Danny Baker

[MrZigster]

So, is Daz toxic then?

Sorry

[Scotdy]

So, is Daz toxic then?

Sorry

[eFestivals]

This site is fantastic and I am really grateful for all your hard work, but sometimes you really do come across as an absolute wa**er. I appreciate you are probably an intelligent person, but every childish comment like above that you make (usually followed by a condescending ) just makes me completely disregard anything you have to say.

Why do you think it childish?

I've wished nothing onto anybody. I've not remotely suggested a preferred outcome from his illness. I've merely said that if someone has to suffer this illness, I'd rather it was Baker before many others.

Now, do you think any different? Like hell you do.

Let me demonstrate: if one of your mother or (say) Hitler had to have cancer, which would you prefer?

Get over yourself.

[ampersand]

godwins law neil? clutching at straws there me thinks.

[eFestivals]

godwins law neil? clutching at straws there me thinks.

Insert whatever name you like you small-minded moron.

The principle applies to all.

Yes, even perfect you.

[ampersand]

Insert whatever name you like you small-minded moron.

The principle applies to all.

Yes, even perfect you.

[eFestivals]

no it doesn't neil. hitler getting cancer doesn't lessen the chances of my mum getting cancer. danny baker getting cancer, doesn't lessen the chances of your kid getting cancer. you f**king cretin!

Care to show me where I made any comment along those lines?

One day you might have enough brain cells to argue a point over what was said and not what you've invented. Moron.

[ampersand]

Care to show me where I made any comment along those lines?

One day you might have enough brain cells to argue a point over what was said and not what you've invented. Moron.

[eFestivals]

how did i know that line was coming. yawn.

you've said a pretty twattish thing, and you can't even see it. despite every comment about it being against you. but go ahead thinking you're a nice person.

Like Baker is you mean?

Is there any cause you're not backing this week with ever-increasing displays of gross stupidity?

[ampersand]

i'd rather be stupid than a c**t.

no-one should go through cancer. inevitablly, plenty people will, but most peoples responses to it (whether they liked the person or not) is 'that's awful, i hope they beat it'. you have given a heartless reaction to it and are coming off quite the c**t. way to go!

[eFestivals]

i'd rather be stupid than a c**t.

no-one should go through cancer. inevitablly, plenty people will, but most peoples responses to it (whether they liked the person or not) is 'that's awful, i hope they beat it'. you have given a heartless reaction to it and are coming off quite the c**t. way to go!

I agree. No one should have to suffer cancer.

But as you recognise, some people will do.

And if some are going to, I'd rather it was Baker than billions of others, specifically because of what Baker did that has caused millions to suffer when they wouldn't have otherwise.

What are you finding so difficult to understand about that very straightforwards thinking?

Baker had no problem wishing suffering onto others. On his own basis he'd approve of my lesser basis here.

Edited November 2, 2010 by eFestivals

[ampersand]

i understand your thinking. doesn't make it any less of a c**ty way to think.

[ampersand]

is there an over-stock of cancer somewhere, that means someone has to have it?

[eFestivals]

is there an over-stock of cancer somewhere, that means someone has to have it?

The facts get to show that some DO end up getting it, while others don't.

There's none of us which wouldn't want to slant those that do and those that don't if we are able to, to move it from those we care most about to those we care least about.

I've simply been upfront with saying what we're all thinking (tho of course not everyone would slant it to Baker).

Edited November 2, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

that's effectively what i was trying to say. there's not a quota. danny baker getting cancer doesn't mean it's one less for some 'good' person to get.

It does.

If there's (say) 1% of people that get cancer this year, it means that 99% do not.

I've simply expressed the view we all have that if it were possible to move people between the 'do' and 'don't' groups, we would do - so that those we care most about don't get it and those we care least for get it instead.

As ever, it's all too complicated for some brains.

[eFestivals]

you're such a fool sometimes

If I'm a fool, I'm only a fool for expressing what we all think.

Because we all very definitely think this way.... or are you going to tell me that if you were able to say who does and who doesn't, you wouldn't move your family into the "doesn't" group?

[ampersand]

neil, you said you're saying what we're all thinking. please don't lump me in with your way of thinking. i'm not a c**t. regardless of what he's done or not done (he's hardly killed anyone has he?), i wish him all the best with it.

[eFestivals]

you mean there's a decision making process going on, and someone is deciding who gets cancer and who doesn't?

You didn't have your weetabix this morning did you?

I'm saying that IF we could decide, we all would. We would ensure that those we care for the most don't have it, and those we care least for do.

Yes ampersand, even you.

[ampersand]

You didn't have your weetabix this morning did you?

I'm saying that IF we could decide, we all would. We would ensure that those we care for the most don't have it, and those we care least for do.

Yes ampersand, even you.

[eFestivals]

i would wish for none of my loved ones to get cancer. but it would end there. i would never wish it on anyone.

there is no decision process, so this is pointless. and you're still being a c**t.

I've not wished it on anyone either. Why can't you grasp that VERY simple fact?

And no different to how you wouldn't want your loved one to get cancer, nor would I.

And as it's the case that only a percentage of people get cancer, then Baker having it lessens the chances of your or my loved ones getting it - that's how statistical realities pan out, and what I was working from.

[t8yman]

Ive said some pretty twattish things on here in the past, but your stand on this is f**king childish Neil. To hold no sympathy for a person with a potential terminal illness because of something he did in his formative years is pathetic and you can dig and dig, and accuse people of not understanding your point all you like, but it is you that is wrong here - no one else.

Dole scroungers exist, as do tax evaders, both equally repellant - and Danny Baker has no more influence on their existence or the way they are percieved than you or I. And I'm sure given his time again he would have chosen not to do that piece on World In Action.

Grow up man. He has a family, including 3 children.

[ampersand]

I've not wished it on anyone either. Why can't you grasp that VERY simple fact?

And no different to how you wouldn't want your loved one to get cancer, nor would I.

And as it's the case that only a percentage of people get cancer, then Baker having it lessens the chances of your or my loved ones getting it - that's how statistical realities pan out, and what I was working from.

[eFestivals]

Ive said some pretty twattish things on here in the past, but your stand on this is f**king childish Neil. To hold no sympathy for a person with a potential terminal illness because of something he did in his formative years is pathetic and you can dig and dig, and accuse people of not understanding your point all you like, but it is you that is wrong here - no one else.

except your assumptions for all of this are all 100% wrong.

Dole scroungers exist, as do tax evaders, both equally repellant - and Danny Baker has no more influence on their existence or the way they are percieved than you or I. And I'm sure given his time again he would have chosen not to do that piece on World In Action.

Grow up man. He has a family, including 3 children.

Baker HAS had an influence on that - a greater influence than just about any other person. And while he might regret it now (I don't know either way - do you?) he certainly didn't around ten years after.

None of what I say makes a jot of difference to his condition. Just as none of what you say makes a jot of difference to his condition. Has this not occurred to you?

At the end of the day the simple fact is that you agree with my take - there's some you'd prefer to have cancer over others. I've got the bottle to state what you're thinking but won't say.

[eFestivals]

baker having it doesn't lessen the chances.

It does to anyone with a grasp of statistics.

[gratedenini]

i would wish for none of my loved ones to get cancer. but it would end there. i would never wish it on anyone.

there is no decision process, so this is pointless. and you're still being a c**t.