# Wimmin, sort yer hormones out and you can work for the secret state



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

MI6 are advertising women with "high emotional intelligence" i.e. no silly girls fainting , crying and screaming. I've seen those 1950s films too.

Wanna work with a bunch of misogynist old farts? 

UK spy agencies 'recruiting more women' - BBC News

Mind you, they may want "high emotional intelligence" so they can pimp you out.


----------



## pengaleng (May 27, 2016)

it's really interesting that you are linking fainting crying and screaming to hormonal influences


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2016)

kingfisher


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> ... i.e. no silly girls fainting , crying and screaming. I've seen those 1950s films too.


That's not what emotional intelligence means. 

Emotional intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> That's not what emotional intelligence means.
> 
> Emotional intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I could argue the toss but my debating batteries are low.


----------



## pengaleng (May 27, 2016)

you mean you've been pwned?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> you mean you've been pwned?



You couldn't pwn yer nan's teasmaid.


----------



## Skyfallsz (May 27, 2016)

Emotional intelligence just means interpersonal skills.


----------



## pengaleng (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You couldn't pwn yer nan's teasmaid.



nah cus they are both dead.

dunno what your problem is, I aint the one who pwned you.


----------



## Skyfallsz (May 27, 2016)

They are probably tired of paying child support for all of the glamorous exotic women that their suave but heartless field agents seduce on their daring escapades


----------



## JimW (May 27, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> They are probably tired of paying child support for all of the glamorous exotic women that their suave but heartless field agents seduce on their daring escapades


Plus the massive amounts of compensation to the bereaved families of jump-suited sub-machine-gun-toting henchmen.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> That's not what emotional intelligence means.
> 
> Emotional intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





> *Emotional intelligence* (*EI*) or *emotional quotient* (*EQ*) is the capacity of individuals to recognize their own, and other people's emotions, to discriminate between different feelings and label them appropriately, and to use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior/QUOTE]
> 
> i.e. can you little lady brain cope with the menses and intelligence work.


----------



## ice-is-forming (May 27, 2016)

are you drunk?


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2016)

No, Dingers. 

You are misunderstanding this.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No, Dingers.
> 
> You are misunderstanding this.



You are misunderstanding this.


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2016)

Ok


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You are misunderstanding this.



I think you may be wrong.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Ok



An advert aimed at recruiting women. With this in it? Is this how you recruit women by accusing them of having poor emotional intelligence?


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> An advert aimed at recruiting women. With this in it? Is this how you recruit women by accusing them of having poor emotional intelligence?


You are misunderstanding this.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You are misunderstanding this.



You are unable to read between the lines.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> An advert aimed at recruiting women. With this in it? Is this how you recruit women by accusing them of having poor emotional intelligence?


Buy that isn't what they're doing.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> Buy that isn't what they're doing.



It's literally what they are doing.


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You are unable to read between the lines.


Whereas you are reading stuff between the lines that isn't there.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Whereas you are reading stuff between the lines that isn't there.



It's fairly clear that their demands for women to have high emotional intelligence means that the request from above voiced concerns about wimmins lack of it.


----------



## two sheds (May 27, 2016)

If they advertised for men with high fitness levels would they be suggesting men were generally unfit?


----------



## Sue (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It's fairly clear that their demands for women to have high emotional intelligence means that the request from above voiced concerns about wimmins lack of it.


You're an idiot.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

two sheds said:


> If they advertised for men with high fitness levels would they be suggesting men were generally unfit?



It would suggest that they feel most men don't have high fitness levels.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

Sue said:


> You're an idiot.



Charmed, I'm sure.


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It's fairly clear that their demands for women to have high emotional intelligence means that the request from above voiced concerns about wimmins lack of it.





DrRingDing said:


> It would suggest that they feel most men don't have high fitness levels.



Blimey. That's some reasoning!


----------



## two sheds (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It would suggest that they feel most men don't have high fitness levels.



not quite the equivalent of "no silly girls fainting , crying and screaming" though


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

I try and do my bit for wimmins lib and this is the thanks I get. Sometimes I wonder why I bother.


----------



## Sea Star (May 27, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> it's really interesting that you are linking fainting crying and screaming to hormonal influences


well, from my experience crying does seem to be linked to hormones - but not fainting which i've always had issues with and i never scream.


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2016)

It would help if you chose a genuine example rather than making up nonsense, Dingers!


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

There's no pleasing some people.


----------



## Sue (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I try and do my bit for wimmins lib and this is the thanks I get. Sometimes I wonder why I bother.



Know what? Think we'll be absolutely fine without you doing your bit.


----------



## pengaleng (May 27, 2016)

it's quite something when a man has a cob on about things on womens behalf isn't it...


----------



## pengaleng (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I try and do my bit for wimmins lib and this is the thanks I get. Sometimes I wonder why I bother.



probably because you arent one and it's not your place to complain about this shit.


----------



## Sea Star (May 27, 2016)

High is surely relative. There won;t be uniform levels of EQ across all women - there will necessarily be higher and lower levels of EQ. So the word 'higher' in this instance makes no judgement about the average levels of EQ in women. That's my take.


----------



## pengaleng (May 27, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> well, from my experience crying does seem to be linked to hormones - but not fainting which i've always had issues with and i never scream.




and your experience is everyone in the world is it?


----------



## Sue (May 27, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> probably because you arent one and it's not your place to complain about this shit.


Especially when he's got hold of completely the wrong end of the stick.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> probably because you arent one and it's not your place to complain about this shit.



So men have no responsibility to call out sexism by other men or male dominated institutions?


----------



## pengaleng (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So men have no responsibility to call out sexism by other men or male dominated institutions?




oh jog on.

you have a responsibility to police your own selves, not get offended and whine about shit on womens behalf. know your place.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

Sue said:


> Especially when he's got hold of completely the wrong end of the stick.



It really is sketchy as fuck to advertise directly for women and then pull out a ridiculously, dusty and dated stereotype in the job description.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> oh jog on.



Inspired.


----------



## pengaleng (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Inspired.



at least I'm not as fucking dense as you, m8.


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It really is sketchy as fuck to advertise directly for women and then pull out a ridiculously, dusty and dated stereotype in the job description.


Stop digging!


----------



## Corax (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> MI6 are advertising women with "high emotional intelligence" i.e. no silly girls fainting , crying and screaming. I've seen those 1950s films too.
> 
> Wanna work with a bunch of misogynist old farts?
> 
> ...


What weird nonsense.

As previously pointed out, you don't seem to have the foggiest about what EQ is.  It's increasingly prioritised by employers, regardless of gender.

Stressing the importance of it in this case is also part of encouraging "women who had followed a non-traditional graduate route" - ie they value other skills more highly, so if you're capable then not having trodden the standard school->uni->work path doesn't exclude you.

And apparently it's working - "The government said the initiatives were having an effect as MI5 had recently been placed in the Times Top 50 employers for women and had increased its number of new female employees by 5% to 46% of new recruits. GCHQ had seen applications from women rise to 40%."

By the way, why have you assumed that their recruitment is run by men?  Is your prejudice showing?


----------



## pengaleng (May 27, 2016)

I'm sure any woman wasn't capable of starting this thread if any of em felt offended by the advert...


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

I wonder what plans they have for when women lose control of their emotional intelligence?

A firm slap around the face? Do they keep a gun handy, just incase someone gets Spy Happy?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

Corax said:


> By the way, why have you assumed that their recruitment is run by men?  Is your prejudice showing?



I haven't assumed their recruitment is run by men. I'm assuming that stipulation was written by a man.


----------



## Sue (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I haven't assumed their recruitment is run by men. I'm assuming that stipulation was written by a man.


Sexist!


----------



## Sea Star (May 27, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Stop digging!





DrRingDing said:


> I wonder what plans they have for when women lose control of their emotional intelligence?
> 
> A firm slap around the face? Do they keep a gun handy, just incase someone gets Spy Happy?


----------



## Corax (May 27, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> know your place.





DrRingDing said:


> It really is sketchy as fuck to advertise directly for women and then pull out a ridiculously, dusty and dated stereotype in the job description.


Yes, it would be.  Good thing there's no evidence whatsoever of that in the example you've cited!


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I wonder what plans they have for when women lose control of their emotional intelligence?
> 
> A firm slap around the face? Do they keep a gun handy, just incase someone gets Spy Happy?


Oh dear!

This really is quite a spectacular fail. 

Surely you realise this now?


----------



## pengaleng (May 27, 2016)

I'm really enjoying this


----------



## Skyfallsz (May 27, 2016)

Secret spy base! No girls!


----------



## Corax (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I haven't assumed their recruitment is run by men. I'm assuming that stipulation was written by a man.


1)  That amounts to the same thing with relevance to the example and issue you've raised, and

2)  Why?  

Careful now, you'll wear your shovel out in a minute.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

Corax said:


> 1)  That amounts to the same thing with relevance to the example and issue you've raised, and
> 
> 2)  Why?
> 
> Careful now, you'll wear your shovel out in a minute.



So, a male dominated environment, ordered by the government to address the imbalance, then writes a sexist job advert.


----------



## 5t3IIa (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So men have no responsibility to call out sexism by other men or male dominated institutions?



Looks like you have started your Bank Holiday shenanigans bang on time <drinkydrinkymotion> Good for you!


----------



## pengaleng (May 27, 2016)

still reaching...


----------



## Corax (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So, a male dominated environment, ordered by the government to address the imbalance, then writes a sexist job advert.


I've yet to see an '"environment" write a job advert.  It tends to be people that do that, which in this case you've implied are "misogynist old farts" it seems.  For some reason, which one can only speculate on...

I've yet to see any evidence of this alleged "sexist job advert" either, for that matter.


----------



## 5t3IIa (May 27, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> Secret spy base! No girls!


Witam kolego , jak się masz ? jaki jest Żywiec ?


----------



## Corax (May 27, 2016)

I'm awaiting the answer to question 2 with bated breath btw.


----------



## pengaleng (May 27, 2016)

this is the most cringey thread I've witnessed in ages, well done, lads 

oi, DrRingSting, reassess your priorities. talk to some women.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

Corax said:


> I've yet to see an '"environment" write a job advert.  It tends to be people that do that, which in this case you've implied are "misogynist old farts" it seems.  For some reason, which one can only speculate on...
> 
> I've yet to see any evidence of this alleged "sexist job advert" either, for that matter.



So an advert implying that women have problems keeping their emotions under control is not at all sexist.

Jesus fucking christ.


----------



## Sue (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So an advert implying that women have problems keeping their emotions under control is not at all sexist.
> 
> Jesus fucking christ.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> this is the most cringey thread I've witnessed in ages, well done, lads
> 
> oi, DrRingSting, reassess your priorities. talk to some women.



I think you need to do a bit of reading 'm8'.


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So an advert implying that women have problems keeping their emotions under control ....


But. It. Doesn't.


----------



## 5t3IIa (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So an advert implying that women have problems keeping their emotions under control is not at all sexist.
> 
> Jesus fucking christ.


You are mucking about, aren't you?


----------



## pengaleng (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I think you need to do a bit of reading 'm8'.




LOL seriously 

'do a bit of reading' hahahahahahaaaaa


shut up.


----------



## Sue (May 27, 2016)

5t3IIa said:


> You are mucking about, aren't you?


I think (hope?) he's pissed. Still, nice to start the Bank Holiday weekend with a thread we can all agree on.


----------



## Corax (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So an advert implying that women have problems keeping their emotions under control is not at all sexist.
> 
> Jesus fucking christ.


You've got to be on a wind-up, right?

For your sake, I really hope so...


----------



## pengaleng (May 27, 2016)

Sue said:


> I think (hope?) he's pissed. Still, nice to start the Bank Holiday weekend with a thread we can all agree on.




ahhhhhh the consensus that man is a spectacular dickhead. 

I've needed a piss for ages but this is too good.


----------



## Corax (May 27, 2016)

For future reference, _*this *_is a sexist job advert:


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

I hope you do your homework while I'm away.

For now I'm going out for some incredibly right-on evening entertainment.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 27, 2016)

Corax said:


> For future reference, _*this *_is a sexist job advert:



Does sexism have to be spelled out that blatantly for you to recognise it?


----------



## pengaleng (May 27, 2016)

you're a fucking embarrassment.


----------



## Corax (May 27, 2016)

Not so much a white knight, as a magnolia stable boy.


----------



## pengaleng (May 27, 2016)

man don't even get that the mere fact that HE started the thread whining on womens behalf is offensive as fuck in the first place regardless of the content.

am sure women everywhere appreciate the heads up about what a man thinks...


----------



## Skyfallsz (May 27, 2016)

5t3IIa said:


> Witam kolego , jak się masz ? jaki jest Żywiec ?



Tak


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I try and do my bit for wimmins lib and this is the thanks I get. Sometimes I wonder why I bother.


Only sometimes?


----------



## TikkiB (May 27, 2016)

Possibly the funniest thing since the boathappy thread?


----------



## Cloo (May 27, 2016)

Yes, I don't read anything sexist into stressing EQ - I agree that it's about saying that can be/is more important than trad qualifications or coming from a certain background or anything.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 27, 2016)

Corax said:


> What weird nonsense.
> 
> As previously pointed out, you don't seem to have the foggiest about what EQ is.  It's increasingly prioritised by employers, regardless of gender.
> 
> ...



Yay! Let's celebrate how well the security services are doing!!


----------



## Sue (May 27, 2016)

TikkiB said:


> Possibly the funniest thing since the boathappy thread?


I was quite fond of the toning mist one, if also kind of creeped out by it.


----------



## 5t3IIa (May 27, 2016)

TikkiB said:


> Possibly the funniest thing since the boathappy thread?


Oh, he wishes. Boathappy wasn't gendered so it was a free giggle. This is just painful.


----------



## Callie (May 27, 2016)

This is brilliant  but then my emotional intelligence is currently low this time of the month so what do I know


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 27, 2016)

It's given me the hysterics!


----------



## Callie (May 27, 2016)

Crying or screaming with laughter?!


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 27, 2016)

Cunt's on a wind-up, as usual.

Ignore the irrelevant wankstain.


----------



## Corax (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I try and do my bit for *wimmins* lib and this is the thanks I get. Sometimes I wonder why I bother.


Do you have any idea of the message you're sending with that deliberate mis-spelling?

Fucking hell.


----------



## xenon (May 27, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I try and do my bit for wimmins lib and this is the thanks I get. Sometimes I wonder why I bother.



Ha, you nob.


----------



## likesfish (May 27, 2016)

Violette Szabo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Women have always made good spooks.


----------



## pengaleng (May 27, 2016)

I couldn't be fucked to bring up the spelling lol


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 27, 2016)

Women would make the best spooks as they're probably best placed to get men with lots of information and big egos to brag about sensitive info.


----------



## Supine (May 28, 2016)

OP is obviously being a bit of an idiot.

Having watched a lot of James Bond its obvious what they look for is super hot women who put out at the drop of a hat. Bit difficult to write that in a JD I'd imagine.


----------



## pengaleng (May 28, 2016)

it must be well shit to start a troll thread thinking you are gonna well fuck people off and instead just get everyone laughing at you. 

deffo a top thread of 2016 for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## Skyfallsz (May 28, 2016)

Sex drugs and on the dole


----------



## Corax (May 28, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Women would make the best spooks as they're probably best placed to get men with lots of information and big egos to brag about sensitive info.


Oh come on - you've got to try a _*bit*_ harder than that.


----------



## Greebo (May 29, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> Tak


Mysle ze on mówię troche po polsku


----------



## Skyfallsz (May 29, 2016)

Greebo said:


> Mysle ze on mówię troche po polsku



Tak


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 29, 2016)

Corax said:


> Oh come on - you've got to try a _*bit*_ harder than that.



It's factually correct. Google honey trap if you want to dispute it.


----------



## Greebo (May 29, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> Tak


It wasn't a compliment, sweetie.


----------



## Skyfallsz (May 29, 2016)

Greebo said:


> It wasn't a compliment, sweetie.



I don't speak polish, I just say tak and smile if people speak polish to me


----------



## Corax (May 29, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It's factually correct. Google honey trap if you want to dispute it.


I'm aware of the 'honey trap' idea.

You're not making the point that you think you're making though.


----------



## Greebo (May 29, 2016)

Corax said:


> I'm aware of the 'honey trap' idea.
> 
> You're not making the point that you think you're making though.


AFAIK British intelligence (lol) preferred to use housewives in Northern Ireland as spies because they could hang around for ages during the day without anyone paying much attention to them...


----------



## Gromit (May 29, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It's fairly clear that their demands for women to have high emotional intelligence means that the request from above voiced concerns about wimmins lack of it.



I'm trying to work of if you are trolling or stupid.

I'd argue that in general women tend to have higher emotional intelligence.
MI5 are now stating this is a tool  they are missing out on because they have too many menz with low EQs. So they are trying to get more women in but they don't want women who are just going to come at it with the same low EQ angle of the existing men. They want high EQ'ers.

If you are trying to predict the actions of someone and you ask a cold logical person predict the other person's actions you will get a cold logical prediction which might not actually reflect the actions of the much more emotional subject.

So it seems that they realize this and they are looking for analysts that have more empathy and have a higher capacity to predict what that emotional jihady is feeling and what actions they might take.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2016)

Gromit said:


> I'm trying to work of if you are trolling or stupid.
> 
> I'd argue that in general women tend to have higher emotional intelligence.
> MI5 are now stating this is a tool  they are missing out on because they have too many menz with low EQs. So they are trying to get more women in but they don't want women who are just going to come at it with the same low EQ angle of the existing men. They want high EQ'ers.
> ...


i think you have a point but you miss one vital point, which is that so frequently women get paid less than men.

that's why melvil dewey, of the dewey decimal system, was such a famous proponent of women working in libraries. and, i wouldn't be surprised, why the intelligence services desire more women in their ranks.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 29, 2016)

Gromit said:


> I'm trying to work of if you are trolling or stupid.
> 
> I'd argue that in general women tend to have higher emotional intelligence.
> MI5 are now stating this is a tool  they are missing out on because they have too many menz with low EQs. So they are trying to get more women in but they don't want women who are just going to come at it with the same low EQ angle of the existing men. They want high EQ'ers.
> ...



A bunch of wrong headed assumptions. 

I would heartily recommend looking at criticisms on EQ before getting on this bandwagon.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 29, 2016)

Greebo said:


> AFAIK British intelligence (lol) preferred to use housewives in Northern Ireland as spies because they could hang around for ages during the day without anyone paying much attention to them...


read a few months back about some female IRA operatives who met two off duty soldiers. Lured them back to the flat with the promise of bacon sandwiches and possibly more then the waiting triggermen shot the pair in their seats. The small touch that got me here was the deliberatly stopping at the shop for bread on the way back. That little touch that you might not even noticed had lowered your guard a little but it had. Cos who buys bread for someone they plan to kill right?


I urge any MI6 leaning people recall the bag in the bath with an ex employee in it. Theres yer pension


----------



## DrRingDing (May 29, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I urge any MI6 leaning people recall the bag in the bath with an ex employee in it. Theres yer pension



And that's the one we heard about. No doubt there are many more examples they keep underwraps.


----------



## Corax (May 29, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I urge any MI6 leaning people recall the bag in the bath with an ex employee in it. Theres yer pension





DrRingDing said:


> And that's the one we heard about. No doubt there are many more examples they keep underwraps.


What on earth are you two wittering about?  The guy clearly padlocked himself inside the bag and then used a pre-programmed drone to wipe off his prints from the bag and lock, which then self-destructed.  Occam's razor.


----------



## Gromit (May 29, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> A bunch of wrong headed assumptions.
> 
> I would heartily recommend looking at criticisms on EQ before getting on this bandwagon.


Trolling it is.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Trolling it is.








gromit recently


----------



## DrRingDing (May 29, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Trolling it is.



Regardless, EQ is promoted by the recruitment industry and other corporate wronguns. It lacks clarity and rigorous peer review.

It's a mess and it's depressing so many people buy into the crap.


----------



## Skyfallsz (May 29, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Regardless, EQ is promoted by the recruitment industry and other corporate wronguns. It lacks clarity and rigorous peer review.
> 
> It's a mess and it's depressing so many people buy into the crap.



It's a step in the right direction, intelligence is ridiculously complicated

I'd imagine that the secret service have a load of computer geniuses with poor social skills and are not able to do their job properly because of that


----------



## DrRingDing (May 29, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> It's a step in the right direction, intelligence is ridiculously complicated
> 
> I'd imagine that the secret service have a load of computer geniuses with poor social skills and are not able to do their job properly because of that



I'd imagine they'd also be dominated by men that were sent off to a single sex boarding school that harbour arcane stereotypes about women.


----------



## Skyfallsz (May 29, 2016)

real men harbour arcane stereotypes


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 29, 2016)

Corax said:


> I'm aware of the 'honey trap' idea.
> 
> You're not making the point that you think you're making though.



It worked for Israel! And we don't get to find out about most of this stuff. 

Not sure what your point is really. Given its something that already happens. 

Convicted nuclear spy Mordechai Vanunu tells of London honey-trap - Israel


----------



## Corax (May 29, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Not sure what your point is really.


You'll need to ponder on it then I guess.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2016)

Corax said:


> You'll need to ponder on it then I guess.


Like the auld gag, how do you keep a fool in suspense?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 29, 2016)

Corax said:


> You'll need to ponder on it then I guess.



Or you could expand? It's not for me to dream up your reasonings.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 29, 2016)

You ignored the rest of my post also. I wonder why?


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 29, 2016)

I find the title of this thread most offensive, whatever your misguided intentions in starting it DrRingDing.

As a wommin who could probably do with my hormones 'sorting out' I resent the idea that this should affect my employability. Unfortunately my fluctuating hormone levels means I spent a lot of time lately wanting to kill some one. _wimmin-sort-yer-hormones-out-and-you-can-work_ annoys me so much everytime I see it in the thread list. *Fucking change it!*


----------



## DrRingDing (May 29, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> It's a step in the right direction, intelligence is ridiculously complicated



It certainly is not a step in the right direction. It's a way for HR and other unsavoury types to look like theyre of use. Its really damaging to start categorising and pidgeon holeing people on questionable science.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It certainly is not a step in the right direction. It's a way for HR and other unsavoury types to look like theyre of use. Its really damaging to start categorising and pidgeon holeing people on questionable science.


Back for more I see


----------



## Corax (May 29, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You ignored the rest of my post also. I wonder why?


Because it's utterly irrelevant, as you'd understand if your brain found its way out of neutral.


Magnus McGinty said:


> Or you could expand? It's not for me to dream up your reasonings.


No - just read the damn posts.  It's not up to me to do your thinking for you.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 29, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Back for more I see



Bank holiday innit.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Bank holiday innit.


That's tomorrow


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 29, 2016)

Corax said:


> Because it's utterly irrelevant, as you'd understand if your brain found its way out of neutral.
> 
> No - just read the damn posts.  It's not up to me to do your thinking for you.



These aren't answers. You do know that?


----------



## Corax (May 29, 2016)




----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 29, 2016)

Just lay out your stall!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Just lay out your stall!


Bananas a pahnd a bowl


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 29, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Bananas a pahnd a bowl



From Waitrose.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> From Waitrose.


You're new round these parts so maybe you don't know about the prohibition of dragging beefs across threads. Why not read the faq?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 29, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> You're new round these parts so maybe you don't know about the prohibition of dragging beefs across threads. Why not read the faq?



Good point. I wasn't aware it was beefs though.


----------



## Corax (May 29, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Just lay out your stall!


I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.


----------



## keybored (May 29, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> You're new round these parts


I highly doubt it.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 29, 2016)

Corax said:


> I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.



Facepalm isn't an answer. And it was over an hour ago so no idea what your definitions of 'answer' or 'moments' happen to be.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Facepalm isn't an answer. And it was over an hour ago so no idea what your definitions of 'answer' or 'moments' happen to be.


----------



## Corax (May 29, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Facepalm isn't an answer. And it was over an hour ago so no idea what your definitions of 'answer' or 'moments' happen to be.


Cool story bro.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 29, 2016)

Corax said:


> Cool story bro.



"Look over there!"


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 29, 2016)

I was actually looking forward to the exchange that corax had volunteered himself for but never mind.
'Facepalm' lol. Yeah ok.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 29, 2016)

This was the best bit:



Corax said:


> Oh come on - you've got to try a _*bit*_ harder than that.


----------



## Skyfallsz (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It certainly is not a step in the right direction. It's a way for HR and other unsavoury types to look like theyre of use. Its really damaging to start categorising and pidgeon holeing people on questionable science.



Scoring people on emotional intelligence is questionable science, the idea of emotional intelligence is pretty self evident​


----------



## pengaleng (May 30, 2016)

STILL?????? ffs aint you got some super hero outfits to make?


----------



## Sue (May 30, 2016)

Well this is going well.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It certainly is not a step in the right direction. It's a way for HR and other unsavoury types to look like theyre of use. Its really damaging to start categorising and pidgeon holeing people on questionable science.


Shaddup.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> STILL?????? ffs aint you got some super hero outfits to make?



Dont think for a second I dont know what your motivation is.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Shaddup.



Are you working in recruitment?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Skyfallsz said:


> Scoring people on emotional intelligence is questionable science, the idea of emotional intelligence is pretty self evident​



It really really isnt. 

Do we need to pull this apart?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It really really isnt.
> 
> Do we need to pull this apart?


Go on then


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Go on then



Lets start with defining it. The whole concept is fundamentally flawed in that it's meant to classify people in a linear way i.e. If a person has this score in a test it will effectively predict their ability in an unrelated scenario. Emotion and affect are far more complex that that. We all have different associations with our environment. This is simply snake oil.

Like IQ which is similarly bollocks, all EQ tests demonstrate is purely your ability to do the test. In addition, Ive read some of the motivation for developing EQ is because IQ doesnt correlate with those in positions of power. So, instead looking at social class the Herberts assumed we live in a pure meritocracy and there must be some other measurement they can cook up to look useful.

Utter hokum.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Lets start with defining it.


Go on then


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Go on then



Which one of the major criticisms. Even the promoters lack clarity in being able to define it.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Which one of the major criticisms. Even the promoters lack clarity in being able to define it.


That sounds like a cop-out to me, especially as you just said 'let's start by defining it'.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> That sounds like a cop-out to me, especially as you just said 'let's start by defining it'.



This is the point. The promoters keep it vague as its a pile o shite.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> This is the point. The promoters keep it vague as its a pile o shite.


So, your definition's just a load of wet mush.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> This is the point. The promoters keep it vague as its a pile o shite.


You suggested that you were going to define it, then went on to not defining it.
Do you actually know what it means?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> So, your definition's just a load of wet mush.



I didnt define it.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> You suggested that you were going to define it, then went on to not defining it.
> Do you actually know what it means?



I know how some of the snake oil salesmen attempt to define it.

Do you believe in it?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I didnt define it.


Yes, I noticed that. Why not have another bash at it?


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Lets start with defining it. The whole concept is fundamentally flawed in that it's meant to classify people in a linear way i.e. If a person has this score in a test it will effectively predict their ability in an unrelated scenario. Emotion and affect are far more complex that that. We all have different associations with our environment. This is simply snake oil.


What on _earth_ are you banging on about now? 

You haven't read and understood what EI is at all have you?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> You suggested that you were going to define it, then went on to not defining it.
> Do you actually know what it means?


No, he doesn't


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What on _earth_ are you banging on about now?
> 
> You haven't read and understood what EI is at all have you?



Do you work in recruitment?

Have you read any peer reviewed criticisms of this shit?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Do you work in recruitment?



How's that at all relevant?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> How's that at all relevant?



Bias.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Bias.


Looks like you're a bit of a failure on the definition front


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Looks like you're a bit of a failure on the definition front



Youve missed the point spectacularly


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Youve missed the point spectacularly


Oh! And there was me thinking you're like a broken pencil. What is this point, pray tell.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Have you read any peer reviewed criticisms of this shit?


Ah, so now you're saying that the concept is nonsense as opposed to patronising to women, as you were asserting when you started the thread, right?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Oh! And there was me thinking you're like a broken pencil. What is this point, pray tell.



You like reading, why not go and read some peer reviewed criticisms of this idea.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Ah, so now you're saying that the concept is nonsense as opposed to patronising to women, as you were asserting when you started the thread, right?



The job advert was sexist and the idea is bollocks.

I've noted for the record you have declined to answer my question.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You like reading, why not go and read some peer reviewed criticisms of this idea.


What, the idea you can't define?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> The job advert was sexist and the idea is bollocks.
> 
> I've noted for the record you have declined to answer my question.


But you don't know what the idea is, or you'd be able to define it


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> What, the idea you can't define?



Go and read and then come back because youre being an eejit.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> The job advert was sexist and the idea is bollocks.


The job ad was not sexist. Explain why you think it is.

The idea may or may not be bollocks, but that's not what you meant when you started the thread. You didn't even know what EI is. You seem to have done a bit of googling since starting the OP and are now attempting an entirely different argument.


> I've noted for the record you have declined to answer my question.


No, I don't work in recruitment.


----------



## two sheds (May 30, 2016)

Sorry to spoil the fun but how about this as a starting point?

From Oxford on-line dictionary: 



> The capacity to be aware of, control, and express one’s emotions, and to handle interpersonal relationships judiciously and empathetically:



emotional intelligence - definition of emotional intelligence in English from the Oxford dictionary


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The job ad was not sexist. Explain why you think it is.
> 
> The idea may or may not be bollocks, but that's not what you meant when you started the thread. You didn't even know what EI is. You seem to have done a bit of googling since starting the OP and are now attempting an entirely different argument.
> 
> No, I don't work in recruitment.



You make assumption after assumption. I've clearly stated, several times, why it is sexist. If you youre unable to comprehend that you require special assistance and i have better things to do.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You make assumption after assumption. I've clearly stated, several times, why it is sexist. If you youre unable to comprehend that you require special assistance and i have better things to do.


I've made no assumptions. I'm simply responding to what you post. 

You haven't explained why it's sexist in any way that makes sense. The reasons that you gave for it supposedly being sexist earlier in the thread were moronic, and shown to be. Your reasoning proved that you had no idea what EI was, and that's why everyone took the piss out of you. Now you've had a chance to go away and grasp some fundamentals yet you still persist in suggesting the ad was sexist. Given that you're now trying to distance yourself from the silliness in the OP (good move, btw) why are you still clinging to what was the most ridiculous part of it? 

So again, in simple terms, why was the ad sexist?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Sorry to spoil the fun but how about this as a starting point?
> 
> From Oxford on-line dictionary:
> 
> ...



Yes, we all know that. One of the issues is with it's broad definition which makes collecting reliable empirical data challenging and leaves it lacking meaning. The other problem with its definition is the conflicting constructs within the paradigm. 

Rather than not knowing its about managing emotions both yours and others. 

Then essentially saying in a jon advert excplicitly to women "can you control you womanly emotions? Come work for us!"


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I've made no assumptions. I'm simply responding to what you post.
> 
> You haven't explained why it's sexist in any way that makes sense. The reasons that you gave for it supposedly being sexist earlier in the thread were moronic, and shown to be. Your reasoning proved that you had no idea what EI was, and that's why everyone took the piss out of you. Now you've had a chance to go away and grasp some fundamentals yet you still persist in suggesting the ad was sexist. Given that you're now trying to distance yourself from the silliness in the OP (good move, btw) why are you still clinging to what was the most ridiculous part of it?
> 
> So again, in simple terms, why was the ad sexist?



Go read the thread again.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Go read the thread again.


Just answer the question and stop wriggling.

Why was the ad sexist?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Just answer the question and stop wriggling.
> 
> Why was the ad sexist?



Are you thick or just being a berk?


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Are you thick or just being a berk?


LOL! The irony!

You did yourself no favours whatsoever with the OP and now you're just making an even bigger tit of yourself. 

Why did you come back to the thread at all? You could have just left it to die.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

You are a mug. You seem to have some attachment to this snake oil.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

If you made an effort this could be an interesting debate.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You are a mug. You seem to have some attachment to this snake oil.


I have no particular opinion on it, but I do know what it is. You clearly still don't, despite having had time to read about it and form an opinion, you still think it makes the ad sexist.

That really makes you the mug. A massive ignorant mug who's transparently tried to move the goalposts, failed miserably, and now looks like a massive bellend.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Youve missed the point spectacularly


what about my point  post #124 that you ignored? Hello!

I am a woman of a certain age with fluctuating hormone levels who is worried about future employablity. I've yet to see a job advertised as being good for 'women of certain age with good people skills' which this article is definitely about - The notion of employers wanting people like me is refreshing to say the least (not that I want to work for the state.)



> i.e. no silly girls fainting , crying and screaming. I've seen those 1950s films too.



You obviously have misunderstood the whole premise of the phrase 'emotional intelligence' and your OP is really insulting to women as a result. Is that how you think hormones affect our intelligence?  You have been watching too many 50's films.



DrRingDing said:


> Do you work in recruitment?
> 
> Have you read any peer reviewed criticisms of this shit?


 I don't work in recruitment and I dont know about  'peer' review of emotional intelligence. I do know from a life-times experience that however 'emotional intelligence' is defined, the average man has less of it than that average woman. I'd put it down to that pesky testosterone, but hey what do I know?  I'm only a 'wombin'. Perhaps you think I should make allowances for all those masculine hormones flooding your body and preventing you from understanding what I am talking about.

The whole idea of 'female', 'womanly', 'soft', 'interpersonal', or 'people' skills, or whatever you want to call the idea in present day lingo - it would not be unfair to say the whole male dominated establishment, including the jobs market, had misunderstood the workings and value of such skills until fairly recently.  

For fucks sake give me a break and shut up.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> If you made an effort this could be an interesting debate.


I've no interest in debating this with you unless you're going to be honest. If you were, then fair enough, but this is just you bullshitting.

You're not fooling anyone.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Yes, we all know that. One of the issues is with it's broad definition which makes collecting reliable empirical data challenging and leaves it lacking meaning. The other problem with its definition is the conflicting constructs within the paradigm.
> 
> Rather than not knowing its about managing emotions both yours and others.
> 
> Then essentially saying in a jon advert excplicitly to women "can you control you womanly emotions? Come work for us!"


Have to interupt this boys tiff. I CAN NO LONGER  CONTROL MY WOMANLY EMOTIONS!
That isn't what the article said and isn't what emotional intelligence means. You have misunderstood the whole concept and possibly half the human race.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

So, an arm of the state, that has it's ear twisted by central government to modernise and recruit more women. An arm of the state that has the reputation of having its upper echelons stuffed with public school boys that may have sent off to single sex boarding schools, states that they require women, in part, to control their emotions is sexist.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> Have to interupt this boys tiff. I CAN NO LONGER  CONTROL MY WOMANLY EMOTIONS!
> That isn't what the article said and isn't what emotional intelligence means. You have misunderstood the whole concept and possibly half the human race.



What article?

This EQ nonsense is in part about being able to manage your emotions.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> .... that they require women, in part, _to control their emotions _is sexist.


Oh god!


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh god!



You have nothing.

Make an argument, say something. Else you look like a Colin.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

I thought the penny had dropped for you but after several days you're right back at square one. 

Absolutely priceless!


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I thought the penny had dropped for you but after several days you're right back at square one.
> 
> Absolutely priceless!



Very average.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> ...that they require women, in part, to control their emotions is sexist.



Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you really think that's what they're saying? 

I'm going to refrain from calling you a troll, because it seems you actually believe what you're spouting, which is quite sad.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Very average.


Yeh. But you're at the nadir, nowhere near the average.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you really think that's what they're saying?
> 
> I'm going to refrain from calling you a troll, because it seems you actually believe what you're spouting, which is quite sad.



That is, in part, literally what they said.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you really think that's what they're saying?
> 
> I'm going to refrain from calling you a troll, because it seems you actually believe what you're spouting, which is quite sad.


This is ringding at his least sexist and obtuse


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That is, in part, literally what they said.


it 'literally' isn't!


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. But you're at the nadir, nowhere near the average.



I gave you the benefit of the doubt. We could have had a decent debate.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That is, in part, literally what they said.


You are misunderstanding .... well ... everything.

Again!


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> it 'literally' isn't!



That is what, EQ is, in part, about. You blithering idiot.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> We could have had a decent debate.


But that would require you to understand stuff that you don't. You don't seem to be bright enough to grasp some very basic concepts. Which is sad.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You are misunderstanding .... well ... everything.
> 
> Again!



Colin, offer an argument or go watch Top Gear or something.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> But that would require you to understand stuff that you don't. You don't seem to be bright enough to grasp some very basic concepts. Which is sad.



You've offered nothing to this thread.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You've offered nothing to this thread.


You have. 

Hilarity!


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> it 'literally' isn't!



Go and read a bit.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Go and read a bit.


After you 

I already know what they meant. It seems you don't.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> After you
> 
> I already know what they meant. It seems you don't.



You missed the bit about managing ones emotions. A pretty big part of this flawed theory. How did you miss that?


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

"Sexist".

Oh, dingers!


----------



## twentythreedom (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You have nothing.
> 
> Make an argument, say something. Else you look like a Colin.



Spymaster earlier


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Our feline Colin looks more engaged with the world than our u75 version.


----------



## Gromit (May 30, 2016)

> Women make up just over a third of Britain’s spies and fewer than one in five among the senior ranks, according to the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC).
> 
> It warned that the agencies are hampered by a middle management “permafrost” of men with a traditional male mentality and outlook and all of similar backgrounds.
> 
> ...



Oh look. After searching for more info...

It's as I said. Trying to diversify their staff to increase the effectiveness of their intelligence gathering by avoiding thinking in narrow channels.


----------



## twentythreedom (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Our feline Colin looks more engaged with the world than our u75 version.


He doesn't care what you think tbf


----------



## two sheds (May 30, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Oh look. After searching for more info...
> 
> It's as I said. Trying to diversify their staff to increase the effectiveness of their intelligence gathering by avoiding thinking in narrow channels.



So a major problem is that it's full of men with low emotional intelligence. If only there was a way to rectify that ...


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 30, 2016)

Ahem! Do allow me to interupt this cock fight again. If you are so concerned about sexism DrRingDing why dont you reply to this female person?



DrRingDing said:


> What article?


the BBC article to which you refered in your OP UK spy agencies 'recruiting more women' - BBC News. The one I do not find sexist at all.



DrRingDing said:


> This EQ nonsense is in part about being able to manage your emotions.




Emotional 'intellegence'  is not, even in part, about 'controlling emotions'.

I recall a man explaining the concept of EQ (or whatever it was called then) at a seminar I attended about 20 yrs ago about observing and understanding the emotions of those around you and speaking and acting accordingly.  I remember thinking - 'but doesn't everyone know that' and only then realising it was a new concept for some of the men present.

While hormones may affect emotions, and the expression of emotions, they are not the only controlling factor. As is proved by the fact I haven't murdered anyone. *

Why are you avoiding answering my post #124? The *title of this thread is still very insulting*, can you not understand why?


I do not think your logic skills are satifactory.

edited to add * yet.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Oh look. After searching for more info...
> 
> It's as I said. Trying to diversify their staff to increase the effectiveness of their intelligence gathering by avoiding thinking in narrow channels.



That quote highlights what I've been saying in this thread. The secret state is dominated by public school boys. They will have likely have had limited exposure to women in their formitive years. Their nanny, maybe a house mistress at boarding school and little else.


----------



## Gromit (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That quote highlights what I've been saying in this thread. The secret state is dominated by public school boys. They will have likely have had limited exposure to women in their formitive years. Their nanny, maybe a house mistress at boarding school and little else.


Actually it doesn't specify which  background they tend to share..

Do you have first hand experience of what staff they employ or are you going on popular culture references in books and movies?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Actually it doesn't specify which  background they tend to share..
> 
> Do you have first hand experience of what staff they employ or are you going on popular culture references in books and movies?



What background do you think they have in common? Working class, Afro-Caribbean, failing comprehensive old boys?


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That quote highlights what I've been saying in this thread.


And this quote highlights how utterly clueless you are about this:


DrRingDing said:


> I wonder what plans they have for when women lose control of their emotional intelligence?
> 
> A firm slap around the face? Do they keep a gun handy, just incase someone gets Spy Happy?


Moronic. Totally moronic. 

And why won't you respond to Friendofdorothy?


----------



## Gromit (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> What background do you think they have in common? Working class, Afro-Caribbean, failing comprehensive old boys?



Well i once knew a person who went off to work for MI5. In fact i had to answer a security clearance questionnaire for him saying that as far as i knew he had no gambling debts, drugs habit (anything that could be levered against him) etc. etc.

He never went to public school and was from a working class background as a matter of fact. However i assume like most civil service departments they tend to attract moderately well educated middle class personnel.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> Ahem! Do allow me to interupt this cock fight again. If you are so concerned about sexism DrRingDing why dont you reply to this female person?
> 
> 
> .



Because I'm a bit dismayed why youve been using the name Friend of Dorothy when you are female. That would indicate you want people to assume you are a gay man.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Well i once knew a person who went off to work for MI5. In fact i had to answer a security clearance questionnaire for him saying that as far as i knew he had no gambling debts, drugs habit (anything that could be levered against him) etc. etc.
> 
> He never went to public school and was from a working class background as a matter of fact. However i assume like most civil service departments they tend to attract moderately well educated middle class personnel.



Read the quote you posted again. This is not about the low level civil servants. It's about that "permafrost".


----------



## Gromit (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Read the quote you posted again. This is not about the low level civil servants. It's about that "permafrost".


Middle management are worker ants.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Because I'm a bit dismayed why youve been using the name Friend of Dorothy when you are female. That would indicate you want people to assume you are a gay man.


Oh. My. God.

Did he really just post that?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh. My. God.
> 
> Did he really just post that?



Nothing to say? Nothing to add? Just more pathetic and bland abuse.

What's up Topman all out of SuperDry?


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Because I'm a bit dismayed why youve been using the name Friend of Dorothy when you are female. That would indicate you want people to assume you are a gay man.


I'll give you a lesson on polari and gender politics some other time. 

Why don't you answer answer me?


----------



## xenon (May 30, 2016)

Are you not even a little bit embarrassed Dr?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'll give you a lesson on polari and gender politics some other time.
> 
> Why don't you answer answer me?



Because this thread is not an appropriate environment. This is a hostile thread and it will turn into fight.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

xenon said:


> Are you not even a little bit embarrassed Dr?



Are you not a little bit of an unpleasant fool?


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

This really is the thread that keeps on giving!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I gave you the benefit of the doubt. We could have had a decent debate.


Not with you in it we couldn't, you've been a disgrace throughout


----------



## xenon (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Are you not a little bit of an unpleasant fool?


 seriously, it is obvious to everyone you misunderstood what  emotional intelligence  meant,   Continued digging yourself into a hole and getting up a few peoples noses along the way.  

 If pointing this out makes me either unpleasant or foolish, there are two more things you don't understand.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Because I'm a bit dismayed why youve been using the name Friend of Dorothy when you are female. That would indicate you want people to assume you are a gay man.


I'm perturbed you've been using the title Dr which would indicate you want people to believe you're a medical man.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Not with you in it we couldn't, you've been a disgrace throughout



I've brought some valid criticism to the table and to be frank the closest anyone else has got is a talk they attended 20 years ago.

While I admit my facetious, tongue in cheek OP was not the ideal seed for reasoned debate the lack of engagement has been very poor.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I've brought some critique to the table and to be frank the closest anyone else has got is a talk they attended 20 years ago.
> 
> While I admit my facetious, tongue in cheek OP was not the ideal seed for reasoned debate the lack of engaged has been very poor.


Will you not fucking shut up? You must be near fucking China now, the amount of digging you've been doing.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Because I'm a bit dismayed why youve been using the name Friend of Dorothy when you are female. That would indicate you want people to assume you are a gay man.



Just


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Because this thread is not an appropriate environment. This is a hostile thread and it will turn into fight.


_trans._: I don't know what I'm on about but blustering will see me through


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't know what I'm on about but blustering will see me through



Which sums up your contribution to this thread...and thats being generous.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I've brought some valid criticism to the table ...


You really haven't you know.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Which sums up your contribution to this thread...and thats being generous.


Why do you think I should give a flying fuck what you say when throughout this thread you've shown yourself bereft of e.i., blithely unconcerned about your own egregious sexism, without an iota of knowledge of the subject, and when the kindest complexion that can be put on your behaviour is that you're a posturing gobshite sub-gove sexist?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You really haven't you know.



I have and you have refused to engage with it. Youve just lazily insults to hide your ignorance.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Why do you think I should give a flying fuck what you say when throughout this thread you've shown yourself bereft of e.i., blithely unconcerned about your own egregious sexism, without an iota of knowledge of the subject, and when the kindest complexion that can be put on your behaviour is that you're a posturing gobshite sub-gove sexist?



"Sub-gove" ouch


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I have and you have refused to engage with it. Youve just lazily insults to hide your ignorance.


So your sexism on display throughout this thread's just there as part of your critique


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> So your sexism on display throughout this thread's just there as part of your critique



Dont play that duplicitous game. There has been no sexism. Back it up or take it back.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Dont play that duplicitous game. There has been no sexism. Back it up or take it back.


Let's start with your 'why are you called friend of Dorothy if your not a gay man' bollocks.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I have and you have refused to engage with it.


No. You really, really, haven't. 

You've attempted to start a discussion but your understanding of the subject matter was so hopelessly flawed that after trying several times to explain your mistakes politely, everyone just gave up and took the piss instead.

Do you honestly think that you're the only person on this thread who's right and _everyone else_ is wrong?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Let's start with your 'why are you called friend of Dorothy if your not a gay man' bollocks.



'Friend of dorothy' is arcane slang for a gay man.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Because this thread is not an appropriate environment. This is a hostile thread and it will turn into fight.


Good grief. I feel I'm talking to a toddler here.

You post a thread apparently about sexism and then refuse to answer a perfectly good question from a person affected by sexism. Because this is not an appropiate environment! And you wonder why people are being hostile to you here. You shouldn't need a high IQ or EQ to work that one out.

I think you you haven't answered me because you don't know how, and don't want to admit you are merely willy waving. You would rather have a blokey fight.



DrRingDing said:


> I've brought some valid criticism to the table and to be frank the closest anyone else has got is a talk they attended 20 years ago.


 To which you didn't give me the courtesy of a reply.  
You have brought an insulting thread with some fairly dim witted, and mis understood ideas here. Yes I heard about it 20 years ago - so its hardly a new wacky concept. 

You have been sexist - The very title of thread and your OP screams proof of your sexism. Your refusal to debate with me suggests your sexism. Do you want me to go on?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No. You really, really, haven't.
> 
> You've attempted to start a discussion but your understanding of the subject matter was so hopelessly flawed that after trying several times to explain your mistakes politely, everyone just gave up and took the piss instead.
> 
> Do you honestly think that you're the only person on this thread who's right and _everyone else_ is wrong?



Again you refuse to engage. You say nothing.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> 'Friend of dorothy' is arcane slang for a gay man.


So fucking what you sexist pig?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> So fucking what you sexist pig?



Go fucking play outside.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Let's start with your 'why are you called friend of Dorothy if your not a gay man' bollocks.


thank you Mr model

By the way when I first joined Urban, I adopted a gender neutral name that suggested that I'm queer - FoD just means queer, homosexual, which I am - If anyone assumed I was a man, that speaks to ytheir prejudices.   I feared sexist dick heads might behave like wank stains if I had adopted a name like _sappho_. 

I never assumed you were a GP or have a PHD, and your posts prove that I was right.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Again you refuse to engage. You say nothing.


There's nothing to engage _with. 
_
You might as well have posted "I'm an elephant". It would have made as much sense.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Go fucking play outside.


Nah. I'll stop and watch your car crash of a thread a while longer.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

FOD, youve misunderstood most of what ive said.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> FOD, youve misunderstood most of what ive said.


Yep. It's _everyone else!!!!_


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Nah. I'll stop and watch your car crash of a thread a while longer.





Spymaster said:


> Yep. It's _everyone else_!!!!



Again. Nothing to say. Nothing to add. 

Bland.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

I'M AN ELEPHANT! 

I can post nonsense too.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Again. Nothing to say. Nothing to add.
> 
> Bland.


You missed me saying you're a sexist pig. You've a lot to say, but none of it to your credit.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Again you refuse to engage. You say nothing.


 You have so far refused to engage in debate with me.


DrRingDing said:


> FOD, youve misunderstood most of what ive said.


What have I misunderstood? I strongly object to the title and your OP and you have only further shown your misunderstanding through out the last 8 fucking pages.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

A white elephant.


----------



## Sue (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> FOD, youve misunderstood most of what ive said.



I just wish friendofdorothy would stop worrying her pretty little head about all this.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> A white elephant.


more interested in throwing insults at a man than actually replying to me about sexism.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> A white elephant.


Fariousment invancipoop specktragog?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> A white elephant.


Spymaster's not white


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Spymaster's not white



Classy. Try to deceitfully bring racism into your filth. Shame on you. I will remember this.


----------



## Callie (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> FOD, youve misunderstood most of what ive said.


Holy shit. You're amazing!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Classy. Try to deceitfully bring racism into your filth. Shame on you. I will remember this.


not trying to bring anything into this, you've been ably bringing e.g. sexism into this with greater energy than I could muster. Not sure how pointing out Spymaster not white bringing racism into this. Something you want to tell us?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> not trying to bring anything into this, you've been ably bring e.g. sexism into this with greater energy than I could muster



Distgusting.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Distgusting.


Yes, you are


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Classy. Try to deceitfully bring racism into your filth. Shame on you. I will remember this.


Undovel bentwixifold fiskulation, juncreconcy paleoteftiboob.

In Birmingham.


----------



## two sheds (May 30, 2016)

So do you feel that you handle interpersonal relationships judiciously and empathetically, Dr.RingDing?


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 30, 2016)

Callie said:


> Holy shit. You're amazing!


You really can't fault Mr Ringer's strong sense of self belief. I bet he never says sorry either.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> You really can't fault Mr Ringer's strong sense of self belief. I bet he never says sorry either.


It's a pity he's not the silent type


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Do you honestly think that you're the only person on this thread who's right and *everyone else is wrong*?


Including the people he purports to be defending


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Distgusting.


Crementialite.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 30, 2016)

two sheds said:


> So do you feel that you handle interpersonal relationships judiciously and empathetically, Dr.RingDing?


of course he does. 

And testosterone never gets in the way of clear thinking and a good argument.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> of course he does.
> 
> And testosterone never gets in the way of clear thinking and a good argument.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> of course he does.
> 
> And testosterone never gets in the way of clear thinking and a good argument.


Tbh he's not helped by an unenviable ability to think he's much more intelligent than is in fact the case.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


>


Parodipledum custercickertue.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


>


How do you feel if I say:

*fellas-don't-sort-yer-hormones-out-and-you-can-continue-to-get-jobs-for-the-state*


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> How do you feel if I say:
> 
> *fellas-don't-sort-yer-hormones-out-and-you-can-continue-to-get-jobs-for-the-state*



I was facetiously lampooning the voice of the job advert.

Give. Me. Strength.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I was facetiously lampooning the voice of the job advert.
> 
> Give. Me. Strength.


Should be asking 'give me emotional intelligence and take away my sexism'


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I was facetiously lampooning the voice of the job advert.


Ratticudding perong chanderlag.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I was facetiously lampooning the voice of the job advert.
> 
> Give. Me. Strength.



I'd rather someone grant you the gift of intellegence - emotional or otherwise

Really? You have still misunderstood the item you link to, and insulted women as well, right there in the thread title.  Being facetious might explain the title but what about the OP and the last 10 pages? lampooning the voice an ignorant bloke perhaps.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'd rather someone grant you the gift of intellegence - emotional or otherwise
> 
> Really? You have still misunderstood the item you link to, and insulted women as well, right there in the thread title.  Being facetious might explain the title but what about the OP and the last 10 pages? lampooning the voice an ignorant bloke perhaps.





Yes, I was lampooning an ignorant male voice. Jesus fucking wept. That was the whole point.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Yes, I was lampooning an ignorant male voice. Jesus fucking wept. That was the whole point.


for 10 pages of getting the wrong end of the stick, on purpose? Are you saying this is a 10 page wind up? and there really is no sexism in the world of work to the point you think its needs to be reivented in case us wimmin are missing it?

Perhaps you are that bored and lonely.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> for 10 pages of getting the wrong end of the stick, on purpose? Are you saying this is a 10 page wind up? and there really is no sexism in the world of work to the point you think its needs to be reivented in case us wimmin are missing it?
> 
> Perhaps you are that bored and lonely.



*sighs*

I appreciate tongue in cheek, sarcasm and the like can be hard to decipher without being in person. What youre missing is that there 3 people on here with cross thread beef. 3 people mendaciously exploiting this thread. Which is why there's fuck all content, just mindless abuse.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> *sighs*
> 
> I appreciate tongue in cheek, sarcasm and the like can be hard to decipher without being in person. What youre missing is that there 3 people on here with cross thread beef. 3 people mendaciously exploiting this thread. Which is why there's fuck all content, just mindless abuse.


Yeh you'd like that wouldn't you, cross-thread beef. But none from me, tbh. Mindless abuse? Calm down dear, it's only a thread.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh you'd like that wouldn't you, cross-thread beef. But none from me, tbh.


Nor me. The only other thread I've engaged with ding dong on was to give him holiday advice (and no, it wasn't "fuck off").


----------



## Gromit (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I was facetiously lampooning the voice of the job advert.
> 
> Give. Me. Strength.



1. I believe you when you say that this is what you were doing.
2. Unfortunately there was no need to.
3. Even more unfortunately, despite many people explaining it to you, still don't understand why there was no need to. i.e. That the Ad is not belittling women in any way and that high emotional intelligence doesn't mean high emotional control. In fact its nothing to do with levels of emotional control.
4. The way you have defended your ignorance has in fact led people into believing that you are in fact the one belittling women.
5. I still think there is a level of trolling involved here rather than real misunderstanding.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 30, 2016)

Out of idle curiosity, are there job adverts out there directed at men asking for 'emotional intelligence' as a key skill?

If not, I think the op has a point and some apologies need to be made.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Out of idle curiosity, are there job adverts out there directed at men asking for 'emotional intelligence' as a key skill?
> 
> If not, I think the op has a point and some apologies need to be made.


Then you're as big a fucking idiot as he is.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Then you're as big a fucking idiot as he is.



You didn't answer the question.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> *sighs*
> 
> I appreciate tongue in cheek, sarcasm and the like can be hard to decipher without being in person. What youre missing is that there 3 people on here with cross thread beef. 3 people mendaciously exploiting this thread. Which is why there's fuck all content, just mindless abuse.


what has that got to do with me?

I'm still really insulted by all your rubbish, as I'm sure many female readers will be. Tongue-in-cheek? Foot-in-fucking-mouth more like. You'd rather indulge in willy waving than address real concerns from women - Do you have any idea how often women have to put up with this shit in real life, then get ignored in debates, or sidelined or have their feminity questioned - all of which you have done - which is why it doesn't sound like 'tongue in cheek' to me. Dick.



friendofdorothy said:


> You really can't fault Mr Ringer's strong sense of self belief. I bet he never says sorry either.


 still applies.

*sighs*


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You didn't answer the question.


How the fuck would anyone here know if there's a job ad out there someone asking that? 

But that's beside the point. Your post displays exactly the same ignorance of what EI is as did ding dongs.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Out of idle curiosity, are there job adverts out there directed at men asking for 'emotional intelligence' as a key skill?
> 
> If not, I think the op has a point and some apologies need to be made.



Indeed. It's a sketchy as fuck stipulating that on a job advert exclusively for women.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

Oh god!


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> How the fuck would anyone here know if there's a job ad out there someone asking that?
> 
> But that's beside the point. Your post displays exactly the same ignorance of what EI is as did ding dongs.



That's pretty low. Have a look on the job boards. How many jobs will you find there stipulating that? Not many.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> what has that got to do with me?
> 
> I'm still really insulted by all your rubbish, as I'm sure many female readers will be. Tongue-in-cheek? Foot-in-fucking-mouth more like. You'd rather indulge in willy waving than address real concerns from women - Do you have any idea how often women have to put up with this shit in real life, then get ignored in debates, or sidelined or have their feminity questioned - all of which you have done - which is why it doesn't sound like 'tongue in cheek' to me. Dick.
> 
> ...



You are just looking to abuse someone. Try elsewhere.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)




----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> How the fuck would anyone here know if there's a job ad out there someone asking that?
> 
> But that's beside the point. Your post displays exactly the same ignorance of what EI is as did ding dongs.



Not really. The op was presented as a gender issue then his opponents twisted it to a social class issue (within gender).


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You are just looking to abuse someone. Try elsewhere.


no I'm still trying to get you to examine your bad behaviour. One little 'dick' after 10 pages of insulting sexism isn't abuse. I've been extremely restrained and you have been nothing but rude and obtuse. or is that tongue in cheek obtuse. Either way I find it unacceptable. I'm wasting my breath.

sigh


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Gromit said:


> 3. Even more unfortunately, despite many people explaining it to you, still don't understand why there was no need to. i.e. That the Ad is not belittling women in any way and that high emotional intelligence doesn't mean high emotional control. In fact its nothing to do with levels of emotional control..



That is wrong. Read this...

Emotional Intelligence | Psychology Today

Or read pretty much and half reputable source on EQ. It is, in part, about controlling/managing your emotions and those of others.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> no I'm still trying to get you to examine your bad behaviour. One little 'dick' after 10 pages of insulting sexism isn't abuse. I've been extremely restrained and you have been nothing but rude and obtuse. or is that tongue in cheek obtuse. Either way I find it unacceptable. I'm wasting my breath.
> 
> sigh



You are being abusive. Youve already said youve being wanting to kill someone. Youve found this as a release. Its totally out of order.


----------



## Sue (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You are being abusive. Youve already said youve being wanting to kill someone. Youve found this as a release. Its totally out of order.



You are totally out of order. Have you any idea how fucking annoying it is for you to decide what is and is not sexist while completely ignoring what the women on this thread are saying?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 30, 2016)

Wanted: Women mechanics.

Key skills:

Understanding of the combustion engine
Stripping down mechanical parts
Emotional intelligence
Be able to work alone or part of a team


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Sue said:


> You are totally out of order. Have you any idea how fucking annoying it is for you to decide what is and is not sexist while completely ignoring what the women on this thread are saying?



All there's been is mindless abuse. You refuse to engage with the idea that advert was sexist. You missed completely the voice of the thread title. What is there to engage with. If someone is being an abusive wanker towards you,vwhat do you do?


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The op was presented as a gender issue ...


Quite. He thought that by asking for women with "high EI" they meant 'women who can control their emotions'. 

It doesn't. Nothing like it.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Quite. He thought that by asking for women with "high EI" they meant 'women who can control their emotions'.
> 
> It doesn't. Nothing like it.



He entered into some clumsy hyperbole around that, I agree. 

But it's a female skill, isn't it?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Quite. He thought that by asking for women with "high EI" they meant 'women who can control their emotions'.
> 
> It doesn't. Nothing like it.



Yes it does. Read the link above. You owe me an apology.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Wanted: Women mechanics.
> 
> Key skills:
> 
> ...


You clearly don't know what EI is either.

Why not look it up?


----------



## Sue (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> All there's been is mindless abuse. You refuse to engage with the idea that advert was sexist. You missed completely the voice of the thread title. What is there to engage with. If someone is being an abusive wanker towards you,vwhat do you do?



You're the true victim in all this.  I suggest you re-read the thread and listen to what people are saying.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Sue said:


> You're the true victim in all this.  I suggest you re-read the thread and listen to what people are saying.



Just read what EQ is about. Youre really out of order. I hope you see this.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You clearly don't know what EI is either.
> 
> Why not look it up?



I know that out of the thousands of jobs I've looked at I've never been asked about this.

I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong, but can you point to a job advert aimed at men asking for this skill?


----------



## Sue (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Just read what EQ is about. Youre really out of order. I hope you see this.


Incredible. I give up.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong, but can you point to a job advert aimed at men asking for this skill?


Are you really asking me to trawl through all the job ads in the world to find one that asks this?

Do you not realise how ridiculous your request is?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 30, 2016)

Sue said:


> You're the true victim in all this.  I suggest you re-read the thread and listen to what people are saying.



He's arguing a genuine feminist position here fwiw.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Sue said:


> Incredible. I give up.



What a cop out.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing Do yourself a favour and read a few results from here:
emotional intelligence - Google Search


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Are you really asking me to trawl through all the job ads in the world to find one that asks this?
> 
> Do you realise how ridiculous your request is?



Well you could start with MI5 surely?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 30, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> He entered into some clumsy hyperbole around that, I agree.
> 
> But it's a female skill, isn't it?


NO!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 30, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> DrRingDing Do yourself a favour and read a few results from here:
> emotional intelligence - Google Search



First result, look at the photo. 

Careers for People With High Emotional Intelligence


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> DrRingDing Do yourself a favour and read a few results from here:
> emotional intelligence - Google Search



Please do yourself a favour and dont use random google links. You assume you know what youre on about. Take a look ok Google scholar for peer review work. Not some HR shit websites.


----------



## Sue (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> What a cop out.


No, just when someone has their fingers in their ears and is going 'Naaaaaah' at the top of their voice, it's a waste of time and energy to keep talking to them. Life really is too short.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Well you could start with MI5 surely?


No! Waste your own time. 

Not finding such an ad wouldn't prove that none exist, you utter tool. 

EI is not gender specific.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No! Waste your own time.
> 
> Not finding such an ad wouldn't prove that none exist, you utter tool.
> 
> EI is not gender specific.



Really?

Careers for People With High Emotional Intelligence


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Sue said:


> No, just when someone has their fingers in their ears and is going 'Naaaaaah' at the top of their voice, it's a waste of time and energy to keep talking to them. Life really is too short.



You are refusing to engage with the idea that advert was sexist. You have refused to engage with the proposed theory of EQ. You have just come on here to abuse. 

Not ok.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> But it's a female skill, isn't it?



No. It is not.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 30, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> First result, look at the photo.
> 
> Careers for People With High Emotional Intelligence


And the caption.
"Salespeople use emotional intelligence to persuade people to buy."


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 30, 2016)

Anyway I'm not saying it's gender specific. But it's a dog whistle for work considered feminine.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Really?
> 
> Careers for People With High Emotional Intelligence


What do you think you've proved with that link?


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Anyway I'm not saying it's gender specific. But it's a dog whistle for work considered feminine.


Oh fuck off.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh fuck off.



Can you point to any job adverts marketed at men that require this 'skill'.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> But it's a female skill, isn't it?





Magnus McGinty said:


> Anyway I'm not saying it's gender specific.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 30, 2016)

He can't. He admits it.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

I curious as to why Spymaster is so invested in EQ.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


>



It's not me viewing it as a female skill as I didn't fucking invent the term.
I mean that's the underlying point of it.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Can you point to any job adverts marketed at men that require this 'skill'.


See post #330.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I curious as to why Spymaster is so invested in EQ.


I'm not. I'm just astonished by your bone-headed ignorance.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> See post #330.



Thats a cop out too.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I'm not. I'm just astonished by your bone-headed ignorance.



Its been demonstrated to you, you are wrong about EQ. And the advert is worthy of being callout for sexism. I want to know why you have this particular position.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

You're an idiot. A blisteringly thick idiot. 

Goodnight.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I'm not. I'm just astonished by your bone-headed ignorance.



EQ as has been shown to you is partly about controlling your emotions. The advert stated they need people with high EQ. This means they are likely saying we need people who can control their emotions. This advert was aimed at women. An advert created due to central government pressure to sort out their arcane extreme patriarchical culture.

The advert is likely to be sexist.

(...and the validity of EQ is questioned by respected scientists)


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Its been demonstrated to you, you are wrong about EQ. And the advert is worthy of being callout for sexism. I want to know why you have this particular position.


The advert is basically asking for women who are skilled in understanding other people, their feelings and thought processes. Not women who can control their own emotions. It could equally be applied to men, but they aren't trying to address a shortage of men are they?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The advert is basically asking for women who are skilled in understanding other people, their feelings and thought processes. Not women who can control their own emotions. It could equally be applied to men, but they aren't trying to address a shortage of men are they?



That is partly the thinking behind EQ but it is also the case it is about controlling/managing/regulating your own emotions. The advert mentions emotional intelligence it does not stipulate what aspect. This is the objective case. Is it not?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 30, 2016)

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt before, but I'm now 100% convinced this is a troll.


----------



## Corax (May 31, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> Ahem! Do allow me to interupt this cock fight again. If you are so concerned about sexism DrRingDing why dont you reply to this female person





Sue said:


> You are totally out of order. Have you any idea how fucking annoying it is for you to decide what is and is not sexist while completely ignoring what the women on this thread are saying?


Hush dears, men are talking.


Pickman's model said:


> Yeh you'd like that wouldn't you, cross-thread beef. But none from me, tbh. Mindless abuse? Calm down dear, it's only a thread.





Spymaster said:


> Nor me. The only other thread I've engaged with ding dong on was to give him holiday advice (and no, it wasn't "fuck off").


Me neither.


Magnus McGinty said:


> Out of idle curiosity, are there job adverts out there directed at men asking for 'emotional intelligence' as a key skill?
> 
> If not, I think the op has a point and some apologies need to be made.


Funnily enough, there's a certain rarity of ads "directed at men" in the first place.  I've no idea why that might be in our patriarchal society and employment culture...
So, out of a subset of practically zero adverts, then yes I'll concede that it's hard to find one prioritising EQ.

There are, however, many gender-neutral adverts that emphasise it.


Saul Goodman said:


> I was giving you the benefit of the doubt before, but I'm now 100% convinced this is a troll.


I think you're very generous with that assessment.

As an aside; one thing that's a lot easier to measure than EQ, is basic literacy.


----------



## Corax (May 31, 2016)

Bump.

Because I'm a shitstirring arsehole.


----------



## Gromit (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That is wrong. Read this...
> 
> Emotional Intelligence | Psychology Today
> 
> Or read pretty much and half reputable source on EQ. It is, in part, about controlling/managing your emotions and those of others.



You are referring to a quick three line summary by someone who has failed to summarise well..



> 3. The ability to manage emotions, including the ability to regulate your own emotions, and the ability to cheer up or calm down another person.



This above is no doubt the part you are referring to. 
I'd say that a person with high EQ doesn't consciously manage emotions but unconsciously utilises the best emotions for the situation to achieve the best outcomes more often than they don't,

I'll give you a real life example.

I was at a wedding. Emotions were running high as they often do at weddings.
One man was starting to get very angry about something. I forget what but it was specifically but it was irrational drunk wedding emotion.
I tried to talk him down with logic.
It wasn't working.
My friend (who was also this guy's brother, nephew, cousin, i forget the exact relation) turned up and could see what was happening.
He locked heads with the guy and started crying, the guys started crying, emotions were released, he became a happy bunny and started celebrating again.

Now i don't have high EQ. I wouldn't have spotted his emotional state as fast as my friend did, I certainly wouldn't have chosen crying as the correct response, I wouldn't have been able to cry even if i had.
My friend did it all intuitively. Thats how emotional intelligence works and in this instance it wasn't about *not* getting all teary and emotional it was in fact what was required.
MI5 want the same thing. They want intuitive emotional reactions that are right (more often than they are wrong) and lead to the best outcomes (more often than they don't).


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

Gromit said:


> You are referring to a quick three line summary by someone who has failed to summarise well..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gromit this is not your theory. You do not get to decide what it is. 

Spymaster from that wikipedia link you posted to me. You know the one you didn't read? Well read this...



> Self-regulation – involves controlling or redirecting one's disruptive emotions and impulses and adapting to changing circumstances.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

Corax said:


> Bump.
> 
> Because I'm a shitstirring arsehole.



You are unpleasant and lacking intelligence.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

Corax said:


> Bump.
> 
> Because I'm a shitstirring arsehole.


and the good dr is providing a great load of shit to stir


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You are unpleasant and lacking intelligence.


you're projecting again


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Dont think for a second I dont know what your motivation is.




excuse me, m8? fancy telling the whole class about that?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> excuse me, m8? fancy telling the whole class about that?



You are dark and pathetic. Don't think for one second friends do not talk.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You are dark and pathetic. Don't think for one second friends do not talk.


your friends don't. although i suppose they would if there were any of them.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Can you point to any job adverts marketed at men that require this 'skill'.



Could you give some examples of job adverts marketed at men?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Could you give some examples of job adverts marketed at men?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Could you give some examples of job adverts marketed at men?



You can start with job adverts posted in an environment where there are a high percentage of men.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You can start with job adverts posted in an environment where there are a high percentage of men.


which environments do you have in mind?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You can start with job adverts posted in an environment where there are a high percentage of men.


Like engineering, you mean?

Why Emotional Intelligence Is Key to Your Success - IEEE - The Institute


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Like engineering, you mean?
> 
> Why Emotional Intelligence Is Key to Your Success - IEEE - The Institute


no, he said job ads posted in an environment where there are a high proportion of men, not jobs which contain a high proportion of men: he's talking about where the ads placed rather than the role.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Like engineering, you mean?
> 
> Why Emotional Intelligence Is Key to Your Success - IEEE - The Institute



That is not a job advert is it?

It's filler for a website.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)




----------



## ice-is-forming (May 31, 2016)

Fwiw, self regulation is very different to Eq.


----------



## Gromit (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Gromit this is not your theory. You do not get to decide what it is.
> 
> Spymaster from that wikipedia link you posted to me. You know the one you didn't read? Well read this...


I'm not. I'm just relaying what I was taught by a phycologist on a work's course. 

I think the main issue is that you are confusing control of emotion with suppression of emotions. Emotions that you think the menz at MI5 won't like. 

Which is not what EQ is about. Every emotion has a value in the correct situation. Control is about using All of them... But at the right times.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

ice-is-forming said:


> Fwiw, self regulation is very different to EI.



It is part of EQ. This is NOT your theory. You do not have the ability to redefine what it is. And yes 'self-regulation' is a key part of this crap theory.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

Gromit said:


> I'm not. I'm just relaying what I was taught by a phycologist on a work's course.
> 
> I think the main issue is that you are confusing control of emotion with suppression of emotions. Emotions that you think the menz at MI5 won't like.
> 
> Which is not what EQ is about. Every emotion has a value in the correct situation. Control is about using All of them... But at the right times.



Not sure what a phycologist is. Looks like this was organised by HR. So, more snake oil.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)




----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

What do you do for a living, ding dong?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

Gromit said:


> I think the main issue is that you are confusing control of emotion with suppression of emotions. Emotions that you think the menz at MI5 won't like.



Again you are making shit up.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What do you do for a living, ding dong?



None of your business.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

ice-is-forming said:


> Fwiw, self regulation is very different to Eq.





DrRingDing said:


> Again you are making shit up.


the good dr seems to find self-regulation - let alone e.i. - beyond his mediocre abilities.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What do you do for a living, ding dong?


he's something in middle management apparently


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> None of your business.


Why not?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

So, who still thinks EQ has nothing to do with understanding and managing emotions?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why not?



Beacuse youre a cunt


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So, who still thinks EQ has nothing to do with understanding and managing emotions?


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

I'm what now? lol


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Beacuse youre a cunt


Yep. Fair enough.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


>



So, No. 1 Spymaster

Next?


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

oh it's gone....

APPARENTLY I'm dark and some other shit ands my friends talk about me, so comne on ringsting, fess up


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So, No. 1 Spymaster
> 
> Next?


That's exactly what it has to do with, you bellend. But it's not what you were driving at with the OP is it now???


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> That's exactly what it has to do with, you bellend. But it's not what you were driving at with the OP is it now???



So, now you recognise that is the case?

This is progress.


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

apparently 'you know what you are' is a thing... very curious.


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

man has some shit to say about me, but doesnt even have the fucking baals. what a pathetic twat. deleting comments, yer a pussyole.

just cus yer gone whiny about looking like a prick in public. at least I aint you, fucking sweat.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> he's something in middle management apparently


No way.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So, No. 1 Spymaster
> 
> Next?


everyone knows tynan is number 1


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No way.


oh yes, yes he is.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So, now you recognise that is the case?
> 
> This is progress.


Oh. My. God.

You lying scrotum!!!!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh. My. God.
> 
> You lying scrotum!!!!


you see, the typical muddle-headed middle manager at work


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

man seems to have stfu cus I've come for him after man got sooooooo vexed about looking like a mug it all came spilling out then deleted.

NO BAALS.

he's chatting shit.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh. My. God.
> 
> You lying scrotum!!!!



You have been in denial/ignorance regarding this aspect of this sketchy theory.

I'm glad youve come to the party at long last. 

So, now we've established that EQ is partly based on ones ability to manage emotions, both of yourself and of others. It could be argued that the advert was indeed saying 'we need women with the ability to manage their emotions'. Any objective person could see this as a fair reading of that statement. It would also be reasonable to call that out for being sexist.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

So ding dong has gone from 'we don't want silly little girls freaking out', 'may need a slap round the face', and "wimmin, sort your hormones out", to 'EQ is about understanding and managing emotions'. 

Has there ever been a bigger, wriggling, snakey, bullshitty, backpedal, on U75????


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

man is a bellend. now he gonna ignore me.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> So ding dong has gone from 'we don't want silly little girls freaking out', 'may need a slap round the face', and "wimmin, sort your hormones out", to 'EQ is about understanding and managing emotions'.
> 
> Has there ever been a bigger, wriggling, snakey, bullshitty, backpedal, on U75????


ding dong's made a dingaling of himself.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> So ding dong has gone from 'we don't want silly little girls freaking out', 'may need a slap round the face', and "wimmin, sort your hormones out", to 'EQ is about understanding and managing emotions'.
> 
> Has there ever been a bigger, wriggling, snakey, bullshitty, backpedal, on U75????



I merely assumed you would not need spoon feeding. I will not make that mistake again.

I thought the sexism was obvious. Clearly I did not account for a small number of herberts inability to regulate their emotions.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I merely assumed you would not need spoon feeding. I will not make that mistake again.


Fack orf!

The whole board has got your number from this thread. Ya bullshitter.


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

it was important enough to spill out on here, I wanna know what me 'friends' have been saying about me lol 

you gotta watch people who believe shit third party and take that info to judge someone. smacks of quite a lot...


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

I'm so.... dark....


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Fack orff!
> 
> The whole board has got your number from this thread. Ya bullshitter.



You misunderstood and you still do to a degree. You owe me an apology. I have doubts you'll have the decency to give it.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> it was important enough to spill out on here, I wanna know what me 'friends' have been saying about me lol
> 
> you gotta watch people who believe shit third party and take that info to judge someone. smacks of quite a lot...


Do you and ding dong have mutual friends then?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You misunderstood and you still do to a degree. You owe me an apology. I have doubts you'll have the decency to give it.


you have the gall to demand an apology when you've yet to make a _mea culpa_ for (e.g.) your sexism throughout this thread?


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Do you and ding dong have mutual friends then?



well, I dont know, he's the one who alluded to 'friends' of mine saying I'm well dark, so ask man


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> well, I dont know, he's the one who alluded to 'friends' of mine saying I'm well dark, so ask man


hadn't had him down as a racist but there you go.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You misunderstood and you still do to a degree. You owe me an apology. I have doubts you'll have the decency to give it.


You're pissed already!

You were wrong when you posted the OP, and still are. 

There is nothing sexist about the advert. You've had a bit of time to read up about it and are wriggling like fuck to convince everyone that that's what you meant all along! You are fooling nobody!


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

he's all but shut up now, so man's just making shit up isn't it.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> well, I dont know, he's the one who alluded to 'friends' of mine saying I'm well dark, so ask man


DrRingDing , what did you mean by bringing Peng's friends up?


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

if there is someone going round telling everyone I'm well dark and shit then cheers, sounds well G 

or did you mean I'm a pagan? I aint no fucking pagan.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You're pissed already!
> 
> You were wrong when you posted the OP, and still are.
> 
> There is nothing sexist about the advert. You've had a bit of time to read up about it and are wriggling like fuck to convince everyone that that's what you meant all along! You are fooling nobody!



...and to think you had made some progress. So, you think an arcane government department stuffed full of old public school boys could not possibly have been sexist?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> he's all but shut up now, so man's just making shit up isn't it.


ah! DrRingDing is boris johnson and i claim my £5


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> ...and to think you had made some progress. So, you think an arcane government department stuffed full of old public school boys could not possibly have been sexist?


you'd have felt right at home there then chuck


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

conveniently ignoring me now lol what a dickhead. 

if yer gonna say something, m8, then fucking own it, you shitty excuse of a man.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So, you think an arcane government department stuffed full of old public school boys could not possibly have been sexist?


Yes. Yes, that's exactly what I think, and exactly what I've posted! 

   
^^^^ we're going to run out of these.


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

kinda wanna change my tagline to 'really dark' but I'm still celebrating my handsome graduation


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> kinda wanna change my tagline to 'really dark' but I'm still celebrating my handsome graduation


ringding was born at the top of the ugly tree and bashed every branch on the way down


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yes. Yes, that's exactly what I think, and exactly what I've posted!
> 
> 
> ^^^^ we're going to run out of these.



So you admit EQ is in part about managing your emotions. You don't deny that this department is likely to harbour institutional sexism.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh. My. God.
> 
> You lying scrotum!!!!





Pickman's model said:


> you see, the typical muddle-headed middle manager at work



I'm now waiting for him to declare that he uses loaded questions when interviewing job candidates to determine their EQ. It won't be long before he'll be telling us he invented to idea.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So you admit EQ is in part about managing your emotions. You don't deny that this department is likely to harbour institutional sexism.



Do you still accept this Spymaster ?


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

I aint being funny but I just spoke to people I know and none of em have a fucking clue who you are dingbat, so unless you are talking to someone who reckons they knew me ten years ago then you dont know a fucking thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So you admit EQ is in part about managing your emotions. You don't deny that this department is likely to harbour institutional sexism.


any department in which you work is not only likely but certain to be a hotbed of institutional sexism.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So you admit EQ is in part about managing your emotions. You don't deny that this department is likely to harbour institutional sexism.


IT'S NOT WHAT THAT ADVERT WAS ABOUT, YOU FUCKING MORON!


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

mnerrrrrrr I dont wish to engage with you further. mnerrrrrr


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

big man talk.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing , you've made some comments about Pengaleng and her friends on here. She has asked you to clarify them. 

Could you do that please? Thanks.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> IT'S NOT WHAT THAT ADVERT WAS ABOUT, YOU FUCKING MORON!


The penny has already dropped. He's just too arrogant to admit he fucked up.
Imagine what it must be like for people working under him!


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

see, that irritates me and I cant say anything about it.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> see, that irritates me and I cant say anything about it.


Report the post. It was well out of order if he hasn't got the bollocks to back it up.


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

it's clearly bullshit, it's not like he's bothered to back up the rest of the bullshit things mans been chatting isit. anyone who wasnt chatting absolute shit can back up their statements. man dont know my friends ffs. as if anyone I know would hang out with such a twat. says more about them than it does me if it's true anyway. 

and dw re: irritation, thats just me typing aloud.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> IT'S NOT WHAT THAT ADVERT WAS ABOUT, YOU FUCKING MORON!



You assume you know what was behind that ad. An assumption. What does assuming do?


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You assume you know what was behind that ad. An assumption. What does assuming do?


And you don't see that the (incorrect) assumption that YOU have made, is sexist in itself???

Have some more of these


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

How about responding to Pengaleng, you nasty turd?


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

LOL turd 

I'm going for a coffee shit and a fag. brb.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> And you don't see that the (incorrect) assumption that YOU have made, is sexist in itself???
> 
> Have some more of these



I have backed up my reading of the ad. You have not. What makes you think that this institutionally sexist dept could not possibly be sexist in an ad. Especially after they have been cajoled by central government to do this.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> How about responding to Pengaleng, you nasty turd?



I'm never interacting with that pathetic person again.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I'm pathetic, never interacting with that person again.


c4u


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I have backed up my reading of the ad. You have not. What makes you think that this institutionally sexist dept could not possibly be sexist in an ad. Especially after they have been cajoled by central government to do this.


they are part of central government you ignorant sexist pig


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I'm never interacting with that pathetic person again.


lucky auld pengaleng


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

refusing to point out the beef again. he's got nothing. armand van helden, lads.


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I'm never interacting with that pathetic person again.




LOL  this is hilarious, all I done is say yer thick and everyone agreed with me. butthurt.


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

fucking hell am still really.... dark... lol

I'd love to know what 'dark' things I've done cus I didnt get into hogwarts in the end, had to go gangsters paradise.


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

pengaleng said:


>


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

a classic


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> a classic


which is more than can be said for anything DrRingDing touches


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)




----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)




----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)




----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)




----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

I might have to flex my biro, lads...


----------



## Corax (May 31, 2016)




----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

I bet ring ding wanks to that one. I've heard things. it's well dark.


----------



## Corax (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You are unpleasant and lacking intelligence.


Of course I am petal.  Everyone who calls you out as a bullshitting idiot with delusions of your own capacity is.


pengaleng said:


> oh it's gone....
> 
> APPARENTLY I'm dark and some other shit ands my friends talk about me, so comne on ringsting, fess up


Sorry, that was me.  Dingaling and I have been together in this the whole time.  You may not consider me a 'friend' _per se_, but the many hours I spend camped outside your kitchen window tell a different story. 


DrRingDing said:


> I'm never interacting with that pathetic person again.


Lucky fucker.  Can I apply for the next round please, or have all the places already been taken?


DrRingDing said:


> You assume you know what was behind that ad. An assumption. *What does assuming do?*


*Seriously?   





*


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

isn't it interesting what you can dig up on people if you ask the right questions...


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Dont think for a second I dont know what your motivation is.




a classic  

'motivation' lol


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You are dark and pathetic. Don't think for one second friends do not talk.




lol quality.


----------



## Gromit (May 31, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> lol quality.



Sorry to break it to you but no one really cares. Can you stop spamming about how he called you dark now please? We got the point. It wasn't really worth 200 posts by you. Especially as he isn't biting back.

Lets have more dumbass posts from DrRingPiece instead. They are at least entertainingly dumbass.


----------



## TikkiB (May 31, 2016)

At the risk of dragging this thread back to the concept of EI - this programme was on R4 this morning, about resilience and its relationship with EI because of the theory that emotionally intelligent people are more resilient than their emotionally thick counterparts.
The Science of Resilience - BBC Radio 4.

It's got Professors and everything.


Edited to give a better description of the programme


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Report the post. It was well out of order if he hasn't got the bollocks to back it up.


he is an urban eunuch


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Sorry to break it to you but no one really cares. Can you stop spamming about how he called you dark now please? We got the point. It wasn't really worth 200 posts by you. Especially as he isn't biting back.
> 
> Lets have more dumbass posts from DrRingPiece instead. They are at least entertainingly dumbass.




shut up thread police.

I quoted it so I could find it again, without having to scroll. fuck off.

200 is reaching a bit.


----------



## Gromit (May 31, 2016)

TikkiB said:


> At the risk of dragging this thread back to the concept of EQ - this programme was on R4 this morning, all about teaching the US Army the benefits of emotional intelligence because of the theory that emotionally intelligent people are more resilient than their emotionally thick counterparts.
> The Science of Resilience - BBC Radio 4



See now i wonder about this stuff. 
You can be taught about learning tendancies  for example and through self awareness understand your weaknesses and strength and as a result you can work on your weaknesses.

I'm not sure how possible it is to self develop / improve your emotional intelligence.


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

sorry for 'ruining' this MASSIVELY important highly relevant thread that people might need to refer to.

NOPE.

it was already a dead thing.


----------



## TikkiB (May 31, 2016)

Gromit said:


> See now i wonder about this stuff.
> You can be taught about learning tendancies  for example and through self awareness understand your weaknesses and strength and as a result you can work on your weaknesses.
> 
> I'm not sure how possible it is to self develop / improve your emotional intelligence.


I've edited my original post, because on listening to the whole thing I realised I wasn't just about the US army


----------



## DotCommunist (May 31, 2016)

Gromit said:


> See now i wonder about this stuff.
> You can be taught about learning tendancies  for example and through self awareness understand your weaknesses and strength and as a result you can work on your weaknesses.
> 
> I'm not sure how possible it is to self develop / improve your emotional intelligence.


in your case I think we have a lost cause.


----------



## Gromit (May 31, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> 200 is reaching a bit.



i promised my mother a million times that i wouldn't exaggerate any more too.


----------



## Corax (May 31, 2016)

Multi-beef tag-team royal rumble!!!


----------



## friedaweed (May 31, 2016)

Circle beef jerky


----------



## two sheds (May 31, 2016)

friedaweed said:


> Circle beef jerky



Vegetarian vs offal thread ------>


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

biltong


----------



## Corax (May 31, 2016)

Kabanringdingsacuntos

Not sure of the proper Polish spelling.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 31, 2016)

Corax said:


> Multi-beef tag-team royal rumble!!!



The safety of the mob.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The safety of the mob.


----------



## Corax (May 31, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The safety of the mob.


Except the multi-beef thing was a comment on quite the opposite - internecine feuding if you will.  You'll need to pick something else to illustrate your attempts to imply a witch hunt I'm afraid; have another go.

Back to a less beefy/trolly angle - I've been sporadically watching M Moore's _Where to Invade Next_ today, and found some elements of the Icelandic section a wee bit uncomfortable.

There were several female CEOs and the first elected female premier claiming things to the effect that women inherently sought peace, prosperity for all humanity, weren't so interested in personal gain etc, with one even plainly stating that "it's in our DNA".

Hardly likely that this is likely to be of great concern given our global patriarchy and hundreds of years of female oppression, but I'm sure I don't need to spell out my unease with the thinking there...

Also lots of good stuff in that section btw - eg by law, company boards can be no more than 60% either male _or_ female.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

Yeh female paragon like catherine the great, elizabeth I, victoria - all great anti-imperialist in their day


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 31, 2016)

Corax said:


> Also lots of good stuff in that section btw - eg by law, company boards can be no more than 60% either male _or_ female.


That could prove problematic in the case of three directors.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> That could prove problematic in the case of three directors.


Only traditionally


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

man is still paying attention. lol


----------



## Sea Star (May 31, 2016)

Corax said:


> There were several female CEOs and the first elected female premier claiming things to the effect that women inherently sought peace, prosperity for all humanity, weren't so interested in personal gain etc, with one even plainly stating that "it's in our DNA".



nope


----------



## Gromit (May 31, 2016)

Corax said:


> Except the multi-beef thing was a comment on quite the opposite - internecine feuding if you will.  You'll need to pick something else to illustrate your attempts to imply a witch hunt I'm afraid; have another go.
> 
> Back to a less beefy/trolly angle - I've been sporadically watching M Moore's _Where to Invade Next_ today, and found some elements of the Icelandic section a wee bit uncomfortable.
> 
> There were several female CEOs and the first elected female premier claiming things to the effect that women inherently sought peace, prosperity for all humanity, weren't so interested in personal gain etc, with one even plainly stating that "it's in our DNA".



Thatcher.

I know this is the Godwin's law of feminism but still. Thatcher!


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 31, 2016)

Cant be arsed reading the last 7 pages, since the last time Mr Ringer insulted me yet again. Thank you for all the likes everyone.

My hormones levels have shifted since yesterday when I felt fairly tolerant of needy trolls who have the social skills of a teenaged boy.

I'm back back to general narkiness and sheer rage today, so I just want to say that Mr Wankstain Ringer is a fuckining irratating prick who ought not to be allowed out in polite company.

As you were.


----------



## Corax (May 31, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> Cant be arsed reading the last 7 pages, since the last time Mr Ringer insulted me yet again.


You didn't miss much.  Basically, Dingaling backed up his claims with a stack of irrefutable evidence and we all saw the error of our ways and apologised for harbouring such deep-seated misogyny.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

Corax said:


> You didn't miss much.  Basically, Dingaling backed up his claims with a stack of irrefutable evidence and we all saw the error of our ways and apologised for harbouring such deep-seated misogyny.



I'm glad the penny's dropped.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> Cant be arsed reading the last 7 pages, since the last time Mr Ringer insulted me yet again. Thank you for all the likes everyone.



Is this the modern take on _thanks for many PMs of support _?


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Is this the modern take on _thanks for many PMs of support _?


No.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No.



Great content. Very informative.


----------



## Corax (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Great content. Very informative.


Great content. Very informative.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Is this the modern take on _thanks for many PMs of support _?





DrRingDing said:


> Great content. Very informative.



Distinct lack of self awareness, methinks.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Is this the modern take on _thanks for many PMs of support _?


Thats what you get from that? zoom in on the bit of the post that isn't about you. Like going on about my monika rather than debating with me.

You've missed the bits of my that post about to you, the good bits. I've made them bold to make it easier for you.:


> since the last time *Mr Ringer insulted* me yet again.


and


> *needy trolls who have the social skills of a teenaged boy*.


and


> *Mr Wankstain Ringer is a fuckining irratating prick* who ought not to be allowed out in polite company.


 I've said it more politely to you yesterday but you aren't bright enough to understand when the grown ups are talking. You can't justify your stupid sexist drivel or your constant lack of respect to me on this thread. So in words you may understand: SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU MISOGYNISTIC MORON. 

(I've never felt the need to use the ignore button before - but now I think I'll try it.) bye


----------



## pengaleng (May 31, 2016)

pwned.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 31, 2016)

Corax said:


> Except the multi-beef thing was a comment on quite the opposite - internecine feuding if you will.  You'll need to pick something else to illustrate your attempts to imply a witch hunt I'm afraid; have another go.
> 
> Back to a less beefy/trolly angle - I've been sporadically watching M Moore's _Where to Invade Next_ today, and found some elements of the Icelandic section a wee bit uncomfortable.
> 
> ...



And I could equally now reply to this with Einstein's Law of Relativity. And then we could discuss planets.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And I could equally now reply to this with Einstein's Law of Relativity. And then we could discuss planets.


Up uranus


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 31, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And I could equally now reply to this with *Einstein's Law of Relativity*. And then we could discuss planets.


Was that not a theory?


----------



## DrRingDing (May 31, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> Thats what you get from that? zoom in on the bit of the post that isn't about you. Like going on about my monika rather than debating with me.
> 
> You've missed the bits of my that post about to you, the good bits. I've made them bold to make it easier for you.:
> 
> ...



Do us all a favour and wind it the fuck in.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Do us all a favour and wind it the fuck in.


Fuck off you vile sexist pig


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 31, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> Was that not a theory?



Are there no laws of physics?


----------



## Gromit (May 31, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Do us all a favour and wind it the fuck in.


----------



## Gromit (May 31, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Are there no laws of physics?


Thermal Dynamics.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 31, 2016)

Is he applying the law of pedantry, or the theory?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> FOD, youve misunderstood most of what ive said.



It's odd how often everything boils down to people misunderstanding you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You assume you know what was behind that ad. An assumption. What does assuming do?



It provokes banal comments from intellectually-bereft individuals about how "assuming makes an 'ass' of 'u' and 'me' ". I've killed managers for less.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2016)

Corax said:


>




Damn you to eternal Hellfire, you perverted jism-monkey!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Is this the modern take on _thanks for many PMs of support _?



You're aware how simple it is to find out how many "likes" a person has got for a post, I take it?

So, *NOTHING* like "PMs of support", because it's publicly visible, you buffoon.


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're aware how simple it is to find out how many "likes" a person has got for a post, I take it?
> 
> So, *NOTHING* like "PMs of support", because it's publicly visible, you buffoon.


That's just mean - you're standing in the way of his attempts to shoehorn as many Urbanz tropes into his posts as humanly possible.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2016)

Corax said:


> That's just mean - you're standing in the way of his attempts to shoehorn as many Urbanz tropes into his posts as humanly possible.



But I *AM* mean. According to another Urbanite, I'm one of the most thuggish posters on Urban (buffs fingernails on jacket).


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 1, 2016)

ahhhhh theres always gonna be people who talk about us, the irrelevant people with nothing better to discuss.

flattering that they are so bothered really.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> But I *AM* mean. According to another Urbanite, I'm one of the most thuggish posters on Urban (buffs knuckledusters on jacket).


c4u


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 1, 2016)

I always love it when someone goes to me 'mnerrrr I've heard about you'

usually I have no idea who they are.

which says a lot.

they may as well say 'mnerrrr I listen to dickheads'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> c4u



Touché!


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're aware how simple it is to find out how many "likes" a person has got for a post, I take it?
> 
> So, *NOTHING* like "PMs of support", because it's publicly visible, you buffoon.



I think someone is over tired.

Have some warm milk and watch this....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I think someone is over tired.
> 
> Have some warm milk and watch this....




Pretty much what I expect from you. Bluster and bullshit.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pretty much what I expect from you. Bluster and bullshit.



Youve had a long day. Too much excitement and penny sweets. 

Here's what bluster means....Definition of BLUSTER

Sounds like a pretty accurate description of your posting style.


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 1, 2016)

all out of argument I see...


----------



## trabuquera (Jun 1, 2016)

not sexist at all, see. equally generous with the patronising sneering drivel to all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Youve had a long day. Too much excitement and penny sweets.
> 
> Here's what bluster means....Definition of BLUSTER
> 
> Sounds like a pretty accurate description of your posting style.



Like your hero(ine) Laurie Penny (she's a plastic socialist, you're a plastic anarchist), you appear to enjoy making stuff up, in _lieu_ of having anything worthwhile to say.

Same old, same old pretty much.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> all out of argument I see...



I wasn't aware he actually had an argument to begin with!


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Like your hero(ine) Laurie Penny (she's a plastic socialist, you're a plastic anarchist), you appear to enjoy making stuff up, in _lieu_ of having anything worthwhile to say.
> 
> Same old, same old pretty much.



.....and there's the bullshit. Full house!


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 1, 2016)

lol mans in love with laurie penny? 

oh dear


----------



## Gromit (Jun 1, 2016)

Is this thread how I appear to people? The way DrRingDing is?

Its enough to make me want to change my board ways actually witnessing how it looks on someone else.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Is this thread how I appear to people? The way DrRingDing is?
> 
> Its enough to make me want to change my board ways actually witnessing how it looks on someone else.



No, you don't appear the way DrRingDing is.
You appear worse.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> .....and there's the bullshit. Full house!



Thanks for again showing us your inability to argue, and your ability to chat shite.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thanks for again showing us your inability to argue, and your ability to chat shite.



I've made endless attempts to engage with plonkers on this thread. None of them are up to it.


----------



## Athos (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> MI6 are advertising women with "high emotional intelligence" i.e. no silly girls fainting , crying and screaming. I've seen those 1950s films too.
> 
> Wanna work with a bunch of misogynist old farts?
> 
> ...


I've not read the thread, but I think you've got the wrong end of the stick about this.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

Athos said:


> I've not read the thread, but I think you've got the wrong end of the stick about this.



*whoosh*


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I've made endless attempts to engage with plonkers on this thread. None of them are up to it.


No you haven't you mendacious piece of verminous shit


----------



## Athos (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> MI6 are advertising women with "high emotional intelligence" i.e. no silly girls fainting , crying and screaming. I've seen those 1950s films too.
> 
> Wanna work with a bunch of misogynist old farts?
> 
> ...


I've not read the thread, but I think you've got the wrong end of the stick about this.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

Athos said:


> I've not read the thread, but I think you've got the wrong end of the stick about this.



You've missed the point.


----------



## Sue (Jun 1, 2016)

Athos said:


> I've not read the thread, but I think you've got the wrong end of the stick about this.


Tbh, it doesn't get any better. In fact, it gets much worse.


----------



## Sue (Jun 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> No you haven't you mendacious piece of verminous shit


But what do you really think?


----------



## Gromit (Jun 1, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, you don't appear the way DrRingDing is.
> You appear worse.


I kinda knew that but didn't really give a shit what people thought of me.
But i care what i think of myself and seeing DrRingDing is disquieting me in its reflection of my trolling.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2016)

Sue said:


> But what do you really think?


I think dingaling would post better with both his hands nailed to his back


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 1, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're aware how simple it is to find out how many "likes" a person has got for a post, I take it?
> 
> So, *NOTHING* like "PMs of support", because it's publicly visible, you buffoon.



It isn't a gauge of much though. Lots of likes on a post on Icke's forums doesn't make it not batshit, for example.


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Like your hero(ine) Laurie Penny (she's a plastic socialist, you're a plastic anarchist), you appear to enjoy making stuff up, in _lieu_ of having anything worthwhile to say.
> 
> Same old, same old pretty much.


Dingaling labels them-self an anarchist?  Really?

Fuckin looool.


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It isn't a gauge of much though. Lots of likes on a post on Icke's forums doesn't make it not batshit, for example.


This isn't an Icke forum, so either

a) it is more of a gauge here, or
b) you're continuing to post on a forum dominated by the batshit

So, which is it?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 1, 2016)

Corax said:


> This isn't an Icke forum, so either
> 
> a) it is more of a gauge here, or
> b) you're continuing to post on a forum dominated by the batshit
> ...



It's a false dichotomy, isn't it?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> *whoosh*


"_It's everyone else!_"


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> "_It's everyone else!_"



Do you accept MI6 is institutionally sexist?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It isn't a gauge of much though. Lots of likes on a post on Icke's forums doesn't make it not batshit, for example.



Icke's forums have an inherent quality of batshitness, though.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Do you accept MI6 is institutionally sexist?


Have you ever worked in the public sector?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Do you accept MI6 is institutionally sexist?


Quite possibly, but it seems they're looking to address that.

I certainly don't accept that targeting women with high EQ in the way they are said to be doing in your OP is sexist or patronising to women. Only a fucking idiot would.


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It's a false dichotomy, isn't it?


Let me think about this....

.....

..

No.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 1, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Icke's forums have an inherent quality of batshitness, though.



Yes, but it's just a reflection of how a greater collective of people on a forum 'think' as opposed to meaning something is correct. I should have made the comparison clearer.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 1, 2016)

Corax said:


> Let me think about this....
> 
> .....
> 
> ...



You didn't present a false dichotomy?


----------



## Gromit (Jun 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Quite possibly, but it seems they're looking to address that.
> 
> I certainly don't accept that targeting women with high EQ in the way they are said to be doing in your OP is sexist or patronising to women. Only a fucking idiot would.



I was once told by a psychologist that the civil service traditionally attracted INTP personality types. They weren't anti other personality types. It was just that the perception of the work involved appealed to those types.

Does MI5 sound like a job that would appeal to women? The way it has been historically represented in film and print?

If not then MI5 has recognised this and has  been trying to find ways to speak to women and say hey its not what you think, you might like it, come on give it a go. The degree of their success has seemingly being quite low with people on mumsnet going yeah right, fuck off.

So i'd argue that they definitely have an image problem when it comes to women. Whether they are themselves are to blame for that is harder to determine.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 1, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Yes, but it's just a reflection of how a greater collective of people on a forum 'think' as opposed to meaning something is correct. I should have made the comparison clearer.



It's a reflection of how a group of people with a narrow shared interest on a forum "think". Your comparison is not really comparable.

Now, if you'd mentioned mumsnet...


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2016)

Gromit said:


> I was once told by a psychologist that the civil service traditionally attracted INTP personality types. They weren't anti other personality types. It was just that the perception of the work involved appealed to those types.
> 
> Does MI5 sound like a job that would appeal to women? The way it has been historically represented in film and print?
> 
> ...


The OP refers to MI6.

MI5 has been headed up by Stella Rimmington and Eliza Manningham-Buller.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 1, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's a reflection of how a group of people with a narrow shared interest on a forum "think". Your comparison is not really comparable.



It is though if it's being held up as an example of why someone is wrong. Likes are meaningless.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The OP refers to MI6.
> 
> MI5 has been headed up by Stella Rimmington and Eliza Manningham-Buller.



Mi6 MI5 whatever. Its all the same Bodie and Doyle to us civilians.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 1, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It is though if it's being held up as an example of why someone is wrong. Likes are meaningless.



Especially as you can't really evaluate why something was liked, what the 'like' represents and more so that it comes from a 'narrow shared interest' (your words).


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Its all the same Bodie and Doyle to us civilians.


They were CI5.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> They were CI5.


Um Cagney and Lacey?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Um Cagney and Lacey?


NYPD.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2016)

Gromit said:


> I was once told by a psychologist that the civil service traditionally attracted INTP personality types. They weren't anti other personality types. It was just that the perception of the work involved appealed to those types.
> 
> Does MI5 sound like a job that would appeal to women? The way it has been historically represented in film and print?
> 
> ...


tbh i don't suppose mi5 would want to recruit more people like annie machon: and even fewer like the nefandous _soi-disant_ messiah, david shayler. lest we forget: shayler left mi5 because he didn't think it effective enough, not because he was some great civil libertarian


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Quite possibly, but it seems they're looking to address that..



After being pressured by central government. Which means that 'permafrost' of public school boys, most likely would not be motivated on their own.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2016)

So what?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> So what?



So, 'they' are not really wanting to change. 'They' have been reprimanded by the headmaster.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So, 'they' are not really wanting to change. 'They' have been reprimanded by the headmaster.


What does that have to do with anything that's been discussed on this thread?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What does that have to do with anything that's been discussed on this thread?



So you accept MI6 is likely to be institutionally sexist and they are likely only attempting to recruit more women because of pressure from central government?


----------



## kittyP (Jun 1, 2016)

*disclaimer I skipped page ten to this one*

DrRingDing, I've met you and some of my good friends know you well and I don't for one moment believe you're a sexist. 
This may be a wind up or a case of extreme stubborness I dunno but I feel compelled to give my two pence worth. 

I agree with you that the idea that intelligence, let alone emotional intelligence can be quantifiable is highly spurious. 
I am not even going to necessarily disagree that the advert is being sexist. 
I just think that if it is sexist, it's not for the reasons you are saying it is. 
It's going with the wide spread idea that women are thought to generally have a higher degree of emotional intelligence than men (which may in itself be sexist though). 
Imho it's not saying "women if you can manage to keep your hormones and emotions in check, come work for us" it's saying "we want people with a higher degree of emotional intelligence than our usual recruits so we're turning to women". 

But also a lot of the first people to respond to this thread were women and rather than calmly reading what they said and responding in a way that made their opinions feel listened to (even if you were disagreeing still), you shouted them down which understandably came over as sexist. 

Ok. That's it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2016)

kittyP said:


> *disclaimer I skipped page ten to this one*
> 
> DrRingDing, I've met you and some of my good friends know you well and I don't for one moment believe you're a sexist.
> This may be a wind up or a case of extreme stubborness I dunno but I feel compelled to give my two pence worth.
> ...


Strange he's working so hard to convey an attitude of sexism


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So you accept MI6 is likely to be institutionally sexist and they are likely only attempting to recruit more women because of pressure from central government?


I've no idea who's pressurizing who to do what. 

What's your point?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I've no idea who's pressurizing who to do what.
> 
> What's your point?


19 pages and no one knows


----------



## kittyP (Jun 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Strange he's working so hard to convey an attitude of sexism


That's why I felt compelled to post my thoughts.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

kittyP said:


> *disclaimer I skipped page ten to this one*
> 
> DrRingDing, I've met you and some of my good friends know you well and I don't for one moment believe you're a sexist.
> This may be a wind up or a case of extreme stubborness I dunno but I feel compelled to give my two pence worth.
> ...



Bless you Kitty.

Emotional Ingelligence is defined, in part, as being able to manage/regulate your emotions. It would be reasonable to assume that if a job ad requests high Emotional Intelligence then it is refering to that property.

Combine that with the fact MI6 is institutionally sexist and they have only started to address the inequality via chastisement from central government means that there hasnt been a change of heart. They are most likely, begrudgingly, recruiting more women. While still harbouring sexist attitudes.

A lot of people here have defined Emotional Intelligence on their own terms. It is a theory, a crap one at that but a theory none the less. Posters have been assuming they know what it is without actually referencing the actual theory.

I'm also highly conscious of the agenda of a certain poster who instigated this.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I've no idea who's pressurizing who to do what.



Spying has been an old boys' club for too long

Now you know.

"Sexist diehards" as described by the radical anarcho-feminist 'zine known as the Telegraph states.


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You didn't present a false dichotomy?


Glad you understand what "No" means.


DrRingDing said:


> Bless you Kitty.


Yeah kittyP , don't you worry your pretty little head abouth this stuff.

Oops - sorry, I was just trying out Dingaling's methods of interpretation there.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

Corax said:


> Glad you understand what "No" means.
> 
> Yeah kittyP , don't you worry your pretty little head abouth this stuff.
> 
> Oops - sorry, I was just trying out Dingaling's methods of interpretation there.



Shut the fuck up. We're both mourning a friend.


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Spying has been an old boys' club for too long
> 
> Now you know.
> 
> "Sexist diehards" as described by the radical anarcho-feminist 'zine known as the Telegraph states.


I'm sure the wife of MI5 whistleblower/critic Jonathon "Putin's useful idiot" Powell has no undeclared interest in this sphere.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Spying has been an old boys' club for too long
> 
> Now you know.
> 
> "Sexist diehards" as described by the radical anarcho-feminist 'zine known as the Telegraph states.


Yes, I read that earlier, but it doesn't bolster your argument that referencing high EQ in their quest to hire more women is sexist. Even less that there is any suggestion whatsoever of the drivel that you've titled the thread with.


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Shut the fuck up. We're both mourning a friend.


Using that awful loss as you just have is just utterly sick.  You disgusting fuck.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, I read that earlier, but it doesn't bolster your argument that referencing high EQ in their quest to hire more women is sexist. Even less that there is any suggestion whatsoever of the drivel that you've titled the thread with.



It is the context within which the EQ was requested. It is damning.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

Corax said:


> You disgusting fuck.  Just utterly sick.



Yes you are.


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2016)

Pathetic and vile.  Take a fucking look at yourself you piece of shit.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Bless you Kitty.
> 
> Emotional Ingelligence is defined, in part, as being able to manage/regulate your emotions. It would be reasonable to assume that if a job ad requests high Emotional Intelligence then it is refering to that property.



Emotional intelligence being a vague idea I understand why people have their own interpretation. 
To me it is what you have said but also (and maybe more so) the ability to be in touch with and understand ones own feelings and especially the ability to be tuned in to the nuanced cues in other peoples  behaviour, speech etc to let you know how they really feel (and possibly in the case of the security services, use that to your advantage). 



DrRingDing said:


> Combine that with the fact MI6 is institutionally sexist and they have only started to address the inequality via chastisement from central government means that there hasnt been a change of heart. They are most likely, begrudgingly, recruiting more women. While still harbouring sexist attitudes.



They may be begrudgingly recruiting women but it seems to me because they've had to accept that women in their eyes might have something they need. 



DrRingDing said:


> I'm also highly conscious of the agenda of a certain poster who instigated this.



You have to accept it's rare (nigh on non existent) that virtually everyone in a thread agrees?


----------



## kittyP (Jun 1, 2016)

Corax said:


> Yeah kittyP , don't you worry your pretty little head abouth this stuff.
> 
> Oops - sorry, I was just trying out Dingaling's methods of interpretation there.



Don't start doing the same thing by telling me how I should take his comment! 

I know what he meant and it's fine.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It is the context within which the EQ was requested. It is damning.


It's not. Certainly not in the way that you think.

Christ almighty man, there are 28 other posters on this thread disagreeing with you or agreeing with those that are. Why isn't that making you think "Perhaps I should rethink this one"?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

kittyP said:


> Emotional intelligence being a vague idea I understand why people have their own interpretation.
> To me it is what you have said but also (and maybe more so) the ability to be in touch with and understand ones own feelings and especially the ability to be tuned in to the nuanced cues in other peoples  behaviour, speech etc to let you know how they really feel (and possibly in the case of the security services, use that to your advantage).
> 
> 
> ...



I could say the theory of relativity is about the relation of eggs, flour and milk but i would be wrong.

EQ is vague as defined by those that created and develop the idea but that is what it is - their idea not anyone elses to reinterpret it.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I could say the theory of relativity is about the relation of eggs, flour and milk but i would be wrong.
> 
> EQ is vague as defined by those that created and develop the idea but that is what it is - their idea not anyone elses to reinterpret it.


I don't think they are comparible examples.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2016)

kittyP said:


> .... the ability to be tuned in to the nuanced cues in other peoples  behaviour, speech etc to let you know how they really feel (and possibly in the case of the security services, use that to your advantage).


THIS is what they are looking for.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

kittyP said:


> I don't think they are comparible examples.



Everyone seems to have a different idea of what EQ. It is not for anyone to make up what they feel it should mean. It is defined (poorly) but it is defined. One of those definitions is the ability to manage ones emotions.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> THIS is what they are looking for.



That is your assumption. There are several factors involved in EQ and you are assuming this is what was meant.

That assumption is not put in place of the institutionally sexist environment in which it was made.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Everyone seems to have a different idea of what EQ. It is not for anyone to make up what they feel it should mean. It is defined (poorly) but it is defined. One of those definitions is the ability to manage ones emotions.


It is not defined by the laws of physics and applied mathematics like relativity is though is it? 

If we all have our own take on what EQ is (and we all seem to be agreeing with each other which I think says something) who's to say that that isn't what the security services were thinking if too. 

I'm not being inflammatory with this question but if you don't mind me asking, other than keeping ones emotions in check, what else do you mean by the theory of emotional intelligence?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Everyone seems to have a different idea of what EQ.


No.

YOU have a different idea to everyone else.

It's not the same thing.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That is your assumption. There are several factors involved in EQ and you are assuming this is what was meant.
> 
> That assumption is not put in place of the institutionally sexist environment in which it was made.


So are you saying that reading nuances of others behaviour is not at least a part of emotional intelligence?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> That is your assumption. There are several factors involved in EQ and you are assuming this is what was meant.
> 
> That assumption is not put in place of the institutionally sexist environment in which it was made.


No, that's a fact. You know it is but you're too pig-headed to admit you didn't know what it meant.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 1, 2016)

kittyP said:


> They may be begrudgingly recruiting women but it seems to me because they've had to accept that women in their eyes might have something they need.


Hi Kitty, I've skipped a bit now too. This thread is much more pleasant with MrRingDong on ignore. 

This thread has also reminded me of another quality that particulary middle aged women have - which is the ability to be completely ignorable, almost invisible in puplic. Useful for a spy. Perhaps I should give up my quarms about working for the state and apply for a job.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

kittyP said:


> So are you saying that reading nuances of others behaviour is not at least a part of emotional intelligence?



It is part of the theory of EQ just as much as the perception and management of your own emotions is.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No.
> 
> YOU have a different idea to everyone else.
> 
> It's not the same thing.



Are you a bit thick or just being a twat?


----------



## kittyP (Jun 1, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> Hi Kitty, I've skipped a bit now too. This thread is much more pleasant with MrRingDong on ignore.
> 
> This thread has also reminded me of another quality that particulary middle aged women have - which is the ability to be completely ignorable, almost invisible in puplic. Useful for a spy. Perhaps I should give up my quarms about working for the state and apply for a job.



You so should! Hiding by being so noticeable in your fancy hats


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Are you a bit thick or just being a twat?


KittyP has just said pretty much the same thing to you but more politely. Is she thick or a twat too?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> KittyP has just said pretty much the same thing to you but more politely. Is she thick or a twat too?



No she's sound. You on the other hand are a bit of a knobber


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> I'm also highly conscious of the agenda of a certain poster who instigated this.



no names then?

anyone ever told you you're passive aggressive? or paranoid?


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2016)

kittyP said:


> Don't start doing the same thing by telling me how I should take his comment!


Lol.  Fair point.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> It is part of the theory of EQ just as much as the perception and management of your own emotions is.


So it's all down to opinion now I guess. 
If being in tune with your own emotions and a tuned ability to read and react to others feelings are actually a part of EQ, then it's down to opinion as to what are the most widely understood parts of the theory in people's opinion. 

It's (as you said)  a vague idea anyway. 
Everyone on this thread seems to have one main idea of the theory and you another. 
From what you've said neither us or you are technically wrong. 

But we have different ideas about what the implications in the advert meant. 

I agree either way it's probably sexist though.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 1, 2016)

kittyP said:


> You so should! Hiding by being so noticeable in your fancy hats


thats why I can get away with wearing them - I'm still not very noticable, except to hat lovers and church going old ladies. If I didn't wear a hat I could be invisible. I've had a lifetime of training - all lesbians used to be invisible.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> You on the other hand are a bit of a knobber


Yet again you prove your critical analysis skills to be utterly worthless.

I am a_ massive _knobber.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 1, 2016)

kittyP said:


> So it's all down to opinion now I guess.
> If being in tune with your own emotions and a tuned ability to read and react to others feelings are actually a part of EQ, then it's down to opinion as to what are the most widely understood parts of the theory in people's opinion.
> 
> It's (as you said)  a vague idea anyway.
> ...


  I'm old enough to recall when the notion of EI didn't have a name or any defition at all. It used to be called womens intuition or female sense or even common sense. 

I would advise against trying to debate with Mr Ringwrong he has already said (page 10?) he isn't really after a discussion - that the whole thread is a wind up.


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> EQ is vague as defined by those that created and develop the idea but that is what it is - their idea not anyone elses to reinterpret it.


No.

Please tell me the meanings of 'nice', 'naughty', 'girl', 'sly', or 'egregious'.

Words mean what people understand by them.  Shannon & Weaver 101 ffs.


friendofdorothy said:


> This thread has also reminded me of another quality that particulary middle aged women have - which is the ability to be completely ignorable, almost invisible in puplic. Useful for a spy. Perhaps I should give up my quarms about working for the state and apply for a job.


That's probably very true - particularly in societies towards the more extreme end of patriarchy, where it may be difficult for men to conceive of the idea of a woman as a 'threat'.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 1, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'm old enough to recall when the notion of EI didn't have a name or any defition at all. It used to be called womens intuition or female sense or even common sense.
> 
> I would advise against trying to debate with Mr Ringwrong he has already said (page 10?) he isn't really after a discussion - that the whole thread is a wind up.


Whether it's unfair or hypocritical or something else I can't help being affected by the fact I know him to be a decent dude IRL


----------



## kittyP (Jun 1, 2016)

Corax said:


> No.
> 
> Please tell me the meanings of 'nice', 'naughty', 'girl', 'sly', or 'egregious'.
> 
> Words mean what people understand by them.



This!


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2016)

kittyP said:


> Whether it's unfair or hypocritical or something else I can't help being affected by the fact I know him to be a decent dude IRL


To be fair, he's always seemed reasonable elsewhere on the boards IME.  But on this thread is just stubborn, bone-headed, vile and disingenuous.  Weird.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 1, 2016)

kittyP said:


> So it's all down to opinion now I guess.
> If being in tune with your own emotions and a tuned ability to read and react to others feelings are actually a part of EQ, then it's down to opinion as to what are the most widely understood parts of the theory in people's opinion.
> 
> It's (as you said)  a vague idea anyway.
> ...



Indeed.

I feel my work is now done


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I feel my work is now done



you got your one mate with a v***** to come back you up and you feel like you've achieved something?


lol


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> I would advise against trying to debate with Mr Ringwrong he has already said (page 10?) he isn't really after a discussion - that the whole thread is a wind up.


If that's the case then post #574 is even _more_ deeply nauseating.


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> you got your one mate with a vagina to come back you up and you feel like you've achieved something?
> 
> 
> lol


Dude, that's really not okay...


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 1, 2016)

which bit?


I editided the offensive word.


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> which bit?


For starters, the implication that KittyP's not posting under her own volition - I'll step back though as I'm aware I'm at risk of being a bit White Knighty here.


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 1, 2016)

yes. do that.

thank fuck I went with that and not 'so how much did you pay her' cus it's not like anyone else agrees with man.


woulda been a total nightmare.

I couldnt give a fuck if she posted on her own or not. I just like winding DrDickHead up.

it's all a conspiracy against him and I may have influenced a few people on here just to get to him, to make him look like a total idiot. and it has worked exceptionally well.

obviously. it was the agenda all along.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 1, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> you got your one mate with a vagina to come back you up and you feel like you've achieved something?
> 
> 
> lol


I'm not really backing him up am I? 
I have disagreed with him on the main point. 
I agreed that his reaction was sexist. 
I am just trying to understand the situation at hand rather than get in a fight.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 1, 2016)

Corax said:


> For starters, the implication that KittyP's not posting under her own volition - I'll step back though as I'm aware I'm at risk of being a bit White Knighty here.


I am totally posting my own opinion. 
I have had no interaction with DrRingDing  on the subject that isn't on this thread. 

I just think that all interactions and opinions are affected by lots of different factors. 
That's why I have openly said here why I am thinking and reacting in the way I am. 
I could have kept that quiet. 
I'm trying to be upfront.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I feel my work is now done


Yeh now you'll turn to all the cleaning and tidying you've neglected


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 1, 2016)

how very measured of you.
i doubt anyone cares.


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 1, 2016)

anyway, my therapy was really hard today, so get off my case. i came here for a laugh not to get in some moany thing.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 1, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> how very measured of you.
> i doubt anyone cares.


Me? 
I don't expect anyone to care 
I wouldn't have posted on a thread like this if I did. 
It's nice to post somewhere random occasionally.


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 1, 2016)

sorry i havent looked through this yet, is it 20 pages debating what emotional intelligence is and whos sexist or is there anything about spies? 
snoopers charter getting read monday tuesday, SCAT will be there


----------



## Corax (Jun 1, 2016)

There's loads about spycraft n stuff, but it's all encrypted amongst the base idiocy and mental flatulence.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2016)

kittyP said:


> So it's all down to opinion now I guess.
> If being in tune with your own emotions and a tuned ability to read and react to others feelings are actually a part of EQ, then it's down to opinion as to what are the most widely understood parts of the theory in people's opinion.
> 
> It's (as you said)  a vague idea anyway.
> ...


Far too generous. The bloke's a penis.


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 1, 2016)

an arab bloke once told me a t speakers corner that women make the best spies anyway. and an english bloke at speakers corner told me if i knocked the drinking on the head i could go down the edgeware road and get ladies to lift veils to me, its not racist calling him an arab is it? - but this was ten years ago and i never knocked the drinking on the head. a scouser told me "watch them rainbow girls, they all dance the same"- i think he was implying they were spies.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2016)

as an aside, I recon miwhatever are recruiting outside of the philby demographic these days don't you? The era of the establishment suit quiet spy is long gone. that doesn't mean the organization has changed its nature though. But the big ear is always listening and if they don't employ first language speakers to monitor chatter then I want my taxes back.


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 2, 2016)

can we talk about spies please/ 20 pages of dadada . an argument about friendofdorothy name , like he was sort of accusing her of....being a spy! pretending to be a gayman on the net but only a slight nod (no1 spymaster) to the guy who is called spymaster to being a spy. and this thread started while i was away from computer protesting about spies and streetdrinking with spies.
apart from the IRA bread story that was good colour. 


Gromit said:


> Mi6 MI5 whatever. Its all the same Bodie and Doyle to us civilians.



its fuckin lame when people conflate the 2 , i saw dan hodges in the standard talking about living in vauxhall under the shadow of mi5 - i mean you mug, your just trying to confuse people, thats there on purpose



Corax said:


> I'm sure the wife of MI5 whistleblower/critic Jonathon "Putin's useful idiot" Powell has no undeclared interest in this sphere.



as an aside my mate copywrited (copywrote?) - no copyedited book of her play, (i found a mispelling)

nothing about the registry queens , few references to bond, none to le carre.

i was street drinking in camden with an SIS guy, he was going on about these 2 girls , he had to decide which was gonna be his wife and which his bound concubine, which obviously isnt sexist, but then he was going on about her having to lose weight for the wedding. hes training a romanian at the moment and he used his _emotional intelligence _to let me win at drafts, which loosened my tongue for my forthcoming schemes/defections _- _he later used his _emotional intelligence_ again to bring me some nike jordan trainers.
hes a real laugh, i wont say his name, but hes been "shot 3 times, stabbed with a bayonet, build atom bombs for south africa" - (the englishman not the romanian) 

i heard manningham buller on the radio four the other day, program about blame. talking about 7/7 how it was nobodys fault cant catch everyone, sounded insincere, i havent read any of the other ones fiction yet, but its in my local library, that features a female spy protaganist that does more than masturbate arab princelings and chinese (whats chinese for apparatchiks) for da infoz - which is what these women will be up to isnt it? i made a point that was well received had some young squat spy lad that was using me as a shoulder, so matter of fact tell me that "kf im not gay, but, it was strange i just had to suck him off" - so the sexual favours sides go both ways now, so thats good?>  but - ya know, consent issues and that, the spy girl that i was in love with, and may see again she was all in love with me wasnt she? on the protest camps n that? or was she just in love with my lack of cynicism and idealism?- but that brings in informed consent, because if she was like - i spy for france - i probably wouldv, im not sure. 
i reckon that sally jones the white widow is probably a spy - or a julia davis skit - i mean an all female punk band in kent to being in isis? - 
i always heard that SIS was proper toff upper class and mi5 was more for the grammar school lads. well i say i heard it once. and the "registry queens" were private school secretarial college, or something, 
now please pillory for my sexism rather than talk about the spy issues i have raised here./ i havent checked it through so there might be some glaring ones in there, lets have another 20 pages.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 2, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> can we talk about spies please/ 20 pages of dadada . an argument about friendofdorothy name , like he was sort of accusing her of....being a spy! pretending to be a gayman on the net but only a slight nod (no1 spymaster) to the guy who is called spymaster to being a spy. and this thread started while i was away from computer protesting about spies and streetdrinking with spies.
> apart from the IRA bread story that was good colour.
> 
> 
> ...


Before the days of Google I often lamented about why there was no MI 1,2, 3 and 4 and nobody ever had an answer. 
Now I know and feel calmer inside.


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 2, 2016)

kittyP said:


> Before the days of Google I often lamented about why there was no MI 1,2, 3 and 4 and nobody ever had an answer.
> Now I know and feel calmer inside.


obviously not hanging around with enough spy/spy enthusiasts


----------



## Gromit (Jun 2, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> its fuckin lame when people conflate the 2 , i saw dan hodges in the standard talking about living in vauxhall under the shadow of mi5 - i mean you mug, your just trying to confuse people, thats there on purpose.



One is foreign and one is domestic but the trade craft is pretty much the same for both kinda innit?


----------



## kittyP (Jun 2, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> obviously not hanging around with enough spy/spy enthusiasts


No I will admit not.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 2, 2016)

Corax said:


> Glad you understand what "No" means.



I know what "no" means. I also know what a false dichotomy is. Apparently you don't.


----------



## Corax (Jun 2, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I know what "no" means. I also know what a false dichotomy is. Apparently you don't.


Gosh, please do enlighten me.  In the relevant context please.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 2, 2016)

Corax said:


> Gosh, please do enlighten me.  In the relevant context please.



Let me google that for you. 

Let me google that for you


----------



## Corax (Jun 2, 2016)

Oh. My. Word.    

As you seem incapable of discerning meaning unless it's spelled out in language a five year old would understand:

1)  Yes, I'm well aware of what a false dichotomy is.  It's not especially complicated is it?  I doubt there's a single person posting on this thread, and very few on the boards at all, who don't understand what it means.  Did you think using it made you ever so clever or something?  
2)  You've attempted to apply it to something that isn't a false dichotomy.

Now, perhaps you'll attempt to answer the question instead of resorting to your _Big Boys Book of Bluster & Distraction._


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2016)

Corax said:


> Oh. My. Word.
> 
> As you seem incapable of discerning meaning unless it's spelled out in language a five year old would understand:
> 
> ...


i see you're reading page 38 of the book.


----------



## Corax (Jun 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i see you're reading page 38 of the book.


It's my favourite page; it has a picture of a dog.

(and _you_ can bleedin well talk...  )


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2016)

Corax said:


> It's my favourite page; it has a picture of a dog.


yes: but below the dog is "what to do if confronted with accusations of a false dichotomy", and you're following the instructions to the letter


----------



## Corax (Jun 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes: but below the dog is "what to do if confronted with accusations of a false dichotomy", and you're following the instructions to the letter


You're either lying, or your left leg is made of banana - which is it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2016)

Corax said:


> You're either lying, or your left leg is made of banana - which is it?


ah - your grandmother's wall is three feet high - sign and countersign


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 2, 2016)

Corax said:


> Oh. My. Word.
> 
> As you seem incapable of discerning meaning unless it's spelled out in language a five year old would understand:
> 
> ...



Neither option is applicable which makes it a false dichotomy.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 2, 2016)

How can someone who posts:

"Oh. My. Word."

Accuse someone else of being a five year old?


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 2, 2016)

Gromit said:


> One is foreign and one is domestic but the trade craft is pretty much the same for both kinda innit?


well theres obviously a difference between doing counter-espionage in this country (looking for agents of foreign powers/terrorists/industrial espionagers/one eyed men with cats with the full gamut of CCTV and bare section A1 watchers at your disposal) than being in a foreign country trying to steal there secrets avoiding their counters, hiding in your embassy pretending to be a cultural attache or whatever.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I feel my work is now done



YAY!

One person in 30 half agrees with you out of sympathy.

Great job!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> YAY!
> 
> One person in 30 half agrees with you out of sympathy.
> 
> Great job!


more 1 person in 7,400,000,000 half agrees with him out of sympathy


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 2, 2016)

kittyP said:


> Whether it's unfair or hypocritical or something else I can't help being affected by the fact I know him to be a decent dude IRL



Hi Kitty, you seem as decent as ever. Please do ask MrRingTing why he is being such a prick here. He obviously enjoying the cockfight with some other poster, but I can't imagine why he is being so rude to me especially, what have I ever done to him? 
I look at this forum because I'm looking for a new job, so how to describe my emotional awareness / people/soft/interpersonal skills is very much on my mind this week - how should I describe these skills on my cv? I wanted a proper debate but got ignored, insulted, sidelined and questioned about being a gay man. Mr RingingFing is the first person I've ever put on ignore.

I've noticed most people are so much better behaved when you acually meet them, even the most ferocious posters can be pussycats IRL.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 2, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> I've noticed most people are so much better behaved when you acually meet them, even the most ferocious posters can be pussycats IRL.


The anonymity of an avatar acts as a firewall for some people. I think they believe their avatar is simply attacking another avatar, and don't see the person. These people probably have a very low EQ and spend most of their free time playing call of duty.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Especially as you can't really evaluate why something was liked, what the 'like' represents and more so that it comes from a 'narrow shared interest' (your words).



If you are making a point to me, it's better to either quote me or tag me, rather than quoting *yourself* - which is rather masturbatory.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> So you accept MI6 is likely to be institutionally sexist and they are likely only attempting to recruit more women because of pressure from central government?



I rather suspect that the motivation is far more banal - that they've realised something the Soviet Union did 99 years ago - that female intelligence officers and agents can access stuff that men can't.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jun 2, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you are making a point to me, it's better to either quote me or tag me, rather than quoting *yourself* - which is rather masturbatory.



Over a bit quickly though, I found.


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 2, 2016)

kebabking you meet any nice SIS ladies in the corridors? did they have high Emotional Intelligence?


----------



## Corax (Jun 2, 2016)

Does the tray promise a constituent writer?


----------



## kebabking (Jun 3, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> kebabking you meet any nice SIS ladies in the corridors? did they have high Emotional Intelligence?



Having low emotional intelligence, I wouldn't be able to say....


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 3, 2016)

think the only SIS lady i met, and im sure she was an agent rather than an officer was the bulgarian consort of some chap that approached me at the institute de francais , some philosphy night "my uncle was spy, it is dangerous" - this chap ran some education admission service or something, tried to recruit me, -perhaps- but at that stage i was in the mode of - nah ! im a protestor! wouldnt sully myself with being an orrible spy - but there together right, and this bloke is a bit up his own arse, "what about the big picture" he says - - im like what big picture, why are there so many spies in squats, so long story short, i snog this bulgarian, in front of him (even though they initially presented as a couple--) shes like come back with me, im like , nah, only in front of witnesses my dear, you could say owt happened/. then fella taps at his watch, and they leave.  - sorry if i have appeared sexist here, but the whole consent,informed consent, privilidge, thing, is quite interesting when it comes to this whole spy business - is part of emotional intelligence being able to not fall in love and appear so? 

post script- we look up mateys education admissions company, its like linked to a few things, its all really shoddily made stub twitter accounts and facebook pages with 30 likes, n then the next week they all disappear, this bloke had written one article for the philosophy journals - - and - - seems to have been someway involved in the defection of max shostokovich - and there begins my fairly short career in kissing (but no more) spy girls....
apart from the one i loved. hint - treaty of windsor - send me on holiday with her please spy-gods, i promise i will never ever talk about spies again (even though its the most interesting topic in the world)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 3, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> think the only SIS lady i met, and im sure she was an agent rather than an officer was the bulgarian consort of some chap that approached me at the institute de francais , some philosphy night "my uncle was spy, it is dangerous" - this chap ran some education admission service or something, tried to recruit me, -perhaps- but at that stage i was in the mode of - nah ! im a protestor! wouldnt sully myself with being an orrible spy - but there together right, and this bloke is a bit up his own arse, "what about the big picture" he says - - im like what big picture, why are there so many spies in squats, so long story short, i snog this bulgarian, in front of him (even though they initially presented as a couple--) shes like come back with me, im like , nah, only in front of witnesses my dear, you could say owt happened/. then fella taps at his watch, and they leave.  - sorry if i have appeared sexist hear, but the whole consent,informed consent, privilidge, thing, is quite interesting when it comes to this
> post script- we look up mateys education admissions company, its like linked to a few things, its all really shoddily made stub twitter accounts and facebook pages with 30 likes, n then the next week they all disappear, this bloke had written one article for the philosophy journals - - and - - seems to have been someway involved in the defection of max shostokovich - and there begins my fairly short career in kissing (but no more) spy girls....
> apart from the one i loved. hint - treaty of windsor - send me on holiday with her please spy-gods, i promise i will never ever talk about spies again (even though its the most interesting topic in the world)


Institut français

what's the difference between an agent and an officer? do you mean between an informant or asset as opposed to handler?


----------



## Sue (Jun 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Institut français


To think of all the times I've been to the Cine Lumiere without ever being approached by a spy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 3, 2016)

Sue said:


> To think of all the times I've been to the Cine Lumiere without ever being approached by a spy.


and, what's better, without being approached by kingfisher


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Institut français
> 
> what's the difference between an agent and an officer? do you mean between an informant or asset as opposed to handler?


well i think theres different nomenclature and that depending on what agency your talking about, think yank is agent and asset - brits , case officer, agent runner, agent , - think handler is same as case officer, what the fuck do i know, i just wanted to be a street drinker this international intrigue it goes over my head a bit.


----------



## Sue (Jun 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> and, what's better, without being approached by kingfisher


Things here have certainly taken a slightly different turn. The thread that keeps on giving right enough.


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 3, 2016)

well a thread about spies and sexism should have more about spies in it, as it stands the initial title couldv been about advertising or something, and the whole meat of the thread wouldv been the same. - Sue how do you know youv never been approached by a spy?> - you ever give money to a tramp?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 3, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> well i think theres different nomenclature and that depending on what agency your talking about, think yank is agent and asset - brits , case officer, agent runner, agent , - think handler is same as case officer, what the fuck do i know, i just wanted to be a street drinker this international intrigue it goes over my head a bit.


there's still time to achieve your ambition. but why not try to aspire to the higher status of canalside drinker?


----------



## Sue (Jun 3, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> well a thread about spies and sexism should have more about spies in it, as it stands the initial title couldv been about advertising or something, and the whole meat of the thread wouldv been the same. - Sue how do you know youv never been approached by a spy?> - you ever give money to a tramp?



Sure I have. Are you saying lots of tramps are actually spies?


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> there's still time to achieve your ambition. but why not try to aspire to the higher status of canalside drinker?


well as it happens  (as maybe you have culled from OSINT (open source intelligence) of this forum, or some other form of INT) yeah, we have been drinking on that bit by the ice wharf in camden that is of unsure ownership, romanian johnny bringing us nike jordans , serious looking mossad ladies handing us spliffs, talking about the time Durham built 5 atom bombs for the south africans.



Sue said:


> Sure I have. Are you saying lots of tramps are actually spies?



yeah, it sounds mad, but thats the first disguise they learn is the down and out - the "word on the street" - and lots of the homeless charities and that exist to "service" this network, i may get pilloried for this, but probably 30 percent of the overall and 90 % of the interesting tramps are involved in the intelligence game.


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 3, 2016)

check out upcoming radio 4 shortcuts documentary "street drinking and conspiracy theories" - if i am allowed one small plug


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 3, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> check out upcoming radio 4 shortcuts documentary "street drinking and conspiracy theories" - if i am allowed one small plug








a small plug recently


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 3, 2016)

yeah one of them and a holdall in a bath please


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 3, 2016)

Pickman's model so if you had to choose for an intelligence agency what would you go for? mi5? SIS? CIA? KGB? GRU? any state any era


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 3, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> Pickman's model so if you had to choose for an intelligence agency what would you go for? mi5? SIS? CIA? KGB? GRU? any state any era


the one that pays best and purges least


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> the one that pays best and purges least


 think thats the CIA - now which intelligence agency to you ACTUALLY work for?


----------



## two sheds (Jun 3, 2016)

yeh come on pickmans fess up


----------



## Sue (Jun 3, 2016)

two sheds said:


> yeh come on pickmans fess up


NKVD about 1936 I reckon.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 3, 2016)

experience in the third degree gained from urban


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 3, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> think thats the CIA - now which intelligence agency to you ACTUALLY work for?


yeh like i'll tell some random on the interweb


----------



## Corax (Jun 3, 2016)

Sue said:


> Things here have certainly taken a slightly different turn. The thread that keeps on giving right enough.


Cheese then beans then more cheese.


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 3, 2016)

bench drinking on my bench office today (which was by a river) making some calls, lost property office doctors - this PCSO come up , "you know theres no drinking in the town centre" - "I WORK FOR BRITISH INTELLIGENCE, I KEEP YOU SAFE" and she walks off, mumbling to herself -its a fake-it-til-you-make-it type thing being a spy a lot of the time


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2016)

kingfisher said:


> bench drinking on my bench office today (which was by a river) making some calls, lost property office doctors - this PCSO come up , "you know theres no drinking in the town centre" - "I WORK FOR BRITISH INTELLIGENCE, I KEEP YOU SAFE" and she walks off, mumbling to herself -its a fake-it-til-you-make-it type thing being a spy a lot of the time


Wouldn't real spies be slightly more guarded than that?


----------



## Sue (Jun 3, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Wouldn't real spies be slightly more guarded than that?


Double bluff.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2016)

Of course.


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 3, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Wouldn't real spies be slightly more guarded than that?


naaah, its a Brave New World these days


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 3, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Wouldn't real spies be slightly more guarded than that?



Hiding in plain sight.  Being invisible by being conspicuous.  

Like calling yourself "Spymaster" on t'Internet.


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 4, 2016)

i tell a lie i DO KNOW a SIS spy officer girl. shes a vegan, teaches english as a foreign language abroad, looks younger than her years. vegan , liases with the poles a lot. nice girl. came to the first campaign opposing police surveillance meeting with me, but insisted we sit right at the back (presumably so she could spy on everyone)


----------



## two sheds (Jun 4, 2016)

how do you know she's a spy officer?


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 4, 2016)

dunno how does anybody know anything


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 4, 2016)

dont you know any lady SIS officers/agents two sheds or care to make some up for the sexist spy employment thread where we talk about sexism and spies but mainly sexism (so balance could be redressed)


----------



## two sheds (Jun 4, 2016)

the idea with spies though is not to let other people know they're spies, otherwise it defeats the purpose


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 4, 2016)

yeah but when your in a given place - say a squat or a benefit or a demo that is so sparsely attended/flyered that no "punters" turn up  - but  people are mandated by their various agencies to attent, the ridiculousness just gets to manic levels, the absurdity is confronted, the drink and the drugs come out and we forget the other people in the room (the listening devices n that) and just level.. "my names kingfisher and i was recruited at speakers corner" - "kent university for me" says someone else, norwich, my dad, .....


----------



## kingfisher (Jun 4, 2016)

its good for them to "drop the mask" in a "safe space" occasionaly being "always on" leads to a "short walk down bancroft road"


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 4, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> and your experience is everyone in the world is it?


Where did I say that? I don't know why you have a problem with me.


----------



## Gromit (Jul 4, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Where did I say that? I don't know why you have a problem with me.


You take everything personally?

You made a statement. 

They made a point that the statement was pretty worthless as it wasnt based on science or group consensus or anything more meaningful than just one person's experience. Yeah they used snidey language but that's just how they talk. How they always talk. 

If you think someone disagreeing with you is having a problem with you I'd suggest getting involved in debates is not for you.


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 4, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Where did I say that? I don't know why you have a problem with me.




why are you going through what I said and dragging this up? why do you think it indicates I have a problem with you?

I think you are over thinking.

I posted that in MAY.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No, Dingers.
> 
> You are misunderstanding this.


you tell him, pa


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

Gromit said:


> If you think someone disagreeing with you is having a problem with you I'd suggest getting involved in debates is not for you.


being as you have so much difficulty wrestling with even the simplest of notions, debate definitely isn't for you


----------



## Gromit (Sep 9, 2016)

Bumped by someone I have on ignore. 

I bet it's needless shit stirring.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 9, 2016)

Gromit said:


> They made a point that the statement was pretty worthless as it wasnt based on science or group consensus or anything more meaningful than just one person's experience.



So my body works differently from everybody else's then? Funny, cos I thought my experience of a physiological process might just be broadly similar to a lot of other peoples' experiences of same process.

But no, apparently i have to commission a scientific study to back up any feelings i have, because i might be a mutant. Or an alien...?

Funny how i never see you backing your bullshit up with anything but more bullshit.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 9, 2016)

Gromit said:


> I bet it's needless shit stirring.


you know all about that don't you?


----------



## Gromit (Sep 9, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> So my body works differently from everybody else's then?


Yes it does and that is a scientific fact. 

No two individuals are exactly the same.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 9, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Yes it does and that is a scientific fact.
> 
> No two individuals are exactly the same.


so I'm so completely different that all of my experiences are worthless?

That's just lunacy or offensive or something.

we don't have to be exactly the same to have broadly similar processes going on inside us!!! We are essentially all variations of the same design. (and i don;t mean design literally obviously, i'm not religious)


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 9, 2016)

Gromit said:


> No two individuals are exactly the same.



prove it


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> prove it


otherwise they wouldn't be individual. i hate to say it, but Gromit's right when he says no two individuals are identical. this will never happen again.


----------



## bimble (Sep 9, 2016)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> .


better before you edited.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> otherwise they wouldn't be individual. i hate to say it, but Gromit's right when he says no two individuals are identical. this will never happen again.




ahahaha this is quality


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> ahahaha this is quality


yeh. Gromit better make the most of it as he will never ever be right again.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 9, 2016)

Yeah, let's gang up on AuntiStella. Again. Whoop!

You pricks.


----------



## pengaleng (Sep 9, 2016)

we are laughing at gromit. how is that not obvious?

whos ganging up on stella?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Yes it does and that is a scientific fact.
> 
> No two individuals are exactly the same.


no, while no two people's bodies work precisely the same there are great similarities.


----------



## bimble (Sep 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> no, while no two people's bodies work precisely the same there are great similarities.


To be fair, Gromit does seem to suffer from a rare sort of conjoined mouth & arse configuration.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> To be fair, Gromit does seem to suffer from a rare sort of mouth - arse conjunction.


yeh. but i believe gromit to be a one-off sort of frankenstein's monster with the plumbing all wonky and the brain - well, let's leave the brain out of this.


----------



## bimble (Sep 9, 2016)

sadly, i think there's a lot of them about, the Gromits of this world are legion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> sadly, i think there's a lot of them about, the Gromits of this world are legion.


yeh. there are only 5,000 or so of them.


----------



## bimble (Sep 9, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

bimble said:


>


it's ok, we can still do unto them as jesus did unto the gadarene swine


----------



## Gromit (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Yeah, let's gang up on AuntiStella. Again. Whoop!
> 
> You pricks.


Look at the chain of conversation. She started the interaction. Not me. 

So yeah I'm picking on her by answering her instead of ignoring her. Dur brain.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 9, 2016)

Actually Pickman's started this off again not me. I took gromit off ignore to see what it was all about and then responded to gromit. 

Did i do wrong?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Actually Pickman's started this off again not me. I took gromit off ignore to see what it was all about and then responded to gromit.
> 
> Did i do wrong?


don't see how i made you reply to gromit.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> don't see how i made you reply to gromit.


You didn't. I didn't say you did. Just saying that to say I started this is to ignore the facts.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 9, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Yeah, let's gang up on AuntiStella. Again. Whoop!
> 
> You pricks.


It's ok. No one is ganging up on me


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 9, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> no, while no two people's bodies work precisely the same there are great similarities.


So we've established im the only person in the human race whose emotional response is affected by a change of hormones. Amazes me therefore that quite a few people predicted that such a thing might happen.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 9, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Actually Pickman's started this off again not me. I took gromit off ignore to see what it was all about and then responded to gromit.
> 
> Did i do wrong?


Pickman told you to reply to a post I made in July? You do understand the word interaction yes?


----------



## Gromit (Sep 9, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> So we've established im the only person in the human race whose emotional response is affected by a change of hormones. Amazes me therefore that quite a few people predicted that such a thing might happen.


No one said you were the only one. 
It was stated (by someone other than me I feel obliged to point out) that just cause you react to hormones in a particular way doesn't mean that EVERYONE else in the entire world reacts to them identically to you.


----------



## bimble (Sep 9, 2016)

AuntiStella hope you've stuck Gromit back on ignore, I'd rather clean the fridge on a Friday night than get stuck in an argument with him.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 9, 2016)

bimble said:


> AuntiStella hope you've stuck Gromit back on ignore, I'd rather clean the fridge on a Friday night than get stuck in an argument with him.


I've stuck him back on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> So we've established im the only person in the human race whose emotional response is affected by a change of hormones. Amazes me therefore that quite a few people predicted that such a thing might happen.


please don't tell me i've said something i haven't done. now let's just move on.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 10, 2016)

bimble said:


> AuntiStella hope you've stuck Gromit back on ignore, I'd rather clean the fridge on a Friday night than get stuck in an argument with him.


I was just a bit bored while traveling to the swimming pool and I noticed Pickman's post earlier where he tries to stir the whole thing up again so I thought I'd have some words.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 10, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I was just a bit bored while traveling to the swimming pool and I noticed Pickman's post earlier where he tries to stir the whole thing up again so I thought I'd have some words.



If you mean this one he wasn't trying to stir, he was making fair point and having righteous dig at Gromit rather than you, Stella. 



Pickman's model said:


> otherwise they wouldn't be individual. i hate to say it, but Gromit's right when he says no two individuals are identical. this will never happen again.


----------



## Athos (Sep 10, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> So we've established im the only person in the human race whose emotional response is affected by a change of hormones. Amazes me therefore that quite a few people predicted that such a thing might happen.


This is another blatant lie. Nobody has suggested any such thing.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 10, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> It's ok. No one is ganging up on me



My bad. Hard to keep track on who's ragging on who here.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 10, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> My bad. Hard to keep track on who's ragging on who here.


I felt like responding to some of Gromit's bullshit for once and Pickman's seems to think I've been having a go at him. Which is odd.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 10, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I felt like responding to some of Gromit's bullshit for once and Pickman's seems to think I've been having a go at him. Which is odd.



Responding to known stir merchants seems to set it all off again. But I do the same instead of just ignoring, so, what can you do?

I really need to get out more.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I felt like responding to some of Gromit's bullshit for once and Pickman's seems to think I've been having a go at him. Which is odd.


Yeh. Moving on...


----------

