What is wrong with America

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

If the standard is 80%, and all pass that, it's not lowering the standard. The standard is met. I'd take your point if the standard was say 90% but they had to engineer that downwards to meet a quota. He suggested that happened re Harvard. 

This is the point. They're not lowering pass marks to let people in. They're being more inclusive of the people that get in. It's be like Oxford having to take 4 women/people of colour for every 10 people that got 5 A* at A level.

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

We are all a persona. I fling around crass insults and the rest because it is a release on here. I am sure that a lot of people have noticed that when I am being serious, talking about my actual passions I will change my language and my rhetoric considerably.

Personally, I think I use this forum as a release. I cannot talk like this in the boardroom. I cannot talk like this to my employees. But a forum gives me the opportunity to release my frustrations of what this country and the world has become on a small sub-section of it. I am sure not everyone is as they seem on here, and that a number of people on here have good intentions.

Unfortunately, we see a single poster as a small sub-section of society, without the nuances and experiences that make that person an individual. We stereotype, we generalise and we project. It is what make the internet, online opinions and social media (of which this is a subset) so fucking dangerous.

Some are, for sure. Others are authentic. 

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Ok agreed - I’ll put you on ignore if you keep calling me a c bomb though. 😆

Well don't be a cunt then 😜

Edited 11 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

If the standard is 80%, and all pass that, it's not lowering the standard. The standard is met. I'd take your point if the standard was say 90% but they had to engineer that downwards to meet a quota. He suggested that happened re Harvard. 

And we know it happened in he UK with fitness standards in the army. I take the point that it's still a pass if they've reached a certain point but I still don't think someone should be elevated above someone else just based on an immutable characteristic. Even if we accept that Charlie Kirk didn't express himself as well as he might have done, his overall point that DEI is wrong is correct.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Some are, for sure. Others are authentic. 

I'm not sure you can ever really know that unless you know the person in real life.

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

And we know it happened in he UK with fitness standards in the army. I take the point that it's still a pass if they've reached a certain point but I still don't think someone should be elevated above someone else just based on an immutable characteristic. Even if we accept that Charlie Kirk didn't express himself as well as he might have done, his overall point that DEI is wrong is correct.

We're talking about the pilots as per Kirk. The standard isn't being lowered to facilitate the quota, so how can there be a doubt re the qualifications of anyone passing? I get there may be better candidates, but that doesn't render the quota appointments inadequate. 

[trousers]

12 minutes ago, egg said:

If the standard is 80%, and all pass that, it's not lowering the standard. The standard is met. I'd take your point if the standard was say 90% but they had to engineer that downwards to meet a quota. He suggested that happened re Harvard. 

I think what he's saying is: even if the qualifying standard for, say, surgeons, is fixed / unchanged at 80% and you were about to have a life saving operation, would you prefer your surgeon to have a 90% rating or an 80% rating? I know which one of those surgeons I'd prefer to be operating on me, even though they both meet the minimum standard required... If someone with an 80% rating is employed in preference to someone with a 90% rating, I would say there's something wrong with the employment process. Yes, of course, if there are two candidates for the job, both with an 80% rating then, yes, go for the one that helps meet whatever quota targets may be in place, but merit should always trump quotas IMO. That just seems like common sense to me. 

Edited 10 hours ago by trousers

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Some are, for sure. Others are authentic. 

I think whatever happens there is some release on here. I'm not saying people are making up who they are. I think it's more that they act in a way that they wouldn't in other day to day situations. I think it's the nature of faceless communication.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm not sure you can ever really know that unless you know the person in real life.

People's styles change. Some play for reaction, and certain audiences. Each to their own. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

I think what he's saying is: even if the qualifying standard for, say, surgeons, is fixed / unchanged at 80% and you were about to have a life saving operation, would you prefer your surgeon to have a 90% rating or an 80% rating? I know which one of those surgeons I'd prefer to be operating on me, even though they both meet the minimum standard required... If someone with an 80% rating is employed in preference to someone with a 90% rating, I would say there's something wrong with the employment process. Yes, of course, if there are two candidates for the job, both with an 80% rating then, yes, go for the one that helps meet whatever quota targets may be in place, but merit should always trump quotas IMO. 

We've shifted from the pilot point, and the rights of doubting the competence of a sufficiently qualified black pilot. I remain of the view that he was out of line, but I also dislike quotas. He could have just said that the best candidates should get the gig and if they're all black, so be it, but he went a different route. 

[trousers]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

We've shifted from the pilot point, and the rights of doubting the competence of a sufficiently qualified black pilot. I remain of the view that he was out of line, but I also dislike quotas. He could have just said that the best candidates should get the gig and if they're all black, so be it, but he went a different route. 

He also used surgeons as another example in the video I watched, hence latching onto that in my example. I do agree that he could've probably articulated his point in a less provocative way, but I do get the underlying point he was attempting to make, regardless of how he worded it. Anyway, I'm a fan of people having different viewpoints, so all good 👍🏻 

Edited 10 hours ago by trousers

[Sheaf Saint]

Oof. I get up with a bit of insomnia and check my phone to find two more pages on this since I went to bed.

I started typing out a lengthy reply, but just can't be arsed so I'm gonna summarise it like this...

Is it wrong to hire an unqualified person into a particular role purely because they tick a diversity box? Yes. (I think we are all in agreement with that).

Is it stupid and potentially racist to question whether a black airline pilot is actually qualified to fly a plane purely because of objections to the use of EDI principles in recruitment? Also yes. 

Some clearly believe that Kirk's original quote was just a clumsy choice of words used to make a perfectly valid point. I, however, disagree and am of the opinion that it is indicative of his inherent sense of bigotry, further examples of which are widespread in his speeches and podcasts.

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Oof. I get up with a bit of insomnia and check my phone to find two more pages on this since I went to bed.

I started typing out a lengthy reply, but just can't be arsed so I'm gonna summarise it like this...

Is it wrong to hire an unqualified person into a particular role purely because they tick a diversity box? Yes. (I think we are all in agreement with that).

Is it stupid and potentially racist to question whether a black airline pilot is actually qualified to fly a plane purely because of objections to the use of EDI principles in recruitment? Also yes. 

Some clearly believe that Kirk's original quote was just a clumsy choice of words used to make a perfectly valid point. I, however, disagree and am of the opinion that it is indicative of his inherent sense of bigotry, further examples of which are widespread in his speeches and podcasts.

we will probably disagree about whether he was stupid or racist  in this instance because I think he is making a different point to the one you interpret and he has also quoted DEI as being negative if it promotes white people. So his objection is to DEI not skin colour.

Out of interest, when you mention the other times he has shown bigoted views are you able to provide examples as I can’t find any? There are tens of videos where he is actually promoting positive engagement and coming together between different factions- the opposite of bigotry 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[trousers]

2 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

we will probably disagree about whether he was stupid or racist  in this instance because I think he is making a different point to the one you interpret and he has also quoted DEI as being negative if it promotes white people. So his objection is to DEI not skin colour.

Out of interest, when you mention the other times he has shown bigoted views are you able to provide examples as I can’t find any? There are tens of videos where he is actually promoting positive engagement and coming together between different factions- the opposite of bigotry 

 

That video clip clearly underlines the problem with human beings.... This unproductive desire to choose a 'side' and dogmatically argue a point on that basis, rather than consider a point on a case by case basis..... "Dad: I'm left, therefore I must look at it this way"... "Son: I'm right, therefore I must look at it this way"... blah blah blah... 

(FWIW, 2 days ago I'd never heard of this Charlie Kirk fella and, having now watched a few more of his videos, I can see there's probably a lot more of his philosophies that I would be less keen to defend than I have been with this DEI one. But I think that perhaps underlines my observation... People on all 'sides' have valid points to make from time to time, rather than it being an 'all or nothing' situation most of the time.)

P.s. and, yes, I should probably stick to my usual inane posting style rather than get involved in this serious big boy stuff...

Edited 4 hours ago by trousers

[SWLondon Saint]

6 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

And we know it happened in he UK with fitness standards in the army. I take the point that it's still a pass if they've reached a certain point but I still don't think someone should be elevated above someone else just based on an immutable characteristic. Even if we accept that Charlie Kirk didn't express himself as well as he might have done, his overall point that DEI is wrong is correct.

Well, that's the point - the current status is that members of the majority are elevated over minorities. There's a well known study showing if you send out the same CV, some with a white 'Anglo-saxon' type surname, and others with a foreign person of colour name, the foreign one gets worse responses. For the exact same thing. And a similar study asked lawyers to critique the exact same legal documents with majority or foreign names and people scored the one written by a foreigner lower.

So the evidence is that we do need some DEI just to be aware that if not, we all tend to hire or promote people who look like us or are familiar to us.

[Weston Super Saint]

28 minutes ago, trousers said:

That video clip clearly underlines the problem with human beings.... This unproductive desire to choose a 'side' and dogmatically argue a point on that basis, rather than consider a point on a case by case basis..... "Dad: I'm left, therefore I must look at it this way"... "Son: I'm right, therefore I must look at it this way"... blah blah blah... 

(FWIW, 2 days ago I'd never heard of this Charlie Kirk fella and, having now watched a few more of his videos, I can see there's probably a lot more of his philosophies that I would be less keen to defend than I have been with this DEI one. But I think that perhaps underlines my observation... People on all 'sides' have valid points to make from time to time, rather than it being an 'all or nothing' situation most of the time.)

P.s. and, yes, I should probably stick to my usual inane posting style rather than get involved in this serious big boy stuff...

You ok?  Coming down off the fence may have implications.

[trousers]

20 minutes ago, SWLondon Saint said:

So the evidence is that we do need some DEI

I think that 'some' is perhaps the key word there? Maybe DEI is a good idea in principle, but perhaps how it's been implemented is (partially) flawed...?

[trousers]

5 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You ok?  Coming down off the fence may have implications.

I was attempting to advocate fence-sitting rather than choosing sides...  but, agree, I'm in somewhat uncharted territory here for me, so please cut me some slack ...  😁

Edited 4 hours ago by trousers

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

7 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Under qualified means less qualified than the original standard. The standard will necessarily be lowered in order to reach the racial quota they are aiming for.

People read too much into DEI, I'll ask you straight out then. In this example do you think airlines will lower the standard to fill a quota to fly planes?

You and Ralph are being obtuse, the DEI issue is whole another topic. Which can be positive or negative.

[hypochondriac]

35 minutes ago, SWLondon Saint said:

Well, that's the point - the current status is that members of the majority are elevated over minorities. There's a well known study showing if you send out the same CV, some with a white 'Anglo-saxon' type surname, and others with a foreign person of colour name, the foreign one gets worse responses. For the exact same thing. And a similar study asked lawyers to critique the exact same legal documents with majority or foreign names and people scored the one written by a foreigner lower.

So the evidence is that we do need some DEI just to be aware that if not, we all tend to hire or promote people who look like us or are familiar to us.

I could support some form of blind hiring where people make decisions based on cvs without identifying characteristics. Just because there may be some bias (and I know this isn't always the case) doesn't mean that DEI discrimination is the answer.

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

People read too much into DEI, I'll ask you straight out then. In this example do you think airlines will lower the standard to fill a quota to fly planes?

You and Ralph are being obtuse, the DEI issue is whole another topic. Which can be positive or negative.

I think that no one should get a job over someone else who is more capable based on immutable characteristics like skin colour if this is what is happening. With full implementation of DEI there's certainly potential for that to happen. As long as the best and most capable people are being hired regardless of skin colour then that's the ideal to strive for.

[hypochondriac]

4 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Oof. I get up with a bit of insomnia and check my phone to find two more pages on this since I went to bed.

I started typing out a lengthy reply, but just can't be arsed so I'm gonna summarise it like this...

Is it wrong to hire an unqualified person into a particular role purely because they tick a diversity box? Yes. (I think we are all in agreement with that).

Is it stupid and potentially racist to question whether a black airline pilot is actually qualified to fly a plane purely because of objections to the use of EDI principles in recruitment? Also yes. 

Some clearly believe that Kirk's original quote was just a clumsy choice of words used to make a perfectly valid point. I, however, disagree and am of the opinion that it is indicative of his inherent sense of bigotry, further examples of which are widespread in his speeches and podcasts.

What I've found interesting are the tributes particularly from women, minorities and gay people who knew or interacted with him. I haven't seen a single one so far that wasn't glowing-talking about how supportive he was towards them in private, how he was friendly and spent time with them in their homes, how he helped them with crippling anxiety and gave them confidence, how kind he was to their same sex partners, how he treated minorities like a brother and how he volunteered to assist with theirnorganisations for no money. If he was a bigot then judging by those comments from people who actually knew him he was pretty selective with his bigotry and it doesn't sound like he was a very good one.

Edited 3 hours ago by hypochondriac

[Sheaf Saint]

3 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Out of interest, when you mention the other times he has shown bigoted views are you able to provide examples 

When speaking about Michelle Obama and a number of other prominent black women in US politics he said they "don't have the brain processing power to be successful on their own and needed to steal a white person's slot to be taken seriously".

He tweeted that "Democrat women want to die alone".

He openly told Taylor Swift (who, like her or not, is one of the world's most successful people) that she should reject feminism and submit to her husband.

Generally his entire 'debating' style when it came to women was to talk louder and talk over them, and insist that his rigid Christian beliefs meant he knew better than them what was good for them. His disdain for any woman who wanted to be anything other than a good housewife was very clear and obvious.

He may not have personally used the words 'gays should be stoned to death', the accusation of which Stephen King apologised for. But he did describe the bible passage that sentiment originates from as "God's perfect law". 

[Sheaf Saint]

13 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What I've found interesting are the tributes particularly from women, minorities and gay people who knew or interacted with him. I haven't seen a single one so far that wasn't glowing-talking about how supportive he was towards them in private, how he was friendly and spent time with them in their homes, how he helped them with crippling anxiety and gave them confidence, how kind he was to their same sex partners, how he treated minorities like a brother and how he volunteered to assist with theirnorganisations for no money. If he was a bigot then judging by those comments from people who actually knew him he was pretty selective with his bigotry and it doesn't sound like he was a very good one.

All of which is at odds with his public persona (see my previous post). Which might perhaps suggest that he didn't actually hold many of the views he famously expressed and was only voicing them to be deliberately provocative. Just a thought.

[CB Fry]

Mosley was polite and gentlemanly etc, I'm not sure that in itself refutes or diminishes this guy's declared opinions on abortion or race.

Also I have been reading the "he was so nice behind the scenes, the "real" him wasn't like that etc etc etc.

Basically saying that the guy doing the town hall and podcasts was a character, just an act. I'm not sure that it is better. 

 

Anyway, all I can  see is people trying to have it both ways, simultaneously trying to say he was a moderate and non violent and conciliatory while at the same time trying to demonise and attack the "other side" and seek retribution.

 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

10 hours ago, trousers said:

To repeat an earlier post, I watched the video and it's quite clear to me that he's not being racist, quite the opposite in fact. 

 

Before I continue reading A Place in the Sun....

I agree the point in the first video concerns aptitude over ethnicity.

The second specifically calls for as few gun deaths as possible. But what remains can't be used to overturn the 2nd amendment.

So, the list of shocking statements is out of context and flawed.

However, both of the clips are starters in deeper debates. 

The first on everything from access to education through institutional racism to appropriate entry qualifications for jobs. 

The second on everything to support infrastructure such as physical and mental health, through education and economics to discussions about gun access, lobbies and the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

Hopefully, lots of his debates covered those questions and weren't just swatting away a queue of people with the surface level.

It's a shame there won't be any new ones thanks to some gutless murderer.

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

I think that 'some' is perhaps the key word there? Maybe DEI is a good idea in principle, but perhaps how it's been implemented is (partially) flawed...?

Hit. Nail. Head. And the US implementation is a key contextual difference. US Affirmative Action as it was a few years back was far more interventionalist because putting wrongs right re segregation as discussed with Hypo last night who has lived over there.

I don’t like quotas either as that’s not the way to make inclusivity sustainable - hence Alex’s RAF example which is very rare for the UK - but in the US and SA there was a lot more of it.

So yes, DEI is a good thing and we’ve got the balance about right here with the Equality Act. But there will always be voices who say it doesn’t go far enough or shouldn’t be there at all.

Now, is there any further space on that fence of yours?

Edited 3 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[benjii]

I suppose the positive here is that MAGAs now care about school shootings?

[CB Fry]

Word for word this is just like what the families of Jo Cox and David Amess were saying

 

 

This guy was definitely all about politeness and resolving differences through talking, wasn't he. 

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by CB Fry

[benjii]

She's wasted no time keeping the grift alive. Some MAGAs gonna get rinsed.

 

[hypochondriac]

15 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Hit. Nail. Head. And the US implementation is a key contextual difference. US Affirmative Action as it was a few years back was far more interventionalist because putting wrongs right re segregation as discussed with Hypo last night who has lived over there.

I don’t like quotas either as that’s not the way to make inclusivity sustainable - hence Alex’s RAF example which is very rare for the UK - but in the US and SA there was a lot more of it.

So yes, DEI is a good thing and we’ve got the balance about right here with the Equality Act. But there will always be voices who say it doesn’t go far enough or shouldn’t be there at all.

Now, is there any further space on that fence of yours?

In what way is the equality act comparable to DEI? Positive discrimination is generally outlawed.

Edited 2 hours ago by hypochondriac

[egg]

5 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Word for word this is just like what the families of Jo Cox and David Amess were saying

 

 

This guy was definitely all about politeness and resolving differences through talking, wasn't he. 

 

 

There's nothing like using a tragedy to call for unity and respectful dialogue. Or something. 

[CB Fry]

5 minutes ago, benjii said:

I suppose the positive here is that MAGAs now care about school shootings?

Awful lot of "why can't a father stand up and speak in a university without fearing for his life" performative weeping from the same people who will stand and say nothing should be done to stop hundreds of school children being slaughtered by nutcases with guns.

Kirk diminished those kids to some tiny percentage, suggesting they were a price worth paying for gun ownership and was in the process of sneering at the same point just before he was shot.

But being shot with a gun is bad now, huh.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

8 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

It's only dangerous if you take online persons seriously and take those sort of things offline. I think soggy is a complete bellend but if I ever met him in real life I'm sure I could have a polite conversation and maybe a haircut from his black barber. We don't really know anyone on here (other than the few people I do actually know in real life) and I'm sure the majority are nothing like their online personality.

I'm much the same offline as on.

For example, the better line was "I'm just as awesome offline as I am on here."

But it's an effort to summon my inner ego. Although reading a few Turks posts means I can imitate it. 🙂

Since swearing was mentioned, with the notable exception of my work laptop, I don't offline. So, it would be weird for me to do it here.

[benjii]

Trump is clearly genuinely grieving.

 

 

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

There's nothing like using a tragedy to call for unity and respectful dialogue. Or something. 

Her husband and father to her children has just been shot in the neck and killed. If anything she was positively restrained. 

[Gloucester Saint]

10 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

In what way is the equality act comparable to DEI? Positive discrimination is generally outlawed.

That’s what I’m saying in a nutshell. We concur.

Edited 2 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Her husband and father to her children has just been shot in the neck and killed. If anything she was positively restrained. 

I agree and there has been lots of online vitriol towards him with people mocking his death. Her speech was not a call to arms it was about carrying on his legacy and how she was determined to do it. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Her husband and father to her children has just been shot in the neck and killed. If anything she was positively restrained. 

Restraint is not using that language or tone of voice. It's provocative. Fires over there need dampening, not fuelling by grieving widows. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

I agree and there has been lots of online vitriol towards him with people mocking his death. Her speech was not a call to arms it was about carrying on his legacy and how she was determined to do it. 

I know some in Britain like the whole don't look back in anger thing in the immediate aftermath of a murder but maybe some people in other countries see that for what it is.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I agree and there has been lots of online vitriol towards him with people mocking his death. Her speech was not a call to arms it was about carrying on his legacy and how she was determined to do it. 

That's a very naive take on her message. Those she's speaking to will not interpret it that way. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Restraint is not using that language or tone of voice. It's provocative. Fires over there need dampening, not fuelling by grieving widows. 

I think I'll give her a pass if you have a bit of an issue with her tone considering what's just happened to her. Not sure I'd be as restrained under similar circumstances .

Edited 2 hours ago by hypochondriac

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I could support some form of blind hiring where people make decisions based on cvs without identifying characteristics. Just because there may be some bias (and I know this isn't always the case) doesn't mean that DEI discrimination is the answer.

This is already the case where I work. Applications are blind sifted and scored, and if they achieve the benchmark they will be put forward to the interview stage. It's only at this point that recruiting managers get to see the applicant's personal details. Interview panels will then have at least one person from one of our minority group networks (having undergone all relevant training), to try and avoid any unconscious bias influencing the final outcome.

It works. We have a diverse workforce with people from all kinds of backgrounds, and nobody who is unqualified or incapable ever gets appointed purely because of their ethnicity or other protected characteristic. Nobody is "stealing a white person's slot" as Kirk so crudely put it.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

10 minutes ago, benjii said:

Trump is clearly genuinely grieving.

 

 

He has the emotional responses of a spoiled 4 year old. So eone's put a giant toy truck to build him things in front of him. Of course he's going to be distracted.

Had the truck not being there, I'm sure we'd have got another whole sentence, before he talked about himself again.

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

That's a very naive take on her message. Those she's speaking to will not interpret it that way. 

Did you watch the entire message ?

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

This is already the case where I work. Applications are blind sifted and scored, and if they achieve the benchmark they will be put forward to the interview stage. It's only at this point that recruiting managers get to see the applicant's personal details. Interview panels will then have at least one person from one of our minority group networks (having undergone all relevant training), to try and avoid any unconscious bias influencing the final outcome.

It works. We have a diverse workforce with people from all kinds of backgrounds, and nobody who is unqualified or incapable ever gets appointed purely because of their ethnicity or other protected characteristic. Nobody is "stealing a white person's slot" as Kirk so crudely put it.

I don't believe that's the same thing . Blind selection isn't affirmative action . I also have none of that and my workforce is incredibly diverse so it's not necessarily a requirement.

Edited 2 hours ago by hypochondriac

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, egg said:

That's a very naive take on her message. Those she's speaking to will not interpret it that way. 

Thats clearly not what she is saying. She is talking about how the actions of his killers is going to push her to carry on his work.  People are mocking his death online. She is restrained.

I think that people are looking for an angle because of his political views. Unlike other high profile deaths I don’t think there will be social disorder despite the strength of feeling. So far we have seen vigils and prayers.

[egg]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

Thats clearly not what she is saying. She is talking about how the actions of his killers is going to push her to carry on his work.  People are mocking his death online. She is restrained.

I think that people are looking for an angle because of his political views. Unlike other high profile deaths I don’t think there will be social disorder despite the strength of feeling. So far we have seen vigils and prayers.

That's your take. It's not her message as I see and hear it. Restraint is "his death shouldn't have happened, and while we should all unite, I'll carry Charlie's message". She carries the message of sadness and divide, not sadness and unity. She had a platform to promote some calm, not speak as she did the maga lot. 

[egg]

Anyways, Romsey show this morning, music in the city pm, dinner this evening. I'm out. 

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Anyways, Romsey show this morning, music in the city pm, dinner this evening. I'm out. 

Enjoy the game tomorrow COYS