BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: DMcG
Date: 20 May 17 - 03:59 AM

As you say, Ake, it depends on what you mean by The Left. I mean the principles set out in that manifesto extract, including the repeated drum-beat in it that I omitted: for all, everyone, the many ...

Where I find Dawkins and co annoying is that they implicitly take that Marx quote that religion is "the heart of a heartless world" and then speak as if the solution is to get rid of the heart rather than make the world less heartless. Before anyone leaps in, they do say the science allows you appreciate nature in greater depth and so on. I don't disagree, but it is very much the background text not the foreground. My guess is that the average man on the Clapham Omnibus would describe Dawkins as anti-religious, rather than someone promoting a better alternative. But that is a guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 17 - 04:06 AM

"Although I am an atheist, I admire those who have the strength to hold a faith against the tide of sociopaths"
Jay-sus - questioning religion being a sociopath !!!
Many Millions of practicing Christians , particularly Catholics of every and no particular political shade are now questioning the message that has been brainwashed into the entire population down the centuries - the serial clerical abuse of children opened that particular can of worms here in Ireland, but elsewhere it seems that Idols have turned out to have clay feet as common sense and reasoning has begun to hit the fan.
Do you really need to turn every subject into a soapbox for your right-wing extremism?
What extremist planet do you inhabit?
Doesn't all this goose-stepping tire you out - give it a rest

This interesting and heartening letter to yesterday's (English) Times - presumably from a group of religious sociopaths
Religious discussion
Sir, We write because we are very disturbed that police investigated Stephen Fry's comments about God, in relation to blasphemy under the Defamation Act of 2009 (part 5, section 36). It has now been announced that there will be no charges, but we are still concerned that the act is being interpreted in such a way as even to lead police to investigate such comments ("One referendum at a time", News, May 10).
As clergy, we obviously take a different view from that of Mr Fry. However, his comments reflect a standard critique of theistic belief, which he has every right to make and to publicise. Every view — be it religious, philosophical, political, ethical or economic — must be open to questioning and criticism. And no law should protect any view from such healthy cross-examination.
We therefore urge the Irish government to consider whether the Defamation Act needs to be revisited to ensure that it does not stand in the way of robust discussion and debate.
THE REV DR MICHAEL LLOYD, principal, Wycliffe Hall;
THE REV DR JONATHAN ARNOLD, dean of divinity, Magdalen College;
THE REV CLARE HAYNS, chaplain, Christ Church;
THE REV CANON SUE HOPE, chaplain, Wycliffe Hall;
THE REV BRUCE KINSEY, chaplain, Balliol College;
THE REV DR ERICA LONGFELLOW, chaplain, New College;
plus a further four names at thetimes.co.uk/letters

Joe - You seem incapable of accepting that if a myth is peddled for so long, it is inevitable that people like Hitchens and Dawkins are going to examine it openly and in detail when the opportunity arises
Such examination can only be healthy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 May 17 - 04:33 AM

Well, like I say, Jim, it's a good way to lose allies. You don't seem to realize that many religious people fully realize the shortcomings of their religious organizations, and work hard to resolve those problems. But despite the shortcomings, it's there that they feel at home.
You'd rather just beat them down.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 17 - 04:36 AM

"Anti-religion is certainly a "liberal" principle, if that's not a contradiction in terms."
Your gibberish use of the term liberal is a contradiction in terms
Why not just come out and say "humanitarianism" - that is what you appear to be referring to
Robo:
"Nevertheless it's a fine movie line if not so fine in absolute accuracy."
It is indeed and I didn't think you believed it for a second - though millions do - and use it as an argument against common sense.
I remember arguing with the Tunisian husband of a dear friend, who put the same argument - he was staggered when I told him that this was not what Darwin claimed
It was at that time I realised how less intransigent and how much more open to argument the Muslims I knew were than were (and are) Christians
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 17 - 05:02 AM

Jim, no-one here has defended Fry's prosecution, so why paste in that Times letter when those exact sentiments have been stated by all of us here.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 17 - 06:15 AM

"You don't seem to realize that many religious people fully realize the shortcomings of their religious organizations, and work hard to resolve those problems."

But many don't, and I'd bet that the latter far outnumber the former. Big religions are institutionally authoritarian. There are strict membership rules and severe penalties for apostasy, either on earth, in the afterlife or both. There are many entirely arbitrary rules, mostly to do with matters sexual, religions' favourite subject, used to control the flock. Hundreds of millions of members of faiths do NOT question their religions at all. It's implied to them that you mustn't question what's divinely-constituted. Actually, if that wasn't the case you'd have no religions at all. You really can't justify religions' hegemony by claiming that an articulate minority dare question it. And the great implication of opposing heresy laws is that you're really saying to people of faith that neither you nor your chosen deity is immune from insult or ridicule. And that is exactly how it should be. Finally, you will not find Fry, Dawkins, Hitchens or me attacking or ridiculing people for holding irrational beliefs. You will find them attacking or ridiculing those people who choose to go large with their evidence-innocent beliefs, and you will find them arguing coherently and challengingly. Nothing shallow about them, and, far from being fundamentalist, they revel in and celebrate their uncertainties: Dawkins always insists that he doesn't know whether there's a God or not. That's why they worry you so much, admit it.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 May 17 - 06:21 AM

I don't know Jim. The Muslims I've met and talked to (loads!) weren't at all 'open to argument' or 'less intransigent'. But that could be because I'm a woman, and not of their faith, and they are all African Sunnis.

In fact, one would hardly dare discuss any of these matters with most of them. Their whole mindset seems to me to be determined to hold fast to the long-held ideas adhered to by their forebears. Change or consideration of new, more scientific ideas just aren't on their agenda. Mind you, that applies in general to many Africans. They often resist new thoughts, or changes alien to their tradition/culture.

And Blasphemy is a very real crime for them. To say anything at all against God or the Prophet risks enormous consequences, as we all know.
But there again, the Christians I knew in Ghana for instance were very sensitive to any Blasphemy.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 May 17 - 06:24 AM

Ha Steve! We think alike!

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 May 17 - 06:45 AM

There are many of us Christians who think our views on politics and social justice are very much in line with the Left. But people like Fry/Dawkins/Hitchens make us feel very unwelcome.
So, where are we to go?

It hurts to feel ridiculed and excluded, and I don't see what we've done to deserve that.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: DMcG
Date: 20 May 17 - 07:28 AM

A very good point, Joe. I don't think it is a smart move by those on the Left if Christians in the US were persuaded to support Trump, or ones in the UK to support May because they feel they are attacked by others of the Left. It does no good saying "you will not find Fry, Dawkins, Hitchens or me attacking or ridiculing people for holding irrational beliefs" - it's totally beside the point if people *feel* attacked. Your intention is secondary; how they feel is what influences their actions. So the consequences of what you say may be unintended or accidental, but you still have the responsibility, even if that means a Trump or a May has a bigger success than they deserve.

And no, that is not pleading for religions to be immune from criticism.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Iains
Date: 20 May 17 - 07:40 AM

Love thy neighbour?


https://www.quora.com/Which-religion-is-responsible-for-the-greatest-number-of-deaths-of-infidels-over-its-entire-history

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 17 - 07:42 AM

"Jim, no-one here has defended Fry's prosecution,"
Who said they have - I certainly didn't
Not strictly true anyway - your mate Achy went in with both feet flailing and dragegd in irrelevancies like whether toyi lied him as a a performer
Keep up Keith
The Times letter is strictly relevant to the title of this discussion so please don't play your "thread drift" card this early in the game
You appear t be as lousy a poker player as you are a debater
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Stu
Date: 20 May 17 - 08:55 AM

"I think that Fry/Hitchens/Dawkins are standard-bearers for an attitude that has overtaken the European Left"

I think that's massively overstating the role these men play in public life. The left has always attracted intellectuals and free thinkers and whilst Fry is perhaps a part of that in a gobby slab sort of a way, Hitchens was more his own man and Dawkins is apolitical and doesn't count. The real truth is the left always believes in the separation of church and state and still does; nothing's changed there.

