BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 03:57 AM

Russell Brand is one of the most intelligent people in this country and he is not afraid to stand up and say what he thinks, regardless of the outcry that might happen.

He is now opening his eyes to many things going on around the world, not just here at home and once your eyes become open, they never close again.

He's mixed with those at the lowest rung of the ladder for many years, so he knows what it's like to struggle, to be hated and loathed, vilified by mainstream society for being a drug addict or alcoholic...

Russell though, has the compassion, and the firsthand knowledge, to know why so many people end up on Desolation Alley and he's fuming that the Greedy,Corrupt Bastards in this country are getting away with all that they are doing...

He doesn't NEED the money, he has bucketloads of it. He doesn't NEED the publicity, because he's reached the top and he can get it in many other ways...

Here he is on one of the main Anti-Fracking Pages in FB and I'm hoping that Vanessa Vine, who runs this page, may be able to bring Russell aboard in a far stronger way, when she returns from holiday in a fortnight. Josh Fox stepped up to help her recently in her fight against Fracking in the UK, flying over to attend two special showings of 'Gasland' to give his support:

Russell Brand on Fracking and Government Policies

And here is the new FB page 'Russell's Revolution' which some may like to join. The owners of it told me they're hoping to meet with Russell Brand a little later this week to ask him how he'd like it to be run.

Russell's Revolution

Have a good day, y'all and please, use your anger and venom against those who are The Corrupt Bastards in this country, not against Russell, who is actually trying to CHANGE things for the better.

Tell me, Richard, what exactly are YOU and Backwoodsman doing to help?

Also, with regard to the Andrew Sachs 'joke', Russell apologized immediately, from his heart and soul. He felt sick with shame over what he'd taken part in. Back then, he was very easily influenced and a lot 'younger' in his thinking, but he has come on in leaps and bounds in recent years, perhaps with this particular incident being the one to make him take stock of his life and grow up...

Jonathan Ross, however, made NO such apology and just continues on with his drivel, not caring who he hurts, not doing anything 'for the greater good'...


Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 03:30 AM


Well DMcG on reading the link, I agreed with some of the things she said and disagreed with others, so the issue is not as simple as you make out. I don't see how any intelligent person could completely agree or disagree

I'm not sure I 'made anything out': I simply remarked how polarising the subject is. I can't comment on the intelligence of voters on that article, but at the time roughly 80% either strongly agreed or strongly disagreed, with about 20% not taking an extreme view. Obviously, people who do not care either way tend not to vote on articles, but even so it seems polarised to me.

As I said in my very first post, Brand's comments on revolution seemed ill thought out to me, but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong. I also have a lot of sympathy for ake's views on the importance of and difficulty achieving a sustainable future, but think that is a different, though related, topic. To me the essence of a revolutionary group is not connected with whether they build and man barricades, or defend the masses, but a frame of mind which perceives an elite as corrupt and self-serving, and is prepared for the current structures to be completely overturned, whatever the cost, to create what is seen as a brighter, purer future, possibly returning to some imagined idyll before all these self-servers got in the way.   Now, most revolutionary groups come to nothing but occasionally one gets to the size where it can actually do something which impacts the world. Which is why I put in that throw-away comment on whether the Tea Party is a Revolutionary party - I would say it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 02:57 AM

Assuming I'm the 'great orator' (bloody hell, what a compliment) you're talking about, O Wise One, I don't recall ever giving out your real name, certainly not deliberately, and why would I? You've done it often enough yourself, along with some of the more sordid details of what ought to be your private life, and endless ad nauseam reminders of your importance to the smooth running of the NHS, so it's not exactly a secret is it? I'd guess that most of us know who you are. But as I said earlier, I have standards and I respect other people's privacy (even if they don't respect their own) so if anyone doesn't know who you are, they won't find out from me.

And of course I understand provocation - it wouldn't have mattered if I hadn't, you're a good teacher and I've been well versed in the tactics of provocation over the space of the past three or four threads we've both been involved in. It's a strange thing that one who behaves in such a rude, aggressive, provocative manner here can be such a shrinking violet and amenable, entertaining company in real life. But I can't complain, you did tell me, the first time we met in the old pool room at the Mowbray, that it was your intention and delight to "wind up those twats on Mudcat", so I knew the danger of entering into debate with you here. I confess I didn't expect you to turn your attentions on me and treat me like one of "those twats" but there ya go! I've been provoked by experts, one more is neither here nor there, and if I'm regarded as a twat, well......you know the old saying we used to deflect insults as kids......."it takes one to know one"! :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,musket not Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 02:05 AM

Congratulations to Mr Parsons for noticing that I am consistent with my name and mention Musket each and every time. I also have an account which just says Musket although I rarely use my study iMac these days and the phone and ipad can't hold cookies and get my work emails etc.

Hence you will have to carry on pandering to my assumed vanity and write posts about me rather than whatever the hell we were originally talking about.

Some of the great orators and debating experts will gladly supply you with my real name. I would say at the slightest provocation but they either don't understand provocation or they get a thrill out of saying my name. A bit like the missus. ....

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 11:44 PM

Steve Shaw - errrrmmm, I've never watched 'Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here', so I'm afraid the significance of your question is lost on me.

I wish I was as smart as you, SRS and old Musket - it's very hard knowing my stupidity makes me unworthy to have an opinion. Thanks to the kindness and good-hearted ness of these my mentors and benefactors, I now know my place and, in humble penance, I defer to my intellectual superiors. Thank 'ee sirs and madam, for guiding a simple, ignorant fool and showing him the error of his idiot ways (exits, tugging what would be his forelock, if he had one...........).   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: gnu
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 11:28 PM

Nigel... I added my name on all three posts indirectly.

pcgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 11:22 PM

"Backwoodsman, you'll have to dictate what the remark is that you think or others should make that would satisfy you.

Then shove it.

SRS"

Sorry SRS, I don't do Gibberish, only English. Could you translate the first sentence into something comprehensible please?

I've no wish to dictate anything to anyone, simply to be allowed to express my opinion without being hounded out by individuals who specialise in making mischief, and are now apparently aided and abetted by Moderators whose role should surely be to control, not encourage, the mischief-makers?

And I'd prefer it if people didn't use the old rapist's excuse of "She asked for it" in reference to Sachs's grand-daughter, it never has been an acceptable excuse for the rapist and, likewise, it doesn't excuse Brand's behaviour towards the girl in the incident and it certainly doesn't excuse his behaviour towards an old man who happened to be the girl's grandfather.

I do understand "Then shove it". That little gem leaves me disappointed, I'd have expected a member of the forum's group of Moderators to have more class, but hey-ho, there ya go, I guess your irritable, unprofessional manner and your refusal to give a proper answer to my original question re: how you would feel if you were in Sachs's shoes, are all the answer I need. But any reasonable reader of your response would have to conclude that "Then shove it" is a pretty poor and graceless substitute for "Yep, you got me!".

'Bye y'all. Be happy!

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 10:37 PM

Is there any chance that, in keeping with Mudcat protocols, any 'Guest' postings (like the three preceding this) with no attempt to add a name could be removed?

Cheers

Nigel (always happy to post under my own name!)

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 10:26 PM

lappygnu again. Do they find it simply irresistable?

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 10:17 PM

OH DEAR! Guest at 10:06 PM was laptopgnu.

laptopgnu is all about spreadin loooooovvvvve.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 10:06 PM

Well fuck me! Things never change. I just dropped in to see what condition my condition is in. This is absolutely hilarious! When left (relatively) alone, the trolls begin fighting among themselves and sucking each others disks hither and yon, randomly and collectively. Like moths drawn to a flame, they descend into the fire they themselves kindled and fed and proceed to burn each other and themselves.

It is to laugh... certainly not to cry.

Crash, burn and die.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 08:52 PM

Another sidestep. Why am I not surprised?

I don't have anything to get over, I wasn't the old man Brand and Ross abused in front of millions of listeners. But why should I join you in trying to sweep it under the carpet, pretend it never happened? Ever heard of the word 'empathy'? Look it up.

I have a sense of proportion. I also have standards. Sadly, it appears others don't.

You weren't the old boy (who made his dosh out of being in the media circus) that they abused, huh? Bully for you, though you do appear to want to get on your high horse about such media trivia (consider yourself to have been thoroughly manipulated, old chap! :-) ) You "have a sense of proportion", huh? And you think you demonstrate that "sense of proportion" by taking sides with Andrew against Russell and Jonathan? You call that "proportion"? Hey, mate, you've been had! What do you do with your spare time? No, let me guess: you watch endless recordings of Celebrity-Get-Me-Outta-Here... Ha bloody ha!

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 08:25 PM

Backwoodsman, you'll have to dictate what the remark is that you think or others should make that would satisfy you.

Then shove it.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 07:27 PM

Since it has been demonstrated that Brand has no social conscience and has learned no humility, it would tend to follow that he cannot be taken seriously as a voice of conscience. Ghandi he is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 06:45 PM

Well DMcG on reading the link, I agreed with some of the things she said and disagreed with others, so the issue is not as simple as you make out.
I don't see how any intelligent person could completely agree or disagree.

I think the point being made here is that Mr Brand is politically illiterate....just like we were back in the sixties when we thought revolution was possible or even wholly beneficial.
Changing our present society into something sustainable will take generations, if it is even possible. The journey will not be in the least enjoyable and will not be a matter of choice, but a matter of necessity.
People of Mr Brand's ilk will not be required....it will be a job for philosophers and artisans....not "artistic" drama queens.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 06:26 PM

Just to mention that the 'Fotherington-Thomas' referred to is, along with the egregious Nigel Moleswsorth, a character in the St Custard's books by GEOFFREY WILLANS: not, as the good lady, Ms Smith, appears to believe, by Ronald Searle, who just drew the piccies.

You would have thought that The Indie would employ a sub-editor who knew enough to correct so grievous an error.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 06:13 PM

When I followed that link there were 231 who strongly agreed with her, and 247 who strongly disagreed with her, with relatively few in between. Bit like this thread, really, with just a shade more effort to look at what he actually said than appears here.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 05:00 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/joan-smith-spare-us-the-vacuous-talk-and-go-back-to-hollywood-8906305.html

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 04:27 PM

those of you who choose to slag off anyone who does challenge this disgusting system are choosing to perpetuate it while toadying up to the bosses
I, personally, am not 'slagging off' Russell Brand. I just choose to ignore & avoid listening to him.
Choosing not to listen to one particular person does not equate (in any real terms) with support for the person or system that they are railing against.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 03:36 PM

well, this thread has turned from going off the subject to slagging russell brand to slagging each other. very few people seem interested in thinking about what rb was on about, preferring to focus on a stupid prank he did a couple of years ago. of course it was bad - but i would have thought there had already been a thread or two on that subject back then.

anyway - whether you like the guy or not he is expressing a point of view that is rarely heard and always instantly dismissed (incoherent, adolescent etc). there are many men who have committed far worse crimes against humanity than flaky russell. these 1% have profited hugely at everyone's expense and are never called to account for their crimes. those of you who choose to slag off anyone who does challenge this disgusting system are choosing to perpetuate it while toadying up to the bosses. we live in a grossly unfair world and it is our responsibility to try to improve it.

i do vote and don't agree with rb's (lack of) solution - but he has every right to his point of view. politically he is streets ahead of the majority of politicians i hear who are so constrained by compromise and fear of the electorate that they have lost any genuine feeling, compassion or positive purpose.

peace,love and revolution

pete

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 03:01 PM

From: GUEST,musket sans er Musket - PM
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 02:32 PM
Consistency. Now there's a subject for a thread.

This forum has very few rules, but one of them is that 'Guests' must adopt a single, consistent name. (from the FAQ 9/Jan/07 You may certainly use a pseudonym as a user name, but please use that same name every time you post.)
Are the following all the same person? If so, why have his/her posts been allowed to stand?
GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
GUEST,Musket looking in
GUEST,Musket getting bored now
GUEST,Musket
GUEST,Musket once more
GUEST,musket sans er Musket
Are these six different posters? Or an extreme form of multiple personality disorder?

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 02:45 PM

Well, I think Paxman is an idiot!
He just can't see the larger picture!
I've warmed to Brand a lot over the past year or so and find his various interviews on Youtube very interesting/entertaining.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,musket sans er Musket
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 02:32 PM

See. You get there eventually.

If I want to read of people getting serious about celebrity nonsense, I'll read the magazines available at supermarket checkouts.

Out of interest. On another thread, someone castigated me for taking the general views of someone into account when they started a thread on another subject. The same rocket scientist reckons Brand cannot speak about political apathy on account of his shagging a self publicist and doing something stupid to let the world know.

Consistency. Now there's a subject for a thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 12:50 PM

Second thoughts, don't bother.
It's of no great consequence what any of us think, so I'm out, I'll leave it to the All-Knowing-Ones to have it all their own way. They usually do.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 12:33 PM

Another sidestep. Why am I not surprised?

I don't have anything to get over, I wasn't the old man Brand and Ross abused in front of millions of listeners. But why should I join you in trying to sweep it under the carpet, pretend it never happened? Ever heard of the word 'empathy'? Look it up.

I have a sense of proportion. I also have standards. Sadly, it appears others don't.

Anyway, another question - is it a part of a Moderator's role to shit-stir in threads?

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 12:20 PM

I didn't sidestep anything, Backwoodsman. I don't have a grandchild, I don't live in the UK, I don't have a dog in that fight. The fact that you can't get over it says more about you than me. I agree with Musket (whatever he is this time) - you need a sense of proportion. No one was murdered, no one went to jail. It's over, people have moved on.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 12:05 PM

Answer the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket once more
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 11:59 AM

Worm.

When I want analysis, I'll ask Goofus.







I suppose I am, like everybody else in the world, from a generation, (thats every single generation) that is educated to respect women, parents and old people. I would add that respecting all groups of people, including gay people, people who don't follow the religion of the detractors, people whose colour alone makes a pub go quiet around here when they walk in....

You know Backwoodsman, every generation is the same, acts the same and has the same issues. If anything, media bitchiness is less now than 30 years ago. Comedy is less based on stereotyping and victimising whole groups of society. The Brand / Ross one off, bad as it was for one innocent old man, was the least of media problems that week. Press, police and politicians were, and still may be, using it to slur each other. The Daily M*il was and still is causing schisms in society in order for their tax free owner to line his pockets.

Get a sense of proportion. The innocent young grandchild you are referring to makes a living out of inviting photographers to parties where she drops her knickers or gets stoned in order to get into the papers. She used him as much as he used her. Awful for any Grandparent, sure, but not worthy of chivalry. I believe the term is "bit of a slapper."

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 09:54 AM

I agree with BWM.....Although we are on different sides of the fence politically, Peter Hitchins exposed the shallowness of Mr Brand's political understanding, he may be sincere....he may be a self publicist, but he is certainly uncouth and without the degree of political wisdom to influence for the better, the young people he assumes he represents.

This, from Backwoodsman, says it all.


"I (and I reckon you too) am from a generation who, in the main, we're educated to respect women, parents and old people. I'm proud to say that I find Brand's 'stupid prank' against a woman and an old man utterly beneath contempt, and it speaks volumes about the kind of creature he is - it certainly disqualifies him from being taken seriously in any matters of real socio-political importance in my house (and his fan, my wife, agrees completely on that)."

You Ian, have a slight ego problem, of which your "victimhood" is a symptom.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 09:26 AM

It's a pity some people can't wait to type out abuse, usually without reading what their targets post before doing so. I found Brand and Ross to be less than funny, boorish but at the same time, found the knee jerk reaction to be hilarious, especially in terms of rank hypocrisy.

Brand shags someone. It's newsworthy. Someone says Brand shagged her, it's newsworthy. Brand says he shagged someone, it's newsworthy. Brand and Ross waffle on about shagging and step over the mark. Nobody gives a toss for almost a week.. Then after two complaints were lodged, a newspaper stirs it and all of a sudden, thousands of complaints! Mainly by those who never heard it in the first place. Congratulations to the woman who got the publicity she asked for. Pity how both she and Brand used her connection to her Granddad but there you go, celebrity is about building up and knocking down so it wouldn't occur to any of them the hurt they gave to a serious actor with a low profile, who shunned celebrity shit.

Why is it newsworthy? Well the vitriol towards the bloke on this thread just shows that the media stirs shallow waters.

And in the meantime, the usual idiots on this thread extend their hatred towards fellow Mudcat members, and in the absense of anyone else, it happens to be me. Poor old musket eh? I even seem to take second fiddle to a recording of Match of the Day.

And so I should.

Backwoodsman. I'm not famous, not a celebrity, not as talented as Mr Brand or indeed Mr Sachs. So the question is moot. If my bank balance was based on celebrity, I might roll with the punches more than if my bank balance was based on, say, growing celery and selling it. I'd understand the consequences of selling celery, as opposed to the consequences of public limelight.

