Nice...

by Tommy Monk Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:53 pm

First topic message reminder :

Another example of what is rotten about the BBC...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3169157/Viewers-complain-Ofcom-EastEnders-gay-sex-romp-open-coffin.html

All those lefties in there running things and this is the sort Of thing they think is right to broadcast in prime time!!!

How very progressive...!!!

Rotten to the core!!!

by Guest Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:29 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
ps it also doesn`t say you where unbanned yet others have been unbanned and it has been noted

Yes it does.

Re: Banned Users

Postby Stooo » Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:41 pm

Stooo wrote:
Raggamuffin, one month.

Unbanned

So then Korban, I was banned for one hour and 11 minutes, not a month. You made a mistake - live with it.

Why did you flounce from here the first time you joined?

flounce ? i have never flounce from this site as i think a few people will tell you i left for a year because i had a death in the family as ben,victor sassy FTL and i think a few other people can confirm

try again

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:30 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes it does.

Re: Banned Users

Postby Stooo » Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:41 pm

Stooo wrote:
Raggamuffin, one month.

Unbanned

So then Korban, I was banned for one hour and 11 minutes, not a month. You made a mistake - live with it.

Why did you flounce from here the first time you joined?
flounce ? i have never flounce from this site as i think a few people will tell you i left for a year because i had a death in the family as ben,victor sassy FTL and i think a few other people can confirm

try again

I only asked. Laughing

Is there a point to all this Korban? You seem to be obsessed with me not being banned for a month from another forum. Is that relevant to a scene containing a coffin in Eastenders?

by Guest Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:31 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
ps it also doesn`t say you where unbanned yet others have been unbanned and it has been noted

o acctualy it does still you where banned for a month the fact it was lifted is irrelevant to your previous claim

It's not irrelevant. You said I was banned for a month, and I was not.

actually it is very relevant to your previous claim
you where never banned for a month the facts speak for them self`s

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:34 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not irrelevant. You said I was banned for a month, and I was not.
actually it is very relevant to your previous claim
you where never banned for a month the facts speak for them self`s

I wasn't banned for a month though Korban. The facts do speak for themselves, and it's clear I was not banned for a month.

by Guest Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:35 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
flounce ? i have never flounce from this site as i think a few people will tell you i left for a year because i had a death in the family as ben,victor sassy FTL and i think a few other people can confirm

try again

I only asked.

Is there a point to all this Korban? You seem to be obsessed with me not being banned for a month from another forum. Is that relevant to a scene containing a coffin in Eastenders?

i only asked how bloody lame you thought you had scored but fired and missed so you try to walk the attempt back
obsessed no just pointing out that a cliam you made was incorrect aka a lie it was certainly stoos intention otherwise why bother

facts raggs facts

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:40 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I only asked.

Is there a point to all this Korban? You seem to be obsessed with me not being banned for a month from another forum. Is that relevant to a scene containing a coffin in Eastenders?
i only asked how bloody lame you thought you had scored but fired and missed so you try to walk the attempt back
obsessed no just pointing out that a cliam you made was incorrect aka a lie it was certainly stoos intention otherwise why bother

facts raggs facts

It's a fact that you deleted your account here before - ie, you flounced.

Korban, you started all this by telling a lie.

lest face it you nothing more than a twisted little child who has delusions and the inability to understand English its was you who referred not only to this alleged stalking of dean but also your friend stoo as well as i remember when you first joined hear when he banned you for a month wasn`t it
you got yours ass kicked then as well and went and sulked for a while

I was not banned for a month when I joined here - or at any other time. I was not banned at all when I joined here, so the rest of what you said is bollox obviously.

Stooo's intention is neither here nor there, particularly as you were talking about a completely different year.

The fact that you think I can't understand English is laughable considering how many mistakes you've made in understanding it.

Why not just admit you cocked up?

by Guest Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
i only asked how bloody lame you thought you had scored but fired and missed so you try to walk the attempt back
obsessed no just pointing out that a cliam you made was incorrect aka a lie it was certainly stoos intention otherwise why bother

facts raggs facts

It's a fact that you deleted your account here before - ie, you flounced.

Korban, you started all this by telling a lie.

lest face it you nothing more than a twisted little child who has delusions and the inability to understand English its was you who referred not only to this alleged stalking of dean but also your friend stoo as well as i remember when you first joined hear when he banned you for a month wasn`t it
you got yours ass kicked then as well and went and sulked for a while

I was not banned for a month when I joined here - or at any other time. I was not banned at all when I joined here, so the rest of what you said is bollox obviously.

Stooo's intention is neither here nor there, particularly as you were talking about a completely different year.

The fact that you think I can't understand English is laughable considering how many mistakes you've made in understanding it.

