Teams that don't respect the poppy appeal?

[Guest Phil K]

Phil, are you serious? I mean: are you joking?

Why should wondering at the pettiness of a man I had previously respected, and found myself highly disappointed by said pettiness be a joke ?

 

I dunno. Perhaps because your posts sound like output of some Daily Mail Reader AI program.

 

Don't be so bloody ridiculous.

I hadn't put you into the "Parky" section, so don't be so childishly insulting in return.

If you can't stand the heat don't open the oven door.

[Keefaz]

Phil, are you serious? I mean: are you joking?

Why should wondering at the pettiness of a man I had previously respected, and found myself highly disappointed by said pettiness be a joke ?

 

I dunno. Perhaps because your posts sound like output of some Daily Mail Reader AI program.

 

Don't be so bloody ridiculous.

I hadn't put you into the "Parky" section, so don't be so insulting in return.

 

I apologise, but can't you see that a man who's saying, "Think for yourself" in a case like this is making a good point? Anything else is just paying lip-service. Forcing someone to wear something as a sign of respect is as stupid as punching someone in the name of peace.

[abcdefg]

For the record Jon Snow has taken this stance for years, you may not agree with him, but it is a logical ethical position, he wears no such things while presenting the news. If certain alleged newspapers simply said nothing about it who would notice? But no, they like to whip people into a frenzy over apparent disrespect, all of which is way more disrespectful than clubs not sewing a poppy into their shirts, which I assume is the thrust of this thread.

[Guest toonlass]

For the record Jon Snow has taken this stance for years, you may not agree with him, but it is a logical ethical position, he wears no such things while presenting the news. If certain alleged newspapers simply said nothing about it who would notice? But no, they like to whip people into a frenzy over apparent disrespect, all of which is may more disrespectful than clubs not sewing a poppy into their shirts, which I assume is the thrust of this thread.

 

No! Really? Newspapers in "whipping up a frenzy" shocker!" 

[Guest Phil K]

For the record Jon Snow has taken this stance for years, you may not agree with him, but it is a logical ethical position, he wears no such things while presenting the news. If certain alleged newspapers simply said nothing about it who would notice? But no, they like to whip people into a frenzy over apparent disrespect, all of which is may more disrespectful than clubs not sewing a poppy into their shirts, which I assume is the thrust of this thread.

 

No! Really? Newspapers in "whipping up a frenzy" shocker!" 

 

EXACTLY.

It swings both ways.

The Guardian have a habit of doing the same thing in THEIR way as the likes of the Mail/Express/Sun whatever.

I'll certainly be following Mr Snow's lapels in this regard in future. 

[abcdefg]

You  really think you're going to catch him wearing a ribbon on tv don't you?

[Guest Phil K]

You  really think you're going to catch him wearing a ribbon on tv don't you?

And you can guarantee he won't ?

Besides - the laughing emoticon should have given you a clue perhaps ?

 

[abcdefg]

"Eh ? ? ?

Whats the difference ?

Do YOU get watched by millions or not ?

Would he wear an aids badge on "World Aids Day" or whatever ?

Of course.

So if he did THAT on screen, why all of a sudden a refusal for a poppy ?"

 

 

oh, you were joking then as well? Silly me.

[Guest Phil K]

"Eh ? ? ?

Whats the difference ?

Do YOU get watched by millions or not ?

Would he wear an aids badge on "World Aids Day" or whatever ?

Of course.

So if he did THAT on screen, why all of a sudden a refusal for a poppy ?"

 

 

oh, you were joking then as well? Silly me.

 

Putting quotes in a box is quite easy you know !

I hadn't read that he didn't for any  - still more than bit dubious on that - I could swear he HAS done. I watch Channel 4 news more than BBC - always had regarded it as less lefty crap than the Beeb, less right wing crap than most of the rags.

[madras]

"Eh ? ? ?

Whats the difference ?

Do YOU get watched by millions or not ?

Would he wear an aids badge on "World Aids Day" or whatever ?

Of course.

So if he did THAT on screen, why all of a sudden a refusal for a poppy ?"

 

 

oh, you were joking then as well? Silly me.

 

Putting quotes in a box is quite easy you know !

I hadn't read that he didn't for any  - still more than bit dubious on that - I could swear he HAS done. I watch Channel 4 news more than BBC - always had regarded it as less lefty crap than the Beeb, less right wing crap than most of the rags.

regarding channel 4 news i agree with phil k.

[abcdefg]

"Eh ? ? ?

Whats the difference ?

Do YOU get watched by millions or not ?

Would he wear an aids badge on "World Aids Day" or whatever ?

Of course.

So if he did THAT on screen, why all of a sudden a refusal for a poppy ?"

 

 

oh, you were joking then as well? Silly me.

 

Putting quotes in a box is quite easy you know !

I hadn't read that he didn't for any  - still more than bit dubious on that - I could swear he HAS done. I watch Channel 4 news more than BBC - always had regarded it as less lefty crap than the Beeb, less right wing crap than most of the rags.

 

I still question your assertion regarding AIDS charities, mainly as it's patently not true.

[Guest Phil K]

wrightstuff83, do you think Celtic fans see themselves as a British club or a Scottish one?

You could also refer to the fact many Celtic fans catcalled during a minutes silence for the Ibrox disaster in the early 70s, and infuriated and shamed the overwhelming majority.

Its not something to be proud of, you know.

Further, if they're neither (they're both, whatever you feel) then why are they so keen to get into the premier league along with their nearest and dearest, and equally bigotted Rangers brothers ?

And as for the World War - there were good Celtic fans among the deceased. There were Celtic fans among the heroes too.

Therefore respect applies to all. I really can't understand the attitudes of some.

 

I still question your assertion regarding AIDS charities, mainly as it's patently not true.

 

By all means question all you like.

But what proof do YOU have it "patently isn't true" ?

[Dave]

Invisible pink unicorns.

[abcdefg]

2005/6

 

Cancer Research was the UK's most popular charity in terms of donations.

 

Cancer Research received £297m in voluntary donations - almost twice as much as its closest rival Oxfam, which received £176m.

[Mowen]

Invisible pink unicorns.

 

If something's invisible how can it have colour?

[abcdefg]

I said patently from my own observations, check out any fun run, collections etc. and cancer research stands out above all others. A quick Google provides the figures.

[Dave]

Invisible pink unicorns.

 

If something's invisible how can it have colour?

 

Well duh.

[madras]

Invisible pink unicorns.

 

If something's invisible how can it have colour?

something invisble can have colour only that we cant see it.

[Guest Phil K]

Invisible pink unicorns.

 

If something's invisible how can it have colour?

something invisble can have colour only that we cant see it.

 

Interesting concept.

If it's got colour, it therefore must be visible.

Invisibility means not having colour or visible substance. 

 

I said patently from my own observations, check out any fun run, collections etc. and cancer research stands out above all others. A quick Google provides the figures.

We disagree then.

Fine and dandy.

Off to work now.

[abcdefg]

No, I backed up my assertion, you did not.

[dustynrg]

Man Utd says they couldnt put a poppy on their top because of their top is red and it wont be noticable or some balls but what would be up with putting it on the black V thats comes across the top of it! Scumbags

 

Too right. They should be stoned to death for ignoring the centuries old tradition of having poppies on football jerseys.

 

Did anyone explain this poppies on shirts thing and WHY it started when it did? As I said before it can only be less than five years at the most.

 

Does it actually matter when it started? The whole point is that for one minute people can have a minute to remember that thousands of people died to ensure we are free. I don't care whether people want to wear a poppy or not, or want to spend that minute silently thanking those who made the sacrifice or if they spend the minute silently singing the theme tune of the simpson's in their head. What annoys me is that there are some who won't allow that minute of silence to go ahead because they are ignorant idiots.

 

Well yes it does matter, if only for the curiosity value. I mean we've had wars forever, soldiers dying for hundreds and thousands of years, poppies since 1918 but footballers wearing poppies since less than five years ago? It doesn't make sense to me. It's not as if the general public or footballers cares more than they did 30 or 40 years ago, we're just meant to show it more for some reason. I'm sure years ago a minute's silence for Remembrance day was only held if the 11th fell on a Saturday.

 

 

 

 

Are you being serious? How can you not understand why public support for the poppy campaign may have increased in the last, I dunno, eight years or so....!?!?

 

Eh? I'm not sure what you mean, did war start eight years ago? Is the war that's going on in Afghanistan now worse than the Falklands War? The Gulf War? The Northern Irish Troubles? The Palestinian wars in the 40s? Or the several Afghan wars in the 19th Century? Worse than the Vietnam War? the Korean War? Well, you get the picture. I truly have no idea what you mean.

[Mr Logic]

I think a lot of people wear poppies because they feel obliged too. The pressure is on them to follow the crowd. I doubt 10% of people wearing poppies give more than a seconds thought to what it represents.

 

And on another note. Shane MacGown (sp?) talking about the ANZAC day parade, or singing to be precise.

 

 

Now every April I sit on my porch,

And I watch the parade pass before me,

I see my old comrades how proudly they march

Reliving the dreams of past glory.

I see the old men all twisted and torn,

The forgotten heroes of a forgotten war.

And the young people ask me, What are they marching for.

And I ask myself the same question.

And the band plays Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda,

And the old men still answer the call,

But year after year their numbers get fewer,

Soon no-one will march there at all.

[madras]

Invisible pink unicorns.

 

If something's invisible how can it have colour?

something invisble can have colour only that we cant see it.

 

Interesting concept.

If it's got colour, it therefore must be visible.

Invisibility means not having colour or visible substance. 

 

I said patently from my own observations, check out any fun run, collections etc. and cancer research stands out above all others. A quick Google provides the figures.

We disagree then.

Fine and dandy.

Off to work now.

invisible just means not visible. therefore cloaking (as the US  are working on) or camoflague could work or something even being to small to see but of which we know its properties.