En Passant

23 July (2) 25 Bronski Beat - Smalltown Boy +4 24 Baltimora - Tarzan Boy 21 Colonel Abrams - Trapped 21 Giorgio Moroder & Philip Oakey - Together in Electric Dreams 21 Stevie Wonder - Part-Time Lover 20 Status Quo - Marguerita Time 20 Joe Fagin - That’s Livin’ Alright 20 Thompson Twins - Doctor! Doctor! 20 Break Machine - Street Dance 20 Bananarama - Robert De Niro’s Waiting 20 Queen - I Want to Break Free 20 Ultravox - Dancing with Tears in My Eyes 20 Spandau Ballet - Only When You Leave 20 Cyndi Lauper - Time After Time 20 Tina Turner - What’s Love Got to Do With It 20 U2 - Pride (In the Name of Love) 20 Nik Kershaw - The Riddle 20 Madonna - Like a Virgin 20 Ashford & Simpson - Solid 20 The Commodores - Nightshift 20 Madonna - Material Girl 20 Bronski Beat & Marc Almond - I Feel Love (Medley) 20 Jimmy Nail - Love Don’t Live Here Anymore 20 Tina Turner - We Don’t Need Another Hero (Thunderdome) 20 Kate Bush - Running Up That Hill 20 Red Box - Lean On Me (Ah-Li-Ayo) 20 Elton John - Nikita 20 UB40 - Don’t Break My Heart 20 Dee C. Lee - See the Day 14 Sarah Brightman & Paul Miles-Kingston - Pie Jesu -6 08 Paul McCartney & The Frog Chorus - We All Stand Together

23rd July 72 Tears for Fears - Mad World +4 71 Soft Cell - Say Hello, Wave Goodbye 60 Yazoo - Don't Go 53 The J. Geils Band - Centerfold 48 Eurythmics - Who’s That Girl? 06 Yazoo - Nobody’s Diary -6

Sure, it was good fun, but with respect it's fictional. Cersei was even more hateful to me than Joffrey in the end, he was too dim to be as dangerous as her. I wouldn't describe it as 'faith in women' per-se, more that on average they are somewhat less aggressive than men. From at one end fewer female murderers particularly of the multiple/serial kind, not one female mass shooting culprit in the US that I can think of down to at the other end statistics as banal as less aggressive drivers attracting lower insurance premiums. One can always find examples that show the opposite, and to some degree politics is an aggressive endeavour in the first place, particularly so in the UK and US with our combative systems, so perhaps it is the case that only above averagely aggressive women will succeed in it. Thatcher is a bit of an outlier, I don't personally believe May was a terrible PM (aside from being a Tory) and Truss was a loon even they couldn't support in the end. Yes, I was thinking of Ardern and Marin myself. Ultimately it's not that 'there would be no wars - deaths - pain' had there been women in charge. Merely 'less' and as such I'd personally like to see more going forward until I'm inevitably proven wrong. 'tis all, I'm not suggesting it's gospel .

Oh my word, it brings a whole new meaning to useless. After the hours I spent sending ineligible candidates to biblio only to waste the poor mans time having to rebuff them? Not on your Nellie . Wiki is hardly any better on the subject.

Oh I meant in general. Sure one can name massively aggressive individual women (and Thatcher sure was one), and less aggressive men (not sure I want to equate it with 'wet', that's half the problem imo - though may apply in Camercons case). And also yes, it also has been the case that those who covet power are those we'd least like to have it in many cases. My theory is just that if you'd replaced every male leader in history with a female counterpart there'd have been less wars, less deaths and less pain overall. 'Tis just a theory of course.

I'd love her to pick Gretchen Whitmer. I think a world run entirely by women would primarily be a less aggressive one than men have managed throughout history with the US leading the way for once instead of simply proclaiming that they do. Won't happen of course, far too risky, but one can dream.

No, no idea what you could possibly be on about. Worth 103 seconds of anyones time.

22/7 = 3.1428 etc,etc. hth.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/jul/22/the-big-idea-why-we-need-to-stop-former-prime-ministers-cashing-in

Who? Yeah, Noob Oh I don't actually care, I'm just a blabbermouth with an opinion. Either somebody is a 'prospect' for deadpooling, or they're not, and if people use it as a resource at all it'd be helpful if people who aren't a prospect are filed elsewhere than those who are? For me though? I'm just adding my quota of hot air.

22nd July 66 Soft Cell - Say Hello, Wave Goodbye 64 Tears for Fears - Mad World +4 49 The J. Geils Band - Centerfold 43 Yazoo - Don't Go 40 Eurythmics - Who’s That Girl? 29 Pigbag - Papa’s Got a Brand New Pigbag 23 Yazoo - Nobody’s Diary 16 The Beat - Can’t Get Used to Losing You 16 Siouxsie and the Banshees - Dear Prudence 00 Ph.D - I Let You Down -6 I'm giving up on Siouxsie, too many downvotes and I'm not going to prolong this unnecessarily. Done. I also note he seems to have a prediliction for upvoting things at the bottom and downvoting the top which seems to just drag all this out. Maybe I'm wrong, and it's not important enough to go back and collect data (plus I'm too damn lazy), just a hunch.