As it is, I understand neither. There is no such thing as bad publicity to some people, and the celebrity culture bandwagon certainly sells that point. Although having never watched reality telly, celebrity get me whatever, rigged talent shows or other such nonsense, it goes over my head.

I don't have the fascination with celebrity that many here exhibit. "I hate Brand etc". You must all spend a lot of time reading Hello magazine to display such extraordinary emotion towards a manufactured stunt designed to sell papers and magazines.

Brand has a view! Well he wasn't interviewed in order to fill a few minutes, he was interviewed on order to raise the profile of Paxman, what with Boris being away in China. Poor Paxo wasn't getting the ratings his pay packet craves.

Zzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 08:54 AM

I know what you mean Howard.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Howard Jones
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 08:33 AM

It was very clear that Paxo didn't regard this as a serious political interview. It was a programme filler, based around a publicity stunt by a struggling journal.

Brand is articulate and can be funny (it's his job) but this was adolescent sixth-form political naivety. He can see what's wrong, but has no coherent ideas what to do about it. Paxo quite rightly accused him of being trivial.

Most people in politics can recognise the problems, what separates them is their solutions to them. Brand has none, and when challenged by Paxo he seemed to think it wasn't up to him to provide them. That's not political thought, it's a toddler crying "It's not fair".

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 06:48 AM

I agree with you Backwoodsman. And the words 'silly prank' are totally inappropriate for what was said and done on that programme. It was disgusting, shocking and shameful. I can't imagine that either Sachs or his granddaughter shrugged it off quite easily and forgot about it. No-one would, they'd be horrified and traumatised to say the least. I refuse to watch either Ross or Brand, and turn to another channel straightaway if they are due to appear. As an old person, I can see how standards of decency on TV have fallen over the years. I suppose I sound like Mary Whitehouse, but it's nevertheless true. And the more the BBC treats such things as acceptable, the more standards will fall until anything at all is permitted and we are wallowing in the mire.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 06:32 AM

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! Same old same old, Muskrat. The same old trotting out of barbed comments and outright insults, the same old inventions about those you've chosen to make your victims, the same old diversionary tactics of talking gibberish and bellowing "Bigotry" at every slightest excuse. In short, the tactics of a scoundrel (or someone who enjoys presenting himself as such, even though he's no such thing - you decide).

The 'teenage ambition' stuff isn't worth discussing and yes, you're right, I don't 'get' Brand as a performer of any kind (but my wife does, and I read a book or exercise my rudimentary three-chord knowledge of guitar-playing when he's on the box), but this thread isn't about anyone's teenage ambitions, nor about Brand as an actor/comedian. It's about his appearance as a political commentator, and whether an incident, regarded by some as a 'stupid embarrassment', but by others as a vile and unforgivable act of public cruelty to a nationally-known octogenarian and fellow entertainer, devalues his worth in his new-found role.

I (and I reckon you too) am from a generation who, in the main, we're educated to respect women, parents and old people. I'm proud to say that I find Brand's 'stupid prank' against a woman and an old man utterly beneath contempt, and it speaks volumes about the kind of creature he is - it certainly disqualifies him from being taken seriously in any matters of real socio-political importance in my house (and his fan, my wife, agrees completely on that).

Now, I ask you the same question so neatly sidestepped by SRS - if he had played precisely the same 'silly prank' on you, and in the same circumstances, would you be so ready to forgive and support him now?

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 06:17 AM

I never really believed in "trolls" 'till you arrived here Ian, it is often used wrongly to label folks who's opinions do not fit in with the predominant views of the forum members.

Your incessant use of name calling and aggressive personal comments when you seem to have no interest in addressing the point under discussion, mark you down as the genuine article.

This behaviour persists on almost every message you post...against numerous members.....why you have not been kicked off these pages, or at least warned about your posting "style" is beyond me.
You are a wrecker of discussion(I think intentionally) and as such, you are a menace to this particular community.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 06:04 AM

No, O Muscovite Warrior, you haven't disappointed me. You are still incomprehensible. Out of interest, don't you get a bit fed up, incessantly muttering enigmatic non-formulations up your own bumhole? Why not try macramé, or canfield-patience, or philately, or glass-blowing, or some other harmless time-passing occupation instead? Then we'd all be spared the bother of trying to interpret -- which I've give up anyhow: largely becoz your thoughts and opinions are of so little interest to me that I'm off to watch our recording of last night's Match Of The Day instead of even trying to engage with this last post. Shall not trouble myself to read any more of yours.

Tara.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 06:02 AM

Or gays. Or travellers. Or even scientists judging by one irrational post on another thread the other day.

Back in your hole worm.



People use the word troll on these threads. Now, not having any other type of website to compare it to, (I don't do Facebook or any of the others,) my information was that a troll is someone who anonymously bullies people for no reason than the sense of power it gives them.

Here, the word troll also seems to extend to people who find odious views worthy of challenge, normally applied by the odious ones themselves. Interestingly, those making free use of the word troll normally remain anonymous whilst taking every opportunity to ensure everybody knows the real name and inside leg measurement of whoever they are err... Trolling?

I kind of see the "respect other opinions" idea but no, I can't respect bigotry, no matter how hard I might try, but there again I never try.

Are you back down there yet worm?

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 05:51 AM

Is this person (Ian), to be allowed to step into every threat and shower abuse on members of this forum?
Michael was challenging the views expressed by CS, views she was perfectly entitled to hold. Ian moves in with personal insults and name calling against both Michael and myself.


People wonder why this place is dying on its feet....there is the answer.

Who has the stomach to reason with what is an obvious troll...never thought I would have to say that to the mods or the membership.

Ian....I am tolerant to all views....I am not tolerant towards epidemic rates of disease, or defective legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket getting bored now
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 04:05 AM

Ok. I suppose I won that one. You did respond. As the latest trick of Michael and his Amazing Backward Poodles is to say I either speak in riddles or just take the piss to get a reaction, I'd best not disappoint them.

You know, threads similar to this make me chuckle. Old men with a rudimentary knowledge of three chords and a lifetime of teenage ambition slowly morphing into sing a rounds in pubs. .. They sit and wonder how someone half their age can be seen as entertaining by millions of people when in their case, those in the bar just raise their voices so you can't hear the noise.

Obviously these celebrities must all be cunts.

Successful ones, but a million newspapers can't all be wrong eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 03:51 AM

Answer the question which you carefully sidestepped, SRS.

Would you have got(ten) over it by now and still be singing the praises of Brand if you were in your 80s and he'd screwed your grand-daughter and revealed the sordid, filthy details to you in front of millions of others, on a national radio programme?

Would you merely regard it as a stupid prank, an 'embarrassing disaster' to be got(ten) over, or would you hate that filthy, loudmouth bastard's guts? I've a strong suspicion it would be the latter. I've also a strong suspicion that you won't 'fess up to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 01:26 AM

I would, despite my assertion that I wouldn't enter into correspondence on the matter, try to answer Musket's last ~~ IF I HAD BUT THE REMOTEST IDEA OF WHAT HE IS ON ABOUT.

He goes on describing a supposed MO of mine, I think; but expressed in those incomprehensible terms of nods'n'winks and innuendoes that he takes such delight in, that trying to understand & respond is like fighting the chimera or trying to stop a bandersnatch. Just try saying what you mean in terms that any reasonable person could understand, eh Musket...

To summarise: despite his incomrehensibilities, and Will's contradictions, and that obliging inquest verdict, and the fact that I am in general really not a pushover for conspiracy theories, I still don't think Diana's death [or Marilyn's] was/were accidental.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: andrew e
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 12:39 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpviy2Vffrs

I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT IT   

Ralph McTell

I've thought about it
I really have tried
And the answer quite simply
Is that they tell lies
And they've got the power
And what they decide
Affects your life and my life and everybody's life besides.

And I've thought about it
Till my brain says "no more"
I've justified their actions
And I've criticised their wars
And I've watched them balance on the edge of the knife
And it's your life and my life and none of our lives are safe.

From lack of food
Thousands have died.
While farmers burn crops
Just to keep prices high
And from that kind of logic
There's no place to hide!
That could be your life or my life or anybody's life next time.

For the sword of justice
They can find an excuse
But her scales have gone rusty
From not being used
And no blindfold can hide
The tears in her eyes.
For your life, my life, and everybody's life besides.

And if Jesus came back
To lead us again
They'd make sure that he met
The very same end.
Though their names have been changed
They survive to this day
They'll take your life or my life, or anybody's life in their way.

And my guitar protects me
But that's not really true
If you took it away
I'd be just the same as you
And though songs never change things
But they help you decide
To change your life, my life, and everybody's life besides.

And they talk about a revolution.
And they talk about a revolution.
Talk about a revolution . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 12:03 AM

FWIW, Brand divorced Perry because she was partying hard and doing drugs and he is trying to stay sober.

I suppose since no one else has done something stupid in their past it's perfectly understandable that the Sachs call is set in amber and Brand will never live it down or move forward. Huh.

There are a few actors here in the US who seem to have had embarrassing disasters, yet with a half-life of only a couple of years they're back in good graces and acting up a storm. Let's see how long before Charlie Sheen is back acting. Or Mel Gibson - he's already cycled through a couple of big embarrassments.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 08:17 PM

I happen to think Manuel - the stupid bumbling foreigner - is distinctly more offensive as a ridiculous parody of Spanish people than any passing rude comment. Of course such insular racist attitudes were par for the course back in the day and there's no way a programme would be made with a character like Manuel would be produced on British telly now - or if it were it would come in for a lot of criticism - yet the stereotype of "I know nothing" Manuel still persists as a lazy racist trope in British culture today.

I really can't waste any time on this except to say that this comment demonstrates that you know nothing about anything. Don't forget to put your clock back.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 04:51 PM

Have you got a real name for Diana, Norma Jean or any of the others Michael?

This conspiracy theory. ... I am fascinated. Not enough to completely hijack the thread but enough to wonder what Ian Mather has to do with it?

Unless he got the chauffeur pissed. Could happen. Mather enjoys a pint or three. Of course, Michael isn't going to answer. He comes out with something weird then gets allhurt when people roar with laughter. I wouldn't mind. Live and let live and all that. But he seems to think Musket hides Ian in a cupboard so shining a torch on him is clever.

Perhaps Ian killed the Kennedys? Any chance of starting a conspiracy theory concerning my virility and huge willy? Such rumours need credible sources and Michael would wish us to believe he is credible.

You aren't a script writer for Muhammad al Fayed are you? Just wondering. ....

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 02:27 PM

If Brand is calling for a revolution and he gets way then the first one to embrace the guillotine should be that useless, ill-informed prat. I offer my apologies to the US for having to accomodate our export.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 02:07 PM

#Ian Mather

This standard-form reply, held in my word-processor memory, is the only response I propose to make to your recent post:—

It is my principle to make no further answer than this to merely abusive posts addressed to me, as I take your last one to be.

No further correspondence will be entered into.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket looking in
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 01:52 PM

Dunno where to start with this thread.

Other than a beard comment, I have kept quiet. However...

I don't care much for x music, y literature, z celebrity. I can respect their talent though. Likewise, I can admire and love the wonderful cello work of Maurice Gendron, yet accept that the evidence suggests if he were alive today, he'd be sharing a cell with Stuart Hall.

Likewise Russel Brand. He is an articulate intelligent person who makes money. He entertains many many people, not me but many. I don't dismiss talent, although his radio set with Jonathan Ross, which didn't get many complaints till it became big news, let's not forget, was awful and although bitchiness is part and parcel of entertainment, doesn't make their stunt any better. Although, when we say granddaughter, let's not forget we are not talking a little girl with a teddy bear, we are talking a publicist who dropped her knickers for Brand in order to get on in the limelight.

No.

My biggest eye opener on this thread is the pathetic conspiracy theory crap, put about by Michael, who puts himself forward as a rational person, or at least till the cracks appear, as they have done on a few threads lately.

If nothing else, it allows me to dismiss his views in general, because he must be living in a fantasy world. For crying out loud, even Akenhateon is saying we must be tolerant of views! (I draw the line at his though...)

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 11:15 AM

The blame for the Manuel character lies with the writer producer and director. An actor does as he is told.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 09:53 AM

Not excited, CS, just appalled that that sleazy, repulsive dirty-mouth has managed to con some people into believing he's some kind of Nu-Politik Messiah with something important to say.

FFS, we all know what's wrong. What we need is the solution and, on this performance, he hasn't got it.

Paxman is the consummate political interviewer, and he played The Disgusting One like a fish.

And it didn't take Katy Perry long to work out that Brand's all 'style' and no substance, did it? :-) :-)