suspenderslover

Presidents Club behviour

281 posts in this topic

8 minutes ago, stockingsadmirer69 said:

And you are doing what, Trinity?

Answering yet another one of your ID's dearest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Trinity said:

Answering yet another one of your ID's dearest. 

Wrong! You are starting to use personal insults, just as your contemporary's use. Sweetie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, stockingsadmirer69 said:

Wrong! You are starting to use personal insults, just as your contemporary's use. Sweetie.

Only after they insulted me first. Sorry if I "manned up" and defended myself from abuse, but isn't that something you older chaps were advocating? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stockingsadmirer68 said:

Ahhhh he @stockingsadmirer69 @luckyme @weeniewinderupper @radio @macboatface @boatman etc etc :58674d5a21ae6_EmojiObjects-216: :58674c057baa4_EmojiSmiley-69: :58674cf24b322_EmojiObjects-43: 🔚 doesn’t like he’s own medicine - you should know that by now Penny 😳😉😂

weenie............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, rowlf said:

weenie............

Unable to muster a suitable retort, so resorts back to such a typical, weak ‘yank’ response :58674c057baa4_EmojiSmiley-69: :58674dba34a33_EmojiOrte-74: :58674cf24b322_EmojiObjects-43:🔚

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, stockingsadmirer68 said:

Unable to muster a suitable retort, so resorts back to such a typical, weak ‘yank’ response :58674c057baa4_EmojiSmiley-69: :58674dba34a33_EmojiOrte-74: :58674cf24b322_EmojiObjects-43:🔚

I have yet to find a 'suitable retort' for any of your posts................says this 'weak Yank'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rowlf said:

I have yet to find a 'suitable retort' for any of your posts................says this 'weak Yank'.

Well think on while you’re asleep 😴 Bro 🤣😂🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the StockingsAdmirer69 tag is an insult as he is older than 69 years old and unlike some, certainly was not born in 1969.   I am pretty sure that Tony is about 75 - 80 years old!!...   :58674bde4b3fb_EmojiSmiley-02: So, the 69 must be 1869! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Robbies said:

Using the StockingsAdmirer69 tag is an insult as he is older than 69 years old and unlike some, certainly was not born in 1969.   I am pretty sure that Tony is about 75 - 80 years old!!...   :58674bde4b3fb_EmojiSmiley-02: So, the 69 must be 1869! 

That's a very cold thing to say about a man..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Robbies said:

Using the StockingsAdmirer69 tag is an insult as he is older than 69 years old and unlike some, certainly was not born in 1969.   I am pretty sure that Tony is about 75 - 80 years old!!...   :58674bde4b3fb_EmojiSmiley-02: So, the 69 must be 1869! 

Spot on Robbies 🤣😂🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robbies said:

Using the StockingsAdmirer69 tag is an insult as he is older than 69 years old and unlike some, certainly was not born in 1969.   I am pretty sure that Tony is about 75 - 80 years old!!...   :58674bde4b3fb_EmojiSmiley-02: So, the 69 must be 1869! 

You show your lack of intelligence with your 'clever' remark. I make this remarkable gentleman to be 149 by your reckoning. Silly boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bobbies said:

You show your lack of intelligence with your 'clever' remark. I make this remarkable gentleman to be 149 by your reckoning. Silly boy.

What’s remarkable about him? :58674be6ca98e_EmojiSmiley-15: :58674c057baa4_EmojiSmiley-69: :58674d5a21ae6_EmojiObjects-216: :58674cf24b322_EmojiObjects-43: 🔚  

And a gentleman :58674bdeceb55_EmojiSmiley-03: :58674bde4b3fb_EmojiSmiley-02: :58674bddb5b72_EmojiSmiley-01:

Edited by stockingsadmirer68

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I join in this conversation with a sensible comment about the original topic or do I first have to insult a few people?

Don't want to upset anyone or appear out of step with the way things are now done here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, matt2matt2002 said:

Can I join in this conversation with a sensible comment about the original topic or do I first have to insult a few people?

Don't want to upset anyone or appear out of step with the way things are now done here.

It seems to have degenerated into a slagging match, which is unsurprising given the people contributing. My suggestion is you insult someone first, then you'll have a bit of skin in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, matt2matt2002 said:

Can I join in this conversation with a sensible comment about the original topic or do I first have to insult a few people?

Don't want to upset anyone or appear out of step with the way things are now done here.

Life is a minestrone... join in - get the thread back on track 👍🏻

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bobbies said:

You show your lack of intelligence with your 'clever' remark. I make this remarkable gentleman to be 149 by your reckoning. Silly boy.

Another ID ?  Jesus.  My old Trondheim one seems to still be active, but I can't remember the password for it.  You can have that too if you can find a way into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can everyone please stop just chucking insults at Trinity for no reason. If you disagree then say why, don't just slag off. All this stuff about Trinity being upset because of lack of attention on them really doesn't do anybody's argument any good. I generally disagree with everything Trinity says but FFS let the person speak without just horribly attacking them. I am getting sick of being the voice of reason on here. When I am the voice of reason then that's when we know we REALLY have a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rowlf said:

That's a very cold thing to say about a man..........

