egafd.com

I was referring to the bollocks which is your opinion that it's all down to people being black.

I could give a very long reply about drugs, I've done it before but can't be bothered, its pointless discussing it here, especially when its an obvious fact that the drug users feel they do no harm or cause themselves no problems while using it but most accept / realize they have after they stop using them.

With regards to the black thing you've got a chip on your shoulder for some reason, only you know why that is but if I were you I'd get over it life really is way to short.

The world doesn't hate you and I suspect most on the planet don't even know you exist.

Aghhhh......

You're forgiven. !wink!

You really ought to get off that heavy 'huffing' shit, Jaque, it'll do you no good..As opposed to this celebrated person:



Didn't seem to do him any harm.

?I grew up in a household where we took the Mail for a number of years and even as a teenager I knew it was a nasty paper.?

Nasty paper, eh? So are you therefore of the opinion that the millions of blue collar and lower middleclass folk who take The Mail are similarly ?nasty?? Do you consider yourself to be morally superior to them? Do you look down on them with contempt?

And, conversely, do you consider yourself (as a non-Mail reader) to be ?nice?? Are you a paragon of virtue, enlightenment, and morality (whatever that is)? And if so, how did you come to reach this elevated state? Were you ?chosen?? Was it bestowed upon you by some higher authority? Or did you see some of your peers taking a similar stance at uni and thought that it might be cool and trendy to copy them?






Officer Dibble

[quote]Nasty paper, eh? So are you therefore of the opinion that the millions of blue collar and lower middleclass folk who take The Mail are similarly ?nasty??[/quote]

I can't remember Barcode saying the readership were 'nasty', nor that readers of other papers were 'nice'. He simply gave his personal opinion on a certain paper.

Are you purposely reading(no pun intended) too much into it, Dibbs?

"I can't remember Barcode saying the readership were 'nasty', nor that readers of other papers were 'nice'. He simply gave his personal opinion on a certain paper."

No, but it was implicit in what he said.

Now, people who take a sniffy attitude to The Mail and it?s ?nasty? readers tend to be those who espouse the 'respect agenda' which, as far as I can make out, says that everyone should be afforded respect whether they have earnt it (or are deserving of it) or not. So, I was just wondering how The Mail?s detractors squared the ?respect agenda? with sneering at the (largely working class) readership of the tabloids?

The people who sneer at the tabloids and their readers are the ones who tend to confer on themselves enlightenment, a moral superiority ? they consider themselves to be ?the righteous ones?. They then inevitably look down on ignorant tabloid readers with sniffy disdain. The paradox is ? if the ?righteous' non-Mail readers are so good, kind, nice and, well, righteous ? how can they then look down on a large group of their fellow citizens with such arrogance and contempt?

The fact is that they are little better than the ones they turn their noses up at. At least the unpretentious hoi polloi, who take the Mail, Sun, Express, etc, don?t suffer any delusions of moral grandeur.



Officer Dibble

[quote]Now, people who take a sniffy attitude to The Mail and it?s ?nasty? readers...[/quote]

Again, the only person calling Daily Mail readers 'nasty' seems to be you (on this thread anyway).

Since -for instance- the Guardian & Daily Mail have obvious polar political views, they obviously sneer at eachother. Nothing new in that. In fact, just taking this forum as an example, there's more Guardian sneering on here than Daily Mail sneering, don't you think?

[quote]At least the unpretentious hoi polloi, who take the Mail, Sun, Express, etc, don?t suffer any delusions of moral grandeur.[/quote]

True, true....i'll give you that one. I doubt 'morality' even crosses their minds enough for them to become 'delusional' about it.

"Again, the only person calling Daily Mail readers 'nasty' seems to be you (on this thread anyway)."

But I haven't called them nasty - I just suggested that it was implicit that they were nasty in Barcode's statement about The Mail (a nasty paper for nasty people). Anyhow, lets stop dancing on the head of a pin - life's to short. We both know what we're talking about.


"True, true....i'll give you that one. I doubt 'morality' even crosses their minds enough for them to become 'delusional' about it."

And I'll give you that one.




Officer Dibble