I didn't read it or contribute but surely it's just done in jest? Is it really any different to the petty dislikes thread the other week? I doubt Lodger really has a hate for Mike Hind.In my opinion the original thread was abhorrent in its title. I didn't open it so no idea what was said. We really ought to be better than that
I'm with you on planning the Johnson's knackers/fork incident, mind. I'll do the pronging bit, but I'll leave you to 'make it up' with him afterwards.I just treat threads like that one as a bit of an opportunity to say something silly. If anyone really thinks that I was being serious when I suggested the baby Jesus on the "punchables" thread then they either have no sense of humour or they should just stay away from internet forums. Do the same people think that I was being serious about spanking BoroFur's beautiful bottom or wanting to stab Johnson in the knackers with a rusty fork and then make love to him? It's just words on a message board. It's not worth getting upset about.
Careful mate. HundredRoom will be along soon to try and get you banned for saying that.I'm with you on planning the Johnson's knackers/fork incident, mind. I'll do the pronging bit, but I'll leave you to 'make it up' with him afterwards.
Nick Knowles came to my house once filming a pilot episode for a series he and his producer were pitching for about unusual houses (on an old football ground). He was a nice bloke and very good company. We all went out to the Southfield Hotel for some food I recall.I share your feelings towards Nick Knowles. I better add that I have nothing personal against him (don't want any bad publicity if I become famous next week)... Just think he's a bit of a ding.
I was sincerely hoping that you were and would pay good money for a ticketDo the same people think that I was being serious about spanking BoroFur's beautiful bottom.
I think that Nigel Blackwell might have a different opinion on Mr. Knowles Rob:Nick Knowles came to my house once filming a pilot episode for a series he and his producer were pitching for about unusual houses (on an old football ground). He was a nice bloke and very good company. We all went out to the Southfield Hotel for some food I recall.
The programme was shown several times on daytime tv. But yes he was a nice bloke.
Same laughing I hadn’t opened until this thread alerted my attention to itIn my opinion the original thread was abhorrent in its title. I didn't open it so no idea what was said. We really ought to be better than that
Nail on the head.. the man is a pure doyle who put himself in the public eye and cries to his followers when there's an ounce of negativity towards himMike Hind is an egotistical tosser of the highest order.
I think people need to be careful referring to local 'celebrities' in these kind of threads.
Eh?He may do what he does purely for egotistical reasons,
The point I was making was that none of us know what he's like as a person so it's unfair to refer to him as a waste of space.
that isn’t very #Bekind of him is it. I suspect digging up old messages will be unacceptable when it makes him look bad.
bet northern echo won't be reporting on his use of "this might sound gay...", pretty Un-PC isn't it?
Can’t really say those things though if you are hoping to be, or are elected as, a councillor. Those things will always be dragged up and used against you.I didn't read it or contribute but surely it's just done in jest? Is it really any different to the petty dislikes thread the other week? I doubt Lodger really has a hate for Mike Hind.
I did suggest both myself and the necronomicon on that thread before it was pulled. I think that both of those things do qualify as genuine wastes of skin. The bum faced folk shed their skin pretty regularly. We just grow another one afterwards and that does seem pretty wasteful and unnecessary but that's just nature. We don't do it deliberately. It just happens. And the necronomicon is bound in human skin, and that's a bit creepy, isn't it? And the people who that skin previously belonged to would probably think that using their skin to back a book when the rest of us just used brown paper or old left over wallpaper was a bit of a waste of skin. I stand by my comments. It's a legitimate phrase.To be honest I've never really understood the saying anyway. How can you waste skin? Is it a valuable resource that there's a scarcity of? Is there ever a situation where we might end up with a skin shortage? It's not like anyone else can use another person's skin anyway (other than pretty extreme examples).
Now a waste of oxygen I can understand. But a waste of skin? Makes no sense.
I feel this is the real issue the echo should've been focussing on. Happy to provide a gazette confused face if required.