Girls in... threads and the lack of reasonable moderation

Cleat Eastwood

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Beyond the issue of whether 'those threads' have a place on this forum, forgetting about the small matter of sexism and misogyny, can we please all agree on the only point worth considering here: DonDaddyD is innocent, he was right all along and is now completely vindicated. I have no real clue any more as to what he was innocent of, right about or vindicated of, but he wrote the most, demanded more reference and included way more quotes than anyone else, and by the power of Greyskull, that therefore makes him the winner.

Insert favourite facepalm here

Thank you to all who put up a persuasive argument and encouraged us all to think. Thank you also to DDD for the laughs.

I too raise my mug of tea to a resolution - whatever it may be.

hear hear, cant we have a DDD in Lycra Thread - now that would be confusing. hehe

t.m.h.n.e.t

DonDaddyD wrote:

When you grow a pair perhaps you'll have the testicular fortitude to answer the questions in a post directly instead of posting this sideways attack in an effort to avoid the fact that you cannot admit that you may in fact be wrong.

You two are really pathetic.

This is childish.

1). Insults cause offense to varying degrees and are not tolerated on this forum. You would do well to mind that.

Nothing needs to be said now.

Cleat Eastwood

velocestrapture wrote:

I was intending to keep on track ...

just out of interest how old are you velocestrapture?

DonDaddyD

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

When you grow a pair perhaps you'll have the testicular fortitude to answer the questions in a post directly instead of posting this sideways attack in an effort to avoid the fact that you cannot admit that you may in fact be wrong.

You two are really pathetic.

This is childish.

1). Insults cause offense to varying degrees and are not tolerated on this forum. You would do well to mind that.

Nothing needs to be said now.

I've already admitting to being a hypocrite. :roll: I shouldn't have isulted you so I apologise. Will you, Jonny_Trousers and Cleat Eastwood apologise for insulting me or deny that you have ever done so thereby making yourselves hypocrites?

This also doesn't ignore the fact that you are incapable of answering a question where the answer would be akin to an admission that you are in fact wrong. Funny that given my edited response.

velocestrapture

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

I was intending to keep on track ...

just out of interest how old are you velocestrapture?

Not sure why it is relevant - 32.

t.m.h.n.e.t

DonDaddyD wrote:

I've already admitting to being a hypocrite. :roll: I shouldn't have isulted you so I apologise. Will you, Jonny_Trousers and Cleat Eastwood apologise for insulting me or deny that you have ever done so thereby making yourselves hypocrites?

I feel sorry for you when taking the "high ground" on the internet and instigating that everyone else is a hypocrite is all you have left that is meaningful.

This also doesn't ignore the fact that you are incapable of answering a question where the answer would be akin to an admission that you are in fact wrong. Funny that given my edited response.

This doesn't ignore the fact that you completely neglected to understand the post,and that no accusation was made. I don't have to prove anything,nor answer any questions just because you got defensive.

Are you being obtuse deliberately or?

Monkeypump

velocestrapture wrote:

Her previous post.

For me, the first of your posts I can really identify with (not meant to patronizing) - I might even retract my soapbox comment You make some very sound points, and I don't disagree that some of the experiences you've been exposed to either directly or through others are completely unacceptable. I know this is potentially a can of worms, but it is a genuine question: Is there a possibility that you are, through experience/reading/active investigation, "hyper-sensitive" (for want of a better word) to these issues?

I ask because I work in a female dominated industry, and where specifically I sit with a team entirely made up of women. The objectification of men is way beyond the equivalent of anything seen in GiL/etc, and yet I neither feel threatened or offended by it. I wonder if that's because

a - it's not offensive
b - I'm just not as sensitive to it as others may be
c - men generally don't get offended by that stuff, only women (as the 'fairer sex') do.
d- something I'm missing and can't think of right now

I honestly don't think 'c' is a valid point. Maybe we (men), as the historical objectifiers of women just don't take it seriously when the tables are turned. Either way, this sort of thing goes on from both genders and I don't speak up against it because I don't see it as a huge problem. From what you say, I can only assume you would completely disagree.

