Joined: Jul 17 2015 Posts: 4682 Location: Sitting on the naughty step
Wires71 wrote:He/she cannot tolerate views they do not agree with and instead of reflecting internally about why that may be, he/she just wants to supress the view. Remember the nonsense of "the parents may be reading". He/she has their favourite targets too, I'm usually one, now it seems you are.
To be fair it is a legitimate query. If it comes from someone who knows SB well then I would be concerned, if it is a bloke (or woman) whose uncle’s dog groomers wife read it on Redvee I would be less concerned. Not asking for names, just judging whether I should be concerned or if its just a “pearl clutching” exercise.
Just my opinions unless it's a FACT, in which case it's a fact.
Joined: Apr 09 2010 Posts: 13227 Location: The Moon
Captain Hook wrote:To be fair it is a legitimate query. If it comes from someone who knows SB well then I would be concerned, if it is a bloke (or woman) whose uncle’s dog groomers wife read it on Redvee I would be less concerned. Not asking for names, just judging whether I should be concerned or if its just a “pearl clutching” exercise.
And it’s fair if it is a legitimate query, but he makes it personal. He never posts giving an opposing opinion he as a go at the poster has Wires71 said.
People are allowed to post what they want whether it be true or as you say pearl clutching. Said it once I don’t post saying it’s true unless I really do know but tbh I leave that to Abe since most trust him.
Joined: Feb 10 2012 Posts: 6051 Location: Stuck in 1982
Well every day is a school day as I've learned that "pearl clutching" is actually a thing. I must admit that when I first read it my mind boggled to the point where I actually winced whilst going into defensive cover mode thinking of possible Lineham-esque attention
Uncle Rico wrote:Well every day is a school day as I've learned that "pearl clutching" is actually a thing. I must admit that when I first read it my mind boggled to the point where I actually winced whilst going into defensive cover mode thinking of possible Lineham-esque attention
karetaker wrote:And it’s fair if it is a legitimate query, but he makes it personal. He never posts giving an opposing opinion he as a go at the poster has Wires71 said.
People are allowed to post what they want whether it be true or as you say pearl clutching. Said it once I don’t post saying it’s true unless I really do know but tbh I leave that to Abe since most trust him.
Are you & Wires71 the same person ? You do seem a bit similar & both a bit super sensitive about criticism of your views but splash it about regarding players' abilities & livelihood.
Last edited by Smiffy27 on Sat Nov 16, 2024 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Apr 09 2010 Posts: 13227 Location: The Moon
Smiffy27 wrote:Are you & Wires71 the same person ? You do seem a bit similar & both a bit super sensitive about criticism of your views but splash it about regarding players' abilities & livelihood.
Firstly no we are not and secondly who are you to talk about sensitivity. Any comment made or here you don’t like you attack the poster. Just me and Wires71 won’t let you get away with it.
Starting to feel I’m going around in circles here but if you came on and gave an opposing opinion to any post you disagreed with then fine but you don’t. And it’s obvious you don’t like it when we have a go back at you. YOU are the only poster we have this with. God help when the season starts again and we critique any players, maybe you should go lay down in a dark room for awhile.
Joined: Jun 25 2006 Posts: 14133 Location: Forum21
Smiffy27 wrote:Are you & Wires71 the same person ? You do seem a bit similar & both a bit super sensitive about criticism of your views but splash it about regarding players' abilities & livelihood.
We are the same in that we will always call out your continual attempts at supressing opinions you don't like.
This is the Warrington Wolves RL Fans forum - of course everyone is going to express personal opinions on player abilities and contract extensions (livelihoods if you will).
Criticise my views as much as you like - play the ball and not the man. But, in my opinion, the position of "don't post negatives as his mum may be reading" (yes you did urge this) is indefensible.
I just don't get this entitlement of yours (perhaps you are a millennial or Gen Z?) which gives you the impression you have the right to tell people what they can and cannot post when you are triggered. We have an Acceptable Use Policy for that which is set by the admins - not me, not Karetaker, and not you.
Joined: Jun 25 2006 Posts: 14133 Location: Forum21
Captain Hook wrote:To be fair it is a legitimate query. If it comes from someone who knows SB well then I would be concerned, if it is a bloke (or woman) whose uncle’s dog groomers wife read it on Redvee I would be less concerned. Not asking for names, just judging whether I should be concerned or if its just a “pearl clutching” exercise.
He was accusing Karetaker of deliberately spreading fake news. That's not a query, it's an accusation. Karetaker was just passing on what he heard, he never vouched for it. It's offered "as is" as a rumour and these boards are full of them.
I didn't see the agitator jumping down the throat of the author of the "Vaughan to Leigh" rumour or any of the others we get. It's a personal vendetta with him/her/them.
I didn't see the agitator jumping down the throat of the author of the "Vaughan to Leigh" rumour or any of the others we get. It's a personal vendetta with him/her/them.[/quote]
Sorry missed that one about Vaughan to Leigh or the Williams to Swinton one.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 83 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum