TheCat

This thread may sit dormant for a while, as the RWC is still a number of months away, but starting a thread to perhaps see ongoing discussion as we roll towards (and throughout) the tournament. My one liners on the main contenders: New Zealand: Still the top of the heap, but I think more vulnerable than they have been in a while Australia: Coached by a bully with zero technical acumen. Only a serious change in direction from recent 'strategy' can see the Wallabies advance past the Qtr Finals. South Africa: Showed some great improvement last year under new coach. If it comes together properly for them this year, some of their talent is scary good. England: Steady Eddie knows how to prepare a team for a world cup. As long as the players can handle the pressure, I see England going a long way in this tournament Wales: Will win their pool (wallabies being the other major in their pool); but as good as they have been recently, I cant see them stepping up to the next level to beat the heavyweights 3 weeks in a row to take the title. Ireland: Less than 12 months ago lauded as the best team in teh world. What the hec happengin in the 6 nations? Have they been figured out? Scotland: Much improved, but still cant see them progressing past qtrs. France: Who knows.... My fearless prediction...an England vs South Africa Final..... (NB: I am Australian, which may explain my anger above directed towards the wallabies setup)

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I passed several cars today with their engines > idling. I cannot believe how many parents park > near their children?s school and leave their > engines running. Drives me mad. Singalto...did you not know that if you're dropping off or collecting your children from school, you are allowed to ignore all road rules and do whatever the f#ck you want....."Just picking up my kids" is apparently a valid defense for any amount of rudeness,lack of consideration or law-breaking....

I will have the last word... you're probably a good person, but a non-thinking person. By targeting white, older people you've shown prejudice..... Dress it up however u want.....

You've tried and tried to avoid the truth...... Nicely done....

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Cryptic words but you're a cuuuunt....... > > > > > > We can all do that > > Nothing cryptic > > Classy response tho I like how you didnt respond to the multitude of rational responses, you chose the one pisstake...speaks volumes.....

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Sure. So let me use your logic to comment. > You're > > no doubt a classic black (I guess), woman (I > > guess)...therefore always wanting to play the > > victim and emotively tell everybody else how > they > > should be living life..... > > > > For clarity people, I think the above statement > is > > disgusting. But it applies the same logic which > pk > > used in his/her opening gambit...... > > It doesn?t follow the same logic at all > > I didn?t describe anyone as a classic white man > > I described feeling entitled to determine what is > and isn?t racist probably from a position of > little direct experience as classic white middle > aged male arrogance on the subject of racism, like > comparing what the guy who posted it on reflection > described ?utterly racist? to calling monkey nuts > monkey nuts It isn't racist becuase my guardian mates say it isnt..... Pk...you can deny as much as you like...when you say classic white (I'm guessing) middle aged > > (I'm > > > > > guessing) male (I'm guessing) arrogance, > > > > thinking > > > > > that they're best placed to tell everyone > > the > > > > > reality about racism - whilst clearly not > > > giving There's no getting around that......thats prejudiced...... Feel free to again deny it.....your a hypocrite....accept it....

Cryptic words but you're a cuuuunt....... We can all do that

You described the poster as such. Don't Try and hide from it....

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > pk Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > TheCat Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > pk Wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > malumbu Wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh I do miss the time when we could be > > more > > > > > open > > > > > > in taking the mick out of the Royals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and in being racist, presumably? > > > > > > > > > > classic white (I'm guessing) middle aged > > (I'm > > > > > guessing) male (I'm guessing) arrogance, > > > > thinking > > > > > that they're best placed to tell everyone > > the > > > > > reality about racism - whilst clearly not > > > giving > > > > a > > > > > sh*t about/ridiculing those affected > > > > > > > > > > > > WOW...and you're claiming its 'other' > people > > > who > > > > are prejudiced....????? > > > > > > > > your hypocrisy it astounding. > > > > > > there's no hypocrisy there, thanks > > > > > > A watertight reposte..... > > > > I concede to your infallible logic > > > thanks, I'm glad you concede > > I guess that you realise that there's no logic in > what you said so the logical response is indeed to > dismiss it out of hand Sure. So let me use your logic to comment. You're no doubt a classic black (I guess), woman (I guess)...therefore always wanting to play the victim and emotively tell everybody else how they should be living life..... For clarity people, I think the above statement is disgusting. But it applies the same logic which pk used in his/her opening gambit......

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > pk Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > malumbu Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > > > Oh I do miss the time when we could be more > > > open > > > > in taking the mick out of the Royals. > > > > > > > > > > > and in being racist, presumably? > > > > > > classic white (I'm guessing) middle aged (I'm > > > guessing) male (I'm guessing) arrogance, > > thinking > > > that they're best placed to tell everyone the > > > reality about racism - whilst clearly not > giving > > a > > > sh*t about/ridiculing those affected > > > > > > WOW...and you're claiming its 'other' people > who > > are prejudiced....????? > > > > your hypocrisy it astounding. > > there's no hypocrisy there, thanks A watertight reposte..... I concede to your infallible logic

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > anyway, people who trouser taxpayers' money must > accept the risks that come with that for example...like accepting that you will be mocked if you are a member of the royal family?:)

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > malumbu Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > Oh I do miss the time when we could be more > open > > in taking the mick out of the Royals. > > > > > and in being racist, presumably? > > classic white (I'm guessing) middle aged (I'm > guessing) male (I'm guessing) arrogance, thinking > that they're best placed to tell everyone the > reality about racism - whilst clearly not giving a > sh*t about/ridiculing those affected WOW...and you're claiming its 'other' people who are prejudiced....????? your hypocrisy it astounding.

Lynne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mocking a new born baby is funny? Yes...its the baby that's being mocked. Not the institution in which it was born into at all, just the baby.....who doesn't love mocking an innocent newborn.... Good grief. Talk about working hard to find the offence......

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DB has made many references of chimps dressed up > with respect to mocking 'posh people'. The > difference this time being it could be alluded as > having racial overtones because of the royal > baby's mixed raced heritage. It's unfortunate that > we've allowed what a small minority use as a > racist term to hijack how we communicate in > general, in that referencing a monkey/chimp etc > with respect to a black/mixed race person is now > unequivocally deemed as being racist. > I once bought some white friends a 'Cheeky Monkey' > t-shirt for their new born. If I do the same for > some black friends would that be seen as racist? > Should school trips to the zoo avoid looking at > the monkey enclosure for fear of being called > racist towards black/mixed race children? > Context and intent is everything, and in DB's case > IMO he wasn't being racist and therefore shouldn't > have been sacked for that reason, and I'm sure > that not foreseeing the inferred racial overtones > is a sacking offence either... This. Totally agreed. The irony is that it is often those who claim offense who are the ones to have 'recognised' the racial undertones, where the original poster was oblivious. Not always...but we've lost an ability to rationally judge within a context...nowaydays, we just react first....

Perhaps in keeping with other threads on this forum, we could add some "Dog Shite" hotspots onto this map.....surely not having feaces smeared everywhere plays a part in having 'healthy streets'.....?

Pic attached of the evidence found in his home....

There have been so many threads on this over the years. I'm at a loss as to how it can be improved. My in laws come to visit from a Sussex town with high dog ownership, and they constantly remark at the shocking amount of dog poo on the ground in dulwich. It's a public health hazard, and with so many young kids in the area as well, makes it double concerning given how they love to walk, run, put hands on ground, pick up rubbish off the floor etc I always keep an eagle eye out for dog walkers in our street, ready to give them a gobful if they let their dog 'do the dirty' and don't pick it up....but they're crafty, and while the evidence is always on display, I never see the event occur....it's like we have an army of dog poo Bansky's in the area......

Perhaps an excuse as to why TheCat has never caught one..... Pigeons are considered to be one of the most intelligent birds on the planet and able to undertake tasks previously thought to be the sole preserve of humans and primates. The pigeon has also been found to pass the ?mirror test? (being able to recognise its reflection in a mirror) and is one of only 6 species, and the only non-mammal, that has this ability. The pigeon can also recognise all 26 letters of the English language as well as being able to conceptualise. In scientific tests pigeons have been found to be able to differentiate between photographs and even differentiate between two different human beings in a photograph when rewarded with food for doing so. http://www.urbanwildlifesociety.org/UWS/GeeWhizQuizAnswers.htm

Fishbiscuitre and Siduhue...thank you both for your balanced and on-topic comments...I was beginning to lose hope for this thread:) Fully aware that 'Diversity' doesn't just mean gender, and I totally conscious that Ms Reid was referring to the various other aspects of diversity. I am indeed supportive of Womens issues/equality etc - but as with a number of virtuous causes, I sometime get frustrated with the manner in which some stakeholders attempt to achieve their goals (For example, I am a big proponent of supporting methods of tackling climate change, and it was actually my job to try and do just this until quite recently, but dont get me started on the efficacy of direct action with regards to climate change - so I am critical of Extinction Rebellion, but that doesn't mean im a climate change denier (when in fact quite the opposite), it means I think there are better/more effective ways to bring about positive change. So when groups like the WEP, go about their business largely to the exclusion of men (Men who may indeed be able to offer up some differing perspectives - in particular how the WEP might make its message more appealing to other men for example?) - I find it frustrating - and reading a comment where their diversity is being trumpeted (it wasnt just in this article, they have a press release/section of website dedicated to it as well) - it just irked me somewhat. I would prefer if they said, the 'most diverse group of women' - rather than just the 'most diverse' when comparing themselves to other parties - perhaps it is nitpicking - but this is the type of thing that probably annoys those people who are skeptical of the WEP. To the point you both have made about the usefulness of the WEP having a male candidate....well...having a male WEP candidate clearly will not improve the gender balance in parliament in the short term, but (just as the sight of female candidates/role models has encouraged other women through the years) perhaps the sight/message of that male candidate will encourage other men to consider these issues more fully? and in the long term is actually a good thing?

cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For the last time TheCat stop criticising women > and adopt a more positive outlook. I'm not feeding > your habit after this. HaHa...brilliant, now I know for sure that you are just a wind-up merchant. I criticise 1 statement by 1 woman (well, i've criticised you as well, so if you're a woman, that makes two women i've criticized in this thread)...and that means I need to 'stop criticising women and adopt a more positive outlook' Okay, sure. Well, I'm an immigrant, and you have criticised me. So Cella, for the last time, you really need to stop criticising immigrants and adopt a more positive outlook. Your anti-immigrant agenda is harmful and unproductive. see...we can all play this ridiculous game:)

teddyboy23 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cat its not directed at you .its for my mate cella > . My Apols then teddy. I don't know if it's hate, but Cella certainly seems to be full of something....

teddyboy23 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You sound like a hate filled person trying to past > off hate as criticism awful I assume that's directed at me? If not...then please ignore what follows:) If it is.... all I can say is WOW!..this sort of attitude is what contributes to so much division in society. Again, I criticise 1 statement by 1 leader of 1 political party which I personally found hypocritical and inconsistent. And suddenly I'm filled with 'hate'? As I've said above, if supporters any progressive movement dismiss all or any criticism of specific aspects or players in that movement as representative of 'hate'...then we're all f#cked.... Becuase no one will ever listen to anyone else...and we never move forward.

cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Again no. A quick look at your posting history > shows that you have a habit of starting threads to > stir up confrontation which you then back away > from when others on here expose you. I used > Rendelharris as an example of someone who was > adept at sussing these things out and providing a > robust defence to support his counter arguments. Honestly cella....you have to actually MAKE a counter argument for me to even attempt to defend my original post.... But as per most of your responses when called out...you 'won't even bother as per' your normal modus ooperandi Anyway, you successfully managed to hijack this thread and draw me into a meaningless tit for tat. So if you have something on the OP topic to add, then I'll respond. Otherwise best to just leave it

cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Have had many good conversations with rendell > on > > this forum, on topics we agreed and disagreed > on. > > I don't in anyway recall ever being made into > > 'mincemeat'.... But, in anycase, you could take > a > > leaf out of rendel's book, and learn how to > > actually have a discussion/debate with someone > who > > might disagree with you with or see something > > differently from you. > > > > Nah...you'd prefer to just sit in your > echochamber > > I guess....and when someone raises an issue > which > > is inconvenient for one of your preconceived > > beliefs, you can then not even make an attempt > to > > address/discuss the issue, just brand them a > > 'stirrer' and claim they're 'not worth > investing > > in' because it masks the truth that you > actually > > have nothing of any substance to add to the > > discussion. > > > Nope - you're not helping A quick look at your posting history is informative. You make a habit of having a dig at people, while not have anything useful to say, then often make cryptic/irrelevant remarks when called out on it and recently (as malumbu notes) have made constant references to rendelharris' posts rather than actually making an argument yourself. Well, played. It's you who are actually the 'stirrer'. I'm sure you'll again find some dismissive comment to reply to this post without actually engaging with the content. Perhaps commission rendelharris on contract to do all your thinking for you, since you're such a big fan.

Have had many good conversations with rendell on this forum, on topics we agreed and disagreed on. I don't in anyway recall ever being made into 'mincemeat'.... But, in anycase, you could take a leaf out of rendel's book, and learn how to actually have a discussion/debate with someone who might disagree with you with or see something differently from you. Nah...you'd prefer to just sit in your echochamber I guess....and when someone raises an issue which is inconvenient for one of your preconceived beliefs, you can then not even make an attempt to address/discuss the issue, just brand them a 'stirrer' and claim they're 'not worth investing in' because it masks the truth that you actually have nothing of any substance to add to the discussion.