millwall32

The latest edition of Word magazine puts both Robin's Nest and Man About the House in its list of "20 Best Sitcoms of All Time"

I only ask because it occured to me over the weekend that the Floyd are the only 60's band of any standing not to have had a member die because of substance abuse, suicide etc? The stats by the way are- Barret- b.1946. History of drug abuse and drug induced psychosis. Father died young (I think) and has recently had problems with his sight Gilmour-b.1946. Overweight and possibly suffering from stress due to having umpteen children Waters-b.1943. No noticeable health problems. Looks damn healthy in fact Mason-b.1944. See above. Does drive at competition level though. Crash ahoy? Wright-b.1943. History of alcohol abuse.

Nick Mason Syd Barret David (Dave) Gilmour Richard (Rick) Wright Roger Waters?

Heath didn't. Callaghan didn't. Wilson didn't. etc. can't imaginbe that the leaderine will unless she is given some kind of special treatment for beinbg a wartime leader (although other war leaders have been denied a SF). The difference is that Heath, Callaghan and Wilson were a bunch of push over wimps. Maggie on the other hand, was a strong PM who occupied office for 11 years - much more than those three. Besides, millwall, be fair. The other three combined didn't cripple this country nearly as effectively as good old Thatcher! She probably won't get a state funeral.As far as I know war leadership is the crtieria, maybe it is at the Queen's discretion.

Lots of clips of Richard O and Sally Thomsett on "That Was The Decade That Was" on Channel 5 last night.

Oh well, looks like Tempus and me are the root of all evil. Windsor, you know and I know that you are approaching your 2000th post which I'm sure is all you have to live for. So do you think you might let it go quietly without any attention grabbing please given the conversation on this thread. Unfortunately this post means that cannot happen, not that you were going to keep quiet about it anyway. Just make it a quiet post or, alternatively, an extremely witty post that scores 9.9 on the richter scale of wit. Don't feel under any pressure, or post in the belief that you're under scrutiny or anything. Nobody is counting your posts or metering the quality. Its clear from this thread that there is no merit in posting a big bundle of stuff padded with mediocrity. We're not playing a numbers game, you're not going to catch TF, just relax, take some time out, walk among the spring flowers, press your face against the railings at Buck House, put the unattainable Royal forums out of your mind and take a deep breath. Make a new start. Learn a mantra: "I will not carp, moan or snitch or be jealous of fellow Oompa Loompas." Please take this post kindly, Godot has nothing but Karma and benevolence for all his fellow posters (except my mum), in fact I feel extremely chilled just now (or pissed) after a very stressful day. In the immortal words of Janet Webb, I love you all. Peace and goodwill, live long and prosper. Spockot Why should he?

Good point.I think the reason Fischer avoided prison for his remarks about the Holocuast (as you can see from posts above I can't quite deal with the term "Holocaust denier")is that he did not "deny the holocaust" in a country where that is illegal.

I am not, as far as I can tell, a post whore. I do agree with Canadian Paul that there has been a bit of a drop off in the standard of posting and that in turn the "better posters" are less inclined to post. Having said that we are suffering from what would appear to be a slow death year, many of the more "popular" figures that generate(d) a great deal of the postingsuch as the Pope or Thatcher are of no current interest to us, and the content of Paul's post is as engaging as anything I have ever read on DL.

What about warren Mitchell. 83 years old, surlely a strong candidate?

57! I met him about 5 weeks ago, looks rough as anything, thought he was about 70! A good candidate for DL 2007 then.

Would Ambore Bierce be considered missing. Or Glenn Miller.

I'm sure that many here at deathlist would like to acknwowledge the anniversary but hope he doesn't have too many more.

Higgins will outlive us all. He's 'beaten' throat cancer (probably no tumour could live long in that body) and is still smoking away. His booze intake is legendarily still the same as ever. And that's only the legal substances... He OD'd on headache pills sometime in the 1980s, and somehow his liver managed to process them all and he recovered in days. Someone should get his DNA sequenced so we can see if immortality lies in his genes. You can bet on that, Hurricane is no loser. He'll be around for many a year to torment all those who wrongly tormented him. Many of those will be long gone before him. You can never put a good man or a real fighter down. Who wants to put him on your sick list can dream on. Alex is here to stay for decades to come, snooker pro or not Who wrongly tormented him?

