On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 21:58:07 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 19:19:19 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 02/11/2016 19:08, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 19:03:44 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 02/11/2016 18:50, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 13:17:13 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 02/11/2016 10:46, bm wrote:
"Chris Green" wrote in message
...
In uk.d-i-y Brian Gaff wrote:

I'd suggest they all have pictures of naked ladies on their
shirts and
that
will probably be allowed as its not an advert.

FIFA's reason (or not) is that the poppy is a religious symbol,
nothing to do with it being an advert or not.

The question is whether their seeing the poppy as a religious
symbol
is correct. Banning such symbols on the football field does make
sense.

It's simple really, just ban football for the stupidity it is.


Better still, ban all intolerant people.

If you did that, nudity must be allowed.

Naked footballers?

Nudity everywhere. If you're tolerant, you don't mind naked folk.

In public I object, just like any decent person would.

That makes you intolerant, and you said intolerance should be banned.

And how can anyone object to the natural state of our own bodies?

When the natural state is incredibly ugly or hilarious like yours.

Only to you. I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked. I wouldn't have sex with them, but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

--
Tell a man that there are 400 billion stars and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint and he has to touch it.