Emotional moment TV host comes out on morning show saying he felt compelled to do so after a gay nine-year-old boy in Denver committed suicide

by HoratioTarr Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:59 am

First topic message reminder :

A host on Univision's Despierta America came out on the morning show.

Luis Sandoval decided to let his viewers know during Thursday morning's show that he was gay on national Coming Out Day.

He said he felt compelled to do so after nine-year-old Jamel Myles committed suicide in August because his classmates had been teasing him about his sexual orientation.

Sandoval said he was appalled by the harsh treatment the child's mother received in the days following his death.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6270879/Univision-host-reveals-live-tv-hes-gay-impacted-suicide-nine-year-old-boy-Denver-boy.html

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:28 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... you repeat the same lies... lies that I have gone through with you before and shown you to be wrong... but you pop up with the same shit again and again...

So when you do this now... I will just post as I did earlier...

So more copouts

by Eilzel Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:30 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... you repeat the same lies... lies that I have gone through with you before and shown you to be wrong... but you pop up with the same shit again and again...

So when you do this now... I will just post as I did earlier...

Pot. Kettle. Black.

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:33 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... you repeat the same lies... lies that I have gone through with you before and shown you to be wrong... but you pop up with the same shit again and again...

So when you do this now... I will just post as I did earlier...

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Maybe he can show the science to back his claims, I am lying

I mean neuroscience backs what I am saying

by Syl Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:44 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:With all due respect to you Quill, you happily sit back and say nothing, even positively encourage your little mate by taking his side, when he has said the crudest personal things to people, especially the women on the forum.

Fred is right, WW seldom posts without hurling insults and lies out about others.......thats why the doughnut is more often than not ignored by some on here.

Gd. morning Syl (6 am here). Wolf was not abusive here, and that is the point.

We don't advance the cause of civility, when we bang on people because of reputation or 'other posts'. Wolf made a simple point, quite appropriate in it's own right. That's what I meant about the doughnut metaphor: look at the substance, and not at the air in between. When someone makes a valid point, don't immediately go to your perceived reputation of him.

Don't you see that this continues the animosity and antagonisms, without advancing any point at all. Give the spark of life, however small, to the possibility that we can all be friendly toward one another.

Afternoon Quill....its 2.40pm here.
You will have heard the fable about the boy who cried Wolf? (no pun intended) he made so many false claims that when he really needed help no one even bothered to listen.
Well I feel like that about someone who constantly trolls, abuses and lies, I dont bother to read....so on the rare occasion a worthwhile point is made....it gets ignored.

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:50 pm

Oh and just to add to my point on neuroscience

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jun/16/neuroscience.psychology

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=5176835&page=1

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cross-cultural-evidence-for-the-genetics-of-homosexuality/

Which would help explain why a number of people growing up, are confused on their sexulaity and gender. Some clearly have gender dysphoria. Whilst the majority are simple gay. The facts show this to be true, where 60-90% who whilst growing up. Claim to have gender dysphoria. End up growing out of this and the majority end up realising they are simple gay. Many go through such anxiety, as many would, not understanding the way they feel towards the same sex or their own bodies.

More and more neuroscience is helping people understand how the brains functions with attractions.

This is why i am so annoyed with some on the left promoting and brainwashing some kids who are confused. To wrongly believe they are Transgender. When in reality they are simple gay and thus not having the support they should be getting. For what they are going through, where they are feeling confused through the earliest of ages. Through then to puberty.

Hence, support should be given based neutrally, until that individual grows up and is clear as to whether they come to understand they are indeed gay or that they do have gender dysphoria.

Hence I am not lying Tommy. Its simple a case, you have no idea what you are talking about.

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:37 pm

If you do something for long enough, the brain will change accordingly... for example, black taxi drivers in London have been shown to have developed unusually large hippocampus areas of the brain...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/677048.stm

And you forget that the whole purpose of biological attraction is physically designed to be of male/female attraction... hard wired in normal people... anything else is abnormal.

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:39 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:If you do something for long enough, the brain will change accordingly... for example, black taxi drivers in London have been shown to have developed unusually large hippocampus areas of the brain...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/677048.stm

And you forget that the whole purpose of biological attraction is physically designed to be of male/female attraction... hard wired in normal people... anything else is abnormal.

What has that got to do with homosexuality from birth?

Your example shows ulterior applications to effect people later in life on a given job role

Hence not even the same ball park. hence you are utterly clueless on this Tommy

Sorry you say the design?

What design?

Who designed it?

So in other words, you are simple posting up gibberish

You need to first propose how something is designed.

If as seen, homosexuality is also designed within the brain, where does that leave your argument?

by Original Quill Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:42 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Gd. morning Syl (6 am here). Wolf was not abusive here, and that is the point.

We don't advance the cause of civility, when we bang on people because of reputation or 'other posts'. Wolf made a simple point, quite appropriate in it's own right. That's what I meant about the doughnut metaphor: look at the substance, and not at the air in between. When someone makes a valid point, don't immediately go to your perceived reputation of him.

Don't you see that this continues the animosity and antagonisms, without advancing any point at all. Give the spark of life, however small, to the possibility that we can all be friendly toward one another.

Afternoon Quill....its 2.40pm here.
You will have heard the fable about the boy who cried Wolf? (no pun intended) he made so many false claims that when he really needed help no one even bothered to listen.
Well I feel like that about someone who constantly trolls, abuses and lies, I dont bother to read....so on the rare occasion a worthwhile point is made....it gets ignored.

Yes, and the fable of the little boy who called 'wolf' was intended to teach exactly what I am saying.

That fable is normally invoked to admonish to little boy, who all too frequently sends out alarms that wear the villagers numb with anxiety. But, note, it is also a caution to the villagers who don't take each occasion on it's own merits. That is my message.

by Syl Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:03 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

Afternoon Quill....its 2.40pm here.
You will have heard the fable about the boy who cried Wolf? (no pun intended) he made so many false claims that when he really needed help no one even bothered to listen.
Well I feel like that about someone who constantly trolls, abuses and lies, I dont bother to read....so on the rare occasion a worthwhile point is made....it gets ignored.

Yes, and the fable of the little boy who called 'wolf' was intended to teach exactly what I am saying.

That fable is normally invoked to admonish to little boy, who all too frequently sends out alarms that wear the villagers numb with anxiety. But, note, it is also a caution to the villagers who don't take each occasion on it's own merits. That is my message.

I think the moral of the story is to NOT cry wolf....else it'll be you who comes off worse, simply because people dont believe what you re saying.

“The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf’”

One of Aesop's fables. A young shepherd would trick his fellow villagers by shouting for help, pretending that wolves were attacking his sheep. Several times the villagers rushed to his aid, only to find the shepherd laughing at them. One day, some wolves actually came. The shepherd cried for help, but the villagers, who had grown tired of his pranks, ignored him, and the wolves devoured his sheep."

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:07 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

Afternoon Quill....its 2.40pm here.
You will have heard the fable about the boy who cried Wolf? (no pun intended) he made so many false claims that when he really needed help no one even bothered to listen.
Well I feel like that about someone who constantly trolls, abuses and lies, I dont bother to read....so on the rare occasion a worthwhile point is made....it gets ignored.

Yes, and the fable of the little boy who called 'wolf' was intended to teach exactly what I am saying.

That fable is normally invoked to admonish to little boy, who all too frequently sends out alarms that wear the villagers numb with anxiety. But, note, it is also a caution to the villagers who don't take each occasion on it's own merits. That is my message.

Look, wolf is intelligent, he simple needs to reign in the potty mouth and abuse

I can do this, so why can he not?

When wolf wants to, he can argue very well and that is what I like

How about he does that, instead of attacks on posters?

by Original Quill Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:50 pm

Syl wrote:I think the moral of the story is to NOT cry wolf....else it'll be you who comes off worse, simply because people dont believe what you re saying.

But you completely miss the other point of the story: to not ignore the boy when he does call 'wolf', even if he's done it many times before. You do so at your own peril as it's your interests he's there to protect.

As didge says, wolf has a lot to say of content. Listen to him, and only if there's no content, should you criticize if he deserves it.

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:39 pm

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:If you do something for long enough, the brain will change accordingly... for example, black taxi drivers in London have been shown to have developed unusually large hippocampus areas of the brain...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/677048.stm

And you forget that the whole purpose of biological attraction is physically designed to be of male/female attraction... hard wired in normal people... anything else is abnormal.

What has that got to do with homosexuality from birth?

Your example shows ulterior applications to effect people later in life on a given job role

Hence not even the same ball park. hence you are utterly clueless on this Tommy

Sorry you say the design?

What design?

Who designed it?

So in other words, you are simple posting up gibberish

You need to first propose how something is designed.

If as seen, homosexuality is also designed within the brain, where does that leave your argument?

The biological structural design of the reproductive system of humans, animals & plants is undeniably that which is for the attraction and sexual interaction of male/female coupling.

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:41 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:

What has that got to do with homosexuality from birth?

Your example shows ulterior applications to effect people later in life on a given job role

Hence not even the same ball park. hence you are utterly clueless on this Tommy

Sorry you say the design?

What design?

Who designed it?

So in other words, you are simple posting up gibberish

You need to first propose how something is designed.

If as seen, homosexuality is also designed within the brain, where does that leave your argument?

The biological structural design of the reproductive system of humans, animals & plants is undeniably that which is for the attraction and sexual interaction of male/female coupling.

What design? and who designed this?

As seen neuroscience is ridululing your claims tommy

All you do is repeat the same claim and never back it up

So who is this designer?

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:55 pm

The origin of the design is not what we're discussing here... but the purpose of the design, as seen throughout all species of animal & plant life, is undeniable...!

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:57 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The origin of the design is not what we're discussing here... but the purpose of the design, as seen throughout all species of animal & plant life, is undeniable...!

Your whole view point is based on design

In other words, you are a copout

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:00 pm

The splitting hairs, that you always do, is the only real cop out here didge...

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:03 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The splitting hairs, that you always do, is the only real cop out here didge...

Oh wow, yet again, you decide to not counter my points and talk about me

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:45 pm

You are the one ignoring points... and you are trying to split hairs by trying to question the origin of the male/female biological design instead of admitting the undeniable purpose of the design that is witnessed throughout life on earth!!!

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:49 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:You are the one ignoring points... and you are trying to split hairs by trying to question the origin of the male/female biological design instead of admitting the undeniable purpose of the design that is witnessed throughout life on earth!!!

Actually I gave scientific evidence

You gave bullshit and bigoted bullshit at that

Try again

by Syl Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:53 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:I think the moral of the story is to NOT cry wolf....else it'll be you who comes off worse, simply because people dont believe what you re saying.

But you completely miss the other point of the story: to not ignore the boy when he does call 'wolf', even if he's done it many times before. You do so at your own peril as it's your interests he's there to protect.

As didge says, wolf has a lot to say of content. Listen to him, and only if there's no content, should you criticize if he deserves it.

The fable only has one message Quill....cry wolf too often and you will be ignored thereafter if you dont mend your ways....the shepherd in the story was the loser, no one else.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:26 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

But you completely miss the other point of the story: to not ignore the boy when he does call 'wolf', even if he's done it many times before. You do so at your own peril as it's your interests he's there to protect.

As didge says, wolf has a lot to say of content. Listen to him, and only if there's no content, should you criticize if he deserves it.

The fable only has one message Quill....cry wolf too often and you will be ignored thereafter if you dont mend your ways....the shepherd in the story was the loser, no one else.

The evidence is right before your eyes, and I've walked you through the logic of it. Are you Russian?

by Syl Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:57 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

The fable only has one message Quill....cry wolf too often and you will be ignored thereafter if you dont mend your ways....the shepherd in the story was the loser, no one else.

The evidence is right before your eyes, and I've walked you through the logic of it. Are you Russian?

