It was a genuine question. The conversation happened yesterday but you don't appear to have any recollection of it..? Hilarious of you to suggest I'm the one "dodging" and "distracting" when I've tried to steer the conversation back on track four times now and you've gone off on a tangent every single time . But fair enough, cry off in some faux outrage because you have no comeback. You've realised you're boxed into a corner so suddenly it's "the bad man said a mean thing! I'm not playing anymore!!". Absolutely pitiful.
Pitiful You've just spent a week of your life 'proving' that sexism is bad, which I and everyone else agreed with anyway. I've no idea what point it is you think you've proved, I don't think you do either ... ... you just seem content to have a hissy fit, insult people and decide you have the right to completely alter the OP's comments into a language that suits you. Well done, you've certainly put everyone in their place. I'm off to lick my wounds now, you've given me a right mauling
... except the discussion was never about whether or not sexism is bad, moreso whether is it is ingrained in football culture to the point that certain sections of the fanbase are completely oblivious to it even when it's staring them in the face. Your good self being a perfect example of said obliviousness. Is "you've spent a week of your life" supposed to be some sort of puerile insult? Have you forgotten who was involved in the other side of the discussion? (hint: it was you) "completely alter his comments" - you mean derive inferences which are completely obvious to anyone with two brain cells? Irrespective of that, once you made it clear that you are only capable of comprehending direct, literal meanings, I made allowances for the fact that you have the reading comprehension skills of a 3-year-old, and re-quoted the OP changing literally one word. You had absolutely no counter-argument, realised you'd been taking rubbish all along, and have done nothing but deflect from the discussion at hand ever since. I've now referenced my post #81 five times, in an attempt to drag this discussion back on track, and you still fail to come up with any semblance of a logical counter-argument. I wonder how you'll bury your head in the sand this time. P.S. Re my username, "stupid" has more than one meaning perhaps invest in a dictionary?
P.S. Re my username, "stupid" has more than one meaning perhaps invest in a dictionary? So what does it mean? If I said Clare Balding had a stupid face you'd be the first on here screaming hysterically that it was sexist. So, explain yourself do ...
So, once again, you've chosen to completely ignore my attempt to bring the conversation back on topic. Attempt number 6: Do you have any counter-point to my post #81? Yes or no? Ironic, for someone who has spent half the conversation claiming straightforward inferences are "putting words in someone else's mouth", that you've decided to tell me what my reaction to an imaginary scenario would be, based on nothing but the voices in you head.
You do nothing but take it off-topic and call the OP a liar ... ... the only 'inferences' are in your sad, bitter and twisted little mind. You know what you're doing and, I expect, so does everyone else. You then pretend you only ever wanted a nice happy debate. The only person you're fooling is yourself.
... none of which is on topic. Here's something which is on topic (repeated from an earlier post of mine which I have tried to drag you back to on numerous occasions): The part I find really crazy is that I literally quoted the OP word-for-word, replacing nothing except for the word "women" with "black men", and you said it was "obviously racist", whilst simultaneously claiming the original version is somehow not sexist. Incredible stuff. And please don't try the ridiculous "but they haven't played men's football!!!" argument again, see post #81 and #82 for an explanation of why that line of reasoning is nonsense.
You're calling the OP sexist when nothing he says backs you up. So you find endless ways to twist what he's said. I'm not entering into and endless hair-splitting saga.
You know you've lost the argument, and that's why, seven times now, you've dodged responding to my point on the topic. Above, you've deflected yet again. I, once again, will bring us back on topic: I quoted OP word-for-word , changing "women" for "black men", and you stated it was "obviously racist". The undeniable logical conclusion is therefore that, by extension, this must mean that the original version is "obviously sexist". You accidentally proved yourself wrong, and have spent the last 24 hours refusing to acknowledge it, and pretending it never happened. It's a bit sad, to be honest.
Fair play to you for admitting it, although I'm not sure why this couldn't have happened yesterday, haha. But nae bother
You've been accused of saying, or inferring this, in your opening post. "OP is arguing women should be allowed nowhere near football programs, purely because of their gender." If that's true I'm surprised tbh, I'd have thought you're better and fairer than that.
I'm glad I rarely get the time to watch Football Focus these day's, as I've said, even our lass was laughing at the number of women dominating Football Focus just so the bbc could tick a box.
I have also stopped watching Football Focus for exactly the same reasons......and in addition, the female Presenter (who is a lovely lass) cannot/will not pronounce the correct phonetics to form the required words she chooses to use, ie, words such as, 'free', instead of 'three', or, 'fought' instead of 'thought' and, 'wiv' / 'wiff' insttead of 'with' I recon they would clamp down on such lazy speaking, if they were asked to read the News...because kids will copy this.
Unfortunately, that wouldn't stop the laziness The BBC already employ people who can't be bothered to speak properly (and that's exactly what it is) and children, who have themselves now become parents, have been copying this for a lot of years. The biggest problem is that lazy people like this get away with it because nobody corrects them, which means that it is generally accepted (it certainly isn't accepted 'in my house' though)
Mel Brooks inadvertently explains why women, and Jonathan Pearce, make terrible football commentators ....
