c4countdown

Gavin Chipper wrote:

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.

If you have inferred from those posts that I was affected emotionally then you are mistaken. I found your posts a little tedious and was telling you to fuck off. Also, your posts weren't directed at me particularly (or at all). It was not as if you were constructing posts with the sole purpose of upsetting my delicate mental balance and I certainly haven't given any encounter two seconds thought when I am not posting here. I suppose what I am arguing that there is a difference between saying that guy's posts are annoying and saying that guy's posts have really upset me personally. Actually, I quite like your posts these days.

David O'Donnell wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

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.

If you have inferred from those posts that I was affected emotionally then you are mistaken. I found your posts a little tedious and was telling you to fuck off. Also, your posts weren't directed at me particularly (or at all). It was not as if you were constructing posts with the sole purpose of upsetting my delicate mental balance and I certainly haven't given any encounter two seconds thought when I am not posting here. I suppose what I am arguing that there is a difference between saying that guy's posts are annoying and saying that guy's posts have really upset me personally. Actually, I quite like your posts these days.

Plus it's worth bearing in mind when reading D'oD's posts that he's almost like two different people - sometimes when he posts, he's had a little bit to drink, and there's a marked difference between these posts and the rest of his posts.






















Which are made when he's had an absolute skinful.

David O'Donnell wrote:If you have inferred from those posts that I was affected emotionally then you are mistaken. I found your posts a little tedious and was telling you to fuck off. Also, your posts weren't directed at me particularly (or at all). It was not as if you were constructing posts with the sole purpose of upsetting my delicate mental balance and I certainly haven't given any encounter two seconds thought when I am not posting here. I suppose what I am arguing that there is a difference between saying that guy's posts are annoying and saying that guy's posts have really upset me personally. Actually, I quite like your posts these days.

That's a surprise, because i have, and always will, think of him as an objectional little jerk-off.

PS - and i've not had a beer yet.

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

+1

Oliver Garner wrote:

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

+1

Don't encourage him.

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 +

I agree, I think Julie could have justified a much harsher riposte and still not deserved such comebacks!

Ian Volante wrote:
I agree, I think Julie could have justified a much harsher riposte and still not deserved such comebacks!

Get over it you fuck.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:
I agree, I think Julie could have justified a much harsher riposte and still not deserved such comebacks!

Get over it you fuck.

*sob*

*flounces*

Ian Volante wrote: *sob*

*flounces*

Heehee. I mainly posted this in the hope that some nob would get all upset and jump in to protect you against The Evil Reams, but now you spoilt all the fun. You fuck.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Ian Volante wrote: *sob*

*flounces*

Heehee. I mainly posted this in the hope that some nob would get all upset and jump in to protect you against The Evil Reams, but now you spoilt all the fun. You fuck.

lol, NO FUN ALLOWED

D Eadie wrote:That's a surprise, because i have, and always will, think of him as an objectional little jerk-off.

PS - and i've not had a beer yet.

You shouldn't be surprised that not everyone thinks the same as you. That would be fucking scary.

Marc Meakin wrote:BTW whatever happened to Alice Moore.

I lurk occasionally.*


Edit: *Is it just me, or does that sound like a cryptic crossword clue?

I lurk, occasionally (7, 3).

Alice Moore wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:BTW whatever happened to Alice Moore.

I lurk occasionally.*


Edit: *Is it just me, or does that sound like a cryptic crossword clue?

I lurk, occasionally (7, 3).

Clare Sudbery. Oh no wait, that would be (5,7).

Jon Corby wrote:

Alice Moore wrote: I lurk, occasionally (7, 3).

Clare Sudbery.

Who?

Alice Moore wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Alice Moore wrote: I lurk, occasionally (7, 3).

Clare Sudbery.

Who?

You do know the IP addresses are logged, right?

Charlie Reams wrote:

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.

(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.)

Oh yeah, that worked in the past…. Superman Sue – posted
Penguin Charlie in the CD studio – posted,
Sad Charlie Penguin on the golfcourse –Posted

Charlie “ Stop that now – it’s boring”

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.

Er.....

Sue Sanders wrote:Oh yeah, that worked in the past…. Superman Sue – posted
Penguin Charlie in the CD studio – posted,
Sad Charlie Penguin on the golfcourse –Posted

Charlie “ Stop that now – it’s boring”

I didn't recall these pictures, so I tried to find them. Searching Charlie's posts on both "boring" and "stop" yielded nothing. Then I found this, where he actually says:

Charlie Reams wrote:If you keep posting that it might start being funny.

...which is a little different, isn't it? Because, really, it never made any sense, did it? Charlie's "Super Sue" did. So...er... you posted a picture of him in a penguin suit superimposed onto somebody's lap in the Countdown audience. Then you posted it superimposed over a picture of a broken golf club (which Matt Morrison had just posted in response to the phrase "spoil sport".) It wasn't funny, made no sense, so he said so, and not in a particularly harsh way. Hey, kinda similar to your admirable treatment of mr ultraviolet, dontcha think?

Comicbook Superhero v comicbook villian. My plan was to let the penguin pop up randomly around the site (I give Harry Hill all his best ideas) but Charlie wasn't game for that. No matter though. But you have illustrated my point. Julie posting a photo of Charlie, realistically, wouldn't have resulted a chuckle and calling it quits.

How have I illustrated your point Sue? Charlie suggested that had she posted something funny of him in context, he would have laughed. He's laughed at photoshops of himself before. Yours wasn't funny, compounded by being posted 3 times without real context. And you weren't told to "stop it" because it was "boring", were you? He said he didn't think it was funny, there was no suggestion of an order to cease. He even said later when Derek suggested that it annoyed him, that you shouldn't mistake annoyance for a lack of amusement. No suggestion that you should stop, or that he was bothered.

Oh yeah, silly me...Charlie chuckling good naturedly at something his old mucker Julie, had said. I can see it now.

Personally, I agree - I don't see it either. I also don't agree with his assessment that Julie was starting a game of "let's be nasty" by posting what she did. I do, however, think what she posted was staggeringly stupid all things considered, and that Charlie's response was fucking hilarious. What was particularly naughty was that all he did was post a picture of her with her son - not a candid shot or anything, a posed photo that she'd publicised through Facebook. No caption, no photoshopping, nothing. In order to take any kind of offence or anything, you have to think that there is a point being made by it. If I'd said similar and somebody posted a picture of me & my kids, nobody would bat an eyelid. Yet somebody on your forum described it as "jumping straight to deeply offensive and personal" or something. Interesting interpretation.

So anyway, that aside - the parallel between penguin pictures (which weren't funny - at least nobody other than Derek even acknowledged their existence, and even he didn't laugh) and mr ultraviolet, and the way each was dealt with. Discuss.

(I'll help you by giving you the line "the only reason nobody laughed is because they're scared of Charlie because he's such a tyrannical dictator" to throw in. Some evidence would be useful though at some point for all these allegations. So far I've seen precisely nothing.)

Jon Corby wrote:So anyway, that aside - the parallel between penguin pictures (which weren't funny - at least nobody other than Derek even acknowledged their existence, and even he didn't laugh) and mr ultraviolet, and the way each was dealt with. Discuss.

(I'll help you by giving you the line "the only reason nobody laughed is because they're scared of Charlie because he's such a tyrannical dictator" to throw in. Some evidence would be useful though at some point for all these allegations. So far I've seen precisely nothing.)

Nothing?

Okay.