Clarkson pie-eyed

Tony B said:

Quoted message said:

Clever, that. Even the UN cannot come up with a satisfactory
definition that World leaders can agree.

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

So the US led invasion of Iraq was an act of terrorism? I guess your
definition tells us what we already knew.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:56:34 +0100 someone who may be The Nottingham
Duck <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Chopping up posts and pasting quotes out of context to make yourself
look good only cheapens your intellectual stock.

Yawn, proof by assertion.

Quoted message said:

To sum up,Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.

Not really, though he might have gone on to become one.

Some members of my family were terrorists. They caused government
officials a great deal of inconvenience, ranging from extra guard
duty to painful and slow death. They were (most of them are dead
now) well respected by various governments and the public.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps if you'd spent more time at school studying English you could
grasp these awkward ideas,and read posts properly.

Yawn. Be careful who you try and make patronising comments about.

Despite all your huffing abd puffing my point remains unanswered.
Blowing up some electricity pylons is in a somewhat different league
to blowing up people.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

I submit that on or about Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:56:34 +0100, the person
known to the court as The Nottingham Duck
<[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle)
to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

The point about context was to answer the question of why the U.N.
couldn't come up with a universally agreed definition of
terrorism(because there are a few muslim countries in the U.N. if you
didn't know).

To say nothing of the USA, UK and Israel. One man's terrorist is
another man's freedom fighter, after all...

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Bertie Wiggins said:

So the US led invasion of Iraq was an act of terrorism? I guess your
definition tells us what we already knew.

Not my own construct definition though, it's from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

But yes, I consider the Iraq invasion as good an example of a terrorist act as any.

YMMV of course.

bfn,

Tony B

The Nottingham Duck said:

The original point refers to a dictionary definition of terrorism.This
definition exists,try reading a dictionary some time,but a violent act
denounced as 'terrorist' will not be universally acknowledged as such.

I think we all know what our *own* definition of terrorism is, the
difficulty is in a *universally accepted* definition.

The definition of murder is *unlawful killing* but different societies
have a different definition of *unlawful*.

In other words, to state that you know the dictionary definition of
terrorism is rather like stating that you know the dictionary
definition of murder: it is meaningless.

The Nottingham Duck said:

Ian Gregory said:

The Nottingham Duck said:

On 13 Sep 2005 19:49:17 GMT, Ian Gregory <[email hidden]> wrote:

>The _fact_ is that she planted a banoffie pie in Jeremy Clarkson's
>face. Whether or not the act was "cowardly" is a matter of opinion.
>Whether or not it was criminal depends on a number of things - how
>do you know it wasn't a stunt dreamed up by his publicist?

So if some 'hoodie' throws a brick at you,and claims you asked him to
do it then its not aggravated assault ?

So if I go to the school fete and pay 50p to throw a water balloon
at the teacher then it is agravated assault?

Quoted message said:

The woman is an [censored].If she had any 'balls'-or rather if her
convctions were so strong,why not try sticking a blade into Tony Blair?

Because she believes that it is wrong to inflict pain on sentient
beings? Because she thinks that Tony Blair is a decent chap? She
knows the answer to that question, we don't. Are you suggesting she
should try knifing the Prime Minister?

Certainly not,neither do I suggest that she throw pies at 'D' list
celebs.

If someone had grabbed her breasts in the street or on the tube she'd
complain about it,so why the double standards.Why should she be
allowed to violate another person just because she feels like it ?

She _might_ not complain. 🙂

Quoted message said:

Why are you defending assaults on Clarkson just because you hate him?
You sound like the Nazi defending Kristalnacht because he didn't like
Jews.

Don't get me started. I'm in an email dialogue with Ken Livingstone
about the need to print "Mayor Of London" on every bit of TFL material.

Just zis Guy said:

I submit that on or about Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:05:49 +0100, the person
known to the court as The Nottingham Duck
<[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle)
to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

After all,we don't view Israel as a terror state,despite the hundreds
of British servicemen murdered by Zionists-because of the context in
which they were slaughtered .

Don't you? I do. One of the questions I asked some of the neocons re
Iraq was, given that the reason[1] given for the /Wa/ was flouting of
UN resolutions, when will they be invading Israel?

Would love to see how you'd react if the Welsh wanted to drive you into
the sea. Pretty easy to sit here on your high horse.

Dave Larrington said:

Also sprach Just zis Guy, you know? <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I submit that on or about Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:05:49 +0100, the person
known to the court as The Nottingham Duck
<[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle)
to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

After all,we don't view Israel as a terror state,despite the hundreds
of British servicemen murdered by Zionists-because of the context in
which they were slaughtered .

Don't you? I do. One of the questions I asked some of the neocons re
Iraq was, given that the reason[1] given for the /Wa/ was flouting of
UN resolutions, when will they be invading Israel?

[1] It was the reason of the day, obviously, the reason for the /Wa/
being a bit of a moving target.

Not just Israel either. Turkey has been ignoring UN resolutions over Cyprus
since 1974, but apparently that and a human rights record as tarnished as a
silver thing which hasn't been cleaned since the thirteenth century are not
sufficient cause to tell 'em to go [censored] up a rope when the question of EU
membership comes up...

Funny how you don't hear about that in the media. Even more so as the
media is controlled by the Zionists.

I know that one or two of you don't have much of a sense of humour, so I
point out that the above was sarcastic (yep, I know, the lowest form of
wit).

Ian Gregory said:

The Nottingham Duck said:

Why are you defending assaults on Clarkson just because you hate him?

Hey man, I *love* my enemies:-)

Quoted message said:

You sound like the Nazi defending Kristalnacht because he didn't
like Jews.

You lose:

en.wikipedia.orgGodwin's lawOpen ↗

How sad that your only reply is to quote this obscure nonsense.
Kinda like plugging your ears with your fingers and screeching
"la,la,la,la,la,la,la" ad infinitum when you know you can't win an
argument by reasoned debate.

Still,its good to know that those G.C.S.E.'s you sat haven't been
wasted.

Antony Gelberg said:

Just zis Guy said:

I submit that on or about Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:05:49 +0100, the person
known to the court as The Nottingham Duck
<[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle)
to the following effect:

Quoted message said:

After all,we don't view Israel as a terror state,despite the hundreds
of British servicemen murdered by Zionists-because of the context in
which they were slaughtered .

Don't you? I do. One of the questions I asked some of the neocons re
Iraq was, given that the reason[1] given for the /Wa/ was flouting of
UN resolutions, when will they be invading Israel?

Would love to see how you'd react if the Welsh wanted to drive you into
the sea. Pretty easy to sit here on your high horse.

It is interesting that you appear to be leaping to the defence of
Isreali terrorists,despite their crimes,presumably because of your
shared-faith.

Would it be fair to compare you to British Muslims who automatically
leap to the defence of Muslim terrorists,just because they share the
same religion ?

David Hansen said:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:56:34 +0100 someone who may be The Nottingham
Duck <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Chopping up posts and pasting quotes out of context to make yourself
look good only cheapens your intellectual stock.

Yawn, proof by assertion.

Quoted message said:

To sum up,Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.

Not really, though he might have gone on to become one.

Yes he was.Even he admits to the crime.The aformentioned brainwashing
has obviously worked on you.
Somewhat reminiscent of the Michael Jackson fans who insist that its
harmless for unmarried,single men in their 40's to share their beds
with children.

Quoted message said:

Some members of my family were terrorists. They caused government
officials a great deal of inconvenience, ranging from extra guard
duty to painful and slow death. They were (most of them are dead
now) well respected by various governments and the public.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps if you'd spent more time at school studying English you could
grasp these awkward ideas,and read posts properly.

Yawn. Be careful who you try and make patronising comments about.

If you are so jaded by this thread why bother replying ?

Quoted message said:

Despite all your huffing abd puffing my point remains unanswered.
Blowing up some electricity pylons is in a somewhat different league
to blowing up people.

Whilst it is less evil than blowing up a bus full of passengers it
is,nonetheless,terrorism.

You seem to be incapable of grasping that concept

You must live on one hell of a rough council estate if you believe
blowing property up is acceptable,Begby.

Bertie Wiggins said:

The Nottingham Duck said:

The original point refers to a dictionary definition of terrorism.This
definition exists,try reading a dictionary some time,but a violent act
denounced as 'terrorist' will not be universally acknowledged as such.

I think we all know what our *own* definition of terrorism is, the
difficulty is in a *universally accepted* definition.

Quoted message said:

The definition of murder is *unlawful killing* but different societies
have a different definition of *unlawful*.

(sigh) you have stumbled,once more,into the realm of CONTEXT,not
definition.
Your definition of murder -*unlawful killing* is a definition.There is
also a defintion of*unlawful*,so there is agreement on WHAT THEY MEAN.
The interpretation of these definitions,and the context of the act are
where the problems lie.

e.g. Ian Huntley was convicted of killing 2 children.He is evil.

Tony Blair is responsible for the deaths of Iragi children living near
Sadam's palaces and suspected bunkers.However,he is not evil.

