This has to be some kind of extremely daft mistranslation surely?

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


Sometimes life is crazier than fiction.

On a similar topic, nobody has been near collecting for this this year or
giving poppies out, bit of a worry.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Fifa has banned footballers from wearing poppies on their shirts during an
England v Scotland match to be played on November 11 - Armistice Day.
Let's see if the FA has the balls to ignore them. Or not.

Bill

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.

--
Chris Green
·

On Wednesday, 2 November 2016 09:20:32 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
This has to be some kind of extremely daft mistranslation surely?

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

That will be classed as sexist.



On a similar topic, nobody has been near collecting for this this year or
giving poppies out, bit of a worry.

I've seen one, but I don;t tend to carry much cash and as yet I don't think they carry the ability to debit cards.

I;d like to see this happen maybe a banner saying swipe your card and we'll take just one pound (or whatever).

I guess that idea is a bit advanced though.

On 02/11/2016 10:00, Chris Green wrote:

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.

Given that Sikhs, Moslems and Gurkhas all fought in the British Army and
some of each of them were killed, it is difficult to imagine what
religion the poppy is a symbol of.

Jim

"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.

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.

In article ,
Indy Jess John wrote:
On 02/11/2016 10:00, Chris Green wrote:

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.

Given that Sikhs, Moslems and Gurkhas all fought in the British Army and
some of each of them were killed, it is difficult to imagine what
religion the poppy is a symbol of.

Quite. As well as many different sorts of Christianity.

But it's more likely to be classified as a political symbol by FIFA. A way
of remembering our soldiers who died - while doing as little as possible
to help those who were merely injured.

--
*Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:00:36 +0000, Chris Green wrote:

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.

The poppy is a symbol of having made a donation to a charity, the Royal
British Legion.

http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/popp...-poppy-appeal/

What is the Poppy Appeal?

The Poppy Appeal is the Royal British Legions biggest fundraising
campaign held every year in November, the period of Remembrance.

http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/about-us/

About us

We help members of the Royal Navy, British Army, Royal Air Force,
veterans and their families all year round. We also campaign to
improve their lives, organise the Poppy Appeal and remember the
fallen.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On 02/11/2016 10:44, Indy Jess John wrote:

Given that Sikhs, Moslems and Gurkhas all fought in the British Army and
some of each of them were killed, it is difficult to imagine what
religion the poppy is a symbol of.

Don't forget the Jews and atheists.

Bill

whisky-dave wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

This has to be some kind of extremely daft mistranslation surely?

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

That will be classed as sexist.

Trivially fixed by having pictures of naked all sorts, and
dogs and cats and goats and sheep in your case too.

On a similar topic, nobody has been near collecting
for this this year or giving poppies out, bit of a worry.

I've seen one, but I don;t tend to carry much cash and
as yet I don't think they carry the ability to debit cards.

Corse they have. Even that soggy little frigid techdesert
island allows anyone to pay to a mobile number and has
allowed that for years now.

I;d like to see this happen maybe a banner saying swipe
your card and we'll take just one pound (or whatever).

Best have that on their T shirt.

I guess that idea is a bit advanced though.

Nope.

On Wednesday, 2 November 2016 16:45:21 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

This has to be some kind of extremely daft mistranslation surely?

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

That will be classed as sexist.

Trivially fixed by having pictures of naked all sorts, and
dogs and cats and goats and sheep in your case too.

Not via those handing out poppies and that's teh point isn;t it
about the actual poppies not about the money, I don't think FIFA
are agaisnst the idea of money they'd probbly expect a cut of the takings anyway.


On a similar topic, nobody has been near collecting
for this this year or giving poppies out, bit of a worry.

I've seen one, but I don;t tend to carry much cash and
as yet I don't think they carry the ability to debit cards.

Corse they have.

No they haven't, well the old lady shaking the tin didn;t appaer to have one.

Even that soggy little frigid techdesert
island allows anyone to pay to a mobile number and has
allowed that for years now.

I;d like to see this happen maybe a banner saying swipe
your card and we'll take just one pound (or whatever).

Best have that on their T shirt.
Noyt everyone wears T-shirts and teh type of people shaking timns and collecting are usually pensoniers I've yet to see one in a T-shirt, but too colod for that in teh UK this time of year.

On 02/11/2016 15:37, Bill Wright wrote:
On 02/11/2016 10:44, Indy Jess John wrote:

Given that Sikhs, Moslems and Gurkhas all fought in the British Army and
some of each of them were killed, it is difficult to imagine what
religion the poppy is a symbol of.

Don't forget the Jews and atheists.

Bill

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.

Jim

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

This has to be some kind of extremely daft mistranslation surely?

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

That will be classed as sexist.

Trivially fixed by having pictures of naked all sorts, and
dogs and cats and goats and sheep in your case too.

Not via those handing out poppies and that's teh point
isn;t it about the actual poppies not about the money,

Even you should be able to work that one out.

I don't think FIFA are agaisnst the idea of money
they'd probbly expect a cut of the takings anyway.

More likely they asked for a bribe to allow them and was refused.

On a similar topic, nobody has been near collecting
for this this year or giving poppies out, bit of a worry.

I've seen one, but I don;t tend to carry much cash and
as yet I don't think they carry the ability to debit cards.

Corse they have.

No they haven't,

Yes they have.

well the old lady shaking the tin didn;t appaer to have one.

But the operation that conned her into doing that must have.

Even that soggy little frigid techdesert island
allows anyone to pay to a mobile number
and has allowed that for years now.

I;d like to see this happen maybe a banner saying swipe
your card and we'll take just one pound (or whatever).

Best have that on their T shirt.

Noyt everyone wears T-shirts

A likely story.

and teh type of people shaking timns and collecting are usually pensoniers
I've yet to see one in a T-shirt, but too colod for that in teh UK this
time of year.

Then migrate to somewhere warmer, stupid.

On 02/11/16 10:44, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 02/11/2016 10:00, Chris Green wrote:

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.

Given that Sikhs, Moslems and Gurkhas all fought in the British Army and
some of each of them were killed, it is difficult to imagine what
religion the poppy is a symbol of.


Ah . Its 'political' though.

Not sure what it means politically myself, but that's the excuse.
Jim


--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On 02/11/16 13:17, Bod wrote:

Better still, ban all intolerant people.

That's not very tolerant of you....

--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

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.

--
Engage brain before putting fingers in gear.

On 02/11/2016 18:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/11/16 13:17, Bod wrote:

Better still, ban all intolerant people.

That's not very tolerant of you....

Lol.

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?

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.

--
My penis is 12 inches long, but I don't use it as a rule.

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.

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? Basically you're bigoted against yourself.

--
When launching a boat, always back the boat into the water.
Pulling the boat into the water can really mess up your carburettor.

On 02/11/2016 19:23, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
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?
Basically you're bigoted against yourself.

There's many practical reasons why being naked in public is a bad idea
as well.
Perhaps you should try and use your brain to realise what they will be.

On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 19:29:11 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 02/11/2016 19:23, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
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?
Basically you're bigoted against yourself.

There's many practical reasons why being naked in public is a bad idea
as well.
Perhaps you should try and use your brain to realise what they will be.

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.

--
To truly love another, you must first love yourself. And it wouldn't kill you to wash your hands in between either.

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 19:29:11 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 02/11/2016 19:23, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
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?
Basically you're bigoted against yourself.

There's many practical reasons why being naked in public is a bad
idea as well.
Perhaps you should try and use your brain to realise what they will
be.

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.
Little boys and little girls really do not want to see your "****ing little
******".
But, we all know that you would like them to see your little dick.
You are one sick **** all.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
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.

Worst visual pollution possible with most of them and
then there are those like you that kill lots of people who
die laughing at your microdick.

"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.

Basically you're bigoted against yourself.

In your case, you should be.

On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 21:09:11 -0000, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 19:29:11 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 02/11/2016 19:23, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
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?
Basically you're bigoted against yourself.

There's many practical reasons why being naked in public is a bad
idea as well.
Perhaps you should try and use your brain to realise what they will
be.

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.
Little boys and little girls really do not want to see your "****ing little
******".
But, we all know that you would like them to see your little dick.
You are one sick **** all.

Why have you introduced children to the conversation? Is there something about you we should know of?

--
"I wonder who discovered we could get milk from cows and what the **** did he think he was doing?!" -- Billy Connolly

On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 21:50:07 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
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.

Worst visual pollution possible with most of them

Why are you ashamed of the human form?

and
then there are those like you that kill lots of people who
die laughing at your microdick.

Seven inches.

--
President Bush was in South Dakota recently. There was an awkward moment at Mount Rushmore when President Bush said, "Hey, look, it's those guys on the money!"
- Conan Obrien

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.

Chris Green wrote:

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 would be very hard to accept our much admired national symbol and not
allow, say, Russian military emblems. How can FIFA judge between them?
And if they did allow them, there would hardly be any pair of teams
willing to appear on the same field with each other.


--

Roger Hayter

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 21:50:07 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
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.

Worst visual pollution possible with most of them

Why are you ashamed of the human form?

I'm not. I just find the worst of them ****ing ugly
and it's a damned nuisance having to call out the
ambos to cart away the corpses of those who have
died laughing at your microdick. They have much
better things to be doing with their time.

and then there are those like you that kill lots of people who die
laughing at your microdick.

Seven inches.

We've seen the youtube videos...

"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.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 01:23:27 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 21:50:07 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Worst visual pollution possible with most of them

Why are you ashamed of the human form?

I'm not. I just find the worst of them ****ing ugly

So what? It's not the end of the world.

and it's a damned nuisance having to call out the
ambos to cart away the corpses of those who have
died laughing at your microdick. They have much
better things to be doing with their time.

Stop exaggerating for comic effect.

and then there are those like you that kill lots of people who die
laughing at your microdick.

Seven inches.

We've seen the youtube videos...

There are none.

--
What has four legs, is big, green, fuzzy, and if it fell out of a tree would kill you?
A pool table.

On 02/11/2016 18:13, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 02/11/2016 15:37, Bill Wright wrote:
On 02/11/2016 10:44, Indy Jess John wrote:

Given that Sikhs, Moslems and Gurkhas all fought in the British Army and
some of each of them were killed, it is difficult to imagine what
religion the poppy is a symbol of.

Don't forget the Jews and atheists.

Bill

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.

Jim

Muslims get a lot more than that.

Bill

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 01:23:27 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 21:50:07 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news 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.

Worst visual pollution possible with most of them

Why are you ashamed of the human form?

I'm not. I just find the worst of them ****ing ugly

So what? It's not the end of the world.

Irrelevant, its better without those very ugly people.

and it's a damned nuisance having to call out the
ambos to cart away the corpses of those who have
died laughing at your microdick. They have much
better things to be doing with their time.

Stop exaggerating for comic effect.

Go and **** yourself, again.

and then there are those like you that kill lots of people who die
laughing at your microdick.

Seven inches.

We've seen the youtube videos...

There are none.

Obvious lie.

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.

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


--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...

Chris Green wrote:

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 would be very hard to accept our much admired national symbol and not
allow, say, Russian military emblems. How can FIFA judge between them?
And if they did allow them, there would hardly be any pair of teams
willing to appear on the same field with each other.

If you are so ashamed of your nationality, I pity you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_poppy

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!

On 03/11/2016 02:36, Bill Wright wrote:
On 02/11/2016 18:13, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 02/11/2016 15:37, Bill Wright wrote:
On 02/11/2016 10:44, Indy Jess John wrote:

Given that Sikhs, Moslems and Gurkhas all fought in the British Army and
some of each of them were killed, it is difficult to imagine what
religion the poppy is a symbol of.

Don't forget the Jews and atheists.

Bill

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.

Jim

Muslims get a lot more than that.

Bill

It is not a competition!
I was just trying to explain my thought processes.

Jim

"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.