luckyeddie

12 hours ago, villa4europe said:

 

I do think he genuinely has a heart of gold, unfortunately he also has a brain of shite.

22 minutes ago, maqroll said:

That is legitimately shocking. 

Yeah, the explosion was at 2am, so that's what time they were paid up till. And the only punishment they received was a £140 fine for the paperwork not being up to date, even though 260 odd miners died.

22 hours ago, UpTheVilla26 said:

Has anyone ever walked past a Blues fan when they are wearing their shirt in town or on holiday or something? 

Living in Somerset, we have Minehead, Weston and Burnham that attract a lot of tourists from the West Midlands. 

Whenever I see one, I just walk past and will actually feel genuinely sorry for them that their life has led to wearing that shirt. 

However, the other week, I was parking up and had my Villa jacket on. Got out the car and hear 'dirty Viler'. I turn around and their is some 30 stone behemoth in a blues top. He had his full knuckle dragging family in tow, holding hands with his sister and everything. 

He then stopped and was just staring over at me. So I kissed the Villa badge on my top and started to walk down the street. 

He then starts shouting a load of verbal abuse at me. 

My lad was like 'Dad, let's do him' but I ain't into that shit so we did a lap of the block and came back to make sure the idiot hadn't keyed the car. 

Weird bunch. 

Guys like that feel insecure, you should have given him a compliment, like "nice tits".

29 minutes ago, theboyangel said:

He’s already merged a penis on for a nose! 

I do get the sense that the general public are becoming bored with his brand of football. England have been booed off at Wembley recently too. 

The general consensus at my workplace (a real mix of club fans) is Southgate is wasting this generation of players and many don’t bother watching the games either. 

John Holmes' 

Just watched the episode about the Gresford mining disaster. By far the best episode of either series, and done very well. Thought it was excellent.

The mine owners stopped the wages of the dead miners at their time of death, rather than pay them the full shift. Shameful.

On 16/11/2023 at 20:51, Demitri_C said:

That part was hilarious 

But tbf massive coup for them at that level

Yeah, definitely was. It did come across as a commercial decision rather than purely footballing, as the keeper still available to them had played something like 36 games and kept 13 clean sheets so far that season. Good exposure to both parties, but I did feel sorry for "Chomp".

1 hour ago, osmark86 said:

You infered that her fashion choice was used as cover for her lack of skill. That is like saying engineers that wear baseball caps are only doing so to cover up their lack of technical expertise. It's a dumb argument, even if we cast gender aside.

I did allude to this in my earlier reply, you just glossed over it. 

Try having an opinion sometimes? And you call me patronizing? 

Do you honestly believe that your analogy of an engineer wearing a baseball cap is the same as AS wearing that dress? Comparing apples to oranges my friend. One is sexual, one is not.

20 minutes ago, osmark86 said:

Basically everyone here has already offered you the same arguments I have. But, in short you are projecting your own perceptions of intent on another person. Even worse you are connecting the dots between vanity and expertise in a silly manner.

Of course I am, it's called having an opinion. Try it some time rather than piggybacking on "everybody" else's.

Again no counter argument, just a rather patronising "your wrong", that sounds like something you read in a self help book.

3 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Just the way you seem to view women as if you're above them and they should act in the way you deem acceptable. 

 

 

Yes, we are at cross purposes. But I am going to stop now because this conversation is just going to descend.

1 minute ago, DCJonah said:

I have two daughters and people like you and some others on here in different threads, concern me way more than the idea of them going out in revealing outfits. 

You are inferring a lot here. So far you have likened me to Andrew Tate and being a concern for your daughter's safety. The fact I believe that her outfit was inappropriate does not make me a menace to society, and I would ask you to refrain from these overreactions.

10 minutes ago, UpTheVilla26 said:

LOL, I wish I'd never post it now. 

What my issue is, is nothing to do with her punditry and wearing that dress doesn't affect that (for the record, I think she is absolutely awful). 

It's the fact that you can almost guarentee, she'd be near the front of the que banging the drum about men seeing female players as sex objects or making remarks about their appearance, then she rocks up to an event, that she knows full well will have a lot of media attention, dressed like - in my eyes - a classless tramp. 

At least it reminded me to put eggs on my shopping list. 

Have no regrets, I have saved you a seat next to me. I'm in the Adolf Hitler suite, in the Andrew Tate building.

6 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Seemed very similar to his toxic view of women. 

 

In all seriousness I don't see it, can you enlighten me, because I believe we might be at cross purposes.

14 minutes ago, osmark86 said:

Semantics. Fine I'll rephrase myself to your standards:

Were you being quite earnest before? Pardon me, but what you declared is filled to the brim with absolute ignorance and, quite frankly, the most utterly void of any discernible intelligence content mine eyes have witnessed in eons.

You still haven't offered a counter argument, just spat your dummy out twice, and given an over inflated opinion.

18 minutes ago, osmark86 said:

Are you being serious? Sorry but this is one of the dumbest things I've read on here in a long ass time.

Fair enough, but do you see the irony of claiming something a dumb and then writing "long ass time" . 

Also, don't apologise if you don't mean it, it comes across as insincere.

4 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I can’t get my head around that you think this is solely for attention/recognition.

The far bigger shame is that (mostly) men cannot view clothing without thinking solely with their balls. Low cut top? Slut. Short skirt? Slut. I guess it’s happened forever, but sad that we can’t move on from it. 

I guess your first paragraph is our differing opinion, fair enough.

I agree with your second paragraph (although I don't think she is a slut), but women can sexually exploit men, because men let themselves be exploited. It's as old as time itself. And as you say it is a shame (for both sexes).

2 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

I’m being flippant on the point of her showing some ankle, when back in the day women would have to remain covered up because of standards on how they could dress typically dictated by men. Scott has had criticism directed at her by people (mostly men) for wearing a far less revealing dress before now so whether it meets your standards of decency doesn’t matter because someone else will be on hand to offer criticism on another dress.

You disliking Scott as a pundit, based on her presenting skills and her opinions on football is fair enough and valid. 

You determining that she is only dressing like that to seek attention and to try and hide her limitations is fairly flawed. She IS already getting quite big punditry roles already. She is a fairly big name in the sport presenting world, hence how you (and all the other people you reference) have the opportunity to dislike what she brings to the role.

Is she trying to gain some attention with the outfit? Probably. That’s something all high profile women will consider when they decide what to wear as their choice will be commented on way more than what men wear. 

Does she think “Oh I better show my nipples at this event otherwise they’ll replace me on Football Focus with Jermaine Jenas.”? I highly doubt it. I think she’s got it made in that regard, she’s probably one of the first names they want presenting/contributing to these shows.

Basically you seem to see this dress as proof that she’s a poor pundit. It’s confirmation bias for your own opinion. “Ah got her nipples out, knew it! She has nothing offer intellectually.” It’s not really, it’s a young woman wearing a provocative dress for a bit of attention which has happened since the year dot. 

Put it this way, if Jennifer Lawrence turns up at the Oscars wearing a low cut dress is that an admission on her part that she’s not very good at acting and all those awards and critical acclaim she’s received throughout her career go out the window as soon as we see her cleavage? By your rationale it must mean that, right? 

Lot to unpack there, thanks for the reply

I do not rate her, yes but that is only a subjective opinion (and I thought that before I saw her nipples). I listen to women like Maggie Alphonso and Alison Mitchell, top notch commentators who do not need to behave like this (we may be of a different generation, so may have differing standards. I do not know your circumstances, but how would you react if your daughter, sister, wife or mother went out in that outfit, knowing it would be plastered all over the press the next day).

My opinion is that it is ashame that women have to / decide to do this to gain attention and recognition. It would be preferable if they could be rated for their ability rather than their appearance (as the two examples above), but as you say it has happened forever, sex sells.

I do believe there is a correlation between her lack of punditry ability and exposure.

As an actress, Jennifer Lawrence has performed full frontal nudity, and also has a " leaked" picture collection, so I think it is comparing apples to oranges. Nudity is part of acting but not punditry.

Basically I am saying let their skills speak for themselves, and leave sex appeal out of it. To me it's like Page 3 models, most men like looking at attractive topless models, but not within the context of serious news. There's a time and a place for each of them.

17 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Link me to your comments when Gary Lineker was in his underwear on MOTD please.

I have not commented on GL, I was talking about AS.

Let's not play the "link me to your comments" game, as I am sure there are some attrocities you have not commented on, but I do not believe you condone them.

5 minutes ago, bobzy said:

It's nice to know sexism is still rife in society  

It's not sexism, because I would have the same attitude if it was a man.

12 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Andrew Tate?

How on earth do you equate the fact that I think it is inappropriate for a woman to use her sexuality to further her career with a man who has allegedly trafficked and sexually exploited women? Maybe you should think twice before throwing out the insults.

25 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

How does her “distracting us with her body” by wearing a dress mean she’s acknowledging her football analytical skills are not up to much? You seem to be suggesting that an intelligent person is incapable of wanting to be perceived as being attractive. Do I have that correct?

What is the appropriate outfit a woman should wear at a (in this case) non football social function in order for her to not have her football punditry credentials questioned - is she allowed to show ankle?

Alex Scott is not wanting to be seen as attractive but more outrageous and getting attention, as being attractive can be done in many ways without going braless and wearing a see through top.

I don't get your euphamism of showing some ankle, she is showing her nipples, which is a completely different thing. One is an erogenous zone one isn't.

I also think she is a poor pundit, many people do. I would also bet my last dollar, if she was a top notch pundit, she would not be seeking attention on this way.

4 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Andrew Tate?

No

2 hours ago, Mark Albrighton said:

It’s two different things really.

There’s sexism in the “nice tits, love” type comments. Which I’m sure she and female contemporaries regularly receive.

If I’m honest, wearing that sort of dress probably isn’t going to help matters with THAT sort of sexism, but it’s her choice and those people need to find a way to rephrase or better yet refrain from making that type of comment. It’s a bit blame the victim (“she’s asking for it dressed like that”).

Then there’s the sexism that I think Scott typically refers to. That being “you’re a woman, what do you know about football? Get back to the kitchen, raise children, darn my socks, etc etc”. And “You want to be paid the same as the male pundits as well, love??”. That’s the sort of sexism she’s on about.

Wearing a dress that reveals her body doesn’t preclude her from being able to discuss football. It doesn’t make her less knowledgeable about the game. If David Beckham (or an equivalent) models underwear would his footballing knowledge be questioned on the back of that?

In life, if you can get by using your brain, you know you do not have to exploit your body. Basically she is indicating that she knows that what she has to say is not up to scratch, so she will distract us with her body (classic magician's assistant deception). Some might think this is thinking like a caveman, but we basically are and she is exploiting it. Basic biology.

I could not take her seriously before that dress, and still can't now.

46 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

So. had the weekly Facetime call from my parents last night. They are awful people who were abusive and neglectful all through my childhood, but still I foolishly try and be nice to them. Last nights call, the initial topic of conversation was a close relative who had been convicted for being a paedo. So immediately I cut them dead, I have my Grandson sat next to me, dont say anything inappropriate as he doesnt need to hear it. They chose not to listen to this so I had to cut them dead again, shut up, now is not the time to talk about this. Then as the sentence was a suspended one my father started telling us that the reason it was a suspended sentence was because the "blacks and p---" are filling the prisons, and that its only a matter of time before there is a civil war and they come for us, us being white people. Again, I said I will not have grandson listening to this, its not appropriate (grandson was engrossed in roblox thankfully) and then ended the call.

My point is, why the **** do I bother, they are awful people, have never exhibited any form of compassion or empathy, raised 3 kids, one is an out and out racist, the other is now on some anti trans crusade and then there is me, who isnt a horrible person, but has issues about his childhood.

Anyway, just a rant about parents being words removed.

That is a horrible situation. The hardest thing to do is go no contact with your family, but it'll change yours and your family's life. Your son doesn't need those kind of influences in his life and you need to protect your mental health. These kind of parents (narcissistic as an educated guess) will destroy anybody that will listen, as it seems they have done to your siblings.

You need to rant about them to process the pain. I have spent 30 years ranting (and therapy) and have gone no contact with every member of my family included extended. It is so liberating.

Your parents sound like mine, and they do not give a shit about anybody but themselves, it's hard to accept but it is the truth.

Good luck.

Just watching the episode where they sign Ben Foster...and compare him to Michael Jordan and Tom Brady

On 13/11/2023 at 11:12, sne said:

Issue is will people turn up to vote for Biden this time?

I think people are more likely to turn up to vote against Trump. One political analyst described Trump as "someone who is very good at stopping people voting for his opponent, but even better at stopping people voting for him".

It's a sad state when these are the two likeliest candidates in a country of that size.