• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Some excellent work…

Two more upcoming race threads created.

There's actually a further six for Saturday I could have added, as they all have ante-post markets on Oddschecker, but such is the bizarre hostility towards this from some, I've held off from so doing, for the time being, at least.
 
Even if I wouldn't be upset to see someone get smashed in the face with a brick I still wouldn't click the ignore button, that's just weak as far as I'm concerned and being an old woman

Both too few and too many threads are not desirable and I would say there's too many threads at the moment, one approach is to start a thread that covers a weekend and all the races over those two days
e.g. for this weekend coming "Saturday 1st March & Sunday 2nd March 2025"
And if you construct a post with some thought to readability then it should clear what race and/or post you are responding to.
Some races deserve their own thread but not that many imo
 
pawras said:
Even if I wouldn't be upset to see someone get smashed in the face with a brick I still wouldn't click the ignore button, that's just weak as far as I'm concerned and being an old woman

Both too few and too many threads are not desirable and I would say there's too many threads at the moment, one approach is to start a thread that covers a weekend and all the races over those two days
e.g. for this weekend coming "Saturday 1st March & Sunday 2nd March 2025"
And if you construct a post with some thought to readability then it should clear what race and/or post you are responding to.
Some races deserve their own thread but not that many imo
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that decreases your number of posts ...........which is all that some people are interested in ......have a look at past form on various forums 🥴
 
I try operate on the principle that nobody has the right not to be offended. As such I only have one forumite on 'ignore' - An Capall - a prince among the chicken spankers.

Happily I won't see the shyte he posts in reply to this sage contribution.
 
I don't really have a view on what others do.

If they want to put me, or others, on ignore, fine, if they don't, fine.

I think people who say stuff like "I wouldn't do this," or "people who do such and such are such and such" are being tacitly controlling tbh - the clear implication being that anyone who doesn't behave in exactly the way they do, or in exactly the way they want, is "wrong."

This says plenty about them to me and sadly none of what it says is positive.

I could wake up to 100 threads from others here in any section and I couldn't care less.

And if I found others were ignoring me, rather than berating them for their decision I'd reflect that my past actions must have led to this - saying literally whatever you like to someone else is not a free bet.

Putting on ignore those here I find: racist, misogynistic, deeply offensive, whether politically, personally, or both, violently aggressive in tone, or consistently just downright boring, has made for a much more pleasant forum for me to visit.

Not being controlling about the amount of content the thankfully civilised many others I'm left viewing post helps too - I can always just scroll on by.

It might not be what you'd do, or even want me to do, dear reader, but you can talk to the hand on the latter, I do as I please, acting within the forum rules and using available forum functionality.

Others should feel free to do as they individually please (which might be very different to me) too, so long as they also adhere to the forum rules.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure some expert in psychobabble could put me right but I reckon too many behaviours are sucked under the 'passive aggressive' umbrella by people who happen not to like the way another person is not interacting with them.

People should be allowed not to allow people they find offensive into their circle.

Would I choose to walk into a pub full of loudmouths who have had too much to drink? I might wander in innocently but it wouldn't take me long to choose to walk out again. Does that mean I'm being aggressive in some way towards those people?

If so then just give me a machine gun and let me get on with it.
 
Ah, I see somehow that risible term "passive aggressive" has worked its way into the mercifully unseen (by me) discussion.

It is a term popular with those unhappy at others simply choosing to walk away from them, rather than engage with their all-too-often toxic drama.

I never met anyone yet who didn't use the expression in a feeble attempt to control the behaviour of someone else.

I'd rather be thought passive aggressive than go round calling others a c**t (and then trying to pretend it was a respectable mere "admonishment,") or a "sick f**k," or use violent terms about what they'd like to see happen to others, or racist (whether about Chinese people or in Daily Mail-esque reference to Meghan) or misogynistic towards a lady who has risen from working class beginnings to be deputy prime minister.

There's some thoroughly-nasty pieces of work on this forum, but thankfully they can be shut out because there's also some excellent people who are a joy to simply talk racing and betting with.
 
Last edited:
I only put anyone on ignore extremely reluctantly and it's only if they've directed something towards me personally that I think oversteps my tolerance mark.

Perhaps very occasionally I will put on ignore someone whose political or religious views are so extreme/intolerant that I just don't want them in my forum life (because I most certainly wouldn't knowingly have them within a mile of me in real life).
 
Yes, I should maybe add there is a lot of stuff I don't read anyway, without putting the contributor on ignore but.as you say, the ignore facility is there and is very useful.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I'm sure some expert in psychobabble could put me right but I reckon too many behaviours are sucked under the 'passive aggressive' umbrella by people who happen not to like the way another person is not interacting with them.

People should be allowed not to allow people they find offensive into their circle.

Would I choose to walk into a pub full of loudmouths who have had too much to drink? I might wander in innocently but it wouldn't take me long to choose to walk out again. Does that mean I'm being aggressive in some way towards those people?

If so then just give me a machine gun and let me get on with it.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree that people should be allowed not to allow people they find offensive into their circle. What I object to is the same person acting in a passive aggressive manner towards another forumite (not me) then claiming that they are somehow the victim when someone is actually aggressive towards them.

And how said poster reconciles saying something like "I think people who say stuff like "I wouldn't do this," or "people who do such and such are such and such" are being tacitly controlling tbh" whilst at the same time repeatedly recommending that everyone puts everyone on ignore?? Surely such behaviour falls into the category of saying "I wouldn't do this" - which is, by his own words, tacitly controlling (or as I'd like to put it - passive aggressive)
 
This quote came up on my FB page. Makes me wonder if the algorithms are picking up stuff from this site:

Tupac once said:
"Just because you lost me as a friend doesn't mean you gained me as an enemy. I'm bigger than that. I still wanna see you eat, just not at my table"
 
I happen to be reading in church this morning so imagine my surprise when I checked out the scheduled reading from Ecclesiasticus:

A kindly turn of speech multiplies a man’s friends,
and a courteous way of speaking invites many a friendly reply.
Let your acquaintances be many,
but your advisers one in a thousand.
If you want to make a friend, take him on trial,
and be in no hurry to trust him;
for one kind of friend is only so when it suits him
but will not stand by you in your day of trouble.
Another kind of friend will fall out with you
and to your dismay make the quarrel public,
and a third kind of friend will share your table,
but not stand by you in your day of trouble:
when you are doing well he will be your second self,
ordering your servants about;
but if ever you are brought low he will turn against you
and will hide himself from you.
Keep well clear of your enemies,
and be wary of your friends.
A faithful friend is a sure shelter,
whoever finds one has found a rare treasure.
A faithful friend is something beyond price,
there is no measuring his worth.
 
Back
Top