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

meeeeh wrote: »

This paragraph very well describes why exactly I think your critism is rubbish and just nasty digs.

I would criticize people for something they said or wrote only if I read or heard a comment myself or if there was very detailed recap of it. I guess that is the main difference between you and me. I like to know what I am talking about.

And again post part of what I said to dissolve and dilute the context.

By way of example, if one reads a report of an interview in a paper but one didn't actually hear the interview, can one not comment on said interview? You seem to suggest as much above in bold, but when I do that (as highlighted in red below, which is just one instance of when I've said such a thing BTW) and comment it's apparently not acceptable. Funny that. Double standards?

And - as you very well know - after you cried about me not listening to the item in question many moons ago I took the time to listen back to the whole show in question and then comment again having listened fully to the item in question. But even then that wasn't enough.

Re. "nasty digs"....you're the one who resorts to personal comments all the time. You have called me "cowardly" (ironic really when you refuse to answer many questions) and in the last couple of days called those who dared to criticise Ciara "bitter little men" - aimed specifically at me as it was a quoted reply to a post of mine, but also to many of the male contributors to this thread. Rather ironic again. And this considering you've repeatedly said you're ignoring me and not replying to me anymore! At least we can take you at your word on that.

You appear to have a number of MO's when it comes to being faced with a question you don't like:

• Resort to personal comments (which you have frequently done)
• Attempt to deflect or avoid the question completely with some sort of "I don't have an opinion on it because I didn't hear it" type comment, which you're now attempting to row back from by adding in "unless I've read about" which is fine for you but no others - "equality" :rolleyes:
• Throw out a "I'm putting you on ignore" OR "I'm not responding to you anymore" type comment as a way of avoiding the question, which you don't actually stick to
• use the deliberately misquote or partially quote tactic to misrepresent a point I've made

Not an exhaustive list btw.

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Not in denial about anything. I’ve repeatedly - and clearly have to again - said:
(A) that I don’t listen to the show out of choice
(B) yes, I have caught snippets/segments of the show in public places - I didn’t realise you can only comment on the show if you’re at home or at work? :rolleyes:
(C) I have - out of choice, freely and voluntarily - listened to the show or parts of the show both live and on the listen back feature. I have posted re. that show’s content concurrent to the live broadcast or at the time of listening back. I once dared to comment on a segment of the show without hearing it but having read the entire day’s posts on the content of said show and was castigated by a certain poster for doing so. To appease her, I listened back to the show but unsure without checking if I revised my opinion. Apparently you’re not allowed have an opinion on anything these days unless you heard or saw the show in question no matter how widely reported the contents of said show are in other media/social media outlets.

You seem to be insinuating or implying that I’m listening and pretending not to be? I assure you I’m not. If I were, my post count (a fascination for some apparently) would likely be considerably higher. I often go days and indeed weeks without commenting on it here; if I were a daily listener I’d be commenting daily as I’m sure she would give me plenty of material to comment on.

I could give more examples, but I'm off to walk my dogs. I use this time to listen to podcasts mainly, but who knows, I may listen back to one of Ciara's shows today. Genuine question: is there any show in particular from the past week I should listen to/any you'd recommend? I'm asking as I'm always willing to give anyone a chance to change my opinion of them.

meeeeh wrote: »

Christ this post actually seems slightly obsessive. I have no intention of changing any opinions.

Entirely predictable response. I didn’t ask you to change any opinion btw, not once, ever.

But nice personal attack and comment once again.

meeeeh wrote: »

Uncharted wrote: »

Wow. You surprise us.

I have a rule that anyone mentioning feminists, snowflakes, mansplaining and similar nonsense is in an idiot. They will state the same nonsense anyway: hating men, what about bin men... The more intelligent ones will mention that teaching profession is dominated by women but you can guess with about 90% accuracy what will be in a text mentioning feminists. So you can just skip reading and state that there are loads of them.

does not compute
error .exe

well called caller car crash joe duffy rage from her here

pathetic she is been wupped