Re: @CTG
Sigh. I'm changing it. This is arse.
2823 publicly visible posts • joined 31 Jan 2008
May I suggest that extrapolating from the rantings of one loon on the internet that all Americans are mad is er, a smidge unreasonable? After all, the Americans could then extrapolate from that that all Brits are prone to unreasonable extrapolation. And round and round we'd go.
The point is, give it a rest, you Brit-tards.
>If a hound ever attacked me, I would kill it. It would be choked and strangled. A single dog (no matter what breed) is easy to kill, two dogs (or a dog and a thug owner) is more difficult.
"You know that expression, 'softly softly, catchy monkey'? I could catch a monkey."
*snort* Sorry.
I have to say though I think people are fantastically ignorant about dog behaviour in this country, and assume aggression when there may only be excitement or anxiety. Yes of course you have to protect yourself, and you can reasonably assume a dog means business if it leaps at you with its jaws agape, etc, but a dog looking at you and barking doesn't necessarily mean it's going to go for you. Not even if it's, like, a big scary dog.
It's all getting a bit testosteroney around here, anyway. There's nothing macho about self-defence if you do it right.
If cats were bigger, they'd kill us all. You know I'm right.
Oh and Phud, that's a pretty skanky argument and I suspect you know it. The jury's still out on 'chav' and of course it gets tossed at people who don't deserve it, but the fact remains we're talking about A Certain Section Of Society, whatever you want to call them. Anyone who suggests this is the entirety of the working class is a twat. But I don't think anyone's saying that.
Meh.
It's the usual irresponsibility on the part of an idiot who at best doesn't know any better and at worst doesn't give a flying fuck for anyone else or their own dog (although they'll fight long and hard and whinily to keep them, just out of possessiveness). Since pit bulls are (pointlessly) banned here, it's only going to be the dodgy who own or breed them (excepting maybe one or two ornery defiant dog lover types who know what they're doing and are exceptionally careful not to be found out/fall afoul of the law, etc).
Dodgy breeders breed dodgy dogs, which they'll flog to people who barely know one end of a dog from another, let alone what breed it is, and/or have no idea of the law, or to people who fancy owning an illicit macho beast. So it's dogs which would need very careful handling ending up with people who can barely feed themselves.
This one wasn't even a year old, it was a puppy - about the same age as the one in the Ellie Lawrenson case. And it was called Asbo, for fucksakes. These attacks tend to be just another symptom of a generally chaotic, dysfunctional existence. Speaking of which, the mother of Archie-Lee Hirst (killed by dog last year) just got let off for slashing her mate's face with scissors - of course she's grief-stricken, but not all the grief-stricken end up being arrested for assault.
How I wish they'd do something equivalent for website comments.
"You're an idiot. Are you sure you want to broadcast this to the internet? Answer these simple questions to verify."
Followed by basic enquiries as to how much Jeremy Kyle you watch and whether you know your 'your' from your 'you're'. Might cut down the field a bit. We long for the day.
Yes. Hail Xenu.
No, AC, I was just at a loss as to what you think we should call it if 'religious organisation' is too vague, not vague enough, or somehow offensive. If you're going to make such a shouty demand for amendment, suggestions would be helpful.
How about 'dubious Cruise-cuddling personality-testing sci-fi worship collective'?
>gay's don't go knocking on peoples houses in the morning trying to spread their good news
Heh. I'd give them a few moments on the doorstep.
"Hi, we're here to tell you the good news about gayness - have you ever thought about your sexuality? We have some naughty little booklets here we think you'd find inspirationa... oh but honey, that is one fierce bathrobe, wherever did you get it?"
Anyway, it's a frickin' good point.
>My comment left some time ago today about traffic in Dublin seems to been ignored by the Reg. Why?
Because we hadn't got to it yet, and because I was doing some writing and sub-editing and such, and because sometimes comments slip through or fall to the bottom of the cage and lie there writhing and making pitiful noises until we pick them up.
Or it's because [insert censor-tastic conspiralunacy here]. Your pick.
Thing is you'll always be able look at almost anything you want to, however repellent, so long as you don't get off on it - if it isn't framed as wank-fodder. The true deviants will be fine since they'll still be perving over the obscure and apparently non-sexual stuff that is beyond porn and legislation thereof, but which they find arousing.
I've said it before but it's preposterous to attempt to legislate for what turns people on. No one has an awful lot of choice in the matter, do they? And no one's ever died directly because of someone else wanking, and there's never been any proof that looking at nasty porn makes people do nasty things (I suspect it's more likely to be the opposite, and the porn provides the outlet for the impulse, but then you can't prove that either).
And several others have pointed out it's an unenforceable nonsense anyway and will only be used to hang more charges on people who've already been nabbed for doing something else. Still depressing, though.
I think it's more likely to dirty it. But I'll let it stand. Anyone who's going to respond, take some deep breaths first, yeah?
It's not a 'blog', though, Nathan. But then you could argue the archaeopteryx wasn't reptilian. Not that I'm going there. Not in <strike>3 million years</strike> <strike>30,000 years</strike> a really long time.