c4countdown

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:58 pm**

As you can see, none of us are perfect. I probably should have just sent that whole thing to you in a private message!

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:20 pm**

Matt Morrison wrote:
Kathleen Batlle wrote:I haven't yet worked out how to quote just a piece of the message I'm commenting on. No doubt someone will tell me now.
You must be thinking it's more complicated than it is Kathleen, as all you need to do is... well, just delete the bits of the text you don't want!
For example, from your quote above I just removed "Sorry I had to 'quote' everything in that last post, but".

The only potentially complicated bit is working out the structure of quotes within quotes, so I hope this helps. The following code:
Code: Select all
[quote="Person A"] Person A said this [/quote]
[quote="Person B"] Person B said this
[quote="Person C"] and this is Person C's reply[/quote]
[/quote]
(it's in a code box so that it doesn't actually appear as quotes like it does below!) will produce:

Person A wrote: Person A said this

Person B wrote: Person B said this
Person C wrote: and this is Person C's reply

As you can see, Person C's reply was 'nested' inside Person B's message because the

for Person B had not yet ended (it ends after Person C's [/quote] ends)[/quote]
Thanks Matt, but I think I'm even more confused now. Sorry folks! I'll see what I can do next time.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:45 pm**

Try using the preview button and trial and error.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:12 pm**

Nicky wrote:Try using the preview button and trial and error.

I don't find the Preview button of any help, it just shows the the same as the Post box, I would expect it to show the effects of the html. Maybe there's something wrong with my set up?

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:28 pm**

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:
Nicky wrote:Try using the preview button and trial and error.
I don't find the Preview button of any help, it just shows the the same as the Post box, I would expect it to show the effects of the html. Maybe there's something wrong with my set up?

The chances of it being a problem your end are massively remote. The post box still appears (obviously, so you can edit message again based on the preview). The preview is just above.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:40 pm**

George Jenkins wrote:
Kathleen Batlle wrote:This is a really interesting thread and I've just read through it all from the beginning. I must admit that I didn't take too much notice of it before, but enjoy a really good debate. I love George's stories about his life and, Phil, what a very nice voice you've got. I've actually met, and made friends with, many homosexual people over the years, especially when I was working for a well-known holiday company on the coast here in Spain. We had such fun over the years I worked there as I found homosexual men, especially, to be so extrovert and entertaining. I really should have written a book as some of the escapades were hilarious and in complete contrast to the 15 years I spent working as a secretary in a bank in UK before I came here. I just love interesting people no matter what their sexual orientation is, in fact one of my best friends here is a very camp homosexual who has been with his partner for over 45 years. He's had one of the most interesting lives of any of my friends, from being a dancer in West End shows to a drag artist in a tourist show at a hotel here, and still, at our age he can have me in absolute stitches.
Sorry! I pressed the wrong button

I actually thought Kate was an interesting character and wasn't in the least concerned about the fact that she is a lesbian. I've been very happily married for 37 years and people are just people to me, some nice, some not so nice, some warm, some not so warm, but people, the same as me.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:28 pm**

Back on topic, with the whole "Charlie wasn't very nice" allegation...

I saw a man in Oxford today who I thought was Charlie Reams. I believe he was walking with an attractive woman. I couldn't recall how much facial hair Charlie has. I think that the doppleganger was missing either the goatee or moustache part of the ensemble. However, I did wonder whether it was Charlie, before trying to remember where he goes to university. Then I concluded that he would not be in Oxford today, either because he hates them with a passion or because he had no reason to be in Oxford.

Oh, and I like quote!

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:30 pm**

Hannah O wrote:Back on topic, with the whole "Charlie wasn't very nice" allegation...

I saw a man in Oxford today who I thought was Charlie Reams. I believe he was walking with an attractive woman. I couldn't recall how much facial hair Charlie has. I think that the doppleganger was missing either the goatee or moustache part of the ensemble. However, I did wonder whether it was Charlie, before trying to remember where he goes to university. Then I concluded that he would not be in Oxford today, either because he hates them with a passion or because he had no reason to be in Oxford.

Oh, and I like quote!

I've actually never been to Oxford, but you're not far off, because to celebrate being 23 I've decided to lose the beard, and of course I'm often to be seen with attractive women.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:34 pm**

Well, I can see why you're surrounded by attractive women.
Would it go something like this?

Attractive woman: Hello handsome.
You: Hey. (playing it cool.)
Woman: Do you come here often?
You: Yes.
Woman: I see. What's your name? (asking so that she can do research on this handsome new man)
You: Charlie Reams.
[Later that night]
Woman: (using google) Charlie Reams...what's this? apterous.org? (clicks)
[The following afternoon]
Woman: OMG CHARLIE I LOVE YOU.
Charlie: (is slightly put off by the woman being hysterical) What?
Woman: I discovered your Countdown simulator and spent 15 hours playing it straight! I've had 30 minutes of sleep!
Charlie: (to himself) Looks like that's another girlfriend gained by my devilish good looks, my ice-cool personality and the fact that I'm a Countdown genius who made apterous.org

Is that not right?

The beard was cool though.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:36 pm**

Haha. Pretty much that, yeah.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:45 pm**

Great, I was right for once!

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:23 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:Haha. Pretty much that, yeah.

Fucking bastard poofter melon arse.

I love the way we can say what we want here.

And then claim it was all a funny joke thing.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:33 pm**

david dawson wrote:Something stupid, moronic and offensive

I love the way we can say what we want here. And then claim it was all a funny joke thing.

Fuck off. Fuck right off. I love the way we can say what we want here.

And then claim it's exactly what I meant.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:16 pm**

Hannah O wrote:Woman: OMG CHARLIE I LOVE YOU.

Real women don't actually say "OMG" which leads me to believe this true-to-life encounter must've happened on the Internet, probably some seedy chat room, right Charlie?

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:22 pm**

Matt Morrison wrote:
Hannah O wrote:Woman: OMG CHARLIE I LOVE YOU.
Real women don't actually say "OMG" which leads me to believe this true-to-life encounter must've happened on the Internet, probably some seedy chat room, right Charlie?

I say OMG quite a lot, as well as IMO and IRL. But I'm probably not representative of most women.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:40 pm**

Hannah O wrote:Well, I can see why you're surrounded by attractive women.
Would it go something like this?

Attractive woman: Hello handsome.
You: Hey. (playing it cool.)
Woman: Do you come here often?
You: Yes.
Woman: I see. What's your name? (asking so that she can do research on this handsome new man)
You: Charlie Reams.
[Later that night]
Woman: (using google) Charlie Reams...what's this? apterous.org? (clicks)
[The following afternoon]
Woman: OMG CHARLIE I LOVE YOU.
Charlie: (is slightly put off by the woman being hysterical) What?
Woman: I discovered your Countdown simulator and spent 15 hours playing it straight! I've had 30 minutes of sleep!
Charlie: (to himself) Looks like that's another girlfriend gained by my devilish good looks, my ice-cool personality and the fact that I'm a Countdown genius who made apterous.org

Is that not right? The beard was cool though.

Oh my god - this is a come on if ever I saw one! I wish I had girls say they're impressed with my devilish good looks. I can only dream....

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:52 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:I say OMG quite a lot, as well as IMO and IRL. But I'm probably not representative of most women.

I imagine if you were I'd probably be getting laid more often

I doubt it will mean much to any of you, but you reminded me of a classic moment from Dog Bites Man: "FYI, my cousin HG from DC is a PA for BET, so I'm gonna need the CD ASAP OK?"

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 12:26 am**

Jason Larsen wrote:I'll just call you Bobby as a nickname, George!

Hi Jason,
I did answer your last message regarding the difference between American and British cultures, but it took so long to send, I gave up and cancelled it. I'm trying this link, so ignore any heading it comes under.

Re. those remarks that I made were quotes from a book written by an American. Bill Bryson, and his book was called "Notes from a small Island". I really enjoyed reading it and it was voted the best book that was representative of Britain and the people. Bill spent twenty years working over here, and before he went back to the States, he made one last tour of Britain and wrote the book. If you could obtain it I'm sure that you would enjoy reading it. One last thought to dwell on. Winston Churchill was of the opinion that America and Britain were two countries divided by a common language. I haven't worked out yet what that means.
All the best Jason
George.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:57 am**

For many reasons I’ve decided not to post, but for a summary see below.

My partner sara (not sarah) had a fall recently and damaged her eyes further, this, her sight loss (oh yeah something else the production team neglected to mention, her partner sara is not just a lesbian, she’s blind, how we laughed!), the trivia, other more pressing issues have led me to the momentous decision not to post any more.

Any hoo, enjoy your meandering among the leafy lanes of “the issues” below feel free to misquote, misrepresent (track the posters) , misinterpret, take the piss out of and be plain offensive about but above all else remember the key thing,,,ENJOY COUNTDOWN !......my aged aunt got up at 5 in the morning just to watch me lose ! Remember your audience, bye, bye lots of love kate richardson

PS I’ve not included the really sexist ones about mangey c***ts these were random from one thread which I’m sure are bleeding hilarious but not to me…ta ta

Fucking bastard poofter melon arse.

I love the way we can say what we want here. And then claim it was all a funny joke thing.

david dawson
Post subject: Re: "Frustrated by the programme marginalising her sexuality."
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:23 pm

Rookie

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 37
Location: Plymouth on Sea

Charlie Reams wrote:
Haha. Pretty much that, yeah.

Fucking bastard poofter melon arse.

I love the way we can say what we want here. And then claim it was all a funny joke thing.

Martin Gardner wrote:
I reckon I've had about 8 gay friends (that I knew about) over the years.

Considering part of your post was debating the definition of 'friend', you might have wanted to rephrase that first sentence.
Couple of Rohypnol jokes to be made too.
Charlie Reams
Post subject: Re: "Frustrated by the programme marginalising her sexuality."
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:19 am

Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Posts: 2886
Location: Cambridge

db stevens wrote:
I had a look at the countdown forum and Mr Charlie Reams, who seems to be in charge there, accuses someone of being a racist poofter. Perhaps he’d be kind enough to oblige, or retract his remarks. What’s good for the goose etc etc

I've replied to this particularly moronic post as politely as I could manage. I like how he's tried to ironically quote my own words back at me, even though "kind enough to oblige" doesn't make any sense in his own sentence.

Btw I'm assuming it's a "he" because I'm a sexist poofter.

I've replied to this particularly moronic post as politely as I could manage. I like how he's tried to ironically quote my own words back at me, even though "kind enough to oblige" doesn't make any sense in his own sentence.

Btw I'm assuming it's a "he" because I'm a sexist poofter.

READ WITHOUT DELETION ON 1/02/09 02.20AM
Rosemary Roberts
Post subject: Re: "Frustrated by the programme marginalising her
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:47 pm

Rookie

Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 70

david dawson wrote:
It's all kicked off here hasn't it? Everyone seems to be bending over forwards trying to prove how friendly they are to the gayers. And all because Charlie was rude to the lesbians. Who'd have thought it?

Basically, most of us don't categorise people according to how straight they are but according to how stupid they are. And the wilfully stupid are in a class of their own even further from the mainstream.

Phil Reynolds
Post subject: Re: "Frustrated by the programme marginalising her sexuality."
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:51 pm

Devotee

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
Posts: 770
Location: Leamington Spa, UK

david dawson wrote:
Everyone seems to be bending over forwards trying to prove how friendly they are to the gayers.

Charlie's description of you on the Lesbilicious site becomes more apt with every post you make.

david dawson
Post subject: Re: "Frustrated by the programme marginalising her sexuality."
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:03 pm

Rookie

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 37
Location: Plymouth on Sea

Phil Reynolds wrote:
david dawson wrote:
Everyone seems to be bending over forwards trying to prove how friendly they are to the gayers.

Charlie's description of you on the Lesbilicious site becomes more apt with every post you make.

I know, he's very good isn't he?

Matt Morrison
Post subject: Re: "Frustrated by the programme marginalising her sexuality."
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:05 pm

Devotee

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Posts: 563
Location: near Exeter, Devon

it's admittedly leftfield, but has anyone gone for the kate richardson = david dawson theory yet?

david dawson
Post subject: Re: "Frustrated by the programme marginalising her sexuality."
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:16 pm

Rookie

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 37
Location: Plymouth on Sea

Matt Morrison wrote:
it's admittedly leftfield, but has anyone gone for the kate richardson = david dawson theory yet?

