Of course it wasn't. However as I have said I can see how a reasonable albeit sensitive person might find it so.big baz wrote:Christ there are some precious people on here. Imagine if someone "insulted" you in the real world and not in jest on a messageboard. It was hardly homophobic abuse to us the words Gay Icon.
Please stop. I've injured my back, it hurts when I laugh. And it really hurts when I roll about on the floor in unconstrained hysterics.Stan A. Einstein wrote:Being a reasonable, adjusted human being.
Replacing Xisle from the bench by any chance?Papski wrote:Please stop. I've injured my back, it hurts when I laugh. And it really hurts when I roll about on the floor in unconstrained hysterics.Stan A. Einstein wrote:Being a reasonable, adjusted human being.
You're still not! Just saying for a friend.Stan A. Einstein wrote:Just out of interest, if I were to trawl back through your posts what percentage of them are about me? Seriously if you pm me with your address I will send you a life size colour photograph. No really, I've never been a gay icon before.xisle wrote:little point in asking anything of someone who can't remember from one day to the next which word they actually used
however i doubt many people would see categorising a group of people as having "sycophantic standards" as being positive
i would also imagine that more people would align their views closer to those you call "loyals" than with the "disloyals"
Some realism. What was it someone said about having a go at the poster and not the post? Indeed.big baz wrote:Christ there are some precious people on here. Imagine if someone "insulted" you in the real world and not in jest on a messageboard. It was hardly homophobic abuse to us the words Gay Icon.
Colchester have lost 3-0 twice since they beat us. I wonder if their players were not up for it or whether it is just how it is in league 2, sometimes players perform and sometimes they do not.neilcork68 wrote:Every team will get beaten by a better team on the day , everyone accepts that......
Every player will have 'off days' , thats the nature of the level we are at and at our level they will have more 'off days ' than the top players , hence the reason why they are playing League Two.
The worrying factor is that at least half a dozen times this season at least MF has come out with the same lines when he speaks to the press, that being , ''The team wasn't up for it today''....That is worrying, is it not ?
Why arent the team ' up for it ?' They train all week in preparation for playing the game at the weekend or in mid week if we have a game. Surely they should be 'up for it ?' If not , WHY ?
If or when we ever managed to get into the Play Offs / Top Three and hopefully get promotion I believe that the manager would want/need to keep the majority of the team that got promoted to start the next level up in the pyramid , especially us ,as our finances wouldn't allow us to sign a whole new team of 'better players'. If they are letting him down by not being 'up for it' so many times then he obviously needs to find out the cause of it or get players who are ' up for it' on match days...They had no problem raising their levels for 'glamour games' but have failed to reach the levels for the bread and butter games many times this season
As I said , every player will have bad games , but us , when we have 'bad games' , it seems to be the whole team not just individuals
It’s hard work saying anything slightly controversial these days and I find I’m roundly and often criticised for resorting in exasperation to the phrase “ f*cking snowflakes ! “. At least in the company of friends one can actually say what one thinks, if not without criticism but at least without public scorn and a witch-hunt. I’m sure I can’t remember such a McCarthyite time in my lifetime, this sort of sensitivity is in my view more than ridiculous. It reaches ludicrous proportions in “ culture appropriation “ where ( if I had any hair ) wearing dreadlocks ( which I would dearly love to do ) as a white European would be a case in question. In my pomp, imitation was the sincerest form of flattery.pembsexile wrote:Some realism. What was it someone said about having a go at the poster and not the post? Indeed.big baz wrote:Christ there are some precious people on here. Imagine if someone "insulted" you in the real world and not in jest on a messageboard. It was hardly homophobic abuse to us the words Gay Icon.
I am pretty sure that I have seen the words 'gay icon' used in the press to describe someone. Is that offensive? Perhaps that is changing. What term should we now used to describe someone who is homosexual? Bloody hell, I find I am writing defensively in case someone takes offence at the term used. What now is the correct term to describe someone who is a homosexual role model. Genuine question because if the word 'gay icon' is abusive then we had all better start using a different phrase.
More realism and it is really needed, nice one Mike.lowandhard wrote:It’s hard work saying anything slightly controversial these days and I find I’m roundly and often criticised for resorting in exasperation to the phrase “ f*cking snowflakes ! “. At least in the company of friends one can actually say what one thinks, if not without criticism but at least without public scorn and a witch-hunt. I’m sure I can’t remember such a McCarthyite time in my lifetime, this sort of sensitivity is in my view more than ridiculous. It reaches ludicrous proportions in “ culture appropriation “ where ( if I had any hair ) wearing dreadlocks ( which I would dearly love to do ) as a white European would be a case in question. In my pomp, imitation was the sincerest form of flattery.pembsexile wrote:Some realism. What was it someone said about having a go at the poster and not the post? Indeed.big baz wrote:Christ there are some precious people on here. Imagine if someone "insulted" you in the real world and not in jest on a messageboard. It was hardly homophobic abuse to us the words Gay Icon.
I am pretty sure that I have seen the words 'gay icon' used in the press to describe someone. Is that offensive? Perhaps that is changing. What term should we now used to describe someone who is homosexual? Bloody hell, I find I am writing defensively in case someone takes offence at the term used. What now is the correct term to describe someone who is a homosexual role model. Genuine question because if the word 'gay icon' is abusive then we had all better start using a different phrase.
Users browsing this forum: Coxy
