BS: Onward Christian Soldiers

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 07:19 PM

"I hear 51% of muslims in the us would prefer shara law over the constution."

Er, you're not the same "Guest" that was taking the piss out of my literary deficiencies were you, by any chance? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 07:22 PM

"Are you", even. Eyesight deficiencies with Mudcat small print may not be quite the same thing as literary deficiencies.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 08:09 PM

Apparently "Guest" is a person of little or no education - spelling & composition being only one of several indicators.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 08:35 PM

During Friday prayer in the Al Nusra mosque in Berlin on July 11, Danish imam Abu Bilal Ismail urged listeners to kill Zionist Jews, Die Welt reports.

In a Youtube video clip of the sermon to which English subtitles have been added, the imam is filmed lashing out at Israelis and eventually saying that all Jews should be killed.

"Count them and kill them to the very last one. Don't spare a single one of them. Make them suffer terribily,"

Anyone care to make this into a song for muslims to sing? Do they sing?

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 08:41 PM

Ayatollah Greg will sing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 04:13 AM

Raggy, Musket claimed to have written the car verse. I gave you the quote. I do not know why he denies it now.

I too thought the NHS verse might be his, but he denied that!

I said,
"Musket, you say you wrote the car verse, but I would have guessed the National Health verse that plays to the stereotype of the gay male nurse.
Perhaps you are ashamed of it.
You should be."

He replied,

"NHS? What has that to do with a twenty odd year old miner? Meeting a lass at a club resonates I suppose, but no lump, no Adams Apple either. Most folk songs I wrote were well before getting involved in healthcare,"

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 04:19 AM

Er, you're not the same "Guest" that was taking the piss out of my literary deficiencies were you, by any chance? :-)

No it isn't. I wasn't taking the piss. I was pointing out that you appeared not to be recognising a metaphor. Though I suspect it was deliberate to allow some point scoring in debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 04:35 AM

Sorry everybody but just got to clear something up.

Yes Keith, I did donate the car verse. (Mitch tidied it up though.). Where did I say otherwise? It's the NHS verse that appears to be subject to the oral tradition. Mind you, whoever wrote it may have done so joking on the basis that a couple of years after writing it, Mitch left the factory he worked at and trained as a nurse. We have something called a sense of humour around folk clubs. Or at least used to...

That's the problem with instinctive homophobia, you use it to drag others to your bitter twisted outlook.

It's Sunday. Shouldn't you be on your knees praying for the sanctimonious right to push your staunch stink of an agenda?

Whilst you are ploughing through old posts in a vain attempt to score saddo points, have a look for the one where you admitted to being a member of UKIP followed by the many posts denying it. Or perhaps where you stated that young men from a geographical location invented by Earl Mountbatten tended to be rapists. If they can be defined as having ancestral roots in Pakistan, then they must be well led, aware of what they are doing and anybody writing about them must be eminent eh?

Onward Christian Soldiers indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 06:20 AM

Huh?
On this thread you first said you had not written one of the verses quoted.
Then you went back on that and claimed the NHS verse as yours.
On the previous thread you denied the NHS verse and claimed the car one!

Lying is just a reflex with you.
Nothing you say has any credibility at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 06:49 AM

Keith ................ Musket said he DID write the "Car Verse" but he DIDN'T write the "NHS Verse"

He also said that Mitch tidied up the "Car Verse"

He also said the "NHS Verse" was the subject of the oral tradition.

It's quite simple and straightforward, well it is to most of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 07:24 AM

A hymn for GF:
"We are working for Allah and must bring Shariah to existence; we are committed to protecting Muslims from being annihilated by infidels. We are going to kill them. We will enter Churches and slaughter Christians and barracks. We are calling on all Muslims to come out and fight Jihad."

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 10:23 AM

Rag,
On this thread he first said,
" neither Mitch nor I wrote one of the particular verses in the post Keith just quoted. "

Not one! Not the car verse. Not the NHS verse.

You then suggested that his was the NHS verse and he agreed.

On the previous thread he was emphatic that he did not write the NHS verse, just the car one.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 10:44 AM

Keith have you been at the sherry?

" neither Mitch nor I wrote one of the particular verses in the post Keith just quoted. "

Meaning neither Musket or Mitch wrote ONE of the verses.

They DID write all the others but one (the NHS one) was written by someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 11:26 AM

With the advent of this new obnoxious "Guest" if it isn't BullshitBruce, its his clone. Where are the mods of yesteryear?

---

You think we like reading this shit? Probably no one has looked in for a while. ---mudelf busy elsewhere

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 12:36 PM

Onward, Muslim soldiers, launching holy war;
Double-crossing Jewry, as you've done before.
Hezbollah (Hamas too) speeds, as tensions grow,
Armageddon's battle, Persia's planners crow.

[Refrain (first two lines)]

Israel's mighty army moves on Muslim sod;
Infidels are treading where Mohammed trod!
They were not invited, just our captives three;
Done in hope of ransom, not in parity.

[Refrain]

Autocrats we cherish, freedom's rise can wane.
Europe will appease us, as they did in Spain.
G8s can quell but never 'gainst our march prevail;
We've Osama's promise that we cannot fail.

[Refrain]

One word, Jews and Christians: join, submit, belong;
Blend in, yield your choices to the Muslim throng;
Glory, laud, and honor unto Allah sing!
Back through countless ages, Mankind we shall bring.

[Refrain]

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 12:53 PM

Well that rhymes. Can't be Keith then 😹😹

Nice to flush out those who see religion as more than voices in your head. Your mothers will be proud of you, I'm sure. Give it a few weeks and Keith will be quoting you.

Hey Keith! I am performing a concert soon where my contribution is songs from the Napoleonic wars. Perhaps you might want to sit at the back proclaiming that the soldiers were well led by caring generals with their welfare at heart? 😂😂😂😂

I'm out at a folk club later. Might give Clarence an airing, referring in the introduction to Mudcat (most folk club audiences have never heard of it) and the weird trolls it spawns, then add the verse I did above. Mind you, it is a bit contrived. I might alter it a bit and be a bit more slanderous. Doesn't matter. I don't give a flying really. Why do you do this Keith? Do you really think that nice respectable people such as Dave, Steve, Raggy and I sit down thinking how to make you look a TC?

Join reality one day. The drinks are good, the food acceptable and the outlook is stunning.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 01:01 PM

Yes Rag, Musket's statement could be ambiguous.
I read it with the emphasis on "one."

" neither Mitch nor I wrote ONE of the particular verses in the post Keith just quoted. "

That interpretation is confirmed by the rest of the sentence.

He did not say, " neither Mitch nor I wrote one particular verse in the post Keith just quoted. "

Very sloppy construction if he meant something different.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST,Musket changing his underpants
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 01:11 PM

Go on Keith. Keep digging.

You never did say whether you liked the verse I added for you. I don't do it for every Thomas, BigDick or Hairy bear, you know

👬

A pity McMusket washed his hands of Mudcat. I might paste the arse end of this thread to him in an email. He needs a chuckle right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 03:26 PM

You think we like reading this shit? Probably no one has looked in for a while. ---mudelf busy elsewhere

Much less obnoxious stuff has a history of disappearing.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 04:14 PM

Ambiguous my arse.

Yet another example of your inability to read or understand the written word.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 06:15 PM

Depends on what the Mudelf means by shit.

Oh, Raggytash. I'm sure Keith does understand and he does have ability. That's what makes his posts so offensive.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:51 AM

Onward Christian Soldiers!

Like the retired priest who takes the occasional service in one diocese but had just been told by the bishop of the neighbouring diocese he can't help out there because the bishop found out he had married his husband. Apparently the bible says he was ok when in a civil partnership but not when their love for each other led to marriage.

Onward Christian Soldiers!

It all being done in your name, my Christian friends.

Onward Christian Soldiers!

Is turning the other cheek the same as looking the other way?

Onward Christian Soldiers!

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 09:20 AM

The Oregon shooter who killed nine people at Umpqua Community College on Thursday reportedly singled out Christians for slaughter. Witness Anastasia Boylan told CNN that the shooter, identified by U.S. law enforcement as Chris Harper Mercer, said to one student as he fired at her:  "Because you're a Christian, you're going to see God in just about one second."

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 09:28 AM

Hi, Brucie!

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 11:06 AM

Oh, and Nameless One? Mercer was raised in a Christian household and admired & supported the Catholic I.R.A.

So I guess this is "Christian on Christian Crime".

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 12:21 PM

IRA as with many terrorist organisations used sectarian religion as a tool to further their more temporal aims.

Of course, whilst they were fucking up The UK, many Americans thought supporting terrorists and giving them money through NORAID and the likes was good fun.

Funny how it isn't so hilarious once terrorists learned how easy it is to get guns in The US.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 02:11 PM

I am not among your stereotypical "many". You might be refering to irish americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 02:35 PM

As is often the case when a horrific mass shooting like the one that took place this morning at the Washington D.C. Navy Yard happens, the descriptions of the alleged gunman from friends and acquaintances do not match up with the horrific nature of his crimes. In the case of Aaron Alexis, who authorities have identified as the man who murdered at least 12 before being killed himself, the most striking description to emerge is that he considered himself a Buddhist.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 05:11 PM

Guest Guest Guest. Bloody farce. You mods rattle on about trolls and usual suspects but you just let this ridiculous situation carry on. Completely idiotic.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 05:40 PM

Agreed. PLEASE bring back the rule that all "Guests" must post with an identifying name so that all our heads can stop whirling trying to keep up with who's who & who said what.... These Guest Guest Guest sequences that Steve draws attention to above really are becoming the crabgrass in the Mudcat lawn. Shouldn't even be impossible, I should think, to program so that any post with no name entered in the FROM line will not even take.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 05:52 PM

"Only if you could be the victim of your reprehensible and wicked crimes, you Christian Nazis "

From the manifesto of mass shooter Seung Hui Cho

Does free speech require a name? You want a name for ad hominem attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 05:57 PM

Also shouldn't be impossible to determine who these "Guests" actually are and/or if all the garbage is coming from the same "Guest". And if necessary, block 'em. Been done here to others.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 07:12 PM

Greg accusing others of posting garbage......now that's rich.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 07:57 PM

We do not want names for ad hominem attacks. That is a ridiculous assertion considering that most people here either have a regular soubriquet or post under their own names, and some of us who do post under our own names, me included, post fearlessly without bothering whether some clown might ad hominem us. Just stop being so falsely bloody "sensitive", aka so bloody full of your own importance. The truth is the other way round: we have at least one person, possibly several, who wish to post anonymous bile with impunity, as you do. The only person who ever calls me antisemitic, for example, is an anonymous guest, almost certainly YOU, so do me a favour and cut out your tiresome hypocrisy. This sort of nonsense is all over the internet and it is most unbecoming of this website, which has pretentions to erudition, to put up with it. The answer is blindingly simple and incredibly democratic: you don't get to post if you're not logged in, and you don't get to post unless you have a unique user name. There should never, EVER, be a post under "Guest", and I don't give a damn whether or not my supposed allies here agree with that or not. There is actually not one good reason why, on a website of this nature, anonymity should be necessary. Some of the finest folk musicians and writers about folk post here either under their real names or, at worst, under a very lightly disguised name. So what I propose is a compromise. You can keep your anonymity. I neither know nor care who pete or akenaton really is, but at least we know that when they post it's the same person every time. That's all I'm saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 08:54 PM

Sorry if i upset your anti christian applecart with some facts that you want to call garbage. Anything that does not agree with your stream of rants is automatically garbage. Who is being self important? Who is being self righteous?

Who is Mahmoud Ali Ehsani

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 09:00 PM

More important, Guest, is who is consistently being an irrelevant bigoted asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 09:18 PM

Well, Greg, this particular, rather illiterate Guest can't even distinguish between me and you. I never use the word garbage for a start (as a Brit, I prefer the word rubbish). What he, she or it calls "rants" are closely-argued points, delivered coolly. From this Guest, there is never a single point developed beyond a short (unpunctuated) sentence. One suspects that it's because they've probably read something in the Daily Mail or in a Murdoch rag, been suckered in hook, line and sinker, and can only regurgitate. It's impossible to take someone seriously who hides under "Guest".

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 03:26 AM

What I find curious is how the anonymous guests amongst us who promote equality and shout down bigotry get our posts deleted but if you post right wing, bigoted distortions such as the diatribe above, the moderators allow it to stay.

I post anonymously to ensure that if anybody does address my posts, it is the post rather than the person sending it that is considered. I got the idea from when a number of people with slightly different views all logged in as Musket. It was delightful to see the effect on those who prejudge. If I actually knew anybody here on Mudcat I'd try the same thing.

To insist on prejudging a view based on your prejudice of the person writing it says a lot.

Look at how anything from Dave the Gnome is trolled almost immediately by Teribus or Keith A of Hertford, or how anything the reactionary idiots on here see that offends them has to be Musket. Look at how anything Joe Offer says on a thread where religion raises its head is seen as the Vatican mouthpiece. Revel in anything by Jim Carroll being seen as communist.

No. I don't even blame Bruce for remaining anonymous. Although with his take, anonymity spares his embarrassment.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 03:59 AM

Using buzz words such as equality and bigotry, I'd ask you to be a Musket but we ditched it a while ago. That said, I pop the odd post and I have seen one or two that sound like Nick, although I didn't bother asking when we met for a slurp the other week when I was in London.

The guest has a point and so do those saying otherwise. The very obvious troll statements are easy to spot and dismiss, even for a moderator I would have thought. I have had a couple of mine purely anonymous but that was forgetting to put my name rather than meaning not to.

I also spent a few months ignoring Mudcat but then popped back for some history of a song and one thing led to another. An itch you just can't scratch.

Anyway, being ones self does provoke the likes of Keith to try and have a pop, as in a few posts up on this thread, and without being able to rattle his cage for a reaction, the BS section of Mudcat would be boring. For instance..

Hey Keith! On the subject of onward Christian soldiers, remind us again how less than 600,000 out of a population of over 60,000,000 means "the majority of The UK are practicing Christians!"

It was great. You had to be there. You were? Good, wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 04:31 AM

I'm sorry but I don't agree. If Jim perceives that he's being tarred a communist (that wouldn't bother me, actually), or if Joe perceives that he's tarred as a Vatican mouthpiece (which I've never seen in any case), then they have several options, the best and easiest of which is to rise above such idiocy and just carry on. Smearing people, in the eyes of every decent person here, says a damn sight more about the smearer than it does about them. I get smeared by Guests more than by anyone else. The biggest complaint on this website is about insults. The plain fact is that a culture of unlogged-in Guests and self-important anonymity positively encourages that behaviour. The Gaughan forum allows pseudonyms situate your real name won't be googled, but everybody knows who you are. There is little need for moderation and insults are almost unknown.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 04:40 AM

Situate? So that. Idiotic iPhone.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 06:15 AM

I don't see insults as being a particular issue. When people start to abuse me it is an obvious sign of having no real argument. The insults are blatantly untrue, irrelevant and usually pretty infantile anyway.

I agree with Steve about the anonymous guests although the point about addressing issues and not posters is a good one. However, it is obvious when people are attacking names rather than ideas and, very regularly, things are ascribed to me or Steve or Musket or anyone when it was someone entirely different who said it. I have even seen someone get attacked on a thread that they have had no input to! It gets quite funny at that stage :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 06:49 AM

A complete prat, of which there are two in this thread posting as Guests (one Guest in this thread is not a prat as it happens), attacks posters with impunity, yet such twits are the first to bleat about how vital it is for them to protect themselves. Bullshit. They must think they're as important as Paul McCartney or Prince Philip or something. I'm far more inclined to bite back at an anonymous Guest who's being an idiot than at some of the confirmed idiots here. There is very little positive input here from unlogged-in people posting as Guests. Allowing that freedom is indefensible on any rational grounds. It debases the culture of the place. A respectable and estimable website such as this one should not be open to drive-by offensiveness. You can't even look at the posting history of any particular Guest as they're all bundled together as one. Stupid. Not all anonymous Guests insult, but a lot of them do. "You can post with a unique user name when you're logged in." What's so bloody hard about that? What's so restrictive or undemocratic? You're still just as anonymous! If you feel got at you can change your user name anyway. Let reason prevail and let's all know consistently who we're talking to, even if it's just to a nickname.

Subject: RE: BS: Onward Christian Soldiers
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 07:02 AM

"More important, Guest, is who is consistently being an irrelevant bigoted asshole."
A typical ad hominem attack. If you think it is not against a person rather than the truthfulness of what the person submits, please define ad hominem.

Sawzaw got the last word on this one.