Verbal

You'll never know. But for others, there's a big difference between the history of religions (quite interesting, and based on some pretty well documented material) and religious beliefs (not as interesting, in my opinion). Of course, historians end up falling foul of religious 'authorities' all the time. The biggest row is about to break - concerning new theories proposed by historians about the origins of Islam.

Proven facts, no! It's mostly written, and censored, by Romans, in order to turn the tenets of a small Jewish sect into a state religion.

He's lining them up while he gets the fire going.

I think it's one of those profound tears of a clown things.

That's be no then.

Could it possibly be that you're learning something?

Are you any relation to Busta Bloodvessel? Or is that a recommendation that DD doesn't go on the stage and do stand up?

I think our more delicate flowers would prefer a full-blown moral panic. On that subject - hypo, i'm still waiting for your list of personal indiscretions so that we can start a thread condemning you as a moral degenerate. Hope it's soon.

Yes. Or something to do with accounts. Something of that sort.

Everything's gone to the dogs

Beckham stops to help a motorist restart his car, and in doing so enables the philosopher AC Grayling to neatly describe and puncture the self-serving, doom-laden nonsense which seems to have its fringe advocates everywhere, including on here. "Moral panics in society arise when a severe one-off interruption occurs in these normal co-operative arrangements. The murder of a child, an atrocity in which a gunman shoots a number of people in a school, a major public scandal, unsettle us because they challenge our collective sense of an ethical order. People immediately begin to think that everything has gone to the dogs." http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/a-c-grayling-celebrity-really-rather-kind-just-like-the-rest-of-us-shock-2213017.html

Chairman of MENSA. Actually my brother did exactly what you did after years on subs. He's now does something very similar to BTF's former job.

Did I hurt your feelings? I'm so sorry. I can assure you that was the first thing on my mind.

The issue in all this isn't freedom of speech, or any of your other paranoid fantasies. It's about your COLOSSAL need to stand in high judgement over the actions of every Tom, D!ck and Elton. It's not just that your moral pronouncements - because that's what they're not - amount to absolutely nothing. They indicate a desperate, immature need to lord it over everyone. We're all expected to sign up to your extremely comical moral universe - a pick-n-mix of the Daily Mail, the News of the Screws, the 1950s and (oh. my. god!) delldays. The reason you generate so much heat is that many see you as the bully-behind-the-bike-sheds with his fag-end friends. Elton is just the latest figure you want burned at the stake so that you can get your cathartic thrills - above all, of being vindicated in your visceral hatred of anything or anyone who doesn't fit in with your cosy, microcosmically tiny world. As I say, calm down. You'll do yourself a mischief.

And here comes mini-me.

Oh dear. Beta blocker time...

Finally an admission of the truth. Feel better now? Sit down, pour yourself (no one else will, sadly) a nice cup of tea, and have a listen to Your Song - your favourite song by the bestest ever follicle-challenged artist. That should get the boiling pressure down a bit.

Dune does not approve of democracy for third world ingrates. Surely you knew. Mubarak running away to Sharm al Sheik (most of which he personally owns) isn't the end of the story, I suspect. The army have for decades been the beneficiaries of Mubarak's corruption, so it'll be interesting to see whether they too will give up their hold on political and economic power.

A perfect illustration of your seeming inability to construct a coherent logic. You go from a slippery moral imperative - 'it is not natural from men to raise children together' - to a biological truism - men can't give birth. By inserting the word 'natural' into the first part, you've turned yourself into a complete ditz, your poor head spinning to comprehend how it could be otherwise. What you actually mean is: preferable in your perverse moral universe. So - this is how you should frame your argument: 'In my perverse moral universe, I want all men who propose to raise children jointly with other men burnt at the stake. They could only avoid the punishment of hellfire (aka more posts from you), if they could pull off the biologically impossible feat of giving birth to a baby.' There. I hope that helps. And please take it in the spirit it's intended.

It may be 'correct' in the way you mean it - which isn't saying much. Sex isn't only for reproduction, you know. Or haven't you discovered that yet? To other sentients, your statement is pretty meaningless. If by 'natural' you mean 'found in the natural world', there are plenty of examples of homosexual behaviour, including among genetically our nearest relatives, bonobos. They go at it hammer and tongs, regardless of the sex of the partner.

The lefty veggie who runs the large multinational company, you mean?

So no child adoption. What else?

Not half as much as we chuckle at your illiteracy.

That's what they all say. Cough up, hypo. We want to hear of all your misdeeds so we can line up and condemn them as if we, like you, were in Salem.

Still using that cardboard? Or still learning to read?