The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Only caught a glimpse of this article on the bus on the way home today, but it raised the temperature of my blood by proxy. It's the Daily Mail, as you would expect, and is fronted with a rather bold headline, proclaiming:
"Why I will ignore this afternoon's three minute silence"
by Robert Fotherington-Smythe (or whoever)
Then underneath, I could just about make out:
"Because it's nothing but a goverment publicity stunt, is offensive to those who fought for us and demeans those who died in war."
Nothing but a government publicity stunt? That's all it is? Could your black little heart possibly pump a millilitre of your cold blood to your pea-sized brain so that you might possibly comprehend that it may be considered a mark of respect? To the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who were killed? And the 200 odd Brits, and the families of all those who were affected? Nothing but a publicity stunt?
God damn this paper gets my back up. And you know why? It's not because everything that happens anywhere around the world is sick and wrong and will rape your children, and it's not because its articles are written to cater for BNP-voting half-wits, no. It's because I'm pretty sure these articles are written to provoke just this kind of reaction ie. one of disgust and conflict. No one can possibly think that a respectful three minute silence is just 'a publicity stunt', no one is that stupid.
It's written to rile and offend, and it does just that, as well as stoking the fires of the pitchfork waving masses who'll gladly go out and slaughter the coloureds because their paper says they're eating all our donkeys.
The next person I see reading the Daily Mail and stroking their chin thoughtfully, I'm going to put a shotgun in their mouth, Christie Malry style, and force them to repent.
A publicity stunt. Real sensitive, a*****e.
"Why I will ignore this afternoon's three minute silence"
by Robert Fotherington-Smythe (or whoever)
Then underneath, I could just about make out:
"Because it's nothing but a goverment publicity stunt, is offensive to those who fought for us and demeans those who died in war."
Nothing but a government publicity stunt? That's all it is? Could your black little heart possibly pump a millilitre of your cold blood to your pea-sized brain so that you might possibly comprehend that it may be considered a mark of respect? To the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who were killed? And the 200 odd Brits, and the families of all those who were affected? Nothing but a publicity stunt?
God damn this paper gets my back up. And you know why? It's not because everything that happens anywhere around the world is sick and wrong and will rape your children, and it's not because its articles are written to cater for BNP-voting half-wits, no. It's because I'm pretty sure these articles are written to provoke just this kind of reaction ie. one of disgust and conflict. No one can possibly think that a respectful three minute silence is just 'a publicity stunt', no one is that stupid.
It's written to rile and offend, and it does just that, as well as stoking the fires of the pitchfork waving masses who'll gladly go out and slaughter the coloureds because their paper says they're eating all our donkeys.
The next person I see reading the Daily Mail and stroking their chin thoughtfully, I'm going to put a shotgun in their mouth, Christie Malry style, and force them to repent.
A publicity stunt. Real sensitive, a*****e.
Page:
Yeah ok, good point :-)
Your Honour wrote:
> Cycloon wrote:
> I shouldn't give a toss.
>
>
> About Rememberance Day? Of course you should.
Didn't you spend last week stating that you couldn't stand people telling you what you should or shouldn't think?
> Cycloon wrote:
> I shouldn't give a toss.
>
>
> About Rememberance Day? Of course you should.
Didn't you spend last week stating that you couldn't stand people telling you what you should or shouldn't think?
But what I'm saying is that there's more to it than symbolism with Rememberance Day.
I can see we're not going to get anywhere with this, perhaps we should agree to disagree :-)
I can see we're not going to get anywhere with this, perhaps we should agree to disagree :-)
Of course I know I should - I was saying that by your logic arguing about why you shouldn't bother with the silence for tsunami victims. I shouldn't with the Remembrance.
But I do, for both, because it's compassionate, at least in the symobolism.
But I do, for both, because it's compassionate, at least in the symobolism.
Cycloon wrote:
I shouldn't give a toss.
About Rememberance Day? Of course you should. As I said, it's to give people the time to try and think about how it all came about, and to try and ensure that it doesn't happen again.
At least, that's what I think it's for, as there are many people alive now that won't know anyone who died in the war.
I shouldn't give a toss.
About Rememberance Day? Of course you should. As I said, it's to give people the time to try and think about how it all came about, and to try and ensure that it doesn't happen again.
At least, that's what I think it's for, as there are many people alive now that won't know anyone who died in the war.
It is to contemplate the death and suffering that has taken place. I personally, never knew the war dead, and have never truly felt a wars effects - and yet, despite your second post, and going by your first posts reasoning, I shouldn't give a toss.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> What good is a 1 minutes silence by that reasoning? ;P
No good.
The reason we do a silence on rememberance day, I think, is to remember what happened, how it happened, and to try and make sure it doesn't happen again.
The same cannot be applied to a natural disaster, obviously.
> What good is a 1 minutes silence by that reasoning? ;P
No good.
The reason we do a silence on rememberance day, I think, is to remember what happened, how it happened, and to try and make sure it doesn't happen again.
The same cannot be applied to a natural disaster, obviously.
gerrid wrote:
> So you obviously don't understand why people have funerals then.
No, I think in fact youdon't.
People have funerals for loved ones to remember them and say goodbye to them.
A minutes silence does not do this, at least for me. I know absolutely no one affected by this tragedy. Not even a cousins, wife's workmates brother. I mean no one.
So how can I remember then dead? How can I empathise with those that have lost a loved one? I have no idea how it feels to have someone you love ripped away from you in an instant.
So I just stand there, silent, thinking "thank god is hasn't happened to me". Which is really comforting for the victims, I'm sure.
> So you obviously don't understand why people have funerals then.
No, I think in fact youdon't.
People have funerals for loved ones to remember them and say goodbye to them.
A minutes silence does not do this, at least for me. I know absolutely no one affected by this tragedy. Not even a cousins, wife's workmates brother. I mean no one.
So how can I remember then dead? How can I empathise with those that have lost a loved one? I have no idea how it feels to have someone you love ripped away from you in an instant.
So I just stand there, silent, thinking "thank god is hasn't happened to me". Which is really comforting for the victims, I'm sure.
Ashley wrote:
> in a way 9/11 is more tragic than the Tsunami. Whilst the death toll
> was 50 times less and the effect on the quality of life is nowhere
> near as dramatic, it was unnecessary where as at least he Tsunami was
> a natural event
in a way that's contradictory.
surely something is more tragic if it is random (ok so the tsunami wasn't exactly random, but it was natural and there was little forewarning), indiscriminant and unstoppable, rather than unnatural, planned and (worst of all) preventable?
> in a way 9/11 is more tragic than the Tsunami. Whilst the death toll
> was 50 times less and the effect on the quality of life is nowhere
> near as dramatic, it was unnecessary where as at least he Tsunami was
> a natural event
in a way that's contradictory.
surely something is more tragic if it is random (ok so the tsunami wasn't exactly random, but it was natural and there was little forewarning), indiscriminant and unstoppable, rather than unnatural, planned and (worst of all) preventable?
No, they always have been, all the way through.
Page: