Re: Shame on Forum sooks unable to take

by PeterCS Thu 29 Jan 2009, 00:53

What do you call Bambi with no eyes?

by LeFromage Thu 29 Jan 2009, 00:54

Yeah, I've royally f*cked that up.

Bad joke, delivered appallingly.

*goes to sit on the naughty step*

by lardbucket Thu 29 Jan 2009, 00:55

PeterCS wrote:What do you call Bambi with no eyes?

Still no eye deer

by PeterCS Thu 29 Jan 2009, 00:56

Or Bambaww.

by Zat Thu 29 Jan 2009, 01:56

lardbucket wrote:
PeterCS wrote:What do you call Bambi with no eyes?

Still no eye deer

So what do you call Bambi with hearing loss, no legs, eyes poked out, and no genitals?

Spoiler:

Don't forget to tip your waitress.

by taipan Thu 29 Jan 2009, 07:34

Rob I wrote:
Zat wrote:hat of conf inswing high?

You can't do it. Only interesting people from C4 years back could do that.

Here we go again.

by Yorkie Jill Thu 29 Jan 2009, 09:30

eowyn wrote:
Yorkie Jill wrote:It is fairly easy (maybe I'm just easy) to be 'stimulated' on this forum if you wish. Same as it's easy enough to 'avoid' people if you want.

I've certainly 'met' and talk to a lot more people on here than I did on C4, and if someone's interesting and nice and fun, then I'd probably talk to them off forum too. It doesn't make me think that everyone else is boring though.

In a lot of ways the forum is what you make it.

My "we are boring" was rather a throw away comment, nobody does forum quite like Tom, Rich, Ijaz, John, bliks et al used to but they were very bizarrely unique. That doesn't mean other people posting now aren't interesting, they are, just in differing ways.

Aye. They don't, it's true. But that was then, and this is now, and there's no point rehashing it so often, unless it's to deliberately get people's backs up, as it seems to do so well.

by Zat Thu 29 Jan 2009, 23:27

taipan wrote:
Rob I wrote:
Zat wrote:hat of conf inswing high?

You can't do it. Only interesting people from C4 years back could do that.

Here we go again.

Rob I being a prize tw@t? He never really stopped, so it can't be so much of a 'go again'.

by DJ_Smerk Fri 30 Jan 2009, 00:44

by horace Fri 30 Jan 2009, 00:49

lol @ the smerky sig

Danny is the Forum's resident castrati...he even types in falsetto

by tac Fri 30 Jan 2009, 05:52

Farkin lol@horrie . . .

by horace Mon 02 Feb 2009, 01:23

I hereby expand the definition of forum sooks to include te vast majority of banindian and english fan whose respective sookery prevents them from ever criticising the ethics of their team...no matter however (and frequently) craven the unethical behaviour may be

by DJ_Smerk Mon 02 Feb 2009, 01:27

horace wrote:I hereby expand the definition of forum sooks to include te vast majority of banindian and english fan whose respective sookery prevents them from ever criticising the ethics of their team...no matter however (and frequently) craven the unethical behaviour may be

Horrie, what are you trying to insinuate? Suspect

That all Sports Fans are Sooks? scratch

by horace Mon 02 Feb 2009, 01:51

not at all..neither the welsh nor scots (nor yorkies nor cornish) are sooks on the sporting front (or any other I can think of)

by DJ_Smerk Mon 02 Feb 2009, 02:02

by Merlin Mon 02 Feb 2009, 09:43

JB wrote:Horace and Merlin have both disappeared. Has some sort of FB oldies romance begun and they've forgotten about us?

Bugger!
Ten days on the slopes chasing powder and I miss out on a sh!tfest (timid fare though!)
A romance with a Roman .... do me a favour!

by lardbucket Mon 02 Feb 2009, 09:49

Horrie never disappeared anyway ... it must have been a romance by carrier pigeon. You probably thought they were heavy snowflakes.

by eowyn Mon 02 Feb 2009, 10:12

lardbucket wrote:Horrie never disappeared anyway ... it must have been a romance by carrier pigeon. You probably thought they were heavy snowflakes.

Oh eewwwwwwrggghhhhh!

by Brass Monkey Mon 02 Feb 2009, 12:25

horace wrote:I hereby expand the definition of forum sooks to include te vast majority of banindian and english fan whose respective sookery prevents them from ever criticising the ethics of their team...no matter however (and frequently) craven the unethical behaviour may be

TBH, hozza, I reckon you could well include all or no-one in that statement. The Indians are the worst no doubt, but they aren't alone.

by doremi Mon 02 Feb 2009, 12:54

Phurt.

by Brass Monkey Mon 02 Feb 2009, 13:02

TBF, dozza, they've been embroiled in the most controversy - hence they're bound to be the biggest highlighted section in this regard. One can only speculate how the other sides would've reacted to the same situations - but at least we know with India.

by Zat Tue 03 Feb 2009, 02:11

horace wrote:I hereby expand the definition of forum sooks to include te vast majority of banindian and english fan whose respective sookery prevents them from ever criticising the ethics of their team...no matter however (and frequently) craven the unethical behaviour may be everyone but me

Fixed.

by lardbucket Fri 22 Oct 2010, 12:42

Merlin wrote:
JB wrote:Horace and Merlin have both disappeared. Has some sort of FB oldies romance begun and they've forgotten about us?
Bugger!
Ten days on the slopes chasing powder and I miss out on a sh!tfest (timid fare though!)
A romance with a Roman .... do me a favour!

This thread is gold. And brown.

by PeterCS Fri 22 Oct 2010, 21:43

Stranglers get off more lightly.

by lardbucket Sun 24 Oct 2010, 00:09

never a frown

by Sponsored content