Lyndsey Hunter

[millwall32 108]

Was this thread started to make the Dicky O'Sullivan thread look all high-brow and intellectual like?

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..

[Gunjaman5000 30]

Was this thread started to make the Dicky O'Sullivan thread look all high-brow and intellectual like?

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..

She is very fuckable;

. Would any deathlisters like to sleep with Paul Hunter's widow.

Common, uncouth.

The defence rests.

[TLC 9]

I hate to admit it but I actually think this thread has crossed the line of decency. Well, by more distance than most of the other threads anyway.

 

Perhaps the Sun should provide us with a thoughtful guide as to how long members of the general public should leave it before discussing the shaggability of recently deceased famous people's ex-spouses?

[Godot 148]

I hate to admit it but I actually think this thread has crossed the line of decency. Well, by more distance than most of the other threads anyway.

 

Perhaps the Sun should provide us with a thoughtful guide as to how long members of the general public should leave it before discussing the shaggability of recently deceased famous people's ex-spouses?

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?

[millwall32 108]

I hate to admit it but I actually think this thread has crossed the line of decency. Well, by more distance than most of the other threads anyway.

 

Perhaps the Sun should provide us with a thoughtful guide as to how long members of the general public should leave it before discussing the shaggability of recently deceased famous people's ex-spouses?

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?

[Anubis the Jackal 76]

Just to get the thread bcak on track- re: lynsey, would you?

 

 

 

 

 

no.

[Handrejka 1,842]

No, I'm straight. I wouldn't have done Paul either though, too fair and skinny.

[millwall32 108]

Just to get the thread bcak on track- re: lynsey, would you?

 

 

 

 

 

no.

Fair enough.

[TLC 9]

Thank you Godot. I find that post quite supportive. I started the thread primarily 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?

Fair enough, I wasn't asking for an actual line to be drawn, I know we're already considered (by those 'I consider myself to be a broad-minded chap, but...' Daily Mail readers etc.) to be on fairly shaky moral ground as a whole on this site as it is.

 

What I suppose I meant was that, although I said 'crossed the line of decency', that wasn't supposed to be a request to have the thread deleted or censored. Just my usual 'beating about the bush' way of saying that personally I don't like the sentiment of the thread, but I don't expect to be agreed with all of the time. I just wanted my opinion to be noted for a change even if it's just to be ignored; I'm not going to start ranting on this thread even if it eventually reaches Dickie O magnitude.

 

I'm not even sure why I find it more offensive than some of the fairly controversial stuff that appears on here, maybe it just seemed to me to have been designed as a bit of ranter-bait. Saying that, had the question been asked of me down the pub, I'd probably give an answer and not thought of it in bad taste; an argument I've used against guest ranters before so I suppose that makes me a bit of a hypocrite.

 

However, just because this is considered a fairly tasteless site by the majority of 'normal' people, that isn't in itself an excuse to post any old thing without considering the moral implications. I mean, we don't post porn, we don't tolerate racism or sexism or homophobia, necrophilia etc. so the fact this is a death related site doesn't make this a moral vacuum free-for-all. This is a general example by the way, I'm not trying to say that this thread is like that, it's just I don't like the 'the whole site's already in bad taste' justification for posting, whatever the post is about.

 

There, done now. What was the question again?

[Dr Hackenslash 24]

...so the fact this is a death related site doesn't make this a moral vacuum free-for-all...

 

Very good point. Personally, the only problem I have with this particular thread is that there seems little reason to discuss her - she's never going to qualify for a spot on the list, whereas Dicky O - even though he is unlikely to die for years - does due to his notability, etc.

 

The only thing Lyndsey is famous for is being the widow of a snooker player, and that surely means she's outside the remit of discussion (not that there really is such a thing).

 

Of course, if there was a general "chit-chat" thread, then this sort of comment would be fair game - as in "Did you see Paul Hunter's missus, I'd keep her company" etc. But as a thread in its own right? No thanks.

 

Though a poll on the "most fanciable" member of the current list would be rather amusing...

[millwall32 108]

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.

[TLC 9]

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.

Indeed you did.

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

But (if I understand correctly, big if) as you're using the line to respond to the question 'is this thread in good taste?', your answer effectively avoids the question by pretty much saying 'well, it's all judged as bad taste on this site isn't it?'.

 

I admit I've then made the mistake of presuming that you meant 'if it's all judged as bad taste anyway, what does it matter if threads are in good taste or not?' hence the bit of my reply Dr H picked out. My apologies if you didn't mean that.

 

that thread is worse than being in bad taste, it is off topic.

God you must hate me...

[Gunjaman5000 30]

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.

Indeed you did.

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

But (if I understand correctly, big if) as you're using the line to respond to the question 'is this thread in good taste?', your answer effectively avoids the question by pretty much saying 'well, it's all judged as bad taste on this site isn't it?'.

 

I admit I've then made the mistake of presuming that you meant 'if it's all judged as bad taste anyway, what does it matter if threads are in good taste or not?' hence the bit of my reply Dr H picked out. My apologies if you didn't mean that.

 

that thread is worse than being in bad taste, it is off topic.

God you must hate me...

What got me in the first place is the intention of the thread. Surely there's hundreds and/or thousands of sites where the 'bangablilty' of sporting notables' wives may be discussed, it's not a question of decency or high moral standards, it's a question of suitablility; is this forum a suitable venue to discuss her charms? I don't think that just because her husband is dead and was discussed here, that this is the place for said frank and open discussion.

[millwall32 108]

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.

[CarolAnn 924]

Whatever the intent and whatever the widow looks like, it simply reinforces the reality that men can't think beyond their plumbing.

[Handrejka 1,842]

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 .

 

 

You'd hope

[Dr Hackenslash 24]

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 .

 

 

You'd hope

 

Jim'll Fix It, Jim'll fix it for you, and you and you...

[Gunjaman5000 30]

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.

But Elizabeth Taylor has her own thread already

[millwall32 108]

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 .

 

 

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.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

At least I can take pride in that I'm from God's Own County.

Greater Manchester?

[millwall32 108]

Whatever the intent and whatever the widow looks like, it simply reinforces the reality that men can't think beyond their plumbing.

You have made a very short mental journey before making your post. Why are you assuming that I and any deathlister wishing to express a preference about sleeping with the widow would be a man?

[CarolAnn 924]

Whatever the intent and whatever the widow looks like, it simply reinforces the reality that men can't think beyond their plumbing.

You have made a very short mental journey before making your post. Why are you assuming that I and any deathlister wishing to express a preference about sleeping with the widow would be a man?

 

Yes, it was a very short mental journey meant to make a joking statement with a cliche - hence the smiley with the tongue stuck out. Sheesh.