[ubermik]

@bat wrote:

Another totally, of course, ludicrous story about the sainted McCanns.

I’d be VERY curious as to just how many of these trips the Mcanns made

Obviously this town is a fair distance away, so have they already made trips to EVERY SINGLE town of a similar size or larger in the space between the two locations to post leaflets??

If they were making these hundreds maybe even thousands of jaunts to random towns posting leaflets hands up who thinks it WOULDNT have been mentioned many many times by now and of course how on earth would they have been so available for the media to stalk during the months they were still in portugal?

Because unless they have made countless similar trips to countless other towns this “trip” will and should stand out as unusual as its hardly to some famous tourist location known the world over after all is it? And surely if someone WAS going to randomly post leaflets those would be the first places you would go, and in portugal I am sure there are many many of those that the Mcanns would still be working their way through even now before venturing off into other areas

[ubermik]

@waspish wrote:

@ubermik wrote:

@emmalush wrote:

@sharongooner wrote:

has anybody heard from her?

Ive not seen her around in a while. We may not see eye to eye, but I enjoy her posts they are thought provoking and give us something to chat about.

I’ll bet she is is slapping it about somewhere 8) dirty lush that she is!

Hope your ok whereever you are em :wink:

Thanks shazza :)

Thanks waspish :)

I might be back. Depends on the nightmare caused by the old gang. Liked this place, but it seems like all JC guys are only about having fun (which is GREAT) but i seek to enlighten, and be enlightened to make your lives greater than great.

HAVE FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahh but there is no universally applicable definition of “enlightenment”, each persons reality is unique to them and as a result is universally flawed

“The ONLY enlightenment anyone can ever seek or hope to attain is their own from within themselves, to look for anything else or strive to enlighten others is by virtue of its flawed nature a very UNenlightened pursuit” lol

“Only the mentally stunted can be enlightened by another, only the delusional can expect to enlighten another, but only a very small group are enlightened enough to realise and accept that”

once again uber a sledge hammer where a tack would do :roll:

Ah, but tacks are by their very nature soooo “tacky” lol

And if a point is worth making, its worth making making totally rather than in a half assed vague manner

“A point half made ceases to be a point”

“If a view cant be expressed with convinction, belief and passion it deserves to remain forever silent in its mediocre prison of an apathetic soul”

[ubermik]

@emmalush wrote:

@sharongooner wrote:

has anybody heard from her?

Ive not seen her around in a while. We may not see eye to eye, but I enjoy her posts they are thought provoking and give us something to chat about.

I’ll bet she is is slapping it about somewhere 8) dirty lush that she is!

Hope your ok whereever you are em :wink:

Thanks shazza :)

Thanks waspish :)

I might be back. Depends on the nightmare caused by the old gang. Liked this place, but it seems like all JC guys are only about having fun (which is GREAT) but i seek to enlighten, and be enlightened to make your lives greater than great.

HAVE FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahh but there is no universally applicable definition of “enlightenment”, each persons reality is unique to them and as a result is universally flawed

“The ONLY enlightenment anyone can ever seek or hope to attain is their own from within themselves, to look for anything else or strive to enlighten others is by virtue of its flawed nature a very UNenlightened pursuit” lol

“Only the mentally stunted can be enlightened by another, only the delusional can expect to enlighten another, but only a very small group are enlightened enough to realise and accept that”

[ubermik]

Jeez lol

Get a friggin grip for gawds sake lol

What next? People complaining that weeds shouldnt be killed but should lovingly be removed from farmers fields and replanted in weed sanctuarys by weed protection agencies?

Where is the “abuse” here? As pointed out there ARE rules pertaining to abuse of animals, so when LIVESTOCK is culled due to disease its done as humanely as it is under normal reasons for killing them so there isnt “abuse”, abuse would be letting them live and continue to suffer without medication as they would if they lived in the wild and got the exact same illness

The sane breakdown here is this

1) The animal is bred TO be killed

2) Where its deemed to be unfit for consumption due to illness its killed sooner by the same methods employed when it IS killed to be eaten

So its death is no more or less “abusive” either way. only the reason for its death has changed, not the process or methodology behind it

As for laws to protect the elderly, arent the elderly people?

So we already have loads of laws to protect them, the same laws that also protect other none elderly people from abuse in the forms of assualt, physical and mental harm, deprivation of liberty and many other things

Laws dont only apply until youre 65 and then cease to be relevant meaning a new and entirely separate set of laws for over 65’s are needed lol

Are people confuddling “laws” and “proceedures” there perchancey?

