Worst thread ever

[Matt Morrison]

Note that I am definitely NOT trying to stir any shit, but has Damien E (namechecked as the only member of show staff on this forum that I know of) ever spoken here about the furore that arose surrounding Carol's wages, all the 90% pay cut allegations etc?

Apologies for not being on the ball, I just haven't been on the forum for past few months until today and I just wondered. To be honest, I very much doubt he has (or "you have" if you happen to read this Damien!) as I suppose it'd be pretty unprofessional to do so, but just wondered if any comments were made.

New presenters
Jeff Stelling is an absolutely fantastic choice, far far superior an appointment than Alex Armstrong would have been and more than capable of replacing Des (who much to my surprise I have enjoyed more and more as time has gone on).

Rachel Riley, on the other hand, will have a much harder time winning me over. Presuming there's little to choose between them in maths ability (at least Countdown-appropriate maths ability) and on-screen persona (according to the press releases) then I'm going to have to make my comparison on chauvenistic terms, ie. looks. Quite clearly Carol is far hotter, being that she is a one-of-a-kind curvy beauty, as opposed to a undeniably generic-looking young blonde.

[Jon Corby]

No Matt, Damian never mentioned anything like that on here. Not only that he's also left the forum, precisely I believe to avoid reading the kind of baseless shit you dribbled out of your arse right there about Rachel.

[Matt Morrison]

No Matt, Damian never mentioned anything like that on here. Not only that he's also left the forum, precisely I believe to avoid reading the kind of baseless shit you dribbled out of your arse right there about Rachel.

the irony of your choice of avatar is not lost on me...

[Ben Hunter]

No Matt, Damian never mentioned anything like that on here. Not only that he's also left the forum, precisely I believe to avoid reading the kind of baseless shit you dribbled out of your arse right there about Rachel.

the irony of your choice of avatar is not lost on me...

Only ironic if you believe for some weird reason that you have to be loyal to either one arithmetician or the other. I personally think it's a bit out of order (and stupid) for people to be judging Rachel before they've even see her perform.

[Charlie Reams]

I've decided this discussion is so good that it deserves its own thread.

[Matt Morrison]

Great. Now even Charlie hates me.

To my defence:

- plenty of people had already left messages (in previous thread and about the forum) that were SOLELY to say "rachel riley is fit". I'm not sure why I suddenly became a scapegoat for it when it was:
a) only a small part of my message
b) only mentioned AFTER i had already COMPLIMENTED both on their intelligence and charisma and explained it was all i had to go on (though I agree there is no need at all to judge her right now, I was merely discussing)

- bringing up Damien's leaving the forum is entirely inappropriate, at least making out that I have something to do with that when I only signed up for this forum about 2 months ago, made a few current-episode-based posts and then didn't come back here til all my posts last night

- and really, someone explain to me why it's so much worse for me to say "I think Carol is more attractive than Rachel Riley" than for Corby to say "Carol is a mother who I would like to fuck". I mean if you really want to overanalyse things to a ridiculous level as Corby seems to have done to me (when quite clearly it was a light hearted PART of my post) then isn't it a bit sick that he only finds Carol attractive specifically because she is a mother? What's wrong with her simply being a WILF (Woman I'd Like to Fuck) ? Is part of the sexual satisfaction some fetishistic desire of the motherly body, or even more worryingly is part of that sexual satisfaction derived from knowing that to have sex with her would in some way mess up the minds of her kids? Corby should at least compliment Carol on her intelligence and charisma before mentioning what he'd like to do to her. Perhaps the avatar should be photoshopped so the letters rack reads "INTELLIGENTCHARISMATICMILF" and then I'll shut up.

I mean come on.

[Phil Reynolds]

Rachel Riley, on the other hand, will have a much harder time winning me over. Presuming there's little to choose between them in maths ability (at least Countdown-appropriate maths ability)

Presume away...

and on-screen persona (according to the press releases)

Er, hold on there a moment. Where does it say in the PR that Rachel's on-screen persona is virtually indistinguishable from Carol's?

In any event, are you really saying that, when Rachel hits our screens, your appraisal of her will have nothing whatsoever to do with her personality? Yes, it sounds like a cliche. But consider this: a substantial proportion (perhaps even the majority, who knows) of Countdown's audience comprises straight women and gay men, who have no interest in either Carol or Rachel for their sexual allure. From your argument, those people will have no means whatever to base any judgment on whether they prefer one over the other. The numbers might as well be done by one of Charlie's bots.

[Jon Corby]

Great. Now even Charlie hates me.

To my defence:

- plenty of people had already left messages (in previous thread and about the forum) that were SOLELY to say "rachel riley is fit". I'm not sure why I suddenly became a scapegoat for it when it was:
a) only a small part of my message
b) only mentioned AFTER i had already COMPLIMENTED both on their intelligence and charisma and explained it was all i had to go on (though I agree there is no need at all to judge her right now, I was merely discussing)

- bringing up Damien's leaving the forum is entirely inappropriate, at least making out that I have something to do with that when I only signed up for this forum about 2 months ago, made a few current-episode-based posts and then didn't come back here til all my posts last night

- and really, someone explain to me why it's so much worse for me to say "I think Carol is more attractive than Rachel Riley" than for Corby to say "Carol is a mother who I would like to fuck". I mean if you really want to overanalyse things to a ridiculous level as Corby seems to have done to me (when quite clearly it was a light hearted PART of my post) then isn't it a bit sick that he only finds Carol attractive specifically because she is a mother? What's wrong with her simply being a WILF (Woman I'd Like to Fuck) ? Is part of the sexual satisfaction some fetishistic desire of the motherly body, or even more worryingly is part of that sexual satisfaction derived from knowing that to have sex with her would in some way mess up the minds of her kids? Corby should at least compliment Carol on her intelligence and charisma before mentioning what he'd like to do to her. Perhaps the avatar should be photoshopped so the letters rack reads "INTELLIGENTCHARISMATICMILF" and then I'll shut up.

I mean come on.

Dude, you're not doing yourself any favours here. I don't hate you and I'm sure Charlie doesn't, nor did I suggest you were in any responsible for Damian leaving the forum (anyone who posts regularly will probably know who is). Had you just said "I find Carol more attractive than Rachel" then I don't think anybody could possibly take issue with that. You didn't.

As for my avatar, that's an actual screenshot, the first four letters of the round really did come out like that one day. That's why it's funny. Over-analyse it if you want, but you'll just end up looking like a twat. Oh.

[David O'Donnell]

Good job we have steered this thread away from Corby's sexual proclivities.

Bugger. [Is this one?]

Ignore what I just typed.

[Matt Morrison]

Yup that's fair. I just have the inability to sit there and take all this crap when I know I haven't really done anything (much) wrong. Sorry if I was aggressive in my defence.

I think you can see why I took it to heart. I've just been given a barrage of abuse and ridiculed for the whole forum for no good reason.
Some people would laugh that off, but I'm not one of those dicks who goes looking for trouble on forums, I didn't mean to piss anyone off or cause any trouble, so I don't want to be treated like one. I'm sorry I have emotions.

The saddest bit of all is that i quite CLEARLY didn't mean to piss anyone off (as in my post would have to be deliberatley misinterpreted for anyone to suggest I was trying to cause as much trouble as I clearly have), yet I'm still being treated like I did.
What happened to forgiveness of an innocent mistake? I don't know how you guys roll on this forum, I guess I was wrong not to have you lot down as the sort of Internet forum type who get off on making other people look and feel like shit.

To Phil - as far as PR is concerned, I just meant that quotes had simply said Riley has great on-screen charm. One can't (and I wouldn't try) to say "this great charisma is equal to that great charisma", good personality by definition should be unique personality. I wasn't comparing charisma, just saying that apparently they ARE both charismatic. And I never once stated that I would be judging her on looks when she finally gets onto our screens. I was clearly discussing everything I had to go on AT THE MOMENT. As soon as she gets onto TV I'll have something else to go on. I don't have a problem getting sex. I don't watch Countdown for wank material so in the long term it means nothing, I could even argue I was just sticking up for the far-hotter Carol after all the "Riley is well hot" messages. And further, I think it was very clear this was my judgement. I was never at any point telling other people how to make judgements on Carol or Rachel. You're just jumping on the abuse bandwagon and making it harder for me to claw back any respect. Not helpful.

I can do NO MORE in terms of explaining myself. If you don't understand by now that I wasn't trying to do any wrong, then it's quite clear you're just trying to get at me for your own satisfaction. And if that makes me a twat for being upset by people treating me like that, then a twat I happily am.

[Jon Corby]

No worries mate. Maybe take a step back from your original post and read it as if you were that nervous 22 year old about to embark on her first TV job, or even from the point of view of a hardworking production team who have expended great effort into finding the best person to fill a difficult role. You've already pretty much dismissed her from a few stills and the words of a journalist/press release. You're as bad as Bolas telling us that Jeff will leave the job after a year, knowing virtually nothing about the man. And believe me, that's not a good place to be.

I love the show so I'll defend it when I perceive it as being under attack. I know (now) you weren't intending to attack it but unfortunately that's how it did come across. Obviously you don't have to justify yourself to me (or anyone) though, so you'd do just as well to tell me to fuck off.

[Matt Morrison]

Well I'm glad we finally got that sorted.

I was never really pissed at you, I can see why you misinterpreted me, that's why I made such an effort to sort that misinterpretation out.
Thankfully I didn't have to go through this forum and list 10 far worse, far more disrespectful Riley-based posts, but I thought at one point I might be forced to (not that I would have taken long to find them).

Charlie, on the other hand, promoting this to "Worst thread ever" for no reason other than to make me look like a prick... don't even get me started. Simply not the behaviour of a forum admin who should be looked up to.

[David O'Donnell]

So many long posts, I'll waste no time in reading them.

[Jon Corby]

So many long posts, I'll waste no time in reading them.

Exactly - keep them short and utterly pointless like this one.

Only then can the thread truly live up to its name

[Phil Reynolds]

And I never once stated that I would be judging her on looks when she finally gets onto our screens. I was clearly discussing everything I had to go on AT THE MOMENT.

Actually, Matt, it wasn't clear at all. I don't make a habit of jumping on what people say based on an ill-considered skim-reading of their words. To me, your use of the future tense in phrases like "Rachel [...] will have a much harder time winning me over" and "I'm going to have to make my comparison on chauvenistic terms, ie. looks" meant that you were talking about how you envisage appraising her once you've seen her on the show. I'm happy to accept your word that you didn't in fact mean that.

Sorry to prolong the thread. This morning I've been enjoying reading your contributions to other topics on the board, which reveal you as an interesting and rounded human being who I'd probably enjoy having a pint with. I'm a relative newcomer here too and, while the atmosphere on the board is generally friendly, I've noticed that some contributors (like Jon) seem to respond quickly and bluntly to any post that irks them. I don't think (despite the language) that he intends to start flame wars, it's just his way of expressing himself. (I'll probably get flamed myself now for being so patronising. )

[Jon Corby]

I've noticed that some contributors (like Jon) seem to respond quickly and bluntly to any post that irks them. I don't think (despite the language) that he intends to start flame wars, it's just his way of expressing himself.

I think Jono hit the nail on the head in the latest podcast actually

[David O'Donnell]

So many long posts, I'll waste no time in reading them.

Exactly - keep them short and utterly pointless like this one.

Only then can the thread truly live up to its name

Interesting that you have the most posts in the worst thread ever .

[Phil Reynolds]

I've noticed that some contributors (like Jon) seem to respond quickly and bluntly to any post that irks them. I don't think (despite the language) that he intends to start flame wars, it's just his way of expressing himself.

I think Jono hit the nail on the head in the latest podcast actually

Can you give me a time reference so I don't have to sit through the whole thing?

[Jon Corby]

I've noticed that some contributors (like Jon) seem to respond quickly and bluntly to any post that irks them. I don't think (despite the language) that he intends to start flame wars, it's just his way of expressing himself.

I think Jono hit the nail on the head in the latest podcast actually

Can you give me a time reference so I don't have to sit through the whole thing?

From about 10:20.

And, fuck off O'Donnell

(see how I cleverly combine replies into one post to avoid upping my count further )

[Jon O'Neill]

I've noticed that some contributors (like Jon) seem to respond quickly and bluntly to any post that irks them. I don't think (despite the language) that he intends to start flame wars, it's just his way of expressing himself.

I think Jono hit the nail on the head in the latest podcast actually

Can you give me a time reference so I don't have to sit through the whole thing?

[Charlie Reams]

Charlie, on the other hand, promoting this to "Worst thread ever" for no reason other than to make me look like a prick... don't even get me started. Simply not the behaviour of a forum admin who should be looked up to.

Hey, I don't expect you to look up to me, but give me a break. I figured dealing with Yet Another Whiny Post About Rachel with a splash of humour was probably better than posting Yet Another Tedious Rebuttal. But it seems you're a smart guy who was just misunderstood, so I'll lock this thread and we can all move on with our lives.