The all new "seethe" thread

[Harry Potter]

55 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

Sounds like somebody never got any party invites. 

And as for dressing up, how can you not like women dressing up in secularised sexualised costumes?

Any excuse for a party these days.

[IronJambo]

1 hour ago, IronJambo said:

Sounds like somebody never got any party invites. 

And as for dressing up, how can you not like women dressing up in secularised sexualised costumes?

 Ha, in don't know how the word "secularised" got into that sentence 

[peter_hmfc]

3 hours ago, IronJambo said:

Sounds like somebody never got any party invites. 

And as for dressing up, how can you not like women dressing up in secularised sexualised costumes?

 

I avoid Hallowe'en parties as if they were a rat from the Bubonic plague (which incidentally is what some of the locals appeared to be dressed up as).

[Unknown user]

On 03/02/2013 at 17:54, Der Kaiser said:

Why......

 

For a room no-one except for me, my wife and my kids really go in......

 

This room being our bedroom.......

 

Why......

 

When I make the bed........

 

Must I......

 

after making the bed........

 

Carefully arrange a scattering of different cushions across the top of the bed.....

 

What the F__k are these cushions for? Why am I getting grief when I don't do this? Why is it ok for them to be thrown into the corner of the bedroom when we're sleeping but delicately arranged when we're working and there is no-one in the house? Is my window cleaners depression alieviated at the sight of our "showroom" bed? Will burglars be deterred from ransacking my house when they see how "lovely" the bed looks? Is it to lure them to sleep so we can catch them in the act?

 

What are these cushions for?

 

I know one of my mates also suffers from this? Is this a widespread problem? Is this too many questions? Is it?

I won the cushions on the bed war, but 11 years in and the couch cushions remain.

But this isn't over yet!

[Morgan]

3 hours ago, Harry Potter said:

Any excuse for a party these days.

Exactly.

[OBE]

Jeans that don't sit on the hip with pishy wee zips, or is that pish all over the zips?

[Morgan]

1 minute ago, Old Blue Eyes said:

Jeans that don't sit on the hip with pishy wee zips, or is that pish all over the zips?

If a male is wearing jeans that don’t sit on the hip then I’d suggest that the jeans are too wee or the wearer is too fat.

 

If said jeans have ‘pishy wee zips’ then I’d suggest the wearer is wearing womens’ jeans.

 

Or both.

[OBE]

5 hours ago, Morgan said:

If a male is wearing jeans that don’t sit on the hip then I’d suggest that the jeans are too wee or the wearer is too fat.

 

If said jeans have ‘pishy wee zips’ then I’d suggest the wearer is wearing womens’ jeans.

 

Or both.

 

Skinny, slim, straight, tapered, bootleg, comfort, above the hip, on the hip and below the hip, many variations (not all) of today's denims.

 

I'm old fashioned and detest the designer Wolsey's hauled up higher than the waist band of the denim, hideous and uncool. How any young dude would want to show of the material that's designed to be a barrier for any potential shit and pish seepage to the outer garment is beyond me.

 

From the gusset to the top of the waistband, some revered manufactures have reduced this dimension significantly (zip size also), thus making it more difficult for us older slim gents to buy decent higher waisted denim. Levi 505's may be the way to go.

 

Jeans too wee, wearer too fat, women's jeans...**** off!

 

 

 

 

[Morgan]

1 hour ago, Old Blue Eyes said:

 

Skinny, slim, straight, tapered, bootleg, comfort, above the hip, on the hip and below the hip, many variations (not all) of today's denims.

 

I'm old fashioned and detest the designer Wolsey's hauled up higher than the waist band of the denim, hideous and uncool. How any young dude would want to show of the material that's designed to be a barrier for any potential shit and pish seepage to the outer garment is beyond me.

 

From the gusset to the top of the waistband, some revered manufactures have reduced this dimension significantly (zip size also), thus making it more difficult for us older slim gents to buy decent higher waisted denim. Levi 505's may be the way to go.

 

Jeans too wee, wearer too fat, women's jeans...**** off!

 

 

 

 

Well, I didn’t expect that sort of response to a totally tongue in cheek post.

 

I was merely having a wee joke on a very quiet Sunday.

 

Seriously, I apologise for any offence given, there was no intent of malice.

 

[peter_hmfc]

1 hour ago, Old Blue Eyes said:

 

Skinny, slim, straight, tapered, bootleg, comfort, above the hip, on the hip and below the hip, many variations (not all) of today's denims.

 

I'm old fashioned and detest the designer Wolsey's hauled up higher than the waist band of the denim, hideous and uncool. How any young dude would want to show of the material that's designed to be a barrier for any potential shit and pish seepage to the outer garment is beyond me.

 

From the gusset to the top of the waistband, some revered manufactures have reduced this dimension significantly (zip size also), thus making it more difficult for us older slim gents to buy decent higher waisted denim. Levi 505's may be the way to go.

 

Jeans too wee, wearer too fat, women's jeans...**** off!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Morgan]

Jim Jefferies is a great guy.

 

Some guys aren’t.

[OBE]

13 minutes ago, Morgan said:

Well, I didn’t expect that sort of response to a totally tongue in cheek post.

 

I was merely having a wee joke on a very quiet Sunday.

 

Seriously, I apologise for any offence given, there was no intent of malice.

 

 

I was having a wee joke also, no need to apologise and no offence was taken. A wee smiley in future would indicate the nature/weight of your posts though. 

 

**** off! was harsh.

[Morgan]

1 minute ago, Old Blue Eyes said:

 

I was having a wee joke also, no need to apologise and no offence was taken. A wee smiley in future would indicate the nature/weight of your posts though. 

 

**** off! was harsh.

Cool Blue Eyes!

 

Thanks for your response, very much appreciated and just goes to show there are a lot of good folk on the forum.

 

 

 

 

[Morgan]

Just won’t bother.

Edited October 29, 2017 by Morgan
Not worth a few words.

[Harry Potter]

16 hours ago, Morgan said:

If a male is wearing jeans that don’t sit on the hip then I’d suggest that the jeans are too wee or the wearer is too fat.

 

If said jeans have ‘pishy wee zips’ then I’d suggest the wearer is wearing womens’ jeans.

 

Or both.

Or a male over 50 wearing jeans below a 34 waist, never, surely.

[Morgan]

6 hours ago, Harry Potter said:

Or a male over 50 wearing jeans below a 34 waist, never, surely.

28.

[Tazio]

The new environmentally friendly toilets in John Lewis. Nice LED lights that switch off automatically if there’s nobody in the toilet to save power. They also switch of automatically if you’re sitting in a cubicle having a dump so you have to finish off and wipe in the dark. 

[BM1874]

Neds and stupid teenagers out on Halloween with eggs.

 

2 year old is now beside himself because of the windows being hit

[Brick Tamland]

People who get as close as they can to the luggage carousel at airports. It doesn't make your luggage come quicker and if you stand a couple of steps back more people can see their luggage coming. Gets right on my tits that does absolute throbbers. 

[iantjambo]

21 hours ago, BM1874 said:

Neds and stupid teenagers out on Halloween with eggs.

 

2 year old is now beside himself because of the windows being hit

 

Scumbags. 

 

Some people I know had their windows egged while others put their kids pumpkins out on the front doorstep, only for the local failed medical experiments to smash them all up.

 

*****

Edited November 1, 2017 by iantjambo

[iantjambo]

6 minutes ago, jonnothejambo said:

 

What kind of turd does something like this ?

 

Birching would be too good for them..

 

Trouble is, if you were to go out and lamp one of the toerags you would be done for assault. 

 

 

 

Aye and the little ******** know it as well.

[Morgan]

20 minutes ago, iantjambo said:

 

Aye and the little ******** know it as well.

Like your new avatar Ian

 

35 minutes ago, iantjambo said:

 

Scumbags. 

 

Some people I know had their windows egged while others put their kids pumpkins out on the front doorstep, only for the local failed medical experiments to smash them all up.

 

*****

 

That's just beyond comprehension. What the Hell goes through their minds that would make them do something like that?

[iantjambo]

1 minute ago, Morgan said:

Like your new avatar Ian

 

Cheers, I thought it was appropriate

1 minute ago, Morgan said:

 

That's just beyond comprehension. What the Hell goes through their minds that would make them do something like that?

 

It’s top bantz probably!

[Morgan]

Just now, iantjambo said:

 

Cheers, I thought it was appropriate

 

It certainly is after such sad news.

 

Just now, iantjambo said:

 

It’s top bantz probably!

 

Probz.

[Helzibob]

Scotrail, once again.

 

Train is ready to leave, the delayed Inverness train pulls in in front of us, stopping us departing. They make our train an express train, no stops until airdrie. This is a weekly occurrence. Raging is not the word. I have an appointment tonight and might make it......just!

[Pennywise]

You've Been Framed. Wee man loves it & put it on whenever it's on telly, which is pretty much all the time.

 

Its shite. Not one clip is funny. Most are of people hurting themselves. Or kids falling over. Harry Hills hilarious voiceovers are cringey. The canned laughter is also rather shit.

 

Bollocks. Its all bollocks. 

[William H. Bonney]

4 minutes ago, Pennywise said:

You've Been Framed. Wee man loves it & put it on whenever it's on telly, which is pretty much all the time.

 

Its shite. Not one clip is funny. Most are of people hurting themselves. Or kids falling over. Harry Hills hilarious voiceovers are cringey. The canned laughter is also rather shit.

 

Bollocks. Its all bollocks. 

 

Did you not get your £250? 

[Pennywise]

5 minutes ago, Jefferson Davis Hogg said:

 

Did you not get your £250? 

I sent my video in in 1992. Every chance it'll get played in a couple of years time.

[William H. Bonney]

1 minute ago, Pennywise said:

I sent my video in in 1992. Every chance it'll get played in a couple of years time.

 

I hope it's either a groom fainting or a fat woman falling of a chair. 

[Pennywise]

15 minutes ago, Jefferson Davis Hogg said:

 

I hope it's either a groom fainting or a fat woman falling of a chair. 

It was of me falling off a skateboard.

[Dagger Is Back]

Driving in the dark in Edinburgh and it’s like a Zombie Apocalypse.

 

Arseholes dressed from head to toe in black thinking it’s fine to just step out into the road whenever they want, into the path of traffic.

 

And don’t get me started on arsehole cyclists without lights front or back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[peter_hmfc]

4 hours ago, Pennywise said:

It was of me falling off a skateboard.

 

I'll pay you £250 if you upload it here*.

 

* I cannot guarantee I will follow through with that claim, at all.

[luckyBatistuta]

Arsehole on a bicycle working for Deliveroo, with no lights on and no helmet and wearing headphones, straight in front of me with my lad in the front, had to slam the brakes on. Do these fekrs have insurance to cover them working for Deliveroo.

[michael_bolton]

People who accept a narrative having made no attempt to examine it or understand it.

 

Yesterday I (along with most others in my office) had to endure two ranty women battering on about the gender pay gap. They went on and on and on about how unfair it was that men choose to pay women less for work and brought out the old 77 cents in the dollar argument.

 

The 77 cents in the dollar argument would fail a first-year university stats course. It doesn't mean what many people now seem to have been conditioned to accept that it means. It drives me nuts to hear people bang on about this when they don't understand what the statistics mean and have made no effort to understand what the statistics mean.

 

It makes me even more angry when newspapers and magazines (who presumably have someone on staff who can deal with statistical analysis) present things like the 77 cents in the dollar stat unquestioningly and allow utter nonsense like 'women are working for free from this date every year' to be printed and pass unquestioned into public conversation.

 

This stuff is garbage and is easily shown to be garbage on the most basic of investigations. Statistically it is guff. So why is it so widely reported by people who presumably know better (have a basic understanding of statistics) and why is it so unquestioningly swallowed by the public?

 

For the record, I work in a workplace where everyone is paid on a designated scale based on qualifications and experience and where women make up around half the staff and around half the management. Yet these two daft women at work still feel they are persecuted because The Guardian etc tell them that they are.

[Harry Potter]

On 10/31/2017 at 17:04, Tazio said:

The new environmentally friendly toilets in John Lewis. Nice LED lights that switch off automatically if there’s nobody in the toilet to save power. They also switch of automatically if you’re sitting in a cubicle having a dump so you have to finish off and wipe in the dark. 

After years of practice im sure you can wipe in the dark.

[Captain Sausage]

5 hours ago, michael_bolton said:

People who accept a narrative having made no attempt to examine it or understand it.

 

Yesterday I (along with most others in my office) had to endure two ranty women battering on about the gender pay gap. They went on and on and on about how unfair it was that men choose to pay women less for work and brought out the old 77 cents in the dollar argument.

 

The 77 cents in the dollar argument would fail a first-year university stats course. It doesn't mean what many people now seem to have been conditioned to accept that it means. It drives me nuts to hear people bang on about this when they don't understand what the statistics mean and have made no effort to understand what the statistics mean.

 

It makes me even more angry when newspapers and magazines (who presumably have someone on staff who can deal with statistical analysis) present things like the 77 cents in the dollar stat unquestioningly and allow utter nonsense like 'women are working for free from this date every year' to be printed and pass unquestioned into public conversation.

 

This stuff is garbage and is easily shown to be garbage on the most basic of investigations. Statistically it is guff. So why is it so widely reported by people who presumably know better (have a basic understanding of statistics) and why is it so unquestioningly swallowed by the public?

 

For the record, I work in a workplace where everyone is paid on a designated scale based on qualifications and experience and where women make up around half the staff and around half the management. Yet these two daft women at work still feel they are persecuted because The Guardian etc tell them that they are.

 

I really want raw (as raw as can be provided) data which is used for this. I tried to dig up info on this pay gap and there is no way to corroborate it. 

[Fitzroy Pointon]

18 hours ago, jonnothejambo said:

 

Yep. Annoying throbbers.  

 

You can see their agitation building as the cases arrive.

 

Same with the welts at the gate as they queue up to board their plane. 

 

Mind you I got pissed off coming back from New York recently. We were just about to take our turn to board and about ten loudmouth Yanks swanned up late and got to head off the queue because they were business class. 

 

Twats.

 

 

 

They don't seem to remember they have an allocated seat number and it's not first come first serve.  

 

Disembarking as well, do people not understand that there is no way you can get off the plane until it's came to a stop, the airbridge or stairs are on and the doors are opened?  Why do folk insist on queuing to get OFF the plane.  Nothing worse than sitting in your seat while the whole aisle is full and some old guys fat, sweaty arse is in your face.  

[Ray Gin]

24 minutes ago, Salad Fingers said:

 

 

They don't seem to remember they have an allocated seat number and it's not first come first serve.  

 

Disembarking as well, do people not understand that there is no way you can get off the plane until it's came to a stop, the airbridge or stairs are on and the doors are opened?  Why do folk insist on queuing to get OFF the plane.  Nothing worse than sitting in your seat while the whole aisle is full and some old guys fat, sweaty arse is in your face.  

 

Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone who does it, but some folk have joining flights to catch and need to get off the plane through the airport and on to the next flight ASAP.

Also, while the seats are allocated, hand luggage space in the overhead storage is first come first serve. I've seen folk have to put their hand luggage down at the opposite end of the plane from where they were sitting because that was the only space left. You might even have to stick it in the hold instead.

 

 

[michael_bolton]

3 hours ago, houstonjambo said:

 

I really want raw (as raw as can be provided) data which is used for this. I tried to dig up info on this pay gap and there is no way to corroborate it. 

 

That's the point. The data used for this is too raw. It's simply 'men make this much and woman make this much, so that means discrimination'.

 

This is nonsense, as it doesn't take into account hours worked, levels of danger or inconvenience in their job, willingness to relocate, time taken off work, sick days etc.

 

The Guardian recently had an article citing a study done by a women's rights group. It said that huge numbers of women felt they had been overlooked for promotion because they had taken time off work to have kids. In what universe is it a surprise that taking time off work hinders promotion prospects?

 

People seem desperate for this to be a discrimination issue, and I don't get why that is. What is the agenda pushing this?

[OBE]

2 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone who does it, but some folk have joining flights to catch and need to get off the plane through the airport and on to the next flight ASAP.

Also, while the seats are allocated, hand luggage space in the overhead storage is first come first serve. I've seen folk have to put their hand luggage down at the opposite end of the plane from where they were sitting because that was the only space left. You might even have to stick it in the hold instead.

 

 

 

Purchasing extra leg room seats attracts priority boarding with guaranteed overhead luggage space with Ryanair, all good!

 

Only £6 a sector.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Old Blue Eyes

[William H. Bonney]

5 hours ago, jonnothejambo said:

 

 

But then there is always the conundrum of whether or not the final wipe of the rusty sheriff's badge has actually cleaned up the residual keech.  

 

Something you will never know for sure until you discard the kex later that day and check for skid marks.

 

Or you could take a torch.

 

 

 

I'm guessing blind people use a sniffer dog. 

[Captain Sausage]

1 hour ago, michael_bolton said:

 

That's the point. The data used for this is too raw. It's simply 'men make this much and woman make this much, so that means discrimination'.

 

This is nonsense, as it doesn't take into account hours worked, levels of danger or inconvenience in their job, willingness to relocate, time taken off work, sick days etc.

 

The Guardian recently had an article citing a study done by a women's rights group. It said that huge numbers of women felt they had been overlooked for promotion because they had taken time off work to have kids. In what universe is it a surprise that taking time off work hinders promotion prospects?

 

People seem desperate for this to be a discrimination issue, and I don't get why that is. What is the agenda pushing this?

 

Fair point. What annoys me is that these figures are quoted at us, but I’ve seen absolutely zero scrutiny of the numbers.  I spent a good few hours last month trying to get some data to look at and just check some of the assumptions made to arrive at the commonly quoted figures. But while the headline discriminatory figures is widely available, the statistics behind it are near impossible to get hold of. 

 

Things like that that make me very skeptical. There will have been assumptions made but these assumptions are not being made public, or if they are, are well hidden. 

[Harry Potter]

7 hours ago, jonnothejambo said:

 

 

But then there is always the conundrum of whether or not the final wipe of the rusty sheriff's badge has actually cleaned up the residual keech.  

 

Something you will never know for sure until you discard the kex later that day and check for skid marks.

 

Or you could take a torch.

 

 

Aye that final wee skid mark, nightmare 

[Morgan]

.

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Morgan
error

[Morgan]

8 hours ago, jonnothejambo said:

 

 

But then there is always the conundrum of whether or not the final wipe of the rusty sheriff's badge has actually cleaned up the residual keech.  

 

Something you will never know for sure until you discard the kex later that day and check for skid marks.

 

Or you could take a torch.

 

 

Toilet talk.  

 

Always toilet talk with you.

 

Do you have a fetish for all things lavvy?

 

[Morgan]

56 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

Aye that final wee skid mark, nightmare 

 

Best way to view them is upside down.

[milky_26]

1 minute ago, Morgan said:

Toilet talk.  

 

Always toilet talk with you.

 

Do you have a fetish for all things lavvy?

 

thats a bit rich coming from the man who sits on the pan with a beer

[Morgan]

Just now, milky_26 said:

thats a bit rich coming from the man who sits on the pan with a beer

I know.

 

I've just got no shame.

[Morgan]

2 minutes ago, jonnothejambo said:

 

You beat me to it, Milky. 

 

Monsieur Morgan probably has a toilet seat ring imprinted into his Mozambiques. 

 

 

Mozambiques?

 

Or do I not want to know?

[milky_26]

1 minute ago, Morgan said:

Mozambiques?

 

Or do I not want to know?

cheeks?