Lest we forget

[Guest alex]

Was it the same bloke who played him in 'The Man Who Would Be King'? I like a bit of continuity.

 

I recall the film (M. Caine), but can't recall Kipling

Kipling's the bloke who witnesses the agreement and then who Caine tells the story to upon his return. It's Christopher Plummer - he's one of those geezers who's in loads of films but it's hard to remember what his name is. Last seen in 'Inside Man' (by me anyway).

[snakehips 0]

Was it the same bloke who played him in 'The Man Who Would Be King'? I like a bit of continuity.

 

I recall the film (M. Caine), but can't recall Kipling

Kipling's the bloke who witnesses the agreement and then who Caine tells the story to upon his return. It's Christopher Plummer - he's one of those geezers who's in loads of films but it's hard to remember what his name is. Last seen in 'Inside Man' (by me anyway).

 

I remember the scene now - cluttered office scenario (iinm) I will watch it again soon to refresh my mind.

[Guest alex]

Was it the same bloke who played him in 'The Man Who Would Be King'? I like a bit of continuity.

 

I recall the film (M. Caine), but can't recall Kipling

Kipling's the bloke who witnesses the agreement and then who Caine tells the story to upon his return. It's Christopher Plummer - he's one of those geezers who's in loads of films but it's hard to remember what his name is. Last seen in 'Inside Man' (by me anyway).

 

I remember the scene now - cluttered office scenario (iinm) I will watch it again soon to refresh my mind.

It's canny like. Daft but canny. Good banter between Caine and Connery.

[luckyluke 2]

The thrust of your original post notwithstanding, what's the solution, anyway? (That's a question to the room, not just to Fop.) Is it even possible to remember in the way you describe once the first-hand witnesses have all died out? Or are we simply teaching it all wrong?

 

Blackadder Goes Forth on the National Curriculum says I.

 

I watched the last episode in a history lesson at school.

[RlCO 0]

"People have already pretty much completely forgotten the utter horror of WW1"

 

Only 5 people are still alive who were there.

 

On that basis I still think you're post was utterly pointless, misplaced, arrogant and patronising.

 

Care to explain

 

I'll even help you.

 

1. utterly pointless: why?

 

2. misplaced: how?

 

3. arrogant: how?

 

4. patronising: how?

 

(5. will Alex spot your mistake and/or comment on it? )

 

1. What were you trying to achieve? What was the point of the comment?

 

2. You could have kept your counsel and respected the nature of the thread

 

3. The use of the word 'people', with the implication as always you are the superior minority

 

4. See 3.

 

You will no doubt come up with more weaseling about how you are being misquoted or misunderstood or whatever, but frankly, that is because of the brevity of your statement. Should you have not been able to contain yourself from making the statement, it would not have been that hard to expand your point into a few readily understandable and unambiguous sentences.

[Fop 1]

"People have already pretty much completely forgotten the utter horror of WW1"

 

Only 5 people are still alive who were there.

 

On that basis I still think you're post was utterly pointless, misplaced, arrogant and patronising.

 

Care to explain

 

I'll even help you.

 

1. utterly pointless: why?

 

2. misplaced: how?

 

3. arrogant: how?

 

4. patronising: how?

 

(5. will Alex spot your mistake and/or comment on it? )

 

1. What were you trying to achieve? What was the point of the comment?

 

Pretty much the same thing as every other comment up until then.

 

2. You could have kept your counsel and respected the nature of the thread

 

I did. You however did not.

 

3. The use of the word 'people', with the implication as always you are the superior minority

 

Or in fact as no implication of the of the sort (except in your drink addled mind), other than simply using it in the very general sense of "people".

 

4. See 3.

 

Indeed.

 

You will no doubt come up with more weaseling about how you are being misquoted or misunderstood or whatever, but frankly, that is because of the brevity of your statement.

 

Or in fact because I said nothing of the sort (no matter what you try to pretend I "said").

 

Should you have not been able to contain yourself from making the statement, it would not have been that hard to expand your point into a few readily understandable and unambiguous sentences.

 

Says the drunken fuckwit that was unable to contain himself from slinging rubbish turning this thread into the debacle it has become for NO reason at all other than drunken paranoia and aggression.

[RlCO 0]

"People have already pretty much completely forgotten the utter horror of WW1"

 

Only 5 people are still alive who were there.

 

On that basis I still think you're post was utterly pointless, misplaced, arrogant and patronising.

 

Care to explain

 

I'll even help you.

 

1. utterly pointless: why?

 

2. misplaced: how?

 

3. arrogant: how?

 

4. patronising: how?

 

(5. will Alex spot your mistake and/or comment on it? )

 

1. What were you trying to achieve? What was the point of the comment?

 

Pretty much the same thing as every other comment up until then.

 

2. You could have kept your counsel and respected the nature of the thread

 

I did. You however did not.

 

3. The use of the word 'people', with the implication as always you are the superior minority

 

Or in fact as no implication of the of the sort (except in your drink addled mind), other than simply using it in the very general sense of "people".

 

4. See 3.

 

Indeed.

 

You will no doubt come up with more weaseling about how you are being misquoted or misunderstood or whatever, but frankly, that is because of the brevity of your statement.

 

Or in fact because I said nothing of the sort (no matter what you try to pretend I "said").

 

Should you have not been able to contain yourself from making the statement, it would not have been that hard to expand your point into a few readily understandable and unambiguous sentences.

 

Says the drunken fuckwit that was unable to contain himself from slinging rubbish turning this thread into the debacle it has become for NO reason at all other than drunken paranoia and aggression.

 

"Pretty much the same thing as every other comment up until then." - you are a LIAR.

 

"I did. You however did not" - On this point we shall disagree, I have no problem with asserting your sentence had nothing to do with the sentiment of the thread.

 

"Or in fact as no implication of the of the sort (except in your drink addled mind), other than simply using it in the very general sense of "people"." In the very general sense of the word people? That would make your sentence completely meaningless wouldn't it? 'people' in your new definition of the word, do lots of things every day, why make a point of it in a thread?

 

"Or in fact because I said nothing of the sort" I quoted you, again.

 

"Says the fuckwit that was unable to contain himself from slinging rubbish turning this thread into the debacle it has become"

 

I could not have put it better.

[The Fish 10779]

this has become beyond tiresome

just hug and make up won't you?

[Fop 1]

"Pretty much the same thing as every other comment up until then." - you are a LIAR.

 

Hardly but you have become one.

 

"I did. You however did not" - On this point we shall disagree, I have no problem with asserting your sentence had nothing to do with the sentiment of the thread.

 

Yep it's quite clear YOU had no problem with ruining this thread, I however did try to avoid it.

 

 

"Or in fact as no implication of the of the sort (except in your drink addled mind), other than simply using it in the very general sense of "people"." In the very general sense of the word people? That would make your sentence completely meaningless wouldn't it? 'people' in your new definition of the word, do lots of things every day, why make a point of it in a thread?

 

Aye my "new definition" of the word people.

 

1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people.

http://www.answers.com/people&r=67

 

Yup I have now grown so powerful I can change the very meaning of words to suit myself.

 

 

"Or in fact because I said nothing of the sort" I quoted you, again.

 

You quoted nothing that I said.

 

"Says the fuckwit that was unable to contain himself from slinging rubbish turning this thread into the debacle it has become"

 

I could not have put it better.

 

I wasn't the drunken fuckwit that was unable to contain himself from slinging rubbish turning this thread into the debacvle it has become YOU were that drunken fuckwit.

 

I did my best it avoid it even though YOU were determined to do so.

 

You ruined this thread, no one else.

[Fop 1]

this has become beyond tiresome

just hug and make up won't you?

 

He'd have to be sober first.

[Happy Face 29]

Aye my "new definition" of the word people.

 

1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people.

http://www.answers.com/people&r=67

 

So which group of people were you talking about again?

[Fop 1]

Aye my "new definition" of the word people.

 

1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people.

http://www.answers.com/people&r=67

 

So which group of people were you talking about again?

