c4countdown

Jimmy Gough wrote: - Charlie posts picture of Julie's family for everyone to ridicule and laugh at. Pretty personal and hurtful; I'd be offended if people were laughing at my family.

I think if you start the discussion about who's fit to reproduce then you should start by looking at your own creations. Being the first to take offence doesn't make you right.

Jimmy Gough wrote: despite having no experience raising children on their own on benefits

Well maybe they should have put something on the end of it then?

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jimmy Gough wrote: - Charlie posts picture of Julie's family for everyone to ridicule and laugh at. Pretty personal and hurtful; I'd be offended if people were laughing at my family.

I think if you start the discussion about who's fit to reproduce then you should start by looking at your own creations. Being the first to take offence doesn't make you right.

But you probably were a bit of a cunt to post it anyway.

Matthew Green wrote:

Jimmy Gough wrote: despite having no experience raising children on their own on benefits

Well maybe they should have put something on the end of it then?

Not that I should have to answer to that, but my XH, then H, was in full time employment when all our children were born, but circumstances change. Shit happens. So now I live on benefits rather than allow myself and my children to be abused by their father. Caring for my autistic son, who also has severe learning difficulties, prevents me from working myself.

Ben Hunter wrote:

Julie T wrote:Hopefully parenthood will mellow him more than a little.

That or we'll have another Fritzl on our hands.

Rather more inflammatory than I was intending, and certainly not what I think of Matthew, but sort of thanks for the support, Ben, possibly!

Matthew Green wrote:Raising fat kids is child abuse. Fact.
I may make jokes about child abusers but I've never abused a child.

Children being fat is not abuse, and if so there is a heck of a lot of it going on. At least my kids aren't forced to steal food off neighbours bird tables.
If you raise your kid(s) to make jokes about child abuse, then I would consider it to be abuse of them, and also those hurt by the comments.

Jimmy Gough wrote:So,

- Julie T makes a joke, which is maybe slightly insulting, towards Matthew Green about him having a baby. A bit inappropriate but there didn't seem to be any malice; I doubt he took any offence.
- Charlie posts picture of Julie's family for everyone to ridicule and laugh at. Pretty personal and hurtful; I'd be offended if people were laughing at my family.
- People question her parenting skillz, insinuate she's abusing her children, etc. despite having no experience raising children on their own on benefits - particularly the comments from Douglas and Dinos just seem way out of line and unnecessary.

Just seems everyone ganging up on Julie T just because she said some stupid stuff. If I was in her position I'd feel +

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jimmy Gough wrote: - Charlie posts picture of Julie's family for everyone to ridicule and laugh at. Pretty personal and hurtful; I'd be offended if people were laughing at my family.

I think if you start the discussion about who's fit to reproduce then you should start by looking at your own creations. Being the first to take offence doesn't make you right.

But you probably were a bit of a cunt to post it anyway.

Thanks, Jimmy and Gavin!

Allowing your children to be fat is abuse. If you can't see that then shame on you.

Gavin Chipper wrote:But you probably were a bit of a cunt to post it anyway.

Meh. Julie has never been above despatching personal insults at people she doesn't like. I only posted an objective fact. Glass houses, stones etc. But fair enough mate, you're entitled to not like it.

Matthew Green wrote:Allowing your children to be fat is abuse. If you can't see that then shame on you.

I suspect you might find parenthood isn't quite so easy when you actually have to do it.

Matthew Green wrote:Allowing your children to be fat is abuse. If you can't see that then shame on you.

What about giving your child a ridiculous moniker?

Congratulations Matthew - if it's your first you're in for such a great time! I'm not saccharine enough to say you'll enjoy every minute, but I'm sure you will most of 'em Hope your laydee and bump are both doing well

Can I suggest if she's a girl, you name her Lesley, after me, and if he's a boy you name him Leslie, after me?

Julie, why don't you just ask to Charlie to remove the pictures? As far as I can see you have several grounds for doing this - he's reproduced pictures you own (that he should have had no access to) without your consent, it's certainly an invasion of your son's privacy to have his picture posted on a forum he doesn't use to have his image publicly mocked (privacy invasion's complicated but the rule of thumb is 'reasonable', and I would argue this isn't), and there's always the good old "you've made your point and that's my son, now leave him alone". Just my opinion

Lesley Hines wrote:
Julie, why don't you just ask to Charlie to remove the pictures? As far as I can see you have several grounds for doing this - he's reproduced pictures you own (that he should have had no access to) without your consent, it's certainly an invasion of your son's privacy to have his picture posted on a forum he doesn't use to have his image publicly mocked (privacy invasion's complicated but the rule of thumb is 'reasonable', and I would argue this isn't), and there's always the good old "you've made your point and that's my son, now leave him alone". Just my opinion

Thanks, Lesley.

How about it, Charlie? You ignored my PM asking how you came by the photo, but as Lesley says, the fact remains that you shouldn't have had access to it, and shouldn't have reproduced it.

Removing the photo from this thread seems to me to be the least consideration I could expect under the circumstances.

Isn't it possible on facebook to go through someone else's photos via a friend you have? In fact it's possible to look through photos of people who aren't even your friend sometimes.

Remove the photo or lock the thread.
Allowing the use of other peoples family photos without permission sets a dodgy precedent.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Isn't it possible on facebook to go through someone else's photos via a friend you have? In fact it's possible to look through photos of people who aren't even your friend sometimes.

A good point, Kirk. However there are personal preferences that a Facebook member can set on their profile for general settings, or even customise for each album. You can indeed set your own albums to be viewed either by anyone, or friends of friends, friends only, specified groups only, specified friends only, or just yourself. I had mine all set to 'friends only', so Charlie should not have had access to my own albums, only pictures with me in that were on his friends' albums, such as Co events, not my family photos.

I have since set my albums and videos to be viewable by myself only, until I determine a safer option, probably 'specified friends', although that will be time consuming to set up.

Julie T wrote:Thanks, Lesley.

How about it, Charlie? You ignored my PM asking how you came by the photo, but as Lesley says, the fact remains that you shouldn't have had access to it, and shouldn't have reproduced it.

I didn't reproduce anything, it's a direct link to the photo hosted by Facebook. It is, evidently, not protected by any kind of security measures. The privacy that Facebook claims to give you is an illusion. If you choose to be Facebook friends with people who aren't actually your friends then I wouldn't be too surprised when they don't behave like friends. (PS you could easily have posted any of numerous incriminating Facebook photos of me, which would've been quite funny and also nipped this argument in the bud.)

Removing the photo from this thread seems to me to be the least consideration I could expect under the circumstances.

What circumstances? That you started this round of Let's Be Nasty and got all upset when you lost? It really puzzles me that you keep trying to start fights with people like Matt Green which, given your relative tendancies for taking offence, you can't possibly win. You could have used this topic to extend an olive branch, but instead you came out all snide, then played the victim when it didn't work out for you. Whose fault is that?

Charlie Reams wrote:

Julie T wrote:Thanks, Lesley.

How about it, Charlie? You ignored my PM asking how you came by the photo, but as Lesley says, the fact remains that you shouldn't have had access to it, and shouldn't have reproduced it.

I didn't reproduce anything, it's a direct link to the photo hosted by Facebook. It is, evidently, not protected by any kind of security measures. The privacy that Facebook claims to give you is an illusion. If you choose to be Facebook friends with people who aren't actually your friends then I wouldn't be too surprised when they don't behave like friends. (PS you could easily have posted any of numerous incriminating Facebook photos of me, which would've been quite funny and also nipped this argument in the bud.)

Removing the photo from this thread seems to me to be the least consideration I could expect under the circumstances.

