Page 1 of 21 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 404

Thread: One for Barry

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gold Coast, Austra
    Posts
    2,345
    Rep Power
    11

    One for Barry

    My son loves this clip...

    YouTube - Religion - Marcus Brigstocke

    I find it very funny, coz it is so true (IMHO).

    Anyone find it not funny? If so why?

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Waltham Abbey
    Posts
    5,534
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: One for Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin View Post
    Anyone find it not funny?
    Yes it was funny...especially these bits.

    "Stop pretending you're celibate to cover up the fact that you are gay or a nonse"

    &

    Regarding the girl who took her school to court so she could wear a ring with Jesus written on it to prove she was a virgin and staying true to Jesus.

    "If you want to wear a ring that tells everyone you are not having sex, you can get married like the rest of us"

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin View Post
    If so why?
    I've always likes Marcus Brigstocke. His stand up routines are always very well observed and well delivered.

    With regard to what he said, I don't think I'm giving any secrets away by saying to everything he said.

    I wish he was on the forum.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gold Coast, Austra
    Posts
    2,345
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: One for Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Trouble View Post
    I wish he was on the forum.
    I think he would be banned within one day - coz he sais it straight.

    So often I am tempted... and with a dry sence of humour, there will always be one or two with a centre parting, banging thier drum!! Then it takes time to explain etc.etc. blah blah... it was not about you... hey, it was humour... big hug for you ... etc...

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: One for Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin View Post
    My son loves this clip...

    YouTube - Religion - Marcus Brigstocke
    As a regular listener to The NOW show on radio 4, not only have I heard this routine before, I heard it when it was very first broadcast. Listened to all his spots on the show, and also his earlier solo show, Giles Wemmbley-Hogg (er...investigates, or sounds off, or something).

  5. #5
    Commercial Operator StokeBloke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Stoke-on-Trent
    Posts
    2,366
    Rep Power
    10

    Cool Re: One for Barry

    Well shhhhh... don't let Barry see this.
    Last edited by StokeBloke; 30th-June-2009 at 03:11 PM.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Belfast, NI
    Posts
    1,220
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: One for Barry

    Would now be a bad time to mention I'm a Christian?

    I actually thought it was a funny clip despite one or two sentences, but then that sort of viewpoint is so widely held that I'm used to hearing it. Faith is a bit like aviation in the whole global warming dispute - it gets picked on because it's an easy target despite not actually being anything like the primary contributor to the problem. The problem isn't religion, it's people. Cultures where the people are religious suffer no more or less violence IMHO than cultures where they're not - it just gets blamed on religion because it's easier than facing up to what human nature really is, with or without any sort of faith.

    I know full well I'm going to get the usual gamut of sneering responses. Fill yer boots.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gold Coast, Austra
    Posts
    2,345
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: One for Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by CheesyRobMan View Post
    Would now be a bad time to mention I'm a Christian?

    I actually thought it was a funny clip despite one or two sentences, but then that sort of viewpoint is so widely held that I'm used to hearing it. Faith is a bit like aviation in the whole global warming dispute - it gets picked on because it's an easy target despite not actually being anything like the primary contributor to the problem. The problem isn't religion, it's people. Cultures where the people are religious suffer no more or less violence IMHO than cultures where they're not - it just gets blamed on religion because it's easier than facing up to what human nature really is, with or without any sort of faith.

    I know full well I'm going to get the usual gamut of sneering responses. Fill yer boots.
    No sneering here.

    I can see one or two sentances were a bit over the the line - but you need to cross the line to understand where the line is..

    Unfortunately human nature is tribal - which then comes down to defence of the tribe, or expansion of the tribe.

    When the tribe, becomes a religious tribe, it can be bigger than defined geographical areas or race...

    The oxymoron, is that religion promotes peace and love (or so some think), but war and killing, is so often the outcome... Maybe that does come back to the basics of human nature.

  8. #8
    Commercial Operator StokeBloke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Stoke-on-Trent
    Posts
    2,366
    Rep Power
    10

    Cool Re: One for Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by CheesyRobMan View Post
    Would now be a bad time to mention I'm a Christian?

    I actually thought it was a funny clip despite one or two sentences, but then that sort of viewpoint is so widely held that I'm used to hearing it. Faith is a bit like aviation in the whole global warming dispute - it gets picked on because it's an easy target despite not actually being anything like the primary contributor to the problem. The problem isn't religion, it's people. Cultures where the people are religious suffer no more or less violence IMHO than cultures where they're not - it just gets blamed on religion because it's easier than facing up to what human nature really is, with or without any sort of faith.

    I know full well I'm going to get the usual gamut of sneering responses. Fill yer boots.
    No sneering here. We can have different ideas and beliefs without coming to blows over it

    I saw it and thought that in much the same way we are often exposed to the ideas of religion, it was fair enough to hear those of someone who holds a different opinion. If someone's faith is strong, then it wouldn't be shaken by the rantings of this young man after all.

    I thought he put forward a fairly good case for non-religious views. It's hard to say that the faith and beliefs of people are not effecting the majority of the world's population. Non-believers are drawn into religious fights and he's basically saying that there are many people who find that is not right. As for any parts being 'over the line' - I didn't feel any of his points were outrageous. Maybe worded for comedic effect, but on the whole he was putting forward ideas that thousands of people share, but are too frightened to verbalise.

    As Dave Allen used to say... may your God be with you.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: One for Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by CheesyRobMan View Post
    Would now be a bad time to mention I'm a Christian?

    I actually thought it was a funny clip despite one or two sentences, but then that sort of viewpoint is so widely held that I'm used to hearing it. Faith is a bit like aviation in the whole global warming dispute - it gets picked on because it's an easy target despite not actually being anything like the primary contributor to the problem. The problem isn't religion, it's people. Cultures where the people are religious suffer no more or less violence IMHO than cultures where they're not - it just gets blamed on religion because it's easier than facing up to what human nature really is, with or without any sort of faith.

    I know full well I'm going to get the usual gamut of sneering responses. Fill yer boots.
    Brigstock was not setting out a reasoned argument, but a polemic designed to generate laughs. Of course it was over the line.

    The problem, although religious people don't recognise it, is religion, and not people.

    Religion promotes a credulous world-view, one which makes people prone to a way of conducting themselves that abrogates personal responsibility. Many believers rise above that, and take personal responsibility anyway; but that is despite their religion, and not because of it. Other believers simply follow the rules, believing that they can depend on other people and ancient writings to tell them how to behave.

    Thus those who in Africa promote the catholic faith must also fulminate against the use of condoms, although many [if not all] of them must know that in doing so they are helping to spread AIDS and poverty caused by overpopulation. Any non-religious person of adequate education would never, never do such a thing, because it is so obviously and self-evidently wrong. (So would many religious people, obviously, if not of the catholic faith.)

    As for saying religion is an easy target - have you any idea how powerful churches are? Religion is only an easy target in the same way that America is an easy target. It might be a large target, and easy to hit; but attacking it can be dangerous and it's almost impossible to throw damage points.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Belfast, NI
    Posts
    1,220
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: One for Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by StokeBloke View Post
    It's hard to say that the faith and beliefs of people are not effecting the majority of the world's population. Non-believers are drawn into religious fights and he's basically saying that there are many people who find that is not right.
    Quite true, but that is not exclusive to religion. Nationalism, economics, and plain old fear draw people into fights just as effectively by giving rational sane human beings a reason to go to war that they wouldn't otherwise have. In most cases as with so-called religious conflicts, the problem is a few charismatic nutjobs persuading large numbers of people that the rightness of their cause (be that faith, territory, oil, whatever) requires the invasion, conquering or even extermination of another group of people. If I can risk invoking Godwin's Law and subsequent Modly wrath, here's a quote from Hermann Goering (yes, that one) that sums it up quite well:

    "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

    Religion provides a unifying and emotionally involving platform for such large-scale manipulation in many cases, among other things as I've mentioned. However even a quick look into the basic principles of almost any faith will show you that violence in the name of religion is a sign of having completely missed the point. Stuff like this clip doesn't bother me nearly as much as some of the things you hear said in complete seriousness - when we were over in Seattle visiting family a few years ago, they took us to a rodeo (which was ace), but the announcer at one point asked the spectators to "remember the American military, doing God's work around the world". That made me really very angry because there is no way that the stuff they get up to is Godly, whether or not the individuals involved are religious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov
    Many believers rise above that, and take personal responsibility anyway; but that is despite their religion, and not because of it. Other believers simply follow the rules, believing that they can depend on other people and ancient writings to tell them how to behave.
    I can only speak for Christianity here, but it quite definitely does require personal responsibility. A person always has the choice to do something they believe to be right, or not. Choosing to follow a religion involves personal responsibility by definition. Much as a ceroc teacher couldn't blame Ceroc UK for their delivering a poor class, a follower of any given religion can't blame their personal choices and failings on their faith. As for being told how to behave, that only becomes a problem if you claim abdication of personal responsibility, which can't be reasonably justified. I would rather learn from other people's teaching, ancient or new, than try to work it out myself, but in either case again I cannot ascribe my own choices to someone else just because I am making them in accordance with something I've learnt from someone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by StokeBloke
    No sneering here. We can have different ideas and beliefs without coming to blows over it
    Certainly. I was perhaps a little too defensive I'm used to posting on a Christian forum where discussions like this can get very heated and personal very quickly. I'm all for a good-natured chat

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gold Coast, Austra
    Posts
    2,345
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: One for Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by CheesyRobMan View Post
    when we were over in Seattle visiting family a few years ago, they took us to a rodeo (which was ace), but the announcer at one point asked the spectators to "remember the American military, doing God's work around the world". That made me really very angry because there is no way that the stuff they get up to is Godly, whether or not the individuals involved are religious.
    I guess this is what people/observers see happen, in many religions.
    And we are not talking about one religion here, we are talking about a variety of religions where this tactic is used.
    In this case - who knows if the anouncer was religious - he/she was just maybe using religion as a guilt trip for the religious, and prehaps as a justification for killing people for oil/ power whatever.



    Quote Originally Posted by CheesyRobMan View Post
    Certainly. I was perhaps a little too defensive I'm used to posting on a Christian forum where discussions like this can get very heated and personal very quickly. I'm all for a good-natured chat
    I don't think anyone has got "personal" with you - quite the opposite, your reasoned opinions and reflections are most welcome

  12. #12
    Commercial Operator StokeBloke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Stoke-on-Trent
    Posts
    2,366
    Rep Power
    10

    Cool Re: One for Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by CheesyRobMan View Post
    Quite true, but that is not exclusive to religion.
    Maybe so but it is religion we are discussing here. Shouldn't religion be the exception to the rule, not part of it? Am I mistaken in thinking that in this country all war is sanctioned by the head of the Anglican Church, regardless of the 'reason' for the war the head of the church approves? That's not to say that Catholics haven't done more than their fair share of tank and bomb blessing.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: One for Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by CheesyRobMan View Post
    I can only speak for Christianity here, but it quite definitely does require personal responsibility. A person always has the choice to do something they believe to be right, or not. Choosing to follow a religion involves personal responsibility by definition. Much as a ceroc teacher couldn't blame Ceroc UK for their delivering a poor class, a follower of any given religion can't blame their personal choices and failings on their faith.
    Um...but that's exactly what they do do. Perhaps I chose the wrong phrase.

    I think the 'personal responsibility' you are talking about is personal responsibility within the boundaries of the particular version of faith to which the individual subscribes. Yesterday, I listened to radio interviews with a woman who has been told that the local authority is reviewing the foster-care position with respect to her and her husband, because they have said that they will teach a foster child that homosexuality is a sin and leads to eternal damnation. The local authority is obviously concerned as to whether they can safely place children for fostering with this couple in case the boy or girl concerned may find themselves having to cope with sexual identity issues with foster parents who take that view.

    Now obviously these are good, decent people - not everyone is prepared to give of themselves to the extent of being a foster carer. But their world view is twisted and distorted by ancient strictures (and not so ancient prejudices). It is this ability to 'step outside' the principles of a faith, and consider whether its tenets are right or wrong, correct or mistaken, and take personal responsibility for those questions, about which I am talking; your comments seem to be more about taking personal responsibility within the strictures of the faith.

    I'm saying, 'take personal responsibility for deciding whether it is right to treat homosexuality as a sin', your personal responsibility seems to be more along the lines of 'if you want to lead a homosexual life, you have to take the personal responsibility for that'.
    ---
    This touches on a subject I posted about before:-
    I would rather learn from other people's teaching, ancient or new, than try to work it out myself, but in either case again I cannot ascribe my own choices to someone else just because I am making them in accordance with something I've learnt from someone else.
    So, if (as you appear to suggest) you apply your own intellect to the question of determining what your faith requires, what process, what standards do you use? If the Bible appears to say one thing, and the church fathers agree, but your inclination is to follow an alternative interpretation, what thinking process do you use to make your final decision?

    PS I'm sorry to hear that things get heated on the christian forum. Is that because atheists post there, or are the christians being - um - un-christian?

  14. #14
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: One for Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by StokeBloke View Post
    Am I mistaken in thinking that in this country all war is sanctioned by the head of the Anglican Church, regardless of the 'reason' for the war the head of the church approves?
    Nope - as in, you are mistaken.

    The CofE opposed the Iraq war beforehand:
    BBC NEWS | England | Church issues prayer against Iraq war

    They also wanted to apologise for it afterwards:
    BBC NEWS | UK | Bishops suggest apology for war

    I dunno if that's classed as Officially Opposing the war, but it's certainly not even close to sanctioning it.

  15. #15
    Commercial Operator StokeBloke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Stoke-on-Trent
    Posts
    2,366
    Rep Power
    10

    Cool Re: One for Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    Nope - as in, you are mistaken.

    The CofE opposed the Iraq war beforehand:
    BBC NEWS | England | Church issues prayer against Iraq war

    They also wanted to apologise for it afterwards:
    BBC NEWS | UK | Bishops suggest apology for war

    I dunno if that's classed as Officially Opposing the war, but it's certainly not even close to sanctioning it.
    The Queen is the head of the CofE. She signs all legislation into law. Appoints and can dissolve government. The government in this country cannot pass anything into law without the signature of the head of the CofE.

    This is not the case?

  16. #16
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: One for Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by StokeBloke View Post
    The Queen is the head of the CofE. She signs all legislation into law. Appoints and can dissolve government. The government in this country cannot pass anything into law without the signature of the head of the CofE.

    This is not the case?
    Mmmm, that's an interesting take on it... I think that's a spin too far though - Liz signs bills as the Head of State, rather than as the Head of the CofE; she has multiple hats.

    So your statement is like saying "The government in this country cannot pass anything into law without the signature of the Australian Head of State" - technically true, but a leetle misleading.

    Although, for actually, you know, keeping on thread.

    On this topic, it's interesting to note the extremely convoluted way of appointing CofE bishops (as described here),. Basically, the PM picks them, no matter what the PM's religion is. Which is a bit weird, considering that we've already had one Jewish PM (Disraeli - well sort-of), and we could potentially have had another in Michael Howard.

    The sooner the CofE gets disestablished, the better - in my view there's no need nor place for a State Church in a modern society. In fact, I think disestablishment would probably be a good thing for all involved - the CofE and the UK government.

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: One for Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by StokeBloke View Post
    The Queen is the head of the CofE. She signs all legislation into law. Appoints and can dissolve government. The government in this country cannot pass anything into law without the signature of the head of the CofE.

    This is not the case?
    Yes, but you have to separate the person from the function. She signs legislation in her capacity as monarch; she would attend the Memorial Day service in her capacity as monarch, head of the church, and head of the armed forces, would accept the salute of the Guards in her capacity as head of the armed forces, and would be involved in whatever CofE activities she is involved in as head of the church.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Belfast, NI
    Posts
    1,220
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: One for Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    I think the 'personal responsibility' you are talking about is personal responsibility within the boundaries of the particular version of faith to which the individual subscribes. *snip* It is this ability to 'step outside' the principles of a faith, and consider whether its tenets are right or wrong, correct or mistaken, and take personal responsibility for those questions, about which I am talking; your comments seem to be more about taking personal responsibility within the strictures of the faith.
    I did mean both types of responsibility, both within and around one's faith. Choosing to follow a faith involves just as much assumption of one's own responsibility for following it as does making the choices that define *how* you follow that faith. In the example you gave, someone choosing to follow a faith that outlaws homosexuality is making a choice regarding the consequences of following that faith as well as simply choosing to follow it. That's not unique to religion, it's just the principle of choices having consequences. Now obviously that is closely linked to how you choose to act out your faith day by day - in fact you could say that they are the same thing, only one describes the initial decision and the other the ongoing dedication. It moves the question into the rather murkier area of how to interpret a religion's teachings, too, which in many cases has no clear answer for specific situations and you have to fall back on the principles that underlie the faith and extrapolate from there. This is probably where the most mistakes are made in people who, while making genuine efforts to follow their faith, end up hurting themselves and people around them. However what you were saying about stepping outside it and looking at what you are actually believing is a valuable exercise (although I'm not sure you meant it quite like that - see below) and one that applies to almost anything you believe, and certainly to religious or atheist beliefs as they affect so much else in one's life. It's the sort of thing that you would think would stop a lot of religiously-motivated violence... well, it's a nice theory...

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    So, if (as you appear to suggest) you apply your own intellect to the question of determining what your faith requires, what process, what standards do you use?
    Like you said, I need to step outside what I'm thinking and doing from time to time too and measure the way I'm acting against the way I should be acting. I suppose that's where the intellect comes into play, as well as judgement and gut feelings. I wouldn't go so far as to try and think outside my Christian mindset, though, because trying to judge whether or not it is right or wrong still requires some other set of values to compare it to - and where else do I get those? As far as I'm concerned, those values *are* the ones to compare things to. Please note I'm talking about the principles of faith here rather than the frequently flawed outworkings of it. It's difficult to explain what I mean but hopefully that is clear enough?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    PS I'm sorry to hear that things get heated on the christian forum. Is that because atheists post there, or are the christians being - um - un-christian?
    Both although funnily enough it was this sort of debate that really got people going - it ended up being a sort of 3-way bun-fight between (mostly) sarcastic atheists who were just there to point and laugh, Biblical inerrantists (who it turns out don't like being referred to as fundamentalists) and Christians who were trying to shoehorn a purely humanist set of values into Christianity and not getting very far. It burnt itself out eventually by which point a lot of people had got themselves very confused!

    Quote Originally Posted by Chef View Post
    That doesn't mean that you can't TRY putting reasoned debate forward. Just because you may feel that this forum is a place occupied by simpletons, incapable of understanding reasoned argument and resorting to name calling doens't mean that you have to personally lower your own standards.
    QFT. And for the record I don't think you're all simpletons...

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    So your statement is like saying "The government in this country cannot pass anything into law without the signature of the Australian Head of State" - technically true, but a leetle misleading.

    Although, for actually, you know, keeping on thread.

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Near Montrose
    Posts
    221
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: One for Barry

    With regard to the actual thread topic (sheesh, felt I should at least try...)

    Best sermon I ever heard at mass: 'Mr Business went to church. He never missed a Sunday, but Mr Business went to hell for what he did on Monday'. The priest used this in an attempt to illustrate that going to church isn't enough to make you a decent person and I hope it had the same impact on the rest of the congregation.

    Having a faith or belonging to a particular religion doesn't make someone bad, stupid or closed minded. Equally, it doesn't make them a good, decent, honest or fair person either.
    Last edited by Tiger Feet; 4th-March-2008 at 05:35 PM. Reason: Adding some missed punctuation, Sir.

  20. #20
    Commercial Operator StokeBloke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Stoke-on-Trent
    Posts
    2,366
    Rep Power
    10

    Cool Re: One for Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    Mmmm, that's an interesting take on it... I think that's a spin too far though - Liz signs bills as the Head of State, rather than as the Head of the CofE; she has multiple hats.

    So your statement is like saying "The government in this country cannot pass anything into law without the signature of the Australian Head of State" - technically true, but a leetle misleading.

    Although, for actually, you know, keeping on thread.
    I don't consider this to be spinning anything. Why is it spinning the facts? These are the facts. The Queen is one person. That person is the head of the church. She is the person who ultimately sends our troops to war. Do you feel that is something that is reconcilable? The fact that she is the monarch of other places does not alter the fact that she is the head of the Anglican Church.

    I don't see why there should even be a stand point for the antidisestablishmentarianists to defend here. Jesus told his followers to live peacefully. He denounced violence. He even healed a soldier in the Garden of Gethsemane who was injured when Jesus was being arrested. He spoke of turning the other cheek. Of loving your enemy. Of loving your neighbour. In his parable, Jesus had the good Samaritan helping a Levite, clearly Jesus was showing that helping and loving each other extended beyond what the average Joe would consider to be 'neighbourly'. These peoples were traditionally enemies. Just to double check this whole religion thing, because there are times when it does seem to get a little bass-ackwards... it is Jesus that we're talking about here isn't it? Following his example and living by his teachings? I wasn't away the day that Jesus revoked the 'Thou shall NOT kill' part was I?

    Now with that in mind, ask WWJD? Would he be stood there (regardless of his 'other hats') blessing tanks and bombs? Would he bayonet someone? Would he have ANY hand in bloodshed?

    So how does the head of the so-called Christian church reconcile state sanctioned murder and loving your enemies? It may seem like a little uncomfortable irksome question to many perhaps; but I am sure anyone on the end of one of those blessed bayonets would feel different.

    I ask these things with the utmost respect for people to exercise their beliefs and faith. I truly would love to understand the logic of the church/state dichotomy - as the seeming hypocrisy of it is something I have struggled with for many years.
    Last edited by StokeBloke; 4th-March-2008 at 07:39 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •