Verbal

Is this thread an excerpt from The Fast Show?

He may be a little abrupt for your taste but he's also right on this. Your objections are painful to read, because you don't see that you're rather preciously imposing your own view of the experience of trench warfare (when you actually have none) which is every bit as partial as the one represented in the ad. If you go and listen to the extensive archive of sound and vision recordings of first-hand testimony lodged at the Imperial War Museum, you'll hear a much richer view from those who actually fought and survived. It includes testimony about incidents like the one in the ad, and others, such as the long periods of incredible boredom, even when the enemy were a stone's throw away. And then there are the bursts the indescribable horror - the kind of horror which even a news broadcast today (or then) cannot show. Notably the truly hellish accounts of the effects of gas warfare, and the effects of shelling. So instead of imagining the war and imposing your imagination on the ad (and remember, any sensible viewer knows that ads are not and do not claim to be contributors to the historical canon), go and have a listen to these records. As someone who's contributed recordings to the museum (interviews conducted with survivors of the Burma railway), I can tell you that if you take the time to listen, you'll learn a lot... Wars are horrible, but they are not reducible to the horror.

The picture would have been a virtual work of art worthy of Martin Parr if she'd only managed to include the van/house owner in the shot.

How do you get the message from that commercial that we can ‘all forget the horrors of the Great War’? Nothing in it says anything of the sort. Is anyone but the most hopelessly naïve under the impression that the Christmas football match was anything other than a brief respite? If so, where are these gullible people? Or are they figments of your imagination? Does the commercial really suggest anything other than that war was hell before and after? Is it really propagating some alternate version of the war in which everyone sat down and enjoyed themselves for four whole years? That’s what all those grim trenches and the rendition of no-man’s land were all about? Was the war fought in the trenches between bad people rather than good? You have to believe all that to conclude that the commercial is therefore a ‘lie’. It’s not ‘the truth’ either – in that it compressed several incidents over the early years of the war into one. But, Jesus H Christ, do you have to believe an awful lot of nonsense to reach the conclusion that it was some kind of Orwellian ‘lie’ in which war is peace and peace is war, and which droves of (imaginary) Brits are in danger of accepting as historical ‘fact’. Because that's how they learn our history - watching TV ads. It’s not a great commercial – the bouncing bomb one (which also attracted exactly the same sad-eyed moaning) was much better. But with all this hand- wringing anyone would think we’d witnessed the second coming of Goebbels – all over what is basically an unremarkable but quite well produced ad.

It doesn't seem that 'excellent' to me though. What it does indicate is that moral outrage can be taken to mean that reasoned argument is superfluous. For example, "the bizarre outcome is Sainsbury's giving us the perverse Christmas message that chocolate makes war OK" sounds a good rabble-rousing slogan...if it were true. But it isn't. The ad is about an incident that happened outside of the more usual conduct of war (and almost certainly against standing orders about fraternising with the enemy). The chocolate bar was exchanged as a surprise gift from one enemy combatant to another. How exactly is that 'making war ok'? Is the argument only sensible from the sanctimonious point of view of a high horse? By all means disagree with the sentiments in the ad, or complain about the state of affairs where a war victims' charity depends on a supermarket. But I can't but feel it would help if the more voluble critics were able to dial down the emote control so we can hear what they're actually saying.

Bellingcat, the open-source 'citizen investigative journalists' who recently triangulated the exact location of James Foley's murder, have carried out this succinct and persuasive dismissal of the supposed shoot-down image as fakery. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2014/11/14/russian-state-television-shares-fake-images-of-mh17-being-attacked/ The claim on Russian state TV that it was sourced from Wikileaks is (unsurprisingly) false.

Exactly - and utterly, utterly depressing. The Lounge at its insinuating, weasel-worded worst. Luckily for the 'birds' (Tokyo Saint TM), verdicts are not delivered on football forums.

There are degrees of violence, from mild coercion or taking advantage of an inebriated state to murder - but not degrees of rape, which is a yes/no answer to the question of consent. You really need to consult a dictionary. Being an apologist (which from the tone of your posts you appear to be as close as damn it) does not mean 'apologising'.

That's the spirit! The best Tiny Tim Cratchit impression I've read in ages.

It may not be that Qatar has been any more or less corrupt than other bid winner in the past. The difference this time is the sheer surreal absurdity of a World Cup in the Arabian Gulf in the Summer. So a withdrawal of the FA from FIFA wouldn't be aimed at Middle Eastern interests as such, but rather at FIFA itself, which is, as has been said, an appalling banana republic which has serially damaged the interests of football in return for copious kickbacks. So I don't think it conflicts with ME investment in the Prem. Pulling out of FIFA sounds appealing, at least if it's used as a nuclear option in a determined bid to reform an organisation that, like F1, has done more than any to damage the sport. But the minute we start talking about the FA as a leader of a reform movement it all starts to sound a bit ridiculous. And my guess is FIFA knows this - it's a battle of the chronically corrupt vs the chronically hopeless.

It's not hard to figure out, is it? If, as you say, the British electorate (you excepted, of course) are, I quote, 'morons', how can they be trusted with any plebiscite decision at all? Won't the moronic sheeple do whatever the MSM tells them to do?

So how exactly do you get a reliable plebiscite from people (the British electorate) you yourself describe as 'morons'?

What are you looking for, Tim? Some rational, consistent sense? If so, you're looking in the wrong place. On the one hand, this guy wants plebiscites on issues otherwise there's no legitimacy (actually plebiscites are more the tool of '99-percent-in-favour' dictatorships than liberal democracies); on the other hand, we're all sheeple controlled by a hypnotising 'MSM' (mainstream media) which manipulates these plebiscites. If you want more sense, you're better off asking your cat.

Bits of string theory were widely discredited by M theory by adding an extra (11th) dimension. So 2-0 is still wrong.

If you calculated only using integers, this is wrong.

Great - well said Ducky., I've put you down as "Yes, I agree with Ed!!'. Stickers and window poster on the way - sent second class. Fancy some door-knocking?

When you say 'these reports' you presumably mean 'this report' - which I take for code translated: as you haven't read it. And you're fabulating to suit your inner ostrich. As for the idea that the report 'makes no allowance' for capital assets and other costs, one section of the report deals with contributions from non-EU migrants, which make significant demands on public services. Between 1995 and 2011 costing taxpayers £118 billion. Even when balanced against their contribution, they still took out more than they 'paid in' for every year during that period. Three-quarters of the net contribution - the figure widely reported - is from 'old EU' migrants (France, Italy, Germany, etc). Presumably the knee jerkers have kneed themselves in the head in their dim-witted rush to accuse the authors of bias, because there's plenty of good statistical information in the report to inform both sides of the debate.

Meaning they should change the facts to suit your opinions? Do you think they should have suppressed these facts because UKIP has some degree of popularity? And what 'subsidies' are these? (Do you mean 'subsidies'?)

Brilliant.

What kind of Tory are you? So you're saying that if a company can't afford to pay its workforce it can just tap up the state and get its workers for free? Shaft the employee and the taxpayer at the same time? I can only assume you think this couldn't happen to you. But just suppose for a minute that your nice cosy ride on your plastic-seated First Capital Connect was suddenly impossible because your employer had told you you're redundant - and then said you can come back to work for free. How would you feel? Would it change your life at all?

The alternative, once the 'charity' involved has stopped hanging its had in shame, is to pay the guy. This amounts to bonded labour. This is just an extreme case of the familiar dodge by the worst employers - shift the costs of labour (with low pay or no pay) from the employer to the tax payer. Employers like this are the worst of state benefits spongers. I thought you'd be against such a thing.

Strange that this thread has now exceeded two hundred posts and no one's quoted anything Brand has actually written. Here's a thought (?) from 'Revolution' - and one which Brand sets up as being incredibly important. "If you can transcend the limits of the instinctual and anatomical self, you can become part of the kingdom of united consciousness defined by power, glory and eternity." As an example of this, he recalls himself, mid-threesome, as he and two women go at it. Suddenly he has a Damascene moment: "Like perfumed and gloss vultures, they peck at my carcass and a petit mort is insufficient; I am like Frankenstein here, assembled from boneyard parts...I don't want to be led back to that. I want to be delivered from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen." So there we are: narcissism as political manifesto. No wonder it's so appealing to a few dribbling I'm-just-like-Brand-really acolytes. It's all about 'me'. **** the voters - in fact, there shouldn't be any voting. Why? Simple. The acolytes have the tune down pat: So much for a revolution.

COYR!

No. Tony Clifton.

I agree. No one should have to suffer the loss of their child then endure the gross libels of overly suggestible conspiracy enthusiasts. Perspective. That's what you're talking about, right? Because if you're talking about the delicate flowers on here, who even turn any opposition to their views as a 'coordinated' conspiracy, then perspective is what you've lost. To pick up on Minty's question, I think there are two rational ways to deal with the conspiro-crowd. One, as aintforever does, for example, is to try to debunk. Personally, I think this is a bit of a fool's errand, because it drags you into conspiro-world in a way that's ultimately a complete waste of time and effort. The other is to tackle the mindset itself. And to my mind, C B does an excellent job of that. His ridicule contains some unpleasant truths - but truths nonetheless - about the narcissistic, paranoid and, frankly, simple-minded roots of these personal attacks - whether these attacks are aimed at the McCanns, the Rigby family, or the Boston bombing victims. Again, for perspective, you have to contrast the squealing of hurt feelings among the conspiracists with their borderline sociopathic attacks on the bereaved, the injured and the dead.