Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For ****ing christ stop bloody ignoring me don't be so bloody rude. Just flipping say if you don't want me involved! Its bloody low especially when I take time out of my day to make a reply!
What kind of reply would you like? Something derogatory?
Location: Northern Ireland and temporarily England
7,668 posts, read 5,260,330 times
Reputation: 1392
No but I would like them to stop talking over me everytime I write something. I always make a reply to people because it is RUDE and I know they made an effort to write that message.
I just noticed a pattern between a few members and I will not let them get the better of me.
No but I would like them to stop talking over me everytime I write something. I always make a reply to people because it is RUDE and I know they made an effort to write that message.
I just noticed a pattern between a few members and I will not let them get the better of me.
It's hard to reply if you don't have anything constructive to add.
Now don't start with "women are" and "women aren't" as if it's one collective person. Many of them are straight forward and would prefer to be, but it seems they are trained to suppress that.
My intention wasn't to generalize women, but there's a clear and obvious difference between the way women show interest vs. men. Of course there's womem that are straight-forward, but make the assumption that all guys want is sex so are a little weary on showing interest.
Location: Northern Ireland and temporarily England
7,668 posts, read 5,260,330 times
Reputation: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommyFL
It's hard to reply if you don't have anything constructive to add.
There are 3 or 4 members though who (from what I can see) are deliberately going out of there way to ignore me. I am a Christian and we don't do that, if I don't like someone I say to their face that I don't want to talk to them I don't act like a big baby trying to silence someone. Its ****ing shallow and rude.
Sorry it just angers me when people try and take advantage or agrivate a stranger just because they don't agree with their agenda or even worse when they are UNHAPPY and trying to lower me.Anyway I feel like i've made my point.
For ****ing christ stop bloody ignoring me don't be so bloody rude. Just flipping say if you don't want me involved! Its bloody low, especially when I take time out of my day to make a reply!
Your post got replied to? When a lot of people reply it is often hard to reply to all of the posts.. I would if I had the time to, but I am currently watching TV at the same time and am unable to do two things at once..
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunno what to put here
Anyway, I don't think Labour and the Tories are similar - they are fundamentally very different. The current Labour party has drifted back to the left after the Blair years. They are probably more different now than they have been for decades.
They are slightly better now than when Blair was there, I agree.. still a lot different to the old Labour of the 70s/80s though. Still, I prefer them to the tories.. but imagine this man leading our country!
Well, your vote still contributes to the overall total, even if your MP is unlikely to change. What we need in the UK is Proportional Representation.
The nice thing about a district system is that the representatives are connected to the district and care about local issues. One puzzling thing about the British system is that MPs aren't required to be from the district, doesn't that defeat the point of having a representative?
Quote:
Originally Posted by irlinit
It's pretty similar here.. Labour or Conservatives which are very similar nowadays. In the US system they would both be considered left wing parties, but Labour has edged further away from the left in recent times.
I think the ideological gap between American parties is larger, though as the article said, that's a rather recent thing. American parties used to rather ideologically diverse within the party, and congress votes would breakdown as much on regional lines as party lines.
Your post got replied to? When a lot of people reply it is often hard to reply to all of the posts.. I would if I had the time to, but I am currently watching TV at the same time and am unable to do two things at once..
They are slightly better now than when Blair was there, I agree.. still a lot different to the old Labour of the 70s/80s though. Still, I prefer them to the tories.. but imagine this man leading our country!
Aw, I like Ed. Seems like a nice guy. Cameron comes across as a total sleaze - and is probably a sociopath. Plus, Cameron is a diplomatic nightmare - continuously isolating the UK within Europe and refusing to cooperate. Even though I dislike the SNP due to their nationalist obsession, I'd happily support a Lab/SNP coalition just to get the Tories out of power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
The nice thing about a district system is that the representatives are connected to the district and care about local issues. One puzzling thing about the British system is that MPs aren't required to be from the district, doesn't that defeat the point of having a representative?
Yes, I suppose it does, and people complain about it a lot. The MP for my constituency was born in Scotland, but he has been based in Leeds for the past part of 4 decades now, and was actully the City Council leader in the 1980s. I think a candidate should at least be based in the city/region they want to represent, for a number of years.
The MP of my constituency actually helped my mother receive larger social housing in the 1990s when I was a child.
It's pretty similar here.. Labour or Conservatives which are very similar nowadays. In the US system they would both be considered left wing parties, but Labour has edged further away from the left in recent times.
The only important point for Thursday will be who sides with Labour or Conservatives to form a coalition
That makes sense. Maybe UKIP could offer something of an alternative, though. Nothing comparable exists here.
Location: Northern Ireland and temporarily England
7,668 posts, read 5,260,330 times
Reputation: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by irlinit
Your post got replied to? When a lot of people reply it is often hard to reply to all of the posts.. I would if I had the time to, but I am currently watching TV at the same time and am unable to do two things at once..
They are slightly better now than when Blair was there, I agree.. still a lot different to the old Labour of the 70s/80s though. Still, I prefer them to the tories.. but imagine this man leading our country!
Its not you most of the time. I've already made my point, i'll maybe just stay out of the thread when the people who are doing it are in here.
I have no time for childishness and digs against strangers. The person/people know what they are at.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
