The Virtual Pub

Come Inside... => Saloon Bar => Topic started by: Mr Happy on July 27, 2007, 09:54:23 PM

Title: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Mr Happy on July 27, 2007, 09:54:23 PM
Need i say more?
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a Cunt!
Post by: degsy on July 27, 2007, 09:57:27 PM
who? rubschin:
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a Cunt!
Post by: Mr Happy on July 27, 2007, 10:08:40 PM
(https://www.virtual-pub.com/SMF/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gavinbarkerassociates.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fjohn_barrowman_swings.jpg&hash=5fa521ad3146148da4d76306b24416341082de6b)

'Star' of Torchwood.

Basically appears at the televised opening of a fridge door.

FOAD!
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a Cunt!
Post by: Misunderstood on July 28, 2007, 12:19:41 AM
Isn't it more of a case that he would like to be?

Televised opening of a 'fridge door?       eeek:     Did I miss something?
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a Cunt!
Post by: Darwins Selection on July 28, 2007, 12:35:29 AM
I understood he was a lifter of shirts.

Does that not make the thread title somewhat inappropriate?
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a Cunt!
Post by: Berek on July 28, 2007, 11:34:01 AM
even though he's a bummer I find him quite amusing
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a Cunt!
Post by: TG on July 28, 2007, 04:31:32 PM
He is gay. In fact he is married.

Talented man in my opinion.

PS. are we allowed to say the C word without being barred?  scared2:
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a Cunt!
Post by: Mr Happy on July 28, 2007, 04:35:40 PM
He is gay. In fact he is married.

Talented man in my opinion.

PS. are we allowed to say the C word without being barred?  scared2:

Only when stating fact...
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a Cunt!
Post by: Snoopy on July 28, 2007, 04:44:50 PM
He is gay. In fact he is married.

Talented man in my opinion.

PS. are we allowed to say the C word without being barred?  scared2:

Only when stating fact...

In truth we had never activated the swear filter, preferring to place our trust in the customers good sense and manners. Sadly, with several ladies also posting and someone abusing that trust the policy many have to be rethought. I have to say Wenchy will not like the use of that particular word. Perhaps the original poster would care to change the letters around a bit? Please.  rubschin:
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a Cunt!
Post by: The Moan Ranger on July 28, 2007, 04:48:43 PM
I would suggest Clarkson's answer to the problem, he uses the word "custard" when wishing to express the worst word.

And, after all, we all like a bit of custard...
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a Cunt!
Post by: Snoopy on July 28, 2007, 04:50:26 PM
I would suggest Clarkson's answer to the problem, he uses the word "custard" when wishing to express the worst word.

And, after all, we all like a bit of custard...

Problem is that Clarkson can be a bit of a custard himself.  whistle:
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a Cunt!
Post by: Marley's Ghost (Imbiber of Spirits) on July 28, 2007, 05:08:37 PM
Anyway, the whole question is moot since he is referred to in the title as a [filter]custard[/filter] and we all know that [filter]custards[/filter] are useful, it would seem to let him out.

Now, if you'd referred to him as a (desperately thinking of something useless to use as an equivalent. . . . . . . .










Oh well, perhaps he is after all  ::)
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a FLANGE
Post by: GROWLER on July 28, 2007, 06:50:13 PM
'Flange' is a very good alternative I find. Sort of rolls off the tounge...so to speak. whistle:
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a Cunt!
Post by: Mr Happy on July 28, 2007, 07:15:32 PM
He is gay. In fact he is married.

Talented man in my opinion.

PS. are we allowed to say the C word without being barred?  scared2:

Only when stating fact...

In truth we had never activated the swear filter, preferring to place our trust in the customers good sense and manners. Sadly, with several ladies also posting and someone abusing that trust the policy many have to be rethought. I have to say Wenchy will not like the use of that particular word. Perhaps the original poster would care to change the letters around a bit? Please.  rubschin:

Done!
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Barman on July 29, 2007, 07:31:13 AM
Okay, we don?t have a swear filter and I?m not averse to using the ?C? word myself on occasions but I think it inappropriate in a thread title so I?ve changed it?
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: degsy on July 29, 2007, 08:36:40 AM
Good. Must say I don't care to see swear words littering any forum, especially in the title. There's plenty of other ways to express disgust/disapproval/irritation - you only have to read one of Growler's rants to see that! (That's a compliment Growler by the way)
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: D P Dance on July 29, 2007, 09:24:05 AM
Basically appears at the televised opening of a fridge door.


This from someone who attended university!  The use of that word is the biggest affront I can think of to the sensibilities of members of this board, far worse than c***, quim, or fanny.  Waving of willies pales by comparison.

Post Moderated to remove offensive language
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Misunderstood on July 29, 2007, 12:13:16 PM

Basically appears at the televised opening of a fridge door.


This from someone who attended university!  The use of that word is the biggest affront I can think of to the sensibilities of members of this board, far worse than ****, quim, or fanny.  Waving of willies pales by comparison.

What IS the matter with you?  No sooner does the management of this forum declare that a certain word is not censored here as we prefer to trust out posters, but plainly not welcome, then you go and purposely use it.

What are you attempting to do exactly?  Force a swear filter in because we can't trust our members?  or maybe you want to be known as the rebellious big boy around here? Or even, want to see what will get you banned?

This board is intended for intelligent people that can behave themselves and take a hint.

Are you going to fix it or must I?
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Berek on July 29, 2007, 02:27:06 PM
 censored:
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: D P Dance on July 29, 2007, 02:44:37 PM
No, what is the matter with YOU?  What are you talking about, either the word is permissable or it is not.  I do not wish to patronise you, shooting fish in barrels would appear to be more challenging, but my post concerned the misuse of the word "basically", a word that I find, in all but a very few cases, extremely offensive, especially when used by soi disant graduates who should know better.

When you sat "fix", (i.e. repair), do you mean change?  If so, I suggest that you and others who have taken offence at my post have either not understood it, or have and are mealy mouthed hypocrites, who are perhaps not as intelligent as they think they are.
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Berek on July 29, 2007, 02:46:12 PM
what a load of wank
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Snoopy on July 29, 2007, 02:58:12 PM

Basically appears at the televised opening of a fridge door.


This from someone who attended university!  The use of that word is the biggest affront I can think of to the sensibilities of members of this board, far worse than c***, quim, or fanny.  Waving of willies pales by comparison.

The point DP is that some of us don't like the use of the C word and have made that feeling known to the management. This is not a democracy and such matters do not need to be put to the vote. As for your claim that someone using the word "Basically" is the biggest affront you can think of to the sensibilities of members of this board ~ well it beggars belief that you should take it upon yourself to try to impose your own prejudices on every one else. It may offend you but frankly I accept that it is in general usage throughout the UK and even if my English Teachers would have corrected such use I can see no reason to take affront at it nowadays.
I suggest that if you are so affronted by the use of the word basically then ~ well, basically, you are in the wrong place.
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: D P Dance on July 29, 2007, 03:11:58 PM
I do not think that I am in the wrong place snoopy.  Many of the members here are known to me from other boards.  I think that, for most of them, the use of the word "basically" is indeed unacceptable.  While is use is perhaps irredeemable among the underclasses, its use here by anyone is disappointing.

As for the "C" word, it is short, meaningful, apposite, and has been part of our language for a very long time.  I use it on occasion when circumstances require. 

Can we discuss the paradox that, although the "C" word is not proscribed, we are castigated if we use it.
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Snoopy on July 29, 2007, 03:24:35 PM
There is nothing to discuss. The position has been made clear by three members of this Board's "Management" team in this thread. If you wish to continue posting here then all that is asked is that you respect that stated position.

If we are to operate without a swear filter then members will have to accept that, from time to time, we will respond to concerns expressed by members. We have, I feel, been more than fair in asking that the offending word be altered and the original poster has accepted that request without demur. That you should then choose to ignore all that has been said in order, it might be suggested by some less charitable than me, to start an argument comes as no surprise to those who, as you say, have known you on other boards.

I do not intend to allow this to develop into an argument and will, if the thread does not return to something approaching or related to the original topic without the use of the 'C' word, lock the thread.

Everyone can now read and hopefully understand our position on this. Let that be the end of the matter.
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: The Moan Ranger on July 29, 2007, 06:09:23 PM
A decent act of god would be the utter destruction of Reading and all who reside within. Dippy is more irritating than piles at times...

At its lowest level (or basically!) I wonder why someone who purports to be of a different level bothers to contrubute - albeit badly sometimes - to a forum where such matters are worthy of a hissy fit.

Let's close this - it's boring.

But John Barrowman is a custard / Clarkson.
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Darwins Selection on July 29, 2007, 06:35:59 PM
I do not wish to patronise you. .

 cry:

Just when you were starting to become convincing as well.
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Nick on July 29, 2007, 07:00:32 PM
I do not think that I am in the wrong place snoopy.  Many of the members here are known to me from other boards.  I think that, for most of them, the use of the word "basically" is indeed unacceptable.  While is use is perhaps irredeemable among the underclasses, its use here by anyone is disappointing.

As for the "C" word, it is short, meaningful, apposite, and has been part of our language for a very long time.  I use it on occasion when circumstances require. 

Can we discuss the paradox that, although the "C" word is not proscribed, we are castigated if we use it.

Who is this idiot?
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Berek on July 29, 2007, 07:27:57 PM
basically a tosser
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Mr Happy on July 29, 2007, 08:20:10 PM
Basically, DP took offence when we described Mrs Pilkington as a basic woman.  No spanish villas or trips to the consulate for her, savaloy and chips and a quick grope in the back of his Rover for her.

Otherwise apologies for causing such a stir by using th 'c' word.  However, i have custard in my fridge and would be a bit concerned by the confusion caused if swopping the words...
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Shy Talk on July 29, 2007, 08:43:37 PM
what a load of wank

OBJECTION!!!!! Berek posted the word "Wank"  point:
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Mr Happy on July 29, 2007, 08:50:23 PM
what a load of wank

OBJECTION!!!!! Berek posted the word "Wank"  point:

Basically he's a Cu er tin of Ambrosia...
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Berek on July 29, 2007, 08:59:29 PM
basically theres nowt wrong with saying " wank "  whistle:
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Shy Talk on July 29, 2007, 09:32:46 PM
basically theres nowt wrong with saying " wank "  whistle:

OBJECTION 'es said it again lol:
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Misunderstood on July 30, 2007, 12:39:50 AM
basically theres nowt wrong with saying " wank "  whistle:

OBJECTION 'es said it again lol:

Yup!  Basically you're right, 'e did.
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Mr Happy on July 30, 2007, 01:00:06 AM
I don't believe it, naughty Berek, what a wanker!

Or cun censored: if you'd prefer...
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Misunderstood on July 30, 2007, 01:27:30 AM
Quote
Wasted Words.

    Many words and phrases rarely add anything to a sentence. Avoid these whenever you can. A very short list of some of these offenders: Quite, very, extremely, as it were, moreover, it can be seen that, it has been indicated that, basically, essentially, totally, completely, therefore, it should be remembered that, it should be noted that, thus, it is imperative that, at the present moment in time. These are fine in their place, but they often slither into your writing with the sinister purpose of tempting you into the sin of padding your sentences.
Quote

basically

adverb

      In regard to the essence of a matter: essentially, fundamentally. Idioms: at bottom, at heart, in essence. See surface/depth.

Definition: fundamentally
Antonyms: additionally, extra, nonessentially



It seems Dippy is basically a little out of his depth here.  True 'Basically' is described as a 'Wasted word' it is however noted to be 'Fine in their place'.

What that means basically, is that the word 'Basically' is an acceptable use of English, but Dippy hasn't noticed.

Whereas 'C**t' has been regarded as a vulgar expletive for long enough to have been generally shunned in polite company in most of the English speaking enclaves.

It is interesting to note the words of choice of Dippy are synonymous with common usage by the verbally challenged basically lower echelons of society groping for a suitably annoying word to unsettle others of a more gentile persuasion. 

Realistically I suppose, that given the level of civilisation currently dominant in Reading, we must be grateful for any English that we can find, even if it does happen to be vulgar.
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Mr Happy on July 30, 2007, 01:43:17 AM
Quote


we must be grateful for any English that we can find, even if it does happen to be vulgar.

Must we bring Mrs Pilkington into the thread again?
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Darwins Selection on July 30, 2007, 09:07:59 AM
Stone me, he said Jehovah!

Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: D P Dance on July 30, 2007, 10:04:46 AM
It is interesting to note the words of choice of Dippy are synonymous with common usage by the verbally challenged basically lower echelons of society groping for a suitably annoying word to unsettle others of a more gentile persuasion.

Are you saying I'm jewish?
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Barman on July 30, 2007, 10:39:03 AM
Stone me, he said Jehovah!


(https://www.virtual-pub.com/SMF/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fshipoffools.com%2FCargo%2FFeatures99%2FFeatures%2FBrianPic1.jpg&hash=992868071a0eeed6932572e2f6686926ee286080)
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Misunderstood on July 30, 2007, 11:00:57 AM
It is interesting to note the words of choice of Dippy are synonymous with common usage by the verbally challenged basically lower echelons of society groping for a suitably annoying word to unsettle others of a more gentile persuasion.

Are you saying I'm jewish?

I leave you to draw the conclusion.

Quote
gen?tile (jĕn'tīl') pronunciation
n. often Gentile

   1. One who is not of the Jewish faith or is of a non-Jewish nation.
   2. A Christian.
   3. Archaic. A pagan or heathen.
   4. Mormon Church. A non-Mormon.

adj.

   1. often Gentile Of or relating to a Gentile.
   2. Of or relating to a gens, tribe, or people.
   3. Grammar. Expressing national or local origins.

[Middle English gentil, from Late Latin gentīlis, pagan, from Latin, of the same clan. See gentle.]

I prefer plain polite English suitable for the locale.

Quote
The noun locale has one meaning:

Meaning #1: the scene of any event or action (especially the place of a meeting)
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: D P Dance on July 30, 2007, 11:28:13 AM
He was so pleased with that post that he posted it twice.
Title: Re: John Barrowman is a C**t!
Post by: Berek on July 30, 2007, 02:36:08 PM
basically I dont give a flying fuck