Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Man in need of treatment

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... sting.html

And yet we are told not to worry that everything is fine.

I’ve passed up on the London Pride march this year, I feel bad omens.

Andy got more than his fair share of the brains in the Kershaw family. Liz has been falling down a rabbit hole for some time. Not quite to Matt Le Tessier depths but far enough to ask if she’s ok

Do any of these right wing activists and talking heads have any joy in their lives? Gary Bushell seemed a bit of a laugh but haven’t seen him this century.

What would a wanker know about the female orgasm!

Maybe if Peterson weren't totally shit in bed his personal experience might have been different.

Squeaky Ben's thoughts on the subject have been aired in public.

Not that familiar with Petersen’s schtick but he comes across as a hard done by male cry baby that makes me yearn for John Wayne.

Youngian wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 8:26 am Not that familiar with Petersen’s schtick but he comes across as a hard done by male cry baby that makes me yearn for John Wayne.

Aristophanes, Socrates and Plato had his number over two millenia before the Internet was created.

The comic playwright Aristophanes, a contemporary of the sophists, criticized the sophists as hairsplitting wordsmiths.

Before Plato, the word "sophist" could be used as either a respectful or contemptuous title.
It was in Plato's dialogue, Sophist, that the first record of an attempt to answer the question "what is a sophist?" is made. Plato described sophists as paid hunters after the young and wealthy, as merchants of knowledge, as athletes in a contest of words, and purgers of souls.
From Plato's assessment of sophists it could be concluded that sophists do not offer true knowledge, but only an opinion of things.
Plato describes them as shadows of the true, saying, "the art of contradiction making, descended from an insincere kind of conceited mimicry, of the semblance-making breed, derived from image making, distinguished as portion, not divine but human, of production, that presents, a shadow play of words—such are the blood and the lineage which can, with perfect truth, be assigned to the authentic sophist".
Plato sought to distinguish sophists from philosophers, arguing that a sophist was a person who made his living through deception, whereas a philosopher was a lover of wisdom who sought the truth.
To give the philosophers greater credence, Plato gave the sophists a negative connotation.

So Jordan’s from the University of I Reckon. But not Oxford like this middle aged woman who’s been around the block

Surprised they got that far with "no" kidneys!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...

If you lost two turkeys on holiday in Kidney, David Quantick* has already done that one.

* Prominent comedy writer and Tweeter whose credits include Harry Hill’s TV burp and Veep.

Watchman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 5:38 pm Surprised they got that far with "no" kidneys!

Having watched Mrs. Boiler's deterioration when her kidneys shut down due to septicaemia, I'm having difficulty with the "no kidneys" thing.

Assorted drivel merchants here. Ed West is dreadful on anything to do with race and immigration, but he can make interesting points, often against his own side. But I can't imagine having any kind of discussion about history with the rest of these goons.

Tubbs - I have absolutely no idea what that post is about...

I have to say that it's easy to forget that not everyone here has a twitter account. As you can't go in as a guest to view threads, it's a bit pointless putting up a tweet which would be all someone without an account would see.

Just like putting up links, a bit of context makes all the difference. Not much, just why it's important, funny, shocking etc.

I thought everyone could see a tweet on here, even without an account? Apologies if not. The jpg with the tweet is the best thing to post. Not much context required. Does what it says on the thread title here- those on the political right (masquerading as historians). Look at that lot. Basically the Telegraph opinion page, doesn't look like even Andrew Roberts could be bothered.

I've still got no idea...

Give us some proper context.