ForumGarden

As many of you are aware, the gladiator games were common back when Roman empire existed. But when christianity came, it eventually led to the games being banned.

The question is, should this sport be resurrected?

I believe it should. There are enough crazy serial killers and rapists that everyone hates, and they could be trained to die in the arena. As a punishment for causing these games to be banned in the first place, I further suggest we seek out all christians and throw them to the lions. i hope you share my viewpoint, but it's okay if you don't (But please offer some arguments instead of just labeling me crazy).

Better yet why don't we just throw you to the Lions.

[quote=joona;1242399]

The question is, should this sport be resurrected?



More killing desensitizes us further. In case your unaware thats a bad thing. I imagine your sitting in your chair thinking "what an odd thing to say...why is killing a bad thing?"

Well lets try to imagine a crazy person has captured you, bound you to a table. As the crazy killer slowly plunges a large dagger into your belly he explains the reason hes doing it is because you like kittens, or perhaps its random, luck of the draw. Maybe hes killing you because you say stupid things or because your a Jew or work at Wal Mart. Sit back close your eyes and really try to get in touch with how that would feel to you.

Now with your very best effort putting all your brain power into a jet propelled super frenzy explain to me how more killing is a good thing.

joona;1242399 wrote: As many of you are aware, the gladiator games were common back when Roman empire existed. But when christianity came, it eventually led to the games being banned.

The question is, should this sport be resurrected?

I believe it should. There are enough crazy serial killers and rapists that everyone hates, and they could be trained to die in the arena. As a punishment for causing these games to be banned in the first place, I further suggest we seek out all christians and throw them to the lions. i hope you share my viewpoint, but it's okay if you don't (But please offer some arguments instead of just labeling me crazy).
Good question Joona. Unfortunately, my concern would be to the animals. many many exotics such as Panthers and Puma's were used in the Roman arena's and the animals were either badly injured or slaughtered after their usage. In present times when such species are dwindling in numbers and with animal rights legislation, the idea is impracticle. However, serial murderers and child molesters is another thing. Maybe the return of the public guillitine would be far more effective?

No way, killing human beings in this way, is not my idea of fun or entertaining.

Mind you I have dealt with the scum of the earth, murderers, rapist, paedophiles etc.. I have very strong views as to what i would like their demise to be.

Although you make an excellent point and offer a creative way to dispose of the scum of our society, gladiator games have seen their time and are gone forever.

However, we now have a new 21st century game called 'reality TV shows', where people enter arenas before the public to be either loved or destroyed.

mikeinie;1242442 wrote: Although you make an excellent point and offer a creative way to dispose of the scum of our society, gladiator games have seen their time and are gone forever.

However, we now have a new 21st century game called 'reality TV shows', where people enter arenas before the public to be either loved or destroyed.


Good analagy Mike.

oscar;1242433 wrote: Good question Joona. Unfortunately, my concern would be to the animals. many many exotics such as Panthers and Puma's were used in the Roman arena's and the animals were either badly injured or slaughtered after their usage. In present times when such species are dwindling in numbers and with animal rights legislation, the idea is impracticle. However, serial murderers and child molesters is another thing. Maybe the return of the public guillitine would be far more effective?


very well put.

I'd be all for it for certain criminal types. IF you substitute liberals for Christians and leave animals out of it, I'd say let's go.

hoppy;1242457 wrote: I'd be all for it for certain criminal types. IF you substitute liberals for Christians and leave animals out of it, I'd say let's go.


Liberals are people who believe in liberty and will fight for it-it has the same linguistic root in case you were unaware. The first people all would be dictators such as hitler and stalin, khomeni, musharif, mogabe etc etc lock up and try and silence are the liberals because they are the most dangerous. Think about it-you live in a liberal democracy where individual liberty and freedom of speech are enshrined in your constitution those are basic liberal values that you tamper with at your peril. If there is ever a fascist or a communist takeover in america they will have to have found some way to silence the liberals-but they will never silence them for long, liberals always win.

posted by joona

As many of you are aware, the gladiator games were common back when Roman empire existed. But when christianity came, it eventually led to the games being banned.




Actually it was the pagan invaders of rome that ended them not the christians.

I think that all nasty criminals and anyone who is, in my opinion, a stupid supporter of the wrong political party, is a lazy layabout, a clueless loser, a wanker or I just don't like the look of much.... should be removed. A tastefully designed target should be stapled to their forehead (or in the case of sexual predators to their goolies) and they should be released into a clearly designated game reserve. Gun totin hunters* may apply to my people for a license to kill, and enjoy some sport - while doing a great public service. They will be allowed to keep souvenir body parts for mounting on their pool room walls.

Application forms may be obtained from my usual Cayman Islands offices.

*It's been pointed out that I appear to have omitted bowhunters. Mea culpa. As a longbow totin warrior woman myself, it was just a little oversight. Of course bowhunters will be WELCOME!

gmc;1242503 wrote: Liberals are people who believe in liberty and will fight for it-it has the same linguistic root in case you were unaware. The first people all would be dictators such as hitler and stalin, khomeni, musharif, mogabe etc etc lock up and try and silence are the liberals because they are the most dangerous. Think about it-you live in a liberal democracy where individual liberty and freedom of speech are enshrined in your constitution those are basic liberal values that you tamper with at your peril. If there is ever a fascist or a communist takeover in america they will have to have found some way to silence the liberals-but they will never silence them for long, liberals always win.

posted by joona



Actually it was the pagan invaders of rome that ended them not the christians.


Yeah, liberals are dangerous, if you are an unborn child and bible believing Christian.

hoppy;1242457 wrote: I'd be all for it for certain criminal types. IF you substitute liberals for Christians and leave animals out of it, I'd say let's go.


If I was certain that you weren't serious I'd laugh at the joke.

Bryn Mawr;1242661 wrote: If I was certain that you weren't serious I'd laugh at the joke.


Over here, liberals are guilty of all sorts of evilness and much hated by many conservative Republicans and Christians..

We call it Monday Night Football here............................

hoppy;1242776 wrote: Over here, liberals are guilty of all sorts of evilness and much hated by many conservative Republicans and Christians..


And republicans are whiter than white and responsible for no evil?

Bryn Mawr;1242834 wrote: And republicans are whiter than white and responsible for no evil?


I didn't say any one side was less guilty. Libs no doubt hate republican/conservative/christians as well. Being raised as a God fearing, freedom loving, gun toting, christian conservative, I consider libs as a natural enemy. Kinda like dogs and cats.

Yes, hatred is common.

But hatred and Christianity in the same breath - even proudly linked - I find that hard to reconcile.

Should gladiator games be brought back? I'm going to vote NO and go play somewhere else.

AussiePam;1242876 wrote: Yes, hatred is common.

But hatred and Christianity in the same breath - even proudly linked - I find that hard to reconcile.

Should gladiator games be brought back? I'm going to vote NO and go play somewhere else.


Christians hate sin. The link is, people, especially libs, sin, IMHO.

hoppy;1242862 wrote: I didn't say any one side was less guilty. Libs no doubt hate republican/conservative/christians as well. Being raised as a God fearing, freedom loving, gun toting, christian conservative, I consider libs as a natural enemy. Kinda like dogs and cats.


Thanks to liberals you can worship at any church you want, if it was up to Christians?-well too bad if you were the wrong kind of christian because there are some would burn down your church and throw you on to as a heretic in order to save your soul.

Christian conservative?is that some kind of new weird protestant sect?

Jesus was the original hippie you know, loving everybody no matter who they were (in a non sexual manner of course) , forgiving all these sinners and all, if he came back they'd hate his guts for being too liberal and tolerant of people who were different. The republicans wouldn't like him either I suspect-wasn't he the one that took a whip to the money lenders? Bet a few of your countrymen would approve of that one.:sneaky:come to think of it so would I.

God fearing-wasn't the god to be feared the one in the old testament that pre-dates the loving one in the new?

I'm just so pleased that Joona has finally got some serious debate on his threads.

gmc;1242944 wrote: Thanks to liberals you can worship at any church you want, if it was up to Christians?-well too bad if you were the wrong kind of christian because there are some would burn down your church and throw you on to as a heretic in order to save your soul.

Christian conservative?is that some kind of new weird protestant sect?

Jesus was the original hippie you know, loving everybody no matter who they were (in a non sexual manner of course) , forgiving all these sinners and all, if he came back they'd hate his guts for being too liberal and tolerant of people who were different. The republicans wouldn't like him either I suspect-wasn't he the one that took a whip to the money lenders? Bet a few of your countrymen would approve of that one.:sneaky:come to think of it so would I.

God fearing-wasn't the god to be feared the one in the old testament that pre-dates the loving one in the new?


How do you know what Jesus was or wasn't? The evidence he even existed is pretty scant. Written up many years after he was said to have been executed. Was he real? Or an invention to give life to a new religion?

hoppy;1242994 wrote: How do you know what Jesus was or wasn't? The evidence he even existed is pretty scant. Written up many years after he was said to have been executed. Was he real? Or an invention to give life to a new religion?


How do you know what jesus was or wasn't? Such a question has been the cause of many wars between christian sects. If the early church had kept to the practice of circumcision would it have caught on in quite the same way? Was it god telling them to forego the practice or did the early churchgoers realise it was a big turn off and quietly dropped it.

You're the one claiming to be a christian are you now saying you are not? Are you a christian that rejects all the bits of his message that call for tolerance and compassion. Does his reality or not make his message any less valid and if Jesus Christ is the New Covenant, rendering all of the Old Testament null and void why do so many burn again christians reject his teachings and latch on to the eye for an eye message of the old?

hoppy;1242994 wrote: How do you know what Jesus was or wasn't? The evidence he even existed is pretty scant. Written up many years after he was said to have been executed. Was he real? Or an invention to give life to a new religion?


If that is your response then how are you a Christian - don't you believe in the bible?

Bryn Mawr;1243045 wrote: If that is your response then how are you a Christian - don't you believe in the bible?


GMC made claims about what Jesus was. I'm merely questioning his sources. I believe mother Teresa struggled with these things too. So, was she not a christian?

hoppy;1243105 wrote: GMC made claims about what Jesus was. I'm merely questioning his sources. I believe mother Teresa struggled with these things too. So, was she not a christian?


His source was, quite evidently, the Bible.

Bryn Mawr;1243108 wrote: His source was, quite evidently, the Bible.


GMC said: God fearing-wasn't the god to be feared the one in the old testament that pre-dates the loving one in the new?

So, is there now two gods in heaven? Or, did the new "hippie" god kill the old god? What?

hoppy;1243112 wrote: GMC said: God fearing-wasn't the god to be feared the one in the old testament that pre-dates the loving one in the new?

So, is there now two gods in heaven? Or, did the new "hippie" god kill the old god? What?


Back to the debate over fulfilling the law eh

Obviously not two Gods in heaven but Jesus Christ was very specific in his injunctions about love and toleration and claimed that his teachings fulfilled the law of the Old testament.

I certainly believe that the New Testament takes precedence over the Old - much of which was a history of the people and reflected their pre-Christian existence and much of which is the book of Jewish law and reflects their beliefs.

We are Christians? Then the word of Christ is paramount and that is the New Testament.

If I were going to create a new political party, I would follow Jesus's example.

hoppy;1243105 wrote: GMC made claims about what Jesus was. I'm merely questioning his sources. I believe mother Teresa struggled with these things too. So, was she not a christian?


The bible-and no i can't quote you chapter and verse, besides you should have read it yourself. Did he not preach about loving our fellows and forgiveness? The compassionate god of the new testament is very different from the vindictive almost sadistic god of the old testament. Which takes precedence?

posted by hoppy

So, is there now two gods in heaven? Or, did the new "hippie" god kill the old god? What?


That's for you to decide not for someone to tell you. Though be careful as being a freethinker can get you thrown out your church, some sects don't like people thinking their own thoughts.

It's a portrayal of jesus I use sometimes to annoy my more fundamentalist acquaintances (I'm not actually trying to annoy you by the way just provoke discussion) -he probably wore sandals and had long hair as well. Dangerous practice actually, some religious groups are remarkably prone to violence. It's a way of making someone disposed to judge on appearances and make moral judgements of someone's lifestyle think about it. JC seems to have gone out of his way to not judge people-or at least some of hos parables suggested that you shouldn't be quick to judge.

GMC posted- Jesus was the original hippie you know, loving everybody no matter who they were (in a non sexual manner of course) , forgiving all these sinners and all, if he came back they'd hate his guts for being too liberal and tolerant of people who were different. The republicans wouldn't like him either I suspect-wasn't he the one that took a whip to the money lenders? Bet a few of your countrymen would approve of that one.come to think of it so would I.

God fearing-wasn't the god to be feared the one in the old testament that pre-dates the loving one in the new?-

You call Jesus a liberal? Libs support abortion. Knowing how God and Jesus felt about children, I don't think You'd get much support for abortion from Jesus. Libs are rabidly pro gun control. I can provide a passage or two that shows Jesus wasn't so inclined.

And, your last passage above speaks of a changed god in the new testament. Explain this then. In the Old Testament, the prophet Malachi records God's words this way: "For I am the Lord, I do not change" (Malachi 3:6).

Now, I am not inclined to think there's a God, but I couldn't help but notice this discussion about him seemingly being different in the two testaments. But is this really such a great contradiction? Could it not be that (assuming God really exists) he simply revealed himself in a different way to the old and the new testament people? Could it perhaps be that he adapts his teachings to fit the current consciousness of human beings? If so, it's possible that the ancient hebrews needed to be given an image of this judgemental being in the sky in order to make them follow his law, but later about 2000 years ago they were ready to accept a more love-based message. Just something to think about...

hoppy;1243452 wrote: GMC posted- Jesus was the original hippie you know, loving everybody no matter who they were (in a non sexual manner of course) , forgiving all these sinners and all, if he came back they'd hate his guts for being too liberal and tolerant of people who were different. The republicans wouldn't like him either I suspect-wasn't he the one that took a whip to the money lenders? Bet a few of your countrymen would approve of that one.come to think of it so would I.

God fearing-wasn't the god to be feared the one in the old testament that pre-dates the loving one in the new?-

You call Jesus a liberal? Libs support abortion. Knowing how God and Jesus felt about children, I don't think You'd get much support for abortion from Jesus. Libs are rabidly pro gun control. I can provide a passage or two that shows Jesus wasn't so inclined.

And, your last passage above speaks of a changed god in the new testament. Explain this then. In the Old Testament, the prophet Malachi records God's words this way: "For I am the Lord, I do not change" (Malachi 3:6).


Just for you I looked it up in an american english dictionary

liberal - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

* Main Entry: 1lib·er·al

* Pronunciation: ˈli-b(ə-)rəl

* Function: adjective

* Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free

* Date: 14th century

1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth

2 a : marked by generosity : openhanded b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c : ample, full

3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious

4 : not literal or strict : loose

5 : broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

— lib·er·al·ly -b(ə-)rə-lē adverb

— lib·er·al·ness noun

synonyms liberal, generous, bountiful, munificent mean giving or given freely and unstintingly. liberal suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given . generous stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift . bountiful suggests lavish, unremitting giving or providing . munificent suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or princes .




* Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism

* Pronunciation: ˈli-b(ə-)rə-ˌli-zəm

* Function: noun

* Date: 1819

1 : the quality or state of being liberal

2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class) d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party


or if you prefer the original 1828 version

Search => [word] => liberal :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

Of a free heart; free to give or bestow; not close or contracted; munificent; bountiful; generous; giving largely; as a liberal donor; the liberal founders of a college or hospital. It expresses less than profuse or extravagant.

2. Generous; ample; large; as a liberal donation; a liberal allowance.

3. Not selfish, narrow on contracted; catholic; enlarged; embracing other interests than one's own; as liberal sentiments or views; a liberal mind; liberal policy.


On balance I would say Jesus is a liberal- but not the perversion of the meaning that seems prevalent in some sectors of the american media. You live in a country founded on liberal principles what's happened that ou seem to have forgotten?

posted by hoppy

And, your last passage above speaks of a changed god in the new testament. Explain this then. In the Old Testament, the prophet Malachi records God's words this way: "For I am the Lord, I do not change"


What makes you think those are god's words? If you believe them then you do not believe the message of jesus christ, that he was not the son of god and did not speak for him. therefore presumably you are not a christian. As it happens neither am I nor do I believe the words of the bible are those of god. If you use the king james version then you are using the translation authorised by a gay scotsman. Which fact also annoys the bible thumpers when you point it out to them. -at least the ones over here.

But you need to make up your own mind about these things,not being religious I feel no compunction to try and persuade you to my point of view although i have no objection to discussing it. also being of a liberal disposition I do however believe you have a right to worship as you please and believe what you want just so long as you leave others alone to do the same.

I hope you appreciate I am not just trying to wind you up here

Back to my original post. If it were up to me, I'd STILL toss libs into the arena. At least liberal politicians, lib lawyers and lib teachers. If ya keep pushing me I'll include gays and atheists.

joona;1242399 wrote: As many of you are aware, the gladiator games were common back when Roman empire existed. But when christianity came, it eventually led to the games being banned.

The question is, should this sport be resurrected?

I believe it should. There are enough crazy serial killers and rapists that everyone hates, and they could be trained to die in the arena. As a punishment for causing these games to be banned in the first place, I further suggest we seek out all christians and throw them to the lions. i hope you share my viewpoint, but it's okay if you don't (But please offer some arguments instead of just labeling me crazy).


Perhaps, but... how entertaining do you believe it will be for an audience to see a serial killer vs. a rapist? It will all be over before the rapist can even get their pants unzipped! :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

G-man;1243620 wrote: Perhaps, but... how entertaining do you believe it will be for an audience to see a serial killer vs. a rapist? It will all be over before the rapist can even get their pants unzipped! :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
:yh_rotflNow that right there is funny..

hoppy;1243452 wrote:

You call Jesus a liberal? Libs support abortion. Knowing how God and Jesus felt about children, I don't think You'd get much support for abortion from Jesus.


When Jesus confronted the woman who had committed adultery, he did not condone the adultery. He did however caution other people to throw stones only if they were without sin. He wasn't espousing a person's "right" to commit adultery, in fact he told the woman to go and sin no more. It was about compassion, not visceral hatred, not vengeance.



hoppy;1243452 wrote: And, your last passage above speaks of a changed god in the new testament. Explain this then. In the Old Testament, the prophet Malachi records God's words this way: "For I am the Lord, I do not change" (Malachi 3:6).


I have no problem with that bit of Old Testament inspiration. That God hasn't changed. Our human understanding of God seems however to have grown since several thousand years BC - culminating in the New Testament revelations about Jesus, and Christians would probably add - continuing through the workings of the Holy Spirit.



joona wrote: Now, I am not inclined to think there's a God, but I couldn't help but notice this discussion about him seemingly being different in the two testaments. But is this really such a great contradiction? Could it not be that (assuming God really exists) he simply revealed himself in a different way to the old and the new testament people? Could it perhaps be that he adapts his teachings to fit the current consciousness of human beings? If so, it's possible that the ancient hebrews needed to be given an image of this judgemental being in the sky in order to make them follow his law, but later about 2000 years ago they were ready to accept a more love-based message. Just something to think about...




Yes on the argument, if not on the first sentence.

hoppy;1243616 wrote: Back to my original post. If it were up to me, I'd STILL toss libs into the arena. At least liberal politicians, lib lawyers and lib teachers. If ya keep pushing me I'll include gays and atheists.


OK so long as you throw christian fundamentalists and republicans in as opponents as well.

The fundamentalists would soon be fighting amongst themselves as to who had the right tactics-the right way to proceed and the right way to ask for god's help. The republicans having appropriated all the weapons for themselves while no one was paying attention to them will be asking what collateral the others have before they let them rent the weapons back at a usurious rate.

Meanwhile the liberals having settled their differences amicably and elected someone to lead share their resources, unite and beat he crap out of the fundamentalist and republicans who still haven't worked out what is going on. Betrayed by their god the fundamentalists turn even more extreme , blame the Republicans and start setting fire to them.

gmc;1243831 wrote: OK so long as you throw christian fundamentalists and republicans in as opponents as well.

The fundamentalists would soon be fighting amongst themselves as to who had the right tactics-the right way to proceed and the right way to ask for god's help. The republicans having appropriated all the weapons for themselves while no one was paying attention to them will be asking what collateral the others have before they let them rent the weapons back at a usurious rate.

Meanwhile the liberals having settled their differences amicably and elected someone to lead share their resources, unite and beat he crap out of the fundamentalist and republicans who still haven't worked out what is going on. Betrayed by their god the fundamentalists turn even more extreme , blame the Republicans and start setting fire to them.


While the rapist and the serial murderer decide they are in love and go off hand in hand into the sunset...

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

AussiePam;1243834 wrote: While the rapist and the serial murderer decide they are in love and go off hand in hand into the sunset...

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl


In that case, it would be necessary to bring in the hungry lions that I didn't want to use.

hoppy;1243860 wrote: In that case, it would be necessary to bring in the hungry lions that I didn't want to use.


But then PETA would be after you for giving indigestion to endangered species.:sneaky:

gmc;1243965 wrote: But then PETA would be after you for giving indigestion to endangered species.:sneaky:


I'd wrap 'em in bacon and toss 'em in the arena too. Half starved lions and tigers and pumas, oh my. Human bodies being pulled apart. The sound of bones being crunched, the smell of blood. The thought of it takes me back to a previous life as animal caretaker for the colosseum in Rome.

gmc;1243831 wrote: blame the Republicans and start setting fire to them.


I like it.

I have some ideas we should discuss concerning accelerants

Nomad;1244201 wrote: I like it.

I have some ideas we should discuss concerning accelerants


Too quick a death. I like pouring melted lead into eye sockets and navals. The crowd at the colosseum used to go wild when we did that.

hoppy;1243616 wrote: Back to my original post. If it were up to me, I'd STILL toss libs into the arena. At least liberal politicians, lib lawyers and lib teachers. If ya keep pushing me I'll include gays and atheists.


Then I'd say you were as barbaric as the Romans.

But I was happy. :yh_rotfl

But I was happy.


I was interested to see Joona display some human qualities.

But Hoppy, ole thing, in Roman terms you are just a barbarus and not really human. Your opinion does not count in Roman terms....

Puzzled. You've just declared yourself a Concentration Camp guard...

You cannot have meant this in real terms. It's a bad time for Americans to joke about this.

You rule the world. Make it mean something fast, or we'll all be speaking chinese in a decade. When I consider the incompetentBushsludge Obama has to deal with, there's no chance.

Tell me I'm wrong. Please.

Clodhopper;1244619 wrote: I was interested to see Joona display some human qualities.

But Hoppy, ole thing, in Roman terms you are just a barbarus and not really human. Your opinion does not count in Roman terms....

Puzzled. You've just declared yourself a Concentration Camp guard...

You cannot have meant this in real terms. It's a bad time for Americans to joke about this.

You rule the world. Make it mean something fast, or we'll all be speaking chinese in a decade. When I consider the incompetentBushsludge Obama has to deal with, there's no chance.

Tell me I'm wrong. Please.


Oh, for sh!t sake.:-5 I considered this whole thread a joke thread. Not to be taken seriously. What-in-hell's the matter with you guys? Farmer Giles understands jokes. What happened to the rest of you, that everything has to be dead freaking serious?

hoppy;1244623 wrote: Oh, for sh!t sake.:-5 I considered this whole thread a joke thread. Not to be taken seriously. What-in-hell's the matter with you guys? Farmer Giles understands jokes. What happened to the rest of you, that everything has to be dead freaking serious?


No, you're right. Sorry.

Oh man, this whole Brit/American thing has upset me.

Look, you guys are just fantastic. You come out with things that scare me sideways and don't seem to have a clue as to why, but you are the people we can talk to. I love America and hate it that you guys seem to despise us to the extent that you write us out of your history. When the most generous people in the world treat you like **** IT HURTS.

Ouch.

Relax. I tend to see humor in everything. Even when I shouldn't.