The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
You may have seen over the weekend that Robert Kilroy-Silk has quit his job as the Most Annoying Little Smear of Dogturd on British Television, saying, "the time is right for me to go" (though personally I felt that 1976 was the right time for him to go, preferably into an oversized mincing machine). I'm sure that the fact that the BBC scored an extra million viewers in the slot where his program was before it was suspended did nothing at all to convince the arrogant dollop of rectal bacteria that maybe the public DIDN'T share his belief that he could walk on water, and maybe cure lepers of their ailment. And I'm especially sure that the uproar over his column in the Sunday Express branding all Arab people as barbaric, suicide bombing, women abusing limb amputators had no bearing at all on his long overdue decision.
Anyway, I've just about stopped laughing at the downfall of this abhorrent little man now, so I now find myself looking back over the couple of weeks since his initial racist faux pas. There are two things about it that really interest me. One is the response of Kilroy to the swathes of people who were offended by what he wrote. The other is the somewhat surprising defence used by his apologists; that he was simply exercising freedom of speech.
So then; what did the silver haired simpleton say in his defence? Well, firstly he said that he couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. To a certain extent, he actually has a point; the column was a reprint that had been published earlier in 2003 with not a squeak of protest being raised. He then went on to apologise for causing offence whilst, at the same time, standing by what he'd said. This is a quite stultifying piece of arrogance on his part; he seemed to be implying that, as what he said is sparkling with universal truth, it must therefore be the fault of those oversensitive suicide bombers that they got offended. As he was magnanimous enough to forgive them for that and say sorry, he assumed it would sooth their angry, tea towel encased heads.
Even the fact that he stood by what he said should indicate that Kilroy thought he was hosting an edition of his program. Only this time, he was unable to shout down or ignore guests who disagreed with his ill-informed bigotry. He couldn't fake the face of a sensitive listener before closing the program with a semi-retarded stream of clichés that belittled whichever poor sod he'd just been patronising, whilst trying to bolster his own hype of a straight talking man of the people. No, this time he found that he was on the defensive. And faced with the task of justifying how "Arabs have never contributed anything to civilisation" is a valid statement (all the science, mathematics, medicine, and astronomy that we got from Arabic and Persian worlds mustn't count in his world; I'll make the differentiated between Arabs and Persians, even if Kilroy didn't know or care about it), he decided to tuck his tail between his legs and resign. Though he didn't actually withdraw his remarks. He didn't even spend much time trying to qualify them; had he been pointing the finger at one or two Middle Eastern governments, I daresay that he wouldn't have come in for so much, or any, flak. So, not only has the BBC lost a bullying, arrogant egotist, but a cowardly one to boot.
And it would have ended there, were it not for the multitude of people who were willing to defend Kilroy for braying this jingoistic headspew. When I read about the BBC's decision to suspend him from his job because of the comments made I, perhaps naively, expected the reaction of the overwhelming majority to be the same as mine; hate-filled, mocking laughter. Instead, there was a chorus of cries that Kilroy was being picked on for his "courageous stance on free speech" and that his suspension was "political correctness gone mad".
This was a reaction that took me entirely by surprise; Kilroy had made some pretty hateful comments; had he replaced the word 'Arab' with the word 'Jew' or 'Black', then there would have been a race to Kilroy's house, with the lucky winner getting to change him from an annoying minor celebrity into about 200 pounds of rapidly cooling meat. Should we really be talking about protecting bigotry under the heading of free speech? Does that mean I can start ranting about wogs, spiks, kikes, poofs, trollops, ragheads, and so on and so forth, and claim the same justification? Of course it doesn't.
So what about the charge that the BBC are pandering to the politically correct by suspending him? Well, there is a certain amount of logic to that argument; why the hell wasn't he suspended when the article was first published? But beyond that, there is no real case for the BBC to answer. There are laws against inciting racial hatred in this country, and Kilroy has fallen foul of them by pretty much anybody's definition. His employer has every right to suspend him for his public declaration of racism. Would you expect to still have a job if you marched into work offering a cheery "Sieg Heil" to all of your colleagues? If you wrote a newspaper article stating that all Black people are worthless as a race, would you really be surprised to find a P45 waiting for you in your day job? Personally, I find it far more offensive that he got away with these remarks earlier. If I were to complain about anything in this incident, it would be that the media are only against racism when it's newsworthy.
