Sick troll gets his comeuppance on Facebook!

LoYL

Grayson wrote: »

It could be classed as harassment under UK law.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment_in_the_United_Kingdom#Legislation

Now we're motoring.

LoYL

ScumLord wrote: »

Comedians can still make jokes that could be considered Libel and slanderous, only for the fact they're jokes.

And they can face the consequences.

ScumLord

LoYL wrote: »

And they can face the consequences.

They don't face consequences, they flaunt those laws because they're clearly joking as it's their job to make jokes about things.

AnonoBoy

LoYL wrote: »

Freedom of speech has limits. Fact.

Yup.

Shouting 'fire' in a crowded cinema? No.
Advocating violence against another race? No.
Telling jokes that are in bad taste? Eh...... yes.

LoYL wrote: »

And they can face the consequences.

Funny how nobody has ever sued Frankie Boyle then isn't it?

LoYL

ScumLord wrote: »

They don't face consequences, they flaunt those laws because they're clearly joking as it's their job to make jokes about things.

Incorrect. They may well have gotten away with things but the remedy of the law still remains open to anyone who deems themselves slandered.

There is no occupation above the law. Not the priests, not the doctors, not the politicians, not the journalists, not the developers, deep breath...not the comedians.

LAWL.:D

ScumLord

LoYL wrote: »

Incorrect. They may well have gotten away with things but the remedy of the law still remains open to anyone who deems themselves slandered.

There is no occupation above the law. Not the priests, not the doctors, not the politicians, not the journalists, not the developers, deep breath...not the comedians.

LAWL.:D

I'd like to see one example.

Einhard

Only a poor comedian would need to resort to slander to make an audience laugh. Generally, the rich and famous provide enough ammo without having to make things up about them.

There's a massive difference between slander or libel, and saying something in poor taste.

LoYL

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd like to see one example.

There doesn't have to be.

Hannibal Smith

If there's no problem in a person expressing what they think (regardless of how vile), then what's the problem with this Ben Hey guy emailing the stuff around? Surely, if what some are you are saying is valid, he'll get a pat on the back for cracking some great jokes?

He's a sick muppet and deserves all he gets.

Einhard

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

If there's no problem in a person expressing what they think (regardless of how vile), then what's the problem with this Ben Hey guy emailing the stuff around? Surely, if what some are you are saying is valid, he'll get a pat on the back for cracking some great jokes?

He's being threatened with murder by idiots who don't see that threatening such acts of violence tends to undermine their moral authority.

He's a sick muppet and deserves all he gets.

No he doesn't. It's pretty sick to state tha someone deserves to be tortured and raped and murdered for talling distasteful jokes.

LoYL

Einhard wrote: »

Only a poor comedian would need to resort to slander to make an audience laugh. Generally, the rich and famous provide enough ammo without having to make things up about them.

There's a massive difference between slander or libel, and saying something in poor taste.

Agreed. And the remedy being applied by some people is simply to amplify his comments: here they are and make up your own mind about them.

Hannibal Smith

Einhard wrote: »

He's being threatened with murder by idiots who don't see that threatening such acts of violence tends to undermine their moral authority.



No he doesn't. It's pretty sick to state tha someone deserves to be tortured and raped and murdered for talling distasteful jokes.

Did you even read what I posted? I posted in relation to the Ben Hey post and what he said. That's what what I said he deserves.

His jokes go far further than 'distasteful' and to be honest, getting on your high horse about what I said about a few emails, while simply calling yer man's comments 'distasteful' is a bit rich! Have you even read what he wrote? I very much doubt it, because if anyone read what he wrote and sat their defending him and his entitlement to write it, that is truly what's sick.

steddyeddy

Im going to have to agree with mini dazzler and say they are jokes. I dont agree with them and I think the guy who made them might have some issues-but In my view comedy is one of the arts where freedom still exists. It should stay that way too.

Casillas

LoYL wrote: »

Those jokes may well be to the detriment of society if society so decides. Humour is already regulated: look at libel laws and slander laws and anti racism laws.

Actually no, plenty of comics make controversial jokes everyday. The different is in the intention, calling for the murder of children warrants a societal response. Making a joke about the murder of children in order to gain laughs, isn't that serious, because there is no inherent intention of malice behind it. If you want laws drafted on what kind of jokes people can and can't make, then we're stepping down a bad path.

JDOC1996

Personally, I think that page is absolutely disgusting, and anybody who posts/likes that page, does so at their own peril. In this day and age, the world is connected like a cyber-village and people are aware at what can happen to them. To be honest,that sicko laid his own bed, and now he must sleep in it :P

Einhard

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

Did you even read what I posted? I posted in relation to the Ben Hey post and what he said. That's what what I said he deserves.

No, you stated that he "deserves all he gets". In relation to a person who is being threatened on that page with torture and murder. So, yes...I did read what you typed.

His jokes go far further than 'distasteful' and to be honest, getting on your
high horse about what I said about a few emails, while simply calling yer man's
comments 'distasteful' is a bit rich! Have you even read what he wrote?

I'm not on my high horse at all. I think you'll find that the people on their equine mounts are those who demand the right not to be offended, and then threaten others with physical harm for having the temerity to exercise their rights to free speech.

I very much doubt it, because if anyone read what he wrote and sat their
defending him and his entitlement to write it, that is truly what's
sick.

I'm not defending him. I am defending his entitlement to write it though. It's pretty sick actually, that after a century in which so many people died fighting for fundamental rights such as that to free speech, people like are seeking to throw back those rights, because you don't like being offended. Grow up, grow a pair, and accept that people have the right to say offensive things, and it's a good thing too, or else we'd have the morality knobs seeking to limit all our speech.

Hannibal Smith

Einhard wrote: »

No, you stated that he "deserves all he gets". In relation to a person who is being threatened on that page with torture and murder. So, yes...I did read what you typed.

No, my post was related to what Ben Hey said. You've misinterpretted what I said.

I'm not on my high horse at all. I think you'll find that the people on their equine mounts are those who demand the right not to be offended, and then threaten others with physical harm for having the temerity to exercise their rights to free speech.

Again, you misinterpretted what I said. Either way, I don't know how you can take umbrage with those threatening a guy with violence, and be okay with some one posting the stuff he posted.

I'm not defending him. I am defending his entitlement to write it though. It's pretty sick actually, that after a century in which so many people died fighting for fundamental rights such as that to free speech, people like are seeking to throw back those rights, because you don't like being offended. Grow up, grow a pair, and accept that people have the right to say offensive things, and it's a good thing too, or else we'd have the morality knobs seeking to limit all our speech.

You think that people died fighting for the fundamental right for people to say the kind of things he posted? They fought AGAINST exactly that type of mindset. People do not have the right to say exactly what they like without recompense, that's why we have terms like racism and the like. So, fair enough, muppets maybe able to say what the hell they like, but not without consequences, and he's getting his now.

You do not have the right to offend some one without that person, or some one else standing up to you.

ScumLord

LoYL wrote: »

There doesn't have to be.

Well then it's a fairy tail. You won't find an example and the day you do is the day the fascists have taken over.

theg81der

Lol if you go around posting stuff like that your opening the door to how people respond if something happens to him its on his own head and I`d feel as sorry for him as he would for others - which I would presume would be not at all.

Einhard

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

You do not have the right to offend some one without that person, or some one else standing up to you.

You do have the right to offend someone without that person attacking you. I think your views on freedom of speech is a bit warped to be honest. Many religious people are genuinely outraged and offended by blashpemous utterances which they find sick. Should they be allowed to censor those who say such things? Or is just the things that offend you that should be condemned and silenced?

Also: I did not mis-interpret you. I responded to what you wrote. If you don't want people to take your words at face value, I suggest you take more care in framing those words.

