Thatcher dead?

[david3103]

Just seen some miners on the TV standing outside a ramshackle pit shaking their heads and saying they're glad Thatcher is dead. It's like somebody still moaning about a bad beat 30 years after it happened. There's a whole big world out there fellas, prob time to crack on and look for a different career now.

Exactly the sort of myopic garbage I'd expect to read from someone with no experience of those events.

Not worth wasting more keystrokes on it though, as that's presumably what the troll attempt was intended to achieve.

Not sure why people think miners have a monopoly on hardship.

If we ever have a thread discussing the primary cause of the hardships for your family that you describe then I'll take care not to make any sweeping generalisations or comments about communities or industries that I clearly know fuck all about, based on a few minutes of television footage and general stereotypes that I've picked up over the years.

It's no surprise to me that you were unable to do the same and I'm comfortable enough that you doing so sits firmly in the trolling category.

Fatman – This thread about the death of Margaret Thatcher sits at 18 pages and this is my 13th post. I have contributed a lot of info about my views and experiences, involved myself in the humour, debated my points in good order, and done some kinda member-bonding thing. I am in this thread because I was a big fan of Margaret Thatcher and my opening post was very positive about her life.

By comparison you have made 4 posts. Your opening post said Margaret Thatcher personified all the worst elements of human nature. In the second one you posted the spitting image puppet. And in the last two you 100% flame me.

If we had a general election you would win the trolling stakes by a landslide

To be fair, two of my posts were only necessary due to your trolling, but of course you wouldn't have recognised that.

If anyone is trolling then this makes three...

[bobAlike]

I would encourage both sides of this not to quote a section of the Brand article; it covers both sides in a genuine and captivating reflection. If you quote a section of it, you're missing the point.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The anti Thatcher of this thread are well known for that.

And yes Kin I know the irony of what I just did

[kinboshi]

I would encourage both sides of this not to quote a section of the Brand article; it covers both sides in a genuine and captivating reflection. If you quote a section of it, you're missing the point.

I read it all, and thought the bit I quoted was pertinent.

Also liked the bit about glass ceilings for women. Very accurate despite the irony of who was talking about women's role in society.

[david3103]

I would encourage both sides of this not to quote a section of the Brand article; it covers both sides in a genuine and captivating reflection. If you quote a section of it, you're missing the point.

I read it all, and thought the bit I quoted was pertinent.

Also liked the bit about glass ceilings for women. Very accurate despite the irony of who was talking about women's role in society.

Luke 15:7

[AndrewT]

Things are getting tetchy.

If you're about to post something which criticises a person (whether it's someone who has been in Katy Perry or not) rather than what that person has said, perhaps go and have a cup of tea before clicking 'post'

[bobAlike]

Things are getting tetchy.

If you're about to post something which criticises a person (whether it's someone who has been in Katy Perry or not) rather than what that person has said, perhaps go and have a cup of tea before clicking 'post'

With or without digestives.

[Woodsey]

Things are getting tetchy.

If you're about to post something which criticises a person (whether it's someone who has been in Katy Perry or not) rather than what that person has said, perhaps go and have a cup of tea before clicking 'post'

It was meant to be tongue in cheek rather than tetchy, maybe I should have added a few more smileys to illustrate that.  

Just making the point that lets hear quotes from respected people at least rather than the village idiot   is that enough smileys?  

[aaron1867]

200 pages

[Tal]

200 pages

Shut up, meg

[nirvana]

I would encourage both sides of this not to quote a section of the Brand article; it covers both sides in a genuine and captivating reflection. If you quote a section of it, you're missing the point.

Poor Kinboshi, totally fucks his entire debating style

[MANTIS01]

No fatman I don't recognise why your posts in this thread have been necessary. Every one has been negative or disrespectful, you have offered nothing to the discussion, and you have singled me out. In fact I'm quite surprised moderators are allowed to behave like this.

[I KNOW IT]

18 pages on someones death....really?

I find this quite sad

[Graham C]

18 pages on someones death....really?

I find this quite sad

It's about half a page on her death.

[kinboshi]

I would encourage both sides of this not to quote a section of the Brand article; it covers both sides in a genuine and captivating reflection. If you quote a section of it, you're missing the point.

Poor Kinboshi, totally fucks his entire debating style

Trollololol

[MANTIS01]

18 pages on someones death....really?

I find this quite sad

How did your post completely change without being edited craig?

I wonder what is happening with the modding on this forum. I see smashedagain being chastised by mods left, right and centre for next to nothing and getting banned. In the recent mega sat cheating thread mods are very anxious to defend and protect the integrity of a 27 post member. But here mods can seemingly do as they please, attack my integrity, brand me a troll and generally be insulting and that is deemed ok. It seems mods can choose to pick on individual members and flame them unchallenged. I don't see how that is fair and neutral moderation.