What circumstances? That you started this round of Let's Be Nasty and got all upset when you lost? It really puzzles me that you keep trying to start fights with people like Matt Green which, given your relative tendancies for taking offence, you can't possibly win. You could have used this topic to extend an olive branch, but instead you came out all snide, then played the victim when it didn't work out for you. Whose fault is that?

There is no direct link to my facebook photo. And in any case, just because you manage to hack into my family photo albums, it doesn't give you the right to publish pictures of myself and my family.

I wouldn't invade your privacy by finding and posting incriminating photos of you, since I'm not that nasty. 2 wrongs don't make a right in my book, whatever warped morality you appear to live by.

I hardly think that I'm 'playing the victim' since so many forum members have come out in agreement with me, which, let's face it, for a narcissist like yourself, is what's really bugging you.

Julie T wrote:There is no direct link to my facebook photo.

I defer to your superior knowledge of the Internet.

you manage to hack into my family photo albums

lol.

I wouldn't invade your privacy by finding and posting incriminating photos of you, since I'm not that nasty. 2 wrongs don't make a right in my book, whatever warped morality you appear to live by.

I may have been kidding. Lighten up a little.

I hardly think that I'm 'playing the victim' since so many forum members have come out in agreement with me, which, let's face it, for a narcissist like yourself, is what's really bugging you.

Only your colossal stupidity and victimisation complex is really bugging me. Plenty of people including you have already decided to hate me no matter what I do or say so there's no incentive for me to even make the effort with them. That's no problem to me, it's just free licence to wind them up. I do take criticism from people like Lesley or Gevin more seriously, but in this case I still think I was reasonable. You were nasty, I posted a fact. You choose to be upset by facts. Now if you want to talk numbers, how many people think you're an atrocious tit? I don't think you want those poll results.

You started a fight, on a thread that should have been a celebration, and you lost. Maybe you should stop doing that.

So are we saying that Facebook's security is rubbish? Julie T says her photos are set to be only viewable by her and yet the picture remains. Out of interest Charlie, where on Facebook was that picture from? Julie's own profile or does someone else have that picture as well?

Charlie Reams wrote:Only your colossal stupidity and victimisation complex is really bugging me. Plenty of people including you have already decided to hate me no matter what I do or say so there's no incentive for me to even make the effort with them. That's no problem to me, it's just free licence to wind them up. I do take criticism from people like Lesley or Gevin more seriously, but in this case I still think I was reasonable. You were nasty, I posted a fact. You choose to be upset by facts. Now if you want to talk numbers, how many people think you're an atrocious tit? I don't think you want those poll results.

You started a fight, on a thread that should have been a celebration, and you lost. Maybe you should stop doing that.

It's probably a waste of the internet for lots of people to join in with other people's arguments, but I'm here now. But I didn't think Julie's comment that started all this was exactly the top end of nasty. I think sometimes you have to try and look behind the posts and I don't think Julie has tried to be that nasty in this thread, whereas one or two have probably had worse intentions in her direction (including possibly you). Julie even didn't react much initially to the picture (not publicly anyway) until other people joined in. Obviously I know that it runs deeper than just this thread but I'm not sure this has all been necessary. Also while one might disagree with some of Julie's posts and the way she's said some things, that picture comes across as a sort of punishment, which I'm not sure is the right course of action. Things are said in the heat of the moment but this is more calculated. Sometimes I think you come across as a bit cold and aloof, Charlie - sometimes I think it might be the way things come across on the internet but not all the time.

Gavin Chipper wrote:It's probably a waste of the internet for lots of people to join in with other people's arguments, but I'm here now. But I didn't think Julie's comment that started all this was exactly the top end of nasty. I think sometimes you have to try and look behind the posts and I don't think Julie has tried to be that nasty in this thread, whereas one or two have probably had worse intentions in her direction (including possibly you). Julie even didn't react much initially to the picture (not publicly anyway) until other people joined in. Obviously I know that it runs deeper than just this thread but I'm not sure this has all been necessary. Also while one might disagree with some of Julie's posts and the way she's said some things, that picture comes across as a sort of punishment, which I'm not sure is the right course of action. Things are said in the heat of the moment but this is more calculated. Sometimes I think you come across as a bit cold and aloof, Charlie - sometimes I think it might be the way things come across on the internet but not all the time.

^this, except said much more politely than would have

Gavin Chipper wrote:Sometimes I think you come across as a bit cold and aloof, Charlie - sometimes I think it might be the way things come across on the internet but not all the time.

Probably a fair comment. It's funny, I don't think anyone who (only) knows me IRL would say that, but it's different on here for all sorts of reasons. Anyway I'm done with this thread now, I think I made my point.

I'm gonna call the baby Julie.

Matthew Green wrote:I'm gonna call the baby Julie.

Is it a girl then?

Marc Meakin wrote:

Matthew Green wrote:I'm gonna call the baby Julie.

Is it a girl then?

Who, Julie Taylor?

Julie, I think Charlie implied that somebody else who is Facebook friends with you gave him the picture (maybe or maybe not in exchange for 30 silver coins)

I disagree with your nature over nurture argument, I was a fat bastard through my student days and into my twenties as I spent my free time in the pub or on the sofa with a family sized pack of doritoes. Now I run, cycle, play badminton etc and am pleased to say I'm a much healthier weight.

As others have said it's a shame a celebration thread has turned out like this, but that's the internet I suppose.

Can we all kiss and make up now?

Gavin Chipper wrote: I didn't think Julie's comment that started all this was exactly the top end of nasty.

Neither did I. I took it as a standard C4C bit of banter to be honest.

What does the moderator think? (about removing the offending photo)
Over to you Jono.

Marc Meakin wrote:What does the moderator think? (about removing the offending photo)
Over to you Jono.

That's not going to undo any offence, so it seems a bit pointless. You could always talk to Facebook, who are hosting the photo, about getting it removed if it means that much.

Lesley Hines wrote:it's certainly an invasion of your son's privacy to have his picture posted on a forum he doesn't use to have his image publicly mocked

I'm sure he'll be mortified...

Julie T wrote:And I do think that it is common sense, rather than being patronising, to infer that those of use with more age and experience, have more idea of how awful abuse is, especially those of use who have personally suffered from it.
And yes, I do mean me, and my children, at the hands of my father and their father.

I don't really think the picture is particularly the point. I assume that Charlie was as open-mouthed as I and several others at Julie's comment about it being "scary" that Matthew was reproducing, considering her own situation, and he chose to respond rather than just shake his head in disbelief. I thought the picture was actually a fairly "humorous" way of saying "not sure if serious", when he could have gone into detail.

Jon Corby wrote:I don't really think the picture is particularly the point. I assume that Charlie was as open-mouthed as I and several others at Julie's comment about it being "scary" that Matthew was reproducing, considering her own situation, and he chose to respond rather than just shake his head in disbelief. I thought the picture was actually a fairly "humorous" way of saying "not sure if serious", when he could have gone into detail.

So you think Julie was completely serious when she said Matthew reproducing was "scary" but when Charlie posted the picture it was all fun and games?
How did you manage to tell the two intentions apart?

FWIW, I thought both were fairly light-hearted, I don't see how you can infer that one was super horrible and the other all jokes.

Matt Morrison wrote:So you think Julie was completely serious when she said Matthew reproducing was "scary" but when Charlie posted the picture it was all fun and games?

No mate, I didn't say that. I didn't think Julie was being nasty (although it is well-known she doesn't like MG) and I didn't think Charlie thought the picture was "fun and games". I thought it was "nicer", or at least "less nasty" on Charlie's part than "going into detail" of why Julie perhaps shouldn't say what she did unless she wants to deal with the response.

Jon Corby wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:So you think Julie was completely serious when she said Matthew reproducing was "scary" but when Charlie posted the picture it was all fun and games?

No mate, I didn't say that. I didn't think Julie was being nasty (although it is well-known she doesn't like MG) and I didn't think Charlie thought the picture was "fun and games". I thought it was "nicer", or at least "less nasty" on Charlie's part than "going into detail" of why Julie perhaps shouldn't say what she did unless she wants to deal with the response.

Jon makes the key point here. What might appear to be normal banter is actually a little nasty when you consider that these two have had run ins before.

David O'Donnell wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:So you think Julie was completely serious when she said Matthew reproducing was "scary" but when Charlie posted the picture it was all fun and games?

No mate, I didn't say that. I didn't think Julie was being nasty (although it is well-known she doesn't like MG) and I didn't think Charlie thought the picture was "fun and games". I thought it was "nicer", or at least "less nasty" on Charlie's part than "going into detail" of why Julie perhaps shouldn't say what she did unless she wants to deal with the response.

Jon makes the key point here. What might appear to be normal banter is actually a little nasty when you consider that these two have had run ins before.

Maybe someone should bump the Josef Fritzel thread.
Oh its locked.

David O'Donnell wrote:Jon makes the key point here. What might appear to be normal banter is actually a little nasty when you consider that these two have had run ins before.

I'm not even sure it's that really mate. I don't think Julie was making a nasty comment, I just think she made a stupid one given that it provided easy ammo - I certainly couldn't read it without thinking "Are you serious?" It's certainly no secret that she doesn't like MG or Charlie, so I'm surprised why people think they shouldn't respond to such a statement.

Cool Jon. Was just surprised that anyone could be "open-mouthed" at Julie's comment as I thought it was pretty tame. But of course, as others have pointed out, there's clearly shit loads of history floating around behind the scenes in several directions that most of us don't know about, so I'm just happy to defer judgement to more informed parties. That and just assume everyone's been misunderstood cos I'm a big softy.

I thought Julie's comment was clearly joking, but I didn't laugh. I thought Charlie's picture was mean, and I did laugh. Moralise that one haha.

Matt Morrison wrote:Cool Jon. Was just surprised that anyone could be "open-mouthed" at Julie's comment as I thought it was pretty tame.

Ah - I think what you might be misinterpreting is I meant being "open-mouthed" in a "pot/kettle" sense, rather than "OMG she is being mean".

Jon Corby wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Cool Jon. Was just surprised that anyone could be "open-mouthed" at Julie's comment as I thought it was pretty tame.

Ah - I think what you might be misinterpreting is being "open-mouthed" in a "pot/kettle" sense, rather than "OMG she is being mean".

Yeah yeah I got that now, just explaining my own open-mouthedness from your comment haha. I'd like to see Matt Julie and Charlie locked naked together in a room. By "see" I obviously mean "not see but hear about". Issues would get solved in that room.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Cool Jon. Was just surprised that anyone could be "open-mouthed" at Julie's comment as I thought it was pretty tame.

Ah - I think what you might be misinterpreting is being "open-mouthed" in a "pot/kettle" sense, rather than "OMG she is being mean".

Yeah yeah I got that now, just explaining my own open-mouthedness from your comment haha. I'd like to see Matt Julie and Charlie locked naked together in a room. By "see" I obviously mean "not see but hear about". Issues would get solved in that room.

I doubt it. Besides I don't see why we should pursue consensus as something desirable. It's a lot more healthy just to let people fight it out and sometimes they'll meet in the middle or be driven farther apart. At the end of the day it's a nerdy Countdown website and if someone here can get under your skin and affect you emotionally then ... really ... there is very little chance you're going make it: pick a tall building with a very short ledge.

Yeah, I really don't care. Hilarious controversy on this forum tends to far outweigh painful controversy. I just wanted an excuse to think about some people naked in a room for a while. It didn't even have to be Charlie Matt and Julie, they were just to hand.

Matt Morrison wrote: It didn't even have to be Charlie Matt and Julie, they were just to hand.

Just to hand? I bet they were.

Matt Morrison wrote:Yeah, I really don't care. Hilarious controversy on this forum tends to far outweigh painful controversy. I just wanted an excuse to think about some people naked in a room for a while. It didn't even have to be Charlie Matt and Julie, they were just to hand.

LOL, fair enough.

Just been reading the Fritzel thread, I think I understand the history of JT,CR and MG now.
BTW whatever happened to Alice Moore.

Marc Meakin wrote: BTW whatever happened to Alice Moore.

She flew the nest.

Matt Morrison wrote:I'd like to see Matt Julie and Charlie locked naked together in a room.

Hello, and welcome to Divided!

I thought the whole thing was very funny. More. More. MORE!!!!!

Just read this whole thread from top to bottom for the first time. Comedy genius throughout.

Charlie Reams..........you're now officially my hero.

I'd like to see Damian and Charlie in an anti-gravity chamber, rotating so that they can constantly look up to each other. Naked.

Matt Morrison wrote:I'd like to see Damian and Charlie in an anti-gravity chamber, rotating so that they can constantly look up to each other. Naked.

Presumably you'll be strapped down to the bottom of the chamber, allowing us both to pebbledash you with our bowel movements.

D Eadie wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:I'd like to see Damian and Charlie in an anti-gravity chamber, rotating so that they can constantly look up to each other. Naked.

Presumably you'll be strapped down to the bottom of the chamber, allowing us both to pebbledash you with our bowel movements.

Have you been hacking into my browser history?

Matt Morrison wrote:

D Eadie wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:I'd like to see Damian and Charlie in an anti-gravity chamber, rotating so that they can constantly look up to each other. Naked.

Presumably you'll be strapped down to the bottom of the chamber, allowing us both to pebbledash you with our bowel movements.

Have you been hacking into my browser history?

So that's where the expression 'being shat on from a great height' comes from.

Matt Morrison wrote:

D Eadie wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:I'd like to see Damian and Charlie in an anti-gravity chamber, rotating so that they can constantly look up to each other. Naked.

Presumably you'll be strapped down to the bottom of the chamber, allowing us both to pebbledash you with our bowel movements.

Have you been hacking into my browser history?

FWIW I didn't find Julie's original comment even slightly offensive. If anything it came across as a 'let's forget our previous arguments and gently joke with each other from now on instead' type of post.

But being the sick fuck I am, I found Charlie's reply utterly hilarious and especially offensive. And the conversations about fat kids that followed is something i feel very strongly about and has refuelled my dislike of JT Wayne Bridge-style. Would it be ok to let a young dependant child smoke, drink or take drugs? But its ok for them to overeat to the point of having almost inevitable health problems in later-life? It is child abuse and it is serious.

But as DOD rightly put, its a geek forum and if you are genuinely care what a bunch of countdown fanatics think about you then you are well and truly fucked.

How serious, Matthew? Compared with Fritzl, say - worse, not so bad, or about the same?

Anyway Matthew, best of luck with fatherhood. I can almost see you now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKGuh44_LBc

Fritzl's kids might be bitter but at least they're not fat.

Ruben sounds like a great name.......

Dearie me.
I fear the standard of debate is above my head.
Oh dearie me.

David Roe wrote:How serious, Matthew? Compared with Fritzl, say - worse, not so bad, or about the same?

Worse. I genuinely don't feel that what Fritzl did was that bad.

Hey, don't knock fat kids.
They may need a personal trainer one day.

David O'Donnell wrote:At the end of the day it's a nerdy Countdown website and if someone here can get under your skin and affect you emotionally then ... really ... there is very little chance you're going make it: pick a tall building with a very short ledge.

But sometimes people on that ledge make it back to tell the tale.