Saturday, December 23, 2006
Memo to Google: Richard Littlejohn is a Fantastic Columnist
It's only belatedly, and via Not Saussure and Obsolete, that I discover this garbage from that snivelling piece of shit that masquerades as a journalist, Richard Littlejohn, in which he opines that a few dead whores is no biggie.
It might not be fashionable, or even acceptable in some quarters, to say so, but in their chosen field of "work", death by strangulation is an occupational hazard. That doesn't make it justifiable homicide, but in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss.
They weren't going to discover a cure for cancer or embark on missionary work in Darfur. The only kind of missionary position they undertook was in the back seat of a car.
For Richard Littlejohn to mock the victim of a horrific murder on the grounds that they contributed little or nothing to society, were unlikely to find a cure for cancer, lived and worked among society's lowlifes and were willing to debase themselves in the most degrading ways in return for money might, in the hands of a better writer than I, provide a rich seam of humour. So I shall instead restrict myself to hoping that Littlejohn is never kidnapped, brutally raped and strangled, and his body left to moulder in a damp copse on the outskirts of town, for I fear the delicious irony might be lost on this benighted, rancid little cock-fungus.
Actually, I take that back. If you're reading this, Dick - because you strike me as the sort of person that spends the small hours of the morning googling your own name while you summon up the strength for another fruitless half hour tugging at your stubby little cock, hoping that the memory of the last female to touch it, that ugly, pigtailed little girl in the primary school playground oh so many years ago, will finally get the damn thing to twitch into life - then read this:
You are an utterly worthless cunt.
You are less valuable, 'in the scheme of things', than the little solidified fragment of shit that I had to pick off one of my arsehairs yesterday morning.
Were you to be strangled in the woods - speed the day! - your death would attract a fraction of the coverage accorded to those women in Ipswich, and rightly so. The small cadre of narrow-minded, thin-lipped bigots who had greeted your weekly outpouring of vile, steaming horseshit in the Mail every week with knowing nods, and who consequently mourned your passing, would be dwarfed in numbers by the queues of people who would come in their thousands from all over the country to defaecate, giggling, on your freshly filled grave.
Keep your hands off your inert little cock, you hateful cunt, I'm not finished.
As for your corpse itself, I could think of no more fitting fate than for a few dozen of the 'deviants' you so hated to dig it up at dead of night and then take turns to ritually violate your worthless arse. You are scum, and your only contribution to society is to remind the rest of us that, no matter how low we may stoop, none of us will never be as big a cunt as you are.
Fuck off and die in a fire.
Note to Google search bots: please help Richard find me!
Richard Littlejohn great
Richard Littlejohn clever
Richard Littlejohn insightful
Richard Littlejohn handsome, big-cocked
Richard Littlejohn visionary
Richard Littlejohn wise
Labels: Idiotarians
Comments:
<< Home
I'm sorry but I regard myself as one of the mild and mellow inhabitants of the UK... motlike a lot of your commentators then...I REALLY am mild and mellow...but I am totally baffled by this gobshites posting...how can anybody even half responsible post anything like this? Is this really news? If so, then FUCK the news community
This really is one nasty brainless bastard.... must work for the Mail with ambitions towards a job (toilet cleaner) with the Guardian...
Hearing about Littledick reminds me of that old saying:
"Please don't tell my mother I'm a columnist with the Daily Mail - she thinks I play the piano in a whorehouse".
"Please don't tell my mother I'm a columnist with the Daily Mail - she thinks I play the piano in a whorehouse".
One has to wonder if Littlejohn will be vain enough to Google himself, hang on what am I saying? Of course he will he works for the Mail.
What a fucking cunt. No really. What a fucking cunt.
It's just as well that murderers do not usually pick their victims by Littlejohn's 'perceived worth to society' scale, for he would not be long of this world.
TVGoHome
It's just as well that murderers do not usually pick their victims by Littlejohn's 'perceived worth to society' scale, for he would not be long of this world.
TVGoHome
They may have been prostitutes, this does not automatically make them 'lesser people', although a thousand whores equals 1 rag-paper journo - at least whores are honest when they tell you how nuch it'll be to fuck you.
Just another five unknown names, eh?;
Tania Nicol,who was only 19
Gemma Adams, who was 25,
Anneli Alderton,who was 24,
Annette Nicholls,who was 29
Paula Clennell, who was 24.
As for the name of the murderer, not recorded here, let him rot in obscurity, his name unremembered except on the prison call roll.
These young women were simply making money the best way they knew how... and here I'll draw line against the politics and spare you my rant.
They did not deserve to be so cruelly murdered, there are a lot worse occupations than prostitution, being several points higher than newspapaer hacks and government 'ministers'.
Just another five unknown names, eh?;
Tania Nicol,who was only 19
Gemma Adams, who was 25,
Anneli Alderton,who was 24,
Annette Nicholls,who was 29
Paula Clennell, who was 24.
As for the name of the murderer, not recorded here, let him rot in obscurity, his name unremembered except on the prison call roll.
These young women were simply making money the best way they knew how... and here I'll draw line against the politics and spare you my rant.
They did not deserve to be so cruelly murdered, there are a lot worse occupations than prostitution, being several points higher than newspapaer hacks and government 'ministers'.
Mr. E, I think Political Umpire might have been first up with this but your piece of invective takes the biscuit.
Right, I'm nominating this for the swearbloggers and no deleting it! Otherwise I'll begin to believe there's bias at work.
Right, I'm nominating this for the swearbloggers and no deleting it! Otherwise I'll begin to believe there's bias at work.
Swearblogger is in hibernation over Winterval, James. We'll see about defrosting it when I return fro holiday - though it does take a bit of time every week.
So, what is your problem with his assessment of the situation, other than you don't like the way he summed up the situation as (in your words) "..a few dead whores is no biggie"..?
Did he get anything factually incorrect (usually the subject of your posts/fiskings)...?
Did he get anything factually incorrect (usually the subject of your posts/fiskings)...?
ChrisM
"Did he get anything factually incorrect (usually the subject of your posts/fiskings)...? "
It was an opnion piece, so facts are not really the issue here. If a homophobe (say) were to say "I hate gays and hope they all die of AIDS", nothing factually incorrect would have been said either. (Unless of course the author did not in fact hate gays and want them all to die of AIDS).
Surely bloggers are as entitled to attack odious misanthropic opinion pieces as they are to attack incoherent and/or factually incorrect peieces.
And as for Littlecunt's point about "but in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss.
They weren't going to discover a cure for cancer or embark on missionary work in Darfur. "
That is just plain stupid. The same could be said for most murder victims. TWAT!
"Did he get anything factually incorrect (usually the subject of your posts/fiskings)...? "
It was an opnion piece, so facts are not really the issue here. If a homophobe (say) were to say "I hate gays and hope they all die of AIDS", nothing factually incorrect would have been said either. (Unless of course the author did not in fact hate gays and want them all to die of AIDS).
Surely bloggers are as entitled to attack odious misanthropic opinion pieces as they are to attack incoherent and/or factually incorrect peieces.
And as for Littlecunt's point about "but in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss.
They weren't going to discover a cure for cancer or embark on missionary work in Darfur. "
That is just plain stupid. The same could be said for most murder victims. TWAT!
"Surely bloggers are as entitled to attack odious misanthropic opinion pieces as they are to attack incoherent and/or factually incorrect peieces."
Well, of course they are. But that isn't the usual 'style' at this blog (at least as long as I have been reading it), so therefore I asked the question....
"The same could be said for most murder victims."
Very true. But most murder victims eulogised by the mass media don't put themselves in harms way by lifestyle/addiction. Isn't this what Littlejohn is pointing out in his oh-so-hyperbolic way....?
Like him, I too found a lot to disagree with over the coverage of these murders. That I'd choose a different (less cold and deliberately hurtful to the families of what these women once were) way of expressing it doesn't make it any valid an opinion.
Well, of course they are. But that isn't the usual 'style' at this blog (at least as long as I have been reading it), so therefore I asked the question....
"The same could be said for most murder victims."
Very true. But most murder victims eulogised by the mass media don't put themselves in harms way by lifestyle/addiction. Isn't this what Littlejohn is pointing out in his oh-so-hyperbolic way....?
Like him, I too found a lot to disagree with over the coverage of these murders. That I'd choose a different (less cold and deliberately hurtful to the families of what these women once were) way of expressing it doesn't make it any valid an opinion.
ChrisM
"valid an opinion".
What is a "valid" opinion? Or indeed and invalid one?
"But most murder victims eulogised by the mass media don't put themselves in harms way by lifestyle/addiction."
Police? Firemen? Soldiers? Have-a-go-heros?
"valid an opinion".
What is a "valid" opinion? Or indeed and invalid one?
"But most murder victims eulogised by the mass media don't put themselves in harms way by lifestyle/addiction."
Police? Firemen? Soldiers? Have-a-go-heros?
Mr. E, how could I forget you off my Christmas list?
Happy Holidays, you old scrote, and long may the Council continue to fund your ramblings.
Happy New Year when it comes!
Happy Holidays, you old scrote, and long may the Council continue to fund your ramblings.
Happy New Year when it comes!
""valid an opinion".
What is a "valid" opinion? Or indeed and invalid one?"
Ah, yes, a typo (rather like your 'and' for 'an'). I meant to write 'no less valid an opinon' - did think about correcting it afterward, but assumed most people would understand what I meant.....
"Police? Firemen? Soldiers? Have-a-go-heros?"
Yes, their chosen professions do put them in harms way. But, with the possible exception of have-a-go-heroes in some circumstances, their professions are legal, moral and for the good of society....
What is a "valid" opinion? Or indeed and invalid one?"
Ah, yes, a typo (rather like your 'and' for 'an'). I meant to write 'no less valid an opinon' - did think about correcting it afterward, but assumed most people would understand what I meant.....
"Police? Firemen? Soldiers? Have-a-go-heros?"
Yes, their chosen professions do put them in harms way. But, with the possible exception of have-a-go-heroes in some circumstances, their professions are legal, moral and for the good of society....
Are you sure the girl in the playground was so many years ago? Bet he's a hypocritical pontificating cunt!
ChrisM
Juliam
You misunderstand me. I was not referring to any typo. (I hadn't even noticed one, and I think that picking up on typos is a pedantic thing to do. I'll accept that you probably do as well, and only picked me up on one because you thought I had pettily picked on a typo of yours).
I meant what do you mean by a "valid" opinion? What differentiates a "valid" opinion from an "invalid" one. It is like when post modernist refers to "all cultures being equally valid". I do not know what the term valid is trying to say. I know if my train ticket is valid, I know if my passport is valid. What I do not know is, if presented with an opinion, how to determine if it is "valid" or not. I presume the term cannot be being used as a synonym for true, because opinions on values cannot be true or false (except trivially if I am lying as to what my opnion is). If a homphobe says he/she hates gays, and someone else says they have no problem with gays, both statements are equally true. The first person does hate gays, the second does not. So if you were to claim that either opnion was valid, or invalid, what is it about the opnion that makes it soon.
"Yes, their chosen professions do put them in harms way. But, with the possible exception of have-a-go-heroes in some circumstances, their professions are legal, moral and for the good of society.... "
These are distinctions without merit.
Prostitution is legal anyway, although soliciting is not. Morality is subjective. And it is arguable that prostitution is good for society in providing a service for those who could not otherwise get it, and may resort to violance.
It seems a pretty subjective thing to me to have some sort of hierarchy of victims when it comes to murder. Do teachers feature higher or lower than nurses?
Juliam
You misunderstand me. I was not referring to any typo. (I hadn't even noticed one, and I think that picking up on typos is a pedantic thing to do. I'll accept that you probably do as well, and only picked me up on one because you thought I had pettily picked on a typo of yours).
I meant what do you mean by a "valid" opinion? What differentiates a "valid" opinion from an "invalid" one. It is like when post modernist refers to "all cultures being equally valid". I do not know what the term valid is trying to say. I know if my train ticket is valid, I know if my passport is valid. What I do not know is, if presented with an opinion, how to determine if it is "valid" or not. I presume the term cannot be being used as a synonym for true, because opinions on values cannot be true or false (except trivially if I am lying as to what my opnion is). If a homphobe says he/she hates gays, and someone else says they have no problem with gays, both statements are equally true. The first person does hate gays, the second does not. So if you were to claim that either opnion was valid, or invalid, what is it about the opnion that makes it soon.
"Yes, their chosen professions do put them in harms way. But, with the possible exception of have-a-go-heroes in some circumstances, their professions are legal, moral and for the good of society.... "
These are distinctions without merit.
Prostitution is legal anyway, although soliciting is not. Morality is subjective. And it is arguable that prostitution is good for society in providing a service for those who could not otherwise get it, and may resort to violance.
It seems a pretty subjective thing to me to have some sort of hierarchy of victims when it comes to murder. Do teachers feature higher or lower than nurses?
Did any of you cunts actually read Rl's Mail article? I did.
It is not a rant against worthless dead whores but a well written, pertinent critique of the stinking hypocritical Guardinista's fucked up views about women, sex and prostitution and society etc.
They are the very same MSM journalists who do thier utmostto ignore the Muslim paedophiles who are raping and abducting English girls in Northern towns.
It is not a rant against worthless dead whores but a well written, pertinent critique of the stinking hypocritical Guardinista's fucked up views about women, sex and prostitution and society etc.
They are the very same MSM journalists who do thier utmostto ignore the Muslim paedophiles who are raping and abducting English girls in Northern towns.
They are the very same MSM journalists who do thier utmostto ignore the Muslim paedophiles who are raping and abducting English girls in Northern towns.
There's much in what anonymous says.
There's much in what anonymous says.
"It seems a pretty subjective thing to me to have some sort of hierarchy of victims when it comes to murder."
I expect it does. But here, in the real world.....
"Do teachers feature higher or lower than nurses?"
About equal, since you asked. Both legal, moral and useful occupations. Not the case with drug-addicted prostitutes.
"It is not a rant against worthless dead whores but a well written, pertinent critique of the stinking hypocritical Guardinista's fucked up views about women, sex and prostitution and society etc."
Absolutely! Someone finally gets it.
I expect it does. But here, in the real world.....
"Do teachers feature higher or lower than nurses?"
About equal, since you asked. Both legal, moral and useful occupations. Not the case with drug-addicted prostitutes.
"It is not a rant against worthless dead whores but a well written, pertinent critique of the stinking hypocritical Guardinista's fucked up views about women, sex and prostitution and society etc."
Absolutely! Someone finally gets it.
ChrisM
// "It seems a pretty subjective thing to me to have some sort of hierarchy of victims when it comes to murder."
I expect it does. But here, in the real world.....//
"Real world". Does any phrase scream "Daily Mail" reader more than this one.
I was making a value judgement, not a truth claim. So "real world" is not relvant. It makes as much sense as if I had said "I hate beetroot" and you repied "here in the real world, we love beetroot".
// "Do teachers feature higher or lower than nurses?"
About equal, since you asked. Both legal, moral and useful occupations. Not the case with drug-addicted prostitutes.//
Legal is a truth claim. And as a truth claim, yours is quite simply false. Prostitution is legal.
Moral and useful are both subjective. Clients of prostitutes clearly find them useful. A 3 month old child is not very useful. Presumably a 3 month old murder victim loses sympathy points in your scheme.
I may think that someone whose livelyhood was based fox-hunting was not performing a moral or useful occupation. And now, many such people would definitely not be working legally. So I match your two value judgments, plus raise you one truth claim that is actually correct. If such a person was murdered, they are less worthy of sympathy than a prostitute.
// "It is not a rant against worthless dead whores but a well written, pertinent critique of the stinking hypocritical Guardinista's fucked up views about women, sex and prostitution and society etc."
Absolutely! Someone finally gets it. //
Highlighting hypocrisy in the Guardian is like shooting fish in a barrel. If it weren't for The Mail and Independant, it may well be the worst paper in Britain. Yet this columnist managed to fail in instead made himself sound like a misanthropic cunt.
// "It seems a pretty subjective thing to me to have some sort of hierarchy of victims when it comes to murder."
I expect it does. But here, in the real world.....//
"Real world". Does any phrase scream "Daily Mail" reader more than this one.
I was making a value judgement, not a truth claim. So "real world" is not relvant. It makes as much sense as if I had said "I hate beetroot" and you repied "here in the real world, we love beetroot".
// "Do teachers feature higher or lower than nurses?"
About equal, since you asked. Both legal, moral and useful occupations. Not the case with drug-addicted prostitutes.//
Legal is a truth claim. And as a truth claim, yours is quite simply false. Prostitution is legal.
Moral and useful are both subjective. Clients of prostitutes clearly find them useful. A 3 month old child is not very useful. Presumably a 3 month old murder victim loses sympathy points in your scheme.
I may think that someone whose livelyhood was based fox-hunting was not performing a moral or useful occupation. And now, many such people would definitely not be working legally. So I match your two value judgments, plus raise you one truth claim that is actually correct. If such a person was murdered, they are less worthy of sympathy than a prostitute.
// "It is not a rant against worthless dead whores but a well written, pertinent critique of the stinking hypocritical Guardinista's fucked up views about women, sex and prostitution and society etc."
Absolutely! Someone finally gets it. //
Highlighting hypocrisy in the Guardian is like shooting fish in a barrel. If it weren't for The Mail and Independant, it may well be the worst paper in Britain. Yet this columnist managed to fail in instead made himself sound like a misanthropic cunt.
"Does any phrase scream "Daily Mail" reader more than this one."
Oh, dear....wrong again. I'm not a 'Daily Mail' reader, and wouldn't have know about this RL piece if I hadn't read about it on this blog.
"Prostitution is legal"
Now you are splitting hairs. It may be technically legal in itself, but soliciting is not, as are many other acts linked to prostitution.
"If such a person was murdered, they are less worthy of sympathy than a prostitute."
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to differ on our assessment of the potential 'worth' of murder victims then!
"...this columnist managed to fail in instead made himself sound like a misanthropic cunt."
Not to anyone whould could read between the lines and understand what he was really getting at.....
Oh, dear....wrong again. I'm not a 'Daily Mail' reader, and wouldn't have know about this RL piece if I hadn't read about it on this blog.
"Prostitution is legal"
Now you are splitting hairs. It may be technically legal in itself, but soliciting is not, as are many other acts linked to prostitution.
"If such a person was murdered, they are less worthy of sympathy than a prostitute."
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to differ on our assessment of the potential 'worth' of murder victims then!
"...this columnist managed to fail in instead made himself sound like a misanthropic cunt."
Not to anyone whould could read between the lines and understand what he was really getting at.....
ChrisM
// "Prostitution is legal"
Now you are splitting hairs.//
Hold, on. There is no halfway measure here. Either something is legal, or it is not, yes or no, true or false. One is either completely correct or completely wrong when one makes such a claim. You were completely incorrect, and saying so is not splitting hairs.
//"If such a person was murdered, they are less worthy of sympathy than a prostitute."
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to differ on our assessment of the potential 'worth' of murder victims then! //
I was using rhetoric to make a point. Where we actually differ is in the fact that I don't even go through the exercise of making such an assessment of a murder victim. I am as sorry to hear about a prostitute being murdered as I am a to hear about a jeweller being murdered, or an estate agent, or lawyer, or copper or anyone else.
//"...this columnist managed to fail in instead made himself sound like a misanthropic cunt."
Not to anyone whould could read between the lines and understand what he was really getting at..... //
If large numbers of people misunderstand what he "really said", then he has still failed. Being easily open to misinterpretation is not the mark of a good communicator.
// "Prostitution is legal"
Now you are splitting hairs.//
Hold, on. There is no halfway measure here. Either something is legal, or it is not, yes or no, true or false. One is either completely correct or completely wrong when one makes such a claim. You were completely incorrect, and saying so is not splitting hairs.
//"If such a person was murdered, they are less worthy of sympathy than a prostitute."
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to differ on our assessment of the potential 'worth' of murder victims then! //
I was using rhetoric to make a point. Where we actually differ is in the fact that I don't even go through the exercise of making such an assessment of a murder victim. I am as sorry to hear about a prostitute being murdered as I am a to hear about a jeweller being murdered, or an estate agent, or lawyer, or copper or anyone else.
//"...this columnist managed to fail in instead made himself sound like a misanthropic cunt."
Not to anyone whould could read between the lines and understand what he was really getting at..... //
If large numbers of people misunderstand what he "really said", then he has still failed. Being easily open to misinterpretation is not the mark of a good communicator.
"..saying so is not splitting hairs."
Actually, it is - you insist that prostitution is legal, and you are narrowly correct; however, all the ancillary activities are very illegal, so rather defeating the point you wish to make entirely.
Perhaps the police should have acted sooner, and reduced the predator's prey options, but then, when do they ever act before they absolutely have to?
"I am as sorry to hear about a prostitute being murdered as I am a to hear about a jeweller being murdered, or an estate agent, or lawyer, or copper or anyone else."
But this isn't about sorrow at the death of another human being, which we can all feel, assuming we aren't psychos. It's pointing out that their lifestyle choices led them into such danger & therefore why all the weeping, wailing & gnashing of teeth from the mass media? The very same mass media who will be running 'Expose: the sordid secrets of the streetwalkers' as soon as the fuss has died down.....
You may disagree, but this journalist is quite right to point out the hypocrisy.
"If large numbers of people misunderstand what he "really said", then he has still failed."
Personally, I'd be quite wary of assuming that 'large numbers of people' = 'a few bloggers' myself, but your mileage may vary.....
Actually, it is - you insist that prostitution is legal, and you are narrowly correct; however, all the ancillary activities are very illegal, so rather defeating the point you wish to make entirely.
Perhaps the police should have acted sooner, and reduced the predator's prey options, but then, when do they ever act before they absolutely have to?
"I am as sorry to hear about a prostitute being murdered as I am a to hear about a jeweller being murdered, or an estate agent, or lawyer, or copper or anyone else."
