- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29246
Originally posted by robbie carrobieUnfortunately i can't take credit for it.
Whiff whaff thats funny 😀
It's how Boris Johnson famously described 'ping pong' in a tv interview.
'... it was a common misconception table tennis had been invented in China, it was invented on the dining tables of England in the 19th century and was called whiff-whaff.'
Who are we to argue with Boris?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29246
Originally posted by divegeesterOkay, I'll put the cheese to one side for a moment and speak plainly.
You are, or course under no compulsion to read or post in any thread that does not pique your interest. In fact I would say your contridbution to the thread, certainly your last few posts, have been quite pointless and whiffy-whaffy.
For weeks (months?!) you made regular comments about how Robbie was ignoring you, and how this was one of the worst forms of forum rudeness. (Kelly has also been accused of doing the same). Finally, Robbie starts to respond to you again in the forums and you immediately (and relentlessly) hound him at every possible opportunity. (And yes, i know he can give as hard as he gets). Eventually of course he will start ignoring you again, and no doubt will once more stand guilty of rudeness.
Returning to the cheese, if you knew a man was going to pelt you with Gorgonzola every time you spoke to him, wouldn't you ignore him, and would you consider yourself rude for doing so?
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeBoris has blue blood running through him, is he still the Mayor, what happened to Ken Livingstone and Dick Whittington?
Unfortunately i can't take credit for it.
It's how Boris Johnson famously described 'ping pong' in a tv interview.
'... it was a common misconception table tennis had been invented in China, it was invented on the dining tables of England in the 19th century and was called whiff-whaff.'
Who are we to argue with Boris?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeRobbie has been conversing with me for several weeks, so hardly "immediately".
Robbie starts to respond to you again in the forums and you immediately (and relentlessly) hound him at every possible opportunity.
"Relentlessly" "hounding",,,? Hmm, methinks you seem to protest just a little bit too hard for a casual onlooker...but I'll park that thought for another time 😉
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29246
Originally posted by divegeesterSo my character is now suspicious to you because i challenge you on something?
Robbie has been conversing with me for several weeks, so hardly "immediately".
"Relentlessly" "hounding",,,? Hmm, methinks you seem to protest just a little bit too hard for a casual onlooker...but I'll park that thought for another time 😉
I suggest that instead of parking that thought you genuinely reflect on it, especially when you consider that 90% of my forum postings have been in support of your position.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Dukeyou tried ghost, you tried to reach out to him in good faith and reasonableness. I once
So my character is now suspicious to you because i challenge you on something?
I suggest that instead of parking that thought you genuinely reflect on it, especially when you consider that 90% of my forum postings have been in support of your position.
would have tried too but too late for that now.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI'm not questioning your character (not sure where you got that from) so please try to remain balanced; my comment was directed at something else, as I'm sure you know.
So my character is now suspicious to you because i challenge you on something?
I suggest that instead of parking that thought you genuinely reflect on it, especially when you consider that 90% of my forum postings have been in support of your position.
In case your next salvo will be aimed at this thread's topic: I don't feel the need to be indebted to you nor adjust my opinon on Robbie carrobie's inability to condemn gay bashing, based on any "support" you feel you have unsolicitedly provided. However I appreciate it anyway.
Originally posted by divegeesterDo you have empirical evidence of 'gay bashing?' Are confessing to having a sly swipe now and again, a wee nibble Mike Tyson style on a passing gay couple? have you cuffed a few passing gays around the ear and regretted it later? Fess up Jeester and I will hear your confession and seek absolution for them.
Are you ready to condemn gay bashing yet?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
There you have it ghost of a duke; this topic is spent and you may make what you will of it. Robbie believes some extraordinary things about homosexuals; he once famously claimed that masturbation incited homosexual thoughts. In this thread he will not condemn violence against gays. These exchanges with him and his JW buddies can go on for thousands of posts. The final analysis is that Robert would not condemn the violent actions of a friend, simply because he was a friend.
Originally posted by divegeesterOn the contrary my position is rather clear, i will condemn no one unless i have evidence. You have failed to provide a shred of evidence for any of your claims and instead insult our intelligence every single time with the same frothy wash. You are busted jeester, morally and spiritually bereft! they are calling you out in spirituality for being a fake, a phony and a charlatan. Karma has bitten your bum jeester and your wagon is a smoldering wreck on the forum floor, too bad, if you had been honest it might have been better for you.
There you have ghost of a duke; this topic is spent and you may make what you will of it. Robbie believes some extraordinary things about homosexuals; he once famously claimed that masturbation incited homosexual thoughts. In this thread he will not condemn violence against gays. These exchanges with him and his JW buddies can go on for thousands of post ...[text shortened]... s that Robert would not condemn the violent actions of a friend, simply because he was a friend.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut you've suggested that you would still not condemn violence against homosexuals or a JW sexually abusing children even if the perpetrators revealed to you what they had done. Why would them admitting it to you not constitute "evidence"? Why would you still "seek to understand rather than condemn" even if you'd been told - by them - of the violence/abuse?
On the contrary my position is rather clear, i will condemn no one unless i have evidence.
14 Sep 15
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThis is an interesting comment. You come across as enjoying robbie's brand of humour (whilst invariably trumping it with a much more wry brand of your own), which is undoubtedly your prerogative. But supporting "positions"? You seem almost completely uninterested in any of the "positions" taken by robbie or divegeester. You mention "90%"? On the contrary, you come across as pointedly neutral and unwilling to get involved in any discussion involving the two of them, which of course may well be the wise course of action. 😉
I suggest that instead of parking that thought you genuinely reflect on it, especially when you consider that 90% of my forum postings have been in support of your position.
Originally posted by FMFOn the other hand, you don't often take positions. You just rag on people who do.
This is an interesting comment. You come across as enjoying robbie's brand of humour (whilst invariably trumping it with a much more wry brand of your own), which is undoubtedly your prerogative. But supporting "positions"? You seem almost completely uninterested in any of the "positions" taken by robbie or divegeester. You mention "90%"? On the contrary, you co ...[text shortened]... discussion involving the two of them, which of course may well be the wise course of action. 😉