The not606 Format

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Exactly Ensil. These guys are the biggest bunch of hypocrites on the face of the planet. It's fine to ban all other relgions, treat women like possessions etc, but dare to jokingly call them rag tops and all of a sudden they're gravely offended. Like all totalitarian ideologies, it's O.K. for them to say and do as they please, but you try and do the same, and all hell breaks loose.
 
It depends how you look at it. There could have been many a 'rag top' as you so eloquently put it, reading your post on that day that have been born and bred over here, with absolutely no desire to treat women like ****. I'd be careful, you're beginning to sound like Jeremy Clarkson, and no one wants that.
 
I couldn't care less who I sound like. Those are my views. I have already acknowledged, a while ago, that maybe I shouldn't have used those terms; but, as I have said, I've seen far worse things on this forum and 606 without people being banned.
Also, I agree with Ensil. Many of us actually find Clarkson refreshingly straightforward, not to mention amusing, in these ridiculous P.C. times. It needs a few more like him to stick pins in the bubbles of these pompous idiots.
 
I've been extremely insulting about the last two owners that City have had, but I haven't resorted to anything remotely racist and I wouldn't want to.
Shinawatra was a corrupt, embezzling tosspot, who's now on the run on charges of terrorism and the current owners are part of a human-rights abusing dictatorship, according to various reports.

Why resort to less savoury digs?
 
First, thanks for all the comment to me on not606/ja606 etc.
People will have to take it onboard, and act accordingly (including site operators) .


"Racism is an overused term that it's mere use has been deemed to be racist."

Worse than that, tis an *INCORRECTLY* used term.

Rac-ism = some notion, concept, theory etc based on racial themes.

If I say that Afro-carribean denizens :

1. run faster than flabby European me because they have ancestrally evolved into lean muscular machines due to having to evade things with teeth longer than my fingers,
trying to bite their collective arses, or N hundred years of the toil of slave labour

2. are much more likely to get sickle-cell anaemia than me

3. are morons compared to me because their brains are smaller


P1. All of 1/2/3 are racist.
P2. Only 3 is racially *OFFENSIVE* .

#1 is conjecture on my part (which could be true, or not) .
#2 is fact.
#3 is bollocks (untrue) , so saying it has no aim other than to cause offense.

Racism is objective. Racial offense is not.


I wish people would learn more about the words of the language they claim to be native in,
and reclaim their true meanings from a clique who thought Doublespeak in 1984 was fact
not fiction.
 
Getting back to the point of this article. I have stated the reasons I prefer this forum. I made my choice before 606 closed and the arrival of ja606 out of the blue seduced those who do not like change.

Having watched ja606 in action I see no reason to change my original perception. not606 works better IMO has already produced some good debates and supports the idea of an ongoing debate very well. ja606 has all the disadvantages of 606 without the advantage of being linked to the BBC website. The ja606 format favours sound bite comments and does not encourage developing debates. Interesting articles soon dissapear as they are replaced with inane one liner 'articles'.

No contest in my view if you want to take part in decent debates not606 is clearly the place to be. <ok>
 
Well, I would raise a point against you Spurf! I think not606 is NOT the place for debate! What you gonna say about that!?
 
Ubiq said:
Well, I would raise a point against you Spurf! I think not606 is NOT the place for debate! What you gonna say about that!?
Click to expand...

not606 is not 606 whether or not ja606 is 606 is not the question. Let's not go down the road of nots, what I am not saying is not visible and will not be debatable and not only that I am not going to say not. Not now and not never.

Not that! <ok>
 
Not the 9 o'clock news was always better than the 9 o'clock news.

Did I say not! Not likely! <laugh>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back