Question Time

Skeely · Post by **Skeely** » 07 Mar 2007, 13:10

Porty wrote:some mince he found on the internet

Gosh, a very similar thing happened in Washington. Did this globetrotting granny's family die so that the victors would be free to plunder the oil resources of the middle east with impunity?

Damn, you got me. Well, since you're determined to resurrect this thread, I'd like to bring it back on topic.

Question Time

Since I didn't get the chance to ask either of my questions ("...short and to the point on national or international issues in the current news. 30 words at the very maximum, ideally 20.") on air, I would like to present them to this panel instead. Here goes:

1) Given that an independent, nuclear-free Scotland is at least a possibility, should we spend billions on WMD which can't be sited elsewhere in the UK? (Trident)

2) Does the panel think that the reformed Take That's current tour is anything other than a cynical attempt to cash in on their former glory?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Mar 2007, 13:22

Its probably a tweak on a partially true story. Anyway its a valid point even if it is embellished.

Skeely · Post by **Skeely** » 07 Mar 2007, 13:38

Yes, yes, but get back to the point: surely they can't be taken seriously without Robbie?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Mar 2007, 13:39

Porty wrote:its a valid point even if it is embellished.

People could say the same thing about PPAG leaflets!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Mar 2007, 15:03

Dadaist wrote:
Porty wrote:its a valid point even if it is embellished.
People could say the same thing about PPAG leaflets!

Only if a valid point was in evidence.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Mar 2007, 15:16

Skeely wrote:Yes, yes, but get back to the point: surely they can't be taken seriously without Robbie?

Are you inferring that they were previously taken seriously with Robbie?

Skeely · Post by **Skeely** » 07 Mar 2007, 15:30

Porty wrote:
Skeely wrote:Yes, yes, but get back to the point: surely they can't be taken seriously without Robbie?
Are you inferring that they were previously taken seriously with Robbie?

Well, Robbie has good form as a performer if nothing else. I'm sure they were taken seriously by their fans, but the fans have surely grown up, and they're not going to seduce another generation of teenage girls at their age now.

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 07 Mar 2007, 15:45

I don't think for a minute that they're trying to or do appeal to another generation of teenagers. A 47 year old woman in my office is gutted because she has been unable to get tickets

Cynical or not, why knock it if audiences want to spend money to see them...one man's meat is another man's poison as they say...and never more so when it comes to music

Skeely · Post by **Skeely** » 07 Mar 2007, 16:05

foxy wrote:Cynical or not, why knock it if audiences want to spend money to see them...one man's meat is another man's poison as they say...and never more so when it comes to music

Agreed, can't argue with that.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Mar 2007, 19:09

Porty wrote:Its probably a tweak on a partially true story. Anyway its a valid point even if it is embellished.

It's probably a tweak on an entirely invented story. But leaving that aside its valid point is what exactly?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Mar 2007, 12:11

People who have suffered personal loss have the right to defend the cause for which that loss was made?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 Mar 2007, 12:32

Porty wrote:People who have suffered personal loss have the right to defend the cause for which that loss was made?

For me, that would depend on the cause.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Mar 2007, 14:07

Fair enough. However, I was rerfing to the specific story of the old lady.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 Mar 2007, 14:25

Porty wrote:Fair enough. However, I was rerfing to the specific story of the old lady.

Oh. I got confused when you said "people".

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Mar 2007, 14:50

I must say people more often.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 Mar 2007, 15:00

Porty wrote:I must say people more often.

Depends on what you want it to mean when you say it.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 Mar 2007, 20:25

Porty wrote:People who have suffered personal loss have the right to defend the cause for which that loss was made?

With threats of physical violence?

I suppose some might consider that valid.