| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 14:31 - Jun 27 with 1734 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 14:10 - Jun 27 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Classic Glassers (and straight out of the Tory playbook).
Attacks with a short soundbite but when you drill down into it there's very little evidence of wrongdoing, no link, no context, no timeline... and no answer from the right honorable member. Just swerve it and move onto something else.
I wondered why you you were so careful with the words "contributed to". |
I'll link it itn my own good time. Stop being so needy. |  |
|  |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 15:18 - Jun 27 with 1690 views | Ryorry |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 14:31 - Jun 27 by GlasgowBlue |
I'll link it itn my own good time. Stop being so needy. |
https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/586946/5836342/is-%E2%80%9Cchick%E2%80%9D-really-unacceptable-now%E2%80%A6/#post5836342 |  |
| |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 08:25 - Jun 28 with 1579 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 15:18 - Jun 27 by Ryorry |
https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/586946/5836342/is-%E2%80%9Cchick%E2%80%9D-really-unacceptable-now%E2%80%A6/#post5836342 |
I dunno why you're trying to help him, but your link doesn't work anyway. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 10:17 - Jun 28 with 1510 views | Ryorry |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 08:25 - Jun 28 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I dunno why you're trying to help him, but your link doesn't work anyway. |
Far from "trying to help him", the link was actually to GB's own post in which he told someone else that that poster was not playing nicely & was therefore disrespecting Phil's recent requests for forum members to behave ourselves. Thus drawing attention to GB's hypocrisy in his post describing you as "needy".
The link didn't work because that thread was deleted, but you decided to jump to a conclusion about what it said even though you couldn't read what it said.
Nuff said. | |
| |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 10:24 - Jun 28 with 1497 views | Ryorry |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 10:17 - Jun 28 by Ryorry |
Far from "trying to help him", the link was actually to GB's own post in which he told someone else that that poster was not playing nicely & was therefore disrespecting Phil's recent requests for forum members to behave ourselves. Thus drawing attention to GB's hypocrisy in his post describing you as "needy".
The link didn't work because that thread was deleted, but you decided to jump to a conclusion about what it said even though you couldn't read what it said.
Nuff said. |
I don't understand why you downvoted me for my polite & factually correct explanation Flashers, I was trying to help you. | |
| |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 10:25 - Jun 28 with 1495 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 10:17 - Jun 28 by Ryorry |
Far from "trying to help him", the link was actually to GB's own post in which he told someone else that that poster was not playing nicely & was therefore disrespecting Phil's recent requests for forum members to behave ourselves. Thus drawing attention to GB's hypocrisy in his post describing you as "needy".
The link didn't work because that thread was deleted, but you decided to jump to a conclusion about what it said even though you couldn't read what it said.
Nuff said. |
In fairness to me, Ryorry, we were discussing a thread where I was apparently sexist and I asked Glassers for a link, he said "I'll link it it in my own good time. Stop being so needy" and then you posted a link. What was I supposed to think the link was?! Remember, I'm not inside your head, I can only go with the available information!
However, it's a good point. Shame the link didn't work. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 10:28 - Jun 28 with 1488 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 10:24 - Jun 28 by Ryorry |
I don't understand why you downvoted me for my polite & factually correct explanation Flashers, I was trying to help you. |
You weren't polite, you were condescending: "you decided to jump to a conclusion about what it said even though you couldn't read what it said. Nuff said." That's what I downarrowed. See my reply. You could've just explained what happened without the above... then that would've been polite, factually correct and trying to help me. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 10:29 - Jun 28 with 1472 views | Ryorry |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 10:25 - Jun 28 by The_Flashing_Smile |
In fairness to me, Ryorry, we were discussing a thread where I was apparently sexist and I asked Glassers for a link, he said "I'll link it it in my own good time. Stop being so needy" and then you posted a link. What was I supposed to think the link was?! Remember, I'm not inside your head, I can only go with the available information!
However, it's a good point. Shame the link didn't work. |
Well for starters, my reply was addressed to him, not you, and the link did contain the readable words "really-unacceptable-now", but it's just internet comms innit, so let's forget it.
Edit after your most recent post - the "nuff said" in a new para was meant precisely to try & snuff out/prevent any possible stupid spat ensuing of the kind Phil (and probably everyone else) doesn't enjoy! Sorry anyway  [Post edited 28 Jun 2024 10:34]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 10:35 - Jun 28 with 1451 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 10:25 - Jun 28 by The_Flashing_Smile |
In fairness to me, Ryorry, we were discussing a thread where I was apparently sexist and I asked Glassers for a link, he said "I'll link it it in my own good time. Stop being so needy" and then you posted a link. What was I supposed to think the link was?! Remember, I'm not inside your head, I can only go with the available information!
