I listened today to Bush speaking out about gay marriage ( another thread ) and it got me thinking...what is taboo in 2004?
What was taboo in 1980 say , is seen today as the norm, so I wondered what is taboo now that in 2020 will be the norm?
Posted by Meg (Member # 444) on :
Mercy killings of internet newbies.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
With this and your thread on serial killers Helen, I think you are asking to be chopped up and fried in hot oil.
Which is still taboo, I think. Maybe you should ask Black Mask, he seemed to have some novel ideas.
[ 24.02.2004, 13:58: Message edited by: Samuelnorton ]
Posted by Helen Back (Member # 649) on :
why would this thread and the serial thread warrant me being chopped up? How bizarre...
had someone else posted this...you all would be replying with your usual intelligent replies...pah you see it's me and you have to post some vile stupid answer...
why? what on earth is your problem with me? Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Helen Back: why would this thread and the serial thread warrant me being chopped up? How bizarre...
had someone else posted this...you all would be replying with your usual intelligent replies...pah you see it's me and you have to post some vile stupid answer...
why? what on earth is your problem with me?
nothing much... your writing style's a bit annoying... perhaps people think your sig is a bit "sad"...
In answer to your question, the first obvious taboo I can think of is paedophilia. However, despite signs of it becoming less taboo - Peedo jokes are now common, even on TV - I hope to god it won't ever be accepted. Thinking about it though, what we would now call the actions of paedophile would probably have been commonplace hundreds of years ago.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Helen Back: why would this thread and the serial thread warrant me being chopped up? How bizarre...
It was a play on the two subjects, you ninny!
quote:had someone else posted this...you all would be replying with your usual intelligent replies...pah you see it's me and you have to post some vile stupid answer...
Not at all. If it had been Bennyboy I would have responded with a volley of sneery abuse. Or something. Come on, say something instead of just moaning.
If anything, I guess it was the "I was just thinking" thing... In this place, you don't post a thread after a few seconds thought. It must be well considered and thought out, see?
quote:why? what on earth is your problem with me?
Don't be confused. All newbies are given a bit of a roughing up here, it's par for the course. The poor ones disappear back into their little holes, the better ones stick around. Of course there are always exceptions to this last rule, Thorn Davis being just one. I can't for a second understand the iconic status that man has achieved. Posted by Physic (Member # 195) on :
I'd tend to agree with Misc, Helen, the theme of the thread is a sound one, and potentially the start of a very interesting debate, but the way you write your first post makes it sound like something you wrote on a whim, not something you've put much thought into. There's a tradition on TMO called Poster First, whereby if you start a thread like this where you pose a question, you're also the first one to answer the question, just shows you've put some thought into the post and gets the ball rolling, so to speak.
Usually the only time people get away with posting threads based upon a 'throw-away' comment or idea, is if they're a medium to long-term poster who has already established their credibility. Though even that doesn't guarantee immunity from p*ss-ripping - just take a look at Mart's alphabet thread.
Hope that helps.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Helen, to be fair I have given your sex thread a long and intensely revealing answer. So stop complaining.
Posted by Modge (Member # 64) on :
Helen, I agree with what Physic said, really. I also think you seem awfully defensive and agressive sometimes... you say you want to stay and join in, then in your next text breath you are snappy and critical of how "we" post.
You can't be snappy and critical until you reach 100 posts!
Posted by Fionnula the Cooler (Member # 453) on :
Maybe someone can help me with my questions.
Where can I find out about the historical origins of marriage? Is marriage a religious ceremony? Does marriage have an important role to play in the society of the third millenium? Why is marriage better than civil unions? Aren't gays much too cool for marriage?
On the subject of breaking taboos. Transexuals are next. Paedos can join the queue.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Helen Back: What was taboo in 1980 say , is seen today as the norm
Bit of a flaw in the first post here... I can't think of one example of something that was taboo in the 80s and is now the norm.
Gay marriage isn't the norm in 2004. Oral sex wasn't taboo in 1980. And so on.
Posted by Gleep (Member # 602) on :
I can’t think of things that were particularly taboo in the 80s either. I do think that generally sexual experimentation between females is more accepted (and exalted!) now then in the 80s, but that might just be because I am older now, and don’t tend to think in the same black and white way I did as a pre-teen, i.e., “Ew, gross, two girls kissing!”
Posted by Fionnula the Cooler (Member # 453) on :
quote:Albert: Same sex couples living together should have the same legal rights in terms of tax, inheritance, etc. as married couples, but it is simply inaccurate to pretend that it is marriage. Marriage is about providing a stable platform for a couple to have and rear children. This requires one male and one female. Albert, UK
Phew!
[ 24.02.2004, 16:58: Message edited by: Fionnula the Cooler ]
Posted by Porcupine (Member # 607) on :
I can think of something that wasn't taboo in the 80's but is now.
Jackets with really big shoulder pads. They're just wrong.
Posted by Fionnula the Cooler (Member # 453) on :
In 2020 it will no longer be taboo to openly listen to Marilyn Manson. Because he will be dead and his music will be vintage. In the same way that it is now ok to listen to Blondie or Siouxsie and the Banshees. Secret fans will fall out of the closet and wear pin-buttons and shoulderbags and tasselled t-shirts printed with Marilyn's omega-shaped face. We will play archive footage of his botched suicide, which will have involved him suicide-bombing a zoo, and failing, and being eaten, crotch first, by a tigress. It will be brilliant. We will be liberated.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Like Marilyn Manson is really shocking now. Posted by Fionnula the Cooler (Member # 453) on :
Eh? That is my point. Is that your point too? Your eyes confuse me.
I did not mean Marilyn Manson is taboo! I meant: in a world of musical credibility, it would be ILLEGAL to admit to liking Marilyn Manson, because he is so lame, but in the future we will have the excuse of RETRO. Ahh, future.
[ 24.02.2004, 17:47: Message edited by: Fionnula the Cooler ]
Posted by LowLevel (Member # 30) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fionnula the Cooler: Blondie or Siouxsie and the Banshees.
[Redneck]B...B.. But Paw, They aint'n't dead yet[/Redneck]
Posted by turbo (Member # 593) on :
I don't know about taboo stuff, but I do sometimes think 'My kids will laugh at me for this in the future'. Stuff like the euro - everyone is struggling to get to grips with this new money, but the next generation won't know any better. Also, there is stuff we think is really coll at the moment or new gadgets that we dream about owning which will probably be ten a penny in a few years' time. Our kids will probably laugh at our collections of video tapes and, in the same way that we laugh at the enormous mobile phones you see in 80's films, they will probably think our mobiles are hilarious.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fionnula the Cooler: Eh? That is my point. Is that your point too? Your eyes confuse me.
I did not mean Marilyn Manson is taboo! I meant: in a world of musical credibility, it would be ILLEGAL to admit to liking Marilyn Manson, because he is so lame, but in the future we will have the excuse of RETRO. Ahh, future.
Oh, now I see. Your point leads me to a more plausible and interesting observation that American kids will start wearing Che-style OSAMA BIN LADEN logos in 2020. His genuine abhorrence in the eyes of most contemporary Americans will fade and become a mere badge of half-understood teen "radical-shock" for kids who were born post Sept 11 2001.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by turbo: Our kids will probably laugh at our collections of video tapes
Ack, I can imagine myself being laughed at by my kids for being a DVD purist or some such shit. Like they'll be going, "Jesus dad, why do you bother opening the case, putting the disc in and all that, when you can just call up any film in super high definition at a moment's noticed from a centralised server? Jesus." And I'll be all like "I actually prefer the packaging and the artwork - it feels like you're buying into a different world. And I think that just 500-odd picture lines adds a warmth that's missing from the cold crispness of high-def. Although, I concede that on the 250in screen it does look a bit odd with half an inch between each picture line."
Taboo. I don't know. Shitting on the table at dinner is sort of taboo, but I can't imagine that'll be the norm in 2020. I thought we were getting less tolerant as a society, anyway? A programme like Love Thy Neighbour would probably be taboo now - or just really offensive, maybe. It's hard for me to guage what may have been taboo in 1980, as I was just 2 years old and therefore most things seemed taboo.
Posted by Gemini (Member # 428) on :
I think Helen Black should stay, ok she didn't have the greatest start but she took everything you guys could throw at her, threw a few insults back and has tried to start some topics, she will gradually learn about poster first etc. But then I might be biased Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Of course there are always exceptions to this last rule, Thorn Davis being just one. I can't for a second understand the iconic status that man has achieved.
I've had a back handed compliment before - but never a back handed insult. Iconic? Thanks!
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs:
quote:Originally posted by Helen Back: What was taboo in 1980 say , is seen today as the norm
Bit of a flaw in the first post here... I can't think of one example of something that was taboo in the 80s and is now the norm.
Gay marriage isn't the norm in 2004. Oral sex wasn't taboo in 1980. And so on.
I'd go with the comments that many new taboos have appeared since the 1980s, rather than disappeared, but this may be because many taboos run in cycles anyway - especially sexual tolerance.
One taboo which clearly changed was Sunday shopping which really was a no-no and was only legalised in 1993, after years of strange loophole exploiting and religious protests etc. The loss of that campaign may well have caused enormous damage to the Church in this country.
As for paedophilia - in many ways this simply wasn't an issue. I mean, child abuse obviously was, but pictures of underage girls in the nudd etc where not unusual at all. One thinks of the Bow Wow Wow album cover, the Dejeuner Sur L'Herbe thing with the 15-year-old Annabella Lwin. That cover doesn't seem to be available any more and one website says: "as Annabella hadn't quite reached her 16th birthday, it is possibly a criminal offence to have that sleeve in your possession, and you MUST NOT scan it if you intend taking your PC to PC World for repair (at anytime in your life)." Hmmm. I have a copy of the picture. In fact several copies, as it regularly used to appear in magazine articles about album covers etc etc. Also the Blind Faith album cover (probably not worksafe even if it's on Amazon?!), which is still generally available but a lot more discomforting than the Bow Wow Wow one, which is funny and clever and pretty much harmless let's face it. Yeah, that sort of thing has been heavily clamped down on.
Smoking in public, on buses, in offices, on the Tube was also completely normal into the early 1990s at least.
So, Sunday trading is the only one I can think of that's gone the other way and lost its taboo status. I think "tolerance" and recognition of gay marriage and gays in the armed forces etc will improve. I put "tolerance" in quotes because it's only the legal status that's not recognised isn't it? I mean I don't know anyone that would be upset if a gay couple moved in next door or whatever. I think the tolerance is already there and has been for years and the law needs to catch up, big time.
Posted by LowLevel (Member # 30) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: I mean I don't know anyone that would be upset if a gay couple moved in next door.
Especially if they needed a fresh opinion on soft furnishings
Posted by Astromariner (Member # 446) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: I put "tolerance" in quotes because it's only the legal status that's not recognised isn't it? I mean I don't know anyone that would be upset if a gay couple moved in next door or whatever. I think the tolerance is already there and has been for years and the law needs to catch up, big time.
I think it's a bit dodgy to argue that, just because you don't personally know anyone who'd be offended by gaydom, that tolerance generally has greatly improved. I'm definately what samuelnorton, with a disdainful curl of his lip, would call a "liberal", and I tend to associate with other people of similarly leftie leanings: not by design, but because I seem to have more in common with people who aren't filled with fear and hate, innit. But: those people are still in plentiful supply. Even socially acceptable right-wingers like Mr Astro's dad have progressed only so far as "I don't mind gays, but I don't like them shoving it down my throat (sic), and I don't think they should be allowed to teach children".
In Glasgow there has also been an alarming spate of violent assaults upon people who are, or who are assumed to be gay. In terms of racial tolerance, Scotland as a whole has a pretty dismal record: something like 67% of people here believe it's OK to hold certain assumptions about people because of their race.
Posted by Lucid (Member # 531) on :
Tony Blair mentioning the word 'socialism' perhaps?
Posted by Modge (Member # 64) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: In Glasgow there has also been an alarming spate of violent assaults upon people who are, or who are assumed to be gay. In terms of racial tolerance, Scotland as a whole has a pretty dismal record: something like 67% of people here believe it's OK to hold certain assumptions about people because of their race.
I was about to post something similar about Scottish people, oh dear! When I go home I always notice that there is a different attitude, or different level of acceptability than I am used to in London. Probably at least partly because there are no non-white or openly gay people living in my village. I don't think that on the whole people would be violent or overtly nasty if there were, but there is a certain... naivety almost. People make jokes in the pub about Jamaicans and mincing gays, but they can't seem to get much beyond these stereotypes. It's not a taboo, just a different level of understanding.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: I think it's a bit dodgy to argue that, just because you don't personally know anyone who'd be offended by gaydom, that tolerance generally has greatly improved.
Yes, I'm sure it is quite dodgy as an arguement, but times have changed because in the past it was common for liberal types to be offended by gays, just as they might now be offended by drug users hanging around car parks for example - i.e. not necessarily hating the person, but not wanting them in close proximity. I knew plenty of people who weren't racist, weren't misogynistic and weren't intolerant of other religions, but were 'uncomfortable' with homos. I think that that has changed.
I can't speak for those bigotted, racist and xenophobic members of our society, but their views aren't considered to be of great value by the rest of decent society who actually pay for and run the country anyway, are they?
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
But the country is run by bigots, racists and xenophobes, isn't it?
Posted by Astromariner (Member # 446) on :
To an extent I agree with you Dang (man). I just think you'd be unpleasantly surprised to find how great a cross section of society still holds views that you or I might consider to be intolerant. Perhaps I did my own argument a disservice by citing individual incidences of violent assault: clearly, not every bigot prowls the street with a flick-knife. But because they're not visible, doesn't mean they're not there: paying their taxes and considering themselves to have a stake in the running of the country like everyone else. This is why I think that the law as it stands isn't all that inaccurate a reflection of many people's world view.
[ 25.02.2004, 03:13: Message edited by: Astromariner ]
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: But the country is run by bigots, racists and xenophobes, isn't it?
Well, yes, but they can't admit the fact publicly and usually go out of their way to appear the opposite. The law, in many cases, seems to be kind of in between the two extremes - which is as it should be I suppose. I mean, there was that Radio 4 poll recently for a new law to be introduced in the Commons and the listeners actually voted by a fair majority for a bill allowing home owners to defend their property by any means they wished to use. The MP who had agreed to propose the winning suggestion then changed his mind and flatly refused to do it! So "majority views" don't really come into it, as it's all moderated by some mysterious force which doesn't allow extremism in this country.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: This is why I think that the law as it stands isn't all that inaccurate a reflection of many people's world view.
I won't say this is deluded. More naïve.
This sort of opinion can only be based on one's own orbit, and who one chooses to have in their immediate circle. I could say that the law isn't an accurate reflection of many people's world view for an opposite set of reasons. Most of the people I know are in favour of a number of things I know you wouldn't like, and they certainly aren't "bigots", but people with what I would call traditional Christian values. It's as simple as that.
Yes, Astro - I would call you a "liberal". Possibly, with a lip-curling sneer. However, your description of your dad is exactly how some people whould see me. I may have a dig at hermeurs, but know that they aren't all going to simply disappear. The only path is to accept that they are what they are, and hope that they keep it to themselves and do what they do in the privacy of their own homes and out of the orbit of those who don't want to see or hear about that sort of shit. If they want to get up God-knows-what under their own roof, fine.
But when they come out on the street and hand out leaflets to kids, or what you see two male coppers at it in an episode of The Bill - for no other reason than some politically correct imbecile wants to spice up what should be a police show with an unnecessary "gay storyline" - I just think "No. Not here".
[ 25.02.2004, 04:33: Message edited by: Samuelnorton ]
Posted by Stefanos (Member # 53) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: But because they're not visible, doesn't mean they're not there: paying their taxes and considering themselves to have a stake in the running of the country like everyone else.
I am really not trying to score points here, but regarding the above comment:
Do you mean that bigots don't have a stake in the running of the country, or shouldn't have?
Or is this statement a purely neutral one in that they believe this, like everyone else?
[ 25.02.2004, 04:41: Message edited by: Stefanos ]
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Most of the people I know are in favour of a number of things I know you wouldn't like
At least have the decency to a: not speak for others, b: say specifically what you mean.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: and they certainly aren't "bigots", but people with what I would call traditional Christian values. It's as simple as that.
Yes, well there are lots of things that we could call traditional Christian values, that have no place a modern civilised society.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: I may have a dig at hermeurs, but know that they aren't all going to simply disappear.
No I'm sure you can think of other ways of disposing of them.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: The only path is to accept that they are what they are, and hope that they keep it to themselves and do what they do in the privacy of their own homes and out of the orbit of those who don't want to see or hear about that sort of shit. If they want to get up God-knows-what under their own roof, fine.
Or you could see homosexuality as a natural part of human sexuality and accept that it exists happily rather than regarding it or it's practice as dirty or abhorrent.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: But when they come out on the street and hand out leaflets to kids,
The Queers do this alot round your way do they? Because I've never seen this happen once.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: or what you see two male coppers at it in an episode of The Bill - for no other reason than some politically correct imbecile wants to spice up what should be a police show with an unnecessary "gay storyline" - I just think "No. Not here".
God forbid writers should choose to represent 10% of the population in a storyline.
[ 25.02.2004, 04:47: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
Posted by Astromariner (Member # 446) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stefanos: Or is this statement a purely neutral one in that they believe this, like everyone else?
Purely neutral.
Posted by Astromariner (Member # 446) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: This is why I think that the law as it stands isn't all that inaccurate a reflection of many people's world view.
I won't say this is deluded. More naïve.
This sort of opinion can only be based on one's own orbit, and who one chooses to have in their immediate circle.
Dude, you've just totally reiterated what I said in my first post! I can't see where you disagree with me. I say: "just because you hang around with a bunch of liberals, doesn't mean everyone's a liberal" - or words to that effect, and you say exactly the same thing. What's your point?
[ 25.02.2004, 04:54: Message edited by: Astromariner ]
Posted by Stefanos (Member # 53) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner:
quote:Originally posted by Stefanos: Or is this statement a purely neutral one in that they believe this, like everyone else?
Purely neutral.
Fair enough...! Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: But when they come out on the street and hand out leaflets to kids, or what you see two male coppers at it in an episode of The Bill - for no other reason than some politically correct imbecile wants to spice up what should be a police show with an unnecessary "gay storyline" - I just think "No. Not here".
How can you say that that story is unneccesary? I mean, for one thing The Bill isn't just about cop stories - it's delved into characters' private lives for years now. I mean, storylines are neccessary because otherwise the show would just be rambling, unconnected scenes for half an hour.
O I don't know. Whenever Snorton starts posting I just feel like someone's repeatedly slowly hitting me with a bag of sand. You know how some posters can invigorate you when you start arguing with them? And make you think? Snorton always makes me feel really tired. I suppose It's always the way when you're arguing with someone beneath you.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: What's your point?
A very good question Astro.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: At least have the decency to a: not speak for others, b: say specifically what you mean.
My point was that anyone's personal opinion on "what the majority" thinks are always going to be shaped by the views of those around you. There's no need to bring up points that are essentially irrelevant.
I wasn't "speaking for anyone", merely stating that most of my friends hold views that I believe Astro wouldn't necessarily agree with. As for being more specific, I could have rambled on at length on how many of my friends believe in capital punishment, corporal punishment at schools, rolling back of gay legislation, etc. - all of which I am quite sure Astro and most liberals would object to - but it simply isn't relevant to the main point.
quote:Yes, well there are lots of things that we could call traditional Christian values, that have no place a modern civilised society.
Yeah, blah blah. But what is a "modern civilised society", BR? My interpretation of this concept is a place where you can go about and do your job and raise your family without hindrance. Do you agree, or is your idea of what is a modern civilised society different from mine? We probably share the same belief in the concept itself, but diverge when it comes to the interpretation of this concept. Not that I wan't to speak for you, of course.
quote:No I'm sure you can think of other ways of disposing of them.
That's my point. I wouldn't. I would just prefer if they were to shut up and get on with it.
quote:Or you could see homosexuality as a natural part of human sexuality and accept that it exists happily rather than regarding it or it's practice as dirty or abhorrent.
Whether I see it as dirty or abhorrent is beside the point. Or are you trying to talk for me here? I see it as unnatural, end of. Blame my Christian upbringing, if you want. After all, we are the freaks these days, no?
quote:Queers do this alot round your way do they? Because I've never seen this happen once.
Oh, haha. I am referring to the campaign by Peter Tatchell and his minions to bring homosexual "teaching" into the classroom. And a campaign by the LGB Society while I was at university, where they paraded on the concourse - a public throughway - and handed out campiagn leaflets to mothers with kids, and even some of the schoolkids themselves. We responded with water, flour and eggs, and thankfully they retreated back into the Union building. Of course, we wouldn't have had a problem if they had decided to stay in the Union building in the first place.
quote:God forbid writers should choose to represent 10% of the population in a storyline.
Well, no wonder the Met is having trouble recruiting. People must be thinking it's full of fucking poofs. 10% of the population my eye.
[ 25.02.2004, 05:08: Message edited by: Samuelnorton ]
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: Dude, you've just totally reiterated what I said in my first post! I can't see where you disagree with me. I say: "just because you hang around with a bunch of liberals, doesn't mean everyone's a liberal" - or words to that effect, and you say exactly the same thing. What's your point?
Shit. Maybe it's my rightwing-tinted specs, but I didn't see the "in" before "accurate" the first when when looking at your post.
*Shuffles away, sheepishly*
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I suppose It's always the way when you're arguing with someone beneath you.
My comment about your being a board icon was not be taken seriously.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote: Oh, haha. I am referring to the campaign by Peter Tatchell and his minions to bring homosexual "teaching" into the classroom. And a campaign by the LGB Society while I was at university, where they paraded on the concourse - a public throughway - and handed out campiagn leaflets to mothers with kids, and even some of the schoolkids themselves. We responded with water, flour and eggs, and thankfully they retreated back into the Union building. Of course, we wouldn't have had a problem if they had decided to stay in the Union building in the first place.
I suppose the aim of this was to promote education, and therefore understanding and therefore to put an end to prejudice, fear and victimisation. I can't see that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by Lauren (Member # 372) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Shit. Maybe it's my rightwing-tinted specs, but I didn't see the "in" before "accurate" the first when when looking at your post.
*Shuffles away, sheepishly*
Is it just my perception, or is Snorton illiterate?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I suppose It's always the way when you're arguing with someone beneath you.
My comment about your being a board icon was not be taken seriously.
Could you repost this in English, ta.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lauren: Is it just my perception, or is Snorton illiterate?
No, merely trying to do four things at the same time. Maybe I should just leave this for now and come back later.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Could you repost this in English, ta.
I could repost this in any language you choose, but if you don't get it, you don't get it.
Posted by Raz (Member # 449) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Could you repost this in English, ta.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
Raz: get a job. Fuckeryphooer you ain't.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
Lol at Snorton bitten on every paw by baying liberals.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Nightowl looks more attractive with her eyes upside down! Posted by Modge (Member # 64) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: And a campaign by the LGB Society while I was at university, where they paraded on the concourse - a public throughway - and handed out campiagn leaflets to mothers with kids, and even some of the schoolkids themselves. We responded with water, flour and eggs, and thankfully they retreated back into the Union building. Of course, we wouldn't have had a problem if they had decided to stay in the Union building in the first place.
Wow, you sure gave those schoolkids an admirable example. Of how to be a bully. I'm sure all the mothers were grateful.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Louche: Lol at Snorton bitten on every paw by baying liberals.
Proof that this place isn't what it used to be thought, don't you think? At least Ben wouldn't just jump in there for the sake of it.
But then o, he probably would.
I like threads like this; they break up the tedium of editing webpages and guiding customers through the Outlook email set process. Every time I want a comic relief break, I just click on Life and hit refresh. Thanks, people!
Posted by philomel (Member # 586) on :
Louche's loll-comment and Raz's phucked eyes combined to make me gulp-snort unattractively and choke. Normally my laugh out louds are restrained to a brief smile. Not this time!
edit: Ahh! Helen Back's prejudice thread has brought new joy to the forum!
[ 25.02.2004, 05:33: Message edited by: philomel ]
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
If Samuelnorton is unable to cope with reality then of course he's going to oppose things that threaten his own interpretation of it. And this is why this argument can never be won. Whereas liberals can back up their arguments with notions of freedom, choice, and human rights, norton can only really back his up with a God, mystical ideas of "right" and "wrong" being somehow naturally inherent, and personal predjudices that have no rational basis, like his dislike of Jews. There's a sense of historical continuation in Samuels ideas, which is probably why he's so interested in history. In the discipline of history, you have the ability to re-interpret the past and therefore sure up your own idea of the present. Samuel here, as we know, is interested in historical revisionism, and this goes hand in hand with, I'm guessing, a kind of revulsion at the way that things have turned out. Don't get me wrong, I'm as disturbed as the next man about the way things are, but I would consider the problems that we face to be a result of people like Samuel who are unable to cope with the last sixty years of reality, rather than liberals who are trying to build a world where personal freedom is becoming more and more of a reality around many areas of the planet.
There really is no point telling somebody who is squeamish about the facts of life that they are, in fact, "wrong". I'm aware that my own idea of 'fact' is again just another interpretation, but I belive it to be correct because I believe that humans should be able to interact with as much of the world and each other in as many ways as possible, with each individual being equally as important. Opportunity and choice should be human rights, not just restricted to a lottery of where you were born and who you were born to. I believe that these things are good and right because they afford true dignity and chance for happiness to everybody who lives by them. They may not be tangible in the way things currently are, but our civilizations are young, they have links to but are not anchored in history, and there are a million ways in which application of these kinds of ideas can help people.
Well, I could go on, but it isn't about me. There just seems little point in arguing directly with somebody like Rick, as you can't convince somebody of something that they fundamentally believe to be untrue. At least, I don't think you can, and you can't prove or disprove the basis of any moral system. We just have to hope that we can provide an education system that gives people an ability to actually think for themselves, and make judgements that are informed beyond dogmatic religious texts, cultural seperatism, nationalist ideology and most of all, the kind of ignorance that breeds reactionary fear.
Sorry, it's just that I've seen this argument with rick like a million times, and all it does is allow him to continue to live. We need to take back the screams - all the energy from the teenagers he's killed.
No offence, Rick.
[ 25.02.2004, 05:38: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by squirrelandgman (Member # 201) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: The only path is to accept that they are what they are, and hope that they keep it to themselves and do what they do in the privacy of their own homes, not post pictures of it on the internet and keep it out of the orbit of those who don't want to see or hear about that sort of shit. If they want to get up God-knows-what under their own roof, fine.
It would be great if samuelnorton was a jaffa.
[ 25.02.2004, 05:54: Message edited by: squirrelandgman ]
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Modge: Wow, you sure gave those schoolkids an admirable example. Of how to be a bully. I'm sure all the mothers were grateful.
Bullies? We had asked nicely on a number of occasions prior to the event for them to set up in the Union building. But did they listen? Nah, they brought the Union into it. Bullies. Shyeah, right.
The action took place after lunch, when most of the schoolchildren were back at school. We did have some support from the public gallery in the form of a few old grannies, though.
Posted by Lauren (Member # 372) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Benway: some fair points
But I like the way that he tries to co-opt a liberal rhetoric: according to Snorton, Christians are now 'freaks' because of liberal oppression. His values are, apparently, under threat. He must defend them with flour and eggs and then justify his bombardment of others by claiming that it is reasoned and thought through. I almost sympathise.
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: I see it as unnatural, end of. Blame my Christian upbringing, if you want. After all, we are the freaks these days, no?
quote:Originally posted by Kovacs, last week: (Raz), Ask whether an atheist who follows Christian values in every aspect of his life except for believing in GOD is "worse" than a Christian who goes to church for appearances and professes to have religious faith but in fact behaves contrary to every ethical guideline offered by JESUS.
good question, kovacs!
[ 25.02.2004, 05:44: Message edited by: discodamage ]
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Benway: We need to take back the screams - all the energy from the teenagers he's killed.
An eloquent post as always, Benway. You spoilt it by comparing me to Freddy Krueger, though.
Posted by Modge (Member # 64) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Bullies? We had asked nicely on a number of occasions prior to the event for them to set up in the Union building. But did they listen? Nah, they brought the Union into it.
lol. I'm not sure who this "we" is. If it was a group of you and your friends then I ask what right did you have to dictate where they held their event? If it was a more official group of union representatives then I say you responded completely inappropriately.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Bullies. Shyeah, right.
yes. right.
[ 25.02.2004, 05:48: Message edited by: Modge ]
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lauren:
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Benway: some fair points
But I like the way that he tries to co-opt a liberal rhetoric: according to Snorton, Christians are now 'freaks' because of liberal oppression.
I didn't use the word "oppression". For a good example of this state of affairs though, you only need to witness the ridiculous reaction to Mel Gibson's film The Passion of Christ.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Modge:
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Bullies?
lol.
Rather than LOL I find that I regularly SCOL at SN posts. As in Shout Cunt Out Loud.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Modge: I'm not sure who this "we" is. If it was a group of you and your friends then I ask what right did you have to dictate where they held their event? If it was a more official group of union representatives then I say you responded completely inappropriately.
I and a couple of others represented the Conservative Society. Others with us included the Christian Society and (listen here, people!) the chairpersons of both the Jewish and Islamic societies. There was even a guy from the science society there, but I don't know why. I'd say the initial request was conducted in a civilised way. We simply requested that if the activity was supported by the Union - and not by the University itself, which it wasn't - we were well within our rights to ask them to hold it within the confines of the Union building. The Union got all heavy handed and made some official statement about not giving into bigotry and hatred, or something. When all we had done was make a polite request for them not to dress up in tutus and thongs and hand out leaflets to people in a public thoroughfare.
So we decided on water and flour bombs. It was like Rag Day all over again.
You are beginning to sound a bit like Kovacs. Are you sure there hasn't been more buggering around with usernames and passwords?
[ 25.02.2004, 05:59: Message edited by: Samuelnorton ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
You had to resort to attacking them because you're thick, basically.
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
its not the passion of christ, by the way. its the passion of THE christ. as in THE Fonz. i dont quite understand the point of this film; by the sounds of it its just three hours of sitting watching poor old jesus have various parts of his flesh ripped off with nailstudded whips. if i was a christian the last thing i would want to see would be someone whipping my beloved christ's skin of in strips. i would want a film where for three hours people hugged him and told him he was ace and that they really dug all his speeches and how he was nice to people all the time and everyone danced around shouting about the aceness of jesus. i have this terrible picture of all those cinemas in the midwest emptying of their block bookings of mouth breathing evangelisers, so charged up on blood lust and their saviours cries of agony that they go and beat a queer to death with a bible. why dont you love jesus, fag? we love jesus! we just watched him bleed! and now were watching you bleed too!
[ 25.02.2004, 06:08: Message edited by: discodamage ]
Posted by Modge (Member # 64) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: When all we had done was make a polite request for them not to dress up in tutus and thongs
oh my goodness! This used to happen at my college every day!!!
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: So we decided on water and flour bombs. It was like Rag Day all over again.
I have never been to a rag day, but I would have thought that the idea then would be that everyone was willingly participating in the "fun".
Thank you though, for explaining the "we". I still think you behaved like a group of bullies, we'll have to just accept our views differ, I think.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: You are beginning to sound a bit like Kovacs. Are you sure there hasn't been more buggering around with usernames and passwords?
It's funny how often people come up with "you sound like kovacs" line; when he is nice, noone accuses him of being me. Incidentally, there never has been any "buggering about with names and passwords" here or anywhere else. I have no desire to be kovacs and I'm sure he has none to be me. Perhaps *shock* sometimes I share a similar view to my boyfriend.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Modge: oh my goodness! This used to happen at my college every day!!!
lol. But... you were all pretty ballet students... Unless you had a fat, six-foot bloke with bleached hair and nasty facial piercings in your class.
quote:I have never been to a rag day, but I would have thought that the idea then would be that everyone was willingly participating in the "fun".
You don't always need to be a misery guts when making a political point, you know.
quote:Thank you though, for explaining the "we". I still think you behaved like a group of bullies, we'll have to just accept our views differ, I think.
Fair enough. I do however believe that the action taken by the Union was wrong. Here were four groups (five if you include the science gek, lol) making a polite request, only to be decribed as "haters" and told to fuck off. By the time the event came about, it had probably gone beyond merely clearing the gayz from the public walkway. It was about proving a point to the Union that there are other points of view than needed to be listened to.
quote:It's funny how often people come up with "you sound like kovacs" line; when he is nice, noone accuses him of being me.
Well, he isn't nice very often, is he? " "
quote:Incidentally, there never has been any "buggering about with names and passwords" here or anywhere else. I have no desire to be kovacs and I'm sure he has none to be me. Perhaps *shock* sometimes I share a similar view to my boyfriend.
Sharing a view is one thing, but sounding the same? Hmm.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
tit Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
He clearly doesn't like it being broadcast, but squirrelandgman fucks pigs.
O, squirrelboy - now that you have decided to use Raz's phoo on your last post it means that your recreated "quote" has no meaning. You cock.