Why not just admit you cocked up?

i deleted my account because i was in grief because of a death in the family nothing to do with the forum
and is not flouncing any where i emailed ben and a couple of others to let them know

you claimed you were never banned for a month from SD the fact is you where, regardless of the actual length of that that ban ran in fact you where banned 3 times 1,6 hours bans then and they a month both the 6 hour and the month was this year both in feb

and do you know what also strikes me as amusing about this, twice i have corrected and admitted something i got something slightly wrong you also claim to have never seen somebody on hear do that ether as was the point of my original comment that got your very sizeable knickers in a twist
However you still hold to your claim that you where never banned for a month when all evidence that i have posted shows that in fact you where regardless of the actually length of the ban served the original intent was for a month

but will you admit it no you would rather twist and deny the simple fact you where wrong and lied/misspoke

unlike you raggs i have no problem at all admitting when i am wrong and don`t try verbal gymnastics to save face that`s how big i am

your oviously up to your old tricks of baiting fortunately every one can see what an absolute ass you have made of your self

Well done scraggs

by Guest Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
i only asked how bloody lame you thought you had scored but fired and missed so you try to walk the attempt back
obsessed no just pointing out that a cliam you made was incorrect aka a lie it was certainly stoos intention otherwise why bother

facts raggs facts

It's a fact that you deleted your account here before - ie, you flounced.

Korban, you started all this by telling a lie.

lest face it you nothing more than a twisted little child who has delusions and the inability to understand English its was you who referred not only to this alleged stalking of dean but also your friend stoo as well as i remember when you first joined hear when he banned you for a month wasn`t it
you got yours ass kicked then as well and went and sulked for a while where is the lie all factually correct

I was not banned for a month when I joined here - or at any other time. I was not banned at all when I joined here, so the rest of what you said is bollox obviously.

Stooo's intention is neither here nor there, particularly as you were talking about a completely different year.

The fact that you think I can't understand English is laughable considering how many mistakes you've made in understanding it.

Why not just admit you cocked up?

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:23 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's a fact that you deleted your account here before - ie, you flounced.

Korban, you started all this by telling a lie.

I was not banned for a month when I joined here - or at any other time. I was not banned at all when I joined here, so the rest of what you said is bollox obviously.

Stooo's intention is neither here nor there, particularly as you were talking about a completely different year.

The fact that you think I can't understand English is laughable considering how many mistakes you've made in understanding it.

Why not just admit you cocked up?
i deleted my account because i was in grief because of a death in the family nothing to do with the forum
and is not flouncing any where i emailed ben and a couple of others to let them know

you claimed you were never banned for a month from SD the fact is you where, regardless of the actual length of that that ban ran in fact you where banned 3 times 1,6 hours bans then and they a month both the 6 hour and the month was this year both in feb

and do you know what also strikes me as amusing about this, twice i have corrected and admitted something i got something slightly wrong you also claim to have never seen somebody on hear do that ether as was the point of my original comment that got your very sizeable knickers in a twist
However you still hold to your claim that you where never banned for a month when all evidence that i have posted shows that in fact you where regardless of the actually length of the ban the original intent was for a month

but will you admit it no you would rather twist and deny the simple fact you where wrong and lied/misspoke

unlike you raggs i have no problem at all admitting when i am wrong and don`t try verbal gymnastics to save face that`s how big i am

your oviously up to your old tricks of baiting fortunately every one can see what an absolute ass you have made of your self

Well done scraggs

First of all, "flounce" isn't an insult - it's just a word some people use to mean those who leave forums.

So what if I was banned three times from Dogs? What business is it of yours, and why is it relevant to anything? I told you several times that I was not banned for a month. You claimed that I was banned from there when I joined here - that was a lie, and I suspect you said it to make some weird point or another. It's hard to say because your post was a complete mess anyway. That fell flat because it was completely untrue, as well as being completely irrelevant.

As for your attempt to bring others into this to back you up, that's just pathetic. Stand on your own two feet if you're going to start trouble Korban.

by Guest Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:39 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
i deleted my account because i was in grief because of a death in the family nothing to do with the forum
and is not flouncing any where i emailed ben and a couple of others to let them know

you claimed you were never banned for a month from SD the fact is you where, regardless of the actual length of that that ban ran in fact you where banned 3 times 1,6 hours bans then and they a month both the 6 hour and the month was this year both in feb

and do you know what also strikes me as amusing about this, twice i have corrected and admitted something i got something slightly wrong you also claim to have never seen somebody on hear do that ether as was the point of my original comment that got your very sizeable knickers in a twist
However you still hold to your claim that you where never banned for a month when all evidence that i have posted shows that in fact you where regardless of the actually length of the ban the original intent was for a month

but will you admit it no you would rather twist and deny the simple fact you where wrong and lied/misspoke

unlike you raggs i have no problem at all admitting when i am wrong and don`t try verbal gymnastics to save face that`s how big i am

your oviously up to your old tricks of baiting fortunately every one can see what an absolute ass you have made of your self

Well done scraggs

First of all, "flounce" isn't an insult - it's just a word some people use to mean those who leave forums.

So what if I was banned three times from Dogs? What business is it of yours, and why is it relevant to anything? I told you several times that I was not banned for a month. You claimed that I was banned from there when I joined here - that was a lie, and I suspect you said it to make some weird point or another. It's hard to say because your post was a complete mess anyway. That fell flat because it was completely untrue, as well as being completely irrelevant.

As for your attempt to bring others into this to back you up, that's just pathetic. Stand on your own two feet if you're going to start trouble Korban.

o flounce is when you have lost an argument and leave the forum just like HF and VD did and i did not say it was and i did not claim it to be an insult just factually incorrect

this whole rant of your started whan i made the comment

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
^Ben, that's often made me think too actually, people are funny in what they object to and what they don't.

^KD, tommy will only ever comment on things that confirm his own world view, he is scared of ever having to think he might be wrong.

I would say that applies to most people here. Laughing

i would disagree with that view,as most on hear have a scientific view and if you can show evidence for a view it is generally accepted your confusing a consensus of a view with belligerence of a view

you replied

No they don't - they have an opinion like everyone else, and they are generally unwilling or unable to change that opinion. For example, someone might start a thread about austerity, and they are never going to see things any way other than the way they saw them at the start.

i relied with an example of me changing my view twice

Well yes they do opinion based in reality and presentable facts as opposed to dogged refusal to accept what is in front of there nose and go of on hypothetical tangents to try and justify there view

for example i was against All fox hunting but victor made some very good and valid points i changed my view ,myself and didge where in a very combative place at one point he made some very valid points as did i and we both changed out view and that has been i think very productive

you can have as many "opinions " about a fact as you like but only evidence, not opinion can change that "fact"

you replied

Victor pursuaded you to support fox hunting? Do you mean hunting with dogs for sport? He told me he was opposed to that.

i replied

yes your problem seems to be you don`t read stuff properly then you make a bullshit comment that actually bears no resemblance to what i actually said

hear let me help you

all
ɔːl/
predeterminer, determiner, & pronoun
determiner: all; pronoun: all
1.
used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.

so what part of "i was against All fox hunting " do you find difficult to understand

you replied

You clearly didn't read my post properly. How could Victor pursuade you to support hunting with dogs when he's opposed to it himself?

Fox hunting could mean shooting them, which is why I asked if you meant hunting with dogs for sport.
i had nether mention hunting with dogs or for sport

and that started this merry dance all because you don`t understand the word ALL

oh and i just noticed in reviewing this debackal of your own making you reckon you can find comment i made on BF to show what a nasty person i am ?

please do i would be most interested in such comments as i think the last time i was even on that site was over two years ago so please ragg`s have at it i look forward with great anticipation

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:44 pm

Good grief Korban. You mean you've gone mental just because I asked if you meant hunting with dogs for sport? It was a question. All you had to do was say what you meant. There was no need for you to start hunting around for irrelevant posts from another forum, and then starting an argument about whether I was banned for a month or not.

You accused me of threatening to post your PM, so you clearly don't understand the word "reply". Did I go on and on about that? No, I didn't.

If you're going to get so worked up just because I asked a question, you're going to have a meltdown.

Try camomile tea or something.

by Guest Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:05 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Good grief Korban. You mean you've gone mental just because I asked if you meant hunting with dogs for sport? It was a question. All you had to do was say what you meant. There was no need for you to start hunting around for irrelevant posts from another forum, and then starting an argument about whether I was banned for a month or not.

You accused me of threatening to post your PM, so you clearly don't understand the word "reply". Did I go on and on about that? No, I didn't.

If you're going to get so worked up just because I asked a question, you're going to have a meltdown.

Try camomile tea or something.

well dearie why did you bring up the pm in the first place if you wanted to draw my attention to it why did you make the fact i sent you a pm in the first place public knowledge obviously nothing more than a lame attempt s to try and score some imaginary point the fact i cut you of at the knees was your own stupid fault because normal people would have sent a pm as you did after

i haven`t gone mental in the slightest your doing that quite nicely on your own it was you on another thread that reintroduced deans mad claims the same thread you hit the bottom of the barrel with your vindictiveness and now you complain when you get it back and i haven`t even been as vindictive as you where

simply put you wher looking for this and you got it more fool you raggs i have pointed out you lies as for my self i have admitted when i got something wrong ,as was the point of my original comment ,yet you because of the person you are will not admit your comment about never being banned for a month was factually incorrect ,as you where. even if it only lasted an hour the intent was originally ban you for the month
and why was that. i am guessing because you enjoy being unreasonable and bating people what was it 6 hours you where given to calm down
perhaps you should take a day this time .......or chocolate as i suggested you might come back a more temperate and less likely to go of the reservation

just a thought

ps
perhaps it would be better if you just put me on ignore because any respect i had for you is looooooong gone

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:17 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Good grief Korban. You mean you've gone mental just because I asked if you meant hunting with dogs for sport? It was a question. All you had to do was say what you meant. There was no need for you to start hunting around for irrelevant posts from another forum, and then starting an argument about whether I was banned for a month or not.

You accused me of threatening to post your PM, so you clearly don't understand the word "reply". Did I go on and on about that? No, I didn't.

If you're going to get so worked up just because I asked a question, you're going to have a meltdown.

Try camomile tea or something.
well dearie why did you bring up the pm in the first place if you wanted to draw my attention to it why did you make the fact i sent you a pm in the first place public knowledge obviously nothing more than a lame attempt s to try and score some imaginary point the fact i cut you of at the knees was your own stupid fault because normal people would have sent a pm as you did after

i haven`t gone mental in the slightest your doing that quite nicely on your own it was you on another thread that reintroduced deans mad claims the same thread you hit the bottom of the barrel with your vindictiveness and now you complain when you get it back and i haven`t even been as vindictive as you where

simply put you wher looking for this and you got it more fool you raggs i have pointed out you lies as for my self i have admitted when i got something wrong ,as was the point of my original comment ,yet you because of the person you are will not admit your comment about never being banned for a month was factually incorrect ,as you where. even if it only lasted an hour the intent was originally ban you for the month
and why was that. i am guessing because you enjoy being unreasonable and bating people what was it 6 hours you where given to calm down
perhaps you should take a day this time .......or chocolate as i suggested you might come back a more temperate and less likely to go of the reservation

just a thought

ps
perhaps it would be better if you just put me on ignore because any respect i had for you is looooooong gone

Re the PM, it was joke because of the arguing. You had already posted what it said before anyway. Did I send you a nasty reply? No I did not - I sent you a joky reply.

You have been aggressive and nasty for a while now, and my replies have reflected that. Do you think you should be able to be that way with impunity? I'm not a shrinking violet who will let you talk to me like that without giving you back some of your own medicine.

All that stuff about being banned was shit - you only brought it up to bait me. Well it didn't work because you got it wrong and made a complete twat of yourself. Cool

Why don't you go to Dogs and ask why I was banned if you're so interested? Whilst you're there, make sure you look at why you were persona non grata. You see, if you want to bring up other forums, be careful because I can throw it all back at you.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:22 pm

Oh, and bleating on about "respect" has no impact on me. You can carry on all you like, and I'll respond. Don't think that I'm bothered about whether you "respect" me or not - I have no respect for you either.

by Guest Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:57 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
well dearie why did you bring up the pm in the first place if you wanted to draw my attention to it why did you make the fact i sent you a pm in the first place public knowledge obviously nothing more than a lame attempt s to try and score some imaginary point the fact i cut you of at the knees was your own stupid fault because normal people would have sent a pm as you did after

i haven`t gone mental in the slightest your doing that quite nicely on your own it was you on another thread that reintroduced deans mad claims the same thread you hit the bottom of the barrel with your vindictiveness and now you complain when you get it back and i haven`t even been as vindictive as you where

simply put you wher looking for this and you got it more fool you raggs i have pointed out you lies as for my self i have admitted when i got something wrong ,as was the point of my original comment ,yet you because of the person you are will not admit your comment about never being banned for a month was factually incorrect ,as you where. even if it only lasted an hour the intent was originally ban you for the month
and why was that. i am guessing because you enjoy being unreasonable and bating people what was it 6 hours you where given to calm down
perhaps you should take a day this time .......or chocolate as i suggested you might come back a more temperate and less likely to go of the reservation

just a thought

ps
perhaps it would be better if you just put me on ignore because any respect i had for you is looooooong gone

Re the PM, it was joke because of the arguing. You had already posted what it said before anyway. Did I send you a nasty reply? No I did not - I sent you a joky reply.

You have been aggressive and nasty for a while now, and my replies have reflected that. Do you think you should be able to be that way with impunity? I'm not a shrinking violet who will let you talk to me like that without giving you back some of your own medicine.

All that stuff about being banned was shit - you only brought it up to bait me. Well it didn't work because you got it wrong and made a complete twat of yourself.

Why don't you go to Dogs and ask why I was banned if you're so interested? Whilst you're there, make sure you look at why you were persona non grata. You see, if you want to bring up other forums, be careful because I can throw it all back at you.

i dont care why you where banned that was not the point and i did not get it wrong its there for people to see your claim and the fact it was not factually correct and as to "the joke " people don`t take that kind of a thing as a joke when its in the middle of a argument they take it as a threat

and aggressive and nasty that from a women who called be a bad parent is really rich don`t you think an dyou you should get away with that with impunity or the comment about the mobility car you made

quite frankly you get the replies you deserve and will continue to do so if you keep down this path its a perfect example of lack of empathy we talked about
i could have easily made comments that would really wipe the smile of your face but i chose not to because they would be going to far and weather they are true or not is something i don`t know
if they are i would be lower than scum to use them an i would disgust my self never mind the people i class as friends on hear
but they have been said about you and if true i am really sorry for you
i am only nasty and mean as you put it when i receive it from people i dont care if i am persona non grata but i think you should make sure its me raggs

i only post on one forum at a time and i have been only on this forum in the past few years i haven't been on BF or indeed Sd for at least two years i think it is could be slightly less and over 6 years for flaps

Although i am aware a certain somebody does like impersonating me on other forums
so before you make a claim to something i have apparently said or done check the spelling and grammar and punctuation my dyslexia shines like a beacon and is hard to duplicate convincingly
but know this i have no problem with things i have said and will happily own every word or comment i have made

and to be honest would find it quite interesting so please feel free to post them or even pm them

now i am quite happy to let this go and move on not because i have to, or think that you have in anyway "won" or made points i can`t counter because i will always reply in kind and with what i see as facts and or observation but i have to go out and will not be back till much later

when we could ether keep it going or just move on
its really up to you because personally i couldn't care less ether way
perhaps later ? then

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:09 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Re the PM, it was joke because of the arguing. You had already posted what it said before anyway. Did I send you a nasty reply? No I did not - I sent you a joky reply.

You have been aggressive and nasty for a while now, and my replies have reflected that. Do you think you should be able to be that way with impunity? I'm not a shrinking violet who will let you talk to me like that without giving you back some of your own medicine.

All that stuff about being banned was shit - you only brought it up to bait me. Well it didn't work because you got it wrong and made a complete twat of yourself.

Why don't you go to Dogs and ask why I was banned if you're so interested? Whilst you're there, make sure you look at why you were persona non grata. You see, if you want to bring up other forums, be careful because I can throw it all back at you.

i dont care why you where banned that was not the point and i did not get it wrong its there for people to see your claim and the fact it was not factually correct and as to "the joke " people don`t take that kind of a thing as a joke when its in the middle of a argument they take it as a threat

and aggressive and nasty that from a women who called be a bad parent is really rich don`t you think an dyou you should get away with that with impunity or the comment about the mobility car you made

quite frankly you get the replies you deserve and will continue to do so if you keep down this path its a perfect example of lack of empathy we talked about
i could have easily made comments that would really wipe the smile of your face but i chose not to because they would be going to far and weather they are true or not is something i don`t know
if they are i would be lower than scum to use them an i would disgust my self never mind the people i class as friends on hear
but they have been said about you and if true i am really sorry for you
i am only nasty and mean as you put it when i receive it from people i dont care if i am persona non grata but i think you should make sure its me raggs

i only post on one forum at a time and i have been only on this forum in the past few years i haven't been on BF or indeed Sd for at least two years i think it is could be slightly less and over 6 years for flaps

Although i am aware a certain somebody does like impersonating me on other forums
so before you make a claim to something i have apparently said or done check the spelling and grammar and punctuation my dyslexia shines like a beacon and is hard to duplicate convincingly
but know this i have no problem with things i have said and will happily own every word or comment i have made

and to be honest would find it quite interesting so please feel free to post them or even pm them

now i am quite happy to let this go and move on not because i have to, or think that you have in anyway "won" or made points i can`t counter because i will always reply in kind and with what i see as facts and or observation but i have to go out and will not be back till much later

when we could ether keep it going or just move on
its really up to you because personally i couldn't care less ether way
perhaps later ? then

Korban, do you really think that people here care how long I was banned for on another forum back in February, or the reason for the ban?

You got personal with me. I did ask you not to do that, but you persisted, so you got some back. You didn't seem to mind at the time Korban - in fact you made a "joke" about the car.

What is the point saying you won't make comments which could wipe the smile off my face? I could do the same to you if you did, so such a comment was unnecessary.

If what is true? Don't tell me you've been listening to gossip from other forums Korban - that's really sad.

I don't know if you posted on Dogs or not, but you were not Mr Popular there because of your harassment of the owner, so before you keep banging on about a ban for a month which didn't happen, perhaps you should remember that.

If you want to stop this, then just stop. I won't say anything else if you don't keep on at me. If you do, I'll reply.

by Tommy Monk Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:46 am

Eilzel wrote:Game of Thrones last year showed a scene where an incestuous couple (Jamie and Cersei Lannister) had sex beside their son's dead body. To make that worse, the man technically raped the woman.

I don't recall tommy's outrage then- so why now?

Never seen it, didn't know about it, don't want to see it or know about it... also sick and twisted...

Don't understand why anytimg like that would be being broadcast.

How does this sort of stuff even get considered as valid content!?

Let alone given the ok by 'executive' decision...!?

What sort of people Are in charge here!!!???

And why would anyone be thought of as being a 'target audience' for any such filth!!!???

Why would anyone think this type of content is ok to broadcast on family viewing shows to children!!!???

Ben said...

"...We don't get this show in the U.S., but I was just reading about it and the show has also depicted pedophile grooming, a man being buried alive by his wife and her lover, a woman swapping her dead newborn for another woman's baby and numerous scenes of domestic violence.

I'd think those scenes would be far less suitable for children than a scene that, near as I can tell, involved a shirtless kiss in front of a body in a coffin ..."

Thanks for all those other examples of BBC scum broadcasting...

by veya_victaous Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:00 am

RW philosophy "if you cant sanitize life at least sanitize art."

the thing is ALL THESE THINGS EXIST why should it not be OK?
children need to be educated about the world these things are in the world they live in Suspect

by Eilzel Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:47 am

Tommy all those things Ben mentioned are in EEs aline.

Come on tommy, soap operas are not high end. They are meant for consumption by as many viewers as possible and so for years have had to use 'shock tactics' to keep people interested. All those things Ben mentioned, now this (comparatively tame) scene. You are simply another one of those prudish ones among those people who like to give this show relevance by making it 'controversial'. Well done you, you've done exactly what EE producers will have wanted by highlighting how 'edgy' the show likes people to think it is. Now some teens will still watch and older viewers have something to gas about while tuning in for more haha.

As for Game of Thrones, well the material there comes from a book so less in writers hands. But its a show that has built itself on shock value (along with a gripping if hectic storyline). It was in the news too after ever shock episode including that scene- how you missed that but noticed the 'gay sex scene next to a corpse' I'll never know- oh wait yes I do, if the Thrones scene had been two brothers you'd have been screaming from the rooftops no doubt.

That or you actually follow Eastenders avidly.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:19 am

I asssumed from what Les said that Tommy actually watches Game of Thrones. I think a lot of people assume that everyone watches that. Laughing

by Raggamuffin Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:21 am

veya_victaous wrote:RW philosophy "if you cant sanitize life at least sanitize art."

the thing is ALL THESE THINGS EXIST why should it not be OK?
children need to be educated about the world these things are in the world they live in

Cavorting around an open coffin? I wouldn't have thought anyone would need educating as to the inappropriate nature of that. Razz

by Guest Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:00 am

On / OFF channel up channel, channel down ,Fast forward go and make a cuppa
that`s what i do if i don`t want to watch bits especially sex scene`s gay or straight
And gratuitous violence

by Tommy Monk Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:23 pm

I don't avoid discussing any topic... just busy sometimes.

What gold thread?

by Tommy Monk Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:18 pm

Oh and it is labour who liked meddling and interfering in everything...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-kendall-labour-must-shake-off-its-nanny-state-tag-if-it-is-to-win-back-power-10403272.html

by Tommy Monk Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:10 pm

So where is this gold thread that I'm accused of avoiding...!?

Although a complete diversion from the topic of this thread...

by Raggamuffin Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:12 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:So where is this gold thread that I'm accused of avoiding...!?

Although a complete diversion from the topic of this thread...

Here it is Tommy.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t10654-remember-when-gordon-brown-sold-the-goldfutures

by HoratioTarr Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:17 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You clearly didn't read my post properly. How could Victor pursuade you to support hunting with dogs when he's opposed to it himself?

Fox hunting could mean shooting them, which is why I asked if you meant hunting with dogs for sport.
no your just being a idiot on purpose no doubt

you have introduced dogs then trying to make a issue of it where none exists

if somebody says they are against all fox hunting that means with dogs with guns or going around clubbing them on the head with a bloody tea cup
victor made the case for shooting them to control there numbers not for sport and not with dogs you have decided to twist it to cause what a argument ?

well if that what you want sweetheart bring it on if you want to be deliberately obtuse i am more than happy to oblige
but be very careful what you wish for your chances of getting it are pretty high

One never calls them 'dogs'. It's 'hounds'. tongue

by The Devil, You Know Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:05 am

Eilzel wrote:Game of Thrones last year showed a scene where an incestuous couple (Jamie and Cersei Lannister) had sex beside their son's dead body. To make that worse, the man technically raped the woman.

I don't recall tommy's outrage then- so why now?

maybe because game of thrones is not pre watershed and is entirely about rape and incest..
this is the first I have heard of this so it cant have been that outrageous, after all I read the mail most days

by The Devil, You Know Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:20 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Game of Thrones last year showed a scene where an incestuous couple (Jamie and Cersei Lannister) had sex beside their son's dead body. To make that worse, the man technically raped the woman.

I don't recall tommy's outrage then- so why now?

Never seen it, didn't know about it, don't want to see it or know about it... also sick and twisted...

Don't understand why anytimg like that would be being broadcast.

How does this sort of stuff even get considered as valid content!?

Let alone given the ok by 'executive' decision...!?

What sort of people Are in charge here!!!???

And why would anyone be thought of as being a 'target audience' for any such filth!!!???

Why would anyone think this type of content is ok to broadcast on family viewing shows to children!!!???

Ben said...

"...We don't get this show in the U.S., but I was just reading about it and the show has also depicted pedophile grooming, a man being buried alive by his wife and her lover, a woman swapping her dead newborn for another woman's baby and numerous scenes of domestic violence.

I'd think those scenes would be far less suitable for children than a scene that, near as I can tell, involved a shirtless kiss in front of a body in a coffin ..."

Thanks for all those other examples of BBC scum broadcasting...

it's drama. If it was like real life it would be as dull as ditch water.

by The Devil, You Know Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:25 am

Eilzel wrote:Tommy all those things Ben mentioned are in EEs aline.

Come on tommy, soap operas are not high end. They are meant for consumption by as many viewers as possible and so for years have had to use 'shock tactics' to keep people interested. All those things Ben mentioned, now this (comparatively tame) scene. You are simply another one of those prudish ones among those people who like to give this show relevance by making it 'controversial'. Well done you, you've done exactly what EE producers will have wanted by highlighting how 'edgy' the show likes people to think it is. Now some teens will still watch and older viewers have something to gas about while tuning in for more haha.

As for Game of Thrones, well the material there comes from a book so less in writers hands. But its a show that has built itself on shock value (along with a gripping if hectic storyline). It was in the news too after ever shock episode including that scene- how you missed that but noticed the 'gay sex scene next to a corpse' I'll never know- oh wait yes I do, if the Thrones scene had been two brothers you'd have been screaming from the rooftops no doubt.

That or you actually follow Eastenders avidly.

you haven't been keeping up then as they had the gay sex scene in GOT as well. The series is no where near as detailed as the book. For instance Sansa starks wedding night was no where near as detailed as it is in the book. And whilst there were howls of outrage from the professionally outraged mob about it all we really got to see was reek looking horrified from the doorway, where as in the book, Ramsey bolton gets reek to warm sansa up a bit before he dives in.
It is however a great bit of escapism, but it is not real life, there are bloody dragons in it for gods sake.

by The Devil, You Know Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:28 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:So where is this gold thread that I'm accused of avoiding...!?

Although a complete diversion from the topic of this thread...

Here it is Tommy.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t10654-remember-when-gordon-brown-sold-the-goldfutures

I think he means when gordon brown sold off the gold at rock bottom prices to bail out the banks the first time.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/thomaspascoe/100018367/revealed-why-gordon-brown-sold-britains-gold-at-a-knock-down-price/

by Eilzel Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:40 am

Haha, Dean there has been more than one gay sex scene in GoT, and I'm fully up to date with the TV series Smile

It was the 'next to a corpse' aspect as well as the people involved I was comparing.

And the fact remains of course that in EE you never actually saw anything really. Tommy is just playing the prissy, shocked 50s housewife.

by Guest Fri Jul 24, 2015 3:18 am

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Here it is Tommy.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t10654-remember-when-gordon-brown-sold-the-goldfutures
I think he means when gordon brown sold off the gold at rock bottom prices to bail out the banks the first time.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/thomaspascoe/100018367/revealed-why-gordon-brown-sold-britains-gold-at-a-knock-down-price/

yup

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/thomaspascoe/100018367/revealed-why-gordon-brown-sold-britains-gold-at-a-knock-down-price/

So yes to bail out the banks (not known at the time for obvious reasons )for what? 1days or a week at most worth of oil

you know the economy isn`t based on gold any more hasn`t been for a long time

And lets face it Cameron is selling of public assets like its a fire sale so no real difference
gold that brown sold $3.5bn assets Osborn`s selling £23 billion.

lets see your Fake outrage about that

by eddie Wed Jul 29, 2015 4:10 pm

Tommy, if you were watching a film or a TV drama, and there was a gay scene (relevant to the prograde or film) would you switch it off or fast forward?

by Tommy Monk Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:19 pm

I wouldn't intentionally be watching anything with that content and if it appeared I would be a little sickened by it...

Just like most women feel when they think about two women gettinp it on!

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:30 pm

eddie wrote:Tommy, if you were watching a film or a TV drama, and there was a gay scene (relevant to the prograde or film) would you switch it off or fast forward?

I would fast forward, but then I'd fast forward if it was any kind of steamy scene. Why film makers think that watching two naked people breathing heavily all over each other for ten minutes is entertainment is a mystery to me. Laughing

by Original Quill Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:41 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:Tommy, if you were watching a film or a TV drama, and there was a gay scene (relevant to the prograde or film) would you switch it off or fast forward?

I would fast forward, but then I'd fast forward if it was any kind of steamy scene. Why film makers think that watching two naked people breathing heavily all over each other for ten minutes is entertainment is a mystery to me.

I was watching some movie the other night and had the same thought...only it was explosions. This film had lots of bright fire (explosions) and bodies and automobiles flying across the screen, buildings tumbling down, bricks flying, and I'm like wtf, is this some kind of entertainment?

I think producers use sex, explosions and death, and language, etc., to shock....in order to avoid true literary content. It's so one-dimensional.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:42 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I would fast forward, but then I'd fast forward if it was any kind of steamy scene. Why film makers think that watching two naked people breathing heavily all over each other for ten minutes is entertainment is a mystery to me.

I was watching some movie the other night and had the same thought...only it was explosions. This film had lots of bright fire (explosions) and bodies and automobiles flying across the screen, buildings tumbling down, bricks flying, and I'm like wtf, is this some kind of entertainment?

I think producers use sex, explosions and death, and language, etc., to shock....in order to avoid true literary content. It's so one-dimensional.

Yes - explosions of any kind generally go on too long as well. They lose their effect after a few seconds. I think the same about car chases too.

by Tommy Monk Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:35 pm

Bit different quill... eastenders is a very long running, pre watershed, family viewing soap opera... and is supposed to be reflective of normal and natural every day life and story lines... and accepted by younger viewers as giving an insight to regular, normal and natural every day goings on...

Showing a gay sex scene round a coffin with a corpse is not something this programme should be doing, not to a family audience, not before watershed, and not by the BBC, and not compliant with the BBCs own rules and regulations.

Totally different to a late night adult rated film showing the things you mention, showing this adult content at a time only adults should be able to watch, and An occasional film of this type will also be well described in the listings and people will have been able to choose to watch this or not, knowing full well what the content will contain.

by eddie Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:11 pm

Sometimes a love scene is needed, just to enhance the story and add a dimension (if they're good and convincing actors!) of the characters' feelings for each other. A good love/sex scene, done well, can show deeper aspects of the situation.

Sometimes, of course, it's paramount to a story - as in a woman getting raped or a boy's first encounter with a man or woman etc

It doesn't make me fast forward or not watch it, unless it's done just for effect or a "filler"
If I want all filler and no story I'll watch a proper porn film lol!

by Tommy Monk Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:50 pm

Gay sex round a coffin and corpse is not family viewing.

Especially not on the BBC in eastenders.

I mean, just look at the outrage for Jeremy Clarkson saying the word, "pikey" on top gear for example..

by veya_victaous Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:46 am

Tommy should watch "queer as folk"
it was made by BBC2 all the way back 1999. so you know 16 years on it has become pretty normal stuff Rolling Eyes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_as_Folk_%28UK_TV_series%29

Tommy would be like
Nice... - Page 3 697eU

by Tommy Monk Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:36 pm

Veya... gay sex round a coffin and corpse is not something that should ever be considered as content in an early evening, family viewing, long running BBC soap opera such as eastenders.

Your example was a short series aimed at a specific minority target audience...

I didn't see any of it, didn't want to see any of it, so I cannot comment on any of its content... also, that programme being aired does not in any way justify this eastenders scene.

I can't believe any of you honestly think that this homosexual sex scenes next to a coffin and dead body in an early evening, large audience, family viewed show such as eastenders is a good thing...!?

I honestly think that there is something wrong with some of you where you can't see anything wrong with this!!!

by Raggamuffin Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:43 pm

This body in the coffin - was it art?

by Guest Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:00 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:This body in the coffin - was it art?

Nah...it was Mrs Birch

by Ben Reilly Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:00 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:This body in the coffin - was it art?

No, it was an actual dead body they acquired for the episode.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:01 pm

From Ab Fab:

Eddie: This is... This is a, sort of... corpse... in an open, oaken, oblong coffin... Silky lining. It's a dead body, Pats.

Patsy: Yeah, but is it art, Eddie?

Eddie: No, sweetie, it's my father.

Patsy: Are you sure?

Eddie: Yeah, I think so. But I've just never seen him in a suit before.

by Ben Reilly Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:From Ab Fab:

Eddie: This is... This is a, sort of... corpse... in an open, oaken, oblong coffin... Silky lining. It's a dead body, Pats.

Patsy: Yeah, but is it art, Eddie?

Eddie: No, sweetie, it's my father.

Patsy: Are you sure?

Eddie: Yeah, I think so. But I've just never seen him in a suit before.

Now that is art Smile

Long time since I've seen that show ...

by Raggamuffin Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:11 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:From Ab Fab:

Now that is art

Long time since I've seen that show ...

I love that episode. It's so irreverent really but hilarious at the same time. Laughing

by Eilzel Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:24 am

Tommy says EE is meant to present normal and natural life.

Tommy goes beyond the level of shit speaking at which even I thought him calable.

EE, where Dirty Den came back from the dead after being shot by a flower, where people die in whodunnits at least once a year, where people living happy lives in Spain or elsewhere return in spite of it being a place of endless misery, where there isn't a single long term happy marriage to speak of, where people are buried alive, bashed with irons and affairs are commonplace.

This is teaching children normal natural life in a small town square in England. According to tommy.

Thick, thick, biased as fuck, and thick.

by Sponsored content

Good tv, or disgusting and morally reprehensible?