|
Post by heworksardtho on Jan 6, 2022 7:59:06 GMT
There’s no doubt that slavery is very bad both back then and now. interesting though that there were some positives to Colston which appear to have gone unnoticed and hasn’t been mentioned once in relation to balancing good and bad. quote “Although the extent of his wealth that was earned from the slave trade can only be conjectured, Colston supported and endowed schools, houses for the poor, almshouses, hospitals and Anglican churches in Bristol, London and elsewhere. His name features widely on Bristol buildings and landmarks.[7][15] Colston used his money and power to promote order in the form of High Anglicanism in the Church of England and oppose Anglican Latitudinarians, Roman Catholics, and dissenter Protestants.[16] In Bristol, he founded almshouses in King Street and Colstons Almshouses on St Michael's Hill, endowed Queen Elizabeth's Hospital school, and helped found Colston's Hospital, a boarding school which opened in 1710 leaving an endowment to be managed by the Society of Merchant Venturers for its upkeep.[3] He gave money to schools in Temple (one of which went on to become St Mary Redcliffe and Temple School) and other parts of Bristol, and to several churches and the cathedral.[3][17] David Hughson, writing in 1808, described Colston as "the great benefactor of the city of Bristol, who, in his lifetime, expended more than 70,000L. [£] in charitable institutions",[18] equivalent to £5,581,350 in 2020.[19] The Colston Society, which had operated for 275 years commemorating Colston, latterly as a charity, decided to disband in 2020.” I take it that those involved in destroying the statue out of morals wont be using any of the hospitals, schools and homes initiated by Colston. By all accounts they won’t be smoking either because he imported tobacco too. If they’re so driven by what’s right it would be hypocritical of them to do so. I’m sure they’re all aware of all this though. I know i wasn’t. Sometimes it’s good to read up I guess. Almost sounds a bit like where we’re having the next world cup. I wonder if any of our players will be pulling out of that on moral grounds. Ssssssshhhh you’re telling the truth you can’t do that
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jan 6, 2022 8:22:32 GMT
There’s no doubt that slavery is very bad both back then and now. interesting though that there were some positives to Colston which appear to have gone unnoticed and hasn’t been mentioned once in relation to balancing good and bad. quote “Although the extent of his wealth that was earned from the slave trade can only be conjectured, Colston supported and endowed schools, houses for the poor, almshouses, hospitals and Anglican churches in Bristol, London and elsewhere. His name features widely on Bristol buildings and landmarks.[7][15] Colston used his money and power to promote order in the form of High Anglicanism in the Church of England and oppose Anglican Latitudinarians, Roman Catholics, and dissenter Protestants.[16] In Bristol, he founded almshouses in King Street and Colstons Almshouses on St Michael's Hill, endowed Queen Elizabeth's Hospital school, and helped found Colston's Hospital, a boarding school which opened in 1710 leaving an endowment to be managed by the Society of Merchant Venturers for its upkeep.[3] He gave money to schools in Temple (one of which went on to become St Mary Redcliffe and Temple School) and other parts of Bristol, and to several churches and the cathedral.[3][17] David Hughson, writing in 1808, described Colston as "the great benefactor of the city of Bristol, who, in his lifetime, expended more than 70,000L. [£] in charitable institutions",[18] equivalent to £5,581,350 in 2020.[19] The Colston Society, which had operated for 275 years commemorating Colston, latterly as a charity, decided to disband in 2020.” I take it that those involved in destroying the statue out of morals wont be using any of the hospitals, schools and homes initiated by Colston. By all accounts they won’t be smoking either because he imported tobacco too. If they’re so driven by what’s right it would be hypocritical of them to do so. I’m sure they’re all aware of all this though. I know i wasn’t. Sometimes it’s good to read up I guess. Almost sounds a bit like where we’re having the next world cup. I wonder if any of our players will be pulling out of that on moral grounds. Ssssssshhhh you’re telling the truth you can’t do that It’s my belief that protestors like the “sexy” side of protesting like smashing things up and being abusive to police but when it comes to their day to day life it’s unlikely they’ll want to sacrifice things that make their life more pleasurable. It’s only the hardcore few that will do this.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2022 8:27:37 GMT
Ssssssshhhh you’re telling the truth you can’t do that It’s my belief that protestors like the “sexy” side of protesting like smashing things up and being abusive to police but when it comes to their day to day life it’s unlikely they’ll want to sacrifice things that make their life more pleasurable. It’s only the hardcore few that will do this. People are great joiner inners as well. We have a statue of Malcolm X in London. Convicted house breaker, self confessed pimp, rent boy and drug dealer. Once said no black woman should date a white man and was against integrated relations . Am sure if pulled down would be a different set of circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 6, 2022 8:35:01 GMT
It’s an obvious point. The court has established a precedent that public vandalism is fine, provided your motives are popular enough. I wonder if any opportunists will fancy renewed attacks on Churchill, Cromwell, Rhodes (although he is a bit too high to easily access) and anyone else that provokes displeasure. Btw, I expect the Insulate Britain crew will have noted this decision with interest. They used the same “dangerous precedent” argument after the 1996 case of 4 women who were found not guilty after admitting that they caused millions of pounds worth of damage to an RAF aircraft on the grounds that it was used to kill citizens in East Timor. The floodgates never opened then either…….. Blimey… you’ve got a good memory. As for floodgates opening, I very much doubt it. But some opportunists getting up to mischief then opting for a court trial is certainly a possibility. Let’s see what happens when the next incident of populist mob outrage kicks off.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 6, 2022 9:25:11 GMT
He knows they weren’t. Pure deflection tactics Deflection? It's just been thrown out of court by a judge and jury. I thought you boys were champions of the justice system.......... Which we know is an absolute arse at times.
|
|
|
Post by chuffedstokie on Jan 6, 2022 10:06:17 GMT
Nicking anyone for criminal damage will be waste of time and public money now.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jan 6, 2022 10:27:43 GMT
There are signs of colonialism everywhere in the UK. Roman baths, aquaducts, towns with Scandinavian derived names...
|
|
|
Post by riverman on Jan 6, 2022 10:36:02 GMT
Ssssssshhhh you’re telling the truth you can’t do that It’s my belief that protestors like the “sexy” side of protesting like smashing things up and being abusive to police but when it comes to their day to day life it’s unlikely they’ll want to sacrifice things that make their life more pleasurable. It’s only the hardcore few that will do this. Exactly. I doubt many of the extinction rebellion lot or the insulate Britain mob are prepared to live without their mobile phones or ipads or 50" tvs that they feel compelled to upgrade every twelve months. Not to mention their nice cozy central heating systems and hot water on tap amongst other things that involve environmentally damaging processes to produce, package and ship around the globe.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Jan 6, 2022 10:37:27 GMT
Well you’re usually a sensible considered poster which on the odd occasions I have found myself agreeing with you Then all of a sudden you dangle what smells like very dodgy bait in your ridiculous original post There is no excuse for vandalism anywhere or anytime Were the Iraqi's right to tear down all the Saddam Hussain statues and memorials, were the Germans right to tear down Nazi statues and memorials, or was it inexcusable behaviour from those involved? Yes they did….. that’s a piss weak comparison
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jan 6, 2022 10:40:19 GMT
It’s my belief that protestors like the “sexy” side of protesting like smashing things up and being abusive to police but when it comes to their day to day life it’s unlikely they’ll want to sacrifice things that make their life more pleasurable. It’s only the hardcore few that will do this. Exactly. I doubt many of the extinction rebellion lot or the insulate Britain mob are prepared to live without their mobile phones or ipads or 50" tvs that they feel compelled to upgrade every twelve months. Not to mention their nice cozy central heating systems and hot water on tap amongst other things that involve environmentally damaging processes to produce, package and ship around the globe. Hmmm, not so sure. I'd put money on them being a lot more aware of the environmental damage that their lifestyles inflict, and, as a result, being a lot more prepared to forego those kind of things than your average punter would be. This is the problem the world faces: trying to live a sustainable lifestyle without having to give up those things you mention, and without added inconvenience to people's way of life nor damaging our capitalist consumerist society. Not easy.
|
|
|
Post by rorymscfc on Jan 6, 2022 11:56:00 GMT
I have lived in Bristol since 1990 and the Colston debate has been ongoing since before then. Massive Attack always refused to play the Colston Hall because of the association.
There were numerous campaigns petitions to have the statue removed which fell on deaf ears and many believe that this has something to do with the influence of the Society of Merchant Venturers, whose headquarters are in Clifton, who fund and have influence on the boards of many of the private schools in Bristol and who up until 6 years ago had Colston's hair and fingernails on display at said headquarters. They are influential in many other areas of the city (such as the management of The Downs, Bristol's largest open space and the funding of Bristol Cathedral (The Bishop of Bristol said that the source of Colston's money was “open to debate”.
I don't know a single person who objects to the removal of the statue. Some object to how it was done but everyone I know is glad it’s gone.
Yes Colston did some good with his ill-gotten gains but to venerate and celebrate a slave trader is just plain wrong, and certainly not representative of the city that I am bringing my kids up in.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jan 7, 2022 1:54:45 GMT
I have lived in Bristol since 1990 and the Colston debate has been ongoing since before then. Massive Attack always refused to play the Colston Hall because of the association. There were numerous campaigns petitions to have the statue removed which fell on deaf ears and many believe that this has something to do with the influence of the Society of Merchant Venturers, whose headquarters are in Clifton, who fund and have influence on the boards of many of the private schools in Bristol and who up until 6 years ago had Colston's hair and fingernails on display at said headquarters. They are influential in many other areas of the city (such as the management of The Downs, Bristol's largest open space and the funding of Bristol Cathedral (The Bishop of Bristol said that the source of Colston's money was “open to debate”. I don't know a single person who objects to the removal of the statue. Some object to how it was done but everyone I know is glad it’s gone. Yes Colston did some good with his ill-gotten gains but to venerate and celebrate a slave trader is just plain wrong, and certainly not representative of the city that I am bringing my kids up in. The thing is, to be honest Colston is representative of your city. Or at least of its history. Not just that, he's actually somewhat representative of all of human history. Slavery has been a feature of pretty much every human civilisation ever, along with myriad other affronts to human dignity we consider abominable now, like infanticide, torture, child labour, forced marriage etc. These things are a feature of the evolution of our species, not a bug. We are unfathomably privileged to live in the era (and location) that we do, where we have largely wrestled ourselves free, through a tortuous philosophical and ideological process of dialogue and reason and democracy, from the chains of tribalism and violence to come to value human dignity, equality, the golden rule and the sovereignty of the individual... I feel like this is a point lost on the Colston Four, and I also think their strident dissociations from historical figures like him - "he does not represent us"; as if, in the case that they were somehow teleported from the their unimaginably comfortable 21st century lives to the grim realities of an estuary city of 350 years ago, they can be certain of what their moral actions would have been - are a little insular and arrogant. Their characterisation of Colston as some monster fails to acknowledge the line between good and evil that runs through the hearts of us all (to paraphrase Solzhenitsyn). Colston's history is our history, whether we like it or not. I can completely understand the long-felt desire to adjust the way Colston is memorialised in Bristol, and I appreciate and agree with your point that his involvement in the slave trade is not something that should be venerated or celebrated - but I also reject the notion that that's what the statue served to do.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jan 7, 2022 7:02:38 GMT
I have lived in Bristol since 1990 and the Colston debate has been ongoing since before then. Massive Attack always refused to play the Colston Hall because of the association. There were numerous campaigns petitions to have the statue removed which fell on deaf ears and many believe that this has something to do with the influence of the Society of Merchant Venturers, whose headquarters are in Clifton, who fund and have influence on the boards of many of the private schools in Bristol and who up until 6 years ago had Colston's hair and fingernails on display at said headquarters. They are influential in many other areas of the city (such as the management of The Downs, Bristol's largest open space and the funding of Bristol Cathedral (The Bishop of Bristol said that the source of Colston's money was “open to debate”. I don't know a single person who objects to the removal of the statue. Some object to how it was done but everyone I know is glad it’s gone. Yes Colston did some good with his ill-gotten gains but to venerate and celebrate a slave trader is just plain wrong, and certainly not representative of the city that I am bringing my kids up in. The thing is, to be honest Colston is representative of your city. Or at least of its history. Not just that, he's actually somewhat representative of all of human history. Slavery has been a feature of pretty much every human civilisation ever, along with myriad other affronts to human dignity we consider abominable now, like infanticide, torture, child labour, forced marriage etc. These things are a feature of the evolution of our species, not a bug. We are unfathomably privileged to live in the era (and location) that we do, where we have largely wrestled ourselves free, through a tortuous philosophical and ideological process of dialogue and reason and democracy, from the chains of tribalism and violence to come to value human dignity, equality, the golden rule and the sovereignty of the individual... I feel like this is a point lost on the Colston Four, and I also think their strident dissociations from historical figures like him - "he does not represent us"; as if, in the case that they were somehow teleported from the their unimaginably comfortable 21st century lives to the grim realities of an estuary city of 350 years ago, they can be certain of what their moral actions would have been - are a little insular and arrogant. Their characterisation of Colston as some monster fails to acknowledge the line between good and evil that runs through the hearts of us all (to paraphrase Solzhenitsyn). Colston's history is our history, whether we like it or not. I can completely understand the long-felt desire to adjust the way Colston is memorialised in Bristol, and I appreciate and agree with your point that his involvement in the slave trade is not something that should be venerated or celebrated - but I also reject the notion that that's what the statue served to do. Things change all the time as does society and the way that we look on the world. Who’s to say that in 50 years time when everyone is vegan that the statues of any meat eaters aren’t torn down because they cruely ate cows, lambs or pigs or that all those people with private jets or driving petrol cars have their images defaced because of how they damaged the environment. Those comments might sound nuts now but who’s to say all those years ago when things were very different that people weren’t saying the same when Colston was building all the hospitals or Churchill was leading the Alies to defeat the Nazis in WW2 and they were celebrating them as heroes rather than condoning them. As you say history good or bad shouldn’t be deleted it should be debated because theres always an alternative view and people should be encouraged to debate so that they listen and learn. The rate we’re going their won’t be discussions about the past because their won’t be any memory of it because it’ll be deleted.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 7, 2022 9:43:01 GMT
The thing is, to be honest Colston is representative of your city. Or at least of its history. Not just that, he's actually somewhat representative of all of human history. Slavery has been a feature of pretty much every human civilisation ever, along with myriad other affronts to human dignity we consider abominable now, like infanticide, torture, child labour, forced marriage etc. These things are a feature of the evolution of our species, not a bug. We are unfathomably privileged to live in the era (and location) that we do, where we have largely wrestled ourselves free, through a tortuous philosophical and ideological process of dialogue and reason and democracy, from the chains of tribalism and violence to come to value human dignity, equality, the golden rule and the sovereignty of the individual... I feel like this is a point lost on the Colston Four, and I also think their strident dissociations from historical figures like him - "he does not represent us"; as if, in the case that they were somehow teleported from the their unimaginably comfortable 21st century lives to the grim realities of an estuary city of 350 years ago, they can be certain of what their moral actions would have been - are a little insular and arrogant. Their characterisation of Colston as some monster fails to acknowledge the line between good and evil that runs through the hearts of us all (to paraphrase Solzhenitsyn). Colston's history is our history, whether we like it or not. I can completely understand the long-felt desire to adjust the way Colston is memorialised in Bristol, and I appreciate and agree with your point that his involvement in the slave trade is not something that should be venerated or celebrated - but I also reject the notion that that's what the statue served to do. Things change all the time as does society and the way that we look on the world. Who’s to say that in 50 years time when everyone is vegan that the statues of any meat eaters aren’t torn down because they cruely ate cows, lambs or pigs or that all those people with private jets or driving petrol cars have their images defaced because of how they damaged the environment. Those comments might sound nuts now but who’s to say all those years ago when things were very different that people weren’t saying the same when Colston was building all the hospitals or Churchill was leading the Alies to defeat the Nazis in WW2 and they were celebrating them as heroes rather than condoning them. As you say history good or bad shouldn’t be deleted it should be debated because theres always an alternative view and people should be encouraged to debate so that they listen and learn. The rate we’re going their won’t be discussions about the past because their won’t be any memory of it because it’ll be deleted. Very few -people (if any) are talking about erasing anything. The statues and monuments can be shown in museums up and down the country with the full history attached to them, that's exactly what those wanting the Colston statue removed were campaigning for in a proposed museum of slavery in the docks (which never materialised I don't believe maybe one of our Bristol residents can confirm?) I keep hearing this argument and it's totally disingenuous, in fact if anything when it comes to Churchill it's his history that has been airbrushed. We hear about Churchill the war hero but not Churchill the white supremacist. Let's put his actions in the public domain warts and all and let people make their own mind up about him........
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Jan 7, 2022 9:55:09 GMT
Things change all the time as does society and the way that we look on the world. Who’s to say that in 50 years time when everyone is vegan that the statues of any meat eaters aren’t torn down because they cruely ate cows, lambs or pigs or that all those people with private jets or driving petrol cars have their images defaced because of how they damaged the environment. Those comments might sound nuts now but who’s to say all those years ago when things were very different that people weren’t saying the same when Colston was building all the hospitals or Churchill was leading the Alies to defeat the Nazis in WW2 and they were celebrating them as heroes rather than condoning them. As you say history good or bad shouldn’t be deleted it should be debated because theres always an alternative view and people should be encouraged to debate so that they listen and learn. The rate we’re going their won’t be discussions about the past because their won’t be any memory of it because it’ll be deleted. Very few -people (if any) are talking about erasing anything. The statues and monuments can be shown in museums up and down the country with the full history attached to them, that's exactly what those wanting the Colston statue removed were campaigning for in a proposed museum of slavery in the docks (which never materialised I don't believe maybe one of our Bristol residents can confirm?) I keep hearing this argument and it's totally disingenuous, in fact if anything when it comes to Churchill it's his history that has been airbrushed. We hear about Churchill the war hero but not Churchill the white supremacist. Let's put his actions in the public domain warts and all and let people make their own mind up about him........ Nobody disagrees with any of that I know I don't but that's not the issue. The OP of this thread stated that 4 people had been found not guilty of criminal damage. The discussion is around that part of the case not the statues validation or not. Is it right or wrong to tear something down because you and your friends don't agree with or like and that can never be correct. Frustration and personal opinion can never be a defence to breaking the law, mitigation maybe but a defence no.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jan 7, 2022 10:02:26 GMT
Things change all the time as does society and the way that we look on the world. Who’s to say that in 50 years time when everyone is vegan that the statues of any meat eaters aren’t torn down because they cruely ate cows, lambs or pigs or that all those people with private jets or driving petrol cars have their images defaced because of how they damaged the environment. Those comments might sound nuts now but who’s to say all those years ago when things were very different that people weren’t saying the same when Colston was building all the hospitals or Churchill was leading the Alies to defeat the Nazis in WW2 and they were celebrating them as heroes rather than condoning them. As you say history good or bad shouldn’t be deleted it should be debated because theres always an alternative view and people should be encouraged to debate so that they listen and learn. The rate we’re going their won’t be discussions about the past because their won’t be any memory of it because it’ll be deleted. Very few -people (if any) are talking about erasing anything. The statues and monuments can be shown in museums up and down the country with the full history attached to them, that's exactly what those wanting the Colston statue removed were campaigning for in a proposed museum of slavery in the docks (which never materialised I don't believe maybe one of our Bristol residents can confirm?) I keep hearing this argument and it's totally disingenuous, in fact if anything when it comes to Churchill it's his history that has been airbrushed. We hear about Churchill the war hero but not Churchill the white supremacist. Let's put his actions in the public domain warts and all and let people make their own mind up about him........ I guess no one’s perfect and you could pretty much find dirt on any “hero.” It just feels like a small group in society (not you) get pleasure out of focusing on the negatives and would rather look on Churchill as a racist than the man who lead us through the second world war. Could the opposite be said of George Floyd who was a career criminal and drug addict who’s been made into a martyr due to being tragically killed and is lauded as some sort of hero. His statue it appears is causing the same controversy as Colston and has been vandalised. None of it’s acceptable. People can disagree but why damage. Just ignore it. Is it really that hard?
|
|
|
Post by brotherleelove on Jan 7, 2022 10:19:30 GMT
A bigger concern to me on-going is the politicised Cop force we have in this Country now.
They played their part in aiding and abetting the vandals in Bristol.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 7, 2022 10:22:11 GMT
Very few -people (if any) are talking about erasing anything. The statues and monuments can be shown in museums up and down the country with the full history attached to them, that's exactly what those wanting the Colston statue removed were campaigning for in a proposed museum of slavery in the docks (which never materialised I don't believe maybe one of our Bristol residents can confirm?) I keep hearing this argument and it's totally disingenuous, in fact if anything when it comes to Churchill it's his history that has been airbrushed. We hear about Churchill the war hero but not Churchill the white supremacist. Let's put his actions in the public domain warts and all and let people make their own mind up about him........ Nobody disagrees with any of that I know I don't but that's not the issue. The OP of this thread stated that 4 people had been found not guilty of criminal damage. The discussion is around that part of the case not the statues validation or not. Is it right or wrong to tear something down because you and your friends don't agree with or like and that can never be correct. Frustration and personal opinion can never be a defence to breaking the law, mitigation maybe but a defence no. They. Were. Acquitted. By. A. Jury. Why don’t “you and your friends” understand that?
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jan 7, 2022 10:29:39 GMT
A bigger concern to me on-going is the politicised Cop force we have in this Country now. They played their part in aiding and abetting the vandals in Bristol. Because some people can't differentiate between the US and UK police forces. Police should be politically neutral and, of course, not racist.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Jan 7, 2022 10:42:38 GMT
Nobody disagrees with any of that I know I don't but that's not the issue. The OP of this thread stated that 4 people had been found not guilty of criminal damage. The discussion is around that part of the case not the statues validation or not. Is it right or wrong to tear something down because you and your friends don't agree with or like and that can never be correct. Frustration and personal opinion can never be a defence to breaking the law, mitigation maybe but a defence no. They. Were. Acquitted. By. A. Jury. Why don’t “you and your friends” understand that? We know why do you engage then become condescending. We're chewing the fat on a message board try and be civil.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jan 7, 2022 10:44:46 GMT
They. Were. Acquitted. By. A. Jury. Why don’t “you and your friends” understand that? We know why do you engage then become condescending. We're chewing the fat on a message board try and be civil. I detect one may have a little sand in one’s fanny😏
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Jan 7, 2022 10:46:24 GMT
We know why do you engage then become condescending. We're chewing the fat on a message board try and be civil. I detect one may have a little sand in one’s fanny😏 I actually preferred it when he ignored me.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jan 7, 2022 11:24:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by prettything on Jan 7, 2022 11:28:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 7, 2022 11:31:38 GMT
"Liberal left" humour is so unfunny.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jan 7, 2022 11:33:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 7, 2022 11:33:31 GMT
I detect one may have a little sand in one’s fanny😏 I actually preferred it when he ignored me. “I actually preferred it when he ignored me” says the person responding to my initial post……
|
|
|
Post by prettything on Jan 7, 2022 11:40:55 GMT
"Liberal left" humour is so unfunny. Bring back Jim Davidson!
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Jan 7, 2022 11:41:59 GMT
I actually preferred it when he ignored me. “I actually preferred it when he ignored me” says the person responding to my initial post…… I didn't say I ignored you did I I've liked and agree with some of what you say even in this very thread. However I responded politely and considered you reply with sarcasm and are condescending so yeah I did prefer it when you ignored me. You "talk down" to pretty much anyone who you disagree with and you're fast becoming nothing more than an angry wum.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 7, 2022 12:02:19 GMT
“I actually preferred it when he ignored me” says the person responding to my initial post…… I didn't say I ignored you did I I've liked and agree with some of what you say even in this very thread. However I responded politely and considered you reply with sarcasm and are condescending so yeah I did prefer it when you ignored me. You "talk down" to pretty much anyone who you disagree with and you're fast becoming nothing more than an angry wum. Yet it was you who came up with the initial "you and your friends" comment. I won't deny I'm a sarcastic prick at times I'll take that one on the chin all day long, maybe reflect on your own posts as well? And I'm not angry in the slightest, why would anyone get wound up by a bunch of faceless no marks on an internet forum debating with one another?
|
|