However, it's a good point. Shame the link didn't work. |
Where did I call you sexist? I said on the one hand you are criticising people for using "90's lad culture" language such as "bird" and "chick" whilst in the other hand contributing to a thread about the "world's sexiest bird", which I along with plenty of others contributed to.
No sure why you are back on this again? Phil has asked for people to play nicely and everyone else has moved on to being excited about Omari signing. | |
| |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 10:47 - Jun 28 with 1433 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 10:29 - Jun 28 by Ryorry |
Well for starters, my reply was addressed to him, not you, and the link did contain the readable words "really-unacceptable-now", but it's just internet comms innit, so let's forget it.
Edit after your most recent post - the "nuff said" in a new para was meant precisely to try & snuff out/prevent any possible stupid spat ensuing of the kind Phil (and probably everyone else) doesn't enjoy! Sorry anyway [Post edited 28 Jun 2024 10:34]
|
I doesn't really matter if it was addressed to him or me, it's all in the same chat which I can see. And who reads the words in a link?! I just copied and pasted it!
Also, "nuff said" (especially in the context of the rest) is a dismissive term, rather than something that's going to aid peace and harmony!
But anyway, we can both see where the confusion arose, apology accepted! | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 11:02 - Jun 28 with 1407 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 10:35 - Jun 28 by GlasgowBlue |
Where did I call you sexist? I said on the one hand you are criticising people for using "90's lad culture" language such as "bird" and "chick" whilst in the other hand contributing to a thread about the "world's sexiest bird", which I along with plenty of others contributed to.
No sure why you are back on this again? Phil has asked for people to play nicely and everyone else has moved on to being excited about Omari signing. |
"I'll link it itn my own good time. Stop being so needy." I'm not back on anything again; I'm still waiting for your link that you're apparently going to post in your own sweet time.
Where did I say you called me sexist?
You've insinuated I'm sexist by saying I'm just as bad as the language Sitters used... and your evidence has so far been one word I used 5 years ago, and this thread where I apparently said an actress was sexy and a presenter was pretty. I didn't start the thread, so the title has nothing to do with me, and I may well not have fully clocked that the title was derogatory. And as you've still failed to link it we can't tell any more context or how long ago it was (you said recent so it shouldn't be too hard to find).
"everyone else has moved on" - Translation: I can't find this thread, I overstated things somewhat trying to insinuate that you're sexist, I have no way to backtrack (I could just apologise for being out of order but then I'd lose face) ...so the answer is, hope it just fades away, and if it doesn't I'll act like everyone else has moved on and that will further make you look like the out-of-order one here. Yeah, that'll work. I'll go with that. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 11:26 - Jun 28 with 1368 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 11:02 - Jun 28 by The_Flashing_Smile |
"I'll link it itn my own good time. Stop being so needy." I'm not back on anything again; I'm still waiting for your link that you're apparently going to post in your own sweet time.
Where did I say you called me sexist?
You've insinuated I'm sexist by saying I'm just as bad as the language Sitters used... and your evidence has so far been one word I used 5 years ago, and this thread where I apparently said an actress was sexy and a presenter was pretty. I didn't start the thread, so the title has nothing to do with me, and I may well not have fully clocked that the title was derogatory. And as you've still failed to link it we can't tell any more context or how long ago it was (you said recent so it shouldn't be too hard to find).
"everyone else has moved on" - Translation: I can't find this thread, I overstated things somewhat trying to insinuate that you're sexist, I have no way to backtrack (I could just apologise for being out of order but then I'd lose face) ...so the answer is, hope it just fades away, and if it doesn't I'll act like everyone else has moved on and that will further make you look like the out-of-order one here. Yeah, that'll work. I'll go with that. |
"SIGH". This really isn't in the spirit of moving this board back to a harmonious existence but if we can draw a line under "birdgate" I'll post the bloody link.
But firstly, I didn't call you a sexist or insinuate you are a sexist. I don't think anyone using the words "birds" or "chicks" is sexist. I've used these terms myself in the past (not chicks to my knowledge. I'm not a bloody hippy) and I was happy to contribute to the "world's sexiest bird" thread, as were plenty of others. I simply noted that it's hypocritical to pull up people for using those terms whilst at the same time putting up your choice of women who qualify as the "world's sexiest birds. It was a further example of what I highlighted in Phil's thread about critiquing posts simply based on who has made it rather than the content. You pull up poster 'A' for using the term "birds" but join in a thread by poster 'B' which uses the term "birds".
And of course I could find the bloody thread. How else do you think I lifted a direct quote from you about Gina Carano and Alice Levine? I could have linked this immediately but why should I jump to your command?
So here is the link. Can we now draw a line under this and give Phil and other posters who must be fed up with the recent bickering some peace and quiet?
| |
| |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 11:40 - Jun 28 with 1347 views | PassionNotAnger |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 11:26 - Jun 28 by GlasgowBlue |
"SIGH". This really isn't in the spirit of moving this board back to a harmonious existence but if we can draw a line under "birdgate" I'll post the bloody link.
But firstly, I didn't call you a sexist or insinuate you are a sexist. I don't think anyone using the words "birds" or "chicks" is sexist. I've used these terms myself in the past (not chicks to my knowledge. I'm not a bloody hippy) and I was happy to contribute to the "world's sexiest bird" thread, as were plenty of others. I simply noted that it's hypocritical to pull up people for using those terms whilst at the same time putting up your choice of women who qualify as the "world's sexiest birds. It was a further example of what I highlighted in Phil's thread about critiquing posts simply based on who has made it rather than the content. You pull up poster 'A' for using the term "birds" but join in a thread by poster 'B' which uses the term "birds".
And of course I could find the bloody thread. How else do you think I lifted a direct quote from you about Gina Carano and Alice Levine? I could have linked this immediately but why should I jump to your command?
So here is the link. Can we now draw a line under this and give Phil and other posters who must be fed up with the recent bickering some peace and quiet?
|
Self edited.
Trying to engage with the most argumentative poster on the board won’t help with Phil’s request x [Post edited 28 Jun 2024 11:43]
|  | | |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 12:13 - Jun 28 with 1297 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Starmer’s Labour playing dirty... on 11:26 - Jun 28 by GlasgowBlue |
"SIGH". This really isn't in the spirit of moving this board back to a harmonious existence but if we can draw a line under "birdgate" I'll post the bloody link.
But firstly, I didn't call you a sexist or insinuate you are a sexist. I don't think anyone using the words "birds" or "chicks" is sexist. I've used these terms myself in the past (not chicks to my knowledge. I'm not a bloody hippy) and I was happy to contribute to the "world's sexiest bird" thread, as were plenty of others. I simply noted that it's hypocritical to pull up people for using those terms whilst at the same time putting up your choice of women who qualify as the "world's sexiest birds. It was a further example of what I highlighted in Phil's thread about critiquing posts simply based on who has made it rather than the content. You pull up poster 'A' for using the term "birds" but join in a thread by poster 'B' which uses the term "birds".
And of course I could find the bloody thread. How else do you think I lifted a direct quote from you about Gina Carano and Alice Levine? I could have linked this immediately but why should I jump to your command?
So here is the link. Can we now draw a line under this and give Phil and other posters who must be fed up with the recent bickering some peace and quiet?
|
You always want to "move on" or "draw a line" under things after you've had your say. Sorry, but I'm not going to just accept that. You started this row by jumping in on a harmless throwaway comment I made calling Sitters' language "90s lad culture". I didn't even think too much of it. It was a nothing comment and THAT'S where we all should've moved on.
The irony here is it's you who steamed in to score internet points when you saw my name.
Now you've finally linked the thread we see the real reason you've delayed posting it (I knew full well you had easy access to it and were stalling for time). The thread you described as recent was three and a half years ago. Also, you claimed the title was about "sexiest bird", which is not the case. And the other context is it was posted by Lucan - an older member of the board and an old skool lad... so you know he means no ill, it's just the way someone from that generation would talk.
"You pull up poster 'A' for using the term "birds" but join in a thread by poster 'B' which uses the term "birds"." No. That's not what happened. I posted in a thread (where I didn't post sexist language, and the thread wasn't titled with sexist language) and then I made a comment on Sitters' language three and a half years later! That's what actually happened.
You saw a chance to score internet points - because you saw my name - and have fallen flat on your face. And this right after you were rapped on the knuckles by Phil for having a pop at Stokers. And then you try to lecture people about seeing a name and applying different standards to other names.
Have a look at yourself and your own behaviour before getting on the self-righteous high horse and sucking up to teacher. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
