BS: Pathetic goading

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 03:21 PM

""Angels with dirty faces.. To recall my youth.""

Weird and scary- I dont recall any such dark and dirty angels from my youth.

In fact, that sounds more like a Dickens novel. No wonder you are such a serious and vocal religious sceptic, (though I gather educated, wealthy, and apparently well-endowed and even well-linked). It really ain't right to expose a youth to a dirty-faced angel. You escaped the stigma, but, others were likely not so lucky.
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Musket
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 05:34 PM

I'm glad you noticed that I am well endowed. The rest is merely relative.

The angels with dirty faces comes from my past in a punk band.

Less of the "serious" if you don't mind. You can't be serious and prick the bubble of pomposity at the same time. It's people taking themselves seriously that makes Mudcat a laugh in the first place, of the pseuds corner variety.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 05:59 PM

""I'm glad you noticed that I am well endowed. ""

Yes,in fact, it is quite easy to determine the sexual prowess of each mudcatter by their posting style, even if they dont mention it.

On a related matter, a few years ago I was visiting a friend, and his wife was watching the TV program on the Shopping Channel. A music stereo was up for sale, and a woman called in by phone who was quite excited to purchase the product . She made a product endorcement statement that both puzzled me, and remained with me since tgat time. She said, "the stereo looks like it will sound very good".

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 06:00 PM

Original use of the phrase, from which all others derive acc to wikipedia "disambiguation" entry --

"Angels with Dirty Faces is a 1938 American gangster film directed by Michael Curtiz and starring James Cagney, Pat O'Brien, the Dead End Kids and Humphrey Bogart, along with Ann Sheridan and George Bancroft. The film was written by Rowland Brown, John Wexley and Warren Duff with uncredited assistance from Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur."

Have seen it on tv -- v good, with clever ambivalent twist ending. See full Wiki entry.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Musket
Date: 22 Jul 14 - 06:12 PM

Inspiration... Our rendition of Angels with Dirty Faces was far more shouty.

Funny how we were discussing Israeli atrocity and ended up talking about gangsters?

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 02:03 AM

"Angels with dirty faces"
Yeah - I remember the beginning of 'The Bowery Boys', or am I mis-remembering?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Stu
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 03:27 AM

My prediction from 18th July at the top of this thread:

"The real perpetrators of the Ukraine outrage will never see the inside of a courthouse as there is way too much at stake with regards to trade and energy supplies with Russia to ever bring these bastards to book. And the tories will let it slide."


Lo and behold, everyone is still trading with Russia.

You can't slaughter enough innocents in this day and age to disrupt trade. What a fucking world.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Musket
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 03:35 AM

And another way of looking at it is that you can't let terror disrupt trade, otherwise, the objective of terrorism has been realised.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 03:38 AM

Jim, you are just spouting more shit and the quote you produced was fake.
A lie.
I have never said anything like that.
A deliberate lie intended to discredit me.



If I have ever made a post that any reasonable person could construe as "bloodthirsty" why can you not produce it?

The answer is that it is just another false accusation.
I have never made any such post.
You lie.
Both of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 03:41 AM

Jim - I think they were billed as The Dead End Kids in that film, but aka The Bowery Boys, also Little Tough Guys &c in later ones. There is a Wikipedia entry with filmography about them, which opens

The Dead End Kids were a group of young actors from New York who appeared in Sidney Kingsley's Broadway play Dead End in 1935. In 1937 producer Samuel Goldwyn brought all of them to Hollywood and turned the play into a film. They proved to be so popular that they continued to make movies under various monikers, including the Little Tough Guys, the East Side Kids, and the Bowery Boys, until 1958.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Musket
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 04:31 AM

Both of you?

Make an appointment with my secretary if you are referring to me. I prefer to screen out warmongering liars these days. It costs good money to keep having to shower.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Stu
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 04:40 AM

"And another way of looking at it is that you can't let terror disrupt trade, otherwise, the objective of terrorism has been realised."

The shooting down of MH17 wasn't an act of terrorism; it was as a result of a war and the weapon used to kill those people was supplied by Russia.

This is the problem with capitalism: it has no moral boundaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 04:55 AM

Yes you too Musket.
You made the original accusation that I made "bloodthirsty" posts on the current Israel thread.

That was untrue, so you were unable to produce a single one.

Now, several days later, you still have not.

Will you now {chortle}?

Can you guess my confident prediction?

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Musket
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 05:30 AM

Keith...

You have defended murdering of children playing on a beach on the basis that it is somehow "lawful" You said that it is alright to bomb residential areas, hospitals and schools. That it is the fault of the dead people because they should have evacuated their lawful homes, schools and hospitals. I remember The IRA coming up with the same mealy mouthed excuse after setting off their bombs.

No, I am not producing a single one. You produce dozens of the fuckers yourself with no help whatsoever.

You need help though, all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 05:58 AM

You are not producing one because you can't.
If you could you would.

It is just your pathetic, lying way of hitting back at someone who you can not answer in any other way.

It reveals your inadequacy.
Pathetic goading is all you are capable of.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 06:12 AM

"they were billed as The Dead End Kids in that film, but aka The Bowery Boys"
They were Mike - I remember them particularly as 'The Bowery Boys' (I was a great fan in my 'Saturday matinee days), and later, a couple of them became actors in their own right - I remember Hunz Hall (Satch?) particularly.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Musket
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 08:13 AM

If I can shout down supporters of terrorism, I am not being quite as inadequate as some.

Taking sides in a dog fight between two sides that are both in the wrong is repugnant. To then blame the dead men, women and children caught up in it for not doing as one side tells them rather than the other is beyond the bounds of decency.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 09:22 AM

It is impossible to "shout down" people on a forum.
It is possible to challenge their views, although you are incapable of that.
It is possible to lie and smear.
That is all you do, because of your inadequacy.

Still not found a bloodthirsty post I see.
Just one of your lying smears.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Musket
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 09:32 AM

Challenge?

You don't put alternatives forward when faced with such appalling posts, you make it quite clear that civilisation has moved on since such views were aired publicly.

Yes, inadequacy is a popular term when used to try and shout down those who expose a position you deep down are ashamed of.

Decency has to be inadequate for hatred and bigotry to flourish.

Twas ever thus. It just isn't so common these days in decent company.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 09:33 AM

"Still not found a bloodthirsty post I see."
You can't be reading what you've been given - fragment bombs on civilians, the bombing of hospitals, killing civilians because it is claimed they are hiding terrorists in their midst.... you have supported all these acts, openly, by denying them or by simply ignoring them.
In the past you have supported giving torturers and mass murderers the wherewithal to lock up his opponents, selling him chemicals capable of use in the manufacture of weapons, the us of white phosphorus on built up civilian areas - you have even denied the part played by these animals in the massacre of 3,500 civilians.
Give us a break Keith - you are a serial vampire.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 10:09 AM

No Jim.
That is all you.
Show any post of mine that anyone could possibly construe as "bloodthirsty."

An actual post please.
Not you telling us about how bloodthirsty they are.
SHOW US ONE!

Confident prediction, neither of you will produce one between you.
It was just a smear.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Musket
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 11:31 AM

Hey Keith!

it's been a good few minutes since you challenged anyone to find your posts because we are inadequate!

Any chance of challenging us again? Go on. For me?

Bloodthirsty fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 11:44 AM

You made an accusation but could not substantiate it because it was a lie.
I think that makes you look more foolish.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 11:45 AM

Pathetic goading BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 01:01 PM

Saying that bombing civilians is a permissable form of defence for Israel to indulge in is as bloodthirsty as it gets - are you really claiming you have never suggested this?
Supporting the shelling of hospitals because Hamas is in the vicinity is an appalling proposal in support of an atrocity - you've never suggested such a thing of course - somebody else wrote this?
"Hospitals have been hit because Hamas sites positions in and near them." - ie - the slaughter of non-combatant "hostages"
Throughout these threads, you have shown a total disinterest in the taking of the lives of non-combatants, the use of illegal and marginally so weapons; ones that maim women and children, a support for the destruction of their homes, of hospitals, schools and medical centres.
From the very beginning of all this you have given your total support to the Israeli fascists, their ethnic cleansing, their setting up of an apartheid state, using both illegal and borderline actions to do so.
This has included a total denial in their part in the massacre of 3.5000 unarmed refugees, men women and children
You are a supporter of fascist thuggery, making you an armchair thug.
Now you don't even have the bottle to stand up to your own convictions.
A little late to attempting to hide any of this - it's become part of your persona
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 01:04 PM

The UN is now suggesting that Israel has committed war crimes - defended by you, no doubt
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 01:08 PM

You misrepresent me and my views Jim.
If I have really said something "bloodthirsty" quote it.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 01:47 PM

"If I have really said something "bloodthirsty" quote it.
Your whole attitude in supporting terrorism and inhumanity makes you what you are on every thread you have posted to
Supporting or defending or denying the destruction of hospitals when you have been given evidence of the fact is inhuman
The same with flechette weapons likewise
Excusing the killing of civilians - human shields or not - likewise.
Fuck off Keith - you are a raving nutter
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Musket
Date: 23 Jul 14 - 01:52 PM

Rather succinct. I have nothing to add.

Raving nutter... I might pad it out a bit, being me, and say fucking raving nutter, but I think Jim has captured the essence.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 02:13 AM

Musket: "Hey Ed? I take my hat off to you if you reckon Goofus is normally easy to understand. I must be thick as pigshit then cos be buggered if I know which planet he orbits."

Don't be upset, if I'm not at all interested in Uranus.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 02:21 AM

Musket: "I must be thick as pigshit ... "

He's been enrolled and taking a self-realization course....Hey, you said it, not me....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Musket
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 02:30 AM

Rather quick of you to notice my hidden self depracation. In fact it takes a degree of self defacation.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 04:11 AM

Jim and Musket, pages of accusations but, NOT ONE POST THAT COULD REMOTELY BE DESCRIBED AS "BLOODTHIRSTY."

You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Musket
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 05:22 AM

Is it hurting?

