|
||||||||
The Wright Stuff Discussion Thread (Part 4) |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1301 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,686
|
Quote:
I'm sorry BUT I've got this in the backround yesterday and now today BUT Annabel seems to have said the exactly the same thing at the same time!
Someone plese tell me I'm not living in a time loop! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() That's why my tv' EPG fickered and when crazy! It skipped on to another channel! Phew I thought I was going crazy. (Wighty is still a D*CK )
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#1302 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,501
|
Quote:
Good grief.
When stubborn meets stubborn. Annabelle just not getting Matthew's argument. He really does seem to think that whatever he says is simply correct. No opinion involved.I have only been half watching but the show seems to have a very disjointed tone today. It started with MW giggling and making childish jokes. Moved to a discussion where he did his usual aggression to callers. Then a sombre tone mentioning the Brussels attacks. Cut to pathetic exchange with Annabel. Then back to giggling. Now we have this autism TP. Just bizarre. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1303 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,829
|
Quote:
What I took from that was how MW simply cannot accept when someone says they don't agree. He kept going on about how she wasn't listening to him. She did listen. She just didn't agree.
He really does seem to think that whatever he says is simply correct. No opinion involved.I have only been half watching but the show seems to have a very disjointed tone today. It started with MW giggling and making childish jokes. Moved to a discussion where he did his usual aggression to callers. Then a sombre tone mentioning the Brussels attacks. Cut to pathetic exchange with Annabel. Then back to giggling. Now we have this autism TP. Just bizarre. Completely agree that Matthew doesn't handle disagreement well. He was accepting Annabelle's point about the knowledge of an affair not necessarily being in the publuc interest and no one's business, but tried to move the conversation on a bit to discuss how a super-injunction means a cheated on wife (or husband) can't take their story to the press. The person in the wrong uses their wealth to hide behind a super-injunction, but the spouse can't get their side of events out to the public. Of course if the super-injunction works the public won't know who the cheat is so there's no reason for the spouse to want to make their story public, but that's kind of beside the point. I do think he was trying to introduce a different angle, but, imo, she simply regused to address it. Very irritating and pretty cringe-inducing exchange really. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1304 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 15,850
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
#1305 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,064
|
Quote:
"You are blocked from following @Matthew_Wright and viewing @Matthew_Wright's Tweets."
![]() ![]() ![]() I need a drink now after this socialist lovefest of a show. ![]() A pity Dominic Holland isn't on this week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1306 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,501
|
Quote:
I see it slightly differently.
Completely agree that Matthew doesn't handle disagreement well. He was accepting Annabelle's point about the knowledge of an affair not necessarily being in the publuc interest and no one's business, but tried to move the conversation on a bit to discuss how a super-injunction means a cheated on wife (or husband) can't take their story to the press. The person in the wrong uses their wealth to hide behind a super-injunction, but the spouse can't get their side of events out to the public. Of course if the super-injunction works the public won't know who the cheat is so there's no reason for the spouse to want to make their story public, but that's kind of beside the point. I do think he was trying to introduce a different angle, but, imo, she simply regused to address it. Very irritating and pretty cringe-inducing exchange really. But as for MW's angle the problem is that she was discussing the legal position. I.e. "not in the public interest". He flipped about trying different arguments including saying that the woman involved is also a member of the public, which was a nonsense argument that sounds like he doesn't understand what that concept means. He then started with the thing about the woman being unable to discuss what is also their private life. Fair enough but this was just a short newspapers bit not a full discussion on the overall topic. She was right to keep it on the point about public interest because that was the official comment. She may not have handled it well but the problem is that MW regularly cuts off callers or shouts at people for going on tangents. By bringing up completely separate aspects of the issue he was doing just that. Only so he could "win" the argument as usual. He doesn't even realize how hypocritical he is at times. Also why does the argument need to be "won" at all? Can he not just say "yes what you say is reasonable although there are also other consequences such as...blah blah" then when she disagrees just say "OK fair enough there are different opinions on this issue. So what's next?". Why is that so hard for him? Although she didn't come over great it was good to see someone not give in. He looked furious. The key thing was not whether she was dismissing his point. It's that he would not stop until she said he was right. It got a bit embarrassing this time. This is typical of MW with callers where the old "you're not listening" line comes out. It suggests that there is no debate that his comments are right. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1307 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 36,981
|
I'm guessing it might be a while, if ever, before Annabel is back on the panel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1308 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,961
|
Quote:
She may not have handled it well but the problem is that MW regularly cuts off callers or shouts at people for going on tangents. By bringing up completely separate aspects of the issue he was doing just that. Only so he could "win" the argument as usual. He doesn't even realize how hypocritical he is at times. Also why does the argument need to be "won" at all? Can he not just say "yes what you say is reasonable although there are also other consequences such as...blah blah" then when she disagrees just say "OK fair enough there are different opinions on this issue. So what's next?". Why is that so hard for him? Although she didn't come over great it was good to see someone not give in. He looked furious. The key thing was not whether she was dismissing his point. It's that he would not stop until she said he was right. It got a bit embarrassing this time. This is typical of MW with callers where the old "you're not listening" line comes out. It suggests that there is no debate that his comments are right.
Annabel didn't really handle it too well and it quickly blew up into a full on spat and the Wrights face was fuming with rage. I really thought it was going to drag on but fortunately both let go. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1309 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,064
|
Stormy dressed like she needs a pair of pom poms. Still as lovely as ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1310 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 36,981
|
Quote:
Annabel didn't really handle it too well and it quickly blew up into a full on spat and the Wrights face was fuming with rage. I really thought it was going to drag on but fortunately both let go.
Doesn't seem right to see Sian Williams on C5. She deserves better. Kerplunksy didn't but Williams does. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1311 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,829
|
Quote:
Pretty much it in a nutshell. Wrighty must "win" whatever the cost, even if that means putting down one of his panel guests. He's like a child having his toys taken away.
Annabel didn't really handle it too well and it quickly blew up into a full on spat and the Wrights face was fuming with rage. I really thought it was going to drag on but fortunately both let go. I think this is why Matt and Richard have been quite successful as stand-ins for Matthew, they let others have their say and can disagree without reacting in the juvenile way Matthew often does. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1312 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 36,981
|
Quote:
You bolded exactly the section of The_Bonobo's post which I most wanted to respond to and I couldn't agree more with both of you.
I think this is why Matt and Richard have been quite successful as stand-ins for Matthew, they let others have their say and can disagree without reacting in the juvenile way Matthew often does. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1313 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,064
|
Quote:
You bolded exactly the section of The_Bonobo's post which I most wanted to respond to and I couldn't agree more with both of you.
I think this is why Matt and Richard have been quite successful as stand-ins for Matthew, they let others have their say and can disagree without reacting in the juvenile way Matthew often does. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1314 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,064
|
Thought the last caller was going to say Islam then matthew would really have lost it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1315 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,064
|
Annabelle living by the seafront in Brighton. She's always moaning and bitching on how hard it is to live.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1316 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,064
|
Feminists will never be happy even with glasses
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1317 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,961
|
Quote:
He did some conciliatory sucking up to her this morning.
Doesn't seem right to see Sian Williams on C5. She deserves better. Kerplunksy didn't but Williams does. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1318 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,637
|
Quote:
My God she had him slobbering from the palm of her hand and kissing her feet! What an about face that was. Positively embarrassing. He really is such a wimp and i'd have thought more of him had he just apologised over it and moved on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1319 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,064
|
Quote:
I have a feeling he was probably pretty much made to apologise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1320 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,546
|
Is it now the habit in the Paper's Review for right-on contributors to intone solemnly when quoting from " the paper that cannot be mentioned " or " that newspaper " instead of just saying The Daily Mail FFS ?
It's all getting rather childish now. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1321 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 36,981
|
Depends on the panellist. Some Scousers not keen on reading from The Sun for instance.
Furst used to lampoon "The Mood of The Mail" when he was on but seems to regard that as giving material away free of charge now so's dropped it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1322 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,023
|
Just caught the guest stating race horses are treated better than any other domesticated animal.
Utter rubbish. A horse wants to be with the herd and graze all day. As it is they're confined all day in a stable and given weighed measures of food twice a day. They are so bored that their mental state drives them to bite the stable door known as cribbing. Hence the metal strip applied to the door to prevent it. I think the horses would disagree with her. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1323 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,735
|
Quote:
Depends on the panellist. Some Scousers not keen on reading from The Sun for instance.
Furst used to lampoon "The Mood of The Mail" when he was on but seems to regard that as giving material away free of charge now so's dropped it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1324 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 36,981
|
Quote:
I thought he dropped it because it was unfunny and cringe worthy. Even the sycophantic studio audience weren't laughing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1325 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,741
|
Quote:
The thing is with Matthew is that he has an agenda and he takes that agenda into every talking point that he does be they serious subjects or that 'throwaway' piece on Cameron yesterday which just turned into a sneerfest. He may have had a spat with annabelle but politically she's on the same page as him and will be back on again as she is useful to him. We all saw what happened with Ian Lee a few months back when he went in with an agenda against a christian lawyer and paid for it losing his job.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:38.



Someone plese tell me I'm not living in a time loop! 
)

He really does seem to think that whatever he says is simply correct. No opinion involved.