However, in cases where a line (admittedly my own line of appropriateness) is crossed, I will and have taken it up with the offender. Outright lewd comments, groping, name-calling, harassment - this is not acceptable and I do not accept it. However, I do have trouble categorizing these things as similar to looking at few cheeky pics of hotties on bikes/in shorts/under umbrellas/etc.

velocestrapture wrote:

...from now on you will make a positive decision as to whether you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution.

I do think there is a middle ground - you don't have to actively be part of either, although I accept it's easier to fall into being part of the problem than make the effort to be part of the solution.

DonDaddyD

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I've already admitting to being a hypocrite. :roll: I shouldn't have isulted you so I apologise. Will you, Jonny_Trousers and Cleat Eastwood apologise for insulting me or deny that you have ever done so thereby making yourselves hypocrites?

I feel sorry for you when taking the "high ground" on the internet and instigating that everyone else is a hypocrite is all you have left that is meaningful.

You are aware that this is an insult don't you and that you just, on this very page, made the point about insults by quoting my post, right?

This also doesn't ignore the fact that you are incapable of answering a question where the answer would be akin to an admission that you are in fact wrong. Funny that given my edited response.

This doesn't ignore the fact that you completely neglected to understand the post,and that no accusation was made. I don't have to prove anything,nor answer any questions just because you got defensive.

Are you being obtuse deliberately or?

Or what? You have repeatedly failed to answer my question. You have attemtped to avoid it, weasel your way out of it and try to change the context of what you meant even though it is clear to see. You have also reverted back to ad-hominem attacks.

What is clear that you cannot do is admit that you may in fact be wrong and it is childish and pathetic that you cannot admit it or face up to it. And at this stage I don't think it is insulting to say that.

t.m.h.n.e.t

DonDaddyD wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I've already admitting to being a hypocrite. :roll: I shouldn't have isulted you so I apologise. Will you, Jonny_Trousers and Cleat Eastwood apologise for insulting me or deny that you have ever done so thereby making yourselves hypocrites?

I feel sorry for you when taking the "high ground" on the internet and instigating that everyone else is a hypocrite is all you have left that is meaningful.

You are aware that this is an insult don't you and that you just, on this very page, made the point about insults by quoting my post, right?

This also doesn't ignore the fact that you are incapable of answering a question where the answer would be akin to an admission that you are in fact wrong. Funny that given my edited response.

This doesn't ignore the fact that you completely neglected to understand the post,and that no accusation was made. I don't have to prove anything,nor answer any questions just because you got defensive.

Are you being obtuse deliberately or?

Or what? You have repeatedly failed to answer my question. You have attemtped to avoid it, weasel your way out of it and try to change the context of what you meant even though it is clear to see. You have also reverted back to ad-hominem attacks.

What is clear that you cannot do is admit that you may in fact be wrong and it is childish and pathetic that you cannot admit it or face up to it. And at this stage I don't think it is insulting to say that.

I can't be wrong because I never stated anything as fact. Can't you see?

DonDaddyD

Monkeypump wrote:

c - men generally don't get offended by that stuff, only women do.

Interestingly and controversially so, I think it is 'C' (I've edited out the fairer sex comment). Why I think this is because Men aren't faced with the same widespread, objectification that women are. We aren't bombarded (well used to be) with images of models encouraging us to look like them.

Because it doesn't happen as much, for me, I actually find it somewhat flattering when I'm objectified or hear women admiring men. If I had to deal with it everyday and subconciously feel that I'm constantly being compared, looked at, eyed up. Then yes, it would become an issue.

velocestrapture

DonDaddyD wrote:

G66 wrote:

It seems I was wrong.

FWIW, I don't agree with velocestrapture on that point.

I want to agree with you, but sometimes I feel that when people see or hear a crime, injustice etc and they don't step forward I think they are in someway culpable. It's part of my nature to be forthright and call things as right or wrong even my own misdemeanors.

I don't subscribe to the notion that we should all actively champion against injustice, in this case specifically:

Every single man who has not spoken up has contributed to a culture in which that guy can get away with abusing women, and abusing his power over women. It doesn't matter that you don't abuse women yourself, if by your (lack of) words and actions you allow other men to abuse them instead, you are colluding in that abuse.

I mean does that mean that everyone who hasn't spoken up against racism, homophobia, bullying has therefore contributed to an environment where it exists.

Should I then blame velostrapture for not speaking up for me against certain posters even though their accusations and attacks are clearly wrong. Has her inaction contributed to an environment where it is OK to blame DDD?

It's not the same thing or even near the scale of abuse, any form of abuse, but the principle is the same.

Yes. I'm not talking about becoming radicalised and spending all your free time campaigning or going on marches (although a few more men doing that would be great), but how you live your day to day life. There is a huge amount of literature, websites, blogs etc talking about the harm caused to women by the prevalence of misogyny in our society. It doesn't take much to look at a little of it and to think critically about your own life and the people around you.

And no, I haven't stepped in to defend you, because I did not consider that you were being targeted for reason of your race, gender, sexual identity, disability or other feature, nor that you were disadvantaged in dealing with your problems for that or any other reason.

DonDaddyD

velocestrapture wrote:

Yes. I'm not talking about becoming radicalised and spending all your free time campaigning or going on marches (although a few more men doing that would be great), but how you live your day to day life. There is a huge amount of literature, websites, blogs etc talking about the harm caused to women by the prevalence of misogyny in our society. It doesn't take much to look at a little of it and to think critically about your own life and the people around you.

Should we then do that for injustices where a disadvantage or mistreatment is being imposed upon a person for being different?

Edited to add: I actually went away to think on this and again, in principle, if not practice, I mostly agree with you.

And no, I haven't stepped in to defend you, because I did not consider that you were being targeted for reason of your race, gender, sexual identity, disability or other feature, nor that you were disadvantaged in dealing with your problems for that or any other reason.

Interesting, so you will only act in someones defence if it relates to them being targeted for who or what they are. And not simply because they are being targeted. What about bullying? Bullying is dependant on who or what a person is. If you saw a person being bullied (and I'm not saying that I am here) would you also step to their defence?

jonny_trousers

Aw, bless.

x

greg66_tri_v2.0

velocestrapture wrote:

I do consider that men have a positive obligation to step in and tackle sexism and negative attitudes to women when they see it, not just when they are prompted to by a woman taking the lead or asking for help.

Serious question.

An incident takes place that involves you. A man steps in to point out to someone involved in an incident that they have behaved in a sexist way and behaved negatively towards you.

You have already formed the view that there has been no sexism and no one has behaved negatively towards you.

Would you feel a bit patronised? It strikes me as the modern day equivalent of a Victorian "Now, young lady, you obviously don't understand what is going on around you. Allow me, the Man, to take charge of the situation. You just sit there."

velocestrapture

DonDaddyD wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

Yes. I'm not talking about becoming radicalised and spending all your free time campaigning or going on marches (although a few more men doing that would be great), but how you live your day to day life. There is a huge amount of literature, websites, blogs etc talking about the harm caused to women by the prevalence of misogyny in our society. It doesn't take much to look at a little of it and to think critically about your own life and the people around you.

Should we then do that for injustices where a disadvantage or mistreatment is being imposed upon a person for being different?

Edited to add: I actually went away to think on this and again, in principle, if not practice, I mostly agree with you.

And no, I haven't stepped in to defend you, because I did not consider that you were being targeted for reason of your race, gender, sexual identity, disability or other feature, nor that you were disadvantaged in dealing with your problems for that or any other reason.

Interesting, so you will only act in someones defence if it relates to them being targeted for who or what they are. And not simply because they are being targeted. What about bullying? Bullying is dependant on who or what a person is. If you saw a person being bullied (and I'm not saying that I am here) would you also step to their defence?

I would step in if I thought that they were not able to deal with the problem themselves. The reason it is particularly important to tackle discrimination for reason of an innate characteristic is that the discrimination usually results from a power imbalance. It is particularly incumbent on us to step in where we are part of the group with the power. That is why racism is not just an issue for black people to tackle, and homophobia is not just an issue for gay people.

