Anyhoo, this evening Brexitiers got part of what

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 33931
  • Start date Start date
btiw2 said:
I’ve been away for a while. You know how television programmes have that “previously on...”[1]? I need a “previously on this thread”.

Except I don’t, do I? It’ll be a montage of:[2]
  • “I know you are, but what am I?”
  • “Here’s my favourite tabloid and it disagrees with your favourite tabloid” (for the pedantic the Guardian is still a tabloid even if it has big pages. Paper size is not corellated with truth - else billboards would always be true).
  • A fantastically insightful comment made by a newbie which everyone ignores.
  • A fastically banal comment by (DA or IIR) which (JoT or Filly) feel they have to defend. This will continue for many pages.
  • Harry posting (puts on pompous voice) “Quite right [insert name here]” - like he’s the effin’ referee of what’s right. Although, in fairness, he is often right. Far right.
  • DA defending the indefensible because it was said by someone he likes.
  • JJ attacking someone who makes more money than him.
  • Longs assuming that someone who makes a lot of money is automatically virtuous (whilst skilfully avoiding conflict with JJ). Unless it someone DA is defending - in which case the wealthy person is a hypocrite.

Then someone will admit that they’ve mistaken and have re-evaluated their position.
Nahhh. They won’t. But it’d be a great cliff hanger for a series[3] finale if they did.

Credits
No animals were harmed during the production of this post[5]. Any similarity to persons living or dead is to be expected - you’re not unique.

[1] do they still do that? At the risk of getting all recursive I need a “previously on television formulae”.
[2] persona dramatis (is that how you spell it?): DA, JoT, JJ, Longs, Filly, IIR
[3] Series? Season? Are we American yet? If so, can I shoot someone? If so, can my killing spree start with footnote 2?
[5] but a fair bit of liquor was murdered[4]. Soz for the spelling mistakes.
[4] that’s why footnote 4 follows footnote 5. As always, I’m out of order.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah. Another one for the montage:
  • Btiw2 will pop up (cos he likes the sound of his own voice) with an irrelevant post which tries to attack everyone in the hope of starting a drunken argument.
 
btiw2 said:
Longs assuming that someone who makes a lot of money is automatically virtuous (whilst skilfully avoiding conflict with JJ). Unless it someone DA is defending - in which case the wealthy person is a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Be warned elf #101, it's in the book as a cautionary!
 
btiw2 said:
I’ve been away for a while. You know how television programmes have that “previously on...”[1]? I need a “previously on this thread”.

Except I don’t, do I? It’ll be a montage of:[2]
  • “I know you are, but what am I?”
  • “Here’s my favourite tabloid and it disagrees with your favourite tabloid” (for the pedantic the Guardian is still a tabloid even if it has big pages. Paper size is not corellated with truth - else billboards would always be true).
  • A fantastically insightful comment made by a newbie which everyone ignores.
  • A fastically banal comment by (DA or IIR) which (JoT or Filly) feel they have to defend. This will continue for many pages.
  • Harry posting (puts on pompous voice) “Quite right [insert name here]” - like he’s the effin’ referee of what’s right. Although, in fairness, he is often right. Far right.
  • DA defending the indefensible because it was said by someone he likes.
  • JJ attacking someone who makes more money than him.
  • Longs assuming that someone who makes a lot of money is automatically virtuous (whilst skilfully avoiding conflict with JJ). Unless it someone DA is defending - in which case the wealthy person is a hypocrite.

Then someone will admit that they’ve mistaken and have re-evaluated their position.
Nahhh. They won’t. But it’d be a great cliff hanger for a series[3] finale if they did.

Credits
No animals were harmed during the production of this post[5]. Any similarity to persons living or dead is to be expected - you’re not unique.

[1] do they still do that? At the risk of getting all recursive I need a “previously on television formulae”.
[2] persona dramatis (is that how you spell it?): DA, JoT, JJ, Longs, Filly, IIR
[3] Series? Season? Are we American yet? If so, can I shoot someone? If so, can my killing spree start with footnote 2?
[5] but a fair bit of liquor was murdered[4]. Soz for the spelling mistakes.
[4] that’s why footnote 4 follows footnote 5. As always, I’m out of order.
Click to expand...


Ok, I've had a drink or one - so it's cyber-fisticuffs.

"DA defending the indefensible because it was said by someone he likes." Like, wot? Who? When? (er, recently, I mean...)

Everything else you said is A-one.
 
btiw2 said:
Oh yeah. Another one for the montage:
  • Btiw2 will pop up (cos he likes the sound of his own voice) with an irrelevant post which tries to attack everyone in the hope of starting a drunken argument.
Click to expand...

Pleeeeeez someone else 'like' that post, 'cos else I see just me and Longs on there.
 
Devil's Advocate said:
Ok, I've had a drink or one - so it's cyber-fisticuffs.

"DA defending the indefensible because it was said by someone he likes." Like, wot? Who? When? (er, recently, I mean...)

Everything else you said is A-one.
Click to expand...
You’ve had a drink? Let me guess. Bitter? Very bitter (Old joke, but hey!).

Examples? If we point out that Mr Dawkins might be losing the plot when it comes to the immorality of not euthanising those with Down’s? Tony Blair might have been a tad monomaniacal in declaring war based on the religious visions (hallucinations?) of a nutty yank? Richard Branson (I’m catching up with previous posts) might be more than a little duplicitous (spell checker offered that and I’ll cling to the spelling in the way a drowning man desperately grabs a life raft)?

Alternatively, Mr Farage and President Trump aren’t angels, but not everything they say is axiomatically false either.

Saying that, I’m having a hard job trying to think of something that president Trump said that wasn’t wrong or banal. Anyone? (I’m not sure why I asked for suggestions here. Harry’s going to bring up the wall isn’t he?).

I don’t believe I’m the first person to point this out, but you do have somewhat of a habit of looking at the source (and their allegiance) before content.

Perhaps I’m being egotistical (who me?!), but you often agreed with me (even when I was wrong) when you thought I was on “your side” too. Dunno about you, but I’m glad those days are long gone.

Sorry I’ve gone past drunken fisticuffs. I’m now on trying to focus on my phone to type. Another day maybe.
 
Sadly I fibbed. I'm completely sober.

Look, Mr B&W - it ain't like that at all.

Blair got it wrong on Iraq. So did I. I supported it - and still support the principle and feel it could have worked well 'cept for Rumsfeld and that lot... - but accept (along with climate change) that I got it wrong; it was 'massaged'. The info was not there.

Blair is still awesome, tho'.

What Dawkins said was crude, clumsily delivered - and hence almost certainly counter-productive - but completely understandable & rational. And, for someone like me, it would almost certainly have been my decision too under the circumstances. That does not imply in any way that Dawkins - or I - is a less humane or caring person. I would suggest - certainly compared to the likes of some on here... - that the opposite is true; my wish is for the betterment of all, hence my support for the EU and Remain. (Let's face it - Trump is not exactly showing himself as a particularly caring guy, and there IS a direct parallel betwixt Brexit and Trump in ideology. Ask Bannon & Farage.)

But - hey - if you want me to agree that Trump sometimes possibly says normal sh**, then cool - he probably does. Farage? Yeah - it might have happened too, I dunno.

But, really, what the hell? I have it on good authority that both Hit**r and Har**y have also been relatively normal on occasion. But they are still pretty hellish folk overall.

I'm not too bothered about pussyfooting around such tiny details - I'm going with my blunderbuss these days. From two paces, aiming for the whites of their eyes - BAM! - I still miss their brains by 5 feet.
 
I'm not too bothered about pussyfooting around such tiny details - I'm going with my blunderbuss these days. From two paces, aiming for the whites of their eyes - BAM! - I still miss their brains by 5 feet.


That seriously made me laugh.

The best comment on here for ages.
 
Jackoftrades said:
I'm not too bothered about pussyfooting around such tiny details - I'm going with my blunderbuss these days. From two paces, aiming for the whites of their eyes - BAM! - I still miss their brains by 5 feet.


That seriously made me laugh.

The best comment on here for ages.
Click to expand...
I chuckled at the “Hit**r and Har**y”. I thought that was a quite clever way of associating two people. I think I’ll pinch that technique.

Well done Devil’sAdvoc**te, I don’t think President Tr**mp could have done better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top