Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafemuddy

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Gurney 11 Mar 15 - 02:39 AM
Gurney 11 Mar 15 - 02:42 AM
Gurney 11 Mar 15 - 02:44 AM
Gurney 11 Mar 15 - 02:57 AM
Richard Bridge 11 Mar 15 - 03:32 AM
akenaton 11 Mar 15 - 03:44 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 11 Mar 15 - 04:04 AM
Gurney 11 Mar 15 - 04:12 AM
MGM·Lion 11 Mar 15 - 04:15 AM
akenaton 11 Mar 15 - 04:17 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 11 Mar 15 - 04:18 AM
GUEST 11 Mar 15 - 04:30 AM
GUEST,Ed 11 Mar 15 - 04:31 AM
Big Al Whittle 11 Mar 15 - 04:32 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 11 Mar 15 - 04:38 AM
Musket 11 Mar 15 - 05:24 AM
OldNicKilby 11 Mar 15 - 05:27 AM
GUEST 11 Mar 15 - 05:29 AM
Richard Bridge 11 Mar 15 - 06:34 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 11 Mar 15 - 06:36 AM
akenaton 11 Mar 15 - 07:11 AM
GUEST 11 Mar 15 - 07:21 AM
Big Al Whittle 11 Mar 15 - 07:25 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Mar 15 - 07:43 AM
MGM·Lion 11 Mar 15 - 07:50 AM
melodeonboy 11 Mar 15 - 07:51 AM
MGM·Lion 11 Mar 15 - 07:55 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Mar 15 - 07:58 AM
GUEST 11 Mar 15 - 08:17 AM
Stu 11 Mar 15 - 08:23 AM
Musket 11 Mar 15 - 09:42 AM
Stu 11 Mar 15 - 09:50 AM
Megan L 11 Mar 15 - 09:55 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 11 Mar 15 - 10:15 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 11 Mar 15 - 10:21 AM
Stu 11 Mar 15 - 10:25 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 11 Mar 15 - 10:30 AM
GUEST,# 11 Mar 15 - 10:44 AM
GUEST,Peter 11 Mar 15 - 11:10 AM
MGM·Lion 11 Mar 15 - 11:16 AM
akenaton 11 Mar 15 - 11:32 AM
GUEST,Ed 11 Mar 15 - 11:41 AM
MGM·Lion 11 Mar 15 - 11:59 AM
Mr Happy 11 Mar 15 - 12:05 PM
GUEST,Selby 11 Mar 15 - 12:17 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 11 Mar 15 - 12:30 PM
Mr Red 11 Mar 15 - 01:35 PM
GUEST,Sol 11 Mar 15 - 01:47 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Mar 15 - 02:01 PM
GUEST,MikeL2 11 Mar 15 - 02:29 PM
Stu 11 Mar 15 - 02:49 PM
Gurney 11 Mar 15 - 02:51 PM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 11 Mar 15 - 02:53 PM
Gurney 11 Mar 15 - 02:55 PM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Mar 15 - 03:05 PM
Backwoodsman 11 Mar 15 - 03:13 PM
GUEST,BrendanB 11 Mar 15 - 03:31 PM
akenaton 11 Mar 15 - 03:59 PM
GUEST,Squeezer 11 Mar 15 - 04:14 PM
GUEST 11 Mar 15 - 04:22 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Mar 15 - 04:31 PM
GUEST,BrendanB 11 Mar 15 - 05:03 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 11 Mar 15 - 05:31 PM
melodeonboy 11 Mar 15 - 06:32 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Mar 15 - 07:15 PM
melodeonboy 11 Mar 15 - 07:32 PM
Big Al Whittle 11 Mar 15 - 07:54 PM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 11 Mar 15 - 07:59 PM
vectis 11 Mar 15 - 08:58 PM
Stanron 11 Mar 15 - 09:15 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Mar 15 - 09:19 PM
Gurney 12 Mar 15 - 12:44 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 12 Mar 15 - 02:07 AM
melodeonboy 12 Mar 15 - 02:07 AM
Backwoodsman 12 Mar 15 - 02:35 AM
Steve Shaw 12 Mar 15 - 06:16 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 12 Mar 15 - 07:04 AM
Greg F. 12 Mar 15 - 07:40 AM
Musket 12 Mar 15 - 07:56 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 12 Mar 15 - 08:04 AM
Backwoodsman 12 Mar 15 - 08:16 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 12 Mar 15 - 08:40 AM
Steve Shaw 12 Mar 15 - 08:53 AM
Musket 12 Mar 15 - 09:18 AM
GUEST,Howard Jones 12 Mar 15 - 09:23 AM
Backwoodsman 12 Mar 15 - 10:05 AM
Musket 12 Mar 15 - 04:03 PM
The Sandman 12 Mar 15 - 04:52 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 12 Mar 15 - 04:56 PM
Musket 13 Mar 15 - 02:10 AM
MGM·Lion 13 Mar 15 - 03:33 AM
Musket 13 Mar 15 - 03:36 AM
Mr Red 13 Mar 15 - 05:15 AM
MGM·Lion 13 Mar 15 - 05:57 AM
MGM·Lion 13 Mar 15 - 05:58 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Mar 15 - 06:12 AM
GUEST,BrendanB 13 Mar 15 - 06:32 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Mar 15 - 06:44 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Mar 15 - 06:45 AM
Musket 13 Mar 15 - 07:05 AM
GUEST 13 Mar 15 - 07:05 AM
Musket 13 Mar 15 - 08:31 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 15 Mar 15 - 07:40 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 15 Mar 15 - 07:43 AM
Musket 15 Mar 15 - 08:01 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 15 Mar 15 - 08:32 AM
GUEST,# 15 Mar 15 - 08:41 AM
Steve Shaw 15 Mar 15 - 10:24 AM
Musket 15 Mar 15 - 10:35 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 15 Mar 15 - 10:41 AM
GUEST 15 Mar 15 - 10:46 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 15 Mar 15 - 12:50 PM
Musket 15 Mar 15 - 02:45 PM
goatfell 15 Mar 15 - 02:55 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Mar 15 - 03:04 PM
The Sandman 15 Mar 15 - 03:47 PM
GUEST,JHW 15 Mar 15 - 05:15 PM
akenaton 15 Mar 15 - 05:54 PM
Nigel Parsons 15 Mar 15 - 07:57 PM
Thompson 16 Mar 15 - 02:58 AM
Musket 16 Mar 15 - 03:10 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 16 Mar 15 - 04:24 AM
Musket 16 Mar 15 - 06:04 AM
Richard Bridge 16 Mar 15 - 06:49 AM
GUEST 16 Mar 15 - 07:13 AM
GUEST,Jon 16 Mar 15 - 07:44 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 16 Mar 15 - 10:07 AM
GUEST,Jon 16 Mar 15 - 10:28 AM
GUEST,Nick 16 Mar 15 - 11:51 AM
Musket 16 Mar 15 - 12:04 PM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 16 Mar 15 - 12:04 PM
GUEST 16 Mar 15 - 12:08 PM
GUEST,achmelvich 16 Mar 15 - 03:33 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Mar 15 - 05:01 PM
Musket 16 Mar 15 - 05:34 PM
GUEST,bigot 16 Mar 15 - 05:35 PM
Thompson 16 Mar 15 - 05:37 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Mar 15 - 06:21 PM
GUEST,bigot 16 Mar 15 - 06:31 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Mar 15 - 07:07 PM
Thompson 16 Mar 15 - 07:13 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Mar 15 - 07:18 PM
Thompson 16 Mar 15 - 08:07 PM
Steve Shaw 16 Mar 15 - 08:33 PM
Musket 17 Mar 15 - 02:43 AM
GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland 17 Mar 15 - 04:15 AM
GUEST,Howard Jones 17 Mar 15 - 05:33 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 17 Mar 15 - 04:17 PM
Musket 17 Mar 15 - 04:26 PM
Steve Shaw 17 Mar 15 - 06:43 PM
GUEST 17 Mar 15 - 06:50 PM
Steve Shaw 17 Mar 15 - 06:52 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 18 Mar 15 - 09:47 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 18 Mar 15 - 11:48 AM
GUEST,Agnostic 18 Mar 15 - 12:17 PM
Steve Shaw 18 Mar 15 - 12:21 PM
MGM·Lion 18 Mar 15 - 01:21 PM
Musket 18 Mar 15 - 02:39 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 19 Mar 15 - 04:39 AM
Stu 19 Mar 15 - 05:13 AM
Musket 19 Mar 15 - 09:01 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 19 Mar 15 - 09:30 AM
Musket 19 Mar 15 - 11:20 AM
Stu 19 Mar 15 - 11:31 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 19 Mar 15 - 11:49 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 19 Mar 15 - 12:01 PM
akenaton 19 Mar 15 - 12:14 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 19 Mar 15 - 12:23 PM
Stu 19 Mar 15 - 12:30 PM
Teribus 19 Mar 15 - 02:32 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 19 Mar 15 - 02:35 PM
The Sandman 19 Mar 15 - 04:01 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 19 Mar 15 - 04:30 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 19 Mar 15 - 04:31 PM
Nigel Parsons 19 Mar 15 - 06:37 PM
Musket 19 Mar 15 - 07:19 PM
The Sandman 19 Mar 15 - 07:41 PM
akenaton 19 Mar 15 - 07:54 PM
Musket 20 Mar 15 - 02:50 AM
akenaton 20 Mar 15 - 03:57 AM
The Sandman 20 Mar 15 - 04:13 AM
Musket 20 Mar 15 - 04:17 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 20 Mar 15 - 04:40 AM
Musket 20 Mar 15 - 04:42 AM
akenaton 20 Mar 15 - 04:57 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 20 Mar 15 - 04:58 AM
akenaton 20 Mar 15 - 05:08 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 20 Mar 15 - 05:46 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 20 Mar 15 - 06:22 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 20 Mar 15 - 06:52 AM
GUEST,# 20 Mar 15 - 08:22 AM
Musket 20 Mar 15 - 08:33 AM
Musket 20 Mar 15 - 08:36 AM
Teribus 20 Mar 15 - 08:58 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 20 Mar 15 - 11:11 AM
Musket 20 Mar 15 - 11:36 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 20 Mar 15 - 01:26 PM
Stu 20 Mar 15 - 02:25 PM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Mar 15 - 02:29 PM
GUEST 20 Mar 15 - 02:36 PM
The Sandman 20 Mar 15 - 03:07 PM
Musket 20 Mar 15 - 03:52 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 20 Mar 15 - 04:07 PM
Stu 20 Mar 15 - 04:30 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 20 Mar 15 - 04:46 PM
Backwoodsman 21 Mar 15 - 01:30 AM
Musket 21 Mar 15 - 01:42 AM
GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant) 21 Mar 15 - 02:01 AM
Musket 21 Mar 15 - 03:06 AM
Backwoodsman 21 Mar 15 - 03:17 AM
Musket 21 Mar 15 - 05:51 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Mar 15 - 06:10 AM
Gurney 21 Mar 15 - 03:16 PM
GUEST,Pete from seven stars link 21 Mar 15 - 04:07 PM
GUEST,Shimrod (Gas Pedant) 21 Mar 15 - 05:24 PM
Musket 21 Mar 15 - 05:41 PM
The Sandman 22 Mar 15 - 03:36 AM
Stu 22 Mar 15 - 08:40 AM
GUEST,Pete from seven stars link 22 Mar 15 - 11:58 AM
Greg F. 22 Mar 15 - 12:27 PM
GUEST,Shimrod (Gas Pedant) 22 Mar 15 - 12:57 PM
GUEST,Pete from seven stars link 22 Mar 15 - 01:17 PM
GUEST 22 Mar 15 - 01:28 PM
GUEST,Shimrod (Gas Pedant) 22 Mar 15 - 01:53 PM
Acme 22 Mar 15 - 02:23 PM
Stu 22 Mar 15 - 02:23 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 22 Mar 15 - 03:00 PM
akenaton 22 Mar 15 - 03:09 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 22 Mar 15 - 07:08 PM
Musket 23 Mar 15 - 02:35 AM
akenaton 23 Mar 15 - 03:08 AM
Stu 23 Mar 15 - 03:28 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 23 Mar 15 - 03:56 AM
Musket 23 Mar 15 - 06:27 AM
Greg F. 23 Mar 15 - 09:27 AM
mayomick 23 Mar 15 - 11:37 AM
The Sandman 23 Mar 15 - 01:19 PM
mayomick 23 Mar 15 - 01:57 PM
GUEST,# 23 Mar 15 - 03:02 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Mar 15 - 07:39 AM
GUEST,# 24 Mar 15 - 09:29 AM
GUEST,HiLo 24 Mar 15 - 10:16 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Mar 15 - 11:09 AM
GUEST,HiLo 24 Mar 15 - 11:13 AM
GUEST,MikeL2 24 Mar 15 - 11:25 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Mar 15 - 11:34 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Mar 15 - 11:36 AM
MGM·Lion 24 Mar 15 - 12:46 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 24 Mar 15 - 12:50 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 24 Mar 15 - 01:17 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 24 Mar 15 - 01:41 PM
GUEST 24 Mar 15 - 02:06 PM
GUEST,MikeL2 24 Mar 15 - 02:11 PM
GUEST,MikeL2 24 Mar 15 - 02:23 PM
Stu 24 Mar 15 - 03:14 PM
GUEST,# 24 Mar 15 - 04:32 PM
GUEST,Shimrod (in gas pedant mode) 24 Mar 15 - 07:00 PM
Musket 25 Mar 15 - 02:58 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 25 Mar 15 - 04:38 AM
Stu 25 Mar 15 - 06:42 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 25 Mar 15 - 08:33 AM
Stu 25 Mar 15 - 08:56 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 25 Mar 15 - 09:08 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 25 Mar 15 - 09:14 AM
GUEST,# 25 Mar 15 - 09:16 AM
GUEST,# 25 Mar 15 - 09:17 AM
Stu 25 Mar 15 - 09:23 AM
Steve Shaw 25 Mar 15 - 09:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 25 Mar 15 - 10:19 AM
GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant) 25 Mar 15 - 10:51 AM
GUEST,# 25 Mar 15 - 10:55 AM
Thompson 25 Mar 15 - 01:40 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 25 Mar 15 - 02:09 PM
Thompson 25 Mar 15 - 02:15 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 25 Mar 15 - 03:31 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 25 Mar 15 - 03:48 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 25 Mar 15 - 04:12 PM
GUEST,Bandiver (Astray) 25 Mar 15 - 04:34 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 25 Mar 15 - 05:14 PM
GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant) 25 Mar 15 - 06:02 PM
GUEST,# 25 Mar 15 - 06:28 PM
Steve Shaw 25 Mar 15 - 06:41 PM
GUEST,# 25 Mar 15 - 07:40 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 26 Mar 15 - 02:53 AM
GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant) 26 Mar 15 - 03:05 AM
Musket 26 Mar 15 - 03:06 AM
akenaton 26 Mar 15 - 03:21 AM
Thompson 26 Mar 15 - 03:41 AM
Stu 26 Mar 15 - 04:01 AM
Steve Shaw 26 Mar 15 - 04:53 AM
GUEST,MikeL2 26 Mar 15 - 05:08 AM
GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant) 26 Mar 15 - 05:19 AM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Mar 15 - 05:54 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 26 Mar 15 - 06:10 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 26 Mar 15 - 06:12 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 26 Mar 15 - 07:54 AM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Mar 15 - 09:27 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 26 Mar 15 - 01:02 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 26 Mar 15 - 01:35 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 26 Mar 15 - 02:01 PM
Greg F. 26 Mar 15 - 02:28 PM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 26 Mar 15 - 02:38 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Mar 15 - 02:39 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 26 Mar 15 - 02:49 PM
GUEST,# 26 Mar 15 - 02:49 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 26 Mar 15 - 03:01 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 26 Mar 15 - 03:27 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Mar 15 - 03:46 PM
BrendanB 26 Mar 15 - 04:45 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Mar 15 - 05:14 PM
MGM·Lion 26 Mar 15 - 05:30 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 26 Mar 15 - 06:13 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Mar 15 - 06:27 PM
Teribus 26 Mar 15 - 09:03 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Mar 15 - 09:09 PM
Teribus 26 Mar 15 - 09:43 PM
Steve Shaw 26 Mar 15 - 09:50 PM
Stu 27 Mar 15 - 05:20 AM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Mar 15 - 05:34 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 27 Mar 15 - 05:48 AM
Steve Shaw 27 Mar 15 - 06:34 AM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Mar 15 - 07:05 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 27 Mar 15 - 07:16 AM
akenaton 27 Mar 15 - 07:18 AM
MGM·Lion 27 Mar 15 - 07:57 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 27 Mar 15 - 08:03 AM
Backwoodsman 27 Mar 15 - 09:25 AM
Steve Shaw 27 Mar 15 - 09:58 AM
MGM·Lion 27 Mar 15 - 10:11 AM
Steve Shaw 27 Mar 15 - 10:16 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 27 Mar 15 - 10:44 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 27 Mar 15 - 10:47 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 27 Mar 15 - 12:27 PM
MGM·Lion 27 Mar 15 - 12:31 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Mar 15 - 12:31 PM
Backwoodsman 27 Mar 15 - 12:43 PM
Thompson 27 Mar 15 - 01:41 PM
GUEST,Pete from seven stars link 27 Mar 15 - 03:31 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 27 Mar 15 - 05:15 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Mar 15 - 05:31 PM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Mar 15 - 05:54 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Mar 15 - 06:03 PM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Mar 15 - 06:04 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Mar 15 - 06:16 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 27 Mar 15 - 06:37 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 28 Mar 15 - 04:12 AM
akenaton 28 Mar 15 - 04:51 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Mar 15 - 05:08 AM
Backwoodsman 28 Mar 15 - 05:49 AM
GUEST,gillymor 28 Mar 15 - 06:06 AM
BrendanB 28 Mar 15 - 06:15 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Mar 15 - 06:23 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 28 Mar 15 - 06:27 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Mar 15 - 06:44 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 28 Mar 15 - 06:56 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Mar 15 - 07:05 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Mar 15 - 07:11 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 28 Mar 15 - 07:39 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 28 Mar 15 - 07:42 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Mar 15 - 07:44 AM
Backwoodsman 28 Mar 15 - 08:03 AM
GUEST,# 28 Mar 15 - 09:16 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 28 Mar 15 - 09:36 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 28 Mar 15 - 09:40 AM
GUEST,Keith. 28 Mar 15 - 09:55 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 28 Mar 15 - 10:36 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 28 Mar 15 - 10:38 AM
akenaton 28 Mar 15 - 11:08 AM
GUEST,Keith A 28 Mar 15 - 01:11 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 28 Mar 15 - 01:47 PM
BrendanB 28 Mar 15 - 03:13 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Mar 15 - 03:38 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Mar 15 - 03:46 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Mar 15 - 03:55 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 29 Mar 15 - 04:21 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 29 Mar 15 - 04:22 AM
Thompson 29 Mar 15 - 04:58 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Mar 15 - 04:58 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Mar 15 - 05:01 AM
akenaton 29 Mar 15 - 05:36 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 29 Mar 15 - 06:03 AM
Mr Red 29 Mar 15 - 06:29 AM
Musket 29 Mar 15 - 08:43 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Mar 15 - 09:01 AM
GUEST,# 29 Mar 15 - 09:56 AM
MGM·Lion 29 Mar 15 - 10:07 AM
GUEST,# 29 Mar 15 - 10:50 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 29 Mar 15 - 11:08 AM
Backwoodsman 29 Mar 15 - 11:25 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Mar 15 - 11:29 AM
Mr Red 29 Mar 15 - 11:36 AM
Backwoodsman 29 Mar 15 - 11:39 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Mar 15 - 11:44 AM
Steve Shaw 29 Mar 15 - 11:46 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 29 Mar 15 - 12:04 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Mar 15 - 01:05 PM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 29 Mar 15 - 01:16 PM
MGM·Lion 29 Mar 15 - 01:18 PM
MGM·Lion 29 Mar 15 - 01:20 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Mar 15 - 01:33 PM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 29 Mar 15 - 01:43 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 29 Mar 15 - 02:10 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Mar 15 - 02:17 PM
Musket 29 Mar 15 - 02:22 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 29 Mar 15 - 03:06 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 29 Mar 15 - 03:08 PM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 29 Mar 15 - 03:17 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 29 Mar 15 - 03:39 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 29 Mar 15 - 04:15 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 29 Mar 15 - 04:27 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Mar 15 - 04:28 PM
Musket 29 Mar 15 - 04:59 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 29 Mar 15 - 06:09 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Mar 15 - 07:30 PM
Steve Shaw 29 Mar 15 - 08:32 PM
Musket 30 Mar 15 - 01:44 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 30 Mar 15 - 02:23 AM
Musket 30 Mar 15 - 03:03 AM
GUEST,Shimrod (Gas Pedant) 30 Mar 15 - 03:53 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Mar 15 - 03:53 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Mar 15 - 04:00 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 30 Mar 15 - 04:07 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Mar 15 - 04:12 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Mar 15 - 04:20 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 30 Mar 15 - 04:33 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Mar 15 - 04:48 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 30 Mar 15 - 04:50 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 30 Mar 15 - 05:16 AM
MGM·Lion 30 Mar 15 - 05:21 AM
MGM·Lion 30 Mar 15 - 05:23 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 30 Mar 15 - 05:32 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Mar 15 - 06:13 AM
MGM·Lion 30 Mar 15 - 07:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Mar 15 - 07:50 AM
Musket 30 Mar 15 - 08:24 AM
Steve Shaw 30 Mar 15 - 08:51 AM
Musket 30 Mar 15 - 11:16 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Mar 15 - 11:22 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Mar 15 - 11:25 AM
GUEST,# 30 Mar 15 - 11:28 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 30 Mar 15 - 11:53 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 30 Mar 15 - 12:01 PM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 30 Mar 15 - 12:08 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 30 Mar 15 - 12:17 PM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 30 Mar 15 - 12:46 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 30 Mar 15 - 12:55 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Mar 15 - 01:08 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 30 Mar 15 - 01:29 PM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 30 Mar 15 - 01:38 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 30 Mar 15 - 01:44 PM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Mar 15 - 02:11 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 30 Mar 15 - 02:33 PM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Mar 15 - 04:27 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 30 Mar 15 - 04:42 PM
akenaton 30 Mar 15 - 04:48 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Mar 15 - 06:01 PM
Steve Shaw 30 Mar 15 - 08:09 PM
Musket 31 Mar 15 - 01:22 AM
GUEST,Shimrod (The Gas Pedant) 31 Mar 15 - 01:48 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 31 Mar 15 - 01:50 AM
Thompson 31 Mar 15 - 01:50 AM
Musket 31 Mar 15 - 02:27 AM
akenaton 31 Mar 15 - 02:32 AM
Musket 31 Mar 15 - 03:11 AM
Steve Shaw 31 Mar 15 - 03:45 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Mar 15 - 04:16 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Mar 15 - 04:18 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 31 Mar 15 - 04:40 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 31 Mar 15 - 04:41 AM
Musket 31 Mar 15 - 05:10 AM
Steve Shaw 31 Mar 15 - 05:21 AM
Stu 31 Mar 15 - 05:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Mar 15 - 05:28 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Mar 15 - 05:36 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 31 Mar 15 - 05:47 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Mar 15 - 06:46 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 31 Mar 15 - 06:50 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Mar 15 - 07:19 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 31 Mar 15 - 07:22 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 31 Mar 15 - 07:33 AM
Steve Shaw 31 Mar 15 - 08:33 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Mar 15 - 08:44 AM
akenaton 31 Mar 15 - 08:47 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 31 Mar 15 - 08:51 AM
akenaton 31 Mar 15 - 11:10 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 31 Mar 15 - 11:22 AM
GUEST 31 Mar 15 - 11:30 AM
Musket 31 Mar 15 - 12:22 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 31 Mar 15 - 12:28 PM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 31 Mar 15 - 12:33 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Mar 15 - 02:39 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Mar 15 - 02:44 PM
GUEST 31 Mar 15 - 03:09 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 31 Mar 15 - 03:10 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 31 Mar 15 - 03:53 PM
MGM·Lion 31 Mar 15 - 04:11 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Mar 15 - 04:11 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 31 Mar 15 - 04:14 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 31 Mar 15 - 04:19 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 31 Mar 15 - 04:39 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Mar 15 - 04:59 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Mar 15 - 05:05 PM
GUEST 31 Mar 15 - 05:13 PM
GUEST,# 31 Mar 15 - 05:20 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 31 Mar 15 - 06:35 PM
Steve Shaw 31 Mar 15 - 08:32 PM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Apr 15 - 05:53 AM
Steve Shaw 01 Apr 15 - 06:01 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Apr 15 - 06:08 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Apr 15 - 06:10 AM
Stu 01 Apr 15 - 06:15 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 01 Apr 15 - 06:28 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Apr 15 - 07:58 AM
Musket 01 Apr 15 - 08:04 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 01 Apr 15 - 08:10 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Apr 15 - 09:11 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 01 Apr 15 - 09:25 AM
akenaton 01 Apr 15 - 09:36 AM
akenaton 01 Apr 15 - 09:38 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 01 Apr 15 - 09:52 AM
akenaton 01 Apr 15 - 10:03 AM
Musket 01 Apr 15 - 10:06 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Apr 15 - 10:17 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 01 Apr 15 - 11:13 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 01 Apr 15 - 11:17 AM
Musket 01 Apr 15 - 12:06 PM
GUEST,# 01 Apr 15 - 12:39 PM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Apr 15 - 01:57 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 01 Apr 15 - 03:43 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 01 Apr 15 - 03:58 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 01 Apr 15 - 04:10 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 01 Apr 15 - 04:17 PM
MGM·Lion 01 Apr 15 - 04:23 PM
Steve Shaw 01 Apr 15 - 05:21 PM
GUEST,# 01 Apr 15 - 05:38 PM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Apr 15 - 05:55 PM
FreddyHeadey 01 Apr 15 - 06:20 PM
Steve Shaw 01 Apr 15 - 06:32 PM
FreddyHeadey 01 Apr 15 - 09:33 PM
FreddyHeadey 01 Apr 15 - 09:51 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 02 Apr 15 - 02:14 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Apr 15 - 03:56 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 02 Apr 15 - 04:14 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Apr 15 - 04:28 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Apr 15 - 09:04 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 02 Apr 15 - 09:49 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Apr 15 - 10:22 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Apr 15 - 10:28 AM
Stu 02 Apr 15 - 11:49 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 02 Apr 15 - 01:08 PM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Apr 15 - 02:16 PM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Apr 15 - 02:20 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 02 Apr 15 - 05:23 PM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Apr 15 - 05:40 PM
GUEST,Pete from seven stars kink 02 Apr 15 - 06:38 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Apr 15 - 06:59 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 03 Apr 15 - 01:10 AM
Musket 03 Apr 15 - 01:58 AM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Apr 15 - 03:03 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 03 Apr 15 - 03:18 AM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Apr 15 - 03:25 AM
Stu 03 Apr 15 - 03:31 AM
GUEST 03 Apr 15 - 04:15 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 03 Apr 15 - 04:47 AM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Apr 15 - 04:59 AM
MGM·Lion 03 Apr 15 - 05:01 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 03 Apr 15 - 05:13 AM
MGM·Lion 03 Apr 15 - 05:30 AM
MGM·Lion 03 Apr 15 - 05:35 AM
Musket 03 Apr 15 - 05:38 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Apr 15 - 05:59 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Apr 15 - 06:04 AM
GUEST,Blandiver (Astray) 03 Apr 15 - 06:36 AM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Apr 15 - 06:38 AM
MGM·Lion 03 Apr 15 - 06:41 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 03 Apr 15 - 06:58 AM
Musket 03 Apr 15 - 07:18 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Apr 15 - 07:36 AM
MGM·Lion 03 Apr 15 - 08:15 AM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Apr 15 - 08:21 AM
Raggytash 03 Apr 15 - 08:40 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Apr 15 - 08:41 AM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Apr 15 - 09:39 AM
Musket 03 Apr 15 - 09:54 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 03 Apr 15 - 10:21 AM
MGM·Lion 03 Apr 15 - 10:34 AM
GUEST,# 03 Apr 15 - 10:49 AM
Musket 03 Apr 15 - 10:54 AM
Steve Shaw 03 Apr 15 - 12:39 PM
GUEST,# 03 Apr 15 - 01:00 PM
Raggytash 03 Apr 15 - 01:27 PM
GUEST,# 03 Apr 15 - 02:27 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 03 Apr 15 - 03:11 PM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Apr 15 - 03:38 PM
Raggytash 03 Apr 15 - 03:50 PM
BrendanB 03 Apr 15 - 04:04 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Apr 15 - 04:09 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Apr 15 - 04:13 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 03 Apr 15 - 04:28 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 03 Apr 15 - 04:52 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 03 Apr 15 - 04:54 PM
GUEST,# 03 Apr 15 - 05:13 PM
Musket 03 Apr 15 - 05:30 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Apr 15 - 07:03 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Apr 15 - 07:06 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Apr 15 - 07:20 PM
GUEST,# 03 Apr 15 - 07:37 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Apr 15 - 08:06 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Apr 15 - 08:29 PM
Peace 03 Apr 15 - 09:56 PM
GUEST,# 03 Apr 15 - 09:58 PM
Musket 04 Apr 15 - 01:33 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 04 Apr 15 - 01:53 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Apr 15 - 03:38 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Apr 15 - 03:48 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 04 Apr 15 - 03:57 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 04 Apr 15 - 03:58 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Apr 15 - 04:44 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Apr 15 - 04:49 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Apr 15 - 05:48 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Apr 15 - 06:24 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 04 Apr 15 - 06:43 AM
Musket 04 Apr 15 - 07:04 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Apr 15 - 07:19 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 04 Apr 15 - 07:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Apr 15 - 07:43 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 04 Apr 15 - 08:06 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 04 Apr 15 - 08:42 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Apr 15 - 08:47 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Apr 15 - 10:18 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 04 Apr 15 - 10:21 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 04 Apr 15 - 10:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Apr 15 - 10:29 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 04 Apr 15 - 10:32 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Apr 15 - 10:38 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 04 Apr 15 - 10:44 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Apr 15 - 10:45 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Apr 15 - 10:54 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Apr 15 - 10:56 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Apr 15 - 11:04 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Apr 15 - 12:20 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 04 Apr 15 - 12:22 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 04 Apr 15 - 12:25 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 04 Apr 15 - 12:27 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 04 Apr 15 - 12:49 PM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Apr 15 - 01:16 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 04 Apr 15 - 02:07 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 04 Apr 15 - 02:14 PM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Apr 15 - 02:51 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Apr 15 - 02:55 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Apr 15 - 03:12 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 04 Apr 15 - 03:17 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Apr 15 - 03:33 PM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Apr 15 - 03:53 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 04 Apr 15 - 04:17 PM
Musket 04 Apr 15 - 04:34 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Apr 15 - 05:39 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Apr 15 - 06:57 PM
Musket 05 Apr 15 - 01:53 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 05 Apr 15 - 03:12 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 05 Apr 15 - 03:28 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Apr 15 - 03:47 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Apr 15 - 03:52 AM
Musket 05 Apr 15 - 04:20 AM
Stu 05 Apr 15 - 04:41 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 05 Apr 15 - 04:45 AM
Musket 05 Apr 15 - 06:06 AM
GUEST,Robin Twatt 05 Apr 15 - 06:25 AM
Musket 05 Apr 15 - 08:04 AM
GUEST,# 05 Apr 15 - 08:20 AM
Musket 05 Apr 15 - 09:06 AM
Stu 05 Apr 15 - 09:07 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Apr 15 - 09:27 AM
GUEST,# 05 Apr 15 - 10:06 AM
GUEST,# 05 Apr 15 - 10:15 AM
GUEST,# 05 Apr 15 - 10:25 AM
Musket 05 Apr 15 - 10:31 AM
GUEST,# 05 Apr 15 - 10:48 AM
Stu 05 Apr 15 - 11:09 AM
GUEST,# 05 Apr 15 - 11:26 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 05 Apr 15 - 12:15 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Apr 15 - 12:21 PM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Apr 15 - 01:21 PM
MGM·Lion 05 Apr 15 - 02:03 PM
MGM·Lion 05 Apr 15 - 02:07 PM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Apr 15 - 02:36 PM
MGM·Lion 05 Apr 15 - 02:40 PM
GUEST,# 05 Apr 15 - 03:00 PM
Musket 05 Apr 15 - 03:02 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 05 Apr 15 - 03:21 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Apr 15 - 03:37 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 05 Apr 15 - 04:10 PM
GUEST,Pete from seven stars link 05 Apr 15 - 05:51 PM
GUEST 05 Apr 15 - 05:53 PM
GUEST 05 Apr 15 - 05:58 PM
GUEST,Peter from seven stars link 05 Apr 15 - 06:23 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 05 Apr 15 - 06:31 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Apr 15 - 07:32 PM
GUEST 06 Apr 15 - 03:13 AM
Musket 06 Apr 15 - 03:36 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 06 Apr 15 - 04:17 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Apr 15 - 04:51 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Apr 15 - 05:28 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 06 Apr 15 - 05:51 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 06 Apr 15 - 06:07 AM
Stu 06 Apr 15 - 06:41 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Apr 15 - 06:50 AM
BrendanB 06 Apr 15 - 07:02 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 06 Apr 15 - 07:02 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Apr 15 - 07:12 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 06 Apr 15 - 07:26 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 06 Apr 15 - 07:43 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Apr 15 - 07:51 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 06 Apr 15 - 07:56 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Apr 15 - 08:03 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 06 Apr 15 - 08:10 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 06 Apr 15 - 08:11 AM
GUEST 06 Apr 15 - 08:26 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 06 Apr 15 - 08:27 AM
Musket 06 Apr 15 - 09:10 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Apr 15 - 09:46 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Apr 15 - 09:51 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 06 Apr 15 - 10:06 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 06 Apr 15 - 10:19 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 06 Apr 15 - 10:23 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Apr 15 - 10:32 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 06 Apr 15 - 11:17 AM
Stu 06 Apr 15 - 11:20 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Apr 15 - 12:21 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 06 Apr 15 - 01:10 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 06 Apr 15 - 02:16 PM
GUEST,Pete from seven stars link 06 Apr 15 - 05:30 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 07 Apr 15 - 02:10 AM
Musket 07 Apr 15 - 02:31 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Apr 15 - 03:57 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Apr 15 - 04:23 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 07 Apr 15 - 05:32 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 07 Apr 15 - 05:49 AM
Musket 07 Apr 15 - 06:05 AM
Musket 07 Apr 15 - 06:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Apr 15 - 09:57 AM
GUEST,# 07 Apr 15 - 10:15 AM
GUEST 07 Apr 15 - 10:27 AM
Musket 07 Apr 15 - 11:04 AM
Stu 07 Apr 15 - 12:19 PM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Apr 15 - 12:29 PM
GUEST,Pete from seven stars link 07 Apr 15 - 04:33 PM
GUEST,Pete from seven stars link 07 Apr 15 - 05:11 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Apr 15 - 06:15 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 07 Apr 15 - 06:47 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Apr 15 - 07:27 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 08 Apr 15 - 03:23 AM
Musket 08 Apr 15 - 03:33 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Apr 15 - 04:14 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Apr 15 - 04:31 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 08 Apr 15 - 04:35 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Apr 15 - 04:39 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 08 Apr 15 - 04:59 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Apr 15 - 05:02 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 08 Apr 15 - 05:14 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Apr 15 - 05:32 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Apr 15 - 05:47 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 08 Apr 15 - 05:53 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Apr 15 - 05:58 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Apr 15 - 06:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Apr 15 - 07:01 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Apr 15 - 07:27 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 08 Apr 15 - 07:31 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Apr 15 - 07:52 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Apr 15 - 08:13 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Apr 15 - 08:40 AM
GUEST,# 08 Apr 15 - 08:56 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Apr 15 - 09:03 AM
GUEST,# 08 Apr 15 - 09:07 AM
GUEST,# 08 Apr 15 - 09:24 AM
Stu 08 Apr 15 - 09:58 AM
Musket 08 Apr 15 - 10:50 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 08 Apr 15 - 11:31 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Apr 15 - 12:13 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Apr 15 - 12:16 PM
Jim Carroll 08 Apr 15 - 12:37 PM
Musket 08 Apr 15 - 01:24 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Apr 15 - 01:27 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Apr 15 - 01:35 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 08 Apr 15 - 01:54 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 08 Apr 15 - 03:17 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 08 Apr 15 - 03:49 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Apr 15 - 04:00 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Apr 15 - 04:00 PM
GUEST,Jim Knowledge 08 Apr 15 - 04:18 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Apr 15 - 04:20 PM
GUEST 08 Apr 15 - 04:26 PM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 08 Apr 15 - 04:33 PM
Musket 08 Apr 15 - 06:22 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Apr 15 - 06:27 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 08 Apr 15 - 06:30 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Apr 15 - 08:20 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 08 Apr 15 - 10:05 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 09 Apr 15 - 02:32 AM
Musket 09 Apr 15 - 03:16 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 09 Apr 15 - 04:12 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Apr 15 - 04:18 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 09 Apr 15 - 04:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Apr 15 - 04:34 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 09 Apr 15 - 04:39 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Apr 15 - 04:52 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Apr 15 - 04:58 AM
Stu 09 Apr 15 - 05:25 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 09 Apr 15 - 05:39 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Apr 15 - 05:54 AM
GUEST,Blandiver (Astray) 09 Apr 15 - 06:16 AM
Jim Carroll 09 Apr 15 - 06:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Apr 15 - 06:56 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Apr 15 - 07:29 AM
Steve Shaw 09 Apr 15 - 07:30 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 09 Apr 15 - 09:25 AM
GUEST,big al whittle 09 Apr 15 - 12:59 PM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Apr 15 - 02:52 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Apr 15 - 04:26 PM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Apr 15 - 05:00 PM
Steve Shaw 09 Apr 15 - 05:38 PM
GUEST,# 09 Apr 15 - 06:11 PM
Musket 10 Apr 15 - 03:39 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 10 Apr 15 - 03:57 AM
GUEST,Bizibod 10 Apr 15 - 04:06 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Apr 15 - 04:11 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Apr 15 - 04:23 AM
Teribus 10 Apr 15 - 04:33 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 10 Apr 15 - 04:40 AM
Teribus 10 Apr 15 - 06:23 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 10 Apr 15 - 06:41 AM
Musket 10 Apr 15 - 07:33 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Apr 15 - 02:01 PM
Musket 10 Apr 15 - 03:20 PM
GUEST,Pete from seven stars link 10 Apr 15 - 03:30 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Apr 15 - 03:37 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Apr 15 - 03:40 PM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Apr 15 - 03:59 PM
GUEST,Pete from seven stars link 10 Apr 15 - 04:03 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Apr 15 - 07:45 PM
Musket 11 Apr 15 - 02:49 AM
Stu 11 Apr 15 - 06:50 AM
GUEST,# 11 Apr 15 - 07:54 AM
Musket 11 Apr 15 - 09:17 AM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Apr 15 - 10:00 AM
Steve Shaw 11 Apr 15 - 01:22 PM
Musket 11 Apr 15 - 02:38 PM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Apr 15 - 02:50 PM
GUEST,Peter from seven stars link 11 Apr 15 - 05:22 PM
Musket 11 Apr 15 - 05:31 PM
GUEST, Pete from seven stars link 11 Apr 15 - 05:42 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Apr 15 - 07:28 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 12 Apr 15 - 02:28 AM
Musket 12 Apr 15 - 02:41 AM
MGM·Lion 12 Apr 15 - 02:58 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 12 Apr 15 - 03:08 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Apr 15 - 03:55 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 12 Apr 15 - 04:34 AM
akenaton 12 Apr 15 - 04:44 AM
Steve Shaw 12 Apr 15 - 05:26 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 12 Apr 15 - 05:45 AM
akenaton 12 Apr 15 - 05:57 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 12 Apr 15 - 06:01 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 12 Apr 15 - 06:29 AM
Steve Shaw 12 Apr 15 - 06:30 AM
GUEST,Dave the Gnome 12 Apr 15 - 11:23 AM
akenaton 12 Apr 15 - 01:02 PM
Musket 12 Apr 15 - 01:43 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:39 AM

It appears that the Beeb have suspended Clarkson. - Again!
The petition to reinstate him currently stands at 165000 votes, running at about 1000 per hour, from most countries in the world.

Most of the votes seem to be in favour of political incorrectness.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:42 AM

Make that 1000 every 15mins.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:44 AM

And accelerating.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:57 AM

Best entertainment online tonight. www.change.org


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:32 AM

The man is a nasty bully and should be locked up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:44 AM

A typical Public Schoolboy showing his contempt for the "plebs"
The guy has no conception of the principle of free speech, simply likes to shock just for the sake of it.....and to raise his "profile" of course.

He and that other waste of space Steven Fry, are "bookends"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:04 AM

Even though I can see, and agree with, a lot of the criticisms of Mr C I still find him entertaining. I will not be signing any petitions, particularly if he did use violence, but it looks once again that he has been tried, found guilty and executed by the internet prior to the facts being known. I am probably completely wrong but I see him as the same sort of harmless idiot as Prince Philip and anyone who takes notice of what anyone in the media tells them is much more of an idiot than either.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:12 AM

Hmm. I always thought Mudcat people would have a sense of humour. Obviously another case where I'm wrong.

And I thought the principles of free speech means that you are free to speak. Well, Richard and Akenaton, there are now more than 220,000 (as they manage to get on the petition) people who don't agree with you. Must all be wrong, eh?
Would have been more, but the site seemed to crashing/overloading often.
Latvia, Pakistan, The Netherlands, Belgium, Russia, India.....

It is the comments that are most interesting, and the places they are coming in from. Do have a look.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Ake may not care for Stephen Fry; but I can's see what he has to do with the topic of this thread. Opportunist irrelevant random attacks on a personality one happens to find inimical are scarcely cricket in Cat terms, IMO.

≈M≈


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:17 AM

As they say gurney, he's a bit like marmite.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:18 AM

Jeremy Clarkson is a VERY naughty boy!

... and no more harmful than that ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:30 AM

Except that marmite isn't racist.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:31 AM

Dave says anyone who takes notice of what anyone in the media tells them is much more of an idiot

So, if you buy a newspaper, listen to the news on the radio or watch it on the television, then you're an idiot?

An opinion, I suppose. But a fairly odd one...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:32 AM

lets hope he pisses off to Latvia.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:38 AM

So, if you buy a newspaper, listen to the news on the radio or watch it on the television, then you're an idiot?

No, Ed. How did you derive that? I said if you take notice. In plain English, if you let the media influence or manipulate you. They all have their own agenda. Everything they say should be taken with a very large ladle of salt.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 05:24 AM

The usua suspect managed to slip Stephen Fry in for no apparent reason, (till you read his usual homophobic bile.)

I wonder if Mudcat has franchised to Hello magazine or other supermarket checkout gossip magazines.

I love watching Top Gear. I am saddened to see that the series looks like being axed.

Anything other than that, including a suspected solicitor on this thread accusing him of an unnamed crime that merits a prison sentence...

Have some on here ever thought of sending their CV to The Daily M*il?

Pathetic.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: OldNicKilby
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 05:27 AM

Richard is correct. An overpaid Pubic School (correct spelling) twonk He is not worth £14,500,000 a year paid of-shore to avoid the tax


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 05:29 AM

off shore (correct spelling)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 06:34 AM

Try to keep up with the facts, Mither. And refresh your memory of Clarkson's attempts to block rights of way. And recall his on-screen bullying of little Hamster. On that one the big arse deserved to be thrown down the mountain after the hardtop to the car the Hamster was driving. Clarkson is vile.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 06:36 AM

And recall his on-screen bullying of little Hamster.

Do you not think that was staged, Richard? I do, but I could be wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:11 AM

Huge similarities between Clarkson and Fry.....nothing whatever to do with their sexual preferences.

In short, both are ego driven balloons and cynical manipulative bullies, in equal measure.

Don't start me on about Fry, who in his own peculiar way is as crass and creepy as Clarkson.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:21 AM

There is no such thing as publicity. discuss.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:25 AM

well i think any programme about cars would be a hard sell to me.

but the guy's such a twat. most of us buy cars that he thinks are below his dignity to comment on. yet it would actually be useful to have someone who actually notices the stuff that is important to ordinary people.

availabilty of auto model
price
luggage space.
loading facility.
leg room
ease of moving the seats, putting the back down.
is there alip on the back.
motability terms
diesel or petrol
mpg

instead we have three arseholes buggering about in maseratis. it reminds me of when the PE dept at a school organised a skittles evening. no one else got a look in. the PE teachers monopolised the skittles - the rest of us sat round bored shitless.

Clarkson would have been a good PE teacher. so disinterested in the human condition, as is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:43 AM

We don't know yet what he's supposed to have done. I don't like him much and I don't watch Top Gear that often, but he strikes me as being a bit of a parody of himself. And if he earns the Beeb enough to keep me licence fee down...

As for Stephen Fry, well, he's a very intelligent gay man. Hey, Akenaton, why don't you like him? Wouldn't you have thought that absolute opposites in every respect would attract...?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:50 AM

Then why watch the bloody programme, Al, for crying out loud, if you hate it so much? It's perfectly optional, you know.

Ake -- I don't think it's just that he is a fairly distant but affable acquaintance, from Cambridge theatre days and later the Groucho Club, which makes me wonder quite what you have against Stephen Fry, & where you see any sort of similarity [even if only polarity-wise] to Clarkson: or indeed any relevance whatsoever on his part to this thread. Seems to me you have sort of determination to intrude him here for the sole purpose of exercising some sort of denunciatory mnemonic bias. Why?

≈M≈


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: melodeonboy
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:51 AM

A vile man with vile ideas. A thug with the advantage of a good education and a veneer of blokey "humour". I'd love to see the back of him.
Are all those people who want to reinstate him actually aware of what he is, or are they just happy to watch a know-it-all oik driving a high performance car?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:55 AM

Melodeo -- you too could quite easily "see the back of him" insofar as you pesonally are concerned, by the simple expedient of not switching on to his programme. Why all this censoriousness, FCOL!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:58 AM

Now, now, Michael. Leave poor Ake alone. After all, Clarkson and Fry do both have testicles and relatively deep voices. What more in common do you want!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 08:17 AM

The man creates excellent free publicity for himself and the programme as a sort of anti hero. Not surprising he is a cult figure. If the Beeb fire him , he'll still back on our screens working for another channel and a new programme or talk show.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 08:23 AM

Clarkson reminds me of one of those bullies at school who was always on the periphery of the gang of year toughs but wasn't accepted by them. The bully always had a witty admirer under his wing to do his bidding (snitching etc) and give him a sense of importance as the admirer constantly fawned over him.

These bullies would never take on anyone that could beat them, and for folk like me in the lower social/educational strata they made our lives a misery. All the lads and girls in our class who were crap at sports because we were too skinny and weak (me), fat (my mate), weren't very academic, undiagnosed dyslexics, gay, struggled with learning or had any other of the myriad of character/physical traits that drew the ire of this sort of person were constantly and continually bullied through school. Then one day one of these bullies would push someone too far and one of us would hit them and we were left alone . . . until we were caught alone at some point later. We laughed at them for their one-dimensionality and stupidity, but we feared them for sure.

Ultimately people like Clarkson are mediocrities. Outwardly funny, capable of pulling off some good (if rather obvious) pranks but actually a seriously insecure individual whose only way of coping with his issues is by taking it out on others and constantly drawing attention of himself. They actually contribute little to wider society and give the appearance they couldn't care less about it when the rely on it for everything that makes them who they are.

He's one of many of these types in the media and wider establishment (see UKIP/Tories?Labour/LibDems for starters). A boorish, insecure and ultimately one-dimensional mediocrity that constantly seeks approval for his immature and sadly pathetic character.

Top Gear has been utter shite for many, many years.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 09:42 AM

I obviously enjoy utter shite then.

The BBC reckon that the main show and the franchised ones between them get over a billion viewers per episode.

Looks like my bad taste is a popular affliction...

A rather well known celebrity appears to have acted a bit like a prima donna. And they say there is no such thing as bad publicity? The Top Gear Roadshows taking place from the end of next month were already sold out before this.

I suppose it is a problem when you create a character for the telly and shallow fools talk as if the character exists. Meanwhile, the nutter on the radio today who said paying him out of licence fee money is wrong fails to notice how wrong his jibe is. Jeremy Clarkson brings in millions and millions to subsidise The BBC.

Meanwhile, one of the best programmes worth watching in my opinion has been dropped. A bit of a bugger really.

Back to watching old QI repeats on Dave Sunday night then. (someone said the excellent documentary Stephen Fry did about the stigma of mental health is on one of the other channels this weekend. Worth a re watch.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 09:50 AM

"Looks like my bad taste is a popular affliction..."

There's safety in numbers. Baaaa!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Megan L
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 09:55 AM

Why should we pay the BBC if they want to make programmes let them fight for advertising money like everyone else.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 10:15 AM

Unfair, Stu. Bad taste is not the prerogative of the masses. Just look at some of the works of art by Tracy Emin and Damian Hirst :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 10:21 AM

So what's the big deal then, that this petition has amassed world wide signatures
from a few hundred thousand fanboy reactionary wannabe 'alpha males'...???

hmmmm... and so many of the signatures from nation's notorious for unenlightened & intolerant attitudes
towards minorities and democratic rights....


Btw... my mrs has absolutely no interest in cars and thinks Clarkson is a complete right wing arsehole,
but she still watches Top Gear because she finds him hilarious...

He's an oafish clown to be laughed at !!!


funny old world....??????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 10:25 AM

It was less a comment on people's taste, more a comment on the sheep mentality of people in general. We live in a world where ignorance and violence is lauded on a daily basis, as the Clarkson debacle shows. He can hit someone far less protected by the BBC than himself and yet nigh on half a million people (and counting) think this kind of bullying is OK. By signing that petition people become complicit in the bullying that's taken place.

It's never fun to be on the receiving end of the consequences of some alpha male dick-swinger's (or the female equivalent) inferiority complex manifesting itself in the vicinity of your own person.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 10:30 AM

Has he hit someone? I thought no-one had the full details yet. Surely, if he had, he would also be guilty of assault and liable for criminal prosecution? Richard? Until we do know the details I think such speculation is useless.

Punkfolkrocker - Yes :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 10:44 AM

Look on the bright side. The USA has Ann Coulter.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Peter
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 11:10 AM

Has he hit someone? I thought no-one had the full details yet.
"Allegedly" according to The Times.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 11:16 AM

To best of my recollection I have never watched the guy's programme, and have barely heard of him except as one of those names that crop up every now & again as being in some way newsworthy. But if he is really as inept and ineffectual, or else so bullying and oppressive, to hear some of you tell it, why then, how clever of him to present this terrible, dire, insufferable programme, that would nevertheless appear to have a firm viewer fanbase, excellent ratings, &c &c &c... The guy must surely be doing something right?

≈M≈

Still can't see quite where my distant-ish sort-of-friend Stephen Fry fits into the discourse, mind...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 11:32 AM

Well M, they are both a certain type of media "celebrity".
One catering for the "yobbish" right, which though only a small section of conservative opinion, is a most voluble one.
Mr Clarkson pretends to champion free speech but only on subjects which he thinks are suitable. In reality he is a silencer of alternative opinions.
Fry on the other hand pretends to represent the whining "liberal" rights orientated, theatrical left, but when cornered into being forced to confront some of the contradictions in his ideology, the beast comes to the surface. In reality he is a silencer of alternative opinions.

"BOOKENDS"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 11:41 AM

Hmmm, MGM·Lion

You say that you've never watched the guy's programme

and yet are able to consider it a terrible, dire, insufferable programme

How does that work?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 11:59 AM

The adjectives should perhaps have been put in quotes,Guest Ed; they were meant to represent the implications of the comments made above, not my own opinions, which obviously, as you imply, I do not have regarding this particular manifestation, having never experienced it. They were, if you reread, presented sort of ironically, as antithetical to the programme's undoubted success.

≈M≈


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Mr Happy
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 12:05 PM

Horrible man, forever advocating bad driving & celebrating aggressiveness as though it were a virtue


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Selby
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 12:17 PM

The incident is supposed to have happened a week ago. The BBC has been made to look idiots by this, why have the people involved not been called into the bosses office and given their sides of the story, a decision made as to the punishment, then metered out,
Or as the cynic in me thinks, there is no such thing as bad publicity, with a Top Gear Tour taking place, the longer it stays in the news the more tickets we sell.
Keith


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 12:30 PM

Silencers of alternative opinions is, if you had not gathered Michael, code for those who will not put up with some of the things that are said on this forum. Quite how Clarkson, one who says the same type of thing, and Fry, one who will rail against it, get to be lumped together can only be explained as the workings of a deranged mind. In my opinion that is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Mr Red
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 01:35 PM

165000 votes, running at about 1000 per hour, from most countries in the world.
in the time I listened to the "Media Show", it jumped from 350,000 to 400,000.

An interesting question but - how many votes from Argentina?

Those that live by the sordid, dye (in the wool) by the..........

FWIW he doesn't do irony (as he thinks), he does bombast. As with all these stories, is this just stupidity or is there an engineered agenda to go for higher fees elswhere? Like Sky?
He isn't stupid, but he is capable of stupidity. It is called believing your own hype.
Is it that important? Top Gear can survive without him, should we want it (?). Whether it will make as much money is a moot point.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Sol
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 01:47 PM

Clarkson is the sole reason the word 'plonker' was invented.
Contrary to quite a few previous posters, I quite like Stephen Fry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:01 PM

I was not aware that either Stephen Fry or Jeremy Clarkson were in the business of trying to restrict anyone's "free speech", whatever other sins they might be guilty of. As for Clarkson's "catering for the 'yobbish right'", well I know a good few lefties who love Top Gear and a few right-wingers who think he's a complete twat. He's doing no such thing. Like all light entertainment telly programme celebs, he's catering for people who like to flop into a chair for half an hour with a cup of tea or glass of beer in hand who want to indulge in a bit of escapism. Harmless fun for the most part, peddled by three blokes who don't mind taking the piss out of themselves. If you don't like it turn it off.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:29 PM

hi michael

<" Still can't see quite where my distant-ish sort-of-friend Stephen Fry fits into the discourse, mind.">

Couldn't agree with you more, and indeed with all the comments in your post.

Regards

MikeL2


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:49 PM

"peddled by three blokes who don't mind taking the piss out of themselves"

Ha!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:51 PM

Steve Shaw, you have it exactly. In my opinion.

My reason for starting this thread is to encourage people to read the comments on the petition, and see how many countries are (sort of) represented. Yes, even Argentina.

Not too impressed by the spelling in some of the English entries, though.

The show has spawned clones in America, Germany, and Australia. Anywhere else?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:53 PM

Can Top gear survive without Clarkson ?

Easy - just give the job to Stephen Fry.. or.. Graham Norton, or Alan Carr..

Why not ? they are the hosts of just about every other 'near the knuckle' show on UK telly..

They're all top flight entertainment presenters - why should 'typical' Top Gear fans object to any of them ???

Presumably, at least one of them can drive...???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 02:55 PM

Oh, by the way, the Beeb did sack Clarkson from the show once before, the ratings dropped away, and they quietly reinstated him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:05 PM

Richard, Musket claims to be 3 people, so it was only a one in three chance of this one being "Mithers."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:13 PM

"I was not aware that either Stephen Fry or Jeremy Clarkson were in the business of trying to restrict anyone's "free speech", whatever other sins they might be guilty of. As for Clarkson's "catering for the 'yobbish right'", well I know a good few lefties who love Top Gear and a few right-wingers who think he's a complete twat. He's doing no such thing. Like all light entertainment telly programme celebs, he's catering for people who like to flop into a chair for half an hour with a cup of tea or glass of beer in hand who want to indulge in a bit of escapism. Harmless fun for the most part, peddled by three blokes who don't mind taking the piss out of themselves. If you don't like it turn it off."

Couldn't agree more, Steve. Spot on. 👍


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:31 PM

I have watched 'Top Gear', don't like it, don't like Clarkson. He's accused of throwing a punch at a producer. I have had creative disagreements with people that have ended up with someone losing it and lashing out. It's not really that big a thing. I suspect that someone has overreacted because Clarkson is a twat. But he's a twat who brings in loadsamoney, and as such will no doubt be given another chance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 03:59 PM

For all who agree with Steve's
"I was not aware that either Stephen Fry or Jeremy Clarkson were in the business of trying to restrict anyone's "free speech","

The point which I made and which you failed to comprehend, is that neither of them practice what they preach, they believe in demonising those whom they apparently feel superior to, or those who disagree with them ideologically.

One by sneering and bullying, the other by weasel words and the peddling of mythology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Squeezer
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:14 PM

The problem for the Beeb is that he was given a final warning for mumbling something unspeakably racist on screen a little while back. On the one hand, management has to stick to HRE policies and procedures so that all staff are treated the same, particularly as an assault on a colleague is a pretty serious offence. On the other, the Beeb now owns all rights to the show since buying Clarkson's share of Top Gear (for £8.4m) a couple of years back. If it all goes belly up then they lose an enormous amount of revenue.

Saturday's show was not filmed, so no doubt some lash-up is being frantically rushed into production right now, and sleb lists scanned for a possible replacement. Finding a mouthy petrol head shouldn't be an insurmountable problem, and no doubt JC will be forgotten history in a matter of weeks. Whether or not he will be given another chance later is anyone's guess as he has annoyed Auntie quite a lot in the past, most notably in the Argentina debacle. Incidentally, I don't think he was fired and then re-hired in the past - I think it was a suspension.

Perhaps it's time for a wholesale replacement of presenters and a break from the tiresome know-it-alls who prattle on about brake horse power and compression ratios. Dara O'Briain and the Mock the Week line-up would be a refreshing change. Or Jo Brand. Or Wallace and Grommit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:22 PM

In places where I have worked an alledged assault on a colleague meant instant suspension (on full pay) pending an enquiry. The only fault on the part of the Beeb was treating Clarkson like they would anybody else.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 04:31 PM

For all who agree with Steve's
"I was not aware that either Stephen Fry or Jeremy Clarkson were in the business of trying to restrict anyone's "free speech","

The point which I made and which you failed to comprehend, is that neither of them practice what they preach, they believe in demonising those whom they apparently feel superior to, or those who disagree with them ideologically.

One by sneering and bullying, the other by weasel words and the peddling of mythology.


Well, whether you agree with any of this post or not, I fail to see what it has to do with restricting anyone's "free speech". Incidentally, I should like to know precisely what this poster thinks Mr Fry or Mr Clarkson are "preaching" about. Any example of such "preaching" would be useful.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 05:03 PM

I've seen Top Gear and don't like it. I think that Clarkson is a twat. It is alleged that he threw a punch at a producer. I have had artistic differences with people who lost it and lashed out. It's no big deal. Like I say, I think that Clarkson is twat, but he is a twat who brings in loadsamoney, and will no doubt be given another 'last chance'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 05:31 PM

they believe in demonising those whom they apparently feel superior to

Errm, kettle-pan, pan-kettle. Have you met before?

Scuse me while I go and throw up...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: melodeonboy
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 06:32 PM

So both MGM-Lion and Steve Shaw seem to think that if you don't like Clarkson, then the simple answer is to turn him off. As a licence fee player, I do believe I have a right to have an opinion on his suitability for employment, especially as I imagine my licence fee goes towards paying the wages of those who appear on the BBC!

There is also the issue of his being a role model for younger people. I'm aware that a lot of adolescents - and probably younger children too - watch Top Gear. It's a matter of concern if adolescents end up believing that the kind of ideas and behaviour propagated by Clarkson are acceptable in civilised society. This latter issue has been raised many times with reference to the behaviour of professional footballers. It should apply to anyone that we feel has influence on our young people.

If it is found that he has assaulted a colleague, then he should face the same sanction that I - and the average man in the street - would face, i.e. sacking!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:15 PM

Well I hate Casualty and Holby City and Eastenders and Pointless and Eggheads and Question Of Sport and Call The Midwife and Songs Of Praise and Waterloo Road and Masterchef and Bakeoff and anything about buying houses in the country. Not to speak of the whole content of both Radio 1 and Radio 2 and anything that has Graham bloody Norton in it. I have, as a licence fee payer, the right to have an opinion on all this dross, and I do have. But I love the Beeb, and I love paying my very good value licence fee. I love, for example, watching football, but, in order to watch just four months of top-league footie, much of which I can already get on free channels or on BT Sport, for that alone I'd have to pay as much as for one year of that Beeb licence fee which covers EVERYTHING that the Beeb has on offer. So do continue to be on your high horse apropos of your precious licence fee about ONE programme and ONE bloke you don't like. Consider that you are not alone on this planet, that nothing (not even Wolf Hall) will ever please everybody, and that, if you still don't like it, you can always go and watch all those bloody adverts on ITV!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: melodeonboy
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:32 PM

I'm actually a big supporter of the BBC; (one of the reasons I'd rather Clarkson wasn't involved with it!). I'm also a big supporter of the licence fee. I was making the point that I - like you - have a right to express my opinion on a matter of topical importance that involves the BBC, and that I don't need a clever dick to tell me that I should just turn it off if I don't like it rather than expressing my opinion. The title of this thread may give you a clue as to why I commented on this particular programme rather than others!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:54 PM

i don't watch the programme. but i would appreciate a programme that doesn't treat me as a wimp be cause i am not interested in high performance cars. like everyone else. i buy sensible cars.

the sight of that tosser and his two sycphantic twerpettes is weariness of the flesh - even just scrolling past the channel.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 07:59 PM

According to rumours, the blustering fat oaf threw a hissy fit,
swung a punch at a hapless minion
and completely missed...

Now that would have been very amusing to witness...

If Clarkson is not sacked he should seen to be willingly doing penance
by being obliged to present a series on road safety & responsible driving,
strategies for preventing road rage, and cycling as a healthier greener option.

.. and be be forced to sit out the next series of Top Gear confined to the studio
presenting items on child seats and cycle racks, affordable driving accessories & novelty nodding head dogs,
whilst cooking all the rest of the cast & crew's dinners...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: vectis
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 08:58 PM

Top Gear in its present format is a world wide hit because of (not despite) the three presenters and the different characters they have created. It is not real life just three petrolheads having fun and being entertaining. Graham Norton and Alan Carr are merely annoying little ticks, I them turn off.

Top Gear used to be about cars people could afford and sensible tests of them were made. When Tiff Nidell (not sure about the surname)set up his own show on Channel 4 which continued to cover motorsport and affordable cars it sunk quite quickly. People got bored with it in a few seasons. People don't get bored with Top Gear. It is sold all over the World. The American version is not anywhere near as funny (we get both in New Zealand)or as entertaining.
The Beeb will have to stop the show completely - and maybe it has had its day now - or reinstate Clarkson if he just got uppity but didn't actually hit someone. If he did bash a producer the Police should have been called at the time. End of.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 09:15 PM

Bearing in mind that it is now viewed in 170 countries, and that the BBC is concerned with the loss of revenue that may now occur, the idea that we, the licence fee payers, pay Clarkson's salary is looking a bit silly. It's more likely that the absence of Top Gear and the worldwide income it generates would mean an increase in the TV licence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 15 - 09:19 PM

Sorry, Melodeonboy, for being a bit heavy there !   :-(


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 12:44 AM

There are now several petitions that Mr. J. Clarkson be sacked. Their joint totals stand at less than 8000.
The one petition to reinstate him stands at 642000. And is much more fun to watch. Votes coming in from Bangladesh, Iran, and Iraq....

Makes one wonder just how much the Beeb makes from Top Gear.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 02:07 AM

I confess to watching repeats of Top Gear on the 'Dave' channel. I must have seen some episodes at least twice ... pathetic, I know ... but what else is there to do on a winters evening when you're retired? The only episodes that I actively disapprove of are those featuring that intensely annoying little speccy twerp, Chris Evans! I have no interest in cars, by the way - I don't even drive these days.

Top Gear appears to be in a peculiar position; it has an extremely successful formula which is quite a long way past its 'sell-by-date'. Perhaps this latest Clarkson scandal is part of an elaborate ploy to revamp it (?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: melodeonboy
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 02:07 AM

Accepted, Steve! Thanks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 02:35 AM

This says everything that needs to be said, AFAIC.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 06:16 AM

Says something about the show's popularity that it's still going strong a full four years after that article, though! ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 07:04 AM

"Makes one wonder just how much the Beeb makes from Top Gear....

... His product makes millions and millions that then subsidises the programmes they make nothing out of.
Or at least according to successive annual reports of The BBC Trust and its predecessor.
"

If I was the kind of person prone to hysterical overstatement I could say something along the lines of....

"Clarkson has become such a powerful and untouchable money magnet cash cow
that he's now to the Beeb
what Saville was to Children's hospitals...???"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 07:40 AM

In short, both are ego driven balloons and cynical manipulative bullies, in equal measure.

Sound very much like the obnoxious clowns on Fux "News"[sic] or Limbaugh & Beck over here across the pond. And thousands of USAsians love THOSE assholes, too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 07:56 AM

Comparing light entertainment to raping children and vulnerable adults?

Losing the plot PFR?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 08:04 AM

wellllll.... as I'm sure Clarkson's fervent fanboys might agree..

it's all about the unacceptable limits of transgressive non PC humour.. innit.. ?????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 08:16 AM

"Says something about the show's popularity that it's still going strong a full four years after that article, though! ;-)"

LOL! Can't dispute that, Steve! Didn't see that it was an old article until it was too late - f***ing internet!! 😃

But the fact that it's grown whiskers doesn't detract from its truth AFAIC.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 08:40 AM

4 years old - so what..

That Coogan link is still a very good relevant read..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 08:53 AM

I didn't say it wasn't still relevant, did I! As a matter of fact, I agree with a lot of it. Not all of it, but a lot of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 09:18 AM

I'd read the Coogan bit at the time. Fair comment. He is welcome to my comments too. I haven't met nor been a mate of Clarkson so he has an insight I don't but there again, I don't look for insight, just light entertainment to wash over me.

I enjoy Top Gear, it's a laugh. Most of the pisstaking is at the expense of the presenters by the other presenters and Clarkson in his Top gear magazine articles says how amazed how the more outrageous he gets, the more some people take him at face value.

I have never seen Strictly Come Dancing, Knobenders, Emmerdale Farm, Big Brother, any of the talent shows of recent years, the Voice etc etc, and whilst I admit to keeping quiet and tacitly watching Corrie years ago, the main characters were Albert Tatlock and Ena Sharples the last time I saw it.

Yet amazingly, I don't scream that these shows are a waste of money and that Simon Cowell should be put in a wicker man and burned.

I ain't that selfish for one thing, and let's face it, if everybody had my wisdom, talent, common sense and love of arts, I'd have no peasants to look down on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 09:23 AM

There is a lot of speculation about what happened. All that has been said officially is that there was a 'fracas' - an unusual choice of words but presumably one which was used deliberately and carefully. If he was alleged to have actually struck someone, why not say so? Those who dislike Clarkson naturally assume the worst, but I suspect the situation is a lot more complex.

Nevertheless it puts the BBC in a difficult position. Violence in the workplace cannot be tolerated, but the show is chiefly built around the personalities of the presenters and the chemistry between them, and of all of them Clarkson would be the hardest to replace. The BBC must have been well aware of this when they bought out his share in the show only a couple of years ago.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 10:05 AM

I don't watch them either, Muskie! Like at least one of you (probably all three!), I actually have a life! :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 04:03 PM

Yeah, that was me. McMusket was swatting flies earlier in the thread though.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 04:52 PM

Is any of this important?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 04:56 PM

Probably just as important as Dick Miles and folk music...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 02:10 AM

One or two innocuous banter posts missing.

Presumably The USA has gone from funding the likes of Noraid to shock and awe at the first hint of foreigners showing aggression to each other.

Funny really because the word moderation means a reasoned approach.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 03:33 AM

As ever, the mind of the mod is most mysteriously mind-boggling...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 03:36 AM

The mind of the rocker isn't much clearer...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 05:15 AM

Yesterday's Matt cartoon in the Telegrope somewhat like this:

"Farrage, Clegg & Milliband. Perfect shoe-in for Top Gear replacement".

Other policians are available..............


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 05:57 AM

LoL Musket ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 05:58 AM

You must be nearly as old as me to remember Mods & Rockers


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 06:12 AM

Oop north we had nebs too. I seem to recall that a neb was a rocker who couldn't afford a motorbike. Or was it scooterless mod....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 06:32 AM

A quote from the New Statesman-

'If all the signatories (to the petition to reinstate Clarkson) were boiled down for biofuel the world would be a cleaner, better place. We live in a world of stupid and Clarkson is its king'.

It's a point of view I suppose - if a little harsh.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 06:44 AM

Well, that's a violent suggestion which is meant to counter an act of almost infinitely less violence. Not harsh? It's bloody awful.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 06:45 AM

Not not harsh, harsh. :-(


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 07:05 AM

My Great Granddad told me all about mods and rockers....

👴

A while ago, The Grauniad had an article that pointed out how the media world looked for Top Gear failures and pounced on them, mainly because no bugger likes runaway success, especially when the success is at the expense of political correctness. Apparently, advertisers prefer readers / listeners who are scared and not capable of forming views. Being BBC, they don't get to influence.

That too was a point of view, and let's face it, the vanilla "light entertainment" attracts the big advertisers, not the insightful documentaries. That said, I find it rather funny that Dave channel can demand more money to advertise half way through an old Top gear that has been repeated to death than something they are showing at prime time for the first time (for them..)

There again, showbiz controllers know that dense people fall for gossip, hence some of the less than intelligent contributions to this thread. I happen to like Top Gear, one of the other Muskets doesn't rate it. But I don't scream for Downton Abbey to be taken down and he doesn't want to deprive me of Top Gear.

(Or Wheeler Dealers, Fifth Gear etc etc. My goggle box needs are few but tasteful.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 07:05 AM

Really, be honest now, who hasn't at some time wanted to punch out a TV producer??? Especially when an OB crew turn up at a folk event and make impossible demands of performers.
Luckily, we're all pacifists here....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 15 - 08:31 AM

Dunno. I once poured a pint over a journalist at a gig. Mind you, I was in a rock band, not at a folk club.....



His prediction however turned out to be accurate. We didn't last more than a few months...



Still, the beer was flat and I didn't fancy it.



I never did find out, after slagging us off in "New Wave" why he bothered turning up to a second gig? He was lucky to get my pint, the drummer offered to slip him a length.

Dry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 07:40 AM

And now someone at the Beeb is likening Clarkson to Savile.

Whether you are for or against the bloke, it looks like he is being hung out to dry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 07:43 AM

Sorry broken link - Fixed here

I hope.

If not, C&P this instead

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11473066/BBC-boss-likens-Jeremy-Clarkson-to-Jimmy-Savile-after-establishment-support.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

He was compared with Saville earlier on this thread too..

Plus someone with a rudimentary understanding of law said he should be in prison.

Without such stupidity, the celebrity industry would falter through lack of punters I suppose.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 08:32 AM

Careful who you choose to dismiss as stupid...

My earlier sardonic 'comparison' was in regard to any institutions
cynical 'turn a blind eye' dependency on a cash cow celebrity,
to the extent of being in a state of denial of that celeb's 'problematic personal qualities'....

.. of course some folks can only read what they want to read
despite the reality and any other possible interpretations of other folks intended meanings.....???

Saville was an evil predatory rapist paedo
Clarkson is just an entertainingly oafish caricature of a boorish smug upper middle class right wing arsehole..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 08:41 AM

"the celebrity industry"

Interesting turn of phrase.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 10:24 AM

It was still an unfair and completely uncalled-for juxtaposition, no matter how carefully you try to explain it away.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 10:35 AM

I'm an ex miner who has been a disc jockey and lots of voluntary work in hospitals. Yet somehow, I don't think comparing my background to that of Saville is appropriate.

So comparing Clarkson, who's only similarity is being from Yorkshire and appearing on the telly isn't a good idea either.

Rather disappointed really PFR, you don't tend to be so sensationalist.

That said, your description of him as a caricature of what some think he is, is on the button


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 10:41 AM

what - unfair to Saville ? or Clarkson ...????

As much as I dislike the idea of Clarkson, at least the blustering buffoon has a robust sense of humour...

Apparently more so than some of his over defensive fanboys...???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 10:46 AM

that reply was in response to Steve - didn't see your comment while I typing Musk..

me, sensationalist...??? how outrageous !!! 😜


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 12:50 PM

I read somewhere that Clarkson, May and Hammond's contracts with the BBC expire this year sometime. Perhaps this latest "fracas" has got something to do with 'burning bridges'? After all, JC is supposed to have voluntarily reported the incident to the Beeb management.

Perhaps there's a big, juicy contract, from some other broadcaster, lurking just around the corner (?) I wonder if the 'fracasticated' producer will move with them ? Was it, I wonder, a smart career move, on his part, to pose as a victim ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 02:45 PM

You should write for astrology magazines. Their readers go in for that sort of stuff.

(PFR - learn from the master. Shimrod gives a master class in sensationalism there....)
😎


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: goatfell
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 02:55 PM

How can anyone like him he's a bully and the quicker we get rid of him.
The better


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 03:04 PM

You can get rid of him very quickly by turning the telly off. Why torture yourself?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 03:47 PM

I dont have a television, thank god.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

seen in car spares store last week

'The only tool left in this vehicle is the driver'


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 05:54 PM

On the number of names on the petition to reinstate the arse,

A chap being interviewed on the subject on BBC radio this morning, said, "Why cant we get 900,000 signatures for something which really matters"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Mar 15 - 07:57 PM

From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 12 Mar 15 - 08:16 AM

"Says something about the show's popularity that it's still going strong a full four years after that article, though! ;-)"

LOL! Can't dispute that, Steve! Didn't see that it was an old article until it was too late - f***ing internet!! 😃

But the fact that it's grown whiskers doesn't detract from its truth AFAIC.

"Says something about the show's popularity"?
Says a damn sight more about the BBC and their inability to act when one of their Prima Donnas (sorry: "big money spinners") is cited.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 02:58 AM

It's all about money, according to this piece in the Standard, the paper Londoners read on the Tube.
And an account of what (allelgedly) happened in the 'fracas' (good old journalistic word, seldom used other than in newspapers, where it's a nice size for a headline and usefully bland) in the Metro, another Tube paper.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 03:10 AM

The business of business is business.

Meanwhile. I enjoyed the red arrows documentary. But it wasn't my weekly fix of Top Gear.

I am fascinated by the comment by Goatfell. Who are "we" and what will be "better"?

Millions of people will miss their favourite TV programme and The BBC will lose millions and millions in franchise sales.

I signed the petition. You don't buy a petrol lawnmower then not use it because its noisy.
Clarkson's ironic irreverent waffle and loutish behaviour is a feature, so there is no use having a puppy and blaming it for shitting on the carpet.

More analogies to follow. Unless you ask me nicely not to.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 04:24 AM

"You should write for astrology magazines. Their readers go in for that sort of stuff."

I'm not familiar with astrology magazines, Musket. But as you appear to be, perhaps you could recommend one?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 06:04 AM

Reminds me of a comic recently bemoaning that a Tory MP said The NHS should use astrology to help predict prognosis.

He said, speaking as a consultant addressing a patient;

"let's see now. It says here you are a cancer. There's a coincidence."









"You've got crabs "


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 06:49 AM

Funny that, I had an electric band once, and have been a DJ as well. Bugger, too damned like Mither.

It does bother me a bit that success as a "light entertainer" seems to come mainly to arseholes - Ant and Dec, Moyles, Clarkson, Woth, the Sex Insect, Tony Blackburn, Mike Read, Oprah, Kyle, Juicy Brucie, oh, and who was that twerp who was rude to contestants, then drugged and anally raped a straight guy and drowned him in his swimming pool?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 07:13 AM

I think his name was Richard Bridge


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 07:44 AM

Michael Barrymore?


----
Back to Clarkson. I've noticed that he was the one that's supposed to have reported the incident to the BBC. Could Clarkson quite wilfully have engineered the whole thing, perhaps leaving the BBC with little option but to suspend him?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 10:07 AM

"Could Clarkson quite wilfully have engineered the whole thing, perhaps leaving the BBC with little option but to suspend him?"

See my post of 15-Mar-15 - 12:50 PM, which Musket dismissed with some nonsense about astrology. My post was supposed to be 'tongue-in-cheek' - but the patronising Musket appears to have taken it at face value and can go f**k himself; perhaps too much watching of JC in Top Gear has rubbed off on him?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 10:28 AM

I don't know. I''ve not watched long enough to know if it can have that sort of side effect. Two reasons for this:

1. I've largely lost interest in cars. As a maybe 15 year old, being taken to the Motor Show in Earls Court was a thrill. Seeing the Lambourghinis, getting to look at a Panther (anyone else remember these sort of vintage looking sports cars?) was nice, etc. I used to sort of want to be able to identify every car on the road but, now in my 50's a car is just something that gets you from A to B and without looking at badges, I couldn't tell you what's on the road these days...

2. I've found the bits I've seen of Top Gear irritating and exercise the switch off/change channels/change room options.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 11:51 AM

He's a good entertainer whether you like what he does or not and he's at good at it.

But his behaviour is seemingly of someone who sees themselves as being that important that the world revolves round them. If you keep your helicopter waiting for a couple of hours because you want to stay drinking (I always try to be on time for my helicopter because it's rude not to). If you then take it out on someone because they are not gearing everyone else's world round catering for JC (hmmm... where have I seen those initials before?) then - even if it isn't this time - it is just going to be a matter of time until something else occurs.

If you are THAT self important and give so little thought to others then it usually ends in a bad place. And, thankfully, often a bad place for the self important one. Is that what karma is?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 12:04 PM

On balance Shimrod, I suppose I'd rather fuck myself. Unless you are offering of course.

Like those who don't like Top Gear, you could always keep your eyes shut. Although I guarantee I'll make the buggers water.

Tuesday. You'll meet a tall bald stranger. You'll be grateful.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 12:04 PM

..perhaps the only way Clarkson's true believers would be happy to see him exit the show
would be in a ball of flame head on collision
with a National Express coach full of lefty hippy anti car ownership / pro public transport campaigners...???

Makes you wonder how the 1970s movie "Death Race 2000"
has never been optioned as an international syndicated reality show ?

Clarkson would be the perfect host !!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 12:08 PM

When I first saw this story I assumed, naively, that it was a professional disagreement and I think violent reaction in a situation where one feels passionate is not difficult to understand. It now transpires that Clarkson punched someone in the mouth for failing to ensure there was a hot meal ready for him as soon as he arrived (two hours late). That is the behaviour of a lout. It is sad that some people's response is to effectively say, 'Yeah, he may have been out of order but he entertains me and so should be allowed to carry on'.
Standards fall when they are subject to equivocation. Clarkson treated another human being as no more than a thing which he could abuse at will. I can see no reason not to make him pay heavily for that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 03:33 PM

'oafish caricature of a boorish, smug, upper middle class arsehole' i enjoyed this description. nice one - pfr


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 05:01 PM

Pay heavily? My licence fee pays for Songs Of Praise, Thought For The Day, Beyond Belief, Choral Evensong and God knows what at Christmas and Easter. I pay heavily for all that. And it's all propagated by Christian bigots. Give me Clarkson any day. He's a million times more harmless.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 05:34 PM

Pay heavily for what? Did I miss a court case?

No wonder reactionary newspapers make money.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,bigot
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 05:35 PM

I like this defintion of bigot.

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 05:37 PM

There was a case a few years ago in a Dublin court where a man was brought in for punching his wife because his hot dinner wasn't on the table in time.
"If I see you back here again," the judge said, "I'll send you to a place where your dinner will be on the table in time every day."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 06:21 PM

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;"

Obstinacy and opinionated do not apply to bigotry. Intolerance would apply only if applied in opposition to reasonable, measured views. Prejudices, fine. If I were you I'd pay far more careful attention as to where you get your definitions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,bigot
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 06:31 PM

And I wish people would look in the mirror before using my name.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 07:07 PM

We don't know your name, pillock. At least you know mine, don't you? Anyway, would you care to modify your rickety definition of bigotry? Or, at the very least, tell us where you got the definition you like so much?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 07:13 PM

If people are starting to call each other pillocks, I'm getting out of here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 07:18 PM

Heheh. You haven't been around long, have you, Thompson? Stick around. I apologise. I have been trying harder lately, but I'm a human being and I find some people even more trying.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 08:07 PM

Oh, I've been around a while, Steve. Don't worry; learning the essential human skill of taking a deep breath, stepping back and waiting till your heartbeat slows takes time and dedication.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 15 - 08:33 PM

Great. So stick round, pillock!

Only joking, tha knows...!   ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 02:43 AM

I obstinately cling to my view that everybody has an equal stake and there should be no barriers to opportunity that others enjoy, given access to the same education and chances society offers.

Presumably then my dim view of bigotry makes me a bigot?

I'll accept it makes me a pillock, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 04:15 AM

Yes, pillock sounds about right.

I don't watch Top Gear as a matter of requirement, but if it is on, carry on watching it. It is good banter, occasionally witty and allows us to laugh at, not with absurdity.

I still chuckle at Clarkson's comments when reviewing the first Audi with the "fairy lights LED set around the headlights. He said it was like a council house at Christmas. Or listening to the engine of one particular supercar, said it sounded like Tom Jones experiencing man love for the first time.

If we lose it, where else are we to rage against the machine?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 05:33 AM

In reply to Guest, nothing has 'transpired'. There have been plenty of leaks and rumours, which those who don't like Clarkson are more than happy to believe, and the BBC seems to be briefing against him, albeit on an unattributed basis. The two protagonists have remained silent. We won't know the truth until the enquiry.

What we do know is that something happened resulting in a 'fracas' and that it was sufficiently serious for Clarkson to report it himself.

As for the outcome, who knows? It is not a court of law and may be less interested in abstract justice than in finding a solution which protects the careers of both individuals, not to mention the future of the BBC's biggest cash cow.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 04:17 PM

poor steve !...his license fee spent on stuff he don't want. I wonder if he is representative of the rest of us that pay. we all have dislikes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 04:26 PM

Yeah pete. I like the programmes about the origins of the universe and science. I also like the programmes that take the piss out of loonies who would have children believe creationist claptrap.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 06:43 PM

I don't like it and I pay heavily for it but I don't watch it and I don't particularly object to the fact it's on. There is a lack of balance, however, in that the trueness of religion is arrogantly assumed to be the default position. Religion is false, therefore should have to struggle for its status, not bathe in the luxury of protected privilege. But don't worry, pete. My licence fee pays for loads of other stuff I don't want, such as tennis, rugby, soap operas and mindless quiz programmes, reality TV and game shows. But I can't possibly "want" everything my licence fee pays for in any case and I'm more than happy that stuff is on that isn't to my taste. I love paying my fee and regard it as exceptional value.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 06:50 PM

" I love paying my fee"

hey, why not enjoy twice the love.. and pay for mine as well !!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 15 - 06:52 PM

Because I can only watch one telly at a time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 09:47 AM

yeh, musket, your religious ideas get more air time than theist religion.   of course, if you can demonstrate your ideas are scientific...........


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 11:48 AM

"of course, if you can demonstrate your ideas are scientific..."

Do you mean as scientific as you, pete? Someone who, if I remember from a previous thread, didn't know that gas is a form of matter and who labelled those of us who do know that elementary scientific fact as being "gas pedants"!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Agnostic
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 12:17 PM

This tangential thread drift raises an interesting and very relevant question.
Is Jeremy Clarkson a christian, or actually Satan incarnate on Earth ???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 12:21 PM

Satan in car, mate!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 01:21 PM

LoL, SS - ;-}


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 18 Mar 15 - 02:39 PM

Clarkson claims to be irreligious. A term I actually like and can be comfortable with.

Meanwhile, pete either knows something about my faith in Sheffield Wednesday or he is confusing me with someone of feeble mind when he rattles on about me having a religion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 04:39 AM

pete? pete? Where are you, pete?

You burst on to this thread spouting about "science", then, as soon as you are reminded that, on previous form, you know nothing about science - pfftt! - you disappear! What's the matter, pete? Surely you're not intimidated by a few of us crusty old "gas pedants", are you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 05:13 AM

James May and Clarkson's other appendage Hammond both refused to present Top Gear without the Chipping Norton gobshite and the Beeb was forced to drop it, so they did us all a favour.

Is it time for Eggheads yet?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 09:01 AM

Didn't do me a favour. Don't confuse my superior intellect and need for mental stimulus with your televisual Mogadon fix me old love.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 09:30 AM

How many times did "Blue Peter" change it's entire presenting team ?
yet we all emerged from childhood relatively intact with the minimum of emotional anguish
and long term trauma...

We even survived the deaths of top team members Petra and Shep, and still continued watching....

In the greater scheme of life - Clarkson is expendable !!!

mind you, I preferred "Magpie" and "Playaway"...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 11:20 AM

Almost as many times as other shows, Top Gear for instance.

Mind you, if you want Noel Edmunds back presenting it, you are on your own. Although getting Vicki Butler Henderson back?

Game on
😎


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 11:31 AM

"Don't confuse my superior intellect and need for mental stimulus with your televisual Mogadon fix me old love."

No worries about that. It must be hard for you old establishment types to change with the times (after years of fucking the world up for those that come after you). You ageing 'petrol heads' might enjoy watching some middle aged white posho wannabes pissing about with cars and taking the piss out of johnny foreigner just like the good old days, and who should deny you such a simple pleasure in your dotage?

Better make the most of it though old chaps. The writing's on the wall for right-wing old duffers like the muskets.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 11:49 AM

Tell you what, Stu. Let us know what YOU like so we can take the piss out of that eh? If not yet being in your dotage means that you can mock peoples tastes, preferences and age, then I am more than happy in my dotage.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 12:01 PM

... if it was up to me, Top Gear could easily be replaced with a similar format show
'road testing' electric guitars, amps, and fuzz boxes....😎

..trouble is most of the potential presenters who work in guitar shops
and present youtube gear review channels
are complete dickheads....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 12:14 PM

Good riddance....its not as if he was a genuine conservative.
He just acted the part and took the piss...just like his alter ego on the left Fry, that's why I mentioned him at the start of this thread.....about as left as my right foot and smells ten times worse.

Clarkson blusters and Fry whines!........and blusters :0(


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 12:23 PM

and of course Fry is a homosexual which was the real reason for mentioning him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 12:30 PM

"Let us know what YOU like so we can take the piss out of that eh?"

Hold on, this a thread about Top bloody Gear! What else am I supposed to take the piss out of? It's not my fault you've gone all sensitive because someone takes the rip out of your simian, toff-arse-licking, boorish lummox of a hero and his two . No wonder the kippers have got so far in this country; they hate people taking the piss out of them too.

As for being old, I have the greatest respect for old folk (I'm certainly no spring chicken myself!), however if taking the piss out of foreigners is OK for the likes of witless xenophobes like Clarkson then doing the same for old dotards like the musket triplets is also fair game. I mean, it doesn't hurt anyone does it?

Here's a list of things on TV I like:

Channel Four News
Repeats of Fools and Horses
Tiswas (much missed)
The Daily Politics (despite Andrew Neil)
Masterchef ("buttery biscuit base!")
Things with actual science in
Jools Holland's live show
Music documentaries like the one about the 80's that was on the other night
Deal or No Deal ("he's gone for the guvnor!")
Rock School
Feature films

Go get 'em tiger!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 02:32 PM

Here it is!! Fry being considered as Clarkson Successor

And as the Daily Mail is considered a reliable source of information by Jim Carroll (When it suits him) - I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

The programme I can take or leave, but one of the earlier "Stigs" was right - without Clarkson it just wouldn't work, well done May & Hammond.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 02:35 PM

You know I am far too nice to take the piss out of any of those, Stu. Apart to say that most of them are made by idiots for idiots. Seriously, it is just a matter of taste of course and no persons tastes can be said to be any better than another. Which is what you seem to be implying.

What I can ask is how you arrived at because someone takes the rip out of your simian, toff-arse-licking, boorish lummox of a hero and his two when I only said "I still find him entertaining". Look it up if you don't believe me. How that makes him a hero is beyond me. If you want to know who my heroes really are you do not have to go much further than the threads on here.

What's up anyway? Out of sorts? Can I suggest syrup of figs - really helps to get the shit out without pouring it on here :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 04:01 PM

does anyone care apart from dave the gnome, i am more interested in the riots in frankfurt


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 04:30 PM

Why single me out, Dick? There are dozens of contributors here, all potentially interested.. Could it be that you are incapable of seeing further back than the last post or are you simply being your usual argumentative self? I don't really care one way or another, as I said, I find him entertaining but celebrity culture has no attraction to me. I haven't heard anything about the riots in Frankfurt. Are they a rock band? Are you supporting them?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Or, if I may put it more bluntly, if you are not interested in this subject, why don't you just fuck off?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 06:37 PM

How many times did "Blue Peter" change it's entire presenting team ?
yet we all emerged from childhood relatively intact with the minimum of emotional anguish
and long term trauma...


And how many times did Dr Who change its lead role then?

What's that? Never?

Ok, How many times has it changed its lead actor? . . .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 07:19 PM

I'm right wing eh?

Often wondered what it meant. If it is an insult, then Stu is right wing. If it is a withering term, I notice a right winger or two have waded in.

Mind you, I'm certainly a petrol head. Although my day to day buggy is diesel. Just to split hairs. If it feeds your shoulder chip Stu, I also have a Merc SLK AMG and Mrs Musket and I swap between that and the oil burner BMW, and I have a Stag in bits being slowly restored to its V8 glory, if British Leyland ever has glory in the first place. (Been made an offer as it stands and am tempted. Got my eyes on an old Jenson..)

Mm. Stephen Fry mentioned again. I wonder why? Dave seems to be on the button.

Funny how entertainment brings out the mad, sad and bad. Getting animated over celebrity nonsense. Musket said and I agree. Mudcat seems to be the sister magazine for Hello at times.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 07:41 PM

I prefer this, dave the gnome singing is better than dave the gnome telling people to fuck off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcOtCJvmVZA


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Mar 15 - 07:54 PM

Dave, I think you owe me an apology .....considering Teribus's link.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 02:50 AM

A newspaper speculates replacements for Clarkson and as a result, Akenaton feels vindicated for random hate comments of famous people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Fascinating. Truly fascinating.

You think you deserve an apology? You are an apology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 03:57 AM

Silly boy, I was ridiculed for even mentioning piss taker Clarkson and creepy Fry in the same post.

It's clear that as Mr Galloway famously said. "They're two cheeks of the one arse" :0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 04:13 AM

for the benefit of the uninformed dave polshaw.riots in germanyGermany riot targets new ECB headquarters in Frankfurt
Jump media player
Media player help
Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.

Fires were lit as protesters gathered for the Frankfurt rally, as Jenny Hill reports
Continue reading the main story        
Related Stories

    Frankfurt fires near new ECB site Watch
    Why has the ECB punished Greece?
    Greek PM brings forward Putin talks

Dozens of people have been hurt and some 350 people arrested as anti-austerity demonstrators clashed with police in the German city of Frankfurt.

