BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket gettin.. can't be arsed
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 01:13 PM

We might as well all piss off then.

Ignorance thrives without challenge. Good job I'm thick as pigshit eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 01:34 PM

Musket musing

I don't wish to start a tedious argument about this but your remark that general relativity supercedes the principia requires challenge.

You're probably right since our ideas of what relativity is and is not seem so fundamentally different.

As a parting shot, you might find this article interesting - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Time,_Space,_and_Gravitation

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 01:38 PM

Shouting abuse is not challenging an argument Ian. I've been here ten years and have argued with loads of people, sometimes we agree, most times we agree to disagree.
I have never felt the need to call other members odious contemptible or wish them dead, because of their views.

No personal abuse was the only hard and fast rule of this forum, I think we should respect that rule....if nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 01:56 PM

McGrath of Harlow

"intelligent design" starts at least formally from consideration of scientific evidence, and draws from
this the conclusion that the explanation for this is an intelligent designer, in other words "God".

I'm afraid not, McGrath. The fact that it's called Intelligent Design is a bit of a giveaway.

From this website - http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

In other words, they start from the assumption of intelligent design (and, therefore, an intelligent designer) and then go and look for evidence to support that idea.

Similar things from the Dicovery Institute here - http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

No one may be asked to treat Darwin as a belief system not open to revision, but sometimes there is a tendency to do so, as with other 19th century giants, such as Marx. "So as not to gainsay Darwin" sounded as if Steve might be in danger of falling into that.

It does rather, doesn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 01:59 PM

So in order to challenge the suggestion that challenging something requires being discourteous, I'd need to call Michael something insulting, which would defeat my challenge..

So instead I'll just say I think it is completely wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 02:55 PM

Formally what is described there, Snail, is a process in which a hypothesis "that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" is tested by looking for evidence that are consistent with it. In principle that's the same procedure as was involved in the search for the Higgs Boson.

My point isn't that this "research" stands up to critical analysis, but that critical analysis is the correct way to challenge it.
...............
It occurs to me that if the idea were accepted that the way to explain the apparent improbability of the "fine-tuning" of the universe (and other apparent improbabilities) is to propose that this arises because there is a large or indeed infinite number of universes, and we inhabit one which allows us to exist, this in fact does imply a kind of programmed selection or design, with the designer being us, acting retrospectively.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 04:01 PM

Sorry McGrath but I've got gigs to practice for so I can't spend much time on this. The Higgs Boson was predicted by existing theories. Searching for it was a test of those theories. The existence of an intelligent designer is wishful thinking. In terms of analysis, ID falls at the first fence. It is nor testable; it is not falsifiable.

Have a read of this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

and this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

I particularly like "argument from incredulity". I can't explain this so it must be God what did it.

It is pseudoscience and should not be given credibility by critical analysis.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 07:36 PM

A range of theories that are properly counted as scientific cannot be falsified at present and quite possibly never (eg Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation).   However what can be done is to seek alternative explanations which deal with the anomalies involved more satisfactorily.

If this can be done the credibility of the theories involved are reduced, if it cannot be done, the credibility is strengthened. That involves critical analysis. The suggestion that critical analysis which reduces the credibility of a fallacious theory at the same time gives it greater credibility is hard to sustain.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 10:37 PM

Holy Cow McGrath! That Darwin is certainly a find! What until Steve sees that. Of course,the real issue is the positivist model for social science research. That is what gave the idea that we could apply the methodology of natural science to human affairs. The reason the positivists won out over idealists like Max Weber was that there was a desire for social control. They wanted power over "the masses." Statistics were originally called "political arithmetic." Always the economy. God awful stuff.

Little Hawk, very nice.

Steve, you have read all the Gnostic Gospels? How exciting! Listen, the one you should read is this one:

http://books.google.com/books/about/Jesus_the_Wicked_Priest.html?id=uwFdIAAACAAJ

McGrath, you should read "In Search of the Primitive" by anthropologist Stanley Diamond. Mr. Diamond discusses the western notion of progress in great detail and does not shy away from ethics.   

From Wikipedia:

In memoriam in the journal which he founded, his legacy was recognized thus: "Diamond was one of the first anthropologists to insist that researchers both acknowledge and confront power relations, often colonial and neocolonial, that form the context of their work. His sympathetic portrayal of the Arab mountain villages, and analysis of psychodynamics on the Israeli kibbutz — as stemming from an incomplete critique of stetl life — was as much against the grain of contemporary research then as it is today. His concern for countering racism found its way into a number of trenchant popular and scholarly writings and, always, in his teaching" (Dialectical Anthropology, vol. 16, p. 105, 1991).

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 10:41 PM

"No one may be asked to treat Darwin as a belief system not open to revision, but sometimes there is a tendency to do so, as with other 19th century giants, such as Marx. "So as not to gainsay Darwin" sounded as if Steve might be in danger of falling into that."

It does rather, doesn't it.

No it doesn't, and I've comprehensively explained why. This tiresome comment betrays the fact that you're a feckin' eejit. Nighty night!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 11:11 PM

Excuse my typos. Tiny phone with autocorrect.

Steve, I'm disappointed that you feel offended. Everybody here respects you. You're a wicked intelligent dude.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 12:01 AM

I couldn't make this kind of idiocy up!...Steve Shaw is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that there is no God (in whatever definition he chooses)...and then says this, Steve Shaw: "Well we don't know enough about the origin of life. "Random" worries me a bit....."

But ONE THING FOR SURE, any concept of God beyond his early days as a Catholic Altar Boy, had NOTHING to do with it!!!!!!!!!

Coupled with this: "Carry on like that and you'll end up in the naughty corner with Wacko, Ron, pete, Hawk and Guffers."

Coming from you, and your 'idiot-logic', I'll take that as a compliment!

You really need to take a rest, and try to think it through. Don't hurt yourself.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 02:29 AM

This thread is about respect.

And yet.

Akenaton. Don't lecture me on abuse when your comments abuse every gay person.

Goofus. Somebody has a message for you, don't you boy?

Woof! Woof! Grrrr. Woof!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 03:37 AM

Woof! Woof! Grrrr. Woof!

C'mon boy!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket sans Newton
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 04:33 AM

Here Goofus! SJL is taking the piss out of you!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 06:55 AM

Steve Shaw is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that there is no God (in whatever definition he chooses).

Steve Shaw, as Steve Shaw has asserted God knows how many times, hasn't a clue whether there's a God or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 06:57 AM

Steve, I'm disappointed that you feel offended.

Never assume that, because I bite, it's because I'm offended. I don't really do offended.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 08:33 AM

"No fighting, no biting!"

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 08:52 AM

Muskie, I was "talking" to you. Ah-roooo!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 11:19 AM

Steve Shaw: "Steve Shaw, as Steve Shaw has asserted God knows how many times, hasn't a clue whether there's a God or not."

OK..then if there is a God, and He's supposed to be about 'Love', ask Him to reveal Himself to you...don't make up what you think the answer should be, nor put a time limitation to it... and just pay attention. If there is a God, who is about love, then He would show you something, wouldn't He?..if your request was sincere. If you get nothing at all, then blow it off.
The is NO way that could insult you, harm you, restrict you, or any other bummer, you might imagine.
Try it...be patient, do not make up answers, nor disregard input that follows.

Respectfully (this time),

GfS

P.S. For the sake of brevity, I used the words, 'Him' and 'HE'...not to be confused with any religious gender or figurehead.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 12:47 PM

My grandson loves this one:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U6UWNA-WQgI

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 02:32 PM

SJL, thank your grandson for showing us that rare video of mudcatters actually agreeing on something-----as they reinforce and respect each others boundaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 07:58 PM

No worries, guffers, I've asked God to reveal himself on many occasions. No joy. Perhaps if I had a sex change, lost 40 years and turned meself into a thick French peasant somewhere near Lourdes...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 08:16 PM

'Thick' Now that is a term where I strongly object when it's used as a sneer. If you were in my home and said that I am afraid I'd feel bound to respond in the same kind of terms as the character I quoted in an earlier post who found he had a racist at his table. "I am afraid you are on hostile territory here." And I'd ask you to leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 08:52 PM

Well, dear McGrath, I do believe I was talking about a long-dead French peasant girl, not someone here. I note that you don't level the same strictures at pete, who, whilst not directly insulting people on the board, insults Darwin and every scientist connected with evolutionary biology. You don't exactly rush to defend them, yet you rush to defend a deluded and manipulated peasant. What a strange fellow you appear to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 10:20 PM

I strongly object to the use of the term "thick" as a sneer. Whether it's me, someone ls on the cat, or anybody else, living or dead.

(Incidentally, glancing back at the posts in this thread I couldn't see any from "pete" which were noticeably insulting to Darwin or anybody. Not that that's particularly relevant.)

