millwall32

I have it on good authority that at the DeathList Annual Gathering, the names of members are scattered on seperate bits of paper across the floor. A bull (or a sheep in bad years) then has it's throat slit and whichever member's name the blood splatters on will then be put forward for the position of moderator. Fess up, who spilled the beans? regards, Hein OK, let me refine the question. Who selects those made into deathlist moderators?

I only just found out about JB dying myself while leafing through the obits in yesterdays Times. Well done everyone, not a bad year all round.

You'd hope Thank you for piccking me out on my poor grammar. I should of course have said "there would be very little immediate death content as so many of them would still be alive or not the widowers of those disscussed on deathlist." Thank you Handrejka.

I really don't mind your doing that MH, despite the fact that I am definetly not mad (in the positive or negative sense) about mods. So can anyone tell me- what are the criteria for selecting moderators? I don't want to criticise, I would just like to know.

Think of her, not so much as a "bangable sporting babe" as a recently widowed, shapely, blonde whose husband's cancer was a subject of debate on this forum and you will see the (very modest)purpose pof this thread. I would not dream of starting a "who would deathlisters like to sleep with" thread as there would be very little immediate death content.

I outlined a few posts back the death realted content of this thread. Also I did not invoke the "it's all about death so nothing can be distastefull defence". I said that going by standard judgement the whole site is in bad taste. Don't think it will reach Dickie O proportions though. that thread is worse than being in bad taste, it is off topic.

Whatever happened to Captain Scarlet? Why do you ask?

no. Fair enough.

Can't dispute that

At the moment this is the best bet for the big post-death outing. But dig the back-peddling in the last three paragraphs.

Exactly! A 'gay' is someone who lives a homo lifestyle and these people often flaunt their immorality (they take great pride in being perverts). Homosexuality is a behavior. A big "so what?" Xenon you have introduced a distasteful degree of intollerence on to this site. No wonder people are asking now if we're anti-semitic. Were you born this way or was it something that happened at school? Not that I really care. There is something quite fascinating about the phrasing and punctuation in that post though. A " 'gay' " for example and the unqualified assertion that gay people are perverts.

Had a vote on "yes" and "Gerald Ford". But I don't hold out much hope.

Interesting information. Maybe we could devote an entire thread to disscussing it, oir at any rate matters related to it. I gather that recently RO'S has been more active than he has at any time in the last decade, popping into town to do commentary on dvd's of a few films he was in the 60's and 70's.Perhaps other deathlisters have info regarding his current well-being?

You didn't really want an answer, but an answer you shall have... We should close this thread, which was about the Moderaters, and open a fresh one about the Moderators, if neccessary. It has long irked me that some of you think I tried to strip the Moderators of their powers (and I know that some of you conniving little sh*ts members tried to make it seem that way, didn't you?) with this thread. That was clearly not the case. Close this thread, and open another one if you all want to have a bitch about the real Moderators, with whom I have no beef. I recommend that the split happen here, on page 5, where millwall32 resurrected the wrong end of the stick about the intentions of this thread, possibly opening discussions about the proper Mods. Sorry SC. Just read your first post on this thread and now have a clearer idea on where you are coming from.Maybe I should state my position in order to keep the thread on task. I personally would not "strip the moderators of their meagre powers". I think that, on the whole, they do a useful and non-contentious job. My interest is more on how and why certain people are selected for the task. My interest was particularly excited, as I said a few posts back, by the individual who was made a moderator and who has (to date) only made 53 posts under their (current?) name.