Posted by Bamba (Member # 330) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Fair enough. I do however believe that the action taken by the Union was wrong. Here were four groups (five if you include the science gek, lol) making a polite request, only to be decribed as "haters" and told to fuck off. By the time the event came about, it had probably gone beyond merely clearing the gayz from the public walkway. It was about proving a point to the Union that there are other points of view than needed to be listened to.
So you demonstrated to the Union that your 'voice' should be listened to by silencing that of others? How does this demonstrate anything apart from the hypocrisy of your rag-tag group in this matter? Also, if the site of the LBG event was on a public thoroughfare, what was it that made you think you had the right to demand they change the venue in the first place, much less enforce this opinion?
Posted by Lauren (Member # 372) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Sharing a view is one thing, but sounding the same? Hmm.
Yes, we never did find out whether it was mere coincidence that your views and tone are similar to those of Handbag's illustrious and pompous Windy Miller.
However, suspicions were confirmed when I found this image.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bamba: So you demonstrated to the Union that your 'voice' should be listened to by silencing that of others? How does this demonstrate anything apart from the hypocrisy of your rag-tag group in this matter? Also, if the site of the LBG event was on a public thoroughfare, what was it that made you think you had the right to demand they change the venue in the first place, much less enforce this opinion?
No-one was asking anyone to silence their views, but just to take them indoors to the Union building. So you can't say that anyone was being hypocritical.
Posted by Bonjour Elvis. Vous chose sexy (Member # 650) on :
Wait. Did Rick and his crew of Sri Lankan conservatives throw eggs at gays? That must have been the funniest fight in the whole wide world ever ever never be a funner one.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lauren:
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Sharing a view is one thing, but sounding the same? Hmm.
Yes, we never did find out whether it was mere coincidence that your views and tone are similar to those of Handbag's illustrious and pompous Windy Miller.
However, suspicions were confirmed when I found this image.
He's saluting with the wrong arm, you fool. Next!
Posted by Lauren (Member # 372) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: He's saluting with the wrong arm, you fool. Next!
Well, doh! That's because -- like you -- Windy doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lauren: Well, doh! That's because -- like you -- Windy doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
Oy vey.
Posted by Helen Back (Member # 649) on :
Oh dear
I am lost now.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
Welcome to TMO, Helen.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65:
Good effort Dannyboy, but your placement of the Eisernes Kreus II. Klasse is historically inaccurate.
[ 25.02.2004, 07:16: Message edited by: Samuelnorton ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lauren: Yes, we never did find out whether it was mere coincidence that your views and tone are similar to those of Handbag's illustrious and pompous Windy Miller.
I thought this was established beyond doubt when Windy Miller posted a story about meeting his grillfiend at 3am by the cheese counter in the supermarket? Surely there's no question they're the same person?
quote:Originally posted by Windy Miller I've been to Poland on a number of occasions, and have spent at least half a day in every major town and city. Krakow is usually the first port of call
Posted by Bamba (Member # 330) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: No-one was asking anyone to silence their views, but just to take them indoors to the Union building. So you can't say that anyone was being hypocritical.
I notice you didn't address my second question. By way of eggs, water ballons, whatever you drove a group of people off a street because you didn't want them to be expressing their views there. Your justification for this is that the views of your group weren't listened to. Are you telling me you can't spot the contradiction there?
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
Oh for fuck's sake, it's Dempsey and fucking Makepeace. Hooray for Aliceinwonderland - sorry, Lauren. Hooray for Thorn Davis!
Posted by Astromariner (Member # 446) on :
Also Windy Miller was talking about "useless eaters" the other day. I'm sure I remember SamuelNorton claiming to have coined that phrase on these very boards a few months ago. I remember because I thought he meant "lotus eaters" but apparently it was a cunning play on words.
Edit: Actually: hooray for me! I spotted you first. Credit where credit's due.
Also: is NightOwl Auryn?
[ 25.02.2004, 07:22: Message edited by: Astromariner ]
Posted by Lauren (Member # 372) on :
Dang, thanks!
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I thought this was established beyond doubt when Windy Miller posted a story about meeting his grillfiend at 3am by the cheese counter in the supermarket? Surely there's no question they're the same person?
And yet in the spirit of Denial, he refutes it.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bamba: I notice you didn't address my second question. By way of eggs, water ballons, whatever you drove a group of people off a street because you didn't want them to be expressing their views there. Your justification for this is that the views of your group weren't listened to. Are you telling me you can't spot the contradiction there?
It wasn't a street, but an area within the campus itself that served as a public throughway. I can see where there might be a possible contradiction, but if we had been handing out anti-Gay literature and had had four other groups demanding that we retreat to the Union building - but still be allowed to hand out our leaflets - we would have had the good grace to do so.
Well that would have been the case with the Conservative caucus anyway; I couldn't speak for the other groups.
[ 25.02.2004, 07:26: Message edited by: Samuelnorton ]
Posted by Lauren (Member # 372) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: Also: is NightOwl Auryn?
Yeah... I wondered that! Also, Bamba deserves some of the credit too. And Modge.
Posted by Bamba (Member # 330) on :
Edit: no longer required.
[ 25.02.2004, 07:30: Message edited by: Bamba ]
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: Also Windy Miller was talking about "useless eaters" the other day. I'm sure I remember SamuelNorton claiming to have coined that phrase on these very boards a few months ago. I remember because I thought he meant "lotus eaters" but apparently it was a cunning play on words.
type useless eaters into google. samuel norton didnt invent it.
[ 25.02.2004, 07:36: Message edited by: discodamage ]
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lauren: Bamba deserves some of the credit too. And Modge.
lololol. Credit? Credit? Credit for what, Sherlock? Or should I say Shylock. For solving the biggest fucking hidden identity case of the century? Who do you think I am? Andrew Cunanan?
Or is it just that you have no better way of spending your time?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I liked that snorton came up with such a killer gag, he used it twice...
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: I would have thought the same before it happened, ackcherlee. I was at the time looking for cheese, not a woman. She just happened to ask what wine went with the cheese she happened to be buying, which I suggested was a bit bizarre as it was 3am and she couldn't buy alcohol anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Windy Miller Girl 3. When I was 27, met girl 3 (who was 23 at the time) at 3am at the local Tesco. She asked a bizarre question about red wine (bizarre in that it was 3am and well beyond Tesco's licensed hours)
A comeback that sharp deserves to be shared among as many people as possible!
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: I'm sure I remember SamuelNorton claiming to have coined that phrase on these very boards a few months ago
OK, so Helen Back implied that I was more popular that Google - or something like that - but as DD says I didn't invent this term. From where did you get that ridiculous idea from? Your arse, perhaps?
[ 25.02.2004, 07:43: Message edited by: Samuelnorton ]
Posted by Lauren (Member # 372) on :
Did Shylock engage in detective work? Or are you a Shakespeare "revisionist" too?
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
Snorton, you really are exceeding your unpleasantness quotient today.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I liked that snorton came up with such a killer gag...
Well at least she wasn't in a wheelchair and I wasn't in it just to get my end off.
You smartarsed fuck.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lauren: Did Shylock engage in detective work? Or are you a Shakespeare "revisionist" too?
Shame. I was anticipating a long and boring commentary on your racial and religious heritage, Ruth.
Posted by Astromariner (Member # 446) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: as DD says I didn't invent this term. From where did you get that ridiculous idea from? Yout arse, perhaps?
Quite possibly! Sorry. I'd hate to misrepresent you or anything like that.
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
oh, and another thing i have gleaned from my useless eaters research on google- everyone who has ever used the phrase 'useless eaters' is as mad as my auntie eric. or a terrifying rightwing loon. either way, its solely the province of seigheiling tinfoil hat-wearers.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Louche: Snorton, you really are exceeding your unpleasantness quotient today.
I haven't even started yet, my dear. Could you do me a favour and list all of my unpleasantries? I frankly can't be bothered to rake through this silly thread to count them.
[ 25.02.2004, 07:42: Message edited by: Samuelnorton ]
Posted by Lauren (Member # 372) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Shame. I was anticipating a long and boring commentary on your racial and religious heritage, Ruth.
No need, Adolf. I've established my Jewish credentials already. Unless you still think I'm Ben?
"Long and boring" are your specialities.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: this silly thread
lol! You were all about this thread a short while back! Although, your retorts are becoming increasingly blunt edged, frantic and flailing. This is actually an OK way to spend an afternoon. Like prodding a little monkey to wind it up.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lauren: Jewish credentials
lol.
quote:"Long and boring" are your specialities.
If I remember right you can give as good as you get. Long and boring-wise, that is.
Posted by squirrelandgman (Member # 201) on :
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Get 'em, Sam!
Posted by Lauren (Member # 372) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: If I remember right
Let's see now... you're a Revisionist™. So that would be a "no"...
Posted by Stefanos (Member # 53) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Eisernes Kreus II. Klasse is historically inaccurate.
Snorton, you sound like a WW2 reenactor... Posted by Fionnula the Cooler (Member # 453) on :
With each new post on this thread, you sound like you are cycling down a very steep hill and the pedals are getting much too fast for your feet to keep up with. Your typos remind me of wheel spokes snapping. I wonder if you will jump off your bicycle while you can, or if you will choose to career, proudly, into a wall - then stand up and pull a pretend grin out of your pain.
[ 25.02.2004, 07:54: Message edited by: Fionnula the Cooler ]
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: This is actually an OK way to spend an afternoon. Like prodding a little monkey to wind it up.
Actually I'm not sure that the pleasure of the prodding is worth it when considered alongside the sordidness of giving an unpleasant little man a platform.
Posted by Bonjour Elvis. Vous chose sexy (Member # 650) on :
quote:From the minutes of Jemmy Purple-Bounder.
Emergency meeting of the Lavenderwürsst Volksklub, 23.03.87
In attendance:
Rick (Chair) Winston Sanjit Divine
Rick: Zer gayenschittz haff decided to valk der path.
All: GASP
Winston: B-but Rick, y-you warned them.
Rick: Yuss.
Sanjit: Politely. In the way of the English gentleman.
Rick: Yuss. But diss are gayboyss. Dey do not huff ears like normal good white English folks LIKE US.
Pele: Like us.
Winston: Like us.
Sanjit: Like us.
Divine: Like us.
Rick: Dere ears are spinky.
Divine: I-is it time for direct action?
Rick: Yuss!
All: GASP
Divine: We should trap a bummer and then beat him and bum him with our good straight cocks we should, shouldn’t we, we should, should we?
Rick: Nein! But I admire your commitment. Look fellow members of der Lavenderwürsst … look how committed iss Divine. He can show his excitement in publick. If diss vere a rum of dirty gayboyss dey vud be rimmink his buns now! You show us your excitement Divine. Yuss. Unzip. Dere. Dat iss commitment!
Winston: I’m committed too Grüppenführer!
Rick: Ach. Be careful viss dat Winston. Dat iss a big commitment.
Sanjit: I too have a firm commitment!
Rick: Yuss, yuss. Everybody put away dere commitments now.
Divine: You are only half committed Herr Grüppenführer?
Rick: I yam committed! Dunt vurry about my commitment! Everybody put commitments away now!
Sanjit: Perhaps the Grüppenführer’s commitment is caught in his elasticated waist?
Emergency meeting of the Lavenderwürsst Volksklub, 24.03.87
Rick: Meetink call to order at oh nine twenty. Now. Yesterday sum hoff you kvestioned my commitment! Diss is beyont der pale! As you can zee, my commitment in ziss looser fittink trouser is hyooj. Certainly it iss a commitment to rival Winsto- oop. Scheiss!
All: GASP
Divine: You’ve dropped a banana and some sticky tape Herr Grüppenführer.
Posted by gang (Member # 653) on :
Wait, did I miss an argument about gayers and Christers?
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
quote:Elvis Minute minutes.
Lol. It's funny because it's true.
[ 25.02.2004, 08:12: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
quote:Originally posted by gang: Wait, did I miss an argument about gayers and Christers?
That's what you get for banging on about the evils of bisexuality. You miss all the juicy stuff.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bonjour Elvis. Vous chose sexy: Minutes
Sieg Lol!
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Man, I feel great after reading that. I may go for a cigarette.
Posted by gang (Member # 653) on :
quote:Originally posted by Louche:
quote:Originally posted by gang: Wait, did I miss an argument about gayers and Christers?
That's what you get for banging on about the evils of bisexuality. You miss all the juicy stuff.
I wasn't "banging on" - it was 2 sentences.
Posted by Modge (Member # 64) on :
my word! I went away to deal with a guy from the hyper-macho in name "Dyno-Rod" and come back to find this thread is 2 whole pages longer!
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
Ok kids, I'm off now! Thanks for a fun-packed afternoon! Don't stop posting now, I'll be back tomorrow!
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
It... it's like we're puppets. We're puppets and Rick is pulling the strings...
DAMN HIM! Posted by Raz (Member # 449) on :
He so clever.
Posted by gang (Member # 653) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raz: He so clever.
Nein! He so cute.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by gang: Nein!
Thorn. Do you your 'Nein!' gag for the newbies.
Posted by Modge (Member # 64) on :
Mask, do you like the newbies now?
Posted by Bamba (Member # 330) on :
I was actually going to comment yesterday that Rick's responses have been getting shorter and more brutal recently, his bile even less called for than before, his veneer of respectability increasingly cast off in the name of abusing someone. Then today he comes closer to actually losing it than I think I've ever seen him. I wonder if we (or some external influence) has finally pushed him too far! Or possibly I'm full of shit.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Modge: Mask, do you like the newbies now?
It was meant as a punishment.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bamba: I wonder if we (or some external influence) has finally pushed him too far!
That serial-killer masterclass was a bit of an eye-opener, too. I was sensing scrap-books, newspaper cuttings, concealed cameras, jars of body-fluids, shrines... Know what I mean?
Posted by turbo (Member # 593) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bamba: Then today he comes closer to actually losing it than I think I've ever seen him.
I know - great, innit? This has been a really entertaining thread. I've been on a course all afternoon and came back to this. I wish you'd do this everytime I go on a course.
Posted by Helen Back (Member # 649) on :
so anyway...back to the subject.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
quote:Originally posted by gang: I wasn't "banging on" - it was 2 sentences.
It was two sentences. However, you did post a madface at Philomel's Mum. Which, along with your habit of nesting so many quotes that you're on par to outdo an extremely fecund cuckoo, is making me consider hounding you round the board with the nail studded whip of caustic comment.
[ 25.02.2004, 10:52: Message edited by: Louche ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I have read this thread while gulping down some white wine and listening to Gwyneth Paltrow singing Bette Davis Eyes and I really want to thank every one of you for a fantastic experience I have shaken my head in disbelief, I have whacked my thigh in throaty laughter. This thread is like a funnier version of a German allegorical play like Durrenmatt's Der Besuch der Alten Dame or Frisch's Andorra/Biedermann und die Brandstifter. I commend Helen Back for her role in my entertainment.
Posted by Helen Back (Member # 649) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: [/i]. I commend Helen Back for her role in my entertainment.
GEE thanks..it was err nothing.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Rick on Windy: From what I have read the guy sounds genuine and real enough...
As I struggle thru the disappointment of finding someone I once respected has told lies about their online identities, I find myself distracted by this earlier point.
quote: its not the passion of christ, by the way. its the passion of THE christ. as in THE Fonz. i dont quite understand the point of this film; by the sounds of it its just three hours of sitting watching poor old jesus have various parts of his flesh ripped off with nailstudded whips. if i was a christian the last thing i would want to see would be someone whipping my beloved christ's skin of in strips. i would want a film where for three hours people hugged him and told him he was ace and that they really dug all his speeches and how he was nice to people all the time and everyone danced around shouting about the aceness of jesus.
I have been reading up on reaction to this film, because I regularly visit three Christian movie-review sites to see if my choices measure up against their morals. Often I am saddened that a flick I thought was worthy and wholesome, like School of Rock, gets an F in the Xtian exam because of its encouragement of childish disobedience, its exposure of "belly-flesh" and its use of the derivative "gosh" from the name of G_d.
Even Lilo and Stitch is hauled over for showing
quote:
living creature run over by multiple truck wheels
evolution description
the under curvature of gluteous maximi are revealed by brief beach wear
There isn't much these guys let by without a frown and a warning. ("And you do NOT have to tolerate a little dirt with movies. You can say "No." THAT should clean them up." Yeah, that'll do it.)
But The Passion of the Christ has been uniformly hailed on my favourite sites this week, and the response is interesting: it draws attention to the graphic violence and warns that watching it may be extremely painful because this isn't just a man being tortured, but the Lord.
However, the reviews conclude that the pain and persecution offer a convincing, necessary sense of what Jesus suffered despite the fact He could have ended it immediately with a nod up to Heaven, and of the human sacrifice He made, enduring hours of humiliation and sadistic punishment for the sake of saving exactly the type of idiot who was putting him through the ordeal. And by extension, how much God gave up by allowing His son to go through life as a vulnerable human being in a hostile world, and end it so grotesquely.
quote:The bloody violence is often excruciating to watch, in part because Gibson isn’t shy about showing the physical abuse much the way it is described in Scripture, but also because it happened not to a man, not to a revered historical figure, but to our Lord and Savior. For Christians, it’s personal. Those who have chosen to follow Christ will experience a bizarre emotional paradox while viewing the brutality. Each blow to the face, lash with the whip and nail through his flesh is simultaneously repellent and indisputable testimony of divine love.
The thumbs-up from these sites was pretty striking considering how incredibly harsh they are about most mainstream films, but in turn I wonder how The Passion will play in mainstream theaters. I can't really imagine my regular UCG venues at West India Quays or Trocadero saving a screen for this one, because I would think it'd be empty most of the time.
The latter site is especially hardcore in its statz-analysis of films according to a scoring system of WISDOM: standing for wanton violence, impudence, sexual immorality, drugs, offence to God and murder suicide..
It bills itself as a service to His little ones (which includes at-home teens) through you, their parents and grandparents, in His name by His Word and is run by this fearsome dude, who I wouldn't personally want saying Grace at my table.
Written/Prepared by: T. Carder
He explains: By popular demand, my pict will be here for a while then moved to the end of the report pages.
T. Carder is the fellow who freezeframed the glutes in Lilo and Stitch. But he has generous words for Gibson, even forgiving him a loose interpretation of the Bible's Word.
quote:Another clever device was how, when God caused the veil of the temple of Herod to be split in two, top to bottom, that Gibson had the throne split in two as well, as if to speak to sin causing our separation from God. The Scripture [Matt. 27:51] says the veil was rent in two and the earth did quake and the rocks rent but says nothing about the throne being rent. But I'll not argue the details. It was a nice poetic touch, Mel. Besides, who is to say the throne did not rent. A clever fellow indeed, this Mel Gibson. Welcome to the Bride, my brother in Christ.
STOP before you see another film, ask T. Carder if it's right for your little ones.
It is quite a trip, and I urge you to take it!
[ 25.02.2004, 13:57: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lonely Prophet: A FEW SPOILERS!!!
There is a scene where you literally see flesh being ripped off Jesus with a whip. Blood splashes the crowd, the camera, the ground. Never, in my entire life, have I seen a more gory movie. I'm the poster child for 80's slasher flicks and this turned my stomach to the point that I had to put my popcorn away and breathe very deep for the nausea to pass. It was very, very realistic with skin flying and bone showing and just the sound of the whip. God.
(and there were little kids, about five years old at the most, covering their eyes and sobbing themselves sick and saying "I wanna leave, mommy!" UGH!)
Followed closely on the heels of this was a crucifixion scene that seemed to last for about an hour. Again with the blood and shots of "Gleeful Large Nosed Jews" clapping their hands and licking their chops...
Several people got up and left and I did not see them return. Most of the children in the theater were crying/screaming and asking to leave. Lots of parents were holding their kids in the aisles with the kids facing away from the screen. Several people were openly sobbing and wailing and screaming things like, "Whyyyy!?" "Thank you, Jesus!" "Amen, Brother!"
if its anything like that here, which i very much doubt but you never know, then id quite like to be there to see it.
[ 25.02.2004, 14:06: Message edited by: discodamage ]
Posted by Lauren (Member # 372) on :
These are exactly the kind of 'ridiculous' responses to the fillum that upset Snorton so. Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
As is so often the case for lesser mortals on TMO, I am unsure of the irony levels at work here...and I'm still uncertain which reaction it was that Rick objected to.
I can't really imagine he was up in arms about the depiction of hook-nosed, jeering Jews, but PluggedIn at least tries to put the lie to accusations of anti-Semitism in the film.
quote:The anthropomorphic portrayal of Satan as a player in these events brilliantly pulls the proceedings into the supernatural realm—a fact that should have quelled the much-publicized cries of anti-Semitism since it shows a diabolical force at work beyond any political and religious agendas of the Jews and Romans.
Posted by Lauren (Member # 372) on :
Surely, as a cultural theorist, you're aware that the audience can freely interpret the content of a film according to their own prejudices or beliefs. So the account that you've just quoted is one interpretation; the ones that Rick thought were 'ridiculous' are another.
And no, I don't think you 'got' my post.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lauren: Surely, as a cultural theorist, you're aware that the audience can freely interpret the content of a film according to their own prejudices or beliefs. So the account that you've just quoted is one interpretation; the ones that Rick thought were 'ridiculous' are another.
Of course I am both aware of and fully subscribe to these ideas about interpretation...that wasn't the source of my confusion.
What I'm confused about is that I still don't know what it was Rick objected to about the way The Passion of the Christ was received. Do you? Was it the fact that it's been accused of featuring anti-Semitic stereotypes? Because that certainly wasn't at all clear from what he posted.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I've read around a little about this film, and from what I gather Gibson has told the tale according to the Gospels (though how he has managed to remain faithful to all four, with all their contradictions, is beyond me), which do lay the blame with the Jews (rather than the Romans) as at the time the evangelists were a tiny minority trying to save their skins from persecution (from the Romans). So I don't see what all the fuss is about*. It's not going to be, nor could it ever be, a "historically accurate" depiction of the last twelve hours of Jesus' life. It's the story of the Gospels. Like, duh, religious dudes.
That said, Gibson belongs to some branch of Catholicism which rejects the Second Vatican Council, so he's probably a bit of a fruitcake.
*I do see what all the fuss is about really. Fucking mentalists, that's what all the fuss is about.
Posted by Lauren (Member # 372) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: What I'm confused about is that I still don't know what it was Rick objected to about the way The Passion of the Christ was received. Do you? Was it the fact that it's been accused of featuring anti-Semitic stereotypes? Because that certainly wasn't at all clear from what he posted.
No.. you're right. I don't know what his problem was with the reaction to the film: I just assumed, perhaps wrongly.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lauren: I just assumed
Pffft! Jews... Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
What reaction are you all talking about? Where is it?
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lauren: No.. you're right. I don't know what his problem was with the reaction to the film: I just assumed, perhaps wrongly.
It's a shame he is probably too busy eating fine cheeses right now to explain his objection to the reaction.
The flick sounds intriguing to me, but I had trouble watching Aslan dying in an animated adaptation of C.S. Lewis so I'm not sure if I want to sit through it.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
MART! HERE IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
quote:Originally posted by Lauren: I like the way that he tries to co-opt a liberal rhetoric: according to Snorton, Christians are now 'freaks' because of liberal oppression.
I didn't use the word "oppression". For a good example of this state of affairs though, you only need to witness the ridiculous reaction to Mel Gibson's film The Passion of Christ.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Ah! I suspect I'll probably agree with Ricardo on this one, when he clarifies, though in a much nicer, more understanding and tolerant way, of course Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Actually I might not. His mind is a labyrinth of unusualness.
[ 25.02.2004, 15:28: Message edited by: mart ]
Posted by Bamba (Member # 330) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: His mind is a labyrinth of unusualness.
Surely more like an autobahn of hatred?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bamba: autobahn of hatred?
A Tour de France of late-night cheese.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
lol
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
a Superhighway of Semitophobia.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I envy anyone who comes on TMO to post tomorrow morning and witnesses the rich seams of material we have -- we happy few -- lovingly sowed tonite.
Posted by turbo (Member # 593) on :
Quite. It has been a pleaseure to read. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Did anyone see The Bill last night? In a homage to home town mardi gras, the exchange student from Summer Bay gayed up with a blonde fella in the shower. Wholly unnecessary of course but gr8 at the same time. Thankfully, the necessary (read 'boring') hetro love scenes between Ray Reardon's dog and his mother, a woman with someone else's lips, were cut to make way for the pointless stuff. Meanwhile, Sky achieved a 10% audience share with There's Something About Motivator. This hilarious gaym show saw ten wanabees attempt to achieve alphabetized celebrity status by peeling former GMTV 'star' Derek 'Motivatitor' Evans like a lycra banana then tongue-mining his cleg pit for all they were worth. The joke, however, was on them. Presenter Brian Nearly reveled in the reveal as he informed the contestants that they'd actually been arse-licking a lookalike who was in fact dead. No premiere vol-au-vants and free Cava for you, chaps. But the big winner was BBC4, gaining a 90% share for An Audience with Ann Winterton - an evening of exotic cheese, vintage wine and racist standup which culminated in a two hundred grown men 'stoning' a thirteen year old boy to death with hard boiled eggs because his voice hadn't broken and "he walked a bit funny".
