On 03/11/2016 08:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs etc.

Indeed.

Peter is insane!

More a pathetic excuse for a troll although he does streak quite a bit.

Pity about all those that die laughing at his microdick.

Laughing at someone's assumed penis size says more about you than it
does for him, ie; 5 year old humour.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 08:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs etc.

Indeed.

Peter is insane!

More a pathetic excuse for a troll although he does streak quite a bit.

Pity about all those that die laughing at his microdick.

Laughing at someone's assumed penis size

Nothing assumed about it, we have the youtube footage.

On 03/11/2016 09:31, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 08:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs etc.

Indeed.

Peter is insane!

More a pathetic excuse for a troll although he does streak quite a bit.

Pity about all those that die laughing at his microdick.

Laughing at someone's assumed penis size

Nothing assumed about it, we have the youtube footage.

Even so, it's childish.

Pity about all those that die laughing at his microdick.

Laughing at someone's assumed penis size

Nothing assumed about it, we have the youtube footage.

Even so, it's childish.


Rod! We are still waiting for the Youtube of Peter's "microdick".
Also the cite that butterflies should be spelled as Butterflys.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 09:31, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 08:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs
etc.

Indeed.

Peter is insane!

More a pathetic excuse for a troll although he does streak quite a bit.

Pity about all those that die laughing at his microdick.

Laughing at someone's assumed penis size

Nothing assumed about it, we have the youtube footage.

Even so, it's childish.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

"Bod" wrote in message
...

Pity about all those that die laughing at his microdick.

Laughing at someone's assumed penis size

Nothing assumed about it, we have the youtube footage.

Even so, it's childish.

Rod! We are still waiting for the Youtube of Peter's "microdick".

Just how many of you are there between those ears, boy ?

I told him already, youtube had to remove them because too many died
laughing.

On 03/11/2016 10:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...

Pity about all those that die laughing at his microdick.

Laughing at someone's assumed penis size

Nothing assumed about it, we have the youtube footage.

Even so, it's childish.

Rod! We are still waiting for the Youtube of Peter's "microdick".

Just how many of you are there between those ears, boy ?

I told him already, youtube had to remove them because too many died
laughing.


You've ignored the Butterflies spelling?

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 10:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...

Pity about all those that die laughing at his microdick.

Laughing at someone's assumed penis size

Nothing assumed about it, we have the youtube footage.

Even so, it's childish.

Rod! We are still waiting for the Youtube of Peter's "microdick".

Just how many of you are there between those ears, boy ?

I told him already, youtube had to remove them because too many died
laughing.


You've ignored the Butterflies spelling?

Wrong, as always.

On 03/11/2016 10:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 10:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...

Pity about all those that die laughing at his microdick.

Laughing at someone's assumed penis size

Nothing assumed about it, we have the youtube footage.

Even so, it's childish.

Rod! We are still waiting for the Youtube of Peter's "microdick".

Just how many of you are there between those ears, boy ?

I told him already, youtube had to remove them because too many died
laughing.


You've ignored the Butterflies spelling?

Wrong, as always.

Show us a cite then!

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 10:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 10:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...

Pity about all those that die laughing at his microdick.

Laughing at someone's assumed penis size

Nothing assumed about it, we have the youtube footage.

Even so, it's childish.

Rod! We are still waiting for the Youtube of Peter's "microdick".

Just how many of you are there between those ears, boy ?

I told him already, youtube had to remove them because too many died
laughing.


You've ignored the Butterflies spelling?

Wrong, as always.

Show us a cite then!

Go and **** yourself. Again.

On 03/11/2016 11:30, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 10:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 10:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...

Pity about all those that die laughing at his microdick.

Laughing at someone's assumed penis size

Nothing assumed about it, we have the youtube footage.

Even so, it's childish.

Rod! We are still waiting for the Youtube of Peter's "microdick".

Just how many of you are there between those ears, boy ?

I told him already, youtube had to remove them because too many died
laughing.


You've ignored the Butterflies spelling?

Wrong, as always.

Show us a cite then!

Go and **** yourself. Again.

That just sums you up.

On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 18:13:52 +0000, Indy Jess John
wrote:

I was aware of others, but chose the set that seem to get special
treatment: Sikhs are exempt from wearing crash helmets, Moslems are
tolerated to have multiple wives (provided they didn't marry in the
UK),
and Gurkhas are permitted to carry a dagger.

"Missed!"
"Try shaking your head!"

(Or was that a different blade?)

--
Max Demian

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 11:30, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 10:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 10:05, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...

Pity about all those that die laughing at his microdick.

Laughing at someone's assumed penis size

Nothing assumed about it, we have the youtube footage.

Even so, it's childish.

Rod! We are still waiting for the Youtube of Peter's "microdick".

Just how many of you are there between those ears, boy ?

I told him already, youtube had to remove them because too many died
laughing.


You've ignored the Butterflies spelling?

Wrong, as always.

Show us a cite then!

Go and **** yourself. Again.

That just sums you up.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:00:57 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs etc.
Peter is insane!

And you're a silly prude that belongs in the Victorian ages. Why are you ashamed of the human body?

--
Eskimoes only have 4 words for snow, but 32 words for demonstrative pronouns (we only have this/that/these/those).

On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:00:57 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs etc.
Peter is insane!

And you're a silly prude that belongs in the Victorian ages. Why are you ashamed of the human body?

--
Eskimoes only have 4 words for snow, but 32 words for demonstrative pronouns (we only have this/that/these/those).

On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 01:29:27 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Doesn't bother me at all. Have you ever been to a nudist beach?

--
Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 01:29:27 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Doesn't bother me at all. Have you ever been to a nudist beach?

--
Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:00:57 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs etc.
Peter is insane!

And you're a silly prude that belongs in the Victorian ages.

We'll see...

Why are you ashamed of the human body?

We arent. We just don't like to see the worst obscenitys like Pam naked
and have enough of a clue to think it makes no sense to have lots more
paramedics carting away all those who die laughing at your microdick.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 01:29:27 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Doesn't bother me at all.

That's because you are completely blind now due to all that methanol you
drink.

Have you ever been to a nudist beach?

Not that stupid.

On Friday, 4 November 2016 01:52:52 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:00:57 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs etc.
Peter is insane!

And you're a silly prude that belongs in the Victorian ages. Why are you ashamed of the human body?

maybe he thinks that looking at your naked body would send him into a fit of laughter not the sort of thing you want at funerals or doing teh shopping it's disctracting.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 06:05:01 -0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 02/11/16 21:09, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Not outside there isn't. The only possible case you can make is
sitting in a restaurant with an unclean bottom. But out
walking, there is no reason whatsoever to object.

You are a creep. And a dangerous one.
Hmm.
Little boys and little girls really do not want to see your "****ing
little ******".

Actually they probably do. Little boys and girls are like that. Then
they giggle.

But, we all know that you would like them to see your little dick.
You are one sick **** all.

No, he's just a very silly little boy.

He doesn't understand that the main value of social customs and
conventions is to avoid having to waste huge amounts of time deciding
how to behave, when there is a ready made code of practice to inform you.

Made by other people's opinions which threaten our freedoms.

I.e. the reason not to walk around naked is that the custom in this
country is to remain clothed, and there is no good reason to challenge it.

And there are other good reasons in terms of bodies either being ugly as
sin...leading to public disgust,

How pathetic of you, you think just because you see something you don't want to see, it must be hidden from view?

or far too attractive, leading to the
sort of outbursts we see in the Islamic Male.

So you think to prevent rapists we should all cover ourselves by law? That's like saying it's illegal to not lock your house because a burglar might enter it.

It's our natural state and is insanity to hide it.

--
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 10:19:38 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 4 November 2016 01:52:52 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:00:57 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs etc.
Peter is insane!

And you're a silly prude that belongs in the Victorian ages. Why are you ashamed of the human body?

maybe he thinks that looking at your naked body would send him into a fit of laughter not the sort of thing you want at funerals or doing teh shopping it's disctracting.

Funny how when I went to a nudist beach there were people all the way from really fat and ugly to absolutely gorgeous, and nobody was laughing or raping each other.

--
If it's zero degrees outside today and it's supposed to be twice as cold tomorrow, how cold is it going to be?

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 10:19:38 -0000, whisky-dave
wrote:
On Friday, 4 November 2016 01:52:52 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:00:57 -0000, Bod
wrote:
On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs
etc. Peter is insane!

And you're a silly prude that belongs in the Victorian ages. Why
are you ashamed of the human body?

maybe he thinks that looking at your naked body would send him into
a fit of laughter not the sort of thing you want at funerals or
doing teh shopping it's disctracting.

Funny how when I went to a nudist beach there were people all the way
from really fat and ugly to absolutely gorgeous, and nobody was
laughing or raping each other.

Oh! I remember that email. You scrounged a ride and a few weeks in France
whilst you were signing on the dole. Sponging ****: Dark days.
You said "The lifeguard was totally naked"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You were very excited by the sight of a naked man.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 21:52:20 -0000, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 10:19:38 -0000, whisky-dave
wrote:
On Friday, 4 November 2016 01:52:52 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:00:57 -0000, Bod
wrote:
On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs
etc. Peter is insane!

And you're a silly prude that belongs in the Victorian ages. Why
are you ashamed of the human body?

maybe he thinks that looking at your naked body would send him into
a fit of laughter not the sort of thing you want at funerals or
doing teh shopping it's disctracting.

Funny how when I went to a nudist beach there were people all the way
from really fat and ugly to absolutely gorgeous, and nobody was
laughing or raping each other.

Oh! I remember that email. You scrounged a ride and a few weeks in France
whilst you were signing on the dole. Sponging ****: Dark days.

Yes, the clocks went back.

You said "The lifeguard was totally naked"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You were very excited by the sight of a naked man.

He was particularly well constructed. One of them had an eight inch flaccid wanger. God knows what size it was when erect.

--
Peter is in the top three most intelligent people -- Ron Tompkins, circa 2013.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 02:40:07 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 01:29:27 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Doesn't bother me at all.

That's because you are completely blind now due to all that methanol you
drink.

I looked it up, it's isn't a problem. And as can be seen from the reg number I posted in DIY, I have better eyesight then almost everyone.

Have you ever been to a nudist beach?

Not that stupid.

What's stupid about it?

--
This space was empty.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 02:38:28 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:00:57 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs etc.
Peter is insane!

And you're a silly prude that belongs in the Victorian ages.

We'll see...

You only say that when your point of view is fading.

Why are you ashamed of the human body?

We arent. We just don't like to see the worst obscenitys like Pam naked
and have enough of a clue to think it makes no sense to have lots more
paramedics carting away all those who die laughing at your microdick.

Laughing is good for you.

--
You know, sometimes I get the sudden urge to run around naked.
But then I just drink some Windex. It keeps me from streaking.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 06:05:01 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 02/11/16 21:09, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Not outside there isn't. The only possible case you can make is
sitting in a restaurant with an unclean bottom. But out
walking, there is no reason whatsoever to object.

You are a creep. And a dangerous one.
Hmm.
Little boys and little girls really do not want to see your "****ing
little ******".

Actually they probably do. Little boys and girls are like that. Then
they giggle.

But, we all know that you would like them to see your little dick.
You are one sick **** all.

No, he's just a very silly little boy.

He doesn't understand that the main value of social customs and
conventions is to avoid having to waste huge amounts of time deciding
how to behave, when there is a ready made code of practice to inform you.

Made by other people's opinions which threaten our freedoms.

I.e. the reason not to walk around naked is that the custom in this
country is to remain clothed, and there is no good reason to challenge
it.

And there are other good reasons in terms of bodies either being ugly as
sin...leading to public disgust,

How pathetic of you, you think just because you see something you don't
want to see, it must be hidden from view?

or far too attractive, leading to the
sort of outbursts we see in the Islamic Male.

So you think to prevent rapists we should all cover ourselves by law?

That's like saying it's illegal to not lock your house because a burglar
might enter it.

Some jurisdictions do make it illegal to not lock your car.

It's our natural state

So is ****ing anything that cant run fast enough.

and is insanity to hide it.

Must be why almost all of us are actually that insane.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 10:19:38 -0000, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 4 November 2016 01:52:52 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:00:57 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs
etc.
Peter is insane!

And you're a silly prude that belongs in the Victorian ages. Why are
you ashamed of the human body?

maybe he thinks that looking at your naked body would send him into a fit
of laughter not the sort of thing you want at funerals or doing teh
shopping it's disctracting.

Funny how when I went to a nudist beach there were people all the way from
really fat and ugly to absolutely gorgeous, and nobody was laughing

Because only ****wits like you go to nudist beaches.

or raping each other.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed psychotic fantasys.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 02:40:07 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 01:29:27 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Doesn't bother me at all.

That's because you are completely blind now due to all that methanol you
drink.

I looked it up,

You actually ****ed that up.

it's isn't a problem.

Wrong, as always.

And as can be seen from the reg number I posted in DIY, I have better
eyesight then almost everyone.

You can't read that either.

Have you ever been to a nudist beach?

Not that stupid.

What's stupid about it?

Why would I want to go where ****wits like you hang out ?

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 02:38:28 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:00:57 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs etc.
Peter is insane!

And you're a silly prude that belongs in the Victorian ages.

We'll see...

You only say that when your point of view is fading.

Not possible for points of view to fade.

Why are you ashamed of the human body?

We arent. We just don't like to see the worst obscenitys like Pam naked
and have enough of a clue to think it makes no sense to have lots more
paramedics carting away all those who die laughing at your microdick.

Laughing is good for you.

Not when it kills you, stupid.

On Sat, 05 Nov 2016 04:03:38 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 02:38:28 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:00:57 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs etc.
Peter is insane!

And you're a silly prude that belongs in the Victorian ages.

We'll see...

You only say that when your point of view is fading.

Not possible for points of view to fade.

What an absolutely stupid thing to say.

Why are you ashamed of the human body?

We arent. We just don't like to see the worst obscenitys like Pam naked
and have enough of a clue to think it makes no sense to have lots more
paramedics carting away all those who die laughing at your microdick.

Laughing is good for you.

Not when it kills you, stupid.

That never happens.

--
The wife suggested I get myself one of those penis enlargers, so I did.
She's 21, and her name's Kathy.

On Sat, 05 Nov 2016 04:02:25 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 02:40:07 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 01:29:27 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Doesn't bother me at all.

That's because you are completely blind now due to all that methanol you
drink.

I looked it up,

You actually ****ed that up.

No, provide cites.

it's isn't a problem.

Wrong, as always.

No, provide cites.

And as can be seen from the reg number I posted in DIY, I have better
eyesight then almost everyone.

You can't read that either.

I did too.

Have you ever been to a nudist beach?

Not that stupid.

What's stupid about it?

Why would I want to go where ****wits like you hang out ?

Why do you believe your body should be covered?

--
I was explaining to my wife last night that when you die you get reincarnated but must come back as a different creature. She said I would like to come back as a cow. I said you're obviously not listening.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 05 Nov 2016 04:03:38 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 02:38:28 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:00:57 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs
etc.
Peter is insane!

And you're a silly prude that belongs in the Victorian ages.

We'll see...

You only say that when your point of view is fading.

Not possible for points of view to fade.

What an absolutely stupid thing to say.

It's a fact.

Why are you ashamed of the human body?

We arent. We just don't like to see the worst obscenitys like Pam naked
and have enough of a clue to think it makes no sense to have lots more
paramedics carting away all those who die laughing at your microdick.

Laughing is good for you.

Not when it kills you, stupid.

That never happens.

Wrong, as always.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 05 Nov 2016 04:02:25 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 02:40:07 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 01:29:27 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Doesn't bother me at all.

That's because you are completely blind now due to all that methanol
you
drink.

I looked it up,

You actually ****ed that up.

No, provide cites.

it's isn't a problem.

Wrong, as always.

No,

Yep.

provide cites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_toxicity#Cause

And as can be seen from the reg number I posted in DIY, I have better
eyesight then almost everyone.

You can't read that either.

I did too.

Lying thru your teeth, as always.

Have you ever been to a nudist beach?

Not that stupid.

What's stupid about it?

Why would I want to go where ****wits like you hang out ?

Why do you believe your body should be covered?

I don't.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 09:31:49 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 08:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs etc.

Indeed.

Peter is insane!

More a pathetic excuse for a troll although he does streak quite a bit.

Pity about all those that die laughing at his microdick.

Laughing at someone's assumed penis size

Nothing assumed about it, we have the youtube footage.

No you don't, for two reasons:
1) You would have posted it
2) They don't allow it.

--
If debugging is the process of removing software bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 09:31:49 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 08:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs
etc.

Indeed.

Peter is insane!

More a pathetic excuse for a troll although he does streak quite a bit.

Pity about all those that die laughing at his microdick.

Laughing at someone's assumed penis size

Nothing assumed about it, we have the youtube footage.

No you don't,

Wrong, as always.

for two reasons:
1) You would have posted it

Didn't think to save it while I could, didn't realise so may would
die laughing and that they would have to remove it for that reason.

2) They don't allow it.

Yes, because too many died laughing when they watched it.

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 22:28:28 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 05 Nov 2016 04:02:25 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 02:40:07 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 01:29:27 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Doesn't bother me at all.

That's because you are completely blind now due to all that methanol
you
drink.

I looked it up,

You actually ****ed that up.

No, provide cites.

it's isn't a problem.

Wrong, as always.

No,

Yep.

provide cites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_toxicity#Cause

That doesn't mention brewing.

This does though: http://www.lovebrewing.co.uk/guides/.../#.WCeyr-ag9QI

And as can be seen from the reg number I posted in DIY, I have better
eyesight then almost everyone.

You can't read that either.

I did too.

Lying thru your teeth, as always.

I read it correctly, prove otherwise.

Have you ever been to a nudist beach?

Not that stupid.

What's stupid about it?

Why would I want to go where ****wits like you hang out ?

Why do you believe your body should be covered?

I don't.

Then why avoid nudists?

--
Computers are like air conditioners: They stop working when you open Windows.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 00:18:18 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 09:31:49 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 08:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2016 01:29, Rod Speed wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Not to mention incontinent folk and women with heavy periods, STDs
etc.

Indeed.

Peter is insane!

More a pathetic excuse for a troll although he does streak quite a bit.

Pity about all those that die laughing at his microdick.

Laughing at someone's assumed penis size

Nothing assumed about it, we have the youtube footage.

No you don't,

Wrong, as always.

for two reasons:
1) You would have posted it

Didn't think to save it while I could, didn't realise so may would
die laughing and that they would have to remove it for that reason.

Yeah right.

2) They don't allow it.

Yes, because too many died laughing when they watched it.

You have made it up.

--
Why do men die before their wives? They want to.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 22:28:28 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 05 Nov 2016 04:02:25 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 02:40:07 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 01:29:27 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Doesn't bother me at all.

That's because you are completely blind now due to all that methanol
you
drink.

I looked it up,

You actually ****ed that up.

No, provide cites.

it's isn't a problem.

Wrong, as always.

No,

Yep.

provide cites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_toxicity#Cause

That doesn't mention brewing.

Irrelevant.

This does though:
http://www.lovebrewing.co.uk/guides/.../#.WCeyr-ag9QI

Corse they arent flogging brewing stuff, eh ?

And as can be seen from the reg number I posted in DIY, I have better
eyesight then almost everyone.

You can't read that either.

I did too.

Lying thru your teeth, as always.

I read it correctly,

Lying thru your teeth, as always.

Have you ever been to a nudist beach?

Not that stupid.

What's stupid about it?

Why would I want to go where ****wits like you hang out ?

Why do you believe your body should be covered?

I don't.

Then why avoid nudists?

I don't. If I did it would be because they are so ****ing ugly.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 00:49:33 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 22:28:28 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Sat, 05 Nov 2016 04:02:25 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 02:40:07 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 01:29:27 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I don't have problem seeing an ugly person naked.

More fool you.

I wouldn't have sex with them,

Yeah, that microdick stops you doing that.

but just seeing something that isn't beautiful is not a problem.

It is when they are obscenely ugly with
sagging tits half way down to the ground.

Doesn't bother me at all.

That's because you are completely blind now due to all that methanol
you
drink.

I looked it up,

You actually ****ed that up.

No, provide cites.

it's isn't a problem.

Wrong, as always.

No,

Yep.

provide cites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_toxicity#Cause

That doesn't mention brewing.

Irrelevant.

This does though:
http://www.lovebrewing.co.uk/guides/.../#.WCeyr-ag9QI

Corse they arent flogging brewing stuff, eh ?

Countless other sites say the same.

And as can be seen from the reg number I posted in DIY, I have better
eyesight then almost everyone.

You can't read that either.

I did too.

Lying thru your teeth, as always.

I read it correctly,

Lying thru your teeth, as always.

No.

Have you ever been to a nudist beach?

Not that stupid.

What's stupid about it?

Why would I want to go where ****wits like you hang out ?

Why do you believe your body should be covered?

I don't.

Then why avoid nudists?

I don't. If I did it would be because they are so ****ing ugly.

Being ugly is not a reason to have to wear artificial clothes.

--
"An abstract noun," the teacher said, "is something you can think of, but you can't touch it. Can you give me an example of one?"
"Sure," a teenage boy replied. "My father's new car."