Finally, as we reached the last desperate dregs of humanity who attempted to stand up on behalf of Kilroy, we had that old favourite; "There wouldn't have been as much fuss if it had been a non-white making these comments". I always enjoy seeing racists whining that they're not allowed to be as bigoted as those goddamn pesky blacks. Well, much though I hate to sprinkle foul-smelling urine on their parade, they're talking complete and utter asshat. If this is a case of de poor ol' white man getting victimised, how come he had to publish the bilious cack twice before anyone raised an objection? And if non-whites do get away with more bigotry than whites, how come Abu Hamza (the London based Moslem cleric/James Bond villain wannabe with the hook for a hand) was barred from preaching at his Finsbury Park Mosque for his racist, anti-Semitic nonsense?
All in all, I find myself wondering whether these apologists would have been quite as vehement in defending an Arab making negative comments about English culture? If it's all about free speech, then those same people are presumably equally irate at Hamza being silenced. Except that they're not. The majority of these people are arguing for the same right that Kilroy seems to have dedicated his life and career too; the right to remain ignorant racists. If stopping someone in the public eye from encouraging hatred of another person based on nothing more than race is "Political Correctness gone mad", then pass me the straitjacket.
Oh, and if anyone reading this actually sympathised with Kilroy and gets offended at being called racist, relax; it's just me exercising my right of free speech.
Anyway, I've just about stopped laughing at the downfall of this abhorrent little man now, so I now find myself looking back over the couple of weeks since his initial racist faux pas. There are two things about it that really interest me. One is the response of Kilroy to the swathes of people who were offended by what he wrote. The other is the somewhat surprising defence used by his apologists; that he was simply exercising freedom of speech.
So then; what did the silver haired simpleton say in his defence? Well, firstly he said that he couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. To a certain extent, he actually has a point; the column was a reprint that had been published earlier in 2003 with not a squeak of protest being raised. He then went on to apologise for causing offence whilst, at the same time, standing by what he'd said. This is a quite stultifying piece of arrogance on his part; he seemed to be implying that, as what he said is sparkling with universal truth, it must therefore be the fault of those oversensitive suicide bombers that they got offended. As he was magnanimous enough to forgive them for that and say sorry, he assumed it would sooth their angry, tea towel encased heads.
Even the fact that he stood by what he said should indicate that Kilroy thought he was hosting an edition of his program. Only this time, he was unable to shout down or ignore guests who disagreed with his ill-informed bigotry. He couldn't fake the face of a sensitive listener before closing the program with a semi-retarded stream of clichés that belittled whichever poor sod he'd just been patronising, whilst trying to bolster his own hype of a straight talking man of the people. No, this time he found that he was on the defensive. And faced with the task of justifying how "Arabs have never contributed anything to civilisation" is a valid statement (all the science, mathematics, medicine, and astronomy that we got from Arabic and Persian worlds mustn't count in his world; I'll make the differentiated between Arabs and Persians, even if Kilroy didn't know or care about it), he decided to tuck his tail between his legs and resign. Though he didn't actually withdraw his remarks. He didn't even spend much time trying to qualify them; had he been pointing the finger at one or two Middle Eastern governments, I daresay that he wouldn't have come in for so much, or any, flak. So, not only has the BBC lost a bullying, arrogant egotist, but a cowardly one to boot.
And it would have ended there, were it not for the multitude of people who were willing to defend Kilroy for braying this jingoistic headspew. When I read about the BBC's decision to suspend him from his job because of the comments made I, perhaps naively, expected the reaction of the overwhelming majority to be the same as mine; hate-filled, mocking laughter. Instead, there was a chorus of cries that Kilroy was being picked on for his "courageous stance on free speech" and that his suspension was "political correctness gone mad".
This was a reaction that took me entirely by surprise; Kilroy had made some pretty hateful comments; had he replaced the word 'Arab' with the word 'Jew' or 'Black', then there would have been a race to Kilroy's house, with the lucky winner getting to change him from an annoying minor celebrity into about 200 pounds of rapidly cooling meat. Should we really be talking about protecting bigotry under the heading of free speech? Does that mean I can start ranting about wogs, spiks, kikes, poofs, trollops, ragheads, and so on and so forth, and claim the same justification? Of course it doesn't.
So what about the charge that the BBC are pandering to the politically correct by suspending him? Well, there is a certain amount of logic to that argument; why the hell wasn't he suspended when the article was first published? But beyond that, there is no real case for the BBC to answer. There are laws against inciting racial hatred in this country, and Kilroy has fallen foul of them by pretty much anybody's definition. His employer has every right to suspend him for his public declaration of racism. Would you expect to still have a job if you marched into work offering a cheery "Sieg Heil" to all of your colleagues? If you wrote a newspaper article stating that all Black people are worthless as a race, would you really be surprised to find a P45 waiting for you in your day job? Personally, I find it far more offensive that he got away with these remarks earlier. If I were to complain about anything in this incident, it would be that the media are only against racism when it's newsworthy.
Finally, as we reached the last desperate dregs of humanity who attempted to stand up on behalf of Kilroy, we had that old favourite; "There wouldn't have been as much fuss if it had been a non-white making these comments". I always enjoy seeing racists whining that they're not allowed to be as bigoted as those goddamn pesky blacks. Well, much though I hate to sprinkle foul-smelling urine on their parade, they're talking complete and utter asshat. If this is a case of de poor ol' white man getting victimised, how come he had to publish the bilious cack twice before anyone raised an objection? And if non-whites do get away with more bigotry than whites, how come Abu Hamza (the London based Moslem cleric/James Bond villain wannabe with the hook for a hand) was barred from preaching at his Finsbury Park Mosque for his racist, anti-Semitic nonsense?
All in all, I find myself wondering whether these apologists would have been quite as vehement in defending an Arab making negative comments about English culture? If it's all about free speech, then those same people are presumably equally irate at Hamza being silenced. Except that they're not. The majority of these people are arguing for the same right that Kilroy seems to have dedicated his life and career too; the right to remain ignorant racists. If stopping someone in the public eye from encouraging hatred of another person based on nothing more than race is "Political Correctness gone mad", then pass me the straitjacket.
Oh, and if anyone reading this actually sympathised with Kilroy and gets offended at being called racist, relax; it's just me exercising my right of free speech.
Page:
You may have seen over the weekend that Robert Kilroy-Silk has quit his job as the Most Annoying Little Smear of Dogturd on British Television, saying, "the time is right for me to go" (though personally I felt that 1976 was the right time for him to go, preferably into an oversized mincing machine). I'm sure that the fact that the BBC scored an extra million viewers in the slot where his program was before it was suspended did nothing at all to convince the arrogant dollop of rectal bacteria that maybe the public DIDN'T share his belief that he could walk on water, and maybe cure lepers of their ailment. And I'm especially sure that the uproar over his column in the Sunday Express branding all Arab people as barbaric, suicide bombing, women abusing limb amputators had no bearing at all on his long overdue decision.
Anyway, I've just about stopped laughing at the downfall of this abhorrent little man now, so I now find myself looking back over the couple of weeks since his initial racist faux pas. There are two things about it that really interest me. One is the response of Kilroy to the swathes of people who were offended by what he wrote. The other is the somewhat surprising defence used by his apologists; that he was simply exercising freedom of speech.
So then; what did the silver haired simpleton say in his defence? Well, firstly he said that he couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. To a certain extent, he actually has a point; the column was a reprint that had been published earlier in 2003 with not a squeak of protest being raised. He then went on to apologise for causing offence whilst, at the same time, standing by what he'd said. This is a quite stultifying piece of arrogance on his part; he seemed to be implying that, as what he said is sparkling with universal truth, it must therefore be the fault of those oversensitive suicide bombers that they got offended. As he was magnanimous enough to forgive them for that and say sorry, he assumed it would sooth their angry, tea towel encased heads.
Even the fact that he stood by what he said should indicate that Kilroy thought he was hosting an edition of his program. Only this time, he was unable to shout down or ignore guests who disagreed with his ill-informed bigotry. He couldn't fake the face of a sensitive listener before closing the program with a semi-retarded stream of clichés that belittled whichever poor sod he'd just been patronising, whilst trying to bolster his own hype of a straight talking man of the people. No, this time he found that he was on the defensive. And faced with the task of justifying how "Arabs have never contributed anything to civilisation" is a valid statement (all the science, mathematics, medicine, and astronomy that we got from Arabic and Persian worlds mustn't count in his world; I'll make the differentiated between Arabs and Persians, even if Kilroy didn't know or care about it), he decided to tuck his tail between his legs and resign. Though he didn't actually withdraw his remarks. He didn't even spend much time trying to qualify them; had he been pointing the finger at one or two Middle Eastern governments, I daresay that he wouldn't have come in for so much, or any, flak. So, not only has the BBC lost a bullying, arrogant egotist, but a cowardly one to boot.
And it would have ended there, were it not for the multitude of people who were willing to defend Kilroy for braying this jingoistic headspew. When I read about the BBC's decision to suspend him from his job because of the comments made I, perhaps naively, expected the reaction of the overwhelming majority to be the same as mine; hate-filled, mocking laughter. Instead, there was a chorus of cries that Kilroy was being picked on for his "courageous stance on free speech" and that his suspension was "political correctness gone mad".
This was a reaction that took me entirely by surprise; Kilroy had made some pretty hateful comments; had he replaced the word 'Arab' with the word 'Jew' or 'Black', then there would have been a race to Kilroy's house, with the lucky winner getting to change him from an annoying minor celebrity into about 200 pounds of rapidly cooling meat. Should we really be talking about protecting bigotry under the heading of free speech? Does that mean I can start ranting about wogs, spiks, kikes, poofs, trollops, ragheads, and so on and so forth, and claim the same justification? Of course it doesn't.
So what about the charge that the BBC are pandering to the politically correct by suspending him? Well, there is a certain amount of logic to that argument; why the hell wasn't he suspended when the article was first published? But beyond that, there is no real case for the BBC to answer. There are laws against inciting racial hatred in this country, and Kilroy has fallen foul of them by pretty much anybody's definition. His employer has every right to suspend him for his public declaration of racism. Would you expect to still have a job if you marched into work offering a cheery "Sieg Heil" to all of your colleagues? If you wrote a newspaper article stating that all Black people are worthless as a race, would you really be surprised to find a P45 waiting for you in your day job? Personally, I find it far more offensive that he got away with these remarks earlier. If I were to complain about anything in this incident, it would be that the media are only against racism when it's newsworthy.
Finally, as we reached the last desperate dregs of humanity who attempted to stand up on behalf of Kilroy, we had that old favourite; "There wouldn't have been as much fuss if it had been a non-white making these comments". I always enjoy seeing racists whining that they're not allowed to be as bigoted as those goddamn pesky blacks. Well, much though I hate to sprinkle foul-smelling urine on their parade, they're talking complete and utter asshat. If this is a case of de poor ol' white man getting victimised, how come he had to publish the bilious cack twice before anyone raised an objection? And if non-whites do get away with more bigotry than whites, how come Abu Hamza (the London based Moslem cleric/James Bond villain wannabe with the hook for a hand) was barred from preaching at his Finsbury Park Mosque for his racist, anti-Semitic nonsense?
All in all, I find myself wondering whether these apologists would have been quite as vehement in defending an Arab making negative comments about English culture? If it's all about free speech, then those same people are presumably equally irate at Hamza being silenced. Except that they're not. The majority of these people are arguing for the same right that Kilroy seems to have dedicated his life and career too; the right to remain ignorant racists. If stopping someone in the public eye from encouraging hatred of another person based on nothing more than race is "Political Correctness gone mad", then pass me the straitjacket.
Oh, and if anyone reading this actually sympathised with Kilroy and gets offended at being called racist, relax; it's just me exercising my right of free speech.
Anyway, I've just about stopped laughing at the downfall of this abhorrent little man now, so I now find myself looking back over the couple of weeks since his initial racist faux pas. There are two things about it that really interest me. One is the response of Kilroy to the swathes of people who were offended by what he wrote. The other is the somewhat surprising defence used by his apologists; that he was simply exercising freedom of speech.
So then; what did the silver haired simpleton say in his defence? Well, firstly he said that he couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. To a certain extent, he actually has a point; the column was a reprint that had been published earlier in 2003 with not a squeak of protest being raised. He then went on to apologise for causing offence whilst, at the same time, standing by what he'd said. This is a quite stultifying piece of arrogance on his part; he seemed to be implying that, as what he said is sparkling with universal truth, it must therefore be the fault of those oversensitive suicide bombers that they got offended. As he was magnanimous enough to forgive them for that and say sorry, he assumed it would sooth their angry, tea towel encased heads.
Even the fact that he stood by what he said should indicate that Kilroy thought he was hosting an edition of his program. Only this time, he was unable to shout down or ignore guests who disagreed with his ill-informed bigotry. He couldn't fake the face of a sensitive listener before closing the program with a semi-retarded stream of clichés that belittled whichever poor sod he'd just been patronising, whilst trying to bolster his own hype of a straight talking man of the people. No, this time he found that he was on the defensive. And faced with the task of justifying how "Arabs have never contributed anything to civilisation" is a valid statement (all the science, mathematics, medicine, and astronomy that we got from Arabic and Persian worlds mustn't count in his world; I'll make the differentiated between Arabs and Persians, even if Kilroy didn't know or care about it), he decided to tuck his tail between his legs and resign. Though he didn't actually withdraw his remarks. He didn't even spend much time trying to qualify them; had he been pointing the finger at one or two Middle Eastern governments, I daresay that he wouldn't have come in for so much, or any, flak. So, not only has the BBC lost a bullying, arrogant egotist, but a cowardly one to boot.
And it would have ended there, were it not for the multitude of people who were willing to defend Kilroy for braying this jingoistic headspew. When I read about the BBC's decision to suspend him from his job because of the comments made I, perhaps naively, expected the reaction of the overwhelming majority to be the same as mine; hate-filled, mocking laughter. Instead, there was a chorus of cries that Kilroy was being picked on for his "courageous stance on free speech" and that his suspension was "political correctness gone mad".
This was a reaction that took me entirely by surprise; Kilroy had made some pretty hateful comments; had he replaced the word 'Arab' with the word 'Jew' or 'Black', then there would have been a race to Kilroy's house, with the lucky winner getting to change him from an annoying minor celebrity into about 200 pounds of rapidly cooling meat. Should we really be talking about protecting bigotry under the heading of free speech? Does that mean I can start ranting about wogs, spiks, kikes, poofs, trollops, ragheads, and so on and so forth, and claim the same justification? Of course it doesn't.
So what about the charge that the BBC are pandering to the politically correct by suspending him? Well, there is a certain amount of logic to that argument; why the hell wasn't he suspended when the article was first published? But beyond that, there is no real case for the BBC to answer. There are laws against inciting racial hatred in this country, and Kilroy has fallen foul of them by pretty much anybody's definition. His employer has every right to suspend him for his public declaration of racism. Would you expect to still have a job if you marched into work offering a cheery "Sieg Heil" to all of your colleagues? If you wrote a newspaper article stating that all Black people are worthless as a race, would you really be surprised to find a P45 waiting for you in your day job? Personally, I find it far more offensive that he got away with these remarks earlier. If I were to complain about anything in this incident, it would be that the media are only against racism when it's newsworthy.
Finally, as we reached the last desperate dregs of humanity who attempted to stand up on behalf of Kilroy, we had that old favourite; "There wouldn't have been as much fuss if it had been a non-white making these comments". I always enjoy seeing racists whining that they're not allowed to be as bigoted as those goddamn pesky blacks. Well, much though I hate to sprinkle foul-smelling urine on their parade, they're talking complete and utter asshat. If this is a case of de poor ol' white man getting victimised, how come he had to publish the bilious cack twice before anyone raised an objection? And if non-whites do get away with more bigotry than whites, how come Abu Hamza (the London based Moslem cleric/James Bond villain wannabe with the hook for a hand) was barred from preaching at his Finsbury Park Mosque for his racist, anti-Semitic nonsense?
