I'd speculate that we're more likely to die by street-crime but there's no dissociated group to pin that on so it's kept quiet.
Yeah you're probably right Matt. Especially in Leamington Spa. It's like a post apocalyse jungle out there! Really dodgy down by the tea rooms.
What's up with you? Lost your mojo? I've just had a look through this thread for your contributions. Couple of decent ones but way off the usual standard. This is a big and divisive subject, right up your street, but for the most part you've focussed on little digs and your obsession with 'freedom' on this board. I'm worried, are you ill?
The RAF were a right group of wrongmos has to be said although that Hans Martin Schleyer was a right fascist **** to be frank.
I have a friend who is a muslim and his great disappointment yesterday was that while Charlie Hebdo had the opportunity to bring people together using the Survivors edition, they chose to alienate every muslim out there with the front cover. He absolutely condemned the actions of the vermin who carried out those attacks, but he's a everyday, decent family man who felt Charlie Hebdo were deliberately using the Survivors Edition as a back-handed way of shunning muslims
I haven't the energy anymore. I feel like Harry Redknapp looks. Worn out. But this thread has been terrific from everyone else. Now Imaz arrives and we might see it get even better yet Ninesy slides down his pole and rushes to put out a fire that isn't even there. COL asked this question on the "Over Moderation" thread but I forgot to reply: I ended up defending the Mods, presuming there must have been snitches at work but judging by Nines' recent intervention, maybe COL has a point and he is solely to blame after all. I think its time we had one or the other. Either Nines tells us its off his own bat that he keeps interrupting this thread or he has indeed been put under pressure by a number of people, in which case I think we deserve to see a list of names published. This tail wagging the dog business has gone on long enough. Why the fukk do they wan't to destroy our fun all the time? What is wrong with these people?
Wow, fair play, a good point. It's such a sensitive issue whatever anyone's viewpoint on this topic is. I know this is a simple thing to say but it's just a shame we just can't all get on.
Apologised? I didn't think to ask him that tbh. He was of the opinion they can do what they want but for that particular edition, he couldn't have anything to do with it simply bcos it was against his faith, i.e. he can't be party to anything that depicts the prophet Mohammed. His opinion was that CH would surely know that, so they knew putting it on the cover meant chances are no muslim would buy it or involve themselves with it. It created a "them and us" in his mind.
Swordsie, first of all let me say that the 3 of us do not spend all our waking hours watching over a football forum, we all work, indeed I'm still working, but this constant snipping has to stop. Threads are not closed for the fun of it, there is usually a good reason , maybe a thread goes so far off topic with insults and profanities get thrown at each other that closing a thread for a while takes the heat out of the situation. Lets face it religious and race threads are very emotive subjects and can lead to things being posted in haste that look totally different in the cold light of day. As long as the posting remains on topic and doesn't start to go beyond the realms of good taste then there is no problem and there will be no interference from any of us, after all I want to enjoy posting on here as well. As Nines has said we don't want to spend hours pouring over who said what to sort out a disagreement as we all have other things to do. If everyone works with us then we can all enjoy this, just use a modicum of self moderation before hitting the send button. The other alternative is that we have no OT or "He who can't be named threads" and that would be a shame. BTW welcome back Imaz and welcome to all the new posters on the forum. You're right Swordsie this is a good thread......
Charlie Hebdo's sole function is to offend the pompous, self righteous and intolerant. It is offensive, full stop (and actually, not to my taste). But it's front cover this week is far from offensive. It say's "all is forgiven" with a caricature of Muhammed with a tear on his face holding a "je suis Charlie" sign. Your mate doesn't understand his faith. There is nothing in the Koran or haddith about depicting 'the prophet'. It's a relatively recent taboo, like Catholic priests being celibate - there is nothing in the dogma about it, and there are many Muslim depictions of Muhammed, including those depicting him with Jesus. I learned that from an educated Muslim lady on the news the other day. On the same programme the day before, an uneducated but clearly influential Muslim lady could not answer when repeatedly asked what she found offensive about this specific picture, other than to say 'I'm deeply spiritual'. She obviously hadn't even looked at it.
Just to be clear, he didn't say it was trying to be offensive. Your other point I can't comment on, I don't know about his faith, so you probably know more than me there.
And now His Holiness Pope Francis, God's voice on earth has weighed in with a self contradictory statement backing freedom of speech but saying anyone who insults religion can expect a violent response. He did it with a jokey smile, but that was the clear message. Still, better than answering questions about what he was doing as head of the Jesuits in Argentina in the 70's when the Catholic Church backed the military junta and called on Argentinians to be 'patriotic'. Even as left wing priests were being abducted, tortured and 'disappeared', including a couple that he personally has been accused of selling down the river. Also on the news Raif Badawi, the Saudi who ran a secular, free thinking website is awaiting the second 50 of his 1000 lashes and 10 years sentence for having an opinion. Je suis Charlie.
