Saint86 Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 I'm sorry but I don't think calling someone a name that they are not is in anyway crossing so far over a line that we need a thread about how non Political correct it is. Please grow a pair. I agree whole heartily with the view that insulting/abusing someone because/about THEIR mental illness is utterly unacceptable OFC. But calling someone a spaz on a internet forum. Bugger me with a small wooden fork..... that is a serious internet crime. People are right, we are turning into a fanbase of wet fannies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 I shall be using "spud" from hereon in. Surely no-one can complain about being liked to the honest, bland, upstanding, ugly, solid, lumpy, wholesome potato or sharing its advanced intellectual capacity ? Spud, Spuddie and Spudulike (that's spud-ooh-lick-uh, not spud-you-like) are the future. Strange how people can ascribe enough meaning to "mongtard" to be offended though, it's a completely made up word. Spurs fans might be offended by it, we "mock" them with spuds dont we. also any Irish posters might think you are mocking them. IN fact, i'm offended as someone that is a fan of Boyzone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 I'm sorry but I don't think calling someone a name that they are not is in anyway crossing so far over a line that we need a thread about how non Political correct it is. Please grow a pair. I agree whole heartily with the view that insulting/abusing someone because/about THEIR mental illness is utterly unacceptable OFC. But calling someone a spaz on a internet forum. Bugger me with a small wooden fork..... that is a serious internet crime. People are right, we are turning into a fanbase of wet fannies! it's not just the fanbase, its across society. Everyday people are "outraged" by this that and the other. Last week one of the women on the hillborough commitee said she took it as a personal insult that they were discussing bring back terraces. why? no one said, "ahh well, now we know it's the polices fault we can bring back terraces, i know people died but if you're going to make an omlette and all that......" Everyone aknowledges Hillsbourgh was a terrible tradegy but are we not allowed to move on from that without offending people? In reality all people do is draw attention to it by their outrage. How many people would be aware or care if Ricky Gervais had said "mong" on stage once if there hadn't been outrage over it, phone ins and people on the radio condeming him because their children have learning difficulties. The problem with society it's become full of people who take everything personally, are outraged and offended by everything and even worse, people who are regularly offended for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 Ultimately, shouldn't people care less about the use of words which have evolved over time and are used with different connotations to perhaps the original meaning and be more concerned with how they and others treat each other in their day to day REAL interactions? Gaurenteed that if we all audited each others interactions a fair perecentage would find something which offends them but not others so why spend time annoyed about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 it's not just the fanbase, its across society. Everyday people are "outraged" by this that and the other. Last week one of the women on the hillborough commitee said she took it as a personal insult that they were discussing bring back terraces. why? no one said, "ahh well, now we know it's the polices fault we can bring back terraces, i know people died but if you're going to make an omlette and all that......" Everyone aknowledges Hillsbourgh was a terrible tradegy but are we not allowed to move on from that without offending people? In reality all people do is draw attention to it by their outrage. How many people would be aware or care if Ricky Gervais had said "mong" on stage once if there hadn't been outrage over it, phone ins and people on the radio condeming him because their children have learning difficulties. The problem with society it's become full of people who take everything personally, are outraged and offended by everything and even worse, people who are regularly offended for others.[/QUOTE] Whilst completely unaware that they probably on occassion act in such a way that would be considered offensive to someone else somewhere in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 Spurs fans might be offended by it, we "mock" them with spuds dont we. also any Irish posters might think you are mocking them. IN fact, i'm offended as someone that is a fan of Boyzone. Nice try, but I can see you have potato sympathies and are trying to ascribe your offence elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 Nice try, but I can see you have potato sympathies and are trying to ascribe your offence elsewhere. are saying because i'm bald i look like a potato?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 Exactly Turkish, the whole 'wet fanny' thing stems from people's own sense of self-importance. As a culture few are as self important as the Americans. It is no coincidence that the list of banned words over there is as long as your arm. This country is going the same way. Have you noticed it is no longer man of the match, it is player of the match or person of the match (even on football manager). Harringay changing it's name to Haringey, changing the colours of the bins inislington from black to green (?) so as not to cause offence. Lollypop people, referee assistants not lines men or even people. In america it is even frowned on by some to say waitress or waiter, you should use the term server and never ever ever say housewife! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 it's not just the fanbase, its across society. Everyday people are "outraged" by this that and the other. Last week one of the women on the hillborough commitee said she took it as a personal insult that they were discussing bring back terraces. why? no one said, "ahh well, now we know it's the polices fault we can bring back terraces, i know people died but if you're going to make an omlette and all that......" Everyone aknowledges Hillsbourgh was a terrible tradegy but are we not allowed to move on from that without offending people? In reality all people do is draw attention to it by their outrage. How many people would be aware or care if Ricky Gervais had said "mong" on stage once if there hadn't been outrage over it, phone ins and people on the radio condeming him because their children have learning difficulties. The problem with society it's become full of people who take everything personally, are outraged and offended by everything and even worse, people who are regularly offended for others. Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudders Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 I shall be using "spud" from hereon in. Surely no-one can complain about being liked to the honest, bland, upstanding, ugly, solid, lumpy, wholesome potato or sharing its advanced intellectual capacity ? Spud, Spuddie and Spudulike (that's spud-ooh-lick-uh, not spud-you-like) are the future. Strange how people can ascribe enough meaning to "mongtard" to be offended though, it's a completely made up word. Spudgun isn't sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing? :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huffton Posted 18 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 December, 2012 Its probably no surprise that those making the most noise are the ones who have missed the point of my original post by the widest margin. Oh well, carry on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 Its probably no surprise that those making the most noise are the ones who have missed the point of my original post by the widest margin. Oh well, carry on Not really, you asked a forum as a collective to stop using two specific words which yourself and some others find offensive. As offence is taken and not given, you can't expect people to adhere to what you would like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 No offence was meant Huffton and I did say I saw your point, however the discussion developed. As you may have read, I am generally against censorship of any kind. Out of interest and serious question, you said that these terms are used to mock or insult people with learning disabilities (I am paraphrasing but hopefully not too far off), is this a current problem or a historical one? The reason I ask is I cannot imagine anyone mocking or insulting people with learning disabilities in the modern age and definitely not with these words. The meaning of these words has changed so much in the last 30-40 years. Is it still a current problem, if so who is using it to insult these groups of people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huffton Posted 18 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 December, 2012 Not really, you asked a forum as a collective to stop using two specific words which yourself and some others find offensive. As offence is taken and not given, you can't expect people to adhere to what you would like. OK, maybe you need it spelling out. Where in my post does it say I take offence? I couldn't give a rats arse what people call each other, if thats the way you show your level of intelligence knock yourself out. I was merely asking people to consider others who may well become offended or upset by what they read. If you want to hurl insults at someone, why not use a specific term, like pr ick, or wan ker, something that doesn't apply to a whole group of people who's situation is probably a lot more difficult than yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 a specific term, like pr ick, or wan ker, something that doesn't apply to a whole group of people who's situation is probably a lot more difficult than yours. ahem... pompey fans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Fan CaM Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 Spaz There really is no need to remind everyone of your disposition - it is more than evident from the quality of your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 OK, maybe you need it spelling out. Where in my post does it say I take offence? I couldn't give a rats arse what people call each other, if thats the way you show your level of intelligence knock yourself out. I was merely asking people to consider others who may well become offended or upset by what they read. If you want to hurl insults at someone, why not use a specific term, like pr ick, or wan ker, something that doesn't apply to a whole group of people who's situation is probably a lot more difficult than yours. If you're not offended and don't care what people are calling each other, why not let those who may be offended say something if they so choose? Why did you single out these phrases in particular in favour of many other terms and derogatory references you see on any football forum which be offensive to any number of groups of people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 There really is no need to remind everyone of your disposition - it is more than evident from the quality of your posts. On a thread where you have chastised others for using spaz or mong, its ok for you to insinuate that Draino is a Spaz in a derogatory manner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 There really is no need to remind everyone of your disposition - it is more than evident from the quality of your posts. That's the worse way of using the word. This way is insulting and when used in this way, I am with huffer. I couldnt believe it was still used in this way until now. Jesus... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 are saying because i'm bald i look like a potato?? Very perceptive of you. But it's more the lumpy head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 Spudgun isn't sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing? :? Spudgun should be honoured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 If you want to hurl insults at someone, why not use a specific term, like pr ick, or wan ker I once called DPS a tw4t.......... Got 5 (yes 5) infraction points for my troubles!! What we need is clear rules and guidance....... An infraction guide if you like. Penalty Tw4t = 5 points Mong = 1 point Spaz = 1 point Racist = 0 points Smelly = 0 points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 Glasgow, you're such a smelly racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 Glasgow, you're such a smelly racist. Just stay with these class C insults, avoid any class A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 How many infractions do you need before you are banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 How many infractions do you need before you are banned? Think its 10 for a ban (2 weeks i think) 2 x bans = life ban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 In that case 5 for calling DPS a t wat is outrageous. If anything you should have been given 5 of the opposite of infractions, whatever that would be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 In that case 5 for calling DPS a t wat is outrageous. If anything you should have been given 5 of the opposite of infractions, whatever that would be! Fractions I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudders Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 ugh, outfractions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 OK, maybe you need it spelling out. Where in my post does it say I take offence? I couldn't give a rats arse what people call each other, if thats the way you show your level of intelligence knock yourself out. I was merely asking people to consider others who may well become offended or upset by what they read. If you want to hurl insults at someone, why not use a specific term, like pr ick, or wan ker, something that doesn't apply to a whole group of people who's situation is probably a lot more difficult than yours. Huffton, classy OP. Classy response. Well done Sir. A polite request is ignored, as I'm sure you knew it would be. But instead of throwing your playthings out of the crib, you rise above it. Well played. Your attempt to raise the debate from the abstract to the specific, is too highly evolved a concept for some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 (edited) In that case 5 for calling DPS a t wat is outrageous. If anything you should have been given 5 of the opposite of infractions, whatever that would be! Tell me about it...... 25% of a perm ban! DPS called me a racist x15 and got 0 infraction points!! You do the maths Think DPS has a BFF on the mod board or just simply harrassed them until they gave into his requests. Either way we have massive inconsistancy or mods acting under pressure. DPS now continues to wind up people on the main board, safe in the knowledge that anyone who reacts gets infracted BIG time Edited 18 December, 2012 by Glasgow_Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itchen Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 OK, maybe you need it spelling out. Where in my post does it say I take offence? I couldn't give a rats arse what people call each other, if thats the way you show your level of intelligence knock yourself out. I was merely asking people to consider others who may well become offended or upset by what they read. If you want to hurl insults at someone, why not use a specific term, like pr ick, or wan ker, something that doesn't apply to a whole group of people who's situation is probably a lot more difficult than yours. Well said again. There are people here who deliberately misunderstand a reasonable request and show how sophisticated they are by mocking it, making stuff up (Haringey has always been Haringey, for example) and showing us all how proud they are of their ignorance. As I said a couple of pages ago, if anybody uses the two terms you complained about, I will think less of them and discount more or less anything else they say. I realise that the people concerned could not care less about my opinion of them but I can live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 (edited) Haringey's name was changed in 1962 http://h2g2.com/approved_entry/A842942 Now, not officially because of any political correctness though that is what is commonly believed by many of its residents. Possibly not the best example of political correctness but I notice you didn't pick me up or comment on the other examples. As I have said, I don't really use either of the words, however reserve the right to until I decide otherwise. For example, if I were to use the spazz smiley, it would be no more or less an attack on people with mental illness than if you were to call your wife a nutter for doing something 'quirky'. I have repeatedly said that I could see the OPs point. If the forum is used by people who have a disability that are offended by the word, there is certainly an argument to stop using the word. However, just because the op has put this forward, it is not above questioning and by questioning it, neither me or anyone else asking questions about it are either ignorant or being aggressive towards the subject. For example - The first key question should have been, are these words still used or have they been used as an insult against the subjects in the past 20 or 30 years? A teenager for example might call a friend a gook, meaning a kind of geek. Now in the 70s this might have been really offensive to a person from Viet Nam as in that time it was a commonly used insult. However, it hasn't been used for a generation in that way and it is doubtful that anyone from Viet Nam would find it insulting today as they have never heard of it as an insult, let alone an insult against them. Now, someone straight out of Uni with 6 months English teaching in Hanoi might find that offensive on their behalf and might have a go at the teenagers about using racial slurs. They are offended on the other peoples behalf. That is the reasoning behind the first question. I think before we start introducing rules, it is fair to ask questions and raise arguments both for and against. However, if the argument for a ban is a head in the hands smily and a "I will look down on you", you will not get very far IMO. There are many other questions, however if it is just a declaration of what we must all do or not do and not open to any discussion other than "well said" or "anyone who questions the OP is an idiot" well I am out. Edited 19 December, 2012 by Tokyo-Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 Haringey's name was changed in 1962 http://h2g2.com/approved_entry/A842942 Now, not officially because of any political correctness though that is what is commonly believed by many of its residents. Possibly not the best example of political correctness but I notice you didn't pick me up or comment on the other examples. As I have said, I don't really use either of the words, however reserve the right to until I decide otherwise. For example, if I were to use the spazz smiley, it would be no more or less an attack on people with mental illness than if you were to call your wife a nutter for doing something 'quirky'. I have repeatedly said that I could see the OPs point. If the forum is used by people who have a disability that are offended by the word, there is certainly an argument to stop using the word. However, just because the op has put this forward, it is not above questioning and by questioning it, neither me or anyone else asking questions about it are either ignorant or being aggressive towards the subject. For example - The first key question should have been, are these words still used or have they been used as an insult against the subjects in the past 20 or 30 years? A teenager for example might call a friend a gook, meaning a kind of geek. Now in the 70s this might have been really offensive to a person from Viet Nam as in that time it was a commonly used insult. However, it hasn't been used for a generation in that way and it is doubtful that anyone from Viet Nam would find it insulting today as they have never heard of it as an insult, let alone an insult against them. Now, someone straight out of Uni with 6 months English teaching in Hanoi might find that offensive on their behalf and might have a go at the teenagers about using racial slurs. They are offended on the other peoples behalf. That is the reasoning behind the first question. I think before we start introducing rules, it is fair to ask questions and raise arguments both for and against. However, if the argument for a ban is a head in the hands smily and a "I will look down on you", you will not get very far IMO. There are many other questions, however if it is just a declaration of what we must all do or not do and not open to any discussion other than "well said" or "anyone who questions the OP is an idiot" well I am out. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 (edited) My argument is for freedom of questioning, if that " falls on it's arse" we are all doomed. Edited 19 December, 2012 by Tokyo-Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 Also, you seemed to have missed a couple of key words. I said IF the forum was used by memebers with disabilities that ARE offended then.... Kraken has put the strongest argument forward so far. He has very close contact to someone who MAY (not estabilished beyond reasonable doubt yet egg) be offended by these words. He has also put forward a very well reasoned argument that no number of head in hands symbols will negate. I am not in the military and I reserve the right to question things. If after a discussion ( this is a discussion forum after all), we all agree, then great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 Many argument is for freedom of questioning, if that " falls on it's arse" we are all doomed. In your previous comnent you defeated your own argument. Read back what you wrote, and my reply, and tell me where you say I have misquoted you and/or that I am factually wrong about the openness of a forum and the inability to control audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 Also, you seemed to have missed a couple of key words. I said IF the forum was used by memebers with disabilities that ARE offended then.... Kraken has put the strongest argument forward so far. He has very close contact to someone who MAY (not estabilished beyond reasonable doubt yet egg) be offended by these words. He has also put forward a very well reasoned argument that no number of head in hands symbols will negate. I am not in the military and I reserve the right to question things. If after a discussion ( this is a discussion forum after all), we all agree, then great. Beyond reasonable doubt! Ffs, this ain't a criminal court. Read all the words in kraken post properly. It dovetails my point on private and public comments. Its reasonable to assume that an offensive on a public forum could be viewed by a member of the public. I get the impression you think you're right. That's your right. I disagree with you and think it unfortunate that you continue with your badly justified argument when you claim to see the op point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 May be offended does not mean people will be offended, it does not even mean there is a strong chance that people will be offended, it means that there is a possibility that people will be offended. Thanks for the homework by the way. Your patronising tone pushes my rebellious gene further away from your side of the argument I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 Beyond reasonable doubt! Ffs, this ain't a criminal court. Read all the words in kraken post properly. It dovetails my point on private and public comments. Its reasonable to assume that an offensive on a public forum could be viewed by a member of the public. I get the impression you think you're right. That's your right. I disagree with you and think it unfortunate that you continue with your badly justified argument when you claim to see the op point. He also mentions the intent behind the word, is it used in a jokey way or is it used as an insult. However you have brushed over this along with the use of other words with links to mental illness - you are such a nutter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 May be offended does not mean people will be offended, it does not even mean there is a strong chance that people will be offended, it means that there is a possibility that people will be offended. Thanks for the homework by the way. Your patronising tone pushes my rebellious gene further away from your side of the argument I'm afraid. If you accept that something may cause offence then it's wise to err on the side of caution. Similarly, if you think that something will cause harm or damage you err on the side of caution rather than taking a risk. It's the same principle here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 (edited) If you accept that something may cause offence then it's wise to err on the side of caution. Similarly, if you think that something will cause harm or damage you err on the side of caution rather than taking a risk. It's the same principle here. I agree with that, however put forward that that is where everyone differs. I might like Frankie Boyle while you might find Victoria Wood risqué for public audience. Also, I still reserve the right to question - this is the hub of my argument, something you have not addressed at all. You are picking a fight with me and thinking my point is the same as Turkish's. It's not. Edited 19 December, 2012 by Tokyo-Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 I don't know what is worse, ridiculing someone for something or someone getting outraged on someone else's behalf! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 Well said again. There are people here who deliberately misunderstand a reasonable request and show how sophisticated they are by mocking it, making stuff up (Haringey has always been Haringey, for example) and showing us all how proud they are of their ignorance. As I said a couple of pages ago, if anybody uses the two terms you complained about, I will think less of them and discount more or less anything else they say. I realise that the people concerned could not care less about my opinion of them but I can live with that. Most ignorant post on the thread IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 I see Egg was being derogatory towards Scottish people in a thread about Adkins last month: I'm pretty sure he's on his way, and could see Strachan coming in. Blackpool would be a good move for NA. The timing of Scotland sacking is interesting. I reckon the sweaties want Strachan and are aware that others want him too. Egg, please refrain from using derogatory comments like this. You need to think about the audience of a public forum which could include Scottish Southampton fans or general football fans who may find this offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 I see Egg was being derogatory towards Scottish people in a thread about Adkins last month: I'm pretty sure he's on his way, and could see Strachan coming in. Blackpool would be a good move for NA. The timing of Scotland sacking is interesting. I reckon the sweaties want Strachan and are aware that others want him too. Egg, please refrain from using derogatory comments like this. You need to think about the audience of a public forum which could include Scottish Southampton fans or general football fans who may find this offensive. I was offended by Eggs post(s) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 I am disgusted by it! Egg, care to comment on your xenophobic comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 I was offended by Eggs post(s) I was offended for you mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 (edited) Oh dear.... it continues! 21-09-2012, 09:37 PM Thread: Gazzaniga playing tomorrow by egg Replies short, fat and mental? Thread: Things you only see in 'Poorer' areas by egg Replies . Fat birds with skinny blokes who have grey skin. Women servicing their own cars. . I am offended by him talking about fat birds on council estates but most shocking is talking about people being mental. Having a relation who suffered from demential and find the word mental very insulting. Edited 19 December, 2012 by Tokyo-Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 19 December, 2012 Share Posted 19 December, 2012 Oh dear.... it continues! 21-09-2012, 09:37 PM Thread: Gazzaniga playing tomorrow by egg Replies short, fat and mental? Thread: Things you only see in 'Poorer' areas by egg Replies . Fat birds with skinny blokes who have grey skin. Women servicing their own cars. . As someone who grew up in Millbrook, I find the whole concept of a thread mocking poorer areas as extremely offensive. Added to the fact that in one fell swoop he's managed to potentially offend obese people, women and those with learning difficulties. I am outraged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts