[Closed] "Muslim" terrorists attack French magazine in Paris

I believe there are several different ones - all of which must be special as they've sold more copies than anything by J K Rowling.

A bit of a flippant question, really, just needed it clarifying.

I'm not religious or offended by that comment but knowing what I know of Cougar I would have said that there was a slight dig or 'laugh at their expense' in there with the word 'special'. I think in light of the point some are attempting to make, the word 'book' would have sufficed.

I'm probably way off or whatever - but I was just sayin'...

Edit : And you've responded. Thanks for clarifying. Slow typist alert!

Call me old fashioned, but I'm not sure that I'd agree that a spot of light firebombing is a reasonable response to a newspaper reprinting a couple of cartoons.

I must be old fashioned too.

I'm not religious or offended by that comment but knowing what I know of Cougar I would have said that there was a slight dig or 'laugh at their expense' in there with the word 'special'. I think in light of the point some are attempting to make, the word 'book' would have sufficed.

Most of Monty Python was laughing at religions expense.

Monty Python is socially unacceptable now?

No. That's not my point.

Edit : Although it is, kind of. Like I wrote, I'm not offended, just pointing out that some might take that as a piss take.

A bit of a flippant question, really,

I'd never have guessed 😉

Re: firebombing

Which is a reaction most people would find not too unreasonable.

What ?

Are you some sort of lunatic.

I'd never have guessed

🙂

Well, y'know. It's raining and there's nowt to do...

if we were to afford special protection in law to ban the drawing of an image this would surely lead a) to Islam wanting other things protecting and b) every other religion wanting their own religious trappings protecting as well. The Daily Mail and their red-topped friends would explode about creeping Sharia Law and the Islamification of Britain, and UKIP would think all their non-denominative winter festivals had come at once.

Lucky no-one has at any point suggested that then eh. How many times is this particular straw man going to get wheeled out? He's getting very tatty and ragged-looking.

there's nowt to do...

There's always something to do. All this furore keeps bringing Mind Bomb into my head - who'd have thought that was 30 years ago eh?

It's called a Kosher supermarket in the same way as is a Halal one. It carries products which comply with that food code. You don't refer to it as Jewish or Muslim.

@Pembo, personally I do find it unreasonable you would firebomb a newspaper for publishing cartoons.

We shall see what Charlie Hebdo produces, the attack means a print run of 1 million instead of 60,000 so many more people will see cartoons of the Prophet than would have done prior to the attack

All this furore keeps bringing Mind Bomb into my head - who'd have thought that was 30 years ago eh?

Good call - that's going on straight away.

And yeah, bang up to date. Scary...

Lucky no-one has at any point suggested that then eh. How many times is this particular straw man going to get wheeled out? He's getting very tatty and ragged-looking.

I really fail to see why you were even disagreeing with Binners, seeing as he finds the Charlie Hebdo images distasteful?

Scary...

Absolutely.

Is there a special Jewish Police force in London?

[img] [/img]

Is there anything similar for any other religions?

They aren't actually police though are the Jivehoney.

An interesting side point I will add, is that the Shomrim are actually managing to diffuse Jewish and Muslim tension by protecting Muslim homes and businesses in London as well.

Although I really, really disagree with the fact they even exist.

Grum its a slippery slope argument as if Charlie is the gateway drug to totalitarianism

Its possible to criticise Islam and chose to not do it via the medium of cartoons. Some would call it a compromise though for our extremists lovers of freedom of speech its all or nothing with the all being the unhindered right to be an offensive so and so for all will be lost of we say hey lets all be nice to each other.

Same argument was said , no doubt, when we had to stop insulting the gays and the blacks and the Mail was probably just as annoyed then.

I would say that car is illegal, definitely designed to give the impression of being a police car.

I would say that car is illegal, definitely designed to give the impression of being a police car.

As jivebunny would say, do some research 😉

Lucky no-one has at any point suggested that then eh. How many times is this particular straw man going to get wheeled out?

Lucky I didn't say anyone here had. You know, I'm pretty sure there's a name for concocting a false argument in order to attack it, but I can't quite put my finger on it...

It [i]is[/i] about the law though, even if just indirectly by association. It has to be. Gonzy and maybe others have been talking about things that are "strictly off limits;" how else do you police things that are strictly off limits? Free lollipops to all the good boys and girls?

And if it's not about the law then it's about moral code, about having the moral fibre not to be unpleasant to your fellow man. That's all we've got left. But you can't [i]demand[/i] that people are excellent to each other (unless Religion), you have to ask nicely and respectfully, maybe even educate people if they don't actually realise how much they're upsetting others. Civilised people have adult conversations, they don't turn up with ****ing heavy weaponry.

Any other options I've missed here?

Is there a special Jewish Police force in London?

No.

Is there anything similar for any other religions?

No.

Lucky I didn't say anyone here had.

So who were you arguing against then? No-one? Seems a bit pointless.

Gonzy and maybe others have been talking about things that are "strictly off limits;"

I think most people would consider it 'strictly off-limits' to, IDK - cheat on your wife with your friend's 16 year old daughter. Perfectly legal though.

And given that it's perfectly legal we should vehemently defend every man's fundamental right to do exactly that, because to do anything else is flying in the face of every principle of liberal democracy that we hold dear.

In a roundabout way, we have already defended every mans fundamental right to do just that.

It's not illegal, because we have specifically made it legal.

We haven't campaigned to make it illegal (as a society)

And other than a row with his wife and his mate, nothing else happens if he does it.

The divide and conquer strategy has a time served propensity for distraction - The Magna Carta is being retrofitted as we speak in accordance with ensuing banking legislation and trade reforms - Meanwhile folk want to wax lyrical about the dangers of contrived fundamentalism.. Seems like the 'great game' is going to plan .. We all need to come together on the issues that impinge upon our birth rights - Freedom of Speech should be taken as a given - it's not a privilege granted to us by the state .. As long as an individual or group is not directly calling for violence or harm directly then it's his,hers or their call if they wish to be construed as 'offensive' - Offending groups or individuals is not a criminal act....

In a roundabout way, we have already defended every mans fundamental right to do just that.

It's not illegal, because we have specifically made it legal.

We haven't campaigned to make it illegal (as a society)

And other than a row with his wife and his mate, nothing else happens if he does it.

I guarantee you many people on here (and elsewhere) would see it as perfectly acceptable for the girl's father to go and beat the other guy up in that scenario. You'd probably get various internet hard men on here saying they would kill their mate if they did that to their daughter.

My point is - there's lots of things that are legal but not morally acceptable to most people or to be encouraged/applauded. Many people on here and elsewhere have been applauding things which are morally reprehensible. Saying 'I disagree with what you say but I defend your right to say it in a free society' is different to saying 'I'm 100% with you'. That's the clear implication of saying 'je suis Charlie'.

binners argument of 'only the law can decide what's ok as a society' is patently nonsense.

As jivebunny would say, do some research

About what? A private security company is not legally allowed to mimic the police livery on their cars, that is way too close to actual police cars to be accidental, and I note that they say their guards have undergone police training (?), it seems they are trying very hard to pretend to be a sanctioned private police force.

But you can't demand that people are excellent to each other (unless Religion)

knowing what I know of Cougar I would have said that there was a slight dig or 'laugh at their expense' in there with the word 'special'.

Sorry, I missed this. No dig was intended, FWIW. Appropriately enough given the discussion, I'm trying to stop doing that as it's not nice. I was rarely serious in the first place but that's not the point.

So who were you arguing against then? No-one? Seems a bit pointless.

Who said I was arguing? I'm taking part in a discussion, last I checked. Is that not good enough?

I think most people would consider it 'strictly off-limits' to, IDK - cheat on your wife with your friend's 16 year old daughter. Perfectly legal though.

But not all, clearly, or it'd never happen. So the question then becomes, who defines those limits? Do I get to demand that [i]you [/i]can't cheat on your wife because it offends [i]my [/i]moral code?

And given that it's perfectly legal we should vehemently defend every man's fundamental right to do exactly that, because to do anything else is flying in the face of every principle of liberal democracy that we hold dear.

You're either not listening or being deliberately obtuse now. We should "vehemently defend every man's fundamental right to [be able to] do exactly that," of course we should; that doesn't mean that what he's doing has to be socially acceptable too, or that it's a right and just thing to do.

This isn't a freedom of speech issue, it's a freedom issue. We're free to act like dicks if we so choose, because we don't live in a society which has criminalised immorality.

You may wish to check the equality legislation to see if we can demand this

I'm not intimately familiar with the equality legislation but I'd have thought that it would legislate that I treat people, well, equally. Is excellence an actual requirement or if I treat everyone equally badly will that do?

(Semi-genuine question, I don't actually know)

binners argument of 'only the law can decide what's ok as a society' is patently nonsense

The law is quite often there to protect the rights of the individual from society.

You're indirectly advocating mob rule.

Did you miss this paragraph Cougar or just ignore it because you couldn't think of an argument against it?

My point is - there's lots of things that are legal but not morally acceptable to most people or to be encouraged/applauded. Many people on here and elsewhere have been applauding things which are morally reprehensible. Saying 'I disagree with what you say but I defend your right to say it in a free society' is different to saying 'I'm 100% with you'. That's the clear implication of saying 'je suis Charlie'.

Because it's already answered this bit.

You're either not listening or being deliberately obtuse now. We should "vehemently defend every man's fundamental right to [be able to] do exactly that," of course we should; that doesn't mean that what he's doing has to be socially acceptable too, or that it's a right and just thing to do.

This isn't a freedom of speech issue, it's a freedom issue. We're free to act like dicks if we so choose, because we don't live in a society which has criminalised immorality.

Did you miss this paragraph

I didn't particularly see as it merited a response, but if you insist,

Many people on here and elsewhere have been applauding things which are morally reprehensible.

Have they? I didn't think so. We're applauding the right, the freedom to be able to do these things, not the acts themselves. Big difference, and kinda my point. And seemingly what you're saying too if I'm reading the rest of that paragraph correctly, so I'm not quite sure why you still think this is an argument. We appear to be vehemently agreeing with each other.

You cannot treat all gay people and all women equally badly and comply
FWIW it can be a defence in sex discrimination [ at work case of "bastard to all" ie they treat men , women, gay people, black people etc very badly so its fair.

"vehemently defend every man's fundamental right to [be able to] do exactly that," of course we should; that doesn't mean that what he's doing has to be socially acceptable too, or that it's a right and just thing to do.

This isn't a freedom of speech issue, it's a freedom issue. We're free to act like dicks if we so choose, because we don't live in a society which has criminalised immorality.

I wonder if the pro-Charlie posters in thread might have been a bit more forgiving if the terrorists had used swords..?

So we defend their right to do things we all agree is not an acceptable t a..does not make sense

Over the age of consent people should be free to pursue any relationship of their choosing, if you think that it is weird to defend this then can I point you in the direction of gay relationships. It is precisely because of enlightened libertarian thinking that these are now allowed.

Have they? I didn't think so. We're applauding the right, the freedom to be able to do these things, not the acts themselves. Big difference, and kinda my point.

binners was praising them for being pretty good at satire, until he actually saw some of their cartoons and realised how racist they were. Many others have been saying 'what's wrong with depicting the prophet, why are they getting so upset' etc - seemingly oblivious to the fact that that was part of a pattern of unpleasant racist goading.

Saying 'je suis Charlie' goes beyond simply supporting free speech and implies support of the message of CH, IMO.

And seemingly what you're saying too if I'm reading the rest of that paragraph correctly, so I'm not quite sure why you still think this is an argument. We appear to be vehemently agreeing with each other.

Nope. It's a subtle but crucial difference between saying 'I disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it' and saying 'yeah go you - say it again, and again and again'. It seems to be too subtle a distinction for many.

Further violence this afternoon.. this time in Dublin

just pointing out that some might take that as a piss take.

I wonder if the pro-Charlie posters in thread might have been a bit more forgiving if the terrorists had used swords..?

I wonder if the pro-Charlie posters in thread might have been a bit more forgiving if the terrorists had used swords..?

Pro-Charlie? There's a distinct difference between that and supporting Charlie Hebdo's right to free speech or expression.

binners was praising them for being pretty good at satire, until he actually saw some of their cartoons and realised how racist they were.

So he was praising them until he revised his belief in what they were doing when he recieved more information? Seems reasonable to me. If he'd carried on championing them whilst believing they were racist then you'd have a point.

It's a subtle but crucial difference

Is there anyone actually asserting the latter though? Must be so subtle a difference that I missed it if so.

This is timely, perhaps:

A French leftist who has read Hebdo for years educates those who discovered it three days ago:

[img] [/img]

Full text is here, http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/olivier-tonneau/110115/charlie-hebdo-letter-my-british-friends

@Nealglover "It quoted a police spokeswoman as saying that the editorial team should be able to continue work in the building as the damage was relatively minor."

Hardly the towering inferno, but go ahead, knock yourself out and misquote me.

So it's ok to firebomb somewhere so long as we only firebomb it a bit? Glad we cleared that up.

It's a good job they cleverly designed their projectile weapons to only cause minimal damage, hey.

A French leftist who has read Hebdo for years educates those who discovered it three days ago:

taken out of context

😆

Oh the beautiful beautiful irony of this thread Cougar.

Well they didn't do a very good job compared to [url= http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/antiterror-police-probe-muswell-hill-mosque-blaze-amid-fears-firebomb-is-woolwich-revenge-8645356.html ]this[/url]

And the people in Northern Ireland are pretty handy with petrol bombs. London riots of 2013? Anti-capitalist marches in London?

The point I was making was there will always be a few idiots who will cross the line and the examples above show it's not that uncommon, but how the hell can they go to the extremes we witnessed last wweek?

Hang on a minute. I wasn't praising or criticising CH. I actually stated that my opinion was irrelevant, as I didn't know enough about French domestic politics to know in any detail what it is they were satirising. Satire generally tends to be very hit and miss. Some funny, some not. But the very nature of the business means it has to be challenging. And this can drift into being offensive to some. Some people are more easily offended than others. As long as it stays within the law, that's fine. If you're offended, well.... You're offended. That's just the way it is.

Once again: you don't have a right not to be offended. With a possible caveat about having abuse shouted at you in church while you're trying to get married. Which might get someone a shoeing 😉

Just saw Ch4 News report about this

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/12/fox-news-expert-ridiculed-over-birmingham-is-totally-muslim-city-claims

A bit scary given that he advises senate committee's and is an expert for many news channels. Got to ask though why would he do this he's obviously not stupid so he can't claim ignorance.

Ah you weren't following #foxnewsfacts last night then? They were put straight.

So it's ok to firebomb somewhere so long as we only firebomb it a bit? Glad we cleared that up.

Course it is, just like it's ok to loot shops as long as you only steal bottles of water!

Sorry, I missed this. No dig was intended, FWIW. Appropriately enough given the discussion, I'm trying to stop doing that as it's not nice. I was rarely serious in the first place but that's not the point.

Thanks. I thought I might be inferring something that wasn't there but just had to check. And you're a big man for admitting to previously doing it and adjusting the harmless not-so-nice approach - 's all cool, man.

What's left in life if we can't take the piss?

Hey, you don't have to tell me, though I was never a fan of continuing the ragging if folk are getting genuinely upset by the whole thing. Some folk I know only start to enjoy it when feelings are clearly getting hurt.

Pro-Charlie? There's a distinct difference between that and supporting Charlie Hebdo's right to free speech or expression.

[img] [/img]

Ah you weren't following #foxnewsfacts last night then? They were put straight.

That was one of the funniest things I've read in years. Good work, Internet.

David Cameron has described Steven Emerson as "clearly an idiot", according to ITV News.

Brilliant and I don't even like Cameron.

I noticed Emerson has apologised, calling Birmingham a "beautiful city."

Dopey sod can't get anything right.

Fox News are now shit stirring regarding no-go areas in French cities. Obviously can't cope with UK sarcasm.

Obviously can't cope with UK sarcasm.

Oh please tell me that's a stich up

Yes Fox News Press Team was a spoof. The rest is true.

@foxnewspress was Poe's Law in action.

Murdoch should take some responsibility.

I'm not sure I've ever giggled so much at a list of tweets...one that comes to mind:

In the UK the weather changes between Sunni and Shi'ite 😆

If anyone asked me what the best thing about the British is, then I'd point them in the direction of the Twitter replies to that Fox News story. Industrial level wit, sarcasm and piss taking! 😀

I particularly liked the picture of Iced Gems, "these tiny confectionery mosques are available in corner shops..."

Murdoch should take plenty of responsibility, after all, the 2nd largest stakeholder in Newscorp outside of the Murdoch family is a Saudi Prince:

[img] [/img]

Now, aside from be-headings and lashings, the Saudi's are also fond of the arms trade and have been heavy investors in the Carlyle Group, including Murdoch's mate up there Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal (as well as members of the Bin Laden family):

[img] [/img]

a spooky coincidence is:

Carlyle's 2001 investor conference took place on September 11, 2001. In the weeks following the meeting, it was reported that Shafiq bin Laden, a member of the Bin Laden family, had been the "guest of honor", and that they were investors in Carlyle managed funds.[21][22][23][24][25] Later reports confirmed that the Bin Laden family had invested $2 million into Carlyle's $1.3 billion Carlyle Partners II Fund in 1995, making the family relatively small investors with the firm.[26] These connections would later be profiled in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911. The Bin Laden family liquidated its holdings in Carlyle's funds in October 2001.[27]

Now of course, ties between the Western Powers+Saudi go far further back than that, most notably to [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone ]Operation Cyclone[/url], which the CIA, MI6 and Saudi Arabia co-funded and collaborated on, covertly supplying weapons (generally AK47s to avoid suspicion of their true suppliers) to the mujahadeen:

This led to Robin Cook's disclosure regarding Al-Qaeda in 2005, shortly before his death:

[img] [/img]

Does that mean all western tax payers should assume some responsibility for the legacy they've created?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#Alleged_CIA_involvement

Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook wrote that the word al-Qaeda should be translated as "the database", and originally referred to the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen militants who were recruited and trained with CIA help to defeat the Russians.

Not [i]quite [/i]the same thing now, is it. The original article is here:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

Have a read, you'll [i]love[/i] it.

I can't find any credible source for that "quote" beyond pithy .JPGs. The best I could find is this,

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Al_Qaeda_does_not_exist

The salient point is,

Robin Cook wasn’t known for denying Al Qaeda is a terrorist group as far as we can recall, and searching at Hansard (a record of everything that goes on in Parliament) produced no matches even remotely matching the above claim. The best match we found was this, from a Guardian article:

The Guardian article, of course, being the one I just linked to.

Seriously, do you do any fact checking beyond just regurgitating wild conjecture and made-up "facts" which feed your agenda? This took me literally five minutes to cross-check and decide it was bollocks.

Charlie Hebdo is left but not radical left. The right is perhaps more often the target than the left but no-one is spared. I've always regarded it as a left over from the generation of 68 (no pun intended). It's a good read if you read it in the spirit it is written and drawn. People buy the newspapers and magazines that comfort them in their views, if you don't like the editorial stance of newspaper, don't read it. I don't read La Croix or Saphir News... .

The supermarket is "Hyper Cacher" in the same way as "Netto" is a supermarket, it's a name. It's a supermarket which specialises in cacher food with an appropriate name.

As for going to far with insult, how do people rate Junkyard calling me a racist earlier in the thread but then failing to provide quotes when asked?

how do people rate Junkyard calling me a racist earlier in the thread but then failing to provide quotes when asked?

Well, you clearly don't mind too much, or you'd have reported it wouldn't you.

In which post was it that he called you a racist Ed? I've heard you're quite good at keeping records so I imagine you'll have it ready at your fingertips to save us searching back through the thread.

Remember that little chat we had Cougar?

Do you refute:

a) Al-Waleed Bin Talal is the 2nd largest stakeholder in Newscorp outside of the Murdoch Family?

b) The existence of the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Carlyle_Group ]Carlyle Group[/url]

c) [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone ]Operation Cyclone[/url], involving the CIA, MI6 and Saudi Arabia

d) That Robin Cook has said something very similar to what is portrayed in the infographic?

That said, good on you for taking the time to check for yourself and not just blindly accept what you were presented 😉

No I don't mind too much, Cougar. However, it's an example of the hypocrisy shown by some posters on this thread, apparently against insult but with a long history of insulting people. Junkyard also called Jive a "fool" and a "sheep" earlier in this thread.

d) That Robin Cook has said something very similar to what is portrayed in the infographic?

Yes, because he didn't, as I've just shown you. You did read the articles in the links, yes?

The others I haven't checked (because frankly I don't care that much) but given your track record I'd probably find that it was nonsense if I did. The Robin Cook one was simply low-hanging fruit.

That said, good on you for taking the time to check for yourself and not just blindly accept what you were presented

Gee, thanks! You should try it some time.

Junkyard also called Jive a "fool" and a "sheep" earlier in this thread.

Well if nothing else, I can hardly pull him up for libel. (-:

To be fair, Jason Burke knows a fair bit about Al Qaeda etc - certainly more than anyone posting here:

Jason Burke is the south Asia correspondent of the Guardian and the Observer newspapers.

In more than a decade as a staff correspondent with the papers, Burke has reported on a wide range of subjects in countries from Algeria to Cambodia, from Uzebkistan to Zimbabwe.

Based in ****stan from 1998 to 2002, reporting from Afghanistan under the Taliban and during the war of 2001, he has returned to ****stan and Afghanistan many times since. Burke has also worked extensively in the Middle East, reporting from Iraq before, during and after the war of 2003. He has specialised in conflict, terrorism and Islamic militancy.

Currently based in New Delhi, he covers a wide range of social, political and cultural topics across South Asia. He is a regular commentator on television and radio.

And he said this (admittedly I think it was in a book from 2003):

The idea which is critical to the FBI¹s prosecution that bin Laden ran a coherent organisation with operatives and cells all around the world of which you could be a member is a myth. There is no Al Qaeda organisation. There is no international network with a leader, with cadres who will unquestioningly obey orders, with tentacles that stretch out to sleeper cells in America, in Africa, in Europe. That idea of a coherent, structured terrorist network with an organised capability simply does not exist.

Liking your work grum...

[img] [/img]

[url= https://storify.com/tometty/staunch-defenders-of-free-press-attend-solidarity ]As you were, keep paying taxes and don't ask questions[/url]

Rubber dinghy rapids bro

Evan Davis briefly showed the cover shot of wednesdays edition of Charlie Hebdo on Newsnight earlier,

[img] [/img]

The headline states : All Is Forgiven

Saw the security expert from Fox interviewed on the bbc, he apologised for the "poor research" which lead to the Birmingham is a no-go area. He refused to apologise for and indeed stood by his remark that unofficial religious / Sharia police operate in East London quoting British newspaper stories as a source.

I posted back last week that I wondered what the reaction to the attacks would be in Dresden. The bbc reports the anti Islamist rally grew to 25,000 [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30777841 ]link[/url] The leaders of the West need to demonstrate they have a solution to the current problems or authority is going to be taken from their hands via democracy and the far right

He refused to apologise for and indeed stood by his remark that unofficial religious / Sharia police operate in East London quoting British newspaper stories as a source.

AFAIK he's right, but it was three blokes not a widespread thing.

Rock Solid source this guy:

That's a whole lot of brainwashing on behalf of Mr Murdoch and Prince Al Waleed Bin Talal of Carlyle Group fame...

Wonder what the viewing figures are for that?

Yeah, I think more likely than not the Hebdo attack is a false flag.

You just have to think who benefits from this.
However much the media whips you into a frenzy about muslims being fanatical hate merchants, the true fanatics are the cold-blooded murdering, child-abusing satanists at the top of the military industrial banking complex and their intel agencies, who are hell bent on whipping up anti-muslim fever to justify further taking away your rights in the fast approaching fascist police state they want and eventually getting into a full on WW3 on Islam (just like that sicko Albert Pike wrote about as their grand plan).

Edukator ›› As for going to far with insult, how do people rate Junkyard calling me a racist earlier in the thread but then failing to provide quotes when asked?

It didn't stand out as he generally tends to insult when "debating" which is why I found this beauty from earlier...

Junkyard ›› I am not sure why folk confuse freedom of speech and the freedom to insult

...hilarious.

deadlydarcy ›› In which post was it that he called you a racist Ed? I've heard you're quite good at keeping records so I imagine you'll have it ready at your fingertips to save us searching back through the thread.

Here ya go, chuckles...

Junkyard ›› As has trolling and being not quite racist enough to get banned

and

Junkyard ›› I am not sure portraying black person as a monkey can be called "sailing close to the wind". Its just racist.

You seem to have turned offence in to an art form there Edukator,

But it's okay, isn't it; it's just Junkyard, your buddy, your Bread Wren, attacking a lowly troll.

Junkyard ›› What if the insults become bullying ?
Is it still ok and freedom of speech?

[b]?[/b]

Holy quote trawling, Batman!

It was an homage to the Yard Full Of Male Genitalia.