Kiffy

Lol that's a fair point, but ol max is something of an exception.

I think I'd admit to liking porn before admitting to liking wrestling in most cases anyway. So being on the board's way more embarassing than the porn discussion.

I was genuinley just trying to discuss it, more than argue the point.

And really, I'm a man in his 30's who still posts on a wrestling forum - how much worse could it possibly get?

If Killergram and Bluebird are doing some of the harder stuff (I know you said they were doing some great stuff, but I dunno if that's great as in well produced or great as in more hardcore and a bit rougher) I'd be more than happy to check em out on your recommendation.

Lol I'm really not trying to be contrary on this one fella, I obviously have very differing tastes in porn to you, and look for different things. But on the stuff re rocco, and his making the underground mainstream - that's just a discussion on porn and it's history and the massive affect he's had on the industry, not doing that to disagree with you at all.

I did point out I'm not doing this to have a go or just argue, and that I recognise people have other tastes than me and that's fair enough. I don't get any more enjoyment from porn depending on it's relevance to the news or social groups of anything else, but that's just me, I'm not saying this to have a go or just to be argumentative, I'm actually trying to have a proper discussion!

German stuff now seems to always have pissing in it, this tends to make me wanna be involved less.

Rocco's stuff now is mainstream, granted, but only because he made it mainstream. I mean you can go back to max hardcore to see some of his influences but he added a bit of passion to it which makes it alot more interesting to watch.

Anabolic and diabloic probably exist only because of rocco, granted, but it's a good style so fair enough to em for ripping it off.

Comedy porn's probably a good description of all the british porn I've seen, but that's the problem, I don't really watch porn for the comedy, or for using social groups or anything else. I mean really, chav porn? Who gives a fuck? I can fuck chav's without too much time or effort put in, why spend money to see it? Porn that covers something in the news, or social movements or whatever, who fucking cares? The only thing that matters in porn is the quality of the fucking, and if that's average at best with nothing new then the setting, burberry caps or anything else is just, well how could it help?

"I saw this brilliant porno the other day, it was both relevant to the recent news and it had post dub step fans in it," that just seems wierd to me.

But don't take this as me having a dig or trying to get at you, it's really not. I get people want different things from porn, I like very hardcore rough stuff, alot of people probably find it a turn off and prefer something like ben dover or badly packed kebab (a chav porno I saw a few years pack, gotta give some props for the name on that one to be fair) there's clearly a market for it, so it's doing ok.

Lol that's a fair point fella, I do indeed, but then again I'm not suggesting I'd make a good porn star.

And I don't really wanna damn the whole thing, but the stuff I've seen with that black fella from the hospital show, and the ben dover stuff, and any of the other stuff I've seen has just come across as a bit second rate. And as well as the accents there seems to be either a kind of forced joviality to the whole thing, or a kind of very fake intensity which just ends up sounding a bit silly.

There doesn't seem to be anything out there which is any way cutting edge, it's all just a bit samey and rubbish. Whereas rocco's stuff, belladonna's stuff, diabolic stuff, anabolic stuff, they all come across as a bit harder and more interesting (less so chico's stuff these days, but when he was alive it was quite fun).

Quite happy to be proved wrong though, I asked the question "Has anyone seen any good britporn?" and if the answers yes, by all means point me in the right direction.

Nope. Subject of brit porn came up, asked the question.

Why would you think I was?

Within politics you will tend to find people who hold opposing views. Now you obviously don't have to listen to those views if you don't want to. But, if you'll only watch/read/listen to people who share your opinions? Then you're opinions tend to end up moronic and laughable. (I don't need to even mention your sig for proof of that, your retarded point about the wall st protest having rich people in it, based on what you read on the daily mail site, is more than adequate proof of that).

I can even give you an example, the current government's pushing the right to buy idea for council homes, but it's also promosing to build one social house for everyone sold. Now that's a brilliant idea, and I applaud them for it, and labour should have done it over a decade ago (as should thatcher when the scheme first came out, but I digress) but if I turned off radio 4 because they had a tory politician on, I wouldn't have known that.

Has anyone ever seen any actually good brit porn? Or do the accents just make it sound silly to everyone else as well.

I would presume the key to remaining ignorant is to avoid everything that might challenge any of your views. Hard work, but no doubt ultimately worth it.

Hee, yeah don't like to say it but credit where it's due, turning the tables on the interview and giving the reporter a load of questions was very clever indeed. What''s funny is if you have a sneak look on ol griffin's facebook page alot of the supporters think they came out of that panorama documentary well as a result, and it just proved what wankers the BBC are. One choice quote I really liked was

"The BBC has to keep the country at war with itself, to make sure no-one see's what they're investing in," Funny stuff.

The old one was another panorama documentary from years ago, can't remember much more than the name and the content above. It was the reason griffin and his head of publications got done for incitment to racial hatred a few years back, as noted in mondays panorama.

Would imagine it's on you tube somewhere.

The bloke's been lying so long I doubt even he knows what's real anymore. He's been trying to convince more moderate right wingers the partys not full of nazi's while convincing the more headline members they are there to push a nazi case all the while trying to create an air of respectability to the party.

in the run-up to the election was a perfect example. More of that please.

 

I don't see any problem in reporting the shit that any political party is involved in, I just wish that the same tactics would apply to all. It would certainly make my television licence worth the ridiculous fee a little more.

Did I say the programme from the other night was spies & secret filming?

You certainly insinuated it, the day after the programme went out you said you wished the same tactics would apply to all. When of course in the relation to the issue we were discussing, they did.

It would be interesting to be fair, the problem is the kind of security clearance needed to get to the properly juicy bits just wouldn't get handed out to journalists. Besides which, anyone that did get invited in to private moments would get it on the basis that some stuff's off the record, if they abuse that, they'll never get invited in again.

If they could get into cabinet meetings, the stuff about the war, that would be mighty interesting.

Re: Lister must be suspended talk, mickey the bell-end was actually using the Daily Mail as a source.

 

OVERRULED

Really Mickey, if you're going to come onto this board, then the very least you could do is respect the laws of the board, without deciding you have better laws. That simply will not stand.

Fair enough, in the same spirit, may your tuesdays always be slightlly too long, and may any of your long term girlfriends/wives suffer from athletes foot. Forever.

Partly - also, I don't like you.

And therefore you hope I'm not longer able to use the term "Daily mail"? As curses go, it's a pretty tame one.

Because I said it 3 times?

Re the nothing happening bit, there's a general feeling that protests which don't involve violence are less no valid as a result (of course there are those who quite noticeably do not agree, but we'll leave them out of it).

If you really want to understand why they're there mickey I'd recommend looking into it, you probably won't give too much credence to what I say so I won't bother explaining it to you. But a quick google (making sure to avoid any links to the daily mail) might give you some actual understanding of the subject you're commentating on.

Well to be fair it's still not exactly clear just what the motives behind occupy wall street actually are.

Whatever it is it's not working is it?

I think a more honest description would be that people who rely on the daily mail for their understanding of the world have no idea what the motives of the wall st protest are, and assume it's hypocritical because some of them have rich parents so they should jolly well stop it and get back to being proper members of society.

But then people who rely on the daily mail for their understanding of the world are left with little ability not to be a moron, and morons never really understand much anyway.

So it's not a massive surprise, but hardly fair to blame the protestors for not explaining their motives properly.

Anyway, from what it seems to be presented as the protesters are anti-capitalist and protesting against the big bad corperations with their greed and slave labour, but have no problem contributing their cash to them.

It all Comes across as a big hypocritical really

Be less of a moron old boy, we live in a capitalist society, it's impossible to live in it and not be part of it. For a the start you need a bank account, bank accounts are big bad corporations, but society is set up in such a way that you have to have one to function at all.

And in a capitalist society there will be those at the top, and those at the bottom.

It's not hypocritical to be at the top and still see the probelms, in fact it's alot more moral than being at the bottom and seeing the problem. You're protesting despite the fact that you are actually asking for a fairer system which would reduce your disposable income.

As I said, you may be better off in the Dr Who thread, your theory about Matt Smith being one of the better dr's was groundbreaking in it's insight and I really couldn't fault it in any way.

But in here, quoting the daily mail which you barely understand in the first instance, you're a fucking joke.

Not exactly a shock, but the Wall Street protesters aren't poor!!!

And?

Is it so shocking that even the children of the rich may have noticed how unfair the current system is? Would it really be better if only the 99% came out? Or does it not make more of an impact if people from every walk of life realise there's something wrong.

I think politics in general may be a bit beyond you mickey, ya might do better sticking to the dr who thread.

Wasn't that "Goldman Sachs" guy exposed to be a total no one? It was liked to the incident at the beeb where that guy turned up for an IT interview and was put live on air.

If it's the interview I saw (The bloke saying he was dreaming of a recession, that the guy?) he was an independant trader.

And it's called talking down the market, he's gone short (ie betting everything will go down on price) he goes on telly to tell everyone else to do the same, if they do it brings the market value down and he ends up earning from it.

David the documentary last night wasn't spies, wasn't secret filming, it was simply reporting on accusations from people inside the party with evidence to back it up, that stuff happens to the main parties weekly. You're talking bilge. Yes a few years back they went under cover (quite rightly so in my opinion, the abuse suffered by that undercoover asian reporter because she moved into a bnp area was sickening, and needed to be exposed, to compare it to some people saying stupid things in labour meeetings is a bit silly). But last night was reporting in exactly the same way the big 3 get reported on.

Re the license fee, nah it's decided by the government so I'd call it politics. And I'd tend to agree, I really respect the BBC's news coverage (it's hated by the left for being too right wing, and by the right for being too left wing, and that to me suggests they really are calling it right down the middle, with all due respect to alfonso) like alot of the sports, am impressed by the breadth of their radio choices. Well worth it to my mind.