I'm sorry, so so sorry

[RobMc]

I have just realised that as chief snowflake I do not set a good example of wokery, the world is changing and Rob must change with it, no longer can we speak as we used to, even today a Childrens author of many years has been made to toe the line.

Outrage as Roald Dahl books edited to remove potentially offensive language: ‘This woke sanitation of English language has to stop!’ (gbnews.uk)

It is only right, the damage this must do to our youth when planning drive byes, heists a drug deals must be be terrific, they'll be claiming damages for sure, so Rob is issuing a guidance note to help the idiots, who are, well, idiots.

In the forums when I call you :-

fckr - this is a term of endearment, a kind of luvvy kissy @FRENCHI thing, ps where is the fckr?

Cunt - this should be downgraded to knacker from now on (unless you are a cunt of course)

Rob realises all too well that to you fckrs that are snowflakes, anything at all is offensive (cunts), so for you knackers I will tone it down

 

The much maligned FU, so often used in anger is now, when used by Rob, translated as ' Felicitations Users' in an attempt to please the Herby Lady who is ultra nice

 

Love and Kisses

Rob

Today I was offered sex by an 18 year old female. Now I'm not gonna lie, this girl was hot, but in exchange for the sex I was supposed to advertise some kind of bathroom cleaner for her. Of course being the mature person that I am I declined, because I have high moral standards and my willpower is very strong..... But not as strong as AJAX the safe and affordable bathroom cleaner, now available in lemon and vanilla scents

 

[TBB]

[the baron]

@RobMc yah bloody snowflake, just fuck off will yah?   
stop trying to give room to the snowflakes and hopefully they will stop for once.

oh and btw rob.... was it a thai ladyboy or a normal one?

and just incase i forgot... !fu

love yah buddy!

Edited February 18, 2023 by the baron

[Sammy]

‘Suggested’? Meaning there is no actual proof just suggestions? And the ones interviewed are themselves commentators not people that are actually involved? Sorry but until there is proof then this is no different than ‘some people say’.

Come back when something is actually published or the publisher releases a statement about the issue. By now we should all know that %99 of what we see and read on the internet is bullshit. Don’t be one of them and ask for more after taking a big whiff.

That said, *if* it’s true, it’s pretty god dammed stupid. 

[lTplkey336]

6 hours ago, RobMc said:

I have just realised that as chief snowflake I do not set a good example of wokery, the world is changing and Rob must change with it, no longer can we speak as we used to, even today a Childrens author of many years has been made to toe the line.

Outrage as Roald Dahl books edited to remove potentially offensive language: ‘This woke sanitation of English language has to stop!’ (gbnews.uk)

It is only right, the damage this must do to our youth when planning drive byes, heists a drug deals must be be terrific, they'll be claiming damages for sure, so Rob is issuing a guidance note to help the idiots, who are, well, idiots.

In the forums when I call you :-

fckr - this is a term of endearment, a kind of luvvy kissy @FRENCHI thing, ps where is the fckr?

Cunt - this should be downgraded to knacker from now on (unless you are a cunt of course)

Rob realises all too well that to you fckrs that are snowflakes, anything at all is offensive (cunts), so for you knackers I will tone it down

 

The much maligned FU, so often used in anger is now, when used by Rob, translated as ' Felicitations Users' in an attempt to please the Herby Lady who is ultra nice

 

Love and Kisses

Rob

Today I was offered sex by an 18 year old female. Now I'm not gonna lie, this girl was hot, but in exchange for the sex I was supposed to advertise some kind of bathroom cleaner for her. Of course being the mature person that I am I declined, because I have high moral standards and my willpower is very strong..... But not as strong as AJAX the safe and affordable bathroom cleaner, now available in lemon and vanilla scents

 

Just look what those offensive children's books did to you when you read them as a kid Rob!

[RobMc]

5 hours ago, Sammy said:

That said, *if* it’s true, it’s pretty god dammed stupid. 

I'm sorry to say this is absolutely true Sammy

[RobMc]

8 hours ago, the baron said:

was it a thai ladyboy or a normal one?

Completely out of Thais, but they were doing a bogof on Cambodians, hmmm? what's a 'normal one @the baron something to tell us??

Thank you for your FU and many FU's throughout the years, much appreciated

 

[Biotech]

11 hours ago, TBB said:

he was and then kept on bouncing for another half hour or so

[RobMc]

56 minutes ago, Biotech said:

he was and then kept on bouncing for another half hour or so

He said head not stomach

[Sammy]

There is an old scifi book. I think it was Arthur Clark. And way before anything akin to 'woke' was a thing in general party politics and beaten by them into everybody's brains by the media (thanks CNN and FOX ). It had a small section about a time in the future where smoking was not just taboo. But they went through all the old movies with characters smoking.... think of all those filmnoir or Raymond Chandler movies etc... and smoking was removed in all of them through altered scenes. A very long time before movie digital fx or animation as we know it today was even an idea except among a small number of people (George Lucas and ILM among them, who thought it up and made it happen). He was a very prescient man in his writing and possibilities for the future. Good and bad.

When Spielberg altered ET to remove the shotguns from the big bike chase, and everyone said 'wait a minute', it wasnt a political issue. It was a filmmaker making a choice with his own property that probably %99 of the people either disagreed with or didnt care. We all had our DVD's. And of course, in the end, when BR came around he released it in its original form. So if you want to take this as an example, altering famous works of fiction in this manner dont go over very well and sooner or later they have to back off.

Then again, there are a very large number of people in the US that would fully support changing liberal words or phrases in famous books into conservative ones.

("No No! Cant change that, its wrong!" "How about this one?" "Well, let me get back to you on that.")

A lot of doublethink around depending on the usual personal self-righteous and pious lives of too many people that demand everyone else do the same. If not by choice then by force. And yes, that is republicans and democrats. For any of you here. Both can kiss my big ass.

[Timmah!]

7 minutes ago, Sammy said:

There is an old scifi book. I think it was Arthur Clark. And way before anything akin to 'woke' was a thing in general party politics and beaten by them into everybody's brains by the media (thanks CNN and FOX ). It had a small section about a time in the future where smoking was not just taboo. But they went through all the old movies with characters smoking.... think of all those filmnoir or Raymond Chandler movies etc... and smoking was removed in all of them through altered scenes. A very long time before movie digital fx or animation as we know it today was even an idea except among a small number of people (George Lucas and ILM among them, who thought it up and made it happen). He was a very prescient man in his writing and possibilities for the future. Good and bad.

When Spielberg altered ET to remove the shotguns from the big bike chase, and everyone said 'wait a minute', it wasnt a political issue. It was a filmmaker making a choice with his own property that probably %99 of the people either disagreed with or didnt care. We all had our DVD's. And of course, in the end, when BR came around he released it in its original form. So if you want to take this as an example, altering famous works of fiction in this manner dont go over very well and sooner or later they have to back off.

Then again, there are a very large number of people in the US that would fully support changing liberal words or phrases in famous books into conservative ones.

("No No! Cant change that, its wrong!" "How about this one?" "Well, let me get back to you on that.")

A lot of doublethink around depending on the usual personal self-righteous and pious lives of too many people that demand everyone else do the same. If not by choice then by force. And yes, that is republicans and democrats. For any of you here. Both can kiss my big ass.

So... synopsis: you'd like some ass play.

[RobMc]

20 minutes ago, Sammy said:

There is an old scifi book. I think it was Arthur Clark. And way before anything akin to 'woke' was a thing in general party politics and beaten by them into everybody's brains by the media (thanks CNN and FOX ). It had a small section about a time in the future where smoking was not just taboo. But they went through all the old movies with characters smoking.... think of all those filmnoir or Raymond Chandler movies etc... and smoking was removed in all of them through altered scenes. A very long time before movie digital fx or animation as we know it today was even an idea except among a small number of people (George Lucas and ILM among them, who thought it up and made it happen). He was a very prescient man in his writing and possibilities for the future. Good and bad.

When Spielberg altered ET to remove the shotguns from the big bike chase, and everyone said 'wait a minute', it wasnt a political issue. It was a filmmaker making a choice with his own property that probably %99 of the people either disagreed with or didnt care. We all had our DVD's. And of course, in the end, when BR came around he released it in its original form. So if you want to take this as an example, altering famous works of fiction in this manner dont go over very well and sooner or later they have to back off.

Then again, there are a very large number of people in the US that would fully support changing liberal words or phrases in famous books into conservative ones.

("No No! Cant change that, its wrong!" "How about this one?" "Well, let me get back to you on that.")

A lot of doublethink around depending on the usual personal self-righteous and pious lives of too many people that demand everyone else do the same. If not by choice then by force. And yes, that is republicans and democrats. For any of you here. Both can kiss my big ass.

Strangely enough in the UK it is our top Universities driving this in Oxford and Cambridge, it is almost a competition now to see who can be the most stupid, which is very appropriate as that's where most of our top politicians come from.

[Sammy]

Our last six presidents. One Yale. One Georgetown and Yale. One Yale and Harvard.  One Columbia and Harvard. One went to Wharton Business. One to Syracuse.

Lots of Yale and expensive Ivy League in general. Yet, going to Yale and Harvard have as we have seen produced vastly different presidents. It was how they were raised, their families, and their experiences that defined how they governed not their schools. However, schools are a favorite punching bag because its easier to focus on them than families and how kids were raised.

[TBB]

9 hours ago, Biotech said:

he was and then kept on bouncing for another half hour or so

WRONG!!!    he never stopped bouncing  - explains everything

[GhostfaceJim]

[Sammy]

Ok, so yup.

Seems both the publisher and the original rights holders both worked together to make the changes. And the altered books are now publicly available and verified by multiple sources.

I say 'original' because it is also a far more complicated story dating back to nearly 6 months ago when Netflix bought out the rights holders. The original holders (the book publisher has said nothing) said they were working on the changes before then. A strange thing they felt the need to say. How much the deal was is undisclosed. Nor the terms.

Netflix is about viewers and subscribers. Meaning your money becoming their money. And they have openly stated they have big plans in the works. They are going to put a shit load of money into it. And this is America, or more generally Capitalism. They will make changes that bring them more subscribers and their money. Not over some idea of 'wokeness' or other political bullshit pushed on us 24/7.  But whatever makes people feel good one way or the other.

Have a nice day and rejoice in Capitalism.

[RobMc]

4 minutes ago, Sammy said:

Ok, so yup.

Seems both the publisher and the original rights holders both worked together to make the changes. And the altered books are now publicly available and verified by multiple sources.

I say 'original' because it is also a far more complicated story dating back to nearly 6 months ago when Netflix bought out the rights holders. The original holders (the book publisher has said nothing) said they were working on the changes before then. A strange thing they felt the need to say. How much the deal was is undisclosed. Nor the terms.

Netflix is about viewers and subscribers. Meaning your money becoming their money. And they have openly stated they have big plans in the works. They are going to put a shit load of money into it. And this is America, or more generally Capitalism. They will make changes that bring them more subscribers and their money. Not over some idea of 'wokeness' or other political bullshit pushed on us 24/7.  But whatever makes people feel good one way or the other.

Have a nice day and rejoice in Capitalism.

Well done my boy for your research, told you, and isn't it sad?

[Sammy]

It wasnt enough for me to call it vetted and verified.  As I said, as a rule dont trust %99 of the Internet. In the case of your post, it was of course to make a point about 'wokeness'. However the inclusion of Netflix and their buyout changes the whole story and the point you were making regarding it. Clan posts, just people chatting. But if it comes from talking heads and their spinmeister guests speaking to millions every day, fact averse Internet 'influencers', or political trolls thats another matter. Too many of those assholes.

Then again, to put this whole stupid issue to rest (as if), how many times was The Bible rewritten, a little or entirely, for the entire religion? And why did they do it? And was it for their benefit? Or for the faithful masses? If you feel it was ok to alter The Bible from the original texts from long ago then why not a work of fiction? Unless you are a Scientologist and their story of how we all came to be.

