"SEE YA!" Have you the faintest idea how childish that is?

Read the fucking article again. IT DOES NOT CALL HIM A NAZI AT ANY POINT. It calls him a craven Trump apologist and reports on the fact that he was sacked for Tweeting a Nazi slogan, which is exactly what fucking happened.

So he used a Nazi reference to mock his opponents (because that's what they do, according to you) and he got fired. What's your problem? Using Nazi references to mock your opponents should be accepted as long as you're 'trolling' when you do it? I'm struggling to see your point.

Heidecker is so great at that aspect of the character too. It can't be easy to so convincingly act like you can barely read, or speak, or form a coherent thought.

Fair enough, I didn't know that. In that wider context it does seem less clear, I'll grant you. By the way, I think it's completely unacceptable no matter what context or intent. I hope no one thinks I was defending him in any way.

Now I'm horribly tempted to look at that twitter feed.

And yet in your original comment you make it clear that you have no idea what Lord meant in the context of what he was talking about. He wasn't saying what you think he was.

He was heavily criticised in an article here for just that, and absolutely slated in the comments. No one here gets to decide who gets fired.

He's got you there pal.

Actually it wasn't, he was calling the guy a grammar Nazi. Why on earth would he make a 'comment on the fascism of the left' in response to that particular tweet?

I didn't think you were saying it was, I was just throwing it out there. For what it's worth and aside from anything else, I agree, the grammar Nazi thing must surely have been his intent or the tweet wouldn't have made any sense in that context.

No, that's someone else… what's-his-face… you know…

Sweet chariot?

Leaving aside the larger issue for a moment, is it fair to call someone a grammar Nazi for pointing out a mistake in a headline published by a major news organisation? I thought the label was usually applied to people who insist on perfect grammar in places where it needn't matter so much, like casual speech or…

It was no novelty to me, I'd seen plenty of surreal, gross and uncomfortable humour before. I just thought they made very funny sketches, and I still do.

When you've got movies like Tom Cruise in them, you can't lose!

I remember this so well. Part of it was Goodman's physical presence - he's obviously a big guy, and there's something about the way he carries himself that made me think that if he hit you, it would really hurt.

The only thing I liked about the last season was one joke in the first episode. Roseanne goes to the offices of the lottery company to collect her cheque. On the way in, the security guard says: "Oh, you're the winner. You know, I had four of those numbers." To which Roseanne replies: "Well, thank you for your dollar."

Those things are to prevent them from reoffending. If the hacker is already in prison for the rest of their life (without access to computers, I'm not arguing with that) there's no need to worry about what they might learn from books as it won't help them to reoffend. The vast majority of books would have no…

Well not while they're serving their sentence no, but no convicts are allowed to drink no matter what their crime, so it's kind of moot. A better analogy would be to say: do we allow people convicted of theft to own property? We do, because some things are just basic human rights and access to books is one of those…