Snuck vs Sneaked (Page 5 of 8)

This place is in Orkney (Scotland) and there is another with the same name in Shetland
http://www.nickaroundtheworld.com/wp-co … 0716_n.jpg

Not yet, but if you share your experience when you participated in one, I might consider it.

Kiss,
Gacela
(The nick is not either a regular American one. It's not even English. Just for the record)

Do you realize that like a ditzy liberal you seek to be offended on someone else's behalf?

That's not a contribution. It's an observation. A contribution would be to escort you out of the forums.

P.R.O.J.E.C.T.I.N.G.

It's not peace-making to enable abusive stupidity in the name of "getting along."

Of course I do and frankly I’m sad that you assume me to be so dumb as to feel that you need to patronise me by pointing it out.

I absolutely and emphatically defend the right of Charles to use whatever words that he wishes.

That anyone can say whatever they want, expressing themselves using whatever language or words they choose is one of my principle values in life; it is at the core of my beliefs and I will defend that right to my dying breath.   

I strongly feel that people should have the right of free speech. We don’t have to condone what is said, it may even offend, upset or enrage us, but that is okay, we deal with it because the alternative to free speech is oppression and tyranny.

We don’t need a list of banned words, because following a list of forbidden words, forbidden sentiments and beliefs will surely follow. As Heinrich Heine, a German who in the late 1800’s prophetically wrote (translates to), ‘Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn human beings.’

Better out than in, then.

It is up individual to choose the words and the message those words convey.

I’m not offended by Charles calling me a twat, in fact it made me grin. If he’d used a more offensive word then a wide smile would have broken out. One of the advantages of freedom of speech is that what people say will often reflect and tell you more about them than what they are saying. It is a precious commodity.

If you try to control what people can say, then you are trying to control what others think.

Nazis, N. Korea, China, the Russian СССР, Liberals, Islamic State…  it is a primary concern of oppressive states, certain nations, organisations, ideologies and religious cults to seek to control what can be said. Do we add to that list, creative writing forums?

I live in Liberal England and work within that spavined organisation that is the British Government and I can tell you that the suppression of words; people not feeling they are able to say what they want within wordage of their own choice is bringing the country down.

Where I work, people only ever say what they think other people would want them to hear and not what they actually feel. In many cases people feel compelled to express views and opinions that they are internally opposed to. We are all living the lie.

It has led to situations so farcical and unjust that they destroying the fabric of our society.

Here’s an example of the here and now in my world.

Charles mentions Political Correctness, in fact he seems quite obsessed with the concept, even accusing me of it. Well, here’s some fuel for his fire. At work we have long been at the mercy of two grossly misinterpreted or grossly over-interpreted value systems. In fact they have become dogmas. These are ‘Health & Safety’ and ‘Political Correctness.’

Both of these Dogmas have rapidly escalated far beyond their common-sense usefulness and within my workplace we’ve suffered many farcical situations. In one instance the word ‘Christmas’ is banned (as is all Christmas symbolism, decorations, the display of festive greeting cards etc. along with Christian religious icons i.e. the display of a cross or crucifix). The official directive states that the word ‘Christmas’ should be replaced by the word ‘Holiday’ or ‘Holiday Period’ in all cases and subject to disciplinary action should that directive not be followed. This is intended to prevent any non-Christian religious minorities within the workplace feeling oppressed or offended.

However, this is also an environment where non-Christian religious groups are supported with active provision for the likes of Ramadan, Diwali and Vaisakhi and there is encouragement for those religious minorities to practice their own customs and religions within the workplace (there is the provision of prayer rooms and special rooms etc.).

This is all driven by the self-righteous middle-aged P.C. matriarchs and patriarchs to whom liberalism is a religious mantra and who take it upon themselves to invent these directives and regulations and at the complete and excruciating embarrassment, awkwardness and shame of my Hindu, Sikh and Muslim colleagues on behalf of whom this is diktat is imposed and enforced.  I hold no religious beliefs or view myself and thus have no vested interest per say; but am still highly agitated by the principle of the ethos and the attitudes involved.   

Oh, there’s a more. I have dozens of stories of totally inappropriate P.C. ethos and directives. It’s the same on the Health & Safety front where we are compelled by EU law to store pre-sharpened pencils within weapons-grade lockers and only nominated (trained and certificated) staff members can use the paper shredder. There are people here who carry a loaded firearm on their thigh but do not have operational (safety) clearance to store pencils or shred paper.

This word banning Liberalist nirvana is satirical, funny even. That is until you realise that when you are governed by the rule of introverted passively aggressive retarded sheep, then you allow the wolves in. You allow the wolves to run riot.

It probably didn’t reach the U.S. as a news article, but here in Rochdale, England a group of twelve men, Muslims of Pakistani (and one Afghan) origin ran a child sex trafficking ring, unopposed for several years, (2008 to 2012). All of their victims (47 were named in court but there were said to be many more) were white British girls. The Manchester police were aware of the operation but actively ignored the intelligence reports and the complaints of the victims. The Police and other Government officials ignored and avoided investigating the Asian Muslim paedophile ring, these vile child-sex broker monsters, because they were in fear of their careers and livelihoods in that their uber-politically correct internal investigation teams would turn upon them and prosecute them for racism should they take action.

If that beggars belief, then it might be shocking to discover that an almost identical Asian Muslim gang (a parallel operation) perpetrated identical child sex trafficking crimes, in Rochdale and was not closed down until 2016. The police and social workers in fear of being prosecuted as racists, avoided investigating the operation.

The tip of an iceberg.

Here in the U.K. we have laws upon things like marriage, the age of consent for sex, and the slaughter of animals and how meat products are stored and handled.

We have seen the ingress into the UK of many unprocessed migrants and foreign refugees, asylum seekers in recent times. The humanitarian liberals are very pleased with this. We feed, clothe, fund, house, school and provide medical care for these people.  The humanitarian liberals are very pleased with this. Some of these migrants arrive with their wife; or their wives. Some of those wives are aged under fourteen years old. These child brides are arranged into marriage (bought and sold for a dowry). So a 41 year old man can, in the UK have three wives, one age 35, one 14yrs and another of 13yrs (with the 14 year old pregnant) and in direct contravention the Statute Law of the UK. The humanitarian liberals are not very pleased with this and their solution is ban words and persecute anyone who mentions the fact by branding them a fascist and a racist.

We have strict laws and standards with rules and procedures upon how animals are slaughtered and their flesh processed within the fresh meat industry. The R.S.P.C.A  (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) is on hand to ensure that the slaughtering process is as humane and as a least painful and distressing to the animal. Food Industry Standards officers ensure that a hygienic operation is observed and maintained. None of that applies to the Halal meat trade, which is allowed to operate outside of all laws and standards on an industrial scale. I am not fully conversant with the religious aspect of the slaughter, prayers and such, but the ritual killing they insist upon is as brutal and inhumane as it is illegal. The animal is not stunned or sedated and is slashed across the jugular vein, carotid artery and windpipe and left to bleed to death. One would think (hope) that he humanitarian liberals who allow this operation are not very pleased with the situation but their solution is to ban words and vilify anyone who mentions the facts, by persecuting them as a fascist and a racist.

So, yes njc, I do realise that I’m defending the use of a word by Charles, but I also realise that I am able to defend myself using words of my own choice.

If you subscribe to the banning of the word Twat, lest it offends someone, then by that very same principle, you must also support the banning of the word Christmas; which is why I support the banning of neither.

What I think you are saying is that because we are being drowned in wrong-headed and destructive laws, we should treat all rules as destructive and wrong-headed.

Does that mean that if we're not allowed to take down an eyesore in our backyard we should destroy a cherished memento of our deceased grandmother?

In one page of the Buck Godot comics (no longer available for free) we see a sign at the spaceport of New Hong Kong warning newcomers: "Just because there are no laws doesn't mean there are no rules."

Your reply is most eloquent and persuasive.

I guess it is a question of whether we should be controlled, or exert control upon ourselves.

That sign at the spaceport of New Hong Kong could inform newcomers: "Just because there are no laws doesn't mean you should forget how to behave.”

You may have noticed within my discourse here, that I’ve written the profanity ‘twat’ but refrained from writing the interchangeable profanity of four letters that begins with ‘C’. A word that I consider to be at the very top of the profanity tree in terms of vulgarity and offensiveness.

That is my choice, nobody enforced that rule upon me. On a personal basis I am reasonably comfortable with the one word but I don’t like or would not use the other within common dialogue.

It's a bit like the old atheist versus religious argument. The religious person will argue that adherence to said religion provides one with the moral guidelines and standards by which a person can live a ‘good’ life.

The atheist would ask why behavioural standards enforced by religion are required for a person to become moral. Do we have to learn and be shown how to be good? Could one not be a good person with a perfectly well developed and sound moral code despite having never encountering a religion?     

Inversely, would a paedophile priest still be a child molester if he wasn’t ordained and working directly for God and the Pope?

In all this, unless I missed it, is your acknowledgement/apology for your misconstrual of the meaning of a word that you took as offensive -- that is, of course,  not offensive in the way you thought it to be because of your limited knowledge of British-isms. Now, if the censorship is to be extended to all British-isms like the annoying way they spell those -o(u)r words, I'm onboard.

Yeah, weird how I might be 'obsessed' with the subject.

Which, paedophilia or the unregulated slaughter of livestock?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/twat

2. A person regarded as stupid or obnoxious.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/twattle

Trivial or foolish speech.

When I first came across the word 'twat' in England I did not actually know some Americans' use of the word and associated it then with 'twattle.' I still like the association because metaphorically I think the words are associated with women, and in England both words are used by and against men in exactly the same way when the coach or army sergeant calls his men "pussies" when they underperform. This line of association brings to mind the  pc climate in which now men are not allowed to speak this way to other men even in private [viz. Donald Trump/Billy Bush].

You are conflating two issues: (1) using obscene words; (2) using mean words.  On the former, I agree, but that is never an issue that I have seen on TNBW.  However, in this very same thread "You have your head up your ass." [ass(U.S.) = arse(U.K.)] somehow did not elicit a response from you, did it?

Wow! This is  twaddle.

Yes, I agree being mean in discourse is not good.  Isn't unsolicited correcting punctuation and grammar being mean? I don't recall your calling anyone out on that - in the context which brought out my mean words in response.  Moreover, being mean evidently has a broad definition on TNBW and the Web generally.  Here there are too many  -- not a majority or even so many -- who think disagreement with stated reason is being mean, and every single one of  them is a woman -- not a majority or even more than a few, but gives understanding to these words we have been discussing.