gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
One hundredth of a Pannick, give or take.What does it pay?
Asking for a mate.
One hundredth of a Pannick, give or take.What does it pay?
Asking for a mate.
There is no ‘but’ to an article purporting to be serious, which is so founded in absurdity. What a pitiful way to make a living.
Only someone possessing zero self respect would operate in that way.
Until I read that post I did not fully believe that the pen was mightier than the sword.We all have to put food on the table and I'm sure that people would point to my own situation as an example of compromising one's personal morality in the interests of my own livelihood. Not that I especially care about it, but I do acknowledge it.
So many of these mendacious twats, however, prostitute themselves by foregoing any sense of decency or professional integrity in pursuance of what they must themselves know to be intellectually dishonest coverage. Laughable that, in doing so, they should try to claim the moral high ground in the way that they do.
Someone like Wallace is so nauseatingly smug in the way he tries to project himself when doing this. He can be a manifestly partial, shameless fake-news liar if he really wants to, but don't try and fucking gaslight us.
You raise a number of interesting philosophical points, and everyone, as you say has to put food on the table, but pontificating about matters of which you know little in a national publication naturally invites a level of scrutiny, and to do so in such a mercenary, misinformed and, as you say, intellectually dishonest way in turn invites ridicule.We all have to put food on the table and I'm sure that people would point to my own situation as an example of compromising one's personal morality in the interests of my own livelihood. Not that I especially care about it, but I do acknowledge it.
So many of these mendacious twats, however, prostitute themselves by foregoing any sense of decency or professional integrity in pursuance of what they must themselves know to be intellectually dishonest coverage. Laughable that, in doing so, they should try to claim the moral high ground in the way that they do.
Someone like Wallace is so nauseatingly smug in the way he tries to project himself when doing this. He can be a manifestly partial, shameless fake-news liar if he really wants to, but don't try and fucking gaslight us.
Yeah, but how many page views did it get?You raise a number of interesting philosophical points, and everyone, as you say has to put food on the table, but pontificating about matters of which you know little in a national publication naturally invites a level of scrutiny, and to do so in such a mercenary, misinformed and, as you say, intellectually dishonest way in turn invites ridicule.
There is no ‘but’ to an article purporting to be serious, which is so founded in absurdity. What a pitiful way to make a living.
Only someone possessing zero self respect would operate in that way.
spurs are the snivelling wanna be club, hanging on to the coat tails of the bigger greedy cunts, with their delusions of grandeur, driven solely by the chance of grabbing even more money..................................................but fuck all chance of achieving actual success in footballing terms.
Well, well, well Simon Jordan seems to have done a complete 180 on the whole thing