Today I'm angry about.....

CrazyHorse · Post by **CrazyHorse** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:45 pm

thebish wrote:
CrazyHorse wrote:I didn't suggest he didn't until you mentioned it; and only then to point out that it wasn't in the quote I gave. Disingenuous? I'm not the one trying to put words into someone's mouth.
ffs Crazy!! you said that WtW had glossed over the fact that "'bad people' have abused the human rights of their victims"

when he had quite clearly NOT glossed that over at all in the post you quoted - it was just that you ignored that bit!

You can't (with integrity) quote a tiny fraction of someone's post and then accused them of glossing something that they clearly hadn't - merely on the strength of the fact that it wasn't in the bit that you chose to quote!!

Give your glasses a wipe bish, have another read of my first post on the subject and calm down before you give yourself a thrombosis.
I couldn't give a fig about the rest of Whitey's posts which is why I didn't quote nor mention it. I was concerned about the bit I quoted and asked a question about it. He's made it clear I'm not worth an answer so who cares anyway.

Why you're pretending you're not intelligent enough to understand any of this is beyond me when we both know you are.

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:54 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:
CAPSLOCK wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
CAPSLOCK wrote:Carolans

What a waste of 7 quid
I just had to look Carolans up. Irish creamy liqueury guff, yes? The only use for that kind of stuff that I've found is to pour a bit onto vanilla ice cream.

Oh, and for me, today I'm not angry about anything, as today me and this seriously pressured year finished with each other, and it looks like I won - just!
Wife reckons it's a cheap Baileys substitute with wine instead of Whisky. Not much cop.
Tis

Though tell Mrs TD shes behind the times on her understanding of the make up of Baileys

I thing they just waft the bottle past the vat these days

Baileys is mainly wine, itself
You mean the "Fresh Irish cream, finest spirits and Irish Whisky" on the label is just blarney? Begorrah, back it goes to Dublin then.

Well, the label over here says it contains Irish whisky and that it is 17% alcohol by volume. If your regular whisky is 40% alcohol by volume (the strongest that is allowed to be imported here) and you filled it with a lot of cream (natural and artificial) I'd expect it to be about 17% - about the same as a fortified wine (and it doesn't mention wine in the ingredients, btw). Good on ice cream, Bruce, but not bad in coffee.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:02 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:Good on ice cream, Bruce, but not bad in coffee.

Well, Monty, I didn't want to sound messy, but my favourite thing to do is to pour it on vanilla ice cream and take an accompanying espresso. With a long-handled spoon take up some of the ice cream and Irish guff, then take up some of the coffee on the spoon also, so that you have the three flavours on the one spoon. Combined they're truly delicious. Trust me.

CAPSLOCK · Post by **CAPSLOCK** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:07 pm

Apologies to Mrs TD - t'would seem I'd been misled

I'd recently read the blend was mainly wine, but the horse says different

http://www.diageo.com/en-row/ourbrands/ ... s/baileys/

The cheap shite is either going to be on its way through the drains or 'livened up'

CrazyHorse · Post by **CrazyHorse** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:08 pm

By the way bish, on your way back down from the moral high ground have a read through Mr the White's full post. I've handily quoted it in full for you here.....

William the White wrote:That was certainly the idea in English jurisdiction in the 17th and 18th centuries when there were literally hundreds of capital crimes - the vast majority for property crimes. Amazing to consider, worthy, for those like you who believe in the power of retributive justice that the severity of the law didn't stop people stealing. Maybe it's because crime rates respond to something other than simply potential punshment? And the highest proportion of people in prison in western democracies? The USA - that almost crime free zone.

When 'bad people' lose human rights all people do. Because then they are no longer universally applicable. You may not care about this. I do. Ironically, in this discussion so far, I'm the one in favour of law and order - you, CAPS and the clown in favour of brute force arbitrarily applied.

Feel free to highlight the parts I've apparently ignored, because when I read through it, it mainly seems to be him banging on about some irrelevant nonsense regarding English jurisdiction in the 17th and 18th centuries and the prison population of the USA.

Lord Kangana · Post by **Lord Kangana** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:11 pm

Lets not split hairs here guys, whichever part of the European alcohol lake they make Baileys with doesn't help it. Its sh*t.

Prufrock · Post by **Prufrock** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:12 pm

Lord Kangana wrote:Lets not split hairs here guys, whichever part of the European alcohol lake they make Baileys with doesn't help it. Its sh*t.

This. Proper sickly horrid nasty stuff.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:12 pm

Lord Kangana wrote:Lets not split hairs here guys, whichever part of the European alcohol lake they make Baileys with doesn't help it. Its sh*t.

Chef - it is, but get it served up with vani.......... as you were

CAPSLOCK · Post by **CAPSLOCK** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:16 pm

Lord Kangana wrote:Lets not split hairs here guys, whichever part of the European alcohol lake they make Baileys with doesn't help it. Its sh*t.

Eeee, now I know it's good

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:19 pm

Lord Kangana wrote:Lets not split hairs here guys, whichever part of the European alcohol lake they make Baileys with doesn't help it. Its sh*t.

Hey, a first. I just got a big smile and thank you for buying somebody a bottle of shit.

William the White · Post by **William the White** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:07 am

I'd be interested to know at what point 'scrotes' lose the human rights they so shamefully deny to others and for which they are denounced by you two. I share your repulsion at this case, which is more clear cut than a lot. But the degree of violence perpetrated on the 'scrote' was infintely beyond the threat he posed at the time he had his head caved in with a bat, suffering lifelong brain damage.

A jury found these men guilty. A judge imposed a light sentence for the degree of grievous bodily harm caused. You seem to think they were wrong. So, the law must be wrong. How would you change it?[/quote]

Crazy Horse - this is what i said above.

I think you may have missed this and that accounts for the direction your original criticism took.

I hope it makes clear my position - the original crime is repulsive. The assailants violated the human rights of their victims. I said it on my first post on the subject.

Hoboh · Post by **Hoboh** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:08 am

The fact no one has a thread I can come steaming in with a grand hoboisum or size 11's this forum really is reaching new lows! Hell I am sure in one thread I saw a sorry from CAPS (well at least a half hearted attempt at one) next BWFCI will be campaigning for Megson out WTW will form a right wing party, mummy will campaign for human rights and Tango will watch X Factor!

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:22 am

Bruce Rioja wrote:
Montreal Wanderer wrote:Good on ice cream, Bruce, but not bad in coffee.
Well, Monty, I didn't want to sound messy, but my favourite thing to do is to pour it on vanilla ice cream and take an accompanying espresso. With a long-handled spoon take up some of the ice cream and Irish guff, then take up some of the coffee on the spoon also, so that you have the three flavours on the one spoon. Combined they're truly delicious. Trust me.

it does sound decadent.

over here they have a drink called a b-52 (no idea if you have the same). Kahlua, then Bailey's then Grand Marnier (or Cointreau) in layers. A few of those and one feels little pain (although I tend to mix them rather than drink in layers).

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:27 am

Hobinho wrote:The fact no one has a thread I can come steaming in with a grand hoboisum or size 11's this forum really is reaching new lows! Hell I am sure in one thread I saw a sorry from CAPS (well at least a half hearted attempt at one) next BWFCI will be campaigning for Megson out WTW will form a right wing party, mummy will campaign for human rights and Tango will watch X Factor!

I suspect mummy has always been a human rights advocate, hobo, right wing though he may be - you may have done him an injustice.

William the White · Post by **William the White** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:32 am

Montreal Wanderer wrote:
Hobinho wrote:The fact no one has a thread I can come steaming in with a grand hoboisum or size 11's this forum really is reaching new lows! Hell I am sure in one thread I saw a sorry from CAPS (well at least a half hearted attempt at one) next BWFCI will be campaigning for Megson out WTW will form a right wing party, mummy will campaign for human rights and Tango will watch X Factor!
I suspect mummy has always been a human rights advocate, hobo, right wing though he may be - you may have done him an injustice.

Agreed.

I suspect WtW will not be forming a right wing party any time soon. Hobo may have done him an injustice here.

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:52 am

William the White wrote:
Montreal Wanderer wrote:
Hobinho wrote:The fact no one has a thread I can come steaming in with a grand hoboisum or size 11's this forum really is reaching new lows! Hell I am sure in one thread I saw a sorry from CAPS (well at least a half hearted attempt at one) next BWFCI will be campaigning for Megson out WTW will form a right wing party, mummy will campaign for human rights and Tango will watch X Factor!
I suspect mummy has always been a human rights advocate, hobo, right wing though he may be - you may have done him an injustice.
Agreed.

I suspect WtW will not be forming a right wing party any time soon. Hobo may have done him an injustice here.

Ah, but I think the tramp was pointing to extremely unlikely events and considered the chance of you joining the right had a probability so close to zero it could not be measured. Since he assigned the same probability to Pencilbiter favouring human rights I felt he was off the mark.

William the White · Post by **William the White** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:57 am

Montreal Wanderer wrote:
William the White wrote:
Montreal Wanderer wrote:
Hobinho wrote:The fact no one has a thread I can come steaming in with a grand hoboisum or size 11's this forum really is reaching new lows! Hell I am sure in one thread I saw a sorry from CAPS (well at least a half hearted attempt at one) next BWFCI will be campaigning for Megson out WTW will form a right wing party, mummy will campaign for human rights and Tango will watch X Factor!
I suspect mummy has always been a human rights advocate, hobo, right wing though he may be - you may have done him an injustice.
Agreed.

I suspect WtW will not be forming a right wing party any time soon. Hobo may have done him an injustice here.
Ah, but I think the tramp was pointing to extremely unlikely events and considered the chance of you joining the right had a probability so close to zero it could not be measured. Since he assigned the same probability to Pencilbiter favouring human rights I felt he was off the mark.

Point taken

CrazyHorse · Post by **CrazyHorse** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:28 am

William the White wrote:I'd be interested to know at what point 'scrotes' lose the human rights they so shamefully deny to others and for which they are denounced by you two. I share your repulsion at this case, which is more clear cut than a lot. But the degree of violence perpetrated on the 'scrote' was infintely beyond the threat he posed at the time he had his head caved in with a bat, suffering lifelong brain damage.

A jury found these men guilty. A judge imposed a light sentence for the degree of grievous bodily harm caused. You seem to think they were wrong. So, the law must be wrong. How would you change it?

Crazy Horse - this is what i said above.

I think you may have missed this and that accounts for the direction your original criticism took.

I hope it makes clear my position - the original crime is repulsive. The assailants violated the human rights of their victims. I said it on my first post on the subject.

That's all well and good; and thanks for replying. But you clearly stated that you were concerned about bad people losing their human rights and I felt you were overlooking the good people's human rights. However I can see now that that wasn't what you were trying to say at all so let's just move on.

Terry's Chocolate Orange anyone?

thebish · Post by **thebish** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:43 am

CrazyHorse wrote:By the way bish, on your way back down from the moral high ground have a read through Mr the White's full post. I've handily quoted it in full for you here.....

that's very helpful Crazy - and it is a long way down yet from the moral high-ground

I have my support tights on so a thrombosis is hopefully unlikely...

You are right to point out that WtW's post - to which you responded - was part of an ongoing discussion and that his views were spread across that discussion - so I apologise for my error in suggesting that his views were clearly in the actual post you chose to quote.

the point remains, though, that WtW has NOT glossed over victims rights at all and it was well wide of the mark to suggest or claim he did. A short way of saying this would be to say you were wrong and did him an injustice (and this is quite a good smokescreen.) Why do I care? He can defend himself more ably and graciously than I have - after all! I care because your response was a very poor and factually incorrect response to a quite carefully considered and nuanced argument - and I didn't think he deserved to be dismissed in that way.

It isn't always possible to read an entire thread - i don't always - but if you are going to wade into a thread on a sensitive issue with some complex arguments in it - and make accusations about one of the contributors - then it is at least courteous to check back what he has said before wading in...

if that sounds like more moral high ground - all well and good.

CrazyHorse · Post by **CrazyHorse** » Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:53 am

I've also got crisps, nuts, mince pies and Christmas cake.
I think if I look hard enough in the back of the cupboard I may even find an olive branch in there.

Connect with your social network account

Today I'm angry about.....

Who is online