The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I meant the length makes no difference - it's irrelevant, unless it's extremely short or long. So a minute or three minutes - does it matter?
I totally agree that guy is just stupidly insensitive and really doesn't have much of a clue. I lived in Sri Lanka for a year and all of the friends I made there are now having to rebuild their homes and their lives having lost everything. I don't even know if the children I taught are alive. It makes me so angry because I know that my sri lankan friends would do anything for anyone, even idiots like him. Maybe one day something horrific will happen to him and he will realise what it is like and next time he may use his, obviously pea sized, brain before putting down on paper nasty crap with no real understanding of the situation. Not that I would wish anything that terrible on anyone.
This is my point - this guy isn't insensitive at all, he's just paid to write like that.
Headline today in garage
"British deaths could treble"
Ohmygod!!!!!!!!
Whilst tragic for the families, let's keep this in perspective folks.
"British deaths could treble"
Ohmygod!!!!!!!!
Whilst tragic for the families, let's keep this in perspective folks.
Not as good as yesterday's Sun:
"Charlie Dimmock's Mum feared dead"
The stories that count.
"Charlie Dimmock's Mum feared dead"
The stories that count.
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Not as good as yesterday's Sun:
>
> "Charlie Dimmock's Mum feared dead"
>
> The stories that count.
Good god. Who on earth apart from Dimmock would give a s***? "Ohh, it must be so terrible for her"
It's simply a way of humanising the disaster for the slope browed public. The numbers involved are inconcevable to them, so a focal point has to be found so spoon feeding can commence.
> Not as good as yesterday's Sun:
>
> "Charlie Dimmock's Mum feared dead"
>
> The stories that count.
Good god. Who on earth apart from Dimmock would give a s***? "Ohh, it must be so terrible for her"
It's simply a way of humanising the disaster for the slope browed public. The numbers involved are inconcevable to them, so a focal point has to be found so spoon feeding can commence.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> It's simply a way of humanising the disaster for the slope browed
> public. The numbers involved are inconcevable to them, so a focal
> point has to be found so spoon feeding can commence.
Are the general public that dumb though? We all tend to assume so, and call to mind convenient images of chavs as we do so. But I'm not so sure. I suspect that we're being talked down to for no other reason than intellectual elitism.
Pan, look at Ans for example, or Ashy. A lot of people would assume they're stupid cos they have a strong regional accent. But they're both clever b*st*rds.
> It's simply a way of humanising the disaster for the slope browed
> public. The numbers involved are inconcevable to them, so a focal
> point has to be found so spoon feeding can commence.
Are the general public that dumb though? We all tend to assume so, and call to mind convenient images of chavs as we do so. But I'm not so sure. I suspect that we're being talked down to for no other reason than intellectual elitism.
Pan, look at Ans for example, or Ashy. A lot of people would assume they're stupid cos they have a strong regional accent. But they're both clever b*st*rds.
It's both ignorant and elitist (from us clever types, y'know) to assume everybody else is stupid enough to believe it all - it's just so frenzy-inducing that it's important enough to get concerned about.
RAAGGAGAGAGH!
See what I mean?
That's pure rage, right there.
RAAGGAGAGAGH!
See what I mean?
That's pure rage, right there.
Holy cow.
How many posts!
Apocalypse
How many posts!
Apocalypse
Sorry about that - just accidentally posted 4 of the above post.
Page: