Page 4 of 5

Re: Tear jerker.

Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:13 pm
by Harbal
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I don't like mysteries. It's jolly good. Might even go viral. :wink:
I hope not, I feel sure I must have infringed something or other when I did it.

Re: Tear jerker.

Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:03 pm
by A_Seagull
Harbal wrote:
BradburyPound wrote: The song at the top of the thread is not sentimental, it is the embodiment of an ideological evil that has oppressed millions of people for two thousand years. It is an attempt to co-opt a person's natural tendency to familial loyalty for the purpose of social and political control.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself trying to defend this vile propaganda.
Lighten up Bradbury and get yourself a sense of humour.
But isn't the essence of what Bradbury said, why you find it so funny?

Re: Tear jerker.

Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:05 pm
by vegetariantaxidermy
Harbal wrote:
BradburyPound wrote: The song at the top of the thread is not sentimental, it is the embodiment of an ideological evil that has oppressed millions of people for two thousand years. It is an attempt to co-opt a person's natural tendency to familial loyalty for the purpose of social and political control.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself trying to defend this vile propaganda.
Lighten up Bradbury and get yourself a sense of humour.
I thought it showed either a very sophisticated sense of humour, or none. Either way it was quite true.

Re: Tear jerker.

Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:13 pm
by Harbal
A_Seagull wrote: But isn't the essence of what Bradbury said, why you find it so funny?
I find it funny because the perpetrators of it were serious. The fact that Bradbury takes it seriously, albeit for different reasons, indicates that he's a fool.

Re: Tear jerker.

Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:35 pm
by BradburyPound
Harbal wrote:
BradburyPound wrote: The song at the top of the thread is not sentimental, it is the embodiment of an ideological evil that has oppressed millions of people for two thousand years. It is an attempt to co-opt a person's natural tendency to familial loyalty for the purpose of social and political control.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself trying to defend this vile propaganda.
Lighten up Bradbury and get yourself a sense of humour.

A sense of humour is more than having a funny avatar and putting an Xmas hat on it.

If I were you I'd just keep doing your "elocution" lessons. Don't forget your Kleenex.

Re: Tear jerker.

Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:38 pm
by Harbal
BradburyPound wrote:
A sense of humour is more than having a funny avatar and putting an Xmas hat on it.

If I were you I'd just keep doing your "elocution" lessons. Don't forget your Kleenex.
Sorry, Bradbury, I didn't realise you were listening. :)

Re: Tear jerker.

Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:52 pm
by BradburyPound
Harbal wrote:
BradburyPound wrote:
A sense of humour is more than having a funny avatar and putting an Xmas hat on it.

If I were you I'd just keep doing your "elocution" lessons. Don't forget your Kleenex.
Sorry, Bradbury, I didn't realise you were listening. :)
Just a guess.

Re: Tear jerker.

Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:19 pm
by Harbal
A bit late for Christmas but it's the thought that counts.

https://youtu.be/GAH_1tAf9fU

Re: Tear jerker.

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:00 am
by vegetariantaxidermy
Harbal wrote:A bit late for Christmas but it's the thought that counts.

https://youtu.be/GAH_1tAf9fU
I love that song. Who are the 'singers'? Shane MacGowan is looking as if this was his last christmas. :(

Re: Tear jerker.

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:55 pm
by Harbal
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I love that song. Who are the 'singers'?
I don't think they have names, they're artificial voices (ipad app).
. Shane MacGowan is looking as if this was his last christmas.
He hasn't exactly looked a picture of health for along time.

Re: Tear jerker.

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:24 pm
by vegetariantaxidermy
Harbal wrote:
I don't think they have names, they're artificial voices (ipad app).
Hmm. I thought I recognised one of them. :)
Harbal wrote:
He hasn't exactly looked a picture of health for along time.
He looks even worse now.

Re: Tear jerker.

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:38 pm
by Harbal
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: He looks even worse now.
I've just googled him and you're right, he does look pretty bad. Why can't we all just reach our peak and stay there?

Re: Tear jerker.

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:42 pm
by vegetariantaxidermy
Harbal wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: He looks even worse now.
I've just googled him and you're right, he does look pretty bad. Why can't we all just reach our peak and stay there?
That would be nice. If you could just press a button at the point at which you are most satisfied with yourself, then pop off when it suits you.

Re: Tear jerker.

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:22 pm
by Harbal
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: That would be nice. If you could just press a button at the point at which you are most satisfied with yourself,
I don't think that would have worked with me. I remember being in my mid thirties and feeling like I was over the hill, I certainly wouldn't have pressed the button then. Now, looking back, that's the age I would fix myself at. I think some of us are never happy with what we are.

Re: Tear jerker.

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:24 pm
by vegetariantaxidermy
Harbal wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: That would be nice. If you could just press a button at the point at which you are most satisfied with yourself,
I don't think that would have worked with me. I remember being in my mid thirties and feeling like I was over the hill, I certainly wouldn't have pressed the button then. Now, looking back, that's the age I would fix myself at. I think some of us are never happy with what we are.
Mid thirties for me too. I seemed to be most comfortable in my skin at that time.