# Ban 'kettling!'



## londheart (Dec 23, 2010)

Hi,

I wanted to draw your attention to this important petition that I recently signed:

"Ban Kettling"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ban_kettling/

I really think this is an important cause, and I'd like to encourage you to add your signature, too. It's free and takes just a few seconds of your time.

Thanks!


----------



## londheart (Dec 29, 2010)

[The reason this thread appears twice is that it was withheld at the original time, new forum members having to do around 30 posts prior to the acceptance of new threads. Given the inevitable forum abuse resulting in the interim, this thread poster isn't convinced nor enamored of the policy. It also temporarily triggered the (mistaken?) impression that the moderators were playing games by reposting the thread unnecessarily].


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 29, 2010)

You're a wrong un


----------



## londheart (Dec 29, 2010)

Defending the forum anonymously lacks street-cred, given the near-certainty of street-credible forums being infiltrated by 'the enemy'


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're a wrong un


 
& no mistake


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 29, 2010)

londheart said:


> Defending the forum anonymously lacks street-cred, given the near-certainty of street-credible forums being infiltrated by 'the enemy'


 
Lol. I note you don't sign off with your real name.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 29, 2010)

londheart said:


> [The reason this thread appears twice is that it was withheld at the original time, new forum members having to do around 30 posts prior to the acceptance of new threads. Given the inevitable forum abuse resulting in the interim, this thread poster isn't convinced nor enamored of the policy. It also temporarily triggered the (mistaken?) impression that the moderators were playing games by reposting the thread unnecessarily].


wtf are you wittering on about?
the previous thread was replied to within 10 minutes of you posting it, so it obviously wasn't withheld.


----------



## WWWeed (Dec 30, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're a wrong un


 
definitely, only wrong-uns use fonts like that


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

free spirit said:


> wtf are you wittering on about?
> the previous thread was replied to within 10 minutes of you posting it, so it obviously wasn't withheld.


It was posted at the time & date indicated on _this_ thread, in fact.



Proper Tidy said:


> Lol. I note you don't sign off with your real name.


I don't think that affects the credibility of the forums or myself - but it would if I started defending them from criticism. There's a difference between a supposedly street-creddy institution & an individual taking part in it.



WWWeed said:


> definitely, only wrong-uns use fonts like that


I agree that the 'Impact' font (which I used experimentally) doesn't quite fit it's name, but calling people 'wrong uns' and discouraging experimentation makes you sound like conservative fuzz (which you could be, for all I know at this juncture).


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart;11377112][QUOTE=Proper Tidy said:


> Lol. I note you don't sign off with your real name.



I don't think that affects the credibility of the forums or myself - but it would if I started defending them from criticism. There's a difference between a supposedly street-creddy institution & an individual taking part in it.[/QUOTE]

What is that confused mess even supposed to mean? You've spent the majority of your posts here attacking the credibility of other posters on the basis of their anonymity - when it's pointed out whatever feeble argument you've made to support this fatal misunderstanding of internet or bulletin board culture can easily be turned right back on your anonymous self suddenly _it doesn't matter?_ And apparently it doesn't matter because you're not 'defending the forums'!? wtf is 'defending the forums from criticism'? 

What's actually happened is that you've posted up a load of ill-thought out, badly argued shit - and you got told so. Now you may see yourself as 'attacking the forums' but i can assure you, those responding to your posts were attacking you and the awful failed attempts at high handed radicalism contained therein - nothing at all about 'defending the forums' you pompous prat. 

Why on earth do you see you lib-dem/labur nonsense as attacking the forums? And why is it important to their credibility that people _defending the forums_ are not anonymous but the same doesn't apply to those attacking the forums? Have you no logical or political consistency whatsoever?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> I agree that the 'Impact' font (which I used experimentally) doesn't quite fit it's name, but calling people 'wrong uns' and discouraging experimantation makes you sound like conservative fuzz (which you could be, for all I know at this juncture).


 

Conservative fuzz?  

Given that you're the failed met applicant in the labour party who also wants to be in the lib-dems, i think it's pretty clear whose the (i still can't believe you said this) conservative fuzz here. You poor deluded fool.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 31, 2010)

tell me this isn't a real person, please.


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What is that confused mess even supposed to mean?


If there genuinely were any inclarity you would have highlighted it.



butchersapron said:


> You've spent the majority of your posts here attacking the credibility of other posters on the basis of their anonymity


Polemical hyperbole. I have, in fact, used a minority of my posts at urban 75 to point out the pointless hypocrisy of attacking Diane Abbott's socialist credentials from the perspective of anonymity.  



butchersapron said:


> - when it's pointed out whatever feeble argument you've made to support this fatal misunderstanding


Rabid and potentially threatening - are you sure you're not the fuzz?




butchersapron said:


> of internet or bulletin board culture can easily be turned right back on your anonymous self suddenly _it doesn't matter?_


No - there is a difference when you're attacking an _individual_ anonymously, which I haven't, AFAIK. Particularly if you're attacking their private life vis-a-vis their socialism - not fair! 



butchersapron said:


> And apparently it doesn't matter because you're not 'defending the forums'!? wtf is 'defending the forums from criticism'?


I made a post critical of the urban 75 forum management to be met with a torrent of anonymous abuse. Are you so blind & insular that you can't see that that helps my case? 



butchersapron said:


> What's actually happened is that you've posted up a load of ill-thought out, badly argued shit - and you got told so.


In the real world, compulsively rude people aren't noted for your literary discernment. 




butchersapron said:


> Now you may see yourself as 'attacking the forums' but i can assure you, those responding to your posts were attacking you


Obviously, but the rudeness doesn't add to your case, it works against it.



butchersapron said:


> and the awful failed attempts at high handed radicalism contained therein


That's the opinion of an abusive contributor who fails, here as elsewhere, to argue his case.



butchersapron said:


> - nothing at all about 'defending the forums' you pompous prat.


That last bit of abuse doesn't even seem to make sense, so I'll ignore it. 



butchersapron said:


> Why on earth do you see you lib-dem/labur nonsense as attacking the forums?


Politics are irrelevant - whatever my or your politics are, high-handed forum management combined with orchestrated abuse undermines urban 75 credibility.



butchersapron said:


> And why is it important to their credibility that people _defending the forums_ are not anonymous but the same doesn't apply to those attacking the forums? Have you no logical or political consistency whatsoever?


It's not about 'logical or political consistency' - part of the urban 75 credibility comes from the fact that we're anonymous. But if that extends to high-handed moderation and troll posses, the same crediblity goes out of the window.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 31, 2010)

lol, you nutter


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 31, 2010)

You fucking loon


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> tell me this isn't a real person, please.


 
I'm not convinced that he knows himself. Just look at that rubbish above this post 

I always like it when they try the _i'm above you thickos_ approach - it never fails does it?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> potentially threatening



Genius


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not convinced that he knows himself. Just look at that rubbish above this post
> 
> I always like it when they try the _i'm above you thickos_ approach - it never fails does it?


 Yes it does fail, as the irony of your question points out - it makes me look unbearably superior. But what else am I supposed to do, in the face of a troll posse?


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 31, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not convinced that he knows himself. Just look at that rubbish above this post
> 
> I always like it when they try the _i'm above you thickos_ approach - it never fails does it?


 
He reminds me of that welsh labour guy we had on here a while ago.  Similar stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> Yes it does fail, as the irony of your question points out - it makes me look unbearably superior. But what else am I supposed to do, in the face of a troll posse?


