CHAPEL END CHARLIE

My dear chap, your position is anything but clear. I might add that circumventing the swear filter is neither big or very clever for that matter.

Well the record clearly shows that quite a few people have raised objections to your and CB's postings - as ill defined as they are. So I can only conclude that you appear to be suffering from some form of progressive amnesia or maybe you have not read this thread properly. Either possibility places you in a somewhat embarrassing situation I think. On my latter request, can I take it then that you have no ''wider point'' to wish to make here?

Even a cursory examination of this thread will show that objections to your (rather fuzzy and easily shifted) viewpoint are far more widely based than just myself and one other person - indeed when you start a post with such a blatant inaccuracy then this hardly inspires much confidence in what follows. But yes, Muslim fanaticism has certainly been more evident of late than the Christian version has been. If there is any wider point beyond that narrow one you desire to make here then by all means make it.

Okay then - for the benefit of the forum explain where you stand on this issue because despite numerous posts arguing the toss this remains entirely unclear. Do you feel that the followers of the Prophet Muhammad are a more violent group than those who believe in the Christian faith? Do try to express yourself in a clear and lucid manner so that others on here might understand what the hell you are talking about.

The eminently simple point you seem to be either unwilling to accept, or unable to comprehend perhaps, is that the problem of violence is related to our Human nature, rather than to religious faith per se. You have had numerous examples presented to you now - both historic and contemporary - of massacres that can be traced back to followers of the Christian faith. Many of these events in fact are/were far more bloody affairs than anything that has happened in Paris so far this year. But despite all this good evidence you continue to argue that one religious group is capable of more violent behaviour than another for some reason. I can only ask you why on earth should anybody on here accept such nonsense?

I really don't mind a spot of hyperbole every now and again in debate - but you can take it too far you know. Nazi Germany was not a state deeply immersed in the teachings of Christ - just about everything they did between 1933 to 45 proves that beyond any question. Indeed, this point is quite obvious. The Nazi leadership was however, unlike Stalin's atheist Soviet Union, quite prepared to tolerate any religion (apart from Judaism that is) as long as was useful to them and did not interfere with their plans. If you like I can show you images of Hitler attending Christian religious ceremonies, or photos of German Army chaplains who were quite prepared to wear Nazi insignia AND the crucifix on their uniforms without apparently seeing any inherent contradiction in that. Furthermore, here be a image of Croatian Muslim soldiers serving with the SS 13th Waffen Gebergs Division 'Handschar': A nice way of showing I think that if a organisation as brutal and fanatical as the Waffen SS could find room to accommodate Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindu's within its ranks - as I can assure you it certainly did - then no one religion can convincingly claim some monopoly on virtue or vice during WWII. The Human capacity for evil and violence is universal, and not limited in the slightest to particular faiths or races.

What about them? I'm quite sure that a great many Wehrmacht members marched off into WWII firmly believing themselves to be 'Christian Soldiers' to some degree - afterall it said so on their belt buckles. For your information, the requirement to eradicate ''godless'' communism from the world was often specificity mentioned by the Nazi leadership as a justification for Operation Barbarossa. So again I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make here.

But you asked yesterday for examples of the Christian faith being linked with massacre events in the last century. Examples of this were soon provided for you - and without any great difficulty in all honesty. Now instead of thanking those who graciously took the trouble to reply to your request, you have instead decided to move the 'goalposts' yet again. This is bad form old boy.

Well I am please to see that there is at least some common ground here we can agree on. But if you remove this latter point from my post, all that remains is me pointing out that two 'schools of thought' exist on the question of whether extremely graphic imagery of violence should be made public. Now in all honesty that was a rather anodyne statement for me to make. So why you have chosen to kick up such a fuss about what was perhaps a rather *vanilla* post remains unclear.

Then why did you say ''of course'' ?

Frankly I'm struggling to reconcile your new found disagreement with my straightforward question re this Bataclan Theatre matter, when the record does seem to show - see your post #797 - that not only did you fail to find anything very objectionable it but you actually agreed with me to some extent. So please explain if you considered my post to be a reasonable one yesterday, why has it suddenly become a such a unreasonable one today?

That Jim Jones too was a very religious man I understand ...

It seems to me that the reason you lot didn't object at the time is because there was nothing in my post worth objecting to. If you really must criticise then you would better have opined that my post was too bland, rather than disingenuous. But you too are invited to explain what exactly is so wrong in asking how that image made its way into the public domain.

Well if that form of OTT verbiage impresses you so, then I can only assume you are of the 'easily impressed' type. But as you now seemingly feel that there is something intrinsically 'out of order' in my asking a simple question about that image then please expand on why you hold this opinion - which I will point out again you did not (uncharacteristically) object to at the time. I must say that I await your reply with some interest.

It is nothing of the sort! It is in fact a quite absurd overreaction to my simply inquiry into how the horrific image in question came into the public domain. I note you didn't object to my post at the time, so I wonder why you have apparently changed your mind now?

History shows us that no single race, religion or political creed holds some implausible monopoly on Human folly my friend. Indeed, I sometimes think that our capability for folly and violence is the one thing that unites Humanity.

Who on earth would think such a silly thing?

My dear CB - the post you admire so is quite absurd.

I am alas easily old enough to remember (the now notorious) 'Love Thy Neighbour' and like much of the 1970's television I grew up with this series is now - quite understandably in 21st Century Britain - no longer considered fit for broadcast over here. So no, 'Love Thy Neighbour' is not a sit com that I could watch anymore - even if I wanted to. Although thinking back on it, the black and white characters were actually equally prejudiced if I recall correctly and the white bigot Jack Smethurst portrayed may even have been the dumber of the two.

But the record shows that I have at no stage questioned the authenticity of the image. So the thinking behind the highlighted passage is something of a mystery to me. Again you appear to busy fabricating an enormous mountain from nothing more than the most diminutive of molehills. I was simply wondering how the horrific image - an image that you chose to post on here - made its way into the public domain. Now if you know the answer to this question then I'm sure many on here would be most interested to see it. Until that answer becomes clear, then for the time being I can only presume that either one of the terrorists uploaded the image to the Internet before they were killed, or (much more likley I think) the image has been obtained somehow from a official French source. In the latter eventuality, then asking whether some payment has been received in return for the image seems a perfectly reasonable question to ask I think. I really can't see why you, or anyone else for that matter, would even bother to disagree with this? None of the above is remotely related to some sinister attempt on my part to conceal the truth or even question the case for publishing the image in the first place. Indeed, you appear to be seeing conspiracies here where none exist.

The BBC's Andrew Neil, not exactly being overly reticent in expressing his personal opinion on the France v ISIS question. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/andrew-neil-skewers-isis-scumbags-6865871 I should cancel that summer holiday in the Middle East if I were you Andrew ...

There is a case to be made that we should not be protected from the uncensored truth of the world and we need to see everything in order to fully comprehend the horror of it. Others may feel that publishing/broadcasting images of the Paris massacre victims (for example) is both offensive and unnecessary - afterall we do very well know what happened without having to see it. I'm agnostic whether reproducing those horrible images of the Bataclan Theatre is justified or not. I do wonder however just how those pictures became such public property? If some official gave them to the media and some money changed hands ... well then I would hope that most on here would agree that this would be distasteful - to put it mildly.

I find your reaction to Jonnyboy's simple post to be more than a little OTT - indeed it is perhaps a overreaction. It seems to me that what we see here is the employment of hyperbole in order to make point - i.e. ''bomb every town in Syria'' is not intended to be taken literally, but is rather a deliberate exaggeration posted in order to make a more general point. Think of it in the same way as when people sometimes say things like: ''I've told you a million times ...'' for example. Now to be fair you are very far from being the other person on here of late guilty of refusing to accept, or comprehend perhaps, when hyperbole is obviously used in debate. But hyperbole really is not that difficult a concept to get your head around I think and those who like to seize on it to make spurious misrepresentations of what others really are saying is becoming a rather tiresome aspect of 'Lounge' behaviour frankly.

^ I love both the old school 70's sit-com nature of 'Citizen Khan' and the glorious unrestrained crudity of 'Mrs Brown's Boys'. So I might as well 'get my coat' now then ...

Film 2015 - BBC1 I guess that 'Film' must be one of the oldest series on British television that is still in production. So unquestionably a successful concept then. But this series has always been handicapped somewhat by the terrible late night time-slot the BBC habitual give it. Nevertheless, I was (like most other cinema fans I guess) a regular viewer back in its Barry Norman era. But for some reason I fell out of this habit when Jonathan Ross took over from the great man. A case of 'big shoes to fill' perhaps. However, I've recently rediscovered the programme in its new format and I must say it has become again an utterly unmissable part of my TV week. In the old days Barry would simply show you a clip from the film he was reviewing and then tell you what he thought of it - and being Barry Norman whole generations of movie-goers would trust in his opinion implicitly. Now the series is fronted by Claudia Winkleman and while she may lack some of Norman's remarkable perception and unmatched wit, she is ably supported by two other professional film critics on the sofa with her. It is this interaction between three articulate and passionate film critics - who naturally very often completely disagree - that gives this series its rediscovered sense of vigour. It veritably 'sparkles' off the screen now. This week for example, Winkleman had (the hugely likeable) Danny Leigh and Peter Bradshaw from the Guardian with her. Leigh had a nice interview with Steven Spielberg - surely the world's greatest living film director - and the three of them polity disagreed about the latest (and final) instalment of the Hunger Games franchise 'Mockingjay Part 2' and the erotic drama 'Love 3D'. But it really all 'kicked off' when they finally got around to 'The Dressmaker' - a new Australian film starring Kate Winslet. This last film is clearly a rather err 'strange' effort and while Winkleman and Leigh kinda found at least something likeable in its offbeat oddness, Bradshaw hated it with a passion! Indeed, he opined that being forced to endure this film even once more would be akin to eternal damnation to some satanic hell-hole. His fury in turn provoked a strong outraged reaction from the other two. 'Twas all great fun I thought ... but watch the programme and find out for yourself. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06qc6l8/film-2015-episode-10 PS - Man love may be an embarrassing thing to admit on a football forum, but I worship Danny Leigh as if he were a God on Earth.