Police cars were set alight and stones were thrown in a protest against the opening of a new base for the European Central Bank (ECB).

Violence broke out close to the city's Alte Oper concert hall hours before the ECB building's official opening.

"Blockupy" activists are expected to attend a rally later on Wednesday.

In earlier disturbances, police in riot gear used water cannon to clear hundreds of anti-capitalist protesters from the streets around the new ECB headquarters.
Riot police carry away an activist during a demonstration organized by the Blockupy movement to protest against the policies of the European Central Bank (18 March 2015)
An activist at a demonstration organized by the Blockupy movement to protest against the policies of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt (18 March 2015)

Organisers were bringing a left-wing alliance of protesters from across Germany and the rest of Europe to voice their anger at the ECB's role in austerity measures in EU member states, most recently Greece.

The bank, in charge of managing the euro, is also responsible for framing eurozone policy and, along with the IMF and European Commission is part of a troika which has set conditions for bailouts in Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Cyprus.

A spokesman for the Blockupy movement said the troika was responsible for austerity measures which have pushed many into poverty.

Police set up a cordon of barbed wire outside the bank's new 185m (600ft) double-tower skyscraper, next to the River Main.

But hopes of a peaceful rally were dashed as clashes began early on Wednesday.

Tyres and rubbish bins were set alight and police responded with water cannon as firefighters complained they were unable to get to the fires to put them out. One fire engine appeared to have had its windscreen broken.
Protester in Frankfurt (18 March) Rubbish bins were set alight some distance from the new ECB building (background)
German police cars set on fire by anti-capitalist protesters Among the first targets for protesters were police cars

Activists said many protesters had been hurt by police batons, water cannon and by pepper spray.

Police said as many as 80 of their officers had been affected by pepper spray or an acidic liquid. Eight suffered injuries from stone-throwing protesters.

Police spokeswoman Claudia Rogalski spoke of an "aggressive atmosphere" and the Frankfurt force tweeted images of a police van being attacked. They were braced for further violence as increasing numbers of activists arrived for the rally.

Blockupy accused police of using kettling tactics to cordon off hundreds of protesters and appealed for supporters to press for their release.
line

What is Blockupy?

    Europe-wide alliance of left-wing parties, unions and movements
    Vehemently against austerity polices of European Commission, ECB and IMF
    First Frankfurt protest attracted thousands in 2012
    Activists from Greece's radical left governing party Syriza and Spain's anti-corruption Podemos are joining the rally
    Also includes Germany's Die Linke and Occupy Frankfurt
    Rallying call: "They want capitalism without democracy, we want democracy without capitalism"

line

As the number of protesters grew in the streets away from the new ECB building, the bank's president, Mario Draghi, gave a speech marking its inauguration.

Mr Draghi said that the it "may not be a fair charge" to label the ECB as the main perpetrator of unpopular austerity in Europe.

"Our action has been aimed precisely at cushioning the shocks suffered by the economy," he said.

"But as the central bank of the whole euro area, we must listen very carefully to what all our citizens are saying."

The new headquarters, which had been due to open years earlier, cost an estimated ?1.3bn (£930m; $1.4bn) to build and is the new home for thousands of central bankers.

Blockupy activists said on their website that there was nothing to celebrate about the politics of austerity and increasing poverty.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 04:17 AM

Yeah but after 5 secs of footage of the riots I got bored. Nothing like as entertaining as Top Gear or Wheeler Dealers.

Might be entertainment to you Dick, but some of us prefer the wit and wisdom of petrol heads.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 04:40 AM

Yes, pete, and Clarkson is probably an "evolutionist" and a "gas pedant" as well! He should be locked up!

You know, "gas pedant" is my favourite phrase of 2014. A mate of mine is a chemist and when I told him about it he spilled his pint, he was laughing so hard! We now call our little Friday night pub session "The Gas Pedantry Society".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 04:42 AM

Walked. Even managed to chew bubbly gum whilst doing so.

Perhaps pete, Clarkson should join the clergy then. Religious leaders tend to make sure vile and disgusting people who work for "Jesus" are protected from facing charges when seeking sexual gratification.

A bloke told me Clarkson was an SS officer, that he organised Pol Pot's killing fields and abused altar boys. He should face charges etc etc zzzzzz

(Mind you, he used to take the piss out of my Jag. Not my actual one I had at the time but it was crushing and I went into a depression. Just because get couldn't get it round the Nurburgring in less than 10 mins.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 04:57 AM

GSS.....I take your point, but isn't the decimation of society by the media, not a little important?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 04:58 AM

So, ake, you think you need an apology because you believe that Clarkson and Fry are the same and then the Daily Heil publishes a piece stating they think that Fry could take over from Clarkson? Have I got that right? You agree with the Daily Heil so you believe you must be right? You need to get a grip on reality. I thought you may get better now that you no longer spend your days falling of ladders and cracking roof tiles with your forehead but it seems the damage is lasting.

Dick - I am not interested in Clarkson but I do find him amusing. I am not interested in riots in Frankfurt and I find long cut and pastes tedious. Guess what this thread is about. Thanks for the plug anyway but my comment still stands :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 05:08 AM

Dave, the story is carried by many publications, like "Business Weekly".

I never really thought you had it in you to apologise.

You are simply consumed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 05:46 AM

I have nothing to apologise for. Dunno about consumed. I would say you are confused but that is probably too kind.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clarkson has been sacked by BBC
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 06:22 AM

A different take on this, from the Guardian


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clarkson has been sacked by BBC
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 06:52 AM

Awww, C'mon PeterL. Give Pete something to believe in that may actually be true... :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clarkson has been sacked by BBC
From: GUEST,#
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 08:22 AM

Clarkson has been sacked by BBC,
To quote the words he said on the TV,
"I'm $%^#&% &%^$#% and &%^$#
But the *^&%$ %^&$%# &%^$#@$,
And the &%^$# %$#&%" so said he.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clarkson has been sacked by BBC
From: Musket
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 08:33 AM

Meanwhile, whilst Clarkson used the term in a charity auction, in order to get his story back in the headlines, and succeeding...

The report to the director general doesn't get there till next week, and the recommendations will be in it.

Some people believe and repeat anything that agrees with their petty prejudice.

Eyup pete! Any chance of you offering a prayer up for him? Isn't that what you Christians do when someone is being attacked when nobody knows the facts?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 08:36 AM

Notwithstanding I doubt any of the Muskets and especially not me has ever watched Sky News.

So... Is she worth cracking one out over, anonymous guest with limited imagination?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Clarkson has been sacked by BBC
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 08:58 AM

"Some people believe and repeat anything that agrees with their petty prejudice."

You certainly do Musktwat, although in your case it normally centres around dramatic misrepresentations and myths depicted by a bunch of left-wing, politically motivated "Luvvies" who brought us such entertainment as, OWALW, Blackadder, a handful of Poets, politicians eagre to polish their egos and deflect attention away from their past actions by denigrating the efforts of men unable to defend themselves.

What I believe and what I repeat, I can back up and substantiate - pity the same cannot be said for all three of you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 11:11 AM

Latest twist.

Must be one of the biggest publicity stunts dreamed up by the BBC ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 11:36 AM

Mm. Backing up and substantiating. Sounds impressive. 😋

Until you put it in the arena of debate where you go on to form views from respecting others. Or at least, normal people do.

Piss off eh? Oh and take your mates with you. I don't call red top tabloids a source if its all the same to you. They might pander to your distaste and they might frighten the likes of Akenaton into treating others with lack of respect, but many of those on Mudcat are too intelligent, sophisticated and well balanced to take bullshit at face value.

I'm sure Hello magazine must have a forum for those who believe what journalists want them to.

Still giving good value eh Terribulus?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 01:26 PM

The moderators, in their clumsy wisdom, have merged two threads. Doing so they omitted the OP of the second thread, posted by 7star Pete. My response to him, Date: 20 Mar 15 - 06:22 AM, has become meaningless by this action/omission and may as well be removed.
It wasn't from Pete. -Mod

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 02:25 PM

"OWALW"

ER, wot's that then Tezza old chum?

Yes the Musket trinity, you do certainly seem quite right-wing. But then people get more so as they age, and despite your oft-lauded collective credentials appear to have acquired the ego of the successful aspirational middle class. But then I'm a pompous twat who's full of shit, so who cares?

Although I find cars bloody boring objects that I can't work up much enthusiasm for, I do like the sound of a V8 engine. Our next door neighbour had a Stag when I was growing up and I really liked it. If I could choose one car though, it would be a Morris Minor Traveller. Great motor, and a real antidote to the characterless, dull clones on the road these days.

I think old fatboy Clarkson is planning to take his two talentless arse limpets and start a new show of their own and leave the Beeb. Then they can flog it at great profit across the world and no-one will give a big end what they say as it won't be on our dollar.

Yay!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 02:29 PM

"OWALW"
Oh What A Lovely War.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 02:36 PM

If mudcat clones had run the BBC,
Clarkson wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 03:07 PM

I am glad Dave the gnome likes the clip of himself singing, we can all live happily ever after


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 03:52 PM

I've got two wings and fly high with the buggers.

I'm not what you refer to as right wing though. Call me a kiddie fiddler, banjo player or mass murderer but for fucks sake, don't align my views to that of Terribulus or Keith A Hole of Hertford.

Getting off your arse ain't making a statement. It's being yourself.

I have a second engine for the Stag by the way. It will fit many rear wheel drive cars without much modification to the mountings or gear coupling. Yours for £800. Just don't listen to those bastards who reckon its two Allegro engines welded together. (It comes with the conversion kit to stop it overheating,)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 04:07 PM

I once had an Allegro. They had a serious problem with the rear stub axles in that the wheel used to shear off! Happened to me on the way to the lakes with the kids on board. I can honestly say that I saw the wheel overtake me before the car fell over. Odd experience. My mate Mike reckoned that they were so named because when the wheel falls off, a leg grows...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 04:30 PM

Thanks Keith. No t a film I've seen.

800 quid for a car engine? No way hose. That's a whole heap of PhD fees right there (well, most of one payment).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Mar 15 - 04:46 PM

i'm confused , peter laban, as I have never been an opening poster, and I don't know which post you refer to. but having read your link, it certainly seems Clarkson is a bit of a loose cannon, but whether he deserves sacking by the beebs slack standards, I wouldn't know. I did have my last post disappear...or maybe fail...,but that was a reply to shimrod .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 01:30 AM

"My mate Mike reckoned that they were so named because when the wheel falls off, a leg grows..."

Nah Dave, it's because the bloody things were All Aggro...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 01:42 AM

Clarkson said (this is a thread about Clarkson, remember?) that when some students put one in a wind tunnel to try out a theory, they were right about the Allegro. It was slightly more aerodynamic in reverse than going forward with a similar drag coefficient.

Yeah Stu, you can get a far better engine for £50 but its a bit like when I paid a tenner to see Martin Carthy last week. You are also paying for the heritage and provenance.

Anyway, I only paid £150 for it and spent about £100 on it. But being a dirty rotten stinking capitalist and knowing there are plenty out there willing to feed my craving, you never know. (It didn't reach its reserve last year.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant)
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 02:01 AM

So what was your reply to my last post, pete? I can hardly wait! I hope that you didn't compare me to the arch-villan, Jeremy Clarkson!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 03:06 AM

Hey Backwoodsman! As Good Soldier pasted a clip of his favourite Dave track, can we ask you to put up a link to your favourite Dick Miles track? I'm sure there are many to choose from 😋


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 03:17 AM

Never heard of him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 05:51 AM

🙊🙉🙈


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 06:10 AM

There are indeed "many to choose from."
First page of hits,


Dick Miles - One April Morning - YouTube
Video for dick miles▶ 4:10
www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_yjf4nSeWc
7 Apr 2013 - Uploaded by SwindonFolksingers
Dick Miles - One April Morning Recorded live at the Swindon Folksingers Club 05.04.13.
Dick Miles - Little Birdie - YouTube
Video for dick miles▶ 3:21
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UAWc1yJm9I
6 Apr 2013 - Uploaded by Allan Allsopp
Dick Miles - Little Birdie from his live performance at the Swindon Folksingers Club 05.04.13.
Dick Miles - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEuLjJGPevMbRip0HQVUdlg
A traditional English folk song sung by folk singer and storyteller Pete Castle. (www.petecastle.co.uk ) Pete says "I recorded this on a cassette for VFM records ...
Dick Miles - Willy of the Winsbury - YouTube
Video for dick miles▶ 4:27
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE4J5P8g-fw
6 Apr 2013 - Uploaded by Allan Allsopp
Dick Miles - Willy of the Winsbury Live at Swindon Folksingers Club 05.04.13.
Marc Jones Australian Vocalist Sings -The Coffee Song by ...
Video for dick miles▶ 3:29
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQijtF4wKbU
8 Apr 2014 - Uploaded by glennmach
Marc Jones Sings The Coffee Song by Bob Hilliard & Dick Miles. Copyrights Protected. "The Johnny Mandel ...
Dick Miles and the Whitby Whaler. - YouTube
Video for dick miles▶ 2:59
www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9k0HmPElec
21 Sep 2011 - Uploaded by shaneis777
Dick Miles of Ballydehob, Co.Cork singing 'Whitby Whaler' in Schull, Co.Cork. August 1992.
Dick Miles - The Touch Of Her Hand - YouTube
Video for dick miles▶ 2:23
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSuJwl7QwYQ
6 Aug 2013 - Uploaded by randall hamm
Dick Miles - The Touch Of Her Hand. randall hamm. SubscribeSubscribedUnsubscribe 503. Subscription ...
Dick Miles -The Last Goodbye.wmv - YouTube
Video for dick miles▶ 2:55
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNf8XjB0Ep8
20 Jun 2010 - Uploaded by scot1759
Looked like Utube was short this great old song so I cleared the dust from my brain and learned Windows ...
Seeds of Love - YouTube
Video for dick miles▶ 3:25
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jCTeQdBFP8
14 Jan 2011 - Uploaded by dickmilesmusic
Hi Dick.....flattered that you visited my site. I have spent a while ... Dick Miles ... Thanks Dick , great song well ...
Dick Miles - Adieu Sweet Nancy - YouTube
Video for dick miles▶ 4:54
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgCNq7ZOOU0
6 Apr 2013 - Uploaded by SwindonFolksingers
Dick Miles - Adieu Sweet Nancy Recorded live at the Swindon Folksingers Club 05.04.13. Category ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Gurney
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 03:16 PM

Now, about Jeremy Clarkson, The main online petition about reinstating him was delivered to the Beeb, -there's a clip online,- by the purported Stig mounted in a TANK. A million signatures.

About the Allegro. I never had one, but a workmate did. He was involved in one of those enormous nose-to-tail-in-the-fog-Birmingham-to Coventry-pileups, and when the rescuers got there, there were four motorist sitting in the Allegro. It was the only car around with working doors.
A neighbour had an Allegro. When I asked him why, he pointed out that he was a fireman/rescuer and had to cut people out of cars as a matter of course. He said he bought the car for his family.

How did Allegros get into this thread?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 04:07 PM

I think, shimrod, I posted something like.....I don't mind being pulled up on a mistake, and I don't claim to be a scientist and therefore try to stick to the simpler arguments. But I seem to remember, that in a previous thread, you had confessed....albeit under pressure....that your science had nothing to say on the subject of evolution.   So I guess you got nothing to shout about either!.    However, if you got something more than devoted ness to the ruling paradigm...........?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (Gas Pedant)
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 05:24 PM

"I don't claim to be a scientist ..."

No, but you insist on commenting on scientific subjects which you obviously don't understand. And though I have never studied evolution (and neither have you!) I can still follow a scientific argument and understand that evidence always trumps stuff like belief and 'faith'.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Jeremy Clarkson. We have hi-jacked this thread - and, yes, it's all my fault!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 21 Mar 15 - 05:41 PM

Have you noticed how some people get ever more like the fictional characters you mentally link them to?

I liken one person on here to Major Misunderstanding (from Viz comic) and bugger me if he hasn't completely borrowed from the character in a post a few above this one..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 03:36 AM

Fictional characters?
I would prefer not to bugger anyone, but i have nothing against those that wish to do so, providing they are not doing it to underage children,
Any further news on Leon Brittam losing files on child sexual interference, or the alleged disappearance of youths from Heaths yacht.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 08:40 AM

"I don't claim to be a scientist"

That's because you have no idea what a scientist is, or what is involved with being one. Your plumbers, builders and other tradesmen mud really get pissed off with you pete. Do you tell them they're doing wrong, that the entire foundation of their training is based on error? Do you do the same with car mechanics, computer designers, airline pilots, folk musicians, engineers, your dentist etc etc?

Back int he real world . . . My mum used to have a bright lime green Allego estate. It was easy to spot her when she was out and about as it was the only one for miles. It had that funny lip on the roof at the back of the estate version, presumably for downforce.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 11:58 AM

Sounds like bluff and bluster to me s and s.   My plumber could tell me how things work, unlike you evolutionists. Jeremy clarkson could explain the workings of an engine...you can't explain the workings of Darwinism, other than infer that it happened by your own philosophical preference of how you interpret the data.   Also, I doubt there is much variation between how plumbers interpret their trade, or how mechanics understand engines. That is far from the case with evolutionists....even leaving out scientists who reject Darwinist dogma.   Now if you really want to just talk about clarkson?........


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 12:27 PM

I don't claim to be a scientist and therefore try to stick to the simpler arguments

Don't sell yourself short, pete - you stick to nonsence, myth and bullshit, and very good you are at it, too!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (Gas Pedant)
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 12:57 PM

Oh no!! I'm a gas pedant who's been duped by the Ruling Paradigm!! Ahhhh!!!

The scales have fallen from my eyes (hallelujah!!!). Now I know that I should have been taking the translated, re-translated and mis-translated myths and legends of a bunch of Bronze-age, Middle Eastern goat herds literally rather than being convinced by around 150 years of careful scientific observation. How could I have been so blind? Those pesky Ruling Paradigms have a lot to answer for!

Oh yes, and please note that, previously, I freely admitted that I have no background in evolutionary biology ... just as you have no backgound in evolutionary biology, pete ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 01:17 PM

Well shimrod, I guess that puts us on an even footing with our arguments, except that ,other than appealing to consensus, you have not exactly presented any arguments that I can recall.......other than mockery ,like your fellow believer, Greg.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 01:28 PM

.. so how would the theory of evolution account for Jeremy Clarkson...???

Because if God's to blame for creating him,
the big old fella upstairs has certainly worked in very mysterious ways ???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (Gas Pedant)
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 01:53 PM

" ... except that ,other than appealing to consensus, you have not exactly presented any arguments that I can recall..."

Because all of the evidence is out there in thousands of publications - both popular and technical - and if you must insist on pontificating on evolutionary biology, it's your responsibility to familiarise yourself with that literature; otherwise you have no credibility.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Acme
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 02:23 PM

infer that it happened by your own philosophical preference of how you interpret the data.

Pete, you've had plenty of people explain to you the difference between "evidence" and "belief." Yet you continue to dismiss evidence. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it untrue, and you really ought to move along discourse-wise. But then, so should we all. There is no changing Pete's mind, the best thing to do is ignore the nonsense and carry on with the topic at hand.

Now back to the topic (whoever Clarkson is).

SRS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 02:23 PM

"Jeremy clarkson could explain the workings of an engine"

Really? The physics of it, the chemistry, the role of each individual part? He could tell you how the engine management system works down to the reason for the existence of each part of a printed circuit, every component, the manufacturing process involved in each of those components? He can tell us all, in understandable terms why electrons flow through the circuits the way they do, how many of them there might be? He could explain how we see the visible light from the indicators? How that is generated? Who discovered the principles behind all of the countless applications and processes involved making something as irreducibly complex as a modern car?

You could, of course find all these things out, but not off Clarkson. He just drives cars, is a TV presenter and insults foreigners. You Pete, might say the car is evidence of god (if you choose to believe it is), but if you got off your arse and put the time in to find out you'd see people have discovered the scientific principles that make a car work and used that knowledge to manufacture it.

But you won't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 03:00 PM

You're absolutely right, SRS, but pete's endless wilful confusion of evidence and belief is peculiarly provoking and infuriating (although it has caused me to think deeply about the nature of both evidence and belief).

We should, though, stick to the topic. Jeremy Clarkson is a British TV presenter - of a BBC motoring programme called Top Gear - who has a very abrasive style which is very polarising; some people love him for his 'robust' sense of humour whilst other people hate him. Top Gear, though, is a broadcasting phenomenon and is popular in many countries throughout the world. Clarkson is notorious for his indiscretions and bad behaviour. In the incident that provoked this thread, it is alleged that he punched a producer, after a day's filming, because a hot dinner was not available to him at a hotel at which he and the production team were staying. The BBC have suspended him and are not broadcasting the last three episodes of Top Gear in the present series. Clarkson, though, is now very rich and famous and has made the BBC an enormous amount of money ... so what happens next is anyone's guess!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 03:09 PM

I agree with Shimrod, tho' I don't get angry.
I find pete's stance very interesting and thought provoking and like Shim,"it has caused me to think deeply about the nature of both evidence and belief."

I think pete is trying to show us all a deeper truth than "science" can provide?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Mar 15 - 07:08 PM

I hope you're not going all 'spiritual-on-our-ass', Ake!

pete has been (has allowed himself to be?) brainwashed by religious fundamentalists.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 02:35 AM

"A deeper truth than science can provide." in all seriousness, what the flying fuck does that mean? Not having the answers means just that. It doesn't mean God did it.

Stu points out that Clarkson is not an engineer. Correct, he is a journalist who presents TV shows. pete's faith in Clarkson's ability to explain car engines is touching really. Like Preachers, Clarkson tends to explain with a big hammer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 03:08 AM

Does nobody look inside themselves any longer?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 03:28 AM

"Does nobody look inside themselves any longer?"

Do you think science and spirituality are mutually exclusive?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 03:56 AM

"Does nobody look inside themselves any longer?"

You mean like a sort of auto-colonoscopy?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 06:27 AM

Takes two mirrors and the sort of bending I could do before the advent of my beer belly.

If Akenaton looks inside himself, I wonder if he can'grasp and understand what others see? If you look inside yourself, surely you then try to lose the bigotry and hatred?

Just a thought.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 09:27 AM

pete's stance very ... thought provoking

Contradiction in terms. pete's "stance" is the antithesis of thought.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: mayomick
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 11:37 AM

 Pedro Lopez ,the Spanish waiter who served Jeremy Clarkson, on what really happened the night Clarkson punched his producer:

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2015/03/15/interview-with-waiter-who-served-jeremy-clarkson-the-night-he-punched-his-producer/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: The Sandman
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 01:19 PM

HILARIOUS, I am glad someone has a sense of humour, the whole thing is very funny. Clakson will be laughing to the bank too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: mayomick
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 01:57 PM

It may or mat not have been a spoof - very funny either way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 23 Mar 15 - 03:02 PM

http://www.buzzfeed.com/deannye/funny-parody-interview-with-clarkson-waiter#.ly78kaYyA


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 07:39 AM

When you come to think of it, it's quite healthy that we see these pedestalised* superstars with their pants down every now and again. I get fed up with seeing these knobheads who make their millions from entertaining us pontificating about stuff that they know nothing about. John Lennon springs immediately to mind. This week, the world's two greatest footballers, Steven Gerrard and Martin Skrtel, have demonstrated to the planet that they are just very talented dickheads. I think Clarkson is cut from the same cloth. The sooner these arrogant guys learn that they are just like everyone else except in the very limited sphere in which they achieved success, whether it be pop music, footie or making programmes about cars, the better.


*I think I've made up a new word.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 09:29 AM

Someone beat you to it, Steve. But it has the American spelling. Good post, btw.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 10:16 AM

Bono would be my nominee in the celebrity dickhead dept..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 11:09 AM

How dare you speak of God in those terms! :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 11:13 AM

Sorry if I took his name in vain, but he a bit of a prat.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 11:25 AM

Hi Steve

<" This week, the world's two greatest footballers, Steven Gerrard and Martin Skrtel,">

Hmmmmm !!! Maybe Stephen Gerrard ....just maybe..!!!

Skrtel is a whole-hearted player who gives his all ..but World Class...don't think so.

Next you'll be saying Ballotelli is World class !! LOL

I was at Anfield and saw a very physical hard-fought game. Great to watch, especially to Man United Suppporters like me !!!

Gerrard's action was totally out of character but Skrtel for once got caught for his one of his many reckless tackles.

Cheers

MikeL2


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 11:34 AM

Help, mods!! Troll red alert!!! There's a Man U fan about!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 11:36 AM

(Blimey, Mike, I shouldn't have done that, should I. You know how these yanks can take you literally....)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 12:46 PM

Oh do I really have to say it again!?

OK then ----

U P   T H E   G U N N E R S


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 12:50 PM

At least Jeremy Clarkson doesn't (often) talk about f***ing football!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 01:17 PM

well, I reckon, that if football can get in here, I can carry on responding to the evolution believers. oops...stilly don't like that term, and seems to think I am misusing it. however, stilly does not say what the evidence for her belief is, and shimrod merely asserts that it is evidenced. however, the scientists have the same evidence, whatever their position on origins. and as I have said before, I have probably read or viewed more evolutionist propaganda than shimrod has read creationist.....who is the blinkered one !!    stu, you have a point so far, except that no scientist knows it all either. in fact, does any evolutionist know how it, supposedly ,works,as in the details you demand of the inner science of engines.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 01:41 PM

There's a bit of creationist theory which always bemuses me. I have to admit know little of it. However if Adam and Eve had sons named Cain Abel and Seth and other sons and daughters in order for the next generation to come along there must have been a bit of incest which is against the teachings of every church I can think off. Do creationists believe we are all descended from incestuous relationships.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 02:06 PM

"Do creationists believe we are all descended from incestuous relationships"

... welllll.. that might explain Jeremy Clarkson's fan base...???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 02:11 PM

Hi Steve

You will have me shot !!!! LOL

Regards

Mike


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 02:23 PM

Hi Michael

Yes RIGHT up the Gunners....!!!

Seriously though I think they will finish up 2nd in the Premier League this time.

Mind you they still have to come to Old Trafford....!!!!????

Cheers

MikeL2


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 03:14 PM

"stu, you have a point so far, except that no scientist knows it all either"

You've missed the point pete. Just because no one person knows all there is to know about the theories, processes, physics, chemistry etc etc that means a modern car can be designed, manufactured and assembled by a single human, doesn't mean the car doesn't exist or won't work. It a massive collaborative effort, with thousands of people contributing to the accumulated knowledge over the years that means we can build these cars.

No one scientist knows it all, but when you have hundreds of thousands of scientists working for centuries then eventually we can begin to understand the world and universe we live in. Evolution is a result of THAT accumulated knowledge (as is the car).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 04:32 PM

"New Rule: Stop asking Miss USA contestants if they believe in evolution. It's not their field. It's like asking Stephen Hawking if he believes in hair scrunchies. Here's what they know about: spray tans, fake boobs and baton twirling. Here's what they don't know about: everything else. If I cared about the uninformed opinions of some ditsy beauty queen, I'd join the Tea Party."

Bill Maher


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (in gas pedant mode)
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 07:00 PM

" ... I can carry on responding to the evolution believers ..."

You're confusing 'belief' and 'evidence' again, pete.

"I have probably read or viewed more evolutionist propaganda ..."

Give us some titles then, pete. Hit us with some references, 'creation boy'!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 02:58 AM

If it helps, Clarkson said that whilst everybody was complaining about his comments on Mexico, a priest said the comments could influence children and that is dangerous.

Clarkson merrily tweeted links to this priest arguing for creationism to be taught as a science.

Just pulling the tangent round. 😎


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 04:38 AM

That criminally barmy loathsome street preacher from Taunton
might fit in quite comfortably here at mudcat...!!!???

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-32017649


... actually he's gobby and old enough to be a candidate for hosting Top Gear...
well at least it might keep him off the streets....?????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 06:42 AM

It looks like ole Jezza might be for the high jump. Shame. What's the world come too when you can't twat your fellow employees and minions with impunity?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 08:33 AM

stu, methinks I did not. your car is the result of accumulative knowledge, and a car is the result. it is operative, testable, observable, repeatable science/engineering.
evolutionism is the result of accumulative philosophically driven interpretations of the same evidence and data that all scientists have, whatever their views on origins. and the result of all that Darwin dogma is nothing tangible at all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 08:56 AM

"evolutionism is the result of accumulative philosophically driven interpretations of the same evidence and data that all scientists have"

You are utterly, totally wrong and I suspect you know that in your heart of hearts. The principles are exactly the same, both utilise the scientific method and both are still developing. To say otherwise is just not correct and pretty insulting to all of us that are scientists and work with honesty and integrity to discover the nature of things.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 09:08 AM

You don't need science if you have faith, Stu. You should know that by now. I believe that Pete is an utter knobhead. No need for proof. My faith sustains me...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 09:14 AM

Pete, you still haven't responded to my query


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 09:16 AM

The Beeb dropped Carlson.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 09:17 AM

LOL. Make that Clarkson.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 09:23 AM

One less wart on the arse of the BBC.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 09:29 AM

They dropped Carlson too. Some time in 1937, I believe. He ran a Home Service programme featuring souped-up Model Ts called "Top Double Declutch". Got in trouble for punching the bloke with the red flag.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 10:19 AM

Raggy, why not that a few extra partners were quietly created, or that genetic diversity was implanted?

Not much of a question.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant)
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 10:51 AM

"I have probably read or viewed more evolutionist propaganda ..."

You still haven't cited any references, pete.

Let's, though, examine that word "propaganda". In my dictionary it means:

"Information, ideas or rumours deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation etc."

So who, exactly, is spreading information, ideas or rumours about evolutionary biology? And how, exactly, do they benefit from this activity? Further, as it is now virtually impossible to untangle evolutionary biology from the rest of modern science, is modern science one gigantic (anti-religious?) conspiracy? If it is, are you seriously suggesting that governments and organisations, throughout the world, routinely spend billions of their currency units on a vast conspiracy? Who would benefit from such madness?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 10:55 AM

Good save, Steve.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 01:40 PM

Clarkson dropped!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 02:09 PM

Keith, Pete

Does it say anywhere in the Bible that other people were dropped into the equation.

As I have already stated my knowledge is very limited.

But if people believe the Bible to be a TRUE and HONEST account of the development of humankind surely some incest must have taken place?

Over to you ................


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 02:15 PM

Evolution vs creation from the great film Paul.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 03:31 PM

sorry raggy, since posting earlier I have been obligated elsewhere. you are correct that adam and eve had 3 named sons, and elsewhere it reads that they had other sons and daughters. yes the sons must have married their sisters. healthwise, that would have been no problem as genetic entrophy [think that's right] had not developed. there was no restriction on near relatives marrying until the law of moses, so I wonder whether the term " incest" with its moral overtones is applicable in the beginning of humanity. bear in mind also, that adam and eve were told to " be fruitful and multiply " . that is gen 1v 28. as v 27 is more generic , ie male and female, not only the first pair. how was the command to multiply be carried out, if the later prohibition was applicable in the beginning. as keith suggested, some suggest some other human creations, but theologically that runs into problems, since the bible teaches universal descent from, and identification with, adam. I hope that, at least explains my reading of scripture . regards pete.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 03:48 PM

beg to differ , stu. as I have said often before, evolutionists do not use the same scientific method. you can,t do testable, repeatable, observable science on the long gone past. and I think that deep down you know that !. as to insulting scientists, I note that there is no problem with that from the usual suspects, if those scientists don't toe the evolutionary line.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 04:12 PM

and lastly, shimrod. I have read many if not most of the links provided in past discussions. I have seen some dawkins and co on tv and u tube. I even read some of origins, and it only evidenced natural selection, which is part of the creation model anyway, as I suggested, that is probably more than you have looked at creationist material. as to propaganda, I was probably using the word more loosely, but none the less, I would say that much of what does harm and degrade society is compatible with evolutionary belief, though I would stop short of claiming universal, intentional harming. and I reject the notion that evolutionary belief is crucially interconnected to observational science, though it has often hindered it !. care to name any scientific invention that required Darwinist imput ?. rejection of evolutionism does nothing to hinder science...quite the reverse.    as you ask....who would benefit from such madness ? so what is the benefit of evolutionism ? ..other than an excuse to reject God, and be unaccountable to him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Bandiver (Astray)
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 04:34 PM

So how come if they've sacked him, his is the first face I see when I switch on TV tonight???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 05:14 PM

There is little or no benefit in evolutionism. I refer you to this simple article which even you may understand, Pete. Although I doubt it vet much. In case it is too much I draw your attention to the line "In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are seldom used in the scientific community to refer to the biological discipline as the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic, though it has been used by creationists in discussing the creation-evolution controversy."

After you have read and probably dismissed that maybe you can answer a similar question. What is the benefit of religion? Other than an excuse by the religious leaders to control the masses and gain themselves power and riches beyond most peoples dreams?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant)
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 06:02 PM

" ... yes the sons must have married their sisters. healthwise, that would have been no problem as genetic entrophy [think that's right] had not developed."

Hhhhmmm?? Very ... sort of ... vaguely ... technical sounding ... but complete and utter bullshit!! What the f***k does it mean??

"I have seen some dawkins and co on tv and u tube. I even read some of origins ..."

Oh, so you're very well versed in the literature of evolutionary biology then! I should have a go at quantum physics next - I'm sure you'll be able to find a good video on U-tube!

" ... as to propaganda, I was probably using the word more loosely ..."

You mean, you didn't actually know what it meant until I told you? But you thought that it sounded bad so using it might put "evolutionism" in a bad light?

"I would say that much of what does harm and degrade society is compatible with evolutionary belief, though I would stop short of claiming universal, intentional harming."

At this point I am struggling to find anything meaningful to say about that load of deranged gibberish. Help! Evolutionists have stolen my wheely bin and cause cancer! Help!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 06:28 PM

"Genetic Entropy is the theory that genetic mutations are accumulating to an eventual extinction of all species. The theory was originally proposed by Joseph Muller in 1932 and named Muller's Ratchet[1], he imagined it as a means by which selection forced asexual populations to evolve sexual reproduction. The geneticist John C. Sanford has further expanded on the theory in a more realistic framework from the Biblical worldview, and published the work in a book titled Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.[2]"

from

http://creationwiki.org/Genetic_entropy


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 06:41 PM

Sounds like a bloody fun read.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 07:40 PM

LOLOL

Best laugh of the day. Many thanks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:53 AM

the Mystery of the Genome

Nothing mysterious about us, mate, but you need to learn to spell.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant)
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:05 AM

And another thing, pete. You keep banging on about:

"as I have said often before, evolutionists do not use the same scientific method. you can,t do testable, repeatable, observable science on the long gone past."

And you use it like a drowning man clinging to a life raft.

But, surely, you can't do "testable, repeatable, observable science" on the contents of the Bible either! If you can, please tell us how ...??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:06 AM

Why limit yourself to the Bible? You can always find ways to accommodate Polynesian religions or scientology in observable facts?

What makes Jesus so bloody special?

Over 300,000 more people signed the Clarkson petition than go to church on a Sunday.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:21 AM

"Over 300,000 more people signed the Clarkson petition than go to church on a Sunday."

One of the saddest comments I've ever read. :0(

I think we really do need to dismantle society and start again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:41 AM

Are the comments here serious? Do people really, actually, seriously believe that evolution is not a fact?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 04:01 AM

"you can,t do testable, repeatable, observable science on the long gone past. and I think that deep down you know that !"

Of course you can. Don't be ridiculous. Why would I say otherwise if it were not true?

"beg to differ , stu. as I have said often before, evolutionists do not use the same scientific method."

You are wrong. You obviously have no idea how cross-disciplinary the earth and life sciences are.


"as you ask....who would benefit from such madness ? so what is the benefit of evolutionism ? ..other than an excuse to reject God, and be unaccountable to him."

And there it is. Fine if you believe that, you might even be right, but stop pretending you know anything about science or it's methods and processes; also you can't assume to know the motivations of those of us who are scientists.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 04:53 AM

Evolution is certainly a fact (you know me - I'd go even further but I find Snail scary). The theory that attempts to explain it is just that, a scientific attempt (meaning that the evidence used to construct the theory must be obtained by the scientific process). It's a very good one, though, because the evidence makes evolution incontrovertible. Only a fool would deny that. Whether or not evolution undermines God (at best, it makes him redundant) is of no concern to science.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:08 AM

Hi

Sorry must have pressed the button twice.

Anyway in reply to all this scientific stuff....

Clarkson is a lout...My wife says so.....and she's ALWAYS Right.    LOL

Cheers

MikeL2


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (the Gas Pedant)
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:19 AM

"Whether or not evolution undermines God (at best, it makes him redundant) is of no concern to science."

Exactly, Steve. But I suspect that that is what really sticks in the craw of religious fundamentalists; their fervent faith has been rendered redundant, meaningless and irrelevant!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:54 AM

Evolution does not challenge anyone's faith.
Almost all Christians accept it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 06:10 AM

Pete doesn't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 06:12 AM

Pete, again I am confused I do not know of any reference in the Law of Moses to incest. Murder, dishonesty, theft even leprosy but no mention of incest.

So my question then becomes is incest against the law of God or against the law of man, and if the latter who gave them to right to make such a law.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 07:54 AM

Ok.. this is definitely worth a listen

BBC Radio 4 Media Show Wed 26/03/15

including an interview with the bellend who stared the petition


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:27 AM

Raggy, why are you people so obsessive about challenging a view held by only one poster?
What is the connection between creationism and Clarkson?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 01:02 PM

was that really you , keith ?. either way. I read raggy as asking, not challenging.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 01:35 PM

Ah! There you are, pete!

Just a little reminder:

... surely, you can't do "testable, repeatable, observable science" on the contents of the Bible ... If you can, please tell us how ...??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:01 PM

so gnome, what was the wiki article supposed to prove ? it is just an exercise in thinly disguised appeal to authority. try finding some evidence for evolutionism.    benefits of religion ?. that's a big subject, but suffice it to say that as far as the Christian faith is concerned, millions have found personal peace and assurance, and many have testified to dramatic conversions and transformed lives. many beneficial and charitable institutions were birthed in the church. suppose you list some humanitarian efforts inspired by atheism ?.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:28 PM

evolutionism

There is no such thing, pete.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:38 PM

.. isn't it interesting that science and technology are evolving
whereas religion and Jeremy Clarkson are ... ermmmm... wellll... ummmm....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:39 PM

Evolution does not challenge anyone's faith.
Almost all Christians accept it.


Er, not exactly. Evolution negates the whole story of Genesis. If you believe in a creator of everything, you can't be accepting evolutionary theory. In my experience, those valiant Christians who try to embrace evolution still want God to have kick-started the process and to have some kind of oversight of it. If you don't agree that evolution has no trajectory, no end points, no goals, plenty of blind endings and no-one kicking it off, you don't accept the theory. It's a big ask and a stiff test and it requires a degree of honesty from people of religious conviction that you seldom see. It also requires a proper understanding of the theory. The prime anti-evolution mover on this forum wilfully refuses to educate himself. He has nothing serious to say and never has had.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:49 PM

So, pete from the seven stars, or seeing as we are into abbreviating names, ars.

as far as the Christian faith is concerned, millions have found personal peace and assurance

Are those the ones that were burned by the christian faith? Or the kids that were buggered by christian priests? Or the millions who have been killed in Christian wars?

Tell you what, ars. To save you trying to think, which you are obviously incapable of, I will tell you who has found personal peace and assurance. Me. I was brought up Russian Orthodox and then Roman catholic. As soon as I ditched my imaginary friend things became a lot clearer. Now, fuck off and stop bothering normal people.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 02:49 PM

Hi, Pete. Trust things are good with you.

When you said "humanitarian efforts inspired by atheism", it seemed to me you presuppose that atheism is organized when in fact it's not on any grand scale. For this discussion I'd prefer to see it stated "humanitarian efforts atheists contribute to". YMMV


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:01 PM

having answered your question, shimrod, how's about you tell us what creationist material you have read. judging by how you are not even able to defend your evolution beliefs, probably nothing. I reckon it is you, not me, clinging on to a sinking raft. I just like to hold your feet to the fire, as they say. and I don't claim that we can do repeatable science on the bible, however it works a whole lot better with observable science than Darwinist notions.
raggy, Leviticus 20 deals with prohibited sexual unions. I would think that secular law against incest derived from biblical laws originally, at least in the christianized societies.
that's right, Thompson, I don't believe it a fact, and if you do, do you know why, other than blind acceptance ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:27 PM

ok stu, how do you do repeatable, observable, testable scientific method on the distant past ?. I don't remember nye being able answer that, so maybe you can help him out !. have you got a time machine ?!.    steve as usual making assertions based on consensus without the benefit of any other reasoned argument. go on steve, show us some evolution !.
point taken #, but in fact atheists are increasingly organizing themselves, and even doing conferences. and I don't think organizing charitable concerns are high on the agenda, though granted individuals may well be involved in such. regards to you too.
greg...yes there is, and you are a classic case of one its adherents.
steve does at least have it right ,that evolutionism is an attack on the bible, but he wilfully refuses to examine the evidence ,or even offer evidence for his own belief, other than assertions and appeal to consensus.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 03:46 PM

Evolution is most decidedly not an attack on the Bible. Science can't concern itself with religion as its whole basis is incompatible with religion's predication on faith.The fact of evolution negates Genesis tangentially, not because Darwin et al. set out to attack religion. They were doing science, and there is no scientific way of attacking religion. There's reason, of course.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: BrendanB
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 04:45 PM

Steve Shaw, your pontificating on Christian belief is more than a little misplaced. It is true that there are fundamentalist Christians who meet with the sort of levels of belief that you describe but there are many more who do not. We know what the church requires of us but we do not necessarily accept it blindly.   Yeah, I know, pic-n-mix Christian blah, blah, blah.   The thing is, an awful lot of Christians draw guidance from much of the teachings of Jesus without needing the Old Testament, which is an interesting series of myth, dubious history and fable. I have no trouble accepting evolution, I have trouble with people who don't. There are those who would tell me that I am no kind of Christian, well, they can go and copulate with themselves. I define what I am, not any fundamentalist Christian, not Steve Shaw and not any number of other posters who pride themselves on their atheism. I respect your views and I don't expect you to respect mine, because you know that I am stupid, right? But the fact is my life has meaning for me. I am fascinated by science even though my understanding is limited. I love music, theatre and many other things I cannot be bothered to list. I suppose what I am saying you don't know who or what I am. You only know who you are. So please, stop pontificating about what I think or believe or don't believe, because you don't know shit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:14 PM

I am not proud of my atheism. It's simply where I've got to. In fact, I have plenty of doubts, as it happens. And I do not think that people of religion are stupid. I do think that they carry certain delusions in that aspect of their lives, but I have those too (I support Liverpool, fer chrissake, and I won't hear a word said against Carly Simon). Musket's even worse as he supports Sheffield Wednesday. I haven't a clue as to what you do or don't believe unless you tell me. But I'm clear about this much: anyone who says they believe in God the Creator cannot also embrace evolution, even if they say they do, because the two are entirely incompatible. Evolution can't work with someone guiding it or starting it off. The theory, which you'll agree is a very good explanation of evolution, shows us that the process can have no goals or underlying driving force bar natural selection. There are boundless mistakes, over-production of offspring, blind endings and bad moves which do not compute with the God notion, unless you want to give God a major refit. You praised me for being forthright yet not abrasive in the other thread. Perhaps you'll give me cause to return the compliment, but it won't be as a result of this post of yours.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 05:30 PM

Coming back after a day or two, I find we are back with that old bloody evolution·v·whevs bit again.

Yawwwwnnnnn!

Relevance?

How did that happen?

Out of interest -- where has Clarkson got to?


≈M≈


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 06:13 PM

"I don't claim that we can do repeatable science on the bible, ..."

But you (spuriously) critise evolutionary biologists for not being able to do "repeatable science" on the past. What's the difference?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 06:27 PM

Repeatable applies to experimentation. It does not apply to a good deal of what we might call observational evidence and evidence obtained by interpretation, reasoning and fair extrapolation. If I find a dinosaur femur in the cliff over the beach, it may be subjected to dating methods, interpretation of the context of its site, comparative anatomy and its context within the geographical area (etcetera - I'm no Stu). I may never find another specimen, so it's not "repeatable", but it is evidence and, given correct application of the scientific process to it, it's perfectly good scientific evidence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:03 PM

" Jesus H-come-dancing-Christ" this thread is so trivial and boring - basically who gives a fuck. I know I or anyone sentient human being doesn't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:09 PM

Good to see you distancing yourself from sentient human beings. Saves us doing it. Surely only the faintly mad visit threads they find so tedious. Might I recommend abstinence therefrom?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:43 PM

Shaw - your basic English comprehension skills need polishing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 15 - 09:50 PM

Really? Lessee:

[Teribus]: "I know I or anyone sentient human being doesn't."

"I doesn't"? And you think MY skills are lacking? Heheh!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:20 AM

"ok stu, how do you do repeatable, observable, testable scientific method on the distant past ?"

This isn't even a sentence. Were I to go into the endless detail about how multiple scientific disciplines arrive at their conclusions you'd still come up with some claptrap and ignore that wot I wrote.

So I'll save myself the bother and get on with the science.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:34 AM

But I'm clear about this much: anyone who says they believe in God the Creator cannot also embrace evolution,

But we do Steve.
You show your ignorance.
Do you not know any Christians?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:48 AM

I know a christian - my brother in law...

He's an evangelical minister.

He's a very intelligent, decent, witty, keenly sarcastic bloke,
good company on the odd occasions we meet at family gatherings..

yet he believes and preaches we were all created about 4000 years ago..

oh well...

Dunno what he thinks about Jeremy Clarkson though...???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:34 AM

If I take "Christian" literally, a follower of Christ, then I suppose it's possible to be a Christian who does not believe in a creator of everything. In my experience, Christians in general do believe that God created the universe and everything in it. This is completely incompatible with evolution. No living organism has ever been created in the religious sense of the term. If you don't get that, Keith, I'm afraid that your understanding of evolutionary theory is just as poor as your understanding of history.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 07:05 AM

Steve, I understand evolution (and also physics) at least as well as you, and WW1 history rather better.
Care to challenge that by quoting me?
I think not.

It is a fact that most Christians accept evolution while believing in a creator God.
You are wrong in your assumptions, preconceptions and prejudices.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 07:16 AM

It is a fact that most Christians accept evolution while believing in a creator God.

Is this most Christians that are alive, eminent, not politically inclined and have been published? Or just most Christians in Hertford?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 07:18 AM

"You are wrong in your assumptions, preconceptions and prejudices"

Exquisitely ironic!.....congratulations Keith.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 07:57 AM

"It is a fact that most Christians accept evolution while believing in a creator God."
.,,.

It is a fact that, in this particular, most Christians are excellent personifications of a creation of one of their most distinguished writers, John Bunyan: Mr Face-Both-Ways.

I still don't see by what infractuous ways we got here from a supposed discussion of the egregious Clarkson! Are we ever going to get back to the putative topic of this thread?

≈M≈


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 08:03 AM

Michael - To some, Clarkson IS god!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 09:25 AM

And they are just as deluded as the Christians being berated here! 👍😄


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 09:58 AM

Steve, I understand evolution (and also physics) at least as well as you, and WW1 history rather better.
Care to challenge that by quoting me?
I think not.

It is a fact that most Christians accept evolution while believing in a creator God.
You are wrong in your assumptions, preconceptions and prejudices.


This post is just a pile of unsupported assertions. At least I did you the honour of explaining my point of view. Now, Keith, it's perfectly clear that whatever understanding you have of evolution is shaky. If you're telling me that your creator God created inanimate matter but has had nothing to do with the origin and evolution of life on Earth, that would be one thing, but it would sound a little as though you were rewriting God. The thing is, you can't even say that God put the stuff in place then let evolution get on with it. The concept of an intelligent driving force involved anywhere in the process is completely at odds with the crucial notions that evolution has no planned trajectory, no goals, no endpoint and no striving (for perfection or otherwise). Tangentially, I suspect that God wouldn't be too happy about the mistakes, the flaws, the evolutionary dead ends and the vast over-production of offspring with its concomitant mass death and disease, essential to evolution. Now you can rewrite God if you like to keep him out of it (please yourself, I'm not bothered), or you can rewrite evolutionary theory (careful now...). But you can't have it both ways. I actually applaud Christians who do want it both ways, because at least they're not brainless fundamentalists like pete, but, sadly, their argument is, er, fundamentally flawed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 10:11 AM

"...concept of an intelligent driving force" --- esp as it's peculiarly unintelligent. They once, not long since, remember?, tried to con us with the idea of calling their deity by some such cognomen as "Intelligent Designer". Bloody Unintelligent Designer, I always reckoned him/it/whevs. What intelligent designer would have organised the horrors of childbirth the way it is? Always been happy to be exempt from that bit of design --- ppphhheeewww! & as to the boring & often peculiarly inconvenient necessity to keep on having to interrupt whatever one is busy with to piss or shit! If ever I employed someone supposedly to design something for me who couldn't manage better design than those examples, then his bill would go in the bin as soon as he submitted it & he could whistle [or fart!] for his payment!

≈M≈

Still don't know what all this to do with ole Jeremy Wotzit, mind... But liked your suggestion even so, DtG.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 10:16 AM

And, worse than that, Michael, God put the recreational area right next to the bloody sewage works!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 10:44 AM

Funnily enough, errrmm.. according to certain internet sites..

A large proportion of young American hetero sexual males now seem to lust after that
as the primary recreational area...???

strange old world....??????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 10:47 AM

This thread is taking more twists and turns than some of the contributors arguments :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 12:27 PM

Yes, many posts back silly pete burst on to this thread spouting some claptrap about 'science' (of which he obviously has no understanding whatsoever). His interjections are like the proverbial 'red-rag-to-a-bull' to those of us with a scientific background. I suppose that we should really ignore the ignorant fool but then, perhaps, we have a duty to counter unreason whenever the opportunity presents itself (?) We should really stick to the thread topic though - go away and boil your silly head, pete!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 12:31 PM

Indeed, Steve ---

I met the Bishop on the road
And much said he and I.
'Those breasts are flat and fallen now,
Those veins must soon be dry;
Live in a heavenly mansion,
Not in some foul sty.'

'Fair and foul are near of kin,
And fair needs foul,' I cried.
'My friends are gone, but that's a truth
Nor grave nor bed denied,
Learned in bodily lowliness
And in the heart's pride.

'A woman can be proud and stiff
When on love intent;
But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement;

For nothing can be sole or whole
That has not been rent.'

W B Yeats: Crazy Jane Talks With The Bishop


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 12:31 PM

Well, the thread topic is yesterday's news now, Shimrod. Let's just have fun!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 12:43 PM

The guy to whom Clarkson gave a knuckle-sandwich has said that he doesn't wish to press for charges.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 01:41 PM

Oisin Tymon is one of the producers on the show, and has been for some years. Clarkson apparently (according to newspaper reports) screamed at him for quite a while because his hot dinner wasn't on the table when he arrived back very late, and then punched him.
Tymon did nothing about it; he turned away and went to the A&E (ER in American) and got himself checked out, as you always should in case of concussion if you have a blow in the face.
Clarkson then tried many times to contact him and apologise, and then went and reported what he had done to his bosses.
He was on his last warning, and so was suspended while there were discussions, and then his contract was terminated.
Oisin Tymon behaved perfectly, doing nothing to make the situation worse, making no report of the assault; he is now refusing to press charges.
It says something about Clarkson's fan base that Tymon is now getting death threats and being mocked on Twitter.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 03:31 PM

Shimrod, I see evades the challenges by inferring that I introduced the evolution topic. He is mistaken, but I plead guilty to rising to the challenge when the usual suspects can't help themselves itching for a fight !.   Stu also evading the challenge of how he proposes to do repeatable science on the long gone past by claiming to be above debating me. Bye for now then , stu ?. At least Steve gets that part of it. All he needs to do now is evidence his evolutionary claims, after admitting these are not subject to the scientific method, as just discussed.    Punkfolkrocker, I suspect you mean 6000 yr ago, but glad you speak highly of a brother Christian. Give him my thumbs up if you think about it ,next time you speak.       Shimrod".....repeatable science on bible....evolutionary....what's the difference..."      The difference, shimrod is that you and stu insisted it could be done on the latter !   But, as I say, the bible accords better with observable science, and your scientific background don't help you defend your beliefs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:15 PM

But ars, most christians do not believe the bible. It must be true because Keith said so and he is a christian and therefore cannot lie.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:31 PM

In three lines, pete, tell us what you understand by "the scientific method".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 05:54 PM

I told you that most Christians understand that evolution is a fact.
The Old Testament is an oral tradition thousands of years old.
Of course it is not factual, but it holds many truths.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:03 PM

So you're telling me that most Christians don't believe that God created everything. Fine!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:04 PM

No.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:16 PM

Then you are not addressing what I've told you. Apprise us if you will of how evolution can take place unfettered (as we know it does), alongside someone who's creating us all. You can't have it both ways.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Mar 15 - 06:37 PM

"But, as I say, the bible accords better with observable science, "

What utter bollocks!! The Bible is just another religious text among hundreds of such texts. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Why single out that particular text? I can only think that it's on the basis of concensus among certain members of a once popular - but declining - religious sect. Oh, but I forgot, for some unaccountable reason, 'concensus' is a dirty word for you, isn't it, pete?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 04:12 AM

I think I have the gist of it, Steve. You see, the bible is a book that christians believe gives them the truth. But it is not all the truth so someone has to tell them which bits are true and which bits are not. Since it is about things that happened in the past I suppose it is classed as a history book so it must be the historians who tell people what to believe :-)Trouble is, it was written by people who are now dead and their truths have now been superseded by other truths that have come to light because the government now let people have access to more facts. Things like education and science.

What I still don't really get is that if it is now accepted that some bits are not true then, presumably, it cannot have come from god because god cannot inspire people to lie, surely? If it does not come from god it must, therefore, come from men. In the word of someone who's name escapes me, it is made up shit. Now,that makes me think that it would be a good idea to make up a new, better religion but if I remember rightly when someone tried that before some christians went ape-shit and said it was mockery and ridicule. So, if one made up religion is mockery and ridicule why is another one adhered to? Easy. The first one has established itself by force. So, what any new religion needs to do is follow the example of the old one and kill, maim and torture people into submission.

We have a lot of work to do, mate...

What has this got to do with Clarkson? I dunno!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 04:51 AM

Most of the bible is metaphor.

Some people are unable to understand metaphor.

Sometimes the truth requires much thought (Ake....2015)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 05:08 AM

Apprise us if you will of how evolution can take place unfettered (as we know it does), alongside someone who's creating us all.

Evolution is a process that requires no intelligent control.
That would be artificial selection, which we do.

You see, the bible is a book that christians believe gives them the truth.

You don't see Dave.
Almost none regard the bible as the literal truth.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 05:49 AM

It's going around on FB that the new favourite for the vacant 'Top Gear' job is Guy Martin, who is anything but a posh-boy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:06 AM

In my neck of the woods (the American south and southwest, aka The Bible Belt) there are plenty of folk who will assure you that the bible is a historical, factual document.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: BrendanB
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:15 AM

Steve Shaw, the problem that hampers your understanding of people who accept the findings of science, such as evolution, and are still able to be theists is that you do not understand the nature of belief.
Everyone who believes in a deity either lives with a parodox (possibly several) or adopts a fundamentalist position whereby they deny what is obviously true. Focussing on the former, it is possible to accept paradoxes by recognising that there are things that one does not know, cannot know and will never know. This position seems to enrage (or irritate or confuse or whatever) those who pride themselves on being entirely rational.
There is more than one way of being fundamentalist. Telling theists that they have to recognise that they cannot think in a certain way because you have demonstrated they are wrong might be considered one of those ways.
(By the way, the hubris and arrogance you demonstrated in a previous post in which you suggested that I might need, want or require your approbation was truly breathtaking.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:23 AM

Evolution not only doesn't require intelligent control, intelligent control is anathema to the whole concept. And selection isn't evolution. You have not addressed the crux of the matter, that evolution and a creator of everything cannot sit alongside each other.

Interesting point about historians, Dave. As the gospel writers whose gospels we accept for biblical use (there are others...) didn't actually know Jesus and were writing many years after his death, they were, de facto, historians. But they're dead.... ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:27 AM

Almost none regard the bible as the literal truth.

So, in a nutshell, what is the basis of christian belief?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:44 AM

Whatever, Brendan. All I try to do is express what I'm thinking. I see others using careless language here and I have no desire to emulate them.

There is nothing in Christian thinking, as far as I know, that prohibits intellectual grappling. If you see a paradox, you should be asking yourself whether it's a paradox because of incomplete understanding, in which case let's delve more, or whether it's merely an apparent paradox because we're in denial, in which case let's ditch the baggage of preconceptions and take the thing on with ruthless honesty. In the case in point, I've argued that the process of evolution is entirely incompatible with the concept of a creator of everything and I've given my reasons for thinking that. In my opinion, the only possible reconciliation could be achieved either by rewriting God or rewriting evolutionary theory. I'm not up for that and I suspect neither are you. As a scientist I think it's defeatist to think that we can stop investigating stuff because there are things we can never know. I suspect that God, having given us mighty brains, would agree with that. By the way, very little that I read on this forum ever enrages me, honest.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:56 AM

"Telling theists that they have to recognise that they cannot think in a certain way because you have demonstrated they are wrong might be considered one of those ways."

Pointing out the inconsistencies in a person's world view is NOT telling them that they are wrong nor is it telling them that they HAVE to recognise anything! There is no element of compulsion! The fact that, when their world view is questioned, theists often agressively claim that they being subjected to some form of compulsion suggests to me that they may be insecure in their beliefs.

As far as I am concerned, everyone is free to believe anything they like - until, that is, if those beliefs are irrational, they try to impose them on others - particularly children.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:05 AM

" As a scientist I think it's defeatist to think that we can stop investigating stuff because there are things we can never know."

Sorry, that's ambiguous. As a scientist I don't accept that, just because there may be things we will never know, we should stop investigating stuff. Phew.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:11 AM

Dave, I can not put it in a nutshell for you.
Sorry.

Steve,
Evolution not only doesn't require intelligent control, intelligent control is anathema to the whole concept.
Agreed.
Also the rock cycle, galaxy formation, and every other natural process.
A creator God is not disproved by any of them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:39 AM

Ok - How about in a paragraph or two? Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? Do you believe he was the son of god? Do you believe god sent him to earth to rid of of our sins? Simple things like that. If so, where did those beliefs come from?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:42 AM

and I am sure we are not contained to the US bible belt either, gillymoor. and I don't suppose keith is lieing but probably mistaken, perhaps taking a more parochial/c of e view than global. but at the end of the day, consensus is a weak argument, as the most have often been wrong before, but persisted in their error for a long time.
steve, there is a longer definition, but since you wanted what I understand by it in 3 lines
begin with your ideas, howsoever arrived at.
test and test again...ie observable, repeatable,
treat as confirmed till such time as demonstrated otherwise.
btw, you say ...selection isn't evolution... as far as I got in origins, it seemed Darwin thought so ? or at least his proposed mechanism ?.
shimrod, when I say the bible accords more with science, I do not so on the flimsy base of consensus.....that is what you do for origins !.
examples.....the bible predicts organisms reproducing after their kind, ie the horse kind , cat kind. mankind, etc. this is observable and repeatable. Darwinism speculates otherwise but never demonstrated it. the bible posits a creator, ie everything that has a beginning must have a cause. evolutionism says everything from, nothing via no one. your , who created God is a non starter because I don't believe in a god that needed to be created. and I would appreciate you laying off the bad lanquage, if you want direct replies, that is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:44 AM

A creator God is not disproved by any of them.

Again, that's just an unsupported assertion. You will note that I'm saying in my posts a God who creates everything. As far as I know, that is the usual Christian view of God. If you have a different version of God who doesn't create everything, let's be having it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 08:03 AM

The other contender for Clarkson's ex-job is, apparently, Chris Evans. Oh dear! 😳


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 09:16 AM

". . . everything that has a beginning must have a cause."

Prima facie that looks to be true, but it's a tough one to prove, Pete. We make the assumption that there is a cause, but how can that be demonstrated? I suppose that eventually every interaction that transpires has a cause and a cause before that, etc, but at what point in the interactions does God/god/G-d enter the equation? And what is god? If god is the ignition switch then god's job is finished once the motor starts running. It often boils down to the questions of riddle and paradox. Can god devise a question he is unable to answer?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 09:36 AM

Oooh - Do I see the start of a religious war? ars believes the bible is true while Keith says it is not so but still believes in god and that JC was his son? Who will be first to burn the other as a heretic I wonder?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 09:40 AM

"but at the end of the day, consensus is a weak argument, ..."

What is it with you and consensus, pete?

Imagine you've been accused of [insert crime] and been tried in a court of law for it. The jury has reached its verdict and the judge sums up:

Judge: "Peter Seven Stars, you have been found guilty of [insert crime] and I will now pass sentence. Now I know that eleven jurors decided that you were innocent - but we all know that consensus is bollocks, don't we? The twelth juror, though, thought that you were guilty as hell and as I like the cut of his jib and he's wearing a blue jumper - my favourite colour is blue - I'll go with what he thinks. I hereby sentence you to 10 years in jail without remission. Take him down!"

You wouldn't like that, would you pete?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Keith.
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 09:55 AM

Pete and I disagree, but why would we burn each other?
Intelligent, tolerant people do not behave like that.

The headline for the main leader in New Scientist this week,

"Thank god for civilisation
The idea that religion led to modernity is gaining strength"

Dave, I decline to explain my faith to you.
If you really wanted to know about Christianity, the answers are very easy to find.
You are just looking for ammunition to use in your mocking and ridicule.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 10:36 AM

I've been an agnostic / rational / humanist since my teens.
I'm happy enough to lead a life of benign indifference
- I don't care what other folks worship
as long as they don't try to impose their control on me
or the institutions and laws that regulate our shared culture & society...

If a scientist can positively reconcile a faith in a god
with such an intellectually vigorously demanding chosen professional vocation
- well that's a fair compromise innit ...???

But any person of extreme faith who denies the value of science
with venomous hostility - what an ignorant dangerous pillock !!!

there.. surely those are easy enough ideas to live with.....

Now off to plug a guitar into a fuzz box and amp and rock away an hour
before the mrs gets back from the shops....


.. and as for Jeremy Clarkson, I really don't care if he definitely does exist
or is not just a construct of any tenuous grasp on reality...??? 😕


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 10:38 AM

And why, if that really is Keith, are you not logged in?

I know about faith. My Grandfather was a priest and my Dad was deeply religious until the day he died. I went to a faith school from 1957 until 1969. I was an altar boy, first in the Russian Orthodox church and then the Catholic church. I studied the bible and other christian texts as part of my higher education. I know that the whole basis for christianity is that Jesus was the son of god, sent down to absolve us of original sin that was put there by his dad in the first place. All these things are in the bible and it is no good saying the old testament does not count, as it is the basis for the new.

So, tell us then, either trolling guest or Keith if that really is you. How do you decide which bits of the bible are true and which bits are not?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 11:08 AM

Guest #.....an interesting and intriguing post, why cant more members look at things a little more deeply.....all the best...A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 01:11 PM

I will confirm these posts as mine later.
I am a member of CofE.
I doubt any member believes that the universe began with a 6 day conjuring trick 4000 years ago, and that is no part of the teaching of my church.
Or Jonah living inside a whale, or pairs of animals boarding an ark.
This is all from an old oral tradition thousands of years old, not literal history.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 01:47 PM

I will confirm these posts as mine later.

If and when you do, I will believe it.

In the meanwhile

This is all from an old oral tradition thousands of years old, not literal history.

No it isn't. It is from the bible. A book that millions of people use as the basis for their religion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: BrendanB
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 03:13 PM

'How do you decide which bits of the Bible are true and which bits are not?'

That is a very reasonable question. Unfortunately I do not think that there is a single answer. I know how I do it. The Gospels contain a view of how life should be lived to which I subscribe. I suppose it is not a question of whether it is all literally true but whether the underlying message resonates with me, and it does. The Old Testament traces (supposedly) the history of the Jewish race; it is treated with respect in most Christian churches because some of it foreshadows the birth, life and death of Jesus Christ. However, it is my perception that a good many Christians give scant attention to the Old Testament and that most recognise that it is more myth than reality. The fact is that truth is a slippery customer and that religious belief cannot be equated with objective truth, unless of course you are a fundamentalist, which I am not.

Shimrod, when I used the word 'must' in the post to which you objected I was not suggesting compulsion but implying that it was Steve Shaw's view that one could not, logically, think in that way. I thought that that was quite clear, I apologise for confusing you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 03:38 PM

Well there's a fair chance that much of the four gospels is also myth. The jury's definitely out on whether Jesus even existed at all, and there are some pretty irreconcilable inconsistencies between the four accounts. It seems to me that, as the accounts were written long after the death of Jesus, they are most likely not intended to be historical documents, more a tendentiously produced manifesto for a new religion. Much of what Jesus is alleged to have said resonates with me, too, but some of it doesn't. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof, and turning the other cheek to someone who's attacked you, sound suspiciously like hippie philosophy to me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:46 AM

Confirming my posts.
Dave, those ancient stories were passed on orally for millennia before they were ever written down.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:55 AM

For the record, everything Musket said on the closed scots thread about me and about meeting me is untrue, except that I believe there is only one person writing his posts


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:21 AM

If the Romam Emperor, Constantine (reigned 306 337 AD) had not adopted Christianity as the official religion of the empire, would we have even heard of it - or would it now be regarded as just an obscure ancient cult, known only to a few historians?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:22 AM

Thanks Keith - Hope you understand my doubts.

So, what bits do you believe in?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:58 AM

Would there be any way (as is done on other forums) to ask people who want to talk about creationism vs evolution to do it on a thread that's specifically for that purpose, and perhaps for the mod to direct people there, and if they continue to discuss it on another thread to suspend their posting rights?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:58 AM

None of the famous four gospels was written before at least forty years had passed since Jesus's death. Think what that means with regard to all those "quotations" of his that form the bedrock of Christianity. Tape recorders didn't exactly exist in those days. The only references to the man Jesus we have are all by the religious writers who were on his side. There is not a single reference to Jesus in any secular source from the time, and sources from the time are abundant. Rather strange. I should like to know how these facts sit with your take on what represents valid historical sources and legitimate historians, Keith.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 05:01 AM

Go with the flow, Thompson. I know that this blatant thread drift seems a bit odd, but do you really think there much more to be said about Jezza? Is preserving this thread in its pure form really that important?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 05:36 AM

Apparently the boss of the BBC has received death threats for sacking Clarkson......what a mad society we are creating.

Almost everyone seems to live in "medialand"......is this Orwell's 1984 for the 21st century?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 06:03 AM

You're probably right, Ake. It's both pathetic and scary at the same time!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Mr Red
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 06:29 AM

Recent myth has it that all their contracts expire at the same time, and JC sold his part of the progrsamme to the BBC not that long ago.
And talk of setting up a rival in America. And he has made a few friends in the Hollywooden Glitterati over the years.

Well I did posit to the effect, was this stupidity or tactical agenda.

Methinks I was right to be cynical. He is not stupid, he just does stupid things. A lot of them scripted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 08:43 AM

The Rt Rev Keith A Hole of Hertford posted;

"Also the rock cycle, galaxy formation, and every other natural process.
A creator God is not disproved by any of them."

Perhaps, but neither is the idea that my pet dog created them, using the same evidence base.

Also, using the logic of theology, never mind science, Hawking put forward the perfectly reasonable theory that not only do you not need a God for the big bang, but the physics of the big bang preclude the very idea of it being created. There could be no conscious thought process to cause the big bang because cause and effect requires time, and time is a product, not a component of the big bang.

Presumably, there was a shortage of science teachers in Hertford. Anybody with an inkling of understanding would see that you were being disingenuous when you said "every other natural process."

That's the problem with God botherers. They cannot accept that it is a nice for them but otherwise irrelevant hobby, and try to twist science to accommodate their fantasy.

Dangerous fuckers, to a man.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 09:01 AM

I rather like the bifurcatory nature of this thread!

I'd have thought that Jezza is a bit tainted now and not such a good proposition. He cuts a picture of a somewhat ageing, scruffy, lonely, dyspeptic old bloke when you see the paparazzi shots of him having a fag outside his place. Time will tell.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 09:56 AM

". . . and time is a product, not a component of the big bang."

That is both profound and thought provoking. And true ą part de ēa.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 10:07 AM

Still this assumption that there actually was a happening or occasion or whatever which is subsumed under that catchall nomenclature 'Big Bang'. I OPd a thread some years ago which ran&ran&ran for a good while, asking simply "What went Big Bang?" I don't think a satisfactory answer [or indeed any sort of answer] in fact emerged. It's a copout concept, not much more useful than "God", SFAICS.

≈M≈


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 10:50 AM

There are only two choices. Either the universe always existed or it started at some point. Since the universe seems to be, it therefore started at some point which is called the big bang. Unless you see another way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:08 AM

Big band or wet fart...

- either way, we're all here and now adrift and along for the ride
on this deteriorating planet and need to make the best of it...

We're having tesco oven cook fish and chips soon
and settling down to watch a tripe blockbuster movie...

Wouldn't even have noticed Top Gear is cancelled...

Life really ain't so bad as it could be............


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:25 AM



Oh, just wait until they give Clarkson's old job to the Ginger Tosser.... 😳


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:29 AM

What, surely not to Danny Alexander?!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Mr Red
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:36 AM

I'd have thought that Jezza is a bit tainted now

Like Clinton was over (pun intended) our Monica?

The American public are not that different from the UK.
Blokey peeps love a blokey peep. He is bucks office. A bit sordid, and a lot grubby. He will be a hit (pun intended) - watch this space.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:39 AM

"What, surely not to Danny Alexander?!"

LOL. No, Steve - Chris Evans! Personally, I'd far prefer Guy Martin.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:44 AM

I don't think a satisfactory answer [or indeed any sort of answer] in fact emerged. It's a copout concept, not much more useful than "God", SFAICS.

Well, Michael, there's plenty of evidence for what happened between a few billionths of a second after the Big Bang right up to now. That evidence demolishes any concept of an eternal steady-state universe. It's not a copout because we're still looking. Copout concepts are those concepts that satisfy the incurious and the science-deniers. God is the greatest copout concept because billions of people who are told to believe in him don't question his existence, in spite of its incredibly high improbability. One concept is questioned to exhaustion, with all the scientific and intellectual resources we can muster ploughed into the quest, while the other is not allowed to be questioned at all in the minds of so many people. To equate them as both being copouts is, well, a bit of a copout really...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:46 AM

I sincerely hope you don't think I didn't know who you meant, Backwoodsman! :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 12:04 PM

"Big band or wet fart... "... oops... errmmm specsavers here I come...

.. unless of course Stan Kenton or Syd Lawrence created the Universe...???😕


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:05 PM

because billions of people who are told to believe in him don't question his existence,

No-one is told to believe in Him.
You can not order belief.
Those that do believe still question, and experience doubt.
They are no less intelligent even than you Steve.
(Or even Musket, the other three in one.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:16 PM

"No-one is told to believe in Him."

Disagree strongly...

can't say how different it might be nowadays
but back in a west country C of E infant school in the early 1960s
we were taught bible stories as if they were historical fact.

And also in primary school, morning assembly prayers and hymns were imposed
still with the presumption all us small kids accepted & believed..

Don't recall any token mention of comparative religions & belief
until starting grammar school.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:18 PM

OK, Steve -- so what DID go Big Bang, then? And don't say again it was the primal particle, or some such. Particle of what? Located where? Which came whence? Which, as Ben Elton points out in one of his novels, is well-known to be questions that only stupid people ask [ie bloody everybody, and only a liar will say different]. Don't tell me it's a concept with any more validity than God -- in whom, BTW, I don't believe; He/It/Whevs as big a copout as B. Bang Esq. But then, "Steady-State" doesn't tell us that much either, does it?

At least Mr Clarkson seems to be an identifiable entity of some sort...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:20 PM

..."ARE well known", sodit


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:33 PM

PFR, it was the same in my school and all UK schools before the 70s, but none of my friends were practising Chritians, and the ones I remain in touch with still are not.
It did not make you believe either.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:43 PM

"It did not make you believe either.2

.. well from what I can remember..
it wasn't until well into my teens
I became sufficiently equipped with the intellectual tools and confidence
to question and counteract years of institutionalized christian indoctrination...

Same more or less with my close group of school friends.

It's a different story for my wife
[who I met when we were students on the same Polytechnic humanities subjects degree]

She's the product of a evangelical religious upbring in a tiny isolated village.
her brother is even a full time evangelical minister.

I'm an agnostic - she still has remnants of belief and fear of the devil...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 02:10 PM

MGM - Best explanation I have seen is...

We don't know. Something went bang, that is a provable fact. What went bang is not known. I favour the energy peak (or trough) but there is no proof. It may have been god who went bang. We cannot prove or disprove it. But if it was, his work was done billions of years ago :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 02:17 PM

Michael, if I tell you we still don't know, do you absolutely promise not to say that it didn't happen, then? We are within billionths of a second of the event out of over 13 billion years. We may get there, we may not, but at least science is honest enough to admit that we're not quite there. The steady state theory is adhered to these days only by the ornery, and creationism not only relies on having faith instead of evidence :-) but also on denying all the evidence we do have for the Big Bang.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 02:22 PM

Brain washing..

I often wonder, if my brothers, father, uncles and grandfather hadn't been Sheffield Wednesday fans, would I have been a season ticket holder myself from the age of six?

Same with religion for others., although obviously not as satisfying as something important and relevant like football. It must have pissed off and confused the missionaries to find that despite God, Jesus etc being their big cheese and blamed for creating etc, that the local natives had never heard of him.

I am lucky in that my parents taught me how to think not what to think. I like to think I passed that on to my boys.

The main problem with religion, and let's face it everybody needs a fantasy now and then, mine being that Rachel Riley off Countdown, is those too shallow or intelligent to see it as faith and look for literal aspects.*

A bit like Michael looking for a literal big bang. Presumably looks for loose change flying around the screen when watching bongo flicks and it comes to the money shot...



*I've never seen Countdown with her on it, but have watched Eight out of Ten Cats do Countdown.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:06 PM

and let's face it everybody needs a fantasy now and then

It's a funny thing, Musket, but if you compare the bible and the silmarilion they are spookily silmilar. Silmarilion may be better written but that is just my preference. Concepts are identical. I wonder if, in a couple of thousand years, someone with no knowledge of either, would like to confirm which people believed?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:08 PM

Anyway, no answer so far. Which bits of the bible are true and which are not. Keith? Pete?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:17 PM

I count my self fortunate that
even though my parents were 'only' menial manual factory worker and cleaner / care worker,
they were idealistic progressive post war young socialists.

They deliberately abstained from having me and sibling christened,
wanting us to make our own minds up when we were old enough.

So the reality was a total absence of any religion at home
to reinforce all the dogma encountered at school
and whatever other reactionary influences outside our house.

What still amuses me - at start of the new term,
4th year class after our grammar was converted to a comprehensive.

The form teacher called us all up to front of the class one at a time
to fill in registration forms.

He was middle aged, ex army, fought in the war [metal work teacher if I remember correct]

He noticed I hadn't filled in the required box for religion.

I answered "Sir, my mum and dad didn't have me christened"

His indignant reply "Nonsense boy, you're Church of England - now go back to your desk"

as he ticked the box for me.....

If he's still alive I bet he'd be a Jeremy Clarkson fan....😜


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:39 PM

Lovely story, PFR. Reminds me of my late mate Adam, rest his soul. Was old enough to do national service in the RAF. He well remembered the drill on a Sunday. Fall out, Jews, Roman Catholics and other denominations... :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:15 PM

well#, while admitting to a faith position, I believe it is supported by observations and daily experience over all time. to say that everything with a beginning needs a cause, accords with that overwhelming simple science of observation and experience. that is probably as far as a first cause can be demonstrated. it is at least logical to say that if there is a creation, and there is, then a creator [ who is outside of that space/time/matter creation], is a valid argument. contrast that with the general theory of evolution that says absolutely nothing "went bang" and then contrary to all observational science, gases became matter, from which from nowhere was endued with information content and life !. lion asks what went bang ?. there was absolutely nothing to go bang. surely we are left with either a theological miracle, or secular miracles. and as great creationist scientists in past time have demonstrated, such a position spurred on science, rather than hindered it. by contrast the evolution belief has oftimes hindered it by its slavish devotion to darwinist dogma. steve asserts masses of evidence for his faith, but don't share it with us, other than yet more assertions. I reckon it is steve, and his fellow believers who deny the evidence for creation, and against evolutionism, but of course they can just put it down to further research needed !
and btw, #, there are some things God cannot do. one is , as scripture says is lie. it is also no reflection on his being and attributes that he could not construct a puzzle he could not solve...quite the reverse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:27 PM

Pete, is English your first language? If so, can you answer me a simple question that Keith seems to have problems with please? What bits of the bible are true?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:28 PM

It is not possible to discuss anything constructively with someone who can post that drivel.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:59 PM

Not sure that PFR's teacher would be a Jeremy Clarkson fan. I recall a magazine article where he said he was irreligious, a stance I too am comfortable with. Just like being aphilatelist or aincestous.

What's all this bollocks about God not being able to lie? Why do you put that pete?

After all, if what I heard is true, he loves us. The lie being the work I have been involved with at a children's hospice. If he was more than your vivid imagination, he'd be a bigger bastard than Hitler for that one. At least Hitler never claimed to love his victims.

Mind you, at least you aren't a hypocrit. Keith picks and chooses between the absurd and more benign aspects of the Bible and still claims to be a Christian. Boutique Christians are a laughing stock because they at least show enough intelligence to realise the absurdity of it all. They just use it to look smug.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 06:09 PM

i'm sorry dave, I thought you were baiting keith with that question. a simple question you say ?. you don't appear to be wanting to understand the Christian faith, as you say you already do. now why would I suspect you were trying to trick me ?. perhaps I should be more charitable and at least answer the specifics you asked keith. yes I do believe that Christ came from God, died for us, that all who believe and repent may be saved, rose from the dead, and ascended after, to the Father. no problem for God since he is he who spoke creation into being.....but then you knew what I believe, didn't you. and as keith is not addressing me, I don't intend to get involved about whether a pick and choose bible belief is valid or not, with him. he is right though that neither of us would burn the other.
steve, the former science teacher,....that the best you can do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 07:30 PM

Is that the best I can do? Let's see. You appear to expect a sane and sensible person to address this gem:
contrast that with the general theory of evolution that says absolutely nothing "went bang" and then contrary to all observational science, gases became matter, from which from nowhere was endued with information content and life !.
Then yes, it's the best I can do. And if that's the best you can do, I feel bloody sorry for you. It's tripe.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 08:32 PM

that all who believe and repent may be saved

Did he say anything about those who neither believe nor repent but who still manage to lead good lives? What if there are people who believe, but who rob and cheat people all their lives, abandon their wife and kids, drive drunk, etc., but then repent quite late on, sort of thing...do they get more of a leg up than the non-believing, non-repenting good guys? Have you thought that through? Has God thought that through?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:44 AM

Repentance late in life. One way of hedging your bets apparently. A bit like taking a tablet for the hangover of last night's drinking session.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 02:23 AM

No tricks, Pete. So, you believe all of it I gather. I think that is fair enough. If you believe all of it then, yes, anything is possible. I don't believe any of it, which is also fair enough. As long as you don't try to force your beliefs on other people we have no quarrel. Why would you say you don't appear to be wanting to understand the Christian faith though when I have already explained that I do understand it? What I am trying to understand is what bits of the bible people believe to be fact and which bits are fiction. If it is permissible to pick and chose bits then which bits do you pick and chose and why?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:03 AM

Dave makes the important point of understanding doesn't mean accepting.

A lot of people cannot make this distinction. Presumably "to know him is to love him " has sinister overtones after all?

I'll never see Maddy Prior in the same light again 😥


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (Gas Pedant)
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:53 AM

" ... as far as a first cause can be demonstrated. it is at least logical to say that if there is a creation, and there is, then a creator [ who is outside of that space/time/matter creation], is a valid argument. contrast that with the general theory of evolution that says absolutely nothing "went bang" and then contrary to all observational science, gases became matter, ..."

Oh dear!

1. The word "logical" DOES NOT mean "pete's preferred explanation"!

2. Where in the Bible (apparently your only reference book) does it say that God is "outside of that space/time/matter creation"?

3. You're conflating scientific theories concerned with the development of life on this planet (the "general theory of evolution") with scientific theories concerned with the origin of the Universe.

4. I've asked you this a million trillion times (and I've told you not to exaggerate!) but where did God come from (bearing in mind that you've probably made up the bit about Him being "outside of that space/time/matter creation") and where did he get his materials from?

5. And you STILL haven't learned that gas IS a form of matter, have you, pete!!!! Extraordinary!!! You, a complete scientific ignoramus, could boil some ordinary tap water to make steam (a gas), condense the steam to turn it back into water (a liquid) and freeze that water to make ice (a solid): gases, liquids and solids - all forms of matter! If God created you, he really missed quite a few bits off, didn't he, pete?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:53 AM

Which bits of the bible are true and which are not. Keith?

There is no way of knowing silly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:00 AM

Then it's very much like your take on history, Keith. The problem with not knowing which bits are true is that you can't trust a single word of any of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:07 AM

I will assume you are not being purposely thick, Keith, and it was my poor phrasing.

Which bits do YOU believe are true and which are not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:12 AM

No.
On History, I believe the historians if there is a consensus.
Their findings are based on research subjected to the scrutiny of rivals.

On the history of WW1 I expressed views on which there is a consensus of historians, and has been for about twenty years.
Reading their work is how I came to hold those views.

You and a few others ridiculed me for that.
You Steve even made a little joke about the historians needing to "grow up."
You imagined that you knew more about that history than the historians whose life work it is.
Such arrogance and hubris!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:20 AM

Dave, a few weeks ago you acknowledged that you only came on to a thread to mock and ridicule me, and told me to "live with it."

You now ask me to lay bare to you my deepest faith and beliefs.
I choose to decline, respectfully.

The teachings of the Anglican Church are available for scrutiny.
On these issues they do not differ from Catholicism, Methodism and most others.
My beliefs are broadly in line with the teachings of the Anglican Church of which I am a member.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:33 AM

I did indeed, Keith, and on that thread you deserved everything you got. You are now going the same way on this thread by twisting and distorting what people say. I am not asking you to lay bare your deepest anything. I am asking you which bits of the bible you believe are true and which bits are made up shit. A couple of examples will be fine. Yes, the teachings of the Anglican church are as you say. But your beliefs are 'broadly in line with' so they do not concur exactly. How are we to know which bits you chose to follow and which bits you disagree with unless you tell us?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:48 AM

If I recall accurately, the joke Keith is referring to went something like:

"Mummy, mummy, when I grow up I want to be one of Keith's historians!"

"Don't be silly, dear, you can't do both..."

Do note "Keith's" there. The joke was entirely on you, Keith, no-one else. Keith is so bad at getting jokes that I sometimes think he must be a yank. ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:50 AM

He's certainly yanking something...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 05:16 AM

I find it astonishing that Keith is prepared to rubbish every WW1 Historian who wrote prior to 1995 but is quite happy to believe a book written up to 3,500 years ago.

Even the most recent of the New Testaments are almost 2,000 years old and were written decades, if not a century, after the demise of all the people who were supposed to be the "main players"

As for his comment that "no-one is told to believe in him" I have seldom heard such tosh. Yet another example of sheer ignorance and lack of basic understanding


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 05:21 AM

I promise that I wouldn't dream of saying "it didn't happen", Steve.

Whatever "it" may have been...

≈M≈


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 05:23 AM

Will this do

B A N G


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 05:32 AM

I have just solved a couple of mysteries. Once upon a time an all powerful being got so full of shit he went bang and the universe was created! So there WAS a creator. Shame he couldn't stick around.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 06:13 AM

Let's just enjoy the quest, Michael, and luxuriate in the thought that science, at least, tries not to indulge in the intellectual copouts that are the bedrock of all religion. What on earth would God think of our refusing to use the mighty brains he endowed us with?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 07:24 AM

OK, let's --

Our Big Bang which art in ∞ville...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 07:50 AM

Steve, the joke was aimed at "Keith's historians" which is all the current generation.
They should grow up you said.

Musket said, "those historians should know better."

The views I put forward are a consensus of the current generation of historians.
In two years none of you were able to find a single one who was not one of "keith's historians."

You people mocked and ridiculed their findings and imagine you know better than them.

You mock Pete for not believing the scientists on science, but you people refuse to believe the historians on history.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 08:24 AM

"You people"

A bit desperate if you don't mind me saying so.

The historians you refer to are expressing views based on their take of the known facts. I and anyone else for that matter can read those facts and form different conclusions. It isn't difficult. The main difference between Max Hastings and me is that I was a professional investigator who has a postgraduate qualification in investigative practice and assessing evidence, and a track record in prosecuting successfully.

But if you have a different view given the facts, that's fine.

You don't say that though do you Keith? You say that clever people conclude something so none of us by have the right to contradict them. You mock people for displaying Intelligence and independent opinions.

No wonder you are impressed by dog collars and gilded statues....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 08:51 AM

Here's the confounded joke again:

"Mummy, mummy, when I grow up I want to be one of Keith's historians!"

"Don't be silly, dear, you can't do both..."

Now here's what Keith thinks my joke said:

Steve, the joke was aimed at "Keith's historians" which is all the current generation.
They should grow up you said.


"They should grow up I said". Well no, I didn't say that or anything like it, did I, Keith? There it is in black and white. Nothing in the joke about telling historians they should grow up, eh, Keith. And you wonder why people vilify you for being inaccurate, unreliable and untruthful. Blimey, I think I feel one of those Guardian misquote moments coming on...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:16 AM

Quotes? But Keith always puts "" when quoting, doesn't he?

Except when he states something and tries to claim it was a quote after his little slip has been rumbled.

Looks like the poor bugger couldn't even get on the UKIP candidate panel....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:22 AM

The butt of the joke is "Keith's historians" not "Keith."
They have not grown up, is the point of the joke.

Musket, you chose Hastings, the only one of the historians I quoted who is not a senior professor in a university History Faculty.

Have you yet found a single historian who has written anything in the last twenty years supporting your views?

No.
They should know better, right Musket?
They need to grow up, right Steve?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:25 AM

Except when he states something and tries to claim it was a quote after his little slip has been rumbled.

It was a quote.
I showed it to you proving it was a quote from a UKIP site.
I am not and never have been UKIP.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:28 AM

Ever he the old joke about the lady carrying the pig and the drunk sitting near the gutter?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:53 AM

yes steve, repentance and faith are available to all, even late in life. that might be the obviously outwardly sinful, or the prideful, not so obvious impenitent. in theology this is known as saving grace on the part of God. do you want to argue with who you don't believe in ?.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:01 PM

.. so providing Hitler managed to squeeze out a quick prayer in his last few minutes
he might actually now be sitting in the lounge bar of Heaven
next to my dear old grandmother
who probably never did a really bad deed in her entire life...???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:08 PM

.. in which case there might still be hope yet for Jeremy Clarkson in the afterlife...
if he quickly prays every time before getting in a fast car
or smoking a cigarette...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:17 PM

do you want to argue with who you don't believe in ?.

What sort of a daft question is that and how come you only use a capital letter when referring to god rather than at the beginning of sentences?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:46 PM

.. thinking a bit more...

so if Hitler repented at the last minute, reserving a place on the waiting list for heaven,
then he goes and blows his chances by committing suicide.... ooops !!!

Careful with the fast driving & smoking Clarkson,
there might be a lesson to be learnt there...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:55 PM

Still no response from Professor KAOH re his ignoring a myriad of books written by people who actually took part in WW1 who he has dismissed and his adhesion to the writings in a book from 3,500 year ago.

How strange ..............


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:08 PM

The butt of the joke is "Keith's historians" not "Keith."
They have not grown up, is the point of the joke.


Your twisting and turning on this is risible. I'm inclined to retort that it's my joke and I get to decide what the butt of it is, but I won't. Suffice to say that there is a world of difference between proper historians as a body of personages and Keith's historians as a body of personages. The former represent an august and respectable cadre, the latter a tawdry, hand picked, misrepresented and misquoted unfortunate bunch indeed. Something even mythological about them, really. Gosh, I feel sorry for Geoffrey Wheatcroft. If I have any more jokes I'll likely run them by you first, Keith, in order to get your preliminary take. If there's one thing I can't be doing with it's having to explain jokes. The moment all too quickly passes. Usually.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:29 PM

ok dave, hopefully we are more or less clear on that one !.

shimrod, re your numbered points..
1, of course it is my preference. and you have yours !. and it is perfectly logical, and accords with experience and observation, to say that creation has a creator. granted, that in itself is not proof. your preference has yet to demonstrate logicality, and is contrary to experience and observation.
2, it is inferred by his description as being eternal and spirit. and also by virtue of being creator of heaven and earth.   i think we are agreed that time had a beginning. but God was at the beginning, and began it.
3, I was, I thought following kherkut [not sure of spelling] who did delineate the general theory as encompassing the entire theory. unless it was "grand" rather than "general". either way, seeking to separate is picky at best and evading at better,
4, and I answered you many times. only a few posts up, that I don't believe in a god who needs creating.
5, congratulations, you've scored points there. however, I am sure you knew what I was driving at. indeed ice is a solid, water liquid, and steam a gas . have you witnessed it becoming anything else ? or do you have a mechanism for it morphing into anything else, let alone life, and the information to sustain it ?.
the irony is, that the bible describes water as being Gods starting material in creation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:38 PM

"water... or do you have a mechanism for it morphing into anything else ?"

errrmmm.......wine".. Jesus the miraculous party dude...!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:44 PM

his adhesion to the writings in a book from 3,500 year ago

Sorry, Raggy, but he has got you on that one. He does not believe all of it, only part. What parts he does and does not believe is secret and we can only guess as to what they are. If anyone does guess he can, of course, then say 'no, that is wrong' and no-one will be any the wiser. You've got to hand it to the lad. Got it all covered.

I have learned from a master so I will give it a go myself. Things said about Keith
1. He is a liar.
2. He is a cheat.
3. He is thoroughly despicable.
4. He is from Hertford.
5. He has 2 willies.
6. He pisses champagne.
7. He is a complete tosser.
8. His mother is a hamster.
9. His father smells of elderberries.
10. He can twist the words of anyone to mean anything at will.

Of course, I only believe some of those things, but as my beliefs are deeply founded and personal I cannot possibly let you know which ones...

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 02:11 PM

Steve, I quoted all the current historians writing on WW1.
They are all heads or senior professors of university history departments except Hasting who writes books.

Name one who is "tawdry."
None were misquoted. I quoted them with links so the quote could be seen in its intended context.

You people could not find one historian who had written anything in the last twenty years that disagreed.

Name one of "Keith's historians" who you think should be dismissed Steve.

Do you agree with Musket that, "those historians should know better?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 02:33 PM

Dave, You are correct to a point ........... however the Professor dismisses all WW1 Historians prior to 1995 even the one's who took part and/or witnessed events for themselves.

