Australia v Sri Lanka, CB Series game 9, Melbourne, 22nd Feb

skully wrote:Sh!t-a-brick, every second thread goes off tangent every farkin night.

Australia won, huzzah. Next please. Move along, nothing to see here.

And this post was in relation to Danny's vitriol

Phurt at it being vitirolic. You can be as gay as you want, it's an observation.

Furthermore, some drunk who'll fill up a couple of pages with a 'oh meaty'/'oh shieldy' exchange is hardly in the position to sook so loudly. Suck it up, solider.

Batfink Begins wrote:

skully wrote:Sh!t-a-brick, every second thread goes off tangent every farkin night.

Australia won, huzzah. Next please. Move along, nothing to see here.

And this post was in relation to Danny's vitriol

Phurt at it being vitirolic. You can be as gay as you want, it's an observation.

Furthermore, some drunk who'll fill up a couple of pages with a 'oh meaty'/'oh shieldy' exchange is hardly in the position to sook so loudly. Suck it up, solider.

Right you are Dan. Very nice indeed. Remind me not to discuss your neurosis.

Batfink Begins wrote:

embee wrote:
Change Nugget to Freddy and Timmy to Any Pom and it's equally true

Yeah, maybe two years ago. And possibly in a much less camp a way. He's a fallen angel now. No-one loves him. The bunch of sooks that are the English fans are like spanked little kids.

Well if you cunuts had anyone now who was any ****** good I would have said him ...

embee wrote:Well if you cunuts had anyone now who was any ****** good I would have said him ...

Um, Ian Bell? Uhhh, haven't you heard of him or are you saying he isn't any good????? Please don't tell me you're saying that.

embee wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:

embee wrote:
Change Nugget to Freddy and Timmy to Any Pom and it's equally true

Yeah, maybe two years ago. And possibly in a much less camp a way. He's a fallen angel now. No-one loves him. The bunch of sooks that are the English fans are like spanked little kids.

Well if you cunuts had anyone now who was any ****** good I would have said him ...

You could have gone Bell and JKL/LLL/Basil etc....?

skully wrote:
Right you are Dan. Very nice indeed. Remind me not to discuss your neurosis.

You can discuss what you like skully. My point was on the money. You know this. I know this. Peter Roebuck knows this.

skully wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:

skully wrote:Sh!t-a-brick, every second thread goes off tangent every farkin night.

Australia won, huzzah. Next please. Move along, nothing to see here.

And this post was in relation to Danny's vitriol

Phurt at it being vitirolic. You can be as gay as you want, it's an observation.

Furthermore, some drunk who'll fill up a couple of pages with a 'oh meaty'/'oh shieldy' exchange is hardly in the position to sook so loudly. Suck it up, solider.

Right you are Dan. Very nice indeed. Remind me not to discuss your neurosis.

You have to remember, Danny is allowed to post as much bile and retarded drivel as he wants, but nobody else is. It's one of the universal constants.

Batfink Begins wrote:

skully wrote:
Right you are Dan. Very nice indeed. Remind me not to discuss your neurosis.

You can discuss what you like skully. My point was on the money. You know this. I know this. Peter Roebuck knows this.

Right you are Dan. Well played.

Invader Zim wrote:
You have to remember, Danny is allowed to post as much bile and retarded drivel as he wants, but nobody else is. It's one of the universal constants.

Righto Timothy. You hard done by sook. Where on earth does that come into it? It's so out of context. You can post what you like. That wasn't ever my point was it? If it was, please highlight it by quoting my posts - otherwise you're going to look exactly like merlin - posting out of context, jumping on a bandwagon because 'nasty Danny' has upset you.

Erm, Dan. My point was simple. I didn't attempt to insult you. I merely referenced some vitriol (a descriptive term relating to what you posted - without emotion attached). Yet you saw fit to drag up some totally irrelevant carp about my drinking habits, eowyn, and Peter Roebuck. Poor form old bean, and hardly necessary.

******* off Fink ....

I see you're rabidly spouting off your usual crap AGAIN ...
Keep going boy .... your posts make you look a price tw@t ...

"nasty Danny" .... FFS ...
I'd enjoy life more with a boil on my arse!

skully wrote:Erm, Dan. My point was simple. I didn't attempt to insult you. I merely referenced some vitriol (a descriptive term relating to what you posted - without emotion attached). Yet you saw fit to drag up some totally irrelevant carp about my drinking habits, eowyn, and Peter Roebuck. Poor form old bean, and hardly necessary.

I see it slightly different. I posted how gay you all are, there's no malice there, just clownish facetiousness. You then went on to complain about threads going off on tangents, I was simply replying with a 'glass houses' remark, which is totally feasible. You possibly are drunk(who cares? Not I.) you do 'shieldy' it up with Ange for a few pages of a thread which is totally unrelated. Peter Roebuck hasn't got anything to do with the price of fish.

Merlin wrote:******* off Fink ....

I see you're rabidly spouting off your usual crap AGAIN ...
Keep going boy .... your posts make you look a price tw@t ...

"nasty Danny" .... FFS ...
I'd enjoy life more with a boil on my arse!

Nice merlin. Well done. In context! Impressive. Gold star.

BF, when did you upset me, when did I jump on a bandwagon, when did I post out if context?

I was merely pointing out that you are prone to posting rubbish and criticising those that do the same, at the point you where criticising someone for posting rubbish.

Merlin wrote:******* off Fink ....

I see you're rabidly spouting off your usual crap AGAIN ...
Keep going boy .... your posts make you look a price tw@t ...

"nasty Danny" .... FFS ...
I'd enjoy life more with a boil on my arse!

Bandwagon, well and truly jumped upon.

Invader Zim wrote:BF, when did you upset me, when did I jump on a bandwagon, when did I post out if context?

No, maybe you're right. I was having a discussion with skoolly and you popped back in, I may have mistaken this:

Danny is allowed to post as much bile and retarded drivel as he wants, but nobody else is.

Invader Zim wrote:I was merely pointing out that you are prone to posting rubbish and criticising those that do the same, at the point you where criticising someone for posting rubbish.

I know I do. I'm very much as 'to blame' as anyone. The difference is, I never really complain when others are doing it, hence them never having to highlight it as a counter-argument. Read my posts to skully - of course he's allowed to post whatever he wants, just not sure he should be the one to cast the first stone when someone else has done it.

Batfink Begins wrote:

skully wrote:Erm, Dan. My point was simple. I didn't attempt to insult you. I merely referenced some vitriol (a descriptive term relating to what you posted - without emotion attached). Yet you saw fit to drag up some totally irrelevant carp about my drinking habits, eowyn, and Peter Roebuck. Poor form old bean, and hardly necessary.

I see it slightly different. I posted how gay you all are, there's no malice there, just clownish facetiousness. You then went on to complain about threads going off on tangents, I was simply replying with a 'glass houses' remark, which is totally feasible. You possibly are drunk(who cares? Not I.) you do 'shieldy' it up with Ange for a few pages of a thread which is totally unrelated. Peter Roebuck hasn't got anything to do with the price of fish.

Righto Dan. It's just that I have started several threads in recent nights and every one has gone off on some bizarre tangent. This is a sticky about tonight's ODI. And, as I thought I was making it clear, you seem to have taken offence (though you claim that is impossible) at a single word (vitriol) and come back spewing a pile a righteous bulltwang. I maintain it's poor form. And FWIW, I'm as sober as a judge right now.

skully wrote:Erm, Dan. My point was simple. I didn't attempt to insult you. I merely referenced some vitriol (a descriptive term relating to what you posted - without emotion attached). Yet you saw fit to drag up some totally irrelevant carp about my drinking habits, eowyn, and Peter Roebuck. Poor form old bean, and hardly necessary.

Fink is easily insulted, he takes his life and postings curiously to heart ..whilst always having the Wikipedia of Profanity and Abuse to hand before lacing them together into some form of incoherent tripe to respond with - whilst he then robustly declares his 'ascendency' in the "debate" ...
Amusing little chap our Fink,.... like the court jester of old ... but with abuse!

taipan wrote:

Merlin wrote:******* off Fink ....

I see you're rabidly spouting off your usual crap AGAIN ...
Keep going boy .... your posts make you look a price tw@t ...

"nasty Danny" .... FFS ...
I'd enjoy life more with a boil on my arse!

Bandwagon, well and truly jumped upon.

Listen you little cherry boy ... get back in your box before pixie does one on you...
Oh I forgot ... you'd be doing yerself then, wouldn't you?

Merlin wrote:

taipan wrote:

Merlin wrote:******* off Fink ....

I see you're rabidly spouting off your usual crap AGAIN ...
Keep going boy .... your posts make you look a price tw@t ...

"nasty Danny" .... FFS ...
I'd enjoy life more with a boil on my arse!

Bandwagon, well and truly jumped upon.

Listen you little cherry boy ... get back in your box before pixie does one on you...
Oh I forgot ... you'd be doing yerself then, wouldn't you?

Merlin, in making a$ehole of himself surprise.

He's now channelling LLL

skully wrote:
And, as I thought I was making it clear, you seem to have taken offence (though you claim that is impossible) at a single word (vitriol) and come back spewing a pile a righteous bulltwang. I maintain it's poor form. And FWIW, I'm as sober as a judge right now.

As if I'd be offended by being called vitriolic, I was merely trying to change your opinion that it was vitriol and reckon I've stated my case clearly enough. Yeah, you could say it's righteous, but then I'm not the one complaining about something I'll do myself on many occasions.

Merlin wrote:Fink is easily insulted, he takes his life and postings curiously to heart ..whilst always having the Wikipedia of Profanity and Abuse to hand before lacing them together into some form of incoherent tripe to respond with - whilst he then robustly declares his 'ascendency' in the "debate" ...
Amusing little chap our Fink,.... like the court jester of old ... but with abuse!

Yeah of course baby. You're the one who's got a bitchy little grudge against me, usually trying to bolster an argument I have with someone else by going "Yeah, yeah ol' Finky... profane... whinge number 3.... whinge number 4". Get over it you munter. The reason I say this is simple, you make yourself look like a tw@t when arguing with me. You either don't have the capability to elaborate or reply coherently to a post I make and just simply see fit to go on about the swearing in between succinct points.

taipan wrote:

Merlin, in aking a$ehole of himself surprise.

He's now channelling LLL

I'm aking .. I'm aking .... I'm aking ... FFS

I'm channelling ... I'm channelling ... I'm channelling .... FFS

At least get yer freakin' spelling right before you appear a worse klutz than you really are.

Okay- I've had my fun ... now off for a Friday lunchtime pint.

Keep missing me taipie/pixie puff.

Batfink Begins wrote:

embee wrote:Well if you cunuts had anyone now who was any ****** good I would have said him ...

Um, Ian Bell? Uhhh, haven't you heard of him or are you saying he isn't any good????? Please don't tell me you're saying that.

FFS!!!!!! Terror might be going OK ....but I can't see him causing universal gayness of pommy fans ...

Batfink Begins wrote:

Yeah of course baby. You're the one who's got a bitchy little grudge against me, usually trying to bolster an argument I have with someone else by going "Yeah, yeah ol' Finky... profane... whinge number 3.... whinge number 4". Get over it you munter. The reason I say this is simple, you make yourself look like a tw@t when arguing with me. You either don't have the capability to elaborate or reply coherently to a post I make and just simply see fit to go on about the swearing in between succinct points.

Are you kidding! PMSL
Fark me ... abuse first ... and now AIRS and GRACES.
Fink - I'd have more of a grudge with a homeless down and out picking up the penny I dropped on the ground - than with you chuckkie ...
So climb off the self elevated pedestal egoman!!

And you call me the tw@t ... ???
jesus .. you really should listen to yourself sometime ...