Could probably do with another revision though I agree.
Now now Mike, I feel you are being somewhat mischevious here.
The New Testament is the collection of books written after Christ detailing his later life and teachings.
The Old testament briefly chronicles Israelite history from creation up to the point where God decides the only way to save man from permanent separation is to intercede directly and send his Son.
Yes the New testament certainly lacks much of the grittier elements of its forerunner but there is however still genocide, racism, sexism and xenophobia.
At the moment it would appear that the latest spectator sport is to take prominent people in British history and dig until you find something that sticks then don sackcloth and ashes and try to get the self flagellation right.
Nelson, Churchill, Her Maj, Drake, Sir Walt, Sir William, Wellington, both DH and TE Lawerence, Sir Arthur Conan, and various Arcbihes of Canto have all been bashed by the racist stick
That's just a few without even delving into the merchants, bankers and engineers responsible for the British Empire.
As I've already stated, it's not a pretty history, no empire ever was, there's no need to keep digging it up. Yes we were responsible for some really cr4ppy stuff like apartheid and exploitation.
It would appear therefore that certain institutions would rather, delete or edit history and heritage because they are unable to accept it and move on.
The Bible contains sexism, racism, xenaphobia, homophobia, aparthied, exploitation, slavery, genocide and ritual human sacrifice.
Better rewrite it in case it offends people.
Yeah, see I don't really understand all that.
It seems to me like you want to cherry pick the good things from history, but anything that is indifferent or bad you're happy for that to be swept under the carpet, never to be spoken of.....''no need to keep digging it up''.
Someone saying that Churchill was, for example, a wartime leader but an awful human being isn't deleting or editing history. It's actually highlighting both sides of the coin and offers a more balanced approach.
I think anyone trying to suppress the more unsavoury elements of history are far more 'guilty' of trying to delete or edit it. Much better to have it all out in the open, the good the bad and the ugly. If some things make for uncomfortable reading/viewing then so be it.
As a nation I feel we have a way too nostalgic viewpoint of our history; happy to chirp about winning 2 world wars or whatever but then cry foul if anyone dares mention some of the more abhorrent stuff we were responsible for.
How can you learn from history if we have such a one sided view of it?
To give it a poker analogy, a good way to improve your game is to look through hand histories. But your game wouldn't improve if you only looked at the hands you played well, and glossed over the hands you butchered. You'd learn nothing.
To give another analogy, which is perhaps bit more crass but I'm sure you'll get me. The murder of George Floyd. Certain sections of society are very quick to bring up his history, his previous crimes and misdemeanours. Sometimes in an extreme way to justify his death, or at least mitigate the circumstances surrounding it. Generally, those same people don't want anyone to speak ill of Churchill and will resent anything negative being said.
Amazing how you can manipulate history to suit a narrative, which is why it's much more agreeable to have it all out in the open, warts and all, and subject to scrutiny.
FFS It's not about people saying nasty things about iconic Britons, it's about them expecting my generation to feel guilty and apologetic about it.
What's so hard to understand.
Who?
Let's be honest, no-one is actually asking you to apologise for anything. You've got the hump cos some people want to take a more balanced retrospective look at your favourite ''iconic Britons''.
FFS It's not about people saying nasty things about iconic Britons, it's about them expecting my generation to feel guilty and apologetic about it.
What's so hard to understand.
Who?
Let's be honest, no-one is actually asking you to apologise for anything. You've got the hump cos some people want to take a more balanced retrospective look at your favourite ''iconic Britons''.
No need to get all snowflakey about it.
Sigh, it's like talking thermonuclear dynamics to a chocolate bar.
Quite clearly we inhabit different perspectives, that's fine but please accept that I have personally been told on more than one occasion by people of both white and black ethnicity that being born a white man makes me privileged and entitled and as a consequence I should feel an inherited guilt for the treatment that white people gave to other races.
Looking retrospectively accomplishes nothing except to give further credence to this attitude. I am not the one who wishes to cherry pick history, in fact I say let it stand in both its magnificent glory and its deepest shame. Proud and disgraced in equal parts but don't you ever dare try to alter or change it as a sop to the conscience simply because there is a wish to judge yesterdays people by todays standards.
It's like the calls to delete all reference to the merchants who were active in the slave trade. Yes their practices were heinous and abhorrent and quite rightly they are villified for that. BUT they were also responsible for cities like Liverpool and Bristol, they founded Universities, great engineering projects, Banks and institutions and were a major part of the infrastructure on which our very heritage was built.
Can't have one without the other
So where does it end?
Do we send the demolition teams into Wales to tear down the great castles built by Edward 1 because surely they stand as a monument to a murderous English King who conquered and enslaved a country. Surely its about time protestors demand our Government issues a grovelling apology regarding our treatment of the Celts.
I have personally been told on more than one occasion by people of both white and black ethnicity that being born a white man makes me privileged and entitled and as a consequence I should feel an inherited guilt for the treatment that white people gave to other races.
Do you expect anyone to believe that you have been approached personally to be told this , then on another occasion someone else chose to tell you the same thing ?
I have personally been told on more than one occasion by people of both white and black ethnicity that being born a white man makes me privileged and entitled and as a consequence I should feel an inherited guilt for the treatment that white people gave to other races.
Do you expect anyone to believe that you have been approached personally to be told this , then on another occasion someone else chose to tell you the same thing ?
Where were you ?
At a slave owners shaming convention.
One occasion was at a foodbank where unfortunately we couldn't honour a voucher for a family of colour due to an instance of fraud, obviously tensions were running high and they chose to play the race card. Regrettable but it happens.
Another time was when I was volunteering with a debt advisory service and the people we were trying to secure a DRO for fell outside the parameters. As a result we were unable to help and the whole situation deteriorated into a rant about how as we were white we couldn't possibly understand and that our privilege and entitlement as white born meant we have no empathy or sympathy for the situation.
Then there was the time we were working with a Staffs C.U. project to raise awareness in University of alcohol abuse and mental health issues and how one affects the other and how they both have a massive bearing on life, money, happiness etc. I was there as a speaker due to my extensive problems with alcohol in the past and as part of the talk I used real examples of people I'd personally been through the struggle with.
I used an example of myself, a black guy I know well and an Asian dude, not for any other reason other to highlight how alcoholism crosses cultural divides and isn't fussy about who it affects.
When I got to telling about the other two I was constantly heckled about not being able to understand their problems because I was white and therefore not qualified to speak about them or their situations. ironically it was white students who were doing the heckling.
So I hope that rebuffs the allegation that I was not being honest. I may be many things, misguided, misinformed, sarcastic, stroppy even confrontational but don't ever infer that I am a liar
I have personally been told on more than one occasion by people of both white and black ethnicity that being born a white man makes me privileged and entitled and as a consequence I should feel an inherited guilt for the treatment that white people gave to other races.
Do you expect anyone to believe that you have been approached personally to be told this , then on another occasion someone else chose to tell you the same thing ?
Where were you ?
At a slave owners shaming convention.
One occasion was at a foodbank where unfortunately we couldn't honour a voucher for a family of colour due to an instance of fraud, obviously tensions were running high and they chose to play the race card. Regrettable but it happens.
Another time was when I was volunteering with a debt advisory service and the people we were trying to secure a DRO for fell outside the parameters. As a result we were unable to help and the whole situation deteriorated into a rant about how as we were white we couldn't possibly understand and that our privilege and entitlement as white born meant we have no empathy or sympathy for the situation.
Then there was the time we were working with a Staffs C.U. project to raise awareness in University of alcohol abuse and mental health issues and how one affects the other and how they both have a massive bearing on life, money, happiness etc. I was there as a speaker due to my extensive problems with alcohol in the past and as part of the talk I used real examples of people I'd personally been through the struggle with.
I used an example of myself, a black guy I know well and an Asian dude, not for any other reason other to highlight how alcoholism crosses cultural divides and isn't fussy about who it affects.
When I got to telling about the other two I was constantly heckled about not being able to understand their problems because I was white and therefore not qualified to speak about them or their situations. ironically it was white students who were doing the heckling.
So I hope that rebuffs the allegation that I was not being honest. I may be many things, misguided, misinformed, sarcastic, stroppy even confrontational but don't ever infer that I am a liar
A man of your years and experience, you've likely had interactions with tens of thousands of people, if not more, over the decades. Some interactions will be fleeting, others long and continuous, and everything in between.
And in that time you've had a handful of experiences about apologising or whatever?
So yeah in reality you've never been asked to apologise for anything, when we consider the overall sample size. It's such a tiny amount of times that it renders it pretty insignificant in the grand scheme.
I can see you don't like to be labelled a liar, so I assume you stand by your claim from the other year that you've made over 400 live poker final tables, yes?
