And I would agree with the sentiment Ben. It's interesting that quite often those who would extend their support and compassion to one group would not extend it to another in very similar circumstances. For example ( and Mids, I know you've never said this so no need to take me to task for it ) Mids mentions soldiers who've succumbed to alcohol and drug abuse after their exit from the services. IME many would feel sympathy there and offer their support for the project where they might be much less inclined to offer that same support for, and would even go so far as to dismiss and condemn a very similar group of drug and alcohol users in other circumstances. Buddhism teaches infinite compassion. It makes no distinction between the deserving and undeserving. One can not be said to be a truly compassionate human being if one is selective in its application.
That's some scary shit Paddy. The other fruit stuff in the house have gone into hiding in terror. I like playing dress up as much as the next man but the guy's clearly a sexual deviant of the worst kind!
Come on now GnV. I won't try to speak for Ben, he can do that for himself, but for me my position is not informed by any great sympathy for the man or a feeling that we should always wear the very softest of kid gloves to deal with him and his ilk. It's not him I'm championing. I stand for the rule of law. If the rule of law sometimes presents us with consequences that are hard to stomach then the law perhaps needs looking at and changing, but not ignoring altogether to make life easy, which is Mids position.
Mids believes that this man is so odious we should allow the law to look the other way while we bundle him out the country in a way deemed unlawful by the courts. No. I wouldn't have the law temporarily suspended for the sake of convenience for anyone. Soon as you start deciding the law only applies to some and not to others may as well chuck the law out the window altogether cos where do you stop?
There you go again. One man's rights are of greater or lesser value than another's. And who is to decide on which of us enjoy these rights that so arbitrarily trump another's? Govt at will, at their whim? You mentioned Bosnia. Can you not see how what you're advocating is the first step on the slippery slope that leads to the ethnic cleansing you describe, or worse, the gas chamber. Thank fuck Mids for the courts cos the thought that men who think like you might have the power you seem to think desirable fills me with dread. It's why the UK did all in its power to export its legal system to a broken Europe in the 1950s with treaties like the EHCR in the first bloody place.
It's like they learned nothing from Bush. Ironic isn't it: religious fundamentalists at the helm of all those other countries is 'a bad thing', but that's no bar though to electing one at home. Barking! Wonder if he wears the magic pants?
In truth I think it was less bickering and more bickerer(s) that saw Cafe and CA split in the first place. Cafe had existed as a single forum for all kinds of threads for years without problems. A lot of people got sick of certain kinds of threads being continuously posted by a certain type of poster knowing it would kick up a fuss that would then spill over into other threads on altogether none-controversial subjects. I think the decision was taken to corral those off to prevent that wider disruption but that kind of thread was I think at the time associated with a small number of particular individuals, some of whom are no longer with us. This is my take on things, and it seems to be shared by some others I know, some also now banned. As an experiment I think moving CA back into general discussion to see if we can avoid going down the same route again is a good move in my book.
As for sub-forums, makes sense of a big busy forum but SH these days is just not well used enough or fast enough to warrant further sub-dividing. One of my other haunts has maybe 40 forums altogether, I go through phases of posting in particular ones depending what mood I'm in but impossible to keep up to it all, 1000s and 1000s of fast moving threads there. Here it's pointless. IMO.
Never been to the club you mention but no, absolutely no problem having a wander round and a watch whether you end up joining in or taking yourself off to a private room for a play between you. Done it quite a few times myself in quite a few different clubs. Some rooms in some of the clubs I've been to have viewing galleries for exactly that reason, so the voyeurs can perv away while the exhibitionists put on a bit of a show. Noone will have any expectations of you, don't worry. If they do it is for them to adjust their expectations, not up to you to try and fit with them. You're there for your own reasons, to your own ends. So is everyone else! ;)
Helpful bunch on 'ere you see Kent. It's not true what they say about us in the chatroom, honest!
:lol: :lol: 
:rotflmao: :rotflmao:
