DS Forums

 
 

You're full of Shit!


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 15-12-2010, 22:40
The Rhydler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
I think it was plain nasty and if it was based on what that smug guy said, who was just trying to look clever, it was unmerited
Correct!
The Rhydler is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 15-12-2010, 22:49
Sexbomb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Lancs
Posts: 14,455
i'm watching this again on bbc hd
Sexbomb is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2010, 22:55
WickedPlans
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 466
That was by far the best firing I have ever seen!
Bloody brilliant!!
I want to watch that clip over and over again.
WickedPlans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2010, 22:58
mary patricia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 11,412
That was by far the best firing I have ever seen!
Bloody brilliant!!
I want to watch that clip over and over again.
Enjoy
mary patricia is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2010, 23:10
mersey70
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,996
The firing was TV Gold, pure theatre but even the smuggest TV Prodcuer surely dosen't expect us to believe that minor 'detail' about Stuart's company only came to light at the interview stage. There have been postings on here questioning his claims.

I thought Stuart did well on the BBC Two show afterwards though, he wasn't all bad. A tosser for sure but not a real baddie.
mersey70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2010, 23:11
Jam35
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 166
I'm going to complain to the Daily Wail... After all, if childerun can be expected to sit through the tedium that was Saturday's X Factor to watch a tasteful burlesque routine, they are of course all going to get infected by Lord Sugar's bad language, which causes cancer.
Jam35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2010, 23:15
mary patricia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 11,412
The firing was TV Gold, pure theatre but even the smuggest TV Prodcuer surely dosen't expect us to believe that minor 'detail' about Stuart's company only came to light at the interview stage. There have been postings on here questioning his claims.

I thought Stuart did well on the BBC Two show afterwards though, he wasn't all bad. A tosser for sure but not a real baddie.
I love how he said he's grown up a bit but he's still a bit of a c*ck!
mary patricia is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2010, 23:17
MikeJW
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,740
Looking at his company he seems to be doing what is very close to basic IT tech services, specializing in internet and wifi.

http://www.bluewave.im/

Definitely not a 'telecoms operator' - more an IT company working in the area of networks.
Hmm, maybe this is where he gets the "licensed" from:

"BlueWave Communications Ltd is licensed and regulated under the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949."
http://www.bluewave.im/broadband/
MikeJW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2010, 23:21
eggshell
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,766
Loved it. But this was a total set-up anyone with half a brain could have seen that StuBaggs was a bullshitter from the start.
I'd sort of agree with you but then Stuart showed his true colours in the interview by asking Bawden who he was with the intention of telling him he knew nothing about the subject then when quickly realising he was on a loser being patronising and slightly threatening.

I think Stuart is actually a very very unpleasant person in real life and I'd steer well clear.
eggshell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2010, 23:24
boxx
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Preston
Posts: 4,755
Hmm, maybe this is where he gets the "licensed" from:
Haha THE Island's Communication Company

That's so Stuart Baggs

Edit:

As is
If you currently work for another ISP [Click Here].
Leading to:
A career with BlueWave Communications is an exciting prospect.
boxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2010, 23:27
pixieboots
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,655
I'd sort of agree with you but then Stuart showed his true colours in the interview by asking Bawden who he was with the intention of telling him he knew nothing about the subject then when quickly realising he was on a loser being patronising and slightly threatening.

I think Stuart is actually a very very unpleasant person in real life and I'd steer well clear.
I was lmao when he said that. Stu is very immature and a complete waffler who doesn't know when to fess up. He would be a liability to any company with his talent for getting people's backs up. its best if he remains working for himself. To slander a rival is bad enough but to be stupid enough to admit in such a public forum is just
pixieboots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2010, 23:30
The Rhydler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
I was lmao when he said that. Stu is very immature and a complete waffler who doesn't know when to fess up. He would be a liability to any company with his talent for getting people's backs up. its best if he remains working for himself. To slander a rival is bad enough but to be stupid enough to admit in such a public forum is just

He asked Borden his name because he probably didnt introduce himself at the beginning. Stuart wasnt being patronising, quite the opposite, he was trying NOT to patronise him.

I think Stuart is actually a very very unpleasant person in real life and I'd steer well clear
You know nothing about him in real life and therefore it's you thats slandering him...well, libelling him.
The Rhydler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2010, 23:33
eggshell
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,766
He asked Borden his name because he probably didnt introduce himself at the beginning. Stuart wasnt being patronising, quite the opposite, he was trying NOT to patronise him.



You know nothing about him in real life and therefore it's you thats slandering him...well, libelling him.
The key words being "I Think" i.e. I am entitled to MY opinion.