2 men kill children,but only 1 is an evil c*nt.

Why ? CONTEXT .

Huntley is alleged to have lured 2 children to their deaths to feed
his perverted lust,but good old Tony was trying to assassinate(without
trial) a very bad man.
Since Tony didn't mean to kill any children then he isn't evil !

But the children are still dead at the end of the day.

Quoted message said:

In other words, to state that you know the dictionary definition of
terrorism is rather like stating that you know the dictionary
definition of murder: it is meaningless.

No.The definition exists.It is in the labelling of an individual or
organisation as terrorist that the fun begins.

The Nottingham Duck said:

Ian Gregory said:

The Nottingham Duck said:

Why are you defending assaults on Clarkson just because you hate him?

Hey man, I *love* my enemies:-)

Quoted message said:

You sound like the Nazi defending Kristalnacht because he didn't
like Jews.

You lose:

en.wikipedia.orgGodwin's lawOpen ↗

How sad that your only reply is to quote this obscure nonsense.
Kinda like plugging your ears with your fingers and screeching
"la,la,la,la,la,la,la" ad infinitum when you know you can't win an
argument by reasoned debate.

So says the duck who thinks pieing Jeremy is comparable to the
instigation of a calculated campaign to exterminate an entire
race. And this is Usenet dude - you still loose:-)

Quoted message said:

Still,its good to know that those G.C.S.E.'s you sat haven't been
wasted.

I am very much afraid that In replying to your postings I am
in fact doing just that:-(

*plonk*

Ian

--
Ian Gregory http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
Hey, could you smoke these joints for me? I need to go kill God...
-- Unknown

The Nottingham Duck said:

Huntley is alleged to have lured 2 children to their deaths

I don't believe that to be true.

It would appear that the two children *approached* Ian Huntley to pet
his dog and to ask after their classroom assistant. Huntley used this
approach to fulfill his perverted desires.

In this country the killing of children, lured by complete strangers,
is thankfully very rare - and has been consistent for the last 150
years. A child's parents are its biggest risk by some considerable
margin.

Bertie Wiggins said:

A child's parents are its biggest risk by some considerable margin.

Really? I'd have thought motor vehicles were the biggest risk. Must do some digging...

bfn,

Tony B

The Nottingham Duck said:

2 men kill children,but only 1 is an evil c*nt.

Says who???

bfn,

Tony B

Bertie Wiggins said:

The Nottingham Duck said:

Huntley is alleged to have lured 2 children to their deaths

I don't believe that to be true.

Do you know what happened because you were there ?

Are you a member of the Cambridgeshire Constabulary masonic paedophile
ring alleged to be the true culprits ?

Quoted message said:

It would appear that the two children *approached* Ian Huntley to pet
his dog and to ask after their classroom assistant. Huntley used this
approach to fulfill his perverted desires.

Why are you defending Huntley ?

Do you believe that the 'little minxes' deserved their fate ?

What kind of sad [censored] are you to throw this twisted [censored] into a
debate ???

Tony B said:

The Nottingham Duck said:

2 men kill children,but only 1 is an evil c*nt.

Says who???

bfn,

Tony B

Wow,it must be Tony Blair himself !

Well,since you are in the know,please enlighten us with details of the
anti-Blair tabloid frenzy that took place after the initial R.A.F.
ops over Baghdad.

You can't ? Perhaps its because there was no Huntley-style coverage of
these child-murders,because he was protecting us from 'Sadam's 45
minute nukes' - so its alright to kill Iraqi kids.

The idiots of this country even voted the pig-dog back in to Downing
St. in May,unless you didn't know.So I would assume from that level of
support that he is not viewed as a child-murdering c*nt.

And his wife represents Paedophiles on a regular basis.

Talk about a Brady & Hindley for the 00's !!!

MartinM said:

It is a known fact that higher speeds reduce the capacity of roads to
carry the traffic, but do the drivers take this into account rather
than just reducing their safe reaction/braking distance?

Apart from the bit of Australia I live in. A few years back they increased
the speed limit of the freeway that goes through Perth from 80km/h to
100km/h. A government (I think) numpty said on TV that one benefit of this
was that it meant you'd be able to get more traffic through in a given
time! The amount of people who still believe this is frightening. Mind you,
the average speed is probably nearer 50km/h these days (but they are
building a train line down the middle of the southern freeway, yay!)

Graeme

Tony B said:

Bertie Wiggins said:

A child's parents are its biggest risk by some considerable margin.

Really? I'd have thought motor vehicles were the biggest risk. Must do
some digging...

Who are you planning to bury?

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon