The 'Strictly' curse strikes again.

First topic message reminder :

Marriages and relationships have often been broken when people have paired up with their dance partners on TV's Strictly come dancing..and promptly fell for them.
The latest couple to cheat on their real partners with their dancing partners has made headlines over the last couple of days...they were caught passionately kissing in the street after a night out.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6250199/Strictlys-Seann-Walsh-APOLOGIES-kissing-married-dance-partner-Katya-Jones.html

But it was just a kiss not an affair (if they are to be believed) His long term girlfriend seems to have dumped him, but  is a kiss worth ending a relationship?

I think Horatio was referring to Sean Walsh. Not 100% sure tho. I'm only forming an opinion, based on the balance of probabilities. 


In fairness to Quill, there is no absolute PROOF who exactly she was referring to. In reality we are ALL guessing, and I think we have all made the correct guess, but it's still a guess - there is no PROOF. 


Not only did HT fail to specify who she meant, she also failed to return and clarify the matter. Instead she has left her friends to pick up the pieces. ONE word of clarification from her would have put this matter to bed once and for all. 

Her continuing silence has simply increased Quill's paranoia.

My God, if there was ever a case to illustrate that quoting is essential, this was it. Especially when it's an insult you're posting.


I know a small handful of lazy people who habitually NEVER quote the person they are speaking to. And therefore they spend their whole lives on forums explaining who and what their latest post was referring to.


Myself I got caught out once.
I once made a criticising comment about a celeb and unfortunately for me, someone in the thread assumed that I was referring to them, despite me strenuously explaining. It caused years of bad feeling (and nastiness from them) afterwards. Monstrously unfair to me! So, ever since I've always made sure I quote or at least specify who I'm referring to, especially if it's an insult.


Long story short? I have never made the same mistake again!!

Jules wrote:I think Horatio was referring to Sean Walsh. Not 100% sure tho. I'm only forming an opinion, based on the balance of probabilities. 


In fairness to Quill, there is no absolute PROOF who exactly she was referring to. In reality we are ALL guessing, and I think we have all made the correct guess, but it's still a guess - there is no PROOF. 


Not only did HT fail to specify who she meant, she also failed to return and clarify the matter. Instead she has left her friends to pick up the pieces. ONE word of clarification from her would have put this matter to bed once and for all. 

Her continuing silence has simply increased Quill's paranoia.

This is a fair point actually. I still think it's baffling Quill read that as an insult of him but yes, Horatio could've said.

Well she could have, but maybe she read the insult Quill threw out at her and made the decision to ignore him and the thread thereafter...and who could blame her?.

Its not complusory for women who have had sexually abusive comments aimed at them to respond is it?

Syl wrote:Well she could have, but maybe she read the insult Quill threw out at her and made the decision to ignore him and the thread thereafter...and who could blame her?.

Its not complusory for women who have had sexually abusive comments aimed at them to respond  is it?

Nope. I
I couldn’t even find a man like that attractive, if he spoke to women that way. I like a gentleman.
Swearing is one thing but insulting like a sulky, loud-mouthed teen is another. It’s way below him and I think he kinda knows it.
Like fred said: time to stop digging....

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:Well she could have, but maybe she read the insult Quill threw out at her and made the decision to ignore him and the thread thereafter...and who could blame her?.

Its not complusory for women who have had sexually abusive comments aimed at them to respond  is it?

Nope. I
I couldn’t even find a man like that attractive, if he spoke to women that way.  I like a gentleman.
Swearing is one thing but insulting like a sulky, loud-mouthed teen is another. It’s way below him and I think he kinda knows it.
Like fred said: time to stop digging....

I think HT came out as the far better person for not responding...she didnt need to anyway, it was obvious to a blind man what she meant. .
In real life if some oik spoke to a woman like I imagine the woman would at best ignore him (the better option) or whack him in the mouth with her handbag (the more satisfying option)

Fred Moletrousers wrote:There was a London street named Gropecunt Lane in the 13th century. Sounds like an interesting place to have been!

I've always taken the c-word to be derived from the ancient Norse word kunta and it is easy to imagine those sex-starved Vikings who had been tossing about (oops!) on the North Sea for weeks on end waving their choppers (oops again!) as they stormed the Northumberland coast chanting "we want kunta! We want kunta!"

  That theory is raised also by Wikipedia.  Vic and I have had this discussion two or three years ago, back on SF.  'Kunta' is also a word in Hindi.  And it is a proper noun as reflected in Kunta Kinte.

As a result of the past interest, I've researched this word. The Norse 'Kunta' comes from 'Kunda', the Oriental Great Goddess, who was the 'Great Yori' (vagina), where all life came from. (In German, this is the same origin for words like 'kin' and 'kind' as well as 'kindergarten'.) But if you believe this etymological lineage, the reference is to the birth canal (vagina), not the exterior aperture, as in present usage of the term. Moreover, it's hard to rectify this godly and revered origin with the disrepute the word has in modern English. Even your imagery of debauchery goes to lovemaking, not to child birthing. The life-giving goddess was held in highest regard.

This origin is also belied by the fact that the term 'cunt' is an actual French word, spelled the same, and meaning precisely what we expect...with rare precision.  The English spoke French up until approximately the time of Edward III (1312 - 1377).  The Normans spoke French and the Plantagenets came from Anjou and Normandy.  By contrast, the Germanic influence on the English language was from the Saxons, not Normans.  

The derivation of 'cunt' in French is the Latin cunus.  French is a Romance language, not a Germanic one.  Cunus is an anatomical term, leading to the suggestion that the negative overtones may have come from menstrual references, the same as 'bloody', a very common English negative adjectival slang, as in: "...a bloody awful song."  And the term 'cunt' was a popular one in the court of Kathrine of France, who collected poetry prolific with the word, and whom you know was the wife of Henry V Plantagenet.  The evidence seems to suggest that the term came from French, not Norse.

Of course, there may have been a coincidence of the two terms in English, leading to a reinforcement of the idea.  If so, it will only ever be hypothesis.

Hang me for forgetting to visit this thread for the past day or so. I do tend to post intermittently.

To Quill: You made yourself look like a uncouth fool and I suspect that's the real you we're seeing on here. Perhaps you can give Wetwipe some charm lessons.

I was referring to Sean Walsh. Who else would I be calling a dick?

Thanks to those who spoke up about that disgustingly sexist remark.

HoratioTarr wrote:Hang me for forgetting to visit this thread for the past day or so.   I do tend to post intermittently.  

To Quill: You made yourself look like a uncouth fool and I suspect that's the real you we're seeing on here.   Perhaps you can give Wetwipe some charm lessons.

I was referring to Sean Walsh.  Who else would I be calling a dick?

Thanks to those who spoke up about that disgustingly sexist remark.    

I really don't care what you say now.  All you have shown, in my opinion, is you have latched onto the bolt-hole escape provided by others.  I knew who you were when you declared that blacks lives don't matter, about a year ago.  To me, you are already a racist, and now just an ignorant low-life

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:Hang me for forgetting to visit this thread for the past day or so.   I do tend to post intermittently.  

To Quill: You made yourself look like a uncouth fool and I suspect that's the real you we're seeing on here.   Perhaps you can give Wetwipe some charm lessons.

I was referring to Sean Walsh.  Who else would I be calling a dick?

Thanks to those who spoke up about that disgustingly sexist remark.    

I really don't care what you say now.  All you have shown, in my opinion, is you have latched onto the bolt-hole escape provided by others.  I knew who you were when you declared that blacks lives don't matter, about a year ago.  To me, you are already a racist, and now just an ignorant low-life

I never said black lives don't matter. I said on that thread that all lives matter. You're twisting the truth, I wonder why? You don't know me at all. In fact, I think right now you don't know how to extricate yourself from that vile rant, which has offended all the women on this forum... so choose to go on the offensive. People on here have seen your true colours.

HT wrote:I never said black lives don't matter. I said on that thread that all lives matter.

Thus, presumably, the black genocide carried on by American police is of negligible interest to you.  I get it, and I got it before.  You don't care.  You are a racist.

That's what I know.

Quill give it up. its been explained it wasn't you, its been explained that the kind of language you used to HT is not acceptable, that its not in the same league as the term HT used. its been explained that the women on here found it unacceptable, personally I had to read the whole first part a few times I couldn't get that you thought it was you and your reply certainly shocked me, for the term you used and the vehemence of your reply. You were mistaken in the first part, get over it and you remain wrong in your continuing reactions. I hate to think that you are so bull headed at work if you get the wrong end of the stick, as we all do from time to time.

Vintage wrote:Quill give it up.

I'm just responding to the bullshit given off by you guys.  Am I going to let y'all get away with it?  No, of curse not.  But, if you've heard enough then stop with the bullshit from the Conservative Woman's Caucus.

Typical of conservatives, you start all this trouble, then you try to push it off on the other side.  With your elitist presumptions, you think the plebeians are too dumb to get your game! As you say, give it up.

Quill, go and lie down, Nurse will be along with your Med's shortly

nicko wrote:Quill, go and lie down,   Nurse will be along with your Med's shortly

  You've been occupying her time too much, nicko.  Word is, you like it when she changes your nappies.  

That was funny Quill, got any more ?

Would it be provocative to point out that in this thread Quill actually has been a bigger dick than Sean Walsh?

Original Quill wrote:

Vintage wrote:Quill give it up.

I'm just responding to the bullshit given off by you guys.  Am I going to let y'all get away with it?  No, of curse not.  But, if you've heard enough then stop with the bullshit from the Conservative Woman's Caucus.

Typical of conservatives, you start all this trouble, then you try to push it off on the other side.  With your elitist presumptions, you think the plebeians are too dumb to get your game!  As you say, give it up.

r

It’s not just the “conservatives” on here who think you’re wrong - indeed, the main RW’ers you always refer to haven’t even commented - it’s everyone, who thinks you’re wrong.

Everyone knows it was the guy in the OP Horatio was referring to. Otherwise she’d have quoted you and told you right to your face. Like any of us would.

Now really, admit you’re wrong, silently if you must, and let it go.

eddie wrote:It’s not just the “conservatives” on here who think you’re wrong - indeed, the main RW’ers you always refer to haven’t even commented - it’s everyone, who thinks you’re wrong.

I told you, it's the Conservative Women's Caucus, the group originally identified by Wolf.

We are all familiar with the group, and I won't bother identifying them because Wolf is always chastised for mentioning others not a part of the instant discussion.

Eds, this site has gone extreme right, and you (being one) probably don't even realize it.

eddie wrote:...it’s everyone, who thinks you’re wrong.

All members of the CWC.

eddie wrote:Everyone knows it was the guy in the OP Horatio was referring to. Otherwise she’d have quoted you and told you right to your face. Like any of us would.

I think she was referring to me directly, and so does everyone else. The excuse that it was someone else was a reconstruction of the post, which as I say was a convenient bolt-hole.

What was once just a suggestion (by you), has now become a conviction by the RW'ers...an indication that this site has gone hard tribal, as sassy suggested months ago.

eddie wrote:Now really, admit you’re wrong, silently if you must, and let it go.

Are you telling me what my opinion should be? You know that's not going to work.

You (who suggested the defense) should drop it.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Everyone knows it was the guy in the OP Horatio was referring to. Otherwise she’d have quoted you and told you right to your face. Like any of us would.

I think she was referring to me directly, and so does everyone else.  The excuse that it was someone else was a reconstruction of the post, which as I say was a convenient bolt-hole.

What was once just a suggestion (by you), has now become a conviction by the RW'ers...an indication that this site has gone hard tribal, as sassy suggested months ago.

Are you still butt hurt about this? I wasn't referring to you. If I was, I'd have quoted your post.