I see your point here, it just grates that some people seem to think creating a new thread is some kind of target for which there will be a prize in due course. Not saying this one in particular, it's just the latest. Assassination doesn't really cut it for 'serious danger of dying' to me to be honest, despite the Trump attempt (and he was on here anyway for age of leader) nobody was ever on 'the list' for it, but clearly your mileage varies on that. Oddly enough it actually doesn't matter to me where they are created since I mostly just use 'unread posts' so I largely have no idea which section a thread is in anyway. It's more the principle of the thing, if someone has little chance of dying surely that's peripheral to the main subject matter of this forum?

Yeah well, that thread and this one should be in extra-curricular. And a few others as well I expect. At least if this section is for people under consideration for dead-pooling purposes. It's an admin call.

"Gerald Ford is a nice guy, but he played too much football with his helmet off" - Lyndon B Johnson. Now that's an insult .

Possibly so, but Biden certainly couldn't win. We'll have to wait and see what they decide to do.

Yes, he would seem to have been a pretty popular president and has done a lot of good. Possibly he could even have continued to do so for another four years. However, following his dismal performance in the debate he was toast. It doesn't make any difference whether he was still on top of it all, once his credibility was shot in the eyes of the public he was done. It was (and is) too close a race to continue as a lame duck, he had to make way for someone, anyone, who has a chance of defeating Trump. He's done the decent thing, and for that should be applauded. Took a little while too long indeed, but right in the end.

A few pages of "You've chosen to ignore content by The Old Crem". Joy.

Hasn't it always been this way? 5 people a day die in RTA's in the UK, 1,700 a year. None of them make the news unless there's something that can tug at that emotive thread that equates to 'news', it has always been clickbait that gets the headlines so far as I can tell, even when there were no clicks.

'Owen Jones'? don't start me on yet another rant, this time ranking Grauniad journalists. Actually do.... Simon Jenkins - privileged tosspot with a Nimby attitude to anything and everything. Last seen pacing areas around his Primrose Hill (North London) mansion seeking brownfield sites far enough away to build flats for the proles. The entire comments section is devoted to people very reasonably questioning why he is employed by The Guardian at all, should be at The Torygraph. Rating 0 (and struggled to make that). Eva Wisebore - Hasn't written a thing that wasn't related to babies or children for about 2 years since she had one herself. Used to be boring, now boring and one dimensional. Must be related to somebody in charge, it's stealing a living. Rating 1. Zoe Williams - Seems to do at least 50% of the work in that place and seeing as how she's never given a moments peace does a stirling job on any number of disparate subjects. Probably has to empty Wisebores waste paper basket on her day off. Rating 9. Ok, I've got too tedious now, maybe I'll do some more later if you people are really unlucky.

First time I've even seen the word, so you're not old until you don't even know what something like this is (fortunately I'm guessing if it's shite, and I'm not looking it up to affirm that).

Followed by a list of at best awful and at worst despicable (I had other descriptive words in mind but lets keep it clean for once) Brits who have shown up on that side of the pond for no discernable reason. What, one has to wonder, do Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, The Kaiser of Clacton and Russell fucking Brand hope to gain exactly? Or is there some hidden Higgs-Boson attraction particle between people who are absolute arseholes? (I slipped, sue me)

I understand. But the casual viewer should also be made aware of TOC's toxicity. (TOCicity?) Here's another couple of quotes (somewhat at odds with each other as it happens), I try to balance one against the other and respond (or not) accordingly. Sometimes unsuccessfully I guess. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” (Quote attributon is the cause of some controversy of itself). "Never Argue With Stupid People. They Will Drag You Down To Their Level and Then Beat You With Experience" (quote attribution similarly somewhat controversial). End of the day, ToC is now on ignore (as above), but sometimes quote A overrules quote B. ETA: And a prime example of quote B in action is TOC's request for further verification of my source above whilst still providing nada for any assertion of his own. I'm not falling for that crap as either an intellectual nor even as a fool, whichever I may be.

Hahahahahahahahhahahhahahahha, and indeed hahahahahahahaha. Lets start with you finding any source at all for your statements.

I don't, (finally, he's the first person I've put on ignore in over 10 years, and I'm still uncomfortable doing it). I like to think I try to listen to others points of view, even if I vehemently disagree with them. The world already has too many people who want to talk but never listen. And despite this I probably still talk too much myself. He's actively denying something I know to be true here, I can't just leave that unanswered if I see it. And due to where it is, and subsequently @TQR, quoting it*, I saw it despite the ignore. Me? Intellectual? In an infant school I might be mistaken as such. TQR's a big boy and can decide for himself what he responds to :). *I'm not going down the rabbithole of tqr berating people for quoting toc and then doing it himself .