Search options (Page 17 of 43)

Har! And you have the gall to accuse corra and Mariana of being...

Unless of course you are using double-irony?

Damn!

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.

Well, I've also been exposed as an "obnoxious pseud" who is "ignorant and with an underpowered IQ." So how the hell would I know?

Your arriving Vespasian is either a Trump or a Clinton and either will be too busy invading the others privacy to worry about Britain or China.

I can't quite work out if you are saying that you have a large penis, or that you are a large penis?

Empires rise and fall. If Rome has seen better days then Athens certainly has. With China owning 68 cents (and rising) of every US dollar your big country is competing in the irrelevancy stakes.

The harder they fall.

In Britain (where the insult 'twat' is very common), the other similar sounding slang for a 'twit' is a 'twot'.

Big difference between and Twot and a Twat.  Twat is as you describe it, a term for female genitals, but it is used against an individual in the same manner as other expletives of the same nature.

If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom Charles Bell tolls; he trolls for thee.

I've trawled the internet upon the origins of the word 'snuck' and the consensus is that the word originated in the U.S.A and began to emerge in written language from the 1920's onwards. There is no record of the word being invented or coined by any process or statute. It must therefore be assumed that the word 'snuck' originated colloquially (a colloquial alternative to the word 'sneaked') before becoming mainstream and adopted as a common word. It is understandable that when a young nation is formed and it comprises almost entirely of immigrants bringing so many foriegn first languages to the common language that the spoken (and written) word will change. It is a wonder that the North American variant of the English language has retained as much of the common English language that it has.

So if "snuck" is not a U.S. colloquialism, then it surely was at its point of origin and remained so until it was adopted as a common word.

I must admit I'm struggling with this one. I suppose I could simply say; 'yes but just because Canadian English evolved in some ways away from English spoken in the rest of the world does not make it the correct English. Or 'just because USA English evolved in some ways away from English spoken in the rest of the world does not make it the correct English.

As I said, I'm struggling with this one.

Surely, British/English is correct in Britain, whilst New Zealand/English is correct within New Zealand and Canadian/English... etc. Are you saying that U.S/English is correct and that any variants that have evolved away from it are invalid? 

In any case, I never said that 'snuck' is incorrect English. The simple fact is that I live in a region of the world (England) where the word sneaked is in far more common usage than the word snuck. Consequently the word snuck sounds odd or alien to my ear and for some reason it also sounds a bit dumb. I'm not completely sure why the 'dumb' association is formed or how I've been conditioned to feel that 'snuck' is a dumb word (hence trying to understand it with the Josey Wales stuff etc.), but at a subliminal level 'snuck' invokes an cliché image of a 'American hillbilly or cowboy'. I realise that might make me sound like a bigot, but I'm not making a conscious association, I simply hear 'snuck' and see 'hillbilly'. I don't think that it is my fault, that association being planted by media etc. It's just like when I hear one of those bulb-horn hooters honked, within my mind's-eye I see Harpo Marx riding an Ostrich. I don't know why, it's just engrained.

Sneaked contains more than one syllable and 'snuck' has sneaked in to replace it. Perhaps in a few years the minimalist linguists will see a superfluous redundancy in the 'c', take umbrage with it, and we will have 'snuk' as a word with anyone who is indifferent to the word, labeled a bigot.

On a visit to Chicago once, I sat in the back of an airport to hotel shuttle cab. The driver was highly stimulated and never stopped talking. He was quite comfortable in his rapport, us being two young men; boy's together. Just about every sentence he said, either started or finished (or both) with the phrase muthafucka, muthafuckin, mofucka, mofuck, mother...fucker, or a variant of the same. He must have said it a hundred times or more during the journey. It just rolled off his tongue and wouldn't stop rolling. I'm no prude and was not offended, I realise that it is just a part of this guy's language. Did I think it was odd? Yes, because I'd not heard the term used much at home, and certainly not in that manner. Yes, because I found it an odd (alien) use of English. As a result, I now associate that phrase (or those words) with that American cab driver. Does that make me a bigot? By your standards, yes it certainly does.

Wow.

Explaining that the word 'snuck' sounds dumb to me, makes me a bigot, ignorant and with "an under-powered IQ."  Whilst writing phrases like 'evoking sensations' makes me a "pretentious twat."

It seems that I really have my work cut out on the self-improvement front. IQ however, is something we are stuck with. The tools we have to work with. Luckily my lowly IQ is just about enough to enable me to know that "under-powered " is actually spelled as one word; 'underpowered.' Oh, I know that you said that typos should not be pulled-up in forums, but surely when one is claiming to possess superior intellect and does so by use of poor or illicit typography then it is worthy of a mention? (Or are you as “irony-challenged” as you accuse others on the site to be?). You can excuse me in any case, because I am indeed, as you established, a foreigner, a bigot, an obnoxious pseud and a “pretentious twat.”
Oh, and if writing the phrase, ‘evoking sensations’ compels you to judge me as a "pretentious twat," I wonder what the writer of the unpretentious words below might be thought to be?

Yes! And thank you for supporting me on this. The issue is even more irritating when the person who, from an authoritative standpoint, feels the need to need to correct your grammar/punctuation on said internet forum, but actually displays worse grammar/punctuation indiscretions within their critique upon your own lesser grammatical indiscretions.   

Unless of course, you feel that there is no need to correct anyones grammar/punctuation delivery within contributions to an internet forum thread that is discussing  the correctness of grammar/punctuation? In which case very confused discussion would ensue.

'latte' and 'mochacino'  Arrrgh!! My pet hate is that all over the UK 'espresso' is routinely misspelled and mispronounced 'expresso'.  I don't know why it bothers me so, but it never fails to enrage the bigot within me. A case of a principle masquerading as a principal could fuel an extremely bigoted attack by me against the perpetrator.

It's just a word, like snuck, that I don't hear that often, but when I do, I associate it with a certain kind of USA stereotype. I don't why, but guess that I've been conditioned by media; books, movies and music. There was a song with a tune and lyrics that became unwelcomely stuck in my head once... The title is "ain't no hollaback girl". I'd never seen the title written and when I googled the search i wrote;  [song, Holler back gal].

hollaback; as one word within a song title.  I guess that 'Hollaback' is now a word too?