The difference is that some people, HucksFM for example, can disagree without resorting to what amounts to personal abuse. There IS a difference
right, i'm really not having this ****. look at what i posted: "for someone who clearly has many years life-experience, i have to say i find 1950's comments on this thread particularly immature and ill-informed - not for the first time." this is MY opinion of what 1950 wrote. if he's insulted by it then tough - it was a comment about his posts on this thread which i found to be both of the things i said above. i didn't say 1950 IS immature or ill-informed about everything, just that those posts smacked of it. perhaps the last bit wasn't necessary but i was being nothing but truthful - it isn't the first time i've thought that about something he's posted. what's the point of writing on here if i don't say what i feel? do i have to lie just to keep a few posters happy? did 1950 give two thoughts about what my reaction might be to this post? no, of course he didn't, and nor should he. if i disagree with a post by anybody i'll tell them and if someone thinks i talk ****e then they tell me.
for example, i hate horse racing. i find it cruel and basically just a hideous sport. however, it is incredibly popular and i wouldn't make a load of **** up to make out that nobody is interested in it, or that channel 4 shouldn't show it, based on MY own personal feelings. it would be both immature and ill-informed.
I get great joy when people argue with me and I have always accepted that very often I am a minority of 1 and, as I have previously said, that is what a debating forum is all about. If you look at this thread I have disputed ' facts ' with Hucks with each of us putting forward our own strongly held point of view - wonderful. Over time you and I have had many a ding dong although, equally, we have joined forces as well many times. Even when I have seriously disagreed with you I have put forward my case forcibly BUT I cannot recall ever resorting to name calling. If I have then I apologise in advance. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me Supers - I'm used to it by now - but I think that if you look at your original post again you will agree that it was hardly a contructive arguement against my views which had been supported by others. Thank you Fenland - us old grumpies are entititled to a good rant - when you have been pissed about by the world and his mate for 68 years you are entitled to tell people what you think!!!
Yes but is that why he bats for the other side? Clever escape plan there Cliffie - until Elton came calling!!
1950, i've read through my comments five or six times now and see nothing wrong. if you can't accept that i found your comments childish and referred to them as such then fair enough, that's up to you but i did not abuse you, swear at you or call you horrible things - i gave an honest opinion of your comments and if you don't think saying things like 'do 63,000 people watch tennis excluding wimbledon?' is childish or ill-informed then fine, you're wrong but fine. i couldn't care less. i just put my feelings on the issue out there
Poor old Frankel - lived a life of luxury for 4 years - raced and won 14 times - never had a whip on him - now retired to stud to shag 300 mares a year for the rest of his life. How cruel and hideous.
i have, sorry - that is a typo - but it's still wrong! tennis is far more popular than you suggest and is growing too. wimbledon is the most prestigious event on the calendar and it's one of the few great sporting events that terrestrial television cover. the beeb should be applauded for their coverage - not told to stick it. bloody hell, i'd happily watch crown green bowls if it meant eastenders wasn't on every night. the more sport the better! that's proper drama. frankel is a lucky bastard. pretty sure he's russell brand... certainly looks like him
Again you are misquoting me. I have no complaint with BBC covering it. I would have no complaint if one channel had wall to wall coverage on it BUT both of the 2 daytime mainstream channels run during the day by the BBC is unfair. I don't know how many people watch Tennis, excluding Wimbledon, and I said that at the time. I do not think however that an estimate of less than 630K is so obviously low to justify a tag of childish. immature and ill-informed. Sorry to see that you had to hurl an insult at Frankel - he is better looking and far more talented - cue complaints from Russell Brand fans.
I couldn't give a **** that Murray won; the joy of watching self congratulatory middle class pricks, as most English tennis clubs are compromised of (in my view as someone who played tennis at a competitive level, well in Eaton Park) just makes me want to switch off the tv . Undoubtedly it was a great performance and to donate winning to a cancer charity is very commendable, just wish I was about to get the £50m endorsement package that means its simply a gesture no bigger than mine of buying the Big issue every couple of weeks. Cameron's face appearing just made me want to kick the Tv. I'm off before I start ranting.
Read the quote again more closely JWM. Frankel shagged 300 mares a year, NOT was shagged by 300 mares a year. Hope this clears it up for you mate
1950Canary - Have you considered auditioning for 'Grumpy Old Men?' You'd be an absolute star!!!! PS - I put it in a larger typeface, so it would be easier for you to read!!!
Monthly 782,500 adults (16+) play organised tennis, from the LTA's own website (http://www.lta.org.uk/News/2012/December/2012-03-12/APS-results-show-increase-in-adult-tennis-participation/) The same article says that 5.5 million adults play sport regularly so 14% of these people play tennis. 5 million people watched murray in the final of the Aussie open earlier this year, including myself (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jan/28/andy-murray-australian-open-top-gear) again significantly more than you predict watch tennis outside of the wimbledon fortnight. lastly I would add that the "Whoever England is playing" has been withdrawn several times most recently in the documentary about him where he said that the comment was meant exclusively as banter for Tim Henman who had just said he would be supporting England.
Tennis, Rugby and Cricket have always been the preserve of the Middle Classes and the Toffs! Strangely though I love Cricket and have been fortunate to have played at a very good standard eventhough I'm from a lowlife council estate. Tim Henman is the typical 'Middle Class' boy from the Shires whereas Andy Murray is the street fighter from Dunblane. I say well done to Andy Murray for realising not only his dream but the dreams of millions of Middle Class housewives.
If people don't like a particular sport, the idea is to avoid the offending thread. I can't get my head round rugby or formula 1 but respect the right of people to watch and enjoy both. (But not in my local pub ) But the only reason the Wimbledon championships are all over the BBC like a rash is because it's 'protected' as one of the "crown jewels" (?). Exclusive rights to broadcast in this country. Virtually any other tennis coverage throughout he year is on Sky/Eurosport.
