Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"Am I?"


I'm obviously being obstinate Rosie but from where I'm sitting you've chosen to jump on me again because (I may be mistaken) you see me as an obvious target where as if you read through the thread I merely suggested the title of Schindlers List over Jah Lush's choice of Cheech and Chong's Up In Smoke because the likely event is that the animals would be put to death like the victims of the film I chose to mirror what I imagined would be passing through the mind of the condemned animal. If it were able to hold such graphic anxieties. I didn't, in any part of this thread make any reference to the holocaust, you're the first to bring this up (referencing genocide).


"Because on the scale of human atrocities I don't think it quite ranks up there with genocide?"


As I said before, I never mentioned atrocities anywhere in this thread so I can't really comment on the above statement.


"You've got me banged to rights and no mistake."


I don't like to gloat, but I hope I've made my point clear enough in the above explainations to be a competent case for the defense.


"What the @#$%& are you talking about?"


Read this post from the beginning.


I'm not chopping up what you've written for any comedic value or indeed, skewing your point. I just find it easier to explain myself this way.

I can't comment on any mistake you may or may not be guilty of making.


Schindlers List is a film that documents the true story that see's war profiteer Oscar Schindler put himself in great jeopardy to protect the Jews working in his factory from the Nazi's.


The one where the boat hits the iceberg is the film in which Kate Winslet gets her tits out on a voyage that reminds marine engineers that nature will prevail.

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?2

> 0,file=6506

>

> These beagles are dying for a fag.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


That's a horrible and upsetting picture :-$


edited to say: but something seems to have gone wrong with quoting the post .....

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...