That's the funniest thing I've read all day.
Get a life! Whoever used the word 'snowflake' wasn't far wrong!
Of course I'm not questioning the fact that it is a word that should not be used. But to call it a "horrific slur" is just a joke.
The use of the word in question is clearly not a slur - it does not insinuate or allege anything at all. It is just a word that has become inappropriate to use.an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation.
"the comments were a slur on staff at the hospital"
Splitting hairs in a dictionary definition to try and defend the indefensible is a first, even on FC.ChrisCwmbran wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:09 amOf course I'm not questioning the fact that it is a word that should not be used. But to call it a "horrific slur" is just a joke.
Do I take it that if you were to visit said base and see the word in situ that you'd cry for hours on end and be unable to sleep.
A slur:
The use of the word in question is clearly not a slur - it does not insinuate or allege anything at all. It is just a word that has become inappropriate to use.an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation.
"the comments were a slur on staff at the hospital"
And in the same way I'd suggest the use of the word "horrific" is also somewhat over the top.
Ones beliefs do not make someone a snowflake. The words they use around them do.
Pathetic, to be quite honest.
Do you have proof positive that the RAF Command reviewed this memorial ? or were they leaned on by the professionally upset brigade, We have determined it is part of history so, to use your adopted vernacular, suck it up buttercupTooks wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:16 amSplitting hairs in a dictionary definition to try and defend the indefensible is a first, even on FC.ChrisCwmbran wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:09 amOf course I'm not questioning the fact that it is a word that should not be used. But to call it a "horrific slur" is just a joke.
Do I take it that if you were to visit said base and see the word in situ that you'd cry for hours on end and be unable to sleep.
A slur:
The use of the word in question is clearly not a slur - it does not insinuate or allege anything at all. It is just a word that has become inappropriate to use.an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation.
"the comments were a slur on staff at the hospital"
And in the same way I'd suggest the use of the word "horrific" is also somewhat over the top.
Ones beliefs do not make someone a snowflake. The words they use around them do.
And quit with the snowflake comments, otherwise people will have to start using ‘gammon’.
The RAF command reviewed one of their own memorials, on RAF estate, and decided it was incompatible with the modern RAF.
They changed it.
To use familiar terms, get over it, deal with it.
Fortunately, I don’t need to suck anything up.Bobcode wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:38 pmDo you have proof positive that the RAF Command reviewed this memorial ? or were they leaned on by the professionally upset brigade, We have determined it is part of history so, to use your adopted vernacular, suck it up buttercupTooks wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:16 amSplitting hairs in a dictionary definition to try and defend the indefensible is a first, even on FC.ChrisCwmbran wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:09 am
Of course I'm not questioning the fact that it is a word that should not be used. But to call it a "horrific slur" is just a joke.
Do I take it that if you were to visit said base and see the word in situ that you'd cry for hours on end and be unable to sleep.
A slur:
The use of the word in question is clearly not a slur - it does not insinuate or allege anything at all. It is just a word that has become inappropriate to use.
And in the same way I'd suggest the use of the word "horrific" is also somewhat over the top.
Ones beliefs do not make someone a snowflake. The words they use around them do.
And quit with the snowflake comments, otherwise people will have to start using ‘gammon’.
The RAF command reviewed one of their own memorials, on RAF estate, and decided it was incompatible with the modern RAF.
They changed it.
To use familiar terms, get over it, deal with it.![]()
The word "horrific" as an adjective is defined as meaning something extremely bad and/or shocking. Not exactly sure why this would be out of place? You might wanna have a word with some people who've been on the receiving end of the word. Or even those who have been on the receiving end of slurs referring to other minority groups, like myself.ChrisCwmbran wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:09 amOf course I'm not questioning the fact that it is a word that should not be used. But to call it a "horrific slur" is just a joke.
Well I'm not changing my nameslogen51 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:38 pmIs blackcat permitted
I don't believe in white washing history - if people are offended by the grave then don't go there - but we must acknowledge that the dog's name is offensive at this point in time although I assume Gibson was using the word as a term of affection for his dog - weird to us but different days and we shall never fully understand as the past like the sins of our fathers are dead.
I wouldn't watch ITV4 tonight if I were you - they are replaying the 2003 Rugby World Cup Quarter Final between Wales and England!