Jump to content
Donations towards site upkeep will be thankfully received and faithfully applied....
Gobbles Magoo

Lord of the Cunts

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

There's no need for a PM in this instance, as I thought the public at large could see your explanation – or lack of it. Editing the word 'daughter' obviously says something, though clearly not enough. Does this word somehow imply an underage misdemeanour, despite all daughters per se spanning a huge range of ages and generations, or could it be highlighting your sensitivity even though it's not actually infringing site rules? I'm still waiting for an answer, especially the one which clearly defines the reason for its prohibition.

Good luck with this one, but don't raise your hopes. I use the word 'on' instead of 'with' and look where it's got me. 

Share this post


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

There's no need for a PM in this instance, as I thought the public at large could see your explanation. Editing the word 'daughter' obviously says something, though clearly not enough. Does this word somehow imply an underage misdemeanour, despite all daughters per se spanning a vast range of ages and generations, or could it be highlighting your sensitivity even though it's not actually infringing site rules? I'm still waiting for an answer, especially the one which clearly defines the reason for its prohibition.

I edited more than one word. Stop acting like a prat who is butt-hurt 'cos his words were not digitally immortalised. PM me if you still don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anybody wants to see the original quote in all its unedited family-abusing splendour just PM me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cuntybaws said:

If anybody wants to see the original quote in all its unedited family-abusing splendour just PM me.

Baws, our resident archival expert is always on the job.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Wizardsleeve said:

Baws, our resident archival expert is always on the job.  

Has my wife been boasting again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cuntybaws said:

Has my wife been roasting again?

No. Just deep-frying.

Edited by Eric Cuntman
Reported self for quote altering
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I edited more than one word. Stop acting like a prat who is butt-hurt 'cos his words were not digitally immortalised. PM me if you still don't get it.

You're typically brilliant at throwing site contraventions at members to prove them wrong, while taking the moral high ground. In this instance, however, no rules have been broken - hence your inability to provide one. You can't prove me wrong, can you?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are times when I wish the international life sciences conglomerate Bayer marketed Germolene For The Soul for me to dispense to sensitive punters who react badly to firm administrations. Sadly, no mentally soothing balm exists so we now have the spectacle of a barrack-room lawyer writhing in indignation over what should be a minor procedural matter...

52 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

You're typically brilliant at throwing site contraventions at members to prove them wrong, while taking the moral high ground. In this instance, however, no rules have been broken - hence your inability to provide one. You can't prove me wrong, can you?  

Why thank you, Wolfie, though in this case no brilliance was needed on my part in determining that you were in clear violation of Rule 12 and the unwritten convention (which is clearly understood by all punters, especially those who have contributed with distinction to the forum for more than two years) that no acceptance is allowed for directly or indirectly made accusations of paedophilia against other CC members. I would also suggest you reacquaint yourself with the final paragraph of the Site Rules.

Share this post


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

There are times when I wish the international life sciences conglomerate Bayer marketed Germolene For The Soul for me to dispense to sensitive punters who react badly to firm administrations. Sadly, no mentally soothing balm exists so we now have the spectacle of a barrack-room lawyer writhing in indignation over what should be a minor procedural matter...

Why thank you, Wolfie, though in this case no brilliance was needed on my part in determining that you were in clear violation of Rule 12 and the unwritten convention (which is clearly understood by all punters, especially those who have contributed with distinction to the forum for more than two years) that no acceptance is allowed for directly or indirectly made accusations of paedophilia against other CC members. I would also suggest you reacquaint yourself with the final paragraph of the Site Rules.

That would have deserved a like had you not used Bayer as an example. These fuckers, along with similar evil organisations, attempted to sue the European Commismion when, quite rightly, it was decided to ban the pesticides they made. The same pesticides that have been proven to wipe out pollinating insects which are essential for modern arable agriculture to continue, but hey, who gives a fuck about the survival of the next generation when you can fill the shareholders pockets with a few more billion.