Trust me when I say, that is polite compared to the comments that Tony has made to people within these forums to people.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DMCGREG said:

Can everyone please stop just chucking insults at Trinity for no reason. If you disagree then say why, don't just slag off. All this stuff about Trinity being upset because of lack of attention on them really doesn't do anybody's argument any good. I generally disagree with everything Trinity says but FFS let the person speak without just horribly attacking them. I am getting sick of being the voice of reason on here. When I am the voice of reason then that's when we know we REALLY have a problem. 

Thanks but the only people throwing insults my way are Boaty under one of his 2,000 ID's, Rowlf and some plonker that likes to wrist off while driving his Scania up the M1.   Whooopie. 

As to your general disagreement with everything I say... so - you disagree with my assertion that sexual harassment is bad ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Robbies said:

Trust me when I say, that is polite compared to the comments that Tony has made to people within these forums to people.    

I'll bet this Tony person doesn't go around taking sneaky photos of ladies legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bobbies said:

I'll bet this Tony person doesn't go around taking sneaky photos of ladies legs.

Are you suggesting that this Tony person believes in consent? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll leave any suggestions to you, but as a matter of interest, consent to what?

I merely commented on the posters aptitude for taking photos of ladies legs without their consent then pretending he has obtained permission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bobbies said:

 

I merely commented on the posters aptitude for taking photos of ladies legs without their consent then pretending he has obtained permission.

Says Mr Snowflake himself :58674c057baa4_EmojiSmiley-69: :58674d5a21ae6_EmojiObjects-216: :58674cf24b322_EmojiObjects-43:🔚:58674bddb5b72_EmojiSmiley-01: who continues to flout the SHQ rules by returning after being previously banned many times for inappropriate behaviour on the forums and continues by having multiple usernames  :58674be6ca98e_EmojiSmiley-15:

Edited by stockingsadmirer68

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ladies did give me their consent to take the photo as both ladies are often showing photos within these forums and both have many followers.   

 

Given, the fact that you are trying to show that consent was not gained really shows that you do not care about seeing a lady in stockings.  So yet again I have to ask why are you in these forums other than trying to pee the people of these forums off?  

 

I think it best that you leave to be honest Tony as there are a few of us that can really pee you off and give you back two fold the treatment that you give others.   

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure if this counts at all but I’m watching 8 out of 10 cats do Countdown and SHOCK HORROR there are two MEN working on the program in a state of almost undress (pants and bow ties) who are surely only there as, how do they say, EYE CANDY!!!!!! I feel violated on their behalf because of all those ‘women’ who are ogling their near naked, firm, muscled, handsome young bodies and having unacceptable thoughts.

Oh and if that weren’t bad enough the lady who is the resident maths expert on the program is wearing a skimpy dress and stilettos!!!! (It doesn’t look like she’s been forced against her will to dress like that though).  

I’m confident the Sisterhood, in the spirit of equality, will have the program banned with immediate effect. 

Alternatively common sense could prevail where everyone accepts the participants are there by their own free choice, are getting paid handsomely and are having a great time to boot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Blott said:

I’m not sure if this counts at all but I’m watching 8 out of 10 cats do Countdown and SHOCK HORROR there are two MEN working on the program in a state of almost undress (pants and bow ties) who are surely only there as, how do they say, EYE CANDY!!!!!! I feel violated on their behalf because of all those ‘women’ who are ogling their near naked, firm, muscled, handsome young bodies and having unacceptable thoughts.

Oh and if that weren’t bad enough the lady who is the resident maths expert on the program is wearing a skimpy dress and stilettos!!!! (It doesn’t look like she’s been forced against her will to dress like that though).  

I’m confident the Sisterhood, in the spirit of equality, will have the program banned with immediate effect. 

Alternatively common sense could prevail where everyone accepts the participants are there by their own free choice, are getting paid handsomely and are having a great time to boot. 

Questions: Were the men in question touched, groped, fondled without consent? Did one of the women show her genitalia to the men again without consent? Were the men propositioned for sex, again without consent?

I am interested in your comment about the woman in her skimpy dress and stilletos.  Are you suggesting that such attire is asking for it?

Why should the program be banned?

What is handsome pay ?

Are you sure they are there of their own free choice?  Some philosophers argue there is no such thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trinity,

At the risk of sounding intelligence elitist, I venture to suggest the majority population couldn't give a flying fig for these matters and hardly speak of them let alone take the time to pose reasoned arguments and engage in debates, either in person or via the media of forums.

From your posts here and on other topics i'm confident you rightly assessed my opening paragraphs as 'tongue in cheek', my closing paragraph i'd like to think is viewed by most as a state of happy status quo.

As for the dark art of philosophy I pass no comment, other than your name sake's boyfriend in the Matrix films was told we have no ability to choose our destiny. But, as that is simply a work of fiction I think we can happily ignore it's social message.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Blott said:

Trinity,

At the risk of sounding intelligence elitist,

Don't worry Blott.  I don't think there's much chance of that happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m surprised you feel the need to issue an insult AlteredBoy as I’ve always viewed your debate posts as reasoned and intelligent :58674be7f3afa_EmojiSmiley-17:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Blott said:

I’m surprised you feel the need to issue an insult AlteredBoy as I’ve always viewed your debate posts as reasoned and intelligent :58674be7f3afa_EmojiSmiley-17:

Sorry Blott, it was intended as tongue in cheek teasing.  If it didn't come across as that way, I apologise.  It's good to have you and Grob back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Sorry Blott, it was intended as tongue in cheek teasing.  If it didn't come across as that way, I apologise.  It's good to have you and Grob back.

Thank you Alteredboy :58674bdeceb55_EmojiSmiley-03: happy to be back, no offence taken and I apologise for not detecting the tease. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Blott said:

I’m surprised you feel the need to issue an insult AlteredBoy as I’ve always viewed your debate posts as reasoned and intelligent :58674be7f3afa_EmojiSmiley-17:

I don't think he meant it. We survive in a tough environment nowadays, and crassness is bound to rub off on the best of us.........................But he's a long way from being the 'best of us'!:58674be5313cc_EmojiSmiley-12:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Trinity said:

Questions: Were the men in question touched, groped, fondled without consent? Did one of the women show her genitalia to the men again without consent? Were the men propositioned for sex, again without consent?

I am interested in your comment about the woman in her skimpy dress and stilletos.  Are you suggesting that such attire is asking for it?

Why should the program be banned?

What is handsome pay ?

Are you sure they are there of their own free choice?  Some philosophers argue there is no such thing.

Penny, I think you're losing your mind. Are the stilettoes a little too tight?

None of the things you listened are any of your business. The burden is on the individual in each scenario you listed, to make certain decisions. You're a very well meaning person, but there are too many of these incidents that occur, for you to intervene. So you must allow these people to deal with this themselves. These people aren't as stoopid or ignorant as you presume them to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, rowlf said:

Penny, I think you're losing your mind. Are the stilettoes a little too tight?

None of the things you listened are any of your business. The burden is on the individual in each scenario you listed, to make certain decisions. You're a very well meaning person, but there are too many of these incidents that occur, for you to intervene. So you must allow these people to deal with this themselves. These people aren't as stoopid or ignorant as you presume them to be.

No rowlf, you are the one missing the point or losing your mind.

The participants on the TV Show chose to attend a show where they were required to wear certain outfits that could be consider revealing.  The hostesses at the Presidents Club chose to attend an event where they were required to wear similar attire.

The hostesses at the Presidents Club gala were, it is reported, subjected to groping and requests of sexual activity, etc.  There is nothing reported that Rachel Riley on the TV show was subject to this.  

There may be a similarity in the clothing, but there is no similarity in the behaviour that was exhibited at the Presidents Club.  It is the behaviour at the Presidents Club which was out of order, not the clothing worn by the victims of that behaviour.  The TV show example amply shows that it is possible to wear that kind of clothing and not be subject to the abuse.  The abuse was therefore the choice of the abusers and not the abused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

No rowlf, you are the one missing the point or losing your mind.

The participants on the TV Show chose to attend a show where they were required to wear certain outfits that could be consider revealing.  The hostesses at the Presidents Club chose to attend an event where they were required to wear similar attire.

The hostesses at the Presidents Club gala were, it is reported, subjected to groping and requests of sexual activity, etc.  There is nothing reported that Rachel Riley on the TV show was subject to this.  

There may be a similarity in the clothing, but there is no similarity in the behaviour that was exhibited at the Presidents Club.  It is the behaviour at the Presidents Club which was out of order, not the clothing worn by the victims of that behaviour.  The TV show example amply shows that it is possible to wear that kind of clothing and not be subject to the abuse.  The abuse was therefore the choice of the abusers and not the abused.

Au contraire, mamzelle!

Tomato, tomahto.............remember that?

Wasn't the beginning of this discussion whether or not the President's Club dinner should be discontinued? Extrapolating on that, maybe all these ribald meetings should be eliminated? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The dirty little secret is that 'people' are abused every nano second of the day. Some are able to fight over it, others may just have to rise above it.

Because you can't censure all events, you shouldn't censure any events. You can't deny freedom of expression. Obviously you don't realize this, but there may be salacious behavior conducted at a parent/teacher meeting. Somebody somewhere getting bent over a desk. At first against their will, but then getting 'into' it.

So let's get together and ban all those damned parent/teacher meetings. It's just a ploy for indecent behavior.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rowlf said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As usual, you're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rowlf said:

Obviously you don't realize this, but there may be salacious behavior conducted at a parent/teacher meeting. Somebody somewhere getting bent over a desk. At first against their will, but then getting 'into' it.

"At first against their will"?  That makes it a criminal offence.  At least it does in the UK.  

"... but then getting into it".  Are you trying to imply that this somehow exonerates the perpetrator?  He was right all along.  he knew she'd enjoy it eventually?  It is always a he isn't it?  Of course any rapist could argue that while his victim hadn't consented to what he did, that was simply a matter of that she hadn't consented yet, but if given enough time she'd have come around and then "got into it".

You really do spout the most odious nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now