All in all, I find myself wondering whether these apologists would have been quite as vehement in defending an Arab making negative comments about English culture? If it's all about free speech, then those same people are presumably equally irate at Hamza being silenced. Except that they're not. The majority of these people are arguing for the same right that Kilroy seems to have dedicated his life and career too; the right to remain ignorant racists. If stopping someone in the public eye from encouraging hatred of another person based on nothing more than race is "Political Correctness gone mad", then pass me the straitjacket.
Oh, and if anyone reading this actually sympathised with Kilroy and gets offended at being called racist, relax; it's just me exercising my right of free speech.
The thing I don't get is why everyone is so quick to critisice someone like David Dickinson, but when a suitably annoying racist little week-old orange of a basson like kilroy turns up, he is completely ignored by those muppets at dead ringers.
The thing is that some people did agree with him. Calling those people racist is no better than the kind of thing racists come out with really.
Yukikaze wrote:
> The thing is that some people did agree with him. Calling those people
> racist is no better than the kind of thing racists come out with
> really.
Let's see now, what did I say...ah yes;
>Oh, and if anyone reading this actually sympathised with Kilroy and gets >offended at being called racist, relax; it's just me exercising my right >of free speech.
Not like you to only skim read something, miss a point, launch into something, and make yourself look like an ass.
Oh, hang on...
> The thing is that some people did agree with him. Calling those people
> racist is no better than the kind of thing racists come out with
> really.
Let's see now, what did I say...ah yes;
>Oh, and if anyone reading this actually sympathised with Kilroy and gets >offended at being called racist, relax; it's just me exercising my right >of free speech.
Not like you to only skim read something, miss a point, launch into something, and make yourself look like an ass.
Oh, hang on...
Did you see the program where he was interviewed by Trevor MacDonald?
I hate the term 'politically correct', it's like an excuse for the right wing to say whatever they like. Whereas before they may have been labelled racist, now their accusers are labelled 'PC' and they feel get to feel vindicated.
Light wrote:
> Yukikaze wrote:
> The thing is that some people did agree with him. Calling those
> people
> racist is no better than the kind of thing racists come out with
> really.
>
>
> Let's see now, what did I say...ah yes;
>
> >Oh, and if anyone reading this actually sympathised with Kilroy
> and gets >offended at being called racist, relax; it's just me
> exercising my right >of free speech.
>
> Not like you to only skim read something, miss a point, launch into
> something, and make yourself look like an ass.
>
> Oh, hang on...
Er you post your retort which actually backs what I said. And why did you assume my point related entirely to your ramblings?
Does that mean you disagree?
Apart from being a whining pr!ck what have you actually added here?
> Yukikaze wrote:
> The thing is that some people did agree with him. Calling those
> people
> racist is no better than the kind of thing racists come out with
> really.
>
>
> Let's see now, what did I say...ah yes;
>
> >Oh, and if anyone reading this actually sympathised with Kilroy
> and gets >offended at being called racist, relax; it's just me
> exercising my right >of free speech.
>
> Not like you to only skim read something, miss a point, launch into
> something, and make yourself look like an ass.
>
> Oh, hang on...
Er you post your retort which actually backs what I said. And why did you assume my point related entirely to your ramblings?
Does that mean you disagree?
Apart from being a whining pr!ck what have you actually added here?
Yukikaze wrote:
>
> Er you post your retort which actually backs what I said. And why did
> you assume my point related entirely to your ramblings?
>
> Does that mean you disagree?
>
> Apart from being a whining pr!ck what have you actually added here?
Okay, my bad; once again, I've underestimated Bells capacity for ignorance and stupidity, so I'll take this really slowly just especially for him.
1. To brand all supporters of Kilroy as racists is a foolish and unjust oversimplification.
2. Therefore, I did so in order to provide a parallel with Kilroys own foolish oversimplification.
3. I used the same defence as he did, freedom of speech, to see what any of Kilroys apologists would try and say
4. Bell has now began saying that calling all Kilroy supporters racist is wrong, and implied that the defence of freedom of speech doesn't apply.
5. Therefore, if that defence does not apply to my argument, it cannot possibly apply to Kilroys argument.
6. In other words, I've gone some way to proving my point; that Kilroy's 'freedom of speech' argument holds absolutely no water whatsoever.
Do you see Bell? Or would you like to make several more posts trying to avoid that point altogether whilst trying to defend opinions that you have held for anything up to the last 20 minutes?
Bell, what do you actually get out of this board? I've been here a year now, and you follow the exact same pattern every time; you show up on a thread and makes an ill-informed statement which you then defends in the face of increasingly definitive evidence that what you said was little more than cocklard. You then tries to call people names "to annoy them" (and even then, it seems you're now only capable of insults that have been used against and upset you), get annoyed yourself when someone throws
much more inventive vitriol at you, scweams and scweams and stomps off, then returns about a month later to start again. What is the point in that? Are you some sort of masochist?
I mean, I can't complain; it means I have a 'tard to poke and prod into red-faced nappy-filling apoplexy whenever I feel in a bad mood, but as to what you yourself get from this...well, I'm just not sure. I'd be very grateful if you could fill me in on this one.
Oh, and I notice that, judging by the schoolyard insult, you've dropped the objections to posting something that may cause offence. What gives? Don't those rules apply to Bell? Or do you only raise them when tryng to distract attention from the increasingly brutal verbal rapings that you receive?
>
> Er you post your retort which actually backs what I said. And why did
> you assume my point related entirely to your ramblings?
>
> Does that mean you disagree?
>
> Apart from being a whining pr!ck what have you actually added here?
Okay, my bad; once again, I've underestimated Bells capacity for ignorance and stupidity, so I'll take this really slowly just especially for him.
1. To brand all supporters of Kilroy as racists is a foolish and unjust oversimplification.
2. Therefore, I did so in order to provide a parallel with Kilroys own foolish oversimplification.
3. I used the same defence as he did, freedom of speech, to see what any of Kilroys apologists would try and say
4. Bell has now began saying that calling all Kilroy supporters racist is wrong, and implied that the defence of freedom of speech doesn't apply.
5. Therefore, if that defence does not apply to my argument, it cannot possibly apply to Kilroys argument.
6. In other words, I've gone some way to proving my point; that Kilroy's 'freedom of speech' argument holds absolutely no water whatsoever.
Do you see Bell? Or would you like to make several more posts trying to avoid that point altogether whilst trying to defend opinions that you have held for anything up to the last 20 minutes?
Bell, what do you actually get out of this board? I've been here a year now, and you follow the exact same pattern every time; you show up on a thread and makes an ill-informed statement which you then defends in the face of increasingly definitive evidence that what you said was little more than cocklard. You then tries to call people names "to annoy them" (and even then, it seems you're now only capable of insults that have been used against and upset you), get annoyed yourself when someone throws
much more inventive vitriol at you, scweams and scweams and stomps off, then returns about a month later to start again. What is the point in that? Are you some sort of masochist?
I mean, I can't complain; it means I have a 'tard to poke and prod into red-faced nappy-filling apoplexy whenever I feel in a bad mood, but as to what you yourself get from this...well, I'm just not sure. I'd be very grateful if you could fill me in on this one.
Oh, and I notice that, judging by the schoolyard insult, you've dropped the objections to posting something that may cause offence. What gives? Don't those rules apply to Bell? Or do you only raise them when tryng to distract attention from the increasingly brutal verbal rapings that you receive?
My favourite bit of this Kilroy thing is that even if he was misquoted or misinterpreted or not a racist at all then it would still be funny because he's such a smug git.
Yukikaze wrote:
> And why did
> you assume my point related entirely to your ramblings?
Ha.
Ahahahaha.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!
Erm...could it be that I assumed it because you posted it in response to the thread...that my ramblings started?
Jesus Christ Bell, the more I read your posts, the more I become convinced that you're typing them from the Sunshine Home for the Mentally Retarded, in between having your hand dipped in hot then cold water whilst the nurses watch your dead eyes hoping for some flicker of humanity.
> And why did
> you assume my point related entirely to your ramblings?
Ha.
Ahahahaha.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!
Erm...could it be that I assumed it because you posted it in response to the thread...that my ramblings started?
Jesus Christ Bell, the more I read your posts, the more I become convinced that you're typing them from the Sunshine Home for the Mentally Retarded, in between having your hand dipped in hot then cold water whilst the nurses watch your dead eyes hoping for some flicker of humanity.
Page: