Verbal

So you admit you have been crushed by the liberal elite.

Poll please mods.

There used to be this truly abysmal site called foreversaints, I think. It really was a benchmark for lobotomised stupidity, and was run by the most preposterous idiot. I'd say standards on here were quite a bit higher than that.

Speaking of whom...

The ones who've been crowing the loudest about Deppo's banning are not surprisingly the ones he took down with necessary regularity.

Doesn't this count as useful information to an enemy?

Perhaps the new film will correct the dozens of errors in the old one.

Yes, that's what we'll do.

Yes. Lost its charm.

We need more answerers.

So big surprise then that we're still waiting for dune to list one film - just ONE film - that is 100% accurate.

And in what sense is a dog's name a 'main fact'. It is surely a main fact only to those obsessed with race. If Fry was proposing to show the Dambusters dropping bombs on Neasden, that would be a salient altering of a 'main fact'.

True. I feel utterly placated.

I believe Professor Pugwash is alluding to the Big Crunch - the idea that the universe expands to a point where the force of gravity overwhelms it and it collapses back to where it all began, in the Big Bang. This idea, however, is thought by most cosmologists to be so over.

We have a winner.

I think the problem with Deppogate is that it's based on a misunderstanding of the English language. The supposed infringements are for 'pointless' and 'sarcastic' posts. 'Pointless' is of course entirely in the eye of the beholder, and is therefore nothing but hopelessly subjective. It IS, though, easy to demonstrate that deppo mostly had a point to make. Easy, because deppo was only very rarely 'sarcastic' His modus operandum was to adopt the point of view of someone he disagreed with, or whose post he just found unintentionally funny (like that never happens!), and turn it on its head. This is properly called satirising, not being sarcastic. Satiric take-downs almost always have a clear underlying, and very economically expressed point to them - so they were not pointless at all, and very, very few of us, I'd suggest, ever saw that they were. So on neither count - pointlessness or sarcasm - could deppo have accumulated enough infractions to warrant such an absurdity as a 'life ban'. Which leads me back to the only logical conclusion: it's personal.

The sky is not blue. It's black. But the universe is beige.

Nope, I've tried my best, but I can't see any way around this being gibberish. You're saying Deppo should be banned for life, but, hey ho, he can just step around the problem by coming back using another name. All I can assume is you actually think that it's merely the word 'deppo' that's banned. Odd.

Are you happy with that? Don't you think it's a bit infantile to ban someone 'for life?'

With his talent for statues, Al-Fayed would have done well here. Bill Kenwright has done a lot with very little.

With his talent for statues, Al-Fayed would have done well here. Bill Kenwright has done a lot with very little.

My destination next week. http://www.theimperialindia.com/

Obviously he should be allowed back. I can't see any kind of rational argument against it.

Or any number of Nazi WW2 vets.

He doesn't even cut it as a muppet.