Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 4,051-4,100 of 12,463

[Hazel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdTELo...

[Travis]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Travis wrote: "...and go watch some Doctor Who..."

Ah, now there's a way to start an arguement amongst geeks...who was the best Dr?
(Pertwee or Baker for me.)"

Not getting into that argument. It'll get uglier than the Bond one.
I love them all and will watch episodes from any Doctor's era.

Right now I'm watching 'The Ark' from the Hartnell years.

[Hazel]

I'm watching "The Time of Angels", as its the episode currently on TV

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I've enjoyed this thread, meet some nice people , had some good conversations, learned more about Sean Bean than I ever thought I would, but liking folks on the other side and even listening to them with an open mind changes the imbalance in this debate or gains religion some magic shield from criticism."

Hmmm....

I have a question, Travis. I'm not sure if you were talking in general or referring to my post. If you were referring to my post ....

Did I say anything that makes it seem I want a magic shield from criticism for religion or spiritual beliefs?

I think I was pretty clear about the fact that several atheists have led me to question several things about my beliefs. And, some atheists have gone on the record as saying that's their intent. Conversion? No. Questioning? Yes.

Religious beliefs criticized. Check. Uncomfortable questioning. Check. But, that's okay with me.

I don't know that I'm right in this. Who knows?! But, as I was reading your post, I found myself wondering ...

Does finding out that not all believers are close-minded, anti-love, haters of all religions except theirs make it uncomfortable for you and others? Does it lead to a similar feeling of discomfort as I've had when I've had to choose ... stop reading posts from that site or have my beliefs challenged?

Questioning what I believe and why and being asked to think about those fig tree moments make me pretty uncomfortable. Does listening to me, for example, with an open mind truly lead to a fig tree moment for you? Does it really create an "imbalance" in this debate? Does listening to someone who doesn't fit the religious stereotype truly lead to an imbalance, a level of discomfort?

I mean, I don't know. Just asking the question ....

Does it truly gain for religion some magic shield against criticism?

Other than sharing my experiences and showing that not all people who believe in spiritual things are raving lunes who refuse to question, spit on homosexuals, and talk trash about people of other religions behind their backs, how would listening to me with an open mind lead to an imbalance?

Or, is it like Hazel's jokes about eating babies or whatever she said yesterday? She was pointing to the fact that some believers truly think things like this about atheists. Horrible things. Stereotypes and worse.

It's easy for them. Atheists are monsters, at worst, pawns of the devil, at best. Therefore, they don't need to listen to one thing that atheists say and don't need to spend any time wondering if atheists might have it right ... at least in some respects.

Is it easier for us when we can fit people in little compartments?

The religious are a bunch of fundamentalist yahoos. Atheists are in league with dark forces and want to suck the spirits of unsuspecting believers out of their bodies as they sleep. Woo hoo. We know who all the players are. Phew.

It can't be that. Can it? I mean that ... that would almost be akin to wanting the world that religious fundamentalists want. Stress almost. Where everyone is the same or you damn sure know who the other guy is and what he's about. Stress he. Clear. No need for thought. No need to keep an open mind. There are roles that are played. Religious = fundamentalists who refuse to think. Atheists = people who are actually capable of rational thought.

Anything else would cause an imbalance. And, if we realized someone didn't fit the fundamentalist freak mold, religion might get a magic shield.

Really?

Again, I don't know. I also feel I should point out I might have gotten too much sun today and came in as a result. So ... who knows what I just read or just wrote? But, I do still think I'm lucid.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Hazel wrote: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdTELo..."

Hey, you know they're justified and they're ancient...

[Hazel]

For the record, I have the utmost respect for you and the way you interact with us, Shannon, and that you do give due consideration to what we say, and challenge us straight back in a genuine way. And that we can talk about the pros and cons of good looking film stars :P

one thing though:

Atheists are in league with dark forces and want to suck the spirits of unsuspecting believers out of their bodies as they sleep.

its atheists that get huffed, not that do the huffing...

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/At...

:D

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I've enjoyed this thread, meet some nice people , had some good conversations, learned more about Sean Bean than I ever thought I would, but liking folks on the other side and even l..."

Thinking people know there are nuances. Unfortunately, it isn't people who value thinking who end up in positions of power. To lead, one must devolve the conversation into sound bites and excite the mostly non-thinking public. The power hungry leaders create straw dog enemies, like ALL Muslims are terrorists (which isn't true) or illegal immigrants are taking jobs away (also not true) to either get votes or distract from other issues, like the economy. The non-thinking public, if not trained to question, follow blindly. Thus the fears of the thinkers, and why the effort of thinkers' to show its better to question.

Atheists fear state laws enforcing Religion. Thus this thread.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I've enjoyed this thread, meet some nice people , had some good conversations, learned more about Sean Bean than I ever thought I would, but liking folks on the other side and even l..."


My post was a combination of some things you said and some general notions that had been bubbling in my brain.
I talk alot of politics and things at work and so this thread and ideas from talking to my co-workers cross pollinate.

It's not that all religious folk are fundamentalist nutjobs, but that to an atheist ( and I'm speaking for me, not the Grand council of atheists based in a secret bunker in Geneva) religion tends to want to be seen as on equal footing with science in this debate, but can't ever be.
It's basically a big group of people that just so happen to all have the same imaginary friend.

No way to say that and not have it sound mean, but I'm not going for snark.
I've met an equal mix of nice people and jerks in all walks of life and of all beliefs, and as interesting as it can be to talk to any and all of them and as friendly as this thread can be, there is always that stumbling block, as we must be careful not to be overly mean or disrespectful of religious belief when it is people putting magic up as the guiding force for deciding laws/rules/morals for all of us.
It doesn't matter if you are a fundamentalist or just a 'goes to church on easter and christmas', you all want magic to be treated equally or even more importantly than actual physical science and the real world.
That is the magic shield religion gets and it gets it everyday, in every walk of life, everywhere that there is a dominant religion.

Again, this isn't leveled at any individuals, but in general. The whole idea of how the dynamic works unbalances/ influences the debates, as though we may disagree, when we talk to individuals and get to know and like people it changes how we talk.
It's not stereotyping, nor having an open mind, but rather a fundamental part of the debate that gets in the way.

Even typing this, I feel like I'm being mean, and have re-phrased things a couple times and will alienate a chunk of the thread.
That's the magic shield, it is a conditioning that there is no getting away from when it comes to talking religion.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Atheists are in league with dark forces and want to suck the spirits of unsuspecting believers out of their bodies as they sleep.

its atheists that get huffed, not that do the huffing...

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/At...

:D "

One learns something new every day!!

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Even typing this, I feel like I'm being mean, and have re-phrased things a couple times and will alienate a chunk of the thread. That's the magic shield, it is a conditioning that there is no getting away from when it comes to talking religion. "

I appreciate your response and your thoughts, Travis. I'm going to think it over.

I just wonder ...

Is it truly a magic shield that pops up when talking about religion? Maybe. Or, is it ... hmmm ... giving more thought to what one says because ... one might be talking with someone who doesn't fit the stereotype and is being open-minded and does stand for morals and justice that should hold true for all people not just the "in" people?

You know?

I will think on it ... :)

[Hazel]

Oh sometimes, people definitely play the "religions is sacrosanct and can't be discussed" card. I fact, I've seen it put in almost those exact words.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: Is it easier for us when we can fit people in little compartments?

The religious are a bunch of fundamentalist yahoos. Atheists are in league with dark forces and want to suck the spirits of unsuspecting believers out of their bodies as they sleep. Woo hoo. We know who all the players are. Phew.

.."

.....and it is sometimes wrong to be offended

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Oh sometimes, people definitely play the "religions is sacrosanct and can't be discussed" card. I fact, I've seen it put in almost those exact words."

Yes, I agree. I've done it myself. In my culture, it's not done. To question someone's religious beliefs or where the person goes to church, etc.... Whether you agree or don't agree with their beliefs, it just doesn't matter. You're never to say a word about it. It's seen as disrespectful. Period.

But, we went down that road, and I think I learned something.

For me, I believe people should have the right to believe or not. I'm not going to say their belief, in general, is wrong. For example, I'm not going to tell Catholics they're wrong. That they shouldn't be Catholic. I won't say that, in general. I likely would never say it about something specific, like women ... their belief that women shouldn't be able to be priests, etc.... Do I believe women are equal and should be treated as such? Yes. But, I'm not Catholic, and it's not my business. Unless, of course, laws are being violated. Then, things get murky. And, when it comes to children being hurt, I get bloodthirsty.

But, I'm not going to force that cultural upbringing on others, especially in this thread. I might say ... this is my culture ... but I'm going to leave it at that.

In my post to Travis, though, I'm not arguing that religions are sacrosanct. I'm not arguing that in my post to Cerebus either. And, I don't think, by better understanding people who are believers, that atheists need not question or disagree.

I so hope I just made sense. I think I got dehydrated with all that sun. And, I've no idea who Dr. Who might be? Oh, I googled it. But, I must admit I'm at a loss.

I think I'll just close my eyes and focus on Sean Bean. And ... get a glass of water ... before I close my eyes.

[[deleted user]]

cs wrote: ".....and it is sometimes wrong to be offended "

I don't know what you're referring to, cs. I'd need more in order to respond.

[Hazel]

Shannon wrote: "cs wrote: ".....and it is sometimes wrong to be offended "

I don't know what you're referring to, cs. I'd need more in order to respond."

he's being facetious,because he took offence from something I said, and then tried to offend me and it didn't work, because as far as I'm concerned, saying that you're offended is tantamount to saying that you can't control your emotional response to what someone else has said, such as when they've stated an opinion that isn't the same as yours, or been honest enough to say what they think. And also, his opinion of me means squat to me, I couldn't care less if he tries to attack my character, his opinion of me has less worth to me than a shit sandwich.

"That offends me" is the mating call of the lesser spotted whinger.

Its fine to get upset by something, but at least take a moment to compose yourself, and respond in a rational fashion.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "cs wrote: ".....and it is sometimes wrong to be offended "

I don't know what you're referring to, cs. I'd need more in order to respond."

You were offended by something I said a few days ago. You took the word out of context so that you could play the offended card. We all have crosses to bare in this world( no religious pun intended), but some don't bring them to the debate.

That's all. I sometimes think, that Hazel thinks, every remark is aimed at her :)

[Hazel]

nah, I don't think that every post is aimed at me, the very fact I don't respond to every single post asif its aimed at me makes that idea demonstrably false, but that came fast on the heels of something relating to offence and me, and you attempting to offend me in the most laughable fashion I've seen in a while.

I can accept I made a mistake, and simply linked it to the most recent example of offence based ramblings. Shannon, it turns out, he was making a facetious remark about something that happened with you, while also accusing you of deliberately misunderstanding a word so you could have a go at him about it, whereas we have previously had similar problems (I recall it happening a couple of times a few months ago when yu and I had that full conversation), and we simply explained that we didn't mean offence, explained ourselves, and moved on, so I'm reasonably certain, based on past experience, that you probably didn't take the word out of context deliberately.

So there you go, I made an incorrect assumption, and I admit that I was wrong... *looks around, checks I'm still here*... yup, I've not gone up in a puff of smoke, from some peoples inability to do that, I had started to think that maybe it had hideous side effects, or deadly results.

[[deleted user]]

cs wrote: "You took the word out of context so that you could play the offended card."

Is that what I did? Took a word out of context so that I could play the offended card. Is that similar to the race card?

How do you know this? How do you know that I read your post and decided to take a word out of context in order to play the "offended" card?

In point of fact, I didn't have that intent and didn't make that decision. If I remember correctly, I tried to discuss your points regarding morality when you first started bringing them up. I tried to, and I think fairly nicely, question if you really meant what you were saying ... because some of what you were saying seemed very, well, condescending, and I just didn't know if that's what you meant. If I remember correctly, you said you didn't mean it that way. But, days later, you started making the same argument, the argument that, if memory serves, you said you didn't intend to make. The posts went round and round and round for days.

In the end, I got incredibly frustrated, cs. Guilty. Was I offended? I probably was offended. However, what I truly remember was frustration.

Why was I so frustrated?

I felt you were trying to make an argument for the sake of making an argument. It seemed to me that it was almost like a game to you. What to say? What not to say? A game of words.

That pretty much frustrated the heck out of me, because you were attempting to use, in my opinion, American Indians to make some sort of point ... in some game of words ... to win an argument for argument's sake.

Yup. That frustrated the heck out of me, because it's not a game for some of us. My ancestry? English, Welsh, Irish, French, Mohawk, and Blackfoot.

I don't like games. I'm well aware that people play games and vie for power and try to win for the sake of winning. I'm also aware that such choices and actions have consequences.

Now, was that your intent? To play word games and try to win an argument regardless.

I truly don't know. Really. I don't.

But, from reading your posts from the beginning, it's a feeling I get. It doesn't seem to me that you just come out and say what you want to say, make your points, clearly state your thoughts. You do sometimes. Other times, you make cryptic statements about wooden spoons and talk about the fact that it's bad to take offense, when the post you were responding to had nothing to do with taking offense or not, .... You leave us guessing as to your intent. If Hazel guessed wrong, it's not necessarily because she thinks every post is about her. It's because you didn't come out and say what you actually meant, leaving her and everyone else to guess at what you might have meant.

I'm going to stop.

Is it wrong to take offense? Probably. I won't say otherwise. But, there's a lot of wrong in this world. I think the point is to be honest and real and attempt to do as much right as possible and to stand for what is right in the best way one possibly can.

[Hazel]

you'll probably like this sentiment, Shannon:

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "you'll probably like this sentiment, Shannon:

"

Love this quote.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: "cs wrote: "You took the word out of context so that you could play the offended card."

Is that what I did? Took a word out of context so that I could play the offended card. Is that similar to t..."

Is it wrong to take offense? Probably

That's what I added to the list in message 4201 and you have just confirmed.

You asked what it was about, I had not intended to raise the issue, but since you now have, the issue was nothing to do with Native Americans, although you made it so.

I could have equally given the New Zealand Māori as an example of people who had remained untouched by Christianity and the world outside of their own land. I changed the word discovered to 'found' but it seems that nothing less than 'invaded' would have pleased you. The context was not about the word 'found' it was about what I've just explained. But you decided to change the direction of the discussion to your advantage.

In Europe history tells us that America was discovered, you did not just suggest another word to complete the sentence as I asked, you made it clear how offended you were, to the extent that many jumped on the bandwaggon and some posts further down, Hitler manager to find his way into the debate. At that moment a line was crossed and I ended my part in the debate.

[[deleted user]]

cs wrote: "I changed the word discovered to 'found' but it seems that nothing less than 'invaded' would have pleased you.
...

But you decided to change the direction of the discussion to your advantage.

In Europe history tells us that America was discovered, you did not just suggest another word to complete the sentence as I asked,"

Regarding your first statement in the above ...

After you became "offended" by my agreeing with Gary and using the word "invaded" ... I said I'd be comfortable with colonized. So, in truth, I think I showed other words would "please" me.

Regarding the second statement in the above ...

What advantage? Could you please be more specific?

What evidence do you have, given the posts I've made over the past several months, that I have, hmmm, I'm not sure, ulterior motives or is that not the right phrase, that would lead me to orchestrate a change in the direction of the discussion for my advantage?

I'm quite interested and would like to see what specific examples you might be able to find in my posts that might lead you to believe this.

Regarding the third statement in the above ...

How does this make sense? "You did not just suggest another word to complete the sentence as I asked ..." I thought I did. Invaded. Right? I mean, no other word would please me. Right?

At one moment you take offense at invaded, especially in a friendly debate, and, in the next moment, you say I didn't suggest another word as you asked.

I'm confused. I actually suggested two, with a nod to Gary.

Can you clear up that confusion?

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: "Oh sometimes, people definitely play the "religions is sacrosanct and can't be discussed" card. I fact, I've seen it put in almost those exact words."

I really don't see it as a card to be played, but something so ingrained and pervasive that it's already there in any discussion, it doesn't need to be summoned up.

It's in big places ( Obama is seen as not fit to be President because he is accused of being Muslim: he believes in the wrong man in the sky. Instead of pointing out how crazy that argument is the effort Obama makes has to be to convince people he believes in the right man in the sky)

To little, I know typing this thread I had trouble because I knew what I wanted to say, but didn't want to hurt anybodies feelings and that stopped me a couple times.
No card was played, I was doing it myself.

But, enough of that, important stuff, Shannon has no idea who Doctor Who is?
Let us all pause for a moment to feel sad for her...

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "But, enough of that, important stuff, Shannon has no idea who Doctor Who is? Let us all pause for a moment to feel sad for her... "

Ah, man ...! Now I'm even more intrigued ... and feel even more sad for not knowing who this Who person might be.

Does Dr. Who look anything at all like Sean Bean?

Sigh ....

I'd have to run to the bookstore and look in the British section for a Dr. Who DVD.

[[deleted user]]

As an aside, ....

If Sean Bean were a reader and had a Goodreads account ...

If he read Angels and Demons and this thread popped up on his Goodreads homepage ...

If he read this thread ...

Do you think he'd fall on the floor with laughter, or do you think he'd be mildly creeped out?

(What am I saying? Sean Bean would never fall on the floor. Too athletic and, well, amazing.... What was I thinking?)

Amendment ...

Do you think he'd laugh out loud, or do you think he'd think some of our posts are a bit sketchy?

[Vaishnavee]

This is a tough one....I'd have to go with a world without science. I'm not sure I can logically why I choose this, though.

[Robin]

I think a world without religion is better. We were given just those two choices, so I choose religion. In the name of religion many wars have been fought, and I want all wars to end. But, hey that's just me.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "As an aside, ....

If Sean Bean were a reader and had a Goodreads account ...

If he read Angels and Demons and this thread popped up on his Goodreads homepage ...

If he read this thread ...

I'm sure he'd say "I must meet that Shannon woman, she seems a witty, insightful, if a touch stalkery woman. Quick! To the Bean-mobile!"

What kind of books does a guy that can shrug off a stab wound read?



Do y..."

[Tim]

I have just spent some time reading through this thread and it's fascinating. People's characters really come through. Basically most of us just want to get along and be cool with each other. And it is so cool to be able to do this. Here I sit in at the arse end of Africa talking to all you people in the first world. I know I piss some people off and I'm a bit dark and cynical sometimes but hey, if you had lived through what I have down here you'd also be a bit dark and cynical. Don't think apartheid only fucked up black people, my friends. We all got fucked up by it.

I'm a bit drunk now, as we are a nation of drunkards, and i've just got back from a birthday party where we played songs and forgot our troubles for a few hours. But what I'd like to say is this, regarding this thread: I will respect your right to believe whatever the fuck you like, until the day I die. But don't expect me to respect the belief itself. That's another story altogether. Hocus pocus is hocus pocus. If it's nothing but abracadabra I reserve the right to say so. Some Christians act so put upon and discriminated against, and you'll get short thrift with me, my friends, if you sit there in your comfy suburbs in the first world feeling victimized. If you don't like what I have to say about your faith, tough titty. I'm not going to tiptoe around anyone in the first world, and the cynical opinions of some dude at the southern tip of the arse end of Africa shouldn't hurt you in the slightest. If it does you got serious issues.

That being said I am really loving connecting with the world like this. I have lived on the fucking breadline for 15 odd years here. Being an artist here is no easy ride. I live off the equivalent of about 200 pounds a month. But now and again I get a small windfall and I can buy myself something nice, like an iPhone, so that i dont have to go sit in dodgy Nigerian internet cafes to go online. It's been cool connecting with you all.

[Drew]

Tim wrote: "I have just spent some time reading through this thread and it's fascinating. People's characters really come through. Basically most of us just want to get along and be cool with each other. And i..."

Very glad to have your opinion Tim

[[deleted user]]

Robin wrote: "I think a world without religion is better. We were given just those two choices, so I choose religion. In the name of religion many wars have been fought, and I want all wars to end. But, hey th..."

While some wars have been fought over religion, not all wars have been or are fought over faith. Therefore, "all wars" will not end.

[[deleted user]]

Tim wrote: "But don't expect me to respect the belief itself."

Hmmm.... Has someone on this thread asked you to respect the belief itself? I don't recall that having happened recently.

Speaking for myself, I'd never ask anyone to believe as I do. People have a right to believe or not as they choose. I stand for the rights of believers and the rights of atheists. But, I realize that's just me.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I'm sure he'd say "I must meet that Shannon woman, she seems a witty, insightful, if a touch stalkery woman. Quick! To the Bean-mobile!" What kind of books does a guy that can shrug off a stab wound read?"

;) I promise I have never stalked a celebrity. Of course, I've never crossed paths with Sean Bean ....

Now, regarding what kind of books he would read .... What a fascinating question? Hmmm.... James Clavell or le Carre?

[Robin]

I must be living in a cave never heard of Sean Bean, and it is kinds off topic isn't it?

[[deleted user]]

Just typed in ... what books does Sean Bean read ... in Google.

He says he's read Martin.

But, that's all I got.

Sigh ...

;)

[Old-Barbarossa]

Robin wrote: "I must be living in a cave never heard of Sean Bean, and it is kinds off topic isn't it?"

It's closer to being on topic than some of the tangents...well...for those that are seanarians and worship SB by taking the sacramant of Newcastle Brown.
Heretics all!

[[deleted user]]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "It's closer to being on topic than some of the tangents...well...for those that are seanaria..."

Ahahahaha ....

(Had to look up Newcastle Brown. Wondering about Dr. Who's take on the stuff.)

[Old-Barbarossa]

Shannon wrote: "Wondering about Dr. Who's take on the stuff..."

Current Dr is more of a fish-fingers and custard type of chap.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Shannon wrote: "Had to look up Newcastle Brown..."

No idea if he drinks the stuff...but it is popular with the northern fellows...or southerners if you're from north of the wall...all a matter of perspective really.
Winter is coming after all...

[Hazel]

Robin wrote: "I must be living in a cave never heard of Sean Bean, and it is kinds off topic isn't it?"

we all need a little light relief at times, the tangents are fun and help us bond. PLus you'll know who sean bean is on sight, he played Boromir in Lord of the Rings.

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "It's closer to being on topic than some of the tangents...well...for those that are seanarians and worship SB by taking the sacramant of Newcastle Brown."

Newcastle Brown is Tyne water... Seans a yorkshireman, so it has to be Black Sheep...

[Hazel]

Travis wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Oh sometimes, people definitely play the "religions is sacrosanct and can't be discussed" card. I fact, I've seen it put in almost those exact words."

I really don't see it as a card..."

Yeah, I know, I got that, but it does actually get directly played at times, I've actually seen people on goodreads say that we shouldn't discuss faith, in no uncertain terms.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Hazel wrote: "Newcastle Brown is Tyne water... Seans a yorkshireman, so it has to be Black Sheep..."

All southern shandy drinking to me I'm afraid...

;)

[Hazel]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Newcastle Brown is Tyne water... Seans a yorkshireman, so it has to be Black Sheep..."

All southern shandy drinking to me I'm afraid...

;)"

southern shandy drinking is anywhere south of lincolnshire, Yorkshiremen drink proper drinks.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Hazel wrote: "southern shandy drinking is anywhere south of lincolnshire, Yorkshiremen drink proper drinks..."

All south of the wall...
Mind there's probably one family up in Unst think we're all southern shandy drinkers.

[Hazel]

lager and lime drinking southern poofters...

[Old-Barbarossa]

Hazel wrote: "lager and lime drinking southern poofters..."

You been reading VIZ?
Heard Frankie Boyle on this subject:
asked a Glasgow barman for a lager and lime...he said, "sorry mate, we don't do cocktails"

[Tim]

Tim wrote: "I have just spent some time reading through this thread and it's fascinating. People's characters really come through. Basically most of us just want to get along and be cool with each other. And i..."

Forgive my outpourings last night. I was drunk as a lord. Still, no typos though. I'm surprised.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Tim wrote: "Forgive my outpourings last night. I was drunk as a lord. Still, no typos though. I'm surprised..."

Not shandy then sir?

[Hazel]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Hazel wrote: "lager and lime drinking southern poofters..."

You been reading VIZ?
Heard Frankie Boyle on this subject:
asked a Glasgow barman for a lager and lime...he said, "sorry mate, we don't ..."

heh, I haven't read any viz since I was about 15. I've seen Frankie Boyles take on drinking :D

Wow, viz... Finbar Saunders and his Double Entendres Fnarfnar

[Tim]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Hazel wrote:
You been reading VIZ?
Heard Frankie Boyle on this subject:
asked a Glasgow barman for a lager and lime...he said, "sorry mate, we don't ..."

Do they still publish VIZ? I first got hold of a whole pile of them back in 92, and nearly laughed my head off. Saved my sanity that year. God, nobody does it like you English. Cockney Wanker, Roger Mellie, Fat Slags, Modern Parents. Hillarious. Must try get my hands on some again.