Crash victim’s tribute to ‘mum’ who saved him (From Daily Echo)

True hero, well done Maria.

Looks dreadful. Tattoos are for the working classes.

chunky_lover wrote:
Looks dreadful. Tattoos are for the working classes.

...are you alluding to something about the working classes? Tattoos are for anyone and everyone, just as fashion, hobbies or anything else generic is.

chunky_lover wrote:
Looks dreadful. Tattoos are for the working classes.

I may not like his particular tattoo, but everyone to their own. I bet it took a long time to cover you in tattoos.

ohec wrote:
It would seem he still needs help.

I hope you are alluding to the fact that he still needs help with his ongoing medical recuperation?

Whatever happened to 'say it with flowers' lol!?!.

Employability is 0

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:

ohec wrote:
It would seem he still needs help.

I hope you are alluding to the fact that he still needs help with his ongoing medical recuperation?

No i wasn't, i was referring to the fact that you would have to be a sandwich short of a picnic to deface your body in such a fashion.

I know the road quite well from when I went to Sparsholt college, even cycled it once myself with no real problems but drivers do sometimes tear along there but on the whole, cycling to Sparsholt college was fun... until I took a wrong exit on a roundabout and ended up in Winchester for half an hour until I found my way out but back on topic, it's good to hear he recovered so well and that he is so grateful to the person who saved his life.

Classy....but I still won't do you.

ohec wrote:

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:

ohec wrote:
It would seem he still needs help.

I hope you are alluding to the fact that he still needs help with his ongoing medical recuperation?

No i wasn't, i was referring to the fact that you would have to be a sandwich short of a picnic to deface your body in such a fashion.

I knew the answer to my question, just wanted to flush that answer out of you. Clearly this young man will need help to fully recover from the devastating head and other injuries he suffered. The tattoo, whilst definitely not my cup of tea, is pretty harmless under the circumstances and if it helps him, all the better. I guess if you only have puerile and idiotic comments to make, it is probably better to stay under your stone. Back under your stone, roach.

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:

ohec wrote:

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:

ohec wrote:
It would seem he still needs help.

I hope you are alluding to the fact that he still needs help with his ongoing medical recuperation?

No i wasn't, i was referring to the fact that you would have to be a sandwich short of a picnic to deface your body in such a fashion.

I knew the answer to my question, just wanted to flush that answer out of you. Clearly this young man will need help to fully recover from the devastating head and other injuries he suffered. The tattoo, whilst definitely not my cup of tea, is pretty harmless under the circumstances and if it helps him, all the better. I guess if you only have puerile and idiotic comments to make, it is probably better to stay under your stone. Back under your stone, roach.

Exactly - a small dedication like the tattoo can do wonders for self-esteem and recovery. I'm not saying people should get a tattoo to heal quicker but it is obviously working for his own psyche.

Some people give money to charity (like my Father who after recovering from a heart attack donated money to the BHF). Some people change their lifestyle - I've got a friend who gave up drinking after a near-death experience, he's now teetotal.

If it makes you happy and doesnt harm anyone, isnt self destructive then all is cool imo.

What a lovely story and so lucky that the lady was close to the accident and could respond so quickly. Best wishes for a full recovery.
As always, totally insensitve and stupid comments above.

chunky_lover wrote:
Employability is 0

I have tattoos on both sides of my neck and my hands and I have a job. You are clearly still stuck in the dark ages you moron.

PrincessPea wrote:

chunky_lover wrote:
Employability is 0

I have tattoos on both sides of my neck and my hands and I have a job. You are clearly still stuck in the dark ages you moron.

Just out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?

I am tattooed and i work for the NHS, I also worked as a school receptionist!

to be fair, i don't think Aaron will be going back to work for a bit considering his injuries!

Torchie1 wrote:

PrincessPea wrote:

chunky_lover wrote:
Employability is 0

I have tattoos on both sides of my neck and my hands and I have a job. You are clearly still stuck in the dark ages you moron.

Just out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?

I work for the council.

chunky_lover wrote:
Looks dreadful. Tattoos are for the working classes.

Are you claiming NOT to be working class?

ohec wrote:

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:

ohec wrote:
It would seem he still needs help.

I hope you are alluding to the fact that he still needs help with his ongoing medical recuperation?

No i wasn't, i was referring to the fact that you would have to be a sandwich short of a picnic to deface your body in such a fashion.

Says who?

PrincessPea wrote:

chunky_lover wrote:
Employability is 0

I have tattoos on both sides of my neck and my hands and I have a job. You are clearly still stuck in the dark ages you moron.

Tattoos. Before I say anything, I recognise that everyone has the right to do what they like with their own body.

Generally, you do not find tattoos on well-educated people like doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, etc. It tends to be something the rank and file do because it gets them noticed and makes them look 'ard !

I would imagine it's roots hark back to the customs of primitive tribes who used to paint themselves for all sorts of reasons, both religious and secular.

It's interesting that, to my knowledge, no famous artist has ever painted antone with tattoos. Tells you something about aesthetics and artisitic sensibilities perhaps.

Personally, I think the skill of some tattooists, and their design work is quite incredible.

I love graffiti, and think that some of the examples of what has become known as "Subway Art" are really superb. But I wouldn't like to see it on someone's body. And that's how I see tattoos : body graffiti.

BillyTheKid wrote:

PrincessPea wrote:

chunky_lover wrote:
Employability is 0

I have tattoos on both sides of my neck and my hands and I have a job. You are clearly still stuck in the dark ages you moron.

Tattoos. Before I say anything, I recognise that everyone has the right to do what they like with their own body.

Generally, you do not find tattoos on well-educated people like doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, etc. It tends to be something the rank and file do because it gets them noticed and makes them look 'ard !

I would imagine it's roots hark back to the customs of primitive tribes who used to paint themselves for all sorts of reasons, both religious and secular.

It's interesting that, to my knowledge, no famous artist has ever painted antone with tattoos. Tells you something about aesthetics and artisitic sensibilities perhaps.

Personally, I think the skill of some tattooists, and their design work is quite incredible.

I love graffiti, and think that some of the examples of what has become known as "Subway Art" are really superb. But I wouldn't like to see it on someone's body. And that's how I see tattoos : body graffiti.

I knew quite a few teachers who had tattoos while I was at school.

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

PrincessPea wrote:

chunky_lover wrote:
Employability is 0

I have tattoos on both sides of my neck and my hands and I have a job. You are clearly still stuck in the dark ages you moron.

Tattoos. Before I say anything, I recognise that everyone has the right to do what they like with their own body.

Generally, you do not find tattoos on well-educated people like doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, etc. It tends to be something the rank and file do because it gets them noticed and makes them look 'ard !

I would imagine it's roots hark back to the customs of primitive tribes who used to paint themselves for all sorts of reasons, both religious and secular.

It's interesting that, to my knowledge, no famous artist has ever painted antone with tattoos. Tells you something about aesthetics and artisitic sensibilities perhaps.

Personally, I think the skill of some tattooists, and their design work is quite incredible.

I love graffiti, and think that some of the examples of what has become known as "Subway Art" are really superb. But I wouldn't like to see it on someone's body. And that's how I see tattoos : body graffiti.

I knew quite a few teachers who had tattoos while I was at school.

You are, in my opinion, a liar, sir ! Unless of course it was a PE teacher, and well......they don't count really, do they !

I'll apologise to you if you name the school, and the subjects these "tattooed teachers" taught !

BillyTheKid wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

PrincessPea wrote:

chunky_lover wrote:
Employability is 0

I have tattoos on both sides of my neck and my hands and I have a job. You are clearly still stuck in the dark ages you moron.

Tattoos. Before I say anything, I recognise that everyone has the right to do what they like with their own body.

Generally, you do not find tattoos on well-educated people like doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, etc. It tends to be something the rank and file do because it gets them noticed and makes them look 'ard !

I would imagine it's roots hark back to the customs of primitive tribes who used to paint themselves for all sorts of reasons, both religious and secular.

It's interesting that, to my knowledge, no famous artist has ever painted antone with tattoos. Tells you something about aesthetics and artisitic sensibilities perhaps.

Personally, I think the skill of some tattooists, and their design work is quite incredible.

I love graffiti, and think that some of the examples of what has become known as "Subway Art" are really superb. But I wouldn't like to see it on someone's body. And that's how I see tattoos : body graffiti.

I knew quite a few teachers who had tattoos while I was at school.

You are, in my opinion, a liar, sir ! Unless of course it was a PE teacher, and well......they don't count really, do they !

I'll apologise to you if you name the school, and the subjects these "tattooed teachers" taught !

Woodlands community school as it was known as before gaining it's specialty status as a science and technology college as well as being a school and the teachers taught English one or 2 were indeed P.E teachers, a couple were performing arts teachers, at least one was a music teacher, one of them was a design and technology teacher, another was a cookery teacher, a couple of maths teachers, my Spanish teacher and a history/humanities teacher, you asked for it, so you got it.

And they all had tattoos ! You really do think I was born yesterday.

Like Woolston, Cantell, and Millbrook, Woodlands was not up to scratch and failed its OFSTED, didn't it, and went into special measures ? All four schools had more than their fair share of pupils with special needs and behavioural problems. It is always very difficult for schools in those circumstances to attract staff of high calibre. Woolston and Millbrook closed down, I believe, but "visionary" heads took on Cantell and Woodlands, and both, to my knowledge, are doing very well now.

Yes, I can well believe that at one time there may have been one or two teachers at Woodlands with tattoos, mohican hair styles, and some of those stud things in their faces. But I can honestly say that I never saw any teachers with tattoos at the five schools at which I taught during my career, as the headteachers would never have tolerated it.

I've just noticed you went to Sparsholt College. I humbly take my hat off to you, sir, and congratulate you for making an excellent choice for further education. All the subjects they teach there are really worthwhile, fitting people for careers and vocations that really matter in this life.

I know I shouldn't say it but I could never see the point in people studying at Oxford for an honours degree in Ancient Greek ! You might just as well have a degree in Origamy for all the use it will be to the world. So many people who study ancient languages, philosophy, history and so forth cannot get a job and merely end up teaching it ! Pointless !

BillyTheKid wrote:

PrincessPea wrote:

chunky_lover wrote:
Employability is 0

I have tattoos on both sides of my neck and my hands and I have a job. You are clearly still stuck in the dark ages you moron.

Tattoos. Before I say anything, I recognise that everyone has the right to do what they like with their own body.

Generally, you do not find tattoos on well-educated people like doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, etc. It tends to be something the rank and file do because it gets them noticed and makes them look 'ard !

I would imagine it's roots hark back to the customs of primitive tribes who used to paint themselves for all sorts of reasons, both religious and secular.

It's interesting that, to my knowledge, no famous artist has ever painted antone with tattoos. Tells you something about aesthetics and artisitic sensibilities perhaps.

Personally, I think the skill of some tattooists, and their design work is quite incredible.

I love graffiti, and think that some of the examples of what has become known as "Subway Art" are really superb. But I wouldn't like to see it on someone's body. And that's how I see tattoos : body graffiti.

Just because you don't find them, Billy, doesn't mean they're not there. I think you'd be surprised at some of the people you'd find had tattoos or other body modification work.

You're pretty spot-on about the tribal roots, though. Although your assertion about 'famous artists' is an odd one. I expect if you expand 'famous artist' to mean more than just 'extremely well-known great masters of the western world' you'd find quite a lot of paintings of tattooed people. Whatever, it's a bit of an odd statement.

BillyTheKid wrote:
I've just noticed you went to Sparsholt College. I humbly take my hat off to you, sir, and congratulate you for making an excellent choice for further education. All the subjects they teach there are really worthwhile, fitting people for careers and vocations that really matter in this life.

I know I shouldn't say it but I could never see the point in people studying at Oxford for an honours degree in Ancient Greek ! You might just as well have a degree in Origamy for all the use it will be to the world. So many people who study ancient languages, philosophy, history and so forth cannot get a job and merely end up teaching it ! Pointless !

Why is teaching pointless? Isn't philosophy important? How about history? The day we only care about what's going to get us a job, is the day the human race dies.

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

PrincessPea wrote:

chunky_lover wrote:
Employability is 0

I have tattoos on both sides of my neck and my hands and I have a job. You are clearly still stuck in the dark ages you moron.

Tattoos. Before I say anything, I recognise that everyone has the right to do what they like with their own body.

Generally, you do not find tattoos on well-educated people like doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, etc. It tends to be something the rank and file do because it gets them noticed and makes them look 'ard !

I would imagine it's roots hark back to the customs of primitive tribes who used to paint themselves for all sorts of reasons, both religious and secular.

It's interesting that, to my knowledge, no famous artist has ever painted antone with tattoos. Tells you something about aesthetics and artisitic sensibilities perhaps.

Personally, I think the skill of some tattooists, and their design work is quite incredible.

I love graffiti, and think that some of the examples of what has become known as "Subway Art" are really superb. But I wouldn't like to see it on someone's body. And that's how I see tattoos : body graffiti.

Just because you don't find them, Billy, doesn't mean they're not there. I think you'd be surprised at some of the people you'd find had tattoos or other body modification work.

You're pretty spot-on about the tribal roots, though. Although your assertion about 'famous artists' is an odd one. I expect if you expand 'famous artist' to mean more than just 'extremely well-known great masters of the western world' you'd find quite a lot of paintings of tattooed people. Whatever, it's a bit of an odd statement.

I said "generally" George. There will be a few exceptions to the rule.

I can honestly say that of all my colleagues and friends over a forty year or so period, only a few had tattoos, and they were ex-services.

Sometimes you are a bit of a nitwit, George ! Of all the paintings in all the galleries throughout the world, only a tiny handful of maritime pictures are likely to depict a tattoo. Also I did say "to my knowledge", as I do not know every painting in the world.

Do tell me where a degree in philosophy or history would be of use outside of teaching ? I'm very interested in history and read a lot of it, but I would like to know where a degree and PHD would be of use.

BillyTheKid wrote:
And they all had tattoos ! You really do think I was born yesterday.

Like Woolston, Cantell, and Millbrook, Woodlands was not up to scratch and failed its OFSTED, didn't it, and went into special measures ? All four schools had more than their fair share of pupils with special needs and behavioural problems. It is always very difficult for schools in those circumstances to attract staff of high calibre. Woolston and Millbrook closed down, I believe, but "visionary" heads took on Cantell and Woodlands, and both, to my knowledge, are doing very well now.

Yes, I can well believe that at one time there may have been one or two teachers at Woodlands with tattoos, mohican hair styles, and some of those stud things in their faces. But I can honestly say that I never saw any teachers with tattoos at the five schools at which I taught during my career, as the headteachers would never have tolerated it.

While I was there the headteachers were laid back and it had actually passed it's OFFSTED while I was there which enabled it to gain specialty status in science and technology but yes, I know all too well about them having many kids there with special needs and stuff, also the teachers I brought up never displayed tattoos on purpose and I don't remember any teachers with hair and stuff like you described though my tutor/design and technology teacher did often ride a motorbike into school and wore full motorcycle leathers in, may I ask when you taught there and in what subject?

BillyTheKid wrote:
I've just noticed you went to Sparsholt College. I humbly take my hat off to you, sir, and congratulate you for making an excellent choice for further education. All the subjects they teach there are really worthwhile, fitting people for careers and vocations that really matter in this life.

I know I shouldn't say it but I could never see the point in people studying at Oxford for an honours degree in Ancient Greek ! You might just as well have a degree in Origamy for all the use it will be to the world. So many people who study ancient languages, philosophy, history and so forth cannot get a job and merely end up teaching it ! Pointless !

Thank you though the college did start to degrade in my second year there but my chosen subject was fishery studies yet after 2 years since I left, I haven't got a job in that subject field, my first year there was brilliant though but I have to say the best part of the college was the views from the college lake, nothing better than going in on a day off to fish the lake and look out over nothing but rolling green fields with the odd army/RAF helicopter and planes flying over head, the hatchery was good too, I quite often got dead trout from there to use as bait.

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

PrincessPea wrote:

chunky_lover wrote:
Employability is 0

I have tattoos on both sides of my neck and my hands and I have a job. You are clearly still stuck in the dark ages you moron.

Tattoos. Before I say anything, I recognise that everyone has the right to do what they like with their own body.

Generally, you do not find tattoos on well-educated people like doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, etc. It tends to be something the rank and file do because it gets them noticed and makes them look 'ard !

I would imagine it's roots hark back to the customs of primitive tribes who used to paint themselves for all sorts of reasons, both religious and secular.

It's interesting that, to my knowledge, no famous artist has ever painted antone with tattoos. Tells you something about aesthetics and artisitic sensibilities perhaps.

Personally, I think the skill of some tattooists, and their design work is quite incredible.

I love graffiti, and think that some of the examples of what has become known as "Subway Art" are really superb. But I wouldn't like to see it on someone's body. And that's how I see tattoos : body graffiti.

Just because you don't find them, Billy, doesn't mean they're not there. I think you'd be surprised at some of the people you'd find had tattoos or other body modification work.

You're pretty spot-on about the tribal roots, though. Although your assertion about 'famous artists' is an odd one. I expect if you expand 'famous artist' to mean more than just 'extremely well-known great masters of the western world' you'd find quite a lot of paintings of tattooed people. Whatever, it's a bit of an odd statement.

I said "generally" George. There will be a few exceptions to the rule.

I can honestly say that of all my colleagues and friends over a forty year or so period, only a few had tattoos, and they were ex-services.

Sometimes you are a bit of a nitwit, George ! Of all the paintings in all the galleries throughout the world, only a tiny handful of maritime pictures are likely to depict a tattoo. Also I did say "to my knowledge", as I do not know every painting in the world.

Do tell me where a degree in philosophy or history would be of use outside of teaching ? I'm very interested in history and read a lot of it, but I would like to know where a degree and PHD would be of use.

I see you still can't actually hold a conversation without calling people names. Oh well, enjoy yourself Billy, I can't be bothered with you.

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

PrincessPea wrote:

chunky_lover wrote:
Employability is 0

I have tattoos on both sides of my neck and my hands and I have a job. You are clearly still stuck in the dark ages you moron.

Tattoos. Before I say anything, I recognise that everyone has the right to do what they like with their own body.

Generally, you do not find tattoos on well-educated people like doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, etc. It tends to be something the rank and file do because it gets them noticed and makes them look 'ard !

I would imagine it's roots hark back to the customs of primitive tribes who used to paint themselves for all sorts of reasons, both religious and secular.

It's interesting that, to my knowledge, no famous artist has ever painted antone with tattoos. Tells you something about aesthetics and artisitic sensibilities perhaps.

Personally, I think the skill of some tattooists, and their design work is quite incredible.

I love graffiti, and think that some of the examples of what has become known as "Subway Art" are really superb. But I wouldn't like to see it on someone's body. And that's how I see tattoos : body graffiti.

Just because you don't find them, Billy, doesn't mean they're not there. I think you'd be surprised at some of the people you'd find had tattoos or other body modification work.

You're pretty spot-on about the tribal roots, though. Although your assertion about 'famous artists' is an odd one. I expect if you expand 'famous artist' to mean more than just 'extremely well-known great masters of the western world' you'd find quite a lot of paintings of tattooed people. Whatever, it's a bit of an odd statement.

I said "generally" George. There will be a few exceptions to the rule.

I can honestly say that of all my colleagues and friends over a forty year or so period, only a few had tattoos, and they were ex-services.

Sometimes you are a bit of a nitwit, George ! Of all the paintings in all the galleries throughout the world, only a tiny handful of maritime pictures are likely to depict a tattoo. Also I did say "to my knowledge", as I do not know every painting in the world.

Do tell me where a degree in philosophy or history would be of use outside of teaching ? I'm very interested in history and read a lot of it, but I would like to know where a degree and PHD would be of use.

I see you still can't actually hold a conversation without calling people names. Oh well, enjoy yourself Billy, I can't be bothered with you.

George, you have been darned rude and sarcastic to me in the past, ridiculing everything I have said. And I have returned the compliment.

"Nitwit" is hardly name-calling. You are making a fuss about nothing. Your suggestion that there are a lot of paintings of tattooed people about is quite ridiculous. Just take it from me that you would be foolish to assume I know little about art or music. It is my opinion you said it to be deliberatey annoying.

I have never, ever seen you apologise to anyone or admit you were wrong, so taking offence to "nitwit" is just a ruse to get yourself out of a fix !

Nitwit !

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

PrincessPea wrote:

chunky_lover wrote:
Employability is 0

I have tattoos on both sides of my neck and my hands and I have a job. You are clearly still stuck in the dark ages you moron.

Tattoos. Before I say anything, I recognise that everyone has the right to do what they like with their own body.

Generally, you do not find tattoos on well-educated people like doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, etc. It tends to be something the rank and file do because it gets them noticed and makes them look 'ard !

I would imagine it's roots hark back to the customs of primitive tribes who used to paint themselves for all sorts of reasons, both religious and secular.

It's interesting that, to my knowledge, no famous artist has ever painted antone with tattoos. Tells you something about aesthetics and artisitic sensibilities perhaps.

Personally, I think the skill of some tattooists, and their design work is quite incredible.

I love graffiti, and think that some of the examples of what has become known as "Subway Art" are really superb. But I wouldn't like to see it on someone's body. And that's how I see tattoos : body graffiti.

Just because you don't find them, Billy, doesn't mean they're not there. I think you'd be surprised at some of the people you'd find had tattoos or other body modification work.

You're pretty spot-on about the tribal roots, though. Although your assertion about 'famous artists' is an odd one. I expect if you expand 'famous artist' to mean more than just 'extremely well-known great masters of the western world' you'd find quite a lot of paintings of tattooed people. Whatever, it's a bit of an odd statement.

I said "generally" George. There will be a few exceptions to the rule.

I can honestly say that of all my colleagues and friends over a forty year or so period, only a few had tattoos, and they were ex-services.

Sometimes you are a bit of a nitwit, George ! Of all the paintings in all the galleries throughout the world, only a tiny handful of maritime pictures are likely to depict a tattoo. Also I did say "to my knowledge", as I do not know every painting in the world.

Do tell me where a degree in philosophy or history would be of use outside of teaching ? I'm very interested in history and read a lot of it, but I would like to know where a degree and PHD would be of use.

I see you still can't actually hold a conversation without calling people names. Oh well, enjoy yourself Billy, I can't be bothered with you.

George, you have been darned rude and sarcastic to me in the past, ridiculing everything I have said. And I have returned the compliment.

"Nitwit" is hardly name-calling. You are making a fuss about nothing. Your suggestion that there are a lot of paintings of tattooed people about is quite ridiculous. Just take it from me that you would be foolish to assume I know little about art or music. It is my opinion you said it to be deliberatey annoying.

I have never, ever seen you apologise to anyone or admit you were wrong, so taking offence to "nitwit" is just a ruse to get yourself out of a fix !

Nitwit !

Oh, you!

I replied to your post with nothing but politeness. If you can't respond in kind, I pity you. Seriously. As with many teachers of yesteryear, you find adult conversation a little difficult, because you're used to your implicit authority granting you immunity from being replied to with anything other than fawning agreement.

I don't take offence to your calling me a nitwit. I see name-calling in general to get in the way of discourse. As evidenced by your repeated tantrums. You'll get over it, though. Or not. Who cares, really?

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

PrincessPea wrote:

chunky_lover wrote:
Employability is 0

I have tattoos on both sides of my neck and my hands and I have a job. You are clearly still stuck in the dark ages you moron.

Tattoos. Before I say anything, I recognise that everyone has the right to do what they like with their own body.

Generally, you do not find tattoos on well-educated people like doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, etc. It tends to be something the rank and file do because it gets them noticed and makes them look 'ard !

I would imagine it's roots hark back to the customs of primitive tribes who used to paint themselves for all sorts of reasons, both religious and secular.

It's interesting that, to my knowledge, no famous artist has ever painted antone with tattoos. Tells you something about aesthetics and artisitic sensibilities perhaps.

Personally, I think the skill of some tattooists, and their design work is quite incredible.

I love graffiti, and think that some of the examples of what has become known as "Subway Art" are really superb. But I wouldn't like to see it on someone's body. And that's how I see tattoos : body graffiti.

Just because you don't find them, Billy, doesn't mean they're not there. I think you'd be surprised at some of the people you'd find had tattoos or other body modification work.

You're pretty spot-on about the tribal roots, though. Although your assertion about 'famous artists' is an odd one. I expect if you expand 'famous artist' to mean more than just 'extremely well-known great masters of the western world' you'd find quite a lot of paintings of tattooed people. Whatever, it's a bit of an odd statement.

I said "generally" George. There will be a few exceptions to the rule.

I can honestly say that of all my colleagues and friends over a forty year or so period, only a few had tattoos, and they were ex-services.

Sometimes you are a bit of a nitwit, George ! Of all the paintings in all the galleries throughout the world, only a tiny handful of maritime pictures are likely to depict a tattoo. Also I did say "to my knowledge", as I do not know every painting in the world.

Do tell me where a degree in philosophy or history would be of use outside of teaching ? I'm very interested in history and read a lot of it, but I would like to know where a degree and PHD would be of use.

