Guess that explains your ridiculously low number of likes
Glory pardon?
- Thread starter Eireleeds1
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
I blame the sassenachs for that!Guess that explains your ridiculously low number of likes
Genuine question...
Do you ever for one second forget that you're scottish ?
I mean obviously when you open your mouth and release those dulcet tones it's a constant reminder but what about at other times ?
I've given LL loads of likes.I was just amazed to find LL had as high as 35%
Judge each post on it's merits is my mantra.
Of course if there was a way of giving demerits
Also in those days there was a dislike option, so when we visited other teams’ boards like Norwich, Hull, Leicester you could pick up as many as 25 dislikes in one day
Always proud of the privilege.
Pity you can't try it to see what I mean.
Even surpasses having a huge dick. Don't get me wrong, it's great - but my knees can't take the constant impact injuries these days.
I know I'm the chief flouncer round these parts but honestly they don't all come round to mine to discuss our big girls blouses.
Hopefully he's well given present circumstances.
Let me lay out my Glory thoughts, being one of the more regular combatants.
First of all, just to be clear, I've always liked Steve, still do, & expect to in the future.
Second, I used to like Glory, but the online deterioration of our relationship continued right up to the end. I now believe that his various serious illnesses played a part in this unsavoury deterioration, and I believe this should be a readily accepted, majorly important mitigation.
Should Glory be allowed back? I personally have no problem with this in principle, and was encouraged to hear that he intends to re-invent himself. Most welcome, but hope he doesn't become as boring as me!
I realise that there are a number of opponents to his return, but even murderers, *****philes, rapists etc. get out on licence, parole, or simple end of sentence. Surely Glory can be afforded that consideration? OK, put him on probation with the sword of Damocles over his head if you must, but don't block him for ever when there is important mitigation to take into consideration. Some of us have unfortunately been forced to face our own mortality, & I do not wish it on the majority on here who haven't. It's quite something & affects us all differently, has us reacting in many different ways, and none of it which you'd wish on your worst enemy.
Now who makes this decision? I've not been that close to banning situations, but I believe our own mods on here have the ability to recommend a course of action to the supermods, or indeed to challenge the supermods if they disagree with their decision. Which puzzles me. Why are the mods presently asking for the opinion of the supermods? Why are they not coming to their own decision, as they normally would, and getting their decision implemented, or endorsed by the supermods? I find this most puzzling.
And just to finish off. This situation, and others before it, could all have been solved if there was a rigid punishment escalator in place. I've gone on about this before & heard nothing, so I'll leave it at that for now, other than to say that it should be in place..
First of all, just to be clear, I've always liked Steve, still do, & expect to in the future.
Second, I used to like Glory, but the online deterioration of our relationship continued right up to the end. I now believe that his various serious illnesses played a part in this unsavoury deterioration, and I believe this should be a readily accepted, majorly important mitigation.
Should Glory be allowed back? I personally have no problem with this in principle, and was encouraged to hear that he intends to re-invent himself. Most welcome, but hope he doesn't become as boring as me!
I realise that there are a number of opponents to his return, but even murderers, *****philes, rapists etc. get out on licence, parole, or simple end of sentence. Surely Glory can be afforded that consideration? OK, put him on probation with the sword of Damocles over his head if you must, but don't block him for ever when there is important mitigation to take into consideration. Some of us have unfortunately been forced to face our own mortality, & I do not wish it on the majority on here who haven't. It's quite something & affects us all differently, has us reacting in many different ways, and none of it which you'd wish on your worst enemy.
Now who makes this decision? I've not been that close to banning situations, but I believe our own mods on here have the ability to recommend a course of action to the supermods, or indeed to challenge the supermods if they disagree with their decision. Which puzzles me. Why are the mods presently asking for the opinion of the supermods? Why are they not coming to their own decision, as they normally would, and getting their decision implemented, or endorsed by the supermods? I find this most puzzling.
And just to finish off. This situation, and others before it, could all have been solved if there was a rigid punishment escalator in place. I've gone on about this before & heard nothing, so I'll leave it at that for now, other than to say that it should be in place..
Very thoughtful post WJ.Let me lay out my Glory thoughts, being one of the more regular combatants.
First of all, just to be clear, I've always liked Steve, still do, & expect to in the future.
Second, I used to like Glory, but the online deterioration of our relationship continued right up to the end. I now believe that his various serious illnesses played a part in this unsavoury deterioration, and I believe this should be a readily accepted, majorly important mitigation.
Should Glory be allowed back? I personally have no problem with this in principle, and was encouraged to hear that he intends to re-invent himself. Most welcome, but hope he doesn't become as boring as me!
I realise that there are a number of opponents to his return, but even murderers, *****philes, rapists etc. get out on licence, parole, or simple end of sentence. Surely Glory can be afforded that consideration? OK, put him on probation with the sword of Damocles over his head if you must, but don't block him for ever when there is important mitigation to take into consideration. Some of us have unfortunately been forced to face our own mortality, & I do not wish it on the majority on here who haven't. It's quite something & affects us all differently, has us reacting in many different ways, and none of it which you'd wish on your worst enemy.
Now who makes this decision? I've not been that close to banning situations, but I believe our own mods on here have the ability to recommend a course of action to the supermods, or indeed to challenge the supermods if they disagree with their decision. Which puzzles me. Why are the mods presently asking for the opinion of the supermods? Why are they not coming to their own decision, as they normally would, and getting their decision implemented, or endorsed by the supermods? I find this most puzzling.
And just to finish off. This situation, and others before it, could all have been solved if there was a rigid punishment escalator in place. I've gone on about this before & heard nothing, so I'll leave it at that for now, other than to say that it should be in place..
Have 1000 likes
anyone saying 'i hate remoaners' on the brexit thread guaranteed themselves a bag full of likes every time.
In hindsight, Glory should have been banned when Leeds60 was banned. Then they both could have been unbanned. I met Glory after his ban and at first he wasn't going to shake my hand, he did, but what pissed me off was that he was partially blaming me on his banning. He said because I called him a bully that the mods picked up on that. Bollocks he dug his own grave and he should have taken responsibility of his actions at the time. 
A Scotsman never has and never will lose their hatred of the English it’s fed into them in their mothers milk
True dat as some would say
In hindsight, Glory should have been banned when Leeds60 was banned. Then they both could have been unbanned. I met Glory after his ban and at first he wasn't going to shake my hand, he did, but what pissed me off was that he was partially blaming me on his banning. He said because I called him a bully that the mods picked up on that. Bollocks he dug his own grave and he should have taken responsibility of his actions at the time.
You should've punched his lights out.
- Status