In your case, you seemed to be perfectly able to give as good as you were getting, so I left you to it!

velocestrapture

Greg66 wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

I do consider that men have a positive obligation to step in and tackle sexism and negative attitudes to women when they see it, not just when they are prompted to by a woman taking the lead or asking for help.

Serious question.

An incident takes place that involves you. A man steps in to point out to someone involved in an incident that they have behaved in a sexist way and behaved negatively towards you.

You have already formed the view that there has been no sexism and no one has behaved negatively towards you.

Would you feel a bit patronised? It strikes me as the modern day equivalent of a Victorian "Now, young lady, you obviously don't understand what is going on around you. Allow me, the Man, to take charge of the situation. You just sit there."

I understand where your question is coming from, and think it is a fair point. There is a popular myth about feminists getting angry when a man holds a door open for her or waits for her to be seated first. I think this may put off some men in expressing an interest in feminist issues themselves.

I think that if you took the lead from the woman herself, you could not be accused of being patronising - a simple "Is this man/situation causing you a problem? Can I do anything to help?" puts the control of the situation in the hands of the woman.

Yes, you may occasionally be rebuffed, and possibly in not too polite terms, but surely it is better to risk a few of those reactions than to ignore a situation where you would have the power to make a positive change.

velocestrapture

Monkeypump wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

Her previous post.

For me, the first of your posts I can really identify with (not meant to patronizing) - I might even retract my soapbox comment You make some very sound points, and I don't disagree that some of the experiences you've been exposed to either directly or through others are completely unacceptable. I know this is potentially a can of worms, but it is a genuine question: Is there a possibility that you are, through experience/reading/active investigation, "hyper-sensitive" (for want of a better word) to these issues?

I ask because I work in a female dominated industry, and where specifically I sit with a team entirely made up of women. The objectification of men is way beyond the equivalent of anything seen in GiL/etc, and yet I neither feel threatened or offended by it. I wonder if that's because

a - it's not offensive
b - I'm just not as sensitive to it as others may be
c - men generally don't get offended by that stuff, only women (as the 'fairer sex') do.
d- something I'm missing and can't think of right now

I honestly don't think 'c' is a valid point. Maybe we (men), as the historical objectifiers of women just don't take it seriously when the tables are turned. Either way, this sort of thing goes on from both genders and I don't speak up against it because I don't see it as a huge problem. From what you say, I can only assume you would completely disagree.

However, in cases where a line (admittedly my own line of appropriateness) is crossed, I will and have taken it up with the offender. Outright lewd comments, groping, name-calling, harassment - this is not acceptable and I do not accept it. However, I do have trouble categorizing these things as similar to looking at few cheeky pics of hotties on bikes/in shorts/under umbrellas/etc.

velocestrapture wrote:

...from now on you will make a positive decision as to whether you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution.

I do think there is a middle ground - you don't have to actively be part of either, although I accept it's easier to fall into being part of the problem than make the effort to be part of the solution.

DDD wrote:

Interestingly and controversially so, I think it is 'C' (I've edited out the fairer sex comment). Why I think this is because Men aren't faced with the same widespread, objectification that women are. We aren't bombarded (well used to be) with images of models encouraging us to look like them.

This.

And to take it a little further, it is very unlikely that you have or would ever face the situation where those of your workmates objectifying men in your presence would ever take you less seriously, or pass you up for a promotion, or otherwise undermine you because of your gender. Therefore you do not feel any threat that their comments undermine you as a person.

In an ideal world, I would see nothing wrong with both men and women creating admiring erotic images of whatever gender they appreciate: as you pointed out, the women you work with (and to be frank the majority of the female population) are able to do so without objectifying and abusing men as a whole. But unfortunately, the prevalence of such images of women, and the way men view them, does seem to contribute to the perpetuation of the objectification and abuse of women. I am not saying that such images of women cause abuse against women, but where there is a significant section of the male population who treat women as objects to abuse as they wish, their attitude is not lessened by the increasing access to and presentation of women as objects.

velocestrapture

And in response to your question as to whether I think I am "hyper-sensitive". No, I do not. I would say I am sensitive, in terms of being alert to, but I do not think that I am reading too much into what I say or exaggerating for effect. On the contrary, I think that most people are dulled to the real issues.

velocestrapture

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

velocestrapture wrote:

I was intending to keep on track ...

just out of interest how old are you velocestrapture?

Why did you ask?

Cleat Eastwood

its just some of the way you explain your points of view seems very naive and immature - but i guess thats the internets and limited tim to type things.

I mean I know what you're saying, and its clear that you mean well but this

"I would step in if I thought that they were not able to deal with the problem themselves. The reason it is particularly important to tackle discrimination for reason of an innate characteristic is that the discrimination usually results from a power imbalance. It is particularly incumbent on us to step in where we are part of the group with the power. That is why racism is not just an issue for black people to tackle, and homophobia is not just an issue for gay people"

sounds really really patronising and sounds like its something you've read rather than experienced. For example the 'power balance' that I can see in that post, which probably you're unaware of (like I say I undrstand what you're saying) - is that you compartmentalize and segregate as much as any'homophobe' or 'racist' - for example, who is the 'us' in 'its incumbent upon us'. It just strikes me that thats a worse form of discrimination. Anyway I'm off to save new york in battlefield 3.

Kaise

just my 2p worth - the girls in threads i have read have actually got input from the female community, you can buy any, and i state any national news paper and see a lady and or gentleman in less than your standard daily attire, but yet that is sold to all and sundry.

i think some people need a reality check on the fact of what is and what is not acceptable in a modern society. (if that includes myself then fair enough!

cornerblock

DonDaddyD wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

When you grow a pair perhaps you'll have the testicular fortitude to answer the questions in a post directly instead of posting this sideways attack in an effort to avoid the fact that you cannot admit that you may in fact be wrong.

You two are really pathetic.

This is childish.

1). Insults cause offense to varying degrees and are not tolerated on this forum. You would do well to mind that.

Nothing needs to be said now.

I've already admitting to being a hypocrite. :roll: I shouldn't have isulted you so I apologise. Will you, Jonny_Trousers and Cleat Eastwood apologise for insulting me or deny that you have ever done so thereby making yourselves hypocrites?

This also doesn't ignore the fact that you are incapable of answering a question where the answer would be akin to an admission that you are in fact wrong. Funny that given my edited response.

Seeing as you're admitting to being a hypocrite, you can have this as well.

After reading the last few pages I couldn't help but recall this rather helpful advice. What's that saying about glass houses?

DonDaddyD wrote:

Let's try and set aside the personal pissing battle, eh?

DonDaddyD

cornerblock wrote:

Yes, lets ignore DDD's question and my mates' T.M.H.N.E.T and jonny trousers inability to admit being wrong, apologise or deal with questions they can't answer directly through fear that in doing so it will prove that they are wrong. Lets ignore theirs and my own needless perpetuation of the supposed pissing battle. Lets just try to attack and point score against DonDaddyD, because it's clear that that is all we have.

FTFY.

Your biased post which ignores the context of the previous discussions and resorts to nothing more than yet another subtle pointscoring attack says it all really. There are also questions as to why you feel it necessary to post this when I clearly had move on and started another discussion with others.

I await your response.

Though it will likely be yet another fine display ignorance and will likely see you clumsy your way through explaining how, despite your actions and that of your mates, I am somehow 'more wrong' in a completely selective way. Your response will of course ignore my previous posts, evidence and questions because we already know you and your mates cannot answer these directly without being wrong. No doubt however, whatever excuse or deflective tactic you employ it will be largely inaccurate of course. You will also add something about not being biased and likely thrown in am insult or attack mooting your previous post. Well that or you will post either something sarcastic, deflection humor or an image.

But the real truth is that at this point you actually have nothing constructive to say.

:roll:

velocestrapture

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

its just some of the way you explain your points of view seems very naive and immature - but i guess thats the internets and limited tim to type things.

I mean I know what you're saying, and its clear that you mean well but this

"I would step in if I thought that they were not able to deal with the problem themselves. The reason it is particularly important to tackle discrimination for reason of an innate characteristic is that the discrimination usually results from a power imbalance. It is particularly incumbent on us to step in where we are part of the group with the power. That is why racism is not just an issue for black people to tackle, and homophobia is not just an issue for gay people"

sounds really really patronising and sounds like its something you've read rather than experienced. For example the 'power balance' that I can see in that post, which probably you're unaware of (like I say I undrstand what you're saying) - is that you compartmentalize and segregate as much as any'homophobe' or 'racist' - for example, who is the 'us' in 'its incumbent upon us'. It just strikes me that thats a worse form of discrimination. Anyway I'm off to save new york in battlefield 3.

I apologise if any of my posts sound patronising. That was certainly not my intent, unlike you. All I have written here are my own thoughts in my own words and not something I have copied from elsewhere. I have been trying to work out how to respond to your last paragraph, but frankly it doesn't make much sense. Do you want to try rewording it?

Anyway- where is the grand pronouncement from the mods?

cornerblock

DonDaddyD wrote:

cornerblock wrote:

Yes, lets ignore DDD's question and my mates' T.M.H.N.E.T and jonny trousers inability to admit being wrong, apologise or deal with questions they can't answer directly through fear that in doing so it will prove that they are wrong. Lets ignore theirs and my own needless perpetuation of the supposed pissing battle. Lets just try to attack and point score against DonDaddyD, because it's clear that that is all we have.

FTFY.

Your biased post which ignores the context of the previous discussions and resorts to nothing more than yet another subtle pointscoring attack says it all really. There are also questions as to why you feel it necessary to post this when I clearly had move on and started another discussion with others.

I await your response.

Though it will likely be yet another fine display ignorance and will likely see you clumsy your way through explaining how, despite your actions and that of your mates, I am somehow 'more wrong' in a completely selective way. Your response will of course ignore my previous posts, evidence and questions because we already know you and your mates cannot answer these directly without being wrong. No doubt however, whatever excuse or deflective tactic you employ it will be largely inaccurate of course. You will also add something about not being biased and likely thrown in am insult or attack mooting your previous post. Well that or you will post either something sarcastic, deflection humor or an image.

But the real truth is that at this point you actually have nothing constructive to say.

:roll:

My my, predicting responses now as well, you really are a control freak. That's the insult out of the way, now let's see how well you do with the rest of your predictions.

I have no 'mates' on here, maybe you do, but to me it's just a forum for people with a mutual interest, that's cycling, not semi-naked girls in case anybody had forgotten!

I have no interest in your questions, which is why I did not respond to them. I think everything has now been said on this topic and all that is needed now is for the mods to tell us their decision. Otherwise this particular thread about a thread could go on longer than the original Girls In... thread! If you see what I mean.

As for quoting you, may I suggest that if you do not like people pointing out the double standards in your comments then it's best not to start a post by telling others how to behave, and then spending 3 pages or so doing the exact opposite. Just seemed to be a severe case of do as I say not as I do.

I suppose it's at about this point where you predicted I'd insult you and make an attack. Wrong!!! You did however predict I'd post an image. Damn you, you're right, I just can't help myself!

DonDaddyD

Cornerblock wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

cornerblock wrote:

Yes, lets ignore DDD's question and my mates' T.M.H.N.E.T and jonny trousers inability to admit being wrong, apologise or deal with questions they can't answer directly through fear that in doing so it will prove that they are wrong. Lets ignore theirs and my own needless perpetuation of the supposed pissing battle. Lets just try to attack and point score against DonDaddyD, because it's clear that that is all we have.

FTFY.

Your biased post which ignores the context of the previous discussions and resorts to nothing more than yet another subtle pointscoring attack says it all really. There are also questions as to why you feel it necessary to post this when I clearly had move on and started another discussion with others.

I await your response.

Though it will likely be yet another fine display ignorance and will likely see you clumsy your way through explaining how, despite your actions and that of your mates, I am somehow 'more wrong' in a completely selective way. Your response will of course ignore my previous posts, evidence and questions because we already know you and your mates cannot answer these directly without being wrong. No doubt however, whatever excuse or deflective tactic you employ it will be largely inaccurate of course. You will also add something about not being biased and likely thrown in am insult or attack mooting your previous post. Well that or you will post either something sarcastic, deflection humor or an image.

But the real truth is that at this point you actually have nothing constructive to say.

:roll:

My my, predicting responses now as well, you really are a control freak. That's the insult out of the way, now let's see how well you do with the rest of your predictions.

I have no 'mates' on here, maybe you do, but to me it's just a forum for people with a mutual interest, that's cycling, not semi-naked girls in case anybody had forgotten!

I have no interest in your questions, which is why I did not respond to them. I think everything has now been said on this topic and all that is needed now is for the mods to tell us their decision. Otherwise this particular thread about a thread could go on longer than the original Girls In... thread! If you see what I mean.

As for quoting you, may I suggest that if you do not like people pointing out the double standards in your comments then it's best not to start a post by telling others how to behave, and then spending 3 pages or so doing the exact opposite. Just seemed to be a severe case of do as I say not as I do.

I suppose it's at about this point where you predicted I'd insult you and make an attack. Wrong!!! You did however predict I'd post an image. Damn you, you're right, I just can't help myself!

Ironically in my last post I previously wrote:

But the real truth is that at this point you actually have nothing constructive to say.

And so goes the reply.

It's OK, go on reply I'll let you or your mates have the last word.

cornerblock

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's OK, go on reply I'll let* you or your mates have the last word.

Thanks.







*Still trying to control though.

t.m.h.n.e.t

DonDaddyD wrote:

cornerblock wrote:

Yes, lets ignore DDD's question and my mates' T.M.H.N.E.T and jonny trousers inability to admit being wrong, apologise or deal with questions they can't answer directly through fear that in doing so it will prove that they are wrong. Lets ignore theirs and my own needless perpetuation of the supposed pissing battle. Lets just try to attack and point score against DonDaddyD, because it's clear that that is all we have.

What are you on about? Are you so desperate to find something to argue about so just making up stories?. Are you trying to suggest that CB,JT and myself have been bullying you? Quite frankly I couldn't care less about either of them but to call them "mates"? hahahahaha you really are on another planet DDD.

But the real truth is that at this point you actually have nothing constructive to say.

The real truth is you lost your own argument pages ago,trying to save face by making up stories isn't helping you at all.

jonny_trousers

Yeah, I'm afraid you're beginning to look a little silly now Donald. To the best of my knowledge neither Cornerblock, T.M.H.N.E.T (what the hell does that mean anyway?) nor I have ever referred to each other directly in this or any other thread, but they do seem like a pair of sensible guys and I'm sure we could enjoy a pint together. If it makes you feel any better about being exposed as the hypocrite you at least have the balls to confess yourself to be, however, I for one am willing to allow you the comfort of believing we are three friends who joined forces simply to make a fool out of you, rather than the reality that we actually disagreed with you.

I've seen you unable to let go of an argument in the Commuting Chat forums countless times now so I think I can speak on behalf of my two accomplices (oops, I let the cat out of the bag there) when I say, have the last word on us DonDaddyD...

x

t.m.h.n.e.t

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Yeah, I'm afraid you're beginning to look a little silly now Donald. To the best of my knowledge neither Cornerblock, T.M.H.N.E.T (what the hell does that mean anyway?) nor I have ever referred to each other directly in this or any other thread, but they do seem like a pair of sensible guys and I'm sure we could enjoy a pint together. If it makes you feel any better about being exposed as the hypocrite you at least have the balls to confess yourself to be, however, I for one am willing to allow you the comfort of believing we are three friends who joined forces simply to make a fool out of you, rather than the reality that we actually disagreed with you.

I've seen you unable to let go of an argument in the Commuting Chat forums countless times now so I think I can speak on behalf of my two accomplices (oops, I let the cat out of the bag there) when I say, have the last word on us DonDaddyD...

x

You two can have a pint,grab a straw each. I'll drive

Too Many Hobbies Not Enough Time :P