Meryl 'over-rated' Streep picks on po' pussy-grabber

First topic message reminder :

Trump blasts Meryl Streep after Golden Globes speech
Dylan Stableford

President-elect Donald Trump is firing back at Meryl Streep after the actress used her acceptance speech for the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the Golden Globes to scold him for mocking a disabled reporter during the presidential campaign.

“Meryl Streep, one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood, doesn’t know me but attacked last night at the Golden Globes,” Trump tweeted, noting that Streep had campaigned for his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

“She is a Hillary flunky who lost big,” Trump wrote.

During her speech, the 67-year-old three-time Oscar winner said there were “many, many powerful performances” by actors this year, “but there was one performance this year that stunned” her.

“It sank its hooks in my heart,” she said. “Not because it was good; there was nothing good about it. But it was effective, and it did its job. It made its intended audience laugh and show their teeth. It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter. Someone he outranked in privilege, power, and the capacity to fight back.”

During a rally in November 2015, Trump launched into an impression of Serge Kovaleski, a New York Times reporter who suffers from arthrogryposis, a congenital joint condition, after Kovaleski pushed back against Trump’s use of a 2001 article he wrote as proof of the candidate’s false assertion that “thousands and thousands of people” in Muslim neighborhoods in New Jersey were cheering in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11.



“It kind of broke my heart when I saw it,” Streep continued. “And I still can’t get it out of my head, because it wasn’t in a movie. It was real life. And this instinct to humiliate, when it’s modeled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, it filters down into everybody’s life, because it kinda gives permission for other people to do the same thing. Disrespect invites disrespect, violence incites violence. And when the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.”

Trump has claimed he wasn’t mocking Kovaleski’s disability, but merely his nerves. At the time, Kovaleski said he had interviewed Trump in his office and was once on a first-name basis with the real estate magnate. “Despite having one of the all-time great memories, I certainly do not remember him,” Trump said of the reporter in 2015.

“I was never mocking anyone,” Trump told the Times on Sunday night. “I was calling into question a reporter who had gotten nervous because he had changed his story.
“People keep saying I intended to mock the reporter’s disability, as if Meryl Streep and others could read my mind, and I did no such thing,” Trump continued.

On Monday, Trump again sought to clarify his impersonation of Kovaleski.
“For the 100th time, I never ‘mocked’ a disabled reporter (would never do that) but simply showed him ‘groveling’ when he totally changed a 16 year old story that he had written in order to make me look bad,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Just more very dishonest media!”

In an interview with “Fox & Friends” on Monday morning, Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s former campaign manager and senior adviser, said Streep’s comments were concerning.
“I’m concerned that somebody with a platform like Meryl Streep’s is inciting people’s worst instincts,” Conway said.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Agreed, it is quite telling of some.

It's quite telling that you're encouraging Wolfman in his goading and bitching ...

The mere fact that you would say that is unjustified goading and bitching.

Wolf has a valid point, unsullied by any disparaging adjectives. Les is merely agreeing with the point.

What's your excuse?

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's quite telling that you're encouraging Wolfman in his goading and bitching ...

It isn't bitching in this case. It is noticeable that people who generally align with conservative politics would seem to overlook blatant mocking of a disabled person. While those who tend to oppose all kinds of prejudice call it out for what it is.

I can't speak for the others but I'm not overlooking that kind of thing, I just think that's not what he was doing. Of course Wolfman was bitching - he has form for it.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You'll notice that it says a person's ability, not a person's willingness. You're clutching at even more straws Quill.

Semantics.  Face it, I'm right and it's making you squirrelly.  Point to something...anything that you call 'IQ'.  You can't.  It's secondary...all derivative of performance.

As far as 'willingness', do you have a theory that laziness is willful?  Because I sure wouldn't subscribe to that.  I think laziness is related to selfishness...and lo, what do we say about conservatives?  Isn't Smithsonian economics based upon selfishness and greed?  

I think if you reach back, it has more to do with upbringing.

It's quite an important difference actually. An unwillingness to do something is not the same as an inability to do something. I've given you plenty of info about low IQs, you just chose to twist it into something else to excuse your mockery of intellectual disabilities.

I didn't say anything about laziness being "wilful", and indeed, I didn't even mention laziness - you did.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Dropping in to slag off other posters Wolfman?

No surprise there.

EXCUUUUUSE ME?  "Slag off"?  I thought he went out of his way to be polite: "esteemed", "kind-hearted", "fellows"...how genteel would you require?  

BTW...he's making a valid point, you know.

You're not familiar with sarcasm then.

He's making no point at all, other than to prove he's determined to carry on goading and bitching.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

INTERESTING to note the attitudes of our most esteemed and kind-hearted fellow contributors Raggamuffin, Horatio and Tommy  towards a public figure/ celebrity  --  President-elect Donald "pussy grabber" Trump  -- mocking the disabled at a news conference,  is it not  ???

Doesn't surprise me in the least, to be honest..

Let's make sure we don't make a habit of popping in to do just this, against certain posters.
This was exactly what one of our rules were based on.

Remember, it is far more respectful to actually directly answer the poster.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Dropping in to slag off other posters Wolfman?

No surprise there.

EXCUUUUUSE ME?  "Slag off"?  I thought he went out of his way to be polite: "esteemed", "kind-hearted", "fellows"...how genteel would you require?  

BTW...he's making a valid point, you know.

No he isn't. He is taking the opportunity to slag off posters (always en masse) as he usually does.
I'm not surprised you jump in to defend him though Quill.....sheeple.

Hasn't he already had one warning for doing this?

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

INTERESTING to note the attitudes of our most esteemed and kind-hearted fellow contributors Raggamuffin, Horatio and Tommy  towards a public figure/ celebrity  --  President-elect Donald "pussy grabber" Trump  -- mocking the disabled at a news conference,  is it not  ???

Doesn't surprise me in the least, to be honest..

Let's  make sure we don't make a habit of popping in to do just this, against certain posters.
This was exactly what one of our rules were based on.

Remember, it is far more respectful to actually directly answer the poster.

Do what? Are we not allowed to oppose someone in what they say? Particularly when the subject matter (mocking the disabled) is so reprehensible. The transcript is clear and unequivocal: if anything it was complimentary of those whose ideas he opposes.

I think it's ironic that when one does everything you admonish him for, everything you recommend he do, and everything according to the rules...you are still in the habit of criticizing him. Could it be that it is you have fallen into a habit-pattern...that of criticizing certain people without fault, just because it's your habit?

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Let's  make sure we don't make a habit of popping in to do just this, against certain posters.
This was exactly what one of our rules were based on.

Remember, it is far more respectful to actually directly answer the poster.

Do what?  Are we not allowed to oppose someone in what they say?  Particularly when the subject matter (mocking the disabled) is so reprehensible.  The transcript is clear and unequivocal: if anything it was complimentary of those whose ideas he opposes.

I think it's ironic that when one does everything you admonish him for, everything you recommend he do, and everything according to the rules...you are still in the habit of criticizing him.  Could it be that it is you have fallen into a habit-pattern...that of criticizing certain people without fault, just because it's your habit?

He's not opposing anyone or complimenting anyone, he's having a go at certain posters like he always does. Perhaps you should keep out of this for once as you don't seem to read his posts properly.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Do what?  Are we not allowed to oppose someone in what they say?  Particularly when the subject matter (mocking the disabled) is so reprehensible.  The transcript is clear and unequivocal: if anything it was complimentary of those whose ideas he opposes.

I think it's ironic that when one does everything you admonish him for, everything you recommend he do, and everything according to the rules...you are still in the habit of criticizing him.  Could it be that it is you have fallen into a habit-pattern...that of criticizing certain people without fault, just because it's your habit?

He's not opposing anyone or complimenting anyone, he's having a go at certain posters like he always does. Perhaps you should keep out of this for once as you don't seem to read his posts properly.

I think he's making a valid point: one shouldn't be awe struck by a political figure, just because he's a public figure. That's rank authoritarianism.  After all, pussy-grabber called down the attention on himself by his outrageous display mocking the disabled.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He's not opposing anyone or complimenting anyone, he's having a go at certain posters like he always does. Perhaps you should keep out of this for once as you don't seem to read his posts properly.

I think he's making a valid point: one shouldn't be awe struck by a political figure, just because he's a public figure.  That's rank authoritarianism.  After all, pussy-grabber called down the attention on himself by his outrageous display mocking the disabled.

He's not saying anything about Trump, he's baiting members here. Why do you not get that? You're keeping this going by defending him when it's obvious that he's stirring.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think he's making a valid point: one shouldn't be awe struck by a political figure, just because he's a public figure.  That's rank authoritarianism.  After all, pussy-grabber called down the attention on himself by his outrageous display mocking the disabled.

He's not saying anything about Trump, he's baiting members here. Why do you not get that? You're keeping this going by defending him when it's obvious that he's stirring.

I've made my point. He was being perfectly polite...his ultimate target was the fawning on one who attacks the disabled for being so. A man like that should be condemned, not admired.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He's not saying anything about Trump, he's baiting members here. Why do you not get that? You're keeping this going by defending him when it's obvious that he's stirring.

I've made my point.  He was being perfectly polite...his ultimate target was the fawning on one who attacks the disabled for being so.  A man like that should be condemned, not admired.

Nobody was fawning, and Wolfman was goading members here. You have misunderstood his MO completely.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I've made my point.  He was being perfectly polite...his ultimate target was the fawning on one who attacks the disabled for being so.  A man like that should be condemned, not admired.

Nobody was fawning, and Wolfman was goading members here. You have misunderstood his MO completely.

It is you who have misunderstood...or taken offense, wrongfully. If you look at the adjectives used by Wolf, they were all complimentary. What on earth is your complaint??

You are just used to complaining, and that was also an implied violation under the new rules...thou shalt not try to bring down banishment upon another member.

Mind you, I'm merely advising you to bring in the claws.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

INTERESTING to note the attitudes of our most esteemed and kind-hearted fellow contributors Raggamuffin, Horatio and Tommy  towards a public figure/ celebrity  --  President-elect Donald "pussy grabber" Trump  -- mocking the disabled at a news conference,  is it not  ???

Doesn't surprise me in the least, to be honest..

Let's  make sure we don't make a habit of popping in to do just this, against certain posters.
This was exactly what one of our rules were based on.

Remember, it is far more respectful to actually directly answer the poster.

Do what?  Are we not allowed to oppose someone in what they say?  Particularly when the subject matter (mocking the disabled) is so reprehensible.  The transcript is clear and unequivocal: if anything it was complimentary of those whose ideas he opposes.

I think it's ironic that when one does everything you admonish him for, everything you recommend he do, and everything according to the rules...you are still in the habit of criticizing him.  Could it be that it is you have fallen into a habit-pattern...that of criticizing certain people without fault, just because it's your habit?

No I'm simply reminding him that there is a better way of answering on a thread - in exactly the way you do, by addressing the poster directly and not bringing other posters in to constantly criticise them.

This was a major agreement in the mod section Quill; no posters should be jumping in to a thread to simply make a post insulting a whole bunch of posters.

Simple enough to stick to, surely?

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Do what?  Are we not allowed to oppose someone in what they say?  Particularly when the subject matter (mocking the disabled) is so reprehensible.  The transcript is clear and unequivocal: if anything it was complimentary of those whose ideas he opposes.

I think it's ironic that when one does everything you admonish him for, everything you recommend he do, and everything according to the rules...you are still in the habit of criticizing him.  Could it be that it is you have fallen into a habit-pattern...that of criticizing certain people without fault, just because it's your habit?

No I'm simply reminding him that there is a better way of answering on a thread - in exactly the way you do, by addressing the poster directly and not bringing other posters in to constantly criticise them.

This was a major agreement in the mod section Quill; no posters should be jumping in to a thread to simply make a post insulting a whole bunch of posters.

Simple enough to stick to, surely?

Well, my point is twofold: (1) his post was only opposition, highly complimentary and not at all insulting; and (2) there is a fine line between "jumping in to...insult" and jumping in to post. You don't want to chill normal conversation by putting posters in fear of merely adding a comment. BTW, while we are on the subject of heavy-handed rules, we recently lost one of our best mods; I hope he wasn't wasted on a misplaced issue like this.

I gather Wolf's point is that Trump shouldn't be shielded from criticism because of who he is: "a public figure/ celebrity"--a valid point with which I agree. I submit Wolf conducted himself with utmost dignity.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

INTERESTING to note the attitudes of our most esteemed and kind-hearted fellow contributors Raggamuffin, Horatio and Tommy  towards a public figure/ celebrity  --  President-elect Donald "pussy grabber" Trump  -- mocking the disabled at a news conference,  is it not  ???

Doesn't surprise me in the least, to be honest..

RETALATION POST

And it doesn't surprise me that you jump in the moment you see the chance to stamp your foutraged trotters at any single thing myself, and certain others post on here.   All I said was that it's a storm in a teacup.  Next week it'll be some other debacle, and all the while we have much more awful things happening in the world.   Things much more deserving of everyone's focus.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nobody was fawning, and Wolfman was goading members here. You have misunderstood his MO completely.

It is you who have misunderstood...or taken offense, wrongfully.  If you look at the adjectives used by Wolf, they were all complimentary.  What on earth is your complaint??

You are just used to complaining, and that was also an implied violation under the new rules...thou shalt not try to bring down banishment upon another member.  

Mind you, I'm merely advising you to bring in the claws.

I'll advise you to stop pretending that Wolfman is innocent. He's never had a good word to say about me, and I know sarcasm when I see it. There was no rule break from me. You are arguing for the sake of it though, and you must know that you're wrong.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

No I'm simply reminding him that there is a better way of answering on a thread - in exactly the way you do, by addressing the poster directly and not bringing other posters in to constantly criticise them.

This was a major agreement in the mod section Quill; no posters should be jumping in to a thread to simply make a post insulting a whole bunch of posters.

Simple enough to stick to, surely?

Well, my point is twofold: (1) his post was only opposition, highly complimentary and not at all insulting; and (2) there is a fine line between "jumping in to...insult" and jumping in to post.  You don't want to chill normal conversation by putting posters in fear of merely adding a comment.  BTW, while we are on the subject of heavy-handed rules, we recently lost one of our best mods; I hope he wasn't wasted on a misplaced issue like this.

I gather Wolf's point is that Trump shouldn't be shielded from criticism because of who he is:   "a public figure/ celebrity"--a valid point with which I agree.  I submit Wolf conducted himself with utmost dignity.

Of course that wasn't his point.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, my point is twofold: (1) his post was only opposition, highly complimentary and not at all insulting; and (2) there is a fine line between "jumping in to...insult" and jumping in to post.  You don't want to chill normal conversation by putting posters in fear of merely adding a comment.  BTW, while we are on the subject of heavy-handed rules, we recently lost one of our best mods; I hope he wasn't wasted on a misplaced issue like this.

I gather Wolf's point is that Trump shouldn't be shielded from criticism because of who he is:   "a public figure/ celebrity"--a valid point with which I agree.  I submit Wolf conducted himself with utmost dignity.

Of course that wasn't his point.

I can read as well as you can, probably better. That's what he said, and that's how I take him.

Let's put a stop to it shall we?
Read the rules. Simple.

Don't ruin a perfectly good thread over a posters stupid comments.

eddie wrote:Let's put a stop to it shall we?
Read the rules. Simple.

Don't ruin a perfectly good thread over a posters stupid comments.

A bit authoritarian, aren't we?  I've read the rules and I daresay I'm a bit more practiced than you are on what they mean.  If you want to interpret the rules in unorthodox ways, I'm sure you will lose more members than the last round.  

perhaps you didn't understand them http://www.newsfixboard.com/t19280-about-gang-warfare-per-the-rules
best wishes, Eddie


I'm just trying to democratize the process by making you and everyone aware of due process of law.  There are centuries of common patterns in the development of rule-making, and I have spent years gaining the skills to understand those patterns.  Now, you can either go with the capricious whims of people who are only self-interested and really don't give a shit about the community, or you can stand for the community itself.

Nor is this a matter of numbers.  Ben has said before that he doesn't care about size of membership.  This is about integrity...and leaving behind a reputation like, oh, say, Flap or Vladimir Putin...or something better.  So it's up to you...the place can either behave like trash, or strive to have some moral principal.

eddie wrote:
Let's put a stop to it shall we?
Read the rules. Simple.

Don't ruin a perfectly good thread over a posters stupid comments.

PULL your head in,  eddie...
And stop with your constant lies..

I neither "jumped in" to this thread;  nor did I make "stupid" comments.

IF you want to criticise anyone for "jumping in", that should be Tommy;
And, as for "stupid" comments -- aim those criticisms as Ragg's, for her ongoing nonsense above there.

If you intend to continue making false allegations against contributors to these discussions,  you really will have to be more creative with your false accusations  !

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t19280-about-gang-warfare-per-the-rules
Behave yourself and read the rules
Best wishes, eddie

Ok Please leave Eddie alone, we don't need to make a big deal out of it.
(bad enough, Raggs doing it and thus derailing the thread)

it is almost what was said was against the rules. in that it was a 'list' of opposing posters.

I think what wolf wrote is Ok, like Les did, because it was a comment on the 3 poster defending trump in this thread, it wasn't Just a list of Posters Wolf doesn't like... and it was a comment about what they had posted in this thread in defense of trump.
(I probably would have left HT off the list )

veya_victaous wrote:Ok Please leave Eddie alone, we don't need to make a big deal out of it.
(bad enough, Raggs doing it and thus derailing the thread)

it is almost what was said was against the rules. in that it was a 'list' of opposing posters.

I think what wolf wrote is Ok, like Les did, because it was a comment on the 3 poster defending trump in this thread, it wasn't Just a list of Posters Wolf doesn't like... and it was a comment about what they had posted in this thread in defense of trump.
(I probably would have left HT off the list )

Well, I'm just explaining.  No one has more fondness for eddie than me.  I'm not picking on her, or anyone.  

And no one has been more bi-partisan than me in these matters.  I've stood up for scrat, HA, Dean, Major, 4Eva, Raggamuffin, tommy...and back in the day, Didge.  On each occasion it's the principle I've stood by, not the single person or his/her crowd.

There is clearly a tendency toward faction with some members.  I tend to ignore them.  But sometimes someone gets ensnared in some matter or other, and I come along to find the principle in the matter.  Here, all I'm trying to say is stop expecting someone to fit a pattern, and look to see if she or he did do something wrong.  To anticipate is to miss the call.  

Such expectations are based on perceived reputations, and reputation is what factions deal in.  That's how these things start.

veya_victaous wrote:Ok Please leave Eddie alone, we don't need to make a big deal out of it.
(bad enough, Raggs doing it and thus derailing the thread)

it is almost what was said was against the rules. in that it was a 'list' of opposing posters.

I think what wolf wrote is Ok, like Les did, because it was a comment on the 3 poster defending trump in this thread, it wasn't Just a list of Posters Wolf doesn't like... and it was a comment about what they had posted in this thread in defense of trump.
(I probably would have left HT off the list )

If someone had read only this thread and his comments in it I would agree with you, but his MO is often to include several posters in his posts to slag off....many times when they have not even posted in the actual thread.
He has a group of maybe 6 or 7 posters, who for some reason he dislikes, so he names them every chance he gets.

Oh...and he lies constantly about people....but that's a different issue.

Syl wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Ok Please leave Eddie alone, we don't need to make a big deal out of it.
(bad enough, Raggs doing it and thus derailing the thread)

it is almost what was said was against the rules. in that it was a 'list' of opposing posters.

I think what wolf wrote is Ok, like Les did, because it was a comment on the 3 poster defending trump in this thread, it wasn't Just a list of Posters Wolf doesn't like... and it was a comment about what they had posted in this thread in defense of trump.
(I probably would have left HT off the list )

If someone had read only this thread and his comments in it I would agree with you, but his MO is often to include several posters in his posts to slag off....many times when they have not even posted in the actual thread.
He has a group of maybe 6 or 7 posters, who for some reason he dislikes, so he names them every chance he gets.

Oh...and he lies constantly about people....but that's a different issue.

See?  This ^^ is exactly what I'm talking about mods.  He didn't do anything wrong, but let's kick him because of a reputation.  I don't know about Britain, but in this country a conviction requires a specific act, not a reputation.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

If someone had read only this thread and his comments in it I would agree with you, but his MO is often to include several posters in his posts to slag off....many times when they have not even posted in the actual thread.
He has a group of maybe 6 or 7 posters, who for some reason he dislikes, so he names them every chance he gets.

Oh...and he lies constantly about people....but that's a different issue.

See?  This ^^ is exactly what I'm talking about mods.  He didn't do anything wrong, but let's kick him because of a reputation.  I don't know about Britain, but in this country a conviction requires a specific act, not a reputation.

Oh grow up Quill...you are not in bloody court now.
Incidentally....if you ever ARE in court, I hope you are not as blinkered there as you are here.

Take a recess.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

See?  This ^^ is exactly what I'm talking about mods.  He didn't do anything wrong, but let's kick him because of a reputation.  I don't know about Britain, but in this country a conviction requires a specific act, not a reputation.

Oh grow up Quill...you are not in bloody court now.
Incidentally....if you ever ARE in court, I hope you are not as blinkered there as you are here.

Take a recess.

But, you must admit I bring some some civility to the process. I think you and everyone else like fairness and impartiality.

Syl does like to play/act the innocent,  doesn't she !!!
Claiming victim hood at every turn..

Her and Ragg's and their looney circle have been harassing me and several others, trying to chase us off here in recent weeks..  Derailing threads at every turn.

Lying xenophobic white supremicist fascist cow that she is !

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Syl does like to play/act the innocent,  doesn't she !!!
Claiming victim hood at every turn..

Her and Ragg's and their looney circle have been harassing me and several others, trying to chase us off here in recent weeks..  Derailing threads at every turn.

Lying xenophobic white supremicist fascist cow that she is !

Speaking about yourself again Wolf?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Oh grow up Quill...you are not in bloody court now.
Incidentally....if you ever ARE in court, I hope you are not as blinkered there as you are here.

Take a recess.

But, you must admit I bring some some civility to the process.  I think you and everyone else like fairness and impartiality.

You are civil and I do find some of your posts interesting Quill......fairness and impartially isn't always your strong suit though, as this thread demonstrates.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course that wasn't his point.

I can read as well as you can, probably better.  That's what he said, and that's how I take him.

Tell me where he said that. He didn't say that - he slated other posters.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Syl does like to play/act the innocent,  doesn't she !!!
Claiming victim hood at every turn..

Her and Ragg's and their looney circle have been harassing me and several others, trying to chase us off here in recent weeks..  Derailing threads at every turn.

Lying xenophobic white supremicist fascist cow that she is !

You started on me in this thread, as you do every time. You derailed the thread by getting bitchy, and you're the one harassing other posters.

Raggamuffin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Syl does like to play/act the innocent,  doesn't she !!!
Claiming victim hood at every turn..

Her and Ragg's and their looney circle have been harassing me and several others, trying to chase us off here in recent weeks..  Derailing threads at every turn.

Lying xenophobic white supremicist fascist cow that she is !

You started on me in this thread, as you do every time. You derailed the thread by getting bitchy, and you're the one harassing other posters.

It's always him that starts....often even when his 'targets' are not even involved in the thread.
People often ignore him but sometimes retaliate....he then plays the victim.... switches it all round, like I said it's his MO.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Syl does like to play/act the innocent,  doesn't she !!!
Claiming victim hood at every turn..

Her and Ragg's and their looney circle have been harassing me and several others, trying to chase us off here in recent weeks..  Derailing threads at every turn.

Lying xenophobic white supremicist fascist cow that she is !

Calm down, you'll bust your truss!

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You started on me in this thread, as you do every time. You derailed the thread by getting bitchy, and you're the one harassing other posters.

It's always him that starts....often even when his 'targets' are not even involved in the thread.
People often ignore him but sometimes retaliate....he then plays the victim.... switches it all round, like I said it's his MO.

I think he fancies you on the quiet.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

It's always him that starts....often even when his 'targets' are not even involved in the thread.
People often ignore him but sometimes retaliate....he then plays the victim.... switches it all round, like I said it's his MO.

I think he fancies you on the quiet.

If that's the case he has a very robust wooing technique.

Let's keep this thread on-topic and not have a return of the sort of gang warfare that necessitated this site being taken off-line.

And that wolf, will be your THIRD warning.
So take the hint.

I only see one gang...and it is the same gang that caused the last shut-down.

Frankly, there's so much to talk about, what with minority-President Asset's sex tape, and whether the Congress will implode...we live in exciting times and I don't want to spend it with a bunch of hens, pecking away (you know who you are).

BTW, where are HA, scrat and sassy...they want to talk politics at least?

I'd like to ask, please, that if anyone sees another poster disregarding the rules, as in the example seen here on this thread, that they use the report button and not engage in futile arguments.

Thank you.

I am taking away 2 of those warnings.
there is one Borderline post that was a bit gang warfare.
the rest of this shit fight is as much raggs, quill and syl

And Quill is Right
WOLF did not 'actually' do anything wrong!
People have Whined in thread, rather than just PMing mods and accepting the action taken.


I am locking this thread now since there in nothing on this whole page that refers back to the OP, so I'd say we are done

veya_victaous wrote:I am taking away 2 of those warnings.
there is one Borderline post that was a bit gang warfare.
the rest of this shit fight is as much raggs, quill and syl  

And Quill is Right
WOLF did not 'actually' do anything wrong!
People have Whined in thread, rather than just PMing mods and accepting the action taken.


I am locking this thread now since there in nothing on this whole page that refers back to the OP, so I'd say we are done

Point taken, I will go back to ignoring him, see how insulting he can be before you and Quill notice his outbursts.


I also think it's bad that you have publicly gone against a fellow mod on the board. Don't you think she gets undermined enough on here?

Btw...this thread is obviously NOT locked.

That's my fault. Veya did lock it and I unlocked it completely by mistake, only noticed cos you've posted.

If it can get back on topic I'll happily let it stay open as we obviously want debate and not flame-wars.

It was an interesting topic...
I went off Streep a bit watching some of her roles (Could not stand her in The bridges of Madison county....I think it was the whining voice)

However, seeing her speak her own words from the heart, and seeing other people take notice of her wisdom....I am right back on her again.

I think she's a pretty good actress but as I've said, Trump is acting like a petty little child by even engaging in the way he has. No one wants their future president actlng like a jerk.

eddie wrote:I think she's a pretty good actress but as I've said, Trump is acting like a petty little child by even engaging in the way he has. No one wants their future president actlng like a jerk.

He is a fool. He argues and answers back all the time, he uses Twitter like a teenager.
Obama has more class in his little finger than Trump has in his whole body.

I know the best way forwards for the Americans is to try to support him (like we try to support the useless gang of politicians that we are stuck with presently) but he 'Trump', makes it very hard.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:I think she's a pretty good actress but as I've said, Trump is acting like a petty little child by even engaging in the way he has. No one wants their future president actlng like a jerk.

He is a fool. He argues and answers back all the time, he uses Twitter like a teenager.
Obama has more class in his little finger than Trump has in his whole body.

I know the best way forwards for the Americans is to try to support him (like we try to support the useless gang of politicians that we are stuck with presently) but he 'Trump', makes it very hard.

Yes it's the Twitter teen retorts that make him appear like an idiot...you'd think his PR team would say "Erm, you're coming across even more ridiculous than usual.."

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

He is a fool. He argues and answers back all the time, he uses Twitter like a teenager.
Obama has more class in his little finger than Trump has in his whole body.

I know the best way forwards for the Americans is to try to support him (like we try to support the useless gang of politicians that we are stuck with presently) but he 'Trump', makes it very hard.

Yes it's the Twitter teen retorts that make him appear like an idiot...you'd  think his PR team would say "Erm, you're coming across even more ridiculous than usual.."

Did you watch the three head to heads with Clinton when they were both candidates Eddie?
I don't like her, but she won all three debates because she acted with decorum...he argued and muttered, interrupted and acted like a bloody teen does when he doesn't get his own way.
This latest argument....no mature person with a brain acts like he did, making fun of disablement. If he can do that in public God knows how he acts and thinks in private.