Joe Longthorne is a Chicken-in-a-Basket entertainer, nothing more. If I was there I'd definitely be ill after listening to that shite. I disagree. he is actually quite a good singer, if a little melodramatic. Nice to see his thread reactivated though.

He aint gonna die any time soon.

Heath didn't. Callaghan didn't. Wilson didn't. etc. can't imaginbe that the leaderine will unless she is given some kind of special treatment for beinbg a wartime leader (although other war leaders have been denied a SF).

You jest surely, if not, then consult an optician immediately. OOPPPS. 3/50 it is then. Maybe that isn't so bad for mid-March.

I take your point Iain. 2006 would seem to have the potential, what with the names that have been chosen, to be a very slow year. Particularly annoyed that we didn't have Profumo on the list. can't immediately think how the "hit rate" copuld be fixed though.

A fascinating post. Thank you.

When Paxman asked him "Will You Stop Denying The Holocaust?" he replied "Good Lord, No!" That was on national telly! Not here to debate the numbers or the methods. Not here to offer alternative viewpoints based on political leanings. Not particularly bothered that people like Irving wish to hold onto their opinions. Same again with revisionists like the IHR. If they want to argue over the semantics of language then let them. David Irving has stated that there was no official campaign of genocide against the jews. I class that as denial. But has also stated that there was. Is he still a "denier"?

Surprising that they don't know what has happened to Dickie O and have internet access considering that any Googel search on him will lead you here first.

David Irving. The only part David Irving has denied in the first part of the definition, wholly innacurately as far as anyone can tell, is the "especially by fire" part. As I posted yesterday he had some bee in bonnet about the gas chambers not being used solely for slaughter and some proof based on the direction the smoke was blowing in or some such. He did not/doesn't deny that there was extensive loss of life. In fact he has said, by which I mean I have actually heard him say, that that he approves of the extensive loss of life engendered by the Holocaust. During one of his many speeches to German skin-head movemnets he said that the main questions Jews should ask is why they were killed in large numbers rather than work out the numbers killed. Apart from the fact that those labelling Holocaust Deniers as such seem to be on a short mental loop whereby the only definition they can come up with is that one (as it stands the rallies run something like this "X is a holocaust denier", "But he hasn't denied that there was a Holocaust", "But that is because he is a Holocaust denier")there is a further question- why would those who hate Jews and think that they should be killed in large numbers deny that they were....killed in large numbers?

What's your interpretation of the word "holocaust" in this context? I think this works as a reasonable definition "hol·o·caust ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hl-kôst, hl-) n. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire. Holocaust The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II: “Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to that catastrophe” (Emanuel Litvinoff). A massive slaughter: “an important document in the so-far sketchy annals of the Cambodian holocaust” (Rod Nordland). A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames. " If taken as a definition I would say that we still haven't come up with anyone in denial that it happened.

There is a good chance Hitler did not know about the death camps until later on. He became a very weak dictator. He said things in general conversation and his sidekicks did the work to gain his favour. For example, Hitler may have said ''I hate Jews'', and then 5 minutes later 6 million of them were dead to please the Fuhrer. He didn't need to give actual formal orders. He obviously knew of the racism of the regime because he promoted it but nothing about death camps. He probably did know about them but we can't be sure. He was far too busy watching films about the British Empire by that stage... ...and beside which still no-one has come up with anyone who has denied that there was a deliberate killing of Jews. Even when he was at the height of his questioning of the numbers killed, i.e. during the Lipstadt trial, irving was basing his arguments on the fact that there were some gas chmabers but they were not used for extermination or were destroyed by the RAF or some-such. He has not claimed that Hitler did not kill Jews en masse, he is something of an Anti-Semite himself in case you had not noticed, but rather has tried via obscure academic sophistry to play with the numbers. There is very little that is edifying coming from those who approach the Holocaust with the atitude and opinion that the scope of its horror should be minimized. However,I cannot understand why those who do so are often portrayed as denying that any death took place at all.

..and living near Victoria Station.