adonirum

Here's something else for discussion with regard to the question posed. A few years back on the T.V. programme Eastenders, there was a storyline that involved a wife trying to get rid of her husband (can't recall the name of the characters as I don't watch it, suppose I could google it but life's to short) and she enticed him to a wood/forest, hit him over the head and buried him alive. Initially, there were complaints about the level of violence as it was broadcast before 9.00pm. This volume of complaints paled into insignificance to those received following the next episode which showed the husband being dug up again. The reason for this? The first episode was shown on Good Friday and the next on Easter Monday. The complaints following the second episode were on the basis that the BBC was indulging in a parody of Christianity, particularly bearing in mind the timing of the broadcasts on those particular days. Now, this was not so because as I'm sure most of you will know, Jesus is said to have risen on the third day and not three days later. Therefore, did the complainants merely choose to be offended ? Please discuss.

Dreamcatcher did point out that they had had the house treated for bed bugs.

Without You - Nilsson

Blah Blah, this is definitely not any form of trolling. I have not attacked any poster on this thread for their contribution. As I stated in my opening, I spent two years in diversification and equality service delivery training and remain very interested in people's viewpoints on this whole subject. As a slight aside and (maybe) to broaden the debate, when it comes to being an equal opportunities employer then it could be arqued that there is no such thing. People holding homophobic/xenophobic/misogynist/etc views are generally excluded from public service institutions (and other employers), therefore do these sections of society become discriminated against? The Police service particularly excludes any person that is/was a member of a right-wing fascist neo nazi organisation, thereby contradicting their own stated "regardless of........political persuasion".

Therefore it seems we are concluding that context both condemns and excuses the same words and that nothing can ever be said to be insulting or offensive per se. Do we also excuse certain words or phrases (that are usually/normally seen as unacceptable) as acceptable when used by certain individuals/groups and then not by others? Do we maintain the right to be offended (free speech) or do we instigate the right not to be offended(total censorship)?

Jah Lush, no, that wasn't me. I remember that thread and found it absurd and actually offensive, but did not complain. I readily admit I did not think at the time to use quotes, but would it have made any difference? red devil, that is completely the point, context. Why can something be(almost) acceptable on one hand and not the other? This is the purpose of starting the discussion. Let me use this example which has sort of been touched upon in the "racist woman on bus" thread. In that thread one poster refers to the "N" word. Any right minded one of us would (hopefully) be abhorred by the use of it and also I would like to think would challenge any idiot using it. However, my oh my how we all laughed/chuckled/cracked a wry smile when we heard Samuel L. utter the words in his inimitable rapid machine-gun style in films such as Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown and others. How is this acceptable? Is it because context allows us to be arbitrary in deciding whether we are offended or not? Otta, you make very good points. However, the script for the programme, although referring back to the beginning of the 80's, was written and filmed in 2008. Why does it become acceptable because of this? Something that is actually of it's time, for example someone like Bernard Manning spouting forth his bile, is not, yet this would surely be more appropriate to show the absurdity of that time.

I am hoping for a genuine mature debate on this, so fingers crossed and here goes...... A few weeks back, Mrs. adonirum was watching X-Factor and passed comment on the amount of overly and overtly effeminate males that were appearing on this years series. Around that time, I had been watching re-run episodes of a programme/series from a few years ago that at the time of original broadcast had held great fascination for me and it was interesting to watch them again. More on that later. It gave me the idea of a thread, indeed, this thread. I wrote a few sentences that were deliberately provocative (as in to provoke a sensible debate and discussion) and as opposed to insulting or offensive (or so I felt and once again more on that later). Within a heartbeat, my post/thread was removed and my account was suspended because there had been a multitude of complaints (report this message)to Admin. Upon contacting Admin and exchanging e-mails, points were argued which by the most bizarre of coincidencies were precisely the points I would have (and wish to) raised. I have deliberately left the subject until now, perhaps in order to "let the dust settle". So what exactly were the offending words (for those of you who can't remember or didn't see it)? I feel unable to repeat them in full here for fear of having this thread removed, and as I stated I am hoping for a genuine debate, but will write them with letters missing and you fill in the blanks. I hope this meets with Admin's approval. I wrote " has anybody noticed the large number of s***t-l*****g, b**k-b*******g s**t-s******s on the X-Factor this year". These "phrases" had been used in the aforementioned programme Ashes-to-Ashes by the character Gene Hunt. My intention, realising that harsh words and/or accusations would have been directed my way, was to reveal the above information some way into the debate. This leads me to what would have and, indeed, is my point, that is to say and having been involved with diversification and equality issues in the past for a couple of years,do we just choose to be insulted when it suits our needs? Do we accuse others when it suits our own circumstances? Does it ever just come down to the point of context (this was the point raised with and by Admin)? It is worth noting that no complaints were received by the BBC regarding the programme. Gene Hunt was a rogue Police officer character, so my how we/you all laughed at his words, but were appalled at my replicating them. This completely looses sight of the fact that these words were written into a script by someone who thought it funny.Why was this not challenged at the time? This is a bit heavy and serious I know, but thoughts of E.D. please.

Iron Man - Black Sabbath

All those schools along Peckham Road have gone since that era, Louisa. Along with the two you mention, remember Wilson's Grammar (boys) and Mary Datchelor (girls) which were further along towards Camberwell Green.

Think I might send a P.M. to Parkdrive accussing him of being a Quo fan.

Numbers, no you didn't dream it, your friend could have seen Midge Ure in Sunny Hunny. We were there back in August and saw the posters and an A-Frame advertising stand outside for a concert sometime later in the month I believe. We're going to friends at the end of next month and going to see Marc Bolan and TRex (well alright TRextasy, but that bloke is such a doppleganger you can hardly tell the difference).

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > *Bob* Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Jeremy just PM'd me and said I had 'shit for > > brains'. > > > I am contacting the police. > > > Sorry - does anyone have the number? Thanks. Actually, Loz, it's Whitehall 12 12

Roll Away The Stone - Mott the Hoople **smugly awards brownie points to himself**

So, it's almost as iritating as starting a sentence by repeating the same word three times, but not as irritating as starting "well". I think there's an element of it being dismissive of another's point of view, particular if it is something like "So, let's just say...." and also an element of it being condescending.

Had to endure Mrs. adonirum watching X-Factor on catch-up last night. Can someone tell me why it appears to have such a proliferation of shirt-lifting, back-buggering shit-stabbers on it this year ?

GSJ57 Folletts was still there in the 70's as well (maybe even the 80's?). I seem to remember that Reeds was owned by the same people who owned Folletts, which was run by their daughter (name escapes me) and her husband, Brian. When it closed, Brian worked across the road in the electrical shop, Edwardes? which is now the coffee shop. That's when E.D. had some character (sits back and awaits stampede !!!!).

Roisin Dubh (Black Rose) - Thin Lizzy

Bang Bang You're Dead - Dirty Pretty Things

Succinctly. There isn't one.

That's a good point, Azira, and one I didn't, and really should have, thought about with regard to PTSD. I would go further than "which can make the sufferer" and state that it almost always does manifest itself as anger/aggression. I don't know that the mob mentality of throwing missiles/setting fires/etc that has been shown could be attributable to this, though. But you do raise an excellent point.

Ride Like the Wind - Saxon

bloonoo, this was not something I read, it was on the news and pictures were shown of the migrants/reugees actually doing this. I just can't get my head around how ungrateful these people are if they are genuine, which of course we have absolutely no reason to disbelieve that they are. If I were in their predicament, (thankfully none of us ever have nor would wish to be) I feel sure that I would be extremely relieved to have escaped the conflict and tyranny within my own country. I would be extremely grateful that other nationalities had embraced my plight and donated "food and clothes". (It is reported that the response in this country has been so magnificent that satelite stations are being asked to hold on to their donations for the time being as the central hub has been inundated and have run out of storage space). I cannot see how some of these people are now "thumping the table" and demanding more and wanting their own way. (Title ammended as, although purposely and deliberately written, on reflection it was wholly inappropriate).

High Voltage - AC/DC

Gasoline Alley - Elkie Brooks

Rather call you a taxi, DF.