I see you still can't actually hold a conversation without calling people names. Oh well, enjoy yourself Billy, I can't be bothered with you.

George, you have been darned rude and sarcastic to me in the past, ridiculing everything I have said. And I have returned the compliment.

"Nitwit" is hardly name-calling. You are making a fuss about nothing. Your suggestion that there are a lot of paintings of tattooed people about is quite ridiculous. Just take it from me that you would be foolish to assume I know little about art or music. It is my opinion you said it to be deliberatey annoying.

I have never, ever seen you apologise to anyone or admit you were wrong, so taking offence to "nitwit" is just a ruse to get yourself out of a fix !

Nitwit !

Oh, you!

I replied to your post with nothing but politeness. If you can't respond in kind, I pity you. Seriously. As with many teachers of yesteryear, you find adult conversation a little difficult, because you're used to your implicit authority granting you immunity from being replied to with anything other than fawning agreement.

I don't take offence to your calling me a nitwit. I see name-calling in general to get in the way of discourse. As evidenced by your repeated tantrums. You'll get over it, though. Or not. Who cares, really?

There you go again ! Yet another continuous barrage of put-downs and insults !

Adult conversation with you would be quite refreshing, but it is impossible because you did barb your comments with unrelieved antagonism.

Not that you'll want to believe it, but I was never more than a "satisfactory" teacher, and never perceived as an "authoritarian". My strengths lay in pastoral care, various technical skills I possessed, and after school clubs. I was deemed very approachable, helpful, and popular.

You are so way off target with your assessment of me, and probably the worst judge of character I have ever encountered. You seem to be able to bring out the worst in people. Obviously it is impossible to know much about people on an anonymous site, but you can discover the type of personality someone has through what they say and the way they say it.

You, stillness, lone ranger, clausentum, and downfader have been extremely unpleasent to me over a long period, probably because you have always liked to have the last word here, and I present a challenge to that.

And that is what teachers do best : they promote discussion, discovery and learning by challenging established ideas and practices, and encouraging children to do the same. Progress is achieved when they have determined what works and what needs rethinking.

And that is what I, along with several others like Iron Lady, Southy, Loosehead, and Gingercyclist try to do here : promote and provoke discussion, new thoughts and ideas. But you and the others mentioned above are always trying to close down discussion by stamping conclusive, unsubstantiated opinions on everything.

Unlike you, I take notice of and care about what people say. If you have bothered to read this, you are undoubtedly trying to think of some dismissive counter-comments to make, rather than engage in any meaningful discussion or evaluation.

chunky_lover wrote:
Looks dreadful. Tattoos are for the working classes.

I suppose it his way of saying thanks and its quite a sacrifice.
However I would agree Tattoos are for those who don’t care for much for themselves or in “some” cases don’t care much for anyone or anything else in society.

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

PrincessPea wrote:

chunky_lover wrote:
Employability is 0

I have tattoos on both sides of my neck and my hands and I have a job. You are clearly still stuck in the dark ages you moron.

Tattoos. Before I say anything, I recognise that everyone has the right to do what they like with their own body.

Generally, you do not find tattoos on well-educated people like doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, etc. It tends to be something the rank and file do because it gets them noticed and makes them look 'ard !

I would imagine it's roots hark back to the customs of primitive tribes who used to paint themselves for all sorts of reasons, both religious and secular.

It's interesting that, to my knowledge, no famous artist has ever painted antone with tattoos. Tells you something about aesthetics and artisitic sensibilities perhaps.

Personally, I think the skill of some tattooists, and their design work is quite incredible.

I love graffiti, and think that some of the examples of what has become known as "Subway Art" are really superb. But I wouldn't like to see it on someone's body. And that's how I see tattoos : body graffiti.

Just because you don't find them, Billy, doesn't mean they're not there. I think you'd be surprised at some of the people you'd find had tattoos or other body modification work.

You're pretty spot-on about the tribal roots, though. Although your assertion about 'famous artists' is an odd one. I expect if you expand 'famous artist' to mean more than just 'extremely well-known great masters of the western world' you'd find quite a lot of paintings of tattooed people. Whatever, it's a bit of an odd statement.

I said "generally" George. There will be a few exceptions to the rule.

I can honestly say that of all my colleagues and friends over a forty year or so period, only a few had tattoos, and they were ex-services.

Sometimes you are a bit of a nitwit, George ! Of all the paintings in all the galleries throughout the world, only a tiny handful of maritime pictures are likely to depict a tattoo. Also I did say "to my knowledge", as I do not know every painting in the world.

Do tell me where a degree in philosophy or history would be of use outside of teaching ? I'm very interested in history and read a lot of it, but I would like to know where a degree and PHD would be of use.

I see you still can't actually hold a conversation without calling people names. Oh well, enjoy yourself Billy, I can't be bothered with you.

George, you have been darned rude and sarcastic to me in the past, ridiculing everything I have said. And I have returned the compliment.

"Nitwit" is hardly name-calling. You are making a fuss about nothing. Your suggestion that there are a lot of paintings of tattooed people about is quite ridiculous. Just take it from me that you would be foolish to assume I know little about art or music. It is my opinion you said it to be deliberatey annoying.

I have never, ever seen you apologise to anyone or admit you were wrong, so taking offence to "nitwit" is just a ruse to get yourself out of a fix !

Nitwit !

Oh, you!

I replied to your post with nothing but politeness. If you can't respond in kind, I pity you. Seriously. As with many teachers of yesteryear, you find adult conversation a little difficult, because you're used to your implicit authority granting you immunity from being replied to with anything other than fawning agreement.

I don't take offence to your calling me a nitwit. I see name-calling in general to get in the way of discourse. As evidenced by your repeated tantrums. You'll get over it, though. Or not. Who cares, really?

There you go again ! Yet another continuous barrage of put-downs and insults !

Adult conversation with you would be quite refreshing, but it is impossible because you did barb your comments with unrelieved antagonism.

Not that you'll want to believe it, but I was never more than a "satisfactory" teacher, and never perceived as an "authoritarian". My strengths lay in pastoral care, various technical skills I possessed, and after school clubs. I was deemed very approachable, helpful, and popular.

You are so way off target with your assessment of me, and probably the worst judge of character I have ever encountered. You seem to be able to bring out the worst in people. Obviously it is impossible to know much about people on an anonymous site, but you can discover the type of personality someone has through what they say and the way they say it.