[ 26.02.2004, 02:50: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: Did anyone see The Bill last night? In a homage to home town mardi gras, the exchange student from Summer Bay gayed up with a blonde fella in the shower. Wholly unnecessary of course but gr8 at the same time. Thankfully, the necessary (read 'boring') hetro love scenes between Ray Reardon's dog and his mother, a woman with someone else's lips, were cut to make way for the pointless stuff. Meanwhile, Sky achieved a 10% audience share with There's Something About Motivator. This hilarious gaym show saw ten wanabees attempt to achieve alphabetized celebrity status by peeling former GMTV 'star' Derek 'Motivatitor' Evans like a lycra banana then tongue-mining his cleg mine for all they were worth. The joke, however, was on them. Presenter Brian Nearly reveled in the reveal as he informed the contestants that they'd actually been arse-licking a lookalike who was in fact dead. No premiere vol-au-vants and free Cava for you, chaps. But the big winner was BBC4, gaining a 90% share for An Audience with Ann Winterton - an evening of exotic cheese, vintage wine and racist standup which culminated in a two hundred grown men 'stoning' a thirteen year old boy to death with hard boiled eggs because his voice hadn't broken and "he walked a bit funny".
Just in case.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Posted by Put This In Your Pipe and Smoke It (Member # 84) on :
Christ!
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
quote:A marketing campaign includes souvenir necklaces with nails like those hammered into Christ's hands in the final scenes.
You couldn't make this shit up, man.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Those shocked or offended by Mel Gibson's Passion and seeking some wholesome family fun should try Lazy Astro's recommendation of Quigley:
Cali Carter from California says:
quote:"I really liked the movie. One of my favorite parts was when Quigley the dog was reading the morning newspaper. I laughed. Another part I liked was when Quigley was on the computer. I also liked it when Quigley saved the little girl from the fast car. I wish I had a dog like Quigley. Bye."
More specifically, M. Chambers from Richmond, Virginia says:
quote:"Over the years I think we have purchased just about every wholesome film available. A friend at church told me about Quigley. Not a biblical film, perhaps not even one that will please all Christians - as Dogs going to heaven - or someone going to heaven and coming back to fix things - like in having a second chance. I ordered the film and had to watch it before recommending it to anyone. What a wonderful surprise.
But I think Joyce Smith from Pennsylvania sums it up:
quote:It's about time that a Pomeranian was used as a central part of a movie.
If only Mel Gibson had thought about this before making his rubbish film about a smelly Jew. Posted by Lauren (Member # 372) on :
Did he smell?
Or... wait! Are you saying that all Jews smell? Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lauren: Did he smell?
Well he looks a bit dirty in the clips I've seen.
Posted by Stefanos (Member # 53) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lauren: Did he smell?
Or... wait! Are you saying that all Jews smell?
[boarding the bandwagon]And does that apply to those of us with Jewish ancestors? Or do we just smell a bit?[/boarding the bandwagon]
[ 26.02.2004, 04:46: Message edited by: Stefanos ]
Posted by Raz (Member # 449) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stefanos: Jew
Quiet, Jew!
Surely the most obvious and important fact, the deciding mote that everyone seems to have overlooked, is that Mel Gibson is a big, throbbing cock who makes unrepentantly shit films.
Posted by Put This In Your Pipe and Smoke It (Member # 84) on :
Hang on - what about Lethal Weapon 2?
"My dear officer ... you could not even give me a parking ticket."
Posted by Finisterre (Member # 576) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: I have given your sex thread a long and intensely revealing answer.
Oh dear!
[ 26.02.2004, 14:04: Message edited by: Finisterre ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stefanos: those of us with Jewish ancestors
Get over yourself, Stef. We all have Jewish ancestors! Everyone. Fucking... CAVEMEN were Jewish.
Posted by Stefanos (Member # 53) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask:
quote:Originally posted by Stefanos: those of us with Jewish ancestors
Get over yourself, Stef. We all have Jewish ancestors! Everyone. Fucking... CAVEMEN were Jewish.
Hmmm...maybe. Doing research on my family history proves one of my one was a butcher in Whitechapel who came from Poland.
Posted by Frank (Member # 445) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stefanos: Doing research on my family history proves one of my one was a butcher in Whitechapel who came from Poland.
The juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing!
Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
Hullo Frank. How was your wedding? (or have I gotten the wrong end of the stick?)
Posted by turbo (Member # 593) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stefanos: Doing research on my family history proves one of my one was a butcher in Whitechapel who came from Poland.
Mine were cabbage farmers in Spain. Does that make me a Jew?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Frank:
The juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing!
Hey! Frank's back everyone! Wasn't the Juwes in that context actually referring to something else, though? With Jews being a red herring? First post in about a year and he fucks it up.
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Wasn't the Juwes in that context actually referring to something else, though? With Jews being a red herring? First post in about a year and he fucks it up.
juwes was a masonic term according to alan moore. have you read from hell? everybody! read from hell!
Posted by Frank (Member # 445) on :
Stevie: Wedding was grand, cheers, although it seems like quite a while ago now. I'm all growed-up and old and boring and mature now (as opposed to just old and boring before).
Thorn: No YOU'RE wrong! It was the Jews! It's always the Jews!! Or ZOG. Or the Freemasons. Or the Bilderburgers. Or the Loch Ness Monster.
Actually, you're right. It was either pretty lame joke on my part, or something to do with Jubela, Jubelo, Jubelum. Put really it was just lame.
Me shame.
[ 27.02.2004, 01:54: Message edited by: Frank ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Wasn't the Juwes in that context actually referring to something else, though? With Jews being a red herring?
Yes, Thorn. Yes, you're right. The 'Juwes' the message referred to are now believed to be Juwes and not JEWS at all. LOL. No Jews and Juwes are quite different. Silly, really. That such a simple mistake could endure for so long. Juwes. Jews. You see?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Referring in fact to Juwehova. Not Jubelehova. Different geezer, altogether.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
What the frigging tits are you all on about, Graham?
Posted by Stefanos (Member # 53) on :
quote:Originally posted by turbo:
quote:Originally posted by Stefanos: Doing research on my family history proves one of my one was a butcher in Whitechapel who came from Poland.
Mine were cabbage farmers in Spain. Does that make me a Jew?
If they got married in the Whitechapel Synagogue, I would say that would clinch it, yes.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by discodamage: juwes was a masonic term according to alan moore. have you read from hell? everybody! read from hell!
Sherlock Holmes thinks the same thing...
"the concealed inscription was clearly a reference to Masonic lore. "Three men who murdered the Grand Master, the builder of Solomon’s Temple," he explains. "Their names were Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum. Hence, Juwes."
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
'Jubes', surely?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: 'Jubes', surely?
Have you got a cold?
Posted by Stefanos (Member # 53) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65:
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: 'Jubes', surely?
Have you got a cold?
M-malcom?
Posted by turbo (Member # 593) on :
I used to live in a house with a guy called Malcolm. One night he went mad, trashed his own room, stole all the light bulbs in the house, stuffed his blue y-fronts down the loo and moved out.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
Turbo, mate, this is taboo not random Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
Coincidentally I have just started a random thread for people like me what done broke their brains. Come and post on it Turbo!
Posted by Stefanos (Member # 53) on :
B-ben?
Posted by turbo (Member # 593) on :
quote:Originally posted by Louche: Turbo, mate, this is taboo not random
I'd say nicking all the lightbulbs is pretty taboo. No? Sticking Y-fronts down the loo? Still no? Oh all right then, forum: I apologise for posting on the wrong thread.
*shame*
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Didn't The Fall write a song about that?
Posted by turbo (Member # 593) on :
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
that American kids will start wearing Che-style OSAMA BIN LADEN logos in 2020. His genuine abhorrence in the eyes of most contemporary Americans will fade and become a mere badge of half-understood teen "radical-shock" for kids who were born post Sept 11 2001.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Hmmm. I have a copy of the picture. In fact several copies, as it regularly used to appear in magazine articles about album covers etc etc. Also the Blind Faith album cover (probably not worksafe even if it's on Amazon?!), which is still generally available but a lot more discomforting than the Bow Wow Wow one, which is funny and clever and pretty much harmless let's face it. Yeah, that sort of thing has been heavily clamped down on.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
"
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
