The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
The guy who wrote into the papers does have a point.
I'm not against showing respect and all, but 3 minutes silence does seem to be quite a gimmick of sorts. Well, not a gimmick, but unnecessary.
For one, it's 3 times longer than the war silence. 3 times longer, yet we have MORE reason to show respect to our soldiers AND those our country slaughtered. MORE reason to respect rememberance day, yet now there seems to be more designated country-wide silences popping up, rememberance day is going to get lost in the crowd.
Secondly, it happened far away. AND BEFORE you over-emotional morally-superior idiots come storming out of your holes to argue against me - listen. I'm not saying we should ignore it, but, like the september 11th silence it just feels to me as though the government is just putting on a show. To me it feels as though it's simply another "look at us, we care about stuff and we're good people" thing for the leaders of the country in an effort to win people hearts over the world, aswell as our own.
That's how It feels to me.
I'm not against showing respect and all, but 3 minutes silence does seem to be quite a gimmick of sorts. Well, not a gimmick, but unnecessary.
For one, it's 3 times longer than the war silence. 3 times longer, yet we have MORE reason to show respect to our soldiers AND those our country slaughtered. MORE reason to respect rememberance day, yet now there seems to be more designated country-wide silences popping up, rememberance day is going to get lost in the crowd.
Secondly, it happened far away. AND BEFORE you over-emotional morally-superior idiots come storming out of your holes to argue against me - listen. I'm not saying we should ignore it, but, like the september 11th silence it just feels to me as though the government is just putting on a show. To me it feels as though it's simply another "look at us, we care about stuff and we're good people" thing for the leaders of the country in an effort to win people hearts over the world, aswell as our own.
That's how It feels to me.
UrkiE-UK wrote:
> The guy who wrote into the papers does have a point.
>
*shrug*
I always assumed the silence was longer than usual becuase it's the most devestating natural disaster that's happened in any of our lifetimes? Nothing like an unstoppable force to make us as a species face our own mortality.
Whatever. Just a thought.
> The guy who wrote into the papers does have a point.
>
*shrug*
I always assumed the silence was longer than usual becuase it's the most devestating natural disaster that's happened in any of our lifetimes? Nothing like an unstoppable force to make us as a species face our own mortality.
Whatever. Just a thought.
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, i was unnecessary where as at least he Tsunami was a natural event (don't get me wrong the tsunamiis immensely sad). The fact that some peoplewere so evil as to murder on such a large scale is more tragic perhaps.
Same as in my opinion Jill Dando's murder was far more apalling than diana's fanfae of a death. Two women, same age, similar appearance, both do charity work and stuff. Ones murdered, the other one dies in an accident. one provokes state mouning the other one doesn't. and thats not even a very good example! The mother teresa vs diana comparison blows any argument of how unbalanced respect paying is. stupid.
Same as in my opinion Jill Dando's murder was far more apalling than diana's fanfae of a death. Two women, same age, similar appearance, both do charity work and stuff. Ones murdered, the other one dies in an accident. one provokes state mouning the other one doesn't. and thats not even a very good example! The mother teresa vs diana comparison blows any argument of how unbalanced respect paying is. stupid.
The 2 minutes silence is every year. So, 60 years of two minute silences, that's a 2 hour silence. 3 minutes vs 120 minutes.
Some people are complete retards.
Some people are complete retards.
gerrid wrote:
> The 2 minutes silence is every year. So, 60 years of two minute
> silences, that's a 2 hour silence. 3 minutes vs 120 minutes.
>
> Some people are complete retards.
---
That calculation is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing.
I think y o u may be the retard here.
Any one of us monkeys could have figured that maths out.
But it's not what we're saying.
> The 2 minutes silence is every year. So, 60 years of two minute
> silences, that's a 2 hour silence. 3 minutes vs 120 minutes.
>
> Some people are complete retards.
---
That calculation is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing.
I think y o u may be the retard here.
Any one of us monkeys could have figured that maths out.
But it's not what we're saying.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> I always assumed the silence was longer than usual becuase it's the
> most devestating natural disaster that's happened in any of
> our lifetimes? Nothing like an unstoppable force to make us as a
> species face our own mortality.
That's a point I hadn't though of.
Like a hard-ass babysitter clonking the heads of two squabbling kids together, Nature shows us who's boss.
Fairly sobering. Though I fail to think that was the reason behind it.
> I always assumed the silence was longer than usual becuase it's the
> most devestating natural disaster that's happened in any of
> our lifetimes? Nothing like an unstoppable force to make us as a
> species face our own mortality.
That's a point I hadn't though of.
Like a hard-ass babysitter clonking the heads of two squabbling kids together, Nature shows us who's boss.
Fairly sobering. Though I fail to think that was the reason behind it.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> I always assumed the silence was longer than usual becuase it's the
> most devestating natural disaster that's happened in any of
> our lifetimes?
What difference does it makes whether it's natural or not.
I also agree that I find it offensive that the silence for the tsunami was longer than rememberance day.
And no disrespect, how can I remember those who died (in the silence I mean) when I didn't know any of them.
Also, what good is a 3 minute silence? It shows respect to who? The dead? They don't know about it, cos they're dead. So what's the point in it?
Put another tenner in that charity bucket, that'll make you feel a lot less guilty than a taking part in the silence.
Yes I am stirring things up and deliberately saying stupid things to see what response I'll get, honest...
> I always assumed the silence was longer than usual becuase it's the
> most devestating natural disaster that's happened in any of
> our lifetimes?
What difference does it makes whether it's natural or not.
I also agree that I find it offensive that the silence for the tsunami was longer than rememberance day.
And no disrespect, how can I remember those who died (in the silence I mean) when I didn't know any of them.
Also, what good is a 3 minute silence? It shows respect to who? The dead? They don't know about it, cos they're dead. So what's the point in it?
Put another tenner in that charity bucket, that'll make you feel a lot less guilty than a taking part in the silence.
Yes I am stirring things up and deliberately saying stupid things to see what response I'll get, honest...
UrkiE-UK wrote:
> That calculation is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing.
Explain how it is irrelevant when it is a direct reply to the original post.
> That calculation is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing.
Explain how it is irrelevant when it is a direct reply to the original post.
Your Honour wrote:
> I also agree that I find it offensive that the silence for the
> tsunami was longer than rememberance day.
> Also, what good is a 3 minute silence? It shows respect to who? The
> dead? They don't know about it, cos they're dead. So what's the point
> in it?
What good is a 1 minutes silence by that reasoning? ;P
> I also agree that I find it offensive that the silence for the
> tsunami was longer than rememberance day.
> Also, what good is a 3 minute silence? It shows respect to who? The
> dead? They don't know about it, cos they're dead. So what's the point
> in it?
What good is a 1 minutes silence by that reasoning? ;P
Your Honour wrote:
> And no disrespect, how can I remember those who died (in the silence
> I mean) when I didn't know any of them.
It's more about being thankful that it wasn't you and showing some respect to those who died by stopping to think about the terrible thing that happened to them. It's also for the people who survived but who's lives are wrecked - you give 3 minutes out of your oh so important life to hope or pray or whatever for the people who aren't as lucky as you.
> Also, what good is a 3 minute silence? It shows respect to who? The
> dead? They don't know about it, cos they're dead. So what's the point
> in it?
So you obviously don't understand why people have funerals then.
> And no disrespect, how can I remember those who died (in the silence
> I mean) when I didn't know any of them.
It's more about being thankful that it wasn't you and showing some respect to those who died by stopping to think about the terrible thing that happened to them. It's also for the people who survived but who's lives are wrecked - you give 3 minutes out of your oh so important life to hope or pray or whatever for the people who aren't as lucky as you.
> Also, what good is a 3 minute silence? It shows respect to who? The
> dead? They don't know about it, cos they're dead. So what's the point
> in it?
So you obviously don't understand why people have funerals then.
Page: