Chuckle chuckle.

I am... Why do you ask?

I don't think he's really attracted to them to be honest.

BOOM BOOM!!!!!

Was meant in a good way to be honest!

The extent of violence against women revealed by victims surveys suggests that his may well be the case.

I've been reading this for days and didn't want to respond but, I've enjoyed a couple of midweek beers and that's enough for a Saltyesque post!

I don't buy the freedom of speech line; this relies upon a liberalist belief in human rights that's predicated upon the idea of respect for the individual. There's obviously an inconsistency in relying upon a concept that places liberty and equality as all important in order to then act (and speech is an act, in that it has an impact on the world) in a manner that is inconsistent with such beliefs.

As for Ripper's claim that his real target is 'the media', I find this a little unconvincing. Ripper, as an educated man, cannot really believe in some mass media conspiracy to promote homosexualiy. This, to me, if sincerely held suggests a degree of paranoia; it claims a homogeniety to an otherwise diverse media (is he really suggesting that Clarkson, Melanie Phillips and Peter Hitchens are part of a liberal media conspiracy?) and ignores the reality of, as I see it, a media that, if it is to be regarded as monolithic, is obsessed with the promotion of an agenda that claims the 'PC Brigade' (whatever that
may be) is spoiling our fun!

Finally, sexuality cannot be a given but is rather socially constructed. For the ancient Greeks, for example, it was a fact of life. Of course, Ripper could claim a teleological belief in human progress, but I think his bigoted views are clear evidence of the absurdity of such a claim.

I think I can speak on behalf of young Ben, and say he would proud to be able to 'rant' like that after a few drinks, and claim it as a 'Saltyesque' post.

If not mass media though, perhaps just the BBC Mr Fat??

The BBC are by far and away the worst culprits, it's clear that they have some kind of corporate agenda in their news programmes that is heavily influenced by the likes of the equality commission and that Trevor Phillips gadgy.

I find it a little unconvincing that any supposedly educated person cannot see this.

With regards the last point made by Mr Fat, if the current thinking is that sexuality is socially constructed would it be too absurd to even suggest that a homosexually influenced BBC / media may be trying to promote it as being normal and acceptable in order to socially construct or influence a younger generation into being gay? Every bloody drama type of programme seems to have at least one of them nowadays, our lass was watching Holby City last night and we were subjected to some bloke touching up another fella. If it has to be on telly it shouldn't be on before the nine o'clock watershed in my humble opinion.

It IS normal & acceptable.

Yep, Clarkson fits into this left liberal BBC conspiracy theory easily! Perhaps the BBC simply represent diversity?

Just a guess here,but I reckon the agenda is to put a news programme together that will attract the maximum amount of viewers.
I dont think the BBC rate a celebritys death as more important than a soldiers death,(gay or straight) I think their priorities are based on what most viewers will watch.

Isn't this a true reflection of life then? I mean every work place potentially has someone who is gay.

How do you be 'potentially' gay?

sorry i didnt word that well, i ment statistically isnt something like one in 10 people are gay therefore if your work place has more than this number there is a potential for someone to be homosexual. So rippers comments of drama type shows having "at least one of them" is a true reflection on life today.

Surely everyones potentially gay,even (or maybe especially) Ripper.

like i said before - me think he doth protest too much......

I dont want to place statisitcs on the topic, I was mearly answering the point ripper made that there is a homosexual on every drama these days (was one on heroes the other night actually kissing the cheerleader lass very nice ) but thats a true reflection of life today

Whether that's true or not, and personally I doubt those statistics, it doesn't change the fact that I don't think that it should be shown on the telly and especially not before the 9pm watershed when kids may well be watching.

would that be the same for heterosexual physical or sexual contact then?

Anything more than a kiss or cuddle then yes, certainly. What kids are exposed to on telly should be controlled in some way, even you can't disagree with that can you?

Totally agree with you on that one, kids see to much on the tv at an early age they should be exposed to.

I was just asking if you didnt mid them seening straight couples but thought homosexuality should be after the watershed. But its ok you have answered my question

I've got an idea...let's set Mr Ripper free on another message board and see just how long he lasts, posting the sort of thing he gets off on here. And doesn't that raise the question of why it's tolerated here? It's not about opinions, it's about ranting.

The question of who moderates the board shouldn't be allowed to blow over, as other people have said.

As I said above, if you think there's a conspiracy out there, you're paranoid. The BBC may be reflecting diversity, but this is wholly different from 'an agenda'.

If you're accepting my point that sexuality is socially constructed, then you'll have to stop barking that homosexuality isn't 'normal' (in the way that you're using that world). If we create the social world as a human product (and I believe that we do) there is no external yardstick to measure it against and decide what is normal, assuming here that normal is a normative value laden concept. Rather, normal can only refer to 'the norm', a statistical average internal to society and not outside it. If that's the case, to say something 'isn't normal' is not to say that it's wrong, just that it's different from the average.

It'd make your day if I stopped posting on here wouldn't it. Fortunately the feeling is mutual. Personally I'd like nothing more than to rewind The Bunker a couple of years to the fun it used to be.

Mr I will make any decisions on who moderates the board, not you or your cronies. If he decides he doesn't want me (or Mr Spender who you also appear to be suggesting elsewhere should be removed) to do it anymore then that's fine by me as it's him who spends his time maintaining the place.

Fortunately Mr I will make rational decisions and not purely respond to your current foot stamping and huffing.

That's a bit rich given that you're stamping your feet over gays on the tele?

Whatever, I think that showing gays kissing and touching each other up on telly before 9pm is wrong and I'm not afraid to admit that. I'm just surprised that other people think that it's perfectly ok.

And more importantly, why isn't your name in blue?

But doesn't that rather leave aside the question of reproduction?? Which might suggest that sexuality is naturally constructed rather than socially, and homosexuality is somewhat of an accident??

You're wrong about that...I don't want anyone to stop posting. And yes, the Bunker did used to be fun. You used to be fun too, before these rants started appearing. Many of us have said we don't want to read your prejudices about, say, homosexuals, but you continue to post them, and what's more they never change.
That's what Mr I will base his 'rational decision' on, especially if he wants people to send him donations.

Respect due Mrs G but you're rather putting words in his mouth there and I think you'll find he's his own man.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a private forum. The rules governing public forums i.e. 606 etc. do not, or do not have to apply.
People may be allowed to say what they like, people may not be allowed to say what they like and must abide by this "don't say things you know will upset people" rule. it's upto the owner of the board and the owners chosen moderators to decide upon this.

But it certainly needs clearing up.

wooohooo sweet child of mine, I dont and never did want you or spender to not be mods your good fellas and have good crack, the point of a message board is to have differing opinions (all be it without offending anyone)

I remeber the you guys from the board previous and when it got shut down, lets all get along.

Is there a game this weekend?

Huddersfield at home, is it?

I hope Pools win.

Then Carlisle on Tuesday I believe!

You're wrong Grabec. These "rants" as you term them are nothing new to either me or The Bunker. The Bunker has since its inception been a place where posters (myself and many many others) have let off steam about topics which bother them and I have been here doing such since that time. Not an everyday occurrence, granted, but from time to time some things come out that way.

If you wish to sanitise The Bunker to the extent that people can only post things that everybody else wants to read and agrees with then a messageboard or discussion forum isn't for you as it'd be the death of this or any similar place.

House Rules, please only post things that Grabec likes and agrees with? The way you're going on nothing short of that would make you happy right now.

right this is going to be my last post on the matter as i am sick of it.

Ripper you and me dont agree about the gays and we can argue about it till the cows come home (thanks POK) its not going to change.

I want people to disagree with me on the bunker other wise whats the point it would be everyone agreeing and patting each other on the back which would be shit and boring. We all have two things in common Pools and the bunker lets not distroy the latter with stupid arguement. Ripper has said he was sorry if what he said was taken in the wrong was but hey I was one of the cheif arguemnts against him and its now becoming silly.

The Bunker is better un-sanitised when we can put pictures of pork faggots on the board without fear of it closing.

Mr I have no fear on pay day you will be getting my donation

Compo

Concurring wholeheartedly with the above.

thank feck for that i will now make a donation now thats finished

You're referring to the biological act of reproduction, not sexuality. Life must be boring in your house if sex is limited to reproduction. Sexuality is so much more than that; it's a cultural act that is laden with social meaning and it expresses the fundamentals of the self.

So does that mean anyone who uses contraception is a bummer ?

I'm confused now. I thought you were the fat man?

aye - my solo sex acts have deep meaningful connotations and I like to express my love for myself on a regular basis

thats not a compliment is it?!

hiya Trimdon!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, I'm referring to the naturally instinctive act of reproduction not the amoebic fashion of like meets not like. Males of every species meet females etc....scents are prevalent...y'know...

Really it's not about me and our lass, but, we met, she's a girl, I'm a thug and there was attraction, and, oddly enough we aren't the same sex...culturately, we're totally different as she is an exotic Asian and I'm a Poolie. Therefore our cultural act is somewhat enhanced. Every species on the planet has a male and female and if, in the flora world, this failed, we'd all starve.

That's the reality.

Sorry, culturaly. Like I said I'm a Poolie and a thug.

Is it? What about asexual reproduction?

You just beat me to it, well by half an hour or so.

Is Aids Gods revenge, or his way of culling the numbers?

















That's if you believe in a God of course.