I have personally been told on more than one occasion by people of both white and black ethnicity that being born a white man makes me privileged and entitled and as a consequence I should feel an inherited guilt for the treatment that white people gave to other races.
Do you expect anyone to believe that you have been approached personally to be told this , then on another occasion someone else chose to tell you the same thing ?
Where were you ?
At a slave owners shaming convention.
One occasion was at a foodbank where unfortunately we couldn't honour a voucher for a family of colour due to an instance of fraud, obviously tensions were running high and they chose to play the race card. Regrettable but it happens.
Another time was when I was volunteering with a debt advisory service and the people we were trying to secure a DRO for fell outside the parameters. As a result we were unable to help and the whole situation deteriorated into a rant about how as we were white we couldn't possibly understand and that our privilege and entitlement as white born meant we have no empathy or sympathy for the situation.
Then there was the time we were working with a Staffs C.U. project to raise awareness in University of alcohol abuse and mental health issues and how one affects the other and how they both have a massive bearing on life, money, happiness etc. I was there as a speaker due to my extensive problems with alcohol in the past and as part of the talk I used real examples of people I'd personally been through the struggle with.
I used an example of myself, a black guy I know well and an Asian dude, not for any other reason other to highlight how alcoholism crosses cultural divides and isn't fussy about who it affects.
When I got to telling about the other two I was constantly heckled about not being able to understand their problems because I was white and therefore not qualified to speak about them or their situations. ironically it was white students who were doing the heckling.
So I hope that rebuffs the allegation that I was not being honest. I may be many things, misguided, misinformed, sarcastic, stroppy even confrontational but don't ever infer that I am a liar
A man of your years and experience, you've likely had interactions with tens of thousands of people, if not more, over the decades. Some interactions will be fleeting, others long and continuous, and everything in between.
And in that time you've had a handful of experiences about apologising or whatever?
So yeah in reality you've never been asked to apologise for anything, when we consider the overall sample size. It's such a tiny amount of times that it renders it pretty insignificant in the grand scheme.
I can see you don't like to be labelled a liar, so I assume you stand by your claim from the other year that you've made over 400 live poker final tables, yes?
Perhaps fantasizer is apt.
So now you agree that I HAVE been asked to feel guilt / apologise for being white, which was what I stated. I never quoted a sample size. I was simply giving examples to show that I was being truthful.
Regarding the poker, like I said at the time playing a 30 - 40 runner comp 3 / 4 nights per week for approx 40weeks over 20 years means you don't need to be Matt Bates to final table when the ft is 10 players.
In fact do the maths yeah, lets take the average at 3.5 comps per week for 40 weeks over 20 years.
That's 2800 comps so to F T 400 = 14.2857% which when you reckon the average field is 35 runners is not a particularly good average.
I ASSUME THAT NOW THE FIGURES ADD UP YOULL FIND YET MORE SH1T TO THROW MY WAY
I have personally been told on more than one occasion by people of both white and black ethnicity that being born a white man makes me privileged and entitled and as a consequence I should feel an inherited guilt for the treatment that white people gave to other races.
Do you expect anyone to believe that you have been approached personally to be told this , then on another occasion someone else chose to tell you the same thing ?
Where were you ?
At a slave owners shaming convention.
One occasion was at a foodbank where unfortunately we couldn't honour a voucher for a family of colour due to an instance of fraud, obviously tensions were running high and they chose to play the race card. Regrettable but it happens.
Another time was when I was volunteering with a debt advisory service and the people we were trying to secure a DRO for fell outside the parameters. As a result we were unable to help and the whole situation deteriorated into a rant about how as we were white we couldn't possibly understand and that our privilege and entitlement as white born meant we have no empathy or sympathy for the situation.
Then there was the time we were working with a Staffs C.U. project to raise awareness in University of alcohol abuse and mental health issues and how one affects the other and how they both have a massive bearing on life, money, happiness etc. I was there as a speaker due to my extensive problems with alcohol in the past and as part of the talk I used real examples of people I'd personally been through the struggle with.
I used an example of myself, a black guy I know well and an Asian dude, not for any other reason other to highlight how alcoholism crosses cultural divides and isn't fussy about who it affects.
When I got to telling about the other two I was constantly heckled about not being able to understand their problems because I was white and therefore not qualified to speak about them or their situations. ironically it was white students who were doing the heckling.
So I hope that rebuffs the allegation that I was not being honest. I may be many things, misguided, misinformed, sarcastic, stroppy even confrontational but don't ever infer that I am a liar
A man of your years and experience, you've likely had interactions with tens of thousands of people, if not more, over the decades. Some interactions will be fleeting, others long and continuous, and everything in between.
And in that time you've had a handful of experiences about apologising or whatever?
So yeah in reality you've never been asked to apologise for anything, when we consider the overall sample size. It's such a tiny amount of times that it renders it pretty insignificant in the grand scheme.
I can see you don't like to be labelled a liar, so I assume you stand by your claim from the other year that you've made over 400 live poker final tables, yes?
Perhaps fantasizer is apt.
So now you agree that I HAVE been asked to feel guilt / apologise for being white, which was what I stated. I never quoted a sample size. I was simply giving examples to show that I was being truthful.
Regarding the poker, like I said at the time playing a 30 - 40 runner comp 3 / 4 nights per week for approx 40weeks over 20 years means you don't need to be Matt Bates to final table when the ft is 10 players.
In fact do the maths yeah, lets take the average at 3.5 comps per week for 40 weeks over 20 years.
That's 2800 comps so to F T 400 = 14.2857% which when you reckon the average field is 35 runners is not a particularly good average.
I ASSUME THAT NOW THE FIGURES ADD UP YOULL FIND YET MORE SH1T TO THROW MY WAY
But hey think what you want like.
You're claiming you've been asked to feel guilt or apologise for being white. I have no reason to believe or disbelieve you, so I think I'll file it under 'might but might not have happened'.
2800 live comps? Ok, sure. Also under 'might but might not have happened'.
Before the pandemic there were 8 comps a week in Stoke 5 at Genting or Stanleys as it was before then 3 at Grosvenor.
Playing 3 or 4 a week with a £25 buy in was not difficult some regs played every night. Comps used to start at 8 and finish anywhere between 1 and 3 then it was hit the cash tables if there were seats free.
What's so difficult to comprehend.
An really blood like street speak and ting gonna make me cry for fam an stuff innit.
Before the pandemic there were 8 comps a week in Stoke 5 at Genting or Stanleys as it was before then 3 at Grosvenor.
Playing 3 or 4 a week with a £25 buy in was not difficult some regs played every night. Comps used to start at 8 and finish anywhere between 1 and 3 then it was hit the cash tables if there were seats free.
What's so difficult to comprehend.
An really blood like street speak and ting gonna make me cry for fam an stuff innit.
'Might but might not have happened'.
Not difficult to comprehend at all.
How long were you a bouncer for? Was that a full time role?
Comments
The New Testament is the collection of books written after Christ detailing his later life and teachings.
The Old testament briefly chronicles Israelite history from creation up to the point where God decides the only way to save man from permanent separation is to intercede directly and send his Son.
Yes the New testament certainly lacks much of the grittier elements of its forerunner but there is however still genocide, racism, sexism and xenophobia.
It seems to me like you want to cherry pick the good things from history, but anything that is indifferent or bad you're happy for that to be swept under the carpet, never to be spoken of.....''no need to keep digging it up''.
Someone saying that Churchill was, for example, a wartime leader but an awful human being isn't deleting or editing history. It's actually highlighting both sides of the coin and offers a more balanced approach.
I think anyone trying to suppress the more unsavoury elements of history are far more 'guilty' of trying to delete or edit it. Much better to have it all out in the open, the good the bad and the ugly. If some things make for uncomfortable reading/viewing then so be it.
As a nation I feel we have a way too nostalgic viewpoint of our history; happy to chirp about winning 2 world wars or whatever but then cry foul if anyone dares mention some of the more abhorrent stuff we were responsible for.
How can you learn from history if we have such a one sided view of it?
To give it a poker analogy, a good way to improve your game is to look through hand histories.
But your game wouldn't improve if you only looked at the hands you played well, and glossed over the hands you butchered. You'd learn nothing.
To give another analogy, which is perhaps bit more crass but I'm sure you'll get me.
The murder of George Floyd. Certain sections of society are very quick to bring up his history, his previous crimes and misdemeanours. Sometimes in an extreme way to justify his death, or at least mitigate the circumstances surrounding it. Generally, those same people don't want anyone to speak ill of Churchill and will resent anything negative being said.
Amazing how you can manipulate history to suit a narrative, which is why it's much more agreeable to have it all out in the open, warts and all, and subject to scrutiny.
What's so hard to understand.
Let's be honest, no-one is actually asking you to apologise for anything.
You've got the hump cos some people want to take a more balanced retrospective look at your favourite ''iconic Britons''.
No need to get all snowflakey about it.
Quite clearly we inhabit different perspectives, that's fine but please accept that I have personally been told on more than one occasion by people of both white and black ethnicity that being born a white man makes me privileged and entitled and as a consequence I should feel an inherited guilt for the treatment that white people gave to other races.
Looking retrospectively accomplishes nothing except to give further credence to this attitude. I am not the one who wishes to cherry pick history, in fact I say let it stand in both its magnificent glory and its deepest shame. Proud and disgraced in equal parts but don't you ever dare try to alter or change it as a sop to the conscience simply because there is a wish to judge yesterdays people by todays standards.
It's like the calls to delete all reference to the merchants who were active in the slave trade. Yes their practices were heinous and abhorrent and quite rightly they are villified for that. BUT they were also responsible for cities like Liverpool and Bristol, they founded Universities, great engineering projects, Banks and institutions and were a major part of the infrastructure on which our very heritage was built.
Can't have one without the other
So where does it end?
Do we send the demolition teams into Wales to tear down the great castles built by Edward 1 because surely they stand as a monument to a murderous English King who conquered and enslaved a country. Surely its about time protestors demand our Government issues a grovelling apology regarding our treatment of the Celts.
If not, why not.
What's the difference.
I have personally been told on more than one occasion by people of both white and black ethnicity that being born a white man makes me privileged and entitled and as a consequence I should feel an inherited guilt for the treatment that white people gave to other races.
Do you expect anyone to believe that you have been approached personally to be told this , then on another occasion someone else chose to tell you the same thing ?
Where were you ?
At a slave owners shaming convention.
Another time was when I was volunteering with a debt advisory service and the people we were trying to secure a DRO for fell outside the parameters. As a result we were unable to help and the whole situation deteriorated into a rant about how as we were white we couldn't possibly understand and that our privilege and entitlement as white born meant we have no empathy or sympathy for the situation.
Then there was the time we were working with a Staffs C.U. project to raise awareness in University of alcohol abuse and mental health issues and how one affects the other and how they both have a massive bearing on life, money, happiness etc.
I was there as a speaker due to my extensive problems with alcohol in the past and as part of the talk I used real examples of people I'd personally been through the struggle with.
I used an example of myself, a black guy I know well and an Asian dude, not for any other reason other to highlight how alcoholism crosses cultural divides and isn't fussy about who it affects.
When I got to telling about the other two I was constantly heckled about not being able to understand their problems because I was white and therefore not qualified to speak about them or their situations. ironically it was white students who were doing the heckling.
So I hope that rebuffs the allegation that I was not being honest. I may be many things, misguided, misinformed, sarcastic, stroppy even confrontational but don't ever infer that I am a liar
Ill retract the liar bit and replace it with fantasizer.
Some interactions will be fleeting, others long and continuous, and everything in between.
And in that time you've had a handful of experiences about apologising or whatever?
So yeah in reality you've never been asked to apologise for anything, when we consider the overall sample size.
It's such a tiny amount of times that it renders it pretty insignificant in the grand scheme.
I can see you don't like to be labelled a liar, so I assume you stand by your claim from the other year that you've made over 400 live poker final tables, yes?
Perhaps fantasizer is apt.
Regarding the poker, like I said at the time playing a 30 - 40 runner comp 3 / 4 nights per week for approx 40weeks over 20 years means you don't need to be Matt Bates to final table when the ft is 10 players.
In fact do the maths yeah, lets take the average at 3.5 comps per week for 40 weeks over 20 years.
That's 2800 comps so to F T 400 = 14.2857% which when you reckon the average field is 35 runners is not a particularly good average.
I ASSUME THAT NOW THE FIGURES ADD UP YOULL FIND YET MORE SH1T TO THROW MY WAY
But hey think what you want like.
I have no reason to believe or disbelieve you, so I think I'll file it under 'might but might not have happened'.
2800 live comps?
Ok, sure.
Also under 'might but might not have happened'.
Seems to be an ongoing theme innit.
Playing 3 or 4 a week with a £25 buy in was not difficult some regs played every night. Comps used to start at 8 and finish anywhere between 1 and 3 then it was hit the cash tables if there were seats free.
What's so difficult to comprehend.
An really blood like street speak and ting gonna make me cry for fam an stuff innit.
Not difficult to comprehend at all.
How long were you a bouncer for?
Was that a full time role?