Domitianus

Ladymuck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Domitianus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I will NOT be going on account of a matter of > > personal principle. > > > Oh DO tell all!;-) Hey, it's personal.

Hmmmm. Four victims then.

What I heard from a local was a triple stabbing. Looks like the turdy little 'gangstas' are at it again. I guess someone 'disrespected' someone by looking at him or something.

LuLu Too Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But Domitianus - I fear you're getting your > > misanthrope mixed up with your misogynist > > > > A misanthrope dislikes man (i.e. human) kind in > > general, a misogynist holds women alone in > > disdain. So a misanthrope hates almost twice as > > many people as a misogynist. > > > Indeed, Penguin68. And SeanMacGabhann,I'm sure did > mean misanthropic, but Domitianus refuted this > specifically in relation to female gender. But I > do not want to misinterpret his post and so, in > the spirit of comments on this thread, I seek > clarification. You are quite correct. I had confused the two terms.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No Dom > > It's because generally speaking, when they post > they don't display wild, misanthropic tendancies. > Steph's original post was out-of-character and she > has responded like... well, a grown-up > > Clarify my question? > > "You disappeared for ages and have come back all > > guns blazing - why? " > > surely a man of your intellect can decipher such a > sphinx-like riddle? Misanthropic? Nonsense. Evidence please. Disagreeing with someone of the female gender does not make one a misnathrope any more than dsagreeng with someone who is Jewish makes one anti-semitic. And a "grown-up" response???????? Calling me an "aggressive TOSSER!!"? Most mature. If there have been hot heads here they have been on all sides and ifthe thread has escalated it has been a folie a trois/quatre/whaever, so kindly don't make me a scapegoat. I have been personally insulted for objectng to a call for public violence yet you have not seen fit to challenge anyone on that. Odd.

Steph Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's all Steph this and Steph that for you > Domo...I take total responsibility and feel > foolish - can you stop using my name so much now > please? Of course. Fact is since I was reponding to your post it was tough not using your name. Don't believe I have ever mentioned you before.

I think you will find that people often respond directly when they are subject to personal attacks.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dom > > You are almost lenk-like in your aggression > ruining some very good points (sometimes) > > You disappeared for ages and have come back all > guns blazing - why? > > You clearly don't like any of the regular posters > on here and your tone means you will never > convince anyone of the merit of your argument so.. > again.. why? Why what? Clarify your qustion. And why are you not asking the same questions of missus and Steph who hav engaged in blatantly personal and offensive comments in their posts? Is it stick up for the girls time?

missus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "But I have met plenty of people before who like > to boast about how they or their other half like > to resolve situations by giving someone a good > slap and, invariably, they have been t****ers" > > One presumes, having read some of your earlier > contumelious posts, that you too fall into said > vulgarly-titled category having previously deemed > strangulation a fit punishment for young women who > chew gum with their mouths open.... (Was there > clear evidence for that being tongue-in-cheek?!) > > I do believe that one could construe an equally > unsavory impression of yourself, Domitianus. But, > having said that, I know as little about you as I > do about Steph and as such, not wishing to defame > someone else's character on this forum (as you > have already succeeded), will keep my judgments to > myself. Frankly, this is just such a silly post I am tempted not to even grace it with a reply but I can't resist. 1. I am just so gutted, missus, that you think the word t***ers is "vulgar". (For the purposes of clarity the preceding sentence is weighed to breaking point with sarcasm). T***ers must be one of the least "vulgar" insults I can imagine. If I had said "f**k", "S**t" or "c**t" you might have some sort of a point but "t***ers"? Come of it! 2. Was my comment on strangling people for chewing gum with their mouth open clearly tongue-in-cheek? I can scarcely remember the thread but I strongly suspect it was, yes. I certainly can't recall any comment on gum chewing made by me causing the number of people to take offence as Steph's post has done. Perhaps you can point us in the direction of the thread since (unless you have an utterly staggeringly encyclopaedic memory) you have obviously spent a good bit of time trawling through my historic posts to find something to throw at me. Nice to know my posts on THIS thread have bugged you that much. 3. Defaming someone's character? What twaddle. If someone doesn't want to have their comments taken to task then they shouldn't make provocative statements on public sites that effectively condone or incite criminal behaviour. If Steph's reputation has suffered due to her fooliosh comments it is no-one's fault but her own. A well-known defence to charges of defamation is "fair comment" and "opinion" and I think based upon Steph's original post my comments were both. Interesting that at least a couple of other posters seemed to take the same position. Oh, by the way, Steph just defamed my character by calling me an "aggressive TOSSER!!". Doubtless you will be making similar complaints of defamation about her post? No? Didn't think so somehow. Hypocrite.

Steph Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > OK thought I should respond...I said the first > thing that sprang to mind without thinking, it's > was what came into my head after reading the > thread. A knee jerk reaction. It was silly of me > not to think about what I was saying...I apologise > for offending everyone. > > In my mind, I would like get my husband (who > doesn't realise he was volunteered to take out the > cameraman)to put the camera over the cameraman's > head though in reality he certainly wouldn't do so > and I would never encourage to do so either. > Had I said this earlier it would of saved a lot of > trouble I know. > > One thing to come out of it is the confirmation > that DOMO is a pretty aggressive TOSSER!!! Or perhaps someone who is of the view that it is not smart making irresponsible comments about engaging in violent assaults on others. Your apology was doing quite well there Steph until you just had to go and blow it by trying to wriggle out of responsibility for you own comments. And in the process of calling me an "aggressive TOSSER!!" you engaged in exactly the same behaviour you just accused me off. Show me aggression in my posts. I would love to see it. On the contrary your original post and this 'clarification' have both been characterised by aggressive tendencies. Pot - kettle - black. Put your own house in order and take responsibility for your own comments before deflecting blame onto others.

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've met Steph - my impression was of a > well-spoken, kind-hearted and well-balanced young > woman. Well then, perhaps she should take more care with her posts as her words have clearly led at least three readers to form a different impression.

missus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think Domitianus is skating on thin ice > comparing 'tanked up' girls starting fights for > some sort of lowly amusement with a (although > possibly overly) concerned mother. Weak parallels > by anyones measure. > > I don't think Steph was saying she'd have resorted > to unfounded violence but rather, had the man not > have responded in an utmost considerate manner > (particularly given the covert and surreptitious > nature of his activities), taken further action > i.e. called the police. I'm not sure how others > read it but I presume the bit about her other half > was tongue-in cheek, that said, if the man refused > to delete the pictures of my child on (polite) > request, I would probably exact said violent > feelings on his camera. > > Also, Domitianus, I think your wanton judgment on > Steph and her husband (who I presume you've never > met) is to my mind a tad hysterical. And no, I do > not agree with violence before I get pounced on > with more silly analogies. Perhaps instead of having a go at me, you should have a word woith Steph about being more careful in expressing herself. From Loz's and Panda Boy's posts it seems that I was certainly not the only person to assume her statement about aggressive behaviour was quite serious. If someone states that they would expect their husband to inflict physical violence upon someone, I think (unless there is VERY clear evidence that the comment is tongue-in-cheek) we are entitled to assume they mean it. And it seems that your desire to assume that she meant something other than what she said is just that - an assumption, bereft of any actual substance. Dare I suggest the assumption is "wanton"? And "by anyone's measure"? I assume you mean your own? The only other people to have commented directly on the matter, Loz and Panda Boy, don't seem to have felt moved to take issue with my analogies (doesn't mean that they agree of course, but certainly doesn't seem that my analogies were egregious enough to warrant comment). And, no,. I don't know Steph or her husband. Do you? Maybe you do. But I have met plenty of people before who like to boast about how they or their other half like to resolve situations by giving someone a good slap and, invariably, they have been t****ers! To my mind, it is one of the saddest and most pathetic default positions people can take when something happens that they don't like. Perhaps Steph and her husband are lovely, gentle people but by posting in the manner she has she has certainly not managed to convey such an impression.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Domitianus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I do often feel that way but reassure myself > that > > most of the major prophets have had similar > > experiences. > > Indeed..... and millions of the world's self > deluded too But they are just wrong, the poor misguided fools.

Gimme Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sounds like you would do a great job there. You > are obviously more sensitive than most and sounds > like you know how to find a legal case from the > most trivial of circumstances > New motto "No matter how trivial, we'll sue" > > Anyway, let's ceasefire on this as it's stopped > being enjoyable. > > Anyway, I'm reminded of an amusing story about a > rude bus driver many years ago. > I got into a slight argument when I was a student > many years ago with a bus driver about a fare. On > getting off, he drove along slowly and shouted out > the door "where did you get your clothes mate? a > jumble sale?". > I was mildly offended and annoyed and later told > my friend what had happened. The friend (who is > now a barrister) replied quick as a flash, 'You > should have said "It's all I can afford, my dad's > a bus driver"'. Alas it was too late by that time. I agree, this is indeed an amusing story. WOuld have been interesting to see the look on his face.

I do often feel that way but reassure myself that most of the major prophets have had similar experiences.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So Steph is saying that, if someone took a photo > of her child without her permission, it would be > in the child's best interest to have it's father > banged up for a few months and left with a > criminal record. This is now considered 'good > parenting'. > > Words fail me. Well said, Loz. Still, I suppose some people find it reassuring to have a husband they can use as an "attack dog" any time someone does something they don't like. Reminds me of the types of girls who get tanked up on the weekend and then for a bit of entertainment persuade their boyfriends to beat some poor b***er up on the grounds that "He was looking at me funny! Go on, hit im!" Anyone who would even want to be married to someone like that is a bit wanting in the first place. Could I just add that in such a situation I would like to see Steph arrested as well for incitement to violence.

Posts such as your remind me why I gave up posting on this Forum for a long time. It was too alarming to realise that people who uttered views based on such primitive reasoning skills as we see on here actually have the right to vote and might live in the same street as me. I, believe it or not, am with Lenk on that one.

Despite the grammatical mangle of your post I think I have been able to untangle your meaning. I have elaborated upon the law of the land (which I did not write). If you can show me where discrimination law recognises as a distinct racial/ethnic group people who drive a certain type of car I will be happy to hold up my hands and say 'mea culpa'. And I think you are an absolute bl**dy idiot if you think there is the slightest incongruity between challenging selfish and inconsiderate public behaviours by certain social groups and standing up for the rights of a passenger to be able to get on a bus without having an obscenely offensive driver attempt to make her feel inferior because she is not English!!!! Goat!

Steph Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If someone started taking pictures of my young son > at waist level, without my permission, I would > take a photo of him with my camera, then call the > police explaining what I was seeing, then I would > confront him ask him what he was doing. If I did > not like the response I would hope my husband > would take the camera off him and put it over his > head. (Not in front of my child, I would take him > for a walk).. > > If you're a professional/novice photographer and > you are taking pictures of kids without permission > you are walking a very fine line - people know not > to do it! FFS!!! And if your husband did such a thing I would sincerely hope that he was arrested and charged with assault and criminal damage. And I would hope that the photographer then took a civil case for damages against you and your husband. Nice one, Steph! Violence solves everything, eh?

You've said it all yourself thanks, so have saved me the bother. Nice to see that my qualities are being recognised. Perhaps by modelling me you too can achieve similar heights. I wonder if the passenger on the bus took quite so relaxed an attitude to the insult she received. I think we can assume from the detail of this thread so far that quite a few people find this drivers insults and attitude offensive and demeaning. Maybe they are just thin-skinned, eh? Anyway, from the coverage I have been seeing it looks like there might be a vacancy at the Equality and Human Rights Commission - Trevor Phillips is getting a bit of a kicking. Keep your eyes on the Positions Vacant pages. Perhaps you can apply for the post and put social equality back thirty years or so by introducing a new Frameowrk for Diversity under the title 'Get Used To It - It Never Did Me Any Harm'.

Muley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Foxes? Safe? Are they safe, you say? I'll tell you > how bloody safe they are... > > They come round here, driving bendy buses (badly), > they're rude, arrogant, ride their bikes on the > pavements, carry knives and attack wheelie bins, > wear hoodies, pick the flowers on Peckham Rye, > play their music 'til all hours, dress up as > clowns, take seruptitious photos of our kids in > the park without so much as a 'do you mind', won't > accept cheques, park in the disabled spaces in > Sainsburys, knock on your windows at night, try to > scam you on Lordship Lane, have swine flu, and > park their articulated lorries on yellow lines > outside John Allans (after crashing into the > roundabout). > I wouldn't be suprised if they're all asylum > seekers who jump the queue for council housing, > hold racist views, and only marry their own kind > too. > > And they all work for Foxtons. > > Bastards, the lot of them! But they do have winning smiles and, apparently, are very kind to their dear old mums!

I will NOT be going on account of a matter of personal principle.

YES!!!! Let's stop being so American and just be considerate human beings. We all know that the two are very different animals!

Gimme, I am amazed that you could come onto this forum and make such a dumb, ill-informed, ignorant comment. You clearly haven't the faintest notion what you are talking about and have obviously never worked for any organisation that has any type of well constructed and properly communicated equal opps policy. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that making comments that insinuate that someone else's national/racial/ethnic oprigin is inferior to one's own is an example of blatantly discriminatory behaviour on the grounds of race. There isn't even an issue to be discussed there. If you have any doubt about that go and sit in the Employment Tribunals for a morning and listen in on a few cases involving claims of racial discrimination. I think you will have your eyes opened. If anyone was subject to an insinuation (let alone a direct statement)in the workplace that another person was superior or inferior to someone else based upon their nationality/race/ethnic origin it would be an open and shut case and any Employment Tribunal would find for the plaintiff. Well recognised forms of racial harrassment and discrimination include the indulgence of stereotypes and nicknames. Therefore, if you have been subject in a relevant place to nicknames of the type you have described and to stereotyped allegations of "tightness" etc, then you have, according to the law, been subject to racial harrassment and would have a legal case. Whether you feel offended or have any desire to pursue such a case is obviously a completely personal matter for you, but it doesn't alter the provisions of the law one jot! And in case you were thinking of going along the lines of "it was all done in good humour", "it was just a bit of banter, we were having a laugh", or "people shouldn't take it so personally" - think again. Such 'justifications' have absolutely no merit in law whatsoever and Tribunals or other legal bodies look extremely poorly on what they view as such feeble attempts at justification, as many companies have found to their considerable finacial disadvantage when large sums of compensation have been awarded against them. The law also enshrines the concept of 'perception' of harrassing behaviours by the victim as being of paramount importance in determining whether harrassment/discrimination has taken place and the 'intention' of the perpetrator is of no relevance. If you want to say that the state of race relations legislation in this country is excessive and representative of a nanny state, go right ahead. You may well have a case. But please do not try to deny the current state of the law is, for better or for worse, what it is.

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "in the context of the thread in general" > > Anything goes it would seem Kels dear, we appreciate that you wish to defend those who are driving for TFL and that is fine. No-one is for one moment suggesting that ALL drivers are like that or that it is anything but a tough and unrewarding job driving a bus for thankless people. Fact is, however, it seems that this particular driver sticks out like a sore thumb due to his attitude and apparently completely unreasonable behaviour. If the vast majority of decent, hard-working bus drivers manage to get through a long day, facing what are undoubtedly challenging and often unpleasant situations, without needing to engage in aggressive, offensive, racist, abusive, confrontational behaviour then it seems that this particular driver is a bad apple and is unworthy of your protection or concern. Surely those who have loved ones working for the bus companies should be quite glad to see drivers who consistently behave unreasonably dealt with, to avoid those they care about being tarred with the same brush?