*Bob*

Not 'a friend'. All (lots) of them. I can't think of any of my gay friends who haven't used the word as such as some point or other, in one circumstance or another. I honestly can't. And I can't think of a single mainstream gay TV-type who hasn't done the same either. I've never said it's right or wrong or that they should or they shouldn't say it. All I've said is that there is no black and white; that context is everything and as such your average youngster who listens to Chris Moyles and watches Alan Carr when his parents are out - might not get the subtleties.

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- They are absolutely dominated by middle-class > kids, you'll have to explain how this proves that > grammar schools are great for poor kids. I wouldn't deny this for a minute. When my Dad went to a Grammar, someone said he had to take this test thing, and then they said he had to go to this school, so he went. His parents thought nothing of it, and that he'd hopefully get that job at the bakery like his Dad one day. But parents these days are far more savvy, and know the importance of schooling more than they ever did. And of course the pesky MCs are more motivated (read 'pushy' if you will) and so..

I draw your attention to the post I made sixteen pages ago, which illustrates exactly what you claim simply doesn't happen ever no way whatsoever. If you chose to not bother taking it in, that's up to you. I'm in the pub with a gay friend. Me: "I think I'm going shoot off home" Gay friend: "Come on - have another one. Don't be so gay."

If you are honestly telling me that you've never heard a gay person tell someone else (in ironic jest) to stop being so gay / such a poof, you must be blind, deaf and dumb. And gay, obviously.

The double standards are that GAY PEOPLE say it AS A SLUR frequently. The simple point is the GAY PEOPLE say it AS A SLUR frequently. The only one determined not to listen, James.. IS YOU I really am off now. This is utterly pointless.

Is there an icon for pulling your t-shirt over your head an moonwalking backwards out of the door? James - it's clear that one this one you'll do absolutely anything but acknowledge some basic facts. Either that or you and your gay friends are living in a bubble entirely separate from the rest of the gay population. I'll be off now.

cdonline Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bob, you keep banging on about this, but I don't > see how important this is. Do gay men and women > use the word gay to mean rubbish or crap? The reason I'm 'banging on' about it is because it was the whole point of the thread which James started, as opposed to all the other guff since it did start - which is wholly unconnected. Yes - they do. So, essentially, it's hard to complain when other people do it. And even harder to explain to a ten year old the subtlety of the difference.

Giz a puff

James Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So what is the percentage of the population who > use a word relating to the colour of someone's > skin to mean "sh*t" as compared to the percentage > of the population who use a word relating to > someone's sexuality to mean "sh*t"? This has nothing to do with nothing. All I'm saying - as you FULL WELL know, is that if most gay people are using the word 'gay' to mean 'a bit rubbish' - even if oh-so-ironically whenever they feel like it, then I'm afraid you're going to have a hard time explaining to a ten year old why it's so wrong for Moyles to do it. Glass houses / Stones.

James Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I assume that everyone who's happy to throw the > word "gay" around as an insult would do the same > with the word "n*gger"? > > After all, some black people use that word > ironically as a term of address to each other. That's a really poor argument. The percentage of the black population who actually use the word "n*gger" is 'hardly any of them'. The percentage of the gay population who use the word 'gay' is the way we're talking about is 'most of them, from time to time'.* *When it suits them.

I'd like to take this opportunity to ask everyone to calm down and stop being so gay.

I'm in the pub with a gay friend. Me: "I think I'm going shoot off home" Gay friend: "Come on - have another one. Don't be so gay." Is the only difference that I like my gay friend but Chris Moyles is a knob?

You're doing a fair amount of evading yourself, James. Your original post was specifically about the use of the word 'gay' meaning something a bit rubbish. Despite me pointing out a few times now that "you" (gay people) use the word in what many people could be forgiven for thinking was exactly the same way - to each other - and to straight people all the time, you've steadfastly and conveniently chosen to ignore this and instead go off on one about a hundred unconnected other things.

James Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To answer Bob's suggestion that comprehensives > make everybody adequate rather than better - this > school could be taken as evidence that it doesn't > have to be this way. Is this the school with a waiting list as long as the channel tunnel that no-one will ever get into? In a dream world (2068.. LibDems in power, Korea reunited, Dennis Norden still presenting IBAOTN) this would be just dandy. But alas this is some way off and shows no sign of arrival with the current course down the River Poop sans paddle.

Good point. I did the second year of GCSEs and I'm sure they've got easier since then. I only got 42 A*'s! Can you imagine? You can't even get a job driving a fork lift truck with that these days.

We could have every child's brain scooped-out at birth and replaced with a mixture of dry leaves and a tennis ball. That way everyone would be just as useless at everything as everyone else and we could do away with inconvenient stuff like aspiration and all that jazz.

I'm not going to get down on my knees and give Grammar schools a blow job or anything.. there are downsides of course. And I'm not blind to all the arguments against them (most of which are points of principle and are fair comment). But until someone comes-up with a solution which isn't based on the premise of just making everybody adequate instead of making everybody better (to whatever degree and in whatever way in which they can be) then I'm afraid I selfishly reserve the right to do whatever I can to get the best for my children.. just like my parents did. I'm sure I'm not alone.

SimonM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- (Comprehensives) were > given less money, fewer facilties... It's as hard a fact as the above.

Sorry to differ, Simon Our grammar school was the worst funded school out of about 25 local comps - passed-over time and time again for any sort of useful investment (by the Labour council, naturally). So much so that the school was forced to go cap in hand to the parents at the start of each term for voluntary contributions - a fiver.. a tenner.. nothing if they couldn't afford it - so that they could buy things like, you know, books and the like.

The stupidity of the recent "everyone's a winner" approach to education extends into University now, of course. Everyone has a degree but no-one can actually do anything.

Anecdotally: The grammar school I went to was about 10% 'Asian' (mostly Indian though, I would have thought) when I was there. It's now over 50%, with over 20% who don't have English as their first language. They did a Bollywood musical for the school play this year.

Until the powers that be pull their heads out of their arses and accept that children aren't all the same; that different children are better at different thing - and caters for them accordingly - then parents will (for the most part) act selfishly in the interests of their own children, to whatever extent they are able. And I don't blame them. I'll be doing the same.

I went to a Grammar school - and am thankful for it.

Who here went to public school? I'd be interested to know. I promise not to use it against you in future. Honest.

I'm on your side, James (as tbh I think most people actually are, despite the usual rapid slide into over-polarised argument). But 'you' (as in 'gay men in general' - which I appreciate may not be you specifically but..) do seem to want it all your own way, and I think it's this that irritates people sometimes. You don't want anyone else to say 'gay' as a comedy put-down, but you want to be able to say it yourself - including to your straight friends if you feel like it. You're happy to crack cock jokes with.. well.. gay abandon.. but reserve the right to get uppity if straight people crack jokes about gay men and cocks. You don't want to be stereotyped as flamboyant and overly-sexualised yet every year tens of thousands of you march through various towns and at least half the throng behave in a flamboyant and overly-sexualised manner (I go myself so have plenty of first-hand experience). I don't think these are unfair observations.