Hannibal Smith

Einhard wrote: »

You do have the right to offend someone without that person attacking you. I think your views on freedom of speech is a bit warped to be honest. Many religious people are genuinely outraged and offended by blashpemous utterances which they find sick. Should they be allowed to censor those who say such things? Or is just the things that offend you that should be condemned and silenced?

Why are you putting words into my posts that aren't there? Will you read what I posted, not what you want me to post....I said 'no one has the right to offend anyone without somebody STANDING UP TO THEM...Note: Not attack physically or beat up etc...but STANDING UP to them...ie, via the emailing threat. Are you with me now?

Again I ask, did you actually read what the 'jokes'? Yes or no? Because I'm not sure how you could compare it to blasphemy? No one has the right to offend anyone without a backlash (note: verbal not physical).

It's not me with the warped views on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever offensive thing you like, without consequence (Note: verbal not physical) which is why you can't post whatever you want on here for example, or stand on your local main street shouting all you like. A Judge apologised last week for things she said about our Polish population, offensive things she was not entitled to say.

And while you're on your soap box wailing about the freedom of speech, there is also a freedom of speech for those to speak out against things they do not like/support/are offended by.

rubberdiddies

Caliden wrote: »

What are you on about?

That's not even a direct comparison at all

It's like he said 2+2=4 and you somehow got 147.

I kinda misinterpreted the post!
My bad!
The point I was trying to make in my head came out all fuddled!

rubberdiddies

ScumLord wrote: »

rubberdiddies wrote: »

Applying that same logic to child porn, what you're saying is that so long as someone isn't actually abusing a child it's ok to look at child porn images??

How do you make child porn without abusing children?

I misinterpreted the post I was replying to and you've misinterpreted my post completely also.

Einhard

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

Why are you putting words into my posts that aren't there? Will you read what I posted, not what you want me to post....I said 'no one has the right to offend anyone without somebody STANDING UP TO THEM...Note: Not attack physically or beat up etc...but STANDING UP to them...ie, via the emailing threat. Are you with me now?

Of course people have the right to respond in a peaceful, lawful manner to that which they find offensive. In the exact same way that people have the right to offend without being put in fear for their safety, or their liberty in cases where prosecutions are sought. Unfortunately, too often feel that they have the right to meet verbal sallies with violent retribution. On that FB page, many people are threatening to exact such a response to the original "joker", and I have a problem with that. As should anyone who cares about their liberties. You then stated, quite clearly, that the guy deserved all that he got. In the context, it's entirely reasonable to assume that "all that he gets" includes such violent reactions. I accept that's not what you meant, but that is what was implied in your words.

Again I ask, did you actually read what the 'jokes'? Yes or no? Because I'm
not sure how you could compare it to blasphemy? No one has the right to offend
anyone without a backlash (note: verbal not physical).

I haven't read the jokes. But I've made and laughed at some pretty despicable jokes in my time, as I'm sure, have the vast majority of Outraged Inc fulminating on that page. I never compared the jokes to blasphemy. made the analogy that many religious people are as outraged and sickened by acts of blasphemy as you are by these jokes. Are they, by dint of their offence, entitled to seek to silent their offenders? as you and others wish to do in this instance. Do you get where I'm coming from?

It's not me with the warped views on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does
not mean you can say whatever offensive thing you like, without consequence
(Note: verbal not physical) which is why you can't post whatever you want on
here for example, or stand on your local main street shouting all you like. A
Judge apologised last week for things she said about our Polish population,
offensive things she was not entitled to say.

I'm sorry, but she was entitled to say that. Freedom of speech means that one has the right to offend, just as long as one isn't inciting hatred or violent. I think that's a pretty good compromise. The Dead Baby jokes don't incite either, so in a free, liberal society, they should of course be protected from those who wish to censor things with which they disagree.

And while you're on your soap box wailing about the freedom of speech, there is
also a freedom of speech for those to speak out against things they do not
like/support/are offended by.

Of course there is. Where have I said otherwise?

hatrickpatrick

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I could be wrong about this but I think that works of fiction and animation can be classed as child porn, so yes in the eyes of the law you can without abusing children

Well that kind of law is equally ridiculous and wrong. If nobody is being harmed directly, no crime is being committed. Real child porn inevitably involves the abuse of a real, living, human being. That's why it's wrong.

Either way, to compare viewing child porn of real children to this situation is ludicrous. If you're referring to the above works of fiction instead, they shouldn't be illegal either.

B.A._Baracus

This is a bit confusing.
So what happened?


Some guy posted alot of dead baby jokes on the facebook page of "get dead baby joke pages banned" ... and crap insued?

Hannibal Smith

Einhard wrote: »

I haven't read the jokes. But I've made and laughed at some pretty despicable jokes in my time, as I'm sure, have the vast majority of Outraged Inc fulminating on that page. I never compared the jokes to blasphemy. made the analogy that many religious people are as outraged and sickened by acts of blasphemy as you are by these jokes. Are they, by dint of their offence, entitled to seek to silent their offenders? as you and others wish to do in this instance. Do you get where I'm coming from?


I'm sorry, but she was entitled to say that. Freedom of speech means that one has the right to offend, just as long as one isn't inciting hatred or violent. I think that's a pretty good compromise. The Dead Baby jokes don't incite either, so in a free, liberal society, they should of course be protected from those who wish to censor things with which they disagree.



Of course there is. Where have I said otherwise?

You haven't read the jokes, yet you think they should be protected? And don't try and split hairs by saying, you're not defending them, you're defending the right to say them because by protecting the right to say them, you're protecting what was said.

You claim a judge has the right to say what she said about a section of society and you claim you have a stronger understanding on the right to freedom of speech? I'm happy with my interpretation and understanding of the situation and my right to protest against things which offend me and to ask those things to be removed or deleted.

So good on Ben Hey, after all, he's not posting offensive material, merely copying and pasting what was already posted.

AnonoBoy

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

You haven't read the jokes, yet you think they should be protected?

Who decides what's offensive enough to be banned from being said?

You?

Me?

The judge had every right to say what she said. But people had every right to demand an apology from her too. Nobody arrested her for saying what she said - she wasn't breaking any law so you can't say she didn't have the right to say what she said.

dirtyden

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Who decides what's offensive enough to be banned from being said?

You?

Me?

The judge had every right to say what she said. But people had every right to demand an apology from her too. Nobody arrested her for saying what she said - she wasn't breaking any law so you can't say she didn't have the right to say what she said.

That is a funny one for me. Said judge convicted a guy for a relatively innocuous comment and then made what I would consider a far more serious and wide ranging comment but seems to have done it with impunity.

Your point is a good one, who indeed does decide what is offensive and what is not. If a judge says something its fine and if a drunk says it its a crime?

On this thread the guy who posted all of those jokes designed to shock should really have been wiser. If it causes him problems he really has noone to blame bar himself. I am sure there are better places where you can share bad taste jokes than facebook. He was enjoying the shock value and it backfired on him.

Cee-Jay-Cee

I seen it my News feed a few times and there were some quite heated replies to some of the posts and some people who lost children getting very angry. There was one recently where a bereaved father offered to remove the page owner from this existence and that is when I thought that the page owner needs to shut the page down. Yes it was started as a joke but it's gone beyond that now and so it needs to go.

Trying to convince those that have suffered the death of a child that something is only a joke will never work and do the page owner should have either removed the page or made it private go only friends can see it.

Vicar in a tutu

In what twisted world is laughing at the death of a defenceless child funny?
These people are idiots that never grew up, trying to shock people..DEAD BABY LOLZ, they act like 13 year olds! in fact 13 year olds would probably have more decency. I bet these are the same spas that sit at home watching jackass all day, spoilt little peter pans imho, He deserved what he got, he obviously kept it up and up, he wrote it all over facebook also , so what did he expect?

B.A._Baracus

The link the op posted to has been deleted.
But I was looking at the actual page of http://www.facebook.com/GetDeadBabyJokesPageBanned


Who ever is behind that is such a f**king knob-end.
Yes. I dont get the jokes too. Think they are just stupid. But they are a joke! Not my sense of humor but clearly are some peoples.


But to create a fanpage to try and get those jokes banned is just mental. Sounds like its forcing their views onto others. Or perhaps this is all just one big spinner to make some money. Let the page grow then start offering "SAY NO TO DEAD BABY JOKES!" T-SHIRTS or other tat. I honestly wouldnt be suprised.

B.A._Baracus

Actually, just read this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-18559206

Shes the creator of the fanpage. Its sad. She lost her baby 24 weeks into pregnancy.


From The Telegraph:

essamy O’Neill, 22, was targeted by “trolls” — internet bullies — after posting a comment on Facebook group called Dead Baby Jokes, in which she voiced her disgust at the page. Her comment prompted a series of offensive responses, including “jokes” about Down’s syndrome and one user asking if she had dressed her dead baby in a clown suit.

Thats nasty.

Vicar in a tutu

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Actually, just read this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-18559206

Shes the creator of the fanpage. Its sad. She lost her baby 24 weeks into pregnancy.


From The Telegraph:



Thats nasty.

See, its pure nastiness, and I bet if they were confronted on the street they'd run a mile.

SweetCaliber

Vicar in a tutu wrote: »

See, its pure nastiness, and I bet if they were confronted on the street they'd run a mile.

I know yeah. As far as it goes, I cannot believe there are people on here that agree with this stuff. Shouting all this free speech jargon at us.

I have a sense of humor and admit I have laughed at things I shouldn't have before, but making a joke about a dead baby in a blender with nachos etc.. is beyond far and is plain right sick. Whoever can "laugh" at that needs to see someone quick.

Vicar in a tutu

lee3155 wrote: »

I know yeah. As far as it goes, I cannot believe there are people on here that agree with this stuff. Shouting all this free speech jargon at us.

I have a sense of humor and admit I have laughed at things I shouldn't have before, but making a joke about a dead baby in a blender with nachos etc.. is beyond far and is plain right sick. Whoever can "laugh" at that needs to see someone quick.

We've all laughed at horrible things, as for free speech.. they are actual psychopaths , if you've nothing nice to say dont say anything at all. The kinda people on my friend list on fb that enjoy these jokes are always funnily enough the spoilt little brats that have no concept of actual humour.

Cavehill Red

When did offence become the greatest sin and crime in the world?
Are we now a culture of thin skinned ninnies who run crying for mammy's apron because people said bad things or called us names?
It would certainly seem so.
Let me tell you what I find offensive - at least five sportspeople have been sent home from the Olympics simply for posting allegedly racist tweets on twitter, yet known and confirmed drug cheats like Hope Solo are greenlighted to take part in the games.
I also find it offensive that people can obtain compensation for tens of thousands because they had their feelings hurt, when compensation for losing actual body parts or suffering permanent injury is often a small fraction of that.
It's a big world with over 7 billion of us in it. We're not all going to agree on everything all of the time. Sometimes people are going to become offended by others. That can't be legislated or policed away, so we all have to accommodate one another. I reckon dead baby jokes are puerile in the extreme, but the reaction of the high and mighty moral defender is what really sickens me.
Was freedom of speech for all so easily won and of so little value that we should chuck it away like this?

SweetCaliber

Cavehill Red wrote: »

When did offence become the greatest sin and crime in the world?
Are we now a culture of thin skinned ninnies who run crying for mammy's apron because people said bad things or called us names?
It would certainly seem so.
Let me tell you what I find offensive - at least five sportspeople have been sent home from the Olympics simply for posting allegedly racist tweets on twitter, yet known and confirmed drug cheats like Hope Solo are greenlighted to take part in the games.
I also find it offensive that people can obtain compensation for tens of thousands because they had their feelings hurt, when compensation for losing actual body parts or suffering permanent injury is often a small fraction of that.
It's a big world with over 7 billion of us in it. We're not all going to agree on everything all of the time. Sometimes people are going to become offended by others. That can't be legislated or policed away, so we all have to accommodate one another. I reckon dead baby jokes are puerile in the extreme, but the reaction of the high and mighty moral defender is what really sickens me.
Was freedom of speech for all so easily won and of so little value that we should chuck it away like this?

No need to chuck it away, but seriously, have you read the jokes on the page?

I would probably get banned for posting them here because of their sexual crude vile nature.

Read them, think about your children if you have any, especially if any passed away and think again.

Vicar in a tutu

Cavehill Red wrote: »

When did offence become the greatest sin and crime in the world?
Are we now a culture of thin skinned ninnies who run crying for mammy's apron because people said bad things or called us names?
It would certainly seem so.
Let me tell you what I find offensive - at least five sportspeople have been sent home from the Olympics simply for posting allegedly racist tweets on twitter, yet known and confirmed drug cheats like Hope Solo are greenlighted to take part in the games.
I also find it offensive that people can obtain compensation for tens of thousands because they had their feelings hurt, when compensation for losing actual body parts or suffering permanent injury is often a small fraction of that.
It's a big world with over 7 billion of us in it. We're not all going to agree on everything all of the time. Sometimes people are going to become offended by others. That can't be legislated or policed away, so we all have to accommodate one another. I reckon dead baby jokes are puerile in the extreme, but the reaction of the high and mighty moral defender is what really sickens me.
Was freedom of speech for all so easily won and of so little value that we should chuck it away like this?

Half of this statement has nothing to do with dead baby jokes, High and moral defender? , what's so high about having a bit of common decency? , these jokes are extremely vile and hurtful, and god help anybody that tells them this either! as when they do they are met with a barrage of abuse about everything from their personal appearance to how these idiots would love to rape / murder / abuse their children. Immature fools.

Cavehill Red

lee3155 wrote: »

No need to chuck it away, but seriously, have you read the jokes on the page?

I would probably get banned for posting them here because of their sexual crude vile nature.

Read them, think about your children if you have any, especially if any passed away and think again.

Talk me through the problem here exactly. Is your fragile mental state somewhat at risk through exposure to puerile and crass humour? Has someone kidnapped you and chained you in front of a laptop, Clockwork Orange style, so that all you see is this single Facebook page 24/7?
Or is this something that you've gone out of your way to get upset about, making a conscious decision to go and look at something that you already have an idea will annoy you, something that clearly advertises what it is?
I don't need to 'think again'. I have children and I have suffered bereavement. I have little interest in puerile humour. Know what my solution is? I don't look at the fucking page. And if it offends you so much, why are you looking at it?

Cavehill Red

Vicar in a tutu wrote: »

Half of this statement has nothing to do with dead baby jokes, High and moral defender? , what's so high about having a bit of common decency? , these jokes are extremely vile and hurtful, and god help anybody that tells them this either! as when they do they are met with a barrage of abuse about everything from their personal appearance to how these idiots would love to rape / murder / abuse their children. Immature fools.

Who says your variant of decency is common? And how are figurative jokes hurtful, precisely?
I neither need nor want you to police the cultural output of the world I live in. If you don't like something, stop going out of your way to expose yourself to it.
(Unless, of course, like probably most of those protesting idiots, you get some of your kicks from being offended from the moral high ground.)
There are all sorts of immature fools involved in this event, from the moron who posted the jokes, to the thousands of morons getting their knickers twisted about it.
Bottom line: if you don't like it, don't seek it out.

SweetCaliber

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Talk me through the problem here exactly. Is your fragile mental state somewhat at risk through exposure to puerile and crass humour? Has someone kidnapped you and chained you in front of a laptop, Clockwork Orange style, so that all you see is this single Facebook page 24/7?
Or is this something that you've gone out of your way to get upset about, making a conscious decision to go and look at something that you already have an idea will annoy you, something that clearly advertises what it is?
I don't need to 'think again'. I have children and I have suffered bereavement. I have little interest in puerile humour. Know what my solution is? I don't look at the fucking page. And if it offends you so much, why are you looking at it?

True..

I guess I owe you an apology.

Cavehill Red

lee3155 wrote: »

True..

I guess I owe you an apology.

Of course not. You haven't offended me. And even if you had, I'm a big boy and should know by now that if something pisses me off, I should move away from it.

SweetCaliber

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Of course not. You haven't offended me. And even if you had, I'm a big boy and should know by now that if something pisses me off, I should move away from it.

Fair enough, seeing as it's 3am I'm just venting my anger :pac:

Vicar in a tutu

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Who says your variant of decency is common? And how are figurative jokes hurtful, precisely?
I neither need nor want you to police the cultural output of the world I live in. If you don't like something, stop going out of your way to expose yourself to it.
(Unless, of course, like probably most of those protesting idiots, you get some of your kicks from being offended from the moral high ground.)
There are all sorts of immature fools involved in this event, from the moron who posted the jokes, to the thousands of morons getting their knickers twisted about it.
Bottom line: if you don't like it, don't seek it out.

Yes I really seek it out when you can clearly see it on your homepage when other friends comment on it:rolleyes: I live to be offended also:pac: You really got me there!, If anyones the moron its you pal, these jokes ARE vile, these people ARE idiots, I dont appreciate them and I stand by it, and I have every right to state so, it's not hurting anyone, unlike these jokes. They are purely vicious.

Cavehill Red

Vicar in a tutu wrote: »

Yes I really seek it out when you can clearly see it on your homepage when other friends comment on it:rolleyes: I live to be offended also:pac: You really got me there!, If anyones the moron its you pal, these jokes ARE vile, these people ARE idiots, I dont appreciate them and I stand by it, and I have every right to state so, it's not hurting anyone, unlike these jokes. They are purely vicious.

I'm offended mortally by the personal abuse in the post above, and taking a leaf out of your book, I will now report you for it.

naitsirhc

MaxSteele wrote: »

It's hard to even read half of the comments posted by offended facebookers.

Half of them are either illiterate, braindead youngones or jumped up, pretentious gunts fishing for likes.

I was involved in an argument on Facebook that lasted about three hours with a woman who basically said that everyone on the page were sick and shouldn't be talking about dead babies and should have been killed as a baby. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot :rolleyes:

Facebook is great in the way where if you don't like something you can hide it from your news feed. Simple. If you don't like it, don't pay it attention, good or bad.

If the world bent to what one person thought was right, we'd all be speaking German.

Vicar in a tutu

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Vicar in a tutu wrote: »

Yes I really seek it out when you can clearly see it on your homepage when other friends comment on it:rolleyes: I live to be offended also:pac: You really got me there!, If anyones the moron its you pal, these jokes ARE vile, these people ARE idiots, I dont appreciate them and I stand by it, and I have every right to state so, it's not hurting anyone, unlike these jokes. They are purely vicious.

I'm offended mortally by the personal abuse in the post above, and taking a leaf out of your book, I will now report you for it.

my heart just snapped . also have a look through some of your own posts.. pot and kettle etc.

Cavehill Red

Vicar in a tutu wrote: »

my heart just snapped . also have a look through some of your own posts.. pot and kettle etc.

How do you mean?

tbh

Vicar in a tutu wrote: »

Yes I really seek it out when you can clearly see it on your homepage when other friends comment on it:rolleyes: I live to be offended also:pac: You really got me there!, If anyones the moron its you pal, these jokes ARE vile, these people ARE idiots, I dont appreciate them and I stand by it, and I have every right to state so, it's not hurting anyone, unlike these jokes. They are purely vicious.

I tell you what's hilarious. I would have never even heard of this page if it weren't for the foamers trying to whip up support to get it closed down.

If you don't like it, don't read it - that's your choice. I may make a different choice than you, but don't try to force your choice to apply to me too, thanks a million.