Two types of folk

Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by Deleted member 33931, Oct 22, 2017.

  1. longboat

    longboat Screwfix Select

    I'm surprised that he restrained himself from actually doing so.
    Don't all farmers take up farming as a profession solely for the opportunity to run over non country folk with a quad bike?
    Perhaps it was because he knew the cameras were rolling.
    Better luck next time.
  2. You might need an amphibious vehicle for that.
    Lanc, Deleted member 33931 and btiw2 like this.
  3. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    He wasn’t typical of rural folk.

    Designer boiler suit too? How laa dee dah!

    A real farmer would be covered in *ahem* soil and yelling at east European migrants, not razzing about on a quad bike following the hunt. That ain’t a farmer. It’s a businessman who’s playing at it.

    Uh oh. My prejudices are coming to the surface. Religion? Don’t care. Brexit vote? Don’t care. Sexual orientation? None of my business. Clean John Deere boiler suit? Break out the pitchforks!
    longboat, fillyboy and Jord86 like this.
  4. fillyboy

    fillyboy Screwfix Select

    I've never considered myself a fashion icon, but certain things are to be avoided. My blue jeans with a blazer or sports jacket are fine, chinos with either are acceptable, my denim jacket with black jeans is cool but not with blue jeans (double denim is a strict no no), I might even wear a two piece suit with a t shirt. For work, I will wear anything as long as it's covered in paint or plaster or a tasteful combination of both. I cannot think of a scenario where I could be induced to wear a John Deere boiler suit, not even roughing up sabs or remainers.
  5. In case it helps, my daily walking route is a wee circular down Butts Lane near Stalling Busk.

    (that should keep him busy...)
  6. Not everyone, Longs.

    Damn - I'm so predictable

    See? I covered that base too.
  7. For the purposes of the point I was making - a perfectly valid point, I believe - I did indeed split this issue in to black and white.

    Or more like black and other colours.

    The only perps I was actually interested in were the rabid foul-mouths who replied to the vid on t'net. Oh, and the two characters at the end of the vid.

    Is my point valid? Yes, I think so. I reckon it's a nigh-on certain bet that these folk are also rabid Brexiters.

    Don't you think so? Do you not think so?

    Why stand away from the 'moral dimension' since the whole campaign was based on distorted morals. It was a moral issue. It has become an even larger moral issue. You reckon Trump's presidency is a purely political issue?!

    Of course these are moral issues, and I do not understand your reluctance to acknowledge this.

    Perhaps it's because argueme... discussions on such issues are largely 'pointless' in that they won't arrive at a 'conclusion'? It's unprovable?

    Fair do's, btiw2, but I've done the 'political' bit on here waaaay before the Ref, and that was ultimately pointless - the u-s went all weird and exposed themselves by saying anything to try and justify their ultimate 'reason'.

    I mean, all your graphs and charts have had terrific success, yes? No.

    I also don't think it helps your point to try and simplify what I have been saying down to a single exaggerated remark - and one that I have never actually made.

    btiw2: "I voted remain therefore I’m more virtuous"?

    Filly: "DA pulled his usual stunt of bringing it round to 'leavers' and 'remainers', the 'antagonists' in the video were 'leavers' whilst the 'victims' were 'remainers', eh?"

    You are both being equally disingenuous.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 28, 2017
  8. Mr. Handyandy

    Mr. Handyandy Screwfix Select

    Agreed. The point of my post was in answer to jackoftrades belief, that ONLY the farmer acted unreasonably, the sabs were there as innocent bystanders.
    Which they were most definitely not.
    Both parties were taking up vigilante actions, with no authority to do so.

    Mr. HandyAndy - Really
  9. Isitreally

    Isitreally Super Member

    That may or may not be truthful, but this whole thread is reliant on the video evidence produced.
    That video evidence clearly shows only 3 people showing aggression (Mr Famer Giles and the two morons at the end) none of them were Sabs.

    So any speculation as to what the Sabs were or were not doing is just that.
  10. Thank you.
  11. longboat

    longboat Screwfix Select


    That may or may not be truthful, but this whole thread is reliant on the video evidence produced.
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2017
  12. Isitreally

    Isitreally Super Member

  13. And you have constantly invented (no) supporting evidence to show why the farmer was justified to take UNreasonable steps to remove them.

    No body has ever declared any support fir the sabs remember

    Just the attitude of the farmer.

    And his supporters, of course
  14. longboat

    longboat Screwfix Select

    Nevertheless, you've still taken in the intended point I hope?
  15. longboat

    longboat Screwfix Select

    You can build a fence between it if you want. I say 'want', but that's not quite accurate, is it?

    You are right though that based on nothing but the video evidence alone we can all condemn the land owner to the gallows.

    Thank ****, it doesn't work like that anymore, eh?
  16. You still on this thread, Longs?

    Wow - you've got balls, man.

    Or something.

  17. Blinkers I think.

    Still trying to justify aggression
  18. longboat

    longboat Screwfix Select

    If integrity is wrong?
    Then I don't wanna be right!
  19. fillyboy

    fillyboy Screwfix Select

    You'd do well to grow a pair.
  20. I have - wanna check?

    Bored now.

Share This Page