Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’m think as not drunk people as I am.
@tinks wrote:
The one thing you can’t do is fault the Queen……….she has always behaved with impecible decorum right throughout her reign ……I’m in no way a royalist but having to shake that man’s hand must have struck a serious chord with her…………and there must be guilt in that man’s mind too after everything that he’s been a part of………..as there should be.
I agree Tinks and the Queen, as an intelligent and educated woman, is as aware of the legacy of innocent blood that put McGuinness where he is as she is of the one that supports the British Crown. I don’t romanticise either position.
But she is a figurehead, her public role is to represent something worth dying for and she does that job very well. She has shaken hands with evil leaders through her career. Some of them as our allies.
As an established head of state she cannot get personally involved in bloodshed although her male relatives are expected to while young and as soldiers they will carry out their duties and support their comrades through thick and thin. The fact that she has lost family members to the IRA adds to our sense that the Royals somehow share our burdens. Undoubtedly there have been royal losses of which we are less conscious.
The bigger reality is that, as someone who really enjoys the 21st century, I rest on that legacy of blood as surely as she does. So, whether because of pragmatics or principle, I agree with Pepper that it is time to lay the past to rest. If we want any kind of security we must secure a peaceful and no-violent present and build a hopeful future.
I admire the British Soldier’s (and I include warriors at air and sea, hence the capitalisation) devotion to duty, I believe that for as long as we ask them to do their job we should support them as people and should let our politicians know how important is their welfare. Many of them get still treated shamefully and end up damaged and disadvantaged.
@panda12 wrote:
But e didn’t want to buy her a meal. E was just stringing her along. Being a large scale C A D was his forte.
“Awwwww G!” She said when she found out.
So he took a breve rest
Maybe we also need to change our attitude towards tax. Part of the resentment towards taxation comes from the partly-justified idea that rulers take tax from the rules to spend on golden castles, pomp and ego-enhancing standing armies.
Our modern welfare state delivers so much more yet we feel hard done by. I read somewhere that the happiest nations are the Scandinavian countries with their high tax/high care regimes. But rather than resent this, it seems the people feel ‘cared for’ (they have one word for it). Perhaps their famously parsimonious heads of state reflect this regard for the public good.
It might also explain why Cameron’s statement earlier this year that maybe we shouldn’t just measure economic success but happiness was such a one-off.
His presumption made her crotchety
@sceptical guy wrote:
@jen_jen wrote:
Black humour as a coping mechanism when you’re in a situation is one thing, the sick mocking humour that is becoming so prevalent in modern comedians who try to emulate Lenny (who, incidentally, I never found funny either) is something that I personally find distasteful and the increasing acceptance of such humour disturbing.
No doubt some will say I don’t have a sense of humour…I do, a healthy one.
something tells me that Lenny Bruce didn’t laugh at lenny either.
a healthy sense of humour?? =D>
[-X
one-dimensional maybe?
my mother said,
I never should…Are the two necessarily mutually exclusive? 8) 8) 8) 8)
@sceptical guy wrote:
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@sceptical guy wrote:
oh dear..do you reckon I could get banned???!!
The stupid dopes are idiotic enough to censor the name of a writer like Philip K Richard, just as Lenny Bruce was prosecuted by the courts, so maybe I will!!!
Help! mummy!!!
Hail to scep! The new Lenny . . . . . . . .
falls off chair laughing
mocking is also a form of humour on these boards
Straightens turtle neck, adjust shades, plays meaningfully on his bongoes and almost wishes he’d learnt to smoke when he had the chance . . . . . . . 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
@sceptical guy wrote:
oh dear..do you reckon I could get banned???!!
The stupid dopes are idiotic enough to censor the name of a writer like Philip K Richard, just as Lenny Bruce was prosecuted by the courts, so maybe I will!!!
Help! mummy!!!
Hail to scep! The new Lenny . . . . . . . .
Hi Scep, I found Lenny Bruce too much the first time I heard him, avoided listening to him after that because I didn’t want to support something that might be harmful, not merely embarrassing. I’m a bit more sophisticated now, I can wear polo necked jumpers and adopt an ironic smirk as well as the next man. But I still don’t find him funny.
I do find him shocking and I think there’s a context for shock tactics, for exposing something to the public gaze and reminding people so it doesn’t happen again. I think Lenny Bruce achieved that for his audience.
I’m not sure that the use of inappropriate terms achieves that per se, unless it’s done with supreme skill and fits its context well. So I’m not sure many of his claimed successors achieve it either.
Shock delivers trauma, if trauma heals well the result can be positive, if trauma heals badly the result can be far worse than before.
I don’t mean inappropriate because of some rule that says “you can’t say that no more”, but more in the sense of inaccurate, unhelpful or damaging – especially when a better alternative is available. The usage of “schizophrenic” and its derivatives had become at best misleading. A resurgence wouldn’t help. “Bi-polar” might be boring, but someone who has a bipolar condition is not in that state to amuse, excite me or interest me. I don’t believe I possess the skill of Lenny Bruce, so I’ll leave the term alone and if it dies out, I won’t miss it.
