Max777's Forum Posts | Swinging Heaven

Join the most popular community of UK swingers now

Max777

Over 90 days ago

Straight Male, 71

0 miles · Tyne and Wear

Profile Follows

Meets Parties Stories

Forum

2 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
You may be right to question whether being a Christian makes you a member of a race ditto whether being a Roman Catholic or for that matter a Muslim..... because all of these religions are proselytising religions (hope spell check will help me out!).
The Jews and certain other religions did not proselytisye (i.e. actively convert others) and so the membership of the religion is very closely tied to their race
though there are a small number of exceptions I would suggest there is no real room to argue that the Jews are not a distinct "race"
Jack

I would like to concede that point because it does make sense, but think it would be wrong to do so, Polish Jews, Romanian Jews, German Jews, French Jews, Dutch Jews, although they are all caucasions there were a small number of non-caucasion Jews murdered, the fact that their numbers are few being the main reason, the reason that I have to reject the argument is because AH would have killed every Jew if he could, had he found large numbers in Afria or in Asia he would have treated them exactly the same and for the same reason his mind wanted the other jews murdered not because of colour but because they were Jews. It may be a fine line but a line it is and what I am saying is that AH was worse than a racist he was a xenophobist.
I really don't follow your logic. Green_Fox_71 is correct in saying the Jews regard themselves as a race as opposed to a religion but you say you have to reject his argument as Hitler would have killed all Jews because they were Jews, not because of Nationality or colour. So you agree Hitler was in fact trying to exterminate an entire race but still reject Green Fox's argument.

2 Apr 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
Well you saw it here first.

Air Samoa is a small airline that flies small aircraft. All passengers have to be weighed as a matter of course. It would be logistically impossible to apply this scenario to large aircraft.

7 Mar 2013

off to the sun for a week :-D

7 Mar 2013

On a similar theme.......
A few years back I was spending a weekend in an Amsterdam hotel with a Swedish lady who was, to put it mildly, very vocal.
During an extremely loud session there was a knock at the room door and I looked through the peep-hole to see a guy standing there in his y-fronts :scared: I didn't know whether he had come to complain or to join in and I didn't open the door to find out.
We tried to keep the noise levels down after that!

2 Mar 2013

Quote by foxylady2209
I'm not sure I've ever heard of anyone choosing to switch to Catholicism. .

Tony Blair was a recent high profile convert to Catholicism!

5 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

I'll make whatever contribution I feel like making, trivial or not. No washing up to do tonight, I'm in your beloved London Town so will be seeing what bright lights have to offer

Depends on what part of London Town you will be going to Max. The West end is lights and party atmosphere, the East end is pretty much a bit of a dive now to be honest. North London has the borough of Tottenham Hale in it so I will say no more, and South London well.......I think we have already done the South London to bits. lol

lol

But wherever you go Max, it will certainly be a good change from the kitchen sink and a bit of Fairy. :wink:
Thanks for the geography lesson but I spend sufficient time away from the kitchen sink and in London to know my way around. Maybe you should get out a little more, they do say travel broadens the mind!

5 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

So how was it intended to read and what is the relevance of the word OTHER, as in "other Tory toff" when no other Tories are mentioned?

You bored or something Max?
If that is the only contribution you want to make to this forum, whether I meant Tory or Liberal, and the word ' other ',then we would have no posting at all if everyone else wanted to be as trivial.
Max you are correct. Is that better? Back to the washing up Max. :rascal:
I'll make whatever contribution I feel like making, trivial or not. No washing up to do tonight, I'm in your beloved London Town so will be seeing what bright lights have to offer wink

wink

5 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
IMO he needs locking up as well.!

:thumbup:
Actually many many people have been locked up for perverting the course of justice, and I thought it would have carried a guaranteed prison sentence.
Mind you though is a prison term not a clear cut certainty of a return to politics? lol

lol

This guy is like most MP's. A liar and a fraud, and always there to save their own necks, no matter who they have to fuck over to do it. His Son thinks he is a wanker as well, seems things are not going too well for him, and I am very suprised that that other Tory toff Cameron, has not made himself look an idiot as usual by siding with his chum.
Huhne is ( or rather was) a Liberal Democrat.
Where have I indicated he was not Max? Is Cameron not a Tory toff then?
He's certainly a Tory......but your use of the phrase" that the other Tory toff Cameron" would suggest you were implying Huhne was a Tory too.
Ah Max....because you read it that way, then it is correct? I have looked at it again and.....no you are wrong it reads exactly how it was intended to read. :thumbup:
So how was it intended to read and what is the relevance of the word OTHER, as in "other Tory toff" when no other Tories are mentioned?

4 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
IMO he needs locking up as well.!

:thumbup:
Actually many many people have been locked up for perverting the course of justice, and I thought it would have carried a guaranteed prison sentence.
Mind you though is a prison term not a clear cut certainty of a return to politics? lol

lol

This guy is like most MP's. A liar and a fraud, and always there to save their own necks, no matter who they have to fuck over to do it. His Son thinks he is a wanker as well, seems things are not going too well for him, and I am very suprised that that other Tory toff Cameron, has not made himself look an idiot as usual by siding with his chum.
Huhne is ( or rather was) a Liberal Democrat.
Where have I indicated he was not Max? Is Cameron not a Tory toff then?
He's certainly a Tory......but your use of the phrase" that the other Tory toff Cameron" would suggest you were implying Huhne was a Tory too.

4 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
IMO he needs locking up as well.!

:thumbup:
Actually many many people have been locked up for perverting the course of justice, and I thought it would have carried a guaranteed prison sentence.
Mind you though is a prison term not a clear cut certainty of a return to politics? lol

lol

This guy is like most MP's. A liar and a fraud, and always there to save their own necks, no matter who they have to fuck over to do it. His Son thinks he is a wanker as well, seems things are not going too well for him, and I am very suprised that that other Tory toff Cameron, has not made himself look an idiot as usual by siding with his chum.
Huhne is ( or rather was) a Liberal Democrat.

19 Jan 2013

Quote by GnV
I think neil has hit the nail on the head with his reference to buggering about with the forum titles.
The CA was, in my very humble opinion, the best iteration - separated from the cafe - because it very clearly delineated the type of bear pit forumites were entering. Whilst not everyone contributed, the number of people who observed the goings on without daring to abandon hope gave the forum it's popularity.
The current version 'fancy a chat' rather suggests something to do with the chat rooms and since few chat roomers tend to venture into the forum, there is little encouragement to do so with the current nomenclature.
NOTE TO ADMIN: please can we have the CA back?
NOTE TO FLOWER: I posted 2 minutes before you did

I'm in total agreement with you ( and Neil) on this. In virtually all the time I have been a member of SH, it's been an oft repeated complaint that the forum isn't what it used to be but it does appear to be at an all time low right now. Forums require a supply of new posters to keep them fresh but they appear to be in very short supply. I could be wrong but it seems as though most of the regulars still posting are long term and therefore non paying members. Coincidence?
There was a tiny minority of members that incessantly called for the removal of the CA forum and its rather ironic that one in particular has been noticeably absent since the new forums came into being!

13 Jan 2013

Quote by Stevie_and_Kitty
No snow in Newcastle....

There is now!

24 Dec 2012

Merry Christmas and a happy and propserous New Year to one and all.

19 Dec 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
No, I am a soldier, I know when to retreat and when a war cannot be won, no matter what I post in these forums there are some that will argue black is white and white is black to put me down, it just isn't worth the arguments and bad feelings it brings to the forums, it ruins good discussions and spoils everyone's enjoyment so I will accept that what I did was wrong and ban myself from the forums.
Enjoy yourselves, Max, Trev, Star, have a great Xmas and and even better New Year.

dunno

19 Dec 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
I removed my post within half an hour of posting as soon as I realised after reading the other posts that even removing his name would not be enough to keep his anonanimity I have asked the people who copied the post using the quote facility to remove thier copies of it.
That said this profile is freely available for anyone to see, it has had only 2 views so far mine and that of he who found it using the search facility.
I have sent an apology to the person concerned but if the moderators believe it to be a breach of the rules then they do have the power to ban me from the forums and the site.
Will the punishment I get should I be punished also be given to Trev who quoted parts of MY profile ?
Naming and Shaming is no worse than abusive posts which some people here love to do don't they

His profile may be freely available for all to see but no one would know that he sent you a wink, either by error or design and no one would know that he was the guy you were referring to in your post.
If you believe a post to be abusive, feel free to report it.

