Scottish Independence Referendum 2

[frankie_mac's_4]

Keech Richards

[Simply Red]

Armitage Shanks & Bigfoot

 

[frankie_mac's_4]

Stoolio Iglesias 

[Guest milne_afc]

Slippery Balloon Knot

[Guest milne_afc]

Frank Sidebottom

[frankie_mac's_4]

Shittle Richard

[aberdeen1970]

Pop Will Shit Itself 

[frankie_mac's_4]

Eric Crapton

[maryhilldon]

Rancid Vicious 

[WesthillWanderersFC]

The Skids 

[WesthillWanderersFC]

The Nappy Mondays 

[WesthillWanderersFC]

The Average Shite Band 

[WesthillWanderersFC]

Brown Eyed Peas 

[Jocky Balboa]

@The Boofon

@Henry

Four pages of faeces obsession, completely unrelated to the topic at hand, yet you both deride me and call me the intellectually challenged one, for mocking a few parasitic politicians. I rest my fucking case! ??

[Parklife]

John Pisscott

[maryhilldon]

Super Slurry Animals. 

[Parklife]

21 minutes ago, Jocky Balboa said:

@The Boofon

@Henry

Four pages of faeces obsession, completely unrelated to the topic at hand, yet you both deride me and call me the intellectually challenged one, for mocking a few parasitic politicians. I rest my fucking case! ??

I think you come across as intelligent and someone who's able to articulate your points really well.

I do think, as I've said several times, that you give people the easy opportunity to ignore your points and mock the immature nonsense like "Krankie McMerkle" or "Peter Wetfart" that you insist on using. 

Each to their own but if you really wanted a debate, I don't see why you'd cheapen your own argument and give people the chance to descend it in to nonsense. 

[maryhilldon]

1 minute ago, Parklife said:

I think you come across as intelligent and someone who's able to articulate your points really well.

I do think, as I've said several times, that you give people the easy opportunity to ignore your points and mock the immature nonsense like "Krankie McMerkle" or "Peter Wetfart" that you insist on using. 

Each to their own but if you really wanted a debate, I don't see why you'd cheapen your own argument and give people the chance to descent it in to nonsense. 

He's got a point Jocky,  you can't deride folk for being infantile if you call people Wetfart.  

[Reed or deed]

Snoop doggy log

[Reed or deed]

The hoop dragons

[maryhilldon]

Brotherhood Of Manure

[caledonia]

46 minutes ago, maryhilldon said:

He's got a point Jocky,  you can't deride folk for being infantile if you call people Wetfart.  

Pete Wetfart was in Runrig so goes along with the other faeces posts

[Jocky Balboa]

1 hour ago, Parklife said:

I think you come across as intelligent and someone who's able to articulate your points really well.

I do think, as I've said several times, that you give people the easy opportunity to ignore your points and mock the immature nonsense like "Krankie McMerkle" or "Peter Wetfart" that you insist on using. 

Each to their own but if you really wanted a debate, I don't see why you'd cheapen your own argument and give people the chance to descend it in to nonsense. 

 

1 hour ago, maryhilldon said:

He's got a point Jocky,  you can't deride folk for being infantile if you call people Wetfart.  

Gents, I take your points, but what I'm getting at is the double standards being applied by some. For all my flaws (admittedly many, like most mortal beings) I at least make the effort to contribute to debates. Conversely, many others do nothing of the kind and add nothing of substance, yet their juvenile obsession with issues such as soiling oneself whilst inebriated, or starting fights a la football hooliganism, attract no such derision from same moral guardians. 

Consistency is key. Until then, I reserve the right to mock politicians who are chancers, wage thieves and downright dishonest ne'er-do-well types, regardless of their party affiliation.

[Don Fonte]

5 hours ago, Jocky Balboa said:

 

Gents, I take your points, but what I'm getting at is the double standards being applied by some. For all my flaws (admittedly many, like most mortal beings) I at least make the effort to contribute to debates. Conversely, many others do nothing of the kind and add nothing of substance, yet their juvenile obsession with issues such as soiling oneself whilst inebriated, or starting fights a la football hooliganism, attract no such derision from same moral guardians. 

Consistency is key. Until then, I reserve the right to mock politicians who are chancers, wage thieves and downright dishonest ne'er-do-well types, regardless of their party affiliation.

Shut the fuck up.

[maryhilldon]

10 minutes ago, Don Fonte said:

Shut the fuck up.

^  cans 

[BrianFaePerth]

Scatman John

[Reed or deed]

9 hours ago, frankie_mac's_4 said:

Stoolio Iglesias 

 

8 hours ago, frankie_mac's_4 said:

Shittle Richard

Ha ha

[alscotoz]

6 hours ago, Jocky Balboa said:

 

Gents, I take your points, but what I'm getting at is the double standards being applied by some. For all my flaws (admittedly many, like most mortal beings) I at least make the effort to contribute to debates. Conversely, many others do nothing of the kind and add nothing of substance, yet their juvenile obsession with issues such as soiling oneself whilst inebriated, or starting fights a la football hooliganism, attract no such derision from same moral guardians. 

Consistency is key. Until then, I reserve the right to mock politicians who are chancers, wage thieves and downright dishonest ne'er-do-well types, regardless of their party affiliation.

Wrong thread

[maryhilldon]

4 minutes ago, Reed or deed said:

 

Ha ha

Seriously?  You single out pretty much the two worst examples!? 

[alscotoz]

1 minute ago, maryhilldon said:

Seriously?  You single out pretty much the two worst examples!? 

MHD are you up early or late?