Real Bad girls
notme
How nice for the girl who helped kill an oap then burn the body to have a
lovely birthday cake - very nice.
bullet in the back of the neck might have been better
--
BB1 & BB2 Full Archive ,Bigbrother3 NEW pages ,even nude pics!! (oh dear) ,
Castaway 2000 the only Unofficial Archive, VW's? we love old beetles & vans,
Pregnant ?? need to know more ? A midwife answers FAQ's all this and more
at www.gardencroft.co.uk
Fox Tzulander
news:amd57e$ef3$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Oh dear lets make celebs out of some plebs banged up in the ol chokey.
>
> How nice for the girl who helped kill an oap then burn the body to have a
> lovely birthday cake - very nice.
>
> bullet in the back of the neck might have been better
I cant believe how much stuff they have to do in there and how much freedom.
Personally, I think that any person who is incapable of living in a society
without
harming other members of that society, through, assault, murder and rape
etc,
should be removed from that society permanently, either through relocation
to africa
or by death.
Other crimes, like drug abuse (inc alcohol), providing they dont harm anyone
else
as a result of the abuse, are the ones who should be getting treatment.
Theft, apart from that caused by addiction, usually has a social cause that
could
hopefully be addressed properly as there would be more money available if
they
shot all bad criminals and closed prisons etc. The health and education
systems
would also get a financial boost.
Very black and white view I know, but unless you want me to think up and
post
a whole legal system, (which I dont think im informed enought to do) I ask
you
forgive my very simplistic view of a very complicated problem.
FT
Clark Babel
> "notme" <ne...@kawes.16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:amd57e$ef3$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>Oh dear lets make celebs out of some plebs banged up in the ol chokey.
>>
>>How nice for the girl who helped kill an oap then burn the body to have a
>>lovely birthday cake - very nice.
>>
>>bullet in the back of the neck might have been better
>
> I cant believe how much stuff they have to do in there and how much freedom.
>
> Personally, I think that any person who is incapable of living in a society
> without
> harming other members of that society, through, assault, murder and rape
> etc,
> should be removed from that society permanently, either through relocation
> to africa
And what has Africa done to deserve this? Don't the countries there
have enough problems?
--
Clark Babel
Lee J. Moore
>
[..]
> I cant believe how much stuff they have to do in there and how
> much freedom.
In a womens prison maybe. And to me, it looked a bit too
clinically clean. Specially for the tv crews maybe? Actually,
I just don't buy the normal prison life presented by that
programme.
If you're a male in HMP Featherstone or HMP Blakenhurst, you'll
be locked up in a cell for most of the time (approx. 18-20 hours
a day) and the food will be so awful that you'll choose not to
eat it (most of the time) and you will loose lots of weight.
Freedom is definitely not on the agenda (even as a community on
the inside) and it is more than degrading. Your stress levels
will go through the roof due to social problems with other
inmates (70% estimated to be undiagnosed dyslexics).
How do I know this? Well, a family member experienced the hell
of those two prisons for nine months of an eighteen month
sentence. Not /too/ long ago either. 1998/99. If you think
prison life is a picnic - you couldn't be more mistaken.
Controversy over sentences dished out is one thing, but cushy
prisons are a tabloid myth.
> Personally, I think that any person who is incapable of living
> in a society without harming other members of that society,
> through, assault, murder and rape etc, should be removed from
> that society permanently, either through relocation to africa
> or by death.
Why? Why should they be moved to Africa? What are you saying
about Africans or the state of Africa? That's a big continent
to be making generalisations about...or were you thinking of one
particular country in Africa?
As for being murderers being murdered by the state, this debate
came up last month (the Holly & Jessica stuff) and I'm
absolutely against it - for reasons of miscarriage of justice.
In an age where admissions have been beaten out of people
(there's even a case of a violent cop in the news tonight), I'm
not sure I'd trust the law enough to be killing the right
people.
> Other crimes, like drug abuse (inc alcohol), providing they
> dont harm anyone else as a result of the abuse, are the ones
> who should be getting treatment.
Is alcohol and drug abuse a crime? I didn't realise that. I
thought it was use and posession of controlled drugs, not actual
abuse. As for alcohol, the abuse of the product isn't actually
illegal is it?
I think many crimes have psychological & sociological reasons
behind them. Whether you're a drug pusher, a shoplifter, a
mugger or a murderer it would be wise to look into the convicted
persons background to see if they could be (and want to be)
helped. And I think it's unwise to lump murderers into one sole
category. Murder is committed for all kinds of reasons, not
just blindly or for kicks.
> Theft, apart from that caused by addiction, usually has a
> social cause that could hopefully be addressed properly as
> there would be more money available if they shot all bad
> criminals and closed prisons etc. The health and education
> systems would also get a financial boost.
>
> Very black and white view I know, but unless you want me to
> think up and post a whole legal system, (which I dont think im
> informed enought to do) I ask you forgive my very simplistic
> view of a very complicated problem.
I can't take you seriously at all. It sounds to me like you
would be far happier living in Victorian times - but then as a
gay man, you might find yourself shot, or sent to Africa or more
than likely - Reading Gaol.
Any democracy which makes a habit of shooting it's criminals (a
significant minority being innocent) is going to breakdown.
Still, we have a Royal Family in place and the example of Saudi
Arabia to follow eh?
--
Lee J. Moore
http://www.leej.dsl.pipex.com
----------------------------------
Powered by Gentoo (Portage 2.0.36)
Lee J. Moore
>
> Fox Tzulander wrote:
[..]
>> Personally, I think that any person who is incapable of
>> living in a society without harming other members of that
>> society, through, assault, murder and rape etc, should be
>> removed from that society permanently, either through
>> relocation to africa
>
> And what has Africa done to deserve this? Don't the countries
> there have enough problems?
I think we should send them to Liverpool instead. ;)
Clark Babel
> Hi Clark Babel, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
>>Fox Tzulander wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>>Personally, I think that any person who is incapable of
>>>living in a society without harming other members of that
>>>society, through, assault, murder and rape etc, should be
>>>removed from that society permanently, either through
>>>relocation to africa
>>
>>And what has Africa done to deserve this? Don't the countries
>>there have enough problems?
>
> I think we should send them to Liverpool instead. ;)
LOL! You tinker you! I refuse to rise to the bait. No matter how
'masterfully' you dangle your metaphorical worm, I will not bite!
Yet... ;-)
--
Clark Babel
Lee J. Moore
>
[..]
>>>And what has Africa done to deserve this? Don't the countries
>>>there have enough problems?
>>
>> I think we should send them to Liverpool instead. ;)
>
> LOL! You tinker you! I refuse to rise to the bait. No matter how
> 'masterfully' you dangle your metaphorical worm, I will not bite!
>
> Yet... ;-)
LOL!! This Africa thing is a bit incredible after the Liverpool
incident isn't it?
Clark Babel
> Hi Clark Babel, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
>
>>Lee J. Moore wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>>>And what has Africa done to deserve this? Don't the countries
>>>>there have enough problems?
>>>
>>>I think we should send them to Liverpool instead. ;)
>>
>>LOL! You tinker you! I refuse to rise to the bait. No matter how
>>'masterfully' you dangle your metaphorical worm, I will not bite!
>>
>>Yet... ;-)
>
> LOL!! This Africa thing is a bit incredible after the Liverpool
> incident isn't it?
My jaw hit the floor at the speed of light. That's ALL I'm saying! :-)
--
Clark Babel
Fox Tzulander
news:3D8A55B1...@yahoo.co.uk...
Africa, simply, because it has lots of room and im sure, if you stuck
a few thousand english criminal types over there, it would do wonders
for the economy.
Fox Tzulander
news:slrnaokjg...@cafe.lan...
In principle, a society that uses murder as a punishment for murder
is hypocritical and wrong, but this is the real world were principles
will not stop you having the crap kicked out of you for your mobile
phone, or because some little scally doesnt like the look of you.
It takes a certain type of person to carry out crimes like that, and
I wouldnt lose any sleep if they were all wiped out tomorrow.
Wanting to preserve a group, that willingly damages society and
innocent people is illogical.
Its nice that you are able to be so nice to the world and think in
that way, im far too cynical, but the next time someone asks
me if they can rob my phone (yes it has happened) I'll deal with
it myself.
As for victorian england, I wouldnt mind, providing that I could
take back a few semi-automatic weapons and take over the
country :) Emperor Tzu. Hmm, I think there already was one
of them somewhere.
My freinds dad worked in saudi for over 10 years and I asked him
what they are like over there, and he said, given the choice, he would
live there not here. Yes they are really harsh with criminals over there,
but their crime rates reflect that. Apart from little ghetto type places
which are the same as everywhere else like that.
And finally: Africa; its an option for them to choose to get them on
a boat, which I would then blow up, I wouldnt actualy let them get
there, but if I was in charge, id tell the public thats were they went
so all the tree huggers could feel good about all the rapists and
murders being safe.
Lee J. Moore
>
[..]
> Africa, simply, because it has lots of room and im sure, if
> you stuck a few thousand english criminal types over there, it
> would do wonders for the economy.
So you /are/ thinking of putting them in a civilised place with
an economy then? Not actually in the middle of a desert or
jungle. Going back to Clarks question - what makes you think
any foreign civilisation on earth deserves our criminals?
And what makes you think thieves, burglars, murderers and drug
pushers would be good for any economy? Theft, breaking and
entering, killing people or ensuring they're off their faces is
hardly going to inspire the commercial banks of many African
nations is it?
Fox Tzulander
> Hi Fox Tzulander, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
> >
> [..]
> > Africa, simply, because it has lots of room and im sure, if
> > you stuck a few thousand english criminal types over there, it
> > would do wonders for the economy.
>
> So you /are/ thinking of putting them in a civilised place with
> an economy then? Not actually in the middle of a desert or
> jungle. Going back to Clarks question - what makes you think
> any foreign civilisation on earth deserves our criminals?
I like to be able to hold as many opposing views as possible, that
way, i'll always be wrong, but at the same time, i'll always be right
and will also be unsure to what I think.
> And what makes you think thieves, burglars, murderers and drug
> pushers would be good for any economy? Theft, breaking and
> entering, killing people or ensuring they're off their faces is
> hardly going to inspire the commercial banks of many African
> nations is it?
>
> --
> Lee J. Moore
I dont hear australia complaining do you? They seem to have done
dam well out of it. Although the prospect of an african neighbours
in a few hundred years is a concern.
Lee J. Moore
>
[..]
> murder is hypocritical and wrong, but this is the real world
> were principles will not stop you having the crap kicked out
> of you for your mobile phone, or because some little scally
> doesnt like the look of you.
>
> It takes a certain type of person to carry out crimes like
> that, and I wouldnt lose any sleep if they were all wiped out
> tomorrow. Wanting to preserve a group, that willingly damages
> society and innocent people is illogical.
It's not illogical at all. It depends upon whether you're
prepared to admit that any other view than your own is valid -
and I rarely see much evidence of this in your posts. Trying to
understand people and improve their behaviour is *not* illogical
- and on the rare occasions that society bothers to rehabilitate
people - there /are/ results.
If you want to bury your head in the sand then lets hope the
tide comes in!
> Its nice that you are able to be so nice to the world and
> think in that way, im far too cynical, but the next time
> someone asks me if they can rob my phone (yes it has happened)
You poor delicate little flower you. I've been robbed, my house
has been broken into and I've been the victim of violence too.
It doesn't make me want to kill people for it. Mobile phone
theft initiating murderous intention in a victim eh?
Incredible!
> I'll deal with it myself.
>
> As for victorian england, I wouldnt mind, providing that I
> could take back a few semi-automatic weapons and take over the
> country :) Emperor Tzu. Hmm, I think there already was one of
> them somewhere.
>
> My freinds dad worked in saudi for over 10 years and I asked
> him what they are like over there, and he said, given the
> choice, he would live there not here. Yes they are really
> harsh with criminals over there, but their crime rates reflect
> that. Apart from little ghetto type places which are the same
> as everywhere else like that.
OK, well when we finally deposit you in this utopian Saudi
society, I'm sure you wont mind me calling the authorities and
telling them that you are a homosexual?
>
> And finally: Africa; its an option for them to choose to get
> them on a boat, which I would then blow up, I wouldnt actualy
> let them get there,
Interesting backtrack ("I wouldn't let them get there!" FFS!)
but it doesn't alter what you said about sending criminals to
Africa (something you reiterated in a post to Clark) nor the
hypocrisy when compared to your infamous Liverpool post.
Sending your criminals to foreign countries is not only
subscribing to the Ostrich effect, it's showing an appalling
disrespect to other races who you clearly think are so much
*lower* than you, that they deserve the very worst of your own
society.
> but if I was in charge, id tell the public
> thats were they went so all the tree huggers could feel good
> about all the rapists and murders being safe.
Oh dear, am I a tree hugger for disagreeing with your murderous,
violent principles? Everything you've suggested has been
tried/is tried, and being homosexual in many places with such
regimes wouldn't do you any favours.
Your little ditty on gays being homophobic because they hate
themselves is interesting. Certainly in light of sponge
indicating your hatred of the Liverpool accent. If there's any
projection of self-hate making itself clear, it's coming from
your very own posts.
Lee J. Moore
>
[..]
> that way, i'll always be wrong, but at the same time, i'll
> always be right and will also be unsure to what I think.
It just makes you a worthless contributor IMO. What's the point
- after all - if that's how you feel? The sentence above is
rather troll-like in fact.
>
>> And what makes you think thieves, burglars, murderers and drug
>> pushers would be good for any economy? Theft, breaking and
>> entering, killing people or ensuring they're off their faces is
>> hardly going to inspire the commercial banks of many African
>> nations is it?
>>
>> --
>> Lee J. Moore
>
> I dont hear australia complaining do you?
They were sent to penal colonies. There was *no* economy to
improve. The majority of English settlers in Australia arrived
some time after the penal colonies were established - IIRC - and
it's those settlements that grew into many of the towns and
cities you see today.
> They seem to have done dam well out of it. Although the
> prospect of an african neighbours in a few hundred years is a
> concern.
Oh don't be thick. Go and borrow Microsoft Encarta from one of
your friends or something.
Fox Tzulander
news:slrnaoluo...@cafe.lan...
> Hi Fox Tzulander, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
> >
> [..]
> > In principle, a society that uses murder as a punishment for
> > murder is hypocritical and wrong, but this is the real world
> > were principles will not stop you having the crap kicked out
> > of you for your mobile phone, or because some little scally
> > doesnt like the look of you.
> >
> > It takes a certain type of person to carry out crimes like
> > that, and I wouldnt lose any sleep if they were all wiped out
> > tomorrow. Wanting to preserve a group, that willingly damages
> > society and innocent people is illogical.
>
> It's not illogical at all. It depends upon whether you're
> prepared to admit that any other view than your own is valid -
> and I rarely see much evidence of this in your posts. Trying to
> understand people and improve their behaviour is *not* illogical
> - and on the rare occasions that society bothers to rehabilitate
> people - there /are/ results.
The logic as I see it, is that the base function of all animals including
humans, is self preservation. When criminals carry out acts that stop
or impede the rest of us from getting on with our lives it is logical
to take steps from preventing them from doing that. The way you
choose to do that, depends on what beliefs you have yourself.
You can try to make them better people, which we have done,
you can punish or kill them, which we also have done and as you
say, they dont work. Until something else comes along, we have
to choose between those two.
> If you want to bury your head in the sand then lets hope the
> tide comes in!
To be pedantic for a moment. If my head was in the sand and
the tide came in, I would die; and as you hope that would happen
then clearly im not the only one with murderous intentions.
Although, burying your head in the sand is refusing to deal with
a problem. I am offering my opinion on a solution, so I dont think
you are justified there. If my head was in the sand, I would be
pretending that crime doesnt and wont ever effect me.
> > Its nice that you are able to be so nice to the world and
> > think in that way, im far too cynical, but the next time
> > someone asks me if they can rob my phone (yes it has happened)
>
> You poor delicate little flower you. I've been robbed, my house
> has been broken into and I've been the victim of violence too.
> It doesn't make me want to kill people for it. Mobile phone
> theft initiating murderous intention in a victim eh?
> Incredible!
Like I said, its your choice how to react to things that happen in your
own life. If you want to take the christian view of turning the other cheek
then fair enough and if you want to take the machiavellian view, then fair
enough also.
> > I'll deal with it myself.
> >
> > As for victorian england, I wouldnt mind, providing that I
> > could take back a few semi-automatic weapons and take over the
> > country :) Emperor Tzu. Hmm, I think there already was one of
> > them somewhere.
> >
> > My freinds dad worked in saudi for over 10 years and I asked
> > him what they are like over there, and he said, given the
> > choice, he would live there not here. Yes they are really
> > harsh with criminals over there, but their crime rates reflect
> > that. Apart from little ghetto type places which are the same
> > as everywhere else like that.
>
> OK, well when we finally deposit you in this utopian Saudi
> society, I'm sure you wont mind me calling the authorities and
> telling them that you are a homosexual?
I didnt say it was utopian, please dont put words in my mouth.
Utopian societies dont and cant exist, as the possiblity for
human opinion is infinite.
> >
> > And finally: Africa; its an option for them to choose to get
> > them on a boat, which I would then blow up, I wouldnt actualy
> > let them get there,
>
> Interesting backtrack ("I wouldn't let them get there!" FFS!)
> but it doesn't alter what you said about sending criminals to
> Africa (something you reiterated in a post to Clark) nor the
> hypocrisy when compared to your infamous Liverpool post.
See the other post.
> Sending your criminals to foreign countries is not only
> subscribing to the Ostrich effect, it's showing an appalling
> disrespect to other races who you clearly think are so much
> *lower* than you, that they deserve the very worst of your own
> society.
It is one option from many as I have already said.
> > but if I was in charge, id tell the public
> > thats were they went so all the tree huggers could feel good
> > about all the rapists and murders being safe.
>
> Oh dear, am I a tree hugger for disagreeing with your murderous,
> violent principles? Everything you've suggested has been
> tried/is tried, and being homosexual in many places with such
> regimes wouldn't do you any favours.
As would being white, being male, not prescribing to a certain
religion or philosophy. I dont see sexuality as a big issue and
I dont dwell on it. It is just one more thing that makes me different
to the person next to me.
Again, I didnt say you were a tree hugger, so stop putting words
in my mouth please.
> Your little ditty on gays being homophobic because they hate
> themselves is interesting.
And scientificaly accpeted. Its transferable to most groups though.
Certainly in light of sponge
> indicating your hatred of the Liverpool accent. If there's any
> projection of self-hate making itself clear, it's coming from
> your very own posts.
I dont hate the accent. I do hate the way girls from liverpool
shriek like banshee's but there are other accents and dialects
that have that too, such as welsh and chinese.
> --
> Lee J. Moore
mick
Fox Tzulander wrote:
> "notme" <ne...@kawes.16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:amd57e$ef3$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Personally, I think that any person who is incapable of living in a
society
> without
> harming other members of that society, through, assault, murder and rape
> etc,
> should be removed from that society permanently, either through relocation
> to africa
> or by death.
Ooops.
mick
Fox Tzulander
> Hi Fox Tzulander, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
> >
> [..]
> > I like to be able to hold as many opposing views as possible,
> > that way, i'll always be wrong, but at the same time, i'll
> > always be right and will also be unsure to what I think.
>
> It just makes you a worthless contributor IMO. What's the point
> - after all - if that's how you feel? The sentence above is
> rather troll-like in fact.
All view points or ways of thought have some validity and value.
Just because you dont like the way a person thinks, or the way
they do something, does not mean that their viewpoint is worthless.
The only worthless contribution, is one that is ignored.
> >
> >> And what makes you think thieves, burglars, murderers and drug
> >> pushers would be good for any economy? Theft, breaking and
> >> entering, killing people or ensuring they're off their faces is
> >> hardly going to inspire the commercial banks of many African
> >> nations is it?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Lee J. Moore
> >
> > I dont hear australia complaining do you?
>
> They were sent to penal colonies. There was *no* economy to
> improve. The majority of English settlers in Australia arrived
> some time after the penal colonies were established - IIRC - and
> it's those settlements that grew into many of the towns and
> cities you see today.
What makes you think the same wont happen. You see, if you
sent thousands of UK prisoners to north africa, we would have
to go there and look after them, which means we would have
to develop and undeveloped land. This would clearly benefit
the indigenous population no end. Thousands of prisoners
putting in water treatment and other such facilities. I dont
mean south africa. They are in a worse state than us when
it comes to crime and their murder rate is horrendous.
> > They seem to have done dam well out of it. Although the
> > prospect of an african neighbours in a few hundred years is a
> > concern.
>
> Oh don't be thick. Go and borrow Microsoft Encarta from one of
> your friends or something.
Do they still make that?
Clark Babel
> "Clark Babel" <clark...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3D8A55B1...@yahoo.co.uk...
[Bizarre suggestion of sending criminals to 'Africa']
>>My jaw hit the floor at the speed of light. That's ALL I'm saying! :-)
>>
> Africa, simply, because it has lots of room and im sure, if you stuck
> a few thousand english criminal types over there, it would do wonders
> for the economy.
Yes. 'Do wonders' as in make things a million times worse?
--
Clark Babel
Lee J. Moore
>
[..]
> sent thousands of UK prisoners to north africa, we would have
> to go there and look after them,
Wouldn't this cost money? Taxpayers money? I thought you said
sending them to Africa would save us money?
[..]
>> Oh don't be thick. Go and borrow Microsoft Encarta from one
>> of your friends or something.
>
> Do they still make that?
I think the 1835 edition might tell you a bit about the penal
colonies although it might just miss Melbourne being named after
our PM.
Clark Babel
> I dont hear australia complaining do you? They seem to have done
> dam well out of it. Although the prospect of an african neighbours
> in a few hundred years is a concern.
Mmmm... so making fun of a Liverpudlian accent is 'racism' but not
wanting African neighbours is a cause for concern in your book...
interesting. Are you on medication?
--
Clark Babel
Fox Tzulander
Pick an undeveloped area of north africa or anywhere else
in the world you want.
Now, if you sent prisoners there, you would have to set up
facilities for them, like heat, water, electricity. You would
get them to do all the manual labour that they are capable
of themselves. When you are finished, you would have
an infrastructure that could be expanded to local indigenous
communities, creating employment for local people and
better living conditions for them.
Non-threatening criminals, such as fraudsters etc, could
be used in those communities to transfer skill sets to the
local community, supervised ofcourse.
In time, the local indigenous population would evolve to
western standards, making tourism more likely.
now tell me, how is this worse?
It seems that you are disagreeing with me on principle.
Clark Babel
> I dont hate the accent. I do hate the way girls from liverpool
> shriek like banshee's but there are other accents and dialects
> that have that too, such as welsh and chinese.
I have better things to do with my time than to waste it on replying
to an obviously very silly little individual without the first idea
about the human race. My six year old son has a more mature outlook on
the world than you. And a better grasp of the English language, btw... ;-)
Goodbye and for fuck's sake, when the men in white coats tell you to
take your little blue tablets, do so. For your own sake.
--
Clark Babel
Clark Babel
> Fox Tzulander wrote:
>>should be removed from that society permanently, either through relocation
>>to africa
>>or by death.
>
> Ooops.
Yes, Mick. I think we all noticed that one! :-)
--
Clark Babel
Fox Tzulander
My dear clark. Note how I use, "an", that means that neighbours is
a singular entity. Used in the context of a media newsgroup and given
that I was talking about australia, anyone with half a brain can see
that I meant the tv program.
Milton once wrote, that the mind is it own place and can make a heaven
of hell or vice versa. What you are doing here, is looking desperatley
for points to pick on to start an argument and make me look stupid.
All you are serving to do here, is make yourself appear petty.
Im not on medication no.
> --
> Clark Babel
>
Lee J. Moore
>
[..]
>
>> tide comes in!
>
> To be pedantic for a moment. If my head was in the sand and
> the tide came in, I would die; and as you hope that would happen
> then clearly im not the only one with murderous intentions.
At least Lee@DVDDebate will hopefully see the poetic intentions
there. Although you took it quite seriously. Lighten up.
[..]
> Like I said, its your choice how to react to things that
> happen in your own life. If you want to take the christian
> view of turning the other cheek
It's not a christian view. It's a humane, unbarbarous view.
Christians in many countries (the US for example) frequently
forget at least *one* of the ten commandments.
Read a bit about Pope Urban II if you want to understand the
bloodthirsty way in which christians have dealt with issues
historically. Your views have far more in common with
christianity (and many religions) than mine.
[..]
>> OK, well when we finally deposit you in this utopian Saudi
>> society, I'm sure you wont mind me calling the authorities
>> and telling them that you are a homosexual?
>
> I didnt say it was utopian, please dont put words in my mouth.
> Utopian societies dont and cant exist, as the possiblity for
> human opinion is infinite.
Your ignorance of Saudi treatment of homosexuals is noted.
Considering you'd prefer to live in such a place.
[..]
>
> As would being white, being male, not prescribing to a certain
> religion or philosophy. I dont see sexuality as a big issue and
> I dont dwell on it. It is just one more thing that makes me different
> to the person next to me.
But the regimes you prefer *wont* see it like that and you will
be as bad (if not worse) than a rapist, thief or murderer. At
least you'll only get your hands chopped off if you're a thief
eh? Your sexuality plays a big part in this issue if you really
would prefer to live under regimes like that in Saudi.
> Again, I didnt say you were a tree hugger, so stop putting
> words in my mouth please.
I'm not. Why bother stereotyping lots of people as tree huggers
if it's so irrelevant?
>
>> Your little ditty on gays being homophobic because they hate
>> themselves is interesting.
>
> And scientificaly accpeted.
Of course it is!
> Its transferable to most groups
> though.
Of course it is!
[..]
> I dont hate the accent. I do hate the way girls from liverpool
> shriek like banshee's but there are other accents and dialects
> that have that too, such as welsh and chinese.
And IIRC, I objected to an aspect of the way *one* particular
girl spoke with her accent. You OTOH have just objected to the
way "girls" in general from Liverpool "shriek like banshees,"
when they don't actually.
But you'll never see the hypocrisy will you? After reading all
this drivel about Africa and your generalisation about
Liverpudlian girls, I take back my apology. I might be a fool,
but I'm certainly not ignorant and you are nothing but a
hypocritical arse on stilts.
Ooh, I just had a sudden mental burst of Salvador Dali imagery.
Fox Tzulander
--
http://www.tzupidity.co.uk
Just another one of them, "Oh feck what have I done?!?!" Sunday mornings.
"Lee J. Moore" <le...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:slrnaom1u...@cafe.lan...
> Hi Fox Tzulander, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
> >
> [..]
> > What makes you think the same wont happen. You see, if you
> > sent thousands of UK prisoners to north africa, we would have
> > to go there and look after them,
>
> Wouldn't this cost money? Taxpayers money? I thought you said
> sending them to Africa would save us money?
Its all hypothetical Lee, but lets imagine that we did actually send them
all over there. The government of the UK would be most likely to use
the redevelopment angle that I explained to your mate Clark.
As such, they could attract international funding, to set up the projects.
Once the colonies were set up, they could acheive self sufficiency
given the climate, alternate fuel sources and growth of the indigenous
community.
So they wouldnt cost us a penny. However, the UK spending on prisons
would drop, allowing more money to be put into rehab and criminological
research.
So you see, by doing it, as I have outlined, you get the following results.
1. More research into the causes of crime (which you said you want)
2. Growth and success for otherwise under-developed african communities
3. The criminals arent stuck in cells for 23 hours a day, because they would
be working.
now tell me, whats wrong with that?
Lee J. Moore
>
[..]
Go and see a Doctor then.
Fox Tzulander
> Hi Fox Tzulander, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
> >
> [..]
> > Im not on medication no.
>
> Go and see a Doctor then.
> --
> Lee J. Moore
I have a very good freind who is a doctor and has been for about
40 years. I also have a freind who is a fully qualified Psychologist.
I think they are in a better position to judge my mental state than
you.
Helen H
<SPA...@tzupidity.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Pick an undeveloped area of north africa or anywhere else
>in the world you want.
I mostly lurk around umtm .... popping in occasionally for the odd
discussion. I've tried to ignore the insane ramblings of Mr Tzulander
and his warped idea of shipping British rapists and murderers to
Africa ..... but just can't let this one pass!
>Now, if you sent prisoners there, you would have to set up
>facilities for them, like heat, water, electricity. You would
>get them to do all the manual labour that they are capable
>of themselves. When you are finished, you would have
>an infrastructure that could be expanded to local indigenous
>communities, creating employment for local people and
>better living conditions for them.
If you actually cared about the local populations you wouldn't
consider for a moment contaminating their environment (socio-economic)
with the dregs of ours. How you can consider the advantages of
electricity outweigh the impact of placing dangerous, morally bankrupt
thugs in their midst just boggles the mind!
>Non-threatening criminals, such as fraudsters etc, could
>be used in those communities to transfer skill sets to the
>local community, supervised ofcourse.
Rather than using their own teachers/professionals I presume? Have you
even looked at the level of qualification required to be a voluntary
worker in the sort of places your referring to? Would you be happy to
have your children taught by criminals?
>In time, the local indigenous population would evolve to
>western standards, making tourism more likely.
With the fine upstanding example given by the worst of UK society?
Evolve? Ye gods - what's this person on!
>now tell me, how is this worse?
If you can't see how contaminating another country (any country) with
the UK's rejects is bad then there's no hope. If you can't see just
how daft, patronising and dangerous your ideas are then there's still
less hope.
BTW: I've just returned from Africa .... I have friends there, I have
a sponsored child who I pay to educate in the hope of a better future
for him and his family. I do not want to see these people and their
backyards littered with our garbage. They have enough problems without
dumping ours in their laps.
Helen
Fox Tzulander
news:amf2v8$5g376$1...@ID-113725.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Fox Tzulander" <SPA...@tzupidity.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:amevjb$4svj1$1...@ID-144651.news.dfncis.de...> [snip]
>
> > All view points or ways of thought have some validity and value.
>
examples?
> > Just because you dont like the way a person thinks, or the way
> > they do something, does not mean that their viewpoint is worthless.
>
> True
>
> > The only worthless contribution, is one that is ignored.
>
> Pseudo-profundity
Why?
> [snip]
>
>
>
Grant
"Fox Tzulander" <SPA...@tzupidity.co.uk> wrote in message
news:amevjb$4svj1$1...@ID-144651.news.dfncis.de...
> news:slrnaolv3...@cafe.lan...
[snip]
> All view points or ways of thought have some validity and value.
False
> Just because you dont like the way a person thinks, or the way
> they do something, does not mean that their viewpoint is worthless.
True
> The only worthless contribution, is one that is ignored.
Pseudo-profundity
[snip]
Fox Tzulander
> Hi Fox Tzulander, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
> >
> >> > Im not on medication no.
> >>
> >> Go and see a Doctor then.
> > I have a very good freind who is a doctor and has been for about
> > 40 years.
>
>
> > I also have a freind who is a fully qualified Psychologist.
>
> academic types? ;P
Its a small world I guess. The doctor is a family freind and the
psychologist is someone I used to work with.
> > I think they are in a better position to judge my mental state
> > than you.
>
> Did I mention my comedian friend? She used to do stand-up at a
> pub in the gay village. Not the funniest girl - in fact bloody
> appalling - but even she'd clearly have identified the humour in
> that comment more easily than you.
The problem with text based media such as this, is that you cant
very easily see intent, given that intonation and body language is
removed. Its sarcasm I miss most. I would remind you however
that the discussion of my mental health was started by your freind
clark and appeared hostile to me, so forgive me if I assumed your
intentions where the same.
> As I said elsewhere - this is Usenet. If you think I make
> seriously psychological evaluations via this medium you need to
> lighten up.
>
> --
> Lee J. Moore
Lee, you have made me rethink my ideas on killing prisoners by
blowing up ships full of them and made me think of an alternative
way of using them in africa, which, it seems would be a good
use of the them, and a benefit to the areas in which they were
sent. Why dont you get a drink and feel good about yourself.
Fox Tzulander
--
http://www.tzupidity.co.uk
Just another one of them, "Oh feck what have I done?!?!" Sunday mornings.
"Helen H" <hel...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4k2mouk5i08nm0ee9...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:36:20 +0100, "Fox Tzulander"
> <SPA...@tzupidity.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >Pick an undeveloped area of north africa or anywhere else
> >in the world you want.
>
> I mostly lurk around umtm .... popping in occasionally for the odd
> discussion. I've tried to ignore the insane ramblings of Mr Tzulander
> and his warped idea of shipping British rapists and murderers to
> Africa ..... but just can't let this one pass!
>
> >Now, if you sent prisoners there, you would have to set up
> >facilities for them, like heat, water, electricity. You would
> >get them to do all the manual labour that they are capable
> >of themselves. When you are finished, you would have
> >an infrastructure that could be expanded to local indigenous
> >communities, creating employment for local people and
> >better living conditions for them.
>
> If you actually cared about the local populations you wouldn't
> consider for a moment contaminating their environment (socio-economic)
> with the dregs of ours. How you can consider the advantages of
> electricity outweigh the impact of placing dangerous, morally bankrupt
> thugs in their midst just boggles the mind!
Its an almagamation of two opposing views. Mine, which was to kill them
all and lee's which was to help them become better citizens and productive
or at least understand them. (hope that is accurate lee)
You see, at present, they are stuck in cells and arent very productive. It
is fair to say that they are a drain on resources as we pay to have them
fed, clothed and housed. They also have better educational opportunities
afforded to them that a lot of honest working people.
My idea in africa would remove the drain on our economy and help
improve the economy and living conditions of another society.
I dont think for one moment, that we would let them run loose and
corrupt the locals, that is the only insane concept I can see.
> >Non-threatening criminals, such as fraudsters etc, could
> >be used in those communities to transfer skill sets to the
> >local community, supervised ofcourse.
>
> Rather than using their own teachers/professionals I presume? Have you
> even looked at the level of qualification required to be a voluntary
> worker in the sort of places your referring to? Would you be happy to
> have your children taught by criminals?
I dont have any so Im not qualified to answer. Hypothetically, I would
argue that under the proper supervision, the valuable knowledge that
those criminals have, can be put to good use, provided that there were
safeguards. There are schemes in this country were criminals are introduced
to the countries children, so that they can learn about life in prison and
not
go that way themselves. Its finding some good, in an otherwise bad
situation.
> >In time, the local indigenous population would evolve to
> >western standards, making tourism more likely.
>
> With the fine upstanding example given by the worst of UK society?
> Evolve? Ye gods - what's this person on!
>
> >now tell me, how is this worse?
>
> If you can't see how contaminating another country (any country) with
> the UK's rejects is bad then there's no hope. If you can't see just
> how daft, patronising and dangerous your ideas are then there's still
> less hope.
Do you think that UK criminals only operate in this country? They are
already all over the world. Those countries also have their own criminals.
If the rest of the world was a perfect place with no crime, then I would
partially agree with you.
> BTW: I've just returned from Africa .... I have friends there, I have
> a sponsored child who I pay to educate in the hope of a better future
> for him and his family. I do not want to see these people and their
> backyards littered with our garbage. They have enough problems without
> dumping ours in their laps.
>
> Helen
I think you are completley missing the point here. Im not talking about
dropping
off criminals at the airport, and saying, Cya, have a nice time. Im talking
about
using the resources they have to supplement existing resources under proper
supervision.
Fox Tzulander
Helen H
<SPA...@tzupidity.co.uk> wrote:
<much snippage>
>
>I think you are completley missing the point here. Im not talking about
>dropping
>off criminals at the airport, and saying, Cya, have a nice time. Im talking
>about
>using the resources they have to supplement existing resources under proper
>supervision.
>
I'm missing the point! You appear to have a very superior view of
life in the west. You contention would seem to be that exposing the
"indigenous populations" of "inferior" societies to the intellectual
superiority of western criminals (not the really bad ones of course,
just the crooked fraudsters) ... will somehow help to "elevate" these
poor people to the highly desirable "western" level of society. Have
you any idea how distasteful, patronising and victorian that view is?
Helen
Fox Tzulander
Firstly, I never said inferior, I said under-developed.
Now, the idea I proposed would see western standard utilities such
as clean running water and electricity, combined with education and
engineering as well as agricultural technologies being put into an area
where they do not currently exist at our standards. If you want to
keep them drinking from polluted water supplies and not having
equal opportunities and technology to us, whilst at the same time
finding a valuable role for otherwise useless prisoners, then I would
suggest that you are the one who is being distasteful.
mick
Sorry, was I a bit late:-)
mick
Clark Babel
Not at all. I wasn't being sarcastic or anything. Sorry if it came
across like that. I save my sarcasm for the occasional intellectual
insect that bumbles its way into my line of sight... ;-)
--
Clark Babel
Grant
"Fox Tzulander" <SPA...@tzupidity.co.uk> wrote in message > > [snip]
> >
> > > All view points or ways of thought have some validity and value.
> >
> > False
>
> examples?
>
News at Ten is on every Tuesday
News at Ten is on today
So it must be Tuesday.
> >
> > > The only worthless contribution, is one that is ignored.
> >
> > Pseudo-profundity
>
> Why?
It is written in a style that appears deep; thinking about it may lead
to interesting possibilities, but, taken as a statement on its own, it's
banal.
Fox Tzulander
>
> "Fox Tzulander" <SPA...@tzupidity.co.uk> wrote in message > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > All view points or ways of thought have some validity and value.
> > >
> > > False
> >
> > examples?
> >
>
> News at Ten is on every Tuesday
> News at Ten is on today
> So it must be Tuesday.
It does have validity on one day out of seven, but as
for value, it is a good example of logic, assumption
and how the author thinks. I take you point though.
> > >
> > > > The only worthless contribution, is one that is ignored.
> > >
> > > Pseudo-profundity
> >
> > Why?
>
> It is written in a style that appears deep; thinking about it may lead
> to interesting possibilities, but, taken as a statement on its own, it's
> banal.
If you think it is so, then fair enough. I just wanted to know why,
thanks.
mick
Clark Babel wrote:
> mick wrote:
>> Clark Babel wrote:
>>
>>> mick wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fox Tzulander wrote:
>>>
>>>>> should be removed from that society permanently, either through
>>>>
>> relocation
>>
>>>>> to africa
>>>>> or by death.
>>>>
>>>> Ooops.
>>>
>>> Yes, Mick. I think we all noticed that one! :-)
>>
>> Sorry, was I a bit late:-)
>
> Not at all. I wasn't being sarcastic or anything. Sorry if it came
> across like that.
It didn`t. Just me being a tit.
> I save my sarcasm for the occasional intellectual
Definately not me then.
> insect that bumbles its way into my line of sight... ;-)
Reminds me of a nice little put down from Dickens. It was (if I remember
correctly)aimed at the people who refused to believe there was such a thing
as child poverty in Britain, and criticised him for using the subject in his
novels. He called them 'The insects of the hour, who raise their little humm
and then die and are forgotten'.
mick
Fox Tzulander
news:amf73a$5bjme$1...@ID-154089.news.dfncis.de...
Used to describe people who were too insular to consider the views of
another
and who chose to use criticism instead? Intriguing.
Lee J. Moore
>
>> insect that bumbles its way into my line of sight... ;-)
>
> Reminds me of a nice little put down from Dickens. It was (if
> I remember correctly)aimed at the people who refused to
> believe there was such a thing as child poverty in Britain,
> and criticised him for using the subject in his novels. He
> called them 'The insects of the hour, who raise their little
> humm and then die and are forgotten'.
I never forgave him for the death of Little Nell! ;) Ah well,
at least he gave her a life to loose.
Lee J. Moore
>
> Hi mick, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
>>
>>> insect that bumbles its way into my line of sight... ;-)
>>
>> Reminds me of a nice little put down from Dickens. It was (if
>> I remember correctly)aimed at the people who refused to
>> believe there was such a thing as child poverty in Britain,
>> and criticised him for using the subject in his novels. He
>> called them 'The insects of the hour, who raise their little
>> humm and then die and are forgotten'.
>
> I never forgave him for the death of Little Nell! ;) Ah well,
> at least he gave her a life to loose.
Erm lose. ;-)
Grant
> "Grant" <gr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:amf6pm$56ldu$1...@ID-113725.news.dfncis.de...
> > News at Ten is on every Tuesday
> > News at Ten is on today
> > So it must be Tuesday.
>
> It does have validity on one day out of seven,
It never has validity: the truth of the conclusion is never guaranteed
by the truth of the premises.
mick
Lee J. Moore wrote:
> Hi mick, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
>>
>>> insect that bumbles its way into my line of sight... ;-)
>>
>> Reminds me of a nice little put down from Dickens. It was (if
>> I remember correctly)aimed at the people who refused to
>> believe there was such a thing as child poverty in Britain,
>> and criticised him for using the subject in his novels. He
>> called them 'The insects of the hour, who raise their little
>> humm and then die and are forgotten'.
>
> I never forgave him for the death of Little Nell! ;)
Oooh, I did.
I wish he`d killed off a few more of his central characters - those
dreadful,
sickly, nicer than nice sort. It`s odd that his strongest characters were
very often the peripheral ones.
Little Nell, Esther Summerson, Oliver Twist. Off with their heads says I;-)
mick
Fox Tzulander
I agree, that the logic it works on is flawed, and on the surface its
a risible statement and one that would be ignored by most people.
But you cant deny that once a week, it does work.
Tenuous argument I accept, but it does prove that there is
"some validity" to it, which was my point. No matter how stupid
something seems, there will always be a time when that thing will
become true. Law of averages and the infinite universe etc.
Helen H
<SPA...@tzupidity.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Helen H" <hel...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:d55mou844s3ruhvd4...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:19:29 +0100, "Fox Tzulander"
>> <SPA...@tzupidity.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> <much snippage>
>>
>> >
>> >I think you are completley missing the point here. Im not talking about
>> >dropping
>> >off criminals at the airport, and saying, Cya, have a nice time. Im
>talking
>> >about
>> >using the resources they have to supplement existing resources under
>proper
>> >supervision.
>> >
>>
>> I'm missing the point! You appear to have a very superior view of
>> life in the west. You contention would seem to be that exposing the
>> "indigenous populations" of "inferior" societies to the intellectual
>> superiority of western criminals (not the really bad ones of course,
>> just the crooked fraudsters) ... will somehow help to "elevate" these
>> poor people to the highly desirable "western" level of society. Have
>> you any idea how distasteful, patronising and victorian that view is?
>>
>> Helen
>
>Firstly, I never said inferior, I said under-developed.
You said they needed to "evolve" to western standards - which implies
an inferior state.
<snip>
> If you want to
>keep them drinking from polluted water supplies and not having
>equal opportunities and technology to us, whilst at the same time
>finding a valuable role for otherwise useless prisoners, then I would
>suggest that you are the one who is being distasteful.
>
As I've already said - I believe in doing all these things - and am
actively engaged (albeit in a small way) in doing just this. However I
believe the way forward is to manage improvements by treating people
as intellectual equals ... not by dumping our criminals on their
doorstep (and, no doubt, expecting the poor dears to feel grateful for
the honour!).
Helen
Mark Wilson
> I agree, that the logic it works on is flawed, and on the surface its
> a risible statement and one that would be ignored by most people.
>
> But you cant deny that once a week, it does work.
I didn't intend getting drawn in on this... really I didn't...
But that logic isn't "flawed"... it's just plain WRONG.
If you say "News at Ten is on, News at Ten is on every Tuesday, therefore
today must be Tuesday", and today turns out to actually _be_ Tuesday, then
you're right despite of the "logic", not because of it.
One in seven days you'll get the right answer, but by chance, not by logic,
"flawed" or otherwise.
Mark
Fox Tzulander
The implication was in your own mind not mine, but to save arguing, ok.
> <snip>
>
> > If you want to
> >keep them drinking from polluted water supplies and not having
> >equal opportunities and technology to us, whilst at the same time
> >finding a valuable role for otherwise useless prisoners, then I would
> >suggest that you are the one who is being distasteful.
> >
> As I've already said - I believe in doing all these things - and am
> actively engaged (albeit in a small way) in doing just this. However I
> believe the way forward is to manage improvements by treating people
> as intellectual equals ... not by dumping our criminals on their
> doorstep (and, no doubt, expecting the poor dears to feel grateful for
> the honour!).
>
> Helen
I totaly agree with you in principle, but dont discount any way that could
acheive what you want. As you will see from the link I posted and what
happens in america, a properly supervised group of criminals does make
for a successful workforce. I would rather see that happen than noone go
out there and do it.
This thread isnt about africa and prisoners, its a spill over from another
thread
where I overeacted and pissed someone off, which I then apologised for, but
clearly its not going to be let go. If ive annoyed you, then im sorry.
Seeing
as you have de-lurked because of it, then I guess thats a positive. Try to
stay
on this side :)
Fox Tzulander
news:3d8b2a1a$0$1294$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
This will start turning in circles now, so this is my last comment on it.
I totaly accept that the news at ten statement doesnt work as a rule.
Im not disputing that. My point, is that all things no matter how stupid
do hold some form of truth.
The statement works once a week, proving that even the most stupid
statements can and will work at some point in an infinite universe. That
is the truth it holds, not that the news at ten is on. You arent seeing the
wood for the trees. The truth, as you so rightly pointed out, is down to
chance. In an infinite universe, all possible combinations can and will
happen at some point in time.
If you ignore someone because /you/ cant see the truth in what they are
saying, you are just doing yourself a diservice, as one day, that person
will say something of importance and relevance to you; but you
wont hear it. This is why I never have nor will killfile someone.
You have to be open to new idea's, or you will just stagnate.
Grant
> "Grant" <gr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:amf8av$4v2rg$1...@ID-113725.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Fox Tzulander" <SPA...@tzupidity.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:amf733$5a0mj$1...@ID-144651.news.dfncis.de...
> > > "Grant" <gr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:amf6pm$56ldu$1...@ID-113725.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > > > News at Ten is on every Tuesday
> > > > News at Ten is on today
> > > > So it must be Tuesday.
> > >
> > > It does have validity on one day out of seven,
> >
> > It never has validity: the truth of the conclusion is never
guaranteed
> > by the truth of the premises.
>
> I agree, that the logic it works on is flawed, and on the surface its
> a risible statement and one that would be ignored by most people.
>
> But you cant deny that once a week, it does work.
You are confusing the truth of the conclusion with the validity of the
argument.
> Tenuous argument I accept, but it does prove that there is
> "some validity" to it...
[snip]
Your argument shows that the conclusion (it's Tuesday) does not always
follow from the premisses (News at Ten is on every Tuesday; News at Ten
is on today). Therefore you have demonstrated that the argument has no
validity.
This is valid:
News at Ten is on every Tuesday
Today is Tuesday
So News at Ten is on today.
If the premisses are true, the conclusion *must* be true.
Lee J. Moore
>
[..]
> This thread isnt about africa and prisoners, its a spill over
> from another thread where I overeacted and pissed someone off,
No it's not! It's not at all! You said what you said about
dumping our criminals in Africa in a completely separate thread
and pissed more than just me off so don't use me to dig your way
out of a hole! In fact it was more than me your thick logic
offended in the Liverpool thread!
These people arguing with you now aren't arguing with you
because you called me a racist, homophobic, ignorant fool. Even
I don't flatter myself enough to believe the people in this
newsgroup like me /that/ much - if at all actually. They're
arguing with you because you sound like all of those things -
bar homophobic - yourself!
> which I then apologised for, but clearly its not going to be
> let go.
Oh get over yourself Foxy. If you want to be a hypocrite - at
least take the shite thrown back at you like a man and stop
using me as an excuse. Apology or not - the double standard
between two posts of yours, in two threads, over a period of two
days is absolutely staggering and makes you, frankly, look like
either a troll or a complete fool!
> If ive annoyed you, then im sorry. Seeing as you have
> de-lurked because of it, then I guess thats a positive. Try to
> stay on this side :)
I think people are trying dispute your opinions Foxy. Only
watching you dig your way out is painful because you're showing
far less dignity than when the original Dr Fox tried to dig his
way out of the crabs/paedophiles/genes hole.
Do what you always do Foxy. Say, "I'm not going to comment on
this anymore," bwaaah!
Mark Wilson
> This will start turning in circles now, so this is my last comment on it.
>
> I totaly accept that the news at ten statement doesnt work as a rule.
> Im not disputing that. My point, is that all things no matter how stupid
> do hold some form of truth.
>
> The statement works once a week, proving that even the most stupid
> statements can and will work at some point in an infinite universe. That
> is the truth it holds, not that the news at ten is on. You arent seeing
the
> wood for the trees. The truth, as you so rightly pointed out, is down to
> chance. In an infinite universe, all possible combinations can and will
> happen at some point in time.
>
Eh? "The most stupid statements can and will work at some point in an
infinite universe?" What the hell are you smoking?
> You have to be open to new idea's, or you will just stagnate.
>
To quote (or more likely, paraphrase) Richard Dawkins, "Having an open mind
is essential, as long as it's not so open as to let your brain fall out."
Mark
Fox Tzulander
<snip>
> You are confusing the truth of the conclusion with the validity of the
> argument.
>
> > Tenuous argument I accept, but it does prove that there is
> > "some validity" to it...
>
> [snip]
>
> Your argument shows that the conclusion (it's Tuesday) does not always
> follow from the premisses (News at Ten is on every Tuesday; News at Ten
> is on today). Therefore you have demonstrated that the argument has no
> validity.
>
> This is valid:
>
> News at Ten is on every Tuesday
> Today is Tuesday
> So News at Ten is on today.
>
> If the premisses are true, the conclusion *must* be true.
I know, and I said that in my other reply to Mark. My original
statement was "All view points or ways of thought have some
validity and value". Some being the operative word. The original
configuration the argument has one element of validity to it,
in that it works once a week, but only when you apply the
law of averages to it. Its a very very loose argument, but it
does work.
Fox Tzulander
> Hi Fox Tzulander, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
> >
Euch, one last time.
Personally, I dont want criminals in this country. I said Africa,
because its the first place I thought of where there is a lot of
spare land.
You disagreed with me and fair enough. So I rethought it
and as it happens, I think that creating penal colonies in
areas like that could prove beneficial and even went and
found third party evidence to support it. A change of mind
that you prompted and that is a positive, thankyou.
What I am calling spill over from the other thread, are
the pedantic nit picking that clark did, but mainly his
motivation for them, which I beleive to be as a result
of the previous thread, were he defended you. Again
a fair enough action in the original thread, but not in
this one. In this thread, its personal. Maybe I deserve
it, but only you I feel, have the right to do that.
It seems that no matter what I say or do, you; and clark
more so, are determined to find problems with, even if
there arent any. Which is my fault, because the primary
cause was what I said to you.
That is what I meant. I am not attacking you ok?
Grant
[snip]
> I know, and I said that in my other reply to Mark. My original
> statement was "All view points or ways of thought have some
> validity and value". Some being the operative word. The original
> configuration the argument has one element of validity to it,
> in that it works once a week, but only when you apply the
> law of averages to it. Its a very very loose argument, but it
> does work.
Arguments are either valid or invalid - they can't be a bit valid on
Tuesdays. Here's the criteria for validity (I gave you an example of an
invalid syllogistic argument).
"In logic, validity is most commonly attributed to either:
1. Deductive arguments, which are such that if the premisses are true
the conclusion must be true. Traditional logic studies the validity of
syllogistic arguments. Modern logic, more generally, identifies as valid
those arguments which accord with truth-preserving rules. (Salva
veritate.) Any argument is valid if and only if the set consisting of
its premisses and the negation of its conclusion is inconsistent.
2. Propositions which are semantically valid, i.e. are true under any
alternative interpretation of the non-logical words."
www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=553795&secid=.-
than...@blueremoveyonder.co.uk
wrote:
>So you /are/ thinking of putting them in a civilised place with
>an economy then? Not actually in the middle of a desert or
>jungle.
"I'm a Criminal - And I'm Not Getting Out of Here!"
Lee J. Moore
>
> What I am calling spill over from the other thread, are the
> pedantic nit picking that clark did, but mainly his motivation
> for them, which I beleive to be as a result of the previous
> thread, were he defended you.
You assume incorrectly. I've caused a lot of grief for myself
in this newsgroup over the years and Clark wisely hasn't jumped
in just out of friendship on many occasions. Although I do
appreciate the input of any friend when I've just been dubbed
something as vile as a racist. Frankly I'd rather you nick my
mobile phone than call me that. That's how offensive I think
that remark *is*. And your apology? Why not hit me over the
head with a housebrick then say "ooh sorry!" Would that make
everything alright? Guess what? I'd rather you did even *that*
than call me a racist!
Btw: I know you wouldn't nick my phone, because that should be
punishable by death or Africa right?
[..]
> It seems that no matter what I say or do, you; and clark more
> so, are determined to find problems with, even if there arent
> any.
<sigh> Still aghast that you can even say that.
> Which is my fault, because the primary cause was what I
> said to you.
Oh I don't know. Your vicious wailing banshees comment
overlapped onto the Welsh accent too. As a Welshman I think
Clark has every reason to be pissed off with you when you start
using the word "racist" incorrectly and then start making
generalisations about regional accents! I'd love to see what a
certain other Welshman in a particular gay newsgroup would have
to say about your comments in here.
> That is what I meant. I am not attacking you ok?
You were using that whole situation to worm your way out of this
thread when people completely detached from myself were picking
fault with your views and logic. *That* was the point.
I'm so glad you didn't draw up that "alternative legal system."
On the basis of articles of yours posted over the past two days,
I think it's fair to say that we'd have been here forever.
Clark Babel
This Fux person is really not worth arguing with, Lee. Life's too
short to waste it on this kind of person. ;-)
He reminds me, btw, of that *other* buffoon from a few months back who
was posting about Halle Berry was so lovely despite being African -
something along those lines anyway!!! I've been trying to remember his
name, but it escapes me. Which just goes to show - these trolls are
soon forgotten. As Fux will be very soon.
Unless of course, Fux *is* the prat from a couple of months ago. They
both have the same totally fucked up view of the world. Wouldn't
surprise me in the slightest.
--
Clark Babel
Zsa Zsa
No violence, Bill, no violence!!!
Love Fagin ;o)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> mick
>
>
Zsa Zsa
"Clark Babel" <clark...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3D8B4CAA...@yahoo.co.uk...
> [Lee vs Fux. No contest really. :-)]
Exactly.
>
> This Fux person is really not worth arguing with, Lee. Life's too
> short to waste it on this kind of person. ;-)
Exactly.
>
> He reminds me, btw, of that *other* buffoon from a few months back who
> was posting about Halle Berry was so lovely despite being African -
> something along those lines anyway!!! I've been trying to remember his
> name, but it escapes me. Which just goes to show - these trolls are
> soon forgotten. As Fux will be very soon.
Exactly.
>
> Unless of course, Fux *is* the prat from a couple of months ago.
Exactly.
Did you get my email last night Clark? ;o)
They
> both have the same totally fucked up view of the world.
Exactly.
Wouldn't
> surprise me in the slightest.
Exactly!
Love Zsa Zsa
xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> --
> Clark Babel
>
Clark Babel
> Clark Babel wrote:
>>>>Yes, Mick. I think we all noticed that one! :-)
>>>
>>>Sorry, was I a bit late:-)
>>
>>Not at all. I wasn't being sarcastic or anything. Sorry if it came
>>across like that.
>
> It didn`t. Just me being a tit.
Nah. Just the usual text-based misunderstanding.
>>I save my sarcasm for the occasional intellectual
>
> Definately not me then.
You quote Dickens! That's an intellectual in my book! ;-)
>>insect that bumbles its way into my line of sight... ;-)
>
> Reminds me of a nice little put down from Dickens. It was (if I remember
> correctly)aimed at the people who refused to believe there was such a thing
> as child poverty in Britain, and criticised him for using the subject in his
> novels. He called them 'The insects of the hour, who raise their little humm
> and then die and are forgotten'.
Brilliant! OK if I use it in my sig? I've been looking for a good quote.
The only Charles Dickens I've read: 'Oliver Twist' and 'A Christmas
Carol'. I should be ashamed!
--
Clark Babel
Sponge the Cow
"Lee J. Moore" <le...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:slrnaoluo...@cafe.lan...
> Hi Fox Tzulander, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
> Your little ditty on gays being homophobic because they hate
> themselves is interesting. Certainly in light of sponge
> indicating your hatred of the Liverpool accent. If there's any
> projection of self-hate making itself clear, it's coming from
> your very own posts.
<coughs>
Right, ok, I think this thread has go far enough, yes Fox sounds like an
idiot in it, and knowing him in real life I can't actually believe he'd
think this in real life. I'm guessing he's just fallen into the usenet trap
of justifying yourself when you put your foot in it.............
as for quoting me on that... well that is not what I said, and was never my
intention to imply that.
I didn't say hatred, merely that we piss take about it...
I have a level of respect for both your opinions and I'm choosing to sit on
the fence. It's nice and comfy :-)
Spongy.x
Clark Babel
> "Clark Babel" <clark...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3D8B4CAA...@yahoo.co.uk...
>
>>[Lee vs Fux. No contest really. :-)]
>
> Exactly.
LOL! Precisely!
>>This Fux person is really not worth arguing with, Lee. Life's too
>>short to waste it on this kind of person. ;-)
>
> Exactly.
Precisely! :-)
>>He reminds me, btw, of that *other* buffoon from a few months back who
>>was posting about Halle Berry was so lovely despite being African -
>>something along those lines anyway!!! I've been trying to remember his
>>name, but it escapes me. Which just goes to show - these trolls are
>>soon forgotten. As Fux will be very soon.
>
> Exactly.
Precisely(er) ;-)
>>Unless of course, Fux *is* the prat from a couple of months ago.
>
> Exactly.
Presley!
> Did you get my email last night Clark? ;o)
I only just checked (it's webmail and I can't set it up to come to my
email prog). I've sent you my 'grown up' email address. :-)
> They
>
>>both have the same totally fucked up view of the world.
>
>
> Exactly.
Preseli!
--
Clark Babel
"The insects of the hour, who raised their little hum,
and died, and were forgotten." (Charles Dickens)
mick
Zsa Zsa wrote:
> "mick" <mick...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:amf8v2$5819v$1...@ID-154089.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> Little Nell, Esther Summerson, Oliver Twist. Off with their heads says
I;-)
>
> No violence, Bill, no violence!!!
She said with that 'spank me' look in her eyes;)
Nice to see you back again.
mick
mick
Clark Babel wrote:
> mick wrote:
>> Clark Babel wrote:
>
>>> I save my sarcasm for the occasional intellectual
>>
>> Definately not me then.
>
> You quote Dickens! That's an intellectual in my book! ;-)
An intellectual who can`t spell 'hum':)
>> He called them 'The insects of the hour, who raise their
>> little humm and then die and are forgotten'.
>
> Brilliant! OK if I use it in my sig? I've been looking for a good quote.
Yes, I don`t think he`ll mind.
> The only Charles Dickens I've read: 'Oliver Twist' and 'A Christmas
> Carol'. I should be ashamed!
Give some of the others a try. They are worth it for the comic characters
alone.
mick.
Clark Babel
> Clark Babel wrote:
>>You quote Dickens! That's an intellectual in my book! ;-)
>
> An intellectual who can`t spell 'hum':)
Even the best of us make mitsakes. ;-)
>>>He called them 'The insects of the hour, who raise their
>>>little humm and then die and are forgotten'.
>>
>>Brilliant! OK if I use it in my sig? I've been looking for a good quote.
>
> Yes, I don`t think he`ll mind.
<Mariah Carey mode>
AS long as he doesn't find out!
<END Mariah Carey>
>>The only Charles Dickens I've read: 'Oliver Twist' and 'A Christmas
>>Carol'. I should be ashamed!
>
> Give some of the others a try. They are worth it for the comic characters
> alone.
I've got a huge 'To Read' pile next to my bed. I'm currently on
'Survivor' by the bloke who wrote 'Fight Club'. Chuck
Something-hard-to-remember. Strange name that... ;-)
Lee J. Moore
>
> [Lee vs Fux. No contest really. :-)]
>
> This Fux person is really not worth arguing with, Lee. Life's too
> short to waste it on this kind of person. ;-)
I've reduced the thread score to -9999 now. I'm too easily
provoked (and far more easily wound up than a clever nun!). ;o)
> He reminds me, btw, of that *other* buffoon from a few months
> back who was posting about Halle Berry was so lovely despite
> being African - something along those lines anyway!!! I've
> been trying to remember his name, but it escapes me. Which
> just goes to show - these trolls are soon forgotten. As Fux
> will be very soon.
>
> Unless of course, Fux *is* the prat from a couple of months
> ago. They both have the same totally fucked up view of the
> world. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
Hmmm, I don't know. I have only been aware of him for a couple
of months, and also from uk.g-l-b. I'm as much baffled at his
latest views as anybody else because (apart from that bizarre
racist theory and the later hypocrisy) he's fought the odd
troll in uk.g-l-b (Sister Bernadette and her cronies) very
skilfully on at least one occasion.
I just can't get my head around what's happened here so
anyway....it's history. Thanks again btw. :-)
Lee J. Moore
>
>> [Lee vs Fux. No contest really. :-)]
>
> Exactly.
> Exactly.
[..]
> Exactly.
[..]
> Exactly.
[..]
> Exactly.
[..]
> Exactly!
I'm with you and knees-up Father Clark on this one swdi! ;)
Lee J. Moore
>
[..]
>
> Preseli!
Elvis Preseli?
Lee J. Moore
>
> Lee J. Moore wrote:
[..]
>> I never forgave him for the death of Little Nell! ;)
>
> Oooh, I did.
Oooh yer bugger! ;)
Zsa Zsa
> Hi Zsa Zsa, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
> >
> >> [Lee vs Fux. No contest really. :-)]
> >
> > Exactly.
> [..]
> > Exactly.
> [..]
> > Exactly.
> [..]
> > Exactly.
> [..]
> > Exactly.
> [..]
> > Exactly!
>
> I'm with you and knees-up Father Clark on this one swdi! ;)
Exactly!!!
We three go together like.......like....... that song from Grease :o)
Chloe had some very irritating RS homework the other night, where she had to
answer all these biblical questions. The only one I could help her with was
"What is 'The Word'?"
Grease of course, it's got grace it's got meaning!!!
Love Zsa Zsa
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Zsa Zsa
> Presley!
>
> > Did you get my email last night Clark? ;o)
>
> I only just checked (it's webmail and I can't set it up to come to my
> email prog). I've sent you my 'grown up' email address. :-)
Hurrah!! :o)
For the record, we both know that Lee always comes off better than anyone
else don't we? Don't ask us *how* we know, we just do ;o))
Love Zsa Zsa
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Zsa Zsa
>
>
> Zsa Zsa wrote:
> > "mick" <mick...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:amf8v2$5819v$1...@ID-154089.news.dfncis.de...
> >>
>
> >> Little Nell, Esther Summerson, Oliver Twist. Off with their heads says
> I;-)
> >
> > No violence, Bill, no violence!!!
>
> She said with that 'spank me' look in her eyes;)
You know me so well!! ;o)
>
> Nice to see you back again.
It's great to be back, thanks Mick :o)
Love Zsa Zsa
xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> mick
>
>
>
Zsa Zsa
>
>
> Clark Babel wrote:
> > mick wrote:
> >> Clark Babel wrote:
> >
> >>> I save my sarcasm for the occasional intellectual
> >>
> >> Definately not me then.
> >
> > You quote Dickens! That's an intellectual in my book! ;-)
>
> An intellectual who can`t spell 'hum':)
>
> >> He called them 'The insects of the hour, who raise their
> >> little humm and then die and are forgotten'.
> >
> > Brilliant! OK if I use it in my sig? I've been looking for a good quote.
>
> Yes, I don`t think he`ll mind.
>
> > The only Charles Dickens I've read: 'Oliver Twist' and 'A Christmas
> > Carol'. I should be ashamed!
I don't think so, not the greatest British novelist IMHO.
>
> Give some of the others a try. They are worth it for the comic characters
> alone.
True. But the only Dickens I really rate is Great Expectations - ripping
yarn, convincing and very interesting characterisation, deeply moving plot
and sub-text, intriguing Gothic atmosphere - marvellous stuff.!!
Love Zsa Zsa
xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> mick.
>
>
mick
Zsa Zsa wrote:
> "mick" <mick...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:amfk86$5jkdf$1...@ID-154089.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>>
>> Clark Babel wrote:
>>> mick wrote:
>>>> Clark Babel wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I save my sarcasm for the occasional intellectual
>>>>
>>>> Definately not me then.
>>>
>>> You quote Dickens! That's an intellectual in my book! ;-)
>>
>> An intellectual who can`t spell 'hum':)
>>
>>>> He called them 'The insects of the hour, who raise their
>>>> little humm and then die and are forgotten'.
>>>
>>> Brilliant! OK if I use it in my sig? I've been looking for a good quote.
>>
>> Yes, I don`t think he`ll mind.
>>
>>> The only Charles Dickens I've read: 'Oliver Twist' and 'A Christmas
>>> Carol'. I should be ashamed!
>
> I don't think so, not the greatest British novelist IMHO.
What!!! Whose better? Go on, name me ten.
>>
>> Give some of the others a try. They are worth it for the comic characters
>> alone.
> True. But the only Dickens I really rate is Great Expectations - ripping
> yarn, convincing and very interesting characterisation, deeply moving plot
> and sub-text, intriguing Gothic atmosphere - marvellous stuff.!!
Err. I can`t argue with you there. Mainly because Great Expectations is one
of the few I`ve never read. Hard Times and Edwin Drood are the others (
there might be one more as well).
Have you ever read any of Wilkie Collins (a chum of Dickens)? Not as good
but entertaining and easy reads.
mick
Clark Babel
> Hi Clark Babel, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
>
>>[Lee vs Fux. No contest really. :-)]
>>
>>This Fux person is really not worth arguing with, Lee. Life's too
>>short to waste it on this kind of person. ;-)
>
> I've reduced the thread score to -9999 now. I'm too easily
> provoked (and far more easily wound up than a clever nun!). ;o)
Huh? I don't get your last bit (as the actress said (etc)) :-)
>>Unless of course, Fux *is* the prat from a couple of months
>>ago. They both have the same totally fucked up view of the
>>world. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
>
> Hmmm, I don't know. I have only been aware of him for a couple
> of months, and also from uk.g-l-b. I'm as much baffled at his
> latest views as anybody else because (apart from that bizarre
> racist theory and the later hypocrisy) he's fought the odd
> troll in uk.g-l-b (Sister Bernadette and her cronies) very
> skilfully on at least one occasion.
Maybe he really *does* need to take his medication? I myself have made
some pretty bizarre comments in the past thanks to my state of mind...
in fact, last night, I was really 'manic' and the words just flowed so
naturally! I was surprising myself with the things I came out with!
(ooo-err etc) :-)
> I just can't get my head around what's happened here so
> anyway....it's history. Thanks again btw. :-)
"No problem" - as they say in English. ;-)
Clark Babel
> Hi Zsa Zsa, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
> I'm with you and knees-up Father Clark on this one swdi! ;)
Was I ever told the meaning of 'swdi'? ;-)
Clark Babel
> Hi Clark Babel, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>>Exactly.
>>
>>Preseli!
>
> Elvis Preseli?
"We-ell since Myfanwy left me, I found a new place to stay!"
Clark Babel
It is the way things are meant to be. Anything else would be an
abomination of nature (imagine Christine Hamilton sans makeup...)
Zsa Zsa
> Zsa Zsa wrote:
> > "Clark Babel" <clark...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3D8B50E0...@yahoo.co.uk...
> >
> >>Presley!
> >>
> >>>Did you get my email last night Clark? ;o)
> >>
> >>I only just checked (it's webmail and I can't set it up to come to my
> >>email prog). I've sent you my 'grown up' email address. :-)
> >
> > Hurrah!! :o)
> >
> > For the record, we both know that Lee always comes off better than
anyone
> > else don't we? Don't ask us *how* we know, we just do ;o))
>
> It is the way things are meant to be.
Definitely!!!
Anything else would be an
> abomination of nature (imagine Christine Hamilton sans makeup...)
So cruel!! ;o)
Love Zsa Zsa
xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
Zsa Zsa
>
>
> Zsa Zsa wrote:
> > "mick" <mick...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:amfk86$5jkdf$1...@ID-154089.news.dfncis.de...
> >>
> >>
> >> Clark Babel wrote:
> >>> mick wrote:
> >>>> Clark Babel wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> I save my sarcasm for the occasional intellectual
> >>>>
> >>>> Definately not me then.
> >>>
> >>> You quote Dickens! That's an intellectual in my book! ;-)
> >>
> >> An intellectual who can`t spell 'hum':)
> >>
> >>>> He called them 'The insects of the hour, who raise their
> >>>> little humm and then die and are forgotten'.
> >>>
> >>> Brilliant! OK if I use it in my sig? I've been looking for a good
quote.
> >>
> >> Yes, I don`t think he`ll mind.
> >>
> >>> The only Charles Dickens I've read: 'Oliver Twist' and 'A Christmas
> >>> Carol'. I should be ashamed!
> >
> > I don't think so, not the greatest British novelist IMHO.
> What!!! Whose better? Go on, name me ten.
Okey-dokey!! (In no particular order)
1. Thomas Hardy
2. Jane Austen
3. Any/all of the Brontes
4. James Joyce
5. John Fowles
6. D. H. Lawrence
7. Angela Carter
8. Lawrence Durrell
9. William Thackeray
10. George Orwell
11. Salmon Rushdie
12. Graham Greene
13. Dennis Potter (probably my favourite)
14. Enid Blyton.
Easy-peasy!! :o)
>
> >> Give some of the others a try. They are worth it for the comic
characters
> >> alone.
>
> > True. But the only Dickens I really rate is Great Expectations -
ripping
> > yarn, convincing and very interesting characterisation, deeply moving
plot
> > and sub-text, intriguing Gothic atmosphere - marvellous stuff.!!
>
> Err. I can`t argue with you there. Mainly because Great Expectations is
one
> of the few I`ve never read. Hard Times and Edwin Drood are the others (
> there might be one more as well).
I've only *finished* Great Expectations and David Copperfield, I've tried
Oliver Twist and A Christmas Carol but they got on my nerves, so I'm not
what you'd call a Dickens' expert :o)
>
> Have you ever read any of Wilkie Collins (a chum of Dickens)? Not as good
> but entertaining and easy reads.
I might stand a chance of finishing one then - which do you particularly
recommend (bearing in mind my preferences).
Love Zsa Zsa
xxxxxxxxxxxx Enid was a joke btw, but I've read 'em all ;o)
>
> mick
>
>
>
>
Lee J. Moore
>
[..]
> than anyone else don't we? Don't ask us *how* we know, we
> just do ;o))
I don't feel that I do! I feel quite silly most of the time!
I'm already embarrassed about one or two things I said in *that*
thread (taking back the apology for example).
I need to become a gentleman or something. And take the *blue*
tablets! ;)
Lee J. Moore
>
>> I've reduced the thread score to -9999 now. I'm too easily
>> provoked (and far more easily wound up than a clever nun!).
>> ;o)
>
> Huh? I don't get your last bit (as the actress said (etc)) :-)
It's related to the correspondence between Lady Zsa and Sir
Audley. Apparently it's difficult to deceive or wind up (or
something I can't remember) a nun because they're clever
creatures! Bit nunnist though this 'innit? ;)
>
[..]
> Maybe he really *does* need to take his medication? I myself
> have made some pretty bizarre comments in the past thanks to
> my state of mind... in fact, last night, I was really 'manic'
> and the words just flowed so naturally! I was surprising
> myself with the things I came out with! (ooo-err etc) :-)
I look back on the archives and think - did I really say that?
Did I think that? And it's all things I said yesterday! ;o)
>> I just can't get my head around what's happened here so
>> anyway....it's history. Thanks again btw. :-)
>
> "No problem" - as they say in English. ;-)
"Sound" - as they say in scouse. ;o)
Lee J. Moore
>
> Lee J. Moore wrote:
>> Hi Zsa Zsa, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
>
>> I'm with you and knees-up Father Clark on this one swdi! ;)
>
> Was I ever told the meaning of 'swdi'? ;-)
Aaah, it's an AbFab reference - swdi darling!
Lee J. Moore
>
>
>> What!!! Whose better? Go on, name me ten.
>
> Okey-dokey!! (In no particular order)
I had this piss taken out of me big time a few years ago for
having the nerve to appreciate the works of Charles Dickens!
Not that I've read /that/ much of his! I must admit that Dick
Swiveller was a major attraction of The Old Curiosity Shop, but
I think I got the wrong impression. It turns out A Picture of
Dorian Gray *was* the most pornographic novel of Victorian times
after all! ;)
Tickled pink by this btw:
[..]
> 14. Enid Blyton.
LOL! Btw, where is Anthony Burgess? ;)
[..]
Clark Babel
>Dick Swiveller
!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :-)
--
Clark Babel
> Hi Clark Babel, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
>
>>Lee J. Moore wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Zsa Zsa, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
>>
>>>I'm with you and knees-up Father Clark on this one swdi! ;)
>>
>>Was I ever told the meaning of 'swdi'? ;-)
>
> Aaah, it's an AbFab reference - swdi darling!
I see!!! Er... 'AbFab'? ;-)
(only kidding) :-)
Clark Babel
> Hi Clark Babel, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>>I've reduced the thread score to -9999 now. I'm too easily
>>>provoked (and far more easily wound up than a clever nun!).
>>>;o)
>>
>>Huh? I don't get your last bit (as the actress said (etc)) :-)
>
> It's related to the correspondence between Lady Zsa and Sir
> Audley. Apparently it's difficult to deceive or wind up (or
> something I can't remember) a nun because they're clever
> creatures! Bit nunnist though this 'innit? ;)
Very. I'm surprised some puritanical sort (no names) hasn't come
swooping down to give you a good tongue-lashing... :-)
> [..]
>
>>Maybe he really *does* need to take his medication? I myself
>>have made some pretty bizarre comments in the past thanks to
>>my state of mind... in fact, last night, I was really 'manic'
>>and the words just flowed so naturally! I was surprising
>>myself with the things I came out with! (ooo-err etc) :-)
>
> I look back on the archives and think - did I really say that?
> Did I think that? And it's all things I said yesterday! ;o)
I blame the Prozac. And *not* drinking coffee. :-)
>>>I just can't get my head around what's happened here so
>>>anyway....it's history. Thanks again btw. :-)
>>
>>"No problem" - as they say in English. ;-)
>
> "Sound" - as they say in scouse. ;o)
"Tidy, like" - as they say in Kairdiff (near Wales ;-))
mick
Zsa Zsa wrote:
> "mick" <mick...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:amg62n$5l2j2$1...@ID-154089.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>>
>> Zsa Zsa wrote:
>>> "mick" <mick...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:amfk86$5jkdf$1...@ID-154089.news.dfncis.de...
>>> I don't think so, not the greatest British novelist IMHO.
>
>> What!!! Whose better? Go on, name me ten.
>
> Okey-dokey!! (In no particular order)
>
> 1. Thomas Hardy
> 2. Jane Austen
> 3. Any/all of the Brontes
Didn`t these write books for girls? <ducks>
> 4. James Joyce
Avoided because of reputation (impenetrable)
> 5. John Fowles
> 6. D. H. Lawrence
> 7. Angela Carter
> 8. Lawrence Durrell
Better than Dickens?? Really?
> 9. William Thackeray
Recently read Vanity Fair (very disappointing)
> 10. George Orwell
Enjoyed.
> 11. Salmon Rushdie
Never read.
> 12. Graham Greene
Read a few of his yonks ago. It was actually reading one of his that I first
became aware that Anti-semitic attitudes were just as prevelant in this
country as they were in other parts of Europe. Didn`t strike me as a
particularly brilliant writer I must admit.
> 13. Dennis Potter (probably my favourite)
Did he write novels?
> 14. Enid Blyton.
Now your talking;-)
> Easy-peasy!! :o)
>>
>>>> Give some of the others a try. They are worth it for the comic
characters
>>>> alone.
>>
>>> True. But the only Dickens I really rate is Great Expectations -
ripping
>>> yarn, convincing and very interesting characterisation, deeply moving
plot
>>> and sub-text, intriguing Gothic atmosphere - marvellous stuff.!!
>>
>> Err. I can`t argue with you there. Mainly because Great Expectations is
one
>> of the few I`ve never read. Hard Times and Edwin Drood are the others (
>> there might be one more as well).
>
> I've only *finished* Great Expectations and David Copperfield, I've tried
> Oliver Twist and A Christmas Carol but they got on my nerves, so I'm not
> what you'd call a Dickens' expert :o)
I`m certainly no expert. Oliver Twist was the other one I haven`t finished
(tried two or three times). I get about a third of the way through but it
just doesn`t do it for me. I find his shorter novels aren`t as good (I
struggled to get through Tale of two Cities as well).
A problem that some people have with Dickens (apart from the length of most
of his novels) is that they are mainly character driven and really don`t
have much of a plot to speak of. This is probably more down to the way they
were originally published.
I think the reason I like him is probably the fact that he was so different
to what I was expecting. I thought because his books were old and big and
had the dreaded 'classic' label meant they were dry, impenetrable,
humourless tracts.
>> Have you ever read any of Wilkie Collins (a chum of Dickens)? Not as good
>> but entertaining and easy reads.
> I might stand a chance of finishing one then - which do you particularly
> recommend (bearing in mind my preferences).
Collins was a member of a group of writers that came to be known as
sensationalists (murder, blackmail, intrigue), and are usually credited with
giving birth to the mystery/thriller/detective type novel.
His most well known novels are probably 'The Woman in White', 'The
Moonstone'.
> xxxxxxxxxxxx Enid was a joke btw, but I've read 'em all ;o)
So have I:-) It`s where my love for the mystery/detective/adventure books
started.
mick <currently reading The Gun Seller by Hugh Laurie>
James Bremner
cdc...@decadence27.fsnet.co.uk says...
>
> "mick" <mick...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:amfk86$5jkdf$1...@ID-154089.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> >
> > Clark Babel wrote:
> > > mick wrote:
> > >> Clark Babel wrote:
> > >
> > >>> I save my sarcasm for the occasional intellectual
> > >>
> > >> Definately not me then.
> > >
> > > You quote Dickens! That's an intellectual in my book! ;-)
> >
> > An intellectual who can`t spell 'hum':)
> >
> > >> He called them 'The insects of the hour, who raise their
> > >> little humm and then die and are forgotten'.
> > >
> > > Brilliant! OK if I use it in my sig? I've been looking for a good quote.
> >
> > Yes, I don`t think he`ll mind.
> >
> > > The only Charles Dickens I've read: 'Oliver Twist' and 'A Christmas
> > > Carol'. I should be ashamed!
>
> I don't think so, not the greatest British novelist IMHO.
I HATE Dickens. I REALLY hate Dickens, mawkish sentimental lowest common
denominator crap. Hate him. REALLY hate him.
--
I'm a demon raised from the dead.
I've just been killed.
I'm completely pointless
Helen H
<ear...@tworm.notthisbitstupid.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <amg4f2$lr0$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>cdc...@decadence27.fsnet.co.uk says...
>>
>> "mick" <mick...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:amfk86$5jkdf$1...@ID-154089.news.dfncis.de...
>> >
>> >
<snip>
>
>I HATE Dickens. I REALLY hate Dickens, mawkish sentimental lowest common
>denominator crap. Hate him. REALLY hate him.
I'm not sure I'm getting the full flavour of this ..... are you saying
you're not too fond of Dickens?
Helen
Lee J. Moore
>
> Lee J. Moore wrote:
>
>>Dick Swiveller
>
> !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :-)
LOL! He's a character in The Old Curiosity Shop.
Lee J. Moore
>
[..]
>>
>> "Sound" - as they say in scouse. ;o)
>
> "Tidy, like" - as they say in Kairdiff (near Wales ;-))
"Fucking say that again and I'll smack yer 'ed in" - as they say
in Stoke-on-Trent (only at Kairdiff matches though). ;o)
mick
James Bremner wrote:
> In article <amg4f2$lr0$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> cdc...@decadence27.fsnet.co.uk says...
>>
>> "mick" <mick...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:amfk86$5jkdf$1...@ID-154089.news.dfncis.de...
>>>
>>>> The only Charles Dickens I've read: 'Oliver Twist' and 'A Christmas
>>>> Carol'. I should be ashamed!
>>
>> I don't think so, not the greatest British novelist IMHO.
>
> I HATE Dickens. I REALLY hate Dickens, mawkish sentimental
That could be said about a lot of Vict. fiction. It is nontheless true
however. that's why I would have liked to have seen a lot more of his
central characters (the main culprits)
Little Nell'd.
> lowest common denominator
Steady on old chap. That`s me your talking about there:-)
> crap. Hate him. REALLY hate him.
So you don`t want to go 50/50 on this one then?
mick
Clark Babel
> Hi Clark Babel, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
>
>>Lee J. Moore wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dick Swiveller
>>
>>!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :-)
>
> LOL! He's a character in The Old Curiosity Shop.
With a name like that I'm not surprised! ;-)
Zsa Zsa
> Hi Zsa Zsa, in uk.media.tv.misc recently, you wrote:
> >
> >
> [..]
> >> What!!! Whose better? Go on, name me ten.
> >
> > Okey-dokey!! (In no particular order)
>
> I had this piss taken out of me big time a few years ago for
> having the nerve to appreciate the works of Charles Dickens!
Oh I don't think it's a taking the pissable offence, far from it!!! I just
find him a bit heavy-going that's all, but I think they're great yarns that
generally adapt very well to dramatisation.
> Not that I've read /that/ much of his! I must admit that Dick
> Swiveller was a major attraction of The Old Curiosity Shop,
Well I can see the appeal ducks - spin on that! :o)
but
> I think I got the wrong impression. It turns out A Picture of
> Dorian Gray *was* the most pornographic novel of Victorian times
> after all! ;)
Think you're right there!! Hardy got some flack from Mrs Grundy or whatever
the Victorian Mary Whitehouse was called though didn't he!
>
> Tickled pink by this btw:
>
> [..]
> > 14. Enid Blyton.
Thought you'd like that :o)
>
> LOL! Btw, where is Anthony Burgess? ;)
I've missed quite a few I think!!! I guess Anthony Burgess didn't spring to
mind cos (whispers) I'm too thick to cope with it :o( I thought of a few
more serious omissions about 16 hours ago, but they've disappeared into the
ether now......Can you think of any more Mr Moore?
Love and forgetfulness, Zsa Zsa
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Zsa Zsa
>
>
> >>> I don't think so, not the greatest British novelist IMHO.
> >
> >> What!!! Whose better? Go on, name me ten.
> >
> > Okey-dokey!! (In no particular order)
> >
> > 1. Thomas Hardy
> > 2. Jane Austen
> > 3. Any/all of the Brontes
>
> Didn`t these write books for girls? <ducks>
Yes. And intelligent men. <dives> ;o)
>
> > 4. James Joyce
>
> Avoided because of reputation (impenetrable)
I thought he might not count as British, that's why I added a few more :o)
Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is totally wonderful and very
penetrable, once you get past the stream of conciousness on the first page
(which I happen to love, but I can see why some would think well fuck this
for a game of soldiers).
>
> > 5. John Fowles
> > 6. D. H. Lawrence
> > 7. Angela Carter
> > 8. Lawrence Durrell
>
> Better than Dickens?? Really?
YES!!!! Have you read The Magus? That book blew my mind baby!!!
>
> > 9. William Thackeray
>
> Recently read Vanity Fair (very disappointing)
Oooh I love it!!! We obviously have very different literary tastes, no
probs :o)
>
> > 10. George Orwell
>
> Enjoyed.
Good :o)
>
> > 11. Salmon Rushdie
>
> Never read.
Excellent magic-realism style, if you don't rate Angela Carter, don't
bother.
>
> > 12. Graham Greene
>
> Read a few of his yonks ago. It was actually reading one of his that I
first
> became aware that Anti-semitic attitudes were just as prevelant in this
> country as they were in other parts of Europe. Didn`t strike me as a
> particularly brilliant writer I must admit.
You're joking!! Brighton Rock is a classic Shirley!! Greene is
anti-Semitic but Dickens isn't??????
>
> > 13. Dennis Potter (probably my favourite)
>
> Did he write novels?
Yes - try Hide and Seek, and then tell me he's not better than Dickens!!!
>
> > 14. Enid Blyton.
>
> Now your talking;-)
I do confess to reading any Blyton I could get my hands on as a child, no
wonder I'm so f*cked up ;o)
>
> > Easy-peasy!! :o)
> >>
> >>>> Give some of the others a try. They are worth it for the comic
> characters
> >>>> alone.
> >>
> >>> True. But the only Dickens I really rate is Great Expectations -
> ripping
> >>> yarn, convincing and very interesting characterisation, deeply moving
> plot
> >>> and sub-text, intriguing Gothic atmosphere - marvellous stuff.!!
> >>
> >> Err. I can`t argue with you there. Mainly because Great Expectations is
> one
> >> of the few I`ve never read. Hard Times and Edwin Drood are the others (
> >> there might be one more as well).
> >
> > I've only *finished* Great Expectations and David Copperfield, I've
tried
> > Oliver Twist and A Christmas Carol but they got on my nerves, so I'm not
> > what you'd call a Dickens' expert :o)
>
> I`m certainly no expert.
Well you are in comparison to me, that's for sure!!
Oliver Twist was the other one I haven`t finished
> (tried two or three times).
This is my main problem with Dickens.
I get about a third of the way through but it
> just doesn`t do it for me. I find his shorter novels aren`t as good (I
> struggled to get through Tale of two Cities as well).
Do you find the same sort of struggle with any of the authors I prefer?
>
> A problem that some people have with Dickens (apart from the length of
most
> of his novels) is that they are mainly character driven and really don`t
> have much of a plot to speak of. This is probably more down to the way
they
> were originally published.
I think the opposite - I believe that Dickens novels are mostly plot driven,
with quite weak/characatured/two dimensional characters, as a result of the
way they were originally published as magazine installments, with loads of
cliff-hangers to whet the reader's appetite for the next episode.
>
> I think the reason I like him is probably the fact that he was so
different
> to what I was expecting.
I really understand that - I was the same with Hemmingway, expected to hate
him, but I love his style so much.
I thought because his books were old and big and
> had the dreaded 'classic' label meant they were dry, impenetrable,
> humourless tracts.
Know exactly what you mean - but as you can see, there's a lot of Victorian
(and earlier!!) literature that I really love (I'm a great Shakespeare fan).
>
> >> Have you ever read any of Wilkie Collins (a chum of Dickens)? Not as
good
> >> but entertaining and easy reads.
>
> > I might stand a chance of finishing one then - which do you particularly
> > recommend (bearing in mind my preferences).
>
> Collins was a member of a group of writers that came to be known as
> sensationalists (murder, blackmail, intrigue), and are usually credited
with
> giving birth to the mystery/thriller/detective type novel.
Ahhhhh, I've just asked my hub about him, he wrote The Woman in White?
Davey's apparently read some of his ghost stories.
>
> His most well known novels are probably 'The Woman in White', 'The
> Moonstone'.
I'll give 'em a whirl, thanks Mick :o)
>
> > xxxxxxxxxxxx Enid was a joke btw, but I've read 'em all ;o)
>
> So have I:-) It`s where my love for the mystery/detective/adventure books
> started.
Know what you mean - the good thing about Blyton IMHO is that she got loads
of kids really interested in reading and thirsty for more - that can only be
a good thing. She was apparently an absolute bitch in real life, and was
exceptionally cruel to one of her daughters, I think she was called Imogen,
and Enid would call really horrible characters Imogen in her stories to
emphasise her hatred for this daughter - what a charmer! Apparently she'd
lock her in cupboards and this sort of thing, and make a point of being
ostentatiously loving and kind to her other kids :o(
>
> mick <currently reading The Gun Seller by Hugh Laurie>
Don't know him.
Love Zsa Zsa (currently reading We Were The Mulvaneys by Joyce Carol Oates).
xxxxxxx
>
>