 
Yes, sorry, you're correct. The only way you could possibly respond to criticisms of your positions and posts is by posting up incoherent babble in which no one line or argument appears to have any logical connection to the one preceding it, into which you further throw in a series non-sequiturs, paranoid suggestions that other posters are actually far right or police infiltrators and all topped off nicely with a dose of illogic and inconsistencies - and all done in a style that you think makes you sound arch and superior but in fact serves only to make you sound limited and out of your depth.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 31, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> He reminds me of that welsh labour guy we had on here a while ago.  Similar stuff.


 
Painfully deluded you mean?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

Reminds me more of the much missed gmarthews.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> Polemical hyperbole. I have, in fact, used a minority of my posts at urban 75 to point out the pointless hypocrisy of attacking Diane Abbott's socialist credentials from the perspective of anonymity.



Why is it hypocritical to point out that Diane Abbott is not a socialist anonymously? And why are you not a hypocrite for moaning about anonymity using an anonymous pseudonym? And why are you such a weirdo?


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Why is it hypocritical to point out that Diane Abbott is not a socialist anonymously?


If an anonymous poster points out that Diane Abbott sent her son to a private school, how does the reader know that the poster isn't a hypocritical Tory with _two_ sons at a private school? Are you a village-like, inward-looking community, all known to each other and hostile to newcomers ('A *stranger*! :!).



Proper Tidy said:


> And why are you not a hypocrite for moaning about anonymity using an anonymous pseudonym?


The anonymity, at its best, is to allow individual points of view difficult to state otherwise - not a blank cheque for hypocrites!



Proper Tidy said:


> And why are you such a weirdo?


 Because I'm a '*stranger*?'


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

And with that he flounces flamboyantly off


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> If an anonymous poster points out that Diane Abbott sent her son to a private school, how does the reader know that the poster isn't a hypocritical Tory with _two_ sons at a private school? Are you a village-like, inward-looking community, all known to each other and hostile to newcomers ('A *stranger*! :!).
> 
> 
> The anonymity, at its best, is to allow individual points of view difficult to state otherwise - not a blank cheque for hypocrites!
> ...


 
Nah, I'm still lost on the logic of why you are justified in being anonymous but nobody else is. I don't have any kids btw.

It's not cos you're a stranger, it's cos you're a fucking freak.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> If an anonymous poster points out that Diane Abbott sent her son to a private school, *how does the reader know that the poster isn't a hypocritical Tory with two sons at a private school?*



What difference would it make to what Abbott has done?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

...also a tory with two kids at private school *isn't * hypocritical - Abbot is though.


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What difference would it make to what Abbott has done?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


Abbott is no longer up for discussion, it appears - she was destroyed by hypocrites with no knowledge of the relevant circumstances. The thread is about 'kettling,' and is under attack from the same troll posse, who could argue that they're 'keeping the topic afloat,' but it's a very feeble, 'anorak' argument.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 31, 2010)

I'd kettle you in a padded room.


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ...also a tory with two kids at private school *isn't * hypocritical - Abbot is though.


Butchersapron is hypocritical, because you subject public figures to a barrage of haranguing which you could not stand yourself, however deserved.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> Butchersapron is hypocritical, because you subject public figures to a barrage of haranguing which you could not stand yourself, however deserved.



I am also potentially threatening.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

Also, learn, comas,,,


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 31, 2010)

Only _potentially_ mind. Don't be getting all above yourself now.

This one isn't even funny.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> Abbott is no longer up for discussion, it appears - she was destroyed by hypocrites with no knowledge of the relevant circumstances. The thread is about 'kettling,' and is under attack from the same troll posse, who could argue that they're 'keeping the topic afloat,' but it's a very feeble, 'anorak' argument.


 
None of which answers my question.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> Butchersapron is hypocritical, because you subject public figures to a barrage of haranguing which you could not stand yourself, however deserved.


 
I'll remember that when they stand for parliament with the backing of the Socialist Campaign Group.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I'll remember that when they stand for parliament with the backing of the Socialist Campaign Group.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


Do monikers like 'butchersapron' sound socialist, to you?


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> None of which answers my question.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 I don't know why you think your question is important(?).


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> Do monikers like 'butchersapron' sound socialist, to you?


Irrelevant - edl sounder.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> I don't know why you think your question is important(?).


 
He didn't say that it was, he asked for a reply. Why so important to avoid?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 31, 2010)

Yeah Butchers you great big fucking tory


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 31, 2010)

to be honest, if someone calls themselves a socialist it's only fair that they at least make some attempt to live by socialist principles


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 31, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> to be honest, if someone calls themselves a socialist it's only fair that they at least make some attempt to live by socialist principles


 
Aren't you EDL though?


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Nah, I'm still lost on the logic of why you are justified in being anonymous but nobody else is.


I didn't say that. I just think that if I, or anyone else here, call a politician (or anyone else) hypocritical over lifestyle, it's meaningless, because the reader doesn't know the poster's lifestyle (apart from the spending hours in a timewasting forum element).



Proper Tidy said:


> I don't have any kids btw.


Oh good - that will save you from the dilemma of whether to put them in a dodgy state school or a non-PC private one, and us from the offspring of someone who takes a long time to cotton on.



Proper Tidy said:


> It's not cos you're a stranger, it's cos you're a fucking freak.


But isn't that what they really mean by '*strangers*'?


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> to be honest, if someone calls themselves a socialist it's only fair that they at least make some attempt to live by socialist principles


= sending their black son to a dodgy state school where the dinners suck and he must get in wid da gang?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart - you may not know this, but you've already lost. You've two options now. Start new threads on interesting things and contribute to them or contribute to ongoing threads with interesting things. You need to stop this stuff now.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> = sending their black son to a dodgy state school where the dinners suck and he must get in wid da gang?



Wow racism too.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> = sending their black son to a dodgy state school where the dinners suck and he must get in wid da gang?


 
Racist.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> Oh good - that will save you from the dilemma of whether to put them in a dodgy state school or a non-PC private one, and us from the offspring of someone who takes a long time to cotton on.


 
Would that be one of the state schools that Our Diane, in her role on the LEA, had been responsible for for eight years? And what about all those other 'black single mothers', not to mention all those parents who may not fall within Our Diane's strictly defined ethno-social criteria, who can't afford to go private? Should they just accept that Our Diane's kid deserves greater opportunities than their own offspring?


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> He didn't say that it was, he asked for a reply. Why so important to avoid?


 
I'm just bored by it. I think of standing myself, but look, they get brained for the mote in their eye.


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

stephj said:


> Racist.


 
Duh


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> I'm just bored by it. I think of standing myself, but look, they get brained for the mote in their eye.


 
Well you've fucked the biblical quote up, chickened out and just been shit. Great post.

It's weird that if you stand for election or are a public figure a beam automatically becomes a mote in this edl clowns eyes.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

Did you get in wid da gang londheart?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 31, 2010)

Only people I ever hear saying mote are those masonic fucks


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Would that be one of the state schools that Our Diane, in her role on the LEA, had been responsible for for eight years?


Let me answer that with a question: I don't even believe in compulsory education. If someone offers me a governorship of a local school, do you a) think I should refuse it and b) hold me responsible for it still dispensing compulsory education eight years down the line?



Proper Tidy said:


> And what about all those other 'black single mothers', not to mention all those parents who may not fall within Our Diane's strictly defined ethno-social criteria, who can't afford to go private? Should they just accept that Our Diane's kid deserves greater opportunities than their own offspring?


No you're right - 'Don't call me Red' Ed it is, then.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 31, 2010)

Don't you see, he's black, he'd have ended up selling crack and pimping hoes if he'd have gone to _the poor kids school_. Wiv da gang.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> Let me answer that with a question: I don't even believe in compulsory education. If someone offers me a governorship of a local school, do you a) think I should refuse it and b) hold me responsible for it still dispensing compulsory education eight years down the line?
> 
> 
> No you're right - 'Don't call me Red' Ed it is, then.



This is quite possibly the worst most evasive post ever seen on these boards.


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Did you get in wid da gang londheart?


Nah - I like, visited da forum, found it overrun wid abusive white trash, started making ma excuses...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> Let me answer that with a question: I don't even believe in compulsory education. If someone offers me a governorship of a local school, do you a) think I should refuse it and b) hold me responsible for it still dispensing compulsory education eight years down the line?



What? You do realise she didn't refuse the role, don't you? And that she continually attacked other Labour politicians for sending their kids to toff school? And she refused to accept she had acted hypocritically by saying only single afro-caribbean mums would possibly understand?




londheart said:


> No you're right - 'Don't call me Red' Ed it is, then.



Yes, Labour or nothing. Bravo.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

'white trash' - just when i though he'd lost it. You're a star sir. A real cloth clown we can all hate - but this is your life isn't it? This sort of leaden witted idiocy?


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> This is quite possibly the worst most evasive post ever seen on these boards.


 So what makes you always the critic, never the creative? Have you got moderator influence? Have you 'paid the money' they refer to in the urban 75 Wikipedia Talk page? And this gives you the right to be always destructive, never creative, always the judge?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 31, 2010)

Lol


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 31, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yes, Labour or nothing. Bravo.


 
Looks like it.

_Oh dear_.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> So what makes you always the critic, never the creative? Have you got moderator influence? Have you 'paid the money' they refer to in the urban 75 Wikipedia Talk page? And this gives you the right to be always destructive, never creative, always the judge?



I do pay money to be able to tell people like you the truth yes. What of it?

Secretly i am a creative though.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

I wish this lad were quicker. Or cleverer.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 31, 2010)




----------



## stupid dogbot (Dec 31, 2010)




----------



## stethoscope (Dec 31, 2010)

Bless!


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> Nah - I like, visited da forum, found it overrun wid abusive white trash, started making ma excuses...



Is dat becuz u iz bad?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 31, 2010)

stephj said:


> Bless!


 
Awww


----------



## stupid dogbot (Dec 31, 2010)

stephj said:


> Bless!


 


Clearly, someone didn't get their arse licked hereabouts _exactly_ as they'd have liked. Awww.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 31, 2010)

lol


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I do pay money to be able to tell people like you the truth yes.


?



butchersapron said:


> What of it?
> 
> Secretly i am a creative though.


 A well-kept secret of a man who thinks what the world always needs is the Artful Critic and the Swingeing Satirist. As least pick bigger targets.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 31, 2010)

Are you quite short?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 31, 2010)




----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> And with that he flounces flamboyantly off


Yes - the eccentric, intellectual monster, it begins to appear. But that rather backfires on you.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> Yes - the eccentric, intellectual monster, it begins to appear. But that rather backfires on you.


 
You're an intellectual? A monster?

How's that then?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 31, 2010)




----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 31, 2010)

Somebody should ban you from posting pics and vids Canuck


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 31, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Somebody should ban you from posting pics and vids Canuck


 
Better get butchers with your ban as well.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> Yes - the eccentric, intellectual monster, it begins to appear. But that rather backfires on you.


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

ha ha


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> Yes - the eccentric, intellectual monster, it begins to appear. But that rather backfires on you.


Mind you, Jefferies could rather be completely innocent, the trolls defamatorily and unnecessarily arresting him out of their characteristic lack of ideas and OCD. He looks far too intellectual & sophisticated to kill someone - I could be wrong. 'Butchersapron' sounds incriminating, on the other hand...


----------



## two sheds (Dec 31, 2010)

Are all the new posters belatedly making a bid for thread of the year related anybody know?


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Don't you see, he's black, he'd have ended up selling crack and pimping hoes if he'd have gone to _the poor kids school_. Wiv da gang.


 I did go to school wiv da state gang - don't get ur hopes up, tho - it were a grammar school.


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

*'Before you point yah beam, make sure yah hands r clean'*



butchersapron said:


> Well you've fucked the biblical quote up, chickened out and just been shit. Great post.


Actually, there was a somewhat accidental stroke of genius in the idea of someone with a beam (big piece of wood) actually braining someone with it for having a mote - like, Brixton updated Bible _chic_, or what?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

You think we're all in brixton on this board? And that we like your bolded attempts? Are you warren beatty?


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You think we're all in brixton on this board?


I tink ur da one who aint from Brixton cuz u aint got a decent market to distract u. Also da infiltrator, de _agent provocateur_, whos here to undermine de original purpose of da forum.



butchersapron said:


> And that we like your bolded attempts?


'Bolded' - ?



butchersapron said:


> Are you warren beatty?


It's too l8 4 flattery - da moniker gives u away.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

Wow. 

Yes *bolded*. As in *put in bold type*.

Wow again.


----------



## rekil (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> defamatously


On top of everything else, you're shit at adverbs.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

Fuck off - that's a proper legalicious term.


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Somebody should ban you from posting pics and vids Canuck


 But it was so weird and serendipitous it's divine! Johnny Canuck = man of few words but many posts - man after my own serendipitous heart!


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

copliker said:


> On top of everything else, you're shit at adverbs.


Did you have a better idea?


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Wow.
> 
> Yes *bolded*. As in *put in bold type*.
> 
> Wow again.


Well it was a cool header - after Bob Marley, only he merely pointed da finga. Wow indeed.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 31, 2010)

What fresh hell is this?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

*Black peope love bob marley in brixton.* Thanks for doing that


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> What fresh hell is this?


Well, fan my brow! - what form of expression is that?


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 31, 2010)

Dorothy Parker.



(Go on, kill it Mrs M!)


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> *Black peope love bob marley in brixton.* Thanks for doing that


'People.' 
Did u really mean that, butch? I mean, a post from u, devoid of all malice and irony, reflecting only its native sincerity? I mean, I know it's still Christmas, but...?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

'You'
No i didn't. I think it reflected  a glib mental characterisation of black people as either gangs members or bob marley fans. It paints you as a *bit of a twat* really.


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> 'You'


You da like text? Cud 3is b ur Achiles heel? 



butchersapron said:


> No i didn't. I think it reflected  a glib mental characterisation of black people as either gangs members or bob marley fans. It paints you as a *bit of a twat* really.


 Oh right - like, maybe they will read this too & hopefully some day get the message? And like, you haven't glibly characterised yourself as a Caucasian compulsive sad satire machine, come what may?
The Marley quote (which I only just found thanks to you guys) came in handy here BTW, serendipitously.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

What marley quote? wtf are you on about?


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 31, 2010)

It doesn't matter how many times you keep editing your post, londheart, it's still shit.


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What marley quote? wtf are you on about?


Bob Marley said, 'Before you point the finger, make sure your hands r clean' (wi3out the txtspeak -3ey didnt hav it in 3em days). It is soo relevant to all 3at's gon on here since I joind. It popd up when I was googling 3at 'mote & beam' 3eme. So I put it toge3er &, hey, Bob's ur uncl!: '*b4 u point 3e beam, make sure ur hands r clean*.' Q.E.D. It's like Jesus wi3 _chutzpah_.


----------



## dylans (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> You da like text? Cud 3is b ur Achiles heel?
> 
> 
> Oh right - like, maybe they will read this too & hopefully some day get the message? And like, you haven't glibly characterised yourself as a Caucasian compulsive sad satire machine, come what may?
> The Marley quote (which I only just found thanks to you guys) came in handy here BTW, serendipitously.


 
















Happy new year


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 31, 2010)




----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> Bob Marley said, 'Before you point the finger, make sure your hands r clean' (wi3out the txtspeak -3ey didnt hav it in 3em days). It is soo relevant to all 3at's gon on here since I joind. It popd up when I was googling 3at 'mote & beam' 3eme. So I put it toge3er &, hey, Bob's ur uncl!: '*b4 u point 3e beam, make sure ur hands r clean*.' QED


 
Black people still love the gangs and the Marley. Pork pies hats and dominoes too. At least the decent ones.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

Hang on, you're a labour party member, failed met applicant, want to be in the lib-dems who gets his moral compass from out of date soft-reggae who thinks everyone else is an infiltrator into a world in which you represent alternatively both the mainstream and the hard left.

How many illegal drugs were you regularly using when you tried to join the met?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart is db?


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

stephj said:


> It doesn't matter how many times you keep editing your post, londheart, it's still shit.


3at's right, duchess - talk dirty 2 me - we haven't had a woman all night!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 31, 2010)

New Year's Eve in Harlem:


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> 3at's right, duchess - talk dirty 2 me - we haven't had a woman all night!


 
Radical left in action. What a twat.


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> How many illegal drugs were you regularly using when you tried to join the met?


Not enough, obviously - my brain still worked then, & I never had OCD. 



Mr.Bishie said:


> londheart is db?


?


----------



## dylans (Dec 31, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> londheart is db?


 
db in an alternate universe. One where he has a long tortured history of massive LSD abuse and serious psychological problems involving claims of alien abduction, anal probes and sexual relations with 6 limbed lizard women.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 31, 2010)

pmsl


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> New Year's Eve in Harlem:


That's like a porn movie - it's always black man on lighter woman (or prove me wrong by 2011).


----------



## dylans (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> That's like a porn movie - it's always black man on lighter woman (or prove me wrong by 2011).


 
Not always.  Just the porn you watch.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 31, 2010)

drugs forum ->


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> That's like a porn movie - it's always black man on lighter woman (or prove me wrong by 2011).


 
It might be like your _personal_ porn movie...

Two black people in the pic - you fell for it, you immediately thought black guy fucking white woman. Nothing else.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 31, 2010)

londheart said:


> 3at's right, duchess - talk dirty 2 me - we haven't had a woman all night!



Lonely since the demise of Nuts TV?


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> pmsl


That's probably the D&B.


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It might be like your _personal_ porn movie...
> 
> Two black people in the pic - you fell for it, you immediately thought black guy fucking white woman. Nothing else.


That's a conservative 'two' - stick to counting black puddings. You want me to analyse the composition, or just gaup at it like a Phalustine? What else is there?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 31, 2010)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 31, 2010)

I hope she isn't disappointed.


----------



## londheart (Dec 31, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I hope she isn't disappointed.


She oughtta be.


----------



## dylans (Dec 31, 2010)




----------



## stupid dogbot (Jan 1, 2011)

londheart said:


> That's a conservative 'two' - stick to counting black puddings. You want me to analyse the composition, or just gaup at it like a Phalustine? What else is there?


 
Sounds like you had a very, very happy new year...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2011)

londheart said:


> That's a conservative 'two' - stick to counting black puddings. You want me to analyse the composition, or just gaup at it like a Phalustine? What else is there?


 
A black phalustine -fuck me, i've seen freudian slips before....


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jan 1, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're a wrong un


 
I was right


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 1, 2011)

Please don't ban it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This is quite possibly the worst most evasive post ever seen on these boards.


 
Wasn't there another poster who didn't believe in compulsory education and regularly got pwned for talking shite?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 1, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> What fresh hell is this?


 
A GMarthews sock-puppet, perchance?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wasn't there another poster who didn't believe in compulsory education and regularly got pwned for talking shite?


 
Yeah, eons ago. There've been a couple IIRC.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> A GMarthews sock-puppet, perchance?



Wasn't GMarthews some sort of sub-Randist?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 4, 2011)

he was a massive, massive prick.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 4, 2011)

I agree. he was. Was he banned? Is Loudfart really Gmarthews?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2011)

He was great, he was one of the funniest posters there's ever been on here.

Londheart isn't him though.


----------

