I heard men saying, Leave hope and praying, All days shall be as all have been; To-day and to-morrow bring fear and sorrow, The never-ending toil between. When Earth was younger mid toil and hunger, In hope we strove, and our hands were strong; Then great men led us, with words they fed us, And bade us right the earthly wrong. Go read in story their deeds and glory, Their names amidst the nameless dead; Turn then from lying to us slow-dying In that good world to which they led; Where fast and faster our iron master, The thing we made, for ever drives, Bids us grind treasure and fashion pleasure For other hopes and other lives. Where home is a hovel and dull we grovel, Forgetting that the world is fair; Where no babe we cherish, lest its very soul perish; Where mirth is crime, and love a snare. Who now shall lead us, what god shall heed us As we lie in the hell our hands have won? For us are no rulers but fools and befoolers, The great are fallen, the wise men gone. I heard men saying, Leave tears and praying, The sharp knife heedeth not the sheep; Are we not stronger than the rich and the wronger, When day breaks over dreams and sleep? Come, shoulder to shoulder ere the world grows older! Help lies in nought but thee and me; Hope is before us, the long years that bore us Bore leaders more than men may be. Let dead hearts tarry and trade and marry, And trembling nurse their dreams of mirth, While we the living our lives are giving To bring the bright new world to birth. Come, shoulder to shoulder ere earth grows older! The Cause spreads over land and sea; Now the world shaketh, and fear awaketh, And joy at last for thee and me. William Morris Source

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: No offence intended, saaxiib! If you found Al Shafici's words offensive, however, I apologize and express my deepest sorrow to the feelings that I unintentionally hurt! I am a rare breed in this world of unyielding nomads, you see! :cool: [/QB] Point taken, rare nomad.

^^^^ I wouldn't have used كلاب and عبد but the general message was the same. I suppose I should be offended by Al Shafici’s famous words now. :rolleyes:

The issue of foreign troops is a redundant one now. It looks like they are going to go despite whatever protests any warlords will have. I believe the president (or the organ grinders if conspiracy theories is your thing) has got it right with the issue of the capital. To relocate is to undermine an already fragile administration. The issue will have to be tackled head on and the TFG/President/Powers that be are doing exactly that. At the risk of sounding like Duke (the artist formerly known as Smith), I believe that this strategy will succeed! Whether it’s the shrewdness of this president, outside pressures, luck or a combination of all three, when the stakes were high and these warlords were presented with an opportunity to put-up or shut-up, they consistently chose the latter. Even before the president was chosen we were hearing the doomsayers telling us that Abdullahi Yusuf has no chance of making it! When he made it, they said that him and his government were not going to last that long, he’s still there! The argument that followed was that no members of the government would be welcomed in Mogadishu; they went and were welcomed too! Now the argument is about the foreign troops! I don’t know about you, but I’m not a man that would try to stand in the way of a tornado. Of course, this being Somalia, all might collapse within seconds and no analysis, guesswork or wishful thinking could predict what happens next. But, as the saying goes: so far, so good.

AJ, going to UNIVERSITY has never been about finding a job, saaxib. If that’s what you think then you’re missing the whole point of studying. Those that want to study for the single reason of finding a job should take Confucius’s advice above and become “ Welders, builders and tradesmenâ€! Somewhere along the way, the whole idea of university education has been corrupted and 90% of those at University (and those planning to go) viewed these great institutions as some form of method to get a job! As the word suggests, University should be about gaining universal knowledge. It’s about the interactions you have with different people of similar intellect and varying social backgrounds. Of course, it will give you a “degree†in your chosen field, but the benefits in all the other fields will far outweigh the mere degree. If you are still at University, I’ll advice you to immerse yourself in University life and make sure you take part in (or even initiate) as many activities as possible. If it’s a job your after though, bossy boots above is correct, most vocational professions offer better rates of pay than the majority of university degrees. Xu, The easy way to deal with such situations is if you counter their questions with personal questions of your own. For some reason, these nosey people don’t enjoy it when the shoe is on the other foot. Try it and see.

Losing my touch you say? Why do birds Suddenly appear? Everytime you are near Just like me They long to be Close to you Why do stars Fall down from the sky? Everytime you walk by Just like me They long to be Close to you (*) on the day that you were born The angels got together and decided To create a dream come true So they sprinkled moondust in your hair Of gold and starlight in your eyes of blue (**) that is why all the girls in town Follow you all around Just like me They long to be Close to you Just like me They long to be Close to you

Heh. Oh the disappointment! In circles we go again. J11, nobody is free of emotions, saaxib and I never claimed that I was. So far, whenever I accused anyone on this site of being emotional, I believe I was 100 correct. When someone does not present me with an argument, a logical reason for their passionate words or even point out the holes in my argument to explain their passionate reply, I believe that someone is being unduly emotional. It’s an obvious and simple point, saaxib. I am not, despite all other appearances, trying to reinvent the wheel here. Do you always make your mind up purely on the basis of the title of a piece, saaxib? Surely not! Baashi, Fear not, you were not part of the “baying mobâ€. Though lately, I’ve been finding many of your analogies falling short of the mark, what’s gone wrong, saaxib? Come on, up your game and keep up with me here. The Jester’s right to offend is in no way similar to the right to kill (if such a right existed in the first place). This back and forth business of discussing things is extremely tiring, saaxib. Fine, let us go back over old ground once more. In your first post here, you confirmed that in your opinion, my post on the other thread was fine and had nothing offensive in it. In subsequent posts, you reverted back to the original comment and, surprisingly enough, tried to hint that those comments were indeed offensive! What gives, saaxib? Note that I have not addressed the other thread and didn’t attempt to explain my post there. This is because I believed the complaints and the wailing (yes wailing) to be disproportionate to the words I wrote. It was a childish knee-jerk reaction that did not require me to dignify it with an answer. Instead, I decided to tackle the bigger issue of one’s right to offend. Apart from the side replies to the few fickle people, I still believe that I managed to objectively address the topic. I’ve given you all plenty of examples of when one is free to offend and I have not got any acceptable refutations from any of you. Instead, you rehashed my own arguments and presented them as your own! Do you believe Mel Brooks, David Heller and the others I mentioned were that different to me when they wrote about the Second World War and highlighted the absurdities of that war? Since you chose to revert to those original comments of mine, do you believe them to be any different than caricaturist paintings on the Iraq war or the Tsunami? When one unintentionally offends, the apology that you expect them to issue is at the Jester’s discretion. It depends on the nature of the offence and if those offended have explained their case in a way that makes the jester see the errors of his ways. In the case of my earlier comment, which, oddly enough, we’re squabbling over now, I don’t believe my comments were offensive and think it, as I’ve already said, very self-indulgent on the part of the offended parties. It’s not a matter of sensitivity, my friend. It’s a matter off emotional blackmail. I suppose it’s just easy to shrug and apologise in order to keep the peace, but what shall I do the next time some naval gazing kid feels like getting offended by words unrelated to his problem or pain? Shall I apologise again? Notice where the right to be offended and the right to offend would overlap? I get the feeling that you’re saying the offended party would take precedent because it’s the “right†thing to do. All good and well, but what if the offended party is chasing shadows and basing his/her offence on assumptions, perceptions and hearsay? See, your whole argument is based on my original words, you need to go back on that and decide if you think they are offensive or not and then make an argument based on your conclusion. To say that my words could have been construed the wrong way. But I should apologise so that I could prove that I’m a nice guy and my words did not mean to offend, whilst it carries good intentions (and I applaud you for them) is not a valid argument, saaxib. I wonder if the fog will clear anytime soon.

Heh. I know I said I’m done with this thread but you dragged me back into it, saaxib. First of all, Ken’s case is not a very good example. The mayor of London meant to offend. He specifically set out to offend when he compared the reporter to a German officer first and a concentration camp guard second (after he was told that the reporter was Jewish). This is not something that I would even attempt to defend. Though I can understand why someone would set out to offend and I personally would give anyone the right to do so, as long as they’re prepared for the consequences of their actions. My argument all along was on the unintentional offence. I thought I was being very clear. The examples I gave (from Heller’s book to Salman Rushdi’s case) were all connected with that. Saaxib, I believe I was being reasonable all along and have not involved my emotions in discussing this topic. If you can refute it, bring it on. But, let us not play the game of “you’re being emotional†and “no I’m not being emotionalâ€. I’ve given you ample examples of instances when the humour about atrocities and victims was accepted and admired. You countered by saying my examples support your own points! I agreed, taking your own words that we’re arguing the same point and added that the main censor to anyone’s humour should be oneself. You replied by giving me a hadith saying guard one’s tongue! Do you feel like we’re going in circles here at all? The idea that only the victims can satirise their own suffering is ridiculous by the way. If it’s directly offensive, it really does not matter if you’re a victim or not, you should not set out to offend anybody. If it’s unintentionally offensive (which is my argument all along), it obviously does not matter if you’re a victim either. Even in your example of using the “N†word, I bet you the director of that film was a white guy. In the same way that Mel Brooks directed (and written I believe) Blazing saddles and that movie was all about a black guy and all the characters (white) using all sorts of racially abhorrent language against him. The success of the movie was not because it was offensive or sensitive; it was because it was expertly done. This is the whole point of humour, it’s all about the timing and delivery not the worry about offence and misguided political correctness. I suggest you reread the entire thread, rethink your words and come again, saaxib. I’d hate to suggest that your analysis was emotionally motivated, see.

lol@Bryan Adams and classic! Here is classic, bossy boots. We can share chips on the northern line. I know your eyes in the morning sun I feel you touch me in the pouring rain And the moment that you wander far from me I wanna feel you in my arms again And you come to me on a summer breeze Keep me warm in your love and then softly leave And it’s me you need to show Chorus: How deep is your love I really need to learn ’cause we’re living in a world of fools Breaking us down When they all should let us be We belong to you and me I believe in you You know the door to my very soul You’re the light in my deepest darkest hour You’re my saviour when I fall And you may not think I care for you When you know down inside That I really do And it’s me you need to show How deep is your love No need to guess this time. :rolleyes:

^^ I knew you would get the hint, bossy boots. How does curry and a stroll at the Thames strike you? I, I'm so in love with you Whatever you want to do Is all right with me 'Cause you make me feel so brand new And I want to spend my life with you They say since, baby, since we've been together Loving you forever Is what I need Let me be the one you come running to I'll never be untrue Let's, let's stay together Lovin' you whether, whether Times are good or bad, happy or sad Whether times are good or bad, happy or sad Why, why some people break up Then turn around and make up I just can't see You'd never do that to me (would you, baby) Staying around you is all I see (Here's what I want us to do) Let's, we oughta stay together Loving you whether, whether Times are good or bad, happy or sad Guess this one

I'm a man of my words, dear.

Today I’m in a fluffy mood and it so happens that it’s St Valentine’s Day (not that I ever fall victim to such gimmicks). But, I’m in a good mood and since it’s not the done thing to give the wife any flowers, here is a dedication to all you young damsels! While I’m far away from you my baby I know it’s hard for you my baby Because it’s hard for me my baby And the darkest hour is just before dawn Each night before you go to bed my baby Whisper a little prayer for me my baby And tell all the stars above This is dedicated to the one I love (life can never be exactly like we want it to be) I could be satisfied knowing you love me (but there’s one thing I want you to do especially for me) And it’s something that everybody needs While I’m far away from you my baby Whisper a little prayer for me my baby Because it’s hard for me my baby And the darkest hour is just before dawn If there’s one thing I want you to do Especially for me And it’s something that everybody needs Each night before you go to bed my baby Whisper a little prayer for me my baby And tell all the stars above This is dedicated to the one I love This is dedicated to the one I love This is dedicated to the one I love This is dedicated to the one I love (this is dedicated) PS A big plastic rose awaits any lady that correctly guesses the name of the band that sang this song.

So many replies, so many fabricated stories and a lifetime worth of assumptions! J11, so far, we seem to argue the same point, saaxib! I’ll simply conclude by saying that the only acceptable form of censorship should be the one imposed by oneself! Any other form of censorship, whilst attempting to protect the rights of those unwittingly offended will impinge upon the rights of the “offender†to, simply, offend! This is without even considering, of course, if the offence was established in the first place. This has been a topic within a topic, and therefore, one is obliged to also address the other part of this discussion. To those seeing tribal conspiracies in everything, there is nothing I could say or suggest to cure these preconditioned minds of yours! To those that have lost loved ones, upon reflection and after a period of soul searching, I realise that some of my words in this thread (not the other one) might have come across with a tad of harshness. I hereby take those words back. To those that gave their opinions on the topic but still got accused of bias and tribal hatred. If you’re the emotional type and feel that an apology or acknowledgment from me will help you withstand such indictments, I hereby extend you my warmest apologies and total respect (though I doubt either would mean anything to you - Particularly FF). To all the rest, hope you enjoyed the drama! ولما رايت الجهل ÙÙŠ الناس Ùاشيا تجاهلت حتي قيل اني جاهل Ùواعجبا كم يدعي الÙضل ناقص وواسÙا كم يظهر النقص Ùاضل Though I would still like to continue pondering the topic and make a case for the right to offend, I fear that’s it’s impossible for anyone to stand in the way of a baying mob. Despite all my other qualities (real or imagined), I assure you all, a martyr I am not. For this reason, and for the sake of the agreeable (but mistaken) Nomads who tried to “keep the peaceâ€, I shall miserably withdraw from this topic and stop feeding the senseless inferno. Should there be any apology or regret as I depart, it would be one that concerns my mistaken fancy that I was discoursing with like-minded people and could freely participate regardless of the rabble. Alas, I underestimated the mob’s ability to overwhelm any discussions and drown all voices not adhering to its raw prejudices! مازح صديقك ان اراد مزاحا Ùاذا اباه Ùلا تزده جماحا Ùلربما مزح الصديق بمزحة كانت لبدء عداوة Ù…Ùتاحا

^^^ Reminds me of the saying “assumption is the mother of all mess-ups (to use the polite term). The “we†was a general point directed at everyone in this site (you need to read some of my older posts on the topic). This southern point I’m happy to clarify and totally say that it was not, will not be and gives me no reason to make. I’m indifferent to southerners as I am to northerners. Of course I would take offence. I am human (even if you probably don’t believe it) after all. However, I was not offended in this instance. I was merely irritated at the complete misinterpretation of my words (which I remind you for the umpteenth time were not meant to offend).

Dawco, your paranoia and emotional overreaction know no bounds, my dear. Pray tell where in that thread or any of my replies does it mention anything about this war being a southern war? I’m as offensive about northerners as southerners if they’re all as paranoid as you are my friend. I make no apologies for other people’s perceptions. When you take a comment I wrote about ME and turn it into something about YOU then, my dear, you are trying to force your own pain and suffering on me and expect me to care! Force and intellectual bullying is not something I take lightly. I repeat again, if you decide to take offence to a piece that was not meant to offend then tough. Expect no apologies. Brown-Brotha, one of those days, and hopefully with my assistance, you’ll finally start comprehending a piece when you read it. In the meantime, rage away, my brother. It amuses me. Baashi, You’re right, the issue here is whether you can express yourself creatively without offending anyone. I say you can’t. You’ll always offend one person or another. This is the whole point of the freedom of speech and having a right to say your bit. The only difference is in the intention. If you set out to offend that is your problem, if people take offence to comments, articles or pictures not meant at them; that’s their problem. My stance has not changed. Read the original point and subsequent explanations saaxib. J11, I wouldn't know where to begin in replying to your response there. Let me give you yet more examples of offensive humour. Mel Brooks, a Jewish comedian has written a movie and play (The Producers) about the war. For many fickle people, this play would be considered the height of offensiveness. Yet his play is very popular and won countless awards. I suppose going by your words; Mel Brooks got away with it because he can claim to be a “victim†too. He is Jewish after all. Still, this same Mel Brooks has also made a film (Blazing Saddles) that is the most racist movie ever. Nobody that watches that film can tell you that the language used, the situations and slapstick comedy within is anything but offensive. Again, this film received high acclaim and most (excluding a few fickle souls) of those that watched it felt no offence at all. It’s a hit and miss thing, granted, however, I believe that in order to make the hits one is invariably going to also experience a few misses. This should not deter one from pursuing his goals in attempting to make what he deems to be inoffensive comedy. When all is said and done (as the saying goes) the audience would be the final arbiter of the quality of the work. If the joke is not funny enough, it will sink and if it has any funny substance it will spread and gain popularity (regardless of the reactions of those easily offended). I repeat, if the intention is to offend, the offence should be obvious to all (i.e. someone making a joke expressing his happiness at the plight of Jews in gas chambers or the death of Russian school children). On the other hand, humour that seeks to satirise, mock or ridicule a situation or people in order to show the absurdity of life, whilst being unintentionally offensive to some, puts things into perspective for others or is simply funny. You’re in the UK, and I’m sure you’re aware of the furore about Prince Harry, the Jerry Springer Opera or even the Birmingham Hindu play. All are very recent examples of topics that managed to offend. In Prince Harry’s case, it wasn’t his distasteful humour that was only at issue and that people took umbrage to, it was his position as a symbol of British authority. There were already dark mutterings about the British royal family’s German roots and the involvement of some relatives of his in the war (on both sides). The offence was not taken because some young kid decided to wear a German army uniform to a fancy dress party, it was offensive because this was the third in line to the throne and he was in the public eye. The argument was, he should have known better than to put himself in such a situation. The two other cases mocked religion. This, easily, is the quickest way to offend a large number of people in the shortest time possible. In both cases, the Christians and the Hindus were up in arms (as I’d imagine the Muslims would be if it were directed at them). Notwithstanding Prince Harry’s case, should the other two have been censored? There is a law being proposed in the UK that will make it “illegal†to make religious jokes and poke fun at people of faith. The rumours are, this law has been introduced to protect Muslims! Incidentally, the biggest opponent to this law so far has been Salman Rushdi (remember him?). I find myself agreeing with him here. To satirise and mock any ideologies and concepts should not be subject to other people’s sensitivities but only to the author’s view of the absurdities within and his ability to highlight such absurdities. A Muslim of course, would not attempt to satirise his own faith (though it’s possible to mock the pitiful state of his fellow Muslims or the situation the Muslims find themselves in). A non-Muslim, I believe, has every right to mock, ridicule and make fun at all the absurdities he perceives in Islam. Those taking offence will be better off educating him and explaining these “absurdities†rather than waste their time with spitting the proverbial dummy! I’ll stop now.

Baashi, There is a difference between real life, written words and the media in general. In real life offensive humour should be avoided lest one get a black eye or, in the least, for purposes of social harmony. Diplomacy and compromise would be the only routes there. That’s because in real life one meets all kinds of people and one is forced to “fit inâ€. In media (TV, radio, newspapers, discussion forums or novels) one is not as restricted by such consideration. You see, when one unintentionally offends, one would apologise and be polite in real life for the reasons of “keeping the peaceâ€. One does not do it because one was wrong, how could you be unintentionally offensive? In all mediums other than real life, one is not obliged to toe the line and avoid stepping on soft eggshells (it’s impossible to do so)! If one even attempts it, he’ll either be forever apologising or, worse still, he’ll stop commenting on all things for fear of making offence. These outlets should be used for reasons of creativity, pushing of boundaries and challenging prevalent attitudes. If one is stopped from being “free†with his words, it becomes a form of oppression. You would be gagged, saaxib! The way I see it, upsetting and offending a few fickle souls is a small price to pay if what’s at stake is your freedom of thought (not speech). If one does not set out to particularly be offensive yet people get offended, one will only deserve admiration if these minor hiccups did not prevent him from following on with his chosen path rather than cowering and giving in to the fickle mob. Of course, if a joke is dull it will just be ignored and die. But even dull jokes need to be aired.

Northerner, Joking about computer games aside, why do you think making lighthearted quips about atrocities is wrong? When making a joke about someone or something don’t we do it to laugh at the misfortune of such a person or situation? Do you find Mr Bean funny? On a serious note, should censorship be applied to all forms of humour or only selective ones? Let me give an example; in Joseph Heller’s famous novel Catch 22, he pokes fun at the American soldiers during world war two. The book is hilariously satirical and gives a completely different picture of the war. Remember, this was a war that involved, amongst other things, the attempt to completely exterminate an entire race (people can dissect the truthfulness of this point at their leisure). Heller, instead of talking about the Nazis as being the bad guys, the plight of the Jews in the concentration camps or even the heroism of American soldiers, decided to mock the whole war and the reasons for it. His book is all about the corruption, confusion, laughable sadness and unfairness of the war. He does not shirk from comically addressing death and humour found when one loses his mind in such circumstances! His book has been a best seller for decades. Now, since he’s discussing an atrocity (the biggest war man has ever known) should his words be censored for fear of making offence? What say you about newspaper caricaturists? They too have to daily paint whimsical caricatures about certain events and situations. In most cases, their paintings are humorous despite the fact that they’re covering a topic such as the Iraq war or the Tsunami! Encouragingly enough, there are some Somali artists doing exactly the same thing about the state of Somalia. Their work too is humours and does not fail to raise a smile in spite of the topics they cover! Should they be banned? Should people allow the thought police to decree what’s tasteful and what’s not? What other, offensive things should be banned?

Heh. It’s a shame that what I thought would be a very good topic has descended into this charade of attempting to explain a joke (purists would even say that such comments as the ones I wrote could not be classified as a joke. It has no punch line, see)! Juxa, I’m saddened and slightly perplexed (though not enough to ruin my day) to find out that you took my sincere condolences as an attempt to patronise! Those words were genuine and the intention was real. However, since you refused to take heed of my advice and continued on posting on and reading this thread, I see no reason why I should not be blunt too and say my piece (as you already know I cherish my right to offend). I don’t know about your pain, didn’t ask to know about your pain and am not interested in your pain. This is your very private business. If you wish to share it with people then it’s your choice and you are free to do so. However, don’t shove your pain down my throat and demand that I feign fake sympathy. Events that happened in YOUR personal life do not concern me nor keep me awake at night. Events that happened to the Somalis in general do, at times. You need to wipe those tears away and see the distinction between the two. I know I sound like a broken record here, but this reaction of yours (and others) is yet another example of how emotional people on this site are! There has to come a time when you people stop the wailing. When someone starts a topic about domestic violence a number of people get offended because they happen to be female and females are, usually, the ones at the receiving end of such a sick social disease. The issue becomes personalised and extremely absurd. Young, single women start tearfully hypothesising about being struck and recount their vengeful reactions to such an artificial scenario! If the topic is religion, the only Mullah (and there are plenty of those) on the site finds something to offend him/her and starts spastically posting long (cut and paste) articles that are taken out of context just to prove and show how big his wound is! A wound, which, again, was inflicted by a hypothetical situation! Now we come to politics, the hub of all that’s righteous and pious. Here, all are twitching and trembling. Their eyes are all stressed from the long and dedicated effort of Looking For Trouble. Where is the motive they say, where is the hidden agenda, is it about my people, my neighbours, someone I met in passing, anyone, anything or something related to ME? Some people notice such absurdity but choose to have a quite life. Silence is golden being their motto. Others, like a spectator in a Sufi dance, get intoxicated by the enticing wailing and find themselves slowly becoming one with the weeping throng! To my shame, I confess that I often fell victim to such tendencies. Nonetheless, hysteria is not a personality trait I’d want to keep. Topics and discussions should, in the most part, be free from pointless hysterics. Debates should not cater for the lowest common denominator and retorts should (even if they fail) endeavour to stand out and have some quality about them. When someone starts a trivial topic asking: Where were you when the attack on the Twin Towers took place? One is presented with three choices; either to ignore the pointless question; or to reply with a dull and descriptive reply detailing one’s dreary routine on that day. The third option is reply while making light of the question and the situation. All options are valid, though, subtly mocking the author and the topic (in the way he/she presented it) would be (in my opinion) the best course of action. One should not attempt to run before one could walk. When reading a piece, one needs to comprehend it, understand it and analyse it (if need be). To go into a topic with preconceived ideas would only add to the confusion of someone with an already poor reading comprehension skill. I feel like I should go on preaching but fear that my audience are starting to nod off, therefore, I’ll quicken my pace and end my piece by wishing that it hopefully satisfied its purpose and offended everyone in equal measure (I might be insensitive but I believe I’m fair). Still, rather than look at specifics, I’m more interested in the proverbial big picture. Humour in general and when it should be applied or whether it should be censored. Be warned, I shall not deal with your pain anymore. You’re free to participate in the discussion should you wish though.

^^^ The president should sack these disruptive elements in his cabinet, saaxib. Can he though?

Marvellous poem, thanks saaxib.

Aha! I see that my thread inspired plenty of thoughtful and incisive replies on the subject of humour. Good, good, that’s the spirit. First of all, let me deal with the easy ones. FF & Nifty, thanks for “explaining†the not too subtle joke, though the explanation of a gag, I feel, dents its beauty and cheapens the author’s overall status. Dawaco, I sincerely hoped it wouldn’t be you who would fall for that obvious “set-upâ€. I suppose, as you already agreed, we indeed do have something in common. I was going to add that though we’re both tiresome and tedious, I at least could hide behind my humour. But I then saw your comments about holocaust survivors and it got my mind racing. I imagined the survivor listening to you solemnly and then recounting a tale full of the horrors of the gas champers and his deep hurt and sorrow for his fallen comrades. The thought saddened me and I almost repented! But, I then saw the face of this survivor of yours break into a smile and telling you that he’s overjoyed that he survived. I could almost see him make a weak joke about how he almost became a shish kebab! Brown-Brotha, your case is significantly more critical than Dawaco’s so I’m going to tread carefully here and extend you my sincerest and heartfelt apologies for any offence my words, letters or just the fact that my name is on your screen, might have caused you. I also have to show my appreciation and total admiration for your coolness and composure under these severe circumstances. Here you are, with all this pain and all these scars, still trying to keep the tears back and cheering us all up with YOUR jokes about bread, cappuccino and, yet again, toasted bread! When I grow up, I want to be like you, saaxib. One in a million! Juxa, I’m going to be nice and serious with you. I wouldn’t know what my first thought would be if someone had killed my family in front of me. I probably can imagine it but I’m sure that I’d still fall way short. I might even laugh out of madness. But, like I said, since it’s something I didn’t experience and wouldn’t want to experience, it’s also something I can’t fully reply to. If this is something you’ve witnessed then I’m sorry to hear it, accept my bleated condolences. I shall not attempt to reason with you on this subject and beg that you try to avoid it altogether. Again, my condolences, walaal. Back to the subject of humour and whether it should be censored! Ahem, be serious now and give your opinions.

The funny thing about humour is that not all share in it. Some jokes offend, some make people laugh and some have no impact whatsoever. Humour that seeks to intentionally offend is understandable on occasions (e.g. two people fighting and using ghastly but hilarious putdowns). On the other hand, humour that does not set out to offend but still manages to offend a few wet and humourless folks, is not only understandable, in my opinion, such humour is admirable. In the same way that these humourless individuals would whinge about their right to be offended, the jester also can, wittily, moan about his right to offend. Sometimes, it’s prudent not to jest about tragedies straight after the incident took place (i.e. Tsunami victims, their situation, the way they died or even telling a fictional “funny†story about the event itself). Also, some topics, out of moral duty or religious adherence should not be attempted at all (i.e. God, Heaven and Hell). Sensitivity, compassion and care are all great attributes. Alas, if applied at all times, the world would be a dull and sad place. In many situations in life, one is presented with two choices, laugh or cry! When one cries, acts serious and drowns in sorrow at all tragedies (even those taking place hundreds of years ago), one becomes a tiresome and tedious individual. Similarly, when one laughs, jests and jokes around all the time, one also, surprisingly enough, becomes a tiresome and tedious individual too. Having said all of the above, humour and making amusing comments on any given subject should not be censored. When those offended cite examples as “the jester does not have the imagination to picture the horrific scenes that saddened me and depressed me and if they had that imagination they would know not to make jokesâ€, they’re just being simplistic and extremely self-indulgent. If my humour offends you, tough! If your humour offends me on the other hand, I’ll probably laugh at how offensive you can be. Do you think humour should be censored? Why?

Heh. This alone is worth starting a whole new thread on. I've got to go home now, but before I go, I'm going to quickly come up with something on the topic elsewhere (got to respect the sombre feeling here you see).

^^^ A black Benjamin?

^^^ Pray tell, how would a “black†person describe such a situation, sweet cambo? :rolleyes: