Ginko Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) I'll admit I'm VTs worst poster for grammer. To me this site is like a university forum. At least you use apostrophes well, don't be so hard on yourself. It's grammAr, by the way Edited June 30, 2014 by Ginko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) sumtimes the grammer on this sight , make's me want 2 skreem. Edited June 30, 2014 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 sumtimes the grammer on this sight , make's me want 2 skreem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I'll admit I'm VTs worst poster for grammer. To me this site is like a university forum. At least you use apostrophes well, don't be so hard on yourself. It's grammAr, by the way there you go, say no more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 30, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted June 30, 2014 That's spelling, not grammar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 That's spelling, not grammar. there you go,say no more. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted June 30, 2014 Moderator Share Posted June 30, 2014 I'm using the legal definition and burden of proof Why? We're not in a courtroom with someone looking to secure a criminal prosecution. It seems quite daft to apply that same high threshold to all other situations. ....I tend to trust the judgement of law rather than the judgement of twitter ... the law does get it wrong sometimes , but it's hit rate is still around 99% better than twitters I think you're maybe confusing "the judgement of twitter" with researched journalistic investigation. You're right in so far as the Police, the paper (Grauniad) and the Inquiry could not absolutely prove in a legal sense that the NoTW deleted the messages. However, the police feel it is a strong possibility. It was the police who gave that view, with reasons to the Grauniad. It is untrue to say "the NoTW did not delete the messages" - even in legal terms, because that is not an established legal fact. The legal truth is it is possible they did, one of 3 possibilities - they did it, it was automatic, or Plod did it. Now if the original Guardian claim is untrue (which is by no means certain) then a question is "did that claim cause the paper to be shut down". The answer to that is clearly and obviously not. Sure it was further fuel to an already enormous fire, but in the link (and elsewhere) there is a timeline of events, detail of how many articles followed the Guardian one which even mentioned the deletion. Then there is the subsequent, and still unfolding picture of further criminality at the NoTW. The Murdoch execs had already drawn up plans, clearly with a view that the storm was too much and likely to get bigger. Even if we were to accept that the deletion story was a trigger for enacting that plan, it is also the case that if that story wasn't published, subsequent ones, with 100% legal fact would have done - the July bombing victims, the further hacking of the Royal family, confessions and convictions. it wasn't the deletion story, it was the criminality that dun for it. I personally think that there may be more yet to come out, based on ongoing investigations. When the whole thing started off in the Grauniad, it was dismissed as fantasy by other papers, by politicians and by just about everyone in a a position of authority. It is because of the rigour and tenacity of the investigating journos that the whole thing was kept alive, and we are able to know for sure how bad that paper (and probably others) were. They;re not the most trusted of professions, Journos, but from time to time you do get genuine "proper" investigation that brings fruit. It's sad IMO, that people generally just view broadsheets in particular, as "discredited" on the basis that one element of a major investigation cannot be absolutely proven, yet the whole story turned out to be exactly as reported. It does matter, this whole linking of Press/Police/Politicians in a mutual embrace of protectionism/threat and back scratching, where each turns a blind eye for a favour. I suppose this could all be in the Murdoch thread, but it does piss me off that when something like this comes out, people just shrug it off, slag off the messenger and ignore the reality staring them in the face. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troon_villan Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 possibly you should , Blandy puts his points across well and without malice , I don't have to agree with him but he makes a good case and I don't think I'll be making it to a penalty shoot out But yeah , I know you just wanted to use that cool gif really so I can't blame you on that one 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 This is the internet. Ain't nobody got time for anything longer than a paragraph. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ismail-villa Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 When having a poo and some of the water splashes back onto yer hole... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 This is the internet. Ain't nobody got time for anything longer than a paragraph. That's Levi finished then. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troon_villan Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 When having a poo and some of the water splashes back onto yer hole... Then you forget to dry your cheeks and pull your boxes back up...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 You wear boxes rather than underwear? Peculiar boy ... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ismail-villa Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 You wear boxes rather than underwear? Peculiar boy ... provides plenty of room for the delicates i must say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 This is the internet. Ain't nobody got time for anything longer than a paragraph. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meath_Villan Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Israel ....what an absolute **** up place ...a never-ending cycle of killing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Numpties here deciding to put stick up a KKK flag. They love their flags, the small minded arseholes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted July 1, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted July 1, 2014 A free domain name I use religiously has been seized by Microsoft today without warning. So annoying. This should piss me off so possibly the wrong thread but there isn't another thread. I hope www.noip.com sue the pants off them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raver50032 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 On the subject of poohs, I get annoyed at my work place when I try and have a peaceful number 2 in the sanctity of cubicle 1 (of 2) when somebody else comes in and uses the urinals (2 off) or even worse, opts for a similar pooh session in the other cubicle. I find it an invasion of privacy to think that somebody else is listening to me break wind (rare, but possible), push out, splash and wipe. It annoys me and embarrasses me. I have for a long time, put a smattering of loo paper in the bowl before I start to prevent back splash, and the tell-tale PLOP of a baby's arm incriminating my cubicalised activity. Why can't I take a pooh in peace? For the last couple of years, I have opted to use the disabled, single cubicle toilet opposite the gents in my work place - just so I can avoid the embarrassment of somebody walking in while I am mid-push or during the inevitable wipe. I stand up for the rights of jo public to have a dignified crap and without risk of humiliation. -- Also pooh related - I hate poohs that take an hour to wipe. But love the ones that require just a cursory, token wipe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts