Guest firetotheworks Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Our football does represent a tragedy though In before Pilko. We started out like Romeo and Juliet but it ended in tragedy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Well that's the season over with... Though with these two picking the team we will probably flirt with relegation... It got ugly at the end with Carver left in no doubt what we thought of it all... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. 2015 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. 2015 http://www.disclosurenewsonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/shots-fired.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. 2015 Motherfucker, it's got me already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/666/_57c8a1a431a592af806925e57258202f.png Extra for it not even being right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Well that's the season over with... Though with these two picking the team we will probably flirt with relegation... It got ugly at the end with Carver left in no doubt what we thought of it all... Did he not threaten to chin you? If not, you got off lightly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Stop ignoring history man. What? So I should dislike people because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujpest doza Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. 2015 PMSL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/666/_57c8a1a431a592af806925e57258202f.png wrap it up, KI Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 That was worse than the vast majority of genocides. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Our football does represent a tragedy though In before Pilko. We started out like Romeo and Juliet but it ended in tragedy. nice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujpest doza Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Stop ignoring history man. What? So I should dislike people because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? Why not? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fugazi Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Stop ignoring history man. What? So I should dislike people because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? this thread is taking ridiculous turns like Love this place Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Stop ignoring history man. What? So I should dislike people because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? Why not? PAHAHAHAHAHA. Fucking hell. Are you being serious? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujpest doza Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Stop ignoring history man. What? So I should dislike people because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? Why not? PAHAHAHAHAHA. Fucking hell. Are you being serious? What do you think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Stop ignoring history man. What? So I should dislike people because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? this thread is taking ridiculous turns like tiote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Stop ignoring history man. What? So I should dislike people because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? Why not? PAHAHAHAHAHA. Fucking hell. Are you being serious? What do you think? I'd like to hope that you're blatantly taking the piss, but I'm genuinely not sure. If it's a joke then I don't see you're angle, if you're being serious then I don't know where to begin on just how thick of a thing that is to say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlito Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Stop ignoring history man. What? So I should dislike people because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? this thread is taking ridiculous turns like Love this place Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickthemagpie Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Since when did 'Cockney' become a derogatory term anyway? It's derogatory when sandwiched between with 'fat' and 'b******'. Aye but at least one of those two things is true. Not sure if he's medically fat like. Medically fat. MEDICALLY. Aye, and black people are black, that's a fact. As Hans pointed out though it's a different context if it's sandwiched between 'fat' and 'b******' though, isn't it? Introduce race to try and take the moral high ground. Pathetic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicane Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 What is going on This was supposed to be a happy day, Pardew is finally gone and yet people are angrier than ever Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Open_C Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 What is going on This was supposed to be a happy day, Pardew is finally gone and yet people are angrier than ever But about different stuff this time, which is nice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Since when did 'Cockney' become a derogatory term anyway? It's derogatory when sandwiched between with 'fat' and 'b******'. Aye but at least one of those two things is true. Not sure if he's medically fat like. Medically fat. MEDICALLY. Aye, and black people are black, that's a fact. As Hans pointed out though it's a different context if it's sandwiched between 'fat' and 'b******' though, isn't it? Introduce race to try and take the moral high ground. Pathetic. I could introduce anything else mate, it's another example of something out of his control, that's the entire point. You put something in the middle of 'fat' and 'bastard' and it's obviously meant as an insult, it shouldn't need to be explained. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Since when did 'Cockney' become a derogatory term anyway? It's derogatory when sandwiched between with 'fat' and 'b******'. Aye but at least one of those two things is true. Not sure if he's medically fat like. Medically fat. MEDICALLY. Aye, and black people are black, that's a fact. As Hans pointed out though it's a different context if it's sandwiched between 'fat' and 'b******' though, isn't it? Introduce race to try and take the moral high ground. Pathetic. It's because it's sandwiched in a list of negatives. Fat bastard. Okay. He probably leads a sedentary lifestyle. His obesity is on him. And he acts in a right bastard way. But he has no control over where he was born, thus the analogy with race because it's outside of his control; it doesn't belong in a list of negatives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisjraby Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 http://persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/kingofpopcorn1.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now