Where is the line of decency on this site? There is a liberal tradition here that corresponds to that in the arts where any whiff of censorship is guaranteed to bring the luvvies out in their droves. I think that some personal responsibility is expected of posters. My crime in the Jose Grove thread was not to speak out against her listing, but to condemn those who regarded her as fair game. Some people didn't like that, particularly since it gave the impression that I was setting myself up as a paragon of virtue (what a joke). It's a difficult one TLC. I agree with you that there should be a line of decency but where do you set the line? Most people out there I think would say that the DL (the whole site) is on the wrong side of their own lines. So just by being here we are making some kind of don't-give-a-toss statement. Yet it's clear that a good number of us do give a toss. I guess the best way to to deal with something we don't like is to ignore it. But it's difficult to ignore all the drivel from the lonely Oz woman. I do think this thread is in bad taste. But I wonder, however appalled they may have been at their reaction inwardly, how many blokes had the thought that Millwall, in his wisdom, decided would be meat and drink for a thread? I can't claim to have been utterly unmoved by the photograph. That's the thing about the DL, it digs down deep and reaches in to those baser instincts we would rather pretend did not exist. To make my own little point about taste I made a poor taste joke about CP's dead cat on the very day he admitted to feeling so bad about it. It wasn't a nice thing to do, even to make a point. I knew that before posting but something pretty brutal in my make-up made me do it. No-one laughed or commented (which only feeds a poster's ego - people know this instinctively) and a good few posters sent their commiserating notes. Alongside the discussion here and that about Jose Grove (whose name is disguised to hide our shame) if this is not a sign of a mixed up society, I don't know what is. This is not a thread I would have started. At the same time I can think of some threads that would be far more distasteful than this. Where do we draw the line? Thank you Godot. I find that post quite supportive. I started the thread primarilt because of the combination of lust and awareness of mortality with which I watched Lynsey accepting an award on Sports personailty of the Year. Form that I assumed that she would be thread worthy. Just wondered if anyone else in the forum felt the same. As for tasteful, I think you and the other poster are right, surely this whole site is in bad taste by the standard measure of things. Just to get the thread bcak on track- re: lynsey, would you?

You are of course quite right. I would feel like a much more high brow and intellectual member of the forum if I'd have thought of this..

Or post here?

Wondered if anyone could tell me what the last dozen or so posts have to do with the nearness to death of Richard O'Sullivan? good point Millwall, although as some one pointed out a while back as there's virtually never any actual news about Richard this thread has become a sort of general chat page about nothing. I agree it's a good point, although this is the 'extra-curricular' forum and page 120 may be a bit on the late side to notice the thread's wandering off topic. Possibly these people need to exchange e-mails and send each other private messages?

Wondered if anyone could tell me what the last dozen or so posts have to do with the nearness to death of Richard O'Sullivan? good point Millwall, although as some one pointed out a while back as there's virtually never any actual news about Richard this thread has become a sort of general chat page about nothing. But surley there are other threads that can act as a "general chat page about nothing"?

Exactly! A 'gay' is someone who lives a homo lifestyle and these people often flaunt their immorality (they take great pride in being perverts). Homosexuality is a behavior. You bitch!

I am writing an article on our ashes defence and one (of many) depressing statistics is that England have had seven ducks over the first three test matches.

Nice image though. Flintoff and Pietersen walkling out on the final day of the test, England needing to bat all day to avoid losing the Ashes. I only hope they don't go all stupid and try to win.

Not sure about that first point. I believe there are only 3 or 4 snooker millionaires and I don't think Paul "I'd love to screw back for the brown but I'm dead" Hunter was among them.

wait, Lady Clarissa is also Rebecca de Winter? I am as shocked by this as I was when I first heard Liberace was gay. Wondered if anyone could tell me what the last dozen or so posts have to do with the nearness to death of Richard O'Sullivan?

This article says Gore Vidal has got cancer and diabetes. "Gore Vidal is 81 and bluntly admits that he is moving graciously “towards the door marked Exit”. " A fellow of Gore Vidal's standing really should have his own thread, especially now that he seems to be ailing. He is one of the most interesting American politcal comentators/writers, who throughout his colourful life has always given good quotes. I was also struck by the things he has in common with George Melly. They were born a year apart. Both went to prestigious schools. Both are honorary associates of the National Secular Society. Both are humanists. Both are bisexual If you dressed Vidal in one of Melly's suits there would also be a fair similarity in appearance. Oh and he's buying West Ham. that news article looks semi-serious. I guess it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he would buy some west ham shares.