manc-mag

fuck me gently!

Did you see it last night then Craig? Indeed I did... all looked very familiar. Was in BHS only last week buying my old man an xmas pressie - don't remember seeing any Corvette tyre marks though... They made the hamster lick them up after he was finished on Clarksons arse. Spot on that, like. Can't abide 2/3 of the presenters (who've made absolute fortunes off the back of the programme btw). http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=393171 TBH "So you agree then" TM

Did you see it last night then Craig? Indeed I did... all looked very familiar. Was in BHS only last week buying my old man an xmas pressie - don't remember seeing any Corvette tyre marks though... They made the hamster lick them up after he was finished on Clarksons arse. Spot on that, like. Can't abide 2/3 of the presenters (who've made absolute fortunes off the back of the programme btw).

Couldnt give an average figure (and as it's sadly mainly clasiffiable as 'binging' an average would be pointless) but way too much in one sitting. Fuck only knows what the calorie count would be either.

Fop, I don't disagree, but the amount of disputes that settle/don't come to court because of financial pressure is immeasurable. I'm just trying to stress that it's nowt new and also that it's not necessarily the result of some sinister 'big brother' figure. Far from it in fact, it's almost always something far more mundane than that.

And if it was a book being banned in this way? Just shrug and say that's life? (they have banned the text on that site too, not just the picture). On a serious note, I think if there was sufficient threat to a freedom then the natural thing would be for people to i) legally protest (as you have here) and/or ii) share resources to bring a legal action. In the case of ii), (and with the will of Wikipedia obviously), that way there would be access to the courts. Ultimately it seems people are not bothered to do ii) because the information is still out there albeit at a cost from Amazon. So I guess they don't deem the information important enough to protect it's free access. That might change in the future and indeed a more compelling case might arise where the dynamics are different and people rally to get the legal principle before the courts and you get what you're after. I think my main point is that theres so much information out there, freely (which is unprecedented), that where there is an attempt at restriction to this for whatever reason it's not viable for everything to be hoyed before the courts. It'd also require us to treat the internet as a complete exception to the rules (equally dangerous) if this were so. Some things will go before the courts though where theyre important enough, and because we live in a system of stare decisis this will provide us with binding authorities which will bring stability and (as far as is possible with a broadcaster of such limitless information) better clarity on the law. That's just the way of the world tbh. It's freely viewable on Amazon, which is what makes this whole thing so distasteful to me, and suggests it's more about control than anything else. If they really thought it was illegal they'd have taken the action to "ban" that too. It just seems they are banning what they know they can get away with, which is terrible (and dangerous) on so many levels. I don't disagree on the legal point btw-I think you're probably right about the legality of the image for what it's worth and in that sense it is a bit galling-but what I don't think is that you have to always revert to the position that people are trying to 'control you'. Indirectly this may be the result (to a degree), but ultimately what is happening I should imagine is that an economic concern is, in its mind at least, protecting it's own interests, by doing what it thinks is achievable given it's own resources; and as a result wikipedia loses out and amazon doesnt. Like I say it was ever thus. It's just commercial pressure being brought to bear and as far as commerce is concerned the internet is in for a penny, in for a pound. Just trying to offer a real world view. Don't worry Fop, when they come for your real freedoms in the middle of the night, then as a lawyer I will get on my hind legs and give it the full Winston Smith QC for your bail application.

And if it was a book being banned in this way? Just shrug and say that's life? (they have banned the text on that site too, not just the picture). On a serious note, I think if there was sufficient threat to a freedom then the natural thing would be for people to i) legally protest (as you have here) and/or ii) share resources to bring a legal action. In the case of ii), (and with the will of Wikipedia obviously), that way there would be access to the courts. Ultimately it seems people are not bothered to do ii) because the information is still out there albeit at a cost from Amazon. So I guess they don't deem the information important enough to protect it's free access. That might change in the future and indeed a more compelling case might arise where the dynamics are different and people rally to get the legal principle before the courts and you get what you're after. I think my main point is that theres so much information out there, freely (which is unprecedented), that where there is an attempt at restriction to this for whatever reason it's not viable for everything to be hoyed before the courts. It'd also require us to treat the internet as a complete exception to the rules (equally dangerous) if this were so. Some things will go before the courts though where theyre important enough, and because we live in a system of stare decisis this will provide us with binding authorities which will bring stability and (as far as is possible with a broadcaster of such limitless information) better clarity on the law. That's just the way of the world tbh.

Tbh, if the bottom line with this is that wikipedia have been less robust than Amazon (potentially) because they have less money to fight a legal action than Amazon, then this isn't really news. It was ever thus tbh. I'm not saying that that's right btw, I'm just saying that it's nowt new. I think the days in which people (perhaps rather naively) thought that the internet would or should be allowed to operate as an exception to other forms of media are behind us now.

Name-drop-tastic but a close friend of mine is very good mates with him and he's a canny lad 'in real life' too. Is that him off that show on C4 that ran for a bit with a black bint doing the celeb news slot? Aye. He's one of the captains off 8 Out Of 10 Cats too. Aye, seems like a right pric. You must want knocking out!

Name-drop-tastic but a close friend of mine is very good mates with him and he's a canny lad 'in real life' too.

Fuckin' hell man I never tire of them responses. Jesus wept.

Glad to hear it was nowt serious, old son.

fuck me gently

Yeah you're not funny. Less funny than Fop TBH. Chompy chompy Tottenham Hotspur tbh.

Me dad had his 60th there and the buffet was outstanding, wouldn't recommend it as a venue for a shindig though as the noise from downstairs washes over everything upstairs Can only imagine the tension in the air at a buffet attended by you. Trigger finger hovering over your fork holster. Mexican stand off stuff.

Stevie demanding one person be banned and then offering someone else out in the same thread. Hit an all time new low with this shit tbh.

'Fergal Sharkey' btw in the context of this thread. You couldnt make it up etc etc.

Mary Hinge

Work parties where partners are invited are a load of shite imo, hence why I don't go to any of the girlfriend's. Eamonn to that tbh.

I don't care who he gets as long as I can have a go at the Greeks. They invented gayness!

No surprise to see people ignoring this post so they can continue moaning like two old ladies over the garden fence. Honestly Baggio, you'd swear black was white.

um pint of firewater tbh.

Does the Toon have a 'German xmas market' by the way? It's become a bit of an annual event in Mcr; hundreds of the buggers descend from Germany at the end of November and set up their stalls. I'm sure it's all 'highly authentic' like. Aye, well 'Continental Market' anyway. There's one in Belfast too, selling such authentic Xmas fayre as Greek olives and Peruvian knitted hats. The German beer tent is canny like. Aye sounds like you've got the same as us then. As you say the German beer tent is canny (if extortionate) but Jesus wepticles at the rest of it. Jumble of shit tbh.

Gemmill throwing his fat around I see.