Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly [Mod warning post #1]

hotmail.com

Pat Mustard wrote:

Would it be fair to say that about 80 percent of men have been convicted of murder, do you think? I presume that the remaining 20% simply haven't been convicted yet and these account for the #notallmen.

Pat Mustard wrote:

The mortality rate in this country must be comparable to the trenches in WWI.

I would say it's close to 95% of killers are men. It's just stating the obvious.

Kevtherev1

Rennaws wrote: »

It's a thread about her show. She's a public figure. No-one forced her to take it on. You take the rough with the smooth..

The manner in which Ciara went about getting that position was both sneaky and underhanded. People don't forget things like that. I suspect she'll never regain the respect she lost with a large cohort of people because of the way she went about it at the time.

Last weeks anti male diatribe however was not just an appalling piece of radio, it was a new low.

Ciara attempted to make out that all men should bear some responsibility for the actions of a few of nutters. She was only short of suggesting we hang our heads in shame for not speaking up against male violence perpetrated against women.

It was an overly emotional, needlessly dramatic, illogical, irrational and nonsensical rant about men.

She made zero mention of the fact that statistically men are far more likely to be the victims of violence and violent crime then women. She also made out like women are completely defenseless victims while again ignoring the fact that domestic violence perpetrated by women, against men, has increased significantly in recent years, or at least the reporting of it has. Over 5000 reported cases in 2016.

I think she believes she's some kind of shock jock but her constant fake overly enthusiastic intonation and completely biased and often misinformed opinion combined with her arrogant style of presenting and total lack of experience all make the show sound, to me anyway, like really bad amateur radio.

I don't know what's happened to Newstalk. They used to be my go to station. I rarely turn the radio on now. I just use the listen back feature when I hear of something interesting which is usually on here.

Great post that perfectly sums up her presentation. The fundamental flaw of the female gender is they are far too overly emotional (emotions clouding judgement) and irrational (more emotions overriding logic)

The more western society panders to these emotional teenage children in a so called adult body the more they damage society. Scholers have warned for centuries to keep woman in check or they will destroy your society, private company or country with their constant emotional tantrums, sense of entitlement and irrational childish behavior. It seems to be too late ireland has been indoctrinated into this progressive hard left social justice worrier mentality via all the feminists in the school system and there is nobody shouting stop.

Ciara kelly is a perfect example of these kind of fundamentalist feminist children that we see marching in mobs on the streets screaming and shouting like entitled children in a tantrum, saying they are oppressed. They are not they are childish emotional bigots who want to suppress society all opinions and men who wont subscribe to their hard leftist toxic ideology.

Grolschevik

^^^^
Aaaand, that's why I've taken to mentally referring to this forum as the 'emery board'.

('MRA board', geddit?)

Seriously, that's some fücked up worldview right there...

Tell me how

Kevtherev1 wrote:

Great post that perfectly sums up her presentation. The fundamental flaw of the female gender is they are far too overly emotional (emotions clouding judgement) and irrational (more emotions overriding logic)

Ha ha.

MGTOW territory.

DickSwiveller

Tell me how wrote: »

Ha ha.

MGTOW territory.

He's right, though

Grolschevik

Tell me how wrote: »

Ha ha.

MGTOW territory.

Borderline Incel territory, I'd say.

Grolschevik

DickSwiveller wrote: »

He's right, though

So you agree with "keep woman in check or they will destroy your society, private company or country with their constant emotional tantrums, sense of entitlement and irrational childish behavior"?

Ok. If so, I can discount as irrational anything I ever see you post on Boards.

DickSwiveller

Grolschevik wrote: »

So you agree with "keep woman in check or they will destroy your society, private company or country with their constant emotional tantrums, sense of entitlement and irrational childish behavior"?

Ok. If so, I can discount as irrational anything I ever see you post on Boards.

No the part he quoted.

Grolschevik

DickSwiveller wrote: »

No the part he quoted.

The post by Rennaws from two days ago? But you liked Kev's post.

DickSwiveller

Grolschevik wrote: »

The post by Rennaws? But you liked Kev's post.

The bit Tell me How quoted.

Grolschevik

DickSwiveller wrote: »

The bit Tell me How quoted.

This bit? "The fundamental flaw of the female gender is they are far too overly emotional (emotions clouding judgement) and irrational (more emotions overriding logic)"?

Ok, so. Same thing: I can discount as irrational anything I ever see you post on Boards.

DickSwiveller

Grolschevik wrote: »

This bit? "The fundamental flaw of the female gender is they are far too overly emotional (emotions clouding judgement) and irrational (more emotions overriding logic)"?

Ok, so. Same thing: I can discount as irrational anything I ever see you post on Boards.

It's true

Grolschevik

DickSwiveller wrote: »

It's true

I discount as irrational anything I see you post on Boards.

Tell me how

I quoted that bit because it's such ludicrous BS.

And I'm a guy by the way.

meeeeh

I have to admire the tantrums and complete lack of self awareness of some here.

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

I have to admire the tantrums and complete lack of self awareness of some here.

Including your own I hope?

meeeeh

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Including your own I hope?

Do you wish to point to one or are you again just inventing stuff you haven't read/heard.

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

Do you wish to point to one or are you again just inventing stuff you haven't read/heard.

Sure, I’m walking my dogs right now but I’ll post one in particular later.

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

Do you wish to point to one or are you again just inventing stuff you haven't read/heard.

Actually your “or are you again just inventing stuff” is tantrum-like; but I’ll link the specific one later.

I’ve previously commented on your inability to (at times) post without throwing in a personal jibe, and once again you haven’t failed to disappoint. One rule for you and another for everyone else?

Tell me how

ButtersSuki wrote:

I’ve previously commented on your inability to (at times) post without throwing in a personal jibe, and once again you haven’t failed to disappoint. One rule for you and another for everyone else?

Seriously ButterSuki?

You're suggesting a poster can't post without a personal jibe.

90% of posts here are negative and directly about Ciara and her style.

And then people are butthurt when nonsense is called out?

UsedToWait

Grolschevik wrote: »

This bit? "The fundamental flaw of the female gender is they are far too overly emotional (emotions clouding judgement) and irrational (more emotions overriding logic)"?

Ok, so. Same thing: I can discount as irrational anything I ever see you post on Boards.

Clearly, you haven't seen this public information film:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

ButtersSuki

Tell me how wrote: »

Seriously ButterSuki?

You're suggesting a poster can't post without a personal jibe.

90% of posts here are negative and directly about Ciara and her style.

And then people are butthurt when nonsense is called out?

Seriously yourself!

There’s a difference in posting about the topic of the thread and posting whilst directly attacking a poster. It’s called playing the post, not the poster.

Tell me how

ButtersSuki wrote:

There’s a difference in posting about the topic of the thread and posting whilst directly attacking a poster. It’s called playing the post, not the poster.

Directly attacking a poster.

I'd say you'll survive.

meeeeh

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Seriously yourself!

There’s a difference in posting about the topic of the thread and posting whilst directly attacking a poster. It’s called playing the post, not the poster.

No it's calling you out on claims you make about programmes without actually listening to them. I am too lazy to go through your quotes but you admitted yourself to criticising stuff you actually didn't hear.

Sleeper12

Tell me how wrote:

90% of posts here are negative and directly about Ciara and her style.

90% percent of the posts seem to be more about her gender. I thought we'd gotten away from that but we were squarely back at that again

ButtersSuki

Sleeper12 wrote: »

90% percent of the posts seem to be more about her gender. I thought we'd gotten away from that but we were squarely back at that again

That's absolutely not correct. Read the posts fully and you'll see that.

I couldn't give a toss what sex she is - it's the uninformed, opinion over fact nonsense she comes out with that gets the majority of the criticism on here.

meeeeh

UsedToWait wrote: »

Clearly, you haven't seen this public information film:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

Brilliant.

UsedToWait

Sleeper12 wrote: »

90% percent of the posts seem to be more about her gender. I thought we'd gotten away from that but we were squarely back at that again

If she was Ciaran Kelly, I've a feeling the thread would tick along at a similar pace.
I've all but tuned away, but there's a couple of days I'm too busy to switch over and it's on in the background.

It's lowest common denominator Daily Mail radio - constantly rehashing the presenter's bêtes noirs, and often, it appears, completely the first thing that comes out their mouth from within their particular frame of prejudice.

Funny, she learned the exact schtick at the feet of the master of this type of radio.

Difference is, there was a fundamental likeability about the previous incumbent that is absent here.

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

No it's calling you out on claims you make about programmes without actually listening to them. I am too lazy to go through your quotes but you admitted yourself to criticising stuff you actually didn't hear.

And once again, I clarified the "incident" you refer to. I was responding to a post a poster had made about the show, and I stated I didn't hear it. I'm not sure how you fail to see that tbh?

ButtersSuki

From the Pat Kenny Thread btw, not Ciara Kelly:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057004797&page=264

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tell me how
Well, to be fair. She was only in to give intro to her show as normal. Not the sort of conversation you could make a simple comment on and leave again.

It was one time I'd like vto have seen her refer to the content of Pat's show as she started hers but she didn't say anything. I'd imagine the texts were still coming in.

I replied with:

I see where you're coming from, but if asked to give a comment she should have given one. Lord knows she's not shy about giving her opinion on plenty of things she's not been asked to comment on..........




Quote:
Originally Posted by meeeeh
She was asked why women throw bras on the stage at some concerts and why men don't throw underwear on the stage at Taylor Swift concert. She said she has no idea why men don't throw underwear... Get your pitchforks ready, it's a criminal offense not to have opinion on underwear throwing at the music gigs...

Or maybe get a life...

I replied with:

That's very different from what was suggested in the earlier post.

Also, I see once again you can't refrain from getting personal whilst defending your hero?


Quote:
Originally Posted by meeeeh
You commented on something you knew nothing about just because it was a presenter you don't like... It's not personal it's accurate.

I replied with:

Except that's not what I did, is it? Seeing as you're so keen on accuracy, I commented on the post below - nowhere in said post does it mention Taylor Swift, underwear or concerts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tell me how
Men talking about what it is like to be a man.

Ian O'Doherty, Carl Dieter, David Quinn.
Carl justifying calling women who slept with Harvey Weinstein to further their careers as skanks.

Ciara Kelly walked in to introduce her show but didn't comment at all when asked to

Most comments against what they're saying seems to be from men.



Your comment that I should "maybe get a life" is attacking the poster. Or do you disagree?