Tnite I Saw A Guy Get A Bottle To The Face

[Pashley26]

Don't worry guy's, he's from Liverpool.

He's an expert on the matters at hand.

[Spider Lad]

Don't worry guys, I'm a narrow-minded slim-wit.

I'm an expert on absolutely nothing.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Spider Lad

[Pashley26]

Hypocrite.

[Spider Lad]

Hypocrite.

You just sound foolish now.

[Pashley26]

You just sound foolish now.

Actually, I can't be bothered to have an argument.

Don't be so judgmental about everyone.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Pashley26

[Spider Lad]

No, you do.

You have tarred a certain type of person nation wide, and as per your first post alcohol has NOTHING to do with fights (which predominately happen at kicking out time ?), referred to Ben Rowlands (one of the best point makers on the whole forum) as someone who "often loses touch with what he actually believes and lets his ability for reasoned debate defeat him, by arguing the case for any side regardless, just to assert some small victory on himself." And you've also said he's "Pretending to be diplomatic" ! Which he clearly isn't.

Your initial point was a good one. A very good one ! But you've tainted it with bullshit. All by your 28th post ! Your doing a good job of getting people back up.

And do you honestly believe I think all Scousers are Drunken arseholes ?

I do really....JOKE.

I think you'll struggle to point out any hypocricy arising from my previous posts. Hence you've become a fool to yourself.

I've tarred a certain type of person nationwide? By this do you mean people who smash bottles over the heads of others? Oh woe is me, for I have misrepresented the thuggish contingent of our country.

I think Ben would prefer if you let him do his own talking, don't you?

You made a poor attempt at humour which only served to enforce negative and inacurate stereotypes. I replied in wit and you got a bit upset.

Just to reinforce or add to my original point. Alcohol is never an excuse for anything, people should be resposible for they way in which they take alcohol and responsible for their own actions, whether under the influence of alcohol or otherwise. I'd really struggle to understand why anybody would try and disagree.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Spider Lad

[Pashley26]

You made a poor attempt at humour which only served to enforce negative and inacurate stereotypes. I replied in wit and you got a bit upset.

You think that was an attempt at humor ? You think i'm upset ?

Your are VERY deluded, The point I was trying to make by commenting on where you live is that it's not acceptable to make stereotypical judgements on people. You've NEVER met me, and I'm pretty sure you've never met Ben. In fact, i'd go so far as to say that your belittling statements about the way Ben is are based on a paragraph read on an internet forum. Which make you (as you called me) a "Narrow minded slim wit", so I have every right to call you a hypocrite.

It's obvious you have a serious superiority complex, so you'll probably get bored with coming up against a brick wall every time you make a fanny of yourself and leave after a few months. Which will be nice. (I wrote Fanny, not C*nt.)

Welcome to the forum, nice introduction

[george_seamons]

Jarrod, Spider-Lad has been on the forum for a loonnnng time...just under a different name.

I'm not taking sides, just predicting what his response will be.

[Pashley26]

Round one to "Spider Lad"

To simplify, I'm not looking for an argument.

I just think that there was no need for you to take the piss out of Ben. Your points were very good ones, and deserved a positive response.

But people tend to focus on the bad sides, which in my eyes were your unnecessary belittling comments. Me thinking you were a new member I thought "Hey ! Thats not right ?" But apparently your an existing member, so you won't give a f**k anyway.

[Spider Lad]

I don't think you understand the definition of the word hypocrite.

You weren't making a point about anything, you were having a sly jab and I pointed out (albeit humourously) that kind of talk, even if disguised as a joke, is just plain narrow-minded. Accept that.

[Pashley26]

I don't think you understand the definition of the word hypocrite.

You weren't making a point about anything, you were having a sly jab and I pointed out (albeit humourously) that kind of talk, even if disguised as a joke, is just plain narrow-minded. Accept that.

Yes, thats right. You know what I'm thinking, and your a comedy genius.

You done yet ?

[grant_hundley]

Your are VERY deluded

based on a paragraph read on an internet forum.

so according to what you said, your a hypocrite too?

and what else has he got to judge someone if he hasnt met them. i dont understand when people say that this is just a forum and they are different in real life (not saying you did but thats how i think you meant it?). this IS real life. a real person posting their real thoughts.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Grant-Hundley

[Pashley26]

so according to what you said, your a hypocrite too?

and what else has he got to judge someone if he hasnt met them. i dont understand when people say that this is just a forum and they are different in real life. this IS real life. a real person posting their real thoughts.

Yes, I was being hypocritical. But by his well typed posts I thought he would realize the irony of his post (about me being a Narrow Minded Slim Wit) when I pointed out what was meant by it. Obviously not, he's still digging.

It's ok to Judge someone, but you don't post it ? Belittling them and drawing away from the subject at hand, by causing negative vibes on something that was a simple debate.

And lets face it, were not all posting our real thoughts are we.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Pashley26

[Luke Rainbird]

Leave it at that people, don't make me get security...

[grant_hundley]

And lets face it, were not all posting our real thoughts are we.

i'd get warned if i did

[JonMack]

You know the whole "Take a step back" thing that was being talked about in the Admin/Moderators thread? It's calling your name Jarrod...

[Spider Lad]

I'll say it again. You made a statement about me intending to antagonise and which served only to enforce negative and inacurate stereotypes. I pointed out that this is a narrow-minded way to be. Regardless of whether you believe it or not you are still empowering the perceived truth behind the statement.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Spider Lad

[Luke Rainbird]

The longer this all carries on, the more it gets to poor Jeremy

[grant_hundley]

hahahaha

[Spider Lad]

"You're pathetic!"

"You're scum!"

"I pay for your kid while you're smoking drugs!"

The man just shouts at poor people for a living. I don't like Jeremy Kyle or the people that typically appear on his show yet I'm allways compelled to watch it.

Everyone loves a freakshow I suppose.

[MadManMike]

What begins with S and ends in U?

STFU.

[Spider Lad]

What begins with S and ends in U?

STFU.

Thanks for that.

[MadManMike]

Thanks for that.

No problem.

Merely trying to help end argument number 14758947 on TF this week over nothing.

[1a2bcio8]

Alcohol is infact not part of the cause as you are suggesting. I would consider it to be a catalyst. Remove the catalyst and another can surely be found, remove the subject/cause and the problem is eliminated. That being my point.

Certainly alcohol can be a catalyst but I think it unfair to say that for all people, alcohol brings forth what is already there and what would happen anyway. There are some behaviours I have only ever acted with the support of alcohol. I've observed this to be true with other people also. I think you're hung up on language whereby you think that peope have a fixed or unchanging essence waiting or lurking that will express itself with alcohol. Although even this suggests that alcohol plays a roll in an event ("less inhibited" - allows for an essence to come forward). If we could recreate two evenings with exactly the same situations for somebody and introduce alcohol to only one of them, we would witness two sets of behaviour. Can you disagree with this? If not then logically you must agree that alcohol shapes behaviour. We do not say that when somebody cannot walk straight under the influence of alcohol that the not being able to walk straight was lurking inside and simply the alcohol let that out. That's nonsensical. People are processes and a process in one moment contains inseperable variables, each acting with a degree to define what that process does. When a person drinks alcohol, they introduce it the process that is them (and the environment if we are being precise). This forms a new process and despite our being able to use language to separate alcohol and person in this situation, they are not separate - they are a unified process. I'm not trying to negate a person having a role in a behaviour such as violence but I don't agree with trying to remove alcohol either. They both play a role.

I believe there's alot of truth in the saying: "A drunken mind speaks sober thoughts". When under the influence of alcohol people become less inhibited and are therefore more likely to act on thoughts that already fill their minds be it through speaking aloud or with actions.

In terms of inhibition, see my above point. Additionaly though, if alcohol causes the un-inhibition that results in an increased likelihood of violence then the absence of alcohol would mean the absence of an un-inhibition and consequently violence would be less likely to occur. Thus it plays a roll but one of varying degree depending on all the other variables involved in a situation.

I get the impression that you often lose touch with what you actually believe and let your ability for reasoned debate defeat you, by arguing the case for any side regardless, just to assert some small victory on your behalf. I think you failed to see the point of my original post, which is that morons just accept that it must be alcohol that causes all these problems not the small number of idiots themselves that behave badly. You dig?

Occasionally I might play devils advocate without saying that I am doing so but this is infrequent and not the case now. Mostly I make these types of post because I see somebody putting forward an opinion which I believe to be wrong and I like to argue a point against it - discussion and disagreement is a lot of fun played out in a certain manner. I think most people are like this but perhaps me moreso as I really enjoy debating/discussions as Tomm says. I'm fairly obsessed with philosophy as is evident with how much I read it. I think it noteworthy that you said you felt the "need to say it before someone else says". You are clearly also motivated to post by the percieved opinions of others.

I feel confident that I understood your post but I'm unsure that I can say the same for you. I think you need to consider people as interdependent processess (againt fixed things/essences) and also that I'm not trying to argue in terms of an 'either/or' regarding alcohol as an absolute arsehole producer - it doesn't definitely but it doesn't definitely not. The situation is a spectrum with which alcohol plays a range of degreed causation depnding on all the other interdependent variables exsiting in a situation (or process). This is still in reference and I think relevant to your first post.

Edited October 3, 2008 by Ben Rowlands

[Mark W]

What begins with S and ends in U?

My gut feeling was "Sudoku", but then in context that wasn't ever going to be right.

The blanket term 'alcohol' seems a bit weird though. My flat-mate is really friendly, chatty and generally alright (albeit a bit slow ) when he drinks whiskey or spirits, but if he drinks lager or beer he tends to become a complete f**ktard, more aggressive and more confrontational, and just generally a tool. On the opposite end of the spectrum, my sister's ex used to be fine if he drank lager/beer/cider/etc., but if he drank Jack Daniels he'd gradually become silent and just glare at everyone. Weird. But yeah, different drinks seem to affect people differently?