Duffy tweet

[1066familyman]

There are many heroes in the British Forces, but in my opinion, and I'll wait for you to give me exact references of this happening, then those that did such a thing are no heroes of mine. I take it YOU believe someone that murders indiscriminately can be classed as a Hero though , as your defence of Duffy's tweet implies. Got to go as battery is running low on phone already. xxx

You can take your pick of reports from a simple - UK cluster bombs in Iraq - search.

I'm not quite sure how Duffy's tweet differs from help for heroes collection buckets at football matches or British military personnel being presented as guests of honour before a game. Both are political in nature.

 

[Lower West Stander]

γνῶθι σεαυτόν tool

You really are a prat.

I await you calling me out.....l


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[dazzer6666]

Well I'm just glad he didn't.

NSC would have been very quiet otherwise, as it's an international week, and we need all the clicks and the subsequent Google income that is genarated to keep us in the life of champagne, cocaine and Columbian hookers to which we have become accustomted.

They're Colombian, not Columbian. From Colombia.

 

[Big G]

Why should footballers stay out of politics more than anyone else in the public eye?

Thought highly of this bloke as our player.
I respect his right to hold personal views.
But to publicly support a murdering terrorist I now have a very different opinion of him.
So wish he would have stayed out of the political shit!

 

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

They're Colombian, not Columbian. From Colombia.

They could be coming in from Columbine, USA!

 

[Wardy's twin]

The IRA was a spent force. Martin McGuinness would have gone to jail for multiple murders had he not got involved in the peace process. As for Bomber Harris, I think the area bombing, that both sides took part, was a terrible thing and no I wouldn't call him a Hero of mine and I certainly wouldn't lack the sensitivity to tweet that he was if I was making my wage in Germany.

Unfortunately even a spent force could have continued as it was and the deaths on ALL sides would have continued

 

[Diego Napier]

The story so far. You join the thread with the following angry post:

I'm loathed to get involved in this debate as I've found out today that my player of the season regards an IRA commanding c*nt as his hero but can I please respond to your absolute scollobs that you've posted here.

"I'm not a self-loathing Englishman...waah..waah..the flag has been tarnished by English patriotism...I embrace other cultures...waah..waah".

You ARE the very embodiment of a self-loathing Englishman if you think that our flag has been appropriated by anyone and then feel the need to qualify your English credentials by stating that you embrace other cultures. We all do matey, we don't feel the need to make a piss-poor apology for being a reluctant Englishman though.

There are bad Englishmen just like there are bad Irishmen, Scotch or Frenchies. The only difference is that we are the only country where we have people like you flagellating themselves about it. F*cking winds me up no end.

Your obviously irate tone is pointed out to you by another poster. You deny it. You then go on to provide a quote with some humour, little veracity and no illumination:

Tony Parsons said it right when he talked about the English chattering, middle-classes being alone in their inability to feel patriotism like the lower and upper-classes do, who in his words, were united in bad dentistry, brutal parenting, and a love of blood sports and the flag.

Seeing the anomaly you'd introduced (you're not lower or upper class yet it was clear from the quote you'd chosen that your patriotic beliefs could not be shared by your fellow demographicals) I posed the following flippant yet ironically humorous question:

Did he get it right? Are you just chattering on or is that your clattering bad teeth I can hear?

Ignoring your parklife self-amusement, you then went on:

Sorry. It's just whenever you post, I envisage Russell Brand. You're a very good online imitation.

*awaits a sub-Brand kind of response*

Completely ignoring my question about the anomaly of your previous post and indulging in a spot of slightly supercilious dismissal. A putdown. I replied:

A brief glimpse into your fantasies (a la Wizard of Oz), however whimsical, insufficient masks your dissemble and deflection.

Striking what I believe was a good balance between an ironic reference to your imagination and an alliterative prod at your refusal to acknowledge the question. You responded:

*boom*. You even nouned a verb. Well played Russell.

I replied:

Although tempting, I eschewed dissemblation.

I'm also tempted to ask why you're still at it but looking back at #97 it does now appear a bit rhetoric rather than the intended direct challenge.

Again, clearly with humour and irony, playing up to your challenge.

You see, this is why I have this impression of you that I do. Most other people would have used the gerund, instead you considered that ugly word and went for something even worse.

And yet again either wilfully or unwittingly the penny fails to drop, you respond with more putdownery and so I replied.

That's because I'm not like most other people and if it offends your overly refined sensibilities so be it.

You keep on keeping on with the evasionary putdowning, that is after all your trademark.

Bringing the discourse back to your inability to answer and pointing out your repeated recourse to the refuge of dismissivation.

Offends? Oh no, not one bit. Please do carry on with this act of yours. It's amusing and about as dangerous as bring mauled by a dead sheep.

As for trademark putdowns, you're the one who started this conversation with a putdown. Unfortunately for you, I can see through your bullshit.

And so in one gloriously illuminating post we have it. You failed to recognise the humour in my initial post or if you did you mistook irony for sarcasm, possibly through your continuing anger? And this too accompanied by a splendidly misquoted Healey/Howe contretemps from the tory wonder years? Wonderful. (Although I must say your rejoinder tails off somewhat limply with a further unnecessarily tawdry allusion to the muckier side of animal husbandry.)

Anyway, believing that you are guilty of which you accuse me and recognising your lack of self-awareness, I posted.

γνῶθι σεαυτόν tool

Appropriately using the language in which the phrase was coined. Your response:

'kin hell. Can you get any more pretentious? You come up against someone who knows as many long words as you so your only recourse is to start replying in a foreign language? Christ, that is pathetic. Go on matey - fill your boots. What next, a Shakespeare quote in Swahili?

And so we come back to it again but with still greater illumination.

Firstly, you completely miss the point and now it's clear that you're not being wilful. You lack self awareness. Your challenging posture and angry retorts stem from insecurity. Look at those words again "You come up against someone who knows as many long words as you". Good grief man, it's not the long words that qualify you, you think it's a lexiconalogical pissing match. You're not defined by your "long words" rather it's the proscribation imposed not only by your over-sensitivity but also by a lack of perception allied to the flaccidity of your intellectual grasp that's really killing you.

You really are a prat.

I await you calling me out.....l

And now an amusing sub plot engendered by a hapless, limited acolytic sycophant blinded by the wonders of misdirection. Emboldened by a perceived yet ultimately Pyrrhic victory you've crossed the Rubicon and thrown down the gauntlet.

Your metatarsal's broken cock.

 

[Buzzer]

The story so far. You join the thread with the following angry post:



Your obviously irate tone is pointed out to you by another poster. You deny it. You then go on to provide a quote with some humour, little veracity and no illumination:



Seeing the anomaly you'd introduced (you're not lower or upper class yet it was clear from the quote you'd chosen that your patriotic beliefs could not be shared by your fellow demographicals) I posed the following flippant yet ironically humorous question:



Ignoring your parklife self-amusement, you then went on:



Completely ignoring my question about the anomaly of your previous post and indulging in a spot of slightly supercilious dismissal. A putdown. I replied:



Striking what I believe was a good balance between an ironic reference to your imagination and an alliterative prod at your refusal to acknowledge the question. You responded:



I replied:



Again, clearly with humour and irony, playing up to your challenge.



And yet again either wilfully or unwittingly the penny fails to drop, you respond with more putdownery and so I replied.



Bringing the discourse back to your inability to answer and pointing out your repeated recourse to the refuge of dismissivation.



And so in one gloriously illuminating post we have it. You failed to recognise the humour in my initial post or if you did you mistook irony for sarcasm, possibly through your continuing anger? And this too accompanied by a splendidly misquoted Healey/Howe contretemps from the tory wonder years? Wonderful. (Although I must say your rejoinder tails off somewhat limply with a further unnecessarily tawdry allusion to the muckier side of animal husbandry.)

Anyway, believing that you are guilty of which you accuse me and recognising your lack of self-awareness, I posted.



Appropriately using the language in which the phrase was coined. Your response:



And so we come back to it again but with still greater illumination.

Firstly, you completely miss the point and now it's clear that you're not being wilful. You lack self awareness. Your challenging posture and angry retorts stem from insecurity. Look at those words again "You come up against someone who knows as many long words as you". Good grief man, it's not the long words that qualify you, you think it's a lexiconalogical pissing match. You're not defined by your "long words" rather it's the proscribation imposed not only by your over-sensitivity but also by a lack of perception allied to the flaccidity of your intellectual grasp that's really killing you.



And now an amusing sub plot engendered by a hapless, limited acolytic sycophant blinded by the wonders of misdirection. Emboldened by a perceived yet ultimately Pyrrhic victory you've crossed the Rubicon and thrown down the gauntlet.

Your metatarsal's broken cock.

Have you really gone back and replayed the entire argument just because I called you pretentious? And you're at all times reasonable and witty and not at all rattled and I'm the one lacking self-awareness? Hahaha! Genuine laugh out loud moment. You've surpassed yourself this time.

Oh by the way, (rather ironically) 'lexiconalogical' isn't a real word.

 

[bhanutz]

Christ on a bike.... Player sends tweet, Player has opinions and beliefs... People get angry....

Get over it... I love Shane Duffy for the record.. As long as he puts in 100% for the Albion, I couldn't care less what his opinion on anything other than football is!

 

[Goldstone1976]

As long as he puts in 100% for the Albion, I couldn't care less what his opinion on anything other than football is!

Really? Anything? Say he tweeted that he admired Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter because he thought that sexual abuse of the under 12's was misunderstood and was, in fact, perfectly acceptable in his opinion. That still ok? I doubt it...

So, if not, we're then talking about where the line is drawn. At that point, an acceptable place for the position will vary from reader to reader. For some, his remarks overstepped the line; for others, not so. For me, btw, given his age and background, I have no issue with what he said.

However, whether he should have said it, given his position in the local community is more dubious. Does he have the right to? Yes, of course. Was it wise to? Probably not, imo.

Will all this affect my admiration for him as a player representing my club? Not in the slightest. But - all these opinions are exactly that; just a personal opinion. Others will hold different opinions.

 

[Triggaaar]

Nice deflection going on here, good work.

 

[bhanutz]

Nice deflection going on here, good work.

Did it go in or was it wide?

Bloody deflections, Frank Lampard made a living from them!

 

[Diego Napier]

Oh by the way, (rather ironically) 'lexiconalogical' isn't a real word.

Isn't it?

Oh dear, talk about confirming my suspicions. Look through this thread (& others), I transmogrifically metamorphisise words for emphasis & effect and a joke (you know, irony).

Talk about digging a hole and falling into, the penny refusing to drop, some seed fell on stony ground, you really do yourself no favours at all and other aphorisms. I'll add gullibility to your self awareness ticklist.

 

[Triggaaar]

Did it go in or was it wide?

Hit the post, ball still in play.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Today he's mourning his friend who died, aged just 27.

[tweet]844877037802278912[/tweet]

 

[Buzzer]

Isn't it?

Oh dear, talk about confirming my suspicions. Look through this thread (& others), I transmogrifically metamorphisise words for emphasis & effect and a joke (you know, irony).

Talk about digging a hole and falling into, the penny refusing to drop, some seed fell on stony ground, you really do yourself no favours at all and other aphorisms. I'll add gullibility to your self awareness ticklist.

Haha! Oh deary me. I don't think I can show you to be any more of a **** than with this comment "I transmogrifically metamorphisise words for emphasis & effect". That's it. I'm all done here, the last word is yours, Russell. Even if you've not earned it, you're certainly going to have it!

 

[Easy 10]

[tweet]844819031165042688[/tweet]

 

[London Irish]

**** sake is this still going? Leave him alone!

 

[Megazone]

Buzzer and Diego Napier are so clever.

If only the both of them could settle their differences. It would be the coming together of 2 geniuses. Their use of the English language is out of this world. When they go head to head in the battle of sarcasm, long words, definitions of long words etc it's always high quality, quick thinking stuff.

2 very wise old owls.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Really? Anything? Say he tweeted that he admired Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter because he thought that sexual abuse of the under 12's was misunderstood and was, in fact, perfectly acceptable in his opinion. That still ok? I doubt it...

So, if not, we're then talking about where the line is drawn. At that point, an acceptable place for the position will vary from reader to reader. For some, his remarks overstepped the line; for others, not so. For me, btw, given his age and background, I have no issue with what he said.

However, whether he should have said it, given his position in the local community is more dubious. Does he have the right to? Yes, of course. Was it wise to? Probably not, imo.

Will all this affect my admiration for him as a player representing my club? Not in the slightest. But - all these opinions are exactly that; just a personal opinion. Others will hold different opinions.

Yeah This...