I think you know 99% of people wouldn't shout anything at her in earshot. Some may say 'It makes no difference' though in my mind it certainly would.

We can only guess you have never shouted an expletive at an opposistion player? Or as a Bulls fan even your own?



Couldn't think of anything worse personally





P.s.

Same here - RL is a form of respite; I wouldn't want the bread knife turning up and ruining that as well.

Then we may be getting somewhere. Saying it in earshot is the point. If you wouldn't say it to someone's face, then maybe in truth you already know you shouldn't be saying it. And if you would only say it behind their back, then you are a hypocrite as well. I'm not having a go, I'm challenging attitudes. I go by the general rule that, if I'd be mortified and embarrassed if Y knew I'd said X, then I reckon there's a reason why X is inappropriate, and I'd try to figure out why.

In your case, the problem to me is that you think your remark was amusing. In fact, it was demeaning and insulting, as well as totally unfunny. Maybe you'll come to realise that if you think about it. Or maybe you won't. That is all.

If i was single and i knew she was i'd ask her out for a drink

Yeah, too far up our own ar5es in many cases.

FFS, it was an off the cuff remark that are often enough made in jest in an attempt to look clever.......they fail in most cases, but it doesn't warrant 12 pages of trial by soap box.

I couldn't agree more.

WhoTF is "on trial"? And who are you to rule on what warrants discussion? I'll explain what I want, to who I want, thanks. But if I don't point out that the attempt failed, and the OP succeeded only in making himself look stupid rather than clever, then he'd never know. Can't speak for others, but I'm doing him a favour.

It does take a peculiar type of pig-headedness to complain about adding more and more posts to a thread, by . . . guess what . . . adding another post to the thread. But presumably you couldn't work out that by adding to the thread, you did exactly that which you're criticising others for doing.



Or maybe you are so up [iyour[/i own arrse that you genuinely believe you have the sole valid opinion, and anyone disagreeing is by your definition wrong and should shut up. Yeh, I reckon that's it.

This is an internet forum and as such, differing opinions are the fuel that keeps it going. I have no cause to demand anyone adhere to my stance on any subject, but your continued need to post your rhetoric in this thread with regard to racism, sexism and your belief of how terrible it is to make fun of somone else is, to say the least, smacking of Internet Fascism.

In the imortal words of the Legend that is John Cooper Clarke...

"I can't hear you mate....your mouths full of "

Anyway. I think she's well fit, innit.

Why 'danger' ?

Perhaps referring to her brother Austin?

Yeah baby! It's shaggalicious, etc etc.

Indeed. As someone once said:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CAUSING AN ARGUMENT:
1. Post an opinion on an intenet forum
2. Er, that's it

But did anyone suggest different?




That's idiotic, and I can't put it any kinder. Whether or not one would "have a really good fumble first, just in case........" as a precaution prior to sex with Tanya Arnold, because she has a deep voice and therefore may have male genitalia, is not a "subject" on which one can have a valid "stance", it's just crass inappropriate would-be humour, of exactly the kid that got Keys and Gray sacked. I presume from your post that you think Gray and Keys are just as entitled to hold those attitudes as in your view they are valid, then?

As for fascism, ffs grow up. I already said, he can listen, or not, the point was made, and it's now just numpties who haven't the balls to challenge inappropriate views, ironically for fear of causing offence, that I seem to be dealing with. I don't "need" to post anything, The other point that you seemingly miss is, since my earlier reply to the OP, every post I've made has been a [ireply[/i to a post aimed in my direction. Like this one is to yours. Was it fascists who sacked Gray and keys? It was, after all, a private conversation?

It isn't "terrible to 'make fun' of someone else" and nobody said it was. Context is key, as is the issue of whether it is actually fun, or something else, as was that, and as is this.

And another one who equates two of the 'isms' most associated with fascism as a form of fascism.



...and your use of JCC to embellish your point is pretty hilarious too. The guy's performed at Rock against Racism gigs, posting exactly the kind of rhetoric you rail against, for over 30 years.

its all gone a bit Pete Tong.

The two people you mention were perfectly entitled to hold the opinions that got them into trouble.......the problem for them is that they didn't keep those opinions to themselves.


No...they got themselves sacked, pure and simple. The OP and other jokers on here are not paid to represent a multi billion pound media organisation......

Opinion are like ar5eholes, we've all got one and even if somebody has a standpoint that I don't agree with, I won't berrate them for it.


It would seem so...


as for you mate....you're like a nightclub in the morning....

You REALLY are twisting this for your own convenience!


Keys and Gray obviously had issues about female officials LONG before they were shown the door, i have tried to make it clear to you that i have tremendous respect for Tanya......

The interesting thing about this, is that i was only quoting what someone else posted about her a while ago...........i dont remember you going "off on one" then



It was never my intention to upset anyone, really it wasn't!

...as welcome as a turd in a swimming baths
the dumb row laughs

What you should say is: Oh! Oh!! You did, did you?! Well, I've got a good mind to give you a ruddy good punch on the bottom for what you just said! You're talking about the woman I love!

Are you suggesting that those who can't speak are of low intellect?

what a stupid thread I'm sure she doesn't give a duck about her deep voice. Talk about over sensitive it's not like people with deep voices have been enslaved or denied the vote!! Get a grip!

Personally I wouldn't use the word 'dumb' to describe someone who was unable to speak. I would use the word 'mute' which is much less ambiguous, and is now the prevalent term to describe this condition.
I would use the word 'dumb' to describe your post above.

The words however are not mine, but John Cooper Clarke's. I suspect he had a much deeper understanding of both the word 'dumb' and the concept of 'dumb row' than you appear to.

All well and good but I'd imagine there'd be some who'd be offended nonetheless. Rightly or wrongly, who can say.

There are some who would profess to be offended at almost any word in the dictionary, invariably as a matter of politically-correct principle. And there are some who set out to look smart (as they see it) by causing offence.

Can't we all just employ a bit of common sense, and recognise the intent rather than pounce on the words? Substance over legal form and all that? And recognise context, and that a word used safely in one context may be inappropriate used in another? And stop using words in a context likely to or intended to cause offence, or deliberately taking offence at words used in a context where offence was never intended?

You know, behave like mature adults not five-year-olds?

Or is that way too forlorn a hope?

Yes.

you've got a duel personallity...........I hate both of them!