They, according to his infinite wisdom, are unreliable and we should discount anything they have contributed.

HOWEVER, the bible, parts of which were written three and half thousand years ago, should be accepted as gospel as it were.

Neither you or I know which bits of course, that's secret, but then why should mere lessor mortals such as you and I be party to such knowledge.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:27 PM

Raggy, it is not me who "dismisses all WW1 Historians prior to 1995."
It is the current generation of historians.

Then there was no consensus on those issues.
Now there is.

You people think the current historians are all deluded fools.
Why would anyone think that?
I am no historian.
I get my views on history from reading the historians whose life's work it is.
You people think you know better than those historians.
Fine.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:42 PM

Just watched the BBC drama, 'The Ark'. Funnily enough it was all those who did not believe in god that drowned. What a bastard he must have been. Oh look. I have cocked it up. Best kill this lot off and replace them with yes men. Nowt down for us, lads. Sorry. Still, at least we won't have to put up with Keith and Pete being insufferably smug...

:-D


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:48 PM

They have a lot to be "smug" about!   :0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 06:01 PM

do you want to argue with who you don't believe in ?.

Well, a couple of things. As I've said many times before, I don't not believe in God. I don't know whether there's a God or not. I hate to tell you this, but neither do you. The difference between us is that I seek out all the evidence I can to try and make a judgement whereas you rely entirely on faith. By evidence, I mean stuff that can be corroborated and that emanates from the laws of nature. I can't find anything in any description of God that fits that bill. What I don't accept as evidence is myth, ancient stories written down and/or made up by scribes who had an agenda, tradition, ceremony, edicts coming from holy men and witness. The case against is, in my mind, further strengthened by claims made about God that he is all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful and eternal. Everything that you can think of that goes against the laws of nature, in fact. The explanation of everything in the universe, including all life on earth, is that God created it all. Yet the greatest theologians of all time can't answer that most childish of questions, who made God then?

The universe is vast and complex, and, in my view, the only way to explain it is by resorting to our scientific endeavour. That is not empty words. It means ruthless pursuit of knowledge by means of gathering real evidence. It means not falling back on silly notions about "greater truths" and the like, words that are just that, words. You can't explain something as complex and diverse as the universe by inventing an explanation that is not only infinitely more complex than the thing it attempts to explain but which for itself there is neither explanation nor evidence. So I'm on the fence, but both arms, both legs and my big arse are all on one side, while on the other you might just glimpse the tips of my fingernails.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 08:09 PM

Keith, with all the respect I can muster, and I speak for myself though I may get support, I'm sick to the back teeth of you and your historians. You have used a joke I first made months ago to resurrect the damn thing, so round and round and round we go. You know that you will not get anyone additional to agree, so give up why don't you. The thing is dead. The horse will no longer whinny. The tank is empty. I look deep into the topic's eyes but there's no-one driving. Most important, the sword of truth is not in your scabbard. Do those goths still hang around the canal bank in Hertford?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:22 AM

Meanwhile over in Dumbfuckistan, this just in.

The state of Indiana has just enacted a religious freedom and protection act.

Apparently it's not exactly freedom and protection as such but the freedom for Christians to discriminate against people they don't like, even in business.

By the people, for the people
That was Lincoln's vow
But what the hell would Abraham Lincoln say
If he could see America now?

(Dick Gaughan)

Some people say that Clarkson is too ironic for his own good. Looking at the world around us, he seems to have a lot of material to be going on with.

Poor Keith. He really is having problems coming to terms with being out of step with reality. Can't tell the difference between a discovery that clicks into a scientific jigsaw and an opinion that gives a version of interpreting facts, or historian commentary as it's known. It really troubles him that some of us can interpret facts for ourselves. Judging by past form. It isn't Keith you should be asking re which parts of the Bible he believes Dave. Ask his vicar. He prefers to repeat views of others rather than have a mind of his own.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (The Gas Pedant)
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:48 AM

pete, re your numbered points... following my numbered points ... errr

1, of course it is my preference. and you have yours !...

But my 'preference' (i.e. the explanation which I find to be the most credible) is based on evidence gathered by many, many talented scientists over many decades. Your preference, on the other hand, is based on a concensus (Oooh! Dirty word!), among you and your fellow cultists, that the myths and parables in an old book are an expression of absolute truth.

2, it is inferred by his description as being eternal and spirit. and also by virtue of being creator of heaven and earth...

"it is inferred by his description" in the Bible, you mean? But few people, except you and your fellow cultists, believe that the Bible represents absolute truth. And, apart from some words in the Bible, there would appear to be no evidence that your God even exists. Of course, words in an old religious text don't count as evidence.

3, I was, I thought following kherkut [not sure of spelling] who did delineate the general theory as encompassing the entire theory. unless it was "grand" rather than "general". either way, seeking to separate is picky at best and evading at better,

Whatever! I made this point just to emphasise your general ignorance about modern science.

4, and I answered you many times. only a few posts up, that I don't believe in a god who needs creating.

Again, what you choose to believe, or not to believe, is irrelevant! Only evidence counts!

5, congratulations, you've scored points there. however, I am sure you knew what I was driving at ...

But, pete, someone who does/did not not know the elementary scientific fact that gas is a form of matter, should not really be attempting to enter into a scientific debate. In scientific terms you're a bit like someone who doesn't know that B follows A in the alphabet! You're a bit like someone who can't spell CAT trying to lecture us on feline taxonomy!

If you want to enter into a debate about science, pete, please go away and do some homework! Although I suspect that you'll be away for a very long time!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:50 AM

What is "smug" as opposed to smug? Anyone any idea what it is on about?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:50 AM

Why are people being so personally mean to Keith? His views are different from mine, but that doesn't mean he deserves to be personally mocked for them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:27 AM

Nobody mocks his views

His assurance that everybody else is wrong and his mocking of any view. Or his frantic googling in order to find some obscure crap that makes views of others look suspect.

If you read his posts you will see his childish behaviour on view.

No. His actual views. Hospitals and schools are legitimate targets for Israeli militants. British Muslims of Pakistani origin are potential rapists as it is hardwired into them. Sending waves of men over the top into machine gunfire was good leadership and the men understood this and supported the tactic. Only UKIP have their finger on the immigration pulse. That he never met someone who met him so that person is a liar rather than his memory failed him.

They are just views sunshine.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:32 AM

"Why are people so mean to Keith"......the people who are mean to Keith, have just been comprehensively defeated in debate on another thread by Keith, Teribus and Lighter.....among others.
They have simply fallen back to their default position.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:11 AM

I must have missed that one.

I'll see if Musket was on duty that day.

What was the subject worm? Fascist pin up models?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:45 AM

In all the time I've been on here, I've never seen anyone victoriou or vanquished. The arguments just go on and on until one of us decides to go for a bike ride.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:16 AM

Musket, those are not my views.
Steve, it was not me who "resurrected" the history debate.
I just responded.
Of course you people are sick of the historians.
They all refute the claims you people made about WW1.
You were wrong to ridicule me for just repeating what they are all saying.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:18 AM

Steve, it was YOU who resurrected the history debate, 27 Mar 15 - 06:34 AM .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:40 AM

The ONLY person who has made ANY claim regarding historians is Professor KAOH, he is the one who dismissed the work of ALL historians who wrote prior to 1995 but he still maintains he partially believes in a book that was written up to 3,500 years ago.

Illogical to say the least.

And we still don't know which bits he regards as truth and which bits as fairy stories .............. or perchance untruths.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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??

:-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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 ..................


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

No.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Not much of a Christian either


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...??????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Sorry - Me at 03:09PM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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 .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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'?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:38 AM

Are you prepared to sacrifice what's left of your credibility for the bullies?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:52 AM

Yep - Like a child rather than a manipulative, conniving sociopath. Quite proud of that, thanks. Quite happy with my credibility as well thank you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 10:03 AM

They wont let you IN their gang.....no matter how horrid you are to Keith OR me .....not even if you ask them nicely.
"I think I'm a Musket too"

You're a Trade Unionist......that's worse than they think we are. :0)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 10:06 AM

It's nice to have credibility... I'm happy with mine too.

Just think, you can be credible to normal people who matter and count, or you can be credible to bigots, idiots and little men.

Looks like some of us tossed the right coin...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 10:17 AM

Dave,
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.

And nor will I.
And nor will anyone else.
What a stupid, pointless point to not make Dave.

I ridiculed you because you are an idiot.

!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 11:13 AM

What a stupid, pointless point to not make Dave.

Well, apart from the phraseology of that being idiotic, what is stupid and pointless about being anti-war?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 11:17 AM

They wont let you IN their gang.....no matter how horrid you are to Keith OR me

I may be childish is some respects but I grew out of gangs when I was about 11. There are a number of people who post on here who do not believe that gay people should be treated as second class citizens or war should be glorified. If that is what you mean by gang, however, I am proud to be part of it.

And if you think I have been horrid, you have led a very sheltered life. As the song says, you ain't seen nothing yet.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 12:06 PM

That's the problem with the self righteous with nothing to be righteous about. They are so far up their own arse, insults get rather muffled. So when they do hear clearly, they don't understand how they got to such a reputation.

Normality is a gang eh? Being a normal well adjusted person with moderate objective takes on society is a conspiracy?

No wonder mental health services in Scotland are at breaking point. Just had a look at the CCG commissioning for Hertfordshire. That is 21% underfunded too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 12:39 PM

What's to say?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 01:57 PM

Dave, no-one thinks a war is "a good thing."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 03:43 PM

so steve, you have no evolutionary beliefs ?. I presume that what you mean is [ that you say ] it's true ? ok, lets have the evidence....and appeals to authority and numbers is not direct evidence, and if it were the theist can use it too !. if those laws of nature you listed support evolutionist teaching, then pray tell how ?. however, laws of nature like organisms producing after their own kind [ as per genesis ] are in line with creation which you say has not a scrap of evidence. and then there is the evidence for the catastrophic flood. there are millions of dead things preserved as fossils, and even soft tissue from creatures supposedly many millions of yrs old. then there are trees buried across multi strata. all these are much more in line with more recent, sudden burial from waterborne sediment, than the gradualism of evolutionism. now I do know that evolutionists have come round to the idea of some catastrophism, but is there evidence for much else ?.
we seem to have different ideas about what the expression " hostile witness " means. I know that snail is not on my side , and that is what makes his challenge to you all the valuable. it is the other side verifying that evolution cant be verified. so, steve, show me some evolution, if evolution is true !.                  
and I respectfully request you stop using the name as a swear word.., that is if you expect responses to you in future.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 03:58 PM

Pete. There is no evidence for god apart from very circumstantial, hearsay and appeals to authority. And that authority is thousands of years old and cannot be trusted. You believe? Fine. No one has any problems with that. But for fucks sake stop pushing it down our throats as it is fact and stop trying to make sure that my grandchildren are told the same pack of lies that you were. You want people to stop using your name as a swearword? Then stop acting like an arse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 04:10 PM

if I am playing a game [ which I don't see it as ] , shimrod, I reckon I might be doing better than you, the scientist, who cannot cite any science to support what he claims is true !. oh, and that word " consensus " is because you keep appealing to it, and you don't get it, that that is not an argument. all it proves is that more people agree , than not. and is all the mockery and badmouthing an attempt to stop me replying to you ? ........ it will probably work !.

and I see stu has returned already from refusing to engage me to go off and do science, with a distinctly unscientific put down !


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 04:17 PM

is all the mockery and badmouthing an attempt to stop me replying to you ?

No, it genuinely isn't from me. It is because you deserve it. Besides, it's what you holy men want isn't it? Mockery, ridicule, martyrdom. Means you will be first in line with your season ticket at the pearly gates. You you should be thanking us.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 04:23 PM

I still can't see quite how we got here

BLOODY AGAIN!!!

from Clarkson.

Still -- Play Your Games, dears.

Bedtime for Pussikatz'n'Lions...

Ho-hum


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 05:21 PM

Dave, he wants me to stop saying "Jaysus", "by Christ" and "Christ on a bloody bike". Jesus wept, what a cheeky monkey! This delicate fellow, who uses the name of Charles Darwin in the most insulting and offensive contexts! You couldn't make it up.

So.

so steve, you have no evolutionary beliefs ?.

Correct.

I presume that what you mean is [ that you say ] it's true ?

Presume no longer. Evolution is here. It happens. It cannot be contradicted. By any measure, it's true. The theory of evolution is a different matter. The theory attempts to explain the phenomenon of evolution. Theories in themselves are not the truth. In fact, there are plenty of gaps to be filled and tweaks to be made to the theory as our knowledge increases. Science is a wonderful endeavour that tries to get to the heart of things. You wouldn't understand that. Your God gave you a mighty brain that you don't use. You couldn't be more disrespectful to your God if you tried. See you in Hades.

ok, lets have the evidence....and appeals to authority and numbers is not direct evidence, and if it were the theist can use it too !. if those laws of nature you listed support evolutionist teaching, then pray tell how ?. however, laws of nature like organisms producing after their own kind [ as per genesis ] are in line with creation which you say has not a scrap of evidence

Gibberish.

. and then there is the evidence for the catastrophic flood. there are millions of dead things preserved as fossils, and even soft tissue from creatures supposedly many millions of yrs old. then there are trees buried across multi strata. all these are much more in line with more recent, sudden burial from waterborne sediment, than the gradualism of evolutionism. now I do know that evolutionists have come round to the idea of some catastrophism, but is there evidence for much else ?.

You ignore evidence and appear to understand nothing. And there's nothing I can tell you that would change that.

we seem to have different ideas about what the expression " hostile witness " means. I know that snail is not on my side , and that is what makes his challenge to you all the valuable. it is the other side verifying that evolution cant be verified. so, steve, show me some evolution, if evolution is true !.

Go fetch him then. At least he says challenging things at times that I can get my teeth into, unlike your good self.
               
and I respectfully request you stop using the name as a swear word.., that is if you expect responses to you in future.

Denied. If that's the worst swearing you've heard, then, bejaysus, you really are a poor, sheltered thing, aren't you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 05:38 PM

Find me one religion that hasn't lied for its god and I'll maybe begin to have some belief. Until then, it's all bullshit, imo.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 05:55 PM

It is because you deserve it. Besides, it's what you holy men want isn't it? Mockery, ridicule, martyrdom.

You have become a despicably intolerant person Dave.
Were there not people very close to you who were "holy men?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:20 PM

Excuse me from butting in but as a little diversion ... here is a link to a Guardian article about a reformed Clarkson published about 24 hours ago Former Top Gear presenter says being sacked by the BBC was a 'wake-up call' as he joins host of celebrities backing climate change campaign  
Sorry, about 24 hours late spotting this.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:32 PM

April fool!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:33 PM

April Fool? Really !!?
Would the Guardian play such a trick?

You'll be telling me next the island of San Seriffe sank before it reached Sri Lanka.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:51 PM

btw It's a bit complicated in parts but if you weren't about in 1977 you'll find a good copy of the Guardian article if you google
... able to study the San Serriffe phenomenon in a comparative way and his diary for 1796, now at the Geographical Society at Kensington Gore, contains the first description of the extraordinary scouring and deposition pattern which continually shapes and reshapes the island group.
Worth a read.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 02:14 AM

Just for the record, pete, I have no "evolutionary beliefs" either! And that's because (for the umpty millionth time) science is NOT about belief!! Science is a system for examining the nature of reality through observation, the gathering of evidence and experiment. The evidence gathered so far supports an evolutionary model - it does not, in any conceivable way, support a load of fairy tales in an old book!

"oh, and that word " consensus " is because you keep appealing to it ..."

Of course I appeal to concensus - you idiot! An important aspect of modern science is peer review i.e. a scientist's work must be accepted as valid by his peers before it can be published - a form of concensus. And all of the religious waffle you set so much store by is also based on concensus among members of your silly holy cult.

Finally, as someone with a scientific background, I can think of no conceivable reason why I should not question the nature and origin of your God. You (spuriously) dismiss such questions as "childish" - but, remember, children sometimes ask the most pertinent questions!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 03:56 AM

I remember it well, Freddy. Having been a Grauniad reader for 40 years or more, I'm on the alert every April 1 for the latest jape, and the paper never lets us down. I remember one year when it was very subtle, the BMW badge in the car ad the wrong way round or something like that. The Clarkson one yesterday had Mrs Steve fooled, but don't tell her I told you!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 04:14 AM

Were there not people very close to you who were "holy men?"

Yes, but not close in philosophy. Also, they were very acceptant of my choices and did not try to foist their beliefs of me or anyone else. And FWIW I have always had a very low tolerance of fools who believe that theirs is the only 'truth'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 04:28 AM

Dave,
try to foist their beliefs of me or anyone else.
for fucks sake stop pushing it down our throats

So we can have views but must never express them?
You really are very intolerant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 09:04 AM

A day ago you and the pack were DEMANDING to be told in detail my beliefs.
You were SO PETULANT when I refused.

Now today you accuse me of foisting my beliefs on you!!

I ridiculed you because you are an idiot.

!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 09:49 AM

Nowt so much wrong with 'expressing'..

but evangelizing / proselytizing / indictrinating / brainwashing / etc..

let's just say these forms of 'expression' are somewhat problematic to say the least...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 10:22 AM

None of that here PFR.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 10:28 AM

(Except from the atheists trying to convince believers that they are deluded)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 11:49 AM

Pete, this:

"and I see stu has returned already from refusing to engage me to go off and do science, with a distinctly unscientific put down !"

. . . follows on from a previous post containing this:

"and then there is the evidence for the catastrophic flood. there are millions of dead things preserved as fossils, and even soft tissue from creatures supposedly many millions of yrs old."

That me old mucker, is a statement that is simply wrong. I've engaged you over the years and quite comprehensively, but still you regurgitate dross like this.

Mind it was nice of God to sort all those fossils into a carefully stratified, logical order that allows us to construct a tree of life to disprove creationist mumbo-jumbo. Imagine if they were all mixed up, like they must have been in the swirling tempest of the flood? He must have made them settle sequentially on the seabed, from simple to complex. Now why the heck would he do that?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 01:08 PM

A day ago you and the pack were DEMANDING to be told in detail my beliefs.
You were SO PETULANT when I refused.


Proof please, Keith. I have never demanded anything nor been petulant. Either in upper or lower case. Why do you keep lying? Or if not lying, twisting peoples words. You really do have some some personality issues don't you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 02:16 PM

Dave,Here is you demanding to know my beliefs.

GUEST,Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:07 AM

I will assume you are not being purposely thick, Keith, and it was my poor phrasing.

Which bits do YOU believe are true and which are not.



And here is you being petulant about me refusing to lay bare my beliefs.

GUEST,Dave the Gnome - PM
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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 02:20 PM

And,

GUEST,Dave the Gnome - PM
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,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 05:23 PM

Which bits do YOU believe are true and which are not.

How is this a demand?

It is a question, nothing more or less. If you chose not to answer, fair enough. People can draw their own conclusions.

The last point of your post. Not petulant. Again, asking a question. If you chose not to answer, fair enough. But don't expect anyone to take you seriously.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 05:40 PM

You wanted to know the detail of my belief.
You did not like it when I refused.
You then say I am foisting my beliefs on you, and you say it is me who is an idiot!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars kink
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 06:38 PM

Well stu, at least some kind of argument.   Granted there is a general order. It would be expected that a catastrophe beginning in the ocean would cover the sea floor creatures first. It would also be expected that the more mobile would be overwhelmed last. There are however many fossils that have been moved up or down as needed to maintain the desired sequence. And of course, order or not, these fossils are preserved by the tons, but only because of rapid burial that slowed or prevented deterioration. Oh , and is there anywhere where the whole fossil index is complete ?.                           So shimrod, Copernicus and Galileo were wrong after all, since they were rejected by peer review ?!.   All the complex epicycles their contempories kept adding are just like the ever changing evolutionary story, I reckon.    and I must say again, that it is logically impossible to say where an eternal God with no beginning came from. You can deny his existence but you can not fall back on this illogical challenge.                                                          As for me shoving my beliefs down throats....! Give us a break. It was you evo atheists that just could not help yourselves from looking for a fight, that both initiated this debate, and who are shoving evolutionism and atheism down our throats.....if you insist on taking that line .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 06:59 PM

it is logically impossible to say where an eternal God with no beginning came from. You can deny his existence but you can not fall back on this illogical challenge.

An eternal God with no beginning doesn't come from anywhere. But the problem with your statement is your completely unjustified and unsupportable claim that your God is eternal with no beginning. You have no evidence for the existence of such a creature. Indeed, he breaks so many laws of nature that the possibility of his existence is vanishingly small. So I'm not asking you where your eternal God with no beginning comes from. I'm asking you where God comes from.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 01:10 AM

"There are however many fossils that have been moved up or down as needed to maintain the desired sequence."

I'm not sure what that means (not sure you do either). Presumably, God arranged the "catastrophe" and then thought: "Hang on! I've got the order all wrong here (Huh! So much for my infallibility!). I'll have to do a re-shuffle. Let's hope the God botherers don't notice!"

"So shimrod, Copernicus and Galileo were wrong after all, since they were rejected by peer review ?!"

Copernicus and Galileo were independently minded pioneers at a time when religious dogma dominated all thinking and muddied and obscured the human race's view of the universe. Fortunately, science has now kicked religion into the 'long grass' and its dogmas are only adhered to by a few weirdos like you and your fellow cultists.

" ... it is logically impossible to say where an eternal God with no beginning came from. You can deny his existence but you can not fall back on this illogical challenge."

I'm not denying God's existence; I'm asking you to covince me that he exists. After all, if you're so sure that he exists, it's not a 'big ask', is it?
The other question that you always dodge is: If God created the universe, where did he get his materials from? Did he conjure them out of nothing? I thought that, according to you, it was 'impossible' to get something from nothing?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 01:58 AM

"Evo athiests"

That's new one.

Do we get to wear silly hats?

Anyway. As its Good Friday, I need to get practicing. My back is a bit stiff today and I need to be supple in order to deliver my annual impersonation in the pub tonight.

"Jesus on a rubber cross."

Keith. Do keep up. Nobody can convince people they are deluded. It is a contradiction in terms. But stop thinking people are thick eh? Of course faith is a tenet of your hobby same as believing Sheffield Wednesday are perfect is a tenet of mine. But we all know The Owls are mid table and that means we lose a few and we all know that ultimately, religious faith is built on fairy tales. It isn't true. You know it isn't and I know it isn't.

But religion is a proxy for bigotry, and the more rational people point and laugh, the less disruptive the stupid aspects can be.

(I watched Mrs Brown D' Movie yesterday. Not good by any standard but one hilarious bit where the statue of Jesus was hanging off the cross on the wall outside a church. In the next scene, a priest is seen on a ladder nailing him back on..,,,)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 03:03 AM

Steve,
Indeed, he breaks so many laws of nature that the possibility of his existence is vanishingly small.
No. God would be outside and above the laws of nature that He would have created.

Musket,
But stop thinking people are thick eh?
I do not.
Neither believers nor atheists have a monopoly on intelligence or ignorance.
we all know that ultimately, religious faith is built on fairy tales.
I do not know or accept that.
But religion is a proxy for bigotry,
False assertion.
My church for instance is famously tolerant, and consider the anti-faith bigotry expressed by Dave in his rant against "holy men."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 03:18 AM

"No. God would be outside and above the laws of nature that He would have created."

That's pure supposition and you've just made it up to avoid having to answer awkward questions, KofH. Evidence, please!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 03:25 AM

Shim, there is no evidence for or against.

It is not supposition but a fact that, if God exists, He would be outside and above the laws of nature that He would have created.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 03:31 AM

"There are however many fossils that have been moved up or down as needed to maintain the desired sequence."

Love it. Thanks pete!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:15 AM

You wanted to know the detail of my belief.
I wanted to know which bits of the bible you believe. A valid question in the circumstances.

You did not like it when I refused.
I really could not give a shit whether you answer or not.

You then say I am foisting my beliefs on you
I have never accused you you of that. Links please.

So, 2 lies and one half truth in one post.

and you say it is me who is an idiot!
Wrong again. A liar, a cheat and an idiot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:47 AM

Sorry - Me at 04:15 AM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:59 AM

Dave, you say you did not care that I refused to reveal details of my faith to you, but you did remark on it a couple of times.
In a reply to me you said that at least "holy men" in your family did not foist their beliefs on you.
That comes across as saying that I did.

Neither Pete nor I have done that so I am pleased that you do not make that false accusation.
What exactly do you object to Dave?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:01 AM

In any event, surely such accusations as "foisting of beliefs" are misplaced. Discussion forums exist for the purpose of expressing one's beliefs and opinions. If one is to be inhibited from doing so by accusations of endeavouring to 'foist', or some synonym thereof, such beliefs and opinions, then what is the purpose of discussion at all?

≈M≈


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:13 AM

That comes across as saying that I did.
Twist, twist, wriggle, wriggle.

What exactly do you object to Dave?
I haven't objected to anything have I?

Michael - What are you on about? The phrase was the the holy people in my family did not foist their beliefs on me. And that was in answer to a comment that Keith made in the first place. He then chose to take that as meaning that he did foist his beliefs. His problem, not mine. I have not accused anyone of foisting anything on anyone. I have accused Keith of being a liar, which this last escapade further reinforces; a cheat, which his excuses underline and an idiot, which is just my opinion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:30 AM

Ah -- thank you for clarification. I had got somewhat lost among all the verbiage of accusation and counter-accusation and.....

Ho-hum. Both too early & too late to go back to bed. Think I'll have a nice cup of tea and a blue cheese sarnie.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:35 AM

Anyone else, BTW, notice this adventitiously delightful typo last evening?


"From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars kink - PM
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 06:38 PM"


√√√√√√ = Like = √√√√√√


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:38 AM

It was an orange cheese two weeks ago...



"My church is famously tolerant.."

Thank fuck for that! Who knows how much more child fucking, preying on vulnerable people, trying to have a say in secular affairs, murdering gays, albinos and people who just don't fit in, circumcising women,feeding bodies of dead Muslims to pigs, historically burning at the stake, crusades, inquisition etc etc there would have been if it weren't so tolerant!

😹




Mary! Mary!

What ails you my Lord?

You can see our house from up here!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:59 AM

Shim, there is no evidence for or against.

Only half-right. Certainly there's no evidence for. We have only assertions. The evidence against is very strong on an intellectual level. An eternal, all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful God is proposed as the explanation for the universe and everything in it. Just think, all those clusters and galaxies and stars and planets and the laws of physics that govern it all, much of it so complex that, as yet, we have no more than rudimentary knowledge of it (though we're closing in, thanks to scientific endeavour). That being so, the God who created all this must be infinitely more complex. Yet no-one has ever seen this fellow or been in touch with him. There are no traces of him anywhere. The proposition is for a infinitely complex being whose very existence trumps every law of nature yet for who there is not a scrap of evidence, just assertions. Religion tries to explain the universe in all it's complexity by installing a being who, himself, is deliberately put beyond explanation. Disturbingly, more and more of his "creations" can be explained, as time goes by, by resorting to no more than the laws of nature. God isn't really much of an explanation at all, is he?

It is not supposition but a fact that, if God exists, He would be outside and above the laws of nature that He would have created.

It is neither a supposition nor a fact. It is an unsupportable assertion that, conveniently, puts God beyond arm's length from science. That is religion's deliberate ploy, intended to make God invulnerable to intellectual scrutiny. Where God is concerned, only blind faith can reign supreme. Critical examination is not permitted. Religion, in the way it chooses to define God, sees to that. I've seen more honest approaches, frankly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 06:04 AM

That apostrophe in "it's" was put there by Apple, not me. One know's exactly how to use ones apostrophe's and itll be a sad day when one forget's how.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 06:36 AM

Where God is concerned, only blind faith can reign supreme. Critical examination is not permitted.

Unless it is to examine processes by which mankind came up with the idea of God in the first place, much less the idea of Religion which we seem to have been dealing with for some tens of thousands of years, though, at around 4,000, God himself is a relative newcomer on the scene of myth and general dreaming delusion.

Even then the idea was far from ubiquitous : in wandering the stone circle at Duddo in Northumberland a couple of weeks back, itself around 4,000 years old, I sensed nothing of God, but plenty of the WTF? bafflement that still moves us to keep asking questions & find some sort of pattern to it all. I doubt God was ever part of such a process; as a concept it's less for asking questions than it is for fucking people over with fear and ignorance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 06:38 AM

Steve, the universe can certainly be explained without recourse to God.
So what?
Belief does not rest on that.

It is not supposition but a fact that, if God exists, He would be outside and above the laws of nature that He would have created.
That is inherent in the concept of God.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 06:41 AM

Musk [whichever Popgun is on today!] --

Which church has ever circumcised women, as you appear to assert in your last post, 0538 am?

≈M≈


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 06:58 AM

From the Professor 06.38

"It is not supposition but a fact that, if God exists, He would be outside and above the laws of nature that He would have created.
That is inherent in the concept of God"

A FACT can be proven, it can be demonstrated to apply.

To make such a claim as this is disingenuous as it cannot be proven.

As to the final sentence "that is inherent in the concept of God" which God, who's God, who says is it inherent, with what authority can they say it is inherent.

Supposition and superstition.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 07:18 AM

The teaching of The Anglican Church.

According to Amnesty International, in Uganda, Kenya, CAR chiefly. Historically, many more as missionaries used their usual tactics of integrating local superstition with their own.

Meanwhile, get nurse to find you some newspapers. They are full of politicians pledging action on female circumcision and destroying the popular myth that it is purely another thing for you to get Islamaphobic about. It transcends flavours of superstition.

I forgot to add the dangerous bastards who remove their children from medical help insisting prayer is better. The Pentacostal crowd in Nottingham are being investigated as I type. A doctor who was a member complained to the police when their preacher was encouraging people to throw away medicine and trust their piss poor Lord.

Of course, not all Christians are shits but some might not know what their nephews are up to eh?
😋


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 07:36 AM

"It is not supposition but a fact that, if God exists, He would be outside and above the laws of nature that He would have created.
That is inherent in the concept of God"

Dear me, Keith. As ever, you seem to think that repeating a thing mantra-like will somehow make it more true. The concept of God is an entirely human one, entirely invented. God has never shown his hand either to confirm or deny your concept, so it remains entirely speculative. As for your fact, if God does exist it would be highly presumptious of you to try to define his nature. I don't know whether there's a God or not, but, if he really is there, I'm not putting him outside the laws of nature unless HE tells me he is, and neither should you, convenient for your argument though it is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:15 AM

I could, I suppose, try to point out to Mather'n'Minions, the Thicko-Muskie-Popgun-Peddling-Pack, the difference between doctrine & syncretism; but I have learned that pissing-down-the-wind can be a much more satisfactory activity than trying to engage intellectually with that bunch of self-satisfied proud-to-be-ignoramuses, so let it pass.

≈M≈


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:21 AM

Raggy,
"It is not supposition but a fact that, if God exists, He would be outside and above the laws of nature that He would have created.
That is inherent in the concept of God"

A FACT can be proven, it can be demonstrated to apply.


Agree Raggy.
Here is the proof

www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/God
2 (god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes;

There is no superstition in my statement.
It is a fact that, if God exists, He would be outside and above the laws of nature that He would have created.
That is inherent in the concept and definition of God as I have just shown with the help of OED.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:40 AM

That is not proof, it is merely a definition. Surely even someone of your limited capacity can understand the difference between a definition and a fact.

I did notice however that you failed to include the remainder of that definition. I wonder why.

Tantamount to lying AGAIN me thinks.

The reminder of the definition goes on to suggest a "moon god" or the "Hindu god Vishnu" and that doesn't correlated with your version of god does it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:41 AM

So Keith repeats it again, hoping we'll all think it's getting a little bit more true. This time his appeal to authority is not to theologians, not to historians - but to a dictionary! And, what's more, it's "proof"! Funny man, Keith. Keep 'em coming! :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 09:39 AM

Where else to go but to a dictionary for the definition of the concept of God?

As I said,if there is a God, it would be outside and above the laws of nature.
"a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes"

It is a fact that that is a definition of the concept of God.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 09:54 AM

Michael in the garden said "the difference between doctrine & syncretism;"

is the difference that the circumcism doesn't hurt as much with one than the other? I'm sure victims are grateful to you for excusing those who preach doing it from those who carry it out for them.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.

Of course, if you could reason with God botherers, there wouldn't be any god botherers, so we may as well carry on with this verbal wanking eh?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 10:21 AM

so we may as well carry on with this verbal wanking eh?

It is no such thing, Musket. I believe the correct term is a mass debate...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 10:34 AM

... but if that is the old Muskiboozes' motivation, Dave, we mustn't spoil their masturbatory fun, must we?

≈M≈


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 10:49 AM

"That is not proof, it is merely a definition. Surely even someone of your limited capacity can understand the difference between a definition and a fact."

Without definitions it is not possible to establish facts in the philosophies. Possibly it isn't in other disciplines either. If we look for example at the concept of god, we must be able to define the deity to everyone's satisfaction. Then there is common ground to discuss. Without a mutually-agreed-upon place to start from, the journey can seldom be more than this thread has demonstrated: argumentative, combative and on occasion crass.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 10:54 AM

Just nice to be able to get it up I suppose...

Mind you. Christians get some things right. The Easter Bunny for instance. I love Easter Eggs. Getting all excited about Sunday now.

Getting excited about next Thursday too, when I can pre order my Apple Watch. Some things are worth worshipping.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 12:39 PM

Where else to go but to a dictionary for the definition of the concept of God?

As I said,if there is a God, it would be outside and above the laws of nature.
"a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes"

It is a fact that that is a definition of the concept of God.


Well, within one post we go from "the definition..." to "a definition". Progress of a sort. But please stop parroting it now, Keith. We hear you. We don't like it, but we hear you. So, Guest#, your aspirational statement that "we must be able to define the deity to everyone's satisfaction. Then there is common ground to discuss" has not been achieved. And it can't be. You can't define the deity to everyone's satisfaction unless the clause "but he almost certainly doesn't exist" is in there somewhere. We suffer quite enough religious imperialism on this planet without having a definition of the deity forced on us that lacks that bit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 01:00 PM

"So, Guest#, your aspirational statement that "we must be able to define the deity to everyone's satisfaction. Then there is common ground to discuss" has not been achieved."

That's what I said.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 01:27 PM

Professor you suggested that because there was a definition of a god that in itself proved that a god existed.

No.

It merely indicates that SOME people accept there is a definition of a god.

I notice you didn't respond to my inclusion of the remainder of your definition from the dictionary you quoted which mentioned a moon god and the Hindu god Vishnu.

Now why was that a reasonable person could ask.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 02:27 PM

God 'defined' at Oxford Dictionaries.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 03:11 PM

"a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes"

It is a fact that that is a definition of the concept of God.


Interesting that this was Keith's post when in the dictionary definition it says

(In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

So, not your version of god then Keith. Yet another instance of selective cut and paste. Rumbled once again and wondering why people say you are dishonest. Do you think we are all stupid and will not notice?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 03:38 PM

Dave, I am not "rumbled" and there is no dishonesty.
The definition I quoted was the general definition, and it was then refined for specific gods.
The general definition still applies.

Raggy,
Professor you suggested that because there was a definition of a god that in itself proved that a god existed.

No I did not.
I have said there is not even evidence never mind proof that god exists/existed.

Steve,
You can't define the deity to everyone's satisfaction unless the clause "but he almost certainly doesn't exist" is in there somewhere.

No justification for such a clause Steve.
There is no evidence for it and atheists are a minority in every country.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 03:50 PM

Professor as I indicated A FACT can be proven, it can be demonstrated to apply.

you replied " Agree Raggy. Here is the proof"

Now which bit are you saying you were lying about.

The bit were you said there was proof (as above) or the bit in your last post where you claim there is no evidence or proof that a god exists.

You cannot have it BOTH ways


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: BrendanB
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:04 PM

May I point out that a five minute browse through the OED turned up definitions of bogeyman, werewolf and phoenix. Does this imply some sort of reality to these imagined creatures? For crying out loud Keith, stop being ridiculous and providing ammunition to those with whom you disagree. They are not stupid.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:09 PM

So you're appealing to numbers now, eh? So, the more people who say a thing, the more likely it is to be true, eh? Is that the best you can do? As for no evidence for it, well that's a bit rich. At least there's a solid intellectual argument for the non-existence of God. Asking for evidence for the non-existence of something is ridiculous. Far less ridiculous is the request for evidence in favour. You have neither that nor the intellectual counter-argument. You have only blind faith and the appeal to "deeper truths".


You lose... :-) :-) :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:13 PM

Clearly, that was to Keith.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:28 PM

lol lion, like it too. I didn't notice the kink either.
steve, to ask where an eternal God came from , seems to me ,to be just rephrasing the same illogical question so loved by the new atheists. I say again, you can deny his existence , by claiming zero evidence of his being, but as already pointed out the dictionary gives a definition. I suspect there is a dictionary definition for evolution as well, but I don't argue about that, even though you have not presented a scrap of evidence for the evolutionary myth. that is because I understand that the dictionary merely defines what is understood or believed by a term. but the fact is, it is your evolution story that defies all the laws of nature .   of course, you can say that the god position does too , but, there again, that God creates without the need for any former materials, is but a further description of the biblical God that I believe in. theists generally admit the faith factor, whereas evo atheists generally don't, but claim scientific evidence. but ask them to produce that evidence and all you get is unsupported assertions, and appeal to authority. so, go on steve ......show us some evolution.......
shimrod, some of the above applies to your contribution. not sure if I was not clear enough or you did' nt want to get it , but when I said fossils moved up and down to suit, I was referring to evolutionists who have to rearrange the fossil record , not God !.
as for galilieo, my information is that the church was not on his back till he upset the pope by an allusion to him in a book. it was the other scientists peer review that initially opposed him. and btw, galileo was a biblical creationist, and that was no bar to he and Copernicus being " independent thinkers " !.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:52 PM

what do you mean steve by saying that he would have to be more complex than all he has created. certainly not in the sense of composite parts, but certainly in the sense of being beyond his creation.    rather , in a sense he is simple, in that he is spirit, rather than anything materially or physically complex.

of course, it is an article of faith , just as your position is. and if you insist your position is otherwise, demonstrate it. I have presented evidence, rather to the contrary. not that you will admit it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:54 PM

More wriggling and squirming from our resident bucket of worms I see.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:13 PM

I think pete is a fine guy. Our beliefs with regard to god and religion are substantially different, but there is no need to be rude when addressing him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:30 PM

"atheists are in a minority in every country"

Another absurd throwaway bit of delusion. Unless you have to have thought about theism, understood the concept and rejected it in order to be officially atheist I suppose. Most people don't give a flying Fuck in any sense.

If however you mean people believing in religious nonsense are a majority, there are very few in this country, and most of them who do believe are Muslims, not your cult.

A few hundred thousand people attend church each week, out of a population of over 65,000,000. Quite a few of those go to keep the peace at home or for a few weeks to get their kids into a particular school. Our local church gets about 30 people a service. They include two bell ringers who go out of courtesy to keep the vicar on board, two mates who keep their wives happy and our cleaner who takes her Mum and it lasts too long to wait in the car.

Yeah, strength in numbers eh?

Any more nonsense?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 07:03 PM

steve, to ask where an eternal God came from , seems to me ,to be just rephrasing the same illogical question so loved by the new atheists.

I didn't ask where an eternal God care from. Eternal is your dishonourable bolt-on, put there deliberately in order to put God beyond scrutiny. I asked where God comes from. My question is simple and honest. Your attempts to sidestep the question are laughable and disreputable.

I say again, you can deny his existence , by claiming zero evidence of his being

I don't deny his existence. I don't know whether he exists or not. It would serve you well to avoid the sheer dishonesty of putting the words in my mouth that you want to hear. I don't "claim" that there's no evidence for his existence - it's a fact. Unless, of course, you can provide evidence. Have you seen him? Has he spoken to you? Do you have independent witnesses? Millennia of religious fervour have not produced a single Godly apparition which can be verified by proper evidence. Not claims by individuals, or alleged witnesses' say-so. Real evidence.

but as already pointed out the dictionary gives a definition

My word, dictionaries are in vogue today, aren't they? I must say, this is novel. The God-botherers are resorting to dictionaries now for their Godly proofs. To continue:

I suspect there is a dictionary definition for evolution as well,

I'm sure there is, but, unlike some of you theological fellows, you won't find too many scientists resorting to dictionaries to find stuff out.

but I don't argue about that, even though you have not presented a scrap of evidence for the evolutionary myth. that is because I understand that the dictionary merely defines what is understood or believed by a term. but the fact is, it is your evolution story that defies all the laws of nature .   of course, you can say that the god position does too , but, there again, that God creates without the need for any former materials, is but a further description of the biblical God that I believe in. theists generally admit the faith factor, whereas evo atheists generally don't, but claim scientific evidence. but ask them to produce that evidence and all you get is unsupported assertions, and appeal to authority. so, go on steve ......show us some evolution.......
shimrod, some of the above applies to your contribution. not sure if I was not clear enough or you did' nt want to get it , but when I said fossils moved up and down to suit, I was referring to evolutionists who have to rearrange the fossil record , not God !.
as for galilieo, my information is that the church was not on his back till he upset the pope by an allusion to him in a book. it was the other scientists peer review that initially opposed him. and btw, galileo was a biblical creationist, and that was no bar to he and Copernicus being " independent thinkers " !.


I can't argue with any of this. I'd like to tell you that the reason I can't argue with it is that it's all wonderful, fully thought-out, tightly-argued, high-powered stuff. Unfortunately, the true reason I can't argue with it is that it's a pile of unintelligible twaddle.

what do you mean steve by saying that he would have to be more complex than all he has created. certainly not in the sense of composite parts, but certainly in the sense of being beyond his creation.    rather , in a sense he is simple, in that he is spirit, rather than anything materially or physically complex.

Dearie me, are you calling God simple? I'm not interested in his composite parts. I'm interested in the fact that he's claimed to have created everything in this incredibly complex universe. Now, whether you regard God as having something equivalent to a brain, only infinitely mightier, I know not and I'm not really interested. But the intellect involved in doing all that creating, not to speak of that needed for him to exercise his mighty powers and to be all-knowing and all-seeing and all-merciful and all-everything else must be utterly beyond all comprehension. Infinitely complex. No wriggle room there I'm afraid. You see, everything I say has an answer, doesn't it, pete? Whatever objection I might put up, you make up something else on the hoof to contradict. Now you appear to be saying that God isn't complex at all. He's just a big, simple spirit. I think that if he's really there, pete, he would prefer you to be a damn sight more honest about him than you are being, frankly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 07:06 PM

came from


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 07:20 PM

I think pete is a fine guy. Our beliefs with regard to god and religion are substantially different, but there is no need to be rude when addressing him.

Pete is one of the rudest people on this board. The smiley-face feel of his posts is hoodwinking you. He never listens to anything that people say. The evidence for that is that he trots out the same nonsense about evolution, Darwin, fossils and so on time and time again, as though no-one here has ever responded to him. He denies science and is offensive to scientists and the great work that scientists do. Pete is not here to debate. Pete is here to provoke us and to further a disreputable agenda that, deep down, he knows is wholly immoral. A fine guy indeed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 07:37 PM

"Pete is one of the rudest people on this board."

You maybe aren't reading too many posts then. He is very seldom the first to sling shite. Read back and see where and who starts slinging it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:06 PM

Sorry, mate, but pete slings it freely at science and scientists. I happen to be one such and I am far from alone on this board. As you know, science is, in general, a hardworking and honest discipline that demands high standards of evidence and peer review. I find it perfectly obnoxious that a man who is wilfully ignorant about science comes here and insults, among others, the memory of Charles Darwin, one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, a mild, measured and honest man if ever there was one. The comments that our friend here constantly makes about Darwin, his work and the scientists who build in his great legacy are an absolute disgrace.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:29 PM

build on


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 09:56 PM

Steve, I can truly see why you would rightly take offence at that. But you mst know that too many people's understanding of Charles Darwin starts and stops with Punch Magazine cartoons. Darwin has seldom been explained well, and there is a great divide between those who do understand the import of Darwin's discoveries/theories/postulations and those who do not. Darwin's intellectual depth was right up there with Newton, Rutherford, Einstein, Feynman--I'll stop there because you know what I mean.

I think any marriage of science and religion is doomed to failure, and present fundamentalists in the general sense have religion-guided science driven by belief. Some people really think that way. They are not bad, merely misguided imo.

When I said pete's a fine man I meant just that. I did not say I agree with his views. In the times we exchanged emails we discussed many things, but never religion. Neither of us brought it up. He has qualities that I find admirable on a personal level.

***********************************

There is altogether too much fighting on this board. There is nothing fighting resolves that can't be resolved in peace. It ain't gonna be a Kodak moment I'm sure, but neither does it have to look like Picasso's Guernica.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 09:58 PM

That was me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 01:33 AM

Peace is accepting that Top Gear may be fun to me but some don't enjoy it.

War is either me getting Top Gear Day an observed public holiday and trying to make it a criminal offence to be disrespectful to it or those who don't like it trying the opposite.

But like religion, the vast majority of the population don't give a monkeys cunt either way. It doesn't necessarily affect them and is someone else's private fantasy.

Although talking of affecting, I notice the God botherers have won in their attempts to get more shops to shut this Sunday. Meanwhile, buying off the Internet gets the business the shops might have had. Why do normal people have to observe their superstition and ritual? We base holidays on their timetable as it is, whereas spacing them out better would be desirable. Even the Prime Minister, whilst going for the Christian vote acknowledged we have too many bank holidays around Spring.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 01:53 AM

" ... to ask where an eternal God came from , seems to me ,to be just rephrasing the same illogical question so loved by the new atheists."

It's not an "illogical" question. Any question can be asked but, it seems, God botherers can't provide an answer to the question, "where does God come from?" without resorting to a lot of spurious 'hand-waving' about God being unknowable!

" ... theists generally admit the faith factor,..."

Yes, God botherers have a convenient 'get-out-of-jail-free' card to use when they're in a tight spot!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 03:38 AM

Raggy,
Professor as I indicated A FACT can be proven, it can be demonstrated to apply.
you replied " Agree Raggy. Here is the proof"
Now which bit are you saying you were lying about.


The "fact" was that a God is by definition above the laws of nature.
I proved that fact with a dictionary definition.

Steve had claimed that the laws of nature preclude a god.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 03:48 AM

Musket, on previous threads I have shown you UK survey results that show a majority believe in a supernatural being.
I forget the exact wording but it can be easily found again.

Steve and Brendan,
The God-botherers are resorting to dictionaries now for their Godly proofs.

No I am not.
You Steve claimed that the laws of nature preclude a god.
I responded that IF a god existed it would by definition be above the laws of nature.
Asked to prove that statement I supplied the dictionary definition.

I was refuting Steve's "evidence" against god not providing any for one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 03:57 AM

You really are thick aren't you. A definition does not "prove" anything at all.

To prove a fact you need tangible evidence, you have to be able to prove a fact is true. Merely defining a concept does not prove its truth.

You cannot prove a god exists, even your particular god not to mention the gods of numerous other faiths.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 03:58 AM

There you are, at it again Keith. One, the second as it happened, definitions was (god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: a moon god the Hindu god Vishnu

The first definition in the same dictionary was (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

So, the god you believe in is not defined as being above the laws of nature while the moon god and Vishu are. Since when have you believed in the god of 'certain other religions'? People can look these things up you know!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 04:44 AM

For God's sake or for pete's sake, I have not said that the laws of nature preclude a God. It's you putting him beyond the laws of nature, not me. I don't put him anywhere. I don't really need to waste energy doing that, do I?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 04:49 AM

Peace, my whole issue with Pete is that his ignorance is entirely wilful. He's had Darwin explained to him here a dozen different ways. He simply refuses to engage. That is plain rudeness by any measure.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 05:48 AM

Yes, God botherers have a convenient 'get-out-of-jail-free' card to use when they're in a tight spot!

It's worse even than that, Shimrod. They have a stash of white card and a pile of felt-tips so that they can draw their own get-out-of-jail-free cards on the fly whenever they're up against it. Pete did just that yesterday when he claimed that God was quite a simple fellow after all. Just because he created the universe and everything in it, in all its incredible diversity and complexity, it doesn't mean that God has to be complex. Just a big, simple, wispy, spirity sort of chap, really. :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 06:24 AM

Steve sez, 03 Apr 15 - 07:36 AM:

"I don't know whether there's a God or not, but, if he really is there, I'm not putting him outside the laws of nature unless HE tells me he is"

But Keith sez, 04 Apr 15 - 03:48 AM:

"You Steve claimed that the laws of nature preclude a god."

Lies, Keith. Absolutely typical. You have a vague, garbled idea of what someone might have said, but you churn it out without going back to check. Exactly the same as what you did to poor Geoffrey Wheatcroft. We can never trust a single word you say, Keith. Tsk.

Or were you just "speaking generally" again...?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 06:43 AM

No ................ he was lying ............... again


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 07:04 AM

Keith reckons the vast majority of people are religious so there is no hope for him. If they were, we'd have a bigger mental health funding crisis than we do, and what we have is huge...

All lies and jest
Till a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest.

His source by the way is where religions include those who were christened. I might have been, I honestly don't know and I had my boys christened too. It's a tradition. Neither my first wife nor I or indeed our sons believe any of that nonsense but like many, enjoy quaint traditions.

Another source is forms people fill in. The head chaplain at a hospital trust I was involved with told us that he remained constantly amazed at how many people put CofE on the forms because they had always done so but when one of his team visited their bed were told they weren't religious. The power of the church is such that many people think they have an official lable.

My brother in law, a vicar, reckons that if I was christened, I m a Christian like it or lump it. More dangerous fucking nonsense by lunatics.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 07:19 AM

And I still count as a Catholic.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 07:27 AM

"Just a big, simple, wispy, spirity sort of chap, really."

With a big, white, wispy beard and a big sort of conjurer's hat with stars (like wot he created) on it!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 07:43 AM

Steve, you said,
" The proposition is for a infinitely complex being whose very existence trumps every law of nature "

I took that to be an argument against the existence of God.
That is why I said that any god, IF he exists, is above those laws.

My statement was challenged so I showed that god is by definition above those laws.

Musket,
Keith reckons the vast majority of people are religious

Not true.
Keith says that UK surveys prove atheists are a minority.
They show that a SMALL majority believe in a supreme supernatural being.

Dave, the god Christians believe in IS above the laws of nature.
How can you deny that?
It is a fact of their belief.
All gods are by definition of what a god is.

What I did to wheatcroft was to quote him verbatim.
He supported my views on WW1.

Raggy,
You really are thick aren't you. A definition does not "prove" anything at all.

I am not that thick.
Of course it proves nothing but the definition.
I was challenged on the definition I gave so I proved it using a dictionary.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 08:06 AM

From the Professor

"I am not that thick. Of course it proves nothing but the definition.
I was challenged on the definition I gave so I proved it using a dictionary"

You were not challenged on the definition, you were challenged on your belief that because there is a definition it proves the existence of a god.

You stated:

"Here is the proof.www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/God
2 (god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes;

There is no superstition in my statement. It is a fact that, if God exists, He would be outside and above the laws of nature that He would have created. That is inherent in the concept and definition of God as I have just shown with the help of OED"

I'll say it again in the vain hope it might just seep into your pitiable brain a definition does NOT prove the existence of a god.

As usual you try to dissemble in order to hide the inadequacies of your argument. As usual you are lying. The only person who seems unable to grasp that fact is yourself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 08:42 AM

God: Do you like my big, pointy, conjurer's hat with stars on it? I made it meself out of nuffink!

Me: Errrrrr ...

God: Of course, you shouldn't really be looking at me, because I'm unknowable.

Me: Can't I just look at your hat?

God: Oooooh?!! Theologically speaking, that's a bit iffy!

Me: Well, how can I tell you if I like your hat, or not, then?

God: Oh, alright, just a quick glance.

Me (backing away): Your hat is very nice!

God: Thank you very much! Why are you backing away? I'm all merciful and I'm in the Bible, you know!

Me (backing away even further and even faster): Oh, you know, things to do, people to see!

God (raising his voice a bit): I've been taking lessons in holy bullshit from pete and Keith. Actually, I created them too! They turned out well, didn't they?

Me (from quite a distance away): Errrrr ... I suppose so ... must dash, I'm late already!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 08:47 AM

There is a world of difference between "precludes" and "argument against the existence of." As you appear to be resorting to dictionaries currently, Keith, why don't you clarify those two things for yourself? I have said it so any times: I do not know whether there is a God or not. Neither do you. We will have different takes on the probability of his existence, of course, as I seek evidence whereas you sit back on faith and "deeper truths". But I would be obliged if both you and pete could refrain from your usual stunt of putting words in my mouth as a prelude to your latest Aunt Sally.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:18 AM

Raggy,
you were challenged on your belief that because there is a definition it proves the existence of a god.

That is not my belief and I have never claimed any such nonsense.

it might just seep into your pitiable brain a definition does NOT prove the existence of a god.

Of course it does not, and of course no-one ever claimed such rubbish, least of all me.


Steve, if that was an argument against the existence of God, I was right to refute it by saying that God, if one exists, is above those laws of nature you invoked in that specious argument.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:21 AM

What was the religious make up of England and Wales in the 2011 census?
Christian:   33.2m    (59%, down 12% from 2001)
Muslim:       2.7m    (5%, up 2% from 2001
No religion: 14.1m    (25%, up 10% from 2001)

Of those who claim to be Christian just 2.5 million could be bothered to go a service at Christmas (presumably the most important Christian festival) Less than EIGHT percent.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for religious belief within the country.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:29 AM

Dave, the god Christians believe in IS above the laws of nature.
How can you deny that?


Errr, I am not denying anything. Your quoted dictionary definition says nothing about the christian god being above the laws of nature but the gods of some other religions are. Did you not notice that or are you just wriggling again?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:29 AM

Steve,
We will have different takes on the probability of his existence, of course, as I seek evidence whereas you sit back on faith and "deeper truths"

What "deeper truths?"
What "evidence?"   There is none either way.

I do not know whether there is a God or not. Neither do you.

I agree.
We do not know, and we choose to believe what we believe.
The only difference is that my belief gets ridiculed here, and yours does not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:32 AM

Professor you stated " My statement was challenged so I showed that god is by definition above those laws"

I know you are not very intelligent so I will type this S L O W L Y.

How can you show that god is above those laws if you don't accept his existence.

Certainly a definition of god does not prove his existence but you claim he is by definition above the laws of nature.

You cannot have it both ways.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:38 AM

Dave, I am not wriggling.
I said that if God exists He would be above the laws of nature.
That is inherent in the definition of God.
I only provided the dictionary definition because I was challenged.

I do not know why I was challenged over that, or what point you are trying to make about it now.

Raggy,

I did not claim a ringing endorsement.
I did claim that atheists are a minority which you have just confirmed for me.
No religion: 14.1m    (25%, up 10% from 2001)

Thank you.
Got that Musket?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:44 AM

I doubt if Steve's beliefs will result in the day to day running of this, and every other country, being interrupted by an almost constant stream if religious bigotry, I doubt if his beliefs will result in countless millions being killed (often by people of the same belief)century after century.

As for your beliefs Professor you are fully entitled to hold them, I object only when they impinge on my everyday life which they do to an unprecedented amount. Which school I could go to, when shops could open, what I can watch on television, bombings .............. need I go on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:45 AM

Raggy,

How can you show that god is above those laws if you don't accept his existence.

I can not, and never tried to.

I did say that IF a god exists he WOULD BE above those laws because that is inherent in the definition of a god, refuting Steve's argument.

Did I type that slowly enough for you Raggy?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:54 AM

Do apprise me of the specious aspect of my argument.

My argument against the existence of God has several aspects. But all I ever do is take the believer viewpoint and tease out what's wrong with it. I have no personal concept of God at all. I wouldn't have really, would I? Of course, like all good atheists, I harbour the tiniest scintilla of doubt that I may be wrong. As with Dawkins, I'm at 6.9 on the seven-point scale, where 7.0 means that God certainly does not exist. 1. No-one has ever had a meeting with God that he can corroborate. 2. The only claims for God arise from ancient stories written by advocates of Jesus, or, going back a bit further, of God himself, or by uncorroborated witnesses, or from tradition, or from edicts, or from ceremony. 3. There is not a single reference to Jesus in any contemporary secular source, even though such potential sources are abundant. All we have are early Christian writings from people who dearly wanted a Jesus. 4. Believers (not me, Keith) place God entirely at odds with every law of nature and, more suspiciously, beyond the reach of scientific scrutiny, by making him eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing and the creator of everything. As a rational sort of chap (at least, that's my aspiration), I tend to adhere slightly better to concepts that work within those laws. I'm aware that our understanding of nature is imperfect, but at least we do know something about the kinds of things that will never fit. 6. Much of what God is supposed to have achieved puts him at odds with the overwhelming evidence provided by honest science. For example, the myth of creation is completely incompatible with evolution, which we know to be true.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:56 AM

Cheers, Raggytash, but I don't really regard myself as having beliefs in the fields of religion or science. I can't cope without evidence. ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 11:04 AM

I agree all that Steve.
Not sure why you posted it really.

There is no hard evidence either way.
We choose to believe what we believe.

The only difference is that your (minority)belief does not get ridiculed here, and mine does.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 12:20 PM

My belief can't be ridiculed because it isn't a belief. How many times do I have to say it? And why did you insert "minority"? Do you think I care? And there is no evidence at all for God, let alone hard evidence. There can't be "hard" evidence for not-God now, can there? I can't produce "hard" evidence that there are no seven-legged blue men living on Saturn's inner rings either. But I can put forward a strong rational and intellectual case against them, just as I can against God, as I just have done. Only blind faith and irrationality can be set against that case, unfortunately.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 12:22 PM

steve thinks he and Darwin is being dissed simply because I don't agree with him. when he asks for evidence for God , he sets the bar high enough that he wont have to consider it. there is imo, nothing that will convince the atheist evangelists here. and I am sorry to say that his replys to my points have been largely as non sensible as he accuses me of being. not only that, but he is evasive too. I say again, what he believes to be true....ie the general theory of evolution....is against the laws of nature, and has not explained how it could have happened, despite any claims to the contrary. in short, the evolutionist presents a miracle without a miracle maker.
probably not time for any more posting tonight.   and thanks #


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 12:25 PM

I only provided the dictionary definition because I was challenged.

But your dictionary definition did not say anything about the christian god being above the laws of nature. It said the gods of some other religions were. Your point was invalid.

Anyway - It's chocolate holiday again tomorrow and, seeing as I am not really into chocolate, the Mrs bought me one of these. Not sure if I should be having an 11% beer for breakfast so I will probably wait until lunchtime. Must be the only time I can say I will enjoy having even more Jesus :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 12:27 PM

Pete, I know speaking in tongues is a facet of your faith but you need to understand that no sane person understands it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 12:49 PM

"... there is imo, nothing that will convince the atheist evangelists here."

There is nothing that will convince those of us with a scientific background that your God exists, pete ... except, that is, if you could see your way clear to providing us with some convincing evidence for His existence. I'm not sure what an "atheist evangelist" is - another one of your made up terms, perhaps?

" ... the general theory of evolution....is against the laws of nature,..."

But you have demonstrated, time and time again, that you don't understand the "laws of nature", pete! So who are you to judge whether a particular scientific theory is in accordance with those laws or not?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 01:16 PM

Dave, the Christians DO believe in a God that is above the laws of nature, so my point WAS valid and YOU have failed to make one.

Steve you say the existence of God is very unlikely.
In the absence of any evidence, that is just your belief.

We both agree that there is no evidence either way.
We choose what we believe.

Your belief does not get ridiculed and mocked here.
Mine does, by people who share your belief, and with no evidence for it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 02:07 PM

Dave, the Christians DO believe in a God that is above the laws of nature

So, show us the dictionary definition that proves it then.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 02:14 PM

Your belief does not get ridiculed and mocked here.
Mine does, by people who share your belief, and with no evidence for it.


No it doesn't. It is you who get ridiculed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 02:51 PM

Religious belief, especially Christianity, is mocked and ridiculed by you and your friends all the time Dave.

From the source I gave, Oxford Dictionary,

God
Pronunciation: /ɡɒd/
Definition of God in English:
noun

1(In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.


The creator and ruler of the universe is above its laws Dave.
My point is valid.
You have failed to make one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 02:55 PM

when he [Steve] asks for evidence for God , he sets the bar high enough that he wont have to consider it.

Well, present your evidence and we'll see. As I always say, however, it has to be fair evidence, though. Like you'd get in a court of law. No claims from uncorroborated witnesses, OK? Do you think I should believe the likes of St Bernadette, for example? If I insist on independent witnesses for her alleged vision, am I setting the bar too high? No relying just on the written word, OK? You can't expect me to believe that something written with a scratchy feather on a tatty piece of hide is really the word of God, can you? Especially when the accounts thereon are full of inconsistencies in any case, and, worse, they were used very selectively by the co