Be careful which atrocities you sit there in your comfy chair and condone in future.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 05:36 AM

More pathetic goading Musket.
You will not be quoting me condoning any atrocities either.
(or will you prove me wrong this time?)

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Musket
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 05:40 AM

Yawn.

I refer the dishonourable gentleman to his earlier diatribe.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 05:58 AM

Keith, Let it go...peace!
Show some compassion and mercy to the lesser evolved...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 11:53 AM

"NOT ONE POST THAT COULD REMOTELY BE DESCRIBED AS "BLOODTHIRSTY."
You have just approved the use of missiles that are vbeing used on civilians which shoot out thousands of darts
Dictionary definition of bloodthirsty
Keen and ready for bloodshed, murderous, cruel.
Keen and ready for violence
Displaying or pandering to such feelings
Perhaps you have a different definition?
Perhaps you would like to add the white phosphorus and Dime missiles - one chemical, one with biological effects, which are now being put to use in Gaza.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Musket
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 12:40 PM

It's alright Goofus, he isn't getting at you.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 14 - 04:24 PM

You have just approved the use of missiles that are vbeing used on civilians which shoot out thousands of darts

No I have not.
I was helping you get your pretty little head around their legality.
I was stating fact, and expressed no opinion except that their illegal use would be "disgusting."

So, still no "bloodthirsty" posts from me Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 03:01 AM

"No I have not."
"Jim, re your description of flechettes.
"The "twist" being that they hurl thousands of two centimetre darts into anybody within range"
Replace the word "darts" with "fragments" and you have a description of the kind of shell in use since Napoleonic times.
They are considered legal weapons but like all weapons can be used illegally."
The above is what has been used against the civilians of Gaza - here you have described their use as permissible because they are legal (in fact they are not in the use against civilians), but beside the point - in declaring them legal and refusing to condemn their use, you are approving of them - unless, of course, you will condemn their use by the Israelis as an inhuman act, which you will not.
After all, six of these missiles measure small against the facilitating of the massacre of 3,500 refugees, which the Israelis dis, and you defended.
Or the use of flesh-burning chemicals on civilians, which the Israelis did, and you described as "harmless fireworks" - the Israelis have been found to b using white phosphorus again, and you will no doubt defend that fact again.
You have refused to comment on the us of DIME missiles, that are in use in Gaza, and have been found to have biological effects on their victims - no doubt, when put to it, you will defend their use.
You denied the destruction of hospitals on the basis that "it would have been front page news" - it was then and it certainly is now - you now support it - was there ever any doubt you would?
This argument has polarised into humanitarians who have take no side in this conflict, but are appalled at the inhuman and criminal way it is being conducted, and a band of (mainly) three fanatics who have entered into some sort of weird blood pact with Israeli fascism.
Creepy or what?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Musket
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 03:06 AM

"their illegal use"

The convenient use of legal and illegal to justify their use doesn't make the fuckers hurt any less.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 04:16 AM

"The convenient use of legal and illegal to justify their use doesn't make the fuckers hurt any less."
Especially as the people who vote it 'legal' are the ones who use it and sell it.
Isn't it interesting how people who condone atrocities hide behind laws made up and passed by politicians - the last refuge of a monster?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Musket
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 04:47 AM

And those politicians are advised by a combination of old men in uniforms who know nothing of the world outside their crosshairs range and arms manufacturers.

Whenever health ministers started rattling on about NHS waste, I referred them to their colleagues at MoD. That usually shut them up.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 05:05 AM

The legality of weapons is decided by Geneva Conventions.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/500?OpenDocument

The laws of armed conflict have been honed by some of the greatest minds over the last two centuries.
Obviously Jim and Musket could come up with something much better before their tea times, but meanwhile it remains the greatest humanitarian achievement of human History.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Musket
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 10:11 AM

The legality of weapons is decided by those countries who allow them to be manufactured and then sit in a meeting in Switzerland to ratify them.

Do keep up.

Legality is only ever based on defensive purpose. The oppression of Palestinians and Israeli formed barrier on Palestinian land is not deemed defensive. Hence the same meeting room hosted meetings censoring Israel.

Do keep up.

Neither Israel nor Hamas are working to war conditions that such conventions cover. Nobody outside of their internal deliberations sees this as war.

Hence nothing is legal under this conflict.

Do keep up.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 10:41 AM

Musket, your ramblings based on a total lack of any knowledge are not a very useful contribution to the world or anyone in it.

The Geneva Conventions are.

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Musket
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 10:44 AM

I couldn't have put your knowledge any better myself..

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 10:53 AM

If only you had it!

Subject: RE: BS: Pathetic goading
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jul 14 - 11:12 AM

"The Convention is an umbrella covering the Protocols and containing only general provisions. It contains no provisions explicitly prohibiting the use of specific weapons. Provisions on the prohibition or restrictions on the use of certain weapons are the object of the Protocols annexed to the Convention"
The use of these weapons on civilians, if not explicitly a war crime, in the protocols, is in practice, considered such by the conventions.
That anybody could use such weapons on civilians or defend their use is obscene and inhuman -and extremely "bloodthirsty"
Christians - I've shit better!!
Jim Carroll