objectively, its absolutely clear that ore was better than danny because he won.
any other conclusion is perverse. or bull/ish.
any other conclusion is perverse. or bull/ish.
Previous Dance experience
9 of 11
Originally Posted by primer:
“objectively, its absolutely clear that ore was better than danny because he won.
any other conclusion is perverse. or bull/ish.
”
“objectively, its absolutely clear that ore was better than danny because he won.
any other conclusion is perverse. or bull/ish.
”
The bit is between their teeth though.
Perhaps I should let them lick their wounds and lie to themselves.
Originally Posted by Nakatomi:
“The fact that he presents ballet productions with Darcey says he must know something about dancing. There'd be no other reason to have a sports presenter presenting it.”
“The fact that he presents ballet productions with Darcey says he must know something about dancing. There'd be no other reason to have a sports presenter presenting it.”
By this logic Tess must know about ballroom dancing as she is presenting a show about dancing. She did once compete against Terry Wogan in the CIN show and won, so perhaps she's a ringer too. Oh, and Claudia also knows about ballroom dancing. Both of them are hiding their experiences.
Originally Posted by gorlagon:
“I've been clear why. Because, from where I'm sitting, you're the nastiest and you deliberately start most of the arguments. You're not Joan of Arc, martyring yourself for Ore so you can go down in history as his heroic defender against the dictators of Dannydom. You're just being mean. On purpose.
Seriously. I've seen you when you don't have this childish bit between your teeth. You've got loads of productive stuff to say. So why not say it instead of taking pleasure in rubbishing others, which you clearly are doing?”
“I've been clear why. Because, from where I'm sitting, you're the nastiest and you deliberately start most of the arguments. You're not Joan of Arc, martyring yourself for Ore so you can go down in history as his heroic defender against the dictators of Dannydom. You're just being mean. On purpose.
Seriously. I've seen you when you don't have this childish bit between your teeth. You've got loads of productive stuff to say. So why not say it instead of taking pleasure in rubbishing others, which you clearly are doing?”
Um, I'm standing up for Rhum in this regard.
Ore's detractors have been, in the main, childish (Ore O'Blubber being a prime example), downright viciously asserting that Ore MUST have had prior training (2013 one dance and damn good he was too). So I'm not about to let anyone accuse Rhum of rubbishing Danny et al, when there have been scores of vindictive posts by fans of the other dancers.
Originally Posted by Rhumbatugger:
“You can't argue.
I can't respect anyone that sees 'nastiness' in me and not others. And resorts to personal trashing instead of engaging.
Argue with me.
Except you bloody can't.
I've got far more respect for Monaogg and Coppertop than you. They do it.
Condescending insults don't cut it.
Pathetic.”
“You can't argue.
I can't respect anyone that sees 'nastiness' in me and not others. And resorts to personal trashing instead of engaging.
Argue with me.
Except you bloody can't.
I've got far more respect for Monaogg and Coppertop than you. They do it.
Condescending insults don't cut it.
Pathetic.”
Argue about what? We had a conversation about the final and about the merits and demerits of Danny earlier in the thread. I think our respective positions were properly expressed and relatively civilly discussed.
In this part of the thread, I think my argument is clear: you use hyperbolised trashing of one contestant to support your favoured contestant more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it; you use ad hominems on other forum members more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it; you refuse to hear even the mildest criticism of your own favoured contestant more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it.
Which part of this line of argument of mine do you not understand?
Also: go back to my first post in this particular exchange. I was indeed highly critical of you but look how it's escalated since. You don't respond well to criticism, darling. Try to do better.
Apparently Tom Chambers was told to underplay his dance training during his SCD participation. I read that Austin Healy took private ballroom dancing lessong ahead of participating in SCD. It was rumoured that Zoe Ball was having private lessons at some point before/during her appearance on the show as well. Wasn't Jill Halfpeny a trained dancer too?
I suspect that any celeb who appears on the show and is quite good/very good from the outset has had dance training but rarely does it affect many of them. Previous experience seemed to explode in the consciousness during DvO's series.
I suspect that any celeb who appears on the show and is quite good/very good from the outset has had dance training but rarely does it affect many of them. Previous experience seemed to explode in the consciousness during DvO's series.
Originally Posted by Rhumbatugger:
“The bit is between their teeth though.
Perhaps I should let them lick their wounds and lie to themselves.”
“The bit is between their teeth though.
Perhaps I should let them lick their wounds and lie to themselves.
”
i do like a bit of gnashing and wailing. where would the forum be without it.
Originally Posted by gorlagon:
“Argue about what? We had a conversation about the final and about the merits and demerits of Danny earlier in the thread. I think our respective positions were properly expressed and relatively civilly discussed.
