Evil children: guaranteed to be evil adults or capable of changing?

david1two3

AngryBadger wrote: »

That is 100 % your interpretation of her posts, a great many people, including myself disagree with you.



...can you back this up with anything other than your poorly puntuated swamp drivel? I don't know any 10-year olds that would be capable of taking a child out onto train tracks, throwing bricks at them, shoving batteries up their anus, and then leaving them on the tracks to be hit by a train, do you?



Actually by dint of the language you chose to use your post is very much a personal attack. No-one mentioned wanting rid of you, paranoid much?



So obvious that you can't/won't cite them?



Well if I based my arguments on my own personal fantastical view of the world then it would probably be impossible for people to undermine me too.



I'm not sure what your point is here, to be fair it might not be because you don't have one, it might be because of your poor spelling, your lousy english, the fact that you seem to have something against full stops, or the fact that you (apparently) dozed off partway through a paragraph explaining how you wouldn't bother defending your points....

Which I guess would indicate that you neither there wherewithal nor the bottle to back up anything you say.

How you get rid of people is by attacking as you do ,as your name implies but it doesnt and wont work here no matter how you approach /attack it

A great may people ,including me ,hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaah

You ,of course have a lot of bottle, its a pity its empty.

A rageaholic like yourself is funny for a while and then it becomes tehedious, my english is brilliant, so much so that it has you changing toupes by the minute, I cite life as my source horse, if you get one you can too. Im begining to enjoy this as it is more obvious than at first I thought that you cant bear something about this or that or whatever, but I has hard a guess it will remain a mystery.

whatawaster

what they did was horrible, unspeakable. But they were 10 years old, and will rightly have to live with that for the rest of their lives. They deserve the chance to prove they have changed.

david1two3

Badgero,Every child you know is capable of doing this deed and stating otherwise seems to be the true source of your rage.

Can I be Byronic aswell

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Dinter wrote: »

Guarantee there'd be less crime. . .

...so would Hitler

Dinter

david1two3 wrote: »

You ,of course have a lot of bottle, its apity its empty.

A rageaholic like yourself is funny for a while and then it becomes tehedious, my english is brilliant, so much so that it has you changing toupes by the minute, I cite life as my source horse, if you get one you can too. Im begining to enjoy this as it is more obvious than at first I thought that you cant bear something about this or that or whatever, but I has hard a guess it will remain a mystery.

This is a full stop for use when you end a sentence = .

This is a comma, it is like a pause so your readers can take a breath = ,

This is an apostrophe. it takes the place of the letter you remove = '

Use a capital or big letter to begin a sentence i.e A or B or C etc.

It's considered uninformed to cite "life" as a source, except when bragging about experiences in prison.

david1two3

Dinter wrote: »

Man, you've the sort of typing, grammar and spelling skills that I'd expect to see from a person who spent his formative years in a prison or some sort of Juvenile home where school was definitely not on the agenda because it might interfere with the constant barrage of psych tests.

Oh. Wait a minute. . .

Im waiting, it may be some time if ever before I read anything from you that is A, funny, B, relevent, C, designed to harm but being so ridiculous and irelevent as to be like my hamster, dead.

Dinter

david1two3 wrote: »

Im waiting, it may be some time if ever before I read anything from you that is A, funny, B, relevent, C, designed to harm but being so ridiculous and irelevent as to be like my hamster, dead.

Now I know I've just introduced you to the wonders of the comma but you've gone a bit mad with them there. You don't need to place them after every word. Try that again and I'll correct it for you.

In the next lesson we'll try some work on your spelling perhaps?

AngryBadger

david1two3 wrote:

A rageaholic like yourself

Once again what're you basing the assertion that I'm a "rageholic" on?

david1two wrote:

tehedious

It's t e d i o u s, no "h" and just one "e"

david1two wrote:

my english is brilliant

.....

david1two wrote:

I cite life as my source horse

"life" is not a reputable source "horse". Which brings us back to the point that you have nothing upon which to base anything. Just a poor grasp of english and no grasp of punctuation.

david1two wrote:

but I has hard a guess it will remain a mystery.

You "has hard"? WTf is that?

Hrududu

And many evil children grow up to derail discussion threads so that they descend into grammar lessons and hysterics.

Nobody knows why those boys did what they did. Maybe they were sociopaths, maybe they did possess this 'evil gene' Dudess is talking about. But without knowing why they did what they did, we can't know if they could really be rehabilitated.

david1two3

Dinter wrote: »

This is a full stop for use when you end a sentence = .

This is a comma, it is like a pause so your readers can take a breath = ,

This is an apostrophe. it takes the place of the letter you remove = '

Use a capital or big letter to begin a sentence i.e A or B or C etc.

It's considered uninformed to cite "life" as a source, except when bragging about experiences in prison.

you are worse than the other two ,extremely predictable but also very boring,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Dinter

For the next class try and fill in the blanks David.


A _ P L E = It's a fruit.


B _ L L = It's a toy you might have got from Santy if you were a good boy.
.
C _ R = Your parents might have one for picking you up from school.


D _ N D I N S = What your mummy or daddy might make for you after school.


E _ G = What the Easter Bunny might bring you. It's made of yummy chocolate.


F _ Y = What Superman does.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ah, so when we can't argue a point we descend into the absurd and hide, hide, hide away with our prejudices.

I'm going home - enjoy yourselves. And post pointless insults to your hearts' content.
(And yes, the apostrophe does go after the s in "hearts", because it's plural)

Dinter

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Ah, so when we can't argue a point we descend into the absurd and hide, hide, hide away with our prejudices.

You got me.

I am prejudiced against child killers. I know they've served their time etc but if I knew them it would forever cloud my opinion of them.

I don't apologise for it. Everyone's entitled to their opinions. It's just mine are a lot more pessimistic than yours.

Dinter

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Ah, so when we can't argue a point we descend into the absurd and hide, hide, hide away with our prejudices.

I'm going home - enjoy yourselves. And post pointless insults to your hearts' content.
(And yes, the apostrophe does go after the s in "hearts", because it's plural)

I hate to do this but actually heart in this instance is singular. You're referring to each one of our hearts singularly but referring to the group of "us" (yourselves) who have them in the plural.

Or am I lying? ? ?

tech77

Dudess wrote: »

Y'see I'm wondering whether Thompson's capability of doing what he did is down to his own pathology - not being able to feel empathy when another person suffers, the "evil gene" etc (hence my use of the term "evil" to all those pedants out there). And if so, is there any way he could be rehabilitated or is he just doomed?

Man there's a fair amount of bleeding heart liberals only too willing to have a go at poor oul' Dudess.
FFS her OP isn't inflammatory, she's not rabble-rousing.
She's just posing a legitimate question.

I think the use of the word 'evil' tends to get people's back up though Dudess. So framing it in terms of empathy (for the benefit of the bleeding hearts out there) was the right move methinks. (Boils down to the same thing really though FFS)

Everyone wants to believe that society and only society is the problem.
As Dudess said they murdered (yes murdered) a kid FFS.
Your average 10 year old doesn't do that last time i checked.

So how do you account for this occurrence:
Yes of course it could be partly attributable to bad parenting etc.
But to suggest that a kid can't be antisocial and lack empathy is bull$hit.
Some people are just psychopathic- they lack empathy- it's less palatable than the societal reason sure but doesn't mean it's not true.
Admittedly personality begins to truly form in the teens but i'd say such traits could well be there from an early age in a nascent form.

How much these psychopathic traits can be reformed is, i believe, what Dudess is asking.
Good question imo.
TBH i dunno, but i'd like to think a lot can be done with rehabilitation.

the dee

This is amazingly entertaining!

tech77

Dinter wrote: »

Man, you've the sort of typing, grammar and spelling skills that I'd expect to see from a person who spent his formative years in a prison or some sort of Juvenile home where school was definitely not on the agenda because it might interfere with the constant barrage of psych tests.

Oh. Wait a minute. . .

You mean you don't like his unique, oh-so-clever, kerrazzy, punning double talk/drivel/pidgin-sh1te.
It got old after the first paragraph tbh yet he insists on using it.
:rolleyes:

I'm surprised he hasn't been banned by now.
Txt speak isn't allowed- surely this is worse than txt-speak.

Crazy Christ

Does he think's he's James Joyce or Flann O'Brien or something? It is without a doubt the biggest load of drivel I've ever seen on Boards.ie

tech77

Also what's wrong with recognising antisocial traits/ poor empathy in youngsters if those traits are there.

Why would such a notion automatically be linked to the notion of a witch-hunt.

FFS call a spade a spade and treat/rehabilitate them as best as possible.
If the tabloid readers are prone to witch-hunts that's another issue entirely.

Dudess

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

What you do NOT have the right to do is criticise someone based on one inicident some time ago when you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING.

I'm wondering whether a person who did what Thompson did is capable of changing. Big difference. I'm gonna leave Venables out of it from now on. I find myself unable to get away from the idea that if he could do that at ten, then fuk knows what he could be capable of at 25. But I'm no expert, that's why I'm putting the question out. Stop TRYING to paint me as an Evening Heralder.

Maybe I am bleeding-heart, but I'd rather that than be an evil withchunting hatemongerer.

Is that directed at me? If so, well it's a personal insult but I'll overlook it. THAT is certainly a ridiculous use of the word "evil" by the way, which was of such concern to you earlier. And can you not comprehend that there's a vast ocean between naive bleeding heart and "evil, witch-hunting hatemongerer"? Both are pretty extreme to be honest. Thankfully I inhabit neither category.

PS - what exactly is an "evil gene"? Scientifically speaking, of course?

It's just an expression referring to those individuals who have carried out heinous acts and the arguments as to whether they are actually insane or evil or if there's a difference.

david1two3 wrote: »

but to back down now or ever would be to much for her

Funny that, I distinctly remember you accusing me of "back-tracking" earlier on.

Any ten year old is capable of killing a two year old.

Were you?

I already know I dont want to know her

Based on one thread? Surely you're not THAT well versed in pop psychology that you can make such a judgement call?

david1two3 wrote: »

The idea that you think liberals have to cry is the sort of statement that stereotypes you in an hilarious but not funny fashion

Speaking of stereotyping, you come across as a typical humourless leftie who's always bitching about people being horrible yet being pretty horrible yourself. Your posts are a load of vicious babble. It's people like the person whom you come across as, that give moderate liberals (who have some semblance of reality and sense of logic) like me a bad name and make us easy targets for ridicule as "PC" etc by right-wingers. Ikky Poo2, ditto.

david1two3 wrote: »

How you get rid of people is by attacking as you do ,as your name implies but it doesnt and wont work here no matter how you approach /attack it

You're one to mouth off about "attacking".

my english is brilliant

I think people should stop making fun of your grammar and punctuation in case you are dyslexic, but your English is not "brilliant". You use lots of metaphors and write lots of long-winded, treacle-like sentences - that's not good English. E.g.

so much so that it has you changing toupes by the minute, I cite life as my source horse.

And

david1two3 wrote: »

Can I be Byronic aswell

There's a word for that... oh yeah, pretentious, that's the one. You obviously consider your intellect superior to the average one, but you didn't even recognise the massive gaping irony of one of my posts earlier so I personally wouldn't feel too threatened by your "brilliance".

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

post pointless insults to your hearts' content.

That's rich...

Susannahmia

Well I would like to believe in rehabilitation and all that jazz. However if I met Thompson and Venables now I would steer well clear. Those guys had awful childhoods and were clearly disturbed. There are such things as personality disorders which are impossible to cure. For all we know the intervention they got may have been to late to avert this. They may still be warped and I just wouldn't take the chance.

By the way Dudess I have read a bit on this case in the past and I don't think Venables is as innocent as you are making out. Thompson just got harder done by in the media imo.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/young/bulger/7.html

tech77

Crazy Christ wrote: »

Does he think's he's James Joyce or Flann O'Brien or something? It is without a doubt the biggest load of drivel I've ever seen on Boards.ie

And that's saying something.
He obviously thinks he's some kind of poet or something.

The odd use of a pun in the proper context can be thought-provoking.

But his writing just assumes this excruciating pretentiousness the more you read it, with any original substance actually sacrificed for the sake of his "style". It invariably peters out into a genuine drivel.

If you bother to read the stuff at all that is.

slipss

Evil children: guaranteed to be evil adults or capable of changing?

When I was a kid I remember blowing a frog up with a banger, i used to chop worms up and pull the legs off spiders and the wings off flies aswell and watch them wriggle about, one time I broke all of this kids fingers one by one with a big rock. I feel bad for doing those kinds of things and I wouldn't contemplate doing them now. My uncle used to go badger and fox hunting with dogs for years when he was younger but is disgusted with himself that he did that now. Obviously a million miles from the Jamie Bulger thing but but it could be argued it's the same princible. People change, kids do cruel things when they are kids but lots feel guilty about them as adults and would never do them again.

tech77

I think it's the personality disorder thing (in kids) that some people here have trouble coming to terms with.
They'd prefer to attribute everything to society.

Some people are just 'bad' (antisocial/dissocial whatever).
When the badness develops is questionable but there are such things as conduct disorders in kids, kind of the equivalent of antisocial personality/psychopathy in adults and it's not necessarily all down to bad parenting.

But just because somebody is "bad" or psychopathic doesn't mean we get the torches and pitchforks out as some here fear.
Your average tabloid-reader just needs to be educated about such nasty truths, that's all.

david1two3

The shobgites are out in force tonight and is any wonder that I think so highly of myself reading the threads of constant shiite that yous put out to "entertain yourselves with".It is almost always "evil" in its intent and goes a long way in identifying exactly what I witness .The idea that your ashamed of yourselves is reinforced by your so culled humour and as for my right to spell shiite if I want to ,yes I will continue as long as I feel like doing so .Like I said earlier you can always tell when youve`````` got to them because they attack all these imaginary traits that you have in a very unoriginal way and they have to win a situation that describes them as abatoir blouse ducking parasites on the soul of decency. Thats a great headline for your rag newds paper tomorrow. I cant help but ridicule your jaded empty rhetoric.

Black Swan

The notion that adult personalities are cast in stone when children is Freudian nonsense. Are you still your 10-year old self with a mere candy coating of adulthood, or have your markedly changed by virtue of education, mentoring, and life experiences? I'm 20 and would never go out with a 10 year old lad. Would you? But if he is 20, the assumption is that he has matured a decade more and is still not his 10 year old self in disguise?

While what these children did very young is indeed horrific (and tragic for the victims), have they not changed in over a decade? How? For better or worse? These questions should be addressed in terms of how they should be treated today by society, not what happened over a decade ago. Digging up a distant past is useful if you want to discriminate against someone and treat them accordingly, but not so if you want to evaluate them today. Change is a constant. None of us are static, unless you are dead.

The developmental psychology of Erick Erikson addresses stages in development from birth to death. They are quite significant indeed!

AngryBadger

It took you two hours to come up with that?

Susannahmia

david1two3 wrote: »

The shobgites are out in force tonight and is any wonder that I think so highly of myself reading the threads of constant shiite that yous put out to "entertain yourselves with".It is almost always "evil" in its intent and goes a long way in identifying exactly what I witness .The idea that your ashamed of yourselves is reinforced by your so culled humour and as for my right to spell shiite if I want to ,yes I will continue as long as I feel like doing so .Like I said earlier you can always tell when youve`````` got to them because they attack all these imaginary traits that you have in a very unoriginal way and they have to win a situation that describes them as abatoir blouse ducking parasites on the soul of decency. Thats a great headline for your rag newds paper tomorrow. I cant help but ridicule your jaded empty rhetoric.

You're funny coz you think you're smart.:)

Dudess

david1two3 wrote: »

reading the threads of constant shiite that yous put out to "entertain yourselves with".

Rich.

It is almost always "evil" in its intent

Rather OTT use of the word, no?

they attack all these imaginary traits that you have

Rich.

abatoir blouse ducking parasites on the soul of decency.

:rolleyes: You're like those middle-class "marxists" who look down on middle-class people.

I cant help but ridicule your jaded empty rhetoric.

Oh, speaking of "empty" are you even going to TRY to engage in the debate?

Dinter

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

The notion that adult personalities are cast in stone when children is Freudian nonsense. Are you still your 10-year old self with a mere candy coating of adulthood, or have your markedly changed by virtue of education, mentoring, and life experiences? I'm 20 and would never go out with a 10 year old lad. Would you? But if he is 20, the assumption is that he has matured a decade more and is still not his 10 year old self in disguise?

But do you think that a person who spends ten years confined in a young offender's institue, cut off from the rest of the world, is any way capable of maturing? What sort of a person would emerge from society's attempt at rehabilitation is my question? If a person goes in bad is there a guarantee he'll come out better when he spends most of his time surrounded by peers with slipped morals? For the record I don't believe either Venables or Thomson were "normal" at the time of the incident and could never be sure whether they've reformed or just gotten better at fielding psychologist's probes. Obviously we cannot keep them jailed for ever but I do think a chance was taken unless particularly stringent conditions were attached to their release.

By the way David1two3, shouldn't you be in bed by now? Look at the time. (See where the big and little hands are and try and work it out.)

Dudess

david1two3 wrote: »

Any ten year old is capable of killing a two year old.

When I was 10 my teacher read an article out in class about an institution for handicapped children in the Philippines where widespread abuses were carried out. Several of us were crying afterwards, a number of us had nightmares for weeks after, and eventually some parents had a word with the teacher for telling us stories we really didn't need to know at such a young age.

You seem to have a rather skewed outlook.

Crazy Christ

Dudess wrote: »

When I was 10 my teacher read an article out in class about an institution for handicapped children in the Philippines where widespread abuses were carried out. Several of us were crying afterwards, a number of us had nightmares for weeks after, and eventually some parents had a word with the teacher for telling us stories we really didn't need to know at such a young age.

You seem to have a rather skewed outlook.

Can you elaborate? I am genuinely interested, ignore the troll-like username..

Dudess

I'm trying to make the point that "any ten-year-old" is NOT capable of killing a two-year-old.

david1two3

Dudess wrote: »

When I was 10 my teacher read an article out in class about an institution for handicapped children in the Philippines where widespread abuses were carried out. Several of us were crying afterwards, a number of us had nightmares for weeks after, and eventually some parents had a word with the teacher for telling us stories we really didn't need to know at such a young age.

You seem to have a rather skewed outlook.

You are demonstrating a great inability, along with the sangria badger and possibly others, to grasp an obvious point, all ten year olds are capable of killing a two year old. You refuse point blank to accept this and wheel in another pointless story about when you were ten and then you think I have a skewed outlook, you must be very dense or are you using some miracle system for protecting yourself from unsavoury truths. But hold on, the two lads are evil so its only switched on when it suits you.

Dudess

Ok, since you haven't done it so far: care to explain how it is that all ten-year-olds are capable of the calculated and particularly gruesome murder of a two-year-old?
Edit: *sings* I'm wAAAAAAITing!

david1two3 wrote:

You...wheel in another pointless story

"Another" one? Where is/are the one(s) before it?

Crazy Christ

david1two3 wrote: »

You are demonstrating a great inability, along with the sangria badger and possibly others, to grasp an obvious point, all ten year olds are capable of killing a two year old. You refuse point blank to accept this and wheel in another pointless story about when you were ten and then you think I have a skewed outlook, you must be very dense or are you using some miracle system for protecting yourself from unsavoury truths. But hold on, the two lads are evil so its only switched on when it suits you.

You can argue that any ten year old boy or girl is capable of killing...Isn't that obvious? I am capable of going out tonight and killing a toddler, so are you.
Everyone everywhere is capable of anything. How does that mean that you are not permitted to pass judgment on somebody who crosses the line of mere capability into actual actions? Has it got to the stage where anybody who commits a crime, however serious, is exempt from being judged, simply because it is completely possible that anyone of us could have done the same? Of course any one of us could have killed a toddler at the age of ten. The fact remains, however, that these two young men did. Are you seriously suggesting that we are barred from a judgment of them?

Latchy

There can be no doubt that those two boys were evil .Anybody who thinks different is imo seriously lacking in understanding evil or the concept .
Being rehabilitated is one thing but they went to hell as soon as they carried out the henious crime .

Just as some adults carry out there criminal acts for real so to can children, except the latter has more awareness of the consequences of his/her actions .Did Venables and thomson show real remorse for their actions ? Did Ian Huntley ?.

Huntleys only concern is that he got caught and is locked up for life .He has shown very little or no remorse at all . A Thoroughly evil and dispicable man .

Kinetic^

Dudess wrote: »

Heh, you were attacking me for being PC before, I suppose you'll have to change your abuse tactics now.

What you talkin bout willis??

david1two3

Dudess wrote: »

Rich.

Rather OTT use of the word, no?

Rich.

:rolleyes: You're like those middle-class "marxists" who look down on middle-class people.

Oh, speaking of "empty" are you even going to TRY to engage in the debate?

Debate with you, the brain dead got a head start when it came to not having to think and it would seem that you are a loss leader on that front but no I wouldnt have much interest in your idiotic views on anything. As for my ability to write , pun, joke or otherwise, but especially my having no sense of humour, well your collective numbscullery would preclude anything other than a straight forward idiot cull but as wishes dont always come true on the first go. Whatever Im like, Im not like you and that is brilliant, just like my writing. The whole crux seems to be stemming from your blinkered view of what you or any other ten year old child is capable of doing and is very interesting as a study in blinky thinking. As for bothering to read what I write, well you have done so, so much so that your all bothered. Your line by line dissection of my SACRED SCRIPTURE is bordering on devout, if hatred can so described, God less you as any more would be enough to bury my quill till we get someone capable of reasoned thought.

Kinetic^

david1two3 wrote: »

Debate with you, the brain dead got a head start when it came to not having to think and it would seem that you are a loss leader on that front but no I wouldnt have much interest in your idiotic views on anything. As for my ability to write , pun, joke or otherwise, but especially my having no sense of humour, well your collective numbscullery would preclude anything other than a straight forward idiot cull but as wishes dont always come true on the first go. Whatever Im like, Im not like you and that is brilliant, just like my writing. The whole crux seems to be stemming from your blinkered view of what you or any other ten year old child is capable of doing and is very interesting as a study in blinky thinking. As for bothering to read what I write, well you have done so, so much so that your all bothered. Your line by line dissection of my SACRED SCRIPTURE is bordering on devout, if hatred can so described, God less you as any more would be enough to bury my quill till we get someone capable of reasoned thought.

Please remove yourself from the interweb.

david1two3

Dudess wrote: »

Ok, since you haven't done it so far: care to explain how it is that all ten-year-olds are capable of the calculated and particularly gruesome murder of a two-year-old?
Edit: *sings* I'm wAAAAAAITing!

"Another" one? Where is/are the one(s) before it?

all of them so far.

Latchy

Why do some people on some threads always feel like they have to intellectualise everything when a simple analysis is all that's needed ?

david1two3

Kenny 5 wrote: »

Please remove yourself from the interweb.

**** off noddy

Dinter

david1two3 wrote: »

**** off noddy

I think baby needs some more Calpol.

david1two3

Crazy Christ wrote: »

You can argue that any ten year old boy or girl is capable of killing...Isn't that obvious? I am capable of going out tonight and killing a toddler, so are you.
Everyone everywhere is capable of anything. How does that mean that you are not permitted to pass judgment on somebody who crosses the line of mere capability into actual actions? Has it got to the stage where anybody who commits a crime, however serious, is exempt from being judged, simply because it is completely possible that anyone of us could have done the same? Of course any one of us could have killed a toddler at the age of ten. The fact remains, however, that these two young men did. Are you seriously suggesting that we are barred from a judgment of them?

of course any of us...that took a while didnt it, but it doesnt stop me from seeing you as a clue less ****.

david1two3

latchyco wrote: »

Why do some people on some threads always feel like they have to intellectualise everything when a simple analysis is all that's needed ?

You as a simpleton will fit that niche quite well.

Latchy

david1two3 wrote: »

You as a simpleton will fit that niche quite well.

You lost the plot before **** off noddy , need i say more Dhati ?:p

david1two3

latchyco wrote: »

There can be no doubt that those two boys were evil .Anybody who thinks different is imo seriously lacking in understanding evil or the concept .
Being rehabilitated is one thing but they went to hell as soon as they carried out the henious crime .

Just as some adults carry out there criminal acts for real so to can children, except the latter has more awareness of the consequences of his/her actions .Did Venables and thomson show real remorse for their actions ? Did Ian Huntley ?.

Huntleys only concern is that he got caught and is locked up for life .He has shown very little or no remorse at all . A Thoroughly evil and dispicable man .

There can be no doubt..............., a noddy statement if there ever was one and there was.The whole thread is full of knocked up noddies.

Red Hand

It's Enid Blyton hour here in this thread...

Dinter

david1two3 wrote: »

You as a simpleton will fit that niche quite well.

It's a veritable honour to see such biting wit and savage wordplay as displayed throughout your posts. Your use of multi syllable words must make you the envy of all the other first class children.

Are you sure your mommy or daddy aren't helping you now?

That's kind of cheating though don't you think?