BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:36 AM

Dave, you should retire and apologise, that was one of the lamest responses that I have ever read on this forum.

Like a child in the street.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:25 AM

Of course I ridiculed you Keith. But not for what you say. I ridiculed you because you are an idiot. Does that make me a bad person? Possibly. Could I give a shit? Nah...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:11 AM

All the historians Musket.
All the ones any of us on the WW1 threads over two and a half years could find.

Historians do not tell people to believe them Dave.
They give their findings and conclusions and how they came to make them.
When they all independently reach the same conclusions, I felt moved to believe them on those issues.

You did ridicule me for that Dave.
Mercilessly.
Musket denied what the historians found.
"They should know better" he said.

You never so much as questioned him or Jim over any of their assertions, but you attacked everything I said.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 08:10 AM

You believe that the troops in WW1 were well led? Yes? You have often said you are no historian so, if no-one told you what to believe, how did you come to that conclusion?

I don't believe Musket and Jim know more than historians. I do believe that they will not be fooled into believing that any war is a good thing, no matter how well led. Nor will I.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 08:04 AM

ALL historians Keith?

Interesting assertion. Politically convenient too. Even amongst your cherry picked list of newspaper hacks and minor academics, there is no consensus over and above the numbers killed to the nearest few thousand and the inept political and military blunders that exacerbated the tragedy.

You know, talking of consensus. 150 years shot, there was a scientific consensus that ether explained gaps between objects. It was ether that allowed waves to travel in vacuum etc. Overnight, the consensus collapsed.

As Bible nonsense hasn't collapsed overnight as the fantasy aspects are blown away, it is the metaphor rational people with no mind disorder recognise it as.

By the way, it would appear that some of the actual historical characters in the Bible, mainly Romans but some others too, lived in different times to each other. Not surprising really, but just makes seeing it as anything but an interesting collection of tales rather pathetic really.

I recently picked up a bible and opened it at random. It is a wonderful example of how people may have thought a couple of thousand years ago, coupled with examples of how the medieval writers who re wrote it were thinking and most of all, the way we wrote in the times of King James.

It's those who look too deeply into it who are missing out if you ask me. Imagine not being able to enjoy Tolkien or Michael Moorcock because you don't just see abstract stories to enjoy? Granted, the Bible stories aren't exactly gripping reading and I doubt I will pick up a copy again, but I accept it is of interest to historians, not as history but as an indicator of how people used to entertain each other before Corrie and Knobenders.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 07:58 AM

Dave, no-one tells me to believe the historians on the history of WW1.
I choose to.
You may ridicule me for that, and choose to believe that Musket and Jim know more about it than the historians do.

We both make our choices, but no-one tells me what to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:28 AM

Are you saying that, because I am a Christian, it is incompatible for me to believe the historians' verdict on WW1 over that of Musket and Jim?

Nothing of the sort as you well know. I am saying that on one hand you say no-one tells you what to believe and on the other say that you believe what you do about WW1 because it is what some historians have told you. But I know there is no point in continuing as you will carry on twisting and turning until no-one has a clue what you are on about. Doesn't matter now, everyone can see what you have said regardless of how you try to get out of it. The words dishonest, cheat and despicable seem to spring to mind once again.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:15 AM

"yet it is me , the non scientist, making arguments that accord with [ observable ] science."

No you're not. This statement represents either a total lack of understanding, a delusion or an outright lie. You have no idea what you're talking about, it would be laughable but I'm concerned you actually believe your own waffle. Stick to the ephemeral goddy stuff and forget science if I were you Pete. You're just making an arse of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:10 AM

Sorry, should read,

What biblical evidence Steve?
There is none.

Historians spend their lives researching evidence from original sources.
On WW1 they have independently all come to the same conclusions on those views I put forward.
Why would anyone refuse to believe them?
Why would anyone choose to believe Jim and Musket over them?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:08 AM

What biblical evidence Steve?
There is none.

Historians spend their lives researching evidence from original sources.
They have independently all come to the same conclusions on those views I put forward.
Why would anyone refuse to believe them?
Why would anyone believe Jim and Musket over them?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:01 AM

I think we are saying that we find it odd that you won't apply the same standard to biblical evidence as you do to secular historical evidence. One can only conclude either that you haven't thought it through or that you are, in the case of your Christianity, adhering to some "greater truth" that has fatally blunted your critical faculties.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 05:53 AM

See Keith's assertions that that the older historians can no longer be believed because new evidence has been found.

Silly Dave.
It is the historians who have rejected SOME of the previous generation.
New evidence has shown that SOME were wrong, and now there is a consensus on those issues.

Are you saying that, because I am a Christian, it is incompatible for me to believe the historians' verdict on WW1 over that of Musket and Jim?
Really Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:32 PM

what does count though is a reasoned argument. " who made God " is not such. like how round is a square, or to whom is the bachelor married.

It is not an argument at all. It is a question. What's more, it's a perfectly good question, and you chucking in ludicrous false questions which you wrongly claim to somehow be equivalents does not change that one jot. God is your invention. You deliberately try to put him beyond science (in your attempt to make him invulnerable to reasoned investigation). Well we're not keen on that, so we want to know more about your God notion. The first question any reasonable and thinking person would want to ask is where does he come from? If you can't answer that, then your God notion is at best inchoate and at worst seriously ill-conceived. Terribly in need of a big rethink.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 06:35 PM

No, pete, - he said patiently, for the umpteenth time - it is not about BELIEF but about EVIDENCE and credibility. Based on the accumulated EVIDENCE of (at least) the last 150 years, it is not even remotely credible that some big beardy bloke in the sky (whose existence we are not even supposed to question ... f**k that!) created everything 4000 years ago plus all the crap about Adam & Eve and Noah cramming all of the animals (what about the plants?) that ever existed (how many species of ant are there, pete? Look it up [if you can spell ANT, that is])into a big boat - must have been a f**king big boat just to get all the insects and other invertebrates in! Only a brainwashed idiot could believe all that rubbish.

And, again, I refuse to play the game in which I present you with evidence and you say you don't believe it. The evidence (truck ... no arkloads) of it is out there for you to discover for yourself - but it's not what you want to hear, is it, pete?

And what is it with you and 'concensus'?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:20 PM

Sorry. I clicked something before I was finished.

Then look at the influence of the Catholic Church on The Bible and its layout. The Bible requires belief because it is disjointed and has too many footnotes. Of particular note is the New Testament. What inevitably gets left out of these discussions are mentions/prophesies of the Messiah in the OT which are duplicated by Jesus and his followers either because he really was the Messiah or it was necessary for an elaborate piece of theater to take place that duplicated the prophesies. (Time will tell about that.)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:13 PM

"You say you do not know history that well so you get your information from historians. Yet you say no-one tells you what to believe."

There is a difference between reading various historians then forming one's opinions and being told what to believe.

I don't think anyone 'believes' in historians in the same way Christians or Jews believe in The Bible, which is just another word for The Book. Historians for the most part ask us to read their works and see if they make sense or fit facts as we have received them. The Bible is a mishmash of writers whose works were discovered and seen to be parts of a group of writings, what some would call history.

See the Nag Hammadi for work referring to the same time(s) which calls some of the biblical beliefs into question. Then look at the influence of the Catholic Church on The Bible and its layout. The Bible requires belief because it is disjointed and has too many footnotes. Of par

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:05 PM

And I see it's a "Darwinist cult" now. Christ on a bike. "Pete seems to understand more than any of us," said Akenaton. Cor.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:59 PM

nice to see steve referring to the gospel writers as historians

I didn't.

.....of course, it contradicts his earlier assertion that the bible writings were not to be believed

I made no such assertion.

I know you are trying to have it both ways

Have what both ways?

so steve what are these laws of nature ?

Did you do physics and chemistry at school? Ever heard of Newton, Mendel, Darwin, Einstein? Ever wondered why your tea goes cold? Why things fall when you drop them? How the moon stays up there? How your brakes work? How your voice makes a noise? Why the sun feels warm? The key to the question is, have you ever wondered?

and how do they fit your evolution beliefs

I haven't got any.

you claim your belief is true,

What beliefs?

some like bill attempted to do so, but could not demonstrate how the data contradicted the bible, creation/flood model

Absolute rubbish. Everything in nature contradicts your silly "model", for which there is not the slightest scrap of evidence.

so go on steve....show us some evolution !....credit hostile witness snail here.

He's no witness, as I'm sure he'd agree. You may think he's hostile to me, but, by Christ, you can take it from me that he is most emphatically not on your side.

and I am glad that you recognize the " who made God " question as " that most childish of questions ". so try something more grown up.

If it's so childish, you should have no difficulty answering it. Come along, I'm waiting.

uncreated and eternal are descriptions of God. a scientist like you, shimrod, dawkins or hitchens et al ought to be able grasp this concept.

It is not a concept at all. It is a wacky, unsupportable claim emanating from deluded eejits. If the cap fits...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:39 PM

to counter your counter again, shimrod...
1, you are yourself appealing to consensus. let me remind you again. your own science has nothing to say about origins, by your own admission [ this at least negates the claim that all of science is interdependent with the Darwin storyline]. this means that you are just following the Darwinist cult and their hallowed writings. of course if you can demonstrate that these changeable ideas are science ?......which brings us to
2, we only have their writings claiming evolutionism is true, but even some of them know it is full of holes, and admit it. and judging from your empty arguments, your evolution does not exist !.
3,    and demonstrated your ignorance of the theory you blindly accept. but I don't claim to be a scientist, but the simple arguments have not been answered by anything except consensus.
4, only the evidence counts, you say.....ok, lets have yours.
what does count though is a reasoned argument. " who made God " is not such. like how round is a square, or to whom is the bachelor married.
5, someone sais somewhere " the man who can read but doesn't, has no advantage over the man who cannot read". you are the one claiming to be the scientist, but only offer appeals to consensus and authority, with some uninformed theology. yet it is me , the non scientist, making arguments that accord with [ observable ] science.
take some of your own medicine please .

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:19 PM

The two statements were nothing to do with historical figures. You say you do not know history that well so you get your information from historians. Yet you say no-one tells you what to believe. Once again you are twisting like a bucket of snakes on speed. Maybe you should stand for parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:14 PM

The bible writers could have been considered historians and now cannot to be believed. See Keith's assertions that that the older historians can no longer be believed because new evidence has been found. The people that wrote the bible have, likewise, been outdated. It is little wonder that you cannot grasp scientific concepts when your attempts at the simplest logic are so dismal. And what on earth does failing that, present some science that evidences stardust to steve evolution, instead of off the mark theological arguments. even mean? You do your faith no credit by talking gobbledegook.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:11 PM

Probably can't even see the irony in making those 2 statements a mere 6 hours apart.

Correct Dave, because there is none.
WW1 is well documented recent history.
There is archaeology from biblical times but almost no documentation for historians to work with.

Pilate, Herod, Caiaphas and St. Paul were real historical figures.
Beyond that, who knows.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:11 PM

"uncreated and eternal are descriptions of God" ···

No: God is postulated as "eternal & uncreated". A postulation is not a description. Surely you can grasp that distinction?

≈M≈

Hohoho -- we can play these philosopho-semantic [or semanto-philosophic] games for hours&hours&hours&hours...

10 pm. Bedtime. G'night. Sweet dreams! Happy postulations!

PS That Belgian who laid off the ball for Fellaini to score was offside when he received it. Israel were robbed!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:53 PM

nice to see steve referring to the gospel writers as historians.....of course, it contradicts his earlier assertion that the bible writings were not to be believed.....ok, relax [but not too much!], I know you are trying to have it both ways, so as to attack keith as well as me !. so steve what are these laws of nature ? and how do they fit your evolution beliefs. I suggested some natural laws that do fit the bible, because they are observable science. you claim your belief is true, but present no evidence for it. [ I should point out that some like bill attempted to do so, but could not demonstrate how the data contradicted the bible, creation/flood model] so go on steve....show us some evolution !....credit hostile witness snail here.    and I am glad that you recognize the " who made God " question as " that most childish of questions ". so try something more grown up.    uncreated and eternal are descriptions of God. a scientist like you, shimrod, dawkins or hitchens et al ought to be able grasp this concept. failing that, present some science that evidences stardust to steve evolution, instead of off the mark theological arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:10 PM

Sorry - Me at 03:09PM

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:09 PM

From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:44 AM
...
I am not an historian, so I get my history from people who are.


From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:44 PM
...
No-one tells me what to believe

No, absolutely nothing like applying double standards. Probably can't even see the irony in making those 2 statements a mere 6 hours apart. As to who should tell them. Historians maybe?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:44 PM

Who should tell them Steve?
No-one tells me what to believe, and I am sure all Christians would say the same.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:39 PM

How many folksongs tell the literal truth?

How many folk singers do we kneel in front of and pray to? Mind you, a few years ago I'd have done that to Karan Casey...

The historian thing is quite different Steve.

Of course, Keith. Nothing like applying a double standard, is there.

Most of the Bible is metaphor

That's news to me. The trouble with that is that we tend to know when it's metaphor and not the actual story. In the case of the Bible, an awful lot of people seem to not have been told that it's a metaphor.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 12:33 PM

Well.. it's easy enough to work out how "water to wine"
could have been set up with a trick barrel, a few clay pots and sheep bladders, etc
- easily available technology 2000 years ago..

Whether or not Jesus was an aspiring amateur night club stage magician.. errrmmm.. open to debate ???

What was he doing during the missing years..
- practicing and refining his tricks and audience patter...???

Maybe if he'd got more regular gigs, and broke into the top city & seaside resort venues
the course of history might have been entirely different...??????

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 12:28 PM

Not just christians, Musket. Don't forget that at least part of it is the basis for the jewish and muslim religions as well. Possibly some I don't know about and would not really care to either...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 12:22 PM

Err.. You don't know anything about the origins of the universe, but quite a few people are bloody close to it, a few picoseconds in fact.

Mind you, credit where it is due. The bible is a metaphor. Correct.

Let's ask a few Christians if it is, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 11:30 AM

I always thought that loaves and fishes business was about inspiring a big bring and share party. I think it was the vicar when I was a kid that explained it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 11:22 AM

So who is the comment Are you all daft, most of the bible is metaphor aimed at then seeing as Keith believes part of it, though he will not say which part, and Pete believes all of it. I have already said that it is made up. I think most other people on here would agree.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 11:10 AM

I don't need to tell pete anything, he ploughs his own furrow and seems to understand more than any of us.
I am not arrogant enough to ridicule him for his views when we know almost nothing about the origin of the universe and as I have said before humanity will be long gone before we do.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:51 AM

Are you all daft, most of the bible is metaphor

Tell that to Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:47 AM

Are you all daft, most of the bible is metaphor, that is neither wholly true, or wholly untrue.

It is however full of meaning for anyone open minded enough to put their own interpretation on it.....you are like a pack of curs with a bone, why don't you put a bit of thought into what you wright?

I am an atheist don't believe in an after life, but I can appreciate the metaphor and the peace it can bring to some of my brothers and sisters.
The Christian religion of the present day is a force for good, based on the teachings of a philosopher far ahead of his time.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:44 AM

How many folksongs tell the literal truth?
Are all folkies liars?

As I said, my views and beliefs are broadly in line with Anglican teaching.
This is not about me so you do not need to know exactly what I believe.

The historian thing is quite different Steve.
In the last twenty years, as more knowledge has become available, a consensus has emerged among historians about aspects of WW1.
Before that some felt differently, but now they agree.

I am not an historian, so I get my history from people who are.
You all ridiculed me for that.
You think you know more about history than the historians, so people should come to you instead.
That is so ridiculous it is funny.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:33 AM

OK, Keith, an evangelist told us that Jesus fed five thousand with five loaves and two fishes. That is either true or false. If it's false, and an evangelist told us it, and it's in the Bible, isn't it a lie? A lie in the Bible? Or do you believe that little nugget? If you do believe it, doesn't that sit rather uneasily with your claim that we shouldn't believe historians (who, at least, were real human beings) that were writing before your mercilessly-recent cutoff date? An evangelist, moreover, who was very pro-Jesus, writing two thousand years ago, whose identity we can't even be sure of, and who was writing long after Jesus's death? But if you don't believe it, then aren't you saying that the Bible can tell lies? What's it to be on this one, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 07:33 AM

Not much of a Christian either

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 07:22 AM

I am confused now. You co not believe the bible is the literal truth, you do not believe it is history and you do not believe it is not lies. What is it then? Besides 'broadly in line with' can mean anything. What a cop out. But like the god theory really.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 07:19 AM

No.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 06:50 AM

and of course you don't lie, do you professor.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 06:46 AM

Lies are intended to deceive.
I do not believe the bible is the literal truth, or history, but not lies.

Do not expect me to lay bare my beliefs here to be mocked and ridiculed.
I am an Anglican, a church with tens of millions of members world wide.
My views are broadly in line with the teachings of my church, which is broadly in line with those of the Catholic Church, Methodists and others.

If you need help to find what those teachings are I am willing to help.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:47 AM

Back to the main point tell us about the Bible Professor, which bits are truth and which bits are lies. It is truly humbling to hear the words of a master such as yourself ..................

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:36 AM

I merely informed you that your understanding of evolution is as poor as your grasp of history. That is all I said. That is not "resurrecting" a debate

The only history you and I have debated is that of WW1.
You claimed I had a poor grasp of it.
My views on WW1 derive from reading the history of that war.
I was able to quote many historians in support of my views, which I formed from reading their work anyway.
You people could find nothing written less than twenty years ago to support your views.

That is why I refuted that slur.
YOU resurrected the issue Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:28 AM

Musket, I do not understand your last post.
Raggy,
Professor KAOH, he is the one who dismissed the work of ALL historians who wrote prior to 1995

Not true.
Back then some historians backed my current views and some backed yours.
It is the current historians who now dismiss the views of Taylor and Clark.
Not me.
I am not an historian.

On matters of history, I believe the historians.
You people think you know more than all those professors whose life's work it is.
Fine, but the rest of us find you ridiculous

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:24 AM

"indeed ice is a solid, water liquid, and steam a gas . have you witnessed it becoming anything else ?"

Unbelievable.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:21 AM

I did NOT resurrect the flippin' history debate, Keith. I merely informed you that your understanding of evolution is as poor as your grasp of history. That is all I said. That is not "resurrecting" a debate that shuffled off its mortal coil weeks ago. You pounced on it gleefully to see if you could squeeze a drop more ire out of us. It's what you do, Keith. Now, as you lost that debate somewhere in a mire of inexactitudes of your own fashioning, might I gently advise you to just laugh at my extremely hilarious joke, then BLOODY LET IT DROP??

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:10 AM

Just so long as you keep the faith and remain prompt when subscriptions are due....

Oh and have them not just faith them. I've had to put an occasional table over that bit of the carpet since the last acolyte faithed in the corner. The dog remains traumatised.

Oh, one for Keith. If they aren't your views either get the moderators to delete the posts you put them in as you must have an imposter or look on your keyboard for " and learn not only how to use them but give us a clue why you post the words in the first place if you wish to disassociate yourself from what you post.

Bad enough the real one without a bloody tribute act....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:41 AM

I faith in Musket's epistles. Not all of them. Some are true and some are not. But I will not tell anyone which ones I believe...