Forum Replies Created

Viewing 10 posts - 71 through 80 (of 347 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #498078

    Tom

    @panda12 wrote:

    @tom wrote:

    No it’s not. It’s Van Gough.

    No. His name was Theo van Gogh.

    No it wasn’t. It was Vincent Van Gough, actually.

    Are you people thick? :?

    #497980

    Tom

    @Sgt Pepper wrote:

    Jaysus..
    Being an Irishman and a Catholic, I must rank somewhere next to primordial ooze in Tom’s estimation :?

    But from personal experience, I know that’s not true. In fact I’ve always enjoyed a pleasant and good humoured relationship with Tom in chat. We get on grand.
    One must take into account his proclivity to embellish when encountering some of his more.. erm.. outrageous pronouncements. However, this should not exclude them from the harshest of criticism. Panda, Scept and Words are doing a fine job in dismantling them here, so there is no need for me to twist the knife (as tempting as it may be on the Irish question in particular).
    Nor will I seek to dismiss Tom’s opinions in any sneering or sardonic fashion – or anyones for that matter – that is not a nice thing to have done to you.

    Anyway, I’m pleased the referendum was passed here.

    Now, if you will all excuse me, I’m going back to Sky Bet to throw my money away.
    Ty.

    :roll:

    In otherwords, he’s saying he knows me too well to fall for my BS :lol: :P

    #498076

    Tom

    No it’s not. It’s Van Gough.

    #490798

    Tom

    No no no no!

    You can’t keep us apart!

    After all their lies you and I still survive much to their surprise here we are still alive they scandalize criticize just two foolish kids at heart they vandalize victimize but they can’t keep us apart! No no no no no they can’t keep us apart! Cos IIIIII BELONG TO YOUUUUUUUUUUUU AND YOUUUUUUUUUU BELONG TO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE AND IIIIIIII BELONG TO YOUUUUUUUUUU AND YOUUUUUUUUU BELONG TO MEEEEEEEEEE

    After all their case you and me still remain much to their despair off we go t’fool again they scandalize criticize etc etc etc

    #497977

    Tom

    Sober up :?

    #490796

    Tom

    I like Gary Glitter.

    #498074

    Tom

    @wordsworth60 wrote:

    This is in form? Oh dear!!

    On form*

    #497975

    Tom

    @panda12 wrote:

    @tom wrote:

    You said that rescuing victims of blood-thirsty pirates was equatable with wanting to impose a draconian totalitarianism state over an independent sovereign peoples against their will.

    I’m sorry but I genuinely don’t see the connection whatsoever.

    Please quote me where I said, word for word, the above or even implied it?

    Oh for crying out loud, you can’t even keep up with your own implications!

    What’s the use =;

    #497973

    Tom

    You said that rescuing victims of blood-thirsty pirates was equatable with wanting to impose a draconian totalitarianism state over an independent sovereign peoples against their will.

    I’m sorry but I genuinely don’t see the connection whatsoever.

    #498070

    Tom

    @wordsworth60 wrote:

    Shouldn’t it be ‘on form’ not ‘in form’?

    No. I’m in form. Not on it. In it. I’m always stepping in form. Always stepping in it I am!

    Your command of colloquial English is suspect; are you Roman? or worse, Norman?

    I am a neo-lithic agrarian, truth be known. I was on these Islands before even the Celts. Well not me, personally obviously, but my bloodlines!

    And you said you shall pass, but if you pass, won’t you have to change forms?

    No, Her Majesty’s law states nothing about having to change forms when you pass. You may keep your present form when passing, it’s only when advancing must you change forms, unless you have already previously changed forms from your former form, then a loophole in the law states you may keep your current form as long is it isn’t the former form you you formerly in form as.

    How shall we secure future generations if there’s so much bumming going on?

    They’re all yobs these days anyway, we encourage the use of bumming as a sort of ‘genetic cleansing’ method that is both humane – and pleasurable. We let the current generation die out by implementing a policy of compulsory hardcore bumming then start again from scratch without the sh*t modern music and reality TV.

    And if you don’t care for art then what of Shakespeare? Turner? Elgar et al (bloody Romans!)

    We do not care for art at all, Paul Simon however is welcome.

    And who the hell is Van Gough? Is he related to Frank Bough?

    A dutch film-maker that was assasinated in the street by a rather peeved Muslim

    And I hope you include Porter and Stout in your definition of Mead. But what about mead and fine English wines?

    Wine is OK.. as long as it’s white, and drank only by women. And only if the women promise to give handjobs to all the men while we sit around and discuss a deceased dutch film-maker’s bumming activities while listening to Simon. But not Garfunkel.

    This new party is going to take off.. I can feel it. Sign up now!

Viewing 10 posts - 71 through 80 (of 347 total)