starsailor9774

Commentator just said "Robinson for England again in the summer" Yeah just what we need a keeper who ships 5 goals in a game.....

40046 attendance..

Dunne and dusted!

Huh??? :confused: :wow: Haha sorry I thought you used the black sheep expression in UK as well. To be the black sheep = to be strange, different etc. compared to the "normal" people or white sheeps. Only this time the "normal" people are manipulated, easily feared (like sheep)zombies who swallow any headline at face value. Sheeple. Mostly talking about my own little turned facist country but goes for most. And we are supposed to be enlightened and educated... Here is a conspiracy theory to laugh at: Why is it anyone who doesn't share the views of a Liberal or Socialist is deemed to have been "manipulated"or "will "swallow any headline at face value"? Lowest of the low for experiments is a nice headline. People who buy into it always have this bemused face, when suddenly that is themself. Prefer to call that manipulated to stupid. Maybe it's you that have been manipulated by papers you read.

And yet you still would agree with a party defined by it's racism. Thats the only reason to agree with that party, if you buy that rubbish. No other reason. Agreeing with a policy or two in no way makes me a racist, You'd vote for the BNP, would you? Then you are a racist. As I've said, again and again, the BNP are defined by it's racism. There is no reason to vote for them if you disagree with that viewpoint. I actually go further than that - theres no reason to view anything associated with the party in a good light, be it in the polling station or like we are discussing here and now, because you are effectively promoting a racist organisation. It's a position that is indefensible. Agreeing with a policy is not voting for someone...... and yyour second comment is ridiculous, if the BNP promised to double tge number of police on the beat i would agree with that policy, it doesn't mean i would vote for them, or i am racist. Talk about moving the goalposts......

Would you care to explain the purpose of your 'comical' conjecture that the people who opposed you were gay, then? Was it a celebration of homosexuality? Or was it an attempt to 'get one over' those with whom you were in discussion? Would you care to explain why you haven't spoken about my apparently 'hypocritical' comments about being 'liberal'? Ah, that might dash your (already flimsy) argument. At least I'm no hypocrite, eh? Ooh a spelling mistake.... how very bad of me. Read my post again...... I conveyed that if other people see something between the lines in your posts that they take it a certain way then you immediately go on the offensive with "where did i say that" .... but you did the same to me. Anyway... i have 4 hours sleep before work so i am going to bed.

And yet you still would agree with a party defined by it's racism. Thats the only reason to agree with that party, if you buy that rubbish. No other reason. Agreeing with a policy or two in no way makes me a racist,

I said i agreed with a couple of policys hardly makes me Adolf Hitler does it.

The part of your post in bold show's who the homophobe is on here..... why else would you refer to it as an "insulting thing" Just to clarify (as it appeared to fly over your head - not difficult, it appears), that was how you conveyed those things. To follow your own 'logic', it would also mean that you thought that I was of the opinion that being liberal was a problem rather than the problem being about those who called others (in an accusatory) 'liberal'. Apologies if that required too much thought for you. So why when people accuse you of conveying things in a post do you jump up and down demanding they read your post correctly I never used the term gay as an insult and i stand by what i said. You my "friend" are an hypocrit of the highest order. .

Far too simplimistic a take. I disagree with people all the time. What made me use that term for the esteemed starsailor9774 is that his views are so vile, so unflinchingly disgusting to me, so indefensible, that I refuse to respect them nor waste pleasantries on them, and by implication the person that holds them. I stand by the use of the term. That would not be the case for pretty much any other stadnpoint. Is that because he supports the BNP or saying he doesn't value some lives as equal? Quite harsh because one or two others have said testing on humans (horrible criminals committing evil crimes) should be an option like sailor has said. I did say i agreed with one or 2 of the BNP's policys.... but that doesn't mean i want repatriation of people or see coloured people as second class. I am neither racist or homophobic,. Just opinionated.

Of course 'gay' can be an insult. It is often used with with negative intent. The implication of its use is that you view it as an negative. That's obvious. The term topped the school yard bullying words a couple of years ago. If you can show me where i used the term "Gay" as an insult i would love to see it..

I value everybody's life the same. I'm neither very bizarre, nor am I liar. I may have disdain for some people, I may hate them, but their life is worth no more or less than anyone elses. No person, in my view, has more inherent value than another, and thus we are all equals. Equals that face very different challenges, but equal non the less. And Snowy did speak to me about that exchange and encouraged me to have a rethink. I don't agree with conscription but countries need to be able to defend themselves and their interests, if that requires conscription then so be it. The world will always have conflict, and people will always die in them, it's regretable but to wax lyrical on the idea war is going to go away is largely pointless. I also don't think the comparision between civilian casualties in conflict and using the convicted for medical experiments and mine clearing is a valid one. Civilian casualties are an inevitable result of conflict, we endeavour to preserve life by stopping them happening as much as possible. The exact opposite would be true of the criminals in this case, we would be neglecting life and wellbeing. he now thinks i'm homophobic scum

How? Oh, by adding homophobia to your already lengthy list of hatred? If you'd bothered to read other threads, you'd see that I wasn't gay but that I take a deep dislike towards homophobia (mainly to do with having gay family members who have had to deal with the same kind of prejudice as that upon which you thrive). It is interesting that you have chosen to ignore a question posed to you (and the other experimentalists) about how far you would take your 'treat in any way we want' ideology and instead focussed on attempting to wind other people up by calling them such insulting things as being 'liberal' or 'gay'. Your posts are those of a truly enlightened individual and I hope that when your cat returns home, you, too, are hoist by your own petard and burnt at the stake. Homophobia? By jokingly suggesting you and Chindie were a couple? Not sure how you work that out. The part of your post in bold show's who the homophobe is on here..... why else would you refer to it as an "insulting thing"

Just a difference of opinion then snowy. Your opinion is the above, mine is that you don't really deserve civilsed human rights unless you can act like a civilised human yourself. Murdering somebody is far from a human thing to do. Not at all 'just a difference of opinion'. Your opinion is that you are imbued with some bizarre moral guidance which enables you to decide upon the worth of other people. Mine is that this 'attitude' is Mengeleish (at the very least), if not the trait of countless murderers, rapists or other psychopaths or sociopaths. Many might find your attitude that everyone deserves the same rights even if they have murdered and raped equally bizarre.

Heh, doesn't surprise me at all. Ha ha ha did he wake you up to tell you..........

The lack of blinkers probably helped me. Ooh, more attempts at provoking others. I'd have thought you might have been guided as to how to conduct yourself like a grown up on VT. It appears that, even if you have, you have chosen to ignore any basics of decorum. I am disgusted at myself that I convinced myself that you might learn how to behave. Touched a nerve eh?

Who says that? You may well have been manipulated or have swallowed all and sundry but I doubt that has owt to do with your illiberalism. It was the gist i got from DV's post.... you may read it different that's your issue. I don't get manipulated or swallow any headline i read.... most papers are full of shit anyway..... i've never read one copy of the Daily Mail either which may surprise Mrs Snowychap... oops i mean Chindie.

Huh??? :confused: :wow: Haha sorry I thought you used the black sheep expression in UK as well. To be the black sheep = to be strange, different etc. compared to the "normal" people or white sheeps. Only this time the "normal" people are manipulated, easily feared (like sheep)zombies who swallow any headline at face value. Sheeple. Mostly talking about my own little turned facist country but goes for most. And we are supposed to be enlightened and educated... Here is a conspiracy theory to laugh at: Why is it anyone who doesn't share the views of a Liberal or Socialist is deemed to have been "manipulated"or "will "swallow any headline at face value"?

Well the next time a lion is in court for murdering a child give me a call and i might agree with you. And, before people shout "DOG ATTACK'S" that is usually caused by an owner having a dog that he/she can't control or has failed to train, living in the wrong surroundings...... a 10th floor council flat isn't the ideal home for a Rottweiler. And for those saying we have dominion over the animals, yes the Bible may say that....... but i have looked through it and in no verse did it say "Lo, God came to them and said verily you can eat the beasts. You can also force them to wear lipstick, smoke 20 Benson and pump them full of drugs in the name of science."

Fair enough but you ought to get someone in fast as it appears as though you are in desperate need of someone to help you finish your sentences. I just knew you would finish it for me, or at least jump in.

You said it............ If I 'don't think' in the way that you mean, it's only because I don't want you to feel lonely. Trust me, if it came to a choice of eternal lonliness or having you in my corner............

You said it............

That performance will have Blackburn on the front foot in the second leg........ Do we even want to get to the next level or we happy being a club that just sits and stagnates in the top 10 each year?

You know exactly what you implied snowy. Suggesting that wanting to use these on the worst criminals make him the lowest of the low. Well, a few mentioned the lowest of the low. I hardly think cyclists not wearing helmets fit this category. And no, we wouldn't run out of them quickly, because the intention is hardly to kill them now, is it? I'm amazed some are making a big deal out of this. "OMG nooooo! we can't test cosmetics on murderers, just think how it will damage their rep in prison!" Jesus Christ. Hmm, who is the lowest of the low after we wipe out murderes and rapists? Or should we just stop science when there is a 10 year queue on those? Birmingham City fans?

As i said before Millions already have........ and they still haven't. How can inducing an animal with a disease it would never get, like Lung cancer from smoking and then trying to cure it help humans? Surely the drugs would act differently, different genetic make-ups and all that.