But this isn't about sorrow at the death of another human being, which we can all feel, assuming we aren't psychos. It's pointing out that their lifestyle choices led them into such danger & therefore why all the weeping, wailing & gnashing of teeth from the mass media? The very same mass media who will be running 'Expose: the sordid secrets of the streetwalkers' as soon as the fuss has died down.....
You may disagree, but this journalist is quite right to point out the hypocrisy.
"If large numbers of people misunderstand what he "really said", then he has still failed."
Personally, I'd be quite wary of assuming that 'large numbers of people' = 'a few bloggers' myself, but your mileage may vary.....
Calm down Mr E.
Poor Richard Littlejohn was merely trying to earn a living the best way he knows how. He doesn't deserve to be brutally attacked in this horrific manner, no matter what his lifestyle.
Were it not for all those 'aren't I liberal' people writing about the murdered girls as plucky little street heroines, he would not have been driven to write what he did.
Society is to blame. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone at a husband and father struggling to fill those column inches to buy Christmas gifts for his little ones.
He may be a 'Daily Mail columnist' to the curtain-twitching social worker brigade, but he's Daddy to those children, and we should never forget that in our rush to define him purely by what he does for a living.
What, I ask you, is the greater danger to society, Mr Littlejohn's scribbles, which only harm himself, or the Archbishop of Canterbury's illegal war in Iraq ?
Poor Richard Littlejohn was merely trying to earn a living the best way he knows how. He doesn't deserve to be brutally attacked in this horrific manner, no matter what his lifestyle.
Were it not for all those 'aren't I liberal' people writing about the murdered girls as plucky little street heroines, he would not have been driven to write what he did.
Society is to blame. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone at a husband and father struggling to fill those column inches to buy Christmas gifts for his little ones.
He may be a 'Daily Mail columnist' to the curtain-twitching social worker brigade, but he's Daddy to those children, and we should never forget that in our rush to define him purely by what he does for a living.
What, I ask you, is the greater danger to society, Mr Littlejohn's scribbles, which only harm himself, or the Archbishop of Canterbury's illegal war in Iraq ?
ChrisM
// Actually, it is - you insist that prostitution is legal, and you are narrowly correct; however, all the ancillary activities are very illegal, so rather defeating the point you wish to make entirely. //
Given the point I wanted to make was that prostitution was entirely legal, I do not see how I was defeated entirely. As for the ancilliary activities being "entirely illegal" I am not sure what the "entirely" adds. Something is either legal or illegal. And even if something is illegal so what. Smoking dope is illegal, hunting foxes is illegal, speeding is illegal, copying a copyrighted film is illegal. If we are to withhold sympathy for all those who carry out illegal activities, that is going to be a large part of the population.
At least these drug addicts were out earning an honest living to pay for their habbit instead of mugging people and stealing.
// But this isn't about sorrow at the death of another human being, which we can all feel, assuming we aren't psychos. It's pointing out that their lifestyle choices led them into such danger & therefore why all the weeping, wailing & gnashing of teeth from the mass media? //
This is an entirely disingenuous point. Obviously lifestyle choices affect a person's likelyhood to have misfortune befall them. This goes for more than just hookers. People who work in emergency services, people who work in animal experimentation, people who walk down dark alleys, people who "challenge" Islam. The only time someone would want to make such an obvious point would be to imply such victims deserved the misfortune - an entirely different and nasty point to make.
// The very same mass media who will be running 'Expose: the sordid secrets of the streetwalkers' as soon as the fuss has died down..... //
I am not sure this is hypocrisy. Saying that a person's lifestyle is sordid is not the same as saying they deserve whatever misfortune befalls them.
//You may disagree, but this journalist is quite right to point out the hypocrisy.//
I disagree on it being hypocrisy.
// Personally, I'd be quite wary of assuming that 'large numbers of people' = 'a few bloggers' myself, but your mileage may vary..... //
Given the sort of columns he writes, I would not be so quick to assume he has been misintepreted.
// Actually, it is - you insist that prostitution is legal, and you are narrowly correct; however, all the ancillary activities are very illegal, so rather defeating the point you wish to make entirely. //
Given the point I wanted to make was that prostitution was entirely legal, I do not see how I was defeated entirely. As for the ancilliary activities being "entirely illegal" I am not sure what the "entirely" adds. Something is either legal or illegal. And even if something is illegal so what. Smoking dope is illegal, hunting foxes is illegal, speeding is illegal, copying a copyrighted film is illegal. If we are to withhold sympathy for all those who carry out illegal activities, that is going to be a large part of the population.
At least these drug addicts were out earning an honest living to pay for their habbit instead of mugging people and stealing.
// But this isn't about sorrow at the death of another human being, which we can all feel, assuming we aren't psychos. It's pointing out that their lifestyle choices led them into such danger & therefore why all the weeping, wailing & gnashing of teeth from the mass media? //
This is an entirely disingenuous point. Obviously lifestyle choices affect a person's likelyhood to have misfortune befall them. This goes for more than just hookers. People who work in emergency services, people who work in animal experimentation, people who walk down dark alleys, people who "challenge" Islam. The only time someone would want to make such an obvious point would be to imply such victims deserved the misfortune - an entirely different and nasty point to make.
// The very same mass media who will be running 'Expose: the sordid secrets of the streetwalkers' as soon as the fuss has died down..... //
I am not sure this is hypocrisy. Saying that a person's lifestyle is sordid is not the same as saying they deserve whatever misfortune befalls them.
//You may disagree, but this journalist is quite right to point out the hypocrisy.//
I disagree on it being hypocrisy.
// Personally, I'd be quite wary of assuming that 'large numbers of people' = 'a few bloggers' myself, but your mileage may vary..... //
Given the sort of columns he writes, I would not be so quick to assume he has been misintepreted.
"At least these drug addicts were out earning an honest living to pay for their habbit.."
I suggest you look in a dictionary & get the definition of the phrase 'honest living'. Here's a clue - drug using prostitutes aren't doing it.....
"Saying that a person's lifestyle is sordid is not the same as saying they deserve whatever misfortune befalls them."
As has been pointed out to you before, this is not necessarily what the journalist was saying. You surely cannot deny that their 'profession' (illegal - to a point, immoral, and unsafe) was what led them into harms way?
Contrast them with a person minding their own business who is killed by a mugger & I know where my sympathies lie.
I suggest you look in a dictionary & get the definition of the phrase 'honest living'. Here's a clue - drug using prostitutes aren't doing it.....
"Saying that a person's lifestyle is sordid is not the same as saying they deserve whatever misfortune befalls them."
As has been pointed out to you before, this is not necessarily what the journalist was saying. You surely cannot deny that their 'profession' (illegal - to a point, immoral, and unsafe) was what led them into harms way?
Contrast them with a person minding their own business who is killed by a mugger & I know where my sympathies lie.
ChrisM
//I suggest you look in a dictionary & get the definition of the phrase 'honest living'. Here's a clue - drug using prostitutes aren't doing it.....//
I suggest you find out what a dictionary is. Dictionarys list words, not phrases. Having found out what a dictionary is, I suggest you look up the term honest, and its antonym. Dishonest and "professions JuliaM does not like" are not synonyms. Selling one's body is not dishonest, whatever else you may think it is.
//"Saying that a person's lifestyle is sordid is not the same as saying they deserve whatever misfortune befalls them."
As has been pointed out to you before, this is not necessarily what the journalist was saying. You surely cannot deny that their 'profession' (illegal - to a point, immoral, and unsafe) was what led them into harms way? //
No it has been asserted to me before. And I have pointed out to you before that it is not illegal. Morality is subjective. And the saftey aspect is irrelevant. So I guess we are both talking past each other. One doesn't withhold sympathy from some stinking pig when he gets killed. (I am guessing that if you think that worthless whores does not show a lack of respect for the victims, that stinking pig would likewise not be deemed showing a lack of sympathy when talking about a police officer murdered).
You are saying that the journalist is not necessarily saying they deserved it, but that they deserved it anyway. Which is it? Did he a) not mean to say what many of use think he was saying, or b) did say it, but was correct to do so?
I do not deny their profession put them in harms way. How that affects whether LJ is a misanthropic twat I don't know. If he was only highlighting the hypocrisy of the press, why use the perjorative term "worthless whores" to describe the victims.
//Contrast them with a person minding their own business who is killed by a mugger & I know where my sympathies lie.//
I wasn't aware that by having sympathy for a victim of mugging, one had less sympathy available for victims of other types of murders. And what reason do you have for thinking these women were not "minding their own business". These were not burglars being killed by a homeowner or somesuch. These were people earning an honest living (check the dictionary), going about their own business.
//I suggest you look in a dictionary & get the definition of the phrase 'honest living'. Here's a clue - drug using prostitutes aren't doing it.....//
I suggest you find out what a dictionary is. Dictionarys list words, not phrases. Having found out what a dictionary is, I suggest you look up the term honest, and its antonym. Dishonest and "professions JuliaM does not like" are not synonyms. Selling one's body is not dishonest, whatever else you may think it is.
//"Saying that a person's lifestyle is sordid is not the same as saying they deserve whatever misfortune befalls them."
As has been pointed out to you before, this is not necessarily what the journalist was saying. You surely cannot deny that their 'profession' (illegal - to a point, immoral, and unsafe) was what led them into harms way? //
No it has been asserted to me before. And I have pointed out to you before that it is not illegal. Morality is subjective. And the saftey aspect is irrelevant. So I guess we are both talking past each other. One doesn't withhold sympathy from some stinking pig when he gets killed. (I am guessing that if you think that worthless whores does not show a lack of respect for the victims, that stinking pig would likewise not be deemed showing a lack of sympathy when talking about a police officer murdered).
You are saying that the journalist is not necessarily saying they deserved it, but that they deserved it anyway. Which is it? Did he a) not mean to say what many of use think he was saying, or b) did say it, but was correct to do so?
I do not deny their profession put them in harms way. How that affects whether LJ is a misanthropic twat I don't know. If he was only highlighting the hypocrisy of the press, why use the perjorative term "worthless whores" to describe the victims.
//Contrast them with a person minding their own business who is killed by a mugger & I know where my sympathies lie.//
I wasn't aware that by having sympathy for a victim of mugging, one had less sympathy available for victims of other types of murders. And what reason do you have for thinking these women were not "minding their own business". These were not burglars being killed by a homeowner or somesuch. These were people earning an honest living (check the dictionary), going about their own business.
"So I guess we are both talking past each other. One doesn't withhold sympathy from some stinking pig when he gets killed."
Really...? Ah, if only we could all inhabit the fluffy-bunny world you seem to live in. Most of us are stuck in the real world, chum....
"How that affects whether LJ is a misanthropic twat I don't know."
LJ...? Ah, you mean RL, perhaps.
Here's a tip - if your comments are riddled with typos (and are getting pretty incoherent too), it's time to back away from the keyboard & calm down....
"These were people earning an honest living.."
Pop into your local Job Centre & sign yourself up for a job as streetwalker if you think it's such an 'honest living'. Bet you can't.....
"what reason do you have for thinking these women were not "minding their own business"."
Oh, so the killer snatched them while they were in Sainsburys? Or tending the local orphans? Not streetwalking to feed their drug habits...?
Guess we'll have to wait for the trial to find out, eh...?
Assuming of course that the police have got the right man this time.
Really...? Ah, if only we could all inhabit the fluffy-bunny world you seem to live in. Most of us are stuck in the real world, chum....
"How that affects whether LJ is a misanthropic twat I don't know."
LJ...? Ah, you mean RL, perhaps.
Here's a tip - if your comments are riddled with typos (and are getting pretty incoherent too), it's time to back away from the keyboard & calm down....
"These were people earning an honest living.."
Pop into your local Job Centre & sign yourself up for a job as streetwalker if you think it's such an 'honest living'. Bet you can't.....
"what reason do you have for thinking these women were not "minding their own business"."
Oh, so the killer snatched them while they were in Sainsburys? Or tending the local orphans? Not streetwalking to feed their drug habits...?
Guess we'll have to wait for the trial to find out, eh...?
Assuming of course that the police have got the right man this time.
"I take it all back. Mr E, I think I love you."
Yes, me too, nice one Laban!
I think it flew right over the head of the ironically-challenged posters currently on this comment thread though..... ;)
Yes, me too, nice one Laban!
I think it flew right over the head of the ironically-challenged posters currently on this comment thread though..... ;)
Phew!
Anon: let's not get personal. (except about Richard Littlejohn.) If we're going to start criticising commenters on this blog, let's not make it about how long since we all got laid, because, er... anyway, moving on.
I never expected this to turn into a discussion on the degree of contributory negligence one can reasonably ascribe to the streetwalkers of Ipswich.
I just think Richard Littlejohn's a cunt. Always have. He could have been writing about Terry's Chocolate Oranges and it might have set me off. For him to describe people as not being worth much, in the scheme of things, or being the sort of lowlifes who weren't exactly going to "find a cure for cancer", set an irony alarm going in the back of my brain.
Now, back to the leftover turkey...
Anon: let's not get personal. (except about Richard Littlejohn.) If we're going to start criticising commenters on this blog, let's not make it about how long since we all got laid, because, er... anyway, moving on.
I never expected this to turn into a discussion on the degree of contributory negligence one can reasonably ascribe to the streetwalkers of Ipswich.
I just think Richard Littlejohn's a cunt. Always have. He could have been writing about Terry's Chocolate Oranges and it might have set me off. For him to describe people as not being worth much, in the scheme of things, or being the sort of lowlifes who weren't exactly going to "find a cure for cancer", set an irony alarm going in the back of my brain.
Now, back to the leftover turkey...
ChrisM
//Really...? Ah, if only we could all inhabit the fluffy-bunny world you seem to live in. Most of us are stuck in the real world, chum....//
Oh dear. That "real world" again. Well I live in the same world you do, planet earth. Seeing as we are talking about value judgements, neither of us gets to appeal to the "real world" to "validate" our opinions. This should really be obvious.
//Here's a tip - if your comments are riddled with typos (and are getting pretty incoherent too), it's time to back away from the keyboard & calm down....//
You are mixing your tenses in the above sentance. Like I said before, I don't tend to get too bothered by typos on blogs, either my own, or other peoples. Needless to say your prose was not without spelling or grammatical error either. However, I prefer to concentrate on the inconsistancies, fallacies, and red-herrings. Here's a tip, if your comments are confused and full of contradictions and non-sequiteurs then you probably should not be near a keyboard in the firstplace. (Here's a clue. If you claim that someone did not argue X, but that they were correct to argue X, then you are being inconsistant).
// Pop into your local Job Centre & sign yourself up for a job as streetwalker if you think it's such an 'honest living'. Bet you can't.....//
I don't suppose I could walk in and sign myself up for a job as a CEO at a job centre either, or a diplomat, or a brain surgeon. The definition of "honest" is not only not "those professions that JuliaM does not like", it is also not "those jobs which one can get at a Job centre". I suggest you either get a new dictionary, or actually read your existing one.
// Oh, so the killer snatched them while they were in Sainsburys? Or tending the local orphans? Not streetwalking to feed their drug habits...?//
Is this another definition from your rather strange dictionary? So unless you are tending orphans or shopping in Sainsburys you are not minding your own business? Please, do try a bit harder. And seeing as the women were hookers, then streetwalking is their business, and they were minding it.
//Guess we'll have to wait for the trial to find out, eh...?
Assuming of course that the police have got the right man this time. //
Or that the trial doesn't collapse because of all the publicity the men have received. If RL wanted to write an article about the hyprocrisy of the press, he may well better have chosen to write about the fact that papers irresponsible reporting sometimes leads to the collapse of cases, and those same newspapers will then screech when a trial does collapse.
//Really...? Ah, if only we could all inhabit the fluffy-bunny world you seem to live in. Most of us are stuck in the real world, chum....//
Oh dear. That "real world" again. Well I live in the same world you do, planet earth. Seeing as we are talking about value judgements, neither of us gets to appeal to the "real world" to "validate" our opinions. This should really be obvious.
//Here's a tip - if your comments are riddled with typos (and are getting pretty incoherent too), it's time to back away from the keyboard & calm down....//
You are mixing your tenses in the above sentance. Like I said before, I don't tend to get too bothered by typos on blogs, either my own, or other peoples. Needless to say your prose was not without spelling or grammatical error either. However, I prefer to concentrate on the inconsistancies, fallacies, and red-herrings. Here's a tip, if your comments are confused and full of contradictions and non-sequiteurs then you probably should not be near a keyboard in the firstplace. (Here's a clue. If you claim that someone did not argue X, but that they were correct to argue X, then you are being inconsistant).
// Pop into your local Job Centre & sign yourself up for a job as streetwalker if you think it's such an 'honest living'. Bet you can't.....//
I don't suppose I could walk in and sign myself up for a job as a CEO at a job centre either, or a diplomat, or a brain surgeon. The definition of "honest" is not only not "those professions that JuliaM does not like", it is also not "those jobs which one can get at a Job centre". I suggest you either get a new dictionary, or actually read your existing one.
// Oh, so the killer snatched them while they were in Sainsburys? Or tending the local orphans? Not streetwalking to feed their drug habits...?//
Is this another definition from your rather strange dictionary? So unless you are tending orphans or shopping in Sainsburys you are not minding your own business? Please, do try a bit harder. And seeing as the women were hookers, then streetwalking is their business, and they were minding it.
//Guess we'll have to wait for the trial to find out, eh...?
Assuming of course that the police have got the right man this time. //
Or that the trial doesn't collapse because of all the publicity the men have received. If RL wanted to write an article about the hyprocrisy of the press, he may well better have chosen to write about the fact that papers irresponsible reporting sometimes leads to the collapse of cases, and those same newspapers will then screech when a trial does collapse.
Seeing your comments I was inclined to agree, what a bastard!
After reading the link I found the slight problem is that what you and most commenters are accusing him of does not even come close to what he has actually said, where has he mocked these women? Where has he said they are "lesser people"?Neither is anything he has said factually incorrect. Trying to solve the enormous problems of drugs requires a bit more hard headed reality and less maudling sentimentality.
I should try reading it again if I were you. I think your unusually drivelling post pretty much proves the points I think he was trying to make.
After reading the link I found the slight problem is that what you and most commenters are accusing him of does not even come close to what he has actually said, where has he mocked these women? Where has he said they are "lesser people"?Neither is anything he has said factually incorrect. Trying to solve the enormous problems of drugs requires a bit more hard headed reality and less maudling sentimentality.
I should try reading it again if I were you. I think your unusually drivelling post pretty much proves the points I think he was trying to make.
With the exception of the
"deaths of these five women is no great loss" comment. Insensitive I agree.
"deaths of these five women is no great loss" comment. Insensitive I agree.
"I just think Richard Littlejohn's a cunt. Always have. He could have been writing about Terry's Chocolate Oranges and it might have set me off."
Ah, well, fair enough. Sweetmeats of the devil, Terry's Cholocate Oranges..... ;)
"You are mixing your tenses in the above sentance. Like I said before, I don't tend to get too bothered by typos on blogs"
Obviously... ;)
"The definition of "honest" is not only not "those professions that JuliaM does not like", it is also not "those jobs which one can get at a Job centre""
The jobs of CEO or brain surgeon require qualifications, so yes, obviously, you couldn't get those at a Job Centre. What qualifications are required for junkie streetwalker, hmm....?
"Is this another definition from your rather strange dictionary?"
You mean 'Minding their own business'? Gosh, I'm confused. Earlier, you said a dictionary didn't do phrases, now you think it does..
Could it be you don't care if your comments are nonsense and/or contradictory, as long as you have the last word?
Ah, well, fair enough. Sweetmeats of the devil, Terry's Cholocate Oranges..... ;)
"You are mixing your tenses in the above sentance. Like I said before, I don't tend to get too bothered by typos on blogs"
Obviously... ;)
"The definition of "honest" is not only not "those professions that JuliaM does not like", it is also not "those jobs which one can get at a Job centre""
The jobs of CEO or brain surgeon require qualifications, so yes, obviously, you couldn't get those at a Job Centre. What qualifications are required for junkie streetwalker, hmm....?
"Is this another definition from your rather strange dictionary?"
You mean 'Minding their own business'? Gosh, I'm confused. Earlier, you said a dictionary didn't do phrases, now you think it does..
Could it be you don't care if your comments are nonsense and/or contradictory, as long as you have the last word?
"Julia, am I right in thinking it's been a very long time since you got laid?"
If you mean today, God yes, sweetie. Absolutely hours.
Now stop rubbing it, there's a good boy, it'll start to get sore.....
If you mean today, God yes, sweetie. Absolutely hours.
Now stop rubbing it, there's a good boy, it'll start to get sore.....
ChrisM
//"You are mixing your tenses in the above sentance. Like I said before, I don't tend to get too bothered by typos on blogs"
Obviously... ;)//
You should remove the plank from your own eye before worrying about the stye in mine.
//"The definition of "honest" is not only not "those professions that JuliaM does not like", it is also not "those jobs which one can get at a Job centre""
The jobs of CEO or brain surgeon require qualifications, so yes, obviously, you couldn't get those at a Job Centre. What qualifications are required for junkie streetwalker, hmm....?//
Oh, so now we have another of your definitions of honest occupations: "Those which either are advertised in a Job Centre or those that require qualifications." Do you actually think about what you are writing?.
//"Is this another definition from your rather strange dictionary?"
You mean 'Minding their own business'? Gosh, I'm confused. Earlier, you said a dictionary didn't do phrases, now you think it does.. //
Most dictinaries don't. But as your one apparently does, I wondered if this was where you had got your definition from. As for "Gosh, I'm confused" yes I would have to agree with you.
//Could it be you don't care if your comments are nonsense and/or contradictory, as long as you have the last word? //
I do like the last word, granted. But as for nonsense or contradictory, I have pointed out examples of where yours are contradictory or irrelevant. You have merely claimed mine are without example.
