]
>> morality are quite likely, and would be very welcome.
>>
>
>.....bring back John Major......
- --
Regards,
Dave [RLU #314465]
=======================================================================
dwn...@spamtrap.ntlworld.com (David W Noon)
Remove spam trap to reply by e-mail.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAks7tc8ACgkQ9MqaUJQw2MkL6wCfTYf+ufIA4fn+6rM/sEEy3T+y
eIsAn1OE5VxBmdI6waTJGqPp1Stue0tJ
=GzjU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
didgerman
'Let it go' matua alert.....
didgerman
Why is it that anyone who doesn't agree with Charles' fantasy Daily Mail
view of the world is part of the Liberal PC brigade? I'm neither left
wing or PC, whatever that is. Charles is however emphatically a right
wing moron, who has no opinions on any matter other than those opined by
similar right wing morons. Don't forget, Charles is a climate change
denier, which is the same as being religious in so far as you're wishing
the world was different.
Charles
wrote:[...]
>>
>> Should you really want to change course, then "starboard your rudder
>> and show your red"!! ;o)
>>
>> HAGNY!!
>
> Charles, my original post was to Klitty.
Klit and I were already participating in the thread when you 'bustled'
in on "slavery" ...
>You were the one jumping in,
>as you always do, and you introduced the personal ad homs,
... my first response to you was perfectly reasonable and on the topic
we were discussing at the time.
>as you always do, and then claimed you are merely reciprocating, which you
>always do.
It's the same old whining every time you get back some of your own
medicine; if you don't like it, why do you dish it out? ...
... and it is a mystery to me why you see yourself as the victim, and
why you are always yourself so blameless in these boringly repetitive
pissing competitions!
>
> Now I understand that you have had some rough treatment on usenet
>in the past, and have had some unpleasant experiences, but this is not
>a weightlifting newsgroup and I'm not John Williams.
That's hardly very reassuring TD, given that you are now resorting to
a little 'stalking' - which was always JMWs favourite tactic.
>Let it go....
After you, Sir ...
> Til next year
I can hardly wait and my pulse quickens in anticipation Two "Stalking"
Dogs! ;o)
HAGNY!
PS
Could we make a big effort to stop this childish crap?
Charles
wrote:
Somewhat trite and a tad overwrought, but evidentially, that is what
they tend to be.
>I'm neither left wing or PC, whatever that is.
Well you certainly do a very good job of disguising that information.
>Charles is however emphatically a right
>wing moron, who has no opinions on any matter other than those opined by
>similar right wing morons.
And proud of it old chum, although the "moron" bit is a trifle
unkind!! But if that's the price we have to pay ...
>Don't forget, Charles is a climate change
>denier, which is the same as being religious in so far as you're wishing
>the world was different.
We'll see whose right in the not too distant future Didge, and I'll
wage a pound to that clinker in your shreddies, that Global Warming is
a heap of scare-mongering profiteering bullshit!!
Have a great New Year mate - you know I intend to; I've had a three
day rest and I'm raring to go again tomorrow! ;o)
Chris Parslow
> "Will S" <wi...@nomail.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:00c19fce$0$15598$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Lodi" <l...@ccr.com> wrote in message
> >news:hh935l$jad$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> >>> Will S wrote:
>
> >>> "Stomper" <karlni...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:c01242a1-65fc-4ce4...@r10g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> "Without religion, we'd have good people doing good things, and evil
> >>>> people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that
> >>>> takes religion." -Stephen Weinberg
>
> >>>> Karl aka Stomper
>
> >>> I like it and will even put it in my sig to really piss off the tards in
> >>> here.
>
> >> Speaking as a tard the Weinberg quote is a nonsense.
>
> >> You can easily modify his punch-line to...
> >> "For evil people to do good things, that takes religion"
>
> >> Next thing you know, people all over the net who are incapable of
> >> original
> >> thought will be quoting you.
>
> >> Lodi
>
> > I remember the original quote and thats something along the lines of " for
> > evil to survive it only takes good people to do nothing"
>
> "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."
>
> Edmund Burke
>
> Cheers
>
> Stephen
"If women like them like men like those, why don't women like me?"
George Formby
CP
Virgin Mary
she's moved on to John Gummer.....
Mark (newsgroups)
> "Charles" <char...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > It will eventually, all end in tears, as no matter how hard they try,
> > they cannot fit a quart into a pint pot, and oil and water are never
> > going to be readily miscible.
>
> You are full of bullshit. Me, I hate Muslims but then I hate Catholics and
> just as much .
Not that I really want to get involved in this, and not that this is
going to make the slightest bit of difference but:
Maybe the only difference between you and a religious person is that
you hate all religions, they only hate all *other* religions. People
are people, sounds to me like they'll always find a reason to hate.
How do I get off this planet?
Mike
There speaks a fan!
>> You cannot make any sensible judgement of actions taken two hundred
>> years ago by your 21st century moral compass from the comfort of your
>> armchair.
>>
>> Mike
>
> Yes I can. Do it all the time. Are you saying not to bother studying
> history because we can't understand it?
>
> Or are you saying just pay attention to the bits that make you feel
> good?
>
>
> Two Dogs
Not at all Two Feet, you can have all the opinions you want including on
the colour of my dressing gown. I and others can equally dismiss them
as foolish or irrelevant.
Studying history does not mean applying your own moral judgement. If
you studied history you would see that the actions you have criticised
where the norm for the day and that is the better moral test of the
actions of the individuals or governments rather than comparing them to
21st century standards of behaviour.
You can have an opinion on my dressing gown if you like:
forest green complete with a Leicester Tigers motif, white and scarlet
stripes down the sleeves. Stops just above the knees so I don't scare
the postman when I answer the door.
Mike
Two Dogs
wrote:
Hold on Mr Sartorial Elegance, why am I now been constantly told I
have given an opinion, or judged, or taken the moral high ground on
England's slavery history? All I did, in response to Kiltty's
pronouncement that England led the way in erasing the slave trade, was
give two statistical facts. The only opinion of any sort in there was
that indentured servitude was a form of slavery. Debate the facts if
you want, or that indentured servitude wasn't slavery, but don't
ascribe opinions to me that I didn't utter.
I think the facts themselves have evoked a defensive reaction from
you and the Doofus in the Basingstoke nursing home. I can't help that,
don't shoot the messenger.
Two Dawgs
Charles
wrote:
>On Dec 31, 5:44�am, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
This from the whining old bugger that keeps telling he is constantly
under ad hominem attacks without any reason.
This latest childish crap clearly indicates who the real troll is, and
whence the antagonism emanates!
>I can't help that, don't shoot the messenger.
It is clear that "the messenger" has shot *himself* - once again, this
time in the foot, which caused further trouble for his gob, as his
foot was once again stuck firmly in his mouth.
I think it's you that enjoys these dopey exchanges Two "Stroppy Old"
Dogs, because you've got bugger-all else to do, but I'm up for some
sport - so play on ...
... however, although I'll do what I can, I won't be contributing much
until Monday, when with the festivities concluded I shall be starting
my annual bant and will be able to devote as much time to you as you
want.
Have a great time if you know how to you miserable old prick - you
know I'm going to!! ;o)
TFINYE!
Please find the time to go fuck yourself you sad little oik!
This is a Recurring Reciprocal Bullshit, Bollocks & Ad Hominem
Production!! �