There are loads of additional “proceedures” for child protection, some created via the judiciary as its the only way they can be applied within the framework of the law and use existing powers where the existing wording was too vague and left loopholes which made it hard to overstep parental boundaries and where the “definition of care” had been left to a parents sole discretion

But none of that applies with oldies as they are in the eyes of the law autonomous beings with self responsibility and no parental primary responsibilities that need to be overuled for laws pertaining to minimum levels of care to apply over and above the legal guardians wishes

So you already CANT subject a wrinkly to persecution, physical harm, embarassment, deprivation, subjugation, forced detention, neglect and a whole host of other things which ARE the “abuses” being talked about

Its not the “laws” that are lacking, merely the standards of care, monitoring and proceedures surrounding those things which are lacking

Its a dilligence issue, not a legal one

As we are seeing with the yob problem, you CAN keep throwing new laws at something all day long as a means to looking like youre doing something to fix the problem

But laws alone do nothing if nobody is enforcing them, if the “penalties” are laughable, if the people the laws are designed to discourage arent being caught or arent bothered by the laws etc etc

I personally reckon that a lot of the whinging about the “laws” needed to protect old folks is amplified because the people crooning for them are trying on various levels to allay their own guilt for wanting to have their old folks cared for by someone else because they dont want to be bogged down and have their lives affected by doing it themselves

So they calm their conscience by trying to find something to do for “oldies” to appease the darkest most suppressed parts of their subconcious guilts in a way that doesnt impinge too much on their social lives, bank balances and holidays like actually having their parents at home and caring for them themselves would do

Its a common psychological diversion for people to avoid topics they know they are lacking in and throw some half assed energies into the vocal support of totally different or peripherally related ones as a method of self appeasment, atonement and self justification for their own perceived moral “sins”

Its nothing new at all

[ubermik]

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

each to their own then eh

That IS sort of the point here

The phrase “each to their own” applies to people OTHER than just the one saying it too you know

And you think not laughing at jokes about dead people is a “common decency” then eh?

Funny that really as there have always been oodles of quite tasteful jokes about romans, hitler, Jesus and the apostles, King Harold, Napoleon, General Custer, Nikki Lauder, Einstein, Davy Crocket, Henry the 8th and loads of other “Dead people” in the forms of verbal gags, visual ones and even spoof films which in far more oversensitive times than today have been popular, laughed at and NOT found to be “distasteful” by the masses

Maybe you mean just the recently dead? But then again many people who WOULD whinge about a maddie joke would also be quite able to laugh at jokes about someone like her killer if they were executed, or Moira Hindley if she were to be hung or just keeled over I suspect making the thing not about “dead people” as a collective objection on principle, but more of a very selectively applied facade of pavlovian “decency” quite possibly as an outward over compensation for most peoples awarenes of lacks of decency they hold in other areas

“There is none more devoutly vocal than the person with self known sins” as the saying I just made up goes lol (good one tho if you think about it ;))

[ubermik]

@slayer wrote:

Rhys Jones is from Croxteth in Liverpool (ffs Uber,I knowe you watch the news) and Maddie’s Mcann’s mother is a Liverpudlian

You obviously “knowe” nothing then dont ya (including how to spell “know” lol) as I dont watch the news at all, so ner :P

@slayer wrote:

Taking it one stage further then- is the inference that ANY comedy is funny (to some) and it is the beholder who is at fault for not finding it funny rather than the comedian? Therefore should a comedian be able to tell ANY joke

IE “How do you stop a child drowning”? Ans= Take your foot off its head

Not even remotely funny…now exchange the word “child” for the word “p*ki” or “n*gger” or “homo” etc etc and suddenly a lot more people find it funny

The theory that someone finds something funny therefore justifies the telling of the joke doesnt justify the actual joke itself-

Yup wasnt very funny, but niether is “knock knock”, “whos there?” “me” either, some things just arent funny because they arent funny IE the child joke, now even if it had been changed to

“How do you figure out if your kid wont be playing truent again,,,,,,,”

Or

“How do you find out if a child is being physically abused”

with an answer of “Take your foot off its head and ask” and youre heading in the right sort of direction as theyre starting to become chuckleworthy

So were the child joke more like those two I would have found it funny and I am sure many other people would have

So yeah, it DOES justify telling the joke, as people finding it funny IS the point, EVERYONE finding it funny however isnt

@slayer wrote:

And what about “physical” comedy. Happy slapping is amusing to some- indeed some would call it comedy (if the definition of humour is something that makes you laugh)-the action of the individual and the reaction of the recipient makes it a chuckle for some but I wouldn’t say it could be considered appropriate to the majority or indeed “right”

Give it time, the kids today who find that funny are the adults of tomorrow, so whos to say that in 20 years beadles about isnt parodied with a show where people beat up tramps “for a laugh”

Other than that tho, slapstick humour HAS been widely televised AND laughed at for decades, as have “pranks” like bowls of water balanced on doors, dog crap in a burning back, peoples trousers being yanked down, faces being permanent markered while they sleep and countless other things that “could” be classed as assault were they to happen to the “wrong” person

[ubermik]

@drivel wrote:

@bassingbourne55 wrote:

Sounds like he should be made persona non grata in the comedy world alongside the late Bernard Manning, Jim Davidson and Billy Connolly (after his sick joke about murdered hostage Ken Bigley)

The best one I have heard on a similar vein

Was Roy CHubby Brown – in Bedlington – ( N East near Newcastle) – it’s a rough place too !!
Anyway in a local club – doing his act – it’s a church connected club – there’s a statue of Christ on the Cross over the door at side of club

Roy – ” I see they got the bstard that nicked the Fruit machine then !! “”

See now that is probably the funniest thing I have ever heard from Chubby, but I know quite a few religious loons who would have kicked up a huge fuss over that joke

But as theyre catholics nobody would have been overly bothered by their complaints, but imagine if someone dared to make a joke at muslims expense :shock: :o :o :o

Maybe the answer is to start having warnings for comedians like they had to do on TV

Things like

“WARNING, This act might contain humour and comedy and therefore might not be suitable for miserable oversensitive whinging b’stards”

Or

“Warning, some humour in this show MIGHT refer to your home town, accent, religion,, nationality, physical shape or size, hair or lack there of, football team or other connected things or media stories. If you cant accept humour that doesnt appeal to your specific sense of humour but others might find funny, cant laugh at yourself or have a bargepole rammed so far up your rusty bullethole your hats hover a foot above your head we reccommend you go home and watch songs of praise on TV instead

Well it MIGHT work :lol:

[ubermik]

@forumhostpb wrote:

@drivel wrote:

You are obviously one very frustrated guy – who tries to make up for lack of intelligence and education with long winded repetitive incoherent posts

Yes but he does long-winded rather well doesn’t he?

And that wasnt even the finished long winded post either,,,,,,

It was just a rough “draught” :lol:

[ubermik]

I never could quite figure out why a hotty like Nicole Kidman would want to bump uglies with the smarmy leprechaun

But fingers crossed they move into their bunker with some of the other freaky nutjobs from their cult never to be seen again :lol: :lol:

[ubermik]

@slayer wrote:

@ubermik wrote:

@anita Gofradump wrote:

Comedy, humour, jokes, call it what you will. Has no boundries, so i don’t see these jokes as a problem personally, would they of been so p!ssed off had he made some manc jokes like those, or even about colin mccrae, i think not.

I have to agree with that

Humour is subjective, theres no universal right or wrong as much as many cling desperately to their moral highground trying to claim there is

Things like this just arent types of humour some people get or find funny but which will be a humourous distraction from the darker side of an issue for someone else

Humour may be subjective by its very nature but the sign of a good comedian is to understand their audience and tailor the comedic presentation to the level of said audience.

It says something about a comedian’s judgement when he makes jokes in Liverpool about Ryhs Jones and Maddie McCann- why didnt he go for all 3 and include one about Hillsborough!

Cant see the link with maddie, arent they from liecester which is nowhere near liverpool?

No idea where the rhys kid is from (would have guessed wales for some reason lol) but as the two were conjunctively commented on it does read as tho each is equally related to the town, which the mcanns arent in the slightest as far as I am aware

And anyway, much humour is only actually humour WHEN its aimed at the audience, its a pretty common aspect of a stand up comics act to ask people where they are from, what job they do et al and make a quip about it same as many holiday comedians will make jokes about the majorative nationality

So even the “should have known the target audience” comment has two sides to it, but nobody is a mind reader at the end of the day

Some people will laugh at themselves other people get a bargepole up their arse about it

[Author]

Posts