 

If you can't remember what I said just a few posts up or indeed in the very post you quoted , I don't see the point of repeating myself, as with your goldfish like memory I'd be re-repeating myself every 2 mins.

[RlCO 0]

"Pretty much the same thing as every other comment up until then." - you are a LIAR.

 

Hardly but you have become one.

 

"I did. You however did not" - On this point we shall disagree, I have no problem with asserting your sentence had nothing to do with the sentiment of the thread.

 

Yep it's quite clear YOU had no problem with ruining this thread, I however did try to avoid it.

 

 

"Or in fact as no implication of the of the sort (except in your drink addled mind), other than simply using it in the very general sense of "people"." In the very general sense of the word people? That would make your sentence completely meaningless wouldn't it? 'people' in your new definition of the word, do lots of things every day, why make a point of it in a thread?

 

Aye my "new definition" of the word people.

 

1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people.

http://www.answers.com/people&r=67

 

Yup I have now grown so powerful I can change the very meaning of words to suit myself.

 

 

"Or in fact because I said nothing of the sort" I quoted you, again.

 

You quoted nothing that I said.

 

"Says the fuckwit that was unable to contain himself from slinging rubbish turning this thread into the debacle it has become"

 

I could not have put it better.

 

I wasn't the drunken fuckwit that was unable to contain himself from slinging rubbish turning this thread into the debacvle it has become YOU were that drunken fuckwit.

 

I did my best it avoid it even though YOU were determined to do so.

 

You ruined this thread, no one else.

 

I'm sorry but this is just complete rubbish, you really do have some serious problems with basic comprehension of the English language. Pulling out the definition of 'people' is exactly the sort of thing you would do, when any normal person would just do what I said and explain your comment in a few more unambiguous and uncontestible sentences. You are liar because no previous post was anything like your one, so patently your statement is a lie. You have not tried to avoid ruining this thread by any stretch of the imagination. I quoted your exact words, like I said, basic comprehension.

[snakehips 0]

"People all over the world; join hands, start a love train, love train."

[Fop 1]

I'm sorry but this is just complete rubbish, you really do have some serious problems with basic comprehension of the English language. Pulling out the definition of 'people' is exactly the sort of thing you would do, when any normal person would just do what I said and explain your comment in a few more unambiguous and uncontestible sentences.

 

Yes "pulling out" the definition of "people" I used when you bizarrely accuse me of making up a new and ridiculous definition of it is exactly the sort of thing I'd do.

 

Or to put it more succinctly - making you look like a blithering FOOL is exactly what I'd do.

 

You are liar because no previous post was anything like your one, so patently your statement is a lie. You have not tried to avoid ruining this thread by any stretch of the imagination. I quoted your exact words, like I said, basic comprehension.

 

You ruined this thread with your drunken ranting, we both know it as we both know I said nothing at all deserving of your complete and utter bollocks.

 

Now can you stop with your Rab C Nesbitt-ness and go sober up?

[Tom 14011]

Talk about pulling things out of context

[RlCO 0]

I'm sorry but this is just complete rubbish, you really do have some serious problems with basic comprehension of the English language. Pulling out the definition of 'people' is exactly the sort of thing you would do, when any normal person would just do what I said and explain your comment in a few more unambiguous and uncontestible sentences.

 

Yes "pulling out" the definition of "people" I used when you bizarrely accuse me of making up a new and ridiculous definition of it is exactly the sort of thing I'd do.

 

Or to put it more succinctly - making you look like a blithering FOOL is exactly what I'd do.

 

You are liar because no previous post was anything like your one, so patently your statement is a lie. You have not tried to avoid ruining this thread by any stretch of the imagination. I quoted your exact words, like I said, basic comprehension.

 

You ruined this thread with your drunken ranting, we both know it as we both know I said nothing at all deserving of your complete and utter bollocks.

 

Now can you stop with your Rab C Nesbitt-ness and go sober up?

 

Like I said, exactly the sort of thing you would do.

[Fop 1]

Yep making you look like a blithering idiot with the truth is definitely the sort of thing I'd do.