In this part of the thread, I think my argument is clear: you use hyperbolised trashing of one contestant to support your favoured contestant more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it; you use ad hominems on other forum members more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it; you refuse to hear even the mildest criticism of your own favoured contestant more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it.
Which part of this line of argument of mine do you not understand?”
“Argue about what? We had a conversation about the final and about the merits and demerits of Danny earlier in the thread. I think our respective positions were properly expressed and relatively civilly discussed.
In this part of the thread, I think my argument is clear: you use hyperbolised trashing of one contestant to support your favoured contestant more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it; you use ad hominems on other forum members more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it; you refuse to hear even the mildest criticism of your own favoured contestant more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it.
Which part of this line of argument of mine do you not understand?”
How about you argue any points of difficulty you have?
You spill a lot of bollocks but you dont actually engage.
You are trashing ME, but not engaging.
Engage and I'll take you seriously, otherwise you are just posting insults that you can't even properly defend.
Here we go.
FIND SOMETHING you disagree with and ARGUE.
And I willl respond.
and THEN you can try to trash my ARGUMENT.
I'm waiting.
Originally Posted by primer:
“i do like a bit of gnashing and wailing. where would the forum be without it.”
“i do like a bit of gnashing and wailing. where would the forum be without it.”
I know.
The gnashing is great fun
Originally Posted by primer:
“objectively, its absolutely clear that ore was better than danny because he won.
any other conclusion is perverse. or bull/ish.
”
“objectively, its absolutely clear that ore was better than danny because he won.
any other conclusion is perverse. or bull/ish.
”
Originally Posted by Rhumbatugger:
“The bit is between their teeth though.
Perhaps I should let them lick their wounds and lie to themselves.”
“The bit is between their teeth though.
Perhaps I should let them lick their wounds and lie to themselves.
”
Yes, of course we all accept that Ore is better because he won, just like we accept that Darren Gough is a better dancer than Colin Jackson, or Abbey Clancy is better than Natalie Gumede and Chris Hollins danced better than Ricky Whittle. Anything else would make us as perverse as those deluded judges who have an irrational habit of awarding higher total marks to the inferior losers.
Originally Posted by gorlagon:
“Argue about what? We had a conversation about the final and about the merits and demerits of Danny earlier in the thread. I think our respective positions were properly expressed and relatively civilly discussed.
In this part of the thread, I think my argument is clear: you use hyperbolised trashing of one contestant to support your favoured contestant more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it; you use ad hominems on other forum members more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it; you refuse to hear even the mildest criticism of your own favoured contestant more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it.
Which part of this line of argument of mine do you not understand?
Also: go back to my first post in this particular exchange. I was indeed highly critical of you but look how it's escalated since. You don't respond well to criticism, darling. Try to do better.”
“Argue about what? We had a conversation about the final and about the merits and demerits of Danny earlier in the thread. I think our respective positions were properly expressed and relatively civilly discussed.
In this part of the thread, I think my argument is clear: you use hyperbolised trashing of one contestant to support your favoured contestant more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it; you use ad hominems on other forum members more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it; you refuse to hear even the mildest criticism of your own favoured contestant more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it.
Which part of this line of argument of mine do you not understand?
Also: go back to my first post in this particular exchange. I was indeed highly critical of you but look how it's escalated since. You don't respond well to criticism, darling. Try to do better.”
*puts up the "Don't Feed the Trolls" sign*
It's probably best not to engage. Nothing will come of it.
Originally Posted by Muggsy:
“Yes, of course we all accept that Ore is better because he won, just like we accept that Darren Gough is a better dancer than Colin Jackson, or Abbey Clancy is better than Natalie Gumede and Chris Hollins danced better than Ricky Whittle. Anything else would make us as perverse as those deluded judges who have an irrational habit of awarding higher total marks to the inferior losers.”
“Yes, of course we all accept that Ore is better because he won, just like we accept that Darren Gough is a better dancer than Colin Jackson, or Abbey Clancy is better than Natalie Gumede and Chris Hollins danced better than Ricky Whittle. Anything else would make us as perverse as those deluded judges who have an irrational habit of awarding higher total marks to the inferior losers.”
Get ON.
Are you seriously saying that Ore wasn't good, and that Danny was better in the final by miles or something?
Honestly?
Don't do that, you're worth more than that.
Originally Posted by LaughingSock:
“*puts up the "Don't Feed the Trolls" sign*
It's probably best not to engage. Nothing will come of it.”
“*puts up the "Don't Feed the Trolls" sign*
It's probably best not to engage. Nothing will come of it.”
Do you seriously think I'm a troll?
Originally Posted by postit:
“Um, I'm standing up for Rhum in this regard.
Ore's detractors have been, in the main, childish (Ore O'Blubber being a prime example), downright viciously asserting that Ore MUST have had prior training (2013 one dance and damn good he was too). So I'm not about to let anyone accuse Rhum of rubbishing Danny et al, when there have been scores of vindictive posts by fans of the other dancers.”
“Um, I'm standing up for Rhum in this regard.
Ore's detractors have been, in the main, childish (Ore O'Blubber being a prime example), downright viciously asserting that Ore MUST have had prior training (2013 one dance and damn good he was too). So I'm not about to let anyone accuse Rhum of rubbishing Danny et al, when there have been scores of vindictive posts by fans of the other dancers.”
I don't deny there have been many childish and nonsensical and outright nasty things said by many posters this year about all the contestants. It's the same every year, of course.
But here's the thing. I don't post that much here, only if a particular topic sparks a particular interest. But I enjoy reading and I recognise poster names. This year, I've spent half the time seeing Rhumbatugger's name and thinking, "Good grief. What on earth has happened to her? Has she been injected with the Nasty Virus or something?" It's been absolutely constant.
Rhumbatugger - I'm sorry to single you out. But I say it how I see it. And this is how I see it. Subjective? Yes, of course. But if you don't want generally uninvested bystanders to think you're behaving like an arse then the best advice I can give you is don't behave like an arse. Underneath the obsession with defending Ore's honour, I'm sure you're not an arse.
Gorgalon, I only offend you because I DISAGREE with you. And as for acting like an 'arse' that just means being annoying in a way you don't LIKE.
I argue cogently and I defend my arguments with evidence, you have a problem with my VIEWS.
SO just argue that I'm wrong. It's not bloody rocket science,
But don't act like you're being in ANY way impartial and dish the crap like you did tonight.
That was MASSIVELY nasty, I rate that in my top bloody ten for personal trashing.
And people are NOT STUPID.
They SEE what you did.
I argue cogently and I defend my arguments with evidence, you have a problem with my VIEWS.
SO just argue that I'm wrong. It's not bloody rocket science,
But don't act like you're being in ANY way impartial and dish the crap like you did tonight.
That was MASSIVELY nasty, I rate that in my top bloody ten for personal trashing.
And people are NOT STUPID.
They SEE what you did.
Danny wasn't that awesome by the way.
And I wish him well in his Musical Theatre career.
He did well.
And I wish him well in his Musical Theatre career.
He did well.
Originally Posted by Rhumbatugger:
“Gorgalon, I only offend you because I DISAGREE with you. And as for acting like an 'arse' that just means being annoying in a way you don't LIKE.
I argue cogently and I defend my arguments with evidence, you have a problem with my VIEWS.
SO just argue that I'm wrong. It's not bloody rocket science,
But don't act like you're being in ANY way impartial and dish the crap like you did tonight.
That was MASSIVELY nasty, I rate that in my top bloody ten for personal trashing.
And people are NOT STUPID.
They SEE what you did.”
“Gorgalon, I only offend you because I DISAGREE with you. And as for acting like an 'arse' that just means being annoying in a way you don't LIKE.
I argue cogently and I defend my arguments with evidence, you have a problem with my VIEWS.
SO just argue that I'm wrong. It's not bloody rocket science,
But don't act like you're being in ANY way impartial and dish the crap like you did tonight.
That was MASSIVELY nasty, I rate that in my top bloody ten for personal trashing.
And people are NOT STUPID.
They SEE what you did.”
I really don't think you're reading what I'm saying. We disagree in that one of us preferred Danny and one of us preferred Ore. We had, as I've already said, a perfectly civil exchange about it earlier in this very thread. That exchange then ended and, if you look back, I think I'm right in saying that it ended on reasonably pleasant terms.
Here, in this second exchange, I am not disagreeing with you about anything. I think you are perfectly free to prefer Danny over Ore. I even agree with you that Ore had the best final.
I repeat: I am not disagreeing with you about anything.
This is what I am doing: criticising you for your posting style. This is not disagreeing with you. This is me looking at your posting style this year and disliking it enough to criticise it. It began in a to and fro with you and others about lacking objectivity. I interjected to say that I also thought you lacked objectivity and were one of the worst offenders for it.
All's I'm saying is that you're the pot calling the kettle black.
Originally Posted by gorlagon:
“Argue about what? We had a conversation about the final and about the merits and demerits of Danny earlier in the thread. I think our respective positions were properly expressed and relatively civilly discussed.
In this part of the thread, I think my argument is clear: you use hyperbolised trashing of one contestant to support your favoured contestant more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it; you use ad hominems on other forum members more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it; you refuse to hear even the mildest criticism of your own favoured contestant more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it.
Which part of this line of argument of mine do you not understand?
Also: go back to my first post in this particular exchange. I was indeed highly critical of you but look how it's escalated since. You don't respond well to criticism, darling. Try to do better.”
“Argue about what? We had a conversation about the final and about the merits and demerits of Danny earlier in the thread. I think our respective positions were properly expressed and relatively civilly discussed.
In this part of the thread, I think my argument is clear: you use hyperbolised trashing of one contestant to support your favoured contestant more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it; you use ad hominems on other forum members more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it; you refuse to hear even the mildest criticism of your own favoured contestant more than everyone else but criticise others for doing it less than you do it.
Which part of this line of argument of mine do you not understand?
Also: go back to my first post in this particular exchange. I was indeed highly critical of you but look how it's escalated since. You don't respond well to criticism, darling. Try to do better.”
oh the irony. you are onto a loser if you expect your opponents in a debate to behave better than you do.
Originally Posted by Rhumbatugger:
“Get ON.
Are you seriously saying that Ore wasn't good, and that Danny was better in the final by miles or something?
Honestly?
Don't do that, you're worth more than that.”
“Get ON.
Are you seriously saying that Ore wasn't good, and that Danny was better in the final by miles or something?
Honestly?
Don't do that, you're worth more than that.”
matter of opinion....
flat facts just aren't that easy to come by in the evaluation of a subjective experience...
sometimes...
Originally Posted by gorlagon:
“This is what I am doing: criticising you for your posting style. This is not disagreeing with you. This is me looking at your posting style this year and disliking it enough to criticise it. ”
“This is what I am doing: criticising you for your posting style. This is not disagreeing with you. This is me looking at your posting style this year and disliking it enough to criticise it. ”
good grief.
is it a peer review?
Originally Posted by gorlagon:
“I really don't think you're reading what I'm saying. We disagree in that one of us preferred Danny and one of us preferred Ore. We had, as I've already said, a perfectly civil exchange about it earlier in this very thread. That exchange then ended and, if you look back, I think I'm right in saying that it ended on reasonably pleasant terms.
Here, in this second exchange, I am not disagreeing with you about anything. I think you are perfectly free to prefer Danny over Ore. I even agree with you that Ore had the best final.
I repeat: I am not disagreeing with you about anything.
This is what I am doing: criticising you for your posting style. This is not disagreeing with you. This is me looking at your posting style this year and disliking it enough to criticise it. It began when you accused someone else of lacking objectivity and they replied that you equally lacked objectivity. You denied this and I interjected to say that I also thought you lacked objectivity and were one of the worst offenders for it.
All's I'm saying is that you're the pot calling the kettle black.”
“I really don't think you're reading what I'm saying. We disagree in that one of us preferred Danny and one of us preferred Ore. We had, as I've already said, a perfectly civil exchange about it earlier in this very thread. That exchange then ended and, if you look back, I think I'm right in saying that it ended on reasonably pleasant terms.
Here, in this second exchange, I am not disagreeing with you about anything. I think you are perfectly free to prefer Danny over Ore. I even agree with you that Ore had the best final.
I repeat: I am not disagreeing with you about anything.
This is what I am doing: criticising you for your posting style. This is not disagreeing with you. This is me looking at your posting style this year and disliking it enough to criticise it. It began when you accused someone else of lacking objectivity and they replied that you equally lacked objectivity. You denied this and I interjected to say that I also thought you lacked objectivity and were one of the worst offenders for it.
All's I'm saying is that you're the pot calling the kettle black.”
I didn't start the objectivity argument. I just finished it.
You didn't follow the argument or couldn't understand it.
Your hostility is your own.
My posting style is bloody AWESOME. It annoyed you, it engaged a a lot of people and it's about what I FEEL.
People may hate it but I didn't say ANYTHING that was fake.. That may have really pissed people off. Because they are not stupid.
And you would really LIKE the pot and kettle thing to be true.
And you may believe it.
That's your choice.
But you are wrong.
Originally Posted by primer:
“good grief.
is it a peer review?”
“good grief.
is it a peer review?”
I've got to say, I'm glad I'm pissed. This is surreal.
Originally Posted by primer:
“good grief.
is it a peer review?”
“good grief.
is it a peer review?”
No. It's an attempt to frame a relatively simple point in even plainer English to someone having comprehension problems.
How I would laugh if Ore suddenly said I have a confession to make and that is during the Summer I had some Private Dancing lessons just to get ready for SCD. This thread would be missing a lot of people.
Originally Posted by gorlagon:
“No. It's an attempt to frame a relatively simple point in even plainer English to someone having comprehension problems.”
“No. It's an attempt to frame a relatively simple point in even plainer English to someone having comprehension problems.”
Such a shame that people aren't as stupid as you think.
9 of 11