I doubt if you intended to write in a offensive way. It's easily done.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 10:58 PM

Not strange Steve. Just trying to promote respect online. Because it's just too easy for people to behave in a way that they probably would not face to face. You can go anywhere online and find that sort of negativity. If Mudcat were a site where that didn't go on then it would different, special.

Sure, you could probably clean it up by simply eliminating the BS threads and I might have thought that would be a good idea if I hadn't had this wonderful professor. He taught us that the political elites want us to disengage from politics and one of the ways they do this is promote the idea that art, music are separate from politics whereas in reality they are related. Folk music in particular has a strong tradition of political engagement. My old prof is a big time folk music lover himself.

It's a good to be engaged, it's good for free speech, good for democracy, but all this hacking away back and forth with no attempt to find common ground? We can do better than that. Maybe you're a tough one and nothing offends you, even so I think it's better if we treat others as we would want to be treated. That's the secret Steve. That's how people end up liking one another. On that silly kid's video I posted, there were comments below and the first one said:

"But remember kids, you can always bite your enemies."

Yup, there's always that.

You're aces McGrath, keep up the good work.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 12:22 AM

But- but what happened to 'You only hurt the one you love'?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 12:35 AM

But that's the one you shouldn't hurt at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 02:23 AM

(It's from a song, Larrytrg)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 02:48 AM

Some people need to have a good long think about the word respect before typing out sanctimonious tripe.

A reaction to a post that is considered disrespectful often fails to take into account why the post is there.

I find it hilarious that I have been berated by people (who take themselves seriously) for shouting down bigotry, for reacting to lies and for taking the piss out of absurdity.

Do try going up a post or two before becoming judgemental, there's good chaps.. shouting may be boorish but it does bring attention to weasels and opinions that are in themselves not exactly respectful of others, regardless of whether the others read Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 03:50 AM

don't make up what you think the answer should be, nor put a time limitation to it...

So, in a nutshell, if you don't believe in god you just have to ask it to show you a sign and then wait indefinitely for the answer? Until you have done so, you have not really tried? As that means that no-one could ever say there was not a god because you may wait until you die before the sign it would be very clever. If you were dealing with those who could not spot the flaw in the logic that is.

As this thread is supposed to be about respect for others I must say that I find that one of the most the most disrespectful comments on it! It assumes that everyone reading it is stupid enough to believe it. As others have said before, a little name calling and bad language is nothing compared to the disrespect that the god-botherers are showing to others!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 05:29 AM

Musket curious

Do try going up a post or two before becoming judgemental, there's good chaps..

So why did you call me a "Dozy sod"?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 05:51 AM

McGrath of Harlow

'Thick' Now that is a term where I strongly object when it's used as a sneer.

You didn't object to him calling me a "feckin' eejit" for ageeing with something you said.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 06:43 AM

McGrath of Harlow

A range of theories that are properly counted as scientific cannot be falsified at present and quite possibly never (eg Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation).

Although it seems to get loosely refered to as such, Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation and its many offshoots and rivals don't fit any criteria for being called theories. Hypotheses at best, conjectiure maybe but speculation would be nearer the mark. A quick peruse of the internet suggests that nobody has much idea what he was on about.

However what can be done is to seek alternative explanations which deal with the anomalies involved more satisfactorily.

WOOZLES!

If this can be done the credibility of the theories involved are reduced, if it cannot be done, the credibility is strengthened. That involves critical analysis.

All the necessary critical analysis has been done. Did you look at those links I gave you? It's tosh and fraudulent tosh at that.

The suggestion that critical analysis which reduces the credibility of a fallacious theory at the same time gives it greater credibility is hard to sustain.

As long as they are being talked about, they are still in the game and are happy. Don't feed the troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 08:44 AM

Well, Snail, McGrath was using that time-honoured and disrespectful tactic of trying to tar someone promoting scientific notions (and one of the greatest scientific notions of all time to boot) with the religiosity brush. You decided to chime in on the slur, camp-following behind pete even, well after I'd put him right. If you are so willing to demonstrate such doubt to the world as to whether you have any original thoughts of your own, preferring instead to cash in on others' ill-considered remarks, then you can expect a bit of flak, I reckon. If you don't like the abrasion, don't do that again.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 10:59 AM

Perish the thought that anyone should ever show you any disrespect Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 01:23 PM

You didn't object to him calling me a "feckin' eejit" for ageeing with something you said.

Maybe because he agreed that you are a "feckin' eejit"?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 01:52 PM

Tarring Steve with the religiosity brush would appear to say that when I suggested that his regard for Darwin's writing was veering towards the over reverant I was accusing him of religiosity. I think that would be over-egging the pudding, to vary the metaphor.

And it's got nothing to do with my objection to what he now recognises as "an ill-considered remark".   (At last I think that's what he says.) Quite where the "disrespectful" comes in I'm not sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket gettin.. can't be arsed
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 03:35 PM

I don't have a working hypothesis on human snails. If I called you a dozy sod it would be deduction from observation.

Dozy sod.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 05:35 PM

What was the title of this thread again?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 06:06 PM

Cheers for that, Dave. I was (heh bloody heh!) far too respectful to post that meself, sorely tempted though I was!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 06:19 PM

what some call disrespectful really amounts to having a different opinion , despite no insulting or foul words being employed by the posters.
- a somewhat subjective definition?!.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 06:20 PM

Chongo, you might better send Cheetah over for the rest of the bottle.

Muskrat, i've had about enough of you twisting everything around to suit your dogma. And Steve, what's this about you saying "died in my arms etc." I only wish. I wish I had been there more for my friend Pat during the ten years he suffered with Aids.

I won't bore you with details about Pat. On the other hand, maybe I will. First off, he was 1000 % Irish. Not by anything he said but his entire being. Flaming red hair and freckles all over. Had a voice as soft and sweet as a whisper, eternally non-judgemental, the type of person you could open up your heart to without being afraid. Should have been a priest.

We became friends in high school when we were in the same musical and hung out after that and went off to the same Ivy League School 25 miles from home so we could back. We watched comedies. We shared everything- especially dinner. As soft and sweet as his voice was, when he laughed, it was so loud and raucous, I think it reverberated off the walls. It did.

So now, I must tell you that I also agree with Akenaton on this second point. There is no campaign too extreme to get rid of this thing. McGrath, you mentioned the situation in Africa. That just goes to show you how bad it can get without the appropriate intervention. Look at how we treat TB. Same thing without the stigma. I'll take the stigma if that's what it takes. Pat was a baby. He never even reached the age of 30. He left me behind.

What can I say? Some of us prioritize life and death over propriety. As my grandma would say, "Put that in your pipe and smoke it."

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 06:33 PM

what some call disrespectful really amounts to having a different opinion , despite no insulting or foul words being employed by the posters.

I mean, how pathetically wrong can you be? Hitler had a different opinion about Jews, so are you saying he wasn't disrespectful? In most of your posts you show the ultimate disrespect to all scientists. You yourself are pig-ignorant about every aspect of science, as you have abundantly shown, and you are bone idle in that you won't even read scientific works before pontificating on how shite the author is. You are an ignorant and insulting charlatan, and it's a bloody good job that you're so laughably insignificant that you can have very little influence in promoting your stupid ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 06:56 PM

Godwin's Law. Had to happen...

"Godwin's Law states that as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfieted the argument."

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 07:46 PM

Absolute bollocks, McGrath. I'm surprised at you. Apart from the fact that Godwin himself was eventually severely embarrassed by his "law", there is no problem with the mention of Hitler and the Nazis if it fits into the context of the thread. You're a very fine fellow in many regards, McGrath, but you're edging nearer and nearer to that naughty corner.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 08:25 PM

McGrath, you are light years ahead of me.

I have it on good authority, that of a high school teacher who specializes in teaching about the Holocaust, who also taught a course at university which I took called "Democracy in Education," that Hitler never had one original idea. He'd have been little more than a joke if he hadn't come to power.

On Democracy in Education: First day she said, "Well, there's very little of it. But we're going to talk about it anyway."

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 08:54 PM

When in doubt on Mudcat thread topics and drift, I refer to the Urban dictionary for an answer. Here is an entry, (to be used as an example of a disruptspectful mudcat thread act:


Masturbathe -
To pleasure oneself sexually whilst washing or immersing one's body in water.
Friend 1: Andi hasn't left her room in days.
Friend 2: Yeah she's been really upset since she and Rodney broke up.
Friend 1: What she needs is to brew some herbal tea, run a warm bath, and masturbathe in it.
Friend 2: True. It'll improve her miserable mood as well as her poor hygiene.


Disruptspectful -
one who caries on in such a way as to be both a disruption and disrespectful all at once.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 09:03 PM

Disrespect? you old fuddy- mudcaters are doing a poor job at it, at best.

Whatever happened to real insults like "Do your keepers a huge favour: do a triple summersault through the air, and disappear up your own asshole"?