In article ,
The Real Doctor wrote:

On 27/08/11 20:02, The Iron Jelloid wrote:
o I'm afraid you'll have to accept that
"gay" stopped having "bright and cheerful" as its primary meaning almost
half a century ago.

It is depressing but predictable that those who moan about the new
meaning of "gay" rarely if ever complain that "faggot" should still mean
"bundle of wood" ...

Right. It should mean a spiced meatball.

... and that "queer" should still mean "odd".

"Queer" doesn't seem to have had its former meaning quite so overtaken
by the sexual revolution, or perhaps it's just become less popular than
"gay". It doesn't sound entirely bizarre to heard something like "now
that's very queer".

Sam

In message
, Sam
Wilson writes

"Queer" doesn't seem to have had its former meaning quite so overtaken
by the sexual revolution, or perhaps it's just become less popular than
"gay".

Fashions change. Those that know their E F Benson will recall that in
the 1920s the expression was "quaint". (As in Quaint Irene, with her
boyish face, Eton crop and alluring breeches).
--
Paul Terry

In article ,
Paul Terry wrote:

In message
, Sam
Wilson writes

"Queer" doesn't seem to have had its former meaning quite so overtaken
by the sexual revolution, or perhaps it's just become less popular than
"gay".

Fashions change. Those that know their E F Benson will recall that in
the 1920s the expression was "quaint". (As in Quaint Irene, with her
boyish face, Eton crop and alluring breeches).

That's one I wasn't aware of - I'll read vintage literature with a new
eye from now on.

Sam

Once upon a time, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 27/08/2011 19:21, The Iron Jelloid wrote:

Suppose a serial killer started to kill people, and it was eventually
proven that the only common link between the murders was that all the
victims had been active posters on uk.railway. Wouldn't you find that a
little bit alarming, assuming you'd not yet been one of the victims and
the killer was still at large? I certainly would.

You've not noticed the absence of some previously regular posters, then?
Mwahahaha.

fx: Hastily purchases one used secret bunker, with just one careful
Libyan owner and a full service history. And it's own railway.

--
- The Iron Jelloid

On 03/09/2011 02:46, The Iron Jelloid wrote:
Once upon a time, Arthur wrote:
On 27/08/2011 19:21, The Iron Jelloid wrote:

Suppose a serial killer started to kill people, and it was eventually
proven that the only common link between the murders was that all the
victims had been active posters on uk.railway. Wouldn't you find that a
little bit alarming, assuming you'd not yet been one of the victims and
the killer was still at large? I certainly would.

You've not noticed the absence of some previously regular posters, then?
Mwahahaha.

fx: Hastily purchases one used secret bunker, with just one careful
Libyan owner and a full service history. And it's own railway.



From what I have read most of his now have good ventilation in the roof.

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:12:45 -0700 (PDT), 1506 wrote:

On Aug 25, 1:29*pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" wrote:
In message
,

1506 wrote:
If I am mugged it is a crime. *If a homosexual is mugged it is a hate
crime.

False.

If a homosexual is mugged *because* she is homosexual, it is a hate
crime. If she is mugged because some low-life wants cash for his drug
habit, it is not a hate crime, just a crime.

When something happens to these people the usual assumptin is that it
happened because they are homosexual.

This is only the usual assumption among people who routinely regard others
not as unique individuals entitled to equal consideration, but as
undifferentiated members of a group which they can label (often with a
label that has - in the eyes of the labeller - negative overtones).

The act of giving someone such a group-label always reveals the prejudice
of the person doing the labelling, and hardly ever adds any valid and
useful information about the individual who is being labelled.

See, e.g.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14679657

On Aug 28, 1:18*am, Nick wrote:
On Aug 27, 5:27*pm, wrote:





On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:03:47 +0100

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\08\26 20:51, Arthur Figgis wrote:

I suspect most of the Mail and Guardian journalists could switch papers
and re-slant their stories to suit the different audience with ease.

Melanie Phillips did just such a switch, although switching from left to
right with increasing age is probably normal, as Churchill suggested.

Not surprising really. The older you get the more you see how the world
really works and gain a better understanding of human nature and peoples real
motivations. Idealism rarely survives a long term encounter with life.

B2003

I have to say, I find that profoundly depressing. If anything, one
would expect that encounters with hard times in adult life, when it's
your responsibility - not anyone else's - to pay the bills, and if you
can't, life becomes difficult - would swing people leftwards. A little
over 20 years into adult life and I still have no inclination
whatsoever to vote Conservative or become either a social or an
economic conservative, or both - and I doubt I will even in my fifties
and beyond.

In any case, generally western society'smoralshave- generally, with
some exceptions, improved with time, (one has only got to go back to
the Victorian era,

You are kidding, right?

or the feudal system to see that that is so) though
in my lifetime it appears to have flatlined rather - so I think there
is a general tendency in the human race to want to improve things.

Nick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -