Jump to content

insane bbc bias


Recommended Posts

Just now, Courtyard Bear said:

Oh looky looky the daft cunt The Fude makes a cunt of it again surprise surprise. 

Must be all that time he’s spending talk to scum that call him a H** and laugh at him behind his back. 

bad timing mate - now you've given him an easy deflection route to avoid my question.  :lol:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, govanblue said:

 

In fact no, not ok.

You go on and on (and on and on) about your journalistic credentials and your journalistic work.  I for once would like to see you show some journalistic integrity.

 

1. Will you admit that only one person (the OP)  indicated offense at the football boot story appearing in their Rangers stream

2.  Will you admit that the posts you quoted to indicate offense at the football story were not indicating offense at the football story, but were indicating general criticisms of the BBC, and that jintybear went out of her way to highlight how unoffended she was, while CB was responding to her points, and not the football boot story.

3. Will you admit that you were therefore wrong to suggest that "people" were offended, when there was only indication of one person being offended.

I'm guessing you won't because you have the integrity of an eel.

And with that Haymaker, The Fude goes down and he ain’t getting back up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, govanblue said:

 

In fact no, not ok.

You go on and on (and on and on) about your journalistic credentials and your journalistic work.  I for once would like to see you show some journalistic integrity.

 

1. Will you admit that only one person (the OP)  indicated offense at the football boot story appearing in their Rangers stream

2.  Will you admit that the posts you quoted to indicate offense at the football story were not indicating offense at the football story, but were indicating general criticisms of the BBC, and that jintybear went out of her way to highlight how unoffended she was, while CB was responding to her points, and not the football boot story.

3. Will you admit that you were therefore wrong to suggest that "people" were offended, when there was only indication of one person being offended.

I'm guessing you won't because you have the integrity of an eel.

Others post about my work and credentials far more than I do.

1. No. As others indicated by some of the other posts (including some highlighed by other posters)

2. That's certainly how they read. Why would somthing be complained about if it didn't cause offence (because there aren't any inaccuracies in the story to complain about)

3. Given there's threads on this on both RM and FF, 'people' is an accurate description.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, The Dude said:

Others post about my work and credentials far more than I do.

1. No. As others indicated by some of the other posts (including some highlighed by other posters)

2. That's certainly how they read. Why would somthing be complained about if it didn't cause offence (because there aren't any inaccuracies in the story to complain about)

3. Given there's threads on this on both RM and FF, 'people' is an accurate description.

Unbelievable.

You are a disgrace.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, govanblue said:

 

In fact no, not ok.

You go on and on (and on and on) about your journalistic credentials and your journalistic work.  I for once would like to see you show some journalistic integrity.

 

1. Will you admit that only one person (the OP)  indicated offense at the football boot story appearing in their Rangers stream

2.  Will you admit that the posts you quoted to indicate offense at the football story were not indicating offense at the football story, but were indicating general criticisms of the BBC, and that jintybear even went out of her way to highlight how unoffended she was, while CB was responding to her points, and not the football boot story.

3. Will you admit that you were therefore wrong to suggest that "people" were offended, when there was only indication of one person being offended.

I'm guessing you won't because you have the integrity of an eel.

Most of these writers have no integrity 

Good at making things up though 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Like admin paying posters on here to post?

That was my opinion, only because Gogzy gives you free rain on here. To instigate your podcasts shite including bheasts  before a thread discussing the crimes of our enemies 

It's typical of you though. Repeating old quotes and dressing it up, stuff to antagonise people. I often wonder how you would fair in a bar or a match with this sort of bravado

Not sure you would be so cocky 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I do, constantly. Hence why I've made almost 20k posts.

Aw you're upset at folk being called names? Funny people only pipe up when it's going one way but not the other.

You're telling me that staring a poll greeting about a podcast being in the BD and harping on some nonsense about 'compassion' isn't someone acting like a silly cunt? Because I do.

 

I'm not upset at folk being called names, it's  part and parcel of everyday life.

My point is, was it really called for?

My reasoning allows me to calculate the good work one member does behind the scenes against that of another member calling him a cunt  in whatever context.

This kind of reasoning allows for a second's thought before jumping in with both feet.

That second' s thought also saves you from looking like a cunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, eejay the dj said:

That was my opinion, only because Gogzy gives you free rain on here. To instigate your podcasts shite including bheasts  before a thread discussing the crimes of our enemies 

It's typical of you though. Repeating old quotes and dressing it up, stuff to antagonise people. I often wonder how you would fair in a bar or a match with this sort of bravado

Not sure you would be so cocky 

 

The irony of this post is staggering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, eejay the dj said:

That was my opinion, only because Gogzy gives you free rain on here. To instigate your podcasts shite including bheasts  before a thread discussing the crimes of our enemies 

It's typical of you though. Repeating old quotes and dressing it up, stuff to antagonise people. I often wonder how you would fair in a bar or a match with this sort of bravado

Not sure you would be so cocky 

 

I know, how terrible of a mod on a Rangers forum allowing a podcast about Rangers to be posted rather than one discussing whether Bernard Ponsonby is fond of cock or not.

I'm sure I'd fare fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bornabear said:

I'm not upset at folk being called names, it's  part and parcel of everyday life.

My point is, was it really called for?

My reasoning allows me to calculate the good work one member does behind the scenes against that of another member calling him a cunt  in whatever context.

This kind of reasoning allows for a second's thought before jumping in with both feet.

That second' s thought also saves you from looking like a cunt.

I'll point to to GovanBlues comments the other day .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 28 April 2024 11:30 Until 13:30
      0  
      St Mirren v Rangers
      The SMiSA Stadium
      Scottish Premiership
      Live on Sky Sports Main Event and Sky Sports Football
×
×
  • Create New...