I suspect that had I "introduced it as a 'poor scabby old van' instead of a '1979 VW Camper' " you'd have just accused me of inverted snobbery instead.
I'm curious as to why it matters to you at all to be honest; I suspect you're somebody who navigates by narrow stereotypes and by lazily labelling me a Guardian reading, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall admiring, vintage vehicle driving, two-dimensional cardboard cutout you're able to avoid relating to me as a real person and carry on existing in simple, unscary b0unce-world.
hehe! Your suspicions are wrong. You made a point of the year and make of your van, not me. So you deal with it. Some of the things you said were word-for-word printed in the guardian that day, which I happened to read. I didn't intend to suggest you read the guardian to pidgeon hole you into some kind of archetype. The hugh fearnley-whittingstall question was also genuine, as I recall you like good food and have spoken about it here on the board. I reckon you're being a wee bit defensive on this one, but that's the last I'll say on this particular topic. It's too non-conclusive...
I'm suggesting that even when the law is WRONG, sometimes idiots find themselves at odds with it and I have little sympathy for them for placing themselves so willingly in harm's way.
You're suggesting that Gillian Gibbons deliberately set out to offend her hosts and insult their religion, an opinion you share with a few hundred hardline fundamentalists and virtually nobody else. To suggest she placed herself "so willingly in harm's way" is to grossly misrepresent the truth in my opinion, as well as the opinions of The Muslim Council of Great Britain, every moderate Muslim whose opinion I am aware of and now, apparently, the President of Sudan.
NO, not deliberately. You're confusing my total lack of sympathy for her stupidity with lack of sympathy because she did it on purpose. She should have known better, that's my only angle. Fuck
the muslim council of great britain and elsewhere for that matter, she should only concern herself with the laws/muslim council of Sudan and how it's interperated there if that's where she chooses to place herself - had she any common sense that is. As for the President of Sudan and her pardon, great...hallelujah infact, I'm saying for her stupidity she should be at the mercy of their law and if they choose to pardon her that's fine and not in the least at odds with what I've been saying. She's been pretty lucky imo. And what the president has realised is NOT that they took the issue too far (but who knows), but that if the UK stopped sending hundreds of millions of sterling pounds in aid , which was threatend - that would suck big time. Not worth making her stick around jail for the remainder of her sentence. eh what?
Championing those retards is NOT the way to battle stupid laws.
No. The way to battle stupid laws is to label everyone who falls foul of them as "retards" and defend the locking up of people for speaking and writing poems.
... listen, why don't you cut & paste the poems that are causing such a fuss. add to that her collection of bomb making tutorials, poisoners guidebooks, etc etc - she's a fucktard, nuffsaid. and fucktards like her bolster the terrorism act. and the terrorism act is bad thing because guys like Ted Honderich might be silenced by it.
that's just how we feel about it in b0unce world tho.
Of course, we both know that even if you were to suddenly realise you're talking like a cock, there is no way you'd admit it to a Guardian reading, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall admiring, vintage vehicle driving, two-dimensional cardboard cutout.
I'd be quicker to admit it than you, old bean!
Anyways, like I said a couple of paragraphs up - you're taking that guardian/hugh thing too defensively imo.