You, stillness, lone ranger, clausentum, and downfader have been extremely unpleasent to me over a long period, probably because you have always liked to have the last word here, and I present a challenge to that.

And that is what teachers do best : they promote discussion, discovery and learning by challenging established ideas and practices, and encouraging children to do the same. Progress is achieved when they have determined what works and what needs rethinking.

And that is what I, along with several others like Iron Lady, Southy, Loosehead, and Gingercyclist try to do here : promote and provoke discussion, new thoughts and ideas. But you and the others mentioned above are always trying to close down discussion by stamping conclusive, unsubstantiated opinions on everything.

Unlike you, I take notice of and care about what people say. If you have bothered to read this, you are undoubtedly trying to think of some dismissive counter-comments to make, rather than engage in any meaningful discussion or evaluation.

Take a good look at your own posts, Billy. You are without fail rude and insulting in every single one. I am happy to admit I can be antagonistic a lot of the time, but every single reply I have ever given you has been met with insults and name-calling, regardless of the tone of my own post. And if you look, a lot of them are in no way insulting.

You claim you want to promote and provoke discussion? Where? Whenever anyone posts a contrary opinion to your own, it's name-calling time again. Don't even get me started on southy, he has one agenda on this site, and it's nothing to do with discussion.

Of course I'm going to dismiss you now with counter-comments. I have tried, many times, in the past, to engage you in something more meaningful, and you responded with very childish name-calling. As you reap, so shall you sow.

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

PrincessPea wrote:

chunky_lover wrote:
Employability is 0

I have tattoos on both sides of my neck and my hands and I have a job. You are clearly still stuck in the dark ages you moron.

Tattoos. Before I say anything, I recognise that everyone has the right to do what they like with their own body.

Generally, you do not find tattoos on well-educated people like doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, etc. It tends to be something the rank and file do because it gets them noticed and makes them look 'ard !

I would imagine it's roots hark back to the customs of primitive tribes who used to paint themselves for all sorts of reasons, both religious and secular.

It's interesting that, to my knowledge, no famous artist has ever painted antone with tattoos. Tells you something about aesthetics and artisitic sensibilities perhaps.

Personally, I think the skill of some tattooists, and their design work is quite incredible.

I love graffiti, and think that some of the examples of what has become known as "Subway Art" are really superb. But I wouldn't like to see it on someone's body. And that's how I see tattoos : body graffiti.

Just because you don't find them, Billy, doesn't mean they're not there. I think you'd be surprised at some of the people you'd find had tattoos or other body modification work.

You're pretty spot-on about the tribal roots, though. Although your assertion about 'famous artists' is an odd one. I expect if you expand 'famous artist' to mean more than just 'extremely well-known great masters of the western world' you'd find quite a lot of paintings of tattooed people. Whatever, it's a bit of an odd statement.

I said "generally" George. There will be a few exceptions to the rule.

I can honestly say that of all my colleagues and friends over a forty year or so period, only a few had tattoos, and they were ex-services.

Sometimes you are a bit of a nitwit, George ! Of all the paintings in all the galleries throughout the world, only a tiny handful of maritime pictures are likely to depict a tattoo. Also I did say "to my knowledge", as I do not know every painting in the world.

Do tell me where a degree in philosophy or history would be of use outside of teaching ? I'm very interested in history and read a lot of it, but I would like to know where a degree and PHD would be of use.

I see you still can't actually hold a conversation without calling people names. Oh well, enjoy yourself Billy, I can't be bothered with you.

George, you have been darned rude and sarcastic to me in the past, ridiculing everything I have said. And I have returned the compliment.

"Nitwit" is hardly name-calling. You are making a fuss about nothing. Your suggestion that there are a lot of paintings of tattooed people about is quite ridiculous. Just take it from me that you would be foolish to assume I know little about art or music. It is my opinion you said it to be deliberatey annoying.

I have never, ever seen you apologise to anyone or admit you were wrong, so taking offence to "nitwit" is just a ruse to get yourself out of a fix !

Nitwit !

Oh, you!

I replied to your post with nothing but politeness. If you can't respond in kind, I pity you. Seriously. As with many teachers of yesteryear, you find adult conversation a little difficult, because you're used to your implicit authority granting you immunity from being replied to with anything other than fawning agreement.

I don't take offence to your calling me a nitwit. I see name-calling in general to get in the way of discourse. As evidenced by your repeated tantrums. You'll get over it, though. Or not. Who cares, really?

There you go again ! Yet another continuous barrage of put-downs and insults !

Adult conversation with you would be quite refreshing, but it is impossible because you did barb your comments with unrelieved antagonism.

Not that you'll want to believe it, but I was never more than a "satisfactory" teacher, and never perceived as an "authoritarian". My strengths lay in pastoral care, various technical skills I possessed, and after school clubs. I was deemed very approachable, helpful, and popular.

You are so way off target with your assessment of me, and probably the worst judge of character I have ever encountered. You seem to be able to bring out the worst in people. Obviously it is impossible to know much about people on an anonymous site, but you can discover the type of personality someone has through what they say and the way they say it.

You, stillness, lone ranger, clausentum, and downfader have been extremely unpleasent to me over a long period, probably because you have always liked to have the last word here, and I present a challenge to that.

And that is what teachers do best : they promote discussion, discovery and learning by challenging established ideas and practices, and encouraging children to do the same. Progress is achieved when they have determined what works and what needs rethinking.

And that is what I, along with several others like Iron Lady, Southy, Loosehead, and Gingercyclist try to do here : promote and provoke discussion, new thoughts and ideas. But you and the others mentioned above are always trying to close down discussion by stamping conclusive, unsubstantiated opinions on everything.

Unlike you, I take notice of and care about what people say. If you have bothered to read this, you are undoubtedly trying to think of some dismissive counter-comments to make, rather than engage in any meaningful discussion or evaluation.

Take a good look at your own posts, Billy. You are without fail rude and insulting in every single one. I am happy to admit I can be antagonistic a lot of the time, but every single reply I have ever given you has been met with insults and name-calling, regardless of the tone of my own post. And if you look, a lot of them are in no way insulting.

You claim you want to promote and provoke discussion? Where? Whenever anyone posts a contrary opinion to your own, it's name-calling time again. Don't even get me started on southy, he has one agenda on this site, and it's nothing to do with discussion.

Of course I'm going to dismiss you now with counter-comments. I have tried, many times, in the past, to engage you in something more meaningful, and you responded with very childish name-calling. As you reap, so shall you sow.

You may not have intended them to be insulting, but I found them so. The only namecalling I have done is to call you "nitwit" twice. I have an expressive, sometimes volatile nature. For you to interpret that as childish, or having a tantrum, is unbelieveably crass. I find it grossly inappropriate for adults to call one another childish. I am most certainly childlike, which is quite different.

All right. One of us has to make a positive move.

I apologise to you for anything I have said that has caused you concern.

I will now forget anything you have said in the past.

If you say anything that concerns me, I will simply ask you what you mean. And I ask you to do the same.

This is not a request, merely a suggestion.

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

PrincessPea wrote:

chunky_lover wrote:
Employability is 0

I have tattoos on both sides of my neck and my hands and I have a job. You are clearly still stuck in the dark ages you moron.

Tattoos. Before I say anything, I recognise that everyone has the right to do what they like with their own body.

Generally, you do not find tattoos on well-educated people like doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, etc. It tends to be something the rank and file do because it gets them noticed and makes them look 'ard !

I would imagine it's roots hark back to the customs of primitive tribes who used to paint themselves for all sorts of reasons, both religious and secular.

It's interesting that, to my knowledge, no famous artist has ever painted antone with tattoos. Tells you something about aesthetics and artisitic sensibilities perhaps.

Personally, I think the skill of some tattooists, and their design work is quite incredible.

I love graffiti, and think that some of the examples of what has become known as "Subway Art" are really superb. But I wouldn't like to see it on someone's body. And that's how I see tattoos : body graffiti.

Just because you don't find them, Billy, doesn't mean they're not there. I think you'd be surprised at some of the people you'd find had tattoos or other body modification work.

You're pretty spot-on about the tribal roots, though. Although your assertion about 'famous artists' is an odd one. I expect if you expand 'famous artist' to mean more than just 'extremely well-known great masters of the western world' you'd find quite a lot of paintings of tattooed people. Whatever, it's a bit of an odd statement.

I said "generally" George. There will be a few exceptions to the rule.

I can honestly say that of all my colleagues and friends over a forty year or so period, only a few had tattoos, and they were ex-services.

Sometimes you are a bit of a nitwit, George ! Of all the paintings in all the galleries throughout the world, only a tiny handful of maritime pictures are likely to depict a tattoo. Also I did say "to my knowledge", as I do not know every painting in the world.

Do tell me where a degree in philosophy or history would be of use outside of teaching ? I'm very interested in history and read a lot of it, but I would like to know where a degree and PHD would be of use.

I see you still can't actually hold a conversation without calling people names. Oh well, enjoy yourself Billy, I can't be bothered with you.

George, you have been darned rude and sarcastic to me in the past, ridiculing everything I have said. And I have returned the compliment.

"Nitwit" is hardly name-calling. You are making a fuss about nothing. Your suggestion that there are a lot of paintings of tattooed people about is quite ridiculous. Just take it from me that you would be foolish to assume I know little about art or music. It is my opinion you said it to be deliberatey annoying.

I have never, ever seen you apologise to anyone or admit you were wrong, so taking offence to "nitwit" is just a ruse to get yourself out of a fix !

Nitwit !

Oh, you!

I replied to your post with nothing but politeness. If you can't respond in kind, I pity you. Seriously. As with many teachers of yesteryear, you find adult conversation a little difficult, because you're used to your implicit authority granting you immunity from being replied to with anything other than fawning agreement.

I don't take offence to your calling me a nitwit. I see name-calling in general to get in the way of discourse. As evidenced by your repeated tantrums. You'll get over it, though. Or not. Who cares, really?

There you go again ! Yet another continuous barrage of put-downs and insults !

Adult conversation with you would be quite refreshing, but it is impossible because you did barb your comments with unrelieved antagonism.

Not that you'll want to believe it, but I was never more than a "satisfactory" teacher, and never perceived as an "authoritarian". My strengths lay in pastoral care, various technical skills I possessed, and after school clubs. I was deemed very approachable, helpful, and popular.

You are so way off target with your assessment of me, and probably the worst judge of character I have ever encountered. You seem to be able to bring out the worst in people. Obviously it is impossible to know much about people on an anonymous site, but you can discover the type of personality someone has through what they say and the way they say it.

You, stillness, lone ranger, clausentum, and downfader have been extremely unpleasent to me over a long period, probably because you have always liked to have the last word here, and I present a challenge to that.

And that is what teachers do best : they promote discussion, discovery and learning by challenging established ideas and practices, and encouraging children to do the same. Progress is achieved when they have determined what works and what needs rethinking.

And that is what I, along with several others like Iron Lady, Southy, Loosehead, and Gingercyclist try to do here : promote and provoke discussion, new thoughts and ideas. But you and the others mentioned above are always trying to close down discussion by stamping conclusive, unsubstantiated opinions on everything.

Unlike you, I take notice of and care about what people say. If you have bothered to read this, you are undoubtedly trying to think of some dismissive counter-comments to make, rather than engage in any meaningful discussion or evaluation.

Take a good look at your own posts, Billy. You are without fail rude and insulting in every single one. I am happy to admit I can be antagonistic a lot of the time, but every single reply I have ever given you has been met with insults and name-calling, regardless of the tone of my own post. And if you look, a lot of them are in no way insulting.

You claim you want to promote and provoke discussion? Where? Whenever anyone posts a contrary opinion to your own, it's name-calling time again. Don't even get me started on southy, he has one agenda on this site, and it's nothing to do with discussion.

Of course I'm going to dismiss you now with counter-comments. I have tried, many times, in the past, to engage you in something more meaningful, and you responded with very childish name-calling. As you reap, so shall you sow.

You may not have intended them to be insulting, but I found them so. The only namecalling I have done is to call you "nitwit" twice. I have an expressive, sometimes volatile nature. For you to interpret that as childish, or having a tantrum, is unbelieveably crass. I find it grossly inappropriate for adults to call one another childish. I am most certainly childlike, which is quite different.

All right. One of us has to make a positive move.

I apologise to you for anything I have said that has caused you concern.

I will now forget anything you have said in the past.

If you say anything that concerns me, I will simply ask you what you mean. And I ask you to do the same.

This is not a request, merely a suggestion.

I have made several attempts at positive moves, Billy, you choose to ignore them, or at least have done so far. But in the spirit of positivity, I accept your apology, although it really was not necessary.

I have a request also: pay close attention to times you see me being antagonistic. My target is always the post, and not the poster. Note, for example, how I've interacted with Freemantlegirl2 in the past, or IronLady. Sometimes I will be in vehement agreement with them, others most definitely not so. Always the post, and not the poster. Keep an eye out for it.

Now, let's agree to stop polluting this thread any further.

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

PrincessPea wrote:

chunky_lover wrote:
Employability is 0

I have tattoos on both sides of my neck and my hands and I have a job. You are clearly still stuck in the dark ages you moron.

Tattoos. Before I say anything, I recognise that everyone has the right to do what they like with their own body.

Generally, you do not find tattoos on well-educated people like doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, etc. It tends to be something the rank and file do because it gets them noticed and makes them look 'ard !

I would imagine it's roots hark back to the customs of primitive tribes who used to paint themselves for all sorts of reasons, both religious and secular.

It's interesting that, to my knowledge, no famous artist has ever painted antone with tattoos. Tells you something about aesthetics and artisitic sensibilities perhaps.

Personally, I think the skill of some tattooists, and their design work is quite incredible.

I love graffiti, and think that some of the examples of what has become known as "Subway Art" are really superb. But I wouldn't like to see it on someone's body. And that's how I see tattoos : body graffiti.

Just because you don't find them, Billy, doesn't mean they're not there. I think you'd be surprised at some of the people you'd find had tattoos or other body modification work.

You're pretty spot-on about the tribal roots, though. Although your assertion about 'famous artists' is an odd one. I expect if you expand 'famous artist' to mean more than just 'extremely well-known great masters of the western world' you'd find quite a lot of paintings of tattooed people. Whatever, it's a bit of an odd statement.

I said "generally" George. There will be a few exceptions to the rule.

I can honestly say that of all my colleagues and friends over a forty year or so period, only a few had tattoos, and they were ex-services.

Sometimes you are a bit of a nitwit, George ! Of all the paintings in all the galleries throughout the world, only a tiny handful of maritime pictures are likely to depict a tattoo. Also I did say "to my knowledge", as I do not know every painting in the world.

Do tell me where a degree in philosophy or history would be of use outside of teaching ? I'm very interested in history and read a lot of it, but I would like to know where a degree and PHD would be of use.

I see you still can't actually hold a conversation without calling people names. Oh well, enjoy yourself Billy, I can't be bothered with you.

George, you have been darned rude and sarcastic to me in the past, ridiculing everything I have said. And I have returned the compliment.

"Nitwit" is hardly name-calling. You are making a fuss about nothing. Your suggestion that there are a lot of paintings of tattooed people about is quite ridiculous. Just take it from me that you would be foolish to assume I know little about art or music. It is my opinion you said it to be deliberatey annoying.

I have never, ever seen you apologise to anyone or admit you were wrong, so taking offence to "nitwit" is just a ruse to get yourself out of a fix !


Nitwit !

Oh, you!

I replied to your post with nothing but politeness. If you can't respond in kind, I pity you. Seriously. As with many teachers of yesteryear, you find adult conversation a little difficult, because you're used to your implicit authority granting you immunity from being replied to with anything other than fawning agreement.

I don't take offence to your calling me a nitwit. I see name-calling in general to get in the way of discourse. As evidenced by your repeated tantrums. You'll get over it, though. Or not. Who cares, really?

There you go again ! Yet another continuous barrage of put-downs and insults !

Adult conversation with you would be quite refreshing, but it is impossible because you did barb your comments with unrelieved antagonism.

Not that you'll want to believe it, but I was never more than a "satisfactory" teacher, and never perceived as an "authoritarian". My strengths lay in pastoral care, various technical skills I possessed, and after school clubs. I was deemed very approachable, helpful, and popular.

You are so way off target with your assessment of me, and probably the worst judge of character I have ever encountered. You seem to be able to bring out the worst in people. Obviously it is impossible to know much about people on an anonymous site, but you can discover the type of personality someone has through what they say and the way they say it.

You, stillness, lone ranger, clausentum, and downfader have been extremely unpleasent to me over a long period, probably because you have always liked to have the last word here, and I present a challenge to that.

And that is what teachers do best : they promote discussion, discovery and learning by challenging established ideas and practices, and encouraging children to do the same. Progress is achieved when they have determined what works and what needs rethinking.

And that is what I, along with several others like Iron Lady, Southy, Loosehead, and Gingercyclist try to do here : promote and provoke discussion, new thoughts and ideas. But you and the others mentioned above are always trying to close down discussion by stamping conclusive, unsubstantiated opinions on everything.

Unlike you, I take notice of and care about what people say. If you have bothered to read this, you are undoubtedly trying to think of some dismissive counter-comments to make, rather than engage in any meaningful discussion or evaluation.

Take a good look at your own posts, Billy. You are without fail rude and insulting in every single one. I am happy to admit I can be antagonistic a lot of the time, but every single reply I have ever given you has been met with insults and name-calling, regardless of the tone of my own post. And if you look, a lot of them are in no way insulting.

You claim you want to promote and provoke discussion? Where? Whenever anyone posts a contrary opinion to your own, it's name-calling time again. Don't even get me started on southy, he has one agenda on this site, and it's nothing to do with discussion.

Of course I'm going to dismiss you now with counter-comments. I have tried, many times, in the past, to engage you in something more meaningful, and you responded with very childish name-calling. As you reap, so shall you sow.

You may not have intended them to be insulting, but I found them so. The only namecalling I have done is to call you "nitwit" twice. I have an expressive, sometimes volatile nature. For you to interpret that as childish, or having a tantrum, is unbelieveably crass. I find it grossly inappropriate for adults to call one another childish. I am most certainly childlike, which is quite different.

All right. One of us has to make a positive move.

I apologise to you for anything I have said that has caused you concern.

I will now forget anything you have said in the past.

If you say anything that concerns me, I will simply ask you what you mean. And I ask you to do the same.

This is not a request, merely a suggestion.

I have made several attempts at positive moves, Billy, you choose to ignore them, or at least have done so far. But in the spirit of positivity, I accept your apology, although it really was not necessary.

I have a request also: pay close attention to times you see me being antagonistic. My target is always the post, and not the poster. Note, for example, how I've interacted with Freemantlegirl2 in the past, or IronLady. Sometimes I will be in vehement agreement with them, others most definitely not so. Always the post, and not the poster. Keep an eye out for it.

Now, let's agree to stop polluting this thread any further.

Agreed, Georgem.

Have a good evening.