Mandingo's Donger

As usual, Denise Fergus is spot on.

 

Atkinson's (guess who's paying her salary) comments were inflammatory and disgraceful. She could have only topped it off by making her announcement dancing on James Bulger's grave.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/cri...ers-mother.html

 

Okay I know Denise Fergus lost her son but I am sick and tired of the Woman and for the record I dont even agree with the majority of what Maggie Atkinson said.

 

The dirt rags are going to love this.

 

Since when should people be sacked from their jobs for having an opinion?

 

Earlier in the week she demanded that the justice officials who have been monitoring Jon Venables be sacked. Why? If Venables has indeed been accessing child pornography on the internet or whatever, what the hell can those in charge of monitoring him do about that? And, as she's fully aware, he has been recalled to custody.

 

What Mrs Fergus - and people like you - are essentially saying is that an educated person in a public position cannot make a measured statement, because it doesn't fit with the tabloid language of revenge. It's a ridiculous way to conduct a debate.

Her and Sara Payne should run the country seeing as how having murdered children makes them experts on everything.

Yes they were. Because i believe all pre-mdeditated acts where a human being is killed are murder. I'm not arguing for the very thing i'm against.

 

Well I'm sure in your peace-loving hippie lets-all-hug-everyone world you would see it that way, but like most idealistic nonsense it doesn't stand up so let's go back into the real world. You don't happen to be a vegetarian or a vegan by any chance?

 

So you've gone from avoiding the question to attacking me. Really helps your argument that.

 

You are, hence the hypocrisy you refuse to admit.

Since this idea that I'm a hypocrite only exists in your mind, there is little point debating this matter of point any further with you.

 

I'm not the only person in this thread to call your stance hypocritical

 

Do you think that if the death penalty was in force 1993 Venables and Thompson wouldn't of killed James Bulger then?

I obviously cannot answer that. If the Hillsborough disaster didn't happen, would Liverpool have won the Football League in 1989 since the players were not subject to a lot of emotional anguish regarding their club and the extension of the league season?

 

Of course you can answer it. To help you out i'll answer it from my pov then you can do the same: No i don't believe that to be true, i think that Venables and Thompson still would of killed James Bulger regardless of whther the death penalty was in practise at that point in time.

See, its easy, now you give it a try.

 

The death penalty never has and never will work as a deterrent, it will solely serve to work as a form of revenge by people too short sighted to look at the whole picture.

Works very well in Japan, a country with one of the lowest crime rates in the world and it has also worked well in SE Asia in the fight against illegal drug trafficking there. Some of the problems with the death penalty in America stem from the huge societal problems that exist there like that fact that in some communities with large Afro-American populations, a man on death row is likely to live longer than if he tries to lead a law-abiding life in his own neighbourhood. In that case, would you rather struggle with your short existence or face an eventual termination of your life with some reasonable comforts on death row for a few years?

 

So you reckon the low crime rates in Japan are down to its use of the death penalty then?

For me the death penalty needs to be reintroduced into the UK as murder rates have shot up since its abolishment and that's how it needs to be.

 

 

 

There is no hypocrisy to my stance on law & order in this country. The execution of Venables and Thompson would not be regarded as murder. Was Guy Fawkes "murdered"? Was Timothy McVeigh "murdered"?

Yes they were. Because i believe all pre-mdeditated acts where a human being is killed are murder. I'm not arguing for the very thing i'm against.

You are, hence the hypocrisy you refuse to admit. I'm against the killing of 10 year old children, and all other human beings. You are for the killing of 10 year old children as you've admitted.

Do you think that if the death penalty was in force 1993 Venables and Thompson wouldn't of killed James Bulger then?

You say the murder rate has increased in this country since its abolishment as if its the reason why and the only thing which can reverse that trend. There's plenty of US states with the death penalty which have higher murder rates than those without it.

The death penalty never has and never will work as a deterrent, it will solely serve to work as a form of revenge by people too short sighted to look at the whole picture.

I'd like you to tell me why one is pre-meditated murder of another human being and one isn't. And how you can justify the taking of a life on one hand yet say its wrong on another.

Perhaps then you could tell me the difference between Josef Fritzl locking up his daughter in a cellar for 24 years (forgetting the rape cases involved in that) and the imprisonment of Peter Sutcliffe. By your logic, because the imprisonment of Elizabeth Fritzl by her father was wrong, so to has been the imprisonment of Peter Sutcliffe. This is clearly nonsense.

 

Apply your logic to it. That the latter is fine because its legal and for the benefit of society as a whole. I'm fine with that because thats how it has to be.

But its not like Sutliffe is walking the streets and i'm claiming he should be punished by suffering the same "crime" of which he is being punished for. You're saying you want someone to be murdered, i'm not.

 

And as you have just admitted in the "should life mean life thread", why its perfectly acceptable to hang two 10 year old boys, yet completly abhorrent for anyone else to commit murder.

I do find committing pre-meditated murder abhorrent and I am sure that is the point of view of law-abiding citizens of Britain.

 

Again you haven't answered the question, why is it accpetable for two 10 year old boys to be killed when that very society is claiming that killing people is wrong. Especially killing children.

 

I find pre-meditated murder wrong yet i'm not the one saying two 10 year olds boys should be killed, you are yet you claim to be against it. And you still can't see or wont admit the hypocrisy in that.

 

I want you to explain and answer the questions rather than make reference to inbreds.

Well when you start asking stupid questions, stupid answers are a reasoned response.

 

What was that about strawman arguments you mentioned earlier.

Strawman.

 

Not in the slightest. Its a simple question based on your previous answer that a person who puts a noose around anothers neck and hangs them is ok because

 

No, because he has been given the legal sanction to do just that.

 

From that i inferred that you are ok with that case of the pre-meditated taking of a life because it was legal, feel free to correct me if i have it wrong.

 

Again based on that my hypothetical question stands : if a law was passed that allowed 10 year olds to kill 2 year olds you'd be ok with that? I assume you'd say no because you'd look beyond the legal definition and apply a moral one right?

 

I'd like to know how you would go from being against the pre-meditated taking of a life(Venables and Thompson) to against a pre-meditated taking of a life (hangman) to my hypothetical question. Which would apply then?

 

Or would there just be more hypocrisy you fail to admit?

 

If you cannot tell the difference between what Venables and Thompson did and a hangman, then I'd get the idea that your sister is your mother.

I'd like you to tell me why one is pre-meditated murder of another human being and one isn't. And how you can justify the taking of a life on one hand yet say its wrong on another.

And as you have just admitted in the "should life mean life thread", why its perfectly acceptable to hang two 10 year old boys, yet completly abhorrent for anyone else to commit murder.

I want you to explain and answer the questions rather than make reference to inbreds.

Strawman.

Not in the slightest. Its a simple question based on your previous answer that a person who puts a noose around anothers neck and hangs them is ok because

No, because he has been given the legal sanction to do just that.

From that i inferred that you are ok with that case of the pre-meditated taking of a life because it was legal, feel free to correct me if i have it wrong.

Again based on that my hypothetical question stands : if a law was passed that allowed 10 year olds to kill 2 year olds you'd be ok with that? I assume you'd say no because you'd look beyond the legal definition and apply a moral one right?

I'd like to know how you would go from being against the pre-meditated taking of a life(Venables and Thompson) to against a pre-meditated taking of a life (hangman) to my hypothetical question. Which would apply then?

Or would there just be more hypocrisy you fail to admit?

But I am not advocating the murder of a child by full grown adults. I am advocating the death penalty to be applied to the two murderers because I believe that anyone who is convicted of murder should receive the death penalty. If you set out to kill another human being then you lose the right to your own life no matter how old you are. Calling it as I see it.

Oh come on. Please tell me why the guy who puts the noose round the neck and pulls the lever hasn't just done the very thing you are against.

No, because he has been given the legal sanction to do just that.

Would you suggest that, for example, the execution of Timothy McVeigh was murder?

Hypothetically speaking, if a law was passed that allowed 10 year olds to kill 2 year olds you'd be ok with that? I assume you'd say no because you'd look beyond the legal definition and apply a moral one right?

Again, you are saying that " If you set out to kill another human being then you lose the right to your own life no matter how old you are"

How is the legally appointed executioner not doing just that?

And back to the original point, how can you on one hand condemn the pre-meditated taking of a human life and on the other support it without being drowned in hypocrisy?

Two ten year olds killing a two year old = String 'em up.

Someone (probably) in their early to mid twenties executing two ten year olds = Justice

 

Delightful hypocrisy.

I don't see it myself.

 

 

 

What do you see then? By on one hand condemning 2 human beings for the murder of a child, then on the other hand advocating the murder of a child by full grown adults.

 

Either you've got youe eyse closed or don't want to see the hypocrisy cause i fail to see how you could say there isn't any there.

 

But I am not advocating the murder of a child by full grown adults. I am advocating the death penalty to be applied to the two murderers because I believe that anyone who is convicted of murder should receive the death penalty. If you set out to kill another human being then you lose the right to your own life no matter how old you are. Calling it as I see it.

Oh come on. Please tell me why the guy who puts the noose round the neck and pulls the lever hasn't just done the very thing you are against.

[

 

Two ten year olds killing a two year old = String 'em up.

Someone (probably) in their early to mid twenties executing two ten year olds = Justice

 

Delightful hypocrisy.

I don't see it myself.

 

 

What do you see then? By on one hand condemning 2 human beings for the murder of a child, then on the other hand advocating the murder of a child by full grown adults.

Either you've got youe eyse closed or don't want to see the hypocrisy cause i fail to see how you could say there isn't any there.

Watched a film called "deadgirl" which is about 2 guys who go exploring round a disused mental hospital and discover a dead girl behind a locked door.

Except she isn't dead but is in some kind of zombiefied state. So one guy decides to use her as his own personal sex toy. As you would.

Pretty fucked up but worth a watch if you like that sort of thing.

 

Tasmin Lucia Khan - my latest newsreader crush.

 

 

Not that great a pic, but Ella Williamson from "Something for the Weekend" - The gadget girl.

 

Another one for you here:

 

 

For the love of God ! WHERE MAN WHERE !!!!

here

Horses for courses, but I really thought the post match shenanigans added to it. The bank note especially was quite insulting.

 

The fact Taker always picked the opponent up and carried them to the back whilst in the bodybag really added to his character, I thought.

 

Oh, and to revisit my original post - does anyone remember when Taker dropped the body bag gimmick? I've got a feeling it was probably around about the time he was feuding with Warrior but I can't remember.

Was it not when he turned face over the Elizabeth dealy?

 

That would probably make sense, although it might have been a bit earlier. He'd had some bodybag matches with Warrior over the summer (when he and Jake were buddies) and then went into the programme with Hogan. He might still have been doing it jobbers, but I don't think he ever did it with Hogan himself. After he turned, I'm pretty sure he didn't do it jobbers at all and only had one or two bodybag matches (if that) before the casket gimmick became his deal.

I'm sure i remember him doing in when i first started watching which was Dec 93.

Obviously though he buggered off for 6 months after the 94 rumble so was possibly doing it late 94/early 95. Although having said all that he might not of done it after every match but just on special occasions.

Why did TNA stick Cheerleader Melissa under the Raisha Saed gimmick, seems a bit of a waste when they could of got anyone to do the same job.Are there any plans for her to "unmask" and actually become her own wrestler?

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.

Anybody a fan of Dario Argento? I recorded Deep Red (Or Profondo Rosso) over Chrimbo, and watched it earlier this week. For fans of horror/psychological thriller I'd recommend it, and it was far from the schlock gorefest that I was expecting. A subtle, and properly disturbing piece, well shot and (in the main) well acted. Argento is often name-dropped by the modern cadre of horror directors, so he's worth digging out.

I've only seen two Argento's so far, Deep Red and The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (L'Uccello Dalle Piume di Cristallo) although i'm sure i've seen Tenebrae. I enjoyed Plumagge alot more than Deep Red. You are right that it's more than just a gorefest but i don't go along with some people calling a classic. Reminds me i need to see Suspiria.

The Doll coming through the door is disturbing as hell

 

Wow, it's popular so it must be good. Face facts, I don't need to step in the ring with Mike Tyson to know he's going to knock me the fuck out, and I don't need to see Ratatouille to know that it's more about making money than entertaining people.

Topical song from Daggermouth who i'm loving at the moment, Set Your Goals-esque melodic hardcore/pop punk.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/749n8x

Inspired by the SXE thread ive been listening to Throwdown so have probably one of the greatest sxe songs of all time (preceeded by one of the greatest samples from one of the greatest films of all time) followed by one of the greatest covers of all time.

Throwdown - raise your fist

Throwdown - baby got back

Great.

Did anyone else watch Psychomania on BBC2 last night. What an odd film.The leader of a biker gang called The Living Dead finds out that if you kill yourself and have the belief that you will come back to life, you will come back to eternal life. Should of been a horror film but had random bits of Benny hill-esque slapstick comedy in it, the best bit being when they terrorised a shopping precinct on their bikes chasing after mothers in short skirts with pushchairs. One biker even manged to get an ass slap in as he drove past.Strange film but very good.

Don't think anyone has mentioned This Is England. Really great film, without a fantastic ending tho. The guy who played Combo was immense!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YJUUeo1V1APossibly the funniest Family Guy scenes, ever.

For a 5MB song, it's taken me about 3 minutes for the upload.

Sendspace? Why?Seriously though, I've just had a bit of time on my hands, and have been going through the thread, only to find most of the links are now dead. Don't places like YouSendIt and MegaUpload keep them up for months?

Who is on the front cover of DVDVR 164?

Does anyone know where i can find footage of Jake Roberts debut in WCW where he came through the crowd and attacked sting giving him several ddts on a chair? I think it happened at a house show but they showed footage on worldwide, i just wandered if it was available anywhere.