You crazy old poofter you.

Matt Morrison
Post subject: Re: "Frustrated by the programme marginalising her sexuality."
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:08 pm

Devotee

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Posts: 563
Location: near Exeter, Devon

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:
division (the symbol that only Charlie can do)

suck my ÷÷÷÷

Matt Morrison
Post subject: Re: "Frustrated by the programme marginalising her
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:57 pm

Devotee

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Posts: 563
Location: near Exeter, Devon

Kathleen Batlle wrote:
I haven't yet worked out how to quote just a piece of the message I'm commenting on. No doubt someone will tell me now.

You must be thinking it's more complicated than it is Kathleen, as all you need to do is... well, just delete the bits of the text you don't want!
For example, from your quote above I just removed "Sorry I had to 'quote' everything in that last post, but".

The only potentially complicated bit is working out the structure of quotes within quotes, so I hope this helps. The following code:
Code:

Person A wrote: Person A said this

Person B wrote: Person B said this
Person C wrote: and this is Person C's reply

(it's in a code box so that it doesn't actually appear as quotes like it does below!) will produce:
Person A wrote:
Person A said this

Person B wrote:
Person B said this
Person C wrote:
and this is Person C's reply

As you can see, Person C's reply was 'nested' inside Person B's message because the [/quote] for Person B had not yet ended (it ends after Person C's [/quote] ends)

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:59 am**

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Hannah O wrote:Well, I can see why you're surrounded by attractive women.
Would it go something like this?

Attractive woman: Hello handsome.
You: Hey. (playing it cool.)
Woman: Do you come here often?
You: Yes.
Woman: I see. What's your name? (asking so that she can do research on this handsome new man)
You: Charlie Reams.
[Later that night]
Woman: (using google) Charlie Reams...what's this? apterous.org? (clicks)
[The following afternoon]
Woman: OMG CHARLIE I LOVE YOU.
Charlie: (is slightly put off by the woman being hysterical) What?
Woman: I discovered your Countdown simulator and spent 15 hours playing it straight! I've had 30 minutes of sleep!
Charlie: (to himself) Looks like that's another girlfriend gained by my devilish good looks, my ice-cool personality and the fact that I'm a Countdown genius who made apterous.org

Is that not right? The beard was cool though.
Oh my god - this is a come on if ever I saw one!

It's an invitation for receiving a restraining order if I ever saw one.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:03 am**

Kate Richardson wrote:lol

wat

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:11 am**

Ben Hunter wrote:
Kate Richardson wrote:lol
wat

What's the word for when you've got your mouth open in disbelief and your laughing internally?

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:35 am**

No problem, George!

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:58 am**

Hi Kate

Firstly, I hope Sara recovers from her fall soon.

Your last post made very little sense I'm afraid. You've quoted random things from this thread? A thread that was started AFTER you accused the forumites of homophobic comments. And some of the posts were so clearly unoffensive (notably the ones about how to post a quote - which you clearly haven't taken on board!), that we can't tell which are the ones you actually do find offensive, or why.

AFAICS, you were welcomed to the forum, and, both here and on TV, your sexuality was seen as no more or less relevant than anyone else's! WE DON'T CARE that you are a lesbian or Phil is gay, anymore more than we care that Jon has ginger hair, or that you, Jason and many other forumites wear glasses. It doesn't matter to us. THAT is why you feel marginalised. Not because we're homophobic, but because we aren't treating you with kid gloves, because we don't think it's relevant! Everyone who posts something dumb or contraversial gets jumped on. It's that sort of forum. But if you assume the insults are to do with your gender/sexual preference/colour/whatever, it is YOU who is making an issue of it. If you don't like the forum, fine. But you have made a serious accusation which appears to be unfounded.
If you have a genuine complaint about homophobia on these forums - show us where it occured. Use punctuation and quotations so that we can understand what you are saying, and I suspect that you will get a far more satisfactory response.

I could actually get offended by YOUR post. Let me show you:

Kate Richardson wrote: her partner sara is not just a lesbian, she’s blind, how we laughed!),

I have a friend who is gradually losing her sight. How DARE you laugh at the blind? What a horrible thing to do!
I have friends who are lesbians. How DARE you insinuate that lesbianism is a misfortune, like blindness? You appear to be homophobic and disrespectful of the disabled community.

Quotations taken out of context are like statistics. You can get them to mean anything you like.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:10 am**

Charlie Reams wrote:Haha. Pretty much that, yeah.

Charlie, she's definitely after your cock, if you've got one you fucking bastard poofter melon arse.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:13 am**

Nicky wrote:Hi Kate

Firstly, I hope Sara recovers from her fall soon.

Your last post made very little sense I'm afraid. You've quoted random things from this thread? A thread that was started AFTER you accused the forumites of homophobic comments. And some of the posts were so clearly unoffensive (notably the ones about how to post a quote - which you clearly haven't taken on board!), that we can't tell which are the ones you actually do find offensive, or why.

AFAICS, you were welcomed to the forum, and, both here and on TV, your sexuality was seen as no more or less relevant than anyone else's! WE DON'T CARE that you are a lesbian or Phil is gay, anymore more than we care that Jon has ginger hair, or that you, Jason and many other forumites wear glasses. It doesn't matter to us. THAT is why you feel marginalised. Not because we're homophobic, but because we aren't treating you with kid gloves, because we don't think it's relevant! Everyone who posts something dumb or contraversial gets jumped on. It's that sort of forum. But if you assume the insults are to do with your gender/sexual preference/colour/whatever, it is YOU who is making an issue of it. If you don't like the forum, fine. But you have made a serious accusation which appears to be unfounded.
If you have a genuine complaint about homophobia on these forums - show us where it occured. Use punctuation and quotations so that we can understand what you are saying, and I suspect that you will get a far more satisfactory response.

I could actually get offended by YOUR post. Let me show you:
Kate Richardson wrote: her partner sara is not just a lesbian, she’s blind, how we laughed!),
I have a friend who is gradually losing her sight. How DARE you laugh at the blind? What a horrible thing to do!
I have friends who are lesbians. How DARE you insinuate that lesbianism is a misfortune, like blindness? You appear to be homophobic and disrespectful of the disabled community.

Quotations taken out of context are like statistics. You can get them to mean anything you like.

Well said, that woman! I couldn't have put it better myself

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:33 am**

If you want an example of how new users can post stuff that actually makes sense (with punctuation and everything!), see Nicky's post. If you want an example of how new users can make fools of themselves and embarrass the causes they stand for, see Kate Richardson's post.

One small clarification: I do care a little about the sexuality of people on here or on the programme, just like I care a little about what they look like, where they come from, etc. It doesn't colour my judgment of them at all, but it's part of the picture of the life they lead, and background stories are always interesting. However, the right place to talk about one's partner is exactly the same, regardless of sexual orientation, and in this case that means a short piece at the start of the programme, just like any other couple might get. Countdown approached this impeccably and, given the extreme provocation of Kate being such an obnoxious and self-absorbed illiterate idiot, I think the members of this forum have handled it pretty well too. No doubt "tolerance" (not a word I like) of homosexuality still has some way to go in this country, but a figurehead for it you sure as hell ain't.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:34 am**

Agreed (both previous posts)
Charlie's appeared in the short time I was writing "Agreed"!

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:36 am**

Addendum: David Dawson bids you all farewell on a fairly permanent basis.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 10:52 am**

Charlie Reams wrote:Addendum: David Dawson bids you all farewell on a fairly permanent basis.

Thank you for that, Charlie. And thank you, Nicky, for a brilliant post that says everything that needs to be said about Kate's incoherent rant.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 12:11 pm**

Excellent post, Nicky. The best in this thread yet.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:12 pm**

What the dick?

Seriously, I have no idea what's going on any more.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:32 pm**

Major props to Nicky - that was an excellent post, constructed fantastically, and I'm fairly sure she speaks on behalf of everyone (worthwhile) here.

The only part of Kate's quote appearing properly being the bit where I was explaining to Kathleen how to quote - hilarious, I'm sure the irony was lost on no one.
Still can't work out if that was a deliberate inclusion, or if she was trying to suggest that because I'd helped Kathleen in this particular thread I was actually insinuating that no lesbians can quote properly?
If so, odd. But oddly prophetic hehe.

And thanks Charlie for removing that dawson thing. Couple of days too late probably but glad it's happened.

Normal service resumed then?

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:14 pm**

david dawson wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:Haha. Pretty much that, yeah.
Fucking bastard poofter melon arse.

I love the way we can say what we want here. And then claim it was all a funny joke thing.

In that case can I say YOU'RE PRETTY FUCKING ANNOYING YOURSELF. Apparently Charlie's just banned you, so I'm pretty happy with that.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:28 pm**

Nicky wrote:Hi Kate

Firstly, I hope Sara recovers from her fall soon.

Your last post made very little sense I'm afraid. You've quoted random things from this thread? A thread that was started AFTER you accused the forumites of homophobic comments. And some of the posts were so clearly unoffensive (notably the ones about how to post a quote - which you clearly haven't taken on board!), that we can't tell which are the ones you actually do find offensive, or why.

AFAICS, you were welcomed to the forum, and, both here and on TV, your sexuality was seen as no more or less relevant than anyone else's! WE DON'T CARE that you are a lesbian or Phil is gay, anymore more than we care that Jon has ginger hair, or that you, Jason and many other forumites wear glasses. It doesn't matter to us. THAT is why you feel marginalised. Not because we're homophobic, but because we aren't treating you with kid gloves, because we don't think it's relevant! Everyone who posts something dumb or contraversial gets jumped on. It's that sort of forum. But if you assume the insults are to do with your gender/sexual preference/colour/whatever, it is YOU who is making an issue of it. If you don't like the forum, fine. But you have made a serious accusation which appears to be unfounded.
If you have a genuine complaint about homophobia on these forums - show us where it occured. Use punctuation and quotations so that we can understand what you are saying, and I suspect that you will get a far more satisfactory response.

I could actually get offended by YOUR post. Let me show you:
Kate Richardson wrote: her partner sara is not just a lesbian, she’s blind, how we laughed!),
I have a friend who is gradually losing her sight. How DARE you laugh at the blind? What a horrible thing to do!
I have friends who are lesbians. How DARE you insinuate that lesbianism is a misfortune, like blindness? You appear to be homophobic and disrespectful of the disabled community.

Quotations taken out of context are like statistics. You can get them to mean anything you like.

This is easily the best post in this thread and possibly the best post in c4c history not made by Jon Corby trying to antagonise someone else. Kudos!

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:14 pm**

Charlie, why did you ban David Dawson?

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:56 pm**

Jason Larsen wrote:Charlie, why did you ban David Dawson?

Because he keeps posting stupid offensive shit and never contributes anything worth reading.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 10:13 pm**

Martin told me that, Charlie. Thank you for letting me know.

Are you annoyed by this? Is that why you have been using some harsh words?

No offense. I know you're usually pretty rational. I'll talk to you again in a moment.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:19 pm**

I was half-expecting a cogent post from Kate clarifying the issues at hand, and possibly supplying some sort of useful opinion. I'm quite disappointed really.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:15 am**

Ian Volante wrote:I was half-expecting a cogent post from Kate clarifying the issues at hand, and possibly supplying some sort of useful opinion.

Seriously? Have you read her other posts?

Edit to add the latest comment from the article:

northernlass wrote:I think the problem lies in the response of forum members to Kates appearance and ensuing comments. They seem threatened by the fact that she made a point of her sexuality which suggests to me that they are all virgins and will be for life. These are a group of people who go to university and spend all their time playing scrabble. What a waste.

Just brilliant. I didn't go to University and I hate Scrabble so I don't think she's talking about me, but she's got the rest of you losers nailed on.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:47 am**

Jon Corby wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:I was half-expecting a cogent post from Kate clarifying the issues at hand, and possibly supplying some sort of useful opinion.
Seriously? Have you read her other posts?

Edit to add the latest comment from the article:

northernlass wrote:I think the problem lies in the response of forum members to Kates appearance and ensuing comments. They seem threatened by the fact that she made a point of her sexuality which suggests to me that they are all virgins and will be for life. These are a group of people who go to university and spend all their time playing scrabble. What a waste.

Well, I did say half-expecting. I'm an optimist. As for the latter quote which I missed earlier, I spent most of my time at university trying to find people to play Scrabble and have sex with, and was rather successful. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:51 am**

Ian Volante wrote:As for the latter quote which I missed earlier, I spent most of my time at university trying to find people to play Scrabble and have sex with, and was rather successful. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

I hope you took precautions

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:37 am**

Ian Volante wrote:I spent most of my time at university trying to find people to play Scrabble and have sex with, and was rather successful.

Did you not find that the tiles kept bouncing off the rack?

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:48 pm**

I can't tell, is her problem with people going to university as well as playing Scrabble, or people who play Scrabble all the time they're at university? Because I think I played Scrabble once whilst I was at university, and that was a game of assassins where we spent a week running around trying to kill each other (with water pistols and stuff) and when we did we stole tiles off people and then could try and make plays, which I'm not sure is what she has in mind.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:30 pm**

Jon Corby wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:I was half-expecting a cogent post from Kate clarifying the issues at hand, and possibly supplying some sort of useful opinion.
Seriously? Have you read her other posts?

Edit to add the latest comment from the article:

northernlass wrote:I think the problem lies in the response of forum members to Kates appearance and ensuing comments. They seem threatened by the fact that she made a point of her sexuality which suggests to me that they are all virgins and will be for life. These are a group of people who go to university and spend all their time playing scrabble. What a waste.
Just brilliant. I didn't go to University and I hate Scrabble so I don't think she's talking about me, but she's got the rest of you losers nailed on.

LOL!

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:31 pm**

Michael Wallace wrote:I can't tell, is her problem with people going to university as well as playing Scrabble, or people who play Scrabble all the time they're at university? Because I think I played Scrabble once whilst I was at university, and that was a game of assassins where we spent a week running around trying to kill each other (with water pistols and stuff) and when we did we stole tiles off people and then could try and make plays, which I'm not sure is what she has in mind.

Ahhh assassins, I've heard of that. Sounds pretty cool to me.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:34 pm**

Martin Gardner wrote:
Michael Wallace wrote:I can't tell, is her problem with people going to university as well as playing Scrabble, or people who play Scrabble all the time they're at university? Because I think I played Scrabble once whilst I was at university, and that was a game of assassins where we spent a week running around trying to kill each other (with water pistols and stuff) and when we did we stole tiles off people and then could try and make plays, which I'm not sure is what she has in mind.
Ahhh assassins, I've heard of that. Sounds pretty cool to me.

It's awesome. But I would say that. (Did I mention that I'm a Paranoia Hardened Death-master?)

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:08 pm**

Cool, I just followed a link off the lesbilicious website to www.whichisgayer.com, which will compare two things and tell you which one is gayer. Seems to work pretty well:

(Lesbilicious heartily endorses this as a bit of fun by the way, so I think it's safe to use without fear of reprisal - I can't see any disclaimers about the use by heterosexuals as being derogatory or offensive. But you never know. Use at your own risk.)

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:13 pm**

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:27 pm**

I knew there would be some disadvantage to my surname...

Back in the day, the top Google result for "Charlie Reams" was from a piece of lesbian erotica which included the line "Charlie reams her pussy with a dildo." Alas, my recent activities have displaced this excellent work and now I can't find it anywhere.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:34 pm**

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:37 pm**

So apparently this is far more fun than it should be.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:08 pm**

I'm definitely not going be the one who posts the Charlie Reams vs Kate Richardson comparison.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:20 pm**

Just so you know:

michael wallace is officially gayer than phil reynolds!
phil reynolds (169,000) vs michael wallace (339,000)

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:31 pm**

Phil Reynolds wrote:Just so you know:

michael wallace is officially gayer than phil reynolds!
phil reynolds (169,000) vs michael wallace (339,000)

I'd need to see a pie chart really.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:36 pm**

I give up. Seriously.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:49 pm**

Haha, this was in the Pink Paper too. But most hilariously:

"Richardson ... praised the hosts for mentioning George House Trust’s HIV and AIDS work."

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:53 pm**

Michael Wallace wrote:Haha, this was in the Pink Paper too. But most hilariously:

"Richardson ... praised the hosts for mentioning George House Trust’s HIV and AIDS work."

An impressive density of factual errors.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:13 pm**

I have a gaiety rating of 251.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:28 pm**

Gosh.
Just gazing at the pie charts is oddly stimulating.