Dignity
in [Celtic]
|
From: Angof on 24 Feb 2007 07:45 (o: wrote: > On 24 Feb, 10:36, "Angof" <Mailfalg...(a)yahoo.co.uk(no need for Mail)> > wrote: >> (o: wrote: >>> On 24 Feb, 09:42, "Angof" <Mailfalg...(a)yahoo.co.uk(no need for >>> Mail)> wrote: >>>> (o: wrote: >>>>> On 23 Feb, 22:28, "Angof" <Mailfalg...(a)yahoo.co.uk(no need for >>>>> Mail)> wrote: >>>>>> sme wrote: >>>>>>> "(o:" <glesgab...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in >>>>>>> news:1172268141.749781.214160(a)k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> >>>>>>> << snipped >> >> >>>>>>>>> Well basically I said something that one idiot 'moderator' >>>>>>>>> thought was a Tim on the wind up. I'd said much worse on many >>>>>>>>> occasions in the past. >> >>>>>>>> i think your a tim, so blame me :-) you would not be my >>>>>>>> first.or my last. >> >>>>>>> lmao. You're admitting to being the idiot moderator??? You >>>>>>> accuse everyone of being a tim who isn't as fucked up as you >>>>>>> are! >> >>>>>> That about sums him up. Him and his ever shrinking bunch of >>>>>> cronies are convinced that anyone who doesn't agree with them is >>>>>> a 'Timmy'. It's quite sad really. >> >>>>> nothing to do with agreeing, you dont get banned for debating your >>>>> point, you do for calling other users scum. >> >>>> I never called other users scum though Einstein. >> >>> you called bears scum the other day, you just called them morons, >>> you sir are an idiot. >> >> LOL...getting called an idiot by Jim...oh the shame! Get it into >> that thick skull off yours...I didn't call anyone scum on FF to get >> banned or anyone morons for that matter....do-you-un-der-stand? > > > i dont care what you say you didnt do on FF ... So why are you saying 'you get banned for calling other users scum' scum?
From: (o: on 24 Feb 2007 11:31 On 24 Feb, 12:45, "Angof" <Mailfalg...(a)yahoo.co.uk(no need for Mail)> wrote: > (o: wrote: > > On 24 Feb, 10:36, "Angof" <Mailfalg...(a)yahoo.co.uk(no need for Mail)> > > wrote: > >> (o: wrote: > >>> On 24 Feb, 09:42, "Angof" <Mailfalg...(a)yahoo.co.uk(no need for > >>> Mail)> wrote: > >>>> (o: wrote: > >>>>> On 23 Feb, 22:28, "Angof" <Mailfalg...(a)yahoo.co.uk(no need for > >>>>> Mail)> wrote: > >>>>>> sme wrote: > >>>>>>> "(o:" <glesgab...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in > >>>>>>>news:1172268141.749781.214160(a)k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > >>>>>>> << snipped >> > > >>>>>>>>> Well basically I said something that one idiot 'moderator' > >>>>>>>>> thought was a Tim on the wind up. I'd said much worse on many > >>>>>>>>> occasions in the past. > > >>>>>>>> i think your a tim, so blame me :-) you would not be my > >>>>>>>> first.or my last. > > >>>>>>> lmao. You're admitting to being the idiot moderator??? You > >>>>>>> accuse everyone of being a tim who isn't as fucked up as you > >>>>>>> are! > > >>>>>> That about sums him up. Him and his ever shrinking bunch of > >>>>>> cronies are convinced that anyone who doesn't agree with them is > >>>>>> a 'Timmy'. It's quite sad really. > > >>>>> nothing to do with agreeing, you dont get banned for debating your > >>>>> point, you do for calling other users scum. > > >>>> I never called other users scum though Einstein. > > >>> you called bears scum the other day, you just called them morons, > >>> you sir are an idiot. > > >> LOL...getting called an idiot by Jim...oh the shame! Get it into > >> that thick skull off yours...I didn't call anyone scum on FF to get > >> banned or anyone morons for that matter....do-you-un-der-stand? > > > i dont care what you say you didnt do on FF ... > > So why are you saying 'you get banned for calling other users scum' scum? I said you would get banned.
From: (o: on 24 Feb 2007 12:19 On 24 Feb, 17:03, ZB <z...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > In article <1172309564.226130.221...(a)s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, (o: > blurted... > > > On 24 Feb, 00:56, "Angof" <Mailfalg...(a)yahoo.co.uk(no need for Mail)> > > wrote: > > > > Just a bit. Jim probably thinks it's heinous though. > > > Now maybe if you had shared your crime with the rest of the bears > > instead of mailing timmy, we could have decided for our selves, but > > instead you would rather ask the Mope's what they think as they would > > agree with you anyway. > > > never mind angof, maybe the next time you will read the rules, which > > apply to all users, not just Timmy > > Fuxake, I wish you were a parody of a human being, but there really are > quite a lot of people out there who divide the world into "bears" and > "timmy". I can understand plooky 17 year olds doing it, but it's > disturbing to see a grown man with views like you. which part of ALL USERS didnt you understand?
From: (o: on 24 Feb 2007 13:38 On 24 Feb, 17:36, "liam*" <l...(a)TISCALI.is.ok> wrote: Page 18 of Bill Murray's 'Glasgow's giants: 100 years of the Old Firm' The formation of Glasgow Celtic [was] the brainchild of the Marist Brother Walfrid, who saw in football and its popularity a means for him and the catholic community fulfilling the twin aims of his mission: feeding the poor of the East End of Glasgow and keeping them out of the clutches of protestantism. A catholic football team would occupy young lads in their leisure time and the revenue from the games would go to help feed the poor of one of the most depressed areas in a vast industrial city not unknown for its poverty. On both accounts the team conceived by Brother Walfrid... was a great success. Below is an excerpt from "The Old Firm" by Bill Murray. The Celtic Football Club was founded for and by catholics, and although it has never been exclusively catholic, it remains a catholic club. It recognises Ireland as the country of its spiritual origins, and although today it has lost all formal contacts with Irish politics, in its early days it was closely associated with the fight for Irish Home Rule. Today the club remains proud of its Irish origins. It is well known that one of the reasons brother Walfrid, a Marist brother, sought the formation of a catholic football team was to help feed and clothe the poor of the parishes where he worked. But as well as concern for the suffering poor, brother Walfrid was also prompted by a fear that protestant soup kitchens might tempt young catholics into apostasy. Moreover he was equally worried about the dangers of young catholics meeting protestants in their place of employment or leisure, particularly during the years after leaving school which he considered the most dangerous as far as "religious duties" were concerned. A catholic football club then, could serve the dual purpose of easing the pain in starving stomachs at the same time as it kept young catholics together in their leisure time, free from the temptations of protestants and protestantism. The aims off his helpers may have been more prosaic, but when the circular announcing the formation of a catholic club in the East End of Glasgow was circulated in January 1888, its religious foundations were stressed.
From: liam* on 24 Feb 2007 14:28
"(o:" wrote > On 24 Feb, 17:36, "liam*" <l...(a)TISCALI.is.ok> wrote: > Page 18 of Bill Murray's 'Glasgow's giants: 100 years of the Old Firm' > > The formation of Glasgow Celtic [was] the brainchild of the Marist > Brother Walfrid, who saw in football and its popularity a means for > him and the catholic community fulfilling the twin aims of his > mission: feeding the poor of the East End of Glasgow and keeping them > out of the clutches of protestantism. A catholic football team would > occupy young lads in their leisure time and the revenue from the games > would go to help feed the poor of one of the most depressed areas in a > vast industrial city not unknown for its poverty. On both accounts the > team conceived by Brother Walfrid... was a great success. > > Below is an excerpt from "The Old Firm" by Bill Murray. > > The Celtic Football Club was founded for and by catholics, and > although it has never been exclusively catholic, it remains a catholic > club. It recognises Ireland as the country of its spiritual origins, > and although today it has lost all formal contacts with Irish > politics, in its early days it was closely associated with the fight > for Irish Home Rule. Today the club remains proud of its Irish > origins. > It is well known that one of the reasons brother Walfrid, a Marist > brother, sought the formation of a catholic football team was to help > feed and clothe the poor of the parishes where he worked. But as well > as concern for the suffering poor, brother Walfrid was also prompted > by a fear that protestant soup kitchens might tempt young catholics > into apostasy. Moreover he was equally worried about the dangers of > young catholics meeting protestants in their place of employment or > leisure, particularly during the years after leaving school which he > considered the most dangerous as far as "religious duties" were > concerned. A catholic football club then, could serve the dual purpose > of easing the pain in starving stomachs at the same time as it kept > young catholics together in their leisure time, free from the > temptations of protestants and protestantism. The aims off his helpers > may have been more prosaic, but when the circular announcing the > formation of a catholic club in the East End of Glasgow was circulated > in January 1888, its religious foundations were stressed. How is this evidence that you are a T-word? You feeling OK Jim? |