Clarkson censured for 'bit gay' car gibe

"Stephen Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
. uk...

"Diane L." wrote in message
...

Geoff Winkless wrote:
zarbiface wrote:

On 22 May, 05:03, "Agamemnon" wrote:
****ing loonies. So its perfectly alright to have John Barrowman
inviting Andrew Lloyd Weber to shove his cock up his arse

This did not happen!

Err, yes it did. Did you _watch_ the show?

I watched the show, and I didn't see it! I saw Barrowman offer to let
that crazy American woman spank him after he'd said something
bitchy about her, but I must have blinked and missed it when he
'invited Andrew Lloyd Webber to shove his cock up his arse'. I just
assumed it was another of Aggie's homosexual fantatasies.

You are in denial. You know perfectly well that this obscene act happened
and because of its obscenity you can't bring yourself to accept that it
really occurred.

If such an act did really occur as you claim, what makes it so obscene in
your mind?




I find this discussion fascinating. I didn't see the show myself (I'm afraid
watching John Barrowman interviews will turn me gay - though I'm ok with DW
and Torchwood), but there seems to be several people who did and have a
factual disagreement on what occurred. Both sides are absolutely positive
that these events did/did not happen. Surely this can be easily settled?
Anyone record the show? Did JB offer up his arse to The Great Lord Webber or
not?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
Rubbish. Both Doctor Who and Torchwood have been used a vehicles to
proselytise idiogenogamosis, (****ing people of the same sex as oneself)
to underage children. It is disgusting beyond belief that the BBC and
Ofcom should allow this to occur.

Please seek treatment.


You are the one who needs treatment if you think anal sex is morally
acceptable. Next you'll be inviting people to **** animals, or in the words
of John Barrowman on the Jonathan Ross show, anything with a hole.

"Stephen Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Ian Salsbury" wrote in message
...
The difference here is Clarkson was using the word "gay" in a derogatory
fashion whereas in Who and on the Ross show homosexuality has been used
to promote tolerance and in the interviewing of a gay man respectively.

But why shouldn't we be derogatory about homosexuals? What about freedom
of speech? It's no good saying it might hurt someone's feelings because
feelings get hurt all the time. My feelings are hurt when people pass
unkind comments about people of my age group, or suggest that all
northerners are thick, or say how much they hate the English, but I would
defend to the death their right to say it.

We've lost sight of one of our fundamental freedoms, which is the right
to express our opinions and make our jokes.

There's a fine line between being humourous and being derogatory. I agree
that in some areas political correctness has gone a bit OTT. Also that
there are some people who are overly-sensitive. I do think though that it
is right to condemn people who are being obviously derogatory. And it's
also right to at least encourage people to think about what they're about
to say rather than say something that could cause offence.

Nobody likes being made fun of. And when someone is derided for something
they have absolutely no control over (skin colour, accent, whatever) I can
quite understand why they might get upset and kick up a fuss.

So explain to me how the car that Jeremy Clarkson was deriding felt offended
by the words he used to describe it?

Agamemnon wrote:

You are the one who needs treatment if you think anal sex is morally
acceptable.

What reason do you have for thinking that anal sex is immoral? Even if done
in private between two consenting adults?

Next you'll be inviting people to **** animals, or in the
words of John Barrowman on the Jonathan Ross show, anything with a hole.

That is a non-sequitur.

--
Chris

"The red line indicates the never exceed speed, VNE. You can fly this fast
or faster if you don't like having wings attached to the fuselage."

Agamemnon wrote:
"Diane L." wrote in message
...

Geoff Winkless wrote:
zarbiface wrote:

On 22 May, 05:03, "Agamemnon" wrote:
****ing loonies. So its perfectly alright to have John Barrowman
inviting Andrew Lloyd Weber to shove his cock up his arse

This did not happen!

Err, yes it did. Did you _watch_ the show?

I watched the show, and I didn't see it! I saw Barrowman offer to let
that crazy American woman spank him after he'd said something
bitchy about her, but I must have blinked and missed it when he
'invited Andrew Lloyd Webber to shove his cock up his arse'. I just
assumed it was another of Aggie's homosexual fantatasies.

You are in denial.

I think it's very clear that *one* of us is in denial.

You know perfectly well that this obscene act
happened and because of its obscenity you can't bring yourself to
accept that it really occurred.

No, you saw John Barrowman bent over the desk and *you*
immediately thought of homosexual sex. In fact, you imagined
you heard him asking Lloyd Webber to have anal sex with him.
Why you jumped to that conclusion is something you might
want to ask yourself (but you won't, because you're too
scared of the answer).

Diane L.

Agamemnon wrote:
No. They are idiogenogamotics, people who **** the same sex as
themselves. It is no different to ****ing farm animals or your pets. It
is a form of deviant masturbation like self strangulation and should not
be encouraged or condoned. The people who engage in it should be exposed
for what they are, abnormal and in need of psychiatric treatment and
therapy to overcome their urges.

In other words they're people you don't have any problem with.

Clarkson is a man who richly deserves the epithet commencing with the
23rd letter.

I have no doubt that his views on driving have led to the deaths of
numerous road users - and caused me to cancel my standing order for
the Sunday Times at around the time that Saint Ursula was mourning the
dealt of her husband.

The two incidents were coincidental an unconnected, but link
themselves in my mind. The principal cause was his utter contempt for
those who shared the use of the reads around his newly acquired
country residence. These views convinced me that indiscriminate
drivers should face a similar Capital charge to those who
indiscriminately discharge firearms in a public place. His column
convinced me that Journalism is the oldest profession My opinion is
sincerely held.

= IF

Southpaw wrote:
I find this discussion fascinating. I didn't see the show myself (I'm afraid
watching John Barrowman interviews will turn me gay - though I'm ok with DW
and Torchwood), but there seems to be several people who did and have a
factual disagreement on what occurred. Both sides are absolutely positive
that these events did/did not happen. Surely this can be easily settled?
Anyone record the show? Did JB offer up his arse to The Great Lord Webber or
not?

Youtube doesn't seem to have this interview, surprisingly.

Agamemnon wrote:

You are the one who needs treatment if you think anal sex is morally
acceptable.

What if your girlfriend wanted it up the ass? Would you say No? I
realize this is not likely to happen to you, but I was speaking
hypothetically.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 16:33:28 -0400, Azaxyr wrote:

What if your girlfriend wanted it up the ass? Would you say No? I
realize this is not likely to happen to you, but I was speaking
hypothetically.

A ducking stool should sort her out ;-)
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.