The left in Europe is in floundering as it struggles with a workforce which has become de-unionised and voiceless with no central banner to rally around. Anyone who works for themselves in Europe knows fully well the uber-capitalist influence on the very way we work; the gig economy has made freelancing a total nightmare and the rightwards drift towards ever-increasing inequality is exacerbating this situation on many levels. The Tolpuddle Martyrs would be in despair.



"The Left has betrayed and insulted that alliance, and many former allies have no idea where to go."

If by allies you mean ordinary working folk, then you're right they have no idea where to go but the left hasn't betrayed the alliance at all, it's simply way too broad a church to come together as a single entity. The right, which lacks any firm intellectual basis and places it's faith in the snake-oil salesmen of modern economics can afford to fail to meet it's manifesto commitments and change policies at a whim. The left has a far harder task, making sure society is equitable, free and everyone is treated with compassion and can achieve their potential, things the right have never cared about.


"What the fuck happened to the much vaunted mantra of "diversity"?

Seriously, you of all the people on this forum are asking this question? You and your alt-right ilk pissed all over diversity, tolerance and compassion in your rush to follow demagogues and liars. You betrayed the heritage of radicalism and struggle towards social justice and equality that our ancestors fought and suffered for, not the other way around. But you've won, so be happy in the misery of others, especially the young. How you can bemoan the loss of diversity Ake is beyond me.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 May 17 - 09:15 AM

i'm not sure you need strength either to have a faith or slough it off. its just what you are. wise man or fool. blue eyes or brown.

i find hallelujah type declarations of faith a bit embarrassing ...perhaps its cos i'm English. doesn't seem to bother Cliff.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 17 - 09:22 AM

"Which-religion-is-responsible-for-the-greatest-number-of-deaths-of-infidels-over-its-entire-history"
Wouldn't it be more relevant to ask which religion has been responsible for the most deaths, irrespective of religion over its entire History Iains?
Christianity would be a front runner in those stakes hands down.
I can't think of another that comes near to their record
"whether toyi lied him as a a performer"
Don't know what happened there
Should read "whether they liked him as a performer"
I still find it astounding that someone who denies being a Christian and and claims to be a "socialist" should accuse those who criticise religion as being "sociopaths"
I should have thought anybody with those contradictory traits of character deserves to have his own personal "path" added to his name
It really is something else to claim that a church which has ignored and facilitated the physical and sexual abuse by clergymen using the authority their religion and Church has given them should be defended as a victim and protected from criticism
Crazy!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 17 - 09:39 AM

Christians in the US were persuaded to support Trump, or ones in the UK to support May because they feel they are attacked ...

Ah yes, the fabled and non-existant "War On Christianity".

Of course said "Christians" supporting Trump have no qualms about attacking the LGBT community, attacking the right of Women to make their own health decisions, attacking Muslims and Mexicans and Black folks, or for that matter voting for a candidate whose life-long behavior is entirely antithetical to "Christian" teachings.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: bobad
Date: 20 May 17 - 09:45 AM

The Muslims I've met and talked to (loads!) weren't at all 'open to argument' or 'less intransigent'.

I'm surprised to see this comment hasn't elicited hysterical screams of Islamophobia from the usual suspects, I wonder why.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 17 - 09:55 AM

Well, Joe, the adherence to evidence-free faith is irrational. There is no getting away from that and by saying it I'm not ridiculing anybody. Human beings wouldn't be human beings if they didn't have a piece of their brain that harboured irrationality. Sticking your country's flag on your car bumper or supporting your football team is irrational. Spending your time playing computer games or reading bonkbuster novels or relaxing by drinking alcohol is irrational. We must be allowed time and space to do these things. They make us human. Adherence to a faith belongs in the same category. But there is a yardstick: if you are harming yourself, that is a bad thing. If you are harming other people, that is a wicked thing. My dispute with you, and Dawkins et al's dispute with you, is that you don't appear to see the harm that's automatically done by the propagating of religion to other people. Our children are also entitled to their slice of irrationality, but we are not entitled to groom them from birth into sharing ours. I can take my lad to see Liverpool and tell him that they are the greatest team on earth (which happens to be true, of course), but that will not leave a permanent stain on his character. Religion has a very nasty habit of trapping children as early as possible then making it difficult or impossible for them to let go. That's the argument with religion. It's an argument you can't level at dads who take their boys to matches, or against belief in Santa or the tooth fairy. The faithful simply can't keep their religion to themselves, and they feel all offended when they get told off for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: DMcG
Date: 20 May 17 - 10:01 AM

Bad selection of what I wrote there, Greg. I said that it would not be a smart move If people felt that. It is a statement about how people feel, not whether there is a war or not, but whether people feel under attack.    A similar example is that lot of people in the UK are more fearful of crime even when all evidence is the specific crime they are afraid of is becoming less likely. Ditto vaccines and much else. There is a difference between how people feel and what the evidence shows.

I hate the term but it is the best around at the moment in common use: you need to criticise religions with emotional intelligence, not just intellectual intelligence. It does you no good if you alienate rather than persuade. In our electoral systems it only takes a few percent to swing things, so even if only a few percent are alienated that can alter the outcome.

There are certainly Christians who attack LBGT rights and the rest: they would probably support Trump anyway. But Joe and I were clear those were not the group of Christians we are talking about, but those who hold "left" views. They exist, believe it or not. And that is the group that alienating willl damage the Left. In the UK they are unlikely to switch to voting for May, but they could let in May if they switch to minority parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 17 - 10:54 AM

Jim,

The Times letter is strictly relevant to the title of this discussion so please don't play your "thread drift" card this early in the game

That was not my objection.
Those exact sentiments had already been expressed and accepted by everyone here, so why paste in others saying it?

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Iains
Date: 20 May 17 - 11:16 AM

Jim:
Oxford english dictionary: Infidel

Origin

Late 15th century: from French infidèle or Latin infidelis, from in- 'not' + fidelis 'faithful' (from fides 'faith', related to fidere 'to trust'). The word originally denoted a person of a religion other than one's own, specifically a Muslim (to a Christian), a Christian (to a Muslim), or a Gentile (to a Jew).

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 17 - 11:22 AM

without screams of Islamophobia from the usual suspects, I wonder why.

Why? No prob.

Because its a reasonable, rational statement -especially if you finish reading the paragraph- as opposed to the bullshit you universally spew.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 17 - 11:58 AM

"That was not my objection.
Those exact sentiments had already been expressed and accepted by everyone here, so why paste in others saying it?"
Who the hell do you think you are to "object" to anything anybody posts Keith
You have no authority on this forum and you should think yourself lucky that you aren't kicked out on your arse for your persistent racist behaviour
You have ben warned dozens ot times over trying to interfere with peoples rights to post and your attempted manipulation of threads when they become uncomfortable for your narrow minded bigotry
I know your type find freedom of speech uncomfortable but stop it now - you not have to be warned yet again
"I'm surprised to see this comment hasn't elicited hysterical screams of Islamophobia from the usual suspects," your ranting massive postings of Islamic atrocities going back to biblical times, which you dredged from every extremist racist hate mag you could lay hands on has established you aas a long-standing Islamophobe, just as your prsitent blaming the Jewish people for the crimes of Israel has established you as an antisemite
There eyy isn;'t any need for hysterical screams, even if I had uttered them
I'm aware of the definition of Infidel Iains - I'm just pointing out where Christianity stands in theis particular Donkey Derby
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 May 17 - 12:21 PM

I was just going to say the same thing, Greg. You beat me to it!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: akenaton
Date: 20 May 17 - 01:11 PM

Stu....

Definitions... IRONY the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of their literal meaning.

I only support "diversity" when it can be proved beneficial to society and certainly not in matters pertaining to sexual health.


Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 May 17 - 02:17 PM

Proof Mr Tickle exists!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: akenaton
Date: 20 May 17 - 02:37 PM

Do you think God had a hand in that Joe? :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 May 17 - 02:49 PM

And he's off . . . "matters of sexual health." Your euphemistic excuse for opposing LGBTQ rights and marriage. GIVE IT A REST. No one believes that's why you snarl thread after thread with your gay-bashing nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 17 - 02:51 PM

Jim,
Who the hell do you think you are to "object" to anything anybody posts Keith

We are all entitled to object to pointless posts in a serious discussion Jim.

You have ben warned dozens ot times over trying to interfere with peoples rights to post

I have not. Not even once Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 17 - 03:10 PM

"We are all entitled to object to pointless posts in a serious discussion Jim."
No you are not Keith - if you find them pointless, walk away from them
I find virtually everything you post either pointless, facile, dishonest or stupid or unbelievably bigoted in the extreme
I have never at any time questioned your right to post
You make a habit of it whenever you find yourself in he klarts - which is often
You haven't even had the decency to respond to my explanation of why I believe what I wrote to relate directly to the point - which sums up your censorious attitude perfectly
You are a one-man Big Brother Keith
Never again attempt to question my right to post what I wish or you'll be up to your arse your "rapist implants" and "brainwashed Irish Children" and "slave-owning Travellers" and "peodophelic Prophets....." and "real Historians selling books in "real bookshops" and phantom witnesses you refuse to name, so deeply you'll think youve volunteered to swim the Channel
Mind your own ******* business, if you think my postings "pointless
How many times do you have too be told yiou have no authority here - very few of us even take you seriously, the number of times you've lied and distorted and humiliated yourself
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Donuel
Date: 20 May 17 - 03:33 PM

I disagree with Stephen Fry. If there is a great overarching force in the bright and dark universe that organizes data with an intelligence we may never understand it would not be a capricious, stupid mean minded maniac. It would be one from a perspective completely removed from our ego centric point of view.

Such a force would use time in billion year packets to accomplish certain creations or deletions that virtually knows itself better than we know ourselves. Or perhaps in a no time dimension that has a foreverness we can not fathom.

The intelligence of a near limitless universe would not deal with our petty squabbles in a time frame of a galactic nano second.

Its point of view would have no cultural attributes or egos as found on BS

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: akenaton
Date: 20 May 17 - 03:44 PM

That is more or less what I think at present Don......of course, I reserve the right to change my mind as the nights draw in.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 May 17 - 03:59 PM

Do you know, Donuel and akenaton, I'm tending towards the same view!
I wonder if over the millennia, people have tried to envisage 'God' in human terms. The stern father figure, the loving, sacrificing Son, the vengeful Controller. And what if all the time, God was as Donuel describes, as sort of Universal Existence, way beyond our feeble comprehension, and not particularly involved in our tiny lives?

I remember an old vicar once said in an interesting sermon, "Don't try and put God in a matchbox and label Him!"

bobad, I do hope you don't find me Islamophobic or racist. I've been married for many years to a black Muslim and travelled all over W Africa. I'm quite talkative (have you noticed?!) and have had long conversations with all kinds of people over my long life. If there was one phrase that I hope would sum me up it is that I believe in the innate value of all human beings, whatever their race, religion or the colour of their underwear!

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: DMcG
Date: 20 May 17 - 04:08 PM

I've read a lot of poems over the years where I can't remember the poet or the name of the poem. But one had lines a bit like:

He was too big to be nailed to a cross,
But still they tried to confine him
Between the covers of a black book.


That is obviously a very Christian bit of symbolism, but I think the idea is wider than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 May 17 - 04:15 PM

this is all getting a bit weird.

who gives a shit what Stephen Fry thinks anyway, or what he says?

let's all have a nice cup of tea and a biscuit, and forget it.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: DMcG
Date: 20 May 17 - 04:36 PM

Good idea Al. I have just had some chocolate biscuits so I will skip those, but a coffe is now at hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 May 17 - 04:36 PM

Oooh! Can I have a nice cup of tea and a buttered crumpet please?

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Donuel
Date: 20 May 17 - 06:34 PM

weird? Ya can't blaspheme a force vector that doesn't give a shit or even consider the consciousness of a rock 3 orbits from a star.

Senefou is right about the anthropomorphized god which has fallen from favor in our age.


Drakes equation is used to estimate intelligent life in our larger than average galaxy. Depending upon the input data there are millions of intelligent civilizations elsewhere or 0. Buddhism describes one lotus closing as another opens suggesting intelligence spread over time an space. There is no doubt this universe has an abundance of sugars, amino acids, carbon, organic matter, water and everything short of proteins, so far, to jump start life formation. Actual reasons for this may exist or not. It is easier to say 'it is what it is'.

A very small percent of the universe seems to interact with itself,
that's us! Maybe we are the tip of the iceberg that supports life. Maybe not.
85% of the dark realm holds the lion's share of interacting gravity but little else interacts there to our knowledge. Its as though most dark stuff acts like neutrinos.

There are forces and carriers of forces but again there is no proof of a god like an intelligent force or a smart dark side, just like in religion there is no evidence of God.
In psychology there is evidence of a plant chemical soup that causes different people to have the same dream with identical characters - but that may be too esoteric even for fans of the BS section... or maybe not.

We should ask Cornel West about God uses and abuses.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 17 - 06:40 PM

who gives a shit what Stephen Fry thinks anyway, or what he says?

More to the point, who gives a shit what Ake, Bobad, and the rest of the Islamophobic, intolerant, "Christian"[sic] Trumpolean ignorantist crew have to say??

Pass the tea, please, with a scone with just a tad of clotted cream.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 May 17 - 06:56 PM

calm down Greg!

Dip your Hobnob in, and speak ill of no man.

Go placidly through the shortbreads.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Donuel
Date: 20 May 17 - 07:05 PM

Al you must have read sweet Desert arada instead of Deserterada.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 17 - 07:15 PM

Bloody Nora, it's Friday night. Pass the Prosecco!

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: bobad
Date: 20 May 17 - 07:22 PM

Poor old Greg's frying his circuits again tonight. Calm down old fella you'll have a stroke.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 17 - 08:06 PM

I sincerely hope that you put the cream on top of the jam on your scone, Greg. That's the Cornish way. Only infidels from Devon put the jam on top. If you can get whole milk that hasn't been homogenised, and you possess a slow cooker, you can make your own clotted cream better than any you can buy.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 20 May 17 - 08:52 PM

Pleasant but I'm not sure I've ever gone for a cream tea in a great way. I'll stick to scoffing cheese scones when I get the chance. Shop bought ones can be disappointing but Pip/mum's ones are so moreish.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 17 - 08:56 PM

A cream tea in a Cornish garden on a warm summer's day is a thing of beauty. The scones, jam and cream must be accompanied by a proper pot of tea and cups and saucers, preferably with a floral pattern on them. The cream should be unlimited in quantity. And it goes on last.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: DMcG
Date: 21 May 17 - 03:02 AM

It was not, strictly speaking, unlimited but the last-but-one cream tea I had came with roughly twice the volume of clotted cream as that of the scones. I suspect the root cause was we had originally booked for five, then had to cut back to two, but no-one told the cream-provider

I also note that I went for coffee in this thread where everyone else went for tea. Out of step again, then.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 May 17 - 03:34 AM

Cream????!! CREAM????!!!! Did someone mention CREAM????!!!
Cancel those crumpets! I want creeeeeeeeammm!!

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 17 - 03:44 AM

You can do great things with cream according to Marlon Brando.... or maybe that was butter!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 May 17 - 03:59 AM

It was butter Jim, if I remember correctly. Waste of nice butter if you ask me!

500