I take it you are Stuart...I can tell by the mildly threatening tone when challenged and the implication of legal action because you don't like what I am saying.
eggshell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2010, 23:54
pixieboots
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,655
[quote=The Rhydler;46594042]He asked Borden his name because he probably didnt introduce himself at the beginning. Stuart wasnt being patronising, quite the opposite, he was trying NOT to patronise him.
/QUOTE]

Not true. Stu said "I'm sorry, what did you say your name is?"Borden immediately commented that Stu didn't have much attention to detail either. Its easy to forget a name in a pressurised situation but Stu's immaturity allowed him ask an interviewer what his name was. Its a wee bit insulting in a normal convo but to say that in interview is really dumb imo.
pixieboots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 00:18
MrsSpoon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,362
Alan Sugar's angry with himself for letting Liz go after Stuart's bluffed his way through!!!
Very unprofessional of Lord Sugar. He is the one who is "full of shit."
MrsSpoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 09:33
diary_room
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Posts: 5,415
The weird thing was I thought Stuart got away fairly lightly in the interviews. considering. And even in the boardroom discussion there was some praise for him.

I don't actually see how all that was shown equated to LS being told Stuart was 'full of sh*t' - although I do agree with that assessment!
diary_room is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 09:49
Zippy289
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 958
The key words being "I Think" i.e. I am entitled to MY opinion.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it could still be libellous to air it in public.
Zippy289 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 10:12
MikeJW
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,740
Its easy to forget a name in a pressurised situation but Stu's immaturity allowed him ask an interviewer what his name was. Its a wee bit insulting in a normal convo but to say that in interview is really dumb imo.
Yes! Especially coming when it did. It seemed like he was trying to deflect the questions over the licence, and also it DID sound patronising, a "who are you exactly?"-type question, even if that's not how it was intended. Left me cringing.
MikeJW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 10:23
johnny_t
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 12,779
I have to say that, whilst he may have been a bit of a cock, a quick look at his website does seem to reveal that he isn't 'full of shit' at all. He is the MD of a proper, bona-fide telecoms company that is providing some quite technical services. He maybe wasn't quite there at the time of filming the interviews, but he certainly appears to be now.

At least he wasn't trying to act all big, whilst getting wrong what ISP stood for......
johnny_t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 10:26
ArumLily
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,243
Alan Sugar's angry with himself for letting Liz go after Stuart's bluffed his way through!!!
I agree with you on this. Last week on this forum I suggested that Lord Sugar was going senile for firing Liz in favour of that idiot.

At last he realises his awful mistake. On last week`s task Liz was the most successful out the 3 candidates in the boardroom. Over the weeks he has made little remarks to Liz such as`I suupose you`d have been more comfortable in Harvey Nicks or Bond Street`. He had put Liz in a box because of a combination of her looks, sex & age. He saw her as a young good looking girl who was likely to get pregnant & leave. I found that appalling. She is someone who wants a career , she`s well organised & is good at leading a team. Perhaps it`s time he gave up on The Apprentices if he can`t keep his streotypical judgements of people in check.Stuart got what he deserved unfortunately it was weeks too late.
ArumLily is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 10:27
trollface
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,694
You're entitled to your opinion, but it could still be libellous to air it in public.
I think eggshell is pretty safe. Unlike Stubags who admitted to deliberately making defamatory statements to the press about one of his competitors.
trollface is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 10:29
spaceman05
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,113
He asked Borden his name because he probably didnt introduce himself at the beginning. Stuart wasnt being patronising, quite the opposite, he was trying NOT to patronise him.



You know nothing about him in real life and therefore it's you thats slandering him...well, libelling him.
are you actually stuart the brand, as over the past few weeks you seem to have spent alot of time trying to defend the indifensible
spaceman05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 10:43
Socha
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Laich Kintraes
Posts: 4,086
I think it was plain nasty and if it was based on what that smug guy said, who was just trying to look clever, it was unmerited
Very nasty and unnecessarily cruel to treat a 21 year old like that. He could have let Stuart know that he needed to keep a check on reality with a bit of humour and kindness.

I found it extremely unpleasant.
Socha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 10:45
kingofthejungle
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 180
Shit Happens!
kingofthejungle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 10:49
Bandita
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberdeen/shire
Posts: 3,367
I think it was plain nasty and if it was based on what that smug guy said, who was just trying to look clever, it was unmerited
That description sounds like Stuart - nasty and smug and trying to look clever!

I'd sort of agree with you but then Stuart showed his true colours in the interview by asking Bawden who he was with the intention of telling him he knew nothing about the subject then when quickly realising he was on a loser being patronising and slightly threatening.

I think Stuart is actually a very very unpleasant person in real life and I'd steer well clear.
That wasn't a good look for Stuart, I hope that was his extreme youth that made him do that - he is only 21 you know!
Bandita is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:21.