Messages

Quaggem blag!

Ooh, hark at her!

etc.

Obviously, you'll be sending a free copy of all your highly offensive publications to the president and founder of BANTHISFILTH.com, so that he can publicly dispose of them in a righteous manner:

http://www.amenable.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/gfx/filth3.jpg" />

You've perfected a package of pictured (penned, pencilled or painted) potboilers in a parodical periodical publication.

(but you have to skip an ad and then it takes an age to load even on a T-1, and it's not funny)

http://gorillamask.net/asfrogger.shtml" target="_blank">clickitty version

I've just had time to read the whole article.  He really is a scary bastard.

He wants:

- to allow police to bypass the courts and dispense instant justice.  (No room for corruption there, then.)

- to bring in ex-military personnel to deal with terrorist threats.  (No chance of innocent civilians being executed with that approach, no sirree.)

How many times since July 7th have I heard the words "more power" uttered by the police and by labour politicians.  Can they hear themselves?

He conceded that such powers should be dispensed with care "and without turning the place into a police state, which would be unfortunate".

Only "unfortunate"?  Christ, but he's a scary bastard!

Since posting in anger lastnight, it's occured to me that Art may have been joking.  The original thread was about a lack of balls, you see.

It's now occured to me that I'm spending far too much of my life thinking about it and what I'd really like to do is drop the whole thing.  From a height.  Onto some rocks.

Oh, and sophistry and fallacious actually have subtle differences in meaning:

- Fallacious means deceptive or false.
- Sophistry means a believable but false argument.

Gary, if you'd care to explain what exactly was fallacious about my last post, I might have some respect for your comment.

As it is, I suspect you're just goading me for the sake of it.

Art - I'm afraid your post doesn't make much sense.

It was another poster who mentioned someone by name, and that person then complained (quite rightly, in my opinion) that the tone and content of the thread was potentially defamatory.

As I'd started the thread (itself supposed to be a humerous riff on a comment by yet another poster) I felt it was up to me to request that the thread be removed in order (as I've said) to avoid any more bad feeling or difficulty.

In this case, I don't think I have anything at all to apologise to anyone about.

Your comments are both unwarranted and insulting, and I can only suggest you get your facts straight before posting such aggressive nonsense in future.

I asked that the original thread be deleted after it was pointed out that the use of real people's names in association with untruths could be considered defamatory (were anyone to be litigious).

Rather than continue to offend or cause difficulty, I requested the deletion, and Wake was kind enough to oblige.

Of course, I have no control over what people type, but I humbly suggest it might be polite (and perhaps prudent) to adopt the methodology of Private Eye.

For example:  Tonee Bliarr is having an affair with Condoleeezzza Rice.

Cameron Diaz.  Please.

Hey - I'm the only one around here that made a c*nt of myself by mentioning the page-glitch as a reason for dissing the meg.  Then I retracted it in an incredibly humerous post-modern stylee (if I say so myself).

JEB had his little winky ;) in place, to avoid confrabulation.

... I wonder where they actually are ...


Being torn apart by Mek-Quake?