Howard off Halfix TV Ads.........

[Pervert]

The comment was not aimed at you, and I certainly didn't read it that way.

[Pervert]

Think it was a general rant aimed at therapists.

[Snake Diamond]

As Caractacus said, it wasn't aimed at you, it was moreover part of the rant, part aimed at the fucknut psycho-analist dipshits who think everything you have a problem or issue with, is the result of some bollox from your childhood.

These same Psycho-Twats are the same fucks who try to get so many Criminals off with "they were abused as a child".

CUNTS.

[Snake Diamond]

Not at ANY Therapist mind you, I am a qualified Therapist, only at the Psycho (brain/child/issue) therapists.

My Therapists Qual is in Health & Fitness, esp. Holistic Massage Therapy.

[ATS]

Arginald Valleywater wrote:

> Crofter, you mean Maureen Madill. Don't know where the BBC
> found her but along with "I shagged Monty's wife" Linnaker they
> make the coverage apinful when Alliss and Brown are taking a
> tea break. She is also a complete munter whereas Hazel Irvine
> gives me the horn. Stood next to her up at Loch Lomond last
> month, very pretty and petite.
>
> And Howard is still the biggest twonk on TV.
>
> Currently bubbling Jonathon Woth, Russell "No Talent" Brand,
> Sir Trevor MacDonut (stick to the news mate you are not very
> funny), Graham Norton, whose salary equates to some 23000
> licence payers and the Wank Master General, Lord of all
> Wankers, Grand Chief Wizard of the Lodge of Wankers, ladeez and
> gennelmen, Eamon Holmes!!

Yes!!! Eamon 'come on you reds' Holmes is the biggest prick of them all

[Snake Diamond]

warren zevon rip wrote:

> Snake Diamond wrote:
>
> > As Caractacus said, it wasn't aimed at you, it was moreover
> > part of the rant, part aimed at the fucknut psycho-analist
> > dipshits who think everything you have a problem or issue
> with,
> > is the result of some bollox from your childhood.
>
> Given your list of learning difficulties obviously did not
> start the moment you turned 18, there seems every reason to
> believe that they were certainly affected by your childhood, as
> well as by inherited genetic material. Why is that such a
> surprise to you?

It's not exactly a surprise to me. The "Learning Difficulties" I have stem from birth, not from some form of neglect/physical abuse/lazyness they tried making out.

> 50 years ago you would not have been described as sensitively
> as these descriptions, and no experts would have been called to
> help explain your learning problems.

Exactly, 25 yrs ago, the school I was in at the time, kept arguing about my "Lazyness, & lack of interest in class" I underwent a whole load of Psych Evaluations, Tests, Meeting, Consultations, till I eventually got seen by a Specialist in Learning Difficulties in Children, after spending most of a day with her, she was the 1 who officially rrecognised my "issues", it took the school a further 2 yrs before they would recognise & accept her official report.

> Loads of abusers WERE abused as children. That's just a fact.

Yes, granted that is quite probable in the majority of cases, but to play on that fact as the main reason why they did what they did, & then try & use that as a reason to get off the charge, as "innocent due to childhood trauma" is bollox.

There were plenty of children from pre-1950's who were abused, but you don't find every single 1 of them commiting crimes.

There are plenty of criminals who have the right to use that plea, as a way of getting treatment for their problems, but those who use it as a cop-out is ridiculous (the same as in the 80's n 90's with all those trying to use the "by reason of insanity" plea to get out of going to prison).