egg

You've kind of proved Itchen's point tbh. Where you're argument falls on its arse is the comment that disabled forum users may be offended by these two words. Firstly, this acknowledges that the terms are still offensive to a group of people which negates your silly point about asking whether the terms in fact remain offensive! Secondly, the forum is public and open to all. Anyone can view it, kids, and disabled people alike. People need to respect that they cannot control their audience. Making comments to your mates in private is one thing but a forum is different. You concede that these terms could offend some and will know that such people, or those close to them , could view them. Against that background would it not be more appropriate to stop using the terms rather than seeking to justify doing do. Just a thought.

Does anyone who went know who played wide left, and how he played.

Nokia Lumia 610, and the 800, are available for that kind of money. Quality bits of kit and a doddle to use. More apps on anything Android though. Those recommended above are all decent. An Orange San Francisco 2 at £50 would get my vote. Get it unlocked and you've got a great phone for little money.

It's over for me, but others may have an opinion.

Tokyo, firstly I haven't said anything to suggest I want the thread to end. My comment was light hearted, and frankly, was meant as a statement that I rarely see any evidence of effective modding anywhere on the forum. Secondly, I have said that this thread is about thje use of two words (it is) although I have given a reply to Turkish (i think) about a couple of others and stated that context is crucial to the use of some words. Kraken made some good points on that. Broadly I agree with him, but the difference is that using words like spaz around your mates (without others over hearing) is different to using it around anonymous people on a forum and in the knowledge that otheers will read it. I apperciate that some post all day on here. I've got better things to do with my time than give an opinion on the use of various words. If I get into a discussion on certain words, then you and others will bang on all day. The op makes a point that I agree with. You don't and I'm not interested in extending the discussion. Vocal minority is a simple concept. You,and a few others, have more to say than most others on most topics - this included. You are, therefore, the minority of posters but collectively the most vocal.

We have mods?

This thread is about two words. Don't veer off course to try to justify your use of these offensive terms.

That's the point. If you wouldn't call a disabled person a mong or spaz then you do understand the terms to be offensive, surely? The fact that the words themselves aren't illegal doesn't make it socially acceptable to use them! Its about commonsense. Those using the terms on here clearly have the vocabulary to use alternatives. Instead, they choose to use terms which me, the op and others find unacceptable in any context.

The op referred to 2 specific words. In what context do you deem them acceptable?

But the vocal minority who use those terms are quite articulate.

See, context.

See my point on context. You can refer to a bald man as a bald man. You can't taunt him about it. Thus the term is acceptable in context. Spaz and Mong are unacceptable in any context. As for who, I think I speak for myself and the average person. You will have a different view as you are one of the vocal minority. Del, I'd love to debate your views on socially acceptable language and its use but I've a living to make. Please read and have regard to other comments which agree with the op. I repeat, you're in the vocal minority.

It's context. Stuart Pearce loved his nickname. Doubt he would have felt the same about 'spazzy'.

But Tokyo its where a line gets drawn. If you described someone in conversation as a spaz or mong its offensive. Pyscho or nutter isn't. Bald isn't an offensive term on its own. Neither is fat, or short. Sadly I'm all 3 of them but neither term is offensive. My sister on the other hand has learning disabilities. If we met and you asked after my mong or spaz sister words would be had.

Whilst I respect the sentiments of the op he must remember that this is a football forum. Mong and Spaz are terms that are offensive of people with learning disabilities and other disabilities. Your average person would understand and respect that. In my experience the noisy minority on this forum are like the vocal minority at matches, ie they make lots of noise regardless of what the reasonable majority think.

Er, how is this Downing/Saints related?

This thread is painful. Of course he hasn't always been sh!te. He was superb for Boro and Villa and has shown glimpses at Liverpool. He hasn't peaked. His confidence is shot like many who were signed by Dalglish and played under him. Given the right man management and confidence he could be a very decent player again. On the right terms, I would take him.

If you can get through a 10 mile you'll get through a half. The terrain comes into a bit though. If you do a hilly half after a flat 10 mile you'll know the difference. If you do a flat half after to a hilly 10 mile you'll find it broadly comparable. Just increase the length of you're distance training runs slightly. Also do plenty of stamina stuff (hills, steps, fart lekking) just to give you a bit more in the tank. You part of a running club? If not try one and train with others working towards similar distances and take their advice.

If you'd asked me this before lallana got injured I would have said Gaston. If lallana is out then Oxo to cover the left wing. Potentially I think that oxo actually has a bit more. He has pace and dribbling quality which I'm not sure Gaston has. Two things are certain. They're both fine players, but Gaston will have a team built around him and will develop so much better here than oxo will there.

Question 1. Yes, imo. Society has moved on. Others have a different view. That leads to Questions 2 and 3. I can't see how their can be compromise on the church issue. Civil partnership, outside of church, and without an assumption of an exclusive relationship, is a compromise too far imo. We ain't going to see eye to eye on this del. You've made your point and we'll have to agree to differ.

This has been answered. To answer, again, is that they should have the choice. It may be hypocritical, and perhaps unwise, but they should not be precluded the option.

Pretty much what saintandy says. I've dealt with your last two questions before and frankly we're going around in circles. You think that gay people can't be christians and shouldn't have the right to a proper and/or church wedding. I disagree. You think that because a church may disaprove of gay marriage, a gay couple shouldn't be given the choice to marry there. You confuse the ability to have a free choice with the wisdom of a particular decision. Your first question, well I can't disagree more. Assume for one moment that someone discovers faith before their sexuality. Must they then take a vow of celibacy? Should they give up their faith? Why should they give up either?

This one bothers me. A Christian can choose to follow the religion and believe in it entirely. He may be gay though, and has no choice about that. Clearly he's in conflict with a particular part of his faith but surely he can still be a practicing, christian. In that situation why should he precluded from marrying in a religious setting, and in a faith, that he believes in? I get the point that on a strict interpretation of his faith his sexuality will be looked down upon, but should he not be able to decide that he can tolerate the intolerance of others?

Religion, as you say, is a belief. It's a belief made by choice. Homosexuality is not a belief. Like gender, race, disability etc it's something that is not a belief or choice. In my opinion society should not discriminate against those who do not have a choice in favour of those who do.

Interesting. We need another defensive midfielder to ease the burden on cork and Morgan. 2mil for a 25 cap full international with plenty of top flight experience in France looks like excellent value.