Next time your brilliance takes control, try to reign it in and quote something in slightly better taste. Or perhaps get some real Germoline and shove it up your arse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Stubby Pecker said:

That would have deserved a like had you not used Bayer as an example. These fuckers, along with similar evil organisations, attempted to sue the European Commismion when, quite rightly, it was decided to ban the pesticides they made. The same pesticides that have been proven to wipe out pollinating insects which are essential for modern arable agriculture to continue, but hey, who gives a fuck about the survival of the next generation when you can fill the shareholders pockets with a few more billion.

Next time your brilliance takes control, try to reign it in and quote something in slightly better taste. Or perhaps get some real Germoline and shove it up your arse.

Presumably then, you have refused all vaccinations and medicines produced by these "evil organisations" for yourself and your family? No, I didn't think so, in that case maybe you should in turn shove your hair shirt up where the sun don't shine. In fact Bayer, BASF et al were partially successful in suing the European Commission. Whilst they accepted that certain selected pesticides could only be used in greenhouse environments, the "evil organisations" were alarmed that the Commission did not make any adequate impact assessment. As is not uncommon, the EU bureaucrats formulated legislation based on one-sided reviews from second rate consultants and "experts" who produced reports on what their paymasters wanted to hear. Incredibly, the Commission's impact assessment concentrated on the likely damage the pesticides could cause but not on any impact that might or might not occur as a result of a pesticide ban. In this respect the EU judicial review agreed with the "evil organisations".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why on earth are you arguing with stubby at 2:00 AM, Roops? There's only you, me and Panzy on right now - and I'm only here because my phone went off and woke me up and I'd left my browser open to see this. Fuck knows why Panzy is here - but do you really want anything in common with that cunt? No? Then go to bed. 

Share this post


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

Why on earth are you arguing with stubby at 2:00 AM, Roops? There's only you, me and Panzy on right now - and I'm only here because my phone went off and woke me up and I'd left my browser open to see this. Fuck knows why Panzy is here - but do you really want anything in common with that cunt? No? Then go to bed. 

I honestly don't know, RK. Whilst having an agreeable discussion with Wolfie, I happened to mention Bayer in passing which apparently triggered Stubbs to angrily butt in with a tirade culminating in wishing unpleasantness to myself. His behaviour was very Snatch-like.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

There are times when I wish the international life sciences conglomerate Bayer marketed Germolene For The Soul for me to dispense to sensitive punters who react badly to firm administrations. Sadly, no mentally soothing balm exists so we now have the spectacle of a barrack-room lawyer writhing in indignation over what should be a minor procedural matter...

Why thank you, Wolfie, though in this case no brilliance was needed on my part in determining that you were in clear violation of Rule 12 and the unwritten convention (which is clearly understood by all punters, especially those who have contributed with distinction to the forum for more than two years) that no acceptance is allowed for directly or indirectly made accusations of paedophilia against other CC members. I would also suggest you reacquaint yourself with the final paragraph of the Site Rules.

Perhaps you failed to recognise the sarcasm in my comment re: your brilliance, such is the arrogance which blinds you. Anyhow – let's look at Site Rule 12:

'Do not make sexual references about other members' family and relatives.'

Thus, which part of the above was clearly violated by my wording of 'daughter-hiding'? At which point did I mention Neil's family or relatives? Why was paedophilia implied when, as I've previously explained (which you tactfully ignored), daughters span a huge range of ages? I'm happy to follow site rules and be brought into line when relevant, though, again, you fail to justify why in this instance. Could it be you're actually incorrect and clutching at straws, because I've trumped you on this occasion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mrs Roops said:

I honestly don't know, RK. Whilst having an agreeable discussion with Wolfie, I happened to mention Bayer in passing which apparently triggered Stubbs to angrily butt in with a tirade culminating in wishing unpleasantness to myself. His behaviour was very Snatch-like.

It really doesn't take a lot these days to get Captain Planet's hessian underwear in a twist.

One minute you can be cheerfully shooting the breeze and making seemingly innocuous comments, the next Pecker pops up ranting about hedgerows and dormice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

...ranting about hedgerows and dormice.

Dormice - fucking delicious. (© Punkape.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

'Do not make sexual references about other members' family and relatives.'

Thus, which part of the above was clearly violated by my wording of 'daughter-hiding'? 

Perhaps the mention of ""your old man's cashew cock" and Viagra triggered a violation in its own right?

Don't get me wrong, I laughed my arse off, but you're on a sticky wicket with this argument. Cunts have gone to the electric chair on less evidence. (OK, they were black cunts in the Deep South, but you get my drift...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Perhaps you failed to recognise the sarcasm in my comment re: your brilliance, such is the arrogance which blinds you. Anyhow – let's look at Site Rule 12:

'Do not make sexual references about other members' family and relatives.'

Thus, which part of the above was clearly violated by my wording of 'daughter-hiding'? At which point did I mention Neil's family or relatives? Why was paedophilia implied when, as I've previously explained (which you tactfully ignored), daughters span a huge range of ages? I'm happy to follow site rules and be brought into line when relevant, though, again, you fail to justify why in this instance. Could it be you're actually incorrect and clutching at straws, because I've trumped you on this occasion?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you referred to another punter as a "fucking sex case" in addition to your selected words. It strongly implied a Josef Fritzl scenario. Now, take my friendly advice and piss off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Cuntybaws said:

Dormice - fucking delicious. (© Punkape.)

Yes but which species would chose to have your Mrs deep fry for you?

Drop punkers a PM- he's probably got a couple of freshly shampooed ones you can have for a tenner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Bishop of Phlegm said:

Tim, what are your thoughts on bee keeping and its potential effect on the wild bee population?

Please direct all question of this nature to the brilliant Mrs R in the future. Her knowledge on almost every subject eclipses that of all of us put together

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stubby Pecker said:

Please direct all question of this nature to the brilliant Mrs R in the future. Her knowledge on almost every subject eclipses that of all of us put together

I was asking you Stubby .. apparently a contentious issue with some people, I was seeking a specialists opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Wolfie said:

Perhaps you failed to recognise the sarcasm in my comment re: your brilliance, such is the arrogance which blinds you. Anyhow – let's look at Site Rule 12:

'Do not make sexual references about other members' family and relatives.'

Thus, which part of the above was clearly violated by my wording of 'daughter-hiding'? At which point did I mention Neil's family or relatives? Why was paedophilia implied when, as I've previously explained (which you tactfully ignored), daughters span a huge range of ages? I'm happy to follow site rules and be brought into line when relevant, though, again, you fail to justify why in this instance. Could it be you're actually incorrect and clutching at straws, because I've trumped you on this occasion?

Wolfie, if you absolutely need to make unfounded allegations about people bumming their parents, wanking off their dogs, fucking their kids etc...aim it at me, mate. I can take it. It's not a problem. Just do me a favour, don't post anything upsetting between 7-8pm. I'd hate  not to be able to maintain an erection during bath time.

Edited by Ollyboro
Snagged banjo string
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The

11 minutes ago, Ollyboro said:

Wolfie, if you absolutely need to make unfounded allegations about people bumming their parents, wanking off their dogs, fucking their kids etc...aim it at me, mate. I can take it. It's not a problem. Just do me a favour, don't post anything upsetting between 7-8pm. I'd hate  not to be able to maintain an erection during bath time.

Is that what you hang your 'soap on a rope' from? 

Share this post


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

The

Is that what you hang your 'soap on a rope' from? 

Soap? Divn't call me a poof, pal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 8:47 AM, The Bishop of Phlegm said:

Tim, what are your thoughts on bee keeping and its potential effect on the wild bee population?

Buzz off.

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

×