Budgie smuggling and the law

[Owlswing]

Or do you think no policemen can be asses, or get the law wrong?

Oh no, I know coppers get it wrong but that is no reason to tar them all with the same brush.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh no, I know coppers get it wrong but thgat is no reasoin to tar them all with thge same brush.

And neither Shaker's post, nor Brownie's does this, and to the very slight way you might read Brownie's post as doing so, my post specifically challenges it. I know that it wasn't a deliberate misrepresenting b would be good if you apologised for doing so.

[Owlswing]

And neither Shaker's post, nor Brownie's does this, and to the very slight way you might read Brownie's post as doing so, my post specifically challenges it. I know that it wasn't a deliberate misrepresenting b would be good if you apologised for doing so.

You will perhaps excuse me if my reading of the posts is rather different from yours as my position with regard to the police is rather different to yours, regardless of the intent of or interpretation that you put on the words posted.

If not, we will just have to agree to differ.

[Brownie]

Oh no, I know coppers get it wrong but that is no reason to tar them all with the same brush.

Well I wasn't really doing that;  I know they are given their instructions, "Go out and arrest some people, we're down on arrests this month", and that sort of thing.  It's a thankless task and, as G&S said, "A policeman's life is not a happy one".

As an aside, I fail to see what any of this has to do with budgerigars.

[Nearly Sane]

Well I wasn't really doing that;  I know they are given their instructions, "Go out and arrest some people, we're down on arrests this month", and that sort of thing.  It's a thankless task and, as G&S said, "A policeman's life is not a happy one".

As an aside, I fail to see what any of this has to do with budgerigars.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=budgie%20smugglers

[Nearly Sane]

You will perhaps excuse me if my reading of the posts is rather different from yours as my position with regard to the police is rather different to yours, regardless of the intent of or interpretation that you put on the words posted.

If not, we will just have to agree to differ.

If you won't make any attempt to justify your reading, then you are effectively saying that all the stuff that Sassy posts about pagans is just a difference in reading.

[Brownie]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=budgie%20smugglers

Do you know what, I thought of that!  Then I told myself I had a crude mind and dismissed it (also thought of hamsters).
--------------
It's quite normal for us to have different perspectives on posts, it would be amazing (& boring) if we all had the same viewpoint.
There are times when one of us will say something off the top of the head, not meaning to be insensitive, and it strikes quite a deep cord in another poster.  That's the nature of forums.  It's not worth making an issue out of it, we move on - and learn a little more about fellow posters which is always helpful.

[Owlswing]

Well I wasn't really doing that;  I know they are given their instructions, "Go out and arrest some people, we're down on arrests this month", and that sort of thing.  It's a thankless task and, as G&S said, "A policeman's life is not a happy one".

As an aside, I fail to see what any of this has to do with budgerigars.

But, you see, the people that you are saying ""Go out and arrest some people, we're down on arrests this month", and that sort of thing." are also coppers. Higher ranking ones, yes, but still coppers, and, as the saying goes, shit never falls upwards.

[Owlswing]

If you won't make any attempt to justify your reading, then you are effectively saying that all the stuff that Sassy posts about pagans is just a difference in reading.

I have, to my own mind, justified it, you just do not wish to accept my interpretation of my reading.

Sassy, on the other hand, does not "read" anything. If it is not pushing the a Christian agenda it is, must be to her, wrong - regardless of the religion, or lack of, that what she is looking at is in support or explanation of.

[Nearly Sane]

Do you know what, I thought of that!  Then I told myself I had a crude mind and dismissed it (also thought of hamsters).
--------------
It's quite normal for us to have different perspectives on posts, it would be amazing (& boring) if we all had the same viewpoint.
There are times when one of us will say something off the top of the head, not meaning to be insensitive, and it strikes quite a deep cord in another poster.  That's the nature of forums.  It's not worth making an issue out of it, we move on - and learn a little more about fellow posters which is always helpful.

So if you write - 'not all Christians are bad', and someone misreprsents that as 'Christians eat babies', and you point out that is incorrect, and they just say ' My interpretation'. you're meant to go 'Fair Enough'?

If things are not challengeable, then there is no point in any form of discussion.

[Nearly Sane]

I have, to my own mind, justified it, you just do not wish to accept my interpretation of my reading.

Sassy, on the other hand, does not "read" anything. If it is not pushing the a Christian agenda it is, must be to her, wrong - regardless of the religion, or lack of, that what she is looking at is in support or explanation of.

No, you mader no attempt at justifying it, just said if that's what you thought then there was no point in challenging it - sounds a lot like Sassy to me.

This is the issue that I raised once before in a discussion of things being 'true for me'. People use it as if it makes them different to someone who like Sassy procleims it true for everyone - but if you use it to avoid dialogue, it's just as vapid.

[Owlswing]

No, you mader no attempt at justifying it, just said if that's what you thought then there was no point in challenging it - sounds a lot like Sassy to me.

This is the issue that I raised once before in a discussion of things being 'true for me'. People use it as if it makes them different to someone who like Sassy procleims it true for everyone - but if you use it to avoid dialogue, it's just as vapid.

The fact thgat what you and others said means two different things, one to you and one to me, is a problem of language.

Your comments were seriously critcal of the police in the case in point, you give no quarter to the fact that they were enforcing the law of the land, the job that they are paid to do!

Effectively you were saying that as long as you agree with the law the police can get on with their job, if you do not they are stupid or exceeding their authority.

[Brownie]

So if you write - 'not all Christians are bad', and someone misreprsents that as 'Christians eat babies', and you point out that is incorrect, and they just say ' My interpretation'. you're meant to go 'Fair Enough'?

If things are not challengeable, then there is no point in any form of discussion.

No NS, I don't mean that, I was specifically thinking of Owl and his perspective on this particular subject and his reasons for it.  I understand where he is coming from and why he feels the way he does, is all. 

Owl said:  ''You will perhaps excuse me if my reading of the posts is rather different from yours as my position with regard to the police is rather different to yours, regardless of the intent of or interpretation that you put on the words posted.'' 
What I said earlier sounded to him like a generalisation, which he challenged.  I don't see any point in challenging him back, I don't think I tar everyone with the same brush but I do not feel as strongly about this issue as he does.

[Owlswing]

No NS, I don't mean that, I was specifically thinking of Owl and his perspective on this particular subject and his reasons for it.  I understand where he is coming from and why he feels the way he does, is all. 

Owl said:  ''You will perhaps excuse me if my reading of the posts is rather different from yours as my position with regard to the police is rather different to yours, regardless of the intent of or interpretation that you put on the words posted.'' 
What I said earlier sounded to him like a generalisation, which he challenged.  I don't see any point in challenging him back, I don't think I tar everyone with the same brush but I do not feel as strongly about this issue as he does.

Thank you

[Brownie]

Thank you too.

I have a mental picture of a budgie in......
can't get it out of my head now.  Hope I don't dream of it tonight   

[Nearly Sane]

No NS, I don't mean that, I was specifically thinking of Owl and his perspective on this particular subject and his reasons for it.  I understand where he is coming from and why he feels the way he does, is all. 

Owl said:  ''You will perhaps excuse me if my reading of the posts is rather different from yours as my position with regard to the police is rather different to yours, regardless of the intent of or interpretation that you put on the words posted.'' 
What I said earlier sounded to him like a generalisation, which he challenged.  I don't see any point in challenging him back, I don't think I tar everyone with the same brush but I do not feel as strongly about this issue as he does.

And when I challenged you on your post he read it as supporting the stabbing of his son. Now I have already made clear why that doesn't read sensibly but you think it should be challenged?

[Nearly Sane]

NSFW, NSF any F Where



https://www.buzzfeed.com/jennaguillaume/budgie-smugglers-you-cannot-unsee

[Shaker]

Len has come back to the forum just in time 

[Brownie]

I think the footy player and the body builder have ugly legs.

[jeremyp]

I saw nothing for which to charge him or arrest him.

Not so much a case of Budgie smuggling as something much smaller then.

[Brownie]

OK I am thick, but I don't understand the title of the thread?

You may have read the rest of the thread, floo, in which I asked the same and was given a link.  The ''Budgie'' refers to the shape of the man's genitals shown in a very brief swimsuit (Speedo).  I said to NS, who explained it to me, that it had actually crossed my mind but I dismissed it as me thinking rather crudely ( I also thought of ''Hamster'').  However that's what it means.   Not a canary because a canary has a sharp, sticky-out beak!  A budgerigar's beak is curved inwards.  All very naughty but doesn't go too far.

[Sassy]

For those who apparently are unable to see a reverse here is what Owlswing originally wrote but was not in keeping with the actually thread.

I have, to my own mind, justified it, you just do not wish to accept my interpretation of my reading.

Sassy, on the other hand, does not "read" anything. If it is not pushing the a Christian agenda it is, must be to her, wrong - regardless of the religion, or lack of, that what she is looking at is in support or explanation of.

I have, to my own mind, justified it, you just do not wish to accept my interpretation of my reading.


Omitted this part because it was nothing to do with myself and I only replied to where Owlsing aimed his post at myself personally using my name. I then proceeded to address the issue reversing the roles to himself.

Owlswing *Sassy*, on the other hand, does not "read" anything. If it is not pushing the a Pagan Christian agenda it is, must be to him her, wrong - regardless of the religion, or lack of, that what he she is looking at is in support or explanation of.

*Moderator: the above, as it was originally quoted in this post, was not an exact quote of what Owlswing said and the amendment was not indicated. Therefore, I've added the original text into the above quote (in red with a strike-through) so that the original context is apparent.

I have corrected post to show original post and the changed post.

Moderator: further update in that I have just removed further text inserted by Sass into the above quote since it gave the wrong impression that this addition was part of what Owlswing had actually said, which isn't the case.

I have now corrected the post so everyone can see the before and after so they can clearly see I only changed the name and sex of the person so reversing what he said to be about him from myself.

Do you see the truth is you are guilty of that which you accuse others of doing.
In truth your pride thinks only you have right. But the real bummer comes when you have to openly admit there is no truth in paganism and no real purpose or reason for even believing in any of it.
Now who really is only ever justified in his own mind for having a false belief in the first instance and no real mind to look for truth?  YOU.

As I make it clear he is guilty of what he accuses others of doing hence the reversal making it a new paragraph and a new part of the post. Hence it is corrected now so shows the full correcting.
All than needed doing was to post the original quote as the new quote was not meant to show just what he said but how really the same could be said about him,  I trust this is okay now.

[Sassy]

No, you mader no attempt at justifying it, just said if that's what you thought then there was no point in challenging it - sounds a lot like Sassy to me.

This is the issue that I raised once before in a discussion of things being 'true for me'. People use it as if it makes them different to someone who like Sassy procleims it true for everyone - but if you use it to avoid dialogue, it's just as vapid.

When in truth you have neither the ability or the knowledge about Christianity to know how to see if what I proclaim is true.

That is the real error in your posts and that of Owlswings.

Christ is clear that is you seek the truth and the Kingdom of God you will find it.

So truth is neither of you have ever sought TRUTH OR THE KINGDOM OF GOD when it comes to Christianity.

It is one thing to falsely accuse others due to your own ignorance and another to openly bathe yourself in your own ignorance in front of a whole forum. To every believer who read your post you know less than the average atheist scholar.
You have not the knowledge of the bible or Christ to be able to make an informed judgment or statement about someone else who is a Christian...FACT.

No believer is going to lose sleep over anything written by either of you.
"Greater is he who is in us than he who is in the world." You lose before you even write anything. A cheerful note for you there, not.

[Nearly Sane]

Do you see the truth is you are guilty of that which you accuse others of doing.
In truth your pride thinks only you have right. But the real bummer comes when you have to openly admit there is no truth in paganism and no real purpose or reason for even believing in any of it.
Now who really is only ever justified in his own mind for having a false belief in the first instance and no real mind to look for truth?  YOU.

Why did you edit Owlswing's post but not indicate that you had? Why would you lie like that?

[Nearly Sane]

When in truth you have neither the ability or the knowledge about Christianity to know how to see if what I proclaim is true.

That is the real error in your posts and that of Owlswings.

Christ is clear that is you seek the truth and the Kingdom of God you will find it.

So truth is neither of you have ever sought TRUTH OR THE KINGDOM OF GOD when it comes to Christianity.

It is one thing to falsely accuse others due to your own ignorance and another to openly bathe yourself in your own ignorance in front of a whole forum. To every believer who read your post you know less than the average atheist scholar.
You have not the knowledge of the bible or Christ to be able to make an informed judgment or statement about someone else who is a Christian...FACT.

No believer is going to lose sleep over anything written by either of you.
"Greater is he who is in us than he who is in the world." You lose before you even write anything. A cheerful note for you there, not.

'Openly bathe yourself in your own ignorance' is a rather lovely phrase so kudos for that.


Unfortunately my post had no comment on being an atheist or Chrsitianity - so your reply in essence is entirely irrelevant. Perhaps you need to take a little more time and read what people say.