--------

In any case, here is another story regarding the same publisher. A little different this time since the author in question is very much alive. And he doesnt approve of any such changes. Since Yahoo is a news aggregator, I dont know the original source. So to follow my own rule, this one article isnt enough to be taken as the full truth.

https://news.yahoo.com/david-walliams-could-roald-dahl-192814517.html

To quote a line from it that shows... at least to me... that for the publisher its about the money. Not any semblance of 'wokeness'.

"Sensitivity readers were hired to scrutinize the text with parts rewritten for a modern audience, to ensure the books “can continue to be enjoyed by all today,” Puffin said."

Meaning in plain English: 'We paid money to an outside group few have ever heard of to help us sell the most books to the widest audience possible.' The question is... if they did say it in plain English, as a business, would they be right?

 

[Ranger]

yee haw

 

[RobMc]

10 hours ago, Sammy said:

It wasnt enough for me to call it vetted and verified.  As I said, as a rule dont trust %99 of the Internet. In the case of your post, it was of course to make a point about 'wokeness'. However the inclusion of Netflix and their buyout changes the whole story and the point you were making regarding it. Clan posts, just people chatting. But if it comes from talking heads and their spinmeister guests speaking to millions every day, fact averse Internet 'influencers', or political trolls thats another matter. Too many of those assholes.

Then again, to put this whole stupid issue to rest (as if), how many times was The Bible rewritten, a little or entirely, for the entire religion? And why did they do it? And was it for their benefit? Or for the faithful masses? If you feel it was ok to alter The Bible from the original texts from long ago then why not a work of fiction? Unless you are a Scientologist and their story of how we all came to be.

--------

In any case, here is another story regarding the same publisher. A little different this time since the author in question is very much alive. And he doesnt approve of any such changes. Since Yahoo is a news aggregator, I dont know the original source. So to follow my own rule, this one article isnt enough to be taken as the full truth.

https://news.yahoo.com/david-walliams-could-roald-dahl-192814517.html

To quote a line from it that shows... at least to me... that for the publisher its about the money. Not any semblance of 'wokeness'.

"Sensitivity readers were hired to scrutinize the text with parts rewritten for a modern audience, to ensure the books “can continue to be enjoyed by all today,” Puffin said."

Meaning in plain English: 'We paid money to an outside group few have ever heard of to help us sell the most books to the widest audience possible.' The question is... if they did say it in plain English, as a business, would they be right?

 

Well yes and no, why rewrite Dahl and not Shakespeare??  The English in Shakespeare and violence etc is not suited to modern times, in fact I hated it at school, and that was near the time it was written. The publisher would not alter a high earner without a push, and that push is coming from the universities, no doubt about it, not from the public.

In fact the public are beginning to get enraged, my close circle talk about it frequently (except the dog). Are we to reach the ridiculous stage with kids when we hear

'psssssst you got an early copy of Matilda mate?? swap you for some coke, my sister loves a raunchy read'

Perhaps Rob should review them Sammy, pure as the driven snow is Rob - yellow snow.

Take your point about the Bible, but there was no reason whatsoever to alter Dahl, they'll have Superman wearing his underpants on the inside next, and as for Southpark - ditch the shares now.

[TheLastColdBeer]

Rewriting deceased author's works is blatant thought control, & a lame attempt at changing history. Not going to have a happy outcome, but none of this will. Reality will win, because it won't be denied. When man becomes so arrogant to believe he can be God, and make rules that defy nature, the final result is collapse.

Happens throughout history, the elite get slapped upside the head, along with a great proportion of the population. Get in dm3 Rob, & I'll hand you another arsekicking

[Sammy]

And also a good example with Shakespeare. There is the original, and there are countless interpretations for any number of reasons. However, offhand I don’t know if his plays are considered public domain. I would imagine so considering when they were written. Then again, they are all categorized as ‘based on’. However I suppose the issue isn’t that works were altered. Usually for people it’s ‘so what?’ But in this case, it’s politics. Otherwise you wouldn’t have even heard about it.

[Timmah!]

 

[Smeggie]

I saw @RobMc's picture on the post office wall this morning...

Edited February 20, 2023 by SGTSmeg

[RobMc]

Here you go @Sammy alls well that ends well, commonsense has won

Roald Dahl books to KEEP author's original words in new classics collection after woke row (gbnews.uk)