Your logic is obviously not on kilter with mine on this matter Quill, so fraid we will have to agree to disagree...night. Cool

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:03 pm

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:You are the one ignoring points... and you are trying to split hairs by trying to question the origin of the male/female biological design instead of admitting the undeniable purpose of the design that is witnessed throughout life on earth!!!

Actually I gave scientific evidence

You gave bullshit and bigoted bullshit at that

Try again

The evidence of the natural biological purpose of sexual interaction being intentionally between male and female couples is empirical and undeniable!!!

by Guest Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:05 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:

Actually I gave scientific evidence

You gave bullshit and bigoted bullshit at that

Try again

The evidence of the natural biological purpose of sexual interaction being intentionally between male and female couples is empirical and undeniable!!!

Is it?

Is that why again you have avoided my points on neuroology?

Again I have to take it, you simple do not understand what the science does say

You simple repeat verbatim, the same load of crap

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:20 pm

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

The evidence of the natural biological purpose of sexual interaction being intentionally between male and female couples is empirical and undeniable!!!

Is it?

Is that why again you have avoided my points on neuroology?

Again I have to take it, you simple do not understand what the science does say

You simple repeat verbatim, the same load of crap

The evidence of the natural biological purpose of sexual interaction being intentionally between male and female couples is empirical and undeniable!!!

That is all there is too it!!!

by Guest Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:25 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:

Is it?

Is that why again you have avoided my points on neuroology?

Again I have to take it, you simple do not understand what the science does say

You simple repeat verbatim, the same load of crap

The evidence of the natural biological purpose of sexual interaction being intentionally between male and female couples is empirical and undeniable!!!

That is all there is too it!!!

Which shows you do not want to expand your knowledge of science through neurology

Hence you want to remain ignorant

Good luck with that mate

So another debate, where you refuse to address any single point

You are done here also

Laters

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:30 pm

Mickey mouse waffle is not science!

The evidence of the natural biological purpose of sexual interaction being intentionally between male and female couples is empirical and undeniable!!!

That is all there is too it!!!

by Ben Reilly Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:02 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Mickey mouse waffle is not science!

The evidence of the natural biological purpose of sexual interaction being intentionally between male and female couples is empirical and undeniable!!!

That is all there is too it!!!

Okay, let's just talk about male-female couples. What is natural about oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, etc. done between male-female couples?

What is natural about birth control between male-female couples?

Research actually shows that sex between male-female couples is as much about strengthening the romantic bond as it is about procreation.

And you still haven't explained bonobos Laughing

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:22 pm

What about it?

What about it?

So what?

What about it?

by Ben Reilly Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:25 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

What about it?

What about it?

So what?

What about it?

You're arguing that sex is strictly for procreation, when clearly that's not the only purpose of sex. Your argument is nonsense.

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:46 pm

I'm saying the intended attraction and interaction is undeniably male and female coupling... that is normal and natural...

by Guest Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:55 pm

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

What about it?

What about it?

So what?

What about it?

You're arguing that sex is strictly for procreation, when clearly that's not the only purpose of sex. Your argument is nonsense.

+1

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:59 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm saying the intended attraction and interaction is undeniably male and female coupling... that is normal and natural...

by Guest Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:03 pm

Didge wrote:Oh and just to add to my point on neuroscience

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jun/16/neuroscience.psychology

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=5176835&page=1

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cross-cultural-evidence-for-the-genetics-of-homosexuality/

Which would help explain why a number of people growing up, are confused on their sexulaity and gender. Some clearly have gender dysphoria. Whilst the majority are simple gay. The facts show this to be true, where 60-90% who whilst growing up. Claim to have gender dysphoria. End up growing out of this and the majority end up realising they are simple gay. Many go through such anxiety, as many would, not understanding the way they feel towards the same sex or their own bodies.

More and more neuroscience is helping people understand how the brains functions with attractions.

This is why i am so annoyed with some on the left promoting and brainwashing some kids who are confused. To wrongly believe they are Transgender. When in reality they are simple gay and thus not having the support they should be getting. For what they are going through, where they are feeling confused through the earliest of ages. Through then to puberty.

Hence, support should be given based neutrally, until that individual grows up and is clear as to whether they come to understand they are indeed gay or that they do have gender dysphoria.

Hence I am not lying Tommy. Its simple a case, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I guess tommy is too scared to understand the facts

by Eilzel Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:11 pm

Sure tommy was bitching about other people repeating themselves not long Rolling Eyes

Man must bore himself to sleep sometimes. It's his wife I feel for...

by Guest Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:30 pm

Eilzel wrote:Sure tommy was bitching about other people repeating themselves not long

Man must bore himself to sleep sometimes. It's his wife I feel for...

Unfair mate.

I can understand your frustrations and have no idea if Tommy is even married, but that is crossing a line buddy

Whatever I think of Tommy, bringing that into the debate is poor.

You would not like the reverse said to you about your partner mate and the love of your life.

by Original Quill Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:31 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The evidence is right before your eyes, and I've walked you through the logic of it. Are you Russian?
Your logic is obviously not on kilter with mine on this matter Quill, so fraid we will have to agree to disagree...night.

The point is academic now, but you don't feel the boy had any purpose for the villagers in policing for the wolf?

So, what was he doing out there? Why didn't he just come in?

by Eilzel Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:47 pm

Didge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Sure tommy was bitching about other people repeating themselves not long

Man must bore himself to sleep sometimes. It's his wife I feel for...

Unfair mate.

I can understand your frustrations and have no idea if Tommy is even married, but that is crossing a line buddy

Whatever I think of Tommy, bringing that into the debate is poor.

You would not like the reverse said to you about your partner mate and the love of your life.

At no point did I insult his wife.

by Guest Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:50 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Didge wrote:

Unfair mate.

I can understand your frustrations and have no idea if Tommy is even married, but that is crossing a line buddy

Whatever I think of Tommy, bringing that into the debate is poor.

You would not like the reverse said to you about your partner mate and the love of your life.

At no point did I insult his wife.

Why did you bring her into this?

Its unfair mate and you know it

I would say the same if this was views made on your partner

Its out of order mate

Tommy, may well have a loving wife or partner and to bring this into the equation, is crossing a line and you know it

Take your frustrations out on Tommy, not people who are not here

You know very well I am on your side of the debate here, so what you said was clearly crossing a line

You should apologise mate

by Eilzel Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:55 pm

Didge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Didge wrote:

Unfair mate.

I can understand your frustrations and have no idea if Tommy is even married, but that is crossing a line buddy

Whatever I think of Tommy, bringing that into the debate is poor.

You would not like the reverse said to you about your partner mate and the love of your life.

At no point did I insult his wife.

Why did you bring her into this?

Its unfair mate and you know it

I would say the same if this was views made on your partner

Its out of order mate

Tommy, may well have a loving wife or partner and to bring this into the equation, is crossing a line and you know it

Take your frustrations out on Tommy, not people who are not here

You know very well I am on your side of the debate here, so what you said was clearly crossing a line

You should apologise mate

You're entitled to think that way.

My insult was to emphasise how boring tommy is, added to the fact he implies is sex is strictly for having babies making him hardly an appealing choice of partner.

If I'd insulted anyone else inadvertantly, I'd apologise, and be disgusted with myself. But I don't see it that way.

So I won't. I am however sorry you see it that way.

by Guest Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:59 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Didge wrote:

Why did you bring her into this?

Its unfair mate and you know it

I would say the same if this was views made on your partner

Its out of order mate

Tommy, may well have a loving wife or partner and to bring this into the equation, is crossing a line and you know it

Take your frustrations out on Tommy, not people who are not here

You know very well I am on your side of the debate here, so what you said was clearly crossing a line

You should apologise mate

You're entitled to think that way.

My insult was to emphasise how boring tommy is, added to the fact he implies is sex is strictly for having babies making him hardly an appealing choice of partner.

If I'd insulted anyone else inadvertantly, I'd apologise, and be disgusted with myself. But I don't see it that way.

So I won't. I am however sorry you see it that way.

Wow

Sorry mate, you are being poorly stubborn

I get why you are angered at how Tommy clearly is being insulting towards you, being yourself homosexual and with his backward beliefs

I get that and understand why you would be annoyed

Again, Tommy maybe many things, but to bring up his wife, when you have no idea if or how he treates his partner/wife, is crossing a line

It makes you as bad as he is, on his views to be bigoted towards you

Seriously, grow up mate, can you not see how childish you are being here?

Tommy maybe be many things, who may well be married to someone like Dibs. Not that should even matter. She is not nasty, just fundemental in her beliefs. Which I will argue against her. Tommy's partner or wife is not here and to say you feel sorry for her, is a dig at him and you know this.

Be the better person that I know you are mate

by Syl Sat Oct 20, 2018 6:01 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:
Your logic is obviously not on kilter with mine on this matter Quill, so fraid we will have to agree to disagree...night.

The point is academic now, but you don't feel the boy had any purpose for the villagers in policing for the wolf?

So, what was he doing out there? Why didn't he just come in?

The young shepherd was fooling the villagers time and time again, in the end, when he really did need help, they had grown so tired of his games they ignored him.
That is the whole point of the story Quill.....the villagers didnt lose anything, they didnt own the sheep....the silly shepherd did and he was the loser. Twisted Evil

And obviously, given the reds Aesops fable has had in this thread.....someone doesnt agree with the moral of the story, I wonder who that could be. Razz

by Original Quill Sat Oct 20, 2018 6:19 pm

If the villagers were disinterested, why would the boy call 'wolf'? The villagers would shrug and go on with their lives.

by Syl Sat Oct 20, 2018 6:24 pm

Original Quill wrote:If the villagers were disinterested, why would the boy call 'wolf'? The villagers would shrug and go on with their lives.

They were disinterested AFTER the boy had repeatedly and falsely cried wolf.

There is another fable that says the wolf then came back and ate the boy up too......cant wait. Rolling Eyes

by Original Quill Sat Oct 20, 2018 6:27 pm

Syl wrote:They were disinterested AFTER the boy had repeatedly and falsely cried wolf.

Why would they care at anytime, if they had no interest in the sheep. Razz

Tough kid, so we don't eat lamb.

by Syl Sat Oct 20, 2018 6:39 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:They were disinterested AFTER the boy had repeatedly and falsely cried wolf.

Why would they care at anytime, if they had no interest in the sheep. Tough kid, so we don't eat lamb.

Oh go and read the full fable Quill. Laughing

by 'Wolfie Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:01 am

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:
I think the moral of the story is to NOT cry wolf....else it'll be you who comes off worse, simply because people dont believe what you re saying.

But you completely miss the other point of the story: to not ignore the boy when he does call 'wolf', even if he's done it many times before. You do so at your own peril as it's your interests he's there to protect.

As didge says, wolf has a lot to say of content. Listen to him, and only if there's no content, should you criticize if he deserves it.

I don't know what was going on with either Fred or Sly's pointless and unproked attacks against me yesterday; especially seeing how Sly's hatemongering vitriol was loaded with total bullshit throughout... I'll put Fred's usual lunacy down to his potential galloping senility..

Maybe neither of them got enough hugs when they were children ???

Considering that I haven't insulted either of those nongs for some time, perhaps they were starting to feel a bit neglected and undervalued over there..

by Guest Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:10 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
But you completely miss the other point of the story: to not ignore the boy when he does call 'wolf', even if he's done it many times before. You do so at your own peril as it's your interests he's there to protect.

As didge says, wolf has a lot to say of content. Listen to him, and only if there's no content, should you criticize if he deserves it.

I don't know what was going on with either Fred or Sly's pointless and unproked attacks against me yesterday; especially seeing how Sly's hatemongering vitriol was loaded with total bullshit throughout... I'll put Fred's usual lunacy down to his potential galloping senility..

Maybe neither of them got enough hugs when they were children ???

Considering that I haven't insulted either of those nongs for some time, perhaps they were starting to feel a bit neglected and undervalued over there..

Considering you have attacked her mate many times, that is really hypocritical. As you have certainly gone after her and poorly so, for no valid reason. She is simple being critical of when you are abusive, which at times, like me, you are. To say you have no insulted for sometime, to then actually insult her, is when you do not recognise when you do.

You are better than that, and hold you in respect. Hence there is no need, for you to attempt and poorly so, to play the victim card.

How about you both meet half way and drop the animosity towards each other

I Know Syl would do so and why I hold her in great respect, even when we both argue like cats and dogs.

So for the sake of the forum, how about, you both organise a ceasefire, with a view to having ongoing peace with each other. As there is nothing wrong with being humble

Anyway, have to go, so be the better person I know you can be and reach out and make up

Laters

by Syl Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:09 pm

Didge wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

I don't know what was going on with either Fred or Sly's pointless and unproked attacks against me yesterday; especially seeing how Sly's hatemongering vitriol was loaded with total bullshit throughout... I'll put Fred's usual lunacy down to his potential galloping senility..

Maybe neither of them got enough hugs when they were children ???

Considering that I haven't insulted either of those nongs for some time, perhaps they were starting to feel a bit neglected and undervalued over there..

Considering you have attacked her mate many times, that is really hypocritical. As you have certainly gone after her and poorly so, for no valid reason. She is simple being critical of when you are abusive, which at times, like me, you are. To say you have no insulted for sometime, to then actually insult her, is when you do not recognise when you do.

You are better than that, and hold you in respect. Hence there is no need, for you to attempt and poorly so, to play the victim card.

How about you both meet half way and drop the animosity towards each other

I Know Syl would do so and why I hold her in great respect, even when we both argue like cats and dogs.

So for the sake of the forum, how about, you both organise a ceasefire, with a view to having ongoing peace with each other. As there is nothing wrong with being humble

Anyway, have to go, so be the better person I know you can be and reach out and make up

Laters

I ignore his abuse 99% of the time Didge so no worries.

I will say this, I have tried on at least two occasions to enter into dialogue with him, asking him why from the outset he has insulted and lied about me on here...unfortunately he is a hit and run poster, he never answers a genuine request to sort out any differences, he lies low for a bit then pops up in an unrelated thread to spew more abuse....and the cycle continues.
He is the same with several posters on here, HT, Rags and Magica all get regular uncalled for abuse, if anyone bothers to answer him he plays the victim.

In short, he is a classic troll.....every forum has one, he takes the title here.

by Guest Sun Oct 21, 2018 2:24 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:

Considering you have attacked her mate many times, that is really hypocritical. As you have certainly gone after her and poorly so, for no valid reason. She is simple being critical of when you are abusive, which at times, like me, you are. To say you have no insulted for sometime, to then actually insult her, is when you do not recognise when you do.

You are better than that, and hold you in respect. Hence there is no need, for you to attempt and poorly so, to play the victim card.

How about you both meet half way and drop the animosity towards each other

I Know Syl would do so and why I hold her in great respect, even when we both argue like cats and dogs.

So for the sake of the forum, how about, you both organise a ceasefire, with a view to having ongoing peace with each other. As there is nothing wrong with being humble

Anyway, have to go, so be the better person I know you can be and reach out and make up

Laters

I ignore his abuse 99% of the time Didge so no worries.

I will say this, I have tried on at least two occasions to enter into dialogue with him, asking him why from the outset he has insulted and lied about me on here...unfortunately he is a hit and run poster, he never answers a genuine request to sort out any differences, he lies low for a bit then pops up in an unrelated thread to spew more abuse....and the cycle continues.
He is the same with several posters on here, HT, Rags and Magica all get regular uncalled for abuse, if anyone bothers to answer him he plays the victim.

In short, he is a classic troll.....every forum has one, he takes the title here.

So you are no better either then and I was wrong to think you would meet him half way

Personally, you are as bad as he came be with the above abuse

Grow up

by Sponsored content