Jump to content

En Passant

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2,900

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Posts posted by En Passant

  1. Posted

    14 hours ago, RoverAndOut said:

    Thousands of missiles fired at Gaza, we've not looked to shoot down a single one. A foreign embassy flattened, we didn't say a word. Now we're blowing up Iranian missiles not aimed at us. This is bound to end well.

     

    To be fair, my understanding is missiles moving at supersonic speeds over the short distance to Gaza are nigh on impossible to stop. The drones and cruises sent from Iran were subsonic and going far further?

    I also wondered what Iraq and Jordans take on this would be since these things would fly across them.

     

    My knowledge is limited though, it's quite hard to find actual facts amongst all the emotive reporting.

    Edit: That's not to detract from your political point of course.

  3. Posted

    7 hours ago, Clorox Bleachman said:

    @En Passant okay, challenge accepted.

     

    Well, it wasn't quite a challenge, but fair play @Clorox Bleachman I accept that whilst I haven't much liked what I have heard, decrying what I haven't is grossly unfair.

    You'll need to give me a week though, as if I'm going to do it I won't cheat, it's a reasonably long list and I need to be in the frame of mind to treat it fairly, also a bit busy for a few days. But I'll get to it.

    • Like 1

  4. Posted

     

     

    I could vote for them in a poll and care where they end up. Just to take it out of that thread. Goddamn I'm old. Sorry.

     

    Oh and there's absolutlely loads more, that's about 10 mins of trawling for something better than Sheeran Swift or your latest boy band or K-pop :P. I know, I know, but seems to me at least there's some variety (and no rap :P) off to search for a decent rap, I may be some time.

     

    • Like 3

  5. Posted

     

     

    Just an example. After Dark Side, Animals. etc etc, Seconds Out, The damned, Ian Dury, whatever. We got this.

    It's not perfect, but fuck me, nothing today seems to come close. I appreciate everyone has said this since swing in the 40's, Elvis in the 50's and The Beatles in the 60's......

    Am I just old? And wrong? I don't know. But I cannot get into Ed  Sheeran and Taylor Swift in the same way. And what else is there?

    Sorry :tomatododge:

     

    Edit: Anyway, enough of my shite, I'm digressing unfairly. Back to it :)

    • Like 1

  6. Posted

    I was a prog rock fan when young, couldn't get enough of Floyd, Early Genesis,  Hawkwind even. And the 80's seemed then, and still today, a souce of wonderful innovation there was all sorts. Then in the 90's by god there were some tunes in the world of 'trance' for want of a better term. Electronica, Punk, New Wave, you name it, there was just such variety. Yes there was crud but you could avoid it. Now? Aside from one or two possible tracks at best it's banal or.......rapped up tracks of old.

     

    I'm not saying I yearn for the return, or the grave, but (a few odd tracks aside) I find it hard.

     

     

    • Like 4

  7. Posted

    4 minutes ago, TQR said:

     

    Fair enough, though you could always give them a skim-listen if you had the time/stomach for it?

     

    I've considered that previously, but, it just doesn't feel right, I mean if a track were that good, I'd surely get to hear it anyway? I just don't know.

    It doesn't help that I have a massive distaste for most things that are 'rap'. I appreciate the skill I just don't like it.

    I have plenty of younger friends via whatever foolishness on their part or mine, and rap is just the thing lately and despite my best efforts, musically it just leaves me cold.

     

    I might try a skim. We'll see.

    • Like 1

  8. Posted

    1 minute ago, RoverAndOut said:

     

    It's a fair bet if you were too old for 06-07 that you'll be too old for 08-09 two years later.

     

    It's not even that I wouldn't like some of them perhaps, just the way things are delivered since (I dno? 2k? maybe?) means I just never hear most of it. Certainly not qualified to vote, so won't.

    • Like 2

  13. Posted

    9 hours ago, sadgirldreaming93 said:

    From what I can see

     

    Livingbygrace implies that it would be perfectly ok if the perpetrator had done whatever evil thing it was they actually did (I still can't work out what exactly tango was on about) had they not been a christian.

    It only disgusts her because it's stated about a christian. You doubled down on that.

    Neither of you explicitly said, "Oh it's ok if this is done by a non-christian" but you didn't have to, it's implied.

     

    If you don't see that, well, you don't. There's no more I could say really.

     

    Edit: for what it's worth, tango has made a fair few inflamatory posts from what I read of them but I don't generally respond to that kind of troll seriously, you see far too many on here. So it's not like I'm taking sides against you, I'm not.

     

     

     

     

  14. Posted

    40 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

    Ok, you know you're living in a dystopia when half of Count Binface's London Mayoral Manifesto sounds perfectly reasonable. #votebinface

     

    Reminds me of a similar previous manifesto including the classic

     

    x A firm public commitment to replace the aging Nuclear Deterrent at a cost of £100 Billion

    x1 An equally firm private commitment to save £100 billion by not buying anything - they're secret nuclear submarines, who's going to know?

     

    *obviously not verbatim, but cba to trawl for it.

    • Like 1

  15. Posted

    1 hour ago, sadgirldreaming93 said:

    Except that no one was making that claim here.

     

    Are you serious? This is exactly what you were (both) doing even if you considered you weren't doing it explicitly.

    There's a reason I couched my response as causing offence rather than in some other way (even though as stated it's not my preferred style) - I used it precisely because people make these statements blithely without considering the implication of their comment in a wider context.

     

    Your view (and livingbygraces) may well be that tango attacked christianity directly and you are merely defending it. But your response needs amending if you want to avoid others reading it the same way I did.

     

    1 hour ago, sadgirldreaming93 said:

    There was, however, the attempt to equate some fringe cult with Christianity as a whole, as well as posts looking down on Evangelical Christians. Respect and acceptance go both ways.

     

    To be crystal clear, I am not agreeing with the position of the OP (Tango854), to be honest I'm not entirely certain what point he was trying to make.

     

    Since this thread has long ago gone to the dogs anyway, I'm also not apologising for posting here  :evil2:

  17. Posted

    19 hours ago, livingbygrace said:

    To put Christians and a man who was insane and took people away from their brokenhearted families, and had them kill themselves. in the same category is disgusting

     

    The two are not mutually exclusive.

     

    36 minutes ago, sadgirldreaming93 said:

    This is especially inappropriate when you consider the fact that Jimmy himself is a Christian

     

    No, it isn't, because, as above.

     

    I find the idea that christians (or any other religion) somehow stand on higher moral ground by default than those who do not believe offensive. I don't generally care for the 'I'm offended' argument but I'll make an exception.

    • Like 6
    • Thanks 1

  19. Posted

    32 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

    I can see international support for him begin to drain away after the murder of the World Central Kitchen aid workers, including three Britons

     

    It's just a bit of a pity it took this to get support to drain away faster.

    Reminds me too much of the old adage about 10,000 dead in some third world country = 100 in Europe = 10 in UK/USA = 1 royal or similar.

     

    Still mystifies me that the apparent slaughter of thousands of civilians including kids doesn't seem to cut it. I keep thinking I'm missing something or reading the events wrongly somehow.

    • Like 10

  20. Posted

    52 minutes ago, Sinbabad said:

    Ok so if I understand correctly, "rugby football" is the "official" name for the sport that everybody calls rugby ?

    Kinda like "association football" for football ?

     

    Yes.  It's not quite as mad as calling a game football where the only foot that ever touches it is a kickoff, field goal or punt.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 2

  21. Posted

    Eddie Marsan a few days ago in The Graun

     

    Quote

    You’re often cast in Jewish roles, though you’re not Jewish. Should anyone be allowed to act anyone?
    A Jewish actor should be able to play non-Jewish roles and a non-Jewish actor should be able to play Jewish roles. A gay actor should be able to play straight roles and a straight actor should be able to play gay roles… You need to categorise people to measure and address inequality. But the problem is if you then confine people in categories, you take away acting opportunity.

     

    • Like 4

  22. Posted

    1 minute ago, TQR said:

    GRRRRR, flags.

     

    Fucks me right off. It's a flag, get a grip.

     

     Fuckin symbolism, fuckin political jumping on a populist bandwagon, fuckin nationalism if you like - people are people whatever nation.

    I think Gordon Sumner (sting) and his 14 hour tantric sex marathons is a loony but he got one thing right - (he hopes) "the russians love their children too".

  23. Posted

    1 minute ago, TQR said:

     

    Do you also hate margarine, the BBC, Henry VIII's disability and the McDonald's uniform?

     

     With a passion.

     

    As for acting, well, it's acting ffs. The idea that a gay can't play straight or vice versa is bonkers.

  24. Posted

    9 hours ago, TQR said:

     

    So, many thousands of people sleeping on the streets because they've got no money, how do we deal with this? Fine them, of course.

     

    9 hours ago, YoungWillz said:

    Haven't they admitted their jails are full and are having to release folk early to get more people in?

     

    What's the point of jailing these folk? So they can let out a more serious offender? 

     

    Desperate.

     

    Assuming that one of the primary reasons that people are sleeping rough is, cough, not having any money, fining them is unutterably stupid.

    So you're left with jailing them for non-payment. Further, if they are sleeping rough due to not having any money in the first place, one might reasonably assume that if fined and/or consequently jailed the re-offending rate would be, oh I don't know, 100%?

     

    The cost of keeping anyone in jail for a year is around £47,000. Which is around £13,000 more than the average salary in the UK.

     

    There might be a lot of hurdles to some realistic fix such as universal basic income....

    ...But surely we can do better in the 6th largest economy in the world than jailing people with no money for non-payment of fines because they're sleeping rough because they had no money.

     

    • Like 5

  25. Posted

    3 minutes ago, DevonDeathTrip said:

     

    Less of that please!   

     

    We've had complaints.

     

    A: Godwins Law

    B: An amusing gif of a footballer waving an imaginary card at the ref that I can't be arsed to source.

×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use

  I accept