//"You are mixing your tenses in the above sentance. Like I said before, I don't tend to get too bothered by typos on blogs"
Obviously... ;)//
You should remove the plank from your own eye before worrying about the stye in mine.
//"The definition of "honest" is not only not "those professions that JuliaM does not like", it is also not "those jobs which one can get at a Job centre""
The jobs of CEO or brain surgeon require qualifications, so yes, obviously, you couldn't get those at a Job Centre. What qualifications are required for junkie streetwalker, hmm....?//
Oh, so now we have another of your definitions of honest occupations: "Those which either are advertised in a Job Centre or those that require qualifications." Do you actually think about what you are writing?.
//"Is this another definition from your rather strange dictionary?"
You mean 'Minding their own business'? Gosh, I'm confused. Earlier, you said a dictionary didn't do phrases, now you think it does.. //
Most dictinaries don't. But as your one apparently does, I wondered if this was where you had got your definition from. As for "Gosh, I'm confused" yes I would have to agree with you.
//Could it be you don't care if your comments are nonsense and/or contradictory, as long as you have the last word? //
I do like the last word, granted. But as for nonsense or contradictory, I have pointed out examples of where yours are contradictory or irrelevant. You have merely claimed mine are without example.
"xoggoth said...
With the exception of the
"deaths of these five women is no great loss" comment. Insensitive I agree. "
I'll agree that this is the main thing to take offence at. However, it is offensive enough even as a stand alone comment. And as for being factually true, well yes, but pick 5 people at random and kill them, and in the great scheme of things, no great loss either. What of it! So anyone not involved in cancer research is to be written off as worthless if they are murdered?
(And I note he said they were no "Mother Therasas". No, they were far less bad than that cunt. She caused far more suffering than she alleviated due to her being a religious freak who thought suffering was good for the soul, and the world really was a better place when she was put in the ground).
With the exception of the
"deaths of these five women is no great loss" comment. Insensitive I agree. "
I'll agree that this is the main thing to take offence at. However, it is offensive enough even as a stand alone comment. And as for being factually true, well yes, but pick 5 people at random and kill them, and in the great scheme of things, no great loss either. What of it! So anyone not involved in cancer research is to be written off as worthless if they are murdered?
(And I note he said they were no "Mother Therasas". No, they were far less bad than that cunt. She caused far more suffering than she alleviated due to her being a religious freak who thought suffering was good for the soul, and the world really was a better place when she was put in the ground).
"Do you actually think about what you are writing?"
Yes. Do you..?
"I do like the last word, granted. "
Oh, yeah, we can see that. Even if in your haste to get it, you can't remember to fill in the 'Username' box..... ;)
Yes. Do you..?
"I do like the last word, granted. "
Oh, yeah, we can see that. Even if in your haste to get it, you can't remember to fill in the 'Username' box..... ;)
"She caused far more suffering than she alleviated due to her being a religious freak who thought suffering was good for the soul.."
Who cares what she believed. Did she do anything to help relieve suffering..?
If so, good for her. That's more than all the pontificating & hot air by her detractors ever achieved, or ever will achieve.
Who cares what she believed. Did she do anything to help relieve suffering..?
If so, good for her. That's more than all the pontificating & hot air by her detractors ever achieved, or ever will achieve.
I was just about to say "calm down now, best of order gentlemen and ladies" ...
when that cretinous mincer 'anonymous' attacked the very wonderful Saint Mother Teresa. Now I want his eyeballs to drop out and his manhood to wither away ... (I never said I was a good Christian)
when that cretinous mincer 'anonymous' attacked the very wonderful Saint Mother Teresa. Now I want his eyeballs to drop out and his manhood to wither away ... (I never said I was a good Christian)
//Oh, yeah, we can see that. Even if in your haste to get it, you can't remember to fill in the 'Username' box..... ;) //
Oh dear, you are really scraping the barrel now aren't you. And you are wrong. I post as anonymous because I can't be bothered to set up an account. Thus I do not get a username box to fill out, just a word verification box. Even when you are trying to be clever on a simple point like this, you manage to get it wrong.
//"She caused far more suffering than she alleviated due to her being a religious freak who thought suffering was good for the soul.."
Who cares what she believed. Did she do anything to help relieve suffering..?//
No, she caused it. Read Hitchens for more detail (Or don't).
//If so, good for her. That's more than all the pontificating & hot air by her detractors ever achieved, or ever will achieve. //
Yes, well she didn't so the rest of your sentance is wrong (just like almost everything you say).
//when that cretinous mincer 'anonymous' attacked the very wonderful Saint Mother Teresa. Now I want his eyeballs to drop out and his manhood to wither away ... (I never said I was a good Christian) //
Yes, I forgot to add my name to that post. It was ChrisM (me). She was a cunt, and I am proud to call her one. There is no such thing as a good Christian. There are harmless religious fools, and dangerous religious fools. Any good religious fool is good in spite of their childish delusisions. (BTW, Santa doesn't exist either.)
As for being a mincer, I am straight. However it shouldn't really be a insult. But then again being an adult, I don't get my morals from an imaginary being, or some confused old book. I guess, you are instructed to hate gays so for you, it is an insult.
Oh dear, you are really scraping the barrel now aren't you. And you are wrong. I post as anonymous because I can't be bothered to set up an account. Thus I do not get a username box to fill out, just a word verification box. Even when you are trying to be clever on a simple point like this, you manage to get it wrong.
//"She caused far more suffering than she alleviated due to her being a religious freak who thought suffering was good for the soul.."
Who cares what she believed. Did she do anything to help relieve suffering..?//
No, she caused it. Read Hitchens for more detail (Or don't).
//If so, good for her. That's more than all the pontificating & hot air by her detractors ever achieved, or ever will achieve. //
Yes, well she didn't so the rest of your sentance is wrong (just like almost everything you say).
//when that cretinous mincer 'anonymous' attacked the very wonderful Saint Mother Teresa. Now I want his eyeballs to drop out and his manhood to wither away ... (I never said I was a good Christian) //
Yes, I forgot to add my name to that post. It was ChrisM (me). She was a cunt, and I am proud to call her one. There is no such thing as a good Christian. There are harmless religious fools, and dangerous religious fools. Any good religious fool is good in spite of their childish delusisions. (BTW, Santa doesn't exist either.)
As for being a mincer, I am straight. However it shouldn't really be a insult. But then again being an adult, I don't get my morals from an imaginary being, or some confused old book. I guess, you are instructed to hate gays so for you, it is an insult.
"you are wrong. I post as anonymous because I can't be bothered to set up an account"
I don't have an account, actually; I fill in the username box & select 'other' on the identity radio button - simple when you know how!
But stay 'anon', it's part of your charm. Like the fact that you are appparantly confused by HTML coding & have to use '//' to signify quotations....
"Even when you are trying to be clever on a simple point like this, you manage to get it wrong."
Oh dear, wrong again, as you can see. Game of you to not just give up though.....
"Yes, well she didn't so the rest of your sentance is wrong (just like almost everything you say)." (typo sic, as always)
You know, something isn't 'wrong' simnply because you say so - provide examples, if you believe Mother Teresa caused poverty. Put up or shut up, bub...
"being an adult, I don't get my morals from an imaginary being"
You have morals....?!?
I don't have an account, actually; I fill in the username box & select 'other' on the identity radio button - simple when you know how!
But stay 'anon', it's part of your charm. Like the fact that you are appparantly confused by HTML coding & have to use '//' to signify quotations....
"Even when you are trying to be clever on a simple point like this, you manage to get it wrong."
Oh dear, wrong again, as you can see. Game of you to not just give up though.....
"Yes, well she didn't so the rest of your sentance is wrong (just like almost everything you say)." (typo sic, as always)
You know, something isn't 'wrong' simnply because you say so - provide examples, if you believe Mother Teresa caused poverty. Put up or shut up, bub...
"being an adult, I don't get my morals from an imaginary being"
You have morals....?!?
//But stay 'anon', it's part of your charm. Like the fact that you are appparantly confused by HTML coding & have to use '//' to signify quotations....
I'll concede that I did not know how to put my username in until you kindly explained it. Well done. I guess even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. Is that better for you? Regarding how I quote; quoted text often includes quotes itself. Using // reduces ambiguity. And given I write AJAX applications for a living, you are most mistaken on my HTML knowledge (as on so much else). Anyway, you really are doing very well to be complaining about where I put my username, or how I use quotes.
// You know, something isn't 'wrong' simnply because you say so - provide examples, if you believe Mother Teresa caused poverty. Put up or shut up, bub...//
Hey little woman, what's with the "chum" and "bub"? And I am glad you have finally learnt that something is not wrong just by someone declaring it to be wrong. I have clearly taught you at least one thing.
//You have morals....?!? //
Yes, and they include not calling murder victims "worthless whores". Only a total cunt would do that.
I'll concede that I did not know how to put my username in until you kindly explained it. Well done. I guess even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. Is that better for you? Regarding how I quote; quoted text often includes quotes itself. Using // reduces ambiguity. And given I write AJAX applications for a living, you are most mistaken on my HTML knowledge (as on so much else). Anyway, you really are doing very well to be complaining about where I put my username, or how I use quotes.
// You know, something isn't 'wrong' simnply because you say so - provide examples, if you believe Mother Teresa caused poverty. Put up or shut up, bub...//
Hey little woman, what's with the "chum" and "bub"? And I am glad you have finally learnt that something is not wrong just by someone declaring it to be wrong. I have clearly taught you at least one thing.
//You have morals....?!? //
Yes, and they include not calling murder victims "worthless whores". Only a total cunt would do that.
//Game of you to not just give up though.....//
//'Username' box..... ;)//
//(typo sic, as always)//
From someone who has managed to mispell a piece of punctutation, this is a bit rich. An ellipsis is spelt with 3 dots, no more, no less.
//'Username' box..... ;)//
//(typo sic, as always)//
From someone who has managed to mispell a piece of punctutation, this is a bit rich. An ellipsis is spelt with 3 dots, no more, no less.
"I have clearly taught you at least one thing."
Actually, the only thing you've 'taught' me is that I've been conversing with a bigot: "There is no such thing as a good Christian." My, my, can you imaging the frothing indignation from the likes of you should someone use the phrase: "There is no such thing as a good (insert group of choice here)."
See also: "little woman" and "total cunt"
Got a problem with all women, or just those who rub your nose in the dirt on blog comments....?
PS: still waiting for your examples of how Mother Teresa caused poverty. I'm sure they'd be, er, illuminating....
PPS: congrats on mastering the intricacies of the 'Username' box at long last!
Actually, the only thing you've 'taught' me is that I've been conversing with a bigot: "There is no such thing as a good Christian." My, my, can you imaging the frothing indignation from the likes of you should someone use the phrase: "There is no such thing as a good (insert group of choice here)."
See also: "little woman" and "total cunt"
Got a problem with all women, or just those who rub your nose in the dirt on blog comments....?
PS: still waiting for your examples of how Mother Teresa caused poverty. I'm sure they'd be, er, illuminating....
PPS: congrats on mastering the intricacies of the 'Username' box at long last!
Last observation, then I have to get back to my vol-au-vents:
"And given I write AJAX applications for a living, you are most mistaken on my HTML knowledge"
Ah, I see. You have it, you just can't use it... ;)
"And given I write AJAX applications for a living, you are most mistaken on my HTML knowledge"
Ah, I see. You have it, you just can't use it... ;)
Julia ! No ! Leave 'im ! He's not worth it !
(although he is a putrescent pustule onn the backside of Beelzebub. But it's Christmas ! Good will to all cretins !)
LT
(although he is a putrescent pustule onn the backside of Beelzebub. But it's Christmas ! Good will to all cretins !)
LT
Last observation, then I have to get back to my vol-au-vents:
Dear oh dear, Julia, if you can't even pluralise "vol-au-vent" properly, who are you to lecture anyone on Mother Teresa?... Hint: it's like "Gins and tonic".
Dear oh dear, Julia, if you can't even pluralise "vol-au-vent" properly, who are you to lecture anyone on Mother Teresa?... Hint: it's like "Gins and tonic".
"if you can't even pluralise "vol-au-vent" properly.."
D'oh, yeah, I know. Bloody French. The same goes for 'culs-de-sac', I always forget that one too....
"I'm a tedious pedant, aren't I?"
Yeah, but that's why I come to this blog... ;)
"Good will to all cretins !"
Ah, why not..? Goodwill to all men, etc.
D'oh, yeah, I know. Bloody French. The same goes for 'culs-de-sac', I always forget that one too....
"I'm a tedious pedant, aren't I?"
Yeah, but that's why I come to this blog... ;)
"Good will to all cretins !"
Ah, why not..? Goodwill to all men, etc.
"Who would have known that fisking Littlejohn would have been so controversial?"
Well ...not you for a start ...do you drink the same claret as Snob?
Well ...not you for a start ...do you drink the same claret as Snob?
I have read Littlejohn's article, and think that he made a very serious point that Mr Eugenides completely misinterpreted. As he said, the Wimmins Press are trying to say all men are murderers etc, Sorry, not this man. Various posters have stated what R.L. was saying and I agree. I really do believe R.L. is a fabulous journalist who really does despise the phukking socialist bleeding heart moron journalists who are destroying this country by delivering us bound hand and foot to an EuroIslamic superstate.
I would have Richard Littlejohn as Prime Minister.
I would have Richard Littlejohn as Prime Minister.
Found this, don't know how, but I was just shocked at the article. However, what I find even MORE disturbing is that there are those who AGREE with him. Having one person, media personality or not, be so heartless is one thing, but to have many people who agree with him? As I said before, that's a frightening thought.
Although I do have to say, I love the keywords you used :) "Littlejohn is a fantastic columnist" definitely made me giggle.
Although I do have to say, I love the keywords you used :) "Littlejohn is a fantastic columnist" definitely made me giggle.
is it true that Littlejohn lives in a gated community in Florida, spends as little time in the UK as possible and pays no tax?
This week saw him sneering at the arrested sailors plight in Iraq
Apparently they weren't proper men (like him obviously)
Today we find they were tortured (this will presumably cheer Dick up)
he's a regular Lord Haw Haw
Fuck him
This week saw him sneering at the arrested sailors plight in Iraq
Apparently they weren't proper men (like him obviously)
Today we find they were tortured (this will presumably cheer Dick up)
he's a regular Lord Haw Haw
Fuck him
As a New Yawka I am positively shocked that a Brit would write such vicious mean stuff against someone else.
Ha! It was f*cking great and the bastard deserved it!
-Bill P.
Post a Comment
Ha! It was f*cking great and the bastard deserved it!
-Bill P.
<< Home
