Slarti

All the same old jokes a gin a gin and a gin.

He has played and scored 4 goals.

Well, considering posting anything constitutes going "out of your way" from something else then ... whatever. Let's take this latest example, you mentioned him, I essentially pointed out that you were attracting his attention and he thinks, due to that, I want to engage with him. I usually mention that I have him on ignore after I have received a few notifications that he has replied to my posts - some of which have nothing to do with him. This is in an attempt to get him to stop and, funnily enough, it usually works for a short while. It doesn't stop him mentioning me (and you and antrin and ...) in his rants, though. You know, the ones where everyone else that has ever disagreed with him is always wrong. As I mentioned above, it all goes back to me trying to be helpful when he was arguing the negative in a disagreement and then forgot to put the word "not" in his post and essentially posted an argument for the positive. The weird thing is that I was also arguing the negative in that thread and pointed out his error to be helpful, only to be turned into his (at that point) latest nemesis. After that, every time I was on the other side of an argument to him, I was being pedantic and/or just disagreeing because it was him. Of course, he'll try and twist it or totally deny it and it will all be my fault - you know, his usual. I really hope, for his sake, that this is just an online persona and not how he lives his life in the real world. Anyway, enough of this, not doubt he'll reply, probably with his lame 4 (or is it 5) points on "ignoring" but, unless quoted, I won't see it.

Many times folk mention me and I don't see any point in replying to it. Baz thinks that if he is mentioned then it indicates an expression of interest in engaging with him when, in reality, it means no such thing. If I mention Hitler, Jimmy Saville or Prince Andrew does that mean I want to talk to them? Fair enough, two of them are dead but I'm sure you get the point. There are also many of his posts that reference me (and that's just ones I've seen quoted, god knows how many there actually are) without me being involved anywhere. I've mentioned other posters on here without them seeing the need to reply, Baz, however always sees the need to get involved, it's like heroin to him, he's tried it once and now can't get enough. It probably annoyed him to learn that I knew he was replying to me but I wasn't engaging with him You know, this all started when I pointed out that he'd made a typo and hence made his post mean the opposite of what he meant and had been arguing previously in the thread. He couldn't even accept that he'd made a typo and proceeded to attack me and even when I quoted his post he denied it. That's how thin skinned, egotistical and argumentative he is. I was trying to be helpful but he took it as an attack. It all went downhill from then. [emoji1787] No doubt he'll reply to this and prove my point.

Vanessa Parody?

Called it. How many points do I get? To be fair, anybody could have called it. [emoji1787]

I meant just looking at it. It's just perception, obviously. When I was a little kid I thought it was a long way to walk from my mum's house into town, as I got older I thought it was just down the road and now that I'm an old c**t it seems like a long way again.

Why, when you have someone on ignore, do you still get notifications when they try to engage with you? More to the point, why, when you have someone on ignore, and they know this as you have helpfully informed them (and the whole forum) so that they don't get the impression that you're not replying because you don't have answers to their inane dribblings, do they still try and engage with you and cause these notifications? Maybe it's just one of those unanswerable questions like "why is there something instead of nothing?" It won't surprise me if I now get a notification of an answer to this by someone I have on ignore.

It does seem to have got less steep over the years. It hasn't, but it does seem that way.

Just twice more and he'll appear. [emoji1787] He said "HIGHER standards".

You?

It was definitely referred to as the rivers in the mid to late 70s, at least it was by people who didn't live there.

FFS, I didn't even mention him yet I get dragged into his post. Maybe he recognised the description. [emoji1787]

I've probably had disagreements with the majority of posters on here but there are very few that I have constant disagreements with. There are even fewer that seem to have constant disagreements with almost everyone. The way he says about others not letting things go when one of his favourite lines is "you have history" is amazing. [emoji1787]

You've forgotten that he has his own definitions for words, haven't you?

Would he not just have to name one to prove you wrong?

If it benefits SMFC a lot too, then it really doesn't really matter who it benefits MOST, does it?

Aye, but some of your other aliases claim that they do.

To be fair, I think assuming what you have is a bit of a jump. i would assume from that quote, though I may be wrong, that it is basically saying "a competent person has been appointed as GM and it isn't costing the club a penny, so a good deal for us". You shouldn't just go assuming someone's preferred pronouns these days. How many times has he complained about others "clinging to the past" etc, and then he goes and admits to doing that? Very strange. As if it's one rule for him ... Irony at its best.

And so he should.

You were also the first on here to say that it was good that God gave babies cancer, but let's not make this a competition.

Or maybe it's my lugs. [emoji16]

Just watched the first episode, didn't notice any issues with the sound.

He would if he was playing against us.

Start???