Muhammed Ali

MikeBrew

Pinno wrote:

(I see you edited your post)
Surely that's: 'No need for written confirmation'. The 'the' participle suggests an authority dishing out written warnings for idiocy. Would that possibly be you MB, after all you seem to be a much higher being than us mere mortals?

Not really, it's just that I - and probably very many other ordinary decent people - can see something that you few self absorbed twits very clearly can't, namely how egregious you're inane witterings are in this context . The thread was started to show respect. Of course you have a little axe to grind don't you our kid.

apreading

http://cyclingmagazine.ca/uncategorized ... olen-bike/

pinno

MikeBrew wrote:

Pinno wrote:

(I see you edited your post)
Surely that's: 'No need for written confirmation'. The 'the' participle suggests an authority dishing out written warnings for idiocy. Would that possibly be you MB, after all you seem to be a much higher being than us mere mortals?

Not really, it's just that I - and probably very many other ordinary decent people - can see something that you few self absorbed twits very clearly can't, namely how egregious you're inane witterings are in this context . The thread was started to show respect. Of course you have a little axe to grind don't you our kid.

?

What 'axe' exactly?

Let's see now...

"I - and probably very many other ordinary decent people". Well it is plainly obvious that you are not 'decent' and you are flattering yourself.

In what way are we 'self absorbed'? Paying respect, having a conversation about Ali and acknowledging that he had flaws is self absorbing?!

"...namely how egregious you're inane witterings are in this context..." You are so arrogant.

You are very comical too - keep going.

orraloon

Pinno wrote:

...
What 'axe' exactly?
...

Planet Axe?

MikeBrew

Teach wrote:

The 'the' participle suggests an authority dishing out written warnings for idiocy.....You are very comical too - keep going

As comical as clearly demonstrating that you don't know what a particple, past, present or otherwise actually is, in the same sentence as mentioning "warnings of idiocy" ? Or was ' The "the" ' simply a stutter ? Priceless Teach, just priceless. I do so love a nice pseudo interlecchewtool.

Seriously though, look it up and leave the thread for those who want to demonstrate their respect, rather than their lack of decorum, questionable "wit" and poor grasp of English.

ballysmate

MikeBrew wrote:

Pinno wrote:

(I see you edited your post)
Surely that's: 'No need for written confirmation'. The 'the' participle suggests an authority dishing out written warnings for idiocy. Would that possibly be you MB, after all you seem to be a much higher being than us mere mortals?

Not really, it's just that I - and probably very many other ordinary decent people - can see something that you few self absorbed twits very clearly can't, namely how egregious you're inane witterings are in this context . The thread was started to show respect. Of course you have a little axe to grind don't you our kid.

Was it really? Where does it say that you can only post positives? Besides, I would have thought it shows a lack of respect getting the guy's name wrong.

http://muhammadali.com/

pblakeney

MikeBrew wrote:

Seriously though, look it up and leave the thread for those who want to demonstrate their respect, rather than their lack of decorum, questionable "wit" and poor grasp of English.

Loving the irony of this discussion. Keep it up.

bompington

I've always thought that if your going to try and trash-talk other people for they're grammar you should pay a little attention to you're own. :-)

cornerblock

It's hardly Rumble In The Jungle is it? More....

Frank the tank

The man was a true sporting icon and was prepared to go to prison for his beliefs.

"The draft is about white people sending black people to fight yellow people to protect the country they stole from the red people"

R.I.P.

rick_chasey

He also said “A black man should be killed if he’s messing with a white woman,” and inside and outside the ring he called black opponents “Uncle Toms”.

Cuts both ways.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Was it really? Where does it say that you can only post positives? Besides, I would have thought it shows a lack of respect getting the guy's name wrong.

I'm still looking for where he posted his respects. Looks like he only came on here to slag people off for not posting what he expected them to.

MikeBrew

Ballysmate wrote:

MikeBrew wrote:

Pinno wrote:

(I see you edited your post)
Surely that's: 'No need for written confirmation'. The 'the' participle suggests an authority dishing out written warnings for idiocy. Would that possibly be you MB, after all you seem to be a much higher being than us mere mortals?

Not really, it's just that I - and probably very many other ordinary decent people - can see something that you few self absorbed twits very clearly can't, namely how egregious you're inane witterings are in this context . The thread was started to show respect. Of course you have a little axe to grind don't you our kid.

Was it really? Where does it say that you can only post positives? Besides, I would have thought it shows a lack of respect getting the guy's name wrong.

http://muhammadali.com/

To be fair, if you read the first post it's pretty clear that the guy who started the thread was being respectful. He simply mistakenly put an a where an e should be.

ballysmate

The thread is called Muhammed (sic) Ali, and as such surely invites comments on the man. Yes he posted his respects. That doesn't mean that everyone that follows should automatically echo his sentiments does it?

MikeBrew

Ballysmate wrote:

The thread is called Muhammed (sic) Ali, and as such surely invites comments on the man. Yes he posted his respects. That doesn't mean that everyone that follows should automatically echo his sentiments does it?

I suppose I think that if you've got negative things to say about someone who's just died, doing it before they are even in the ground is pretty crass.

ballysmate

If someone has a negative thought about someone, that thought doesn't die when the subject dies does it? The thought is equally valid, dead or alive.

pblakeney

MikeBrew wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

The thread is called Muhammed (sic) Ali, and as such surely invites comments on the man. Yes he posted his respects. That doesn't mean that everyone that follows should automatically echo his sentiments does it?

I suppose I think that if you've got negative things to say about someone who's just died, doing it before they are even in the ground is pretty crass.

Does that apply equally to Richard Huckle?
Or is fake bereavement mandatory since Diana?

ballysmate

MikeBrew wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

The thread is called Muhammed (sic) Ali, and as such surely invites comments on the man. Yes he posted his respects. That doesn't mean that everyone that follows should automatically echo his sentiments does it?

I suppose I think that if you've got negative things to say about someone who's just died, doing it before they are even in the ground is pretty crass.

What is the accepted time limit?

MikeBrew

Ballysmate wrote:

If someone has a negative thought about someone, that thought doesn't die when the subject dies does it? The thought is equally valid, dead or alive.

The sensibilities that I'm talking about are clearly totally alien to you. I'll leave it there as I can clearly see that I'd have more luck trying to teach a tree to yodel.

pblakeney

MikeBrew wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

If someone has a negative thought about someone, that thought doesn't die when the subject dies does it? The thought is equally valid, dead or alive.

The sensibilities that I'm talking about are clearly totally alien to you. I'll leave it there as I can clearly see that I'd have more luck trying to teach a tree to yodel.

Ah, go on.... Why give up so easy.
I'm sure with the right angle through the branches and velocity, the wind could get a tree to sing.

MikeBrew

PBlakeney wrote:

MikeBrew wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

The thread is called Muhammed (sic) Ali, and as such surely invites comments on the man. Yes he posted his respects. That doesn't mean that everyone that follows should automatically echo his sentiments does it?

I suppose I think that if you've got negative things to say about someone who's just died, doing it before they are even in the ground is pretty crass.

Does that apply equally to Richard Huckle?
Or is fake bereavement mandatory since Diana?

Hey Veronese68 gave the little lad a badge. Who's a clever little thing then :roll:

pblakeney

MikeBrew wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

MikeBrew wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

The thread is called Muhammed (sic) Ali, and as such surely invites comments on the man. Yes he posted his respects. That doesn't mean that everyone that follows should automatically echo his sentiments does it?

I suppose I think that if you've got negative things to say about someone who's just died, doing it before they are even in the ground is pretty crass.

Does that apply equally to Richard Huckle?
Or is fake bereavement mandatory since Diana?

Hey Veronese68 gave the little lad a badge. :roll:

Goodies!
Last one I got was my cycling proficiency.

ballysmate

MikeBrew wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

If someone has a negative thought about someone, that thought doesn't die when the subject dies does it? The thought is equally valid, dead or alive.

The sensibilities that I'm talking about are clearly totally alien to you. I'll leave it there as I can clearly see that I'd have more luck trying to teach a tree to yodel.

Sensibilities? Someone starts a thread to discuss a person or his life and you get your ar5e in your hands because someone is not gushing enough in their praise. If someone has an opinion on someone, particularly a valid opinion, why can't they express it? In your world, how long before someone can express something negative about anyone deceased?

DeVlaeminck

MikeBrew wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

The thread is called Muhammed (sic) Ali, and as such surely invites comments on the man. Yes he posted his respects. That doesn't mean that everyone that follows should automatically echo his sentiments does it?

I suppose I think that if you've got negative things to say about someone who's just died, doing it before they are even in the ground is pretty crass.

Fair game to comment on the negative as well as the positive - if you read some of the tributes you'd think Ali was a God like figure whose beliefs were a template for us all to follow. It's not like showing up at his funeral and bad mouthing him.

tangled_metal

The guy's a flawed hero. There's no doubt he had his faults. To edit them shows a lack of respect IMHO. You've got to accept your hero with all his negatives and positives. Otherwise you'll just get a saccharin filled, Diana style farce where people get herded into false grief just to fit in with the media's mood music.

He was a wit and talent in a brutal and at times barbaric sport. He stood up against the draft like other unnamed individuals. However his fame and talent helped him recover from the consequences. How many took the same stance without the safety net of celebrity and sporting excellence in a sport obsessed nation? How many had their own lives destroyed never to recover? I wonder, but he's a celebrity so his stance lifts him to a saintly status. No! He's a talented boxer with wit. Perhaps the greatest certainly one of the greatest. that's all.

Pross

How far up your own backside can you get before losing the ability to use a computer keyboard?

Personally I find it bizarre that when someone dies there appears to be an unwritten rule that you can only say good things about them. Ali was a great boxer and made his points, right or wrong, on the civil rights issues of the day (I've never understood the suggestion that blacks were being used to fight the White man's war in Vietnam, it's disrespectful to the thousands of non-black people who died). However, the media as always overlook any negative side of the deceased.

briantrumpet

Pross wrote:

Personally I find it bizarre that when someone dies there appears to be an unwritten rule that you can only say good things about them. [...] However, the media as always overlook any negative side of the deceased.

Actually, that's not quite true (or used not to be). The Independent, when it was a proper paper, broke the mould and started including authored obits that weren't just panegyrics, and got quite a bit of praise for it at the time. I've no idea if they still do, especially now it's turned into an online comic.

pinno

Warning: Way off topic but this is the place.

'Panegyrics'.

I say Trumpet old boy, that's a rich vocabulary you got there (if indeed a tad old fashioned). Is it commensurate with a certain era of jazz? i.e, as a Muso (and I know a few), does it fit a persona? I have a friend who is a Django* nut. He even has a Grappelli style side kick. I do like Django and he is brilliant but I haven't had the heart (or nerve) to suggest he lacks a little bit of soul.

Ducks and runs for cover.

*F*cking Google spellcheck doesn't recognise the first name of an icon.

briantrumpet

Pinno wrote:

Warning: Way off topic but this is the place.

'Panegyrics'.

I say Trumpet old boy, that's a rich vocabulary you got there (if indeed a tad old fashioned). Is it commensurate with a certain era of jazz? i.e, as a Muso (and I know a few), does it fit a persona?

No idea. I just like the word.

surrey_commuter

Pross wrote:

How far up your own backside can you get before losing the ability to use a computer keyboard?

Personally I find it bizarre that when someone dies there appears to be an unwritten rule that you can only say good things about them. Ali was a great boxer and made his points, right or wrong, on the civil rights issues of the day (I've never understood the suggestion that blacks were being used to fight the White man's war in Vietnam, it's disrespectful to the thousands of non-black people who died). However, the media as always overlook any negative side of the deceased.

Maybe it is because in the early years a black American was twice as likely to die in Vietnam as a white person.
Maybe they also noticed that all the political and military leaders were white.

I am sure there are many plausible explanations for these two anomalies but you can see why it could lead people to think that black Americans were being used to fight a white man's war