Clarification!

Phurt . . . at times like this it wouldn't be a bad thing, Pete . . .

Jekyll: The forumer here known as Bradman was qm3 at the old ABC forum.

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:

It isn't them being offended per se that gets up my nose, it's them expecting everyone else to modify their behaviour to prevent offense. Expecially when it's over nothing more harmful than a few words.

Small point of order tails ... I seem to recall your (amongst other Aussies) absolute horror and aggressive reaction to a few posters on here who crassly made "funny" references to the Jane McGrath situation a few years back involving a variety of issues concerning hubby Glenn.
Your defence of the issue at the time was admirable, however, the highlighted sentence above seems now to have given you a different take on things!

Is that (nothing more harmful than a few words) therefore now reserved for selective "disasters" ?

FWIW, Bradders did make a few crass remarks, which, when taken in context seemed silly, however, following his explanation thread, it has redeemed him somewhat .... and certainly not worth banning him for!

Merls . . . you haven't just suggested tails is a hypocrite, have you?

tac wrote:Merls . . . you haven't just suggested tails is a hypocrite, have you?

Moi ??

Being a qunt is one thing, but being a funny qunt is another thing entirely. I think qmy was aiming for the latter.

qmy ?

Merlin wrote:

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:

It isn't them being offended per se that gets up my nose, it's them expecting everyone else to modify their behaviour to prevent offence. Especially when it's over nothing more harmful than a few words.

Small point of order tails ... I seem to recall your (amongst other Aussies) absolute horror and aggressive reaction to a few posters on here who crassly made "funny" references to the Jane McGrath situation a few years back involving a variety of issues concerning hubby Glenn.
Your defence of the issue at the time was admirable, however, the highlighted sentence above seems now to have given you a different take on things!

Is that (nothing more harmful than a few words) therefore now reserved for selective "disasters" ?

FWIW, Bradders did make a few crass remarks, which, when taken in context seemed silly, however, following his explanation thread, it has redeemed him somewhat .... and certainly not worth banning him for!

I don't recall it. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I don't recall it. I don't even remember anyone saying anything off-colour about Mrs McGrath.

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:

Merlin wrote:

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:

It isn't them being offended per se that gets up my nose, it's them expecting everyone else to modify their behaviour to prevent offence. Especially when it's over nothing more harmful than a few words.

Small point of order tails ... I seem to recall your (amongst other Aussies) absolute horror and aggressive reaction to a few posters on here who crassly made "funny" references to the Jane McGrath situation a few years back involving a variety of issues concerning hubby Glenn.
Your defence of the issue at the time was admirable, however, the highlighted sentence above seems now to have given you a different take on things!

Is that (nothing more harmful than a few words) therefore now reserved for selective "disasters" ?

FWIW, Bradders did make a few crass remarks, which, when taken in context seemed silly, however, following his explanation thread, it has redeemed him somewhat .... and certainly not worth banning him for!

I don't recall it. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I don't recall it. I don't even remember anyone saying anything off-colour about Mrs McGrath.

Sarwan wasn't it?

Ummmm, I didn't get stuck into Sarwan over that incident, or anyone else except Pidge himself - I thought Merlian was refering to forum comments.
The Sarwan confrontation, I think I just said that McGrath should have been sent home - he was the instigator, and if his brain had been at all switched on he'd have known what the response to his stupid sledge would be - and Sarwan smacked on his bum.

Oh, and that Steve Waugh, as captain, had a responsibility to intervene which, of course, he abdicated and instead just stood there in the slips with his arms crossed, chewing gum and looking bored shitless.

Actually I was merely commenting on who made "off colour" remarks.

Not much help. Merlian definitely meant forum remarks. Anyway, I don't think I was posting on c4 when the Sarwan confrontation occured. And, as Merlian definitely isn't HWHNFI, he wouldn't have been there then either, would he?

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:Not much help. Merlian definitely meant forum remarks. Anyway, I don't think I was posting on c4 when the Sarwan confrontation occured. And, as Merlian definitely isn't HWHNFI, he wouldn't have been there then either, would he?

AFAIK Sarwan doesn't contribute to the forum ...
The "funny" comments were from forummers ...
As you "cannot recall" the indignation expressed at the time, let's just leave it there ...

Well, if you can remember who made the comments and what they were, why not share?

I'd like to, but as it was awhile back, memory fades so what's the point?
lags and madison immeditely come to mind.
The comments were, as I mentioned, crass - whilst the reactions were equally indignant.

My point being - where do you/we draw the line at what specific circumstances dictate the use of "funny" words in response?
And who is it decides that said "funny" words are considered offensive by some yet funny and acceptable by others?

But as tac sagely comments ... it's all a storm in a teacup!

So, as usual, vague claims with nothing to back them up. Figures.

You decide for yourself whether or not something is funny to you, that's obvious. Ditto as to whether it's offensive. Then - and this is the sticking point - you decide whether it's worth commenting on your reaction.
'Cause if no-one is allowed to say anything that anyone else finds offensive there's nothing left we can say.

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:So, as usual, vague claims with nothing to back them up. Figures.

Apparently

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:Jekyll: The forumer here known as Bradman was qm3 at the old ABC forum.

Bucky you blind qunt

by way of further explanation, Bucky, ??? = qm3

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:So, as usual, vague claims with nothing to back them up. Figures.

Oh FFS!
I quote "I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I don't recall it ..."
Convenient lapse of memory ...

I quote again : "No, Jekyll, it isn't. The real problem with most of the 'jokes' about the bushfires is that they weren't at all funny. "

I repeat ...... Says who??
You?

Jane Mcgrath wasn't funny, the bush fires weren't funny .. but a comment about Murali's arm ... well, hey, that could be construed as funny ,,,,!

Okay tails, you made your point.

Taips - sucking up again I see!

Hmmm, yeah, it's a bit 'whatever' really - the reaction was definitely one that should be deemed hyperbolic. Doesn't mean bradman didn't sound like a total prick and adding in that whole Scarface 'say goodnight to the bad guy' shit is hardly an explanation.

This hear, hear crew is a shitty little one as well.

Merlin wrote:

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:So, as usual, vague claims with nothing to back them up. Figures.

Oh FFS!
I quote "I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I don't recall it ..."
Convenient lapse of memory ...

I quote again : "No, Jekyll, it isn't. The real problem with most of the 'jokes' about the bushfires is that they weren't at all funny. "

I repeat ...... Says who??
You?

Jane Mcgrath wasn't funny, the bush fires weren't funny .. but a comment about Murali's arm ... well, hey, that could be construed as funny ,,,,!

Okay tails, you made your point.

Taips - sucking up again I see!

Agreed merlin, the absolute umbrage taken about the things you quote allied with the reaction here is one that can only be described as bile-inducing hypocrisy of the highest order.

Merlin wrote:Taips - sucking up again I see!

Apparently (adv) A word used in net-forum-land by habitual bull-artists to cover the fact that they have no evidence to support whatever piece of low-rent gossip they're spreading, because they most likely just made it up.


It was a joke you silly qunt.