Word. My mate was driving along the Seven Sisters road last week and saw Wanyama out house hunting, but I was scared to mention it
2 Likes
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
I think Bletch was wrong (sorry Bletch!) Up to you.
No worries, but I feel I better add some facts, Lou, because it’s got to be tough, even for you, to judge a situation without the facts. I’ll provide them, and then you can tell me I’m wrong whilst in possession of the facts. 
I did PM pap, well over a week ago to say that I felt the Labour thread was heading down the personal route. That was long before this recent, second ‘debated’ point.
The reason I PM’d pap?
Because I was chatting with both papster and Furball on PM at the time, and it was clear they both had concerns about the familiar routine of bringing their knowledge of each others real life characteristics into the debate.
I don’t think, and correct me if I’m wrong, that this adds any value to a debate.
My request was that they both keep it civil, and I suggested that pap might recognise a ‘deadly embrace’ and offer a view that as their positions were likely not going to change, that they move on to other parts of the debate.
Remember this was two weeks ago nearly, and to both their credit, I’ve really enjoyed the debate since - joining in myself where I felt able.
Now I still don’t really know why you think the debate has been neutered, but assuming it was down to the discussion about whether pap’s vote should have counted, I’m not sure where that could have gone, or how it could have reached a conclusion.
This is the way I saw it (but I was reading between bites of a burger at Schipol at the time).
Furball’s point was the as an entryist, and as a supporter of Left Unity, pap’s vote should not have been allowed to count.
Pap’s point was that as the facts had likely been examined by his local Labour party branch, the evidence had been tested and it had been allowed to count.
I happen to believe that Furball is right.
I also happen to believe that pap is right.
The issue was that I feel that Furball’s examination was on ethereally moral, or party political grounds. pap’s response was grounded in the reality of the situation.
For either to ‘win’ that part of the debate, the other would have to agree to join the other the ethereally moral world, or the real world.
I didn’t see that happening, so what was the point of continuing that debate? I didn’t intervene though.
I assume that voyeurs like myself would have decided home-win, away win or score-draw for themselves. So one, the other or both would have ‘won’ the debate in the eyes of us voyeurs.
1 Like
What kind of firearm does one use when hunting houses? I’d go for an RPG, but would there be anything left that I can mount for display?
Ha ha indeed we all know I got banned off the Steve"I love a good grass me" Grant’s £5 show for being correct about Lallana, my mate did the painting on the house as well.
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
Ha ha indeed we all know I got banned off the Steve"I love a good grass me" Grant’s £5 show for being correct about Lallana, my mate did the painting on the house as well.
I hope your mate didn’t suggest that Lallana could play for and finish his career at Southampton. Hands have been lost when that happens, I’ve heard.
Nope, just CL reading between the lines.
Lallana is a sly rat for the way he went.
Get a grip Bletch, you big bellend.
1 Like
There used to be a thread call ask Bazza, he’ll sort it, what Pap want to join? It can’t have been the Labour Party as he joined 5 minutes ago, for want its worth I paid my £3 and since then me and Tom Watson have been personally emailing every 5 minutes, he won’t get the gig as he loves his blackberry too much.
Just ask Bazza, he’ll sort it.
1 Like
Originally posted by @saintbletch
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
I think Bletch was wrong (sorry Bletch!) Up to you.
No worries, but I feel I better add some facts, Lou, because it’s got to be tough, even for you, to judge a situation without the facts. I’ll provide them, and then you can tell me I’m wrong whilst in possession of the facts.
I did PM pap, well over a week ago to say that I felt the Labour thread was heading down the personal route. That was long before this recent, second ‘debated’ point.
The reason I PM’d pap?
Because I was chatting with both papster and Furball on PM at the time, and it was clear they both had concerns about the familiar routine of bringing their knowledge of each others real life characteristics into the debate.
I don’t think, and correct me if I’m wrong, that this adds any value to a debate.
My request was that they both keep it civil, and I suggested that pap might recognise a ‘deadly embrace’ and offer a view that as their positions were likely not going to change, that they move on to other parts of the debate.
Remember this was two weeks ago nearly, and to both their credit, I’ve really enjoyed the debate since - joining in myself where I felt able.
Now I still don’t really know why you think the debate has been neutered, but assuming it was down to the discussion about whether pap’s vote should have counted, I’m not sure where that could have gone, or how it could have reached a conclusion.
This is the way I saw it (but I was reading between bites of a burger at Schipol at the time).
Furball’s point was the as an entryist, and as a supporter of Left Unity, pap’s vote should not have been allowed to count.
Pap’s point was that as the facts had likely been examined by his local Labour party branch, the evidence had been tested and it had been allowed to count.
I happen to believe that Furball is right.
I also happen to believe that pap is right.
The issue was that I feel that Furball’s examination was on ethereally moral, or party political grounds. pap’s response was grounded in the reality of the situation.
For either to ‘win’ that part of the debate, the other would have to agree to join the other the ethereally moral world, or the real world.
I didn’t see that happening, so what was the point of continuing that debate? I didn’t intervene though.
I assume that voyeurs like myself would have decided home-win, away win or score-draw for themselves. So one, the other or both would have ‘won’ the debate in the eyes of us voyeurs.
Dear Bletch,
Apologies for the delay responding. I was out last night, had had several magaritas, managed a one sentence response to Bearsy (not quite sure how, but I’m impressed with myself) but was incapable of going deeper than that. I’m now in that slightly otherworldly place when you wake at 7am, fully dressed, face full of make up, lying on bed, with a bit of a headache. Classy. I had a vague recollection that Bletch had written me a thoughtful post, so in my dry mouth, head hurting state (but now with face washed and ready for bed) I decided to have a read before going back to sleep. I’m hoping we’ve all been there. I’m hoping Hypo doesn’t read this.
But anyway. Actually yes, this does make a difference. And covers quite a few of my points. So thank you. Let’s hope this kind of high value contribution doesn’t disappear in an attempt to not upset anyone. I enjoyed it, and recognise it took big effort on the part of Papster and Furpine.
Now, if OK with you, I’m going to go back to sleep and I look forward to seeing you the other side of midday.
Lots of love,
Lou.
2 Likes
Originally posted by @Fatso
Get a grip Bletch, you big bellend.
Hahaha! Fatso, you’re such a fake rebel! 
2 Likes
Spooky! We too were on the margaritas last night. Mrs G is currently revisiting said margarita in the loo.
Originally posted by @Goatboy
Spooky! We too were on the margaritas last night. Mrs G is currently revisiting said margarita in the loo.
I think I might have just put myself off margaritas for life 