19 Dec 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
Your right, we do meet single males occasionally, rarely, but even some of the nicer guys don't get down that far in what is, yes a long profile, so we have found that having that at the top does help to prevent them wasting thier time and ours.
Our profile is designed to convey a little of our personality, stop people wasting thier time by being upfront and honest about our swinging lifestyle and stop people wasting our time.
I realised that the guy who mailed us was new, unfortunately in most things you get only one chance, he has already blown his chance with us because he didn't bother to find out anything about the way things work or what we want before mailing us, we are not interested in people who are only interested in themselves.
I did hope he would read it and others who think the same as him, and perhaps learn from the mistake and improve thier chances of having some fun.

Reproducing the guy's profile is tantamount to naming and shaming which I believe is not permissible on this site. Can a mod please look at this?

19 Dec 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
and as if by majic, we just got this mail from a single male ......
(Obviously I have removed the user name so that nobody knows who it is from (probably not even him)
Hi, Really like your profile, why don't you drop by and have a look at mine, and let me know what you think.

So we look at his profile, what a waste of time that was, all I know is he is a tall largely built guy of 33 yrs of age, straight but looking for bi-couples amongst others, does he honestly think anyone is going to be interested in organising a meet ? should we mail him and ask him to fill in the blanks ? why should we if he can't be bothered writing it in the first place, there are plenty of other single males who have bothered and have taken the time to read our profile, something we consider to be a sign of respect and not to read it before getting in touch is disrespectfull, we are not looking for disrespectfull peopile

I would hazard a guess that they have just joined the site today and may not even be full members. I believe that you have received a wink. It may possibly have been sent inadvertently.
I think it's very disrespectful to reproduce their profile in the forum. Others may not know who the profile belongs to but the owner of the profile will.

11 Dec 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
Are the people here so bigotted as to believe they could not be wrong sometimes, are they too proud to admit when they are wrong, made a mistake, could have been confused or missinformed ?

rotflmao

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:

9 Dec 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
MidsCouple24 wrote:
GnV wrote:
I would guess its all about briefing (or lack of it). Very very unlikely that the Queen would ring up at that time of night for an update. More likely that the Queens physician would ring the Palace.
Absolutely right, the hospital failed to brief staff or have personnel in place to deal with such an important issue, how would anyone here feel if information of a personal nature was given to "any old caller" when they were in hospital let alone someone as important to the nation as the Duchess.
Anyway, what's done is done.
Yea she is dead what does that matter, let's just forget it and move on
Two red faced Aussie DJ's now laughing on the other side of their faces.... And probably swimming in their own faeces.
One might hope two ex DJ's
MAX wrote (in answer to the above which he quoted)
Deal with what such important issue....a hoax call? As GNV has already said, it is highly unlikely that the Queen would have rung the hospital herself, let alone ring it at am.
It is plain to see in the paragraph copied and pasted from the first page of the thread that the "important issue" is that which GnV wrote about, ie the phone call, which has been shown to be a hoax call.
Max then asked (shown above)
"what important issue.....a hoax call, why he asked that I do not know since in this post no other important issue was discussed other than the phone call.
To me Max is implying the phone call ie the hoax is not an important issue, despite the fact that it appears to have been the cause (perhaps the final straw amidst others) to have caused the nurse to take her own life.
Therefore I think it fair for me to assume that the nurses death was to him, not an important issue.
Accused of "reading only what I want to read" I think the shoe might be on the other foot and part quoting statements or posts can easily change the context.
The reason I did not want to answer the question was quite simply because the thead is being taken aiway from the real purpose of it, discussing the incident, the morals and the responsibilities of what happened.
I see it is a rule for one and that one is you write verbal abuse to me in here, call me names say what you want, but god forbid don't say anything to you about not caring eh.
____________________________________________________________________________________

OK, let's put things into perspective.
You made a totally incorrect and illogical assumption following a post of mine that was so simple it could have been understood by anyone possessing the basic rudiments of English grammar. I asked a simple question, what important issue? You then made a derogatory accusation against me.
I subsequently pointed out your error upon several occasions and requested an apology. You refused to apologise.
It was then that I made my comments regarding your 'idiotic comments, ' as how the hell you can read what you believe I meant from such a simple question is way beyond me. YOU started this by making totally incorrect and derogatory accusations against me which you continue to perpetuate.
I have given you the explanation you wanted and yet you still refuse to acknowledge you are wrong.
I am going to retract my earlier statement that you can't be as stupid as you make out. Clearly you are.

9 Dec 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
but my repeated attempts to ascertain what he meant by the statement remain unanswered,

On the contrary, it has been answered. Perhaps you could now answer the question that max has repeatedly asked? Where did he show contempt for the deceased?
The silence is deafening, Trevaunance!

8 Dec 2012

Quote by flower411
Just as an aside .......
Has anybody actually seen a credible source that states that the suicide was a direct result of the hoax call?
Does anybody know for certain that the hospital didn`t have procedures in place ?
Does anybody know anything at all other than the fact there was a hoax call and a suicide ?

I'm in total agreement with you Flower. It must be nearly Xmas wink

wink

8 Dec 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
As for Max, well far be it from me to put words in his mouth but as far as I see it the 'important issue' being referred to at the time was nothing to do with the person involved, it has just been construed that way, and certainly shows no contempt.

Still don't get this, the whole situation arose from a hoax call, how can that call not be relevant or important, if I misunderstood what he meant by his statement (or read what I want to read) I have already said I would apologise but my repeated attempts to ascertain what he meant by the statement remain unanswered, so I say again, to say or imply that a hoax call that results in the death of a person is unimportant is disrespectfull, would anyone hear having found that a loved one had died as a result of an ambulance or fire appliance being late due to a hoax call believe that the hoax call was not important ?

Seeing as how I gave you the explantion you requested some 43 minutes before you made this post I can only assume that I was correct all along and you simply read what you want to read, irrespective of what people actually write and will do anything but admit that you were wrong.

8 Dec 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
As for Max, well far be it from me to put words in his mouth but as far as I see it the 'important issue' being referred to at the time was nothing to do with the person involved, it has just been construed that way, and certainly shows no contempt.

Thanks Trevaunance. Quite unbelievable how others choose to interpret it differently.

8 Dec 2012

Scary indeed! Glad to hear that you are recovering. Take it easy

8 Dec 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
Maybe people don't post anymore because some on here resort to personal insults, calling others idiots when they disagree with themselves, or demand answers to questions whilst refusing to answer questions put to them.
Your posts say more about you than they do about me, wether you like it or not.

OK, I will spell it out for you as you are clearly not capable of comprehending what others write. You made a statement that the hospital failed to brief staff or have personnel in place to deal with such an important issue. I simply asked for clarification upon the 'important issue' ...did you mean the hoax call? How you can interpret that as contempt is beyond me.
As I have said before, you have no idea as to whether the hospital had procedures in place or not and as to whether staff had been briefed. I rather suspect that the hospital does have procedures and that the staff would have been briefed. The nurse that actually gave the information didn't just give the information to '"any old caller" as the call was obviously put through to her with the information that it was the Queen on the lline. What was she supposed to do? Refuse to give the "queen" the information she requested or maybe ask a security question along the lines of " can I have your mother's maiden name please".
Everything is easy with hindsight. It would have been a bloody good risk analysis that highlighted the potential problem of a couple if idiot DJs with Aussie accents masquerading as the Queen and making a hoax call to the hospital.
If you really think logically about this, do you not think the Queen would have direct access to Kate and William and would not have to resort to ringing a hospital reception at am. The hoax call itself was not malicious, as others have pointed out it is something that has been done on numerous other occasions by other 'entertainers'. Unfortunately it had unforeseen and tragic consequences. I'm sure that all concerned would turn back the clock if they could.
Now do you understand my position?

8 Dec 2012

Quote by northwest-cpl
The woman's dead and her death provides another excuse for pointless point scoring. Do you feckers behave like this in the pub of an evening?

I'm not point scoring. I have been accused of treating the dead nurse with contempt. I have done no such thing, unfortunately the other person either can not or will not admit they are wrong. I'm therefore making my position quite clear and I make no excuse for that.

8 Dec 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
nobody can deny I am the first to admit when I am wrong, but I simply don't understand how your statement that this hoax call was not important can be taken as anything but serious when it resulted in the death of a hard working nurse ? please explain to me what you meant by it.
oh and I don't think you talk bollocks I believe you give your own honest opinion which is what forums are for.

I believe you read what you want to read, not what others actually write. As I said in a previous post, you have taken my words entirely out of context. My comments regarding the hoax call were in response to your idiotic ranting that the hospital reception should have been manned 24/7 and that the hospital had no procedures in place, a fact that you really have no knowledge of either way. As a matter of interest, when you ring a ward in an NHS hospital, who is the phone answered by?
I really would like an apology for your totally incorrect accusation that I was contemptuous towards the dead nurse
Nope, no apology, I did answer your question as to why I thought you were being disrespectful, you did not however answer my question as to how I had misinterpreted (read what I wanted to read as you put it) what you wrote.
I stated
"Absolutely right, the hospital failed to brief staff or have personnel in place to deal with such an important issue, how would anyone here feel if information of a personal nature was given to "any old caller" when they were in hospital let alone someone as important to the nation as the Duchess."
To which you replied
"Deal with what such important issue....a hoax call?"
I read that as you saying that a hoax call was not important even though it led to the death of a nurse and indeed pointed out that many people die in the UK every year as a result of hoax calls for example those to the emergency services, that hoax calls regarding bombs disrupt the lives of many and cost industry a lot of money, so, yes I do believe hoax calls are an important issue.
Now, if I have read what I want to read, misinterpreted what you meant then please answer my question as to what you did mean by the statement, them perhaps you might be vindicated and I will apologise.
I can't believe that you really are as stupid as you make out so you must be trying to defend your idiotic comments to a ludicrous degree? Either way, I'm going to take heed of the old saying about never arguing with an idiot.
And Flower asks why people don't post any more!

8 Dec 2012

Quote by Max777
nobody can deny I am the first to admit when I am wrong, but I simply don't understand how your statement that this hoax call was not important can be taken as anything but serious when it resulted in the death of a hard working nurse ? please explain to me what you meant by it.
oh and I don't think you talk bollocks I believe you give your own honest opinion which is what forums are for.

I believe you read what you want to read, not what others actually write. As I said in a previous post, you have taken my words entirely out of context. My comments regarding the hoax call were in response to your idiotic ranting that the hospital reception should have been manned 24/7 and that the hospital had no procedures in place, a fact that you really have no knowledge of either way. As a matter of interest, when you ring a ward in an NHS hospital, who is the phone answered by?
I really would like an apology for your totally incorrect accusation that I was contemptuous towards the dead nurse

8 Dec 2012

nobody can deny I am the first to admit when I am wrong, but I simply don't understand how your statement that this hoax call was not important can be taken as anything but serious when it resulted in the death of a hard working nurse ? please explain to me what you meant by it.
oh and I don't think you talk bollocks I believe you give your own honest opinion which is what forums are for.[/
I believe you read what you want to read, not what others actually write.. Where have I said that the hoax call was not important? You still haven't answered my question as to where I have shown contempt for the dead nurse.

8 Dec 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
Deal with what such important issue....a hoax call?
This to me says that you believe it is not an important issue that a nurse died because of a hoax call, does anyone else see it that way or how does anyone else read that ?

You really do talk bollox at times. You have taken my words entirely out of context . Once again I will ask you , where have I shown any contempt towards the dead nurse.