egg

Superb post. Agree 100%

Tokyo, ok you win. Fill your boots mate and get out there and call anyone with a gammy leg, wheelchair, learning disability or mental health issue a spaz or a mong and I'm sure they'll all laugh along with you and toast your good health. Tell you what pop round and say it my sister, or kraken's. Perhaps the club could arrange a special spaz or mong calling session for you in the disabled area on sat as a special treat for you and the disabled punters? You've tried to make this personal so I'll do the same. When you're attempting humour you're a funny guy. On this thread you're the opposite. If you want to continue this debate, but would rather keep your ignorance out of the public arena, pm me and I'll keep going. Otherwise I fail to see what value we can bring to this forum by you continuing to argue night is day and me taking the opposite view.

Stain mk2?

I asked my mate jock in the pub earlier, he asked if you were serious. Seriously. I thought better of asking the disabled fella in the pub if it was ok to call him a spaz or mong. Common sense told me the answer.

Have a look at this Tokyo. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8094716.stm Jock is a humerous term. Sweaty is simply a cockney rhyming term for jock. Please post a link to something saying that disabled people find mong and spaz humerous.

Your just being silly mate. Mong/Spaz and Sweaty are leagues apart. Even your minder dig dig agrees. I'll put your reaction down to over sensitivity.

I haven't pointed the finger at anyone. The op objected to the use of the words. I, and others, agreed. I find it hard to believe that your average Scotsman would feel upset by the term sweaty. A Welshman wouldn't lose sleep over the term taff, a new Zealander over kiwi, an American over yank etc. Your average disabled person would, however, be offended by the term spaz or mong.

That's the context in which the op referred to the words!

Yes. It doesn't compare to calling mentally disabled people mong or spaz.

No. This was a narrow thread on two words only. If one or two individuals have nothing better to do than copy and paste a comment about a Scottish football manager about 27 pages into my post history then god help them.

Ah bless you all coming to little tokyo's aid. I'm coming over all emotional. Link to my use of spaz and mong please as that's the sole subject of this threat. Ta.

If you accept that something may cause offence then it's wise to err on the side of caution. Similarly, if you think that something will cause harm or damage you err on the side of caution rather than taking a risk. It's the same principle here.

Beyond reasonable doubt! Ffs, this ain't a criminal court. Read all the words in kraken post properly. It dovetails my point on private and public comments. Its reasonable to assume that an offensive on a public forum could be viewed by a member of the public. I get the impression you think you're right. That's your right. I disagree with you and think it unfortunate that you continue with your badly justified argument when you claim to see the op point.

In your previous comnent you defeated your own argument. Read back what you wrote, and my reply, and tell me where you say I have misquoted you and/or that I am factually wrong about the openness of a forum and the inability to control audience.

You've kind of proved Itchen's point tbh. Where you're argument falls on its arse is the comment that disabled forum users may be offended by these two words. Firstly, this acknowledges that the terms are still offensive to a group of people which negates your silly point about asking whether the terms in fact remain offensive! Secondly, the forum is public and open to all. Anyone can view it, kids, and disabled people alike. People need to respect that they cannot control their audience. Making comments to your mates in private is one thing but a forum is different. You concede that these terms could offend some and will know that such people, or those close to them , could view them. Against that background would it not be more appropriate to stop using the terms rather than seeking to justify doing do. Just a thought.

Does anyone who went know who played wide left, and how he played.

Nokia Lumia 610, and the 800, are available for that kind of money. Quality bits of kit and a doddle to use. More apps on anything Android though. Those recommended above are all decent. An Orange San Francisco 2 at £50 would get my vote. Get it unlocked and you've got a great phone for little money.

It's over for me, but others may have an opinion.

Tokyo, firstly I haven't said anything to suggest I want the thread to end. My comment was light hearted, and frankly, was meant as a statement that I rarely see any evidence of effective modding anywhere on the forum. Secondly, I have said that this thread is about thje use of two words (it is) although I have given a reply to Turkish (i think) about a couple of others and stated that context is crucial to the use of some words. Kraken made some good points on that. Broadly I agree with him, but the difference is that using words like spaz around your mates (without others over hearing) is different to using it around anonymous people on a forum and in the knowledge that otheers will read it. I apperciate that some post all day on here. I've got better things to do with my time than give an opinion on the use of various words. If I get into a discussion on certain words, then you and others will bang on all day. The op makes a point that I agree with. You don't and I'm not interested in extending the discussion. Vocal minority is a simple concept. You,and a few others, have more to say than most others on most topics - this included. You are, therefore, the minority of posters but collectively the most vocal.

We have mods?

This thread is about two words. Don't veer off course to try to justify your use of these offensive terms.

That's the point. If you wouldn't call a disabled person a mong or spaz then you do understand the terms to be offensive, surely? The fact that the words themselves aren't illegal doesn't make it socially acceptable to use them! Its about commonsense. Those using the terms on here clearly have the vocabulary to use alternatives. Instead, they choose to use terms which me, the op and others find unacceptable in any context.

The op referred to 2 specific words. In what context do you deem them acceptable?

But the vocal minority who use those terms are quite articulate.

See, context.