RugbyRebels

Saw this and loved it.

canta_brian wrote:

rowan wrote:

canta_brian wrote:
No it isn't.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

If you can't get a simple quote like that right can you ever expect us to take you seriously?

Not according to the Urban Dictionary. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... %20pudding

So don't preach to me about the English language. That would be extremely arrogant.

That's exactly your problem. You believe every unreliable source on the Internet. Why not actually think about the quote for yourself instead.

Exactly this.

& that arrogant and misguided assumption was blown out of the water by this:

rowan wrote:There is also a lot of arrogance and refusal to concede ones errors. An idiom is a fixed expression. The one I used can be found all over the internet and is widely used in the modern era; thus making it a fixed expression - whether you like it or not.

But all this comes down to a really quite trivial - and wayward - shoot-the-messenger tactic against someone who does not think as you do. Not surprising really, given arrogance and narrow-mindedness go hand-in-hand...

Too bad you guys can't just fight your own fights. You can't admit it when you're wrong either But you still lost, because the proof's in the pudding

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:Your comments show just how blatantly anti-Russian you are, Stones. The proof's in the pudding. Of course I'm aware of Russia's faults, but living and working in the country certainly provides added insight, as you yourself demonstrated with your final paragraph in that rant. I don't hate Russia so much that I blame them for conflicts the West has blatantly instigated - such as Ukraine and Syria - whereas the propaganda industry which passes for American & British mainstream media does. I've been following it closely on the internet for the past 16 years, and we always got a fair bit of it sent our way in New Zealand when I was growing up as well. I didn't suggest we were free of this propaganda. We simply didn't get as much of it as you evidently did.

Oh yeah, another one of the "I know what you think because of who I think you are" brigade.

Fucking retard.

But he's followed it closely on the internet ffs!

Proof of the pudding: I had some major fatigue going on in one leg the other day. T'internet told me I have developed MS, despite no other symptoms or any family history. I'm off to my gp to organize an early retirement, working is for suckaz (not sure da yoof spell that).

See!

I'm with Rowan, the internet is all the proof this pudding ever needed.

Coco wrote:Saw this and loved it.

Yup, he nails it. Yet to see anyone from right or left who disagrees with him.

But he's followed it closely on the internet ffs!

So the American & British mainstream newspapers are credible enough for you to believe all their lies & anti-Russian propaganda when it's the printed version, but suddenly morph into meaningless rags that only a conspiracy theorist would pay attention to when it's the electronic version

These are really silly arguments now...

rowan wrote:& that arrogant and misguided assumption was blown out of the water by this:

Too bad you guys can't just fight your own fights. You can't admit it when you're wrong either But you still lost, because the proof's in the pudding

Does this mean that apostrophe's no longer mean anything because idiots don't know how to use them?
Does that mean that someone who wishes to convey that they could not possibly care less about something can say "I could care less" in direct contradiction of their feelings; make perfect sense?

"Proof of the pudding" is a shortening of a phrase that actually means something; on it's own it's a meaningless half-sentence. It is about as sensical* as "I could"

Grammar, it's the difference between "helping your uncle jack off a horse", and "helping your Uncle Jack off a horse" It's a bit like personal hygeine - you're free to ignore it, but do'nt complain when people draw their own conclusions.
* I know, but I like that one anyway

Well said, Which Tyler.

Coco wrote:

morepork wrote:Who is cramming ideas down/up who? How do these kids define a format that is taken seriously in the face of "snowflakes" and other such dismissive categorisation? Why are dumb fucks that love assault rifles afforded a more prominent platform than are actual educated humans?

Think about this for a moment. They are given an out to not have to feel defeat, not to have to hear opinions that differ from their own, or learn how to cope with disappointment.etcetcetc.

Newsflash.. Educated humans have assault weapons, too.

....an "out"? Is that your definition of tertiary education?

morepork wrote:

Coco wrote:

morepork wrote:Who is cramming ideas down/up who? How do these kids define a format that is taken seriously in the face of "snowflakes" and other such dismissive categorisation? Why are dumb fucks that love assault rifles afforded a more prominent platform than are actual educated humans?

Think about this for a moment. They are given an out to not have to feel defeat, not to have to hear opinions that differ from their own, or learn how to cope with disappointment.etcetcetc.

Newsflash.. Educated humans have assault weapons, too.

....an "out"? Is that your definition of tertiary education?

Referring to the " everyone is a winner and gets a trophy" mentality.

Not seen that at any North American tertiary institution I have ever worked for or with.

Well, as the saying goes . . .

morepork wrote:Not seen that at any North American tertiary institution I have ever worked for or with.

Starts when they are young... Potentially produces young adults that are lacking the capacity to deal with frustration, and never teaches them to deal with losing properly.

Just in case anybody missed Which Tyler's subtle humor earlier...

Which Tyler wrote: Does this mean that apostrophe's no longer mean anything because idiots don't know how to use them?
Does that mean that someone who wishes to convey that they could not possibly care less about something can say "I could care less" in direct contradiction of their feelings; make perfect sense?

"Proof of the pudding" is a shortening of a phrase that actually means something; on it's own it's a meaningless half-sentence. It is about as sensical* as "I could"

Grammar, it's the difference between "helping your uncle jack off a horse", and "helping your Uncle Jack off a horse" It's a bit like personal hygeine - you're free to ignore it, but do'nt complain when people draw their own conclusions.
* I know, but I like that one anyway

rowan wrote:But he's followed it closely on the internet ffs!

So the American & British mainstream newspapers are credible enough for you to believe all their lies & anti-Russian propaganda when it's the printed version, but suddenly morph into meaningless rags that only a conspiracy theorist would pay attention to when it's the electronic version

These are really silly arguments now...

What is silly is that you somehow believe that everyone in what you call "the West" uncritically accepts the stuff YOU read on the Internet and believe that WE read.

While all the time YOU uncritically believe every single piece of agitprop emitted by the Kremlin, with your brain in neutral because there is no way those nice non-western people would lie, is there....

I'm still not convinced that you're not UG after his gender reassignment op.

Like shooting fish in a barrel

Figures shown are average circulations for January of each year. Only newspapers with circulations of more than 100,000 copies per day in January 2012 are listed. Regardless of immediate source, all figures originate from the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

Title 2016[8] 2015[9] 2014[10] 2013[11] 2012[12] 2011[13] 2010[14][15]

The Sun 1,787,096 1,978,702 2,213,659 2,409,811 2,582,301 3,001,822 3,006,565
Daily Mail 1,589,471 1,688,727 1,780,565 1,863,151 1,945,496 2,136,568 2,120,347
Metro 1,348,033 ? 1,362,893[16] ? ? ? ?
Evening Standard 898,407 877,532[17] 805,309[18] 695,645[19] 699,368[20] 704,008[21] 601,960[22]
Daily Mirror 809,147 922,235 992,256 1,058,488 1,102,810 1,194,097 1,218,425
Daily Telegraph 472,033 494,675 544,546 555,817 578,774 651,184 691,128
Daily Star 470,369 425,246 489,067 535,957 617,082 734,311 779,376
Daily Express 408,700 457,914 500,473 529,648 577,543 639,875 674,640
The Times 404,155 396,621 384,304 399,339 397,549 457,250 508,250
i 271,859 280,351 298,266 293,946 264,432 133,472 N/A
Financial Times 198,237 219,444 234,193 275,375 316,493 383,067 390,315
Daily Record 176,892 203,725 227,639 251,535 291,825 306,872 323,831
The Guardian 164,163 185,429 207,958 204,440 215,988 279,308 302,285
City A.M. 97,259 ? ? ? ? ?
The Independent 55,193 61,338 66,576 76,802 105,160 185,035 185,815
The New Day 40,000[23] N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Your anger at anybody who does not share your blatantly Russophobic views is the proof in the pudding

Why has your sister built a computer and then put it in a pudding? Is it a big pudding or a small computer? Either way, I'll have to eat the pudding to find the computer.

cashead wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Why has your sister built a computer and then put it in a pudding? Is it a big pudding or a small computer? Either way, I'll have to eat the pudding to find the computer.

Taking "putting people's stationery into jelly" to a whole new level?

Is jelly a pudding?

What is a pudding?

What is a nation?

I have become lost

Donny osmond wrote:I have become lost

Are you in a pudding?

cashead wrote:

Coco wrote:The tender little snowflakes are protesting, universities are having counselors brought in to help students deal with their emotional stress, professors are offering to allow students to skip mid terms if the election results have caused them too much emotional anguish. What the hell are these little darlings going to do in the real world?

Yeah people are upset about the outcome of this election. OH GEE I FUCKING WONDER WHY. TRULY NEVER A MORE MYSTERIOUS CONUNDRUM.

It must be easy to have a laugh at the "tender little snowflakes" when you're insulated from the so-called real world where there are people being attacked by emboldened bigoted human garbage cuntsacks because they happened to have the temerity to be a kike or a beaner or a nigger or a faggot or a dyke or a gook or a tranny. The nerve of those people, right? How dare they be sexually attracted to people of their own gender or be a different colour or identify as a gender that isn't the one they were physically born with.

Or maybe you could not be a smug asshole giggling from a distance.

This window licker cracks me up. Where'd ye find him lads?